A little perspective (with an exciting update)
By Brad Smith Posted in 2008 — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A lot of perspective being lost these days. Over heated rhetoric is a glut on the market. Accusations of disloyalty and catastrophe fly back and forth.
First, I don't think you win in politics by losing, and generally I don't think you win by sitting it out. But each person has to make these decisions on his or her own convictions and the particular circumstances of this race. If it is a tough decision for you, rest assured than your one vote won't decide this race. As to the use of your time and money, only you can decide if it is better spent on political activity than on your family or hobbies or education or whatever have you.
McCain certainly is in the driver's seat, but that can change quickly - witness Hillary's surprise New Hampshire win. Those who can't stomach McCain still have an option in the primaries in Mitt Romney, an honorable man of tremendous ability running on a solidly conservative platform. Always remember the words of Yogi Berra...
I can't vote for McCain in the primary simply because I know him too well, and I think it is ultimately very important to have a president who is a fundamentally decent person. But others don't agree with my assessment of McCain's character, and I've found that most of them won't be persuaded, and some others realize that McCain is not a very pleasant person, but they're confident that they can handle that. Beyond the primary, I can't vote for McCain in the general, but that is a personal thing. I am comfortable that Senator McCain, given the value he places on "honor," would understand and respect my decision, if he were ever to give it any thought.
If McCain wins the nomination, he will certainly be far more conservative than the Democrat nominee, and if he wins we will get better court appointments, have a better chance of fighting off tax increases, etc. On the other hand, if he loses, Republicans will be back in 4 or 8 or 12 years, and this country is too great to ruin in that short a time.
So blow off steam, and don't hesitate to be sharp in criticisms. But don't let it wreck your life.
Update: Several commenters obviously disagree with my suggestion that people are getting too worked up. Their general message: "Are you nuts? The sky will fall!!!"
Go below the fold for an exciting update you won't want to put down.
Look, I remember Carter well, having been an adult from start to finish during the Carter years. When conversation in my classes gets into the Carter years, I often make it a point to point out to students what those years were like, with double digit inflation, 70% marginal tax rates, etc. They can scarcely believe it. But you know what - we survived, didn't we? We can never know what would have happened had Ford been elected in 1976, but Reagan and Carter biographer Stephen Hayward suggests that while a Reagan presidency starting in 1976 might have been successful, "it is just as easy to conjure plausible scenarios of ruin and disaster." (Age of Reagan, p. 482). And he concludes, "Reagan's return to the political wilderness in 1976 would turn out to his advantage in 1980."
Nor were the Carter years unmitigated. That's when deregulation of trucking and airlines began. Capital gains taxes were cut. The Republican party, in opposition, embraced supply-side economics, something that probably would not have happened under Ford (for whom I voted).
The Clinton years gave us a GOP congressional majority, welfare reform, and balanced budgets.
And the big bottom line is that we survived both these presidencies. Just as Democrats survived eight years of Reagan. I remember Democrats - smart people, mind you - who literally thought that the world would end if Reagan was elected, in a fiery nuclear holocaust.
Now, if you really think the survival of America depends on John McCain (or Mitt Romney) being elected President over Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, well, I guess you should be really worked up about this. But I've got to tell you bluntly - if you think that, I think you're absurd. I do think it matters who is elected, and I can imagine a time when the fate of the nation might truly hang in balance. But this is not such a time, not by a long shot.
Those who might follow my posts closely know that I basically think John McCain will be at best a mediocre president, and be bad for conservatism and the Republican Party. I think he is a demogogue, I don't think he is too bright, and I don't think he has the temperment we want in a position of such power. I urge those who agree, or don't like McCain for other reasons, to make one more stab at preventing him from being our nominee - give to Romney; urge friends to vote for Romney; go to www.mittromney.com and sign up to make calls for Romney this weekend.
But again, don't let it ruin your lives. And you McCainiacs, understand that if McCain (or Romney) loses in the fall, while it may not be good, it won't ruin the country, and it shouldn't ruin your lives either.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | McCain's False Accusations — Comments (56) »
A little perspective (with an exciting update) 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
i can understand that many find McCain unappealing for his personal qualities.
for me, that makes him all the more appealing. I want him to scare the s**t out of our enemies -- and I'm not just talking about Democrats! I mean the enemy we're fighting in Iraq and elsewhere. As McCain says -- he's not going to win Miss Congeniality and that's fine with me.
I want a fighter from President -- others want other things, that's why there's a contest.
everyone should vote his or her conscience, for the person they believe is best. For me that is McCain,has been since 2000.
Romney is certainly my choice;however,I do not live in a primary state. Come November I will vote for McCain---never Hillary. Romney is still a young man. Why not Romney for Veep?
If you think a lot of things can't go wrong in four years, then you weren't around for Jimmy Carter. Unemployment over 10%, mortgage interest rates at 17% or higher. Gutted the CIA. Iran. Oh, and did I mention Iran. Stagflation. Windfall profits tax. Malaise. Oh, and Iran.
This time around it could be HillaryCare, Escape from Iraq, even further capitulation to North Korea. Oh, yes, and Iran (but nuclear this time). Tax hikes. Human Rights Commissions along the line of Canada's don't seem like too much of a reach. Fairness Doctrine (goodbye Rush). Immigration reform that would make McCain/Kennedy seem like Fortress America.
I would go on, but I need to be able to sleep tonight.
You can't afford the price of free corn.
Let's be fair, Carter inherited a bad economy from Nixon/Ford. Don't forget Nixon did some bonehead things like putting price controls on the retail price of gasoline and his 90 day wage-price freeze. There were also the OPEC embargoes of 1973 and 1979 which caused havoc on the economy and inflation.
http://www.economagic.com/popular.htm has data on economic indicators that goes back across that period.
I'm not disagreeing with your premise that a lot of damage can happen in four years, nor even that Carter is a good example of what can go wrong during four years. He certainly didn't turn anything around during his four years and the Iran mess helped trigger the 1979 oil embargo. I'm just addressing some of the examples.
you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
When Carter was inaugurated the inflation rate was 5.22%
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
Are you referring to me, or the parent post that claimed unemployment was over 10% and mortages were around 17% during Carter years, neither of which from the tables I've looked at is anywhere near being accurate.
I, on the other hand, stated an opinion and just pointed to the tables.
Yes, inflation trended upwards during President Carter's years and continued to do so in the first two years of President's Reagan's term, but double-digit inflation also existed during President Nixon's years. Both of those hits were triggered by OPEC embargoes in 73 and 79. Blaming that one stat on the Presidents of the time is like Democrats blaming President Bush for higher gasoline prices.
No, I'm not saying that things were great during President's Carter's years, but they weren't great in the years running up to that either.
Thanks. You have said it much better than I could have.
Brad writes: "If it is a tough decision for you, rest assured than your one vote won't decide this race." If "you" stands for many people, or if the claim is extrapolated to many people, then the reasoning is demonstrably incorrect. It would entail that elections aren't decided by voting.
As the 2000 election showed, even a couple of thousand votes in Florida can sway the election. More generally, the last couple of elections have given us razor's-edge margins in a number of swing states; there's every reason to think 2008 will be the same. More generally still, the enthusiasm of the ground troops in motivating voters that need motivating will be crucial in this election, given the general antipathy toward Bush in much of the electorate. The Democratic get-out-the vote effort this year will be massive, and lavishly funded. All the more so if Obama is the nominee, considering the excitement he ignites.
If you're thinking to yourself, "My vote won't decide this race," and no one else is thinking that, you *might* be right. If several thousands of others are thinking the same thing, then, collectively, that's a formula for defeat. Brad addressed this comment not to one person, but to thousands of people.
is easy, he has always been focused on himself. John will choose whatever path (liberal, conservative ect) that he feels will best serve advancing himself to the next level. If you follow his career, going back to his Naval Academy days - John really doesn't have any consistent underlying values besides self-promotion. A dangerous, although not uncommon, combination for a Senator - a disaster for a President.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
This will be the first time in 43 years I have failed to vote in an election, but if John McCain is the Republican nominee I will sit at home.
I’m a conservative Republican and John McCain is not!
I don't believe in holding your nose and voting for the nominee for the good of the party. Maybe this is the slap in the face the RNC needs to wake up
I don't have any respect for Senator McCain and don't trust anything he says. I appreciate the fact that he fought for our country and is considered a war hero, but that was 40 years ago, he has ridden that horse to death.
There were 8 boys in my graduating class that died in Viet Nam and 2 who were held captive for 4 years. I lost two cousins in that war and all of them were heroes.
John McCain doesn't hold an exclusive on being a "hero!"
I endured Bill Clinton for 8 years so I can probably put up with Johnny, but I won't vote for him.
you're staying home, right?..who cares then why...
Why do those that chose to sit out, or protest vote, or whatever feel the need to explain themselves?
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
...it hurts to reject candidates you thought were your friends. Talking about it makes you feel better.
I remember the horror a few years ago of reading on the front page of our local rag a boast from my class of '94 Republican congressman: "When other districts get it, it's pork, but I bring home prime bacon."
He ran his re-election on: "Vote for me. I'm in line for a better committee assignment and thus more pork-barrel spending."
My congressman won't change, barring the "dead girl or live boy in his bed", he will continue to use his office to "play the Washington game". I think he gives Republicans and conservatives a bad name, so I don't vote for him.
Some folks think the GOP can be saved from a left-ward slide, and they hope talking it out will help change the power-drunk spendthrifts in the Republican Party. It's like an intervention: if the party doesn't know what we're thinking, they won't change.
Those that opt out, and remove themselves from the process stand no chance in helping bring about victories, or positive outcomes.
They have decided to offer nothing, and in some instances, hinder the efforts of other because they are upset. I only wish we could flush every stinking one out by real name, identify them, and then remember them.
My bet is they will be the first to piss and moan, condemn this and that, and cry about everything that is wrong and how they didn't get a fair shake.
I have no time for people like that, and wish they would keep their pathetic reasoning, and excuses to themselves.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
You don't have to vote for anyone for president, but please don't punish your state and local Republicans because of the presidential nominee.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Brad writes: "If McCain wins the nomination, he will certainly be far more conservative than the Democrat nominee, and if he wins we will get better court appointments, have a better chance of fighting off tax increases, etc. On the other hand, if he loses, Republicans will be back in 4 or 8 or 12 years, and this country is too great to ruin in that short a time."
I agree with Brad on the first part of this, but I think we need to be deeply concerned about what could go wrong in the next 4-8 years. First of all, this is enough time for Iraq to descend into chaos, for Afghanistan to revert to the Taliban, for Pakistan to experience an Iranian-style Islamic revolution, and for Iran to gain nuclear weapons. These are real, foreseeable threats. And we need to think of unforeseen threats as well. Yes, the country won't be ruined, but we've got to factor in the possibility of a devastating attack on our shores (the next 9/11?), the possible need for intervention overseas, and how much better off America will be with McCain rather than Clinton being in charge of foreign policy and leading the military. Clinton and Obama have promised a course of action that seems likely to result in the devastation of Iraq and could very well hand victory to the Iranian-backed terrorists there.
And In 4-8 years, the President will likely replace Justices Stevens (88), Ginsberg (74), Kennedy (71), and possibly Scalia (71). If Clinton or Obama makes these appointments, then the Court is lost to social conservatives for a generation. Perhaps we've become complacent under the Rehnquist and Roberts courts, which, if they haven't really advanced the conservative cause have not stopped it either. But when activist liberal justices control the Supreme Court, social conservatives are shut out of the decision-making process on the most important issues of the day. One possibly or even likely consequence of a Court presided over by Clinton and Obama appointees is a case holding that the Constitution requires gay marriage. All the effort that went into passing laws and constitutional amendments in states to protect traditional marriage would be gone in a flash.
Moreover, it's important to keep in mind that conservatives are on the cusp of winning a decades-long campaign to regain the Court. Republicans of course have made some major mistakes (e.g. Souter), but we've also learned from them. It's even possible that Roe itself could be overturned with one more justice like, for example, John Roberts. Of course there's no guarantee, but the possibility is real enough to fight for it. In any event, we should be clear about this: a President Clinton or Obama would replace both Stevens and Ginsberg. Both are waiting for a Democratic president so they can retire.
P.S. For those who don't trust McCain on judicial appointments, I suggest that you look at Adam C's thread on McCain on this issue. If you disagree, I'd suggest you respond to Adam C's careful research and join the debate there:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/adam_c/2008/jan/31/mccain_on_the_issues_ju...
especially the part about Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I will be voting for McCain in the general because the democrat alternatives are unacceptable. Just as you stated a LOT can go wrong in four years, particularly considering the times we are living in right now. Afghanistan is showing signs of slipping away from us, Iraq is coming around due to the surge, and Pakistan was recently dangerously close to losing it. All of these situations will be affected by who is sitting in the oval office, and all of them will affect all of us if we mis-manage or neglect them.
A dangerous, although not uncommon, combination for a Senator - a disaster for a President.
McCain is at his most insufferable when he is in an expansive, winning mood. How long will it be before one of the ugliest episodes illustrating his smallness surfaces? I am referring to the awful joke he made: "You know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? It's because Janet Reno is her father." McCain received some flak at the time, but it has supposedly been forgotten. No way has Hillary Clinton forgotten. A mother remembers things like that forever. And it renders a judgment on John McCain that any decent person finds unacceptable.
See you next Wednesday.
You can't afford the price of free corn.
I am debating weather I should even vote for McCain come the general elections... since after all he is the one who left the conservative principles that my family and I hold dear. He abandoned me and not that I left him.
If McCain is the nominee I might vote for him but there will not be a single dollar to the RNC ( I will need to save all the money for the recession that is sure to follow with McCain)like I did Bush, I will not post any stickers, banners or yard signs like I did for Bush and others. I will never bring up the name of McCain with co-workers to try to convince them to vote for him. No money for the RNC until Mel Martinez is out. If he and McCain are embarrassed by Republicans principles then I am embarrassed by them.
Fernando Caballero
Here's a Latino that will never vote for McCain... Stop dealing in stereotypes and discuss real issues.
then you might as well just pull the lever directly for Hillary. Same difference, really.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
...Fairness Doctrine/Alien Amnesty/Tax Hike/Kyoto Protocol/etc. Into Law", are more than likely first-100-days headlines, what difference between him and President Obama or shudder Hillary on domestic issues?
McCain's now devolved into Hillaryesque Big Pharma-bashing, and, most odiously, chickenhawking Mitt Romney.
McCain lost my vote in the General with that last smear. He's People's Exhibit A why sitting Senators would make lousy Presidents.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
You have more confidence that I do; I believe that Hillary will destroy the military and spend all the money on social porgrams and we will be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
someone that knows the John McCain that I know. From family members with personal dealings and watching him from the time he ran for Congress in my CD, I know McCain as a petulant, vindictive man. And, not too bright, as you said. Just listen to him over time. His judgment is very poor. The Keating 5, the Chelsea joke and his inexplicable legislative positions display that.
He faces a lot of scorn here in AZ, just look at this from his home county, http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=1963.
His military career and POW experience are honorable but they do NOT make for great presidential experience. In fact, the military man in McCain is one of his biggest liabilities as a statesman. He expects to give orders and for others to follow them without question or hesitation. Many can attest to his temperament.
I have two HUGE concerns in this election: monetary policy and judicial appointments. McCain is clueless about the economy and monetary policy. Even his fiscal policy, which he prides himself in, is suspect when he votes against tax cuts. Imagine if had gotten his way. If he supported them, they may have been permanent.
I KNOW that monetary policy and judicial appointments would be HORRIFIC under a democrat. The judicial appointments can last a generation. The aggressive application of Keynesian economics would be a nightmare, especially when used in conjunction with political favors.
The jury is still out on EXACTLY how McCain would manage monetary policy and his judicial appointments. Especially with his proclivity to work with Democrats. No one knows exactly where John Sidney McCain would end up in these areas. I doubt even HE knows where he would end up. That's a big part of his problem.
There is no map for tomorrow. It has been so radically changed by China, Russian resurgence, oil and Islamofacism that we no longer have the luxury of saying tomorrow.
We need to start strategically correcting our problems right this minute or we can't recover.
China and Islamic terror have made this a crap shoot.
How can we afford a McCain Presidency, or an Obama Presidency? How can we afford not to root out the corruption in our system so we can HAVE a tomorrow as a nation.
Is anyone being naive, or ignoring the fundamentals. Of all the candidates, I believe Mitt Romney understands the stakes, the timeframe, and the need for strategic domestic action.
I cannot vote for this kind of person to be the president. There's not an ounce of decency in John McCain towards conservatives.
If your goal is just for the nation to survive, I agree you're probably safe just to sit this election out.
Right on the mark. I'm not voting McCain in the primaries, which as you eloquently point out are not over. If he is the nominee, he will be exponentially better than either of the democrat choices. Either the republican or democrat nominee will be the next president.