SmallGovTimes.com

By: Steve Adcock | Published on 02/11/08    

With Arizona Senator John McCain all but confirmed as the nominee for the Republicans this election cycle, do pay attention to the damage control that the Republican establishment is preparing to throw your way, and it starts from the very top of government, President George W. Bush.

Chatting with Fox News' Chris Wallace, President Bush called John McCain a true conservative and said he is well aware of the principles that govern his views. "I know the principles that drive him and no doubt in my mind he is a true conservative," he said.

Bush added McCain is strong on national defense, tough fiscally and believes the tax cuts should be made permanent. Now, let's stop right here for a moment, please.

McCain is strong on national defense? I suppose this largely depends on how the president defines the word “strong”. McCain said several weeks ago that he is okay with keeping our troops deployed in Iraq for another 100 years, which leads me to believe the president defines “strong” as an unwavering focus on maintaining our near-constant state of war for the next century or more. In 7 years, the United States has managed to spend more than $600 billion in Iraq alone. If costs remain steady, another hundred years of war would set our nation back an astounding $8.4 trillion dollars. Sadly, our nation cannot afford our government's foreign policy, and McCain not only agrees with it, he perpetuates it.

This brings up the question of how “fiscally tough” the senator actually is. He apparently has already signed up for leading the way towards more than eight trillion dollars in spending overseas. McCain supports our expensive War on Drugs program and even voted in 1996 to add an additional $53 million to “international narcotics control funding”. He supports giving a $2500 government subsidy tax credit for health care, supports the Medicare prescription drug benefit, supported in 1999 a restriction on limiting self-employment health deductions and in 2002 supported a $350 billion prescription drug program for seniors.

McCain supports the government-controlled minimum wage and wants it increased to $7.25. He voted against Bush's tax cuts originally in 2003, arguing they favored the rich, and then changed his mind and voted for them in 2006. In 2001, he voted against a plan that would have increased tax deductions for college tuition and also opposed across-the-board spending cuts in 1999.

Fiscally tough? Not in my book. But President Bush did utter an accurate statement to Chris Wallace during their walk around the presidential retreat in Maryland. He said that McCain “has got some convincing to do to convince people that he is a solid conservative.” Indeed he does, Mr. Bush.

And then, of course, there is McCain-Feingold, a bill that regulates political speech and the amounts of money that can be donated to a political candidate, and even the timing of political ads. McCain's defense of his bill? "I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government." A clean government, Mr. McCain, or a big government?

What does “complete the job” mean in McCain's defense of the bill? What more does our federal government need to do, what freedoms does the government need to restrict and what so-called corruption does the government need to address before the Arizona Senator is finally convinced that he works in a “clean” government? What is next, senator?

As many conservatives voice their frustration among their choices this time around, just as many political pundits and talking heads within the GOP beg for those voters to set aside their principles and vote for McCain, because evidently, he's “less evil” than whomever the Democrats eventually nominate. Voting for the lesser of two evils has become commonplace in America, a concept that is bastardizing our electoral system and places unjust confidence in bad leaders.

Ben Boychuk from RedBlueAmerica believes that although McCain is not the ideal choice, “Republicans need to get past his failings,” arguing simply that between McCain and a Democrat, “there is no choice.” Scott Rogers for The Conservative Voice instructs his readers not to vote for McCain if they want their taxes increased every year, a “pre-mature” pullout of Iraq, or pro-abortion judges. He then proceeds to guarantee his readers that any Democrat will be “bad” for this country and McCain is, well, less bad. How lovely.

Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are two notable exceptions to the GOP's damage control machine. Coulter, on Bill O'Reilly's radio program last week, claimed that Hillary Clinton may wind up less damaging to our nation than John McCain and even floated the idea that she may actively campaign for Clinton (which she clarified on Bill O'Reilly's show as “against McCain”) if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination.

This election is quickly turning into one of the more interesting of our time. Interesting, of course, does not necessarily equate to promising or helpful. In fact, none of the candidates currently in the race, for the exception of Ron Paul who remains a long shot, view the government as an unnecessarily obese entity that is systematically consolidating power and influence within its walls. “What have you done for me lately” seems to be the voter's only concern. A more pointed question from the voters may be something like “What can you do for me in the future?”

Original URL:
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/08feb11.gop.damage.control/index.html