Is it time for conservatives to support McCain?
by Rachel Alexander | View comments |
Print This Post
Deciding whether or not to support McCain is a deeply difficult decision for conservatives to make, reflected in their division down the middle over whether to support the Republican Party this election or not. At some point, conservatives have to take a gamble and try and predict the future - will they regret their decision down the road?
Unless one of Huckabee's miracles happens, McCain will be the Republican nominee for president. As other presidential candidates have dropped out, some conservatives, such as Senator and former presidential candidate Sam Brownback from Kansas and Jonah Goldberg from National Review have decided to support him. But many conservative Republicans including Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and James Dobson have continued to hold out on supporting him, and may continue to do so right up until the general election.
For those conservatives who have refrained from supporting McCain because he has too many negatives, they must decide whether those negatives outweigh the negatives of having a Democrat in office. Will it hurt the country and the Republican Party too much in the long run to have McCain in office? Or is it more important to save the lives of unborn babies now with a fairly pro-life president, ensure that conservatives justices are appointed to the Supreme Court, and that our nation continues to be tough on the war on terror?
McCain's negatives are numerous. The three pieces of legislation he's most known for are all collaborations with Democrats promoting liberal ideals: McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, McCain-Kennedy immigration reform, and McCain-Lieberman environmental restrictions. His lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union has decreased down to 82.3, and last year he received a 65. His positions appear to waffle back and forth on most issues, regardless of his claims to "straight talk," and his claim to be pro-life includes a record of voting for government-funded research on stem cells from embryos, which destroys them like an early-term abortion. His "maverick" positions are nothing more than liberal positions that differ from other Republicans. Insiders say he personally dislikes the conservative wing of the party, and there are numerous anecdotes about this, such as his efforts to purge conservatives from Republican groups.
Even so, the most important issue facing the U.S. today is terrorism. McCain has promised to be tough on terrorism and keep our troops in Iraq until we're assured of stability. The thought of Barack Obama handling our approach to terrorism should send chills down anyone's spine. Hillary Clinton wouldn't be much better, because her motive on the war on terror is to score a legacy for herself.
Conservatives breathed a sigh of relief when George W. Bush beat McCain in 2000. Since Bush entered office, however, he has repeatedly disappointed them, with his big budgets accepting Democrat spending. Now that McCain is the presumptive nominee, conservatives are fearful McCain will be even worse than Bush.
This is one of the most difficult decisions conservatives will make. Not voting for McCain ensures that a Democrat will be our next president, and both Obama and Hillary have very liberal records. Conservatives must gamble on whether McCain will protect key conservative ideals, or whether he won't and it would be better for the party in the long run to suffer through a Democrat presidency. It might force the party to nominate a truer conservative next time - but it also might not.
McCain could very well lead more conservatively than Bush, or his liberal side could come out and he could end up appointing "maverick" judges as liberal as Justice Souter, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush. On the other hand, McCain would be more likely to deter terrorist strikes on the U.S., and would ensure that terrorism is stamped out in Iraq. Deciding whether or not to support McCain is a deeply difficult decision for conservatives to make, reflected in their division down the middle over whether to support the Republican Party this election or not. At some point, conservatives have to take a gamble and try to predict the future - will they regret their decision down the road?
Unfortunately for Republicans, the presidency is cyclical. Americans tire of one party in office after a couple of terms, and turn to the other party looking for a different approach. The economy is doing poorly and voters have Bush fatigue. Even if conservatives vote for McCain, it may not matter.
rachel@intellectualconservative.com
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/rachel-alexander-archives/
Read more articles by Rachel Alexander
Rachel, I am sorry but the Republican party is dead! For good cause!
It is time for conservatives to drop party registrations and make their voices known and understood. Vote only for those that support your conservative principles. If no candidate in a race supports your principles do a write-in. Forget about party loyalty since neither party has principles other than getting elected.
Comment by Mickey G | February 25, 2008
It seems likely that Obama is going to be the nominee of the Democrats, and
an Obama presidency might be one from which this nation never could
recover. There is no perfect conservative candidate, and there never will
be — even Ronald Reagan was not always as conservative as many would
have liked. Voting for someone other McCain, as distasteful as he is, is to
ensure the demise of our Republic. Weigh that option very carefully.
Comment by denniscampbell | February 25, 2008
So, we conservatives are supposed to hold our noses and vote for McCain in the interest of "party loyalty"? Personally, I have no more loyalty to the party that has no loyalty to me. I reached voting age after Reagan, and so far the Republican Party hasn't given me a person to vote *for* in a Presidential race. It has been the same story repeatedly: "our guy is better than the alternative, at least you can trust us". What has this gotten us? Record deficits, huge growth of the Federal Government, more intrusions into the rights of Americans, lip service to stopping illegal immigration, etc..
Rachel says that we must gamble on whether McCain will abandon the views that led him to trample on the First Amendment (I guess that's not part of the Constitution he swore to defend and uphold), to gamble that he will abandon his political soul mates like Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, and the like. Somehow, we're supposed to think that as President he'll nominate conservatives to justice positions and back them against his fellow liberals in the Senate.
I don't think so. Nothing I have seen from McCain gives me the slightest hint that he has any different views than Clinton or Obama. I do not trust anything any of the three are saying to get themselves elected. Rachel, for some reason, thinks McCain "promising" to fight terrorism is something other than political hot air, and that's ok for her opinion. Mine is that I do not trust or believe McCain's promises anymore than his cohorts, Clinton and Obama and if that's the sort of candidate the Republican Party deems best then to paraphrase Ronald Reagan: I haven't left the Republican party, the Republican Party has left me.
Comment by exercion | February 25, 2008
Over the past decade-and-a-half, loyalty to a person mattered more than loyalty to the country in GOP politics. Karl Rove perfected this to an art form here in Texas. It didn't matter whether you were doing the right thing for Texas during Bush's administration — only whether you were helping Bush. The party has tolerated blatantly special interest government and sometimes outright corruption from its elected officials, as long as they were "on the team." Meanwhile, good conservatives who are trying to do the right thing (like a lot of our Republican members of the State Board of Education) are pilloried and attacked by the establishment.
That's why the GOP is in such a mess right now, and conservatives have such a nasty dilemma, eloquently described above. Politics in Texas, post 1994, has prioritized personal loyalty above public service. The public is finally wise to this act. There are many honest GOP members of Congress (and the Texas Legislature) who put the country first. When that becomes the leadership priority too, the party will start to climb out of the hole it dug for itself. Now I've got to decide what I'm going to do, as early voting has already begun.
Comment by Will Lutz | February 25, 2008
Rachel,
I almost completely disagree with you. Your premise that terrorism is the most important issue to
conservatives may have been true in the two years following 9/11, but no longer. The issue that
is THE most important issue to this conservative and many of my colleagues is the continuing Invasion
by Mexico at the rate of 5,000 to 10,000 illegal aliens per day. How this President could allow
such a thing to happen considering his duty under the Constitution (that "rag" he so eloquently
waxes about) is beyond belief. That President McCain will be any better given the fact that he's
Mr. Amnesty himself is wishful thinking at best. On top of that, McCain hates conservatives like me
so why should I vote for the man? McCain has a terrible track record with conservatives; Obama doesn't and
there are other reasons. McCain pulled a Gingrich on his first wife who had waited loyally for him to return
from the prison camp in N. Vietnam. He greeted her by dumping her for the rich daughter of an AZ
mob figure. How anyone could vote for someone like that is beyond me, not even mentioning The Gang of 14
and so many other things.
Michelle Obama apparently scares the bejesus out of some conservatives. Tonight, I was listening to
a conservative talk show from a Midwestern state and the host, a staunch anti-Invasion conservative like me
told his audience at the end of the show that he had resigned himself to pull the lever for McCain
"because Michelle Obama is a Stalinist!". Well, she may very well BE a Stalinist, but she's not running!
Of course, I (like many true conservatives who left the GOP in '96 during the Dole-Kemp fiasco) don't have a
concern about "party allegiance". If I did, perhaps I too would be punching the chad or pulling the lever for
McCain. One of the nice things about being truly "Independent" (Lou Dobbs glorifies it nightly) is that
I can decide what to do without worry about party affiliation. That being said, I have rarely voted Democrat
since becoming a conservative. But as Mickey G. says so eloquently above, vote your conservative
principles, if you have any. If the GOP doesn't get its act together by 2011, vote third party. By then,
there should be a truly conservative party on the ballot in all 50 states. Until then, vote for every
conservative running for the House because the House can be the great equalizer should the GOP win it back. Amnesty can be prevented as can a slough of awful bills.
The "straw dog" used by dennis above doesn't wash with true conservatives! None of us have ever voted
expecting to have a "perfect candidate". He is right about Reagan, sadly. Reagan allowed his wife and
others to con him into liberal positions, the most agregious being his signing the '86 Amnesty Bill which,
along with NAFTA and a slough of liberal Presidents after him, brought us 40 million illegal aliens.
As I have written at other blogs, there is only one chance for McCain to win and that is if he does
the following or most of the following:
1) He calls a press conference NOW and states that as President, ANY kind of amnesty or legalization of the millions of illegals here "is DOA" (Right).
2) He makes Romney his VP WITH THE UNDERSTANDING that he is A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT, ONLY (uh-huh)!
3) He will build the double fence in 6 months and if necessary, put troops on the Border which is totally out of hand (Sure).
4) He will INCREASE ICE raids and INCREASE the number of agents at DHS (Right).
5) He will shut down SPP and guarantee that under his presidency, there will be NO move towards the NAU/Amero (Over the CFR's dead body).
Can any of you see McCain doing any of these? I don't think so. A big first step would be to chose
Romney. Don't forget, folks. McCain is a failed Senator. He presided for years as powerful
Senator over the state where the Invasion was heaviest and continues to be heavy and hue hasn't done a thing to stop it. To me, that's a "failed Senator"!
The endorsement by Bush hurts McCain. People want a change. Again, if McCain can do the
above, he'll have conservatives eating out of his hand. If not, forget about it.
Comment by levotb | February 25, 2008
McCain stands to be even worse than Obama simply because he lies openly then states he never said or did it. None of the choices are ones we can recover from nor is there a viable 3rd party in sight therefore the need to forget party loyalty and elect conservatives at all levels. Once again the Republican party is dead!
Comment by Mickey G | February 26, 2008
Mickey G,
Mickey G,
Agreed. I'm not voting McCain.
Amazing. It's been only 4 weeks since the Florida primary where McCain basically sealed the deal. It seems more like 4 years.
Last night’s Law & Order episode about an Ann Coulter clone clarified. It did a superb job of portraying mainstream conservatives as extreme.
After 4 weeks of thought and voracious reading, that’s what I’ve concluded: I can’t support McCain because he, too, portrays mainstream conservatives as extreme. Everything he’s done since 2001 confirms it.
I won’t back down. I’ll stand my ground. Thanks, Tom.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 26, 2008
Mrs. Alexander, I understand and sympathize with the frustration and indecision you express in this article. I find many of McCain's positions unpalatable and, though Huckabee is great on the moral issues, I dislike his big-government spending and support for the Iraq war. Thus, I have decided to do what more and more American voters are also deciding to do: completely disregard the candidates' chances of winning election, search the entire field (at Project Vote Smart), and vote for the candidate who best represents you on the issues.
As a Catholic who was raised a traditionally-minded Republican and am now an independent who despises the corrupt two-party system, I believe that Dr. Ron Paul is the only true Republican running for the presidency. When I wrote a piece on the two-party system last June, I did not even know who Ron Paul was. I have since found out much about him through the Internet, and I am very impressed. He actually has not dropped out, and I commend his willingness to stick with the campaign in spite of obstacles from the Washington mega-corporate media establishment and a resulting paucity of delegates.
–The most important issue facing the US today is not terrorism, but abortion. As many innocent people as died on 9/11 are killed every day, legally–over one million a year.–
I would encourage all American voters who identify as Republicans and/or conservatives to take a good look at Ron Paul. He is the only candidate who is pro-life, 100 percent. He is the only candidate Gun Owners of America rates 100 percent. He is the only candidate who plans to abolish the Federal Reserve and personal income taxes. His campaign has received more donations from active-duty members of the US Army, Navy and Air Force than McCain, Huckabee, Clinton and Obama put together (see Ron Paul's blog). He plans to secure the border and bring intelligent immigration reform. He encourages home schooling and opposes No Child Left Behind as a wasteful federal program. He opposes the enormously costly Iraq war (as I, Senator Brownback, and many Republicans now do). Finally, the aged Barry Goldwater has endorsed Ron Paul for president.
I disagree with Paul on eliminating foreign aid and withdrawing from the UN, but I agree with him on almost everything else.
The Republican Party is finished unless it unites behind a genuine candidate such as Ron Paul. Continuing to throw its support behind the "most electable, least objectionable," "lesser of two evils" candidate will get it nowhere. It is a firm, unwavering commitment to principles that attracts the American people, especially the younger generation. Without a return to principle, the party will shrink and wither.
Lately I've been wishing that Dr. Paul would run as a third party candidate, since he certainly could do that if he desired. However, I respect and have come to accept his commitment to the Republican Party and his refusal to give ground to big-government pseudo-Republicans.
If his health remains good, Dr. Paul can use the next four years to continue gathering support and campaigning for the presidency on the Internet. In 2012, his chances for winning the Republican nomination could be significantly improved.
I know it is difficult to vote for someone whom you know is not going to win the presidency, but believe me, your conscience will thank you–the sense of accomplishment is tremendous. I did it alone in November 2004, and now my Dad, Mom, sister and some friends are all going to vote for Ron Paul next week in the Ohio primary election.
Vote Ron Paul!
Comment by Justin Soutar | February 26, 2008
There is no reason for confusion, it is probably the most starkly contrasted election since Reagan/Dukakis. I'm no fan of McCain but that's not the point - the conservative movement was too weak to have a standout candidate willing to go the distance, Ron Paul is a joke and Mike Huckabee has nothing in common with the majority of economic and foreign policy conservatives and I would wager most social conservatives as well ( given his lack of appeal).
The task of the conservative movement is to regroup, rebuild, and take the initiative over the next 3 years. In the meantime, nothing useful comes from having a socialist/dem in the white house. Intensifying self-inflicted pain does not produce a stronger person, it creates a maosichist!
I live in a sanctuary state, near a sanctuary city. Whole counties are being bankrupted by the illegal invasion, but my task is not to throw my hands up and say "good, if we get more pain, maybe people will wake up"- nooooo… my task is to reverse the insanity on campuses, in media, on websites, etc, etc, until a coalition can be built as an alternative to self-destruction. You don't have to love McCain, you have to realize the outright treason that the soc/dems represent.
McCain is a place marker, we have 3 years, vote for him, and build an alternative quickly.
best regards
jchoffman
half moon bay, ca
Comment by jc hoffman | February 27, 2008
"I disagree with Paul on eliminating foreign aid and withdrawing from the UN…"
I did agree with him about that!
If Barack/Hillary get in, the worst thing for America will be the health reforms they both talk about implementing. Universal health care is one campaign promise I hope they both forget about.
I do NOT like socialism, am anti-statist. The problem with the Republican Party is its candidates insistence on dictating to individuals what they may or may not do privately: whether it's marriage or abortion. THAT is what loses you guys supporters.
As for Iraq - why is the answer to remain in Iraq? How about getting out AND cutting off their funding?
I tend to vote Independents where possible in Canada.
Comment by AMAI | March 23, 2008