Why I Am Voting for John McCain on Super Tuesday

 by Aaron Goldstein  

| View comments |  Print This Post

I am more likely to trust someone who promises little and delivers something than someone who promises everything and delivers nothing.

It was nearly a year ago that I wrote an article in support of Rudy Giuliani’s bid for the White House.

Now that Giuliani has withdrawn from the GOP race and has endorsed John McCain, I shall do the same. I will be casting a ballot for John McCain in the Massachusetts Republican Primary on Super Tuesday, February 5th. While Mitt Romney has a strong political organization in the Commonwealth, since independent voters are eligible to vote the results could be a lot closer.

Needless to say, there will be conservatives aghast at my decision. So here are my reasons for supporting McCain.

First, I am supporting John McCain for his steadfast support of the surge of American troops in Iraq.  McCain long advocated this change in direction when many politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, were calling for troops to be withdrawn altogether. It was only last April that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid insisted the War in Iraq was lost and that the “surge wasn’t accomplishing anything.” Whether we want to be in Iraq or not, the fact is we are there and cannot leave anytime soon. If there is anyone who can clearly define and fulfill our mission in Iraq, it is John McCain. The same can be said for Afghanistan, which has become complicated because of a resurgent Taliban.

Second, John McCain doesn’t shirk from the evils of Islamic fascism. While McCain isn’t the only Republican who recognizes this, he recognizes it better than some other Republicans. During the height of the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006, McCain defended Israel’s response to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. At a political fundraising luncheon in Illinois, McCain remarked, “What would we do if somebody came across our borders and killed our soldiers and captured our soldiers? Do you think we would be exercising total restraint? Such restraint should come from Hezbollah and the nations sponsoring it, notably Iran.” McCain went on to say, “The struggle is between radical extremist Islamic forces throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East, and West values and standards and beliefs and everything that we stand for.” 

Yet one year later, Mitt Romney was singing the praises of Hezbollah. At a July 2007 campaign stop in Ottumwa, Iowa (that was broadcast by C-SPAN) he was asked about combating AIDS in Africa.  Romney replied:

Did you notice what Hezbollah did? Lebanon became a democracy some time ago, and while their government was getting under way, Hezbollah went into southern Lebanon and provided health clinics to some of the people there, and schools. And they built their support there by having done so. That kind of diplomacy is something that would help America become stronger around the world and help people understand that our interest is an interest towards modernity and goodness and freedom for all people in the world. And so, I want to see America carry out that kind of health diplomacy.

Yet if one reads Aaron Klein’s article on Romney’s remarks, one will observe that these activities had been occurring well before the Syrians were kicked out of Lebanon and being underwritten by Iran. Klein also points out that these health facilities are used to house its weapons and the schools are little more than a forum of anti-Israel indoctrination. Is this Mitt Romney’s idea of “diplomacy?” May I remind Mr. Romney that Hezbollah was the entity responsible for murdering 241 U.S. Marines at their barracks in Beirut on October 23, 1983. Do we really want a President who wants us to follow the lead of Hezbollah?

Third, I think McCain’s contrarianism is an endearing quality. Don’t get me wrong. I have my disagreements with McCain specifically where it concerns interrogation of non-enemy combatants. Yet given his experiences in the Hanoi Hilton I can respect his perspective on the matter. Many conservatives, of course, have been dismayed by his positions on illegal immigration, tax cuts and campaign finance reform. While I don’t embrace his positions on these issues, from where I sit, his positions do demonstrate the man can think and act independently. It also demonstrates he can exercise judgment even if it means taking flak for it. Being elected President might be a popularity contest but making tough decisions are bound to get some people very, very angry. McCain has been making such decisions his whole political life and his disposition is suited to the rigors of the Presidency.  

Does this mean McCain should ignore conservatives altogether? Absolutely not. But McCain recognizes that most Americans are neither cookie cutter liberals nor conservatives. Most Americans have a mixture of conservative and liberal views. McCain should listen to conservative views and implement those views into public policy when they are in the best interest of the country. However, McCain should not have to govern at the whim of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. If Limbaugh thinks the Republican Party will be destroyed because he’s not getting his way, then fine. If Coulter wants to stump for Hillary then also fine. Be careful for what you wish because you might get it. I suspect that if Hillary were to win, both Coulter and Limbaugh would spend the next four years complaining about it and laughing all the way to the bank. McCain is his own man and most Americans, I believe, respect that of him. 

Fourth, I quite frankly do not hold Mitt Romney in high esteem. In November 2002, I cast my first ever Republican ballot when I voted for Mitt Romney in his successful bid to become Governor of Massachusetts. To be fair, he did not have a horrible tenure in office. He was certainly better than Deval Patrick, our current Democratic Governor. Romney did help to improve benefits for veterans and toughened the Commonwealth’s drunk driving laws. But he never did anything that made me say to myself, “Gee, this guy should be our next President.” For all his business acumen, there was no Massachusetts Miracle as there was under Michael Dukakis. In fact, people and businesses left Massachusetts in droves. Romney talks a good game but doesn’t deliver. He’s sizzle but no steak.

Mitt Romney isn’t the first politician to tell voters what they want to hear. But few have done it as artfully. When Romney challenged Ted Kennedy in 1994 for his U.S. Senate seat, during a debate with Kennedy, Romney made a point of telling Massachusetts voters, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” Yet a little more than a decade later, when it was evident he wanted more than the Corner Office at the Massachusetts State House, he told Republicans in South Carolina, “Ronald Reagan is also my hero and a friend of all of ours . . . I believe that our party’s ascendancy began with Ronald Reagan’s brand of visionary and courageous leadership.” So let me get this straight.  While the Republican Party was in its ascendancy under Ronald Reagan, Mitt Romney was an independent.  Unless Romney had an epiphany one night in the woods this tells me that he is a phony. 

I need not always agree with a candidate to give them my vote. I can disagree with a candidate on a particular issue or even a set of issues and still vote for him or her. What I cannot countenance is a candidate making a promise or a set of promises he or she knows cannot be kept. Mitt Romney turned around his fortunes in this campaign when he won the Michigan Primary last month. While John McCain told Michigan voters that jobs in the auto industry were not coming back, Romney pledged a $20 billion bailout of the auto industry with the promise of rebuilding it. Romney’s message was more appealing to Michigan voters than McCain’s. But can Romney back it up? What if the Big Three and the UAW tell him to go stuff it? What if Congress as well as state and local officials follow suit?  Given his stewardship of the economy during his tenure as Governor of my home state, I believe I am safe in stating the answer is a resounding no.  I am more likely to trust someone who promises little and delivers something than someone who promises everything and delivers nothing. 

For all the conservative angst against McCain, I don’t exactly see conservatives embracing Romney.  Where are the GOP politicians and luminaries for Romney? Governors Crist, Schwarzenegger and now Perry of Texas have endorsed McCain. Romney courted Jeb Bush but he didn’t bite. Sure, talk radio hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham have just endorsed Romney. But the fact that Ann Coulter would rather vote for Hillary than McCain is an indication she doesn’t exactly have faith in Romney. If Rush Limbaugh thinks McCain is going to destroy the Republican Party why hasn’t he championed Romney as a conservative savior? Because deep down both know that Romney is no more conservative than McCain. 

The bottom line is that John McCain is the only Republican who can retain the White House. John McCain is the presidential candidate best suited to win the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq and be a bulwark against Islamic fascism. Simply put, you won’t catch John McCain suggesting that America should follow the lead of Hezbollah. John McCain is a conservative who is pragmatic enough to embrace policy ideas that might not always be popular but are ultimately in this country’s best interests. John McCain will not make outlandish promises he knows he cannot possibly keep. John McCain will tell you where he stands whether you want to hear it or not and I respect that enormously.  For these reasons, I will be voting for John McCain in the Massachusetts Republican Primary on February 5th and hopefully again in nine months from now on Election Day, November 4th.

Elections & Political Parties

Read more articles by Aaron Goldstein