Okay, you've all got me. This Huckabee nonsense is fun, and I certainly do wish him well in Iowa. But he'll get eaten alive in a general election, and given my Democratic options, I'm not sure that's the best thing for America.
I did, however, make my first political contribution ever this afternoon, to a guy who was the best choice for President eight years ago, and who today is still the best choice for President...
Much thanks to TR for his encouragement/prodding and also for offering that matching grant for my contribution. Together we've almost purchased a radio spot in some small New Hampshire town.
Here is my quiet prayer:
- A Huckabee win in Iowa, preferably around 8-10 points. McCain seems to be getting some movement, and it would be hilarious to see him finish ahead of Romney, but I'm not holding my breath.
- McCain's continued upward movement in New Hampshire leads him to a victory there, just like eight years ago. At this point, Romney is completely on the ropes.
- McCain becomes the logical alternative for all those people supporting Rudy who want someone who will be tough in the international arena but are uncomfortable with the fact that Rudy is kind of a slimeball in his personal and professional dealings.
- Race becomes McCain versus Huckabee, a race in which Huckabee will get thrown under the bus for lacking the requisite foreign relations experience to appropriately deal with two of the three issues most important to GOP voters: terrorism/Iraq and federal spending. Immigration will be a wash between the two.
For the record, I would consider voting for Huckabee but not for Giuliani or Romney. If it comes to one of those two, I'm probably writing someone in.
And until I am proven wrong, my prediction on the other side remains "never bet against Bill Clinton."
7 Comments:
I'd like John McCain a lot more if it wasn't for the legislation he has sponsored.
McCain-Feingold didn't "get the money out of politics," it just shifted the money away from the parties and into the hands of people who are even less accountable: the 527(c)(3) organizations. Also, as Justice Scalia pointed out when the statute came before the high court, it's blatant incumbent protection.
I'm also not a huge fan of the priorities in the failed Kennedy-McCain immigration bill.
I could live with McCain as the republican candidate, but I really don't have a prevailing favorite at this point. (I have zero comfort in predicting the type of Justice that a President McCain would appoint to the bench.) That said, McCain's not Huckabee....so that's an improvement. ;)
As social conservatives go, McCain is easily the most reliable option save for maybe Huckabee. And perhaps that isn't saying much considering what else he's being compared to. But it is what it is at this point. To anyone with questions in that regard, I think his decades-old voting record should largely put you at ease.
And I say this next part certainly without singling you out, but I always laugh when I hear Republicans bring up McCain-Feingold, a piece of legislation that has, in virtually every instance, zero effect on their everyday lives. It reminds me of Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas" where he talks about how legions of blue-collar, lower-middle and middle class Kansans vote consistently for a Republican Party that does nothing to defend their economic interests, but hey, they're pro-life. McCain-Feingold has had next to no impact on how campaigns are run, at least from the public's perspective. That so many Republicans would consider that the straw that breaks the camel's back absolutely dumbfounds me.
The fact is, had McCain-Feingold not passed, politics would be no more clear and no more accountable than it was before. It's not like conservatives were supporting some revolutionary new idea that would have improved the situation. The Republicans supported sitting around with their hands in their pockets and acting like there was never a problem to begin with. Was that better than the alternative?
Besides, isn't that the same strategy that has gotten Republicans bent over on issues like health care, education, the environment, etc.? Newt Gingrich led a revolution, and now the remaining soldiers from the rear flank have turned into a bunch of defenders of status-quo, do-nothing institutionalism.
I'm not going to fault a guy like McCain for trying. At least he tried.
What can I tell you: I don't like the government dictating what I can or can't say (and when).
...and I'm sure Senator McConnell would be surprised to hear that there were no other alternatives on finance reform. Our legislature had a legitimate chance to overwrite the one of the worst caselaw decisions of the past 30 years (Buckley v. Valeo...money isn't speech when it's given to a canddiate, but is speech when that same money is spent by a candidate. Doesn't that make perfect sense?) Not only did McCain-Feingold make the political campaign process worse, it also took away any momentum for meaningful change.
I also disagree with the contention that this process doesn't affect my everyday life. I spend far too much time on Digg burying stories from the websites funded by all those 527s for that to be true. ;) Not to mention all the shadow organization ads that I have to watch during election years. Or the effects that the increasingly-permanent campaigning from the 527s have on both the political discourse and driving policy.
I know you weren't singling me out, since I did mention the other problems I have with McCain -- I don't like his position on immigration, and I don't have any sort of comfort level with potential judicial nominations (the downside of painting yourself as a "maverick" I guess).
...and considering what I do for a living, Judicial appointments do affect my daily life. ;)
I'm not going to fault a guy like McCain for trying. At least he tried.
To me, one of the reasons I'm a Conservative is that I care about consequences and outcomes moreso that I do about intentions and trying.
BCRA gave you the ability to give MORE money to federal candidates! It quadrupled your contribution limit to candidates/parties/PACs! BCRA restricts your right to free speech less than the old system did! You've got more than $108,200 in this cycle that you're looking to give? Or you're just really concerned with the free speech rights of those who do? The only real finance restriction under BCRA is that political committees can no longer engage in unlimited giving. Oh snap!
I'd argue that McCain-Feingold actually helped the debate by bringing more voices into the picture. Now, groups speak for themselves instead of lobbing buckets full of cash at the major parties. Besides, it's not like candidates or parties are hurting for money these days. Well, okay, maybe the Republicans, but that has more to do with the political train wreck they've brought upon themselves.
Mitch McConnell said on McNeil/Lehrer in 2001 that BCRA "has no impact whatsoever on the average American. It's an inside the Beltway issue." Independent expenditures were perfectly legal before BCRA as well. Are there more of them now? Sure. Is there more spending by parties and candidates? Sure.
And let's not kid ourselves. The Republicans who fought BCRA were more concerned of losing control of their ability to gloss over the differences between the many warring factions of their party than they ever were about free speech. McConnell wrapped himself in the flag but all he was doing was defending a system in which the major parties had the resources to drown out every other voice in the debate. As a result of BCRA, a lot more people know how dysfunctional the Republican Party is, because every little group of wingnuts runs its own ads. *That's* what McConnell was fighting against - the chance the public might find out that the Republican Party is home to a lot of gun crazies, homo haters, neoconservative war mongers and Bible-thumping creationists.
The problem with conservatives today is that they would rather a broken system keep chugging along because they can't quite find the perfect solution to any of the problems. Conservatives have allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good. It's why the Republicans can't address Social Security reform, issues with health care access/affordability, problems with urban schools - issue voters overwhelmingly say they want addressed. They throw around privatization, health savings accounts, and school choice like they're magic bullets because it keeps them from having to find any serious, workable compromise that voters would support.
John McCain supported BCRA. Rudy Giuliani is a lecherous and unethical slimeball. Mitt Romney changes his positions more than his underwear. Fred Thompson is lazy and unmotivated. And Mike Huckabee's got more skeletons in his closet than Roger Clemens. Oh, and Ron Paul is crazy. America, take your pick.
oooh, oooh, Don't forget that we can't get anything done with immigration because too many Republicans only listen to the Lou Dobbs talking points and refuse anything less than the "perfect" bill. Even, you know, when we are in the minority in both houses and the guy who would sign it does not support said bill.
But hey, at least these guys havent done anything. That's the logic, right? Leave the system as it is because we are too afraid of only getting 60% of what we want?
Don't forget, we are electing a President here. His/her job is to put plans together to get something done that 50%+1 can agree on. John McCain would not be a good majority leader/speaker, but he's by far the best candidate to be our 44th president.
Ok, my comments here are not personal at all, so please do not take them that way. But after spending the last 4-5 hrs pondering these comments, the vitriol is running rampant here.
BJK, your comments, and the feelings of many in our party on not supporting McCain based mainly on McCain-Feingold are, well, rather stupid.
Let's see here, we have a war in Iraq that has not gone well, we have a war on terror, we have a sketchy economy at home, we have issues in Africa, issues in Asia, trade issues, immigration issues, job issues and this still doesn't mention the fact that we torture people and its completely acceptable, apparently.
So we have a candidate who has steadfastly supported a troop surge. I believe he was busy arguing for a troop surge when the White House Advance Staff was busy searching for a large enough banner that contained the words "Mission" and "Accomplished" After employing said surge things in Iraq have improved, no one will doubt that. Meanwhile, McCain took his lumps at home because of his strong advocation of the Surge that is working.
If that is not presidential leaderhip, I really do not know what is.
McCain is also a guy who has been steadfast on national defense and continuing to press the war on terror. He correctly believes that torture is wrong. He supports tax cuts and unlike guys like Romney and Hucks, has a strong anti-tax, pro-growth record.
Ah, but that is not enough for the idiot patrol out there. Apparently some people believe that all of those pluses vanish because for 4-6 weeks every 2 years they have to see 527 ads. Seriously.
8-10 weeks of annoying ads, intermixed with more annoying ads (but only if you live in a competitve district) is enough for people to forget about true foreign policy leadership.
If our party does not nominate John McCain and if our country does not elect him we will have no one other than the mouth breathers and the mexican haters to blame for the continued problems of this country
Despite being outnumbered, here's my attempted defense
1) Immigration. My one priority is preventing illegal immigrants from entering / staying in the country. I don't believe people who break the laws getting into the country should be given amnesty and a path to citizenship.
I also think that the Y-visa (the guest worker program) would be an absolute nightmare after 2 years....when the guest workers stay in the country undocumented. (We're not sending them back now...why would that be any different after 2 years?)
As for the so-called 60% of good in the bill....I don't believe the border fence would have ever been built. Just this month, Congress has already gutted the funding for the border fence that was supposed to be put up after the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
Simply put, the Immigration bill was an out-and-out mess, and the very type of compromise that makes things worse instead of better. The border is almost as big a national defense issue as Iraq.
2) McCain-Feingold. It's not just the time window that the 527 sites run ads that bother me. These groups don't go dormant like government campaigns....they are in a perpetual cycle of turning the news of the day into propaganda. (Just spend 5 minutes perusing crooksandliars.com, or thinkprogress.com....or try to sit through Keith Olbermann's show, since that's where he gets his news. Who do you think is funding those websites?)
The problem stems from the distinction without a difference that our Supreme Court drew in Buckley v. Valeo. Simply raising the spending limits isn't enough, since there shouldn't be contribution limits for individuals giving to political campaigns. Public disclosure + applying our existing laws against corruption is the answer I want to see pursued. (If you've ever been to politicalbase.com, that's the direction I want to see the country move to.)
It's not a matter of compromise to me. "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech." McCain-Feingold's limitations on spending and commercial blackouts restrict speech. I don't compromise on the Constitution.
That McCain-Feingold was upheld by the Supreme Court, leads to...
3) Judicial Nominees. Bill Clinton's Presidency might have been a bad 8 years, but the Judges he put in place are going to be bad for much longer than that. On the other hand, no matter what you think of President Bush, Roberts and Alito look to be exactly the kind of Judges I wanted when I voted for Bush (twice).
I think McCain would be far more likely to compromise on a Judicial nominee than the other candidates...and that's not what I'm looking for. I also don't have an underlying trust in his reasoning in judicial selection, in part for the reasons I've outlined above.
4) As long as I'm making a list, I think McCain (and Romney) are flat wrong on the line-item veto. Rudy gets bonus points for actually being right on that one.
.....
Right now, McCain is sitting 3rd on my pecking order, behind Rudy and Fred. I haven't decided on one guy (and I daresay that I've watched more of the debates than either of you). I could live with any one of the three. I like his position on Iraq, on free trade, and I think he's given some of the most Reagan-esque answers of any of the candidates when it comes to spending cuts (despite being wrong about the line-item veto).
I have some misgivings about each of the candidates....and believe it or not, calling me a mouth breather isn't going to change my mind. I'm going to get a candidate that supports 90% of what I'm looking for out of any one of my top 3 Republican candidates....I'm still trying to decide which 10% I like the least (while simultaneously thinking about the candidate's chances in the general election).
Post a Comment