When It Rains McCain - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
When It Rains McCain
by

GEEZ LOUISE
Re: Philip Klein’s Cold Shoulder Politics:

Is Phillip Klein on McCain’s payroll? Does he moonlight at the Weekly Standard?

McCain may win the Republican nomination but he will loose the general election. The conservatives that Klein has so much contempt for are not voting for McCain under any circumstances.
Louise
Maryland

I am certainly not an “elite conservative” as Mr. Klein laments. But I AM mad as Hell at McCain. I do not need to repeat the litany of sins, we are all aware of them. It would appear that the GOP is turning away from conservativism, and heading for liberalism, while the Dems are running toward socialism. Everybody seems to want something for nothing. This is going to be a very ugly election. If the RINOs insist on nominating a lunatic such as McCain,I fear we are going to have 8 more years of the Clintons.
Janis Johnson
Independence, Missouri

“McCain cannot be stopped,” according to Phillip Klein. He may not be stopped in the presidential primary. However, if he wins the primary, he will probably be stopped in the general election, when conservatives focus on the Senate and House rather than the presidential election. Remember what happened to George Bush I and what happened to war hero Senator Bob Dole when he “moved to the center” and lost the support of many conservatives.
Lewis Sheckler

No matter how favorably you spin McCain, he will not win the presidency. He is nothing more that a RINO and has betrayed his base. I vowed when he and his other thirteen buddies tried to stop the President’s Supreme Court nominees, that I would NEVER vote for him and I haven’t changed my mind now. Better to have the enemy you know than the friend that you don’t.
Ruth Warren
Canal Fulton, Ohio

While John McCain may win the Republican nomination, he will never win the White House. I am a Vietnam veteran and a conservative, but I will NEVER vote for John McCain. I also believe that for conservatives a Clinton/Obama administration would be better for conservatives. Two to four years of Clinton/Obama would enable the Republicans to recapture congress.

As for judicial nominations, you would get the same nominees from McCain you will get from Clinton/Obama. When are you people going to wake up and smell the coffee, John McCain is a liberal socialist. A McCain presidency will include all of the following. Liberal judges in the mold of Ginsberg and Breyer, support for Roe v. Wade, (look at McCain’s past pronouncements on this) amnesty for illegal aliens, open borders, more “free” trade agreements. more off-shoring of American jobs, continued devaluation of the dollar, increases in taxes (look at McCain’s record on this, the end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, (as the dollar continues to lose it’s value other nations will no want to use it as a reserve currency) gun control, further limitations on free speech, re-institution of the fairness doctrine and
the list goes on.

While I will admit that many of these things will probably occur under a Democratic administration, at least Republicans would then not be blamed for it. John McCain is a disgrace and should not even be in public office, he is unstable and prone to emotional outburst and is the last man in the world whose finger you would want on the nuclear trigger. I also predict that if McCain is ever elected president, which is highly unlikely, he will start a war with Iran.
Paul Martell

I am a lifelong Republican and conservative. My father was a Goldwater Republican in ’64 when most of the nation was voting for LBJ. I cut my teeth on GOP politics while a college student in Texas working for Ronald Reagan to defeat America’s worst President Jimmy Carter and went on to serve the party as a foot soldier, precinct chairman and member of 2 Texas County Executive committees (Bowie and Travis). I like the Club for Growth, CPAC and listened to Rush Limbaugh from 1988 till 2006. But I’m totally fed up with the juvenile behavior of “conservative elites” who have joined liberals in undermining the conservative administration of President Bush (his record not his rhetoric is to the right of Reagan) and Republicans in Congress. Those who prattled we could “throw away an election” in 2006 and berated Republicans not only handed Congress to the radical Democrats, but opened the door to John McCain and “purple dog” Mike Huckabee (a man whose lack of moral and ethical integrity makes him unfit for any elected office on the Republican ticket).

Had so-called conservative talking heads not decided to prove their “independence” by undermining President Bush and the GOP Congress (falling for Chuck Schumer’s bait) not only would Republicans still control Congress, but the Republican standard bearer in 2008 would be someone like George Allen or some other bona fide conservative (it is notable that those John McCain campaigned for like George Allen generally lost in 2006). The melt down of the conservative movement that has produced the current political landscape is the gift of Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Anne Coulter, William F. Buckley and even Rush Limbaugh (just to name a few). Their hysterical overreaction to DPW, Harriet Miers, comprehensive immigration reform and GOP spending created a landscape of Republican desperation that has made it possible for John McCain and even liberal RINO Mike Huckabee to succeed. Rush Limbaugh predicted this, but seems to have forgotten his prediction, because he is now part of the problem.

The alternative media is still a tool for good, but instead of continuing the mythologizing of Reagan, undercutting George W. Bush and Republicans they need to be focusing their ire on the real threat — Democrats. If John McCain is the Republican nominee (it is not a done deal) then by all means they can keep their support to themselves, but rather than empowering Democrats as they did in 2006 (despite last minute Hail Mary’s on behalf of Republicans) they need to begin working now to defeat them.
Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina

Mr. Klein reflects the liberal media line that McCain’s win in Florida shows that conservatives are losing their influence in the Republican Party. Instead of referring to conservatives as being opposed to McCain, he narrows it down to “elite conservatives” or “constituencies” within conservatism.

For Klein, it’s merely a matter of ruffling feathers, not substantive, core issues. It’s really all about brave moderate Republicans surviving the “wrath of conservatives.”

Strangely, Klein cites Mike Huckabee as proof of his theory, though Huckabee only won one contest. In addition, Huckabee is a social conservative for the most part, and most conservative opposition came late anyway, no doubt fooled early on by his evangelical appeal.

Also, most conservatives had never heard of Huckabee before Iowa, so I don’t understand how he overcame conservative opposition when there was very little to begin with. (I think Rush only started hammering at him a couple of days before the primary.)

Klein then cites Romney’s conservatism as the reason he lost to candidates who are not liked by “Beltway conservatives.” He claims that Romney’s win in Michigan is due to his “economic populism” rather than his conservatism. (So then why did McCain lose in Michigan?)

In fact, Romney isn’t doing well now because he lacks what could be called the “Obama factor.” Despite Romney’s (newly minted) conservatism, conservatives just aren’t really enthusiastic about him, the way liberals are enthused about Obama. Romney is indeed more of a manager than a leader.

McCain’s nomination is a more serious problem than Klein thinks. It would not just be a blow to “conservative elites” as he claims, but would be a defeat for conservatism itself. Klein’s attempt to mitigate the disaster by separating conservatives from conservative elites is putting a bandage on a gaping wound.

It’s probably an exaggeration to say that McCain betrays conservatives at every turn. It’s only at every other turn. When I think of (say) a McCain-Huckabee ticket, or something similar, I’m reminded of Nixon-Agnew. Sure, we conservatives will vote for McCain’s ticket (or against Hillary’s), but that’s about it. Without the base, McCain won’t have anyone to defend him when the going gets rough.

And it will get rough. McCain is the political equivalent of an IED. It won’t be long before the media tires of him, either during the campaign or during his presidency. They’ll be watching for opportunities to set his infamous temper off, and there will be plenty of those. It’s unlikely that McCain will enjoy a honeymoon with the press.

The best thing McCain can do is try to mend fences with conservatives and prove he really was a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution. Bush lost a lot of conservative support when he proved unreliable in Supreme Court nominees (a huge issue for social conservatives), and supported amnesty for illegals (another huge issue for rule-of-law conservatives). No one defends Bush now, or claims him as one of their own, not even conservatives, and his popularity is accordingly very low.

Without the conservative base, McCain faces the same problem. The liberals and the media will be against him, as they were also against Nixon and Agnew, and the conservatives won’t be around to put in a kind word. By the time McCain leaves office in four years, his popularity will be so low, you’d have to dig a hole to find it.

It’s high time for McCain to make a pilgrimage to Rush Limbaugh’s “Canossa.” He might not need to stand barefoot in the snow like Henry IV, but contrary to Klein’s intimations, the indifference of the conservative base will likely doom McCain’s presidency. McCain will need to be the Unifier in Chief, not the “maverick” he always aspires to be, if he wants to be more than a one term president.
C. V. Crisler
Gilbert, Arizona

The numbers are in from the Florida primary and the the most important ones are the ones that the DNC says are not important. But after analyzing the “Unimportant data” it reveals that the Presidential election for 08 is over. Why? Florida is the nearest middle of the road look at America politically when it comes to voting so what happens here is very enlightening. The bottom line is that about 100,000 more Democrats voted for the top three candidates than the republicans did for their three and it didn’t even matter. As they say in tennis, game, set and match. It’s over and Hillary is queen.

Sell your stocks, hide your billfold, and lock up the interns. The new American motto that follows could be like George Strait’s #1 selling song’s title, “Just give it away”
Jerry Rodeheaver

Philip Klein partly misses the point, or is unwilling to broach the issue. The messenger of Conservatism in this Republican primary, Mitt Romney, had two problems. First was his background as a Moderate Republican. Many conservatives accepted his change in position to conservative as sincere, and many endorsed and supported him. At least a plurality of Republicans, however, does not appear to believe his conservative conversion story, and doesn’t seem to particularly care about many conservative issues anyway. Second, and by far the greatest problem for Republicans (the thousand pound gorilla in the room which everyone is trying to ignore), he is a Mormon. It is abundantly clear that religious bigotry is alive and well in the Republican Party. From Huckabee’s snide comments about Jesus and Satan being brothers, to the WSJ editorial page running a piece stating that Mormons are inherently racist (so I at least am pretty well convinced that the WSJ–an entity that one would think would be a huge supporter of Romney–editorial page is religiously bigoted), the distaste for Romney displayed by William Kristol, repeated articles critical of Romney and his religion by commentators in major neocon and conservative journals, it became clear that America in general, and Republicans in particular, would not vote for a Mormon. Credit Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Bay Buchanan, Douglas Kmeic, and many other conservatives who supported Romney with not being party to Republican religious bigotry. Unfortunately for Romney, they are a valiant few, but they will follow him into the breach again. McCain himself, however, seems to harbor considerable animus against Mormons, along with much personal animosity toward Romney. Don’t count on McCain to automatically carry Utah in the general election, as irrelevant as it may be to the outcome. Utah has been hospitable ground for Republicans for many decades. McCain may change that, even if he doesn’t destroy the Republican Party.
Kent Lyon
College Station, Texas

Better hope you are wrong Phil! The McCain-Huckabee-Clinton folks will not leave the country as free as they got it. There may be an end to conservative talk radio and bloggers but, if so, there will be no more American Spectator, National Review or Fox News either.
Charles Romer
Tomball, Texas
P.S. What do you suppose these folks’ impending victories that you are celebrating will do to your 401k accounts? No impact?

Talk-show conservatives failed to stop McCain not because they were ineffective, but because there was no conservative alternative for such talk-show listeners to support. For example, Thompson got in too late and was too listless; Romney’s professed conservatism is suspect in light of his very moderate, recent record as a Senate candidate and Massachusetts governor.

In the end, Sen. McCain may be a disappointing choice — except for all the others.
Peter Murphy
West Sand Lake, New York

YUCCA STUCK-A
Re: Patrick J. Michaels’ Corn on the Mob:

Once again Congress’s knee jerk reaction and kowtowing to the environmentalists and the global warming kooks has made things much worse with the so called Energy Policy Act of 2005. Every time I read or hear about some congressional committee contemplating a program to “simplify” the tax codes, I cringe and grab for my wallet. These are the same fools who passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 based on politics rather than science that established Yucca Mountain as the nation’s repository for high-level nuclear waste. Now well beyond the original scheduled completion date and billions of dollars over budget, the repository is still unable to accept an ounce of waste and will not be able to for many years to come, and many, many more dollars waste on what has become a very expensive science project.
Tom Bullock
West Covina, California

The fact that the “global warming mob” has gotten as far as it has should surprise no one. American liberals have long embraced symbolism as a substitute for substance, and now feeble-minded conservatives and moderates have jumped on the bandwagon. One wonders how much stupider it can get than using food to make fuel — but I’ll bet we haven’t touched bottom yet.
Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

I find this so ironic.

OPEC (Indonesia is a FULL member) feels that they can cut off our oil or raise the price of it at a whim.

But when America (the OPEC of food of the world) decides to act slightly in its own best interests (responding to the real OPEC), they get riots because they can’t freaking feed their own people.
Mark Westphal
Yardley, Pennsylvania

I really appreciate articles like that — solid numbers are the best antidote to the vague aura of approaching eco-doom in which we live.

It might just be me, but I always thought ethanol was a hydrocarbon, too, right? Burning it also produces carbon dioxide. So replacing 20 percent of gasoline use with ethanol wouldn’t actually reduce emissions by even the amount listed.
Roy Koczela

BAD OLD DEMOCRATS
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s Hillary: Undecided on Platform Apology for Slavery?:

It seems Jeffrey Lord forgets, that many black politicians and voters consider “the first black president” to be Bill Clinton. Thus no need to apologize, you’re one of us, you understand us.

You can’t make this stuff up. He has an office in Harlem!

All the past “errors” of the Dems that Lord cites have nothing to do with Clinton or his supporters. And to be sure, Bill is running, not Hillary. When in doubt about this, ask: if she was not a “Clinton” would she still be in the race? Better one: would she have even gathered enough support to get in the race?

The Clinton playbook would have Obama saying he is sorry that so many black politicians and voters want “reparations” for past wrongs. But this a day of change; let the past fade; move on to a better day. Hillary saying she is sorry for slavery — not this version of Clinton. How about apologize for the behavior of “the first black president”? This is not in the playbook
Len LaBounty
Santa Monica, California

Because of a decidedly and largely dominant left-wing media, the history of the Democrat party’s racism doesn’t see the light of day. These events are already absent from the minds of many (if not a majority) of Americans. Knowledge of these events will fade into oblivion as the public school system continues to “revise” the history books, college campuses allow the suppression of free speech that detracts from liberal dogma and the liberal talking heads on TV continue to use their time denigrating anything and everything Republican, conservative, Christian, white, heterosexual…etc.

All we can do is try to put the word out there for people to see. I just past this article along to a black friend of mind and insisted he read it.

Hat’s off to Jeffrey Lord for reviving this bit of history.
John Nelson
Hebron, Connecticut

“One can only marvel at the smiling casualness with which he tried to pigeonhole Obama’s South Carolina victory with votes received by the race-card playing black leader Jesse Jackson.”

Marvel? Yes, as in marvel at his skill. But not surprised. For many of us, there is nothing that Bill Clinton could do that could lessen our opinion of him.

What surprises, and disappoints, is that Clinton seems to be correct. White Democrats, especially in the south, seem to be taking his race-bait. Nothing more needs be said of Clinton, but what does this say of his party?
Dan Martin
Pittsburgh

This entire discussion is totally idiotic, as is the notion that the comments of Bill Clinton is exposing a “rift” in the Democratic Party or that his comments in reference to Obama’s blackness are racist (which, of course they are; even though Bill was this nation’s first black president).

If Hillary wins the nomination, all the Democrats — even Obama, the Fascist/Bolsheviks of MoveOn.org, Rosie O’Donnell, Soros, et.al., — will jump on the Clinton train and support her unconditionally. Also, as they have done consistently for the past 50 years, 95% of all black voters — including Oprah — will jump through their rear-ends to see that Hillary gets elected.

It makes zero difference to the black populace or the black “leadership” that the left-liberal policies of the all-white, mostly very wealthy, big-city Democrats has provided incentive for a large percentage of inner city blacks mired in crime, illiteracy and dysfunctional families to maintain themselves within these destructive social pathologies.

It is totally irrelevant what the Democratic platform is, or that the Democrats have historically been the party that supported slavery and racial segregation and to this day — through their support of racial quotas and opposition to school vouchers — believe that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites and incapable of achievement on par with whites or any other ethnic group that has realized the American dream.

Since the 1960s, the hate-America first Democrats — now led by Hillary — have employed the “ends justifies the means” strategy to attain power. This is all that matters to them. The left-liberal Hillary Democrats have never cared, do not care and will never care about helping blacks; and frankly, neither does the black “leadership.” If they did, they would have adopted different policies about 20 years ago when faced with the objective facts that their socialist, blacks-are-inferior social policies have been abject failures.

The left liberal Democrats and Hillary care about blacks, and the poor in general in the same manner that Lenin cared about the “workers,” Castro cares about Cubans, and Hitler cared about the Jews.

This is totally consistent with the defining personality trait of Hillary, those on the left, and yes, Obama; narcissism, arrogance, vanity, intellectual dishonesty and elitism.
CA
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Our uncannily prescient Founding Fathers limited presidential powers in anticipation of precisely such slick narcissists as Bill Clinton. America, saved by design.
David Govett
Davis, California

Jeffrey Lord brilliantly links the Democrat party to its racist pedigree. Just as it was the party of national defeat and appeasement in 1864, the 1930’s, 1960’s and today so it has been the party where race and group identity have been key elements of its political philosophy. Solomon was right the dog does return to its vomit and the pig to its swill.

While the Democrats may apologize for slavery, Jim Crowe, segregation and their myriad other legislated racial sins the real problem is at its core the modern Democrat party, with its roots in the Great Depression, FDR and Huey Long is a party on the march to fascism (Jonah Goldberg may be right in tracing its roots to the early 20th century Democrat progressive movement). Fascism where the state and not the individual or God is the ultimate reality and provider of all things. A state or village led by an “elite” that is master and we mere mortals are its slaves (beneficiaries).

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may both be racists, but even worse at their core they are 21st century fascists.
Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina

While I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, the article acting as though she should apologize for the racial history of the Democratic Party is silly. Why should Mrs. Clinton be asked to apologize for all of the past sins of the Party when she did not commit any of them? She did not support the Confederate cause, she did not help found the Klan, she did not discriminate against Asians in the West, and she didn’t establish Jim Crow laws. So why should she be held responsible for that?

And if this is such a pressing issue, why haven’t any of the other Democratic candidates, including Barack Obama, been asked to repudiate the Party’s history? The Democratic Party has much in its history to be ashamed of, but what good would it do to start apologizing for things long past? And it seems odd to me that a conservative publication would be demanding apologies for past transgressions, when it has been conservatives that are always complaining about how unnecessary it is when some state legislature officially apologizes for slavery. We can’t have it both ways without becoming hypocrites.

So, while it is good to see the sordid racial history of the Democratic Party exposed to the light and I hope people will pay attention to it, I think it is patently unfair to act as though Hillary Clinton should be the one to apologize for it.
Eric Edwards
Walnut Cove, North Carolina

Abortion claims three of five black pregnancies, the essence of bigotry.
George Nugent

MERCANTILISM 101
Re: George H. Wittman’s Subversive Sovereign Subsidies:

Mr. Wittman is so right. Sadly, so right.

I’d add one thing.

In simple terms, capital is the money that is used to build and maintain a business. Capital is created by making things and selling them, then using the profit as capital to make more.

When foreign companies and governments invest in U.S. companies, they drain off profits to be used as capital in their own countries or anywhere they want to, and in those situations, American companies create wealth/profits/capital, and other countries take it away.

It’s worse than our own government taking it. At least they tax and spend here.
A. C. Santore

ENOUGH GLOATING
Re: Reader letters (under “Oh Happy Days”) in response to Jennifer Rubin’s Hold the I Told You So’s from Reader Mail’s Unsweet Caroline:

TAS has recently presented many letters from readers reveling in Democrat squabbling during the primary season. We seem to be gleefully lapping up every morsel of flung liberal mudpie like so much political junk food.

While I would love to join them, I can’t. The danger of such intellectual empty calories is that it makes us fat and complacent. We need to remember that the mutual tarring and feathering by the leading liberal candidates is only temporary. It happens every election. They trash each other to secure the nomination, but once the nominee is selected, they close ranks and fire on Republicans. The puppet media will conveniently forget what the Democrats said about each other, and focus on undermining conservatives. All the earlier infighting will be ignored.

Therefore, fellow conservatives, please don’t waste your energies on petty gloating. There will be ample time for that if we win in November. Get back to discussing issues on their merits, as that is where our strength lies.
Jim Bono
Midlothian, Virginia

SHARIA AND ORDER
Re: Christopher Orlet’s reply to Jerome D. Bashinski’s letter (under “Knowing Far Right From Wrong”) in Reader Mail’s New Jesuit Spokesman:

Mr. Orlet doesn’t see how a government can “require” assimilation. Perhaps he should ask the government agencies that are placing foot washing stations in public lavatories, schools, and airports. If he has the time, he could check out the universities and colleges that are catering to Muslim students and their organizations. Maybe he could check out the multitudinous lawsuits filed by discriminated against Muslims. He could enroll in some Muslim courses at many local high schools and colleges across the country.

Yes, Mr. Orlet, perhaps you are right and governments cannot stop their countries from being “Islamized” both culturally and religiously, however, it is becoming more apparent day by day that those same governments that cannot compel assimilation by the Muslims are having very little difficulty compelling the absorption of the indigenous by those incoming immigrants. I would think that by enforcement of existing laws, adherence to existing traditions and practices, and continued English language and American History requirements in schools we could at the very least promote assimilation of these culture hijackers. If we were to do these things, and others that would make assimilation much more attractive and, perhaps, even necessary, isn’t it possible that some of the problems in our cities would diminish?
Joseph Baum
Garrettsville, Ohio

OUR BAAAAAD
Re: Sean Higgins’s Ledger’s Final Balance:

Heath Ledger played a homosexual sheepherder in Brokeback Mountain, not a cowboy. There is a difference.
Daniel McNamee
Somerville, New Jersey

Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, http://spectator.org. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!