Some Thoughts on John McCain
Should John McCain win the Republican presidential nomination, I will vote for him this fall. While we conservatives may grumble that he has betrayed us on any number of issues, Dick Morris put it best when he wrote, “if a failure to win means the election of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the stakes are too high to ignore the issue of political practicality in making a choice.“
Last week, when I was working my endorsement of then-presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, I went back over my posts on the 2008 presidential election and noted how the further back I went, the more my animosity against John McCain grew. In the most recent posts, I found myself warming to the man whose candidacy I had written off in this post. He stood up to the media (particularly CNN) and refused to apologize for a supporter using the b-word to define Ms. Hillary. And I noted how he looked good in Republican candidates’ debate at the Reagan library in May.
He has been solid in the War on Terror, great on earmarks and outspoken in taking on our party for betraying fiscal conservatism, faulting the Republican Congress in 2003 for “spending money like a drunken sailor.”
And yet, like Mona Charen, “every time I take a step in his direction, I’m reminded of some other apostasy (taxes!) and I recoil.”
Sometimes, as I wrote in my post-mortem on the Florida primary, McCain seems to buck his party, “merely . . . . to prove that he['s] a maverick.” Or, as ThatGayConservative asked in the comments section, “was it to pander to the MSM?“
What I find about John McCain (to borrow a metaphor from baseball) is that when he connects with the ball, he hits it of the ballpark (as he did in his comments on the war in the Reagan Library debate), but when he misses, he seems to swing wildly, looking like a rank amateur.
I do have my problems with John McCain (this post provides a good summary), but now that my man Rudy is bowing out, I find myself in the odd position of considering voting for him next week in the California primary.
Eight years ago, I had been torn between him and the then-Texas Governor, making up my mind for George W. Bush only when McCain refused to answer Michael Reagan’s concern that he might appoint Supreme Court justices like David Souter given that former New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman who was then McCain’s campaign chair had encouraged the first President Bush to make that unfortunate choice.
For me, a man with strong opinions, it’s strange to follow a campaign, not as a partisan observer, cheering my candidate on, but as an undecided voter, trying to figure out which of the two leading Republican candidates is better for our party — and our nation.
Given his comments eight years ago which caused me to decide for then-opponent, John McCain could allay some of my concerns about his candidacy if, as he accepts Rudy Giuliani’s endorsement, he asks the former New York City Mayor’s judicial advisory committee to join his campaign.
- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
UPDATE: McCain’s persistence in claiming Romney favored a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq makes him look like a rank amateur as do his broadsides against Wall Street.
20 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
As a staunch independent who has not been able to vote Democrat since before Reagan (there’s been none to vote for, has there?), Sir Rudy was always my guy. McCain was a very close second because of his “maverick” (i.e., thought-provokingly individualistic) ways.
As right leaning gays, we should laud such a stance (not a reference to Larry Craig). Whether moderate, as I am, or extreme right wing (as my partner is), our individualism is what gives us the intestinal fortitude to be what we are. Proud, right wing and oh, yeah, the other thing.
While I believe Sir Rudy is more well-rounded in experience, I also believe that it is the role of the President to PRESIDE. What a concept! Romney would have to hire economists — he is not one. He made his money as a venture capitalist? Read “Gambler”. I doubt that he could jump into the position of Commander in Chief in wartime.
As the great-grandson of a Christian woman who was raped, killed and raped some more by Muslims because Christians were (and still are in certain parts of the Islamic world) open season, I have always known about the Muslim threat. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it and unfortunately, our country is ignorant because in our pride we have made ourselves intellectually insular.
McCain knows what it is to be a prisoner. I don’t want to.
Comment by Non-partisan Miamian — January 30, 2008 @ 8:50 pm - January 30, 2008
One of the things that makes me more comfortable with him is the fact that he tried so desperately to change how we were fighting the war in Iraq. He cared about the actual policies and guidance we were giving our troops and tried to fix the slow-motion disaster we had going on over there. That kind of loyalty to the troops shows an understanding of the awesome responsibility a C-in-C has; I like.
It’s so hard to reconcile that with a man who ties up committees with hearings on steroids in baseball, for god’s sake. I wonder which one we will see running. And which one will govern if he wins.
Comment by torrentprime — January 30, 2008 @ 9:01 pm - January 30, 2008
torrentprime, your first paragraph captures a lot of what I admire about John McCain. He made clear that the mission was right, while faulting the president’s means.
You nail it when you write, “He cared about the actual policies and guidance we were giving our troops.“
Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 30, 2008 @ 9:33 pm - January 30, 2008
Whenever McCain bucks the party or Pres. Bush, people point to it as a sign that he’s betraying conservatism. But has anyone considered that it may be the party that has betrayed conservatism? Profligate spending, corruption, expanding the federal government at the expense of states (particularly with the FMA) — McCain didn’t leave the party. The party left him.
Comment by Bla — January 30, 2008 @ 11:40 pm - January 30, 2008
McCain didn’t leave the party. The party left him.
Bullshit!
Who else in the party sidles up to the liberal media the way he has? Who else would take any amount of time to consider running with a liberal presidential candidate? Not only that, but he left the party on the “Constitutional Option”.
Not to mention he left all of us to push for amnesty for those who VIOLATED our immigration laws.
So he’s been a POW and served in the Senate forever. That’s nice. But that doesn’t mean you can do whatever you damn well please. That’s what Kennedys do.
We *need* a leader and NOT a “maverick”, as branded by the liberal douchbag MSM. When you’re the darling of the liberal media, you’re not for us. People should be wary of Republicans they like.
BTW, the exploitation of his service is starting to become Kerry-esque, just like it did in 2000.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 31, 2008 @ 2:09 am - January 31, 2008
TGC writes: “Not only that, but he left the party on the “Constitutional Option”.”
It’s a good thing that he did — otherwise the “Constitutional Option” would now be in the hands of the Senate Democrats. Besides, while the bipartisanship of the “Gang of 14″ might be anathema to hard-core partisans, for those of us more practical conservatives, what McCain did was basically trick Democrats into voting for Roberts and Alito.
When the Supreme Court later rules this year that the Second Amendment is a guarantee of individual right, not collective right, to bear arms, we will owe McCain some partial thanks.
Comment by Bla — January 31, 2008 @ 2:26 am - January 31, 2008
TGC writes: “Not to mention he left all of us to push for amnesty for those who VIOLATED our immigration laws.”
The immigration bill contained a provision for securing the border, but in the wrong order — locking down the borders should be done before anything else to address the 12 million or so illegals in our country. Setting aside amnesty — TGC, what better options do you have to deal with the people already here? Forcibly deporting them all is impractical. I like the idea of making them “self-deporting” by removing economic incentives, through stricter sanctions against employers who hire illegals — but this was also in the bill. I’m afraid conservatives threw the baby out with the bath water on this one — the proposal did have other redeeming features, ones which could be passed as standalone measures.
As to how the candidates compare on illegal immigration — Huckabee wants taxpayers to fund the education of illegals. Romney’s record as governor doesn’t jibe with his current rhetoric (big surprise). From factcheck.org:
Every election I see this happening — conservatives need to look beyond what candidates say, and actually look at what they have done. Just because a candidate says he’s conservative doesn’t mean he is. (Bush is a good example — ran as a conservative, but the largest expansion of government since LBJ happened on his watch)
Comment by Bla — January 31, 2008 @ 2:38 am - January 31, 2008
Forcibly deporting them all is impractical.
How do we know if we never tried? I think the impracticality stems from the fact that nobody has the cajones to do it. We have tried amnesty before and look where that got us.
My point is that painting McCain as a victim AGAIN is just plain asinine and I doubt you’ll garner many pity votes that way.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 31, 2008 @ 5:45 am - January 31, 2008
If I were to be voting next week, I would have to vote for Romney. His stance on terrorism and illegal immigration are terrific. He has proven he can lead, he lead the USOC out of debt and the State of Masschusetts.
My guy is RUDY… but I am faced with the dilemna that if McCain wins the nomination, I for the first time will be unable to vote in a general election. I will not vote for him and cannot vote for Hillary or Obama.
McCain’s service is commendable but I, too, think this is going down the road of Bob Dole and John Kerry. The service needs to be put in the past and we need to look at the future.
Comment by PatriotMom — January 31, 2008 @ 7:15 am - January 31, 2008
If John McCain won the Republican presidential nomination, I would vote for the Libertarian candidate again. An anti-free speech, pro-tax, pro-amnesty RINO is not a candidate who deserves my vote.
Comment by Crow — January 31, 2008 @ 8:44 am - January 31, 2008
A discussion that might be started after the primaries is “who is more liberal McCain or Hillary.” You might get some interesting answers.
Bob Dole’s VP was Jack Kemp. The MSM should ask if he is available for MCain to tap. I did note Jack on stage supporting Sen McCain. I’m no spring chicken but these people are OLD. If I remember right, Dole got 38% of the vote, one of the most humiliating defeats in history. I’m pretty well off and usually send a significant amount to the Republican National Comm each year. I have held off the past 18 months because I wanted to see how this was going to play out. I’m glad I didn’t contribute. Even if McCain wins, he will govern like a HW Bush at best. And I refuse to go along again.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 31, 2008 @ 9:06 am - January 31, 2008
That is the core of the issue. We conservatives have been screaming loud and clear that the Republican party in Washington has left its conservative principles for piles of pork, going soft on illegal immigration, messing with political free speech, expanding entitlements, growing the government and much more.
McCain has some strong conservative tendencies. So does Bush. However, when McCain “reaches across the aisle” he grabs the most liberal hands in the lot: Kennedy, Feingold, Lieberman. When bush got to town, he grabbed Kennedy’s hand, too.
Will I vote for McCain if my party nominates him? Why not? If Hillary Clinton is elected, she promises to start screwing us “from day one.” If John McCain is elected, I know he will go McQeeg and start rolling his ball bearings and make all manner of maverick moves. But Leahy, Schumer, Clinton, Boxer, and the other junk yard Democrats will smell his weakness and force him to turn into the snarling, thin skinned adonis that he really is. It will be business as usual, but with a small, crotchety old man who never forgets a slight at the helm. It will be fun watching the MSM finally discover McCain just the way they have been surprised that Bill Clinton is a conniving liar.
Perhaps McCain will try to give the store away and force the Republicans in Congress to fight him the way the Democrats in Congress fought Carter.
Perhaps the Democrats will take McCain’s hand and then try to take his arm and make him turn on them. One thing is for sure, they won’t let McCain “go maverick” on them if it is not to their benefit.
Happy days are not here again in the halls of power.
Comment by heliotrope — January 31, 2008 @ 9:30 am - January 31, 2008
This is a year of hard choices. I had hoped that Fred would´ve been the new Reagan. His campaign was flatter than a tire. I admire John McCain´s military record, his recommendation for and support of the surge. But when I think of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy In last nights debate Anderson made a point that his defense of hisvotes against the Bush tax cuts was it favored the rich and nothing about no provision for cutting spending. So it sounds like an afterthought, a bone to throw at fiscal conservatives. If he is the party nominee I will vote for him in November, holding my nose. Otherwise, I would do what #9, Crow and vote Libertarian if I thought they were really serious and had a reasonable chance of winning. Mitt Romney has been all over the spectrum that I think he would be another Bill Clinton, govern by the polls. That leaves Mike Huckabee. I like his idea of cutting spending by tax reform. Eliminating the IRS. That is an issue that always perks my interest. Yet his support to educate illegals and tax increases that he glibly explains away makes me shy about him but by process of elimination I will vote for him on Tuesday as the best of the worst.
Any candidate that we nominate has to be better than Billary or Oprama.
Comment by Roberto — January 31, 2008 @ 9:57 am - January 31, 2008
Miamian : I”m sorry to hear about your ancester’s abuse at the hands of Muslims.
I’m amazed at the quick amnesia the West developed about Islam in the last half of the 20th Century.
Comment by Vince P — January 31, 2008 @ 11:42 am - January 31, 2008
After watching last nights debate, I think I will be pulling the lever for Romney in the primaries. McCain looked awful and didn’t behave much better.
As to who is most like Reagan – nobody. We got our Ronald Reagan 28 years ago, that isn’t going to happen again in our life time.
Time to move on.
As for GW Bush, The Anchoress had a very interesting long post on her take of our President. Sometimes we are waaay to harsh on our elected leaders. No one is perfect, but I have no regrets voting for him twice, and I may be one of the few people left who doesn’t hate him.
http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/01/29/bush-rescues-his-own-ss-agent/
Comment by Leah — January 31, 2008 @ 12:18 pm - January 31, 2008
Leah, I saw the Anchoress’ article yesterday too – It’s a good one.
I don’t regret voting for Bush in 2004 – I’ll leave it at that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 31, 2008 @ 12:42 pm - January 31, 2008
If McCain wins the GOP nomination, I’ll vote Democrat. Look at all the legislation that has his name on it. It’s all McCain + liberal Democrat. That’s no Republican. Yet, as a Republican President he’d be able to push the GOP in the House and Senate to pass legislation approved by his good friends Ted Kennedy and John Jerry.
If Hillary wins, then the GOP Senate and House would fight her agenda tooth and nail. We’d get gridlock, and bad bills, like the McCain/Kennedy Immigration bill would die in the Senate. Hillary is also smart enough to finish the job in Iraq and steal the credit.
Don’t get me wrong. I loathe the Clintons.
But, when I look at McCain I see someone who would rather forge one-sided compromises with liberal Democrats than stick up for the GOP agenda. Margaret Thatcher famously said that compromise is the absence of leadership. McCain is a compromiser, not a leader.
The GOP will benefit more from spending four years fighting Hillary rather than four years getting steam-rolled by McCain.
Comment by Pat — January 31, 2008 @ 11:08 pm - January 31, 2008
I would put it this way; my preference is for politicians who make decisions, even if I don’t agree with all of them, versus politicians who need my approval to blow their nose, your approval to wipe their butt, and then try to triangulate which to do depending on the poll numbers.
That makes McCain far better than Romney.
I am OK with McCain, even though I know I will not agree with him on several issues.
I am not OK with Romney, because I get the strong impression that he will do what’s popular at the expense of what is right.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 31, 2008 @ 11:13 pm - January 31, 2008
Folks, all I have to say is that the bitter, biting Sen. “F— You” McCain is what we were treated to last night. It is not exactly a way to bring people over to your side. Being a bully is great in school, but when you are trying to get people to vote FOR you, you do not slam the other guy to the point that you forget what it is you stand for. Liberals have contempt for people. John “F— You” McCain does too. Read Michael Reagan today. Unlike Sen. “F— You” McCain, I think Michael Reagan knows the real Ronald Reagan. And, Sen “F— You” McCain, you’re no Ronald Reagan!
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — January 31, 2008 @ 11:59 pm - January 31, 2008
[...] Given my commitment to conservative ideas, it seemed I would end up supporting former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as I was closer to him on the issues than I am to his then-rival from Arizona. Not just that I didn’t think John McCain acquitted himself particularly well in the only debate held after Rudy’s withdrawal and before the California primary. As I put it in one post, his “persistence in claiming Romney favored a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq makes him look like a ra…“ [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » On Voting with Your Gut — June 13, 2008 @ 1:14 am - June 13, 2008