Looks like I'm not the only one who is calling for unity in the GOP. Despite the fact that my original support for Tom Tancredo was in opposition to candidates like Giuliani and McCain, my support now goes to John McCain. And I am not alone.
On February 8, Fred Thompson endorsed John McCain. According to the Washington Post:
| Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain Friday, calling on the party to "close ranks" behind the presumed nominee. "This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain," Thompson said in a statement reported by the Associated Press. |
You can access this article on-line here:
Thompson Backs McCain
Michael D. Shear
Washington Post
February 8, 2008
Writing for TownHall.com, Lawrence Kudlow has the following to say about Senator McCain:
| Just think of McCain in a debate versus Hillary or Obama. Remember McCain’s zinger about Hillary’s $1,000,000 earmark for a Woodstock Hall of Fame museum? He said he didn’t know much about Woodstock because he was “tied up at the time.” It was a killer line and we’ll hear it again. McCain is also good news for business and the stock market. He wants to cut the corporate tax and keep dividend and cap-gains tax rates low. He’s tough as nails on restraining government spending and blowing up earmarks. On top of all this, he’s a very strong free trader who knows America can compete with the rest of the world. Stock market fears about a new wave of tax hikes should be put aside. It ain’t gonna happen after McCain is sworn in. Neither will protectionism. So far as I can tell, high taxes and diminished free trade are the biggest worries for business and stocks. Investors can cast their fears aside. |
The Dems, having lost their credibility on the Iraq issue, are trying to make this election about the economy. Well, with John McCain as the GOP nominee, I say, "By all means! Let'stalk about economic issues!"
Kudlow goes on:
| This also happens to be a good time for the GOP to nominate someone who served bravely and courageously in the military. McCain is much more than a POW who somehow survived the Hanoi Hilton. He is a true military man. It flows through his veins, posing a whopper of a problem for Hillary or Obama. Guaranteed, there will be no chicken-hawk taunts. And let’s not forget that military leaders who know all about war, security, and defense are exactly the people who cherish peace the most. When John McCain talks about the global terror war and how to deal with it, and how to protect this country, and how to move toward peace, voters will listen. So will folks around the world. This is all part of McCain’s character. |
I remember the Dems screaming that because John Kerry was a combat veteran that he was best suited to be Commander-In-Chief. We shall see exactly how deeply they believed that.
You can access the complete column on-line here:
The Case For McCain
Lawrence Kudlow
TownHall.com
February 9, 2008
And Linda Chavez is calling for unity among the GOP membership. From her column in the Washington Times:
| "I cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Mr. Romney told conservatives at the CPAC conference Thursday. "If this were only about me, I'd go on. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Sen. Clinton or Obama would win," he said. "But I entered this race because I love America," he added. "And because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to stand aside for our country and our party." Now the question is: Will the hard-line anti-McCainites do the same? Consider the alternative — what a Democrat will mean for conservative principles? Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama committed to pulling out of Iraq, regardless of the consequences. The only difference is that Mr. Obama wants to pull out immediately and Mrs. Clinton says she wants the troops out within a year of taking office. If Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama is president, either one will nominate judges to the Supreme Court who favor unlimited abortion rights and government funding for abortion. A President Clinton or Obama will expand the size of government and raise taxes to pay for that expansion. |
People like Ann Coulter (whom I greatly admire) are missing a very big piece of the big picture when they say that they would rather have a Dem in the White House than John McCain. Their rationale? That the next four years will be a disaster and the GOP will come riding to the rescue in 2012. The problem is, that will be like delivering a pardon 30 seconds after the trap has been sprung and the condemned is already swinging on the gallows.
A Dem President will be able to do a great deal of damage; damage that will not be undone simply by rallying for a GOP candidate in 2012. High taxes will mean a deep recession if not a depression. A leftist President would mean handing over our national sovereignity to the United Nations. A Democrat in the White House in 2008 means a potential three "legislating from the bench" Supreme Court nominees before 2012.
Is that worth it? Is that type of damage worth acting on all the anger and hatred many in the GOP are directing at Senator McCain? If they believe it is worth it, then they are selling out their Conservative beliefs and the nation will suffer greatly as a result.
I can see the big picture here. Can you?
You can access the complete column on-line here:
A Time To Unite
Linda Chevez
Washington Times
February 10, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment