McCain on the Home Front

From the New York Times.

SURPRISE, Ariz., Feb. 13 — The chairman of the local Republican Party here in the most populous county in Arizona has in his possession a bright yellow button with a black line slashed through the name McCain.

“I don’t wear it out very often,” said the chairman, Lyle Tuttle of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, in a slightly sheepish coda to a 20-minute vituperation about the state’s senior senator, served up from his living room chair.

“I think those who do not support Senator McCain,” Mr. Tuttle continued, “if they could just get the word out and help people to understand what has happened with him, we could have an impact.”

If you are wondering why conservatives are unhappy with McCain, here's a pretty good summary. 

They have been angered by Mr. McCain’s opposition to tax cuts backed by the White House; by his immigration position, which places him on a collision course with other Republicans; by his moves to close a loophole on gun purchases; and by his vote for the fetal stem cell research bill.

Comments

[netrootsdemocrat]

The extreme wing of the Republican Party in Arizona has, on the surface maybe, gained control of the party structure but has little influence in actual votes. Wasn't it the Arizona Republican Assembly which said back in the mid-nineties they were going to take over the Arizona Republican Party? They weren't exactly McCain-partisans, now were they? So why does this come as a shock to some people?

Btw, no matter what anyone does or says or thinks, John McCain, if he's still alive by 2008, will smoke the competition in Arizona's early primary. By thirty points.

[Ann]

I posted the following on another site...but since the shoe fits(with minor adjustments...)

Should McCain be the nominee, just how much fodder will Haney (he had an interview in a lib mag, Tuttle and the like give to the Dems? And what if, in the end, the Dems prevail? Won’t Mr. Haney and Mr. Tuttle be complicit in the Dems victory by offering information that allowed them to attack? Don’t for one minute think this little brouhaha will be buried; it will be front page, center column with color. It will be on every televised hit piece shown in every burg of America. The New York Times does have some readers left and archives last forever.

Supporting your candidate, having dialogue about the highs and lows of one over the other, that sort of thing is what makes campaigns what they are. But these guys have loaded the guns for the Dems and pointed it for them, right at McCain. How much more damaging is that to a Republican than having your name on a Dem website? It does seem one sided.

The drama of the Haney/Tuttle saga will not end well for anyone. Those who follow their lead will find an ugly end, too. Not necessarily for them personally, but as a whole. Their words and actions have gone beyond kiss and make-up, should McCain prevail or not, the damage is done and it is deep. The party is hurt; this is not healthy or beneficial to anyone. The duplicity of allowable behavior, based on who and what you are, who and what the other guy/gal is, seems so absurd as to wonder why it has so much vengeance?

Sen. McCain has not been the conservative voice all appreciate but playing to the enemy seems as bad as any of his real or perceived transgressions. Saying “no” to the interview couldn’t have been that hard.

[Travis]

Great job Ann.

Haney, Tuttle, and Co. would do well to heed what Ann is saying.

Using the Party's time, resources and influence against one of our own will only result in our own defeat - at every level.

We must laser focus on building a foundation of overall principles and specific objectives that are positive. We then need to use every resource to promote these and appeal to voters.

We need every moment, every resource and every Republican to accomplish this - starting yesterday. Any amount of effort spent shooting our own, is effort wasted and, as Ann said, it could be irreversible.

It's not hard to imagine that this kind of inconsistent intolerance and in-fighting is putting a smile on Democrat faces. I guess if your not adverse to making Janet cackle on her throne, keep it up.

[BobH]

Attacking a member of your own party in such a manner is destructive, self-defeating, and evidence of what the rest of us hate about the far right.

How much Tuttle is out of touch with reality is evidenced by the fact that Senator McCain got 79% of the vote in Mr. Tuttle's county the last time he stood for election.

Who represents the people of Maricopa -- Tuttle and his little gang of wackos, or McCain and his 79%?

[Mr. Conservative]

Look, I'm not so keen on Hainey, Tuttle, ect.. however they do have their place in the party. I too am not a big fan of Sen. McCain, but I try to keep my message from being so personal. My opposition of McCain for president is due to the following issues:

1. Tax Cuts - I'm a supply-sider and McCain just doesn't seem to get it that cutting tax rates produces more revenue to the government and allows all of us more financial freedom.

2. Radical Enviromentalisam - To me the whole "green movement" is out of control and is just a front for anti-capitalism movement. It's also a religion for many. Science is not without it's flaws and not everyone agrees on what the alamist radical enviro's believe.

3. "Torture" - Anyone watch "24"? We should be able to go "Jack Bauer" on enemy combantants ( See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant )if that's what situation calls for. At the very least, placing them in a room with the temperature at 50 degrees and making them listen to the "Red Hot Chili Peppers" sounds fine to me. Sen. McCain believes this is "torture"

4. Gang of 14 - Enough said.

My opposition to McCain is not personal, it's due to these four examples ( I could put up more )of where he is on issues that I care too much about along with many other issues.

[BobH]

Mr. Conservative: A fair number of people might agree with you, and I would find no fault with Mr. Tuttle if he were to make the same points in a quiet conversation with a trusted, discreet friend.

For a party official to make such comments in a media interview, however, is inexcusable. He should be removed from his position, but I doubt it will happen.

[RonH]

At some point. someone was going to have to make the very valid point that Sen. McCain has alienated much of his base. His "numbers" in the last election reflect primarily name recognition/money/incumbancy only. Any pollster will tell you that a majority of voters vote name familiarity and not the political track record of the candidate. The majority of voters haven't a clue where John McCain stands on fundamental Conservative issues. Frankly I'm not sure either and I am what might be called a "Political Junkie".

I laud anyone who will go against the party machine and speak honestly their feelings about the ordained candidate. Simply being the party favorite does not mean McCain is worthy of continued support.It only means he has the "power brokers" behind him, and for obvious self interests.

[BobH]

Dream on. 79% is massive -- it ain't name recognition. Nobody gets that much of the vote without being tremendously popular -- it doesn't matter that he's alienated some of the fringe.

The issue, though, is the party chairman doing the Democrats' job for them.

[RonH]

Come on BobH,
Just who has McCain ever been up against for his seat in Arizona? He's there because he's all the party has and thats who voters get to choose from. Popular? Well it seems he wasn't that popular nationally in 2000, and that is what this current discussion is all about. Arizona alone doesn't elect the President and I hear from too many in other states who simply think McCain is a RINO and will not support him this time either.

And are you so much in favor of the man that you don't realize that the results of this last mid-term was in part attributed to the Republicans like John McCain? The bleeding is not over until the party recognizes that it has to get back to basics and Senator McCain is an anathema to that effort.

In 2008 the Democrats are going to have the same advantage the Republicans were given by the voters, twice ie. control of Congress and the White House. The big difference will be that the Democrats know how to make maximum use of that situation to further their agenda. The Republicans got run over by the Democrats even when they (Republicans) were in full control. Pitiful, and certainly not a group that will easily earn that opportunity again in the short term.

Let's revisit this in say 18 months. If I'm wrong I'll own up to it.

[BobH]

>the results of this last mid-term was in part attributed to the Republicans like John McCain

By whom?

Putting aside the question of McCain (and, by the way, I'm not "so much in favor" of him -- I would willingly support Giuliani and have no problem with Romney, as long as he doesn't go too far in his pursuit of the social conservatives), you ignore the core issue here, which is not McCain -- it's Tuttle.

[Ann]

Two issues are at play here:
1) The actions of ELECTED party leaders, (while holding office) aimed at negatively impacting a fellow Republican who has declared his candidacy (or exploratory committee) for President in articles of nationally distributed and widely read publications.
2) The double standard of who can and can’t follow their own convictions. It has become very apparent that the Haney/Tuttle mentality is definitely of the do as I say, not as I do sort of thing.
If Haney and Tuttle want to be able to do as they want and say what they please, they need to step down. Then they are just Republicans with an opinion and are free to shout them from the roof tops. But, now they are using their elected office, and all that brings with it, to demean a Republican candidate. That is wrong. As long as they carry a title as a representative of the party, they need to keep their mouths shut and their opinions to themselves!
It doesn’t matter who the person is, now it is McCain, but what if it was someone you liked? Would you want the party leaders to be able to use their position to affect the public perception of the candidate? I know how upset people were about the CD 8 fiasco… What they are doing is blatantly wrong and an abuse of their position. I am not necessarily a McCain fan, to be honest I am not too excited about any of them, but I am a strong believer in the GOP. This hurts the party much more than it will ever hurt McCain.
If Randy Pullen wants to prove he is a man of character and doesn’t play favorites or carry a double standard in assessing the correctness of behavior, he needs to take these two to the woodshed. Let them know, in no uncertain terms, it doesn’t matter how much anyone (including Pullen) dislikes any particular candidate, the Arizona party leadership will not be the wedge used by the liberal media to undermine any candidate. If they cannot abide by that, resign immediately.

[Tom]

Were can I get a button?

[Faith]

Mr. Conservative:

Your four points are an excellent primer on why this country needs a practical conservative like McCain in the White House.

1. Tax cuts - McCain does understand the benefits of cutting taxes and has voted for them before. However, he's not so deaf, dumb and blind as to think it is the panacea to every fiscal problem. He recognized that extending the tax cuts during a time of war was folly and rightfully so.

2. Radical Environmentalism - What?! Since when has McCain been a radical environmentalist? I'm completely at a loss as to how you come to this conclusion. Did he chain himself to a tree at some point and I missed it?

3. "Torture" - Did he watch 24? Son, he was *on* the show. He recognizes that it's a work for fiction and that the world doesn't work that way. McCain knows torture - far more than probably everyone else here - and he knows just 'well' it works. It's a well known fact that the Vietnamese tortured him for days to get the names of his shipmates. What they got was the names of the Green Bay Packers front line. McCain knows firsthand that torture does not produce good intel. Thankfully, he doesn't get his policy positions from a TV show.

4. Gang of 14 - Working with other members of the Senate to get work done instead of invoking the "nuclear" option to destroy 230 years of tradition or keep the government at a virtual standstill to score partisan politcal points? I'm sure that's going to turn off all those voters who long for the partisan showdowns of the Gingrich/Clinton era and don't want their representatives to do the job we pay them to do. However, most of the country is sick of that nonsense.

[RonH]

Ann,
"If Haney and Tuttle want to be able to do as they want and say what they please, they need to step down."
Have you ever considered that they may be speaking for a considerable percentage of Republicans in this State? Of course not. You probably believe that the "power brokers" get to be the only ones who define party agendas and everyone else are simply funding sources and precinct workers who have to keep their lips sealed. So much for "inclusion".

As you may have discerned, I am not a fan of John McCain, but more importantly I am strongly considering changing my party affiliation as the Republican Party in Arizona and nationwide are so far off course I hardly recognize it any more. No doubt John McCain is a party leader, therefore he has to take his share of responsibility for the disillusionment of many with the partys direction and failures.

[RonH]

Ann,
"If Haney and Tuttle want to be able to do as they want and say what they please, they need to step down."
Have you ever considered that they may be speaking for a considerable percentage of Republicans in this State? Of course not. You probably believe that the "power brokers" get to be the only ones who define party agendas and everyone else are simply funding sources and precinct workers who have to keep their lips sealed. So much for "inclusion".

As you may have discerned, I am not a fan of John McCain, but more importantly I am strongly considering changing my party affiliation as the Republican Party in Arizona and nationwide are so far off course I hardly recognize it any more. No doubt John McCain is a party leader, therefore he has to take his share of responsibility for the disillusionment of many with the partys direction and failures.

[Ann]

Actually Ron, I believe the opposite of what you suppose I think. I do not think the power brokers, as you call them, get to be the only one with ideas and influence. To the contrary I think the party is made up of all sorts who have varying degrees of conservative ideology and belief systems. It is the cumulative strength and "big tent" that makes it the Grand Old Party. The people of the party should set the agenda and tell our leadership what it is we desire and demand from them. The powerbrokers I see are the Haney, Tuttle crowd. They will dictate the hows and whys and their word supercedes law. Trying to remove elected PC's without the act of recall certainly does violate the legal grounds of their positions but they feel a moral authority to do it regardless of the legal right or power. The PC's who endorsed Janet were just as wrong as Haney and Tuttle, but two wrongs do not make a right.

I also believe that when you acept a position that is representative of the party as a whole, your actions should not be limited to a certain element or sub-group of the party.

The actions of an individual, with no larger obligation to the party as a whole, can be free to speak their mind. Whether I agree with Mr.'s Haney & Tuttle or not is beside the point. There are many Republicans who do and many who don't. They represent them all and their actions should show it.

[RonH]

Not being argumentative here, just would be interested in which group within the party they (Haney & Tuttle) are speaking for "....many Republicans who do and many who don't." Who currently makes up the majority, the "do's or the "don'ts"?

That is my whole thrust regarding this issue. Just exactly when and who makes the decision as to the partys "flag bearer"? I really don't think Sen. McCain asked the Arizona Republican Party if he could run as a candidate for President in 2008. I think he made that decision solely within his "own" organization during the exploratory process with full expectation that once done, at least the state that he represents would follow in lock-step and throw their full support behind his decision.I have doubt that a representative portion of that AzRepubParty was even consulted in the decision. But as I said before, I also feel certain he would have the "power brokers and money chests" onboard before he arrived at his decision to run once again.

[Ann]

Ron, how do we know the majority opinion? We hold elections of candidates called primaries, whereby the registered voters get to tally up for their respective favorites and the guy with the most votes at the end of the day... he is the majority favorite. (use of "guy" and "he" to be gender neutral in that there are no women candidates at the moment on the R side)

Until then, the party leaders should work to build the party not tear down a candidate. A strong and effective party will get out the vote with a belief that the voting public has a brain to think for themselves and can actually formulate an opinion without the help of the state party, county chair, or local LD chair telling them what to think and how to vote.

If a citizen decides to take the risk of running for office, as is his/her right without the need for admission into the club by "power brokers", then their baggage is his to carry and he will reap what he has sewn. Trusting the voters to know the facts or have them laid out for them during the election is part of the process. If you doubt the effectiveness of the electorate and believe they need the help of greater minds and wisdom to know what is best for them.... well, that is not called democracy.

[Mr. Conservative]

Faith,
Nice try on trying to "twist" my four policy issues I have with Sen. McCain. My four points are proof of why McCain will not win the Republican presidential primary. See my rebuttals below.

1. Tax Cuts - "He's not so deaf, dumb and blind as to think it is a panacea to every fiscal problem" - How about the "problem" of funding the government without burdening the American people and our economy? Here, how about some proof to back up my claim:

http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/02-06-07.shtml .

The proof is in the numbers. While you're reading that over, make sure to look to the right side of the page under the heading "Research Articles" and see the proof.

2. Radical Environmentalism - Here you go, some more proof to back up my point:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/13/233753.shtml

Plus McCain's vote against ANWAR is something I really have a problem with since we're getting 60% of our petro from over-seas. See for more information:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/19/anwar.vote.ap/

3. "Torture" - Mom, I watch "24". Senator John McCain (R-AZ) makes a cameo appearance in the "1:00 PM - 2:00 PM" episode of Season 5. He has a non-speaking role as an unidentified bureaucrat who delivers a file folder to Audrey Raines (Kim Raver), and can be seen in the "split screen" for about six seconds beginning at 1:32:22. As for torture, listening to the "Red Hot Chili Peppers" in a room at 50 degrees is torture? What should we do to interrogate them? Read versus in the Koran with them and make them feel loved and accepted? Gimme a break!! At the very least, I'd make them listen to "Metallica", "Iron Maiden", "Judas Priest" and maybe some "Slayer". We need to be tough with these people, I'm not saying we need to nearly drown them to make them talk, but I don't have an objection to making them uncomfortable with using heavy metal music and lowering them temperature to make them talk. Sen. McCain does have a problem with this and I disagree with him, as do most Republicans.

4. Gang of 14 - "Working with other members of the Senate to get work done instead of invoking the "nuclear" option to destroy 230 years of tradition or keep the government at a virtual standstill to score partisan political points?" Faith, how about a straight up or down vote on the judicial nominees? That's how it was done in the senate until Senator Tom Daschle decided that they and the other Democrats could filibuster Pres. Bush's judicial nominees.