John McCain really could win . . . maybe that’s why some Republicans are so scared
It is true in politics as it is in war that in the midst of a heated battle it is difficult to step back and take a look at how an opponent views his own position.
There has been so much wailing among Republicans and conservatives as they come to grips with the likely nomination of John McCain that many of us have missed that Democrats may be in even worse shape.
Consider this announcement by Howard Dean, who ironically rose to power by challenging the Democratic hierarchy, that he may step in and force a deal between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the good of the Party instead of letting the nomination be decided by the delegates. As you can imagine that’s not being well received:
Left Field: Blow it out your ass, Howie… No Deal.
Democratic Daily: Democrats will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
However much anger there might be over a deal, absent one before the convention, Democrats are scared to go to the convention without a nominee already decided:
If or when, McCain emerges as the Republican nominee, it will be tough, very tough to compete with them having the advantage of a chosen nominee long before us. . .
They view the GOP’s internal struggle as one that is coming to an end, while their’s could crescendo only eight weeks before the election:
While the democrats fight over who they assume will get the Whitehouse (Clinton or Obama), the Republican Party is involuntarily reconstituting. The hateful anti McCain rhetoric of Limbaugh is the death rattle of the Bush/Rove version of the GOP.
On top of internal Democratic problems, they view John McCain as the most difficult of all Republican candidates to beat. They’re probably right about that since presidential elections are decided in the middle. Take Taylor Marsh for example:
His age hurts, but it also translates to decades of experience. . . He can trade on his image as a maverick to push that point and he will be change from runaway government spending, that’s for sure; but he also will bring that Teddy Roosevelt environmental spirit back to the GOP. The west will love him for it. Democrats will have to make the case that he’s another Bush term. But rightly or wrongly, there is something about John McCain that many people trust. That makes them feel safe. . . Then McCain’s team will roll the video. Biography will do the rest.
Long ago I argued that being an administration outsider, “John McCain would be free to run against Bush’s bad policies, while he promises to pursue his good ones. In effect, he could run against the worst of both parties.” He offers change without Obama’s inexperience. He captures the middle that by now hates Bushes and Clintons. As bad as things are for the Republicans, a John McCain nomination puts Democrats into an even worse position.
Which brings to mind one final note: Are things really that bad for conservative Republicans if McCain is the nominee? Or are they bad for just certain conservative Republicans who would be due absolutely no thanks from a President McCain?
February 7th, 2008 at 9:03 am
[…] Bob Krumm suggests that it isn’t conservative principles that will suffer under a McCain Presidency only the interests and influence of certain professional conservatives: Are things really that bad for conservative Republicans if McCain is the nominee? Or are they bad for just certain conservative Republicans who would be due absolutely no thanks from a President McCain? Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
February 7th, 2008 at 10:56 am
“Which brings to mind one final note: Are things really that bad for conservative Republicans if McCain is the nominee? Or are they bad for just certain conservative Republicans who would be due absolutely no thanks from a President McCain?”
They really are not that bad for Republicans. McCain is largely conservative in most areas and will appoint conservative, non-activist judges.
The alternative…well, Hillary or Barrack would be a nightmare scenario for conservatives. Let’s think about it: (a) higher taxes and higher governmental spending (fiscal conservatives will love this), (b) pro-choice judges will be nominated to the supreme court, (c) the welfare state will become further entrenched into American life, (d) increased regulation and taxation of business (say hello to increased costs to make businesses more “carbon neutral”), (e)more regulations on guns, etc.
McCain may not be ideal, but sure beats the alternative.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
McCain is only bad for conservatives who blog or make their living on talk radio. For those conservatives who really couldn’t care less about the First Amendment one way or the other, he’s probably a wash.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
McCain has snubed his nose and flipped off conservitives for years. When I leave my house and go about 3 blocks, it looks like I am in a 3rd world nation (yep, I live in Los Angeles) and his shamesty/ammesty is just the latest. At least with Hillary or Obama I know who the enemy is and know how to fight them. McCain can go suck a rotten egg…..
Mark
February 7th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Conservatives, whenever you get down, just whisper to yourself “Iraq” and/or “The Supreme Court”.
It makes McCain easier to swallow.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Leave your “hateful” opinions out of this. Your animosity for Rush is obvious. What I hear from rush is criticism of 6 or 7 pieces of legislation that stuck a thumb in the eye of the conservative movement. How is that hateful? The truth is hatefull in your world?
Ed: I presume that you realize that it was a Democrat on a Democratic website who described Rush’s remarks as “hateful”.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
TO: Bob Krumm
RE: Why….
….am I reminded of someone whistling past the cemetery?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
February 7th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“McCain may not be ideal, but sure beats the alternative.”
Oh, amen to that! As for ’shamesty’, if you’ll remember, Bush was for that too and it got him nowhere. I’ll trust my faxes and phone calls to Congress (and those of tens of millions of other pissed off Americans) to keep the ‘crap’ in check, like they did this last time. And I would NEVER forgive myself if my indignant nose-cutting/face-spiting left my son or nephew in Fallujah/Baghdad/any Iraqi snake pit with his fate in Democratic hands.
The thought’s unconscionable.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
TO: Bob Krumm
RE: Why….
….am I reminded of someone whistling past the cemetery?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Cute comment, Chuckie-poo, but you should also remember that, to paraphrase Charles DeGaulle, the cemeteries are “filled with indispensable men…and brilliant ideas.”
Nice try, but no Cohiba.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Re: the link to Rush: see how McCain is groveling towards Conservatives at CPAC? He’ll not stop there. He’ll continue all the way to Rush.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Gee… we elected two RINO presidents before, because those smart, smart Rockefeller Republicans said it would be a good idea. Amyone want to remind me how well Bush nad Nixon turned out for the country?
Viva McCain! Viva Mexico!
February 7th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Even our great conservative Republican icon - Ronald Reagan - made a few “mistakes” Sandra Day O’Connor, signing a bad immigration bill, compromising on spending to gain tax cuts, but his name is booed by conservatives - in fact its invoked. And can someone tell me why there was no illegal immigration problem during the Clinton years? Why wasn’t Lew Dobbs turning red in the face about it then? Did the border just magically close? Now granted I wouldn’t have wanted to come here during the Clinton years but that’s beside the point….
February 7th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“Are things really that bad for conservative Republicans if McCain is the nominee?”
I think so, yes.
There’s something inherently hollow in the promises of someone who never really needed you before today and indeed was openly hostile to you on more than just a few occasions.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I could use some help codensing this to an inspirational bumper sticker: Vote for John McCain because he has years of experience at things not relevant to the presidency and anyway, as bad as he is, he is not as bad as everyone else and if he loses it’s your fault.
Ed: Bumper sticker idea courtesy of Bob Owens and Glenn Reynolds:
February 7th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“There’s something inherently hollow in the promises of someone who never really needed you before today and indeed was openly hostile to you on more than just a few occasions.”
Are you talking about the candidate or the radio host?
February 7th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
You’ve left off the very interesting discussion of VP nominee. How McCain plays that could drastically affect his prospects.
On the left, if the Young Turk and the Old Turkey find a way to unite (Obama as VP?) then things become quite interesting indeed.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I think what a lot of people overlook about Obama is the length of time before the general election. Now, there is a bizarre cult-like obsession with him on the left, but that will die down and this hype goes away and he makes more missteps and continues to show his inexperience. If McCain loses, we’re all screwed.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I think there’s another factor conservatives need to consider. If we make a show of sitting out and McCain wins a squeaker, that’s when we’re really screwed. If we rally round the party and support conservatives down-ticket, we will be in a lot better position to hold McCain to those stances were he has been conservative in the past, particularly on defense and spending.
It’s also worth remembering that while Reagan gave us O’Connor and Kennedy, H.W. Bush gave us Clarence Thomas. Not in every situation is it bad to have someone who needs to prove his conservative bona fides.
Not to say that I’m enthused about McCain, but we could do worse, and if conservatives decide to stay home in November we probably will.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Do you want RINO votes when you have conservative nominees? LOYALTY HAS TO FLOW BOTH WAYS. If you want OUR votes for YOUR candidates,then when we get a RINO on the ballot fair and square, it is time for you to pay up. Unless you are ready to take down the big tent, and try to elect candidates without those of us who occupy the right center/center right.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
“There’s something inherently hollow in the promises of someone who never really needed you before today and indeed was openly hostile to you on more than just a few occasions.”
Yeah, that’s why I kind of had a problem with Mitt Romney.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
john mccain is not a bad option for conservatives. While I do not support the fact that he doesn’t want to drill for oil and thinks carbon caps are needed. He has been conservative 85% of the time. there are also some great conservative things about Mccain we should all remember
1. he is a fiscal hawk who has a perfect record voting against pork. He promises to take on congress concerning pork and entitlements.
2. He is the best possible president for foreign policy period!!!
3. He has a better health care plan than Romney (before he dropped) and any other canidate
4. He supports free trade
5. He supports strict constructionist judges (THE GANG OF 14 WAS NEEDED TO BEAT FILIBUSTER AND APPOINT ALITO AND ROBERTS.
6. Her doesnt change his position, only presentsd them differently. (unless he truly changes his mind)
February 7th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
by the way, obama is THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR CURRENTLY IN THE SENATE.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Hey, Bob - aren’t you the guy telling us we have to rally behind John McCain? So, what you’re saying is we conservatives should support somebody who might actually be a threat to Rush, Hannity, and the rest?
What’s McCain gonna do to them? Try to block their First Amendment rights?
Oh, wait a minute….
Do you even have a clue what you sound like?
February 8th, 2008 at 5:05 am
You’re right. Hillary will be so much more accommodating of Rush, won’t she?
February 8th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Odd, nobody ever mentions that McCain worships the Church of Greenie Goracle; he’s no different than the other two leading candidates.
Scratch a Greenie find a jackboot fascist.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Amen, tree hugging sister!
Like the Godfather, if anything happens to my sons under Clinton/Obama in any war zone because of lack of support, I will blame all of you “conservatives” who stayed home in November for their deaths!!!
Remember Mogadishu, Khobar Towers, the African embassies and the Cole before you decide who you want for CinC.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:11 am
I am simply repulsed by otherwise good Republicans or conservatives dissing and dumping on Rush. But for Rush, I and many other conservatives would still be Dem-voting lefties. Reagan is the #1 reason we even have conservatism, but Rush is the sole reason it is still viable. He kept the flame going right as Reagan’s presidency was drawing to a close, and he is largely responsible for the movement gaining such strength.
I may or may not vote for anyone at the top of the ticket (obviously it won’t be Obama or Hillary!). But dumping on Rush and by extension all his listeners and we proud conservatives is going to push us away, not draw us in. Fair warning.
McC has to court us and make promises to us. We owe him ZILCH. The veep choice is key but if he does not blatantly repudiate some of his worse legislation and policies he can go such eggs (which in most pictures he looks like he’s doing anyway). In any case, conservatism is not dead, and will likely rise again stronger than ever due to either a McCain or Dem presidency or another attack or both. (The ONLY thing McC has going for him is his foreign policy stance.)
February 9th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Peg,
I’ve been a listener and fan of Rush Limbaugh since on a long drive out to my first assignment as a young lieutenant I heard him during the Clarence Thomas senate hearings. That said, I’m not giving Rush my blind obedience, just as you apparently refuse to do for McCain. (Notice the irony?) When Rush said that he trusts Obama and Hillary in the war on terror more than McCain, I’m going to call him on it. That’s pettiness talking. And it’s completely and undeniably wrong.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“That said, I’m not giving Rush my blind obedience, just as you apparently refuse to do for McCain. (Notice the irony?) When Rush said that he trusts Obama and Hillary in the war on terror more than McCain, I’m going to call him on it. That’s pettiness talking. And it’s completely and undeniably wrong.”
I am an avid Rush Limbaugh listener, but even I believe that he has gone overboard on the McCain bashing.
Seriously, Rush - who has prided himself as a influential conservative - cannot take McCain’s nomination as anything but a failure of his ability to persuade(not good on his ego). He has spent years criticizing McCain because he has the tendency to think independently (translation: does not follow the Conservative boilerplate answer to every issue).
When it comes to McCain, Rush is incredibly petty and borderline ridiculous. I roll my eyes when he gets into it.
Anyone, who believes that McCain is less conservative than Hillary or Obama, has forfeited any right to be taken seriously.
Rush never gave an official endorsement… yeah, technically true. However, he railed against both McCain and Huckabee for months and continued to do so once Thompson bowed out of the race. At that point, the only person he wasn’t attacking was Romney. So, he implicitly endorsed Romney.
McCain may not be Rush’s prototype for what a conservative should be. Fine. I probably would agree with that. However, what alternatives were there?
Thompson was ignored. Real “conservatives” split their votes between Huckabee (who is really no conservative, but knows how to talk religion) and Romney (a “conservative” by conversion….).
If conservatives couldn’t find a better candidate and get behind them, well, then they should not complain when McCain wins the nomination.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Right, it’ll blow over; McCain won’t be that bad.
Like when the “New Deal” revised the understanding of the Constitution regarding the Commerce Clause. That was just for a few years, now we’re back to limited Federal Government…
Which is why support of McCain will be fine. His further destruction of the Constitution won’t be lasting either.
Oh, the Commerce Clause “reinterpretation” has simply gotten worse over the decades since the New Deal? Whoops.
So McCain breaks Constitutional freedoms for the future, and sets a precedent for removing Constitutional freedoms simply by passing a law; who can worry about the Constitution now, Democrats are trying to be President!!11!!!1!
February 12th, 2008 at 8:34 am
“Which is why support of McCain will be fine. His further destruction of the Constitution won’t be lasting either”
The Act has withstood Supreme Court review and is therefore still on the books (I believe that they did strike down a part of it…however, that is why it is great we have the checks and balances). It appears that it didn’t destroy the Constitution…. unless, you believe you are a better arbiter of constitutionality than the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wow… I thought Democrats were the real drama queens.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Ok, I’m sorry. I misunderstood.
The Founding Fathers wanted better protection for pornography than they wanted for Political ideas. Was that right?
One question. What would the phrase “shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” mean to you? I took that we were using the definition of “abridging” as “lessen, diminish, or curtail”.
Since McCain’s law obviously did “lessen, diminish or curtail” freedom of speech; how do you square the circle.
Claiming that the Supreme Court review allowed it is questionable in my mind; because it clearly shows that you don’t think that normal people are (or even should be) capable of comprehending the language of the Constitution.
So, since I’m such a moron, and the SCOTUS is so amazingly clever; surely you can explain how McCain’s law actually doesn’t abridge freedom of speech in any way.
And how regulating the internet (as his lawsuit in 2005 would have required) also would not abridge freedom of speech.
Unless the real problem is that this is far too complex for mere mortals to understand at all. I didn’t realize my rights were protected by a document that was incomprehensible to anyone who wasn’t on the Supreme Court. Which would seem odd. None of the words are really all that hard to grasp, and their meaning is well known.
But since the SCOTUS and I are in disagreement, I must be wrong. I’ll ask you to explain it to me in even smaller words that I might understand.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I feel your pain, Mark. Los Angeles is definitely a third-world city now which is a damn shame because it used to be a great place even into the ’70s. Now it is just another Tijuana or Mexicali Mexican dump. Glad I moved out of SoCal last year up to the Pacific Northwest where American culture still rules the day (for now, at least). McCain used to piss me off about the immigration debacle, too, but you know what, after this election he will realize who his true friends are on the right and distance himself from those leftward ideas that he has had recently. Amnesty will still be dead unless Billary or Obama bin Laden win. Get all of your conservative and moderate friends to vote for McCain because I can assure you that four years of a failed Billary or Obama bin Laden presidency would take decades to repair if that could even be done. At least McCain would act as a goalkeeper to the left-wing Congress.