Well said. I’m a registered independent, who will not being voting in my state’s primaries tomorrow, but I am wondering whether the Republican party still believes terrorism is the number one issue.

"who will not being voting"

And English really is my firstest language!

Wow, Joe, I really have to disagree with you. Yes, Romney's positions have evolved and his smooth manner rubs some the wrong way. But at least he offers the promise of true conservatism. We know that we won't get that with McCain--in fact, we know that he'll delight in sticking a fork in the conservative base's eye as he crosses the aisle to "compromise" on some legislation with Kennedy, Feingold, Lieberman, and their ilk. The only significant legislative achievements McCain has had were ones that were an anathema to conservatives: more gun control, higher taxes, and further restrictions on individual liberty.

(Personal peeve: The fellow sounds like a broken record. How many times a minute can he remind us he was a "foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution" and that he was right on the Iraq war? Even a broken clock's right twice a day.)

As for honor, why does he persist in twisting the facts regarding Romney's discussion of timetables for the Iraq war? The full context of the interview made it clear that Romney wasn't talking about specific timetables for defeat, yet McCain continues to beat that drum. There's something to be said for standing your ground when you think you're right, but to be so bull-headed stubborn isn't admirable. This stubbornness has gotten him into trouble before, too, as his own state nearly threw him out over his position on illegal immigration.

IMHO McCain is another RINO, just like Bush, Schwarzenegger, et al.

Blake - see my post above.

A.L.

The extremist right absolutely hates McCain because of his position on illegal immigrants (or what they think is his position; I don't know if it really is, and I don't care). I notice you didn't even dare mention that. As for him being an honorable straight-shooter who never panders, haven't you been listening?

Ok, McCain for whatever reasons has somehow become lucifer to the talk show sect of Republicanism. He's certainly not the 'ideal' conservative candidate, but here is what is ironic: Mitt Romney is a verified tax raising, gun grabbing, abortion flip flopping, gay marriage enabling, universal healthcare signer from the People Rebublic of Massachusetts... to put things in Limbaugh-speak. So lets not pretend the big-wigs are out to get McCain over idealogical purity. Romney just aint no better- and on national defense you simply wont beat McCains bonifidis.

Something is going on behind the scenes with the top dogs in teh Republican media racket... which probably reflects the top dogs in the RNC. I got no problem with disliking McCain and pulling for Romney (I happen to think he's a stuffed shirt with positively Nixonian social policy tendencies). What i dont get is the absolute hissy-fit we are seeing out of the talk show folks and hence their minions.

Look- Hillary or Obama is going to pass universal healthcare if she/he is elected. They will pull us out of the war no matter the circumstances. They will raise taxes. They will apoint SCOTUS justices as far left as they can find. Those are realities.

Whatever you think of McCain, he's not going to replace Judge Stevens with a 9th Circuit lefty. He's not going to cut and run on the war. He's not going to have cops dragging us to doctors offices and the IRS garnering our wages. THOSE are the important things, the most important things, particularly Iraq. The mouthbreathers have somehow worked themselves into thinking a moderate McCain is equivalent to two of the most hard left Democrats in the entire Congress. That is just silly.

Conservatives are supposed to converse, to slow things down, to doublecheck and stand in front of the populist buses when they get out of control. There is nothing conservative at all about letting a HRC or an Obama wreck the economy and throw Iraq to the wolves in a fit of peek. McCain may not be ideal, he may have some beliefs we really disagree with- but he's not a liberal, lets me serious.

For all those willing to take their ball and go home and help put HRC/Obama in the WH, I hope you keep that air of smugness waiting in line for your mandatory Hillarycare checkups.

Sorry, but his active and obvious hostility to both free speech and free markets are a deal breaker for me. In my lexicon, "profit" is not a dirty word. In McCain's, it is.

I vote for policies, not people. I'd rather elect a weasel who will enact good (from my point of view) policies than a hero who would enact bad (from my point of view) policies. I was in graduate school during the Clarence Thomas hearings. I remember utterly horrifying my liberal friends when they asked me if I thought he was guilty of the charges against him. My response was that I didn't give a damn whether he was guilty or not. I wanted a reliable conservative on the SCOTUS. Whether or not he had played grabass with a secretary (assistant, whatever) at some point simply didn't enter into it.

Having said all that, I still voted for McCain in the Florida primary and will vote for him in the general election for three reasons:

1. Yes, I would prefer a candidate more conservative than McCain. I especially don't like his stand on Guantanamo and interrogation. However, given his record in the Soviet State of Mass. and the convenient timing of his conversion, I don't quite buy Romney's Road to Damascus act. So as far as policy goes, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

2. McCain is the only Republican in the race that has a snowflake's chance in Hell in November.

3. While not as conservative as I would like, McCain is considerably more conservative than either Hillary or Obama. Obama especially would be a disaster of Carteresque proportions.

So to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you vote for the best candidate you have, not necessarily the candidate you would like to have.

And despite the rhetoric, McCain voted against the Bush prescription med entitlement. He isnt going to push nationalized healthcare on us.

To me this election is about 3 issues:

1.Iraq and the war on terror
... and then waaaaay down
2. Potecting our economy which means not raising taxes and most importantly not hitting business with a monster healthcare mandate.
3. Entitlement reform which starts with not adding a huge cumbersome new entitlement to begin with.

We've lived with an open border for decades (Reagan passed an amnesty some may recall)... I dont like it but its a danger we've lived with for years.

Campaign finance is a blight on our constitution, but McCain was after political reform not speech codes. Intention matters.

Guns are overwhelmingly popular politically, gay marriage is about as important to the health of the nation as record labeling, and abortion is a fringe issue so long as Roe stands.

So to conservatives everywhere- get your damned priorities straight.

Fred, I made the "electability mistake" with Arnold out here in CA during the recall election; I should have voted for McClintock. A winning candidate who doesn't embody my views? Heck, I might as well start voting Dem. And if the Republicans don't win, that's OK--it's not the end of the world. (We've survived plenty of presidents I didn't agree with. :) It just means that the Republican party will need to find a different candidate who can better communicate and establish a trust with more voters.

"It just means that the Republican party will need to find a different candidate who can better communicate and establish a trust with more voters."

Remember to tell yourself that when you are filling out the paperwork to select your government approved healthcare provider :)

Seriously though- I do agree with the sentiment. Vote for the candidate that best embodies your views in the primary. Thats the only way the party can get a real sense of itself and where the majority stands. A big part of the current dustup is that the elites, especially in the media, obviously are in a place far different from most Republican primary voters. Otherwise McCain would have been washed out months ago.

My only point is that once the candidate is set, you fight for the guy that will protect your interests. This idea of hanging out your candidate so the other side can screw up the country and make you a hero down the road just sucks. Talk about a lack of character. Can anything be more political opportunism than to intentionally let your nation get screwed up just so you can get the glory of fixing it? Can anything be more arrogant to think you'll be able to? i dont want the next Republican spending his term fixing the mistakes the next Democrat makes. That is not progress.

Can anything be more political opportunism than to intentionally let your nation get screwed up just so you can get the glory of fixing it?

That's not the point. The point is that it's going to be screwed up either way, whether you elect the Democrat or the faux Republican, so why let the Republican take the blame for the screw up and further sully the brand?

But I think that the biggest reason for the intense dislike of John McCain is his highly developed sense of self righteousness--he seems to think that anyone who disagrees with him is unprincipled. Implying that sincere opponents of his immigration plan are evil, stupid racists isn't just going against the party base--it's giving them a big middle finger. And he does this on many issues. Do you really want a man who prefers "clean government" to the Constitution?

"That's not the point. The point is that it's going to be screwed up either way, whether you elect the Democrat or the faux Republican, so why let the Republican take the blame for the screw up and further sully the brand?"

But McCain is suspecting of secretly having bad policies. Obama and Hillary are campaigning on bad policies. And once elected, who do you think will be more likely to listen to republicans? Theres at least an outside chance McCain will listen to the Republicans on the hill before going nuts and declaring our new Socialist constitution. You think HRC and her democratic majority are going to give conservatices even the illusion of a hearing?

If I were to put the McCain haters on the therapist couch, I suspect that what I might find is a lot of unresolved issues about Bush.

Bush is the immigration amnesty promoter. Bush supported and signed the campaign finance reform law. Bush crossed the aisles to enact massive federal legislation with Ted Kennedy. Repression is not just a legitimate law enforcement tool you know. Let it out. Cry a little.

And then answer my question: Does the Republican party still believes terrorism is the number one issue?

Here is why this election matters: there are 51 senators that align Dem and 49 Rep. This cycle 23 Republican seats are at risk, and only 12 Dem. 5 of the Republican seats are open, all of the Dems are incumbent. This is not a favorable turn for the Republican prospects in the senate. They will be lucky to only lose a handful of seats.

On the other hand, if the Republicans lose 6 more seats like the did in 06, Dems will be on the doorstep of a filibuster-proof majority. They swing Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and Lincoln Chafee and they can do basically whatever they want. Raise taxes, Hillarycare, freeze mortgage rates, a new assault weapons ban, amnesty, gay marriage, you name it.

I know the demagoguing is that McCain is just itching to do these things, but thats just not supported by his record. Again- we know HRC and Obama want to do these things.

And all that is quite aside from the war, which if you have that as priority 1 this shouldnt even be a discussion. Then again the people willing to give HRC the benefit of the doubt (despite her campaign rhetoric) is highly ironic. McCain is a stealth liberal and Clinton is a stealth hawk. What has happened to this party?

Blake, I understand where you're coming from. If I believed there was really no difference between McCain and the Democrats, I'd probably just stay home. I don't believe that. I believe either Hillary or Obama would be disastrous (Obama moreso than Hillary). I believe McCain would be, if not what I'd like, at least as close to it as I'm going to get. And electability is important. The purest conservative in the world can't get conservative policies enacted if s/he doesn't get elected. Half a loaf is better than none. Especially when the alternative is a loaf with botulism in it.

What has happened to this party?

Maybe people have subconscious memories of Bill running liberal going into his presidency and then tacking centrist as time went on (Welfare Reform, NAFTA, etc)?

Thing is, I'm pretty sure he did that in spite of her...

The points raised here speak to McCain's problem, and encapsulate Romney's - while demonstrating that there are good defenses and responses to McCain's issues.

In the end, it comes down to a simple key. If McCain becomes the Super Tuesday winner, the natural tendency will be to say "I told you so, I was right, now we do it my way, fall in line." And that will be 180 degrees opposite from what he needs to do.

Which is to accept the role as steward of his party, and bring them together, first. Win with a lot of humility, talk about his party in the same terms as his country, accept disagreements ("I can't really fault folks for doing what I just spent 30 years doing"), listen a lot, and make his case in "enemy" forums.

Those kinds of moves, plus some smart appointments, can go a long way toward getting his team ready for November.

And despite the rhetoric, McCain voted against the Bush prescription med entitlement. He isnt going to push nationalized healthcare on us.

Perhaps not but you left out the part where McCain supported amendments that would allow the importation of Canadian price controls and authorize DHS to “negotiate” (which is the way price controls start) with the same companies McCain has been demonizing during the primary election. Given the popularity of both measures in the Democrat-controlled Congress, it is entirely plausible that a President McCain who by his own admission doesn’t know much about economics would sign off on pharmaceutical price controls as part of his never-ending question to “tame the special interests.”

...accept the role as steward of his party, and bring them together, first. Win with a lot of humility, talk about his party in the same terms as his country, accept disagreements ("I can't really fault folks for doing what I just spent 30 years doing"), listen a lot, and make his case in "enemy" forums.

Those kinds of moves, plus some smart appointments, can go a long way toward getting his team ready for November.

Joe, you seem to assume without evidence that he's temperamentally capable of those kinds of moves.

"Perhaps not but you left out the part where McCain supported amendments that would allow the importation of Canadian price controls and authorize DHS to “negotiate” (which is the way price controls start) with the same companies McCain has been demonizing during the primary election."

How do you import price controls? Do you mean import Canadian pharmacueticals? And using medicare to buy in bulk for better pricing? I'd call that good business sense- if our drug companies are selling to Canada at cut rate prices we should be asking as consumers why medicare isnt getting those prices. And if we cant get them i see no reason not to buy from Canada if the price is still lower than it is in the domestic market. That has nothing to do with price controls, unless I mistook your meaning.

"Joe, you seem to assume without evidence that he's temperamentally capable of those kinds of moves."

I love the 'McCain is a loose cannon' meme because it just popped up in the last few days at full boil. Coincidence? Heh. Talking point. Brilliant because it makes Romney's stuffed suit look less annoying.

Anyway, at heart i'm a southerner. I like my politicians a little religious and a little crazy.

Let's get the quote right:

"I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

Sounds like a hothead temperamentally incapable of leading his party.

Abe was right about this much: Hanson's reminders re: the real Ronald Reagan are indeed on-point. I also confess to being utterly baffled that a weasel like Romney would pick up support as an alternative, over - wait for it - objections of principle.

I dunno because for all of the talk about “flip-flopping,” Mitt Romney has changed his position on exactly two issues – abortion and guns – and in both cases he has moved to the right but was never particularly active when he was on the other side. Other than that on the other 90 plus percent of the issues (taxes, spending cuts, free markets, school choice, etc.) he’s been a pretty solid conservative on fiscal and “bread and butter” issues.

McCain however has switched his positions on immigration and tax cuts after publicly challenging the base of the GOP on both. Moreover on issues like economic regulation, freedom of political speech, anthropogenic global climate change, the Federal Marriage Amendment, and health care he’s generally to the left of the Republican base. So yes, for those Republicans who vote largely on domestic issues, Mitt Romney is objectively more conservative than John McCain.

...accept the role as steward of his party, and bring them together, first. Win with a lot of humility, talk about his party in the same terms as his country, accept disagreements ("I can't really fault folks for doing what I just spent 30 years doing"), listen a lot, and make his case in "enemy" forums.

I think the problem for McCain on that score is whenever a lot of us have seen him talk about his country and his party, it’s usually when he’s saying something like “if I have to choose between what’s best for my party and best for my country, I’ll do what’s best for my country.”

I think a lot of Republicans would argue that the reason that they’re Republicans is because they believe that there isn’t a conflict between the two and if Senator McCain feels he has to make that point whenever he challenges his party on various substantive issues (see my previous post), then perhaps he isn’t the best candidate to act as “steward of a party” that he doesn’t’ really believe in.

"

"I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

Sounds like a hothead temperamentally incapable of leading his party.

I dunno about that but to me it sounds like someone who probably isn’t the best person to lead the Republican Party in an election where the economy is shaping up to be the number one issue.

Romney flip-flopped on campaign finance reform, advocating more stringent spending limits and taxation on political speech than McCain/Feingold when he was in Massachusetts. Link

There is only one way to limit or eliminate McCain/Feingold, prevent the Democrats from appointing any new Supreme Court justices in the near future. Romney's conversion is not going to inspire legislators to vacate what (for them) is a fairly popular law.

Romney flip-flopped on campaign finance reform, advocating more stringent spending limits and taxation on political speech than McCain/Feingold when he was in Massachusetts. Link

Nice try but had you read the actual article, you would have send that controversial aspect of McCain-Feingold that Romney has criticized McCain for has always been the prohibition on “electioneering communications” from being broadcast within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Unless you have something that shows that Romney ever came out in favor of that, you have utterly failed to find a “flip-flop” on campaign finance reform.

I won't diminish McCain's faults ("McCain" is the very first word in "McCain-Feingold", for example) but my opinion of him has improved.

McCain's problems with movement conservatives are mostly his fault, but partly the fault of purists and grudge-holders, too.

At times it has seemed to me that McCain enjoys playing the troll and being Ted Kennedy's favorite Republican, not out of principle but out of spite. But he didn't bail out on Iraq, and it would have been so easy and opportune for him to do so.

At any rate, when Hannibal Rodham Clinton is at the gates, all of Rome's little quarrels are going to seem less important.

I don't understand how any serious pro-lifer can even consider sitting out the general election.

I can understand confusion and dismay in the Republican primaries though.

After Bush was re-elected, I asked here: who is the next hero of life? Who will there be to carry the banner after Bush? Who's good enough, and means it? There was no-one. (Except possibly Bobby Jindal, for what that's worth. He looks right, but he hasn't been in time.)

I want to believe Mitt Romney. His intact family stands hugely in his favor. But I've seen the YouTube video. I can't believe him, and I don't see how other people believe him. I just have to accept that they somehow do. I guess they want to believe too, only even more strongly.

And Mitt Romney has been caught lying on guns. Which is not the great issue facing the Americans at this election, but it adds to a picture of a phony.

Also, Mitt Romney seems to have a bad rate of return on investment. That means, he needs to spend much more on advertising than anyone else does to earn a vote. Even to be competetive, but still lose, he needs a much bigger war chest than any rival, or his higher cost to buy each vote dooms him. Since in the general election the Democrats, being the billionaire party, will be calling on a superior war chest, in this contest Mitt Romney is doomed.

Only come-from-behind McCain would have a prayer in the general election.

John McCain is a foul-mouthed, rancorous, vindictive man who seems to enjoy cramming down the necks of conservatives whatever they hate. He's irrational about this.

And he gets irrational reactions in return. I was looking to see who Rick Santorum endorsed, and he is in a bitter, personal fight against John McCain. I don't understand that at all. Maybe McCain swore at him, and that's what this is about?

McCain gets worse reactions, because he is beating on bruises inflicted by George W. Bush and himself: McCain-Feingold and the attempted jam-down of McCain-Kennedy.

People are afraid of more pain where they are already sore. They should be more afraid of the wounds they'll get from Clinton or Obama, but it's natural that people flinch and are easily roused to anger over what already hurts, and will be hurt again.

"If McCain becomes the Super Tuesday winner, the natural tendency will be to say "I told you so, I was right, now we do it my way, fall in line." "

He'll want to cram down the neck of conservatives a comprehensive reform bill that will change the demography of America so much that the conservatives who opposed him will never rise again, and he'll want to brand them as racists to the full extent that he can while he's doing it.

He'll have won alone, over and against people like Rick Santorum, and he'll want to enforce the hurt.

All those right-wing radio rabble-rousers will have reason to fear a president who wants to punish them, who is an enemy of free speech anyway, and who will be the leader of the Republican party. They won't be able to hang out in the Republican club house while the bully stalks the streets, because that will be his club-house. I think they're afraid of that.

Nevertheless, for life, for innocent millions, for maybe three places on the Supreme Court (even if nobody like Alito will be considered again), and because of the overwhelming importance of the war, and because the "pork" system has become flagrantly, destructively corrupt and needs to be fought all out, I hope enough people overcome their adverse feelings and install this man in supreme executive power in America.

From my point of view as an Australian, believing that the alliance is of supreme importance and that a stronger, more prosperous and more decent America means a better world for Australia in every way, John McCain is a street ahead of any other candidate the Republicans could choose. It's for you guys to choose. But that's how it looks to this outsider.

"dunno because for all of the talk about “flip-flopping,” Mitt Romney has changed his position on exactly two issues – abortion and guns – and in both cases he has moved to the right but was never particularly active when he was on the other side."

McCain is running an ad today of a Romney quote stating we dont need another Ronald Reagan. He's raised taxes, flip flopped on abortion and guns (as you say), signed a statewide medical insurance law... how many Republican third rails do you need? I mean aside from taxes, guns, abortion, and big government he's a great conservative!

So here's the deal- McCain has some bad positions but you know exactly what they are because he sticks with them to a fault. Romney seems to blow with the wind.

And yet McCain is being labeled as not what he appears?

I dont get that. Republicans say they admire steadfastness and sticking to principle, but what the McCain haters are proving is that they prefer a opportunistic flip-flopper to a principled candidate they disagree with on several major (but by no means the core) conservative issues.

The truth is we KNOW John McCain. Maybe he's vindictive, maybe he's arrogant, maybe he can be an ass. What do we really know about Romney? He's a stuffed suit buffed over to hit all the major republican themes. I mean I would personally feel more confortable if there was even ONE major issue Romney defied the conventional wisdom on, considering his track record. This guy is like a Clinton the way he magically lines up with the Republican polling. Something stinks in Denmark.

I don't think the prodigal son story works politically. Yes, you can turn over a new leaf and your record can be a blank page. But that's all it is, a blank that you still have to fill in with accomplishments. The guy who has accomplishments written in gold from the top to the bottom of his page is still ahead of you.

It's good that Mitt Romney is now pro-life. But that doesn't take away the credit John McCain has earned in the trenches over a long, long time, on all sorts of pro-life concerns including assisted suicide and the Mexico City policy. Pro-lifers have reason to trust John McCain and be grateful to him. John McCain has a page of gold, with few blots. Mitt Romney has a blank.

The strong leadership role McCain has played on military matters doesn't go away because Mitt Romney jumps in and says "me too". The fight to stop the Democrat legislature pulling the plug on the war in Iraq still stands to McCain's credit. McCain is justified in pointing to his positive role on the surge. All of this was a lot harder to do than for Mitt Romney to come in later and say "me too". People who care about the war have reason to trust and respect John McCain, and be grateful to him. John McCain has pages of gold, with as far as I can remember, no blots. Mitt Romney has not got much by comparison.

If this is a test, John McCain scored higher by far on two life and death questions.

Let the worthier man be rewarded.

I think that, all things equal, rewarding an old soldier who's fought the good fight for a long time is a valid motive. And it's up to Mitt Romney to show that all things aren't equal, and that his own merits, aside from McCain knocking, merit the nomination.

Rand says:

"Joe, you seem to assume without evidence that he's temperamentally capable of those kinds of moves."

No, I don't. Note, among other things, the closing sentence of the article. And the title.

Thorley Winston:

"I think the problem for McCain on that score is whenever a lot of us have seen him talk about his country and his party, it’s usually when he’s saying something like “if I have to choose between what’s best for my party and best for my country, I’ll do what’s best for my country."

And he ought to, and so should any ethical patriot. But here's his problem in a nutshell:

Just about every rational person you talk to knows that McCain loves his country, and believes he will go to the wall for its interests as he sees them.

Many people in his party believe he hates the Republican party, or at least significant elements of it, and believe he will go of his way to damage them. Even when there is no forced choice between party and country.

That is why Iraq gave him an opening, but was not dispositive. It also heps clarify the nature of his coming test.

Joe, I consider myself a "rational person," and my empirical observation, based on years of observation, is that McCain loves McCain. The fact that he went through hell in Vietnam doesn't alter this observation.

He, like Bill Clinton, was maintaining his "political viability" (though he obviously valued it much more highly than Clinton did). The fact that he was willing to sacrifice a lot, a hell of a lot, more for that doesn't change my opinion.

Sorry, but I just can't get past his proud disdain for both free speech and free markets. I still await a defence (Canadian spelling) of those positions. And I'd still like a Republican candidate who doesn't look a hell of a lot like a Democrat candidate. Supporting the war by itself (particularly since we're winning) just doesn't cut it.

I'd still like a Republican candidate who doesn't look a hell of a lot like a Democrat candidate.

For some perspective, Victor Davis Hanson has pointed to McCain's ACU, ADA, and ACLU ratings.

McCain has a lifetime ACU conservative rating of 83%. People have been quick to qualify that, pointing out that his rating for 2006 was only 65%, etc.

Whatever you make of it, it certainly makes him look nothing like a Democrat, most of whom languish in single digits. Democrats think Joe Lieberman (ACU 17%) is a conservative. Many of the arguments made against McCain on this score sound as absurd as those used against Lieberman's liberal credentials.

When i hear the RNC bigwigs labeling McCain a liberal, in my head its always followed by a smarmy Charles Winchester voice saying "and he married an I-talian for god's sake, he couldn't even join the country club" (which I know isnt true, but you convince my inner Winchester of that).

This is more about inside Republican baseball than idealogy. Romney doesnt have any better of a track record. I would compare him (unfavorably) with the worst aspects of Bush 41. Chances are he would be a horrible dissapointment to the conservatives championing him at McCains expense just as Bush the Elder was. BUT, he's one of the insider, country club republicans, so they will support him. The country doesnt seem to agree, and I guess the RNC should have thought of that before they hand picked Romney instead of a true conservative like Fred Thompson. This was an incredibly weak field for Reagan conservatives, and its a little late in the day to start complaining about it!