Is Irrational Arrogance a Conservative Principle?

Kathleen Turner in "The Audacity of Compromise" writes of those who would sacrifice the next four or more years to the Democrats in order to spite McCain:

To be sure, political cannibalism makes for interesting dinner conversation, but the winner eventually starves to death.

It isn't necessary to love everything McCain has done to vote for him should he be the nominee. But it isn't possible to argue that there's no difference between McCain and Clinton (or Barack Obama), as some Republicans insist.

A form of irrational conservatism has taken hold when being true to oneself or to the party is viewed as more important than, say, turning over the country to people who want to raise taxes and impose socialized health care.

Principles shouldn't be so inflexible that strict adherence elevates a worse alternative.

McCain, it's true has taken some positions that are unorthodox to conservatives:

These are positions with which conservatives would naturally argue. And perhaps they are right that McCain is more moderate than conservative, but so is the nation. Alternatively, McCain's maverick lawmaking might be viewed as principled compromise -- or at least an earnest attempt to inject humane ethics into the mix.

Serious people don't really believe that the U.S. government is going to round up 11 million or 12 million people and ship them back to wherever they came from. It isn't going to happen.

Government parceling of free speech via McCain-Feingold, a portion of which has been found unconstitutional, can't otherwise be justified unless you figure, as McCain does, that purchased speech isn't free. When some people have greater access to "free speech" by virtue of their deeper pockets, then one could fairly argue that less prosperous people are denied free speech.

McCain's fire-breathing opponents, meanwhile, disregard his support of other positions Republicans hold dear. He has a strong pro-life voting record (except for supporting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research), has opposed wasteful spending, and has been steadfast in supporting the war. But, stepping outside the GOP box, he opposes torture, including waterboarding.

How dare a man who was tortured for five years in a Vietnamese prison depart from the party line?

Anti-McCain rage for many comes down to personality. He doesn't play nice and his independence annoys those who prefer the team player mentality.

But Republicans' obstinance in claiming to prefer Clinton to McCain is arrogance of a Clintonian order. To wit: Hillary Clinton has said that as president she would not listen to generals in Iraq and would withdraw troops no matter what . . .

Romney's Timetable Triangulation

After hearing endlessly from all corners about how McCain was lying about what Romney had said about timetables and that McCain was somehow going "below the belt" on Iraq, it's nice to see someone put the record straight.

From Stephen Hayes at The Weekly Standard:

Did Romney say he would, like Bush, veto anything with a timetable? Or does the rest of his answer suggest that he's for the timetables as long as they're private? Again, it's debatable.

But to go as far as CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, who claimed that McCain is "lying" about what Romney said, is a stretch. At the time Romney made the comments, many observers, including several reporters, took him to mean exactly what McCain is imputing to him now. If the Romney campaign protested that interpretation, their objections did now show up in any of the follow-up reporting on his comments.

McCain has long believed that Romney hedged on the surge and the war in Iraq. At a debate in Durham, New Hampshire, on September 5, Romney answered a question about the surge by saying, "the surge is apparently working." McCain pounced a moment later. "No, not apparently. It's working." It was one of McCain's strongest debate performances and he points to it as a "seminal" moment in the remarkable turnaround of his campaign.

UPDATE: Also, there's this from Byron York:

I think it's indisputable that, at the time, McCain's Republican rivals supported the surge but were also happy that it was McCain who was all the way out on the limb. Last February, someone in the Romney camp told me that yes, Romney supported the surge, but that "McCain owns the surge."

UPDATE: looks like some of Mitt's supporters are still thinking in these terms: Well if the surge continues to do well, Mitt can take the credit, but if it goes sour, Mitt won't shoulder the blame!

Reality Check - If IRAQ somehow gets WORSE with the current strategy in place, there is NO WAY *ANY* Republican (sans Ron Paul) would be able to win in November.

And if voters want an "outsider" in a Clinton v. Romney race, they are likely to go with Mike Bloomberg - who will see an opportunity to appeal to the broad center in such a polarizing contest.

John McCain: a Diplomat and a Fighter

With Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel not in the race for the presidency, John McCain is now the only candidate in either party with a serious and informed foreign policy vision. The debates and campaign season sound bytes too often fail to show McCain's grasp of the complexity of the situation we face, and the nuanced yet strong response this situation requires of us.

Take, for example, McCain's recent piece for Foreign Affairs.

Or this excellent interview at Pajamas Media, where the interviewers give McCain a chance to expand on the ideas in his article. (In the HD format, you can see this man's well-traveled hazel eyes communicate wisdom and idealism.)

As someone who reads up a bit on international issues, I like it when a politician can actually be enlightening on the global challenges we face, that can give me something to ponder, to learn something new. Especially if we are talking about electing the leader of the free world.

Someone with the foresight to see the potential of forging alliances with nations such as Brazil and India - the emerging mega-democracies of the global south, through free trade and concerted action against common threats to shared values.

Someone who sees the use of both "hard" and "soft" power - of the complex relations between nations - of economics, energy, the environment, and national security.

It does seem to me that both Bill Clinton and G W Bush did accomplish some good things internationally. But in many ways, they also left our next president one hell of a mess to clean up after.

Senators have not often won the presidency, but this year it is much more likely than not that a Senator will be elected - either Obama, Clinton, Edwards or McCain. If we are to elect a Senator to be our President, we should seize the oppurtunity to elect that Senator who most represents what is most valuable in a good Senator - a record of reaching out to create alliances, and a deep understanding of the policy challenges we face in the world today.
John McCain is in this sense, the most Senatorial, the candidate who best understands the threats we face while also seeing the opportunities that must be seized today for the sake of the future.

Daniel Drezner, who has come pretty close to endorsing McCain, has remarked:

McCain, more than any other candidate, gets the connection between trade policy and foreign policy. He explicitly connects improving America's image in Latin America and ratifying the bevy of trade agreements from that region.

The Economist has also recognized McCain's judgement:

He knows as much about foreign affairs and military issues as anybody in public life. Or take judgment. True, he has a reputation as a hothead. But he's a hothead who cools down. He does not nurse grudges or agonise about vast conspiracies like some of his colleagues in the Senate. He has also been right about some big issues. He was the first senior Republican to criticise George Bush for invading Iraq with too few troops, and the first to call for Donald Rumsfeld's sacking. He is one of the few Republicans to propose sensible policies on immigration and global warming.

The flip side of McCain's maverick quality is that he's willing to reach out to make strategic partnerships, to place results over partisanship. This is the kind of quality that we need now in a President - someone who is willing to stand up against tyranny and terrorism while collaborating with other countries to achieve solutions that the UN has proved incapable of achieving; to provide leadership in the world while being a partner with other free societies to ensure national and international security and a realistic approach to defending human rights.

taking Iowa for granite

sure Iowa and NH aren't exactly the same but is there anything that we can learn from Iowa's results? does this change the race there?

For starters, Iowans ultimately rejected the establishment candidates (Hillary and Mitt), and gave an unexpected level of support to the insurgent candidates Obama and Huckabee. In a result that was unthinkable just a few months ago, Ron Paul outperformed Giuliani by over 2 to 1. Certainly independents and young people played a big role for both Obama and Paul, coming out in numbers that were not anticipated by pollsters. Young and independent voters may come out in even greater numbers for New Hampshire, likely to buck the establishment there again. New England's independents, young people, and liberals are a natural constituency for Obama, so the Iowa win is likely to propel him further in New Hampshire. The beneficiaries of young and independent voters in New Hampshire for the GOP will be less predictable, and probably fall both to Ron Paul and McCain, unless others can make significant inroads.

The big word coming out of Iowa is "change." Hillary and Mitt are already trying to refashion themselves as the real agents of change for New Hampshire voters. It's not likely to work. Clinton and Romney already suffer from appearing stiff and inauthentic. Trying to reinvent themselves once more will feed into the perception of a chameleon politician who doesn't have any real core, especially as try to go after Obama and McCain - who have each built their entire political careers on a theme of reform.

What does each GOP candidates need to do to succeed in New Hampshire? It's been built up as showdown time between Romney and McCain. Indeed, it's hard to see how either one continues if they don't win here. But that doesn't mean either one will drop out if he finishes a close second. Both are still polling high in Michigan, so it might not be the end of the line. But in order to not win and still continue on, it has to be a very close second place.

A month ago McCain was tied in the polls with Giuliani for a very distant second place. Now he's polling right up with Romney at about 30 percent, while Romney's numbers have been basically stagnant. McCain's greatest strength has been his performance in town hall meetings, and to win he needs to keep that up and talk face to face to as many folks as he can. He's really good at that, and it's more meaningful than any television ad he could show. He also needs to keep Romney from dragging him into too much of a mud-fight. He needs to bring the discussion back to his own vision about what we owe America's future, and really demonstrate he's in a different league from Romney. Huckabee may not win over a lot of voters in New Hampshire, but Huckabee's clean campaign strategy will.

Romney has two options right now. He has to either 1) attract undecided voters or 2) keep them at home ( or send them to Giuliani or Obama) by planting doubts about McCain. If he wants to attract new voters, he has to demonstrate his personal side, talk about his own life and struggles, show he's human and not a political robot. His other choice is to continue to go negative against McCain, even if it drives independents away from himself . He can't do both - and if Iowa is any indication, he'll choose the latter, and it won't work there either.

For the other candidates it's not a matter of having to win, but to make a strong third finish.
Giuliani's support in the past month has eroded almost as quickly as McCain's has risen. His best chance for a rebound is if voters buy into Romney's negative ads against McCain without buying into Romney. Since Romney has also gone after Giuliani, this is not very likely. Rudy has been going down steeply, and with results just above Duncan Hunter in Iowa, it's more likely he'll come in behind both Huckabee and Paul than that he will signifcantly recover in the next few days.

Thompson is currently sixth in the polls in NH. Had he made an investment here earlier he might have done well. There are plenty of small government folks here who aren't followers of Ron Paul. He could have reached out to with his commitment to entitlement reform and a less energetic federal government. But it seems too late now.

Huckabee won't have a base of evangelical support like he did in Iowa, but he still could capitalize on his win there to make a strong third-place finish. New Hampshire Republicans are generally - like Huckabee - environmental conservationists, committed to gun rights - and could be very responsive to his call to abolish the income tax.

Finally, if Ron Paul is likely to make a splash anywhere, it will probably be in the "Live Free or Die" State. A strong third place finish here is very possible. While he almost certainly wont win a single state, he has enough funds and enthusiastic support that he wont drop for quite a while yet.

As for Duncan Hunter - if he came in that low in conservative/populist Iowa, I don't know how he expects to make any progress - it's time to pull out. If he's most interested in punishing illegal immigrants he should back Thompson. If he's most interested in stopping free trade he should back Huckabee. If he's most interested in starting WW4 with Iran and China he should back Giuliani. If he's not sure what's most important to him, he should follow Tancredo's lead and back Romney - and I'm betting he just might.

Stupid thoughts on the Economy

So there's this new poll claiming that voters are now more concerned with "the economy" than they are with Iraq. Bill Schneider reports on this development, quoting Ms. Clinton -

"I'd describe the economy as kind of a trap door where you're one medical diagnosis or a pink slip or a missed mortgage payment away from dropping through and losing everything"

Hmm, Ms. Clinton, is this the same economy that is experiencing such growth that it makes you so confident Social Security will be solvent indefinitely without any significant reform?

It just makes me wonder what people mean when they say they are worried most about "the economy."
Of course, in most polls "the economy" is just one item among another limited predefined selection of issues, where things like nuclear proliferation or genocide don't even show up.

The economy is an important issue - very important. But what do voters expect from a President? Politicians can do very little about the periodic waxes and waning of the market, or about this month's high gas prices. Where government does have an influence is in the long term. And so the importance of this issue shouldn't really go away. We need to start thinking less about what a President can do to lower the price of yellow bananas, and more about what a President can do to cut the deficit, to encourage long term growth, to build healthy trade relationships, and to develop sustainable policies with regard to energy and natural resources.

In short, we need a President whose economic contribution will be felt not in the next election cycle, but in the next generation.