« The next Supreme Court pick | Main | Scalia being "controversial" again »

More on McCain

As expected, I caught some conservative flack for some of my John McCain comments yesterday.

My post wasn't meant as an early endorsement (I still prefer Rudy, as, it seems, do most Republicans.) I just see what I think are the makings of a McCain boomlet, and I take that as a positive sign for my party's future.

I've disagreed frequently with McCain in the past, and sometimes passionately. As "John of Argghhh!" pointed out in the comments section yesterday, my biggest disappointment with McCain is his abysmal record on the Second Amendment.

Still, I think there's a lot to be said for "the right man at the right time." When I try to identify the top three problems plaguing the Republican Party at this time, I come up with something like this:

  1. fiscal recklessness
  2. undue influence from the religious right
  3. erosion of the party's reputation for competence in defense and foreign affairs

Others may quibble, but I think this is a reasonable list. I also think John McCain is ideally suited as a Republican of stature who can effectively address all of them.

And as a practical matter, I think he'd romp over whatever Democrat would oppose him in 2008, particularly if that Democrat should happen to be Madam Clinton. That can't hurt.


And as a practical matter, I think he'd romp over whatever Democrat would oppose him in 2008, particularly if that Democrat should happen to be Madam Clinton.
What's the difference?

One's a liberal who pretends to be a conservative, a consummate media whore plagued by bitterness towards the current administration.

The other one's Hillary.

Great post, apotheosis!

Why not vote for McPain?
Three words: "Campaign Finance Reform"!

As a democrat who likes McCain, I have to ageee with you. He is one of the few rational voices (along with Chuck Hagel) left in the radical republican party of today. The republican party has been hijacked and is controlled by religious fundamentalists and incompetent "loyal" appointees of Bush.

McCain is the only republican who could win in 2006 and there is no question that he would be good for the country. However, there is no way he can be the republican candidate because he will not survive the republican primaries. You need to be a religious fundamentalist to win the primaries of that party. Thus, in 2008 a democrat will (finally) be elected. It will be probably Hillary.

Dude, that's pretty ignorant. I usually enjoy your posts, Wind, but please don't make claims like "You need to be a religious fundamentalist to win the primaries of that party," because unless you've taken a poll of each and every republican, it's profiling. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, but I don't like people stereotyping either side. And it's not something against you personally. I've just heard too many people saying things like that, and, unfortunately, you happen to be the fall guy/girl.

Ok you have a point. I used a little too strong of a language. But I think you would agree with me that the extreme religious right has a major influence in the republican party of today. If McCain had been the candidate in 2000, he would have easily defeated Gore. He is one of the few people that is respected and liked by both republicans and democrats. Among the major reasons he did not win the primaries in 2000 were the dirty campaign of Karl Rove against him, and the ultra-right religious groups that supported Bush.

Yes, I will agree with that. Like I said, bad luck for you catchin that rant. I promise, I'll go after someone else next.

It does seem that the Republican party and leadership have been taken over by the abortion-hating, gay-hating, "family values" type. The old fiscal restraint-Republicans seem to be a dying breed. And that's kind of unfortunate, because that was one of the few stances of which I used to regularly agree with the GOP.

But what's wrong with family values? And I distrust your use of the term "gay-hating". Why is it that if someone disagrees with someone's sexual preferences they are a "hater"? Does this mean I have permission to call every homosexual a "heterophobe" and "straight-basher" simply because they disagree with me? I'm not a "phobe" because gays don't scare me, and I don't hate them because they're people just like everyone else, and deserve the same respect. But it has yet to be proven whether they can or cannot choose to be a homosexual, so I still reserve the right to disagree with their claims to the rights of heterosexual couples, since there is as good a chance of them choosing to be gay as there is it being in their genetics. If it is proven that they are gay because of nature, then yes, they deserve every right that hetero couples get. But such is not the case as yet.

And I think that men should avoid the abortion issue entirely, since we'll never have as personal a tie into the decision as women will.

Post a comment