Redstate

To hear him talk about what policies the GOP can emphasize to win people in the 18-29 demographic, going back to a discussion you were having last week.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

Congrats.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

Dear Senator McCain,

Many conservatives (myself included) believe that McCain Feingold is a restriction on free speech. In the sense that you made an effort to reform campaign finance, how would you rectify any shortcomings in McCain-Faingold, or do you believe there are any problems with it whatsoever?

As a followup, what is your position on public funding of elections?

Thanks AdamC!

Mitt Romney is banking on a strategy of sweeping the first five primaries, and riding that momentum to victory. Rudy is hoping to win in the larger, later states. Fred's strategy seems to be the last "not Rudy" candidate standing come Super Tuesday by winning South Carolina, and being competitive in all the other states except NH. It seems clear that you are taking more or less a pass on Iowa, and focusing on NH and SC for now. What do you see being the McCain path to victory?

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

If you had to eliminate one Cabinet-level department, which one would it be?

Also, the question I always ask: Name the top 3/Top 5 specific things you would change as president (i.e., priorities).

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Senator McCain we have caught many Iraqi's and Iranians and other middle easterners coming across our southern border not just Mexican's, why would you have pushed so hard for amnesty for illegal's already here as opposed to securing the border first? and than fixing the passport system second? Israel and Egypt have a wall and it works to stop the suicide bombers from gaining access and killing many and it would work here to.

follow up would be

Senator McCain did you think that those who were here illegally and wanted to do us harm would sign up?

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Sen. McCain,

How does a conservative voter make any distinction between your stated reason for opposition.

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.

and Ted Kennedy's stated reason

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

and Maxine Water's stated reason

I voted against the Republican tax cut plan, which is an irresponsible tax cut that will further undermine the nation's struggling economy at the expense of middle-class American families.

This conservative voter can't make a distinction.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Thanks, Adam,

Here's one I'd like to see asked of ALL the candidates to see if anyone is paying attention; it's tough to ask of a presidential candidate since these things really have to originate in the legislature.

It follows off of Blackhedd's (Hi, Blackie!) riffle last week about which I waxed enthusiastic from my hotel room in Virginia.

Is Sen. McCain aware of how horridly uncompetitive our federal suite of "business taxes" is, and how it couldn't be better built to drive more "outsourcing" of jobs elsewhere? The big one is the corporate tax - not only is 35% now grossly uncompetitive (compared with almost everywhere but especially as compared with emerging tigers like Estonia), but the rules for internationally mixed business monies are double-whacked uniquely by US law.

I'm actually involved in "siting" decisions and often it's nearly impossible to choose the US as the location for something just due to this issue!

Our capital gains tax is much better now than it was, but it's still not very competitive.

I'd like to see this issue get some attention, since it really is high up the priority list for those of us in the international business trenches. Is the Senator paying close attention to what "his" (gov't) competition is doing?

How he thinks McCain-Feingold has worked out (what he was expecting to happen versus what actually happened) and what he would like to seen done to correct for any deficiencies he sees there. His conclusions there would be pretty interesting.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

there are any procedural reforms in the budgeting process which would make it harder for the congress to overspend. And if so, what are the chances they be put into law?

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

If Senator McCain wants my support, I only need to know three things - seriously:

1. Ask him his position on securing the border and enforcing current immigration law.

2. I want to know his position on appointing judges in the mold of Judge Alito, Thomas and Roberts.

3. I want to know his position on spending, pork and taxes.

His right answers will win my support of him - seriously!

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

Senator,

Bipartisanship is fine if the other party is rational and willing to actually meet you halfway, but why don't you take a more "We win, they lose" mentality?

His attitude towards the "his good friends" the Democrats is what separates him from my vote right now.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Get old tennis balls and put them on the front legs of his walker so they won't slip.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

If he can defeat Hillary, then I will support him.That's all I care about.

You (Sen. McCain) have said in absolute terms that water-boarding is torture. I am told that you have said that in a ticking time bomb scenario the POTUS should do whatever it takes, including authorizing such torture, and then bear the legal consequences. What are the consequences that you would legislate for the POTUS for water-boarding in this case? And you have also asserted absolutely that torture never ever works, i.e. provides useful information. Are you actually therefore asserting that there would be no use in applying it in a ticking time bomb situation? Are you therefore implying that if you were in charge under such circumstances that you would consider the situation hopeless or is this an exception to the “never” clause in your assertion?

I ask this because I would like to support your campaign, and otherwise would, but as I presently understand your reasoning on this issue and project it in the role of POTUS I feel it would sacrifice the security of real Americans for a misplaced and impractical idealism, a notion of moral superiority that does not weigh practical consequences. President Truman dropped atomic bombs – an act of terror and massacre which shocks our consciences vastly more than water-boarding – to save lives and faced no legal consequences. In my view, providing security for the USA is the moral duty of the POTUS and I presently cannot square that with your campaign to legally proscribe, and prosecute as torture, the use of water-boarding in the GWOT by the POTUS.

Given that I will be on the bus with you on Sunday my question to you will probably be...can you move over a little?

But seriously, ask anything you want...McCain doesn't go off the record...or at least rarely. Have your questions prepared but be prepared to go with the flow of the conversation. Follow ups often elicit the best responses.

Get a feel of the "bus" and decide when you want to ask what. It will lead to honest and open answers as opposed to bits from a stump speach.

Advice from a frequent bus traveler.

Brad Marston
Visit the best political blog that nobody reads at www.azamatterofact.com

Senator McCain has amended his position on the concept of "comprehensive" immigration reform since the summer debacle in Congress. What is his inclinaton if elected--to revisit comprehensive reform, or to solve the multiple problems with a step-by-step approach, starting with real border security? If the latter, what would his steps be?

Did he change his mind on the subject this summer, or did he just change his position because he was clearly not on the general public's side of the issue? IOW, does he still have the same beliefs he did before--that it's a labor and human-rights issue, not a national sovereignty and security matter--or has he recognized why he was wrong?

If the latter, can he tell us in his own famous PlainTalk just what he believes the problem of illegal immigration encompasses, and what he intends to do about it? Where does it land on his list of priorities?

Senator McCain has become famous because of his forthright stand against torture. He says it is illegal, and should never be used. Yet, he has said that in exigent circumstances only the President would have the responsibility to order whatever means of interrogation necessary to avoid the destruction of American cities and/or the deaths of thousands of Americans at the hands of fanatical terrorists. How does he reconcile the statement that the President would have that "responsibility" while simultaneously declaring that the President doesn't have that "authority" because such an order would be illegal? Senator McCain's military background has certainly given him the knowledge of the difference in the meaning of the two words.

The Senator has also said frequently that "torture/enhanced interrogation techniques don't work," and that we can't use enhanced interrogation techniques because our enemies would then use them against our soldiers who become POWs.

In reverse order: Since we were not using those techniques during his time of captivity in Viet Nam, why was HE subjected to torture at THEIR hands? Why were today's enemies torturing, beheading, and otherwise committing atrocities at their whim BEFORE any word of Abu Ghraib was made public, if they can be expected to follow our pacifist lead?

And does the Senator see any distiction between our using enhanced techniques only on the rare occasion that we have a high-level prisoner that is KNOWN to have valuable, life-saving information, compared to our enemy using beatings, torture, and beheadings just for the purpose of terrorizing Iraqis and the American people?

The former head of our CIA has said that we did indeed glean valuable, life-saving information from high-level terrorists by using water-boarding. If those techniques don't work, what other techniques would have worked? And if those techniques don't work, why is George Tenet lying to us?

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

he will pick.
I would like to see something more specific than what I have seen from the other candidate - something more than " I'm for judges who won't legislate from the bench". Does he think a judge should interpret the Constitution as what the those supermajorites meant by the words used in the Constitution when they enacted the document? Will he goes for judges who uphold the above meaning of the constitution regardless of what precedence are in place? Will he go for judges who only use precedents as a guide to find the original meaning, but never place precedents over that meaning? Or will he go for judges who will uphold bad rulings for the sake of not rocking the boat? I would like too see all the candidates get specific about what kind of judges they would pick. It seems like all we get now is a few platitudes. In my mind this may be one of the most important issue facing the country.

As an ardent pro - lifer, I would like to see an explanation for what happened in 1999, when he stated he wouldn't go for Roe being overturned. Did he pander for a short period of time, after which he repented - hey I would forgive him for that. Did he tell what he really thought about the topic and than go back to making us think he was on our side. Than he really meant something totally different than what he said. I'd just like some sort of explanation on this. I like to think McCain a great guy, but his 1999 statement tends to bother me.

What's McCain's priority balance the budget or cut taxes. Personally I'm for balancing the budget. I'm no ecconomist, but a debt that according to my crude calculations is more than $20,000 per every person including babies, is too much. And growing that debt doesn't seem like a good idea. Some think that this goes hand in hand with tax - cuts, but I have to say Brooksrob had a more convincing arguement on this topic. Does McCain have a plan to at least not increase our debt for a while?

I'd suggest a question, but to be honest, there's no answer he could give to any question I'd pose, that would budge him on my preference list this time around.

So I'll leave the questioning to those with more open minds on the man.

HTML Help for Red Staters