Its Official McCain will be the 08 Nominee

[DKW 86 7,438]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/23/D8IE9CO00.html

I dont know whether to laugh or cry or be grateful. Maybe, just maybe, someone is finally getting it. As far as McCain, hold me to it. I now predict he wins the 08 nomination. Enters as the leader stumbles for a short while and then sails into the win.

McCain Denounces Republicans' Spending

Jun 23 9:32 PM US/Eastern

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD

AP Political Writer

LOS ANGELES

Republicans intent on safeguarding power in Washington have drifted from the values of the Reagan presidency and ushered in an era of reckless spending and government growth that threatens to drive them from office, U.S. Sen. John McCain said in prepared remarks Friday.

"Why has our party, the party of small government, lately adopted the practices of our opponents who believe the bigger the government the better? I'm afraid it's because at times we value our incumbency more than our principles," the Arizona Republican said in a speech to be delivered at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

"We came to office to reduce the size of government. Lately, we have increased the size of government in order to stay in office," McCain said. "Soon, if we don't remember what we were elected to do, we will lose both our principles and our office and we will leave as part of our legacy a mountain of debt and bankrupt entitlement programs that our children's grandchildren will be suffering from."

McCain, a likely contender for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, was scheduled to address a sold-out audience at the hilltop library where Reagan is buried.

With President Bush's popularity at a historic low, McCain's remarks come as another warning from within the Republican ranks that the party is in danger as the November elections approach.

Alluding to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, McCain said, "The best and only lasting answer to the problem of political corruption is a smaller government."

Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to federal crimes in Washington and Miami, was a leading lobbyists who cultivated top Republican leaders, including former Majority Leader Tom Delay, who left Congress and is facing campaign money laundering charges. Earlier this week, a jury found former White House aide David Safavian guilty of covering up his dealings with the disgraced lobbyist.

McCain went on to deride his party for the explosive growth in the practice of "earmarking," in which House and Senate members steer federal spending to pet programs without review.

The number of earmarks tripled during a 10-year stretch of Republican control in Congress, "not a record Ronald Reagan would have been proud of," McCain said.

"We need to stop this, now," he said.

McCain's visit to the library comes at a time when critics have suggested he is shifting to the political right in advance of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, in which conservatives hold great sway. He supports the Iraq war, but has criticized Bush's handling of it. In February he voted to extend Bush's tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, which he once had opposed.

In his remarks, he called himself a Reagan disciple. 

In a rare reference to his days as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, McCain said he learned from other imprisoned military personnel that Reagan, then governor of California, and his wife Nancy "were committed to our liberation and our cause.

"When walls were all I had for a world, I learned about a man whose courage and love gave me hope in a desolate place. His faith honored us," McCain said.

At a time when America was divided by Vietnam and torn by social upheaval, Reagan "possessed an unshakable faith in America's spirit and greatness that proved more durable than the prevailing political sentiments of the time," he added.

[TexasTiger 12,990]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/23/D8IE9CO00.html

I dont know whether to laugh or cry or be grateful. Maybe, just maybe, someone is finally getting it. As far as McCain, hold me to it. I now predict he wins the 08 nomination. Enters as the leader stumbles for a short while and then sails into the win.

McCain Denounces Republicans' Spending

Jun 23 9:32 PM US/Eastern

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD

AP Political Writer

LOS ANGELES

Republicans intent on safeguarding power in Washington have drifted from the values of the Reagan presidency and ushered in an era of reckless spending and government growth that threatens to drive them from office, U.S. Sen. John McCain said in prepared remarks Friday.

"Why has our party, the party of small government, lately adopted the practices of our opponents who believe the bigger the government the better? I'm afraid it's because at times we value our incumbency more than our principles," the Arizona Republican said in a speech to be delivered at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

"We came to office to reduce the size of government. Lately, we have increased the size of government in order to stay in office," McCain said. "Soon, if we don't remember what we were elected to do, we will lose both our principles and our office and we will leave as part of our legacy a mountain of debt and bankrupt entitlement programs that our children's grandchildren will be suffering from."

McCain, a likely contender for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, was scheduled to address a sold-out audience at the hilltop library where Reagan is buried.

With President Bush's popularity at a historic low, McCain's remarks come as another warning from within the Republican ranks that the party is in danger as the November elections approach.

Alluding to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, McCain said, "The best and only lasting answer to the problem of political corruption is a smaller government."

Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to federal crimes in Washington and Miami, was a leading lobbyists who cultivated top Republican leaders, including former Majority Leader Tom Delay, who left Congress and is facing campaign money laundering charges. Earlier this week, a jury found former White House aide David Safavian guilty of covering up his dealings with the disgraced lobbyist.

McCain went on to deride his party for the explosive growth in the practice of "earmarking," in which House and Senate members steer federal spending to pet programs without review.

The number of earmarks tripled during a 10-year stretch of Republican control in Congress, "not a record Ronald Reagan would have been proud of," McCain said.

"We need to stop this, now," he said.

McCain's visit to the library comes at a time when critics have suggested he is shifting to the political right in advance of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, in which conservatives hold great sway. He supports the Iraq war, but has criticized Bush's handling of it. In February he voted to extend Bush's tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, which he once had opposed.

In his remarks, he called himself a Reagan disciple. 

In a rare reference to his days as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, McCain said he learned from other imprisoned military personnel that Reagan, then governor of California, and his wife Nancy "were committed to our liberation and our cause.

"When walls were all I had for a world, I learned about a man whose courage and love gave me hope in a desolate place. His faith honored us," McCain said.

At a time when America was divided by Vietnam and torn by social upheaval, Reagan "possessed an unshakable faith in America's spirit and greatness that proved more durable than the prevailing political sentiments of the time," he added.

243194[/snapback]

Since you didn't notice, Reagan ushered in his own era of reckless spending and record deficits. Bush is actually more in the mold of Reagan than McCain. Reagan was just slicker at it-- all that acting experience with monkeys.

[DKW 86 7,438]

Tex, if Reagan hadnt had Tip Oneill running the house, there would have major work done on the budget. The HOR spends the bucks. The Pres, Republican or Dem, just asks and guides.

[TexasTiger 12,990]

Tex, if Reagan hadnt had Tip Oneill running the house, there would have major work done on the budget. The HOR spends the bucks. The Pres, Republican or Dem, just asks and guides.

243202[/snapback]

The House also cuts taxes, so Tip O'Neil cut taxes, right? Not Ronald Reagan. Oh, don't like it applied that way? Republicans need to get over the Reagan myth. The reality is that he never even submitted anything close to a balanced budget. He didn't fight congress over a balanced budget. He never submitted one-- EVER.

Read David Stockmans, "The Triumph of Politics: Why the Revolution Failed" for insights from Reagans budget director. Reagan lacked the political will to cut spending. He was too concerned with being popular.

[DKW 86 7,438]

And he did win the Cold War without firinig a shot or one dead US service man or woman.

[quietfan 233]

And he did win the Cold War without firinig a shot or one dead US service man or woman. 

243218[/snapback]

IMO, saying Reagan won the Cold War is like saying Harry Truman won WWII.

Truman was there at the end and made the decision to drop the Bomb which broke Japan's last will, but he was only in the position to do that because of everything Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin and millions of fighting men and women did before he took office. Reagan was there at the end and dropped the "economic bomb" (thanks to those deficits Tex referred to) that broke the USSR's back in an arms race. [Although Afghanistan sucked away much of the Soviets' military budget too.] But Reagan was only in that postion because of seven Presidents and millions of American servicemen and women who had fought the good fight and successfully battled the war of attrition against communism before his presidency.

Truman and Reagan justly deserve credit for their contributions. But saying either "won" those wars is liking saying the relief pitcher that takes the mound in the ninth inning with his team ahead deserves a "W" for his three outs.

[TexasTiger 12,990]

And he did win the Cold War without firinig a shot or one dead US service man or woman. 

243218[/snapback]

IMO, saying Reagan won the Cold War is like saying Harry Truman won WWII.

Truman was there at the end and made the decision to drop the Bomb which broke Japan's last will, but he was only in the position to do that because of everything Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin and millions of fighting men and women did before he took office. Reagan was there at the end and dropped the "economic bomb" (thanks to those deficits Tex referred to) that broke the USSR's back in an arms race. [Although Afghanistan sucked away much of the Soviets' military budget too.] But Reagan was only in that postion because of seven Presidents and millions of American servicemen and women who had fought the good fight and successfully battled the war of attrition against communism before his presidency.

Truman and Reagan justly deserve credit for their contributions. But saying either "won" those wars is liking saying the relief pitcher that takes the mound in the ninth inning with his team ahead deserves a "W" for his three outs.

243225[/snapback]

Long before Reagan, the conservative view was that the soviet style-economy was destined to fail, it was just a matter of time. After Glasnost, it was as if Reagan had magically stopped a healthy, charging dragon in it's tracks.

[DKW 86 7,438]

And Glasnost and perestroika happened only because of Reagan revitalizing our military. Only then did the Iron Curtain fall. After 4 years of Carter's weinieism was Carter going to bring it down? Hell no!

The USSR stampeded into Afghanistan and all Carter did was boycott the Olympics. No one in the world respected the US. NO ONE! Carter was as mealy mouth a wuss as ever inherited the White House.

Reagan got the economy going after the 70% marginal tax rates instituted by Tip O'Neill et all had crushed the life out of the American Economy. The Misery Index was 13% when Carter went in, and 20%+ when we threw the bum out.

Reagan did more to revitalize the US in morale and fighting spirit then either of you two revisionists will ever admit. We suffered through 444 days of global humiliation after Carter sided with the despot Shah of Iran. Carter is the reason we are still hated to the last man in Iran. They knew the Shah was corrupt and Carter backed him like a cheap whore. Anyone think Reagan or 43 would put up with 444 days of crap from Iran now? Hell NO! W just took out a despot named Saddam in Iraq. Carter still thinks we should have left him in power just like he did the Shah.

Carter also backed Somoza in Nicaraugua and managed to get a Communist govt installed there because of his weinie ways.

Reagan got us out of more messes than you can count. Tax suicide, economic malaise (remember that one?), pathetic leadership in the White House, high unemployment, high int rates, gas prices that are adjusted for inflation HIGHER than they are even now! You guys just cannot imagine the sorry state of the US when Carter and The Dems had the WH, HOR, and the Senate.

The Reps now in office act like Dems. That is why I amd others are calling for a Third Party or an revolution from inside the party. Reagan always wanted a balanced budget. He fought and vetoed item after item. O'Neill lived to tell the press the Reagan budgets were "DOA" at the HOR. The Dems then wrote their own budgets with little input from the WH.

We did cut the tax rates AND revenues DID increase as sited before in this forum. We also just went wild spending money in the HOR and spent every dime and then some.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I still like Sessions.

[quietfan 233]

You guys just cannot imagine the sorry state of the US when Carter and The Dems had the WH, HOR, and the Senate.

243238[/snapback]

I don't have to imagine anything...I'm 52 years old and lived through Reagan...and Carter...and Ford...and Nixon...and...and...and

The only point I was trying to make is that Reagan did not win the Cold War singlehandedly, and deserves no more credit than Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon, even if we ignore the majority of the '70's.

Based on what we have now, however, I will say having one party control both houses of Congress as well as the White House is probably never a great idea. ...allows for too much arrogance and complacency, and not enough accountability and responsibility.

[Tiger Al 0]

And he did win the Cold War without firinig a shot or one dead US service man or woman. 

243218[/snapback]

Sorry, David. If historical accuracy is of any concern to you, I think you'd better include Pope John Paul II and Lech Walesa as being just as responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. In fact, Mikhail Gorbachev said that the fall of the Soviet Union would've been impossible without Pope JP.

[TexasTiger 12,990]

And Glasnost and perestroika happened only because of Reagan revitalizing our military. Only then did the Iron Curtain fall. After 4 years of Carter's weinieism was Carter going to bring it down? Hell no!

The USSR stampeded into Afghanistan and all Carter did was boycott the Olympics. No one in the world respected the US. NO ONE! Carter was as mealy mouth a wuss as ever inherited the White House.

Reagan got the economy going after the 70% marginal tax rates instituted by Tip O'Neill et all had crushed the life out of the American Economy. The Misery Index was 13% when Carter went in, and 20%+ when we threw the bum out.

Reagan did more to revitalize the US in morale and fighting spirit then either of you two revisionists will ever admit. We suffered through 444 days of global humiliation after Carter sided with the despot Shah of Iran. Carter is the reason we are still hated to the last man in Iran. They knew the Shah was corrupt and Carter backed him like a cheap whore. Anyone think Reagan or 43 would put up with 444 days of crap from Iran now? Hell NO! W just took out a despot named Saddam in Iraq. Carter still thinks we should have left him in power just like he did the Shah.

Carter also backed Somoza in Nicaraugua and managed to get a Communist govt installed there because of his weinie ways.

Reagan got us out of more messes than you can count. Tax suicide, economic malaise (remember that one?), pathetic leadership in the White House, high unemployment, high int rates, gas prices that are adjusted for inflation HIGHER than they are even now! You guys just cannot imagine the sorry state of the US when Carter and The Dems had the WH, HOR, and the Senate.

The Reps now in office act like Dems. That is why I amd others are calling for a Third Party or an revolution from inside the party. Reagan always wanted a balanced budget. He fought and vetoed item after item. O'Neill lived to tell the press the Reagan budgets were "DOA" at the HOR. The Dems then wrote their own budgets with little input from the WH.

We did cut the tax rates AND revenues DID increase as sited before in this forum. We also just went wild spending money in the HOR and spent every dime and then some.

243238[/snapback]

Of course, you ignored this:

The House also cuts taxes, so Tip O'Neil cut taxes, right? Not Ronald Reagan. Oh, don't like it applied that way? Republicans need to get over the Reagan myth. The reality is that he never even submitted anything close to a balanced budget. He didn't fight congress over a balanced budget. He never submitted one-- EVER.

Reagan did more to revitalize the US in morale and fighting spirit then either of you two revisionists will ever admit. We suffered through 444 days of global humiliation after Carter sided with the despot Shah of Iran. Carter is the reason we are still hated to the last man in Iran.  They knew the Shah was corrupt and Carter backed him like a cheap whore. Anyone think Reagan or 43 would put up with 444 days of crap from Iran now?

Talk about revisionist. Blaming Carter for the Shah? The CIA had a plan to stage the coup that set up the Shah under Truman who rejected it. Republican Eisenhower gave it the green light. The Shah had been there for over 20 years when Carter took office. No, Reagan would have caved immediately and began negotiating arms for hostages as he did later. Get real. Let's see, what else would Reagan do? We don't have to speculate, he would have backed Saddam Hussein and give him his chemical weapons starter kit-- because he did! We are in Iraq not because of the abject failures of the Reagan adminstration. Troops are still dying because we decided we needed to take out Reagan's despot of choice-- clean up the mess he left. The mythology of Reagan lives!

[DKW 86 7,438]

And he did win the Cold War without firinig a shot or one dead US service man or woman. 

243218[/snapback]

Sorry, David. If historical accuracy is of any concern to you, I think you'd better include Pope John Paul II and Lech Walesa as being just as responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. In fact, Mikhail Gorbachev said that the fall of the Soviet Union would've been impossible without Pope JP.

243259[/snapback]

I agree totally, but without Reagan at the helm, Walesa is a greasy spot in a Gdansk shipyard. Pope John Paul was very instrumental in bringing down the Iron Curtain. But he was in Rome while Carter was there. What was going on back then? Hostages being taken and America being humiliated. I was in the military back then. Carter sucked more than a $2 whore.

In the Bible it talks about Paul planted, Apollos watered but God gave the increase and so it was with Reagan, John-Paul, Walesa. Take one out and they all fall down. Reagan's personal contribution was a tremendous advantage to the West.

[DKW 86 7,438]

Of course, you ignored this:

The House also cuts taxes, so Tip O'Neil cut taxes, right? Not Ronald Reagan. Oh, don't like it applied that way? Republicans need to get over the Reagan myth. The reality is that he never even submitted anything close to a balanced budget. He didn't fight congress over a balanced budget. He never submitted one-- EVER.

TO was under important political pressure to do something after screwing up sop badly during the Carter years. In 1980 the American public ran Carter and Mondale out of the WH. Carter didnt even take GA in the avalanche that removed his idiot butt from office. Mondale lost with a 49-1 state avalanche. The only state Mondale took was MA. The Dems had just lost the WH and the Senate thanks to Carter. yes, they did cut teh taxes that got the Economy going LIKE YOU JUST ADMITTED and got America back to work.

Talk about revisionist.  Blaming Carter for the Shah?  The CIA had a plan to stage the coup that set up the Shah under Truman who rejected it.  Republican Eisenhower gave it the green light.  The Shah had been there for over 20 years when Carter took office.  No, Reagan would have caved immediately and began negotiating arms for hostages as he did later.  Get real.  Let's see, what else would Reagan do? We don't have to speculate, he would have backed Saddam Hussein and give him his chemical weapons starter kit-- because he did!  We are in Iraq not because of the abject failures of the Reagan adminstration.  Troops are still dying because we decided we needed to take out Reagan's despot of choice-- clean up the mess he left.  The mythology of Reagan lives!

Uh, yes. Carter knew there would be a revolution in Iran and continued to Back the Shah and his Secret Torture Police. Carter was such a freaking joke. He was told by the Intelligence community to get the folks out of Tehran and he didnt. He now flies around the world trying to criticize Bush for some idiot soldiers in Abu Grhaib. Back in the 70's Carter turned a bklind eye to Idi Amin and genocide, Somoza and his death squads, and the Shah and his torture police.the USSr invades Afghanistan under Carter because he was so weak. Reagan, like Bush 43, had to deal with the failures to act by the preceding Democrat Administration. Reagan did supply weapons to both Iraq and Iran and sat back as both idiotic regimes massacred each other for years. He also sold weapons to the Mujahedin and watched them whip the USSR army. We also learned tactics against the USSR equipment and battle tactics of the USSR army. Again, watching their army being humbled by the Mujahedin probably hastened the fall of the USSR.

We also probably did have some big part in creating the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the middle east in the process. War is messy. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing is often even more messy. Just ask Carter.

As for The mythology of Reagan lives Ity is no more mythology than:

Bush lied people died. Blame America First for everything. Losing the WH, The HOR, and the Senate and blaming the American electorate on being too stupid and Bbrainless bush on stealing an election. Thats right, he is sssooo stupid yet every election the Dems lose is stolen, a conspiracy, etc.

Face it. The reason the Dems arent in power and will likely fail is that they are moving ever farther to the extreme Left and America has figured it out.

243261[/snapback]

Man, mention Reagan and the screaming meemies come out in force.

[AURaptor 1,126]

McCain most definatly does NOT 'get it'. He's playing politics, just as Hillary is pretending to be 'moderate'.

McCain won't get my vote for President. Not ever.

Didn't know the convention was already held for the '08 election. My bet is it won't be McCain.

[TexasTiger 12,990]

Of course, you ignored this:

The House also cuts taxes, so Tip O'Neil cut taxes, right? Not Ronald Reagan. Oh, don't like it applied that way? Republicans need to get over the Reagan myth. The reality is that he never even submitted anything close to a balanced budget. He didn't fight congress over a balanced budget. He never submitted one-- EVER.

TO was under important political pressure to do something after screwing up sop badly during the Carter years. In 1980 the American public ran Carter and Mondale out of the WH. Carter didnt even take GA in the avalanche that removed his idiot butt from office. Mondale lost with a 49-1 state avalanche. The only state Mondale took was MA. The Dems had just lost the WH and the Senate thanks to Carter. yes, they did cut teh taxes that got the Economy going LIKE YOU JUST ADMITTED and got America back to work.

Talk about revisionist.  Blaming Carter for the Shah?  The CIA had a plan to stage the coup that set up the Shah under Truman who rejected it.  Republican Eisenhower gave it the green light.  The Shah had been there for over 20 years when Carter took office.  No, Reagan would have caved immediately and began negotiating arms for hostages as he did later.  Get real.  Let's see, what else would Reagan do? We don't have to speculate, he would have backed Saddam Hussein and give him his chemical weapons starter kit-- because he did!  We are in Iraq not because of the abject failures of the Reagan adminstration.  Troops are still dying because we decided we needed to take out Reagan's despot of choice-- clean up the mess he left.  The mythology of Reagan lives!

Uh, yes. Carter knew there would be a revolution in Iran and continued to Back the Shah and his Secret Torture Police. Carter was such a freaking joke. He was told by the Intelligence community to get the folks out of Tehran and he didnt. He now flies around the world trying to criticize Bush for some idiot soldiers in Abu Grhaib. Back in the 70's Carter turned a bklind eye to Idi Amin and genocide, Somoza and his death squads, and the Shah and his torture police.the USSr invades Afghanistan under Carter because he was so weak. Reagan, like Bush 43, had to deal with the failures to act by the preceding Democrat Administration. Reagan did supply weapons to both Iraq and Iran and sat back as both idiotic regimes massacred each other for years. He also sold weapons to the Mujahedin and watched them whip the USSR army. We also learned tactics against the USSR equipment and battle tactics of the USSR army. Again, watching their army being humbled by the Mujahedin probably hastened the fall of the USSR.

We also probably did have some big part in creating the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the middle east in the process. War is messy. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing is often even more messy. Just ask Carter.

As for The mythology of Reagan lives Ity is no more mythology than:

Bush lied people died. Blame America First for everything. Losing the WH, The HOR, and the Senate and blaming the American electorate on being too stupid and Bbrainless bush on stealing an election. Thats right, he is sssooo stupid yet every election the Dems lose is stolen, a conspiracy, etc.

Face it. The reason the Dems arent in power and will likely fail is that they are moving ever farther to the extreme Left and America has figured it out.

243261[/snapback]

Man, mention Reagan and the screaming meemies come out in force.

243270[/snapback]

Okay, to recap, you admit that Reagan had a hand in creating the Taliban, provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons, have not addressed, but can't deny that he caved in and traded arms for hostages, and haven't even addressed how he cut and ran after over 200 marines were killed in Lebanon, emboldening future terrorists. Yep, that's an impressive record. If a Dem had that record you'd be railing on him daily.

[DKW 86 7,438]

McCain most definatly does NOT 'get it'. He's playing politics, just as Hillary is pretending to be 'moderate'.

McCain won't get my vote for President. Not ever.

Didn't know the convention was already held for the '08 election. My bet is it won't be McCain.

243274[/snapback]

He is at least changing his style to make a good run. No Republican is going to win unless he works to balanc the ebudget.

[TexasTiger 12,990]

McCain most definatly does NOT 'get it'. He's playing politics, just as Hillary is pretending to be 'moderate'.

McCain won't get my vote for President. Not ever.

Didn't know the convention was already held for the '08 election. My bet is it won't be McCain.

243274[/snapback]

So what are your objections to McCain, and what do you think he is faking?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I'd have a hard time voting for McCain. While I think he'd do fine reducing the size of government, his pro-amnesty approach to illegal immigration (among other things) would force my vote to someone with a set of cajones to deal with this problem.

[quietfan 233]

I'd have a hard time voting for McCain. While I think he'd do fine reducing the size of government, his pro-amnesty approach to illegal immigration (among other things) would force my vote to someone with a set of cajones to deal with this problem.

243287[/snapback]

I don't know that I'd vote for McCain either, although I'll listen to his campaign points before deciding, if he runs. However, based on his military career, I don't think there's anything wrong with his "cajones".

[Tiger in Spain 0]

True. Still, he is too soft on the immigration problem and the anti-torture bill he drafted didn't sit too well with me.

His habit of sidling with the likes of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry make me want to vomit.

[Tigermike 3,046]

However, based on his military career, I don't think there's anything wrong with his "cajones".

243309[/snapback]

He is getting rather old.

[quietfan 233]

However, based on his military career, I don't think there's anything wrong with his "cajones".

243309[/snapback]

He is getting rather old.

243324[/snapback]

Viagara! If it's works for that other war hero, Bob Dole, it should be okay for McCain!