February 05, 2008
There's still time.
Back in November I predicted, for the millionth time, that John McCain would be the Republican nominee. In a piece for Jewcy, called "John McCain Can Win (Don't Laugh)", I wrote:
So, alarmed by Rudy, bored by Romney, suspicious of Huckabee, deflated by Thompson and running in the other direction from Paul, Republicans will begin to look at John McCain as the guy they've known all along, the one who has a "good enough" ACU Lifetime rating of 82%. In short, he'll be the Republican John Kerry. It's easy to forget that John Kerry was all but counted out of the 2004 Democratic primary. It was going to be Howard Dean, and there were no two ways about it. Dean had the "money+poll numbers=win " formula that pundits rely on to make predictions. But then John Kerry mortgaged his house and mounted a comeback. The comeback rested on the idea that Dean gave Democrats the jitters and, Kerry, deadly boring and unprincipled though he may have been, is someone Democrats knew well enough to rely on to be their guy in the general election.
I conclude with "I would very much like to be wrong in the predictions I've made here; it will be terrifying to be right."
There's still time for me to be wrong; maybe the "stop McCain" movement, which I've been trying to encourage for about a year, takes flight just in time for Super Tuesday. More likely, though, we're stuck with John McCain. I so didn't want to be right.
With my predictions, I've always added that I will support John McCain if he is the Republican nominee. He is better than Hillary or Obama, despite what Ann Coulter may say. Having said that, McCain supporters are looking to make my jump on the McCain trolley as painful as possible. My friend Abe Greenwald writing, on Commentary's blog Contentions, considers those who oppose McCain "rabid", implies they're not really conservative and accuses those who won't ultimately support McCain of betraying "one of the most important principles of conservatism itself: the willingness to work with the concrete facts of a situation."
I am willing to work with the "concrete facts" but I do understand those people who see these "concrete facts", decide the "concrete facts" suck, and further decide to sit out this election.
A McCain win might be better for us all in the short-term but it will likely hurt the Republican party in the long-run. It doesn't even matter which type of Republican you are, whether it's fiscal issues (McCain says he has nothing in common with Club for Growth) that do it for you or if you're a soc-con (McCain says "it's not social issues I care about"), McCain has screwed you in the past and will likely screw you again in the future.
The fact is, we're just coming out of a "support him, he's a Republican, even though he's not that conservative" situation with George W. Bush. But while Bush goes off the reservation with issues like spending and immigration, he's been consistently good on other important conservative measures like taxes and social issues. McCain has been consistent on so few issues that it's difficult to call him a good conservative on any of them. McCainiacs point to McCain's supposedly consistent support of the war. If we take a closer look, though, McCain's "consistent" support is anything but. McCain is all too happy to throw around the liberal canard that Bush said the war would be easy and advance the belief that the Bush White House "misled" the American public. And, of course, let's not forget which people McCain chooses to have around:
The senator's critical comments came on the heels of a New York Times article Monday about his brain trust. The accoount raised some eyebrows in foreign policy circles for giving prominence to three former government officials seen to be at odds with some of Mr. Bush's policies abroad: the secretary of state during Mr. Bush's first term, Colin Powell; Mr. Powell's deputy at the State Department, Richard Armitage, and the national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft.Mr. Scowcroft opposed the Iraq war from the outset and has called the current American effort there a "failing venture." Messrs. Powell and Armitage clashed privately with neoconservatives in the administration but have been more circumspect in their public remarks over Iraq.
So, again, I will have to come around to John McCain when he is the only one left standing. The beauty of this moment, the night before Super Tuesday, is that we still have a choice. And that's a concrete fact.
If "conservative" means something different to you than "Republican", vote Mitt Romney. If you want to know what to expect from your presidential candidate, vote Mitt Romney. If the default candidate is not for you, vote Mitt Romney. If you're not quite ready to suck it up and vote McCain, vote Mitt Romney.
Posted by Karol at February 5, 2008 12:05 AM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags: Mitt+Romney John+McCain Super+Tuesday
I simply have to tune out of politics until November.
If I think about how depressing it was to see Bush go all wobbly around every issue but the war and taxes, and realize that McCain will go all wobbly on all the same stuff, PLUS taxes, well, I'll never support him.
Part of me wonders how bad it would be with a Democrat as President, to serve as a lightning rod, and inspire all those Republican-turned-Democratic congressional seats to go Republican again come 2010.
We'd have enough Republicans in Congress to stymie all their legislation, then maybe regain a majority.
A McCain win guarantees no new Republican presidential candidates for another 8 years. A Democratic win means we have another shot in 2012 (not 2016).
It's easy to entertain the idea, even though I'd previously scolded folks for the thought of sitting this election out.
There are real dangers if a Democrat wins: the troops "come home" within months, which means the oil-rich state of Iraq splinters apart. Large swathes of that nation will fall into the hands of al Qaeda; other swathes will go to Iran. 10s, if not 100s, of thousands of Iraqis who sided with us, believed in us, will be murdered.
I think about what we did to the Hmong and assorted Montagnards of southeast Asia when then Democrats captiulated to the North Vietnamese in '75, and it's a sad, shameful part of U.S. history. To this day, 30 years after our departure, those poor allies of ours, who believed in us, live in poverty in the mountains, fighting the Communists to avoid being ethnically cleansed. All the while waiting for the U.S. to return to help them.
And the idea of being complicit in another such betrayal makes me sick. What's worse, we're handing our Islamist enemies a huge victory, and giving them huge swathes of territory to train, and oil-deposits to use to fund the continued war against us.
But I'm also very, very tired of all this. It's clear that I'm out of touch with the mass of the electorate. They just want to go to the mall, watch American Idol, or head out a ballgame.
While we have a war against Islamofascism raging.
They just want to feel good, and not hear anyone trying to "bring them down". The idea that in the world that we live in, that a vacuous, inexperienced candidate like Barack Obama is seen as a viable choice to lead us through the coming trying years says something about our country's mentality. And it pains me.
So I think I've just got to give up. Let Vice President Oprah make Americans feel good, while our enemies get rejuvenated, in terms of morale, training, manpower and money. While they plot against us and our allies.
Let the good times roll. Lets return to the glory of the Clinton years! Everything was perfect then.
Posted by: Sean at February 5, 2008 09:52 AMFingers crossed. Hail Mary pass time.
Posted by: NeoconNews.com at February 5, 2008 10:12 AMAddendum:
Got a mail today from Rudy's campaign
"Join me in Joining John McCain".
Rudy.EmailList.UnSubscribe
Oh wait, there's another mail from KT McFarland, same nonsense. Right into the "Spam Filter" with that one.
Posted by: Sean at February 5, 2008 10:13 AMyea, if you want a fraud vote Mitt.
Mitt has been a conservative as long as Karol has been a Cowboys fan.
Posted by: Larry at February 5, 2008 10:37 AMOh wait, there's another mail from KT McFarland, same nonsense. Right into the "Spam Filter" with that one.
Awwwwwww, KT.
And Larry, I've really taken to being a Cowboys fan. If Mitt feels the same about becoming more conservative, that's fine with me.
Posted by: Karol at February 5, 2008 11:00 AMMitt changed about 5 positions at the age of 60...and he did so when he's about to run for president as a republican....can you say fraud?
Posted by: Larry at February 5, 2008 11:14 AMI voted for Romney in the end, as an anti-McCain protest, and NRO notes he's polling 84 to 4 in the Utah GOP primary. Now if that trend holds nationally...
Posted by: Todd Seavey at February 5, 2008 12:07 PMWell Karol, we can always dream that maybe McCain will choose Fred for his running mate, and decide not to run for a second term, leaving Fred to run outright in 2012?
Man, I have to stop drinking at lunchtime! (Kidding, kidding.)
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 5, 2008 12:49 PMThis time I agree with Larry; there ain't no such thing as a Conservative choice in this election (and heaven help me, the closest to it might just be Hillary!) FWIW, one of the things that torques me up about Mitt is his seeming inability to piss people off/take an non-expedient stand. I want a President willing to have most of the world ticked off at him. Because it will be, pretty much regardless.
Of course, McCain seems to piss people off just for the fun of it half the time, so there's that little personality trait to go along with ultimate control of all those aircraft carriers, which is a bit of a sobering thought.
So I have no problem with a Screw McCain/Vote Mitt line of reasoning, I just don't think the argument that Mitt is more conservative holds water.
Posted by: Mark Poling at February 5, 2008 01:42 PM"If you're not quite ready to suck it up and vote McCain, vote Mitt Romney." Unless you're in the South, in which case you should vote for Mike Huckabee, who is running first or a close second to McCain in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. The Oklahoma poll by Survey USA had McCain at 37, Huck at 32, and Romney back a ways at 23.
I'm concerned that the national talk radio push for Romney will end up splitting the anti-McCain vote in the South and letting McCain win those states with 35% of the vote.
My hope is that Romney will win Mass., Utah, Calif., North Dakota, and Montana, and Huckabee will win the states I mentioned above, leaving McCain with only six wins out of 18 contests and no longer the presumptive nominee.
Posted by: Michael Bates at February 5, 2008 02:20 PMHuck wins West Virginia....HUCK YEA!!!!!!
if the republican machine was smart, they would get behind Huck..get the fraud mitt out of here...huck can beat mccain if he gets the media attention and the support of the republicans.
huck has beaten the clinton machine twice in arkansas and he can do it again.
who do you want debating clinton or obama?...the fraud mitt?..the old, angry, erratic, lefty leaning mccain?....or the best debater out there, mike huckabee?
once it's a 2 person race, the media won't be able to marginalize him...they won't be able to smear him without him being allowed to fight back...they won't be able to neglect him in the debates.
Posted by: Larry at February 5, 2008 02:35 PMThere's no time. Please join the McCain campaign now.
Posted by: Not Dawn Summers at February 5, 2008 02:58 PM"Huck wins West Virginia....HUCK YEA!!!!!!"
A better distillation of why I left West Virginia would be hard to find.
By the way, I plan to pull the lever for Rudy; he was my guy from the beginning, and I feel no compelling reason to vote for anyone else.
Assuming of course that Republican levers aren't screwed up in my polling place..
Posted by: Mark Poling at February 5, 2008 03:00 PMThe polls in W.Va. are closed?
Posted by: Shawn at February 5, 2008 03:03 PMWell, you're clearly not of the "rabid strain." But sitting the election out because the facts suck is not dealing with the facts. And, how exactly would that be good for the Republican party?
And you're not being entirely fair to McCain's Iraq record. Do you not agree with him that the Bush administration's biggest failing was their lack of ability to communicate the nature of the war to the public? And that NY Sun story was just a bloated NY Times cut-and-paste job. McCain never distanced himself from the cause.
Posted by: Karol's friend Abe Greenwald at February 5, 2008 03:14 PMDo you not agree with him that the Bush administration's biggest failing was their lack of ability to communicate the nature of the war to the public?
I do disagree with that. The Bush administration went out of its way to constantly convey that the war was NOT going to be easy, that we were there for the long haul, that we should resign ourselves to a battle with Islamofascism that will likely last our lifetime. In fact, I've seen evidence that if anyone made it sound like it would be a cake walk, it was John McCain.
Posted by: Karol at February 5, 2008 03:21 PM
"The Bush administration went out of its way to constantly convey that the war was NOT going to be easy"
Until it started and looked easy.
Posted by: Karol's friend Abe Greenwald at February 5, 2008 03:54 PMThe polls in W.Va. are closed?
It was a state convention. No one had a majority on the first ballot, and Paul was eliminated. Huckabee won a majority on the second ballot, apparently with the help of state delegates who had supported McCain and Paul on the first ballot. (More here.)
Posted by: Michael Bates at February 5, 2008 05:03 PM"In fact, I've seen evidence that if anyone made it sound like it would be a cake walk, it was John McCain."
K. I'll bite. What evidence did you have in mind? If memory serves, McCain called for more boots on the ground and wanted Rummy's head.
If you have as many problems with McCain as you seem to, I don't think he'll need your vote in New York. Do what I do when the vote does not matter. Think about casting a vote on the Constiution or Libertarian lines. I know you have had no problems with that in the past and I don't think it will be close in New York. Just a thought-and one I am kicking over on this end.
Posted by: Von Bek at February 5, 2008 06:52 PMSo Larry, in 1992, who did you want, the old George H.W. Bush, or the smooth debater Bill Clinton?
You have this common problem of confusing good speaking abilities with being right. Being skilled at rhetoric doesn't mean the person is a good choice, or is right on the issues.
"huck has beaten the clinton machine twice in arkansas"
The reason he did is because the Clintons left the state and didn't care anymore.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 6, 2008 09:29 PM


