McCain Wins in New Hampshire
A number of networks have called the New Hampshire Republican Primary for John McCain.
I have to say I’ve been impressed with his campaign in the past few months. Before he can win my vote, he needs to reassure me that on immigration, he believes in enforcement first, securing the border. And that he’ll appoint conservative judges.
GP UPDATE: As I said on our radio program….. me voting for John McCain is like crawling through broken glass. By the way, he has SEVEN children?!? I thought Romney was the Mormon! *joking*
29 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
McCain?
Didn’t we discuss this 8 years ago and take a pass?
I guess I’m more conservative than I thought –
Any chance we can draft John Bolton….?
Comment by Vera Charles — January 8, 2008 @ 10:04 pm - January 8, 2008
Bolton-Limbaugh 2008!
I’m there right with ya, Vera!
Comment by GayPatriot — January 8, 2008 @ 10:28 pm - January 8, 2008
That is Mccain’s last victory.
NH is an open primary so most his vote came from independents .
Most of those people were Dems trying to screw up the RNC primary.
Mccain is the defination of a out of touch inside the beltway RNC elite .
He will be crushed in a closed RNC primary.
Comment by Bert — January 8, 2008 @ 10:42 pm - January 8, 2008
Remember when McCain led a group of 14 senators into breaking Senate deadlock on the confirmation of conservative justices, and ultimately getting them confirmed? McCain can trick Democrats into confirming conservative justices.
He’s also 100% pro-life and has voted for the partial birth abortion ban. And the best part about that is that he can probably accomplish more pro-life things because he doesn’t have the frightening religiosity of other candidates — I know evangelicals don’t like to hear that, but do they want to get things done or not?
On economic issues, he did vote against the Bush tax cut, but only because spending was not reduced — I don’t fault him for playing one of the few cards he had as a conservative senator to wrest a conservative concession from what was supposed to be a conservative president (and Congress).
I never got why McCain carries this “moderate” label. If it’s because he has bucked his party leadership and the president on some things, then I’d argue it was those other people who had strayed from conservative principles, not him. I also think the liberal media is trying to paint him as a moderate to scare Republican primary voters away from him. For good reason too — he’s the only one who can beat the Democratic nominee.
Comment by Bla — January 9, 2008 @ 7:50 am - January 9, 2008
I wouldn’t write off the NH primary as being “packed with independents.” In the general election, independents _are_ the ones who win you the election.
There is also a strong disincentive to non-Republicans packing Republican primaries — these people would then not be able to vote in their own party’s primary. I think the direction of their own party is more important to them than our party at this point in the game — if their party strays from what they believe to be the right course, then they’d be left with no party at all. So incentives in the “voting market” already strongly disfavor voting in another party’s primary.
Sure, an argument could be made that the liberals know that whoever the nominee becomes would represent their interests well, and it is true that there is little difference among the Democratic candidates with regard to issues — basically tax, spend, regulate, and socialize health care. But they also risk decreasing vote for their favored candidates to the point where a second-tier candidate might win the primary. They should also fear that other voters might try to do the same thing (masquerade as a Republican in the Republican primary), resulting in not enough voters for their favored Democratic candidate to win. All these are strong deterrents to pretending to be a Republican in a Republican primary.
Also, the primary results pretty much reflect what the polls had shown leading up to the primary.
And if masquerading as a member of another party is a deficiency of the open primary system, it is also a deficiency of the closed primary. Really the only difference between the two is that in the closed primary, you have to declare your party affiliation well in advance of the primary, whereas in the open primary, you effectively declare it on the day of the primary. People living in states with closed primaries could still change their party affiliation to pretend to be Republicans, if they give themselves enough time. So in the end, New Hampshire’s open primary really has no net disadvantage relative to that in other states in that respect.
The GOP primary there is a good reflection of GOP voters and GOP-leaning independents _in that state_. For these reasons (and maybe because I happen to be a McCain supporter), I would not diminish McCain’s victory in New Hampshire. It is true that McCain won NH in 2000 and lost the nomination in the end, but circumstances are different. In 2000, there was only one other viable candidate (Bush). Today, there are a couple others, and they have been tearing at each other. And given the closeness of Romney to Huckabee in polling, expect them to continue tearing at each other. The GOP voting population is also different — different priorities and a different perspective on the difference between how nominees portray themselves and how they actually govern. Priorities — the war in Iraq is one, excessive government spending and illegal immigration are others. (And in truth, McCain, Huckabee and Romney all have horrible records on immigration, but McCain is the only one who will be honest with you about where he stands.) And performance of supposedly “conservative” nominees in office — Bush was supposed to be a conservative president, but look at how much government spending and bureaucracy grew under his administration, made more disappointing by the fact that for most of his presidency he had a GOP Congress to help him achieve conservative goals if he really wanted to. I think GOP voters this time will turn to McCain because this time, they know what they’re getting.
Comment by Justin Wong — January 9, 2008 @ 8:38 am - January 9, 2008
This country would be a lot better off if you had chosen McCain over Bush in 2000. I know you all hate him. I’m perplexed by that because he’s someone I actually respect in spite of disagreeing with him about almost everything.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 9, 2008 @ 10:05 am - January 9, 2008
I know what I am getting, all right. A guy who had to get horse whipped to understand that the border has to be sealed first. The guy who brought us campaign finance reform. The guy who isn’t too crazy about tax cuts.
If my party shoves McQeeg down my throat, I will hold my nose and vote for him. But when he elopes with Teddy Kennedy and plays footsie with Schumer, I will not be surprised. That is because when I voted for him, I knew what I was getting.
(You also know what you are getting when you roll in poison ivy.)
Comment by heliotrope — January 9, 2008 @ 10:52 am - January 9, 2008
#14
How about chucking the 1st Ammendment?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 9, 2008 @ 1:08 pm - January 9, 2008
I’m ex army and lov McCain for his service. But I’m not voting for anyone 72 years old. I’ve not sent any money to the Republicans the past year. I was holding off til we had a viable nominee. McCain isn’t it. Didn’t the party learn anything from the honorable Bob Dole?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 9, 2008 @ 9:38 pm - January 9, 2008
302 million people in America. And these are the 5 “best” candidates for the most powerful person in the world. Hill Obama Mac Mitt Huck geezzz.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 9, 2008 @ 9:40 pm - January 9, 2008
#8 — With Romney, you don’t know which Amendments he’ll support or oppose at any given time. With Huckabee, you can chuck the entire Bill of Rights and replace them with the Ten Commandments.
Look, guys, we’re not going to find another Reagan among the current crop of GOP candidates. On issues like illegal immigration in particular, we’re not going to get what we want from any of the candidates. Huckabee unashamedly believes that American taxpayers should pay for the schooling of illegal children. Romney — well, who knows what he really believes.
But this is just one example of where candidates might not be perfect. We can’t be single issue voters — we have to look at all the issues, weight them according to their importance, and evaluate candidates based on the resulting broad range of criteria, not just one. McCain was proven right when he warned us when we first went to Iraq that we needed more troops. McCain was able to convince Democratic senators to let the confirmation of Justices Scalia and Roberts go through. McCain voted for the partial birth abortion ban and supports overturning Roe v. Wade. McCain has been somewhat successful in shaming his fellow senators to removing pork from bills — I hear lip service to Reagan-style economic conservatism from all the other candidates, but only McCain has the record to support it. McCain — insightful commander-in-chief, protector of life, guard of the treasury.
Sure, McCain was the culprit behind amnesty and illegal immigration. But no one is perfect — Huckabee believes in big government and Romney created socialized health care in Massachusetts. So step back, look critically — McCain is pretty good. And I’ll be happy with him until 2012 or 2016 when we can get Sen. Tom Coburn or Gov. Mike Sanford (SC) to run.
Comment by Justin Wong — January 9, 2008 @ 10:42 pm - January 9, 2008
Hey Justin Wong, if Sen. McCain should win, and he won’t, you have got to be kidding about Sen. Coburn or Gov. Sanford?! A McCain win would dry up the conservatives for quite a while. Let us get real. John “F— You” McCain is into himself. He is on a power trip. He keeps saying he got the surge in Iraq. How about President Bush? Or do you like campaign finance reform? And, if the Democrats want to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”, John “F— You” Mccain will be glad to go along. He is the worst candidate we can nominate. Many are basing it on “polls” now that show him ahead of any Democrat. Well, ask Barack Obama how great it is to rely on polls. Oh, almost forgot. How about “Comprehensive immigration reform?” Get off McCain horse because it will be going off the trail really fast.
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — January 10, 2008 @ 12:40 am - January 10, 2008
I’m still trying to decide if I think the Romney sons are good looking.
Comment by Vince P — January 10, 2008 @ 2:15 am - January 10, 2008
Unless I’m mistaken, and I doubt it, McCain was of the mind that we needed like 200-300,000+ soldiers for the ivasion to be successful. In that case, he was still wrong.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 10, 2008 @ 3:21 am - January 10, 2008
I’m of the opinion that things in Iraq are probably best in the long run having gone exactly in the horrible way that they have.
Please dont think that I’m saying this was a plan all along… Nothing about the White House gives any hint at such genius thinking..
Here’s why I think so…
If we had more troops in the beginning… this would have definately caused problems for our military everywhere else we have comitments.
From what I remember as well, the supply lines were taxed heavily due to the rapid movement of our army and the vanishing of the Iraqi regular army and republican guard.. in other words we were moving way faster than the plan thought we would.
Once we were in control. if we had 100,000s more troops occupying the cities, the insurgancy would have been way worse and way more culturely entrenched.
Now comes where our light footprint and Iraq’s downward spiral laid the foundation for the condition of today….
When Al Qaida and Iran started to set neighbor against neighbor, at first this was ok with the people because there were scores to settle… plus the infidel was there (us), distrusted and hated.
Once Al Qaida got Iraq’s mini civil war sparked. Al Qaeda declared the Islamic State of Iraq in Anbar and started to impose the most violent form of control on the people.
Our failure to secure the place, gave all those who opposed us what they wanted.. a chance to live under their own violence.
As Iraq slid into darkness at the end of 2006, the Surge idea and CI plan was decided upon, at the same momeent that the Iraqi people decided that the violence imposed on Iraq by various forms of Islam Inc was unacceptable.
And so just as AMerican troops were increased in number, they were also put out in the street more than before as well.. gaining the trust of desperate Iraqis who wanted to reclaim their security and country.
So by our mistakes, the Iraqis got a taste of things done their way and decided it was a bad idea and maybe AMerica is not the bad guy after all.
I dont know any other path that would have gotten here.
The major test in the future is.. will Iran destroy everyhting that has been achived…I think they will try.
Comment by Vince P — January 10, 2008 @ 4:04 am - January 10, 2008
oh and I think the reason why Iran seems to be all into non-violence in Iraq now, is to get us out of there ASAP. They probably figure we’ll leave faster if the place seems quiet then under fire.
Comment by Vince P — January 10, 2008 @ 4:08 am - January 10, 2008
Did anyone see the picture on Drudge of McCain holding up a “Stop Global Warming!” placard at his rally? Oi!
#9, I can think of a whole slew of reasons to vote against McCain, his age, however, is the most asinine reason I can imagine. Shame on you.
Let us not forget that before McCain finally got the “enforcement first” message on immigration, he got reaaaaaaal pissy. This is a man who resents being told what to do by uppity commoners.
And
#4. McCain would trick Democrats into voting for originalist judges and justices? I think that is a severe case of wishful thinking. I have zero confidence he would nominate conservatives to the courts. I seem to recall the words “consensus nominee” passing his lips on more than one occasion.
Comment by American Elephant — January 10, 2008 @ 7:44 am - January 10, 2008
lol!
Comment by American Elephant — January 10, 2008 @ 7:46 am - January 10, 2008
Okay, for those of you who don’t like McCain, I have yet to hear as good a case, or better, FOR someone else. Even if I grant that he’s all bad, remember that elections are competitive — we choose someone who’s the best relative to everyone else.
Comment by Justin Wong — January 10, 2008 @ 9:53 am - January 10, 2008
Guilani, Romney, Thompson and even freakazoid Ron Paul never threw monkeywrenches to block their own parties like McCain has done. We don’t need mavericks.
Comment by Vince P — January 10, 2008 @ 12:05 pm - January 10, 2008
Justin, I would phrase it this way; McCain is an arrogant, pompous ass who has a tin ear when it comes to listening to his electorate and arrogantly believes that his way is always the right way.
If we can do better, we will. But I will have no qualms for voting for him if he becomes the nominee; I simply will amp up the volume that he’d better secure the border, that he’d better do something about his asinine campaign-finance law, and that the way he stops global warming is by making efficiency more palatable, not forcing us all onto bicycles.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 10, 2008 @ 1:47 pm - January 10, 2008
Amen No Dall 30! But, I’m sorry. We got Bob Dole once, why get the angrier retread in Sen. “F— You” McCain? There are three others, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson. Also, I am tired of the pickiness of my fellow conservatives. Judging by so many “pundits”, the Great Man, Ronald Reagan, should have thought about getting out. What garbage! I think that Romney is the best of the three I mentioned, but Fred is a great second and though I have problems with Mayor Rudy, at least he is reaching out to conservatives, not pissing us off like Sen. “F— You” McCain. Now that he has jumped on the globaloney warming bandwagon, he is really off the reservation. No actual proof but by a ranting former veep, Al Gore, and a few scientists and we should end the capitalist economic system as we know it? MCCAIN MUST BE STOPPED! Keep it up Mitt, Fred and Rudy all the way to St. Paul!
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — January 11, 2008 @ 2:07 am - January 11, 2008
Houndentenor, McCain has been a real stalwart on the Iraq war and on fiscal responsibility. But he objectively sucks ass on so many other issues: the destruction of free speech (did you know that McCain-Feingold shuts down citizen ads against Congressional incumbents, for 60 days before the election?)… Global Warmism… Immigration shamnesty… and more.
I believe McCain is an authoritarian at heart.
Disagree. What changed Iraq in 2006 (against us) was Iran and al Qaeda making a choice to step up their efforts… because of the weakness and division they saw on the American home front. And what changed Iraq in 2007 (in our favor) was changes to ROE and ground tactics, plus the perception that we’re not going to run after all. Military experts say, changes in raw troops levels have had little to do with it either way.
Agree. Terrible.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2008 @ 11:30 am - January 11, 2008
#15-#16 Vince P, good accounting.
#19 Justin Wong: Thompson-Giuliani would be my dream ticket, at least in terms of policies and inner strength of principle. I won’t present a lengthy case why; thread is about McCain.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2008 @ 11:37 am - January 11, 2008
I find this first amendement attack annoying. If money equals speech then why isn’t bribery legal? Giving someone money is not the same as telling someone what you think and everyone knows that except the Supreme Court.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 11, 2008 @ 1:08 pm - January 11, 2008
Houndentenor, I’m unable to relate your comment to anything I said.
I guess that leaves me with just reiterating my view, that it shouldn’t be illegal for citizens to get together and run ads about Congressional candidates – at any time. (60 days before an election, or whenever.)
Also Houndentenor, just for the record: Bribery IS legal in America…. when it’s called “campaign contributions”. And I see nothing wrong with such contributions. What’s wrong is that we have a government so powerful and interfering, that citizens feel compelled to pay such bribes – in self-defense. And then McCain-Feingold comes along and says, (1) you can’t exercise speech outside of such bribes / campaign contributions, and (2) you can only pay your contributions to established parties and incumbents. That’s shockingly un-American and, dare I say, unconstitutional.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2008 @ 2:01 pm - January 11, 2008
While Sen. “F— You” McCain has been strong on the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, especially in regard to Iraq, he muffs all of that on two counts.
1) Wanting to close Guantanamo and bring all the terror suspects right here on American soil and in the Heartland no less in Ft. Leavenworth. And, that would give them all the rights you and I have. And just imagine these bastards clogging the civilian courts. Sen. “F— You” McCain tries to make us believe that we are fighting these thugs as if they are a nation with some semblance of laws. These people have no rights and should not. Another reason to stop Sen. “F— You” McCain.
2) His stand on “torture”. I am with Mayor Rudy and everyone else. You do what you have to do if there is any possibility of another terrorist act that can be stopped. Khalid Sheik Mohammad was waterboarded and it got results. I know, Sen. “F— You” McCain was a POW and tortured, but it is not the same. He was not a terrorist. He was a soldier for the United States. Sheik-Mohammad is not on behalf of a nation but an idea, a global, fanatical Islamic caliphate. And do not think that they would not take Sen. “F— You” McCain out first thing.
It is a tradegy that a war hero would not get what kind of war we are in. It is a war like no other. And that is why we need a leader who understands. It is not Sen. “F— You” McCain.
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — January 12, 2008 @ 2:18 am - January 12, 2008
Exactly. Anti-Americans of various stripes have said to me before, “Well then, how would you like it if you were waterboarded?” My answer: Well then, how would you like it if I were a terrorist? genuinely looking to murder you and your family? – But I’m not, am I?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2008 @ 2:41 am - January 12, 2008
McCain is certainly not without fault, campaign finance “reform” being one of his foibles. I actually agree on policy with most commenters on this board. We just have to realize that we can’t dwell on one or two issues. Every candidate has a couple of weaknesses; we have to pick the candidate with the shortcomings we can live with. We also have to pick one who is electable. I’ve talked about Romney the flip-flopper and Huckabee who wants to be pastor-in-echief — someone brought up Thompson-Giuliani. I agree with Fred Thompson on policy — his problem is his experience. He served one term in the Senate, and then went into acting — not a very impressive resume. While I appreciate his conservative record, there just isn’t enough of it for me to be confident about the kind of president he’ll be. (If he does become the nominee, though, I have no qualms about voting for him.) Giuliani isn’t where I need him to be on life issues (but still, if he is the nominee, I’d vote for him).
I’ve yet to address is what one poster called McCain’s “pompous” attitude. Just remember that’s what Democrats criticize President Bush for. If McCain’s brusqueness is what helped him blast out of the water a deal which would have wasted $6 billion in taxpayer money, or stubbornly refuse to accept earmarks for his state, or get Democrats to confirm Justices Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court, then by golly, I want McCain to be even more of a wiseass, unyielding and resolute. Besides, I’m not going to begrudge him a little grumpiness — he’s had some pretty rough experiences in his life. Look past McCain’s cockiness and see what he can bring to the presidency — a veto pen which actually works, good military insight and a very sensible position on social issues. He is pro-life, voted for the partial birth abortion ban, wants Roe v. Wade overturned, and brokered the deal in the Senate which confirmed two great conservative justices to the bench. On the subject of same-sex marriage, he believes it’s an issue best left to the states, and for this stated belief he is on record as having voted against the FMA — I know this conservative finds that position very appealing. John McCain deserves our support.
On the issue of harsh interrogation techniques, McCain may not be as robust as some of us may like. But realize that if we had implemented his surge strategy from the very start, we wouldn’t be in a position where we need to use those interrogation methods.
And it matters little whether or not Gitmo closes. If the liberals manage to get it shut down, just shrug your shoulders and realize that there are alternatives, but ones we should not be discussing openly during a time of war. (In fact, I consider our interrogation policy a matter of military strategy that we shouldn’t be discussing in wartime, whether or not we support it.)
Comment by Justin Wong — January 12, 2008 @ 9:24 am - January 12, 2008