Category Archives: John McCain

John McCain videos

Here are clips from portions of the editorial board’s meeting with John McCain on Monday. These, as usual on this blog, were shot by me with my little Canon digital still camera that also shoots short video clips.  You can find some higher-quality video from the meeting, shot by Andy Haworth of thestate.com, by following this link.

xxxxxxxx

"The Surge is Winning:"
McCain on Iraq

xxxxxxxx

"They didn’t believe us:"
Why the immigration bill failed

xxxxxxxx

Why we don’t need a draft:
McCain on the military

xxxxxxxx

"Look at the Region:"
The War on Terror, beyond Iraq

xxxxxxxx

"I’m prepared:"
Why he can, and should, win in 2008

   

McCain videos, and much better than the ones I shoot

Mccain_starbucks

W
e’ve initiated something new for The State‘s editorial board. We’ve been tiptoeing up to it for a year or so, with my relatively unobtrusive gathering of video snippets from our meetings with newsmakers. But on Monday, when the board met with John McCain, Andy Haworth of thestate.com shot the whole thing on a real video camera — he’s got a tripod and everything — which is a far step beyond the low-res, no more than 180-second clips I’m able to grab with my little digital still camera.

I haven’t gotten around to posting anything yet from that meeting — too much to digest during the busy days that have ensued — but Andy’s put up some of his gleanings on thestate.com. You can find links to them here.

While I’ve been running around having lunch with a representative of the Edwards campaign, dropping by a Giuliani town-hall confab, posting video from that, meeting with Sam Brownback and writing a column for tomorrow about that, I have managed to get one key question answered regarding the McCain meeting Monday: Andy was curious about the Starbucks cup that played such a prominent role, looking almost like a Hollywood-style product placement. What sort of drink was it, and why did it have "Buzz" written on the side of it?

I had not noticed the "Buzz," but it was obviously a reference to Buzz Jacobs. So when I couldn’t reachBj_boling
him, I asked B.J. Boling (that’s him at left, listening to the senator’s speech to the Columbia Rotary Club) to find out for me what sort of drink it was. After a reader recently unjustly accused me of being a latte-drinker, seemingly attaching importance to such a choice, I was concerned about what the senator’s choice might reveal that was heretofore unknown. As a longtime McCain admirer, I worried about the "Buzz" — in my experience, they don’t write customers’ names on cups unless they ordered something fancy, if not something downright effete.

I asked him late Monday, and had still not heard back Tuesday morning, which had me doubly worried: What were they hiding? Please, please, tell me it wasn’t a caramel frapuccino!

B.J.’s response:

I left a message for you on your cell phone last night [which I had not yet played]. It was
regular coffee from Starbucks in the Vista.

… and the world resumed its accustomed shape.

McCain on The Extremely Dramatic and Sincere Showdown in the Senate

I hadn’t really paid much attention to the "filibuster" going on last night, because I’ve been extremely busy (Mike called in sick today, so I’m doing all our production today again on top of my regular job, which doesn’t have anything to do with blogging, either), and because, well — they didn’t do it for me.

They did it as a show for all those really, really emotional people out there who want to see them trying really hard to magically make the Iraq war go away. They don’t intend to make the war go away, of course, because they don’t have the slightest idea how to do that, because it’s not possible to get a 60-vote majority together to do it (David Brooks, to whom I can’t link because he’s New York Times, so sorry, spelled out the senatorial math on that a few days ago), and, I suspect, because some of them are smart enough to realize it would be crazy to pull out, they’re just not about to say so out loud.

OK, I was really guessing on that last reason, so if it’s not true, sorry again.

Anyway, John McCain is a U.S. senator and doesn’t have the luxury of not paying attention to the histrionics. If I were in his position — forced to deal with such theater as though it were a real thing going on in the real world (like the war itself) — I’d probably say something like what he said on the Senate floor this morning:

    Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.
    In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.
    During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating "staying the course," which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.
    Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of "staying the course," though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.
     I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will — and I am as sure of this as I am of anything seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.
     I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.
     I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’
s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

Video: McCain goes to the mattresses

Apparently, there is still a John McCain presidential campaign going on in South Carolina, in spite of conventional wisdom. I’m not dismissing conventional wisdom, mind you — Mike Fitts’ assessment of his situation this morning was as follows: "He’s out." And I’m not arguing with Mike, on account of the fact that he finally came back from vacating in Colorado, and I don’t have to do the production work any more. I had to be physically restrained in the hallway this morning to keep me from hugging him.

That doesn’t mean I agree with him.

True, when I went by the McCain HQ this morning on a whim to see if it was still there (actually, I’d never been there before; I had to ask Bob McAlister where it was), I found one staff left. It was quiet — too quiet. But B.J Boling was putting a brave face on things, as the video will attest — talking about no more of this massive, Clausewitzian-army approach — back to the insurgency of 2000. Anyway, listen to the video to hear the sound of a campaign going to the mattresses.

   

B.J. isn’t the only guy on the staff, mind you — I ran into Buzz Jacobs in the parking lot on my way out ofJacobsbuzz
the HQ (in Richard Quinn’s building at 1600 Gervais — that’s 1600, note). I said I wanted to get a mug shot, so he stood in front of an SUV with a McCain sticker on it. But he explained he isn’t a Clemson grad.

Anyway, B.J.  and Buzz actually do have some good points when they say the campaign’s obits are greatly exaggerated. I tend to agree with them. Two of the better points:

  1. McCain still raised more money than any candidate of either party in South Carolina in the past quarter — in spite of, as Buzz put it, "getting our butts beat over immigration." So there.
  2. Who the heck else are Republicans going to go with in South Carolina? Seriously. Giuliani? I like Giuliani OK — he’s a stand-up guy — but I can’t see Repubs in this state seriously going with him. Mitt Romney? I don’t think so. Maybe, but I really don’t think so.

And oh yeah — where’s that Fred Thompson guy anyway?

1600gervais

The courage of John McCain

Meanwhile, a fellow admirer of John McCain shared this with me, so I share it with you.

An excerpt:

National Review
McCain’s Courage
A rare American politician

By: Tom Coburn
    As the American people, elected officials, and commentators reflect on the heated immigration debate that came to a temporary close in the Senate this week many will ask, and have asked, why U.S. Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) staked out a position that may, in retrospect, be seen as devastating to his presidential ambitions. I hope the American people, at least, step back from the obsessive play-by-play pre-season election analysis and reflect on Senator McCain’s actions for what I believe they were: One of the purest examples of political courage seen in Washington in a very, very long time…

I couldn’t agree more. And I’ll say the same for Lindsey Graham.

Harrell on McCain

Got this release last night from Speaker Bobby Harrell:

Dear Friend,

I know this is a busy time of year, but I wanted to take just a quick moment of your time to share some very important thoughts with you about Senator John McCain and his campaign to restore common sense conservatism.
    I have the distinct honor to serve as Senator McCain’s state co-chairman in South Carolina, and I am proud to say he is well-positioned for victory in the Palmetto State. He’s assembled an unsurpassed team of supporters. He’s built a strong grassroots organization of highly-motivated volunteers, and John McCain is leading the way in every major South Carolina poll.
    Senator McCain is hard at work on the campaign trail day-in and day-out. His straight talk message is hitting home with voters from the Grand Strand to the Upstate, from the Pee Dee to the Low-Country. And it’s your financial support that gives the campaign resources necessary for success.
    As the campaign heads into the crucial summer months and with a key June 30th fundraising deadline fast-approaching, I have a favor to ask of you.
    If you haven’t done so already, I urge you to consider making a commitment to common sense conservatism. If you are already on-board, let me thank you for your support and ask that you reaffirm your commitment today.

    Can I and John McCain count on you to make a contribution of $2,300, $1,000, $500, $50 or even $25 to give the campaign the firepower it needs?
    Before you commit to contributing, let me tell you why your donation is a wise investment.
    John McCain is a born leader. Like his father before him, Senator McCain enlisted in the U.S. Navy. He served our country in Vietnam, spent five and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton as a POW, and came home a hero.
    In 1982, the people of Arizona elected John McCain to the House of Representatives, and in 1986 recognizing his unparalleled leadership, they entrusted him with the U.S. Senate seat previously held by Barry Goldwater.
    During his twenty-four years in Congress, John McCain has never once voted to increase taxes. He’s earned a reputation for being a budget hawk, fighting tirelessly to curb wasteful government spending. He’s taken tough stances on the important issues and refused to back down from his principles. He’s stood up for traditional conservative values, and led the fight to win the war on terror.
    The bottom line is this: John McCain is the leader our country needs in these dangerous times. He understands the issues facing our nation. He shares our conservative principles and has the proven experience needed to make a difference from day one.

Sincerely yours,

Bobby Harrell, Speaker of the South Carolina House

P.S. With the June 30th fundraising deadline fast approaching, your support is crucial. Every donation matters. Every contribution counts. The important thing is that you give to Senator McCain’s campaign today. To contribute, click here.

So THAT’S where ‘that little jerk’ was…

When John McCain was peering into the lights looking for "that little jerk" Lindsey Graham, his friend and ally was still on the way back from Washington.

It seems the White House had asked him to stick around to help at a critical moment in negotiations on an immigration deal. He had hoped to arrive in time to watch the debate, but by the time he got to Columbia, everything was over.

But he was pumped, knowing that the deal was finally done. He went on and on about it, keeping at least one supporter up into the wee hours, way past his bedtime, as he later complained.

McCain had referred during the intense negotiations during the debate, brushing off a suggestion that he was dodging the hot potato, noting that he had been involved in the talks as late as last Friday. He wasn’t in at the end, although his sidekick was.

I asked that same tired, worn-out old associate at lunch today when something would be announced. The news was out by the time we got back to our respective offices:

Bush Hails Deal
on Immigration Reform

WASHINGTON (AP) — Key senators in both parties and the White House announced agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border. The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S and a separate program to cover agricultural workers. Skills and education-level would for the first time be weighted over family connections in deciding whether future immigrants should get permanent legal status. New high-tech employment verification measures also would be instituted to ensure that workers are here legally.

John McCain is wrong about ONE thing…

John McCain is wrong about one issue that is of any personal importance to me: the Confederate flag. And of course the moderator in last night’s debate asked him, and only him, about it. That’s fitting, since a moderator should probe a candidate’s weak points in trying to get at the truth.

Fortunately for McCain — in terms of my vote, anyway — I don’t consider anyone’s position on that issue to be a qualification for the job of president of the United States. In fact, I’d prefer that presidential candidates stay out of the debate altogether.

Among the Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani has the right answer — to the extent that any non-South Carolinian could have the "right" answer. He says it’s a matter for South Carolinians to decide.

Indeed it is that and only that. That’s why I disagree so strongly with the NAACP’s approach — trying (without appreciable success, I might add) to get the rest of the world to FORCE the flag down by hurting South Carolina economically. Even if such a strategy worked — which it can’t, believe me — nothing would be accomplished. You’d still be left with a state perceived — and perceiving itself, sullenly, resentfully — as a place that WANTS to fly the flag, but has been forced not to.

I don’t care what happens to a piece of cloth. I live in a state that has profound political barriers to getting its act together and catching up to the rest of the country in terms of health, wealth, educational attainment, public safety, what have you. The attitudes that keep us from working together to address those issues meaningfully are closely related to the attitudes that keep that flag flying.

Only if we come together and say, "That’s not who we are anymore; we’re better than that," will we ever move forward as a people.

Sure, it would make me feel all warm and fuzzy to hear everybody — particularly people I like, such as John McCain — echoing my own personal attitudes on this and every other important issue. But it wouldn’t accomplish anything. In fact, on this issue outside voices can probably only make things worse, not better. That’s because of the xenophobia that is a corollary of the mentality that keeps the flag flying. You’ve seen the bumper stickers: "We don’t CARE how you did it up North."

John McCain’s problem is that he actually wrestled with the issue, and wrestled too hard, ending up here, there, and all over the mat on the issue. It
was an issue he did not and probably never will understand. He
shouldn’t have wrestled with it. It’s none of his business.

I don’t mean that in a "go away and shut up, John" sense. But it has nothing to do with being president of the United States. Whatever opinion
he might have on that South Carolina matter should have no impact either on what we do about the flag, or on
whether he should be nominated and elected to the White House.

On issues that do have a bearing as to whether he should be
president, I find him to be far and away the best — among either
party’s candidates. For now.

I wrote the above thoughts, in somewhat sketchier form, in response to a comment on a previous post. Here’s how one of my more thoughtful correspondents replied:

Brad,

I’m struck by your post above re: McCain and the flag

“McCain’s problem is that he actually wrestled with the issue, and
it was an issue he did not and probably never will understand. He
shouldn’t have wrestled with it. It’s none of his business.”

I find it puzzling that you would use Steve Spurrier’s uninvited
opinion on the flag as the impetus for a barrage of editorials but then
give the presidential candidates a pass on the issue.

Part of the point of primary politics is for voters to obtain a
close look at the candidates and have them take positions on local
issues. It is a very useful way to measure them, regardless of whether
the issue will ever come to them for a decision. Some of the national
issues will likely never come to them for a decision either-for
example, if the next president doesn’t appoint a Supreme Court justice,
it’s unlikely his or her opinion on abortion will have any impact.

You expect a president to have the wherewithal and decisiveness to
respond to another 9/11 attack but don’t feel they can be bothered to
be decisive about one of the most controversial issues in SC. Every
candidate should have a specific opinion (not just “it’s a state
matter”). McCain’s courage faltered in 2000 on this issue.
Unfortunately, it appears to be failing him again; I doubt he
personally believes that the flag should be anywhere on the State House
grounds given how much this issue pricked his conscience 8 years ago.
But he’s playing it safe in 2008, one of the reasons he’s a less
attractive candidate this time around.

Your willingness to accept McCain’s timidity about the flag makes me question your ability to view him objectively.

Posted by: Paul DeMarco | May 16, 2007 1:52:53 PM

As I said, Paul, Sen. McCain is clearly wrong on the issue.

As I also said, I don’t ask any candidate for president for his or her opinion about the flag. It’s irrelevant.

There are things he’s wrong about that ARE relevant — such as his willingness to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. That I have a problem with, as a voter considering who should be the next president. But I have greater problems on such relevant issues with every other candidate.

Spurrier lives in South Carolina, and is someone who — unfortunately, given that I think football is one of the least important things in the world — a lot of people in South Carolina listen to. He, like the 4 million other people in this state, has a right and an obligation to speak out as to what he wants our elected representatives to put on our State House lawn.

His comments were the first from a high-profile South Carolinian on the issue since everybody stopped talking about it in 2000. I mean, other than South Carolinians who are leaders in a NATIONAL organization — an organization which, because it was trying to use the outside world to coerce South Carolina into doing something, is the main obstacle to South Carolinians growing up on their own and putting this issue behind them.

Spurrier provided an opportunity to discuss this in another context. It was, and remains, my great hope that in the coming months, other prominent South Carolinians who are NOT trying to use a national boycott to force something that needs to happen voluntarily. If it doesn’t happen voluntarily, if South Carolina does not evolve to the point that collectively, we WANT to do this voluntarily, then absolutely nothing of value will be achieved.

Comments from Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd or John McCain are simply not a part of that discussion, but instead a distraction. The only reason they are asked about such things is because journalists on deadline are not a terribly reflective lot. They think, "They’re in South Carolina, and this is a controversial issue in South Carolina." It never occurs to them that it’s not an issue that has anything to do with the presidency. (This is an issue I’ve written about in other contexts — it’s now become a standard mindless ritual in the media to ask the president to comment on everything, from his underwear to the Columbine shootings, when such things have nothing at all to do with the president’s duties or responsibilities.)

As for abortion — well that IS a more relevant presidential issue than the flag, but only because the flag isn’t a presidential issue at all. As you say, Paul, the president’s only involvement with abortion is nominating Supreme Court justices, because of Roe. (If NOT for Roe, it would be a more legitimate political issue, and that is what it should be. The Court should never have removed it from the political branches.)

That said, I will not cast my own vote exclusively according to a candidate’s position on abortion. It will be one of many things I consider in making my decision about a candidate, but the candidate I choose could end up being someone who disagrees with me on that one issue.

I hope at this point to vote for McCain, with whom I happen to agree on the abortion issue, among many other issues.

But among the Republicans, my distant second choice would be Giuliani. Suppose McCain is no longer in the race when the primaries roll around. I could see looking to Giuliani instead. His stance on abortion would not prevent that.

Since THAT, which is more relevant to the job, would not deter me, why would the Confederate flag issue? As I say, I’m more likely to be bothered by the tax cut stance. I don’t feel passionately about taxes the way I do about the flag, but it IS actually relevant.

I would assert that this is the objective way to look at things — reasoning them out, as opposed to going on the basis of mere passion. I could certainly be wrong about that, of course, since an individual is probably the least disinterested judge on the matter of whether he is disinterested.

Would I like it more if McCain were "right" about the flag (and "right" is saying what Giuliani says, which is that it’s a South Carolina matter)? Absolutely. Immensely. But once more, that’s more about how it would FEEL, rather than about the conclusions I reach when I THINK about candidates and try to choose between them.

Why John McCain

Phil Gramm — remember him? — steps momentarily out of silent retirement to say, in today’s Wall Street Journal, why he supports John McCain for president. An excerpt:

    Today’s mortal need is for a leader who trusts our people enough to tell them the truth about the festering domestic problems that have been swept under the rug for aGramm
quarter-century. We need a president who can face up to these problems even as he leads an increasingly reluctant country in a war against a dangerous enemy that will follow us home from any battlefield on which we are defeated….
    I believe the man we need to meet the mortal need today is here. He is experienced, but has not lost his common sense or his ability to be outraged. His conservatism is not the result of a studied philosophy, but of common sense and personal observation. His name is John McCain. He might not be the right president for all times, but he is the right president for these times.

Of course, he goes on to give his specific reasons. One, of course, is that he sees the man from Arizona as being serious about addressing deficit spending.

This seems a good moment to make a point: Readers of this blog know I like McCain. That is not to say this newspaper will endorse him in 2008. I was just as strongly for him in 2000, and we ended up backing Bush at that particularly critical moment in the GOP nominating process. I don’t always win these debates, you know.

I liked him then and I like him now. As we go through this process, I’ll get plenty of opportunities to find out who else, if anyone, I like. My colleagues will do the same. How that will come out, I don’t know.

McCain support in SC

Another one (this is already getting old, unless y’all say you like it):

Dear The:

Here’s your personal copy of the McCain News From the Palmetto State! Inside you’ll find breaking news from the campaign trail and ways you can get involved with McCain 2008 – The Exploratory Committee. If you would prefer not to receive this email-newsletter, then simply hit reply and type “Remove” in the subject line.

Thank you,
John McCain 2008 – The Exploratory Committee

McCain News From the Palmetto State
From the Spartanburg Herald-JournalJohnson ready to back McCain
Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain has added one of Spartanburg’s biggest hitters to his lineup.
    George Dean Johnson is set to climb aboard McCain’s South Carolina juggernaut, the Herald-Journal has learned. The official announcement could come as early as today. (To read the whole story, click here.)

From the Myrtle Beach Sun NewsBachus to serve as southeast co-chairman of McCain Committee
U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama will serve as Southeast co-chairman of U.S. Sen. John McCain’s presidential exploratory committee, the Arizona Republican announced Thursday. (To read the whole story, click here.)

From the Myrtle Beach Sun NewsMcCain suggests Iraqi Government meet benchmarks
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement. (To read the whole story, click here.)

From National ReviewThe Tragic Courage of John McCain
“…as poll-conscious Republicans flee from Bush, John McCain is steadfast, and the very picture of courageous political leadership.” (To read the whole story, click here.)

From the Blogosphere
From SC ChaserZogby from N.H.
McCain leads Giuliani 26% to 20%! (To view the poll, click here.)

From SC ChaserMcCain Adds Two More to Staff
Josh Robinson and Blake Montgomery join the McCain team. (To read the whole story, click here.)

John McCain – In His Own Words
“Until the government and its coalition allies can protect the population, the Iraqi people will increasingly turn to extra-governmental forces, especially Sunni and Shiite militias, for protection. Only when the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force will its authority have meaning, and only when its authority has meaning can political activity have the results we seek.” (Sen. John McCain, “Send More Troops,” The Washington Post, 1/7/07)

Paid For By John McCain 2008 – The Exploratory Committee, Inc.
www.ExploreMcCain.com

Yet another reason to like McCain

Mccain

W
hile The State is chronicling the rather comprehensive S.C. support that John McCain has garnered (something mentioned on this blog in the past), Vanity Fair offers the following:

   In the 2000 campaign, (McCain) waded straight into the hottest controversy in South Carolina, not long before his crucial primary showdown with George W. Bush, by offering his unvarnished opinion on whether the Confederate battle flag — the Stars and Bars — should continue to fly over the state capitol. "As we all know, it’s a symbol of racism and slavery," McCain said. After John Weaver and others did more than whisper in his ear, McCain took to reading aloud from a piece of paper with a statement that began, "As to how I view the flag, I understand both sides," and went downhill from there.
    For better or worse, McCain’s campaign was never the same again. And no one is more aware of this than John McCain himself. In Worth the Fighting For, his second memoir, written with his longtime aide Mark Salter in 2002, McCain reflected on what he had done:

    By the time I was asked the question for the fourth or fifth time, I could have delivered the response from memory. But I persisted with the theatrics of unfolding the paper and reading it as if I were making a hostage statement. I wanted to telegraph to reporters that I really didn’t mean to suggest I supported flying the flag, but political imperatives required a little evasiveness on my part. I wanted them to think me still an honest man, who simply had to cut a corner a little here and there so that I could go on to be an honest president.
    I think that made the offense worse. Acknowledging my dishonesty with a wink didn’t make it less a lie. It compounded the offense by revealing how willful it had been. You either have the guts to tell the truth or you don’t. You don’t get any dispensation for lying in a way that suggests your dishonesty.

Everyone has sinned; everyone has fallen short of the mark. McCain gets my admiration by setting forth his faults in an unvarnished manner, and telling us — in a way that we can hold him accountable — that he considers them to be totally unacceptable.

McCain’s S.C. bandwagon overflows

Mccain_team1

Over the last few months, I’ve been getting one e-release after another announcing that this or that S.C. GOP leader has joined John McCain’s "Straight Talk America" team.

Last week, it got to the point that I was beginning to wonder who was left. So when the campaign told me Friday that state Sen. Billy O’Dell had joined up, I wrote back to ask for an inclusive list.

Brad Henry of the McCain campaign in S.C. responded:

The current Straight Talk America co-chairs for SC are as follows:

  • Senator Lindsey Graham
  • Attorney General Henry McMaster
  • Adjutant General Stan Spears
  • Senator Glenn McConnell
  • Senator John Courson
  • Senator Billy O’Dell
  • Former Congressman John Napier
  • Former Attorney General Charlie Condon
  • Former US Attorney Bart Daniel
  • Former US Attorney Strom Thurmond, Jr.
  • Bob McAlister
  • Carroll Campbell, III
  • Paula Harper Bethea

So think about it. He’s got his buddy Lindsey, of course. But he’s got the Campbellites — and it was the Campbell/Bush machine that did him in last time around (Carroll III, Bob McAlister). He’s got Charlie Condon. He has progressive business-type Paula Harper Bethea, and neoConfederate Glenn McConnell.

He’s got three former U.S. attorneys, each of which brings something different: Longtime party chair McMaster brings his contacts and credibility; anti-corruption crusader Bart Daniel gets him the REform wing; young Strom brings him the Thurmond family name.

Do you think the Christian Right is unrepresented at all (aside from McAlister, who cancels himself out by his principled opposition to the death penalty)? Never fear. I got this release today:

Senator Mike Fair to Join Straight Talk America

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                              Contact: Craig Goldman
Tuesday October 17, 2006                                                                                                                  703-684-0067

ALEXANDRIA, VA – South Carolina Senator Mike Fair has been named a state co-chair for Senator John McCain’s Straight Talk America PAC.  He will help the Senator elect Republican candidates in the remaining days of the 2006 campaign.
    Chairman of the Senate Corrections and Penology Committee, Fair has represented Greenville in the South Carolina Senate for eleven years.  He served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1984 to 1995, and he served on Greenville County Council prior to that.
    Fair supported President George W. Bush in the 2000 South Carolina presidential primary.
    “I have the deepest respect for Mike Fair and I am honored that he has chosen to be on our team,” Senator McCain said.  “Throughout his political career Mike has been a tireless advocate for conservative, pro-family causes and I look forward to working with him.”
    “I’m excited about helping John McCain elect Republicans this November.  Should he decide to run for president, I will campaign actively for him,” said Fair.  “America needs his conservative, experienced leadership for what may be the most challenging time period our country has ever faced.”

                                    # # #

Brad Henry
Straight Talk America
1600 Gervais Street
Columbia, SC  29201
(803) 799-8638 office

It looks like Sen. McCain has a whole new approach this time: He actually intends to win.

Mccain_team2