The Wages of Being John McCain
Should Conservatives Work for McCain?
By Brad Smith Posted in 2008 | Conservatives | John McCain — Comments (177) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Last week, columnist Mona Charen wrote this column, noting Senator McCain’s problems with conservatives, and concluding by discussing me, writing, “Smith, a soft-spoken scholar, ardent patriot and lifelong conservative Republican, cannot, as a matter of honor, pull the lever for McCain.” Although I did say this to Ms. Charen, in fact I have not definitely made up my mind not to vote for McCain. But since Ms. Charen’s column, I have received a surprising number of calls from other conservatives feeling much the same. These are not insignificant people. They include a leading conservative philanthropist; a prominent conservative think tank denizen; a local GOP officeholder; a former appointee in Governor George Voinovich’s administration in Ohio, and others of similar rank – all lifelong Republicans. So it is perhaps appropriate for me to add a few words as to why Senator McCain will not find it easy to reconcile many conservatives to his candidacy.
Read on...
Since 2001, I have always presumed that John McCain would be the GOP presidential nominee in 2008. Thus, making some rounds in D.C. early in 2007, I was surprised at how many Republican activists would say some variation of, “McCain is probably more conservative than Romney or Rudy, but he’s the one I can’t support.”
With the Republican nomination all but wrapped up, John McCain still got kicked around on Saturday. Mike Huckabee absolutely thumped McCain in Kansas, and narrowly beat him in Louisiana. Up in Washington state, which ought to be McCain country, Mitt Romney, who has suspended his campaign, and Ron Paul, who is back in Texas trying to save his congressional seat, combined to outpoll McCain 38-26% in the Republican caucuses, while Gov. Huckabee scooped up another 24%, before the state party chairman halted the counting and declared Sen. McCain the winner though just 87% had been counted. Not an impressive showing of his strength with the Republican electorate.
If John McCain is to have any chance of winning the presidency, his vaunted appeal to independents and the last of the “Reagan Democrats” will be important but probably insufficient. He will also need to consolidate the Republican base, and get its enthusiastic support. This support is needed less for its raw vote totals (though in a close race, the difference between 90% Republican support for Senator McCain and 80% support could be substantial), than for its funding, its enthusiasm, and its get out the vote efforts. Saturday’s results indicate what a battle this could be.
Politics, of course, is a world of compromise and making up. Politicians cannot afford to have permanent enemies. And thus in the last week we have seen Republican officeholders and many of the party’s grand old men fall into line behind Senator McCain. But Republican activists will be a more difficult sell.
Last week, at CPAC, Senator Tom Coburn introduced John McCain to many of these same conservatives by saying, “John may not always tell us what we want to hear, but what he tells us, he will do.”
And therein lies the problem for John McCain, as he now seeks to consolidate the Republican base for his presidential run. For McCain to maintain his appeal to independents, he must continue to be viewed as “straight-talker” who tells people things, “they don’t want to hear.” But as much as his policy positions, it is this image, and what McCain has done to obtain it, that drives many conservatives nuts.
For example, it is not just that Senator McCain opposes opening ANWR for oil drilling, but that he implies that those who support drilling in ANWR (the bulk of his party) would favor drilling in the Grand Canyon, something not remotely comparable and something no conservative wants to do. It is not just that he promoted restrictions on political speech, but he felt it necessary to call fellow Republican senators “corrupt.” It is not only that he was less than enthusiastic about the agenda of many evangelicals, but that he felt it necessary to call them, “agents of intolerance.” It was not enough for him to oppose President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 – he felt the need to denounce them as “tax cuts for the rich” in leftist lingo that left most Democrats in the dust. The list could go on and on.
To many conservative Republicans, the problem is not that McCain is, “telling people what they don’t want to hear.” The problem is the exact opposite. They believe that Senator McCain is scoring cheap political points at their expense, by telling his audience – the Mainstream Media – exactly what it wants to hear. And while this rhetoric has built his reputation as a “Maverick,” it has involved repeatedly insulting and betraying some of his party’s most dedicated members in a most personal fashion. The MSM eats it up because it corresponds with their preconceptions about Republicans. They believe Republicans would drill in the Grand Canyon; they believe Bush’s tax cuts were give aways to the rich; they believe Mitch McConnell and other Republicans opposed to campaign finance reform are “corrupt;” they believe that religious conservatives are “agents of intolerance.” And John McCain is perceived as having played up to them to build his own reputation, at the expense of conservatives.
In this scenario, Senator McCain has no claim to the votes or support of these conservatives. Conservatives may yet give Senator McCain their support, but he has no right to expect it. Many of Senator McCain’s backers have reacted with irritation and anger at those who have balked at supporting McCain, and their irritation seems all the greater because so many of them supported Senator McCain for his “electability.” But it was eminently predictable that Senator McCain’s nomination would split the party in this fashion – it nearly did in 2000, and McCain’s behavior in the intervening seven years has scarcely been calculated to solve that problem. You cannot treat people in the fashion that Senator McCain has over a long period of time, and then expect them to fall into line at the drop of a hat.
Moreover, if Senator McCain is truly a “straight-talker” who tells people “things they don’t want to hear,” then we must take these types of comments – many of them repeated several times, some of them part of set piece speeches – as his true beliefs. In that case, it appears that Senator McCain really hopes to lead into battle a group of people he considers to be boorish, stupid, yahoos. It is understandable if this doesn't inspire the troops. If he is merely scoring political points, well, the “straight talking” image goes by the boards.
The dilemma for those unwilling to hop on the McCain bandwagon is the recognition that the election is about more than Senator McCain and such slights as he has so freely given. The United States is at war and, it increasingly appears, on the brink of recession.
Senator McCain is not so liberal as many conservatives have recently suggested. He is basically a conservative Republican senator who periodically – albeit in often spectacular fashion – deviates from party orthodoxy. However, he is also not so conservative as his raw ACU voting score might suggest, since he seems to reserve most of his legislative efforts for his liberal dalliances. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that conservatives would, in overwhelming numbers, put aside Senator McCain’s personal slights for the good of the country, if that was called for.
Unfotunately, it is not entirely clear that Senator McCain’s election would be good for the country. Michael Rappaport, a thoughtful law professor at the University of San Diego and an influential thinker in Federalist Society circles, argues that in the long run, it is better if Senator McCain is defeated. He writes,
“If McCain wins, the Republicans will have a President who pursues a set of policies that will include many undesirable things. This will have one of two effects (or possibly a combination). Either the Republicans will be transformed to the party of these undesirable things – campaign finance, more regulation, which is a really bad thing – or they will fight among themselves, greatly weakening the McCain presidency. In either event, the McCain presidency is unlikely to be successful from the perspective of a free market Republican – it either will pursue bad policies or will be ineffective. If, as seems likely, those policies turn out to be unsuccessful, it will be the Republicans who will be blamed for them.”
The problem may be even worse than Professor Rappaport believes. Last week on RedState the question was asked, “how do we conservatives going about the business of ensuring that next time - 2012, 2016 - we get a more conservative nominee?” I noted that to get a better nominee in 2012, Senator McCain almost certainly has to lose in 2008, or he will be the nominee again in 2012. Moreover, if Senator McCain wins this year but is unsuccessful as President, he will likely be voted out in 2012, and after the undeserved but very real unpopularity of President Bush’s second term, an unpopular McCain presidency would virtually assure two terms for the Democrats. On the other hand, if a successful President McCain serves two terms, it is very unlikely that a Republican will win in 2016 – only once since Reconstruction has a party won five consecutive presidential elections (the Democrats of Roosevelt and Truman, who held the presidency for 20 consecutive years). In short, McCain’s election in 2008 makes it highly unlikely that a true believer in limited government could win the presidency any time before 2020, at the earliest. A McCain win, in other words, can be seen to doom conservatives to the wilderness for many years, with corresponding long term policy defeats.
The argument to abandon these doubts and support McCain resolves around a few key issues. One is judges. Senator McCain’s selection of judges will almost certainly be better than those of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. But while Senator McCain has voted to confirm conservatives to the bench, he has never been in the lead in fighting for them. The only time that McCain has really gotten involved in judicial selection is with the “Gang of 14,” and while I am one who believes that it was a good thing to preserve the filibuster, Senator McCain never devoted as much effort to breaking Democrat filibusters of conservative nominees. Whether he can find judges who will uphold his campaign finance restrictions (an issue he calls of “transcendent importance”) and would be more generally acceptable to conservatives is questionable. And ultimately, facing a Democratic Senate, he is not going to appoint and get confirmed a John Roberts or a Sam Alito anyway. So while the benefits are probably real, they should not be overestimated.
Second, Senator McCain will probably be better for the economy. But he cannot stop the Bush tax cuts from expiring, and given his denunciations of those cuts as “giveaways to the rich,” he is, among Republicans, uniquely ill-positioned to pressure the Democratic Congress on them. His opposition to pork is nice but would be far more than offset by his likely policies on pharmaceuticals, global warming, and other economic and regulatory issues. McCain opposes “pork” but does not speak broadly about reducing the size and scope of government.
Finally, and most important, is the war. McCain has gained great credit as a resolute supporter of the “Surge” in Iraq, but there is, for some at least, a disquieting sense that this is less due to any prescience on Senator McCain’s part, rather than the phenomenon of a stopped clock being right twice a day. After all, Senator McCain wanted large commitments of U.S. ground troops in Bosnia; he wanted much larger commitments of ground troops in Afghanistan, which would probably have made the Iraq war impossible to begin with. And Senator McCain’s predictions on Iraq in 2002 and 2003 have turned out to be grossly wrong. McCain deserves credit for his steadfastness, but to many it is not clear that he has any realistic long-term notion of how to win the broader war on terror. Nonetheless, with Senator McCain’s likely opponents vowing to cut and run, one must think long and hard before sitting out in 2008.
The ultimate problem facing McCain may be that those Republicans who are most likely to believe that a Democratic administration would be a disaster are those most offended by Senator McCain’s past words and actions. Those who, like me, tend to be more pragmatic and think it unlikely that either party can successfully destroy the United States in four years, and who believe that the realities of power would reshape Democratic thinking on the war, may be more forgiving of Senator McCain on policy, but less likely to see a Democratic administration as one step shy of Armageddon.
Senator McCain could help himself with conservatives enormously if he and his supporters would 1) recognize that he has a problem, and it is his problem – demanding that conservatives “grow up,” or trying to rationalize the problem away, probably isn’t going to cut it; 2) make a real substantive overture to conservatives – Senator McCain has been talking about working with conservatives, but he’s offered nothing concrete; and 3) admit past errors. This last will be tough, not only because of McCain’s stubbornness and legendary temper but also because he has boxed himself into a corner. A few months ago he could have easily said it was a mistake to vote against the Bush tax cuts, but now he has refused to do that many times in the past few weeks. He could have admitted that McCain-Feingold has largely failed, and suggested that at least its limitations on mentioning an officeholder in broadcast ads in the last 60 days of the campaign were in error. After all, that wasn’t even part of the original bill, but was added through an amendment by Paul Wellstone. But McCain went out and filed a brief in the Supreme Court last year supporting the restrictions in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, so he can’t really retreat there, either.
Meanwhile, I plan to work this fall to support Republicans in House and especially Senate races, where it is important we retain enough votes to support filibusters. I would not, do not, tell others not to vote for or support McCain. But I cannot be critical of those who decide that McCain will not be their man in 2008.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Huckabee Challenging Washington Vote — Comments (97) »
The Wages of Being John McCain 177 Comments (0 topical, 177 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
You've cleared out all the deadwood and really laid out plainly the key issues that reasonable conservatives face with respect to John McCain's candidacy. It has really given me much to consider.
You're also the first writer to plausibly argue why a Democratic victory in 2008 may not be the end of the world - though actually, much as I cannot abide Hillary, you've made me realize that she's probably less of a risk to be "the end of the world" than Obama, whose foreign policy instincts are far more dangerous to our national security.
You've also really clearly stated what has been objectionable about McCain's deviations from conservative orthodoxy - again, not so much what his deviations have been as in how he has treated fellow conservatives in the process. I have to really ponder the underlying nature of the gratuitous manner in which he has characterized those who disagree with him.
I'm currently supporting Sen McCain, but after reading your work here, I will be watching closely his behavior to determine whether he merits continued support or whether I will need to withhold my vote so as not to be complicit in an abusive relationship. That's really what it boils down to at this point.
Excellently written: logical, concise, and insightful.
That's what is so aggravating about McCain.
When he disagrees with the left he says little.
When he disagrees with those on his right, he applies harsh ad hominem attacks. He often applies the stereotypes of the left when doing so. He uses the condescending, nasty caricatures of the right that the most partisan of the left use. I've long suspected the reason he uses this tactic is simply because it's so effective at pandering to the press. He bashes the right, the media adore him, and they both are happy.
If he applied the same sort of attacks on the left, it wouldn't sting so bad.
He is obsequiosly polite with the left. He even refuses to site facts that refute their claims. Yet, he bashes the right quite freely. (Miers oppenents were "sexist," immigration opponents had stabbed him in the back, didn't want to do what was right for America, were "bashing" immigrants). Why do we hold the President to such low standards, and continue to think of him as a great leader, while we bash McCain unrelentingly for the same sins?
I was going to come back and post the same point.
Note that both of those events happened after re-election. That's exactly when his base left him. I previously supported Bush vociferously, and now I don't care about his fate. If he pulled both those stunts before the election, he very well may not have been re-elected.
However, denouncing the Swifties occurred in 2004. Never going after Kerry's voting record vigorously also happened in 2004. Telling reporters he thought a crime very possible had been committed in Valarie Plame's outing happened in 2003, I believe. Backing off of the claim that Saddam had enquired about uraniam from Niger (when British intelligence still stands by the claim) because Joe Wilson criticized the claim happened pre-2004. Signing the campaign finance bill happened shortly after his inauguration.
I consider the President to be an execusable panderer to the left. I am very much a non-fan of his Presidency. Still, I'd never have considered voting for Gore or Kerry or him, or entertained the notion that it didn't matter who won between the President and those two. The same goes for John McCain in an election against Obama or Hillary.
in 2012 (unless they do something incredibly stupid - and Obama and Clinton are probably too disciplined). Here is why - the next 2-3 years are going to be a time of economic upheaval, as the mortgage and Wall St. liquidity issues shake out. The odds are that we will be in recovery by 2012, and probably in robust recovery. Whoever is in office will be able to claim that as their own.
Also, if the right wishes to influence the process, they have to participate. The American electorate is not going to wait for a group that picks up their ball and runs home everytime they dont get their way. They will form new alliances and move on (in fact, they may already be moving on - on Super Tuesday, the base in the south voted 3:1 for McCain or Huckabee, instead of Romney, and after a solid week of being told be conservative pundits that Romney was the man.)
The Romney infatuation also leads me to believe that there is more than ideology behind the frustration with McCain. If you look at their records, McCain is clearly the more conservative of the two. Yet conservatives pundits were so eager to push Romney. Is it possible these pundits and so called "conservative leaders" are suffering from a little bit of hubris, and are blinded by personal enmity of McCain. And based on how Republican voters in the south voted on super Tuesday, is it possible that these so called "conservative leaders" really do not lead much of anything?
Let's be honest, if you can not get southern Republican voters (on a poor weather day) to vote the way you want, you are not much of a conservative leader.
While you wait for a perfect candidate, the GOP moves on with out you.
The American electorate is not going to wait for a group that picks up their ball and runs home everytime they dont get their way.
It isn't that those that dislike McCain so strongly disagree on the issues. It's that McCain doesn't want room for the conservatives. He can't just say he disagrees, he has to bash and ridicule us.
If a strong conservative treated the moderates the same way, I wouldn't blame the moderates for saying they wouldn't vote for him. I would say it was the fault of strong conservatives for not picking someone who would unite the part instead of tearing it apart.
I think that who ever wins in 2008 will be re-elected in 2012 (unless they do something incredibly stupid - and Obama and Clinton are probably too disciplined).
Obama is so similar to Carter that it's uncanny.
Carter was a real nice, honest, and intelligent guy. Carter had a "nobody is wrong" foreign policy that trusted everyone and took no stands.
So is / does Obama.
to spoiled Children picking up their ball abnd going home...or whiners etc.
I don't have anything to apologize for McCain has 20 years of slights and insults to his party brethren to apologize for.
Stop denigrating the base and try to understand what the issue is here!
Delegates needed to stop McCain 465
"The Republican establishment is requiring a level of loyalty from Conservatives than they ever did from John McCain"....Rush Limbaugh
"The American electorate is not going to wait for a group that picks up their ball and runs home everytime they dont get their way."
I live in MN where Norm Coleman has an almost identical voting record as Sen. McCain ('cept he did oppose the Kennedy-McCain fiasco). That means he and I have some rather substantial policy position differences. However, I will be happily voting for him this fall because when Norm has disagreed with conservative orthodoxy,he hasn't gone out of his way to flip me off and then ask me to believe he was just waving at me.
I worked for, voted for, and contributed to Sen. McCain back in the 80s & 90s when I lived in AZ. If that John McCain was running for office, this would be a no-brainer. But that was then and this is now.
I have voted countless times for Republicans with whom I have substantial policy differences and there are reasons for a conservative to hold his nose and vote for John McCain. However, the genre of McCain supporters who continue to insist that conservatives somehow owe our votes to McCain or we will be considered to have 'taken our ball and gone home' might want to remember that appealing to 'party unity' is a specious argument to use to engender support for a candidate who has shown little of it at critical times in the last 7 years.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
This is exactly how my father feels. McCain's transgressions aren't just a matter of policy, they're also a matter of demeanor, or at least perceived demeanor. That's why there is a real rift here that can't be wallpapered over.
The moderates are in for McCain. The evangelicals are in for Huckabee (who in terms of conservative credentials - small government, less taxes, etc - is less conservative than McCain). As a practical matter, not one of you mentioned the results from Super Tuesday, and the fact that the base doesn't seem to be with you.
Look, the fact is that you have no obligation to vote for McCain, or anyone else. But the rest of the party has no obligation to wait for you guys to be interested again.
In regards to McCains demeanor, shouldn't we be harder on our people who screw up then anyone else. Time and time again I have seen posted on this board that we lost the Congress because we couldn't controll the spending, and we appeared arrogant and out of touch with the conservative base. McCain was the one complaining the loudest about the proliferation of earmarks. Ultimately the voters should judge the party, but shouldn't we police ourselves before it gets to that point?
Finally, if you re-read you posts, one of the central themes seems to be that "Our skin is too thin for a guy like McCain, he said things that are mean". If that is the case, maybe you should take a time out and have a good cry. Maybe this is why the party has started to drift aqway from you at the polls. After all, who wants a leader who runs away at the first sign of adversity?
any of the claims you posited. I simply stated why the meme that people like me who 'don't get their way' will take their ball and go home is not correct, at least in my case, because I am willing and happy to vote for a candidate who is no more conservative than McCain. Ergo, that means that my issues with McCain go beyond 'ideological purity.'
Also, one does not need to have a 'thin skin' to recognize that the manner in which someone disagrees with you is a legitimate window into how he feels toward you. If you believe that telling Sen. Cornyn to f--k off, calling Sen. Grassley a f'in jerk, and Sen. Domenicia an a--hole are 'mean' and nothing more, that is certainly your perogative. I choose to look beyond just the vulgarity of those comments and see a man whose disdain for those who disagree with him exceeds just policy differences.
And for the record, I totally agree with you that conservatives were much too reticent in calling out GWB on his spending apostasies. That's one of the reason's Sen. McCain's embrace of AGW concerns me so much. The costs of implementing that agenda makes earmarks look like chump change.
Finally, John McCain can call me anything he wants. I, personally, don't care what people call me. But I don't believe it's 'thin skinned' to extrapolate from such behavior what occupies the core of an individual's management and decision making style, and to have that observation factor into my decision making process.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
about McCain's behaviour in the past and form opinions on his future management style based on that. That is absolutely your perogative.
McCain has a rough style that is not for everyone. However, it may be necessary to shake up the Washington establishment (btw - Clinton and Huckabee also have well documented nasty streaks, and since Obama came up as a labor and party organizer in Chicago, I gotta believe he has a nasty streak as well).
I am someone who hates to lose and be the odd man out, and I assume that you and many other people on this forum that may not be inclined to vote for McCain may be the same way. However, some people do not see the situation with clear eyes. They insist that the party has moved away from the base, and the elites have foisted McCain upon them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The primary voters in SC, FL, CA, MO, AZ, and other states can hardly be called "35,000 foot" Republicans (as I saw posted at this site earlier).
I would hope that you can join us in the fall. If you decide that you could not, I will respect that, but I will also feel free to form my own opinions about your choice, and whether the mainstream of the party should work with those that would not participate in the future.
"and the elites have foisted McCain upon them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The primary voters in SC, FL, CA, MO, AZ, and other states can hardly be called "35,000 foot" Republicans (as I saw posted at this site earlier)"
I reject this statement, and many others from all sides which resort to ad hominem attacks and just plain lunacy at times. I think sometimes I'm over at the DailyKos.
The reason McCain won this nomination, IMHO, is because of a perfect storm of circumstance: a splintered conservative field where each of the major 'conservatives' split one of the legs of the stool and the guy (my guy) who could have taken all three legs ran an ineffectual campaign. On the other side, Guiliani ran an even worse campaign than my guy and McCain didn't have anyone to split the moderate/indie vote with. Add in the fact that the early primaries were 'open' (which greatly benefitted McCain), and many of the rules in the NE had been changed to WTA to help Guiliani, and you had the situation where McCain won 10% more of the vote than Romney on SuperTuesday but got about 70% of the delegates.
But hey, it is what it is. I'm a 3-legged stool conservative and trust me, I've 'lost' before and still stayed with the process. This is the first time since I started voting in '76 in which I am having to wrestle with supporting the GOP nominee even though the last time 'my' guy won the nomination was in 1984. In my heart I need to decide what I believe is best for the long-term advancement of the entire conservative agenda. Candidly, I haven't decided yet and I appreciate you respecting my angst just as I respect your opinion to support Sen. McCain because that is what you believe to be appropriate.
But this statement did cause me some angst: "whether the mainstream of the party should work with those that would not participate in the future."
First, I think one of the problems on RS has been people using terms which are subject to definition. I'm not sure where you fit on the political spectrum but I know that exit polls show that about 60% of the GOP describes itself as "conservative" or "very conservative". As I define myself as the former, I believe that I am in the "mainstream". But that is a matter of opinion, not certitude.
The same exit polls show that McCain has yet to win a plurality of GOP voters identifying themselves as residing in either of these two groups From my vantage point, I would make the argument that McCain won the nomination despite not being in the "mainstream" not because he is in it (based on the confluence of events described above).
In sum, regardless of what I ultimately decide to do at the top of the ticket, I will work passionately for the election of Republicans in primaries and in the GE. I would hope that after 32 years of supporting all manner of GOP candidates, my potential inability to support a candidate who, from my perspective, has advocated numerous positions with which I disagree passionately, and done so in a manner which I found to be unnecessarily contentious and demeaning, would not then place me in the category of one who 'will not participate.'
All that being said, I appreciate your calm and reasoned response and look forward to working with you and beside you in the many areas in which I'm sure we find passionate agreement.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
You said there's very Conservative and Conservative and the exit polls show McCain losing both groups all of the times. Actually at least in South Carolina and I believe in other states the exit polls show John McCain winnning a plurality of "Somewhat Conservative" voters - the bloc he lost like every single time was the very conservative bloc - so he did win the more moderate side of conservative, though granted by only two percent so I suppose you could say he tied.
His comment said Conservative and very Conservative were not going for McCain. Somewhat Conservative is a totally different category so I don't get your point.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
and Con and least not the CNN ones I have been looking at, therefore, if one was to make a point about data showing who's winning the two groups of conservatives I would assume they're looking at the somewhat Conservative and very consevative as those are the two groups the data records.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
There is no quandary, unless someone is trolling from MoveOn.
THINK, people (picture Biff knocking on George McFly's head): Mac, Hillary, or Urkel will be POTUS for 4 years. Their SCOTUS nominees will shape the Court for decades beyond that.
Ginsberg and Stevens will definitely be replaced by the next POTUS. With McCain, we get at least even odds of quality nominees. I'd bet on it. With Hillary/Urkel, we get zero odds.
And if Nino or Kennedy were to vacate, then Hillary or Urkel could give us a far-left SCOTUS for the next generation. Are we so stupid to let this happen by "not pulling the lever" for McCain, out of pettiness?
"(picture Biff knocking on George McFly's head)"
If McCain loses, it will be because of crap like this. You really need to lose that jazz, and so does he. "Vote for me, you a***holes" is not a willing pitch. You want to talk petty? It's not all that far away.
------------------------
"Put your faith in God. I know *I'm* going to..."
-Taniwha
"THINK, people (picture Biff knocking on George McFly's head):"
Bad analogy. You make yourself the Biff banging on the stupid, incompetent, bumbling and scared of his shadow mcfly.
Are we so stupid to let this happen by "not pulling the lever" for McCain, out of pettiness?
Stupid or principled? either way the answer is yeah!
You arrogance and condescension proves Brad's point perfectly. This is the treatment that we've come to expect from McCain, Graham, Hagel, Snow, Collins, Warner, and the rest of their ilk. Brad's point is that YOU need to reach out and mend the fences that McCain has destroyed over the last 12 years at least. Attacking people who have a principle and consciencious problem with McCain isn't going to do anything to help him with the base!
Delegates needed to stop McCain 465
"The Republican establishment is requiring a level of loyalty from Conservatives than they ever did from John McCain"....Rush Limbaugh
This is exactly the kind of attitude that has McCain in so much trouble with conservatives. The condescending "I know more about this issue than anyone else in the g-d d--n room" attitude.
There have been thoughtful folks here on RS that have motivated me to at least reconsider the 8 million times in the last 7 years that I said "I'll vote for John McCain over my dead body."
Keep insulting me, keep telling me I have no where else to go, keep blaming me for the fact that conservatives are having trouble rallying around someone who literally has told those on his side of the aisle to f*** off.
It is John McCain's fault that he's flipped off conservatives for the last 7 years and now expects them to think he was just waving at them. I didn't get off the Straight Talk Express, I was pushed off. If McCain and his supporters wish to get me back on board, they may want to stop insulting me and recognize, and apologize through words and actions, that they at least accept their role in having done so.
Telling me I'm stupid, or mockingly saying 'where what else ya gonna do', ain't gonna cut it.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It is John McCain's fault that he's flipped off conservatives for the last 7 years and now expects them to think he was just waving at them.
I think you captured the essence of how we feel about Johnny Mac, even though I am trying to suck it up an be an active supporter. Taunting the right isn't going to help us win the base-McCain has not done it this year, and I would bet he would want his supporters to backd own a bit as well.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Thanks for the props. I'm feeling particularly lucid for a Monday morning. Or, as they say in the Lone Star State: Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while."
Bundle up, dude. It's cold this morning (where's Al Gore when ya need him!)
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Because of course, he doesn't have any friends. It's cooold here too-I'm ready to head back down South-but I can't convince my lady that its a good idea, sadly, so its seems BR is going to be stuck in the cold for a bit. I know the lucidity feeling-try being in the education system where everyones Obamacrazy. Thank God for Redstate, but I wish there weren't so much hang over-Tequila is a mean mean friend. :-)
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
references to "ManBearPig" but must have missed its birth. This is referring to.....? Thanks, and throw another log on the fire, It was 15 below with 30 mph winds yesterday in the frozen MN tundra. Brrrr!
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
With Al Gore-ManBearPig is obviously supposed to be golbal warming, and iis a crisis Al Gore makes up because "he doesn't have any friends". Al Gore does completely rediculous things because of this, trying to prove to everyone that ManBearPig exists, and its pretty funny. I'd recommend it especially if you like cartoons.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
a South Park afficianado thus proving just how far out of the popular culture I reside.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
They do a really good job of beating up both sides of the political aisle, and they definitely hit the left as hard as they hit the right. Mostly, they are Western libertarians, which makes for very funny tv when they are talking politics.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
engendered by the fact that everytime I picture some black guy getting out of a pick-up truck with the stars & bars on it I just crack up (that's gotta drive those PC types up Chicago way absolutely insane :-)
On your reco...I'll be checking it out.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I just got a rebel pride backplate glass for it too with the stars and bards on each letter. Still haven't gotten my McCain bumper sticker yet tho-I'm waiting for the convention to take my Romney one off and put one on for the general...I already had to scrape my Fred! one off earlier for Mitt.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
See...you can say something I agree with...I knew you had it in you...Ha
;>)
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
At the very least we can agree on our hatred for Okies and move from there :-)
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Or are you an Aggie?
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
It wouldn't hurt if McCain's supporters would stop calling everyone whiney, stupid, and inane,among other names, while opting to engage in some real debate. I quit participating here because it was degenerating to name calling fests everywhere I looked.
When Thompson dropped out that was the treatment his supporters received. When Romney dropped out, likewise. And the battle still goes on between McCain's supporters and Huckabee's (Neither of whom I can wholeheartedly support).
Now, when they need us to win the general, we're supposed to just forget that treatment and fall in line like sheep? If we don't, we just receive more of the same treatment we've been getting which is not very comforting when you look at McCain's record to date.
If, in the end, I do vote for McCain, it won't be for him but for the good of the country. I'm not all that sure that a vote for him would be good for the country simply because I have no trust in the man to do the right thing in the face of all his Democratic friends.
To make the case for the SCOTUS and the GWOT, you have to minimize his tendency to side with Democrats over Republicans...for instance, his comment that Alito is too conservative?... which, to me, is basically saying we "Hope" that a McCain president will be different. Isn't that Obama's mantra?
There are 8 months left before November and matters could change, but I get real tired of being called names or accused of not thinking because I don't readily jump on the bandwagon.
Listen I know understand that non McCain supporters may be put out by the "stop whining" comments... But McCain has surely taken more than his share of abuse from posters (not necessarily StephC) supporting his opponents (ie Juan McCain, Grahmnesty [for his supporter Sen Graham], Liberal, etc).... Perhaps it's just my bias, but I don't remember seeing as much 'below the belt' demagoguery directed at Romney, Thompson, Giuliani or Huckabee. I think what annoys most moderate conservatives (and I am Conservative!) is the attitude that the Republican nominee has to kow tow to the Conservative Right Wing, or they threaten to stay home... I've heard many commentators (in this case Hannity, who's become embarrassingly repetitive) that the "Base" feel taken advantage of.. Quite frankly, I've always felt that the Base take the more moderate wing of the Party for granted, they just assume that we're so ideologically flexible that they can exact whatever promises (even the kind that make you wince) from the nominee or pick an extreme candidate and we'll still go along for the ride...
There are certainly things about Sen McCain that make me uneasy, his snarky attitude for one, but he is my first choice for nominee and that's based largely on the War... However, if Romney (or any other) had won/wins the nomination I would have supported them as well, though perhaps less enthusiastically. I can understand your disappointment that your candidate didn't win. However, I don't think for a moment that you wouldn't tell me to "stop whining" and to "grow up" if I said that I was going to sit out the election in protest if Romney/Thompson/whoever were the nominee.
Laura
On all sides. Unless the Huckster pulls out that miracle he's wishing for, we're down to McCain. Every time any of us expresses doubts about McCain's fitness it's countered with name calling... even bullying of a sort. We have 8 months (which make the third post I've mentioned this). Instead of taking us apart why not spend those 8 months really debating the issues that concern us in the hopes of getting us to at the least vote for McCain?
It's like everyone expects us to just capitulate on our principles right now. I'm a mother and grandmother and listened to my children and now my grandchildren play this game of " I want it and I want it now" game. The more they played that game the less inclined I was toward their way of thinking. They have to give me good reasons, not soundbytes that say almost nothing, and give me the time to make up my own mind. If they want sheeple, they had best go talk to the Democratic Party, not conservatives.
http://hillbillypolitics.com
Let me say a couple of things.
First, in regards to what you are asking from Mr. McCain.
1) Mr. McCain did not demand that conservatives "grow up." He used the word "we" which is inclusive. Secondly, his CPAC speech was very clear in acknowledging a problem.
2) You want him to make a concrete overture to conservatives. He has. Again, I reference his CPAC speech. He reiterated his support of life and small government. He committed to himself to border security first, to judges like Scalia and Alito, to making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and to vetoing any spending bill that contains earmarks. What more would you like him to commit to?
3) You have asked him to admit he was wrong. Is this what your vote is going to hinge on?
So what you're telling me is that if you don't get an apology that you feel you deserve from Senator McCain then you're willing to have a liberal become president.
It is ironic to me that because you have had personal and policy issues with McCain that you and many other conservatives are willing to embrace an Obama / Clinton presidency.
You would prefer a liberal presidency that would be far more liberal and prevent us from solidifying the Supreme Court rather than pull the lever for McCain.
For someone as politically savvy as yourself, Mr. Smith, I'm shocked by the naivete of this approach.
With your vast experience at the FEC, I would think that you of all people would realize the lasting CONSEQUENCES of turning the power of the presidency over to the Democrats.
McCain even though McCain & Huckabee are my least favorite candidates. However; the attitude of McCain supporters makes it MUCH harder to swallow. Perhaps instead of insulting Mr. Smith you could just put your pro McCain comments and leave the rude comments out. Your not helping your nominee.
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing." Fred D. Thompson
I'm not a mccain supporter.
I'm a Fred supporter.
As for insulting comments, I didn't mean to put any in.
My points were pretty simple:
1) McCain has done quite a bit in coming toward conservatives.
2) A non-vote for McCain means you are okay with a Hillary or Obama presidency. That's not an insult, it's a fact.
If I was insulting, I apologize.
Given the personal nature of this comment by Oz, I'll respond.
First, Oz is quite right that McCain has not said - to my knowledge - that his detractors need to "grow up." In my post, I referred to "McCain and his staff." A bad choice of words on my part. I've now edited that to be more clear as "McCain and his supporters." The "grow up" angle is a common theme among McCain supporters, whether those precise words are used or not - and they often are. See e.g. here or here. Of course, Sen. McCain can't control everything his supporters say everywhere, but it is still fair for me to speak directly to others, and it would be wise for Senator McCain to do so. Senator McCain might make clear that all of this needs to stop on both sides. Something like, "those who have supported my opponents in the primaries are not children who need to grow up - they are patriotic Americans who love their country passionately and want what is best for it. People such as Rush Limbaugh are great Americans. And we've expressed our disagreements clearly - I to them, and they to me. Fortunately, so much more unites us than separates us, etc. etc." (I'm not going to become his speechwriter).
His "calm down" comments were actually not bad - but he needs to be clear that he is speaking to both sides. The bottom line is that what seems to many to be a rather perfunctory "we conservatives" isn't going to cut it. He needs to understand that many respond to that by saying, "what do you mean, 'we conservatives?' Are you really one of us? After all you've said to score cheap political points at our expense for the past decade?" This would not be such a problem if Senator McCain had merely gone his own way on a few issues. The problem is how he has gone about his business, and a decade of that approach will not be so easily remedied. So I'm not critical of what he said at CPAC or even generally what he's been saying of late, only noting that he still doesn't seem to quite get how much damage he has done over the years to the conservative coalition he now seeks to lead, and he needs to address it. It is,m as the title says, part of the "Wages of being John McCain."
Likewise on the second point. It is easy to say he'll appoint people like Roberts and Alito but he needs something more concrete. For one, facing a Democratic Senate, he won't be able to confirm people like Alito. And it is nice to say make the Bush tax cuts permanent, but he can't do that. His veto pen won't work there, they lapse automatically. Earmarks? Shmearmarks. Earmarks have symbolic resonance but are a trifle in the budget (plus, there should be some earmarking - the alternative is for Congress to turn more spending decisions over to the bureaucracy). In other words, those are the easy lines. They really don't reassure his doubters. How about something like, "some have asked if I will demand that any judicial nominees support the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold. I believe the Supreme Court was correct in 2003 when it upheld the constitutionality of the bill. But there will be no issue by issue litmus tests on my judges. If they have the character and temperment and judicial philosophy of a Sam Alito or John Roberts, that's who I want on the bench, and I'll take what comes." That might reassure a few conservatives.
On the third point, yes, McCain should admit his mistakes. Exactly. Of course some people's votes will hinge on that. If people have doubts about McCain's willingness to really fight for tax reduction, saying he was wrong in voting against the Bush tax cuts would really be a good idea. If people are still furious about McCain-Feingold (and they are), admitting that the bill has not worked out entirely as he had hoped might be a really good idea. If he really wants enforcement first on immigration (and as an aside, my personal views on immigration are pretty "liberal") he needs to overcome the begrudging "I'll build the [explicative] fence" remark, and say something like, "the immigration bill I co-sponsored last summer did not have its priorities right. I realize that now, from talking more with my fellow conservatives." Not just "I've heard you," which is what he's said, but "I was wrong." Finally on this point, note that I did not say, despite what Oz says, that I or anyone needs an apology from McCain. An admission of error is not the same thing.
Oz then devotes three short paragraphs to repeating a mantra that it would be terrible terrible terrible if a Democrat were elected this fall. Maybe. As I indicate, McCain would almost certainly be better on an issue by issue basis than the Democrat. Unfortunately, Oz does not address any of the arguments that maybe it would not be quite so terrible, or that maybe in the long term a McCain presidency would not so much matter. The problem for McCain is that he needs to not merely show that he would be better than the Democrat, but enough better for people to overcome the personal insults he has hurled at them for some time. I don't think that this is "naivete" on my part - indeed, while I don't know Oz's age or who he is, when I was younger and less experienced I think I would have been more prone to agree with him. But people are people - as I say, you cannot treat people as McCain has over many years, and then think that they will bust their hind ends to elect you. And in keeping with the tone of my approach, however you look at it, throwing out words such as "naive" is probably not the way to win over balking conservatives.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
There is a sharp limit on how many times McCain can "admit error," without coming off as a flip-flopper and a panderer.
One of the charges that Romney's opponents used against him was that he conveniently changed his position on abortion, the Reagan Administration, etc., just when he switched from running in Massachusetts to running for the GOP Presidential nomination. If McCain does the same thing, he jeopardizes his reputation for hard-nosed forthrightness and steadfastness.
It's also not clear that McCain ought to "admit error" on issues where he may well be right and the GOP base may be wrong. An example of that is immigration. The base was right that border enforcement must come first. McCain acknowledged that. But he can't promise what some in the base are demanding--deportations and getting rid of the entire 12 million illegal aliens. He just can't. It's not doable, and the GOP can't be tagged as a nativist anti-Hispanic party and expect to win elections in the future.
I don't think McCain's demeanor matters all that much, compared to these emotional wedge issues either.
Giuliani tried to stick to a liberal position on abortion (he's pro-choice) without being disagreeable about it. Unlike McCain, he didn't poke a finger in the eye of conservatives. He tried to disagree with them without being disagreeable. They respected Rudy for that. But in the end, they rejected him anyway.
Immigration is just a deal-breaker for the nativists of the GOP. If you refuse to support kicking out all 12 million illegals, it doesn't matter how nice you are about it.
And I'm sorry, I see no reason for McCain to suck up to those nativists who are openly reveling in anti-Hispanic bigotry: Talking about "brown invasions" and how "white Anglo-Saxon culture is doomed" and how Hispanics get plastered and pump out babies. Such an element does not need to be appeased. They need to be opposed. Those of us who reject the bigotry have principles WE will stand up for too.
Talking about "brown invasions" and how "white Anglo-Saxon culture is doomed" and how Hispanics get plastered and pump out babies.
I don't really hear that from the RedState crowd here. You're probably getting us mixed up with the Ron Paul and Buchanan supporters.
The immigration issue at RedState is more about 1) respect for law combined with 2) creating a more workable set of laws. But after getting burned with past broken promises, many here are skeptical of the same players saying that this time will be different and demanding more deeds over words.
McCain has less to repair over immigration than some othe issues, but he still has to repent for his past insults before being granted absolution.
These are the same dishonest sorts who conflate immigration and illegal immigration, and use "nativism," "racism" and so forth as slurs to avoid the central issue--the rule of law and the rank gangsterism of the non-enforcement policy. People, and it's far more than conservatives or even Republicans, know when they are hearing lies. And any CIR that didn't have a large lag between border security, law enforcement, and then status adjustment was a blatant fraud.
I will take McCain at his word he "learned" something from his use of this discredited tactic. I thoroughly expect to be angered to learn he did not.
Let's examin his "Word, shall we?
His word is that "I've learned my lesson, I want to secure the border FIRST."
What's next? We know he's for blanket amnesty and I'd bet a hundred dollars to a box of donuts that he'll push for it or at least sign it when it crosses his desk.
On top of this, in his own word, when asked if he would sign the bill that he authored with Kennedy he replies it will never be passed so it doesn't matter. He doesn't answer the question he refuses to answer it while seeming to answer it just like Clinton.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
The other guy in the race who has actually actively worked to provide in state tuition, or was it free tuition for illegal aliens.
As a parent of two kids, one in JC and one two years away, Pastor Hucka annoys me to no end with this flip flop to the Tancredo get tough talk he uses now.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Did I mention Huckabee?
Hmmm. I didn't think so.
But since you brought him up!
You object with Huckabee's position on In state tuition so you go for the guy that wants open boarders and blanket amnesty?
That's a consistent arguement!
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
folks' stance on "ILLEGAL" immigration. We ARE concerned with seeing to it that the rule of law is enforced in OUR nation. How is giving illegal immigrants from anywhere preferential treatment over those doing trying to do it legally being a nativist? That sinz guy really takes the cake!
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
Yes, I know that I have racists and natavists on my side. It is very easy to provide plenty of examples that a sizeable portion of those in opposition are doing it for racist reasons. But that doesn't automatically make ALL those that are against illegal immigration racist or natavist.
I'm supportive of high levels of immigration. But I don't want to reward law breakers. They can go home and legal ones can come here. I want us to know who they are before they come. No criminals, no terrorists, thanks. If they break the law, when they get out of jail they can go home. I don't want one neighbor nation to have automatic special status - I want us to welcome the world here.
You exemplify why McCain frustrates me so much. Without knowing me, you've called me a racist. And know you want my vote?
John McCain actually has a serious public forum where he can go considerably beyond admitting mistakes and uttering reassuring words. He can write legislation!
If John McCain really believes the borders need to be secured and our employment laws need to be enforced he can introduce legislation to accomplish these goals or he can choose to sponsor legislation that has already been introduced. Then we can judge from the details whether or not he is serious. For example sponsoring the SAVE Act would be a great choice. It is an excellent enforcement bill which was introduced by a Democrat and has broad bi-partisan support. It does those enforcement things that McCain has been saying need to happen first. McCain could accomplish a perfect tri-fecta with this bill: 1)it is bi-partisan so it would not damage his maverick brand image; 2)it is supported by conservatives including much of Tancredo's former caucus and 3) it would actually put a bi-partisan accomplishment on his resume that actually demonstratably advanced the conservative cause rather than the liberal legislative agenda.
Beyond just reassuring words, John McCain should commit some of his promises to conservatives to legislative format. Then he would be clearly on record with details. We would know if he was serious or just blowing sunshine up our rear.
He has talked about a tax cut for corporations. What is the Bill Number? He wants to make the tax cuts permanent? What's the bill number and how hard is he pushing it.
Let's see ya back up your platitudes with real action Jonny Mac...I could see moving your way if you can put your money where your mouth is.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. " -James Madison
“1) Mr. McCain did not demand that conservatives "grow up." He used the word "we" which is inclusive. Secondly, his CPAC speech was very clear in acknowledging a problem.”
Adding the word “We” is only a rhetorical ploy to soften the blow as he calls us childish and impetuous
“2) You want him to make a concrete overture to conservatives. He has. Again, I reference his CPAC speech. He reiterated his support of life and small government. He committed to himself to border security first, to judges like Scalia and Alito, to making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and to vetoing any spending bill that contains earmarks. What more would you like him to commit to?”
One speech does not an outreach make. You can’t just walk into a conference of people you’ve shunned for years and make one speech and expect mindless obeisance from them just because you threw them a few bones
Just because he says he’s got a 100% pro life voting record doesn’t make him 100% pro life. According to Rick Santorum McCain was one of the main Senators behind closed doors who actively worked to keep pro life issues from reaching the Senate Floor. He supports Federal funding of stem cell research as well… that alone removes the 100% rating.
His comments about immigration are Clintonian at best and Machiavellian at worse. He says he will secure the borders first but leaves out what’s next. We all know he supports blanket amnesty for illegals and as president I have no doubt he will push for it.
You ignore Brad’s point that “he cannot stop the Bush tax cuts from expiring, and given his denunciations of those cuts as “giveaways to the rich,” he is, among Republicans, uniquely ill-positioned to pressure the Democratic Congress on them.” He says he’ll make the tax cuts permanent he doesn’t say how he will do it since his Democrat friends, (who he talks about reaching out to in order to “get things done”) control the Congress!
He says he’ll appoint “Strict Constructionist” judges but that leaves open the Stare Disisis (Un-sure of the spelling) issue i.e. Judges that will uphold past precedence on issues such as McCain Fiengold, Abortion, etc.
“3) You have asked him to admit he was wrong. Is this what your vote is going to hinge on?
So what you're telling me is that if you don't get an apology that you feel you deserve from Senator McCain then you're willing to have a liberal become president.
It is ironic to me that because you have had personal and policy issues with McCain that you and many other conservatives are willing to embrace an Obama / Clinton presidency.”
A little humility goes a long way Oz. You ignore brad’s point that McCains problems extend far beyond “Personal policy differences”. This is a straw man argument. It’s not just that he’s left the reservation it’s that he shoots his own as he’s leaving. He’s infallible and anyone who disagrees with him has some kind of character flaw or ulterior motive. He’s arrogant, nasty and condescending and just not a nice guy!
“You would prefer a liberal presidency that would be far more liberal and prevent us from solidifying the Supreme Court rather than pull the lever for McCain.”
No one prefers a liberal presidency but I fear a McCain presidency as much or more than a liberal presidency. THIS MUST BE ADRESSED!!!.
“For someone as politically savvy as yourself, Mr. Smith, I'm shocked by the naïveté of this approach”
Here you denigrate Brad and those of us who are seriously struggling with our consciences by calling us naïve because we want to unite against the Democrats but have legitimate and perplexing issues with this candidate.
What about your naïveté where it comes to McCain and his approach to government and his continuous betrayals of the party as he insults and slaps us around for disagreeing with him.
To paraphrase a well known quote: Burn me once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me….fool me over and over again and I should be committed or heavily medicated.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
...vote for the representative of the party of the eastern Liberal Democratic Senator who sabotaged John Bolton's nomination as UN Ambassador in retribution for the CIA unearthing a Cuban Mole in their operation and sentencing her to twenty five years for espionage? A party more loyal to the Cuban Communist Dictator and his tool, Hugo Chavez, than they are to the American People? To the party of the man who publicly, shamelessly, ripped off his flag lapel pin and then publicly refused to pledge allegiance to the flag?
Do you cherish the thought of living in a banana republic?
Rhetorical question?
Or another spam email?:
"...and then I said to her, knives are in order, but $0.73 is your change don't you know that roses are red and violets are blue bringing up boys..."
Whatever.
Some of us who are not so historically and politically astute don't have a clue as to who or what you are talking about.
Please spell it out in simple English.
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning
Here is another argument that is becoming tedious!
It didn't work when we were told we had to vote for the "Moderate" Gerald Ford because the country wouldn't survive Carter. Or we have to vote for the Moderate George H.W. Bush because we can't survive a Clinton Presidency. Or Dole because we can't survive another Clinton term. Or we need to vote for a Republican Congress fraught with out of control spending because we couldn't survive Pelosi or Reid in power.
What makes you think it's gonna work now.
Give me a reason to vote for McCain that's not a scare tactic and tell me why I should trust him to support conservative principles and not run from us as soon as he wins the nomination or the election all the while thumbing his nose at us!
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
If anything you're underestimating the real depth of the antipathy with words like these:
And therein lies the problem for John McCain, as he now seeks to consolidate the Republican base for his presidential run. For McCain to maintain his appeal to independents, he must continue to be viewed as “straight-talker” who tells people things, “they don’t want to hear.” But as much as his policy positions, it is this image, and what McCain has done to obtain it, that drives many conservatives nuts.
There is a real, objective, significant rift between the opinions of the rank-and-file Conservatives and activists and those of the party leaders who are accustomed to pursuing whatever path leads to victory even if it means making strange bedfellows and marriages of convenience. The people back at home, the longstanding Reagan Conservative Republicans like my father, are not enamored of John McCain in the slightest and in fact are angry and indignant that he now appears to be the Party's presumptive nominee.
These are not insignificant people. They include a leading conservative philanthropist; a prominent conservative think tank denizen; a local GOP officeholder; a former appointee in Governor George Voinovich’s administration in Ohio, and others of similar rank...
I call those people the "White Collar Republicans." They're the people who can look at McCain's nomination with equanimity because for them, it's something of an academic exercise -- divorced from the real passionate revulsion that John McCain generates among the rank-and-file. My father is agonized over this guy: after Romney dropped out last week he reiterated that he's thinking about voting for Hillary in protest, and he's only half-joking.
The party elders and influence men, the movers and shakers and the guys who look at the electorate from 35,000 feet are very out of touch with the fact that down here on the ground, for the past eight years if you mentioned John McCain's name around the kitchen table or down at the local watering hole you were likely to be on the receiving end of a sailor's oath. That kind of revulsion doesn't get changed just because some Republican philanthropist or an aide to a Governor has changed their mind as the result of a dry, unemotional calculation of insider politics.
It's going to be very difficult if not impossible to make a McCain candidacy work with people like my Dad. He really loathes the guy and wishes he had any other choice but McCain, for all the reasons you mention in this post. You can't change opinions that have been drilled into people's heads for the past eight years in a matter of a few months.
It doesn't work.
The problem in a nutshell, Mr. Smith -- and you can share this with the people you mention if you'd like, is this:
By nominating John McCain you're asking some of the most "rock ribbed" people, the ones you rely upon to serve as the anchors of Conservatism in this country, to put aside all of the things John McCain has said and done so spectacularly during his Senatorial career as a matter of practical politics. In many ways the problem is the reverse of what makes McCain appeal to moderates and independents: you're trying to get the really ideological stalwarts in the party to change their minds about a *tangible record* on the basis of an abstract calculation of vote totals.
There was a cartoon in the Washington Post that summed it up the other day, I can't recall the artist, but it showed the kind of pill that Conservatives were going to have to swallow to accept McCain: it was one of those stones from the Island of Yap.
There are going to be a lot of people with a serious case of indigestion.
on a bad weather day, the base (the "rock ribbed" people)showed up and voted 3:1 for the two guys that self proclaimed "conservatives" considered the "least conservative".
Your hubris is amazing! It's not like the moderates have taken over the Republican primaries in Georgis, Arkansas, and other southern states. Can't you see that in this cycle, the voters have other concerns than your concerns?
I like the coin from Yap, though;)
If I could get my arms around you I'd kiss you...(Not really)....You nailed what I've been trying to get my mind around all along especially with this Gem:
The party elders and influence men, the movers and shakers and the guys who look at the electorate from 35,000 feet are very out of touch with the fact that down here on the ground, for the past eight years if you mentioned John McCain's name around the kitchen table or down at the local watering hole you were likely to be on the receiving end of a sailor's oath.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
It would really help to know just what are the one or two biggest gripes that your dad has about McCain.
Yes, McCain has done a number of things that conservatives don't like. But in my experience, most of them aren't true deal breakers. I really wonder how many conservatives who aren't pro-life activists ever cared about McCain-Feingold, until the pro-life activists who felt restricted by it hyped it into a giant Constitutional crisis. (Much as the left-wing did with the PATRIOT Act.)
What seems to be the big deal breaker with McCain is immigration, and the fantasy (yes, fantasy) that some in the GOP base have that we will deport or chase away all 12 million illegal aliens and their anchor babies too.
That's irreconcilable. Rather than McCain sucking up to the nativists, he should stand up to the nativists and tell them once and for all that the GOP isn't going that way. Because when the 2008 GOP Platform is written at the convention, it's going to reflect McCain's position on immigration, not theirs.
So if we put aside the nativism as irreconcilable, what else upsets your dad most about McCain?
prohibiting free speech 60 days before an election is a huge deal for me whether it's the WRTL and the NRA or it's the Teamsters and NARAL. And him calling it an issue of "transcendent importance" doesn't do much to engender confidence that he will appoint judges who actually read the constitution since the vast majority of them take a dim view of trampling on the first ammendment.
As to the border, ask the folks in AZ whether actually enforcing the laws on hiring illegal immigrants works or not. And, ftr, since 'nativists' is rapidly becoming a code word for 'racist', I deeply resent being told that my belief that we should have legal immigration, and not allow those whose first acts in this country are to break numerous laws in this country, somehow makes me a 'nativist'.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
when the Supreme Court codifies these types laws!
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
well before it ever became law. We aren't fair-weather conservatives. The First Amendment actually means something.
Good luck getting us to support your guy with that "nativist" bull.
I almost didn't reply to this since it's so rediculous but it can't go unanswered.
"I really wonder how many conservatives who aren't pro-life activists ever cared about McCain-Feingold, until the pro-life activists who felt restricted by it hyped it into a giant Constitutional crisis."
I don't know if it is feigned or unintentional but your ignorance about McCain Feingold is breath taking.
Let me break it down for you. McCain Fiengold is a direct assault on ALL forms of political speech on ANY issue. Pro lifers are only one constituency that is affected. If you can't see what's wrong with saying that you can't mention a politician's name within 60 days of an election then you need to look past the end of your nose and see what's going on. McCain Fiengold is being used to silence dissenting voices from every constituency to protect incumbents.
McCain Feingold is also as responsible as anything elsefor Republican fortunes in 2006 since it stripped the Republican Party of the one fund raising advantage we had over the Democrats. I know Republicans lost in 2006 in large part due to their spending and amnesty policies but the Party's abilities to fund campaigns in the future I fear is going to keep us in the weilderness for years to come.
"What seems to be the big deal breaker with McCain is immigration, and the fantasy (yes, fantasy) that some in the GOP base have that we will deport or chase away all 12 million illegal aliens and their anchor babies too."
We're facing a rash of new immigrants in Texas that is almost overwhelming and guess where they're coming from. Arizona and Oklahoma.
A funny thing happened in those states...they started enforcing the law. They've made it harder for illegals to get jobs and public services and all the things we're complaining about that raises all our costs and guess what happened. They're leaving on their own. That's what would happen everywhere if we would all...including the Federal Government would just enforce the law!
"Rather than McCain sucking up to the nativists, he should stand up to the nativists and tell them once and for all that the GOP isn't going that way. Because when the 2008 GOP Platform is written at the convention, it's going to reflect McCain's position on immigration, not theirs."
First off I'm not as nativist I'm a Conservative who believes in the Rule of Law. I'm sick of being shrugged off by members of my own Party as nothing more than a nativist/racist etc. just like Democrats do when they've lost the argument.
"So if we put aside the nativism as irreconcilable, what else upsets your dad most about McCain?"
I'd rather not put them aside but OK let's play your game:
How about protecting Democrat's rights to filibuster judges?
How about sucking up the the environmentalist wackos and keeping us from finding our own oil reserves?
How about his stated goal of going along with the Democrats by signing us onto a Kyoto like style global warming regeme that would destroy our ability to compete with our trade partners who are totaly free of the same regulations?
How about his non vote for the Bush Tax cuts first saying they were a sop to the rich and now trying to say it was about spending.
I can recite at least 8 years of history of his betrayals and snotty attacks on anyone who opposed him but what's the point...you'll just come up with another name to call me or another way to minimize me and then wonder why I and may Conservative Bretheren aren't there come November!
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
you'll just come up with another name to call me or another way to minimize me and then wonder why I and may Conservative Bretheren aren't there come November!
IF HE SURVIVES TO NOVEMEBER!!!
645 delegates to a brokered conveintion
Go Huckomney Paul 2008!!!!
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
"The problem may be even worse than Professor Rappaport believes. Last week on RedState the question was asked,"
The link is dead in this paragraph.
absentee
What I read in Tom Coburn's opening was his vouching for Senator McCain as a keeper of his word. The point being, if he promises something this campaign, whether one think it a bargain for votes or not, that he will keep his word. I think that's a pretty significant point.
I think Hillary's going to keep her promises, too. Should matter who is promising withdrawal and who is promising, among other things, tax and spending cuts, right?
absentee
As I've said...he's promising nothing new...if you parse his speech at CPAC it is full of Clintonian language that will allow him to wiggle once he's the guy. His promises are Hollow and not worth the breath to utter them if you really look.
One example is that he'll build the fence first....he won't say Amnesty won't be second. He won't say he wouldn't sign or vote for his original immigration bill by saying it will never pass so it's not an issue. This leaves him wide open to sign it if it crosses his desk.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
He chooses a VP with MAJOR economic skills and if he pledges in no encertain terms to take on ideas/policy like those laid out in the ideas of American Solutions: Platform of the American People
And if you have not watched Newt speak at CPAC; you should seek out that video. Its about 40 minutes and well worth it. I can not find a version to embed here but Townhall Blog has them all. Newt was posted on the 2/9/08.
If you want John McCain to become more palatable to people like my father, you're going to have to broker a kind of detente with Rush Limbaugh and get McCain on his show several times between now and the convention and there is going to have to be some real back and forth and some burying of hatchets.
I don't really know whether that will work, there are no guarantees, but absent that I can tell you that the chances are close to zero. And it has to be done without blaming Limbaugh for being the spoiler -- John McCain is the guy who has to come with hat in hand.
Obviously that attempt will be a lot nicer and less bloody-minded than this:
But if McCain legitimately seal up the cracks in the fuselage, he's going to have to be the one who continues to make the overtures, for at least the immediate future. He's got a lot of 'splaining to do.
well worth reading and ruminating on, and far better than 99% of what is written about McCain both pro and con.
Yours is very rational, thoughtful analysis that both contemplates the short-term and long-term effects of a McC win and a McC loss, and without gratuitious attacks on any of us. Much appreciated.
The problem for many Republicans is that we can make the pro- and con-McC arguments equally well, but we have ultimately to choose. Refusing to choose (to participate) is itself a choice. You outlined the issues, options and perils perfectly.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
I don't see McCain being able to win the general election given the demoralization of the base and his lack of charisma,but what if he does?
What often goes unsaid as well is that McCain has said he might only serve one term. If this is the case, assuming he were to lock up the nomination and win the general, what will we have over him to keep him from reverting to his "Maveric" ways?
Delegates needed to stop McCain 465
"The Republican establishment is requiring a level of loyalty from Conservatives than they ever did from John McCain"....Rush Limbaugh
McCain isn't my choice either, but if we don't rally round the Republican nominee, we will elect a Democrat and perhaps even a super majority in the senate, who will undo everything we've accomplished over the last couple of decades in dismantling the socialism left over from Johnson, Carter and Clinton.
As soon as the nomination is clinched, let's stop arguing among ourselves and start telling the truth about the Hillary/Obama ticket.
If you don't think all this drama isn't play acting, you're very naive. They'll kiss and make up at the convention and armed with their smear team in place, will immediately start tearing about McCain and his running mate.
Do I chew off my foot and live, or hang around in the trap and hope for the best?
You can't afford the price of free corn.
Meanwhile, I plan to work this fall to support Republicans in House and especially Senate races, where it is important we retain enough votes to support filibusters. I would not, do not, tell others not to vote for or support McCain. But I cannot be critical of those who decide that McCain will not be their man in 2008.
The worst danger is that conservatives turned off by McCain will let this election cycle slide. We need as many boots on the ground as possible in each race.
Personally, I made the choice a long time ago that I would work for Senator McCain's election. But living in Connecticut, I will also see if there's any way I can work for Rep. Chris Shays's reelection.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
"But it was eminently predictable that Senator McCain’s nomination would split the party in this fashion..."
McCain has been winning because the party is already split. The split was not caused by him winning. It's not like the conservatives who adamantly despise McCain started doing so just because he's winning... they've been clearly voting that belief in the primaries.
It seems that you're suggesting that those who are so adamantly against McCain that they'd be unmotivated to stop a Democratic win make up roughly 10% of conservatives (at least that seemed to be the implication of the 80-90% difference). Is that 10% the "base" while the other 80-90% are somehow not the base?
More striking to me is that many of the people demanding party loyalty are the ones suggesting that they and others betray the wishes of the party if it nominates McCain.
There seems to be a disconnect between the generally accepted reasons why McCain is winning and what the data actually shows.
A look at the States where McCain won shows an average Republican support of 42%... with the closest runner up at 30% (Romney), and the other so-called RINO coming in at 18% (Huckabee).
It also shows that when McCain wins it is because McCain and Romney split the conservative vote evenly at 35% each... with Huckabee coming in with 20%.
Some have implied that only the "very conservative" voters should count but that would only count 27% of all the voters in these States. Contrast that with 76% of those voters being Republican. They don't even make up a majority of the Republican voters. And even among those "very conservative" voters, more were voting for so-called RINOs than the so-called "true conservative."
It's true that McCain needs to work to solidify the coalition of conservatives in order to win in November, but those same conservatives rely far more heavily on others to win elections any other time. It doesn't help party cohesion to have many of them treating the bulk of conservatives and Republicans as "useful idiots" to ensure that their minority views are always represented by the party's nominees.
It's also true that McCain's past comments and actions has created quite a bit of unforgivable baggage that they may just be unwilling to carry. But if and when the party nominates McCain and they decide to split, it won't be McCain or his supporters splitting the party. The split was obviously already there.
"if and when the party nominates McCain and they decide to split, it won't be McCain or his supporters splitting the party. The split was obviously already there."
I think the split between Romney, Thompson, Tancredo, Huckabee and Hunter is more exaggerated than has been suggested. Must of us believe in the whole conservative agenda but the field of candidates we had to choose from pulled us in many different directions based on the issues we cared most about. I think...had we had more time between NH and SC we could have worked things out and avoided a conundrum we find ourselves in.
McCain however is an animal of a different color. He's been so nasty and antagonistic to so much of the Party that he's burned so many bridges, he's going to have to work hard and long to bridge the divides.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
for a very long time. The Dems and their heinous behavior (as well as 9/11) have enabled us to paper over our differences as we fight as one party against them. W started the rift opening, and McCain is doing the rest.
The Republican Party is going to be remade whether we like it or not.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
American political opinions just don't fit neatly into two packages as much as the talk-radio industry would lead one to believe. We do however, only have two parties therefore we are everybody falls into the party which fits them best. With each tent having to cover so many different political strains of thought, its no wonder the tent is so big. And I'm afraid there was noone who would have appealed to all wings of the tent and not left anybody out, though Thompson probably could have about done so with all Republicans I have my doubts as to whether he would have reached enough indys.
What intrigues me more than the large size of the GOP tent is how small the Dem tent seems to be.
Well...I'm a Republican who is a down the line conservative. I'm on the whole platform with a few reservations about unrestricted free trade so let's hope we can remake it in my immage!
:>)
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
Brad writes: "Those who, like me, tend to be more pragmatic and think it unlikely that either party can successfully destroy the United States in four years, and who believe that the realities of power would reshape Democratic thinking on the war, may be more forgiving of Senator McCain on policy, but less likely to see a Democratic administration as one step shy of Armageddon."
I find this to be unfair way of arguing about the merits of voting for McCain or not, and it's similar to his post the other day titled "A little perspective". After some comments to that post had pointed out highly negative consequences of a Democratic administration, Brad responded by comparing the authors to someone claiming that the sky is falling.
Now, I don't think that the United States will be destroyed in four years by Obama or Clinton, or that we'll end up a step away from Armageddon. But I set my goals a lot higher than that, and I presume most Redstate readers do the same. I'm arguing about what's best for the country, not whether or the republic will survive for the next four years.
Brad might respond that this is just hyperbole, but that's precisely my point. I don't think that hyperbole of this sort has a proper place in the very serious question of whether or a McCain or Clinton administration would be best for this country.
"I don't think that hyperbole of this sort has a proper place in the very serious question of whether or a McCain or Clinton administration would be best for this country."
The question or Hyperbole as you call it is...is there any difference between McCain & Clinton when you get toe the big issues!
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
Well, here's one way to look at it. Suppose that Obama took the following positions:
- We should nominate clones of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court
- We should fight for victory in Iraq instead of withdrawing the troops early in 2008
- We should provide legal protection to children in the womb
- We should substantially reduce federal spending
Wouldn't that alone be enough to support Obama over Clinton? Why shouldn't the same differences make McCain a much better candidate than Clinton, apart from all the other ways that McCain is more conservative than she is?
even a baby figures out at least by the second time that if he put's his hand in a flam and get's burned that if he sticks it in again it will result in a burn.
So, after 20 years of betrayals sell outs and attacks on his own party, why can't people figure out that a leopard can't change his spots.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.
-- Pericles (430 B.C.)
"Free Government Requires Active Citizens"
www.missouriyr.com - Missouri Federation of Young Republicans
isn't going to happen no matter how many CPAC lectures we force on him.
At 72 he knows his own mind which is both annoying and comforting.
McCain was beaten and tortured by the Viet Cong for years. You think a little brow beating by Republicans will affect him? That's laughable.
McCain is not terribly bright (he does have Greenspan's book, however), is not consistent, cannot be trusted and has a temperament ill-suited for a POTUS.
As a long-time Arizonan, I can say that McCain is about one thing, primarily, John Sidney McCain. It's a very sad state.
And, when a team has a weak quarterback, it's time to shore up the defense. Therefore, seeking solid conservatives for the Congress is a necessity.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
I am still on the fence as to what I will do this fall and have appreciated the thoughtful comments of Neil, absentee, Gamecock and others in reconsidering my "I'll never vote for McCain" pledges to my conscience.
But what ever I decide to do, it will be based on a thoughtful assessment of long-term and short-term impacts on our country. You very succinctly nailed the two areas I ponder: are Republicans more likely to 'cave' to party unity and give McCain what he wants (his AGW agenda leads the pack) vs being unified against a Dem proposing the same policies; and, who will he annoint as the 'heir apparent' to the Republican party.
Thoughtful presentations such as yours aid me, and many others, in that process. Insults and name calling by so many others has quite the opposite effect.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Careful readers will note that this post contains some misleading claims.
For example, Smith writes: "It is not only that [McCain] was less than enthusiastic about the agenda of many evangelicals, but that he felt it necessary to call them 'agents of intolerance.' "
McCain did not call evangelicals agents of intolerance. Here is what he said.
”Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the right.”
Now, the comparison to Farrakhan might be over the top, but Robertson has made some outlandish and outrageous claims in recent years, including advocating that the U.S. assassinate Hugo Chavez. And Falwell made some very controversial remarks about 9/11 (in an interview with Robertson), saying that the ACLU and People for the American Way (along with other liberal groups) were partially to blame. Falwell later apologized for these remarks.
Since Brad has argued that McCain must make overtures to conservatives, it's interesting to note that McCain later mended fences with Falwell and even spoke at Liberty University. That being the case, it doesn't seem particularly helpful to bring up the "agents of intolerance" quote now, particularly in the misleading manner of this post.
Great point turin. This line about cursing evangelicals is a straight Talking Point™ and is constantly repeated.
"... it's interesting to note that McCain later mended fences with Falwell and even spoke at Liberty University."
QFE.
absentee
It wasn't just McCain but his surrogates. Warren Rudman in particular made viscous, slanderous and dispicable comments about the "Radical Christian right" and other terms the left uses to disparage So-Cons, and McCain defended him when Rudman was called, rightfully so, an anti Christian Bigot for his attacks.
Speaking of his defense of Rudman...Don't think that the Democrats won't bring up his almost psychotic meltdown on Micheal Reagan's show in 2000...and use it to question his "Temperment to be President or to have his finger on the "nuclear trigger"
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
The most lucid article I've read to date on the "Republican Dilemma". Looking back on this in the future, will we decide our situation to be the wages of a Cheney vice presidency in the second term? Which brings me to a point. I said here somewhere a long time ago, that the Vice Presidential candidates in this election year could prove very important. One thing not considered in the post was the role that a truly conservative vice presidential nominee could have in bringing together the party. Brad assumes that if McCain wins, he would run again for 2012. The alternative is that he agrees not to run again and supports the VP. That sets the stage for the McCain presidency to be a bridge to a future more palatable to the conservative base. The only problem with that logic is finding a candidate for VP that can fill that role. I don't see one that works for me.
A second issue is whether McCain is electable, given the depth of the party divisions. The relative turnouts in the Republican and Democratic contests to date suggest a groundswell of Democratic participation and a lack of Republican participation. Whether the Democratic participation will carry over to November seems a valid question but also seems likely regardless of whether the candidate is a woman or a African American man. Unless everyone in the Republican party gets excited and gets out the vote, not a likely prospect, we seem destined to a Democratic presidency.
The first and most obvious loss in that outcome is in the judicial appointments. There will be many others, the number and degree of which will depend on which Democratic candidate prevails. The further right your point of view, the more parallax makes Clinton and Obama seem the same. A careful study suggests that Obama is further left and much more a liberal than Clinton. Clinton's past experience also suggests less radical ideas.
The suggestion that a Democratic presidency will help solidify the party for 2012 and/or 2016 is a compelling one. Is the degree of Republican solidarity dependent on which Democratic candidate wins? Probably, but either will likely be enough. How much damage will need to be undone will also depend on the prevailing candidate and the length of stay in office, 4 or 8 years.
My view is that a Clinton presidency will serve as an adequate rallying point while minimizing the leftward shift. Whether I choose to vote for McCain in November (sans Huckabee's miracle) will depend on his actions in the interim, our party's choice for VP, and on the suitability of that VP for succession post-McCain. In the meantime, I will support Clinton to become the Democratic nominee. While that might seem heretical to many here, the risks of an extended Obama presidency are just too great to ignore.
Another misleading argument in this post is this:
"For example, it is not just that Senator McCain opposes opening ANWR for oil drilling, but that he implies that those who support drilling in ANWR (the bulk of his party) would favor drilling in the Grand Canyon, something."
McCain's argument relied on the premise that no one--liberal or conservative--would want to drill in the Grand Canyon or the Everglades. He's claiming that since ANWR is an ecological treasure like the Grand Canyon, then we should not drill in ANWR either. Now you can dispute whether ANWR really is an ecological treasure, but the fact is many citizens and scientists think that it is, and that it's not just the vast frozen wasteland that some people picture it as. The ecological value of ANWR (and even it's perceived value by swing voters who care a lot about environmental issues) has to be balanced against the fact that even on the best estimates, pumping out all the reserves in ANWR would only provide about 1 and half years worth of U.S. petroleum consumption. It's valid for McCAin to argue by analogy to other ecological treasures and to question whether drilling for such a small amount of oil, now, is justified by the possible (or even perceived) ecological damage. And that argument by no means implies that the bulk of the GOP would also support drilling in the Grand Canyon.
I've always thought this was the heart of the conservative platform; that this ideal confirms our positions on small federal government, low taxes, strong national defense. It's not just an extreme right wing full of evangelicals or intractible people. We have principles which we are being asked time and again to foresake for a party who could care less about our principles as long as we vote in their favor and the long term effects be d**ned.
Now, electing McCain to the presidency might keep the Democrats out of that office but at what cost to the future, considering McCain's track record? I just don't know that a McCain presidency is worth the long term effects. Since, I've got 8 months to decide, I'd appreciate it if the name callers would back off because all they're doing is making it harder for me to decide to vote for a party that thinks, like someone earlier said, that I'm a "useful idiot."
Ever heard the term "tough love"? Maybe the Republican party needs some of that applied to it.
Someone... I forget who at the moment... said the Democrats are running off the left cliff and the Republicans are trying to follow them. Instead of following the Republicans off that cliff, perhaps those of us who love conservatism and its principles should spend the next 8 months or so looking for an independent conservative with whom to make our stand, win or lose. I'd rather lose with my principles intact than win by forsaking them... if you call that winning.
8 months... some people birth healthy babies in that amount of time but. So far, I'm unimpressed with McCain since his speech at CPAC. Calling me names for not being impressed isn't likely to sway me in his favor.
I can't get past the idea that by voting for him we are saying we really don't care about McCain /Feingold or McCain Kennedy or he Global Warming Legislation, or pick your poison.
I've come to the conclusion that to vote for him is to endorse these positions and forever cede the argument.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
you didn't discuss one aspect (or I missed it, and it's Monday so that is possible). In all likelihood, and this is painful, the GOP will get waxed this year. This probably will happen with or without conservative support of the Republican nominee. If conservatives sit out the election, they will be (in part, justly) blamed for such a result. It is one thing not to donate money or to give active support but quite another to withhold a vote.
If a miracle happens and McCain inches to a win, conservatives who held their noses will be credited for his win.
The bad temperament and policies that is McCain's baggage will be on the dustbin of history if conservatives participate. If they do not, there will be no seat at the Republican table for them and those policies and attitudes will become the GOP mainstream.
"The bad temperament and policies that is McCain's baggage will be on the dustbin of history if conservatives participate. If they do not, there will be no seat at the Republican table for them and those policies and attitudes will become the GOP mainstream."
As I look back over the last 40 plus years I see and ebb and flow that we are dealing with now. It goes like this...Conservative ideas win and when the Republican party runs to the right it wins.
However, every 8 to12 years or so the Rockefeller wing reasserts itself and stacks the deck like it did this year.
Starting with Reagan, we asserted ourselves from the right throughout his term in office. Our policies were undermined by Jim Baker and people like him in the second term but we ran conservative and we won. In 1988 GHW Bush was elected by Conservatives largely as a "Third Reagan term" but GWB and the Rockefeller wing spent his campaign trashing conservative and talking about how we needed moderates and independents to win.
Then came 1992, Bush and company spent the entire campaign talking about how they needed moderates and independents. Bush ran a lackluster campaign and came off as if it didn’t matter whether he won or not. He lost.
Then came 1994 after two years in the wilderness and the overreach by Clinton and the Democrats. Conservatives again asserted themselves and ran from the right. They swept into the Congress and Senate for the first time in 40 years.
Along comes 1996 and the Rockefeller wing backlash against the conservative extremism of the 1994 election. We ended up nominating Bob Dole after being told by the Rockefeller wing and the MSM that he was the only "Electable" candidate that could beat Bill Clinton. During the general election we heard how Dole was a war hero, He could reach across the isle and get things done, he could appeal to moderates and independents . We were told that we needed to be a big tent and conservatives need to rally around him for the good of the party. We were told then that if we didn’t rally and support him we would not have a place at the table etc etc. (does any of this sound familiar?).
Then came 2000 and more so 2004, after GW Bush won by appealing primarily So-Cons. In 2004 GWB ran what I think was the most conservative campaign ever. Everything pointed to a resounding defeat before the election because the Democrats were motivated and turned out the most Democrat voters in History. That wasn’t good enough to because Conservatives, motivated and excited, turned out more.
The inevitable backlash of the Rockefeller wing is upon us. The Rockefeller wing of the Party controls the nominating process through the state party apparatus and the RNC. They set things up so a McCain or Giuliani nomination was inevitable by scheduling the big blue states first and cramming the primaries into such a small time frame that their candidate would be nominated.
It’s not the first time it was done and it won’t be the last. It was done with Dewey, Rockefeller, Nixon (to a lesser extent), Ford, GHW Bush, and Dole.
We’ll likely lose this election and both sides will bear some of the blame. My opinion is the Rockefeller wing deserves more for foisting McCain on us who I believe is the worse candidate brought forward in 40 years to carry the Republican banner…when we’ve been in the wilderness for a couple years the right will resurge and the Rockefeller wing will happily sit on their hands for a while but not for long.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
Sometimes I almost (despite the McCain supporters) come to the notion that I may have to vote for him. But then I read stuff like this that reminds me who the real John McCain is, and I can't.
"But, but! What about the war and the judges?!"
I take a different view.
1)The war: if it isn't clear by now, the gnashing of peacenik teeth ought to tell you, most Democrats are only against the war so long as they can blame the failure on the Republicans. And if they get the WH, as sure as the Sun rises, the Dems will say (as some have already said), "this new success is our doing, our criticism changed the course from that Republican failure to victory."
2) Judges: As has been pointed out, the Justices most likely to retire are liberal; if the Dems appoint another liberal--it's a wash. And the lower courts? Well, Mr. McCain (with his buddy Lindsey) has already ensured, with his blocking of certain appointments that the 6th Circuit has shifted left.
But the most important thing is this: You can't fight the Greeks when they are already inside your walls. The conservatives in Congress can fight liberal policies coming from a Democrat White House but, liberal policies decreed by President McCain--not a chance.
Replacing a crusty old liberal Justice with a spry young liberal Justice is by no stretch of the imagination a wash.
You're misreading McCain and being unfair when you wrote that "he implies that those who support drilling in ANWR (the bulk of his party) would favor drilling in the Grand Canyon." McCain was comparing ANWR to the Grand Canyon as natural treasures that should be preserved, and his position is that drilling is a matter for the states. That is the larger context of his speeches on the subject. I disagree with McCain on this issue because ANWR is basically a large mass of cold, barren tundra, but I think you're unfairly mischaracterizing what he was communicating. Oh, and Turin is right about the "agents of intolerance" quote.
I'm not surprised that Huckabee came as close as he did to McCain in Washington State. Being a lifelong resident here, I know that there's a large contingent of politically active religious conservatives, and they have outsize influence in state GOP politics. It's why Ellen Craswell was nominated as the GOP choice for governor, only to get thumped by Gary Locke, and why Pat Buchanan had such a fervent following back in the 1990s and 2000.
I wouldn't presume to tell you to back McCain in 2008, Brad. All I can say is that, if you're in a battleground state, your non-vote or 3rd-party vote is pretty much a vote in favor of the Democrat, and if that Democrat gets elected, it's a 100% lock that he/she will nominate liberal judges and will run a war that he/she is not qualified to run. I can understand the sentiment of wanting a truer conservative nominee in 2012, but right now there is a war on and there's no guarantee that we'll get a conservative victor four years from now, let alone get that pedigreed nominee in the first place. Yes, we got Reagan in 1980, but we also got Dole in 1996. Personally, I'd rather take what we can now instead of roll the dice four years from now. Obviously, your choice is yours to make.
That said, I do agree that McCain needs to do more than just make a speech at CPAC.
FYI, your link on McCain's 2002 and 2003 Iraq predictions is inoperative. Actually, none of the links in that paragraph work. Nor does your link to Rappaport.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
I appreciate this line: "Personally, I'd rather take what we can now instead of roll the dice four years from now. Obviously, your choice is yours to make."
Your posts on here supporting McCain are factual and well-reasoned. As someone who continues to wrestle mightily with what you just described, I appreciate your ability to see both sides, and not judge personally and harshly someone who might come to a different conclusion as you.
Thanks for your classiness and your objectivity. Light is always better than heat in attempting to persuade.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Conservatives should not sit out this election but McCain, at this moment, has not earned our support. The much referenced CPAC speech had at least two disturbing points in it:
On immigration McCain admitted suffering a political defeat but did not give up on his amnesty plan. One commentator called his reference to this issue as "oily."
And on nominating appointees to the Supreme Court he talked about preferring judges who would uphold the laws passed by their elected representatives. He never mentioned (despite reading a prepared text) judges who would uphold the Constitution. Under his cited criteria his friend and campaign buddy Joe Lieberman, the former AG from Connecticut would qualify for his support.
This is a good post.
Immigration, taxes, and tortore are all reasons I like him better than the other candidates. While I did not have a chancce to vote in the primary I likely would have voted for McCain, and his unorthodox views on torture, immigration and taxes would have been part of the reason why. I know of another person in my very small circle of friends who are in involved in politics who's a socially conservative independent who likes McCain's stance on immigration, and likes that McCain voted against the tax-cut. This suggests to me that there are a significant number of people who like McCain becaue he is a maverick not in spite of him being a maverick. Considering that many moderates voted for him, I imagine many voted for him because of his moderate views and this lead him over the top in places. So considering that McCain ran as is, he should not now apologize to "Conservatives" for his past "transgressions". To do so, would be dishonest to those who voted for the John McCain that did not apologize. Now that many of the votes have been cast it would not be right for John McCain to offer a different candidate for the general than what he sold in the primary. John McCain sold himself as someone who still would not tow the party line when he passed out fliers in NH touting his GW views, and when he refused to apologize for his votes against the tax-cuts and immigration, and he refused to change his position on torture. Now that votes have been cast it would be wrong for him to start selling himself as someone who will tow the party line. The time for John McCain to substantially change was before Iowa, before the first votes were cast, now McCain must be what he sold.
All this is not to say that McCain can not reach out to conservatives. He shares many similarities with conservatives, and is much closer to conservatives than Hillary or Obama. To many consesrvative I believe the war and judges are issues that transcend all else, and he can emphasizes his strong commitment to these two areas. John McCain might not be a hardcore FiCon, but he can emphasize that he doesn't want the huge governmnet takeover of health care and raising of spending and taxes that the Dems will be for.
Therefore, John McCain can emphasize his areas of agreement with conservatives, and try to court conservatives to come over on these issues. But John McCain must not flipflop and say he was wrong about things that those who voted for him like him for.
We face a microcosm of the issue here at RedState: we find vigorous debates and disagreements. Where the boundary gets crossed and the community starts splitting is when we start with ad hominems and insinuations of bad faith or otherwise don't treat opponents with respect.
To mangle an old saying: a diplomat is someone who when they tell you to go to hell, you'll ask them for directions.
Now John will never be mistaken for a diplomat, but at least he can try to ensure that those who oppose him won't fell dirty insides afterwards.
The old-fashioned word is magnanimous.
So let's ride this flawed pony to the general!
Let's seek out the "Moderates" and "Independents in blue states where he can't win in a General election match up against Democrats and kiss off the south and west?
Yup...sounds like a winning strategy to me
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
...don't you or Sen. McCain understand?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I'd say FEC vs. Wisconsin Right-to-Life certainly qualifies as both speech and redress. There go McCain's Pro-Life bonafides.
It's not that McCain "made a mistake" in ramming McCain-Feingold down our throats, it's that he doesn't care about the collateral damage from his pet crusades.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
after all, he is the straight talker ya know... So, I will just simply have to believe everything he has previously said and then make my judgment that he should NOT be president. Thank you for the clarification.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
John McCain has a thirty year old record and a year long campaign - I don't think there's that many secrets left. If the John McCain that has been sold over the past year is one you can't vote for, than acept that fact and move on, on the other hand maybe you will decide that the great issues of the War, and judges and the fact that on other issues McCain gives you 60% - 80% of the loaf, where with the other candidates you get zero, make John McCain aceptable. Whatever, your decision I respect it - just stop all the nonsense about John McCain changing who he is, first he shouldn't and second he won't, so everyone might as well quit wasting their time with the idea.
If a war is worth fighting, you use overwhelming force. Otherwise, stay home. McCain understands this, and he consistently applied this strategy for victory. He is not a stopped clock; he had a better grasp of the situation than Donald Rumsfeld did.
"he wanted much larger commitments of ground troops in Afghanistan"
Good!
"which would probably have made the Iraq war impossible to begin with."
Or, perhaps he would have built up our military to face the challenge, rather than allowing Don Rumsfeld to "right size" our military during a war. Now we are facing another round of stop-loss band aids to fix a mess McCain would never have allowed to occur.
Criticizing McCain for wanting more ground troops in Afghanistan is absurd, to put it lightly. If we had had more troops on the ground, we would have captured Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora.
Do you mean criticizing McCain for wanting more troops in Afghanistan is dumb, or do you mean that arguing we could have captured OBL if we had had more troops is dumb?
My understanding of the battle of Tora Bora leads me to believe that if we had had our own troops on the ground, in stead of relying on the northern alliance forces, we probably would have captured most of the al-Qaeda leadership.
Wonderful Post! Thank you for taking the time to clarify the conservative predicament...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
"But the rest of the party has no obligation to wait for you guys to be interested again."
.... can someone please explain exactly what this means?
you are the base, and that if the candidate should justify himself to you.
Since it seems that you are not winning that arguement at the only place that counts - the polls, maybe it should be you justifying why the party and it's candidate should bend your way. Since you are clearly in the minority for this election cycle, perhaps you should compromise and meet the party half way.
I am not going to demand that you vote for one candidate or another. I have too much respect for you and your right to express yourself politically in any way you choose.
But I am going to say that if you did represent the base, either McCain or Huckabee wouldn't be the presumptive nominee.
Also, I and other members of the GOP are entitled to regard your future actions, or lack thereof, any way that we see fit. If you do withhold your vote because you feel you are principled, we are entitled to view you as petulant.
conservatives are not the base, then you will have to join the Independents and "conservative" (with a caveat) Democrats to provide a winning coalition. Good luck with that one. You can kiss the Republicans goodbye for many years...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Lack of a message?
Out of touch with southern Republicans?
Inability to fund raise?
All of the above?
Or are you just better at complaining than delivering votes?
who was in and who was favorite etc. I think that even you realize that McCain was not the choice even among liberal Republicans at any point. Much was decided way too early for the populace to make a reasonable choice. The good ones had to exit early due to funding and the voting due to who votes first syndrome.
Now we are stuck with a questionable choice that causes angst among most conservatives...is that so hard to understand?
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
You complain that both a) things were decided too early and b) the "good" ones had to drop because of money.
You realize that had things been spread out, the funding situation would have been even more dire, right?
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Conservatives are an independent lot. We like to make up our own mind instead of having a bunch of people tell us what we're supposed to do. If I want that kind of government, why would I vote Republican when the Democrats offer cradle to grave thinking for me?
I'm not even saying that I won't vote for McCain come November but I'm not going to do it just because somebody else tells me I have to or considers me a "useful idiot." I'll be doing it because I believe it's the best choice for the country, among a bunch of bad choices and in spite of the differences I have with the candidate. Nor am I going to do it right now just because "everybody else is."
will respect your decision. I also reserve the right to form my own opinions on your decision.
I would hope, however, that you would see that the majority of the party has broken with you on this. It is not the "30,000 foot" Republicans that have determined this primary, but the voters that turned out in SC, FL, and the other states. These can hardly be called party elites. I know that compromise is never easy, but again, I would ask that you be magnanimous and join us.
either make up your mind now, or leave?
so if one decides to go with mccain later, it'll be too late?
.... exactly who is picking up their ball and taking it home?
... perhaps i misconstrued this:
"But the rest of the party has no obligation to wait for you guys to be interested again."
...is that it is too focused on internal party feuds and ignores the historical context. Since the 60s, there have been few periods when Democrats have held both the Congress and the White House.
People who think that a Democrat president wouldn't be too bad will probably point to the first two years under Clinton. What they forget is that at that time there was a moderate breeze blowing through the Democratic party which was concerned with trying to prove that they could be trusted with power. They also forget that Clinton could have achieved much more than he did if his wife hadn't bungled health care.
Before Clinton you have to go back to Carter. I don't remember him very well but I do remember America being humiliated by a bunch of guys in turbans. Seeing American weakness, the Soviets moved into Afghanistan. As bad as Carter was you need to know that he was a moderate Democrat who had served in the military and was personally quite religious.
To see what happens when you have a reactionary liberal in the White House with a Democratic Congress you have to go back all the way to Johnson. He did good work on civil rights. He also expanded welfare and gave us a few little programs like Medicaid and Medicare. Gingrich eventually killed welfare in the mid-90s, but Johnson's biggest and most expensive legacies are still very much with us. Johnson also bungled Vietnam, and fixing the damage to military took 20 years.
Both Hillary and Obama would be more left wing than Clinton or Carter. The moderate breeze of the 90s and been replaced by a cold wind of socialism which is driving the Democrats back to the left. Dick Morris, and others who have known the Clintons personally, relate that Bill is the moderate one and Hillary is the 60s liberal. Don't be deceived by her Senate record, or her votes for Iraq. Her Senate career was never anything more than a stepping stone to the White House.
One reason I fear Hillary is that I lived in Britain under Thatcher. I know what an effective female leader looks like. Hillary just doesn't have the right stuff to be President. She and her husband will be a complete disaster. There's many on the left who are keen to investigate the Bush years. With Hillary's reputation for vindictiveness, I wouldn't want to be in Rumsfeld's or Cheney's shoes if she gets elected.
Obama wouldn't be as bad, but having lost the Congress Republicans desperately need to hang on to the Presidency. Defeat means that good people will retire and makes it harder to raise money because most contributors just want to give to the winners. Defeat breeds more defeat.
Even Brad admits that McCain is basically a conservative on most issues. He's been a real leader on pork and small government.
Some people may be unable to vote for him out of principal, but nobody should kid themselves that they "win by losing."
honest for you. Nothing wrong with dissecting your own candidate as to his/her strengths and weaknesses. It was a wonderful, insightful, and well thought out piece of writing.
I prefer truth in politics all of the time.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
"Defeat means that good people will retire and makes it harder to raise money because most contributors just want to give to the winners. Defeat breeds more defeat."
You right...That's why 1992 lead to less money and defeat in 1994...but wait...uh
Oh...Never mind!
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
We should all join hands and move left with our candidate who hasn't been nominated and dance through the pretty flowers singing Kume Buy yah...(Not sure how to spell that) because we don't stand for anything beyond winning....blah blah blah!!
I'm getting to the point where the McCain Unitarians are starting to sound to my ears like the teacher on Charlie Brown...you know the one....she talks like this
"Wah..Waahh....Wah.Wah Wah Wah Wah
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
McCain is the nominee and is only slightly right of the Democrats so any decision is moving left... Oh, well, cdm will be happy...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
And I think something that all of us can find common cause with, and push as part of our agenda for the fall:
LA Times Editorial page proposes all charter school middle and high school LAUSD:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-breakup11feb11,0,2157001.story
A firm step towards all school choice in one of the country's largest districts.
I propose we all email the RNC, McCain, and Huckabee camps and propose the jump behind this right away. This could not only be great for the students and parents in LA, but also put the Dems in a bind on promises of change.
Thanks for the heads up. Emails are on the way!
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
When is Sen. McCain going to "fall into line behind us"? Rhetorical question. After all, he is in greater need of my vote in the General than I am of anything from him. In fact, given what he's taken from me in his direct assaults on the "...quote First Amendment..." I'd say I'd actually be gaining if his candidacy failed.
Takes alot to drive away someone who's voted (R) in the General every election since he was able (Mr. Reagan in 1980), but McCain, with his thin-skinned vanity and transparent contempt for the base has done so. Way to go, Johnny Mac!
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
going to come to his senses and either apologize or realize that he is totally out of step with the country. Either way, it is not that the conservatives need to come to him, but that HE needs to come to the conservatives.
I'm not waiting though...after all, he is the author of the "Straight Talk Express", so I'll just believe what he has said in the past.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
primary voters. He will be the nominee. You could end up like the "conservative" wing of the party in California.
There is a technical term for their choice of candidates: Unemployed.
Look, a middle of the road Republican will have held the Statehouse in one of the bluest states for 22 of the past 24 years when Arnold's next term expires - and they have done it against skilled, experienced, and established competition - . What you should worry about is McCain's ability to pull of the same wihout you guys. Maybe he can, and maybe he can't, but if he pulls it off, and you sit out, you will be without leverage for a long time.
And besides CA, Pawlenty raised fees and got re-elected, Huckabee did the same, Crist may be the most popular Governor in the US, and he is in favor of increased environmental protections. There is a lot of evidence that the mainstream Republican party doesn't hold to the orthodoxy of ideology that you demand that they must in order to get your vote.
winner of circumstances... Right place, right time scenario... It's unfortunate that the early voting (and locations) occurred as it did or he would not be in the race - see McCain comeback...
Just a poor outcome for the Republicans even though they had good candidates earlier.
For you, maybe a real plus...for conservatives, a real letdown.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
their votes for him. And they are in the majority of the party. You are entitled to your opinion, but so are they.
When are the lame excuses going to stop? There is a reason that people such as Gary Bauer have decided to support McCain, even though McCain might not be his first choice: supporting him gives Bauer a seat at the table and a say in the process.
If you take your ball and run home, you run a risk thatthe rest of the kids will find another ball. And the next time, they won't need you.
the right circumstances for them. But the fact is that more primary voters voted for McCain than any other candidate, and under the rules that the Republican party has chosen to follow McCain will probably be the nominee. I think that plurality of people who voted for McCain are due some respect. You may wish we picked the nominee diferently, but we don't and more people went for McCain than for whoever your candidate was, you can decide those people were wrong and not vote for McCain in the general, but I think those who voted for McCain ( my state votes in May 13) deserve some respect, this is a democracy and we do respect votes.
and I don't exactly disdain the results of the voters. This year I do...obviously because of the result. My old age propagative...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
my typing is worse than my programming these days... :^)
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
when a Republican ran to the right in the General and pandered to the center/left in the last 30 years and won.
Ford didn't win, Dole didn't win, GHW Bush didn't win in his second run.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
George W ran to the center left?
That's not the way I remember it....I remember being completely satisfied by both his campaigns.
I would argue he ran to the right and governed conservative in term 1 and less conservative it term 2!
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
Reformer With Results, No Child Left Behind, Higher EITC, reach out to the Democrats, New Tone...
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
It would be a false sense of comfort at this point. All I'm concerned about is what's best for the country. That may or may not be McCain when I use the long term view. I'd rather he kept up his "straight talk" so I know what I'm in for and can prepare for the worst.
For those using the argument that we need to close ranks behind McCain and the Republican party... well... if the Republicans want to jump off that left cliff does that mean we have to follow? Or you could use the old cliche of: If your friend jumps off a bridge does that mean you have to follow? From what I'm seeing right now, it amounts to the same thing.
There have been times in my life when I was one against thousands but that didn't make the thousands right. I can say that with authority because, in the end, it turned out very badly for the thousands.
If you want to call me petulant for it, that's okay. They did, too, among other names, but it still didn't make them right.
If I understand the pro-McCain, pro-unity argument, except maybe for his true believers, it's "I don't love him either but he's really more conservative than you think he is and he's better than either democrat."
Now there's an inspiring argument. Maybe he can use the tagline, "Building a sorta shiny city on a low hill that will be better than any city Obama coulda built."
Is McCain winning a plurality of Republican voters? Yeah but we all know that's also a mix of dems and indies in some states and, more frightentingly as Newt pointed out today, very few of our base was excited enough to vote for anybody compared to the dems. Personally I think it's because each candidate only represented one faction of the conservative coalition so everybody gets a piece of the blame. But that notwithstanding, it doesn't mean we have to ride this pony into the slaughterhouse.
Aceintx, sign me up for the brokered convention. It may be a hail mary, but when you see a wreck coming the only smart thing is to get off the train even if it's unlikely to succeed and even if it's gonna hurt bad when you land.
How do you plan to win when passions on your own team run this deep against your nominee? I've been around for more than a few elections and this is not the same old "my guy lost and I'm angry" stuff that people get over. This is real and it's deep. There are a significant number of people who dislike McCain at the same visceral level they dislike Slick Willie. You are not going to overcome it by getting a bunch of politicians, even ones that are well-liked, to stand up and assure us that yes, he really is conservative. Like I tell my nieces, it ain't what you say, it's what you do.
One last thing. As a social conservative, judges are the most important thing on my mind and the closest argument the unity crowd has for convincing me to hold my nose and vote for McCain. Close, but no cigar. I just don't trust the guy. "Strict constructionist" means something when Rush or Newt says it; it's a meaningless dodge coming from McCain. The substantive and meaningful comment that "Alito is too conservative" cuts off that argument for him.
I suspect in the end that if you want a judge with a knee-jerk liberal defense for upholding Roe, vote for Obama or Hillary. If you want a well-reasoned, more constitutionally sound reason for upholding Roe, then vote for McCain.
Here's hoping someone can find the brake to this train.
taken seriously, we should also consider that this statements means he privately ( when obviously he thought he was off record) endorsed Roberts in the same statement - so with McCain you got a good chance he might go for a Roberts - its likely an Alito couldn't get nominated anyway. With McCain we have a shot at Roberts or even better, with Hillary I think we're likely to find judges who will be looking for gay marriage in the shadows of the constitution
and no offense, but it still seems like hairsplitting to me. I've been reading these threads for a couple of days now and there are always McCain supporters or unity proponents who respond at the "tree" level to "forest" arguments. They (not you) quote chapter and verse from speeches or rankings, pardon my metaphor, trying to negotiate me into bed.
I didn't just drop out of the sky into this election. I've seen him giggling over the years with Chris Matthews. I've seen him avoid CPAC when he doesn't need them and come racing over when he does. I see that the two names he's most closely associated with are Feinberg and Kennedy. I've seen him make a conscious effort to associate with people I fundamentally disagree with and castigate people I admire. Again, no offense, but that's too much mountain for, "with McCain you get a good chance he might go for Roberts" to climb.
He is what he does. If that's what you want, vote for him. "He's better than a democrat," is just not gonna convince me to support him.
to me. This is especially true when I consider who Obama or Hillary would pick. Actually considering who the Dems will pick, SDOC wouldn't even be so bad. The thing is with Republican presidents you never know if you're going to get good judges but there's a chance, the Dems picking good judges is about as likely as them changing parties in the middle of their term. So keeping the door open for good judges and hopefully Roe being overturned is likely enough to motivate me, we don't know whether he will pick judges and we can't know with any candidate, but I feel there's a pretty good chance.
Invite me to your "well Hillary woulda been worse" party when he gives you a middlin' judge who says Roe was wrongly decided but now its part of the fabric of the nation not to be messed with, or a "we need maybe 25 more years of racial quotas then it will be wrong again" decision or, God forbid, another Lawrence v Texas. At least you'll get strict constructionist interpretations on narrow anti-trust cases.
a matter of principle, and that those principles are much more important than backing the party, and respecting the nominating electorate of the party
Now if you were to say that you honestly prefer the policies of Huckabee, Obama, or Clinton, I would understand and encourage you to back the candidate of your choice.
But I am a little perplexed when some one says that their principles are above compromise with the electorate. Once you get to this stage of disdain for the voters, you are no longer practicing politics. You are now practicing theology and philosophy.
The difference between the two is that every few years, politicians need to hold themselves accountable to the electorate. Theologians and philosophers never have to hold themselves accountable to anyone, except whatever higher order they believe in.
I live in Southern California (Orange County), where the "true conservatives" are openly disdainful of Arnold and McCain, and show their displeasure by refusing to work with Arnold on a number of issues, often times citing "principle", and the fact that he treats them like he doesn't need them.
The fact is: he doesn't need them. They do not pose a threat to him on the negative side, and by their non-participation they bring nothing to him on the positive side. If they are going to present that "theological and philosophical" argument of principle, why should they be surprised if they get treated like they belong in a convent?
As a result, he will be able to use his popularity to support candidates of his choosing, and to move his agenda (of which btw, he is requesting every state department to eliminate 10% from their budget).
And the same thing is happening in FL, where a lot of conservatives have to make a decision in regards to Crist's agenda on environmental protection vs. orthodox positions on regulation. If they do not want to compromise, I hear Crist is popular enough that he can go with out them.
Look, ultimately it is up to each individual to determine their course of action. I would ask each of you to join us in the fall.
there are many anti-McCain arguments. The one most people here, or at least I, have made goes right to your first sentence bout principle.
The divide between McCain and conservatives comes on two lines: attitude and policy. I'll leave the first alone, but as many people have noted, the depth of the divide on that side comes from the feeling (however unreasonable) that McCain has gone out of his way to disrespect them.
On the second, pick whatever issue or issues you want, but the fact that there's a divide simply means that two or more sides disagree. Either side can bridge the gap my moving closer to the other. Pro-McCain and pro-unity types argue that the primaries are over so everyone who lost should come over to support McCain. Anti-Mcain types argue that the candidate should come over to support the principles of the people he wants to represent. Both are right-- we have a responsibility to the party, but the candidate has a responsibility to the electorate. When we mostly agree on most things and both sides come together a little, we move on to the general as one team.
The problem is that 1) the two sides are way further apart then I have ever seen in my 30 years of watching elections; 2)McCain has invested so much of his ego and personality into being "a principled maverick" that he cannot move far enough (assuming that he would even want to) which 3) ironically leaves principled people who disagree with him in the untenable position of compromising their principles in order to a support a man who makes his bones by refusing to compromise his principles.
And 4) There's no margein for error in a country divided 50/50.
Like Huckabee, I didn't major in math, but that all doesn't add up to a victory in November when the very first thing everybody knows is that you gotta have the base. Now add in the feeling of personal effrontary and I'm just saying this looks like an uphill challenge to say the least.
I've never been a McCain fan, that's true, but my view has changed focus. I think a who-represents-whom problem has now become an electability problem. I want to win as much as you do, but for a win-win most of us have to get most of what we want and that's not happening. It doesn't seem that McCain will do more than talk (granted it's early) and his supporters don't seem to have a better argument for unity other than "democrats would be worse."
I have come to the conclusion, perhaps prematurely, that with McCain in the lead, we may hang together or we may hang separately, but we're still going to hang. Time to find a better solution even if it means changing the rules.
Clearly, someone has to move a little bit. Since you are in the minority of the party on these issues, respectfully, I would expect that it would be you.
If I was in the minority, I know that I would have to do the same.
Very clearly, you have an opinion, and you want to be counted. If you do not participate, you risk ending up like the "conservatives" in CA: perhaps correct on principle, but living in the convent nonetheless.
Also look at the electoral map (you can go to 270towin.com to try this out): McCain probably wins the south regardless (except AR if Hillary is the opponent). Depending on running mate, he can get the border states (MO, KY and TN). He might lose OH (but that has almost nothing to do with conservative credentials, and everything to do with the economy), he holds the mountain states, less Nevada (the Unions and Yucca Mtn. win it for the Dems). At this point, the race moves to and hinges on the Upper Midwest. He doesn't need to be too conservative to win in IA, WI, and MN. In fact, as a practical matter, it may benefit him to triangulate "I've got the Clintons and/or Obama attacking me on one side, and Rush on the other". At that point, if you have withheld your support - and other "conservatives" have as well - well, then you are REALLY in the wilderness.
I would prefer that you can find a way to be with us in the fall, but I would respect your decision if you do not.
Obviously
"tagline, "Building a sorta shiny city on a low hill that will be better than any city Obama coulda built."...If the Democrats will let me and the it doesn't scare the global warming hoaxers
HA!
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/11/resurrection-house-dems-to-bring-ba...
There's something else people haven't thought about. He has missed more votes than he's made since he started campaigning. One has to wonder if he's up to multitasking or if he's bored with his Senatorial duties.
Since Brad posted this. As it stands right now, I'll pull the lever for McCain in November as much more a vote against the funk that is the democrat alternative. I want McCain to give me a reason to believe, to support. His CPAC speech was a decent start. He has got to understand that it's more than "securing the border." The majority of the American people don't want illegals being hired illegally. Understanding that the lure of illegal jobs & government largesse has to be taken care of to truly secure the border would be a great step forward. If the lure is there, the illegals will still come regardless of border security.
McCain needs to inspire us. He can do it, but it will take work.
Either an Obama or HillBilly win can and will irreversibly change the socio-economic fabric and the national security positioning of this country beyond recognition through activist judges, tax and spend policies, and a foreign policy that would invite more than a Vietnam syndrome redux but rather propel Iraq and Afghanistan into failed states and all that this implies for the spread of Islamic terror. Even on the issue of immigration, the Democrats will move full speed ahead with their amnesty proposals.
Just to take one issue- judicial rulings, we have 5/4 votes on matters on funding for faith-based centers (Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation:2007); regulation of new car emissions as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act (Massachussetts v. U.S. EPA: 2007); Term Limits for Congressmembers (US Term Limits v. Thornton: 1995); the reach of the Commerce Clause to regulate local activity (U.S. v. Lopez: 1995 and U.S. v. Morrison:2000); The scope of the 10th Amendment in striking down the Brady Handgun Law:1997); federal pre-emption under OSHA (Gade v. National Solid Waste Mgmt. Assn: 1992); eviscerating the Takings Cause (Kelo v. City of London: 2005); upholding Roe v. Wade and the claimed right to partial-birth abortions (Planned Parenthood v. Casey:1992, Stenberg v. Carhart:2000 and Gonzales v. Carhart: 2007); creating constitutional rights for homosexual sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas: 2003); extending due process rights to criminal aliens (Zadvydas v. Davis:2001); upholding Racial Affirmative-Action in higher education (Grutter v. Bollinger: 2003); striking down blocking mechanisms that prevented children from accessing cable porn (US v. Playboy Entertainment: 2000); upholding school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris: 2002); upholding right of student religious groups to equal access to university funding (Rosenberger v. Rector: 1995); striking down the posting of the 10 commandments in courthouses even when displayed along with other historical documents (McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU:2005); striking down the display of the creche in a county courthouse even if placed next to a 18-ft menorah (County of Allegheny v. ACLU: 1989); striking down non-sectarian benediction prayers in high school graduation ceremonies (Lee v. Weisman: 1992);public funding of abortion-related activities (Rust v. Sullivan: 1991); rights of student speech in public schools to promote illegal drug use (Morse v. Frederick: 2007) and the list goes on to extending Geneva Conventions to enemy combatants (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: 2006)
Just one or more justices can either cement these 5/4 (conservative) decisions forever or may help to pull back or reverse them (liberal holdings) altogether.
I would'nt trust the appointment of lifetime SC justices either to Obama or Hillary. I'll take McCain at his word on this issue especially if he has Ted Olson as his wing man.
Check it out
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
Excellent! McCain has a lot of work to do to bring conservatives to his side. I, for one, feel that many have sat out the primary process because of the lack of consistent conservative candidates still in the race when their primaries came. McCain needs to realize that he has a problem - or an opportunity, to put it more positively - to reach out to conservative voters & activists.
McCain may want to talk to Sen. Bob Corker's people about this. Corker won a contentious republican primary in 2006, in TN, over 2 candidates who split the conservative vote. He was going against a very charismatic candidate in Harold Ford Jr. Corker & his campaign were able to reach out & heal the rifts caused by the contentious primary & go on to defeat Ford, the only republican to do so in Senate races in 2006. Corker has lived up to his campaign promises. McCain will be well served by substantively reaching out to conservatives, & the time to start (acknowledging his CPAC speech) is now.