Michael Medved backs McCain

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Michael G, Jan 31, 2008.

  1. Michael G

    Michael G New Member

    Dec 4, 2007
    Garland Texas
    Yesterday Michael Medved, a national radio host on conservative talk radio decided to back Senator McCain for President. Mr. Medved spent a great deal of time defending McCains supposed conservative actions and record in the Senate. And I heard him go on and on about how Senator McCain was the conservatives best choice.
    Today, at least two other conservative national radio hosts (that I heard) blasted Mr.Medved for yesterdays broadcast.
  2. Bruce FLinch

    Bruce FLinch New Member

    Aug 27, 2005
    Bay Point, Kali..aka Gun Point
    Guess I don't get out much, never heard of Mr. Medved. Can't say I agree w/ him...:eek:
  3. notabiker

    notabiker New Member

    Feb 1, 2008
    he has a local afternoon radio show here in the LA area. i like him. i like a lot of things about mccain. and some things i do not like about him. like the illegales, ted kennedy etc. i would vote for almost anybody before that cu#* t clinton.
  4. satellite66

    satellite66 New Member

    Oct 6, 2004
    Central NJ
    I think many pubs see McCain as the only chance to beat Hillary. I don't see it. I don't see how trying to out liberal a liberal is going to win it for the GOP. Right now McCain is getting lots of votes from those who lean left. He also benefits from Huckabee taking lots of the conservative votes. McCain gets more votes from left leaners than he does from conservatives. Right now consevatives and those who believe in liberty need to rally around the most conservative guy left. Romney has the record and the money to win. He is far from my ideal but is a much better choice than McCain.
  5. buffalo jump

    buffalo jump New Member

    Jun 10, 2004
    pensacola, fl. , escambia county
    If mc cain is the rep. choice then I will vote for obama
  6. White Hawk

    White Hawk New Member

    Apr 14, 2006
    I don't see how McCain could possibly be the best the GOP can offer. Especially since he contacted the DNC in 2001 about switching parties. So he could've been running as a democrat this year. Either way, it's insignificant to McCain. For him, it's all about the office... values be damned.
  7. Michael G

    Michael G New Member

    Dec 4, 2007
    Garland Texas
    It doesn't matter what McCain "says he will do", to try and get people to think he is a concervative. What matters is what McCain has already said and done to show he is not a conservative.
  8. Vladimir

    Vladimir New Member

    Jan 29, 2008
    Issaquah WA
    McCain has a long history of being a politician. It's one of those curses that tends to make senators/congressmen unelectable. They have records, votes, established views. Governors tend to be much more fluid, and so in recent history you see governors becoming the best presidential candidates.

    It is interesting that this curse should be serving McCain so well, though unfortunately so many conservatives are choosing to ignore it. McCain has a long history. A long history of being one of the greatest conservative politicians in Washington D.C. Not one of the most conservative by any means, but one of the greatest conservative politicians.

    He has had his lapses. By traditional conservatism the PATRIOT ACT is a massive infraction, led by our conservative George Bush. Obviously being a Republican doesn't mean you have to like George Bush, but let's put this in perspective. No one is 100% conservative, after all it was Romney who used to support abortion rights, is soft on immigration (his immigration crackdown he talks about started 2 or 3 weeks before he left office) etc. Even my main man, Rudy, had his blue-blemishes (though some have labeled his government, maybe an exageration but certainly on the right track, one of the most conservative in America).

    Abraham Lincoln was by no means a conservative. By traditional means he fought against a weak federal power, fighting to preserve absolute federal control. By more twisted means he didn't really stand as a great moral authority, he had no stated intentions against slavery, even pledging to uphold it several times. He saw a chance to abolish it, and he did, radically changing the "way of old," going against the broadest conservative definition there is. By no means a conservative. But regularly cited as one of the greatest Republicans of all time.

    So what are we really looking for here? The most conservative? The most republican? How about just the best president? Wouldn't that be nice?

    Ignoring this ramble since you can't get over the fact that I labeled McCain one of the greatest conservative politicians in Washington D.C? Look at his record. Save a couple of those blue-blemishes, which were not really a grab for a particular policy, but rather a move towards what he ultimately thought was right for America (like the PATRIOT ACT, which abondons any political side really and goes for what, many, feel is just the best for America at this time). America told him "no," and he backed down.

    But follow his history, back through the 90's he has a long record of supporting pro-life, gun rights, moralism, and conservative government for a successful conservative country.

    On the Issues is an awesome site for quick reference to candidates records. Using primarily quotes and votes they put things the candidate has stood for into bullet format, by the issue- and then link to the votes or quotes creating that conclusion.

    McCain is an amazing man. I'm not doing the whole trying to guilt you into liking him because he is a former POW, I know all of you know he is. More importantly did you know the Vietcong offered to release him after capture, because his dad was the Naval commander in the area? McCain denied release, preferring to stay with his fellow POW's, and knowing it would be a PR success for the Vietcong if he was released. The only comparable thing in any candidate out there is when Rudy refused the massive donation of the Saudi prince who had made some poor-thought remarks. And even that doesn't come close.

    The man is a conservative through and through. And if you want to take my preferred understanding of conservatism, he is one of the greatest in the race- he genuinley cares about America, he has a long history of standing up and saying "Yes" when he has to, or "No" when he needs to.


    After all that you might be surprised to find out he doesn't quite have my vote. I was pretty lost once Rudy backed out. I am sort of torn right now between John McCain and Ron Paul- each having excellent policy on some issues, neither being perfect. However, as an active Republican, serving as an officer in my state's College Republican Federation, and likely chair next school year... I just get tired of people ignoring McCain's great conservative record. Just like I would with any other candidate. And I like Rush as much as the next guy, but what is this bull**** about the "Republican establishment trying to push conservatives out since Reagan, and succeeding with McCain" that he (almost positive that is Rush) is pushing. I'm not going to lie, that is probably the single dumbest thing I have heard in a long, long time. Rush has lost all sight of what it is to be a conservative, hell, almost everyone has.

    I may shock you, but conservative is not synonomous with Reagan. The single thing I get most tired of (one reason I like Ron Paul a bit) is everyone trying to claim to be the most "Reaganesque." There is a single reason Reagan was so loved, and that single reason was Reagan was not "Reaganesque," he had no identity but his own. He was an American, talking to Americans. No different than the coal miner down the street, yet still no different than the white collar CEO on the other side of town.
  9. berto64

    berto64 Active Member

    Jan 31, 2001
    Owyhee County, Idaho

    Dig a little deeper and check Johnny's record on Veterans matter, VA budget and you might even go back to his negative position towards the Families of POWs and MIAs.

    As a Vietnam Vet I cannot allow myself the luxury of overlooking these traitorous actions against his own brothers in arms.

    Look at Everything, not just what makes you feel good.

    To me that seems a little contrary for a former POW.

    Can you say Manchurian Candidate?
  10. dcd_enterprises

    dcd_enterprises New Member

    Oct 14, 2007
    Wheatland, Iowa
    Big Deal. Who's Michael Medved...
  11. lefty48

    lefty48 New Member

    Jan 8, 2008
    I'm a liberal. But if I absolutely had to choose between Romney and McCain, I think Romney as president would be less ideological, more pragmatic and more pleasing to liberals than McCain.

    McCain, I believe, to a greater extent than Romney, would put his principles (with which I mostly disagree) ahead of practical concerns.

    Romney does, at times, sell himself as a technocrat, which I take to mean doing whatever may be necessary to achieve a given objective, without reference to ideology. I can think of a couple of obvious examples from Romney's recent biography.

  12. Vladimir

    Vladimir New Member

    Jan 29, 2008
    Issaquah WA
    I never argued he was the perfect candidate (remember, I said he doesn't have my vote yet) or that he has never made a mistake. What I'm arguing against is the idea that he is this super non-conservative, con-artist. I think it is almost funny that people attack him for being a terrible conservative, and the candidate they jump to is a guy who was pro-choice just years ago.

    Every candidate has their problems. One of your primary issues in this election is apparently the treatment of Veterans. That's fine, and that's fine if that sways your vote away from McCain. Like I said, one of my main issues is Foreign Policy and it might just sway me away from McCain as well.

    Again, I'm not even trying to argue people should go out and vote for McCain. I'm just arguing against this current scandal that he isn't "conservative enough."
  13. berto64

    berto64 Active Member

    Jan 31, 2001
    Owyhee County, Idaho
    Point taken.
  14. dcd_enterprises

    dcd_enterprises New Member

    Oct 14, 2007
    Wheatland, Iowa
    My problems on McCain:

    Not Conservative enough:
    --McCain / Feingold Bill-Directly limits FREEDOM of Speech during a campaign by limiting who and when Political Ads can be ran. Like it or not, TV/Radio are the mediums of the day, and this bill assaults the first amendment with impunity.

    --McCain / Kennedy Bill- Sought to legalize with the stroke of a pen 12,000,000-20,000,000 illegal immigrants, and then not follow it up with border enforcement, wouldn't be convenient, weather it was in the initial bill or not.

    --He believes in engaging in class warfare--like any good liberal--trying to make a class of Americans resent another class because they have more, and consequently pay more taxes--NEWSFLASH--Tax cuts go to those who pay taxes, which, unfortunately, is becoming an ever decreasing number of people:

    1. “I don’t think the governor’s tax cut is too big—it’s just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans—and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. … Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don’t believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. …

    “I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”

    —Discussion with media, reported in “Bush, McCain Snip Over
    Tax Cut Plans,” Los Angeles Times, and “GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,”
    Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.

    2. “I have never engaged in class warfare. I am very much in favor of tax cuts for middle-income and lower-income Americans. I’m deeply concerned about a kind of class warfare that’s going on right now. It’s unfortunate. There’s a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in America, and that gap is growing, and it’s unfortunately divided up along ethnic lines.

    “I feel very strongly that we ought to have middle-income and lower-income tax cuts, and we’ll be getting into it, I’m sure, later on in this program. Mine are basically comparable to Gov. Bush’s, in some cases far better. But I’m not sure we need to give two-thirds of that tax cut, of that money, to the wealthiest 10% of America.”

    —Michigan Republican Debate, Jan. 11, 2000.

    3. “I always thought that class warfare was to take away from the rich. I always believed that that was what class warfare was all about. As I said, there are tax breaks and money for the richest in America and the very rich, but I think that it’s clear that there’s a growing gap between rich and poor in America, the haves and the have-nots. And many studies have indicated that, and I think that the people who need it most and need the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that’s what I want to give to them. And at the same time, the greatest benefit that I can give them is to make sure that their Social Security benefits are there. And I also don’t think it’s fair for us to lay a $ 5.6 trillion debt down on future generations of Americans.”

    —NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Jan. 16, 2000.

    4. “We give the millionaire a $2,000 refund. Gov. Bush gives him $50,000.”

    —Quoted in “John McCain: How Straight a Shooter?” by Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, Jan. 27, 2000.

    5. “There’s one big difference between me and the others—I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. I’ll use the bulk of the surplus to secure Social Security far into the future to keep our promise to the greatest generation.”

    —McCain campaign commercial, January 2000.

    6. “I don’t think Bill Gates needs a tax cut. I think you and your parents do.”

    —Michigan State University rally, Feb. 20, 2000.

    7. “Mr. President, the principle that guides my judgment of a tax reconciliation bill is tax relief for those who need it the most—lower- and middle-income working families. I am in favor of a tax cut, but a responsible one that provides significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income families. And I commend Sen. Grassley for moving in that direction. But I am concerned that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why tax relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. The more fortunate among us have less concern about debt. It is the parents struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief.

    “I had expressed hope that when the reconciliation bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined would provide more tax relief to working, middle-income Americans. However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.”

    —Senate floor statement during debate over President Bush’s tax relief package, May 21, 2001.

    8. “During the debate on the Senate version of the tax reconciliation bill, I had urged my colleagues that substantial tax relief to middle-income Americans should be our top priority. While I regret that my amendment to cut the top rate by one percent to 38.6% so millions more middle-class Americans would fall into the 15% tax bracket failed on a tie vote, Sen. Grassley did move in that direction in the Senate bill by insisting that the top rate should be cut to only 36%. As a result, I reluctantly voted for the bill but pledged to vote against the conference report should further reductions in the top tax rate be made at the expense of the majority of Americans who are in much greater need of tax relief.

    “Unfortunately, the conference report did just that by jettisoning the commendable work both Senators Grassley and Baucus did in crafting a Senate reconciliation bill that provided more tax relief to middle-income Americans. This conference report lowers the top rate cut to 35%, at the cost of delaying, for several years, much needed tax relief for married couples unfairly penalized by our tax code. …

    “We had an opportunity to provide much more tax relief to millions of hard-working Americans. . . . 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 most need tax relief.”

    —Senate floor statement before voting against President Bush’s tax cut, May 26, 2001.

    9. “I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country. A Treasury Department study found that almost no estate tax has been paid by lower- and middle-income taxpayers. But taxes have been paid on the estates of people who were in the highest 20% of the income distribution at the time of their death. It found that 91% of all estate taxes are paid by the estates of people whose annual income exceeded $190,000 around the time of their death. …

    “We have no idea what our financial or economic situation will be ten years from now. … We may want to have the flexibility to provide significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. Other unforeseen issues may arise. The point is that we must think beyond the horizon. Making the repeal of the estate tax permanent fails to take these new circumstances into account.

    “We will need resources to deal with … responsible tax reform that benefit lower- and middle-income taxpayers.”

    —Senate floor statement opposing HR 8, a bill to permanently eliminate the death tax, June 11, 2002.

    10. MCCAIN: “Shouldn’t we give relief to average citizens who also are double taxed every single day?”

    HOST KATIE COURIC: “But, Sen. McCain, if you listen to Commerce Secretary Don Evans, and he just appeared on this program, working Americans, the middle-class Americans, under the Bush proposals will get a major break. A family of four making $39,000 a year, according to Mr. Evans, will get a $1,100 tax cut for several years, allowing them to plan their individual budgets. That sounds like something that won’t just simply benefit the wealthy.”

    MCCAIN: “Well, I think it will. But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that—as the previous tax cuts—that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans. … A lot of Americans now are paying a very large a—low and middle-income Americans are paying a significantly larger amount of their income in taxes. I’d like to see them get the bulk of the relief.”

    —NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003.

    Earth to John...the wealthest Americans are paying 95% of the taxes already. Who's taxes are you going to cut if not the wealthy? Why not just pander openly to the majority of people who vote (but pay hardly no taxes) and be honest about it? Why not just propose that middle income Americans are exempt from taxes?

    Your positions are right in line with every other liberal trying to buy votes with my money.

    LOL Ouch! God Bless him and his service in uniform but my God! Come from a middle class (not upper middle) family and we have ALWAYS benefitted from Republican tax cuts. Remember when Clinton promised only to raise taxes on the wealthy? Only time in our lives we were wealthy. I don't think there should be massive tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the deficit but lets remember they also carry the majority of the tax burden. Estate tax? I don't care if it doesn't help me out at all, how immoral for our government to tax something that has already been taxed before. Unfortunately Sen. McCain likes to borrow too much from the Democratic playbook. Class warfare is absolute worse of their tricks. Wonder where the real base of his support comes from (i.e. the mainstream media)? Reading this just seals the deal the man is undeserving of the Republican nomination- he would do better serving his great state of Arizona in the Senate. Don't you also think that the Dems would love to run a youthful Obama against an aging McCain? I can hear it now "Replay of Nixon/Kennedy Debate", even without these McCain quotes I find it difficult that America would be inspired to vote a man who would be the oldest President in history. Hey at least Dole had humor.

    It really is demoralizing... Somehow it is a "benefit" that the government only confiscates 34% of your income, not 39%... If you took those quotes, deleted any reference to who said them, and presented them as quotes from Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry, the vast majority of people wouldn't know that they weren't their words... Wealthly people pay "91%" of the death tax - I would think it would be closer to 100%, since the non-wealthly don't HAVE estates to tax. That statistic is as misleading and bogus as "90% of all accidents occur within 5 miles of your home" - of COURSE they do, 90% of most people's TRAVEL occurs within 5 miles of their home... But even if it's only 91%, the estate tax is probably the ONLY tax that is in the same moral category as property taxes - you pay taxes for the priviledge of OWNING something, even though it was taxed when you purchased it, and has been taxed many times over since them... I think that the only honest and fair way to handle taxation, which is, after all, only moral to the extent that it is collected and used for the public good, would be to do this: Each month, all government spending for the previous month is added up, divided by the number of persons living in the country, and then a bill is sent out to each family, showing how much their family owes of the total government expenditures. Then the family would need to write a check to cover their part. To those that object that not every citizen benefits equally from government expenditures, I would say that that is a perfect argument to start ENDING some government expenditures. If a government program benefits only some portion of the population, then THEY should be paying for it, through user fees. Any other program or expenditure is simply theft - taking money from one group of people to give it to another. Unless you are willing to make the argument that the government can morally determine that something YOU earn or create BELONGS to someone else, then taking those earnings or that creation and giving it to someone else is STEALING.

    Heck, I can't say it any better than this.
    Just found it.

    Why I Won’t Be Voting For John McCain

    Every time I post something about the problem for liberty-minded conservatives with the direction the Republican Party has been taking since the first George Bush administration, I get a lot of pushback that can generally be divided into two types. The first comes from what I call “Shit Sandwich Republicans,” because that is exactly what they are more than willing to eat, as long as the filling bears the label “Made by the GOP.” These are the types who often lapse into hysterics if somebody refuses to swallow their “lesser of two evils” logic, and who would cheerfully vote for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain if any of them achieved the status of official Republican nominee. They can safely be disregarded as being beyond hope, help, or argument. Their political reactions are as reflexive as those of a flatworm, although not quite as intelligent or reasoned.

    The second type is that for which this post is written: Here is an example from a commenter named Scott Martin:

    I’m still confused about the intensity of the hatred towards McCain. I know he has bucked the conservative movement on a few occasions but the level of animosity is amazing.

    I don’t ipso facto ascribe this sort of response to wilful stupidity or robotic submission to a political party, but I do ascribe it to ignorance. And the cure for ignorance is facts. If you can read the following and still vote for John McCain, fine. But don’t consider that you are doing yourself, your country, or your party any favors.

    1. The McCain-Snowe-Dorgan S. 2328, Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2004.:

    This is a scheme cooked up by McCain and two other liberals to permit US drugs exported to Canada to be reimported to the US at the controlled prices Canadians pay for those drugs. The libertarian Cato institute, nominally a fan of free-er trade, hates this idea:

    Indeed, the sponsors of this bill have issued statements that indicate that they really do want to force prices toward equality—but equality at levels set by socialized medical systems abroad. Sen. Dorgan writes, for example, “The Pharmaceutical Market Access Act would create a competitive marketplace so that Americans can purchase FDA-approved drugs at the much lower prices available in other countries.”69 Sen. Edward Kennedy, a bill sponsor, echoes that view: “Bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Dorgan, Snowe, McCain, Daschle, myself, and others will, at long last, give American patients a fair deal. . . . It will enable U.S. consumers to buy FDAapproved drugs at the same fair prices as they are sold abroad.”70Taking a swipe at drug companies in the process, Sen. McCain defends securing that result with the measures just noted: “Putting profits before patients, [drug companies] have limited the supply of pharmaceuticals to Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers who export to the United States. . . . . [O]ur bill seeks to close potential loopholes that would allow companies to game the system and unfairly discriminate against pharmacists or wholesalers.”71 And in a frequentlyasked- questions sheet that Sen. Snowe’s office issued when S. 2328 was introduced, the sponsors’ misunderstanding of market principles is clearly indicated: “[This bill] merely extends the benefits of free trade to buyers of prescription drugs. . . . Drug manufacturers today are subverting the free market by charging higher prices to Americans for drugs than they charge to patients in other countries. . . . ”72 If market practices don’t “force” uniform prices, these senators apparently will. But under current conditions, those will not be market prices. Instead, they will be prices set by foreign diktat.

    Think about it: “Drug prices set by a foreign diktat…at levels set by socialized medical systems abroad…”

    There are more ways to socialize your medicine than you believed, my friend. And John McCain knows all of them. This is nothing more than a back-door method to institute price controls on the drug industry. I can think of no better “prescription” for the destruction of one of the glories of American medicine than that.

    2. Mccain-Feingold - The infamous assault on the First Amendment primarily and doggedly pursued by John McCain: Here is commentary from various angles.

    In McCain-Feingold’s Wealth of Hypocrisy, George Will addresses the not-much-mentioned aspects of what some have called McCain’s “Incumbent Protection Act”:

    Davis wants the Supreme Court to rule that the Millionaires’ Amendment unconstitutionally burdens the First Amendment right of political advocacy and violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law. The Millionaires’ Amendment does both — and it reveals how the corruption rationale for campaign finance regulation is a charade.

    And Reason Magazine takes on McCain’s pet bill from the statist tyranny point of view regarding its unconscionable abridging of the most precious aspects of our First Amendent guarantees of freedom of political speech:

    McCain-Feingold’s Lessons in Free Speech - HUMAN EVENTS

    For the first time in many years a sliver of optimism has peeked through the dark cloud of free speech suppression and political oppression brought to us courtesy of Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) these past five years.

    And do keep in mind that even today McCain has no regrets whatsoever about his unconstitutional assault on our liberties, and, in fact, values “clean government” over the Constitution itself:

    Tapscott’s Copy Desk

    “He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform….I know that money corrupts….I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.”

    I’m sorry, but this is not the stance of a man who loves our constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. It is, instead, the approach of a man who will even betray his sacred oath to support the Constitution in order to achieve his own politically self-aggrandizing goals. Unfortunately, this is not an anomaly. It is, rather, a thread that runs through Senator McCain’s entire career.

    3. Mccain-Kennedy - The Amnesty and Open Borders Act:

    First, the Heritage Foundation destroys McCain’s ludicrous protests that his bill wasn’t an amnesty:

    Undeniably Amnesty: The Cornerstone of the Senate’s Immigration Proposal

    Everyone—from President Bush to his critics to
    Ted Kennedy—is dead set against “amnesty,” and
    yet the word overshadows all else in the immigration
    debate. Despite its proponents’ claims to the
    contrary, amnesty is the cornerstone of the Senate’s
    immigration bill. Indeed, this legislation, with its
    many provisions, guarantees one thing only: that a
    population of individuals defined solely on the basis
    of their illegal status will receive legal status and a
    privileged path to permanent residency and citizenship.

    Next, Mark Levin blasts it from the border security aspect:

    Mark R. Levin on John McCain on National Review Online

    It bothers me to no end that those who write so eloquently about national security ask that we downplay McCain’s record on border security, given that 9/11 hijackers used our still-broken immigration policies and unsecured borders to attack us.

    The most salient fact about McCain and his amnesty for illegal aliens efforts is not just the self-aggrandizing aspects of attempting to offer amnesty to illegals, but the familiar contempt for law when it gets in the way of his ambitions.

    Just as he would trash the First Amendment for his notion of “clean government,” he would trash immigration and border laws for his notion of “comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty and open borders).

    Keep in mind that McCain also voted for the Vicente Fox-approved amendment that would have given veto power to the Mexican government over any efforts on our part to build a physical fence along our border with Mexico.

    Mark Levin On The John McCain Candidacy | Sweetness & Light

    He also voted for the Specter amendment, which provided that the government of Mexico, among others, would have to be consulted before building physical barriers along the southern border. Six months later, McCain says he was wrong.

    He gets it now. Secure the border first. I don’t believe him. And as others have pointed out here and elsewhere, he still supports amnesty despite claiming otherwise. The American people said “hell no!” It wasn’t that long ago that he suggested they were motivated by racial animus rather than good thinking.

    4. The Mccain-Edwards-Kennedy tort lawyers wet dream, otherwise known as “The Patient’s Bill of Rights.”

    Reason Magazine - Diagnosis: Confusion

    Heavy hitters Sens. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), John Edwards (D-N.C.), and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) joined a smattering of influential congressmen for a confident display of legislative resolve. A few hundred enthusiastic interns and union representatives waived signs and shouted frantically, oblivious to the rising late-morning heat. Republican presidential candidate and Arizona Sen. John McCain was part of the main display. He was there to bask in accolades, having crafted the proposed legislation in “maverick” bipartisan fashion with Ted Kennedy.

    The Club for Growth was on to him, too:

    The Club For Growth - http://www.clubforgrowth.org

    A deeper look at Senator McCain’s record, however, reveals a number of votes and bills that reflect much less favorably on his commitment to free market principles and his claim to being an economic conservative.

    Most egregious is Senator McCain’s leadership role in two bills that would have drastically restricted free enterprise. The first was the Patients’ Bill of Rights, which he sponsored with Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and former trial lawyer John Edwards (D-NC).[51] The bill allowed the government to impose a set of onerous mandates on insurance coverage instead of allowing individuals to make their own decisions about healthcare plans in the marketplace.

    5. The Keating Five Corruption Scandal: Again, Mark Levin sums this one up:

    Mark R. Levin on NRO

    McCain was one of the so-called “Keating Five” senators. He was investigated by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics in 1991 regarding the acceptance of favors from Lincoln Savings & Loan Association (Lincoln) and its owner, Charles H. Keating, Jr. Simply put, the issue was whether McCain and the other senators used their official positions to attempt to pressure Federal Home Loan Bank Board officials to go easy on the troubled institution. Eventually Lincoln went bust, costing depositors and taxpayers millions.

    In its final report (November 20, 1991), here is what the Senate Select Committee on Ethics concluded about McCain’s conduct:

    “Mr. Keating, his associates, and his friends contributed $56,000 for Senator McCain’s two House races in 1982 and 1984, and $54,000 for his 1986 Senate race. Mr. Keating also provided his corporate plane and/or arranged for payment for the use of commercial or private aircraft on several occasions for travel by Senator McCain and his family, for which Senator McCain ultimately provided reimbursement when called upon to do so. Mr. Keating also allowed Senator McCain and his family to vacation with Mr. Keating and his family, at a home provided by Mr. Keating in the Bahamas, in each of the calendar years 1983 through 1986.

    “…[F]rom 1984 to 1987, Senator McCain took actions on Mr. Keating’s behalf or at his request. The Committee finds that Senator McCain had a basis for each of these actions independent of the contributions and benefits he received from Mr. Keating, his associates and friends.

    “Based on the evidence available to it, the Committee has given consideration to Senator McCain’s actions on behalf of Lincoln. The Committee concludes that, given the personal benefits and campaign contributions he had received from Mr. Keating, Senator McCain exercised poor judgment in intervening with the regulators without first inquiring as to the Bank Board’s position in the case in a more routine manner. The Committee concludes that Senator McCain’s actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him. The Committee finds that Senator McCain took no further action after the April 9, 1987 meeting when he learned of a criminal referral.

    Levin notes the typical McCain hypocrisy:

    McCain was the only Republican implicated in the Keating Five scandal, yet today he lectures his party and his president about “the corrupting influence” of money in politics. He rails against the so-called “wealthy special interests” and their ability to buy access to elected officials, yet this is precisely what the Keating Five scandal was all about. And, of course, under McCain’s current standard, a politician who takes a principled position that may benefit a donor is corrupt, even if no law has been violated.

    The John McCain of old should be thankful that his political fate wasn’t determined by John McCain the reformer.

    6. McCain’s attack on swift boat vets:

    Vets group attacks Kerry; McCain defends Democrat

    But the 60-second television commercial, being aired in three battleground states in the presidential race, sparked a furious response Thursday from Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, who called the ad “dishonest and dishonorable” and urged the White House to condemn it.

    Of course, there was nothing dishonest or dishonorable about the charges brought forth by the Swift Boat Veterans, as this extensively argued and supported post by John Hindraker at the Power Line Blog amply demonstrates:

    Power Line: Ineffective, Even For A Liberal

    So: what I wrote, in connection with the nomination of Sam Fox, was precisely correct. The only ad that engendered significant factual dispute was the first one, relating to Kerry’s medals. Otherwise, there is little or no disagreement about the facts. As I wrote: “Most of what the Vets said in their ads has never been disputed, let alone discredited.”

    Of course, never let it be said that John McCain let the truth get in the way of him defending his liberal-left pals against the honest truth about them from concerned conservatives.

    7. John McCain’s class warfare against “the rich” and the Bush tax cuts:

    First, the Club for Growth:

    The Club For Growth - http://www.clubforgrowth.org

    Second, Senator McCain’s stated reason for opposing the Bush tax cuts rhetorically allied him with the most radical anti-growth elements of national politics. Senator McCain argued, “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] Senator McCain’s eager embrace of grossly inaccurate class-warfare demagoguery demonstrated, at best, a painful ignorance of pro-growth economic principles.

    And at worst, McCain’s usual concern for his own political future at the expense of any principle even remotely conservative. Human Events agrees:

    John McCain’s Top 10 Class-Warfare Arguments Against Tax Cuts - HUMAN EVENTS

    John McCain’s Top 10 Class-Warfare Arguments Against Tax Cuts

    But that isn’t all: McCain has waved the flag of class warfare elsewhere, too: Check out his opposition to the abolition of the Death Tax:

    Straight Talk Detour: “Mr. McCain Would Not Make Mr. Bush’s Estate Tax Repeal Permanent”

    “I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest- and highest-income taxpayers in the country.” – Sen. John McCain (Sen. John McCain, “Statement Of Senator John McCain On H.R. 8, The Death Tax Elimination Act,” Press Release, 6/11/02)

    He waffles back and forth on this, but always returns to his class warfare roots:

    Sen. McCain: “I Think The Estate Tax Level Ought To Be At About $10 Million, And Then At Approximately 15% In Taxes At That Point.” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think the estate tax level ought to be at about $10 million, and then at approximately 15% in taxes at that point. In other words, so we take care of 99% of the family farms, businesses in America. … not complete elimination of the estate tax, but certainly at a level that would take care of 99½ % of all American families, farms, and businesses in America.” (Iowans For McCain YouTube Website, www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfI_KJACAvg, Posted 12/17/07)

    He’s in great company, though. His pal Ted Kennedy, with whom he has hatched so many liberal legislative landmarks, is in full agreement:

    John McCain: “CLASS-WARFARE DEMAGOGUERY USED BY DEMOCRATS” « Killbuck Creek Politics

    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): Death Tax Cut Goes To “Only The Wealthiest.” SEN. KENNEDY: “Now, they are proposing more of the same, more tax breaks benefiting only the wealthiest among us.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy, “Statement By Senator Edward M. Kennedy On Defeat Of Estate Tax Repeal,” Press Release, 6/8/06)

    Liberal vultures of a feather, I guess.

    8. McCain’s “Gang of 14″ betrayal of his party in favor of Democrat filibusters against GOP judicial nominations: Mark Levin and Andy McCarthy have the goods.

    Andrew C. McCarthy & Mark R. Levin on John McCain & Judges on National Review Online

    McCain and the Gang of 14
    There’s no defending it.

    By Andrew C. McCarthy & Mark R. Levin

    In their attempt, in a Weekly Standard article, to defend Senator John McCain’s elevation of senatorial privilege over efforts by the Bush administration and the Right to get conservative judges confirmed, Adam White and Kevin White miss important points, simultaneously providing an incomplete version of history.

    McCain never met a Republican back - especially a conservative Republican back - he wouldn’t knife in service to his own overweening political ambition.

    And as for those poor saps who think they must vote for McCain in order to get conservatives nominated to the Supreme Court, there is this:

    John Fund nails it:

    Winging It - WSJ.com

    More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because “he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.”

    Therein lies the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain. It is the nagging feeling that after all of his years of chummily bonding with liberal reporters and garnering favorable media coverage from them that the Arizona senator is embarrassed to be seen as too much of a conservative.

    Of course, McCain denies it, but as is often the case, his memory seems a bit, um, faulty:

    Is McCain a Conservative?

    I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund’s source, and neither knew I was talking to the other. They gave me nearly identical accounts, as follows:

    “Wouldn’t it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?” one lawyer commented. McCain replied, “Well, certainly Roberts.” Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative.

    And Andy McCarthy exposes the flimsy depth of McCain’s understanding in differentiating between Roberts and Alito:

    The Corner on National Review Online

    But if Ramesh is right, this is suggestive of unseriousness. You’ve got to be on drugs if you think Chief Justice Roberts is inherently more acceptable to liberal Democrats than Justice Alito. I mean, c’mon: This can’t be divorced from context. Roberts got a relatively easy time of it because, as it worked out, he was replacing Chief Justice Rehnquist. Confirming him made the Dems look reasonable at a time they were blocking Bush nominees to the Circuit Courts without changing the ideological balance on the court. It was a lay-up.

    By contrast, Alito was replacing Justice O’Connor and thus shifting the Court to the Right. THAT, and not something about Alito that was purportedly absent in Roberts, is what impelled Democrats to rake him over the coals.

    McCain has never let these little problems of accuracy and common sense, let alone depth of understanding, get in the way of what is important to him, which is, basically, whatever he wants to do.

    9. McCain, Gitmo, and full constitutional rights for terrorists: It must be conceded that, thanks to his captivity in Vietnam, John McCain has ample personal reasons to abhor anything the he thinks smacks of mistreatment of prisoners of war. And that is perfectly okay, as long as his feelings are kept on a personal level. Unfortunately, when he elevates his personal feelings to the level of national policy in time of war, he goes badly off the rails.

    Mark Levin explains:

    Mark R. Levin on National Review Online

    One of the primary and most compelling criticisms of the Clinton administration’s approach to terrorism was that it treated terrorism as a criminal rather than national-security matter. The enemy declared war on us years earlier, attacking various U.S. targets and killing U.S. citizens, and we indicted them if we could muster enough evidence. Despite 9/11, today many in Congress and the judiciary, with prodding by the media and left-wing (legal) activists, continue to treat the war on terrorism as Clinton did. And one of the most vocal sponsors of this approach is John McCain.

    Levin sums up:

    It just so happens that in each of these cases—detention, interrogation, and intelligence gathering—McCain has adopted the litigation agenda of some of the most radical antiwar activists, including the ACLU. If Mona Charen decides to update her book Useful Idiots, she might want to add a new chapter.

    Indeed. For McCain, the personal is indeed political. Perhaps not so much for the rest of us who worry about the safety of our country, rather than non-existent civil rights for terrorists.

    10. Is McCain, the current front-runner for the GOP nomination, even a Republican? Maybe not so much as you thought.

    GM’s Corner

    “I believe my party has gone astray. I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and in their philosophy.”

    McCain said this in 2004 when speaking at a DEMOCRAT Party shindig at the time he was being TOUTED by the MSM and quite a few Democrats (and maybe McCain himself?) for a possible shot as Kerry’s VP nominee.

    He thinks the GOP has gone astray, but the Democrats haven’t. Therefore, we must vote for him, because he’s not a Democrat. Of course, he came with a hair of changing even that:

    TheHill.com - Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP

    Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

    In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.

    I think the GOP would be far better off today if McCain had followed through and removed himself from the political party he apparently has little use for except as a vehicle for his own vaunting ambitions.

    Okay, this has metastasized far out of what I originally started with - although when discussing John McCain’s betrayals of principle, overweening ambition, dishonesty, oath-breaking, and his general role as anathema for liberty-minded conservatives, I’ve only begun to scratch the surface here.

    Other have also taken significant whacks at John McCain’s feet of clay. Read’em and weep for your country, your party, and your future.

    Mark R. Levin on John McCain & 2008 on National Review Online

    The Real McCain Record

    GOP 2008: The McCain record and the McCain agenda [Karl]

    If anyone has lingering doubts that Sen. John McCain’s current success rests more on image than issues, one need look no further than his own campaign and supporters.

    McCain Derangement Syndrome: A reply to Roger L. Simon [Karl]

    Power Line

    Meanwhile, Republicans should not take too much comfort from McCain’s performance in polls against Clinton and Obama this far from November. The McCain I saw in the California debate last week didn’t look particularly electable. With the economy emerging as the overwhelmingly central issue in the campaign, with McCain’s nasty streak increasingly on display, and with his reputation for straight-talk diminishing before our eyes, I’m not prepared to base a vote for the Senator on electability.

    The decision thus comes down to policy and effectiveness. I give Romney the edge on both counts.

    Rick Santorum says that when he was in the Senate, there were three parties — the Democratic party, the Republican party, and the McCain party. This is an exaggeration, but it contains some truth. Think of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, “McCain-Byrd” (the gang of 14 deal), and now McCain-Lieberman.

    Ace of Spades HQ

    He’s still saying he’d sign the ****ing thing if it comes to his desk! ****ing still!

    So the little bastard is telling us he “gets it” that we want border security first, and he promises to give that to us — unless 60 Senators pass a version of McCain-Kennedy without border security first, in which case, **** border security, he’s signing it into law.

    That’s it for now. I could go on, literally at book length, about why a vote for John McCain is a vote for the death of conservatism in the Republican party. Instead, I think I’ll leave the last bleakly ironic note to the inimitible Ace (although the thought has also crossed my mind):
    Ace of Spades HQ

    Which makes this story sadly ironic in a way. I remain convinced that had Mr. Irrelevant, Jim Jeffords, not jumped, and had his moment of glory for staging the one-man Senate coup, John McCain would have done so. And the GOP would not now be considering nominating him as the standard bearer.

    So, if McCain can convince the country to elect him President, he’ll have Jim Jeffords, and his desire to beat McCain to the punch, to thank.

    Which doesn’t make me feel any better about the prospect of a McCain nomination.

    As you may have by now figured out, me, either.

    Oh, and Scott Martin: If, after reading all of this, you still find yourself “confused,” you’re not really confused. You’re willfully hiding your head in the sand.
  15. Vladimir

    Vladimir New Member

    Jan 29, 2008
    Issaquah WA
    I will read all of your post when I get a chance, but I just answered a poll question on CNN that made me think of a good way to describe what I like about McCain.

    "What is more important, Character, or Stance on Issues?"

    I responded character. Because every president is defined by his character, not his stance on issues. What defined Clinton, if you ask me, the USS Cole and the lies. These are both issues of character, not policy. What has defined the last 8 years? The attacks on 9/11, and our response to them. Not policy, character. Romney has no character to me. I don't mean he has none, but I can't identify it.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Discussion Michael Yon; FIRED by the Obomba admin Jun 14, 2010
General Discussion Michael Vick Jul 28, 2009
General Discussion Michael Jackson Departs Jun 25, 2009
General Discussion michael savage Mar 19, 2009
General Discussion Doctor Michael DeBakey dead at 99 Jul 12, 2008