Why McCain Must Never Become President
Despite predictions to the contrary (including one by this author), John McCain is now almost certain to be the Republican nominee for president. Through a combination of a compressed, winner-take-all, primary system and sympathetic news media, the senator from Arizona has defied the odds. It wasn’t pretty to watch. McCain never got more than 37% of the vote in any early primary. In his breakout victory in South Carolina he got only 33% of the vote. He again only got 33% of the vote in Missouri, just 1% more than the next guy but, thanks to winner-take-all, he got 100% of the delegates. Alone among top contenders, only McCain failed to get a majority of votes in his home state (48%). Still, however unfair they may be, rules are rules and McCain can’t be blamed for taking advantage of them.
His supporters like the idea that McCain is a tough guy, but McCain is more than tough; he’s a bully. In New Hampshire, Romney put out ads citing McCain’s support for amnesty for illegal aliens. McCain indignantly condemned the ads as personal attacks. In the debates, Romney let McCain intimidate him. Thrown on the defensive, Romney let McCain tie him up in a silly argument about the meaning of the word “amnesty”, rather than stand behind the substance of the ads. Later McCain lied about Romney’s position on the Iraq war. Romney in 2006 had advocated that the US president discuss, privately, with the Iraqi leadership how much longer the US could keep fighting there if the Iraqis didn’t make any progress politically. McCain asserted that this was the same as the public timetables that the Democrats advocated. McCain assertion was a lie, but in debates he wouldn’t back down, repeating the word “timetable” over and over again. When questioned about illegal immigration or free speech McCain typically recited some vague platitude and then changed the subject. McCain supporters see no problem with his tactics, after all that’s just hardball politics.
Republican supporters haven’t lined up for McCain the way he wants. Such famous conservatives as Ann Coulter and James Dobson have already declared that they won’t vote for him. Pat Robertson will not support him and said: “[he’s a] capped live volcano,” adding: “You never know when he’s going to explode. … If you’ve got a guy who’s the commander in chief with his hand on the red button, I just don’t know, I wouldn’t like to be in WWIII, and I just have a feeling he wants to show how macho he is and we might just get ourselves in something we don’t want.” Liberal and big business commentators have cranked out dozens of pro-McCain pieces these past two days, and been deluged with thousands of comments in response. Most responses say the same thing, something to the effect of “even though I have always voted for the Republican in the past, this year I will not vote for John McCain.” McCain supporters responded angrily, labeling any failure of conservatives to support McCain as childish and irrational.
McCain supporters cite McCain’s rating from the American Conservative Union of 82% as proof that he’s a conservative. They don’t mention that 82% is a lifetime rating that ignores McCain’s hard turn to the left these past two years; in 2006 he only scored a 65% (The 2007 ratings aren’t in yet). They also don’t mention that McCain earned a rating of ‘D’ (and an ‘F’ on amnesties) from Numbers USA, an organization that fights illegal immigration. McCain hasn’t just reached across the aisle; he’s walked across the aisle and joined the other team. With all of these bills that McCain cosponsored with liberal Democrats, exactly what concessions did he extract from them? On illegal immigration, McCain says that he “gets it.” He says that he understands the need to secure the border first by building that “goddamned fence.” Then he intends to proceed with his “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. McCain continues to insist that his plan isn’t amnesty because applicants will have “to pay a fine, to learn English and to go to the back of the line.” McCain never explains that the fine may not cover even the cost of processing their application; he never explains what would happen to someone who didn’t learn English (Would there be a test? Would they be deported if they failed?), and he never explains what they’d be in line for. They certainly wouldn’t be line for permanent residency since that would be granted immediately. McCain also doesn’t mention that this fence he intends to build is already mandated by existing federal law. Bush made a big show of signing the fence law just before the 2006 elections, but as of now, only a few miles have been built. The only thing McCain “gets” is the need to try to trick conservatives into voting for him.
McCain knows that he can’t win without conservatives but he has little to offer them. Appeals to party unity won’t work as millions of conservatives quit the GOP years ago, perhaps when Bush lectured them on TV on the need for amnesty. He could offer the vice presidential nomination to a conservative, but the constitution grants the VP almost no power. Besides there is no guarantee that McCain would listen to his VP once he got elected. Other demands for assurances from McCain are laughable. McCain will agree to anything to get votes, but once elected he wouldn’t be bound by anything he’d said. Are we to judge the man by what he says now or by what he has done for the past several years?
McCain’s strongest arguments for conservative support are his potential to support conservative judges and his pursuit of the war on terror. McCain might appoint a more conservative judge than a Democrat would or he might not. McCain is most proud of his sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. Bush signed it into law reluctantly in exchange for McCain’s support of Bush’s presidential run. The law restricts what can be said during a presidential campaign. Critics have argued that it violates the first amendment but has so far been upheld by the Supreme Court. It is unlikely that McCain would endanger his favorite law by appointing a strict constructionist judge. On the war on terror, McCain has declared his intent to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years if necessary, and has already threatened war with Iran. McCain doesn’t explain where he will get the money for these wars. Anyone who is attracted to McCain’s militarism is probably already supporting him.
The Democratic party was lost long ago. Gone is the party of Harry Truman or Jack Kennedy. The Democratic party is a collection of special interests and ethnic advocacy groups. Gone are the days when they were an effective voice for the working man. They now advocate increases in the minimum wage while undercutting them by importing millions of foreign workers. In the year they’ve been running Congress, they’ve done little except criticize Bush.
The Democrats may be a disaster but the Republicans offer little improvement these days. After Tom Delay was forced out of the House, Republicans went wild, spending money like drunken sailors, running up the deficit, and pandering to special interest groups. Duke Cunningham wound up in jail. Larry Craig offered to resign and then didn’t. (At least Democratic sex scandals tend to be heterosexual.)
Barring some catastrophe, it is now all but certain that the next president will be a liberal, globalist, former senator. The Democrat would grant amnesty to illegal aliens, but so would John McCain. The Democrat would promote laws restricting Americans’ freedoms in the name of global warming, but so would John McCain. A Democrat isn’t going to pull American troops immediately out of Iraq and neither would John McCain. The Democrat wouldn’t save the economy from a recession, but neither would John McCain. Indeed, McCain recently admitted he knows little about economics.
On positions that matter most to conservatives, President McCain would offer little or no improvement over the Democrat. In addition, McCain’s election would make him head of the Republican party. The divisions evident now would be perpetuated. Congressional Republicans would be hard pressed to oppose McCain. Appeals to party loyalty and pressure from the White House would stifle opposition. By contrast, the GOP could gleefully unite against a Democratic president. In addition, neither of the Democratic hopefuls has been accused of having a violent, uncontrollable temper. The problem isn’t that McCain is imperfect, but that he offers very little contrast to the Democrat. Why vote for an imitation Democrat when you can have the real thing?
Americans in general, and conservatives in particular, would be better off if McCain loses the 2008 presidential election. Republicans could concentrate their time and money instead on congressional races. Free from appeals to party loyalty, the Republicans in the new congress could unite in opposition to liberal bills and plan for 2012. Otherwise conservatives who have left the party won’t return, perhaps forming a new party of their own.
For conservatives, and other Republican voters, to vote against John McCain is neither childish nor irrational. It’s just strategic planning and after all that’s just hardball politics. That’s something even a McCain supporter should understand.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
But I was told that I should either support McCain or I was a big baby poopy head! I have read numerous blog posts indicating that if I don't vote for McAmnesty I am simply doing what I am told, rather than using my own thoughts. Get that? Do what we tell you to do or you are doing what you were told to do. Are you suggesting that a principled voter might actually consider the candidates positions?! What next, ask Huckabee to explain economic conservatism?! It really doesn't matter for whom the Republicans vote. The vacuous "moderate" will vote for the least principled, probably Obama. Just remember, we did have to go through 1976 to get to 1980.
With McCain's clean sweep of the three Potomac primaries Huckabee is 100% eliminated and like it or not John McCain is the GOP nominee. Huckabee needs to immediately back off from his senseless fight against the Republican nominee so the GOP can begin the work of organizing for a huge battle with the Democrats. If Huckabee and Paul stay in they are harming the party and reducing the chance that conservatives will have a voice in the White House next year. McCain is not my ideal nominee either, but that's who conservatives have to work with this season. The Democrats are the 'enemy' now, not fellow Republicans. Let's get with the program… I suggest a McCain/Romney ticket to unite the GOP and defeat the Democrat contender. http://mittromney.townhall.com
Are you serious? A BULLY? To me that is a great endorsement. We need a bully to cut spending, to keep us safe, to restore trust in our government. I think you should take a time out. I would buy all the conservative mumbo jumbo if you had a true divine example. Mittens was/is full or crap. There is no way someone at 60 switches everything he believe in. We had the time to see them all up close in NH. You wish really hard that he is who you want him to be but he just is not. I think if you try hard you can somehow hate Billers/Obama more than you hate McCain. It's sad but that seems to be the "true" conservative paradigm. I happen to think the John McCain will be an exceptionally great president. In 20 years I can imagine candidates wanting to proclaim that they are a McCain Republican. In the mean time, take a time out, try to get over your hurt feelings, and join us when you are ready to be constructive. There is much work to do. The funniest is Rush proclaiming he was really trying to help McCain. What a buffoon.
Your "Strategic Planning" will get us three to five liberal supreme court justices, higher taxes and retreat abroad. The effects of a liberal president and a liberal congress will reverberate over a generation. These are not things a country recovers from overnight. I will vote for McCain, but I do not say it is time for you to shut up and get in line. I say it is time for a reasoned, civil debate. Ronald Reagan said something to the affect, "going off a cliff with flags flying is still going off a cliff."
foutsc says: ' I say it is time for a reasoned, civil debate. Ronald Reagan said something to the affect, "going off a cliff with flags flying is still going off a cliff." ' That's very true. On the other hand I've decided I prefer one swift slash to the jugular to death by a thousand cuts.
"and sympathetic news media…" This is the same media that pronounced his campaign dead in the water back in July?
I'm sorry, but this post is right out of fantasyland. I don't mind when conservatives fight McCain on positions that he actually takes. But this constant harping to the effect that he is "just like the democrats" is simply not true. If that's all you've got, then you've got nothing. As for letting the democrats ruin the country and then "taking it back" in four years, that's a worse fantasy yet. I will not voluntarily turn this nation's armed forces (in which my children have enlisted) to Clinton or Obama. I will not turn the Supreme Court and the rest of the legal system (in which I practice) over to them either. The prospect of 30 more years of Ros vs. Wade is enough, by itself, to refute every thing you say. Then there is McCain's strength on cutting spending and the size of government. You're just wrong about this.
Mr. Jones is right and has well reasoned opinions. I believe that the creation of a vocal and active conservative minority will draw more enthusiasm and votes to our side in the coming election cycles. McCain is symbolically like Custer leading us to a massacre at Little Bighorn. The Dems did not give up fighting us when Compassionate George won twice. Why don't we accept that conservatives struggle for our principals will not be carried by someone that has worked against so many elements of our cause? Vote for conservatives at every level of govt. and keep the RINOs at arms length.
I agree completely with Stuart on this article. The GOP needs to be thrown out so they can internally clean house. The 1994 GOP came in with ideas, drive, and new blood. Now they are just a pack of heel-clicking, power-hungry, fascistic goons, and McCain is a dangerous example of one. Once all the "lesser of two evils" voters push the button for McCain because he has an "R" after his name and he gets in, he will immediately revert to the militaristic, open-borders, big-spending, Constitution-shredding huge government advocate that he is. He will have no further use for the principled "Old Right" and right-libertarian conservatives he has exhibited such contempt for. The downside is that the Democrats would be in power, and they are awful. We truly are reaping what we've sown in terms of two-party control. I have little hope left for our political system…..
McCain is certainly a poster child for the overly popular "military Keynesianism" which is rapidly bankrupting this country. If he is elected (or Hillary, or Barack, for that matter), plan on more massive borrowing from China so we can spend it on military interventions not in our country's interest.
No one has made government grow faster than the G.W. Bush administration. Now the neocons have an even bigger "government builder" and "nation builder", in Mc Cain. Send the message in November.
Marshall's statement reminds me of the attitude McCain had about the McAmnesty bill–"Just pass the g*d d*mn thing and lets get on with it!", or words to that effect. Funny how they want you to be free thinkers until that free thinking is contrary to their agenda. Think free, America! Think free!
Any ticket with Romney on it will: (a) not unite the GOP and (b) lose many of the states the GOP must win in November. A flip-flopper like Romney isn't the answer to the "McCain problem." Huckabee and Paul only need to capture 405 of the remaining delegates to stop McCain's "coronation" and take the battle to the convention floor. The best way for true conservatives to stop McCain is to vote against him in the primaries and caucuses BEFORE the convention. Go Huckabee!
I think that not voting for McCain serves a larger, much grander and purposeful goal - to get back a Republican majority in both houses, who would not allow a liberal judge to EVER be approved. (e.g., the Dims shooting down Bork) Think about it - what happened in order that the conservatives got some backbone PLUS ideas PLUS a game-plan? It was a mediocre (that's being nice) Democrat prez - Clinton. It looks fairly certain that we won't pull off any kind of taking back either of the houses. And if McCain gets in there, I bet the Dims will even get a bigger majority in 2010. But with either Obambi or Shrillary in their, we'll definitely have lots of energy and conviction to pulverize the Dims, thus taking back both houses in 2010 (just as we did in 1994). *THIS* is the right strategy that we must look at. Thus, a vote against McCain is NOT an immature idea - it's actually smart conservative strategy (especially if it's combined with voting a straight conservative ticket *except* for McAmnesty).
Rocky- A similar statement by McCain was made by him to a group of Milwaukee businessmen one year ago, and it was, in reaction to questions about border security: "I'll build the g.d. fence if you want it." Nice attitude. Don't you think?
What a joke! WIll some one please show me a real conservative. Let's look at the GOP over the last decade or so. 1. Bigger government 2. War of Choice 3. Bigger Department of Educaion (so much for those state's rights that we claim to love) 4. Government intrusion into personal matters (Shaivo) 5. Political curruption (K street) 6. Sex scandels 7. Out of control spending (not even including Iraq) 8. Out of control debt (our answer to "tax and spend" has been "borrow and spend") For all the "conservatives" out there, where has your outrage been? Rush, Laura, and the gang are not about being conservative, they are about getting ratings. They claim that they hate the MSM, but they are the MSM. Also, anyone who still thinks that Iraq is such a great idea, you should have to answer the following questions. 1. How long do we stay? 2. How much money do we spend? 3. How many American lives should we give up? 4. Are you willing to go or send your kids? The word "conservative" has lost its meaning.
You don't win wars by retreating and conceding ground. You win by advancing, sometimes in inches. McCain would advance conservatism much more than Obama or Hillary. While we're all wishing for a "Real Conservative," our realistic choices here in the real world are unfortunately narrowly constrained. Kerner Wrote: As for letting the democrats ruin the country and then "taking it back" in four years, that's a worse fantasy yet. I will not voluntarily turn this nation's armed forces (in which my children have enlisted) to Clinton or Obama. I will not turn the Supreme Court and the rest of the legal system (in which I practice) over to them either. I agree with Kerner. Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. McCain ain't the perfect choice, but electing him allows us to fight on for conservative causes. With the Dems in charge of everything, we are really shut out. Hannity, Rush and Coulter are rich enough to shield themselves from a Dem dominated US, I am not.
I agree with you if Hillary Clinton is the opponent - the Republicans will be stronger in 2010 under Hillary then they will be if McCain wins in 2008. But with "Obama the Messiah" - the media will drown themselves in an orgy of self-congratulation of tolerance and diversity. The BS will be so thick that it will be extremely difficult to get a motivated opposition on par with 1994. Put simply, 2008 Obama is smooth and charming to 1992 Bill Clinton's slick and disingenuous. I would hold my nose and vote for McCain over Obama, unless Huck is on the ticket, in which case I will write-in Fred Thompson. Huckabee is a populist-statist, and the antithesis to conservatism.
I'm one of those awful liberal Democrats you guys hate so much and I could live with McCain in the White House. You're right. He might be willing to return to politics as the art of the possible. he might listen to reason from somebody outside his own party. He might appoint centrist Supreme Court justices with no ax to grind left or right. Perish the though. He might be an actual conservative who wants to conserve this nation and not tear it apart with class warfare. Don't vote for him. He might get all red in the face and yell at someone.
You guys are nuts and full of yourself if you think withholding your vote will get you something in 2010. The best case is for you to cry and put up a fit and withhold your vote and for McCain to still win. That would be the best case scenario for everyone. The right would be muted because they tried and failed and yet McCain would still be president. Now that is something I can pray for tonight.
I suggest that you conservatives who think the "I will not vote for McCain" stance childish should read Jonathan Chait's Feb.10 article in The New Republic, "Maverick vs. Iceman".
Like it or not, and I don't, we really only have three choices this fall. John McCain, Hillary / Obama, or sit at home and hope for the best. If we choose the latter and sit the election out, we also should not be bitching about the results this time next year. The absolute best we can do for 2008 is pick the lesser of two evils. Instead of focusing on the poor choices we have now we should be instead focusing on building up the Conservative base of the party and looking for the candidates and political leadership we need and that America Needs. I apologize for any harsh language or ruffled feathers, but I am a Sailor… not a Politician.
The Republican base knows exactly what has happened to our party, and the struggle over control has been going on for years. Conservative Reagan Republicans are in a death match against compassionate Conservatives (Blue Bloods) over whether the party ought to fashion their principles around conservatism or around what will win us votes from moderates and independents. Let's go through your gripes. 1. Bigger government - it's a national trend that Republicans in power sought to feed rather than confront. The stinging defeat of Newt Gingrich's attempt to face down Clinton on this issue proved to many Republicans that Americans want to be cared for by their government, regardless of the support for lower taxes. Conservatives have yet to come up with an eloquent and persuasive way to convince Americans that what they get from their government is not free. The current apostasy by the party on this issue has resulted in a revolt among the Republican base and losses in 2006. That looks like an invitation to the correction conservatives have been looking for. 2. War of Choice - it was a tough choice, and Republicans are glad we made it. Someone has to start confronting extremist Islam. 3. Bigger Education Department? Ah yes, Reagan's Bane. Compassionate conservatives think working with Kennedy to enlarge the ED means more votes. I disagree. Conservatives need to continue making the case. 4. Government Intrusion into personal matters - this point here is particularly thoughtless. Terri Schiavo's case was a tragic one, where not having a will left the power of life of death with a husband that had beaten her when she was alive. Her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her, but he chose to starve her to death because he needed her life insurance money to pay the medical bills. Conservatives believe the government ought to protect innocent life, not assist in killing it. 5. Political corruption - WTF? No party, philosophy or person is immune from the dark streaks in human nature. Being a conservative means insisting on a higher standard from ourselves and those around us - no conservative defends corruption. 6. Sex scandals - again, what's the fucking point? Sex scandals have brought down presidents and convicts alike - at least Republicans actually punish their own, there are plenty of Democrats who are still bigwigs in the party with no shame after enduring sex scandals. 7. Spending - read #1. 8. The debt as a percentage of GDP is low, but still not low enough, I agree. Government is inherently inefficient and remains so. Conservative talk radio is MSM? - how you can say that Rush, Laura and the gang are not battling conservative is beyond me. They take a beating for hewing to the conservative line, and have bucked their party time and again because they ask for the same consistency you ostensibly claim is missing. You need to stop listening to Air America. Iraq: 1. We stay as long as it takes to get Iraq on its feet, defending itself, and not a day longer. Sensible Republicans recognize the complexity of rebuilding Iraq and have pondered your question long than you have. 2. Money and blood is an investment we're willing to make to realize a vision Ronald Reagan spoke of - that a democracy in the Middle East will bring freedom and peace. I happen to be more pessimistic about that, but that's what this administration is aiming for. 3. Every American life is precious, and when I wonder aloud why our soldiers are dying to assure the freedom of Iraqis who will not fight for it themselves, I am angry as well. Our patience is not limitless, but we will fight to win, never giving thought of surrender because Irhabbists have succeeded in killing another brave American. 4. This last query is the worst kind of demagoguery. Your challenges before this one led me to believe that you were a jaundiced Republican gone wild, but I see now that you've been reduced to leftist platitudes that are both meaningless and vile. It deserves no answer, only deep disgust. The philosophy of conservatism is a thinking person's philosophy, borne of a respect for human dignity and a constrained vision of human nature. We are constantly battling against statism and the pimps of government largess that promise hope but deliver only dependency. But it's an uphill battle we fight because once Americans learned that they could vote themselves anything, we are in the position of trying to convince them that they don't really want it. It's a tough sell, and often we find ourselves spending a lot of energy just keeping our own from succumbing to the seductions of the state. But a true conservative understands the dangers of changing the relationship between the individual and her government. If that doesn't give some meaning to Conservatism, then nothing will.
McCain bothers me on so many fronts, not the least of which is his obvious problem with anger management. If world opinion thinks we're led by a president with a "cowboy attitude" now, I'd hate to think how McCain would be described. Bush has been accused of following a course of action, even when it appears to be foolhardy. I anticipate McCain would be just as single-minded in his pursuit of what he wants, to the detriment of the interests of the country, to satisfy his own ego. His casualness in stating that our troops would stay in Iraq for 100 years, if necessary, unnerves me. We have been involved in this war for nearly 5 years. While I understand that change does not happen overnight, I don't see the Iraqis shouldering a whole lot of responsibility in ensuring the stability and safety of their own country. At some point in the very near future we need to leave and let the Iraqis stand or fail. On their own. Mr. Jones does make a very valid point. Essentially, there is absolultely no difference between McCain or the Democrats, Hillary or Barack, in their positions. Given that, and McCain's anger mismanagement, I'd sooner see a true Democrat in the White House than the RINO that McCain is. I really don't think Hillary or Barack could do any more damage to this country than McCain would. And who knows? If either of them actually does leave the country better than they found it, wouldn't that benefit all of us?
Thank you Persephnoe. This article proves my case. The author set out to find McCain's core beliefs only to find he didn't have any. As far as policy goes: "It is no exaggeration to say that, during this crucial period [2001-2003], McCain was the most effective advocate of the Democratic agenda in Washington." http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4a65fb2...
Thank you Persephnoe. This article proves my case. The author set out to find McCain's core beliefs only to find he didn't have any. As far as policy goes: "It is no exaggeration to say that, during this crucial period [2001-2003], McCain was the most effective advocate of the Democratic agenda in Washington." http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4a65fb2...
Thank you Persephnoe. This article proves my case. The author set out to find McCain's core beliefs only to find he didn't have any. As far as policy goes: "It is no exaggeration to say that, during this crucial period [2001-2003], McCain was the most effective advocate of the Democratic agenda in Washington." http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4a65fb2...
Thank you Persephone. This article proves my case. The author set out to find McCain's core beliefs only to find he didn't have any. As far as policy goes: "It is no exaggeration to say that, during this crucial period [2001-2003], McCain was the most effective advocate of the Democratic agenda in Washington." http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4a65fb2...
McCain's troubles last Summer were a news story that was impossible to ignore. In terms of endorsements, McCain was endorsed by more newspapers than all other hopefuls combined. How much more sympathetic could any news medium be? http://www.johnmccain.com/supporters/newspapers.h...
As a Coolidge/Goldwater/Taft conservative, I am really unsure why we should be even remotely excited about the prospects of a McCain presidency. Voting for McCain just because he is the nominee is just silly party politics– the better course of action is to send the message to the top brass at the GOP that We, the People are disgusted with the direction of the party. Rather than standing with the people, McCain stood with Ted Kennedy and Bush to promote amnesty. Rather than supporting the First Amendment, McCain stood with Feingold to pass a restrictive finance reform policy. Rather than standing up for taxpayers, McCain stood with senate liberals and opposed the 2001 tax cuts. Now, he stands opposite of 80% of the country that knows we must not spend more lives and treasure in the Middle East. Instead of standing for the 2nd Amendment, he has stood in line with the Brady campaign for mandatory gun locks, filing lawsuits against gun manufacturers, etc. While the nation wants peace, McCain is itching for "more wars" (in his own words) and perhaps "a million years" in Iraq (again, his own words in an interview with Mother Jones magazine). He supported Bush's expansion of the Department of Education. He supported the creation of the wasteful Department of Homeland Security. He has sided with big government, higher taxes, illegal aliens, the gun ban lobby, the war hawks, and the squashers of free speech rather than standing up for conservative ideals. Come on! If anything, conservatives should revolt and write in the name of a true conservative candidate: Bob Taft, Herbert Hoover, Cal Coolidge, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Walter Jones, Patrick Buchanan, etc. Obama and Hillary are not good choices on public policy. However, isn't it reasonable to suggest that they at least stand up for their principles while John McCain stands for one man: John McCain? Can America afford another four to eight years of this personal arrogance?