McCain has a more consistent conservative record than Giuliani or Romney.
What startled me about reading that in a recent column by Jeff Jacoby was that source was given as the National Review.
The National Review is considered so pro-Romney that Jonah Goldberg's quasi-defense of McCain was seen as borderline treason, so naturally I wondered whether Jacoby had his quote right.
Sure enough, he did. The National Review piece is here, and this is the full quote in context:
For Republicans, McCain's crusade for his campaign-finance legislation still casts a shadow over his candidacy. The law was foolish and in large part unconstitutional, but -- like many of McCain's apostasies from conservative orthodoxy, most dating to the period immediately after the 2000 election -- it is also not such a live issue anymore (outside of the courts). He voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001, but now says he favors extending them. His biggest current disagreement with conservatives is on immigration, where he has been a leading champion of an amnesty and guest-worker program. He would do himself -- and the nation's debate on the issue -- much good if he instead endorsed serious efforts to enforce the immigration laws.
Even with all the blemishes, McCain has a more consistent conservative record than Giuliani or Romney. He hasn't had to reverse himself recently on abortion or the Second Amendment (although he once agitated for more gun control at the margins). This is an abiding strength of his candidacy.
Bear in mind that the above was written in April. Right now, they may want to eat their past words.
As I've said, I'll vote for Romney if he's the nominee, although I still have a couple of months to make up my mind over who gets my vote in the primary. Here in Pennsylvania -- the sixth most populous state with the sixth largest GDP -- we get to vote on April 22, which has caused Pennsylvania to be labeled "utterly irrelevant."
I'm so used to being irrelevant as a libertarian, though, that I can certainly handle being irrelevant as a primary voter.
Hey, maybe there's still time to switch parties and vote for Obama! By then the Dems might be locked in a cliffhanger race, and I could make my anti-Hillary vote really count! That way, I could be denounced by my fellow Democrats as not living up to the "principles" of the Democratic Party.
Hmm... I like this idea of failing to live up to other people's principles. This might be a way to do it twice -- and help stop Hillary in the process.
I'll say this about Romney. Even though I can't vote for him anytime soon, he is sounding better and better, and maybe by April he'll win me over. Earlier I listened to the Glenn and Helen podcast interview with him, and while I know he's not keen on legalizing drugs, on economic issues, he was sounding a very libertarianish theme. Seriously, it's a good interview.
I'd really have no problem voting for him (I especially like the fact that he tends to break up the definitional hegemony over the word "Christian"), but unless these poll results change -- and they'd have to change dramatically -- I don't think he has a prayer against Hillary or Obama.
And as I explained previously, if Romney loses in 2008, he'll be relegated to RINOdom again.
MORE: Reading "Why Republicans Like Obama," I felt like kicking myself for letting RepublicansforObama.com lapse.
posted by Eric on 02.03.08 at 11:49 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6165
Comments
With McCain we compromise our platform on taxation, family values, and free speech. With Huckabee we compromise our values on spending, taxation, and crime. Mitt Romney is the only candidate that prevented the impeding republican schism of the three factions. This fact is plain to insiders such a Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter who have directly or indirectly endorsed Mitt.
If Mitt is the clear candidate, then we must wonder why he has done so poorly. Some say creditability. However, if creditability was an issue then, then why is it not an issue for McCain who has changed his mind on numerous social and economic issues, a man that has reportedly considered switching parties or running as VP with John Kerry? The reason Mitt’s “flip-flopper” status sticks, is the subject of a famous poll from Vanderbilt. This survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Mitt. Another widely published gallop poll showed that 27% of republicans would not vote for a qualified Mormon candidate based on his religion, this was a number much greater then for women or African Americans. This makes Mormons the most discriminated minority in America.
Some Mormons claim that we can not hold Huckabee or McCain accountable for the prejudices of America. In response, I point out that Huck’s official blog, whose comments are edited by campaign staff, allows remarks such as: if we elect Mitt “we might as well elect a witch...” Huck continues to refer to himself as a “Christian leader” (implying that Mitt is not) and refusing to classify Mormons as Christians. Huck, a knowledgeable Bapitist Minister, but plays ignorant about his anti-Mormon remarks concerning Christ’s brother. Not to mention Huck’s supporters participating in push-polling, anti-Mormon Christmas cards, and spam emails. Even now when Huck has no chance of winning, he continues to campaign in order to whittle away Mitt’s social conservatives. Every time Huckabee is asked about the frontrunner McCain he twists the question into an attack on Mitt. Ultimately, the Baptist Minister would rather have a social liberal in the White House rather then a Mormon. In the case of McCain, as already pointed out above, he is not a conservative. Ann Coulter has recently taken it a step further and claims that she will vote of Hilary, because on some issues she is more conservative then McCain.
dave · February 3, 2008 03:58 PM
I am not clear on your stance with Romney. Are you another right wing that has to elect a member from the "religious right". You appear to be cutting down the candiadated not only with their political track record but with their values too.
I am very far away from most ideas that the left has to spit out. It is all so Hypocritical to me. That's why I choose to blog at www.hypocrisy.com. Though the site represents hypocrisy from all sides it seems like it has an easier time focusing on the lefts views.
I hope that you aen't serious about even waistng a negative vote on HIllary and you continue to support the right.
Who cares if someone is Morman, Jewish, Catholic, white black or a woman or????
We don't need religion to support strong family values, strong leadership, strong morals, strong education, strang money management..... Let's look at what cadidates really have to offer and get past religion as an issue.
Why overlook the obvious? No matter what McCain says or does, the religeous right will remember he's not really one of them. Same for the economic right - the Laffer curve was once a daring idea, but now it is received orthodoxy that any tax cut must be good, and if some object to it because it benefits the rich dispropotionately (like cutting inheritance taxes) that proves it's also a good tax cut which resists class warfare.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
With McCain we compromise our platform on taxation, family values, and free speech. With Huckabee we compromise our values on spending, taxation, and crime. Mitt Romney is the only candidate that prevented the impeding republican schism of the three factions. This fact is plain to insiders such a Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter who have directly or indirectly endorsed Mitt.
If Mitt is the clear candidate, then we must wonder why he has done so poorly. Some say creditability. However, if creditability was an issue then, then why is it not an issue for McCain who has changed his mind on numerous social and economic issues, a man that has reportedly considered switching parties or running as VP with John Kerry? The reason Mitt’s “flip-flopper” status sticks, is the subject of a famous poll from Vanderbilt. This survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Mitt. Another widely published gallop poll showed that 27% of republicans would not vote for a qualified Mormon candidate based on his religion, this was a number much greater then for women or African Americans. This makes Mormons the most discriminated minority in America.
Some Mormons claim that we can not hold Huckabee or McCain accountable for the prejudices of America. In response, I point out that Huck’s official blog, whose comments are edited by campaign staff, allows remarks such as: if we elect Mitt “we might as well elect a witch...” Huck continues to refer to himself as a “Christian leader” (implying that Mitt is not) and refusing to classify Mormons as Christians. Huck, a knowledgeable Bapitist Minister, but plays ignorant about his anti-Mormon remarks concerning Christ’s brother. Not to mention Huck’s supporters participating in push-polling, anti-Mormon Christmas cards, and spam emails. Even now when Huck has no chance of winning, he continues to campaign in order to whittle away Mitt’s social conservatives. Every time Huckabee is asked about the frontrunner McCain he twists the question into an attack on Mitt. Ultimately, the Baptist Minister would rather have a social liberal in the White House rather then a Mormon. In the case of McCain, as already pointed out above, he is not a conservative. Ann Coulter has recently taken it a step further and claims that she will vote of Hilary, because on some issues she is more conservative then McCain.