John McCain will be on the Sean Hannity radio program on Thursday. He will speak with and answer questions from Hannity for thirty minutes and then respond to callers' questions for thirty minutes.
Mississippi stations carrying Sean Hannity's program:
Columbia - WCJU 1450 AM
Columbus - WMBC FM 103.1
Jackson - WJNT 1180 AM
Gulfport - 1640 AM
Hattiesburg - WMXI FM 98.1
McComb - WHNY 1250 AM
Meridian - WALT 910 AM
Tupelo - WKMQ 1060 AM
Tune in for straight talk...
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
He Fits The Times
Tom Ridge writes in The Philadelphia Inquirer: McCain, why now? He fits the times
He writes in part:
...As we begin to ask hard questions of those who put forward their credentials for the presidency, it's critically important that those credentials are equal to the challenges and opportunities before us. We need a leader who fits the times, not merely a candidate who thinks it's his or her time to lead....The challenge of our time, however, is not simply to change, but also to leave nothing to chance. That is particularly true when electing the next president of the United States....In my view, the times are calling John McCain forward. They are calling for the man who understands the demands of war, the leader who has long advocated a new strategy in Iraq and repeatedly called for more troops to stabilize the region. They are calling for the senator with the long view, who understands what the consequences of failure in Iraq could mean to us all. The times call for a leader who has fought in the relentless way that only John has fought, to ensure that America has the best equipped and supported military in the world, to ensure that the men and women of our armed forces have the resources and reinforcements they need....there is no better time for me, than now, to ask my fellow citizens to call John McCain forward once again - to serve as president and commander-in-chief.
Read the full piece here
He writes in part:
...As we begin to ask hard questions of those who put forward their credentials for the presidency, it's critically important that those credentials are equal to the challenges and opportunities before us. We need a leader who fits the times, not merely a candidate who thinks it's his or her time to lead....The challenge of our time, however, is not simply to change, but also to leave nothing to chance. That is particularly true when electing the next president of the United States....In my view, the times are calling John McCain forward. They are calling for the man who understands the demands of war, the leader who has long advocated a new strategy in Iraq and repeatedly called for more troops to stabilize the region. They are calling for the senator with the long view, who understands what the consequences of failure in Iraq could mean to us all. The times call for a leader who has fought in the relentless way that only John has fought, to ensure that America has the best equipped and supported military in the world, to ensure that the men and women of our armed forces have the resources and reinforcements they need....there is no better time for me, than now, to ask my fellow citizens to call John McCain forward once again - to serve as president and commander-in-chief.
Read the full piece here
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
March 14, 1974
Thirty-four years ago today, hundreds of prisoners of war including John McCain, were released from Hanoi. JohnMcCain.com has a video and commentary about that time and release from the "Hanoi Hilton" and how John feels that God had then and still today has a purpose for his life.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Lott and McCain
Yesterday's Roll Call (a newspaper in Washington DC that covers Capitol Hill) had an article discussing Trent Lott and John McCain's close connections.
To read it online, you have to subscribe, but here are some excerpts...
For Whip or 2008, It’s a Lott/McCain Ticket (March 7, 2007) By Erin P. Billings (Roll Call)
Following crushing setbacks that could have sidelined their respective careers, Republican Sens. Trent Lott (Miss.) and John McCain (Ariz.) have put aside long-standing differences and become leading architects of each other’s political resurrections. In the process, Lott and McCain have created an influential network of Senate Republican allies who by circumstance or design are loyal to them both. In fact, many of Lott’s strongest devotees also are backers of McCain’s 2008 presidential bid, and vice versa.
When Lott plotted a return to the GOP leadership as Minority Whip in the fall, McCain served as one of his most eager promoters and helped count votes in the Mississippian’s campaign. And it was Lott who more than a year ago became one of the first Senators to back McCain’s bid for the presidential nomination and has since become one of the Arizonan’s top Senate surrogates.
“They are sort of like ham and eggs,” observed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
But it wasn’t always that way. Lott, the consummate leadership deal-maker, and McCain, long the meddlesome maverick, have engaged in bitter legislative battles over the years about high-profile issues such as campaign finance and earmark reform.
The two parted ways for a time after Lott successfully campaigned for GOP Whip in 1994 and moved for the first time into the Senate leadership. And in 2000, Lott opted to back then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush for the presidency over his Arizona Senate colleague.
“I didn’t think the time was right for John then,” Lott explained recently. “I thought that George W. Bush was the right man for the job at that time. But [McCain] has come back, better and stronger.”
McCain doesn’t dispute Lott’s assessment, admitting he may not have been the best candidate during his earlier White House run: “First, I certainly didn’t have the experience that I have now. And secondly, America was at peace in the 2000 campaign. [The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks] changed everything.”
Certainly, times have changed. Lott has spent months helping court Congressional and build national support for McCain’s 2008 White House bid. He has advised McCain, spoken on his behalf and helped him set his campaign priorities.
Similarly, it was McCain who helped persuade Lott to not only run for a fourth term in 2006, but to make another play for the Republican leadership by seeking the No. 2 Whip job. McCain was a key whip in that race for Lott, who eked out a one-vote win over Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)....
....McCain’s and Lott’s backgrounds have much in common. They share a Scottish heritage, and both families’ genealogy and political connections trace back to the 1800s in Carroll County, Miss.
They are both creatures of Congress — Lott began in the House in 1973 and moved to the Senate in 1989, while McCain started his brief House tenure in 1983 and was elected to the Senate in 1986.
“Even when we’ve fought like cats and dogs, we’ve always kept our relationship — and let me tell you, it was testy at times,” Lott said.
“We’ve had some of the best fights in the United States Senate,” McCain offered....
....“There’s something about people who were dealt a bad hand and overcome adversity and come back from that,” added Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). “It’s quite a bond that’s been built.”
Thune counts himself among those Senators in both the Lott and McCain political camps. The conservative South Dakotan is not only Lott’s chief deputy whip, he also is a newly announced backer of McCain for President.
McCain has yet to announce all of his Republican Senate endorsements, but among those already publicly in his camp are several GOP Members who aided Lott’s quest for the Minority Whip post. They include Thune, Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and Virginia Sen. John Warner.
More close Lott allies are expected to declare their support for McCain in the coming weeks....
To read it online, you have to subscribe, but here are some excerpts...
For Whip or 2008, It’s a Lott/McCain Ticket (March 7, 2007) By Erin P. Billings (Roll Call)
Following crushing setbacks that could have sidelined their respective careers, Republican Sens. Trent Lott (Miss.) and John McCain (Ariz.) have put aside long-standing differences and become leading architects of each other’s political resurrections. In the process, Lott and McCain have created an influential network of Senate Republican allies who by circumstance or design are loyal to them both. In fact, many of Lott’s strongest devotees also are backers of McCain’s 2008 presidential bid, and vice versa.
When Lott plotted a return to the GOP leadership as Minority Whip in the fall, McCain served as one of his most eager promoters and helped count votes in the Mississippian’s campaign. And it was Lott who more than a year ago became one of the first Senators to back McCain’s bid for the presidential nomination and has since become one of the Arizonan’s top Senate surrogates.
“They are sort of like ham and eggs,” observed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
But it wasn’t always that way. Lott, the consummate leadership deal-maker, and McCain, long the meddlesome maverick, have engaged in bitter legislative battles over the years about high-profile issues such as campaign finance and earmark reform.
The two parted ways for a time after Lott successfully campaigned for GOP Whip in 1994 and moved for the first time into the Senate leadership. And in 2000, Lott opted to back then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush for the presidency over his Arizona Senate colleague.
“I didn’t think the time was right for John then,” Lott explained recently. “I thought that George W. Bush was the right man for the job at that time. But [McCain] has come back, better and stronger.”
McCain doesn’t dispute Lott’s assessment, admitting he may not have been the best candidate during his earlier White House run: “First, I certainly didn’t have the experience that I have now. And secondly, America was at peace in the 2000 campaign. [The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks] changed everything.”
Certainly, times have changed. Lott has spent months helping court Congressional and build national support for McCain’s 2008 White House bid. He has advised McCain, spoken on his behalf and helped him set his campaign priorities.
Similarly, it was McCain who helped persuade Lott to not only run for a fourth term in 2006, but to make another play for the Republican leadership by seeking the No. 2 Whip job. McCain was a key whip in that race for Lott, who eked out a one-vote win over Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)....
....McCain’s and Lott’s backgrounds have much in common. They share a Scottish heritage, and both families’ genealogy and political connections trace back to the 1800s in Carroll County, Miss.
They are both creatures of Congress — Lott began in the House in 1973 and moved to the Senate in 1989, while McCain started his brief House tenure in 1983 and was elected to the Senate in 1986.
“Even when we’ve fought like cats and dogs, we’ve always kept our relationship — and let me tell you, it was testy at times,” Lott said.
“We’ve had some of the best fights in the United States Senate,” McCain offered....
....“There’s something about people who were dealt a bad hand and overcome adversity and come back from that,” added Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). “It’s quite a bond that’s been built.”
Thune counts himself among those Senators in both the Lott and McCain political camps. The conservative South Dakotan is not only Lott’s chief deputy whip, he also is a newly announced backer of McCain for President.
McCain has yet to announce all of his Republican Senate endorsements, but among those already publicly in his camp are several GOP Members who aided Lott’s quest for the Minority Whip post. They include Thune, Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and Virginia Sen. John Warner.
More close Lott allies are expected to declare their support for McCain in the coming weeks....
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Immigration
John McCain writes a column in today's New Hampshire Union Leader on immigration. He says in part:
"Among the federal government's most important obligations is to secure America's borders and enforce sensible immigration laws that will keep our nation strong and safe. For far too long, Washington has failed miserably in this vital responsibility....As a country devoted to the rule of law, fairness and opportunity, the status quo is simply unacceptable....The truth is that our nation's porous borders and failed immigration policies are a national disgrace, adversely affecting both our economic prospects and national security. A comprehensive immigration control plan that works is long overdue.
To achieve our objectives, America needs the strong reform I've proposed that will:
Vastly improve our border surveillance and enforcement capabilities;
Increase the manpower, infrastructure and capabilities necessary to block, apprehend, detain and return those who try to enter the country illegally;
Strengthen the laws and penalties against those who hire illegal aliens and violate immigration law;
Achieve and maintain the integrity of official documents to stop fraud, verify immigration status and employment, and enforce immigration law;
....The need to bring illegal immigrants out of hiding and end the defacto amnesty that is the status quo is more important than ever in this post-9/11 era of terrorist threat. But this effort must never entail giving away citizenship to those who have broken our laws. Rather it should require those who voluntarily come forward to undertake the hard work of reparation and assimilation that we expect. Legitimate status must be earned by paying stiff fines and back taxes, undergoing criminal and security checks, passing English and civics tests, remaining employed for six years before going to the back of the line to achieve legal permanent residence status, and adhering to other strict requirements...."
Read the full article here: On immigration, Washington is failing the American people
"Among the federal government's most important obligations is to secure America's borders and enforce sensible immigration laws that will keep our nation strong and safe. For far too long, Washington has failed miserably in this vital responsibility....As a country devoted to the rule of law, fairness and opportunity, the status quo is simply unacceptable....The truth is that our nation's porous borders and failed immigration policies are a national disgrace, adversely affecting both our economic prospects and national security. A comprehensive immigration control plan that works is long overdue.
To achieve our objectives, America needs the strong reform I've proposed that will:
Vastly improve our border surveillance and enforcement capabilities;
Increase the manpower, infrastructure and capabilities necessary to block, apprehend, detain and return those who try to enter the country illegally;
Strengthen the laws and penalties against those who hire illegal aliens and violate immigration law;
Achieve and maintain the integrity of official documents to stop fraud, verify immigration status and employment, and enforce immigration law;
....The need to bring illegal immigrants out of hiding and end the defacto amnesty that is the status quo is more important than ever in this post-9/11 era of terrorist threat. But this effort must never entail giving away citizenship to those who have broken our laws. Rather it should require those who voluntarily come forward to undertake the hard work of reparation and assimilation that we expect. Legitimate status must be earned by paying stiff fines and back taxes, undergoing criminal and security checks, passing English and civics tests, remaining employed for six years before going to the back of the line to achieve legal permanent residence status, and adhering to other strict requirements...."
Read the full article here: On immigration, Washington is failing the American people
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Peggy Noonan
Peggy Noonan writes about McCain at OpinionJournal.com.
"....Everyone knows his bio, but when you stop and look at it again, you realize it's even more impressive, more moving, than you remember....In all, as he came up, he would have been an organic conservative, schooled in the old American rigors of duty and honor, shaped in a world that was competitive, aware of the existence of evil. A world in which not to be a conservative was like announcing, "I don't understand life." His patriotism, the patriotism of his family, was acted out and lived, as opposed to put on like a hat, or merely claimed. No one in modern national-level politics has a better life story than his...." Read more here.
"....Everyone knows his bio, but when you stop and look at it again, you realize it's even more impressive, more moving, than you remember....In all, as he came up, he would have been an organic conservative, schooled in the old American rigors of duty and honor, shaped in a world that was competitive, aware of the existence of evil. A world in which not to be a conservative was like announcing, "I don't understand life." His patriotism, the patriotism of his family, was acted out and lived, as opposed to put on like a hat, or merely claimed. No one in modern national-level politics has a better life story than his...." Read more here.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Full National Review Interview
National Review posts the full interview transcript between Ponnuru and McCain. It is interesting to note that in one of his responses, McCain points to Toyota coming to Mississippi as an example of successful insourcing and free trade.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
National Review
This week, John McCain is the cover story for National Review, the journal of American conservative thought.
The Case for McCain by Ramesh Ponnuru - The Coming McCain Moment: Taking a second look
Here are some excerpts:
"I got some encouraging news this morning in the USA Today,” says Sen. John McCain, holding a copy of the paper with his picture on the front page. “McCain firm on Iraq war,” it says above the fold. He flips it over to show the rest of the headline: “despite cost to candidacy.” “I can’t worry about it,” he says. “With something like this, you just can’t let it concern you. The issue is too important.”
###
“I think the important thing is you look at people’s voting record,” says McCain, “because sometimes rhetoric can be a little misleading.” Over the course of his career, McCain has compiled a pretty conservative voting record. Neither Giuliani nor Romney, as McCain implied, has a record to match. An objective observer looking at Bush and McCain in 1999 would have had to conclude that, based on their histories, McCain was the more conservative of the two.
###
McCain was one of a few Republicans to vote against Bush’s tax cuts. He said that the tax cuts were fiscally reckless and too skewed to the rich. But he now accepts those tax cuts as a done deal. Reversing them now, or allowing them to expire, would constitute a tax increase, and McCain has never voted for a general tax increase. When I ask him whether there were any circumstances in which he would accept a tax increase, for example to get the Democrats to agree to spending cuts, he says, “No. None. None.” It seems pretty clear that a President McCain would seek spending cuts before tax cuts. But if you take him at his word — and he is a man who takes honor seriously — he won’t raise taxes.
###
McCain gets a bad rap from social conservatives. He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment on the theory that states should set their own marriage policies. But he opposes same-sex marriage, too, and says that he would support a constitutional amendment if the federal courts ever tried to impose it on reluctant states. As a practical matter, it is hard to see how any president could get such an amendment enacted without that type of provocation.
The senator has been rock-solid on abortion. Unlike anyone else in the race, he has a pro-life record stretching back to the early 1980s. Like President Bush, he says that the Supreme Court made a mistake in Roe; he goes further than Bush when he adds that the Court should overturn it. He voted to confirm all of the sitting conservative justices, plus Robert Bork.
McCain muddied the waters with one foolish remark in 1999. He was trying to make the point that the country is not ready for abortion to be prohibited, but in the course of trying to say that he said that the country wasn’t ready for Roe to go. He corrected himself quickly, but that lone remark has been used to portray him as a secret pro-choicer or a flip-flopper.
He really has broken ranks with pro-lifers twice. In the early 1990s, he voted to fund research using tissue from aborted fetuses, and he now supports federal funding for research on embryos taken from fertility clinics. But he draws the line at stem-cell research involving cloned human embryos. He says that he would prohibit that, even mistakenly claiming that he has co-sponsored legislation to that effect.
Social conservatives think that Republicans have repeatedly betrayed them. At the highest levels of national politics, that’s not true. The reason that social conservatives haven’t achieved many of their objectives even though they have helped to elect a lot of Republicans over the last generation is that those objectives are hard to achieve. It has been slow work to fight the pervasive liberalism of the elite legal culture. But when President Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy and the first President Bush appointed David Souter, they weren’t trying to betray conservatives; they didn’t know how those justices would turn out. McCain thinks that type of mistake can be avoided if presidents pick nominees who don’t just say the right things, but have track records of judging soundly. He’s right. Conservatives’ reception of McCain shouldn’t be colored by historical mythology.
###
But McCain’s merits are considerable as well. He has been tough on spending, and been willing to ally with the most conservative members of the Senate to fight earmarks. He has been a stalwart free trader: “Since Phil Gramm left, there’s no greater free-trader in the Senate than I am.” (McCain supported Gramm’s presidential campaign in 1996, and Gramm is supporting his now.) Curbing the growth of entitlements, he says, will be one of his top priorities as president. He has long supported personal accounts.
Leave all of that aside for a moment. For a lot of conservatives, the War on Terror is paramount. That’s why some of them are willing to overlook Giuliani’s faults. But if toughness on terrorism trumps everything else, with toughness defined as competent execution of the administration’s basic strategy — and that’s the way it has to be defined for this argument to work for Giuliani at all — then McCain is hands down the best candidate. He has better national-security credentials than Giuliani, having been involved in foreign policymaking for more than two decades while the latter has barely been involved at all. More than any other candidate, he has shown a commitment to winning in Iraq. He has supported it, indeed, more vigorously than Bush has waged it, and he has put his career on the line.
McCain has the moral authority to get a country that has grown tired of the war to listen to him, an authority President Bush has seen slip away. That isn’t just because he is a former prisoner of war with one son serving in the Marines and another in the Naval Academy — although that helps. It is because he is not seen as playing politics with the war, as most Democrats and Republicans are, and he never will be.
Conservatives may need to reach some understandings with McCain before throwing their support to him: on the vice-presidential nominee, on immigration, maybe even on the number of terms McCain will serve as president. (He is 70.) But he can win both the nomination and the election. He is plenty conservative. And he deserves a long second look.
###
Until you read the whole thing, here is a piece from National Review Online by Senator Jon Kyl you might also find interesting: "Right on McCain: John McCain's conservative record is excellent"
The Case for McCain by Ramesh Ponnuru - The Coming McCain Moment: Taking a second look
Here are some excerpts:
"I got some encouraging news this morning in the USA Today,” says Sen. John McCain, holding a copy of the paper with his picture on the front page. “McCain firm on Iraq war,” it says above the fold. He flips it over to show the rest of the headline: “despite cost to candidacy.” “I can’t worry about it,” he says. “With something like this, you just can’t let it concern you. The issue is too important.”
###
“I think the important thing is you look at people’s voting record,” says McCain, “because sometimes rhetoric can be a little misleading.” Over the course of his career, McCain has compiled a pretty conservative voting record. Neither Giuliani nor Romney, as McCain implied, has a record to match. An objective observer looking at Bush and McCain in 1999 would have had to conclude that, based on their histories, McCain was the more conservative of the two.
###
McCain was one of a few Republicans to vote against Bush’s tax cuts. He said that the tax cuts were fiscally reckless and too skewed to the rich. But he now accepts those tax cuts as a done deal. Reversing them now, or allowing them to expire, would constitute a tax increase, and McCain has never voted for a general tax increase. When I ask him whether there were any circumstances in which he would accept a tax increase, for example to get the Democrats to agree to spending cuts, he says, “No. None. None.” It seems pretty clear that a President McCain would seek spending cuts before tax cuts. But if you take him at his word — and he is a man who takes honor seriously — he won’t raise taxes.
###
McCain gets a bad rap from social conservatives. He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment on the theory that states should set their own marriage policies. But he opposes same-sex marriage, too, and says that he would support a constitutional amendment if the federal courts ever tried to impose it on reluctant states. As a practical matter, it is hard to see how any president could get such an amendment enacted without that type of provocation.
The senator has been rock-solid on abortion. Unlike anyone else in the race, he has a pro-life record stretching back to the early 1980s. Like President Bush, he says that the Supreme Court made a mistake in Roe; he goes further than Bush when he adds that the Court should overturn it. He voted to confirm all of the sitting conservative justices, plus Robert Bork.
McCain muddied the waters with one foolish remark in 1999. He was trying to make the point that the country is not ready for abortion to be prohibited, but in the course of trying to say that he said that the country wasn’t ready for Roe to go. He corrected himself quickly, but that lone remark has been used to portray him as a secret pro-choicer or a flip-flopper.
He really has broken ranks with pro-lifers twice. In the early 1990s, he voted to fund research using tissue from aborted fetuses, and he now supports federal funding for research on embryos taken from fertility clinics. But he draws the line at stem-cell research involving cloned human embryos. He says that he would prohibit that, even mistakenly claiming that he has co-sponsored legislation to that effect.
Social conservatives think that Republicans have repeatedly betrayed them. At the highest levels of national politics, that’s not true. The reason that social conservatives haven’t achieved many of their objectives even though they have helped to elect a lot of Republicans over the last generation is that those objectives are hard to achieve. It has been slow work to fight the pervasive liberalism of the elite legal culture. But when President Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy and the first President Bush appointed David Souter, they weren’t trying to betray conservatives; they didn’t know how those justices would turn out. McCain thinks that type of mistake can be avoided if presidents pick nominees who don’t just say the right things, but have track records of judging soundly. He’s right. Conservatives’ reception of McCain shouldn’t be colored by historical mythology.
###
But McCain’s merits are considerable as well. He has been tough on spending, and been willing to ally with the most conservative members of the Senate to fight earmarks. He has been a stalwart free trader: “Since Phil Gramm left, there’s no greater free-trader in the Senate than I am.” (McCain supported Gramm’s presidential campaign in 1996, and Gramm is supporting his now.) Curbing the growth of entitlements, he says, will be one of his top priorities as president. He has long supported personal accounts.
Leave all of that aside for a moment. For a lot of conservatives, the War on Terror is paramount. That’s why some of them are willing to overlook Giuliani’s faults. But if toughness on terrorism trumps everything else, with toughness defined as competent execution of the administration’s basic strategy — and that’s the way it has to be defined for this argument to work for Giuliani at all — then McCain is hands down the best candidate. He has better national-security credentials than Giuliani, having been involved in foreign policymaking for more than two decades while the latter has barely been involved at all. More than any other candidate, he has shown a commitment to winning in Iraq. He has supported it, indeed, more vigorously than Bush has waged it, and he has put his career on the line.
McCain has the moral authority to get a country that has grown tired of the war to listen to him, an authority President Bush has seen slip away. That isn’t just because he is a former prisoner of war with one son serving in the Marines and another in the Naval Academy — although that helps. It is because he is not seen as playing politics with the war, as most Democrats and Republicans are, and he never will be.
Conservatives may need to reach some understandings with McCain before throwing their support to him: on the vice-presidential nominee, on immigration, maybe even on the number of terms McCain will serve as president. (He is 70.) But he can win both the nomination and the election. He is plenty conservative. And he deserves a long second look.
###
Until you read the whole thing, here is a piece from National Review Online by Senator Jon Kyl you might also find interesting: "Right on McCain: John McCain's conservative record is excellent"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
