Readers’ comments on Florida

(January 30, 7:35 p.m. I’ve continued adding comments to this thread throughout the day.)

Bobby writes:

This is nothing short of a watershed event in American history. It will only be amplified if McCain wins most of the Super Tuesday contests. Look at all the establishment figures who are behind McCain at the rostrum. This is nothing short of the elites waging open warfare with the base of the party, who are being led like sheep to the slaughter, and even voting for the faux conservative McCain. This is similar to the events of the late 60’s and early 90’s in Great Britain, when the conservative party purged real conservatives, monarchists, and traditionalists from the party. The West is truly in decline when a supposed “conservative” political party nominates someone so divorced from traditional conservatism and who has fought valiantly to destroy his own country. Shame on the Republican Party.

Tim W. writes:

I don’t know what’s wrong with the Republican voters. It may simply be a case of “the devil you know” being better than “the devil you don’t know.” It’s pretty sickening to see someone who has worked overtime to offend the party’s base for the past decade winning these primaries. If McCain’s elected it’ll be sweet revenge time. He’ll purge conservatives throughout the party and form a coalition with many of the Democrats. It’ll be triangulation all over again, but for real this time. McCain will try to build a whole new movement of “moderate” Republicanism by marginalizing the GOP right. To that end, he’ll cut deals with the Democrats wherever possible and maybe on occasion criticize the extreme left (but only by comparing it to the alleged extreme right, which will be his term for the GOP base).

In your recent poll, I said I would vote for any GOP contender over Hillary or Obama except for Giuliani. I’m seriously re-thinking that. I can’t possibly vote for the Democrats but I might vote third party or write someone in if McCain is the nominee.

LA replies:

In the VFR poll I said I would stay home/vote third party if McCain were the nominee. Right now I would vote for the Democratic candidate against McCain.

Ed writes:

With the death of the Whigs the way was opened for the birth of the Republican party. As the Republican party dies, a new party may emerge. In less than 30 years we have gone from Reagan to McCain. As far as understanding the voter—-it is an enigma.

Cindy writes from Florida:

I voted for Romney and am extremely disappointed in the outcome here in Florida. I have to amend the response I gave to your survey a few weeks ago. If McCain is the Republican nominee, I will not vote for anyone. I will wait for and participate in the establishment of a new, authentic conservative party.

Stephen T. writes:

… if McCain gets the nomination there’s no reason to fear what he will do in the White House re immigration and other issues. He’ll never BE in the White House. Put that ill-tempered, often unfocused elderly man up on a debate platform against an abrasive, street-smart woman like Hillary or an energetic young idol like Obama, and he’s a dead-certain loser. If McCain is nominated, it’s time to stop worrying about him, and start worrying about the Democrat who will be the inevitable winner in the general election.

Terry Morris writes:

You wrote: “If that’s what happens, so be it. The Republican party has never been a conservative party per se. If it truly ceases to be a vehicle for conservatism, then a new and better vehicle will be called into being.”

While I’m not particularly enthusiastic about the prospect that the Republican party may be on its way out, neither am I particularly disturbed or dismayed by it. But we’ve all seen it coming for quite some time now.

Paul Henri writes:

Once Giuliani is out of the race, people will begin to focus. They will see the angry little man for what he is and Romney for the wonderful human being that he is. I have heard Giuliani is endorsing McCain. This Giuliani endorsement will only cement McCain’s liberalism. It is such a perfectly anticipated endorsement. Giuly is a liberal. Always has been. He knew NY had to be cleaned up; everyone knew. So he did the populist thing, and a good thing. I witnessed it in the 1990s when I visited NY. The people were extremely nice. They were very much like the people in New Orleans, if you can believe it. I had a young lady, at rush hour, take my parents and me by the hand and lead us to the exact underground train we needed.

Paul Nachman writes:

The resuscitated McCain horror has for several weeks brought to my mind the famous Kissinger quote about Allende’s election in Chile: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.”

I thought it was outrageous then, intruding in another country’s election, and I don’t think I would come down differently on it now (though I’d listen to arguments).

But I think the concept of the “irresponsibility of its own people” applies quite well, on average, to my fellow American citizens. My dim view of humanity in general, including Americans, is steadily reinforced, and over much more mundane things than critical elections.

For me the explanation—not a remedy; there’s little basis for hope of that—is that of Roger Clegg in the final paragraph of his brief, powerful piece on Madison:

“As I said, it is a very poignant memory for me, but it is neither entirely sad nor entirely uplifting. On the one hand, one can conclude from this incident that we forget our great men and what we owe them, and that is sad. But, on the other hand, perhaps it is a measure of Madison’s success that he helped create a republic in which most people don’t have to worry much about politics, and can take freedom for granted, and don’t worship the authorities. It certainly gives pause, to those of us who write and think about politics, to visit the final resting place of one of our greatest political writers and thinkers—and to be there all alone.”

I’ve boldfaced the crucial words. Taking freedom for granted is what it’s all about. That can work for awhile, but only awhile.

Bruce B. wreites:

Again, I wonder if Romney’s mediocre performance among self-identified conservatives was because of the issues his Mormonism raises with pop-Evangelicals.

Several commenters have asked, “What are voters thinking?” I think the answer is that they aren’t thinking much of anything. The same people who vote for American Idol contestants are pulling the levers. You’re surrounded by thoughtful people so I don’t think you understand how stupid most people are. I fear it would take a massive disenfranchisement to elect anyone other than a right-liberal.

Jeanne A. writes:

There isn’t a chance that I would ever vote for McCain. Do we really want an angry, slightly deranged man (no one suffers seven years in a POW camp and comes away mentally sound) as commander-in-chief? Um, no thanks. I would rather see Clinton in office than McCain. For those like me who believe immigration to be the number one issue, whether it is McCain or Clinton, it doesn’t matter. Both care more about those coming from south of the border than those living here (unless they are “God’s children” that are already here that is—then they get top billing as well). Both will sell American to Mexico in a heartbeat. But with Clinton, there is a greater chance of strong GOP opposition (not just to her selling the U.S. to Latin America—but to all her liberal schemes) than there will be with McCain. GOP opposition to McCain would be diluted and not as effective.

Go Hillary! Go Obama! Anyone but John McCain. If he gets the nomination, it is rather amazing to me that for the first time in my life, I will not vote the (R) nominee for President. I cannot bring myself to vote for the (D) nominee—instead I will go third party. But I have been disenchanted with the GOP since about 2002 anyway. This probable McCain nomination is just the proverbial last straw.

I would love to see a conservative-led backlash against McCain at the convention, but I won’t get hopeful. But good grief, he is just an odious candidate.

Matt Bracken writes:

What a terrible day. I hope Romney can somehow pull this out next Tuesday, but a Hillary-McCain election almost seems preordained. Almost as if the USA must be tested to its core over the coming years, no matter who wins the 2008 election.

Keep your eye on his “Hispanic outreach” director Hernandez. No matter what McCain says to English-speaking audiences, if he keeps Hernandez on staff, we know for certain that he is still for amnesty and open borders, and that’s what we will get if he is elected. Or Hillary or Obama for that matter.

Howard Sutherland writes:

I see the Insane One won Florida, and the Libidinous One will probably punt and endorse him.

I’m not sure what this means because I don’t know if people who haven’t registered as Republicans can vote in Florida’s GOP primary. Can they? If so, it might be more like McCain’s largely cosmetic New Hampshire win.

Also, Florida has a lot of active and retired military types who might be drawn to Mr. Straight Talk because of his Navy record. And did he fool the Cubans? They are not the same as Mexicans, after all.

Also a lot of old people who don’t always think straight (Exhibit A: my late mother-in-law and stepfather-in-law who went from being strong Nixon Republicans in 1968 and 1972 to adoring Clinton fans in 1992 and 1996; they were around 50 in their Nixon years and around 75 in their Clinton years) live in Florida! Of course, McCain is one of them now anyway.

I don’t think this is the end of Mitt, because Florida, while large, is a sui generis state.

LA replies:

Florida, the media tell us, is a closed primary, meaning that only Republicans can vote in the Republican primary. Yet this is contradictory, because the news reports told us that among the “Republican vote” Romney won 33 to 31. But if only Republicans vote in the Republican primary, how could there be a Republican vote different from the overall vote? No one explained this.

Kevin S. writes:

It was interesting to watch some of the political commentators last night explain what is going on behind closed doors between Huckabee and McCain. (I am sure they were taken aside afterward and told in no uncertain terms they were NOT to repeat that line of conjecture on the air ever again.) Basically, McCain is dangling the running mate slot out there if Huckabee will just stay in it through next Tuesday to continue siphoning off the chowderheads who would otherwise vote for Romney. He will need those votes if he gets the nomination anyway so Huckabee is probably a logical choice in any case.

Andrew E. writes:

I think it is now obvious that if McCain is the Republican nominee then we conservatives must hope for a Clinton victory in the Democratic primaries and the general election. Obama’s defeat in the primaries is necessary for all the reasons already given at VFR. Clinton wants open borders but she wants other things more like national health care and a “legacy.” She won’t risk dooming her presidency by engaging in a long, hard crusade against very stiff and passionate conservative resistance to immigration “reform.” She is calculating, not deranged like McCain, and she will readily trade away open borders for something else. I, personally, am willing to cut a deal with Hillary if it keeps out the Third World horde. National health care can be undone, but demographics cannot. McCain must not become president.

Jeanne A. writes:

I find myself in totally agreement with Andrew. Hillary’s is just as odious as McCain. I don’t like her. I don’t trust her. But, I find her less dangerous to the country than John “I am a war monger and open borders fanatic” McCain.

Wow. Never in my young, Ronald-Reagan adoring days, would I have ever imagined that the GOP would come to this. Never would I have thought I would actually prefer a feminist liberal to a Republican nominee for President.

How far the GOP has fallen. =

Paul C. from Texas writes:

Listening to Pat Buchanan last night on MSNBC, I feel he gave the most succinct and accurate description of what McCain’s beliefs and policies boil down to. These aren’t Buchanan’s exact words, but they’re close enough:

The jobs will never come back.

The illegals will never leave.

And the war will never end.

LA replies:

McCain is the ultimate candidate of “invade the world, invite the world.”

Spencer Warren writes:

1. You write:

“What in the world are these Republican voters thinking? They know McCain’s career as a saboteur of the Republicans and conservatives in Congress. Just a few months ago they had turned against him over his support for amnesty. And now they forget all this?”

The answer is that very few know McCain is a saboteur or much of anything; only the informed who read VFR and other blogs know this. [LA replies: McCain stopped receiving donations, his national poll numbers plummeted, his compaign collapsed, because of his amnesty position. Do you think this national phenomenon was due to a few readers of conservative blogs?] Most voters have only vague notions about reality and are easily manipulated. That is the ultimate reason our democracy may be slowly imploding.

2. Another point about McCain that is never discussed is that he is at high risk for malignant melanoma. He has already been stricken with this twice, which places him at high risk of more, especially as he ages. This is on authority of a dermatologist.

3.The Florida result may be the first election where the conservative candidate lost because Hispanics (Cubans in this case) voted heavily against him due to his opposition to amnesty and support for border control. McCain won very heavily among this group in the Miami area. Is this the shape of things to come?

4. Consider just how Bush has undermined conservatives. Had he joined conservatives in Congress and fought for a Tancredo-like immigration control and border security bill, he could have made this the over-riding Republican issue. It would then have been much harder for McCain to succeed. And Republicans might well have retained control of Congress in the 2006 elections.

David G. writes:

I sent an e-mail to John McCain six months ago (to which I received no reply) that went something like this: I respect you tremendously for your service to the country and for the extreme gallantry you displayed during your years in captivity. You are a national hero. In regard to your presidential bid I have one key question for you: As Senator of Arizona you have been unable to secure the border of a single state; why should we believe that you would be able to secure the borders of the entire nation?

The McCain victory is extremely disheartening. Should he go on to win the presidency, the 12, 20 or 30 million illegals in the U.S. will disappear so that by 2010 they will be known as “our fellow Americans.” But that will also be true if either Democrat wins.

Yes, there could be another fringe political group that arises in the next four years but I don’t see it happening to any avail. The battle is now. It’s not as if people didn’t come out to vote in Florida and McCain slid in via a questionable turnout. We have to face the facts—people like McCain and see his renascence as paralleling that of Ronald Reagan’s in 1980.

The immigration issue is dead unless Romney can find a way to get this nomination and ultimately win the presidency. Think about this—the Tom Tancredo designate is on life support. Everything that VFR, Vdare, CIS,FAIR, NumbersUSA et al., stands for on immigration is riding on the Romney candidacy. People in our camp seem dead to this realization. It’s worse now than when Comprehensive Immigration Reform was being considered. It’s as if we are approaching Gettysburg with the idea that it will be just another battle along the way to Washington instead of seeing it as the battle. This election is The Big One.

LA replies:

Well, remember that for the last seven years we’ve had a Republican president devoted to amnesty and open borders, and he’s been unable to get his policy through, though trying as hard as he possibly could. If a reasonable number of Republicans remain in Congress, then a Democratic president or McCain as president would not assure victory for the open borders camp.

David G. replies:

You make a good point, Larry, and I hope that you are right. But the dynamics have changed. Electing McCain as president gives him a powerful voice with which to say to Congress, “look I heard the American people and they wanted border security and I gave them border security. Now, let’s get on with the business of legalizing those who are here.The guy who wanted to send them home lost the election (Romney).” I’m not sure that the no-amnesty hard liners will be able to hold up, numbers-wise, in the face of such an appeal. I fear that the less-than-fully-commited congressman who has just witnessed the defeat of Tancredo, Hunter and then Romney in sucession is likely to be swayed by a McCain presidency. Nothing remains the same for long.

Jeremy G. writes:

Is there a silver lining in the dark McCain cloud?

I’ve read that Hispanic Republicans in Florida (mainly anti-communist Cuban immigrants) represented 10% of the Republican primary voters and went for McCain 5 to 1, bumping up his votes by 8 points over Romney’s. If that’s true, then McCain’s win over Romney was due to these unique voters in Florida, a demographic that I don’t believe is present in any other state in the country. Although I confess that I don’t know the actual numbers of Hispanic Republicans in other states.

From: Jeff in England Subject: NOBODY FEELS ANY McCAIN, TONITE AS OUR COUNTRY GOES DOWN THE DRAIN

How is it possible, with so many Americans especially Republicans supposedly concerned about the illegal immigration issue, for John McCain to have emerged as the leading contender for the Republican nomination?

LA replies: The short answer is that a lot of conservatives are not really conservative. 27 percent of self-described conservatives in Florida voted for McCain versus 37 percent for Romney. There should have been NO conservatives voting for McCain. I think that there are many conservatives who think conservatives means being patriotic and opposing abortion. That’s it. You can be for open borders, administered European-style elections, and permanent wars abroad to democratize Muslims, but if you’re “patriotic” and oppose abortion, then you’re a conservative.

Laura G. writes:

I plan to do my absolute utmost to support Romney RIGHT NOW. If he fails to get the nomination, I will be supporting individual Republican candidates to Senate and House seats, the NRCC, and the NRSC. I do really doubt that I would be able to stomach voting for McCain, even at the prospect of Billary.

So, get going, Fellow Conservatives. Give it your very best immediately. The battle that counts is today, hours are precious, and if there is to be any hope whatsoever, our efforts have to be put in now. We can schmooze about the mush between the ears of our fellow citizens a little later, but there is urgent work to be done now. Send your checks, email your contributions, and get on the phones. If there are other actions that stand any chance of persuading anyone to wake up, go for it. Think of Bill and his “do whatever you got to do to get elected” attitude. We could use some of that right now.

Terry Morris writes:

You wrote:

“But then the question is, what do people actually mean when they call themselves conservatives?”

That they’re not complete liberals.

BE writes:

LA replies:

“In the VFR poll I said I would stay home/vote third party if McCain were the nominee. Right now I would vote for the Democratic candidate against McCain.”

I absolutely agree with you. I’ve changed my mind too, if McCain takes the nomination I will actively support whichever Democrat runs against him. Not only do I think he would be just as bad a president as either democrat would be, but we would also no longer have a party for conservatives. We’d be like the Europeans with two major leftist parties and a few fringe parties.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 30, 2008 01:06 AM | Send