John McCain: Just Say No
By JoeBorders Posted in 2008 — Comments (46) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In this apparent era of anti-endorsement editorials, I have decided to draft my own anti-endorsement against the man who is, by far, my least favorite Republican presidential candidate - Mr. John McCain. Indeed, though Ron Paul's views on foreign policy issues are quite screwed up, I would still take him over Mr. McCain. My disdain for Mr. McCain is based on his very sorry record over the last decade. At one time, John McCain was a pretty good guy. Indeed, I remember when he supported Phil Gramm for President back in 1996, as did I. However, his record over the last decade is more than enough to make any conservative, libertarian or self-respecting Republican cringe. Indeed, how Mr. McCain, with his betrayals on numerous issues and his endless collaborations with very liberal Democrats, is even considered a serious candidate defies any rational explanation.
First, let us remember that, in nearly 25 years in Congress, Mr. McCain's sole significant legislative achievement is his McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law - an accomplishment the vast majority of Republicans and virtually all conservatives and libertarians rightly consider a disaster. Essentially, the law imposes various restrictions (some of which have recently been struck down by the Supreme Court) on the citizenry's ability to criticize and condemn the actions of our elected officials, so that they will not be corrupted by money in the campaign process. Hence, the law clearly makes it much harder to get the message out for conservatives, libertarians and others who do not share the liberalaism and leftism of the media elite. John McCain's absolute tone-deafness to these concerns are deeply disturbing.
Further, the law severely resticted political parties ability to raise money for party building and related activities in another misguided attempt to restrict money in campaigns. Now, because of McCain-Feingold, instead of the money going to political parties, the money flows to far less accountable, and far less transparent, IRC 527 organizations like MoveOn.org. All of the other Republican presidential candidates, including several who supported McCain-Feingold's enactment, have rightly criticized the law and admit it does not work. Yet, Mr. McCain continues his stubborn support for this highly misguided attack on free political speech. Indeed, McCain's solution to McCain-Feingold's many short-commings is to expand the law's reach and close so-called "loopholes." It seems to me that Mr. McCain's apprach is a recipe to turn our already too complicated campain finance laws into another complex legal monstrosity like the tax code.
However, McCain's campaign finance law and his views on that subject are not his only departures from conservative Republcan orthrodoxy that are deeply disturbing. Consider these actions on his part since 1999.
1. In 1999, Mr. McCain changed his vote on a gun-control measure favored by the Clinton administration from Nay to Yea, which nearly allowed the measure to become law. It took significant and very expensive efforts on the part of Tom Delay, then the House Republican Whip, to put together a coalition of Republicans and anti--gun-control Democrats to stop the measure from passing in the House and becomming law. So much for Mr. McCain's support for gun owners!
2. When the vote came on the Contitutional Amendment to protect traditional marriage and prohibit same-sex marriage - an Amendment introduced in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision forcing that state to recognize such "marriages," John McCain voted "No." He claimed that he did so on federalism grounds, which might have some thoeretical merit. However, he failed to propose any sensible alternative amendment that would have allowed states to opt for same- sex through democratic processes, but prohibited courts from imposing same-sex marriage through judicial fiat. In addition, McCain took no action to protect the vast majority of states who do not permit same-sex marriage from being forced to recognize these "marriages" from states that allow them. Hence, McCain's federalism argument is rather suspect.
3. On taxes, Mr. McCain has, agreeing with many Democrats, opposed just about every one of the Bush tax cuts. So much for his support for lower taxes!
4. Mr. McCain has stubbornly opposed the practice of "waterboarding" known terrorists, despite the evidence that the practice has revealed terrorist polts and protected American lives. Indeed, McCain continues to join with liberals in opposing tough interogation techniques, even though he admits that our terrorist enemies have not the slighest qualms about torturing and killing captured Americans.
5. Mr. McCain supports the infamous Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which will create yet another unaccountable global bureaucracy to manage and control the high seas and the possible extraction of minerals form the seas and sea-beds. Ronald Reagan quite righty rejected this surrender of our sovereignty and experiment in global taxation and socialism in 1982. Unfortuntaely, Clinton signed this disaster and McCain, like most Democrats has supported Senate ratification of the treaty to make it the law of our land. His recent flip-flop and current opposition to LOST is highly unconvincing given his previous decade-long support for it.
6. Finally, we reach the issue of illegal immigration, where Mr. McCain's actions have been profoundly terrible. Mr. McCain not only supported last Spring's disastrous immigration bill which would have given amnesty (euphamistcally described as a "path to citizenship") to the millions illegal aliens in our country, but also supported the even more contemptable 2006 immigration bill which in addtion to giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, would have allowed many more millions of relatives of these illegals to come and live in our country quite legally through the disastrous current immigration policy of family reunification. In addition, don't be fooled by Mr. McCain's recent tough-talk rhetoric on the immigration issue. When the chips were down, Mr. McCain supported amnesty! And don't be fooled by his pathetic claims that what he supported was not amnesty! As has been pointed out if people who are in the country illegally can stay here, it is an amnesty! Don't let John McCain and his liberal friends tell you otherwise!
On each of the above issues, John McCain has chosen the position favored by the liberal-left media elite over the opinions of conservatives and most Republicans. This distubing pattern suggests that when the liberal-left media elite is paying the most attention, John McCain will favor their interests and viewpoints and not those of grass roots conservatives and Republicans. Indeed, with the exception of his support for amnesty, any one of his other actions mentioned above might have been forgivable, but given both his support for amnesty and the aggregate of his other actions, Mr. McCain's record is unforgivable. It is abundantly clear that he "just doesn't get it" on too many issues, or that he enjoys going out of his way to collaborate with liberals and annoy conservatives. Either way, he should not be rewarded with the Republcan nomination.
Very Good points, eburke! I thought about something about each of them, but thought my blong was long enough as it was! But, I am really glad you brought those points up in the blog's first post.
Indeed, Mr. McCain absolutely cannot be trusted on judges. As president, he will seek "guidance" from liberals like Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer so he can nominate "bipartisan consensus" nominees. And, as someone else pointed out here on the site, these "bipartisan consensus" nominees will have the support of a lot a Democrats, a couple of moderate to liberal Republicans like Olympia Snowe and/or Arlen Spector, and will end up acting like Harry Blackmun or David Souter!
I have one more thought about comparing Mr. McCain to Ron Paul. While Mr. Paul's foreign policy views are screwed up, at least Mr. Paul has the good sense to oppose amnesty for illegals and internationalist nonsense like the Law of the Sea Treaty!
But a good start!
There is so much more ground to cover...
Opposition to drilling in Anwar and now McCain-Lieberman...
the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.
Mark Levin
The constant attacks on Rumsfeld and the President over the war in Iraq and now he claims the credit for the administrations shift in operations.
Or perhaps the words of Robert Bork sum it up best, in talking about both McCain and Huckabee...
"neither one of them is remotely a conservative."
John McCain - Not now, Not ever.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I fully agree with your opinion regarding John McCain's support for the 2006 and 2007 Senate amnesty bills.
And I am speaking in terms of proven reaction. When Bhutto got assassinated, he had the second best reaction to dealing with the situation.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
0) I agree that McCain-Feingold was bad law, and as a Life Member of the NRA I found both its reach and restrictions crossing the line. It's bad law, and I wish he didn't push it or continue to support it. This is the most valid complaint against McCain imo.
1) On gun control, I know he supported gun locks with gun sales and background checks for sales at gun shows. Both particularly obnoxious and nearly pointless laws, neither of which annoyed me as much as supporters of the Assault Weapon Ban though. I've never been happy with his position on this but it's not in and of itself a deal breaker for me.
2) We already have federal law on the books for recognition of gay marriage by States and the federal government. A Constitutional Amendment for it seems way out of line for a limited central government getting into the nitty gritty of marriage laws, something I believe should primarily be State issue anyways. This is something I opposed Bush on. Perhaps this is a bit of my libertarian side showing through but I do not think the Constitution should micromanage cultural norms.
3) As noted many times, McCain supported a smaller tax cut due to the lack of spending cuts with the Bush tax cuts. He wasn't against tax cuts, nor has he supported increasing taxes. He wants to cut spending and taxes both. This is a conservative view. How it could possibly be painted otherwise is beyond my comprehension.
4) If there is a technique of waterboarding that would not fall into the category of torture or mistreatment I could understand the complaint here. As it stands we already prohibit our military from using the technique, have included it in our accusations of WWII war crimes against the Japanese and it is used to train our elite military in enduring torture techniques. Our treaty obligations prohibit us from using torture as a matter of policy. McCain has however said that if the unusual circumstance comes along where torture is absolutely required to save American lives from a known threat he would make the decision and take full responsibility. Fairly reasonable imo.
5) The Law of the Seas treaty may be a valid complaint as well as the flip-flop... I don't remember much about this to be honest.
6) As much as people like to call his plan an amnesty, this is not technically or legally correct (just ask Romney). It may be far too lenient or be far too problematic to implement or possibly be entirely ineffective. Those are valid complaints. The amnesty buzzword is constantly misapplied though merely to get people worked up into hysterics. I do not believe there is a "round 'em all up and deport 'em" candidate running right now. Almost all have varying plans or at least suggest they may have varying plans that would be less lenient than McCain's but not dramatically so. Romney even said that amensty for up to 20% of illegals would be reasonable as recently as last weekend during a Fox interview.
(from the comments)
7) The gang of 14 may seem like a betrayal to the diehard party faithful but to me it seemed like he was able to get nearly all the President's appointments through with a compromise on a few. It avoided a Constitutional battle that given the Supreme Court's make up and hesitance to get involved in another branches own rules on itself may have failed miserably and destroyed the ability of the up-down vote and making that a part of precedent. I agree that the up-down vote for appointees should be the rule, but I don't think the time was right to risk setting an incorrect precedent.
8) I don't know McCain's rationale for opposing drilling in ANWAR but I know he is a strong proponent of breaking the stalemate on nuclear power and lessening our dependence on oil, which may play a role in that rationale.
9) Bork would be correct that McCain isn't the ideal conservative, not remotely seems a bit of stretch. On the flip-side though McCain has consistently voted to approve strict constructionists, including Bork iirc. Someone who isn't even remotely conservative would be unlikely to have such a record.
As I've said before, McCain certainly has his faults, and I can understand why some may not be able to support him in good faith, especially in a primary season... but I just don't see him as the great evil anti-Republican that others do. For some to claim he's no different than Hillary or other blatant liberal democrats just seems absurd when looking at his record. It strikes me of the Godwin's Law arguments on vegetarians or non-smokers. You have to ignore more facts than are required to make the case in the first place to consider it plausible.
I will respond to a few of your points:
On guns, the point is that McCain caved in to liberal media pressure on an issue of key concern to conservatives. And there is every reason to believe he will do so again if the situation presents itself.
On amnesty, plain and simple, any deal that allows illegals to stay in the country (which they never should have come into or remaind in, in the first place) is amnesty. It may be a conditional amnesty (like President Ford's clemency plan for dealing with Vietnam era draft evaders), but it is still an amnesty and it would have inevitably encouraged millions more people to try and get into this country illegally. And McCain backed the even more ludicrous 2006 plan which would have had the effect of giving relatives of illegals receiving amnesty the right to come here. We tried the amnesty approach in 1986 and it was a dismal failure. Illegals already in the country got to stay and there was very little in the way of enforcement of immigrations laws, and many, many more illegals came in.
In addition, several candiates, but not Mr. McCain, have suggested a reduction through attrition approach whereby the borders are secured and the hiring of illegals is made more difficult, and illegals are gradually deported or leave on thier own because they can no longer get work, drivers licenses etc. That appraoch sounds a whole lot better than amnesty.
On same sex marriage, your concerns about a constitutional amendment being inconsistent with a limited federal goverment seem misplaced. First, right now, there is nothing to stop a state or federal court from ordering a particular state to recognize same-sex marriages. Second, right now, there is nothing that precludes a federal or state court from declaring the 1996 defense of marriage act - which allows states to refuse to reconnize same-sex marriages from other states -invalid and unconstitutional. Indeed, it is not entirely clear Congress has the authority to permit states to disregard marriages in other states. Hence, a constituional amendment that did not ban same-sex marriage outright, but basically allowed each state through democratic means to decide the question of same-sex marriage for itself and allow other states to decide whetehr or not they would recognize same-sex marriages from other states would actually advance principles of federalism in a very dramtic way.
On the Gang of 14 deal, McCain allowed the nominations of a number of good, conservative judges to die on the vine, while provided badly needed political cover to a bunch of Democrat Senators from Red States. What a pal to the Democrats, he was!
On ANWR, McCain opposed drilling because media and Democrat liberals, like his good friends John Kerry and Tom Daschle, wanted him to.
I used to subscribe to the theory that McCain had his faults on domestic policy, but at least he is good on foreign policy. No more. Take a look at this.
Sen. John McCain supported both the 2006 Senate amnesty bill, S.2611, and the 2007 Senate amnesty bill, S.1348. Many McCain supporters do not agree that the bills were amnesty bill. I agree with the opinion of Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that both bills gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
Sen. Sessions is a former Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney and Alabama Attorney General. On April 5, 2006, he spoke on the floor of the United States Senate about S.2611: http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=253622 . Sen. Sessions and a majority of Senate Republicans voted against S.2611. During his speech, Sen. Sessions mentioned the defintions of amnesty that several supporters of S.6211 had given including Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Arlen Specter and John McCain.
Many of Sen. Sessions comments can be applied to S.1348. Here a few things that Sen. Sessions had to say about S.2611 and amnesty:
"This debate is often centered around whether we are dealing with amnesty here, and I believe this legislation, by all definitions, is amnesty."
. . .
"So in an effort to redefine this situation to mean what they want it to mean, they have said unless there is no condition whatsoever, you can't have amnesty. But people agreed that 1986 was amnesty and placed quite a number of conditions--some more significant than the ones in this bill--on those who were given amnesty.
Those of us who are familiar with the law world--I served as a lawyer the best I could for a number of years, and I know Madam President is a lawyer--we know what Black's Law Dictionary is. It is a dictionary lawyers use to define words in their legal context. Black's Law Dictionary, as part of its definition of the word ``amnesty,'' says this:
The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for many undocumented aliens already present in the country.
Black's Law Dictionary, the final definition of legal words, says the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for people here. It had conditions on it. It had some conditions on it; it just didn't have many conditions on it. So everybody recognizes it as basically amnesty, and that is why they called it that.
Again, I am not trying to use a code word here. What I am saying is there is a systematic effort in this body to redefine the definition of amnesty so they can tell their voters back home that although they opposed amnesty, this bill is not amnesty, and that is why they voted for it. That, unfortunately, I would have to say, is where we are."
. . .
" I want to go over some of the provisions in that act [the 1986 amnesty] and compare it to the provisions in today's act. Let's talk honestly here. There is no mystery here. I would submit, as several of the proponents of this legislation have tried to do, that you only have amnesty if you put no condition whatsoever on the person who is here illegally--and they put some conditions on those persons. Therefore, they say, Oh, no, I know we promised not to pass amnesty, but this isn't amnesty because there are conditions on the people who are here illegally. So there is no way to do this but go over it truthfully and analyze it and see what the facts are.
This was passed in 1986. What did it require, this amnesty of 1986? It required continuous unlawful residence in the United States before January 1, 1982. That is 4 years before the passage of the 1986 act--more than 4 years, because I am sure it didn't pass January 1. So for more than 4 years you had to be here unlawfully before this act applied to you. That is a restriction, isn't it, on amnesty, under the definition of those who want to say the current act is not amnesty?
But what does the 2006 act say? Physically present and employed in the United States before January 7, 2004--employed in the U.S. since January 7, 2004; continuous employment is not required. So the key date here is that you have to have been in the country before January 7, 2004. So we are requiring under this bill that you have to live in the country illegally for 2 years before you get on this amnesty track.
Under the previous law, they required 4 years. So with regard to 1986, I think it is a tougher standard, I submit, than we have in today's standard. I don't think anybody can dispute that.
Then you have a fee. They say they are paying a fine, a big fine. Well, in the 1986 act, they say there will be a $185 fee for the principal applicant, $50 for each child, a $420 family cap. Now we have a $1,000 fine, but it does not apply to anybody under 21 years of age; they don't pay anything. They paid $50 per child back in 1986. They don't pay anything. I submit that is about a wash. There is a little difference in money. You had an inflation rate; what difference is $1,000 to $420?
Both of them say you should meet admissibility criteria. That means, I suppose, that you are not a felon. That is one of the main criteria. Both of them said that. Surely we are not going to be taking in felons into the country. In fact, regarding this bill to which Senator Kyl and Cornyn have offered an amendment--which apparently is being blocked by Democratic Leader Reid from ever getting a vote--they are contending that this criminality requirement is not in this bill. In fact, this bill is weaker than the 1986 bill on the question of that issue of whether you have a criminal record.
In 1986, people were worried about welfare claims and so forth, so they put in language that said you are ineligible for most public benefits for 5 years after your application. They said if you are going to come here to be a citizen of the United States, we do not want you come here to claim welfare. We are going to prohibit you from claiming welfare for at least 5 years. After that, if you get in trouble and you need help, we will help you. But you have to come here not with a desire to gain welfare benefits in our country which exceed the annual income of most people in a lot of areas of the world. So they put that in. There is no such requirement in our bill. None of that. You can immediately go on welfare, presumably, under the legislation that is before us now.
It does require a background check and fingerprinting, but presumably that was done in 1986, also. But it focuses really on the crimes a person may have committed while they were in the United States. I don't think it has a mechanism under this act to actually go back to the country of origin--whether it is Brazil or Canada or Mexico--to see if they have a criminal history there. That is a weakness in the system. But even if it does, those systems are so immature and nonexistent, it would not be very effective, I suggest.
This requires an 18-month residency period. This one authorizes immediately a 6-year stay in the country. So they said you have to stay 18 months before you make your application for adjustment to permanent resident status. In this bill, you have to stay 6 years, so that is tougher. And you have to work. What are people here for if not to work? Spouses and children don't have to work. People are here to work. It is only a minimal work requirement--not continuous employment--and the proof level is very weak. Regardless, presumably the people who are here want to work, and they ought to be able to prove that they have.
Then you adjust to permanent resident status. That is the green card. In 1986, it required English language and civics. So, in 2006, it is English language and civics, a medical exam, payment of taxes--really? Presumably the people are paying their taxes. And Selective Service registration. So you earn your right to stay in this country by coming into the country illegally and paying your taxes. Thanks a lot.
Then the final step is, in 1986, you paid an $80 fee, $240 for a family. In this bill, it is a $1,000 fee and an application fee.
All I am saying is, if you add those up, I don't think a principled case can be made that 2006, in terms of conditions of entry and amnesty in our country, requires any more stringent requirements on them than in 1986, which Senator Reid and everybody else, including ``Black's Law Dictionary,'' have concluded was amnesty."
As far as I know Black's Law Dictionary has always defined amnesty as a sovereign act of forgiveness for past acts granted by a government to all persons or a certain class of persons who have been guilty of a crime or a deceit. - Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition 2004
Fines are not forgiveness or pardon. Even if they may be too lenient a punishment.
A fine is something you have to pay to avoid going to prison... not something you pay if (and only if) you want a gold card. That's a fee... the same thing I pay when I decide I want to drive a car, carry a concealed weapon, or go fishing. I'm not being punished in those cases, either.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
How many times are you going to post this same, word-for-word comment, raider? Posting the same comment hundreds of times is not only tiresome, it degrades the quality of the comment. Just link to one of your numerous previous instances of this EXACT same comment.
absentee
| 
| 
| 
McCain has mislead people on why he voted against the tax cuts.
Today, he says it was because the Bush tax cuts were not combined with spending cuts.
But at the time of the debate over the Bush tax cuts, McCain never proposed an amendment to the tax cut bill to include spending cuts in the legislation.
McCain did, however, vote for the Rockefeller amendment (which was defeated), which would have required that spending be increased before the top federal income tax rate could be reduced. McCain denounced the Bush tax cuts using class-warfare terminology similar to the language used by Ted Kennedy.
But give McCain credit. McCain has succeeded in fooling many conservatives with the "I voted against the Bush tax cuts because they weren't combined with spending cuts" line. Many conservatives have just swallowed that line up without checking the history behind McCain's opposition to those tax cuts.
Similarly with the Democrat judicial filibusters. McCain was one of very few Republicans who announced that if the Republicans tried to end Democrat judicial filibusters, he would vote with the Democrats and help them retain the option of filibustering Bush's judicial nominees. Today, as a result, Miguel Estrata is not on the federal court of appeals because of the Democrats' judicial filibusters and people like McCain being unwilling to end those tactics.
McCain said that he might want to retain the capability of a minority filibustering judicial nominations in case of a liberal presidency.
But during the Clinton administration, McCain never filibustered a single Clinton judicial nominee. Not once during the entire 8 years of Clinton's presidency. So, this is another example of McCain successfully fooling conservatives.
On tax cuts and and judicial filibusters, McCain has been able to sell a liberal position on a key issue as though it was really a conservative position.
McCain isn't a conservative. He will take liberal positions on key issues. But he has fooled many conservatives into thinking that the gap between McCain and conservatives is small when it really is quite large.
A quick look at his statements from the time shows that he did indeed argue for spending cuts to be matched with such a large tax cut. The "class warfare" terminology was made while arguing for even larger tax cuts for the middle class. In context it was nothing as you are making out, but out of context it makes for a cheap and inaccurate attack.
An even larger middle class tax cut? Are you kidding me? McCain's proposed tax cut going back even to his 2000 campaign was an absolute joke. It wasn't paid for by spending cuts, either. Guess what offset most of his proposed tax cut (what little there was of it)? Tax HIKES. And this was in a time of proposed surplus.
Nothing here is taken out of context. There are hundreds of quotes from a time period of several years where he attacks tax cuts based on the fact that they are too large and benefit the rich.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
C'mon people GROW-Up, we are at war.
Bush supported amnesty and signed campaign finance reform, are you saying we should have nominated Rudy or Mitt or Fred or Huck over Bush to run against Kerrey in '04?
We have 160,000 kids in a war zone that we want and need to win for our kids, ourselves and for all who died fighting to try to acheieve a pluralistic Iraq and to send a message for the future.
Rudy was right, all of our candidates bravely supported the surge. But ONLY MCain knew to call for increased forces before, and more importantly had the personality, knowledge and street trust to get it through the backlash of public opinion against the war, a new democratic congress that won on the war issue and even a bi-partisan commission report that said get the troops out now.
How can we seriously say that our troops should not be lead by McCain who has the best street credibility amongst conservatives, democrats and independents in these critical next four years because he favors what AMNESTY?
So does Bush...and guess what the people, democrats and repubs and indies killed the amnesty deal in its tracks. Is it too much to ask, that at least with respect to the next four years we cover our own backs on these issues with better congressmen, radio and the internet and give our kids the best proven advocate for their cause?
You all saw the recent polls from CNN tonight among registered voters (the most liberal) MCain polls the best of all our other candidates and even the democrats. In New Hampshire MCCAIN won the independent vote even over Obama. OUr troops deserve someone who engenders the trust of the entire country to advocate for them.
COnversely, can we seriously risk putting the future of our troops in the hands of Clinton or Obama all because we are too lazy to fight our own congressmen to shutdown the stuff we don't like like amnesty, tax increases, and global warming aversion.
I know Rudy, Mitt and Huck would do right by the troops ultimately once they got used to the job, but if they can't get to the White House how does that help the troops? More importantly, why would I chose a new CEO when the one I have has gotten the job done over some amazing odds.
then why is it I hear so many former military members are upset with him?
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Read your post its about the Rumsfeld /Centcom bashing that MCCain likes to engage in. Believe me, it pisses me off to hear it too. But at the end, Rumsfeld and the former heads of CentCom would be alright with anyone calling the loonball asses if it enables the troops to complete the mission in victory and vindicates their goals.
We have to keep our eye on doing right by the troops. And that means rallying around the best chance we have to keep the White House Republican. That man for all his flaws is MCCAIN.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
this guy. There are more I am sure. Look at the six specific points down in the article concerning legislation he did not aid .
current crop of troops mCCain has been steadfast in finding, supporting and getting enacted the policy that can enable them to complete their mission with victory.
When the only thing we needed was political victories back home, he was fighting for the other side in front of every microphone he could find. When the military is WINNING, but the rhetoric war is its only weakness, how does PUBLICLY criticizing the people running the military help?
With all due respect JAZ, you're looking at McCain like a mythical cyclops electing the successor to Zuess; one eyed and lacking depth perception. Granted, he was spot on when it came to the troop surge, but for this you'd look past all his very flagrant failings? In addition to our brave men and women heroically serving us overseas in the GWOT, I consider our Border Patrol, and every other LEO serving to be a front line defender of America too. A vote for McCain is a vote against these other defenders who are also risking their lives, and I challenge you to disprove this: McCain's well documented pro-amnesty stances make these other front line forces more vulnerable to harm by opening the flood gates to all the accompanying problems and dangers of open borders. Jaz, you tell me where I'm wrong on this, I challenge you. I also laugh when I hear that McCain has the strongest foreign policy record of any candidate. This is preposterous! If you can explain how leaving a border completely open to invasion by MS13 thugs, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and any other invader that has been proven to have entered the U.S. thusfar since 9/11 is not a serious indictment of McCain's utter lack of competence, please let us know! He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of these United States, and his reluctance to do so because "comprehensive immigration reform" failed precludes him from any serious consideration for the big job. I could go on, but I'll let you respond first.
Tim Schieferecke
support the ongoing war on terror and build the fence, protect our borders and deal with the US and the world - McCain, as a democrap liberal who is pro life is not the only choice nor the best one.
If your going to have the country screwed up by a liberal lets make sure everybody knows it was a democrap.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
benefit his candidacy. McCain's success is dependent on a scrambled race. McCain probably has a ceiling of support, but that won't be apparent until we have 3 way or 2 way race. If Romney loses Michigan, we may see it. If Romney wins Michigan and McCain wins SC, McCain's ceiling will continue to be obscured.
I suspect there's also a bunch of anti-McCain 527 cash that might come into play once there's is only one fiscal conservative in the race (when only one of Rudy, Fred and Mitt is still standing). That may be a week from today or it may wait until after Florida. But expect to see the Club for Growth and others go after McCain when they see their moment.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
McCain will not let us get information out of the scumbag terrorists we capture... you know.. it might be mean or the UN might object. Also, McCain wants to close Gitmo. I want a president that will make Gitmo BIGGER and Koran free.
McCain is a disgrace the last 8 years or so.
If you think McCain is a conserevative then you may as well put a few dozen Ron Paul stickers on your car
If we care about the safety of our kids, McCain sitll beats out HillBill and Barck.
Let McCain defend the war and let's see whether any congressmen will step up to provide a prison for the Gitmo prisoners within his or her district. do you think Barbara Boxer will? Not likely...
McCAin is as close to conservative as we'll get to the White House. And for the sake of the troops we better support him...
I agree McCain is by and large good on the war front. He can get the message across and is quite clear and unambiguous about his strong support for victory in the GWOT. Heck sometimes he is so good he even has me forgetting that I don't like him!
But unfortunately he is not good enough in that department, or better enough than some of the other candidates (namely Fred and Mitt) to outweigh his weaknesses. In fact I don't think he is actually better at all than those two, as far as substance goes on this one issue. -even assuming he is better at articulating it.
As for McCain's weaknesses, I don't mean in terms of electability. I mean in terms of being a principled, consistent conservative. See the many, many details above.
"Getting information out of scumbag terrorists" is not what Jonh McCain is against. He's against us becoming just like them. The Army field manual, the law of armed conflict and everything else I've been taught as an MP about detainees and EPWs flies in the face of "enhanced interrogation". The real world isn't an episode of 24, and its been documented for centuries that torture is a wildly unreliable way of getting good, actionable information. People subjected to this kind of treatment are just as likely to lie, or say whatever they think their captors want them to say in order to get the pain to stop.
Sure, once in a blue moon, it might work; that's what pardons are for. You don't make the speed limit 180 mph because someday it might get someone to the hospital, and you don't make punching babies legal because maybe punching someone's baby might get them to reveal the location of a suitcase nuke. There's a reason we don't enshrine brutality into our law or our SOPs, and a man like McCain knows it.
One More time. The CIA guys who used waterboarding on Zubaida and the other dude has said over and over that the broke inless than 30 seconds AND gave up a treasure trove of info.
Look, maybe they did. We wont know for sure for decades, or maybe never, since said CIA guy never really told us what it was Zubaida said, so all we have to go on is an interrogator defending his own actions. Even if it's absolutely true, I already said, and McCain has as well, that if it really does come down to it and such techniques are absolutely necessary to save American lives, the President can take ownership of those actions via pardons and other executive actions.
However I will never, ever support someone who wants to enshrine that kind of behavior in United States law or SOPs. I wont.
I agree, they ("enhanced techniques")should not be specifically protected. But they should not be specifically outlawed either. A president should have a little wiggle room in EXTREME cases.
They already are outlawed though, that's the thing. Setting aside the moral issues they raise, withdrawing from the treaties we've signed and rewriting things like the Army field manual are going to cause irreperable harm in an ideological war like the one we're fighting. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and renditions have probably done as much for our enemies as they have for us. You fight an idea with another idea, and that idea had better be a hell of a lot better than shipping some guy to Egypt to be tortured.
Very well said. I have never understood why Republicans would even consider the two frontrunners. McCain, for the reasons stated and Huckabee.
McCain has betrayed Republicans for the last 8 years almost every chance he got. It did get him on television but there are a number of republicans who absolutely loathe him. As far as Huckabee, if Hillary learned a few bible verses, then you would need dental records to tell them apart.
..."Indeed, though Ron Paul's views on foreign policy issues are quite screwed up, I would still take him over Mr. McCain."
"Indeed, though Ron Paul's views on foreign policy issues are quite screwed up, I would still take him over Mr. McCain. "
That's all I need to hear to justify the subject line of my comment. If you'll say that, then you really have nothing to say at all.
absentee
| | |
In addition to the already voluminous list let's add the Gang of 14 betrayal (I laugh everytime I hear McCain supporters talk about his commitment to constructionist judges; when he had the chance to get ALL of them confirmed, he tossed them under the bus)
Nor should we forget that his adherence to the AGW agenda will more than offset whatever porkbusing bona fides he may have.
And, to close the loop, since tough interrogation techniques and border security are part of the GWOT, it undercuts his right position on Iraq (which will continue to fade as an issue thanks to Petraeus)
But finally, there is his pettiness and vindictiveness. Ask John Cornyn and anyone else with the temerity to disagree with his penultimate self-righteousness.
Great blog, Joe!
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."