Poking My Thumb in the Eye of Conservatives for Their Own Good

there’s this little matter about pursuing the ‘Rat Vice-President slot in 2004,

I thought I put that one to rest. It’s ok to disagree with the man on positions he takes; on policy issues. But to say “he’s not a conservative” when his record clearly shows him to be more conservative than not, is dishonest. “He’s not a conservative I like” would be a more honest statement. If conservatives want to hate him, they should hate him for factual reasons and not imagined slights.

John Fund:

Getting to 270
Can John McCain win in November?
February 11, 2008

The conventional wisdom is that Republicans start at a serious disadvantage in trying to hold the White House. A still-unpopular war and a softening economy certainly represent challenges. So far, most of the enthusiasm in the primaries has been on the Democratic side, with some 13 million voters casting Democratic ballots and fewer than 9 million picking a GOP one.

But despite these obstacles, John McCain will now begin to assemble his fall election team with surprisingly good poll results. The average of all the recent national polls summarized by RealClearPolitics.com… show the Arizona senator leading Hillary Clinton by 47% to 45% and trailing Barack Obama by only 44% to 47%. Both results are within the statistical margin of error for national polls, so it’s fair to say Mr. McCain starts out with an even chance of winning.

How could that be? The answer is that the same maverick streak and occasional departures from conservative orthodoxy that make conservatives queasy have the opposite effect on independents and even some Democrats. Mr. McCain’s favorable numbers with independents exceed those of Barack Obama, who has emphasized his desire to work across party lines.

* * *

All of this plays out in the Electoral College map that is the key to victory in November. One candidate or the other must win at least 270 electoral votes. The assumption has been that Democrats have an advantage because they can supposedly win every state John Kerry took in 2004 plus Ohio, which has fallen on hard economic times and seen its state Republican Party discredited. That would give the Democratic nominee at least 272 electoral votes.

But Mr. McCain’s rise to the GOP nomination throws that calculation out the window. He is the only potential GOP candidate who is clearly positioned to keep the basic red-blue template of how each state voted in 2004 intact and then be able to move into blue territory.

Let’s assume that Ohio goes to either Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton. It’s at least as likely that Mr. McCain could carry New Hampshire. The Granite State went only narrowly to Mr. Kerry, a senator from a neighboring state, and Mr. McCain has unique advantages there. New Hampshire elections are determined by how that state’s fiercely independent voters go, and Mr. McCain has won over many of them in both the 2000 and 2008 GOP primaries. He spent 47 days in New Hampshire before this year’s primary and is well-known in the state. If Mr. McCain lost Ohio but carried New Hampshire and all the other states Mr. Bush took in 2004, he would win, 270-268.

It’s true that Democrats will make a play for states other than Ohio that Mr. Bush won. Iowa is a perennially competitive state that could go either way this fall. Arkansas polls show that Hillary Clinton might well be able to carry the state where she served as First Lady for over a decade.

But Mr. McCain’s roots in the Rocky Mountain West complicate Democratic efforts to take states in that region. His fierce individualism and support for property rights play well in Nevada and Colorado, which were close in 2004. New Mexico, next door to Mr. McCain’s Arizona, gave Mr. Bush a very narrow 49.6% to 49% victory in 2004. But Mr. McCain’s nuanced position on immigration marks him as the GOP candidate who is most likely to hold the Hispanic voters who are the key to carrying New Mexico.

Mr. McCain also puts several Midwest battleground states in play. Should he pick Minnesota’s Gov. Tim Pawlenty as his vice presidential choice, he might have a leg up on carrying both Minnesota and Wisconsin, which went narrowly for Mr. Kerry in 2004.

“The media markets in western Wisconsin get Minneapolis television and are oriented to their news–Pawlenty would be a plus there,” says Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican. “McCain’s independent stands would play well in that region–which is exactly where GOP presidential candidates have done poorly enough so that they lost statewide by 12,000 votes or so in both 2004 and 2000.”

Mr. McCain can be competitive in other blue states. Michigan went Democratic in 2004 by only 3.4% of the total vote, and Oregon by just over 4%. The latest Field Poll in California puts Mr. McCain and Hillary Clinton in a statistical tie. If Democrats have to spend valuable time and resources holding down California, it will make it more difficult for them to take states they lost in 2000 and 2004.

Mr. McCain could even make a foray into the Northeast, where his support from Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party’s 2000 vice presidential candidate, could put Connecticut in contention. Ditto New Jersey, which Mr. Bush lost by only 53% to 46% in 2004.

Then there is Pennsylvania, which John Kerry carried by only 2.5% points in 2004. Michael Smerconish, the most popular talk-show host in Philadelphia, believes Mr. McCain has a real chance to carry the state. While Mr. Smerconish is a conservative who didn’t support Mr. McCain, he thinks “the conservative blasting of McCain is good publicity around here.” His independence and maverick status are exactly the qualities that could help him carry the tightly contested Philadelphia suburbs that voted to re-elect GOP senator Arlen Specter, a moderate, in 2004 but rejected conservative Rick Santorum in 2006.

* * *

In some ways Mr. McCain resembles Nicolas Sarkozy, the French conservative who won last year’s presidential election even though the retiring president, Jacques Chirac, was unpopular and a member of his own party. “Like Sarko, who was of Chirac’s party but not of Chirac, America’s swing voters have intuited over the years that there is little love lost between McCain and George Bush,” says the blog Race42008.

Mr. Sarkozy was able to convince a majority of French voters that he represented real change that would improve conditions, while his socialist rival, Segolene Royal, represented risky change that could make matters worse. That is precisely the challenge Mr. McCain faces this year against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

When you hear that the demise of the Republicans is a foregone conclusion, remember that when the campaign is joined this fall and voters will have to make real choices about the direction of the country, the result is likely to be close. Recall that pundits were ready to crown Michael Dukakis the winner of the 1988 election after he opened up a 17-point edge over George H.W. Bush. In 2000, they declared the race over around Labor Day after Al Gore opened up a clear lead over George W. Bush.

Given that polls show Mr. McCain is currently in a dead heat against either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton, it would be wise for the pundits to show a little humility this year. The Democratic strategists I talk to believe the race will be hard-fought and close, regardless of the direction the economy or the war in Iraq takes.

Yet, McCain’s admirers appear to think belittling the senator’s good-faith opponents is the way to go. Theirs is a case of the pot calling the kettle “deranged” — and it will prove duly futile.

and

But do not assign a derangement syndrome to me, I’m seeing this differently, but not because I’m DERANGED, please stop this character assassination.

I don’t know if I’d call myself a “McCain supporter”. Certainly, when it comes to the general election. “McCain admirer”? There are a couple of things I do find admirable about him; but mostly, I share in conservative feelings of anger and betrayal on key issues where he has let us down. Andrew McCarthy and Jainphx should not take it personally, if I should point out McCain Derangement Syndrome where I see it. It’s a shame that McCain critics can’t see it when the criticism flies off into spin and hyperbole. That is what I refer to by McDS. Not honest gripes and criticism. McCain’s brought all of this on himself. But still, we should be honest and not resort to gross exaggerations to reinforce our “stereotype” of all that we find wrong with McCain.

I believe I pointed two examples of this out in this post. I am pretty sure one can find quotes by Reagan and Bush and other Republicans who have complimented political opponents, and also have called them friend.

McCain IS a conservative. Just not the kind of conservative that many base conservatives like or feel that they can count on as reliable. It amazes me that people willfully ignore areas where he has not been an apostate. Igor gets this, from the comment above this one.

Forget McCain-Feingold and the tax controversy (why exactly did he oppose them) for a moment, those are now history. If McCain renounces his positions on illegal immigration and Global Warming, OR JUST THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ONLY he will be welcomed by a large percentage of the people who oppose him now.

I don’t agree with him on either of these; but I can survive his belief on the global warming issue, even as I disagree. It won’t “kill me” the way Hillary and Obama would get me killed, should they not keep our enemies on the defense. In national security, I trust McCain more.

jainphx,

His POW story should be read by everyone. Whether you hate hiim or not. ESPECIALLY for those who hate him. It’s his own personal recollection, published May 1973. Aside from the fact that this is McCain, it is riveting. It is heroic.

And yes, his arms were rebroken. I’d have to go back through the article (I read it last week), but at least one of his arms was rebroken, during beatings. I don’t know why you are latching upon this “minutia” in detail, as proof-positive of “McCainiac spin”. Whether they were rebroken under torture or broken while being ejected from his skyhawk spinning at around 500 knots, the fact remains that to this day, he has trouble with the use of his arms, because of his service to our country during Vietnam.

No, it doesn’t qualify him to be president. But it does add perspective to why he feels the way he does on the waterboarding issue. It’s ok to disagree and say he’s wrong. But it shouldn’t be ok to show utter disdain for McCain simply because he has expressed an opinion here which is not agreeable to many conservatives on that topic.

This was going to be the subject of another post. Because McDS sufferers I have heard attack his war record. Saying he wasn’t a hero, but a failed pilot for getting shot down and taken captive; for “breaking” under torture. It’s ridiculous! Read the account. He had the opportunity to leave after a year, when they found out he was the son of the Admiral who commanded all U. S. forces in the Pacific during the Vietnam War, yet chose to remain, because his fellow POWs who had been there longer were not being released. Because he was well aware of the propaganda harm it would do to his country, and to the morale of his fellow POWs, since he was being “priveleged” as the son of “royalty”. Please take the time to read it. I have not heard one fellow POW who served as a captive along with him come out against him. Instead, I’ve heard those who have offered support. Like James H. Warner:

Recently, I have seen several allegations that condemn Senator John McCain for his behavior as a prisoner of war. I believe that these allegations are false. I am in a better position than the Senator’s accusers to know the truth since I was a prisoner with him, having been captured a little over a month before him. I have contacted hundreds of my comrades on our e-mail list and not one of them can confirm anything that has been alleged against McCain. Let me tell you what they have told me and what I saw myself, and answer some of the charges.

First, I should say that I have great respect for Senator McCain, even though I am at odds with him on many issues and have remained distant from his campaign. I say this up front because I think that a defense mounted by one of his supporters would be less credible.

The first allegation is that the Soviets directed our interrogations and that John McCain gave up valuable intelligence during his interrogations. We doubt this. The Communists were not very skilled at keeping secrets from us and to my knowledge only one man saw someone whom he could identify as a Russian in any camp – a female “journalist’ who claimed to have been wounded as a tank commander in WWII. When the prisoner she was interviewing demanded that she show him her scars she knocked him off of his stool.

Everyone, when interrogated under torture, lied to the interrogators. Surely Soviet intelligence knew, as should any intelligent being, that there are no swimming pools on the decks of American aircraft carriers. Yet this lie was told and believed. One man was beaten for refusing to tell where the Navy keeps pigs and chickens on an aircraft carrier. Surely Soviet military intelligence knew that our ships have refrigeration and do not need to carry livestock. There are countless other such stories which cast doubt on the participation of the Soviets.

In any case, McCain was only a pilot. I cannot think of any tactical information which a Navy pilot could have which would be of any value to an enemy who lacked the capacity to attack an aircraft carrier. Nor can I think of much strategic information which any sensible person would give to a pilot who might be shot down and captured.

There are exceptions to this, of course. In any military or naval hierarchy, it is sometimes necessary, for day to day operations under unusual circumstances, for some men to be trained in various skills which may become useful should those circumstances arise. Even the existence of such skills should remain a secret as closely held as possible.

A few men in the camps had such a secret. Had it been disclosed by anyone, we would have known it instantly. It never was.

Someone has circulated a transcript of a radio broadcast made on June 2, 1969, in which McCain says that he received medical treatment and that we were being well treated. If it is authentic, it reads like a statement that he might have made when first captured. It did not take long for men to learn that they could manipulate language when tortured to make statements. Thus, at the Stockholm “War Crimes Tribunal,” the Vietnamese Communist government offered a statement from an American who confessed that Clark Kent (Superman’s alter ego) and Ben Casey (a character in a television show) ordered him to do terrible things. The Vietnamese only realized that they had been snookered when they saw Soviet journalists laughing at the joke the American had played on them. To John McCain’s critics I promise that I can get you, too, to make a statement on any subject I wish.

We have no evidence that Sen. McCain received special treatment. Since he was as thin as the rest of us, if he did, it was not in the form of decent food. It is alleged that he was taken into Hanoi and put up in a hotel with prostitutes. This is an improvement on the allegation spread during the 2000 campaign that he was given a Vietnamese woman to live with him in his cell, an allegation that led me to ask why, if he was my friend, didn’t he ask if she had a sister? Even when he was in solitary confinement, he was constantly in contact with others. Further, we always knew about movements within the camps because the Communists simply were not competent at preventing us from gaining intelligence. Men who were in the camps with him agree that they are not aware of a single night that he spent out of his cell.

A friend, whom I know to be reliable, was across the hall and one door down, from McCain’s cell when McCain was first captured. He has told me that he saw Communist officers enter the cell where the wounded John McCain lay, incapacitated. He heard them offer McCain early release and heard John answer that he would go home when we all go home. He heard the voices of the officers rising until they were shouting angrily at McCain and threatening him. This was followed by screams of agony from John McCain, and a stream of obscenities from him. He could not see what they did to him and I never heard from John McCain what it was. This does not sound like a collaborator.

In the spring of 1971 I personally witnessed evidence of John McCain’s loyalty. After the attempted rescue of POWs at the camp at Son Tay, in November of 1970, almost all Americans were moved to Hoa Lo prison in Hanoi, the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.” The Communists felt so threatened by the raid that, for the first time, they concentrated us in large cells with as many as sixty men in a cell.

One of the first things we did was to institute regular religious services in our cells. On January 1, 1971, we were told that all religious activity was forbidden. This led to a long series of increasingly hostile confrontations which someone has labeled “the Church Riots.” I was in a cell next to John McCain’s cell. In early March, the four senior men in his cell were removed and for some time we lost contact with them. Then the four senior men in my cell were removed, and we lost contact with them, also. The confrontations rapidly escalated.

My recollection is that John McCain was now the senior man in his cell. In any case, I know that he was deeply involved with what followed. The senior men in our two cells kept us under tight control, but carefully staged demonstrations of our anger over the religious ban and the removal of our cell mates. On March 19, St. Joseph’s Day, I remember the men in McCain’s room singing, at the top of their lungs, first “the Battle Hymn of the Republic,” then “Onward Christian Soldiers.”

We knew that this could not go on. The night before, when men from our cell went out to wash dishes, the largest men in the cell, me included, were sent out and told the stand a few inches in front of each guard, cross our arms, and stare angrily into their eyes. The guards were nervous. After ten minutes the one I was staring at began crying and ran away. Shortly thereafter a platoon of armed guards returned with him. A Vietnamese officer nervously ordered us to return to our cell. We stood fast. Finally, after we had repeatedly disobeyed the orders of the Vietnamese officer, the senior man in our cell stepped out and quietly told us to go inside.

The Communists were thoroughly frightened. Given the history of Communism, we had no illusions as to what might come from this. They had killed 100 million people to maintain their control. What would a few American pilots mean to people like that? For much of our incarceration they had threatened to execute some of us.

John McCain was involved in planning and carrying out these confrontations in order to gain the right to worship in our cells. He knew what we were risking. At sundown, on March 19, they came, first to McCain’s cell, then to ours. A total of thirty six of us were taken, at gunpoint, out of the cells. Outside our hands were tied, then our elbows tied behind our back, and we were blindfolded. We did not know what was about to happen but I am certain that none of us thought we were being taken to a hotel to have a party with Vietnamese girls. To our relief, we were taken to a camp where we were put in solitary confinement for the next seven months.

I may not agree with John McCain on some policies. However, I will go to my grave remembering the American officer who helped organize men to defy an enemy who wish to deprive us of religious observance. Even today I cannot hear the Battle Hymn of the Republic without tears as I am still moved by the courage of the singers and the leadership of John McCain.

James H. Warner is a retired attorney. He served as a domestic policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan from 1985 until 1989.

So who has ever said he was qualified to be president because of his war record? We already know all the arguments. But his experience should be given proper respect. He served his country and has earned at least gratitude for what he endured as a patriot.

This is why he is called “A GREAT AMERICAN” along with “lousy senator, and a terrible Republican” by Hugh Hewitt.