The basic problem is that McCain's opponents are ideological fanatics, and there is no room for compromise in their worldview. That is a philosophy which is inherently contrary to the republicanism on which the Republican Party is based, which has at its foundation the idea of the rule of law, the balance of power and government by consensus. McCain's opponents within his own party may be conservative, but unlike McCain they seem not to have even the first idea what it means to be a Republican. McCain's growing success shows how their attempts to redefine and control the party are failing.
McCain is far from perfect and unlike a lot of politicians he's one of the first to admit to his flaws and failures. But whatever other flaws he has and no matter what deceptive attacks he faces from extremists, McCain is a true Republican.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - J
Excuse me, but McCain is not a "true" republican compared to the rest in the field, and neither is Mike Huckabee. Romney flipped on several issues, but is sticking to his guns and he is consistly republican in his speech's as of late. The REAL REPUBLICAN is Ron Paul. If you were to take his opposition to the war away, he would be the run away leader for the nomination. However, people will claim you are unamerican or dont support the troops if you are against the war, a claim that rings false because the military supports Paul more than all republican and democrats in the race combined. You are obviously Pro-McCain. I would bet you are too old to be drafted. I find it repulsive that over 70% of the people want out of Iraq, but McCain has the audacity to force us to stay there if he wins, possibly for 100 years. How is it he claims he can do something the people dont want him to do. Its not his country its everyones.
2 - Charles
I will never vote for McCain. The neo-conservatives are destroying the Republican party. The media will love McCain's nomination...It insures a Democrat victory in 2008.
3 - Dr Dreadful
Well-written and fascinating article, Dave, thanks.
The Democratic candidates should be rubbing their hands with glee right now instead of trying to verbally throttle one another, because the rhetoric on the right has become truly bizarre.
Yesterday on this very site we were treated to the jaw-dropping spectacle of JustOneMan, of all people, claiming that he would vote for Barack Obama if it came down to a choice between him and McCain.
On the flip side, we see liberty Republicans like yourself and Clavos seriously considering voting for Obama or another Democrat if McCain is not the nominee.
Personally, speaking from the left, I would be comfortable with McCain as the GOP nominee. The mere possibility that one of the other maniacs could win the presidency makes me shudder.
My one concern would be McCain's choice of running mate. Bearing in mind his age, his VP would have more than a slight chance of sliding prematurely behind the Oval Office desk at some point.
4 - James
I see that the auther has been a capitol hill staffer and now lives in Austin, which would explain why they are out of touch with mainstream America, and with reality.
Using demagoguery to fight demagoguery is a poor tactic. The immigration issue has very little to do with racism, and much more to do with common sense. The issue boils down, really, to one question - do we want to allow immigrants to flow into the US with no criminal screening, no health screening, no documentation, without finding out who they are, where they came from, and why they came?
The vast majority of Americans would, of course, answer no to this question. Most Americans realize cheap immigrant labor is the slavery of the 21st century, and like slavery, the benefits to corporate America are not worth the costs.
Local law enforcement agencies have begun taking up the slack, because they are overwhelmed by a citzenry who are not citizens, who are essentially ghosts living outside of the system.
Here's my easy, three step immigration plan:
1) Speed up the process of obtaining a visa.
2) Increase the number of immigrants allowed to come into the country legally.
3) Deport anyone in this country illegally.
5 - Baritone
I personally don't get my Fruit of the Looms in a twist over immigration issues. I wonder how many of those opposed to allowing (mainly hispanic) immigrants into the country would be willing to put studying their stock portfolios aside and run out to the southwest and start picking vegetables or join a roofing crew in blazing summer heat? What jobs are the hispanic immigrants taking? The fact is that most of the hispanic immigrants do the work that most U.S. citizens are unwilling to do. Yet we want salad with our dinner and a roof over our heads.
Also, many hispanics - legal or not -have melded into many communities and are now entrepreneurs, running their own businesses, often successfully.
Should immigration be controlled? Certainly, especially in the wake of 9/11. But at the grass roots, most anti-immigrationists are at heart, also racists.
As to McCain and his position within the Republican party: To me it seems more of a tempest in a teapot. Trying to identify who is or is not a "true Republican" or what defines a "true Democrat" for that matter is hardly less difficult than trying to define who is or is not a "true christian."
Given that we operate essentially under a two party system, it is necessary that each party must offer itself up to a wide spectrum of the country's citizens. The only way one could limit a political party to a narrow spectrum of people would be to have several parties. Such a situation generally only exists in countries which tend to be unstable, with opposing factions generally creating havoc, sometimes resorting to physical violence. Most of the more stable democracies have only two or at most a small handful of active political parties which wield any real power.
Both the Reps and Dems must allow for a wide spectrum of membership - some who might be in conflict with others - if they expect to maintain any influence at any and all levels of government.
The key to the success or failure in such efforts is compromise. Some look upon compromise as a scourge, whereas I consider it one of the higher achievements of humanity. Compromise implies cooperation, give and take.
The Reps are in danger of shooting themselves in the foot over the McCain controversy. As a liberal Dem, I don't mind a bit. While you "true Republicans" hack away at each other, a Dem - probably either Obama or (the hated) HRC will be preparing to warm the desk chair in the oval office with their left wing butts. Fine by me.
B-tone
6 - Arch Conservative
"The key to the success or failure in such efforts is compromise. Some look upon compromise as a scourge, whereas I consider it one of the higher achievements of humanity. Compromise implies cooperation, give and take."
You say compromise I say capitulation.
I won't capitualte to Mccain or any of the Democrats by voting for him/them.
We had to suffer through Carter before we got to Regan (well I didn't but this nation did).
There will come a time again when we actually have someone worth voting for.
7 - George Chell
McCain is going to win the GOP nomination. Get over it!
8 - Dave Nalle
The responses are so delicious I hardly know where to start.
Excuse me, but McCain is not a "true" republican compared to the rest in the field,
Actually, he is the closest of all the candidates to the traditional beliefs of the Republican party. You may not know or understand those beliefs - and you obviously didn't read the article, but that's the truth.
and neither is Mike Huckabee.
Now there I agree with you. Huckabee is neither Republicn NOR conservative. He's the anti-republican in many ways.
Romney flipped on several issues, but is sticking to his guns and he is consistly republican in his speech's as of late.
No. Romney is currently pretending to be a conservative, but he's more of a neocon than a Republican (not that you understand what a neocon actually is).
The REAL REPUBLICAN is Ron Paul.
Good try, but Paul's a libertarian. And that's a fine political perspective and not-incompatible with the GOP, but it's not mainstream republicanism. Paul diverges from standard Republican ideology in his opposition to an engaged foreign policy and opposition to the use of the military to back it up which has always been a core element of Republican policy. His extreme conservative social agenda is very un-republican.
If you were to take his opposition to the war away, he would be the run away leader for the nomination.
Not sure about that. His lack of engaging personality and lecturing instead of giving appealing speeches would still bring him up short.
However, people will claim you are unamerican or dont support the troops if you are against the war, a claim that rings false because the military supports Paul more than all republican and democrats in the race combined.
Blah blah blah. Only an idiot would claim Paul's unamerican for opposing the war. No one says it about Democrats. This is a bogus issue made up by the PaulBots to try to tar their opponents. It's a classic strawman.
You are obviously Pro-McCain.
No, I'm voting for Paul. But I do think McCain is a viable candidate and will vote for him in the general election.
I would bet you are too old to be drafted.
We don't have a draft and hopefully will never have one. When I worked for the LP one of my jobs was to organize anti-draft registration protests. We have a volunteer army and shoould never have anything else, unless we can move towards a system of relying primarily on private contractors.
I find it repulsive that over 70% of the people want out of Iraq,
They don't. Your statistic is pure bullshit. And a bit of bullshit I'm tired of hearing. Go look up the poll it comes from which was sponsored by an anti-war group sometime. In fact it does not say that 70% of the people want to pull out of the war immediately. The poll actually found that about 20% wanted an immediate withdrawal and about 48% wanted an eventual withdrawal once the situation was stabilized. Then anti-war people added those two numbers together and came up with 70% want to pull out. You could flip the same poll the other way and say that 88% don't want to leave until Iraq is stable.
Dave
9 - bliffle
How strange to see self-identified conservatives declaiming wildly against McCain, of all people!
have they taken a look at the bloated budget GWB has submitted?
10 - Dave Nalle
Bliff, these self-identified conservatives are like Mike Huckabee, they're conservative on social issues and don't care about spening at all. They're like the opposite of traditional republicans. The whole idea of fiscal conservatism is beyond their comprehension as demonstrated by their accusation that McCain is a tax and spender when he's one of the most successful anti-pork spending cutters we have.
Dave
11 - Arch Conservative
Let's toss out all of the labels and just take a look at the man Mccain is.
He's angry. He's petty. He's spiteful. He's smug.
He behaves like a complete jackass in debates with his collegaes.
He has a long history of throwing temper tantrums and using profanity toward other government officials that do not kiss his ass and agree with everything he says.
He has no real understanding of any issue other than the war in Iraq.
He claims to be a straight talker and then lies about his opponents records.
I just plain don't like the guy on a personal level. He comes off as the type of guy you'd just love to push down a flight of steps.
Oh and last but not least he was way off the mark with his little amnesty bill.
A surefire litmus test for any reasonable American seeking to take a side on an issue is to see what side Ted Kennedy is on and than take the opposing side.
Tomorrow may be a new beginning for Mcrazy. he has spent the last eight years counting down the days until he gets his revenge on the party that passed on him. He's obviously been enjoying tweaking the conservative base of the GOP but come Novemeber I for one will not be giving him my support. I had planned on taking great joy in watching Hillary lose but now it that it appears it will be Mccain v. Clinton it has become a doubled edged sword. Being that I hate them both so much that the mere sight of either of them makes my blood pressure rise, I will obviously take great joy in watching the anguish the loser experiences in having come so close. I will savor it. the flip side is that we will have a president who will be nothing but bad for America.
12 - Baritone
I almost feel as sorry for Arch as I do for Ruvy. They both seem to predicate their existence on how much they hate anybody who doesn't fall in line with their world view. The only reason Ruvy beats out Arch, is that Ruvy seems to have murder in his veins. I'm not sure about Arch.
The problem with people like Arch is they feel that compromise is unacceptable. That they must have things their way or not at all.
There are a lot of people in this world. Refusing to negotiate, to consider other people's positions and beliefs is a quick road to isolation and failure. In most cases, unless you are an absolute dictator, give and take is the only viable way to maintain a working society. Nobody has all the right answers. No one perspective works for everybody.
I won't be voting for McCain or any Republican, but I don't hate him or Romney or anyone else. I don't even hate Bush. Despise, yes, but hate? No.
B-tone
13 - Baronius
Dave, your revisionist histories of the Republican Party always overlook the important role played by religiously-motivated activists. From opposition to slavery, through prohibition and voting rights, to the modern pro-life movement, religious reformers have been at home in the GOP. I realize that isn't your tradition, but it's as much a part of the Party's tradition as the libertarian movement.
You can't simply declare that McCain is more of a Republican than his opponents are.
You made a series of arguments that McCain has taken reasonable Republican positions on the issues. But in most of the cases, he had to go outside his party to find allies. This isn't a theoretical matter. He alienated members of his own party and teamed with Democrats for McCain-Feingold, McCain-Leiberman, and McCain-Kennedy.
And these aren't peripheral issues to his candidacy. This is the record he's running on. If he were running on his budget-cutting efforts, we'd be talking about them. Instead, he's been sneering at the private sector a lot (probably as a tactic against Romney, but still...). He's been calling for increased regulation of business, in the name of preventing global warming. There are plenty of reasons for moderate Republicans to be nervous.
14 - Baronius
B-tone, that's a funny posting coming from you. You practically burst into flames at the mention of Reagan, religion, fascist right-winger Nazis, or just about anything else. It's easy to spot it when the other guy is an extremist, but you might want to double-check yourself on this subject.
15 - Les Slater
Baronius,
I don’t think ideology has much to do with it. Many people that Identify with the Republican Party just want to have some chance of winning. The polls are showing that even Republicans that consider themselves ‘conservative’ are moving to support McCain. This could be like a centrifuge sorting out the various strata of ‘conservativeness’, or it could be a separating of the pragmatists from the rigid. But there is no way the likes of Coulter would actually support Clinton. If they refuse to support McCain their only alternatives would be a new ‘third’ party, or to just sit it out.
There are a significant layer of moderate Republicans that are not ideologues at all and are the most likely not to have party loyalty. Many would vote for the Democratic ticket. This would be especially true with an Obama-Romney lineup.
Les
16 - Dave Nalle
Dave, your revisionist histories of the Republican Party always overlook the important role played by religiously-motivated activists.
I'm not overlooking them, it's just that the fact that they were religiously motivated isn't relevant. Yes, religious people have always been in the GOP just like the Democratic party. But the GOP has never based its agenda on theocracy or introducing religion into politics - at least not until pretty recently. Nothing about the party is anti-religion, but religion is not and should not be the basis of party policy.
From opposition to slavery, through prohibition and voting rights, to the modern pro-life movement, religious reformers have been at home in the GOP. I realize that isn't your tradition, but it's as much a part of the Party's tradition as the libertarian movement.
Well sure, and they've always been religious people who understand that the separation of church and state exists as much to protect the churches and their independence as it does to prevent theocracy.
And remember, McCain is a good Baptist (converted by his wife) and he's pro-life.
You can't simply declare that McCain is more of a Republican than his opponents are.
Sure I can. McCain's positions are more in keeping with the traditions of the party than are those of the extremist nativists and theocrats and anti-corporatists. Those positions just aren't compatible with the values of the GOP over the years.
You made a series of arguments that McCain has taken reasonable Republican positions on the issues. But in most of the cases, he had to go outside his party to find allies. This isn't a theoretical matter. He alienated members of his own party and teamed with Democrats for McCain-Feingold, McCain-Leiberman, and McCain-Kennedy.
There were plenty of Republicans backing each of those acts. McCain just believes in bipartisanship. It's why he's been able to get so much major legislation passed. Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing.
And these aren't peripheral issues to his candidacy. This is the record he's running on. If he were running on his budget-cutting efforts, we'd be talking about them. Instead, he's been sneering at the private sector a lot (probably as a tactic against Romney, but still...). He's been calling for increased regulation of business, in the name of preventing global warming. There are plenty of reasons for moderate Republicans to be nervous.
Moderate Republicans are flocking to him in droves. Only the most conservative and ideologically driven are holding out and they're sounding more and more crazy like Ann coulter in the clip embedded in the article.
Dave
17 - Baritone
Baronius,
Yes, I know I got under your skin when I attacked the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, etal, and yes, if there is anyone who I get close to really hating it is those buttheads who make hay at the expense of others with their endless spewing of cheap shots and skewed facts. And, yes, I characterized them as goose-stepping Nazis with no apology.
I have strong feelings as regards religion, and again, those I aim my sharpest barbs are the prancing evangelists who do their own share of spewing to their deluded parishoners while picking their pockets.
Reagan. I don't or didn't hate the man. I just think he is extremely overrated and find how so many deify him beyond understanding.
Otherwise, I am actually far from being an extremist. But I'm not shy about venting from time to time.
B-tone
18 - Baronius
Dave, I don't know if you're avoiding my point or you really don't follow it.
There's nothing new about people in the Republican Party being motivated by their religious beliefs, trying to change the country's laws in the direction of their social agenda. What is new is labelling them "theocrats".
It may not matter to you that abolitionists were motivated by religion, but it sure mattered to them. They remade the world around them, reshaping the Constitution to match what they believed to be God's law. There was no worry about the "tyranny of the majority". They won the election, and when the South tried to secede, they went to war and died by the hundreds of thousands.
Don't treat the zealot as a newcomer to the GOP. They've been here as long as there's been a party. They're as much a thread of Republican history as high-tariff big business, or low-tariff small business. The party has seen big debates, for example on tariffs. But you can't claim that the progressives and libertarians are the only traditions in the GOP.
19 - Baronius
Baritone, every fanatic is perfectly balanced on every issue except the ones on which their opponents are prancing goose-stepping fascist buttheads.
20 - Al Barger
Brother Nalle, you make a decent case that McCain is a true Republican. To me, however, that's an argument against both McCain and Republicans. NO. I'll stand out on the corner with Ann Coulter handing out Hillary tracts.
JOHN MCCAIN'S FREE SPEECH ZONE
21 - Baritone
Baronius,
You got me. I'm one crazy assed, baby killing, cocaine snorting, godless motherfucker. There are things and people I don't like, so that must make me a fanatic. I was just hoping you wouldn't notice. Damn!
B-tone
22 - Scott
It is about time the traditional Republicans got to choose a candidate. The "conservative" right wing has had their way too long and made us all look bad like Tom Delay's corruption and their hypocrisy on the budget deficit. I could not agree more with this assessment of John McCain. He is a man that does what is right before what is popular, even with the far right wing. We need a president who knows how to get things done, not just hate the other side of the isle and stone wall everything while things get worse. We still do not have immigration reform. So now we are stuck with 12 million undocumented illegal aliens because the fare right would rather do nothing than make a "square deal." The result is amnesty. Thanks a lot far right conservatives.
23 - Dave Nalle
Baronius, I think you actually missed MY point. I got yours.
That point being that there is a difference between religion motivating people in politics and politics being about religion.
There's also a huge difference between the positive religious agenda of the abolitionists and other 19th century liberals and the toxic form of christianity which drives our contemporary theocrats. It's the difference between wanting to help people because it's the Christian thing to do, and wanting to use the power of government to force Christianity on people because it glorifies you and your beliefs.
Dave
24 - Lee Richards
Dave,
Very perceptive writing about the important differences between 'Republican' and 'conservative' in this election.
To refer to Limbaugh, Coulter, Huckabee, etc., as conservatives, though, stains, distorts and demeans the ideals of conservatism.
Those fanatics believe themselves to be infallible arbiters of social, political, and economic orthodoxy, and know in their hearts that any contrary idea is completely wrong. They're sure they have sole insight into what's right and complete possession of the truth, and everything else is certainly false and evil.
That's not conservatism (or Republican.) That's a perverted, self-righteous, and harmful cult mentality, and Republicans should scorn and reject it.
Politics in a democracy is the art of the possible. It is--and should be--based on compromise, dialogue, and consensus. There just isn't any viablibilty in a "saved" or "unsaved" conservative gospel according to Limbaugh, et al.
25 - Dave Nalle
Lee, your last paragraph would be the absolute definition of what John McCain seems to believe. I think that's not such a bad thing, even if I disagree with several of the compromises he's made.
As for Limbaugh and Co. They are conservatives, both as self-defined and by any analysis of their beliefs, but they are also obnoxious, self-righteous and dictatorial and very unappealing examples of the breed.
There's room for conservatives within the GOP. There always has been. But these folks place their conservatism above their republicanism or their membership in the GOP. To them it's like a religion. They need a party which accepts that, and if John McCain can show them the door maybe they can go find that party.
Dave