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.

[Caipirabob]

Bless his heart - lol! My dad serve in Korea in the Army, too. He was put in charge of building some bridges. He tells me he got his CEO experience right then and there. He said he didn't know how to build bridges and they told him "If I stop by and you're going crazy, no ones doing anything and the bridge isn't getting built, you're doing it wrong. If I stop by, everyone's going crazy, the bridge is getting built and you're sitting on your @ss doing nothing, you're doing it right." That was his first lesson on delegation. The bridge got built. He was one of the youngest Lt's in Korea.

[sirchtruth]

Another author makes the mistake of confusing conservatives with John McCain's "base". The Senator's base is the 80% liberal media, and he would have to "woo" conservatives much the same way he will have to "woo" independents.

Exactly, I don't know many which I would consider "conservative," who are going to vote for this Demo-darling. With his statement, It's tough sometimes to be proud of America," it just incenses me to the height of hope he gets his liberal arrogant ass kicked in Nov!

He's every bit as bad as Obama and he's proving it every day with his idiotic statements revealing his outrageous liberal coddling...

[wireplay]

Which is my point. We, conservatives, need to embrace changes in the oil economy. I think we come off as pro-oil when we should be realistic but seeking alternatives. Oil props up terrorism worldwide, creates pollution, is a messy product to use, and props up puppet dictators worldwide. It is time for a new conservative message, and saying we embrace alternative fuels is one platform.

Getting off of the whole moral majority message is another arena. Conservatives should go back to their roots which is the Constitution.

My platform is liberty and I am sticking with it ;-]

[TexasCajun]

Damned if I do and damned if I don't !

[dforest]

If McCain is elected, and I pray he is, we just have to let him know what we think. It is very hard for a President to ignore what the folks in his own party are telling him.

Delusional thinking. McLame has never had a problem going against his own party. Are you asleep? He is even campaigning with pride about going against his own party.

Quite frankly, he doesn't care what you think.

[stockpirate]

“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......

Here’s the bad news.

Name ONE CONSERVATIVE serving in McCain’s campaign? You can’t, he hates Conservatives. So he won’t appoint any to the court. Plus when you trow in that he won’t have the votes and he stopped appointments with his gang of 14.

Next, he opposed the Bush tax cuts. His support of amnesty and cap & trade will result in our tax rates and price increases to all new hieghts.

Be not decieved McCain is a SOCIALIST of the worse kind.

And on the war congress will have the votes to force an early withdrawal thus saddleing the loss on Republicans.

As Rush stated, “McCain will be the last Republican POTUS for the next 50 years”

There appears to be only one road remaining to take our country away from the one world government socialists.

My hope is God removes McCain and delivers us from the evil.

[monocle]

It is likely my state will go for McCain and I will vote to register my dissatisfaction with McCain. I would do likewise in a state where Obama was the overwhelming favorite. I would only vote for McCain if I lived in a state where the outcome was uncertain. I certainly would not contribute or work for McCain.

[singfreedom]

Sorry, I may have over reacted, but you were starting to sound like the “Nan from Fran” crowd that do not care what happens to gas prices—the higher the better.

I like alternatives too, but so far none are perfect. For example, a car that has to be plugged in every 100 miles, is not a good alternative. I know folks that have to drive that far, and more, to the grocery store. I am definitely not in favor of ignoring alternatives, but we are going to need some time to perfect our “alternatives”.

And as for “newbies”, since when does that have anything to do with the veracity of what one has to say?

[dforest]

Like your tagline. I am almost proud to be a troll. Proudly trolling since the MSM and the Dems chose McCain for us.

I am still holding out for a miracle. LOL

[singfreedom]

Oh, but he wants my VOTE!

[DieHard the Hunter]

> 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.

It’s a funny old system, and it is based upon some concepts that are unfamiliar territory to most Americans. One of the main ones is this:

In New Zealand it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to be sued for personal injury damages. It cannot be done, our Courts do not allow it. Not even if you are an American visiting here and you get hurt, not even if a court in the State of New York awards millions of dollars in damages: our Courts shrug and say “we do not understand or recognize this concept in New Zealand law.”

(believe me, this has been tried — indeed it gets tried a few times per year, usually by Americans who are usually either from New York or California).

Instead, we pay into a fund called “ACC”, which is funded by levies against employment or, if unemployed, against general revenues. It is a “no-fault” system.

The focus of the ACC system is “Accident Compensation” — that is to say, putting you as close to where you would have been pre-injury as possible, thru medical treatment, therapy, rehabilitation: whatever it takes. And not one penny more.

So no multi-million-dollar damages lawsuits: that expense drops away from the System, along with the various liability insurance expenses that go with it.

ACC works for all permanent residents. I believe it also covers most foreigners who are legally in the country: like visitors — tho’ you should always have travel insurance just in case.

(You *can* be sued for Exemplary Damages. if you have been really careless and caused injury or death. But not for run-of-the-mill Personal Injury Damages, however caused.)

Over-and-above that, the Public Health system exists by way of a Budget Vote: a lump-sum is allocated for Healthcare nationwide. This is divided up by regional boards, which in turn contract to the local hospitals, doctors, and other healthcare providers for a fixed mixture of services, which they try to forecast as accurately as possible.

Waiting lists happen when they get their forecasting wrong.

The Healthcare vote comes out of our General Revenues consolidated fund — Taxes, if you like. The Public Health system is for anybody who is legally resident in New Zealand (and thus paying tax) — it is “user-pays” for all others, like foreigners and illegal aliens.

Over-and-above that is the Private Health system, which is funded by private insurance companies, who issue policies paid by private premium subscriptions. They are free to do pretty-much whatever they want.

Finally, there is the Pharmaceutical system: drugs are centrally-purchased thru a government agency called “Pharmac” (we are a small country and it makes sense to get the best deal we can via bulk purchases). They decide what medicines will be bought and subsidized, which ones will be bought and issued at cost, and which ones you cannot get for love or money. Usually, they get it pretty much right.

The Public Health and Pharmaceutical services are also subsidized for those on an Unemployment, Sickness or Disability benefit — again thru the General Revenues consolidated fund.

Emphasis in all of our medical systems is on prevention, rather than on treatment.

In a nutshell, that is how it works.

As you can see, there is a substantial amount of systems and infrastructure that needs to be in place in order for all this to work: this did not happen overnight in NZ. It is the product of many decades of careful crafting. So even if they wanted to put Socialized Medicine into the US, it would take a very, very, very long time for it to be feasible.

I doubt it could be done at all: you’ve got fifty different states plus DC, all of whom have different laws. It would be a mission, to say the least.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

[singfreedom]

I certainly empathize-—God, and the U.S. Army move in mysterious ways!

[dforest]

No, he does not care if you vote for him. He is busy getting the Hillary girls.

Panderfest.

[wireplay]

You tossed out the perjorative of DU. How else do you wish me to react? Best to review who you are attacking before you lay in...

An argument is fine and what I prefer, but if you lead off with an ad-hominum, you are free game. I would suggest you not personally attack if you wish everything to remain logical.

I drive a Land Cruiser. However, I do not want it to be oil based. I want my Land Cruiser and an electric engine: they are not mutually exclusive. They may be today but I don’t have to like it.

I try and find a silver lining becuase the alternative is despair. If higher prices trigger innovation, fine. This country survived some pretty traumatic shortages during WWII and we will again. Short-term pain for long-term gain.

[Smokin' Joe]

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

Oil? Or foreign oil? Or Islamic foreign oil?

You are going to be really hard pressed to come up with a vehicle fuel which will be able to replace oil in the next 20 years. Most oil consumed as fuel is used that way, the rest goes into everything from plastics to pharmaceuticals.

Sure, some of that consumption (mainly in the NE) is for home heat, but by far and away the majority is to transport people and freight.

If there was something better within our current technology, we'd be using it.

[Vigilanteman]

I hear you. But will you even have your job until 3 a.m. if these asinine policies continue to advance unabated? They say McCain will be good on spending and judges.

But what kind of runaway spending will result if we embrace 40 million new citizens who have no interest in America for anything other than an ATM? What kind of new spending will result from bowing to the false idol of gorebal warming? Where is the evidence he will be good on judges? Warren Rudman-- the guy who gave us David Souther? Name one solid conservative in a key position on his campaign.

For me, it boils down to a single issue-- not stabbing in the back the men and women who are putting themselves in harm's way to defend this country. And even that is causing me a dilemma I cannot resolve-- is it kinder to let them complete the mission in Iraq only to come home to a nation invaded and conquered by the enemy from within? Or would it be kinder to bring them home now so we can at least organize a last stand on our home turf?

[Jabba the Nutt]

Headline re-write: Bitter McCain and Conservatives

[TomGuy]

McCain is solid on two (alas, two) vital issues that make the difference; spending and judges.

Spending, okay. Give McCain that one.

But judges? Don't bet the farm on that. McCain voted to confirm Ginsberg and he supported the Miers nomination.

A President McCain will find himself faced with a Dem judiciary and Senate. Any judicial candidate will be someone approved by the Dems, or McCain won't get them confirmed. The Dems won't support any candidate who moves the SC any further to the right. Thus, McCain (with all his pandering talk about appointing Roberts-types justices) will be lucky to get moderate judicial appointments and will probably be forced to approve a leftie.

[wireplay]

one of the best quotes ever is that we overestimate what is possible in 5 years and underestimate in 10.

Don’t presume that alternatives are not possible: high fuel prices will trigger some incredible innovation. Whether it leads to oil independence tomorrow is doubtful but saying it is 20 years out is prognostication that has no validity: you do not have a crystal ball (as far as I know).

Let the market forces reign.