Our publisher asked me, as a Rudy Giuliani supporter, if I intended to post on my thoughts on the election now that Giuliani is out of the race.  I decided to take him up on the question.  Here goes.

Some readers know I am a conservative Republican with a pedigree.  I was a Reagan delegate at the 1976 Republican National Convention, served as State and National Chairman of YAF, was an original director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, worked as a senior executive in the Reagan Administration, and am a national Board member of the American Conservative Union.  Next week I will be attending the ACU Board meeting at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. where Board members will be discussing this same subject.  Our Chairman, David Keene, is a prominent Romney supporter.

My wife and I originally supported Rudy for a combination of reasons.  We strongly feel that national security is the issue that matters most for our country, and that Rudy was best suited to lead our country on that issue.  We liked his tax cutting positions.  I was willing to hold my nose on some of the other issues because of the leadership qualities and electability Rudy offered.  In addition, I had worked on a "527" project in New York in 2000 with associates of Giuliani that was focused on Hillary’s poor record when she ran for Senate.  I got the idea that these were well-informed, committed people.  My friend, Steve Some, was on the New Jersey Finance Committee for Rudy and had raised over $200,000 for the campaign.  It just made sense to support Rudy’s campaign.  As the campaign developed, I saw Republicans of many different stripes come together to support his campaign here in California.  I liked the idea of an intelligent candidate and a  winning campaign……

But the campaign "strategy" failed the candidate.  A huge lead in national polls suffered as a result.  Rudy ended with less votes than Ron Paul in more than one early primary.  Ron Paul, the man, when I was National Chairman of YAF in the early 1980s, who called for complete U.S. withdrawal from NATO, and removal of all U.S. troops from Western Europe, a policy decision that if implemented, would have perpetuated the Russian Communist domination of Eastern Europe to this day…(don’t get me started!).

So, we are where we are.  And now Rudy has endorsed McCain and urges us to vote for him.  I continue to have the highest regard for Rudy, but when I sent my absentee ballot in yesterday, I voted for McCain with Rudy’s endorsement in mind, but by coming to the decision on my own.

National security remains the most important issue facing America, regardless of early primary campaign strategies of various candidates.  This is a dangerous world, in which people with resources live, who seek the destruction of our country and other countries as well.  If President Bush has done anything right, it has been to press the war in Iraq.  It has forced the war on terrorism out of the United States and over to the Iraq region.  And in particular, the so-called troop surge, has proven to be a success, and given all the MSM opposition at the time, the decision to advance it has become a heroic one.  And for the last year, the one member of the U.S. Senate and candidate foir President that has taken the heat on his Iraq position, and support for the troop surge, has been John McCain.  Like Ronald Reagan, John McCain has the guts to stick to a decision when he feels he is right.  John McCain has demonstrated great leadership ability in this regard.  And his well documented life, as detailed in his book, his service in Vietnam, all suggest he is a leader of great character who will not flinch in the war on terrorism.

McCain’s record in the Congress is essentially a conservative one, despite his so-called appeal to independent voters.  McCain’s ACU Congressional rating in 2006 was 82.3,  making him a more conservative Senator than Pete Dominici, John Warner, Ted Stevens, Richard Lugar, and about a dozen other Republican Senators, and placing him in the middle range of "conservative" among all Republicans in the Senate.

I have two problems with McCain.  The first is the McCain-Feingold law.  It is a First Amendment disaster and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in the Wisconsin Right to Life decision.  I had a chance to briefly raise issues with him about his early campaign finance reform legislation, and a California campaign finance proposition, when he was running for President in 2000, at a meeting with the Board of HJTA Janice and I were invited.  My sense was with all the good policy embedded in his brain, he just didn’t get the "free speech" part of constitutional protection from onerous campaign finance laws.  But I only had a few miniutes to address it with him……

The other problem I have with him was his failure to attend last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.  All the other Republican candidates did, including Rudy, who was warmly received by the 4,000 people in attendance.  McCain’s absense was palpable, and mentioned again and again in the press on the conference.  McCain would have been warmly received, despite McCain-Feingold.  McCain would have a better reputation among Movement conservatives if he did a better job of personally reaching out to them, not just hiring a few of them as spokesmen, as we are seeing on FOX News.

Next in the analysis is Romney.  I have posted earlier about the great article in Atlantic magazine a few months ago that details Romney’s conflicting policy positions in the past.  It is a matter of public record that he once took Ted Kennedy to task for not being sufficiently pro-abortion.  Now Romney says he is pro-life.  Regardless of your position on abortion, Romney has not executed himself well on this issue, and he looks opportunistic.   He was pro-gay marriage as Governor, now he is not.  I am certain he will not be able to carry his own state of Massachusetts in the general election, if he is nominated.  I personally think he would even not be an asset as a Vice-President for that reason, as the states where he might have clout (the "Mormon" states: Idaho, Utah for example) are going to vote for the Republican nominee anyway.  If Republicans send Romney up against the Clinton machine, it would be like sending a three-toed sloth to fight a wolverine.  (Historical credit to Hunter S. Thompson.)  Romney’s best credible chance for service in 2009 is as Secretary of Commerce in the McCain Administration.

I am willing to overlook my problems with McCain.  I harbor a hope that he will reach out to the conservative base in the next few weeks in concrete and reassuring ways (speaking at CPAC next week might be one good idea).   And now that the U.S. Supreme Court has educated McCain about the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold, I hope that will be enough of that from him.

The positives of a McCain candidacy well outweigh my few reservations.  He has proven he can win both independent votes, and Republican votes, as Florida was an all Republican primary.  I am impressed that Joe Lieberman, the Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate with Al Gore, has endorsed him.  I think he can beat Hillary, and I think he is the best Republican candidate in the race, who will protect our country from violent terrorism.  I believe he will be an essentially conservative President who is atttractive to independent voters.  Just as Ronald Reagan was.  I urge you to vote for him.

This entry was posted on Friday, February 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.