McCain?

There's been some right-blogospheric chatter in recent weeks about giving John McCain a second look, and after watching his latest ad, Andrew Sullivan wonders whether McCain is "going to become the Kerry of this election cycle: dismissed as old hat for months and then newly relevant in the weeks before the primaries." Maybe. Here's the ad:

My two-year-old dinner bet notwithstanding, I'd like to see McCain make a comeback. Whether I want him to be president, I'm not sure, but at least he's a grown-up, and at least he has actual beliefs and principles, unlike some candidates I could mention (cough cough, Mitt Romney).

P.S. Glenn Reynolds is less impressed, paraphrasing McCain's ad as saying, "Don't hate me because I'm smarter than you."

Comments

[jlr]

This is one hell of an ad. It's a brilliant idea--whoever thought it up deserves a medal or something. And it might actually change a few people's minds and get them to vote for McCain in the primary.

That doesn't make things any better, though. As I've said before, McCain has moved away from the moderate he was in 2000 to become a suck-up to the far right wing of the Republican Party.

More significant than what is said in the ad is what is not said. McCain mentions some pretty big topics ("The Bridge to Nowhere," the McCain-Feingold Act, etc.), but like so many political commercials it lacks something extremely important: substance.

McCain isn't alone in putting out meaningless drivel and calling it a campaign ad. This ad just happens to be a stroke of genius.

Oh, and I love how he calls the city "Warshington."

[wolfwalker]

Abscam, undercutting the president, campaign finance "reform," and immigration shamnesty. That's not just three strikes, it's four. McCain is a liar and a crook who believes only in himself. He'll never get any vote from me, no matter how many visually-impressive ads his Hollywood experts put together.

[Angrier and Angrier]

McCain is everyone's second choice. I think there is a pretty good chance he could get the nomination if Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani split the first few primaries.

[Brian Foster]

Granted, it was you, Brendan, who supplied McCain's name, but this tracks pretty closely with the theory I espoused here:

http://blog.brendanloy.com/2007/11/president-hucka.html#comment-89923392

I'm still not totally convinced it will be McCain, but I am becoming increasingly sure that the nominee will not be Romney.

[JO]

There's a reason why McCain is pretty much at the end of the list of GOP candidates. Most noteably his RINO status.

[Jay Johnson]

That dude has always creeped me out in a big way. I don't think McCain is the second choice of any group of Republicans that I know.

I'm creeped out by the Manchurian Candidatey look in his eyes.

As for the ad, it strikes me as pretty ho-hum. I fail to see how it would really spark anything in the hearts and minds of the undecided primary voter.

[Dave]

"McCain is a liar and a crook who believes only in himself"?

"[C]reeped out by the Manchurian Candidatey look in his eyes"?

You've got to be kidding me. Comments like these nauseate me, and make me begin to regret that each of these fools has the same number of votes that I do.

You might not agree with everything McCain says, everything he supports, or everything he believes in. But you must understand and respect that he believes in his country, and in his ability to lead. You must respect the ordeal that he endured for 5-plus years as a POW. You must respect that he has suffered and bled for this country, which is more than any other candidate - from either party - can say.

Voters who want to cast an intelligent, well-considered vote are indeed taking a second look at McCain, and they are liking what they find. McCain enjoys higher national favorability ratings than any other Republican candidate, and according to three recent surveys, McCain is the only Republican who will win a general election against Hillary Clinton.

There are people in this world who will tell you that honor is a punchline; that courage is too abstract to quantify; and that commitment is relative. These are the same people who will tell you that American power is in decline and that we need a manager rather than a leader in the White House. John McCain puts the lie to all of this: he embodies honor, courage, and commitment, and he will again make leadership a staple of the Presidency.

Not convinced? Do me a favor. Say the names of each candidate, with the title "President" in front of it. President Hillary Clinton. President Romney. President Giuliani. President McCain. Only one of these names really seems to fit, and that's why McCain will be getting my vote.

[jlr]

Well, Dave, I'll grant you one thing: I can't keep a straight face when I say "President Huckabee." Other than that, I'd still say the field is a little wider open than you predict, Dave.

[Brian Foster]

"according to three recent surveys, McCain is the only Republican who will win a general election against Hillary Clinton."

Dave (and, I suppose, anyone else who's reading this) is *really* lucky I am way behind at work.

[Angrier and Angrier]

"There's a reason why McCain is pretty much at the end of the list of GOP candidates. Most noteably his RINO status."

As opposed to Mitt "I was for abortion before I was against it" Romney and Rudy "Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Pro-Screwing a whore in the Mayor's Mansion in front of the media while my wife and children still live there" Giuliani?

[David K.]

Dave, while i respect the sacrificies of those who serve in our military, to me its only one part of the equation on whether a candidate is a good choice or not. If you are basing your decision soley on the fact that he bled for our country than I suppose you voted for Kerry over Bush in 2004?

Just because someone served does NOT make them a better choice, anymore than having not served makes them a bad choice.

[Andrew]

Brendan, I don't understand why you think Mitt Romney is a sleazeball. He shares nothing with John Kerry but his height and stiffness (and despite his stiffness, he comes off as more likeable and gregarious than Kerry ever did). Unlike Kerry, Romney has actually shown good executive leadership. He's waffled/flip-flopped on abortion, but then again, so have 90% of the other candidates out there at one time or another.

[wolfwalker]

But you must understand and respect that he believes in his country, and in his ability to lead. You must respect the ordeal that he endured for 5-plus years as a POW. You must respect that he has suffered and bled for this country, which is more than any other candidate - from either party - can say.

And I do. Forty years ago he was a war hero. No one can deny him that. I certainly won't.

Unfortunately, twenty years ago he became a crook, in the Keating Five scandal. Six years ago, he became an oathbreaker when he wrote and supported the BCFRA. That law is plainly unconstitutional, and his support of it violated his oath as a Senator to protect and uphold the Constitution. And last year he repeated that offense when he supported shamnesty.

I honor what he was. I have only contempt for what he is today.

[Angrier and Angrier]

I enjoy how people like Andrew are outraged when Hillary says or does anything she can to get elected, but when a Republican like Romney does it, that's okay.

I am a Dem and I don't like Hillary because she says and does whatever she can to get elected. I don't like Edwards because I think he is an empty suit. I've even said I would consider supporting McCain if he gets the nomination, especially if Hillary is nominated, because - despite some past errors in judgement - he seems to be pretty honest and interested in doing what is best for the COUNTRY, and not necessarily for himself or his party.

It would be nice if some of our Republican counterparts would be a little more honest and consistent in their beliefs. If they were, Americans might actually believe what Republicans have to say.

Because Angrier and Angrier is "honest and consistent" in his beliefs. Republicans would be lucky not to have a counterpart as "honest and consistent" as Angrier and Angrier.

[Angrier and Angrier]

While no one is perfect, I endeavor to be honest and consistent.

[Joe Mama]

I make a distinction between waffling on an issue like abortion as opposed to an issue like the war in Iraq. Sure, Romney has been incredibly opportunistic in his stances on abortion. But abortion in general is a tough moral issue, at least for me, and I've waffled myself on it over the years given the arguments on both sides . . . and I'm not running for anything.

The war in Iraq, however, is not the same kind of issue at all (again, at least for me). The waffling on Iraq has had very little to do with genuine reflection IMO and everything to do with polls, the war's popularity, and a good deal of BDS to boot. Hence, you have Democrats like Bill Clinton (and he's certainly not the only one) going around peddling the nonsense that he was against the war in Iraq "from the beginning" when the facts clearly show otherwise. Similarly, as I've pointed out many times, the case for war in Iraq can be made using only the statements of those who are now its biggest critics (Obama being one exception). When today these people say "had I known then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for the war," they are being truthful in that had they known how unpopular the war would become, they would not have supported it initially. Likewise, the critics now in vogue who clear their throat with the obligatory "had I known how badly Bush would mismanage this war, I never would have supported it" tend to be woefully ignorant of military history, in the context of which the mistakes that have been made in Iraq have cost comparatively few casualties (the cost in monetary terms also needs to be understood in the context of the federal govt's overall spending habits, which is an altogether different subject).

Put simply, I'm generally much more sympathetic to waffling on abortion then I am on issues of war and peace (although I hasten to add that I don't believe Romney would have had such a change of heart on abortion had he not been running for president).

Clinton pretending he was against the Iraq war from the beginning is not a waffle, it's a lie.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Don't know if anyone else watched the Republican Debate tonight, but Romney went down in flames. He couldn't give a straight answer on ANYTHING. Gays in the military (I'd have to see what the Generals say)and if water boarding is torture (I don't think presidential candidates should discuss that).

Probably the best hit of the night was when Romney went after Giuliani on immigration, calling New York a sanctuary city. Giuliani hit back, saying that Romney had a "sanctuary mansion" because...Romney employs illegals at his home.

WHAMMO! Romney's eyes got so f-ing big I thought his head was going to explode.

[Andrew]

I don't know, Mad Max, Mitt Romney said some good things tonight:

"I was wrong, I was effectively pro-choice," said Romney, who has said he changed his stance in 2004 during debates on stem cell research. "On abortion, I was wrong. If people are looking for somebody in this country who has never made a mistake ... then they ought to find somebody else," he said.

For a flip-flop, you can't deal with the issue much better than that. Romney didn't lie, he didn't pretend he's always been pro-life. He acknowledged his former position ("I was effectively pro-choice"), explained a logical, believable provocation for changing his mind (the stem-cell debate), took responsibility ("I was wrong"), and made an argument about why this mistake should not be an impediment to him reaching the White House ("If people are looking for somebody in this country who has never made a mistake ... then they ought to find somebody else").

"Like most Americans, we love our sports teams and hate the Yankees."

That alone right there should improve his chances of winning some of the New England states (New York is a lost cause to Republicans). Heck, that remark should have made him Brendan's new favorite!

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Andrew-

Well, when the audience started booing Romney because he couldn't give a straight answer on gays in the military, I don't think the bodes very well for him. As for the "sanctuary mansion" remark, a quicker candidate would have said to Giuliani, "Now, we don't want to get into what goes on at government mansions, do we?"

I think credit should be given where credit is due. Mike Huckabee was very impressive. I'm not a conservative and I wouldn't vote for him, but he was extremely presidential - almost Reagan-esque - in his answers. In addition, McCain came off as strong, thoughtful and capable. I think a McCain-Huckabee ticket would be formidable.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Considering that the debate was packed with Hillary and Edwards supporters, I think CNN should be brow-beaten for doing such a shitty job of vetting these things. If bloggers can Google somebody's name and notify CNN within a few minutes of someone asking a question, surely an outfit with the resources...and frankly the responsibility...of CNN should do its damn job. A shameful lack of due diligence. People should be fired over this (keep in mind I am NOT a Republican. I'm just tired of the media being so damn lazy).