Skip to comments.Rally for Romney: Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.
Posted on 01/31/2008 10:37:41 AM PST by Delacon
I have spent nearly four decades in the conservative movement from precinct worker to the Reagan White House. I campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. I served in several top positions during the Reagan administration, including chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. I have been an active conservative when conservatism was not in high favor.
I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldnt win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasnt even on the ballot in Pennsylvania because he decided to focus his limited resources on other states. I tried to convince voter after voter to write-in Reagans name on the ballot. In the end, Reagan received about five percent of the Republican vote as a write-in candidate.
Of course, Reagan lost the nomination to Ford by the narrowest of margins. Ford went on to lose to a little-known ex-governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter. But the Reagan Revolution became stronger, not weaker, as a result. And the rest is history.
I dont pretend to speak for President Reagan or all conservatives. I speak for myself. But I watched the Republican debate last night, which was held at the Reagan library, and I have to say that I fear a McCain candidacy. He would be an exceedingly poor choice as the Republican nominee for president.
Lets get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCains record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidates record? Thats par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romneys ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain's cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCains comments about Romney.
Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a manager for profit and someone who has laid-off people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his millions or fortune to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romneys character doesnt let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCains does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.
And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?
As for McCain the straight-talker, how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says hes gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that its a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. Theres nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the medias favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they werent accompanied by spending cuts. Thats simply not correct.
Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romneys position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And its also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romneys statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isnt open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.
Of course, its one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCains case, adherence is the exception to the rule McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?
But what about his national security record? Its a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think its fair to say that McCains positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.
Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives dont act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.
But wouldnt the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency drive enough of the grassroots to the polls for McCain? It wasnt enough to motivate the base to vote in November 2006 to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker or the Democrats from taking Congress. My sense is it wont be enough to carry McCain to victory, either. And McCain has done more to build animus among the people whose votes he will need than Denny Hastert or Bill Frist. And there wont be enough Democrats voting for McCain to offset the electorate McCain has alienated (and is likely to continue to alienate, as best as I can tell).
McCain has not won overwhelming pluralities, let alone majorities, in any of the primaries. A thirty-six-percent win in Florida doesnt make a juggernaut. But the liberal media are promoting him now as the presumptive nominee. More and more establishment Republican officials are jumping on McCains bandwagon the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has all but destroyed Californias Republican party.
Lets face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives dont unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.
Mark Levin, a former senior Reagan Justice Department official, is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host.
“I dare say, that if ones principles were aligned with Myth Romneys, they wouldnt find much happiness on Freerepublic.”
Well, not on this nasty, vile thread (sounds kinda like McCains personality). But I find alot of happiness on Free Republic. You should read the live debate thread from last night - lot’s of good natured, happy folks.
I love that cartoon!
Hi Fudd thank you so much.
Actually, their endorsement is looking pretty good right now. the NRTL threw their endorsement away on Thompson because he was “the most electable”, and he couldn’t even take 2nd place in either of the states he staked his campaign on.
Others endorsed other candidates who never made it anywhere. But Romney could still win the nomination, and be a solid conservative spokesperson who will win election and guide our country in a conservative direction.
Put away the fear. Restore your faith, if not in a person, in the large number of people who are trustworthy and have been long advocates for our cause who have spoken personally with Romney, have thought long and hard, and decided that Romney CAN be trusted.
Or, you could believe a few Freeper posters who have no such direct knowledge. At this point, that’s what it comes down to, who do you trust.
Do you trust McCain to NOT do what he promises, or Romney to do what he promises.
Do you trust Leiberman and the New York Times? OR do you trust Mark Levin, and Jim DeMint?
I spoken to people I trust, who have had direct contact with Romney, and they tell me he is solidly on our side. Why should I trust some freeper I don’t know, over the direct personal testimony of someone I know and trust?
Today I received the usual national Republican poll that the NRCC sends out as a disguised fund raiser every year. Over the past two weeks,a flood of endorsements for McCain have come from the people who run these organizations and the GOP. I threw the poll and the request for money in the trash unopened. I will do so in perpetuity until the GOP and the NRCC once again take my views seriously and by this flood of GOP insiders endorsing McCain, I don't believe they are. I am convinced that they are cutting off the Conservative segment of the party in order to win a shallow victory with a bad candidate.
I would much prefer that if the country is to be trashed by a bad republican, that it happen with a democrat in charge, and not us.
I can only ope that Romney can counter McCain's lies and distortions of the truth, and wrest the nomination from him,but if that is not in the cards, I promise you that I will act on my views, and will not vote for the nominee.
This pledge given on this day will be acted on when the time comes.
That article speaks to a man who follows the law. Sorry, there’s a lot of “conservatives” who think the law should be ignored when we disagree with it. But that’s not how it works.
Of course, they haven’t crashed any jets either. At least you’re reasonable.
“Sure, Ill bet ya a Million bucks that its likely, just as I said.
You lose, pay up!”
Really? You got a million? Somehow I don’t quite believe it. Plus the you lose, pay up part - you do know that February 5th hasn’t happened yet - don’t you?
Here is a piece about McCain and the fairness doctrine.
It would be nice to know if that’s true. All we know now is that he doesn’t appeal to moderates and liberals as much as McCain does. We DON’T know if he would appeal to them more than Hillary or Obama.
BTW, have you seen any exit polls which indicate where the black vote is going? I bet Romney is doing well with them, but I haven’t seen that breakdown. They did show that hispanics really went for McCain.
Well stated, deserves repeating. Having observed Mitt and McCain in the debates, it is obvious that Mitt has the temperament and integrity to be a good President. McCain comes across as a petty, vengeful, envious, bitter old man.
Biggest damn lie ever. Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.
Worldnutdaily? I’d rather take Romney’s record, thanks.
Good point. Two-thirds of Republican primary voters are NOT voting for him. It's the MSM, RINOS and party-before-country folks who are pushing McCain on us.
The "scorched earth" tactics of the Romney attackers is counterproductive, and will result in The Beast gaining office. She will raise taxes by record amounts, and establish socialist programs that will be irreversible.
Not even Reagan could haul in Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare spending. To think a saviour in 2012 will do so is absurd.
Wow, I found that quite surprising. I appreciate the ping and link.
“Really? You got a million? Somehow I dont quite believe it. Plus the you lose, pay up part - you do know that February 5th hasnt happened yet - dont you?”
Its easy to see how you would be a Romney supporter if you are dumb enough to bet that something isn’t LIKELY!
The problem with McCain is that his guiding “principle” is that he wants people to love him. So he does what will get the most people to love him. And when that makes some people NOT love him, rather than accepting that he can’t be loved by everybody, he lashes out, because by blaming those people for NOT loving him, he can say it’s not HIS fault they don’t love him, they are just evil people.
Just like when he fell into the Keating-5 scandal, his response was to tell the nation that EVERY politician was corrupt and untrustworthy, but that HE HAd seen the light and would pass laws to protect us from the whole lot of untrustworthy evil political class.
In other words, he personally broke the law, but rather than acknowledge he had a personal flaw, he told the world that EVERYBODY was just as bad as him, only worse because they wouldn’t admit it.