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.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
You REALLY don't know me very well!
The way I've read your posts on this topic, you are the one saying a conservative can't win, and we should just suck it up and muddle through as best we can under the Hildabeast.
That doesn't sound like a winning attitude to me.
What did I miss???
And all the polls indicate McCain will win big Tuesday, get the nomination and go on to beat Hillary by 8 or Obama by 6. So if the conservatives want to skip this one, no big deal. Quit worrying yourselves.
McCain can’t win because the conservative Republicans will not support him.
McCain has been making all sorts of promises to win over conservatives, that he really can’t keep. He promises to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, but the president really has no power to do this. He promises to build the border fence, but he probably couldn’t get that done, either. He promises to keep fighting in Iraq, but he also mentioned benchmarks, the very same thing that he accused Romney of.
McCain’s promises are much like Huckabee’s fair tax promise,
all talk, no action, because in the end, it’s up to the congress.
Yes, McCain has forgotten he will not be in the Senate to do all these great things. In fact, Obama and Hillary are making the same mistakes. As are the robot sheeple voting for them.
When I got out of the Army in 1973 and was job hunting in Massachussetts, I left my military service off my resume because of the "baby-killer fever" of the left. No individual in the US was more responsible for tarring vets as war criminals than John Kerry, with his kangaroo court "War Crimes Tribunal."
John McCain has never had a problem with John Kerry. But when I insist on the border fence, he calls me a Chickens&%# and Mother*$%@&/.
I don't like McCain because he despises me.
This battle isn't the war.
Too simple to understand?
My honest assessment is that no real conservative can be expected to win this year. McCain might have a shot, a long one. Most likely, the Dems win this year whoever we put up, because seriously divided parties and failing second term presidents are not the stuff wins are generally made of.
Be prepared for it. For losing the presidency even if Romney pulls out the nomination. Or for McCain winning the nomination, and losing in the fall. Or for him winning in the fall. Conservatism is not at stake in any of those outcomes, and neither petulance, nor denial, nor trying to read the liberal half of the republican party out of it, will change that or help in any way.
Realism and sobriety are what I am calling for. Right now I see instead hysteria, histrionics, denial, downright silliness. It is beneath us, and we should get the heck over it --- yesterday.
Because Mitt Romney will make a great President.
That pretty well describes McCain's reaction to his loss in 2000. he never got over it, and his actions, since then, are the very reason that I will not vote for him if he gets the nomination. I don't think that it will matter in the long run, but, I don't see any difference in the way McCain would govern and the way Hillary Clinton would govern. I would rather that a Democrat be blamed than a Republican.
Because Republicans don't want John McCain.
McCain hasn't one primary or caucus amongst "Republican only" voters. It has been Indy's and Democrats that have given John McCain his three wins in NH, SC and Fla.
Blamed for what?
And of course there would be a difference. Though frankly I expect it to be Obama not Hillary.
The conservative pretence that we are the be-all and end-all and no one can ever get anywhere without our blessing, is simply humorous at this point. Hopeless, delusional, silly, but funny as heck. One eight of the country thinks no one can live without them and says so via hissy fits, and then pretend to be surprised when pols stick fingers in their eyes.
If on the other hand he actually wins the nomination, then face the reality that not all republicans are conservatives. While they are still republicans. That conservatives do not own the republican party, and cannot require whatever they like of its members.
Did Bush change his mind on immigration and agree with you because you stomped your feet?
Yes, I too was stunned at how close both the delegate and raw voter counts are thus far b/c the MSM is making it seem like the race is already over. In reality, if the Huckster were not in the race McCain might very well be falling behind. Now maybe the MSM coverage is also based upon some infinite wisdom about likely outcomes on Tuesday, I don’t know.... but it sure seems like Super Tuesday would not be a big victory for McCain if the MSM were not so heavily on his side (for now, but only until he is the R. nominee).
If no republicans want McCain, then you have nothing to worry about, he can't possibly be nominated.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. See added underline.
Because Republicans as a group don't want John McCain. McCain hasn't won one primary or caucus amongst "Republican only" voters. It has been Indy's and Democrats that have given John McCain his three wins in NH, SC and Fla..
Do you understand what that means?
Did Bush change his mind on immigration and agree with you because you stomped your feet?
Perhaps you have me confused with the horse in the stall next to you. I don't stomp me feet.
You don't get it do you.
It's not even "conservative pretence".
John McCain has not won one single Republican primary or caucus based on "Republican only" votes.
So, if McCain is actually nominated by the whole process, will you then admit that you were wrong, and in fact your guess that Republicans don't want him was premature, and actually it is conservatives that don't want him, but conservatives are not all republicans?
If you are right that will never happen, so it should be easy for you to conceed it. I don't think you are right. I think McCain might still lose the nomination, but that right now he is the odds on favorite to take it. Because I do not think all republicans are conservative. I think only about half are.
Do you think Bush is a republican?
My favorite candidate, Thompson, won every single pro-Thompson vote. Everyone else isn't really a republican, they are all just rinos and wannabees and carpetbaggers. Isn't this fun?
But it won't make Thompson president, alas.
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.