Four Days and Counting

So tonight, with my state's primary election looming, I decided it was time to settle on a candidate. And after several hours online visiting websites and looking up policy statements and past votes and quotes on issues, I made my choice: on Tuesday I will be voting for John McCain.

If my chance to vote had come a little earlier, I would have probably gone with Fred Thompson because in spite of my reservations about his passion for the office, he was the viable candidate whose views best reflected my own. But of course Fred is out, and so is Rudy Giuliani, the other candidate to whom I was giving serious consideration. I had previously decided against both Huckabee and Paul, so that now leaves me with a choice between Romney and McCain.

I have all along been unable to enthusiastically embrace any of these Republican candidates, having doubts about all of them. Thus my indecision a mere four days before the vote. But I will admit that I have always had a "soft spot" for McCain and thus a difficult time understanding the anti-McCain passion, even hatred, that often spills from the lips of many of today's vocal conservatives.

For example, this video of Ann Coulter promising to endorse and campaign for Hillary Clinton should McCain get the nomination confirms my growing suspicion of her as a complete loose cannon and self-serving publicity hound, and I will forthwith be removing her link from my sidebar:



I just don't understand how anyone can claim that Hillary Clinton is more conservative and would be better for the country than John McCain. I also don't accept the argument that there is little difference between the two. Here are just a few issues illustrating the chasm that exists between these two frontrunners of their respective parties:

On Abortion

McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade, voted yes on parental notification and banning partial birth abortions, and has a 0% rating from NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) and a 75% rating from the NRLC (National Right to Life Committee).

Clinton supports upholding Roe v. Wade, voted no on parental notification and banning partial birth abortions, and has a 100% rating from NARAL and a 0% rating from NRLC.

On Civil Rights

McCain has a 0% rating from the ACLU, a 33% rating from the HRC and a 7% rating from the NAACP. He voted yes on banning same-sex marriage and on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds and no on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes. He supports an amendment against flag burning and the right of formerly Confederate states to fly the Confederate flag as a symbol of their heritage.

Clinton has a 60% rating from the ACLU, an 89% rating from the HRC and a 96% rating from the NAACP (a rating, by the way, that indicates a strongly pro-affirmative action record). She voted no on banning same-sex marriage and on recommending a Constitutional ban on flag desecration. She also voted yes on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes.

On Education

McCain supports homeschooling, charter schools, and vouchers as well as unrestricted block grants to states so school districts can decide for themselves how educational funds are best used. He has voted no on a host of educational funding initiatives such as $52 million for "21st century community learning centers" as well as on national education standards. He has a 45% rating from the NEA.

Clinton supports federally funded universal preschool. She is against educational vouchers and only supports choice for those in the public education system. She has never seen an education funding bill she didn't like and has an 82% rating from the NEA.

On Family Values

McCain has an 83% rating from the Christian Coalition; Clinton's rating from the same group is 0%.

On Free Trade

McCain has a 100% rating from CATO; Clinton's rating from the same group is 17%.

On Health Care

McCain is against mandating universal health care or insurance coverage; Clinton wants to universalize health care and pay for it with a huge tax increase.

On Iraq

McCain wants to achieve victory in Iraq; Clinton says she will begin withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking office.

On Judges

McCain says he will appoint strict constructionist judges. Clinton will not.

I could go on. All of the above information and more is available at http://www.ontheissues.org/. The site itself reflects a slight leftward bias in its use of certain descriptive words and phrases, but the factual information is detailed and extensive. And based on that information I simply don't understand how it is possible to see the two of them as birds of a feather. I understand that McCain has taken some positions on issues such as global warming, campaign finance reform, tax cuts and immigration that are unpopular with conservatives. But he has an impressive gallery of supporters, he has long fought government expansion and overspending, he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and his record on cutting taxes certainly beats Hillary's (72% from the NTU versus her 21%). He may not walk in lock step with the country's conservative powerhouses, but a Clinton or Obama clone he is not, and I wish people would stop making that claim. And I can't for the life of me understand how any Republican would choose to sit out this election because their first choice of candidate did not win the primary. The judges that are appointed during the next term will impact the direction of our country for a generation or more, and while we can't know for certain what to expect from any president's judicial appointments (just think back to that conservative hero Ronald Reagan), I would much rather take my chances on McCain's (or Romney's or Huckabee's or Paul's) appointees than Clinton's or Obama's.

(By the way, it is interesting to note that the site linked above describes both Romney and McCain as "populist-leaning conservatives" and places them at almost the same position on its political philosophy graph. Both Clinton and Obama, on the other hand, are "hard-core liberals." And to round out the current group, you might be interested to know that Huckabee is described as a "hard-core conservative" and Paul as a "moderate libertarian.")

So why McCain and not Romney? Even though I will admit to a certain "ick" factor with reference to his Mormonism, that is not my reason for not voting for him. McCain believes in evolution, which I view as just as false a faith as Mormonism. But voting for a president is not about finding the candidate who shares your religious views; it is about finding the candidate you believe to be most capable of leading the nation and most deserving of your trust. And with McCain I have a certain level of security that he knows what he is doing and that even though I may not agree with him on all points, I can count on him to say what he thinks and to stand up for his principles even when they are not popular. There is a record there that I can look at and feel that I know what I'm getting, whereas although Romney says a lot of the right things I have with him a much stronger sense of a politician saying and doing what is necessary to win the election, whether that means changing previously held views, promising sweeping government solutions to long-existing problems, or speaking glowingly of the sunny skies and good feelings that are going to magically manifest themselves as soon as he takes office. I respect that one can have a change of heart or mind, but in Romney's case I am not comfortable with the number of such changes he has apparently experienced in recent years (two big ones that come to mind are his views on abortion and the Department of Education). I also think that given the current state of world affairs, McCain's foreign policy experience is a huge plus, and I will frankly sleep better with him in the White House. Finally, I think McCain has a much better chance of winning in November, and I believe the importance of that simply can't be ignored, especially in a situation that to my mind offers no "dream" candidate.

If you will be voting on Super Tuesday and are undecided or simply unsure about your decision, I heartily encourage you to spend some time visiting candidates' websites, looking at specifics on issues, and visiting the site above. This is what I did tonight (at long last!), and I now feel that I can vote with some conviction and a clear conscience, if not that all-encompassing enthusiasm that has been so elusive during this very long election season.

Newt?

In her comment on a previous post, my friend Elephant's Child (a Thompson orphan) threw her support behind Newt Gingrich, to which I cried "foul" since Gingrich is not in the race.

Maybe I spoke too soon. I just saw Michael Reagan on television talking about the prospect of a brokered convention (a possibility I have heard mentioned more than once in the past few months), and the one and only name he dropped as a potential draftee to unify the GOP base was Newt Gingrich.

This could get interesting.

Thompson: The (Largely) Untold Story

My state will hold its primary vote on February 5 as part of Super Tuesday. For months now I have been looking at the GOP candidates, trying to settle on one I could enthusiastically embrace. Although that never really happened, I decided last week that the top-tier (and thus viable) candidate that best represented my beliefs was Fred Thompson, and I was pulling for him to stay in the race so that I could give him my vote. But I will admit that Fred never struck me as having the passion for the job that I think Americans want to see, and I worried about his ability to cast a vision and get people behind it. In short, I just wasn't sure if he was up to leading not only the conservative movement but the country.

Now I think the facts, told by Carl Cameron of Fox News (who covered Thompson during the primary campaign), have borne out what my gut was telling me all along. If you are (or were) a Thompson voter, you will want to read this.

Fred, I Hardly Knew You

In case you hadn't heard . . .

So, now what? (And I am particularly interested in hearing from the Thompson followers out there.)

Disillusioned but Hopeful

I am finally ready to admit it. As fine and sincere and good-hearted a man as I believe he is, this president has failed terribly. In case you missed it, here is the best summary I have seen of the point to which he has brought us:

Too Bad

Now, here in my opinion is the current best hope for a restoration of true conservative leadership in this country:

Fox News Sunday

When I watched the Republican candidates debate several weeks ago, I was hoping to find at least one candidate that I could embrace not only for his leadership ability but also for his principles. That did not happen. Candidate Giuliani has the first of these but not the second. Several of the other candidates (McCain, Romney, Huckabee) seem to have elements of both, but none yet strikes me as comprising the total package (in time I could change my mind). Yet every time I see Newt Gingrich on television or read his writing, I am newly impressed by his brilliance and his willingness to speak the truth. I also respect that he has not yet announced his candidacy, waiting to see if another candidate emerges who is willing and able to effectively represent the GOP's conservative base.

So far that hasn't happened. If Fred Thompson announces, maybe it will. But if not, I'm counting on Newt.