The debate over today's presidential debate

comes down to talk vs. actions.

Barack Obama's strength is his words, and he believes the American people desire to hear the words of their presidential contenders. He intends to proceed with the debate, regardless of progress on the current crisis, in order to demonstrate that he can discuss our country's issues intelligently and masterfully.

John McCain's strength is his actions, and he believes the American people desire to see what their presidential contenders would actually do in crisis. He believes talk is cheap if it's not backed up by actions. And he intends to proceed with the debate only after dealing with this crisis, because his priority is actions before words.

Which would you rather have in the White House? A man who tells you what he believes, or a man who shows you?

Balancing demands

The McCain campaign faces a difficult choice.

Do they continue to keep Sarah Palin in a cocoon, refusing to allow reporters to ask any questions of her and, in the process, feeding the perception that she's not ready for prime time?

Or do they allow her to take press questions with the knowledge that the press will treat her at least as contemptibly (if not more so) as they have for the first week of her national political career?

If she's as sharp as I think she is, I vote for No. 2. The first option will be fine for the "base," but will do nothing for the rest of undecided America. The second option will continue to expose the press for the left-wing hacks they are, while revealing more about the character and skills of the vice presidential nominee.

And if those skills are not as high as I think? Well, then bad on John McCain.

McCain's understanding of the world

John McCain is no Barack Obama. He's not photogenic. He's not a spectacular speaker. His war injuries make him look robotic at times.

And from a purely superficial standpoint, I worry a little bit that too many Americans might make their decisions about the presidency as if it's a beauty contest, instead of looking at the lives and listening to the hearts of the men who want to be the 44th president of the United States.

But I hope there was at least one undecided voter out there tonight who heard John McCain's heart. I hope they heard loud and clear that John McCain has a clear understanding of the world, an understanding garnered by years in the military, years in the government and -- most importantly -- years of watching what war can do to a family, a community and a country:

We face many dangerous threats in this dangerous world, but I'm not afraid of them. I'm prepared for them. I know how the military works, what it can do, what it can do better, and what it shouldn't do. I know how the world works. I know the good and the evil in it. I know how to work with leaders who share our dreams of a freer, safer and more prosperous world, and how to stand up to those who don't. I know how to secure the peace.

My friends, when I was 5 years old, a car pulled up in front of our house. A Navy officer rolled down the window and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. I rarely saw my father again for four years. My grandfather came home from that same war exhausted from the burdens he had borne and died the next day. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home with me.

I hate war. It's terrible beyond imagination.

I'm running for president to keep the country I love safe and prevent other families from risking their loved ones in war as my family has. I will draw on all my experience with the world and its leaders, and all the tools at our disposal -- diplomatic, economic, military, and the power of our ideals -- to build the foundations for a stable and enduring peace.

Do you get it? John McCain would keep us out of war if it was at all possible, because he understands the costs of war, but he also understands that war is sometimes necessary to sustain the freedoms that most of us take for granted.

Barack Obama would keep us out of war regardless of the situation, because he doesn't understand the impacts of restraining us from a war we must fight. He believes all war is bad, but has no basis for judging the competing costs of aggression or pacifism.

Breaking news from the O

McCain hugs Palin upon his arrival in Twin Cities

With the way the media has covered Sarah Palin, I half-expected that headline to be followed by some sexual harassment allegation.

It's Palin

Here's the official McCain press release.

Palin or Pawlenty

I agree with this reasoning from Lisa Schiffren on National Review today, particularly her thoughts on Mitt Romney:

Pundits are making the wrong call when they look for the GOP vice-presidential candidate who will be best in policy in debates with Biden, or who will be a more useful attack dog. To be sure, those are important tasks. And it is true that Mitt Romney could do them very well — and that he spots Biden a bunch of I.Q. points, an education and a record of accomplishment. But can Mitt successfully empathize with the middle class for the duration of this campaign and after? He couldn't do it in the primaries. It isn't who he is.

Because Biden is essentially a mediocrity, McCain has more leeway than expected to choose someone who is not entirely prime-time ready. We are back to the two governors who are young, totally real, quintessentially middle class family guys, and, like Joe Biden, up from working class backgrounds: Sarah Palin of Alaska and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. She is less sophisticated, but is a walking testament to American middle class pluck and achievement. And she will pull some female Democrat voters in. He is smart, good on policy, and has an excellent, first-generation-to-college, up by the bootstraps story. Because they really are middle-class Americans, middle-class American voters are far more likely to believe it when either of them express empathy and a desire to tackle the nation's economic anxieties. That will be the campaign's central issue, and there is no faking it.

Romney's money and his sometimes-robotic persona are likely to be a stumbling block in this regard and, in my opinion, his economic credentials are not sufficient to overcome those issues.

The only hesitation I would have in Schiffren's opinion about potential VP selections is regarding Pawlenty. The times I have heard him speak, my thoughts have been: solid on policy, and a great antidote to insomnia. The man is a bore, and like it or not, John McCain has to think about personality as much as he does about policy.

Why? Because Lisa Schiffren is right: one (perhaps the) central issue of the campaign will be the economy. McCain has already demonstrated with his how-many-houses-do-I-have gaffe that he's vulnerable, and he needs a likable and genuine person in the No. 2 slot to help him reach the middle class that the Democrats so want to persuade.

That the surge worked is irrelevant

So the Oregonian editorial page would have us believe. Even though it might be true, they say, that John McCain was right about the surge and Barack Obama was wrong:

...it is also beside the point. The adoption last year of Gen. Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy, as well as the infusion of additional U.S. troops, seems to have improved conditions in Iraq enormously. [Seems to have? Why the qualification?] But now the extra troops have gone home, Iraqi security forces have taken the lead in operations that have made neighborhoods and cities safer, and the national government is more or less functional, despite numerous daunting challenges. And barring a dramatic setback, that's the situation that the next American president will face when he takes office in January.

What matters isn't whether John McCain was right last year when he supported the Petraeus approach. What matters now is whether he or Barack Obama will do the best thing for the overextended military and for the country of Iraq. Further, there's a linkage between the United States' approach to Iraq and its approach to Afghanistan, where more troops are urgently needed to keep the country from slipping back into chaos or extremism.

There's just one problem with this selective approach: If Barack Obama had his way, the surge never would have taken place. More of our troops would be dead. Many more Iraqis would be dead. The Iraqi government and security forces would not have made the strides they have made. And al-Qaeda in Iraq would be in a much greater position of power.

So no, it is not "beside the point." It is entirely the point. It shows that John McCain's instincts about the military -- shaped by decades in the military and dealing with defense issues in government -- are correct. It shows that Barack Obama's instincts -- shaped by three years in the Senate and his time as a Chicago "community organizer" -- will lead to disaster.

And if you don't believe me, check out today's Washington Post editorial about the Iraqi prime minister's supposed support for Obama's troop withdrawal timeline:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."

Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.

And how does Obama respond to this concern about a rapid troop drawdown negatively impacting peace in the region? He implies that he couldn't care less:

Mr. Obama's response is that, as president, he would have to weigh Iraq's needs against those of Afghanistan and the U.S. economy. He says that because Iraq is "a distraction" from more important problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed. Yet he also says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future." What if Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?

The editorial continues with the answer to that last question, which also answers the Oregonian's editorial -- Obama has shown no proclivity to alter his strategy, but rather is hell-bent on troop withdrawal regardless of what actually happens on the ground:

Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months.

Oh, and as a final point about Afghanistan, the Post notes:

...there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

So Barack Obama is a presidential candidate who refuses to acknowledge he was wrong about the surge (other than wiping his previous statements of opposition from the campaign website); who talks repeatedly about a U.S. timeline rather than one dictated by Iraqis; who speaks of Iraq as an irritant that can be swatted aside; and who has shown a rather George Bush-like interest in maintaining his position regardless of the facts on the ground.

Gee, I feel so hopeful.

Quote of the Day: 'enthusiasm' for McCain

National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru, responding to a reader who expressed reservations about John McCain because of the latter's lukewarm stance on life issues, hits the nail on the head:

Short answer: McCain needs 270 electoral votes, not 270 enthusiastic electoral votes; and pro-lifers need him to veto the Freedom of Choice Act, not to veto it enthusiastically.

For a longer answer, let me draw an analogy to the civil-rights movement. (I know pro-choice folks hate this analogy, but I’m not using it here to draw a moral equivalence.) John F. Kennedy does not seem to have cared much about the issue; it was a check-the-box question for him. (Bobby Kennedy was reportedly a different story.) It would nonetheless have been a setback for the civil-rights movement if the Democrats had nominated someone who wasn’t at least nominally committed to the cause. And one reason the civil-rights movement was able to get an ally as president was that it did not insist that the president had to have an emotional attachment to the cause.

Would I prefer it if McCain brought to the life issues the passion of Sam Brownback? Sure. But a country capable of electing a Brownback president wouldn’t need him.

Why I will support McCain in November

Conservatives have their knickers in a knot over the possibility that John McCain will be the Republican nominee for president in November -- and not without reason.

In a response to this post, Coyote spelled out many of the reasons why McCain leaves us cold:

McCain has said (though he is arguing that he didn't the evidence and historical record seem to counter his claims) that justice Alito is too conservative.

That is a huge deal killer with me.

It's already clear that I don't agree with McCain voting against the Bush tax cuts.

It's already clear that I don't agree with McCain that we should tie our hands behind our backs with regard to aggressive interrogation techniques.

It's already clear that I don't (really really) agree with McCain and his approach (or non-approach) to ANWR and global warming.

It's already clear that I don't agree with him on the first amendment...or the second.

It's already clear that he is diametrically opposed to my position on illegal immigration.

But the one area I might hold my nose and vote for a bad Republican is if I think he will appoint solid judges.

Take that point away and add in there his propensity to "stick it" to conservatives whenever he can (on all the above issues) then I have to believe that he probably would, on purpose, appoint a liberal judge.

I understand completely. But I'm just saying: if it comes down to McCain or Hillary Clinton (or, for that matter, Barack Obama), are you really prepared to pass on McCain and unleash a Democrat in the White House?

Instead of McCain's willingness to support Justice Roberts, his concerns (if true) about Alito, and the possibility of a squish like David Souter or Anthony Kennedy, you'll get more blatant in-your-face judicial legislation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg or John Paul Stevens. Knowing that someone will appoint a Supreme Court justice in the next four years, would you rather have a young Ginsburg on the court for the next 30 years, or a young Kennedy?

Instead of McCain's opposition to tax cuts based on the lack of concurrent spending cuts (or, in some stories, based on their benefit to the rich), you'll get the elimination of all Bush tax cuts, and tax increases on everyone -- especially the business community and the wealthy people who have come out of and/or created that business community (and who already carry the overwhelming majority of the tax burden). That doesn't even go into all the government programs that Democrats would expand/create under a liberal president.

Instead of McCain's opposition to waterboarding (which, I think, good people can disagree about) and a toughness on the war in general, you'll get the release of all prisoners of war from Guantanamo and elsewhere, a general willingness to follow the United Nations' corrupt and ineffective foreign policy prescriptions, not to mention a squishyness on the WOT by thinking we can sweet-talk our way into the hearts and minds of al-Qaeda followers.

Instead of McCain's opposition to ANWR and support for solutions against global warming, you'll get crippling taxes on traditional energy firms, devastating regulations on American business, and a belief that America is solely to blame for any climate issues without considering the myriad global players.

Instead of McCain's squishy record on the first and second amendments, you'll get the return of the Fairness Doctrine in the hopes of destroying conservative media, the implementation of thought police measures similar to those in Canada, and far more extreme gun control measures than McCain's relatively innocuous remedies such as gun locks and gun show background checks.

And, instead of McCain's position on illegal immigration (which, as noted here, is not what the base may like, but is very consistent with 25 years of GOP presidents) and his willingness to secure the border, you'll get not just defacto amnesty, but outright amnesty -- families who are brought here because one family member is already here, legal or not; a clear path to citizenship regardless of legal status; and, the availability of every government program under the sun, regardless of a person's legal status or need.

(Self-admitted caveat: I have difficulty arguing the immigration issue because I think I am closer to McCain's position than, say, Huckabee's. I also note that the Democrats have more immigration specifics on their websites than McCain by a longshot, so it's unclear exactly what a President McCain would do.)

Oh, and this doesn't even cover the protection that would be offered to innocent pre-born children under McCain vs. either of the Democrats.

To conclude, I'm not arguing that conservatives shouldn't be wary of McCain as the nominee or the president -- indeed, we should stay on top of him in the same way that we pushed back on President Bush over issues such as Harriet Miers. But there are so many differences between McCain and a Democrat that I think it's suicidal for conservatives to sit out the election because McCain is flawed.

To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, you go for the White House with the candidate you have, not with the candidate you might want or wish to have at a later time.

What he said

I agree with Jonah Goldberg:

...I disagree with the overwhelming impression that supporting McCain is some kind of lunacy. I have serious disagreements with McCain. I think it is entirely right to disagree with him on all sorts of issues and entirely legitimate to think he would be bad for the party, bad for conservatism or bad for the country to have him as the nominee or the next president...

But this disaster talk leaves me cold. McCain wouldn't be my first pick. Then again, none of the candidates were really my first pick. But I think the notion that, variously, conservatism, the country or the party are doomed if he's the nominee or the president is pretty absurd.

I'm not excited by a McCain candidacy -- in fact, I'm unhappy about it in some ways -- but unless something shocking happens, he'll be the Republican nominee. Yes, I know he loves to poke conservatives in the eye when we're not looking, but he'll still be better than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. By a long shot. Not even close. This is not a case of choosing between, say, Clinton and Joe Lieberman, where the only difference is their war policy. There are dozens of reasons for conservatives to support McCain over the Democratic nominee.

If I lived in South Carolina...

...I'd actually have a say in the Republican nomination for president. But since I live in Oregon, where our primary election is May 20, I have absolutely nothing to contribute (beyond my cash). So until they adopt my idea for a fair primary system, I have to pretend.

So who would I vote for? Honestly, I don't know the answer. If you put a gun to my head, I'd consider either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson, but that's due in equal part to their strengths vs. their opponents' weaknesses. Much of my support for both men lies in a line from a recent Townhall.com column by Al Cardenas, in which he talked about the broad-based coalition that brought the Reagan victories of the 1980s:

That coalition rested on a three legged stool, a message that the Republican party would support a strong national defense, a strong economy and strong families.
. . .
Yet today . . . some Republicans are considering junking the Reagan model and experimenting with a different approach. That approach comes down to one word – "electability." "Electability," a quality with little ideological meaning, has become a buzz word for surrogates seeking to make the case for a candidate who fails to unite our party and bring together all Republicans, including social conservatives.

I agree with this assessment, and Romney and Thompson come closest to uniting those three legs of the party.

For all my previous concerns about Romney, I've also seen things I like. As an evangelical voter, I have read and considered the idea that I should not consider Romney because of his faith, but I find those arguments short-sighted at best. We are not electing the nation's chaplain, we are electing its president, and I see nothing in Mitt Romney that suggests his faith differs from my own in the things it values in public life.

I also find myself sympathetic to Romney because of the, um, attention he's received over his faith -- attention that no other candidate has experienced. No one insisted that Joe Lieberman explain his Judaism when he ran with Al Gore in 2000. No one has demanded that Barack Obama explain his faith traditions, despite the Muslim influences of his childhood. No one has asked Hillary Clinton to shed light on how her faith might guide her in the Oval Office (and when she's broached the subject, the only thing preventing it from being a disaster is the media's willingness to pretend it didn't hear). Only Mitt Romney has received such demands. Mike Huckabee is catching up in that regard, particularly with requests (which he has refused) for his old sermons; but because his faith is a more mainstream flavor, I still think Romney stands alone in that category.

There is one significant exception to this statement, however. I reject the idea that a person's faith (or lack thereof) cannot be considered as one factor as he (or she) pursues the presidency. I believe that helped sink John Kerry in 2004 -- even though he was a self-proclaimed Catholic, voters of that faith identified better with the values of his opponent.

Perhaps the climate will change in the future, but if a Muslim ran for the presidency, his faith would be a key (and likely campaign-ending) factor in the race. And Americans would have every right (and, I would argue, obligation) to explore how his faith would impact his presidency. And if that is true for a Muslim candidate, it should be true of all faiths. I had been thinking this for a while, and then a few weeks ago on National Review Online, Andy McCarthy put into words what I had been thinking:

If a Muslim were running for high office, even if (however unlikely this seems) he never mentioned his religion or gave public indications of how he understood its doctrines, I would want to know his interpretation of jihad, and his views about such things as whether his first allegiance was to the Muslim umma or the U.S., whether sharia should be the law of the land, the authority of the governed to depart from Islamic doctrine, whether the Qur'an reflects the immutable word of God, whether Mohammed is the ideal role model, whether all people are equal regardless of gender or religion, etc. I think Islam is sufficiently troublesome, and we have enough experience with its being troublesome, that we are entitled to inquire and take these matters into account regardless of what signals the politician himself sends.

This is not just about Islam. If, say, a Christian presidential candidate believes the creation story as set down in Genesis is literally true, I'd like to know that, I'd like to know why he thinks that, and I'd like to probe what that says about how he regards science, history, epistemology, etc. It doesn't make his belief valid or invalid, but I think I'm entitled to evaluate how (if at all) his reasoning is likely to translate into governing.

There are objective reasons why some religions and some religious beliefs are unconventional. When a politician who wants to be president of the United States adheres to them, I don't see why we should hesitate to ask about what those beliefs are and why he thinks they are sensible. And when a politician holds himself out to be a person of deep religious belief, again I don't see why we should not probe. I don't think that's hostility to religion; I think it's common sense.

Others criticize Romney because of his recent conversion from pro-choice to pro-life. I find this difficult to criticize, as I was radically pro-choice less than 15 years ago. This is not to say Romney doesn't have his problems -- the life issue isn't the only thing he's changed his mind about, which causes some to distrust him. His embrace of the current administration causes hesitation in those who are fed up with Bush's missteps. His economic history has some holes (though some of the criticisms are downright silly, such as this drivel from the Wall Street Journal).

Fred Thompson is a tougher nut to crack. Nearly everything I read about him is appealing to me, Thompson's policy positions are similar to mine, yet it's like he's campaigning on Mars and the signal is very weak. I can't figure out if that's because the criticisms of Thompson are accurate (lazy, lacking energy, etc.) or if it's because the media aren't giving him attention due to his unwillingness to play their game. I like that he thumbs his nose at the "establishment," whether that be the political machine or the media, and runs his own show. I like his realistic approach -- if it's meant to be, he will be the candidate -- but I also think back to something my mother used to say: "God can't steer a parked car." Thompson may be destined as the candidate, but sometimes destiny happens in conjunction with busting your butt. I'm just waiting for some indication that Thompson's butt is sore.

That leads me to the other candidates, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Rudy Guiliani.

Mike Huckabee is the biggest problem for me, for a variety of reasons, but one of my biggest concerns -- believe it or not -- is his faith. Or rather, not his faith, but the way people react to it. This may be a surprise coming from a so-con like me, but my problem is spelled out nicely by a man I respect (but disagree with in this case): Randy Alcorn. The head of Eternal Perspective Ministries wrote (on his personal blog) of his support for Huckabee, but it was based almost entirely on how he makes Alcorn feel: Huckabee is winsome . . . witty . . . self-deprecating . . . authentic. It's clear that Huckabee's faith resonates with Alcorn, and that the candidate's position on life issues put him at the head of the class.

All those things are admirable. But if Candidate A is wrong on enough issues, and if other candidates are similarly committed to the issue most dear to you, it seems ludicrous to base your vote for Candidate A on how he comes across in a TV interview.

Don't get me wrong -- character is huge. A candidate who shares my faith is a big plus. Someone like Rudy Guiliani will not receive my primary election vote due to his position on social issues. But those are not the only reasons for a vote, and I feel like Alcorn typifies voters of faith who check the box next to the good Christian without reasoning through any other issues. My impression of Huckabee is that he seems to have made decisions without a guiding principle. His economic and crime decisions are all over the board, and that's bit him in the rear on his tax history and his decisions to pardon certain crimes.

(To contradict that last statement, however, I sometimes struggle with people who think they have to maintain a predetermined set of principles regardless of the circumstances. Life is not so black and white, and sometimes -- such as in the conflicting Republican values of small government and protection for the unborn -- doing the right thing precludes the use of predetermined principles.)

I like Rudy Guiliani's record on defense & crime, and his economic issues seem relatively sound. Like with Romney (and Huckabee), I take his liberal environment into account on the latter issue. But his social history is atrocious. If he wins the Republican nomination, I will support him because he will be better than his opponent on the issues, and that includes the issue of life -- the unborn have a better shot at protection under Guiliani than with any Democrat.

John McCain has a variety of issues that make it difficult for me to support him in the primary -- primarily the Gang of 14 deal and his votes against the Bush tax cuts -- but his national security credentials are unimpeachable, and I can live with his social positions.

Almost any Republican who wins the party nomination -- I make a definite exception for Alan Keyes, and I'll decide about Ron Paul if the unexpected happens -- will have my support in the general election. But only Romney and Thompson are in a position to get anything from me before then.

I call bull

Earlier this week, John McCain and Rudy Guiliani announced they would not participate in the Iowa's Republican Straw Poll in August. That's August 2007, a full 15 months before next year's general election.

The official reason for both campaigns: they want to focus on the January caucuses. However, there's lots of speculation that this means McCain and Guiliani are trailing Mitt Romney badly in Iowa (Romney's internal polls reportedly show him with a 17-point lead) and don't want to hand Romney an early victory.

Of course, the Romney campaign is playing this up:

Our plan all along has been to play in the Iowa straw poll, and that hasn't changed. Campaigns that have decided to abandon Ames are likely doing so out of a recognition that their organizations are outmatched and their message falls flat with Republican voters in Iowa.

It looks as if we just beat those campaigns in Iowa two months earlier than we had planned on beating them.

Never mind that Romney's campaign is spending money hand over fist to make a good showing in Iowa. Never mind that the Straw Poll is hardly a harbinger of future success. Yes, President Bush won the 1999 poll by 10 points over Steve Forbes, but was followed by Elizabeth Dole and Gary Bauer. In 1987, Pat Robertson won the poll ahead of Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush, respectively. In 1995, Phil Gramm tied Dole.

Shortly after the inevitable Romney victory (heck, even before the poll!), you should expect to hear his supporters spin it as a huge victory and momentum booster. But they're wrong -- this is a lose-lose for Romney. If he posts a spectacular win, the press will dismiss it as a meaningless win against meaningless opposition. If he doesn't win by at least 25 points, the press will ridicule it as a failure in an open field. And if he somehow doesn't win at all, well, Romney might as well drop out.

Romney may win the nomination, but it will not have anything to do with winning the Iowa straw poll.

Quote of the Day: Peggy Noonan on John McCain

From her column on today's Opinion Journal on the newly-announced presidential candidate (emphasis mine):

The war was generally popular from 2002 through roughly 2006, and Mr. McCain won broad credit from conservatives for standing with the president. But now that support, heightened by the surge debate, is costing him, not only with the general public but in a subtle way, I think, with Republicans. Republicans don't abandon a Republican president in time of war, and they have a special relationship with this president, a simple admiration for who he is. At the same time, they don't precisely want another W. for president, another man who seems just as convinced, stubborn, single-minded, invested.