Redstate

His leadership in the G-14 hijacking of the Senate. Don't get me wrong, I'll back McCain, but only if I have to.

www.republicansenate.org

the last stop, for me, before Ru Ron Paul.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!

Not every thread on John McCain is an invitation to repeat the whining about: Amnesty, CFR, tax - cuts, G14, stem cell research, and Bush tax - cuts. Your arguements have been repeated and repeated and repeated... This post had nothing to do with any of the above, if you want to criticize McCain write your own blog, otherwise shut up for once.

n/t

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

To the oxymoron on the board: this is not threadjacking. Folks are expressing legitimate concerns about McCain and about Flake's endoresement of him. It's also not whining, it's called facts - facts McCain can't refute.

McCain supporters fear an honest debate over his record. So, if you criticize McCain for his Senate votes, statements, etc, you are accused of being irrational, being afflicted with "McCain Derangement Syndrome."

I guess because McCain was a prisoner of war back in the early 1970s, we are supposed to refrain from scrutinizing his record on political issues important to conservatives.

What if we got 5 pro-McCain people and 5 anti-McCain people to have an honest debate over McCain's record? My guess is that McCain supporters would rather keep McCain's record on important issues a secret from as many Republican primary voters as possible.

I don't think this strategy will work. But we'll see.

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

Its about the fact that you can't discern when a good place to do it. You think any post that mentions McCain is a place to list every grievance you have with the guy. And like I said every grievance has been aired over and over... You make it sound like McCain's record is some kind of secret that you are responsible for finally getting out into the open, sorry but I see what you're doing as an annoying waste of bandwidth.

and I'm not against it continuing if you actually have something new to contribute to the debate or at least if you're not threadjacking.

and will continue to make me see your verbose posts whenever someone whispers the name "McCain" on RedState.

I still cannot believe people don't see the completely obvious: G14 was an excellent deal, and probably helped us 1000X more then it did the D's.

It's comical how attached some people get to some ideas regardless of overwhelming evidence.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

The issue isn't primarily with the Gang of 14 deal, although that deal did allow the Democrats to retain the option of denying Bush's judicial nominees confirmation with only 41 Senators opposed to the nomination.

The main problem with McCain was how we ended up in the situation where some of Bush's nominees had to be dumped due to the Gang of 14 deal.

McCain was one of the main reasons. We can speculate to this day as to whether the Republicans would have won the vote on the Byrd option, which would have allowed Bush's judicial nominees to be voted on.

But McCain was the first Republican US Senator to announce that he would vote with the Democrats against the Byrd option.

Some McCain supporters maintain that "we didn't have the votes to execute the Byrd option." But McCain, having announced that his vote would be against the Byrd option is helping to create a problem (the possible defeat of the Byrd option) and then take credit for solving part of that problem (the Gang of 14 deal allowed from some of Bush's judicial nominees to be voted on).

Linsday Graham, Michael DeWine and John Warner were also part of the Gang of 14. But they did not publicly announce that they would vote with the Democrats and against the Republicans on the Byrd option.

Another argument you hear from McCain defenders is, "It's good that the 60 vote cloture rule has been maintained on judicial nominations. This means we can use it against Hillary Clinton if she gets elected in 2008."

Two problems with this.

(1) Republicans haven't, since the inception of the 60 vote cloture rule in 1975, used the 60 vote cloture rule as a means of preventing votes of Democrat judicial nominees. Not during Carter's term. Not during Clinton's 2 terms.

(2) Democrats would likely use the Byrd option if the Republicans did dare use the 60 vote cloture rule as a means of denying a Democrat president's judicial nominees a floor vote.

McCain, for his part, not only didn't initiate an extended debate over Clinton's 2 US Supreme Court nominees (which would have required a cloture motion to end), McCain actually voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer.

McCain supporters then say, "Well. Most Republicans voted for Ginsberg and Breyer. Elections have consequences."

Funny thing. When Reagan won a 49 state victory in 1984, the Democrats didn't use that as a reason to vote for Robert Bork. Nor did they use George H W Bush's 40 state victory in 1988 as a reason to vote for Clarance Thomas.

This is why we should be skeptical of McCain's explanations when he makes it sound like Republicans can use obstructionist tactics against Democrat judicial nominees they have, up till now, never used.

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

He lost me when he sided with Chafee to oppose Bush's tax cuts. I'm pretty disappointed in Flake. McCain fights pork for what? He apparently doesn't want to pass the savings back to taxpayers.

n/t

...you would have to be totally irrational. People don't actually care about the tax cuts, you know. It's just a convenient excuse to attack McCain.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

mccain said that he wanted the tax cuts but only with corresponding decreases in spending. he was more conservative than bush on the issue. imagine if bush had actually pushed for less government spending AND tax cuts - we'd be quite a lot better off financially (not to mention politically).

so to say mccain was opposed to the tax cuts, without saying more, is deliberately misleading and therefore dishonest

he was willing to do with Daschle to pass a tax cut package that the Democrats liked.

I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination, but McCain absolutely sucks on every issue I can think of. Only Huckabee is worse.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

McCain has been more dishonest in explaining his vote on taxes than jmazingo was.

If you listen to McCain and McCain supporters today, you get the impression that McCain's objection to the 2001 Bush tax cuts was that they weren't paired with spending reduction.

But this is what Senator McCain said during the debate over the 2001 Bush tax cuts:

"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."

Notice that Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said pretty much the same thing:

"Now, they are proposing more of the same, more tax breaks benefiting only the wealthiest among us."

But even more important is McCain’s votes on the pro-tax side of several amendments to the 2001 Bush tax cuts, including an amendment sponsored by Senator John D. Rockefeller to prohibit a reduction in the top tax rate until Congress enacted legislation to provide a prescription drug benefit.

McCain didn't condition his support for the 2001 Bush tax cuts on spending reductions. McCain conditioned his support on entitlement expansion (the Rockefeller amendment, which was defeated).

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

Thanks for the backup. Great that all of these McCain homers are trying to rewrite history. McCain has repeatedly said he's not a supply sider. But taxation is as big a problem as spending.

The folks who accuse people of distorting McCain's record on the 2001 Bush tax cuts. You have to wonder if they can explain McCain's vote for the Rockefeller amendment.

So far, all we hear is that disagreeing with McCain's votes means that we're irrational.

But what is the "rational" explanation for supporting the Rockefeller amendment to the 2001 Bush tax cuts? The reduction in the top income tax rate can not go into affect until a Prescription Drug Benefit is enacted.

I'd like to see a moderator at one of the Presidential debates ask McCain about that. First, I'd give McCain a chance to say, "I only voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts because they weren't linked to reducing spending and I am very worried about the deficit."

Then the moderator could ask a follow up question: Then explain your vote for the Rockefeller amendment.

How would have requiring that a Prescription Drug Benefit be enacted first improve the 2001 Bush tax cut bill from the perspective of someone who is concerned about excessive government spending and deficits?

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

Unless you have a link that supports the contention that "McCain conditioned his support on entitlement expansion", then stop cut and pasted the comment.

McCain voted against the Drug Benefit (yes, the one Bush signed) when it came up b/c he supports small government. He obviously was not conditioning his support on passing the Drug Benefit.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Here's the link you requested

I ask you to look at note 10 of this report.

Third, Senator McCain not only voted against the Bush tax cuts, he joined leading liberal senators in offering and voting for amendments designed to undermine them. All in all, Senator McCain voted on the pro-tax side of 14 such amendments in 2001 and 2003. These included such odious measures as:

An amendment sponsored by Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) to prohibit a reduction in the top tax rate until Congress enacted legislation to provide a prescription drug benefit[10].

An amendment sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) against full repeal of the Death Tax.[11] This vote is in keeping with Senator McCain's 2002 vote against repealing the Death Tax[12].

An amendment sponsored by Tom Daschle (D-SD) and co-sponsored by Senator McCain to limit tax reduction in the top tax bracket to one percentage point[13]

So, how do you defend John McCain's vote for the Rockefeller amendment? The Rockefeller amendment was defeated. But if it had been enacted, the top income tax rate would not have been reduced until a Prescription Drug Benefit was enacted. How does that match up to the argument made by McCain and his supporters that he voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts because they were not combined with spending reduction?

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

Where does McCain say he will support the tax cuts if entitlement spending increases.

He sponsored the Rockfeller Amendment. He voted against Bush's Drug Benefit.

Where do you get that he would have supported the tax cut if entitlement spending goes up?

The non McCain Derangement Syndrome explanation is that McCain wanted to put the Rockfeller Amendment on the Bill to get other Rs to join him in voting against the cuts.

Where you got the idea that he would have voted for both the Bush Tax Cuts AND Bush's Drug Benefit still eludes me. He opposed both of those policies.

His explanation is because he wanted to cut spending along with cutting taxes. That makes a lot more sense than your contention that adding Drug Benefit Plan to the Tax Cut Bill would make McCain more likely to vote for the Bill.

So unless you have evidence that McCain was going to vote for the Tax Cut if it included the Drug Benefit, please provide.

Otherwise, stop the spam argument.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

with your assessment that McCain is strong on spending. He's much better than Bush even though that doesn't mean too much. But to oppose a tax cut based on the fact that there wasn't a corresponding spending cut smacks of the idea that tax cuts must be paid for. I still believe that until we reach some theoretcial bottom where a tax cut does not increase revenues, tax cuts pay for themselves in increased economic activity and the revenues over the last few years have proved that to be the case. This is the essence of Reaganomics.

I hope Angel notes the difference between this argument and his repeated, unsourced lie that McCain would support the Tax Cut if it included Entitlement Spending.

Because I'd hate to have to ban him for an inability to read.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

We are to the left of the max on the Laffer curve. We would have more total revenue if the tax cuts had not been passed. Of course, the goal is NOT to maximize tax revenue.

The tax cuts did add to GDP growth. Say static models show a drop in $200B in revenue. The GDP growth added $50-60B back. So yes, "revenue went up" is one way to say this.

But overall we "lost" $160B in revenue. So a dynamic model would show a $160B loss, the static model shows a $200B loss.

We should use dynamic models.

But it takes 60-80% marginal rates to actually increase overall revenue. We aren't there.

**All numbers made up but percentages are approximately correct.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

That's an interesting, utterly unsupported statement. If that is the case, then we should be raising taxes because some combination of that and decreasing spending is the optimal way to balance the budget.

plenty of evidence to support what Adam C. says, it was a hobbyhorse of his. I have seen plenty of those debates and what I haven't seen is evidence for your position.

It has nothing to do with balancing the budget. The Laffer Curve merely notes that at a 0% tax rate, there is 0 revenue. And at 100% tax rate, there is 0 revenue (no one works). So in between there must be a maximum point where if you raise the tax rate, the amount of revenue goes down (example, moving from 90% to 100%). Where the "peak" of the Curve exists is an empirical question.

Most studies find the peak of the income tax to be in the 60-80% marginal tax rate area. Capital gains tax peak may be lower.

But all the Laffer Curve says is there is a marginal rate that maximizes tax revenue. We should not be trying to maximize tax revenue.

We are to the left of the maximum. If we raise tax rates, revenue will increase more than if we leave them where they are. But why do we want government revenue to increase?

The tax cuts increased economic activity and in a dynamic economy like ours, they increased the size of the economic pie (GDP) more than if we had not cut taxes. But the actual dollar amount of tax revenue would be higher if we had not cut the tax rates.

These aren't random observations, these are the findings of everyone from the CBO to economists. There are very few (and somewhat cooky) economists who think we are to the right of the peak of the Laffer Curve for income tax.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Let's review:

These days, McCain defends his vote against the 2001 Bush tax cuts by saying, "I didn't support them because they were not combined with spending reduction."

Okay. Where was the effort in 2001 by McCain to pair the tax cuts with spending reduction? There wasn't any such effort by McCain.

The honest answer by McCain would be: "I opposed the tax cuts for the reason I stated at the time. That too much of the tax cuts were going to the rich and not enough of them were going to the middle class."

But if McCain were to give such an answer, it would hurt him among tax cutting conservatives. So, he pretends his opposition was based on fiscal conservatism. But he made no effort, as a member of the Senate, to cut taxes and spending.

So, McCain has been dishonest and continues to be when he tries to explain his votes.

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

The Contact Form exists for a reason.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

My grievance list with McCain is long (and pretty much summed up in other posts so far).

He won't be getting my primary vote, and if g*d forbid he wins the primary, he won't be getting my general vote. His win is worse that HER. With HER, the Republicans will fight in congress. With a McCain win, congress will be pulled left by McCain.

I'm far from alone.

if he's the candidate, I'll likely vote for him. And if he is able to restrain spending, I'll judge him a success. It's easy to vote against spending in Congress, but more difficult to veto budget bills and then let Congress beat you over the head with it.

So, I take it you opposed Bush as well, since he has the same position as McCain on 2/3, and McCain and him now have the same position in regards to making the tax cuts stick as well.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Apologize now or bid farewell to your account.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

If that's the way it has to be, I guess that's the way it has to be. It would be the height of capriciousness for me to lose my account for using the word jackass. It's ok for you and/or Adam C to make derogatory comments, but not for others, interesting.

and BTW, there is a difference between what a director of the site can do and what new poster can do.

And I'm not a new poster. I've been on this board for 2 years.

over two years ago for using jack***. It is his perogative.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I don't recall seeing much of you.

I'm not a prolific poster. My work schedule doesn't allow much RedState time.

It is profanity and it is an insult. You were warned. Bye.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

The Clintons already know how to beat an old, washed up Senator.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

The polls and the conventional wisdom are little better than random this far before the nominees are known, let alone before the genuine run up to the general election begins.

HTML Help for Red Staters