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.

[xzins]

I can advocate a McCain ticket if he selects a conservative running mate. Most VP’s eventually go on to lead their party into a future election. That will be an indication that he wants the conservative vote. If he doesn’t do so, then the handwriting is on the wall.

[Rome2000]

not voting at all if you are a patriotic conservative

A McINsane/MYTH RINO ROMNEY ticket is better than the muslim exactly how?

The RINOs will not drill for oil

The RINOS will institute socialized medicine.

The RINOS SCOTUS nominees will not be confirmed.

The RINOS will do nothing about illegals

The RINOS will limit free speech (CFR and the Fairness Doctrine).

[singfreedom]

Don't even f*n go there! Are you a plant from DU?

We are STILL going to need oil for at least the next 10 years. It is stupidly lib to think that high gas prices will “modify” American behavior. It will, more likely spark another civil war.

Before you start celebrating, think of all those folks who have an old car, are on a fixed income, and cannot possibly afford the gas prices you are praying for. How short sightedly stupid!

[singfreedom]

Our chances of a “kingdom” died when Washington refused the crown. These folks just need to get the Hell over it!

[hershey]

This morning I see McCain’s said it’s sometimes hard to be proud of America. Oh, really? Is he now whitewashing Mrs. Obama’s remarks? If so, he’s letting the MSM manipulate him. God help us, indeed.

[wastoute]

N O T A

[ovrtaxt]

In my opinion, we need both. Lifting restrictions on drilling, coal mining, refining, nuke plant construction, etc. is one half of the equation. The oher half is offering tax credits for alternative energy research investment. Real simple.

We could be totally energy independent in a matter of a few years, plus provide the world with the next generation of energy production (and make a fat profit), if we’d just get our politicians off their asses.

[ovrtaxt]

Now now, drink your KoolAid and quiet down over there.

[singfreedom]

You are absolutely right! We are going to have to consider lots of options—and that is going to take time. During that time we will NEED oil. I am all for alternatives, but I am a realist, we are still going to need our oil.

I'm shopping for solar panels for my house and, perhaps, even a wind turbine. To bad we can't harness all the hot air emanating from Washington, D.C.!

[DieHard the Hunter]

> The RINOS will institute socialized medicine.

Socialized medicine ain’t so bad: I have lived in two countries now which have had it.

Canada has it, and it is compulsory and there is no “choice” to go private. That sucks, admittedly — but if you are acute, you will be treated irrespective of your personal circumstances. If you are chronic, you wait. Or you sneak across the border and seek treatment.

New Zealand has socialized medicine, too: it is compulsory, but there is also “choice” — you can also choose to have private coverage too. Many people do (I do). That system rocks! If you are acute, you will be treated irrespective of your personal circumstances. If you are chronic, you will be treated in the fullness of time. But if you have insurance, you can opt to be treated right away. The hospitals and doctors in both the public and private system are very good (often one and the same).

I have been an in-patient in both the public and private systems in New Zealand, both as an acute and as a chronic patient: both are very, very good by any world standard.

If you have to have Socialized Medicine, it can be done right: New Zealand’s system ain’t perfect, but it is very, very good.

[ovrtaxt]

The newer gallium panels are still in development, but they’re an efficiency breakthrough. They capture a much wider spectrum of radiation.

There’s a dutch company making vertical axis wind turbines that are the best I’ve seen so far. They still take several years to pay for themselves though.

[Caipirabob]

I can't make up my mind whether to vote for McCain or just sit at home and laugh my tail off for 3-4 years.

That's sound like a plan right up until McCain signs the bill for the "Laugh tax". Still, if it were Obama you'd be compelled to share the extra space in your home with Katrina refugees (funny thing that they'll either be from a different state or be Mexicans...)

This is the worst possible election scenario in my lifetime. We all know either party will screw the American people. Voters are looking at the candidates and asking themselves "But will he buy me dinner first?"

[ovrtaxt]

You’re kidding me right?

FR has come to this now, we’re sitting round talking like Michael Moore. perfect.

The slow morphing to socialism creeps ahead...

[singfreedom]

Thanks for the info, ovrtaxt! I had just started doing my research. I found a company here in Oklahoma that makes turbines, but I think they make only the big commercial wind turbines—very expensive.

I may have to wait a year or two, but I think its going to be a must in the near future.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> You’re kidding me right?

Nope. I’m stating fact, based upon personal experience in two different countries with socialized medicine, and based upon what would surely be a National Consensus. Certainly in NZ, Socialized Medicine ain’t bad at all. The food is good, the nurses are pretty, the medical procedures are world-class: and it is even better in the optional “private” system.

No joke.

And our national budgets year-on-year have been running to surplus. So it’s not like it is making us broke, either.

> FR has come to this now, we’re sitting round talking like Michael Moore. perfect.

I’ll ignore the Michael Moore insult, unless you want me to take it personally.

> The slow morphing to socialism creeps ahead...

Setting the purist theory aside for a minute, the practise of Socialized Medicine as done in New Zealand is undeniably something that works very well for the vast, vast majority of our population. Arguing otherwise is like arguing against the Law of Gravity.

You may choose to see it as a Boogie Man hiding under your bed, waiting to steal all your money: the plain fact is, it ain’t as bad as you think.

Sorry, that’s a fact.

[singfreedom]

My hubby would have asked “Will we get a kiss before we get F’d? It's an ARMY thing.

[wireplay]

Don't even f*n go there! Are you a plant from DU?

Hey, newbie, be careful who you call a DU plant. I think I predate you by a long time.

Needing oil and wanting ANWR and everything else is fine but ignoring alternatives is silly. I WANT off oil dependence, now. If we have to hold it together for 10 years, ok, so be it. High oil prices spur innovation. I didn't ask for high oil prices or a depressed dollar but it is what I have to work with. I celebrate because we have a chance to finally kill the domination of oil.

[sergeantdave]

This has always been my problem with Mr. McCain. He will, no doubt, boldly and energetically fight the jihadists in front of us. But he will open the backdoor to let in swarms of UN and Marxist bureaucrats to control every inch of our lives to seek some kind of insane environmental utopia.

Mr. McCain is either too stupid and too complaisant to see the danger or he’s willingly selling out the country and our heritage.

[singfreedom]

How exactly does New Zealand's system work, ‘cause my daughter, in Germany, says their socialized system sucks big green ones. It also costs them a fortune.

Is it a combination system? Part socialized and part privatized? I kind of assumed that from your description.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> I celebrate because we have a chance to finally kill the domination of oil.

Killing the domination of oil has one additional, excellent benefit: if we weren’t dependent on oil, there’s a whole bunch of nut-job enemy countries in this world who would suddenly and painfully find themselves without income to fund terrorism, industry, warfare or jihad.

Where would Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela be without oil revenues? They would be poked. They would be rooted. They would be relegated to the Third World stone age societies that they deserve to be in.

That in itself is an excellent reason to find ways to ditch oil as practically and as permanently as is practicable. Ten years would be a nice timeframe.