The conservative blogosphere is abuzz this morning over a piece written by friend and fellow NC blogger John Hawkins expressing why, in spite of writing two opinion pieces at Townhall.com over the last few months on why conservatives should support McCain, he no longer is. In a nutshell, he believes McCain has flip flopped again on the immigration issue. It’s no surprise that Michelle Malkin (and many who have tracked back to her post) side with John on the issue.
Captain Ed, on the other hand, takes a starkly different view in opposition to John’s position, which you can read here. He’s not seeing the flip flop. Nor does James Joyner. Nor do I, for that matter.
My views on supporting McCain can be read here and here, and are strong indicators of where I stand on the whole “should you or should you not vote for McCain” debate.
I see no need in rehashing them, as I’ve stated before that I am not going to beat my readers over the head on this issue, but would like to emphasize again one point I made previously on the point about “taking a principled stand” one way or another. Probably the one thing I’ve despised the most about the intra-party debate on this issue is one side or the other trying to claim the moral high ground. I’ve seen this debate framed that way before, with one side implying that the only principled stand is the one they take on the issue. Ed and John did an admirable job of resisting framing their arguments in such a manner, and I say good for them, because that’s the way it should be. I think most of us have seen principled arguments on both sides (and in the middle) on this issue. There’s just disagreement over which set of principles is more important.
| Email This Post | Print This |
Well I won’t claim any moral high ground on this, but I think McCain just jumped the shark. I was not a McCain supporter but once he wrapped up the nomination I swung behind him to prevent what seems like a greater catastrophe of an Obama presidency. Now I’m not so sure, not because of what Hawkins says (although John has always had my respect) but because of what McCain says. McCain has destroyed any semblance of credibility he once had with me. I’ll vote, but the top of the ticket will remain unchecked.
Comment by DaMav @ 5/23/2008 - 2:02 pm
I feel that John Hawkins is wrong about one thing. The push for “comprehensive immigration reform” (a.k.a. amnesty for illegals) has always been a top priority for McCain. There is nothing different between what he says now and what he advocated last year.
I am completely in sympathy with McCain’s critics who say they will never vote for him. I said that myself many times. In fact, folks who are so inclined could put together a collection of my “greatest hits” of things I’ve said against McCain on ST’s site and sell them back to me - except that as an embittered G*d-and-gun-clinging typical white person I have no money (Advice: Never blackmail someone who is poor).
But there is one thing to consider for all of those who would refuse to vote for McCain in November: McCain by far would make the best Commander in Chief. Alone of the 3.0000003 candidates left in the race (counting McCain, He Who Has No Middle Name and Hilly the Hun as 1 candidate each, and Bob Barr, Ralph Nader and Grand Wizard Ron Paul as 0.0000001 each), only McCain seems to understand what is really at stake in Iraq. The rest are too busy arguing over who can carry out al Qaeda’s benchmarks the fastest.
This race reminds me of the Connecticut Senate contest in 2006 between Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, and Whats-His-Name. Lieberman was no Republican, and never will be. He is significantly to the left of most GOP voters. Yet the prospect of a rich dolt like Lamont - who would have been nothing more than a stooge for George Soros - going to the Senate was too much for normal people to contemplate. Do we really want someone like Obama (another Soros stooge) to be President? Just considering the number of supporters who think he is some kind of Messiah - and what that could mean for the nation. Go to Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela if you want to see what a cult of personality looks like up close and personal.
Three other things to think about:
1. Some advocate sitting out this year’s elections in the hopes that Democrat control of Congress and the White House would sour voters on the Democrat brand. It’s true that since seizing Congress in 2006 Democrats have racked up the worst approval ratings in history. But it’s the GOP and not Democrats who are facing massive loses in November. Waiting for Good Fortune to fall into our laps will never work. The GOP needs to shed its milquetoast tactics and start holding Democrats accountable for their massive failures.
2. Even worse is this: What makes advocates of sitting out think that we will have free elections in 2010 and beyond? Democracy simply cannot absorb the blows Democrats want to deliver. Remember the way Bill Clinton abused the Presidency to try to destroy anyone who got in his way. Remember the near steal of the Presidential race in 2000. Remember groups like ACORN who are trying to undermine democracy by promoting voter fraud. Remember attempts at censorship like the “Fairness Doctrine” and “campaign finance reform” (irony of ironies - McCain’s trademark is the latter). Remember the threats and intimidation Democrats used on ABC and others who did not adhere to the Democrat Party line. Remember the fact that fanning racial and ethnic hatreds is is crucial to Democrat candidates’ chances. Those were warmups for the main event.
3. Ponder also the fact that the Clintons - who used to be the last word in corruption and abuse of power - have been shoved aside by a candidate who has even less scruples then they do.
I will not castigate conservatives who cannot vote for McCain because of his positions. With a candidate this far out of step with his base everyone has to follow their conscience. But I say that a vote for McCain will at least show some fighting spirit, that we are not going to voluntarily welcome the Thousand Year Reich of the Messiah. Waiting for things to swing our way in future elections could be a disaster.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 5/23/2008 - 4:58 pm
I understand what you mean by one side claiming higher moral ground. I absolutely will not vote for McCain
unless I see on election day that Obama might win by one vote in Tn. Don’t see that happening but my moral ground is a little soft. I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy nut but I truly wonder if Obama might be a Manchurian or Mohammedan candidate. From what I can tell he was a Mormon then became a Black Liberation theology Christian but it isn’t the same Jesus I worship according to Rev. Wright. So is his Jesus somewhere between Jesus and Mohammed or what?
Comment by Wheeler @ 5/23/2008 - 4:59 pm
By the way was Obama a community organizer for Acorn or who in Chicago?
Comment by Wheeler @ 5/23/2008 - 5:03 pm
Here is something else to consider:
Clinton regrets Kennedy assassination remark
Once upon a time Hilly the Hun would have been praised instead of condemned for such a statement. In fact, if she had been the Democrat nominee, we would have heard similar statements until Election Day. With the MSM’s blessing we would have had to listen to snide assertions that voting for McCain was akin to assassinating Kennedy.
But the Democrats have a new Messiah - a Messiah that is if anything more ruthless and hungry for power than the Clintons were. And He Whose Middle Name Must Not Be Mentioned dethroned the Hun and her husband. Run those items up the flagpole and see how they grab you.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 5/23/2008 - 5:39 pm
Just blogged about it, MD
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 5/23/2008 - 5:52 pm
If I remember the Constitution correctly, this is a priority issue for Congress too John, or it should be.
Well this attitude change was completely expected. A leopard could no more change it’s spots, than a 1 worlder not desire to get rid of America’s borders. I am figuring that by November, Mr. Hawkins will be completely justified in his beliefs regarding John McCain. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 5/23/2008 - 7:06 pm
I’m just surprised that it took a perceptive blogger like John Hawkins this long to see that McCain hasn’t wavered on the issue of illegal immigration.
Some thoughts on MD’s remarks:
It’s not a case of waiting for fate to hand you the victory. It’s a case of letting the Democrats do as they wish, with the inevitable results - the economy tanking, cultural standards sliding further into the gutter, revitalization of Obama-supporters such as Hamas, Iran, and Hugo Chavez. Jimmy Carter’s one gift to this nation was that he was so incompetent that people finally listened to Ronald Reagan. History could repeat, but the key is your last sentence. If the GOP is timid in its opposition (or worse, a willing partner) then we’re in for a very long national nightmare. I do think that if McCain loses, you’ll see a move to the right among Republicans. That won’t happen if he wins. I said as much way back here:
If neither McCain nor the Democratic nominee will follow conservative principles – a fairly safe conclusion – then what election outcome will best lead to a conservative renaissance? If McCain wins, do you think you’ll see a strong grass-roots move to the right among Democrats? Sure – right after I become an international sex symbol with three supermodels on each arm. But if either Clinton or Obama win, will resurgent conservatives find a strong voice and become dominant in the GOP? Almost certainly.
All very true. So what makes you think it will be different with McCain in the White House? McCain clearly believes he owes nothing to conservatives - name me one thing he’s done since wrapping up the nomination to reach out to the party’s base. On the contrary, I expect that he’ll give at least tacit support to some of those same initiatives, like Fairness Doctrine and further restrictions on political speech - and actively move for some of the others, like amnesty for illegals. The difference is, with McCain in the Oval Office, no one could deny that these would all be “bipartisan” measures, which would make reversing the course later extremely difficult. There is one hope - carry an energetic and unrelenting message of conservative principles all during this campaign, and focus it on the congressional races. That’s where a strong showing - or even better-than-expected - is absolutely critical to the conservative cause for the next few years. Because we’re certainly not going to get much support from the Executive Branch.
No argument there. It’s to be expected when unprincipled would-be dictators like the MoveOn and the Kossacks take over one of the major parties.
There are still two strong reasons to vote for McCain. MD covered one: the War on Terror and permanent stabilizing of Iraq. ST’s been steadfast on that point as well - see either of the two posts she links above. The second reason is the judiciary. I’m not 100% sure McCain’s reliable there, but he couldn’t be worse than either Clinton or Obama.
It all comes down to what you think is most important: winning in Iraq now or reviving conservative principles in four years. Not an appealing choice at all.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 5/23/2008 - 11:36 pm
And now it’s my turn with some thoughts on GWR’s remarks:
To be honest - I think it is far more likely we will see an actual third party get started by some disenchanted conservative Republicans. Not that I think that such an effort will succeed - history has shown us that the vast majority of third parties perish rather quickly with no lasting effect on the two major parties - but conservatives will be divided against themselves for some time after a McCain loss. But like any prediction, mine could be dead wrong.
Reaching out to the Republican base - not a whole lot, to put it mildly. But McCain has shown courage in going after He Whose Middle Name Must Not Be Mentioned when the MSM tried to ramp up the criticism-of-Obama-equals-racism meme. McCain has stuck to his principles on Iraq, and has landed quite a few blows on the Messiah and His ever-changing position on Iran. McCain even had the daring to note that Hamas would be overjoyed if the Messiah won in November. That counts for a lot in my book.
I also think that you underestimate the unabashed hatred the MSM and their Democrat pets will feel towards McCain if he wins. Hell hath no fury like a tolerant progressive Democrat scorned, and the resulting McCain Derangement Syndrome will dwarf Bush Derangement Syndrome. In the face of such hatred no Democrat would dare cooperate with McCain on anything - even something that would benefit Democrats.
For proof of my statement, look at last year’s failed immigration “reform”. Democrats had been handed a big Christmas gift by Bush - all they had to do was accept it. But Reid had visions of running campaign commercials against “xenophobic Republicans” dancing in his head, and so he adopted a hands-off approach to the bill and yanked it as soon as he could. Reid then tried to blame Bush for Reid’s decision to remove the bill. I know that opposition to the bill was fierce, but still I have to ask - just how hard were Democrats really trying? Giving Bush a political black eye meant more to Democrats than getting amnesty for illegals. I argue the same would be true during a McCain presidency, no matter how Democrat-friendly the bill.
All of this discussion of what a President McCain would or would not do is (I fear) entirely academic. Unless I have completely misread the mood of the country, McCain and the GOP are poised for a blowout loss in November. So in a sense voting for McCain is a freebie since Democrats are bound to create a disaster once they have unchecked power. A vote for McCain would at least set the record straight on the War on Terror and deprive Democrats of the fig leaf they will need to ward off voters angry about being lied to.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 5/24/2008 - 1:38 am
Some excellent discussion and points made above. I thought MD offered a great summary of the main issues.
The only thing I would add is another major downside to McCain winning in November — he will take full control of the Republican Party machinery and finances. That will make it even more difficult to pull the party back to the right; it might even result in a long term repositioning in which case conservatives would either be frozen out or face the statistically daunting challenge of making a third party successful.
Yes there are reasons to vote for McCain. But at this point in my opinion it’s a tossup between McCain and “none of the above”.
Comment by DaMav @ 5/24/2008 - 4:49 am
From MD’s last remarks:
Doubtless you’re right about that. There are already some murmurs to that effect. I think it won’t succeed, and the right will coalesce around the GOP. My point is that unchecked liberalism will create more conservatives. The last time that happened was the first two years of the Clinton presidency, with Hillary’s botched plan to nationalize the health care industry as the centerpiece. By 1994, voters were so fed up they were ready to sign on to Gingrich’s Contract With America.
McCain is solid on national defense and terrorism issues, no question. It’s one place where I think he might be even better than Bush.
I know they’ll still be reliable members of the Democrat coalition. McCain is going to be savaged this fall as racist (or sexist) like no one before. If he wins anyway, the MSM will focus their McCain hatred on how he combats the islamofascists, while spinning any left-wing legislation - even bills McCain backs - as the creation of the wonderful altruistic liberals in Congress. The next McCain-Feingold bill, for example, will simply be the Feingold bill to the MSM. Some will pass, and some will be pulled as part of the same political maneuvering you noted with Reid. But McCain will sign more of the ones that pass, and they’re likely to be bad ones (more oil exploration bans, tax hikes, immigration ‘reform’).
I’m not as certain of that. At this time in 1992, the country was infatuated with H. Ross Perot. We have five months until election day, which is several lifetimes in political terms, and McCain runs ahead or close in quite a few places the GOP didn’t carry recently - here in NJ, for example. That’s why I think our best hope is keeping a solid core of conservatives in Congress, especially enough of them in the Senate to sustain a filibuster if necessary.
For my part, I’m pretty much on the same page as DaMav. If Obama’s the Dem nominee, I’ll vote for McCain. If Clinton by some chicanery manages to get the nomination, I might pass on voting for president for the first time ever.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 5/24/2008 - 8:28 am
GWR: Found this piece by Mark Steyn , who does a fantastic job of explaining what I believe is McCain’s biggest problem:
And:
This points out far better than I ever could that McCain’s audience is all too often the MSM. He was for many years the “Maverick Republican”, a title I believe that he has come to cherish.
McCain’s positions on global warming, immigration, campaign finance “reform”, and others are out of step with most Republicans. By themselves that would not necessarily be politically fatal (although certainly not helpful). In my state of Texas we have GOP Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is pro-choice and a bit squishy on immigration. She has had the sense not to deliberately pick a fight with conservatives.
For me, the biggest knock on McCain is that he is willing to publicly poke conservatives in the eye in order to ham it up for the media. He does not seem to realize that by his heresy on the Iraq War, the MSM and their Democrat pets will demonize and dehumanize him in this campaign. My greatest fear is that McCain will assume that conservative Republicans will vote for him no matter what (a confession - I probably will) and spend the campaign trying to get back into the past and reclaim the title of “Maverick Republican”. It won’t work. Now that they have their Savior, the MSM and their Democrat pets don’t need “bipartisanship” anymore.
And this is another ray of hope that I see in a McCain candidacy (aside from national security). McCain is a proud and vain man who does not like to be criticized. If the MSM and Democrats start their usual Republican nominee=spawn of Satan routine, it could wake McCain up.
(O.K. - it’s a long shot. But stranger things have happened. Just ask Senator Ned Lamont.)
At any rate, I have greatly enjoyed your insight GWR.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 5/24/2008 - 11:47 pm
As always, good points all, MD.
You are correct - the MSM won’t rekindle its fascination with McCain, no matter what he does - not when the alternative is an Obama who’s so far left they’re treating Hillary like a conservative. There’s another reason a strong national defense VP like Nunn or Lieberman wouldn’t help the ticket. As long as the battle for Iraq goes well, it will disappear from the front pages. It will be a non-issue by the fall unless AQ mounts a desperation “Battle of the Bulge” type offensive in October.
So sometime between now and the convention, McCain must understand he needs to motivate the base to do more than grudgingly show up and vote for him (as you and I probably both will). Right now, I see no signs of such awareness.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 5/25/2008 - 12:41 pm
I’ve been posting these comments and responses to Mr. Hawkins at RWN all day:
Please think of your choice, Mr. Hawkins. Would you honestly prefer Obama and all the damage he would do to America and our Constitution, including the lasting damage he would inflict by his appointment of far left, socialist judges? Yes, immigration is an incredibly important issue, but it is not the only issue nor the all defining issue as you are suggesting. And Obama would certainly be worse for immigration also, as you well know.
I feel Obama is the most dangerous threat to our republic that we have faced in my entire generation (I am 54), and he will happily destroy America, our capitalist society, our Constitutional freedoms, our family structures, our economy and our environment - as well as our borders.
Please re-think your position, Mr. Hawkins, and realize that although your emotional response to McCain and his pending immigration policy may be satisfying, it is still, even yet, not the threat to our lives that Obama poses. Plus, I feel our conservative movement will rebuild even more strongly, under a McCain presidency, without having to undergo the enormous damage that would inevitably be disastrously inflicted under a socialist Obama presidency.
And I do say these things while still adamantly opposed to illegal immigration, as fervently as anyone posting here.
But I also believe we can all still work to better America much more easily AND effectively under a President John McCain than we ever could under a President Barack Hussein Obama.
Good grief. What a choice.
Think about it.
But either way, we ARE going to have in our history books:
President John McCain
or President Barack Hussein Obama.
Now eliminate all the emotionalism and all the baggage, and decide.
What’s your choice going to be?
Your REAL choice????
I’m not happy about it either.
But Obama IS dangerous, drastically so, and at least McCain will not attempt to knowingly destroy our republic.
Can you seriously argue that Obama would make BETTER choices for America than McCain? Especially since Obama will have a Democrat Congress backing him?
And like it or not, one of those two IS going to be our next president, and it’s inane to pretend otherwise.
Yes, it sucks either way, but I’d rather not fiddle and stand on “feel good principles”, just so I can say “I told you so” while America is destroyed.
And McCain will NOT destroy our republic in his single term.
He at the least is not a left wing socialist apostate muslim with an innate resentment and hatred of America.
I prefer being realistic about this election. I won’t rely on slim chances and slim hopes.
Do as you wish, of course. Just realize that you do only have two bottom line choices, once you get past all the other words masquerading as choices. And only one of them is honestly intelligent.
Comment by Randy Robinson @ 5/25/2008 - 2:21 pm