Another Unconservative Moment from John McCain

American Thinker ^ | March 30, 2008 | Jeffrey Schmidt

[neverdem]

John McCain's unconservativism was on display this past Wednesday in Los Angeles.  Perhaps not in all ways, but in one telling way.  Before a gathering of the World Affairs Council, the Arizona senator outlined his thinking on national security and foreign policy.  The speech's larger elements have received plenty of coverage.  One element did not.  

McCain made a stalwart's argument for finishing the job in Iraq.  That's a good thing, and expected.  He made a case for greater collaboration with America's allies.  That's a nod to the prevailing sentiment that Cowboy America needs to become Settler America-you know, an America that spends endless hours over bottomless cups of coffee chatting with allies about what it should do with their permission to defend itself and defeat its enemies.  Call it the "Pretty Please" approach to national security.  And good luck in getting that permission.  One can't help think that it was McCain window-dressing to either preempt or mollify critics.  Let's say he gets a pass for that little maneuver. 

But there was one passage in his speech that stuck out like a palm tree in the Arctic.  The passage where he discusses the threat of global warming.  (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/872473dd-9ccb-4ab4-9d0d-ec54f0e7a497.htm)  No window dressing here.  The Senator has discussed it regularly.  So he must be a true believer.  And if not a true believer, then McCain is taking a lot of bad advice from his pal, Joe Lieberman, and other liberals, who he enjoys cordial across-the-aisle relationships with. 

In either case, it's no small thing.  If McCain wins the presidency, we can expect this self-described straight talker to act on his convictions.  That means translating what he believes into policy.  His global warming proposal includes the "cap-and-trade" (http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2075.cfm) mechanism that he mentioned.  Just as there are no tax increases in the liberal lexicon-merely "revenue enhancements" or obligations by the rich to pay their fair share-there are no higher taxes in the world of global warming hucksters-err, apostles. 

But in unliberal America, a tax is a tax; penalties are penalties. 

Simply put, the mechanism would impose limits on industrial emissions.  Industries would be granted allowances.  Within that framework, an industry would have the prerogative of "buying" allowances from others that have underutilized their emissions quotas.  Anyway it's sliced, cap-and-trade saddles industries with substantially higher costs for doing business, costs that will inevitably be passed along to consumers.  Those costs will range across the spectrum.  That includes the cost of cars, gas, housing, home heating, groceries, TVs, airline travel-you name it.  Anything that carries the label "Made in the USA" will come with a heftier price tag. 

Take that, middle class America.    

When government mandates that industries spend money over and above what is required to operate their businesses, that's tantamount to imposing new taxes.  That could be a bit of a dilemma for McCain, who is committed to extending the Bush tax cuts. 

It begs the question: "How does it help the economy to extend the Bush tax cuts while enacting sweeping new taxes?" 

To make matters worse, McCain said that the United States may have to lead by example.  The Senator wants to set an example for those recalcitrant Indians and Chinese, who haven't bought the notion that crippling their economies to satisfy a dicey hypothesis-that is a good bet to be an outright fallacy-is in the best interests of their nations.  Arbitrary action by the United States would amount to economic death wish fulfillment.  Global engagement would likely produce a worldwide depression.  But for liberals and FDR sentimentalists, that may prove quite a boon for the government activism trade. 

The good news is that McCain isn't president yet.  No cap-and-trade legislation has been passed.  Heaven knows, global warming enthusiasts, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, would make a McCain policy look downright pro-business.  Al Gore's dour visage hangs over their proposals like a big, black cloud.

However, McCain's global warming utterances in Los Angeles are yet another cautionary reminder for conservatives.  The Senator's conservatism is no set menu.  His is a cafeteria sort, where he picks the issues that he'll be conservative about. 

The Senator's stand on global warming is a real test of conservative judgment and maturity.  Support for McCain is best qualified.  The qualification, which is taking on more currency lately, is that when the Arizonan is right, he merits support.  When he's wrong, conservatives need to dissent-loudly.  If elected president, then McCain will need to be opposed by conservatives when he pursues initiatives that are decidedly unconservative.

Global warming dogma is, unequivocally, unconservative.  A vibrant economy isn't just about the Good Life; it's integral to the nation's security.  A dynamic national economy gives the United States leverage in the world.  It affords the country the ability to invest in its military as it sees necessary. 

McCain's global warming proposal, if enacted, would cause great damage to the economy, thereby undercutting the nation's ability to press the War on Terror or do whatever else the nation needs to do for its protection. 

It is Reagan conservatism, not patchwork McCainism, which has irrefutably demonstrated its success as a governing philosophy.  It is to the former, not the latter, that conservatives owe their true allegiance. 

In rejecting McCain's global warming position, conservatives, above all, remain true to themselves. 

[Republic of Texas]

In rejecting McCain's global warming position, conservatives, above all, remain true to themselves.

BAM! The money quote strikes again!

[Man50D]

Let's say he gets a pass for that little maneuver.

Let's say he doesn't get a pass.

In rejecting McCain's global warming position, conservatives, above all, remain true to themselves.

The only effective way to reject a socialist like McCain and his policies is to reject him by voting for a conservative. The hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils will only beget more evil and more socialism. It's that precise mentality that has allowed McCain and his socialist ideals to become the GOP front runner.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

The only problem with what you have said is any remaining conservative who is running for POTUS in ‘08 is running either as a third party candidate for POTUS or is running as an Independent candidate for POTUS, and they can’t seriously win the race for POTUS no matter how much people seriously do wish that they could actually win! This is what continues to be frustrating about having a “two political party” system in place when, in this case, all of the major political party candidates for POTUS are socialists this time around. IMHO, a two party system in place is still much better overall than having a multi-party system in place, but this still isn’t going to stop the majority of conservative voters throughout the U.S. from complaining about the current situation with legitimate reasons for their complaints with regards to the ongoing ‘08 race for POTUS!

[Man50D]

The only problem with what you have said is any remaining conservative who is running for POTUS in ‘08 is running either as a third party candidate for POTUS or is running as an Independent candidate for POTUS, and they can’t seriously win the race for POTUS no matter how much people seriously do wish that they could actually win!

It is this precise type of thinking that has led us into this socialistic mess. The "we can't win attitude" is predicated on the assumption voting for a socialist simply because he has an R after his name some how legitimizes the action. Such rationalization only empowers the very people those who employ such thinking oppose. That is not a winning strategy. Only socialists win with that mentality.

It is also predicated on the assumption we have a two party system. The GOP has moved so far to the left in an effort to appease those who are not Conservative that the party has been incrementally aligning itself with the socialist Democrats. They are essentially one party. The only way Conservatives can win is by voting for a Conservative in another party. Doing so will restore the two party system.

[EternalVigilance]

I think I’m just going to start calling him “J.J. McCain.”

John Judas, ya know...

[FBD]

[AFPhys]

The good news is that McCain isn’t president yet. No cap-and-trade legislation has been passed. Heaven knows, global warming enthusiasts, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, would make a McCain policy look downright pro-business. Al Gore’s dour visage hangs over their proposals like a big, black cloud.
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

This is our real problem, as conservatives. We know McCain is not good in several ways, particularly this issue. However, we know that the Demodogs are far worse.

I just hope that McCain can be pressured more effectively by conservative thought.

[NoLibZone]

Ronald Reagan would be a huge RINO by todays standrds.

Reagan increased the size of of ther Fed substantially, granted amnesty and gave Osama a following (see PBS documentary on Osama and Arnett interview).

Only DU and KOs posters NEED you to believe McCain is worse than the Obama/Wright ticket.

[kingu]

It's that precise mentality that has allowed McCain and his socialist ideals to become the GOP front runner.

Let's examine that. Did more than 50% of the GOP vote for McCain? No. He became the front runner because so many supported liberals. Huckabee? Tax and spend nanny state liberal. Mitt Romney? Actually said, during a Republican presidential debate that government mandates are good, that they work.

So, no, the mentality was that someone's faith was supposedly more important than being a conservative, that someone who was governor of Massachusetts was more important than being a conservative. I proudly supported Fred Thompson, I didn't have to hide from his stances.

So, gosh, a lot already held their noses, ignoring what they were voting for. Amazing how their abilities end now.

[blackbart.223]

"Only DU and KOs posters NEED you to believe McCain is worse than the Obama/Wright ticket."

Granted. I'll be the first to say McCain is a better choice than Obama and the beast. But we are still going to get screwed. Count on it.

[wastoute]

That is my feeling, that no matter who wins we get screwed. Might as well get screwed by a Dem, maybe then the Reps left in congress wll grow a pair and fight a little bit. With McCain in office the Dems will get anything they want passed.

[blackbart.223]

"With McCain in office the Dems will get anything they want passed."

McCain and the global warming nuts are really going to screw us.

[RetSignman]

I am not a big McCain supporter by any stretch of the imagination but politically this kind of talk will swing a lot of democrats his way. The democrats are in big, bid trouble and their base is in turmoil, they are going to be looking for an alternative to vote for and McCain might be looking pretty good to them right about now.

McCain, with all his flaws, is going to reap all the benefits of the democrat chaos and his ‘liberal speak’ is just icing on the cake, politically, and with Mitt Romney as his running mate he will bring more Republicans back into the fold.

This country can not afford either of the Socialist candidates the democrats have chosen as their flag bearers even for four years, the damage they would do is incalculable.

[Free_at_last_-2001]

The hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils will only beget more evil and more socialism. It's that precise mentality that has allowed McCain and his socialist ideals to become the GOP front runner. - Agreed!

[DeaconRed]

I agree!
With a RINO we are probably better off letting a DEM make the mess and getting the balme for it, kinda the Jimmah Carter plan. Jimmah got us RR.
I no longer consider myself a Republican. Conservative: YES

[G.Mason]

" ... In rejecting McCain ('s global warming position) , conservatives, above all, remain true to themselves.

That sums it up for me.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

[cricket]

Given our options; 'remaining true to ourselves' by this definition, does not work, IMHO. It is as much a recipe for disaster as is the Demrat insistance, that we 'withdraw from Iraq'.

All things are not equal here; including the 'the lesser of two evils'.

The act of 'throwing another, under the bus' so as to consider one's self-interest has become a 'national pastime' lateley. A Hillary or an Obama 'win'; would do just that to our Military.

I would reccomend that a good Conservative support McCain; at least vote for him; and for our Repub Party. . .and then ensure that McCain has more of the Right Congressional 'company' in two years.

Also, if 'we' are not there, behind him - now; he has only one Constituency to please exclusively. The more 'friends' McCain can rely on' along the way here - the better. (Unlike Hillary or Obama; McCain's problem is more an 'ignorance' rather than an ideological committment.) There are cracks of 'light' that can be enlarged here. Beyond our Military; there are at least, some caveats; some hope while we work to restore. . .and the closer 'we' are to power here at home; the more advantageous our efforts.

So, throwing our Military 'under the bus' is not - IMHO an option. The tire here will be on every soldier's face; and ours as well.

(Our withdrawing from this fight; is no different than 'Demrat Iraq strategy'). . .

We are expecting our soldiers to stay engaged in Iraq so as to influence and so they/we may succeed. They fight on behalf of an Iraq that is both 'for them' and against them. We need to do the same, re OUR home-grown enemy; not manipulating 'lesser evils'; but keeping in mind, the greatest of evils.)

[Dixie Yooper]

But we are still going to get screwed. Count on it.

We should all be getting used to it by now... Expect the worst, hope for the best and above all else, deal with it!

[Kozak]

I CANNOT make myself vote for the man. Can’t do it. I won’t vote for any Rat, but for the first time since Ford I won’t be voting for the R for POTUS ( and I campaigned for Goldwater and Nixon before that!). I’m beside myself that the GOP has a golden opportunity to pull this out with the fratricide on the Rat side, when 6 months ago it looked like a lost cause, and we end up with HIM as our candidate....