John McCain has betrayed conservatives time & time again. He does not deserve the Republican nomination.

The Republican race for the nomination for President has gotten interesting.  Rudy Giuliani, long considered the front-runner, has fallen back as has Mitt Romney.  The momentum now is with Senator John McCain and Mike Huckabee.  The two worst possible candidates.  As a life-long Republican my priority in any presidential election is to defeat the Democrats.  I realize my preferred candidate might not get the nomination and I'm not one to take my ball and bat and go home.  I have always vigorously supported the Republican nominee.  This year could be different.

A strong case can be made that Republicans must rally around the eventual nominee if for no other reason than the President nominates judges.  This is a huge consideration especially when it comes to the Supreme Court.  In this election there is another huge consideration and that is the war on terrorism, especially the war in Iraq.  Generally speaking any Republican would be better than any Democrat on these two issues.  This year could be different.

Many McCain supporters claim one of his strengths is his leadership.  He's the "leader" we need to fight the war on terrorism.  This so-called leader said that on his first day as President he would close Guantanamo Bay.  And why would he close Guantanamo Bay?  Because "there's a lot of anti-Americanism" around the world.  Some leader.  Yes, McCain was in favor of the surge in Iraq, but he was by no means the only one.  The only difference is that most other Republicans did not feel the need to trash Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:

"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history," McCain said...

That's the kind of rhetoric we don't need in a time of war.  As a U.S. Senator, John McCain had (has) many opportunities to influence policy.  That's his job.  It's unfortunate he would use his position to undermine our efforts in Iraq, to give the opposition (Democrats) talking points for their surrender-at-any-cost policies.  He obviously disagreed with Rumsfeld's handling of the war.  Fair enough.  But his over-the-top rhetoric was disgraceful.  We have seen how McCain reacts when his preferred policies are questioned. 

Mark Levin:

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

Bottom line...I don't believe a hot head who would close Guantanamo Bay on his first day in office is necessarily the leader we need.  Another point, made by my friend Scott regarding McCain's position on waterboarding:

I’m pretty sure we shouldn’t tell our enemies what we will and will not do to obtain information. I want them to fear us, not laugh at us.

Very, very good point.

As for appointing federal judges, McCain's infamous Gang of 14 stunt is about all I need to know about that.  On top of that, McCain is likely to nominate judges who would uphold his monumental (failure) McCain-Feingold legislation.  stealthlawprof at Red State:

I continue to read posts indicating that McCain has voted favorably on conservative judicial candidates and thus should be trusted to appoint the same. That reasoning is faulty.

For John McCain, the single most important issue before the Supreme Court is campaign finance. That issue has been at the Court for a number of years, and it will be there through the foreseeable future. Anyone who believes McCain will appoint Justices who will harm his handiwork (his prime example of a change he has created) is hallucinating.

John McCain has repeatedly used his Senate seat to obstruct conservative Republican principles and promote liberal legislation.  He has betrayed conservatives at every opportunity.  Why then should conservatives reward him with the ultimate prize? 

Mike Huckabee would be as bad or worse.  He would also close Guantanamo Bay.  Why?  Because "Guantanamo, to the rest of the world, is a symbol that is not in our best interests".  Other than that, his record as Governor of Arkansas is all conservatives need to know.  He does not deserve the nomination either. 

I support Fred Thompson for President.  I believe he is the most consistent conservative in the race.  I would also vigorously support Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani.  I trust their positions on the war and on federal judges.  I don't trust McCain or Huckabee on much of anything.  I hope enough conservative Republicans agree.

Comments

[Scott Allan]

On terror, I would have to hope that McCain is better than Clinton and Obama. Huckabee talked tough about Iran the other night, but I get such a Jimmy Carter vibe from him that really makes me nervous.

I really hope conservatives in Michigan and South Carolina can give Mitt and Fred each a win to start moving things in a different direction. I saw on Fox News that McCain is the only candidate that has any shot against the Dems. They say all the other candidates have over 50% negatives. Of course it is WAY to early and irresponsible to say something like that unless you are trying to influence the election.

I could almost understand why McCain would do well in the general election, but for the Republican nomination, I can't figure out what's going on. It's almost as if the Independents have hijacked the primaries. I'm gonna come up with a vast left wing conspiracy that involves George Soros and MoveOn.org that explains why conservative candidates can't seem to get any traction. I refuse to believe that the Republican base has strayed so far so fast. The media certainly has been rooting for the more moderate/liberal republican candidates. Before every primary they say the conservatives are finished. Mitt and Fred were finished after IA and NH and now they'll be finished after MI and SC. They created so much Huckabee and McCain buzz after one primary that they didn't need to spend any money.

In other words, yes, I agree this is very discouraging. I'm really rooting for Giuliani's strategy to work now. Something has to shake this process up.

Any ticket with Romney/Thompson/Giuliani sounds much better than McCain/Huckabee.

Sorry I'm rambling tonight.

[mad_cow]

Scott,

I wonder, too if the Republican primary has been hijacked somehow. Otherwise what explains it? Other than the obvious media hype. How can conservatives prefer McCain or Huckabee? By the way, hope you don't mind I used your quote. It was so on the money, I could have stolen it or quoted it!

I would love to see a Thompson/Romney ticket. You know I'm a Fred Head but it would make sense to put Fred at the top of the ticket simply because he's older. That would leave an opportunity for Mitt to run when Fred's term(s) is/are up. I sincerely believe that's the best ticket to unite conservatives. The best way to insure a Democratic win is to split conservatives.

And...I am so sick of the media I don't know where to begin. I read an article earlier, from CNN, that said Republicans would "face a tough general election fight", blah, blah, blah. For crying out loud, look how they blew it in the N.H. primary?? Yet the pundits continue to try and influence public opinion. So much for reporting the news. They now insist on predicting it.

Don't apologize for "rambling". I appreciate your comments, you always inform and give me something to think about.

[mad_cow]

Check this out re: media influence:

http://tinyurl.com/28urgg

[Scott Allan]

Someone at MMM pointed out that we haven't had any red state primaries yet. NH used to be a Red State but people from Mass. moved there in droves the last few years because nobody could afford the housing and taxes (such as I did several years ago). So... hopefully... when we get to some real conservative states...

[Scott Allan]

Check this out

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/13/poll-positions/

[mad_cow]

Re: no red states voting yet, that's one thing that bugs the heck out of me. Three states have had their say in this, yet all we hear in the media is that Romney must win Michigan, Fred must win S.C. and so forth. Unfortunately the candidates spend so much money trying to win Iowa they run out before they get to the rest of us! And because of the pontificating coming from the media, people are hesitant to donate to candidates they think might drop out. We have somehow managed to let the media have too much control over the process.

I like Michelle's poll results. I'll tell you, the more I hear about (and from) Mike Huckabee, the less I like him. And I didn't like him much to begin with. Remember your Vote for Huckabee is a vote for God post? This is from the Washington Post:
Huckabee: Evangelical Christians now have a chance to lead GOP.

Here is a quote from one of Huckabee's supporters:

"It's saying, 'You've been shut out. You've voted for people in the past who've said they represent you. Why not get somebody that's one of you?' " Schmalzbauer said. "It's a kind of religious populism that goes along with economic populism."

Economic populism. Ugh.

Here it is again:

Joel Hunter, an evangelical pastor who heads the Orlando megachurch Northland, A Church Distributed, said his congregants are particularly receptive to Huckabee's message because the candidate combines economic and religious populism.

"Especially with the economic insecurity people are feeling, they like that there's a leader who, because of his religious belief, really wants to care for everybody," said Hunter, who recently announced that he is backing Huckabee in the upcoming Florida primary. "It's about evangelicals who are willing to care for people who are hurting, who are marginalized."

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2ljshc

[Scott Allan]

"Huckabee: Evangelical Christians now have a chance to lead GOP."

or destroy the GOP depending on how you look at it.

So much for the Big Tent. This move toward religion and liberalism certainly will not encourage people to support the party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14cnd-npoll.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

How can Reagan conservatism have disappeared so quickly? Or is this just more liberal media bias and wishful thinking? Reagan's legacy had very little to do with religion and mostly to do with proven social, political, and economic principles. Jimmy Carter was an evangelical President and a disaster. Being evangelical by itself does not make you a good leader.

Voting for a candidate that shares your religion is about as important as voting for someone who shares your race or gender. I'm not so sure you should sacrifice proven conservative principles for someone who looks, sounds, or acts like you do.

Evangelicals are voting for Huckabee because "he cares for everybody who is hurting or marginalized" sounds naive and an awful lot like something out of the liberal, class-warfare playbook. We are voting with our feelings instead of our heads.

[mad_cow]

I'm afraid you're right and I hate to see it. The Republican party is the best place for evangelicals but they can leave their economic populism outside the tent.

By the way, I just read this:

Joint Chiefs Chairman: Close Guantanamo

http://tinyurl.com/2ct4nt

[Scott Allan]

Good grief! It's like club med down there. I might go there during April vacation.

I'm so glad world opinion shapes our foreign policy. Let's get the terrorists into our prison system so they can recruit other disenfranchised youth.

[mad_cow]

LOL, Scott. Maybe we could have a blogger meet-up at Gitmo!