21 Comments

1. Gary Imhoff:

Advising conservatives to stick with John McCain is like telling a battered wife to stick with her abusive spouse. Once McCain has cinched the primary, he will again start bashing and condemning conservatives; that is what has endeared him to the liberal press, and he undoubtedly doesn’t yet realize that the liberal press will turn against him with a vengeance in the general election.

Does anyone doubt that if he elected president he will spend the next four years cooperating with a Democratic House and Senate to frustrate conservative programs and goals? Instead of nominating Supreme Court justices like Ginsburg and Breyer, he will nominated justices like Souter and O’Conner. Is that enough of a reason for conservatives to ignore McCain’s long history of fighting against them?

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:38 pm 2. chuck:

Gary, I’ve known battered wives. You are no battered wife.

Feb 6, 2008 - 3:41 pm 3. Sheryl:

What nonsense. Ted Olson seems quite confident about the types of judges McCain would appoint.

Feb 6, 2008 - 4:21 pm 4. Pat Curley:

Actually McCain was angry when Bush Sr. nominated Souter, although he voted for him. He did not like the idea of nominating a judge who did not have a paper trail and called Souter a “stealth” candidate. And before you say that he thought Souter would be a “stealth” conservative, remember that he supported Bork.

Feb 6, 2008 - 4:57 pm 5. Peter G.:

Excellent point, Pat Curley. And I should state that though I prefer Bork to Souter, I prefer neither.

Feb 6, 2008 - 5:28 pm 6. Lem:

It could also be that this is the only way conservatives figured they get any attention from McCain.

By scaring him to the right.

Remember when Newt said the Reagan revolution was dead some days ago?

I think McCain put him up to it.

Feb 6, 2008 - 5:29 pm 7. Michael J. Totten:

McCain polls very well among Republicans, better than any of the other Republican candidates. That’s why he’s winning. His negative rating is lower than any of the others among Republicans and among Americans generally.

Don’t fear the loud minority faction, Roger. Keep it up. You are right on target here.

Some factions and ideologies are smaller than they appear on the Internet. (See also: Netroots, Ron Paul Revolution.)

Feb 6, 2008 - 5:48 pm 8. Stace:

I gave a small amount of money to Romney last spring. When Fred got in, I liked what he said and how he said it, so I gave him the max donation. I liked Rudy ok, but I was always worried that his personal baggage would make him unelectable, so I didn’t commit any resources to him. My state primary isn’t until March, so my vote hasn’t been an issue.

So I think I’ve done what I can, and I’m ready to support McCain enthusiastically, despite the CFR abomination. (Huck as his runningmate could kill the deal for me, though.)

Anyone on the right who wants to criticize me for supporting McCain can kiss my butt, because I’ve been working for other candidates for almost a year. I did my part, and I think my opinion is as valid any other Republican’s. If you couldn’t tell, all this McDS is making me a bit cross.

Feb 6, 2008 - 7:05 pm 9. Lightnin' Hopkins:

Okay, mourning time is over. My guy (Rudy) couldn’t get arrested in the primaries and Mac is sailing through. It’s a shame, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to contribute – either by voting for socialism in protest, or “sitting this one out” – to Bubba becoming First Whatever-they’re-going-to-call-it and the attendant psychic baggage the nation would be forced to endure under such a scenario. No way, no how.

It’s not like there’s nothing to like about the man. He needs to show he feels the same way about conservatives within his party, and I believe he will, starting with CPAC. I would hope his campaign is already reaching out behind the scenes to begin smoothing things over so that we can all concentrate on the real task at hand – winning in November.

It’s fine for bloggers and others to tsk-tsk those of us who have/or had reservations about Sen. McCain, but remember, as histrionic as some might be about it, their concerns do exist. Some “straight talk” to allay those fears is necessary and will go a long way if worded carefully and delivered with sincerity. I, for one, am hopeful.

Feb 6, 2008 - 8:06 pm 10. ElMondo:

I’m with Stace on this in that I’m starting to get cross too. Fred dropped out, I could’ve lived with Giuliani, and McCain wasn’t too high on my list. But when we’re talking McC vs. Hillary, or McC. vs. not just Obama but the party of Code Pink and MoveOn, the choice is pretty damn crystal clear.

Does anyone here who thinks there’s no difference between McC and Clinton, or McC and Obama really think he’d welcome Code Pink or MoveOn’s influence? And does anyone here really think Hillary or Obama can avoid it?

Screwing up domestic policy is painful and ruinous, but fixable. Screwing up Iraq, Afghanistan, and whatever the future holds against radical Islamic militarism is deadly. I’d rather have domestic policies I don’t like but can see changed in another election than foreign and military policies I abhor and can cause long term damage. Again, the choice is crystal clear.

—

Roger, I don’t know if you’ve seen this already or not, but in case you haven’t – NeoNeocon’s take on this very topic:

“Conservatives jump the shark: party purity √ºber alles”

Feb 6, 2008 - 8:25 pm 11. Jim Rockford:

Mr. Totten is incorrect. McCain has not gotten 51% of the vote in any primary. Because McCain is not a Republican: he considered joining Kerry’s slate as VP, defended Kerry, and nearly joined the Dem Party in 2001.

That is not the act of a Republican. It’s the act of Jim Jeffords. In, mind you, the reddest of red states. Not VT but AZ.

So McCain is no Republican, will not govern or appoint as a Republican, abhors all Republican values, and will govern basically as a Scoop Jackson Democrat, or the return of LBJ with a heaping helping of social, economic, and other forms of liberalism. He won’t welcome Code Pink into the White House but certainly will allow the Dept. of Education to distribute condoms to 10 year olds. Because his NYT buddies tell him it’s what the smart set do.

So why is he winning?

Because he’s the last Scoop Jackson Democrat left. More than any other candidate, McCain has campaigned for a win in Iraq. A win for America. When a win seemed unattainable, in Aug-Sep, his candidacy was dead in the water. Now when Iraq seems all but won, he’s riding high. He has not won in the South outside military retiree SC where a win for America overrides everything else. But his positioning himself as the one man who will win (and incidentally kick the Muslim butts who are after thirty years of terrorism, hostage taking, and “death to America!” our enemies as they defined themselves) has been his margin of victory.

When in a debate he said he’s not interested in trading with Iran all they have is Burquas and doesn’t want to fly with AQ they only fly one way he hit a nerve. Response went through the roof. People after nearly thirty years of the Iran hostages want a win desperately. McCain has signaled he will give them the win and that’s why … he won.

He is NOT and never will be a Republican. But being Scoop Jackson might be just enough over Obambi and/or Shrillary.

Feb 6, 2008 - 9:59 pm 12. Sheryl:

“So McCain is no Republican, will not govern or appoint as a Republican, abhors all Republican values”

Jeez Louise, what a load of hooey!

Feb 6, 2008 - 10:23 pm 13. Steven Mitchell:

I don’t agree that McCain is not a Republican, or even not a conservative. He is a guy that is solid conservative on some issues, weakly conservative on some issues, and completely off the reservation on some others. This puts him well to the right of Scoop Jackson (or Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller). But even assuming for the sake of argument that Jim R. is correct, a Scoop clone is a vast improvement over Clinton or Obama.

People should forget “strategic” voting and follow one simple rule: In every election, vote for the person you consider to be the best for the position, out of the choices available to you–with special regard to what is good for the USA. Do that, and let everything else take care of itself.

Feb 7, 2008 - 8:54 am 14. dougf:

I visit some ‘conservative’ sites and let me tell you —- they don’t like McCain.

The prevailing attitude seems to be that they can piss away the election in a fit of pique and the a grateful desperate Nation will turn to them after a sufficient period of Democratic Rule. They actually go so far as to directly state that they don’t care if the country goes down the tubes as long as :

A. They don’t have to vote for McCain, and
B. The Democrats are in charge when it happens.

At this point I am fully in support of any strategy that might allow McCain to win in November and simultaneously get these yahoos out of any position of influence.

The problem is that there are just not enough Roger Simons or Michael Tottens out there. There just aren’t. So some sucking up to the yahoos is unhappily required.

More’s the pity. And the problem.

Feb 7, 2008 - 10:38 am 15. heather:

A lot of those upset conservatives have been strong supporters of Giuliani or whoever, and they are in the middle of sobbing in their beer at the local pub. But.. this is FEBRUARY. The election, the real one, is in NOVEMBER. There is therefore plenty of time for all to get over the hangover and become thinking adults.

As a Canadian, I like McCain because he is crazy enough to bomb Mecca if events make that an option. That is the kind of President the USA and the West needs!

Also, the Senate is a clubby, collegial place, and a lot of McCain’s political history reflects that. However, the Oval Office is a lonely place, which may be a shock to McCain, but then he is basically a very conservative guy, so… time will tell.

And. The President, like the Congress, is constrained by the Constitution; and all the other political power points through the US. His real value is as a war leader, and McCain will be a good one.

I hope Hillary is the Dem nominee, by the way. McCain’s age will not be such a disadvantage against her, as it would be against Obama.

Feb 7, 2008 - 11:33 am 16. AlanC:

As a conservative I’m getting annoyed by all this crap about “whiny”, “purist” conservatives and how we should be ignored and laughed at. Look at the issues and how far left he actually is.

A Scoop Jackson Democrat is the closest analog for McCain that I’ve heard.

Other than the WoT and Pork I don’t know of any major issue that McC could be considered conservative.

Immigration? not hardly.

Judges? not hardly (Bork was not conservative)

Taxes? nope

Free Speech? Oh, right. BTW Roger, I’ve asked you twice if you would run a paid advertisement from me in PJM come October supporting one of the candidates. Well……hmmmmm…….? Oh that’s right IT’S ILLEGAL thanks to McCain.

So, 2 out of 8 or 9 hardly makes him a conservative unless you’re comparing him the the extreme left. Of course that’s the pitiful choice we have. The only way that McCain could even come close to getting active support from me would be to name Fred as VP.

Luckily for me I can write in Fred come November and it won’t matter in the slightest since I vote in MA. Somehow McCain won’t have much run there.

If I DID vote in a state that it might matter in, I’d vote for him on the grounds that Mussolini is less evil than Stalin.

Feb 7, 2008 - 1:04 pm 17. Michael J. Totten:

AlanC: As a conservative I’m getting annoyed by all this crap about “whiny”, “purist” conservatives and how we should be ignored and laughed at.

You follow that with this?

I’d vote for him on the grounds that Mussolini is less evil than Stalin.

You aren’t whiny, you’re as unhinged as the Bush=Hitler people.

I’m going to start calling you people the Wilderness-wing of the GOP.

Feb 7, 2008 - 2:30 pm 18. heather:

stop with the ‘you people’ thing, Michael.

Feb 7, 2008 - 2:54 pm 19. Lem:

that ‘you people’ reference is an omage to Rush.

see, MJT is a Rush Limbauh listener

Feb 7, 2008 - 4:36 pm 20. Michael J. Totten:

stop with the ‘you people’ thing, Michael.

Yeah, okay. Sorry…

Feb 7, 2008 - 4:54 pm 21. dclydew:

stop with the ‘you people’ thing, Michael.

Because “you people” seems so much more offensive than being called one of the worst dictators in the 20th century? I would say MJT’s response was more than polite.

Feb 7, 2008 - 11:27 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: