And I mean mortem. Big time mortem. Anyway, there was no celebrating in the Geoff B household last night. I continue to be perplexed as to why a Republican would support McCain over Romney, but it appears very likely the Arizona senator will win big in a week also. Mitt will take Colorado, Utah and Massachusetts and has an outside chance at California. McCain will probably take the rest on Super Tuesday.
The math indicates McCain will sew up the nomination sometime this spring.
I tend to be an optimist, so here’s some optimism today, even in a post entitled “post mortem.”
There is still a small chance Mitt may pull things out. His campaign is not really done until after Super Tuesday, and he may pull out a few surprises there and keep on chugging.
But the conventional wisdom seems to be we will have to deal with McCain representing Republicans until November. So, I’ll try to mention a few positives I get from his candidacy:
–McCain has moved to the right on some issues, such as tax reform and spending restraint. He now seems to accept the idea that tax cuts are a good thing.
–McCain has been good on the war in Iraq and the general war against terror. People forget that even though he loved to stick it to President Bush every time he could, he was nevertheless in favor of the surge and very eloquent on this issue even when it wasn’t popular.
–McCain is generally pro-life.
–McCain is correct on immigration (sorry, fellow conservatives, but I am an open border conservative — the position of Ronald Reagan, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and an ever-diminishing group of pro-business Republicans and Libertarians). On the whole issue of immigration, it is worth mentioning that Romney (the immigration restrictionist) got less than 15 percent of the Hispanic vote in Florida compared to McCain getting nearly 50 percent. Rudy got most of the rest. Republicans will never build a long-lasting majority without the support of Hispanics, who are only gravitating to the Democrats because they see the anti-immigration movement, sponsored by Republicans, as being anti-Hispanic. This has got to change.
The only other thing I can dig up to be optimistic about on this particular morning is that while the returns were coming in, and it was not looking good for Mitt, my wife turned to me and said her heart was burning from the Spirit. She and I still don’t know why, but the Spirit was telling her not to worry, that all will be well. I’ve come to trust my wife’s experiences with the Spirit, so I feel something good will come from all of this. That’s what faith is all about.
Geoff, thank you for the optimism and the positive spin on last night. I am not a McCain fan in the least and still get heartburn thinking about a McCain presidency.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on the open border stand. I am a pro-business Republican, but I do not support a border that can be crossed by anyone who wants to come in and work. We need to have some restrictions and regulations that protect American workers and our economy. In my volunteer work in law enforcement, I deal frequently with the impact that illegal aliens have on our society (accidents where they do not have insurance, hospital visits without insurance, etc.)
I’ve discussed immigration ad nauseum here, but just for clarification’s sake, I’m in favor of border restrictions. I’m in favor of working with Mexico on a wall, at the very least to stop all of the drug trafficking. Here’s what we should do, in my opinion:
1)Quietly approach Mexico with a “border solution” that would involve a wall and massive help to Mexico with its drug trafficking problem. Hopefully you get an agreement that Mexico will support a wall in exchange for our help with the drug trafficking crackdown AND
2)An announcement that once the wall plan is agreed upon anybody who wants to immigrate to the United States will be able to do so. They will apply at a series of new U.S. consulates along the border and will be given a one-year visa. They will be charged $10,000 for this visa. Once they are in the United States for one year, they can apply for residency and then three years later for citizenship. Anybody caught illegally entering the United States six months after this plan is announced will be taken off the list of possible legal immigrants.
3)Meanwhile, people in the United States illegally will be asked to go to their home countries and reapply to enter legally. Enforcement and deportation will continue as it does today. They have to pay the $10,000 fee. This gives them an incentive to leave and enter legally, which they don’t have today.
Notice that this plan works in cooperation with Mexico, not against Mexico. Notice that we treat Hispanics equally, just the same as we have historically treated all potential immigrants. And the border gets enforced. And it pays for itself with the fees we charge immigrants. If we get 1 million new legal immigrants, we make $10 billion in fees.
As bad as I feel for Romney, the worst part is . . .McCain? How and why should he emerge from this group of Republicans?!?
I could have easily gone for Romney, Thompson, or even Giuliani but McCain? Is it just his biography? Has the Republican party has tilted left? Electability has to be a consideration but at what cost?
(It’s amazing that McCain could win after nearly being declared dead in the fall.)
It’s a bitter lesson in politics. I don’t care for McCain’s politics or personality. Despite their congratulating each other on running honorable campaigns, McCain and Hucakbee have been too dishonest and personal in their ganging up on Romney.
I suppose I could vote for McCain if I had to but I don’t think he will be good for the party of country. As over-the-top as Hugh Hewitt has been in his Romney cheerleading, I do like how he describes McCain: “Senator McCain is a great American, a lousy senator and a terrible Republican.”
And I have to side with Brian on immigration. McCain doesn’t have any credibility on the issue and he demagogued anyone who questioned his efforts to ram his bill through the Senate. I am not for mass deportation or breaking up families, but the McCain-Kennedy bill was oblivious to addressing the problem.
I know you don’t want this to be an immigration thread, but since you brought it up, I have two questions (which also have the salutary effect of restraining me from any unseemly grave-dancing):
1. Why do you think a wall between the U.S. and Mexico would be any more successful at hindering the drug trade between those two countries than the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico have been in hindering the drug trade with Colombia?
2. Why send people back to their home countries to pay for a visa? Just let them stay here and pay it plus some additional fine. This would allow employers to pony up some of the money if they find their employee to be worth it. Not a bad mechanism for promoting efficiency.
This is rather ironic. I looked at the NY Times polling breakdown as to who voted for Romney. In Florida he received 44% of the vote from the 16% of Republican voters who say that immigration is the issue that matters most; McCain received 54% of the vote from the 12% of Republican voters who are Hispanic. Looking at that, I figured that if Romney has any chance going forward, it is that Florida Republicans are probably the most pro-immigration Republicans in the country. Yet this is the one issue where Geoff parts ways with his candidate.
LL, I don’t disagree with you that a wall is problematic. It is certainly not the only solution. But there is a potential value for national security and symbolic reasons.
Here is something to consider: about two years ago, the Texas state government launched an experiment in which they put about 200 cameras along the border temporarily and then linked the cameras to the internet so that anybody could go to a page and watch the web cams. They figured nobody would watch them and did not come up with permanent funding for the program (you would need to buy tens of thousands of cameras and a huge amount of internet and other telecom capacity to get from the border to various internet and telecom sites. A permanent program would cost billions).
Of course, one of the things to consider is, “who’s going to sit there and watch hundreds of cameras all day long.” But remember they had put the cameras on the web. Well, word got around and literally millions of people were signing onto the web sites to monitor the cameras and check out the program. People were signing on from all over the world. They added a link to each camera: “inform the border patrol.” And as soon as a person watching the camera would see somebody sneaking across, they would inform the border patrol, and a vehicle would be sent there immediately.
The Texas government is apparently studying how to fund this kind of program permanently. But the point is that when you say “wall” there are a variety of ways of doing it. One way is to install tens of thousands of cameras in remote locations and invite people to monitor them. This experiment shows there are enough people with enough time on their hands that a kind of “citizen’s alert” would be worthwhile.
As to your second question, I’m open to it, but a sop to the immigration restrictionists is needed politically right now. So, you win people to your side by saying there is no amnesty, the immigrants have to go home and then cross the border legally.
John M, your comment is valid. Romney’s strategy is to go after the “immigration restrictionist” vote. From a purely strategic standpoint, it’s not a bad strategy. He figured more than a year ago that his opponent right now would be either Rudy or McCain, both of whom are pro-immigration guys. So, Romney wanted to be on the other side of them on this issue, and he has succeeded.
Well, the issue has not been a big enough one for him to win. And it definitely does not help you in the general election, where you need to get Hispanic votes. Bush got something like 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Romney can’t even top 15 percent in Florida, where the Hispanics are the most conservative. I still say a pro-business, social conservative, strong national defense AND pro-immigration candidate wins. Keep in mind that McCain is not pro-business and is not a social conservative.
Geoff,
How does forcing them to pay a $10,000 fee give them an incentive to go through legal channels?
Dan, the McCain-Kennedy “amnesty” bill had illegal immigrants paying a fine of several thousand dollars to be legalized. Hispanic leaders were completely OK with that. I have worked closely with the immigrant community for more than 20 years, and I can tell you the vast majority of them — approaching 95 percent — would gladly return home and pay $10,000 for a visa if it allowed a path to legalization. Most immigrants are hard working and have at least this much money saved. They want to be legal — today there is no way to do it.
Brian, John Mansfield, David Sundwall, what do you as immigration restrictionists think of my proposal in #2? There is no amnesty, you get a border wall and you get an incentive for illegal immigrants to leave and come back legally. They also lose the right to become legal if they cross illegally afterwards. Immigration restrictionists always say they are in favor of LEGAL immigration. This plan allows that. What could possibly be wrong with it?
McCain will get the nomination. Romney looked totally defeated last night, I think he knows the end is near.
It will be a strange election if the Republicans nominate someone they dislike more than the Democratic candidate. If McCain is the nominee, the only way Republicans have a chance is if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.
Gee, I’d like to come up with $10K to buy my way back into the U.S. Especially if I had the opportunity to pay that for myself, my spouse, and my three children. A cool $50K. Just tell me where to sign up.
Geoff,
That may work. But I would like to the fence, employement verification, and a hefty fine. That and I hope they don’t get preferential treament to become citizens over those who have been waiting years to come legally.
And I wouldn’t call myself an “immigration restrictionist.” I’d be for more LEGAL immigration. They should make it easier to do, just above the board.
Can’t we just go back to bashing McCain?
Geoff, consider this (now that you’ve made this another immigration thread):
I am an aspiring filmmaker. I’ve done a few things here and there and at times I’ve bet my life savings on it, leading only to let-down after let-down. My main problem is lack of proper equipment (cameras, computer hardware, etc.) I have confidence in my talents, but without proper equipment, I don’t have a shot in the film industry.
Problem is, I work a blue collar job. I’m struggling to keep my family fed and there’s no way I could afford the proper equipment to break into this field. No way.
One option I have is to somehow steal the equipment. That would definitely contradict my values, but really it’s the only way.
Now, if law enforcement were to borrow from your immigration philosophy, if caught I should be sternly told never to steal again, then offered the equipment at a discounted price as an incentive for me to legalize the transaction.
In the end, I get to keep the equipment, which I obtained for far less sacrifice than had I saved up the money and bought it. So hey, great. Given my situation and the way it was priced- there’s no way I could have done it the right way. I HAD to do it this way if I was going to do it.
So Geoff, please tell me how this is not amnesty.
It seems like it’s going to be hard to avoid the conclusion that the GOP just doesn’t like Mormons. Perhaps they really are just as bigoted as people say they are…
I think it’s more complex than that personally. But with a couple studies showing a high correlation between the “flip-flop” reason for opposing Romney and anti-Mormon sentiment, the explanation gets increasingly more plausible.
It’s easy to have suspicions that the only reason Huckabee is still in the race is so he can undermine Romney, throw the race to McCain, and hopefully get offered the VP slot by a grateful McCain who needs some evangelical street-cred.
I never wanted Romney to be president. But I have to admit, I’ll miss the attention Mormonism got during his run.
David #12, I really am the king of masochists, aren’t I? I mean, here I had a chance to have a nice thread beating up McCain (a really smarmy nitwit, if there ever was one) and I spend my political capital on immigration and I get attacked by both the left and the right! No wonder no immigration plan can ever get through Congress.
(Note to self: no more immigration discussions).
OK, back to bashing McCain. Bash away.
I don’t mind bashing McCain, Geoff, but would you please humor me first and respond to my post?
A week is a lifetime in the world of politics and it is not unreasonable to assume enough could change where the scales will tilt towards Mitt. I’m not convinced McCain has it wrapped up. No one from the conservative base likes him and conventional wisdom says you must have support from your base–which Romney has more than anyone.
Geoff, can you elighten me how the Florida primaries work? Is it a completely closed primary or can independents vote?
It’s closed and it’s a winner-takes-all. I understand the closed part, but for the life of me I’ll never understand the winner-takes-all part. I’m a little sick of Florida being the deciding factor in any election.
Tossman, #13, I’m not sure what to respond to. If you are discussing the McCain-Kennedy bill, the people who broke the law were fined. Breaking different laws involves different kinds of punishment, and fining is one way of dealing with the law-breaking. In this case, the American people thought it was not stringent enough. So be it. My proposal is they have to go home and then come back across the border legally after paying a $10k fine. Seems like a big enough punishment to me, but hey we may have to disagree on that.
AH, the Florida primaries were “winner take all.” If Romney had gotten one more vote than McCain, he would have won. Only registered Republicans could vote for the Republican candidates. So, one of the reasons this loss was so devastating to Romney is that he lost among registered Republicans. Yes, there were all kinds of independents who registered as Repubs just to vote for McCain, but I don’t think the amount would have made that much of a difference.
Anything that puts a lawbreaker in a better position than a non-lawbreaker- no matter how flawed you think the system is- is amnesty. Simple as that. Yes, Geoff, we do disagree on that. As much as humanly possible.
I can’t tell you how upset I am about the Florida primary. I just don’t get it. So much for Republicans being Rush-duped robots, huh? Other than Medved, not a single influential talker out there likes McCain. The only people I know personally that like McCain are Democrats and liberals. I just don’t get it. A McCain nomination is the death knell for conservatism.
Thanks, Florida…again. ‘Preciate it.
“It seems like it’s going to be hard to avoid the conclusion that the GOP just doesn’t like Mormons.”–Seth R.
Seth, I’ve seen you make this point a few times. I’d like to think a Mormon politician can lose a race without Mormons sulking off, muttering about how prejudiced everyone is.
McCain will win the Republican nomination, but a wouldn’t lose to much
sleep worrying about a McCain presidency [insert Democrat wink].
“Immigration restrictionists always say they are in favor of LEGAL immigration.”–Geoff B.
A lot say that, but I don’t. If legality were all that mattered, then all we have to do is wave the magic legislative wand and declare every immigrant legal. We don’t even need to restrict the magic to those already within our borders: People of the world, you are now all legal U.S. residents!
Numbers are what matter. There are billions of people worldwide living in countries much poorer than our neighbor to the south. If we are not opening the door wide to all of them [except criminals, terrorists, other miniscule exceptions], then we have to tell a lot of people “No, you way not enter.”
I am mostly indifferent about your proposed measures in comment #2. I have no faith that any new laws would be enforced any better than the current ones.
Josh, #22- Sadly, I think you’re right on both your prediction and your suggestion.
I’m not sure why everyone is opposed to amnesty. Sometimes you need to change the law to match the situation, rather than the other way around.
There is a demand for cheap labor on the American side of the border and a supply of cheap labor on the Mexican side. Simple economics will tell you that regardless of how many fences you erect, how many fines you impose and how many English-only laws you pass, people will come here to work, as long as there is sufficient supply and demand, people will come here regardless of what the law says.
The law needs to change to match the situation. I think that a lot of immigrants would be willing to come to the US for the short-term and return home after a few years. For example, I don’t know a single Mexican immigrant who doesn’t plan on returning home one day.
#25, If you had a loved one in some God-forsaken country (other than Mexico) waiting endlessly on paperwork and pouring all kinds of money into trying to get to the U.S. legally, while Mexicans simply walk across the border, you might reconsider your opinion.
If you lived in a border state or a sanctuary city- or worked law enforcement in any of those places- you might reconsider that opinion.
When you find it necessary to learn Spanish or you can’t do your job in an American city, you might reconsider that opinion.
John, I’m a biased liberal who never liked the automatic affiliation of Mormons have with the GOP. So yeah, it’s fairly clear that I’m going to see what I want to see.
But for what it’s worth, I’m not entirely convinced that it’s true that the Christian Right hates our guts, or that the GOP dislikes us or whatever else.
But the survey was kind of damaging for friendly interfaith relations.
Re #25: Managing gradients is what life is all about. Inside the cells of our bodies the concentration of potassium ions is high and the concentration of sodium ions is low. Outside the cells, the reverse is true. When we’re dead, diffusion through the cell membranes will level everything. Until then the sodium-potassium pump maintains the gradient and keeps us alive.
There is nothing good to come from a McCain presidency.
Here’s a different McCain-Romney irony. Though I would have preferred a Romney win in Florida, I like seeing the candidate who spent the most lose to one with inferior financial resources. One reason I like it is that it refutes some of the logic for McCain’s restrictions on political activity.
John, are you suggesting that illegal immigrants are single-celled organisms?
Hater.
Anything that puts a lawbreaker in a better position than a non-lawbreaker- no matter how flawed you think the system is- is amnesty
What about Martha Stewart? She got out of jail and immediately landed a prime-time TV Show–arguably because of the publicity surrounding her incarceration. This put her in a better position than many law-abiding producers who did not have their shows picked up. I don’t think even those producers, however, would claim that Martha received “amnesty.”
Tossman:
The problem with the immigration system is that it only accepts about 400,000 people a year plus the spouses or parents of US citizens. Given the size of the United States, this is a ridiculously low number. Canada, which is ten times smaller, accepts that many with little or no negative repercussions. Part of reforming the system is allowing people to come here without waiting 23 years or so (The current wait for the brother or sister of US citizen who happens to be Mexican or Filipino). Even highly skilled workers with degrees have to wait about five to six years working in jobs that do not allow for promotion to be able to become permanent residents. That could be achieved by increasing quotas.
As far as the ethnicity and language of illegal immigrants is concerned, if it were millions of English-speaking, white Canadians here illegally, would anyone complain? (Or even care?)
John: That may be true, but you can only regulate things so much. When laws do not reflect economic realities, the laws quickly become irrelevant. In places with more liberalized immigration law (Canada, Australia, the UK), illegal immigration is not much of an issue. Rather than exclude those who want to come to the US to work, Americans should at least consider the possibility that letting in the ready, willing and able may not be a bad thing.
Not a good metaphor, Lemming. Martha broke the law and was punished according to the law. If she had stolen something, should wouldn’t have been allowed to keep it. If we were to punish illegal aliens according to the laws on our books, we would deport them.
I’ll edit my statement:
Anything that puts a lawbreaker in a better legal position than a non-lawbreaker- no matter how flawed you think the system is- is amnesty.
If some illegal alien gains some kind of notoriety or success back home for his experiences her in the U.S. is not my concern.
I don’t like any of the Republicans other than Romney. The rest are Democrats with an R. The only thing McCain taking over the Republican party has done is make it that much harder for me to care who becomes President. They say he is more electable. Well, lets see what happens when people like me protest vote.
dpc- What would be wrong with increasing our quotas, but being a little choosier who we let in (i.e., family members of those already LEGALLY here, English speakers, professionals, educated individuals).
And looking at states like California and other over-urbanized areas, it’s tough to convince me that we have too few people in this country.
You said “I don’t know a single Mexican immigrant who doesn’t plan on returning home one day.”
See, I kinda want people here that appreciate America, want to become citizens, and assimilate. Not people who don’t give a rat’s behind about the country, who don’t care to ever learn English, who are happy to suck our governmental resources, tap our welfare system, and clog our hospitals before sending all their money to Mexico and leave.
Again, I challenge anybody who shares your view to live, work, and raise kids in a sanctuary city.
Tossman, you’re never going to make it to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal with an attitude like that.
“Again, I challenge anybody who shares your view to live, work, and raise kids in a sanctuary city.”
I happen to live, work and raise my kids in Clearwater, Florida, which I consider to be a de facto sanctuary city and which has a sizable number of Mexican immigrants, many of whom are possibly here illegally. The Hispanic Outreach Center which helps out immigrants is right next door to the main police station. (In fact, I believe it the police department actively sought to set it up and participate in its activities, hence the center’s name) I volunteer my time to give advice on immigration law to those who need it at that center. I find it odd that people complain that they won’t assimilate when they are purposefully excluded from other parts of American life. It’s like wondering why people won’t come to church on Sunday after you bar all the doors.
And looking at states like California and other over-urbanized areas, it’s tough to convince me that we have too few people in this country.
More people = more wealth. There is a reason that a lot of people would rather move to say, New York City and not to Morland, Kansas.
Well then, dpc, your support for amnesty boggles my mind. Not sure how exactly we’re excluding illegals from parts of American life though. Care to elaborate?
Geoff, sorry, I generally have avoided commenting or reading political posts, so I missed the ad naseaum remarks on the border.
Just a reminder — please be careful with the rhetoric, everyone. I’ve deleted one comment and I don’t really want to have to do it again.
Geoff, do you think it might be possible that the voting may have been divided by age as well as anything else? There’s been so much of “like voting for like” this run (like evangelicals for Huckabee or blacks for Obama) that maybe McCain got more votes from the retirement community because he’s old.
And if so, that ain’t gonna work elsewhere for McCain.
I agree with AH(#17)–not sure the door is closed on Romney. A lot can still happen.
My wife, who is supporting McCain, says that’s a case of “last man standing”. That Republicans (disclaimer – she is not a Republican, but likes McCain) have plenty of reasons to dislike Thompson, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney, and McCain is the least of all Republican evils.
Somewhere Reagan is grinning in his grave.
(disclaimer – she is not a Republican, but likes McCain)
Of course. The fact that most of the accolades he gets come from non-Republicans and non-conservatives is very telling. We’re electing a donkey in elephant’s clothing.
Romney is gone unless McCain somehow blows it. Like the Dole candidacy, the Republican establishment feels McCain is owed this and with the Florida win, they’re ready to give it to him.
McCain vs. Hillary means McCain has a chance. McCain barely wins. Pretty much the status quo of operations of D.C. is the theme of the 4 years. Therefore, D.C. Bipartisan cooperation goes south; the economy goes south; personal freedoms go south; international trade goes south; the dollar goes south. The Republicans get blamed. The Republican party becomes damaged goods. The following 2 presidential elections go to the Democrats.
McCain vs. Obama means McCain loses. Just replay Clinton vs. Dole.
I’m really disappointed in Romney’s loss in FL. Even though I predicted it, seeing it actually happen felt very bitter. If there’s something to feel optimistic about for me it would be the fact that Mormon Romney split the Evangelical votes with Huckabee and McCain, and that he got the majority of the Protestant votes. I think the country is ready for a Mormon president. Perhaps Romney has paved the way for another LDS candidate 4 years from now; heck, maybe if Hillary gets elected, after 4 years the country will be more than willing to elect a Mormon.
In the end, though, the bright side of the whole thing is knowing that God is at the helm. Cheesy but true.
I agree Macy. I never expected to feel as disappointed in Romney’s loss as I actually did when I heard the Florida results.
Much as I hated the “double gitmo” talk and other cheesy attempts at claiming the putrid Bush legacy, Romney is, in a way, family. I couldn’t help secretly pulling for him, however much I disagreed with him.
I guess that tribal loyalty stuff runs deeper than politics.
Seth R.
You have just put into words some of the feelings I have regarding Romney. Uri Futatsu.
David H. Sundwall (#12),
But I would like to the fence, employement verification, and a hefty fine.
That’s not a very soft answer.
Sheesh. I was really dissapointed at McCain’s treatment of Romney on the “timetable” issue (at last night’s debate). It was downright infantile–he tried to dumb it way, way down so that the only thing listeners would remember is the word “timetable.” IMO, that’s insulting to the intelligence of his potential voters–and a what’s more, it’s a lie. I’ll definitely vote for McCain over any of the Dems in the national election–if he gets the nomination. But that little charade is going to be stuck in my craw long after November.
Speaking of bashing McCain, there is this little item:
Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP
By Bob Cusack
Posted: 03/28/07 07:39 PM [ET]
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.
In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.
=========================================================
McCain has denied all of this. Does anybody doubt it given his behavior in the beginning the Bush presidency (opposes Bush tax cuts, opposes President on judges, criticizes Bush on just about everything to the great joy of the Dems and the mainstream media, seriously considers running as John Kerry running mate) that McCain was considering leaving the Rep party?
Also of note, Ann Coulter said on Hannity and Colmes last night that she will openly work for Hillary if McCain is the nominee. She finds Hillary more trustworthy and more conservative. I wouldn’t go that far, but the more you hear about McCain the worse he appears.
MO, that’s insulting to the intelligence of his potential voters–and a what’s more, it’s a lie. I’ll definitely vote for [anyone but] McCain