Will Republicans Vote for McCain?
ByHugh McInnish
 |
McInnish |
But if the election were held tomorrow I’m not sure that I would vote for him.
I have been a dedicated Republican since I was old enough to know what one was, but I have been a Republican because it was the party that was dedicated to the conservative principles that I believe in. I have never looked at party loyalty, for example, in the way sports fans look at loyalty to their alma mater’s football team. Yes, I am loyal to the Crimson Tide, just as many of my friends are loyal to Auburn, but then there are really no important principles at stake. It’s just “my team,” and in the case of my Auburn friends it’s just “their team.” That’s all.
There are no ideological commitments, because football teams have no ideologies, and no one can become committed to non-existent things. But in the case of my political party, ideology is not just important, but as far as I am concerned, it’s the party’s raison d'être.
To put it another way, I do not love the Republican Party. I no more love it than I do my car. In the case of each I think of it as a vehicle to get me where I want to go. If my car conks out and leaves me stranded on the side of the road in the dark, then what am I to do? Thumb a ride home? Walk home? Sit down and cry?
Actually I have a card in my billfold that I can use to call road service. That’s in case of trouble with my car. But what if my political party ceases to perform? What if it is no longer able to carry me reliably in the direction in which I want to go? What if, in fact, it carries me in the opposite direction from that in which I want to go? And with McCain steering the Party that could be the case. What, then, is my solution?
I don’t see one.
Earlier I have catalogued conservatives’ complaints against McCain. They have touched on most of the most important issues, including: amnesty, campaign spending, special rights for gays, tax cuts, and drilling for oil.
Former Republican Senator Ric Santorum of Pennsylvania echoes these complaints, and says that McCain “invariably adopts the rhetoric of the left.” And he adds:
Many of us want a leader who believes in his core that this race is a fight for the soul of America, her Judeo-Christian tradition, her sovereignty, her courage to defeat not appease or surrender to her enemies, her belief in capitalism and limited government, and her commitment to equality of opportunity, not result. We want a leader who's not interested in moving the country in the same direction as Clinton and Obama, only slower.In my discussions with Republicans I find widespread and intense discontent with John McCain. And it may be of such an intensity as to move some voters to stay home, write in some candidate, or, in the extreme, vote for the Democratic nominee. But there is an extreme extreme to this story. Ann Coulter says that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and McCain the Republican nominee, she will campaign for Hillary.
Voting for the Democratic nominee is an idea I have heard more than once. Those inclined this way advance two arguments:
First, it would be better to have a liberal Democrat in the White House than a liberal Republican. If he or she were a Democrat, then we could declare unlimited political warfare and work to counter the liberal proposals. On the other hand, if the president were a Republican making liberal proposals, the so-called 11th Amendment would kick in, and the admonition to “speak no evil of another Republican” would be the order of the day. In other words, conservatives would be gagged and could only grin and bear it.
Second, those who recommend this strategy are convinced that the Party is dead and that maybe a Democratic victory would bury it. Then maybe, just maybe, it could, like a phoenix, reconstitute itself from its own ashes. This is like the infantryman who is caught in a desperate situation and calls in artillery fire almost on his own position. His hope is that it will kill many of the enemy and few or none of his men.
Are these our only two choices? Vote for a man who “invariably adopts the rhetoric of the left,” or call in artillery fire on our own heads?
McCain, now that he is running, is trying to switch his rhetoric from liberal to conservative. But to what do we give the most credence, those things that for the last few days he has been saying, things that he knows we want to hear? Or to what he has done over the last number of years? He says that he has “gotten the message,” but his last-minute pleadings to conservatives ring hollow.
Is there a way he could convince us? It would take something radical, but it might be possible. The possibility, the only one that comes to my mind, is if he would select a suitable venue and immediately deliver the following speech.
McCain Speech
As I have said earlier, I have gotten a message from the American people. In a loud and clear transmission you have told me in the clearest of terms that you want the serious problem of illegal immigration attended to.As a result I have taken a fresh look at this problem. I have thought about it long and hard. I have talked to advisers who are knowledgeable and trusted. And I have concluded that the American people, as they invariably are, are right.
The scales have fallen from my eyes, and here are some of the things I see:
1. The first problem is we don’t know the seize of the problem. The federal government has so completely failed in its duty to protect our borders that today no one knows how many invaders are living illegally among us. The number, according to the lowest estimates, is well into the millions.
2. These millions are imposing an enormous social cost on all who are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. They pay no taxes, yet we furnish them with free medical care and welfare benefits.
3. Because they don’t pay taxes, and come from impoverished countries, they are willing to work for sub-standard wages. This displaces honest Americans who are willing workers and only ask for fair treatment.
4. This influx has had a serious negative impact on our education system. It has produced a lot of overcrowding, and has created the need for expensive bilingual education.
If allowed to go unchecked, a foreign influx of non-English speakers of this magnitude will eventually split our country along language lines, just as in Canada, and in all countries that lack a common language.
In fact the split will involve not just language, but the whole culture. Indeed there are organizers in the Southwest who claim that their goal is to detach a large portion of the country from the United States and cede it to Mexico.
Strong language is not needed to drive home the seriousness of this situation. The simple, stark facts carry the message unfailingly.
Life is not a tape that can be rewound and re-recorded, but if I could I would change some of my earlier votes in the Senate. Since I cannot do that, I have sought for a way to allay the concerns of those who are focused on the illegal immigration problem.
And I believe that I have found exactly the right thing to do.
One of my most esteemed colleagues in the Senate is Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sen. Sessions is the Senate’s foremost advocate for real immigration reform. His dedication to this cause is longstanding and unquestioned, and he has taken the measure of this problem before most of the rest of us have.
On Senator Sessions’ website he has posted “A Roadmap for Demonstrating Presidential Credibility on One of America’s Most Important Issues.” This is a five-point plan for securing the border, ending the magnet at the workplace, empowering state and local law enforcement, discouraging sanctuaries, and for improving the legal immigration process. It is indeed an excellent roadmap for a presidential candidate to demonstrate his credibility on the immigration issue, and Sen. Sessions invites candidates to sign it as a pledge to implement its provisions.
I have today made my pledge and signed this document.
This will perhaps surprise some, but the big surprise is the one which you are about to hear about now. I am at this time, well before our Party’s national convention, announcing my choice for my running mate. And that choice, ladies and gentlemen, is Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
No one has ever questioned Jeff’s honesty or sincerity, nor has he ever shown any ambivalence on the issues. He is a leader known and respected for his diligence and resolution. Just witness his effectiveness in the Senate during the immigration bill known by a name which I’ll not mention.
As vice-president Sen. Sessions would be my closest advisor on matters affecting our immigration policy, and I would constantly benefit from his knowledge and experience.
And I would also value his advice in other important areas. It has become increasingly important in recent years to give the strictest attention to the matter of Supreme Court appointments. Sen. Sessions is an experienced lawyer who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he has a keen sense of the need to select only people for the Court who understand the difference between legislating and interpreting.
In taking these actions today, I don’t know how I can make it any clearer that I am dedicated to the proposition of protecting our borders, and to the idea of strict constitutional government.
And now, my friends, I want to appeal to you all, both the members of my party, and the members of other parties, or of no party, to join with me in our movement to set our feet upon the path to victory in November, and to the bright future we can see ahead.
Thank you.
As I have already said, this would be a radical move, but it is not as radical as it may sound. In 1976 when Ronald Reagan was opposing Gerald Ford in the Republican primary, he startled the political world by naming his choice for his vice-presidential running mate before the convention convened. The Gipper named Sen. Richard Schweicker of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Sessions is the ideal choice. A conservative running mate is mandatory for McCain, and Sessions is awarded a near-perfect conservative score of 98 percent by the American Conservative Union. But why should McCain make his choice known now? Why not wait until after he is nominated? Because he needs conservative support now, and should not risk waiting until later when anti-McCain attitudes have hardened against him.
Naming Sessions his Veep could validate McCain’s putative epiphany, and, with the support of the conservative base, catapult him into the White House.
And it could give relief to those of us who are suffering a painful quandary.
01 Jan 00