Bill Clinton: John McCain and Hillary are ‘very close’
Posted: 06:45 PM ET

Hillary Clinton and John McCain are very close, Bill Clinton says.
(CNN) — If Hillary Clinton and John McCain become their party’s presidential nominees, the general election race is likely to be a love-fest.

At least according to Bill Clinton.

Drudge has the full story. Now here is my real problem. Does anyone here believe the NYT endorsement and now this story on CNN, will actually help John McCain?? The way I figure it, since at least 1998, if the MSM gives it’s opinion about a conservative, then the opposite is usually true. – Lorica

First, nothing short of a frontal lobotomy will induce me to vote for Hillary this November. You’ve already endorsed her regardless of who the GOP nominates.

Second, while I’m leaning toward bypassing the presidential line on the ballot if McCain’s there, my mind is still open. To me, the critical factor will be the state of the WOT when November rolls around. If I’m convinced that a Democrat in the White House is likely to lead to a mushroom cloud over an American city, I’ll vote McCain even with his abyssmal track record on domestic policy. Four years of stunted economic growth, punitive taxation, and silly GW regulations that can be rolled back – yeah, I’ll accept that from a Clinton or Obama administration if it’s likely to reawaken America to the need for conservative policies. A nuclear terrorist attack from AQ or some other islamofascist group – that’s too high a price to pay.

the idea of taking half a loaf as better than nothing doesn’t appeal to me. And with McCain, it’s more like we’re getting only a slice or two. That leads to permanent marginalization. Does anyone honestly think that we would have ever had Ronald Reagan if Gerald Ford had won in 1976? It took an incompetent like Jimmy Carter to shock that generation of voters into making the right choice in 1980. If we get a President McCain in 2008, when do you think we’ll next get a true conservative in the Oval Office?

Indeed, exactly what I was attempting to express. My approach though, compared to yours like brain surgery with an aluminum baseball bat.

Permit me to quote our greatest 20th century president talking about his switch from the Democrats:

So, it was our Republican Party that gave me a political home. When I signed up for duty, I didn’t have to check my principles at the door. And I soon found out that the desire for victory did not overcome our devotion to ideals.

In short, we can’t abandon principles just to hold power.

No, we can not. When I was called judgemental for a similar comment, I simply chuckled.

So go ahead and accuse me of “reckless abandonment”. Call me whatever names you will. I’m not ready to support McCain yet and do not apologize for that stand.

I applaud you. To stand and not waiver in defense of those principals is admiral.

I wish to that you for so eloquently expressing my similar view.

There’s no question that McCain’s record is mixed, but he is far from the flaming liberal he’s been made out to be.

Agreed, he’s no Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. The question is, how much “left” is in fact in that mix. I tend to think it’s a little higher percentage than you.

I’m not suggesting anyone vote for McCain in the primaries. I won’t be in mine (not that it’ll make a difference, since NC’s primary is in May). He may not even be the nominee. All I’m saying is that I hope people consider voting for him in the general, for reasons I stated in my post.

Yes, that was clear in your original post. Your focus on this question has always been on November. But the NYT is beating the drums for him NOW. McCain is the Republican they’d most love to see on the ballot in November. Of course, they’ll endorse the Democrat for the general election, no matter who that turns out to be, but ask yourself why they’d want McCain as the opponent. To me, the answer’s obvious – no matter who wins, they’d still stand to get a good portion of their agenda realized.

Me: If we get a President McCain in 2008, when do you think we’ll next get a true conservative in the Oval Office?
ST: This was discussed in the other recent thread on McCain, too, and here was my response.

That response focused almost entirely on Iraq, and I agree with your points there. I’m looking at the question from a different angle. My concern is that we’d become inoculated to accepting a “mixed” track record, in your words at the top, as the norm: no more talk of tax cuts, more global warming regulations, maybe more McCain-Feingold type restrictions on speech. Look at how many wasteful or pointless leftist ideas are now Federal programs that are accepted as part of the landscape – in many cases due to Republican presidents compromising away a principle for some temporary gain. Iraq is clearly critically important, but my concern goes beyond Iraq. It’s that the erosion of conservative goals may accelerate.

Every election cycle we choose the candidate who comes the closest to lining up with our ideals, and without fail that candidate comes up short to varying degrees on some core issues. A vote for McCain is no more abandoning principles than a vote for GWB was in 2004.

Also true…and you’re right that it’s a matter of degree. And there’s the rub. GWB has disappointed me in some areas, as you know, but I find much more common ground with him than with McCain. At what point does a candidate’s misalignment with our principles make him unsuitable? 50% agreement? 25%? As little as 10%? I know McCain’s seriously out of alignment for me…if he’s nominated, the question for me will be to decide if he’s too far out of alignment.

From your Reagan quote:

If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

If I thought I’d get 75-80% from McCain, I’d have no reservations about voting for him. Would you feel as confident if you knew the left was going to get 75-80% and you’d get 20-25%?

You keep coming back to Iraq in your justifications for a McCain vote in November. As well you should. That’s the single most potent issue that may still bring me around. It’s no secret that no issue is more important than national security to me, and McCain is undeniably strong there. But I’m having a difficult time reconciling the idea of fighting hard for freedom and democracy in Iraq while simultaneously backing the ACLU on lawyers for captured AQ and tying the hands of our military interrogators. I’d be much more comfortable with McCain if that apparent contradiction were to be explained.

I in no way am attempting to shove my opinion on this issue down anyone’s throat.

Nor have you on any issue. You’ve always spoken your mind and let the rest of us do likewise, with great results as the commentary on this and so many other threads can attest.

I do think that characterizing those of us who are still on the fence about a McCain vote in November as “reckless” was a tad strong. Some of us have put quite a bit of thought into our positions.

Most of the comments here have argued the pros or cons of a specific issue or two, but one post in particular focused on principles. And I notice that this post is one that no one has attempted to refute:

“at some point the price has to be paid for moving so far away from Republican principles. That time may or may not be now….I have to say that in the end, Iraq is a shorter term concern than are these United States….The question becomes, how much damage will a McCain presidency do to those principles, and to the country as a whole, thereby?”

And in that comment – except for the fact that the principles are conservative, not Republican – I think Bithead went directly and brilliantly to the crux of the matter.

There was no reason in attempting to refute what Bithhead said and here’s why: Your argument makes the assumption that anyone making the case in favor of voting for McCain should he become the nominee isn’t concerned about Republican principles. On the contrary, I have in mind conservative principles, like the spread of freedom and democracy which in turn aids in our own safety and security, the commitment to finish what we started, and to honor our troops and their families, both of which have made so many sacrifices in the Iraq war. These are principles we all hold dear, no matter which side of the fence we sit on regarding whether or not to vote for McCain.

ST provides a link to a Michael Medved piece pumping up McCain. I’d refer you, in response, to Deroy Murdock.

I’d read the Murdock response to Medved earlier today. There’s no question that McCain’s record is mixed, but he is far from the flaming liberal he’s been made out to be. In fact, some could argue that some of Reagan’s positions, too, could be considered liberal, but in the end the sum total of his ideas solidify his conservative creds. I think an argument could be made along those same lines for McCain, for those who are interested in vigorously defending him on his bonafides, like Medved.

And now the MSM’s favorite Republican is basking in the glow of getting the endorsement of the New York Times and a fawning cover story from Time. None of that makes me want to rush to make sure I’m the first one to vote for McCain in our NJ primary on February 5.

I’m not suggesting anyone vote for McCain in the primaries. I won’t be in mine (not that it’ll make a difference, since NC’s primary is in May). He may not even be the nominee. All I’m saying is that I hope people consider voting for him in the general, for reasons I stated in my post.

The idea of taking half a loaf as better than nothing doesn’t appeal to me. And with McCain, it’s more like we’re getting only a slice or two. That leads to permanent marginalization. Does anyone honestly think that we would have ever had Ronald Reagan if Gerald Ford had won in 1976? It took an incompetent like Jimmy Carter to shock that generation of voters into making the right choice in 1980. If we get a President McCain in 2008, when do you think we’ll next get a true conservative in the Oval Office?

This was discussed in the other recent thread on McCain, too, and here was my response.

Permit me to quote our greatest 20th century president talking about his switch from the Democrats:

“So, it was our Republican Party that gave me a political home. When I signed up for duty, I didn’t have to check my principles at the door. And I soon found out that the desire for victory did not overcome our devotion to ideals. ”

In short, we can’t abandon principles just to hold power.

As I noted earlier, no one’s advocating an abandoning of principles. Every election cycle we choose the candidate who comes the closest to lining up with our ideals, and without fail that candidate comes up short to varying degrees on some core issues. A vote for McCain is no more abandoning principles than a vote for GWB was in 2004.

At that time, as we all know there was a growing discontent with GWB on a number of issues, including his stance on illegal immigration, his failure to control Congress’ out of control spending, his “deal” with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind, the Farm Bill, and many other issues. Yet conservatives all agreed that year that it was worth looking beyond those differences they had with him because GWB understood what was on the line in Iraq and what would happen if we cut and run, which would have happened under a Kerry presidency. It was all about recognizing the Iraq was *the* core issue, and that if we lost there by leaving before the job was done, we would violate the princples I mentioned earlier. That is the same thing I am arguing now.

Even in that case, even if I am convinced to pull the lever for him in November, I’m sure as hell not going to donate a nickel or work for him for a minute.

I am certainly not suggesting that conservatives plant a wet sloppy kiss on him if he gets the nomination, just that they consider that he understands what it means to finish the job in Iraq, something the opposition could care less about. I have never suggested that McCain is the cat’s meow, just that this election season if he were the nominee, he’s got his head on straight on the issue of Iraq where Hillary and Obama do not.

So go ahead and accuse me of “reckless abandonment”. Call me whatever names you will. I’m not ready to support McCain yet and do not apologize for that stand.

As I said earlier, the same arguments I am making now I would have made back in 2004 had masses of conservatives advocated sitting out that election. But they didn’t – for the reasons I discussed above, reasons which I believe still hold true today.

Since you quoted Reagan, who was indeed our greatest 20th century president, here’s something else he said:

“When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it. “Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything. I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’ If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.”
– Ronald Reagan, An American Life

(Via The Anchoress)

BTW – I think by “radical” he meant “staunch” – not “radical” in the way we use the term towards the far left.

I have a great deal of respect for the commenters of this blog, especially you, GWR, for a lot of reasons – among them, how you made the case against the illegal immigration bill rationally without resorting to the gutter tactics many others did. In fact, I probably learn a lot more from my commenters than they do from me, because they’ve been arguing in favor of conservatism longer than I have.

I remember back when I was a liberal how it used to irk me how people would try to shove conservative ideas down my throat without giving any thought to how I felt about the issues, so I in no way am attempting to shove my opinion on this issue down anyone’s throat. All I am asking is that any conservative who is considering sitting out this race should McCain become the nom please think carefully about what would happen in Iraq – and the overall GWOT – if Hillary or Obama take the helm of CIC.

Most of the comments here have argued the pros or cons of a specific issue or two, but one post in particular focused on principles. And I notice that this post is one that no one has attempted to refute:

at some point the price has to be paid for moving so far away from Republican principles. That time may or may not be now….I have to say that in the end, Iraq is a shorter term concern than are these United States….The question becomes, how much damage will a McCain presidency do to those principles, and to the country as a whole, thereby?

And in that comment – except for the fact that the principles are conservative,, not Republican – I think Bithead went directly and brilliantly to the crux of the matter.

Most of us here will agree that national policies grounded in conservative principles will be far better for America than socialist policies. Most of us here will agree that more freedom is better for America than less. And I’m not just speaking about the short term. These policies, for good or ill, can affect generations of Americans yet unborn. Millions of our citizens who were not alive in 1988 are reaping the benefits of Reagan’s firm stand toward the Soviets, not to mention hundreds of millions of Poles, Czechs, Romanians, and others.

So what about McCain? Sanity states:

McCain, whether you agree with him or not, has been consistent in his views and ideology

Very true. So what are those views and ideology?

First, I’m more than willing to stipulate that McCain has been stalwart in the military phase of the WOT and the war in Iraq. He stayed firm 18 months or so ago when many Republicans in Congress lost their nerve as the 2006 mid-term elections approached. For that stand, he deserves full credit.

But then, let’s not forget he wants lawyers for the AQ terrorists we capture and is on record as opposing tactics like waterboarding that have already saved Americans lives. So while I do not question his commitment to the military aspect of the WOT, I do believe he’s not as firm once you leave the actual battlefield.

As for the rest of his record, it’s fairly clear, and as sanity says, consistent.

Want amnesty for illegal aliens, with the added bonus of giving them Social Security credits? McCain’s your guy.

Want to prevent any further oil drilling in ANWR because you’re worried about the environmental impact? Want huge new taxes on carbon dioxide emissions to combat global warming? So does McCain.

Want federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? There’s a seat for you on the “Straight Talk Express”.

ST provides a link to a Michael Medved piece pumping up McCain. I’d refer you, in response, to Deroy Murdock.

And now the MSM’s favorite Republican is basking in the glow of getting the endorsement of the New York Times and a fawning cover story from Time. None of that makes me want to rush to make sure I’m the first one to vote for McCain in our NJ primary on February 5.

I could go down the entire list, issue by issue, but you get my point. The principles that Bithead speaks of aren’t there. So let’s ask the question – what, in the long term, would be best for America, or to put it another way, would best make the nation turn to the right?

If neither McCain nor the Democratic nominee will follow conservative principles – a fairly safe conclusion – then what election outcome will best lead to a conservative renaissance? If McCain wins, do you think you’ll see a strong grass-roots move to the right among Democrats? Sure – right after I become an international sex symbol with three supermodels on each arm. But if either Clinton or Obama win, will resurgent conservatives find a strong voice and become dominant in the GOP? Almost certainly.

I’m unconvinced by the arguments that we should accept a substantial national diet of left-wing policies because the alternative far-left policies will be so much worse. I spent my formative political years in an area of central NJ where the Democrats were – and still are – overwhelmingly dominant and the GOP leadership usually provided – and still does – a meek “me-too” approach. And let’s not forget that the GOP stayed in the minority in Congress for 40 years, until in 1994 when they stood up and embraced conservatism. And they lost the House two years ago when they started to act like liberals.

The idea of taking half a loaf as better than nothing doesn’t appeal to me. And with McCain, it’s more like we’re getting only a slice or two. That leads to permanent marginalization. Does anyone honestly think that we would have ever had Ronald Reagan if Gerald Ford had won in 1976? It took an incompetent like Jimmy Carter to shock that generation of voters into making the right choice in 1980. If we get a President McCain in 2008, when do you think we’ll next get a true conservative in the Oval Office?

Permit me to quote our greatest 20th century president talking about his switch from the Democrats:

So, it was our Republican Party that gave me a political home. When I signed up for duty, I didn’t have to check my principles at the door. And I soon found out that the desire for victory did not overcome our devotion to ideals.

In short, we can’t abandon principles just to hold power.

There’s only one caveat to all of this. If we think, seriously, that four years of Hildebeest or Empty Suit will destroy America – if by 2012 we are a de facto or de jure part of the caliphate and our freedoms permanently lost all because we failed to confront islamofascism during that time – then McCain is the right choice. Even in that case, even if I am convinced to pull the lever for him in November, I’m sure as hell not going to donate a nickel or work for him for a minute.

So go ahead and accuse me of “reckless abandonment”. Call me whatever names you will. I’m not ready to support McCain yet and do not apologize for that stand.

I guess that’s the difference between us then.

You see the Iraq War as the preemininet issue.

I see the survival of America from her politicians as the preeminent issue.

Indeed, that is the difference between us. I view the Iraq war as key to Americas future, if not, survival. The wrong candidate will make everything we have done over in Iraq completely moot.

The lives of over 4,000 Americans who have died fighting in that war is the most important thing to me. Failing in Iraq will have far reaching consequences to the United States. It will become an issue that will directly affect our security, not to mention our reputation.

Actively voting for a candidate who does that doesn’t seem to make much sense for someone who is so concerned about America. Making us less safe, which could possibly lead to the deaths of more innocents, just to prove a point seems a little selfish.

Nobody is trying to change your mind. You’re an intelligent adult and know what’s at stake. It’s already been pointed out the consequences of sitting home during the 2006 elections. If you want more of the same, nothing we say will change that.

Egypt Takes Steps to Close Gaza Border
Egyptian guards with riot shields formed human chains along the Egypt-Gaza border Friday, but were unable to stop hundreds of Palestinians from rushing into Egypt after a bulldozer wrecked another section of fence along the frontier.

Maybe we should learn a lesson from the Egyptians?? – Lorica

Congress lied to us then, and they are lying now. Enough is enough. Fund the 2006 law give us secure borders and then allow the American people to be compassionate to those who are still here. But if amnesty is the new goal for these up to 20 million people, then in 20 years expect to give amnesty to 80 million, maybe 100 million. Hell, I got an idea, why not just make it a holiday, every 20 years we give amnesty to every illegal that is in country, no matter who, no matter what. If he is still alive and kicking bin Laden could then be an American citizen. – Lorica

RR signed it into law on the promise of secure borders.

Here was Reagan on the ‘86 immigration bill:

It’s true that in November 1986 Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which included more money for border police and employer sanctions. The Gipper was a practical politician who bowed that year to one of the periodic anti-immigration uprisings from the GOP’s nativist wing. But even as he signed that bill, he also insisted on a provision for legalizing immigrants already in the U.S.–that is, he supported “amnesty.”

In his signing statement, Reagan declared: “We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”

Sounds a lot like McCain, doesn’t it?

But not tempted enough to throw it away. Since he would likely be facing Hillary or Obama, I cannot help but admit he has more issues I can support then they do, so I will hold my nose and vote.

Like ST, I am concerned about the war and actually making a strategy to win.

None of the democrats have yet demonstrated they can do that.

So yea, he is not my guy, but even he is better then the choices on the left.

not padnered for his vote.

Sanity?? Did RR pander for votes when he “flip-flopped” about abortion??

I don’t feel that Krauthammer is being completely honest either.

This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill.

RR signed it into law on the promise of secure borders. We were lied to then, and we are lied to now. The 2006 secured borders act is STILL being ignored by Congress. I am sorry, but this needs to be addressed. The Government has a Constitutional mandate to keep us safe, that includes enforcing the laws that are on the books regarding illegals. The illegal worker problem has been very hard for the lower income folk of this country. They are hard working people who want to actually be paid a liveable wage for a days hard work, and it is BS to think that there are jobs out there that American’s won’t do. These same American’s are sending their sons and daughters to fight and die for another people. Why?? Because it is the right thing to do.

As far as the War on Terror goes, anyone else notice a startling lack of news coverage on this subject?? It isn’t like there is a lack of news in Iraq. It’s just that there is very little Bad News in Iraq.

The latest Press release from the US Corps of Engs.
LINK

I still believe that Iraq is a winning issue for us, and pray it will be used as such come Sept/Oct.

I am sorry, but I do not like John McCain. I do not see him as a leader, I don’t believe that he will lead this country well. It really is just how you look at it. How many here would sit out of this election if Lincoln Chaffee were the nominee??? Yeah yeah yeah, John McCain is not Lincoln Chaffee, but how many of our people move left once they get this high office?? RR did, Bush 1 most certainly did, not much of a move for him, Bush 2 absolutely did. Clinton ran as a conservative Dem, but as soon as he took the oath of office became a leftie we know today. If McCain becomes President, he will move left, which puts the mission in Iraq and the war on terror in jeopardy, and since he has been used by the Dem party so often in the past, how do we know that won’t be the case if he does become President. – Lorica