Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
The Wages of Being John McCain
Should Conservatives Work for McCain?
By Brad Smith Posted in 2008 | Conservatives | John McCain — Comments (177) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Last week, columnist Mona Charen wrote this column, noting Senator McCain’s problems with conservatives, and concluding by discussing me, writing, “Smith, a soft-spoken scholar, ardent patriot and lifelong conservative Republican, cannot, as a matter of honor, pull the lever for McCain.” Although I did say this to Ms. Charen, in fact I have not definitely made up my mind not to vote for McCain. But since Ms. Charen’s column, I have received a surprising number of calls from other conservatives feeling much the same. These are not insignificant people. They include a leading conservative philanthropist; a prominent conservative think tank denizen; a local GOP officeholder; a former appointee in Governor George Voinovich’s administration in Ohio, and others of similar rank – all lifelong Republicans. So it is perhaps appropriate for me to add a few words as to why Senator McCain will not find it easy to reconcile many conservatives to his candidacy.
Read on...
Since 2001, I have always presumed that John McCain would be the GOP presidential nominee in 2008. Thus, making some rounds in D.C. early in 2007, I was surprised at how many Republican activists would say some variation of, “McCain is probably more conservative than Romney or Rudy, but he’s the one I can’t support.”
With the Republican nomination all but wrapped up, John McCain still got kicked around on Saturday. Mike Huckabee absolutely thumped McCain in Kansas, and narrowly beat him in Louisiana. Up in Washington state, which ought to be McCain country, Mitt Romney, who has suspended his campaign, and Ron Paul, who is back in Texas trying to save his congressional seat, combined to outpoll McCain 38-26% in the Republican caucuses, while Gov. Huckabee scooped up another 24%, before the state party chairman halted the counting and declared Sen. McCain the winner though just 87% had been counted. Not an impressive showing of his strength with the Republican electorate.
If John McCain is to have any chance of winning the presidency, his vaunted appeal to independents and the last of the “Reagan Democrats” will be important but probably insufficient. He will also need to consolidate the Republican base, and get its enthusiastic support. This support is needed less for its raw vote totals (though in a close race, the difference between 90% Republican support for Senator McCain and 80% support could be substantial), than for its funding, its enthusiasm, and its get out the vote efforts. Saturday’s results indicate what a battle this could be.
Politics, of course, is a world of compromise and making up. Politicians cannot afford to have permanent enemies. And thus in the last week we have seen Republican officeholders and many of the party’s grand old men fall into line behind Senator McCain. But Republican activists will be a more difficult sell.
Last week, at CPAC, Senator Tom Coburn introduced John McCain to many of these same conservatives by saying, “John may not always tell us what we want to hear, but what he tells us, he will do.”
And therein lies the problem for John McCain, as he now seeks to consolidate the Republican base for his presidential run. For McCain to maintain his appeal to independents, he must continue to be viewed as “straight-talker” who tells people things, “they don’t want to hear.” But as much as his policy positions, it is this image, and what McCain has done to obtain it, that drives many conservatives nuts.
For example, it is not just that Senator McCain opposes opening ANWR for oil drilling, but that he implies that those who support drilling in ANWR (the bulk of his party) would favor drilling in the Grand Canyon, something not remotely comparable and something no conservative wants to do. It is not just that he promoted restrictions on political speech, but he felt it necessary to call fellow Republican senators “corrupt.” It is not only that he was less than enthusiastic about the agenda of many evangelicals, but that he felt it necessary to call them, “agents of intolerance.” It was not enough for him to oppose President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 – he felt the need to denounce them as “tax cuts for the rich” in leftist lingo that left most Democrats in the dust. The list could go on and on.
To many conservative Republicans, the problem is not that McCain is, “telling people what they don’t want to hear.” The problem is the exact opposite. They believe that Senator McCain is scoring cheap political points at their expense, by telling his audience – the Mainstream Media – exactly what it wants to hear. And while this rhetoric has built his reputation as a “Maverick,” it has involved repeatedly insulting and betraying some of his party’s most dedicated members in a most personal fashion. The MSM eats it up because it corresponds with their preconceptions about Republicans. They believe Republicans would drill in the Grand Canyon; they believe Bush’s tax cuts were give aways to the rich; they believe Mitch McConnell and other Republicans opposed to campaign finance reform are “corrupt;” they believe that religious conservatives are “agents of intolerance.” And John McCain is perceived as having played up to them to build his own reputation, at the expense of conservatives.
In this scenario, Senator McCain has no claim to the votes or support of these conservatives. Conservatives may yet give Senator McCain their support, but he has no right to expect it. Many of Senator McCain’s backers have reacted with irritation and anger at those who have balked at supporting McCain, and their irritation seems all the greater because so many of them supported Senator McCain for his “electability.” But it was eminently predictable that Senator McCain’s nomination would split the party in this fashion – it nearly did in 2000, and McCain’s behavior in the intervening seven years has scarcely been calculated to solve that problem. You cannot treat people in the fashion that Senator McCain has over a long period of time, and then expect them to fall into line at the drop of a hat.
Moreover, if Senator McCain is truly a “straight-talker” who tells people “things they don’t want to hear,” then we must take these types of comments – many of them repeated several times, some of them part of set piece speeches – as his true beliefs. In that case, it appears that Senator McCain really hopes to lead into battle a group of people he considers to be boorish, stupid, yahoos. It is understandable if this doesn't inspire the troops. If he is merely scoring political points, well, the “straight talking” image goes by the boards.
The dilemma for those unwilling to hop on the McCain bandwagon is the recognition that the election is about more than Senator McCain and such slights as he has so freely given. The United States is at war and, it increasingly appears, on the brink of recession.
Senator McCain is not so liberal as many conservatives have recently suggested. He is basically a conservative Republican senator who periodically – albeit in often spectacular fashion – deviates from party orthodoxy. However, he is also not so conservative as his raw ACU voting score might suggest, since he seems to reserve most of his legislative efforts for his liberal dalliances. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that conservatives would, in overwhelming numbers, put aside Senator McCain’s personal slights for the good of the country, if that was called for.
Unfotunately, it is not entirely clear that Senator McCain’s election would be good for the country. Michael Rappaport, a thoughtful law professor at the University of San Diego and an influential thinker in Federalist Society circles, argues that in the long run, it is better if Senator McCain is defeated. He writes,
“If McCain wins, the Republicans will have a President who pursues a set of policies that will include many undesirable things. This will have one of two effects (or possibly a combination). Either the Republicans will be transformed to the party of these undesirable things – campaign finance, more regulation, which is a really bad thing – or they will fight among themselves, greatly weakening the McCain presidency. In either event, the McCain presidency is unlikely to be successful from the perspective of a free market Republican – it either will pursue bad policies or will be ineffective. If, as seems likely, those policies turn out to be unsuccessful, it will be the Republicans who will be blamed for them.”
The problem may be even worse than Professor Rappaport believes. Last week on RedState the question was asked, “how do we conservatives going about the business of ensuring that next time - 2012, 2016 - we get a more conservative nominee?” I noted that to get a better nominee in 2012, Senator McCain almost certainly has to lose in 2008, or he will be the nominee again in 2012. Moreover, if Senator McCain wins this year but is unsuccessful as President, he will likely be voted out in 2012, and after the undeserved but very real unpopularity of President Bush’s second term, an unpopular McCain presidency would virtually assure two terms for the Democrats. On the other hand, if a successful President McCain serves two terms, it is very unlikely that a Republican will win in 2016 – only once since Reconstruction has a party won five consecutive presidential elections (the Democrats of Roosevelt and Truman, who held the presidency for 20 consecutive years). In short, McCain’s election in 2008 makes it highly unlikely that a true believer in limited government could win the presidency any time before 2020, at the earliest. A McCain win, in other words, can be seen to doom conservatives to the wilderness for many years, with corresponding long term policy defeats.
The argument to abandon these doubts and support McCain resolves around a few key issues. One is judges. Senator McCain’s selection of judges will almost certainly be better than those of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. But while Senator McCain has voted to confirm conservatives to the bench, he has never been in the lead in fighting for them. The only time that McCain has really gotten involved in judicial selection is with the “Gang of 14,” and while I am one who believes that it was a good thing to preserve the filibuster, Senator McCain never devoted as much effort to breaking Democrat filibusters of conservative nominees. Whether he can find judges who will uphold his campaign finance restrictions (an issue he calls of “transcendent importance”) and would be more generally acceptable to conservatives is questionable. And ultimately, facing a Democratic Senate, he is not going to appoint and get confirmed a John Roberts or a Sam Alito anyway. So while the benefits are probably real, they should not be overestimated.
Second, Senator McCain will probably be better for the economy. But he cannot stop the Bush tax cuts from expiring, and given his denunciations of those cuts as “giveaways to the rich,” he is, among Republicans, uniquely ill-positioned to pressure the Democratic Congress on them. His opposition to pork is nice but would be far more than offset by his likely policies on pharmaceuticals, global warming, and other economic and regulatory issues. McCain opposes “pork” but does not speak broadly about reducing the size and scope of government.
Finally, and most important, is the war. McCain has gained great credit as a resolute supporter of the “Surge” in Iraq, but there is, for some at least, a disquieting sense that this is less due to any prescience on Senator McCain’s part, rather than the phenomenon of a stopped clock being right twice a day. After all, Senator McCain wanted large commitments of U.S. ground troops in Bosnia; he wanted much larger commitments of ground troops in Afghanistan, which would probably have made the Iraq war impossible to begin with. And Senator McCain’s predictions on Iraq in 2002 and 2003 have turned out to be grossly wrong. McCain deserves credit for his steadfastness, but to many it is not clear that he has any realistic long-term notion of how to win the broader war on terror. Nonetheless, with Senator McCain’s likely opponents vowing to cut and run, one must think long and hard before sitting out in 2008.
The ultimate problem facing McCain may be that those Republicans who are most likely to believe that a Democratic administration would be a disaster are those most offended by Senator McCain’s past words and actions. Those who, like me, tend to be more pragmatic and think it unlikely that either party can successfully destroy the United States in four years, and who believe that the realities of power would reshape Democratic thinking on the war, may be more forgiving of Senator McCain on policy, but less likely to see a Democratic administration as one step shy of Armageddon.
Senator McCain could help himself with conservatives enormously if he and his supporters would 1) recognize that he has a problem, and it is his problem – demanding that conservatives “grow up,” or trying to rationalize the problem away, probably isn’t going to cut it; 2) make a real substantive overture to conservatives – Senator McCain has been talking about working with conservatives, but he’s offered nothing concrete; and 3) admit past errors. This last will be tough, not only because of McCain’s stubbornness and legendary temper but also because he has boxed himself into a corner. A few months ago he could have easily said it was a mistake to vote against the Bush tax cuts, but now he has refused to do that many times in the past few weeks. He could have admitted that McCain-Feingold has largely failed, and suggested that at least its limitations on mentioning an officeholder in broadcast ads in the last 60 days of the campaign were in error. After all, that wasn’t even part of the original bill, but was added through an amendment by Paul Wellstone. But McCain went out and filed a brief in the Supreme Court last year supporting the restrictions in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, so he can’t really retreat there, either.
Meanwhile, I plan to work this fall to support Republicans in House and especially Senate races, where it is important we retain enough votes to support filibusters. I would not, do not, tell others not to vote for or support McCain. But I cannot be critical of those who decide that McCain will not be their man in 2008.
« Meet Democratic Super-delegate Steven Ybarra. — Comments (11) | Huckabee Challenging Washington Vote — Comments (97) »
The Wages of Being John McCain 177 Comments (0 topical, 177 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The best analysis I've read of our party's quandry! A+
by civil truth
You've cleared out all the deadwood and really laid out plainly the key issues that reasonable conservatives face with respect to John McCain's candidacy. It has really given me much to consider.
You're also the first writer to plausibly argue why a Democratic victory in 2008 may not be the end of the world - though actually, much as I cannot abide Hillary, you've made me realize that she's probably less of a risk to be "the end of the world" than Obama, whose foreign policy instincts are far more dangerous to our national security.
You've also really clearly stated what has been objectionable about McCain's deviations from conservative orthodoxy - again, not so much what his deviations have been as in how he has treated fellow conservatives in the process. I have to really ponder the underlying nature of the gratuitous manner in which he has characterized those who disagree with him.
I'm currently supporting Sen McCain, but after reading your work here, I will be watching closely his behavior to determine whether he merits continued support or whether I will need to withhold my vote so as not to be complicit in an abusive relationship. That's really what it boils down to at this point.
Excellently written: logical, concise, and insightful.
how he disagrees
by Matthew.B
That's what is so aggravating about McCain.
When he disagrees with the left he says little.
When he disagrees with those on his right, he applies harsh ad hominem attacks. He often applies the stereotypes of the left when doing so. He uses the condescending, nasty caricatures of the right that the most partisan of the left use. I've long suspected the reason he uses this tactic is simply because it's so effective at pandering to the press. He bashes the right, the media adore him, and they both are happy.
If he applied the same sort of attacks on the left, it wouldn't sting so bad.
He is obsequiosly polite with the left. He even refuses to site facts that refute their claims. Yet, he bashes the right quite freely. (Miers oppenents were "sexist," immigration opponents had stabbed him in the back, didn't want to do what was right for America, were "bashing" immigrants). Why do we hold the President to such low standards, and continue to think of him as a great leader, while we bash McCain unrelentingly for the same sins?
You're absolutly right
by Matthew.B
I was going to come back and post the same point.
Note that both of those events happened after re-election. That's exactly when his base left him. I previously supported Bush vociferously, and now I don't care about his fate. If he pulled both those stunts before the election, he very well may not have been re-elected.
Those Two Did Happen in his second term
by Joe Cor
However, denouncing the Swifties occurred in 2004. Never going after Kerry's voting record vigorously also happened in 2004. Telling reporters he thought a crime very possible had been committed in Valarie Plame's outing happened in 2003, I believe. Backing off of the claim that Saddam had enquired about uraniam from Niger (when British intelligence still stands by the claim) because Joe Wilson criticized the claim happened pre-2004. Signing the campaign finance bill happened shortly after his inauguration.
I consider the President to be an execusable panderer to the left. I am very much a non-fan of his Presidency. Still, I'd never have considered voting for Gore or Kerry or him, or entertained the notion that it didn't matter who won between the President and those two. The same goes for John McCain in an election against Obama or Hillary.
in 2012 (unless they do something incredibly stupid - and Obama and Clinton are probably too disciplined). Here is why - the next 2-3 years are going to be a time of economic upheaval, as the mortgage and Wall St. liquidity issues shake out. The odds are that we will be in recovery by 2012, and probably in robust recovery. Whoever is in office will be able to claim that as their own.
Also, if the right wishes to influence the process, they have to participate. The American electorate is not going to wait for a group that picks up their ball and runs home everytime they dont get their way. They will form new alliances and move on (in fact, they may already be moving on - on Super Tuesday, the base in the south voted 3:1 for McCain or Huckabee, instead of Romney, and after a solid week of being told be conservative pundits that Romney was the man.)
The Romney infatuation also leads me to believe that there is more than ideology behind the frustration with McCain. If you look at their records, McCain is clearly the more conservative of the two. Yet conservatives pundits were so eager to push Romney. Is it possible these pundits and so called "conservative leaders" are suffering from a little bit of hubris, and are blinded by personal enmity of McCain. And based on how Republican voters in the south voted on super Tuesday, is it possible that these so called "conservative leaders" really do not lead much of anything?
Let's be honest, if you can not get southern Republican voters (on a poor weather day) to vote the way you want, you are not much of a conservative leader.
While you wait for a perfect candidate, the GOP moves on with out you.
I woulnd't expect anything different from you
by Matthew.B
The American electorate is not going to wait for a group that picks up their ball and runs home everytime they dont get their way.
It isn't that those that dislike McCain so strongly disagree on the issues. It's that McCain doesn't want room for the conservatives. He can't just say he disagrees, he has to bash and ridicule us.
If a strong conservative treated the moderates the same way, I wouldn't blame the moderates for saying they wouldn't vote for him. I would say it was the fault of strong conservatives for not picking someone who would unite the part instead of tearing it apart.
2012
by Matthew.B
I think that who ever wins in 2008 will be re-elected in 2012 (unless they do something incredibly stupid - and Obama and Clinton are probably too disciplined).
Obama is so similar to Carter that it's uncanny.
Carter was a real nice, honest, and intelligent guy. Carter had a "nobody is wrong" foreign policy that trusted everyone and took no stands.
So is / does Obama.
I'm sick of being compaired...
by aceintx
to spoiled Children picking up their ball abnd going home...or whiners etc.
I don't have anything to apologize for McCain has 20 years of slights and insults to his party brethren to apologize for.
Stop denigrating the base and try to understand what the issue is here!
Delegates needed to stop McCain 465
"The Republican establishment is requiring a level of loyalty from Conservatives than they ever did from John McCain"....Rush Limbaugh
"The American electorate is not going to wait for a group that picks up their ball and runs home everytime they dont get their way."
I live in MN where Norm Coleman has an almost identical voting record as Sen. McCain ('cept he did oppose the Kennedy-McCain fiasco). That means he and I have some rather substantial policy position differences. However, I will be happily voting for him this fall because when Norm has disagreed with conservative orthodoxy,he hasn't gone out of his way to flip me off and then ask me to believe he was just waving at me.
I worked for, voted for, and contributed to Sen. McCain back in the 80s & 90s when I lived in AZ. If that John McCain was running for office, this would be a no-brainer. But that was then and this is now.
I have voted countless times for Republicans with whom I have substantial policy differences and there are reasons for a conservative to hold his nose and vote for John McCain. However, the genre of McCain supporters who continue to insist that conservatives somehow owe our votes to McCain or we will be considered to have 'taken our ball and gone home' might want to remember that appealing to 'party unity' is a specious argument to use to engender support for a candidate who has shown little of it at critical times in the last 7 years.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
5 - This is exactly
by kowalski
This is exactly how my father feels. McCain's transgressions aren't just a matter of policy, they're also a matter of demeanor, or at least perceived demeanor. That's why there is a real rift here that can't be wallpapered over.
The moderates are in for McCain. The evangelicals are in for Huckabee (who in terms of conservative credentials - small government, less taxes, etc - is less conservative than McCain). As a practical matter, not one of you mentioned the results from Super Tuesday, and the fact that the base doesn't seem to be with you.
Look, the fact is that you have no obligation to vote for McCain, or anyone else. But the rest of the party has no obligation to wait for you guys to be interested again.
In regards to McCains demeanor, shouldn't we be harder on our people who screw up then anyone else. Time and time again I have seen posted on this board that we lost the Congress because we couldn't controll the spending, and we appeared arrogant and out of touch with the conservative base. McCain was the one complaining the loudest about the proliferation of earmarks. Ultimately the voters should judge the party, but shouldn't we police ourselves before it gets to that point?
Finally, if you re-read you posts, one of the central themes seems to be that "Our skin is too thin for a guy like McCain, he said things that are mean". If that is the case, maybe you should take a time out and have a good cry. Maybe this is why the party has started to drift aqway from you at the polls. After all, who wants a leader who runs away at the first sign of adversity?
any of the claims you posited. I simply stated why the meme that people like me who 'don't get their way' will take their ball and go home is not correct, at least in my case, because I am willing and happy to vote for a candidate who is no more conservative than McCain. Ergo, that means that my issues with McCain go beyond 'ideological purity.'
Also, one does not need to have a 'thin skin' to recognize that the manner in which someone disagrees with you is a legitimate window into how he feels toward you. If you believe that telling Sen. Cornyn to f--k off, calling Sen. Grassley a f'in jerk, and Sen. Domenicia an a--hole are 'mean' and nothing more, that is certainly your perogative. I choose to look beyond just the vulgarity of those comments and see a man whose disdain for those who disagree with him exceeds just policy differences.
And for the record, I totally agree with you that conservatives were much too reticent in calling out GWB on his spending apostasies. That's one of the reason's Sen. McCain's embrace of AGW concerns me so much. The costs of implementing that agenda makes earmarks look like chump change.
Finally, John McCain can call me anything he wants. I, personally, don't care what people call me. But I don't believe it's 'thin skinned' to extrapolate from such behavior what occupies the core of an individual's management and decision making style, and to have that observation factor into my decision making process.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
about McCain's behaviour in the past and form opinions on his future management style based on that. That is absolutely your perogative.
McCain has a rough style that is not for everyone. However, it may be necessary to shake up the Washington establishment (btw - Clinton and Huckabee also have well documented nasty streaks, and since Obama came up as a labor and party organizer in Chicago, I gotta believe he has a nasty streak as well).
I am someone who hates to lose and be the odd man out, and I assume that you and many other people on this forum that may not be inclined to vote for McCain may be the same way. However, some people do not see the situation with clear eyes. They insist that the party has moved away from the base, and the elites have foisted McCain upon them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The primary voters in SC, FL, CA, MO, AZ, and other states can hardly be called "35,000 foot" Republicans (as I saw posted at this site earlier).
I would hope that you can join us in the fall. If you decide that you could not, I will respect that, but I will also feel free to form my own opinions about your choice, and whether the mainstream of the party should work with those that would not participate in the future.
On this we can agree, cdm:
by eburke
"and the elites have foisted McCain upon them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The primary voters in SC, FL, CA, MO, AZ, and other states can hardly be called "35,000 foot" Republicans (as I saw posted at this site earlier)"
I reject this statement, and many others from all sides which resort to ad hominem attacks and just plain lunacy at times. I think sometimes I'm over at the DailyKos.
The reason McCain won this nomination, IMHO, is because of a perfect storm of circumstance: a splintered conservative field where each of the major 'conservatives' split one of the legs of the stool and the guy (my guy) who could have taken all three legs ran an ineffectual campaign. On the other side, Guiliani ran an even worse campaign than my guy and McCain didn't have anyone to split the moderate/indie vote with. Add in the fact that the early primaries were 'open' (which greatly benefitted McCain), and many of the rules in the NE had been changed to WTA to help Guiliani, and you had the situation where McCain won 10% more of the vote than Romney on SuperTuesday but got about 70% of the delegates.
But hey, it is what it is. I'm a 3-legged stool conservative and trust me, I've 'lost' before and still stayed with the process. This is the first time since I started voting in '76 in which I am having to wrestle with supporting the GOP nominee even though the last time 'my' guy won the nomination was in 1984. In my heart I need to decide what I believe is best for the long-term advancement of the entire conservative agenda. Candidly, I haven't decided yet and I appreciate you respecting my angst just as I respect your opinion to support Sen. McCain because that is what you believe to be appropriate.
But this statement did cause me some angst: "whether the mainstream of the party should work with those that would not participate in the future."
First, I think one of the problems on RS has been people using terms which are subject to definition. I'm not sure where you fit on the political spectrum but I know that exit polls show that about 60% of the GOP describes itself as "conservative" or "very conservative". As I define myself as the former, I believe that I am in the "mainstream". But that is a matter of opinion, not certitude.
The same exit polls show that McCain has yet to win a plurality of GOP voters identifying themselves as residing in either of these two groups From my vantage point, I would make the argument that McCain won the nomination despite not being in the "mainstream" not because he is in it (based on the confluence of events described above).
In sum, regardless of what I ultimately decide to do at the top of the ticket, I will work passionately for the election of Republicans in primaries and in the GE. I would hope that after 32 years of supporting all manner of GOP candidates, my potential inability to support a candidate who, from my perspective, has advocated numerous positions with which I disagree passionately, and done so in a manner which I found to be unnecessarily contentious and demeaning, would not then place me in the category of one who 'will not participate.'
All that being said, I appreciate your calm and reasoned response and look forward to working with you and beside you in the many areas in which I'm sure we find passionate agreement.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I thinkt there's one error in what you said
by PopulistConservative
You said there's very Conservative and Conservative and the exit polls show McCain losing both groups all of the times. Actually at least in South Carolina and I believe in other states the exit polls show John McCain winnning a plurality of "Somewhat Conservative" voters - the bloc he lost like every single time was the very conservative bloc - so he did win the more moderate side of conservative, though granted by only two percent so I suppose you could say he tied.
His comment said Conservative and very Conservative were not going for McCain. Somewhat Conservative is a totally different category so I don't get your point.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
The exit polls don't have two categories for very Con
by PopulistConservative
and Con and least not the CNN ones I have been looking at, therefore, if one was to make a point about data showing who's winning the two groups of conservatives I would assume they're looking at the somewhat Conservative and very consevative as those are the two groups the data records.
Superb, Brad - nt
by E Pluribus Unum
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
There is no quandary, unless
by FrankLucia
There is no quandary, unless someone is trolling from MoveOn.
THINK, people (picture Biff knocking on George McFly's head): Mac, Hillary, or Urkel will be POTUS for 4 years. Their SCOTUS nominees will shape the Court for decades beyond that.
Ginsberg and Stevens will definitely be replaced by the next POTUS. With McCain, we get at least even odds of quality nominees. I'd bet on it. With Hillary/Urkel, we get zero odds.
And if Nino or Kennedy were to vacate, then Hillary or Urkel could give us a far-left SCOTUS for the next generation. Are we so stupid to let this happen by "not pulling the lever" for McCain, out of pettiness?
"(picture Biff knocking on
by Taniwha
"(picture Biff knocking on George McFly's head)"
If McCain loses, it will be because of crap like this. You really need to lose that jazz, and so does he. "Vote for me, you a***holes" is not a willing pitch. You want to talk petty? It's not all that far away.
------------------------
"Put your faith in God. I know *I'm* going to..."
-Taniwha
You prove Brads point perfectly...
by aceintx
"THINK, people (picture Biff knocking on George McFly's head):"
Bad analogy. You make yourself the Biff banging on the stupid, incompetent, bumbling and scared of his shadow mcfly.
Are we so stupid to let this happen by "not pulling the lever" for McCain, out of pettiness?
Stupid or principled? either way the answer is yeah!
You arrogance and condescension proves Brad's point perfectly. This is the treatment that we've come to expect from McCain, Graham, Hagel, Snow, Collins, Warner, and the rest of their ilk. Brad's point is that YOU need to reach out and mend the fences that McCain has destroyed over the last 12 years at least. Attacking people who have a principle and consciencious problem with McCain isn't going to do anything to help him with the base!
Delegates needed to stop McCain 465
"The Republican establishment is requiring a level of loyalty from Conservatives than they ever did from John McCain"....Rush Limbaugh
This is exactly the kind of attitude that has McCain in so much trouble with conservatives. The condescending "I know more about this issue than anyone else in the g-d d--n room" attitude.
There have been thoughtful folks here on RS that have motivated me to at least reconsider the 8 million times in the last 7 years that I said "I'll vote for John McCain over my dead body."
Keep insulting me, keep telling me I have no where else to go, keep blaming me for the fact that conservatives are having trouble rallying around someone who literally has told those on his side of the aisle to f*** off.
It is John McCain's fault that he's flipped off conservatives for the last 7 years and now expects them to think he was just waving at them. I didn't get off the Straight Talk Express, I was pushed off. If McCain and his supporters wish to get me back on board, they may want to stop insulting me and recognize, and apologize through words and actions, that they at least accept their role in having done so.
Telling me I'm stupid, or mockingly saying 'where what else ya gonna do', ain't gonna cut it.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
The man is probably a Hillary supporter n/t
by Joliphant
______________________________
"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
heh morning burker-I loved this line
by BlackRepub
It is John McCain's fault that he's flipped off conservatives for the last 7 years and now expects them to think he was just waving at them.
I think you captured the essence of how we feel about Johnny Mac, even though I am trying to suck it up an be an active supporter. Taunting the right isn't going to help us win the base-McCain has not done it this year, and I would bet he would want his supporters to backd own a bit as well.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Well, good morning to you to, BR!
by eburke
Thanks for the props. I'm feeling particularly lucid for a Monday morning. Or, as they say in the Lone Star State: Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while."
Bundle up, dude. It's cold this morning (where's Al Gore when ya need him!)
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Heh Gores out searching for ManBearPig...
by BlackRepub
Because of course, he doesn't have any friends. It's cooold here too-I'm ready to head back down South-but I can't convince my lady that its a good idea, sadly, so its seems BR is going to be stuck in the cold for a bit. I know the lucidity feeling-try being in the education system where everyones Obamacrazy. Thank God for Redstate, but I wish there weren't so much hang over-Tequila is a mean mean friend. :-)
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
references to "ManBearPig" but must have missed its birth. This is referring to.....? Thanks, and throw another log on the fire, It was 15 below with 30 mph winds yesterday in the frozen MN tundra. Brrrr!
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
ah ManBearPig was a South Park episode
by BlackRepub
With Al Gore-ManBearPig is obviously supposed to be golbal warming, and iis a crisis Al Gore makes up because "he doesn't have any friends". Al Gore does completely rediculous things because of this, trying to prove to everyone that ManBearPig exists, and its pretty funny. I'd recommend it especially if you like cartoons.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
a South Park afficianado thus proving just how far out of the popular culture I reside.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
:-) South Parks one of the good ones IMO
by BlackRepub
They do a really good job of beating up both sides of the political aisle, and they definitely hit the left as hard as they hit the right. Mostly, they are Western libertarians, which makes for very funny tv when they are talking politics.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
My immense respect for you, BR,
by eburke
engendered by the fact that everytime I picture some black guy getting out of a pick-up truck with the stars & bars on it I just crack up (that's gotta drive those PC types up Chicago way absolutely insane :-)
On your reco...I'll be checking it out.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Hehe oh it makes them mad for sure
by BlackRepub
I just got a rebel pride backplate glass for it too with the stars and bards on each letter. Still haven't gotten my McCain bumper sticker yet tho-I'm waiting for the convention to take my Romney one off and put one on for the general...I already had to scrape my Fred! one off earlier for Mitt.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Well said BlackRepub...
by aceintx
See...you can say something I agree with...I knew you had it in you...Ha
;>)
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
Heh, well ace we're both Texans after all
by BlackRepub
At the very least we can agree on our hatred for Okies and move from there :-)
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Dare I say Hook em Horns??
by aceintx
Or are you an Aggie?
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
Hook Em! n/t
by BlackRepub
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Thank You, 555
by StephC
It wouldn't hurt if McCain's supporters would stop calling everyone whiney, stupid, and inane,among other names, while opting to engage in some real debate. I quit participating here because it was degenerating to name calling fests everywhere I looked.
When Thompson dropped out that was the treatment his supporters received. When Romney dropped out, likewise. And the battle still goes on between McCain's supporters and Huckabee's (Neither of whom I can wholeheartedly support).
Now, when they need us to win the general, we're supposed to just forget that treatment and fall in line like sheep? If we don't, we just receive more of the same treatment we've been getting which is not very comforting when you look at McCain's record to date.
If, in the end, I do vote for McCain, it won't be for him but for the good of the country. I'm not all that sure that a vote for him would be good for the country simply because I have no trust in the man to do the right thing in the face of all his Democratic friends.
To make the case for the SCOTUS and the GWOT, you have to minimize his tendency to side with Democrats over Republicans...for instance, his comment that Alito is too conservative?... which, to me, is basically saying we "Hope" that a McCain president will be different. Isn't that Obama's mantra?
There are 8 months left before November and matters could change, but I get real tired of being called names or accused of not thinking because I don't readily jump on the bandwagon.
It would be nice if the name calling ended by all parties...
by IvoryTowerConservative
Listen I know understand that non McCain supporters may be put out by the "stop whining" comments... But McCain has surely taken more than his share of abuse from posters (not necessarily StephC) supporting his opponents (ie Juan McCain, Grahmnesty [for his supporter Sen Graham], Liberal, etc).... Perhaps it's just my bias, but I don't remember seeing as much 'below the belt' demagoguery directed at Romney, Thompson, Giuliani or Huckabee. I think what annoys most moderate conservatives (and I am Conservative!) is the attitude that the Republican nominee has to kow tow to the Conservative Right Wing, or they threaten to stay home... I've heard many commentators (in this case Hannity, who's become embarrassingly repetitive) that the "Base" feel taken advantage of.. Quite frankly, I've always felt that the Base take the more moderate wing of the Party for granted, they just assume that we're so ideologically flexible that they can exact whatever promises (even the kind that make you wince) from the nominee or pick an extreme candidate and we'll still go along for the ride...
There are certainly things about Sen McCain that make me uneasy, his snarky attitude for one, but he is my first choice for nominee and that's based largely on the War... However, if Romney (or any other) had won/wins the nomination I would have supported them as well, though perhaps less enthusiastically. I can understand your disappointment that your candidate didn't win. However, I don't think for a moment that you wouldn't tell me to "stop whining" and to "grow up" if I said that I was going to sit out the election in protest if Romney/Thompson/whoever were the nominee.
Laura
There has been a lot of it, Laura
by StephC
On all sides. Unless the Huckster pulls out that miracle he's wishing for, we're down to McCain. Every time any of us expresses doubts about McCain's fitness it's countered with name calling... even bullying of a sort. We have 8 months (which make the third post I've mentioned this). Instead of taking us apart why not spend those 8 months really debating the issues that concern us in the hopes of getting us to at the least vote for McCain?
It's like everyone expects us to just capitulate on our principles right now. I'm a mother and grandmother and listened to my children and now my grandchildren play this game of " I want it and I want it now" game. The more they played that game the less inclined I was toward their way of thinking. They have to give me good reasons, not soundbytes that say almost nothing, and give me the time to make up my own mind. If they want sheeple, they had best go talk to the Democratic Party, not conservatives.
http://hillbillypolitics.com
Mr. Smith
by Oz
Let me say a couple of things.
First, in regards to what you are asking from Mr. McCain.
1) Mr. McCain did not demand that conservatives "grow up." He used the word "we" which is inclusive. Secondly, his CPAC speech was very clear in acknowledging a problem.
2) You want him to make a concrete overture to conservatives. He has. Again, I reference his CPAC speech. He reiterated his support of life and small government. He committed to himself to border security first, to judges like Scalia and Alito, to making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and to vetoing any spending bill that contains earmarks. What more would you like him to commit to?
3) You have asked him to admit he was wrong. Is this what your vote is going to hinge on?
So what you're telling me is that if you don't get an apology that you feel you deserve from Senator McCain then you're willing to have a liberal become president.
It is ironic to me that because you have had personal and policy issues with McCain that you and many other conservatives are willing to embrace an Obama / Clinton presidency.
You would prefer a liberal presidency that would be far more liberal and prevent us from solidifying the Supreme Court rather than pull the lever for McCain.
For someone as politically savvy as yourself, Mr. Smith, I'm shocked by the naivete of this approach.
With your vast experience at the FEC, I would think that you of all people would realize the lasting CONSEQUENCES of turning the power of the presidency over to the Democrats.
I am resigned that I need to vote for
by marilynchapman
McCain even though McCain & Huckabee are my least favorite candidates. However; the attitude of McCain supporters makes it MUCH harder to swallow. Perhaps instead of insulting Mr. Smith you could just put your pro McCain comments and leave the rude comments out. Your not helping your nominee.
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing." Fred D. Thompson
marilyn chapman
by Oz
I'm not a mccain supporter.
I'm a Fred supporter.
As for insulting comments, I didn't mean to put any in.
My points were pretty simple:
1) McCain has done quite a bit in coming toward conservatives.
2) A non-vote for McCain means you are okay with a Hillary or Obama presidency. That's not an insult, it's a fact.
If I was insulting, I apologize.
Given the personal nature
by Brad Smith
Given the personal nature of this comment by Oz, I'll respond.
First, Oz is quite right that McCain has not said - to my knowledge - that his detractors need to "grow up." In my post, I referred to "McCain and his staff." A bad choice of words on my part. I've now edited that to be more clear as "McCain and his supporters." The "grow up" angle is a common theme among McCain supporters, whether those precise words are used or not - and they often are. See e.g. here or here. Of course, Sen. McCain can't control everything his supporters say everywhere, but it is still fair for me to speak directly to others, and it would be wise for Senator McCain to do so. Senator McCain might make clear that all of this needs to stop on both sides. Something like, "those who have supported my opponents in the primaries are not children who need to grow up - they are patriotic Americans who love their country passionately and want what is best for it. People such as Rush Limbaugh are great Americans. And we've expressed our disagreements clearly - I to them, and they to me. Fortunately, so much more unites us than separates us, etc. etc." (I'm not going to become his speechwriter).
His "calm down" comments were actually not bad - but he needs to be clear that he is speaking to both sides. The bottom line is that what seems to many to be a rather perfunctory "we conservatives" isn't going to cut it. He needs to understand that many respond to that by saying, "what do you mean, 'we conservatives?' Are you really one of us? After all you've said to score cheap political points at our expense for the past decade?" This would not be such a problem if Senator McCain had merely gone his own way on a few issues. The problem is how he has gone about his business, and a decade of that approach will not be so easily remedied. So I'm not critical of what he said at CPAC or even generally what he's been saying of late, only noting that he still doesn't seem to quite get how much damage he has done over the years to the conservative coalition he now seeks to lead, and he needs to address it. It is,m as the title says, part of the "Wages of being John McCain."
Likewise on the second point. It is easy to say he'll appoint people like Roberts and Alito but he needs something more concrete. For one, facing a Democratic Senate, he won't be able to confirm people like Alito. And it is nice to say make the Bush tax cuts permanent, but he can't do that. His veto pen won't work there, they lapse automatically. Earmarks? Shmearmarks. Earmarks have symbolic resonance but are a trifle in the budget (plus, there should be some earmarking - the alternative is for Congress to turn more spending decisions over to the bureaucracy). In other words, those are the easy lines. They really don't reassure his doubters. How about something like, "some have asked if I will demand that any judicial nominees support the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold. I believe the Supreme Court was correct in 2003 when it upheld the constitutionality of the bill. But there will be no issue by issue litmus tests on my judges. If they have the character and temperment and judicial philosophy of a Sam Alito or John Roberts, that's who I want on the bench, and I'll take what comes." That might reassure a few conservatives.
On the third point, yes, McCain should admit his mistakes. Exactly. Of course some people's votes will hinge on that. If people have doubts about McCain's willingness to really fight for tax reduction, saying he was wrong in voting against the Bush tax cuts would really be a good idea. If people are still furious about McCain-Feingold (and they are), admitting that the bill has not worked out entirely as he had hoped might be a really good idea. If he really wants enforcement first on immigration (and as an aside, my personal views on immigration are pretty "liberal") he needs to overcome the begrudging "I'll build the [explicative] fence" remark, and say something like, "the immigration bill I co-sponsored last summer did not have its priorities right. I realize that now, from talking more with my fellow conservatives." Not just "I've heard you," which is what he's said, but "I was wrong." Finally on this point, note that I did not say, despite what Oz says, that I or anyone needs an apology from McCain. An admission of error is not the same thing.
Oz then devotes three short paragraphs to repeating a mantra that it would be terrible terrible terrible if a Democrat were elected this fall. Maybe. As I indicate, McCain would almost certainly be better on an issue by issue basis than the Democrat. Unfortunately, Oz does not address any of the arguments that maybe it would not be quite so terrible, or that maybe in the long term a McCain presidency would not so much matter. The problem for McCain is that he needs to not merely show that he would be better than the Democrat, but enough better for people to overcome the personal insults he has hurled at them for some time. I don't think that this is "naivete" on my part - indeed, while I don't know Oz's age or who he is, when I was younger and less experienced I think I would have been more prone to agree with him. But people are people - as I say, you cannot treat people as McCain has over many years, and then think that they will bust their hind ends to elect you. And in keeping with the tone of my approach, however you look at it, throwing out words such as "naive" is probably not the way to win over balking conservatives.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
There is a sharp limit on
by sinz52
There is a sharp limit on how many times McCain can "admit error," without coming off as a flip-flopper and a panderer.
One of the charges that Romney's opponents used against him was that he conveniently changed his position on abortion, the Reagan Administration, etc., just when he switched from running in Massachusetts to running for the GOP Presidential nomination. If McCain does the same thing, he jeopardizes his reputation for hard-nosed forthrightness and steadfastness.
It's also not clear that McCain ought to "admit error" on issues where he may well be right and the GOP base may be wrong. An example of that is immigration. The base was right that border enforcement must come first. McCain acknowledged that. But he can't promise what some in the base are demanding--deportations and getting rid of the entire 12 million illegal aliens. He just can't. It's not doable, and the GOP can't be tagged as a nativist anti-Hispanic party and expect to win elections in the future.
I don't think McCain's demeanor matters all that much, compared to these emotional wedge issues either.
Giuliani tried to stick to a liberal position on abortion (he's pro-choice) without being disagreeable about it. Unlike McCain, he didn't poke a finger in the eye of conservatives. He tried to disagree with them without being disagreeable. They respected Rudy for that. But in the end, they rejected him anyway.
Immigration is just a deal-breaker for the nativists of the GOP. If you refuse to support kicking out all 12 million illegals, it doesn't matter how nice you are about it.
And I'm sorry, I see no reason for McCain to suck up to those nativists who are openly reveling in anti-Hispanic bigotry: Talking about "brown invasions" and how "white Anglo-Saxon culture is doomed" and how Hispanics get plastered and pump out babies. Such an element does not need to be appeased. They need to be opposed. Those of us who reject the bigotry have principles WE will stand up for too.
Nativism is not the issue here
by civil truth
Talking about "brown invasions" and how "white Anglo-Saxon culture is doomed" and how Hispanics get plastered and pump out babies.
I don't really hear that from the RedState crowd here. You're probably getting us mixed up with the Ron Paul and Buchanan supporters.
The immigration issue at RedState is more about 1) respect for law combined with 2) creating a more workable set of laws. But after getting burned with past broken promises, many here are skeptical of the same players saying that this time will be different and demanding more deeds over words.
McCain has less to repair over immigration than some othe issues, but he still has to repent for his past insults before being granted absolution.
Most who claim this is the issue know better.
by spainishirish
These are the same dishonest sorts who conflate immigration and illegal immigration, and use "nativism," "racism" and so forth as slurs to avoid the central issue--the rule of law and the rank gangsterism of the non-enforcement policy. People, and it's far more than conservatives or even Republicans, know when they are hearing lies. And any CIR that didn't have a large lag between border security, law enforcement, and then status adjustment was a blatant fraud.
I will take McCain at his word he "learned" something from his use of this discredited tactic. I thoroughly expect to be angered to learn he did not.
Let's examin his "Word, shall we?
by aceintx
Let's examin his "Word, shall we?
His word is that "I've learned my lesson, I want to secure the border FIRST."
What's next? We know he's for blanket amnesty and I'd bet a hundred dollars to a box of donuts that he'll push for it or at least sign it when it crosses his desk.
On top of this, in his own word, when asked if he would sign the bill that he authored with Kennedy he replies it will never be passed so it doesn't matter. He doesn't answer the question he refuses to answer it while seeming to answer it just like Clinton.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
So let's vote for...
by SteveLA
The other guy in the race who has actually actively worked to provide in state tuition, or was it free tuition for illegal aliens.
As a parent of two kids, one in JC and one two years away, Pastor Hucka annoys me to no end with this flip flop to the Tancredo get tough talk he uses now.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Hmmmm
by aceintx
Did I mention Huckabee?
Hmmm. I didn't think so.
But since you brought him up!
You object with Huckabee's position on In state tuition so you go for the guy that wants open boarders and blanket amnesty?
That's a consistent arguement!
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
I concur, nativism and racism has very little to do with most
by Tim Schieferecke
folks' stance on "ILLEGAL" immigration. We ARE concerned with seeing to it that the rule of law is enforced in OUR nation. How is giving illegal immigrants from anywhere preferential treatment over those doing trying to do it legally being a nativist? That sinz guy really takes the cake!
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
Just using the word *Natavism* pisses me off
by Matthew.B
Yes, I know that I have racists and natavists on my side. It is very easy to provide plenty of examples that a sizeable portion of those in opposition are doing it for racist reasons. But that doesn't automatically make ALL those that are against illegal immigration racist or natavist.
I'm supportive of high levels of immigration. But I don't want to reward law breakers. They can go home and legal ones can come here. I want us to know who they are before they come. No criminals, no terrorists, thanks. If they break the law, when they get out of jail they can go home. I don't want one neighbor nation to have automatic special status - I want us to welcome the world here.
You exemplify why McCain frustrates me so much. Without knowing me, you've called me a racist. And know you want my vote?
John McCain is a sitting US Senator
by jackbenimble
John McCain actually has a serious public forum where he can go considerably beyond admitting mistakes and uttering reassuring words. He can write legislation!
If John McCain really believes the borders need to be secured and our employment laws need to be enforced he can introduce legislation to accomplish these goals or he can choose to sponsor legislation that has already been introduced. Then we can judge from the details whether or not he is serious. For example sponsoring the SAVE Act would be a great choice. It is an excellent enforcement bill which was introduced by a Democrat and has broad bi-partisan support. It does those enforcement things that McCain has been saying need to happen first. McCain could accomplish a perfect tri-fecta with this bill: 1)it is bi-partisan so it would not damage his maverick brand image; 2)it is supported by conservatives including much of Tancredo's former caucus and 3) it would actually put a bi-partisan accomplishment on his resume that actually demonstratably advanced the conservative cause rather than the liberal legislative agenda.
Beyond just reassuring words, John McCain should commit some of his promises to conservatives to legislative format. Then he would be clearly on record with details. We would know if he was serious or just blowing sunshine up our rear.
He has talked about a tax cut for corporations. What is the Bill Number? He wants to make the tax cuts permanent? What's the bill number and how hard is he pushing it.
Excelent Idea...
by aceintx
Let's see ya back up your platitudes with real action Jonny Mac...I could see moving your way if you can put your money where your mouth is.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
This should be a seperate post... 5 n/t.
by StandardCandle
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. " -James Madison
Straw man arguements and beside the point
by aceintx
“1) Mr. McCain did not demand that conservatives "grow up." He used the word "we" which is inclusive. Secondly, his CPAC speech was very clear in acknowledging a problem.”
Adding the word “We” is only a rhetorical ploy to soften the blow as he calls us childish and impetuous
“2) You want him to make a concrete overture to conservatives. He has. Again, I reference his CPAC speech. He reiterated his support of life and small government. He committed to himself to border security first, to judges like Scalia and Alito, to making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and to vetoing any spending bill that contains earmarks. What more would you like him to commit to?”
One speech does not an outreach make. You can’t just walk into a conference of people you’ve shunned for years and make one speech and expect mindless obeisance from them just because you threw them a few bones
Just because he says he’s got a 100% pro life voting record doesn’t make him 100% pro life. According to Rick Santorum McCain was one of the main Senators behind closed doors who actively worked to keep pro life issues from reaching the Senate Floor. He supports Federal funding of stem cell research as well… that alone removes the 100% rating.
His comments about immigration are Clintonian at best and Machiavellian at worse. He says he will secure the borders first but leaves out what’s next. We all know he supports blanket amnesty for illegals and as president I have no doubt he will push for it.
You ignore Brad’s point that “he cannot stop the Bush tax cuts from expiring, and given his denunciations of those cuts as “giveaways to the rich,” he is, among Republicans, uniquely ill-positioned to pressure the Democratic Congress on them.” He says he’ll make the tax cuts permanent he doesn’t say how he will do it since his Democrat friends, (who he talks about reaching out to in order to “get things done”) control the Congress!
He says he’ll appoint “Strict Constructionist” judges but that leaves open the Stare Disisis (Un-sure of the spelling) issue i.e. Judges that will uphold past precedence on issues such as McCain Fiengold, Abortion, etc.
“3) You have asked him to admit he was wrong. Is this what your vote is going to hinge on?
So what you're telling me is that if you don't get an apology that you feel you deserve from Senator McCain then you're willing to have a liberal become president.
It is ironic to me that because you have had personal and policy issues with McCain that you and many other conservatives are willing to embrace an Obama / Clinton presidency.”
A little humility goes a long way Oz. You ignore brad’s point that McCains problems extend far beyond “Personal policy differences”. This is a straw man argument. It’s not just that he’s left the reservation it’s that he shoots his own as he’s leaving. He’s infallible and anyone who disagrees with him has some kind of character flaw or ulterior motive. He’s arrogant, nasty and condescending and just not a nice guy!
“You would prefer a liberal presidency that would be far more liberal and prevent us from solidifying the Supreme Court rather than pull the lever for McCain.”
No one prefers a liberal presidency but I fear a McCain presidency as much or more than a liberal presidency. THIS MUST BE ADRESSED!!!.
“For someone as politically savvy as yourself, Mr. Smith, I'm shocked by the naïveté of this approach”
Here you denigrate Brad and those of us who are seriously struggling with our consciences by calling us naïve because we want to unite against the Democrats but have legitimate and perplexing issues with this candidate.
What about your naïveté where it comes to McCain and his approach to government and his continuous betrayals of the party as he insults and slaps us around for disagreeing with him.
To paraphrase a well known quote: Burn me once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me….fool me over and over again and I should be committed or heavily medicated.
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
Would you rather.....
by wolfgang
...vote for the representative of the party of the eastern Liberal Democratic Senator who sabotaged John Bolton's nomination as UN Ambassador in retribution for the CIA unearthing a Cuban Mole in their operation and sentencing her to twenty five years for espionage? A party more loyal to the Cuban Communist Dictator and his tool, Hugo Chavez, than they are to the American People? To the party of the man who publicly, shamelessly, ripped off his flag lapel pin and then publicly refused to pledge allegiance to the flag?
Do you cherish the thought of living in a banana republic?
Stream of Consciousness?
by wennejunk
Rhetorical question?
Or another spam email?:
"...and then I said to her, knives are in order, but $0.73 is your change don't you know that roses are red and violets are blue bringing up boys..."
Whatever.
Some of us who are not so historically and politically astute don't have a clue as to who or what you are talking about.
Please spell it out in simple English.
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning
Here is another argument that is becoming tedious!
It didn't work when we were told we had to vote for the "Moderate" Gerald Ford because the country wouldn't survive Carter. Or we have to vote for the Moderate George H.W. Bush because we can't survive a Clinton Presidency. Or Dole because we can't survive another Clinton term. Or we need to vote for a Republican Congress fraught with out of control spending because we couldn't survive Pelosi or Reid in power.
What makes you think it's gonna work now.
Give me a reason to vote for McCain that's not a scare tactic and tell me why I should trust him to support conservative principles and not run from us as soon as he wins the nomination or the election all the while thumbing his nose at us!
645 Delegates needed to stop McCain. 58% of remaining delegates Huckabee, Romney, and Paul need to derail the He's Inevitable Express.
This race isn't over!!!
You nailed it, this is the problem
by kowalski
If anything you're underestimating the real depth of the antipathy with words like these:
And therein lies the problem for John McCain, as he now seeks to consolidate the Republican base for his presidential run. For McCain to maintain his appeal to independents, he must continue to be viewed as “straight-talker” who tells people things, “they don’t want to hear.” But as much as his policy positions, it is this image, and what McCain has done to obtain it, that drives many conservatives nuts.
There is a real, objective, significant rift between the opinions of the rank-and-file Conservatives and activists and those of the party leaders who are accustomed to pursuing whatever path leads to victory even if it means making strange bedfellows and marriages of convenience. The people back at home, the longstanding Reagan Conservative Republicans like my father, are not enamored of John McCain in the slightest and in fact are angry and indignant that he now appears to be the Party's presumptive nominee.
These are not insignificant people. They include a leading conservative philanthropist; a prominent conservative think tank denizen; a local GOP officeholder; a former appointee in Governor George Voinovich’s administration in Ohio, and others of similar rank...
I call those people the "White Collar Republicans." They're the people who can look at McCain's nomination with equanimity because for them, it's something of an academic exercise -- divorced from the real passionate revulsion that John McCain generates among the rank-and-file. My father is agonized over this guy: after Romney dropped out last week he reiterated that he's thinking about voting for Hillary in protest, and he's only half-joking.
The party elders and influence men, the movers and shakers and the guys who look at the electorate from 35,000 feet are very out of touch with the fact that down here on the ground, for the past eight years if you mentioned John McCain's name around the kitchen table or down at the local watering hole you were likely to be on the receiving end of a sailor's oath. That kind of revulsion doesn't get changed just because some Republican philanthropist or an aide to a Governor has changed their mind as the result of a dry, unemotional calculation of insider politics.
It's going to be very difficult if not impossible to make a McCain candidacy work with people like my Dad. He really loathes the guy and wishes he had any other choice but McCain, for all the reasons you mention in this post. You can't change opinions that have been drilled into people's heads for the past eight years in a matter of a few months.
It doesn't work.
The problem in a nutshell
by kowalski
The problem in a nutshell, Mr. Smith -- and you can share this with the people you mention if you'd like, is this:
By nominating John McCain you're asking some of the most "rock ribbed" people, the ones you rely upon to serve as the anchors of Conservatism in this country, to put aside all of the things John McCain has said and done so spectacularly during his Senatorial career as a matter of practical politics. In many ways the problem is the reverse of what makes McCain appeal to moderates and independents: you're trying to get the really ideological stalwarts in the party to change their minds about a *tangible record* on the basis of an abstract calculation of vote totals.
There was a cartoon in the Washington Post that summed it up the other day, I can't recall the artist, but it showed the kind of pill that Conservatives were going to have to swallow to accept McCain: it was one of those stones from the Island of Yap.
There are going to be a lot of people with a serious case of indigestion.
Excellent! McCain has a lot of work to do to bring conservatives to his side. I, for one, feel that many have sat out the primary process because of the lack of consistent conservative candidates still in the race when their primaries came. McCain needs to realize that he has a problem - or an opportunity, to put it more positively - to reach out to conservative voters & activists.
McCain may want to talk to Sen. Bob Corker's people about this. Corker won a contentious republican primary in 2006, in TN, over 2 candidates who split the conservative vote. He was going against a very charismatic candidate in Harold Ford Jr. Corker & his campaign were able to reach out & heal the rifts caused by the contentious primary & go on to defeat Ford, the only republican to do so in Senate races in 2006. Corker has lived up to his campaign promises. McCain will be well served by substantively reaching out to conservatives, & the time to start (acknowledging his CPAC speech) is now.