What to do with McCain
Posted by Ryan on January 14, 2008
According to Real Clear Politics, John McCain is surging in the national polls– nearly 26 points this last month! In fact, the national media has embraced it’s inner McCainiac as far as the Republican side is concerned (they are still under the Imperius Curse and will jump on their swords for She Who Must Not be Named if they must).
I don’t like this at all.
For one, McCain has on his record since 2002: McCain-Feingold (The Incumbency Protection Act of 2002–thwarter of free speech, emboldener of those nasty 527s!), opposing the 2003 Bush tax cuts (which he amazingly wants to preserve now), that whole obstructionist Gang of 14 nonsense, the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill, just to name a few nightmares to conservatives. He’s not a very good Republican, who both prides himself on being a maverick and wants to lead that party he’s rebelled so proudly against.
For another, McCain seems to fit that old Republican mold which the party has unfortunately embraced since World War II… it’s his turn to get the nomination. Think 1996: Phil Graham was more Reaganesque and Lamar Alexander was more electible, but no-no-no, it was Bob’s turn! If you do your time, you get your nomination (1948 Dewey, 1964 Goldwater, 1968 Nixon, even 1980 Reagan). I loathe that tendency about my party, even if we occasionally get a Reagan.
I have given McCain the nickname “Gollum” because of these tendencies. He’ll be great on the Surge one day and sponsor amnesty the next. Sometimes we see sweet Smeagol, but sometimes my precious takes over and we get that shifty Gollum. I hope when Republicans start voting for Republicans in the later states, this trend trails off. Rush had a great take on this very point today. If true Republican primary voters really get articulate their core ideals, we have a three way race between Romney, Thompson and Giuliani. The MSM has seemed to pick up on that and have tried to marginalize all three.
Pic from Michael Totten’s Middle East Journal blog.
Axis of Right 
wickle said
Yeah, McCain, whatever … Not my guy. I do have a question, though …
I understand why you don’t like Huckabee, since he’s more a populist than a traditional conservative on economic issues. I see that.
But what’s with the pass for Giuliani? It would seem to me that if we’re ruling people out for not being Reagan-like, that Giuliani the gun-grabbing pro-choice supporter of gay “marriage” and opponent of the line-item veto should be at least as far out. If you’re looking for the liberal, look for the guy who actually thinks that undermining the traditional family is fine and dandy, and who has no respect for the sanctity of human life.
Reagan himself remarked that no President is ever going to be remembered for his tax policies, but for what he did to protect life. Giuliani is on the wrong side of that one.
I don’t understand why any of the punditry on the Right put up with Giuliani — not counting those who have never appreciated the social conservatives.
By the way, it isn’t the “drive bys” who have disqualified Giuliani. I know at least two dozen good, solid Republicans who absolutely will not vote for Rudy Giuliani. They vary between Thompson, Romney, Huckabee, and Paul (I know, I know … but I had to admit that I know a Paul supporter), but we’re united in rejection of Giuliani. He fails the “character counts” test (in 1992 we condemned Clinton for adultery and said you can’t trust adulterers; some of us aren’t abandoning that now) and the moral issues test. I’ll vote for Gene Amondson (Prohibition Party) before I put down my vote for someone who supports abortion, regardless of the letter after his name or his tax policy or his vague promise to appoint the right kind of judges (since he doesn’t view Roe v. Wade as a violation of strict construction, why should I believe that his promise to appoint strict constructionist judges means anti-Roe v. Wade judges?)
Sorry if this is off-topic, but I wanted to get your take on it, since you (sort of) brought it up.
To wander back around the topic … many of those same people won’t vote for McCain.
Mike said
I can only speak for myself on this one Wickle, but I give no pass to Rudy. The life issue alone puts Huckabee ahead of him in my mind.
Ryan said
With my Rudy statements, I was referring to Rush’s take on the whole thing. I believe that Mitt and Fred are the true conservatives in this race, though each has baggage in my eyes (Mitt’s pandering and Fred’s persistent lethargic demeanor). I agree with both of you that Rudy is not an across-the-board conservative and has plenty more baggage than most of our field. Perhaps Rush was just including him because of national name recognition or because of his reputation as NYC mayor.
wickle said
Alright, fair enough. I guess it boils down to … no one knows. Limbaugh and Hannity refer to him as acceptably conservative, even though they’re critical of McCain and Huckabee. I was wondering if any of you guys might understand the logic of that. I find that very confusing.
I could go on and on, but that’s why I have my own blog. Oh, well. Thanks for letting me pick your brains. I guess, ultimately, the answer is that no one understands.
Looks like a big night for Romney … 9 point spread last time I looked. Congrats. (And my sympathies about Thompson … but maybe SC will be better for him.)
Mike said
No sympathy necessary. He wasn’t even competing in Michigan; I see it as a bye week.
Mike said
As for calling Rudy a conservative, I don’t get it either.
wickle said
Alright … thanks. I’ve been trying to get some conservative takes on this one, because I don’t know anyone who gets it, yet I hear people on the radio and read columns by people who assert that Giuliani is a legitimate conservative while saying McCain and Huckabee aren’t. I was curious what you guys thought.
Thanks for indulging my curiosity.