Why every conservative should vote for John McCain in November
Assuming he's the Republican nominee, of course
By Neil Stevens Posted in 2008 | Conservatives | John McCain — Comments (76) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Our vote is the first way we express our political will in this Republic. Our money and our time are so important as well, but without a vote, it is all for nothing.
Choosing a candidate to back in the 2008 Presidential election is therefore a big deal. And so, with full knowledge of how weighty this decision is, I present the case for Republican nominee John McCain to be the conservative choice for President this year.
Read On...
I understand some of us do not intend to vote for John McCain as the Republican nominee* in November. I voted that way for a decade myself. "I have to make the party earn my vote," I thought. In 2004 I did a few hours of research, examining the candidates from all the top parties, not just Bush and Kerry, before coming to the conclusion that I had to vote for President Bush on the issues. So I know how this thinking works.
In evaluating each party's probable nominee, I will assume that the following issues matter in deciding how to vote: taxes, spending, government growth, winning the war (at home and abroad), border security, and the runaway judiciary.
Democrat: We know this will be Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton. Both wish to raise taxes by allowing them to go up "automatically," increase spending and grow new government social programs, lose the war on terror at home and abroad, leave the borders unsecured, and contribute to judicial activism. Clearly the Democratic nominee can never be the conservative choice.
Green: Consider that two of the seven contenders for the Green nomination are former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, and longtime left-wing activist and former nominee Ralph Nader. Everything I said above about the Democrats goes double for the Greens, because the Greens have no national coalition to maintain with moderate to conservative members of the party demanding compromise. The Green party would take us in the direction of Western European socialism faster than any Democrat, and will surely be even worse for conservatives.
Constitution/American Independent/Independent American: Wikipedia cites two candidates for the Constitution party nomination: Bryan Malatesta and Diane Beall Templin. Their party's process has surely been stunted by party members rallying to the Ron Paul banner, but they will surely pick a candidate for November. You want to see an excerpt of Malatesta's thinking?
New World Order invites Texas Governor
News flash .... Gov. Rick Perry is flew to Istanbul, Turkey, to speak at the super-secret Bilderberg Conference. Robert Black, the governor's press secretary, said the governor was invited to attend and speak about state-federal relations. Mr. Black dismissed the conspiracy theories.
Oh yes, and Malatesta is also in favor of "Abolishing the Federal Reserve and Restore [sic] Constitutional Money." I think if conservatives wanted that, we could have voted for Ron Paul to begin with.
Templin is no better. According to the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, she believes the income tax is unconstitutional according to the 16th amendment. She had a website, but the domain has expired, so finding more is hard. And we're to vote for her for President?
Either way, the Constitution/American Independent/Independent American party candidate is no choice for conservatives.
Libertarian: Like the Constitution party, the Libertarian party hopes to draft Ron Paul. However two candidates are standing out from the crowd for a home-grown nominee: Steve Kubby and Wayne Allyn Root. Libertarians seem to write about fewer conspiracy theories than the Constitution party people, but a conservative can reject them on the issues, too.
Kubby? He wants to end the War on Terror at home and abroad by repealing USA PATRIOT and restoring the wall of intelligence that helped 9/11 happen, and is also pro-surrender in Iraq (and presumably Afghanistan and everywhere else terrorists rise up, but he doesn't say on his website). He also wants to turn the government into an energy experiment and "require government and military fleets to go non-petroleum," essentially a massive subsidy for unready technology. Not a fan of amnesty? Kubby's your man, too, because he'd rather end all immigration restrictions and make a true open border.
Root has his own problem. He supports isolationist foreign policy and a crippled USA PATRIOT. He is pro-Terri Schiavo starvation, pro-abortion, pro-marriage redefinition, and pro-embryonic stem-cell research. Root believes that "Global Warming is a danger to our planet earth," but yet is against the Yucca Mountain facility for spent nuclear fuel, when nuclear power is the greatest non-carbon-dioxide-emitting energy source around. He calls our presence of troops in Iraq an unfortunate occupation, but yet wants us to impose our will on the elected Iraqi government by forcing referenda upon it.
No matter who wins the Libertarian Party nomination, conservatives lose.
There are other parties out there, but with names like Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Communist Party, and more, need I go on?
The only choice for conservatives in November is Senator John McCain. Having been beaten twice in the Senate, he is on board with enforcement-first illegal immigration policy. He strongly opposes letting taxes go up when President Bush's tax relief expires. He's in favor of winning the War on Terror, even though he disagrees with some of us on specific issues like interrogation techniques. McCain is articulate, and is not afraid of speaking to the press about the war, unlike our current President. He'll also attack corrupt earmarked spending, and is on record against 'entitlement' expansions, having voted against Medicare D.
We all have to vote for somebody, and voting for John McCain this fall is as extreme as we can get in the pursuit of liberty, and it is no moderation in the pursuit of justice. He'll get my vote without regrets, and I hope other conservatives will join me.
* Yes, anything's possible, but given his massive delegate lead, and the ending or suspension of all but one credible competitor's campaign, I think John McCain is the presumptive nominee.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Mike Huckabee: A Candidate Parody — Comments (132) »
Why every conservative should vote for John McCain in November 76 Comments (0 topical, 76 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Not voting is the same as splitting your vote equally for every candidate.
So not voting is a partial vote for Cynthia McKinney. Eww!
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
...about McCain, come Nov. I will probably pull the lever for him but until then holding him under a microscope critically (but fairly) is in all of our best interest.
And I wouldn't scold anyone who decides to go with the option i mentioned above.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
seriously, you're going to sit out over those two issues? Hey, McCain was my fourth choice, and a distant fourth at that. And there may be a case made for sitting out, (I don't agree) but if there is one, it's not made here.
Did you even bother to read what it wrote? Momentary laps of reading comprehension perhaps?
If you’re trying to take me to task you’d need to come better than this!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Your assessment of my reading comprehension is, in retrospect, correct.
The fate of Gitmo was sealed on Tuesday. All three that are left in the race all say they'll close it.
would be for McCain to suffer a major health problem between now and the convention and be forced to drop out. This could save the Party and the country.
A brokered convention would allow a TRUE conservative to have the nomination. This possibility is not as far-fetched as you might think. McCain is not a healthy person.
I personally believe that he has some kind of degenerative brain disease, either Alzheimer's or post-traumatic. Certainly, he must have suffered head trauma as a POW. I have nothing against this man. But I am concerned about the future of my children, my country, and the world.
As by that time he will have the number 2 delegate count and actually still be in the race. Be careful what you wish for.
______________________________
"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
Look, John McCain was definitely not my first choice (Fred Thompson was while he was running) but let's face it; he's done better than any other Republican candidiate.
You can talk about how many of his votes come from moderate and even liberal Republicans. True! But moderate and liberal Republicans have been Republicans just as long as conservative Republicans have and, at least in toto, represent more Republicans than us conservative Republicans.
You can talk about how many of his votes came from independents. True! But by the same token, whoever wins the Republican nomination is going to need the votes of independents to win the Presidency.
If you don't want to vote for McCain in the general election, I won't try to convince you; frankly, I can understand the sentiment even though I plan to vote because I think the alternatives are much worse. But face the fact, of all the Republican candidiates this year -- indeed, of all the Republican politicians this year -- John McCain is probably the only one who even has a chance to win.
That the best thing that could happen would be for McCain to suffer a major health problem.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
and the people who do not understand how important it is that we have a POTUS with character, have no comprehension how serious and dangerous the situation is!!!!!
We need a president who is principled. McCain is a compromiser. So is Huckabee. Hillary and Obama are completely worthless. We are in deep deep trouble. This predicament is much worse than 1976. The fate of the Free World is at stake and we cannot afford a leader who "deals" with evil.(or is willing to coddle them)
"Where there is no vision, the people perish."
You could add to your "best thing" scenario by having Hillary and Obama get smashed to bits in a plane crash. It's not a productive or helpful line of thought, voyager. The "true" conservatives (read, the anti-McCain conservatives) lost, so it's time to settle for Option B. Oh, and you think it's only "true" conservatives who are "concerned about the future of my children, my country, and the world"?
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
I agree with your points, Neil. And sitting out is a vote for the Democrat, that's for sure.
Only...unlike you I am going to have PLENTY of regrets voting for McCain, but I'm gonna do it anyway.
McCain may only be 50 percent of a loaf, but that is much better than zero. Consider two of our most important issues.
National security is the #1 job of the Commander in Chief. Everything else is of secondary importance. On this issue, McCain is head and shoulders above the rest, not only in knowledge and experience, but in the respect held for him by our military.
Judges. The Senate will be more Democratic in 2009. If you want to see two 50 year old Ginsburgs on the Supreme Court, then by all means, don't vote for McCain. I certainly agree that there is no guarantee he'll nominate and get confirmed two Scalias. But there is no chance he'll put two 50 year old left wingers on the court who will spent the next forty years gutting American national security and competitiveness.
I'd rather have a Souter and Kennedy on the court instead!
/sarcasm
And I'd take Kennedy over Ginsberg.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Having 2 O'Conners instead of Ginsberg/Stevens means 2 more votes aganist Kelo, 2votes for less buisness and gun regulation and 2 votes aganist extermist postions in Church and State maters and Affrimative Action.
McCain '08
judges are my #1 one issues for the simple fact that, as you note so well, they impact all facets of the conservative agenda. Doesn't matter what laws you pass, or policies you try to execute, if 5 humans wearing black robes decide that the Constitution means whatever they say it does, or that foreign law is more relevant than the Constitution.
It's what in the past has caused me to purchase clothespins to vote for Republicans I didn't particularly much care for on other issues. It's why voting for McCain is proving so problematic to me 'cause his Gang of 14 gig sent me ballistically into the stratosphere. Now I have to decide whether he will go to the mat as he's going to need to do with a bunch of liberal Democrats that he's lined up with on so many other issues in the past. Still wrestling with that alligator.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Like you, I was upset over G of 14, but over time I think it was a good thing for 3 reasons:
1. It defanged Reid: With the G of 14, moderate Dems who wanted to vote for GWB's judges, but had to rub their local libs back could do both. They could vote for them and back home explain that they were promises that these judges were mainstream.
2. It got lib R's back on our side: Alot of the problem was that our majority was not an actual majority. The Maine Girls, Chafee and Dewine were siding with Reid. The G of 14, they had no excuses about how bad the nuke option was because they had a route to stop it.
3. The nuke option never was an option: Frist talked about it for 2 weeks. If he had really wanted to do it, he could have. We saw this with Terry Schavio. Frist was one of the major supporters of federal legislation to stop it. When the polls stated turnin he started runnin. I fully believe he would have backed down on this and was only using it for Frist '08.
Also remember if the Alito Confirmation Vote was the same as the Alito Cloture Vote, Justice Alito would be Justice Callahan and for that alone it was a good move.
McCain '08
Concern about McCain and Judges goes beyond his participation in the gang of 14 deal.
I don't understand why he was so eager to jump out in front of the television cameras and announce that he would vote against the nuclear option. It seems to me he should have either stayed completely silent, stated that he was "undecided" as to whether to support the nuclear option or not (this was the positon that Arlen Specter took) or he could have done what the other Republican US Senator from Arizona, Jon Kyl, did: announce his support for the nuclear option.
Put it this way. A Republican president can not get very much of the conservative agenda enacted without cooperation from members of Congress. A Republican president can not get a tax cut enacted without getting a majority of the Senate and the House to pass it. A Republican president can not get conservative judicial nominees confirmed without support from the Senate.
When support of the Senate was needed to approve the nuclear option and to cut taxes, McCain sided with the Democrats. That's more significant than joining with the Gang of 14. The Gang of 14 is looked at too much and McCain's prior announcement, in April 2005, that he would vote with the Democrats and help them defeat the nuclear option, gets too little attention.
One has to ask: Why did he do it? Even Arlen Specter didn't announce that he was lining up with the Democrats.
So, it is reasonable to wonder whether McCain is simply using the "I'll appoint conservative judges line" as a way of getting conservative votes in the primaries and the general, even though he wasn't on our side when it really counted, during the discussion regarding the nuclear option.
The question for you is whether you take him at his word or not, and part of that evaluation should address whether or not he has a history of being a pledge breaker. I haven't seen such a history.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
to get done no matter who wins is a conservative caucus in the House that pits itself against everyone. Let the fun begin, much like it has been in the Senate lately.
I will be voting for Fred Thompson. I can live with that. My memory is still good enough to remember what Juan McCain has done and after the few things that caused me to scream that President Bush had done , I don't want to be responsable for getting a liberal republican in office. Your welcome to sugar coat McCain all you want but you won't make him palateable to many Conservatives.
His name is John McCain. Please remember that. It's a site rule.
Thank you for your cooperation.
P.S. Fred Thompson's not going to be on the ballot, plus he's already endorsed John McCain, too, further solidifying him as the conservative choice in November.
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
You can always write in Fred.
I'm thinking I'll write in Bobby Jindal.
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
Of course the message will be that
1) "This voting thing is really hard... I just can't figure it out"
or
2) "Voting is just a big joke and I like to write in people who aren't running. I would've stayed home if American Idol was on."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm in Oregon 5, and this very well may be a R pickup this cycle. No question I'll vote this round. I just have a real hard time voting for McCain. Blank vote or joke vote for pres doesn't really matter to me.
My decision to support McCain may very well hinge on the VP spot. If its Romney, I will go out of my way to vote in the General for McCain, if its Huckabee, I will go out of my way to vote for the Democrat. Any thing else, I will have to wait and see.
... like I do, then there's a small amount of merit in doing that (and if McCain picks Huck, then that's what I'll do; McCain's not winning CA anyway). But doing something that actually makes it more likely that Hillary or Obama would be president? I can't do that.
McCain is not the perfect candidate, if such an animal even exists, but he isn't the devil either. I have some problems with McCain, primarily immigration, but I think as President, and so as head of the Republican party, he will fall more inline with what the party believes/wants.
I hope people who are threatening to stay home or vote Democrat (or whatever) are just saying so now out of disappointment or frustration. It's a long way to November and McCain has time to bring people around by doing and saying the right things.
Now the "I will vote for the conservative 3rd party" types know that is not an option. Hopefully the CPAC speech and Cantor/Thompson endorsement start the base healing. If I were McCain I would go on Levin, Hannity, Hewitt,Ingram, and Rush's shows this week or next and do a interactive "Town Hall" for a hour everyday that week.
McCain '08
and I doubt he'll go on a conservative talk show, because he believes he's got the nomination locked up (he's correct) and will continue to poke his arrogant finger in the eye of conservatives (taunting 'what ya gonna do vote for Hillary?')
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
On just about every major issue to reach the Supreme Court such as the constitutionality of Congressional Term Limits, States rights, school-vouchers, government funding of erotic and blasphemous art, enemy combatants, abortion, and partial-birth abortion, display of the 10 commandments in schools and public places, placement of the creche on public property, accommodation of religious speech in schools, virtual child pornography, racial and gender affirmative action, the Supreme Court has been split 5/4. All we need is just one or more activist judges to cement these decisions forever and do worse by placing in concrete an irreversible change in this nation's religious and cultural identity. So although not a McCain admirer, love of country compels a vote for him, to say nothing of winning the war on terror. More appropriately, given the enormity of the stakes, how can one claim to be conservative, and not vote for McCain?
When it was obvious that Bush 1 was not going to beat Bill Clinton nationally, I opted to vote for the goofball candidate, Ross Perot, to register my anger with GHW Bush for running such a lousy campaign. Apparently many of my fellow Utah voters felt the same. Ours was the only State where Bill Clinton took third that fall. I am still proud of my State for that.
If John McCain chooses to ignore conservatives again with his VP pick or if it is obvious he will not win against Hillary/Obama I will be looking to send a third party message once more.
If he picks an outstanding conservative VP I will enthusiatically vote for him. If he picks an ok conservative and it looks like he has any chance I will vote for his VP and him, in that order.
To claim the party faithful sent a message to 41 by voting for Ross Perot is plain silliness. It only told the country the percentage of nuts there are in the R party (7%), nationally. You may be proud of Utah but I am still pissed about Clinton's 8 years. Way to go Perot! Please - if you have to vote for the spoiler, vote for Ron Paul so I can still prove my point about who the nuts cling to in the great clothes dryer of the election cycle. Hopefully I can convince them that Election Day is Wednesday this year.
To be kinder, McCain makes me puke too. He is a godless sycophant to the almighty media, too full of himself to listen to anyone but his own overblown ego. I have flirted by pulling the Obamunist lever in November, but know in my heart of hearts that I cannot due to my love of this country and those who have, are and will defend her. So even if he is a moron sometimes, he is still my moron.
...Lean not on your own understanding...
He took third in Utah. Everyone knew GHW Bush would win Utah by a wide margin that year. But it didn't matter. He had run such a lackluster, awful campaign that months after being a hero for chasing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait he lost to an unknown Governor of Arkansas.
Perot was also not responsible for Clinton's win. If GHW Bush had even tried to campaign effectively he would have won. He seemed to think it was silly that people thought Clinton even had a chance. It was Bush's lack of interest in campaigning that opened the door for Perot to get back in after dropping from the race earlier.
When our candidate is not willing to fight for a victory I believe they need to be smacked upside the head. McCain stands a pretty good chance of needing such a smacking.
I think what convinced me to vote for McCain was reading John Lott's schedule of McCain;s ACU voting record on 2/7/08. It's not so bad with a few glaring exceptions. I think the hope of conservative Justices was enough to put me over the brink. Sorry Fred, no vote for you when it counts.
I will hold my nose and vote for McCain in November if he is the nominee, but I believe he is unelectable.
The war will be his chief campaign issue and polls indicate that most Americans, whether for or against the war are tired of it. McCain said Americans will be in Iraq for 100 years.
Do you think that will help his candidacy? I don't.
McCain is weak on economic issues and our economy is now in a major crisis. McCain didn't even vote on the recent economic stimulus package.
Since January he has missed 1 in 3 votes in the Senate.
Finally, he comes across as just another in a long line of tired old white guys as opposed to Huckabee who is a very vibrant campaigner who speaks for Main Street and not Wall Street. Plus he has more hair! ; In short, I think Huckabee is the only Republican with a legitimate shot at the White House.
Those with the best information are most likely to succeed.
Hillary will make a very good President.
John McCain is conservative (crowd chants: HOW conservative is he??)...
He's so conservative he was endorsed by the NYT!
Our favorite rag! Oh, the LATIMES threw in too!
Didn't he slam the SwiftBoat vets? Why yes, yes he did!
Was he considering leaving the R party in 04 for his close buddy Kerry?
Juan Hernandez anyone? Bueller?
Will he be speaking at NCLR this year? No? He has before!
Gitmo? Why, he hates that little ol waterboarding too!
Vote McCain?
for McCain. That's the war on terror. Unfortunately, it's a strong reason.
The Republican Party has been moving left for the last decade and more. I am a Conservative first, and a Republican _only afterwards_. If the party insists on nominating a candidate I can't in good conscience support, I won't vote for him. That is not subject to debate, nor to calls to a duty to vote Republican. I owe no duty to the Republican Party. I owe a duty to the Republic. That duty is to exercise my sovereign franchise according my best judgment. That's it.
It will be interesting to see who he picks for the VP spot.
I am not very excited about Senator McCain being the GOP canidate for President. But if he chooses a real conservative as his VP canidate then I will vote for him this Fall; however, if he doesn't do that and instead chooses a moderate/liberal canidate as a running mate then I will vote for someone else. Perhaps I will write in Eric's name on the ballot.
I am not pulling the GOP lever in November just because the Party tells me to.
Broomy
I'm so incredibly excited by the prospect of having Sen. John McCain in the White House. A man of honor, who is ready, willing and able to chase down and crush the islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Like Reagan, he will set the tone for the world, make clear to everyone that an adult, a warrior, is running the show going forward. He has a spine of steel and knows how to win battles and win wars.
Rick A.
That would start with a proven, true conservative as VP.
My choice would be Condi Rice, especially if it turns out we're facing Obama, and I think that's likely.
Another good choice, perhaps the best choice, would be Clarence Thomas. Of course that brings up a problem. A Supreme vaccancy with the Brain Dead Party in (most likely) control of Congress.
Still, maybe it's worth it. Let's have the Supreme battle right up front, and make Clarence Thomas in charge of coming up with the list for Supreme vaccancies.
These two are perfect: Southern, conservative and black.
OK Condi calls North Bay area home, but she's from Alabama.
: sigh :
This only goes to prove what I've been saying forever: the opposition to McCain is a LOT more about emotion then logic.
Condi is more liberal then McCain on pretty much every issue we have any way of basing an opinion on. She's admittedly pro-choice and pro-affirmative-action, she's been incredibly weak as Secretary of State on North Korea, and only marginally better on Iran, and weak during the Israel/Hezbollah war.
She doesn't have a record on anything else really, but the record we do have is mixed at best.
And for some reason, that entitles her to be a "true conservative?"
I'm not saying I don't like Condi, she's alright, although she could have been a whole lot more then she is. But to say she's a "true conservative" that can clense McCain of his "sins" is laughable.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
I'm going to vote. I'm waiting to see what John McCain does between now and November. He's really gonna to have to change alot of his positions to make me comfortable enough to vote for him. Immigration, global warming, closing Gitmo. If he wants a conservative's vote he needs to step up to the plate and act like a conservative all the time, not just occasionally. Hopefully he will realize he needs us and start working with us instead of the democrats. I did say I could never vote for him, now I'm just going to wait and see. I'm gonna start working on replacing Heath Shuler.
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing." Fred D. Thompson
Great to hear, Marilyn! A vote is a precious and personal thing and one of the reason our nation is in the trouble it's in is because far too give more thought about what they're going to eat for dinner than who they're going to elect to office. So you have 9 months to decide whether Sen. McCain is deserving of the vote preserved for you over the centuries.
What none of us can do as conservatives is to just sit on our hands because 'we've had it' or we've got more important things to do That's how we, and I absolutely include myself, got to where we are now.
I know that Schuler is a 1 term Blue Dog. Anyone decent on the GOP side? Also, you guys out there may want to check and see if Heath is one of the BDs who has taken to voting against the House Diary every day (usually a party line vote) so that he can tout in the election how many times he voted 'against' the House leadership.
It's time to man the barricades, folks!
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I've never heard of the house diary. Where do you check at? There are 3 republicans running for NC 11 and I don't know anything about them. I've found their websites, but they don't put much information on them. I need to find when the republican party meets and get invlved.
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing." Fred D. Thompson
so if there's somewhere here who nows for sure please speak up. My understanding is that every day the House approves the "Diary" of the previous days procedings. This is normally a 'party line' vote, the majority 'approving' of what happened in the chamber the previous day, the minority 'opposing' it.
If the leadership of the House votes in favor of approving the Journal, then a Democrat voting 'no' on the approval of that journal has just cast a vote different than his/her 'leadership', even though it was meaningless in the grand scope of things (it's why I always take ratings from any organization with a grain of salt because some votes, obviously, are more critical to the furtherance of an agenda than others) What this allows a 'moderate' Dem to do then is to run an ad saying 'I voted against the liberal leadership x number of times'.
Hope that helps (and further...I hope it was accurate:-)
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
Bob "At least he's not a Democrat" Taft rode his family name to the Governor's mansion in Ohio. After 8 years of lackluster service, Ohioans rewarded the Republican Party with a state-wide white-washing.
Republicans lost the Governor/Lt. Gov, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and U.S. Senate seats they had held for a decade thanks to the top-of-the-ticket weakness of Bob Taft. So, winning an election with a Republican was a long-run set-back for conservatism in Ohio.
What's more, a weak representative of conservatism will NOT be given a break by the media or the political left. Congressional Republicans and President Bush have too often acted like Democrats in the last 7 years, and yet, Clinton and Obama will campaign relentlessly on the "failed policies" of "conservative" Republicans.
I would not go to a church where I had to repeatedly apologize for the poor theology and spotty service of the pastor, and I won't support poor representatives of my hopes for society and governance. In the long run, men hit only what they aim at--if we constantly aim low, that's where we'll end up.
It's funny how sometimes people forget what a true conservative really values: small government, strong foreign policy, and dedication to free enterprise.
Sure, some of you -- all fine people, I am sure -- think Sen. McCain is not the right guy for the United States of America.
But remember, this is a man of honor who deserves our respect after a lifetime of service -- in ways that NONE of you can match -- and a pristine record on these core conservative principles.
SMALL GOVERNMENT
He was right to not support the Bush tax cuts without also cutting spending. Bravo! You can't just cut taxes; the federal government has been spending like fools. Sure wish more of you had backed Sen. McCain. Now we have a real financial mess to clean up.
STRONG FOREIGN POLICY
Strong foreign policy? The day Sen. John McCain is elected president will be a day of horror for the insane Islamic fundamentalists out there. This is a military man to the core, and he'll take it to him with wisdom. (By the way, torture is not a conservative value. It's worthless for intel and disgraces a country built on the principle of justice.)
PRO-BUSINESS
And finally, Sen. McCain is as pro-business as they come. His role on the Senate Commerce Committee has done more to streamline business regulation and promote free trade than all the other candidates combined.
IMMIGRATION
Speaking of pro-business, we need cheap labor. Not long ago I drove through central Washington where the apple farms had big plywood signs along the road advertising their wage: $8.75, $9.60, etc. Most let the apples fall to the ground and rot. Point being, we need cheap labor. We need to find a legal way to processes these people. Because while apple farmers end up letting their apples rot, manufacturers move overseas. And they take with them all the support businesses, from machine shops to linen suppliers.
We need someone to kick tail on the terrorists, to support business and to work with members of all AMERICAN political parties to get the right thing done. Sen. McCain tells the truth, does the right thing, and shares true conservative values.
BEWARE THE ZEALOTS AMONG CONSERVATIVES
Those who wish to polarize politics too much will soon sit, depressed, when the new voters (the so-called Millenials) vote next presidential election. They will be the largest voting block and have strong predilection for constructive, collaborative politics. All demographic research shows that in general they shun negativity and personal conflict in politics. So go ahead, stand shackled to a single issue -- criticize someone like Sen. John McCain for reaching across the aisle (that's what true leaders do) -- and you will be sidelined. Irrelevant. Ineffective. Without meaning or a voice or a chance of influencing anything.
Respectfully yours,
An Iowan for core values.
that you think name calling is the solution. Those who are saying "Can't we all just get along" are taking a page out of Pres. W Wilson, N. Chamberland and Pres. J Carter. We should continue to confront/disagree with those who try to undermine our OWN personal principals. Madison and Jefferson were not best buddies. Adams and Jackson were not either, yet they defended their positions and rightly so.
You disagree with us if you must, but do not think attacking us will win us over, that is a BIG problem McCain has, all he wants to do is Attack us while being best buddies with, what we see as, the other side (Kennedy, Feingold, Liberman...).
His service to America is not in Question (unlike Kerry's), what is in question is where he wants to take me and at this point in time I will not go with him.
2 things:
First: Leadership is NOT.."reaching across the aisle".
The definition of a leader is..."the one who shows the way by going first". Others follow. Very simple. Leadership is not about "building consensus", it is about courage, wisdom, character, and principle.
Secondly: Do you think that conservatives are just going to crawl back into a hole for four years and allow the country to be ruined???
If you think that, you are delusional. WE ARE THE ONES WITH CHARACTER AND CONVICTION!! We will be fighting you every step of the way. You will not like challenging us, because we will not back down. People who are RIGHT do not have to be "reasonable".
voyager5
You take the position in the way all true believers who beleive in all that they beleive loves to proclaim, but the American people don't agree with you. In 2006 we lost the Senate and House because we had Tom "The Hammer" Delay and others who think as you do. They did NOT do the peoples business, nope they were doing what true believers like you proclaim. Guess what, they got thrown out of office.
People want the government to work, to actually do what we send them to Washington to do, legislate. In 1995 there was the Contract with America which spelled out a conservative view of governance, it was run on and won on. In 2006 we had Republican ideologues that had no clue of what they stood for (except being reelected), only what they stood against. There is a difference and one gets people elected, the other looses races.
Come up with a updated version of what you think a modern updated Contract with America that appeals to your point of view, then sell it to the party and the American people.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Through liberal application of pork. That and the corruption that went with the plan scuttled our congressional chances in 2006.
Foley, Delay, Abrahamoff (bi partisan but its always worse for the party in control), Ted Stevens and his bridge, Dennis hastert defending William Jefferson all sickened our base.
It wasn't that Delay was pushing conservative principles, totally the opposite.
______________________________
"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
J
I agree with everything you say about Delay, but let's face facts here.
Delay was the face of the Conservative movement in Congress, the spokesman, the guiding light then and now. I did not check what role he played at CPAC, but somehow I doubt he was a wall flower there.
Delay and others from the Hard Right will tell you about what they are against, but they don't tell you what they are for. That is the biggest problem that I have with what passes for the core base of conservatives. That inability to tell me what they are FOR...not what they want to oppose.
As flawed as Newt was and is, he and his merry band of men and women created the Contract with America which was a clear statement of what the party stood FOR. I see no such effort being put forth by the likes of Huckabee, Couter, Rush or any of the leaders of movement conservatism.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
If you want to lead people you need a destination.
______________________________
"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
Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln..., not Tom Delay. And you are right. It appears that the majority of the people (even the Republican Party) are not with us any more.
Then let's get real. Stop giving lip service to the Founding Fathers, if you are not going to abide by their principles. By the way, the Founding Fathers also warned that departure from their principles would lead to disaster. How right they were.
Unlawful combatants will not get the same rights or treatment to which U.S. citizens are entitled if Gitmo shuts down. For an explanation of how this works, go to: www.gorighty.com
There is no problem with Gitmo as such, except that it garners a tremendous amount ill will internationally, including among our closest allies. Whil I happen to think saying "NUTS!" to our allies is just fine, many don't, including McCain, and that is the basis for his position on Gitmo. Whatever our views, his position is reasonable.
You didn't have to write anything below the "Democrat" paragraph, Neil, because this is a two-party system, so not voting for McCain is a vote for Hillary or Obama because (assuming you're in a battleground) you didn't cancel out the pro-Hillobama vote. The anti-McCainiacs might as well just pull the lever directly for the Democrat. It's the same practical result.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
If people want to vote their principles even if they can't win, they're free too. So I thought it useful to prove that voting principle means voting McCain, heh.
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 can't imagine any Republican, especially a conservative Republican voting for Hillary. She will destroy the military and bring in every social program that has ever been discussed by the liberals. There will no one to stop her---at least for two years.
...extension/expansion of McCain-Feingold, Cap-n-Trade, oh, and "Patriotism over Profits" , by all means, vote for McCain. And that's BEFORE the Bush tax cuts expire.
McCain wouldn't even stand up to Dick Durbin over slandering our troops as SS camp guards, what makes you think he'd stand up to his "good friend Senator [name any Democrat here]" on anything else?
Hold my nose? And bring a barf bag.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
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
Summoning the spirit of Barry Goldwater! We need to get to work.
If you believe you have a candidate that is 100% aligned with your beliefs and values, well, I suspect you are getting smoke blowed up your kilt...
There's never 100%. Take a solid 85% and try to guide and reason forward to 89%. But that takes more work than ranting and throwing tantrums...
Mitt Wrongney? He was a weather vane. Sorry, I need more character in my leader, someone who does not base positions on the latest poll. (Let's plan our exit from Iraq now...it's getting nasty over there!).
You should be ashamed of yourself for speaking so abusively of a warrior, a hero, who has done more for this country than any other.
The issues of today will ebb and flow. But true valor and character is bedrock. We need that more than ever.
"Mitt Wrongney" undercuts you as much as "John McAmnesty" undercuts the Senator's opponents.
Besides, it's a fair question to ask: If Sen. McCain is wrong on today's issues, why shouldn't we expect him to be wrong on tomorrow's issues?
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
Having grown up on the Arizona-Sonora border (my family has ranched and mined along the border for the last six generations) we know the issue is more complex than smearing a patriotic warrior over a sidebar issue like amnesty that you decry.
What was your position, Neil, on Nov. 6, 1986 when President Ronald Reagan passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986? That granted amnesty to illegals here prior to 1982. I was living on the border. I saw the grim challenges EVERY day.
And now you hammer on Sen. John McCain for grappling with the same VERY complex issue that lead President Reagan to authorize amnesty then?
Shame on you. He is a man of conviction dealing with real world challenges that do not fit neatly into your simplistic assessment of what works and what doesn't. Your neat little theories will fall apart when exposed to the real details of the situation.
It's so easy to cast harsh criticism upon those who struggle with real-world issues while you sit in the comfort of your own theoretical world. Come on out to the real world. It's much more complex than these pat answers and "sound bite" public policies. But good luck with that. Reality is far more complex.
It's a threadjack, but it's my thread, so I'll take the liberty and answer you anyway.
First off, back in 1986 I believe my position was "I like Legos." I was eight years old.
Secondly, Reagan didn't have the advantage we have now, to look back at the results of the IRCA compromise.
Yes, the bill Reagan signed was fair. I've said elsewhere on RS that in theory I could support it again. However, we have learned since that the pro-amnesty people were not bargaining in good faith. They take the amnesty, alright, but they don't return the favor and get tough on enforcement.
That is the problem a great many of us have with McCain's immigration bills. We have no reason to trust that enforcement will happen.
Even he accepts that we're right, and we have no reason to trust on this. That is why he now supports an enforcement-first solution to the problem.
Secure the border. Then worry about the rest.
Becuase in the real world we don't close our eyes to the lessons of history, and how Reagan and conservatives were cheated in the IRCA deal.
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
Neil,
You are right, without enforcement any amnesty is a COMPLETE disaster. You were playing with Legos when IRCA went into effect. Hey, I still like Legos! Some perspective to provide important detail around this immigration topic.
At the time IRCA went into effect I was living in a war zone called Nogales, Arizona. So many women were sneaking across the line to have their babies in the Catholic-run hospital that the older, retired nuns were going without basic services...for lack of money...the Diocese was going broke (and this before those demonic perverts ran EVERYTHING into the ground).
Fortunately, a few years ago the interdiction efforts along the border started getting REALLY serious. Finally. Thankfully. A buddy of mine was on the Border Patrol special ops team. One night they did a blanket interdiction effort on a 10-square-mile area of desert southwest of Tucson. Roping down from Blackhawks, complete coverage of every canyon and dirt pile. They took more than 180 people into custody. That's 18 people per square mile! The mission demonstrated that there were still too few boots on the ground. It is a vast landscape.
My point is that was the very beginning of the serious enforcement era. And you know who was in the towns and cities along the border the most? Sen. John McCain. They guy has met with the hospitals, the Santa Cruz County sheriff, the local police department, the Sonoran state police. He's been down there hammering for better enforcement more than anyone in the Senate. He also underscored the need -- time and again -- for Congress to get serious about staffing the line.
I think most would be fascinated to see what it is like in the rolling desert terrain these days. Walk out across some of the open areas like the San Rafael Valley (most beautiful place in the world, by the way) and all of a sudden, BP agents will appear. There are ground sensors, aerial drones, and every other kind of technology out there. What's needed is enough boots on the ground to catch people once they are detected. That level of deployment has finally been authorized by Congress -- thanks to Sen. McCain -- and the next phase of ramp-up is under way. Hope we don't "forget" about this in the years ahead or the problem will remain...
Hope in some small way this provides a little local context.
Voyager5 wrote that "Leadership is NOT.."reaching across the aisle". The definition of a leader is..."the one who shows the way by going first". Others follow. Very simple. Leadership is not about "building consensus", it is about courage, wisdom, character, and principle.
To which I respond:
Has there been a candidate with greater character than John McCain? When offered the chance for release from prison camp -- and weaken the U.S. military -- he said no thanks, I'll stay here. Or when faced with irrational tax cuts without reductions in spending, he said no even though those with wooden logic would not see the larger issue. Even today! It's also about controlled spending AND tax cuts!
Voyager5, you also miss the real meaning of leadership. It's understanding the right path forward and then helping those not on the path see the way forward. Teach. Don't try to demand adherence. Step by step and then, one day, we wake up in a real place with real transformation with a real majority.
That's the hard part...getting all Americans to see the merits of the idea and making it a part of the vision we share. This only happens when a TRUE leader brings together a vision that spans just the blind followers. No, we need an American solution to these problems, one that we can all get behind.
That's what happened during the Miracle in Philadelphia. Divergent views were crafted into a national vision. Today, the politics of polarity continue to alienate and stall.
The legislative process is not about domination. It is about education and character, leadership and virtue, the faith that truth will prevail. It can NOT be forced. It is cultivated.
Voyager5 also wrote:
"Do you think that conservatives are just going to crawl back into a hole for four years and allow the country to be ruined???
If you think that, you are delusional. WE ARE THE ONES WITH CHARACTER AND CONVICTION!! We will be fighting you every step of the way. You will not like challenging us, because we will not back down. People who are RIGHT do not have to be "reasonable"."
Sir, you simply do not understand what I was saying. We need to remain engaged, influence the direction. A boycott now will just weaken the platform. And -- God forbid -- we leave the urgent matter of dealing with Islamic radicals in the hands of someone who wants to "talk and work it out" when it's time for some well-placed Daisy Cutters. We can't go away. Four years will be an eternity.
Character? Neither you nor I nor anyone reading this have standing in this realm as does Sen. John McCain. You should be ashamed of yourself for denigrating a GREAT American who has sacrificed so much for this country. He is a man of honor who speaks the truth. Do you want that? Or someone who will tell you what he thinks you want to hear, and will shift with the winds of popular opinion in a few months.
Also, Dear Voyager5, reason is what makes people see the bigger picture. Not rantng by polarizing demagogues. Get in and do the hard work. Teach and explain. It's far too simplistic to just draw lines in the sand and expect that to mean anything to those who have yet to see the bigger picture.
Legislative process takes power and grace and respect and character. America needs an honorable leader. Which is why I am now 100% Sen. John McCain. He has proven himself. Have you? Even close?
Voting for a democrat is not an option. Every Republican should vote for whomever is the Republican candidate. We need to remember that the president doesn't have the power of a king. If that were the case we'd all be standing in line waiting for medical attention under Hellary (or hell-th) Care.
A vote for any other candidate will be a vote for Osama bin Rodham or Obama.
Make your vote count and don't fall for thinking you're teaching somebody a lesson.
Don
===========================
Democratic is a process.
democrat is what they are.
===========================
Regardless of his faults, McCain is almost without doubt the GOP presidential nominee.
I think if he very soon announced Mitt Romney as his running mate that conservatives would rally around the McCain/Romney ticket and immediately gear up for the fight to defeat the Democratic nominee in November.
1) "interrogation techniques" McCain wants put and end to a technique that has been proven to yield results and save lives which by the way leaves no permanent physical damage to the target. He also wants to close Gitmo bringing enemy combatants onto U.S. soil and give them rights and privileges reserved for U.S. citizens! This should frighten the hell out of everyone (well most everyone) here!
2)"We all have to vote for somebody" Actually I don't see it that way at all. In fact, I see nothing wrong with leaving that part of the ballot blank and voting the under-card 2008: Sitting Out Is Not An Option! but that's just me!
Regardless, bravo! Great piece.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report