Ever since I announced that I had voted for John McCain the California Republican primary, a good number of our readers have expressed shock (and dismay) that I would choose the less conservative of the two serious candidates then left in the race for the Republican nomination for president. Given my conservatism, they expected me to reject McCain and choose the supposedly more conservative Mitt Romney.
I believe this was the first time that I have differed significantly with my co-blogger on a key issue of the day with Bruce expressing significant skepticism (and outright opposition) to the apparent Republican nominee.
Not only that, in the month leading up to the primary, I had posted some critical pieces on John McCain (here and here) and one highly praiseworthy of Mitt Romney.
Even though I found the former Massachusetts Governor presidential in that New Hampshire debate, I just couldn’t bring myself to vote for him. I guess it was that he just didn’t seem very passionate, putting forward conservative policy proposals more as a professor explaining what conservative ideas were than as an advocate convinced of their merits. Later, after I cast my vote, a friend who had donated to Romney’s campaign, acknowledged that his man often seemed “plastic.”
Back in 2000, when I wavered between McCain and then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, I put a lot of thought into my decision, even ordering the Arizona Senator’s book, Faith of My Fathers: A Family Memoir from Amazon, reading it in the weeks before the California primary. That year (unlike this) I could identify the moment when I made my choice. It was when, as I noted here, McCain refused to address talk show Michael Reagan’s concern that he might appoint Supreme Court justices like David Souter.
The night before I voted this year I e-mailed a reader leaning toward Romney indicating that I was likely to “go with my gut” and vote for McCain. I think the main thing which swung me to a man whom I once compared to a bitter old man and whom I faulted for being “too eager” to please the media was that desipte his flaws and his many departures from conservative “orthodoxy,” on the most important issue of the day, the War on Terror, he has never wavered, remaining committed to victory in Iraq.
It wasn’t just that. When I read McCain’s book, I was impressed with his service in the United States Navy. Here was a man who didn’t need talk about his love for his country and his commitment to fellow servicemembers because he had, in his life, shown that love and commitment.
Even though I had read the book nearly eight years before first voting for John McCain, its theme still resonated with me, putting the nation ahead of one’s own personal comfort. For enduring imprisonment at the hands of the North Vietnamese when he could have won early release, John McCain is a true American hero.
This is not to say I don’t have my faults with the man. But, as I read yesterday of his exchange on Iraq with his likely rival in this fall’s presidential contest, I felt confident that I had made the right choice when earlier this month I picked him over Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination.
In that exchange alone, he did a better job than the incumbent of defending the war in Iraq. In short, that exchange reminded me of the essence of my support for John McCain–on the most important issue of the day, he not only is committed to victory against enemies who would destroy our civilization, but can also articulate his argument more effectively than many other advocates of our cause, including the architect of our current policy.
That is why I believe John Mcain is well-suited to stand up for Republican principles this year and to challenge — and defeat — the Democratic nominee this fall.
"Even though I found the former Massachusetts Governor presidential in that New Hampshire debate, I just couldn’t bring myself to vote for him. I guess it was that he just didn’t seem very passionate, putting forward conservative policy proposals more as a professor explaining what conservative ideas were than as an advocate convinced of their merits."
So you decided it would be better to vote for the guy that’s openly anti-conservative?
"That is why I believe John Mcain is well-suited to stand up for Republican principles this year and to challenge…"
Um, what? He hasn’t before, why would be suddenly do so now?
Dan, I’m sorry you so completely misjudged Mitt Romney that it would lead you to think McCain is a better man… even on the issue "most important" to you.
John or Rudy or Mitt or Huckabee would have been able to beat Obama or Clinton. All of them having been outpolling the Dems since late August of last year.
But at least YOU voted. I’m curious, are you in sympathy with the niche of FarRight types who think McCain is so bad, letting Obama win is better than pulling the lever for someone they see as a RINO?
putting the nation ahead of one’s own personal comfort.
Grabbing his ankles for the liberals and their media ho’s doesn’t give the appearance that he puts the nation of his personal comfort.
he not only is committed to victory against enemies who would destroy our civilization,
Only the radical Muslim kind but apparently not against the Marxist/Stalinist kind here in our own country.
Crow, McCain is not openly anti-conservative. Â He’s been solid in the War on Terror and excellent on earmarks and federal spending, two issues near and dear to conservative hearts.
I just couldn’t ever bring myself to vote for the author of McCain-Feingold. But you never know. As more about the Obamaniac continues to come out, I might think differently in eight months.
>Crow, McCain is not openly anti-conservative.  He’s been solid in the War on Terror
I have to differ on this. He’s for shutting down Gitmo and he was part of 2nd-term momentum-killing obstructionism with his opposition/meddling over the Detainee Treatment Act or something
‘Grabbing his ankles for the liberals and their media ho’s doesn’t give the appearance that he puts the nation of his personal comfort.’
Another insightful comment by that remarkable intellect TGC.  Nothing like a little homophobic imagery to prove your right-wing credentials.
What’s homophobic about grabbing your ankles?
‘What’s homophobic about grabbing your ankles?’
Does it really need t be spelled out? TCG uses an image of getting fucked as a derogatory sign of submissiveness and by extension unmanliness. People on GP often talk about liberal/left commentators failing to address your "ideas" but never call on TCG for his consistently moronic and foul comments.
I think McCain is the best repubilican for the times, unlike what someone posted before….the democrats were blowing out the other republican nominees. McCain beats of ties them both, thats really incredibly considering how bad the atmosphere looks for Republicans this election year.
McCain is not going to let himself get trampled by the Dem Congress, he might be able to keep anything too liberal from passing to 2010…then you guys can try to capture the Congress back.
Be grateful for what you have, he isn’t that bad…but I am democract so I might be blind to it.
>Does it really need t be spelled out? TCG uses an image of getting fucked as a derogatory sign of submissiveness and by extension unmanliness.Â
Well.. boo fucking hoo. Using an exaggerative metaophor is dreaded "homophobia"…
You leftists are so incapable of discussing anything without resorting to your hysteric insecurities.Â
Do you actively seek out things to be ‘offended’ by ? I honestly don’t know how folks like you manage to get through a day without having a break down.. I mean taking it upon yourself to police every word that everyone around you says.. it must be exhausting.
I think little shits like you are the real homophobia… You’re so scared someone might associate butt-fucking with gay people.. as if they dont know.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around the concept of an open gay man being homophobic. But then pretty much everything liberals say confounds me.
Talk about "moronic and foul". Yeesh!
Oh, I remember!
Anything liberals don’t agree with is racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic and, apparently, "moronic and foul".
#11
God, we need Ian and the puppets back.
This is one of my favorite Dennis Prager articles:
The highest-ranking Democrat in America, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, described the Senate bill making English the national language of the American people as "racist." And the New York Times editorial page labeled the bill "xenophobic."Welcome to the thoughtless world of contemporary liberalism. Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.One-word put-downs of opponents’ ideas and motives were substituted for thoughtful rebuttal. Though liberals regard themselves as intellectual — their views, after all, are those of nearly all university professors — liberal thought has almost died. Instead of feeling the need to thoughtfully consider an idea, most liberal minds today work on automatic. One-word reactions to most issues are the liberal norm. This is easy to demonstrate.Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:Racist
Sexist
Homophobic
Islamophobic
Imperialist
Bigoted
IntolerantAnd here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:Peace
Fairness
Tolerance
The poor
The disenfranchised
The environmentThese two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person. Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal — essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal — they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself — by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.
read the rest
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/harry_reid_the_end_of_liberal.html
14: I miss the guy that would come in here and give 10 paragraph diatribes on how every war decision Bush made was wrong, and yet when I asked him about what should be done about Kosovo, he would never answer.
The Leftist is good wtih criticizing everything that has happened in the past, but they have nothing to say about the future. They dont even think about the future when they advocate for certain policies. That the policy makes them feel good is good enough, the fact that it might be counter-productive or even destructive doesnt’ matter. They dont care.
#15
I notice honesty isn’t in there.
Dan, that was my question in the "last paragraph". Thanks for responding.
17 TGC: Honesty is an impediment for the left.
GPW: I’m a "Far-Right" guy according to some, as I volunteered and voted for Ron Paul, but I’d never vote for a modern-day Democrat just to object to McCain. If Hillary was the Dem candidate, I’d probably vote Libertarian, but Obama is terrifying, totalitarian, and for some reason surrounds himself with people that hate America, including his wife. When one candidate is truly evil, it’s not hard to vote for the lesser of two evils. So I’ll probably be shooting my conscience in the face and voting for McCain this fall.
I’m a "Far-Right" guy according to some, as I volunteered and voted for Ron Paul,
That’s just nanners.
I think once Obama starts talking in specifics.. or the truth of his background gets widely known, that most sane people will flock to McCain.
McCain is not my choice by any means.. but I think it would be ultimate betrayal of our military people as well as to our Constitution to allow that fascist (Obama) to get into office.
Politics is about what is possible, not about what is desirable. In most cases that means voting for the less of two evils. But if you look at the big picture, maybe your lesser evil isn’t so bad after all. I wasn’t for McCain initially, I voted for Romney – even that with reservations. There is something very wooden about him.
As Hugh Hewitt says, there are 7 reasons to vote for McCain, the Iraq war and Supreme court justices.
I can think of more than that, I like his being a straight talker, inflexible sob. Sure there are times totally disagree with him. In general – I can get behind this guy. I’ll even work for his campaign. Even better, my Democrat son wants to work alongside me – that says a lot!
Dan, you have the right to vote for whomever you choose for whatever reasons you choose. I’m glad someone on the right saw through the phoniness of Romney. I can’t remember a more plastic politician. That didn’t leave you with a lot of choices. McCain is someone people respect even when they disagree with him. It’s been a long time since we had a leader that the other side respected.
after seeing this, i cant understand HOW anyone that believes in equality and civil rights for ALL could even think about voting for obama…Please take a look and circulate: noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/29/as-god-is-my-witness-obama-snubs-newsom-gays/
Â
TGC: What is/are "nanners?"Â Nanny Staters?
I was forced to pull the lever for him myself. Damn the Huckster! I recommend lots of drinking on Election Day, Dan. 😉
#26
Bananas.
Don’t get what’s supposed to be bananas about it.
Well.. boo fucking hoo. Using an exaggerative metaophor is dreaded "homophobia"… You leftists are so incapable of discussing anything without resorting to your hysteric insecurities. Do you actively seek out things to be ‘offended’ by ? I honestly don’t know how folks like you manage to get through a day without having a break down.. I mean taking it upon yourself to police every word that everyone around you says.. it must be exhausting’.
Vince, calm down boy! You and TCG could use a little rest and quiet–I get through the days quite well without breakdowns–you, Ihave some doubts.
Truthfully,
from Brendan with a law degree and a medical degree in psychiatry-you and TCG worry me.
#30: Physician, heal thyself.
#30: Your prognosis is about two days late. Can I hire your to start a tort action regarding malpractice?
#30
What in the hell was that??? Are you even sure you’re on the right blog?
Brendan, I have a driver’s license and a Sam’s Club membership. My cats have two electric litter boxes. The US government delivers my mail to my house. However, there is an odor coming from my septic tank. Should I sue somebody or seek therapy?
Brendan, I suspect you meant to say that you have an M.D. with a specialty in psychiatry. That means you received your M.D. and then did a residency specializing in administering drugs for those suffering mental problems. As you would know, psychotherapy and psychoanalysis are not a part of psychiatry. For those skills you will have to take separate degrees not necessarily associated with a medical school. I would hope that taking the time and expense to complete law school, medical school and a residency has paid off handsomely for you. I should add that I do not know if the University of Granada offers a streamlined three year combined mail order degree. I do know that the medical board I sit on oversees no physician with the vast credentials you outline. Forensic medicine usually does not have need for a psychiatry degree as most of problems of forensic medicine involve dead people. Of course, it is possible to have multiple degrees which have been fun to acquire and then settle down to a serious life of being a pony tailed waiter with attitude at Burrito Slim’s.
Heliotrope: So are you saying that Brendan is lying about his credentials?
Vince P, I am purely dazzled by Brendan’s credentials. Actually, I am baiting him to come forth with details of his career and then, perhaps, explain how those details have the slightest meaning within the context of the post that drew his comments. I admit that my fascination is fueled more by incredulity than persuasion.Â
I recently rode in a New York City taxi driven by a man who worked for the intelligence service in Pakistan and was infiltrating the Pakistani drivers to ferret out the radicals. I thought it was quite generous of him to blow his cover for my edification. Should I be skeptical?
Thats pretty funny