Which is the real National Review?

What has happened to National Review? The magazine started by William F. Buckley that once stood for conservative libertarian principles has gone out of its way twice now to endorse liberal Republican John McCain for Senate in the Republican primary over the very conservative JD Hayworth. Hayworth has a lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union of 98% over his 12 years in Congress; the same lifetime rating as the most conservative Senator in Congress, Jim DeMint. McCain has an 81% lifetime rating. JD clearly comes from the conservative wing of the Republican Party, McCain comes from the liberal wing. It is peculiar why National Review, the magazine for conservatives, would endorse the liberal Republican who has made a career out of opposing the conservative principles of the Republican Party, which he spins by calling himself a "maverick" instead of the plainly obvious "liberal."

The circumstances surrounding the second endorsement are odd. There was no need for National Review to endorse McCain twice in this race. The endorsement was posted on their website this morning, immediately following a flurry around the internet of an article Mark Levin had written for National Review in 2008 exposing McCain's liberal record. It is very likely the McCain mafia, which threatens people to get what they want (I have been personally threatened three times, and the unofficial McCain blog in Arizona, Politico Mafioso, just blatantly revised his banner to say "Leader of the McCain Mafia," below), demanded that National Review post another endorsement. The haphazard way the endorsement is written buttresses the argument that someone was demanding something be done pronto.   

The endorsement acknowledges that the magazine has spent years mostly criticizing McCain, but that three reasons stand out as to why he deserves the endorsement. The first reason states that McCain has "usually" been on the side of national controversies. As examples, the article states he has "never voted for a broad-based tax increase." Note how this was narrowly written. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, saying they favored the wealthy. His record on taxes and spending has been so dismal that  Taxpayers for Common Sense gave him a 45% rating in 2002, Americans for Tax Reform gave him a 55% rating in 2001, and FreedomWorks gave him 57% in 2003-2004. McCain refuses to sign Americans for Tax Reform's pledge against tax increases, put out by Grover Norquist. Not to mention all the big government spending McCain has voted in favor of, which requires increasing taxes.

Next, the endorsement states he "voted for every conservative on the Supreme Court." Again, note the narrow wording. McCain in fact worked against getting conservatives appointed to the Supreme Court, as part of the "Gang of 14" which helped block conservatives from being confirmed. The endorsement fails to cite their own article on this, "McCain and the Gang of 14: There's No Defending It."

The endorsement declares that McCain has "a long pro-life record." This is not accurate. His record on pro-life issues is dismal, so bad that National Right to Life rates him only 77%. He has been an outspoken proponent of taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research, which is abhorrent to the pro-life community, and was one of the "Gang of 14" which blocked conservative and pro-life judges from being appointed to the Supreme Court. His advocacy of campaign finance legislation has crippled the ability of one-issue organizations like Right to Life to run political ads. As a result, when McCain ran for president in 2008, many pro-life organizations like the Arizona Right to Life PAC refused to endorse him in the Republican primary. McCain was able to strong-arm the Arizona Right to Life PAC into endorsing him over JD Hayworth this year, which created such chaos within the organization and without it from former PAC chairs and its strongest supporters, that its future may be in jeopardy.

The endorsement dismisses Hayworth's conservative record by saying, "Hayworth had a conservative record, too." This sneakily implies that McCain is conservative too, when he clearly is not. It disguises and thereby cleverly makes irrelevant the primary reason to support for Hayworth over McCain, his conservativeness.

The endorsement notes that McCain is no Arlen Specter. This may be true, as Specter's voting was so liberal he had become just another Democrat. However, McCain's record is like liberal Republican Senator Bob Bennett, who was recently booted out of the Utah Republican primary for Senate due to his votes for the billion dollar pork TARP bailouts. Bennett's lifetime score from the American Conservative Union was actually higher than McCain's, at 83. McCain's record is also in company with liberal Republicans Richard Lugar (77), Judd Gregg (78), Lamar Alexander (79), and Thad Cochran (80). Even moderate Kay Bailey Hutchison is considerably higher, with a lifetime rating of 89.

The second reason the endorsement gives for supporting McCain is due to his leadership on national security. McCain is praised as being one of the top leaders on foreign policy, and credited for the surge in Iraq. What is left out is any link to their own article on McCain's terrible record on national affairs. There is no evidence that it was actually McCain's influence that got President Bush to support General David Petreaus's strategy on the surge. McCain's ACLU-backed amendment supporting rights for terrorists akin to the rights of Americans is glossed over, and his repeated calls to close Guantanamo aren't even mentioned. McCain showed no leadership when it came to fighting al Qaeda before 9-11, and made no effort to stop the downsizing of the military during that era. This month's embarrassing Rolling Stone interview of former Commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, revealed this candid comment by an aide, "Politicians like McCain and Kerry turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful."

The endorsement dismisses McCain's championing of campaign finance reform with Democrat Russ Feingold, labeled in a prior article (which they also failed to link to) as "the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo."  It is widely known that McCain took on this issue in order to deflect attention from his unethical behavior in the Keating Five scandal, where he improperly intervened during an investigation on behalf of his close friend Charles Keating who was running a corrupt Savings and Loan institution.

As a third reason for the endorsement, it is claimed that McCain has a better record than Hayworth on the "need to control federal spending." As evidence, it cites Hayworth's participation in an infomercial for free grant money. This kind of evidence and reasoning would be laughable if it were not coming from National Review. As such, it is distressing this is the kind of evidence they cite. McCain's record on federal spending is abysmal. He voted for the $700 billion dollar all-purpose, earmark-stuffed TARP pork bailout, the $25 billion auto bailout, the $300 billion mortgage entitlement bailout, and the first $85 billion AIG bailout. The bailouts included an extra $150 billion in earmarks alone. As a result, the American Conservative Union gave McCain a 63% rating in 2008, his lowest rating ever. All across the country this year, incumbents are being voted out of office due to their votes in favor of the bailouts. In contrast, Hayworth's record on federal spending while in Congress was enough to earn him a 98% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union; hardly a big spender. The 2% was due to Appropriations and other bills he voted for where other members of Congress had attached earmarks.  McCain regularly earmarks defense jobs for Arizona.

The infomercial criticism of Hayworth is overblown. It did not involve Hayworth advocating for or voting for legislation that would increase spending or taxes, something McCain has done by voting for the bailouts. It was a private commercial he made in his capacity as a broadcaster. As a radio broadcaster, Hayworth regularly made commercials for many businesses. A commercial advertising for free grant money is little different than a commercial for tax breaks or tax credits; even the most ardent libertarian would have no problem advertising for school choice. Most conservatives detest the income tax system, but as long as it is in place, we are certainly entitled to try and get as much of our money back from the government as possible.  

The endorsement also failed to point out that the owner who produced the infomercial contributed $9400 to McCain's campaign. Most troubling, it failed to point out that McCain prominently features a lengthy list of free government grants and how to apply for them on his official government website (note – a day after this was observed, the link was suddenly obfuscated from view in most browsers by a brand-new youtube video posted on the site).

It is disturbing that the bedrock of conservatism, National Review, has sold out on this endorsement. If National Review can no longer be trusted as the magazine for conservatives, where do conservatives go? Fortunately, the voters are speaking out and voting out liberal Republicans around the country in primary elections. It is a Tea Party revolt year, and voters are fed up with big spenders like McCain who will not stand up to Obama, Pelosi and the bailouts.

Rachel Alexander is Director of Social Media for the JD Hayworth for Senate 2010 campaign, but has been railing against McCain's lack of conservatism since 2002.