Posted on 03/03/2010 10:44:15 AM PST by rabscuttle385
My brother and I have a running conversation about whether it is a good thing that John McCain didn't become president. We both voted for him, but I decided early on, as much as I oppose every Marx-tinged thing President Obama stands for, I was glad Obama had won and McCain had lost. At least, I was glad McCain had lost.
That's because only out of ashes may the phoenix be reborn. The liberal-lite frustrations of a McCain administration would have smoldered on the Right but lit few fires, dampening the possibility of real post-Bush regeneration. From Bush's "compassionate conservatism" (read: liberalism) to McCain's compassionate bipartisanship (read: more liberalism), the nation would have continued to drift in the wrong direction. The "good" thing about the economy-crashing, military-breaking, ideologically mind-blowing Obama administration is that it puts us on a collision course that just might force Americans to bail and start over in a better way -- metaphorically speaking.
But also, McCain didn't deserve to be president, at least not under the false flag of "conservative." McCain is no conservative, a fact that stands out as he faces a serious Senate primary challenge from J.D. Hayworth, a genuinely conservative former U.S. Representative.
After all, John McCain co-wrote the bill providing, in effect, U.S. citizenship to some 20 million illegal aliens (that's why they called it McCain-Kennedy). He co-wrote the bill restricting political speech (McCain-Feingold). J.D. Hayworth opposed both. As for global-warming legislation -- sorry, "climate change" -- McCain used to lead the floor fight for cap-and-trade (initially known as McCain-Lieberman), but now even the New York Times has noticed McCain has gone mum on the issue and "is likely to keep his distance even more over the next six months due to a primary challenge from a conservative former congressman that threatens to end his Senate career after four terms." And yup, Hayworth opposes cap-and-trade. McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts; Hayworth, as he puts it, helped write them. McCain rules out enhanced interrogations and wants to close Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo). Hayworth supports enhanced interrogations, and wants to keep Gitmo open. The list goes on, but there's no need to draw a picture.
Except, maybe, for the benefit of -- how to put this? -- challenged conservative leaders. These include former Sen. Fred Thompson, and former Govs. Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, who, contradicting everything they ever got us to think they stood for, sort of have endorsed McCain. This may burnish "the maverick" with their conservative bona fides. But it also makes those bona fides look more than a little cheap.
Or maybe they just aren't who we think they are. But does it matter? Perception does seem to be everything. In November, Hayworth was polling neck-in-neck with McCain. After Sarah Superstar held out her coattails to McCain -- who, let's not forget, personally, and through his staff, publicly savaged her -- a January poll showed McCain leading Hayworth by 22 points.
So why is McCain running scared? Because he is running scared. At least that's one conclusion to draw from an initial Web ad released by the McCain campaign that stoops to smear Hayworth as a conspiracy nut unfit to serve in the U.S. Senate for having the audacity -- I call it common sense and a little grit -- to point out as a radio host that "questions will remain" until our commander in chief releases the paperwork associated with his birth currently under state seal in Hawaii.
Questions will remain, and do remain, and despite Hayworth spokesman Jason Rose's craven dodge: "Questions were raised on the air. They have been answered." No, they haven't been answered. And that's true largely because of John McCain.
Remember when presidential candidate McCain's own natural-born creds came under question because he was born in the Canal Zone? Naturally, he released his paperwork. He should have then called on his opponent, Barack Obama, to do the same -- naturally. Such leadership would have dispelled all corrosive doubts raised and perpetuated not by "conspiracy nuts" but by the unprecedented lockdown on simple Obama identification -- birth certificate, education transcripts and more -- by the Obama machine, fueled and oiled by a compliant media.
But he didn't -- another reason McCain shouldn't have become president. Now, if conservatives could just retire him from the U.S. Senate.
Diana West is the author of "The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization," and blogs at dianawest.net. She can be contacted via dianawest@verizon.net.
Great analogy. You are exactly right.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. If they had the thing locked up, they would do it tomorrow.
I don’t need your advice on whether or not I vote. I’m going on my seventh decade in this world so do your thing and I’ll do mine. I have served this in country’s military so I figure I have the right to decide if I vote or not.
After the two nominees were known in 2008, this basic question was discussed in several FR threads: which would be worse, McCain with a Dim Congress, or Obama with a Dim Congress?
I always thought McCain with a Dim Congress would be worse, as did many others. I don’t think anyone foresaw the 60 vote Senate, but things have still evolved so that the McCain would be worse proposition can still prove out, if Obama fails on his major policy efforts this year and Republicans make a strong comeback in November.
McCain comes from an era in which the President’s prerogative to name a Supreme Court Justice was held to be sacrosanct. That is, if the candidate were qualified as a jurist, his or her political leanings would not be considered. Of course, the dem’s Borking of a (very, very) qualified candidate changed all of that. It seems that, in today’s world, many conservatives will still vote to approve a liberal candidate, based on the belief that, from a Constitutional perspective, that is the right thing to do. Liberals, on the other hand, are not bound by any such allegiance to the founding documents; there sole allegiance is to liberalism itself.
Typical McCain response never say anything negative about a Dim unless you throw a republican under the buss too.
by 2012 that true conservatism will rise
Too late. Hussein will already have declared himself Prime Minister and thrown the Constitution the rest of the way under the bus.
Exactly.
McCain is a progressive, and had he become President, we would still be on the same path we are no now, but a lot slower.
The rushing and ramrodding through of Obama’s agenda (really the Progressive’s agenda) is waking people up in droves to what has been happening for YEARS!!!
It’s the whole frog in a boiling pot scenario. With Obama, we’ve been thrown into the boiling pot of water, whereas with McCain, it would’ve been slowly coming to a boil where we didn’t notice until it was too late.
Of course she had a choice, the best one being to say very little during the primary. But here is how an Arizona Republican handled his situation:
"PHOENIX, Ariz. March 3, 2010. J.D. Hayworth has gained the endorsement of a man who over the years has probably done more to keep Arizona steering in the direction of family values than anyone in the state: Len Munsil. The founder of the Center for Arizona Policy – and 2006 Republican nominee for Governor – today endorsed the campaign of J.D. Hayworth to represent Arizona in the U.S. Senate.
"Hayworth is facing 24-year incumbent John McCain.
“I was honored to have Sen. McCain’s endorsement for Governor of Arizona in 2006, and was proud to support him for the presidency of the United States,” said Munsil.
“While I am thankful for Sen. McCain’s dedication to Arizona and the country, and his commitment to public service, the time has come for conservative change in Washington D.C. I am therefore pleased to support J.D. Hayworth for the U.S. Senate in 2010. J.D. will be a reliable, consistent conservative vote and voice in Washington D.C,” said Munsil of his endorsement.
"Munsil also added, “J.D. is on the right side of issues important to conservatives – opposing illegal immigration, ending bailouts, fighting against Cap & Trade and stopping unconstitutional restraints on political speech. He is consistent in his support for the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage. And J.D. will be an articulate spokesman for conservative principles.”
That came today in an email from J. D.'s campaign.
I feel no chains, quite the opposite, I am in glee seeing the liberals going down in flames and watching John McLame try to convince everyone he really did not mean it. He has become nothing but a joke, a bad one at that. He will most likely win reelection but his day is done and even the Dims he helped prop up are done with him. Maybe JD can pull it off and rid us of him for good, although he would most likely do what his buddy Lieberman did and run as an independent.
You are blessed...because you have the ability to discern and see the consequences for certain actions. We have a population that has been dumbed down and desensitized to the point that they jump at messages that 'tickle' their ears and don't do any research.
Gambling with our future was dangerous and that is exactly what these people did by not voting. No more crying about Bush, blaming Bush etc etc...Those who did not vote against this marxist are just as responsible for his win as the people that did vote for him.
You are a fool.
Do you honestly believe McCain would have appointed staunch conservatives? I don't. I believe he would have been all too ready to appease the left with moderate or left-of-moderate appointees.
He would be better than the Socialist in power right now.
Did you vote McCain or did you throw your vote away too?
But the second argument about the impotence of the Senate Republicans is worth some discussion, too. The fact is that this Gang of 14 moderates, led by Senator John McCain, did make it much more difficult for the president to win an ideological battle over a Supreme Court nominee. The Democrats did, in fact, send warnings that they were prepared to filibuster the second nominee. And under such circumstances, the president would have needed 60 votes to confirm his candidate, not 51.
Sorry, I don't believe that anymore.
If you voted for Palin you had to vote for McCain. I’m tired of that silly excuse again.
Sometimes [almost always actually] you have to vote for the lesser of two evils. I don’t udnerstand those dreamers that they EVER see a perfect conservative ticket.
Some people are working to keep us from winning in 2010 and 12.
Electoral votes: Obama 365....McCain 176
Vote percent: Obama 53%...McCain 46%
If you don’t want to call that a landslide fine...But it is an old fashion ass kicking!!!
Then you DESERVE the Socialist. You will continue to enable him with that attitude.
Do you still vote Third Party?
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.