Wherein Karen Explains it to Rush

Well, I was going to wait until after the primaries, but last night I turned on talk radio and discovered that the conservative talk show hosts have all lost their minds.

I'm sure they all read my blog, so I thought I'd explain to them why conservatives will be able to vote for John McCain and still respect themselves in the morning:

(1)  He's pro-life.
(2)  He's a war hero.
(3)  He can win.

Many will narrow it down to #3.

John McCain would not be my first choice, given my druthers.  My first choice from among all the flawed potential candidates would be Newt Gingrich, since I think he is by far the most intelligent and I think the country could use a big dose of that right now.  But he's not running.  (He's too smart.)  I think I could force myself past the Mormon thing if Romney didn't remind me so much like a Republican version of the Bill Clinton kind of what-do-the-polls-say-this-morning slick.  The others just aren't going to get the nomination, so why talk about it.

It's looking more and more like the hardcore right-wing conservatives are going to have two choices:  vote for McCain or sit at home and pout.  Sitting at home and pouting is the same as voting for whichever pro-abortion candidate ends up on the Democratic ticket.  If the question is (and it will be) "Abortion: yes or no?" and a large number of pro-life voters vote "present" (or, more to the point, "absent") ... where does that leave us?

And why?  Just so you can pout and teach John McCain a lesson for cozying up to the Democrats a time or two?

I try to stay out of politics these days.  But this is Good and Evil. 

And really not all that complicated.

Comments

[Terry]

I don't know. McCain, when you watch him, comes across as a cranky old guy. Defensive and acerbic and condescending. He would beat Hilary, but I don't know about Obama.

Conservatives also have good reasons to distrust him. He's contemptuous of social conservatives.

He's also for destructive embryo stem cell research, which is not exactly, "Pro life"

[Karen]

Well, if it comes down to "who will kill the fewest people?" I'll still have to vote on that.

If I were running the Republican campaign and Obama was the candidate, I'd print up a lot of bumper stickers that said President Barak Hussein Obama.

I'm not saying it would be fair or nice. I'm just saying I think the Republican candidate can beat him. Unless you no longer need the southeast in order to win the election.

[Jeff Miller]

I'll support McCain over any Democrat nominee, but it will be with my eyes wide open.

John McCain has not reached across the isle a time or two, just in recent years we have McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman - all bills which are disasters. He is more likely to say nice things about liberals and has been known to cuss at fellow Republicans. His use of class warfare rhetoric, Global warming carbon taxes, and saying using Anwar would be the same as drilling in the Grand Canyon shows that he is often more likely to use a Democratic spin than follow along conservative lines.

My biggest concern with McCain though is judges, even though he says he will pick judges like Roberts (who helped to throw out provision of one of McCain's own bills) is that he will pick someone that will get approval of his liberal friends. If he screws that up he will have set back the pro-life cause for 20 to thirty years.

As for Romney I wouldn't say he was a poll watcher since even though he has changed positions, they have all been towards the right and not back and forth. But it is impossible to tell if he is pandering or truly became pro-life. There is a major trust issue as to Romney being the conservative he says he is. His appointment of judges in Massachussets were overwhelmingly not conservative judges, so I don't know how we can expect him to appoint the judges he also says he will when he track record is the opposite.

So the choice is to go with the Devil you know or... Maybe McCain annoys me because I have disliked him for so long for always poking conservatives in the eye, whereas with Romney I have only disliked him for a lesser time.

Either way the trust level is not very high.

[Karen]

Well, it seems to me that Romney was pro-choice when he needed to be (in MA) and now he's pro-life because he needs to be. And then there's the ooky Mormon factor. But the Clintonesque thing, to me, is that he just seems slick.

[joe]

My biggest worry over McCain is that he will not be electable, regardless what The New York Tass and The Washington Pravda tell us.

I'll still vote for him if he were the nominee, but it's really more a case of voting against the Democrat.

Again.

-J.

[Mark]

I'm going to vote for what's best for conservatism. And I really believe the best thing for conversatism may be for John McCain to lose.

Don't forget: Bill Clinton in 1992 gave us the 1994 Republican Revolution. Jimmy Carter gave us Ronald Reagan.

The pulic may need reminding why they don't vote liberal.

[Karen]

That would make me feel better if the 1994 Republican Revolution had gotten us anywhere.

[Erich 'Science Dude' Schwarz]

"I really believe the best thing for conversatism may be for John McCain to lose."

Because four to eight years of President Hillary will, of course, be good for the United States of America ... on that fine old Leninist principle of "worse is better"?

For what it's worth, I actually agree with ideologically-pure conservatives that 4-8 years of Hillary in the White House could be wonderful for conservatism. Indeed, it'd be even better for true-redstate-pure conservatism if Hillary opened a gateway to the Abyss in the Lincoln Bedroom, and demonic hordes poured forth, a la Jack Chick. Just think what that'd do for Mitt Romney's chances in 2016!

But I don't have "Conservatism" on my birth certificate or my passport; I have "United States of America." I'm an American citizen. In November 2008, I'm not going to be voting for the Head Pastor of the Republican Church: I'll be voting for President of the United States, a decidedly unsacred and ideologically impure job. I want the candidate who wins to be the one likely to do the least amount of pointless, avoidable harm to the U.S.

Is somebody out there in Karen's comment-box seriously trying to argue that that least-harmful candidate is Hillary Clinton?

silent pause

crickets chirping

continents drifting

the universe heading towards entropic heat-death

protons decaying

me waiting for somebody to try to say "yeah, Hillary won't be any worse than McCain" without cracking up

still going on with that silent pause ... so I'd better end it before I run out of protons

OK, nobody's going to say that particular knee-slapper. So, where do "conservatives" want their moral priorities to be? Sticking it to John McCain -- an annoying, flawed, self-righteous, and elderly man who just happens to have tried to put in some sort of effort on behalf of that unfashionable cause, America?

Or keeping Hillary from being Commander-in-Chief?

You make the call. Me, I'm just bemusedly watching the entire cast of National Review Online go apoplectic. I think they really do want Hillary to win just so that McCain will lose.

Sheesh!

[Karen]

Wow.

Go Science Dude!!! Word up.

[Bender]

(3) is a completely falacious argument. It really says nothing about McCain himself, and he can't really win if conservatives don't vote for him. So argument (3) essentially boils down to, you should vote for him because you should vote for him.

(1) is a misleading argument. McCain has never shown himself to be pro-life. True, he has cast votes against abotion, which would make him anti-abortion, but being anti-abortion does not make one pro-life. To be pro-life is to be actively involved and affirmatively in favor of life issues, not merely passively casting a vote here and there. And McCain has never shown any proprensity or desire to involve himself in any war over abortion, much less the nuclear war that will accompany a Supreme Court nomination.

So, we are down to (2) a war hero, just like tens of thousands of other Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan vets are war heroes. Just like John Murtha is a war hero. Just like John Kerry was a war hero (at least according to the official record).

And listening to and following one's conscience in not flipping a lever with McCain's name on it is not the same as pouting or teaching the party a lesson. If it comes down to conscience vs. political expediency, we should not be so quick to demand the latter.

[Karen]

Okay. How about this argument? The very thin grasp we have on the Supreme Court will be gone if the Democrats win. Goodbye to any hope of overturning Roe v. Wade. The economy will tank, we'll have socialized health care, and OSB will throw a victory celebration.

I'm voting AGAINST that, I don't care what name is on the ballot.

[dymphna]

If we don't watch it we're going to end up with President Obama. The pathetic Jimmy Carter led to Ronald Reagan but Carter did a lot of damage to the military and the intelligence forces before he was voted out. McCain may not be our cup of tea but do you really want to make a point that will lead to two pro-abortion Supreme Court Judges?

[Mark]

(1) He's pro-life.
(2) He's a war hero.
(3) He can win.

Basically, what you're saying is you're a one issue candidate. That's fine, but a lot of us aren't.

- And why? Just so you can pout and teach John McCain a lesson for cozying up to the Democrats a time or two?

Here's a terrific interview with Senator Rick Santorum where he basically says nobody was working harder against our agenda than John McCain:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/01/019528.php

Or take a look at his history here:

http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/candidate_research_know_who_youre_voting_for/

Sorry, he's not the guy to lead our movement.

[M. A. Woodward]

What could be worse than getting terrible policies from a liberal Hilary Clinton?

Getting the same kind of terrible policies from a moderate John McCain!

At least if you didn't vote for her you can complain about her. If your candidate implements the evil, what do you say then?

[TSO]

John McCain's voting record has trended less and less conservative over the years, but I think some of his unpredictability may lessen as he gets in one-on-one debates with Hillary and she pins him down on issues like universal health care. I think we'll have a better idea whether he's really "Hillary Lite" come election time.

[Tony]

... where Tony 'splains it to Karen.

In 2006 there was talk about McCain defecting and becoming a Democrat.

And this is the guy you want to nominate as the REPUBLICAN candidate for President?

If I were going to vote for a Democrat, I'd rather vote for a real one.

[Karen]

As I think I explained, he is not the guy that *I* want to nominate. But that guy's not running.

I'm going to vote for whoever is running on the Republican ticket. I'm not a "one issue vote," but that issue is a dealbreaker for me. And the election is going to come down to a clear choice of whether or not to let the bloodbath continue unabated. I'm voting AGAINST that.

[M. (Bernard Lee, not Judi Dench)]

Rick Santorum can take a jump. It's nice that Santorum is campaigning as hard AGAINST McCain as McCain campaigned FOR Santorum. Wotta guy.

[Nirk]

Do you really think Newt would be a good president? Hmm. Let's see after serving his wife with divorce papers in the hospital where she was dying of cancer. Sounds like another one of those looney, bible-thumping, hypocrite republican fiscal conservative, I've got mine, let the poor eat cake whack jobs, who end up seducing choir boys, paying male prostitutes for meth and sex, or addicted to oxycontin while going after the clintons on their talk shows. May I politely ask you to wake up? The republicans (starting with Reagan) sold this country down the tubes to corporate interests. There are no social safety nets left (which I think are in more in the spirit of christianity than tax cuts for the rich) for you or me. The social safety nets involved things like after school program, cheap college education, art education, music education. These occupied kids, who now join gangs. Also, do you remember your tax dollars going to pay for the savings and loans scandals of Reagan's days? They are now going to fight a war at the tune of $720million a day and will soon be used to pay for the next sub-prime mortgage scandal. All the while the corrupt captains of industry will be laughing all the way to the Bank (where your savings are now worth about half of what they were compared to the Euro).

[Mark]

Conservatives beware: Once we cede the ground on global warming, unsealed borders, "torture," American rights for foreign terrorists, etc. we're not getting those issues back. And I'm convinced McCain will be the guy to move the gay "rights" agenda forward. Just look at how he fought against the Gay Marriage Amendment.

If you're willing to permanently give up these issues, as well as have a candidate that has proven how much he loves to piss off conservatives, then so be it.

I'm not willing to go there.

[Gina]

Karen, careful with those bumper stickers! They'd backfire on you. Obama supporters (and even some non-supporters) get really snippy whenever his middle name is brought up.

[Lynne]

Neither McCain nor Romney are conservative, including pro-life issues. I'm voting for Thompson today in our primary (yes I know he's no longer running).

[mouse]

You say the 1994 revolution got us nowhere. No, that's not true. It got us Roberts and Alito. We wouldn't have them otherwise.

It's not our fault no one withdrew or died between August of 1994 and September of 2005. But that's how it is.

So now you have to believe that McCain will nominate judges that are like Roberts and Alito. I don't believe that, because he wants to make nice with the Dems in Congress.

But if McCain is pres, then Congress will stay Dem. But if McCain loses, maybe we can have another 1994, and the Reps can control the house and perhaps stop the senate from nominating more Ginsburgs.

Because that IS what matters.