Redstate

This almost pathological hatred of Senator McCain is no different than the hatred we see amongst the Kossacks for Senator Lieberman.

I go through some of the accusations tossed out about Senator McCain and why he’s on my short list of candidates for 2008 on my blog here.

It's nice to see a balanced writing about McCain that talks about his negatives and positives. He really is one of 2 or 3 Senators with a good record on fighting expansion of government and pork bills.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

Actually McCain is a big spender on the real money issues, entitlements. He is always ready to cosponsor the next big Democratic entitlement with Ted Kennedy.

McCain covers this up well though, by talking about cutting a few earmarks. Compared to the entitlements McCain pushed through congress, those earmarks are a few drops of water compared to a lake of entitlements.

McCain reminds me somewhat of a fellow democrat approving calling Bill Clinton an "exceptionally good liar". I wouldn't call McCain that, but a persistent phony. Like putting up a smokescreen by fighting earmarks while approving liberal entitlements. Or changing his opinions on issues every election, or just to take the opportunity of stabbing his fellow Republicans in the back.

I will respond to your two comments now, but most likely in the future I will just ignore them.

McCain is the only Senator to my knowledge to oppose Medicare Plan D, call it "pork" on the Senate floor, oppose the Transportation pork bill, and oppose the Energy pork bill last year. Only 1 or 2 other Senators got 2 of those 4 things right. While the rest of the Senate was happy to go along with the President's Big Government Conservatism, Sens. McCain, Kyl, and Coburn would take turns standing up to it. They are the closest thing we have to an RSC in the Senate.

If you'd ever like to present any evidence for your McCain hatred, please do. Until then, I'll presume you're just an astroturf McCain hater whose scared he might actually win the primary.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

The only entitlement in your list was medicare part D, which McCain rejected because he wanted to spend more money, not less.

The other two are exactly what I said, meaningless pork bills that don't add up to real money.

You omitted no child left behind bill, which McCain proudly co-sponsored with his pal Ted Kennedy, and which cost a lot more than highway bills.

> If you'd ever like to present any evidence for your McCain hatred, please do.

Assume whatever you want. The information is here if you search. I haven't noticed you post anything at all besides your opinion, so it seems a double standard to say that I need to produce evidence when you don't.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/wu_wei/2006/nov/08/the_attack_on_the_probl...

http://www.redstate.com/stories/congress/the_republican_main_street_part...

Here's just some of the stuff about liberal John McCain. Here he supports global warming, attacks the christian right, says he'd vote for Liberman over a republican, ...

He also proudly accepts the Chaffee award, for being a liberal republican. A picture is even included.

Secretary of the Navy and a great public servant.

OTH, as far as I know he always voted for the Republican nominee for POTUS.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

This almost pathological hatred of Senator McCain is no different than the hatred we see amongst the Kossacks for Senator Lieberman. While I can't speak for others, my dislike and distrust of John McCain isn't pathological. At least on my part.

McCain and Lieberman simply are not comparable. If McCain were to the Republicans what Joe is to the Dems, I for one would have almost no problems with him. Lieberman is faithful to his party and their leadership on every issue save one, his support of the war. On that issue, he's not out of the mainstream of the country and he's not manufactured issues to take his position. Lieberman also does not take positions to insure "good time" on Sunday mornings or to build and enhance his reputation as a "maverick".

Most of McCain's positions of notariety are in direct opposition to the party leadership and, for the most part, the rank and file of the party. CFR is an affront to every person who has any understanding of the drafting of the Constitution and the fact that the first amendment was specifically drafted to protect the very thing that McCain fears the most: political speech that challenges the elected power structure.

Virtually every other position McCain has been high-profile on: torture, tax cuts, G14, and global warming to name a few, are manufactured positions that serve only McCain and get him lots of favorable mention because of his thumb in the eye of the current administration. He has done the country and the party no favors with his mouthing off on these "issues".

Specifically, with the above, torture was agaist the law and the UCMJ before McCain got worked up. His protestations and machinations did nothing but impinge the reputation of our military and feed the anti-war movement here and abroad. It was a shameful exercise on his part.

With respect to tax cuts, he never met one he liked until Tom Dashcle cobbed a package together. And for all his protesting about spending and tax cuts early on, he never once mustered the same energy to cut spending that he spent on accusing our troops of torturing terrorists.

G14 bought us nothing. Roberts and Alito would have been confirmed without the 14 dwarves help. What it's cost us is at least seven highly qualified appellate judges and the dwarves are better able to work behind the scenes with Snarlin' Arlen to hold up nominees from floor votes. This is another shameful example of McCain putting his SundayAM good time ahead of the country.

On global warming, who knows what he's doing. Channeling AlGore?

Let's not forget immigration. While his position generally supports the President's position, I find it interesting that his signature legislation partner is Ted Kennedy. And when it ran into trouble, the authors went to great lengths to remove McCain's name from the lede.

McCain is frequently cited for two great strengths. First is his support for the war. Second is his attempts to reduce pork. On the first, McCain talks loudly out of both sides of his mouth. He supports the war while simultaneously taking every opportunity to criticise Rumsfeld and criticise the conduct of the war. He is John Murtha's best friend in the Republican Party because he is on record longer than Murtha in his criticism of the war and the administration.

Spending reduction? He's talked a game. Not a good game, but a game. McCain makes high sounding statements and doesn't back his words with deeds. Please list the legislation he's sponsored to reduce spending or eliminate programs. Show me where he's spent any political capital, on the order of G14 or torture, in the area of spending reduction. He's willing to take on the administration and the party leadership when it will show his "maverick" colors, but not when the issue won't add to his personal personnae.

I have no problem with McCain personally. It's his positions I have trouble with. And his complete lack of executive experience. He's spent his entire life, post Vietnam, in the legislature. He has nothing to show for it but an affront to the first amendment, working to put Senate comity ahead of the good of the country, and taking every opportunity to stick his thumb in the eye of the administration and the party leadership. McCain is not qualified to be POTUS.

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

> On global warming, who knows what he's doing. Channeling AlGore?

KING: You seen Al Gore's new movie?

MCCAIN: I have not seen it. I read the reviews. It's got pretty good reviews.

KING: I imagine you're supportive of global warming, of the idea of doing something.

MCCAIN: Absolutely. I think we've made terrible mistakes by not addressing this issue.

McCain and Lieberman simply are not comparable. If McCain were to the Republicans what Joe is to the Dems, I for one would have almost no problems with him. Lieberman is faithful to his party and their leadership on every issue save one, his support of the war.

First of all, I categorically reject the notion that an elected official has an automatic “duty” to “his party and their leadership.” As I pointed out in my blog which addressed some of McCain’s virtues it’s that he’s bucked both the GOP and its leadership on the Farm Bill, Medicare Part D, the Energy Bill, and the Transportation Bill.

As far as Lieberman’s fidelity to his party’s leadership, if you read some of the charges made at Lieberman by Lamont supporters, the war was the number one on the list but so was his support for bankruptcy reform, his support for capital gains tax cuts, his general support for free trade, his support for faith-based initiatives, his support for John Roberts’ appointment as Chief Justice, his membership in the Gang of Fourteen, and his willingness to at least talk about Social Security reform.

On that issue, he's not out of the mainstream of the country and he's not manufactured issues to take his position. Lieberman also does not take positions to insure "good time" on Sunday mornings or to build and enhance his reputation as a "maverick".

That’s nice and other than your own mind-reading powers, do you have any evidence that this is McCain’s motivation as opposed to say, maybe this is because he actually believes the positions he’s taking and thinks that they’re in the best interests of the nation? One of what I’ve always thought is the great differences between conservatives and leftists is that conservatives generally think that the left is well-meaning but wrong whereas on the left we’re more likely to see people who disagree with them as just being “evil.” What I’m reading from you and others who profess to attribute these motivations to Senator McCain is closer to the latter than the former.

Most of McCain's positions of notariety are in direct opposition to the party leadership and, for the most part, the rank and file of the party. CFR is an affront to every person who has any understanding of the drafting of the Constitution and the fact that the first amendment was specifically drafted to protect the very thing that McCain fears the most: political speech that challenges the elected power structure.

I covered this very issue in my blog:

First, I completely agree that the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act is a bad law and disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision upholding it. However the fact is that President Bush signed it into law (even though he unlike McCain disagreed with it) and I nonetheless voted to reelect President Bush in 2004. It seems to me then that if conservatives were able to vote to reelect Bush in 2004, why should we hold it against McCain (or any other Senator who voted for it) should he (they) run for President in 2008? It’s water over the bridge as far as I’m concerned.

Furthermore, in addition to the double-standard I’m seeing from conservatives who supported Bush who is just as culpable as McCain and Feingold for the BCFRA, I’ll make one other point. Bush by his own admission thought it was a bad bill but signed it into law anyway because he caved to political pressure and hoped that the Court would do his job for him and stop him from having to make a politically unpopular decision. McCain, however thought (and the Supreme Court agreed with him) that campaign contributions are not necessarily protected by the First Amendment and that we can in fact restrict advertising for campaigns just as we place restrictions on other types of advertising. I disagree with this interpretation but IMO a Senator who sponsors a bad bill but honestly believes it was constitutional is more credible than a President who signs that bad bill into law thinking it’s constitutional and expecting the Courts to “fix it.”

Specifically, with the above, torture was agaist the law and the UCMJ before McCain got worked up. His protestations and machinations did nothing but impinge the reputation of our military and feed the anti-war movement here and abroad. It was a shameful exercise on his part.

I disagree with this spin on the issue. The issue was that there was a lack of clarity on how to treat prisoners including what sort of interrogation techniques were or were not allowed. We had people who were put in a difficult position about what was and was not allowed in the way of interrogation techniques and the lack of clarity was leading to some serious mistakes and even cases of mistreatment. The McCain Amendment clarified what acceptable treatment was by codifying the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation as the standard for treatment and the administration agreed when it signed the bill into law. We do our troops no service when we send them into harm’s way and don’t give them clear instructions on what they’re expected to do.

With respect to tax cuts, he never met one he liked until Tom Dashcle cobbed a package together. And for all his protesting about spending and tax cuts early on, he never once mustered the same energy to cut spending that he spent on accusing our troops of torturing terrorists.

First I defy you to point to an actual quote from Senator McCain in which he accuses our troops of torturing terrorists. And no, pointing out that the men and women we as a nation have placed in harm’s way need to have clear guidelines on interrogation techniques isn’t such an accusation. Calling it as such is simply ignorance.

Second, McCain has in fact supported tax cuts.

Third, given a choice between what Bush has done in proposing tax cuts, proposing huge increases in spending, and running deficits which pass the burden onto my kids versus what McCain has proposed in making more modest tax cuts and using the surplus to fix the entitlement program mess, I would chose the latter.

G14 bought us nothing. Roberts and Alito would have been confirmed without the 14 dwarves help. What it's cost us is at least seven highly qualified appellate judges and the dwarves are better able to work behind the scenes with Snarlin' Arlen to hold up nominees from floor votes. This is another shameful example of McCain putting his SundayAM good time ahead of the country.

I’ve addressed that issue in my blog as well. First of all Frist didn’t have the necessary 51 votes to change the rules in the middle of a Senate term and everyone knows it. In which case but for the Gang of Fourteen, we probably wouldn’t have been able to stop a Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees.

Second, Frist and the Senate Republicans had no less than three opportunities to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of the Senate term (like they’re supposed to) rather than pull this stupid stunt in the middle of a session hoping to manipulate the rest of us into a tizzy. You want to blame someone for the three lost judicial nominees (and BTW I’ve seen no evidence that their replacements would be any better or worse), then take it up with the GOP leadership who could have changed the Senate rules at the beginning of the session and avoided that pointless show down.

On global warming, who knows what he's doing. Channeling AlGore?

Unfortunately this sort of snark is precisely the reason why Republicans in general have a credibility problem with the public on environmental issues. McCain has supported a carbon emission trading system as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has generally taken a pragmatic view on most environmental issues.

Let's not forget immigration. While his position generally supports the President's position, I find it interesting that his signature legislation partner is Ted Kennedy. And when it ran into trouble, the authors went to great lengths to remove McCain's name from the lede.

I don’t see what’s particularly “interesting” about it. The president’s two big domestic priorities have been NCLB and immigration reform and in each case he’s reached across the aisle to get Kennedy’s support to ensure he can get a bill through the Senate.

McCain is frequently cited for two great strengths. First is his support for the war. Second is his attempts to reduce pork. On the first, McCain talks loudly out of both sides of his mouth. He supports the war while simultaneously taking every opportunity to criticise Rumsfeld and criticise the conduct of the war. He is John Murtha's best friend in the Republican Party because he is on record longer than Murtha in his criticism of the war and the administration.

It’s pretty sad when someone fails to make the distinction between someone who supports the war but constructively criticizes its handling because they want it to succeed and think that mistakes are being made which impair its success versus someone who starts from a position of opposing the war and simply wants to bug out ASAP. You do know which is which don’t you? McCain has been pretty consistent (and I’m starting to think he’s been right) in his concerns that we don’t have enough troops in Iraq which as I said in my blog shows that he’s a Republican who is determined to win.

Spending reduction? He's talked a game. Not a good game, but a game. McCain makes high sounding statements and doesn't back his words with deeds. Please list the legislation he's sponsored to reduce spending or eliminate programs. Show me where he's spent any political capital, on the order of G14 or torture, in the area of spending reduction. He's willing to take on the administration and the party leadership when it will show his "maverick" colors, but not when the issue won't add to his personal personnae.

As I point out in my blog and as Adam C has pointed out – McCain opposed Medicare Part D ($749 Billion), the Farm Bill ($149 Billion), the Energy Bill ($14 Billion), and the Transportation Bill ($284 Billion). When he campaigned for President in 2000, he was the only candidate to go to Iowa and state that he was opposed to ethanol subsidies. The fact that he voted against about $1.2 Trillion in new spending for programs that are generally popular with the public proves his fiscal conservative bona fides in my book. Don’t think so? Then show me how many members of Congress have a better record on spending.

only if a Republican likes a particular candidate; when he or she doesn't, well...I could go back and pull a few such gems, but won't.

Erik's story brings up a very legitimate issue, and his descriptions of McCain are not dissimilar to others I have seen applied to Republicans on the other side of him. Those cases didn't bring reminders of the 11th Commandment, if I recall correctly.

McCain and a lot of his supporters say no one can criticize him, because he is a POW.

Now there is a rule that the 11th commandment prohibits anyone from criticizing him too? I can understand why McCain and his supporters would desperately want to stifle debate, because McCain's record is so weak that he will be torn to shreds if there is honest discussion.

The 11th commandment never prohibited talking about candidates and issues in primaries. That is a main purpose of elections. Reagan attacked his opponents. It is about personal attacks like who McCain sleeps with, not his voting record and political views. The 2008 primary will be an election, not a coronation.

Pointing it out and calling him out is one thing. But you (and many others) go out of your way to act as though McCain is as disloyal as Chafee or Wittman. Despite his massive efforts to campaign and fundraise for Republicans across the country including conservatives and moderates, he is treated as though he is about to backstab the Party at any minute.

The hyperbole and thinly veiled disgust is unnecessary. The same point could be made without the "war" analogy. One could say that McCain is going about this wrong. That we encourage him to stop internal fighting and focus on reforms that need leadership in the Senate such as on earmarks and pork-barreling where he already has credibility and the Republicans need a few Senators to stand up to the status quo. We could point out that this will hurt him among primary voters and the conservative movement. But instead, it is used as an excuse to mock and deride which seems to be the M.O. on anything written about McCain. This article is far from the worst, but it is part of the pattern.

We need to win back independent and moderate voters. Destroying McCain is not the way to do that.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

> But you (and many others) go out of your way to act as though McCain is as disloyal as Chafee or Wittman. Despite his massive efforts to campaign and fundraise for Republicans across the country including conservatives and moderates, he is treated as though he is about to backstab the Party at any minute.

McCain is disloyal. Yes, he ran around collecting chits at election time in order to help his presidental run, but that doesn't mean much compared to the rest of what he did. Lots of us feel, and columns have been written, that McCain's betrayals on amnesty, terrorist interrogation, and the Gang of 14 led to republicans losing the congress. He did the gang of 14 deal without even consulting his own leader! All he did was grab enough of his fellow liberal republicans like Chaffee in order to make the deal.

Chaffee is a knee jerk liberal vote who influences no one. McCain will usually vote with the republicans when it doesn't matter, but no one has played a bigger role in helping the democrats derail the republicans on important issues.

I've posted links to the material several times. On issue after issue McCain is liberal, liberal, liberal, just getting away with it because he was a POW. He talked about how Lieberman is such a good friend of his that McCain couldn't support the republican candidate. He compared religious christian leaders like Falwell to Louis Farakahan. McCain changes his views on issues faster than a chameleon, being a little pro-life today, and while running for office saying that he couldn't support over turning Roe v. Wade.

At least you list a few things after the smears of "liberal, liberal, liberal."

1. McCain is not the only Republican who supported Lieberman this year. In fact, Lieberman won the Republican vote in CT by a large margin. And the Republican ran to the left of Lieberman on the war.

2. He did compare certain intolerant religious leaders to other intolerant religious leaders. Lest we forget, here is Falwell in his own word talking about 9/11: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say
you helped this happen.'" It would behoove religious conservatives to find leaders who do not push intolerance as the highest virtue. There are many who fit this mold and they should be getting more camera time.

3. McCain has always been pro-life. During his 2000 run, he one time said that McCain said,

I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” A spokesman said that McCain “has a 17-year voting record of supporting efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He does that currently, and will continue to do that as president.

He has a perfect pro-life voting record, including supporting Bork, Alito and Roberts. Here are other quotes that don't get as much play:

McCain said he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned and said he would support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger. (Source: Boston Globe, p. A11 Jan 22, 2000)

Opposes partial-birth abortions & public financing
In a letter to the National Right to Life Committee, McCain detailed a long anti-abortion record, including his sponsorship of the effort to overturn President Clinton’s veto of a bill banning late-term procedures called “partial birth” abortions. He also has opposed public financing of abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the mother’s life. (Source: Ron Fournier, Associated Press Aug 24, 1999)

Nominate justices based on experience, and values
On the issue of nominating Supreme Court justices based on an abortion litmus-test, “McCain has said that he will nominate justices based on their experience, and those who share his values,” said a spokesman.

He is at least 5 steps to the right of Romney and about 15 to the right of Guiliani on life issues.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I'm not a full time politician, so I don't have time to play spin games. Like:

> McCain is not the only Republican who supported Lieberman this year.

Nice word play, but McCain is the only Republican POLITICIAN who publicly says he will vote for a candidate from another party instead of his own.

It is outrageous for a US Senator to publicly say he will vote against his own party or not endorse their candidate.

> He is at least 5 steps to the right of Romney

I am tempted to reply with "name one issue on which McCain is to the right of Romney", but I can see that won't go anywhere.

This is absolutely false. You invited me to produce evidence, and I posted some, now I'd like to see you back this up.

The following things are not in Erick's post:

But you (and many others) go out of your way to act as though McCain is as disloyal as Chafee or Wittman...

he is treated as though he is about to backstab the Party at any minute...

The hyperbole and thinly veiled disgust is unnecessary...

But instead, it is used as an excuse to mock and deride which seems to be the M.O. on anything written about McCain...

This article is far from the worst, but it is part of the pattern...

Destroying McCain...

So, really, your comment, stripped of its irrelvancies, could be summarized as a discourse on John McCain.

Surprise.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

"Certainly not my first choice, but if he's the nomination I will support him."

I just worry that the vitriol and hatred is disproportionate to his alleged wrongdoings. And FYI, it's "Stevens."

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

John McCain has a senior moment on the campaign trail. The resulting fallout of concern about his health and age cause him to go to a South Carolina politician to carry on with his voters in the presidential campaign.
No, I am not talking about Graham. I mean the true Republican conservative from South Carolina Governor Sanford.

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

is. The only thing I've seen were his comments to a lady in Iowa a while back that were simply lame.

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

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

There were comments in both a blog and RedHot but I can't find them in any of the histories. Maybe someone smarter than me can find them with a link to quote.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

The debate on ideas and positions is healthy. The demonization is harmful.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

Like everything is being spun in a very conspiratorial way. It's grating on me as well.

There's been a war against Boehner, who for all I can tell is a pretty decent guy and a good conservative, and there's always been an animus against McCain, which is fine to some degree. Heck, I don't really like him and would support almost any other Republican candidate in the primary before McCain, but calling it a secret war is silly and unnecessary.

He has the endorsements of a bunch of state party people. District chairs. County chairs. Members of Congress.

Dave DiShaw, candidate for MRP Chair has endorsements from grassroots leaders.

McCain is playing the game well. Why are you angry?

Well, he's not angry, but I am.

Just a thought.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Romney is certainly to the right of McCain when it comes to taxes. Romney supported W's tax cuts, and McCain opposed them.

And Romney raised taxes while governor of Massachusetts while McCain has never voted for a tax increase. Point to McCain but I'd call it a tie since Romney to his credit has agreed with most of McCain's "No" votes on the spending that Republicans and Democrats in Congress have passed and that Bush has signed into law.

Romney is to the right of McCain on the War on Terror. Romney supported W's terror-interrogation policies, while McCain opposed them.

Correction, McCain sponsored an amendment to clarify what the guidelines were for interrogation techniques instead of letting our people twist in the wind without having any guidelines on what was and was not allowed. Point to McCain. Double points for being willing to call for more ground troops rather than “stay the course” and for being willing to call for ground troops during politically unpopular (among republicans) military actions (Kosovo) in order to win

Romney is also to McCain's right on the concept of traditional marriage. Romney is for a federal constitutional amendment establishing that marriage is between a man and a woman. McCain opposes this type of amendment.

Big fracking deal. The FMA much like the biannual “Flag Desecration Amendment” never had the votes to become a constitutional amendment. It only gets trotted out to whip the base into a frenzy. More the pity because while conservatives are getting excited over symbolism over substance, it leaves open the field for Democrats to win independent voters over issues that actually matter.

Romney is to McCain's right when it comes to the environment. Romney wants to use market mechanisms to increase energy efficiency, and he wants to allow for more drilling.

So does McCain who actually has the virtue of voting for more energy exploration. Point to McCain.

McCain is a supporter of the global-warming hypothesis.

Good for McCain. The data’s pretty conclusive that the Earth’s temperature is increasing overall and it’s pretty much only the morons who scream “Kyoto Lite” and “Al Gore” rather than trying to engage substantively in the issue of what policies to pursue regarding global climate change. McCain was smart to try to push for market mechanisms like emissions trading as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Romeny to his credit (while officially “hedging”) also recognizes the wisdom of enacting some policies now to reduce greenhouse emissions as has the Bush administration which acknowledges that global climate change is happening and human behavior most likely is at least a partial cause.

Romney is to McCain's right on regulation. McCain has go on about managed-care companies being the source of healthcare ills, while the Romney-associated healthcare plan in Massachusetts includes some patient responsibility.

McCain of course said no such thing (and I defy you to produce a quote that says otherwise). He pointed out (correctly) that managed-care is itself a creature of regulation but the way it was set up interfered with the ability of patients to chose their own doctors and have control of their own health care decisions. The focus of the GOP on health care reform is and ought to be consumer driven with reforms such as AHP’s, HSA’s, and opening up the market for more competition – two things of which both McCain and Romeny are in agreement about.

take it personally when some of us comment about the POSITIONS he has taken, his lack of executive experience and the fact that his tenure in Congress is about as fruitful as John Kerry's in terms of meaningful legislation (0 and 0).

That criticism is then translated in personal attacks on a war hero and/or they drag out the 11th Commandment.

For the record, I won't comment any further here about my opinion of McCain's unsuitability for higher office. I'm on record about that. I will say that I respect him for his military service and his POW status. I also have great regard and respect for his family, his son is currently at MCRD San Diego in Marine Corps Recruit Training. His wife has dealt with very difficult personal issues in a painful public forum and has never shown herself to be anything but a gracious lady.

The McCains are good people and fine Americans. He just shouldn't be President. And, silly as it sounds, I shouldn't be President either.

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