Bryan, conservatives should vote for McCain because he is a pro-life fiscal conservative who, at this time of struggle with the radical jihadists, is the best candidate to be the next Commander in Chief. That McCain knows his stuff on military matters is reflected in the fact that he has been right for years on the Iraq War, first in criticizing the Rumsfeld light footprint strategy and then in vocally supporting the surge when Democrats were declaring defeat and most Republicans seemed to be looking for a way out (e.g., Senator Lugar) or looking at their feet (e.g., Romney). That McCain knows his stuff in foreign affairs is reflected in the fact that McCain is endorsed by former Secretaries of State George Schultz, Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger and Lawrence Eagleburger and former Navy Secretaries John Lehman and William Ball. That McCain is far more conservative than what you lead people to believe is reflected in the endorsements of Senators and former Senators including Coburn, Gramm, Coats, Brownback, Burr, Thune, Domenici, Kyl, Lott and Warner; that’s pretty conservative group but what you would expect for a man (McCain) who has an 83% approval rating in his voting record from the American Conservative Union.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 5:09 PM

ameripundit re your 5:20 PM post, that you don’t know that John McCain has stated for some time now that he would make permanant the Bush tax cuts while working to cut federal spending suggests that you need actually to hear John McCain on the issues. John McCain originally opposed the Bush tax cuts because they did not include spending cuts and spending then got out of control; to McCain, the more Reaganesque position was to call for both tax cuts and spending cuts. More than any other candidate, McCain is a fiscal hawk serious about cutting spending.

As for use of interrogation techniques, it depends whether torture is used. McCain has strongly opposed the use of torture for four reasons: (i) the struggle with the radical jihadists is in good part an ideological struggle and the use of torture undercuts our ideological position as the beacon of civilized, democratic behavior; (ii) use of torture is banned by an international convention (”UNCAT”) to which the U.S. has been a signatory for years and the U.S. shoudl uphold its international obligations particularly during the struggle with the terrorists; (iii) the American military tradition is the humane treatment of prisoners and departing from that tradition is unwise; and (iv) use of torture is morally wrong — remember McCain spent six years as a P.O.W. during which time he was subjected to real torture by sadistic North Vietnamese guards and thus has knowledge of what torure means in reality. In short, as to torture, McCain has taken the larger perspective so that we achieve victory against the radical jihadist terrorists.

As for respecting the First Amendment, John Mccain has a good record on that. What you presumably are concerned about is campaign finance reform, which was an attempt at regulating the electoral process so as to reduce the influence of money on politics, which on its face is not a violation fo the First Amendment. The problems in the law are not its intent but are definitional ones that are in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. I doubt that it is an issue in the future; radical jihadism will be.

Finally, John McCain has been saying for months that he got the message, that law enforcement in immigration matters comes first. Actually, the current problem stems from the fact that the law enforcement provisions in the 1980s law signed by none other than President Reagan were not enforced. Last summer’s bill had law enforcement provisions that if enforced would mean that there would not be amnnesty, but as McCain acknowledges, the American people did not believe that the law enforcement provisions woudl be enforced and until they are, no other measures are acceptable.

The foregoing should fully answer your quesitions. Now how about SteveMG’s point that Romney would not have stuck wth the surge? My answer is that Romney would not have instituted the surge, much less stuck with it and that as to military matters, national security and foreign affaairs, Romney simply does not have ther experience and knowledge that a Republican candidate needs to have. McCain does.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 8:55 PM

livefreeordie re your 7:39 PM post: your position means that you must be looking forward to a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Hillary is an anti-military, pro-choice socialist who will increase federal spending and be an appeaser in foreign policy. McCain, on the other hand, is a pro-life fiscal conservative who will cut federal spending and who will be a hawk in foreign policy. Th eonly conclusion that I can draw is that the left wing Kos would be a better place for you to post.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 9:00 PM

To windansea re 8:59 PM post: you ask about the “Gang of 14.” Glad you raised it. Because something that makes Democrat Chuckie Schumer as unhappy as did the “Gang of 14″ should suggest that you have it wrong.

Please recall that there was a Schumer led Democrat filibuster of Bush judicial nominees. While it was said that the fillibuster had not been invoked historically with respect to judicial nominations, that was because judicial nominations were once not political. They are now, because of the Democrats, and Schumer intended to block conservative nominees.

There was under consideration a so-called “constitutional option” of changing the fillibuster rules so that they could not be invoked as to judicial nominees. The problems with that “option” were: (i) that it was not known whether it would have been passed — many Senators were quietly leery of changing fillibuster rules; and (ii) if it did pass, if there were a Democrat Congress with the White House in Democrat hands, the road would be open to appoint left wingers to the U.S. Supreme Court and to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. We of course now have a Democrat Congress as a result of the 2006 election and may have a Hillary Clinton Presidency as a result of the 2008 election. Also, had the constitutional option not been passed, it would have meant a blockage of all or almost all of Bush’s judicial nominees.

What the “Gang of 14″ refers to was a compromise brokered by a group of Republican and Democrat Senators to allow Bush nominees to be voted on and thus approved unless there be extraordinary circumstances. That way, the Bush nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court and most of the Bush nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals could be confirmed without changing fillibuster rules or running the risk of having a complete blockage on conservative confirmations. In fact, John Roberts and Sam Alito were confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court and a great number of Bush nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals were confirmed. As a result, Chuckie Schumer is complaining that the Democrats were snookered. Yet, McCain is pilloried because of the Senate compromise that can fairly be said to have snookered Chuckie. Wrong.

I realize that there are a number of conservatives who complain that the Senate compromise consisted of shenanigans that were indefensible and that the constitutional option needed to be implemented. All I can say is that I think that view is childishly indefensible. It does not take into account the long term consequences of changing fillibuster rules, the consequences if the constitutional option had been voted on and not passed and what was secured by the Senate compromise. More than indefensible, the Senate compromise was the better way to go. An adult such as John McCain understood that. An uncivil screamer such as Levin — who calls callers “dummies” on the air — apparently cannot.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 10:00 PM

profitsbeard re 10:29 PM post: while I share your appreciation for R&R (and so does McCain) and your call for aggressive struggle with the radical jihadists (and McCain is the one who will wage that fight), I think that your predictions in favor of Romney-Rudy are way, way off. Also, Rudy would join with McCain because they are friends, but not Romney.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 10:39 PM