The idea of a perfect conservative candidate is a
dangerous illusion. As an old Irish Democratic ward heeler once told me: "When you're running for public office and look at yourself in the mirror, that's when you'll see a candidate you agree with completely."
Most of us are willing to
compromise. I voted for Bush in 2000, knowing full well that his "compassionate conservatism" wasn't conservative at all, but big government with a smiley face. In the expectation that he would disappoint me, I was not disappointed.
As Barry Goldwater said at the 1960 Republican convention, in urging the right to unite behind Richard Nixon, "Grow up conservatives!" It is immature, to the point of petulance, to demand purity as the price of party loyalty.
Still, many conservatives -- who've held their noses and supported the Republican nominee, in election after bloody election -- are now literally gagging.
The prospect of John McCain or Mike Huckabee as the Republican nominee caused Rush Limbaugh to declare last week, "I can see possibly not supporting the Republican nominee this election, and I never thought that I would say that in my life."
With Hillary or Obama as the alternative, this is not an easy decision, but one dictated by both conscience and common sense.
Take the worst case scenario, John McCain -- the man who must be considered the front-runner for the GOP nomination in the wake of New Hampshire and South Carolina.
In a January 25th editorial,
The New York Times -- the Dark Tower of liberal Mordor -- endorsed the Arizona Senator for the Republican nomination. (In a January 27th column, Frank Rich, the
Times' capo of political correctness, who earlier was panting after Huckabee, is now telling Republicans that McCain is their best bet to retain the White House.)
Though admitting differences with McCain on issues like abortion and marriage (he nominally favors normal marriage, while voting against the federal Marriage Amendment) the
Times lionized its favorite Republican:
"He was an early advocate for battling global warming
(crippling the U.S. economy for a convenient
lie) and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values
(crime pays) in the immigration debate.... He has been a staunch advocate of campaign-finance reform (hamstringing the First Amendment while augmenting the power of the mainstream media)
, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform," the
Times swooned.
The Manhattan edition of Pravda forgot to mention McRINO's partnership with Joe Lieberman,
who just endorsed the Senator's candidacy, to impose a cap on industrial CO2 emissions which, if enacted, would amount to a tax of $660 billion to $2.1 trillion from 2012 to 2030.
McCain has a penchant for partnering with the far left. He feels more comfortable with members of the liberal Comintern than he does with the conservative movement or his Republican colleagues. (McCain was the only candidate for the GOP nomination to boycott last year's Conservative Political Action Conference.)
On the most momentous question confronting this nation (whether we will defend our borders or allow an alien invasion to redefine our identity), McCain is on the side of the ACLU, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the National Council of La Raza and his good bud Ted Kennedy.
He is Senor Amnesty, co-author of the bill that would have "regularized the status" of millions of illegal aliens, and sent millions currently south of the border heading north.
He also opposed an Arizona English initiative. (We wouldn't want border-jumpers to feel uncomfortable by officially designating America an English-speaking nation.) Over the years, McCain has also opposed English-only ballots and supported bi-lingual education. Can I get an ole?
For all of his vaunted candor, the Arizonan has had one of those election-year epiphanies. He now says he supports border security -- reflected in his rousing declaration, "I'll build the G-d-damned fence, if they want it." Now, isn't that reassuring?
Just how cosmetic this is was reflected in last week's news that McCain has appointed Juan Hernandez, who holds dual U.S.-Mexican citizenship, to head Hispanic outreach for his campaign.
In 2001, Hernandez told ABC's
Nightline, in reference to Mexican "immigrants" in the United States, "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first.'" This is a prescription for national suicide, but
is in keeping with McCain's insouciance when it comes to U.S. sovereignty.
McCain has spent the last 20 years shamelessly pandering to the establishment media. To call him their favorite Republican is like saying feminists are rather fond of Hillary or the Sierra Club is partial to Al Gore.
As the Times noted, McCain teamed up with another doctrinaire leftist, Russ Feingold, to perpetrate the latest Campaign Finance fraud -- McCain-Feingold, which protects incumbents from any discussion of their records within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary.
In so doing, McCain, who claims he's consistently pro-life, has made it impossible for defenders of the unborn to mention -- oh, say a candidate's support for partial-birth abortion, within two months of an election. That's McCain's great contribution to
the pro-life cause.
McCain was part of the gang of 14 which blocked Senate Republicans, when they were still a majority, from changing the rules on judicial confirmations to prevent permanent filibusters by the friends of an activist judiciary.
Of course, under President McCain, the left wouldn't have to filibuster. Potential nominees would be vetted by Kennedy and
The New York Times editorial board before they were sent to the Senate.
It's not just McCain. Despite his recent conversion of convenience, in the past, Huckabee has equated border security with racism. What he calls Christian compassion is a mushy sentimentality that consists of getting a glow of moral superiority by spending other people's money on the needy.
So, what's the case for voting Republican at all costs?
