Conservatives: Sitting Out 2008 Is the Height of Idiocy by Ben Shapiro

Family Security Matters ^ | 14 February 2008 | Ben Shapiro

[K-oneTexas]

Published: February 14, 2008

Conservatives: Sitting Out 2008 Is the Height of Idiocy

Ben Shapiro

 

The conservative base isn't fond of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. They disagree with him on a wide variety of issues, and they feel insulted by McCain's ardent desire to please those across the political aisle.

           

But conservatives are fools if they stay home in November.

           

There's plenty to question about John McCain, but there's one thing conservatives can't question: McCain is better than Hillary Clinton. He's better than Barack Obama. And it's not close.

           

McCain is a hard-line proponent of victory in Iraq. He has pledged to lower taxes. He has always fought governmental corruption, even if that has led him to absurd extremes like campaign finance reform. He is a strong pro-life voter. He says he will veto any bill that has any earmarks. In 2006, McCain received a 65% rating from the American Conservative Union, which measures whether members of Congress are in line with conservatives on major issues. In 2005, his score was 80%.

           

Here are Hillary Clinton's scores in those same two years: 8% and 12%. Obama scored 8% both years.

           

It's simply unthinkable to equate McCain's record with either Clinton's or Obama's. McCain is a left-leaning Republican, which means he ranks in the upper half of the Senate in terms of political conservatism. National Journal, by contrast, ranked Clinton the 16th most liberal senator in the Senate in 2007. Obama was No. 1.

           

Despite the vast difference between McCain and his Democratic opponents, many conservatives are threatening to boycott the 2008 election. They argue that the Republican Party has abandoned conservatism, and that in order to reclaim the Party, the GOP may have to go through the purifying ritual of cataclysmic electoral defeat.

           

This is historically ignorant. Intraparty squabbles are constant with regard to choosing presidential candidates. Parties do not move toward a particular ideological group because of electoral defeat – they move toward a particular ideological group because that group is most motivated to back a single candidate. Ronald Reagan was a rising force in the Republican Party before Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter -- he almost wrested the nomination from Ford in 1976. The Democratic Party's recent move to the left has not been a reaction to their electoral defeats in 2000 and 2004 – after all, Al Gore and John Kerry were certainly quite liberal. The problem with the conservative movement in 2008 wasn't the movement -- it was the lack of a candidate. And sending the GOP to ringing defeat in 2008 won't push the Party back to the right unless there's a candidate to rally around.

           

If conservatives think they can rally around a challenger in 2012 and oust an incumbent Democrat, they should think again. Conceding the White House in 2008 could easily mean an eight-year term for either Hillary or Obama – and such an eight-year term would wreak havoc on a country already overburdened by taxes and under assault from Islamic terrorism.

           

The proposed conservative boycott of the GOP in 2008 also demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of the GOP's role. The GOP isn't constructed to nominate conservative candidates. It is constructed to win. It's the conservative base's responsibility to nominate conservative candidates. In 2008, the conservative base failed. That isn't the GOP's fault. Punishing the GOP fruitlessly punishes an organization that isn't to blame.

           

Conservatives must recognize that the choice in 2008 is between John McCain and Clinton or Obama. It isn't about McCain vs. Romney or McCain vs. Huckabee anymore. And if McCain wins, that doesn't preclude conservatives from rallying around a more conservative candidate next time. Dooming the country to at least four years of Democratic incompetence and appeasement won't solve conservatives' problem.

# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org contributing editor Ben Shapiro is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School. He is also the author of the recently published "Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future" as well as the national best seller "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth." He practices law in Los Angeles.

[K-oneTexas]

"Parties do not move toward a particular ideological group because of electoral defeat – they move toward a particular ideological group because that group is most motivated to back a single candidate."

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I’m getting that old Bob Dole feeling again.

[libh8er]

Why ? Conservatives have already lost the election with the nomination of Juan McCain. What good is a symbolic victory for a Republican label ?

[tennmountainman]

I am not going to give my vote out of fear of Hillary or Obama. If the GOP wants my vote, they had better start an “outreach” to conservatives like myself, just as they have an “outreach program” for hispanics. (Juan Hernandez).

This man is NOT afraid to leave the plantation.

[Jeff Head]

I tend to agree. I do not buy an inevitable democrat landslide. Nor will I accept such a notion out of hand.

The fact is, we as conservatives are not getting what we hoped for or wanted in a candidate in this election. Most of that fault lies with us and with those we elected to go and do our business. Us for not holding their feet to the fire, and then not getting behind any single candidate for President to help do something about it (as in lead), and many of the GOP candidates elected earlier who got to DC and then made “nice” with the opposition and did not do the work we sent them there to do.

Be that as it may, things are what they are right now and we are left to make the most of it.

I do not believe or buy into any notion of capitulation or thowing my toys down and “going home” as a plan or policy for addressing it. Even with the candidate we have, there is simply too much at stake.

In particular, we can still hold ground in all of the following areas:

1) Abortion. McCain has a good record on supporting the life of any fetus in the womb. We owe it to those millions of innocenets to not throw in the towel here and add those lives to the other areas we will lose ground in.

2) The Supreme Court. McCain is much more likely to appoint judges onto the court who will make decisions based on the original intent of the founders than anything Hillary or Obama will appoint. In the abortion area this is critical because we are on the verge of being able to have the SCOTUS overturn Roe v Wade. This has taken 35 years to occur. I am not willing to sacrifice those 35 years and have to wait another 35 to get back where we are today.

3) The War against Islamic Jihad. McCane will stay on the offensive in this war. He may not do it exactly according to our liking (neither did Bush), but he will take the fight tenatiously to the enemy...something we definitely will not get from Obama or Hillary. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of American lives could depend on this. And the spirit and honor of those who have already sacrificed their lives in this regard compell us.

4) Tax cuts. I believe McCain will keep his pledge to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He has stated that directly (as opposed to the continued wishy washy language IMHO and action on border issues). This will be critical for us economically and we know exactly that Obama or Hillary will do the opposite.

So, despite the areas where we will lose ground with McCain (and immigration, the border, and global climate are chief amongst those), there are other equally critical areas IMHO where we can still hold high ground. And from that high ground I believe we can mount a counter offensive on the other issues (particularly immigration and global climate) where we differ with McCain. We have shown we can do that already and must continue to fight him directly, remaining in his and the liberals face, while holding the other critical ground.

I am unwilling to cede ALL the ground. Capitulating, staying home, or voting for one of the other cretans will do that and it is something I simply cannot subscribne to.

[Notary Sojac]

I have no plan to sit out 2008. I will vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot.

[RockyMtnMan]

RNC’s fault, they masterminded this train wreck.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I didn't have a problem with Bob Dole.

I'm not going to vote for a candidate just because some guy tells me I'm stupid if I don't. Hello? What's idiotic is that argument. Conservatives will have no chance at all unless they first stop calling each other stupid.

[papasmurf]

I’ll vote for McMain when they modify the ballot, and the counting and reporting of them, to include the phrase...”IN PROTEST”.

[savedbygrace]

Yeah, vicious name calling is gonna bring all the wayward sheep back into the fold. Sure, that’s the ticket.

Do moderates and liberals in the Republican Party have any tools other than this? If not, then how are they much different from Dimocrats?

[K-oneTexas]

I disagree. We may have lost a battle but we can not leave/run (what ever you want to call it, and expect to win the war.

What I am hearing is we're doomed! Let them go down alone.

 

 

 

[MizSterious]

Or maybe we move toward a particular group (or political party) because of principles. Something McCain seems to lack.

[Natty Bumppo@frontier.net]

He has always fought governmental corruption, even if that has led him to absurd extremes like campaign finance reform.

Umm, can you say Keating Five? Sure you can....

John McCain has more direct, personal, experience and involvement with corruption in politics than most.

Campaign finance reform was not about cleaning up corruption. It was about ensuring that the spoils of corruption only went to club members. And shredding First Amendment rights was not too great a price to pay for keeping the corrupted funding coming.

[ARE SOLE]

Conservatives have bent over backwards for the GOP for far too long. We are not going to bend over forwards. McCain prides himself on getting the non conservative vote. Screw him.

[massgopguy]

Well the Republicans in Congress certainly earned our support with yesterday’s performance./sarc

[Just mythoughts]

Do you know where Leavenworth, KS is located on a US map? McCain’s plan to bring the GITMO terrorists to Leavenworth, KS while having an OPEN BORDERS policy is not what I call national security minded. I do NOT want this fight in my back yard.

[IMissPresidentReagan]

Hot Dog, I'm convinced. I don't want to be a fool or an idiot. So, if I vote for McCain, and sellout my beliefs, I'm not stupid. The namecalling will stop??? Let me sign up right now because, gosh darn it, it really hurts my feelings when people call me stupid, and I don't want to be called stupid anymore..../s

Seriously, now that I've "calmed down" I won't be staying home, but let me repeat, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN. I will not vote for him in a box, I will not vote for him with a fox, I will not vote for him here or there, I will not vote for him ANYWHERE.

[Lurker]

I will never vote for John McCain.

I will vote for Conservative candidates down the ballot, but I will not reward McCain for his 20 years of treachery.

Never.

L

[McGruff]

A little ironic that a site who supports family security matters would support a candidate that claims we are torturing terrorist and wants to close the facility used to do so and bring them to U.S. soil.

[TADSLOS]

The "sitting out" canard being harped is getting tiresome. Just because most conservatives refuse to vote for a liberal doesn't mean they are sitting out the election.

Sitting Out does not equal not voting for McCain