Conservatives: Sitting Out 2008 Is the Height of Idiocy by Ben Shapiro

Family Security Matters ^ | 14 February 2008 | Ben Shapiro

[K-oneTexas]

Published: February 14, 2008

Conservatives: Sitting Out 2008 Is the Height of Idiocy

Ben Shapiro

 

The conservative base isn't fond of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. They disagree with him on a wide variety of issues, and they feel insulted by McCain's ardent desire to please those across the political aisle.

           

But conservatives are fools if they stay home in November.

           

There's plenty to question about John McCain, but there's one thing conservatives can't question: McCain is better than Hillary Clinton. He's better than Barack Obama. And it's not close.

           

McCain is a hard-line proponent of victory in Iraq. He has pledged to lower taxes. He has always fought governmental corruption, even if that has led him to absurd extremes like campaign finance reform. He is a strong pro-life voter. He says he will veto any bill that has any earmarks. In 2006, McCain received a 65% rating from the American Conservative Union, which measures whether members of Congress are in line with conservatives on major issues. In 2005, his score was 80%.

           

Here are Hillary Clinton's scores in those same two years: 8% and 12%. Obama scored 8% both years.

           

It's simply unthinkable to equate McCain's record with either Clinton's or Obama's. McCain is a left-leaning Republican, which means he ranks in the upper half of the Senate in terms of political conservatism. National Journal, by contrast, ranked Clinton the 16th most liberal senator in the Senate in 2007. Obama was No. 1.

           

Despite the vast difference between McCain and his Democratic opponents, many conservatives are threatening to boycott the 2008 election. They argue that the Republican Party has abandoned conservatism, and that in order to reclaim the Party, the GOP may have to go through the purifying ritual of cataclysmic electoral defeat.

           

This is historically ignorant. Intraparty squabbles are constant with regard to choosing presidential candidates. Parties do not move toward a particular ideological group because of electoral defeat – they move toward a particular ideological group because that group is most motivated to back a single candidate. Ronald Reagan was a rising force in the Republican Party before Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter -- he almost wrested the nomination from Ford in 1976. The Democratic Party's recent move to the left has not been a reaction to their electoral defeats in 2000 and 2004 – after all, Al Gore and John Kerry were certainly quite liberal. The problem with the conservative movement in 2008 wasn't the movement -- it was the lack of a candidate. And sending the GOP to ringing defeat in 2008 won't push the Party back to the right unless there's a candidate to rally around.

           

If conservatives think they can rally around a challenger in 2012 and oust an incumbent Democrat, they should think again. Conceding the White House in 2008 could easily mean an eight-year term for either Hillary or Obama – and such an eight-year term would wreak havoc on a country already overburdened by taxes and under assault from Islamic terrorism.

           

The proposed conservative boycott of the GOP in 2008 also demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of the GOP's role. The GOP isn't constructed to nominate conservative candidates. It is constructed to win. It's the conservative base's responsibility to nominate conservative candidates. In 2008, the conservative base failed. That isn't the GOP's fault. Punishing the GOP fruitlessly punishes an organization that isn't to blame.

           

Conservatives must recognize that the choice in 2008 is between John McCain and Clinton or Obama. It isn't about McCain vs. Romney or McCain vs. Huckabee anymore. And if McCain wins, that doesn't preclude conservatives from rallying around a more conservative candidate next time. Dooming the country to at least four years of Democratic incompetence and appeasement won't solve conservatives' problem.

# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org contributing editor Ben Shapiro is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School. He is also the author of the recently published "Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future" as well as the national best seller "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth." He practices law in Los Angeles.

[Sloth]

But conservatives are fools if they stay home in November.

I won't stay home in November. I'll go vote for conservative Congressional and local candidates. And I'll vote for a Presidential candidate. It just won't be McCain, Hillary or Obama.

There's plenty to question about John McCain, but there's one thing conservatives can't question: McCain is better than Hillary Clinton. He's better than Barack Obama.

Of course we can question that.

He has pledged to lower taxes.

So has Obama.

He has always fought governmental corruption, even if that has led him to absurd extremes like campaign finance reform.

LOL, ever heard of the Keating Five? By the way, Hillary voted for the CFR law, too. Does that mean the she also takes her hatred of governmental corruption to the extreme?

In 2006, McCain received a 65% rating from the American Conservative Union, which measures whether members of Congress are in line with conservatives on major issues. In 2005, his score was 80%. Here are Hillary Clinton's scores in those same two years: 8% and 12%. Obama scored 8% both years.

And if Lincoln Chafee (who just endorsed Obama) was running, you'd be telling us how his 35% ACU rating is three or four times greater than that of Hillary or Obama.

If conservatives think they can rally around a challenger in 2012 and oust an incumbent Democrat, they should think again. Conceding the White House in 2008 could easily mean an eight-year term for either Hillary or Obama

And if McCain is elected in 2008, that will absolutely preclude nominating any better GOP candidate until 2016 (and possibly beyond, depending on who the Veep is).

The proposed conservative boycott of the GOP in 2008 also demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of the GOP's role. The GOP isn't constructed to nominate conservative candidates. It is constructed to win.

The mere existence of an official platform would seem to contradict this idea that the party is an ideological blank canvas. But maybe you're right, and if so, then perhaps conservatives need to look elsewhere.

[Eva]

The problem is that McCain is old, mean and nasty. The younger voters just aren’t going to be drawn to him. They want young, pleasant and vapid.

The younger voters are saying, we just want to have fun, and Obama is saying, Don’t worry, be Happy.

[kabar]

We are not staying home. We just won’t be voting for the Rep or Dem nominee for President.

[kabar]

Why can John McCain vote on the basis of principle and conscience over party and we can’t?

[Designer]

"The problem is that McCain is old, mean and nasty. The younger voters just aren’t going to be drawn to him. They want young, pleasant and vapid."

Perhaps you missed the fact that young voters were attracted to Ron Paul in surprising numbers.

and Ron Paul is older than John McCain

but he's not "mean and nasty"

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Close the damned borders...

[Designer]

"Why can John McCain vote on the basis of principle and conscience over party and we can’t?"

Question of the Day Bump!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

"Why can John McCain vote on the basis of principle and conscience over party and we can’t?"

Why can't we just give the country away to third world invasion?

[kabar]

So, despite the areas where we will lose ground with McCain (and immigration, the border, and global climate are chief amongst those), there are other equally critical areas IMHO where we can still hold high ground

Disagree strongly. "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" Amnesty will destroy this country as we know it. Once done, it cannot be undone. Why should I or anyone else be complicit in the destruction of the country by voting for McCain who holds the same position on this issue as Hillary and Obama? Amnesty is the Mother of all issues. It will not only destroy the country as we know it, but it will make the GOP the permanent minority party for those of you who place partisan politics over the survival of the country.

[kabar]

Why can't we just give the country away to third world invasion?

Some choice. McCain, Hillary, and Obama favor doing just that.

[Eva]

Mean and nasty is a big part of it. Ron Paul could remind them of their grandfather. McCain just comes across as an annoying old man. I lived in a gated golf course community that was full of old men, I know what I am talking about. When people get old, some get mellow, but most seem to get really nasty.

If that’s what getting old is all about, I don’t think that I want to do it.

[Intimidator]

I suspect conservatives won’t stay home in November. Some are just saying they will because they are still in that ‘pouting’ stage because their candidate didn’t make it.

[ZULU]

I was watching FOX News this morning.

They had just introduced Bob Gallagher, a talk radio host who is moderate to conservative and were discussing with him the issue of other major conservative talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity etc. having an issue with McCain.

Alisyn Camorata had just asked Gallegher WHY these conservative talk show hosts had such an issue with McCain as it wasn't clear to her what the issues were.

BEFORE the response was aired, a LONG SERIES OF COMMERCIALS appeared, terminating that part of the show. When the commercials were over, Steve Doocey was talking to Gallagher about McCain on another subject.

It seems pretty clear to me that, for whatever reason, J. Ruppert Murdock, who I believe owns FOX news, wants McCain nominated and probably elected. I have lost my earlier infatuation with FOX News. It may not be so blatantly biased as CNN and MSNBC, but it is by no means as fair and balanced as it purports to be.

I will be watching Mr. McCain very closely. My feelings for him and some of the people who support him go beyond mere dislike and if I don't like the way his debates with the Democrat candidate are going, I will probably not vote for him.

I think he is unstable emotionally, and totally unreliable in addition to being vindicative and duplicitous. I think Republicans who think they can rely on this guy to behave in any kind of anticipated pattern on anything are deluding themselves. People like Romney who are coming out in support of this individual are, I believe, being good team players - something RINOS never can be - and showing they will support the party choice. This is good form and strengthens them in future election contests. With political careers at stake, they can't afford to be as painfully blunt about McCain as Ann Coulter, whose career path lies in another direction. But I don’t doubt for one instance that they view his chances as slim and the prospects for the Republican Party as a whole dismal should he be elected.

George Bush did a lot of irreparable harm to the Republican party by his ineptitude on a number of subjects and has discredited conservatism with the general public. Having a successor who amplifies his errors will not do us, and America, any good in the long run.

[Hattie]

The problem is that McCain is old, mean and nasty. The younger voters just aren?t going to be drawn to him. They want young, pleasant and vapid. The younger voters are saying, we just want to have fun, and Obama is saying, Don?t worry, be Happy

On the other hand, the adults may like the idea of a grouchy, mean faced maverick facing people like Amanutjob, terrorists, and antiAmerican leaders.

Like Reagan, McCain represents the "who knows what he will do if we provocate him" to the foreign rifraff. In other words, he scares them.

I have been against McCain from the start but will have to vote for him. Yesterday's house refusal to act on the surveillance bill, walk out of Iraq, let the terrorists have us; I must vote McCain.

[Eva]

On the other hand, McCain was the one who originally authored the legislation against the waterboarding and also sided with the Democrats against the wiretaps. It was McCain who called the wiretaps illegal and called for the hearings. McCain called for Bush to come to congress and explain.

[kabar]

They are not staying home, just not voting for McCain. After spending three days at CPAC, I can assure you that conservatives are not pouting or that their objections to McCain are ephemeral. Their views are deeply held and many will not vote for McCain under any circumstances. Moreover, they will not be contributing to the national campaign or volunteering.

[Designer]

"Why can't we just give the country away to third world invasion?"

Now that's just crazy talk.

Besides, it's already been done.

Or have you not noticed?

[The Citizen Soldier]

Oh boy, another election cycle where conservatives are asked to vote defensively. "Our guy ain't that great, but he's sure better than the competition."

Yep, you convinced me .....NOT!

[Designer]

Rupert Murdock's bio makes no mention of membership in the CFR, but I suspect that he is a member. Meanwhile, this little excerpt:

Murdoch's publications worldwide tend to adopt conservative views. During the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialized in favor of the war.[18] Murdoch also served on the board of directors of the libertarian Cato Institute. News Corp-owned Fox News is often criticized for a strong conservative and anti-liberal bias.

On May 8, 2006, the Financial Times[2] reported that Murdoch would be hosting a fundraiser for Senator Hillary Clinton's (D-New York) Senate reelection campaign. Murdoch's New York Post newspaper opposed Clinton's Senate run in 2000.

Murdock is working both sides of the political "street".

[Designer]

And this from "news with views":

Today, the “internationally minded business and legal elite” include David Rockefeller, Stanley Fischer, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Alan Greenspan, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, George Soros, Paul Wolfowitz, and Rupert Murdoch. The Council on Foreign Relations is not an ordinary private organization; the Council on Foreign Relations is an elite cabal. In fact, the CFR is an organization where the enemies of America and its “controlled opposition” get down and dirty at the Harold Pratt House.

Notice who he rubs elbows with.