“For me, that cause has always been our country, and the ideals that have made us great. I have been her imperfect servant for many years, and I have made many mistakes. You can attest to that, but need not. For I know them well myself. But I love her deeply and I will never, never tire of the honor of serving her. I cannot do that without your counsel and support”.
– Senator John McCain, February 7, 2008 speech at CPAC
More specifically, John McCain has been conservative America’s “imperfect servant”. “A great American, lousy senator, and terrible Republican”, as Hugh Hewitt likes to romanticize it.
And speaking of Hugh Hewitt, the “Rah, Rah, Romney-man”, himself, here is what he wrote Thursday:
The campaign ahead is first and foremost about victory in the war. As Romney argued today, Senators Clinton and Obama are committed to retreat, and Senator McCain to victory in that war. That’s all the reason any conservative should need to fully support Senator McCain now that his nomination is assured.
The author of 2004’s If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat, also had this to write from 2 days ago:
There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is:The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68.
Folks who want to take their ball and go home have to realize that even three SCOTUS appointments could revolutionize the way elections are handled in this country in a stroke, mandating the submission of redistricting lines to court scrutiny for “fairness.”
“It is undeniable that political sophisticates understand such fairness and how to go about destroying it,” Justice Souter announced in his diseent in Veith v. Jubilerer, the Pennsylvania redistricting case in which the Court declined by a vote of 5 to 4 to immerse itself in the details of the partisan redistricting of Pennsylvania.
If Democrats control the White House and gain even one of the five seats held by the center-right majority of current justices, this and many other crucial issues are up for legal grabs. When activist judges are more than willing to rewrite rules of long-standing, periods of exile should never be self-imposed “for the good of the party.” Exiles can go on a very long time indeed. Ask the Whigs.They can go on indefinitely when enforced by courts.
The GOP as well is the party committed to victory in Iraq and the wider war. A four year time-out would be a disaster, a period of time in which al Qaeda and its jihadist off-shoots would regroup in some places and continue to spread in others. Iran, even if punished in the months before November, would certainly continue and accelerate its plans under the soft pleadings of a President Obama or Clinton 2.0.
These aren’t the years to wish a pox on your primary opponents’ heads beyond June.
I don’t expect the principals to let up on each other in the two months ahead, and I am especially looking forward to the Ohio and Texas votes.
But it is very possible to play full contact politics without the threat of going home if your team loses. The stakes in the fall are far too high for that.
Hugh Hewitt understands perfectly well what the stakes are, and what party purists can do to the conservative movement, if they refuse to stick to the principled position of sticking to Party. I recommend his book to anyone who is serious about winning elections. The stakes are as great now, as they were in 2004. On “the War”, on justices:
In the next four to eight years, we can anticipate that there will be at least two and perhaps as many as five new appointments to the Court. As of November 2008, when the next president will be elected, the ages of the current justices will be as follows: John Paul Stevens (88), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (75), Antonin Scalia (72), Anthony Kennedy (72), Stephen Breyer (70), David Souter (69), Clarence Thomas (60), Samuel Alito (58), and John Roberts (53). The good news for Republicans is that the three youngest justices are solid conservatives, while the two oldest are strident liberals. These two, Stevens and Ginsburg, almost certainly will leave the bench during the next president’s tenure in office. By 2016, Kennedy, Breyer, and/or Souter (not to mention Scalia) also may succumb to age or infirmity. Replacing these justices with solid conservatives may finally accomplish the conservative counter-revolution on the Supreme Court that Republicans have worked tirelessly to achieve for decades.
Much has been ballyhooed on John Fund’s WSJ piece, regarding Senator McCain’s purported statement on appointing a Roberts, but not an Alito to the Supreme Court, because Alito “wears his conservatism on his sleeve”. I can believe that McCain probably said that, and doesn’t remember. But from that piece, what the anti-McCain conservatives filtered that to mean is: “McCain won’t nominate an Alito to the Bench!!!” But that’s not what it means; nor, is that what John Fund wrote:
Hugh Hewitt interviewed John Fund, today, btw. Fund stressed that his piece not be misconstrued and conflated, that McCain WON’T nominate a Samuel Alito justice, but that he might not nominate one. Fund also pointed out, to be fair to McCain, that McCain has been stellar in always supporting every conservative nominee who’s come up, like Robert Bork (who doesn’t support McCain), Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and yes, Samuel Alito. Fund stressed the distinction between who McCain might nominate, as opposed to who he will support, as someone else’s appointment pick. And Fund was right in making his point, as you exemplified how he writes one thing, and the McCDS sufferers hear this:
He won’t nominate a Sam Alito.
MIGHT not, is the operative word, here.
Senator McCain has supported every conservative judge who has ever come up for nomination, including in the lower courts. And he strongly supported voting to have Alito confirmed. What about the “Gang of 14”? It’s been one of those issues that I was angry with McCain on, too. I still am. But Michael Medved, puts the case forth, on John McCain’s motives, as well as its effect:
LIE #3: John McCain organized “The Gang of Fourteen” to Block the Confirmation of Conservative Judges.
TRUTH: John McCain organized “The Gang of Fourteen” to win- not to block -the Confirmation of Conservative Judges, and his efforts succeeded in the Senate.
This group of seven Republicans and Seven Democrats (representing a full 14% of the US Senate, obviously) ultimately broke the logjam that had delayed confirmation of some of the most conservative nominees of President Bush. Because of McCain’s leadership, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito won Supreme Court confirmation without filibuster from the Democrats. He also secured the previously blocked confirmations of Appellate Judges William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Brett Kavanaugh, previously filibustered by Democrats. At the same time, McCain and his “gang” managed to protect the right to filibuster – an important tool with obvious value now that Republicans find themselves in the minority. McCain has never opposed a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court; unlike some of his prominent fellow Republicans, he actively supported the nomination of Judge Robert Bork. His disagreement with Senate Republican leader Bill Frist on the “Gang of Fourteen” issues involved questions of tactics, not the goal of securing a judiciary that honors the principles of strict construction.
Daniel Henninger of the WSJ had this to say:
The big lesson of the failed Harriet Miers nomination is that a real establishment on judicial nominations exists now in Washington. Throwing another David Souter over the transom and onto the Court is nearly impossible. A participant in this process who has discussed it with Sen. McCain tells me that he says his advisers on major judicial nominations will include Ted Olson, Sam Brownback and Jon Kyl. Miguel Estrada, a victim of the Gang of 14 senators on the judicial filibuster, has endorsed Mr. McCain.
I still don’t fully agree with Senator McCain’s not sticking to Party, on this; but in the end, given how Democrats are now in the majority rule, maybe Senator McCain did have foresight.
One thing I am sure of: on appointing justices to the Supreme Court, affecting the course of our country for generations, I trust McCain more than I would trust Hillary or Obama, in putting forth (conservative) strict constructionists. And no matter who the pro-life GOP candidate would have been (Rudy Giuliani included), there is no guarantee of predicting how a judge will make decisions, once appointed to the Supreme Court (think Kennedy- appointed by Reagan- and Souter- appointed by Bush #41).
Mitt Romney is now being whole-heartedly embraced by johnny-come-latelies, after delivering a stellar speech prior to McCain’s. Romney demonstrates that he understands what’s at stake (the “War”) in this election cycle; and he’s able to set aside his differences for the larger good of the Party and the Movement. The question is: will the Reagan footsoldiers be able to do the same? Or will they allow personal animosity and selfish reasons dictate their decisions over the larger picture?
Previous related post:
McCain Derangement Syndrome Issue #1: Campaign Finance Reform
Why the ’08 Election is a Matter of Life and Death
The Goal in the General Election
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
I recognize that on two of the most important issues – war on terror and judges – that John McCain is the better choice in November.
But knowing that and wanting to vote FOR John McCain are two different stories. The idea of the cure, in this case, seems almost as bad as the disease (Hillary or Obama).
I don’t trust John McCain. His record on issues such as immigration, gang of 14, campaign finance has bred that distrust.
So, perhaps all the folks ready to cheer on McCain in November could ease up on those of us who are repelled by the idea that a man who sought to leave this party twice in recent years is now the eventual nominee of that same party. We need a little time.
Point well taken. I thought about whether or not it was too soon, to do a post like this. I know many of us are “traumatized”, and need “grieving space”, as someone else explained it to me (someone we both know, actually).
But when you’re ready, I do have things to say regarding him as someone who “sought to leave the Party twice”. For a future post.
This was a really good post.
And I don’t think that you are one of those that are breaking out the horsewhip. I just feel safe stating that here knowing I am not going to get my head taken off for having an honest opinion about why John McCain does not inspire conservatives to vote for him.
Thanks, Kimberly. I’m adding this into the post, as well:
Daniel Henninger of the WSJ had this to say:
If this is not a reason to vote for McCain, I have lost faith in the conservatives. I consider myselfa conservative and am not a fan of McCain, but to let the Socialists appoint Supreme Court justices is unforgiveable. This is not about man, or about one Party. It is about what we want the country to look like in the future. The Defeatocrats will certainly put up people like Ginsburg. At least with McCain we can have some judges that look at the Constiution not the EU or UN for their decisions on cases.
Many here seem to confuse voting for McCain and having McCain elected.
Do you live in battleground/swing state whose electoral college votes could go either way ?
Do you live in Florida Pennsylvania or Ohio whose 67 electoral votes will be one quarter of the 270 needed to elect.
Or if you live in say California or New York then, really, stop agonizing over your decision on whether to vote for McCain it hardly matters, he isn’t going to be carrying either of those.
Imo, this is an inaccurate characterization. They are no more acting out of personal animosity and selfish reasons than you are when you say “I trust McCain more than I would trust Hillary or Obama,”. You have good reason to say this, and so do they. They need to be convinced that given the choice between bad and worse, there’s a reason to vote for bad. I think this article is a good one towards that end…we just need more of the same.
Rush brought up a good point also today – that with a Dem majority in Congress, McCain could nominate till he’s blue in the face and they wouldn’t get out of the Judiciary commitee. What do you think?
The appointment of SC Justices is a major factor to me – they’ll affect the nation for 20-30 years, and the damage they do may not be reversible.
I see electing McCain as a holding action – and will do what I can to strengthen the conservative wing of the party, or prepare to break away into a new party. I think conservatives have made the mistake of assuming that the Republican party _was_ the Conservative Party. It may have been at one time, but it seems that it no longer is – we need to either reclaim the party or break away. I also see reclaiming the party as preferable, but maybe not possible.
As one of the loudest objectors to McCain, I understand the feelings of you all, but for me I can’t forgive or forget McCain. My one vote goes blank at the top of the ticket, but will vote and campaign for our slate, and pray that the election of down ticket Repub’s will offset all the harm I see coming.
Great post Word which conveyed much of my feelings on the subject as you well know. The SCOTUS and the WOT are just too important to play chicken with.
jainphx has got a good point. I live in the Democratic Republic of Chicago, so my vote really doesn’t count for anything. It also doens’t count locally since the Democratic Machine here just gets the dead and dogs to vote. But in the Illinois Ssenate and House I do have some chance of getting a conservative elected, that is a slim chance, but it is something here in a sea of Blue
What if McCain were to “promise” to only deal with securing the border in his first term, and the rest of the “comprehensive immigration reform” in the second? What if he put some meat behind that promise like a Tancredo endorsement, which would require a private commitment that could be made difficult to break? Would this enable him to be true to himself and do something real to enable his immigration critics vote for him?
Excellent Post Word,
People are going to have to wake up and see that this election is ALOT more than just about the Presidency!
I mean that has ALOT of course to do with it (Geez lol, shakes her head) but what’s at stake is alot more important.
Like you and Hugh Hewitt wrote and a number of others, the SCOTUS, and the one issue that is nearest and dearest to my heart, winning the War on Terror and Our National Security!
I LOVE that quote from McCain at the top of your post, and I love another quote he made when his campaign was falling apart, it was honest and I think we are seeing something in just this one quote:
“I would rather lose the Presidency than lose the war”!
If you notice since he made that remark, his campaign came back to life in a very big way.
I know McCain got alot of Reagan Democrat votes and Independents, Veterans, but I am beginning to believe he got alot of pro-victory supporters as well.
There is a shift happening in this Country but it isnt leaving all of our Conservative principles behind either, we are a Nation At War, and maybe it took McCain to wake them back up and remember that, but it’s true and we are going to need someone with experience to fight it.
I would have felt safe with Fred, Rudy, or Romney, but I also feel safe with McCain.
And I recall alot of our friends saying in the very beginning of this race “ANY of our candidates could beat Hillary or Obama”.
Well now is the time to prove it, McCain is one of OUR candidates! And now will become the nominee.
Not because as some have put it “It’s his turn” but I believe after his speech yesterday he truly believes he is the best person to protect us after Bush and will take the war where it belongs, where the terrorists are and not on American soil.
Get Ready!! We are going to be slammed by the Ron Paul idiots, and the Democrats.
As you can tell, it’s already happening on my blog.
But what has happened has happened and we all need to pull together and support our nominee if we do care what happens to America.
If the words “President Elect-Clinton” or “President Elect-Obama” dont scare the absolute hell out of people then there is something wrong with THEM, not US!
Rush said he believes the Hildebeeste and Obamarama will be “forced” to continue our efforts in Iraq. On the other hand he doesn’t believe McCain on judges, etc. Excuse me Rush, but I don’t trust the Dems to do what’s right in Iraq. As McCain’s past actions are an indicator of his future plans, so to are the Dems’. Too many of our troops and Iraqis have died to squander our accomplishments needlessly. For that reason alone I’d vote for McCain.
Talk show hosts Rush, Hannity and Laura Ingraham today all struck a common theme: Hold your nose and vote for McCain or don’t vote for McCain, but keep your eye on the larger prize and do everything you can to get more conservatives elected to the House and Senate.
More conservatives in the House and Senate would hold McCain or Obama accountable.
I wholeheartedly agree. But what is going largely unsaid is that the writing that is already on the wall for 2008 and it is uglier than 2006 where so many sat out the Congressional elections. I doubt any of the people who sat on the sidelines last time are motivated to rejoin the fight and it’s likely that they will be joined by more from the right who are fed up being asked to accept what they view as unacceptable. (it doesn’t help when McCain supporters like Centfla, who couldn’t be found to support McCain when he was losing, are telling us to get in line)
To show that the danger here is more than just my opinion see:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/mccains_challenge_democrats_hu.html
Huge numbers are voting in Democrat primaries. If that trend holds in November, say goodbye to the White House and Congress.
Suek wrote:
The kind of people I refer to are selfish voters. Example: This morning I listened to Laura Ingraham while on the road, and a caller mentioned that under no circumstances will he be voting for McCain, because he felt personally insulted by McCain and Lindsay Graham, saying they called guys like him “racists”. I vaguely remember Lindsay Graham possibly referring to bigots who were anti-immigration bill; but does anyone know the exact quote? I’d feel more comfortable with an accurate citation and context. I believe this is what Lindsay Graham said, that the caller might have found so offensive: “We are going to solve this problem. We’re not going to run people down. We’re not going to scapegoat people. We’re going to tell the bigots to shut up, and we’re going to get this right.”
I think there are some that are bigots. But most aren’t. Lindsay Graham was out of line, and only inflamed the issue and blurred the substantive criticism of the bill.
But back to point, let’s say the caller is right, and McCain labeled those opposed to the bill, “racists”. Does the caller think McCain and Graham were referring to all conservative critics of the bill? Does the caller see truth in the words? If not, then he needs to grow thicker skin. And over this, he says he will not vote for McCain. To me, that is a self-centered, narcissistic voter who is willing to throw the whole country down the toilet over a feeling of personal insult. That is just petty and juvenile. Out of all the GOOD, thoughtful reasons, he could have mentioned on why he would not be voting for McCain, come general election, his was that he felt personally insulted.
Suek wrote:
Aside from the Presidency, the other important win is majority rule in Congress; the party that controls Congress, is the party that gets to legislate.
That’s the lesson that some conservatives who sat out the ’06 mid-term Elections still haven’t learned, when they talk about sitting out ’08.
Congressional seats appear to be in danger in ’08 for Republicans, as well:
Suek wrote:
Reclaiming is the only option that I deem realistic and desirable. The option of “breaking away”…that would be disastrous as a civil war would only insure Democratic wins for the next several decades. It is far easier to change a party from within, rather than start a new one from the ground up. In American politics, third parties are nothing short of a joke.
We all should have seen this coming. The Republican National committee’s backing of Spector over Toomey. Mel Martinez as chairman, all indicators that we were being ( conservatives) shoved aside. No one can tell me that the Nomination of McCain was accidental. The Republican machine was a stealth component in all this until it was to late to react. We have been had and it’s now McCain or else. What a stinking choice.
Not trying to say you’re wrong on this, jainphx. I don’t know anyone who can stand Specter. But here’s a perspective to consider, at least…
From Hugh Hewitt’s 2004 book, If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat, pg77:
You’re shouting into the wind Wordsmith. Valiant effort nonetheless.
Wordsmith you may be right, but a turn to conservatism can only start by VOTING conservative, all else is just surrender. When you compromise you end up closer to the other position than your own.
jainphx, I understand your feelings. I think the thing is, one has to play “smart” politics. Certainly we don’t want a “big tent” party that is so big, so watered down of conservatism, that it becomes indistinguishable from the opposition party. But it should be big enough, as to allow some diversity. It’s important to build a coalition of voters who may not agree with each other on all things, but can support one another on most things. Otherwise, if there aren’t anything except conservative purists within the party, with those insufficiently pure being purged from its ranks and driven out of the party, then they will not have the numbers in votes to win elections. And like third parties, if you can’t win elections, you become irrelevant to actually putting into effect change and the advancement of conservative ideology.
Mike’s America wrote (comment #14):
Speaking of those three, Rich Galen addressed them in a column, and had this to say, which is relevant to the SCOTUS topic in this post:
Rich Galen writes:
I don’t think most conservatives sat out the ’06 Elections to “teach the Party a lesson”; I think there were other factors more heavily involved. But for those who keep talking about sitting out elections, please explain to me how losing majority seats in the midterm elections was a good thing for the conservative movement? If for nothing else, the conservative Bush critics should acknowledge that this president has been a huge success for conservatives in pushing through judges; that is, up until we lost House and Senate majority. More details in my previous post on why ’08 is an important election.