Redstate

McCain stands for McCain. Period.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Right on...

I agree on Frist.

At least McCain did something to get SOME judges confirmed. Frist et al were locked in a stand-still that was going nowhere.

So McCain didn't veto a single bill that raised government spending? Oh, that was the President.

McCain sent licentious IMs to congressional pages?

McCain failed to articulate the importance of the Iraqi campaign to the War on Terror?

McCain failed to speak out against gross overspending? Oh wait. He did do that. Unfortunately, he wasn't strong enough to stop it. But, the Republican Majority as a whole was. But, they didn't...

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org

We are indians. They are chiefs. Chiefs lead. Ours didn't, including the entire team of "leaders" from both houses of Congress and Bush.

We've managed two "Miers moments", one on HM and one on amnesty. It's not the responsibility of the base - or any part of the indians for that matter - to raise hell every time the leadership strays. Bush & Frist were AWOL on party discipline with both McCain and Specter and we are paying for it now.

As much as I dislike McCain, today's result is not his fault. He acted like the spoiled, selfish two-year old he is and the adults (Frist and Bush) let him get away with it. He's their fault.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Its our government. If its not performing up to scratch its our job to do something about it. Yes, the "leadership" is a disgrace, but its our country, not theirs. We have the responsibility to take care of it. Bush and Rove are living in a bubble, no question, but its up to us to pound some sense into them.

And some of the people being mentioned here as new House leadership are just as bad or worse.

you can't expect the base to "pound" on every issue. When that's the prescription, it can only be done at elections and that's what we just got. Now we can do some legitimate pounding, specifically with the House and Senate leadership elections.

Frankly, today - especially since Bush has apparently written off Rumsfeld, and probably Iraq - I am on the verge of writing off Bush. We'll see.

Bottom line, if the House and Senate don't pick new leaders I'm re-registering as a Libertarian.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

That the outrage over Medicare Part D was probably equivalent to the outrage over Miers... the only difference is that they were more sure of themselves at the time and they didn't cave on the issue.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Sherrod "One Term" Brown is a raving lib and Strickland talked a good moderate game. For another I offer two words: Robert Taft - in other words, voters of OH were NOT going to vote (R) for Taft's replacement, period.

Just guessing, though.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

I agree, these were also important factors in Strickland's much larger margin.

I disagree that Brown will only be around for one term. Ohio elected a socialist Democrat lawyer, Howard Metzenbaum three times.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

But Bill Kristol noted that, in Ohio, a significant number (I believe it was north of 20%) of self-described conservatives were voting for Brown - presumably as a protest.

That's not to say much, we don't know what qualifies as a conservative in the survey, but it does say something that there was a noticeable group of conservatives that were voting for an uber-liberal. That's probably not about liking Brown, it's probably about disliking DeWine.

I'd believe the Exit Polls. Across the Nation, the Gay Marriage bans passed. Abortion restrictions passed or barely failed. Same for every conservative referendum on the ballots.

And yet Republican candidates still lost. I'd say a Large minority of R voters voted D yesterday...

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

But that aside, today is not John McCain's fault.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Was there any other person besides GWB, Laura, and Cheney who raised more money for Republican candidates? Who spent more time on the campaign trial on their behalf?

I note that unlike Romney, who has been busy raising money for his 2008 run (and stabbed Healy in the back according to the conservative Boston Herald), McCain's total 2008 accounts only have about 2 million in them.

To Giuliani's credit, he did the same, but just not to the extent of McCain.

He did a good job. He campaigned across the country, raised money and was good trooper for candidates.

I am, however, not a fan of JohnBoy. I'm not dwelling on it today, but I will say he has no business being POTUS. Today isn't the day to debate that though.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

If you think that McCain raised money and campaigned for Republicans out of deep-seated loyalty, you'd probably be wrong.

Every candidate he helped, financially or through campaign work, is a person who is, in some way, "indebted" to him. And don't think that was just the point of it all - give him a chip with which to lean on these folks as he goes into a presidential run.

Yes, it had a positive influence on the Party, but that's a far cry from saying that it was motivated by love of Party. McCain is, first and always, for McCain. To the extent that overlaps with being for Republicans, he is. To the extent it doesn't, he doesn't hestitate to leave the reservation.

Point taken. You're right he's also raising chits. But he could have gone around raising cold hard cash for his own accounts like Romney.

In fact Romney did worse than just spend most of the cycle raising money for himself. He used his position as the chair of RGA to use that organization's money disproportionately in Iowa, where the race was hopeless, instead of Maryland, which we nearly held, and MN, where we won by a tiny whisker.

Ok enough 2008. I just don't like seeing our probable next Republican president attacked.

But please...

a virtually flawless conservative voting record?

Lifetime ACU rating: 83 (and dropping - 72 in 2004, 80 in 2005)

To compare: Kyl's lifetime rating is 97 (100 in 2004 and 2005).

Just saying.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

The reason for the attacks on John McCain is because he is as liberal as Ted Kennedy. In fact he co-sponsored some of Ted's legislation, including big new entitlements, and amnesty for illegal aliens. McCain nearly became John Kerry's running mate, etc. etc.

Really it comes down to this: some conservatives will let McCain get away with anything because he is a POW. That to them is the beginning, middle, and end. They never learn about McCain's record in Congress or even care about it, because he is a POW. No matter how many times McCain stabs his party in the back by helping Hillary and Ted Kennedy, those Republicans will never even notice because of the glare from his POW halo.

I haven't ever seen a conservative who knew John McCain's record, and all the things he did, and still supported him. Every single one just deep down believed that because he was a POW, nothing else about him matters, they support him.

I was beginning to think I was being to tough on JohnBoy. You've brought me to my senses. :>)

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Its pure hyperbole to say John McCain is as liberal as Ted Kennedy. Thats just wrong. McCain is pro-tax cuts, pro-war, pro-life, pro-English only, pro-flag burning amendment. He's just a creature of the Senate, and understands he needs to make friends on the other side. Really, Bush could have used more of that. McCain is a good Republican, and to be honest, I think all eyes are on him for leadership now.

-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason

McCain is NOT good on taxes. He has opposed every tax cut until the last year and even then he is waffling.

McCain is NOT good on supporting the Administration on the war. He's taken every opportunity to talk like a hawk and then criticise the Administration at every turn. He's about as dependable as Murtha.

McCain is, well who knows, on his pro-life stance. He is on record as not wanting Roe overturned. That's a solid pro-life stance.

McCain is a creature of the Senate. Very well said. And TKennedy is the heart and soul of that body. McCain has never met a principle that he wouldn't sacrifice to the comity of the Senate. He has no record of leadership on issues that matter, unless you consider his record on CFR, G14 and torture a worthwhile career builder.

McCain has an R behind his name. He's a little more reliable than Chafee was. But not much.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Bush's tax cuts were fake. They were paid for by government borrowing, mostly from Asia. That money will have to be paid back, with interest. With future taxes.

All Bush did was defer taxes onto future generations.

McCain, by contrast, is one of the best 2 or 3 members of the Senate on spending. Many times its a lonely battle with just him and Tom Coburn fight pork barrel spending.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Maybe you could support Kusinich in 08. I'm sure he'd agree with your ridiculous "Bush tax cuts were fake" comments.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Fake is not the right word so much as nonexistent. I pay less now and much more later (considering the interest of the debt that paid for the cut.)

Sorry for not toeing the Bush party line. It's so popular and sucessful these days, isn't it?

There is nothing fake about the fact that Bush inherited a surplus and so far has ran up $2 trillion dollars in debt since he's been in office.

And how many spending bills did he veto? How many people did he fire to keep the true cost of the drug bill hidden until it passed?

Chafee has an 11 ACU average.

McCain has an 82 ACU average. 80 last year.

McCain is an exceptionally legit conservative. (And I'd argue that the ACU doesn't always support what's "conservative" over what's Republican.)

Disclaimer: Works for Alan Schlesinger (R-CT). Volunteer, no pay.

He is no more a conservative than Bush. The difference is that McCain is a lot less qualified than Bush.

McCain has no "signature" legislation after a lifetime in Congress, except for CFR, a torture amendment and co-authoring an amnesty program for illegal aliens with Ted Kennedy. He's been in the Senate forever and accomplished nothing other than to try to invalidate the first amendment and accuse our military of torturing prisoners of war.

McCain opposed every initiative to reduce taxes until Harry Reid came up with one. He's "opposed" spending but used none of his political capital to produce a single bill that would reign in entitlement spending or eliminate earmarks. He's all talk and no action.

With respect to his stance on pro-life issues, he has said that Roe should not be overturned.

John McCain is simply unfit for the Presidency.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Yea, about as pro tax cuts as his buddy Daschle, with whom he worked hand in hand to sabotage the Bush across-the-board marginal rate cuts. I guess now you are going to tell me that Boxer is pro-2nd amendment rights, HRC is anti-abortion and that McCain is pro-free speech.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Bunk.
Stop with the hyperbole.
Now.

Wu Wei, you hit the nail on the head with regard to John McCain co-sponsoring Ted Kennedy's amnesty legislation. The McCain-Kennedy immigration bill would have given both legal status and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal aliens.

www.smashleftwingscum.com and www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com

I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher. Several reasons, mostly his voting record.

He supports raising the CAFE standards which destroys my state's economy.

He opposes the Second Amendment. This was after he won in Michigan in 2000. This will hurt him here next time.

He opposed the First Amendment with his campaign finance sham, which puts the power in the hands of rich leftists funding 527s like the nutcases Jon Stryker and George Soros.

He pushes for big government regulations any chance he gets. Why are we having hearings on baseball steroids?

He's part of the Keating 5.

He pushed to ban the UFC.

Besides his record, he's a bigmouth bully that needs to lose and be shut up for once.

I'll vote Libertarian between McCain and Hillary.

------------------------------------------

48 hours before the election showed Blanchard leading John Engler by 14 points.
Final:
Engler 51%
Blanchard 49%

http://republicanmichigander.blogspot.com

is just too great

Why, because mavericks help parties rebuild? Try another one.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

But McCain is only a rebel for liberal causes. Like supporting Teddy Kennedy's amnesty and entitlement programs. Or McCain's campaign censorship "reform" bill that made it illegal to criticize a US senator during the last six weeks of the campaign. Or the terrorist-friendly interrogation rules that he and the liberals forced on Bush. Or being part of the gang of 14 which prevented the Republican majority from approving conservative republican judges.

Can anyone name a SINGLE EXAMPLE where McCain rebelled against the Republicans for a conservative cause? No. Because there are none. Because John McCain, even though he is a POW, is as liberal as Ted Kennedy.

He ducks his head down to vote with us, but goes on television to vote against us.

I'd never vote for him, ever. If my choices were McCain and Clinton, with no other candidates on the ballot, I'd leave it blank.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Here's your example: pork. AKA, one of the major causes of today's defeats.

Many here will disagree, but campaign finance reform is a conservative issue. So much spending today is driven by lobbyist dollars. These need to be taken out of politics.

It was disgusting to have our representitives being flown around on private jets to luxery hotels in Europe, going golfing at St Andrews, watching Redskins games from Jack Abamoff's luxery skybox.

Yuck! Those lobbysts have one job: getting their paymaster's ensconsed on the federal government teat.

Go flog your bloggyhorse somewhere else.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Here's your example: pork. AKA, one of the major causes of today's defeats.
If by "one of the major causes" you mean "in the top 250," I would agree with you. It doesn't make the top 5, and it isn't much of an issue by itself, since it is such a small part of spending.

Many here will disagree, but campaign finance reform is a conservative issue.
Sorry, but expanding government regulation of political speech and abrogating the 1st amendment doesn't strike me as conservative in any way.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

How about banning gifts and luxery travel vactions from lobbyists? How does that limit free speech.

Have nothing whatsoever to do with the first two words in "campaign finance reform."
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

McCain is not my ticket. No way I'll vote for him. My only rule is that the only thing worse than a democrat is a democrat in republican's clothing.

If McCain is the republican candidate in 2008, I hope a conservative third party is running in my state, because otherwise I'll have to leave the presidential ballot blank.

By the way, McCain refuses to be interviewed by conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, so I hope that Rush and others begin declaring they'd support a third party instead of McCain. That's the kind of leadership we need to take the Congress back.

another Romneyite going McCain-hunting. Now everything is clear. Well, I don't want McCain to be our presidential candidate either, but that doesn't mean he's responsible for what happened election day.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

For what happens to us in 2 years if he runs for POTUS in 2008...

If you thought yesterday was bad, just wait till the collapse of the Perublican Party in 2008 if McCain gets the nomination.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

I think there are some governors out there who can do as well as McCain. Mitt Romney, for starters.

Until and unless I see someone better, I want Rudy. He was tested in 2001 and he passed with flying colours...

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

I don't see ONE SINGLE Republican out there who can rally the country around him, match Hillary Clinton's campaign largesse, and put all 50 states in play the way McCain can.

I'm still a Newt supporter first, but I would posit to you that the only possible Republican candidate that could win the electoral votes of the state of New York is Rudy Giuliani.

Take away New York from the Dem's electoral vote totals (no matter who they run) and their chances of getting to 270 go to zero pretty quickly.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

If Rudy wins the Republican nomination, he will have had to make pledges to govern as a Republican, particularly on big issues like the courts, the war, and taxation.

Once he does that, he loses any good feelings from the left, and ability to position himself in the press as the 'centrist.'
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I don't want McCain to leave the party, but rather would like him to start acting like a member of it. He has no right to demand party loyalty when he is the most disloyal to the party of all.

I believe like the blog I posted here, that McCain's disloyalty was a big reason that Republicans lost. He under cut the President, and prevented some of the conservative goals from being accomplished. Because McCain did that, some conservatives stayed home and didn't vote, which was a big part of the loss.

You must really hate Olympia Snowe.

"The Bass, the rock, the mic, the Treble, I like my coffee black, just like my metal." - MSI

That is the whole point, that everyone knows that Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chaffee are liberal, so they don't stand a snowball's chance of being president, but since McCain is a POW, a prisoner of war, his liberal record is totally ignored and he is a leading contender for the presidential nomination. If tomorrow morning all memories of John McCain's POW experience were forgotten, he'd never even last another election in the Republican Party. So instead of being treated like the liberal he is, instead of being treated like Olympia Snowe, he can do or say anything because he was a prisoner of war in Viet Nam.

is Chafee.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Well as a January it will be was worse than McCain.

Is not giving the guy the presidential nomination the equivalent of booting him from the party? I'm more than happy to have him in the Senate. He causes trouble sometimes, but he is a reliable vote on a number of issues. That doesn't make him qualified for POTUS.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Old man McCain in '08 makes as much sense as old man Dole in '96
We need to look outside of Washington DC and the US Senate to find a truly worthy candidate. It would also help if the candidate was not born in the 1930's.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

I don't like McCain.
I like some quiet and some unity right now more than I dislike McCain.
If McCain wants to get out there and be the face of the party and help us rally some, I say more power to him.
I invoke the 11th Commandmant as per Ronald Reagan, who was wiser than us all.

The 11th commandment only applies to republicans, and since McCain is a liberal in Republicans clothing I'll ignore it. Reagan himself fought many vicious political battles against other republicans. That is the price for having principles.

It is far, far worse to let Democrats take over the Republican party than it is for them to win under their own name.

When Democrats win, McCain wins. Doesn't anyone stop to ask if when McCain wins, Democrats might win?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Lieberman proved that the electorate was not going to go as far left as Lamonte (sp?). Considering that Connecticut is generally a blue state, it would make sense that the candidate that would win, would be more moderate than the Democratic party base since losing the primary pretty much proved that he didn't get the base support, he needed to pull from the right more. Don't trnaslate that into the Republicans needed to move more left. No, there are basic underlying principles that we must adhere to. Small government, fiscal responsibility, protection fo property and life. Trying to appeal to the progressives is how we lost. The winners in the change districts were more conservative than the Republican running, at least in their campaign promisses, etc.

Chuck

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
"Living Documents" suffer this distortion

I think that we can, and should, be sophisticated enough to distinguish between moderation and compromise for the sake of incremental advancement towards the ideal, and the kind of abject abandonment of conservative principles we have seen the last few years. Reform is not an all-or-nothing enterprise.

I would agree that what cost the Republicans the most was the willingness to dramaticly increase the size of the Government *at all levels*. Protection for property? Less so? Protection for life? At what cost? The libertarians aren't angry simply because the Repbublicans jumped federal spending from 1.8 Trillion dollars in 2001 to 2.6 Trillion in 2006 (and 2.8 Trillion projected in 2007), though that's one big reason. Add in to that stew: Efforts to reduce individual liberties (Internet gambling???) picking 'hot button' issues that motivate the base but alienate Libertarians (Gay Marriage Amendment) A lot of Libertarians are willing to make sacrifices to fight terrorism, however very few Libertarians have been willing to accept the shift in reasoning for Iraq.

Iraq was a mistake. The reasons we went in were never bourne out, and to try to justify our invasion with reasons that we make up 2+ years later cheapens what we did. America screwed up invading Iraq. BUT - We are there now, and it would be much worse to leave Iraq. We have to fix our mistake, or at least mitigate the consequences of it.

I accept your premise that the Republicans need to move to a smaller government, but I'd take it one step further, The Republican party needs to become smaller and less intrusive in both the social and fiscal platforms.

"The Bass, the rock, the mic, the Treble, I like my coffee black, just like my metal." - MSI

But something inside him prevents him from doing it consistently. He can't keep up the act as long as he has to. He sticks it to the base on a regular basis, just on reflex. He says some pretty idiotic thing like his $50 lettuce picker comments. He also has a temper problem. Lashing out at voters and telling them to "go vote for the vegetarians" does not show an personality compatible with a long campaign for the highest office in the land.

He has gotten a free pass from the MSM so far on this stuff, because he is their guy. Just wait until he isn't their guy any more and see what happens.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

And yet he won the NH and MI primaries, both swing states, and with a lot less money than Bush.

Bush beat him afterwards in states we have a lock on. How has that turned out for us?

That the Democrats will have their own primary to vote in this time, so they won't be crossing over to vote for McCain in the open primaries. He needs their votes.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

And yet he won the NH and MI primaries, both swing states, and with a lot less money than Bush.

Bush beat him afterwards in states we have a lock on. How has that turned out for us?

Michigan and New Hampshire... The bastions of conservastism. Big deal.

www.race42008.com

It is the primary job of the Chief Executive to set the agenda. To define the Contract with America, if you will. In 1994, the CWA originated in the House because the President was a D. Had Bush still been President, I doubt if we'd see a CWA.

One of the problems that I have with Bush, is his agenda. He actively campaigned on and promoted NCLB and prescription drugs. He offered NO leadership on the farm program or the highway bill other than to let it be known he'd sign whatever was sent up.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

There is no question that Rudy would be great on national security, but could social conservatives count on him to appoint justices like Roberts and Alito?

As for President Bush being too involved with pushing a legislative agenda, I think his real problem is that he tries to set the entire agenda in massive take-it-or-leave-it packages, without consulting with Congressional leadership, and they frequently have to tweak things in order to satisfy their constituencies (after all, they are elected to serve the people).

Many of President Bush's ideas these past two years were very good, but he should have invited Congressional leaders to the White House to work out the details IN PRIVATE so that what results can sail through Congress, rather than having the press report divergences between the President and members of his own party before they even know what has been proposed.

President Bush isn't the only President guilty of trying to force massive "black boxes" on Congress--Democrats in Clinton's early years weren't consulted on Hillarycare until it was too late, and an ad campaign against it had undermined support even in a Clinton-friendly Congress.

President Bush no longer has a friendly majority in Congress, but he can limit the damage if he gets down to business and meets with some moderate Dems (including the freshman class in the House), and cobbles together a "coalition of the unwilling" (moderate Dems + Republicans) against the radical-left agenda of Pelosi&Co.

Maybe we should thank the old Byrd in WV for saving the filibuster--we're going to need it!

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

Neil, see my recent blog Rudy on SCOTUS.

Money quote from Rudy: "Justices Roberts and Alito were both colleagues of mine [in the Reagan Justice Department] - people I worked with and I admire tremendously. I thought that they were inspired choices that the President made - inspired in many ways, because they also were people who had a strong conservative background and strict constructionists." He added, "Justice Scalia was also a colleague of mine...and he probably would have been my choice for Chief Justice."
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

He stated last week that Scalia would be Chief Justice if he were president.

www.race42008.com

And he isn't the one that said he was as bad as Ted Kennedy. McCain certainly had a part to play in our loss, as much as the leadership did, due to his prominence, obstruction, and out-right sabotage on a number of issues important to the base.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Except the part about ANWR: he doesn't support drilling there.

Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan

Got carried away in my corrections to flatly erroneous OP.

His actual record, referring to a few of the issues mentioned is that:

He stopped many conservative judges from ever getting a vote by leading the Gang of 14 compromise which prevented a rule that would have enable a majority to approve them. Instead the Democrats bottled up the controversial ones (except the Supreme Court) and now new Democratic chairman Leahy will keep them bottled up for good.

McCain is a big spender, helping Ted Kennedy push through big new entitlement programs. McCain often fools people by opposing a few little pork barrel projects (bridge to nowhere) while helping his liberal Democratic friends pass new welfare programs that cost thousands of times more. That is typical of McCain, the biggest phony in Congress.

McCain nearly became Kerry's running mate. Part of that is his temperment, because he is such a sore loser. The other reason is because he is closer to the Democrats than Republicans. Sure, he votes with the Republicans when it doesn't matter, which runs his numbers up, but on every close vote he worked with Democratic leader Harry Reid to pull the compromise as far to the left as he could. McCain is a reliable Democratic vote when it counts.

McCain _IS_ a somewhat reliable supporter of defense spending, but so are quite a few Democrats from red states. Like his fellow Democrats in spirit, McCain often pushed things to the left, like the terrorist-friendly interrogation legislation.

As others have pointed out, McCain was a big obstacle to tax cuts.

First, McCain's not even on the judiciary committee, where GOP members failed to show up for votes and refused to find a spine to push through candidates. They weren't dying on the floor per McCain's fault; they were dying in committee per Specter's fault.

Second, McCain helped support welfare reform bills in 1995 and 1996. If you want to cite an isolated instance where he supported Kennedy in an entitlement program, go ahead, but so far you've cited nothing.

Third, "nearly became Kerry's running mate" has absolutely zero truth and is entirely speculative. Kerry suggested it, but McCain flatly and categorically rejected those rumors. It's just because the media liked to hype him that they discussed them.

Finally, the White House signed the legislation that McCain voted for on interrogation. So if you're saying McCain is pro-terrorist, you'll have to agree that Bush is also pro-terrorist in his new interrogations, and he's apparently gotten soft.

Link to some sources before you keep making such false platitudes.

McCain didn't have to be on the Judiciary Committee to be in the Gang of 14. (Anyone who is interested can look that up in google, along with the other things I mentioned, www.google.com).

Republican leader Frist wanted the entire Senate to pass a rule that disallowed filibusters on judicial nominations. Without even talking to his leader, McCain made a deal with a bunch of Democrats which basically said that they usually wouldn't filibuster Supreme Court nominations, but could stop any of the lower court judges they wanted to. McCain also agreed some current Supreme Court nominees could be filibustered, and that Democrats could filibuster any Supreme Court nominee under "extraordinary circumstances".

Besides the Democrats, McCain joined together in this deal with his fellow liberal Republicans such as Lincoln Chaffee and Olympia Snowe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

Many people whose politics are more centrist/leftist seem to have a difficult time understanding what it is that McCain has done that has upset conservatives so. One problem we have with the Senator is that this isn’t the first time he’s sold out the Constitution for the sake of his own self-aggrandizement. The so-called “campaign finance reform” forced on us by McCain-Feingold has choked the ability of politicians to say what they want when they want during a campaign (which is a fundamental Constitutional freedom), and has opened loopholes to allow groups like MoveOn.org fill the airwaves with distortions and lies about the candidates they don’t like, knowing their opponents’ responses will be limited as the election date draws closer.

McCain’s bartering of a “deal” with the others in the Gang of 14 stopped the one simple request the President asked of the Senate: follow your “advise and consent” responsibilities and hold an up-or-down vote on these judicial nominees. The machinations and hang-wringing from the Democrats and the left about “reaching the abyss” and causing some kind of “Constitutional crisis” was nothing more than a bunch of bloviating Senators (including some in the GOP) spouting a pile of hyperbolic manure. If the shoe were on the other foot, you can bet the Democrats in the Senate would be doing all they can to run roughshod over the Republicans. History has demonstrated time and again that when the Democrats wield majority power, they use it to their advantage. Just because the Republicans are now trying to do the same thing doesn’t mean the Senate is going to shatter into a million pieces.

Here’s the big difference between the two parties: If the Democrats were the majority, they’d change whatever rule they liked and would basically ignore the Republicans if they dared to raise a fuss (and the media, for the most part, would criticize the Republicans for being “obstructionists”). On the other hand, as we’ve seen in recent days, if the Republicans tried to change a rule to their favor, the Democrats would threaten to bring the house down. And instead of just acting like the majority party, the Republican leadership would attempt to “compromise” with the Democrats (a term that, to the Democrats, means “you have to agree with us”). After multiple attempts, instead of just moving forward with a vote, a bunch of sniveling middle-of-the-road RINOs gather with the so-called middle-of-the-road Democrats behind closed doors and hammer out their own “deal.”

http://attaboy.tommydoc.net/?p=1417

Bush signed the best legislation he could get, after the liberals such as McCain and the Democrats helped the terrorists as much as they could. That was the best Bush could do, with turncoats like McCain in his own party.

Maverick, hero, quick to anger
He is all things to all TV cameras
The man his colleagues must either bow to or resent.
Not ready for prime time.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

A REAL war hero that people don't like to see attacked, and who rises above politics? What a disaster for his party he'd be!

He served honorably. He was no hero. He was just a pilot who did his duty and got shot down in the process.

And the one thing McCain will NEVER do is rise above politics. His every breath is political. And he would be a complete disaster for the party. He believes in NOTHING but McCain.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

McCain is an angry old man who cannot control his emotions. Anyone who cannot control their emotions should not be President, period.

Now that it's official that the Dems are taking over the Senate, McCain promised to commit suicide didn't he? Or will he wait until they are seated in January?