John McShame

By Tom Syverson

February 2, 2008

When I look around at the Republican primary days before Super Tuesday, I can think only one thing: what a goddamn mess. After Romney’s loss in Florida and judging by the polls coming out of virtually every Super Tuesday state, it looks like McCain is going to be our nominee. And shame on us for letting this happen.

It suggests something insanely demented about the state of the Republican Party in 2008. McCain, who is liberal and treacherous in every way that counts, has won out over Mitt Romney, who is conservative and admirable in every way that counts. Let’s look at their respective profiles, and ask yourself who better represents the conservative movement, starting with McCain.

McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001. He was the only Republican besides Lincoln Chafee (gag) to do that. He said at the time, “I cannot in good conscience, support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.” He sounds like some of my left-wing friends. Now that he’s running for president, of course he claims to support those tax-cuts.

In 1999, he explicitly opposed overturning Roe v. Wade: “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” It’s the same tired and vacuous argument for abortion that has been recited by feminists and womanizers for 35 years. Now, less than a decade later when he’s running for president, he suddenly supports overturning the ludicrous decision. And have we forgotten about him saying he wouldn’t nominate a judge like Sam Alito for wearing “his conservatism on his sleeve”?

He’s been Mr. Amnesty-for-illegals for as long as anyone can remember, right up until last summer when the bill, sponsored by McCain and Kennedy, failed miserably. Now, he has substantially backed off from the issue and completely changed his language toward immigration and amnesty.

In terms of national security, he opposes aggressive interrogation techniques and supports putting international terrorists on trial like they were American citizens, with access to the intelligence information that is being used against them. He supports the “immediate” closure of Guantanamo Bay. What this tells me is that when push comes to shove, he’s simply not willing to go the whole nine yards in protecting innocent American lives from terrorism.

He lies about other Republicans to make himself look good. He lied about the Bush campaign in 2000, claiming that robocalls were sent out by the Bush campaign suggesting that McCain had an illegitimate black child. Of course these accusations turned out to be wildly fabricated by the McCain camp, with not a shred of evidence to support them.

He also lies about his fellow Republicans today by claiming that he’s somehow the only Republican to support the troop surge in Iraq, and that Republicans attacked him for supporting it last year. Romney and Giuliani supported the surge from the precise moment that Bush proposed it, and in fact the troop surge enjoyed popular support among virtually every conservative in the country. Just because he didn’t turn his back on Iraq doesn’t necessarily score him points, it just doesn’t make him lose any more points than he already has.

He has a long track record of being friendlier with Democrats than he is with Republicans. McCain-Feingold. McCain-Kennedy. McCain-Lieberman. Need I say more?

Now onto Romney. He made millions of dollars in the private sector as a venture capitalist with Bain Capital turning failing businesses into successful businesses, helping to launch companies like Staples, the Sports Authority, and Domino’s Pizza. In 1994 he ran for Senate in Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy, and came closer than any Republican in history has to dethroning the drunken charlatan. In 2002 he put his administrative skills to work in public service, saving the 2002 Winter Olympics from a devastating $379 million deficit.

Then, he went on to be elected a Republican governor in the bluest place in the country, Massachusetts. While governor, he stood up for conservative principles where they were least popular.

His economic policy in Massachusetts is perhaps the best demonstration of conservative economics that I’ve heard of. Romney erased the state’s $3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes, but by cutting frivolous government programs and increasing efficiency. He balanced the budget all four years of his governorship, and by the time he left office, the deficit had been transformed into a $700 million surplus.

On social issues, Romney turned out to be more conservative than liberals would have expected in their worst nightmares. He vetoed stem-cell research legislation that involved destroying human fetuses, and was an ardent critic of gay marriage. In fact, he testified before Congress on behalf of the marriage amendment, and was endorsed by the pro-life group Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

He is the only politician in America who has successfully challenged the healthcare issue, and he did it without socialization but with administrative innovation. Working with conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation, he developed and implemented a market-based healthcare program that provided health insurance to all Massachusetts citizens.

He supports our efforts in the Middle East, and can give you a clear and articulate description of Middle Eastern politics. He can explain why it is important that we fight for stability there, and has a clear understanding that the antidote to radical Islam is moderate Islam. (McCain on the other hand, speaks immaturely and brutishly about shooting Osama bin Laden personally and “following him to the gates of hell”). Romney supports the possibility of aggressive interrogation techniques in extenuating circumstances as long as his lawyers and advisors conclude that it is legal. He opposes shutting down Guantanmo Bay, and in fact has said, “I want to double Guantanamo Bay”.

In his personal life, he has a wonderful family and has been a faithful servant to his community. He has been with his beautiful wife Ann since high school, and he has five successful young sons. (McCain on the other hand divorced his first wife and the mother of his children in 1980, and when he was remarried just a few months later his children refused to attend the wedding). Romney has served on religious missions for his church when he was a young man, and has acted as a community religious leader for years. He has volunteered for community charities and organizations like City Year, the Boy Scouts, and the Points of Light Foundation.

In literally every single category one can think of, Romney is leagues more conservative and successful than McCain. John McCain simply does not have a single conservative credential over Romney, just a long and revolting love-affair with Senate Democrats and the mainstream media. As an aside, I don’t mean to downplay McCain’s credentials as a war hero, but think about it. Democrats nominated John Kerry because they thought, in their own insane way, that he was a war hero. Bob Dole was a war hero. Ronald Reagan on the other hand wasn’t a war hero, and look at what his administration did for conservatism.

John McCain is nothing by a pro-war, pro-life Democrat. Romney politically and personally embodies everything that the conservative movement stands for; an America with a strong economy, a strong military, and strong families.

McCain is quite simply a BAD candidate. He’s not a conservative, and he’s not going to win against Hillary. In some ways, he’s the worst candidate that we could have nominated this election cycle. If Republicans across the country would do just a little research about the candidates they support, McCain would never have made it this far.

But maybe the situation is even worse than Republican apathy. Do Republicans know what it means to be conservative anymore? Was Peggy Noonan right when she said that 8 years of Bush have destroyed the Republican Party’s sense of conservatism and effective government? When they examine McCain’s record, do they really see someone who represents our movement? If they really do like John McCain for our president, I think it’s a sad time for the country.

After 8 years of the Bush administration, conservatives need some time to breathe and to regroup. Winning elections every single election cycle isn’t everything. Political power isn’t the most important thing sometimes. We need to worry about ideological purity; who cares if McCain is so allegedly “electable”? If his policy is bad, what are we electing him for in the first place? Just because he calls himself a Republican doesn’t make him a candidate automatically worth supporting.

By nominating and electing McCain, we run the risk of him doing the same terrible and destructive stuff Hillary would do. If that happens, subsequently the Republican Party will subsequently be blamed for it, and we will lose more elections in the future while simultaneously sacrificing principles for power. If Hillary wins, and does a bunch of terrible stuff, at least the Democrats will carry the blame rather than us and we can be proud of sticking to our ideological guns.

Overall, both Hillary and McCain will probably hurt the country in several ways, neither of them being reelected in 2012. So which party is going to absorb the damage for this election cycle?

I say that if Republicans are going to nominate McCain, let Hillary win in 2008. She’ll be a terrible president for four years, Republicans will have time and motivation to regroup ideologically, and the real conservatives will rise to the top. If we are willing to do this, Republicans can take back the House, Senate and Presidency in 2012. And we’ll have done it the right way.

Maybe it’s time for conservatives to start picking up a few Hillary ‘08 bumper stickers. It’s just a thought.