Soccer Dad

I'm sure this will help him with the base

The New York Times endorses: Primary Choices: John McCain (via memeorandum):

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.

"Small, angry fringe?" Were they looking in the mirror when they wrote that?

Anyway the notion that McCain makes an "occasional, tactical pander to the right" is frankly absurd. Here are a few selected ratings of McCain's conservatism.

2007 In 2007 The Club for Growth gave Senator McCain a rating of 100.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 65 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 100 percent in 2006.

2006 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy calculations, in 2006 Senator McCain voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 64 percent of Senators.

Contrast that with this selected record of the other endorsee of the New York Times, Sen Hillary Clinton.

2007 In 2007 The Club for Growth gave Senator Clinton a rating of 11.

2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 8 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 0 percent in 2006.

2006 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy calculations, in 2006 Senator Clinton voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 35 percent of Senators.

This isn't pandering. It may not be as conservative as some conservatives would like, but it's pretty clear that he supports the conservative side of issues rather consistently.

John Podhoretz doesn't think it will help McCain much:

I ... just got a gloating e-mail from Rudy Giuliani’s press office about it.

(The Times endorsement takes some nasty shots at Giuliani. The racial polarization at the time came largely from the race hustlers like Al Sharpton. But Bensonhurst, Crown Heights and Howard Beach all occurred before Giuliani became mayor.)

Gateway Pundit marvels at the number of MSM outlets who absolutely love McCain. It's as if those endorsements were, by themselves a disqualification.

Roger L Simon blasts the Times for its assault on Giuliani.

When I used the word pathological, I wasn't exaggerating. The hatred is out of control. It would be interesting to speculate on why, but it's late and I leave that to readers. It is , however, an eye roller to see this kind of purple prose coming out of the quondam newspaper of record on its editorial page.

Not surprisingly the Times also endorses Sen. Clinton on the Democratic side. (via memeorandum ) The Times has used all its resources - yes it's news pages too - to promote Hillary Clinton ever since she sought the Senate seat from the Empire State. I still believe that one of the reasons she chose NY as her home is because she looked forward to the free advertising she'd receive from the paper of record.

Ben Smith's analysis rings true.

The endorsement won't sway a lot of votes in South Carolina, but the editorial page has become more a voice of well-educated progressives — who might lean toward Obama — than of the Democratic establishment, and so it offers Clinton a useful boost, and one on her adopted home turf.

Getting back to McCain. I know that he rankles a lot of conservatives. Still, given that I still consider the war on terror to be the overriding issue of our time, I believe that McCain still represents an excellent choice to lead that fight.

In a recent column, Jeff Jacoby observed this interesting bit about McCain:

"I had not just been dishonest. I had been a coward, and I had severed my own interests from my country's. That was what made the lie unforgivable. All my heroes, fictional and real, would have been ashamed of me."

Now try, if you can, to imagine Hillary Clinton writing those words. Or Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee. Is it conceivable that John Edwards, who fiercely indicts the moral shortcomings of others, would ever speak so bluntly and harshly about his own? Would Ron Paul? Would Barack Obama? Among America's leading politicians, I cannot think of any who is so forthright about his own failings, or so willing to let the world see him struggle with his conscience.

I would agree that that sort of self aware candor that politicians are usually incapable of. No, I don't buy McCain's "straight talk" reputation, as that seems mostly be media pandering.

Sen. McCain is not my favorite candidate. However if Mayor Giuliani drops out of the race, I'd have to give him serious consideration. Baseball Crank makes a case for McCain as the second choice.

While the Times may have picked John McCain for all the wrong reasons, I'm not convinced that, in the end, they are totally wrong.

UPDATE: more at buzztracker.

hillary clinton, john mccain.

Posted by SoccerDad at January 25, 2008 3:30 AM