John McCain, Answering Conservative Objections II

These are the tough ones. The worst assaults on conservatives perpetrated by John McCain and the reasons most often cited in my comment threads. As I try to answer these objections you must understand my position. I believe the choice between McCain and Romney is a choice between being competitive or losing the White House. I also believe the summation of the votes and actions of both Romney and McCain in their respective offices to be nearly identical.

I say “votes and actions” because I disregard rhetoric. Rhetoric can change without much effort. While I think McCain’s record as a Republican is on par with his opponents, some actions of his have had disproportionately large affects on the opinions of my fellow conservatives. My purpose here is not to excuse McCain but to explain why these actions of McCain aren’t enough to sway my support.

McCain-Feingold

The worst of the worst, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA); it is the centerpiece of McCain’s career. Passed by the Senate 60-40, passed in the GOP controlled house and then signed into law by President Bush, it survived a challenge to the Supreme Court. Among those who filed briefs in support of BCRA when it was challenged in SCOTUS was Fred Thompson.

[Romney has also shown support for campaign contribution restrictions and publicly subsidized campaigns but has conveniently begun attacking BCRA. Romney even supported abolishing Political Action Committees (PACs).]

While I’m among those who think of BCRA as speech rationing, I also understand it to be a logical extension of some of the original campaign finance reforms started during the 1970s. After the Watergate scandal there was broad support for more finance regulation while today BCRA (and even more restrictive campaign laws) have 60 to 70% support among the public. After the Jack Abramoff scandal (and thirty or more years of intense media based politicking) you can’t really blame the public for eyeing money in politics the way it does.

I personally am against BCRA and any restriction on free speech and I hope someday we’ll be able to repeal the law but losing the White House in 2008 isn’t the way to do it.

Friends of mine would point out that I’m pro-life. They know me, most of them probably know the sanctity of life is more than 50% of my motivation for even paying attent to politics. My friends would then point out BCRA interferes with the ability of pro-life groups to get their messages out during campaign season. I would point out the same law effects pro-abortion groups from doing the same.

You learn the rules and play to win no matter what competitive endeavor you pursue (An axiom I learned from my first political mentor). While I’m talented at flying arm bars (in Judo these are body throws which use arm bars as part of the throw) they are banned in competition. I learned the arm bars as they are effective moves for bar bouncers, and while they are part of the tradition of Judo they aren’t allowed in competition. Instead I have to use other methods. You learn the rules, and play to win. I don’t doubt the robust nature of the Life movement will prevail regardless of the rules.

I would ask my Pro-Life brethren how they would feel about SCOTUS getting another Ginsburg, another Stevens or another Breyer. I have no doubt a Democratic presidency would result in secular, revisionist ACLU-type nominees. Is it worth it to abandon McCain, someone with the best chance at winning the White House, someone who has a great record on abortion, someone who voted for Bork, complained about Souter, voted for Alito and Roberts, over BCRA?

People who wish to overturn BCRA have a lot of work ahead of them. They need to get candidates elected and change popular opinion. The fact a Republican president signed BCRA into law should be a significant indicator of the hole we need to get ourselves out of regarding this issue.

On that note, I have a question for all my readers. Did BCRA prevent you from voting for George Bush in 2004?

McCain-Lieberman

McCain is on the Global Warming (GW) bandwagon. McCain-Lieberman would begin the process of moving away from a fossil fuel economy towards renewable energy and it would start to tax carbon emissions. [Romney also is on the GW bandwagon but he thinks voluntary cuts are still plausible].

Once again public opinion is on McCain’s side. Most people believe in GW and want the government to begin solving the problem. Even Alan Greenspan, one of them men I most adore, supports tax increases on carbon (as long as they are offset with tax cuts elsewhere). While not a GW alarmist I think the US should start to move away from oil and coal and start moving towards other power sources, preferably nuclear.

McCain might not be as "good" as Romney on this issue, but McCain is certainly better than the alternative. This isn’t a deal-breaker for me.