During the last year, I have had the pleasure on a few different occasions of meeting and talking with Mitt Romney’s youngest son, Craig. He is every bit as gentlemanly as his father is. Back in early December, I saw him talk to a small group of college students, and he made a statement that I remembered throughout the rest of the campaign. He said, “As far as I’m concerned, there are several good candidates running this time, but there is only one truly great candidate running.” I proudly voted for that great candidate in the New Hampshire primary.
One of the good candidates that I have no doubt Craig was referring to is Arizona Senator, American hero, and the man I am now endorsing for President of the United States , John McCain.
Some people are supporting John McCain because he is a Republican. Others are supporting him out of dislike for the Clintons and disagreement with Obama’s ultra-liberal philosophy. I am supporting him for neither of those reasons. On the birthday of America’s greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, I am announcing my support of John McCain, not in spite of, but because of the fact I am a conservative ideologue.
Prior to John McCain’s support for campaign finance reform and his run for President in 2000, nobody questioned his conservative credentials. During the 80s he was actually considered one of the more conservative members of the Republican caucus. He was a strong advocate for a defense build-up which was helpful to winning the Cold War. He voted for Ronald Reagan twice which was two more times than his harshest critic, Rush Limbaugh, did.
In 1996, while most moderate Republicans were supporting Bob Dole for the Republican nomination, McCain actually supported Phil Gramm, who was more conservative than Dole. I was talking to a friend of mine who lived in Iowa at the time, and he said that some Evangelicals complained that Gramm focused too much on economic issues, so Gramm had McCain come to Iowa to campaign for him to shore up his pro-life credentials. It’s funny how perceptions change over time.
In the late 90s and for most of this decade, John McCain has sometimes had a different opinion on certain issues than that of most conservatives. Sometimes I have agreed with him. Other times I have not. However, a tried and true cliche is that if two people agree on every single issue, one of them is not thinking.
John McCain cares about many of the same issues I care about. He thinks it is immoral to pass on an enormous debt to future generations. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, she will say that we had a surplus when her husband was President, and we do not have one now. John McCain will come right back and say he agrees with her. He will say that that is why he has led the fight against pork barrel spending and has angered many of his colleagues. He believes many of his colleagues in Congress have tarnished the Republican party’s reputation by putting their own interests to secure money for their states and Congressional districts over the interests of future generations to not be saddled with debt. While the deficit will undoubtedly go down under either Hillary Clinton or John McCain, the key difference is Clinton will do it just as her husband did, by simply raising taxes on wealthy Americans, while McCain will reduce the deficit by reducing wasteful spending.
Senator McCain has also made it a priority to track down Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. If he is successful, that will be pleasing news to all Americans, especially those who lost friends or family on 9/11.
This election will be the first since 1972 where both party’s nominees have served in Congress either currently or previously. This means both nominees will have voting records. In a way, this makes it easier for the public to decide. People will have close to nine months to compare the voting record of John McCain to that of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. If everyone in the country who plans to vote spends some time looking up how these people have voted in the Senate over the years, John McCain will win in a landslide. Unfortunately, many people do not look at candidates’ records and simply rely on what the traditional media or talk radio tells them about these people. My advice to everyone who cares about the future of this country is to not go by conventional wisdom, perception, or the way in which the media portrays these candidates but to look more at voting records, biographical sketches, and stated issue positions of both party’s nominees.
In future posts, I will spend time comparing the voting records of McCain, Clinton, and Obama. I will do so by looking at how they voted on actual pieces of legislation and on judges. I will also look at their ratings from various interest groups. After just a cursory look, one thing I came away with was that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are almost identical in the way they have voted in the Senate while John McCain is the opposite of them on many, many issues. Not all, but many. I will also examine public statements by the candidates, and I will look at how John McCain compares to other Republicans on the ideological spectrum.
The current President has not used the veto pen nearly as much as conservatives would have liked when it comes to wasteful spending. Mitt Romney did veto wasteful spending as Governor of Massachusetts and would have if he had become President. John McCain has also promised to veto wasteful spending and make the authors famous. Though McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, he has supported most other tax cuts over the years and opposed most tax increases. He does support making the Bush tax cuts permanent now as well as greatly reducing capital gains taxes.
John McCain is more conservative than most Republicans in Congress when it comes to fiscal issues, particularly on the spending side. He is pro-life and always has been. Perhaps the reason he is strongly pro-life is because he was a prisoner of war. People who suffered a lot in their own lives tend to place a stronger value on life. McCain is also pro-Second Amendment. If being fiscally conservative on spending, pro-life, and pro-Second Amendment is not good enough for some conservatives, I don’t know what is.
Finally, when evaluating candidates, it is important to look not only at issues, but at character. Which candidate believes in what they are saying? Who has greater conviction? I think John McCain will look pretty good to the public in that regard, especially if he is going up against the Clintons . John McCain is not a saint or anything close to that, but he has done things in his life that show great character. His father was a four-star United States Navy Admiral, and McCain could have been released from being a prisoner of war much earlier than he was. However, he refused special treatment and demanded that people who had been kept prisoners longer than him be released before him. While many people who went through what he went through would have wanted to live a quiet life after returning home, John McCain decided to continue to serve his country by running for Congress in 1982 to become a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. America will have a choice whether to continue the Reagan Revolution by letting him serve as President for the next four years, to return to Clinton-era politics, or to take a sharp left turn with Obama. Whether America chooses wisely will largely be determined by how hard conservatives work to achieve this goal over the next nine months.
Barring extreme circumstances such as the selection of a running mate I find abhorrent or a catastrophic revelation, on Tuesday November 4, I will proudly cast my vote for the Republican nominee and the next President of the United States, American hero and conservative Republican John McCain, and all voters who genuinely care about the future of conservatism in America will do the same.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am
From Romneybot to McCainiac, but you are still underestimating Huckabee.
Romney was too arrogant, believing that his money, newly tailored political ideology, and highly managed campaign apparatus would — of course — give him the nomination.
McCain has the MSM telling everyone that the Republican nomination process is over, but we will see.
I will see you again in March to talk about the presumptive nominee.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:39 am
A huckabee supporter calling Romney arrogant? absurd.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Though McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, he has supported most other tax cuts over the years and opposed most tax increases.
I’ve noticed that this has become one of the biggest issues for many of McCain’s harshest critics. I’d just like to note that McCain didn’t vote against Bush’s tax cuts because he didn’t want to cut taxes. He voted against them because he wanted different tax cuts. I like to use a football analogy when considering many of McCain’s supposed transgressions: just because somebody calls a different play, or reads the other team’s defense differently than you would like, doesn’t mean he’s on the opposite side. McCain may have called different plays over the course of his career, but on many issues, such as taxes, judges, and government spending, he was still trying to “advance the ball” in our team’s direction. People need to cut him a little bit of slack on these kinds of issues.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Even if Huckabee had a chance against McCain, I would still endorse McCain. McCain is pro-life just as Huckabee is, but McCain is better on fiscal issues. I was surprised to learn that Huckabee’s wife’s maiden name was McCain though. I found that out yesterday.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:57 am
“Prior to John McCain’s support for campaign finance reform and his run for President in 2000, nobody questioned his conservative credentials.”
That is incorrect. I’m here to tell you that McCain Derangement Syndrome was alive and well in 2000. Ann Coulter wrote a hideous attack piece on McCain. Also, the talk radio establishment had it in for him 8 years ago too.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Hello, Clarence-
A very impressive and articulate case for the election of Senator McCain. I highly commend you for it…
February 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman, McCain/Edwards/Kennedy, class warfare language against tax cuts … a whole new way to define ‘conservative’. No Thanks.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Perfect timing! I was wondering where I should post this informal polls from Idaho Value Alliance when I saw this post. Anyway, thought you all would like to know where the value voters from Idaho currently stand:
Vote for John McCain – 22%
Vote for either Clinton or Obama – 14%
Vote third party – 50%
Not vote at all – 14%
Did not say here how many have casted their votes, but we are to reply back via email over the weekend. This polls is very weak, but still, an eye opening on how much in love the Idahoans value voters are with McCain. He definitely has a long way to go to earn their trust!
Then, here is some more information from CPAC, as provided by this same IVA:
And the email continues about the result from Louisanna’s primary last Saturday, that
And…
I am disappointed in how sloppy this site has become. I mean, it’s Newt!!! Why is there no mention on this site about Newt telling us we should abandon the Republican party!!! Kavon and staff, please clean up your actions. I know you all are so into McCain, but there still remains many issues that McCain has to overcome, including gathering the trust of the conservative core again. This definitely is newsworthy – it’s Newt!!! Anyway, McCain is in a deep hole now, and I hope he can climb out of the hole in time for the general election for the sake of our military!
February 12th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
JerryO “class warfare language”
How about the tax rebate system? I’ll bet close to half the people who actually got their “rebate” didn’t even pay that much income tax to begin with. Actions speak louder than words.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
James, “Romney was too arrogant, believing that his money…” Are we sure we are pointing the finger in a right direction? First, do you know that Romney has raised MORE money than everyone but Rudy. Again, the people of America have contributed money to Romney more than anyone but Rudy. That is first error on your part.
The second part is you claim Romney to have it easy. If you have been with us since the day Romney announced his candidacy, you will know he has been under attack from EVERY FRONT (from other candidates, from MSM, the Democratic Party, and more). Let’s look at your candidate, Huckabee. He has been virtually left alone (except from the conservative front, you know, the Club of Greedy and like?). If Romney has been given the share of neutual attention like all other candidates, he may not have to loan himself so much to overcome the negatives.
If you claim otherwise on either of two points here, then we know who is arrogant!
February 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
[...] eloquent case for Senator McCain in the general election. You can read the full text of John McCain for President at Race42008.com…. here are some highlights: … Some people are supporting John McCain [...]
February 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Huckabee press pool runs out of gas
(literally)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/12/huckabee-press-pool-runs-out-of-gas/
ouch.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
9 / exactly; actions = McCain/(insert name) speak much louder than words. As for the tax rebates, I think it’s bogus and do not accept the ‘rebate’ premise as an economic stimulus rationale – cut the tax rates so it affects those who are paying the taxes.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Why did McCain vote to confirm Ginsburg and Breyer? Did he think they were well qualified and suited to the SCOTUS?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
13, I’d like to hear McCain answer that question. However, it wasn’t like he broke party ranks to vote for them. 10 voted against Breyer, and only 3(!) voted against Ginsburg.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
MWS, because elections have consequences and Clinton was always going to pick a liberal justice, so it became a question of qualifications. Grow up.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
14 — See? And that’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats demand that they get their way, no matter the election result. Republicans act like adults and recognize that elections have consequences.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Grounds for ‘Hope’ for McCain…
Obama Unplugged
Lost without a Teleprompter.
by Dean Barnett
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=14728&R=1395418B70
February 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
TLG,
Or perhaps the GOP is simply the Party of Surrender? Perhaps the Dems just aren’t afraid of a scrap over nominees? If the guy is truly pro-life, I cannot see how he can consider someone who thinks murder is Constitutionally protected could be qualified.
And those 3 Republicans who had the integrity to stand on principle were the only heros in that vote. That is one time I wish McCain (and a lot of others) had broken with the Party of Surrender and Appeasement.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
16, can we infer that Huckabee was being a Democrat when he demanded a recount in Washington? (kidding)
I think the answer to the question in 13 is that Presidents are truly the ones who have the power in appointing justices and the Senate just goes along for the ride. This goes to show how vitally important it is to have a president you trust when Justices retire. This also makes me a bit upset on Reagan’s appointments of Kennedy and OConnor. Ronald dropped the ball on them, imo.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
No, MWS, Republicans acknowledge reality.
I know that you’re a single-issue voter for abortion, but, like with your absurd support for Huckabee, you’re eventually going to have to face the reality of what faces us in the political realm. (Republicans do that when they’re voting for Supreme Court nominees, for example!)
February 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
TLG,
“Republicans act like adults and recognize that elections have consequences.”
Do the elections of senators have any consequences? Are the votes that placed those pro-life Senators in Congress any less significant than the votes (42%) that put Clinton in teh White House? Republican Senators in 1992 got a lot higher % of the vote than did Clinton, if that’s all you care about.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
TLG,
“I know that you’re a single-issue voter for abortion, ”
That’s not true, but it is the single most important issue, and any candidate who supports it is, primae facia, disqualified in my mind.
A few issues I refuse to compromise on:
1. Abortion
2. Slavery
3. Segregation
Fortunately, the last two are non-issues. And yes, I put the evils of abortion and slavery in the same league. In both cases, it is one person exerting complete dominance over another, and “owning” them like chattel property.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
A few things…first I want to respond to Sampo. This was the direct quote: “Prior to John McCain’s support for campaign finance reform and his run for President in 2000, nobody questioned his conservative credentials.†You are referring to Ann Coulter attacking him during his 2000 run, and you mention that talk radio has been after him for eight years. McCain supported the McCain-Feingold bill circa 1996. If Coulter attacked him in 2000, that was AFTER his support for campaign finance reform and it was DURING his 2000 run, so what I said was NOT incorrect. If talk radio was after him for eight years, that brings us back to early 2000. Early 2000 was during his 2000 run. I don’t know why you said that I was incorrect. I also want to thank ElectonNightHQ for complimenting my article and running it on your own site. I still would like to see Mitt become President someday down the road. Perhaps in 2012 if McCain doesn’t run for re-election or perhaps after that. MWS, as far as McCain’s votes for Ginsburg and Breyer…I disagree with McCain on those votes too, but both justices passed like 90-10 or perhaps even more than that. McCain certainly wasn’t the only one who voted for them. Possibly Jesse Helms opposed both, but it was just him and a few others. If I were in the Senate though, I would have voted against them even if it was a 99-1 vote, but McCain is still far better on judges than Hillary or Obama are or would be.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
MWS, I also don’t compromise on cannibalism (part of my opposition to embryonic stem cells) or on human sacrifices.
If Europe is any indication the next issue we’ll be facing is voluntary cannibalism and involuntary euthanasia.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Here is an email I got today from a sibling going to school in Maryland who attended an Obama rally.
“Actually I was surprised how easy it was to get into. I knew the doors opened at 245pm so I just headed over. there was initially a line that wrapped around the building and I thought I would just go because maybe some had RSVPd and would take the spots but then they just let everybody in (that seemed crazy to me at first). Obama didnt get on stage till 515 or so but then the cops and secret service agents made their presence felt. I was talking to a classmate this morning who happened to be at the Rally and we were cracking up about how funny Obama was and the fact that when a bunch of girls screamed “I love you Obama,” he replied “I love you too.” It was like a concert really!!!”
February 12th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Just in case it should be mentioned one more time: Gary Bauer for McCain. woot woot.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
EGS,
“I also don’t compromise on cannibalism (part of my opposition to embryonic stem cells) or on human sacrifices.”
Very true. I think involuntary euthanasia in on the horizon. When we’ve already established that human life has no intrinsic worth or meaning, and taxpayers are footing the bill, it’s just a question of putting 2 and 2 together to get state mandated “euthanasia.” Terry Schiavo will be a landmark case in that regard.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
econ, I disagree with McCain on stem cell research also, but that has become less of an issue because of recent scientific advances making it unnecessary. I also note that both Hillary and Obama strongly support stem cell research. I share your concern about life issues though. Abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia, as well as the death penalty are all things I am opposed to. That may not be the popular position, but it is mine.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Sampo, do you even like Gary Bauer?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
TLG,
So do elections have consequences when it comes to Senators?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
THE ELECTION, THE GOP–AND IRAQ
by John Podhoretz
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/printArticle.cfm/Special-Preview-br–THE-ELECTION–THE-GOP–AND-IRAQ-11239
February 12th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I don’t know a whole lot about Gary Bauer so I don’t have an opinion on him either way. All I know is that he’s got some serious conservative cred.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Clarence,
Are you Catholic? Often folks who are opposed to abortion AND the death penalty (like myself) are Catholic.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
MWS, McCain, like most GOP Senators, was wrong to vote for Ginsburg and Breyer, but you cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. People can do what they want though. If you think Hillary and Obama are more pro-life than McCain, vote for them.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Clarence,
you DO realize that Romney is “ok” with embryonic stem cell research and, depending on the audience, supports federal funding for it, right?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I am Catholic, yes. Sampo, the point I’m trying to make about Gary Bauer is that sometimes establishment Republicans (and I’m not saying you are, I don’t know you enough) will accept endorsements from conservatives they aren’t even crazy about because it boosts their candidate’s conservative credentials. For example, some Romney supporters I knew were conservative and others were more moderate, but I recall a couple of his supporters making fun of Tancredo when he was running and saying Tancredo was too far to the right, but they were happy to have his endorsement after he dropped out. Another example would be with Giuliani. You know as well as I do that the majority of Republicans inclined to Giuliani probably can’t stand people like Pat Robertson, but they were willing to accept his endorsement because it would help them get the conservative vote. The whole thing is a bit phoney in a way.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Sampo, that was not my understanding of Romney’s position, but I don’t know why you’re arguing about him now anyway. He dropped out.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
He supported federal funding for ESCR in 05 (after his pro-life conversion) and he was quoted as saying several times that he would use excess embryos for stem cell research.
either way, every candidate no matter how conservative they were didnt call for the outlawing of ESCR, they just drew the line when it came to federally funding it. that’s a weak argument, almost petty imo.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Clarence,
Certainly I don’t think that Hillary or Obama are more pro-life than McCain, and we all know what we will get with their SCOTUS picks. Part of me though, can’t shake the feeling that Bush 41 knew damn well what he was doing when he picked Souter, and that President McCain- now that Roe is MAYBE one vote away from being overturned- might do another bait and switch.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Well thankfully stem cell research may be unnecessary in a few years anyway due to recent developments. I have a hard time arguing about this issue though because biology is not my expertise.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
MWS, what’s ironic is the strongest pro-life vote on the SC is also the most supportive of capital punishment (Scalia).
February 12th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
MWS, I’m from New Hampshire, the same state as Souter. From everything I’ve heard, Bush 41 did NOT know Souter was going to be liberal. The problem was liberal senator Warren Rudman was a buddy of Chief of Staff John Sununu, and he got Sununu to convince Bush to appoint Souter. People like Ted Kennedy actually voted against Souter’s confirmation because they thought he’d be too conservative. I also heard a rumor recently that Rudman bragged to some other moderate pro-choice Republicans that he was proud that he “tricked” Bush 41 into appointing a pro-choice judge. Warren Rudman is one of the most slippery, arrogant politicians to have served in Congress in my lifetime.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Obama fought to let babies born from botched abortions sit and die like discarded tissue. We’re talking late-term abortions. You know, babies that would have every likelihood at a normal life experience if they received appropriate medical care and not be ripped apart by a vacuum and left to die because they are not “persons” according to Barack Obama in his fight against the Born Alive Infants Bill.
Continue with this pissing match all you want on the GOP side, but it all pales in comparison Obama’s past record and current position.
Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate EVER
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200801/COM20080109b.html
February 12th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Warren Rudman is a lot like Arlen Specter. Rudman has always been a strong supporter of McCain which is one of the reasons why I picked Romney in the primary and not McCain, but it is the general election now, and you must play with the hand you are dealt. All I know is that McCain has always voted pro-life on abortion during his years in the Senate. Hopefully he will be firm on judges.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Clarence,
“I have a hard time arguing about this issue though because biology is not my expertise.”
You don’t have to know about biology, you just have to know that it is wrong to destroy people for medical research. For me, it is as simple as that. Harvesting people for research is intrinsically evil, and no promised cure or breakthrough can justify it.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Clarence,
Your story about Rudman- if true- is truly dispiriting. Why couldn’t Bush have been more careful about something so important. Do you know if Bush 41 ever expressed regret about picking Souter?
February 12th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
MWS, you are preaching to the choir. I oppose stem cell research because it is wrong to destoy human life. I just mentioned that I don’t know much about biology because if some liberal or secular Republican comes along with some detailed argument, I wouldn’t be the best one to argue about it because I don’t understand the intricacies.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I don’t know if Bush 41 ever expressed regret publicly, but I am sure he regrets it. Souter supported Gore’s position during the Florida recount for heaven’s sake! Hopefully Bush regrets appointing Souter because of abortion also. It is worth noting that Bush’s second judge, Clarence Thomas, was nothing like David Souter, and neither of Bush 43′s picks have resembled Souter. I just found it amusing that conservatives were up in arms over Harriet Miers because I think she actually would have been much more conservative than Souter was, and no conservatives opposed Souter. Conservatives seem to have a deficiency when it comes to reading people which is why they haven’t accomplished as much as liberals have in many regards, even when they win elections.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Was there some question whether or not Obama is pro-choice? I find it curious that on his website blog there are two videos by a Julia Roberts impersonator who affirms again and again that Barack Obama is 100% pro-choice.
So, is there DEM infighting about just how ‘pro-choice’ Obama really is?
Sounds rediculious. Maybe about as rediculious about the GOP infighting about just how ‘pro-life’ our candidates are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILVLzbBcs8A
February 12th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Clarence,
Maybe Republican Senators have gotten wiser over the years and have decided to take a more active role in vetting nominees (not slandering people like the Dems, mind you, but vetting). Maybe they’ve decided to stop rubber stamping the picks of Dems (afterall, they don’t rubber stamp ours). Maybe they’ve learned not to just take the President’s word for it- even if he is a Republican. I don’t know what kind of judge Miers would have been (nor did many others apparently) but I am encouraged that Senate Republicans and conservative activists showed some life and some backbone.
My hope is that Republican Senators and conservative activists have wised up and would never let President McCain offer up a Souter or a blank slate. I trust that more than I do McCain’s personal convictions.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I will never vote for an emotionally unstable person as President of the United States. I don’t care if he agrees with me on every issue and his opponent doesn’t. The Office of President is far too important to hand to a mean, petty, vicious, vindictive man.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
MWS, you seem to be having the type of argument we would have in a primary. We are in the general election now. The only question is whether McCain is more pro-life than Hillary or Obama.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
marK, do you consider the Clintons fully stable?
February 12th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Compared to John McCain, yes. I also think that Obama is the most stable of them all.
I have voted in every Presidential election since 1972, and have been a straight line Republican. But if McCain gets it this year, I can guarantee I will not be voting Republican. The Office of President is just too important.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Who did you support for the nomination?
February 12th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Let me further explain. You can fight against policies. If a President Hillary Clinton gets in, you can fight against almost every action we hold dear to — judges, welfare state, guns, moral clarity, etc. It would be an uphill battle, but you can still fight him. What you cannot fight against is the great deal of arbitrary power that the President is entrusted with, power given him by the People of the United States to further the best interests of the United States.
You get a man in there who is as petty, vicious, and vindictive as John McCain, you cannot stop him short of a Watergate-like debacle.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I supported Mitt, Fred, and Rudy in that order.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I see McCain as having a bit of a temper. I don’t think his personality is as even-keeled as Mitt Romney’s is. However, I would not go as far as to call him unstable. Obviously, you do think he’s unstable, and if you do, you shouldn’t vote for him, regardless of party or ideology or anything else.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
“I supported Mitt, Fred, and Rudy in that order.” Since when did we get on a first name basis with our Presidents? Imagine in 1976 asking, “Are you voting for Jerry or Jimmy?” Or in 1980, “Are you for Ronald or Jimmy?” Even in 2004 Democrats did not say, “John, Howard, John, Dick, Joe, and Wesley”. I think we are on a first name basis because of Hillary. Her signs all say Hillary, not Clinton. Lamar Alexander used his first name a lot too though.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Clarence,
A bit of a temper is something that blows over. He holds a grudge forever. After calling the evangelicals “agents of intolerance” in 2000, he was asked several times if he wanted to take it back. He refused every time until he began his 2008 campaign in earnest.
He isn’t satisified with defeating you. He will do everything in his power to crush you. “How dare you disagree with him?”
You want that sort of man as President?
February 12th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
The last President who had a temperment similar to McCain was Andrew Johnson. His was not the most succesful Presidency, if you recall. He was the first President ever to be impeached.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Thad Cochran said he “feared” a McCain presidency because of McCain’s temperment. That is quite a statement from a senate colleague. I am not sure its his temper as much as it is his stubbornness (a la Bush) and willingness to trash those who disagree with him. And being a veteran does not excuse boorish antics.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
marK, the most recent President to be impeached was Bill Clinton. If you prefer his wife over John McCain because McCain holds gudges, that is your decision. I just disagree with you about McCain being unstable, but if you feel he is, vote for Hillary or Obama. As far as the Falwell thing goes, I’m more concerned about John McCain’s 25 year pro-life record, illustrated by the fact Planned Parnethood is attacking him now, than I am about whether he hurt the feelings of Jerry Falwell or his followers. This may ruffle some feathers, but I have long thought most of these people cared more about money for their organizations and electing Republicans than they care about banning abortion. Ralph Reed is a Republican party hack, not a religious person. Pat Robertson was willing to support the only pro-choice candidate in a crowded field because he thought Rudy could win. Do they care about banning abortion or about electing Republicans?
February 12th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Axel G., I appreciate Thad Cochran’s support for Mitt, but Bob Novak pointed out in a recent column that part of the reason Thad Cochran dislikes McCain is because Cochran is a big pork barrel spender, and he is often at odds with McCain because of that. If McCain gets angry with pork barrel spenders, that should be a plus to conservatives not a minus.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Fred Thompson
Duncan Hunter
Tommy Thompson
Tom Tancredo
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mike Huckabee
Ron Paul
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
Barak Obama (pending)
Hilary Clinton (pending)
John Edwards
That is the order that I want for president, so far, so bad.
America is doing an awful job this time around and I’m not ready to waste my time right now researching the good points of McCain or the pathetic records of Obama and Clinton. This year totally stinks, and Clarence, you are being way too optomistic here, but good for you. I should follow your example.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
David Limbaugh has an interesting point about McCain and Conservatism. The link is here
February 12th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Clarence,
Policies, stances, and issues can change. Personality seldom changes. I really could care less if a potential Presidential candidate has a 25-year history of supporting ‘x’ policy. I am far more interested in whether or not said candidate has a 25-year history of being responsible, being intelligent, being civil, being concerned about others, being a leader, taking unpopular stands and fighting for them, etc. At the end of the day, those are far more important than whether or not he wants a certain Supreme Court decision overturned.
Case in point, when George W. Bush ran for President, he sneered at those who wanted to get involved in “nation building”. He wasn’t interested in it. He wasn’t going to have anything to do with it. Then 9/11 happened. Suddenly he wasn’t opposed to it any longer.
And no, I am not so concerned about holding a grudge per se’. I am far more interested in if the man acts on said grudge. And John McCain acts upon them.
Let’s talk personality for a bit. John McCain has a long, a very long history of being nice to conservatives and fellow Republicans when he needs them, and sticking a knife in their backs when he doesn’t. Do you honestly believe that this core trait of his is just going to magically disappear once elected President?
Right now he is talking nice about issues that Conservatives care about. Well what happens after the election when he no longer needs your vote? He has proven repeatedly that he will turn around and stab you in the back the second he no longer needs you. What happens when his natural constituency, the MSM, starts insisting that Judges need to be pro-RoeVWade? All he has to do is agree with them, and he earns the praise of the media and cooperation of the Democrats in congress. Suddenly that 25-year long support for life doesn’t look quite so firm now, does it?
If you can’t count on McCain on your core issues, then why vote for a mean, vicious person as President?