McCain and the Bitter Conservatives

American Thinker ^ | June 15, 2008 | Andrew Sumereau

[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 5^th will surely hold their noses and pull the lever for what is best for the country.

[PzLdr]

Oh, I’ll hold my nose and vote for Johnnie Mac. But for the author to claim McCain was a conservative on judicial picks was just a bit much.

[neverdem]

When you lot sneeze, we catch pneumonia.

Bush's exit helps U.S. image abroad, survey shows

That's a common expression that the U.S. tends to forget in favor of the envy angle. Thanks for reminding me.

[neverdem]

He's Bob Dole without the sense of humor.

So far, that's the best line on the thread. At least Bob Dole had a sense of party loyalty.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> That’s a common expression that the U.S. tends to forget in favor of the envy angle. Thanks for reminding me.

Bush has been a great war-time President, both for the US and for the rest of the world — under the circumstances, I don’t really see how he could have done better. And so it is that I look on with fascinated horror at the upcoming elections: the idiots amongst us in NZ are hoping for Obama, or Hillary! — anything but a good steady hand at the tiller of the Ship of State.

McCain? I dunno about McCain except what I read on the FRee Republic, and what I’ve gleaned of his War Record, and what I’ve been able to surmise on the information that is publicly available.

Of the three? He’d be my pick. But I’d be happier with someone like, say, Ollie North.

I do not understand how it is that the GOP got to this point, where a large percentage of Conservatives are unhappy with their candidate. I do understand, however, that at this time last year I was warning about the absence of a strong candidate for the Conservatives — here on the FRee Republic. I was told that there was plenty of time...

(check the posting histories if you doubt it.)

Overseas it matters a great deal to us whom America chooses as its next President. Like I said, when you lot sneeze, we catch pneumonia.

Please, choose wisely! Do not waste your vote.

God Bless America
*DieHard*

[DieHard the Hunter]

> And it’s just as wrong to take my money to pay for some else’s health care.

I guess that depends upon whether your idea of a perfect civilization resembles a good game of “Survivor” or a good game of Rugby.

And whether you believe in selfishness or selflessness.

It comes down to core values, I guess.

Here in New Zealand we prefer to live and work and fight as rugged individuals who belong on a team, and we finish as a team. We don’t leave any of our own behind.

The Spartans were like that. And, by reputation, many of America’s enduring institutions (like the Marines) are also like that.

We’ve just done all that on an entire-Society basis, that’s all.

[neverdem]

I do not understand how it is that the GOP got to this point, where a large percentage of Conservatives are unhappy with their candidate.

Conservatives split their votes. The rest is history.

RNC Last Chance to Fix 2012 Primaries

As I wrote back in January, “According to a Fox News exit poll, 32% of the Michigan Republican primary voters identified themselves as independents or Democrats. Another Fox exit poll showed 20% of the South Carolina Republican primary voters said they were either Democrats or independents. In Michigan, Gov. Romney won with 39%, Sen. McCain was second at 30% and Gov. Huckabee third at 16%. In South Carolina, John McCain won with 33% of the vote, Mike Huckabee had 30% and Fred Thompson had 16%. Given those margins, it’s pretty clear that the Dems and independents controlled the result in both states.”

Open primaries killed the conservatives' hopes.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Hell, we got tired of boxing and decided on mixed martial arts as a “game”.

Not a bad start: at least you’re moving away from football with pads and moving toward contact sports (albeit with far too many rules).

Soon you will graduate to competitive Yoga, and the next step might even be Rhythmic Gymnastics if you work hard at it. Learn how to skate from the Canadians and you might even try ice-dancing and figure-skating.

When you get into proper contact sports, you will need sports medicine. That will be the time to visit New Zealand.

[SumProVita]

I was moved by your apology because it takes a good level of maturity and humility...and we seem to see less and less of those characteristics/virtues these days. Thank you. A large number of Hispanics that I know are VERY impressed with the fact that in the United States we adhere to the law.

You said, “Illegals are going to be made into the largest democrat party voting block due to the fact that they don’t understand we are a Republic and not a democracy. Many Mexicans and south Americans think like the New Zealander who posted here, that if the government “gives” you something, it’s free.”

This is something that concerns me. That is why we must take steps to educate and assimilate new immigrants.

You said. “Obama might be president, but he isn’t doing anything without congress.”

This is what worries me even more. I think this Congress may wreak terrible havoc upon this country in unison with Obama. At least with McCain there is the possibility of a veto for the most outrageous proposals.

You said, “I’m hunkering down, praying and voting for conservative legislators.”

THIS is extremely important. By praying for and working for VIRTUOUS conservative legislators, we will ensure a better future. I will also vote for and PRAY daily for McCain.

You are in Texas. I have a number of cousins there (in the Dallas area). I live in the beautiful state of Tennessee and our family members are all Vols fans!

I sincerely wish you the best. ;-)

[GBA]

"I guess that depends upon whether your idea of a perfect civilization resembles a good game of “Survivor” or a good game of Rugby. And whether you believe in selfishness or selflessness. It comes down to core values, I guess."

A "perfect" civilization would not steal from one to give to another with the ulterior motives of securing political support and elected office. Socialized medicine, though perhaps N.Z. is an exception, creates more problems than it solves while creating a huge, inefficient bureaucracy that more often than not gets between patients and the care they need. Moreover, it promotes the false notions that medical care is both free and a right while raising the price of care for all of us.

We would do better to adopt your country's legal reforms first and see how that goes before ruining our system even more by socializing it. Then we should abolish the HMOs. I don't have insurance and am charged less for care as a result.

[navymom1]

Yeah, the article basically says what I’ve been posting for the past month, McCain knows he has the Conservative vote, (Conservatives won’t sit home and allow a Marxist Socialist win the White House), and this fact FREES McCain to treat Conservatives with total disdain. In short, the Country Club Establishment is once more in charge of the Republican Party and is claiming the legacy of Reagan. How pathetic.

[curiosity]

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.

So sad, and yet so true.

[El Gato]

Here in New Zealand we prefer to live and work and fight as rugged individuals who belong on a team, and we finish as a team. We don’t leave any of our own behind. The Spartans were like that. And, by reputation, many of America’s enduring institutions (like the Marines) are also like that.

The Marines, and the rest of Military, also demand that each individual does their job, pulls their own weight, and helps others.

When a service or benefit is "free", too many who are not pulling their own weight, or even making an effort, go along for the ride. If the provider attempts to eliminate those, they invariably eliminate the deserving as well.

Besides, we do have a system of essentially free care, at a minimal standard. Virtually every county or city of any size has a facility that anyone without the means can go to for 'acute' care. Yeh they probably have to wait longer than in the so called private hospitals, but even the latter must take anyone who shows up for "acute" care, switching them off to the "public" hospital, or in smaller places, sending a much reduced bill to the county or state. We do pay for that with our taxes, just not at the national level. Especially in a place a big as the US, the more decentralized system works better, and originally health care was beyond the powers granted to the national government(and legally still is). Once the national government, and in some cases the state governments when the system was run at the county level, stick their bureaucratic noses in, the system tends to move toward the "free for everyone" sort of deal, with the attendant abuses.

As an example, a county I lived in for 10 years, and still have a home and pay taxes, once had a privately run "Orphanage and Old folks home". It was a nice facility for it's time. the county paid for some of the cost for the orphans. The Old folks provided adult oversight of the kids, and paid some amount themselves. The kids helped with the "chores", such as washing, doing dishes, cleaning up, and so forth. The old folks also provided love, which the orphans needed more than anything, since some were really abandoned, rather than orphaned. The orphans also loved in return. then the state decided that that was "Child Labor", "Exploitation", etc. and separated the groups, causing the Old Folks home to become insolvent. The buildings still stand as a monument to the folly of over centralization. Probably not for long, developement is very near, and the property was sold some years ago. Meanwhile the old folks of today are in sterile "old folks only" facilities, at much higher expense for the state, and the kids are in foster homes, where the foster parent(s) is paid for taking them in and where they are far more often exploited and abused than was the case in the older facility which had lots of eyes watching over everyone. The kids often do not receive the love they would have gotten in the previous arrangement, and are shuffled from home to home with some regularity.

[RKBA Democrat]

“He seems to think he can get elected by Hillary supporters and the masses brainwashed into believing the “maverick” label. I really don’t think that strategy is going to work.”

The strategy that Sen. McCain is playing is certainly unorthodox: run against your own base and hope that the number of votes you lose there is more than made up elsewhere. I seriously doubt that it will work. If given the choice between socialism-lite and socialism, I think that voters will pick the real thing or opt out completely.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> When a service or benefit is “free”, too many who are not pulling their own weight, or even making an effort, go along for the ride. If the provider attempts to eliminate those, they invariably eliminate the deserving as well.

We certainly agree on that!

Our welfare systems in NZ are, in theory, supposed to prevent that from happening. If you are on the Unemployment Benefit, you are expected to check in with your case manager twice per week and log every job that you have applied for, and accept any suitable job you are capable of doing.

If you are on a Sickness Benefit, you require a medical certificate from your doctor, and it expires after 13 weeks. It can be renewed, but WINZ (our Work & Income dept) can liaise with your doctor.

Heaps of resources are made available to help people become productive: Occupational Therapists, Work Brokers, Career Counselors, Halfway programs for the disabled — they really do pull out the stops.

Abuse of the system is vigorously prosecuted.

Where the whole thing seems to fall into a screaming heap is the “Domestic Purposes Benefit”. Yup, you guessed it: for some dumb reason NZ pays single women to have children and stay at home to raise them. More kids = more money. No limit. Once you qualify, you are in until your youngest kid turns 18, or until you are in a stable domestic relationship...

...a well-intentioned idea that is just plain nuts when you think thru the implications.

Couple that scenario (perpetually unemployable and unproductive people, with every motivation to stay that way) utilizing expensive social services (such as free medical) and you can easily see how the system gets very expensive.

That’s not a flaw with Social Medicine, tho’ —but it is a flaw with other aligned social policies that coexist around it.