Sen. McCain's Ongoing Olive Branch
If you honestly listen, you might be surprised
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (138) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A number of conservative pundits and bloggers who aren't busy leaving the Party have asked/demanded that Sen. McCain make overtures to conservatives to help unite the Party. I think this is good advice and it has been made by supporters as well as antagonists of the Senator.
What has been missed in this often-repeated advice is that Senator McCain has been campaigning as a conservative on the vast majority of issues. Below the fold, the Senator's words:
John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench (website)....
Seven judges in 1973 took the issue of abortion on themselves to settle this issue for every American, in all fifty states. They assured us that by sheer judicial will and power, the question of a so-called right to abortion was settled' and that our society would now arrive at a shared consensus by virtue of their ruling.
They were wrong to make this assumption. Your presence in Washington today marching for Life proves just how wrong they were.
If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement. The pro-life movement appeals to the best instincts within each and every one of us. In that regard, our pro-life cause will ultimately be successful. (March For Life remarks)
* Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
* Require 3/5th majority vote in Congress to raise taxes
* Keep Bush tax cuts on dividends and capital gains
* Ban internet taxes
* Ban new cell phone taxes
* Permanent Research and Development Tax Credit
And I won't waste the space putting the Senator's words on the War here as they are well known.
Finally, I will say that as someone who has seen the Senator campaign in NH and SC during the primary season, I think anyone who doesn't follow politics closely would find McCain to be a conservative. The Senator talks passionately about the problem of pork barrel corruption, special interests in Washington, and over-spending. He also talks passionately about the War, our troops, and the need to defeat Islamic Terrorism around the World. Although he did not speak about abortion as much, he was the only candidate (besides Paul) to send remarks to the March for Life and his abortion statements above are as pro-life as anything a Republican President has said in my lifetime. Finally, at rallies he talks about judges and says he wants "clones of Alito and Roberts."
The Senator should do more to make sure conservatives know that he is an ally. Hopefully, CPAC will give him that opportunity. But the Senator has already been extending an olive branch. Uniting the Party is primarily the Senator's job, but conservatives have to honestly listen and give him a chance. Otherwise, there is no reason to reach out in the first place.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Major McCain endorsement in CA tomorrow (or, "Debate Open Thread #2") — Comments (123) »
Sen. McCain's Ongoing Olive Branch 138 Comments (0 topical, 138 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I think you're missing the point. If conservatives expect McCain to flip-flop on issues, then they are not going to be happy. Part of why McCain is the frontrunner is because he doesn't change his views to pander. He tells IA that their ethanol pork is dumb, MI that their jobs aren't coming back, and FL that their national bailout program for hurricanes is pork.
McCain opposes the FMA but supported an AZ Marriage Amendment. He supported federal funding on ESCR, but has a pristine pro-life voting record (including on judges). The olive branch is reminding conservatives that he will appoint judges like Alito and Roberts and he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
He's not a flip flopper and if he was, he wouldn't be ahead right now.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
opinion is not one of the things that worry conservatives...it is his absolute resolve NOT to change his opinion that worries us. Once he gets his mind around a topic (however wrong), he sticks to it - welcome the immigrants... Any other items you were against and he was for will become factual (for him) in the future...no change there I'm afraid. Hard-headed he is and he will remain so as president.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I have no doubt he'll fight to the gates of hell for the GWOT. I have some, but less confidence he'll do the same for fiscon issues (he will on some [earmarks], but maybe not on others [tax cuts]). I have no confidence he'll do that for socon issues. This is why people are concerned that even though he says he supports judges like Roberts & Alito, he could end up compromising and nominating a Souter.
Sure McCain, you can have my #$&&^%#@$ vote if you want it.
Fred Thompson's Principles
==== 13 ====
Uhh, a LOT of conservatives don't support FMA. Thompson didn't support FMA.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
If McCain truly believed in Federalism, he wouldn't be pushing McCain-Lieberman.
How many times do you think McCain has said the word "federalism" in his voluminous number of interviews and public speeches?
How many of those times were not related to social issues?
he supports state initiatives on medicare, welfare, and education. He is from the Goldwater, Western wing of the Party.
One of the reasons I liked Fred so much is because of how close McCain and Fred are on the issues.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
which is when the Fred-John friendship was formed. Fred has been out since 2002, when the trouble started to escalate.
Besides social conservative issues such as gay marriage, I cannot remember John McCain mentioning the federalism until this campaign.
I would also point out that McCain is at his most intense when taking on conservatives, not when taking on liberals.
McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy were ugly.
McCain-Lieberman scares the heck out of me.
isn't exactly kissing up to Clinton.
And he's had testy exchanges with Obama when working on an Earmark Bill:
On Monday, McCain unleashed an unusually biting and blunt broadside against Obama, accusing the freshman senator from Illinois of backtracking on a previous commitment to work with McCain in developing a bipartisan proposal for lobbying and ethics reform.
In a letter to Obama on Monday, McCain -- upset by his colleague's support for a reform bill put forward by Democratic leaders as well as a suggestion that McCain's approach might delay the process -- accused Obama of "self-interested partisan posturing" and "disingenuousness."
McCain also told the Illinois Democrat that "I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's efforts to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness."
"I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics, the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us," McCain wrote. "Good luck to you, senator."
Sounds intense to me.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
2007? There were already numerous news articles and tv reports on the upcoming race. When did he officially announce? It was first quarter 2007, wasn't it?
As I recall, there was even a story about Romney fundraising in January 2007.
Sorry, 2007 does not count as a pre-campaign moment.
There are good anti-McCain readings of it, but "he wanted to have a flare-up with a new Senator who might run for President" isn't high on the list.
His hot temper would be a better target.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
If you follow the paths of the Democrats, you would know that they've been looking at Obama since his speech at the convention in 2004. Heck, while getting ready to be sworn in, he had an interview with Russert on MTP, where Russert point-blank asked him about running for President in 2008. (IIRC, Obama actually completely and unequivocably ruled it out)
As early as spring 2006, when I was interning for my senator, we would have liberals and kids who came in for a tour of the Senate. Going to the floor, they saw Clinton...OK. Kennedy...OK. Obama? They swooned.
I could have told you early on (and most serious political observers could see it, at least somewhat) that if anyone was going to spoil the Hillary party, it would be Obama.
So, while his hot temper and volatile personality could have something to do with it, there is also a high likelihood that he saw it as the beginnings of a shot across the bow, as well as a way of McCain shoring up his credentials amongst the conservative base by finally going after someone who wasn't sitting on the right side of the Senate floor.
Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!
DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.
If he would have shown some of that fire during the Judicial Nominations fight (against the other side, of course) I would have stood up and cheered. Targeted, precise, passionate and controlled outrage is a quality, not a liability. Instead he chose to demur, play peacemaker and enable a despicable, unconstitutional practice to continue. As you may know, the appointment process is now so backed up our next POTUS will now be making choices GWB should have made. That will affect us, as conservatives, for years.
This is all factual and intellectually derived. If McCain would at least acknowledge in retrospect some of this was in error, we might have a starting place for discussion. Instead, we, his party, are advised he won't be looking at past decisions? I am sorry, that brings us closer-how? That squares with his “meet the Democrats half way” stance in what way? It makes the whole sordid affair seem like a bunch patronizing half measures.
Mr. McCain appears to have walked the conservative baseline. That is almost a prerequisite for Arizona. But on almost every issue with national traction, able to make a difference at the federal level, he has failed conservatives.
Honestly, this fits the lipstick on a pig analogy; but there is no need for that. It is resolutely clear what is being bought. We won’t destroy the party for Mr. McCain, so we will vote against the Democrats, should he win.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
By that logic, why don't we just discount everything he's done since 2000. Because unless you've been living in a hole, everybody knew that McCain would run this year since he lost the last time around. So, why not just say that everything he's done was an effort to campaign?
I'm on the verge of taking a break from RedState, mainly because too many people here are developing some sort of MDS - McCain Derangement Syndrome. Honestly, I feel like the only thing separating the nutter liberals hatred of Bush from many people's hatred of McCain is that the liberals are more foul-mouthed about it. But the basic concept is the same - you hate McCain and the truth and the facts be damned in your efforts to damage him personally and politically.
I have always seen RedState's purpose as being a forum for Republicans. Conservatives make up the vast majority of the site, but this is not a site for the Conservative Movement. Those conservatives that are refusing to support McCain and who are, effectively, sticking their fingers in their ears to avoid having to hear any overture he might make (while continuing to attack him for not making overtures), are becoming almost as infuriating as the MoRons or BDS libs that occassionally get through to post something absurd and ridiculous.
Conservatives want to call the Republican Party home, but seemingly only so long as the Republican Party is entirely beholden to them on every issue. There is more to the Party than "conservatism" (as defined by the MDS crowd - which seemingly will define conservative in whatever way necessary to make McCain "not conservative"). The primaries are the time to have the "discussion" of where we want to be this year. And so far, the Republican Party is saying that they want John McCain this year. If conservatives are going to "sit out" because they didn't get their way, then I have to say they shouldn't call themselves Republicans - they should go out and do their own thing. We all had our chances to make the case for our guy over they other guy (regardless of who your guy has been at any given time - I didn't have a guy early on but liked Fred - now I don't really have a guy again, though I know I don't care for Huckabee).
Go ahead - stay home. Watch the election from the sideline. But know that those groups who sit out will most certainly face the animosity and scorn of the Party for costing it an election for what is a childish refusal to accept any view but your own.
I'm on the verge of taking a break from RedState, mainly because too many people here are developing some sort of MDS - McCain Derangement Syndrome. Honestly, I feel like the only thing separating the nutter liberals hatred of Bush from many people's hatred of McCain is that the liberals are more foul-mouthed about it.
Go ahead - stay home. Watch the election from the sideline. But know that those groups who sit out will most certainly face the animosity and scorn of the Party for costing it an election for what is a childish refusal to accept any view but your own.
A-freaking-men!!!
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
for social conservatism. If he had supported FMA, all the social conservatives would have flocked to him back in the summer. Fred would be a front-runner right now.
McCain is the #2 for 50% of the party-just not the type of #2 you were referring to.
Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!
DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.
On stem cells, he was reluctantly for, and now he's against (cite).
On gay marriage, he's agin it. He voted "aye" for the DOMA, he supported a state initiative along similar lines, and his website states his position clearly that marriage is between one man and one woman. You can oppose gay marriage and the FMA at the same time. The FMA can be opposed for federalist reasons, which is why I oppose it, leaving the matter for the states to decide, which is Dick Cheney's position to a tee.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
He opposes the harvesting of human embryos for research purposes. That is a different matter than research on "excess" embryos created during fertility treatments. McCain's current position on such research is unclear, as there was some talk that he abandoned his support for federal funding for ESCR at campaign stops in South Carolina. I'd like a straight answer on this from the Straight Talk express, and I'd like it before Tuesday.
There's no language on "excess embryos" so I have no idea where you're getting this.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
You stated that Sen. McCain is opposed to federal funding of ESCR and cited a website to back up that assertion. That website, though, did not back up that assertion. It said that McCain is opposed to cloning and to the creation of embryos for research purposes. That position is held by a large number of people who support federal funding for ESCR. There are two potential sources for embryonic stem-cells. The first is embryos that are created expressly for research purposes. That is to say that an egg is fertilized and an embryo is created without any intention of allowing the new being to live beyond the embryonic stage. Sen. McCain is opposed to funding for this type of research. The second source of embryonic stem-cells is embryos that are created during fertility treatments. In some fertility treatments, multiple embryos are created even though the couple attempting to have a child only wants one child. One embryo is implanted in the mother's womb while the others are saved in case the couple wants another child, or destroyed. It is funding on embryonic stem-cells from this source for which many members of Congress are pushing and that McCain has supported. The link that you provided only mentioned the first and ignored the second. Sen. McCain's current position on federal funding for research on "excess embryos", i.e. embryos obtained from the second source I mentioned, is unclear.
that these are all from the post-Weaver era. Perhaps that summer shake-up was good for conservatives as well as McCain.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Amenesty; raising taxes on social security; some bad SC judges. The point that overall he was conservative and he was a great leader. And one more thing: HE WON, TWICE. His conservative ideas would have made little difference if he had lost to Democrats (can you even imagine a 2nd Carter term or President Mondale???).
a better negotiator, someone who didn't use the language of the left in criticizing Republicans (i.e. tax cuts for the rich, bashing oil and drug companies).
Reagan felt bad about amnesty while McCain eagerly embraces de factor amnesty.
Reagan operated in the real world, so he did compromise. But he always moved the ball forward--he didn't make deals for the sake of making deals.
i don't think nominating o'connor moved the ball forward
sometimes reagan failed even to aim at the right goal as he made compromises
I wasn't follow the campaign that early (b/c no one should have been) and because I was leaning toward Rudy or Fred at the time.
But I do recall him running the It's My Turn / Inevitable campaign. Weaver has always been more non-partisan than most advisers. Whoever replaced him has to be more partisan and conservative.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
My problem with McCain is not his record writ large, which is conservative, but his willingness to pander when fighting would be the better option. The two greatest examples of this were his leadership on the Gang of 14 agreement and his statement of support for federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research at a campaign stop in New Hampshire even after recent developments that made such research entirely unnecessary. In fairness, there have been conflicting reports of late on his current position on the second issue. In both cases, he could have taken a principled, strong, conservative position but instead decided to do what was popular instead of what was right.
I have little doubt that a McCain presidency would be generally conservative. The difficulty is that I would never know from one issue or one day to the next whether I would be fighting with McCain or against him. That's not a good position to be in, especially when it comes to things like Supreme Court nominations. To be completely honest about it, McCain has taken the politically popular position instead of a principled conservative one enough times and on such issues that, while I'll vote for him (unless Romney pulls out a miracle), I'm not sure there's anything he can say right now that would make me enthusiastic about the thought of a McCain Presidency. I'll hear you out and listen to your/his overtures, but if you're going to try to convince me that I should be excited about his candidacy, it's only fair to let you know where you stand.
I think a lot of others have not even listened. They have been too busy yelling AMNESTY to see what McCain is running on, prioritizing, and emphasizing. This is not a liberal campaign, nor even really a moderate one.
He calls himself a conservative Republican all the time. He focuses on his Reagan roots. He has never voted for a broad based tax increase and privately has told Norquist he would veto any passed by Congress.
There are issues where he disagrees with conservatives, and I don't want to minimize those. But he is reaching out. He will continue to do so. I just hope there are people, like you, who are honestly listening and giving him the chance to persuade.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I'm just not going to be happy if it happens.
No question McCain is head and shoulders above Hillary or Obama.
I do think though that his electability is way overrated, and for the reasons on display tonight.
McCain is used to receiving favorable press. He has been a favorite for years. I liken to someone in a SciFi movie who has lived on the moon for 12 years. For that person to move back to the earth, where gravity is so much more powerful, they would basically be an invalid.
John has a temper. If I was a POW for 5 minutes, I would be the crankiest SOB you ahd ever met. He was a POW for more than 5 years.
When you combine a shift in the media winds and the combative nature on display tonight---I do doubt his electability.
....McCain has a temper and that's bad.
But Giuliani, who also has a temper, was hailed as a guy who would "fight back."
McCain doesn't fight for the sake of fighting. But he won't take what he considers ill-treatment and turn the other cheek. Isn't that one of the things we were looking for? Someone who isn't afraid to call a spade a spade?
I don't think McCain will be an "enigma." I don't think we will spend 4 years in doubt about what he's going to do. I know for a fact that we will not be happy with everything - but I don't think we will be left in suspense about what McCain thinks.
but he is still a "professional politician" and you just don't see it! Oh well, he will probably win anyway since most (like you) don't see the hypocrisy in his position. That is what most professionals depend upon anyway... They always seems to get elected and also get the votes...what the hey - ...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I'm old and retired...so I can stay up late... You youngsters have to work for a living...I understand. Old age does still have "some" advantages...heh.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
But McCain has been a "maverick" one. And after 7 years of watching the idea of small government and fiscal conservatism get booted out of the Republican Party, I'm very happy to have a maverick R instead of another Standard Bush Model.
He's a maverick in part because he upsets the pork-barrelers. And I can't wait to see him make good on his promise (in the video) to veto earmark bills and make their authors famous. I think that's exactly the type of thing that can win the right and the middle of the political spectrum.
Just being in DC isn't a problem to me. Being part of the machine would be. And that's why I wouldn't support Lott, Stevens, or the vast majority of Senators who have been part of the problem. McCain is the closest thing either party has to a person who knows how stuff works (insider) and wants to blow up the current system (change).
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
But entitlement reform and keeping the economy growing with supply-side reductions in marginal tax rates are in the big picture more important than elminating a bridge to no-where here, a government road there, etc.
A booming economy can support a certain % of waste. In a static economy, we can't fund important things---like wars.
McCain supports Personal Retirement Accounts to reform SS. He opposes socialized medicine. In fact, he even opposed Bush's Prescription Drug Entitlement. His entitlement record is really good. Those are big issues to me.
On pork, two important things:
1) It is an issue where a President can win the public goodwill. He could garner a lot of "national interest" points for taking on an unpopular Congress (and both parties) on pork.
2) We cannot cut anything meaningful as long as pork exists in its current form. If we cut Medicaid by one cent, but there are $200 Million for a bridge to a Senator's cousin's island then the former cut goes bye-bye.
Any real reforms are made impossible as long as Congress has enough money to buy themselves goodies.
And it really worries me that conservatives have abandoned such a popular policy. I don't know if Bush has just moved Rs to the left on this or what, but Reagan/Newt Republicans would be up in arms about earmarks. The Contract With America was premised on good governance, lean spending, and making Congress less elitist and more like the rest of us. Coburn's book harped on this type of thing and it's why he's a fan of McCain.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Its easy to communicate this to the public, so it helps convey a message that transcends the monetary ammounts.
One thing McCain could do is just highlight a "stupid program of the day" each and every day.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation put the net cost of John McCain's amnesty at $2.6 trillion.
Somehow, McCain's trivial efforts to fight pork just don't mean much when he is all to ready to committ us to that kind of NEW spending.
He may claim to be a small government conservative but I just don't see anything small or conservative about the cost of his legislative agenda.
of small government over the years...!! Wow, he has really made a difference!
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I wish his views on the pork bills, on personal retirement accounts, on school choice, and on the Prescription Drug Bribe to Old People won the day.
And I'm glad to encourage those views by supporting him over the business-as-usual candidates.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Mercy, if I had just supported all of his wish list, I would be famous...probably...
Wonder just how many of his wish list items came to fruition... School Choice sucks...Retirement accounts, socialism...
Oh, and sorry (even though I'm an old person), I do not support his Prescription Drug BRIBE...Thanks anyway...
Any other grand thoughts regarding Master McCain?
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
He OPPOSED the Prescription Drug Bribe of Bush's because he is one of the few small government conservatives left.
And if you think school choice sucks, that's fine. So McCain's to your right. Whatever.
Retirement Accounts are a pro-market reform to a socialist system (Social Security). They allow us young-ins to not put all our money in a system going bankrupt.
Maybe you don't like McCain's views. But if you don't like conservative solutions, then you're not the person this story was directed to.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Actually, I agree with him on all three but he has had many years to implement them and has not done so. It's okay to vote for something, but he has not accomplished anything. So, I guess, I'm wrong about what you were saying, just have to say that beliefs do not mean anything if they are not accomplished.
Hmmm... does that mean that McCain is all talk and no action...? Don't know, but I do know that I do not trust him at all...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
He's one of 100 Senators. He cannot just wave a wand and it happens. He has fought for lower spending. The Drug Plan had the support of a Republican President - he fought it anyway. Democrats wanted more than Bush, so of course they were willing to take it (you can always get more later), and Republicans were being leaned on heavily by the White House. How do you insure that you win in that environment?
On school choice, the President effectively sold it down the river. NCLB was going to have more substantial voucher provisions, but Bush was willing to give them away to get his pet parts of the bill passed. How do you guarantee victory when your own President is not helping you out.
The same goes for social security accounts - Bush spent like 3 minutes pushing for reform and then gave up. Not just a compromise, a total dropping of the issue. Democrats get to declare vistory, and even in the minority, had enough Senate seats (and the unity) to basically halt any bill that even mentioned reform of any kind.
This is more MDS - who cares if McCain is conservative on the issue - he didn't DO anything about it. That's crap and you know it. By that logic all of our candidates will have to shut up because they didn't DO anything. Mitt talks about marriage, but didn't "get it done" when a marriage amendment came up in MA. Huck talks Fair Tax, but I didn't see him even propose to trade state income taxes for a consumption tax in Arkansas.
It's very tiring to see conservative act toward McCain the way liberals act toward Bush. It doesn't matter what McCain does or what he says or how willing he is to work with you, you will find any reason, honest or not, to hate him.
I'm hoping that, once McCain gets the nomination (and I'm almost sure he will at this point), the folks that act like they have MDS will be treated about as well as we've treated liberal BDS folks who troll here on occassion - lots of [closed and annotated] diaries and derision of the new "KnownFacts" crowd that is already springing up.
Speaking of the Senator and the Court, I was encouraged by his answer to the Justice O’Connor question tonight. My ideal candidate would have praised her votes in Raich, Lopez, New York v. United States, and Kelo, and vowed to nominate judges in the model of Scalia, Thomas, and Black. Promising more justices like Alito and Roberts (as McCain did) is close enough to get my vote, but really, shouldn’t we base our nominations on justices who have been on the Court long enough that we really know what their judicial philosophy is?
"Now the Senate is looking for 'moderate' judges, 'mainstream' judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?"
Justice Scalia
I agree that a good legal response would have been nice. But I'm a law student. McCain's not a lawyer nor on the Judiciary Committee so I don't expect that from him.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
It gets kinda hard to turn back. You're too much in debt to do anything but be a lawyer!
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
True, but you still can't drop out. You need the degree. That was my point.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
You do have potential! If you continue to pursue this life of disgrace, you will only regret it later...(Edwards is regretting it as we speak).
Heh..sorry, had to try...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
and the wife isn't going to fund many more :)
I wish I could have stuck with the Econ PhD program, but I ain't rich. So I'm the one guy at Law School who went because it was cheaper.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
alternatively, "life-long student"
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I'm proud of Sandra Day O'Connor as a fellow Arizonan, and my heart goes out to her and family that -- situation that they have today. And I'm proud of her.
The judges I would appoint are along the lines of Judge -- Justices Roberts and Alito have a proven record of strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/politics/30text-debate.html?pagewan...
McCain restricted his praise of O'Connor to her being a fellow Arizonan.
Whatever you think of her judicial rulings and philosophy she is an admirable woman. She went to a top law school at a time when a law school class had at best a handful of women. She succeeded there - she fought the gender bigotry that ensued (after graduating near the top of the class at Stanford Law, the only jobs the larger firms would offer her was as a secretary), and went into law. She succeeded in state politics, and was selected as the first woman to serve on SCOTUS. Not a bad track record - whether you agree with her views or not.
I don't think you would find too many people who don't respect O'Connor's life and accomplishments. Even the people who most ardently disagreed with her opinions respect her. That's about as far as McCain went with that comment.
as soon as I get done pulling the knives out of my back.
he should select a real conservative VP running mate like Thompson. By real conservative I mean someone who isn't going to work with the likes of Kennedy or far left in the name of political expediency to get a bill or SCOTUS nomination passsed. I'm talking about having someone on the ticket that actually understands the consitution, federalism, and the world we live in.
If he selects a Huckabee type then I'll have to be really be convinced that my vote, which would solely be against the Dem's, is really worth it.
I am wondering how much power talk radio and blogs have McCain
is still standing after weeks of getting hammered and keeps winning. that still means some Conservatives are voting for him. what does this mean ?
secondarily judicial appointments.
McCain needs to lose the patriotism, not profit rhetoric. It's off-putting and reveals his limited knowledge of economics.
He really needs to prepare for and then present an economic platform which will rally economic conservatives.
Most important, when the time comes, he needs to choose a VP who reassures economic conservatives that they will have a seat at the table of economic policy-making. I think Gramm could do this, but I think Giuliani would get you the economic piece while accentuating leadership and national security as the defining issue of the 08 campaign.
I am hopeful that his not profit line is more an anti-Romney thing than a platform. I think his fiscal platform is as strong as any of the Rs, but it isn't his area of expertise. This is one area where his Gramm/Coburn/Kyl support makes me feel much better. I can see Sec. of Commerce or Chief of State Gramm. That's be great for FisCons. Heck, if we're lucky Coburn can run some federal agency out of existence (maybe Ron Paul can take another one). More likely, McCain will work with Coburn/Kyl to uphold his pork vetoes.
I think Sanford or Pawlenty would be fine VP candidates with strong FisCon records. Gramm should play a prominent role one way or another.
Check out McCain's policy part of his website. The proposals are good ones, although more modest that I'd hope.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
if all of us over the political age of 12 promise to vote for the old liberal fart if the Country is so unfortunate as to wake up and find him the Republican nominee?
For crying out loud, he makes Bob Dole look like a good idea.
The only two plusses are that he will get to run against an empty suit or a pant suit with a double axe handle width across the butt and he just might pick a conservative VP who can deliver an eloquent eulogy and then set about "righting" the country.
But, quit trying to convince us he is more conservative than Joe Lieberman.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
then this thread was not geared toward you.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
threads in the future as they must be geared for those of us less substantially inclined to listen to reasoned arguments pitched our way.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I think the real problem is that Republicans are trying to have to resuscitate a candidate in John McCain that they'd already decided wasn't a member of the family a long time ago.
And at the same time they're not looking to accept a new one, in terms of Mitt Romney. I'm a little surprised at you. I know that the numbers say McCain should be the nominee, but where is your *courage*?
McCain as the nominee has as 10x the actual baggage on the Federal level that Mitt Romney has. It's extraordinary that people don't think so, but it's largely true.
John McCain has been the Playboy Man of the Senate during the entire time of the past eight years. Mitt Romney's faults are largely down to his campaigning for the *governorship of Massachusetts*.
Astonishing that you of all people would choose McCain over Romney. Really.
And I was Romney, I would just say this:
"When I was running for Governor of Massachusetts I did my best to work with and comport with the political realities of that state. And I worked very hard and succeeded in governing as a Republican there, and I'm proud of my record -- as governor -- not as campaigner.
I would much rather have my record as Governor of Massachusetts than I would John McCain's as Senator. And when I'm President, I know that I'll do even more to make my Party proud and keep this country strong and vibrant and competitive."
If Romney started saying that, some of us will have visions of Arnold Schwarzenegger, compromising everything to get along.
And you know what? Some politicians comport with the politics around them, some change the politics around them. In fact, isn't Romney's message of the week that he's going to change Washington?
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Lieberman has a lifetime ACU rating of 16.
By calling McCain a liberal you simply beclown yourself.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Here is your balloon animal and I'll be in the VW if you need me.
BTW, would you call McCain a conservative at an 82?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
That 82 average is all fine and good; too bad he's been below that average, sometimes quite a bit below, for 10 straight years running now.
As I've said before, look at all of John McCain's ACU ratings from when he first entered Congress to now. If your kid brought home test scores like that, wouldn't you be worrying that something was going wrong with their education? He's gone from an A & B student to a B- to D student.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
He's still nowhere near Lieberman.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I'm just pointing out that if you're going to use McCain's ACU ratings to defend his conservatism, you should be aware that it's not all that strong of an argument.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Streiff was puncuring Tbone's delusion that Lieberman and McCain are two of a kind.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I'm pointing out that the 'McCain has a lifetime ACU rating of 82!' argument point is awfully hollow and not very convincing for trying to reassure skeptics.
It may show that there's a gap between McCain and Lieberman, but that's about all.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
We weren't talking about what you were trying to talk about. So just drop it.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
that they are two of a kind. Lieberman is far more likeable, consistant, true to his beliefs and has consistantly exhibited the strength of character to stick to them.
Of course, there was that anti-free speech legislation called Lieberman-Feingold... what? McCain? Wow. Sorry, my mistake again.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Considering Kerry voted for it and Bush signed it, we had two indistinguishable lefties on the ballot.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I would call that substance by humor Tbone and my sentiments exactly. A reach out that shoves off. I got it guys. No need to remind me again.
All they do is make it slightly more palatable to vote for the candidate that will do the least damage while still continuing to promote 'open borders' and killing the economy by throwing money at the climate change nonsense.
None of the leading candidates will build a real fence and defend it.
None of the leading candidates will enforce any of the exisiting laws that would force employers to stop hiring undocumented workers.
i actually believe all of the candidates when they say they will secure the border and enforce the law against employers.
1. they pledged it and they know the base will revolt if they stray much more than a smidgen from it
2. there are some democrats who might back such measures (e.g., Webb)
Gee, what are their titles? Hmmm. Senator, Senator, Senator. Oh, you mean they have to be elected AGAIN (for the bizillionth time) before they do anything? Politics as usual. McCain is part of the old establishment and needs to go.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
This is not a new issue. Remember the Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), 1986? That was supposed to solve the problem back then. Oh yeah, John McCain was around back then. My question to John is: Why should I trust you after all this time concerning immigration? Look at the facts
Everything he says points to this again and I'm sick and tired of it. And your second point? Pulease. Like the dems really want a closed border. They need the votes.
I stand by what I said and am sorry you think it was a potshot. The establishment needs to go. How long do they need to fix a problem that they continually promise they are going to fix?
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
Do you really want someone who in 2006 proposed a pathway to citizenship for illegals? Knowing that for 20 years, that's 20, count em, 20 years this problem was supposed to have been fixed. Then he has the nerve, in a debate no less, to say the following:
MCCAIN: No, it would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate -- it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever -- that proposal.
Yeah. Real trustworthy kind of guy I'd say. And I apologize for my tone, but I just don't understand why people are attracted to a liar.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
He voted against the Bush tax cuts twice. At the time it was because they were too generous to the rich. Changing his tune, he would have us believe that it was because there were no offsetting spending cuts.
Now he flip-flops and wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent? What has changed? Are they no longer too
generous for the rich? Have there been or will there be offsetting spending cuts?
He initially opposed the Bush tax cuts for two reasons. They still "favor the rich." Spending has increased under Bush and will increase even more with Democrats running Congress. What incentive then, does McCain have for this change of heart?
McCain's flip-flop on taxes while running for president is just a little too convenient for me to believe him.
For crying out loud. It's not a flip-flop to have opposed the tax cuts then, but now to oppose raising taxes because we're in a weakening economy.
People have mis-used the term flip-flop to the point where it's useless now.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
That is the very definition of a flip-flop. It was meant as a mirror of the anti-Romney accusation of his change of heart on abortion. It stands up very well as a comparison.
McCain is not opposing raising taxes. He is supporting permanently extending the very cuts against which he voted twice. Nothing has changed in his reasons for opposing those tax cuts and yet now he support making them permanent.
He was supporting this extention before the economy started going south the past few weeks. So why, besides trying to get elected, is he experiencing this great change of heart.
If Romney flip-flopped on abortion, McCain is flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts.
Supporting the extension of the current law is as much opposing a tax hike, as much as supporting an extension of a AMT waiver is opposing a tax hike.
When tax rates are at (lower) point A, and they are at risk of Going to (higher) point B, that's a tax hike, sorry. It doesn't matter if it's "automatic" or not.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
"The Bush Tax Cuts" or not? If yes, then he supports extending the Bush Tax Cuts now. If no, then you are right he is not in favor of a "tax increase."
She doesn't want you to know she wants to raise your taxes though. So she claims she's opposing a tax cut.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
this is not a flip flop. Nor even a flip.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
now he wants to make them permanent. Yeah, that's a flip-flop. Or if you like, a "flip" in the same manner that Romney "flipped" on abortion.
To call this a flip-flop is to imply that preserving the current tax situation amounts to a tax cut, when what we're trying to hammer home is that to allow the Bush relief to expire amounts to a tax increase.
McCain's a deficit hawk. He's skeptical on tax cuts. But that doesn't make him a tax and spend lefty.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
The issue is not what the Bush tax cuts will do. I think McCain, like Romney, has finally come to the right side of the issue. Allowing the tax cuts to expire will assuredly amount to a tax increase. He is right to want to extend them.
What I don't understand is his change of heart. If he didn't support them initially because they favored the rich or didn't have offsetting spending cuts, what changed to make him favor them now?
Now he's running for President. Convenient.
Its not a change of heart to say "You know, I'd really rather not cut tax rates, but it'd be awfully bad economically if we were to raise taxes."
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
was saying he flip-flopped on "taxes". I should have been more specific that he flip-flopped on the "Bush tax cuts". I don't think we disagree. It is just the context making us talk past each other.
Personally, I think it was the no votes on the tax cuts that were the anomaly. He hasn't ever voted for a broad based tax increase, not even H.W.'s bipartisan tax increase. I don't think he wants to vote for one now (which is what voting to not extend would be). It was the no on the tax cuts that stands out in his overall vote history as odd. Whether it was petulant or just a disagreement about how big they should be, he is getting his due for sullying one of the better parts of his record.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I'll grant the "no" votes were the anomaly in his record.
It is just that he twice opposed the very same cuts he now wants to make permanent that makes this seem so disingenuous to me. And that was my only point.
I was in favor of the tax cuts both times he opposed them and I am certainly in favor of extending them. To do otherwise would be the ultimate foolishness given our current economy.
I appreciate his support for extending them.
If I were an opposing candidate I would attack him hard on this very specific change of heart. It makes him look very bad.
I can hear McCain now: Oh please don't throw me into that briar patch, Mitt.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I would attack him for opposing the tax cuts twice.
He's right on the issue now that he wants to extend them, just as Romney is right now on the issue of abortion.
According to the article:
* Require 3/5th majority vote in Congress to raise taxes.
Hello, that's less than the 2/3 required to override a veto. Guess he will just kow tow to the democratic majority and not use his veto pen, thanks.
* Keep Bush tax cuts on dividends and capital gains
It would appear that he will ONLY uphold the tax cuts on DIVIDEND AND CAPITAL GAINS, but not all of Bush's tax cuts which is what has ultimately been fueling our economy. directly.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
He hasn't taken a stand against the Death Tax. And yes, he has flip-flopped (i.e. Bush tax cuts).
AE posted a candidate financial comparison a while back. I saved the PDF, but I don't have a link to it.
Sure McCain, you can have my #$&&^%#@$ vote if you want it.
Fred Thompson's Principles
==== 13 ====
How long has he been in Politics? What are his accomplishments? I think everyone knows the answers, it's been blogged about extensively here.
I am saddened to be a republican. I have for the better part of 4 months listened to everyone talk about "who can win against the democrats." I am not spineless like most that I read here. I believe we should have found someone who unites the party first, and then focus on winning the election. Face it, we are at a point where we can actually say to the dems, "YOU WERE WRONG!" About the war, about tax cuts, about immigration, about anything. THEY WERE/ARE WRONG. Not a very hard message to get across to the American public. Newt's list highlights it. But instead, everyone worried about "who could beat the dems." We've had them beat from day one and just wouldn't admit it and now we have a liberal surging in the polls.
Read polls much? The people are more pissed off at congress than Bush! Why? Because they're more wrong than BUSH! Had we focused on principles and not worried about the other side, we'd be in much better shape right now; be more united and would win the election anyway. Period. And we'd also have someone then driving this country responsibly into the future.
Being a republican to me means never having to say I'm sorry because I am ultimately defending freedom: limited role of government and strong national defense. The rest can take care of itself.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
AZ socon
Yes, Macain SAYS most of the right things, then, the very next item, he's accepting the endorsement of the governator. As a refugee from the left coast, let me remind you that the governator has signed legislation mandating conjugal visits for homosexual inmates, mandating bathroom/locker room access according to individuals' "perceived gender" at all public institutions, mandating that the homosexual agenda be pushed on kids from kindergarten on, etc. etc. He campaigned as a fiscal conservative, and has sold out to the tax & spenders. He got elected on the issue of drivers licenses for illegals, and has since flipped on that also. If Mccain were a true conservative he would run from the governator, and would also run from the NYT endorsement! Sorry, his olive branches feel like a finger in the eye to me!
and a bunch of other conservatives. Yeah, everyone from the middle to the far right can support him. I see the problem.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Instead of looking at the fact that McCain can appeal to people who have beliefes across the spectrum, you attack him for it. Like it or not, this is a big tent, and we need to expland the party not shrink it. The problem that I have with so many of you is that your attacks can never be about just gay marraige or just illegal immigration, but your attacks are so cloaked in hatred that one wonderw whether you are against gay marriage because you think its unconstitutional or because you just hate gays. What is wrong with offereing people equal rights under our Constitution? Why shouldn't immigrants feel welcome to come here? Instead you mask your hate and bigotry in terms like "pushing the homosexual agenda" and scream about immigrants in a wasys that make one think that if it was permissible on this site, you'd be screaming f***t and we****k.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Did I miss part? Can you quote where you see the hate?
I have been known to miss a key part as I read quickly.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
mandating that the homosexual agenda be pushed on kids from kindergarten on etc etc
And not because I find the whole social conservative wing of our Party objectionable, because I myself am very strongly pro-life. I find words like homosexual agenda are thrown around a lot by the Michael Savage types who percieve equal treatment as the advancement of some hidden agenda to convert all of the children gay. I frankly find it offensve. IMO, marriage is one thing, but the governor has signed laws that have to a large extent neturalized the marraige argument by provding the same benefits of marriage without forcing religous institutions to accept it. Perhaps I'm just overly PC about it, idk. I think the way some people frame the issues is to be anti-gay rather than anti-gay marriage, which is where I draw the line.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
I personally think there are some radical activists out there, trying to teach a new norm. But yeah, we have to watch the rhetoric. I just think this is on the right side of the line is all.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
I have avoided adding my usual opposition/skepticism/same old list of charges to this pro-McCain missive of yours.
I don't know, Happy Early or Late Birthday.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Thank you for the early Birthday gift. I do appreciate it.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
1) Opposing federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research
2) Supporting FMA
Now that would be an olive branch.