John McCain has now secured the endorsements of nine newspapers across the country. The two big Iowa papers (The Des Moines Register and Quad City Times), the Boston Globe and Herald, and five New Hampshire papers (The Union Leader, Portsmouth Herald, Salmon Press, Keene Sentinel and Valley News). The endorsement of McCain by the Quad City Times is a big blow to Mitt Romney who had heavily lobbied the QC editorial board in recent days. Here’s how they explain their decision:
John McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” plows through where other Republicans steer clear.
Mitt Romney addresses the deficit by exhorting Republicans to “stop acting like Democrats.” McCain doesn’t resort to name calling. He sets it straight: “Republicans lost the last election, not because of Iraq …” he told a crowd in Davenport. “We lost it because of spending… We presided over the largest increase in government since the Great Society.”
Rudy Giuliani hedges on torture and seeks definitions of waterboarding. McCain clearly says “no” to torture.
Fred Thompson jokes about alien SUVs when asked about global warming. McCain says he’s seen the evidence of climate change on trips to both poles. For those who choose to ignore science, McCain offers this compelling, bipartisan appeal: We owe our children a better planet.
On immigration and campaign finance reform, McCain talks like a problem solver, not an idealogue.
His faith, he has said repeatedly, is a matter between him and his maker. Look for evidence of it in his actions, not campaign speeches.
Those rambling, stream-of-consciousness speeches won’t win a rhetoric prize. They simply offer clear insight into a leader whose life experiences, personally, politically and heroically, have tested his mettle for the nation’s top job.
We disagree with the senator’s stance on the war. We believe he’d be wrong to pull ethanol subsidies, at least right away. But at this critical point in history, America can benefit from an honorable man with a hero’s record.
He’s survived tough opposition and deplorable campaign tactics, particularly some from his own party. Yet he’s never taken the bait.
For Iowa’s Republican caucuses, we support John McCain.
With 11 days to go until the Iowa Caucuses, he’s clearly the man with the momentum right now.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
McCain seems to be the Huck killer. Rasmussen just posted this:
“The McSurge comes as Huckabee’s tide has pulled back from its high water mark in key states–Huckabee has fallen back into a tie for the lead in both Iowa and South Carolina.”
Now if only McCain can implode after Iowa everything will be perfect.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
What’s the real impact of such an endorsement? It can’t hurt obviously but will it really matter. At this point I don’t see how McCain finishes higher then 4th in Iowa, especially with Fred giving his all in the state up until caucus day.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
McCain can’t/won’t be in the top three in Iowa. Caucus goers do not like the guy and know his history too well.
He could be endorsed by every Iowa paper and it wouldn’t bring him into the top three in the state (despite him having a bigger staff and investing more money in Iowa than Romney prior to the run-up to the Ames Straw Poll).
He might get fourth . . . but even that might be a good showing for him.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Argamenon,
Don’t count on it. It’s increasingly more likely that McCain will get 3rd in Iowa. If that happens, it almost (I said almost!) won’t matter if Romney does win. For every bit of free media coverage about the winner, there’ll be a piece about how McCain is back from the dead and a major contender.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
2.
McCain is coming on strong in Iowa. Remember that ARG poll from a few days ago that showed McCain tied with Romney in NH and Iowa? Well, the NH numbers have been corroborated, and the Iowa polling won’t be far behind. People are starting to realize that they don’t want a lightweight like Romney carrying the banner of the Republican party into November and beyond.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
That’s a pretty good endorsement by its explanation and tone. And it makes a compelling argument that McCain, despite flaws, is a unifying nominee.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
“McCain seems to be the Huck(citement) killer”
Whereas, Mitt’s people are Steady….
THE HUCK-A-BUST is Coming……Jan. 3rd!!!
And then Mitt will go on to Win in Wyoming, NH, Michigan, NV, SC, then Florida!!
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
It Intresting that they don’t have McCain post christmas plans up at the website, they must be debating weather to swing through Iowa. I can see a four day swing through NN 26-30, Then Part 30-Cacus day in Iowa.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
#8,
I can imagine that’s causing a lot of debate at McCain HQ. I’m sure that no one predicted that they’d be doing this well in IA right now and it’s got to be a nerve-wracker trying to decide where to allocate time right now.
It’s sorta ironic that while Romney is forced to fight a two front war, McCain has an opportunity by doing the exact same thing.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Wrong. Republicans lost the last election because of immigration. But McCain doesn’t want to talk about that because he was the one trying to push through a disastrous immigration bill quickly, under the radar. McCain (author of McCain-Feingold) is a poor choice (however, better than Huckmeister).
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
They did not use because of Immigration, fact is people and area where they went heavry on it Haysworth, the Koble Seat in AZ, North VA, Ect. They lose big.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:20 pm
If the McCain surge continues, it’ll be interesting to see how the MSM covers him.
They’ve clearly turned against him for his support of the surge and the need for success in Iraq. As long as he was back stabbing the party, they loved him. MSM loves Republicans who do that. Hagel, et al.
To me, whether right or wrong, he’s the one candidate willing to go against the CW and what is politically advantageous.
Well, I guess one can include Rep. Paul; but sorry, he’s way too radical for me.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
SteveMG, #12 – you are absolutely wrong there, my friend. The MSM has created this McSurge. There is no real ground swell, it is all media driven and the morons who actually believe the media are following along just like they knew would happen. McCain is a war hero, but he is not a conservative and he is not a Republican (I consider the former more important than the latter). The MSM would be completely satisfied with McCain as the GOP nominee because then no matter who wins the general the country takes a decidedly liberal course.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
In Aust they kicked out a 68 year old for being too old, and he had been in power for 11 years!
McCain would be starting his run at what 73?
Too old.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Of course many newspapers continue to endorse McCain. Simply put, they love democrats. Sen McCain served his country honorably as a military member, but he has abandoned the Republican party far too many times to receive the nomination (destrying the 1st amendment with McCain-Feingold, abandoning the safety and security of the US in a short sighted effort to win political points with hispanics on immigration and voting against tax cuts). I am a Republican who has never voted for a democrat, but if John McCain receives the Republican nomination I will be voting for the democrat nominee because at least they have the political courage to run under the democratic banner…John McCain – RINO!
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
You are absolutely wrong there, my friend. The MSM has created this McSurge.
I’ll defer to you about NH and his (non) surge. It sure seems that there is some movement in his polls. Upward ticks here and there.
But I’ll have to disagree that the MSM is behind him (generally). Not since he started supporting Bush and the Iraq war.
Plus, he’s come out in support of the tax cuts and (reluctantly) for greater border control/illegal immigration enforcement. The latter may just be smoke.
Keep warm up there.
SMG
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
jwp – I second that sentiment. I put Huck in the same category. Huck truly is your typical southern Democrat: he is pro-life but liberal on everything else. I wouldn’t quite categorize McCain a democrat, just anti-Constitution.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Steve – the polls are simply a reflection of the media’s assertion that there is a McSurge. The more people who don’t know anything hear about a McSurge the more likely they will be to say they would vote for the man who sounds like he has something going.
I will agree with you that the border control/illegal immigration enforcement is just smoke. He has always been pro-amnesty. He needs the votes of illegals, and democrats to keep his seat in AZ as real Republicans can’t stand the man.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Giuliani Says McCain Would Be a Good Adviser
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
#7 – Abe, the Huck-a-nuts seem to be out in full force today!
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Heath, age was not the issue behind John Howard’s defeat; it was a mixture of arrogance/complacency.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
#19 – Guiliani is right. He would be great at advising on how to further destruct the big tent of the GOP. He would be great to advise on how to cripple the American and World economies by enforcing policies that reflect the Global Warming, Al Whore nut-jobs. He would be great at advising any President on how to lose the war against radical Islam by applying Geneva Convention rights to non-uniformed, unrecognized enemy combatants. He would be great at advising Guiliani about how to suppress 1st Amendment rights. McCain would also be great at advising Guiliani on how to “work” with Democrats on suppressing Presidential nominees.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
McCain is a conservative republican. A senator’s job is to compromise and work with his party and the other. Otherwise, you would have a senator with no accomplishments or who is known only as an obstructionist.
But you McCain and Huckabee bashers are running out of options. Right now, they are two of really only four viable candidates. After IA and NH, one or both could be in the finals. I think its fair to say at this point that some part of the GOP will be somewhat disappointed in the nominee.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:32 pm
#23 – or both could be eliminated and there would be a chance that the GOP could nominate a republican and not a RINO. McCain may be a republican (as that term is open tent) but he is NOT conservative!
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
The early smart money odds are out. I wonder what Metro will have to say about this …
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/23/america/letter.php
His boy is getting longer by the day.
Did I mention that Mitt is the favorite? Of course, their comment is “someone needs to be the favorite”.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Axel,
It would take an independent to call McCain a conservative. As compared to you, perhaps, but not compared to most Republicans.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
LOL
Independent means non-aligned, it does not mean liberal or conservative.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
McCain has stuck to the GOP too many times, and supported too many non-conservative policies (without acknowledging it) to be trusted as our nominee.
The Bush tax cuts
tough interogation policies
amnesty
CFR
The GOP is in real trouble if it picks McCain.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Axel
While technically correct, recent elections have somewhat redefined the jargon. As you know, Republican usually means conservative while Democrat usually means liberal. While there are (theoretically) liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, the are usually dismissed as the oddballs of their respective parties. I’ll stick with common usage. I will correct myself, though. It would take a Democrat or an Independent to call McCain a conservative.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:59 pm
I agree with ACT. If somehow McCain picks up enough delegates for the nomination, it won’t be for the Grand Old Party that I thought I knew.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Intrade update:
Rudy 28.5
Mitt 24.4
JMac 15.9
Huck 14.7
Mitt faces the real possibility of certain death if he loses IA+NH. JMac faces certain death if he doesn’t win NH. Huck faces certain death if he doesn’t win IA.
Of these 4, only Rudy does not face certain death after the first 2 contests. But someone else does, and as the field approaches a 2-man race, Rudy improves.
Meanwhile these guys will be tearing into one another (Mitt’s already started into McCain) and will be bloodied by the time they face Rudy in FL. And because he’s not perceived as an imminent threat, Rudy’s skeletons are not attacked in negative ads. He can bask in the FL sun while campaigning, and exceed expectations in a couple of the early states.
For those who think Rudy is dead, I’d think long and hard about why investors are still giving him the edge. These are some of the reasons. So is the fact that he has pockets of strength later in the race and delegate math working in his favor. He’s got resiliency, but the others face the real possibility of certain death.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Metro,
i think your the only one in America who thinks Rudy has a good strategy. Romney is falling apart b/c people are starting to realized what a Phony he is, and they are waking up to McCain. By the time Florida comes around Rudy will b e toast and McCain will have all of the momentum. Rudy’s plan is the dumbest i’ve ever seen.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:06 pm
It looks to me like the paper endorsed him becasue he is for limiting free speech, preventing tough interrogation policies, and legalizing millions of law-breakers who will suck from our welfare, education, and health systems.
Yeah, thats an endorsement you want a GOP candidate to have.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Bryan, did you know your man McCain won 4 primaries on Super Tuesday 8 years ago after Bush had the momentum? Did you know he won 3 of them by ~25-point margins? That’s right, he won in landslides after Bush had the mo — in Northeastern states where Bush did not have a cultural connection.
Did you know Reagan lost the first 6 contests to Ford in 1976, then turned around the momentum to virtually tie Ford?
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Speaking of dumb, Bryan, I just posted stats showing the smart money in an entire market likes Rudy’s strategy. Your response is I’m the only one in America. Dumb.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
I just read this article and it sounds like they’re endorsing McCain because they think that he’s the most liberal of the candidates…
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
You know, even if you think Romney is likely to flip-flop back to liberal positions on abortion or whatever, you have to admit, there is a better chance of him pushing Conservative policies than Rudy when it comes to abortion, or McCain when it comes to immigration, or Huckabee when it comes to taxes.
Romney is one of the most qualified men to run for President in recent history, with more exectutive experience than even Reagan had. If the GOP does not pick Romney, they will be turning instead to a man who is much less likely to support the entire GOP platform.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
You know, even if you think Romney is likely to flip-flop back to liberal positions on abortion or whatever, you have to admit, there is a better chance of him pushing Conservative policies than Rudy when it comes to abortion, or McCain when it comes to immigration, or Huckabee when it comes to taxes.
What “policies” would Rudy “push” on abortion as President, do you imagine? Do you really think he’d push pro-choice policies as President, making the abortion thing a big issue again? Do you think he has no political savvy at all?
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Rudy’s strategy in theory is looking a little better today than it did when it appeared Romney would win IA and NH. It is probable that two or three candidates each win one of the first contests leaving the race unsettled when Florida rolls around. Then the question would be which candidate can compete with Giuliani in the delegate rich large states (CA, NY, NJ).
That’s in theory. In actuality, the winner of IA is likely to win one or more of the other early contests, knocking Giuliani out. If its Romney in IA, he likely holds NH. If its Huck in IA, he’s grab SC too.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Rudy’s policies did more for the pro-life movement than any candidate running.
Good economic policies reduce the need for abortions.
And now he’ll appoint strict constructionist judges — ones that are similar to people on his legal advisory team: Estrada, Olson. He’s given you a sneak preview of what you’re gonna get under him and you’re failing to see it.
What more do you people want?
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Axel, Rudy is not knocked out if a candidate wins more than 1 pre-FL state. Talk about moving goalposts! The debate was whether Rudy would be knocked out if one candidate won ALL the pre-FL states. Two candidates splitting the pre-FL states 2 vs 3 is just fine for Rudy. Even better if they are split among 3.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
#38 –
no, I don’t necessairily believe that he would push pro-abortion policies, but I don’t trust him to nominate pro-life judges, and I don’t trust him to sign pro-life legislation.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
“Pro-life judges.” And you’re not a judicial activist — somehow?
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
“Good economic policies reduce the need for abortions.”
We’ve had good economic times in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, and during none of those times, do I believe abortions have fallen below the 1 million per year level. A good economy might help, but it is hardly a way to solve the problem.
–
“And now he’ll appoint strict constructionist judges ”
His idea of a strict constructionist is someone who can uphold roe, he even said it was good law, so that promise doesn’t hold much water with me.
–
“What more do you people want?”
How about saying that Roe was wrong, how about promising to sign all pro-life legislation that comes to your desk, how about using the word “pro-life” when describing what your administration would be like?
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Real strict constructionists, like John Roberts and Sam Alito, explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee why strict constructionism might uphold Roe. Rudy gave the same answer they did.
But ACT wants “pro-life” judges who will use the judiciary to legislate from the bench.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
“But ACT wants “pro-life†judges who will use the judiciary to legislate from the bench.”
I want judges who recognize that there is no constitution protection (other than roe itself) for a woman to murder her own child.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I’ve got to say that a President faces a complex set of decision that we can’t easily anticipate.
How many Republicans in 2000 were asking questions about immigration, terrorism and same-sex marriage?
We have no idea what the issues will be in the next few years. That’s why I prefer a candidate who shares my values.
Rudy’s lazy about moral issues not caring how many human beings are losing their lives to abortionists. Even if I could morally vote for him, I’d rather not take the risk with an amoral candidate like Rudy.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
ACT, you don’t see the contradiction in #46? Two of them?
Econ, setting aside the unborn for the moment, Rudy is the most moral candidate when it comes to actual living adults. He is the candidate who is most likely to see individuals as ends-in-themselves, having inalienable individual rights to make their own decisions over their own lives. Moreover, he has the most moral clarity on defending this nation against its foreign enemies, especially Islamism, at all costs. I support Rudy mostly on moral grounds.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:39 pm
“setting aside the unborn for the moment”
oh yeah, lets talk about moral issues, but lets set aside one of the biggest moral issues of our time first, since it shows your candidate for what he really is.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
One of my biggest concerns about McCain, besides the fact that he supports amnesty (because at the very least, I think another big grassroots effort could stop that), is the fact that he is so old, has so little loyalty to the party, and is such a run-of-the-mill Washingtonite, that I don’t see how Conservatism could base its movement off a McCain Presidency for the next thirty years. With Reagan dead, and the GOP out of the majority for the time being, the movement has no real leader.
This is another one of the reasons I support Romney, because I want a candidate who the candidates of the future will try to represent as much as today’s candidate try to represent Reagan.
The only candidate I see that in is Romney.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Metro, setting aside the premeditated deaths of millions isn’t something I’m willing to do. I don’t care if a candidate has volunteered in hospices for decades; if they support the killing of innocent human beings, they aren’t morally qualified for leadership.
It’s clear to me that we can’t meaningfully discuss morality because you follow Ayn Rand’s philosophy which is opposed to our societies morality. In your philosophy there’s no reason why infants or the retarded deserve the right to life because they can not reason objectively.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
econ grad stud, that’s the most absurd characterization of Ayn Rand’s philosophy I’ve ever heard.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
The only people that attack Ayn Rand’s philosophy are the ones that don’t understand it.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
That’s convenient the only people who aren’t Ayn Randists are those who don’t understand her philosophy.
Metro, we’ve discussed before Ayn Rand’s philosophies inability to support a right to life for infants or the retarded. Her concept of a right to life is only based in a human’s mental capacity. You’ve got no answer to why government must protect infants from their parents if they wish to eat them. In Randism the basis for a right to life leaves infants without value.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
econ grad stud, Ayn Rand was the strongest defender of the Right to Life, the complete and full sense (not including for the unborn). The views you are attributing to her are so outrageously far from her beliefs, there is no debate, other than to tell you you are simply wrong. If you have any interest in knowing more, I recommend Peikoff’s book, “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.”
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:29 pm
“(not including for the unborn)”
by that, you must mean the twisted and highly selective sense.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
If Ayn Rand supported a right to life for infants she was illogical. She thought a right to life was only justified by man’s reasoning/mental ability. An infant can not reason just as a fetus can not reason. I don’t support folks who’s philosophies taken to their natural extreme lead parents to feel like eating a baby is no different than eating a chicken.
In that manner I think Randism as a materialist philosophy is particularly immoral and degenerate. I’d be more interested in reading about Objectivism if I hadn’t tortured myself by reading her poorly written
sermonsnovels.December 23rd, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Rudd made Howard look old and hopefully Mittens will do the same for J/Mac (who has been helped no end by Thompson making him look energetic and not so old!).
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Age is not an issue to me as long as the mind is sharp. I would be concerned if any of them had signs of a cancer relap though.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
econ grad stud, how the hell do you get off discussing Ayn Rand’s philosophy with authoritative certainty, if you haven’t even studied it?
For the honest reader, Ayn Rand defended individual rights because man survives and flourishes by using reason. Reason requires freedom of thought and of action. It applies to the entire species, even if individual members possess differing degrees of reason.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Beth # 20,
The tide has turned against the Huckster…..
ALSO, to Everybody MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
Even all you wonderful Non-Romney-ites……
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 pm
I’m a conservative Republican, but I think McCain’s ability to compromise is a good thing. Think about historical examples. I fear that today’s blogosphere would have pilloried Daniel Webster for supporting the Compromise of 1850, and not toeing the abolitionist line. Well, the Compromise of 1850 kept the Union intact for ten more years, and prevented a southern secession at the hands of a weak president (Taylor or Filmore)
Henry Clay, one of the greatest senators in American history was known as “The Great Compromiser.”
Compromise is a virtue, not a vice. Ideology is great, but when a majority disagrees with you, refusing to compromise shows an immature stubborness.
December 24th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Metro, embryos and fetuses belong to the human species. However it is quite illogical to say “I grant rights because of X” and then say “All humans are protected because most possess X”
The point that reasoning provides no objective justification for rights is more damning. So what a man can reason? He’s still just a collection of atoms that leaves no trace.
There’s no moral compulsion in materialism. It makes all atheist morality a simple set of opinions.