Posted by Rick Pearson at 6:30 am CST
Sen. John McCain of Arizona stopped by for a talk.
He hasn't announced his candidacy for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination yet.
Is there any reason for anyone to doubt his candidacy, we asked him.
"No, not really,'' McCain said.
Read on:
This is a transcript of the questions we posed, and McCain's answers:
Q. Are you running:
A. We'll be amking the announcement here sometime soon.
Q. Any reason that people should doubt that you're a candidate?
A. No, not really.
Q. Is there a timing factor before you announce?
A. We've just been very absorbed with Iraq and other Senate business so we've sort of had that had an impact on our schedule. But we'll be announcing.
Q. Obviously Iraq is the big issue. Is there a possibility that support for increased troop strength could leave you politically vulnerable if it doesn't work?
A. I don't worry about it and I don't think about it. This issue is far more important than any political ambitions I might have.
Q. What about the resolution of non support, a potential cutoff of funds and various Demo positions for a pullout. Is there a finger in the wind politicking going on without recognizing what needs to be done over there?
A. No. I think it's very great sense of frustration and sadness that many people feel over the lack of progress in the war. I think that people are very frustrated and very saddened and a lot of that has to do not only with the failure on the ground, but the very unfortunate comments that were made over time, such as "a few dead-enders' last throughs,'
"mission accomplished," that were just, in my view, totally irresponsible and raised people's expectations. But clearly, we are in a very serious situation in Iraq and we've been there a long time. I understand their frustration. I don't understand how you can propose a withdrawl and then, no alternative strategy.
Q. Sen. Obama has talked about a redeployment of forces in march 2008.
A. No one believes that that's a viable alternative, if you have chaos and genocide inside Iraq. I thought I was talking about a proposal that would pass the smell test. So, you know, it's very difficult times and many of us understand it's very late in the game, but we also feel strongly that Petraious ought to be given an opportunity to employ this new strategy. And I'm not saying he will succeed. I believe that he can. I still believe the alternative is chaos and genocide.
Q. So this vote is premature without giving the strategy a chance?
A. Again, I understand the frustration. I really, really do. I'm hoping that my colleagues in both the House and Senate would agree that we ought to give this strategy a chance. Everybody knows the present strategy has failed. So, to be against a change in strategy also is a bit curious.
Q. As you've been traveling, how do you assess the GOP field, and what have you learned from your 2000 run, particularly after the debacle in South Carolina?
A. Well, I think it's a little early to tell. We've been working primarily on getting political and financial base. I'm very pleased at the progress that we've made and very strong financial and political support.
Q. You've been actively courting conservatives.
A. Well, no, I've been meeting with everybody—moderates, liberals, everybody that's in the Republican Party. I think you have to try to at least communicate with all parts of the Republican Party, but I haven't particularly been—quote—"courting conservatives" anymore than I have moderates or liberals.
Q. Is there a need for you to have to court conservatives?
A. Not that I know of except that they're an important part of our party and I try to communicate and be acceptable to the majority of all parts of our party. I think we have to be a big tent party.
Q. Which hasn't always been the case.
A. I think clearly we have a significant problem when you only have one Republican congressman in all the Northeast. I think we have great challenge.
Q. So does that mean embracing moderate thought? Has the GOP gone too conservative?
A. I think the Republican Party had better return to the principles of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. For example, one of the reasons why we did so badly in the last election, in my view, wasn't ideological differences. It was fiscal discipline. I think our base became very upset because we let spending go completely out of control. And so they became very upset. Every meeting I had with the party faithful leading up to this last election, they'd all heard of the 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska and they were very angry about it.
Q. You and Obama worked on earmarks and ethics reform, even had a tussle over it. Is Sen. Obama qualified to be president? He has said in a race against you it would be the "war hero versus the snot-nosed kid."
A. I have great respect for Sen. Obama and obviously, he has captured the imagination of a lot of Americans and I have no doubt that he would be a viable candidate if he was able to get the nomination of his party.
Q. Will you take public funds for a presidential campaign?
A. We haven't decided that. We're obviously concerned about a situation where Sen. Clinton has said that she would raise $150 million or more, but we haven't gotten to that point yet where we have to make that decision. We're talking about 1974 law. We've been, in the past, tried to update that but apparently that's probably not going to happen. So we have to view it in the light of whether we could be able to compete if we were severely restricted in the amount of money we could raise. If everybody plays by the same rules, that's one thing. But having two different sets of rules is unfortunate.
Q. Already some rumblings from rivals about your age and health.
A. I routinely say I have more scars than Frankenstein and that I'm older than dirt, but I've learned a few things along the way.
Q. So this is not a real issue?
A. I think it depends, obviously in the eye of the beholder. I think my health is excellent. I hiked the Grand Canyon from rim to rim last August with my son, who's at the Naval Academy. I work seven days a week, 16-18 hours a day and I'm very happy with my health and my life. And, I have a 95-year-old mother who's still very active.
Q. Illinois has become a difficult state for Republicans. What should they do to revitalize?
A. I think primarily we have to go back to the party that we were, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan. For example, there's no doubt that we came to pwer in 1994 to change government and government changed us. We began to value power over principle in the Congress of the United States so people obviously began to lose their confidence and faith in us. We have to act like the party of less government, lower taxes, strong national defense—the same kind of agenda that made Ronald Reagan one of the great presidents of the 20th Century. And, of course, we have to have a wide tent. We have to reach out and embrace people who share our principles and may disagree with us on specific issues.
Q. Does immigration fall into that wide tent?
A. It's a very tough issue because the president and I, in fact most of my fellow citizens in Arizona, feel we have to have a comprehensive approach. We understand the anger of many of our base because in the 1980s we passed an immigration reform bill where we gave amnesty and we said we'd fix the borders. We didn't fix the borders and people are very angry about that. And so, we have to convince them that we will secure our borders, but we also need a temporary worker program and we need to dispose someway of the 12 million people who are already here illegally. In other words, much of our Republican base believes all you have to do is build more fences on the border. Those of us who live there think you have to have a comprehensive approach but appreciating the vital element of border security.
Q. Shouldn't you have a special gravitas on the issue, coming from a border state?
A. Shouldn't the president, as having been governor of the state of Texas? (laughs) But yeah, we really need to try to have a respectful dialogue both within the Republican Party and with the Democrats. They control Congress now.
Q. Where do you see the immigration issue going in a Democratic Congress?
A. I've worked with Democrats on this issue. I don't believe it's changed. They have shown a willingness. Speaker Pelosi said she wants to work with the president on the issue. I've had meetings with Democrats in the last several weeks on it. I think there's every likelihood we could address this issue this spring.
Q. But it just seems very complicated.
A. But I think we are very aware, Democrats and Republicans alike, that if we don't get it done before say, the August recess, it will start getting caught up in the 2008 presidential politics and we wouldn't address it until 2009 at the earliest.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I see that weathervane McCain is going to miss the vote on Iraq sat. Once again the run for presidency is the most important thing for him.
Posted by: bill r. | February 17, 2007 7:12 AM
At least it not about Obama John D and Bruce should be happy. John D no responce to the 17 Republicans that voted with Democrats. Even your boy Kirk who you defended in the 2006 run voted with Democrats. Your comments are on the record here what you called Democrats for voting. What is your comment about Kirk
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 17, 2007 8:44 AM
At least it not about Obama John D and Bruce should be happy.
Posted by: Dale Peters | Feb 17, 2007 8:44:58 AM
I wish I shared your optimism. I'm afraid that they just tell you what to fear, who's to blame,
and really wont ever be happy.
Posted by: bill r. | February 17, 2007 9:37 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
Here you go Bill make you smile make the right go nutter
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 17, 2007 10:07 AM
McSurge isn't stopping with the failed policy in Iraq. He's on the W war bus to Iran as well. Looks like Sy Hersh was right all along.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900687.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
Posted by: Bubba | February 17, 2007 10:17 AM
Ooh, McCain skipped the "Iraq" vote. You know, that non-binding, utterly meaningless vote. Maybe it would be bad if McCain skipped a vote that was, you know, actually about something. I believe McCain will, with good reason, skip the vote on the Democratic leadership's next non-binding resolution that says "we're really angry and we mean it this time," too.
Posted by: Jeff | February 17, 2007 10:40 AM
Good interview, Rick.
Posted by: Jeff | February 17, 2007 10:45 AM
Ooh, McCain skipped the "Iraq" vote. You know, that non-binding, utterly meaningless vote. Maybe it would be bad if McCain skipped a vote that was, you know, actually about something.
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 17, 2007 10:40:40 AM
To call any vote on the Iraq war "meaningless" I find very disingnuous. The Whitehouse would not at all like this resolution to pass if for nothing more than PR purposes. I would think on such an important issue McCain would want his position clear. I would suspect that if it were a resolution of support, you would want everyone on the record. There is only "one" absent from this vote.
Posted by: bill r. | February 17, 2007 11:10 AM
I can't believe I liked this guy at one point in time. What happened to him???
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | February 17, 2007 11:22 AM
It's nice to see that Senator John McSurge decided that it was more important to be on the campaign trail than to show up for his day job in D.C. like the rest of the candidates in the Senate who are running for President did today.
Why isn't he doing the job that the people of Arizona elected him to do ?
Posted by: John E. | February 17, 2007 1:23 PM
Hey Dale:
How about your guy John Kerry, was he steering that boat down the Mekong Delta or not? Your silence speaks volumes Dale. Don't worry i won't spill the beans about you Dale.
Posted by: don B. | February 17, 2007 1:36 PM
Hey Dale: At least John McCain is a real hero, not like your boy John Kerry. Got his silver star by chasing down a wounded boy and finishing him off. As an officer and a member of the human race he was suppose to give him aid and comfort, in fact he was compelled to. What do you think Dale, of people who conduct themselves like that ?
Posted by: don B. | February 17, 2007 1:49 PM
Well I hear the republicans lacked the courage to vote the American puplics will to send a message to the president. I guess those who claim that the democrats could do more to change the course of the war can now see that they don't hold enough power to do so without more support from some republicans. I would say anyone still complaining that they didn't do enough should focus their frustration on the republicans. If you had outrage at the democrats, it's now time to focus that outrage on the republicans. Unless of course that it was indeed disingenuous. It's the will of the republicans to continue this blunder in Iraq, not the American people, which the republicans wish to ignore.
Posted by: bill r. | February 17, 2007 2:26 PM
How about your guy John Kerry, was he steering that boat down the Mekong Delta or not?
Posted by: don B. | Feb 17, 2007 1:36:02 PM
Once again don B. brings up something that has nothing to do with what the thread is about. Just another chance for him to fling poo around in his hate filled way. Tit for tat, thats his childish way of argument. I think we could talk about something that isn't 30 years old. Next thing we'll be hearing about what President Adams did. Get real don....talk about the issues
of today..if you can. Get out of the Mekong delta
and get to Iraq.
Posted by: bill r. | February 17, 2007 3:27 PM
Don Kerry is not running for President. John is he is no more a hero turning his backs on Veterans. Every vote for assured funding he voted nay. He is right wing now. In 2000 I supported him but Bush and Rove swift boated him. Yes he is a Vietnam Hero and always will be. But by the video you can see he changes his mind every few words. I want a President who will have guts enough to say what he mean. No One Running matchs that yet
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 17, 2007 3:45 PM
Get a clue, people, the vote has no meaning whatsoever. I'm sure McCain will be there whenever the Democrats try to defund the war and will vote against it. As will Kirk and the others. This resolution does nothing. It's just a political game. A game, Thank God, McCain won't play.
Hear's what McCain said from Iowa to people like bill r.:
John McCain wanted nothing to do with the Saturday stunt. So, instead of catching the first flight back to D.C., McCain blasted the demoralizing antic as “an insult to the public and our soldiers to think a cloture vote to cut off debate on a motion to proceed to another cloture vote to cut off debate about a meaningless resolution is anything other than a partisan stunt and an evasion of our responsibilities.”
The resolution is a meaningless exercise fraught with partisan politics.
Posted by: Jeff | February 17, 2007 3:58 PM
Good McCain quote on this one. Not surprisingly, really, that Bill R. counts PR ahead of substance.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/261493,CST-NWS-McCain17.article
"he changes his mind every few words."
Is this the same Dale Peters that has defended Kerry so vociferously on this blog? Change your mind much, Dale?
Posted by: Jeff | February 17, 2007 4:01 PM
Dale P.,
Don't bite on little Donny's Rush Limpbag talking points.
1) John Kerry is not running for anything and the GOP can't find anyone in Mass. that can beat him when he is running for Senator.
2) At least John Kerry showed up for Vietnam.
Deadye Cheney had "better things to do with my time" and got 6 differments during Vietnam.
Cowboy George W. hid out in a homebound National Guard Unit and got drunk and stoned during Vietnam.
Yeah, these Republicans are "real" American heroes huh Donny??
Posted by: John E. | February 17, 2007 4:04 PM
Jeff I do not need to defend John Kerry everything said about him was proving to be a lie. Hell the Tribune own editor proved the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth where liars. You have to defend the actions of Bush and Rove in 2000 and what they did to John McCain a hero of Vietnam.Kerry is not running John is and he flip flops as the video shows
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 17, 2007 4:10 PM
Is McCain out driving the "Straight Talk Express" while his fellow Senators are showing up for work in D.C. today?
YES!
So much for McCain the "straight shooter",this guy is still courting the Evangelicals who swiftboated him in 1999,and not only that,he has hired some of Karl Rove's people,the same people who swiftboated him and John Kerry, to work for his campaign.
What a swell guy....
Posted by: John E. | February 17, 2007 4:11 PM
Have you seen McCain being interviewed lately?
He's looking slower and duller by the day.
He's either on Chemo again, or he's just getting old.
Either way, he won't survive the rigors of a tough Primary Season, much less a General Election cycle.
He's done, even if he doesn't realize it yet.
Posted by: bb | February 17, 2007 4:19 PM
For more on The Real McCain:
http://therealmccain.com/
Posted by: bb | February 17, 2007 4:22 PM
Jeff...I think that 63% of Americans would take offense at a vote on Iraq is meaningless. As far as an insult to the troops, you obviously have never been in battle. You join the forces for your country, you fight the battles for your brothers, and personally I believe it a slap in the face to the troops for being absent on a very important issue to them. NO discusion on Iraq can be meaningless, how obsurd.
And once again...could we deal with the current and not 30 year old news. Great...what was
Ulysses s. Grant shoving in his pants.....PlEEEase
Posted by: bill r. | February 17, 2007 4:24 PM
Thanks BB I only had the you tube you have the site. Hey Jeff got something to say
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 17, 2007 4:43 PM
Mr. McCain and Jane Fonda have a lot in common...They both were in Vietnam and they both are traitors; one to her country and the other to the conservative base that vehemently disagrees with his immigration stance! I believe they classify this as being a RRINO. I'll let other dream up the meaning for the one consonant!
Posted by: sgtmajorbrad | February 17, 2007 5:09 PM
don B, give it a rest! Your running on the past along with your guy John McCain. Good luck in the Republican primary. You'll need it.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | February 17, 2007 6:17 PM
I wonder how many guys went to Viet Nam and took along their Camcorders,like John Kerry did for his 3 month tour of duty.
Thank-God he's gone!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | February 17, 2007 8:23 PM
Paulo are you that out of it. NO CAMCORDERS IN Vietnam
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 18, 2007 9:31 AM
That's funny that all you lefties have against McCain is a partisan smear campaign web site. I can link newsmax or some other righty web site about Democrat candidates, but I prefer to deal in facts, not propaganda. I also love how the argument about anything that touches Kerry is "Kerry is not running," and thank God for you, he isn't. The republicans would love another inept campaign like that one. That still doesn't change the fact that you're complaining about McCain doing the exact same thing your "war hero" did.
p.s. Bill R., please look up a definition of "non-binding" in legislative parlance. Yes, there are some votes about Iraq that are meaningless. The ones that have "non-binding" in front of the word resolution.
Posted by: Jeff | February 18, 2007 12:00 PM
McCain???......McNothankyou.....
Posted by: John E. | February 18, 2007 1:51 PM
Oh, and Dale, explain to me, in detail how
"I voted for the supplemental funding for the troops before I voted against it" was made up by Rove and Bush. Explain it, particularly, in relation to Kerry admitting in the debates that he made a mistake when he said that. Seems to me that at least this political wound was self-inflicted. You can count for yourself the other foot-in-mouth wounds that Mr. Kerry has inflicted on himself since then. It's a long list.
Yes, yes, I know he's not running. But the hypocrisy you fail to grasp is that you condemn Mr. McCain because "he flip flops as the video shows."
You really cannot be serious. You and the rest of the partisan leftist posters have been compaining FOR YEARS about how Bush doesnt' listen to criticism. He just continues with this pre-determined course no matter what. Half the time I even agree with you that Bush is stubborn and needs to listen to better counsel!
Yet, now you do a 180 and claim that McCain, an undisputed war hero, "flip flops too much." It's either one or the other. Heck, ANY politician is probably more introspective than Bush, but any flip-flop McCain has made (and anyone that's not spliced and cut to fit the political leanings of a partisan Democrat web site) is defensible by the circumstance. You can't win the Republican primaries without at least talking to the religious right. It's a fact of life. He's been consistent saying for more than three years now about how we need more troops in Iraq if we want to win and he's said from the beginning that the region could be destabilized if we pull out without securing a stable democracy there.
Say anything you want about me, but don't come with moveon.org talking points that contradict everything else you've ever written here and expect to not be called on it.
Oh, and BB, you're a real lowlife. If you get cancer someday I hope somebody says about you "he's either on chemo or just getting old." Typical of the orthodox left wing.
Posted by: Jeff | February 18, 2007 4:27 PM
Sorry Jeff.
But put a fork in McCain.
He's done.
Posted by: bb | February 18, 2007 6:33 PM
I wonder whether "old man flipflopper" McCain is going to even live long enough to see the 08 election happen?
He should take a nationally televised physical just to prove that he is fit enough for the office that he won't win in 08.
Posted by: John E. | February 18, 2007 10:18 PM
"Ooh, McCain skipped the "Iraq" vote. You know, that non-binding, utterly meaningless vote. "
"The resolution is a meaningless exercise fraught with partisan politics."
But Jeff, the Republicans keep telling me a yes vote is a vote against our troops and a vote for terrorist victory in Iraq. Isn't that important?
Don't you and McCain support our troops Jeff? Or is that just an empty platitude you use against democrats?
Posted by: Tony | February 19, 2007 8:19 AM
McCain was napping on Saturday
Posted by: john | February 19, 2007 8:35 AM
When it's a real vote on a law that might mean something it's important. When it's a partisan exercise that has no actual law behind it, done purely for symbolism, then no, it's not important.
Posted by: Jeff | February 20, 2007 10:11 AM
"When it's a partisan exercise that has no actual law behind it, done purely for symbolism, then no, it's not important."
So Jeff, you admit then that the Republicans have been shamelessly demogoging when they claim that a yes vote on the resolution will harm our troops? Do you condemn them for falsly using their supposed concern for our teoops as a political shield?
Posted by: Tony | February 20, 2007 10:46 AM
During a visit to North Carolina, Sen. McCain was asked by one of that state's voters what the result of reduced funding for the Iraq fiasco might be. Her question went something like "What are they going to do, not pay the troops?"
Is anyone stupid enough to believe reduced funding would mean reduced pay for the troops or a reduction in the equipment they need to perform? Bush and his cronnies no doubt hope so. The support for the Iraq situation the enjoyed for too long depended on ignorance and stupidity.
Now, like Bush, McCain continues to insist that the US needs to "take the fight to the terrorists." Really? Isn't that kinda like cracking down on crime in Chicago to make the streets of New York safer? It makes no sense.
McCain claims an Iraq troop pullout would creat chaos. Apparently, he thinks it isn't already chaotic. And how long should we continue to ask the young men and women in the military to to sacrifice their lives? And for what?
The dilemma here for everybody from all points on the political spectrum is how to deal with a no-win situation created by Bush. Yes, pulling will mean even greater chaos. But it's naive to believe that eventually we can "win." Even if some form of order eventually is reached in the country, what has the US won? Certainly nobody believes a "win" in Iraq means one battle won in the "war on terror."
Bush should stop misleading the troops, their families and the general public. But, of course, he won't. That job will fall to the Democrats during the next two years and after they take the White House in 2008.
Posted by: Roger Hayden | February 20, 2007 8:26 PM