I was on a call this morning with Veterans across the country and Senator McCain, or “The Cap’n”, as I like to think of him. He gave us an update, took questions, cracked jokes, and inspired each of us to charge the hill for him! He’s a dynamo, and smart as a whip on absolutely every subject…no “talking points” required. He stands alone in the field of candidates as the only one ready to hit the ground running on Day 1 of being Commander in Chief.
We can’t afford to elect a candidate who needs on-the-job training for being the leader of the free world. The dangers of our day should inspire every Republican voter to enthusiastically get out to the primary, and vote for the only man who is unparalleled in his preparations to lead this nation through troubled waters.
We can’t afford to elect a man who cannot beat Hillary…
One who has dropped out of a race with her before…
One who will leave the “family values” position completely in her hands…
One who doesn’t have the work ethic to rival hers…
One who flip flops on issues critical to the conservative base…
One who takes positions on the sanctity of life that directly conflict with our base…
I could go on and on, but folks, if you believe that Hillary will win the Democratic nomination…and you want the GOP to retain the White House, then elect her worst nightmare in the GOP primary, John McCain.
The other leading GOP campaigns have spent more than they have taken in last quarter, but the Senator still has cash on hand. Frankly, if someone demonstrates deficit spending in his campaign, I’m really uncomfortable handing the taxpayer checkbook over to him, and I’m inspired that Senator McCain demonstrates fiscal responsibility even when he’s in the last 90 day push to the first primary.
I urge you to contribute to John McCain. Get out to the polls to support him, and start talking about him to your friends. He’s a winner. He’s a leader. And best of all, He will make us PROUD to be Republicans!!!
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
He’s broke Jill. Read his reports again. He spent like a drunken sailor. Even my man Ron Paul raised more and has more cash on hand than Sen McCain.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Shows what you know about drunken sailors…where I’m from we buy the beers for them in thanks for their service, and they don’t spend a dime.
I got the low down on his COH straight from the national folks this morning. Sorry, Allan, you’ve got bum scoop.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jill:
My Father, a 24-year USN veteran (WWII and Korea) is up there laughing
in Navy Heaven as he reads your “drunken sailors” line to the rest of his
Non-com buddies. :)
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
principled conservatives will never back John McCain, it would be like backing Arnold! (Well maybe not that bad) Maybe we need Hillary in order to find a conservative leader? Reagan followed Carter… until then I am jumping on the Ron Paul bandwagon. (heck, once upon a time I voted for Jeff Greene for Governor so why not Ron Paul for President?)
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
So let me get this straight…
Principled conservatives can back a pro-choice candidate on his 3rd marriage, who was living with his girlfriend while his wife and kids still lived in the mayor’s mansion.
And principled conservatives can back a formerly pro-choice candidate who was instrumental in creating a single payer healthcare system that CA Republicans are fighting tooth and nail.
And principled conservatives can back potential Commanders in Cheif who were able-bodied males who never donned the uniform of their country, but instead pursued their own goals over service to their fellow man.
Make no mistake…I AM A PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVE. I believe in abolishing pork barrel spending, and so does Senator McCain. I believe in the sanctity of life, and so does Senator McCain. I believe in putting my country ahead of my own interests, which is why I served in the military, and so did Senator McCain.
So, Sean, before you make even more of an ass of yourself by making ignorant statements about what principled conservatives can and cannot back, take a look at all the principles that conservatives backing candidates other than McCain are willing to overlook, and ask yourself one question: how can a truly principled conservative back anyone other than Senator John McCain?!
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“Principled conservatives can back a pro-choice candidate on his 3rd marriage, who was living with his girlfriend while his wife and kids still lived in the mayor’s mansion”.
I believe you are refering to the former Mayor of NYC, Rudy Giuliani here. I totally agree with this assessment.
“And principled conservatives can back a formerly pro-choice candidate who was instrumental in creating a single payer healthcare system that CA Republicans are fighting tooth and nail”.
You must be talking about Gov. Romney here. Again, excellent analysis Jill. I think it’s possible for someone to have a change of heart maybe on one or two issues, but Gov. Romney has flipped on almost every important issue near & dear to conservatives. I don’t trust him at all.
“And principled conservatives can back potential Commanders in Cheif who were able-bodied males who never donned the uniform of their country, but instead pursued their own goals over service to their fellow man”.
Maybe talking about Sen. Thompson here?
Ron Paul has met all your criteria so far Jill. He’s principled, he served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force, he doesn’t generate headlines from his personal life behavior, and he’s been married to the same woman for over 50 years. I’m guessing maybe though you don’t agree with his position on the war.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Ron Paul isn’t a bad man, Allan, but he does not possess the leadership capability and presence that makes me comfortable turning my precious children over to when/if they join the military. If he were a strong leader with the worldwide leadership skills needed for this race, this year, under these circumstances, Main St. voters would have known him before he got the “Colbert Bump.”
We need a leader with the moxy to make our enemies afraid to touch one hair on one American head anywhere in the world, and John McCain can deliver up that level of leadership.
You could find a million principled conservatives to put up for President, but only one John McCain.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I’ve been prone to making an ass out of myself more often than not so that does not bother me because I would rather be right than worry about what others think of me.
I don’t believe I said Rudy, Mitt or Fred were any better? If any of the candidates were conservatives than principled conservatives would be flocking to them and none of them garnered that kind of support. I’m not the kind of guy who votes for the lesser of two (or three or four) evils for the sake political expediency.
You seem to be very emotionally invested in your candidate, when he drops out after not winning any primaries which of the candidates that you are lambasting will you support?
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Sean, I’m like you, I don’t worry about what others think of me. But I do worry about my kids’ future all the time, and that’s precisely why you’re right: I am emotionally invested in my candidate, b/c he is the only one I trust to be in the Oval Office when they come of age to carry a weapon into combat, and get sand in their boots like their dad did.
I’ll be a good little soldier and back the GOP nominee if it isn’t the man it should be, but I’ll spend a LOT more time on my knees in prayer (partially to ask forgiveness for saying “ass”), but mostly to ask that our nation’s children can look forward to a secure future b/c our leaders were bold and audacious in the preservation of our freedom and way of life.
I know there are conservatives out there who have trouble getting past campaign finance reform and immigration issues, but I’m asking them to try. For me, it’s much easier than getting past moral ambiguity and wishy-washy political convenience. I want a leader with backbone more than I want a leader with primp and political polish, and if that is your criteria for the leader of our nation, then I ask you to reconsider your position on John McCain, and see him for the hope he brings to future generations of precious American children.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Let me just try to end all this by saying MCCAIN-Feingold. ‘Nuff said.
(Vote Ron Paul)
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
You can’t end this by suggesting that campaign finance reform is the biggest issue in this campaign.
That’s moronic while we’re in the middle of a global war with radical islamists.
Ask the everyday Republican if they think there needs to be more money in politics, and they will say, “Absolutely not!” Anyone who makes that their central beef with Senator McCain is going to look very childish and senseless while we face a global crisis.
I really hope our primary voters are grown ups.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Sorry, but stifling my First Amendment rights is a pretty damn big deal to me. More than trying to “win” this moronic war in Iraq, that’s for sure.
And I apologize if I don’t immediately defer to the senator just because of the war on terror, but I do have other concerns, too. If he’ll finish the job in Afghanistan then go after the REAL bad guys in Riyadh, maybe I’ll give him a look.
I’m not backing any candidate based on how many times their supporters can repeat “global war on terror” in 60 seconds and show me pictures of them in a uniform.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
You’re First Amendment rights had better be a big deal to you, son
…a lot of people have fought and died so you can prove how uneducated you are on how quickly that right will be taken away from you if we lose this war.
Boy, I guess I’m getting up there in years at the ripe old age of 38, but I remember a time when Republicans were proud to hold up their war heroes as candidates for President to show the world we are the land of the free and home of the brave.
Would you rather have a Clinton-esque figure who doesn’t make you feel bad for not giving up your rights while on active duty to serve your fellow Americans? Let me guess…you didn’t inhale either…
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jill with all due respect, I’m not afraid of a third world countries like Iraq or Iran invading our country. So what if they gain nuclear weapons. Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us all the time, but they will never use them just like Iran would never use one because of the consequences to their country if they ever did. Bush’s rhetoric was scary today on the subject of Iran.
BTW, Congressman Paul has again raised the most amount of money from active armed service members this past quarter out of all the Presidential candidates with over $40k. The nearest person to him was Sen. McCain at $21k in donations.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Well, I’m not afraid that gangsters in L.A. will break into my house in the Bay Area, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about the innocent victims of senseless crimes in south central, and wouldn’t do something to help if I had the resources and power.
I can’t stand by and watch Iran gain the means to carry out their president’s threat to drive Israel into the sea. Senator McCain has already said that he would not allow that to happen.
Once a country goes nuke, making the jump to ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missiles) isn’t insurmountable, and I think it’s extremely sophomoric and naive to believe that radicals with ICBM’s won’t use them against us. They have been trying to pick a fight with us since they took hostages during Carter’s administration.
They don’t care if we have more nukes and could wipe them off the map. They don’t think we have the guts to use them, even in self defense. These are the same people who sent unarmed “soldiers” in waves against the Iraqui Republican Guard during their conflict in the ’80’s, and let their own men and boys be mowed down by the thousands.
I find it unfathomable that you find President Bush’s message “scary”, but you’re not afraid of a maniac murderer who is our sworn enemy and is about to have nuclear capability.
Where did all the John Wayne’s go?
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jill,
I respect your views, but I just disagree. Even Ronald Reagan had a change of heart after the Marine barracks in Lebanon got bombed in 1983. He did the smart thing and pulled our troops out of there. It’s not about surrendering or seeing who can act the toughest. It’s about having a rational foreign policy. Our country is going broke. We can’t afford this empire anymore.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Allan,
(Sorry for the delay; had to help kids with homework) You have every right to disagree…thanks to brave, selfless heroes like John McCain.
We lived through the same history, but I’ll remind you anyway. President Reagan pulled troops out of Lebanon, but he didn’t pull them out of Germany, b/c our biggest enemy was Communist Russia, and he did not give up that front. We are currently positioned on Iran’s eastern and western fronts, and we should not give up that advantage. They are the civilized world’s biggest enemy.
Remember what Reagan did after pulling out of Lebanon? He built a 600 ship Navy, and outspent our biggest enemy until they cried “Glasnost” (which I believe is “uncle” in Russian). He was criticized for spending on our defense when we “couldn’t afford it”, but ending the cold war by economic attrition was far more cost effective in the long run. Even Democrats agree.
FDR was criticized for waging WWII to win. We sent 16 million troops to fight that war against a madman who scarcely differs from Ahmadinejad, and then we engaged in years of post-war aid to the countries we defeated. Our economy ended up being stronger after the war, but even with our success, 6 million Jews died.
We don’t have an empire; we have the ultimate peace keeping mission to keep nearly-nuclear bullies at bay. We can’t afford not to win this war. The nation of Israel and all it’s people are in the crosshairs of the Iranian government, and their blood will be on our hands if we decide we can’t afford to help them, when our economy is strong and our people are capable.
I think the “City on a Hill” should have the same strategy for this war that President Reagan had for the Cold War…”we win, they lose.”
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jill, have a cocktail and relax. The sun will keep rising if John McCain isn’t president.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I appreciate your kind sentiment, Alex, really I do. Thank you.
And I wish I could relax and just tend to my little suburbian life. But there aren’t enough cocktails in the world to make me forget what I know and what my responsibility to my children is. I’m not a perfect mom, but I love my kids with the ferocity of a lioness, and I simply cannot leave their future in the hands of people who don’t love them, and all our nation’s kiddos, as much as I do. They are safe when we are strong, and I want to elect a leader who will continue to make America the hope of all freedom loving people around the world.
To whom much is given, much is expected…and that applies to individuals and nations.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Why try to build an ICBM when you can just carry the components for nuclear weapons across our southern border? McCain’s immigration policy leaves us undefended against “suitcase nukes”.
It doesn’t keep America safe if the President fails to “watch our six”.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Border security is the primary thrust of his immigration stance! I’m not sure which uninformed pundit you got your info from, but it’s 180 degrees out from the Senator’s plan. In his own words:
“I have always believed that our border must be secure and that the federal government has utterly failed in its responsibility to ensure that it is secure. If we have learned anything from the recent immigration debate, it is that Americans have little trust that their government will honor a pledge to do the things necessary to make the border secure.
As president, I will secure the border. I will restore the trust Americans should have in the basic competency of their government. A secure border is an essential element of our national security. Tight border security includes not just the entry and exit of people, but also the effective screening of cargo at our ports and other points of entry.”
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jill you can’t tell me with a straight face that McCain is tough on border security. If he would have had his way, he would have given amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens. How is that being for border security?
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
You’ve succumbed to spin, my friend. His plan is NOT an amnesty opportunity. It included a requirement to return to the country of origin, and return to the U.S. legally before entering the queue for legal immigrations status. It did not put any country’s immigrants ahead of those already in the citizenship queue. AND his plan required learning English, civics, and American history before gaining status. That is NOT amnesty.
People who characterize his plan that way have either not read it, or feel threatened by him in a way that makes them lash out irrationally.
I assure you, there is no other Presidential candidate more intimately knowledgable or committed to ensuring this nation’s security and border control.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jill, I have read John McCain’s immigration plan. One of the problems out there in discussing immigration policy is defining what is meant by the phrase AMNESTY. I use the literal translation. Anyone who came into this country illegally has committed CRIMINAL entry into America. Any proposal that excuses this crime without an appropriate penalty is granting amnesty.
I believe that McCain’s proposal IS an amnesty proposal because the “penalty” for these criminals is the inconvenience of a short trip to their country of origin because under his plan, these criminal aliens don’t leave America, and then start at square one. They get to come right back into our country while they wait for “legal status” — which is in itself its own legal status.
A plan that respects the Rule of Law of this nation would be, frankly, for these criminals to go home, period. They could then apply, like anyone else, for the RIGHT to immigrate here.
But under the McCain proposal, everyone who criminally entered the U.S. gets a ‘pass’ (amnesty) to jump in line ahead of anyone who is currently in another country, applying to come here the legally correct way.
That’s just dumb.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Spin Jill? I think it’s fair to say the only person spinning on McCain’s immigration bill fiasco is you. We had that debate earlier this year and your side had their butts whipped by a true grassroots revolt.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Allan, the “grassroots revolt” was waged by armchair quarterbacks who can comfortably nitpick leaders from the safety of their keyboards and remote controls…people who will never actually run for office and propose an alternative. It impresses me as much as people who opine on the war, but couldn’t find their rear end with both hands when it comes to military strategy b/c they have never entered into the arena. Senator McCain has demonstrated time and again his willingness to have constructive dialogue with anyone willing to come to the table with ideas for solutions, so instead of criticizing him for putting forward a plan that could be tweaked, how about offering helpful suggestions to perfect the plan to gain conscensus? This isn’t an issue that fellow Americans should be divided over. It’s an issue on which fellow Americans should find common ground, then work together to expand that real estate.
Boss, I know your views on immigration, and you know I respect them. I don’t disagree that the rule of law absolutely must be followed, and neither does Senator McCain. Knowing you as I do, I think that if you made a list of all the things you think our next Commander in Chief must be, possess, and take action upon – then triage that list – you would find a lot more to like about McCain than any other candidate. If I understand your core values as I believe I do, he is most in keeping with your ideals on the biggest issues. You are a man who values the sanctity of life. You are a man of family values. You are a man who respects people with a fire in their belly – you’re one of those people! You know the threats in the Middle East are grave. You admire backbone, and relish a good firey discussion. From what I can tell, you and Senator McCain would have a blast together, and I think he would value your insight very, very much.
The bottom line, gentleman, is that if you ever find a candidate that lines up with you perfectly on every issue…marry them! But as it is unlikely that your perfect candidate will never exist unless you grace us with your names on the ballot, then I simply invite you to consider a man who has been tested and tried in excruciating crucibles, both physically and politically, and envision our nation in the most capable hands available to us in 2008.
Senator McCain has earned at least that much due consideration.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Wow, 26 posted comments on a report from Jill Buck!
Although, I find this very engaging and stimulating among various individuals.
Jon, Is this a record?
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
John McCain’s votes don’t match his rhetoric.
Perhaps the ultimate example of this was his vote against Senator Cornyn’s amendment (S. Amdt. 1184) to the immigration bill, which would have established a permanent bar for terrorists, gang members, and other criminals. Senator McCain instead voted for the far weaker Kennedy amendment (S. Amdt. 1333), which would have allowed many of these felons to remain in the United States and gain legal status.
We would laugh if event security patted people down for weapons, but then let them on in with the weapons that were found on them, but that is exactly what the Kennedy amendment and the original bill (S. 1348, which Senator McCain supported) would have done.
Or is Senator John Cornyn an uninformed pundit?
October 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Nick…suh-nap, buddy! Whatever campaign you’re working on must be totally high-fiving you right now! Man, you went right for the jugular, didn’t ya?
I’m not saying that you’re point is irrelevant, inconsequential, or completely forgetable…what I’m saying is that if you can’t envision people talking about this in the barber shop, or your candidate of choice screaming this at a rally, then it will never, ever, in a million years make a difference with voters.
Let me explain something to you…
There is only one political machine capable of grinding candidates like the Clinton machine, and Senator McCain has already emerged from that exercise and did very well in 2000, despite being outspent 10 to 1. None of the other GOP candidates have been tried and tested that way, and if this is the best you can do to smear Senator McCain, then his campaign is great shape!
Nick, you need to make friends with a liberal reporter, take him/her to lunch, and become familiar enough to ask why the MSM is foaming at the mouth to slash and hack the GOP if we elect anyone other than John McCain. They’ve got plenty of ammo…that’s why.
Anyone else want to have a go? Game on, fellas.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
National Review: A Second Look At McCain
Could He Be The Strongest GOPer?
By Kate O’Beirne
While Hillary Clinton is looking like a sure bet for her party’s nomination, only the reckless would wager their own money on the likely Republican nominee. With the presence of Fred Thompson and the absence of Newt Gingrich, the GOP field is now complete — and completely without a conventional frontrunner. Its fluidity has prompted a second look by the rank and file: Republicans seeking to keep their party’s base intact, while appealing to independents in order to have a shot at defeating Hillary, are taking another look at John McCain.
A veteran GOP congressional aide who has been a critic of McCain, most recently on the issue of immigration, recently surprised himself by concluding that the Arizona senator would be the best general-election candidate. This strategist seeks a nominee who will unify and energize the base, who has the potential to win, and who makes fellow Republicans competitive. He notes that McCain is pro-life and strong on national security, and has long been in favor of fiscal restraint. In addition to unifying social, economic, and national-security conservatives, he argues, McCain has a maverick image that can appeal to the independent voters who abandoned the GOP in droves in 2006.
The Christian-conservative leaders toying with the ruinous idea of a third-party challenge represent the legitimate concern that the nomination of Rudy Giuliani would fracture the winning coalition that has prevailed in five of the last seven presidential elections. The coalition includes both evangelicals and ethnic Catholics who have backed Republican candidates based on their positions on social and cultural issues rather than on tax policy or national security.
In a year when Democrats are heavily favored to win the White House, many conservatives are unwilling to experiment with the notion that a wholly new coalition, with fewer social and cultural conservatives, will coalesce around a socially liberal Northeast Republican. No such candidate has been recently elected statewide, even in the Northeast.
Giuliani enjoys a persistent perch at the top of the national polls, while the resistance to his candidacy remains equally persistent. Pollster Scott Rasmussen notes that the former mayor’s support is less than 30 percent and doubts that it can grow by much. (Hillary Clinton’s lead is far more formidable, besting her nearest competitor by 30 points in some national polls.) Republican voters obviously know Giuliani as “America’s Mayor,” a hero of 9/11 — but despite this positive image as a tested, tough leader, a large majority of Republicans resist him. Even his supporters aren’t well-informed about his positions: A September CBS/New York Times poll found that only 41 percent of those who favored Giuliani for the nomination knew that he is pro-choice on abortion. National polling by Pew Research has found that only 4 out of 10 Republicans nationwide are able to identify his abortion position. It is hard to imagine his support growing among conservative voters, given what they will come to learn about both his liberal views on social issues and his operatic personal life.
Many Republicans are also doubtful of Mitt Romney’s ability to unify and energize the Republican base. Some worry about the recent vintage of his conservative views on abortion, gay rights, and guns. Others note the regrettable but real resistance to a Mormon candidate on the part of some evangelicals. If a significant number of these people stay home because they reject the appeal that the former governor shares their values, if not their faith, other Republican candidates will also pay a price for their prejudice.
While Fred Thompson’s record and platform should be able to unify the GOP base, it is unclear whether he will prove to have the fortitude and drive John McCain displayed in 2000. McCain’s present underdog campaign is marked by that same energy and determination. The initial bounce in the polls that met Thompson’s entry into the race has been slipping away. Some have predicted a “Fred fizzle” that Scott Rasmussen is not yet willing to declare; John McCain is the candidate most likely to benefit from a second look by Fred Thompson’s supporters, should it appear his candidacy is not as viable as they had hoped.
When the false assumptions that the case for Giuliani rests on are stripped away, McCain emerges as the stronger candidate. According to Giuliani’s supporters, the fact that he has the best chance to beat Hillary is chief among the former mayor’s attributes. He is leading the pack in part because plenty of Republicans share this mistaken view. A late September NBC/Wall Street Journal poll revealed that 47 percent of GOP primary voters think Giuliani is their best bet against Hillary. Giuliani topped Thompson and McCain as the most competitive general-election candidate by 30 points.
But this impression is flatly contradicted by the candidates’ standings in head-to-head match-ups: In the average of polling results compiled by RealClearPolitics, McCain is the most competitive candidate against Hillary. In recent polling, Hillary has been beating Giuliani by a margin of 6.2 points; her winning margin against McCain is 4.7 points.
Giuliani’s backers argue that his candidacy would put Northeast states like Pennsylvania in play and boost Republican prospects in other battleground states such as Ohio. But, again, recent polling indicates that Giuliani is no more competitive than McCain in these states. An October poll by Quinnipiac University found Hillary beating both Giuliani (48–42) and McCain (48–41) in Pennsylvania, and in Ohio as well (46–40 against Giuliani and 48–38 against McCain, with the difference within the poll’s margin of error). Giuliani and McCain poll virtually the same against Hillary in Florida: She wins 46–43. Both candidates clearly benefit from being the most widely recognized Republicans.
Based on the false assumption that Giuliani is the most competitive candidate against Hillary Clinton, the false choice offered Republican voters is to back either the candidate most likely to win or the candidate they most agree with on the issues. But based on current polling, McCain is as likely to win as Giuliani — and his positions on the issues are in closer accord with those of Republican voters.
Republicans are also being told that during these perilous times they should be willing to prioritize a concern with national security over social issues. Voters need not make that tradeoff if they support McCain, who has both a pro-life record and more national-security experience than Giuliani.
McCain is a conservative whose heterodox views on campaign-finance reform and immigration are shared by the more liberal Giuliani. With the defeat of the “comprehensive” immigration bill he championed, McCain recognizes that the public demands concrete enforcement measures — and he now pledges to secure the border before pressing for the legalization of illegal aliens. (He will, of course, have to convince conservatives that he is a genuinely reformed reformer committed to an “enforcement first” agenda.)
Finally, McCain is in a long-term, stable second marriage and talks to all his children, although not as frequently as he would like. One son is a midshipman at the Naval Academy and another is an enlisted Marine serving in Iraq.
Should Republicans reject the false choices being offered — and make a considered choice based on the man and the merits — a second look could give John McCain a second chance.
October 20th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I’d vote for Senator McCain over Liberal Party Rudy or Romney XP (I’m not sure where Romney Vista will come out on the issues, but I doubt I’d choose that version over McCain either), but I’m really glad those aren’t my only choices.
Think again as to whether this could be an issue that voters are talking about. A creative ad man could make this into 2008’s “criminals swimming in tutus”.
One more thing: calling someone out on bad votes is never a smear. Falsely claiming he has illegitimate black children is a smear. Calling him the Manchurian Candidate is a smear. [However, calling < a href = "http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-donors19oct19,0,5668647.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel">Hillary the Manchurian Candidate would be accurate.]
October 20th, 2007 at 12:00 am
You’re right, Nick, pointing out a vote you don’t agree with isn’t a smear, but it depends on the context of the comment. If it’s used for constructive dialogue, it’s democracy at it’s finest. If it’s used as a whipping post, that’s another story.
Here’s the good news in the issue you brought forward:
Since the vote you mentioned, Senator McCain, with his endless faith in his fellow Americans, has listened to people just like you, Nick, who don’t think immigration reform in the way it was originally represented is the most pressing way to deal with the issue. Senator McCain has listened closely to the feedback he received, and realizes that his base wants solid border security first and foremost, and a fair immigration reform that augments tight border security. Since taking that original vote he has, in speech after speech, said that he is responding to the will of Americans, and has made his primary focus border security.
For me, that is the most refreshing indication that we will have a President who is responsive to our intelligent electorate, who want to participate in democracy. The Senator is not a man ruled by polls, but he is very aware that it is his job to uphold the precepts of representative government. I think he is exactly the kind of leader that the Founding Fathers hoped for when they created a system of government that allowed the people to have a tremendous voice and impact on the government they allow to represent them.
You’ve been heard by the Senator, Nick, and he has responded in kind. I trust him b/c while he is a great leader, he is a humble public servant. He’s a very good man worthy of the Office of the Presidency.