Classical Values :: John McCain, consider yourself endorsed here!

February 07, 2008

John McCain, consider yourself endorsed here!

By withdrawing from the race, Mitt Romney has saved me the trouble of formally announcing my support of John McCain. That's because I've already stated that I would support him if he gets the nomination, which is now a de facto done deal.

Even though he doesn't like him, Bob Owens endorsed McCain earlier, for some very good reasons:

Love him or hate him, McCain has something both Democratic candidates lack: meaningful experience. Obama has served less than one full term as a U.S. Senator, following just two full and one half-completed term as a state Senator. Clinton has completed one term in the U.S. Senate, and only a third of her second term. She has no prior national experience as an elected politician... unless you think being an acquiescent First Lady to the Philanderer-in-Chief counts. Frankly, that she lacks the self-respect to ditch a serial sex abuser such as William Jefferson Clinton says all about her character (or lack of it) that I need to know.

By comparison, McCain served two terms in the House of Representatives, and has been a U.S. Senator since 1986, and while I've often disagreed with his positions, he cannot be accused of being a weathervane politician.

So while I do not like John McCain, he is what we have left among the candidates that will attempt to work with both parties, who hasn't adopted a fringe ideology (or tried to hide it), and who has meaningful experience on the federal level, who did not take his seat in the Senate merely as a stepping stone to higher office. As purely a pragmatic calculation, he's the only candidate still running in either party that won't screw this country up too bad during his term.

During some elections, that may have to be enough.

This is hardly a ringing endorsement. It isn't supposed to be.

McCain for President. Or we're really screwed.

(Via Glenn Reynolds, who thinks that last line is a great bumpersticker.)

This is hardly going to be what anyone would call a "ringing" endorsement either, although it is my attempt at a sincere one. (In light of what I've said, it's also a little superfluous, but I think I owe it to the people who read the blog. Besides, allowing that you'll be voting for someone really isn't quite the same as an endorsement.)

Basically, I agree with everything Bob Owens says, except I don't share his dislike for McCain. I never have.

As I've explained in repeated posts, I like John McCain. What I don't like are some of his past political sins, and McCain-Feingold tops the list. But as a man, I think he's a great person, a real war hero, and someone I greatly admire. In fact, I think he's inspirational, in the truest sense of the word. That counts a lot more than positions on issues.

I realize that many people don't like him personally, and they also don't like him politically. My differences with McCain are political, not personal, but for me the choice between him and Hillary is such a no-brainer that I cannot believe than anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrat (who also enjoys a return of White House corruption via an end-run around the 22nd Amendment) could possibly consider voting for Hillary.

I have leftist friends who will be voting for her, and that I understand, even if I disagree with them.

But to Hillary supporters like Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and that loony tune who spouted a vile conspiracy theory at WorldNetDaily, I say, the hell with you all. You're either crazy or running some kind of dishonest scam, and I don't respect you or your poisonous rhetoric.

McCain represents a fighting chance to fix what's wrong -- at home and abroad, in the moribund GOP and in the political system as a whole. Contrary to what some might think, I believe he may be able to actually improve the poisoned dialogue in this country, because as he has shown all his life, he doesn't run from a challenge. He showed that today at CPAC, where he stood and faced the boos from his own ranks, and handled it with grace, dignity, and good-natured humor.

He can take whatever the Democrats dish out, and then some. Furthermore, he can return whatever they dish out blow for blow, as the man is a born fighter.

No wonder they're literally (as the saying goes, and as Glenn Reynolds pointed out) running scared. And if you don't believe Reynolds or Krumm, remember Democratic analyst Dick Polman's recent warning about the "nightmare scenario for Democrats":

...here's the nightmare scenario for Democrats: Hillary and McCain square off. McCain wins the independents, many of whom are sick to death of the Clintons. McCain cancels out Hillary's "experience" argument, because he has more. McCain trumps her "toughness" argument, because he has the more hawkish pedigree and spent five years in a POW cell. McCain trumps her on "authenticity," for reasons already mentioned. McCain even pulls away Hispanic voters in key states, thanks to his early championing of a path to citizenship. And he's buoyed by a united conservative base, because nobody galvanizes the base better than Hillary.

I think it would be foolish for any Republican not to get behind him.

And while I haven't forgotten any of my political disagreements, I'm very proud to endorse him. I think John McCain has the makings of being not only a good president, but possibly of something better -- what we used to call a statesman. His critics (right and left) may be in for quite a surprise.

posted by Eric on 02.07.08 at 05:29 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6186

Comments

Buchanan's opposition to McCain makes me more likely to vote for McCain rather than keep up my (since 1972)unbroken Libertarian presidential voting record. I
will only vote "the lesser of two evils" if it is a close election both nationally and in my state; this is the first time I've thought that could be the case so early in the cycle. I'm an "old-timer" re the LP but more Cato oriented and neolibertarian, so I haven't been campaigning for LP presidential candidates since 1980 - the Rothbard faction seized power in 1983, IMO.

Actually, I think the US has been remarkably "lucky": the only time since 1972 the "lesser evil" did not win, IMO and not (only) in hindsight, was in 1976. It is pretty clear to me which is which this time around, at this point. But if McCain picks Huckabee as his running mate, I most likely will not support him; that would be just too much.

Thanks for your coverage so far: you (and often your commenters) have really helped me think it through this year while keeping a perspective that allows one to be offended without panic, to understand what is really most important at stake.

Aristomedes · February 7, 2008 06:16 PM

Get behind McCain?

I don't have to. I voted for him 9 or 13 times Tuesday.

Hey, it's Illinois.

My mate voted for him too. Lots of times.

M. Simon · February 7, 2008 08:49 PM

I'm a Republican, but I'll be voting for Hillary or Obama this November.

We need a little time in the wilderness...

alphie · February 8, 2008 01:36 AM

What is striking about McCain is his passion. His military background including his family's has made him a fiercely honorable man for the defense of his country. You may disagree with him on some domestic issues, but there is nobody in the country better suited to protect this country and deal with the terrorists.

Hillary as President would be frightening to me because of the lack of respect or fear the radical Islamists would have of her. First of all they don't respect women at all and would perceive America as weak and her talk of running out of Iraq in 60 days is unrealistic and she knows it but that won't help her win the primary. After the primary she will find a reason to tell the country why we have to stay past the 60 days (it will involve something about conditions changing).

Conservatives need to consider the more conservative choice as I have had to always consider the more center conservative candidate. I have had to hold my nose the last 5 elections. Now the conservatives can deal with that feeling. At least McCain can say he wasn't a part of the spend-a-holic Congress that lost both houses to the Democrats.

It is a tribute to McCain that anyone even gives the GOP a chance of winning the election after the mess Bush and the GOP legislature have left.

Robert · February 8, 2008 03:01 AM

Eric: Saying that you don't agree with McCain on the major issues that are important to you, and that you intend to vote for him because he is "inspirational" sounds like a good example of "damning with faint praise."

chocolatier · February 8, 2008 10:01 AM

Am I the only one that believes that McCain will revert to form after he's in power, and spend 4 years sticking his thumb in our collective eyes? McCain is not conservative. He takes great delight in snubbing conservatives. He has sided not just with Democrats, but with the most liberal democrats, to so real damage to the nation.

The only hope conservatism has at this point is to let whatever Democrat comes along take the presidency, while we work to take back the Senate. So long as we control one of the three levers of power (House, Senate, President), we can have gridlock. But with the Democrats controlling the entire Congress, any of the remaining candidates is guaranteed a free pass for any liberalism they wish to enact.

brian · February 8, 2008 11:48 AM

Huckabee is my man. His conservative, common sense approach to governing with strong moral values attracts me. Please don't mention him on your site or your blog, because every time you ignore or downplay him, he wins more states. He has had no money, no media attention or marginalization by major media as the preacher or "regional" candidate. He's been put in a CNN debate at the far end of the table on the other side of Ron Paul and laughed at for his Fair Tax ideas by Tim Russert on air. But, he blew out Romney on Super Tues. with five state wins and two narrow losses. The media has made McCain the Republican choice, but Huckabee has shown strength despite the media's efforts. I like Huckabee's resolve, sensible approach to governing, moral bent and tax ideas. If you are for the current IRS, which is a colossal joke, and all the energy and resources it takes to adhere to thousands of pages of arcane, loophole-filled tax code, PLEASE VOTE FOR CLINTON OR MCCAIN. THEY WILL KEEP THE STATUS QUO for the corporations. They will keep the tax lawyers and lobbyists fully employed to subvert the average citizen's interest.

Randy Spector · February 8, 2008 12:15 PM

Randy, said like a true dittohead or Romney supporter. Which Romney did you support, the real moderate or the two year old conservative, or the Michigan populist liberal? His ego got the best of him when he ran away from South Carolina to avoid a defeat. He could possibly have stopped McCain there with a modest showing, but he wanted those big 6 Nevada delegates (I think that's how many more delegates he won than McCain. In Massachusetts last time I looked, He only took 4 more delegates than McCain.

In other words he lost the old fashioned way. Now he makes it look like he is a statesman when he had no chance at all of winning the nomination. Romney number 15 actually seemed compelling.... for a moment. Now he's gone.

The sore loser mentality of Romney is really pathetic coming from someone of his wealth and fame. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? I feel sorry for the dog he tied to the roof of his car going to Canada. Other than that, the family looks like a happy family and I wish him the best.

With at least four years to go, maybe he'll morph into a woman. Keep your eyes on the polls and be assured Romney will be only a step or two behind them.

Robert · February 9, 2008 05:18 AM

One of my co-workers is very much a Hillary supporter - to the point where he literally will not listen to any disagreement with any of her proposals. He keeps saying if we want 'Change' we should vote for Hillary.

I keep telling him that 'Change' is going to cost him a hell of a lot more than he's expecting. But he figures the 'rich' will be paying for all the goodies she's promising - and doesn't believe me when I tell him the Democrats consider above $90k/year to be 'rich'.

His big talking point? Universal health care. He can't persuade me that it's an economically feasible thing to let the government handle health care - I've watched things for too many years to be taken in by THAT arguement.

Well, if Hillary gets in, he'll get his 'change' all right. He won't have any dollars to go with it - but he'll have 'change'.

JLawson · February 9, 2008 11:44 AM