The 3.6 Percent Republicans (this is depressing)

The Weekly Standard ^ | 02/11/2008 | John J. DiIulio Jr.

[pwatson]

Most leading conservative writers, radio hosts, and activists would probably concur that their liberal counterparts have never really connected with average Americans. Personalities on the right sell more books and get higher radio and television ratings. And until recently, conservatives seemed to be on an electoral politics roll begun in 1994 when the GOP retook the House. Within Republican ranks, for all the talk about crack-ups and implosions, the Reagan legacy still bridges divides between libertarians, social and religious conservatives, and national security conservatives.

By comparison, the left often draws flies. Win, lose, or draw, Democrats are prone to eat their own. Post-FDR, the last time that staunch liberals saw their favorite candidate elected president was never. In fact, the only time Democrats actually nominated a candidate who toed the liberal intelli-gentsia's line was 1972. George McGovern, who recently called for President Bush's impeachment (cue applause in Cambridge, Mass.), got 38 percent of the national vote.

But what is true for the liberal goose is true for the conservative gander. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan liked to quip, people are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. John McCain is more conservative on more issues than average Americans are. By every standard measure (voting record and ratings, positions on major issues), McCain is conservative. Unlike his critics on the right, however, he is no ideological purist; he is conservative, but he is not what the pollsters call "very conservative." That is one obvious reason why he has such wide appeal. For even in our decidedly right-leaning mass electorate, few Americans, including few Republicans, answer to "very conservative."

[Archon of the East]

I didn’t leave the GOP the GOP left me!

[Eva]

McCain has been operating as a fifth column within the Republican Party since before the 2000 election. You can’t be loyal to someone who wants to destroy you.

Supporting McCain/Huckabee would require a mass case of Stockholm syndrome. We’re not there, yet.

[Yosemitest]

I didn't say you had to vote against McCain.

I said I'm voting against McCain, period.

[DM1]

i think that he dropped mainly due to Amnesty in 2006 but cannot be sure
my main point is that he will be more conservative than the alternatives. not 100% of course but if he is the nominee i would rather someone in the 60% range than the 8%

[Yosemitest]

I agree, we do have to pretend Romney is a conservative.

[The Hound Passer]

If we’re a mere 3.6% of the voting block then why is McCain going to CPAC to make peace? Why make such a fuss about such a small minority?

Do you remember the '00 and '04 elections? 3.6% would have swung the election to the D's both times. Personally, I don't relish "President McCain" but I'd rather have a president with an ACU 82 lifetime rating than one with a 9 (Clinton) or 8 (Barak).

[cvq3842]

Understood! I agree with much of what you said.

[Greg F]

Straighline conservatives are a tiny, loud minority in the country. So are idealogical liberals in the Democratic party. But combined with other groups they can win. Small government conservatives NEED to create some way of talking to social conservatives before the primaries to line up behind a candidate because neither group wins without the other.

The numbers nationwide from this article look like 3.5% small government conservative, 10% religious right. That’s 13.5% . . . Since only 33% of the country is Republican, that’s about 40% of the party. That’s enough combined to win primaries since big chunks of less idealogically or religiously motivated voters will go along with the candidate preferred.

The coalition is social conservatives/and “very conservative” voters. Get ‘em together.

[Man50D]

i am no McCain fan and voted for Fred in NH but in the general i will vote for McCain if he is the nominee here is why:

McCain ACU lifetime rank 82 2006 65

Since you're going to use the ACU as a benchmark for McCain then you should also include the following:

McCain's ACU Ratings. From the article.

Senator John McCain's lifetime rating of 82.3% from the American Conservative Union is often cited as proof that he is conservative. Here is a closer look at that 82.3 rating.

First, a rating of 82.3 is not really that high. It puts Senator McCain in 39th place among senators serving in 2006, the latest year for which the ACU has its ratings posted online. For that most recent year in particular, McCain scored only 65, putting him in 47th place for that year. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), for example, scored 64 and 75, respectively, in 2006.

Generally, McCain has voted less conservatively in more recent years. His average for 1990-97 was 88, but was only 74 for 1998-2006. Below are his yearly ratings since 1990.

Placing 47th means he has a lower Conservative ranking then most Democrats. Trending downward only illustrates he is not the Conservative he claims. You should also take into account Joe LIEberman, a flaming Socialist, supports McCain. LIEberman has a ACU lifetime rating of 16.8. Clearly the ACU, by its own standards, considers LIEberman far more a Socialist than a Conservative. That fact alone renders McCain's tepid 82.3 lifetime rating misleading. It should be far lower with LIEberman's endorsement.

Any candidate who has to repeatedly convince people he is Conservative is a red flag he is not Conservative. True Conservatives don't have to continually prove to the electorate. That type of person's commitment to Conservatism is indisputable and therefore would not be questioned as it is with McCain.

[Wallace T.]

I must wonder how accurate the ACU ratings are in reflecting consistent conservatism. McCain, who fails conservative principles on several social and economic matters, receives a lifetime 82 rating, as does Ron Paul, who, while strongly conservative on economic and social issues, is closer to the left wing of the Democrats on foreign policy matters.

[Archon of the East]

Nobody knows exactly how someone will govern but Ill believe that in general Mitt Governed as he promised the people in Mass a very liberal state. IMO he kept his word. I believe he would govern just as he promised as POTUS. I am not opposed to changing positions to represent the people. What I am opposed to is willy nilly unconstitutional legislation and taking unprincipled positions. Mitt may not have been a conservative on every issue as Governor but I believe he would make a very good president and a Conservative one at that based on his word, at least as much these very left leaning times will allow.

[Quix]

Smell the vile?

And smell the bile!

[DM1]

he was 74 in most of 2000? i was telling everyone in the mid 60s so thanks for clearing that up.
i provide links so people can go and read this stuff on their own so that i dont have to repost every bloody detail.

[Quix]

Where was the barf alert?

[DM1]

yeah i am not sure what ranks where in terms of importance with the ACU.

[Quix]

Sounds like some NYC pollution has altered . . . sensibilities. How about a trip to some mountains somewhere to clear the cobwebs?

[TADSLOS]

Personally, I don't relish "President McCain" but I'd rather have a president with an ACU 82 lifetime rating than one with a 9 (Clinton) or 8 (Barak).

ACU ratings don't count for much if you have a habit of voting on key issues as a liberal and consort with them to erode Constitutional rights behind closed doors. You want to vote based on an ACU rating? Knock yourself out. If McCain is elected (highly doubtful), don't start whining that he acts like a liberal in office.

[Yosemitest]

Did you check the source of "vile"?

[CommerceComet]

I agree, we do have to pretend Romney is a conservative.

Not me. Of the three major candidates, I believe that Mitt Romney is by far the worst. I could vote for Mike Huckabee but with little enthusiasm and for John McCain while holding my nose but I will leave the Presidential line blank if Romney is the Republican nominee. We all knew that George H. W. Bush wasn't really a conservative despite his claims to the title but Bush 41 had a much better claim to that title than Romney who bragged about being an independent during the Reagan Revolution.

[SoConPubbie]

he was 74 in most of 2000? i was telling everyone in the mid 60s so thanks for clearing that up.
i provide links so people can go and read this stuff on their own so that i dont have to repost every bloody detail.

Don't bother with DMI, he is a moderate, not a conservative, that wandered mistakenly into Freeper land.

He apparently does not understand that our principles are not for sale and we refuse to play the Lessor of Two Evils game anymore.