no doubt about it, John McCain is an American hero. He was faithful
and loyal to his country even under the most awful and difficult
circumstances. He loves the United States of America and has proven
that he would be willing to lay down his life for his country.
however, his decision to enter into politics was not the right one for
him. He certainly has good intentions, but the erratic political
positions he has taken during his time in Congress present a picture of a
man with little or no political philosophy. His rudderless performance
inclines me to believe that he is not well-read. He clearly has no
coherent political philosophy. It has been said that Ronald Reagan
could “govern from inside a closet.” Why? Because he had a well-formed
philosophy of life and understood history and human nature.
must be very confusing to be in office and not have any understanding of
the foundations of a free society. “What position should I take on an
issue?” John McCain, like liberal Republicans before him—Dewey,
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Dole, Bush 1 & 2—confuse intelligence for
understanding. The last smart, intelligent, articulate counselor in the
room holds sway and determines their course of action.
few liberal Republicans who win not only fail as Presidents, but also
set the stage for the decline of the Republican Party as we witnessed in
the most recent election. In 1952, liberal Republicans stole the
nomination from Robert Taft and instead selected the war hero, Dwight
Eisenhower. Ike, a likeable fellow, proceeded to expand government
dramatically. Nixon, an early hero of the right, turned out to be a
cardboard hero, who was fortunately defeated by John F. Kennedy, a rare
tax-cutting Democrat. When Nixon was eventually elected President, he
once again expanded government far beyond that of Kennedy and took
foreign policy initiatives that Hubert Humphrey could never have gotten
by with. Ford was absolutely lost in office and didn’t even know that
Poland was a part of the Warsaw Pact. Bush ’41 abandoned the successful
policies of Ronald Reagan to return to the failed policies of raising
taxes. Dole provided further evidence of moderate Republican failure at
the polls. Bush ’43 was successful in being elected by waltzing in the
shadow of Ronald Reagan, but then allowed government to grow
exponentially under his failed administration.
Could John McCain
have won if he wasn’t an advocate of amnesty for illegal aliens? Could
he have won if he had not participated in the obstruction of the
nomination of conservative judges? Could he have won if he wasn’t on
the anti-intellectual side of the global warming debate? Could he have
won if he had not opposed tax cuts? Could he have won if he had
advocated drilling in ANWR? Could he have won if he did not have a
track record of expanding government? Could he have won if he had
attacked Jeremiah Wright? Could he have won if he had opposed the bail
out? Could he have won if he had presented a choice, not an echo, to
the American people?
We will never know.
But we do know
this—liberal Republicans from Dewey to Nixon to Ford to Bush ’41 to Dole
to McCain lose elections. The voters aren’t stupid. Why vote for an
imitation liberal when you can have the real thing from the Democratic
Party? Even when liberal Republicans win, the country loses, just not
as much as it does when a Democrat wins.
If the Republican Party
is to have a future, it must nominate candidates from the courthouse to
the White House who believe in limited government and present a choice
to the voters. What good does an endorsement from The Washington Post or The New York Times do in the primary, when you know you will be savaged by them in the general election?
must quit listening to counsel from those who do not have the best
interest of the Republican Party at heart. Our rallying cry must be,
“No more liberal Republican losers!”