Why Anti-Hillary or Anti-Obama Votes Won’t be Enough for John McCain
John McCain has emerged as the front-runner of the GOP race for the presidency and by all accounts has gained the momentum to take the nomination. Conservatives are not happy and even pundits such as Hannity, who have vowed to not endorse a candidate, have come out in open opposition to McCain and endorsed Mitt Romney. Their opposition is not without valid concerns; most notably McCain’s willingness to compromise conservative positions and unwillingness to champion the conservative cause. The goal of conservatism is not to find a middle ground with liberals; No, it is to fight for our positions. McCain is not a conservative he is a compromiser. And, being a compromiser is worse than being a liberal, in the eyes of many conservatives. If McCain is elected he will be more able to compromise conservative principles than Hillary or Obama and better able to get liberal leaning republicans to vote liberally. While Hillary will have to overcome conservative and party opposition, McCain will be able to act as the conservative working with the liberals to get things done.
McCain’s supporters have taken the view that he has the best chance of winning in the general election. This assumption, however, relies entirely on the anti-democrat vote. McCain will find that this assumption is invalid because there are two types of conservative voter styles. First, there are the “vote for the most conservative candidate” types; and second, there are the “vote against the most liberal candidate” types. I wish I know how many conservative are the “vote against” vs. “vote for” types, but my guess is that there are far more like myself that are the ‘vote for’ types. I recently met a social conservative who switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat so he could vote against Hillary in the closed Florida Primary. This decision was driven by fear and not conviction. He will now change his affiliation back to Republican to vote against Hillary again in November even though his has missed the chance to add his voice with other conservatives to nominate the strongest conservative GOP candidate. In large numbers this strategy, what I believe is a strategy driven by fear, will be detrimental for the GOP because all conservative votes are needed in the party to ensure that the strongest conservative gains the nomination. Undeniably McCain can rely on the ‘vote against the most liberal candidate’ conservatives in November. McCain will rally their fears of what the world will look like given Hillary or Obama becoming president.
But what of the ‘vote for the most conservative candidate’ voters, such as myself? The ‘vote against’ voters are happy with even a candidate that is only slightly less liberal than another, while a ‘vote for’ voter is only satisfied with someone who represents their cause and will not compromise our positions as our so-called representative. We are not driven by fear but conviction in our principles which we do not want to see compromised by someone claiming to be one of our own. ‘Vote for’ types are no more happy with the less liberal candidate than the more liberal one. I say, the lesser of two evils is still evil and the lesser of two liberals is still liberal. I am not interested in voting against the more liberal if the alternative is also a liberal
At the end of the day those who vote for McCain have voted against conservatism by voting for a compromiser. I refuse to vote for a compromiser such as McCain, regardless what the liberal alternative is. Frankly, those who embrace the “vote for” mentality will not be motivated to support someone we do not support nor to vote for someone that does not represent our positions. I will be one of many conservatives that will stay at home and prays for the country on election day given the choice of “the lesser of two evil” because a prayer may help while a vote for either cannot.
Reaction to Florida’s Primaries
Well, Giuliani's big gamble did not work. He spent all his efforts in Florida and some of the Super Tuesday states only to have his early poll lead chiseled away by McCain and Romney. I'd be highly surprised if he did not drop out of the race by the end of the week. While I previously posted about how I didn't feel that I could trust him, after researching his stances on issues, I learned to at least respect him more. I still disagree with him on issues but I think that he had good ideas for economic policies and would have done well in the international scene.
Huckabee did not do well in Florida. He got some of the evangelical vote but overall did poorly. I'm glad that members of the Republican Party see through him (well, a lot of us do). His one-liners and quips revealed that there is not a lot of substance to his platform. I heard him make a comment after the Florida results were in that his supporters should make sure they all go out and vote and that they should keep people who are not going to vote for him in their driveways. I know it was said tongue-in-cheek but that was not one of the more brilliant things that he's said. He plans on staying in the race for some unknown reason. He'll do fairly well in the South but nowhere else. He certainly would not compete well against any of the Democratic candidates in a general election. It's time for him to drop out of the race. Maybe he thinks he'll have a come-back but the cynical part of me also thinks that he might just stay in the race because he takes votes away from Mitt Romney. That is probably not true but I can't deny the possibility that anti-Mormon bigotry is playing such a large role. Anyone who thinks that the LDS Church would suddenly control Washington should Romney win does not know LDS theology. Anyway, Huckabee also could be staying in to try and be in a position to be chosen as a running mate.
McCain had a big win in Florida. He jumped into 1st place in the delegate count; he's ahead of Romney by about 20 delegates now, which is not a lot but he is polling ahead of Romney in California. Also, with Giuliani's endorsement, he will take up a majority of Giuliani supporters. I have a lot of respect for McCain and for his even-mindedness and "gut." I think he'll do well against any of the Democratic candidates should he receive the Republican nomination. I do not like the personal attacks he made against Romney though. Romney started the negative campaigning but it was always negative about candidates' actual past performance and their stances on issues. McCain started the personal attacks on Romney though (Huckabee was involved as well). McCain was the first to use language that questioned Romney's character or his integrity (for example, "if you wrestle with a pig you only get dirty" referring to Romney as the pig. That statement was way below the belt. Romney is by far the most squeaky-clean of the candidates). He was also the main candidate who called Romney a "flip-flopper," which is completely untrue. Romney has changed stances on issues (although they were mostly when he was still governor or even before then) but to "flip-flop" you have to repeatedly change back and forth. Romney has "flipped" on some issues but that's it. McCain has done the same and should not be pointing fingers. Of course, many people involved in the mainstream media also can't resist trying to paint Romney as a "flip-flopper." It's disingenuous at best and slander or libel at worst. Campaigns tend to be ugly, unfortunately, but there's no room for outright lies. Granted, Romney shouldn't be calling McCain's policies "the liberal Democrat way" but that certainly is more accurate (McCain is moderate and thus has a lot of policies that are "liberal") than calling Romney a flip-flopper.
Now to Mitt Romney. He's still in the race. He had strong support in Florida - not as good as would have liked - but he came in a solid second. He also solidly won the conservative vote. McCain won the majority of liberal and moderate Republican votes but Romney won the conservative majority. Romney will do well in a number of states on Super Tuesday. He has Utah in the bag. I think he'll do well in the other Rocky Mountain states, the Midwest, and in the Northeast. It looks like McCain will win California and Arizona, although this win in Florida will certainly give him momentum. McCain will be tough to beat. Whats hard to understand though is why the conservatives in the Republican Party (who are a majority) aren't widely supporting the one candidate who espouses the range of conservative values - Mitt Romney. I also don't get why so many more people think that McCain is more likable than Romney. McCain is likable but I don't think he's any where near as likable as Romney. Of course, I'm biased but I also try not to be swayed by media's portrayal of candidates, which in Romney's case is generally negative.
The Democratic contest was just for show. Clinton was the overwhelming winner but her win was symbolic. Hopefully Democrats see through her and stop voting for her. She has had too many scandals in the past and has been involved in too many underhanded maneuvers to be completely trusted. I think that people support her in part because they are nostalgic for her husband. I don't think that that many people are really all that nostalgic for Bill Clinton as they are for the 90s. The 90s was relatively peaceful and prosperous. People associate that with Pres. Clinton and Hillary gets to bask in the reflected glory. Bill Clinton gets all this credit for the prosperity of the 90s when it really was not his doing. If people give him credit for the prosperity of the 90s they also have to give him credit for the recession that started in 2000 and continued for a couple years into Pres. Bush's presidency. Economic forces are bigger than the Presidency. So, I think that people like Hillary because they think that she would be another Bill Clinton. It's a misguided nostalgia. I think that Obama has so much more to offer than Clinton does. Democratic voters need to see that. Of course, part of me wants to see Clinton nominated because I think she'd be easy to beat. That's not what I really feel though because I think the best candidate should be nominated and for me that's Barack Obama.
Nevada Caucus Results
Mitt Romney will win the Nevada caucuses today. With 19% of precincts reporting, he has over 50% of the vote. John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Sen. Thompson are in a close contest for second with roughly 10% support each. The large LDS population in Nevada certainly helped Romney but his support goes far beyond that population. With these results I think that Thompson, Giuliani, Hunter, and Tancredo should drop out of the race. It's true that Thompson and Giuliani will do better in other states; however, the Republican party needs to focus on the three to four front-runners. I would even like to see Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee drop out of the race. I think that they are both decent candidates - Paul is too extreme for most people though - but they will not win the candidacy. Neither could win the national election either. The Republican race is turning into a race between McCain and Romney, regardless of how the candidates do in South Carolina.
It's too early to comment on the Democratic race. Even though Clinton is ahead in polls I think that Obama will certainly give her a run for her money. I think that John Edwards will be out of the race after Nevada's caucuses. He'll still campaign but he will drop out of the serious contender category.
What the campaigns have shown so far is that while Democrats tout themselves as upholders of diversity, the Republican contest shows that the Republican party has a much greater diversity of ideas than the Democratic party does. Clinton and Obama are essentially identical ideologically, although Obama is more liberal. Edwards is very similar to both. It is among the Republican candidates that you can see diversity - libertarianism, social conservatism, economic conservatism, social liberalism (relatively), economic liberalism, and so forth. It does not mean that the Republican party is splintering, it just means that there is a great diversity of ideas and beliefs within the Republican party.
Earlier I mentioned how the strong LDS population in Nevada helped Romney's win. I don't think that Mormons are block voting for Romney just because he is LDS - although there is certainly some of that going on. His political beliefs just coincide with a lot of other LDS church members' beliefs. I'm not shy about criticizing Evangelicals for voting for Huckabee just because he is Evangelical. I'm also not shy about criticizing LDS members for voting for Romney just because he is LDS. I think you should vote based on political ideologies not religion. That is my biggest problem with so many Evangelical (and other people) voters; I don't care as much about them voting for a certain person because of his or her religious beliefs. I care more about them voting against someone because of their religious beliefs. Women shouldn't vote for Clinton just because she is a woman; African-Americans shouldn't vote for Obama just because he is African-America. People shouldn't vote against any of the candidates because of their skin color, gender, or any other characteristic like those. Vote based on political beliefs, not demographic characteristics.
Candidates of Change
It seems as if each candidate in both parties is touting him or herself as the candidate of change. Romney started saying something to that effect back in February 2007, other candidates have been saying it for months as well. Recently, however, it's become the catch-phrase of the candidates. "I represent change" says one. "I'm not part of the establishment" says another. What's humorous is yes, all candidates are technically candidates of change. They would be someone different than the current President and therefore a change. That's not what they mean but in that sense their chants of change are redundant.
Who has the most ability to create noticeable change in the executive office? Any of the Democratic candidates certainly would (by raising taxes, starting a national socialized medicine plan, etc.); we've had a Republican president in office these past 7 years. All Republican candidates would bring real change as well, although I think that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani would try to change less than the other candidates. McCain would work with Democrats more than Pres. Bush has done (although No Child Left Behind is an example of working with Democrats - it is actually a liberal policy, as much as I hate to label things liberal or conservative). Other than that, McCain wouldn't change very much except for immigration. Romney would try to fix the economy and budget. He would also try to fix immigration. He would also work with Democrats to try to effect change. Giuliani would, well, I'm not sure what he would do. Huckabee would try to expand the federal government; Paul would try to cut it down.
I don't believe that any of the Democratic candidates would try to reduce the size of the federal government (other than reducing defense spending). Romney is the only viable Republican candidate who would - McCain might try to fix some things - and he might fix the budget - but there is nothing in his past experience that demonstrates that he actually could fix it. Huckabee is a "neo-conservative" (as much as I dislike that term, it applies) - he does not stand for small government.
All candidates trumpet their status as the delta candidate (i.e., change [over time]) - the candidate of change. All would be a change but few could effect positive, lasting change.
Tags
Blogroll
Recent Posts
- Truth, Freedom, and Religion
- Respecting the President
- More Anti-Mormon News Bias
- What It Cost to Support Prop 8
- The State and Future of U.S. Health Care
Recent Comments
- Seda on Respecting the President
- lflanagan on The State and Future of U.S. Health Care
- Jared on Respecting the President
- Quantumleap42 on Respecting the President
- More Anti-Mormon News Bias | US Political Scene on The LDS Church Contributed $190,000 in “In-kind” Donations to Prop 8
Archives
- April 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007