Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McCain and the Bitter Conservatives
American Thinker ^ | June 15, 2008 | Andrew Sumereau

Posted on 06/15/2008 12:57:09 AM PDT by neverdem

John McCain is clearly the preferable option for conservative voters come November. Although liberal in his views toward immigration, government intrusion in free speech, environmental issues, campaign finance reform, health care, education mandates, and a host of other issues that run contrary to conservative orthodoxy, McCain is solid on two (alas, two) vital issues that make the difference; spending and judges. From the frustration of eight years of a Republican Administration that began with so much hope and promise it pains one to say it, but there it is.

Against the prospects of a President Obama, McCain wins.

A victim of circumstances and timing in many ways, Senator McCain carries the sins of Bush and the free-spending Republicans into the 2008 election minus any counter balancing virtues. The coming election has an eerie deja-vu feeling. The Democrat nominee is young, glib, dare one say it, slick; beloved by a media most happy to shield him from criticism. He is facing a cranky old Republican Senator with visible war wounds, famous for his temper, and viewed with apprehension by the religious right.

In addition, John McCain is detested, and deservedly so, by many Republicans of all types. Beyond issue and policy differences, and they are legion, his personality grates. His conceit of "straight-talk" and "maverick"-like independence so superficially applauded (up until now) by the mainstream media is almost Clintonesque in its narcissism. If only other politicians had his courage, he implies, things would be fixed straightaway. The big special interests have all the other elected officials in their pockets. Only Maverick-John tells it like it is! Yet the truth is that McCain could serve well as poster boy of the arrogant elitist beltway insider, friend of Hillary and Ted, foe of the unwashed. The party habit of selecting the next in line (e.g. Dole) has rarely produced such an unappealing candidate at such a critical time. In many ways he reminds one of Adlai Stevenson, who famously frustrated his supporters with his holier-than-thou ways during two failed contests against the popular broad-smiling Ike.

Despite what will surely be the focus of McCain's campaign, foreign policy and experience will not decide this election for conservative voters. One may point to the war in Iraq as the defining issue come November and see a big advantage for McCain. Not necessarily so. History will decide the wisdom of our foreign policy over the last seven years, whether the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were a legitimate response to the threat of organized terror, or the overreaction of predisposed warriors intent on using the events of 9/11 to democratize the Middle East.

It is clear, in the short term that a McCain administration will cling to the ongoing military effort. He is a very sure bet on a continuation of aggressive and largely unilateral foreign policy. But unlike domestic issues, Presidents, as Truman said, "ride the Tiger" in foreign affairs.  They are controlled by events and often forced into moves at odds with their original intentions. Bush came into office as a critic of nation building and yet leaves committed to the rebuilding of Iraq. Johnson's Great Society fell victim to his own escalation of the Vietnam War. Clinton sent troops to Haiti. As Chief Executive of the federal branch they must protect our borders and command the military by constitutional decree. Democrats, even Carter, have found that once in office the requirements and prerogatives of military power seldom are resisted.

On domestic issues it is no better. He is with Kennedy on education and immigration, with Fiengold on campaign finance, with Gore on the environment. For the committed conservative, he speaks and acts as Bush-lite without the few rhetorical bones thrown in for appearance's sake. Each day, it seems, he appears to make a pronouncement, or suggest a policy, or chastise an enthusiastic supporter, in order to please the main-stream media and send conservatives off wailing and gnashing their teeth.   

So the question of the day is how can a candidate that turns off a large portion of his base, who will most certainly be put on the defensive by a biased media, who appears old and uncool to the great unlettered new generation of voters, succeed?

"Front Porch" campaigns put several Republicans in the White House starting with Abraham Lincoln. In the good old days Presidential candidates found it undignified and unbecoming to campaign for votes all over the country. They let their surrogates and followers go through the unending exercises so necessary yet so unseemly in the election process. Incessant bragging, boasting, and cajoling, voicing hypocritical platitudes, and bribing voters with empty promises and spending sprees in search of Utopia was not the stuff of our Founding Fathers. McCain would benefit from a restoration of this practice but in the age of 24/7 cable news and Internet blogs this is not practical.

McCain must recognize that he has some substantial advantages, chiefly his opponent's weaknesses. Also, conservatives, though unhappy, will do the right thing for the country if only through a sense of duty. Further, experience and genuine heroism are good to have on your resume.

But McCain also must recognize the depth of conservative despondency. He will not win by giving his base a reason to stay home. Unlike liberals, conservatives have lives and interests outside politics that serve as outlets for the impulse to do good and improve the world. And they are angry and demoralized, make no mistake.

For many voters and activists, thirty years of hard work in the conservative fields has produced a bitter harvest of uncontrolled spending, judicial legislation, preposterous congressional pork barrel earmarks, uncontrolled borders, and arrogance.

McCain is in a fight against the manufactured illusions of "hope" and history.  He needs every vote he can manage. Before he once again decides to berate conservatives, propose liberal policies, befriend the political opposition and (why?) laud the Clintons, he should perhaps better find a nice photogenic porch. Sit on the porch. Do this and conservatives on November 5th will surely hold their noses and pull the lever for what is best for the country.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bitterconservatives; conservativism; democratsbestfriend; liberal; liberalvalues; mccain; obama; rino; socialistmccain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-214 next last
To: neverdem

“Also, conservatives, though unhappy, will do the right thing for the country if only through a sense of duty.”

If the author considers the “right” thing to be voting for Sen. McCain, then I agree with him so far as his prediction is concerned. The vast bulk of conservatives will vote for Sen. McCain. But it won’t be enough. The 15-25% who choose to stay home or vote third party will sink any chance of Sen. McCain becoming President.

I’m not sure that a GOP candidate who was absolutely adored by the conservative base could pull this off. The country has moved to the left. Sen. McCain is attempting to address that by moving to the left himself. (Not that it takes much effort on his part.) The problem is that given the choice between socialism-lite and a bonafide socialist, voters will most likely pick the real thing.

This is Sen. Obama’s election to lose. And I don’t see him losing it.


121 posted on 06/15/2008 6:22:02 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman; SumProVita; Caipirabob
I'll always have a job . As long as people drink, do drugs, smoke, eat till they puke and are stupid I'll always have a job.

I'm thinking about the differences between the two. There really are only a few and those are

1-McCain doesn't hate white people, only conservative, Christian white people.

2-He "won't pull us out of Iraq till WE WIN". - My point has and always will be... Iraq isn't ever going to be "won". Iraq isn't the war. The so called "war" is a GLOBAL guerilla war against capitalism, Christianity and freedom. In other words the Islamic world (all over the entire world) is trying for our destruction. So Iraq is only a funding source and base of operations that had the technology for producing chemical and possibly nuclear weapons. The dictator in charge is gone and his country is in unrest.

Good.

So we will and are in a power vacuum like what happened to Yugoslavia after Tito died. That worked out well didn't it?

3-The next president isn't going to get to choose Iran's future, or to sit down and "talk HARD DIPLOMACY" (like that idiot obamalamadingdong yaps about, whatever that is)........ Israel is going to decided for the world what we're going to do. Cause Israel is NEVER going to let the Iranians have a nuke.

So we'll have the specter of an idiot, race baiting shuck and jive artist claiming the Israeli's or the Iranians are "racists"..... or McCain slobbering about having to reach across the aisle with his f'ing "good friends" (ugh!) to come to a consensus about the threat of Iranian aggression as it destroys or paralyzes all oil in the mid-east..... and also thinking about both sons having to serve in that sh#thole.

It's one thing to put yourself in danger, it's quite another to put BOTH you sons in a FAO with high probability of getting in harm's way.

I just think it would be funny to see the dems with feces all over their stupid faces as this whole fiasco comes to a head.

Did I mention the militarization of our southern border. Well for all you Hispanic haters..... we've got more. Venezuela and Columbia aren't going to turn into pleasant havens of good will and democracy. The blood letting there is going to make El Salvador and Guatemala look like a neighborhood fist fight. (I know from ground level, personal experience how that went down, trust me)

So in other words either b#tt-muncher is going to have one term. I say, cut our losses and regroup. vote for conservative legislators to block the criminally insane liberal legislation, and hold on for 2-4 years till my son is of draft age and I really start giving a d#mn what these so called "candidates" do with us.

sorry for the rant, but it's Father's Day.... I earned it.

Taxes-going up

Global warming-no difference

Abortion-puhleeze. that's just a scam that the republicans mouth so that the Christians can hold their noses and vote..... Think about it. We are NEVER going to stop women from cramming a tube into a baby's skull, injecting chemicals and murdering them by making a law. That's a MORAL choice, even if Roe-v-Wade is overturned the state of California and Northern Mexico will have a great tourist destination with low cost abortion mills and all you can drink and eat resorts.

Think about all the talk about abortion this and that, it's used as a tool for rhetoric and will never be outlawed.

Gay Marriage-who give a cr#p? It's a civil thing NOT a religious thing. If homosexuals like to fully employ lawyers, go for it. what a joke-celibacy. another bone thrown to conservative Christians. Think about Cheney's daughter and the fact that she's in a relationship that produced a kid.....get it? wow, isn't that just "special".

So there you are..... we've got a liberal versus an idiot, communist.....

Happy Father's day.... we all earned it.

122 posted on 06/15/2008 6:28:09 AM PDT by Dick Vomer (liberals suck....... but it depends on what your definition of the word "suck" is.,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

That is a pretty immature analysis. I was speaking of water as lawn watering, not sustinence.

For a commodity that is discretionary, this is an applicable analogy.


123 posted on 06/15/2008 6:30:19 AM PDT by wireplay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: wireplay
That is a pretty immature analysis. I was speaking of water as lawn watering, not sustinence.

No it's not. Part of your water bill is sustinence.

Again, if you had said, "I am going to drill my own well" that would have been innovative and using your own resources. How is rearranging the piping innovative?

124 posted on 06/15/2008 6:33:54 AM PDT by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: wireplay
I am in favor of nuclear and want plants built ASAP. So much of that invective.

And what is the likelihood that that will be done and how long will it take before any of the power can be provided to the market? This is a medium to long term solution.

Amazing that you state I have no insight into economics and yet you know nothing about my education or experience.

I can only judge your level of expertise by what you say. If you think that rising energy costs are a good thing, then you don't understand how those costs will affect business and the consumer.

You approach complex problems like you approach arguments: charge and shoot, and hope for the best.

In psychology, that is called projection. You have been telecomuting to work for ten years working from home. You pay a $800 a month water bill and postpone buying a new car because you had to replace your sewage pipes. From your ivory tower, you have lost touch with reality. You sound like Al Gore preaching the need for reducing our carbon footprint while building a 30,000 ft2 house and jetting around the globe.

When confronted with reality, you prefer to rely on emotion and empty platitudes. Optimism is not a substitute for action nor is it a solution. Of one thing you can be very sure, we will not wean ourselves off of oil in ten years no matter what you say.

125 posted on 06/15/2008 6:35:59 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: wireplay
A personal observation.

This country will crash BIG TIME by the time alternatives are found, if we continue to not drill for the 300 billion barrels of oil we have in the west, Alaska and off the coast. And for what. Fish? Caribou? Bugs? The cost of oil effects, directly and indirectly, almost every aspect of our lives.

And then there's the problems with those technologies [example: hybrids. What happens when all those batteries (read heavy metals) have to be dumped]. They don't know. And they haven't thought it out.

And believe me, the folks who really push alternatives are Luddites. I live in New York, on Long Island. They stopped a nuclear power plant [too dangerous], hydro-power from Quebec [the electric cables under the Sound were bad for the fish], a coal fired plant [bad for the air]; and are currently in the process of stopping a natural gas barge [too dangerous again] and a wind farm in the Sound [bad for the birds]. They won't be happy ‘til we flood the fields, grow peat, wait a million years, and burn that.

Want an energy program? Repeal state and federal gas tax. Have the federal government preempt energy policy and start building nuclear power plants. Modify or dump the Clean Air Act, and build more refineries [tax credits]. Junk, or modify the Endangered Species Act; and drill in Alaska, the Dakotas, Montana, and off the California Coast. Lower tariff and other barriers to Canadian oil shale oil. Invest in its development. Give tax credits, and interest free loans to developers of PRACTICAL AND EFFECTIVE alternate energy processes.

In a century or so, we may be able to be off oil. But the infrastructure isn't ready, and change [unless you're Urkel]isn't going to come that quickly, or in the magnitude needed in the short haul.

Oh, yeah. And it would be a dynamite issue for any GOP candidate. Except THIS GOP candidate

126 posted on 06/15/2008 6:36:53 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: wireplay
Churchill is the greatest man of the 20th century IMO.

Churchill? Churchill? Who's that?

That's what today's UK school kids would ask, and all future generations.

He has been banned from English textbooks.

Yes, he has.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/13/1977438.htm?section=justin

I corresponded with his grandson, a current member the House of Commons, who emailed me:

"Dear ...,

Thank you very much for the extremely generous and welcome support you sent me about my grandfather.

It is always a source of immense satisfaction that so many of your fellow countrymen cherish his memory and I can assure you that we, his family, are deeply grateful.

Thank you again very much.

With warm best wishes.

Nicholas Soames

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

127 posted on 06/15/2008 6:42:47 AM PDT by maine-iac7 (Typical Gun-Toting, Jesus-Loving Gramma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777
I can not see how helping nobomba would help my conservative beliefs. Him and his Democrat majority would destroy what we have and change what hope we have. McCain would not be able to accomplish that much.
128 posted on 06/15/2008 6:42:55 AM PDT by Big Horn (I am bitter, I just want to eat my waffle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PzLdr

I am a “drill through a caribou’s head for oil” kind of person.

However, we need a massive oil commitment today but let’s also preach alternatives.

Go nuclear, drill more, refine more, build solar, etc. As conservatives, we need to say “ we want something else but we’ll keep everything running now”. That is a simple message. If we maintain the view that all we care about is propping up big oil, we will continue to lose votes.

We need a national commitment for changing from oil to whatever. Bush has never really made it a national priority. To defeat terrorism, goal #1 should have been get off of oil. If the US pulls out of the oil economy in any significant measure, it will have significant ripple effects.


129 posted on 06/15/2008 6:44:45 AM PDT by wireplay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

H elives beyond current school curriculum. Like Genghis Khan, Gandhi, Alexeander, Achilles, etc. he is beyond historical irrelevance.

Churchill is great and will always remain so. Nothing can take away from what he did during WWII.


130 posted on 06/15/2008 6:50:02 AM PDT by wireplay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter
hmmm - my daughter lived in Canada for 3 years with her hubby who on deployment there (on loan to the RCAF) = she said the system was convoluted in many ways - and that the ER;s were filthy...

There are a plethora of witnesses to the system that negates your praise of it.

In particular, you state that the acute get immediate attention (debatable) but the chronic gets in line - Yeah, until they're finally acute or dead.

131 posted on 06/15/2008 6:54:05 AM PDT by maine-iac7 (Typical Gun-Toting, Jesus-Loving Gramma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

John McCain - The 5% Solution!

Just inspires you to give it your all, doesn’t it...


132 posted on 06/15/2008 6:56:47 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (He's old, pale and stale - McCain in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: wireplay
Unfortunately, your opinion on alternative energy is not based on present reality. Nor the reality of the next 50 years. The only current alternative is nuclear.

If McCain wants a conservative turnout, he had better offer something more realistic than "green" answers. Like this:

Short term (10 years) DRILL;

Medium term (20 years) nuclear, along with development of electric cars that actually perform (a bone to the greens);

Long term (30-50 years) Manhattan project to develop a method of making and using hydrogen that does not involve petroleum.

Any current "green" solution is bunk, and being uphill energetically, will bankrupt the country. Somebody has to pay for the government incentives to do the impossible.

133 posted on 06/15/2008 7:05:55 AM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

> There are a plethora of witnesses to the system that negates your praise of it.

I certainly praised the New Zealand system. The Canadian system got praise from me only to the extent that if you are acute you will get treated irrespective of your personal financial circumstances. Pretty much immediately.

I think I also said that it “sucked” that there was no choice.

> In particular, you state that the acute get immediate attention (debatable) but the chronic gets in line - Yeah, until they’re finally acute or dead.

The acute most certainly get immediate attention. That is what the ambulances and emergency departments are for. I am unaware of any Canadian being turned away from hospital after an acute injury like a car accident or suchlike.

They certainly do have waiting lists for chronic or elective patients, and they suck too. What truly sucks is that there is no option to pay extra and go private in Canada.

Even so, many (most?) Americans would be darn grateful for having a system that worked even as well as Canada’s.


134 posted on 06/15/2008 7:08:46 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Sorry. During the Bush 8 my expenses have gone up, my income has gone down. I stand in security lines at the airport. I am not better off than I was 8 years ago. No Bush III for me. Bring back conservatism that I can believe in. I’m voting Third. I won’t win but I didn’t waste my vote either.


135 posted on 06/15/2008 7:20:04 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wireplay
If we maintain the view that all we care about is propping up big oil, we will continue to lose votes.

Phony strawman that just isn't true. And the American people are changing their minds about the need to have access to our own domestic sources of energy, including oil and coal. According to recent polls, 57% of Americans now favor drilling in national wildlife reserves and offshore, up from 40% not too long ago. It is not a matter of "propping up big oil," but gaining access to our domestic sources of energy. The USG has been a road block to these efforts along with the environmental whackos who have heretofore been dominating the debate.

Actions have consequences. Being in favor of more domestic drilling is really a winning issue. FYI: The Reps have always been in favor of alternatives and conservation as part of a total energy plan. It is the MSM and Dems who have distorted our position. You seem to believe that propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

We need a national commitment for changing from oil to whatever. Bush has never really made it a national priority. To defeat terrorism, goal #1 should have been get off of oil. If the US pulls out of the oil economy in any significant measure, it will have significant ripple effects.

The Reps have had the best energy plan for this country. It is the Dems who believe we can conserve our way out of this crisis and who have stopped access to our own resources. It is a crisis of our own making. The lack of oil is not the problem. Actions have consequences. We have shackled ourselves mading us more dependent on foreign sources of energy. Government is the problem, not the solution.

136 posted on 06/15/2008 7:26:52 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter
yeah, New Zealand is just the best..... cause socialized medicine is really good.

I guess that's why they've just got doctors lining up to work there.... right?

want ads for locum tenums doctors in the nirvana of New Zealand. Click here for info

New Zealand is where all the richest people fly to for there cancer treatment, transplants, rehabilitative medicine, prosthetic technology, gene therapy....

If we excluded certain violent subsets of our population our life expectancy and health "rankings" make other countries pale. We don't have a homogenous population like Japan, Scandinavian countries.

If you are over 65 and fracture your hip do you know when you're operated on in Canada, New Zealand, England.... is that classified as an emergency or urgent surgery? Say granny falls down and has a femoral neck fracture, when does granny get her surgery?

Why do you think Canadians come across to Seattle, Detroit, upstate New York for surgeries?

Now say you've had head aches? CT scans or MRI's, when do you think you'd get that? In Canada a vet clinic opened after hours to allow CT scans to be done by private payers. Guess what? It was deemed unfair, so it was outlawed. Beauty, eh?

I've been in Europe and other parts of the world, if you're healthy socialized medicine is just great. Otherwise, your life is in the hands of a bureaucrat and some animals are more equal than others.

137 posted on 06/15/2008 7:37:07 AM PDT by Dick Vomer (liberals suck....... but it depends on what your definition of the word "suck" is.,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
here ya go

Photobucket

or

Photobucket

138 posted on 06/15/2008 7:45:39 AM PDT by Dick Vomer (liberals suck....... but it depends on what your definition of the word "suck" is.,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter
"and it is even better in the optional “private” system."

Bingo

139 posted on 06/15/2008 7:48:54 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Election '08, the year McCain defined the word "dilemma")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: xzins
John McCain will appoint what his experience in the Senate says will get through without much difficulty; i.e., moderates.

That is probably the best we can realistically expect - a far left Justice will retire and McCain will pick a "moderate" Justice who may not be quite as bad as the far leftist Justice he replaced. The best we can hope for with McCain is that things stay more or less the same.

On the other hand, Obama is not going to agonize over whether a potential Justice is "moderate" enough. Oh, no. Obama will pick the most radical, anti-American judges he can find. There was recently a story about a leftist judge somewhere who keeps portraits of Marx and Che Guevara in his office. Even McCain, in all his "work across the isle" fury, would not nominate such a person but Obama surely would. Make no mistake about it, Obama's idea of "balance" on the Supreme Court would be to nominate Stalinists and Maoists.

There has been much talk about what a McCain win would do to the Republican Party. I have not heard much talk about what it would do to the moonbat wing of the Democrat Party if Obama loses by a landslide. The way the Democrat Party is structured, it favors the far left. I don't expect the Democrats to learn much or reform themselves, but if Obana suffered a stunning loss it might disrupt the strategy of the moonbat extremists.

140 posted on 06/15/2008 8:02:52 AM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (True or False? This is not a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-214 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson