sticky endorsements

Louis Farrakhan endorsed Barack Obama.
John Hagee endorsed John McCain.

Farrakhan and Hagee, IMHO, are nutjob bigots.
That doesn't mean Obama and McCain are too.
I'd like to see McCain do as much as he can to distance himself from Hagee, who makes the late Falwell look like a paragon of toleration. But in any case it doesn't who Senator John Sidney McCain is and what he has done to show his humane and open position to people of all nations, faiths and bckgrounds..

Beyond Narrow Interests

From the Chicago Tribune's endorsement of John McCain (h/t MICC)

Four years ago, in mulling candidates for president, we wrote that U.S. voters often make choices based on their pet causes and economic interests. But, we said, citizens of a nation at war against genuine global threats don't have that luxury.

To reinforce the point we quoted a leader who wasn't on the ballot, John McCain: "So it is, whether we wished it or not, that we have come to the test of our generation, to our rendezvous with destiny. ... All of us, despite the differences that enliven our politics, are united in the one big idea that freedom is our birthright and its defense is always our first responsibility. All other responsibilities come second."

Rudy and the New York Times Endorsement

I probably never did anything the New York Times suggested I do in eight years as mayor of New York City. And if I did, I wouldn't be considered a conservative Republican.

I changed welfare. I changed quality of life. I took on homelessness. I did all the things that they thought make you mean, and I believe show true compassion and true love for people.

I moved people from welfare to work. When I did that, when I set up workfare, the New York Times wrote nasty editorials about how mean I was, how cruel I was. I think there's a serious ideological difference.

- Rudy Giuliani at the debate on Thursday night.

Despite the many disagreements we have had with the Mayor over the last four years, we endorse his re-election enthusiastically.

- The New York Times Editorial Board, October 26, 1997.

John McCain and the Meaning of Pro-Life

In a recent article endorsing John McCain and his defense of human dignity, Gerard V. Bradley - Law Professor at Notre Dame, and a long-time pro-life advocate - makes some observations about the nature of being pro-lfe that are important not just for this election season, but for an awareness of what being truly pro-life must mean in this day and age

The best pro-life choice for president cannot be decided solely by counting up votes about straight-on life issues. If it were I would add to the list of life issues the matter of torture. Though death is a risk with perhaps few contemporary “harsh interrogation” techniques, all torture raises questions about the meaning of human dignity and the immunity of all persons against unjustified physical attack. In other words, torture is a life issue, too. Though not nearly so important as abortion, it is nonetheless important in its own way. A candidate’s stand on torture is revealing of his (or her) whole approach to moral questions.

. . . and also about what is means to embrace the sanctity of life on a personal, practical level

I believe that there is a profound lesson here about what it means to be pro-life, a lesson which goes beyond the important (but obvious) fact that the McCains live by the same principles which lie behind John’s voting record. “Little Bridget” was not sought out by the McCains. She was not expected or planned for. She was an unanticipated gift whom the McCains welcomed, not because she was antecedently “wanted” by them, but because she was a baby, a unique and unrepeatable human being with a right to life because she is a human being and not because some other people’s plans include her — or don’t.

Medved on Limbaugh, Hannity vs. McCain, Coburn

Michael Medved asks what is evidence of true conservative leadership_? :

Who gets to define which candidate counts as a “real conservative”?

Should we listen to talk radio titans and sharp-tongued pundettes who’ve never held public office?

Or does it make more sense to listen to idealistic elected officials who toil every day to put conservative principles into practice? . . .

When it comes to evaluating McCain, I don’t expect Republicans to trust me – any more than they should trust my fellow talk hosts and commentators. But they should listen carefully to heroes like Tom Coburn, the Senator from Oklahoma who’s universally esteemed as one of the strongest conservative voices in Washington. Coburn has earned a lifetime rating of 97.8 from the American Conservative Union (McCain himself drew an admirable lifetime number of 83—virtually identical to Fred Thompson’s 86.) And earlier this week the Oklahoman endorsed his Arizona colleague for President.
. . .
The truth is that some of the most outstanding conservatives in recent Senate history have come together with Senator Coburn to campaign for McCain – including Phil Gramm of Texas (co-chair of the national McCain campaign), John Kyl of Arizona, John Thune of South Dakota, Dan Coats of Indiana, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Slade Gorton of Washington, Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, and a dozen others.

Several of the most dynamic Republican and conservative governors of our time are working actively in the McCain campaign – including Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Jon Huntsman of Utah, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Frank Keating of Oklahoma, Tom Kean of New Jersey, Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, and more.

In other words, conservatives who know him best attest to McCain’s consistency, his character, and his Reaganite world-view. Those associates, enthusiastically promoting McCain’s candidacy, count for more than strident and angry talkers who know McCain not at all.

Most impressive to me is the way that even Senators who’ve disagreed with McCain can attest to his integrity and effectiveness in their battles.

Senator Coburn, for instance, did not support the comprehensive immigration reform bill so passionately promoted by Senator McCain and by President Bush. Nevertheless, after the push for reform collapsed in the Senate, Coburn wrote an admiring blog on National Review Online about McCain’s role.

“As the American people, elected officials, and the commentators reflect on the heated immigration debate that came to a temporary close in the Senate this week, many will ask, and have asked, why U.S. Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) staked out a position that may in retrospect be seen as devastating to his presidential ambitions. I hope the American people, at least, step back from the obsessive play-by-play pre-season election analysis and reflect on Senator McCain’s actions for what I believe they were: One of the purest examples of political courage seen in Washington in a very, very long time.”

Read the whole thing.

Sen. Coburn gives some straight talk on politics.

First of all, you've got to respect any U.S. Senator in this day and age who's not afraid to grow a beard.



"The truth is what counts."
What will your vote count for this November?

Kemp - John McCain will Empower America

I've been a fan of Jack Kemp for as long as I've known about the guy. That he and Bob Dole lost in 1996 is one of the great missed opportunities of the last century. Jack Kemp is a compassionate conservative in the best sense - one who has long been an advocate of empowering the poor through expanding - not diminishing - economic freedom.

Now Jack Kemp has come out in support of John McCain. Read the press release here.

On NRO, Larry Kudlow had this to say:

Kemp would join former Sen. Phil Gramm as key McCain economic advisors. As I noted in an earlier post, Phil Gramm is the quintessential free-market advocate. He spent a career in the House and Senate limiting government spending, taxing, and regulating.

Both Kemp and Gramm are strong free-trade supporters. Gramm was also the original sponsor of the Reagan tax-and-spending cuts back in 1981 in the Gramm-Latta bill reported out of the House. That bill incorporated Jack Kemp’s original proposal to slash personal tax rates by 30 percent across the board.

Romney's key New Hampshire endorsement voted for McCain's "amnesty"

Green Mountain Politics reports that Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire is may be having a falling out with the Romney campaign.

We've heard from 3 different sources (one source in DC and two on the ground in NH) that as Mitt Romney goes more and more negative against McCain in New Hampshire, Team Gregg gets more and more upset.

It's not because Team Gregg has a soft spot for the Arizona Senator. Far from it.

The political operatives around Judd Gregg only care about one thing - the re-election of Judd Gregg (if he wants it).

And as we understand it, the reason for Team Gregg's heartburn is that they are terrified that New Hampshire voters will lump Senator Gregg in with "flailing, angry, negative Romney".

I also have to wonder if this has anything to do with it:
Mitt Romney has been relentless in his attacks on John McCain's "amnesty" bills that he supported in the Senate.
On the failed cloture motion to S. 1639 this June, Sen. Gregg joined Sen. McCain and nine other Republicans (including Romney supporters Bennett of Utah and Craig of Idaho). They also voted for S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill of 2006.

How do Gregg and Bennett feel having their candidate sending out negative disinformation about a position they supported - something that might come back against them when they go for reelection?

Maybe they feel like McCain feels after having said all those nice things about Romney back in 2002.