One man’s point of view
Senator McCain spoke to CPAC:
Often elections in this country are fought within the margins of small differences. This one will not be. We are arguing about hugely consequential things…
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government. I intend to reduce it. I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it. I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I intend to cut them. I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country. I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax. And I won’t let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy.
They will offer a big government solution to health care insurance coverage. I intend to address the problem with free market solutions and with respect for the freedom of individuals to make important choices for themselves.
They will appoint to the federal bench judges who are intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives. I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue. I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.They won’t recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region. I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment. I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.
Well, all that sounds pretty interesting, but let’s set some context, via TIME: “Democratic votes for Clinton and Obama: 14,622,822 (63.6%); Republican votes for McCain, Romney and Huckabee: 8,370,022 (36.4%)” The GOP would appear to have a long way to go, with or without Senator McCain.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Lots of red meat there for conservatives…….. if you believe the words of John McCain.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
We have had a few disagreements, and none of us will pretend that we won’t continue to have a few.
Like, y’know, about that First Amendment thingy…
McCain didn’t pledge to squelch attempts to restore the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Maybe he decided to let sleeping dogs lie.
***************
Perhaps it’s my disappointment with the 41 and 43 administrations that makes me read some of McCain’s statements as criticism of the Bushes:
All I ask of any American, conservative, moderate, independent, or enlightened Democrat, is to judge my record as a whole, and accept that I am not in the habit of making promises to my country that I do not intend to keep.
Take that, President Read-My-Lips? And President Axis-of-Evil?
I hope I have proven that in my life even to my critics. Then vote for or against me based on that record, my qualifications for the office, and the direction where I plainly state I intend to lead our country.
In contrast to an unfocused profligate President on whose watch our party lost Congress and is set to lose the White House and then the Supreme Court?
Often elections in this country are fought within the margins of small differences.
Especially when a Bush runs against a Democrat?
This one will not be.
I’m not a Bush.
I…defended my opposition to the prescription drug benefit bill that saddled Americans with yet another hugely expensive entitlement program….(p)I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.
I’m not George Bush.
**************
McCain’s speech would be fine if he were following a popular President with a unified party. Instead, he he has to restore and update a rancorously fractured coalition. Then he has to restore Republican credibility on the heels of the 2006 no-confidence vote and before the Democrats have had a chance to govern.
He’s taken a step but there’s an extremely long way to go uphill.
February 10th, 2008 at 10:36 am
“I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it. ”
That is a base-turning-out promise, one President Reagan was afraid to make or do.
IF he can convince us he means it, and will stick by it. And I think he can- the North Vietnamese didn’t break him, and the Democrats in congress haven’t better tools.
It might be an election winner. Find out how much would not be spent if we cut ALL the earmarks. Talk about a tax rebate, this is a real stimulus- you get to keep your money! And it’s not inflationary.
It would be interesting to see it happen- Congress sends him the usual pork stuffed budget, and he refuses, with lots of highlighting of exactly what he’s turning down. Stuff that no one who isn’t profiting personally can defend.
So all the representatives have to put themselves out there on their “I hate earmarks” rhetoric. In the past, they have been able to evade responsibility- “I hate earmarks, but since they are all getting them, I have to fight for my district.”
But when no one will get them…
February 16th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
staghounds comments:
I agree, but here, here, here and here, with many worthwhile links, Instapundit notes that the GOP is determined to keep going in the opposite direction.
Glenn Reynolds remarks
A similar thought has crossed my mind. I prefer Instapundit’s phrasing, which is a tweak or two away from a mot juste–something like “Better to be a corrupt minority than an honest majority.”
McCain is saddled with Bush’s underperforming record and with continuing Republican parasitism. Maybe, without being explicit about his own party, he needs to make the case that Obama’s messianism will yield an extrapolation of how Republicans have governed.