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.
It is a straw in a whirlwind. In four days, you won't have even that to grab at. But you can delay facing reality that much longer if you please.
CONSERVATIVES are freaking out.
The party is not where either man is positioned, alone. I wish it were right where Thompson is positioned. But he didn't get the votes. It is quite clear there are plenty of people in the party who aren't where McCain is - Thompson among them. That is exactly why VPs get chosen - to balance a ticket. (See Bush senior for Reagan e.g.)
MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE!!!
You lead off with that, and then follow with this:
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.
It certainly seems it is you who is being delusional. Ohio does not decide Republican candidates. The South, Midwest, Rocky Mountain West, and Southwest take that decision.
If McCain causes those regions to go from red to purple, it won't matter a damn bit of difference what "Ohio and a few upper Midwest liberal states" want.
To return to your first statement, if yours is to be the template for objectivity, especially when failing to consider the South (which no Republican can lose and still win the presidency), then "objective analysis" is not all it is cracked up to be.
Having said that, there is no candidate running that can carry November for the Republicans. Not because the Dem field is so strong, but because the Pubbie field is so weak, and because the base is so utterly pissed off.
If the base stays home, which I am comfortable predicting to be the case this year, no Republican will win. That is just a fact.
If McCain were elected, we would no longer even have a viable opposition party wage a credible challenge to the Democrats. We would be forced into a position of leaving the Republican party, or working against its leadership from within. Better to take our lumps in the election, promote an new generation of able conservative leadership within the GOP, and fight the good fight against the liberals to minimize damage in the short term and win a landslide in four years.
McCain stayed in the party and acted as a fifth column, marginalizing the conservative base and George Bush at every opportunity, with vindictive, self-aggrandizing actions and legislation.
But it doesn’t really matter because he won’t win, anyway. Yes , the country is headed in a leftward direction, the radical left is winning, partly through their monopoly of the public schools and higher education and the media. That doesn’t mean that conservatives should give up, smarten up maybe, but not give up. In a way, it’s a good thing for the Republicans to be in the minority for a while. It will mean that the McCain type of legislators will be marginalized within their own party. They won’t be able to hold the rest of the party hostage any longer.
Nope.
Indeed, I agree that we are unlikely to win in the general election.
In my mind, the biggest difference between you and me, is that you seem to be rooting for a loss. Perhaps I read you wrong?
If the Dems govern very badly and conservative policies are clearly needed, then conservatism might increase in strength - but just losing an election will have the opposite tendency. Parties tend bid higher, more to their "wing", when they are winning easily, not because they lose. This can be counteracted by bad enough governance by the other side, is all.
We can lament this, but it is the way it typically works. Pols seek the median voter, and read electoral loss as a reason to move toward the electoral winners, not away from them.
Ah. Okay, I take take all the bad things I’ve thought about you!
No, if McCain is not supported by the conservative base, (actually McCain is not being supported by very many Republicans, period. His support is coming mostly from independents and cross overs.)even if he wins the nomination, he will lose in the general and he and his gang of fourteen will be marginalized in the Senate because the rest of the party won’t be held hostage to their ridiculous posturing. They can leave the party if they like.
This is not the Republican’s year for the presidency. It just isn’t going to happen, so why should we bother to support someone who has worked to undermine our values for the past ten years? The most important issue for me is homeland security and the war on terror and McCain is terrible on those points.
No, Tom McClintock ran for lieutenant governor and lost.
If you really must vote for McCain, please do yourself a favor and find a more substantive reason to do so. I served in the military - same branch, in fact - and have not even the slightest inclination to give that unmitigated ass my vote.
Sorry, it is all a hissy fit. If I can't have everything I want (and we can't), I will take my ball and go home. Fine, be a sissy, go home. Nobody stopping you. But I'm not going with you, because it is a betrayal of our men in the field, objectively treasonous, and politically immature.
Obama isn’t better, but he’s a Democrat. We will be able to say, don’t blame us. If McCain won (which he won’t), they would all be pointing to the Republicans and saying, see, the Republicans aren’t any better on security than the Democrats.
End of that argument.
Also, McCain will be worse than we would like on immigration and many domestic issues, but it is not the war he is going to screw up.
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.