The decision whether to insert plugs into nose and vote for a dishonest, arrogant elitist or hope to punish the Blue Republicans by voting for another, belongs to each individual.
In 1994 Webster Hubbell went to prison for mail fraud and tax evasion as a result of his involvement with the Clintons and his shady dealings at the Rose Law Firm. While incarcerated, he was famously quoted as saying, "I need to roll over one more time" for his friend and business partner Hillary. Hubble would die in prison a broken man.
With the coronation of John McCain as the Republican presidential nominee in sight, conservatives are being asked to do a Hubble and "roll over" for the good of the party and the defeat of Hillary. Conventional wisdom, gleaned from mainstream media reports and crossover voting by "independents" who have had an undue influence on the nominating process, argues that McCain has the best chance of beating Hubble's partner at Rose, and party insiders have bought this argument hook, line, and sinker. The fact that McCain has always enjoyed good press, and friendly relations with the Democrats including Ted Kennedy, has largely been responsible for the high poll numbers the Arizona "maverick" (read backstabber) has with those who do not pay attention. McCain did poorly in all of the caucus states, where those who are actually following the candidates and their histories hold sway. Much of his success stemmed from crossover voting and sunshine patriot voters who recognized his name and thought of lollipops and moonbeams.
That good press will dematerialize for McCain. Did I mention that Webb Hubble died in prison?
McCain's insults to conservatives, while claiming to be one of us, have been chronicled quite effectively elsewhere, but a few quickies are in order; voting against the Bush tax cuts, the McCain-Feingold abridgement of free speech and leg up for Democratic fundraising, the McCain-Kennedy amnesty — that dirty backroom deal that we foiled and which led our fearless leader to scowl, "they want a fence, we'll give them the G*****n fence!, the gang of 14, the call to close Gitmo and end aggressive interrogation techniques, no drilling for oil in ANWAR or the Gulf, his call for carbon credits and global warming legislation, his opposition to a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, his support of fetal stem-cell research, etc. The guy has spit on us every chance he has had, but now we are supposed to roll over for him.
In 1999 McCain, the supposed pro-life candidate, had this to say in the San Francisco Chronicle:
I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.
Did I mention that he was endorsed by Republicans for Choice? Pro-life, indeed!
But does that explain the antipathy, the near hatred of McCain by conservatives?
Well, we had to endure 8 years of pathological lying by Bill Clinton, and it was part of why conservatives despised the man. I have no doubt that McCain`s "straight talk express" angers conservatives. He is a man who does not have the decency to admit he is a liar. Remember what he said about Romney's statement about secret timetables? He knew better.
In his CPAC speech to shore up his standing with conservatives he made the following statement:
I know in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be "nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and take comfort from the knowledge that I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives.
What, exactly, does Mr. McCain think he did when he rammed McCain-Feingold down our collective throats? It seems to me we need defense against HIM!
If principled people were angry at a man who lied openly, jokingly, who made no bones about being a liar, how much worse should our anger be kindled against a man who claims to be honest?
But anger at what many perceive to be a fundamental dishonesty cloaked in self-righteousness is not the whole story. This argument is about the soul of the Republican Party.
We'll get back to that in a moment; first I want to make an analogy which I think is apt but which is not being considered.
Often we lose sight of exactly what a political party is for, what purposes it serves and what obligations are imposed in either direction. A political party should be viewed as a business, a long-term client-based service corporation. They provide us with a service, a political service designed to advance our agenda and point of view. We pay them with our votes, monetary support, and grassroots action in return. The Republican Party, once a moribund institution, became the bedrock of the conservative movement under Ronald Reagan, and the Party committed to provide us with the services we required to make the political changes we desired. Granted, there are people of different stripes in such a large organization, but a good-faith effort is required of the Party to meet the needs of those who support it. In short, the Party is for our pleasure, we are not there for the pleasure of the Party.
We made a mistake in supporting George W. Bush for President; he came from the blue-blood wing of the Party, the disgruntled big-business elites who once held dominance, and, although he had some conservative ideas, he has successfully exploded the coalition of conservatives by supporting luke-warm policies and "inclusive" outreach efforts at the expense of the base. We were told over and over that we had to roll over one more time, had to wait to build our dominion over government. We did it; we elected a Republican House, a Republican Senate, Republican Governors, a Republican President, and yet things did not improve; no, they continued to slide down into the pit. In short, our Grand Old Party put out an increasingly shoddy product, and demanded more for that product.
Imagine if you contracted to have a house built, and the contractor dragged his feet on starting, then began building a completely different house than you had asked him to construct; you would be furious. You go to the builder and demand answers and he haughtily tells you, "tough luck, this is what we're going to build because it is what is in style this year and so makes our job easier. Live in a refrigerator box if you don`t like it!" You threaten to take your business elsewhere but the crooked builder knows he has you over a barrel because the only other contractor in town will build you an even worse product. What can you do? Call the better business bureau, but that won't get your house built or your money back.
We contracted to have the House built, along with the Senate, what we got was not what we had bargained to have done.
In short, we have a deal we cannot back out of with a haughty bunch who gladly take our money but sneer at us and disregard our wishes. In a better world we could sue for breech of contract!
McCain is the embodiment of this breech of contract; the consummate insider, the darling of our enemies in the media and the Democrats, and the man the poll-watching blue-bloods think should be our candidate — and we`re going to like it!
We have been purged, and many of us on the Right are fully aware of it. Consider the work of such groups as Republicans Who Care; they have pumped large amounts of money into recruiting and supporting moderates to "retake" the Republican Party. This from a Bloomberg news report circa 2006:
A roster of donors that reads like a Wall Street Who's Who from 40 years ago is spearheading a fund-raising drive to elect Republicans they regard as moderates on Nov. 7.
David Rockefeller, 91, former chief executive officer of Chase Manhattan Corp.; John Whitehead, 84, a former senior partner at Goldman Sachs & Co.; and Sidney Weinberg Jr., 78, son of a legendary Goldman senior partner, are among the top donors to a new group called Republicans Who Care. It is airing ads for such candidates as Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, who supports gay rights and didn't vote for George W. Bush in 2004.
The Blue wing of the Party has long sought us out of power; they see us as wrecking things with our rude behavior and crude mental faculties.
Don't believe me? Why were the Republicans so hell-bent on the amnesty deal? Fredo Arias-King, foreign relations aid to former Mexican President Vicente Fox, tips us off:
Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.
Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also "unfairly" take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the "natural progress" of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.
So, the public in general and Conservatives in particular are getting too uppity, and Republic elites want us quiet. Remember the "loud people?" Doesn't that smack of McCain's "calm down?"
THAT is why we are all so angry; we are being told to be good little boys and girls, obey your elders, eat all your broccoli and go to bed quietly. Oh, and pony up on the cash and the votes.
There is the rub McCain faces; he may get our votes but he isn't going to get our money. The Republican Party is running on fumes financially because of anger at the mistreatment at their hands, and John McCain will fare no better. It's fitting, in a way; the author of McCain-Feingold, the man who said money corrupts, is going to learn a lesson in moral purity and lose the election! I may or may not vote for him, but I'll never contribute a penny.
So, what are our options? We can bite the bullet, obey our betters, and vote for an objectionable candidate. The argument is that we have some influence if we help elect McCain, none if we don't. There is a Biblical argument to be made here; Jesus told the parable of the poor widow and the corrupt judge, whom she henpecked until he gave her what she wanted — justice — just to secure some peace for himself. Of course, staying with the party means relegating ourselves to second-class status, but we may live to fight another day. We'll have no status if we leave.
Option two is insane; voting with the Democrats to punish our Republican masters. I, for one, will not give myself a prefrontal lobotomy, even though Ann Coulter is considering do-it-yourself brain surgery. (I like and respect Ann, don't misunderstand; I just think she's wrong here.)
Option three is to sit out the election. Foolish; you have no right to gripe if you don't participate.
Option four is to vote in the lower races as needed and vote third party for President. Actually, this strategy would work well in the long run IF conservatives would walk out en-masse on the Republicans. There have been parties that have collapsed in the past; Federalists, Whigs, Know-Nothings, Populists. We tend to think that our only options are the Republicans or Democrats, but the stability of these parties is a twentieth century phenomenon. Third parties tend not to do well because of the federal system we have in place, and ultimately there will be only two (or one, as during the Era of Good Feelings) but nothing says these must be the two we currently possess. The collapse of the Whigs and Know-Nothings cleared the way for the GOP, and it may be that the Party of Lincoln and Reagan has run its course.
But that is a big if, and our current problems are dire. I don't pretend to have the answer; there is great danger in whatever course of action we take. One thing is certain; we can have influence over events only if we participate. Nothing is accomplished by sitting and sulking.
So, ultimately, the final decision whether to insert plugs into nose and vote for a dishonest, arrogant elitist or hope to punish the Blue Republicans by voting for another, belongs to each individual. This is high stakes poker.
Whatever the outcome, the battle for the soul of the Republican Party will continue long into the future, and we have a mighty task ahead of us. It's not time to roll over!
Bgoccia@aol.com
http://www.tbirdnow.mee.nu
Read more articles by Timothy Birdnow
"I don't pretend to have the answer; there is great danger in whatever course of action we take. One thing is certain; we can have influence over events only if we participate. Nothing is accomplished by sitting and sulking."
This is precisely the discussion we've been having in Phillip Jackson's last couple of articles here at Intellectual Conservative - to what extent principles should be compromised for pragmatism. The discussion has been quite interesting. We are certainly faced with a very bleak "best case" scenario voting for John McCain. What will be really interesting is to see what happens in 2012 if we elect McCain today. In my opinion, whether we vote for McCain in '08 or not is only going to determine whether a Democrat gets elected in '08 or 2012. There's just really no good options.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 8, 2008
We are at war and McCain will be a great Wartime President. Everyone needs to face the reality of the world in which we live. If you do not back McCain you will get an anti-war crowd in charge and we will be in greater danger, period.
Best,
JKL
Comment by jamesklambert | February 8, 2008
This election and others to come I am a one issue voter which means I may vote for candidates for offices or I may do write in candidates. What Issue? Illegal immigration! This guarantees a write in for president and possibly other levels as well. Here is my pledge:
I will vote, and actively work for the election of, any candidate that is willing to sign an agreement that illegal aliens may not have:
1. sanctuary,
2. taxpayer funded benefits,
3. anchor baby citizenship,
4. drivers licenses
5. police no ask policy,
6. day worker centers,
7. legal services,
8. chain migration,
9. amnesty
10. Language support other than ENGLISH.
If no candidates for an elected position will sign the agreement
THEN I will vote for a write-in candidate.
I also will not contribute to non-signers campaigns AND I will return their campaign material marked as REFUSED RETURN TO SENDER.
Comment by Mickey G | February 8, 2008
[…] A hearty welcome to Intellectual Conservative readers! Blue Johnnie McCain, the Fabian candidate, has elicited a number of angry articles at IC, including my own. Many thanks to editor Andrew Alexander for giving me the opportunity to make my case. […]
Pingback by Timothy Birdnow » John McCain and Rollover Republicans at Intellectual Conservative | February 8, 2008
I almost agree with the concept that an atrocious Democratic president for four years is better then the Republican in name only (RINO) McCain. Here in Illinois we had George Ryan run for governor as a Republican with conservative ideals. Upon getting elected he immediately transformed into a liberal, corrupt, big spending Democrat. In four years Governor Ryan virtually destroyed the Illinois Republican Party. The only thing positive that can be said that came from the affair is Governor Ryan is now rotting in prison.
Four years of a President McCain could very well do enormous damage to the national Republican Party and the country as a whole. His knowledge of economics seems nonexistent. He has bought off on the manmade Global Warming nonsense and seems to support an open border policy. His only positive point is his national security credentials.
Unfortunately Commander in Chief McCain worries me too. While in the Navy I meet some of the returned Vietnam POWs and worked directly for one of them. All of them ranged from totally nuts to generally unstable. It is a sad fact that years of torture warps the brain. A President McCain with the nuclear codes scares the hell out of me.
On the other hand we are at war and a President Obama means surrender and a greatly motivated Islamic radicals. Iraq and probably all of the Middle East will become an Iranian Empire and gas will be $20 at the pump and the Western economy will slip into depression.
A President Clinton will not be as bad. However we would experience more sordid corruption and socialism attempts. Undoubtedly our military will have women placed in direct combat roles and homosexuals will be given open acceptance. Both of those things will be difficult to roll back.
It is a difficult decision to determine who is better out of a horrible group of candidates. My gut feel is to buy an old Titan 1 missile complex and hunker down until all this nastiness works it self out.
In lieu of that I’ll have to vote for candidate McCain and hold my nose and hope for the best.
Comment by CommanderBill | February 9, 2008
You spend approximately three-quarters of your article telling us all the good and valid reasons we should not vote for McCain, and then with your four options, tell us we're all nincompoops if we don't.
A couple of specific points…
I do have the right to complain if I sit this one out (as I did in 1996). And I'm not talking about my rights to free speech. I mean that I am morally justified. I have had no hand in making the Republican Party what it has become. On the contrary, since I was old enough to vote, I have cast for the most conservative candidates in the primaries. I have joined every important conservative political action group that you can think of. I've contributed money and volunteered my time. I even express my ultra-conservative views in public on forums like this one. So, you better believe I have the right (moral justification) to complain. Since I'm not responsible, since I represent rectitude, then yes, I can complain.
Second, you assert that we can't influence events and the Party from the outside.
Wrong again. I can, I will, and I do. Look, I'm a Christian Conservative who is also a combat veteran. Do you have any idea how much of an outsider that makes me in American society? I'm used to viewing myself and my ideals as insurgent. My point being that Conservatism is a movement, a type of religion if you will, that transcends party. In fact, Conservatives already have considerable organization outside the Republican umbrella, an example would be the largest political lobbying group, the Christian Coalition. We do not depend on the Republican Party for a voice in politics. Surely, the various Conservative lobby and action groups represent us far more effectively in government than most Republican politicians do.
Ultimately, politicians, regardless of Party, are by overwhelming percentage, a bunch of self-aggrandizing, gutless followers (with notable exceptions) who only go as far as the public morays will allow and quickly change tack with public sentiment. Following that theory, politicians can be brought to heal by focusing on winning the hearts and minds of the American people to conservative values. I would argue that it is not only far more effective than playing the margins of election year calculus, but the only means of saving our culture from the abyss of Post-Modernism. But, by voting for the likes of McCain, you only reinforce the very notion of the homebuilder over a barrel that you decried. Liberals like McCain will see that all they have to do is be the lesser of two evils and appeal themselves to the inattentive, ill-informed, uncaring masses in "the center", because they can count on Conservatives making the same decision you did.
There is no logic or benefit to being a member of a party that does not represent our ideals and so we lose nothing by bolting. We are already disenfranchised, so how is it to our disadvantage to torpedo the people who have torpedoed us? Likewise, we should start thinking of ourselves as Conservatives with an agenda rather than a group within a political party. The party system has failed us and we need either the concede being marginalized within that party system or start acting like insurgents with a message to convey.
I urge you to reconsider your commitment to vote for McCain and sit this one out.
Regards.
Comment by Julian Cate | February 11, 2008
The foolishness of “sitting this one out” can not be overstated. I readily admit that of the three viable candidates none are truly acceptable to the conservative. Nonetheless history is filled with instances where an indifferent populace allowed a radical fringe gain control of an election. Keep in mind Adolf Hitler was democratically elected.
The president of United States is the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Putting a person of unknown character in control of the nuclear release codes is idiotic to the extreme. Jimmy Carter nearly destroyed the United States with unilateral disarmament when a 600 pound Soviet guerilla was being backed against an economic wall. We are lucky to be alive and chancing that sort of situation again is going down a perilous road.
Senator Obama is a far left liberal with possible Islamic leanings. As president, Obama undoubtedly would have United States catastrophically withdraw from the Middle East. The result will be an unfettered Iran and greatly enhanced Islamic terrorist factions. Four years hence we could very well find ourselves facing a nuclear armed New Persian Empire controlling the Middle East. Conservatives cannot let this happen just because they don’t like Senator McCain.
Senator Hillary Clinton is embittered, utterly corrupt with socialist leanings. She is however a pragmatist and it is doubtful she would let the Middle East fall into Iranian hands. She would cause the country immeasurable harm but at a level that the United States could probably recover from after four disastrous years. A President Obama could leave a legacy that is unrecoverable.
A President McCain could cause the Republican Party perhaps near fatal harm. However, a President McCain resultant damage to the country would be more likely transitory and recoverable. Senator McCain is a scary fellow, pig headed with faulty fundamental concepts. However his national security understanding is high. He has a moral center. His weaknesses are in areas that congressional Republicans should be able to mitigate or block from becoming law. The country may stay on “the wrong path” but at least it will be safe.
These are dangerous times were apathy can be fatal.
Comment by CommanderBill | February 11, 2008
Bill;
Your argument is based on two points, namely: "…his national security understanding is high." and "He has a moral center."
Really? What evidence do you have that McCain gets it when it comes to military matters? Why, because he was in the Navy and got shot down and spent time in a POW camp? Do you know if he understands how to fight and win a counter-insurgency? Can you look me in the eye and say that McCain will fund the F-22, the A-35, ABM weapons, and replace nearly the entire inventory of combat vehicles in the Army and Marine Corps?
Do you suppose or assert that McCain will take an independent, America-first foreign policy with the Europeans and Chinese? Do you want to look me in the eye and say that McCain will close the borders to illegal immigration? What about his stance on the North American Union and the transnational highway from Mexico to Canada? Think he'll just say no?
Having been in the military is not a certification for military competence. Just look at John Kerry and Gen. Wesley (read Wussley) Clarke. Indeed, Reagan made Army training films during WWII and never left the CONUS, but he "got it" when it came to the military.
McCain has a moral center? Please, don't make me laugh! What evidence do you have to support such a claim? Have you read his autobiography? It is nothing but a self-serving, patting-myself-on-the-back exercise into myth making. He has banked off his time as a POW for personal gain. Do you have any idea how reprehensible that is? His opposition to the Constitutional guarantees for life, free speech, and to keep and bear arms, which he has taken repeated oaths to uphold, is a clear indication that he is an oathbreaker. His word is not his bond.
McCain is nearly as vacuous as Obama. He admitted he doesn't understand even simple economic concepts in a debate and resorts to "am not, are too" responses when challenged. Frankly, I'm at a loss to see how McCain would be any better than either Democrat.
Lastly, as I've said in other posts, I do not accept the doom and gloom scenarios for the next 4 years. We survived Carter and LBJ and FDR and Wilson. We'll survive again. What we are less likely to survive is not the idiot in the White House, but the social corrosion of our toxic culture. Turn the culture around and the White House will follow.
Regards.
Comment by Julian Cate | February 11, 2008
Julian,
Your argument basically comes down to two things:
1) McCain isn’t that good.
2) The Democrats aren’t that bad.
On both counts you are wrong.
McCain wants to win the war; Clinton and Obama want to retreat. If you cannot see the substantive difference here it is because you choose not to.
Domestically, let’s just take one all important issue, how many Supreme Court Justices will retire and otherwise leave the court in the next 4 to 8 years? Are you willing to give up the court for the next generation? Do you think that will help us heal our culture?
You can pretend to be, “at a loss to see how McCain would be any better than either Democrat,” but your inability to face the truth doesn’t change it. Do you think that Clinton or Obama would have voted for Robert Bork? The difference between McCain and the alternatives is so vast that you must be willfully blind to miss it. Consider these numbers:
American Conservative Union rating for McCain: 82
American Conservative Union rating for Clinton: 9
American Conservative Union rating for Obama: 8
Now, I know, people will say, “That is McCain’s lifetime ranking, it’s been lower in recent years…” So what?! That is just more willful blindness. Even if his ranking fell to 50 (which it never has) that would still be more than five times the ranking of the alterative. If that is not a substantial difference, what is?
Your overall tone (like so many conservatives I have heard and read recently) is very troubling to me. You are so dismissive of McCain’s wartime experience, as if it was just something he did that doesn’t tell us anything about him. How many people do you know who have spent more than a half a decade as a POW under hellish conditions? Have you stopped for even a moment to think of the magnitude of what he has been through? Honestly, doesn’t that tell us something about his moral character? How can you be so quick to say:
“Having been in the military is not a certification for military competence. Just look at John Kerry and Gen. Wesley (read Wussley) Clarke. Indeed, Reagan made Army training films during WWII and never left the CONUS, but he “got it” when it came to the military.”
You act as if all military vets are created equal and, worse still, you pretend that they are equally unimportant. If you had to pick between a POW who kept his faith in America and refused to leave without his fellow Americans, or some guy who didn’t serve, who would you pick? Is it really unimportant to you that McCain served and served honorably? Is it really unimportant to you that he has decades of experience in military oversight? Is it really unimportant to you that he has repeatedly visited our troops, who love him? Take a breath and think about what you are saying, please!
BTW it took Reagan many years of hard thought before he “got it” on a number of issues. The man was a hard-core Dem during and after WW II. Check out this radio address he gave in 48 for Truman:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uJDhS4oUm0M
Maybe if he had spent a little time in the military he would have come around faster; it certainly wouldn’t have hurt his intellectual growth. It should also be noted that Truman (in many ways a very different kind of Democrat) was the first Cold War President. He was the one who decided to take the Soviet threat seriously and take a stand against it. Was this partly due to the fact that he was a WW I vet? Once again, seeing combat certainly didn’t hurt his ability to judge the worst parts of humanity.
Lastly, if you aren’t too upset with me after all that, please take a look at this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4xtIOO6N-Oc
Best,
JKL
Comment by jamesklambert | February 11, 2008
[…] I recently argued in my piece at Intellectual Conservative that the Blue Republicans-the Rockefellarians, the liberal, big business wing of the party, has been trying to purge conservatives. I made the case that the old boy`s network has wanted us out of control of "their" party and that they have taken a series of steps-culminating in the nomination of the ultimate insider John McCain-to accomplish this purge. Contributor Jack Kemp has forwarded a piece by David Limbaugh making a similar case: […]
Pingback by Timothy Birdnow » The Empire Strikes Back; Blue Republicans and John McCain | February 13, 2008
[…] John McCain and the Rollover Republicans …these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they could be converted, be… […]
Pingback by Teaching on The Finance World For News and Information Around The World On Finance » John McCain and the Rollover Republicans | February 13, 2008
This author writes well and sounds a very familiar theme of late; not only on this website but across the spectrum of conservative websites. But, while the sins of the past are well cataloged and the voter options thoroughly thrashed out, the conclusions are invariably weak. If we want to be totally pragmatic as these various authors constantly urge us to be, then we should be talking about probable “before and after the election” scenarios and discuss political strategy rather than issues. And that means putting aside the “principles vs. pragmatism” argument for a moment, not because principles aren’t important, but rather because we can’t “elect” principles, we can only vote for candidates.
First, can we agree that, as a candidate, McCain isn’t wildly popular among conservative voters and isn’t drawing hordes of cross-over voters from the Democrats? For those who disagree and want to tout McCain’s many virtues, stop reading here, it doesn’t get any better. But, unlike the celebrated Roman, I have neither come to praise McCain nor to bury him.
Second, can we agree that McCain has the albatross of President Bush around his neck, not his fault to be sure, but also not something he can capitalize on without further alienating conservative voters. He can’t promise conservatives he will continue Bush’s policies and leadership momentum; many conservatives disagree with Bush’s policies and would ask “what momentum?”. He can’t disavow Bush’s conduct of the war (McCain’s military record is one of his primary strengths) and he certainly can’t pull over Democratic voters by merely promising more of the same in Iraq. Recall that Democrats running against Bush in 2000 all prayed that Bill Clinton would stay far away from actively “supporting” their campaigns.
Once it’s indisputably clear that McCain is the Republican candidate, the MSM will turn on him and start the normal sniper tactics; everything from his age and last prostrate exam to his voting record will be analyzed in minute detail and McCain will be found wanting in every category. Conservatives, who are unimpressed with him now, will rally to his defense out of sheer spite and return the favor with attacks on Clinton or Obama, particularly in regard to suitability as commander in chief. But, it will be 7 years since 9/11, too long to frighten undecided and potential cross-over voters with fears of another terrorist catastrophe.
Unless Clinton or Obama self-destruct during the campaign, which is highly unlikely with the MSM flying top cover, the polls will swing toward a likely Democratic Party victory. But, what if it’s a high margin, rather than a very close victory? What if conservatives do vote Republican but with resignation, maybe even a fatalistic “what the hell else can we do” attitude? What if conservatives display no enthusiasm for McCain, don’t spend their hard earned money supporting Republicans, don’t argue viciously with those attacking McCain; basically, what if we stand silently side by side within the Republican lines, faces blank and shoulders slumped? How do you convince the undecided voters when you aren’t convinced yourself?
One frequent boogeyman argument is “Think what will happen if Hillary or Obama is elected.” Yes, a Democrat as president gets to appoint Supreme Court justices for instance, but have you noticed that commentators assume conservatives have the muscle to prevent that just by voting for McCain? If there are more of “them” than “us”, how will voting and then losing assure conservative Justices are nominated? Heck, even voting and winning doesn’t assure that. Remember, the only current Supreme Court Justice nominated by a Democrat is Ginsburg. And, recently retired liberal Justice O’Connor was nominated by Reagan. Only 1 out of the 9 serving Justices nominated by a Democrat is a strong argument for voting Republican? Why?
If the Democrat margin of victory looks to be high, the big money contributors will take out insurance by donating heavily to the Democrats and the tsunami will begin to gather speed in its rush toward the Republican beaches . If the day after the election shows a massacre of McCain and his Republican coatholders, then what? Well, the world won’t stop spinning and the Democrats will get their 4 to 8 years to thoroughly screw up and then anger the voting public. And, there will be much wringing of hands and extremely boring analysis of what went wrong. Be assured that non-voting or turncoat conservatives will be blamed for the loss, everyone from Ann Coulter to several frequent commenters on this website.
But what should we think of an election aftermath where Republican apologists fix the blame rather than fixing the problem? As George Patton said: “Americans hate to lose”. So, what do we do with losers who don’t make the grade, apologize to them for our many shortcomings as voters or send them down the road?
We can’t elect “principles” it’s true, but what if we can’t elect candidates either? Will the Republican pragmatists speak up with a “plan” for what to do after the deluge? And being pragmatists ourselves, should we continue to listen to authors and assorted “experts” who couldn’t lead us to victory? As consummate pragmatists, should there be any room in our philosophy for forgiveness and second chances?
One desirable “after the loss” action would be to weed the losers and their mouthpieces from conservative ranks. If McCain loses big time, our first strategic action should be to fix the blame on Republicans. But that’s not fair to the Republicans you say – hey, I thought we were being pragmatists here.
Comment by Pat Skurka | February 13, 2008