Speaking at the opening of the Tea Party convention, Tom Tancredo made it clear that he was very happy that John McCain lost. As provocative as his statement may sound, I feel his logic is sound and the view is correct.
“Thank God John McCain lost the election,” the former GOP congressman from Colorado and 2008 presidential candidate said to cheers and applause from the 600 grassroots activists in attendance.
In Tancredo’s view, the Tea Party movement would never have been sparked under a McCain administration because Republican Party leaders and activists would have been muffled from criticizing their president. Meanwhile, McCain would be cutting deals with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
If the Arizona senator had won, Tancredo said, “Sarah Palin would not be free to tell it like it is.”
If McCain had won, “There would be no Republican in Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts.”Ann Althouse comments on Tancredo’s remarks, which make her revisit comments she blogged during the campaign.
On October 8, 2008, I abandoned the “cruel neutrality” stance I had maintained throughout the campaign season and explained my reasons for rejecting McCain:
McCain never presented the conservative alternative to Obama….
McCain has lost definition. He’s stumbling along to the finish line, hoping to achieve his lifelong ambition, to seize the crown at last. But why? To show he can get along with Democrats? I worry about what awful innovations the new President will concoct in league with the Democratic Congress, but at this point, I’m more worried about McCain than Obama….
On October 16, 2008, I said:
Is there some sort of idea that if you think McCain is too liberal, you still have to vote for him, because if he’s too liberal, then Obama is really too liberal? I don’t buy that. Better a principled, coherent liberal whose liberal choices will, if they don’t go well, be blamed on liberals than an erratic, incoherent liberal whose liberal choices will be blamed on the party that ought to get its conservative act together.
I agree with Ann here, though I wasn’t able to act on this logical argument during the election. She was able to vote for Obama, I was not. But considering the political repercussions of Obama’s election have been to reignite the idea of fiscal conservatism, the win by Obama was probably for the best.
Ann also blogged:
Usually, I prefer divided government, but that doesn’t mean I need to support McCain. I’ve seen McCain put way too much effort into pleasing Democrats and flouting his own party, and I can picture Obama standing up to the Democratic Congress and being his own man. What, really, will he owe them? McCain, by contrast, will need them. And we’ve seen that he wants to be loved by them.
Here I don’t agree. We’ve seen that Obama has lacked the passion to lead and in many cases deferred to Pelosi and Reid. It is entirely possible that McCain might have as well, but Obama has done very little in the way of standing up to the current Democratic Congress.
The 2008 election was a perfect storm to get some as liberal as Barack Obama elected. It has given the country an opportunity to see what a big government administration might look like. A significant number of the independent voters in the U.S. do not like what they see. And that is the key point. Partisan Republicans were going to oppose a Democratic president no matter the choice of policy. Likewise, partisan Democrats were going to support a Democratic president without question. But independent voters that don’t see the work as a red vs. blue game are more able to focus on policy over party. Government control over day-to-day lives is (thankfully) still an un-American concept and pushing such policies does not resonate with the middle of America.
So yes, in the end, be happy McCain lost. The long term impact could be very positive for the country.