“I agree that he was terrible on this issue. I’ve got no defense for him. ”

Was. Past tense.

I believe that he will be swayed by people like us to focus on enforcement first.

Others can obviously disagree; and I can understand why.

He said that he has not changed his position. If he didn’t change his position after last summer, why should I believe he will in the future?

As will the Huckster.

Romney-Rudy looks like the hand being dealt.

And they’ll beat Hillary-Edwards by sheer gravitas.

It’ll then be up to the conservative voters to press R&R hard, once they get into in office, to reverse the Big Government trend of GWB and his limp-spined RINOs …who couldn’t keep the spending restrained [SEE: Prescription Drug Boodoggle], even with control of both the Congress and White House.

And our nation then needs to take the fight to the Jihadis, globally, with more resolve than shown so far. Beginning in Waziristan, to extinguish OBL, Zawahiri and the rest of that nest of psychopaths, while we have the decisive military advantage. (Such Balances of Power are always shifting, and it will only tilt against us, the longer we wait.)

Them, technologically, we need to economically-geld the Saudis with a Manhattan Program for Energy Independence.

The Dems will never go that route.

R&R could be spurred there with a true conservative movement rising up and rallying them.

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.

strong arguments but my question is

what about McCain’s Gang of 14 shenanengans?

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.

hoping for a code red moment for McCain

I expect this will come from Rudy

The SurveyUSA poll shows McCain and Rudy taking:

The conservative vote
The Hispanic vote

I am sceptical of that poll, Rasmussen, who I consider more accurate based on track records says the opposite.

In Florida, Romney leads among conservative voters, attracting 28% of them. Giuliani is second with 18%.

Huckabee leads among the state’s Evangelical Christian voters, but his lead is not as substantial as in earlier states. Huckabee currently attracts 25% of the Evangelical vote, Romney 20%, and Thompson 17%.

Giuliani is viewed favorably by 74% of Likely Primary Voters. Romney’s favorables are at 70%, Thompson at 66%, McCain at 64%, Huckabee at 54% and Paul at 28%.

Correction, the Geneva conventions provide protections for civilians and legal combattants only. There are no protections provided to illegal combattants in war time.

paulsur on January 21, 2008 at 6:11 PM

Didn’t Hamdan v Rumsfeld change that?

The conservative jurists – Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas dissented on this idiotic and very dangerous decision.

This is one more example of why we have to keep Dems out of the White House, and can’t stay home in protest just because our favorite candidate didn’t make the cut with voters.

yet

Surrenders to Mexico

Was. Past tense.

I believe that he will be swayed by people like us to focus on enforcement first.

Others can obviously disagree; and I can understand why.

Sorry, the prettiest girl in the room isn’t going out with us. We can sit home and mope about it; or check out the rest of the bar.

John McCain is a poohead

froghat on January 21, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Succinct. Concise. Eloquent. True

Stop amnesty?

I agree that he was terrible on this issue. I’ve got no defense for him.

and can still say this:

The single most important issue facing us right now is national security. McCain is far above everyone else on this issue that all of his other problems – and I admit he has them – are overcome.

SteveMG on January 21, 2008 at 6:03 PM

with a straight face?

Who would be McCain’s Vice, though????

“Ladie and gentleman, please rise for the 44th President of the United States, the Commander in Chief of all US armed forces, the chief law enforcement officer of the US, the CEO of America, Inc. and the head of state, Czarina, er, President Hillary Rodham (or whatever she’s using) Clinton.”

No thanks.

As Lincoln said, our problems are anew; we must think anew.

SteveMG on January 21, 2008 at 6:33 PM

Yeah, well his solution wasn’t to just cut loose the confederate states in order to assemble a new Union Coalition.

Great, let’s let her run things because McCain isn’t a real true blue conservative (despite an 82 ACU rating).

Yes, he drives me crazy; but the alternative would be a complete, total disaster.

And I’m convinced, unfortunately, that McCain is the only person who can gain enough moderate votes to defeat Clinton or Obama. If someone can persuade me otherwise, I’d be glad to switch.

The Reagan Coalition is gone. We need to assemble a new group. As Lincoln said, our problems are anew; we must think anew.

-McCain supported tax cuts, although less extensive than the Bush plan, that included controls on government spending. Since when is fiscal restraint – which effectively limits government – not a conservative value?

-Obviously he hasn’t supported the Republican Party on immigration reform, but it’s worth noting that the Republican Party’s position on immigration reform is to sit back and watch our borders be overrun.

-He’s also against waterboarding, on the basis that he doesn’t want to encourage foreign armies to treat our troops the way the Vietnamese treated him. Right or wrong – and I think he’s giving our enemies far too much credit as rational actors – it’s hardly the most important issue in the ongoing war on jihad. He’s the most credible commander-in-chief, and one of the most willing to recognize our real enemies and take the fight to them. Hopefully that’s worth more to conservatives than his lack of support for a seldom-used interrogation tactic of dubious intelligence value.

-Campaign finance reform may not be a conservative issue, but I’d think Republicans might want to make it one after the Abramoff debacle.

-This is just for the commenters who’ve pledged to stay home if McCain goes up against Hillary: McCain has a lifetime rating of 83 out of 100 from the American Conservative Union. Clinton has a lifetime rating of… 9. Mr. Conservative himself, Fred:( , scored an 86. In fairness, it would have been 100, but for Thompson’s ardent support of McCain’s campaign finance reform.

The UN Convention Against Torture (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html), which the US is a signatory to, forbids torture against anyone – legal or illegal combatants.

There are other international treaties other than Geneva Conventions that the US has signed on to that forbid torture.

The issue is whether waterboarding is torture. If it is, it’s against the law and the President cannot allow it.

[McCain's] willingness to take unpopular stances… McCain’s immigration stance.

Wide stances? (ducking, running).