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.

[beckysueb]

But the difference is the dems could care less about “the children”. We really care about the troops.

[mass55th]

I won’t sit the election out. I just won’t vote for McCain.

[beckysueb]

I was thinking exactly the same thing. As a matter of fact, I think they are enjoying themselves immensely. Whining is so much fun, ya know. But I’m with you. Whiners whine and give up. Strong people make the best of a bad situation and suck it up and move on. Thank God our military doesn’t go sit in the corner and suck their thumb when they lose one battle.

[DoughtyOne]

If this is what February is like, just imagine what late October is going to be like, when reality sets in.

[wita]

I can tell you what is next, it isn’t good. If you listened to Ann answering questions after her CPAC speach, she left the question of how she will vote open to this extent, she could change her mind.

That is all those of us who have been there are asking the over the top don’t confuse me with the other facts, folks who say they will not vote for McCain.

It is a long way to November. No one should have their mind so made up this early. No one.

[ZULU]

He will have a rough time. He is a bad candidate.

But don’t blame me, I didn;t vote for him.

[jveritas]

Agree 100%.

[ZULU]

Well, since the choice is one of three, what do you suggest?

The McCainiac is the least harmful in the military sphere.
Obama may be pro-Islamic, and Hillary absolutely hates the military.

What choice do we have?

[NavyCanDo]

We all do our fair share of grumbling about McCain/Feingold and rightfully so. But The Fairness Doctrine if passed will make McCain/Feingold look like a GOP picnic in comparison. The damage to free speech and to conservative talk radio will be unmanageable. Few of those who hold McCain/Feingold against McCain give him credit for championing the death to the bill to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. But it may not be dead for long - if we put our heads in the sand.

You can bet if the Dems get a Trifecta and hold the Oval office and both houses of congress you can look forward to Rush’s show to be followed by 3-hours of Randy Rhodes

[RockyMtnMan]

The early primaries were stacked with independents not Republicans thereby knocking out the most conservative candidates. So the process was “engineered” to render a specific outcome.

Republicans should get to vote first and then independents not the other way around. By super Tuesday my candidate was already gone because of this engineering and MSM “selective coverage”.

The RNC is to blame for the SNAFU. Either they wanted this outcome or they are just incredibly stupid.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Thanks so much for clarifying. I really do appreciate it. ;-)

[Designer]

"Americans chose who they wanted."

Nah..Americans chose the one the MSM was touting.

A whole lotta ignorance out there.

Ever notice how similar the race for POTUS is to a junior-high popularity contest?

The Principal ( in this case the RNC) could have announce over the loudspeaker that "..(squawk..screech..) Now hear this; there will be no more of this funny business of trying to nominate (insert name of local cross-dressing class-room clown) for the highly respected office of class president"

"End of story" .. "that is all"

[Designer]

"Then again maybe I have completely misunderstood."

Huh?

[Designer]

"We really care about the troops."

Yes, we do.

Including yours truly.

You care in your way, and let me care for them in my way.

[Right_in_Virginia]

First, thank you for your service.

And, second, I never said McCain is ideal on any level. But, given the choices we realistically have, I stand by my opinion that McCain would be a far superior CIC than any Dem candidate and is far more prepared and willing to face global terror...if not perfectly, certainly more agressively.

Godspeed, Sir.

[Right_in_Virginia]

You can disagree with someone’s principles and their stand to support them, but the insidious attempts to shame someone into abandoning their principles is truly the definition of chutzpah.

Please take this message to your comrades who tell people to shut up, call them surrender monkeys and stupid.

Doing so would go a longer way in elevating the level of debate than lecturing me.

Thanks.

[AllseeingEye33]

When will the Republican elites figure out the simple fact that John McCain has a critical weakness ... an Achilles’ heel. To beat the democrats, John McCain must have the votes of the party’s conservative base. Without the support of dedicated conservatives, leftist John McCain cannot win.

When the Republican establishment is confronted with the cold fact that if the party nominates John McCain, all efforts to win the presidency will be in vain. It will be forced to “broker” the leftist McCain into oblivion where he rightfully belongs. I wouldn’t pi$$ on John McCain if he was on fire, no matter how many names the leftists Republicans, spew at the Conservative base. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[cowdog77]

Go vote....or stay home. It doesn’t really matter.
In case you haven’t noticed, the dems are turning out to vote for their “new Kennedy” in ratios of 3:1 agains the
pubs.

McCain doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell against Obama.

[beckysueb]

Not mention 06 when the country was given Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. And by the way, they haven’t gotten a whole lot done because we have a Republican President. Just imagine if they had a Democrat president.

[Sir Gawain]

McCain still not getting my vote. Better luck next dumb article.