Posted on 05/23/2008 11:08:25 AM PDT by pissant
I've never been a fan of John McCain. Not only is he not a conservative, he may have done more damage to the conservative movement than any other Republican over the last few years. Look back at the Gang-of-14, global warming, McCain-Feingold, coddling terrorists at Gitmo, illegal immigration -- on and on and on, and you'll remember John McCain working feverishly with liberals to defeat conservatives.
For that reason, John McCain was not someone I backed for the Presidency. My order of preference for President was Duncan Hunter (whom I consulted for), Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and then, John McCain. That's why, right before his big win in Florida, I wrote an extra column for Townhall called A Conservative Nightmare: Republican Nominee, John McCain.
Still, even in that column, which was meant to discourage people from voting for John McCain, I wrote,
Now, am I saying that Republicans should vote for a third party or stay home if John McCain is the nominee? Absolutely not. I don't believe in protest votes and besides, the presidency is bigger than any one issue.
After McCain took Florida and was practically a lock to capture the nomination, in keeping with my belief that it benefits conservatives to support the most conservative nominee, I wrote two columns called, Why You're Going To Vote For John McCain In November And Like It! & There's Nothing Conservative Or Principled About Helping A Democrat Beat John McCain In November.
I also got myself invited to McCain's teleconferences, raised money for him through Slatecard, and believe it or not, even contributed $25 to his campaign.
Admittedly that was tough for me because I wasn't a fan of the guy, but I believed that I had a responsibility, for whatever it was worth, to try to set an example. That was despite the fact that fighting amnesty is extremely important to me and John McCain was the chief Republican proponent of amnesty.
Of course, McCain claimed that he had changed his tune. Yes, he still supported amnesty, but he said he had heard the message that the American people were sending him and that he had been convinced that we needed security first, before we pursued an amnesty.
McCain said this over and over and over and over again. For example, here's John McCain in November of 2007,
John McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants.
Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later.
"I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift," McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. "I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."
Here's John McCain in February of 2008,
On the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign. I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.
Here's John McCain, answering a question that I posed to him about illegal immigration on April 28, 2008:
As the recent immigration debate demonstrated, Americans have little trust that their government will honor a pledge to do the things necessary to make our border secure. As president, I will honor that pledge by securing the border, thus strengthening our national security. I will also require that, among other things, border-state governors certify that the border is secure before proceeding to other reform measures. However, I also believe that our immigration system must recognize that America will always be that "shining city upon a hill," a beacon of hope and opportunity for those seeking a better life built on hard work and optimism. Once we achieve border security, we must ensure that we approach our remaining immigration challenges with constructive dialogue and solutions that reflect a compassionate approach and the needs of our economy.
So, what you see here is that McCain has said, again and again, that he no longer supports comprehensive immigration reform. To the contrary, he has been saying that we need security first and then -- and only then -- could we consider moving forward with an amnesty.
Granted, I didn't trust McCain on this issue and I'd prefer never to have an amnesty, but still, a security first position beats comprehensive immigration reform.
On the other hand, after spending more than 6 months touting a security first position, winning the nomination only because he abandoned his pro-comprehensive immigration position, and running as "Mr. Straight Talk," I thought McCain would be reluctant to break his security first pledge once he got into office.
That's why I was more than a little bit disturbed when John McCain said the following last week,
"We get in this kind of a circular firing squad on immigration reform in the Congress of the United States and the lesson I learned from it is we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform."
Although the campaign didn't follow that up with any releases saying that McCain slipped up, I noticed that McCain seemed to be going back to his security first position when he was asked about immigration. So, I decided to ask the campaign about it and yesterday, I posted on the issue.
Here was my conclusion,
"What that leads me to believe is that McCain just screwed up, slipped into his old comprehensive illegal immigration rhetoric, and then, because the issue is so radioactive for him, decided he would be better off just leaving it alone rather than trying to explain it."
Incidentally, that conclusion? It wasn't just a guess. It was backed up by off-the-record comments that I'm not going to discuss in detail right now.
So, with that in mind, imagine my chagrin when I saw these comments in the New York Times last night (emphasis mine):
After several of the business leaders complained about the difficulty in obtaining temporary H1B visas for scientists and engineers, something the Senate immigration bill was supposed to address, Mr. McCain expressed regret the measure did not pass, calling it a personal “failure,” as well as one by the federal government.
“Senator Kennedy and I tried very hard to get immigration reform, a comprehensive plan, through the Congress of the United States,” he said. “It is a federal responsibility and because of our failure as a federal obligation, we’re seeing all these various conflicts and problems throughout our nation as different towns, cities, counties, whatever they are, implement different policies and different programs which makes things even worse and even more confusing.”
He added: “I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”
Mr. McCain asked others on the panels for suggestions about how to “better mobilize American public opinion” behind the notion of comprehensive immigration reform.
Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes pledge," except that Bush's father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.
Under these circumstances, I simply cannot continue to support a man like John McCain for the presidency. Since that is the case, I have already written the campaign and asked them to take me off of their mailing list and to no longer send me invitations to their teleconferences. I see no point in asking questions to a man who has no compunction about lying through his teeth on one of the most crucial election issues and then changing his position the first time he believes he can get away with it.
Moreover, I genuinely regret having to do this because I do still believe the country would be better off with John McCain as President as opposed to Obama or Clinton. However, I just cannot in good conscience cast a vote for a man who has told this big of a lie, for this long, about this important of an issue.
That being said, although I cannot back John McCain, encourage others to vote for him, or contribute any more money to his campaign, I'm not going to tell you that you should do that same thing. What McCain has done here is a bridge too far for me, but others may not have as big a problem with being told this sort of lie. That's their decision.
Furthermore, I will defend John McCain when I think he deserves to be defended, excoriate Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton at every opportunity, and I will continue to stand behind the sort of Republican candidates who actually deserve conservative support. But, what I will not do is vote for John McCain in November.
In 1996, voters unhappy with the Republican nominee Bob Dole again offered their support for Ross Perot, who had no real chance to win the office. Bill Clinton again won the election with less than fifty percent of the popular vote.
The lesson learned is that no matter how much we might dislike it, the cold, hard reality is that we have only two real choices if we want to make our votes count for something.
As much as I hate to say it, a vote for anyone but McCain in the general election will in effect be a vote for Obama.
In my opinion, this is not acceptable. Everything we dislike about McCain will also be found in an Obama presidency. In addition to those things, Obama will appoint leftists to the Supreme Court, will compromise the security of our nation by giving legitimacy to tyrants, and will be more than happy to partner with Congress to raise taxes and limit freedom and personal liberties.
To me the choice is clear. I might not like it, but I love my country more than I disagree with John McCain.
The wagon train was well into hostile territory when smoke signals were spotted. The order to circle the wagons went out. As the Indians gathered on the ridge a squabble broke out within the wagon circle. The last words heard as the raiding party swarmed the wagons were “If he’s gonna be givin’ orders, I ain’t a’gonna shoot. And besides, I only shoot Sharps, I ain’t gonna handle no Remington.”
My query of Mr. Hawkins:
"Dude, what took you so long?"
I agree, he ain’t alone.
We don’t need a consultant, but thanks for the tip.
Aren’t you french posting from france? I’m pretty sure your blog is. Correct me if I’m wrong?
Nonsense. - Your sentence is internally inconsistent and contrary in one part to it's other.
Anything that harms the Conservative movement harms this country, and the last I noted this Conservative forum is The Free Republic, not the Free Republican.
Conservative thought is the last bulwark against America finally being made into a 3rd world miasma.
Therefore, the question is which candidate will do more harm to the conservative movement.
That’s a sure path to destruction of the republic. Settling for what they give us got us to this sorry point. Doing more of the same will finish us.
Seriously, just vote for Obama. Hell, I’ll send you a Obama/Hillary bumper sticker.
LOL Here, let me put the correct spin on that:
Because, if you support McCain, your lovely conservative candidates won’t be able to take back the country anytime soon because there won’t be any country to lead anymore.
>your lovely conservative candidates??
This is a conservative forum, in case you missed that point.
First of all, Mr. Hawkins, according to your biography on Town Hall, you list absolutely no military service so, IMHO, you’re not fit to even shine John McCain’s shoes. Perhaps we should call you “Mr. Chikenhawkins” because you’re so much like the neocon crowd around here who, despite pledging such a fierce love for this country, cannot seem to get off a computer to see a recruiter.
Secondly, by not supporting McCain, you and all the other Rushbot FReeper crowd are ensuring Obama’s presidency so I won’t really give a fig about your complaints when it comes to your carping about liberal judical appointments, high tax rates, and, if they come to take any of your Constitutional rights (fairness doctrine for radio, gun control) I don’t intend to help you one iota in defending your rights—I’ll be living somewhere in the hinterlands of Alaska, armed and dangerous.
Sorry. Ain’t voting for Juan McCain. I’ll write in and stick to my values.
I see the GOP as moving leftward, rapidly. Bush finally capitualted (soemwhat) on global warming, McCain is its biggest cheerleader next to Algore, the RNC put McCain’s globull warming crap up on their website, the power brokers in the GOP all supported Mccain, Rudy or Mitt, they colluded with the TV networks to work the rules to ace out Hunter of the last debates, the GOP congress just sided with the dems to override President Bush’s farm bill veto, Amnesty is all but assured, etc, etc.
Time to start over.
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.