The Ocean State Republican

Note: This “Rhode Island Red” commentary is the first in what we expect to be a regular series on The OSR going forward. As such, the views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the RIRA.

Conservatism is the intellectual core of the Republican Party (it is unfortunate that we must refer to “conservative Republicans,” for the two words should be synonymous; however there continues to be a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, with the quasi-Democrat “moderate Republicans” seeking to repudiate the Reagan legacy and restore the Rockefeller legacy - and the McCain candidacy is a vehicle through which they see their cause advancing).

Voices of “pragmatism” will encourage us to rally behind John McCain, to hold our nose and drink the McKool-Aid in the name of party unity. For the reasons cited below, it is submitted for your consideration that it will be in the best interests of the Republican Party for conservative Republicans to sit out the Presidential race in which John McCain is the Republican nominee (not, by the way, “don’t vote” – merely don’t work for, or vote for, John McCain).

Still many will hold their nose and vote for John McCain anyway, for such reasons as a belief that he will be a better Commander in Chief than Hillbama, and that the War on Terrorism trumps every other consideration - and let us stipulate here that this decision will not render such persons unprincipled conservatives.

On the other hand, many conservatives - weary of holding their noses during George W. Bush’s eight years of “compassionate conservatism” and its accompanying LBJ like expansion of the federal government, and alarmed at the prospect of a far worse John McCain - will decide that “party loyalty” and “lesser of two evils” pragmatic voting does not extend to placing the poster-RINO into the Oval Office, and will become “suicide voters” - voting for the Democrat candidate. Let us also stipulate here that under the extraordinary circumstances of a McCain candidacy, such “suicide voting” will not render such persons unprincipled conservatives. Indeed much of what follows supports the bases upon which the “suicide voters” will make their own principled stand - it is just that it is not in this writer’s personal “constitution” to pull the lever for socialists (pun intended); this principled conservative feels that it is enough to withhold his support for John McCain.

FIRST: Do we really want John McCain to be the face of the GOP for the next four to eight years?

Recall the Humphrey Bogart movie “The Caine Mutiny” in which several officers came to believe that their ship’s captain – Captain Queeg - was mentally unfit due to his odd behavior, including a nervous habit of rolling steel balls in his hand. It was never entirely clear if Captain Queeg was “crazy” or not. This is not to imply that John McCain is mentally unstable; but he is notorious for his temper and vindictiveness, and the displays that may be forthcoming once he is ensconced in the most powerful office in the land will likely not be pretty, and will not reflect well upon the GOP.

Moreover, rightly or wrongly, the policies of the President in office become the perceived policies of their political party. Do we really want “Feingold – Kennedy – Lieberman – Gang of 14 - Juan Hernandez McCain” to be the “face” of the Republican Party for the next four (or more) years?

To repeat: Do we really want John McCain to be the face of the GOP for the next four to eight years?

SECOND: Contrary to the spin and the conventional wisdom, John McCain is no fiscal conservative.

We have to judge “fiscal prudence” on a net basis, and on a net basis John McCain is no fiscal conservative … not even close. Reputable estimates put the net taxpayer burden for illegal immigrants at $20,000 per. As we know all too well, John McCain supports amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens already here and open borders to allow millions more to come (if you believe his campaign representations concerning having learned his lesson and that the border must first be secured, I’ll bet that prospective purchase of that bridge in Brooklyn is also looking pretty good to you right about now). Whatever John McCain proposes to save in reducing “pork” and “earmarks” is dwarfed by the costs imposed by providing taxpayer-funded “social services” and health care and education for illegal immigrants and their anchor babies. The massive cost of illegal immigration renders pork, earmarks and “prescription drug benefits” relatively meaningless in comparison. Illegal immigration is the ultimate form of “corporate welfare,” and John McCain and Ted Kennedy have joined hands as its poster children.

THIRD. Contrary to the spin and the conventional wisdom, John McCain is not the “lesser of two evils” as compared to a President Hillbama.

Republicans in Congress have demonstrated over the years that they have “backbones by Goodyear” – politicians first, and principled Republicans second (or third or fourth). They obediently take their marching orders from Republican Presidents – when there is one – and there is the rub.

With Ronald Reagan we had a real conservative and, even with Democrat majorities, we had real conservative progress. Conversely, with “moderate” George H. Bush and “compassionate conservative” George W. Bush we got the largest expansion of the welfare state and federal government since LBJ! And we’ve had de facto open borders and nearly got amnesty for illegal aliens shoved down our American throats.

In fact, Republican Congresses have been more conservative and effective when opposing a Democrat President than when under a “moderate” Republican President; consider that a Republican minority under Clinton totally killed HillaryCare, while a Republican majority under Bush enacted the “Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.”

Do not be fooled by the spin regarding McCain’s “lifetime conservative rating” – according to The National Journal, though McCain started out as a conservative, by 2004 “he was more liberal than all but two of his GOP colleagues.” Thus it is likely that a Republican minority in Congress will effectively counter more of a Hillbama agenda than it would a nearly identical agenda pushed by “bi-partisan reaching across the aisle” McCain.

In other words, due to traditional Congressional Republican obedience to Republican Presidents, more liberal legislation is likely to be enacted under a McCain administration than under a Hillbama administration!

FOURTH: McCain pulled a Clinton at CPAC – the only thing that will be secured is amnesty for illegal aliens, not our borders.

On February 7th, John McCain gave a speech before CPAC, a speech undoubtedly carefully crafted, each word chosen (parsed?) for meaning, both as to the impression that would be made, and with an eye toward being held accountable to them in the future. Indeed, this is the most conservative we’ll see John McCain, for after getting the nomination he’ll surely “run to the middle” (and then, if elected, imagine the nightmare of how a President McCain, unfettered by any need for party loyalty, but eyeing his “legacy,” will “reach across the aisle” to make deals with the Democrats)? Anyway, back to his CPAC speech - there, even in this his most conservative mode, John McCain employed some very Clintonesque language regarding his intentions with illegal immigration.

Compare the following two quotes:

“I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it.”

“I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country. I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax.”

To this quote:

“ … and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.”

While rhetorically similar, there is a big difference between “will not” and “will” – no equivocation there – and “would be among my highest priorities.” Priorities change, and are not inalterable promises or assertions of action – and compete with other “priorities” for top spot (such as a “priority” of “amnesty”). John McCain and his speech writers certainly know the difference, and chose their words with care. Ditto re: “widespread consensus” – a phrase with loopholes a southern-border wide – such as a “widespread consensus” in the Democrat Senate that the borders are secure.

Also, if the borders will be secured, and maintained that way, then why did he feel the need to say “and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.” If the borders were truly secure then we wouldn’t have to concern ourselves with subsequent waves of illegal immigration, now would we?

Senator McCain said to CPAC: “… I am not in the habit of making promises to my country that I do not intend to keep.” Indeed. Which is why he didn’t promise that the borders would be secured before the implied but unstated amnesty (or even that the borders would ever be secured; or that if secured, they would remain secured). Just ask Dr. Juan Hernandez, John McCain’s Hispanic Outreach Director - Michelle Malkin has ably exposed their relationship; Mr. Hernandez’s ties with the Mexican government and dual-citizenship; his advocacy for open borders (and worse).

If we’re going to have a President that succeeds in repudiating our national sovereignty, and simultaneously grants unwarranted amnesty to millions of lawbreakers, wouldn’t we prefer that it be committed under the Democrat banner, so that Republicans can later campaign against the politicians who committed this public policy version of treason?

Finally, while we pray this never happens, with each passing day the risk increases that one or more WMD’s assembled from components walked across our southern border will be set off within our homeland - killing thousands, perhaps even millions - of innocent Americans, and throwing our economy into chaos. Already, given his refusal to secure our borders, George W. Bush will be assigned some culpability (unfortunately, deservedly so). If John McCain is President at the time this occurs, that culpability will be shared by him, and the Republican Party. After all, while the Democrats have been complicit in refusing to secure our borders, ultimately the post-9/11 Commanders in Chief will be assigned the blame – and though the Democrats are complicit, we shouldn’t for a minute think that they (and their sycophants in the media) won’t hesitate to blame Republicans for having the blood of innocent Americans on their hands.

Further, doesn’t this refusal to secure our homeland’s borders render the rest of the “War on Terror” moot? And then doesn’t this also render moot the premise that John McCain will be “better” on the “War on Terror” than Hillbama?

Shouldn’t our homeland’s borders first be secured and then the fight taken overseas to eliminate the terrorist threat at its source? And doesn’t this mean that, so long as our Presidents refuse to secure our homeland’s borders, our brave men and women fighting and dying overseas are being cynically wasted in what is as much a domestic PR exercise as an actual effort to defend our homeland from terrorists? And so does this refusal to secure our borders rise to the level of an impeachable offense?

More reasons why, if we’re fated to have unsecured borders and amnesty, that it should (also) have the fingerprints of a Democrat President on it.

FIFTH: Will conservatism really be the supreme characteristic of McCain’s Supreme Court nominees?

In that same CPAC speech, Senator McCain said the following: “I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.”

As discussed above regarding border security and illegal immigration, “intend” has a far different meaning than “will.” Plenty of weasel room there, and we have to assume a purposeful intent in the choice of words.

Similarly, the “character” and “quality” of Justices Roberts and Alito can merely refer to ethical considerations and education and time on the bench; it is not necessarily the same as judicial philosophy.

McCain probably won’t nominate another Ruth Bader Ginsberg (although we can’t entirely rule this out – who knows what could be part of one of his notorious bipartisan deals). And perhaps he’ll nominate (and then fight for) nominees in the Roberts / Alito mold – it’s certainly possible. But then again, don’t be surprised to if President Bipartisan reaches across the judicial aisle and nominates not Scalias, but Souters.

SIXTH: If McCain wins, conservatives lose. The only scenario in which conservatives win is with our refusing to vote for McCain and he thereafter loses the general election.

There are four possible scenarios; combinations of conservatives voting / not voting for McCain, and McCain winning / losing the general election. Each will be discussed in turn.

If McCain ultimately wins the general election?

If we held our noses and supported McCain, then it’ll be interpreted as meaning that no matter the political and philosophical abuse, in the end conservatives will “come home” and support the Republican “lesser of two evils,” at least so long as Supreme Court nominations or Hillary boogey-men are dangled before us. In this case we become the Blacks of the Republican Party: just as the Democrats pay lip service to Blacks during election season, and ignore them the rest of the time (focusing instead on actually pandering to the Hispanic population), secure in the knowledge that they can rely on the Black vote no matter what. So too will it be with Republican candidates paying lip service to conservatives during election cycles, and ignoring us the rest of the time, if McCain and his Merry Band of Moderates have their way.

If we don’t hold our noses and don’t support McCain, and he still wins the general election, then it’ll be interpreted as meaning that “moderate” Republicans can now safely ignore us.

And if McCain ultimately loses the general election?

If we held our noses and supported McCain, and he still loses, it’ll be interpreted as meaning that conservative support is no longer meaningful enough to put a candidate over the top; that conservatives are now a fringe group that doesn’t influence elections (at least not enough to determine the outcome), so conservatives should play second fiddle to “moderates” and “independents” and the “Hispanic vote.”

Conversely, if McCain loses AND conservatives had “stayed home,” there will be no denying that this was the factor, or at least a major factor, in McCain’s defeat – in other words, that in the future prospective Republican candidates ignore conservatives at their electoral peril.

Thus our withholding our support and McCain losing the general election is the only winning scenario for conservatives.

SEVENTH: “It’s time that conservatives ‘grow up’ and stopped having a ‘temper tantrum’ and ‘calm down’ and vote for the Republican nominee, John McCain.” Wrong!

Do you think that the media and Democrat Party officials would be saying such things to Democrats if Zell Miller had won the Democrat primaries? No, I didn’t think so either. It is not disloyal to your party to withhold support from a candidate who just happened through luck and fortuitous circumstances to slip through the primaries, but who is an affront to the party’s core political principles. Quite the opposite – if a party abandons core principles in favor of political expediency, it is no longer a political party, but a social club.

When Schwarzenegger and Giuliani endorsed McCain, their gloating about “big tents” and “moderation” and “reaching across the aisle” was palpable – the unspoken but unmistakably implied message was that they believe that the “conservative wing” of the Republican Party is about to be shoved aside. The GOP has been drifting ever-leftward since Ronald Reagan’s term ended, and one can sense that these “moderates” see McCain as the final nail in the coffin of conservative domination (or even influence) within the GOP.

Here in the Northeast we should especially recognize the folly of “moderate, ‘big tent’ Republicanism” – here in the sanctuary of its adherents, the Republican Party has been shrinking for decades. Just has history demonstrates the economic superiority of capitalism over socialism, so too does history demonstrate the superiority of conservative “Reagan Republicanism” over moderate “Rockefeller Republicanism.”

Yes the Republican Party should be a “big tent” – but one which is “big” because ever more people become enlightened and embrace the superiority of conservative principles and policies - which is how our tent got bigger during the Reagan years. The Republican Party should not be a “big tent” because millions of illegal aliens have been invited in, earmarked pork dangled to constituents, and principles and policies “focus grouped” into meaningless sloganeering – the Democrat Party will always do that better than we do. We should be the party that adheres to the letter and spirit of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, resolutely opposing the post-FDR Democratic Party which seeks to “living document” our country into a democratic socialist model of the European ilk.

Well, those Rockefeller “moderates” have a second home within which they can feel compassionately comfortable – it’s called the Democratic Party. Conversely, we conservatives have no place else to go. We’ve been “pragmatic” and “loyal” through the two Bushes, but McCain goes beyond the pale. It’s time to make our stand and fight for our home. The “moderates” want to neuter the Republican Party bequeathed us by Ronald Reagan and his inspired conservatism – shall we hand them the scalpel by supporting John McCain?

At some point the “lesser” part of the “lesser of two evils” becomes immaterial. If voting for McCain is “voting for the lesser of two evils,” consider the foregoing arguments and the concept that sitting out the Presidential race, rather than supporting John McCain, will constitute “voting for the lesser of three evils.”

There is a monumental irony in the “maverick” Senator who takes pride in “reaching across the aisle” now sending out his minions (aided by much of the GOP establishment) to tell conservatives that we should act “for the good of the party” and loyally vote for the Republican candidate. Let us not take the bait – it is time for a “McCain Mutiny” against the captain of the S.S. RINO.

Sphere: Related Content