Wednesday, February 13, 2008

A Question For Conservatives

Well, it's all but official. After winning the primaries that were held yesterday, McCain is a virtual shoo in for the Republican nomination and a lot of conservatives are pissed about it. Most of them who voted in yesterday's elections went for Huckabee, apparently believing he is the "real" conservative. Yet Huckabee's conservative credentials aren't 100%, just like McCain's.

On the issue of illegal immigration, for instance, Huckabee is problematic. Yes, he signed Numbers USA's "No Amnesty" pledge, but as Arkansas governor he gave in state college tuition to the children of illegals, saying famously that we shouldn't punish children for the crimes of their parents. And in a speech before Hispanic leaders Huckabee "joked" about Whites soon becoming a minority. And he believes in what I call atonement politics, saying that leniency toward illegals is America's atonement for slavery. Exactly how being indulgent to illegal Hispanics atones for the enslavement of Blacks he hasn't explained. Maybe Huckabee thinks one group of non-Whites is interchangeable with another.

With conservatives' anger at McCain's liberal position on illegal immigration you'd think they'd be just as outraged at Huckabee, but they're not. Could Huckabee's status as a former preacher be the reason? Most of the conservatives who've voted for him are Evangelicals. They propelled Huckabee to victory in Iowa and their low numbers in more secular states helped to ensure his defeat there. Perhaps, for these people, Huckabee's distasteful record on illegal immigration policy is palatable because it's wrapped in Christian garb. You know, the language of atonement.

Yes, Huckabee has some good ideas. I love his plan to abolish the IRS! But McCain has some good ideas, too. More importantly, he has a much better chance of winning against both Hillary and Obama than Huck does. Conservatives have no excuse for forgiving Huckabee's deviations from pure conservatism while crucifying McCain for his. I understand commitment to principle but, sadly, principle is compromised in virtually every election. Whatever side you're on you're never going to get everything you want in a candidate. Therefore, the question all voters face is, what will we get for our compromise? If conservatives vote for McCain the answer is a damn good chance for Republicans to keep the White House and for America to win in Iraq. If conservatives vote for Huckabee or, God forbid, Hillary or Obama, what they'll get for their compromise is socialism at home and surrender on all fronts abroad.

The right choice is clear to me.


Tapline said...

PGZ, you are spot on. The thing I look at at this point is Supreme Court appointees. stay well....

JMK said...

Excellent post Seana-Anna, Huckabee is hardly a traditional Conservative either.

McCain has been a stalwart tax cutter and a terror-warrior.

On the ILLEGAL immigration issue both Huckabee and McCain (and don't forget G W Bush) have all been poor.

Conservatives better get real and fast, this election is too important to sulk because your chosen candidate didn't get the nod.

To be honest, NONE in that field were pristine Conservatives.

Seane-Anna said...

"To be honest, NONE in that field were pristine Conservatives." Bingo, JMK! But why do so many conservatives seem not to get that?

JMK said...

As I said to Angel in a response to her disappointment over McCain;

"Angel, McCain may be a disappointment to Conservative, but he has been a fiscal Conservative. Read Kevin Stach's piece in the WSJ;

(A GREAT article, by the way, Seane-Anna)

If McCain has been poor on illegal immigration, Huckabee and Giuliani and Romney and G W Bush have all been as bad, or, in some cases worse.

"If he's been bad on spending, so have the others mentioned, as well.

"The idea that "McCain's not a real Conservative," is best countered by the fact that "G W Bush ISN'T either!"

"We have a very important election coming up. Thompson didn't try hard enough, Huckabee tried too hard, Giuliani ran hard too late and Romney ran as someone he wasn't....they're all out and McCain's what's left.

"Come January 2009 six of the nine Supreme Court Justices will be over 70 years of age. If Conservatives sit home, saying that McCain's no better than Hillary or Obama, then we'll get Hillary &/or Obama....and by 2012 we won't recognize this country.

"It will almost certainly be one we wouldn't recognize today, as a Dem President with a Dem Congress CAN and WILL make-over the landscape within 4 years....certainly enough so, as to make the election of another Conservative (in 2012 or beyond) a very real long shot.

"McCain's far from perfect, but NONE of the Republicans running were!

We are facing a momentous crisis with this election, and it can't be over-stated, how bad things can get if the Dems get to control all three branches of government.

With all three branches and the MSM, Conservatism could all but be criminalized.

People gotta wake up!

We don't have the luxury of supporting "only true Conservatives," we've GOT to become totally head-over-heels psyched over voting the LESSER of TWO BAD CHOICES....the alternative is really THAT bad!

Puckpan said...

I am as far-right a conservative as you will ever know. We simply define conservative differently. There is no conservative in this presidential race.

By my definition, conservatives eschew all ideology - they are localists and communitarians over globailists and universalists. Almost all wars for the past 150 years have been faught by liberals pursuing universalist ideals.

No conservative believes in fighting distant wars for ideological causes.

The nationalist, Malcolm X was conservative; Jesse Jackson is a leftist.

Obama is truely against the war in Iraq - McCain supports it and would likely extend it into Iran.

If this race comes down to McCain vs. Obama I will support Obama. I believe he is less likely to have the same bunch of Zionists, war-hawks, and globalists in his administration.

Unfortunately - he will not be able to resist their influence. If he tries, the news media will destroy him.

Seane-Anna said...

"...bunch of Zionists..." That tells me just about all I need to know about you, Puckpan.

JMK said...

We live in a shrinking and increasingly inter-connected world Puckpan.

While I can understand the appeal of Ron Paul's nostalgia for a bygone era when we could heed Washington's admonition about "avoiding foreign entanglements," but that's all it is, nostalgia.

We are not "building a global trade," we already depend on it.

I like Pat Buchanan very much, but I acknowlege that he was wrong in opposing the Gulf War....he blamed "the Zinists" too.

He's opposed Iraq and Afghanistan too, for many of the same, shameful reasons.

Saddam Hussein had active relations with al Qaeda, even though he appears to have had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Al Qaeda's Ansar al-Islam camps were set up in northern Iraq and had an enemy in common with Saddam - the Iraqi Kurds.

Hussein used a strategy of "detterence by doubt," feigning he had stockpiles of WMDs to ward off enemies, both external and internal. Even his own Generals believed right up to mere weeks before the invasion that they HAD those stockpiles.

After 9/11 Britain and the U.S. felt they could no longer deal with "not knowing for sure," and Hussein's recalcitrance with UN Weapons Inspectors created an untenable situation between those two sides.

Sadly, no matter who gets in next November this war on global terrorism is really only just beginning.

GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD said...

Seane-anna you are spot on.

Wasn't it the Great Communicator who said when it comes to the question of life always come down on the side of life?

McCain has been repeatedly, with out modesty and consistently pro life - all the way.

Of all the candidates - McCain has got to be the one that intolerant, illegetimate, murderous, corrupt regimes fear most.