McCain

There was once a Republican Senator from Arizona — a man who called himself a conservative and won his party's nomination for President of the United States. He was a principled man, but often contrarian and sometimes harsh. He felt free to fight the tide of opinion even within his party. Still, some Republicans were wildly enthusiastic about him. He also energized many independents who had previously been little involved in Republican politics. But the party's base was never comfortable with him. Even in those cases where he won their votes, he was rarely able to win their trust or enthusiasm. His presidential bid ended with him losing the popular vote by the largest margin in American history.

Oh, and by the way, he even invoked the name of Ronald Reagan. In fact, the high point of his campaign was not one of his own speeches, but a speech made on his behalf by Ronald Reagan.

The year was 1964. The candidate's name was Barry Goldwater.

John McCain is a mirror of Goldwater, an opposite that otherwise looks the same. Goldwater was criticized for his conservatism, McCain for being too moderate. But the present Senator from Arizona faces the same political problem as his long ago predecessor — how do you make believers out of people who have spent years mistrusting you?

Yesterday, [February 7, 2008] Senator McCain spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). The speech took on special meaning after Mitt Romney withdrew from the race before this very group earlier in the day. The McCain speech moved him in the direction of securing his party's base, but left some big questions.

He acknowledged that conservatives hadn't been too happy about the immigration bill he and Ted Kennedy sponsored last year. But he used it to illustrate his courage, saying he stood his ground even though it imperiled his candidacy. Then he explained his bill's failure by saying, "And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were."

In other words, "I wasn't wrong. I just failed to communicate to you blockheads how right I was."

That's not repentance. It's an insult. And it won't fly among conservatives. Worse, he mischaracterized the reason his bill stirred such universally fierce opposition. That means he still doesn't understand where he was wrong. So, he might just make the same mistake again.

In other speeches, he has explained that he voted against the Bush tax cuts because there were no off-setting spending cuts. This indicates that either he doesn't understand or doesn't agree with the conservative principle that tax cuts strengthen the economy which results in more tax revenue. It would have been nice if he had explained that he was wrong then and now understands why he was wrong.

It's the same with McCain-Feingold. When I was growing up, it was the liberals who always fought for free speech. They still do, only now they make an exception for political speech. In the old days, they seemed to apply the term "speech" to everything from belly-dancing to crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater. They applied it to so many things, they lost sight of its real purpose — the protection of all political speech. McCain-Feingold attempted to solve the terrible problem of campaign finance by putting the government in charge of limiting political speech. It was lose-lose. He made the problem worse even as he compromised a fundamental American right. It would be nice to hear an apology.

I guess the list of apologies would be too long. There's his support of embryonic stem cell research, his flirting with the idea of becoming John Kerry's running mate in 2004, his opposition to a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, and don't forget his bad temper and worse language.

I was disappointed that the McCain supporters at CPAC treated his address to the convention like just another stump speech. Their raucous support negated what I think the Senator meant to be a thoughtful exercise in intra-party diplomacy.

Even more disappointing was Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn's introduction of McCain. It hardly seems reasonable to reach out to conservatives by taking potshots at them, implying strongly that they aren't really conservative, after all. And while you're trying to create party unity for the Fall election, why jeer your party's incumbent President who, though unpopular with much of the general population, retains a great deal of loyalty at the party's core?

What happens when a political party goes into a national election split? In 1964, Barry Goldwater received 38.5% of the popular vote; George McGovern, in 1972, received 37.5%; Jimmy Carter, in 1980, after a bruising primary fight with Edward Kennedy, received 41%; and George H. W. Bush, splitting conservative votes with Ross Perot, received only 37.4%.

Barack Obama is one of the most liberal men ever to run for President. Hillary Clinton is almost as liberal as her opponent and starts any general election campaign with close to half the public saying they will never ever vote for her. Either Democrat can be beaten, but not unless Republicans come together.

Several prominent conservatives have said they will not or may not support Senator McCain if he's nominated. But as the campaign progresses, conservatives will hear McCain excoriated for beliefs he and they share. Like it or not, that's a bonding experience. Then they will hear him and agree with him when he points out the folly of liberal ideas. As this happens, maybe some, who for now can't imagine voting for him, will change their minds. Either way, we have to respect principled stands.

He brought one thing to CPAC that will serve him well with conservatives and moderates alike — humility. Combine it with genuine self-confidence, something the Senator seems never to lack, and it's almost unbeatable.

In November, barring something catastrophic (like the end of the world) I plan to vote for the Republican nominee. Why? Because I oppose abortion, am for a strong national defense, for victory in the war on terrorism, for judges who abide by the constitution, and for small, fiscally conservative government with low taxes.

Love of country is a strong call to the voting booth, even if you're voting for a lesser of evils.

On March 4th, when the primary process finally comes here to Texas, I'll probably vote for Huckabee.

Posted: 2-8-2008
Note: At original posting, all links were active.