I think those who are unwilling to make compromises to keep their ideological principles pure should consider two things:
1.) Have you personally worked with a group to advance a candidate that you thought should be elected? Or did you just leave it to the the RNC to get candidates on the various tickets? Because if you left it to someone else to deliver a candidate with worthy conservative credentials for your vote, then you have already compromised. As Americans, we are all stuck in this boat now because too many of us did leave the selection to others.
2.) How do the titles President Obama or President Clinton sound to you? If those combinations of words sound like a reasonable price to pay to maintain the purity of your ideological principles, then you are prepared. If you write in a vote, vote for a third party, or simply don’t vote, then you cannot complain about a President Obama or a President Clinton. There is a price to pay for purity, and to dismiss out of hand the practical considerations for the pure ideological considerations is a flawed approach.
Note that the supposedly unbiased media has for years referred to McCain as a “Rock Ribbed Maverick” or some other such trite phrase. They reserve those types of positive (in their world) descriptions for foolish Republicans who serve liberal purposes, such as former Senator Bob Packwood. Packwood was a Republican who liberals utilized as a cudgel against conservatives. He was a tool, his primary use was as an example of a conservative who supported abortion rights. As soon as they got a liberal like Clinton in the Whitehouse, they turned on Packwood and destroyed him simply because they didn’t need him anymore.
The point is, when the election is over, and the White House is in the hands of of the Democrat party, they won’t have much use for McCain. They are talking him up and promoting his candidacy, because they know that he is a poison pill for the Republicans, much more so than Bob Dole ever was. They know he doesn’t have a prayer of winning the White House any more than Bob Dole did, and sadly, any more than Duncan Hunter (my candidate) ever did of winning the nomination. Any conservative with half a brain should sit up and wonder why the New York Times would endorse any candidate on the Republican side for anything, even if it is simply to say they need to choose someone so it appears they are not being biased.
I have heard it said that the difference between Conservatism and Liberalism is that Conservatism deals with the art of what is possible, while Liberalism deals with the art of what can be fantasized.
As conservatives, we need to grow up and deal with the real world. Reagan isn’t coming back, and we have allowed ourselves to end up in this spot for this election. Perhaps we can get off of our collective asses and change it next election cycle, but it is NOT going to happen for this one. We have what we have, and any fantasy we entertain about some conservative knight in shining armor who is going to jump in at the last minute or be drafted at the convention or be written in is simply that, pure fantasy.
I have decided to throw my vote behind Romney. I think he has the best chance of winning in November, and his business background is real, not made up. He had made a real living running a business, making business decisions and cutting paychecks, which sets him apart from any of the other candidates who are all professional politicians, and who have never done a thing to make real money apart from working in government to increase their exposure to the perks and graft that can come to those who desire that road in public life.
Romney isn’t perfect, but neither is he the evil man people are making him out to be. The same can be said for Ronald Reagan...he wasn’t the saint we all make him out to be, but neither was he the evil man liberals and his other enemies painted him as.
Likewise, I don’t think McCain is the evil, unstable maniac people are painting him as. Is he a flawed candidate? Obviously, and in my mind, seriously. This is not necessarily a reflection on the personal qualities of McCain. I honor his service as I honor that of his father and grandfather. McCain was my Commanding Officer for a period of several months back in the mid-Seventies, so unlike many Americans, I actually have some personal experience and connection with the man. He was completely unremarkable in that role, not surprising for someone who had only been out of the POW camp for three years at that point. But the various underhanded attacks I see on his service and conduct as a POW simply sicken me. He was, by all accounts, a mediocre flier and a less than sterling Naval Officer. But he did serve.
He isn’t my kind of person, and he doesn’t subscribe to my values. I was saddened and sickened to hear his criticisms of the Swift Boat Veterans, men who I feel displayed the highest form of patriotism and love of country by saving us from having to say the words President Kerry. I thought that was a grave and serious mistake he made, to stand by and support a fellow Senator in that odd senatorial code of comradeship they observe between Senators, when he should have sided with the Swift Boat Vets.
He was one of the Keating Five and was one of the prime authors of McCain-Feingold, probably the most open attack on the First Amendment in my lifetime. He is not a team player, a characteristic I value highly (when team play is not contraindicated) and seems on a personal level, very similar to Howard Dean.
But as a candidate for President and presented with a choice between him and Obama/Clinton, I will hold my nose and pull the lever for McCain. Despite all his faults and similarities with both Clinton and Obama on various issues, he does differ dramatically in at least one, and for me, key area: He genuinely is a friend of the military.
Obama and Clinton view the subjects of military personnel, military readiness or status and military force as political issues, useful and worthy only with respect to how many votes they gain or lose on the basis of how a given issue is handled. They clearly have contempt for the military, its mission and its people, and view it as a useless impediment to money they could put into social programs. For all his faults, I do not think McCain is in the same league as them. It is the main reason I still support President Bush, even with his stance on immigration and all the other things he could have done better. President Bush genuinely understands the role and importance of the military independent of politics, and has apparent respect for those people who serve and have served. As I think McCain does.
For this reason, and ONLY this reason if there are no others, I will vote for McCain if he is the nominee. I am going to give my money and support to Romney, but if it turns out to be McCain, I will vote for him for the reasons described above.
People on Free Republic are tearing each other apart, as conservatives in similar forums around this country are doing the same. I have a rule of thumb that I follow, and it is right a large part of the time: “If Liberals are for something, then I am going to be against it.” The fact that Liberals are ecstatic about this kind of backbiting that is going on in the conservative movement only reinforces to me that we need to find a way around it.
Sitting out the election, voting third party, writing in a vote or voting McCain are all things liberals want us to do. We should do the opposite.
(Note: I would appreciate it if people didn’t take this personally. I have found that people are so polarized about this issue that sarcasm and personal attacks seem to be the only way some people can deal with it. THIS IS SIMPLY MY OPINION. I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it, IT IS YOURS. Let’s try to stay on an even keel. The POW’s at the Hanoi Hilton had an expression that they used: “Keep a Steady Strain”. It is a nautical term, and roughly means, don’t get too high, and don’t get too low. We need to observe that here as well.)
IT was during Clintonism wherein the first time in 40 years a Republican congress won the Peoples vote and kept the Clintons in check. It was the wimpy minds and spines of the moderate/independents that became the protectors of Clintonism.
Those titles sound like clear, defined opposition targets for conservatives to fight against. It will be ten times as hard to fight "one of our own" when he strays from the path. W is more conservative than McCain -- and I voted for W twice, and was a cheerleader for him for 6 long years -- and look how many times W has let us down (Medicare prescription drug law, highway bill, NCLB, failure to veto McCain-Feingold, etc.). A Pres. McCain would be far, far worse -- and leave us with a much more difficult primary fight 4 years from now.
A question.... have you considered exactly WHY the MSM and even liberals are touting McCain as the only "acceptable" GOP candidate? They want him for exactly the same reasons that conservatives do NOT want him. Everything that we know is wrong (about him and his record) becomes a piece of ammunition for liberals in the event of a McCain presidency. In the end, McCain will either (A) back down from his so-called, newfound "conservative" propositions or (B) be a spineless suck-up to the likes of Kennedy, Feingold, etc.
McCain ALREADY routinely chooses Option B. What makes you think he would do any differently as president? That's a helluva price to pay, simply so one can brag "Yay, my candidate with the (R) after his name won!"