Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Open Letter to Sen. McCain: Explain How You're BETTER

I don't know if it's worth my while to actually send this to McCain, but I decided to write it in an "open letter" style anyway. The gist of the letter is that the biggest thing going for McCain is that he has the delegate lead--not that he is the best candidate.

Dear Senator McCain,

It seems to me that you expect all conservatives to unite behind you simply because you are the so-called “presumptive nominee” and because the establishmentarians of the Republican Party are telling us to do so. Well, I am writing to let you know that that’s not going to cut it for this conservative. Before you can capture my vote—and, more importantly, my active support—you have to explain to me why you’re a
better candidate than Governor Mike Huckabee.

How are your position and record on life better? You don’t support a Human Life Amendment, and you have wavered on embryonic stem-cell research.

How are your position and record on marriage better? You oppose a federal marriage amendment.

How are your position and record on the Second Amendment better? You have fought for regulations on gun shows, mandatory trigger locks, and other anti-gun measures.

How are your position and record on the First Amendment better? Through your campaign finance reform, you have hampered the grassroots efforts of pro-life, pro-family, and pro-Second Amendment groups, restricting one of our most fundamental rights—that of free speech.

How are your position and record on immigration better? You wanted to give instant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and, when your bill was brutally defeated by a massive uprising of the American people, you simply decided to tell yourself that it’s because Americans don’t trust the government. You don’t understand that Americans—conservative ones, at least—will not accept what is, in reality, amnesty, regardless of how you try to parse definitions.

How are your position and record on the economy better? You opposed the Bush tax cuts, though you now say you want to make them permanent; you want to impose burdensome environmental regulations; and you want to keep, for the most part, the same old broken system of income taxes, corporate taxes, and unfair trade.

Saying that you’re the “presumptive nominee” is not a case-proof for your candidacy’s superiority. Leading the pack does not automatically make one more suitable to be president, unless you want to concede that George W. Bush was a better candidate than you in 2000. You know as well as I that you won South Carolina by the assistance of Fred Thompson; Florida because of momentum coming out of South Carolina; Oklahoma and Missouri due to the conservative split between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney; and California, Illinois, and the northeastern states partially because of Rudy Giulani’s political demise and partly because you’re not as conservative as you want people to believe. Since then, you’ve won primaries and caucuses largely on the basis of media imbalance and the presumption that the nomination is already yours.

I’m tired of you pointing to endless endorsements by those considered conservative, for two reasons. First of all, the door swings both ways. If you want to tout conservative endorsements as proving that you are a conservative, then what are we to think when you are backed by moderates and liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giulani, and Joe Liebermann? Secondly, although endorsements do mean
something, other factors come into play, and to rely on endorsers for the affirmation of your credentials is to rely on a common logical fallacy. We are living in the age of the Internet, talk radio, and 24/7 cable news channels. An endorsee can no longer hide behind the reputation of his endorsers.

You could just point out the fact that you think, in your own mind, that your positions
are better. I’m sure that such a proclamation would be honest. But I know you're too savvy to try to persuade the conservative base of the Republican Party that it’s been wrong all along.

Instead, you’ve been emphasizing your military expertise throughout the entire campaign season. I respect your service, but no great military leader says, “Keep your heads up, boys. We’re only going to be here for 100 more years.” And, as noble as it sounds when you say, “I’d rather lose an election than a war,” the fact is, if you lose to the Democrats, you will effectively lose the war. Sometimes, you have to temper your rhetoric a bit for the sake of the long-term, greater good. You are not going to be victorious in November with the platform that the vast majority of newborn babies will not see the end of our military presence in Iraq before they die.

Senator McCain, I understand that you are more conservative than Senator Obama. But who isn’t? I’m not interested in picking the lesser of two evils at this point. In fact, I may
never be, but that’s beside the point. There’s still a “good” in this race: Mike Huckabee. I’m voting for him.


If you want to convince me to act otherwise, perhaps you should demand a debate with Governor Huckabee. Then, you can explain why you're better.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

You can't be a conservative and have supported the Huckster.

That's just idiocy.

Unknown said...

"Before you can capture my vote—and, more importantly, my active support—you have to explain to me why you’re a better candidate than Governor Mike Huckabee."

Don't hold your breath. Instead of offering us the olive branch he'd rather hit us with it. "Calm down!"

I hope you won't seriously fall for any campaign promises this guy makes. Better to look at his record. Better to let those that fall for platitudes and campaign speeches vote for Obama.

Also, it takes a lot of guts to log on here anonymously and disagree with the host. It takes a lot of logic to call names than make an argument with facts and ideas.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Stavro,

I'd much rather McCain make conservative campaign promises than drift even more to the middle. However, I know what you're saying.

The best thing he could do to garner my support is to select a hard-core conservative as his VP candidate. Because, although it is not a pleasant thought, the Vice President is always one heartbeat--figuratively and literally--away from the presidency.

Kingdom Advancer said...

I'll keep my comment as short as yours, anonymous.

Thanks! :)

Unknown said...

Good point about the VP. Better point about the VP is that he's the tiebreaker in the senate.

However, it doesn't look like he'll pick a conservative VP. Looks like Leiberman has as much of a shot as Huckabee or anyone else. I guess we'll see.

Tonight could, sadly, be Huck's last stand! He has to win big tonight just to deny McCain his 50% +1 and have a chance to force a brokered convention.

I'm praying hard. It's not us, or the media, or Howard Dean that puts leaders in their position.

Kingdom Advancer said...

If he picks Lieberman, I think he'll kill any shot to rally conservatives. He won't rally me, anyways.

You mean March 4th, not tonight, right?