Posted on 01/31/2008 10:37:41 AM PST by Delacon
I have spent nearly four decades in the conservative movement from precinct worker to the Reagan White House. I campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. I served in several top positions during the Reagan administration, including chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. I have been an active conservative when conservatism was not in high favor.
I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldnt win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasnt even on the ballot in Pennsylvania because he decided to focus his limited resources on other states. I tried to convince voter after voter to write-in Reagans name on the ballot. In the end, Reagan received about five percent of the Republican vote as a write-in candidate.
Of course, Reagan lost the nomination to Ford by the narrowest of margins. Ford went on to lose to a little-known ex-governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter. But the Reagan Revolution became stronger, not weaker, as a result. And the rest is history.
I dont pretend to speak for President Reagan or all conservatives. I speak for myself. But I watched the Republican debate last night, which was held at the Reagan library, and I have to say that I fear a McCain candidacy. He would be an exceedingly poor choice as the Republican nominee for president.
Lets get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCains record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidates record? Thats par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romneys ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain's cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCains comments about Romney.
Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a manager for profit and someone who has laid-off people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his millions or fortune to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romneys character doesnt let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCains does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.
And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?
As for McCain the straight-talker, how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says hes gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that its a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. Theres nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the medias favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they werent accompanied by spending cuts. Thats simply not correct.
Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romneys position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And its also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romneys statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isnt open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.
Of course, its one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCains case, adherence is the exception to the rule McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?
But what about his national security record? Its a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think its fair to say that McCains positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.
Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives dont act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.
But wouldnt the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency drive enough of the grassroots to the polls for McCain? It wasnt enough to motivate the base to vote in November 2006 to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker or the Democrats from taking Congress. My sense is it wont be enough to carry McCain to victory, either. And McCain has done more to build animus among the people whose votes he will need than Denny Hastert or Bill Frist. And there wont be enough Democrats voting for McCain to offset the electorate McCain has alienated (and is likely to continue to alienate, as best as I can tell).
McCain has not won overwhelming pluralities, let alone majorities, in any of the primaries. A thirty-six-percent win in Florida doesnt make a juggernaut. But the liberal media are promoting him now as the presumptive nominee. More and more establishment Republican officials are jumping on McCains bandwagon the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has all but destroyed Californias Republican party.
Lets face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives dont unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.
Mark Levin, a former senior Reagan Justice Department official, is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host.
You are so lucky. I would love to meet him. I’d really love to sit down with him for 15 minutes and ask him some tough questions.
It’s got to be Romney.
If it’s The Beast or Hussein, the Dems win.
If it’s McCain, the Dems win. When the NYT endorses McCain, you know the fix is in.
The only way out of this is hold your nose and vote Romney. Of course, if McCain wins the nomination, we’re screwed.
That’s what I tought. ROTFLMAO
Be sure and keep those blinders properly adjusted.
The jerks at National Review deserve what they are getting.
I was reminded about this by an email Laura Ingraham read this morning.
NR was one of the worst bashers of George Allen in 2006, heck they were no better than the Washington Post.
Kathryn Lopez knew that Allen would be a serious competitor of Mitt’s in the campaign for President.
She is so in love with Mitt, she decided her and bunch needed to take Allen out for her Mittster.
Well I am sure enjoying all her moaning and weeping now.
I am laughing 24/7.
Here’s where it all hits bottom:
Levin’s right. Mitt Romney IS more Conservative than McCain.
If Romney had been the Senator from Arizona these last many years we wouldn’t have:
Romney-Feingold
Romney-Kennedy
Romney-Leiberman
...
Mitt Romeny would not have been a “Gang of 14” instigator, nor even a participant.
Mitt Romney would not have opposed President Bush’s tax cuts.
On the core issue of our times, I believe that Mitt Romney will stay the course in Iraq, and hold firm in our global march against terrorists, and terrorist organizations.
Further, I’ll go out on a limb and assert that Mitt Romney will prove to be a better friend to Israel than G. W. Bush has been.
Is Romney perfect? HA! No, nobody is, but McCain is WORSE! WAY worse.
Romeny can at least openly discuss how his thinking has changed on issues. Romney can comfortably admit that he’s been wrong in the past.
McCain, when asked point-blank about past mistakes, can’t even begin to get his mouth to form the words. He hems and haws, stutters, stammers, and does pirouettes all the way around Robin Hood’s barn before petering out in a stinking bog of evasion and mealy-mouthed equivocation.
Tell me honestly, do you REALLY want that in a President??
I came from the far right end of the Conservative bench, and I was rooting for someone more pincipled than Romeny. None of those guys are left, but, of the three credible candidates that remain, Romney is THE MOST conservative, the most mentally stable, the most genuine as a person — he’s not 100% in any area, but hes at least 80% across the board. He’s got negatives in his past, but they’re not the egregious, national, Constitution-subsuming negatives that MCCain has “blessed” us with.
I also think there’s a great deal of credibility to the argument that the MSM likes McCain because he’s NOT conservative, and they understand that if he wins the GOP nomination, he’ll be cannon fodder. Heck, he and Hillary are such buds up in the Senate, that if they’re both nominated by the respective parties, this could turn into the most lovey-dovey Presidential campaign in U.S. History. And, BOY would the country be UNITED, again. All of the alphabet orgs on the left could just take the whole election cycle off, because it wouldn’t matter all that much to them who won. All the usual divisiveness would be gone from the campaign... The whole thing would play out like a college bowl game, except that the last play will feature McCain and Hillary in a Shakespearean “et tu, Brute” moment, and we’ll be inaugurating Hillary on 1-20-09.
THAT is what you will get if McCain becomes the GOP nominee.
Did you finish the 5th grade?
Jimmy Carter didn’t get to pick 2 supreme court justices.
But there are a few people here who blame Romney for killing babies, but their “solution” is to allow another “jimmy carter” to come and appoint to liberal justices that will set back the chance to overturn roe by 30 years — another 30 years of slaughter, when we are THIS close to winning.
At this point, given the alternatives, to reject a conservative platform and give up 30 years of Roe simply because the candidate used to believe differently is a catostrophic choice.
But one that a few people here are not only happy to make, but are pushing everybody else to make as well.
When we end abortion, a million babies a year will grow up to thank us.
When I hear that there are Republicans that are voting for him because he is the only one that can win, it just makes me crazy.
Good to see you tgs.
I think some of you are operating under a false assumption.
I do not support John McCain because he is basically a democrat.
I do not support Romney for the same reason.
Add Giuliani, Huckabee, and even Paul in there on some issues.
I agree with most of your comments. Is Romney better than McCain? I believe so in some ways. I’m remain unconvinced in others.
Tell me how many more democrats we’ll have when McCain grants amnesty by executive order.
Tell me how many more democrats we’ll have when McCain grants amnesty by executive order.
That's McCain. It's on his web site, it's in votes he's taken the last 5 years. Restrict speech, global warming, amnesty, close Gitmo, restrict questioning of terrorists. Close the "gun show loophole". Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Support filibustering of judicial and political nominees. Work for "bipartisanship" with the democrats.
He says Clinton would be a good president, Bill and Hillary have "respect" for him. Leiberman (8% ACU) endorses him.
As to illegal immigration, Tom Tancredo's ONE goal in running was to get HIS policies implemented. Tom Tancredo has personally met with Romney, and has spoken to him about this very issue. And Tom Tancredo endorsed Mitt Romney.
I think I trust Tom Tancredo's opinion on what Romney will do more than I trust your opinion, based as it is on some generalization you have that "all businessmen" oppose following the law on illegal immigration.
You hope... given McCain's, Hillary's and Obama's track record on the 1A and other related Fairness Doctrine issues, who knows what will happen....
I trust Mark Levin’s opinion more than yours, but if you want to refute something Mark said in his article with some facts, I’d like to see the debate.
I totally agree.
He is arrogant and self-righteous. His sarcasm about Romney being in business for “profit” whereas he sacrificed for “patriotism” (yeah - and what about Keating 5 Mr. McCain?) is sickening. His repeated attacks that Romney wanted to withdraw the troops - total lies - is now beyond contempt. And I’m tired of “my friend” this and “my friends” that - which is just fake Senate-speak.
I’ve had it with him. I can’t vote for this man, under any circumstances.
Totally unwilling to fight for basic principles of religious freedom and conscience, private enterprise, and free association. That's a conservative record?
Look up his similar record on religion, free association, and adoption policy. The man doesn't actually stand for anything.
My hope is he really stabs with some of the ads. Ronald Reagan lost two primaries. Perhaps Mitt will be back to haunt you again and this time folks will know who he is.
There isn't anyone who could make the ticket work. It is McCain who the MSM and Clinton machine is going to destroy. People don't vote for VP's.
With all due respect. I have suspicion that Iowa voters, or Florida voters, don’t listen much to Hugh, Rush, and don’t read NRO for sure. Somehow Huckabee made himself separate from the bottom group and became a major candidate. Fred did not. (just to make sure where I stand: Hunter-then Fred-Romney-Rudy-Mac-Huck). Huckabee gets no traction now, but if Fred did the same, he would have. I like NRO, Hugh, Rush, Prager, Bennet and many others, but am not going to jump if they say so. I suspect Iowa and Florida would even less. I think you overestimate their influence.
Charles, trying to play this off as if I support a man I’ll never vote for isn’t going to get you any points.
Don’t beleive those lying eyes of yours.
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.