Posted on 11/28/2005 10:15:28 AM PST by areafiftyone
Senator McCain of Arizona is emerging as an early favorite for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 as a result of a shift in the issues dominating the American political landscape, according to political analysts.
Intensifying public concern about the war in Iraq, the prospect of protracted corruption trials in Washington, and renewed qualms among Republicans about federal spending are all putting wind into Mr. McCain's sails while setting back most of the senator's rivals for the nomination.
"If Iraq and foreign policy and national security and deficit spending are important issues, that will benefit people like McCain," the publisher of a leading political newsletter, Stuart Rothenberg, said.
A Republican political consultant with national campaign experience said looming decisions about when and how to withdraw American troops from Iraq should boost the prospects of Mr. McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. The senator has vocally opposed calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but he has also clashed with the White House over a measure he sponsored to prohibit Americans from engaging in torture.
A former aide to the senator, Marshall Wittmann, also said he believes the stars are aligning for a McCain candidacy.
"My sense is there's a significant amount of momentum shifting to Mc-Cain within the Republican Party over the past few months," said Mr. Wittmann, who served as the senator's communications director for two years before quitting last year to join the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
In all fairness, McCain has been consistent and vocal in his support for the Iraq effort and the WOT, both inside the Senate and outside the Senate chamber with the news media.
And he's not stupid. The media loathes this about McCain, but he has a near-perfect record on pro-life (abortion) issues.
Perot may not have been full-fledged insane, but I think he even edged out McCain in the megalomaniacal department. I certainly remember his infamous performance in his tv debate with Gore on NAFTA, and he ended up making Gore look not only rational, but like a statesman.
I think a lot of GOP primary voters would vote for McCain or even Giuliani. There's an entire contingent of folks who take an instant dislike to any candidate who's opposed by conservatives, including a lot of the business folks.
contingent who like those disliked by conservative, oppose those liked by conservatives
NAFTA got signed, welfare reform was passed, we ran a large surplus and retired a lot of debt.
In fact these issues are hardly the rallying cries I read from my fellow conservatives on this site.
In my opinion, the Clinton years were a stain on history and not "worth it". But if that is how you feel, why play word gams, just vote for another Democrat to try and do whatever it is you hope to recreate from the 90s.
You may be right. McCain and Giuliani are the only candidates the press ever talks about, for understandable reasons. These are the people they'd like to see run.
I sincerely hope that Karl Rove and the other politically savvy operators around the President have had a learning moment over the Harriet Miers fiasco, and will start paying attention to the base again. The President can't run again, but they should be thinking about the midterm elections, and thinking even harder about who would be best to replace Bush in 2008.
It can't be a RINO. That's the mistake they have made too many times to be counted. The results of the last three elections should show that that isn't what people want. Apparently, they want a compassionate conservative, whatever that means.
Also they have shown everywhere but in the leftmost cities and states that they want a pro-lifer. On the national level, a pro-abortion Republican will always lose, because the fanatic pro-aborts will never vote Republican no matter what, and the religious conservatives will stay home.
I agree no way will I vote for McCain. Allen would be good.
Yup. Choosing between the "lesser" of those two evils gives us plenty of justification for voting Libertarian.
LOL! We agree that Perot is a certifiable lunatic. :-)
But I would sooner vote for Giuliani than others that you mention. Giuliani has run a successful business and successful administration. His baggage could be scary-- it's hard to imagine if there's much of the Kerik stuff there.
:-)
Senators are risky picks. It would be better to draw from a governorship.
Right, but the claim Perot made was for "investment in the infrastructure"-- Read as Raise my taxes and spend lots o' tax dollars on public works projects.
This was the model that drove the Japanese economy into the [insert plumbing term of choice here]
The DNC would make him speak in tongues.
We love Zell, but we want him to come on over.
PS I think that you are putting Congress's failures on the President's shoulders and they are all big enough to take their own medicine.
Can you really trust the head dwarf?
Shucks, this man has no principles.
Vicomte13 seems to have forgotten the 1994 Congressional elections and the Contract with America, that forever changed the Clinton Presidency in that they could not do what they wanted, being hamstrung by the polls and all.
But does Vicomte13 really think it was a fabulous idea for Clinton to send Carter to North Korea in 1998 to give Kim JungIl $1 billion of taxpayer money to fund their nuclear "power"?
Its called "leadership." He's in charge, he gets the lumps. He shoulda called 'em home to Jesus, refused to campaign for slackers and RINOs, used the veto pen, and otherwise made 'em miserable.
Thats what we say but its not what the American people are saying which is why Giuliani and McCain are leading the pack and Allen and the rest of the conservatives are polling in the single digits. They are tired of conservatives and liberals squabbling back and forth - the moderates and independents are speaking up right now and if we don't listen to them and find out what they want we will lose to the Dems because we seem to be stuck in our little world. This is not 2004 anymore. We may have the majority in Congress but that can change in 2006 or if it doesn't change - it doesn't guarantee the presidency in 2008.
We are going to disagree about the President's leadership. If he were not a leader, he would be doing what everyone wanted and that's not the man he is.
And it was in 1992 when Zell gave a rousing speech in support of Bill Clinton.
The weight of the Presidency since 9/11 is beyond staggering. And yet he went to the plate after the 2004 election to spend political capital to lobby for Social Security reform, in particular the personal accounts, because he believes in them. And has done now for at least 20 years.
The lack of discipline within the Congress courtesies of DeLay, Hastert, Frist and McCain is beyond belief. yet how much spare time does the President have with a waging war to hold the hands of the members of Congress as they so anxiously desire? (so as to inflate their own importance) There just isn't enough human of anyone to be able to handle it all and these Congresscritters know it-- which is why they spend like weasels.
At some point, it starts to look as though we expect the President to don a cape and leap from building to building.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.