McCain did exactly the wrong thing in 2000 when he let Bush get away with the scurrilous campaign Rove set against him in SC. When he took offense at that attack he should have fought Bush To The Death. By delivering only a wrist slap and then backing down he doomed himself as weak. Everything since then has been anticlimax. Everyone knows McCain can be intimidated, both domestic political opponents and US enemies abroad. That's why the Russians challenged JFK with missiles in Cuba: they detected the possibility of intimidation in various domestic political weaknesses of his and unwillingness to fight.

Do you want a president that OBL thinks is unwilling to fight?

Dave, you left out a key point in an otherwise comprehensive article, the immigration bill. McCain alienated conservatives by supporting the bill. He also reinforced his bad image among them: the moderate Washington insider.

This election cycle is about three times longer than usual. I've got a feeling that it'll eat up the major candidates. The negatives tend to build, while the positives just aren't there for a full-time campaigner.

McCain's unwillingness to confront Bush or anyone else directly is a bizarre character flaw, and it's exactly the kind of weakness which raises questions about his ability to function as president.

Dave

"McCain's decline in popularity has been somewhat startling, from a position on the supposed inside track coming out of the 2000 election ..."

Dave - Good article, but McCain's decline has not been startling at all. As others have noted, McCain has been anathema to hard core Republicans precisely because he appears to be a moderate. This is one of the reasons that he was so savagely undermined by conservatives who ultimately backed Bush in the 2000 campaign. In addition, his championing of campaign finance reform (whatever one thinks of his proposals) frightens stridently pro-business Republicans

Lastly, McCain's stand on immigration reform was the kiss of death. A wide swath of Republicans, not just Bush loyalists, just thought that he was on the wrong side of the issue on this, and he did not pull any offsetting support from moderates, independents or Democrats.

In many ways, McCain is an honorable man, and possibly much more reliable than some of the other presidential candidates. But I don't think that any Republican who remotely comes across as moderate, or explicitly willing to do deals with the Democrats, has the slightest chance of winning the GOP nomination, at least not without a great deal of backroom brawling. Giuliani might have a chance (even though some of the attempt to remove his 9/11 glow is coming from the right, not liberals), but McCain is finished.

I am still scratching my head as to why he got into the race in the first place. He is becoming the right-centrist Ralph Nader. He may not be out, but he sure as hell is down. Go McCain, have dinner with your buddy Ted!

Heloise

Alec, I agree with a lot of what you said. I think that Dave and Bliffle miss the point when they talk about McCain's failure to fight. McCain's reaction to a political attack was to burn bridges and grouse. He overreacted. If he'd responded with a defense, or agreeing to disagree, he could have recovered his support on the right.

Maybe the four of us can simply agree that McCain's response was ineffective.

I do not have any stake in who runs for the Repubs or Dems but I think they all have big problems in front of them. I think Baronius in #2 makes a good point about how long these clowns have to stay in the spotlight. The more the people observe, the more they smell the stench.

Bush is not loosing popularity because he is a moderate, which he is. Everyone is loosing popularity.

A major reason the Repubs lost ground in '06 is the Dems painted the whole Repub party with the brush of its whacko right wing.

All these folk are going to have to soak the paper bag before any of them can punch their way out of it.

Hey, we need a new party.

Les

We do need a new party Les, but the answer isn't going to be a new communist party or anything like it.

I'm not proposing a new communist party or anything like it.

Here's a prediction (a tad far-fetched, but not completely improbable):

By October 2007, McCain is polling in the single digits, and his campaign is completely bankrupt. Rudy and Mitt and Fred (and possibly Newt) are all polling better than McCain. So, McCain drops out.

In late March 2008, after the GOP and Dem nominations are pretty much sewn up, Bloomberg announces his candidacy - for Vice-President! (With McCain at the top of the ticket.)

And with hundreds of millions of dollars in Bloomberg bucks to be spent in support of this independent bid, they could easily get 15% of the vote. But who would they steal support from? The Republican, or the Democrat? Or both?

Could be interesting...

it's an interesting scenario, RJ

i just can't see Bloomberg playing second fiddle when he is writing the checks...

and we know McCain won't take the #2 spot

but in your scenario, pretty certain McCain won't be pulling from the Ds with his stance on Iraq

Excelsior?

McCain is still one of the most honorable people in politics. He's one of the few politicians whom I disagree with on 9 out of 10 issues, yet still respect immensely. It's hard to imagine a McCain administration built on misinformation and propaganda - politics instead of policy - in the way the Rove/Cheney/Bush White House has been.

But because primary voters are the most red-meat partisans anywhere, he's at a disadvantage. If there were a national non-partisan presidential primary, he might have led the field [though unfortunately the odious Rudy Giuliani would have done well in that sort of contest too].

Handy, that's interesting. I probably agree with McCain 9/10 of the time, but totally don't trust him. He takes every disagreement as a personal attack. Very Nixonian.

McCain-Feingold ruined him for me. Hardly the 1st amendment judgment I want to see in a president.

"McCain-Feingold ruined him for me."

McCain-Feingold tarnished him for me. But his unwavering support of amnesty for illegal immigrants (and personal attacks on anyone who opposed it) completely ruined him for me.

- - -

McCain-Lieberman would be an interesting independent ticket, too. But it would mostly steal support from the GOP nominee, and ensure a Hillary-Obama landslide in November 2008...

Or how about a Paul-Gravel ticket under the Libertarian banner? Or Nader-Gravel under the Green banner? :-/

Ideologues will of course react to someone ideologically.

McCain-Feingold wasn't deliberately aimed at first-amendment rights. It was an attempt, however flawed, to reduce the poisonous effect of money on politics. Right wing opponents rarely bother to mention whether they think this is a serious issue or not.

McCain's stand on immigration wasn't deliberately intended to ignore lawbreaking - it was an attempt, however flawed, to deal with the reality of the situation: illegal immigrants who are already here and who may have something positive to offer the US, given the chance. Right-wing opponents put their hands over their ears and yell, "No amnesty! No amnesty! No amnesty!" and have no interest in actually addressing the real issues.

Knee-jerk negativist responses like those are where the word 'reactionary' comes from.

"Right-wing opponents put their hands over their ears and yell, "No amnesty! No amnesty! No amnesty!" and have no interest in actually addressing the real issues."

Not true. We "right-wing" types do offer a solution: Build a fence along the entire border with Mexico, and then man it with the National Guard and an expanded border patrol, working alongside volunteer citizens.

Once the influx of NEW illegals has gone from a flood to a trickle, you can then deal with the illegals already here. Deport those who are criminals and/or who carry dangerous infectious diseases, and allow the rest a pathway to citizenship, assuming they are willing to abide by our country's laws, learn the language of our country, etc.

Now THAT is a real COMPREHENSIVE solution.

Handy, I think campaign finance is a Constitutional issue. If there's a flaw, you fix it constitutionally.

Do I think there's too much money in campaigns? No. Campaign money doesn't influence me. I'd hope that ads don't influence other voters, too, but I can't do anything about it if they do. To state that better, every voter is entitled to be as dumb as they want.

There's no mandatory conservative answer to the question of whether campaign money is poisonous. There is a conservative default to originalism in constitutional matters, which is sorely lacking on the liberal side. The issue plays into that elitist sense of knowing better than the masses, which McCain possesses as well.

It's disingenuous [at best] to take the attitude that it's ok for elections to be swayed by geysers of distorted, false, slanderous ads - that they only affect morons anyway. But campaign finance reform is about much more than just the ads, ghastly as they have made our democratic process. Candidates are forced to live and breathe by their fundraising efforts...it becomes as important as or more important than actual policymaking. [Witness Sen. McCain's unfortunate Senate cloakroom calls to fundraisers this week.]

The pernicious influence of corporate lobbying money is well documented, yet both Democrats and Republicans are so addicted to the cash that they can't bring themselves to genuinely reform it. It is outrageous to claim that this doesn't matter. Does 'free speech' mean that the wealthy and powerful get a louder voice in a democracy than individuals? Ridiculous, amoral claptrap.

RJ, your 'comprehensive solution':

A. Will ever happen anyway;
B. Is based on gratuitous, militarist, racist fearmongering;
and
C. Would make this country and the world far worse places than they are already.

Other than that, great policy analysis.

sorry, meant "never happen anyway."

"We "right-wing" types do offer a solution: Build a fence along the entire border with Mexico, and then man it with the National Guard and an expanded border patrol, working alongside volunteer citizens."

Now there's another typical right wing solution - get SOMEONE ELSE to do the dirty work. And just exactly where will the National Guard members come from...since they're already deployed to the invasion/occupation of Iraq?

I say man it with Mexicans.

That way, the rest of 'em won't have any trouble coming in, and the market for gardeners and maids will be so saturated with labor supply we won't have to pay them more than $2 an hour.

Manning it with NGs would be mean-spirited. Shooting Mexicans wouldn't be near as much fun as shooting Iraqis; the Mexicans don't shoot back.

Baronius is erroneous, again. It doesn't take a Constitutional amendment to change the modern system of bribery masquerading as 'free speech'. All such arguments are premised on an out-of-court ruling by the chief justice of SCOTUS that corporations have the same rights as persons. You can look it up: Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific. this is what is used to justify legalized bribery.

But the Chief Justice's bald assertion, autocratically declared, has misled people. Corps are NOT the same as people. In fact, they are what is commonly (in legal circles) called 'juristic persons' that is, an artificial person which for narrowly prescribed purposes has some of the rights and obligations of a person. But not all, and for a prescribed period of time. And revocable.

Nevertheless, fans of blatant bribery of elected officials cite the Santa Clara decision to support their thievery.

Anybody can exercise their free speech anytime by buying time on TV and proclaiming "vote for Bill Jones" as often and as loud as they want. They don't have the right to buy bill jones influence with campaign contributions. If they want to support bill jones financially they can put their bucks into a blind trust (as long as it isn't administered by Bill Frist!) from whence jones can draw without in the least having to pay obedience to the donor. Even if the donor says "I put in a million bucks, you better do what I say!", the candidate can say "that million came from a million kindergarteners, one buck at a time".

RJ, your 'comprehensive solution':

A. Will ever happen anyway;
B. Is based on gratuitous, militarist, racist fearmongering;
and
C. Would make this country and the world far worse places than they are already.

A - why not?

B - how is it "racist" (or any of those other things you called it) for a nation to secure its own borders, and to enforce its own laws?

C - how so?

A. It's a ludicrously gigantic project and would waste resources that are sorely needed elsewhere. Politicians will pay it lip service but it will not be built.

B. The extent of the damage and the threat posed by immigrants is hugely exaggerated [and the benefits ignored], and the rabid nativist [and fictional] description of it plays into people's fear/distrust of other races and cultures rather than being based on reality and on issues of genuine importance.

C. The image of the US as an armed fortress, ready to shoot people crossing the border, or to imprison people for trying to find work, is repugnant to me and to many others, in this country and abroad.

Bliffle, I've got to tell you that I was reading your comments a little too quickly, and thought you were citing Santa Claus vs. Southern Pacific. That image brightened my day.

Yes, corporate personhood is what's called a "legal fiction", but I think it's justified.

My solution to campaign finance reform is federalism. Under the current system, a senator from Connecticut has more say over my school district than my school board members do. It makes sense for me to donate to a large organization that would support candidates across the country.

But what if the power returned to state and local governments. There would be no need for big money in campaigns. It would be ineffective, and eventually dry up. But until that day, the best thing I can do for representitive democracy is to try to influence out-of-district elections.

Exactly, handy. What use is all this security mania if the result of all the PATRIOT ACTs and border fences and wiretaps is that at the end of it all we no longer ARE the country we were fighting to preserve?

Dave

For once Erroneous Baronius is close to a valid idea, namely, that bribery of public officials has too high a ROI for any good businessman to resist.

Even I, though blessed with the morals of a saint, have succumbed to the temptation, at least in principle, to figure out how to get the most business advantage out of an investment of a mere $100k for an audience with the President, for such is the meager cost. If one knows how to do it, and I do.

I can't imagine what value you'd get out of a chat with Bush, Bliffle - except, perhaps to annoy him.

dave

Dave,

At least you get a photo with the pres. I sure that has some value. I bet there's a lot more.

Les

You must be daft, Dave. Why would I spend $100k to annoy someone when I can do it for free right here on BC?

I'd use the opportunity to push a project favorable to my financial interests, of course. And I'd expect a leveraged payout from my investment, which I'd calculate to be about $1million based on past performance of politicians. Although some I've seen show ROIs of 1000:1, it oughta be easy to get 10:1. I don't want to be greedy....oh, wait a minute, I DO want to be greedy!

You really ARE innocent of business sense. The idea, spending money just to mount a diatribe!

Blogcritics on McCain 071407

RE: McCain-Feingold ruined him for me. Hardly the 1st amendment judgment I want to see in a president.
RE: McCain-Feingold tarnished him for me. But his unwavering support of amnesty for illegal immigrants (and personal attacks on anyone who opposed it) completely ruined him for me.

This gets to the heart of the McCain dilemma. His stands on these issues displeased a lot of potential voters (and not just Republicans) and McCain seems unable to be persuasive, but comes across (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) as stubbornly combative.

-handguy - RE: McCain-Feingold wasn't deliberately aimed at first-amendment rights. It was an attempt, however flawed, to reduce the poisonous effect of money on politics. Right wing opponents rarely bother to mention whether they think this is a serious issue or not.

Good point. Some conservatives want to fall back on philosophy and theory without looking at what the Bush Administration and Republicans are actually doing. When political contributions from individuals began to decline dramatically, in part as a response to the immigration issue, the GOP simply told corporate contributors to make up the difference. The present regime has happily embraced lobbyists and corrupt fat cats who cheerfully exploit contributors and congressmen equally. The squeak about being in favor of free market, but instead offer government of the cronies, by the cronies, and for the cronies.

RE: McCain's stand on immigration wasn't deliberately intended to ignore lawbreaking - it was an attempt, however flawed, to deal with the reality of the situation: illegal immigrants who are already here and who may have something positive to offer the US, given the chance.

Another good point, and one which gets beyond demonizing pro-immigration folk as liberal boneheads and anti-immigration folk as racists. Part of the problem here is that a number of people have problems with the fact that the illegal immigrants already here willfully broke immigration laws, don't care that they broke immigration laws, and openly encourage their relatives, friends and compatriots to openly defy immigration laws. In addition, many pro-illegal immigration folk ignore or show disdain for the thousands of people, including many Latinos, who patiently apply and wait for the legal immigration system to work.

The mayor of Los Angeles sided with illegals with these stirring words: "Aqui estamos y no nos vamos!" We're here and we're not going anywhere!

Thus, any plan which gives an advantage to those already here, even out of a sense of practicality, violates a lot of people's sense of fairness. McCain has ignored this and so has been bashed for it.

RJ - RE: Not true. We "right-wing" types do offer a solution: Build a fence along the entire border with Mexico, and then man it with the National Guard and an expanded border patrol, working alongside volunteer citizens.

Once the influx of NEW illegals has gone from a flood to a trickle, you can then deal with the illegals already here.

Now THAT is a real COMPREHENSIVE solution.---

Sorry, this is typical of a conservative viewpoint which tries to be tough, but only ends up being unrealistic and blind to reality and to how markets actually operate.

Illegal immigrants will go under a fence, over a fence, and around a fence as long as employers can offer them jobs. And the right wing crowd seems genetically unable to enforce ANY current law which would punish employers who employ illegal immigrants (and note that no new legislation is needed, so the phony conservative argument about liberals wanting to enact reams of new laws is also rendered null and void).

Also, the hard reality is that a lot of immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries simply want to come here to work or to look for work. They send billions of dollars home, buy and build property there, and often seek to return at a time of their own choosing. Immigrants are NOT interested in being shoehorned into guest worker jobs, not interested in having to return home when jobs end, not always interested in becoming citizens (or using welfare or other social services), and don't give a rat's ass about learning English unless it furthers their own purposes. They want to be able to work and to be left alone. The vast majority do abide by our country's laws. But otherwise all of the BS and hot air of Comprehensive immigration reform is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Conservatives pretend to be tough minded, but are little more than a bunch of dopes. Liberals pretend to care about the oppressed or drool over potential Democratic voters, but are also a bunch of dopes.

Note also that the State Department cannot even process the increase in passport applications caused by the passage of stricter travel requirement rules, so I simply do not believe that the federal government will become magically efficient in looking for and dealing with immigration law violators after the passage of any supposedly "comprehensive" legislation. Just more smoke and mirrors.

Here is a rule of markets. Capital is very mobile, moving to wherever it is advantageous to set up a business or to invest. Illegal immigrant labor is more mobile than citizen labor. Illegal immigrants come here because this is where the jobs are, and with much less bureaucracy and corruption than in Mexico and other Latin American countries. This is also the case with immigrants coming from Africa into Italy, Spain and other countries, and with people coming from Eastern Europe into more developed European countries. The rest is commentary.

You really ARE innocent of business sense. The idea, spending money just to mount a diatribe!

I just assumed that diatribes were all you have to offer based on what I've seen here.

But if the $100K is an investment in something profitable then more power to you. Greed is good. It makes the world go round.

Dave

"I just assumed that diatribes were all you have to offer based on what I've seen here."
- Dave Nalle

I disagree wholeheartedly, Nalle. Bliff offers far more to BC than you do. Ten times more, at least, without the overbearing, control-freak mentality.
- MCH

Maybe greed is good, though judging by it's effects on it's adherents one would have good reason to question that, but is bribery good? And bribery, after all, is what McCain Feingold is all about.

"Maybe greed is good"

No maybes about it. Greed is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.

greed - excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.

this is why christian doctrine calls it one of the 7 deadly sins...

note the word "excessive" or "rapacious"...

we are not talking a healthy desire to earn value for work given folks...greed is excessive by very definition...wanting MORE than fair value in exchange....often the rapacious desire to get something for nothing...and still wanting more

but there are indeed many gluttons who think "greed is good", as long as they are on the rapacious side of the equation

but i digress...

Excelsior?

i knew there was a reason why i'm not a christian and don't believe in the concept of sin.

and i'd define greed somewhat more pragmatically. it's the desire to advance oneself as much as possible by whatever means necessary.

seems healthy to me. part of the natural human condition.

dave

changing the definition of a word for personal purposes does not change the objective meaning inherent in said word

i cited the dictionary for the word, in order to show why greed is bad...same as any other form of gluttony

by your statement, then a 300 pound child is the epitome of your personal virtue

it's the "by any means necessary" that's the dead give away...so it's ok to "get ahead" by robbing, killing, deceit and at the expense of others regardless of how much or how little one puts into that "getting"

nice to observe some wearing their Freudian slip

Excelsior?

Well, I dunno, gonzo, but I certainly don't mind getting something fer nuthin', and I surely do like accumulating dinero...

And if I can accumulate without working fer it, that's OK, too. That's why I invest in securities.

I draw the line at hurting or taking advantage of other folks, however.

well Clavos..where you draw the line is crucial, ain't it?

and investing isn't something for nothing, you take risk and what you invest is something

tanstaafl - "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

so you demonstrate the very human desire to receive compensation for work done...of course folks want to maximize their return...that IS natural, and helps us develop the ethic to work both hard and smarter

it's the excessive and rapacious and harming others that crosses the line into the unEthical...

into the greed

but i digress....

Excelsior?

To Those Who Suggested Ways to Stop Illegals from Crossing the Border: I don't think a fence is ever going to work and the National Guard should never be given a permanent job of patrolling the border. There is another way to handle it and solve some other major problems at the same time. New Orleans is complaining that their levees are still not capable of withstanding a major hurricane. Florida is complaining because dry weather and many wildfires have caused alligators to wander into residential areas. Some have even attacked humans.

Here's what you do. Dig a big ditch the length of the Mexican-US border and flood it with water. Take the dirt you dug out of the ditch and build up the levees in NO. Round up the rogue gators from Florida and put 'em in the ditch. Three problems solved. No sweat.

Sorry guys, I just don't think anyone has come up with a really workable solution, yet. At least, not one that the present slugs in DC could manage to implement properly.

organizing economic activity based on the principle of maximizing return is as natural as wearing shoes

Greed remains good, despite Gonzo's whinging. It's a fantastic motivating force, but it's not the only force driving people. It can be counterbalanced by guilt and by morality, but nothing else motivates like greed. Which is why it's good, because accomplishment and success are also good.

Dave

see #40

nuff said?

Excelsior?

Dave: What's "whinging"?

Doesn't anyone like my man eating alligator idea?

I agree...Gonz needs to stop "whinging"...