Choice is clear: McCain's the one
By Boston Herald editorial staff
There are times in this nation’s history so perilous that they cry out for a steady, experienced leader, a person so trusted that we would put the fate of this country in his hands.
This is one of those times, and Sen. John McCain is that person.
He has a brand of courage that is rare in the public arena these days - a courage forged in part by those years spent as a prisoner of war in Vietnam and in part by more than two decades of fighting for what he believes in on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
In an age when too many candidates are driven by polls and focus groups, fashioning and re-fashioning their “core” beliefs, McCain is a man of unwavering conviction and integrity. His values, his beliefs, his goals are what they were when he first entered public life, what they were in 2000 and what they will be a decade from now.
And those goals include a safe and secure America, a country that is respected around the world for honoring its commitments, for encouraging and respecting the rule of law whether in Baghdad or Guantanamo Bay.
During a meeting with Herald editors and reporters Wednesday McCain was accompanied by James Woolsey, a man who has served in two Republican and two Democratic administrations, including a stint as CIA director under President Clinton. If Woolsey’s presence was designed to send a message - well, message received, at a number of levels. Yes, McCain is well regarded by those who share his commitment to national security. And, yes again, there are those who operate above the partisan fray.
The two men were passionately critical of the latest National Intelligence Estimates that downplayed the danger of a nuclear Iran.
“It’s not up to the intelligence community to make policy,” McCain said, adding that their conclusions about Iran’s future nuclear capability is “not substaniated by the facts on the ground.”
The war in Iraq has, of course, loomed large both in the national consciousness and as a campaign issue. McCain knew that the administration’s early military strategy was not enough to get the job done. And he was among the first to sign on to this year’s troop surge as devised by Gen. David Petraeus.
“John Edwards used to call it ‘the McCain surge.’ He doesn’t anymore,” McCain said. “Al-Qaeda isn’t defeated in Iraq, but it’s on the run.”
But John McCain’s expertise doesn’t begin and end with national security. He is now a firm believer in the power of tax cuts as a driver of the economy. He saw the Bush tax cuts work and vows to make them permanent. He also supports an end to the alternative minimum tax, which has managed to snare far too many middle class families in its unindexed grip. This week the Congress moved to increase the exemption for the middle class, but that’s merely a one-year fix.
McCain’s name, of course, is also synonymous with immigration reform - the kind of real reform that will both safeguard our borders and provide a path to citizenship - not amnesty - for the 12 million illegal aliens who now live among us. The senator freely acknowledges that his support for immigration reform threatened to jettison his presidential candidacy.
“What we miscalculated was the total mistrust in government,” McCain told the Herald. “They didn’t believe we could secure the borders.” But this isn’t 1986. The technology has changed. But more than that, it takes commitment. A McCain administration would have that commitment.
On immigration reform, on tax reform, on campaign reform McCain has proven time and time again that he has the ability to reach across that increasingly wide partisan divide and make things happen.
This week Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who was himself on the Democratic presidential ticket in 2000, took the unprecedented step of endorsing McCain in the upcoming Republican primaries. He did so with these words:
“In this critical election, no one should let party lines be a barrier to choosing the person we believe is best qualified to lead our nation forward. The problems that confront us are too great, the threats we face too real, and the opportunities we have too exciting for us to play partisan politics with the presidency.”
The Boston Herald agrees. And so this newspaper too will break with its decades-old tradition of endorsing candidates in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. In doing so we also address our words particularly to those millions of independent voters here, in New Hampshire and around the nation who can choose to cast their ballot in either party primary.
The choice this year is indeed clear. John McCain should be the next president of the United States and the Boston Herald is proud to endorse his candidacy.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1056010&format=text
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Union Leader - Romney Shouldn't Lie
From the Union Leader
Romney's migration: He shouldn't need to lie
REPUBLICANS, please identify which of your presidential candidates said the following:
"We're not going to round up 12 million people and send them out of the country."
John McCain? No, Mitt Romney, saying in May that he would deport some but not all illegals -- which is also John McCain's position.
Please identify which of your presidential candidates said this:
"They require people signing up for, registering and receiving, if you will, a number, a registration number, then working here for six years and paying taxes, not taking benefits -- health, Medicaid, food stamps -- and so on, not taking benefits, and then at the end of that period, registering to become a citizen or applying to become a citizen and paying a fee. And those are things that are being considered. I think those are reasonable proposals."
John McCain? No, Mitt Romney -- supporting John McCain's position on immigration in 2005.
Earlier this month Romney sent a flyer to New Hampshire households stating that McCain would grant Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. That is a lie. Both McCain and Romney would grant benefits to immigrants only after they receive citizenship.
If Republicans are voting for Mitt Romney because they think he would be tougher on illegal immigration than John McCain would be, they need to explain how Romney suddenly switched from supporting McCain's position just two years ago to attacking it (with distortions) this year.
And don't get us started on Rudy Giuliani, who has said time and again that as mayor of New York he only supported deporting illegals who were criminals. Mr. Mayor, they're all criminals. That's where the word "illegal" comes from.
The fact is, neither Romney nor Giuliani nor McCain has a pure conservative record on immigration. The difference is, Republicans know for sure that McCain isn't hiding his true position. The same cannot be said of Romney and Giuliani.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Romney%27s+migration%3a+He+shouldn%27t+need+to+lie&articleId=916a6347-2df9-4199-9050-1e684d0a0f7e
Romney's migration: He shouldn't need to lie
REPUBLICANS, please identify which of your presidential candidates said the following:
"We're not going to round up 12 million people and send them out of the country."
John McCain? No, Mitt Romney, saying in May that he would deport some but not all illegals -- which is also John McCain's position.
Please identify which of your presidential candidates said this:
"They require people signing up for, registering and receiving, if you will, a number, a registration number, then working here for six years and paying taxes, not taking benefits -- health, Medicaid, food stamps -- and so on, not taking benefits, and then at the end of that period, registering to become a citizen or applying to become a citizen and paying a fee. And those are things that are being considered. I think those are reasonable proposals."
John McCain? No, Mitt Romney -- supporting John McCain's position on immigration in 2005.
Earlier this month Romney sent a flyer to New Hampshire households stating that McCain would grant Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. That is a lie. Both McCain and Romney would grant benefits to immigrants only after they receive citizenship.
If Republicans are voting for Mitt Romney because they think he would be tougher on illegal immigration than John McCain would be, they need to explain how Romney suddenly switched from supporting McCain's position just two years ago to attacking it (with distortions) this year.
And don't get us started on Rudy Giuliani, who has said time and again that as mayor of New York he only supported deporting illegals who were criminals. Mr. Mayor, they're all criminals. That's where the word "illegal" comes from.
The fact is, neither Romney nor Giuliani nor McCain has a pure conservative record on immigration. The difference is, Republicans know for sure that McCain isn't hiding his true position. The same cannot be said of Romney and Giuliani.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Romney%27s+migration%3a+He+shouldn%27t+need+to+lie&articleId=916a6347-2df9-4199-9050-1e684d0a0f7e
Friday, December 14, 2007
MA Governor Endorses McCain
Former Governet Jane Swift Endorses John McCain - http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/12/14/mccain_is_no_ordinary_hero/
McCain is No Ordinary Hero
THERE IS only one presidential candidate with the courage, character, and conviction to lead this country: John McCain.
I can't say I recall Oct. 26, 1967. I was 2 when John McCain was shot down and captured by the North Vietnamese. But I've seen the chilling footage. I've heard his band of brothers attest to his bravery. I've listened to him humbly describe the acts of humanity he witnessed during his years in prison. Most impressive, I've watched him build a life of service to his country, without bitterness or recrimination.
McCain is no ordinary hero, and these are no ordinary times.
America's ability to maintain a thriving economy and a strong defense hinges on electing a president willing to make the tough calls. McCain's career has been defined by independent leadership. His relentless attacks on pork-barrel spending haven't won him popularity contests in the Senate cloakroom, but he can sleep at night knowing that he made the right choices for America.
True to his conservative values, McCain understands that fiscal restraint requires setting priorities and sticking to them. We have urgent national challenges - wars on multiple fronts, skyrocketing debt, unfunded entitlements - and yet, Congress still finds the time and the dollars for pet projects that deflect resources from our true national interests. McCain is the only candidate with the experience and conviction to level with Americans and force Congress to do the right thing.
He's also the only Republican who can win. American voters evaluate candidates with two criteria: first, on their issue positions. Does she or he believe what I believe? Education policy is my top concern. As one of McCain's advisers on the issue, I've discussed the challenges of providing an excellent education to every child. He is willing to do what it takes to get us there.
At the same time, it's rare for a voter and a candidate to agree on absolutely everything. Case in point: McCain and I disagree on the issue of abortion, but we maintain a mutual respect. Millions of Americans feel the same way.
That's why the second criterion is more of a gut check. Americans are aspirational people. We seek leadership. We crave integrity. Today's voter is in search of a president who can elevate politics above self interest and petty partisanship.
McCain's approach to the troop surge in Iraq is a perfect example. Critics assailed the plan as Quixotic at best and ill conceived at worst, but McCain believed it would work. His standing in the polls plummeted. He refused to change his position. "I'd rather lose an election than a war," he said - spoken like someone who has been on the battlefield. That's leadership. That's presidential.
The defining moment of my time as governor was Sept. 11, 2001. I recall with clarity and horror the experience of that day. My understanding of what it means to lead changed forever, and I have a much deeper awareness of the challenges associated with keeping an open society safe. It takes more than excellent management skills and inspirational rhetoric. Certainly, a president needs to muster both.
It takes the ability to see the larger picture. Combating terrorism depends on a strong military and excellent intelligence. No candidate has better judgment when it comes to how and when to deploy force than John McCain. It depends on strong allies. No candidate has more experience on the international stage, and no candidate is more respected by our friends and feared by our foes. And it depends on a keen understanding of the geopolitical forces that limit our ability to operate in our best interests - from poor border security to environmental meltdown to dependence on foreign oil. No candidate knows these issues better than McCain.
This election offers the rare opportunity to choose the right man for the right moment. Let's take it and be proud we did.
Jane Swift served as acting governor of Massachusetts from 2001 to 2003.
McCain is No Ordinary Hero
THERE IS only one presidential candidate with the courage, character, and conviction to lead this country: John McCain.
I can't say I recall Oct. 26, 1967. I was 2 when John McCain was shot down and captured by the North Vietnamese. But I've seen the chilling footage. I've heard his band of brothers attest to his bravery. I've listened to him humbly describe the acts of humanity he witnessed during his years in prison. Most impressive, I've watched him build a life of service to his country, without bitterness or recrimination.
McCain is no ordinary hero, and these are no ordinary times.
America's ability to maintain a thriving economy and a strong defense hinges on electing a president willing to make the tough calls. McCain's career has been defined by independent leadership. His relentless attacks on pork-barrel spending haven't won him popularity contests in the Senate cloakroom, but he can sleep at night knowing that he made the right choices for America.
True to his conservative values, McCain understands that fiscal restraint requires setting priorities and sticking to them. We have urgent national challenges - wars on multiple fronts, skyrocketing debt, unfunded entitlements - and yet, Congress still finds the time and the dollars for pet projects that deflect resources from our true national interests. McCain is the only candidate with the experience and conviction to level with Americans and force Congress to do the right thing.
He's also the only Republican who can win. American voters evaluate candidates with two criteria: first, on their issue positions. Does she or he believe what I believe? Education policy is my top concern. As one of McCain's advisers on the issue, I've discussed the challenges of providing an excellent education to every child. He is willing to do what it takes to get us there.
At the same time, it's rare for a voter and a candidate to agree on absolutely everything. Case in point: McCain and I disagree on the issue of abortion, but we maintain a mutual respect. Millions of Americans feel the same way.
That's why the second criterion is more of a gut check. Americans are aspirational people. We seek leadership. We crave integrity. Today's voter is in search of a president who can elevate politics above self interest and petty partisanship.
McCain's approach to the troop surge in Iraq is a perfect example. Critics assailed the plan as Quixotic at best and ill conceived at worst, but McCain believed it would work. His standing in the polls plummeted. He refused to change his position. "I'd rather lose an election than a war," he said - spoken like someone who has been on the battlefield. That's leadership. That's presidential.
The defining moment of my time as governor was Sept. 11, 2001. I recall with clarity and horror the experience of that day. My understanding of what it means to lead changed forever, and I have a much deeper awareness of the challenges associated with keeping an open society safe. It takes more than excellent management skills and inspirational rhetoric. Certainly, a president needs to muster both.
It takes the ability to see the larger picture. Combating terrorism depends on a strong military and excellent intelligence. No candidate has better judgment when it comes to how and when to deploy force than John McCain. It depends on strong allies. No candidate has more experience on the international stage, and no candidate is more respected by our friends and feared by our foes. And it depends on a keen understanding of the geopolitical forces that limit our ability to operate in our best interests - from poor border security to environmental meltdown to dependence on foreign oil. No candidate knows these issues better than McCain.
This election offers the rare opportunity to choose the right man for the right moment. Let's take it and be proud we did.
Jane Swift served as acting governor of Massachusetts from 2001 to 2003.
Monday, December 10, 2007
General Election Match Ups
General election polling data from Red State shows that Senator McCain is the best positioned Republican to win the general election. The follows a series of polls from Fox News and others that show Senator McCain as the most likely candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Romney Immigration Problem
If you watched last week’s YouTube CNN debate, you might remember the first few opening salvos were between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. It turns out that both are terrible on illegal immigration, but Romney might be worse. Read more about this Romney flip flop in the Boston Globe (need I remind you, Romney’s “hometown newspaper.”)
From: http://blogs4mccain.com/2007/12/05/romneys-sanctuary-mansion-problem-grows/
From: http://blogs4mccain.com/2007/12/05/romneys-sanctuary-mansion-problem-grows/
Sunday, December 2, 2007
McCain Picks up Key NH Endorsement
Union Leader Supports John McCain
Yesterday the Union Leader threw its consierable weight behind John McCain with its endorsement. They noted that while they don't agree on all fronts that, "What is most compelling about McCain, however, is that his record, his character, and his courage show him to be the most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination." Kudos to the Union Leader for recognizing the candidate that is best qualified to be commander-in-chief.
John McCain is the man to lead America
From the Union Leader
On Jan. 8, New Hampshire Republicans will make one of the most important choices for their party and nation in the history of our presidential primary. Their choice ought to be John McCain.
We don't agree with him on every issue. We disagree with him strongly on campaign finance reform. What is most compelling about McCain, however, is that his record, his character, and his courage show him to be the most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination. Simply put, McCain can be trusted to make informed decisions based on the best interests of his country, come hell or high water. Competence, courage, and conviction are enormously important for our next President to possess. No one has a better understanding of U.S. interests and dangers right now than does McCain. He was right on the mistakes made by the Bush administration in prosecuting the Islamic terrorist war in Iraq and he is being proved right on the way forward both there and worldwide.
McCain is pro-life. Always has been. He fights against special-interest and pork-barrel spending, and high spending in general, which ticks off liberals and many in the GOP who have wallowed at the public trough. Yet he also has the proven ability, unique among the contenders, to work across the political divide that has led our government into petty bickering when important problems need to be solved.
We have known John McCain for many years. We will write more about him in the days ahead. For now, we leave you with this to ponder:
When McCain was shot down and taken prisoner by the North Vietnamese, he was repeatedly beaten. When his captors discovered that his father was a top U.S. admiral, they ordered him released for propaganda purposes. But McCain refused, insisting that longer-held prisoners be released before him. So they beat him some more. He never gave in then, and he won't give in to our enemies now.
John McCain is the man to lead America.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Curt Shilling Appearance Manchester, NH December 5th
Curt Schilling is coming to Manchester next Wednesday night to campaign with Senator McCain! Get your sports and politics questions fielded by a World Champion pitcher and Presidential candidate.
Wednesday, December 5th – 5:30pm
The Derryfield School Auditorium
2108 River Rd. – Manchester, NH
--------------------
Source: http://nh4mccain.blogspot.com/2007/11/curt-shilling-john-mccain-rally.html
Wednesday, December 5th – 5:30pm
The Derryfield School Auditorium
2108 River Rd. – Manchester, NH
--------------------
Source: http://nh4mccain.blogspot.com/2007/11/curt-shilling-john-mccain-rally.html
Thursday, November 29, 2007
McCain Debate Performance
From: http://politicomafioso.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-theyre-saying-about-mccain-at.html
"The bottom line is that I think McCain got his
message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in
history. In short, he was 'Presidential.'" -- Townhall's Matt
Lewis
Watch John McCain Tonight: "Let Us Win!"
John McCain Declared Debate Winner, "Most Presidential," "Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Fight On!"
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The bottom line is that I think McCain got his message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in history. In short, he was Presidential.'" (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
· Lewis: "I'm reading David McCullough's excellent book on Truman, so a lot of what McCain said rang true tonight. McCain's comment to Ron Paul about WWII and the danger of isolationism rang particularly true. In addition, his comment about the importance of America taking the high-road when it comes to torture also reminded me of the book." (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
CNN's David Gergen: "I think that the most presidential tonight were John McCain, who's found his voice again ... especially I thought on the issues of Iraq and on torture ..." (CNN Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)
Redstate's Erick Erickson: "McCain won on scalps. He got Mitt Romney and he got Ron Paul. McCain was the adult in the room all night. He was stable, composed, and mature." (Erick Erickson, Redstate Blog, 11/28/07)
· Erickson: "McCain kicks ass on taking out Ron Paul. Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Fight on!" (Erick Erickson, Redstate Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "Is it just me, or is McCain dominating the debate tonight?" (Jim Geraghty, National Review's Campaign Spot Blog, 11/28/07)
CNN's Jamal Simmons: "I thought that John McCain clearly won this thing." (CNN Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)
The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "McCain is really starting to look strong now that the conversation has moved onto national security. Beyond his answer to torture, his response about what really happened in Vietnam (contrary to what those blame-America-first types would have you believe) was red meat to every conservative in the crowd and at home who is over the age of 50." (Jonathan Martin, The Politico, 11/28/07)
Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "The 'winner' tonight was John McCain with Mike Huckabee in second." (Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundit Blog, 11/28/07)
· Bull Dog Pundit: "McCain continues to impress the hell out of me with his assessment of Iraq and how it fits into the larger war on terrorism. I also wonder if he paid Ron Paul to make his usual stupid comments because McCain brilliantly played off of them to make his larger points on why the war in Iraq is necessary, and why it's necessary we win. His 'let us win' retort to Paul was brilliance, and is the 'sound bite' of the evening. It's hard to deny the man has so much credibility on the issue. He also seems to be the one who is trying to be 'above it all' in terms of playing 'gotcha' with his opponents and focusing on the big picture." (Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundit Blog, 11/28/07)
"God Bless John McCain" For "Stirring" Statement On Iraq War: "Let Us Win"
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "'Let us win,' the troops say. God bless John McCain. Ron Paul should have let it alone. Absurd to say John McCain doesn't understand this war. He's communicated our effort in Iraq better than the White House for a very long time. We owe him a debt." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The American Spectator's Philip Klein: "McCain's stirring on criticism of Ron Paul's opposition to Iraq and foreign policy views in general, delivered in a way that only he could, will play well with the base." (Philip Klein, The American Spectator Blog, 11/28/07)
Granite Grok's Skip Murphy: "McCain does a good job standing up for people like me who realize that we are in the fight of our lives with those that want us dead. McCain understands, better than anyone else, we have to actively fight these folks with everything we have -- and not just militarily. ... [Y]ou can tell that he is the real deal on this subject -- and I will stand with him on this issue to the gates of hell and to the Pearly Gates. He ripped Paul up and down -- good for him." (Skip Murphy, Granite Grok Blog, 11/28/07)
"McCain Shines" Tonight As He "Triumphed" On Experience, Torture And Spending Issues
Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "McCain shines, as always, on spending and the war. He's right, he's quick-witted, and he comes across as dead-sure ..." (Mary Katharine Ham, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "McCain's answer to the question about the Vice President was very good. He was able to seamlessly segue into his real message -- that he has the most foreign policy experience -- and thus, wouldn't need to rely on a VP to the same degree Bush did." (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "McCain said that Bush had to rely on Cheney for expertise on national security issues after 9/11. Says he himself would never need to rely on his veep in this area. Ooooh." (Jim Geraghty, National Review's Campaign Spot Blog, 11/28/07)
MSNBC's Mark Murray: "Did that just become the lead of tonight's debate? It sure looked like McCain triumphed in that exchange. But to fair, it was a question that McCain -- the former POW -- was going to win no matter what." (Mark Murray, MSNBC's First Read Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "You can't help but to respect and admire McCain." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
· Lopez: "The Unspoken Truth ... John McCain doesn't own a gun because he's put in more time protecting and defending freedom on the frontlines than most of us will mercifully ever know." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "McCain came out of the exchange easily the most appealing and mature candidate." (Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic Blog, 11/28/07)
Tampa Tribune: "'We let spending lurch completely out of control,' McCain says. Lays out a joke about spending money to study bear DNA in Montana. 'Not sure if it was paternity issue or a criminal issue.' Best laugh of the night." (Billy Townsend, Tampa Tribune Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jonah Goldberg: "I think his immigration answer was grown-up and serious." (Jonah Goldberg, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The American Spectator's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain oozes credibility and seriousness on controlling spending." (Jennifer Rubin, The American Spectator Blog, 11/28/07)
"The bottom line is that I think McCain got his
message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in
history. In short, he was 'Presidential.'" -- Townhall's Matt
Lewis
Watch John McCain Tonight: "Let Us Win!"
John McCain Declared Debate Winner, "Most Presidential," "Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Fight On!"
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The bottom line is that I think McCain got his message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in history. In short, he was Presidential.'" (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
· Lewis: "I'm reading David McCullough's excellent book on Truman, so a lot of what McCain said rang true tonight. McCain's comment to Ron Paul about WWII and the danger of isolationism rang particularly true. In addition, his comment about the importance of America taking the high-road when it comes to torture also reminded me of the book." (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
CNN's David Gergen: "I think that the most presidential tonight were John McCain, who's found his voice again ... especially I thought on the issues of Iraq and on torture ..." (CNN Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)
Redstate's Erick Erickson: "McCain won on scalps. He got Mitt Romney and he got Ron Paul. McCain was the adult in the room all night. He was stable, composed, and mature." (Erick Erickson, Redstate Blog, 11/28/07)
· Erickson: "McCain kicks ass on taking out Ron Paul. Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Fight on!" (Erick Erickson, Redstate Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "Is it just me, or is McCain dominating the debate tonight?" (Jim Geraghty, National Review's Campaign Spot Blog, 11/28/07)
CNN's Jamal Simmons: "I thought that John McCain clearly won this thing." (CNN Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)
The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "McCain is really starting to look strong now that the conversation has moved onto national security. Beyond his answer to torture, his response about what really happened in Vietnam (contrary to what those blame-America-first types would have you believe) was red meat to every conservative in the crowd and at home who is over the age of 50." (Jonathan Martin, The Politico, 11/28/07)
Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "The 'winner' tonight was John McCain with Mike Huckabee in second." (Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundit Blog, 11/28/07)
· Bull Dog Pundit: "McCain continues to impress the hell out of me with his assessment of Iraq and how it fits into the larger war on terrorism. I also wonder if he paid Ron Paul to make his usual stupid comments because McCain brilliantly played off of them to make his larger points on why the war in Iraq is necessary, and why it's necessary we win. His 'let us win' retort to Paul was brilliance, and is the 'sound bite' of the evening. It's hard to deny the man has so much credibility on the issue. He also seems to be the one who is trying to be 'above it all' in terms of playing 'gotcha' with his opponents and focusing on the big picture." (Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundit Blog, 11/28/07)
"God Bless John McCain" For "Stirring" Statement On Iraq War: "Let Us Win"
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "'Let us win,' the troops say. God bless John McCain. Ron Paul should have let it alone. Absurd to say John McCain doesn't understand this war. He's communicated our effort in Iraq better than the White House for a very long time. We owe him a debt." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The American Spectator's Philip Klein: "McCain's stirring on criticism of Ron Paul's opposition to Iraq and foreign policy views in general, delivered in a way that only he could, will play well with the base." (Philip Klein, The American Spectator Blog, 11/28/07)
Granite Grok's Skip Murphy: "McCain does a good job standing up for people like me who realize that we are in the fight of our lives with those that want us dead. McCain understands, better than anyone else, we have to actively fight these folks with everything we have -- and not just militarily. ... [Y]ou can tell that he is the real deal on this subject -- and I will stand with him on this issue to the gates of hell and to the Pearly Gates. He ripped Paul up and down -- good for him." (Skip Murphy, Granite Grok Blog, 11/28/07)
"McCain Shines" Tonight As He "Triumphed" On Experience, Torture And Spending Issues
Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "McCain shines, as always, on spending and the war. He's right, he's quick-witted, and he comes across as dead-sure ..." (Mary Katharine Ham, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "McCain's answer to the question about the Vice President was very good. He was able to seamlessly segue into his real message -- that he has the most foreign policy experience -- and thus, wouldn't need to rely on a VP to the same degree Bush did." (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "McCain said that Bush had to rely on Cheney for expertise on national security issues after 9/11. Says he himself would never need to rely on his veep in this area. Ooooh." (Jim Geraghty, National Review's Campaign Spot Blog, 11/28/07)
MSNBC's Mark Murray: "Did that just become the lead of tonight's debate? It sure looked like McCain triumphed in that exchange. But to fair, it was a question that McCain -- the former POW -- was going to win no matter what." (Mark Murray, MSNBC's First Read Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "You can't help but to respect and admire McCain." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
· Lopez: "The Unspoken Truth ... John McCain doesn't own a gun because he's put in more time protecting and defending freedom on the frontlines than most of us will mercifully ever know." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "McCain came out of the exchange easily the most appealing and mature candidate." (Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic Blog, 11/28/07)
Tampa Tribune: "'We let spending lurch completely out of control,' McCain says. Lays out a joke about spending money to study bear DNA in Montana. 'Not sure if it was paternity issue or a criminal issue.' Best laugh of the night." (Billy Townsend, Tampa Tribune Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jonah Goldberg: "I think his immigration answer was grown-up and serious." (Jonah Goldberg, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The American Spectator's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain oozes credibility and seriousness on controlling spending." (Jennifer Rubin, The American Spectator Blog, 11/28/07)
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
McCain's Debate Performance
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN AT THE FLORIDA GOP DEBATE
http://blog.4president.us/2008/john_mccain/index.html
"The bottom line is that I think McCain got his message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in history. In short, he was 'Presidential.'" -- Townhall's Matt Lewis
Watch John McCain Tonight: "Let Us Win!"
John McCain Declared Debate Winner, "Most Presidential," "Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Fight On!" Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The bottom line is that I think McCain got his message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in history. In short, he was Presidential.'" (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
Lewis: "I'm reading David McCullough's excellent book on Truman, so a lot of what McCain said rang true tonight. McCain's comment to Ron Paul about WWII and the danger of isolationism rang particularly true. In addition, his comment about the importance of America taking the high-road when it comes to torture also reminded me of the book." (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
CNN's David Gergen: "I think that the most presidential tonight were John McCain, who's found his voice again ... especially I thought on the issues of Iraq and on torture ..." (CNN Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)
Redstate's Erick Erickson: "McCain won on scalps. He got Mitt Romney and he got Ron Paul. McCain was the adult in the room all night. He was stable, composed, and mature." (Erick Erickson, Redstate Blog, 11/28/07)
Erickson: "McCain kicks ass on taking out Ron Paul. Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Fight on!" (Erick Erickson, Redstate Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "Is it just me, or is McCain dominating the debate tonight?" (Jim Geraghty, National Review's Campaign Spot Blog, 11/28/07)
CNN's Jamal Simmons: "I thought that John McCain clearly won this thing." (CNN Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)
The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "McCain is really starting to look strong now that the conversation has moved onto national security. Beyond his answer to torture, his response about what really happened in Vietnam (contrary to what those blame-America-first types would have you believe) was red meat to every conservative in the crowd and at home who is over the age of 50." (Jonathan Martin, The Politico, 11/28/07)
Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "The 'winner' tonight was John McCain with Mike Huckabee in second." (Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundit Blog, 11/28/07)
Bull Dog Pundit: "McCain continues to impress the hell out of me with his assessment of Iraq and how it fits into the larger war on terrorism. I also wonder if he paid Ron Paul to make his usual stupid comments because McCain brilliantly played off of them to make his larger points on why the war in Iraq is necessary, and why it's necessary we win. His 'let us win' retort to Paul was brilliance, and is the 'sound bite' of the evening. It's hard to deny the man has so much credibility on the issue. He also seems to be the one who is trying to be 'above it all' in terms of playing 'gotcha' with his opponents and focusing on the big picture." (Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundit Blog, 11/28/07)
"God Bless John McCain" For "Stirring" Statement On Iraq War: "Let Us Win" National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "'Let us win,' the troops say. God bless John McCain. Ron Paul should have let it alone. Absurd to say John McCain doesn't understand this war. He's communicated our effort in Iraq better than the White House for a very long time. We owe him a debt." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The American Spectator's Philip Klein: "McCain's stirring on criticism of Ron Paul's opposition to Iraq and foreign policy views in general, delivered in a way that only he could, will play well with the base." (Philip Klein, The American Spectator Blog, 11/28/07)
Granite Grok's Skip Murphy: "McCain does a good job standing up for people like me who realize that we are in the fight of our lives with those that want us dead. McCain understands, better than anyone else, we have to actively fight these folks with everything we have -- and not just militarily. ... [Y]ou can tell that he is the real deal on this subject -- and I will stand with him on this issue to the gates of hell and to the Pearly Gates. He ripped Paul up and down -- good for him." (Skip Murphy, Granite Grok Blog, 11/28/07)
"McCain Shines" Tonight As He "Triumphed" On Experience, Torture And Spending Issues Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "McCain shines, as always, on spending and the war. He's right, he's quick-witted, and he comes across as dead-sure ..." (Mary Katharine Ham, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "McCain's answer to the question about the Vice President was very good. He was able to seamlessly segue into his real message -- that he has the most foreign policy experience -- and thus, wouldn't need to rely on a VP to the same degree Bush did." (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "McCain said that Bush had to rely on Cheney for expertise on national security issues after 9/11. Says he himself would never need to rely on his veep in this area. Ooooh." (Jim Geraghty, National Review's Campaign Spot Blog, 11/28/07)
MSNBC's Mark Murray: "Did that just become the lead of tonight's debate? It sure looked like McCain triumphed in that exchange. But to fair, it was a question that McCain -- the former POW -- was going to win no matter what." (Mark Murray, MSNBC's First Read Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "You can't help but to respect and admire McCain." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
· Lopez: "The Unspoken Truth ... John McCain doesn't own a gun because he's put in more time protecting and defending freedom on the frontlines than most of us will mercifully ever know." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "McCain came out of the exchange easily the most appealing and mature candidate." (Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic Blog, 11/28/07)
Tampa Tribune: "'We let spending lurch completely out of control,' McCain says. Lays out a joke about spending money to study bear DNA in Montana. 'Not sure if it was paternity issue or a criminal issue.' Best laugh of the night." (Billy Townsend, Tampa Tribune Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jonah Goldberg: "I think his immigration answer was grown-up and serious." (Jonah Goldberg, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The American Spectator's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain oozes credibility and seriousness on controlling spending." (Jennifer Rubin, The American Spectator Blog, 11/28/07)
http://blog.4president.us/2008/john_mccain/index.html
"The bottom line is that I think McCain got his message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in history. In short, he was 'Presidential.'" -- Townhall's Matt Lewis
Watch John McCain Tonight: "Let Us Win!"
John McCain Declared Debate Winner, "Most Presidential," "Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Fight On!" Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The bottom line is that I think McCain got his message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in history. In short, he was Presidential.'" (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
Lewis: "I'm reading David McCullough's excellent book on Truman, so a lot of what McCain said rang true tonight. McCain's comment to Ron Paul about WWII and the danger of isolationism rang particularly true. In addition, his comment about the importance of America taking the high-road when it comes to torture also reminded me of the book." (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
CNN's David Gergen: "I think that the most presidential tonight were John McCain, who's found his voice again ... especially I thought on the issues of Iraq and on torture ..." (CNN Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)
Redstate's Erick Erickson: "McCain won on scalps. He got Mitt Romney and he got Ron Paul. McCain was the adult in the room all night. He was stable, composed, and mature." (Erick Erickson, Redstate Blog, 11/28/07)
Erickson: "McCain kicks ass on taking out Ron Paul. Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Fight on!" (Erick Erickson, Redstate Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "Is it just me, or is McCain dominating the debate tonight?" (Jim Geraghty, National Review's Campaign Spot Blog, 11/28/07)
CNN's Jamal Simmons: "I thought that John McCain clearly won this thing." (CNN Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)
The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "McCain is really starting to look strong now that the conversation has moved onto national security. Beyond his answer to torture, his response about what really happened in Vietnam (contrary to what those blame-America-first types would have you believe) was red meat to every conservative in the crowd and at home who is over the age of 50." (Jonathan Martin, The Politico, 11/28/07)
Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "The 'winner' tonight was John McCain with Mike Huckabee in second." (Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundit Blog, 11/28/07)
Bull Dog Pundit: "McCain continues to impress the hell out of me with his assessment of Iraq and how it fits into the larger war on terrorism. I also wonder if he paid Ron Paul to make his usual stupid comments because McCain brilliantly played off of them to make his larger points on why the war in Iraq is necessary, and why it's necessary we win. His 'let us win' retort to Paul was brilliance, and is the 'sound bite' of the evening. It's hard to deny the man has so much credibility on the issue. He also seems to be the one who is trying to be 'above it all' in terms of playing 'gotcha' with his opponents and focusing on the big picture." (Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundit Blog, 11/28/07)
"God Bless John McCain" For "Stirring" Statement On Iraq War: "Let Us Win" National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "'Let us win,' the troops say. God bless John McCain. Ron Paul should have let it alone. Absurd to say John McCain doesn't understand this war. He's communicated our effort in Iraq better than the White House for a very long time. We owe him a debt." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The American Spectator's Philip Klein: "McCain's stirring on criticism of Ron Paul's opposition to Iraq and foreign policy views in general, delivered in a way that only he could, will play well with the base." (Philip Klein, The American Spectator Blog, 11/28/07)
Granite Grok's Skip Murphy: "McCain does a good job standing up for people like me who realize that we are in the fight of our lives with those that want us dead. McCain understands, better than anyone else, we have to actively fight these folks with everything we have -- and not just militarily. ... [Y]ou can tell that he is the real deal on this subject -- and I will stand with him on this issue to the gates of hell and to the Pearly Gates. He ripped Paul up and down -- good for him." (Skip Murphy, Granite Grok Blog, 11/28/07)
"McCain Shines" Tonight As He "Triumphed" On Experience, Torture And Spending Issues Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "McCain shines, as always, on spending and the war. He's right, he's quick-witted, and he comes across as dead-sure ..." (Mary Katharine Ham, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "McCain's answer to the question about the Vice President was very good. He was able to seamlessly segue into his real message -- that he has the most foreign policy experience -- and thus, wouldn't need to rely on a VP to the same degree Bush did." (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "McCain said that Bush had to rely on Cheney for expertise on national security issues after 9/11. Says he himself would never need to rely on his veep in this area. Ooooh." (Jim Geraghty, National Review's Campaign Spot Blog, 11/28/07)
MSNBC's Mark Murray: "Did that just become the lead of tonight's debate? It sure looked like McCain triumphed in that exchange. But to fair, it was a question that McCain -- the former POW -- was going to win no matter what." (Mark Murray, MSNBC's First Read Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "You can't help but to respect and admire McCain." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
· Lopez: "The Unspoken Truth ... John McCain doesn't own a gun because he's put in more time protecting and defending freedom on the frontlines than most of us will mercifully ever know." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "McCain came out of the exchange easily the most appealing and mature candidate." (Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic Blog, 11/28/07)
Tampa Tribune: "'We let spending lurch completely out of control,' McCain says. Lays out a joke about spending money to study bear DNA in Montana. 'Not sure if it was paternity issue or a criminal issue.' Best laugh of the night." (Billy Townsend, Tampa Tribune Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jonah Goldberg: "I think his immigration answer was grown-up and serious." (Jonah Goldberg, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The American Spectator's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain oozes credibility and seriousness on controlling spending." (Jennifer Rubin, The American Spectator Blog, 11/28/07)
McCain Site Updates
John McCain Returns to New Hampshire
Senator McCain will be returning to New Hampshire next week with a series of campaign events and town hall meetings. Note 'Upcoming Events' section for details.
Tonight is the Republican YouTube Debate. Click to see clips of the Republican YouTube Debate.
Cross Posted from http://nh4mccain.blogspot.com/2007/11/john-mccain-returns-to-new-hampshire.html
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
McCain Pounds Clinton on Iraq
From Politico
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=782D24D3-3048-5C12-00BE624BB8A56090
By: John Bresnahan
November 25, 2007 05:37 PM EST
Iraq and electability once again dominated the Sunday talk shows as the race for the White House kicked into high gear, less than six weeks before the Iowa caucuses.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), fresh off his latest visit to Iraq, told This Week’s George Stephanopoulos that “significant progress” is being made in reducing sectarian violence thanks to President Bush’s decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. combat troops to the war zone.
McCain, who is trying to ride the improved security situation in Iraq to an improved standing in the polls, took shots at several Democratic candidates, including Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), for their suggestion that the United States should begin withdrawing its forces from Iraq soon.
“Is that the same Sen. Clinton that said she had to suspend disbelief in order to acknowledge to that the strategy of the surge was succeeding?” McCain said in reference to Clinton’s statement that the United States should stop trying to intervene in a “civil war” in Iraq. “Clearly, it’s succeeding. You would have to suspend disbelief to believe that it’s not.”
McCain later said Clinton’s support for a phased withdrawal from Iraq “would have been a catastrophe for the United States of America.”
“Look, now the same people who were saying seven or eight months were saying you can’t succeed militarily, we’ve succeeded military. Sen. Edwards used to call it the ‘McCain strategy.’ He doesn’t call it that anymore,” McCain claimed. “Their record is wrong on this. My record is right.”
But on the same ABC program, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), who has advocated a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, pointed out that dozens of Americans continue to be killed every month in Iraq, in spite of a lower overall level of violence.
Richardson, like other Democratic candidates and party leaders on Capitol Hill, also noted that there has not been significant political progress inside Iraq among competing Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions.
“Progress shouldn’t be measured by casualty counts, by body counts,” Richardson said. “There is no military solution to the war in Iraq. There is a political solution. And there’s little [political] progress.”
“I believe that no American death is worthy of saying the body count has gone down,” Richardson added.
On Fox News Sunday, the Iraq conflict, and U.S. plans for the future there, also provoked a sharp exchange between Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the panel.
Levin and other Democrats have refused to provide Bush with an additional $200 billion to conduct military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan during 2008, saying the president should not get the money unless he agrees to a “goal” of withdrawing most U.S. combat forces by Dec. 15, 2008.
Graham has been one of Bush’s staunchest supporters on the way and wants the new funds approved promptly.
“I think history will judge the surge as probably the most successful counterinsurgency operations in history,” Graham said. Graham accompanied McCain on the Thanksgiving trip to Iraq. “We’re on the right track with the surge.”
But Levin, like Richardson, echoed the Democratic line that the Bush surge has not brought about political reconciliation inside Iraq.
“The president’s policy very specifically had as its purpose . . . to give the Iraqi leaders breathing space to work out a political settlement, and that purpose has not been achieved,” Levin said. “Why in the name of heaven are we not willing to at least establish a goal for the removal of most of our troops?”
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has risen to second place in the GOP polls in Iowa behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, got the Sunday show treatment on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.
Under questioning by Blitzer, Huckabee slammed Romney for changing his views on hot-button social issues. Huckabee said Romney’s shifts were a major reason he has closed to within four points of Romney in Iowa, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
“Mitt has changed his position. He has been all over the board. But my conservatism has been consistent,” Huckabee said.
“When he was pro-abortion, I was still pro-life and always have been. When he was for gun control, I was against it. When he was against the Bush tax cuts, I was for them. When he was against Ronald Reagan's legacy and said he wasn't a part of that Bush-Reagan thing, I was a part of that Bush- Reagan thing.
“So it is not just about where we are now, it is where we have been and where we can be predicted to be if we are elected president,” Huckabee added. “People are looking for not just authenticity, but consistency. And that is one of the reasons that my numbers are surging, not only in Iowa, but in the other states as well.”
Huckabee responded to Romney’s charge that he was soft on illegal immigration, specifically for supporting tuition breaks for the children of illegal immigrants, stating that it was not his policy to “punish the children of those who break the law.”
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, defended his campaign for the White House, as well as his support for allowing states to decide their own policies on abortion by repealing Roe v. Wade.
Thompson opposes efforts to enact a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, arguing that the effort is bound to fail because the proposal cannot garner enough support in Congress or the states to be enacted.
Instead, Thompson would like to see Roe abolished, allowing states to impose laws banning abortion, and thus shifting the abortion battle, in Thompson’s view, to those states that would retain access to abortion. “The game would be on the pro-life side,” Thompson said.
“What the situation is now is as follows — because of Roe v. Wade, all states are restricted from passing rules that they would maybe like to pass with regard to this area,” Thompson added. “If you abolish Roe v. Wade, you’re going to allow every state to pass reasonable rules they might see fit to pass.”
Thompson, who unveiled a new tax cut plan on Sunday to go along with his previous release of a Social Security reform proposal, even lashed out a Fox News during his appearance.
"This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth,” Thompson said when asked by Fox’s Chris Wallace if he is really running hard for the White House. Numerous conservative commentators on Fox and elsewhere have questioned Thompson's will to win and his work ethic.
“From Day One, they said I got in too late, I couldn't do it ... wouldn't raise enough money, and that sort of thing. And that's their opinion. They're entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't seem to be shared by the cross section of American people. If you look at the national polls, you'll see that I'm running second and have been running second for a long time."
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=782D24D3-3048-5C12-00BE624BB8A56090
By: John Bresnahan
November 25, 2007 05:37 PM EST
Iraq and electability once again dominated the Sunday talk shows as the race for the White House kicked into high gear, less than six weeks before the Iowa caucuses.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), fresh off his latest visit to Iraq, told This Week’s George Stephanopoulos that “significant progress” is being made in reducing sectarian violence thanks to President Bush’s decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. combat troops to the war zone.
McCain, who is trying to ride the improved security situation in Iraq to an improved standing in the polls, took shots at several Democratic candidates, including Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), for their suggestion that the United States should begin withdrawing its forces from Iraq soon.
“Is that the same Sen. Clinton that said she had to suspend disbelief in order to acknowledge to that the strategy of the surge was succeeding?” McCain said in reference to Clinton’s statement that the United States should stop trying to intervene in a “civil war” in Iraq. “Clearly, it’s succeeding. You would have to suspend disbelief to believe that it’s not.”
McCain later said Clinton’s support for a phased withdrawal from Iraq “would have been a catastrophe for the United States of America.”
“Look, now the same people who were saying seven or eight months were saying you can’t succeed militarily, we’ve succeeded military. Sen. Edwards used to call it the ‘McCain strategy.’ He doesn’t call it that anymore,” McCain claimed. “Their record is wrong on this. My record is right.”
But on the same ABC program, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), who has advocated a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, pointed out that dozens of Americans continue to be killed every month in Iraq, in spite of a lower overall level of violence.
Richardson, like other Democratic candidates and party leaders on Capitol Hill, also noted that there has not been significant political progress inside Iraq among competing Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions.
“Progress shouldn’t be measured by casualty counts, by body counts,” Richardson said. “There is no military solution to the war in Iraq. There is a political solution. And there’s little [political] progress.”
“I believe that no American death is worthy of saying the body count has gone down,” Richardson added.
On Fox News Sunday, the Iraq conflict, and U.S. plans for the future there, also provoked a sharp exchange between Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the panel.
Levin and other Democrats have refused to provide Bush with an additional $200 billion to conduct military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan during 2008, saying the president should not get the money unless he agrees to a “goal” of withdrawing most U.S. combat forces by Dec. 15, 2008.
Graham has been one of Bush’s staunchest supporters on the way and wants the new funds approved promptly.
“I think history will judge the surge as probably the most successful counterinsurgency operations in history,” Graham said. Graham accompanied McCain on the Thanksgiving trip to Iraq. “We’re on the right track with the surge.”
But Levin, like Richardson, echoed the Democratic line that the Bush surge has not brought about political reconciliation inside Iraq.
“The president’s policy very specifically had as its purpose . . . to give the Iraqi leaders breathing space to work out a political settlement, and that purpose has not been achieved,” Levin said. “Why in the name of heaven are we not willing to at least establish a goal for the removal of most of our troops?”
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has risen to second place in the GOP polls in Iowa behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, got the Sunday show treatment on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.
Under questioning by Blitzer, Huckabee slammed Romney for changing his views on hot-button social issues. Huckabee said Romney’s shifts were a major reason he has closed to within four points of Romney in Iowa, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
“Mitt has changed his position. He has been all over the board. But my conservatism has been consistent,” Huckabee said.
“When he was pro-abortion, I was still pro-life and always have been. When he was for gun control, I was against it. When he was against the Bush tax cuts, I was for them. When he was against Ronald Reagan's legacy and said he wasn't a part of that Bush-Reagan thing, I was a part of that Bush- Reagan thing.
“So it is not just about where we are now, it is where we have been and where we can be predicted to be if we are elected president,” Huckabee added. “People are looking for not just authenticity, but consistency. And that is one of the reasons that my numbers are surging, not only in Iowa, but in the other states as well.”
Huckabee responded to Romney’s charge that he was soft on illegal immigration, specifically for supporting tuition breaks for the children of illegal immigrants, stating that it was not his policy to “punish the children of those who break the law.”
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, defended his campaign for the White House, as well as his support for allowing states to decide their own policies on abortion by repealing Roe v. Wade.
Thompson opposes efforts to enact a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, arguing that the effort is bound to fail because the proposal cannot garner enough support in Congress or the states to be enacted.
Instead, Thompson would like to see Roe abolished, allowing states to impose laws banning abortion, and thus shifting the abortion battle, in Thompson’s view, to those states that would retain access to abortion. “The game would be on the pro-life side,” Thompson said.
“What the situation is now is as follows — because of Roe v. Wade, all states are restricted from passing rules that they would maybe like to pass with regard to this area,” Thompson added. “If you abolish Roe v. Wade, you’re going to allow every state to pass reasonable rules they might see fit to pass.”
Thompson, who unveiled a new tax cut plan on Sunday to go along with his previous release of a Social Security reform proposal, even lashed out a Fox News during his appearance.
"This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth,” Thompson said when asked by Fox’s Chris Wallace if he is really running hard for the White House. Numerous conservative commentators on Fox and elsewhere have questioned Thompson's will to win and his work ethic.
“From Day One, they said I got in too late, I couldn't do it ... wouldn't raise enough money, and that sort of thing. And that's their opinion. They're entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't seem to be shared by the cross section of American people. If you look at the national polls, you'll see that I'm running second and have been running second for a long time."
Saturday, November 24, 2007
McCain Blogs
AvoiceForReason
Azamatterofact
Azamatteroprinciple
blogs4mccain.com
Broad Side of the Barn
Election Night HQ New!
EvangelicalsForMcCain
eyeon08
HoosiersForMcCain
Iowa for McCain
McCain Blogette
McCain States
McCain Talk
McCain08 On-Line Strategy Memo
McCain2008/blog
McCainHQ08 Yahoo Group
Metaxupolis New!
MichiganCooler
MyMcCainBlog
NH4McCAIN
NJ for McCain
Official McCain Blog
Partisan American
Political Mafioso
Reality Bytes New!
South Carolina for McCain
StandUpForMcCain New!
The Mac Is Back
The Mad Irishman New!
The McCain Times New!
The Way Forward-John McCain
VoteMcCain
With Both Hands
http://www.circletheweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedtheweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.ramblingweb.blogspot.com/
Azamatterofact
Azamatteroprinciple
blogs4mccain.com
Broad Side of the Barn
Election Night HQ New!
EvangelicalsForMcCain
eyeon08
HoosiersForMcCain
Iowa for McCain
McCain Blogette
McCain States
McCain Talk
McCain08 On-Line Strategy Memo
McCain2008/blog
McCainHQ08 Yahoo Group
Metaxupolis New!
MichiganCooler
MyMcCainBlog
NH4McCAIN
NJ for McCain
Official McCain Blog
Partisan American
Political Mafioso
Reality Bytes New!
South Carolina for McCain
StandUpForMcCain New!
The Mac Is Back
The Mad Irishman New!
The McCain Times New!
The Way Forward-John McCain
VoteMcCain
With Both Hands
http://www.circletheweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedtheweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.ramblingweb.blogspot.com/
Friday, November 23, 2007
Boston Herald - Thanksgiving
By Wayne Woodlief Thursday, November 22, 2007 http://www.bostonherald.com
McCain Tops the List of Thankworthy
Character, Conviction Personified
Today’s the day again to thank all the pols and pundits who’ve made me think anew or laugh or sometimes shout. Some have been outrageous, some have been straight arrows, but none that I’m grateful for has been dull.
I’m most thankful for Sen. John McCain, the one candidate for president who stands up for what he believes and says it plain, regardless of the political cost.
He’s ardently backed the troop surge in Iraq (losing some independent support along the way) even as he rebuked President Bush for not sending in more troops when the war first began, as McCain had advocated.
He stuck by the doomed immigration bill he co-authored with Sen. Edward Kennedy, though it cost him deeply among the conservative and important Republican Iowa caucus electorate. Yet that compromise bill was the closest we’ve come - or may come - to a solution that would both secure our national borders and open a path toward citizenship for illegal immigrants. For all the screaming and degradation of McCain by the hard-righters, why haven’t they found an answer?
The Arizonan has bucked the president on torture and on those so-called “signing statements” by which Bush asserts he can disobey whatever parts of bills passed by Congress that he chooses, without vetoing them.
He has heart and fortitude. McCain was given up for dead a few months ago when his presidential campaign had overspent and was in disarray. Yet he is rising again as he focuses on the New Hampshire primary, where an upset of Mitt Romney would catapult McCain forward. Already, he has passed Fred Thompson, is edging by Rudy Giuliani for second place and has Romney in his sights in the Granite State.
In the latest Fox News poll, voters nationally also rate McCain as the Republicans’ best hope against Hillary Clinton. In trial heats, Clinton beats Giuliani by 4 percentage points, Thompson by 9 and Romney by 13. But she and McCain are in a virtual tie, with the former first lady at 46 percent and McCain at 45 percent.
So keep telling it straight, brother McCain. You could win this thing yet. And even if you lose, you’ll feel better about yourself.
Reprinted from: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1046301&format=text
McCain Tops the List of Thankworthy
Character, Conviction Personified
Today’s the day again to thank all the pols and pundits who’ve made me think anew or laugh or sometimes shout. Some have been outrageous, some have been straight arrows, but none that I’m grateful for has been dull.
I’m most thankful for Sen. John McCain, the one candidate for president who stands up for what he believes and says it plain, regardless of the political cost.
He’s ardently backed the troop surge in Iraq (losing some independent support along the way) even as he rebuked President Bush for not sending in more troops when the war first began, as McCain had advocated.
He stuck by the doomed immigration bill he co-authored with Sen. Edward Kennedy, though it cost him deeply among the conservative and important Republican Iowa caucus electorate. Yet that compromise bill was the closest we’ve come - or may come - to a solution that would both secure our national borders and open a path toward citizenship for illegal immigrants. For all the screaming and degradation of McCain by the hard-righters, why haven’t they found an answer?
The Arizonan has bucked the president on torture and on those so-called “signing statements” by which Bush asserts he can disobey whatever parts of bills passed by Congress that he chooses, without vetoing them.
He has heart and fortitude. McCain was given up for dead a few months ago when his presidential campaign had overspent and was in disarray. Yet he is rising again as he focuses on the New Hampshire primary, where an upset of Mitt Romney would catapult McCain forward. Already, he has passed Fred Thompson, is edging by Rudy Giuliani for second place and has Romney in his sights in the Granite State.
In the latest Fox News poll, voters nationally also rate McCain as the Republicans’ best hope against Hillary Clinton. In trial heats, Clinton beats Giuliani by 4 percentage points, Thompson by 9 and Romney by 13. But she and McCain are in a virtual tie, with the former first lady at 46 percent and McCain at 45 percent.
So keep telling it straight, brother McCain. You could win this thing yet. And even if you lose, you’ll feel better about yourself.
Reprinted from: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1046301&format=text
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
General Election Match Ups - McCain Wins
Time’s Real Clear Politics Blog: OR Head To Heads
By Tom Bevan
SurveyUSA is out with general election matchups in Oregon. Once again, the fact Hillary Clinton loses to McCain, is in a dead heat with Giuliani, and can muster only 50% against one potential GOP opponent in a blue state like Oregon has to be setting off warning sirens among Democratic voters:
Clinton 45 - McCain 48
Clinton 46 - Giuliani 45
Clinton 48 - Romney 44
Clinton 50 - Huckabee 40
Meanwhile, Obama is over 50% and handily defeats everyone but McCain:
Obama 45 - McCain 45
Obama 51 - Giuliani 40
Obama 52 - Romney 37
Obama 54 - Huckabee 33
By Tom Bevan
SurveyUSA is out with general election matchups in Oregon. Once again, the fact Hillary Clinton loses to McCain, is in a dead heat with Giuliani, and can muster only 50% against one potential GOP opponent in a blue state like Oregon has to be setting off warning sirens among Democratic voters:
Clinton 45 - McCain 48
Clinton 46 - Giuliani 45
Clinton 48 - Romney 44
Clinton 50 - Huckabee 40
Meanwhile, Obama is over 50% and handily defeats everyone but McCain:
Obama 45 - McCain 45
Obama 51 - Giuliani 40
Obama 52 - Romney 37
Obama 54 - Huckabee 33
McCain Leads - and can Defeat Clinton
Washington Post --Dan Balz
Sunday night speeches rarely get much attention but the address John McCain delivered in New Hampshire last night deserves a closer look. It was his most cogent argument for why he should be the Republican nominee and a blueprint for how he would run against Hillary Clinton, if she were the Democratic candidate.
McCain couched his criticisms of the Democratic front-runner in civil tones, eschewing some of the hotter rhetoric coming forth from other Republican candidates and particularly from GOP partisans anxious to demonize her. "I intend this to be a respectful debate," McCain said. "She and I disagree over America's direction, and it is a serious disagreement. But I don't doubt her ability to lead this country where she thinks it should go."
That said, McCain proceeded to draw a series of bright and highly unflattering distinctions between the two of them -- in their worldview, in their approach to government's role in health care and the economy and especially on two of the most difficult issues likely to face the next president, Iraq and Iran.
McCain promised a respectful debate, but he was scornful of Clinton's position on Iraq. He implied that she had voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the war because of polls and that she has abandoned that position because the war has become highly unpopular.
"I wouldn't surrender when we can still succeed, and accept the terrible consequences that would ensue, because I feared the polls more than history's judgment," he said, according to the prepared text of his remarks.
McCain recalled, critically, Clinton's comment to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, during congressional testimony in September, when she said that his optimistic assessment of progress on the ground required "the willful suspension of disbelief."
Instead, McCain said, it is Clinton who has suspended belief in the face of positive reports about the effect of the troop surge policy in Iraq. He accused her of succumbing to "her rivals and the fringe of her party" in allowing her to be jerked "toward a position she knows is irresponsible."
McCain stacked up his record against hers -- highlighting his opposition to the policies of former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his advocacy for the surge policy proposed by President Bush and implemented this year by Petraeus. In contrast to Clinton, McCain suggested that he had taken the honorable but more difficult course.
"I took abuse from members of my own party -- some of it pretty tough -- for doing so," he said. "And I stuck by it knowing it could hurt my chances for the presidency. I did it for one reason: I would rather lose an election than stay silent and watch my country lose a war."
On Iran, he suggested that Clinton is mostly confused. He asserted that she once ruled out unconditional negotiations with the Iranians but now is willing to talk without preconditions. McCain said he would pursue vigorous diplomacy with others to apply pressure on the Iranians. In reality, it is not clear there is as much difference here as McCain suggests, but he portrayed his potential rival as naive if she were to follow the course he said she favors.
On other issues, McCain drew a contrast between his long record of fighting government waste against what he said is Clinton's belief in big government. "She'll have Washington assume more of your responsibilities and raise your taxes to pay for it," he said. "She won't address seriously the fiscal crisis of Social Security and Medicare or if she does she'll let congressional Democrats convince her to raise your taxes."
McCain was more circumspect about his plans for the two big entitlement programs, promising only to fix them without raising taxes. That leaves the choices as either potentially painful in terms of reduced benefits or fanciful through gimmickry and sleight-of-hand. He said he would, if Congress balked, force an up-or-down vote on his proposals. Bush learned on Social Security how hard that can be.
McCain said he and Clinton would have a major argument over health care -- as would any of the Republican candidates. Clinton favors universal coverage that would include a mandate for all individuals to purchase insurance. McCain said he would make health care "more accessible by making it more affordable."
McCain called hers a big government plan, while Clinton has argued that she would keep the bulk of the current system of private insurance in place. She and other Democrats have argued that Republicans are not serious about insuring everyone and are not willing to put enough additional money into the system to achieve real success.
There were other areas of disagreement, from judicial appointments to reforming and expanding the military, which McCain cited in his speech at Franklin Pierce University. Boiled down to its essence, he said he offers one direction and she offers an alternative that he believes "is absolutely wrong for America and wrong for the world."
What McCain said about himself, however, may be the more important part of the speech, given that his campaign still faces serious obstacles en route to the nomination. Without speaking about his GOP rivals, McCain portrayed himself as the most equipped to deal with a hostile world and the conservative with the best chance of defeating Clinton.
"On matters of war and peace," he said, "I offer Americans my experience, my personal familiarity with the tragedy of war, deep involvement in all of the national security issues of the last two decades and steadfast conviction that America cannot afford to relinquish its leadership of the world and the world can't afford it either."
McCain's speech came hours before Rudy Giuliani was to launch a new television ad extolling his experience in crisis management as without parallel in the presidential race. The Arizona senator begged to differ. "No other candidate," he said, "has my experience or the judgment it informs."
McCain must spend the next eight weeks repeating that argument over and over again as he campaigns to win the New Hampshire primary. Should he succeed, he might yet have the opportunity to demonstrate whether it is possible to run both a courteous and vigorous general election campaign. As he showed on Sunday, the differences between the parties are huge and the stakes high. The choice, he said, "couldn't be a bigger one."
Reprint from http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/19/mccain_experience_no_one_else.html
Sunday night speeches rarely get much attention but the address John McCain delivered in New Hampshire last night deserves a closer look. It was his most cogent argument for why he should be the Republican nominee and a blueprint for how he would run against Hillary Clinton, if she were the Democratic candidate.
McCain couched his criticisms of the Democratic front-runner in civil tones, eschewing some of the hotter rhetoric coming forth from other Republican candidates and particularly from GOP partisans anxious to demonize her. "I intend this to be a respectful debate," McCain said. "She and I disagree over America's direction, and it is a serious disagreement. But I don't doubt her ability to lead this country where she thinks it should go."
That said, McCain proceeded to draw a series of bright and highly unflattering distinctions between the two of them -- in their worldview, in their approach to government's role in health care and the economy and especially on two of the most difficult issues likely to face the next president, Iraq and Iran.
McCain promised a respectful debate, but he was scornful of Clinton's position on Iraq. He implied that she had voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the war because of polls and that she has abandoned that position because the war has become highly unpopular.
"I wouldn't surrender when we can still succeed, and accept the terrible consequences that would ensue, because I feared the polls more than history's judgment," he said, according to the prepared text of his remarks.
McCain recalled, critically, Clinton's comment to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, during congressional testimony in September, when she said that his optimistic assessment of progress on the ground required "the willful suspension of disbelief."
Instead, McCain said, it is Clinton who has suspended belief in the face of positive reports about the effect of the troop surge policy in Iraq. He accused her of succumbing to "her rivals and the fringe of her party" in allowing her to be jerked "toward a position she knows is irresponsible."
McCain stacked up his record against hers -- highlighting his opposition to the policies of former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his advocacy for the surge policy proposed by President Bush and implemented this year by Petraeus. In contrast to Clinton, McCain suggested that he had taken the honorable but more difficult course.
"I took abuse from members of my own party -- some of it pretty tough -- for doing so," he said. "And I stuck by it knowing it could hurt my chances for the presidency. I did it for one reason: I would rather lose an election than stay silent and watch my country lose a war."
On Iran, he suggested that Clinton is mostly confused. He asserted that she once ruled out unconditional negotiations with the Iranians but now is willing to talk without preconditions. McCain said he would pursue vigorous diplomacy with others to apply pressure on the Iranians. In reality, it is not clear there is as much difference here as McCain suggests, but he portrayed his potential rival as naive if she were to follow the course he said she favors.
On other issues, McCain drew a contrast between his long record of fighting government waste against what he said is Clinton's belief in big government. "She'll have Washington assume more of your responsibilities and raise your taxes to pay for it," he said. "She won't address seriously the fiscal crisis of Social Security and Medicare or if she does she'll let congressional Democrats convince her to raise your taxes."
McCain was more circumspect about his plans for the two big entitlement programs, promising only to fix them without raising taxes. That leaves the choices as either potentially painful in terms of reduced benefits or fanciful through gimmickry and sleight-of-hand. He said he would, if Congress balked, force an up-or-down vote on his proposals. Bush learned on Social Security how hard that can be.
McCain said he and Clinton would have a major argument over health care -- as would any of the Republican candidates. Clinton favors universal coverage that would include a mandate for all individuals to purchase insurance. McCain said he would make health care "more accessible by making it more affordable."
McCain called hers a big government plan, while Clinton has argued that she would keep the bulk of the current system of private insurance in place. She and other Democrats have argued that Republicans are not serious about insuring everyone and are not willing to put enough additional money into the system to achieve real success.
There were other areas of disagreement, from judicial appointments to reforming and expanding the military, which McCain cited in his speech at Franklin Pierce University. Boiled down to its essence, he said he offers one direction and she offers an alternative that he believes "is absolutely wrong for America and wrong for the world."
What McCain said about himself, however, may be the more important part of the speech, given that his campaign still faces serious obstacles en route to the nomination. Without speaking about his GOP rivals, McCain portrayed himself as the most equipped to deal with a hostile world and the conservative with the best chance of defeating Clinton.
"On matters of war and peace," he said, "I offer Americans my experience, my personal familiarity with the tragedy of war, deep involvement in all of the national security issues of the last two decades and steadfast conviction that America cannot afford to relinquish its leadership of the world and the world can't afford it either."
McCain's speech came hours before Rudy Giuliani was to launch a new television ad extolling his experience in crisis management as without parallel in the presidential race. The Arizona senator begged to differ. "No other candidate," he said, "has my experience or the judgment it informs."
McCain must spend the next eight weeks repeating that argument over and over again as he campaigns to win the New Hampshire primary. Should he succeed, he might yet have the opportunity to demonstrate whether it is possible to run both a courteous and vigorous general election campaign. As he showed on Sunday, the differences between the parties are huge and the stakes high. The choice, he said, "couldn't be a bigger one."
Reprint from http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/19/mccain_experience_no_one_else.html
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
JOHN MCCAIN ARGUED FOR NEW IRAQ STRATEGY FOR YEARS
JOHN MCCAIN ARGUED FOR NEW IRAQ STRATEGY FOR YEARS
In 2003, Sen. McCain Acknowledged Mistakes Made In Iraq, Pushed For Urgent Changes Or “We Are Facing A Very Serious Long Term Problem”
Sen. McCain: “There is no doubt that we have made mistakes …” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 8/19/03)
Sen. McCain: “If we don’t turn things around in the next few months, we are facing a very serious long term problem.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 9/3/03)
For Over Three Years, Sen. McCain Has Consistently Advocated For New Strategy In Iraq
2003:
Washington Post Headline, August 24, 2003: “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq.” (Mike Allen, “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/24/03)
August 2003: “Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said after visiting Baghdad last week that President Bush needs to level with the public about the need for more U.S. troops as well as dramatically more spending to make postwar Iraq peaceful enough for democracy to unfold. McCain said that when he returns from the Middle East he plans to mount a heavy campaign on the issue in meetings with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other White House officials and during hearings of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ‘We need to tell the American people directly, and I think they’ll support it,’ McCain said from Islamabad, Pakistan. ‘We must win this conflict. We need a lot more military, and I’m convinced we need to spend a lot more money.’” (Mike Allen, “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/24/03)
· August 2003: NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “What must be done in Iraq right now?” SEN. MCCAIN: “First, could I say, Tim, the men and women in the military are doing a superb job. … The problem is that they don’t have enough resources. There’s not enough of them, and we are in a very serious situation, in my view, a race against time. We need to spend a whole lot more money to get the services back to the people. We need to get the electricity going, the fuel, the water. And unless we get that done and get it done pretty soon, we could face a very serious situation. … Time is not on our side. People in 125-degree heat with no electricity and no fuel are going to become angry in a big hurry. The sophistication of the attacks on U.S. and allied troops have increased. And what we do in the next several months will determine whether we’re in a very difficult situation or not, and there’s still time, but we’ve got to act quickly.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/24/03)
· August 2003: NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “MR. RUSSERT: How many more troops do you think we need in Iraq?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think we need, I would guess, at least another division, but we also need people with specialized skills. Linguists we’re running short of. Our Guard and reservists are at the breaking point. We need civil affairs people. The infrastructure, refinery at Basra cannot be fixed. It needs to be totally replaced. It was 30 years of neglect on the part of the Saddam Hussein regime.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/24/03)
November 2003: “To win in Iraq, we should increase the number of forces in-country, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. I believe we must have in place another full division, giving us the necessary manpower to conduct a focused counterinsurgency campaign across the Sunni triangle that seals off enemy operating areas, conducts search and destroy operations and holds territory. Such a strategy would be the kind of new mission General Sanchez agreed would require additional forces. It’s a mystery to me why they are not forthcoming. We cannot achieve our political goals as long as a strategic region of Iraq is in a state of fundamental insecurity.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
· November 2003: “More American forces and a commitment to keep them in Iraq as long as it takes are required to defeat our adversaries, so that Iraqi democracy is not stillborn. As we learned in Vietnam, if we do not defeat them before we leave, our enemies will continue to fight until any government we help establish is destroyed.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
· November 2003: “The simple truth is that we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives. I said this in August, after I returned from visiting Iraq, and before the security situation deteriorated further. It is even more obviously true today.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
· November 2003: “We need more troops. The casualties in November were the highest in history. I hope we are achieving some success. We have to achieve success. We cannot lose. But in order to save American lives, we have to be much more robust and do – and send whatever troops are necessary.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 11/30/03)
2004:
April 2004: “When I came back last August from Iraq, I said we needed more troops, thousands that were special forces, linguists, civil affairs type of people, that we’d be dealing with this new insurgency that we are now seeing in spades. Yes, I believe we need more, thousands more of the right kind of military personnel.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 4/6/04)
· April 2004: “I was there in last August and have said since then that we needed more troops, we need them very badly. We may be paying a price for not having had more troops there, and I feel sorry for these young men and women having to remain there, but they know their job and I’m sure they’ll do it well.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Media Availability, Washington, DC, 4/11/04)
· April 2004: “[W]hen I was there in Iraq in August, I talked to [the] British. I talked to sergeant majors. I talked to colonels and captains. And I came back absolutely convinced that we needed more boots on the ground. These people warned me. They said, ‘Look, if you don’t have more soldiers here, you’re going to lose control of this situation and you’re going to face an insurgency some months from now.’ I begged and pleaded that we send more troops. Secretary Rumsfeld said, ‘Well, our commanders on the ground haven’t asked for them.’ It’s not up to the commanders on the ground. It’s up to the leadership of the country to make these decisions. That’s why we elect them and have civilian supremacy. We’re now facing a terrible insurgency. We can prevail, but we’ve got to have more people over there to get the job done.” (Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes,” 4/14/04)
· April 2004: “Third, it is painfully clear that we need more troops. Before the war, the U.S. Army chief of staff said that several hundred thousand troops would be necessary to keep the peace. While criticized at the time, General [Eric K.] Shinseki now looks prescient. I have said since my visit to Iraq last August that our military presence is insufficient to bring stability to the country. We should increase the number of forces, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. There is also a dire need for other types of forces, including linguists, intelligence officers, and civil affairs officers. We must deploy at least another full division, and probably more.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, 4/22/04)
May 2004: “We need more troops in, need more troops now. Yes, there are more troops that are going to stay there, but we may even need more than that, and we have to expand the size of the military. We really do.” (Fox News’ “The Big Story With John Gibson,” 5/10/04)
June 2004: “Some of this could have been prevented if Secretary Rumsfeld had recognized long ago what so many of us were saying urgently, that we needed more troops on the ground in Iraq, particularly of particular specifications, specialties that these people have that are being called up involuntarily.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 6/29/04)
August 2004: “I think the events on the ground right now indicate clearly that we cannot bring anybody home. In certain areas we may even have to strengthen our troop presence.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 8/11/04)
September 2004: “I think that we need more troops in Iraq. I’ve thought that for a long time, election or no election. … [I]’ve been asking since a year ago last August. So I’m not sure that the elections have a lot to do with it, but I’ve been saying since a year ago August that we needed more boots on the ground, particularly in the form of Special Forces, civil affairs, linguists and others.” (CNBC’s “Capital Report,” 9/23/04)
November 2004: “It’s very tough and we still need more troops. We still need more people there. I believe those reports of those young Marines that said, ‘Look, unless we keep a significant presence here, they’re going to filter back in.’“ (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/21/04)
December 2004: “[T]he problem that we have here is that the Pentagon has been reacting to initiatives of the enemy rather than taking initiatives from which the enemy has to react to. Many of us, as long as a year and a half ago, said, ‘You have to have more people there. You have to have more linguists. You have to have more special forces. You have to have’ – and the Pentagon has reluctantly, obviously, gradually made some increases. And the problem, when you react, you have to extend people on duty there, which is terrible for morale. There’s a terrific strain on Guard and reservists. If you plan ahead, then you don’t have to do some of these things. The military is too small. The good news is we went into Fallujah and we dug then out of there. And I’m proud of the work. These men and women are magnificent. Their leadership is magnificent. The bad news is we allowed Fallujah to become a sanctuary to start with. So, yes, we need more troops. Yes, we have to win.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/5/04)
December 2004: MCCAIN: “I have to say that I want to work with Secretary Rumsfeld because he will be the secretary of defense for an undetermined length of time. And I want to work with him and I want to do the best that I can for the country.” QUESTION: “That’s not a vote of confidence.” MCCAIN: “No, it’s not.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 12/6/04)
December 2004: “Asked about his confidence in the secretary’s leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago. ‘I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence,’ McCain said.” (Beth DeFalco, “AP Interview: McCain Says He Has ‘No Confidence’ In Defense Secretary Rumsfeld,” The Associated Press, 12/13/04)
December 2004: “I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops – linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc. … There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue.” (Beth DeFalco, “McCain says He Has ‘No Confidence’ In Secretary Of Defense,” The Associated Press, 12/13/04)
2005:
June 2005: “I think we need – I think we need more troops there … because we’re not staying once we attack and clear. We’ve got stay and expand.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 6/28/05)
· June 2005: “I’ve thought for a long, long time, since the very beginning, that we needed more troops, and one of the reasons why we’ve experienced many of the difficulties we have is we didn’t have enough boots on the ground, and we still do.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 6/29/05)
August 2005: “We not only don’t need to withdraw, we need more troops there.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 8/14/05)
· August 2005: TIME’s MIKE DUFFY: “Do you think we need more troops?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I’ve always said that … I think we need more and I think they need to stay longer. The problem is, is that we didn’t expand the size of the Army and the Marine Corps and we put enormous strains on the Guard and Reserves and on active duty personnel. We need to expand the Army and expand the Marine Corps, and have more troops over there for as long as is necessary. The irony here is that we could have had less troops here now if we had had more troops when they were needed where, in the view of literally every military person I talked to in Iraq, right after the victory.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 8/28/05)
· August 2005: “Well, I don’t have confidence [in Rumsfeld], but it’s up the president. The important thing is that he has the president’s confidence, and that’s the important thing. … Have I disagreed with the secretary of defense? Yes. But my job is not to have an open confrontation with the secretary of defense. My job is to try to work with him as long as he enjoys the confidence of the president to try and get this job completed. It doesn’t help if I get into some kind of fight with him.” (Fox News’ “News Sunday,” 8/14/05)
September 2005: “I have always said we need more troops. I believed it then. I believe it now.” (NPR’s “Morning Edition,” 9/20/05)
October 2005: “[W]hen I say that I don’t have confidence in [Rumsfeld], I can’t look people in the eye and say that I do [have confidence in him], because so many mistakes were made that – that cost us so much in American blood and treasure.” (PBS’ “Charlie Rose,” 10/31/05)
November 2005: “Securing ever-increasing parts of Iraq and preventing the emergence of new terrorist safe havens will require more troops and money. It will take time, probably years, and mean more American casualties. Those are terrible prices to pay. But with the stakes so high, I believe we must choose the strategy with the best chance of success.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 11/10/05)
· November 2005: “To enhance our chances of success with this strategy and enable our forces to hold as much territory as possible, we need more troops. For this reason, I believe that current ideas to effect a partial drawdown during 2006 are exactly wrong. … Instead of drawing down, we should be ramping up, with more civil-military soldiers, translators and counterinsurgency operations teams.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 11/10/05)
December 2005: “I’ve wanted to send troops. I still think we should have more troops there.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press, 12/4/05)
December 2005: “When the first insurgents – or when the looting started, Secretary Rumsfeld said, ‘Stuff happens.’ And then when the insurgency started, he said there was a few dead-enders. The reason why I mention that, there was a gross misunderestimation of the challenge we faced in the post-conflict aspect of Iraq.” (NPR’s “Fresh Air,” 12/6/05)
· December 2005: “If the president wants him on his team, I’m not going to question that. But, as I said – very strong disagreements because early on after the initial military phase, I said, ‘You’ve got to have more troops over there.’ And I didn’t think of it myself. I heard from everybody from sergeant majors to generals saying the same thing; that they didn’t have enough troops over there. And we paid a very heavy price for that.” (NPR’s “Fresh Air,” 12/6/05)
2006:
March 2006: “Of course, I would, quote, like to see more troops.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 3/30/06)
April 2006: “It’s well known, because I was asked a direct question about my confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, that I do not have confidence. But that does not mean that I’m calling for his removal, because that’s what the president of the United States’ job is.” (CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees,” 4/13/06)
June 2006: “You know, I’ve always said that we needed more troops over there. I have said that for years.” (CBS’ “Evening News,” 6/20/06)
July 2006: CNN’s JOHN KING: “The United States is sending more troops to Iraq. What do you think?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think it’s necessary. I think it was necessary a long, long time ago. I think one of the biggest mistakes we made that we’ve paid a very heavy price for was not having enough boots on the ground. I said that three years ago.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 7/26/06)
August 2006: NBC’s DAVID GREGORY: “But to do that, do you need more U.S. soldiers on the ground now?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think so. I think so. We took troops from places like Ramadi, which are still not under control, to put them into Baghdad. We’ve had to send in additional troops as they are. All along, we have not had enough troops on the ground to control the situation. Many, many people knew that and it’s – we’re paying a very heavy price for it. But I want to emphasize that we cannot lose this. It will cause chaos in Iraq and in the region, and it’s – I still believe that we, we must prevail.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/20/06)
· August 2006: “I know that military commanders on the ground need more troops, whether they’re asking for them or not. But see, this is kind of a false argument. … It’s not up to the commanders on the ground, it’s up to the leaders who assess the entire battlefield situation to decide whether they need. I’ve known very few – General McCaffrey’s going to follow us – I’ve known very few commanders in the field who see I – say, ‘I need help.’“ (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/20/06)
September 2006: “I still think we need more troops over there.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/24/06)
October 2006: “I would increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps by some hundred thousand people, and I would send more troops over there where necessary, and I would listen very carefully to my military commanders.” (CBS’ “Evening News,” 10/19/06)
· October 2006: “Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people …” (Lorna Colquhoun, “ McCain Urges More Troops For ‘Insurgency,’“ The Union Leader, 10/28/06)
· October 2006: “I have said, as long ago as nearly three years ago, when I was asked if I had confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, I said I did not.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 10/18/06)
November 2006: “I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops. … I also said three years ago, if we don’t have more troops over there, and we don’t do what’s necessary, we are going to be doomed to failure. I gave a speech to the Foreign Relations – Council on Foreign Relations – that said basically that, and I’ve been saying it all along in every hearing, and I’ve been saying, ‘You are going to face this situation we’re facing today if we didn’t have a more robust presence and a better strategy,’ and that’s – I proved to be right in that respect.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/12/06)
· November 2006: “I’ve said for a long time that I had no confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, but that’s a decision to be made by the president.” (Fox News’ “Live Event,” 11/8/06)
December 2006: “We must have more troops over there. That has to be accompanied by a larger Marine Corps or Army. Maybe 20,000 more Marines and 80,000 more Army troops so that we can handle whatever is necessary. And we have to have a big enough surge that we can get Baghdad under control and then Anbar province under control.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 12/12/06)
2007:
January 2007: “The presence of additional coalition forces would give the Iraqi government the ability to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own: impose its rule throughout the country. In bringing security to Iraq, and chiefly to Baghdad, our forces would give the government a fighting chance to pursue reconciliation. … There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops. To be of value the surge must be substantial and it must be sustained – it must be substantial and it must be sustained. We will need a large number of troops. During our recent trip commanders on the ground spoke of a surge of three to five additional brigades in Baghdad and at least an additional brigade in Anbar province. I believe these numbers are the minimum that’s required – a minimum. We need more of the right kind of troops: civil affairs teams, special forces, translators, troops to conduct information operations, among others. The mission of these reinforcements would be to implement the thus-elusive hold element of the military’s clear, hold, build strategy, to maintain security in cleared areas to protect the population and critical infrastructure, and to impose the government’s authority: essential elements of a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 1/5/07)
· January 2007: “Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history.” (Roger Simon, “McCain Bashes Cheney Over Iraq Policy,” The Politico, 1/24/07)
April 2007: “After my first visit to Iraq in 2003, I argued for more troops. I took issue with statements characterizing the insurgency as a few ‘dead-enders’ or being in its ‘last throes.’ I criticized the search and destroy strategy and argued for a counter-insurgency approach that separated the reconcilable population from the irreconcilable. That is the course now followed by General Petraeus, and the brave Americans and coalition troops he has the honor to command.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To The Virginia Military Institute, 4/11/07)
May 2007: “The war was terribly mismanaged and we now have to fix a lot of the mistakes that were made.” (Republican Presidential Debate, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA, 5/3/07)
In 2003, Sen. McCain Acknowledged Mistakes Made In Iraq, Pushed For Urgent Changes Or “We Are Facing A Very Serious Long Term Problem”
Sen. McCain: “There is no doubt that we have made mistakes …” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 8/19/03)
Sen. McCain: “If we don’t turn things around in the next few months, we are facing a very serious long term problem.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 9/3/03)
For Over Three Years, Sen. McCain Has Consistently Advocated For New Strategy In Iraq
2003:
Washington Post Headline, August 24, 2003: “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq.” (Mike Allen, “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/24/03)
August 2003: “Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said after visiting Baghdad last week that President Bush needs to level with the public about the need for more U.S. troops as well as dramatically more spending to make postwar Iraq peaceful enough for democracy to unfold. McCain said that when he returns from the Middle East he plans to mount a heavy campaign on the issue in meetings with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other White House officials and during hearings of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ‘We need to tell the American people directly, and I think they’ll support it,’ McCain said from Islamabad, Pakistan. ‘We must win this conflict. We need a lot more military, and I’m convinced we need to spend a lot more money.’” (Mike Allen, “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/24/03)
· August 2003: NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “What must be done in Iraq right now?” SEN. MCCAIN: “First, could I say, Tim, the men and women in the military are doing a superb job. … The problem is that they don’t have enough resources. There’s not enough of them, and we are in a very serious situation, in my view, a race against time. We need to spend a whole lot more money to get the services back to the people. We need to get the electricity going, the fuel, the water. And unless we get that done and get it done pretty soon, we could face a very serious situation. … Time is not on our side. People in 125-degree heat with no electricity and no fuel are going to become angry in a big hurry. The sophistication of the attacks on U.S. and allied troops have increased. And what we do in the next several months will determine whether we’re in a very difficult situation or not, and there’s still time, but we’ve got to act quickly.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/24/03)
· August 2003: NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “MR. RUSSERT: How many more troops do you think we need in Iraq?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think we need, I would guess, at least another division, but we also need people with specialized skills. Linguists we’re running short of. Our Guard and reservists are at the breaking point. We need civil affairs people. The infrastructure, refinery at Basra cannot be fixed. It needs to be totally replaced. It was 30 years of neglect on the part of the Saddam Hussein regime.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/24/03)
November 2003: “To win in Iraq, we should increase the number of forces in-country, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. I believe we must have in place another full division, giving us the necessary manpower to conduct a focused counterinsurgency campaign across the Sunni triangle that seals off enemy operating areas, conducts search and destroy operations and holds territory. Such a strategy would be the kind of new mission General Sanchez agreed would require additional forces. It’s a mystery to me why they are not forthcoming. We cannot achieve our political goals as long as a strategic region of Iraq is in a state of fundamental insecurity.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
· November 2003: “More American forces and a commitment to keep them in Iraq as long as it takes are required to defeat our adversaries, so that Iraqi democracy is not stillborn. As we learned in Vietnam, if we do not defeat them before we leave, our enemies will continue to fight until any government we help establish is destroyed.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
· November 2003: “The simple truth is that we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives. I said this in August, after I returned from visiting Iraq, and before the security situation deteriorated further. It is even more obviously true today.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
· November 2003: “We need more troops. The casualties in November were the highest in history. I hope we are achieving some success. We have to achieve success. We cannot lose. But in order to save American lives, we have to be much more robust and do – and send whatever troops are necessary.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 11/30/03)
2004:
April 2004: “When I came back last August from Iraq, I said we needed more troops, thousands that were special forces, linguists, civil affairs type of people, that we’d be dealing with this new insurgency that we are now seeing in spades. Yes, I believe we need more, thousands more of the right kind of military personnel.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 4/6/04)
· April 2004: “I was there in last August and have said since then that we needed more troops, we need them very badly. We may be paying a price for not having had more troops there, and I feel sorry for these young men and women having to remain there, but they know their job and I’m sure they’ll do it well.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Media Availability, Washington, DC, 4/11/04)
· April 2004: “[W]hen I was there in Iraq in August, I talked to [the] British. I talked to sergeant majors. I talked to colonels and captains. And I came back absolutely convinced that we needed more boots on the ground. These people warned me. They said, ‘Look, if you don’t have more soldiers here, you’re going to lose control of this situation and you’re going to face an insurgency some months from now.’ I begged and pleaded that we send more troops. Secretary Rumsfeld said, ‘Well, our commanders on the ground haven’t asked for them.’ It’s not up to the commanders on the ground. It’s up to the leadership of the country to make these decisions. That’s why we elect them and have civilian supremacy. We’re now facing a terrible insurgency. We can prevail, but we’ve got to have more people over there to get the job done.” (Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes,” 4/14/04)
· April 2004: “Third, it is painfully clear that we need more troops. Before the war, the U.S. Army chief of staff said that several hundred thousand troops would be necessary to keep the peace. While criticized at the time, General [Eric K.] Shinseki now looks prescient. I have said since my visit to Iraq last August that our military presence is insufficient to bring stability to the country. We should increase the number of forces, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. There is also a dire need for other types of forces, including linguists, intelligence officers, and civil affairs officers. We must deploy at least another full division, and probably more.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, 4/22/04)
May 2004: “We need more troops in, need more troops now. Yes, there are more troops that are going to stay there, but we may even need more than that, and we have to expand the size of the military. We really do.” (Fox News’ “The Big Story With John Gibson,” 5/10/04)
June 2004: “Some of this could have been prevented if Secretary Rumsfeld had recognized long ago what so many of us were saying urgently, that we needed more troops on the ground in Iraq, particularly of particular specifications, specialties that these people have that are being called up involuntarily.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 6/29/04)
August 2004: “I think the events on the ground right now indicate clearly that we cannot bring anybody home. In certain areas we may even have to strengthen our troop presence.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 8/11/04)
September 2004: “I think that we need more troops in Iraq. I’ve thought that for a long time, election or no election. … [I]’ve been asking since a year ago last August. So I’m not sure that the elections have a lot to do with it, but I’ve been saying since a year ago August that we needed more boots on the ground, particularly in the form of Special Forces, civil affairs, linguists and others.” (CNBC’s “Capital Report,” 9/23/04)
November 2004: “It’s very tough and we still need more troops. We still need more people there. I believe those reports of those young Marines that said, ‘Look, unless we keep a significant presence here, they’re going to filter back in.’“ (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/21/04)
December 2004: “[T]he problem that we have here is that the Pentagon has been reacting to initiatives of the enemy rather than taking initiatives from which the enemy has to react to. Many of us, as long as a year and a half ago, said, ‘You have to have more people there. You have to have more linguists. You have to have more special forces. You have to have’ – and the Pentagon has reluctantly, obviously, gradually made some increases. And the problem, when you react, you have to extend people on duty there, which is terrible for morale. There’s a terrific strain on Guard and reservists. If you plan ahead, then you don’t have to do some of these things. The military is too small. The good news is we went into Fallujah and we dug then out of there. And I’m proud of the work. These men and women are magnificent. Their leadership is magnificent. The bad news is we allowed Fallujah to become a sanctuary to start with. So, yes, we need more troops. Yes, we have to win.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/5/04)
December 2004: MCCAIN: “I have to say that I want to work with Secretary Rumsfeld because he will be the secretary of defense for an undetermined length of time. And I want to work with him and I want to do the best that I can for the country.” QUESTION: “That’s not a vote of confidence.” MCCAIN: “No, it’s not.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 12/6/04)
December 2004: “Asked about his confidence in the secretary’s leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago. ‘I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence,’ McCain said.” (Beth DeFalco, “AP Interview: McCain Says He Has ‘No Confidence’ In Defense Secretary Rumsfeld,” The Associated Press, 12/13/04)
December 2004: “I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops – linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc. … There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue.” (Beth DeFalco, “McCain says He Has ‘No Confidence’ In Secretary Of Defense,” The Associated Press, 12/13/04)
2005:
June 2005: “I think we need – I think we need more troops there … because we’re not staying once we attack and clear. We’ve got stay and expand.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 6/28/05)
· June 2005: “I’ve thought for a long, long time, since the very beginning, that we needed more troops, and one of the reasons why we’ve experienced many of the difficulties we have is we didn’t have enough boots on the ground, and we still do.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 6/29/05)
August 2005: “We not only don’t need to withdraw, we need more troops there.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 8/14/05)
· August 2005: TIME’s MIKE DUFFY: “Do you think we need more troops?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I’ve always said that … I think we need more and I think they need to stay longer. The problem is, is that we didn’t expand the size of the Army and the Marine Corps and we put enormous strains on the Guard and Reserves and on active duty personnel. We need to expand the Army and expand the Marine Corps, and have more troops over there for as long as is necessary. The irony here is that we could have had less troops here now if we had had more troops when they were needed where, in the view of literally every military person I talked to in Iraq, right after the victory.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 8/28/05)
· August 2005: “Well, I don’t have confidence [in Rumsfeld], but it’s up the president. The important thing is that he has the president’s confidence, and that’s the important thing. … Have I disagreed with the secretary of defense? Yes. But my job is not to have an open confrontation with the secretary of defense. My job is to try to work with him as long as he enjoys the confidence of the president to try and get this job completed. It doesn’t help if I get into some kind of fight with him.” (Fox News’ “News Sunday,” 8/14/05)
September 2005: “I have always said we need more troops. I believed it then. I believe it now.” (NPR’s “Morning Edition,” 9/20/05)
October 2005: “[W]hen I say that I don’t have confidence in [Rumsfeld], I can’t look people in the eye and say that I do [have confidence in him], because so many mistakes were made that – that cost us so much in American blood and treasure.” (PBS’ “Charlie Rose,” 10/31/05)
November 2005: “Securing ever-increasing parts of Iraq and preventing the emergence of new terrorist safe havens will require more troops and money. It will take time, probably years, and mean more American casualties. Those are terrible prices to pay. But with the stakes so high, I believe we must choose the strategy with the best chance of success.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 11/10/05)
· November 2005: “To enhance our chances of success with this strategy and enable our forces to hold as much territory as possible, we need more troops. For this reason, I believe that current ideas to effect a partial drawdown during 2006 are exactly wrong. … Instead of drawing down, we should be ramping up, with more civil-military soldiers, translators and counterinsurgency operations teams.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 11/10/05)
December 2005: “I’ve wanted to send troops. I still think we should have more troops there.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press, 12/4/05)
December 2005: “When the first insurgents – or when the looting started, Secretary Rumsfeld said, ‘Stuff happens.’ And then when the insurgency started, he said there was a few dead-enders. The reason why I mention that, there was a gross misunderestimation of the challenge we faced in the post-conflict aspect of Iraq.” (NPR’s “Fresh Air,” 12/6/05)
· December 2005: “If the president wants him on his team, I’m not going to question that. But, as I said – very strong disagreements because early on after the initial military phase, I said, ‘You’ve got to have more troops over there.’ And I didn’t think of it myself. I heard from everybody from sergeant majors to generals saying the same thing; that they didn’t have enough troops over there. And we paid a very heavy price for that.” (NPR’s “Fresh Air,” 12/6/05)
2006:
March 2006: “Of course, I would, quote, like to see more troops.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 3/30/06)
April 2006: “It’s well known, because I was asked a direct question about my confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, that I do not have confidence. But that does not mean that I’m calling for his removal, because that’s what the president of the United States’ job is.” (CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees,” 4/13/06)
June 2006: “You know, I’ve always said that we needed more troops over there. I have said that for years.” (CBS’ “Evening News,” 6/20/06)
July 2006: CNN’s JOHN KING: “The United States is sending more troops to Iraq. What do you think?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think it’s necessary. I think it was necessary a long, long time ago. I think one of the biggest mistakes we made that we’ve paid a very heavy price for was not having enough boots on the ground. I said that three years ago.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 7/26/06)
August 2006: NBC’s DAVID GREGORY: “But to do that, do you need more U.S. soldiers on the ground now?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think so. I think so. We took troops from places like Ramadi, which are still not under control, to put them into Baghdad. We’ve had to send in additional troops as they are. All along, we have not had enough troops on the ground to control the situation. Many, many people knew that and it’s – we’re paying a very heavy price for it. But I want to emphasize that we cannot lose this. It will cause chaos in Iraq and in the region, and it’s – I still believe that we, we must prevail.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/20/06)
· August 2006: “I know that military commanders on the ground need more troops, whether they’re asking for them or not. But see, this is kind of a false argument. … It’s not up to the commanders on the ground, it’s up to the leaders who assess the entire battlefield situation to decide whether they need. I’ve known very few – General McCaffrey’s going to follow us – I’ve known very few commanders in the field who see I – say, ‘I need help.’“ (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/20/06)
September 2006: “I still think we need more troops over there.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/24/06)
October 2006: “I would increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps by some hundred thousand people, and I would send more troops over there where necessary, and I would listen very carefully to my military commanders.” (CBS’ “Evening News,” 10/19/06)
· October 2006: “Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people …” (Lorna Colquhoun, “ McCain Urges More Troops For ‘Insurgency,’“ The Union Leader, 10/28/06)
· October 2006: “I have said, as long ago as nearly three years ago, when I was asked if I had confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, I said I did not.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 10/18/06)
November 2006: “I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops. … I also said three years ago, if we don’t have more troops over there, and we don’t do what’s necessary, we are going to be doomed to failure. I gave a speech to the Foreign Relations – Council on Foreign Relations – that said basically that, and I’ve been saying it all along in every hearing, and I’ve been saying, ‘You are going to face this situation we’re facing today if we didn’t have a more robust presence and a better strategy,’ and that’s – I proved to be right in that respect.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/12/06)
· November 2006: “I’ve said for a long time that I had no confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, but that’s a decision to be made by the president.” (Fox News’ “Live Event,” 11/8/06)
December 2006: “We must have more troops over there. That has to be accompanied by a larger Marine Corps or Army. Maybe 20,000 more Marines and 80,000 more Army troops so that we can handle whatever is necessary. And we have to have a big enough surge that we can get Baghdad under control and then Anbar province under control.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 12/12/06)
2007:
January 2007: “The presence of additional coalition forces would give the Iraqi government the ability to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own: impose its rule throughout the country. In bringing security to Iraq, and chiefly to Baghdad, our forces would give the government a fighting chance to pursue reconciliation. … There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops. To be of value the surge must be substantial and it must be sustained – it must be substantial and it must be sustained. We will need a large number of troops. During our recent trip commanders on the ground spoke of a surge of three to five additional brigades in Baghdad and at least an additional brigade in Anbar province. I believe these numbers are the minimum that’s required – a minimum. We need more of the right kind of troops: civil affairs teams, special forces, translators, troops to conduct information operations, among others. The mission of these reinforcements would be to implement the thus-elusive hold element of the military’s clear, hold, build strategy, to maintain security in cleared areas to protect the population and critical infrastructure, and to impose the government’s authority: essential elements of a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 1/5/07)
· January 2007: “Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history.” (Roger Simon, “McCain Bashes Cheney Over Iraq Policy,” The Politico, 1/24/07)
April 2007: “After my first visit to Iraq in 2003, I argued for more troops. I took issue with statements characterizing the insurgency as a few ‘dead-enders’ or being in its ‘last throes.’ I criticized the search and destroy strategy and argued for a counter-insurgency approach that separated the reconcilable population from the irreconcilable. That is the course now followed by General Petraeus, and the brave Americans and coalition troops he has the honor to command.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To The Virginia Military Institute, 4/11/07)
May 2007: “The war was terribly mismanaged and we now have to fix a lot of the mistakes that were made.” (Republican Presidential Debate, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA, 5/3/07)
John McCain Bloggers Added
An updated list of McCain Bloggers...
AvoiceForReason
Azamatterofact
Azamatteroprinciple
blogs4mccain.com
Broad Side of the Barn
Election Night HQ New!
EvangelicalsForMcCain
eyeon08
HoosiersForMcCain
Iowa for McCain
McCain Blogette
McCain States
McCain Talk
McCain08 On-Line Strategy Memo
McCain2008/blog
McCainHQ08 Yahoo Group
MichiganCooler
MyMcCainBlog
NH4McCAIN
NJ for McCain
Official McCain Blog
Partisan American
Political Mafioso
Reality Bytes New!
South Carolina for McCain
StandUpForMcCain New!
The Mac Is Back
The Mad Irishman New!
The McCain Times New!
The Way Forward-John McCain
VoteMcCain
With Both Hands
with assists from
www.circletheweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.ramblingweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.ramblingweb.blogspot.com/
AvoiceForReason
Azamatterofact
Azamatteroprinciple
blogs4mccain.com
Broad Side of the Barn
Election Night HQ New!
EvangelicalsForMcCain
eyeon08
HoosiersForMcCain
Iowa for McCain
McCain Blogette
McCain States
McCain Talk
McCain08 On-Line Strategy Memo
McCain2008/blog
McCainHQ08 Yahoo Group
MichiganCooler
MyMcCainBlog
NH4McCAIN
NJ for McCain
Official McCain Blog
Partisan American
Political Mafioso
Reality Bytes New!
South Carolina for McCain
StandUpForMcCain New!
The Mac Is Back
The Mad Irishman New!
The McCain Times New!
The Way Forward-John McCain
VoteMcCain
With Both Hands
with assists from
www.circletheweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.ramblingweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.ramblingweb.blogspot.com/
Endorsement for John McCain
SECRETARY JOHN LEHMAN ENDORSES JOHN MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, Dr. John Lehman, former Secretary of the Navy and 9/11 Commission member, endorsed John McCain for President of the United States. Secretary Lehman joins a distinguished group of national security experts supporting John McCain for president, including fellow 9/11 Commission members Tom Kean and Slade Gorton as well as four former United States Secretaries of State: Henry Kissinger, General Alexander Haig, Lawrence Eagleburger and George Shultz.
Secretary Lehman issued the following statement on his endorsement of John McCain:
"I am proud to support John McCain for president. Having worked with John McCain for over twenty years -- from the Reagan Administration through to the 9/11 Commission -- there's no doubt in my mind that he is the right man to lead as commander in chief today.
"As John McCain has said, 'There comes a time when a president can no longer rely on briefing books and power points, when the experts and advisors have all weighed in, when the sum total of one's life becomes the foundation from which he or she makes the decisions that determine the course of history.' No other candidate has John McCain's experience or the judgment it informs to make the tough decisions required to protect our national security.
"I am honored to stand with John McCain."
John McCain issued the following statement accepting Secretary Lehman's endorsement:
"America is indebted to Secretary Lehman for his many contributions to protecting our national security -- from his time as President Reagan's Navy Secretary to his critical role on the 9/11 Commission. I thank Secretary Lehman and am honored to receive his support."
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, Dr. John Lehman, former Secretary of the Navy and 9/11 Commission member, endorsed John McCain for President of the United States. Secretary Lehman joins a distinguished group of national security experts supporting John McCain for president, including fellow 9/11 Commission members Tom Kean and Slade Gorton as well as four former United States Secretaries of State: Henry Kissinger, General Alexander Haig, Lawrence Eagleburger and George Shultz.
Secretary Lehman issued the following statement on his endorsement of John McCain:
"I am proud to support John McCain for president. Having worked with John McCain for over twenty years -- from the Reagan Administration through to the 9/11 Commission -- there's no doubt in my mind that he is the right man to lead as commander in chief today.
"As John McCain has said, 'There comes a time when a president can no longer rely on briefing books and power points, when the experts and advisors have all weighed in, when the sum total of one's life becomes the foundation from which he or she makes the decisions that determine the course of history.' No other candidate has John McCain's experience or the judgment it informs to make the tough decisions required to protect our national security.
"I am honored to stand with John McCain."
John McCain issued the following statement accepting Secretary Lehman's endorsement:
"America is indebted to Secretary Lehman for his many contributions to protecting our national security -- from his time as President Reagan's Navy Secretary to his critical role on the 9/11 Commission. I thank Secretary Lehman and am honored to receive his support."
McCain Online Buzz
Reprint from http://mccain08olc.blogspot.com/2007/11/buzz-is-growing-for-mccain.html
We got a great e-mail from Tony GOPrano over at PoliticoMafioso about the growing buzz on-line about John McCain.
While we'd love to take credit for it (and Tony very graciously offers some), we think it has more to do with Senator McCain himself as well as established bloggers such as Adam C. over at RedState who filed these two posts:
Red State Blog: On The Bus With McCain: Sights And Sounds and on Rep. Flake explaining why conservatives should support McCain
From the Pollster.com Blog on how McCain runs best against Hillary in Iowa and Ohio.
ABC News’ Political Radar Blog: McCain Electability Over Clinton
By ABC News's Ron Claiborne and Bret Hovell.
And finally, there is a great “call to arms” for bloggers and other supporters for McCain over at The Mad Irishman’s Conservative Consortium.
So there is an increased buzz on-line for John McCain. That is, thanks to McCain himself and the blogs above. If we have had some small impact we are gratified.
We got a great e-mail from Tony GOPrano over at PoliticoMafioso about the growing buzz on-line about John McCain.
While we'd love to take credit for it (and Tony very graciously offers some), we think it has more to do with Senator McCain himself as well as established bloggers such as Adam C. over at RedState who filed these two posts:
Red State Blog: On The Bus With McCain: Sights And Sounds and on Rep. Flake explaining why conservatives should support McCain
From the Pollster.com Blog on how McCain runs best against Hillary in Iowa and Ohio.
ABC News’ Political Radar Blog: McCain Electability Over Clinton
By ABC News's Ron Claiborne and Bret Hovell.
And finally, there is a great “call to arms” for bloggers and other supporters for McCain over at The Mad Irishman’s Conservative Consortium.
So there is an increased buzz on-line for John McCain. That is, thanks to McCain himself and the blogs above. If we have had some small impact we are gratified.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
My Horse - John McCain
My Horse - From Race42008.com
Well, the time has come. I began my writing stint here at Race42008 as an undecided voter, and I hope that that has given some level of credibility to my past writings, in which I have taken shots at, and given kudos to, pretty much everyone in the field. But, for about the last month or so, I’ve noticed that I’ve been losing that neutrality. I think, for the sake of honesty with you the reader, I have to come out of the closet: I have decided to support John McCain for President.
This may come as a surprise. Those who have paid attention know that I’m a libertarian-leaning, Federalist Republican. I am pro-Choice, but I oppose Roe v. Wade and I think the states should decide. I oppose gun control because the constitution protects the right to gun ownership. I oppose “comprehensive immigration reform” - whatever that means - and I want the border fence built now and an employment verification system set up immediately. I believe in low taxes and oppose federal tax increases. I opposed the Iraq War, but support the Surge. I oppose the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. And, I think that the Patriot Act is mostly garbage.
I state my positions for the simple reason that they conflict with many of McCain’s. Many are probably wondering, “what’s a libertarian doing supporting McCain?” Fair question.
Here is why I’m supporting John McCain for President:
He is a born leader, and the most experienced one available on either side of the isle. As his position on the Surge made obvious, McCain cares more about America than he does about himself, and he does what he believes must be done, no matter how unpopular it is. And, he’s usually right about these things: from the surge to pork-barrel spending by Republicans, McCain was the voice in the desert WELL BEFORE the rest of the party came around to his position.
At the same time, McCain is flexible enough to get things done as President. He now supports securing the border FIRST, before any other immigration reform steps are taken. Why has he changed his position? Because he realized that Americans don’t trust the government to secure the border as part of a “package deal.” So, he has pledged to secure the border to earn the trust of ordinary Americans. McCain is smart enough to learn from his mistakes.
He has been a diplomat, and made peace with the same country that tortured him for 5 years. Unlike virtually every other Republican, McCain would vastly improve our foreign policy and diplomatic efforts. And he would do so without selling out America like Hillary and Obama and Co.
Because of his military service and his public service, McCain speaks with an unparelleled moral authority on the issues, both domestic and foreign.
He would maintain or lower tax rates, and more importantly, would begin the hard work of trimming spending and shrinking government. Each candidate has a plan to do this, but only Giuliani and McCain actually have records that support their rhetoric.
He is a Federalist. McCain correctly points out that the Republican, conservative, position on things like abortion and gay rights is not to have a blanket federal ban on these things, but rather to get the federal government out of the conversation, and leave these issues up to the states, so that the people can decide how they want to live and what their communities should be like.
He is pro-life AND has a pro-life record. Even though I’m pro-Choice and even though I disagree with the so-called Social Conservative wing of our party on virtually everything, McCain is a great compromise candidate on this issue. He’s not going to go around alienating the center with fire and brimstone talk on abortion and stem cells. But, Social Conservatives can certainly be comfortable with the man that Sam Brownback endorsed for President, so SoCons are unlikely to bolt from the party when presented with a candidate who has been consistently pro-life for his entire 20+ year public career, and who would appoint strict constructionist judges.
McCain will win the general election. He polls even with, or ahead of Clinton in national polls and performs better than Giuliani does against Clinton in most swing states. McCain puts some blue states like PA, OH, and MI into play in the general election - without jeopardizing the GOP’s southern flank and without the spectre of a pro-life 3rd-part candidacy.
John McCain is a candidate that virtually every Republican can get behind. He is good (or at least good enough) on all three prongs of the Reagan stool, and he can win. But, most importantly, he is the one person in this race with the experience, integrity, and courage to do the right things and make the hard choices for our future. You always know where he stands, and you know that he’ll keep taxes low, cut spending, appoint good judges, win in Iraq, and defend America.
I don’t agree with him on everything, but that doesn’t matter.
I AM PROUD TO SUPPORT JOHN McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT.
by Michael Lawrence
Well, the time has come. I began my writing stint here at Race42008 as an undecided voter, and I hope that that has given some level of credibility to my past writings, in which I have taken shots at, and given kudos to, pretty much everyone in the field. But, for about the last month or so, I’ve noticed that I’ve been losing that neutrality. I think, for the sake of honesty with you the reader, I have to come out of the closet: I have decided to support John McCain for President.
This may come as a surprise. Those who have paid attention know that I’m a libertarian-leaning, Federalist Republican. I am pro-Choice, but I oppose Roe v. Wade and I think the states should decide. I oppose gun control because the constitution protects the right to gun ownership. I oppose “comprehensive immigration reform” - whatever that means - and I want the border fence built now and an employment verification system set up immediately. I believe in low taxes and oppose federal tax increases. I opposed the Iraq War, but support the Surge. I oppose the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. And, I think that the Patriot Act is mostly garbage.
I state my positions for the simple reason that they conflict with many of McCain’s. Many are probably wondering, “what’s a libertarian doing supporting McCain?” Fair question.
Here is why I’m supporting John McCain for President:
He is a born leader, and the most experienced one available on either side of the isle. As his position on the Surge made obvious, McCain cares more about America than he does about himself, and he does what he believes must be done, no matter how unpopular it is. And, he’s usually right about these things: from the surge to pork-barrel spending by Republicans, McCain was the voice in the desert WELL BEFORE the rest of the party came around to his position.
At the same time, McCain is flexible enough to get things done as President. He now supports securing the border FIRST, before any other immigration reform steps are taken. Why has he changed his position? Because he realized that Americans don’t trust the government to secure the border as part of a “package deal.” So, he has pledged to secure the border to earn the trust of ordinary Americans. McCain is smart enough to learn from his mistakes.
He has been a diplomat, and made peace with the same country that tortured him for 5 years. Unlike virtually every other Republican, McCain would vastly improve our foreign policy and diplomatic efforts. And he would do so without selling out America like Hillary and Obama and Co.
Because of his military service and his public service, McCain speaks with an unparelleled moral authority on the issues, both domestic and foreign.
He would maintain or lower tax rates, and more importantly, would begin the hard work of trimming spending and shrinking government. Each candidate has a plan to do this, but only Giuliani and McCain actually have records that support their rhetoric.
He is a Federalist. McCain correctly points out that the Republican, conservative, position on things like abortion and gay rights is not to have a blanket federal ban on these things, but rather to get the federal government out of the conversation, and leave these issues up to the states, so that the people can decide how they want to live and what their communities should be like.
He is pro-life AND has a pro-life record. Even though I’m pro-Choice and even though I disagree with the so-called Social Conservative wing of our party on virtually everything, McCain is a great compromise candidate on this issue. He’s not going to go around alienating the center with fire and brimstone talk on abortion and stem cells. But, Social Conservatives can certainly be comfortable with the man that Sam Brownback endorsed for President, so SoCons are unlikely to bolt from the party when presented with a candidate who has been consistently pro-life for his entire 20+ year public career, and who would appoint strict constructionist judges.
McCain will win the general election. He polls even with, or ahead of Clinton in national polls and performs better than Giuliani does against Clinton in most swing states. McCain puts some blue states like PA, OH, and MI into play in the general election - without jeopardizing the GOP’s southern flank and without the spectre of a pro-life 3rd-part candidacy.
John McCain is a candidate that virtually every Republican can get behind. He is good (or at least good enough) on all three prongs of the Reagan stool, and he can win. But, most importantly, he is the one person in this race with the experience, integrity, and courage to do the right things and make the hard choices for our future. You always know where he stands, and you know that he’ll keep taxes low, cut spending, appoint good judges, win in Iraq, and defend America.
I don’t agree with him on everything, but that doesn’t matter.
I AM PROUD TO SUPPORT JOHN McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT.
by Michael Lawrence
Friday, November 16, 2007
John McCain Most Electable Candidate
POLL: SurveyUSA GEs in OH, IA
Two new SurveyUSA statewide surveys of registered voters in Ohio and Iowa (conducted 11/9 through 11/11) finds:
Ohio (n=533):
McCain 47, Clinton 46
Clinton 49, Giuliani 44
Clinton 51, Romney 42
Clinton 54, Huckabee 37
McCain 52, Obama 37
Giuliani 49, Obama 41
Obama 45, Romney 41
Obama 48, Huckabee 38
Iowa (n=546):
McCain 48, Clinton 44
Clinton 47, Giuliani 43
Clinton 49, Romney 43
Clinton 49, Huckabee 43
Obama 50, McCain 42
Obama 52, Giuliani 39
Obama 53, Romney 39
Obama 56, Huckabee 35
Crossposted from - http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_ges_in_oh_ia.php
Two new SurveyUSA statewide surveys of registered voters in Ohio and Iowa (conducted 11/9 through 11/11) finds:
Ohio (n=533):
McCain 47, Clinton 46
Clinton 49, Giuliani 44
Clinton 51, Romney 42
Clinton 54, Huckabee 37
McCain 52, Obama 37
Giuliani 49, Obama 41
Obama 45, Romney 41
Obama 48, Huckabee 38
Iowa (n=546):
McCain 48, Clinton 44
Clinton 47, Giuliani 43
Clinton 49, Romney 43
Clinton 49, Huckabee 43
Obama 50, McCain 42
Obama 52, Giuliani 39
Obama 53, Romney 39
Obama 56, Huckabee 35
Crossposted from - http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_ges_in_oh_ia.php
John McCain and the Media
Cross Posted from http://blogs4mccain.com/2007/11/15/mccain-and-the-media/
I have a bone to pick with the media. I recently wrote an article about the lack of substance in the media titled, “Why Do I Know that Barack Obama Lost His American Flag Lapel Pin?” However, this latest dust up with CNN and Rick Sanchez has highlighted not only the media’s lack of substance, but their poor reporting, their sensationalism, and their bias. Now this is nothing new, but amazingly Mr. Sanchez was able to display all these shortcomings in one segment. Since this has become the most overanalyzed video clip in recent history, I’ll keep it short.
1. Poor Reporting – The clip should have been showed in its entirety, and breaking down phrases and expressions without context is simply poor reporting.
2. Sensationalism – The ‘Is this the end of John McCain’ remark is about as over-the-top as it gets.
3. Lack of Substance – What’s this all about again? Inappropriate laughter? Not scolding a questioner? Not saying loudly enough that he respects Senator Clinton?
4. Bias – I’ve been to several town hall meeting and I guarantee you this is not the first inappropriate question this or any other candidate has heard. Yet I haven’t seen other candidates taken to task when a questioner asks a nasty question about George Bush.
Now I’m less inclined to claim liberal bias, and more inclined to simply claim bias. I think everyone knows which networks slant left and which one slants right, but I’m disappointed in CNN because I used to think they tried to remain neutral. Yet this isn’t their first mistake. They reported Senator McCain would be dropping out of the presidential race last summer, which clearly he didn’t. Their coverage of Iraq is full of commentary and short on reporting. I still like watching Wolf Blitzer on Sundays because I think he’s an even-handed journalist, but I hope CNN will rethink its programming and follow the lead of journalists like Mr. Blitzer, instead of degrading itself for ratings with showmen like Mr. Sanchez.
I have a bone to pick with the media. I recently wrote an article about the lack of substance in the media titled, “Why Do I Know that Barack Obama Lost His American Flag Lapel Pin?” However, this latest dust up with CNN and Rick Sanchez has highlighted not only the media’s lack of substance, but their poor reporting, their sensationalism, and their bias. Now this is nothing new, but amazingly Mr. Sanchez was able to display all these shortcomings in one segment. Since this has become the most overanalyzed video clip in recent history, I’ll keep it short.
1. Poor Reporting – The clip should have been showed in its entirety, and breaking down phrases and expressions without context is simply poor reporting.
2. Sensationalism – The ‘Is this the end of John McCain’ remark is about as over-the-top as it gets.
3. Lack of Substance – What’s this all about again? Inappropriate laughter? Not scolding a questioner? Not saying loudly enough that he respects Senator Clinton?
4. Bias – I’ve been to several town hall meeting and I guarantee you this is not the first inappropriate question this or any other candidate has heard. Yet I haven’t seen other candidates taken to task when a questioner asks a nasty question about George Bush.
Now I’m less inclined to claim liberal bias, and more inclined to simply claim bias. I think everyone knows which networks slant left and which one slants right, but I’m disappointed in CNN because I used to think they tried to remain neutral. Yet this isn’t their first mistake. They reported Senator McCain would be dropping out of the presidential race last summer, which clearly he didn’t. Their coverage of Iraq is full of commentary and short on reporting. I still like watching Wolf Blitzer on Sundays because I think he’s an even-handed journalist, but I hope CNN will rethink its programming and follow the lead of journalists like Mr. Blitzer, instead of degrading itself for ratings with showmen like Mr. Sanchez.
McCain Volunteers
Cross Posted from
http://mccain08olc.blogspot.com/2007/11/get-off-couch-for-mccain.html
Get Off the Couch for McCain
I recieved this e-mail today from Joelle of the McCain Campain. I am taking a week off in (probably) early January to volunteer for the McCain Campaign in NH. If you have six weeks, great. If you have 6 hours, that probably works to.
Can you invest six weeks of your time to make history?
We need you at one of our offices in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan or South Carolina.
If you can relocate to one of the early primary or caucus states, please reply to this e-mail or send your contact information to: mccainvols@johnmccain.com
Thank-you!
Joelle Saliba
Please get back to Joelle if you can answer this call.
She can be reached at mccainvols (at) mccain08.com
http://mccain08olc.blogspot.com/2007/11/get-off-couch-for-mccain.html
Get Off the Couch for McCain
I recieved this e-mail today from Joelle of the McCain Campain. I am taking a week off in (probably) early January to volunteer for the McCain Campaign in NH. If you have six weeks, great. If you have 6 hours, that probably works to.
Can you invest six weeks of your time to make history?
We need you at one of our offices in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan or South Carolina.
If you can relocate to one of the early primary or caucus states, please reply to this e-mail or send your contact information to: mccainvols@johnmccain.com
Thank-you!
Joelle Saliba
Please get back to Joelle if you can answer this call.
She can be reached at mccainvols (at) mccain08.com
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
McCain - The Character Factor
Reprinted from the New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13brooks.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
November 13, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
The Character Factor
By DAVID BROOKS
Rochester, N.H.
About six months ago, I was having lunch with a political consultant and we were having a smart-alecky conversation about the presidential race. All of sudden, my friend interrupted the flow of gossip and said: “You know, there’s really only one great man running for president this year, and that’s McCain.”
The comment cut through the way we pundits normally talk about presidential candidates. We tend to view them like products and base our verdicts on their market share at the moment. We don’t so much evaluate their character; we analyze how effectively they are manipulating their image to appeal to voters, and in this way we buy into the artificiality of modern campaigning.
My friend’s remark pierced all that, and it had the added weight of truth.
Eight years ago, it was fashionable for us media types to wax rapturously about McCain. That vogue has passed, but I’m afraid my views are unchanged. I have seen McCain when his campaign was imploding, and now again when he’s rising in the polls. I have seen him shooting craps and negotiating in the Senate. I have seen him leading delegations like a statesman and bickering with his old Hanoi Hilton prison-mate Bud Day like a crotchety old lady.
And I can tell you there is nobody in politics remotely like him.
The first thing that still strikes one about McCain is his energy. In his book, “The Nightingale’s Song,” Robert Timberg runs through primal force metaphors to describe the young McCain. “Being on liberty with John McCain was like being in a train wreck,” Timberg wrote.
Prison in Vietnam gave him self-respect and a cause greater than himself, but it didn’t diminish his dynamism. His office in the Senate isn’t tucked away in a tranquil corner of his suite; it’s right in the vortex, and it’s always empty because he’s walking around. Campaigning last weekend in New Hampshire, he was his old restless self, never alone, craving contact, conversation and fun.
Timberg wrote that McCain fought against the system at the Naval Academy as if it were some hostile organism, “as if any compromise meant surrendering a part of himself that he might never retrieve.”
The years and the Senate have smoothed some of his rebelliousness, but he still fights a daily battle against the soul-destroying forms of modern politics.
If you cover him for a day, you’d better bring 2,500 questions because in the hours he spends with journalists, you will run through all of them. Last Saturday, we talked about Pervez Musharraf’s asceticism and Ted Williams’s hitting philosophy, the Korean War and Hispanic voting patterns.
He analyzed the debates he won and the times he was wooden. He talked about his failures as a fund-raiser and said he’d like to pick a running mate with formal economics training because he’s weak in that area. He won’t tell you everything, but there will never be a moment as the hours stretch by when you feel that he is spinning you, lying to himself or insulting your intelligence.
Telling the truth is a skill. Those who don’t do it habitually lose the ability, but McCain is well-practiced and has the capacity to face unpleasant truths. While other conservatives failed to see how corporations were insinuating themselves into their movement, McCain went after Boeing contracts. While others failed to see the rising tide of corruption around them, McCain led the charge against Jack Abramoff. While others ignored the spending binge, McCain was among the fiscal hawks.
There have been occasions when McCain compromised his principles for political gain, but he was so bad at it that it always backfired. More often, he is driven by an ancient sense of honor, which is different from fame and consists of the desire to be worthy of the esteem of posterity.
Other Republicans used to accuse him of kissing up to the news media. But when the Iraq war was at its worst, and other candidates were hiding in the grass waiting to see how things would turn out, McCain championed the surge, which the major Republican candidates now celebrate.
He did it knowing that it would cost him his media-darling status and probably the presidency. But for years he had hated the way the war was being fought. And when the opportunity to change it came, the only honorable course was to try.
And now he pushes ahead, building momentum, but desperately needing a miracle win in New Hampshire. Everyone will make their own political choices, and you might plausibly argue that the qualities John McCain possesses are not the ones the country now requires. But character is destiny, and you will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men.
That human point seemed worth remembering, even amid the layers of campaign pretense.
November 13, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
The Character Factor
By DAVID BROOKS
Rochester, N.H.
About six months ago, I was having lunch with a political consultant and we were having a smart-alecky conversation about the presidential race. All of sudden, my friend interrupted the flow of gossip and said: “You know, there’s really only one great man running for president this year, and that’s McCain.”
The comment cut through the way we pundits normally talk about presidential candidates. We tend to view them like products and base our verdicts on their market share at the moment. We don’t so much evaluate their character; we analyze how effectively they are manipulating their image to appeal to voters, and in this way we buy into the artificiality of modern campaigning.
My friend’s remark pierced all that, and it had the added weight of truth.
Eight years ago, it was fashionable for us media types to wax rapturously about McCain. That vogue has passed, but I’m afraid my views are unchanged. I have seen McCain when his campaign was imploding, and now again when he’s rising in the polls. I have seen him shooting craps and negotiating in the Senate. I have seen him leading delegations like a statesman and bickering with his old Hanoi Hilton prison-mate Bud Day like a crotchety old lady.
And I can tell you there is nobody in politics remotely like him.
The first thing that still strikes one about McCain is his energy. In his book, “The Nightingale’s Song,” Robert Timberg runs through primal force metaphors to describe the young McCain. “Being on liberty with John McCain was like being in a train wreck,” Timberg wrote.
Prison in Vietnam gave him self-respect and a cause greater than himself, but it didn’t diminish his dynamism. His office in the Senate isn’t tucked away in a tranquil corner of his suite; it’s right in the vortex, and it’s always empty because he’s walking around. Campaigning last weekend in New Hampshire, he was his old restless self, never alone, craving contact, conversation and fun.
Timberg wrote that McCain fought against the system at the Naval Academy as if it were some hostile organism, “as if any compromise meant surrendering a part of himself that he might never retrieve.”
The years and the Senate have smoothed some of his rebelliousness, but he still fights a daily battle against the soul-destroying forms of modern politics.
If you cover him for a day, you’d better bring 2,500 questions because in the hours he spends with journalists, you will run through all of them. Last Saturday, we talked about Pervez Musharraf’s asceticism and Ted Williams’s hitting philosophy, the Korean War and Hispanic voting patterns.
He analyzed the debates he won and the times he was wooden. He talked about his failures as a fund-raiser and said he’d like to pick a running mate with formal economics training because he’s weak in that area. He won’t tell you everything, but there will never be a moment as the hours stretch by when you feel that he is spinning you, lying to himself or insulting your intelligence.
Telling the truth is a skill. Those who don’t do it habitually lose the ability, but McCain is well-practiced and has the capacity to face unpleasant truths. While other conservatives failed to see how corporations were insinuating themselves into their movement, McCain went after Boeing contracts. While others failed to see the rising tide of corruption around them, McCain led the charge against Jack Abramoff. While others ignored the spending binge, McCain was among the fiscal hawks.
There have been occasions when McCain compromised his principles for political gain, but he was so bad at it that it always backfired. More often, he is driven by an ancient sense of honor, which is different from fame and consists of the desire to be worthy of the esteem of posterity.
Other Republicans used to accuse him of kissing up to the news media. But when the Iraq war was at its worst, and other candidates were hiding in the grass waiting to see how things would turn out, McCain championed the surge, which the major Republican candidates now celebrate.
He did it knowing that it would cost him his media-darling status and probably the presidency. But for years he had hated the way the war was being fought. And when the opportunity to change it came, the only honorable course was to try.
And now he pushes ahead, building momentum, but desperately needing a miracle win in New Hampshire. Everyone will make their own political choices, and you might plausibly argue that the qualities John McCain possesses are not the ones the country now requires. But character is destiny, and you will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men.
That human point seemed worth remembering, even amid the layers of campaign pretense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)