I Voted for John McCain But I'm Glad He Lost

Examiner ^ | 02/28/10 | Diana West

[Sarah-bot]

Thank you SoCalPol you are the Cal Worthington of politics :-) I just had to say that.

[Soul of the South]

“Yes, McCain would have been a problem. On at least a couple of fronts. Gitmo and illegal amnesty. And possibly more.”

If McCain were President the daily drumbeat in the press would be the economic disaster. Today the press sits quietly while the administration fudges the unemployment statistics by understating the size of the working population and not counting millions of unemployed as unemployed. Under McCain we would hear about the 21% “underemployed” every day. His administration would be playing defense on the economy and health care. As a result he would likely be trying to gain press failure by pushing through amnesty for illegals and carbon credits.

Instead of potentially gaining a majority in the House in the 2010 elections, the Republican Party would be blamed by the electorate for the economy and staring at the loss of dozens of House seats and 4 or 5 Senate seats in 2010, setting the stage for a far left President in 2012. If we are fortunate, the electorate will be blaming Obama and not Bush for the economy in November 2010. By 2012 people will be ready to drive the leftists out and rebuild the economy.

[9YearLurker]

With the Democrat majorities in Congress, McCain would have had a bipartisan lovefest signing every wacky liberal shred of legislation Nancy and Harry could have shoveled him for four years and the Republican Party would have been kaput after that. We dodged a bullet.

[paudio]

I don’t share this view. McCain’s lost may be good for conservative movement, but 0bama’s win so far has been dangerous to the existence of the US as we knew it. Lets not forget that he’s been in the office only for a year, and has another 3 years to do more work. From the health care, education, national security, weapon, to selection of SCOTUS, every single one is designed to change the fabric of the society, so that even though he might be a one-term president, he might be one of the ‘most successful’ one. If all have been changed, it will be extremely difficult to turn it back, even with a strong conservative moment as a result of today’s backlash against 0bama.

[Spaulding]

I like Diana West, and I'd trust her to correct errors. She made one which caught my eye: McCain did release his records, assuming the image of the birth certificate I saw was real, and he was not born in the Canal Zone. He was born in a hospital in Colon, which is not in the Canal Zone.

One of many articles written about McCain's lack of eligibility was written by law professor at U of Arizona named Gabriel Chin. Chin did the research which revealed that for a military base to be equivalent to U.S. land for jurisdictional purposes there need to be an international treaty. Most military bases had such a treaty by 1936; Panama didn't. That shortcoming was addressed in 1937.

While it sounds unfair, the Constitution is not principally about fairness, it is about protecting inalienable rights. I am becoming more and more convinced that whomever backed Obama knew about McCain's feeling of entitlement, and supported McCain because knowing he would put ambition ahead of the welfare of his country. Legislators on both sides knew well about McCain's ineligibility. How could they not after two lawsuits and four congressional hearings. McCain never, that I have seen, described himself as a ‘natural born citizen’. What he and everyone supporting him said was that they thought his record entitled him, and that the founders would have meant him to be eligible.

There is some tantalizing evidence of McCains’s complicity: The law firm defending McCain in at least one of his law suits was Kendall & Ellis. Senior partners of Kendall & Ellis sat on both McCain's and Obama’s election committees. Kendall & Ellis sponsored a law review article by Sarah Herlihy arguing that the natural born citizen provision was “stupid.” There is also the fact that George Soros has supported McCain financially and significantly.

Had McCain won the election I cannot imagine Hillary not challenging. Every senator including Obama and Clinton signed a resolution claiming that they thought McCain was natural born because he had two citizen parents - Senate Res. 511. (which has just been scrubbed from Patrick Leahy’s web site, but must be somewhere in senate archives). Clair McGaskill acknowledged that the there could be an issue of McCain's birth place, but states that:

“As far as I am aware, no one has unearthed any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to military families stationed abroad or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.”

McGaskill’s weasel words are not subtle - “would have wanted”, “such a limited view”, “widely believed”. Besides twenty four attempt to amend Article II, there was a Nationality Act in 1790 which essentially supported the McGaskill claim; it was corrected in 1795, and would not have withstood a Constitutional test. The latest polls of the public willingness to alter Article II appeared after Orrin Hatch’s amendment proposal in 2003. The Chicago Tribune found that about 30% of the public would support an amendment (Hatch wanted to include naturalized citizens who had spent sufficient time here - Schwarzenegger).

Why would our founders have held such a limited view? Suppose we accept the Leahy-McGaskill interpretation. Suppose George Wythe, a State Department Envoy, and his wife spend a few years in England during the 1790s, have a child there and because of unrest in the U.S., leave the child, Irving, to be raised by the family of Lord Rutherford, distant relatives. When Irving reaches the age of 21, Cambridge educated, he returns to the Virginia lands of his parents for a law degree at William and Mary. When he is thirty five, he will be eligible to run for president, having splendid credentials; William and Mary produced Marshall, Madison, St. George, and Munroe, and Jefferson taught there. But who could be certain of Irving's allegiance to the crown, since he spent his formative years in England? The rule which protects us was known as jus soli.

Suppose we accept Obama’s illegitimacy - he of the British father whose son was born a British subject, whether in Hawaii or not - it doesn't matter. Ali Bin Laden was born to Osama and his wife, Sabrina from Bryn Mawr, while Osama was working on his civil engineering degree. She had no interest in joining the other three wives so Ali went to Saudi Arabia to live with dad until he was twenty one. He returned to attend the best law schools, and when he was thirty five, decided upon a career in politics. One assumes that exposure to our founders and their principles by law professors have imbued Ali with a love for the Constitution and allegiance to our capitalistic system. But our founders felt this was not risk worth taking. The principle protecting us was known as jus sanguinis (very approximately, descended from the blood). Our founders decided to employ both soli and sanguinis protections - provisions used in many other nations at the time, including England, and today.

Perhaps McCain's loss, and the election of someone not constitutionally legitimate will cause us to reexamine the principles our founders thought so thoroughly about protecting?

[rawcatslyentist]

You voted for McCain??

I voted for Sarah!

[backhoe]

I voted for Sarah!

You betcha!

[fr_freak]

Whatever happens, the Republican that takes it from Obama in 2012 or 2016 is going to have to be an EXTRA special person.

True enough. If we end up with a RINO goofball after Obama, things really aren't going to improve much. I'm hoping that the Tea Party momentum won't let that happen. We really need a Reagan-type guy, because the last, dying gasps of the leftist, commie Democrats are not going to be pretty.

[The Duke]

However, being glad that that white hating socialist, hell bent on America’s destruction, is bedbug crazy.

I have to agree with the author on this. If 9/11 - a surprise attack that claimed more lives than Pearl Harbor - was insufficient to wake up America (as proved to be the case), then it's apparent we needed the bitter taste that comes from flirting with communism.

As a nation it is possible we may not survive that flirtation, however for me it's better to perish in battle than to continue eternally "Slouching Towards Gomorrah".

[SmokingJoe]

No sane conservative is happy about the Marxist, 0bozo being president, but then I am really glad Juan McPain is not president? You bet!
There is no question whatsoever, that a McCain presidency would have been a total disaster for conservatives and for the Republican Party. The arrogant nutcase, McCain, would have screwed conservatism in America for decades to come.

[BunnySlippers]

Let’s ask her again after O’Bummer gets at least Supremes on the Court.

[1776 Reborn]

I think the McCann loss was a blessing. It allowed the Democrats to hang themselves with their own ropes, while fostering the Tea Party reform movement of the Republican Party in a matter of a few months. A perfect political storm for us which should pay dividends for years!

[iopscusa]

I agree, if McCain had been elected we would have a stronger Obama in the WH in 2012. The Phoenix is rising and we have a chance to regain America!

[TomGuy]

I made a similar conjecture and got skewered by the Bushbot loyalists who didn't fully understand what I was trying to say:

How different history might have been if GW Bush had lost his 2nd term.


• If John Kerry had won, he would have been at the helm when the economy crashed.
  
  
• Chances are, his good friend John McCain would have been out of the Senate and appointed to a Cabinet position, either SecDef or SecSt.
  
  
• McCain might not have been the 2008 Republican nominee because of his closeness to the Kerry Admin. McCain might have decided to go ahead and acknowledge he is a Democrat at heart and jump parties.
  
  
• Kerry most likely would have sought reelection in 2008; thus we would not have a President Obama now.
  
  
• If the economy had crashed under a President Kerry, most likely we would have a Republican president elected in 2008.
  
  
• On the down side, we would not have had SCJs Roberts and Alito, but we would have been spared the Meyers fiasco and probably would not have Sotomayor on the court.
  
  
• We probably would not have had so many massive bailouts and a year basically lost by a president who did little else but push health care reform.

All things considered, we might have been better off had Kerry won. That is how screwed up our politics have become, as it appears we have to endure a presidency worse than Carter's.

[McGavin999]

Sorry Diana, but this is just basic political etiquette.

You would be correct IF we were talking about the general election instead of the primary.

All the people hopping on the McCain train merely points out that McCain is the one the establishment GOP wants in there.

In other words, they really don't care any more about what the people want then Pelosi.

[TomGuy]

Politics being what it is there is no way Palin could remain neutral.

Palin is being duped, either by choice or by inexperience in national politics.

McCain is only using her because of her power to draw large audiences.

If Palin typically drew audiences the size that McCain draws, he would probably would not care for her endorsement one way or the other. But during the presidential campaign she drew tens-of-thousands while the presidential nominee was draws a few hundred.

McCain is not politically stupid. He is using Palin and her audience-drawing power. If he loses his Senate bid [sadly, unlikely, because incumbency is difficult to beat in the primaries], he will drop Palin as hard as he dropped her immediately after his presidential defeat. [Recall the awkward situation of her being on the stage and being almost totally ignored by McCain as he gave his concession speech.]

[ari-freedom]

“Politics being what it is there is no way Palin could remain neutral. The MSM would hound her for it demanding why. And it would be an admission that the people were correct in electing Obama over McCain and her. Which is not exactly a winning position to be in if she wishes to run herself. Just saying, something that actually makes sense. “

so how will she ever be able to run as her own person?

[ari-freedom]

If mccain was elected, Palin would have had 4 years of VP experience and that would put her in good standing for a prez run in 2012. Instead, she ended up as governor for only 2 years and that’s just not the same.

[ari-freedom]

I don’t think Palin is duped or doing this for loyalty. McCain has more national security experience than JD (or any other possible contender) and that is important for many people. JD was also a big spender and was one of the reasons why the GOP lost the House in 2006.

[jwparkerjr]

Just the fact that John McCain would ask her, or expect her, to campaign for him shows how out of touch he is with reality. If he truly cared for her he would recognize that he's putting her in a very difficult position when he asks her to get involved in the primary.

McCain is simply another politician, no more and no less. When the chips are down he's going to look out for himself.

I thank him for his service to our country, but at some point bygones have to be bygones and you deal with the current situation. His time in the Navy, the Hanoi Hilton and that part of his life is over. He has to answer for his actions of today and it's unfair of him to expect to get a free pass based on bygones.

How sad that like so many politicians he simply doesn't know when it's time to step down and enjoy the glory he's earned. So much of being a politician depends on one’s ego that once they've reached the pinnacle they simply no longer have what it takes to step down.