McCain, John

As I've been saying since February, I think that the great question of the 2008 campaign will be whether Barack Obama can unite Democrats to a great enough degree to win.  (Corollary to that is the question of whether John McCain can unite Republicans enough to take advantage of any Clinton-Obama fallout, and to overcome the massive partisan advantages of Democrats this year.)

Real Clear Politics takes a stab at answering the question of how many Clinton supporters will support McCain, using current (very early!) polling:

Luckily, we have some data from Quinnipiac's recent swing state survey that gives us some indication of how Clinton primary voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are feeling. As you can see, Florida closely mirrors the national numbers but the trend is more pronounced in Pennsylvania and especially Ohio, where the net change (drop in support for Obama/increase in support for McCain) reaches 22 and 29 points respectively:

Again, it should be noted that Obama increased his lead over McCain in every Quinnipiac state poll, indicating that despite whatever lingering fallout exists with Clinton supporters, Obama is more than making up the difference with gains among other groups.

Still, it should give the Obama campaign a bit of a pause to see that, at least for the moment, one in four Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries in both Ohio and Pennsylvania indicate they will crossover to vote for McCain in the fall.

I really need to sit down and do my own analysis on this.  I keep waffling on whether Obama is doing a great job winning Clinton supporters and I just haven't had a chance to compile and drill down into any real data yet.  But I wanted to share this anyway.

I never saw that coming.  The title is from this article:

They're called the Obamacons -- the conservative thinkers who are disgusted with the Republicans and are rallying to Democrat Barack Obama as the nation's economic and diplomatic savior.

They are joining younger evangelical leaders who see more to their religious mission than slavish devotion to Republican social mores, and fiscal conservatives who reject the war-fueled spending of President George W. Bush.

"The Bush coalition is dissolving," pollster John Zogby told AFP.

"We have polling showing one-fifth of conservatives supporting Obama," he said.

From the AP wire:  McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors.  One of the more pertinent passages:

McCain said the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating around the country produce about 20 percent of the nation's annual electricity needs.

"Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years," he said. "And our manufacturing base to even construct these plants is almost gone."

 

I've long thought that nuclear power offers the best chance to generate energy for the US while minimizing the enviromental costs.  I'm not a head-in-the-sand idiot; I know the costs, dangers, and problems with storing used (spent?) nuclear fuel.  I just think nuclear power, versus coal ("clean" or otherwise), oil, or natural gas, offers the most upside with the least downside.

The remainder of the article goes on to McCain's idea for "clean" coal, an idea I'm much less in favor of.

As IP says, discuss...

Since Hillary Clinton's withdrawal from the race, Barack Obama has gotten about a five-point bounce in state-by-state polling.

I've said before that if John McCain continues to campaign as if he's not interested in winning, that he's going to get clobbered, if for no other reason than the political climate, despite Obama's glaring weaknesses as a general election candidate.  That now appears to be coming to fruition.

And I was talking to an Illinois GOP County Chairman yesterday who said to me, "I've never heard so many Republicans who are disappointed with the nominee."  I'm noticing the same thing.

UPDATE:  More, from Real Clear Politics.  This is starting to feel like Bob Dole redux.

I got a kick out of a recent article headlined "Historians see little chance for McCain"  

It reminded me of an article in 2000 headlined "Academics Say It's Elementary: Gore Wins"

As prognosticators, I'm not sure that I'd trust either group.

Katie Couric, on the media coverage of the 2008 Democratic Primary.

However you feel about her politics, I feel that Sen. Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I've ever seen.

Two thoughts:

For me, the most refreshing thing about this otherwise disappointing election season is the shocked realization by some Democrats (Clinton supporters, mostly) that the legacy media is absolutley politically biased and terribly monolithic, and that when they want to push their narrative, they will do so without shame and without relenting.  Republicans have been dealing with this for at least as long as I can remember, while getting a Democrat to admit to a left-wing media bias was difficult.  Now, maybe not so much, at least among Clinton's supporters.

Couric ain't seen nothing yet: I'm no McCain shill, but the media's treatment of McCain will be much, much more unfair than that of Clinton.

A couple months back I noted the increase in VA travel pay rates:

VA Watchdog.org was pointing out that the VA has upgraded the travel compensation pay for disabled veterans who qualify. Unfortunately the deductible is going up as well per law, so if you're 54 miles or closer according to the VA there is still no compensation even for those who otherwise qualify for travel compensation.

I made a quick 'n dirty excel chart showing the old versus new rates and compared for gas costs (assuming $3 per gallon and a car averaging 30mpg).

One important thing to point out here is that the mileage for gas costs is based on actual miles whereas the mileage assigned by the VA is often under actual mileage. For example, many people here in Champaign have been assigned a VA mileage of 66 miles in spite of the shortest round trip distance from the closest Champaign exit to the Danville VA hospital being 73 miles.

Unfortunately this leaves many disabled veterans in the Champaign area still paying more to get to their required hospital visits than they're compensated for. The VA does not typically reimburse veterans for health care treatment outside of the VA system unless there is a needed service that is not available at the VA hospital.

Unfortunately that gas price estimate is no longer quite valid, even though it seemed reasonable at the time. Only a few months back... oof!

Seeing gas stations locally hitting over 4 bucks a gallon, and noting the VA appointment I have this week... I figure that graphic deserves an update assuming $4 per gallon instead:

At least we're not stuck at the old rates.

Still, it has me leaning more and more towards McCain's idea of allowing veterans to get more of their basic care at hospitals/clinics of their choice instead of forcing them to make these absurd round trips (roughly an hour and half total for me), burning through a resource we are otherwise attempting to cut back usage on, and using up the time/energy/funding resources of a system that is generally overwhelmed.

I'd still want to keep the VA hospitals themselves in charge of more specialized care for veterans, and still allow the option of getting basic care at the VA hospitals if the veteran prefers it, as McCain's stated plan also does.

It just makes sense to me. The hysterical criticisms of it, do not.

Interesting article from Politico.com:  McCain readies unorthodox campaign.  In essence, McCain is shying away from the traditional, top-down, centralized Presidential campaign; instead, McCain plans on designing his campaign to be much more decentralized, more regional-based style of campaign.  Some interesting quotes:

McCain strategists insist their paradigm can work. And the sour national climate for the GOP, McCain’s limited money supply and his preference for an impromptu campaign style that he can take to all parts of the country mean there is no other option but to break the mold, says one aide.

“To run a normal, typical race like a normal, typical Republican, we would win 45 percent of the popular vote and 189 electoral votes,” this aide says. “You can’t just go to Columbus.”

Also:

...perhaps most importantly — McCain will rely on free media to an unprecedented degree to get out his message in a fashion that aims to not only minimize his financial disadvantage but also drive a triangulated contrast among himself, the Democratic nominee and President Bush.

Obviously, there's a lot that could go wrong with this.  A regional manager could be ineffective and ruin the campaign for that region; the friction between the RNC, the McCain campaign, and other staffers could bog down the campaign; and so on.  Also, the campaign finance aspect is beyond my ken; I don't know what the stated "jointly funded" idea means in the real world, during the General election.  The sour grapes from unnamed Republican opratives is kinda interesting as well; my reading of that section of the article is that people don't like something new or different, or maybe they're upset about not having a job opening in a more traditional campaign.

Personally, I like this idea, initially at least.  Given how unusual and wacky this primary season has been, I have no idea what'll actually happen.  But this seems to be a good plan, designed to maximize McCain's strengths and minimize his weaknesses.

HG

Obama's current policy on Iraq (as of today, it changes around a lot) is to withdraw our forces to nearby bases outside of the country and run missions into Iraq to aid the Iraqi forces when violence escalates.

As much as the DNC and his campaign are touting McCain's campaign as running for "Bush's 3rd Term" what kind of change is Obama selling here?

As the NY Times even pointed out:

"A rapid transfer of responsibility to Iraqi forces and withdrawal to large bases was attempted in 2005 and 2006, with disastrous results when the Iraqi units proved incapable of halting major attacks, and sectarian violence worsened."

Obama's policy on Iraq is what even left leaning media sources consider one of the Bush Admin's most disastrous tactics.

Obama's Iraq policy doesn't just include one of the Bush Admin's tactical mistakes... Obama's plan makes those tactical mistakes the entire strategy!

McCain may share some of Bush's policies on Iraq, but he shares the ones that worked. Unlike Obama he isn't pushing the failed policies as a grand new strategy and calling that "change."

You add that to Obama's repeated assertions that we would need UN, and thus Chinese/Russion permission, to take action on humanitarian issues, genocide, and regional conflicts he'd give the green light to China to take Taiwan by force, for the genocide in Sudan to continue, for Iran to renew its nuclear weapons program, etc with absolutely no real pressure or worry about it leading to a possible intervention...

Obama is the "change" that tyrants, oppressors, and America's enemies can believe in!

Sweet, delicious and entirely appropriate:  lefty bloggers file FEC complaint aginst sanctimonious Presidential candidate John McCain regarding his acceptance and then withdrawal from public financing for his Presidential race.

If there were any justice, bloggers and donors from the left, right and center would keep McCain's campaign so tied up with FEC complaints that he wouldn't have any time to be corrupted raise money. 

Unfortunately, IIRC, the FEC doesn't have enough members to have a quorum due to Senate Democrats holding up some of President Bush's appointees, which is further delicious irony.

From Gallup:

A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Of course, if there ever was a candidate who could botch the opportunity being created by Democratic infighting, it's John McCain.

UPDATE:  And then this:

There are going to be some women that think Clinton was treated unfairly in this process because of her gender, but very few of them will be able to harbor the kind of lingering resentment toward the Obama campaign that would preclude them from supporting him in the fall.

Is there a "conventional wisdom" assumption that Hillary's supporters are more likely to support Obama than the reverse?  If so, why?

I saw this yesterday, and while it's only one poll, (and it's Gallup), I thought it was worth discussing.

Interesting tidbits:

McCain came roaring back, winning the New Hampshire primary and then clinching the Republican nomination. His current favorable rating represents a gain of 26 points since last summer, including an 11-point increase since he won enough delegates to ensure his nomination on March 4.

And:

Both Obama and Clinton have slightly higher favorable ratings among Democrats now than they had in February, suggesting that the negative infighting that has characterized the Democratic campaign in recent weeks is not damaging either candidate's image in the eyes of the party faithful.

And:

McCain gets an extraordinarily high 52% favorable from Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, while Obama gets a 39% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners. Clinton, on the other hand, receives only a 20% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners.

McCain is also helped by the fact that he receives an 87% favorable rating from Republicans, higher than the 80% and 79% that Clinton and Obama, respectively, currently receive from Democrats.

So I'm one of 13 percent of Republicans who do not have a favorable impression of McCain.  Figures.

John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama are all at least superficially supportive of an earmark moratorium.

That's a great sign that maybe earmarks (and the corruption that often accompanies them) have finally become a significant political issue.

After reading the New York Times articles from last week about the unaffair and today about the unqualification, I thought I'd take a crack at breaking their story for next week that combines these two elements.  My apologies up front.

After two weeks of assaults by various people regarding his fidelity to his marriage and whether he is qualified under the Constitution to be President, John McCain found another trouble at his doorstep this week.  Sources have told the New York Times that McCain's mother Roberta had an "interesting" relationship with a Panamanian busboy during her time in the Canal Zone with her husband.

Sen McCain, when asked whether he would exhume the body of his deceased father of 27 years to attempt to get DNA evidence that would lay this story to rest said, "If we pull him out of his grave, I'm putting you in it."  Once again, the refusal to address this issue head on, combined with his adamant refusal to admit to an affair that many believe happened, have left the McCain campaign reeling.

There are primaries today in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia.  Latest polling data is here:

• GOP:  MD, VA
• Dems:  MD, VA

If Hillary loses all three by 15+ points, as the conventional wisdom is projecting, will she be able to survive, momentumless, until Ohio and Texas vote in early March?

If McCain wins winner-take-all Virginia, will Huckabee drop out?

One would think that a candidate, running for President in the 21st Century, whose entire candidacy has had a narrative of transparent pandering and astonishing position changes, would know better than to attempt a naked pander and position change on an absolutely fundamental issue, in a very public forum, the weekend before the largest Primary Election in American history.

But not Mitt Romney, who used a podcast on one of the center-right's most widely read blogs to absolutely contradict his previous positions on gun control.  As Instapundit says, in response:  "I'm beginning to question [Romney's] sincerity."

Longtime readers will know that I'm no fan of John McCain.  But I really do think that Romney is convinced that he's so smart and that we're so stupid that he can get away will stuff like this.  He's our Bill Clinton. I really do have a hard time understanding how anyone can take anything he says seriously.

From Rasmussen:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds McCain earning 34% of the vote while Romney is eight points behind at 26%. The survey was conducted on Monday and Tuesday, finishing just before results from Florida’s Presidential Primary were known. Mike Huckabee finished a distant third at 16%.

Since the poll was completed, Rudy Giuliani has withdrawn from the race and endorsed McCain. America’s Mayor had picked up 9% of the Illinois vote in the poll.

Illinois elects delegates directly within each Congressional District, and the Presidential Preference vote is meaningless, so I'm not sure how much this means.

To be fair, I’m not a conservative. I see little value in the status quo unless the status quo is founded upon good principles that make good sense and especially if history affirms that they make good sense.

I’m a liberal. I’m a liberal in the classical sense of the term. Not the hijacked Democratic version of neo-marxist democratic-socialist nonsense. I believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document because we can amend it for changing times and changing needs. Not just ignore the parts we don’t like later. If we can do that for provisions we don’t like, are we truly a government of law, or by appointed men (Supreme Court)?

I’ll happily quote founders like Madison right and left (I'm a member of the Federalist Society for crying out loud!), and selectively quote other founders like Jefferson whose aristocracy sometimes lent him to make statements that seem a bit too idealistic. He did trumpet some great ideals… and it is best that he be remembered for the Declaration of Independence more so than advocating “States Rights” at the expense of liberty of States’ inhabitants.

I have a mind of my own, but that mind has come to appreciate the principles enshrined in our Constitution and proved through the test of time.

McCain is not my ideal. But he is the closest candidate to my ideals in the running given my priorities. One may think that a guy like me who has libertarian leaning views for the central government may lean more strongly to the Ron Paul camp… but I am not so naive that I believe that a foreign policy two centuries out of date and crafted for a runt nation trying to protect its existence should be applied to the super power we’ve become. The Constitution does not so limit our foreign policy in spite of Paul’s rantings.

The complaints against McCain have been superficial at best to me. We’re in a time of war and the disagreements seem to distract from that as opposed to embrace that THAT should be our number one priority and the other issues, while important, are secondary.

You may very well know my pain. Watching innocent civilians faced with the choice of burning alive in those buildings or jumping to their deaths to escape the inevitable agony. You may very well know my broken heart as one of the most vicious regimes continued to brutalize and oppress his people while we sat on a perfectly valid reason for war against that regime… and the Clinton Administration argued eloquently at the threat posed by Iraq and its WMDs and the possibility that they may arm terrorists and how it was in material breach of the ceasefire agreement. And a limited bombing campaign was all that resulted. You may very well know my pain of watching the wounded and disfigured veterans at the VA hospital here at Danville or in your area proudly proclaim they’d do it again if that’s what it took. You may very well know my pain in watching the country slowly slip towards defeatism as what we fought and bled for is tossed aside as some pointless misadventure that we should abandon.

You very well may know my pain.

But if you know my pain then you can never make the conflicts we’ve undertaken against those regimes that supported our enemies and those regimes that violated our post war agreements while it brutalized its people some second tier importance as those conflicts rage on.

All of the GOP candidates with the glaring exception of Ron Paul at least had the right policy for Iraq. John McCain, in spite of his baggage knows, understands, and literally bleeds how I feel about the conflicts right now. His policy stances happen to be more in line with my own than other candidates but the differences hardly disturb me.

His views on federal judges alone, which include strict constructionist such as my personal hero, Clarence Thomas, but also recent appointees Roberts and Alito. There is little reason to doubt him even with the "Gang of 14" complaints as he was fighting for a compromise to ensure they got the vote they deserved and fought behind the scenes for them. I see no adverse legacy from McCain beyond the most qualified man to be Commander in Chief at a time of war and continuing to swing the court back to interpreting the Constitution for what it says, not what the public fads of the day wishes it said.

I hope the words of one of the most notable conservatives of the modern era may sway you more than I:

"Let’s grow up, conservatives! If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." - Barry Goldwater, encouraging his supporters to work for Nixon in 1960.

We, as those who care a great deal for the defense of America’s ideals, must come together after the beating that movement got in the last election, and compromise to ensure its survival. Reagan would have won regardless of whether or not Jimmy Carter would have mangled the economy and left us with foreign upheaval that is inching towards becoming nuclear threats to us and our allies later. Being frustrated with your options in an election is one thing… losing hope in American ideals to the point you’d capitulate to enemies of those ideals is unacceptable.

Champions of those American ideals will live on to carry on the good fight regardless of who wins in November. If we hand it to those who absolutely oppose them it will only make the battle to reinstate and protect them even harder later. I don’t know about you but I’d rather live on to face the battle of correcting some of McCain’s faults than the laundry list of faults of a Clinton or Obama administration with a Democratic Congress to ensure those faults are enshrined in law with Supreme Court Justices to help set them in stone.

But maybe I’m a bit of a maverick.

Related:

Why McCain: The Nitty Gritty

Just watching the debate tonight and was wondering if I'm the only one who gets the impression that John McCain looks somewhat bored and disinterested, almost like he's above being there.  I'm not a real fan of any of the four but at least the other three act like they want to be there and involved.  Just my .02 cents.  Look forward to your input.

Consistent with my prediction of a Romney victory, John McCain has won the Florida Republican Primary.

Rudy is in third at the moment, and is giving an extraordinarily classy concession speech.  He's expected to drop out as soon as tomorrow, and endorse McCain.  His campaign has been such a disappointment.

Ron Paul is at three percent in the returns I'm watching.  I guess the Revolution hasn't started quite yet, and maybe his supporters' habit of being as insulting and antagonistic as possible is being reflected in the returns.