John McCain's chances for a nomination have been torpedoed before his campaign even started. First, he prostituted himself by turning from a moderate critic of the Bush administration to an apolcalyptic shill. Then, he gave his infamous "I'm not knowledgeable" comment on Face the Nation on Iraq troop levels. Now comes the icing on the cake.
Last month, I reported that Grover Norquist went to Dallas and gave a hate-filled rant against McCain. Now, he is putting his money where his mouth is. The Club for Growth is running ads across the nation attacking McCain for his support of the Estate Tax, or "Death Tax," as they like to call it.
Now, McCain is caught in between a rock and a hard place. He has no more respect from the left after selling out his principles to shill for Bush. He has always hated and been hated by Emperor Dobson and the Religious Right. And now, the pro-corporate anti-tax people are going like vultures for McCain's scalp.
This is why it is so important for us to get a principled liberal like Russ Feingold who can pull in Moderates and Republicans as well. McCain's one remaining strength is among Moderates, and Feingold can appeal to that group with his common-sense aura.
Should McCain somehow win the nomination and run against Feingold, the former will face a full-scale revlot on his hands. Town Hall's Mark Tapscott rants that the Republicans currently in power are no better than the Democrats who they threw out in 1994.
Tapscott, without mentioning names, argues that people like McCain are not one of them anymore:
Put another way, it's time for an intervention. That's when the family and closest friends and professional associates of an addict confront the abuser with an ultimatum - get sober and get help now ... or else. The presence of the spouse with suitcases packed and the boss with pink slip in-hand helps the abuser realize the consequences of not getting help will be immediate and unpleasant. More than a few lives and careers have been saved over the years by such interventions.
But sometimes interventions work and sometimes they don't. There is no guarantee that the GOP leaders will get the message, either. Quite frankly, I am not optimistic because I've seen the Stan Evans Law in operation for too long. Evans is the retired conservative activist/journalist who years ago said: "When one of our people gets elected, sooner or later he [or she] stops being one of our people."
Tapscott argues that under Republican congresses, we have seen the largest expansion of government growth since the LBJ administration:
Among other things that have been enacted instead is Medicare "reform," the biggest expansion of the Welfare State since LBJ declared war on poverty. The sacred right of free speech is now subject to the whims of Congress through campaign finance "reform." Federal control of education has never been greater, thanks to a No Child Left Behind "reform" that was mostly written by Teddy Kennedy. Pork barrel spending is at an all-time high. And as the government grows and the politicians crow, the entitlements crisis approaches ever closer, guaranteed to cause economic, political and social upheaval that will make the Great Depression look like a cakewalk.
Incredibly, after a decade of GOP control, the federal government is bigger, more powerful, costs more and is less accountable than it was when the Democrats were thrown out by voters in 1994 after four decades of mostly uncontested rule.
Note the mention of McCain-Feingold among Tapscott's laundry list. If Feingold were to run against McCain, he would win because the anti-tax, anti-government crowd would stay home because they would not be able to stomach either choice. Normally, this group would vote Republican. But take them out of the equation, and you tip the balance of power to the Democrats.
Some of the latter might even vote for Feingold because they would see him as a breath of fresh air if we can show people that Feingold is an extremely principled politician who practices what he preaches. Feingold has always been an opponent of government waste and a proponent of fiscal responsibility, which many Conservatives would respect. He was one of the key figures in balancing the budget in the 1990's.
Many newspaper editorials like this one blame the Republicans for being guilty of pork-barrel politics:
Pork has become the opiate of Congress. And that addiction is costing Americans more than what's being frittered away on frivolous earmarks.
Whether it's for a museum or private enterprise or even a $250,000 study of caffeinated chewing gum (courtesy of House Speaker Dennis Hastert), pork's other price tag is the all-consuming attention it draws from national priorities.
Social Security is sinking. Border patrols can't stem the tide of illegal immigrants and crime. And almost four years after 9/11, Americans still wonder if they're any safer at home.
These and other key issues have taken a back seat to legislators' priority: securing their share of the public's pie. The pork-stuffed energy and highway bills are pathetic proof of that.
Constitutional funding requisites, such as protection of the citizenry, compete with the whims of lawmakers to spend as they see fit. The result is $350,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland and statehood celebrations funded by federal dollars.
Porkers will argue that it's their responsibility to bring home the bacon to their districts. And, of course, the ample drippings grease their re-election aspirations.
"The pork explosion is a neon sign advertising the fiscal failure of today's congressional leaders," says Chris Edwards, director of tax policy at the Cato Institute.
Worse than that, it exposes the complete dereliction of lawmakers' duty.
If Feingold can run against pork-barrel politics and harp on fiscal responsibility, he can win over Conservative voters who think like this.
It has been done before. The Democratic Party was badly divided in Missouri, as many Democrats stayed home in the governor's race after the acrimonious primary between Bob Holden and Claire McCaskill. But Claire almost beat Matt Blunt because of her championing of fiscal responsibility regardless of who was in charge.