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.
More generally speaking: McCain’s ACU rating in 2006 was 48th out of 49 Republican senators.
Only Bridge-to-Nowhere Stevens was lower.
If not for Romney's personal wealth how can anyone possibly combat that?
Good. Let me say that I DO understand your point of view on this, and I respect it.
I just feel differently. I hope it doesn’t come down to that. Perhaps in the next Presidential election cycle, we as conservatives will be able to act in advance so we don’t end up in this situation next time.
Fight the good fight.
Yes, we all need to continue to do that to the best of our understanding and ability. We may squabble about the details, but we share a common goal of a prosperous and happy free people living in peaceful and industrious world.
Hang in there! Though it's going to be a long and trying journey, we will ultimately prevail.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Sorry...I’m not freaked out about John McCain’s success.
I’ve thought for a while that the Republican party has gone down the tubes. This just verifies that thought.
Conservatives need to find a new home.
Taxes, immigration amnesty, and past comments about Evangelical leaders. That’s a lot of territory of interest to different conservative groups.
I’m very tired of the conservative blogosphere’s unfair mischaracterisations of John McCain. However, it’s clear that Free Republic and many of the other right-wing sites have lost their previousl level of influence in conservative thought, just as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter clearly have.
‘Conservatives’ who have said that they will vote for Hillary Clinton rather than John McCain are proving that they are actually not conservatives themselves but have become simply irrational, disaffected rather strange people.
I used to hold Free Republic and other sites in high regard, but it’s clear that these sites are descending into self-marginalizing petty politics. This became clear to me in 2006 when in spite of vicious opposition from ‘conservatives’ in the blogosphere to Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, exit polls showed he got 93% of the Republican vote and 86% of the conservative vote in a state where Republicans are actually quite conservative. I believe that the same is going to happen nationally.
It’s time for Freepers to decide if they want to be part of the nation or simply a marginal fringe movement. The Freepers and other elements of the conservative blogosphere can’t deliver for Mitt Romney. It’s time to be pragmatic, folks.
Yeah. And Schwarzenegger has been soooooooo good for Kaleeeeeforneeya, hasn’t he?
Another point worth noting:
Why does Mitt Romney get such a pass on his horrific liberal record in the recent past (including making the top 10 RINO’s list by NRO in 2005), while John McCain gets no grace?
Let’s look at the facts:
Gay rights:
Mitt Romney infamously proclaimed in 1994 that he would be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy (impossible) and even the other day reportedly told a CNN reporter that he always has and still does favor gay rights, just not gay marriage. He made some public outcry against the MA Supreme Judicial Court’s pro-gay marriage ruling in 2003 which was good, but his record is far from perfect and certainly nothing like Jesse Helms or an establishment conservative.
John McCain has consistently opposed gay rights in the Senate. He opposes pro-homosexual hate crimes legislation, openly supports ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, he opposes the pro-gay ENDA. While he opposed the federal marriage amendment on federalist grounds, he supported Arizona’s anti-gay marriage, anti-civil unions, anti-domestic partnerships amendment so much that he even did a commercial for it. The amendment was so strongly anti-gay that it actually narrowly failed before the electorate.
Abortion:
Mitt Romney wildly flipped on abortion, saying as recently as 2002 that he was solidly pro-abortion and pro-Roe. We’re now supposed to forgive that position a mere 6 years later and assume that he’s totally trustworthy.
John McCain openly says Roe v. Wade should be overturned ( http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm ), something that even George W. Bush has been very shy about saying. With the exception of embryonic stem cell research, Senator McCain has a pretty solid pro-life voting record. In 2000, he called partial birth abortion an ‘abomination’. McCain also supports Roberts and Alito and stronly supported their nominations in the Senate.
Taxes:
Mitt Romney hardly has an exemplary record on taxes, having increased ‘fees’ as he calls them in Massachusetts.
John McCain has repeatedly reiterated his support for making the Bush tax cuts permanent and explained why he opposed them in 2000. Shouldn’t we give him a chance just like many want to give Romney another chance?
The list goes on and on but Senator McCain has staked out conservative positions on gun control and many other important issues.
My question is why don’t we stop being hypocritical by saying that Mitt Romney is such a wonderful conservative while we refuse to give John McCain a second chance.
“Yeah. And Schwarzenegger has been soooooooo good for Kaleeeeeforneeya, hasn’t he?”
I think he’s been too liberal, yes, but we always knew him to be the left of McCain. The point is, though, that most Republicans and conservatives supported him because the alternative was far, far worse. The same will be true, I believe in November for John McCain.
Plenty of loyal republicans are voting based on who they think can win, not on how much they'd like.
The republican party is not a church with an inflexible code and priests hurling anathemas at any who deviate from it. It is a practical institution that elects half of the successful pols in the country. Many of those pols are far to my left, and no doubt yours. I don't control them, I don't own the party, I couldn't read them out of it if I wanted to. And neither can you.
When is the GOP going to stop this notion of voting for the lesser of two evils. A McCain presidency would ruin the Republican party, and especially the conservative wing of it.
The reason McWhacked won those early primaries, was because of crossover Demonkat and so-called Independent voters in the states that allow that, trying to pick the best candidate for us to lose in the general election. In Florida, it was the senior vote that gave McWhacked the edge over Romney.
Why do you think the left-wing media wants the GOP to nominate McCain?? It is certainly not because they want him to, or think he can win. They want us to nominate him because they know he is a sure loser to either Democrat. None of the Left-wing media will support McWhacked in the general election, in fact, they will tear him to pieces as soon as the primaries are over.
Go ahead and drink the McWhacked kool-aid, and vote for him if you like. I am indifferent. But you will NOT convince myself and others on this forum who have made up our minds otherwise, to vote for a Democrat with an R after his name. I live in Arizona, and I have never ever voted for McCain, and I never will, because he is a Liberal, and belongs in the Democrat party.
I will vote for Ron Paul as an independent before I vote for McLame as the GOP nominee. At least I know Paul respects the constitution (part of the POTUS oath by the way).
The alternative was Tom McClintock.
Firstly, to call Free Republic a "right-wing" site, is to talk as an outsider. Free Republic is Conservative, not "right wing".
It’s time for Freepers to decide if they want to be part of the nation or simply a marginal fringe movement.
I'd rather be right and kicked out of the party than go along as a fool. That's the way I was in high school. It served me well then when dealing with cliques. It continues to serve me well now as I deal with unprincipled political hacks.
The Republican Party took a left turn, and you right along with it.
You can't seem to grok the idea of objective analysis. You aren't alone, but it is surely a sign that you also aren't engaged in it.
It is very likely that the Dems will win the presidency in the fall regardless of who we choose to put up.
If McCain loses, as is quite possible, if will not mean "no one can win without the conservative base". Omaba isn't going to have the conservative base, is he? Hillary isn't going to have the conservative base, is he?
The country might be better off if no one could win the presidency without the conservative base. But men can and have won the presidency without the conservative base. They have also won the presidency with votes from conservatives without actually delivery full fledged conservatism in office.
In fact, the only pol in my lifetime to even offer real conservatism as a presidential nominee of either party, was Ronald Reagan. (I was born right after Goldwater offered it, but of course without success).
Bush pere ran on continuation promises but had been the liberal republican standard bearer as long ago as 1980, and people should have known what they were getting. They got it. He did win anyway, with plenty of votes from conservatives. He was a hawk, but otherwise a typical liberal republican, readily swayed by the liberal press and a democratic congress.
Clinton didn't get a lot of conservative votes. He won twice.
Bush junior ran as an activist big government methodist do-gooder, and he has delivered typical Teddy - Wilsonian methodist do-gooder government. That has coincided with conservatism in a few matters - hawkish foreign policy, reasonably conservative judges e.g.
When there has been exactly one real conservative president since the 1920s, pretending no one can be elected without a by your leave from us is, well, pretending.
I am pretty sure seniors will also vote in the general election. I am pretty sure moderates in Ohio, and a handful of the more liberal upper midwest states, will decide who the next president will actually be. I am pretty sure the scale of turnout of true blue conservatives in Utah or Montana or Texas, will not matter a hill of beans.
As for Arizona, I'd lay dollar to donuts the Republican nominee can win it, whoever it is. And pretending that a state that has sent McCain back to the senate forever will swing the election by dropping him, is delusional.
I'd rather it were true that all republicans were Reaganite conservatives, but in fact only about half of them are. I'd rather it were true that three fourths of all voters were convinced republicans, but in fact we can barely get half in a good year with a centrist squish.
You don't have to like this for it to be true. I don't like it, but it is true. And I for one consider is decidedly conservative to live in the real world and face facts, and decidedly hysterical and silly and childish, to instead live in a fantasy of pretended special indispensibleness.
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.