[Column] Politics of fear: Will we see any McCain selling points?
June 15th, 2008, 12:00 pm · 25 Comments · posted by rlederman
A request for Republicans: Between now and November, please explain why Sen. John McCain is the best choice to be president.
So far, when the discussion has been about qualifications, outside of the experience McCain has that Sen. Barack Obama lacks, Republicans have followed the lead of their former young Republican heroine: Hillary Rodham Clinton. So, in the limited discussion about ideas, Republicans have told us Obama is wrong. Eventually, maybe we’ll hear why McCain is right.
This is not an endorsement of Obama — not yet anyway. Columnist Thomas J. Lucente Jr. and I have begun discussing how we jointly will express which candidate we each believe is the best choice for president. Early on, I have Democrat Obama while Lucente is taking ultraconservative former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, who will represent the Libertarian Party. You’ll note which candidate neither of us believes is the best of the available choices.
This is a predominantly Republican area. Given that Ohio again looks to be an important state for both major party candidates, perhaps Republicans can make the case for McCain rather than continuing to make the case against Obama. Keeping in mind that Allen County of late has drifted somewhat Democratic-friendly, it probably will be important to sell your candidate rather than hoping fear of the other guy drives voters to your candidate.
What would McCain bring that independent voters find appealing? A great majority of the country believes we’re not going to have it any worse than President George W. Bush, so Republicans might consider their candidate’s merits instead of what they hope scares independents about Obama. “Be scared/vote Republican” is so 2004.
McCain has done much to alienate the evangelical and libertarian wings of the Republican Party. What about the Arizona senator should make evangelicals and libertarians overlook these flaws?
McCain, for example, has fought against earmarks, the funding mechanism members of Congress attach to often unrelated bills. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-West Chester, has been a longtime critic of earmarks. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, has stayed away from them for the most part. That’s one place Republicans might start to sell their candidate: some fiscally conservative qualities he shares with our members of Congress.
Instead, Republicans are calling Obama a socialist. Imagine that, a Democrat with socialist tendencies. In a place like Ohio, where voters more and more look to government to solve their woes, that seems a losing strategy. Besides, find a Republican who isn’t a strong advocate of public schools and you’ll find a Republican who isn’t a form of socialist. (Suggesting every member of society has an obligation to pay to educate other people’s children fits the definition of socialism.)
Instead, Republicans are hoping “whitey” drives votes. The Associated Press reported last week that the Obama campaign is launching a Web site to counter rumors that Michelle Obama railed against whitey from the pulpit of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. It’s something that has gained traction on Republican blogs. Maybe some voters haven’t noticed Obama is black, so Republicans are going to point it out.
Republicans no doubt will bring up all the things Obama’s Democratic rivals brought up during the primary. Make sure we’re plenty scared of Obama. But, if anyone is looking for McCain’s strengths, perhaps his supporters will point them out rather than telling us what they perceive Obama’s flaws to be.
Obama is a liberal. So is McCain. But Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory over the first fiscally liberal President Bush brought a decisive Republican congressional victory two years later. It’s the sort of awakening Republicans again could stand to have.
Maybe McCain supporters should explain why his victory this year would do more for a once-fiscally conservative party than would giving Democrats total control for the next two years.
Ronald Lederman Jr. is editorial page editor of The Lima (Ohio) News. His e-mail is rlederman@limanews.com. Lederman appears at 3:30 p.m. Mondays on “Talk with Ron Williams,” WZOQ (ESPN Radio 940) or www.espnlima.com.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I have not decided on my vote as of yet either. Being a long time republican, I have in the past voted for the best man for the job, no matter which party he was from. I agree that just calling up the faults and missteps of one candidate is not the best way to endorse another.
John McCain has been a leader in the fight against pork-barrel spending and piggy backing pork onto unrelated bills in congress. He also advocates less taxes on the American people. He has a strong reputation in the fight for good solid armed forces, and wants to stay on the cutting edge of technology in all areas to insure our strength and leadership in the world.
McCain also sees we need some short-term relief from oil prices and advocates opening off-shore exploration by allowing the states to decide about drilling off of their own coastal areas. 80% of USA coastal waters are currantly off limits to exploration for oil/natural gas, and we really do need to start addressing this issue, at least for the short term.
He has also stood up for childrens healthcare and Indian healthcare issues.
As for Obama, I still need more time to research him and his stance on the issues. BUT…he did beat HiLLARY…and that alone makes me want to vote for him out of thanksgiving.
More to come later.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
More bad news for Obama…Now Gore has jumped on the wagon!!
Kennedy the drunkin murderer…Ho Hillary…Loser Gore…can swiftboat Kerry be far behind?
June 16th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Kind of wonder if Bill and Hillary are gonna pull a Foster on Obama? hummmmmmmmm
June 16th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
It would probably help McCain, if he promised to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court and that is after promising
to research the candidates, then I might vote for him..Nah! never gonna happen.
As for B. Hussein Obama, there is no way I would help put a Affirmative Action baby in the White House, the idea of his ingrate
wife walking around in there is depressing..
I’ll either stay home that day or write in Ron Paul..
June 16th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Lets also not forget that in his last run for the senate, Arizona voted a landslide for Sen. McCain. He won 77% of the vote for re-election.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Interesting selling points, guys:
• John McCain is not Barack Obama.
• John McCain won in a landslide, as a longtime incumbent, against a weak opponent, in his last re-election bid.
So, between Danimal and Jim, we have this McCain slogan: “Vote McCain. Arizonans really like him against a no-name opponent (and he’s not Barack Obama).”
I understand why you don’t intend to vote for Obama. No one has explained why McCain is worth voting for.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:34 am
uuuu…humm.
I have not decided on my vote as of yet either. Being a long time republican, I have in the past voted for the best man for the job, no matter which party he was from. I agree that just calling up the faults and missteps of one candidate is not the best way to endorse another.
John McCain has been a leader in the fight against pork-barrel spending and piggy backing pork onto unrelated bills in congress. He also advocates less taxes on the American people. He has a strong reputation in the fight for good solid armed forces, and wants to stay on the cutting edge of technology in all areas to insure our strength and leadership in the world.
McCain also sees we need some short-term relief from oil prices and advocates opening off-shore exploration by allowing the states to decide about drilling off of their own coastal areas. 80% of USA coastal waters are currantly off limits to exploration for oil/natural gas, and we really do need to start addressing this issue, at least for the short term.
He has also stood up for childrens healthcare and Indian healthcare issues.
As for Obama, I still need more time to research him and his stance on the issues. BUT…he did beat HiLLARY…and that alone makes me want to vote for him out of thanksgiving.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:37 am
OK…pretty sure I named at least 6 strong points on McCain that you ignored…..but that figures.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Oh, yes, Danimal, you named points. McCain recognizes gas prices are high, for example. Wow! What insight! What brilliance! I’m going to vote for someone who knows $4 is a lot to pay for gas and proposes to make the price higher with a Hillary-like proposal to not charge the federal tax on gas. Gee, what might that do to demand? What might the oil companies do in anticipation of that 18 cent reduction?
McCain wants to cut pork? Good of you to mention it. Um, reread the column when you get a chance. Why would I care that you repeat a point I made?
He wants to stay on the cutting edge of technology? Oh, again, wow! What does that mean? He probably also loves America. Was looking for something a little deeper than slogans, Dan.
The health care issues, Dan: Like I wrote, he’s a liberal. And, apparently, so are you on government (taxpayer)-provided coverage.
Did I miss any of your “good” points?
June 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Ok I’ve reread your column so here’s my second shot
Why is McCain worth voting for?
He is for second amendment rights all the way, for a
CCW holder thats very important for me
Wants to overturn Roe vs Wade
Believes Marriage is between a Man and a Woman
Believes in a reforming immigration such as a strong border and making the immigrates legal and illegally here already , learn english
and American History if they stay
That should just about convince alot of Conservatives and Evanglicals
to vote for him over Obama.
Am I catching on here?
June 17th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
OK you condiscending, know it all, little smart ass. Why would anyone want to comment on your little rant when you act like such a punk? I made some points that I felt were important. Thats what you asked for. Then you just slam me because it somehow makes you feel better? No wonder all your blog pages are mostly empty. You are even a bigger jerk than your doofuss looking picture led me to believe.
OH…did I miss any of your good points?
June 17th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Gee, Jim, so truth doesn’t matter? Rather than a Swift Boater, maybe we’ll call you a Dim Poster. McCain and gun rights? Um, you might try this from the Gun Owners of America.
John McCain’s Gun Control Problem
by John Velleco
Director of Federal Affairs
In 2000, Andrew McKelvey, the billionaire founder of monster.com, threw a sizable chunk of his fortune into the gun control debate.
It was shortly after the Columbine school shooting. Bill Clinton was in the White House and gun control was daily front-page news. McKelvey wanted in.
He started out contributing to Handgun Control Inc., which had since been renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. But while he agreed with their gun banning goals, McKelvey thought the way they packaged their message was too polarizing.
“I told them that Handgun Control was the wrong name. I thought what they were doing was great but I thought it could be done differently,” McKelvey said.
So McKelvey struck out on his own and formed Americans for Gun Safety. Although AGS shared almost identical public policy goals as other anti-gun groups, McKelvey portrayed the group as in the ‘middle’ on the issue and attempted to lure pro-gun advocates into his fold.
To pull it off, he needed a bipartisan coalition with credibility on both sides of the gun debate. On the anti-gun side, the task was easy. Most of the Democrats and a small but vocal minority of Republicans supported President Clinton’s gun control agenda.
Finding someone who could stake a claim as a pro-gunner and yet be willing to join McKelvey was not so easy. Enter Senator John McCain.
McCain’s star was already falling with conservatives. He had carved out a niche as a ‘maverick’ as the author of so-called Campaign Finance Reform (more aptly named the incumbent protection act), which was anathema to conservatives but made him a darling of the mainstream media.
Gun owners were outraged over CFR, but McCain still maintained some credibility on the gun issue.
Earlier in his career, McCain had voted against the Clinton crime bill (which contained a ban on so-called assault weapons), and he did not join the 16 Senate Republicans who voted for the Brady bill, which required a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun.
But as he ramped up for his presidential run in 2000, McCain, expanding on the ‘maverick’ theme, staked out a position on guns far to the left of his primary opponent, George W. Bush.
McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he entertained the idea of supporting the ‘assault weapons’ ban. His flirtation with anti-Second Amendment legislation quickly led to a political marriage of convenience with McKelvey.
Within months of the formation of AGS, McCain was featured in radio and television ads in Colorado and Oregon supporting initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers. Anti-gunners were ecstatic to get McCain on board.
Political consultant Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole’s presidential campaign in 1996, hoped McCain would “bring a conservative perspective to the gun debate.”
The ads not only pushed the anti-gun show measure in those two states, they also served to undermine the efforts of gun rights activists who were furiously lobbying against the same type of bill in Congress.
“I think that if the Congress won’t act, the least I can do is support the initiative in states where it’s on the ballot,” McCain said in an interview.
At the time still a newcomer to the gun control debate, McCain said, “I do believe my view has evolved.”
McCain continued to pursue his anti-gun agenda even after his presidential run ended, and the next year he and McKelvey made it to the big screen.
As moviegoers flocked to see Pearl Harbor, they were treated to an anti-gun trailer ad featuring McCain. This time the Senator was pushing legislation to force people to keep firearms locked up in the home.
“We owe it to our children to be responsible by keeping our guns locked up,” McCain told viewers.
Economist and author John Lott, Jr., noted, “No mention was ever made by McCain about using guns for self-defense or that gunlocks might make it difficult to stop intruders who break into your home. And research indicates that McCain’s push for gunlocks is far more likely to lead to more deaths than it saves.”
Also in 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor.
Pro-gun allies in Congress who were holding off gun show legislation — which would at best register gun owners and at worst close down the shows entirely — were angered when McCain teamed up with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and introduced a “compromise” bill to give the issue momentum.
“There is a lot of frustration. He has got his own agenda,” one Republican Senator told Roll Call.
After September 11, 2001, McKelvey and McCain, now joined by Lieberman, had a new angle to push gun control.
“Terrorists are exploiting the gun show loophole,” AGS ads hyped. McCain and Lieberman hit the airwaves again in a series of radio and TV spots, thanks to McKelvey’s multi-million dollar investment.
A Cox News Service article noted that, “The ads first focused on gun safety but switched to terrorism after Sept. 11. Americans for Gun Safety said the switch is legitimate.”
However, Second Amendment expert Dave Kopel pointed out that, “the McCain-Lieberman bill is loaded with poison pills which would allow a single appointed official to prevent any gun show, anywhere in the United States from operating.”
Ultimately, the anti-gun legislation was killed in the Congress and AGS fizzled out and disappeared altogether. The issues for which McKelvey spent over $10 million are still in play, however, and John McCain remains a supporter of those causes. In fact, as recently as 2004, McCain was able to force a vote on a gun show amendment.
In the post-Columbine and post-9/11 environments, the Second Amendment was under attack as never before. Pro-gun patriotic Americans who stood as a bulwark to keep the Congress from eviscerating the Constitution were dismayed to look across the battle lines only to see Senator McCain working with the enemy.
John McCain tried running for president in 2000 as an anti-gunner. This year it appears he is seeking to “come home” to the pro-gun community, but the wounds are deep and memories long.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Dan, when you come at me like you have, I extend the same amount of respect right back to you. On my side of the argument, however, I have made the case that you are living off slogans. You call me a doofus. Wow! Way to show I’m wrong. Was that too patronizing for your incredible intelligence? As for my
You want to discuss, go for it. But, when insult me, you should expect a less-than-polite reply. Frankly, however, if I offend, you are welcome to stay away. You’ll note that, even with all my empty blog posts, I keep going. The last thing I need is to have a bunch of mindless conservatives like the camp you represent agree with me.
I disagreed with your points. I did so in the same condescending fashion you’d use if you were able to express yourself. Deal with it.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
What? that’s it?
your just trashing my first point
Let’s here your brillant comments to my other points I’ve got time
so I’m all ears, Oh Wise One..
June 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Oh yeah, McCain loves America, Obama doesn’t.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Good post’s. They shouldn’t let you three in the same room together. I don’t support McCain, so won’t have much to say in his defense. I believe he is saying what he has to, to get the base of his party on board for him. They don’t call him the maverick for nothing and if he wins he’ll do what he wants. Looking at a thrid party even if it means a vote away from the Republicans. I am voting my consince and what I believe, so I don’t think my vote will be wasted.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
The difference among the three of us, Scant, is that I attach my name and face to my opinion. Which way is your conscience telling you to vote?
Jim, I’m sorry, but not every one of your points will be off. However, since you seem to be posting what you hope to be the case rather than what is on an important issue, I thought it was worth correcting for you. I do appreciate the name, however. Let’s start calling me Oh Wise One in all references, shall we? If you’d like to go point by point, we can. McCain also was for a compromise on immigration that Bush liked but the right didn’t. I’d say that is a good point for him, but I doubt it was what you had in mind.
So you have two socially conservative points left: Roe v, Wade and gay marriage. Since my religious beliefs are my own, I don’t need a president or a Congress to reinforce them. Perhaps you should go get baptized or something, so you might have some faith in your faith. I won’t argue Roe v. Wade. I do believe in a right to privacy, but once life is established, I don’t see where privacy trumps life. But, as is the case with too many conservatives, McCain’s professed belief in life stops short of those who have signed up to defend this country. He, like Bush, proposes sacrificing them on the altar of Iraqi democracy or whatever the goal is this month.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I don’t need a president or congress to tell me who I can or can’t marry either.
But if it takes one or the other to overturn Roe vs Wade so be it !
Perhaps I should get baptized, so I can have faith in my faith Huh?
Why Oh Wise One, just listening to your phyco-babble strengthens
my faith.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
1st of all, OH NOT so wise one, we agreed in the past to keep debate in the forfront. So in this blog, my very first post was polite, and stated my opinion. It was you that came off as an ass. And you get paid to show your name and face. Good thing newspapers don’t rely on looks huh? You’d be making about 20 cents an hour.
But to start with you asked for opinion, and I gave mine. Thats when you attacted me. And I am not a McCain supporter. Simply wrote what I know of him at this point.
What I know of yopu is you are totaly insecure. Otherwise you would not attack everyone who disagrees with you.
Maybe you need baptized and try reading Tom’s post on the golden rule. You get what you give moron. I was nice. You were and idiot. Thus I too will now be an ass. See how that works? You attacked Jim also…and for what/ He disagreed with you. No other reason. That further shows how childish and insecure you are. Please take some of the $$$ the lima news pays you and get some help. Do you guys have access to the EAP? Try them first. You can start by telling them about your lonely childhood when you got beat up every day.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Actually Danimal, I feel the Wise One attacked my opinion, if you
want to feel what it’s like to have your person attacked just go
to Richard Dawkins website, and state that your a person of faith
you won’t believe the awful names they can come up with!
June 18th, 2008 at 7:26 am
WOW JIm, you are right!!! Makes me think that ‘oh so wise one’ has a job on the side with Richard Dawkins. He would fit right in.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
danimal, that’s not what I meant Bud!
I should have clarified it better, I don’t
feel that the host attacked me personally ,
just my opinion, but thats what the blog
is about ,to beat up on each others comments
and I wasn’t comparing him to Dawkins
either, Lederman’s smarter than Dawkins..
June 18th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Ron, my conscience is leading me to a third party. I have listened to interviews of Bob Barr and liked what I heard. I have more homework to do to educate myself more about Barr and the libertarian party. Want to keep an open mind, I may find some things that maybe I wont see eye to eye on, but I am finding that I just about don’t see eye to eye on many things with the Republicans. I don’t want to use my vote for someone I dissagree with-as a vote against the other guy. I want to for a change vote for someone I believe can run this country, not to keep the other party out. Both parties have relied on that way of thinking from there bases for way to long.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Scant, the very sad and miserable truth is…it will be a Dem/Rep in office the next four years, and four more after that, and four more…and……UNtill a third and/or fourth party can field a real candidate with REAL $$$$ and the MEDIA (including the LIMA NEWS)does it’s job and covers those candidates, we will never see any of them have a real shot at the WhiteHouse.
Sure, we can use our votes to make a statement. But when the statusQuo wins the election, our voices will be tossed aside just as they always are. Ergo, many people just vote for the lesser of the two evils. Thats how Bush was elected both times. Thats also how Obama beat Ho hIllary. Do I need to mention Bill C.? TWICE! And so it goes. These are not leaders. The whole thing is just a High School Class Officer election with lots more $$$$ pumped in. Habe you watched CSAPN etel? Is there ANYONE there on the house or senate floor you want running this country?
But the media runs the show and they don’t want to risk sales and ratings covering unheard of people that may well be the best leaders we have. And it’s people like RON LEADERMEN all over the country that make these choices. Kind of. He too is just a puppet controled the the FREEDOM PRESS. AAnd so it goes, year after year, decade after decade. But voting your conscience is very nobal. And I respect that.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Danimal, You are right a thrid party does not have a chance this election. This election is a depressing one, where are the leaders, the people with vision and character, is this the best this country can put up? It’s frustrating that all candidates don’t share equal coverage. I think for a week stop watching the news or reading the papers and maybe I’ll cheer up, think it will work?