
David Sanders has thrown down the gauntlet for John McCain with his latest column. While I agree that neither he nor Romney are perfect, at least Romney hasn't made a career of being openly hostile to conservatives and conservatism. By Massachusetts standards, Romney was a very conservative governor. His conversion to various conservative positions are reasoned and sincere. He has, on a number of occasions, admitted that he was simply wrong on a number of issues. Unlike McCain and Huckabee, he hasn't sought to redefine conservatism to mean whatever he did.
As many of you know by now, I have a deep respect for David Sanders' opinion, but I do sometimes disagree with him. In this case, I do strongly. Allow me explain why. I don't have time, now, to go into all of the reasons why John McCain is terrible for conservatism and the GOP, but I'll give you a few of the lowlights, based on flaws David was kind enough to point out.
"So that leaves McCain, who, like all the others, has his share of drawbacks. There are all the hyphenated bills from the U.S. Senate, which along with his name carry the names of individuals whom conservatives loath. I disagree with him on campaign finance reform, cap-and-trade and the need for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. At least on illegal immigration he says he has learned his lesson from the American people and will seal the country's border with Mexico. His irascible temperament has put him at personal odds with conservatives on policy matters. But there is his attractive side."
All the hyphenated bills don't just reflect badly on McCain because of his poor choices in associations, but because of his active pursuit and leadership on some of the biggest pieces of liberal legislation in the last decade. McCain has led the charge on so many, it's easy to lose count. He single-handedly did more damage to the 1st Amendment than anything since Brown v. Board of Education. Why? To get the money out of politics... Aside from the fact that it's a bad, and unAmerican, idea, it hasn't worked very well.
McCain has stated erroneously that his "cap and trade" policy wouldn't hurt anything if he's wrong. Again he's demonstrating his utter lack of understanding of economics or, perhaps, his dishonesty. "Cap and trade" will have devastating effects on the economy and this isn't some idea he "used" to support. This is an issue he is currently advocating as something he'll do as president. No wonder every liberal I know loves him. "Cap and trade" which will choke businesses, and the economy as a whole, with onerous regulations and it's all based on a hoax, which makes this even worse. I have covered the lies of global warming more times than I can count. The truth isn't hidden. It doesn't take a genius to see that ice core dating shows that carbon always lags behind temperature increases by hundreds of years, meaning that it is an effect and not a cause of warming...but John McCain wants to regulate our economy to save us from this hoax. Unfornately, he's getting a pass on it.
Although McCain now claims that he "gets it" about sealing the border, he still supports granting amnesty and citizenship to tens of millions of illegal aliens. Again, he didn't just support this legislation, he was the proud leader of it. He, like Mike Huckabee, said on many occasions that those of us who opposed it were "nativists" and racists. Now, he's had a Road to Damascus "conversion" and is getting a pass by many. The problem, as I just pointed out, is that he is getting credit for converting (flip flopping) without having actually converted.
The worst part of McCain-Kennedy wasn't just that he opposed sealing the border. It was that he wanted to reward 20 million illegal aliens, and their families, for violating our sovereignty. Adding the families of illegal aliens, would have brought in an additional 30-50 million more immigrants, further rewarding the violation of our sovereignty. Again, he hasn't abandoned this. It was the heart of the the legislation which he so strongly advocated and he still wholeheartedly supports. Americans rose up against this bill not just because it didn't seal the borders but because it was a gross assault on our national sovereignty.
Finally, I have a question, if McCain now supports sealing the border and he "gets it", why hasn't he done anything about it, yet? I'm pretty sure that he's still a U.S. Senator. If he really understands what a serious problem this is, why isn't he demanding that the fence be completed, like he demanded that we increase our troop presence in Iraq by several hundred thousand? He hasn't done so precisely because he isn't being honest about this.
"His unwavering resolve and willingness to let his entire candidacy rise or fall on the U.S. military's troop surge in Iraq is the kind of courage it takes to be a commander-in-chief."
While I agree that McCain would be far better than any democrat in his conduct of the war, his claim that he was responsible for the Surge is inaccurate. First, the Surge, literally speaking, is not responsible for our success in Iraq. The literal increase in troops was an intentional distraction put out to keep The New York Times and the rest of the liberal establishment from telling al Qaeda what our actual strategy was. A troop increase isn't, by its nature, a change in strategy. While the increase was needed to help pull off the change in strategy, it was far more important as a gambit to distract than to accomplish anything militarily strategic. That said, McCain was not calling for 20,ooo more troops. He was calling for hundreds of thousands more troops. McCain was a constant naysayer about the efforts in Iraq. His solution is not the one which was implemented, even though he now takes credit for it. As I said, he would be far better than any democrat, but he gets far more credit than he deserves for all but his general support of the effort.
"When McCain says he will put conservatives on the federal bench I believe him. When he says that in order to get the country's economic house in order the tax cuts must be made permanent, I believe him. Competency and honesty are at a premium this year."
On what basis does anyone believe McCain's promise to appoint conservative judges? Should history not be a guide for us? We cannot forget that many high quality conservative judicial nominees were stopped by John McCain, as the leader of the Gang of 14. We should not forget, as I posted the other day, that McCain felt that Sam Alito was too conservative. There is no evidence that John McCain is shooting us straight about appointing conservative judges. If anything, his record is one of a senator who actively sought to stop them.
As for tax cuts, honesty isn't McCain's strong suit there either. He now claims that he opposed President Bush's tax cuts because they were not tied to spending cuts, which demostrates his lack of understanding about the nature of supply-side economics, which is surprising for a "foot soldier" of the Reagan Revolution. When he opposed them, though, he stated many times that his opposition was because they favored "the rich". You know, the rich who pay 90% of the tax burden. The rich who work 6 months of the year to pay the government for the privilege of having a mortgage and car payments... Yeah, that rich. Many of us and our friends and family are "rich" by this democrat standard that McCain holds. Those of us who aren't hope to be some day. McCain, however, does a remarkable democrat impersonation on this issue and thinks we don't pay our fair share. I'm not sure how 90% of the tax burden isn't slightly more than our fair share, but McCain didn't think it was.
On these and so many other issues, John McCain has been an avowed enemy of Conservatism and conservatives, which is why many who have a memory longer than the last poll have chosen to let history advise their consideration of him. David Sanders has offered some thoughtful considerations about McCain and he clearly has taken into consideration issues beyond polls, but I firmly disagree with his conclusions. John McCain is not only not a conservative, he's been, in many ways, our greatest adversary, attacking us from within our party.
Here's the
link to David's column.