McCarthy wonders what National Review was thinking on McCain endorsement

posted at 11:36 am on July 1, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

When National Review endorsed incumbent Senator John McCain over former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, it had a lot of conservatives confused over their motives.  It had Mark Levin confused over who actually endorsed McCain; he accused Hot Air of issuing the endorsement along with NR (neither AP nor I endorsed anyone).  At least one of National Review’s writers, the estimable Andrew McCarthy, is just as perplexed at the decision:

I haven’t been keeping score, but my sense has been that National Review stays out of Republican congressional primary races, at least most of the time. This is a good thing. It reflects an ethos focused on the strategic direction of the conservative movement rather than tactical politics. It underscores that issues are more critical to us than personalities.

As a practical matter, moreover, it avoids diminishing the magazine’s prestige. A candidate who wins despite NR’s endorsement of his opponent could become hostile — and less open to our ideas — especially because he knows NR’s endorsement of the other guy will be used by the Left as a cudgel against him. And then there’s NR’s readership: Not only would the magazine appear less influential if itsconservative readers reject its preferred candidate; readers will be doubly miffed if their preferred candidate loses a tight general-election race to a leftist who has exploited the NR endorsement.

For all these reasons and more, I was disappointed to see the editors abandon prudent restraint and dive into the 2010 primary fray. More disappointing, though, is that, of all the candidates on whose behalf this improvident decision might have been made, NR’s prestige has been put on the line for John McCain, the incumbent Arizona senator being challenged from the right by former congressman J. D. Hayworth.

McCarthy offers a lengthy treatise on the broad issues conservatives have with McCain: immigration, a predilection for big-government solutions, and especially on cap-and-trade, one of the worst ideas to come out of Washington in a long time.  Well, actually, more like second-worst:

And then there is McCain’s jihad against the First Amendment. The senator was not content with his statutory ban on political speech. Though he told National Review in a 2007 interview that he would push for no furtherlegislation beyond McCain/Feingold, the senator was even then pleading for a judicial ratcheting up of his speech-stifling law. Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected his effort to prevent a group called Wisconsin Right to Life from running issue ads that merely urged constituents to contact Senator Feingold’s office and tell him to give Bush judicial appointees an up-or-down vote. Nevertheless, the damage wrought by McCain’s years-long campaign against political speech is incalculable. He has been instrumental in creating the climate that enables such outrages as the Democrats’ ongoing effort to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which struck down restrictions against political expenditures by corporations.

The editors insist that McCain’s “accomplishment” in supporting the surge “more than makes up for” his “mistakes” on issues like free speech and interrogation policy. With respect, I disagree. Iraq is already sliding deep into the Islamist camp, while the surge — which, again, is a strategy for tamping down violence, not winning the war — is being used to justify a futile, prohibitively costly nation-building enterprise in Afghanistan. The United States, by contrast, is plagued by unprecedented assaults on political speech, daunting legal impediments to intelligence-gathering, and a coming reinvigoration of McCain’s immigration gambit. The surge is small compensation for the wages of McCain’s influence.

In the end, though, McCarthy relies on the better argument that NR should never have gotten involved in the primary at all.  I’m less sanguine about Hayworth than McCarthy, so I don’t see either candidate as a particularly compelling figure that requires either national opposition or support.  Arizona voters know both candidates well; McCain has been in Congress for almost 30 years, which could be another good reason to send him into retirement, and Hayworth has been in Congress and on the Arizona airwaves as a radio-show host.  Neither of them needs assistance in raising their profiles.

The primary mission of National Review is to develop intellectual support for conservatism, and to recognize voices in the movement that will push it forward and succeed.  That does include getting involved in electoral politics — how could it not? — but those interventions should be chosen wisely and where national impact makes a difference.  Picking sides in primaries is notoriously difficult for national organizations, as the NRSC discovered in Florida, and usually doesn’t pay off well.  NR should write about the issues in primaries, but issuing endorsements almost always means having to cut across lines of alliance that divides rather than unifies, and inevitably reduces influence, at least in the short term.  McCarthy’s right: National Review missed its chance to keep quiet.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

They were probably thinking:

“We like illegal immigration & McCain will give us that… Yay for illegal immigration & crime!”

tetriskid on July 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM

RINO Power….courtesy of the National Review editorial board.

Captain America on July 1, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing.

DrAllecon on July 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM

They’re not designing their own candidate. They’re choosing a candidate from what’s available. McCain benefits greatly from the poor quality of his opponent. Lucky him. That’s not National Review’s fault.

RBMN on July 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM

They F’d up.

jnelchef on July 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM

My brain hurts trying to muddle thru the reasons why anyone does anything, anymore.

It’s becoming a scenario where we don’t know where to go, who to turn to, or what to do about anything.

What would normally be thee most blatant in criminal behavior, is excused as just a political move, and the norm.

capejasmine on July 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM

JD “Free Money” Hayworth is simply not the man to dethrone the person who is arguably the single most responsible individual for winning the Iraqi War, outside of the Bush White House and our soldiers.

DarkKnight3565 on July 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Its not in the best interest of Conservatism to spend a lot of money dragging Hayworth’s gaffe-ridden corpse over the finish line when it will be an easy race with McCain. I only wish Lowden had endorsed Tarkanian so we wouldn’t have to worry about Nevada.

Speedwagon82 on July 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Mark Levin had a good point. So what that JD Hayworth made that stupid infomercial. That didn’t affect our pocketbooks or our rights. The things McCain has/had endorsed directly hurt us. Amnesty, global warming, McCain Feingold, etc. Also, Hayworth would likely do less of the repugnant “reaching across the aisle”.

mrsmwp on July 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Hayworth is a moron and would be a disaster… please dear god no…

Jeff Flake would have made a good replacement for McCain…

ninjapirate on July 1, 2010 at 11:47 AM

We all had hoped Arizona would do better.

Ragspierre on July 1, 2010 at 11:47 AM

The editors insist that McCain’s “accomplishment” in supporting the surge “more than makes up for” his “mistakes” on issues like free speech and interrogation policy. With respect, I disagree.

When NR wrote that line – more then makes up for – I was glad again that I had canceled my subscription. Supporting the surge, as important as it was, does not sweep assaulting the Constitution. It would be better to lose a war then to lose domestic freedom. And with Bush’s tenacity, the surge would have happened regardless, I think. McCain gets too much credit militarily, and not enough blame domestic through NR’s rose-colored-glasses.

Spirit of 1776 on July 1, 2010 at 11:49 AM

NR probably fell into the trap set by Leftists and some conservatives. J.D. Hayworth was so successfuly demonized that NR probably felt it had to come out against him to avoid the embarrassment of him winning over McCain.

Conservatives are very easily embarrassed and care far too much what liberals say about them.

Jaynie59 on July 1, 2010 at 11:49 AM

I’m less sanguine about Hayworth than McCarthy, so I don’t see either candidate as a particularly compelling figure that requires either national opposition or support.

John McCain, “like it or not,” is a nationally-known figure.

J.D. Hayworth has never gone on national TV and insulted me and the things I believe in. John McCain has done that – quite an awful lot of times.

True, Hayworth has done nothing to warrant national opposition from conservatives. But John McCain most definitely has.

logis on July 1, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Mark Levin nails it:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=406049705945

Buddahpundit on July 1, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Why doesn’t Levin campaign with JD? I’ve never even seen Levin on Fox News talking about McCain.

Marcus on July 1, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Jeff Flake would have made a good replacement for McCain…

ninjapirate on July 1, 2010 at 11:47 AM

+1000 or Shadegg.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on July 1, 2010 at 12:09 PM

What is the problem? J.D. Hayworth was a 6-term Congressman and, later, a talk show host. What is the problem?

Emperor Norton on July 1, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Rich Lowry desperately trying to look “moderately conservative” to keep the invitations to DC parties flowing.

mankai on July 1, 2010 at 12:14 PM

What is the problem? J.D. Hayworth was a 6-term Congressman and, later, a talk show host. What is the problem?
Emperor Norton on July 1, 2010 at 12:10 PM

The media have all gotten together and agreed among themselves, once again, that John McCain is the only “electable” Republican primary candidate.

End. Of. Discussion.

logis on July 1, 2010 at 12:15 PM

NR should stand up for what it believes in, not go along to get along.

faraway on July 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM

I like Arizona’s immigration law, but I’m seriously thinking of boycotting AZ because of the GOP senate primary. Did they run out of good candidates?

cartooner on July 1, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Rich Lowry is part of the problem at National Review, IMO.

FloatingRock on July 1, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Rich Lowry desperately trying to look “moderately conservative” to keep the invitations to DC parties flowing.

mankai on July 1, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Yep, my thoughts exactly as well.

There are some good writers at NR (Steyn, VDH) but the publication as a whole has gone downhill and their editorial board is becoming increasingly RINO.

Just in the last month; Jim Geraghty wrote a disgusting hitpiece on Sharron Angle a few days before the NV primary. Jonah Goldberg made excuses for that Weigel wimp, and KJL refuses to end her endless linking to Kathleen Parker nonsense. They all seem to consider Brooks a legitimate conservative. And top it of, they endorse McVain.

Sad, really. Cancelled my subscription last year, and I am glad I did.

Norwegian on July 1, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Rich Lowry desperately trying to look “moderately conservative” to keep the invitations to DC parties flowing.

mankai on July 1, 2010 at 12:14 PM

I see I’m not the only one….

FloatingRock on July 1, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Rich Lowry is part of the problem at National Review, IMO.

FloatingRock on July 1, 2010 at 12:18 PM

But he looks so awesome wearing his Dad’s suit.

tetriskid on July 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Ed, you’ve been a middle-of-the-roader from day one. Take a stand and stay with it. Equivocation is too easy. NR has just dropped off my respect screen, and you’re not far behind!

tomshup on July 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM

The media have all gotten together and agreed among themselves, once again, that John McCain is the only “electable” Republican primary candidate.

Well, it worked out well for them last time didn’t it?

sloopy on July 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM

I believe Ann Coulter once described Rich Lowry and his staff as “girly boys”. Sounds about right to me.

Wyatt Wingfoot on July 1, 2010 at 12:23 PM

National Review=Shark Jumper

ncjetsfan on July 1, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Did NR endorse Harry Reid’s Republican Challenger Sue Angle?

Dr Evil on July 1, 2010 at 12:28 PM

This is what has happened…since we don’t have any accountability.
Any of these writers, journalists, publications, can make any statement they want, then they write something that backups that statement.
It doesn’t have to be based in facts, they will create facts…if the creative facts are wrong, they just ignore the complaints.
This is rampant, on this blog when you catch someone misstating, they always either move on and not comment, or they try to back up the wrong post with more wrong information.
This is indicative of most everyone else.
Nobody takes responsibility for being accurate…virtually no one.
Everyone supports their side, no matter how wrong the information.
The politician who will win the hearts of the people, will be the one that takes on all false information…no matter what side of the aisle they are on.

right2bright on July 1, 2010 at 12:37 PM

National Review has become poisonous to the Conservative cause. McCain boosters? Really. This man has proven to be the bane of everything Conservatives stand for, including self-defense and national-defense, considering his stand against border protection with a wall (prior to campaign season, of course). I’ve really lost a lot of respect for NR, it’s staff and it’s editors. Mark Levin was right to be angry and incredulous, yesterday, upon learning of this travesty, just as I am. This is clearly a vote for the bad status quo, and a vote for keeping a bad bureaucrat in undeserved power.

Virus-X on July 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Bill Buckley Jr. rolls in his grave.

John the Libertarian on July 1, 2010 at 12:52 PM

My problems with National Review are that they endorsed Romney and they employ crypto-feminist Kathryn Lopez.

Bill C on July 1, 2010 at 12:52 PM

National Review missed its chance to keep quiet.

I hope editors at national review read that conclusion.

antisocial on July 1, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Maybe they were going for the Michael Medved seal of approval.

SirGawain on July 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM

National Review has become poisonous to the Conservative cause.
Virus-X on July 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Mark Steyn posts there sometimes, and he’s pretty good. I don’t pay a lick of attention to anyone else there.

BTW, has Steyn said anything about this? I’d like to hear it. And if he’s said nothing, that says an awful lot.

logis on July 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Hayworth is a moron and would be a disaster… please dear god no…

Jeff Flake would have made a good replacement for McCain…

ninjapirate on July 1, 2010 at 11:47 AM

JD’s not perfect, but he’s the best option we have in retiring Johnny Mac. I would love to have Shadegg on the ballot for this seat, but he ain’t. The choice we have here in AZ is putting Johnnny up for another trip to DC, or JD. It ain’t the greatest, but it’s what we’re stuck with. I’m going JD.

rotorjoe on July 1, 2010 at 1:01 PM

McCarthy erroneously references Hayworth “to the right of McCain” since comparisons made at American Thinker note that Hayworth’s congressional legislative efforts never amounted to being “more conservative” than McCain’s own.

The sickening realization occurs when the legislation that Hayworth SPONSORED comes to light. AZ-R Congressman Shadegg’s former chief of staff, Sean Noble, posted his reluctant endorsement in the AZ senate race.

McCain v. Hayworth: It’s About Character

I have heretofore refrained from spending much time thinking, talking, blogging or otherwise about the primary between Senator John McCain and former sportscaster, former Congressman, former radio host J.D. Hayworth.

However, as we are getting closer to the election and the rhetoric is heating up, I am compelled to weigh in and offer my perspective as someone who has worked fairly closely with both of these men for more than 15 years.

Let’s start with some of the rhetoric that the average voter doesn’t see coming from the daily press releases churned out by the Hayworth campaign. I am on Hayworth’s press release list, I suppose because I blog.

…lately the emails have projected a different tone. Was it sharper messaging? Was it more focused? Actually, no. It was growing desperation. Here is a sample:

McCAIN FEELING HEAT FROM HAYWORTH, JUMPS ON THE ANTI-OBAMACARE TRAIN LATE AND AMONG THE LAST

This headline is so absurd that it barely warrants a response. McCain was on the anti-ObamaCare train while Hayworth was still on the radio whining about losing to Harry Mitchell.

Phoenix, AZ (June 2) – The spokesman for U.S. Senate Candidate J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) said his candidate was pleased McCain took Hayworth’s advice and finally signed up against ObamaCare.

“He’s just a day late and a dollar short,” said spokesman Mark Sanders. “While his colleagues began signing Sen. Jim DeMint’s measure to repeal ObamaCare on March 23rd, McCain waited until April 20th to join.

Speaking of a day late and a dollar short, did it really take the Hayworth campaign from April 20th until June 2nd to notice that McCain had signed onto DeMint’s bill? The timing of when McCain joined as a cosponsor is immaterial to his position on repealing ObamaCare, and having served in Congress, Hayworth knows this, which makes this comment ridiculous and petty.

“And that was after Hayworth challenged him to do so on APRIL 9th, according to a news release issued that day by Hayworth’s campaign,” Sanders said.

He also noted that McCain was one of the last Senators to sign on as co-sponsors on April 20th.

“Like with most every issue in this campaign, McCain wants it both ways – he wants to be for ObamaCare and then against it, he wants to support amnesty for illegal aliens and then wants to complete the danged fence, he wants to oppose tax cuts and now wants them extended,” Sanders said.

Frankly, asserting that McCain ever wanted to be for ObamaCare is such a blatant lie it should disqualify Hayworth from even being in this race. If he is so blind to facts, how can we trust him to be a Senator?

Was Hayworth just not paying attention when McCain was offering multiple amendments to try to stop ObamaCare? Did he not listen to multiple floor speeches McCain made against the bill? Did he fail to even check the Congressional record and see that McCain voted against every amendment and procedural motion – and final passage – of ObamaCare when it went through the Senate?

Rather than burying the lede any further, I’ll cut to the chase: J.D. Hayworth is unworthy of holding the title “Senator.” Period. And especially when it would mean taking that title away from John McCain.

I know my position is going to surprise a lot of people. Particularly my friends who know how conservative/libertarian I am. I have ranted privately (and not so privately) about various positions and issues taken and championed by Sen. McCain over the years. I am a purest when it comes to the First Amendment, so I vigorously disagreed with McCain’s campaign finance bill.

I do not, in any way, believe that climate can be affected in any substantive way by human activity. So I have disagreed with him on climate and environment issues.

However, I am a hardcore fiscal conservative – and so is John McCain.

J.D. Hayworth is anything but. He championed the pork he brought back to his district. He got cozy with the power brokers of D.C. not only for his political gain, but for his personal gain, by raising money for his PAC which employed his wife.

I strongly oppose Indian gambling, not so much on moral grounds but on the inequality built into the system that has allowed small (and sometimes less than credible) tribes “game” the system enriching a very few, while the Native American population on the whole continues to exist in squalor. The federal government has a history of not fulfilling it’s treaty obligations and giving some tribes the “easy money” of gambling doesn’t do anything to fix the underlying system.

That all said, there was not a bigger booster for the few chosen tribes in Congress than J.D. Hayworth. I don’t mean booster in a complimentary way. In fact, he was Co-Chairman of the Indian Gaming Caucus in Congress with none other than… (you’re going to LOVE this one)… Patrick Kennedy. Yes, Ted Kennedy’s son.

Read it all.

maverick muse on July 1, 2010 at 1:08 PM

McCain must be defeated by someone, anyone, if for no other reason than to send a message: we’re sick of being stabbed in the back and sold out by long-serving politicians. We KNOW who McCain is, what he stands for, and how he feels about us. For those reasons he deserves to be thrown out of office.

And if Hayworth turns out to be a disappointment…guess what? It’ll be a hell of a lot easier for us to replace him than to defeat the McCain Machine.

One thing at a time.

Cylor on July 1, 2010 at 1:14 PM

It’s about character ?

McCain’s character extends to an incredible devotion to the USA and his military brethren. Beyond that he is a duplicitous, unreliable two faced self-promoter. I’ve never voted for him and never will. It is long past the time to be rid of him.

Filecchio on July 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM

I think they were thinking…gee, this JD is a crook.

Chudi on July 1, 2010 at 1:17 PM

NR made the right call endorsing McCain due to Hayworth’s staggering incompetence.

However, I’m not sure if magazines or newspapers should ever endorse anyone. Seems preferable to allow the publisher, editorial board and contributor to endorse whoever they want and then provide an explanation.

Mister Mets on July 1, 2010 at 1:32 PM

NR has had healthy debates about endorsements in the past-why in this GOP primary? I don’t know, and it sounds like McCarthy doesn’t either. However, the choices are McCain and Hayworth, which are bad and worse respectively. Hayworth sounds radical even if he isn’t, and looks like a LA used car sales man. McCain is the “Mr. Maverick”, until he decides that he is in a competitive race, and has not called himself a Maverick. I care much more about NR’s reputation than either of these candidates for Arizona’s Senate seat. Can we clone John Kyl?

sDs61678 on July 1, 2010 at 2:08 PM

McCain has proven time and time again he can’t be trusted in his positions. Look at his record of support for bad ideas .

Closing Gitmo: McCain was for it.
Removing Enhanced Interrogation Methods: McCain was for it.
Limiting Free Speech: McCain Did it.
Cap and Trade: McCain was for it.
No Tax Cuts: McCain was for it.
Limiting Wealth Creation: McCain was for it.
I am a Maverick but now I am not and I never said I was.
Hayworth is a Washington insider despite him not being a current Senator like me.
Hayworth did a commercial for government grants which makes him bad never mind I have advertising for government grants on my web pages.
I Fully support Jan Brewer except for her comments about illegals being used to smuggle drugs as its obvious it is not all illegals doing it and not a majority but a large number of them which is not a majority even though I have no idea how many are carrying drugs so my statement about her statement can’t be proven wrong or right but shes definitely not right.

Lets see but Hayworth is the one who is untrustworthy ?

alloyiv on July 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Hayworth sounds radical even if he isn’t

Oh, knock it off. That’s the same smear used against Barry Goldwater.

looks like a LA used car sales man.

Better to look like that than a Dean of Harvard Law School.

I care much more about NR’s reputation

And NR’s reputation includes paying writers a pittance (just ask Ann Coulter) and going on extensive fund drives, begging for money, just like your local PBS station. NR is a charity.

Emperor Norton on July 1, 2010 at 2:27 PM

logis on July 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM

I love Mark Steyn, too, but if I were him, I’d be very leery of writing there, anymore. If I continued to do so, I’d have to mention that I disagreed with their assessment.

Assuming he does.

Virus-X on July 1, 2010 at 2:31 PM

I think NR’s thinking was that Hayworth represents a wrong direction for the party and conservatism in general, and that in this especially freighted race, it was important to weigh in.

I remember reading at NRO that at least some of its editorial staff was highly critical of another, sort-of-similar action by the RNC, when it leaped in to endorse Crist over Rubio nearly a year ago. This doesn’t mean I think they’re hypocritical; I just think each case gives us information about the priorities of the endorsers.

The RNC came off as utterly in thrall to RINOs who had managed to win previous elections; and if donations are still down, I guarantee you that’s one lingering reason.

NR has weighed in at a different time, with the primary looming and the selection down to two and very clear-cut. I think NR’s posture here is one of standing athwart the Hayworth candidacy yelling “Stop!”

It’s a tough call, in my view — whether to actively repudiate a candidate like Hayworth. I’m not real fond of him. He comes off as foamy-mouthy, inconsistent, and rabble-rousing, from out here in the cheap seats. But is it necessary to specifically reject him at this point?

Honestly, I suspect NR’s staff feels a unique obligation to express what it views as a unifying conservative viewpoint, because of the magazine’s history. Seeing Hayworth as the most significant example of the direction the movement should not go, that’s where they decided to take a stand.

J.E. Dyer on July 1, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Reading stuff like this makes me terrified for the future. NR and McCain are right on what matters but OMG Campaign Finance Reform and Mexicans!!!! You people would be happy with Dems having a 99-1 majority as long as that 1 agreed with you 100%.

combatwombat on July 1, 2010 at 2:43 PM

The NRA endorsed Dirty Harry Reid. There are no men in Washington.

Valiant on July 1, 2010 at 2:46 PM

The NRA endorsed Dirty Harry Reid. There are no men in Washington.

Valiant on July 1, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Which is one of the reasons why I left the NRA and joined Gun Owners of America:

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a gun rights organization in the United States with over 300,000 members.[1] They make efforts to differentiate themselves from the larger National Rifle Association (NRA), and have publicly criticized the NRA on multiple occasions for what the GOA considers to be the selling out of the gun rights movement.

The organization has often been in opposition to the NRA in their respective endorsements and ratings of politicians and candidates. For instance, the GOA was outspoken in its opposition to John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid, describing his gun-rights voting record as “abysmal, wretched, and pathetic”[2] and rating him with an F- on Second Amendment issues since 2004 as opposed to the NRA’s (through its political arm, the NRA-PVF) C+ rating of McCain

GOA supports both Sharron Angle and JD Hayworth.

Norwegian on July 1, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Better a united front of RINO backstabbers than new faces who might not tow the line for the we’re-better-than-other-people establishment.

Buckley’s great work retired with Buckley. NR squeaks for the left. Time to set the rat trap.

Feedie on July 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM

At such a critical time in their state’s history and the best they have is McCain. How much deeper into the hole can a people sink? McCain has no intention of protecting his home state. His record on amnesty cannot be contested. The people electing the man that will bury them shows how unfair life can be sometimes. When large numbers of Arizonans are murdered, Obama will use the “crisis” to establish amnesty just as he will allow the gulf to be destroyed to pass Cap & Trade. McCain will be there every step of the way.

volsense on July 1, 2010 at 3:10 PM

They were probably thinking:

“We like illegal immigration & McCain will give us that… Yay for illegal immigration & crime!”

tetriskid on July 1, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Are we talking about the same National Review here?

RINO in Name Only on July 1, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Hayworth is not only birther nutcase, he’s a crook. He was one of the bigger Republican earmarkers and pork-procurers who took care of his political donors, which eventually cost him his safe Republican House seat. One of the very few who never returned tainted Abramoff money or apologized for taking it, Hayworth also violated federal election law by not reimbursing Abramoff the costs of using Jack’s stadium sky box for fund-raising events. He was spared a nasty investigation and ethics charges only by losing.
`
Hayworth is the only chance Democrats have of winning a GOP-held Senate seat this year. Fortunately, Arizona Republicans aren’t quite as stupid as knee-jerk McCain haters nationally, and won’t give him the chance.
`
But seriously, you don’t see any reason to take sides?

Adjoran on July 1, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Right now, only voters can enforce the idea of term limits. McCain has been in the Senate since 1986 and in Washington, including time as a Representative, since 1982.

I hope AZ voters take some time to ask themselves, isn’t 28 years in Washington, DC too long for anyone?

There comes a time when the good that comes from experience is eclipsed by the desperate clinging to power and special interest money becoming fortification and entrenchment, not representation.

It’s time to clean house.

Fallon on July 1, 2010 at 3:56 PM

And then there is McCain’s jihad against the First Amendment.

Oh for Chrisake, that is so ridiculous. Is it possible to disagree without the hysterics? The majority of Americans actually supported McCain’s position on this..does that mean they all had some jihad going against the First Amendment? I realize that to many people, money=speech, but not everyone feels that way. And the Constitution survived it and so far as I can tell there is still hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into DC campaign coffers.

Hayworth is a kook who lost his last election for a reason. Maybe some of the people who get so completely unhinged about McCain should spend more time trying to find someone to run against McCain who was not involved with Abramoff and who did not run infomercials for free money.

No, they completely ignore McCain’s history as a fiscal conservative, his strong national security stance, his pro life credentials…and instead evidence a rabid hatred of the man while they pretend that Hayworth is not a crook or a moron.

The people of Arizona will make this decision and I doubt if in the end they will give a rat’s behind what McCarthy or NRO has to say about it.

Terrye on July 1, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Arizona Republicans aren’t quite as stupid as knee-jerk McCain haters nationally, and won’t give him the chance.

Adjoran on July 1, 2010 at 3:49 PM

You’re right. Someone tries to silence political debate and speech on political issues, and both sues to try to force the FEC to regulate all speech on the internet that he disagrees with; and enters into a lawsuit to silence a private organization… I have a negative reaction. Call it “hate” if you like.

And it does appear to be unconditional, or “knee-jerk” if you prefer… If the Ghost of George Washington himself were to come back and say the Government should have control of all political speech and be allowed to silence dissent, I’d have a strong dislike for him too.

So yes, I dislike McCain a lot; and given that he’s clearly stated he’d prefer his control of free speech over the Constitution… I can’t see me suddenly gaining a lot of affection for him.

If you wish to call this “knee-jerk” maybe you’re right. I’m not even willing to discuss a compromise on ending freedom of speech and silencing political opinions from private citizens. Especially when the goal for which I lose freedoms and rights is obviously unattainable… “Clean Government”? Really? He’s going to get there?

I guess I don’t understand why you don’t hate him? What other rights would you give up for things that will never happen? Would you give up your right to bear arms in our quest to have unicorn/pegasus hybrids for all?

I think we’ll have unicorn/pegasus hybrids before we have “clean government” regardless what McCain does; so I’d rather he didn’t keep working to strip Constitutional freedoms from people in his quixotic and foolish quest.

McCain deliberately worked to damage Constitutional freedoms and remove individual rights from people; but I should definitely take his side and really hope he wins?

If the choice is McCain or a known crook; I think not taking sides would be a perfectly reasonable option.

gekkobear on July 1, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Elected office is NOT a career choice. There is no sane redeeming factors for all of this: http://tinyurl.com/y95bvve

Throw out McClown and give JD one term to be smart.

Winghunter on July 1, 2010 at 4:53 PM

A limited government, pro-freedom republican.

Neither qualifies. So is there a third choice because these two stink.

AshleyTKing on July 1, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Oh for Chrisake, that is so ridiculous. Is it possible to disagree without the hysterics?

Is it possible for you to argue for McCain ethically? Without repeating the same old Hayworth slander/libel you’ve been corrected on over and over again? And yet you keep regurgitating that crap, like McCain can’t win any other way.

Yes, the people of Arizona will make their decision with little to no impact by NRO and McCarthy. Your anti-Hayworth bullsh!t will also have zero impact on our decision so why do you keep repeating it?

Shay on July 1, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Just one more reason confirming my decision to drop my subscription to NR after Junior supported the Obamination for President.

chickasaw42 on July 1, 2010 at 6:01 PM

The editors insist that McCain’s “accomplishment” in supporting the surge “more than makes up for” his “mistakes” on issues like free speech and interrogation policy.

So to them Iraq is more important than America. They should move there.

Tav on July 1, 2010 at 6:31 PM

McCain shares the glory with Bush and the left for letting Phoenix become the capital of kidnapping, a murdered rancher, persecuted border patrol agents, drug trafficking, and terror against American citizens. He’s a treasonous bastard, but let’s re-elect him anyway.

Feedie on July 1, 2010 at 8:11 PM

I love when mccain fanboys call JD a criminal while deliberately ignoring the fact mccain is the crook.
Adjoran, does Keating ring a bell for you?
McCain actually did what you falsely accuse JD of doing. yet you are ok with it. The claims that JD was in Abramoff’s pocket have been repeatedly shown to be BS. The only ones who continue to cite them are the mccain nut huggers, RINOs, and liberals who want him back in congress. Tell me, do you live in AZ? I do and we clearly know more about the two men than you.

Hard Right on July 1, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Oh, I’m also sick of the whiny b*iches claiming a JD win will guarantee a dem win for the seat. No wonder the GOP is in such sad shape. We have to many beta males on our side.

Hard Right on July 1, 2010 at 9:03 PM