Ghost of a flea

Can I question his voting record? Particularly on USAF funding and recapitalisation? And then use that to question his judgment? McCain is all the things you say, but he's also no friend of the Air Force at the exact time that it is doing some very heavy lifting.

A certain amount of the surge's lower casualty rates is directly attributable to theater airlift substituting for ground convoys. 275 air missions fly every single day in support of OEF and OIF. Roughly 105-120 of those are airlift -- moving supplies by air so that Army road convoys have fewer opportunities to get their asses blown up by IEDs. 45 of those 275 missions are refueling -- and USAF is desperate to retire its 1950s-vintage KC-135s, if only Congress will approve funding for a replacement. Guess who led the charge to nix the 767 tank lease several years ago.

He may be a war hero and an honourable man, but he loves to grandstand and play the maverick, and he has done so several times to the detriment of Air Force readiness and capabilities. I wouldn't want him in the White House for any reason.

But of course. His policies, voting record and temperament are all relevant to his fitness for the presidency. I think people can and should use the latter as part of their gut check in supporting a candidate. Certainly McCain's reported prickliness and bad partisanship are going to be relevant to many voters - including and especially those Republicans who have nominated themselves as the base of the party. My favourite summary of this issue is from James Lileks:

"I like John McCain. He seems like the sort of guy you could have a beer with, right up to the moment where he smashes the bottle on the table and jams it in your face over something you said six years ago."

What I could not abide was Anne Coulter saying a decorated veteran has no honour, recent assertions McCain was pretending to be in solitary confinement while the North Vietnamese put him up in a hotel with two prostitutes and to my mind worst of all the smears to the effect his family are multi-generational civil servants, this last from supporters of man whose main recommendations for office are his having worked for the government of Massachusetts and the freaking Olympic committee.

To quote Mitt Romney:

"My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."

He added: "One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

Because having the luxury to quit your job and tour around Iowa for your dad's electoral campaign is to Mitt Romney the moral equivalent of serving as a Marine in Iraq (until, of course, he is called on it and once again claims his words do not mean what they plainly meant). He might even believe this is true. If that is the case he is not only a opportunist he is a moral cretin. What sickens me are the pundits who, having sided with Romney at the eleventh hour, pretend to believe him. Or his life as a "hunter", or his having always been pro-life, or his being a Reagan Republican, etc. etc. None of this makes McCain's record or temperament better than it is, but it makes hollow all the special pleading and selective criticism necessary to support any of the alternatives including and especially those Republicans threatening to become "suicide voters".

Anne Coulter's throw away line about the man's honour is what bothered me the most. She made what was even for her a slip of the tongue but her public persona requires she remain adamant about anything that comes out of her mouth. Support Hilary Clinton over John McCain, by all means, but the orgiastic hatred of the man by people prepared to line up behind Mitt Romney is utterly baffling to me. This last week has accomplished something I would not have thought was possible: I have come to respect not only the decency and good intentions of Mike Huckabee's supporters but, given the alternatives, now think he would make a passable Vice President.

Also...

We both have the luxury of not having a say in the matter but I think Hugh Hewitt's question still stands:

If John McCain is the Republican party candidate for President would you vote for him over Senator Clinton or Senator Obama?

I wasn't aware of the Coulter business, but ever since she got her ass fired from NRO I have stopped paying attention to whatever she says. Same with Steyn since he started up his "demography of doom" incantation several years ago. Although now I may have to at least pitch in to stick a pin in the various HRCs of the land.

The current Republican field is so lacklustre that I could not imagine myself voting for any of them. If I were not taking it seriously and wanted heads to explode on both sides of the aisle, I'd vote for Senator Clinton. But if I were to vote for the least offensive candidate in a thoroughly unimpressive lot, it would be Senator Obama.

My main objection to John McCain is that he is Tony Blair redux. Right on the rhetoric and necessity of fighting the war, but concurrently moving heaven and earth to gut and emasculate the military apparatus doing the actual fighting.

I would rather vote for a guy that is directly opposed than somebody at war with himself, pursuing a schizoid policy of backing the fight but offering all support short of real aid.

I think the Tony Blair comparison is apt. For all the Churchillian rhetoric - as welcome as it was - his government and its continuation in George Brown has bled the Army white and gutted the Royal Navy. It is inexcusable; an historic catastrophe.

Credit belongs to Ben. He was the first to characterise McCain as Tony Blair, after I had enumerated some of my objections.

I'll take it. But let me just say that I was characterizing your objections to McCain, Chris, not endorsing them in full.

He's been a bit much of a deficit hawk on the air force, sure, but he's not that bad...

Post-FRED! I was inclined to say it did not matter who won in either party, they are all soft on the war and they are all socialists.

Hugh Hewitt has brought me round to thinking any Republican would be better than any Democrat. No matter how badly handled aspects of the war have been (coddling with our Saudi enemies, allowing Iran to get away with murder, an effectively undefended southern border, etc. etc.) the fact is under Clinton or Obama the situation would only get worse. Or rather, even worse than it would under McCain or Romney.

These people honestly believe the real threat is talk radio and bad weather.

I was inclined to say it did not matter who won in either party, they are all soft on the war and they are all socialists.

I would agree entirely, but also take it a step further. It seems to me that the Republic and indeed, every Western power is very nearly beyond redemption. Regardless of what the leadership thinks, there is a sizeable and growing half of the population that do not think liberty is worth defending, overseas or here. The prosperity of our citizens, the ubiquity of our products, our military, economic and social success -- all of the ingredients that make Western nations great places to live are now considered evil and verboten by our own peoples.

So I don't consider it to be a matter of great import whether the citizenry choose Romulus Augustulus or Constantine XI Palaeologus to lead them. The end result is the same.

That said I understand your reasoning, any Republican would be better than any Democrat. I expect the Republicans will be able to temporarily disguise America's inability to remain cohesive in a long-term conflict. But I also expect there are enemies out there who will note this, and simply recognise it for what it is. An America that cannot remain cohesive and rally itself to fight long-term is not capable of guaranteeing anyone else's security.

I will bet you that at some point in the near future, America's security guarantees will be tested, and an American President (of either party) will sell out the hapless victim because shedding American blood to resolve another country's centuries-long problem will be enormously unpopular. My money would be on Israel, for starters. It wouldn't take much to get a lot of people to back away from the idea of sending an enormous invasion force to keep Arabs from slaughtering Jews.

And lest anyone think I am getting down on America, the same could be said for any other Western country extant. We will probably not see an Islamic caliphate on these shores, but we will not do an awful lot to prevent it on anyone else's, either.