For Conservatives: Now What?ByHugh McInnish The collapse of Fred Thompson's campaign has thrown conservatives in Alabama (and I'm sure elsewhere) into a dither. I am astonished at how many times in the last few days people, some of whom I don't know, have abruptly asked me the same question: What do we do now? It's a most pertinent question, what with no conservative left in the running. Now if you believe the polls it's only Romney or McCain, and neither is a conservative. I don't have an unambiguous answer to the question, only some painful ruminations. But in the spirit of schadenfreude I will tell you what they are. My strongest thought is this: Do Not Vote For John McCain! He is wrong on almost every important issue, and at the head of the list stands his atrocious record on illegal immigration. But before I get into the issues let me just sketch this man's alarming personal behavior. There is some evidence that his mental stability does poorly when compared to the Rock of Gibraltar. Henry Lenoir, for instance, puts it tersely. He says "McCain is insane. The unimaginable sufferings he endured in Communist prisons unhinged him permanently." Lenoir is a lawyer and ex-fighter pilot who has know several former Vietnam POWs who, like McCain, spent a long time suffering the horrors of captivity at the hands of the Communists barbarians. "All were unbalanced," he says. "The ones I knew who were long time POWs—with one exception... were high-functioning lunatics. Common denominators were trouble with alcohol, cars, divorces, tempers and aggressive flying verging on recklessness...." Lenoir concludes that "The combination of the moral, mental and physical injuries of years of captivity deranged McCain." (Read Henry Lenoir's full comments here.) Lenoir reached his conclusion, not by direct observation, but through deductive reasoning. There is, however, supporting direct evidence which is available in a number of news reports recounting McCain's behavior as directly observed by others. Below are excerpts from samples of the relevant articles. (These were originally supplied by the Romney campaign. However in the case of each excerpt, the title is a link to the full article, so they can be verified.)
19 May 07 Presidential hopeful John McCain—who has been dogged for years by questions about his volcanic temper—erupted in an angry, profanity-laced tirade at a fellow Republican senator, sources told The Post yesterday. In a heated dispute over immigration-law overhaul, McCain screamed "f--- you!" at Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who had been raising concerns about the legislation. "This is chicken s--- stuff," McCain snapped at Cornyn, according to several people in the room off the Senate floor Thursday.
By Evan Thomas, et al., Newsweek
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA)
By Evan Thomas, et al., Newsweek Senators are not used to having their intelligence or integrity challenged by another senator. "Are you calling me stupid?" Sen. Chuck Grassley once inquired during a debate with McCain over the fate of the Vietnam MIAs, according to a source who was present. "No," replied McCain. "I'm calling you a f---ing jerk!"
Editorial, Austin American-Statesman
The possibility of derangement and insanity are not attributes particularly desirable in a commander in chief, especially when we remember that his finger is the finger on the dreaded nuclear trigger. With this background it would be hard to rationalize a vote for McCain regardless of how attractive his views on the issues might be. But the fact is his views are distinctly non-conservative. Nowhere is this better illustrated that his stand on illegal immigration. Senator McCain is a close ally of the ultra-liberal Sen. Kennedy, and together they have worked assiduously on theMcCain-Kennedy bill that would give amnesty to millions of non-English-speaking Mexicans who are scofflaw illegal aliens in our country, and admit as many more as may wish to come. Just think about! John McCain, a man who now says that he "has gotten the message" and won't do this again, allied himself with the most notorious Liberal in the Senate in a determined effort to swamp the country with Mexicans, convert us to a bilingual nation, and change forever that culture which has produced the greatest country in history. And McCain's outright contempt for doing the right thing is plain to see. Before an audience of businessmen in Milwaukee, while discussing the subject of immigration, he abruptly interjected "By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the g-d d---ed fence if they want it." [Blanks not in original.] McCain's team-up with Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to pass the free-speech-limiting McCain-Feingold bill is too fresh in memory to require much elaboration. But I will note that John McCain seems to have a strong attraction to liberal democratic senators. The Americans for Democratic Action rates senators on a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 is a perfect liberal score. This group awards Feingold a lifetime rating of 98. Gay marriage? Oh, no particular problem with that. "I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that," Sen. McCain said. So—back to the original question: What do we do now? There are several choices, although none that break the threshold of what I would call "good," much less "great." We have no Goldwater, and we have no Reagan. We can only play the cards the devil has dealt us. First of all, there is the obvious choice of not voting. I doubt that many readers of this piece have ever not voted, nor have I. It probably is not a choice to be seriously considered. My sense of the situation is that Romney is most conservatives' default choice. But Gov. Romney was elected by the same Massachusetts electorate that elected Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, so that almost makes him guilty until proved innocent. And proving him innocent is hard to do. In looking for evidence we will be well advised to look at what he has done in the past rather than what he says today. Here are a few items: Romney has said, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal." And he adds, "I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it." He has been a strong supporter of gay and lesbian rights. In a letter to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, he asked for this homosexual group's "formal endorsement. And he said, "As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent." Gov. Mike Huckabee has some appeal, but it is strongly attenuated by a glance at his illegal immigration record, which is abysmal. His record includes the following:
a. He supported higher education benefits for children of illegals. There is one more candidate to at least put on the list. That candidate is Ron Paul. Paul has been much maligned by the media, and largely ignored by the rest of us, but he might deserve more attention than we have paid him. Certainly voting for him is better than not voting at all. In fact, although Paul seems a little quirky and is thought to be "far out," if you reduce his positions—which unlike all other candidates, have not changed over time—to simple bullets on a plain piece of white bond paper, he looks like a strong conservative. He has never voted for a tax increase, and in that he is more Republican than any other Republican. Being an obstetrician, he is pro-life. And he is solid on the illegal immigration question. Maybe in the end we should dismiss Ron Paul, but I think that we should not summarily dismiss Ron Paul. That covers all four of the remaining Republican candidates. But I have a surprise to unveil before ending this discussion. Anyone who may consider not voting should consider this final option: Vote for Fred Thompson! In Alabama, and I am sure in other states, the ballots have long since been printed, and Thompson's name is still on that ballot. If enough people voted for him it as least will "send them a message," and there is even the long-shot chance that he might get enough votes to send delegates to the convention. There, in the event of a close contest, they might have enough leverage to bargain and perhaps to shift the outcome in, say, the platform committee to something more favorable to conservatives that the case otherwise would be. With this, I have exhausted my thoughts, as well as myself. In the remaining few days till the election I hope that all of us conservatives can summon forth enough energy to make the most thoughtful decision that we can.
|