Why I don't support McCain for President
I haven't settled on who to support among the GOP contenders yet. Unfortunately, for someone like myself who identifies as a conservative first, and a Republican a distant second, the current field is largely disappointing.
Giuliani, as I've noted in previous posts, probably won't stick with the race, as his negatives will weigh down his candidacy, and I don't think he'll want to stay in if he sees he won't win. Even if he does stay in, I don't see him winning, and I'd have trouble voting for him for President. If he wants to run for Mayor of my town, I'll vote for him in a heartbeat. President? Not so much.
Romney is the closest thing to a conservative in the currently announced field. Whether he's electable (the Mormon thing, which shouldn't matter, but which the media will harp on endlessly), and whether his rightward movements are genuine remain to be seen.
Thompson is very interesting, seems to be a real conservative, but hasn't announced. It's interesting that he's putting the word out that he had lymphoma (now in remission), and I agree with suggestions that this indicates he's serious about getting in. But he's not in...yet.
Gingrich, another not-in-yet, is very smart, and great if you want a wonk-in-chief. We had one of those in Bill Clinton (albeit from the other side of the aisle), and I don't think it was that great.
Which leaves us with McCain. McCain, like Giuliani, is an incredibly mixed bag. His current stand on the Iraq war is courageous and I think probably sincere, though it's hard to be sure because other times (more in a moment) that he's taken positions more based on politics than sincerity.
But McCain is terrible on immigration, was the force behind a draconian imposition on the first amendment that goes far beyond any supposed depredations of the PATRIOT act in its curtailing of our Constitutional rights, and was instrumental in preventing the use of the so-called "nuclear" option in the Senate to forestall unprecedented Democratic filibustering of Bush administration judicial nominees. That's a pretty terrible record in and of itself.
But of greater concern to me is his record of taking positions that seem more tailored to garner lionization from the mainstream media than to principle. As John Hood observes in NRO's The Corner:
Giuliani, as I've noted in previous posts, probably won't stick with the race, as his negatives will weigh down his candidacy, and I don't think he'll want to stay in if he sees he won't win. Even if he does stay in, I don't see him winning, and I'd have trouble voting for him for President. If he wants to run for Mayor of my town, I'll vote for him in a heartbeat. President? Not so much.
Romney is the closest thing to a conservative in the currently announced field. Whether he's electable (the Mormon thing, which shouldn't matter, but which the media will harp on endlessly), and whether his rightward movements are genuine remain to be seen.
Thompson is very interesting, seems to be a real conservative, but hasn't announced. It's interesting that he's putting the word out that he had lymphoma (now in remission), and I agree with suggestions that this indicates he's serious about getting in. But he's not in...yet.
Gingrich, another not-in-yet, is very smart, and great if you want a wonk-in-chief. We had one of those in Bill Clinton (albeit from the other side of the aisle), and I don't think it was that great.
Which leaves us with McCain. McCain, like Giuliani, is an incredibly mixed bag. His current stand on the Iraq war is courageous and I think probably sincere, though it's hard to be sure because other times (more in a moment) that he's taken positions more based on politics than sincerity.
But McCain is terrible on immigration, was the force behind a draconian imposition on the first amendment that goes far beyond any supposed depredations of the PATRIOT act in its curtailing of our Constitutional rights, and was instrumental in preventing the use of the so-called "nuclear" option in the Senate to forestall unprecedented Democratic filibustering of Bush administration judicial nominees. That's a pretty terrible record in and of itself.
But of greater concern to me is his record of taking positions that seem more tailored to garner lionization from the mainstream media than to principle. As John Hood observes in NRO's The Corner:
...I happen to believe that the national McCain boomlet in the late 1990s and his candidacy in 2000 were based on the reverse—cynical politics instead of political principle. The cynicism wasn't all, or even mostly, McCain's. He was used by the political establishment to advance their own interests and bash Republicans. But he allowed himself to be used.Unfortunately, McCain's past positions don't lend themselves to trusting him as a conservative standard bearer. So while I'm pleased to see his steadfast support of the war effort, and want to believe that it's sincere, it's not nearly enough to make up for years of slapping conservatives in the face.
This report about McCain's upcoming Michigan swing underlines an important point: he is courting GOP conservatives this year in part by necessity, as he will not be able to pull Democrats in open primaries as he did in 2000.