Back before the Republican Party jumped at "bipartisan compromise" and merged with the Democrat Party to form a single Big Government Party...
|
Posted on 08/05/2008 1:29:19 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
One of my favorite conservative columnists recently started a column with the words, "Back before the Republican Party was saddled with John McCain as its nominee..." How was the Republican Party "saddled" with him when more Republicans voted for him than for anyone else running in the Republican primaries and caucuses? I was one of those who voted for John McCain in the California Primary, and did it with enthusiasm. As someone as conservative as the columnist, of course I have had disagreements with Senator McCain on some issues, but all the issues of disagreement are secondary to winning the war in which our nation's survival is at stake, as well as the survival of civilization as we know it. I am convinced that John McCain was born to be Commander in Chief in this war. Foreign policy and the military are in his blood. That is not true of the Democrats' choice.
Early in 1961, President Kennedy invited former Vice President Nixon to the Oval Office to discuss world affairs. Former Vice President Nixon was seated on a lounge chair while President Kennedy was pacing the floor as they discussed Cuba, Berlin, the Congo, Laos, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and the U.N. President Kennedy stopped pacing and said to former Vice President Nixon, "This is the stuff of Presidents! I mean, who cares if the minimum wage is $1.15 or $1.25?" He meant, of course, that the minimum wage "is the stuff" of Congresses.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Did he really get more REPUBLICAN votes than anyone else? Or was it independents and demos that put him over the top? I still don't understand why either party allows non-members to select their nominee.
If both political parties always only allowed members to vote during the entire primary season, then most to all of the non-member, Independent voters would be complaining. This is truly a no-win situation either way when things seem to go wrong politically.
McCain presents has a tough, feisty conservative, but his politics are decidedly statist.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
1) "Cross-over voting"
2) "Day-of-Voting Registration"
3) "Independent" voters in a Blue State.
4) New Hampshire's answer to "Operation Chaos".
:(
While this statement is bound to bring out those who believe (on whatever basis) that John McCain was not nominated by Republicans, the fact is that he was the winner of the duly constituted Republican primaries.
If people have a problem with the rules, change 'em.
However, as the article points out, it does cause pause when the only time there is significant griping about the rules is when one's candidate of choice got trounced.
And speaking of getting trounced: in all this talk about how the primaries were set up, the other fact that remains is this:
While there were several more conservative candidates running in the primaries, hardly ANYONE voted for them. Not one managed consistently to even get out of the bottom tier. Most turned in truly pathetic numbers, such as around 1-2%.
It's simply hard to argue that there was even a tiny shred of evidence that there was some Republican groundswell for one of the more conservative candidates that was deflated and eventually defeated by those much-ballyhooed cross-over voters.
Finally, in the end, in terms of Election Day, the primaries are water under the bridge.
Those who wish to can nurse some fantasy that a different nominee will emerge at the convention (if so: who? And if there is sufficient groundswell for this person-around-whom-no-one-has-yet-visably-rallied to get him or her nominated vice John McCain, wouldn't we be seeing some evidence of that by now?).
But at least by the end of the convention, thinking people will accept the reality that John McCain is the Republican nominee.
Since Election Day is not a referendum on or a do-over of the primaries, most people will also accept the reality that EITHER John McCain or Barak Obama, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE PARTY and party apparati, WILL be President and in control of the government.
Those who find an Obambi administration more dangerous to the nation, and who desire to try to stop such, will vote for McCain.
Likewise, those who find McCain and a Republican administration worse for the nation, should vote for Obambi, since that is the only way to stop McCain.
Even if you are correct, there is no way the factors you cited created sufficient “momentum” to deflate and eventually defeat (*utterly* defeat, I might add) a true conservative groundswell for candidate “X.”
I say candidate “X” because, even here on FR, there was no emerging consensus for ANY ONE CANDIDATE in the primaries.
While there seemed to be general agreement that McCain was not the most conservative of the field, NOT ONE of the more conservative candidates was able to reach anything even remotely resembling a sizable following even on FR! Much less out in the big world.
Had there been a conservative groundswell for any one of the more conservative candidates running in the primaries, nothing would have stopped it.
But there wasn’t.
So, of course, if conservatives could not figure out one candidate to focus on and support in the primaries, a less conservative candidate was bound to become the nominee.
Open primaries are a party building tool. They bring in voters who will allign with a party but are not always True Believers. If you have a party of True Believers it’s an awful small party. It also tends to make the parties more responsive to general trends in public opinion.
When I hear the recitation of issues that are used against John McCain by any conservative, I can’t help but answer that we are in a war against those who announce their objective is “Death to America!” They mean it.
Maybe its the 21 years I spent in the Navy - and maybe that is why I tend to be a one trick pony when it comes to politics — for me, it all boils down to Defense, just as Mr. Bruce Herschensohn so aptly pointed out in this article; All other issues are second tier to the Defense of our country — period, end of discussion.
I lived through the Clinton “drawn-down” years and I’m here to tell you, it damn sure wasn’t a party.
And then, after 9/11, we had to try and fight two major regional conflicts, simultaneously (something Colin Powell, then CJCS to Clinton warned against cutting defense too deeply) and was then, that had learned that our force was too small to go it alone, and of course the press was hounding Donald Rumsfeld about the size of the military, he said; “As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were waging a war on terrorism with a gutted military — don’t get me wrong, what we have is the most exquisite all volunteer force in the world — but, it could be bigger. Today, we must be prepared to face the ever growing number of threats to our nation and we cannot do that with a smaller military.
It’s clear to me that every time the Dems get elected, they get all liquored up on the idea of cutting defense to pay for their ridiculous social programs. No thanks — not now — really, really bad idea.
It is really very easy for me to get behind John McCain on “the” issue.
I know he wouldn’t use defense as a bill payer.
He is clearly the most obvious choice among the candidates running.
But, that is just this retired Chiefs opinion.
The opposition is lining up behind Larry Craig.
Oh, wait...
Back before the Republican Party jumped at "bipartisan compromise" and merged with the Democrat Party to form a single Big Government Party...
|
McLame is a Liberal Democrat and should be thrown out of the GOP convention.
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.
