Based on the reactions of many pundits, I doubt he'll be able to unify the party for a successful election bid, even if he's running against Hillary Clinton.
As I drove back to Rochester from a court date in Poughkeepsie, I had a chance to listen to a few talk shows. Rush and Sean Hannity were particularly bitter about McCain. Hearing the language they used and the reactions of their callers, it is clear that a great wave of conservative disaffection towards McCain is growing.
I'd say that the disaffection is so great that there is little chance that the GOP can unite behind McCain to defeat the Democrat nominee.
I find that fact remarkable. I know and agree that John McCain has taken some stands that I don't like, but I cannot understand the idea that not voting for him is going to "teach" the GOP leadership a "lesson". How is letting Hillary or Obama and the Democrats lead us further down the road to socialism going to teach anybody a lesson? I don't understand the theory that if you can't get all or most of what you want, you would rather get none of what you want, instead of some of what you want.
Further, why is McCain winning? If he's such a bad guy, why is he outpolling the conservative choice, Mitt Romney? Why do the McCain haters out there think they know better than the majority of GOP primary voters?
I really can't believe that the GOP is going to miss the opportunity given to it by the split of Democrat coalition partners between Hillary and Obama. Instead, we are going to cut ourselves up because Ronald Reagan isn't on the ballot.
UPDATE - 2/6/08: I have found that the conservative disaffection and dismay regarding John McCain's increasingly likely nomination is widespread. There are, however, some serious conservative thinkers who are asking us to put our feelings about McCain in the proper perspective. John Hinderaker filed a defense of McCain in a PowerLine post. Stanley Kurtz, implored conservatives not to "sit it out" in this NRO post. They are both well worth reading.
Hinderaker's piece links to a Hugh Hewitt post giving "seven reasons to vote for the GOP nominee". Hinderaker noted that Hewitt has been a staunch and emphatic Romney supporter, to date. Here is a key quote from Hewitt's article:
"There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68....When activist judges are more than willing to rewrite rules of long-standing, periods of exile should never be self-imposed 'for the good of the party.' Exiles can go on a very long time indeed. Ask the Whigs."
UPDATE II - 2/7/08: CNN and Time Magazine are reporting that Mitt Romney will announce that he is suspending his campaign when he gives his speech at today's CPAC meeting. Mitt had the personal resources to continue, but he must have concluded that spending that kind of money on a losing hand was a bad bet.
According to Mark Halperin at the Time blog, Romney plans to say at CPAC speech: ”If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or (Barack) Obama would win….”
Meanwhile, other sources are reporting that John McCain has been making overtures to conservative Republicans and, particularly, to conservative talk-radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. McCain will also speak at CPAC and try to point out that he is, in fact, a conservative and is in tune with mainstream conservatives on most key issues.
5 comments:
I think Limbaugh and Hannity are out of touch. They have lost a lot of credibility among even conservatives and Republicans in the past couple of months.
I hope you're right, Lee.
I just keep hearing very critical commentary from many sources. Its not just "disagreement" or support for another candidate. Some of the attacks on McCain have been venomous. It makes me doubt that the GOP can pull it together.
Meanwhile, Huckabee did really well last night. I don't think he can catch McCain, but I do think he's a very live candidate for VP. That's a better deal than it is in most years, because there is a chance that McCain only has enough gas in the tank for one term. Huck might be able to convince conservative skeptics that McCain isn't such a bad guy.
Even more importantly, we have to set up a date for me to pay up with a cup of "Rudy G." java. Rudy G. is an aromatic blend of hype and nostalgia. The problem is that its freshness date expired in late Nov./early Dec. I'm sure you'll enjoy it, though.
Maybe when we have our coffee you can let me in on your reasons for leaving the Gates Blog.
Since the two of you are talking about me, I thought I might respond. I have been struggling with this very question, do I sit on my hands and refuse my vote to McCain, knowing that a democrat will win the White House. This has been a vexing question as I don’t like either Clinton or Obama and am truly concerned about the direction they may take the country. Realizing my options, I am preparing to vote for the Democratic nominee (whoever that may be). The reason seems simple, John McCain represents the worst that is the Bush administration and I refuse to extend a failed republican presidency. I believe the fix we are in is due to George Bush's "moderation" more than any other factor. When the Times broke the story about Abu Ghraib, VP Cheney said he was outraged and the pictures "turned" his stomach, George Bush agreed, so did John McCain...but I did not. When the Bush administration pushed "immigration reform" McCain (and Kennedy) agreed...but I did not. When Senate Democrats grill Attorney General Mukasey about the need to outlaw the “outrageous” practice of water-boarding, McCain agreed...but I did not. I realize that Rush, Sean, I and others may be "out of touch" something that media types routinely like to say, but frankly, I think you and the media have it wrong. The war is not lagging on due to Bush's boldness, the economy is not in the tank because of Bush's tight fiscal policy. Rather, we are in these and other collective messes because of George Bush’s failure to be a “Republican”. Every time he hesitates to see what the Democrat party, NY times and John McCain thinks, the country falls farther into the depths of despair. So in the end, I do think America wants and needs something different, a change from the same weak leadership we’ve had under this president… and John McCain is not that change. So, since I live in a state about to be taken over by the Democrat party, I am prepared to let America get what they want. It’s they only way we will truly know if compromising your principles rather than sticking to them is best for the country.
Sorry, anonymus, but your logic is badly flawed.
I agree with just about every point you made regarding Bush, his policies, and John McCain's views (although if McCain had been President during the past 4-6 years, Iraq would have turned out differently). Nonetheless, voting for the Democratic nominee or "sitting it out", which will lead to a Democrat win, is the wrong answer.
It is ridiculous to contend that a McCain administration would not be far preferable to a Clinton or Obama administration. If either Hillary or Obama become President, their extreme liberal preferences, eagerly aided by a Democrat Congress, will rush us headlong into a socialistic, politically correct, government-controlled America. Despite some liberal views, John McCain is not going to lead us there.
Moreover, I'm getting tired of hearing from so many conservatives that the GOP is "telling us to suck an egg". The "leadership" of the Republican party isn't telling us anything. We have had primaries in which we and our fellow Republicans voted. Guess what, more Republicans voted for McCain! If Romney was such a true-blue Republican-Conservative, why couldn't he win over more GOP voters?
A decision to spite the GOP by voting against McCain is an error. Please reconsider. Take a quick look at the articles I posted as an update. Your frustration with the situation has caused you to ignore the facts about McCain and the ramifications of your thinking.
Yo, Repoman!
There's a very good case made by two law professors -- both with sterling reputations as unvarnished conservatives -- about why McCain is a candidate conservatives can embrace. It all comes down to one word: judges.
Their article in last week's Wall Street Journal is now available on the WSJ site only by subscription, but it's been reprinted here:
http://blogs4mccain.com/2008/02/04/
wall-street-journal-mccain-and-the
-supreme-court-by-steven-g-
calabresi-and-john-o-mcginnis/
Worth a read.
Economic policies, campaign finance, immigration laws, tax rates -- they wax and wane from election to election. What the upper federal courts do in the area of social engineering lasts, for practical purposes, for the rest of our lives, and maybe forever.
That's why, although I have my reservations about Big Mac, he got my vote the other day as the one with the best chance to win.
Judges, judges, judges. Repeat over and over as you enter the voting booth!
Conservatives who sit it out if McCain is the nominee are throwing in the towel on the culture wars.
Post a Comment