Stop John McCain

Why McCain Needs to Be Stopped

By Robert Tracinski

Will John McCain save Republicans?

McCain's South Carolina victory raises the possibility that he could save Republicans from a drawn-out primary battle by giving them a clear front-runner to rally behind, unifying the party well in advance of this summer's convention. And although it's still a bit early for these polls to mean very much, McCain does well in match-ups against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, so he offers Republicans the possibility that he could save them from defeat in November by attracting independents and winning against the Democratic nominee.

Many voters seem to be attracted to McCain because of his strong stance on the War on Terrorism, reinforced by his war-hero biography. This is part of the reason, for example, that Rudy Giuliani's poll numbers have declined precisely as McCain's have risen: both candidates are competing for the support of pro-war voters.

But that raises another, far more important question: if John McCain saves Republicans, who will save Republicans from John McCain?

The voters who support McCain over Giuliani are making a dangerously short-sighted trade. McCain is a suicidal choice for Republicans, because on every issue other than the war, he stands for capitulation to the left.

There are three big domestic issues that will be decided by the 2008 election: socialized medicine, higher taxes, and global warming regulations. The Democrats are in favor of all three--and John McCain won't stop them.

On health care, McCain has attacked pharmaceutical companies as "bad guys" who are using corrupt political influence to profit at the expense of the little guy--campaign rhetoric borrowed straight from one of John Edwards's "two Americas" tirades. McCain uses this rhetoric to support the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada. The drugs are cheaper in Canada, but that's because Canada has a system of socialized medicine that imposes price controls. So importing drugs from Canada is just an indirect way of importing socialist price controls.

But every student of economics knows that price controls tend to choke off the supply of new drugs. Why should pharmaceutical companies invest billions of dollars in research and testing over a period of decades, if the government is going to steal their profits by dictating arbitrary prices?

Apparently, John McCain doesn't understand free-market economics and won't stand up for the principle of economic freedom. So how is he supposed to stand up to the Democrats on any part of their socialized medicine agenda?

In addition to fighting the Democrats on socialized medicine, a Republican president would also have to fight in Congress for the extension of President Bush's tax cuts, which are set to begin expiring in 2009 and 2010. A failure to extend these tax cuts (or to make them permanent) would mean a massive de facto tax increase. Yet McCain was opposed to the Bush tax cuts when they were first passed.

But the biggest problem for Republicans with McCain's candidacy is his stance on global warming. McCain has been an active promoter of the global warming hysteria--for which he has been lauded by radical environmentalists--and he is a co-sponsor of a leftist scheme for energy rationing. The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act would impose an arbitrary cap on America's main sources of energy production, to be enforced by a huge network of federal taxes and regulations.

The irony is that McCain won in South Carolina among voters whose top concern is the economy. Don't these voters realize what a whole new regime of energy taxes and regulations would do to the economy?

No matter what happens, there is likely to be a huge debate in the coming years over global warming--whether it's really happening, whether it's actually caused by human beings, and what to do about it. But if the Republicans nominate McCain, that political debate will be over, and Al Gore and the left will have won it--thanks to John McCain.

And speaking of political debate, McCain is against it. The most notorious piece of legislation McCain has co-sponsored with the left is McCain-Feingold, which has the evil distinction of being the nation's first direct attack on the freedom of political speech during an election campaign, precisely when such speech is most important.

For Republicans, there is one form of suicide worse than losing the 2008 presidential election--and that is winning it with a candidate who will put the pro-welfare-state, pro-regulation left in the driver's seat of American politics. Yet that is precisely what Republican primary voters are unwittingly supporting when they vote for McCain.

So who will save Republicans from John McCain? In the early primaries, he has already shown he can beat Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and--at least some of the time--Mitt Romney. And there's good reason why none of these candidates has been successful against McCain. None of them can match his appeal on foreign policy, and most of them offer their own major examples of capitulation to the left.

No, the best hope to save Republicans from McCain is the one candidate who hasn't yet fully entered the race--but who will finally have his chance against McCain in Florida: Rudy Giuliani.

As the one Republican running on both a strong foreign policy and a staunch pro-free-market platform, Giuliani may be the last hope to prevent a Republican suicide in 2008.

McCain Presidency Very Dangerous

Former Senator and leading conservative Rick Santorum says a John McCain presidency would be “very, very dangerous for Republicans.”

Santorum — who was defeated in 2006 after two terms as a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania — was sharply critical of fellow Republican McCain in an interview that aired last week on syndicated talk radio host Mark Levin’s show.

Responding to Levin’s observation that McCain is trying to recast himself as more conservative now that he is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, Santorum said:

“It’s amazing to hear what John McCain is trying to convince the voters he is all about. The bottom line is, I served 12 years with him, six years in the Senate as one of the leaders of the Senate, trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.”

Santorum cited the campaign finance reform bill sponsored by McCain, the McCain-Feingold Act, which limits campaign contributions and has been called by some an “incumbent protection act.”

Santorum called the act “an affront to personal freedom and liberty in this country, and what we’ve seen as a result of this misguided attempt to placate the New York Times and to help his stature within that community … is that special interests have absolutely taken over the political process, and individual candidates, unless you’re a billionaire, and parties have very little voice in the process.

“It’s a shame, but he was obviously out front on that.”

The former Senator also criticized McCain for voting against the Bush Tax cuts — he was one of only two Republicans to do so.

“The reduction in [tax] rates and lowering the rates on capital gains and dividends … did so much to get this economy up and going. [But] we would have had a much bigger tax cut if it were not for John McCain.”

Santorum pointed to McCain’s opposition to conservative positions on drug re-importation, federally funded embryonic stem cell research, immigration, the questioning of terror detainees and other issues, and said he has a “big fear” of a McCain presidency.

He asserted it would create a “huge rift” in the Republican Party, and told Levin’s listeners:

“I think he’s been solid in the war on terror … but on domestic policy, he’s very, very dangerous for Republicans.

“There’s nothing worse than having a Democratic Congress and a Republican president who would act like a Democrat in matters that are important to conservatives.”

Santorum also claimed that McCain was a leader of Senate moderates that often stopped Republicans from pushing strong pro-life legislation.

Santorum said he had not decided which candidate he will vote for in the upcoming GOP primary, but ruled out voting for McCain.

Santorum expressed the same sentiment back in March, saying he would support whoever wins the Republican nomination for president in 2008, with the exception of John McCain.

As Newsmax reported at the time, Santorum said in an interview: "I don’t agree with him on hardly any issues. I don’t think he has the temperament and leadership ability to move the country in the right direction.”

The Real McCain Record

Obstacles in the way of conservative support.

By Mark R. Levin

There’s a reason some of John McCain's conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

Your Speech or Your Life!

Why does McCain get a pass on stifling the pro-life message in the service of suppressing free speech … for the benefit of pro-abortion Democrats?

By Andrew C. McCarthy

As a Giuliani supporter, it hasn’t been much fun to watch my fellow conservatives tear into my guy over abortion. Such was the ardor that the 30-year-old Hyde amendment was invoked to stoke fears that the mayor would reverse its long-standing ban on federal-funding for abortion — notwithstanding that he is the GOP candidate most credible on what used to be the plinth of conservative theology: shrinking government and its role in our lives.

Giuliani is committed to leaving the Hyde amendment intact. More significantly, he has pledged to appoint judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and John Roberts. As a practical matter, a president cannot do more than that to support life — or, for that matter, to affect many issues conservatives care about.

Still, the scrutiny of the pro-life movement has been understandably intense, and the mayor has not been the only candidate under the microscope. Fred Thompson, who had a relatively strong record on life while serving as a senator, was lashed over consulting work his law firm did on behalf of a pro-choice group nearly 20 years ago. It doesn’t appear that Thompson did much, if anything, to lobby the Bush-41 administration to ease the “gag rule” against abortion-counseling at federally-funded clinics. Still, that didn’t prevent a spike of pro-life angst that knocked the candidate off his stride just as he was moving off the starting block.

This is as it should be. In the conservative firmament, the centrality of life’s sanctity endures. But it’s got me wondering: There is only one candidate on the GOP side who has, in just the last few months and years, vigorously worked to defeat pro-life forces and frustrate the only policies that have a chance to reduce abortions; yet, conservatives have given him a total pass.

His name is John McCain.

Senator McCain has engaged in a years-long campaign against Wisconsin Right to Life, an organization dedicated to advancing the pro-life agenda. Conservatives, one might have thought, would be stunned by a grand-slam only the modern Left could love: McCain has (a) urged the courts to judicially legislate a (b) suppression of free-speech rights (c) against an anti-abortion group which was (d) trying to urge the confirmation of conservative Bush judicial nominees.

And the cherry on top? McCain’s exertions were singularly designed to protect one of the Senate’s most liberal incumbents: Russ Feingold (D., Wis.), McCain’s soul-mate in the evisceration of First Amendment rights (also known as the McCain/Feingold “campaign finance reform” law). A pro-abortion stalwart who scores a whopping 93 percent on NARAL’s pro-choice report card, Feingold has also opposed the Patriot Act and every sensible national security measure taken after 9/11 … in addition to seeking President Bush’s censure over the effort to penetrate al-Qaeda communications during wartime.

McCain believes political speech is bad for democracy — as long, of course, as there is an exemption for mainstream media speech that swoons over “mavericks” who break with conservatives over immigration, global warming, the Bush tax cuts, etc. The Senator, however, is astute enough to know his assault on the First Amendment is wildly unpopular with the people whose nomination he seeks. So, to put their minds at ease, he told National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru last year that he was satisfied by President Bush’s 2002 decision to sign McCain/Feingold into law. He would, he assured, seek no further “legislation” to ban political speech.

Turns out the captain of the “Straight-Talk Express” left out one itsy-bitsy detail. Even as he spoke those words, he was — as an influential senator — exhorting the United States Supreme Court to tack a sweeping judicial ban onto the already extensive McCain/Feingold restrictions.

The target was Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL). This pro-life group well understood that when it comes to abortion, the action is in the federal courts. In 2004, the president was working to put his pro-life stamp on those courts by appointing conservative judges. He was being blocked by Democrats, who, though in the minority, were capitalizing on the chamber’s procedural rules to filibuster nominees for the all-important federal appellate courts. One of those Democrats was none other than Sen. Feingold. So WRTL decided to run issue ads, urging Feingold to do his constitutional duty and give the Bush nominees an up-or-down vote.

Feingold, however, was up for reelection. In the Alice in Wonderland world of McCain/Feingold, that meant it was ostensibly against the law for an interest group in our democracy to utter his name in “electioneering statements” on a matter of vital public policy 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election — that is, in the 90 days when public attention is at its height and political speech matters most. As the First Amendment ensures that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” WRTL had this crazy notion that McCain/Feingold violated its fundamental rights.

Obviously, McCain is all for “straight talk” as long as it is he — or the New York Times — doing the talking. The last thing we need, though, is straight-talk from a pro-life group exerting pressure on a pro-abortion incumbent. So the maverick swung into action, pursuing WRTL in the courts for three years. Just as he was preparing for his presidential run — and telling conservatives he certainly didn’t support any further campaign finance legislation — he was doing exactly what the Left always does when its unpopular positions hit the democratic wall of the ballot box: namely, asking the courts to do his bidding.

Indicative of the effort is the amicus brief McCain filed in the Supreme Court in 2007. Here is a representative sample of what the senator found so outrageous:

All of WRTL’s ads denounced a “group of Senators” for filibustering judicial nominees and “causing gridlock” …; two of the ads emphasized that the Senators were “backing up some of our courts to a state of emergency[.]” … The ads then urged the audience to contact Senator Feingold — then a candidate for federal office — and Senator [Herb] Kohl [another Wisconsin Democrat] to tell them to oppose the filibusters. … It was public knowledge that Feingold was one of the “group of Senators” to whom the ads referred. Indeed, WRTL itself had publicized Senator Feingold’s involvement in the filibusters (an important issue in the election) and called for his defeat on that ground. Although the ads asked the audience to contact Senators Feingold and Kohl, they provided no contact information for them, instead directing viewers to a website criticizing them for their role in the filibusters. WRTL sought to run its ads immediately before the 2004 election (while Congress was in recess and no vote on the filibuster was imminent) and did not run them after the election (when the filibuster controversy came to a head)….

Can you imagine? A group of Feingold’s pro-life constituents, opposed to his policies, had the temerity to urge other constituents to contact him, while he was very busy running for another six years as their representative. And they had the audacity to suggest that Feingold should stop filibustering eminently qualified judges — right before an election. I mean, what on earth is America coming too?

Fortunately, McCain lost. Despite the best efforts of Feingold and many of his fellow Democrats, by 2007, President Bush had managed to get two of his appointees on the Supreme Court. The tribunal thus shifted, becoming less hospitable to McCain/Feingold than it had been in 2003 when, remarkably, the statute’s gutting of political speech was tenuously upheld. But even in ruling against McCain, the Court left open the door to reconsidering the issue — and that’s why a happy result is not a happy ending.

For in the interim, while Republicans still controlled the Senate in 2006, McCain led a bipartisan “Gang of 14” which, at the eleventh hour, prevented the Senate from repealing its filibuster rule in the confirmation context. As a result, many of the conservative Bush appointees never got confirmed.

Worse still, in the subsequent midterm election, control of the Senate shifted to the Democrats — with whom McCain constantly brags of his willingness to collaborate. With the Judiciary Committee now in Democrat hands, Bush judicial nominations have stalled. Vacancies on the top courts mount. Largely thanks to McCain, the Left now has its ideal scenario: the ability to drag its feet until after the 2008 election, after which a President Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can fill those openings and dramatically move the federal courts in the direction of abortion rights and sundry “progressive” pieties.

This is not something that happened 10, 20 or 30 years ago. It reflects who the Senator is today. For another Republican presidential candidate, such a performance would be disqualifying. Why has McCain gotten away with it?

John McCain’s Sweet Spot

Will it last?

By Rich Lowry

Ever since Huckabee won Iowa, everything has lined up perfectly in this process for John McCain. It must be the lucky nickel. There were only four days between Iowa and New Hampshire, not enough time for Romney to recover there and not enough time for conservative talk radio, which is really kicking in now against McCain, to have any real effect. One moment McCain was the war hero whose campaign had imploded and no one thought about, except to say nice things about him during the debates; the next moment he was back on top in New Hampshire. The timing was perfect.

Then, on to Michigan. McCain now is taking more fire from the Right, but McCain has a base in Michigan and independents and Democrats can vote for him (is that why he went out of his way to mention global warming tonight?). He’s going to be hard to stop there and his main rival in Michigan, Romney, was stomped on by everyone in the New Hampshire debates. Thanks, guys!

After that: South Carolina. Let’s assume that McCain wins Michigan. Who is going to stop him in South Carolina? I assume it’s not going to happen by inertia. He’s going to have momentum and he’s already pretty strong in South Carolina. Someone’s going to have to affirmatively try to deny him victory, and there are only two guys to do it: Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.

Huckabee has spoken nary a discouraging word about McCain. In fact, he has teamed up with him. He worked in tandem with him during the New Hampshire debates, and practically gave his own victory speech after McCain won the primary. Is he going to pivot to hit McCain? So far in Michigan he’s still implicitly shooting at Romney for looking too corporate. Maybe he’s waiting until South Carolina. But there’s only four days between Michigan and South Carolina — not enough time (see Iowa-New Hampshire above). Huckabee may never go after McCain, because he criticized Romney earlier for attacking McCain, or because he doesn’t feel comfortable attacking a war hero, or he’s simply committed to staying positive (despite Rollins), or because he has it in the back of his mind that he can be McCain’s vice-presidential pick.

Then, there’s Fred. He took a gentle swipe at McCain on immigration Thursday night, but reserved most of his fire for Huck. Attacking Huck in South Carolina probably helps McCain because so far Huck has been McCain’s main competition there. Let’s say that Fred supplants Huck in the hearts of true conservatives. Unless he skyrockets, McCain will still be in his way. Will he then go after the Arizona senator? He may never do it, because McCain is his friend, or because he’s uncomfortable attacking a war hero, or because he knows that he’ll eventually endorse McCain, or because in the back of his mind he thinks he could be McCain’s VP pick.

If McCain wins Michigan and if he wins South Carolina — I know the “if’s” are piling up here — it’s on to Florida. That’s where Rudy awaits. You can see Rudy forcefully taking on McCain. But he hasn’t done it so far because he has an incentive to sit back and let everyone else fight over the early states. (It should also be noted that Rudy has said that if he weren’t running, he’d be supporting McCain.) Maybe Rudy is just waiting until the race makes it down to Florida. But by then it could be too late. Rudy will be taking on McCain after his momentum has had plenty of time to build, and when he may have established himself as the frontrunner that the party won’t want to have scuffed up too badly, especially by a candidate who will have even more problems with the Right.

The upshot: McCain is in a sweet spot. Will it last? Will something happen to knock him out of it — a loss in Michigan, a gaffe, a swoon among conservatives in South Carolina? There’s no way to know. But there’s nothing like being the candidate who is probably the frontrunner, but is not targeted by most of his opponents. Keep rubbing the lucky nickel, senator. You want to stay in this sweet spot as long as possible.