Redstate

...am I wrong to assume that the question was referring to John Edwards?

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

McCain assumed, but of course she was refering to Edwards. If she had meant Hill, she would have said excorcise the beeotch.

Like that time he was the only Senator to call the Transportation Bill a piece of "pork." Oh and that other time, when he voted against the Prescription Drug Benefit because it expanded government and we couldn't afford it.

And the Republican establishment just loves him. I mean, it's almost been a coronation with all that fawning over McCain.

And his effort to stop getting some much money from special interests into lobbying groups (however misguided) surely made him the favorite of all the insider groups.

McCain isn't perfect, but being a "Washington elitist" is not really on his problems list.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

McCain says today that the reason why he voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and in 2003 was because the tax cuts were not paired with spending cuts.

But at the time of the debate over the 2001 tax cuts, McCain voted for an Democrat amendment to the tax bill which would have required that a Prescription Drug Bill be passed into law before the tax cuts would take affect.

Also, McCain said at that time that his reason for opposing the 2001 Bush tax cuts was because the tax cuts would go to the wealthy instead of the working people.

Basically, McCain adopted the rhetoric of the Far Left. Today, McCain tells us it was all about fiscal responsibility.

Fortunately, most Republicans aren't gullible enough to fall for McCain's dishonesty.

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

"required that a Prescription Drug Bill be passed into law before the tax cuts would take affect."

I don't recall this, do you have a link. McCain voted against the Drug Bill.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Here's an excellent link on McCain's double talk on the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

Here's an excerpt.

...... 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

So, now you know about the real John McCain. He's misrepresenting himself out there on the campaign trail.

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

I quoted you and asked for a link to back up your assertion. Do you have one? If not, just admit that you misstated that attack.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

when he says that the reason why he opposed the 2001 Bush tax cuts was because he was worried about fiscal responsibility.

The statements he made at the time that tax bill was being debated clearly shows that McCain voted against the 2001 Bush tax cut based on class warfare motives, not because he was worried about insufficient spending restraint.

If McCain had been worried about insufficient spending restraint, why did he support 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?

Let's not just accept whatever John McCain says without looking at his history.

You can't trust McCain one bit.

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

He opposed them because there were no offsets in spending. McCain was right on this issue, given how our deficit exploded in ensuing years. He was also right to favor keeping the tax cuts in effect because letting them expire would be tantamount to a tax hike. I agree that some of his rhetoric was unhelpful, but the fact remains that our president and Congress overspent by huge amounts when it came to non-military discretionary spending.

"Gang of 14"
Torture (though I think it reasonable to give him Some leeway on this one)

Just my top 3 complaints about him. That's all.

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

As I said, he's not perfect (to anyone). But we aren't choosing between him and perfect. And my responses are to those who somehow think he is no different than a Democrat. Heh.

From Day One, I've thought the Gang was a good thing and it paved the way for a 58 vote Alito confirmation. They had the filibuster votes but couldn't use them. That was the point, and it worked.

I agree with the Senator on torture, for the most part.

And I'm not going to threadjack this one on immigration. He's gone further toward Enforcement First than Giuliani has gone toward pro-life.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Bottom line is that, except in the prosecution of the war itself, he has been wrong on everything involved in the GWOT since the start.
And the Gang bit was icing on the cake. Again, I don't agree with you.

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

please give one such example of him being wrong on the GWOT.

That was my point whizzing past your head.
Stop dodging...

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

I know how much the Ds love him, it's probably because he was:

Voting for Roberts, Alito and Bork, and

Voting against Bush's massive welfare expansion in the Prescription Drug Benefit, and

Voting for the War, and

Calling the Transportation Bill pork, and

Racking up a strong pro-life record, and

Supporting the Arizona Marriage Amendment, and

Telling the people that defeat is not an option.

I just don't see how he's any different from a Democrat. No, not at all.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

McCain was the 1st Republican US Senator to announce that he would vote with Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin on the Byrd/Constitutional Option regarding the Democrat judicial filibusters.

McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Even Arlen Specter voted more conservatively than McCain on the Bush tax cut issue.

McCain co-sponsored the Ted Kennedy - John Edwards "Patient's Bill of Rights," designed to enrich Trial Lawyers and reduce the viability of Private Sector Health Insurance.

McCain appeared in Television ads in Colorado supporting "Closing the Gun Show Loophole."

McCain called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "Dishonest and Dishonorable" when the Swift Vets ran ads criticizing John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential Campaign.

McCain said he was "disappointed" with the recent US Supreme Court (Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy and Thomas were in the majority) decision that struck down McCain's anti-1st Amendment McCain-Feingold legislation.

If you are a Democrat, you'd love to see McCain become president.

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

Look, he's not you! Wow! If you want to vote for yourself, go right ahead. The rest of us have to choose among the 4 legitimate contenders.

And if you can't understand the differences in reasoning between McCain and Hillary on these issues, then you're not worth my time. But in case others are reading.

Opposing the FMA on federalist grounds is different than supporting same-sex marriage. McCain supported the AZ Marriage Amendment. Thompson, Giuliani and McCain all oppose the FMA (as do I).

McCain wanted to preserve the filibuster. That is a defensible position whether you agree with it or not. Generally the filibuster is considered a conservative mechanism. He didn't do it b/c he wanted leftist judges (he voted for Bork, Thomas, Roberts and Alito). Again, if you can't see the difference between Hillary and McCain, you aren't opening your eyes.

Yup, McCain wanted to pay down the debt before he cut taxes. That's again different from wanting to create a Big New Entitlement like Bush did.

Okay, this is tedious. Take your Tiny Tent Party and go whine about it elsewhere.

If you can't tell McCain from a Democrat, go listen to the Democrats for a while. When one says Defeat is Not an Option and I Will Veto Earmarks and I Support Free Trade and I Will Appoint Judges Like Roberts and Alito and I Am Pro-Life, let me know.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

John McCain has misrepresented his reasons for voting against the 2001 Bush tax cut bill.

Here's what John McCain said in 2001 about the 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."[7] Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) sounded a similar theme, saying, "Now, they are proposing more of the same, more tax breaks benefiting only the wealthiest among us,"[8] as did Democratic Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35): "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."[9]

Today he misleads people when he says that he opposed the Bush tax cuts because they were not paired with spending reductions.

Some Republicans take McCain at his word when he says that he would appoint US Supreme Court Justices like Alito and Roberts.

But if you look at his record, it's darn near impossible to trust him on this issue.

In 1993, Senator John McCain voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the US Supreme Court. This despite the fact that Ruth Ginsberg was the ACLU's General Council and she supported lowering the age of sexual consent to the age of 12 and supported Co-Ed prisons.

Fast forward to 2001, when after the Jim Jeffords party switch, the Democrats held up Bush's nominations to the US Court of Appeals. In 2002, the Republicans won back the US Senate with a 51 to 49 seat majority.

But then the Democrats, deprived of the majority, began filibustering Bush's nominees.

Then, the Republicans gained an additional 4 US Senate Seats and had a 55 to 45 majority. The question was, might there be 50 Republicans out of the 55 to vote for the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear option and end judicial filibusters.

Did McCain support the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear Option to end judicial filibusters? No. He didn't.

McCain was the 1st Republican US Senator to annouce publicly that he would vote with Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin on the issue of judicial filibusters.

And consider that Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas joined together in a recent US Supreme Court opinion that struck down some of the McCain-Feingold legislation.

Given McCain's anti-1st Amendment beliefs, can we really trust him to appoint people who would interpret the Constitution in a reasonable way, as opposed to a Left-wing, John McCain style?

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

If your first priority is protection of the First Amendment then McCain probably isn't your guy. But to throw in the vote for Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a reason not to support McCain is just silly. Do you know how many people opposed Ruth? Three. Those were the days when people still voted for nominees because they were qualified, not just because they agreed with them on issues.

"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

That doesn't fly. By 1993, when McCain voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg, we had already been through the 1987 Robert Bork confirmation hearing and the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing.

The Democrats did not take the position that since these people were intellectually qualified that they would get a free pass.

By 1993, the gloves should have been off. But John McCain voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg anyway.

Okay. Fine. But then when the Democrats began filibustering Bush's judicial nominees, McCain should have said, "I didn't filibuster Ruth Bader Ginsberg even though I disagreed with her views. I'm going to vote to end judicial filibusters."

McCain said no such thing. Instead, McCain announced on Chris Matthews' Hardball and said that he would vote with the Democrats on judicial filibusters.

Connect the dots. Don't be gullible.

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

When it comes to McCain's judicial preferences, none of that reveals half as much as his desire to dedicate a federal building to Sandra Day O'Connor.

By refusing to vote for your party's nominee, wouldn't that make you a Republican backstabber?

(But hey, what do I know, I'm the token Democrat)

"I will be celebrating with expensive champaign when he goes down to defeat either in the primaries or in November 2008."

Molon Labe!

There's no way I could support him in the primary thanks to his record on tax cuts, immigration, free speech, "torture," and judges. He has been good on the war. So apparently he doesn't "stab the Republican party in the back at every opportunity," because there's an opportunity right there.

But I would enthusiastically vote for the man given the choice between McCain and Hillary or Obama (or Huckabee, for that matter). He has been doing a lot better lately and deserves credit for that.

I would also enthusiastically vote for him for Senate, if I lived in Arizona. He is not the worst Republican Senator. He doesn't make the bottom 5. I'm not sure he even makes the bottom 10.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

when you pop the cork of your "champaign" bottle.

Your arguments on judges are as bad as your spelling. Simply put, Gang of 14 paved the way for Alito, Roberts, and a slew of conservative circuit court judges. It really is that simple.

That McCain managed to do that with the cooperation of seven Democrats demonstrates to me why he would be the best candidate to tame what is almost sure to be a Dem congress in '08.

Oh, and on your Ruth Ginsberg argument: 96 senators voted for her. Why? Because elections have consequences. The president gets to pick judges (and McCain has said repeatedly that his will be strict constructionists) and the Senate approves the nominations unless the nominees are not qualified to serve. Again, it's that simple. So simple in fact that several left-wingers like McConnell, Lott, and Gramm also voted for RBG because they understood that elections have consequences.

And that is exactly why you should vote for McCain and not sit it out if he does get the R nomination. Doing so will be better for our nation than you sitting alone at home drinking your bubbly and celebrating your "principled" and uninformed stance on McCain.

Trent Lott, a left-winger? For that to be true from your perspective would mean that you're somewhere to the right of David Duke...

But Duke is a leftist only ever elected to public office as a Democrat.

Duke is a great believer in using government to run people's lives, including large scale economic planning and huge 'resettlement' of people from one part of the country to another.

I don't know of any views he has which could be classified as 'right wing' by any fair minded person.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I wasn't serious about calling Lott a left-winger, just trying to make the point that plenty of conservatives in the Senate (and 96 members total) voted for Ruth B. Ginsburg.

Notice how McCain takes the Left wing position on treatment of captured terrorists at Gitmo.

McCain's is someone who, many decades ago, might have once been conservative. But for the last 15 years, McCain has been a Lefty who sucks up to the Mainstream media.

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

What POSSIBLE reason would John McCain have for being concerned about the treatment of prisoners of war*? Clearly he is only interested in carrying water for the Far Leftists.

* - Please note I am not trying to confer any legal standing to said prisoners. It is being used solely for illustrative purposes so no threadjacks please.

What a bogus argument. Every opponent the United States has faced in wars during the past 70 years has not abided by any fair treatment of US prisoners of war.

So if McCain wants to play "be kind to terrorists," let him switch political parties.

Quit pretending that McCain is a Republican.

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

Please explain how my comment was bogus?

Your comment isn't even close to true.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Protecting terrorists does nothing to protect American soldiers captured by the enemy at war.

I know you were trying to imply that John McCain, having been a prisoner of war, was trying to make sure that American POWs would not be tortured.

If only our enemies would treat our soldiers as prisoners the way we treat their captured terrorists.

But that is total nonsense. We can treat terrorists with kid gloves, as McCain wants, and our soldiers when captured will still be tortured in the most extreme ways.

Again, John McCain's candidacy relies on the gullablity of Republican primary voters. And that's why McCain still has a chance of winning the GOP nomination.

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

Molon Labe!

If you don't want to suggest a particular legal standing to the detainees over which the whole "torture debate" was held, then use the right term.
P.O.W. is Very specific and we have very few of them. The vast majority of our detainees are terrorists (also known in the Geneva Conventions as "Illegal Combatants" and therefore subject to whatever their captors want to do to them) or those we merely suspect as such. There is also a small (though greater in number than our POWs) population of those who have been cleared of suspicions but, for whatever reason, cannot yet be safely returned (or aren't wanted to be returned by their own government(s)).

Please don't stretch the term the way "torture" was stretched. Give real Prisoners of War the respect they deserve and don't equate them with members of Al Qaeda or Hezbollah.

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

I actually address this very issue in the signature of that post because I knew someone would want to turn my comment into a debate on semantics.

It has no bearing on the point regarding Mr. McCain.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

"The simple truth is that we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives. I said this in August, after I returned from visiting Iraq, and before the security situation deteriorated further. It is even more obviously true today." McCain in November 2003.

This statement alone should change your mind. He is the only Republican in the field, who saw not only the problem but the solution in Iraq. We are fighting two wars and Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Also the next President will have to deal with Cuba after the death of Castro (if not this President). We cannot afford to elect a man with zero foreign policy experience, simply because he matches up better on the social conservative litmus test.

Using your arguement you would have opposed the nomination of President Reagan. Interesting.

so I kind of stayed out of the fray that election year. I'm glad Reagan was President when I was born, but I don't see how this argument even makes sense. Are you saying that Republicans who supported Bob Dole or G HW Bush over Reagan are some how inferior? All three are good men, who I would have been glad to support.

Thought you were taking a swipe at Huckabee's lack of experience in foreign affairs. The same argument was used against Ronald Reagan. They also called him a tax and spend liberal. Good thing the club for growth wasn't around or he might not have been president.

I am taking a swipe at his lack of foreign policy experience. I think Reagan did extremely well in foreign policy, that doesn't mean every Republican president who lacks experience is going bring down the Soviet Union, or in this case defeat radical Islamic extremists.

G. W. Bush lacked foreign policy experience, and while I agree with a lot of what he has done in foreign policy, I think we can all agree that it could have been done what he did a lot better.

**I think we can all agree that what he did could have been done a lot better.**

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Those opposed to Ronald Reagan:

Tax and spend liberal from the state of California
No foriegn policy experience.
Actor - to slick.

Sounds similar to me. No one predicted he would be the great President that he became, even the ones that promoted him.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

dumb way to pick a president. I'm going to go with person I think is best prepared to lead, you keep searching for Reagan re-incarnate.

That's probably why Michael Reagan hearts Huckabee too.

unless you can back it up.

They also called him a tax and spend liberal. Good thing the club for growth wasn't around or he might not have been president.

You keep repeating this nonsense in thread after thread. When challenged to back it up you don't. This is the Mike Huckabee school of political integrity - stuff the facts, if you say it often enough it will become true.

I don't remember a single instance of this arising in 1980. Far from it. People said he was far too conservative to win.

You malign Reagan by comparing his record (implicitly here and explicitly elsewhere) to a third rater like Huckabee who genuinely has a record of liberal governance.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

many more:

Encyclopedia
Reagan, Ronald Wilson
Reagan, Ronald Wilson (rā'gun) [key], 1911–2004, 40th president of the United States (1981–89), b. Tampico, Ill. In 1932, after graduation from Eureka College, he became a radio announcer and sportscaster. On a 1937 trip to California he was screen-tested and that year he acted in his first motion picture. Although never a major star, Reagan appeared in 50 films, including Knute Rockne—All-American (1940), King's Row (1941), The Hasty Heart (1950), and Bedtime for Bonzo (1951). He became interested in politics during his six terms as president of the Screen Actors Guild (1947–51, 1959). He was a liberal Democrat and a supporter of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s; later, he was among those Democrats who supported Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard M. Nixon.

After joining the Republican party in 1962 he began to champion conservative causes and enthusiastically endorsed presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964. In the California gubernatorial election of 1966 he defeated the Democratic incumbent, Edmund G. “Pat” Brown. As governor of California for two terms (1967–75), he cut state welfare and medical services and aid to public schools and higher education. He also signed a series of tax increases aimed at ending the state's deficit. Nonetheless, during his tenure California's budget more than doubled and the number of state employees increased significantly. Reagan made unsuccessful bids for the 1968 and 1976 Republican presidential nominations, losing to Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, respectively. Four years later he won the 1980 nomination and, with his running mate, George H. W. Bush, resoundingly defeated incumbent President Jimmy Carter.

Or is it your own comments you have not been reading?

You have consistently said, in thread after thread, that Reagan was called a tax-and-spend liberal when he ran for President. I, obviously, didn't read and don't remember everything that was written about him. But I do recall that he was criticised mostly as a hard right conservative who could not get elected.

I have not been disputing that he raised taxes in his first year in office. But he later cut them. And, as I understand it, he cut taxes overall.

Huckabee put taxes up overall.

Another key difference is that Reagan always acknowledged his record, argued that it was a bad thing that he had had to put up taxes, and that he corrected his error.

Huckabee just wants to blame everyone else for his poor leadership. You really want a president with a sign on his desk saying "the buck starts here"?

Until Huckabee acknowledges his fault he cannot be forgiven. Isn't he a pastor? Isn't that basic christian theology?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

n/t

would go with the warrior.

Molon Labe!

I'm certainly not offended by that, but I can't believe someone would use that kind of language when talking to a Senator and about another Senator.

...seen any UFOs lately?

If the Democrat party were truly Democratic, they wouldn't object to putting Roe v. Wade to a state-by-state vote.

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

"Smell ya later."

In my own words... you're the drugged up zombie... and a phrase that rhymes with pouche stag.

I responded to this upthread, but since you posted it again:

McCain did vote for Ruth, as did 95 other Senators. Whatever you think about her positions (I definitely don't like them) she was and is well qualified to serve on the Court. Elections matter and Presidents deserve to pick qualified candidates. Wasn't that our argument for supporting Roberts, Alito, Brown, Estrada, et al?

"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

Let's take a trip down memory lane.

In 1987, Robert Bork was defeated by the Democrats in the US Senate. He lost 58 to 42.

In 1991, Clarence Thomas was barely confirmed by a 52 to 48
vote for the US Supreme Court.

So, by 1993 the Republicans had every right to vote against Ruth Bader Ginsberg. John McCain voted for Ginsberg.

Then in 2003, after the 2002 GOP takeover of the US Senate, the Democrats began filibustering Bush's nominees.

If elections matter, as you say, McCain should have wholeheartedly supported the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear Option.

But instead McCain was the first Republican US Senator to annouce that he would vote with the Democrats on the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear Option if a vote came up.

Like I said elsewhere. It's time to connect the dots. It's time to throw our gullibility out the window.

Don't be gullible. Oppose McCain.

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

So, by 1993 the Republicans had every right to vote against Ruth Bader Ginsberg. John McCain voted for Ginsberg.

Liberty is not the same as license.

HTML Help for Red Staters

"I voted for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg, knowing that I may have different philosophical views. But President Clinton won the election and part of the deal was that he appoints Supreme Court justices." - John McCain

McCain voted for Left Wing nominees for the US Supreme Court.

McCain was the first Republican US Senator to announce that he would vote with the Democrat-Left on the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear Option regarding the judicial filibusters of Bush's nominees.

Connect the dots. Don't just swallow up McCain's excuses. It's too important.

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

Presidents pick supreme court nominees, and Senator McCain rightfully bases his confirmation vote on qualifications, not ideology. The gang of 14 preserved the filibuster. Don't be so short sighted. McCain was right as republicans are no longer in control in congress, and the minority still has this option.

Ginsberg, no matter how flawed her ideology is, was qualified for the position.

It certain is about gullibility.

McCain votes Left when a Democrat is picking the US Supreme Court nominees, as he did when Clinton picks Ginsberg and Breyer. And when Bush's nominees are being filibustered by the Democrats, McCain announces on Chris Matthews' Hardball that he will vote with Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin on the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear option.

McCain tries to explain his tendency for voting with Ted Kennedy and the Democrat Left by saying, "If the Democrats win the White House, we need to retain our option to filibuster liberal nominees."

If that's the case, why did McCain vote for Ruth Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer?

He can't say, "That was when we judged nominees on their qualifications only, not ideology" because those votes, occuring in 1993 and 1994 happened after the Democrats tried to sink the Robert Bork nomination in 1987 and the Clarence Thomas nomination in 1991.

McCain is hoping that most Republican voters don't know the history behind judicial nominations.

Face it. When it comes to the judicial nominating and confirmation process, the Democrats play hardball and the Republicans play softball. McCain is Exhibit A for this kind of behavior.

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

you mean that John McCain has the integrity that people like Bill Frist, Harry Reid and 99.7% of democrats lack, you are right. McCain made sure we got the right judges and kept the filibuster.

Democrats are Americans too, and I'll never understand why so many hardcore partisans view it as traitorous to seek compromise as a way of solving problems.

Let's go down the list and look at the issues on which McCain joined hands with the Far Left:

(1) Tax cuts. In 2001 and 2003, McCain was one of 2 and then 3 Republicans, respectively in the US Senate to vote with the Democrats agianst the Bush tax cuts.

And he voted for 14 different amendments designed to kill the Bush tax cuts including:

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.

(2) The Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear Option. The Democrats filibustered one Bush nominee to the federal court of appeals after another. In response, Republican US Senators threatened to use the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear Option to end judicial filibusters.

McCain's reaction? Annouce on Chris Matthews' Hardball program that he would vote with Teddy Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin and vote to let the, then, minority Democrats retain the judicial filibuster.

Oh, but McCain was just wanting to preserve the judicial filibuster so that he could filibuster a Left Wing judicial nominee if a Democrat became president in the future, right?

Ha! McCain voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the ACLU General Council who was on record endorsing reducing the age of sexual consent to age 12 and endorsing Co-ed prisons.

(3) McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. They don't call John McCain McAmnesty for nothing.

(4) McCain-Kennedy-Edwards "Patients' Bill of Rights". Theres a bill that would have enriched the Trial Lawyers and severely damaged the private health insurance market.

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

The Democrats filibustered Bush's judicial nominees in the 2003-2004 Congress, after the Republicans took a 51 to 49 seat majority in the 2002 Senate elections.

In the 2004 Senate elections, the Republicans took a 55 to 45 seat majority.

In 2005 the Republican leadership threatened to end judicial filiubusters by using the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear Option.

Without that threat, the Democrats would have simply continued filibustering Bush's judicial nominees.

The Gang 14 deal didn't change anything, since it retained the Democrats' option of filibustering judicial nominees under "extraordinary circumstances," which would be defined by the Democrats.

What the Democrats feared was the possibility that the Republicans might use the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuclear Option if the Democrats filibustered John Roberts or Samuel Alito. So, they didn't filibuster.

But John McCain wasn't the reason why the Democrats feared the Byrd Option, since John McCain had repeated said that he would vote with the Democrats and continue to allow the Democrats to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees.

Consider that McCain voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the US Supreme Court, despite the fact that Ginsberg was on record supporting lowering the age of sexual consent to age 12 and you realize that McCain is a fraud of a conservative.

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

The Democrats have control of the Senate today. They will likely have a larger majority after '08. The WH may be won by a Democrat. If you really, really think that the constitutional option was the way to go, then you're conceding that you're ok with a Dem pres + a Dem Senate forcing a liberal judge down the Senate's throat. Time for you to take another sip of "champaign."

It wouldn't do any good because there won't be 40 Republicans who oppose any nomination.

Molon Labe!

I have not heard her outrage over the things said about GW or Dick Cheney or Karl Rove or General Petraeus. She would not even CONDEMN MoveOn for their comments. And we are supposed to feel sorry for her? Please. I could think of more choice words to call that woman than the "B" word.

Whew, that really rubbed me the wrong way. That was really poor form on this woman's part. First of all, it is extremely unlady-like to use that kind of language in front of a US senator, and second of all, you're not going to beat Hillary by calling her a "B**ch". Not to mention, I agree that it's disrespectful to refer to any former first lady (or any woman for that matter) in such a derogatory tone.

Anyway, McCain was his usual witty and loveable self. However, I do think that maybe he could have done more to distance himself from this woman's inappropriate comment, but he was obviously caught off guard. Just my two cents anyway. Y'all have a good night.

I disagree. I would agree with you if McCain had called her anything, but he pointedly didn't, and went out of his way to A. show he was uncomfortable with the language, B. that he Respected Sen. Clinton.

If the situation were reversed, and, say, someone had said "How are we going to beat that old bastard?" I'd expect Hillary would do something very similar, and frankly, I'm guessing a lot of people at Red State would go nuts, I'd defend her, saying she obviously wasn't comfortable with the language and pointedly said she respected McCain, and I'd probably get called a RINO a lot or something.

I think I'm pretty consistent on these things. I actually DID get booted off of free republic for saying that Ann Coulter shouldn't have called John Edwards a faggot and defending my position a bit too vigorously.

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

Yeah, I see what you are saying. And I'm no Edwards fan, but you're right that it was poor form (and immature) of Coulter to call him a "Faggot". I'm exhausted so I'm hitting the hay. Y'all have a good night and God bless. :-)

John Bolton would make an awesome President - too bad our system pretty much excludes such people. I would hope the next Republican administration values him enough to find him an appropriate place of service.

And Rightly So!

Yah, it's mostly a joke. As much as I love John Bolton, he has about as much chance of becoming President as I do. That said, he'd make a good one, or at the very least a very good Secretary of State.

Alas, I doubt he'll ever be confirmed by the Senate for anything again. He's the Dems boogieman now. He'll be demonized no matter what.

That said, I DO think he'd be an excellent National Security Adviser, and that doesn't require Senate confirmation. I think Rudy would be ballsy enough to give him the job. I'm not sure if any of the others would.

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

what she wants. McCain handled it right, you want him to read this old lady the riot act? If you have not noticed, they have been trashing our side for ages, and we have been getting our collective butts kicked. Sometimes this cerebral, above the fray, stuff goes to far. Hillary is a danger, she will hurt our security and the prosperity of millions. I do not call people names, but I find this holier than thou attitude offensive. Live in that woman's shoes for a few years and then tell us how horrible she is for speaking her mind.

Molon Labe!

She's not one. Hillary is a different story.
If the shoe fits...............
I am proud to be a Bitch... a republican one.
Look at what the libs say about Coulter...or what they say about the Troops (war criminals?)
Bitch is hardly worth having a coniption over.
Put them together in a Jello wrestling match, that ought to solve it.
( What can we call John Edwards now?)

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I hope no Senators are reading....
Goodbye and take the PC bull with you.
If people can talk crap about the President of the United States and blame our country for 9/11, the I reserve the right to refer to people as female dogs.
Since when does being a Senator make you Jesus? She is a human like everyone else.(well.......)

...and not especially value-adding for that time period.

Also, it's fascinating to see how he erupted over a comparatively mild insult offered to Hillary Clinton, yes?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Molon Labe!

...we're probably going to have to add the word 'bitch' to the Do Not Use Here List. I'll be checking with the Directors on it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Molon Labe!

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

makes me think you are right. I have seen for mylself it is bad to drink and blog.

Molon Labe!

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

And all this time I thought it was bad to drink and dial. Now I learn it's bad to drink and blog--learn something new everyday. This time I mean it--I'm going to exercise self-discipline and go to sleep. Y'all have a good night. :-)

and yes it is true. you wake up with an excited feeling and think "what did I say last night!" :)

Molon Labe!

The B-word just isn't offensive to me. Neither is Cracker or Honky. I guess when you have had to work around truck drivers and mechanics, you get desensitized right quick.

if he had said it, or clearly approved of it being said. I thought he was appropriately diplomatic here.

I also note the left really, really doesn't want to get into a dispute over who has the most crude supporters.

If McCain had said it, I would wonder about his character. Someone with his intelligence can use better words to describe someone of Hills ilk. Both sides can say hurtful things, the difference is what someone says (not harmful) and what someone does (harmful) We need to return to "sticks and stones can break my bones" mentality in this country. I am sick of wussies.

This baby is a monster

If it weren't for the lack of doors behind the driver, I would say it looked like the HMMWVs replacement, but as is...

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

Oh please. McCain clearly indicated he wasn't comfortable with the language and said he respected Sen. Clinton. If Obama had reacted in a similar way about Liddy Dole or Condi Rice, I'd say the same thing.

If she had called her the word YOU used, then you might have a point, but sorry, calling someone a bitch isn't on the same level as calling someone a N word or the C word.

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

But it is still poor form.

I don't think that McCain did anything wrong but it is a little disheartening that our society now finds it acceptable to use such a word to describe a United States Senator in public.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

But when you think of all manner of things some of the folks on your side of the Grand Chasm have called Bush and Cheney lo these last 7+ years, it leads me to wonder why a mere solon should be immune.

And don't even get me started on how some people have addressed our uniformed service members since, say, 1969.

You're not going to get an argument with me over the coarseness of society - I think it suc... erm, stinks. But please, give me a break in suggesting that this somehow crosses some new Rubicon in that continued coarsening.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

absolve the guys on the Left. They are no different in their willingness to say vile things simply because they politically oppose someone.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Two problems:

There is no evidence that people find it acceptable. Matter of fact, given the controversy, it seems quite the opposite.

Second, I think you have a rose-colored version of the past. When Martin Van Buren was running for president, there was a song that his opponents sang that included the line "Who deserves the lowest place in hell? Van Buren."

Don't think you can get any cheaper then that.

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