I've said for a few weeks that I have couple of reasons I'm backing John McCain for president, but there are really three: the war on terror, electability, and judges. And yesterday's Wall Street Journal op-ed makes the case for backing McCain.
We believe that the nomination of John McCain is the best option to preserve the ongoing restoration of constitutional government. He is by far the most electable Republican candidate remaining in the race, and based on his record is as likely to appoint judges committed to constitutionalism as Mitt Romney, a candidate for whom we also have great respect.
We make no apology for suggesting that electability must be a prime consideration. The expected value of any presidential candidate for the future of the American judiciary must be discounted by the probability that the candidate will not prevail in the election. For other kinds of issues, it may be argued that it is better to lose with the perfect candidate than to win with an imperfect one. The party lives to fight another day and can reverse the bad policies of an intervening presidency.
I've always found this to be a short-sighted, imperfect argument, particularly where politics are concerned. This was the thinking that gave us a Democratic Congress in 2006, and there hasn't been much to like about that (although President Bush has brought out the veto pen more willingly). The idea that having all three branches of government in Democratic hands will somehow bring people back to the conservatism approved of by Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh is suicidal nonsense.
But remember: more than anything else, the reason to vote Republican in November is judges.
On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, for judicial conservatives electability must be a paramount consideration. By all accounts, Mr. McCain is more electable than Mr. Romney. He runs ahead or even with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the national polls, and actually leads the Democratic candidates in key swing states like Wisconsin. Mr. Romney trails well behind both Democratic candidates by double digits. The fundamental dynamic of this race points in Mr. McCain's way as well. He appeals to independents, while Mr. Romney's support is largely confined to Republicans.
With many more Republican senators up for re-election than Democrats, the nomination of Mr. Romney could easily lead to a Goldwater-like debacle, in which the GOP loses not only the White House but also its ability in practice to filibuster in the Senate. Thus, even if we believed that Mr. Romney's judicial appointments were likely to be better than Mr. McCain's -- and we are not persuaded of that -- we would find ourselves hard-pressed to support his candidacy, given that he is so much less likely to make any appointments at all.
I heard Hugh Hewitt last night actually trying to argue that Mitt Romney had a snowball's chance in hell of winning against either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama in November. The willful suspension of disbelieve by the far right is stunning to watch. Every poll has shown Romney crushed by any Democratic opponent, yet Hewitt harps on McCain's age as one more reason to vote for Romney. What will be his excuse in November? That it was ok to lose since it was his guy?
Regardless of your feelings about McCain-Feingold, the gang of 14, the Bush tax cuts, or immigration, the most important--and longlasting--reasons to elect a Republican in November are the war on terror and judges.
William Kristol writes about it in a column in yesterday's New York Times.
When the primaries are over, if McCain has won the day, don’t sulk and don’t sit it out. Don’t pretend there’s no difference between a candidate who’s committed to winning in Iraq and a Democratic nominee who embraces defeat. Don’t tell us that it doesn’t matter if the next president voted to confirm John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, or opposed them. Don’t close your eyes to the difference between pro-life and pro-choice, or between resistance to big government and the embrace of it.
And don’t treat 2008 as a throwaway election. If a Democrat wins the presidency, he or she will almost certainly have a Democratic Congress to work with. That Congress will not impede a course of dishonorable retreat abroad. It won’t balk at liberal Supreme Court nominees at home. It won’t save the economy from tax hikes.
If, by contrast, McCain wins the presidency — and all the polls suggest he’d be the best G.O.P. bet to do so — he’ll be able to shape a strong American foreign policy, nominate sound justices and fight for parts of the conservative domestic agenda.
None of this is to recommend that conservatives don't have a right to disagree with John McCain or any other candidate; they do. But when Ann Coulter lies and says John McCain is a liberal and she's not only going to vote for Hillary Clinton but campaign for her if McCain gets the Republican nomination, she does more to damage conservatism's reputation for rationality and logic than help it.
Dislike McCain if you must. But don't pretend that Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama will nominate more conservative judges than McCain will. It just won't happen. And judges are the legacy of any president.
Patterico has gone the anybody-but-McCain route, as well, arguing that people just don't like McCain. Yeah. That's a great argument.
|