Roger L. Simon: McCain Rising

A lot of Republicans have been angry at John McCain over the years for wandering off the reservation. Never bothered me, of course, because I find rigid party politics soporific. And I like people with free minds, even if I disagree with them.

So having watched this ongoing campaign, I'm not surprised to see the rise of McCain whose semi-maverick qualities (can't really be a maverick in American politics and hope to win) will no doubt appeal to the public, especially as opposed to candidates running for national talk show host (Obama, Edwards, Romney) and or national preacher (Huckabee). In the shadow of Bhutto, McCain's experience appeals. What happens next?

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Most of his wanderings do not bother me save one, The Incombant Protection....er McCain-Feingold act.

McCain might be the best GOP candidate to go up against the Dem in the General. He has across-the-political spectrum appeal and is excellent on the War on IslamoFacism. He's the elder statesman in a time when most people recognize that we're in serious times. Now that he's rid himself of all the excess advisors - he's back to being himself, which is what people want to see and hear. The big thing that sticks in my craw is McCain-Feingold. That's a hard one to get past - but get past it I will if he wins the Primary. Heck, I might get past it to help him win the AZ Primary in February -- I'm still undecided.

It's just a shame that he may emerge as the most electable of those running, but for me, it just means sitting out the election. I will NOT vote for him or anyone that thinks like him! Looks like a very bleak election year to me... Need I elaborate about his Kennedy connections? Really...

Bleakness is in the eyes of the beholder I guess. I think the Republicans have an excellent slate of candidates. Most all have alot to recommend them. There is NO way that I would sit out Election Day 2008. There's way too much at stake. We need a President that is serious and knowledgable about the nature of our enemies. He will have his hands full on day one.

I have high hopes for Fred, but absolutely no enthusiasm for any of the other candidates (except for Duncan (unfortunately, no chance)...and this in face of expectational foreign problems.

Deagle, I do hope that I and those who are like-minded carry the day. Otherwise, you and others who plan on staying home on Election Day will carry the day - which means we will all wake up to a President Clinton or President Obama. Hoping for the best...?

I have always like John McCain, and I have quite a few liberal friends who do, too. I realize that's, indirectly, a reason why some conservatives don't like him. But it would be nice to have a less polarizing president than Bush if he were elected.

I have a serious question to all those who long for "a less polarizing president than Bush".

Exactly what do you see that person doing / being that will be less polarizing? As far as I can tell, in politics today, that means to continue an uninterrupted gravy train for all pols and their favorite constituency.

As far as issues not suceptible to the pork treatment (aka foreign affairs) I don't have a clue. The Dhimmis want us to suck up to the EU and UN. The VRWC want us to stand tall (and alone if necessary) against that perceived as evil.

What experience, exactly, do you mean, Roger? As a military pilot? A prisoner of war? A U.S. Sentator? Or something else?

I'm waiting for an answer to AlanC's question as well. When the usual suspects (Carville, Chrissy Matthews, Olbermoron and other assorted vermin) spout it I consider it boiler-plate lunacy. But when MJT sez it maybe there's something really to be considered. Or not.

I believe Michael's point is that a middle ground WILL appear when the President is not so polarizing. In other words, not all of those "Dhimmis" will feel the same way if they are able to face reality, which they are unable to do when it is presented to them by George Bush. They should be able to, but the fact is they aren't. You can bitch about it all you want, but you can't change it. Let's hope Michael is right. I think he is.

So in other words, we have to placate the dhimmi simps (or perhaps symps) and pretend that's some sort of a desirable situation? I was less depressed not knowing that.

Hardly what I was suggesting. The subject of this post was John McCain. You think voting for him is somehow placating people who have not supported the war?

Since I was seconding AlanC's question of Michael Totten, it was specifically about a definition of "non polarizing middle ground"; not John McCain, as you so snottily pointed out. Do you speak for Totten or was that an educated guess? In response to your question: No, I plan on voting for McCain and placating the non-supporters of the war is the last thing I'd consider my act doing.

Roger: Will you willingly accept as your leader(President) "a free mind" with whom you disagree? Will you contentedly pay, in taxes or blood, for "free mind" policies with which you disagree?
And do you expect to be taken seriously when you write such blithe comments?

Sadly Micheal, I must disagree. Johm McCain would be polarizing because he is not a Democrat. He will be completely incapable of making the noise in Washignton decrease. For democrats and the MSM it is imperative that they control everything, Congess, Presidentcy, and the Judiciary. look for hate, hyperbolie, and out right lies rule the political landscape.

Captain Hate, I would never presume to speak for Michael Totten or anyone else. I simply stated what I thought he meant. And I'm sorry you interpreted my comment as "snotty," although referring to people as "dhimmi simps" doesn't seem particularly gracious to me.
From my perspective, George Bush was an extremely polarizing figure from the get go. Same goes for Bill Clinton. Both men arouse irrational partisan emotions. One would hope that people would be able to rise above that and see clearly when world events intercede, but history shows us that's often not the case.
Sustaining the effort to fight against Islamic fascism requires us to be as united as possible. George Bush, determined as he was to stand up to the threat, was too hated to ever be able to do that. Unjustified as the hate was, it was a visceral reaction. Many on the right had a similar visceral reaction to Bill Clinton.
You may disagree with me, Captain Hate, but I don't believe all politicians inspire that kind of irrational hatred. So if we can elect one who's clear and steadfast about the threat we face, and doesn't drive a large chunk of the populace to distraction, I fail to see how that is depressing, or any form of placating.

Thank you for that extended response, Sheryl. I think your comparison between Bush and Clinton is a false one. Clinton couldn't be trusted by either party as John Breaux discovered when he ran point for the Donks on social security reform that Slick pledged to support only to pull the rug out from him. Repubs worked with him at times, such as on NAFTA, which I still can't figure out why he supported although maybe some commenters have some insight. Clinton wasn't trusted because he was was a liar. Bush isn't trusted because the Donks don't like him. Why should I be happy that people that don't elevate the interests of their country in serious matters over petty likes and dislikes remain in office? Why should I believe that a different messenger from the same political party will make them act differently? In short, I don't believe that the "middle ground" concept (about which your definition makes sense lacking any further MJT input) will have any impact. I hope I'm wrong but I'm afraid I'm not.

As anyone that has read my comments in the past knows I am not a Democrat. That said, I also don't care for most of what passes for Republican politics these days either.

To me, there are two separate areas to consider here, one is character and the other policies.

As I generally class pork in the character category I see both parties as pretty much failing here. 40 years ago when I first started paying close attention I believed that the majority of politicians weren't crooked in this sense (see ear marks), maybe 60 - 40 reasonably straight. Today I'd put it at 90 - 10 reasonably or mostly crooked regardless of party.

Hence my comment about where the non-partisan middle ground is on domestic policy. Anyone that in anyway threatens the gravy train will be portrayed and vilified as a "divider".

So that leaves us with foreign affairs. There's not a Democrat out there who I would trust nor one who even mouths the right words. Therefore, I want a Republican to win.

What would that person have to do to be considered a "uniter" by the MSM & the Democrats?
As far as I can see, the only way to get that "title of dubious worth" is for the Republican to fold like a cheap suit to every tranzi whim loved by the NGOs, EU and UN. Since that's what I expect for any Democrat there ain't much difference.

SOOOOOO, I'll go for the most honorable person with the correct view of foreign affairs rather than some simp trying to spout the "Can't we all just get along?" line.

So, AlanC, who in your opinion is the most honorable person with the correct view of foreign affairs? That's the person I'm looking to vote for too.

Of the sane, reasonable choices Huckster's right out, I lived with Mitt as govenor and there's too much of the go along to get along there for comfort(but, this IS Massaholia so leeway must be given), Rudi I could possibly live with though he, too, needs a more thorough look. McCain scares me. He seems to me to be too loose a cannon with a tyrannical streak. (see McCain/Feingold etc.)

Thanks, AlanC, for your response. I go back and forth between several candidates myself. I haven't given Fred a whole lot of attention because he's seemed so lacadaisical about the whole thing - although I see he is putting more effort into IA.

Aside from honor and a realistic view of world affairs, the candidate has to be able to beat the Democrat. I realize you don't trust McCain, but he would be a great contender against Clinton or Obama. I'm not crazy about certain aspects of his domestic record either, but on national security I think he's A1.

1. The 2000 election fallout.
2. His "embrace" of the Christian Right. (Thus loud noises on gay rights, abortion, "faith based..." etc)
3. His attitude. Bush comes off as a smirking jackass, who thinks that his comments are witty when they're lame and that his presence is potent, when its more limpid.
4. The War, No WMD's, a bad plan for maintaining the peace and never once an admission of error.

President Bush, in the minds of millions of Americans embodies the worst aspects of the Right.

Most of the people I know don't feel that way about all republicans, mostly they feel that way about the Neo-Conservatives and the Religious Conservatives. McCain appears as neither and most people, at least have respect for the guy (which is more than we can say about those that smeared him in 2000).

I would probably vote for McCain over any Democrat. I will probably vote for a Democrat over any of the other Republicans (out of the current crop).

December 30, 2007: McCain Rising

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post