Beware: What John McCain Wants to Give Back, Jim Doyle Will Try to Take Away

Presidential candidate John McCain proposed, in a speech at Carnegie Mellon University this morning, that the federal government help to stimulate the economy by not collecting gasoline taxes from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon (24.4 cents per gallon of diesel). A good idea.

But beware. Considering the state's budget shortfall, and Jim Doyle's penchant for raising gas taxes, it would come as no surprise if Doyle or his friends in the Senate push to increase the state's gas tax by the amount of the savings. After all, the result would be a no net loss to Wisconsin consumers. It would, however, push Wisconsin from the 8th highest taxing state when it comes to gas taxes to the highest.

McCain's Senate colleagues should ensure that any such legislation offered in the Senate contains a provision that the gas tax moratorium would not apply in any state that raises its own gas tax in the year of the moratorium. McCain's proposal is intended as an economic stimulus, not a federal revenue sharing program.

Is Discriminating Based on Age Always Wrong?

John McCain's age has drawn a lot of attention. He will be 72 at the time the next President is sworn, and 76 at the end of that term. So, if talking about McCain's age, or at least alluding to it, is fair-game, will Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's age be a subject of politically correct discussion?

Abrahamson will be 76 when she runs next year (McCain's age when he would finish the job), and would be 86 at the end of the next term. To put it bluntly, McCain is more likely to make it to the end of his term, and more likely to be sharp if he does so.

Setting aside their respective political beliefs, I do not doubt the current intellectual ability of either. But even if I admired the philosophy of a candidate (and when it comes to Abrahamson, I admittedly do not), I would hesitate to vote for any person who could be deciding my future, or that of my children, at 86.

Never Give In

I saw this first on Charlie's site. I think it is worth posting everywhere.

A Response to Dad29: Principles are What Matter Most - That is Why You Should Vote for John McCain

Dad29 wrote the following in response to my last post:

Oh, what the Hell. Principles don't matter when it comes to "momentum" for the Anointed One, right?

Sorry, Gator. Your plea falls on deaf ears here.

Dad29, principles are what matter most. That is precisely why you should vote for John McCain.

What conservative principle is served by actions or inaction that help liberals? What conservative principle is betrayed by recognizing that there are three possible choices - we can vote for an imperfect conservative, we can vote for a liberal or we can not vote - and then making the choice that provides the best protection against liberal gains?

Too many of us seem to want to insist on perfection. The last perfect person left the world of flesh and blood twenty centuries ago. Such a person has never been in the political arena. There certainly was not one (not even close) who ran for President during the past year.

A wise person (I don't remember who) once said that “People throw away what they could have by insisting on perfection, which they cannot have, and looking for it where they will never find it.”

Politics is not the venue of perfection. Rather, it is a venue in which one hopes for as little evil as possible.

It is beautiful when principles and politics work together harmoniously, but it is rare. The rest of the time, a truly principled person recognizes that the best that can be done is to use politics to advance the cause of his or her principles, or more probably, reduce the deleterious affects of politics on those principles. Just as Alonso Quixano did little for chivalry by challenging windmills, conservatives conserve little by allowing liberals to win.

Conservatives' refusal to understand this basic concept is why liberals continue to kick our butts.

Dad29, heaven help us if our principles give us four or eight years of Hillary or Obama. Only a conservative fool, or a principled liberal, would believe that to be better than four years of John McCain.

PS Things that fall on deaf ears most often are truths we don't want to hear because of their truthfulness. People should not "shut their eyes tight to avoid using their eyes to see, their ears to hear, their heart to understand, changing their ways and being healed."

Note to Conservatives: Winning is All About Momentum (or How Not to Play Into the Hands of Liberals)

Republicans are at it again. Instead of being beaten in national or statewide races, Republicans too often lose those races on their own.

There is a movement among conservatives to "send a message" in Tuesday's primary. For example, Belling puts it this way: "Republican voters, distraught over McCain’s certain nomination, will trudge to the polls to register their disgust the only way they know how - by voting for Huckabee." Owen Robinson of bootsandsabers.com, who I like and usually agree with, published an editorial explaining that McCain is a lousy choice and that, while he will vote for him in the general election, he will not be voting for him in Tuesday's primary. That piece ran after McCain had all but locked-up the nomination. Sarah from GOP3 published a piece today urging readers to vote for Hillary (and suggesting that a McCain presidency would result in liberal Democrats controlling the White House for four terms). While Sarah's post can be charitably described as silly, it is indicative of much of the "thinking" that seems to be coming from many.

Charlie Sykes is, as he often is, the voice of reason among southeastern Wisconsin conservatives on this issue. He has endorsed McCain. While bloggers and pundits are not indicative of voters as a whole, I believe Charlie is a somewhat lonely voice in the conservative wilderness.

Election results are usually about momentum. For example, why is Obama currently the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination? He has momentum. Likewise, presidential general elections are often won by the candidate who has momentum going into the general election.

Conservatives who are slamming McCain now are taking away his momentum. Conservative and moderate voters should be showing undecided voters that there is only one choice for president: John McCain. This should be the time conservatives and moderates come together to rally behind their candidate.

Momentum propelled Ronald Reagan to the White House. A unified party ensured George Bush's election and reelection. Of course, in those elections, party moderates got behind their party's candidate. Too many conservatives feel no such loyalty or simply do not understand how elections work. They become the utopians about which Edmund Burke warned us.

For the next several weeks, the national news will be about the Democratic race, with a footnote about how McCain is doing worse than expected. That helps the Democrats and hurts the Republican Party.

I am proud to be a conservative ideologically; however, when conservatives lose track of the real world, I am embarrassed.

McCain v. Bush, Ford, Dole and Bush

One more thought for today on McCain (remember, until he became my party's candidate, he was not my candidate). Conservatives, particularly those who are thinking about "sitting this one out," ask yourself the following questions:

Would the United States have been a better place if Gerald Ford had defeated Jimmy Carter?

Is the United States a better place as a result of George Bush defeating Michael Dukakis?

Would the United States have been a better place if George Bush had defeated Bill Clinton?

Would the United States have been a better place if Bob Dole had defeated Bill Clinton?

Is the United States a better place as a result of George Bush defeating Al Gore?

Is the United States a better place as a result of George Bush defeating John Kerry?

If you answered yes to all or most of these questions, you should support John McCain. If you answered no to all or most of these questions, you (a) are not a conservative or (b) have your head hiding in a very dark and smelly place.

To Paraphrase Owen Robinson...

Owen posted a remarkable comment on one of his threads in 2006. He was responding to former Walker supporters (Owen, like I, had supported Walker) who had not come around to support Mark Green.

The following quotes Owen verbatim, except that I have put it into today's presidential election context.

As a [conservative support of a candidate who no longer is running], I don’t think that the [McCain] campaign has been arrogant or acting entitled. They have been saying where [McCain] stands on the issues for months. The fact that some conservatives are willing to sit silent and let [Hillary or Obama] get ...elected than support [McCain] says more about them than him.

I get the feeling that a bunch of ... conservatives are waiting for [McCain] to come around and kiss their ass for their support. Well, get over yourselves.

Look… [McCain] is not as conservative as me, but few folks are. But he is far - FAR - more conservative than [Hillary or Obama]. If you are willing to let [Hillary or Obama] ruin this [country] for ... four years because [McCain] isn’t conservative “enough” for you, then fine. I, for one, will deal in reality.

I know that many of you conservatives would rather have someone “more” conservative than [McCain]. Who would that be? I’m not sure. But while y’all sit around pining for the perfect candidate, we are facing four ... years of [Hillary or Obama]. Do you know what that means? No [gun owners' rights]. ... Massive tax increases. Liberal judges. [I could add a bunch more, like a breakdown of our national defense, socialized healthcare, etc., but I am sticking to Owen's post.] And on and on and on....

Like I said… get over yourselves. Some of us are trying to advance conservatism in this [country]. If you don’t want to help, then get the hell out of the way.

I SUPPORT JOHN MCCAIN

I am a conservative and a member of the Republican Party. I am a member of the Republican Party because, of my two choices, it more closely represents my own view of the world. Elected Republicans often disappoint me, but the Republican Party is still the best thing we have going. Generally (but not uniformly) it stands for the right (conservative) things. Blaming the party for the failings of its elected officials is like blaming a religion for the sins of its members.

Over the past few days, Charlie and Owen and others have asked basically the same question: will you vote for John McCain. Unfortunately, and to my disgust, too many so-called conservatives have suggested they will either stay home or they will vote for Hillary "so she makes the mistakes."

I posted the following in response to Owen's question "You're a Republican...will you vote for John McCain if he is the nominee?"

For God’s sake, this is ridiculous. Bush is hardly a true conservative - he spends like a drunken sailer, signed the campaign-finance law, supported amenesty for illegals, and on and on. On almost every issue where we disagree with McCain, he was lockstep with Bush. Yet, we do not have the same distaste for Bush.

Conservatism is a principle that recognizes that nothing is pure. As Burke said, utopia does not exist. Conservatism is a struggle to maintain the pillars of our society. It does not concede that struggle in order to make a point or because we are not perfectly satisfied with a politician.

Was McCain my first choice? Hell no. He wasn’t my second either.

But he is my choice now because I care about our national defense, because I believe he will appoint better Justices than Hillary or Obama, because he is opposed to nationalized healthcare, and because he is (relatively) a deficit hawk and fights new spending proposals.

I will take an 80+% conservative over Hillary or Obama (both of whom are 80+%, or more liberals).

Voters who stay home, or who vote for someone other than McCain, or who withhold their suport, are neither conservative nor Republican. Instead, they are impractical, pig-headed, childish zealots. They are the people who too often ensure defeat.

There is a difference between being ideological and being a zealot. Zealots have never accomplished anything.

Conservatives, by our very nature, are the bulwark against a rising tide. We rarely are able to reduce that tide and, when the tide gets past us, rarely can we force it to recede. John McCain might allow a little of the putrid waters of liberalism go past, but he will certainly be a better rampart than would Hillary or Obama.