The Agony of Victory
Or the Thrill of Defeat?
By Mark I Posted in 2008 | Conservatives | Endorsements | Hillary Clinton | John McCain | The Presidential Race — Comments (55) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sen. John McCain’s Florida primary victory has made the likelihood of a McCain nomination a virtual certainty; and has focused the choice for conservatives vexed by this state of affairs. Just as the primary has become a binary choice between two conservative credential-challenged men, so have conservatives and Republicans suddenly been presented with a choice between two equally bad options.
It boils down to this: Do we conservatives want to win ugly, or lose pretty?
Read on…
In 2006, many conservatives, commentators, rank and file, and activists alike, argued that Republicans in Congress deserved a good spanking for their sins of overspending, earmarking, and in general betraying the base while in power. By losing control of Congress, the theory went, Republicans would see the error of their ways, reconnect with conservative principles, and win control of Congress back in short order.
While the new Republican minority in the House has been feisty, and the Senate has become Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s personal plaything, Republicans stand little chance of wresting control from the Democrats in this election cycle. At last count 28 Republicans in the House are retiring this year, and the GOP has to defend 21 Senate seats to the Democrats’ 12. It is safe to say that with those numbers stacked against them, the Republican Party will not be recapturing Capitol Hill this year no matter who it nominates for President.
Now, for the second consecutive election, and with the bitter taste of 2006 still in their mouths, conservatives look at the likely Republican nominee and purse their lips. But the alternative, Mitt Romney, is not exactly a teaspoon full of sugar. Both McCain and Romney are less than perfect conservatives. Romney on social issues is a recent convert; and McCain on taxes, campaign finance, immigration, and judges has a somewhat checkered past. So if both men are flawed, and one of them is going to be the nominee, conservatives are going to have to take their medicine eventually. If that is the case, we may as well do so in a winning effort.
Let’s look at this from the Democrats’ perspective for a moment. Sen. Hillary!™ Clinton is still the odds on favorite to win her party’s nomination, although the Senator from H.O.P.E.™, Barack Obama, is giving her more of a fight than she bargained for. How would Clinton fair against the potential Republicans?
Against Romney, She would win in a walk. Romney is a nice-enough guy, and a brass knuckles campaigner, as evidenced by his campaign’s relentless conveyor belt of opposition research that dumps out in sympathetic reporters’ inboxes. But his relative lack of experience on the national level plus his “aw shucks” demeanor will make him easy prey for the Clinton war machine. Clinton will go up one side of Romney’s record and down the other, finding ways to criticize him for all the positions he has taken, and feel no shame in doing so. Romney has earned the reputation of being the one Republican most willing to say anything to get the nomination. Yet, compared to the Clintons, he looks like George Washington at the cherry tree. Clinton2 will tell lies and spin distortions that would make Baron Münchhausen seem like Honest Abe by comparison.
But how would the machine take on McCain? They can't paint him as a conservative and a right wing nut, doing so might actually help McCain with Republicans. And they can't paint him as more of the same, since McCain has bucked the Republican Party in so many high profile ways. So they are left with temperament, a wink and a nod to his years in confinement and risky if the Democratic Party wants to ever win military votes again. Or they go the business-as-usual and corruption route, the Keating Five. Imagine, the Clintons attacking an opponent on corruption. The pundits might never stop laughing. They could go after McCain’s age. He is 71 and would be the oldest person elected to a first term. But seniors are an important part of the Democratic base. This strategy too, is risky. They could turn into immigration hawks in hopes of playing up McCain’s negatives on the issue, especially among Republicans and conservatives. Here again, however, they would risk alienating a growing constituency, Hispanics, that their primary strategy is deliberately courting at the expense of blacks. Clinton may end up damning McCain with faint praise to paint McCain even more moderate and depress turnout among the Republican base.
Democrats have no good options for attacking McCain. His image as a straight-talking, principle-over-party politician is the very antithesis of Clinton. Worse, she improves his standing amongst his skeptics with each attack she makes on his record. McCain beats Hillary. He also beats Obama, who he will make look like a teenager. But Obama must first prove that he can beat Clinton before he merits a more serious analysis.
Conservatives have always valued ideological purity over electoral potential, and rightly so. In an ordinary election, principle counts; and just because the Democrats don’t have any, doesn’t mean that conservatives should allow their would-be leaders to shun theirs. This is no ordinary election, though. This election will have profound consequences for the country in the war on terror and for the future of the Supreme Court. A Democratic victory means in all likelihood a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, with Afghanistan not too far behind. This would be a victory for al-Qaeda--there is no other way to say it--and must be prevented at all costs. The Supreme Court has three aging liberals, at least two of which are waiting for a Democratic president to nominate his/her successor. Losing two Supreme Court Justices to the Democrats would deprive conservatives the chance to finally obtain a true originalist majority on the Court. The current makeup of the Court is balanced right on the razor’s edge, with its four conservatives four liberals and one swing vote. It has taken close to 30 years for conservatives to get to this point, and the opportunity must not be lost. These two issues, the war on terror and the makeup of the Supreme Court, are important enough for conservatives to allow flexibility on principles to preserve past gains and prevent future losses.
Sen. McCain, whatever one thinks of his record, would be infinitely better on the war and judges than Sen. Clinton. Infinitely. To make the perfect the enemy of the good, for which conservatives have a particular affinity, and shun McCain in favor of Hillary Clinton is electoral and political suicide. Political movements gain power by showing that they can elect candidates. Conservatives have demonstrated this time and time again. But sometimes, a movement has to show that it is willing to play ball as well. This is that time for conservatives. The voters have shown, and likely will continue to show, that it is Sen. McCain’s time to shine. He was not our first choice. But barring a political miracle from Mitt Romney, himself not our first choice, McCain will be the nominee. We should support him and fight to win ugly.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Hillary v. Obama Open Thread — Comments (3) »
The Agony of Victory 55 Comments (0 topical, 55 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This myth that John McCain is more electable is just another msm ploy to destroy the conservative movement. He simply is not. Nominating him will be a disaster for the party, and it would be 2006 all over again. Disafected conservatives would stay home or vote 3rd party, and the result would damaging to candidates for US Senate all the way down to state races for legislatures. In 2006 the conservative base was turned off by immigration, house corruption, and betrayl of the fundamentle conservative principles. Well John McCain fits that bill all the way if you add in his membership in the Keating Five.
The Clinton machine would do to McCain what it did to Bob Dole whose status as a war hero did not save him from their dirty tricks. In 1996 something like 15% of self id'd republicans stayed home and we lost 49-42 and almost lost the house back.
At the end of the day if McCain were the nominee I would possibly vote for him while holding my nose. But I would not work for him, I would not display a bumper sticker or put up yard signs for him, which I have done for every other GOP nominee since I was 12 years old. I don't think I'm alone in that either.
Romney is acceptable to the majority of the GOP base as shown in exit poll after exit poll. He is an excellent speaker and debater and would be a good candidate to recapture the Bush coalition and possibly do better in states like Michigan. Also look at who he'd likely pick as VP, Fred Thompson, Rick Santorum ect. While McCain will likely pick a moderate to liberal governor like Pawlenty of MN.
McCain fractures the base while Romney reflects it, this gives him a much better chance to win and help the party then McCain.
There are still thousands of delegates to go in this race, we can still stop him.
Sorry, Romney has been given all the advantages in these primaries and he is still unable to win. He lead in Iowa, and lost when voters got to know him. He lead in New Hampshire and lost when voters got to know him. He came in fourth in conservative South Carolina and could not win in a Republican-Only primary in Florida. He won one contested state in Michigan by promising big federal support. If he cannot win in these primaries where he has outspent the winners by significant proportions, why in the world do you think he could win a general election? I am a conservative and I would love to support a true conservative candidate, but Romney is a flawed coservative. Read what the conservative Wall Street Journal had to say today about Romney's convictions, or should we say lack of convictions.
1) Because part of the base is split, with some enticed by Huckabee's religious overtones and part attracted to Giuliani as a (slightly) less liberal alternative to McCain, but equal or better on the war.
2) Because some of the conservative base has been conned into believing that McCain has actually had changes of heart on some issues.
Rich Lowry was correct when he pointed out that McCain has yet to win a majority of people who self-identify as Republican, much less conservative. In Florida exit polling, it was registered Republicans who self-identified as independent, not Republican - I have a leftist Father-in-law who falls into the category and the vote - who gave McCain his margin.
McCain loses his biggest margins among Republicans who say they're issues-oriented over personal-qualities oriented, which for some means they voted based on less thought and more feeling.
I also, learned this morning that further complicating matters in Florida was the 3 million phone calls in the three days before the election targeting squishy conservative Republicans who don't typically vote in primaries to get them to show up to vote for Amendment 1.
The bottom line is that the base hasn't really warmed to McCain at all; that Romney doesn't exactly ignite the base is understandable, but the part of the base that pays attention is mostly (not all) in his camp already.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
If it wasn't for Jimmy Carter's victory over Gerald Ford and the inept Carter Administration I do not believe that Ronald Reagan would have ever become President of the United States. A mushy Ford Administration would have killed the rise of the modern conservative movement.
Today, with John McCain we have the same problem. While I agree that Romney is less than dependable he, unlike McCain, is not at war with the basic tenets of the conservative movement. President McCain has made it clear that he is in the Al Gore camp when it comes to the environment which is right in line with his love of government solutions to all our problems.
McCain-Fiengold is not just a bad piece of legislation it is a government enforced assault on freedom of expression. Last night, Newt called it more dangerous to our lives than the Alien and Sedition Act.
And his amnesty for illegal aliens does not need much commentary.
Winning with McCain might be tantamount to the conservative movement committing suicide.
winning ugly is winning, period. You show me someone that prefers losing in a pretty fashion to winning ugly, I'll be looking at someone that hasn't been part of many victories.
For all that prefer to lose, and not fight for a victory, please explain to me what you ever expect to see accomplished after losing.....except a big hug from other losers.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
I respectfully suggest you study the positive impact of Reagan's loss in 1976. In the end it gave rise to the conservative political movement that won the Cold War, engineered the greatest economic boom in history, successfully promoted patriotism, defended basic social/family values and spurred the growth of a conservative movement (which beat back liberals in both parties) that became a governing majority. None of this would have happened with President Ford. In all probability another Ford Administration would have killed the rise of conservative political power.
of further consideration if we had a Ronald Reagan waiting in the wings. We do not, ergo we must win in order to avoid becoming a permanent political doormat.
letting the Rinos run the party.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Two: Carter left the biggest mess since FDR. It may never be cleaned up.
______________________________
"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
(rather than what would be a third Bush term) because that would clarify issues and unite Republicans and conservatives and forgetting what the Carter sinle-term Presidency did to us. Almost everything we now face especially in the middle east can be laid at the feet of carter, the abandonment of the Shah in Iran, the promotion of the 'peace Process", the energy crisis, eerything that has now brought us to open war in the region was caused by his atrocious mismanagement of foreign policy, along with the loss of countless lives, many of them American.
at least in principle. While I would hate to Hillary and/or Obama, I do not want to send the message to the GOP that I am okay with the likes of McCain. It is not like the baseball record books where I can vote McCain with an asterisk. After 4 years of McCain the Party may well be in worse shape than now.
I see Hillary/Obama's presidency analogous to a market correction. The bubbles sometimes burst. It hurts, but the economy comes back stronger. Jimmy was a crap President and the country went through some tough years. The country then adjusted and we were rewarded with 12 years of Republican rule and the insurgence of a strong conservative coalition.
The GOP has in some respects "inflated" too much and needs a correction. A Dem pres/Congress might just be that correction. Then, after 4 years of crap, perhaps some strong conservatives will run (effectively) and perhaps the electorate will be ready to return to the Reagan years.
But, then again, the only thing that gives me pause is the war.
R. Michael Woodard
....if it meant we made gains in Congress and were able to effectively stop any serious damage Hillary would do. Then we could come back with Mark Sanford in 2012.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
.. let's not kid ourselves. We have nearly a fifth of our caucus retiring in the House and over 20 seats to defend in the Senate. That's not happening. We need the executive in power and for him to win in Iraq while we build up grassroots to take one of the chambers in 2010.
-------
Proof that not everyone in the mainstream media is a bleeding heart.
...the rest of your post. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
to find any excitement in the remaining GOP candidates.
However, in spite of recent opinions espoused by prominent conservatives, I plan to vote for the Republican nominee.
I'm old enough to remember 1968 when the Democrats nominated HHH. There was more turmoil among Democrats during that time than there is today among Republicans. I recall many Democrat friends swearing oaths in the same manner as Ann Coulter only to return to the fold in November.
It will be necessary for McCain, who looks to be the nominee, to reach out to talk radio icons and other prominent conservatives in order to begin the process of putting the GOP house in order. Granted it was not a pretty picture yesterday with McCain flanked by Giuliani and Arnold, but I believe McCain will do what is necessary for victory and seek reconciliation. A conservative nominee for VP will be paramount.
Rush Limbaugh knows that McCain cannot win without support from conservatives. So does McCain. Look for McCain to seek rapprochement by way of giving ground on immigration.
MarkI makes a good point about congressional seats. However,I believe the Democrats are equally concerned about their future position in the US congress. That is why we are witnessing a shift in support that favors Obama over Clinton.
You mention making the perfect the enemy of the good. The thing is, as I see it, not voting for, say, Romney, with his recent conversions, would be making the perfect the enemy of the good. Not voting for McCain with his constant and open contempt of conservatism would be more like making the good the enemy of the "not quite as horrible."
We will have either a full blown or liberal leaning President. The latest AP poll shows even many Democrats like McCain. And after Romney spending nearly 40 Million on advertising, nearly 1/3 of the 2,000 respondents said they new little or nothing about the Gov.
Interesting, either his message isn't being heard or it's being ignored.
The HinzSight Report
Managing Editor
The latest AP poll shows even many Democrats like McCain.
I'm sure there were many polls during the early and mid 80s that showed many Democrats liked President Reagan (he won with a lot of them voting for him). A question then spring to mind - did Democrats liking him make Reagan a liberal?
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
McCain is infinitely preferable to Hillary. He might let conservatives down; Hillary is a guarantee for disaster. I think Rush is being very irresponsible in claiming that he might prefer Hillary to McCain, and declaring McCain a loser already. When the chance disappears to change to makeup of the Supreme Court, and Hillary is signing the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1999" that legislates Rush off the air, maybe he might see things differently.
I also don't understand why McCain is treated with such hostility by the same people who continue to sing Bush's praises. President Bush is every bit the panderer to the left that McCain is ("new tone", letting Sandy Berger off the hook, immigration, praising Hillary's experience, defending Nancy Pelosi during her airplane scandal, speaking at the Democratic winter retreat and trashing his own supporters there, accusing his supporters on Fox News last Sunday of "bashing" immigrants, signing a campaign finance reform bill he didn't even think was constitutional, etc.,etc.). It seem that since Bush is an inept panderer, that it is somehow less offensive than McCain's successful pandering.
With McCain in the White House, regrouping and restrategizing will be far easier than it will under a Hillary administration. Hillary, with huge majorities in Congress, might obtain her dream of socialized medicine as well. How are we to recover from that, once that becomes institutionalized? Better to go with the highly imperfect, than the disastrous.
I agree with everything you say. This is not the time to pull out and walk away over ideological purity.
At its core, I think the resistance to McCain comes from a deep seated fear that he will betray us in the spirit of compromise with the Dems and for positive press.
If I thought I could trust him, he'd have not only my vote (which he will have), but my money and time.
I'm saving the last two because I'm almost 100% sure that while a President John McCain will spend the next four years fighting Al-Quaida (and perhaps government spending), Conservatives will spend the next four years fighting John McCain on immigration, free speech and the Amendment that guarantees the others - the 2nd.
In the end, we will likely be disappointed on the justices we get, with a Roberts highly unlikely unlikely. We'll be lucky if we get an O'Conner.
That said, I'd rather fight 3-4 battles with McCain than all of them with Hillary or OBama.
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
Roe -v- Wade
She will pound on this repeatedly and talk about the end of abortion rights if McCain gets elected. Her ads will show pictures of 89 year old Justice Stevens and us days away from the end of Roe.
In short, she will turn this election into a referendum on Roe.
And keep in mind many of the swing states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico) are states where this line of attack could yield results.
I say bring it on... Most of America is not as self centered as "The Most Selfish Generation".
On what issue are you referring to?
Abortion rights? The polls show the majority of americans favor at least some form of a limited right to choose.
And when you say "Most of America" what do you base that on?
It's easy to just spout off that most of america does not favor the most liberal policies of the 60's generation.
But that is not what is at issue here. The issue is how moderates and independants and swing states will respond to Clinton making the election a referendum on Roe.
Now, if you have evidence that moderates and independants in swing states favor the pro-life position I'm all ears, but the data I have seen will help Clinton in regards to these crucial voters.
The Hill has an interesting article on how close McCain came to leaving the GOP in 2001 and caucusing with the Dems, as Jeffords did.
Seems to be based almost entirely on statements by Daschle and other Democrats. Exactly why, given what we know about people like Daschle, Kennedy and Edwards, should we believe them unquestionably? Weaver himself - the central figure here - denies the statements. So we should believe Democrats who are making these comments in the middle of an election cycle over Weaver (however we might dislike him). Again, this is just more "I'll take any reason to hate John McCain," since normally a statement by the likes of Daschle or Kennedy would be dismissed out of hand.
And, yet again, it seems that Weaver is at the heart of this. All of these rumors - switching parties, running with Kerry - all seem to revolve around Weaver. He's a bad influence. And he is now not with the campaign.
Folks seem willing to believe Romney's conversion on life, Huckabee's on taxes, but won't give any benefit of the doubt to McCain on anything.
The people of AZ keep giving him that benefit, and we've all been so blessed because of it.
This is not the way to win.
For the record, I don't give credit to the others for flipping so recently either. I'd rather have a guy who I'd have to hold his feet to the fire than a guy who wouldn't care if I did that because he is right and I shouldn't have the audacity to do such a thing to a war hero. Until he is the nominee, he doesn't get my support. And if he is the nominee it's still iffy. He's got a lot of making up to do here and I'm sick of the people telling me to get over it.
I have to make something of comparison here. NY uses "fusion" ballots - meaning that more than one party can nominate the same candidate. It has led to a proliferation of minor parties in NY who manage to maintain ballot access by just endorsing one of the two major party candidates. So NYers have not only Rs and Ds, but Conservative, Independence and Working Families Parties (we used to have a Liberal Party, but a wrong choice for governor in 2002 ended their access).
These parties virtually always pick one of the two major party candidates. I do not believe that any of these parties have elected a candidate alone (meaning, a candidate who was not a Republican or Democrat), save for a single NY City Councilwoman from the Bronx. They don't have any illusions to do so - they are in it to be the marginal difference in an election. The Working Families Party makes this an almost express goal.
The point for these parties is - endorse a major party candidate who agrees with the party's position on their issues, then go out and convince their members to vote for, say, the Democrat, but to do it on the Wroking Family ballot line. The Party can then go to the winner (assuming he wins) and say "look, see, 4 points of your total vote came from our ballot line," and in a close election, follow it with "without our endorsement you would have lost, so we want you to address our issues and support our policies, or we won't help you again next time." The Conservative Party in NY has kept the Republicans there from going completely off the deep end by proving time and again that a Republican needs the cross-endorsement to win (very few Republicans manage victory without it, and none statewide has ever won without Conservative backing).
The point of all this is, these guys sometimes do "take their marbles and go home" by putting up their own guy - but it's not the norm. The norm is for them to work for one of the major party candidates and deliver votes that are then used as leverage with the winner. The same is true here. Conservatives can, and should, continue to contest the primaries if they wish. But once the Party settles on a nominee, they are best served by working for and with him to deliver their voters. That gives them the seat at the table and the influence necessary to impact policy. If conservatives take their marbles and go home there is a risk of the Republican losing (and getting the polar opposite of conservative policies), or, worse (at least to me) winning anyway and having no reason to include conservatives in the process (why reward people who tried to defeat you?).
It is not John McCain who will "sunder the Party" - it is the Party that has selected him through it's agreed upon procedures and in accord with the decision of voters. The people sundering the Party are those that refuse to accept that decision, who state implicitly or explicitly that they will accept the process so long as it produces the "correct" result. Don't like the process - change it. Those of you in SC and NH and other open states - push for rules or laws that would close the primary. Don't acquiesce to the system and participate in it, but then revolt when you lose - that's petty and childish.
I don't expect the hysterics about McCain to end soon - it will go to at least Tuesday. Likely it will continue to increase in bile and temper and utter audacity until Romney drops out or shocks the world. I can hope, though, that when we do finally settle this contest that it will go away - if not because those people writing the material decide to get on board, then at least because they decide to leave the rest of us in peace to do the work that needs to be done.
McCain will keep us safe.
Hillary/Obama will surrender.
McCain will get us lower taxes.
Hillary/Obama will raise taxes.
McCain will secure the borders first.
Hillary/Obama will grant amnesty and stop the fence.
McCain will appoint conservative/moderate judges.
Hillary/Obama will appoint two or more young Ginsbergs.
McCain will go along with global warming fanatics only if China and India do as well (which won't happen).
Hillary/Obama will go it alone and harm the economy.
McCain will never allow Iran to have a nuke.
Hillary/Obama will abandon Israel.
McCain will serve four years.
Hillary/Obama could serve 16.
McCain is not ideal.
Hillary/Obama is a nightmare.
Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law
Mcain has been in the senate 20 years is the ranking member in the Armed Forces committee. Why hasn't he been more vocal about our injured soldiers and ensuring they get the best treatment from day one? Why wasn't he on top of the new threat (this rising third world'/middle east) that was being taught at our service acadamies during the eighties? If he had been, he would have seen the threat and forced the public to be aware of the issue before 9/11. You write, "McCain will never allow Iran to have a nuke." I have to respectfully say where have you been? They are so close it's ridiculous, and he's been on the Armed Services Committee!!!! (ranking member).
"McCain will secure the borders" Huh? He's been on the Judiciary committee in the Senate. Once again, for twenty years he has had the opportunity to do something about
illegal immigration. I'm expected to believe this now? I'm suppossed to trust him after he is quoted as saying the following during the last debate:
MCCAIN: No, it would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate -- it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever -- that proposal.
Where has he been? Since the eighties we have been angry at congress over this issue and he just now gets it? I know, he's old and things take time to catch up with him.
And finally, your state, "McCain will go along with global warming fanatics only if China and India do as well (which won't happen)." Guess you didn't read this:
I see by your signature that you are an academic. How can you support someone that wants to shut down the scientific method? Who died and made him God? The issue is not over, in fact, AGW is a scam and I suggest you find out why he really wants the case closed, could it be he has his money hedged somewhere to make a nice profit? NO ONE has the right to say that they own science, or does the sun still revolve around the sun?
And I won't go into the familiar diatribe that has been consistently bandied about (M-F, M-K, M-L)
You also write, "McCain will serve four years." Actually, probaby fewer because he is so old. He has been part of the establishment for too long. He has repudiated conservatives too long and has not shown that he is a leader.
With all respect, did you think about what you were writing before you did?
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
McCain will keep us safe as long some perceived slight against him doesn't make him vindictive: There's danger in his short fuse.
Saying Hillary/Obama will surrender is pretty close to accurate, but still hyperbole.
McCain might get us lower taxes, and surely screw us with carbon offsets, carbon credits and government impositions against liberty in the name of our new state religion: Global Warming.
Hillary/Obama will probably raise taxes, but be more honest about it and there will be a GOP to protest.
McCain will have governors say we've secured the borders first, then force impose 20 million aliens upon the franchise (and 60 million of their relatives) for our children to contend with. And he'll do it in spite of, and specifically to spite, the vast majority that protests.
Hillary/Obama will try to grant amnesty, surely stop the wall and have to figure out how much they will risk their new power to a ticked off citizenry.
McCain might appoint conservative/moderate judges, so long as they won't unravel his new interpretation of the first amendment.
Hillary/Obama will appoint two or more young Ginsbergs and have them filibustered.
McCain will go all the way with global warming fanatics only if China and India do as well (which won't happen), but while waiting, he'll surely go to second or third base in heavy petting with Al Gore's friends.
Hillary/Obama will try to go it alone and harm the economy, but there will be a party poised to oppose them.
McCain will never allow Iran to have a nuke, and he'll find out where the strawberries went.
Hillary/Obama will not abandon Israel.
McCain will serve four years and the Republican party will serve a life sentence.
Hillary/Obama could serve 16 when pigs fly.
McCain is not ideal for president, but he'd be a hoot to watch as a contestant on Big Brother.
Hillary/Obama is a nightmare.
Actually, Hillary/Obama/McCain are all nightmares.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
We still have 20+ states to go. If Huckabee were to get out of the race, I am sure a good part of those voters would go to Romney. Or if a alot of Hucksters were to go Romney...
Oh well.. better get ready for a Carter Part II administration,
no matter if it Hilalry, Barack, or Joannes McCainus Liberalus Ignoramus
The media will destroy McCain if he get the nod. They built him up, so they will tear him down. Mark my words.
X-Angel
Not sure which timetable you're looking at if you think we have a long race ahead of us.
Its a long hard run and you drop dead at the end of it.
McCain is going to be a very hard rough uphill part of the run. What we have after him will just be more uphill run. Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of not supporting him. We are in a war. Losing this war will be every bit as bad as the aftermath of vietnam most likely worse. The Vietnamese did not want to come here and kill us (at least short term). Our enemies have no trouble attacking us on our home land, and if we retreat without achieving victory thats exactly what will happen.
______________________________
"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
______________________________
"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
Just after playing McCain's sound bite saying he would consider being John Kerry's running mate, and following Rick Santorum's endorsement of Romney, Laura Ingraham said that she will be pulling the lever for Romney.
You got a link. McCain denies that he ever considered being Kerry's running mate. Kerry asked, McCain said no.
Can you link to this evidence?
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
No suprise here.
with Ingraham and her audience, of whom I am one. After flailing around bashing McCain to no particular effect, he realized all of a sudden that Romney was not a flip-flopper!!! Yes, he had changed hs positions on many issues to the conservative side once he became a candidate -- but that was not flip-flopping, it was just flopping in one direction, the right direction, therefore it was evolving! So, he's supporting Romney!!! Santorum had previously engaged in spreading gossip about McCain, who failed to support some of Santorum's pet projects, and may have used profanity in the Senate!!!
Well, as a McCain supporter, I was reeling from this development -- Santorum, after all, managed to lose to a nonentity by FIFTEEN POINTS in 2006 -- when Laura announced she was voting for Romney.
We've lost Ingraham! We're doomed! etc.
By the way, the Kerry-running mate is another unsourced (or all-Dem sourced) rumor that Levin, Ingraham, Limbaugh, peddle as if it were gospel. The sound bite that Ingraham plays is McCain being polite to Kerry before he says he isn't interested in being on the Dem ticket (she doesn't play that part.
In past years Ingraham treated Kerry as a joke, and made fun of his statements like the one where Kerry claimed to have had conversations with unnamed "world leaders" in restaurants; now, when Kerry says that "his people (mcCain's) reached out to my people" on being his VP, this is taken as gospel truth, because John Kerry says so....
I don't like McCain (gee, you don't say!), but if he's the nominee, I'll cast my ballot for him without thinking twice. Of course, I'll be keeping a Rolodex of Congressional leaders on my desk for the next eight years, and I might look into learning Spanish, but at least GWOT will be in good hands.
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
The only differences between Clinton and McCain is the party designation behind their name and the fact is that we know Hillary will stay true to her party. The argument about McCain being better on the war and judges does not hold water.
McCain wants to end water boarding as a tactic to elicit information from terrorists. He wants to close the detention facility in GTMO. This sounds like Hillary to me. McCain says he would support Roberts but not Alito for justices. This does not sound like someone who would appoint strict constitutionalists to the court. Can you say "David Souter."
McCain does not like to fight for what is right. He likes to win and by he can only win by compromising. See McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy and McCain/Liberman. I am just visioning what McCain's Cabinet will be like if he were elected.
Secretary of State - Joe Liberman
Secretary of Education - Ted Kennedy
Secretary of EPA - Arnold Schwartzenager (sp)
These are the types of people John McCain will appoint for his cabinet in order to get his goals through Congress. I believe it time the Republican Party stand up for itself and quit supporting people/candidates who do not hold to the Conservative Philosophy.
The Republican Party as long as it has its elected officials like Arlen Spector, John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Christopher Shays, and Lindsey Graham speaking for us then we will always be a losing party.
The election of Bobby Jindhal in Louisiana demonstrates what happens when we stand up for our values. We should get rid of the party dinosaurs and start electing young leaders.
a slippery slope? Is it becoming the norm to vote for someone just to defeat the opposition? That was done in the last election. Many voted Bush to keep Kerry out. Are we going to make this normal course for the Republican party? We are to ignore the issues with the candidates, then vote for them so we can get a Repub in the White House. And then what?
Congress is currently controlled by the Democrats. As you correctly said above, 28 seats in the House are up for grabs. Based on McCain's past workings with the Democratic party, exactly what do you think will happen? He will continue the war in Iraq. Great, we want that to end favorably. But what about other issues? Is the war the only issue we as a nation face? Exactly which current Republican candidate, other than Paul, would stop the war? Illegal immigration? That issue will go the way of the Dems. Note that once it is done, it cannot be undone.
This is not a simple issue of dealing with or repealing a tax increase, this is something that will ultimately change our nation. 20 million+ is not a small number. I find it sad that some would be willing to entertain supplanting American Sovereignty. That's right, our sovereignty as a nation.
To believe that this is not a direct assault on our national identity is insanity. This is not an issue about Mexicans, the French, Canadians, Asians, or any other nationality. This is an issue about the rule of law and our right as a nation to decide who and when we will allow someone across our borders.
I found it curious that the HRA and Chamber of Commerce were responsible for parts of the McCain-Kennedy bill. When the bill started going south (no pun intended), the HRA and others like them protested the bill. It was never about helping immigrants, it was about the HRA's ability to use cheap labor to make money. Remember that the next time McCain tries to explain his position away. Selling out our rule of law for cheap labor. That's why I am against McCain.
For Kennedy, it was about a future poor voting base. Most of these folks are uneducated and work menial jobs. A perfect crowd for victimization. To me, again, this is not about a particular nationality, but it is to them. For McCain to tell La Raza to continue the fight within the borders of this great nation against "us loud folks" is repugnant. La Raza wants illegals to be recognized because it increases their political foot print. His support of La Raza goes back years. Google is your friend.
As for other issues, I seriously think he would sign an AWB as well as go the route of the humans caused global warming crowd raising taxes. He already has to prove my point - McCain-Leiberman. As with scientists, business will circumvent laws to advance their views and needs. A business on American soil should respect her laws. Why is it we oppose science that is immoral, but not businesses practices? I am not anti-business mind you, I am pro American Sovereignty, if you can understand that.
So to end this miserable post, I find it unfortunate that our tact is to vote someone into office in order to defend against the opposition regardless of their past stances. Hopefully we can start to fix the problem were it counts - Congress. But until the shift in Congress moves more towards the Republican (conservative) side, we can be sure that damage will be done. Sorry for the long post, just my rant.
--roxer
A divider as our presidential nominee? Or do conservatives deserve to be spanked because of the failures on congress when republicans were the majority? Seem's like we get what we deserve.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
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
I hate to overstate the obvious....but if Romney were the uniter candidate he'd be winning more Primaries, delegates,, etc rather than losing and spending 40 million bucks in the process..
I'm totally appalled by the level of anti McCain rhetoric on the web, and this site, the last couple of days. It's one thing to dislike the man, but it's quite another to demonize him. It harkens back to the attempts of Democrats to demonize the President or any other Republican they don't agree with. It's caustic and it just gives you heartburn. And to think that this is Republicans/Conservatives doing this to one to their own. Also I'm really cheesed off at the attitude of some posters, mainly those supporting Romney, that if their candidate doesn't win then they're going to pack up and go home. The Republican Party is broader than just the uber conservative base. By all means go out and campaign for your candidate as vigorously as possible, however could you try and be a bit more civil. But what I can't abide is this attitude that if 'I don't get my way, then I'm going home'. As I said yesterday, if Romney wins the nomination the 'base' will expect/demand the more moderate wing of the Party to rally around the nominee, so why should we expect anything less. I don't like Romney, it's visceral I can't quite explain it, but if push comes to shove I will vote for him. Because there's a lot less difference between Romney and McCain then there is between McCain and Clinton... And those of you who keep insisting that McCain and Clinton are political twins really need to get their heads examined... It's on par with the loony left insisting that Bush is Hitler. I'm all for winning ugly because losing, even 'nobly', is still losing... And there's way too much to lose in this election!
Mitt's business record was a big fat target in his Senate race, and is likely to be again. They will scour the data for every layoff, every outsourcing, every downsizing, every turnaround snafu, etc.
Apart from his brass knuckles campaign style, periodically interrupted by moralisting whining, I think Romney would make a decent president, with especially good executive skills.
But life is more than a Wall Street road show, pitch book or PowerPoint presentation. Mitt is a real problem as a candidate. He is the very IMAGE of what the Democrats love to campaign against - a wealthy, privileged, successful white male. His spotless personal life and great family will not protect him.
also, "moralisting" should be moralizing. Blush!
They may not be twins but the idea that McCain would be better than Clinton is weak at best. On the issue that I care about there is very little difference. He will not support keeping the tax cuts, he will finish the war but he will not protect our borders, he will not push the energy policies we need now to become independent. He might veto a national health care bill but I believe that he will eventually capitulate on that as well. The only are he might actually be useful to the conservative agenda is his ongoing fight against earmarks. This is not enough for me. If he is the candidate of the GOP, I will show the GOP with my vote that they had better get back to the basics of conservatism. I will not send a signal that everything is OK.
I don't mind winning ugly, but electing McCain is NOT winning, period.
that McCain will select conservative judges if he is elected. He is on record saying that Alito was too conservative.
The media will do anything to get McCain the nomination because they know he will be defeated. He is the establishment republican. Remember the others that were chosen because it was their turn. Gerald Ford, Bob Dole and now McCain. It will turn out the same way as the other establishment picks.
We will have a democrat in the Whitehouse.
Do you actually think all these media people and liberals will actually vote for McCain? I think not.
How many times do you have to be fooled before you wise up. The media and the liberals are choosing the republican nominee.
Its time for people to wise up.
For a column with common sense, whilst not caving on stating your displeasure with McCain. Him being the likely nominee isn't perfect, and I feel sympathy for conservatives who have had to compromise their principles a lot, but they also have to work at building coalitions in order to remain in power and get more done (instead of relying on Dems' failures, and imagining we will then all see the light and usher them in to save the day. Talk about fantasy from otherwise rock-ribbed realists!) They need to stay at the table in order to keep the debate alive, push their well thought out positions, and insist on defending the record when the left has nothing but empty accusations. I'm not sure how else to cultivate more conservative principles in our country.
I offer an analogy: Without the military to protect us, and financial independence to be able to make our own decisions as a country, our Constitution would be nothing more than a great idea on old paper. In a similar vein, conservatives are right for articulating the finer points of each position they differ on with McCain. But if they make themselves irrelevent, who wins? The self-loathing left and terrorists. Not to mention 1M plus babies a year being aborted with no restrictions, thanks to a completely liberal Supreme Court who would make it up as it went along. No thanks.
-One Independent voter in NYC
I'll get physically sick voting for McCain because of his attitude, his betrayal of the party on so many occassions and his thoroughly enjoying the attention of my fellow members of the media.
But he's not Clinton and he's not Obama. He's pretty pro-life and even if he has some disdain for Alito, I'm totally fine with another Roberts or two on the court.
While I hold personal disdain for McCain's character on everything save his noble military service, it would be immoral to not support someone who may save the lives of millions of unborn children and provide us victory in Iraq.
-------
Proof that not everyone in the mainstream media is a bleeding heart.