Over at the Corner, Victor Davis Hanson spells out why conservatives should support McCain over the Democrat alternatives, and what the Arizona Senator can do to close the deal.
1) He’s been right on most of the big things:
There were four developments that got conservatives into this mess — the inexcusable increase of federal spending from 2001-05 (that gave mendacious Democrats room to fabricate that the tax cuts had caused the red ink), the sordid scandals of 2005-7, the tentativeness in the war (cf. the 1st pull-back from Fallujah, the reprieve to Sadr, the retreat to compounds in 2006, etc), and the complete unwillingness to close the border. McCain was involved with only one of these.
On these four critical issues, would McCain be far better than Clinton or Obama? He is good on earmarks and pork barrel spending, and hates deficits; he is without scandal and, while terribly wrong on McCain-Feingold, is a corruption fighter; and he is aggressive on the war and wants to win. The problem with his prior support of immigration “reform” was not just that it would lead to ever more illegals and make a mockery out of past federal law, but that he either ignored criticism or impugned the motives of those who were genuinely worried about open borders and the travesty of the law, but themselves were neither racists nor without compassion.
So on 3 of 4 critical issues, McCain in strong, and on the 4th he is now on record in speeches and ads that he would close the borders first. His views on religion, abortion, gay marriage, guns, etc. please mainstream conservatives; on global warming, Guantanamo, campaign financing, etc. hardly.
2) He can pick the right kind of running mate:
How then to recapture the base? I don’t think the attitude “they have nowhere else to go” or “we don’t want to lose moderates by moving right” will work, especially if Obama is the nominee.
It would be better to get a base conservative on the ticket. And when you look around at the necessary requisites: youth to balance McCain’s age; strong base support; energetic; an experienced campaigner; not afraid to mix it up; geographical balance; economic experience and Wall Street fides; you inevitably keep coming back to Romney.
He would unite the party, not just by gaining the VP spot, but by acknowledgment that he would then be best positioned to assume the top spot after McCain. It would reassure conservatives on immigration, tax cuts, etc. And Romney’s last two weeks of speeches revealed a charismatic figure unlike that seen most of the campaign.
Their animus is no greater than between Bush I (“voodoo economics”) and Reagan in 1980, but would be a genuine gesture on the part of McCain, to think of the base and swallow his seeming anger at Romney.
What’s at stake?:
The alternative is a Republican loss, and likely increased Democratic control of the Congress and soon a trifecta with the Supreme Court.
We would witness a new generation of European-like tax increases, unnecessary new programs, negotiated or unilateral surrender in Iraq, loss of what has been achieved in preventing another 9/11 (a return to the Sandy Berger/Albright response to terrorists in the late 1990s when our embassies were leveled and Pakistan got the bomb), 2-3 far Left Supreme Court justices, and the race/class/gender industry given official sanction.
The idea that feuding conservatives would each not make some sort of concessions to prevent all that is lunatic.
Mull it over seriously. Are you willing to let past and present differences with McCain trump everything? Hold him to his conservative promises, demand that he shows good faith in healing the rift with conservatives, but don’t rule him out because of spite. We don’t often get everything we want. Fine. Take some time to let it sink in, but be prepared to show magnanimity.
Was McCain my first choice? Hardly. But our country’s future is too important to give up so easily. And we can keep fighting for conservative principles along the way.
Magnanimity. Hmmmm. How does this happen when somone supports the murder of children.
“…supports the murder of children.”
McCain has wandered off the reservation in some areas, but he has been consistently pro-life. Good intentions and lofty ideals that result in worse outcomes are not laudable. And when it comes to the Presidential authority to decide matters that affect pro-life issues, either Clinton or Obama would be considerably less desirable than McCain.
I understand you support Huckabee, and appreciate your devotion to his candidacy. But he isn’t going to win. Do the math. I think Dobson over-reacted on McCain, but if he was really serious about stopping him he should have endorsed Huckabee a month ago when it could have done some good.
Libertarian Party sends condolences to the GOP.
“With the rise of John McCain, LP offers sympathy for the death of small-government values within the GOP.”
http://www.lp.org/media/article_564.shtml
Dobson was right about McCain. (By the way, I’m LDS not evangelical.) However, I think his intent was to get Romney out of the race by getting his (Dobson’s) followers to vote for Huckabee at Romney’s expense. He accomplished that. (It’s Huckabee’s fault that we’re stuck with McCain now.)
Sadly, the Republican Party and conservatives will be better off if a Democrat wins the White House this fall. That will give us the time and motivation to move the party and its candidates back to the right. If McCain is elected, too many Republican representatives and senators will go along with him out of party loyalty–a term McCain doesn’t understand.
We need to take the “long view” not just consider the next four years. If McCain is elected we could end up with him and then his VP in the White House and, supposedly, leading the Republican Party for the next 16 years. (Even if McCain can convince a self-identifed conservative to run with him, no true conservative would be willing to be part of a McCain administration.) As conservatives, we can’t wait that long to take back the party.
Right now we need to focus on getting conservatives into the House and Senate to counteract whichever liberal (Clinton, Obama, or McCain) is elected.
Snaggle-Tooth, kind of an absurd political stunt. “The death of small-government values”? What did Bush and the GOP Congress of 2003-2006 not already accomplish to achieve that?
Go vote for Ron Paul and make yourself feel better.
Politigalco, I’m not thrilled with a McCain nomination. He’s moved left on some issues and is more liberal than the GOP mainstream. But to put forward the fiction that there is little or no difference between McCain & the Dem candidates is absurd.
Defining down the “true conservatives” as those who would never run on a McCain ticket, well, what a way to consign yourself to the political minority forever. One drop liberal blood contaminates any conservative associated with it – can’t be any impact the other way around.
I appreciate your views. But the conservative movement will do fine with or without McCain in the White House. The important work the movement does is mostly in the grassroots level. Trying to get conservative Republicans elected to Congress this year, while dumping on McCain, is not a recipe for success. But mostly I am concerned about our nation, which will be in worse shape under Clinton/Obama than any of the GOP candidates.
Say it ain’t so, Ben.
If you truly thank Bush is a small gummint conservative, then there truly ain’t no hope for ye. Learn the meanin’ of “whistlin’ in the dark.” Cuz-att’s wut ye doin’.
And he ain’t only a servant of Leviathan, but he’s sellin’ out-iss here country. Thar’s a certain article in th’ latest issur of Chronicles I thank I’m a gonna send ye thar at the so-called “Independence” Institute, which’ll be instruktiv in-att regard.
Wake up, my frind.
Politicalco:
Ye spot on. Only thang I would add is that there ain’t no hope whin it comes to the GOP.
Ole Mitt gave a dang good speech a few days ago. But y’all gotta realize that the GOP’ll never – NEVER- deliver fur ye. That party’s tainted beyond fixin’.
Snaggle-Tooth, I think you completely misread my comment. Bush is no small-government conservative. He and the GOP Congress of 2003-2006 already achieved the death of small-government values. Pretending like McCain’s nomination is something new, a break from that, as the Libertarian Party did, was nothing more than an absurd stunt. So please be careful next time you read my comments.
Your opinion that the GOP is tainted beyond fixing – if you’re right, there’s serious trouble ahead for our country. Also depends what your standard for a political party is, as well as your expectations for what it can and cannot do.
Fair ‘nuf, Ben. I red too fast.
I’m shore you got a kick outta this-un, as I did.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UNK92G0&show_article=1
I’m listnin’ t’ bluegrass raht now. This here album, in fact:
http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/6808198/a/Appalachian+Swing!.htm
Sumhow I thank-iss, an’ only-iss, will be our redempshun.
Hope-att ain’t too krytpic fur ye.
Ben,
I respectfully submit to you the math works if you actually do it.
Go Huckabee!!
RE: Do the Math. Hmmmm. Interesting that Carl Rove said it was impossible for Huckabee to win last week, and now he is saying McCain needs to spend a lot of time in the primaries. Why? If it is impossible to win then he should spend his time thinking about the general election. Or maybe Carl Rove has done the math.