Thursday, February 07, 2008

Ugh


The liberal wing of the Republican Party has won; John McCain will be the Republican nominee. Many Republicans want to take the party toward the center, saying that we must be more inclusive, more liberal, in order to win. The Arnold Schwartzenegger's, Charlie Crist's, and McCain's have rejected Ronald Reagan's vision for America, as well as his strategy. Reagan brought people into the tent by convincing them that conservative principles were best for America, not by sacrificing our principles to pick off a few liberals.

What went wrong? I think Mitt Romney would be a great president (he still may win, in 2012), but he failed to unite conservatives. His support among conservatives was slow to develop as they waited for Thompson to generate some excitement. Then Huckabee came out of nowhere to capture the evangelical vote (aided in large part by evangelicals' mistrust of the Mormon faith). Once Thompson was gone, Mitt was the only one left favoring conservatism in economics, social issues, and national defense. However, McCain won with independents in New Hampshire, and with Huckabee continuing to take the evangelical vote, the wave of support for Romney, triggered by conservative leaders and their opposition to McCain just wasn't enough.

Although I am disappointed that a candidate as liberal as McCain has won the nomination, there are at least three important reasons it's important for him to win in November.
  1. National Defense - McCain will aggressively fight the war on terrorism. Oh, and who do you want in the White House if the Iran gets the bomb?
  2. Preventing the biggest tax increase in US history - which both Shrillary and Obama have planned.
  3. The next president will probably appoint a Supreme Court justice. Do we want another Alito or another Ginsberg? Do we want a Supreme Court that upholds the Constitution, or one that makes it up as they go?

Bottom line, don't sit this one out.

3 comments:

Rudi said...

Beyond all of my philosophical differences, at some point someone just has to admit that this guy is a freckled, wrinkly old dude.

He'd be in his late 70's in his second term.

Let's see... young good looking black man vs. old fogie whitey.

I officially don't think there's a chance.

Tom said...

From January 2001 the Onion appears oddly prophetic:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784

Let me get this straight-you think I should vote Republican because of their fiscal conservatism? I'd refer you to our country's budget deficits under George W.

McCain apparently also doesn't trust the NIE's recent report on Iran. I would suggest that the last thing our country needs is another President prone to military action when none is required.

Jon Vander Plas said...

The lack of fiscal conservatism coming from Republicans (including Bush) is the main reason for their defeat in 2006. When Republicans get sucked in to the allure of big government it is their failure, not a failure of conservatism. I am appalled by the new $3 trillion+ budget. Bush expanded Medicare, expanded federal funding for education, and expanded the size of government. He did try to fix social security, but was shouted down with anti-Wall Street nonsense by a political party with its head in the sand. You act as if budget deficits are new, we've run one in 41 out of the last 46 years and we happen to be in a war right now. It's easier to balance the budget if you ignore the threat of terrorism and run for the hills any time a bad guy shoots at you (ie Clinton - Mogadishu). Have the Republicans failed recently? Yes. But all I hear the Dems talking about it increasing entitlements and programs which will require either huge tax increases or more deficits. I disagree with McCain on many issues, but I trust him far more on fiscal policy than Obama/Shrillary.
Final point: I would suggest that all options should be on the table to deal with a regime hell bent on acquiring a nuke and using said nuke on the people of Israel.