The Myth That McCain Wasn't Conservative Enough

Pajamas Media ^ | November 11, 2008 | John Avalon

[AJKauf]

After a losing presidential campaign, the candidate quickly (and often cruelly) is painted as an object lesson in what not to do — but that should not happen in 2008.

In order to truly revive itself, the GOP should be more like the real John McCain in the future, and less like the conservative cast of the past decade: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Tom Delay. And it certainly should not look to the likes of Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin to lead a restoration.

You do the math: America has a moderate majority — 50% of Americans are centrists, compared to 20% who are liberal and 30% who call themselves conservative. ,,,

[Mr. K]

AJKauf you are an idiot

[Mr. K]

OOOOOPS!!!! IMEANT JOHN AVALON

AJKauf you are NOT an idito!!! i repeat NOT an idiot!!

[Mr. K]

I liked that line too- in order to win (a liberal columnist tells us) we should become more like THE CANDIDATE WHO JUST LOST?!?!?!

[roamer_1]

Actually, since none of them are former Democrats, they are by definition MORE conservative than even Reagan was.

If Republicanism is your working model of Conservatism, you are left sadly wanting. "Republican" does not mean "Conservative", nor has it, for a very long while.

The Republicans mentioned (Palin, Jindal and Steele) are *not*, by definition, more conservative than Reagan was. They are *not*, by definition, Conservative at all.

Reagan was able to not only harness, but (re)define Conservatism itself. No small feat. No one has done it better, before, or since, and I can guarantee that Palin, Jindal, or Steele are no where near his caliber. Not by a long shot.

*None* of them will be able to engage all three pillars of Conservatism natively. Each will ask at least one of the three to compromise, and try to make a deal- and in that, each would fail to win the presidency, or would win on narrow margins like we have become accustomed to.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

yeah that’s why mccain was doing soooo well before he picked Palin. he was just rolling in the dough

Bingo!

[greyfoxx39]

From your link..."He has appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, PBS, and C-Span. Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker wrote that "Americans who are fed up with the Ann Coulter/Michael Moore school of debate, and are looking for someone to articulate a common sense middle path, may have found their voice in John Avlon"

Just the kind of mind that would recommend Myth.

[Cyber Liberty]

Heh! You da man!

[Dead Corpse]

They are *not*, by definition, Conservative at all.

Really... name something they've done that is not conservative. Palin freed up markets, protected RKBA, respected property Rights, and cut government fraud and abuse. Sometimes against her own Party's wishes.

The very definition of conservatism. As has been pointed out, even Reagan signed a bill that contained a provision making the NFA worse.

Jindal and Steele are proving to be of the same mold as Palin. McClintock, Hunter, Tancredo, and a few others also fit this description.

If they aren't conservative, you must be using a different definition than the rest of us.

Conservative

What we are trying to conserve is the Constitution, our Republic, and our Freedoms. Even Reagan's escalation of an already failing Drug War shows that he was willing to expand government power beyond it's strict limits. By definition, anyone trying to fit the Government genie back into it's Constitutional bottle, at any or all levels of government, is a "conservative".

Contrast Reagan's deficit spending with Palin's balancing of the Alaskan budget to a point where it is the only State in the Union currently in the black on it's balance sheet.

So yeah... not just "more" conservative... a LOT more conservative.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Are you saying conservatives have lost the ability to think for themselves and do actual research?"

Figure 10% more conservatives voted for dems in this election then in most elections. So, yes for those 10% they don't follow politics enough to know but they only know they are conservative.

Then there are those that just couldn't bring themselves to vote for either party and stayed home.

For those I have a feeling McCain drove them away with the bailout it was like the last straw with someone that was boarder line conservative.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Even my anger at the bailout was not enough to make me vote for Marxism.

[TheFourthMagi]

According to this, the problem was not enough McCain.

That’s flat out daffy.

[TheFourthMagi]

“More duds”

The new RNC motto

[TheFourthMagi]

So essentially you are blaming social conservatives for the complete failure of John McCain, who is not and has never been a social conservative.

[Steve Van Doorn]

you are a freeper... you obviously follow politics more then most. Put yourself in the shoes that do not follow politics.

[Steve Van Doorn]

I think you are missing the point.

Obama presented himself as being more conservative then McCain.

[Arizona Carolyn]

No, I didn't miss the point, I know how he presented himself, that doesn't excuse the voters from doing due diligance and researching whether he was telling the truth or not...

People didn't WANT to know the truth of Obama and the media hid it from them, but the information is and was out there for any who took the time to do the research. No one should vote without doing their research first, but in this case the media was in lust with The O and they were determined to anoint him.

The thing is we all are going to pay the price for that tingle up Chris Matthews leg. We have become the bedazzler, American Idol, country and the lesson for this is going to be swift and very painful.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Oh, I know those people, I know people who get their news from CNN and MSNBC and they are clueless about The O.

[Arizona Carolyn]

I am blaming the my way or highway voters who said let the GOP fail and we will rebuild it in four years, they said the same thing in 2006, but these same people sit back, complain and don't do a single thing at the local level to make any changes... they don't send emails and faxes to their representatives go visit their offices, call them, and hold them accountable....

and when people try to replace someone, like Cannon, who is not working for them, everyone jumps on the constituents and tells them this is a great guy, how dare you and he sticks around another two years until someone else finally manages to unseat him.. that unseating was done in the right way and the way it should be done...

You start at the local level and you make changes -- but you make those changes in the primaries, not in the general election, if you haven't made the change you want in the primary you suck it up and work for the next primary, you don't not show up and vote, that is the cowards way out... and 20% of you did not show up and we are going to pay dearly for that fit of pique.

[roamer_1]

Palin freed up markets, protected RKBA, respected property Rights, and cut government fraud and abuse. Sometimes against her own Party's wishes.

Palin increased taxes on oil corporations to achieve her ends, and when that generated excessive windfalls, she redistributed that wealth as a "tax credit" to the citizens of Alaska, rather than giving it back to the tax payer.

That is a pointedly UN-conservative method.

She also failed to make a stand against gay partners of state employees receiving benefits due to Alaskan Supreme Court ruling. Her office complied without a peep, even though legislators were ready and willing to stand with her to fight it.

Even though she lowered tax rates, people pay more in taxes now than they did before her arrival, both in Wasilla, and in Alaska. She likes gigantic projects, even if they are better left for later.

She recently stated support for amnesty, and for global warming.

Jindal and Steele are proving to be of the same mold as Palin. McClintock, Hunter, Tancredo, and a few others also fit this description.

Jindal, Steele, and Palin aren't in the same league as McClintock, Hunter, and Tancredo, the latter actually being true Conservatives, and men of the highest sort of caliber. The former are not worthy of support. If you will rise to support the latter I will join with you instantly.

If they aren't conservative, you must be using a different definition than the rest of us.

No, that would be you. You are the one who doesn't seem to know what the definition of "Conservative" is.

Wikipedia: Conservatism in the United States

Reagan Conservatism, the de-facto definition today (supplanting the Goldwater Conservatives), joined all three major conservative pillars together as one. That is a marriage of Social Conservatism, Fiscal/Libertarian Conservatism, and Defense/Foreign Policy Conservatism, as one indivisible thing, each one as important as the other, each discipline as valued as the next.

Palin, Jindal, and Steele are *not* able to support all three pillars of Conservatism, and are therefore *not* big "C" Conservative. They will not attract and turn out the entire Conservative base.

What we are trying to conserve is the Constitution, our Republic, and our Freedoms.

What you describe is merely libertarianism- While important, it cannot extend itself to encompass Conservatism.

Contrast Reagan's deficit spending with Palin's balancing of the Alaskan budget to a point where it is the only State in the Union currently in the black on it's balance sheet.

Yeah. Beauty day. Let's all just tax the big nasty corporations. For the life of me, I do not see how the hell that is seen as a Conservative model.

As far as Reagan's spending goes, it was largely defense, and is but a drop in the bucket:

USGovernmentSpending.com: "US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP"

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

To see where this guy is coming from, the introduction to this article says: ‘John Avlon is the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics. He was the chief speechwriter for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.’

This is hardly surprising from Giuliani’s chief speechwriter.