McCain told Haaretz that as president, he would "micromanage" U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians and would dispatch "the smartest guy I know" to the region, presumably to jump-start a new push for a comprehensive accord.Asked who that "smartest guy" might be, McCain responded: "Brent Scowcroft, or James Baker, though I know that you in Israel don’t like Baker."
McCain foresaw "concessions and sacrifices by both sides" and indicated that Israel would be expected to "Defend itself and keep evacuating." Asked whether that meant "movement toward the June 4, 1967 armistice lines, with minor modifications," McCain, reported Haaretz, "nodded in the affirmative."
McCain’s statements are jarring not only because they reflect the view, long championed by the State Department and both the moderate and liberal wings of the Democratic party, that the U.S. can somehow "micromanage" a fair and equitable Mideast peace (code for unilateral Israeli concessions, since the Palestinians have nothing concrete to concede), but as well for the almost cavalier dismissal of concerns about an interlocutor on the order of a James Baker.
(McCain’s mention of Scowcroft, whose Mideast views and chilly attitude toward Israel are indistinguishable from those usually attributed to Baker, is equally instructive and should serve as one more caveat for McCain supporters in the pro-Israel community.) (more at NRO)
McCain was against the Bush tax cuts.
McCain was a potential running mate with Kerry.
McCain is a liberal.
McCain undermined the Republican party with the gang of 14.
McCain is wrong on illegal immigration.
McCain is wrong on "waterboarding"
Why would Giuliani even think of endorsing a man who wants to weaken the Patriot act, give habeas corpus to terrorists, close down Gitmo? Oh yeah let's not forget the jihad endorsement of The New York Times. Rudy wants the veep spot? Yech.
Giuliani was his own worst enemy. Politico
UPDATE: Pierre wrote;
We must defeat McCain. I would prefer the Hildabeast to him on the theory that better the bastard you know than the one you don't. I know what Hildabeast will try. No telling what McModerate will try.
Good video on Romney He starts to rock at minute 6 then
he ramps it up beginning at 6:00 (hat tip Jeremayakovka)
Romney on the confronting the jihad
Romney on combating nuclear terrorism
UPDATE: STEYN! STEYN! STEYN!
I'm getting a bit tired of Senator McCain's anti-business shtick. The line about serving "for patriotism, not for profit" is pathetic. America spends more on its military than the next 35-40 biggest military spenders on the planet combined: Where does he think the money for that comes from?
As for his line about "some greedy people on Wall Street who need to be punished", aside from being almost entirely irrelevant to the subject under discussion (the subprime "crisis"), it reveals, I think, one of the most unpleasant aspects of McCain. For a so-called "maverick", he's very comfortable with the application of Big Government power, and the assumption of Big Government virtue. Undoubtedly there are "greedy people on Wall Street". Why should he and his chums be the ones who decide whether they need to be "punished"? If greed is to be punishable, why doesn't he start with a pilot program applied to, say, the United States Senate and report back to us in five years how that's going?
Primary triumph doesn't seem to be doing anything to mitigate the small and graceless side of McCain. On the other hand, John Hinderaker might be on to something here:
Businessmen, in my experience, are generally more idealistic than politicians. Businessmen really do make deals with a handshake. No one would dream of doing that with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or the Clintons. Turning a businessman loose in the political world is basically a mismatch. That's the sense I get of McCain's reaction to having Romney as his last serious rival. He can't believe his good fortune; Romney is an amateur. McCain can poke him in the eye, knee him in the groin, and the rule-following businessman has no idea how to respond.
I don't view this as an argument in Romney's favor. As President, he wouldn't be dealing with honorable, law-abiding businesspeople. He would be going up against the Vladimir Putins, Osama bin Ladens and Harry Reids of the world. This is not a game for amateurs. I think we should recognize that professional politicians bring important experience and skills to the table, and that one of those skills is the ability to knee an opponent in the groin and get away with it.
UPDATE: And while we are on the subject of McCain's failings and misrepresentations of his record. You must read the meticulously researched piece by A Jacksonian over at his blog Dumb Looks Still Free:
As so many like to point to Sen. John McCain's American Conservative Union ratings, I decided to take a look at them! It gives a good idea of what they see as important and how members of Congress voted on those items.
Thus starting in Mr. McCain's House time, and votes contrary to what the ACU supported are listed (Year - ACU percent - comments), all ratings from the ACU Ratings site and I am doing my best to de-conflict the votes for on a proposal against and such [note that non-votes are on ACU cited votes, not of all votes taken]. This list is representative of their views which are biased and I do disagree with a number of their takes and backing, but it is a fair view from a given biased perspective of how to grade Congresscritters:
Now go and read it all then send it to your neighbors!