Posted on 02/02/2008 7:29:44 AM PST by Bubba_Leroy
I’ve given quite a bit of thought to that question this week because I happen to be one of those freaking out over the prospect of a McCain nomination.
Some cite McCain’s positions and past votes and say he is on the wrong side of too many issues, but the same can be said of George Bush. Why does McCain seem to ignite such emotion and strong opposition in so many? There are a lot of positions McCain has taken that have angered conservatives, to be sure. Opposition to the Bush tax cuts, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, Gang of 14, the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, global warming and drilling in ANWR are just a few.
The strong negative reaction from conservatives is not solely because of his positions on issues, though. The reason so many conservatives are concerned about the prospect of a McCain nomination and a McCain presidency has almost as much to do with the way McCain has taken the positions he has, as the positions themselves.
As I often tell my children when they get in trouble for talking back or giving me attitude, sometimes it is not what you say, but rather how you say it.
I was not happy about McCain’s opposition to the Bush tax cuts. As disappointed as I was with his vote, though, what really angered me was the "tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric he used to explain his opposition. I think it is horrible when Democrats play that class warfare game, but realize that many of them actually believe it and even those who don’t believe it know they need to say it because that is what their base wants to hear. It was hard for me to imagine any reason a true conservative would want to say such things. I still can't.
For many years McCain has displayed what appears to be a need for the love and acceptance of the media and Democrats. He often seemed to go out of his way to find fault with those in his own party in order to further cultivate his maverick persona. Instead of being a representative of the Republican party, or even of conservatism, he often emphasized his differences with others in the party and the movement, or allowed those in the media to do so for him.
I suspect many of those “freaking out” about McCain being the standard bearer for the Republican party have gone through the same progression I have over the past year.
McCain has been working hard for a year or so now to assure conservatives that he is one of them. His strong support for the war effort and the surge went a long way in making that case. He also softened his rhetoric against those in his own party. Over the summer I forgot many of the reasons I had opposed McCain as a presidential candidate. When he was down in the polls and did not appear likely to have a shot at the nomination, it was easy to forgive and forget.
When McCain started winning primaries and took the lead in the national polls, though, some of those reasons for my original opposition starting seeping back into my memory.
One of my earliest recollections of a negative reaction to McCain was in 2000 over what appeared to me to be a meltdown in South Carolina over “dirty tricks.” In 2000, going into the South Carolina primary, McCain ran a television ad accusing George Bush of “twisting the truth like Clinton,” while at the same time complaining about negative campaign tactics. I couldn't help but wonder how he would react to criticism and dirty campaign tactics from Democrats in a general election.
Comparing a fellow Republican to Bill Clinton back in 2000, knowing there was a good possibility that candidate would end up being the nominee and Democrats could use those words to discredit him, did not sit well with me at all. It led me to believe I could not trust McCain to do what was in the best interest of the party.
In 2001, speculation that McCain might change his party affiliation to switch the balance of power in the Senate only fueled that mistrust.
In 2004, McCain made his "dishonest and dishonorable" comment regarding the Swift Boat Vets. He sided with John Kerry, rather than with 250 plus Vietnam vets, including some fellow POWs. He didn't just say that he would have to look into the claims of the Swifties, or that he didn't know the specifics. No. He called the actions of those men "dishonest and dishonorable." Not only did he not apologize for that comment, but he reportedly entertained the idea of running with John Kerry.
I had put much of that out of my mind though. It is now 2008 and my desire to see Republicans retain control of the White House, and particularly to see a Republican commander in chief, seemed most important and polls repeatedly showed McCain the candidate most likely to beat a Democrat in November. The performance of McCain in the most recent debate, characterized by some as angry and sneering, along with what appear to be unfair attacks on Mitt Romney over the issue of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, brought it all back – the temper I saw in 2000, the repeated high profile breaks with Republicans on big issues and the flirtations with Democrats about switching parties. Unlike some conservatives I am hearing from, I will vote for McCain in November if he is the nominee. Even for all his faults, McCain has many strengths and is vastly superior to Hillary or Obama. He has impressed me on the conference calls he has held frequently with bloggers where he has patiently and candidly answered any question put to him. Foreign policy/defense is one of my top issues, and I think McCain will be strong there.
It will take a lot to convince me that he can be trusted on issues important to conservatives, though, or even that he can be trusted to positively represent the party. He has built his entire political persona on showing how much he differs from Republicans and conservatives. That does not bode well for those wanting a White House that is more conservative than the current one.
I asked the question in reference to John Adams’ quote you posted. Since we no longer have a moral and religious people, would even the Founding Fathers’ vision be appropriate?
We have moved in a direction they feared, away from the republic to a mobocracy, and it’s showing. But what would Adams say is the best government for an amoral people?
Get a job (other than military) working for the government, any government. He can roll in at 9:00 AM, scratch his ass all day, pick lint from his belly button and leave promptly at 5:30, secure in the knowledge that no matter how much he FU's, he'll be on the gravy train for life and enjoy a fat pension compliments of the sheeple of the USA when he retires.
P.S. If he really wants to advance his government career oppurtunities, as soon as possible he should change his sex, race (however possible) and take his pet gerbil for a life-partner.
Yes, my mistake, and yes, a flaming lib might be easier to stop, actually, than a Trojan Souter.
“....there is no difference between Obama, Clinton, and McCain! Absolutely None!”
Never a truer statement has been said!
The more I observe the slate we’ve been given to choose from, the more I think that this election is a sham and a foregone conclusion...perhaps not re: the person, per se, but the ideologies are identical. We have been given no choice but have been told our votes make a difference in the direction that this country will be led. They won’t.
Its like we’re being herded into a huge cattle shute - the Dems nudge us from the left, the pseudo-Dems from the right, and the outcome will be the same...get as much meat off our bones as possible. Although I will grant that neither side wants to get us blown up, but they may be surprised at the duplicity of, not only our enemies but their own handlers.
The only way our votes make a difference is in local and state governments and sometimes we’re duped even at that level.
Sorry about the rant, but that’s how I feel and I’m not intellectual enough to make it sound compelling. Our only hope is that God will, in fact, have the final word.
And really, I’m not a negative person...there is a LOT that’s good and wonderful about life and people and friends and family. I just grieve at the direction I see our country going and don’t know how to stem the tide other than prayer and speaking the truth. Doesn’t mean I won’t vote, but all I can do is make a statement with a write-in.
Yes, the presumption that even candidates we supported who endorse McCain will magically “bring us over” is silly. I can’t vote for McCain-—I don’t think either Clinton or Obama would change the condition of the troops much at all-—and the supreme court justices, as someone pointed out above, may actually be easier to spot and stop with a Clinton or Obama presidency than with a McCain presidency. (Cause the type of people we will get sent up will be nearly identical).
It's sad--but I'd like to know why and when we decided as a nation to make government jobs higher paying (when benefits are included) than those in the private sector. How long will the taxpayers in the private sector put up with that?
It's Time for "Duncan Hunter, - Take Two!" "It's DUNCAN Time!"
The information I have is that Duncan Hunter's name is on the ballot in all counties in California. - What a "Golden" Opportunity for California Republicans who have not yet thrown their vote away trying to resolve the GOP's liberal / moderate mess.
California Congressman Duncan Hunter
for later.
Hunter endorsed Huckabee.
‘nuff said.
I agree that the problem with McCain is not so much the positions that he took as the reason he took the positions. McCain has acted as a fifth column inside the Republican party, ever since his defeat in 2000, maybe before his defeat.
His actions seem vindictive and self aggrandizing.
As Thomas Sowell said, Benedict Arnold was a war hero, too. Hero status doesn’t last forever if more recent actions don’t measure up to the past.
Excellent observations, all; I agree with each of them.
You might start with the fact that Bush is too far to the right to win a national election again, in the current political climate.
Then you might look at the fact that McCain beats Hillary by 8 points, and Obama by 6, in recent likely voter polls. Mitt loses by 15 and 20 respectively.
Nor are those results surprising, since Mitt is clearly to Bush's right and McCain is clearly to his left. The distance between them spans at least 20% of the electorate and maybe as much as 30%. Who don't trust the left on the war of basic patriotism, but haven't been convinced of conservative domestic positions since the Gingrich era.
Half the public voted for Al Gore - when we didn't have a long drawn out unpopular war around our necks, as a party.
Pretending the whole country is 10-20 points of the right of Bush, which is where it would have to be for Mitt to be positioned where the median voter is, is just hopelessly delusional.
We aren't a huge natural majority, folks. Yes we should try to change that. Yes if we had more policy successes, we might pull the country 10% or so our way.
The difference between the public's opinion of Ford in 1976 and of Reagan in 1984 - defeat of a centrist Republican vs. landslide of a conservative one - was only 10% of voters changing their actual votes, and perhaps 20-30% changing their preferred philosophy within the right.
We face a shift at least that big in the other direction since the Gingrich revolution.
Dole was a moderate and he got utterly creamed. Bush ran far to his left and barely got half. He faced the most liberal nominee of modern times, on a platform of defeatism and hostility to basic patriotism, and barely pulled it out by a couple of points. Since then the war has dragged on and he has ripped his own party in half over immigration. And you expect us to *gain* votes by moving 20-30 points *right* of where we barely held, last time?
What are you people smoking?
It is perfectly sensible to dislike where the party is, or where the country is headed. But to be shocked or surprised by it, not to understand it, not to see why McCain is winning, you have to be so arrogant your brains have fallen out.
Duncan Hunter...
W@ith enough votes Duncan could be part of a brokered convention...
There has to be at least three candidates in a brokered convention...
I dont know what FRed is doing...
But Duncan would easily get most of the conservatives behind him
Duncan has all three of those THREE LEGS OF THE STOOL
He’s more than palatable...
No having to slander and abuse conservatives in order to make them submit and drink the poison ...
Duncan is just good clean fun conservative in every area..
:)
President Duncan Hunter
Who for VP ???
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn ?????
If he is a one man trap, why doesn't everyone agree with you? Why didn't Thompson win the nomination in a landslide?
Can anybody here count, or is it all just supposedly to be about who is truer bluer rightward? Can you grok the bare idea of "too far right to be accepted by the average voter, right this minute"?
My answer in reply to those who ask me why is simple; I do visit family there but I have five reasons for why I can't live in the south - heat, humidity, bugs, snakes, and alligators. I've felt the tremor of earthquakes about 4 or 5 times but I've never seen a 'funnel' cloud and we don't have hurricanes here either.
We do have bears, wolves, and moose wandering through the neighborhood occasionally but I don't have to worry about them laying in the grass at the edge of my property line.
Thank you,
May I add #7: George Soros as a regular visitor to the WH.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
