Is John McCain the inevitable nominee?

Last week, I wrote that John McCain cannot win the Republican nomination with an outright majority because most Republican primary voters will split between Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Unless McCain takes every one of the “winner take all primaries” and takes lopsided wins in most of the others, that would leave him with less than the majority needed to win the nomination. After that anything can happen.

Recent polling analysis shows that most conservatives would never vote for Romney, but would support McCain. According to a poll by the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics GOP Primary:

“If John McCain and Mitt Romney were the only choices in the Republican primary, how would you vote?”

McCain — 62
Romney — 29
Unsure — 6
Wouldn’t Vote — 3

Compare those numbers with the latest Rasmussen poll:

McCain — 33
Romney — 29
Huckabee — 21
Paul — 5
Unsure or other — 12

Most of the vote that would be for Huckabee, Paul or “other” goes to McCain and not Romney!

Why? Because McCain is no more liberal than Romney. Huckabee’s and Paul’s base are evangelical Christians and libertarians who see Romney’s record on gun control, forced health care programs, pro-abortion and the fact that he is a Mormon. McCain has voted pro-life at least 75 percent of the time and at least pays “lip service” to his Protestant faith. Hopefully, most will pay attention to the candidates’ records rather than what they say on the campaign trail.

For as long as Paul and Huckabee stay in the race, McCain might still be blocked. Notice that there are no polls asking, “If John McCain and Ron Paul were the only choices …” or, “If John McCain and Mike Huckabee were the only choices …”

I am amazed at the arrogance of the media in reporting polling results. Essentially, they have taken the stance that Huckabee has been out of it since South Carolina after just one primary and three caucuses. The same media pundits pronounced Giuliani dead a day later. After Florida, they declared McCain the inevitable winner. While I don’t agree that this is inevitable, I don’t underestimate the bump this has given McCain in the polls. It’s huge. It looks as though McCain has taken virtually all of Giuliani’s remaining support — about 15 percent — and is now up to 43 percent after having been at between 18 to 28 percent for weeks. Romney’s recent surge came from Fred Thompson’s conservative supporters. Huckabee has been static at about 20 percent and Ron Paul at 5 percent. And unfortunately, many Republican primary voters follow the polls.

Meanwhile, Romney has successfully spun the myth that as governor of Massachusetts he was more conservative than Huckabee as governor of Arkansas. This is partially true and partially false. Huckabee cut taxes for working class people and eliminated the marriage penalty in Arkansas. Romney cut taxes on families and businesses in Massachusetts. Huckabee raised the state sales tax rate to pay for roads and education. Yet Romney appealed for billions of dollars in federal tax revenues to bail out Massachusetts during the “Big Dig” fiasco.

See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5572480

Romney was solidly pro-abortion and advocated homosexual civil unions, favored gun control and favored making health care mandatory in Massachusetts, while McCain had about an 80 percent conservative voting record rating by Democrat and Republican watchdog groups alike. McCain and Romney got into a big hissy fight over who is more conservative in last week’s California debate, while Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee looked on disgusted at the media’s hypocrisy in portraying the election as a “two man race.” Of course, the media is going to prefer the two most liberal candidates!

The most arrogant of the media are conservative talk show hosts such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who think that Romney is much more conservative than McCain. Last week, I heard Hannity say that that Huckabee was only in the race to throw the election to McCain because they had secretly “cut a deal” to make Huckabee the running mate. That may be. But it also assumes that most Huckabee supporters would vote for Romney and not Ron Paul or McCain.

Why do Limbaugh and Hannity endorse Romney over McCain instead of Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee? The answer is simple. These men are not classical conservatives. They are not Christian conservatives. They are Neo-Cons — men who have interpreted the liberalism of 20 years ago as the conservatism of today.

Today, Sean Hannity admires John F. Kennedy. Twenty years from now, will we find future Neo-Cons endorsing the policies of Bill Clinton? Neo-Cons have wreaked havoc on issues ranging from fiscal responsibility to abortion. For instance, Hannity, a Roman Catholic, says he is pro-life except for the cases of rape, incest, and danger to the health and life of the mother in the first trimester of pregnancy. Yet he pays lip service to wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Yet what does the Roe decision say? It says that a woman should have the right to an abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and danger to the health and life of the mother in the first trimester of pregnancy. Of course, these “exceptions” make up less than three percent of all abortions. Companion court cases such as Doe v. Bolton expanded the “right to abortion” to include any abortion that is deemed necessary by a licensed physician. Doe v. Bolton made the decision a “private matter between a woman and her doctor.” So even an overturn of Roe would not stop abortion in any state that did not have laws in place that countered the “right to privacy” myth. We don’t enforce the “right to privacy” in cases of drug abuse or suicide, yet we use it as an excuse for killing unborn baby boys and girls.

What we need is a Sanctity of Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. Mike Huckabee is the only candidate in the running who advocates this. Pro-life voters should know this. Ron Paul and Alan Keyes are the only other candidates still on the ballots in most states who have uncompromising pro-life credentials. If enough pro-life Republicans vote their conscience and support one of these candidates, enough delegates will be amassed between them to keep the nomination from Romney or McCain.

If you are pro-life, make your choice wisely.

3 Comments

Jons,

I am sad that so may people listen to who the media says is the inevitable winner and therefore they vote AGAINST the candidate rather than for who they think is the best man.

If people were smarter we wouldn't with polls and the media would not be able to manipulate people into forsaking their first choice.

How do you explain this:

"If John McCain and Mitt Romney were the only choices in the Republican primary, how would you vote?"

McCain -- 62
Romney -- 29
Unsure -- 6
Wouldn't Vote -- 3

Compare those numbers with the latest Rasmussen poll:

McCain -- 33
Romney -- 29
Huckabee -- 21
Paul -- 5
Unsure or other -- 12

Why does Romney not go above 29 percent with Huckabee or Paul missing from the choices.

Most Huckabee and Paul supporters would never vote for a pro-abortion Mormon. That Romney is THE conservative is a fairy tale.

Many are already jumping ahead to the general election thinking that a vote for McCain is a vote against Hillary. So they are swinging to the candidate they think cna best beat the Democrats. If we don't think we can beat the Democrats on message, then our faith in our message is lacking.

That is sad.

They also say that if McCain is the nominee, then conservatives will "stay home" in November. That's what they want us to do. They won't even report that there is a Constitution Party that is registered in all 50 states that may represent a large portion of Republicans better than McCain or Romney.

I will vote third party if either is the nominee. There are some things that are non-negotiable.
Romney has never been pro-abortion (meaning he condones and supports abortion). Up until 2005, he was pro-choice (meaning he favored allowing the right of mothers to make the choice themselves). Many individuals that are pro-choice do not agree with abortion but also do not believe in forcing their beliefs on others. This was the case with Romney prior to his change to pro-life. In this case, why view such a change as a negative thing (he was not campaigning for office at the time)? Should people or politicians never be allowed to change their position? Once one takes a stand, must he or she stick with it forever? In my mind, it is admirable for individuals to recognize and admit when they are in the wrong (particularly if it leads to change).
Romney has also always supported the marriage amendment and a ban on gay marriage. Unfortunately, in Massachusetts, the courts forced his hand in requiring the recognition of gay unions. But, it was not his doing.
If you are talking about flip flops, don't forget to mention that John McCain recently changed his position on tax cuts, illegal immigration, border security, cheif justice nominations, etc.
I will never support McCain for many reasons. But Romney is no more conservative than McCain

Romney was a big defender of "gay rights" -- there is no doubt about that. He won awards from homosexual/lesbian advocacy groups, Planned Parenthood, etc.

He was a pro-choice governor. But advocated "parental consent" -- that's something amazing to me. A child can't get her ears pierced without parental consent, but she decide on her own to undergo elective surgery to kill her baby?

Now he says he is pro-life. I believe he changed his postion only to run as a national candidate for the GOP. I have no idea where his heart is on this, but I know what his record is -- it is an abomination.

McCain is only about 75 percent pro-life. His record is better than Romney's, but pitiful. He obviously is doing it for party unity and not out of personal conviction.

I encourage all pro-life Christians to vote for Mike Huckabee.

1. He's the only candidate with a pro-life record.

2. He's for the fair tax.

3. He'll uphold our second amendment gun rights.

Your comments are welcome

Use Textile help to style your comments

Suggested products