Dead but not buried

McCain is toast:

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadn’t asked McCain to switch parties.

Downey, a well-connected lobbyist, said he was stunned.“You’re really wondering?” Downey said he told Weaver. “What do you mean you’re wondering?”

“Well, if the right people asked him,” Weaver said, according to Downey, adding that he responded, “The calls will be made. Who do you want?” Weaver this week said he did have lunch with Downey that spring, pointing out that he and Downey “are very good friends.” He claims, however, that Downey is grossly mischaracterizing their exchange: “We certainly didn’t discuss in any detail about the senator’s political plans and any discussion about party-switchers, generically, would have been limited to the idle gossip which was all around the city about the [Democrats’] aggressive approach about getting any GOP senator to switch in order to gain the majority. Nothing more or less than that.”

Downey said Weaver is well aware that their discussion was much more than typical Washington chit-chat.

“Within seconds” of arriving home from his lunch with Weaver, Downey said he was on the phone to the most powerful Democrats in town. One of the first calls he made was to then-Senate Minority Leader Daschle.“I did take the call from Tom [Downey],” Daschle said in an interview. “It was Weaver’s comment” to Downey that started the McCain talks, he added. Daschle noted that McCain at that time was frustrated with the Bush administration as a result of his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primary.

Daschle said that throughout April and May of 2001, he and McCain “had meetings and conversations on the floor and in his office, I think in mine as well, about how we would do it, what the conditions would be. We talked about committees and his seniority … [A lot of issues] were on the table.”

Absolutely not so, according to McCain. In a statement released by his campaign, McCain said, “As I said in 2001, I never considered leaving the Republican Party, period.”

As Dean Barnett puts it: Nevertheless, this incident illustrates a perfect storm of McCain’s shortcomings in a way that none of his other bi-partisan adventures do. The vanity, the immature pique of anger, the utter indifference and disloyalty to the people who voted for him and the party that supported him – they’re all on naked display. And it ain’t pretty.

This story if true, and honestly even if it isn't, demonstrates to Republicans everywhere just why McCain isn't the guy. The problem is that he even appears capable of what The Hill has described, not even whether he actually did actively pursue a switch.

Memo to the good Senator: Party loyalty matters.

McCain: Still dead after all these months

This combined with this story from the other day are a pretty clear indicator that Senator McCain's presidential ambitions are effectively DOA at this point. From Dean:

“Lagging in fund-raising and under fire for his support of the Iraq war, Senator John McCain is overhauling his campaign finance operation and delaying the official announcement of his candidacy, his aides said Tuesday.”

You’ve got to be kidding me. Team McCain has actually concluded that he’s “under fire” for his steadfastness on Iraq? How could they be so obtuse? McCain’s reliability on Iraq is quite frankly the only thing that’s keeping him afloat in conservative Republican circles. Or let’s put it this way – McCain’s not considered viable because of McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy or his reputation as a loyal Republican.

This reads eerily like the mis-interpretation of Bush's approval numbers. When Bush's approval ratings sunk into the low 30's and high 20's, everyone assumed that the country had wised up and everyone was turning on the war; not so.

Here-to-fore steadfast supporters of the war were displeased at the seeming lack of will to prosecute the war. Folks haven't noticed but approval on Iraq has inched up, a result of good news coming from the Surge.

I'm with Dean on McCain. We're seeing the same kind of phenomenon here.

There is no more left-wing/Democratic opposition to Iraq. We see and hear it all, there are no Iraq-war foes in hiding. These people wobbling on McCain are Republicans and the good Senator has given us plenty of reasons to wobble.

But he doesn't have to take our advice (and rarely does). If the Senator wishes to turn left over Iraq, he is welcome to. He'll have no-one to blame other than himself when his numbers tank, however.

Of McCain's Comments

The Senator opened his big mouth Tuesday with a comment that spurs me back to working with my fellows in the blogroll...this angers me in a way that much hasn't in quite some time.

Tom Maguire at Just One Minute takes it head on and in inimitable fashion, nails it:

"I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required," McCain said. "Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."

Those phrases are closely associated with top members of the Bush administration, including the president.Well, yes, but... John McCain is a great American, but does he have a great memory? Perhaps he remembers who said this on March 18, 2003, on the eve of war:

O'REILLY: All right. Now you are confident it's going to be a quick military knockout, correct?

MCCAIN: I am reasonably confident of that. There is such a thing as the fog of war, there is such a thing of Saddam Hussein complicating the problem. But I am confident our technological capabilities are overwhelming and the men and women in the military are superb. We can count on them. To be fair, McCain was presumably referring to the initial liberation, and he was correct that it was a quick knockout. However, he certainly did not emphasize the possibility of a long and problematic occupation in this appearance.

Whatever - at least the man is educable.

Whatever is right. The President never painted the picture attributed to him. Not once. While the VP is ridiculed for the now famous "Greeted as liberators," line, one who was there sheds a little light on things. It happened:

Pres. Bush: "strikes out . . . on the fact that we were going to be treated as liberators."

Hitchens: "I saw it myself."

Matthews: "Pictures?"

Hitchens: "No. I was there. I saw it myself. American soldiers and British soldiers were greeted by hundreds of thousands of people with real joy. I saw it myself. I can't believe people say it didn't happen."

Maguire gives us another quote from Cheney about force size. I suppose McCain and others have the right to ridicule it but they are not right. The force was in fact large enough for overthrowing the regime. The mistakes came later.

Senator McCain and his fan club are welcome to criticize the anticipation and handling of the insurgency but this nonsense about Bush and the Cake-walk is absurd and I've had it. For a man who claims he's supportive of the President's policy in the biggest sense to turn around and lie about what was or wasn't said goes beyond the pale. Why he thinks it will win him conservatives in '08 escapes me.

But he's not running. Yeah, right.

Then this morning, Instapundit noted this little flap in this post:

The substance of McCain's claim is pretty weak: I don't recall Bush ever saying that Iraq would be a "day at the beach," and in fact casualties to date are considerably lower than what was generally expected for the ground war to Baghdad, where you generally heard figures in the 10,000 range. It's more the duration, and the extent of the bad press, that has exceeded expectations, really, though McCain's pretty sensitive to bad press.

He even indicates that some are accusing McCain of 'backstabbing.' I don't think so, I just think he's makin' stuff up. Politically expedient people do that.

The Senate Majority Project shows us how.

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers! Read, browse, pick something up at our guest shop...

McCain: Have the reports of his demise been premature?

John McIntyre at RCP doesn't buy the notion that I've been peddling this week that John McCain's Presidential campaign may as well be over. In a radio interview this week he did not predict such but would neither rule out a Kerry-esque turn of events in 2008 for Republicans.

Like Kerry in 04, McCain was supposed to be next in line for his party's nomination and like Kerry, McCain is struggling to stay in the top tier of candidates here in the early part of the campaign.

We all know what happened to the Democratic front-runner in '04, and again while not predicting such a scenario, McIntyre wouldn't rule it out. Neither does K-Lo:

I'm Not Putting My Money on This [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Craig Crawford floats McCain dropping out:

If presidential campaigns had such a thing as an honorable discharge, Sen. John McCain could get one.

The Arizona Republican’s White House bid has gone from bad to worse with this week’s news that he lags well behind leading candidates in both parties for the almighty dollar. McCain’s aides say that he inexplicably held only two fundraisers in the first two months of 2007.
No wonder that his first-quarter earnings put him at $12.5 million in contributions, compared with $15 million for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and $20 million for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

In short order, McCain has gone from presumed front-runner to enduring rumors that he might not even stay in the race. If he dropped out, McCain can always blame his support for the unpopular Iraq war — highlighted by his recent trip to the region — and exit with dignity.

In Search of the Beef

Without naming names, certain posters on this blog have a fairly negative view of Arizona Senator John McCain. Others, like myself, have more mixed emotions bordering on positive. But that's one of the great things about MyDogs. Yeah, you've got a couple of conservatives but we each have our own viewpoints and there are clear areas of disagreement. You've also got a couple of National League West baseball fans. It just so happens that one of us roots for the reigning National League West champions and the other roots for those scum-sucking Trolley Dodgers. So it's anything but an echo chamber here.

That said, I think even Paul will have to tip his hat to Senator McCain's actions in his recent spat with Democratic golden-boy Barack Obama. It seems that Obama disingenuously implied that McCain was attempting to slow-down the generation of new lobbying reform legislation through the creation of a bipartisan working group, rather than simply going ahead and drafting the legislation. Of course, I come from the school that thinks it would probably be prudent to take some time to study a rather complex issue (especially with almost daily revelations emerging in the Abramoff scandal) as opposed to simply drafting a quick-fix that will make the daily newscycle. Moreover, if Obama were open to a reality check, he'd probably learn that McCain has been beating the drum on ethics-, lobbying- and campaign reform for years, so the notion that he would try to de-rail it is beyond ludicrous. In fact, it's so ludicrous one might even interpret Obama's statements as grandstanding.

Apparently, that's how McCain interpreted them. Look how he responded!

"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. . . . "I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss . . . "I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness."

Beautiful. And completely on-point. McCain has now become the first Republican to openly attack Obama. Republicans historically have a tough time going on the political offensive against minority and female opponents due to sensitivity to age-old monolithic shibboleths about conservative anti-minority / anti-women orientations. But kudos to McCain for being the first out of the box to take on Obama. Because ever since Product Obama (TM) was launched to the fawning crowds at the Democratic Convention and the almost-universal, mesmerized sighs of network anchors, I've been asking a basic question: Where's the Beef? Yes, Obama is an intelligent and attractive man with an impressive personal history. Yes, he comes-across as even-tempered, moderate and even conciliatory at times. I can see why the Democrats are so excited about him, even if their rationale ("He's African American. And he's so well-spoken.") borders on hypocrisy given their past attacks on Republican minority candidates like Alan Keyes, Colin Powell and JC Watts. That's all fine and good. But what does Obama stand for? What does he believe in? What's his program? For what cause will he go to the mats, even if he risks being unpopular? In other words, it's clear that Obama is packaged and primed for prime-time but is he a true leader? And does he have any solutions?

Attacking Obama's grandstanding is a prudent move by McCain, because to this point no one has challenged the freshman Senator from Illinois. No one has so much as raised the point as to whether the King is actually wearing any clothes. Obama potentially presents a formidable opponent for Republicans in 2008 and / or 2012. Now is a good time to see what he's made of. It will be interesting in the days ahead to see how Obama responds and what, if any substantive progress he generates in the Senate.

The old "Speaking truth to Power" ploy...

MKH at Hugh's blog discussed yesterday the left's penchant for "speaking truth to power,"--read: disrespecting conservative speakers. Initially the post focused on the response to Condi Rice's commencement address at Boston College. What drew me in was the discussion later on of John McCain's address at the New College in NYC:

...John McCain's lessons in respectfully disagreeing were lost on one New College student who sucker-punched him with a speech that was high on disagreement and low on respect (and, pricelessly, contained the words "speak truth to power," employed seemingly without irony).
Once again, if you disagree with the commencement speaker, fine. If you want to vocally disagree with the speaker in your speech, fine. You earned your speech slot. Just do it with a little bit of class, and some respect for your fellow students who may just want to hear the speeches and go eat barbecue without the appetizer of self-righteousness.

Having been known to grind an axe where McCain is concerned, I was intrigued enough to read the student's post though unready for what I read:

Right now, I'm going to be who I am and digress from my previously prepared remarks. I am disappointed that I have to abandon the things I had wanted to speak about, but I feel that it is absolutely necessary to acknowledge the fact that this ceremony has become something other than the celebratory gathering that it was intended to be due to all the media attention surrounding John Mc Cain's presence here today, and the student and faculty outrage generated by his invitation to speak here. The senator does not reflect the ideals upon which this university was founded. Not only this, but his invitation was a top-down decision that did not take into account the desires and interests of the student body on an occasion that is supposed to honor us above all, and to commemorate our achievements.

What is interesting and bizarre about this whole situation is that Senator Mc Cain has stated that he will be giving the same speech at all three universities where he has been invited to speak recently, of which ours is the last; those being Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Columbia University, and finally here at the New School. For this reason I have unusual foresight concerning the themes of his address today. Based on the speech he gave at the other institutions, Senator Mc Cain will tell us today that dissent and disagreement are our "civic and moral obligation" in times of crisis. I consider this a time of crisis and I feel obligated to speak. Senator Mc Cain will also tell us about his cocky self-assuredness in his youth, which prevented him from hearing the ideas of others. In so doing, he will imply that those of us who are young are too naïve to have valid opinions and open ears. I am young, and although I don't profess to possess the wisdom that time affords us, I do know that preemptive war is dangerous and wrong, that George Bush's agenda in Iraq is not worth the many lives lost. And I know that despite all the havoc that my country has wrought overseas in my name, Osama bin Laden still has not been found, nor have those weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, Senator Mc Cain will tell us that we, those of us who are Americans, "have nothing to fear from each other." I agree strongly with this, but I take it one step further. We have nothing to fear from anyone on this living planet. Fear is the greatest impediment to the achievement of peace. We have nothing to fear from people who are different from us, from people who live in other countries, even from the people who run our government--and this we should have learned from our educations here. We can speak truth to power, we can allow our humanity always to come before our nationality, we can refuse to let fear invade our lives and to goad us on to destroy the lives of others. These words I speak do not reflect the arrogance of a young strong-headed woman, but belong to a line of great progressive thought, a history in which the founders of this institution play an important part. I speak today, even through my nervousness, out of a need to honor those voices that came before me, and I hope that we graduates can all strive to do the same.

Not even Senator McCain deserves such simple-minded naivete dressed up with cutesy "progressive" rhetorical flair. MKH makes a point later on in discussing McCain as to what the core problem is:

I disagree with Sen. McCain on many issues. I know several conservative bloggers who, if given the chance, would likely "speak truth to power" on the subject of McCain-Feingold. I would hope they'd do it with more facts and less ranting than Rohe did, and preferably in a way that didn't catch an entire graduating class and their families in the crossfire. It just seems rude to me.

There's a time and a place for pretty much every type of communication there is. "Happy Graduation" day is not the time nor the place for "Blast your elected Official Day." All the inanity of Ms. Rohe's argument aside, bottom line she'd do well to learn some wisdom about what time is appropriate for what words.

Protege

John McCain has, whether by choice or happenstance it seems, taken Senator Graham under his wing, grooming him as the next Great Conscience-driven Maverick. Graham has become familiar as a fellow traveler with McCain on subjects of import ever since the Gang of 14.

This week the dynamic duo have been joined by a somewhat unlikely partner, Virginia's John Warner:

Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the committee would vote Thursday in a closed session on an alternative that he and his two chief allies --Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona --have championed, even if the White House refuses to go along with them. The senators have said changes to the American interpretation of the provision of the Geneva Conventions, known as Common Article 3, would undermine the nation's international credibility and open the way for other countries to treat captured American troops at their whim.

"This is not about November 2006. It is not about your election. It is about those who take risks to defend America," Mr. Graham said. The administration pushed back, convening a conference call in which John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, described the Senate alternative as unacceptable. Mr. Negroponte said the plan would impose intolerable limits on any interrogation methods American intelligence officers might use against future terror suspects held by the Central Intelligence Agency in secret overseas prisons.

The President feels this is important enough to warrant a rare trip to Capitol Hill yesterday, where he made it abundantly clear that he will not accept this watered-down version of the bill:

The president's measure would go further than the Senate package in allowing classified evidence to be withheld from defendants in terror trials, using coerced testimony and protecting U.S. interrogators against legal prosecution for using methods that violate the Geneva Conventions.

The vote came hours after Bush made it clear he would not accept substantial changes to his version."I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity, the president told reporters at the White House.

So what of it? Will the President--so well-known for his reluctance to veto anything--put the kibosh on this until and unless he gets what he wants?

Over at Hugh Hewitt, we read the transcript of his interview with the McCain Protege on this and other subjects. On this issue in particular:

LG: Well, here's the reason, I think. One, I don't want to do it a third time. You've got 25-50 people down there that should have been prosecuted years ago, and we've just been screwing around with this thing, Hugh, playing cutting corners when we don't need to. 10 of the guys ready to be prosecuted will go into the court and say I did it, and look the judge in the eye. One of them's already looked the judge in the eye and said I will kill you and your family. If we enact a procedure where the jury can convict the accused on information not shared with the accused, it will fall, and we'll be setting a precedent for a trial to happen in a foreign land with one of our soldiers...

HH: Now Senator Graham, that's a different argument.

LG: The mother of the Marine...let me tell you. I don't want to legitimize a trial of her son in some foreign land where they never showed him the evidence against him, and they convict him. That is not going to happen. It need not happen. It would be a disaster.

HH: So help me out, Senator Graham. You just switched arguments on me. You supported the earlier bill struck down by the Court that provided no protections. Now you're demanding more...

LG: No, I'm saying the earlier bill did not allow this procedure. The military commission order one did not...you know, that was not part of this, that this whole thing is new and different. And the Court in Hamden said one of the flaws of military commission order one was the right of confrontation. I can't imagine a situation as a defense counsel where I'm told of something that my client allegedly did, the jury has that information that could put my client in jail forever or be executed, and I can't ask him what's your side of the story. How in the world can you represent somebody against a capital charge if you can't ask them your side of the story?

HH: And Senator Graham, the side of the story of al Qaeda, in my mind, in the President's mind, and the mind of the lawyers from the military JAG that sent you folks a letter today is you're wrong about that. My question is, will you rather have the Congress adjourn without the President's bill, because he's going to veto yours. And he's the commander-in-chief.

LG: No, I'd rather fix it, and I can tell you right now. This is not the problem. I have been told in no uncertain terms if this is the only problem, we will get this resolved. There are plenty of people who understand this is unnecessary. Having classified information protected from a fishing expedition by the terrorist lawyer is absolutely...I'm with you. Every lawyer worth their salt is going to want to know everything about the government's case, hoping they will drop it. Scooter Libby's people is doing that.

HH: But Senator, will you let the Congress go home without a bill on this? Will you stop it?

LG: I don't know. And Lindsey Graham will not be the reason we go home without a bill.

There are times when conscience does and should trump other considerations. There are times though when Loyalty is more important.

Hugh exposes weakness in Senator Graham's argument in this interview and points out explicitly, the fundamental problem with McCain, Warner and Graham's "legal-at-all-costs" approach:

Senators Graham, McCain and Warner are of the view that the tribunals and attendant procedures will expose captured American military to conditions that are not the norm among Geneva Conventions signatories if the president's proposals are adopted.

The short response is that stateless terrorists are not signatories to the Conventions, and that al Qaeda does not care one way or the other what the tribunals look like or how they operate. As Senator John Cornyn says, al Qaeda "doesn't take any prisoners. The prisoners they do take they behead."

Whatever the reason--and Hugh's callers were speculating about many--the Senators have chosen to carve out a niche for themselves, keeping the President at arm's length. I wish I could know why.

I wish also that the trio would consider it's responsibility as Republicans, as part of a majority party working with the President to get some important business done. It's a time for Party Loyalty--your President has asked for a very specific, very important piece of legislation.

The Other -ism

I'm relieved to hear that the McCain campaign is not guilty of racism:

Republican candidate John McCain's presidential campaign is cynical, not racist, in its efforts to distract voters from real issues, Democratic rival Barack Obama said Saturday.

"In no way do I think that John McCain's campaign was being racist," Obama said in his first meeting with reporters since predicting that McCain and other Republicans would try to scare voters because Obama looks unlike "all those other presidents on the dollar bills" - most of them older white men.

"I think they're cynical," he said. "And I think they want to distract people from talking about the real issues."

Did he let Big Media in on the secret?

Senility strikes?

Helen Thomas accuses Senator McCain of morphing into a George W. Bush-like "right-wing" conservative. No, really.

In his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain is moving to the right.

The Arizona Republican, who failed to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, is the most visible Republican on television, outside the White House, and seems to never pass up an opportunity to appear on Sunday talk shows.

All this appears to be part of his effort to transform his image as a maverick independent so that he can make his pitch to the conservative Republican base that will vote in the party's primaries and caucuses two years hence.

She does make an argument, but I've got to wonder...in a week that saw McCain royally piss off the conservative base on immigration, how can she say this with a straight-face?

Though I must say, this from the Breitbart report linked at Right Wing News does bolster her case: President Bush praised the lawmakers' efforts, noting the details were unfinished, and encouraged them "to work hard and get the bill done." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he had been assured the president supports the emerging measure.

Perhaps he is on the same page as the President. It's just not a very ultra-right-wing one.

Where there' a camera, there's a way

Hugh takes on Senator McCain today:

McCain's problem is that many people view his every action as the product of self-serving calculation, and a need to be seen as being "apart" and "different." Even on the issue of harsh interrogation of detainees, McCain's very public approach based on his long imprisonment and suffering only reinforces his profile as a man who not insists on being heard, but insists on being seen as being heard.

After watching the man up-close-and-personal for more than three years, I'm convinced that the man thinks far more highly of himself and his performance as a Republican than many Republicans do.

When he bombs again in '08 ("When McCain loses Republican primary after Republican primary in the winter and spring of 2008, it will be because of deep differences such as these, and no other reason."), perhaps he'll finally get the message.

In the meantime, why is this Arizona Senator being featured in ads for California Prop 75?

The Thin-Skinned President

An illuminating exchange between the President and Senator McCain at today's Health Care Charade Summit:

After Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) focused on issues in his wheelhouse — the dearth of transparency and wealth of special deals in Obamacare — and chastised Obama for failing to live up to his campaign promises to change the way Washington works and conduct health-care negotiations in front of C-SPAN cameras, the president got testy.

"We're not campaigning any more, John. The election is over," he said.

To which McCain responded, "I'm reminded of that every day."

Prickly, defensive...the President just can't take criticism.

Newt-O-Rama

Daniel Drezner wonders aloud about Newt Gingrich-as-potential-Presidential-candidate:

For the next nine months Gingrich intends to promote sweeping solutions to difficult issues of the day - particularly health care and national security - and then, like Lincoln in 1860, see if the call comes.

While such other GOP candidates as Senator John McCain, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, and former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani are hiring consultants and building donor networks, Gingrich has formed a tax-exempt advocacy group to raise money and promote his policies. He will wait until September - the eve of primary season - to announce whether he has the support to make it official.

Gingrich intrigues me -- he's far more complex and interesting a thinker than the nineties stereotype of him suggested. And if Hillary Clinton can remake herself as someone who's learned from past mistakes, I see no reason why Gingrich can't as well.

However, I can't shake the feeling that because I'm so interested in a Gingrich, he's doomed to fail. Can someone who scores well in the blogger wonk demographic really develop mainstream appeal?

Intriguing indeed. At the risk of inviting oodles of hate-mail and right-wingnut diatribes (yeah right, that would mean people are reading), I've loved Newt since the Contract. It was brilliant then, it's still brilliant. He's brilliant.

I would take him in a heartbeat over the likes of Romney, Guiliani and of course McCain. But then again, I'd vote for either and both of my dogs before I voted for McCain...

Kingmaker?

If you read this part of the LA Times feature about the GOP's '08 crowd, you'd almost get the sense that they think Jeb Bush is playing a little bit of Kingmaker:

But the presentation was most notable for what it lacked: There was no photo of Jeb Bush with McCain. The absence of a McCain photo seemed to carry meaning. The presentation, with its implied signal of Jeb Bush's preferences among the GOP presidential field, was played last week for the governor's staffers and state lawmakers, many of whom are being courted by the 2008 contenders.

The presentation was produced by one of the governor's longtime advisors, Sally Bradshaw, who is now a Romney strategist. Bradshaw is so close to Jeb Bush that it is unlikely she would work for any of the 2008 candidates without his blessing. In an interview, Bradshaw said that Jeb Bush only "encouraged me" to meet with Romney, insisting that the Florida governor is not trying to indicate a favorite in the race.

I suppose then it's never too early for Big Media to start pounding on that McCain '08 drum...

He's good when he wants to be

Senator McCain took a nice--and deserved, in my opinion--swipe at Hillary yesterday over North Korea:

Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday accused former President Clinton, the husband of his potential 2008 White House rival, of failing to act in the 1990s to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.

"I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," McCain said at a news conference after a campaign appearance for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard.

"The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said.

He can be pretty good when he wants to be. Party loyalty is a good thing, Senator!

A worthy companion

Back when I had the time, the inclination and--most importantly--the local "connection," I used to blog about Senator McCain. This is as fine a shot as anything I or many of my fellows at Blogs for McCain's Opponents ever produced:

Let me be blunt. McCain is a self-serving, opportunistic pig. He, like other open-borders, Americans-Are-Lazy politicians, is a man who has grown soft and fat and elitist in Washington, DC, and has developed an obvious contempt for the average working American. Not only does he not deserve to even think about being president, he should not be in the U.S. senate. He is an example of the opportunistic narcissists in Washington whose only concern is their own career as they do whatever they think it'll take to advance themselves.

I wonder, should they get word of it, if they'll offer Tammy an honorary spot in the Blogroll...

Apparently I have nothing to worry about

If I believe Robert Kuttner in the Boston Globe, I have nothing to be upset much less concerned about in this Senate deal. Problem is, I'm not sure what universe Kuttner is writing in. This "analysis" of things so mis-states and misunderstands the conservative position that it's like reading a 5th-graders attempts at explaining Economic theory; he just isn't getting it.

Too harsh you say? Well, start with the headline: "Bush and Frist got what they wanted." Huh?! The explanation of the thesis becomes a conspiratorial exercise in deceit and underhanded politics:

By threatening what amounted to a parliamentary coup d'etat, Frist got nearly everything he wanted. A rules change requires a two-thirds vote. Frist's ''nuclear option" would have had the leadership rule from the chair that the filibuster can be scrapped for judicial nominees; then a simple majority of 51 senators would have upheld the parliamentary ruling. End of filibuster.

Faced with bad publicity for this show of crude force, several Republicans looked for a face-saver that would still preserve the substantive result -- confirmation of extremist nominees. They and Frist won. This was no mutiny against the Senate leader; it was merely a change of tactic.

I find this hard to swallow. For all the shouting about extreme extremists and their extremism (and this is a point made by others smarter than me or my dogs), the very fact that Dem leadership would allow any scenario where they win confirmation is telling, to say the least. It wasn't about the extremism, it was, among other things about establishing the precedent prior to the next SC nomination.

From here, Kuttner moves to a clarification of the compromise and what's coming next: What does the vaunted compromise actually do? First, it guarantees an up-or-down floor vote on three of the most reactionary judges ever to come before the Senate: Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen. It was Democratic resistance to these appellate nominees that caused Frist to go nuclear in the first place. He and George W. Bush won. The three judges are now likely to be confirmed, and other extremist nominees will keep coming.

Second, the deal commits the GOP to relent on the plan to scrap the filibuster, but only for now. Frist is free to revive the nuclear option any time he likes, say, when the first Bush nominee to the Supreme Court comes before the Senate. Frist can hold this threat over the heads of Democrats, who are committed to minimize the use of filibusters.

I could almost believe that, but for the fact that we pretty much know for certain that at least 2 filibustered nominees are laying under the bus and one or more may be lying down a bit further up the road. Additionally, while Frist is not locked into anything through his own signature, this agreement explicitly ties the hands of at least 5 Republicans when it comes to any future rule change. The clarifications of Graham and DeWine not withstanding, I truly do not know how Kuttner misses this point.

As in any good piece of writing, the author saves his best for last: In the end, seven of the 55 Senate Republicans decided to pursue this ''compromise," leaving him two votes short. But if these Republicans were genuinely moderates, they would not just be providing this parliamentary fig leaf; they would be voting against confirmation of these extremist nominees when they come up for a floor vote.

If you want to look for profiles in courage, see whether ''moderate" Republicans like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island actually oppose any of these nominees. For the most part, these people posture moderate and then do Bush's bidding.

You almost have to re-read that last line. "For the most part, these people posture moderate and then do Bush's bidding." Precisely. McCain was secretly acting as a Bush proxy when he co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform legislation. Chafee was all about the Bush-agenda in his criticism's of- and votes on the war in Iraq. No doubt!

For the most part, these people posture moderate and then do Bush's bidding. I wish!

That's my Senator!

Couldn't be prouder, or could I?

Text of an email to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) courtesy of the Blogfather:

April 14, 2005

Senator John McCain
407 W. Congress Street Suite 103
Tucson, Arizona 85701

Via Fax 670-6637 and email

Re: The Filibustering of Judicial Nominations

Senator McCain,

First off, thank you for your service to our country.

A little about myself: I am 37, my wife is 31 and we have two children here in Tucson. I attended the University of Arizona and currently own and operate (among other things) an Assisted Living Center with 20 employees which houses 45 elderly residents of Arizona who need assistance in their daily lives.

I am writing this letter because I quite frankly don't trust myself to make a civil phone call. I am a fairly large contributor to the Republican Party, not because I think they are always right, but because they more often champion the causes and freedoms I believe in. Â Lower taxes, less government (at least that used to be a Republican cause), more personal freedom, etc.

I read the Constitution of the United States again recently and made note of the 7 specific instances spelled out as requiring a supermajority. I'm certain you know them. I also specifically noted that Judicial Nominations were not listed as 'filibuster-able', yet just today I heard a clip of you specifically saying that you would (once again) vote AGAINST both your Party and Leader and WITH the Democrats. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised after the magnificently successful "Campaign Finance Reform" you pushed (I also read in the Constitution (Bill of Rights #1) something about "Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech", but that's another story).

This, to me, is the final straw. I worked hard to help get President Bush re-elected. After the War on Terror (which I believe also includes Defending our Border (Article III, Section 4 "protect against invasion"), there is no more important issue than the totally out of control Judiciary. Legislating from the bench is not listed as a Constitutional Power bestowed upon these un-checked, lifetime appointees, yet that is exactly what they are doing.

Your snubbing of your Leader of the Senate (Senator Bill Frist), your Leader of your Party (President Bush) and the Constitution of the United States (again), while embracing the obstructionist Democrats (again) has caused me to lose all remaining respect I had for you as my Senator.

From this day forward, I will begin to actively campaign against you. In any capacity I possibly can. I will first work to defeat you in your primary and I will subsequently work (if necessary) to defeat you in the general by supporting whatever Democrat runs against you. I have never in my life supported a Democrat, but at least I know my enemy with a Democrat. You still have time to change your mind, but then if you did, Tim Russert might not like you.

It's getting ugly, and it might get a lot worse before it gets better on this issue of judges.

[sigh]

Deal or No Deal

No, it's a deal. Personally, I think as good a one as you could want given the circumstances:

The White House and dissenting GOP senators settled a disagreement Thursday on a bill setting out procedures for interrogating terror suspects and trying them in front of military tribunals.

The deal, reached after three days of intense intra-party negotiations, satisfied the concerns of three Republicans on how the measure would affect U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

While the agreement does not redefine the Geneva Conventions, as the White House originally proposed, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said it would provide enough "clarity" to allow the CIA's interrogation program to go forward.

More than anything, seeing that all the right people are ticked off about it leaves me feeling good about the Senate compromise:

-Are we Cool with Cruel and Degrading Treatment for US Troops?

The only problem is that whatever we agree is acceptable interrogation tactics, we obviously have to accept can also be done to our troops when they are captured. It's one thing when we tell other countries to treat our soldiers by the Geneva Conventions when we are following them, it's another to say that when we are not. As Colin Powell tried to explain, we would have lost our moral standing.

This is the point when conservatives start screaming about how terrorists cut people's heads off. Yes, congratulations, you win -- you are slightly better than Al Qaeda. Maybe that should be the slogan of the Republicans supporting the White House position on "tougher interrogations" -- Republicans: Slightly Better than the Terrorists.

And Democrats, clueless as ever.

-THE DETAINEE DEAL: THE ACLU DOESN'T LIKE IT

Following announcements that an agreement has been reached between the White House and Senators John Warner (R-VA), John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on military commissions, the American Civil Liberties Union today said the compromise agreement does not protect due process, fails to meet international treaty obligations and urged lawmakers to reject the deal.

Is this supposed to bother me? Just about anything the ACLU is for, too much of the time I end up landing on the other side.

-Take up your Rubber Stamp

The "very important program of interrogation" that they have agreed to preserve is torture. Torture is at the heart of this program and is what the administration has been fighting for since the Supreme Court handed down Hamdan. What's more, Frist's statement makes clear that the Uniform Code of Militart Justice, which guarantees that defendants have the right to see the evidence against them, is going to be gutted in this "compromise."

That's no compromise, all you "principled" GOP rebels. It's capitulation. Lay down your much vaunted "integrity" and take up your Rubber Stamps.

Inside folks say no, and your caricatures of the President take a beating when you look at some of the details involved in this compromise.

-Sell Out!

Yes, McCain sells out the country and Democrats look like crap.

Shame on me for allowing myself to get a tiny bit optimistic just for a moment.

Have you ever seen so much righteous indignation!? Not in a long time.

Meanwhile, in answer to the charges of selling out and rubber stamping I'd offer an 'inside' account via Byron York at The Corner:

"I think there is every reason for both sides to be happy," he said. The key part of the deal seems to be that Congress has defined "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. "We recognized that the president has the authority to interpret treaties," the source said, "but Congress now has the authority to define 'grave breaches.'" Those are what might be called the Big Nine: torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, performing biological experiments, murder, mutilation or maiming, rape, causing serious bodily injury, and sexual assault or abuse, and taking hostages. According to the source, the proposed legislation has a section defining some of the less clear categories; there was a lot of negotiation, as you might expect, over the meaning of "cruel or inhuman" treatment.

The source stressed that "grave breaches" of Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions have long been a crime in U.S. law. "We've enumerated what a 'grave breach' is," the source said, "but Jesse Helms and Jim Inhofe made 'grave breaches' of Article Three a war crime back in 1997."

The source said the McCain/Graham/Warner camp realized that the White House had a point when it raised the possibility that "a liberal jurist would say that a female interrogator of a Muslim male is a 'grave breach.'" So after outlining the Big Nine, the negotiators recognized the authority of the president, in the words of the agreed-to draft, "to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions."

"'Grave breaches' are crimes," the source said. "Non-grave breaches are something else. We are going to spell out grave breaches, and then it is up to the administration to come up with sanctions for violations that are less than 'grave breaches.'

"One key aspect of the deal is that it calls for the president to use an executive order to issue his interpretations of what would be non-grave breaches of the treaty, and then --this is the important part-- to publish the executive order in the Federal Register. "That means it is subject to public scrutiny," the source said. I asked whether the White House resisted on the issue of publishing the executive order, and the source said, "No, not at all."

I think the Senate rightly understood the need for the President's retention of authority in defining 'grave breaches,' and likewise the President was wise to allow for some transparency here. That certainly should put a sock in some of the criticism about the 'most super-secret Administration in history,'.

Though judging by some of the early returns, perhaps not.

Oh the Condescenscion we'll See

With apologies to Dr. Suess...

It was only 12 hours late, but we now know who the Democrat VP nominee is. Everybody's favorite blowhard, Joe Biden. On paper, in terms of experience, he's certainly helpful. But then after you start to really look you realize his mouth is a bigger liability than his experience is an asset.

Conservative/Republican reactions include the following:

From the "I wish I'd thought of that" category: One last thought before bed: Imagine McCain picking Gov. Bobby Jindal. First line at the debate, "Senator, before we begin our debate, let me clarify for you that I don't work at a 7-11."

Hugh Hewitt, never a Biden fan, shreds the pick: Rob Long asks "Isn't [Biden] sort of the stupid person's idea of the smart person's candidate?" Yes, he is. But that's not fair to stupid people. Even stupid people who watched Biden embarrass himself during the Alito hearings --remember the "I hate Princeton" moment followed by the donning of the Princeton cap?-- know that Slow Joe is all tenure and no talent.

I was worried that the Dems had pointed out to Obama that his serial gaffing had brought the campaign close to a break point and that he needed Hillary. I was worried he'd actually go find Anthony Zinni or Sam Nunn or someone of accomplishment and purposefulness in foreign affairs. Webb would have been hell on the stump. Kaine or Bayh would have put different states into play. Sebelius was a wild card.

Jim Geraghty again: Man, the attack ads on Obama featuring quotes from his own running mate are just going to be brutal:

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “You were asked is he ready. You said ‘I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.’”

Sen. Biden: “I think that I stand by the statement.”
(ABC’s “This Week,” 8/19/07)

Picture the voice over: "If his own running mate has doubts about whether he's ready for the job... shouldn't you?"

The ever-wimsical Tom Maguire says of it: By way of the Ace we see this image hosted at the Obama website (I am not the most computer-savvy guy going, but I am satisfied this is no spoof.)

Coupled as it is with the Biden announcement, I can only infer that the Obamaites think they laid an egg (no dissent here).

I'll be saving a screen shot, you can bet.

Bigger Media says:

"The candidate of change went with the status quo."


If my pick were Biden...I'd wait until late Friday night to leak it, too. It seems appropriate to wake up to that and Saturday morning cartoons.

RELATED: No Biden bump. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll completed last night, three-quarters of voters said picking Biden would not sway their votes one way or the other.

Foreign policy experience? How difficult is it to follow the French?

This is gonna be fun...

Biden's mouth is going to do it's level best to talk McCain to a comfortable--landslide?--electoral vote victory. He's like most Democrats in that regard; he can't help himself.

Summarizing McCain

Hugh has a great post here discussing the albatross that hangs around John McCain's neck. Likely the one that costs him any real shot at the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

It's all about the judges that didn't get confirmed, or for that matter didn't even get a vote. That, barring any surprising incidents over the next 2 years, will wholly define him. Ultimately, whether that's a good or a bad thing for the GOP is debated in the comment thread and makes for interesting reading as well.

Hugh has always been of the mind that the Republican Senate squandered the hard work and effort of the base in '04 when it acquiesced to the Gang of 14 in the Spring of '05. Did that cost us in '06? Certainly some, but it was just one of many things that slowly but surely began to turn the base off and served as the first signal that Republicans had become concerned with something other than acting like conservative Republicans, despite the fact many of us made a point of sending more Republicans to Congress in 2002 and again in '04 for precisely that reason.

I hope the Senator is proud. He appears to be. I only wonder if he truly understands though what a lot of conservatives think it is that he accomplished. Dollars to doughnuts that we have differing views on the subject.

The question is, however, whether in two years time he'll think it still something worth bragging on. My hope is it won't be.