Posted on 02/10/2008 8:53:14 AM PST by K-oneTexas
There's Nothing Conservative or Principled About Helping a Democrat Beat John McCain By John Hawkins
I keep hearing conservatives say that if John McCain is the nominee--and barring a miracle at this point, he will be--that they're going to sit out the election or even vote for the Democratic nominee because of "conservative principles."
As one conservative--and not as a "John McCain conservative," but as a "I supported Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, oppose amnesty and abortion, fought to get Samuel Alito instead of Harriet Miers, believe in small government, term limits, tax cuts, and balancing the budget" conservative--to another, let me tell you that I very respectfully, but also very strongly disagree with that definition of "conservative principles."
There is NOTHING conservative about working with the Democratic nominee against most of your fellow conservatives in order to grow government, socialize medicine, lose the war in Iraq, tilt the Supreme Court to the left, and make Roe vs. Wade the permanent law of the land. If you are conservative and vote for the Democratic nominee or even just refuse to vote for McCain, who is by any and every objective standard, considerably more conservative than either of them, let me tell you what you are NOT doing:
* You are NOT doing the logical thing. When faced with a choice between a moderate who holds some conservative positions and some non-conservative positions and a liberal who holds no conservative positions, the logical decision is to take the moderate. After all, half a loaf is better than none.
* You are NOT helping conservatism or your fellow conservatives. To the contrary, you are helping liberals defeat conservative ideas. Isn't that what conservatives are saying that they're furious at McCain over? Well, who's less of a conservative: John McCain, who, if he were in the White House, would help conservatives win some battles and would help liberals win others or the conservatives who want to help a Democrat get into the office who will go against conservative ideas every time?
* You are NOT looking out for the best interests of the country. If you believe that winning in Iraq is better than losing, if you believe that balancing the budget is better than higher deficit spending, if you believe that having a Supreme Court that is tilted to the right is better than having a Supreme Court tilted to the left, and if you believe that Roe v. Wade is leading to the immoral murder of millions of children--and the overwhelming majority of people reading this column certainly believe all those things--then you are certainly not putting the good of the country first if you oppose John McCain in November.
Some might argue that having Hillary Clinton in office would be better for the country and conservatism because she would screw things up so badly that it would actually help conservatives in the long run. But, if people haven't seen through Hillary Clinton after 16 years in the public eye, what makes you think another four to eight years in the White House would do it? How many Americans saw through FDR? Even as his government policies extended the depression for years after it should have ended, he was voted back into office. Yes, he was a capable war president, but he also did more damage to this country domestically than any other president in history, short-term and long-term, and he's still considered by many people to be one of our greatest presidents.
But, we don't have to go all the way back to Roosevelt: just think back to 2006. What did we hear then? "We should stay home and teach the Republicans a lesson. They'll take a big beating and it'll be great for conservatism." How did that turn out? From where I am sitting, we have a lot less Republicans in Congress, more squabbling than ever, and we're going to have Republican nominee John McCain. Why? Because sometimes a loss leads to better things, but in politics, as often as not, losing just begets more losing and it can sometimes take a very, very long time for a movement to learn from its mistakes. Think back to Roosevelt, whose victories started a 40 year-long dominant cycle for the Democrats and that party's shift to the left in 1972 that started a long slow slide for them that may have finally ended in 2006.
Along those same lines, it's also worth noting that after Barry Goldwater was destroyed in 1964, Richard Nixon, who was even less conservative than McCain, was elected to two terms in the White House. Then, in 1980, Reagan became president. So, there is absolutely no reason to think that if a moderate Republican gets into the White House that it will prevent a conservative Republican from getting in later. And since I mentioned Reagan, I have heard his name invoked many times in the past few weeks to justify not supporting McCain in the general election.
If Ronald Reagan had been alive and had chosen to endorse a candidate in the primaries, even McCain fans should be honest enough to admit that candidate probably wouldn't have been John McCain. But, McCain's most ardent opponents should also be honest enough to note that Ronald Reagan campaigned for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, both of whom were to the left of John McCain. So, were he still alive, Ronald Reagan would almost certainly campaign for McCain against Hillary or Barack and you can be sure that he would not approve of conservatives who say that they'd rather have a liberal Democrat in the White House than a far-from-perfect Republican.
So, whether the question is "What would Reagan do" or "what would a principled conservative do" in November, the answer would be the same: vote for John McCain.
John Hawkins is a blogger who runs Right Wing News and Conservative Grapevine, and writes a regular column for http://Townhall.com.
But that is not what they did do, nor is it what they will do.
This is the fruit of the efforts of many here to jam a candidate like McCain down our throats and I respectfully ask these people to recognize and accept the consequences of these actions not only on themselves but on the rest of us.
With all due respect to these individuals, it is they who have constructed this unworkable machine and I doubt they will be able to enlist the support of those who have been ignored in order to try to fix it. The lack of enthusiasm by many towards a McCain candidacy is really just a shrug by people who would otherwise be energetically involved had they not been disenfranchised in this sham - And yes, IMO it IS a sham.
McCain is acclaimed the presumptive nominee after 'Winning' everything with an average of about 35% of the votes in these stacked Primaries? Give me a break!!
I could go on but, from what I've seen from McCain Bots or Party Bots around here, many do not really care what I and many others think. They just want us to get in line and accept this treatment 'For the good of the Party'. Doesn't fly with me and I suspect I am not alone in this response.
If it comes up as McCain vs. either Obama or Clinton in the general election, then I believe that it won’t matter who I vote for. McCain will lose. I feel I’m a minority in this country at this point. I can vote for McCain, or one of the Dems, or write in Hunter or Thompson or Scooby Doo, and it wouldn’t matter. We’ll inevitably get a Democrat in office anyway.
At least that’s the way I see it at this juncture.
This is not always true but has been repeated far too many times. If a Republican is significantly more liberal than is necessary to get elected (assuming you even buy the premise that moderates are more electable), and counts on securing his position by picking up moderates while holding on the conservative voters since he's still more conservative than the Democrat, it may be in conservatives' best interest to withhold their votes (and signal this with conservative third-party protest votes). Taking a cynical view of politics--that politicians simply want to maximize their election chances and will do whatever it takes ideologically to accomplish this--this strategy will hold a politician back to the right lest he lose too many conservatives in his quest for moderates.
It's important to recognize when this strategy is smart and when it's not. Susan Collins is one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate, but she's probably still as conservative a person as Maine is going to elect, so it would make no sense to try to force her to the right with a protest vote. Lindsey Graham (since he's often accused on this site of being a liberal I'll use him as an example, even though I don't really know how reasonable those accusations are), in contrast, is certainly more conservative than Collins, but is from a far more conservative state, and so conservatives have reason to hold his feet to the fire if he moves too far to the left. It may elect a Democrat once, but it will send a strong signal to other SC Republicans that they must remain conservative.
That said, I am supporting McCain largely because he's strong on a few issues that I really care about.
And it just drives you nuts, doesn’t it? LOL.
No, I am just amazed at your stupidity.
I am in total agreement. This might be a good time to invest in cosmetics stocks—they’re going to be using up a lot of lipstick on this particular pig, but it probably won’t help.
This is the fruit of the efforts of many here to jam a candidate like McCain down our throats and I respectfully ask these people to recognize and accept the consequences of these actions not only on themselves but on the rest of us.
Huh? Whuzzat...?
LOGIC -- ?!?
Well, for heaven's sake: however in God's green earth did you ever manage to stumble your way into this online den of iniquity, anyway...? ;)
Seriously? They started the primaries in liberal states, for one. Secondly, they opened the voting to Democrats. "Come! Pick our candidate. Please."
There's a reason it's called The Stupid Party.
Gotta disagree with you.
As stated in posts in this theard and others;
1. It isn't my fault that McCain doesn't get my vote. It is his fault.
2.If we keep voting in people like McCain it will be assumed that we agree with him and we will continue getting these type of candidates
3.I think an R congress willl stand up to HillObama but will go along with McCain because we knew what he was like and elected him (see point # 2)
4. The lesser of two evils is still evil. I am done voting for the Lesser, I want the "Morer".
His relationship with Obama is a bit pricklier. When Obama seemed to part ways unexpectedly with McCain on a lobbying restrictions bill two years ago, the Republican publicly accused him of "self-interested partisan posturing." Obama called McCain "cranky."
Soon, the two men were laughing and clapping each other's shoulders in the Capitol complex as TV news cameras whirred."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5joC4LlcZVm5kR-hSO7HEOm4ns-1wD8UNHAK00
To said GOP king makers: NO WAY!
The reason why they were able to get away with it is that ALL of our leadership - save a tiny few - shut up and fell in line rather than acting to prevent it in accordance with the duties invested in them as a condition of their positions of leadership.
They know McCain is crazy, that he can't be trusted. WE know McCain is crazy, that he can't be trusted - and it will be even worse if he can be trusted, because of what he promises to bring in his wake.
The option of being "not worse off" is off the table. The remaining choices are McCain, Clinton, and Obama; under any of them we will be worse off. On the question of who will do the how much damage, McCain and Clinton are both off the charts and Obama is a big question mark.
The first order of business should be circumventing the process by which our choices have resolved to these three, with three seasons yet to go before the actual election. That process obviously can't do the job of selecting good candidates for President, and we've got nine months to put together a better one and get that person on the ballot in 50 states, if we want to head off the probable McCain/Clinton/Obama presidency.
If that is not done, the next major election cycle is in 2010. With the right people and utilization of modern information technology we can make sure we have a candidate on every ballot in every race in the country, from Dog Catcher to Senator. Even if we literally pull people off the street at random to be our candidates, we will have a better slate to offer than the GOP or the Democrats.
At some point along the way we make an offer to the GOP, tell them if they want to surrender all leadership positions and do it our way, then they can be the vehicle once again for our cause, but there should be no expectation that they would take us up on it.
Our platform would be literal adherence to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as originally written, with the remaining amendments up for discussion. No member of our coalition should have a problem with that as a starting point for and foundation of a platform.
This Republican is a good soldier, but he doesn't 'fall in line' in obeyance of an illegal order. And when that order is 'support McCain', to follow is to be the author of what comes afterwards. This country is so close to going broke that you don't want your name on the record that says it was your choice, and relevations yet to come about how thoroughly this country has been looted will make the mortgage mess seem minor. I won't have my name on the record as having executed that order, and be the betrayer of the next generation as the generation before did to us.
The visceral reaction to McCain is not going to go away. He’s not a conservative. The GOP has outmaneuvered the conservatives (I give them credit), and the conservatives were not unified with a strong candidate that stood on all three legs of conservatism - and had electable communication skills. So it’s also our fault as conservatives.
However, the GOP is really out of touch with conservatives at this point - and they are going to be absolutely shocked at what happens in November. They are absolutely blind to the reality of their failed leadership and failed strategy to isolate conservatives. At least conservatives know they are divided and have failed.
I am NOT taking your ball any where. I am just not playing your game at all. If you want to rant and rave about it, too bad.
Who said that I have to vote your way or be called names by you?
Seems to me you're the one with the anger and reality problems.
Voting for a third party candidate is a better use of my vote than adding incrementally to what will be a 65% vote for the GOP candidate.
You are not making sense. The posted article addressed voters in general, not only those voters in states that the Republican candidate will certainly win with or without conservative votes. It also deals with more than just votes, but overall support. You are failing to grasp the fundamental issues under discussion here.
That would be The Republican Party Committee to Give Members the Opportunity to Vote for a Conservative Candidate.
My guess is that particular committee was disbanded years ago.
This reminds me of the choice the Russians had in 1941 — Hitler or Stalin? They chose Stalin because “Stalin’s a bastard, but he’s our bastard.” The Russians still hated Stalin, but they loved their country more.
McCain will do some bad things and some good things for us as President, much like Nixon. Barry Hussein Obama or Hillary “Madame Mao” Clinton will clamp down on free speech, tax us to oblivion, take away our guns, seize private property, and hand the keys to the ChiComs.
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.