The problem with McCain
By Alexham Posted in 2008 | John McCain — Comments (120) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Rick Santorum nails it:
And then on the issue of, on social conservative issues, you point to me one time John McCain every took the floor of the United States Senate to talk about a social conservative issue. It never happened. I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up, because he was uncomfortable voting for them. So I mean, this is just not a guy I think in the end that washes with the mainstream of the Republican Party.
Now, don't get me wrong. I can live with McCain. But Santorum is absolutely right: McCain does not have a history of standing up for "life" and "marriage" issues when it mattered most. And that is deeply troubling to many SoCons.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | California 4: Doolittle out — Comments (9) »
The problem with McCain 120 Comments (0 topical, 120 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
I would put more stock in Santorum's comments if McCain hadn't been endorsed by Sam Brownback.
But facts are facts.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
...could get an endorsement from Brownback, the man whose whole purpose for running was to shift the debate to better include SoCon concerns, largely negates what Santorum -- who, let us remember, has endorsed Arlen Specter in the past -- has to say about McC.
I'm just speculating here, but I think Brownback's endorsement had a lot more to do with Giuliani than McCain. He's probably in the same boat I am in terms of choosing the person most likely to deny Rudy the nomination. (I'm referring to my stated support for Romney among those in the top five, not my support for Paul.) It appears that his assessment of the situation was better than mine. With all of the problems I have with McCain, it'll be a no-brainer for me if he's the last man standing against Rudy when I vote.
...probably mainly due to electability reasons. Brownback's endorsement came when Huck was still less than 5% in the polls -- before the Huckaboom. Note that Brownback has called Huckabee an 'authentic conservative'.
not true.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308960,00.html
This was back in early November, when McCain's campaign was just barely picking itself up off of the mat.
I can't help but wonder whether he managed to see back then than McCain would have a better shot against Rudy than Huckabee. Did he know what would happen to Huckabee as he came under closer scrutiny? Maybe I'm giving Brownback too much credit, but that really wouldn't surprise me, especially given his leadership on judicial nominations and strong opposition to ESCR.
But Fred Thompson wasn't...
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
And Romney was the a good bit ahead in IA
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
And way ahead in NH
http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
Brownback saw that McCain was solidly pro-life then, and chose to endorse him on that alone, (or at least he found McCain's positions acceptable enough to merit the endorsement) and Santorum is simply blathering nonsense. The 'McCain is the most electable or can stop Rudy arguement was not being made at the time of the endorsement.
Social conservatives will not back McCain! Sam Brownback doesn't count! All Republicans are greedy, deceptive, and corrupt except Mike Huckabee, because they are all Shiites who lack the Jesus Juice.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Are people for the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research or not? Do people agree with California's 3 billion ESCR boondoggle or not?
John McCain is solidly for embryonic stem cell research. John McCain is no social conservative.
rational voter. Would he be "better" if he had a different position on ESCR? Yes. Is he 1,000 times better than any Dem? No. He's probably 10,000 times better.
And FWIW, I resent having to defend McCain.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
You are creating an artificial either/or by pitting McCain against the Dems.
There's another candidate out there you know.
And he's marginally, just barely marginally, better than Ron Paul.
And, despite your protestations, McCain is polling even with the Dope from Hope in SC among Evangelicals.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I think his "other" candidate really IS RonPaul™. He shills for the Huckster to turn people off -- and it is working.
You mean "my".
One thing I've noticed since I first saw you posting for Huckabee. You have a short list of particular issues which a yes or no checkbox next to them. You aren't interested in principles, objections, points of view, or really, any facet of those issues at all. Just check one, yes or no.
The other thing I've noticed is, you'll shill for Huckabee no matter who or what you have to set on fire to do it. Why are you still bothering to debate? You just say the same thing over and over and over.
What are you going to do if Huckabee isn't the nominee?
I don't think you are a social conservative, Anteater. Social conservatives, and I happen to be one, tend to be reasonable folks. I don't get that vibe from you. You are also unmoved by people having their hearts changed or responding to an inner conviction. Most social cons I know are.
Reason #3, social conservatives are interested in some type of results on issues.
Huckabee may be a social conservative, but about Anteater, I have my doubts.
absentee
| 
| 
| 
What are you going to do if Huckabee isn't the nominee?
I will support the next most socially conservative candidate.
The other thing I've noticed is, you'll shill for Huckabee no matter who or what you have to set on fire to do it. Why are you still bothering to debate? You just say the same thing over and over and over.
I have yet to hear a good argument for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. I am open to hearing it though.
That statement would carry more weight if you'd bothered to answer other reasonable arguments at some point in your career, or even in this very comments thread.
absentee
| | |
All we have to do to get his answer is get out our handy-dandy "Anteater See-and-Say". You pull the lever, and out comes the answer.
Point the little arrow to the picture of Huck and pull the lever! You always get the same answer, no matter what the question, no matter what the scenario, no matter what anyone does. Just pull the lever!
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
"there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s marriage or abortion or the like."
Which is why Santorum campaigned so hard for Arlen Specter and put the screws on Pat Toomey's campaign. I have a great deal of respect for Sen. Santorum but this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
The G.O.P. doesn't get it and Santorum is right.
John McCain = McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy.
Secretary of Defense yes, President of the United States NO!!
In a change election, the republicans might nominate a 72 year old Washington insider or the aww shucks I'm just a goober candidate.
If this happens the G.O.P. is in trouble.
We don't need another politician with a plan.
We need a President that will bring free market principles to Washington.
Huckabee talks class warfare like Edwards. He even talked about regulating C.E.O. pay. This is class warfare at it's worst.
McCain talks about big wall street companies and he voted against the tax cut.
We don't need politicians who don't understand the free markets!!
Go Mitt!!
That's progress. However, if you spam another comment, period, your account will be deactivated until you can learn to think - type - post, rather than a different order of operations.
I'm wondering, are the admins here shilling for McCain?
Is a discussion entitled "The Problem With McCain" supposed to be carried on WITHOUT a discussion of the other choices?
Seriously, this moderating lately is getting ridiculous. Don't think that you own the attention span of conservatives. If you shut down free debate, then we will probably move elsewhere.
As long as nobody is hurling insults or placing ads or links that are blatant discussion should be free.
A discussion of McCain cannot be had without comparisons, I mean really this is just ridiculous.
of knowledge possessed by the admin that stepped into this situation, one wonders why you felt the need to comment at such length and explain how very little you understand (to give you a very small hint, Jeff was actually sticking up for Huckabee here).
Seriously, this moderating lately is getting ridiculous. Don't think that you own the attention span of conservatives. If you shut down free debate, then we will probably move elsewhere.
We operate under free market principles here, which includes the principle that people who don't like it are free to leave, and the principle that we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. This includes people who whine about things they don't understand when everyone's temper is already short.
Thanks for your feedback, it was valued.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
The two things that drive me craziest about McCain are his participation in the Gang of 14 agreement and his continued support for ESCR in spite of recent developments. The latter is even more troubling than the first since he had the opportunity when asked about the issue to change the public discourse by articulating the position that ethically questionable research could no longer be justified. The statesman compromises, but he never does so on principle. Like you, I've said I could live with McCain, albeit not happily, but outside of the war in Iraq I really don't look forward to the day when we need him to do something that the media will portray as unpopular, like nominating the next Antonin Scalia to the Court.
He has a history of preferring to pander to the media instead of pandering to conservatives. At this point, there is no reason other to support federal funding for ESCR.
...but from where I sit, McCain spent a lot of time pandering to the right over the last year and half, a la the Bob Jones and Liberty U. visits, such that he admitted to Jon Stewart that he was in "crazy base land."
Agreed that he usually panders to the media in general, and that they looove him for it.
I listened to the interview Rick Santorum gave on the Hugh Hewitt show and found it petty and vindictive. Santorum struck me as someone who is still fuming about his loss to a dud Democrat candidate. As a devout Catholic, I share his views on life and such, but his strident attitude is what did him in last November. Reagan shared his views, but portrayed them in a much more pleasant manner.
His attacks on McCain were whiney, but he was only following the lead of Mitt Romney's chief media strategist and supporter, Hugh Hewitt. Hugh's show last night was a trip into bizzaro world. He claimed McCain had no chance of winning in November, even though polls show him ahead of Clinton and Obama in Pennsylvania and Maryland.
Hugh Hewitt is in full meltdown mode right now and he is trying to scare people into voting for Romney. He dragged out KLo to prop up Romney, but Byron York and JPod practically laughed in his face about his insistance Romney is the only one who can win. Hugh went about this even though polls show Romney trails Clinton in Alabam!
Hugh dragged Santorum into these strident and unhelpful comments. McCain's not the greatest conservative, but he can win and help us turn around the Supreme Court.
Is there any reason in particular that 3/4 of your comment here was about Romney and not McCain or even Santorum?
I mean, I know Santorum was on HH's show and by extension that means to most people for some reason that the interview should have had "I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this interview..." broadcast beforehand. But it is entirely possible that Santorum has legit reasons for not having the warm fuzzies about McCain completely independent of a third party (Romney), right?
So, how about you save your Romney-smacking for threads that actually have something at least tangentially do to with him. A'ight?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
My comments dealt with Rick Santorum's remarks because he was only there to attack McCain and, by extension, prop up Romney. Everything that happens of Hugh's show is meant to help Romney or hurt one of his challengers. Romney's not my guy in the primary, but I wouldn't have any problem voting for him in the general election.
I think you're really reaching to say my comments were an attack on Romney. I wanted to shed light on the silliness taking place on Hugh Hewitt's show. He only allowed Romney supporters to call last night and he used Santorum to pull a hatchet job on McCain. Hugh openly scoffed at the notion Romney's campaign could effectively end if he loses Michigan badly when it's a real possibility.
My problem was with Santorum's venom and Hugh's insanity.
My comments dealt with Rick Santorum's remarks because he was only there to attack McCain and, by extension, prop up Romney.
Well, he was there to attack McCain. Is it possible he was there to attack McCain simply because Santorum doesn't think McCain should be President? Does everything have to be "to prop-up Romney?
Everything that happens of Hugh's show is meant to help Romney or hurt one of his challengers.
Having not ever listened to Hugh's show, I wouldn't know. But I suspect you might be a tad sensitive because it's your guy who's getting gored.
Romney's not my guy in the primary, but I wouldn't have any problem voting for him in the general election.
Well, that's cool - I mean it's cool if you have a problem voting for him in the general too - that's between us and whatever ludicrous ballot is in front of us at any given time. But like I said, that's cool.
I think you're really reaching to say my comments were an attack on Romney.
Apologies, then. Reading the comment again after reading your first paragraph puts it in a different light. Actually, I'm not sure I accused you of "attacking" Romney, per say - but I upon further review your comments regarding HH's show are in pretty well in bounds given your point. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Moving on...
I wanted to shed light on the silliness taking place on Hugh Hewitt's show.
I make it a point to try to avoid listening to silly people - hence my allusions above to never having listened to HH's show... ( smile )
He only allowed Romney supporters to call last night and he used Santorum to pull a hatchet job on McCain.
Well in fairness, that could be the Lion's share of his audience there days, aye? I'm also going to have to go back and re-look at the Santorum/McCain stuff - they spent 12-years in the Senate together, there's apparently some history, and it seems clear that Rick don't *heart* Mac.
BTW, do you know if Santorum officially has a dog in the primary fight? Asking because I really don't know.
Hugh openly scoffed at the notion Romney's campaign could effectively end if he loses Michigan badly when it's a real possibility.
Well, depends on the definition of "effectively". Romney doesn't drop to Ron Paul level automatically if he loses Michigan. There's lots of possible outcomes - he could win among Republicans but lose because of a flood of Dems in the primary (though I doubt too many of them would care enough to cause such mischief), for example. Just saying. Hugh isn't as far off there as you think he is.
My problem was with Santorum's venom and Hugh's insanity.
Again, it's your guy getting smacked around, so I'm not sure "venom" and "insanity" are where we need to go, but to each his own.
Cool?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Hugh's show is pure moonbattery when it comes to Romney. He's like a rabid Ron Paul truther, except he supports Mitt.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
Crazy for someone like that to put all his eggs in one basket. Oh well.
Thanks for the update and mea culpa to Whacker, whom I see is a declared FredHead.
Man, I'm having a bad day!
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I'm actually a Fred Thompson supporter. I just felt McCain deserved a little support from some of the attacks he's received from conservative sources. He has his faults, but he's got a great shot to win the nomination and win the general election. I would hate to see spite lead to McCain's defeat in the general, especially when the Supreme Court is truely in the balance.
Suffices to say though you have a whole lot more faith in McCain than do I. I'm from the "I've lost count of how many times I've said I will never, ever vote for that SOB" wing of the party.
McCain as our nominee means I'm going to have a wonderfully un-busy campaign season until election day.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
A year ago, I was in the same category, but I care most about the Supreme Court. That's where the liberals get the majority of their wishlist accomplished. McCain has his faults, but he's always been good on judges. He even voted for Bork in 1987 when most moderated feld from him.
The gang of 14 worked well for Republicans because there was no way Frist would have been successful with the nuclear option. It did give us Roberts and Alito. Considering Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg may leave, we can reshape the Supreme Court for a generation. Even Manny Miranda, a key conservative on judicial nominations, says McCain has been good.
Having said all that, I'm still for Fred.
It snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It took away our weapons when we had the advantage. And for what? So McCain and his cronies could feel more important.
So now we don't have the advantage and are not likely to get it any time soon. Several nominees were thrown under the Straight Talk Express bus for no good reason.
And does anyone think for a second if the Republicans were filibustering one of Obama's nominees that they would hesitate for a second in doing the same thing?
And for that matter, does anyone really think that McCain, if elected, would nominate judges who wouldn't support his premier accomplishment, the gutting of the first amendment? And any judge capable of ruling in favor of McCain-Feingold in opposition to the clear language of the Bill of Rights is definitely open to growing in other ways.
So no, this isn't a reason to support McCain, his judges would actually probably be worse than Hillary or Obama's. Because theres would at least be straight up liberal. The best we'd get from him were wishy-washy Sandra Day O'Connor types, and not by accident either. He'd be nominating that type on purpose.
I will sit the vote out. Our party doesn't deserve to be utterly dismantled by 4 or 8 years of McCain and the media who will *absolutely* use his presence to LOWER the bar on all conservatives going *forward*.
Think about it *hard*.
McCain opposes FMA and supports embryonic stem cell research. McCain has had a long history of irritating social conservatives.
So therefore the argument is invalid?
Sound reasoning there.
absentee
Thompson | McCain | Romney | Giuliani
See this Family Research Council article:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04C01
See Reason #3.
Every single prominent social conservative pro-family organization supports FMA.
on how to get it passed.
This FMA/HLA crap - yes, I really mean crap - is nothing more than mental masturbation while jousting at wind mills.
It is a complete, total, utter waste of time, energy and resources. It's not happening. Put your efforts into something that will actually improve the situation rather than this stupidity.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
And you are confusing standing on your principles and getting a warm fuzzy feeling while accomplishing absolutely nothing with actually making a difference and doing something that will save lives and improve the quality of life for people.
I will take pragmatics every day. You can stand before the throne and explain why you let your principles get in the way of doing the right thing and saving lives.
I've heard more ridiculous arguments, I just can't remember where, when or what they were about.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Use the government to protect the institution of marriage? Get real. If you want to strengthen the institution of marriage, build a good marriage. Don't get divorced. Run away from anyone who suggests using the government to help you strengthen your marriage.
You indicated it was invalid because liberals put it forth. Not that it was invalid because the people you agree with say it is invalid.
It is amusing that you argue it is principles and not pragmatism that matter. In your linked article the argument against state's rights position is precisely one of practicality. The reasoning is that it would cause litigation that could eventually result in States being forced to recognize marriages from other states. IN other words, it's an argument as to efficacy and the practical result.
It is absurd, then, to suggest that an equally reasonable pragmatic argument is invalid due to being pragmatic, or the fact that is is practically based means it can't be principled. If that is so, then the FRC better come up with a different rejoinder against the Federalist's position, I think.
absentee
Thompson | McCain | Romney | Giuliani
Any chance you've got a list of 67 US Senators who will vote for that turkey the FMA?
If not, what part of "it ain't passing in your grandchildren's lifetime" don't you get?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
...probably had to do more with who he thought could stop Rudy. Ask Brownback what he thinks about ESCR and FMA. McCain could lose the south based on ESCR and FMA alone.
Anteater, that doesn't make any sense at all given the timing of the endorsement. If you were a social con back in late Oct./early Nov, your first choice to go toe-to-toe with Guliani was John McCain, strictly for tactical political purposes? I'll admit, as a McCain supporter, July-mid December of 2007 was a tough time.
earlier this summer before he dropped out, Brownback said that he thought senators would make better presidents. My guess is that he and McCain have a good relationship.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
vote for him which is why he won't win the nomination. Santorum is right and that's what will be the biggest drag on the McCain campaign as it moves into the south.
By the time Florida comes up, the viable options should be more clearly defined. If the conservatives who consider social issues a higher priority than economic issues (I think that's more accurate than "social conservatives") get to choose among him, Huckabee, and Giuliani, Huckabee will get their support. If he's head-to-head with Rudy, McCain wins that vote.
to him and Rudy which is unlikely as either Mitt or Huck will likely survive to represent the SoCon side of the equation.
Your point about conservatives who consider social issues a higher priority is an excellent one. I wish someone would do a diary and delineate some of the differences in conservatives and what makes them vote like they do. It is often missed here at RS that a person generally votes on what part of 'conservatism' is most important to them but that doesn't mean they may not be conservative in other areas as well.
McCain just recently flip flopped on immigration. He changed his position because he was slammed and this just occured recently.
Mitt Romney became pro life years ago and came down on the side of life as Governor, yet he flipped flopped?
Huckabee was for lifting the embargo on Cuba, now he's not.
Huckabee was for illegal immigration. now he takes a tough stance.
McCain has pushed horrible policies to get love from Larry King or Chris Matthews.
McCain = Bob Dole.
It's not allowed for you to take this article and use it to talk about other candidates out of the blue.
Your not allowed to talk about other candidates? It's an election, are you kidding me?
The whole point of the interview with Hugh was to compare McCain to other candidates.
"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly
write your own blog. Got it?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
you are really, really irritating. Hopefully, Jeff or Leon is having the kind of day that only harpooning you would improve. And, on a personal note, I'm hoping their day improves dramatically.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I normally don’t let negative ads/blogs sway me but this convinces me. McCain just dropped from my second to my fourth behind Huckabee. I guess that makes Fred my number two.
“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck
What is McCain's plans for the economy?
Watch the debate tonight for some possible fireworks concerning a broad based energy tax McCain was working on with his liberal buddy Lieberman. This could have implications with Michigan looming because of the negative impact such a tax would have on the automotive industry. McCain's plan for the economy? Back stab conservatives and party with Al Gore and the Ds in the WH.
-
# Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
# Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
# Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
# Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
# Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
# Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
# Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
# Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
# Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
# Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
From ontheissues.org, emphasis mine.
NO history? I see wrong on stem cell research. What do you see, Alexham? The rest don't count?
absentee
Thompson | McCain | Romney | Giuliani
I actually have come around on McCain, and if he's the nominee, I'll strongly support him.
This isn't about his voting record. It's about his reluctance to speak out on the issues and support them coming to a vote. Read Santorum's comment again.
Like I said, I am o.k. with McCain being the nominee. If I had to make a prediction right now, I would say that it will most likely be McCain/Huckabee. But I don't labor under any illusion that McCain will place SoCon issues on the frontburner if he's president. That's why he'll need someone like Huck if he wins the nomination.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
I was replying to your assertion that McCain has no history of standing up for life. If votes don't count, what does? Are you saying it's better to talk than act?
That he has "no history" of standing up for life is simply, and demonstrably, not so.
absentee
Thompson | McCain | Romney | Giuliani
I agree that he has stood up for life, and I appreciate that, even if it was done somewhat begrudgingly.
I would hope you can appreciate Santorum's point: Yes, McCain generally votes prolife; but he doesn't like doing it.
I am sorry. That's troubling to me.
He beats the Hell out of Rudy though. I'll give McCain that much.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
I have a different take on Santorum's statement that "this is just not a guy I think in the end that washes with the mainstream of the Republican Party."
The "problem" is not that McCain is out-of-step the the Republican Party, but that the Republican Party is in flux and the GOP mainstream will likely change in the years ahead (how it will change has yet to be determined). The Barna Group had a very revealing report on 30 and under Christians, and their research in general indicates that increasingly Christians (even Evangelicals) can accept, and possibly even agree with McCain's views.
This campaign season has revealed a real struggle amongst the coalition to assert their stamp on the Republican brand. I believe it's dangerous to assume that the mainstream is any one thing or has any one core set of beliefs. Whether it's Huckabee's economic populism or McCain's immigration policies or Giuliani's tolerant values, there are a number of strong countercurrents.
By all means, go out and fight for what you believe in, but do acknowledge that both parties have seen their political ideology drift with the passing of one generation to the next. I fully expect that to continue.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
It is easy to add to this list - he doesn't listen.
McCain says "F*ck you" to Cornyn over immigration.
WaPo reports:At a bipartisan gathering in an ornate meeting room just off the Senate floor, McCain complained that Cornyn was raising petty objections to a compromise plan being worked out between Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House. He used a curse word associated with chickens and accused Cornyn of raising the issue just to torpedo a deal.
Things got really heated when Cornyn accused McCain of being too busy campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations, which have gone on for months behind closed doors. "Wait a second here," Cornyn said to McCain. "I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line."...
"[Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room," shouted McCain at Cornyn.
"A curse word associated with chickens"? Really, avoiding the actually language is so... chickenshit. But enough about WaPo, let's talk about McCain.
And there is this ...
A day earlier, in Milwaukee, in front of an audience of more sympathetic businessmen, McCain had been asked how debate over the immigration bill was playing politically. “In the short term, it probably galvanizes our base,” he said. “In the long term, if you alienate the Hispanics, you’ll pay a heavy price.” Then he added, unable to help himself, “By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.”
...which encapsulates why I can't support McCain. Not only has he dissed the base on a regular basis, he is vindictive and lacks the temperament to occupy the Oval Office. Not a stellar combination.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
McCain used to claim to be the man of straight talk, and I admired him for that. But that was before I looked into what he said and what he's done.
Now the truth is clear to me: McCain tells is like it is even though it isn't.
Even though that makes him no worse than Romney, who isn't particularly straight talking, it's worse to have someone (McCain) get away with being thought of as being straight with folks, especially on social issues, when you're really not. And at least with Romney, I know that his Mormon background probably makes him more aligned with social conservative values at heart than McCain is.
It is ok to vote for Romney because of his faith, but it isn't ok to not vote for Romney because of his faith. Got it.
"We all share the same goals: clean air and water...safe transportation systems, to name a few of the good things that can come from regulation. " -Fred D. Thompson
The bulk of his support comes from, who?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
McCain hasn't been a frontline warrior, true. But he has been one of the leading voices inactually pushing pro-life legislation through the chamber.
http://www.gorighty.com/401/46901.html
Support McCain!
I just wish he would be out in front more on these issues.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
Sen. McCain was more in favor of preserving an outdated rule regarding filibusters of judicial nominees than allowing the President to nominate someone with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Gang of 14 was a horrible idea, the Senate had no right to basically hijack the President's authority to nominate who he felt was qualified to be on Federal Judiciary, if the Senators didn't like them thats what the up or down vote was for.
Then there is the I know better than you on how to solve the immigration problem. Also, Sen. Graham his Lieutenant on the Amnesty bill, labeled all of us bigots for being against the bill. For those who have somehow forgotten about that here are his remarks for your viewing pleasure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sEfrFoAIn4 Sen. McCain also snapped at Sen. Cornyn saying he knew more about this bill than he(Cornyn) did.
I disregard the CFR issue because the Supreme Court gutted it so to me thats no longer something to worry about, if he were President I doubt he'd try to get CFR legislation passed again because SCOTUS would just knock back down.
The Senator's temper is another major problem, how many times have we heard of how he is known to just go off for no reason because someone disagrees with how he feels something should be done. A President must Must have the ability to get a long with members of Congress otherwise they will stall or pull apart his legislation making him a lame duck President.
Maybe somebody will ask real questions and demand real answers from him.
...is that he thinks the "mainstream" of the Republican party is purely SoCon. He's entitled to that opinion, but you'll pardon me if I disagree -- I think the mainstream is far more mixed than that.
That said, other than the last line of that quote, I find myself in complete agreement with Santorum's statement of the facts. Frankly, McCain is *far* more socially conservative than I am, and normally that would be a minus against him, but what makes him palatable to me are those very arguments that Santorum uses to condemn him. Unlike Santorum, McCain appears to clearly understand the limits of how far government should go to impose those social conservative ideals on the general public.
Thank you, Mr. Santorum, for your comments, which have once again made it clear to me *exactly* why McCain deserves my support. (And you didn't...)
...is that he doesn't tell the whole story
From the Washington Post
"Potential candidates typically spend the months leading up to a White House run campaigning and fundraising for the party's nominees or in states critical to a presidential bid.
Giuliani is no exception, and even though his support for abortion and gay rights and gun control put him at odds with the Republican base, he's campaigned for conservatives such as Santorum and Ralph Reed, the lieutenant governor candidate in Georgia."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR200607...
I guess that in addition to not wasting time grandstanding on the Senate floor, McCain also didn't campaign for Senator Santorum.
While I can understand that people oppose McCain for various policy/maverick disagreements. I'm dumbfounded by the support Mitt Romney still retains after all of his exposed lies and deceptions.
The most offensive to me was his lie of having NRA support in the same breath as he was supporting some of my guns. Something I might be taking too personally as a life member of the NRA (far more of my life than Romney's last minute join last year).
But as equally disturbing was:
*His lie of being a lifelong hunter which he had to admit wasn't true.
*His lies about either him and/or his dad marching with MLK for nearly three decades which turned out to be provably false and which his campaign backtracked on quite a bit.
*His lies about supporting the Bush tax cuts.
*His lies about being tough on sanctuary cities which he never did anything about in his state.
*His lies about opposing amnesty when just last weekend he admitted he found at least a partial amnesty reasonable even today.
*His confusion on what amnesty even is, even to the point of asking media interviewers what the definition was when put on the spot. He has said that McCain didn't technically or legally support an amnesty and claimed he didn't call it that in ads which turned out to be a lie as well. This is his big attack on McCain and he can't even make up his mind what he is against or what his opponent is for.
*His sudden transition from being the Reagan emulating conservative candidate to being the anti-Washington candidate of change as soon as he heard that was the "in" thing.
*His absurd claims of being the strongest candidate against Obama when every match-up poll showed that he was the weakest of all candidates against Obama, losing on average in double digits.
*His latest alliance with Tom "Nuke 'em" Tancredo to help establish his non-existent tough-on-immigration image. Tancredo is the guy who equated foreign languages/cultures in the US as causing ethnic cleansing. Even the State Department slammed his views as being "outrageous and reprehensible" and "absolutely crazy." Great endorsement!
*No need to point out the biggest flip-flops on his MA positions that he promised to never waver on while campaigning.
And the most damning of course is that with all the millions of dollars he spent in Iowa and NH he lost to Huckabee and McCain. In NH people blame the independent vote for his loss, but the exit polls show that he didn't even win the Republican or Conservative vote. McCain did. Romney couldn't even get most of the "very conservative" votes over the less conservative rivals.
Romney is a joke. If McCain is unacceptable to you, you really need to find another option. One that isn't a chronic loser and habitual liar. Romney is the GOP version of Kerry, only with far more flip flops.
We're fighting a war, we need a serious candidate, not a toothless hunting dog on immigration.
but I'll try to keep my reply at least marginally on topic. It's fairly simple really. We have 6 candidates who are polling anything at all. One (Paul) is a nut. Three of them don't claim to be across the board conservatives (Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee). One of those is an across the board liberal, one is a squishy moderate, and one is a frankenstein mixture of conservative and liberal.
That leaves two candidates. Of them, Thompson is definitely an across the board conservative, and Romney is at least claiming to be one. So of the people who are at least giving lip service to being across the board conservatives he's currently polling best. That is why he gets looked at.
This is what a first-class threadjack looks like.
Sorry to have even thought for an instant about lumping you in the same category as this 35-minute wonder, Whacker.
Mea culpa.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The most offensive to me was his lie of having NRA support in the same breath as he was supporting BANNING some of my guns.
Knock off the threadjacking.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
So McCain may be softer then other republicans in the race, who cares. If republicans want to win they need to win the center not the extreme conservatives. You can have Huckabee as a candidate in the election but would he win, NO!
Hubdub.com
U.S. Politics Content Editor
ryan@hubdub.com
I think that is his biggest SoCon problem. It's one thing to not go out of your way to advocate on behalf of SoCon positions. Flirting with going over to the other side and parroting NARAL rhetoric on TV is another matter. Those comments tell me a great deal about how important pro-life issues are to him.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
There are 160,000 American men and women, our kids in Iraq. They deserve to get the best most experienced person to lead them.
The only person to have this experience and a proven track record of success is McCain. He was a soldier, he has been in this fight since '03, he has kids in the war and he has always made us proud on this issue.
McCAin understands what the troops need to accomplish for themselves and our country. His fight for the surge was a thing of beauty to watch. And now to know that it worked...how can we possibly consider voting for anyone else?
In this election cycle, if you are worried about social conservative issues, or immigration or global warming, go campaign to increase the number of Republicans in Congress. Right now the Republicans and the pragmatic independents need to coalesce around the most experienced candidate to get us to victory in Iraq and steer our troops home. To do this we need a Republican in the White House.
This is a Republican fight. The only way to make sure it gets done right is to make sure that McCAin's represents the Republican Party in the fight for the White House. The other Republicans are just as inexperienced at fighting a war as Clinton. Choosing one of them when we have McCain just diminshes the importance of the War.
Most important, if we want to send a message to the islamo-fascists and our allies that we will not back down, we must also back MCCAin. That way all will know that the fight for pluralism is not over with Bush, so they better give it up.
Romney even Huckabee are great but not for this election cycle. Republicans, indies and conserrvative democrats have to put their differences aside and for the sake of the troops coalesce around Mccain.
...wasn't my intention. I was responding to the Romney comments I saw in the thread and my surprise of him still having any support after all that's happened.
Like I said in my post, I understand the complaints on McCain, he has certainly gone against the grain in ways that have really burned conservatives in the past. The gun-show loophole BS and McCain-Feingold being my top pet peeves.
The problem with Santorum is reality:
Senator McCain supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2006.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2006.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 0 percent in 2005-2006.
Why have these pro-life organizations rated McCain so lowly? It's a simple answer:
Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Sources:
http://www.vote-smart.org/
http://www.ontheissues.org/
What is Santorum exactly talking about? Leaving same-sex bans to the States? Like flying the confederative flag? Aren't state rights a conservative principle anymore?
More votes from McCain:
NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.
NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
YES on declaring memorial prayers and religious symbols OK at schools.
Certainly McCain is not a über-social-conservative like Santorum. But who is?
I can't stand McCain for so many reasons, but the fact that he avoids the "social conservative" issues is a point in his favor. The government needs to get out of the business of regulating morality and promoting the social values of a minority - the evangelical Christians. Abraham Lincoln did just as McCain - he did his best to marginalize slavery as a federal issue, because he knew how damaging it was to the Union. The Supreme Court tried to do the same thing with Roe v Wade, except they took the wrong approach, did it the wrong way, and had no business getting involved in the first place. They made it much worse. All of this talk about Constitutional Amendments on marriage is a waste of time. Stop using the government to enforce your social values. That is just as bad as using the government to enforce your economic ideas, your cultural and racial preferences, economic outcomes and on and on. It is liberalism with a different mask.
Who finds this 'extremely' hypocritical given Santorum's heavy campaigning for Specter in '04, who's worse on virtually every issue he mentions, as well as worse on a whole host of other issues?
I'm not criticizing either position, I think a case can be made both ways, but they seem awfully contradictory to me.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
...is probably talking specifically about the gay marriage amendment and the Schiavo affair, two ludicrous over-extensions. I would hope McCain had the judgment to avoid such a waste of political capital.
Otherwise, McCain has always been very clear on being pro-life, and, on the opposite end, has supported stem cell research.
The National Review called on McCain to discuss the latter in view of the fact that embroyos are no longer required. I hope he does.
Sen. John McCain sharply criticized the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war Wednesday, saying the United States should send at least 15,000 more troops or risk "the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-11-05-mccain-usat_x.htm
He gave the liberal-anti-war-media the biggest slab of red meat. The idea that Iraq = Vietnam is clearly just what the media wanted, and also helped to serve the interests of our enemies.
McCain is an opportunist, who wanted to have it both ways. He wanted to absolve himself for voting for a war that seemed to be going badly, and what better way to do it than to make it seem like he supported the war but not the way Bush executed it.
But here's the reality folks, it wasn't more troops that led to our current success in Iraq. Not alone. It was the **tactics** by Petraus, to never leave a secured area after having eliminated the enemy, that ultimately has led to where we are now. More troops is a component of that, but alone would have changed little.
Then there's this disection of McCain and his supposed support for more troops:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9519.html
Notice how he hedges left and right? Does McCain deserve any credit for this whole troop surge strategy?
I can go all day about this but McCain IMO doesn't deserve an ounce of dirt for the success in Iraq. The troops do and the President do. It was the President who had the foresight and ability to eschew media popularity (something McCain lives on) and go to war against the advice of most of the world and half of our country.
It is for me one of the most primary reasons for why McCain to me seems to constantly be insulting our intelligence.
There you go, how's that for a problem with McCain?
McCain is not my guy, but this is pure bunk! The Dems were comparing Iraq to Vietnam within days of our going into the country.
Heck, they were calling Afghanistan a "quagmire" before we even went into Iraq. The Dems have been fighting Vietnam ever since THEY surrendered to that country.
I WILL grant you that Johnnie Mac gave them additional ammo.
EIGHT months into the war!!
We are not nominating the Democratic nominee! McCain on that behavior alone prooves why he does not deserve to be the Republican nominee!
No, never, the anti-first amendment, pro-amnesty, anti-border fence, conservative judge blocking, Treaty of the Seas United Nations-supporting, anti-tax lowering McCain!!!
What the heck does national security matter to McCain???
He has voted against the fence, funding the fence and co-sponsored with Ted Kennedy massive amnesties in 2006 and 2007. Not only that but he voted against an amendment that would exclude criminal aliens from becoming citizens under his amnesty!!! Hello, thugs and terrorists all at the behest of John McCain!!!
Mitt Romney's Free Market Pledge to America
1. Free Markets are not the enemy of the middle class
2. Big Government is the problem
3. Washington is broken
4. Class warfare, is unfair to the middle class
AWESOME!!! AWESOME!!
We need a President that understands the free markets. We don't need a politician with another plan.
For years Washington has talked about universal health care, but Romney acheived it through the free markets.
Mitt's health care plan is AWESOME!!
Yes premiums will will be a little high at first but they are starting to come down as more people enter into the system. This is how free markets work. A big screen TV would have cost you 7 or 8,000 dollars when they first came out, now you can get one for a thousand bucks. Over 300,000 thousand people have entered the system.
This shrinks the government and the tax burden for the middle class.
Go Mitt!!