Video: Newt Gingrich is not ready to make nice with McCain
posted at 10:00 am on February 9, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Laura Ingraham guest hosted for O’Reilly Friday and her first guest was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich didn’t come out and either endorse or pledge to oppose John McCain in the general election this fall, so there’s no bombshell in this interview along those lines. He did say than when push comes to vote, he’ll vote for McCain because he’s better on enough issues than either of the Democrats who’ll face him, but that doesn’t mean that McCain should get a pass from the conservative movement when he transgresses conservatism.
Ingraham and Gingrich also make pitch perfect points about how a conservative ought to build bipartisanship. It’s not by moving left as McCain tends to do, but by standing on principle with the American people to force the Democrats to move to the right. Gingrich was very effective at that. McCain has yet to earn any meaningful spurs in that area. The interview then moves into the veepstakes, and that’s where it gets interesting. It’s at about 2:40 into this clip.
Newt Gingrich was first elected to Congress in 1982. John McCain was elected to represent Arizona in the Senate in 1982. Gingrich left Congress in 1998, and McCain is of course still one of Arizona’s senators. You need that background to understand what Newt Gingrich says about McCain and the team he has chosen to work with him is very interesting. With all those years of overlap in Congress, Gingrich would be in a position to know what McCain’s people think of the conservative movement. If Gingrich is right, it explains a lot.
To Gingrich’s take I’ll add that I’m not ready to make nice either. Sen. McCain delivered a fine speech at CPAC, but people can say anything. It’s what they do that tells you who they are. And it’s who they surround themselves with that tells you what they really think. McCain is still surrounded by people who are offended by the conservative movement and he still has NO-borders zealot Juan Hernandez hanging around the campaign. Sen. McCain says he is proud to defend America; Hernandez is not someone who has America’s security interests at heart. He still needs to go.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Newt is standing by his own principles even though he will vot for McCain. That goes for many conservatives. We don’t do the cult of personality. We leave that for the libs.
RobCon on February 9, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Spot on, Newt.
Vanbasten on February 9, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Newt provides a healthy outlook to this situation. He would be a great VP. McCain should consider him. Everybody wins.
RobCon on February 9, 2008 at 10:07 AM
This is a point that needs to be driven into the minds of the republicans who represent us. I too don’t understand why we have to concede to ideals that are not congruent with ours in order to get votes when we had the house and senate majority. Bipartisan-ship does not mean equal representation when there is a majority vs minority.
geckomon on February 9, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Newt is an expert on making Democrats move right. McPain is an expert on making conservatives move away!
Warner Todd Huston on February 9, 2008 at 10:16 AM
I will not bend another inch.
Either we have a conservative representing us as President or we will have a Marxist.
Frankly, I will not settle for a Socialist. McCain represents that and all that is wrong with DC.
A slow trip to collectivism vs. a speedy trip to Marxism. Neither are acceptable!
woodswalking1 on February 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM
I’m not saying you are wrong, but I’d like to point out that the left thinks this exact same thing. They think if Dems stand on principle with the American people, the Republicans will be forced to move to the left.
If anything is going to get done, someone ends up moving. (Not that Congress getting anything done is always a worthy goal.)
MayBee on February 9, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Not only that but he has gone the other way so many times that he can’t be trusted. Not only does he go the wrong way on legislation, even when he talks about people. How many glowing comments about conservatives does anyone recall him making. He has made plenty about leftists. He has to pick a very strong conservative to get me to vote for him, a moderate conservative if I’m going to write in someone else and if he picks a lindsey grahm or charlie crist I will vote for the democrats so the republicans put up a fight against all the foul, anti-American legislation that will come through no matter who is the president.
peacenprosperity on February 9, 2008 at 10:20 AM
If McCain can’t even unify segments of his own party, how is he going to move either party as a whole?
a capella on February 9, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Right, and you can bet your last dollar that if the Dems get the White House and maintain their majority, they will govern like they have a majority.
amkun on February 9, 2008 at 10:23 AM
What does “standing on principle” mean? Conservatives have a silly habit of assuming that the only “principles” that anyone will stand on are conservative ones. That’s simply not true. To characterize the nomination of McCain as “moving left” to attract moderates is a mischaracterization of the situation. The fact is that people joined the party and voted for McCain because they like him and want him to be President more than the others. They like him largely because of the positions he takes on issues that matter to them. Unlike the intransigent conservative blogosphere, McCain realizes that compromises must be made in certain situations, and that you’ll never get 100% of what you want in politics. If that’s not good enough for you, you’re free to stay home in November. We RINOs will take it from there.
Big S on February 9, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I wonder if B-1 Bob Dornan has been getting phone calls recently.
RobCon on February 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Umm, well, if you “hold your nose” and vote for him…guess what? You will be giving him a pass and McCain knows it and will act accordingly. DUH!!! Won’t be much conservatives can do once he is in office…they will be stuck with the same hand ringing dilemma once McCain proves to be dead weight. They’ll be even more “afraid” to go up against a sitting president in four years (and short of McCain dieing in office, he is not doing only four years if he gets in office). He’ll set the standard for how other RINO’s can win the conservative votes and you will be looking at two parties that look exactly the same (except for the R behind their names) and the fact that conservatives will be the biggest joke in American history (all talk, no action, eventually willing to believe Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11…if someone with an R behind their name told them so). Sheeple!
Obama 08′
TOPV on February 9, 2008 at 10:26 AM
It’s not a mystery.
Those who voted for McCain based on the belief that “he can win” the general election … screwed themselves and everyone else. Good job.
Since conservatives won’t be voting for John McCain, you better hope the Democrats vote for him, but you might as well get used to the idea of President Hillary or President Obama. Then, in 2012, let’s see if you’re all smart enough to learn from your mistake. I doubt it. Instead you’ll go ahead and repeat your vote for “who you think can win” and then blame those who are strong enough to vote for what they believe for not putting on the knee pads. We’re already seeing it now. Even though it was made quite clear that conservatives would not vote for McCain under any circumstance, you all ignored that warning and arrogantly insisted on voting for a liberal fraud. Now, instead of admitting that you might have made a mistake, you’re all outraged at those of us who are doing exactly as we warned.
To those such as Tommylotto and bnelson … let’s see how well you survive without us conservatives.
Gregor on February 9, 2008 at 10:33 AM
That’s why you have to earn the support of the American people on your policy or stance, forcing the Democrats to move right.
First of all, McCain claims to be a true conservative. Therefore, it could kind of be a good idea if his principles were, oh I don’t know, conservative.
Secondly, the first closed primary was on Super Tuesday. Up until that point Independents were able to vote for McCain, and often drove him to win the state. They’re not party members, but they influenced our nomination greatly.
amerpundit on February 9, 2008 at 10:38 AM
People who believe McCain remind me of Charlie Brown. No matter how many times Lucy pulled his football away, poor dumb Charlie believed her and ended up flat on his back.
John McCain’s current promises are no more believable than Lucy’s.
I’d rather deal with an enemy who admits that’s what she is than one who falsely claims to be my friend.
Diane C. Russell on February 9, 2008 at 10:40 AM
What? There is nothing, politically, between Marxism and conservatism? And McCain represents socialism?
Are you hung over, or still drunk?
Jaibones on February 9, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Just be honest about it. You’re not fooling anyone. Your comments are absurd. Basically, what you’ve done is join a group which you don’t belong, and then mock them for not accepting you. What if us conservatives joined the Democratic Party and then started posting comments such as yours, mocking liberals for not accepting the fact that we’re sabotaging their elections.
Either you’re too stupid to grasp how idiotic that is, or you think we’re so stupid as to not see through it.
You don’t belong in the Republican Party. Get the f*ck out!
Gregor on February 9, 2008 at 10:44 AM
I like the analogy, and generally agree with it. But what, exactly, is your plan for “deal[ing] with an enemy who admits that’s what she is” when Stevens leaves the court, and the Dems control the White House, House and Senate?
Give us the details, Diane. Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue and Obama appoints Janice Brown to the court? Hold a protest?
Jaibones on February 9, 2008 at 10:44 AM
My vote will be decided on details like Hernandez and Gitmo. If McCain is going to be no more conservative than the Democrats on these issues that have made me a Republican, I’ll vote Democratic for Presidency. As a proud RINO, there are a few Democratic positions on environmental and social policy that I favor. Why shouldn’t I vote Democratic for president and vote Republican lower down the ticket?
thuja on February 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Question: Are we gonna have to deal with so-called true conservatives whining and moaning about how they much “you need us” for the next 6 months?
It’s a fact: McCain is our nominee. On the one hand, you have guys like Bryan and Newt who, having accepted the inevitable, make intelligent arguments about where conservatives should go from here. On the other hand, you have people who just want to cry about it and make childish threats.
If you’re going to stay home in November, do it. But stop acting like Kos Kidz.
amkun on February 9, 2008 at 10:47 AM
If we’re stuck with McCain as the nominee, I don’t see any reason why he shouldn’t have to drop his pants and bend over for conservatives too to buy their votes as well.
If you want my vote in the general, you can slobber over me a little bit too, like you do over the MSM. Say something… conservative every now and then.
I’m all for the tough talk at this stage. If McCain really wants to be president, let him know he’s going to have to win every vote.
saint kansas on February 9, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t you liberals currently infiltrating the Republican Party go back over and be “Kos Kidz” where you belong instead of whining about conservatives who actually belong here?
Gregor on February 9, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Jaibones. Your point is made.
What we really have the choice between a Marxist (Obama), A Stalinist (Hillary), and a “useful idiot” (McCain).
MCain’s “slow boat to Socialism” goes like this:
1) Destroy the culture and the respect for law through the open border policy.
2) Move toward elimination of free expression (Remember McCain-Feingold?)
3)Keep the taxes high and attack those “evil rich folks”
4) Sign on to the “man made global warming religion” of Al Gore.
Getting the idea where he would take us? Sounds like “Hillary light” to me.
woodswalking1 on February 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Those are pretty hollow words, though, Ameripundit. It doesn’t follow that you will earn the support of the American people just because you try to convince them of your position.
The American people are voting right now, and it gives you an idea what they are thinking. There doesn’t seem to be a huge clamoring for the guys that are standing solidly on their conservative principles.
MayBee on February 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Not a big deal but McCain was elected to the House in ‘82 and ‘84 and ran to succeed a retiring Goldwater in the Senate in ‘86.
Dusty on February 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM
McCain has fully acknowledged that he sometimes differs from the normal conservative groupthink. I still don’t understand what most people are talking about when they invoke “principles”, which are distinct from policy positions. McCain, and many other self-identified conservatives who don’t follow the party line often do so because they have identified areas in which they are willing to compromise in order to get some of their agenda done. In other cases, they see the problems facing the nation and world differently than others, and therefore order their priorities differently. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it appears that a large enough chunk of the Republican party, and it’s conservative majority, have agreed with McCain to make him the nominee. I’m one of those people who voted for him, and I’m as much a Republican as any other. I’m a moderate Republican.
I’m not mocking anyone, and who are you to say I don’t belong? I voted, as a registered Republican, in my state’s closed primary on Super Tuesday, and I voted for McCain. I will continue to vote for moderate Republicans who I agree with, when the opportunity presents itself. Apparently there are plenty of others like myself out there. If you can’t handle that, I suggest you build a true conservative majority in the party the old fashioned way: get out there and start convincing people that your ideas are correct.
Big S on February 9, 2008 at 11:05 AM
You know…Juan McShamnesty doesn’t care if the Conservatives are disgruntled. He doesn’t care that they will b!tch and then go vote for him. He only cares that they will vote for him. Conservatives aren’t teaching him a thing by voicing opposition and then voting for him.
If you’re gonna do it that way…quit b!tchin’ and just vote. Your opinion means nothing to the RINO bastardo.
tickleddragon on February 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM
McCain will never win the hearts and minds of the Republican base without choosing a very staunch conservative. No offense to those supporting Huck, but he can’t carry it off, nor lay claim to being one. One of the reasons the base and a whole lot of crossovers had such hopes for Bush and voted for him was due to the trust we had in Cheney. He surrounded himself with people we thought could hold him in line. Heck, at one time, I even thought Condi Rice would be the heir to the White House, or Colin Powell. How along ago that all seems…
McCain has one chance to get it right, but then, that burden is on us as well. Otherwise, sit back and let someone else make the decisions for the next 16 years.
24K lady on February 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I’m offended that Newt calls himself a conservative and the cheats on his wife numerous times.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Me thinks that Hillary and Obama will not have Jane Fonda
at their campaign rallys this year.
RobCon on February 9, 2008 at 11:11 AM
1) He says he’s support McCain over the Dems
2) He’s been quoted saying that he’d accept the VP slot, though he doesn’t expect to be offered it
Yet you want to spin that as opposition?
He then repeats the Democratic talking point about significantly higher voter participation reflecting a huge enthusiasm gap.
The Democrats have swamped the Republicans in primary turnout in every cycle since 1972, with two exceptions: The Clinton re-election and the early Gore coronation. Republicans won 6 out of 8 of those elections. They beat the Dems in pimary turnout in 2000, and lost the popular vote. They killed the Dems in primary turnout in 96, and were blown away. Both parties’ elections were contested in ‘76, ‘80, and ‘88 – the Dems swamped Rep turnout in all three years, and lost two out of three.
Obviously, there are other factors determining relative turnout, and I’d be the last to say that this cycle has built-in R advantages or begins with great conservative strength (one rationale for putting forward a more centrist candidate), but reading too much into the raw numbers, without even examining what underlies them historically, amounts to swallowing Democrat/MSM talking points and doing their de-moralization work for them.
CK MacLeod on February 9, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Isn’t Newt Gingrich helping Huckabee?
bnelson44 on February 9, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Methinks the people who are so insistent on staying home on election day have long since passed principle, and are now fully involved in pique.
Granted that McCain is far from an ideal choice, but the kind of rationalization that sees Obama or Clinton driving the country back to conservatism fails to take into account the wishes of a vast number of citizens for a socialist nanny state. Right now, that desire is still partly hypothetical; put either of them in office, and it will become reality.
Think I’m wrong? Look at what has happened to the UK since 1945.
My hope is that having Thompson, Bolton et. al. in his camp will force McCain to refrain from pushing the more nutball concepts he’s being derided for.
But the actions — or, more properly, inactions — of the McCain haters will do far more damage than good. They will succeed only in speeding the rise of socialism. All in the name of “principle,” of course.
I question their motives and beliefs all the more because so many flocked to Romney, whose “conversion” to conservatism is recent, and manifested so far only in words.
None of us, much as we’d like to believe otherwise, are speaking for the American people. We speak only for ourselves. Right now, the American people seem to be wanting what Obama, Clinton and McCain are offering.
With those choices being what we get, the stakes are too high to feel good about staying home on some principle that the rest of the nation seems not to care about at all. Makes you look like crackpots.
MrScribbler on February 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM
McCain/Paul 08
/s
But in all seriousness if McCain were to pick Gingrich, Bolton, Steele, etc would he even listen to their council?
- The Cat
MirCat on February 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM
This argument that not voting for McCain is voting against the troops is so tired and disingenuous. Soldiers are preserving the rights we hold dear, including the right to vote. They are not preserving the right to vote for John McCain. If my vote is truly worth someone (as I assert it is), why would I throw it towards someone in whom I don’t believe? I’m not voting out of fear. McCain has become so enamored with Dem style politics that he is now throwing up the boogey man as an argument to vote for him. Voting out of fear or voting “against” a candidate is uninspired and weak. The great thing about liberty is that we can exercise that right, whatever the motivation, and whatever the consequences. That liberty and that exercise is what is truly supportive of our troops. Reading anything more into that is antagonistic and mean-spirited. As for me and my house….. we’re voting on who aligns with our principles and vision.
Cold Steel on February 9, 2008 at 11:19 AM
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM
If that’s the litmus test…. how do Rudy and McCain match up, oh moralistic powerbroker??
Cold Steel on February 9, 2008 at 11:21 AM
This is a moral imperative for the left. Why is this so difficult for our side to understand?
petefrt on February 9, 2008 at 11:21 AM
The problem is he differs very often on important issues (Gitmo, taxes, global warming, enhanced interrogation, immigration, judges, free speech).
Again, the problem isn’t a bit of compromise. It’s when he’s gone completely to the other side to fight against us on important issues.
Let’s settle something with that. First of all, his initial propulsion from New Hampshire, etc. were because of Independents coming out. Second, he has been unable to win over a majority of Republicans or conservatives in any state (IIRC). Winning with 38% of the vote isn’t a majority of Republicans, it’s just more than the 34% Mitt or Huck got. In many states he’s only had to get a third or less than half of Republicans to agree with him.
amerpundit on February 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM
MrScribbler on February 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Staying at home and not voting is a knee-jerk response, that most right-thinking people will get past in the days ahead. McCain’s VP choice might antagonize people further, however. He’s more of a divider than a uniter.
Cold Steel on February 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I will be voting. So don’t gripe at me about staying home.
I will be voting for Conservative congress and State candidates.
I will not be voting for McCain. I’ll write-in someone if nothing else. It was going to be Fred…but his endorsement cooked that.
tickleddragon on February 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM
The point is classless one, that he who cast the first stone ought not to live in a glass house. You can’t argue this point successfully, so just give it up. This is conservatism 101.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Mccain demonstrates inconsistencies I just don’t understand. F’instance:
1. His projected budget increase was about 9 billion, as opposed to around 16 billion for Romney, and 54 billion for Huckster. so, he gets a gold star for that.
2. His position on earmarks is admirable.
3. Yet, when he initially came out against dubya’s tax cuts, he used classic populist language regarding the cuts benefitting the wealthy most. It is just lately he has claimed he did it because spending limits weren’t included. so he gets a black star for distorting his original motives.
4. His position on global warming will create a major burden on tax payers and inhibit our productivity.
5. His position on allowing exploitation of energy resources
maintains some of our vulnerability to terror exporting countries via the petrodollar.
I just can’t get a handle on what his overall game plan is,..it makes no sense.
a capella on February 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM
If, as appears likely, McCain is the nominee, he’s not going to pick someone like Fred Thompson and suddenly adopt their policy ideas, like “attrition through enforcement” or any Constitutional amendments that have been proposed. McCain will be at the top of the ticket, in the drivers’ seat, largely on account of the policies he has championed in the primaries. In all likelihood, Fred (or whoever) will adopt the McCain positions, and that will drive his erstwhile base of supporters insane. Therefore, McCain will probably pick someone who he agrees with anyway; in fact, he’s said so already.
Big S on February 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM
If McCain were to pick Gingrich or Bolton as a running mate, he would lose in the fall. The Dems woulld spend all their time attacking Newt and Bolton. They have way too many negatives.
bnelson44 on February 9, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Thank God. A blogger who’s not already jumped on the McCain bandwagon.
eforhan on February 9, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Excellent interview. Laura and Newt, well done, well said.
Conservatives R Us on February 9, 2008 at 11:26 AM
From what I can tell, the criteria McCain is using to select a VP is:
1) Will continue his policies when he is gone
2) Is younger than McCain :)
3) Has very few negatives
4) Most people like him, or don’t dislike him
5) May help with the base
bnelson44 on February 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Let me help he’s pandering and lying on top of not really thinking things through
- The Cat
MirCat on February 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM
The pre-req for Conservatism 101 is Logic 101 and Principles 101. Consult your adviser and enroll accordingly.
I’m not up on Newt’s bandwagon by the way. Newt promotes Newt. Conservative principles promote themselves, and they emanate from principled individuals. Conservative fruit comes from conservative trees.
Cold Steel on February 9, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Excellent point. The country is at a major cross-roads, a ‘tipping point’ if you will. Putting either Clintonz or Obama in charge will change this country irreparably.
petefrt on February 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM
The Chosen One@11:09AM – Reagan was divorced and that was a huge scandal at the time. Appears the only two that seriously had their hats in the ring this time around, that have stayed with their wives, are Huck and Mitt – oh, and Shrillery and Obama. Take your pick.
24K lady on February 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Sorry I don’t buy that. If this kind of rational were true Dubya would have never won in 04
- The Cat
P.S. I understand Newt’s baggage (that no one really cares about really) but what negatives does Bolton have? He’s too pro-American, he stands up to people, he says it like it is?
MirCat on February 9, 2008 at 11:31 AM
And they will use his quotes to crucify him with the moderates. Remember, there are more moderates out there than conservatives now and we need both to win in the Fall
bnelson44 on February 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM
petefrt on February 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM
If the “people” were truly worried about Obama or Hillary, they would not have coalesced around McCain. His super majority of 35% so far is nothing to fight the left’s cult of personality. Don’t blame the informed and those who vote for this mess. We did not ask for it. Point the blame at the Establishment, the MSM, and the uninformed electorate who confused this with a cut-rate popularity contest.
Cold Steel on February 9, 2008 at 11:34 AM
There will always be the ‘evul’ Democrats to be afraid of. That’s not a reason to vote for anyone with an (R) after his or her name.
The political Left stuck to their guns and are now fighting over those whom they perceive as two great choices. We on the right continue to capitulate, and the best we can come up with is McCain. Does that seem right to you?
eforhan on February 9, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Right, we have a moderate and Bolton will be the conservative :)
I think in truth that the American people will like what Bolton has said on top of how he’s said it. I mean think about it, how much did the MSM quote/show clips of Bolton? If they could have burried him they would have, but they didn’t. Why? Because what he says would resonate. I.E. “I don’t have time to read fiction”
- The Cat
MirCat on February 9, 2008 at 11:36 AM
amerpundit,
Let me pick one issue off of your list of grievances to illustrate my point: taxes. McCain has a long history of opposing tax increases, and ran in 2000, as he is doing now, on a platform of reduced taxes and restrained spending. His tax cut in 2000 was a little more than half the size of Bush’s, which at that time was still pretty huge compared to a lot of previous ones. He ended up voting against Bush’s tax cut in the Senate for many of the same reasons as he opposed it on the campaign trail, including that the size of the tax cut was too large compared to the projected revenue that the government would take in. You can’t say that he opposed conservative principles in doing so, since he obviously saw the utility of tax cuts, as well as the need for reduced spending. He probably arrived at those positions based on his principled belief (that word!) that the size of government should be reduced. However, based on the way he saw the issues facing the country, he thought that a different policy should be put forward. That’s entirely defensible from an economic conservative standpoint, and his opposition to the Bush tax cut (a single piece of policy) should not exclude him from the ranks of conservatives. You can do the same kind of analysis with all of those other issues (go ahead-try it!), and still defend McCain’s policy positions from a conservative point of view. You can also defend many of them from a liberal point of view, again illustrating the fact that he has found areas in which he is willing to compromise. The idea that compromising at all is “going against us” is dangerous and will get conservatives nowhere in the battle to enhance their political standing.
Big S on February 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM
McCain will have to pledge on his sacred honor to enforce the existing immigration laws, seal the border, secure this first line of our nation’s defense seriously and permanently, and not reward scofflaws and infiltrators with freebies, an easy path to citizenship, slaps on the economic wrist, and other attractions which will only guarantee more invaders tomorrow.
Without this, he is a November goose, cooked.
profitsbeard on February 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I’m to the left of most of you commenters (I guess that makes me a RINO) but I have to say…
This idea that you ought to eat a shit sandwich and vote for McCain because some mythical majority told you to is tripe. On the one hand, 38% isn’t a majority, much less a Mandate from The Right™, and you shouldn’t be letting people pretend that it is. But more importantly, why should you vote for someone you don’t want? Why should you be voting for someone who doesn’t represent you? And why should you be talked down to for holding on to a principle? To hell with that.
How dare anyone on the right stand on principle and expect someone further left to compromise with them.
Lehosh on February 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM
He got the GOP nomination without being the strongest candidate in those areas. In the general there are probably more votes to be had by making the economic case for his presidency.
dedalus on February 9, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Real Clear Politics had a survey up for a very brief period of time of who McCain should pick as a VP. Here is the short list:
Condoleezza Rice (32)
JC Watts (23)
Sarah Palin (20)
Michael Steele (18)
Colin Powell (17)
Mitt Romney (12)
Fred Thompson (12)
Charlie Crist (12)
Bobby Jindal (12)
Rudy Giuliani (10)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (10)
John Kasich (9)
Newt Gingrich (8)
John Thune (8)
Mike Huckabee (7)
Joe Lieberman (7)
Tom Ridge (7)
bnelson44 on February 9, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Larry Kudlow: “John McCain Is Going To Be Our Next President”
bnelson44 on February 9, 2008 at 11:44 AM
I think the biggest obstacle that McCain faces in reaching out to conservatives is that we all feel like we were bamboozled by W. Bush – who acted like a conservative when running for office, and then instituted the largest increase in government in the last 40 years and did it with a Republican Congress and Senate.
Conservative Republicans are feeling very distrustful right now. I’m not sure there is anything McCain can do to get their support. Most will hold their nose and vote for him, but a lot are going to stay home. And the ones that vote for him, won’t be a putting in the grassroots efforts and donating the money that they would have to the Romney campaign.
Prepare yourself for the words Madame President.
joncoltonis on February 9, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Without this, he is a November goose, cooked.
profitsbeard on February 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM
He got the GOP nomination without being the strongest candidate in those areas. In the general there are probably more votes to be had by making the economic case for his presidency.
dedalus on February 9, 2008 at 11:41 AM
When the economy is at the forefront he changes the subject. When the economy is at the forefront he smears his opponent. When the economy is at the forefront he votes for a mis-guided stimulus package. When the economy is at the forefront he says: “it’s about the war, stupid.” When the economy is at the forefront, he states that he is buds with Phil Gramm.
I can definitely see where he can make this “case.”
Cold Steel on February 9, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Where is Lindsey Graham? It’s the lock of the year.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 9, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Like him or not, McCain isn’t changing any. What you see is what you get. You guys just need to figure out if you want him or Hillary/Obama in the Fall.
bnelson44 on February 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Lets you know how far down in the liberal spit bucket John McCain is for the current Newt Gingrich to slam the presumptive nominee that hard.
Or has the light for a too moderate Newt regained some incandescence?
Speakup on February 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM
dedalus-
Barely won the nomination, looking at The Republican party stats.
And independents and crossover Dems who voted for him strategically in the primaries will disappear back to the Dems in the general, so Johnny needs to bring the entire party back to him.
He’s not an economic wiz, so he’s not going to get much traction there.
Unless he picks a black women biz wiz, like a conservative version of Oprah, if such exists.
Start looking, Mac.
And start mending fences with those you alienated by trying to turn America’s border into a doormat for scofflaws.
profitsbeard on February 9, 2008 at 11:50 AM
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 9, 2008 at 11:47 AM
My cynical hope of hopes is that he further beats me more with a pick like Graham or Huckabee. I hope he is that self-centered. It will make my vote that much more fun.
Cold Steel on February 9, 2008 at 11:50 AM
For VP I think the Republicans will go with demographics; a youngish conservative white male.
We’ll see what McLiberal has in mind.
Mojave Mark on February 9, 2008 at 11:51 AM
I didn’t say he was good at it :-) The GOP needs the stimulus package for appearances and for the little bit of help it will provide. If home prices and the stock market continue to fall into November the Dems might be able to win with Dennis Kucinich.
dedalus on February 9, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Here’s my analysis of the RCP list:
Condoleezza Rice (32) Too close to Bush -NO
JC Watts (23) He’s only an ex-congressman, so NO
Sarah Palin (20) She’s too new and far away -NO
Michael Steele (18) He’s only an ex-Lieutenant Governor, so NO.
Colin Powell (17) Maybe, but he’s as old as McCain and may not want to get involved.
Mitt Romney (12) Maybe, but he and McCain don;t seem to get along so well.
Fred Thompson (12) Maybe; the endorsement has upped his standing since yesterday.
Charlie Crist (12) Maybe, but he’s also kinda new.
Bobby Jindal (12) NO, he’s too new.
Rudy Giuliani (10) Pretty good chance.
Kay Bailey Hutchison (10) She’s an undistinguished Senator. NO
John Kasich (9) Like J.C. Watts, but even less likely. NO.
Newt Gingrich (8) 80% of the country can’t stand him, so NO.
John Thune (8) Slightly better than Hutchison, but not by much. He’ll only be the pick if we have to defend SD.
Mike Huckabee (7) I’ll put him in the “slightly less likely than Mitt” category.
Joe Lieberman (7) I’m sure McCain would like to do it, but he’s less likely than Rudy, or moderate Republicans from the Northeast like Jodi Rell.
Tom Ridge (7) Hmmm. Maybe.
Big S on February 9, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I actually would like to see Mac run one term to get the country on good footing, then Graham for two terms. The twelve year plan for moderation.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 9, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Big S
In your comment where you describe the problem as intransigence of the right, you would demonstrate an understanding of the problem if you would admit the intransigence of the left is at least equal to, if not an order of magnitude greater than that of the right.
Then in another comment you write:
just cracks me up. What? You don’t understand principles? Policy isn’t based on principles? Liberals espouse welfare because they just want the money? It has nothing to do with the Christian ideal of sharing with ‘those less fortunate’?
rockhauler on February 9, 2008 at 11:56 AM
That’s true. A lot of people don’t deserve the honor of voting for John McCain.
CK MacLeod on February 9, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Rudy would bring energy to the campaign. McCain looked good standing next to Rudy (and visa versa) in Calif and they had fun on the Tonight Show. Rudy agrees with McCain on most things, but they have different views on abortion and some of the social issues. I don’t think Rudy would bring in the CPAC crowd though, if that is necessary.
bnelson44 on February 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM
The Right Is Wrong on McCain – Robert McFarlane, Wall Street Journal
bnelson44 on February 9, 2008 at 12:01 PM
There are some members of the CPAC crown who would not be happy with Giuliani, but they also won’t be happy with anyone who joins the ticket as McCain’s VP pick and proceeds to adopt the McCain issue positions that have won him the nomination. The huge amount of noise we’re hearing from true conservatives this year is, in my opinion, probably more a function of the louder speaker system we’ve plugged into (the right blogosphere) than it is of the actual number of people who are dissatisfied with the nominee. Having Fred Thompson on the ticket talking about the merits of “securing the border first” and cap-and-trade, in the debates and on the campaign trail, will do nothing to persuade these people to vote for McCain.
Big S on February 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Corrections to my 12:07 post:
That’s CPAC crowd, not crown. Also, “true conservatives” should be in snarky italics.
Big S on February 9, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I think I finally figured this out. I feel exactly as most of the folks attacking McCain about the illegal immigration issue, McCain-Feingold Mc-Kennedy, Gang of 14, not voting for the Bush tax cuts. etc., but I think there is too much
1> taking this personally –legislating is business, legislation is policy and principles–
and 2) folks are making the conservative movement sound like old Poliburo — i.e. there must be perfect orthodoxy on every issue or else you cannot call yourself a communist…er conservative.
People that care about core values and principles as they apply to the business of legislation work to move the ball as far forward as they can on every play..what they don’t do is decide someone is no longer on the team as it seems that some folks are now saying about the conservative team.
For goodness sake, Rush supported the most elitist Dubai ports deal and if that was not totally contrary to the conservative movement, then nothing is, but I would not say that Rush is no longer a conservative.
Laura Ingraham has the anti-conservative Pat Buchanan on all the time to promote his total surrender to the Islamists viewpoint
No one has the right to “define” what a conservative is because it is a political movement, that, by definition gets defined by its members. It seems to me that too many folks want to appoint themselves to the conservative politburo and make themselves the arbiters of what being a conservative is.
Pres Reagan was divorced (by Laura Ingraham’s view vis-a-vis Rudy) he could not be a conservative because he did not have family values
Pres Reagan supported amnesty for illegal aliens — nuff said there.
Pres Reagan cut and ran from the Islamists in Lebanon — basically what pres Bush is now doing in Israel — are both of them non-conservatives??
We do not have high priests of conservatism, so for all you folks out there want want to be dogmatic and bow down to the high priests — you are making a mistake.
How about we focus on each and every policy and fight the libs tooth and nail. As Pres Reagan said, an 80% friend is not a 20% enemy.
georgealbert on February 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM
I agree. Another thing is that when you begin thinking about policy plans, you can come to a different conclusion as someone else, even if you started from the same first principles. Two people can have very similar views on the role of government in the economy and decide to support very different tax packages, based on the information they have about the state of the government and the economy going forward. That’s the nature of ideas. To say that someone is not working from conservative principles because they decided on a different play to “advance the ball”, or read the defense differently during the play, yielding a different result, does not mean that they’re on the other side.
Big S on February 9, 2008 at 12:18 PM
By definition politicians talk more then they act.
Mitt talked, and did not back up his words with action.
Fred talked, and obviously didn’t act.
McCain can talk, now he has to act. The first act would be to dump Hernandez, the immigration guru, the open border slime ball.
He should be the first sacrifice to the conservative Gods.
right2bright on February 9, 2008 at 12:22 PM
I’m with Newt.
I don’t like McCain. His record has shown me that he is not a true Republican, but what else are we gonna do? I just want to vomit now.
SimplyKimberly on February 9, 2008 at 12:22 PM
It won’t matter a twit who we “hope” to elect to the Oval Office if we cannot win back some seats in Congress. Any president is hamstrung getting his issues passed without them and their support. We absolutely must get behind those in our own backyards. Staying at home on election day will insure a sweep of Congress and the White House.
24K lady on February 9, 2008 at 12:30 PM
No. It simply means they’re not “true” and thus some couldn’t bring it upon themselves to vote for them. They would rather see the exact opposite of everything they believe in get elected (and thus be complicit in the destruction of everything they believe in) because they can’t get over some silly pride issues.
amkun on February 9, 2008 at 12:32 PM
hey you spun the Dixie Chicks lyrics
Drtuddle on February 9, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Undoubtedly. In addition, you have to consider where you’re posting.
HotAir is a great site, and the hosts are smart and articulate, but the role that they and especially their blog-empress played in the immigration fight last year and continuing to the present day had a number of side-effects, among them the establishment of a feedback loop between themselves and that segment of the conservative movement, including its fringes, that appears to believe that anything short of a hard immigration hawk position equates with treason or something very close to it. The incessant recycling of perceived personal slights – the notorious Senate cuss-out, inflammatory language from McCain cronies, prissy reactions to the McCain temper, etc. – makes them feel justified in upping the rhetorical ante ever higher. All it takes on any given comment thread is a few people who mistake their visceral reactions for political analysis and even just one person off his meds, and you get a hostile environment for those who diverge from the micro-party line in any respect. Add an experience of disappointment and defeat, and the very walls of the echo chamber will shake, and shake, and shake.
This too shall pass. I think it’s already passing, which doesn’t mean that a year from now the sniping and venting won’t continue on a lower level, or even erupt periodically.
CK MacLeod on February 9, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Sorry to go wayyyy off topic but have to share…old men get wobbly kneed over stuff like this….
My boy made the front page of the Stars and Stripes…
3rd Armored Cav
God bless em all!!!!!!!!
Limerick on February 9, 2008 at 12:58 PM
That is incorrect, McCain was elected to the House in 1982, and then the Senate in 1986.
JamesB on February 9, 2008 at 1:00 PM
WSJ and McCain have common cause.
Video: WSJ editorial board gleefully slanders conservatives
WSJ editor: Straighten up, nativists — we’ve got an election to win
WSJ editor: What will become of my well-manicured lawn if these nativist monsters have their way?
Wall Street Journal still agitating for GOP immigration surrender
Spirit of 1776 on February 9, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Agreed. McCain may not be paying him but his presence is corrosive. Mac needs to stop being a stubborn old fool on this issue.
Not entirely sure about the Gingrich these days – his galloping after Huck demonstrated a certain casual disregard for a number of principles.
We can look forward then to the conservative movement getting behind him on this?
Pax americana on February 9, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Let’s see, Newt started drinking the global warming kool-aid long before McCain, and unlike McCain, also drinks the national healthcare kool-aid. Newt is far overrated as any kind of a guru. He certainly has no business criticizing McCain.
rightwingprof on February 9, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Limerick on February 9, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Congrats!
Spirit of 1776 on February 9, 2008 at 1:06 PM
One thing that everyone seems to forget is that no party, no matter how well they’re doing, is eventually going to be replaced in an election by a different party just because the public feels that a change might be invigorating, the governing party is starting to take governing for granted, or just that it is time for a change.
Even up here in Canada, Canada’s ‘naturally governing party’, the Liberals, get kicked out once in a while. It’s when the party gets kicked to the curb that it has to re-examine itself and redefine itself.
A democrat will eventually be President again, inevitably. Republicans will not be holding the office forever. The republican base has to decide when it’s going to be time for the party to take that timeout. As an American citizen, I’ll be voting in the next election, but not for McCain for President. I’ll support Republicans in the state my vote will be counted though. I would sooner see the Republicans lose with McCain running than have to endure 4 or 8 years with him in office than see the Republicans lose.
The country will slide to the left for four years. During that time, hopefully a REAL conservative will emerge and bring it back towards the right in 2012.
Canadian Infidel on February 9, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Congrats!
bnelson44 on February 9, 2008 at 1:22 PM
And why is it that Congress always needs to “do something”? How many things that any Congress has touched have been “fixed” or turned out well?
I think we’d all be better off if there was a constitutional amendment limiting all federal law to one standard size sheet of paper per Congressperson (535 pages total): then there would be a chance that law could be read, understood, and enforced…and little opportunity for shenanigans such as earmarks and Congressional favors. It would also force Congress to think things over very, very carefully before changing anything.
landlines on February 9, 2008 at 1:24 PM
thanks…….LOL…they did get one thing wrong….he isn’t from ‘Lakewood CA’…….a few states east of that…TEXAS damit!
Limerick on February 9, 2008 at 1:26 PM
It doesn’t matter who McCain selects as VP: he’s going to lose the election in a landslide.
The only good thing is that RINO’s will get the blame for the coming debacle…and then we can purge them and get the party back to its Conservative roots.
landlines on February 9, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Apparently, in an email going around, The Only Man Who Can Save America is suspending his r3VOLution. I didn’t get it, but the buzz is that it’s true.
Big S on February 9, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »