Yes, I am from AZ. No, I am not a McCain fan. This post details why.
First, I don't believe he is honest. If you look at his history, what he says is very appealing to his republican conservative voters. What he does is appealing to liberal democrats. I firmly believe that McCain would be a democrat if he lived in a blue state, but he knew the political history of AZ therefore he chose to register as a republican in order to get elected to the Senate.
McCain is a huge flip-flopper. For example:
MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn't advanced in the six years he's been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn't done?
MCCAIN: I don't think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support…. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states.
This is just one of many topics that McCain has switched his story on. Want a source? Click here.
Basically, McCain is a democrat in republican clothing. Voting for McCain is almost worse than voting for Obama or Hillary, because at least they are honest about which party's affiliations they most strongly align with. You know what you're going to get with them. McCain is a fraud. Unfortunately our media and military just love a prisoner of war. Anyone else tired of hearing about that experience of his? No offense, but just because you were a POW does not mean that you are qualified to be a full time resident of the White House. As far as I am concerned, his biggest accomplishment is crashing planes.
Seriously, the man has spent how much time in Washington and he can't even understand a simple debate question. It is amazing how ignorant he is of the committees in Washington that actually deal with issues that affect us, the American people.
He isn't even that polite to people who oppose his views or have questions that he can't answer. Watch the video at the end of this post to see how he reacts when a reporter asks him a question that he isn't prepared for. Its like he believes voters are stupid enough to believe him when he says 'Oh, I am an honest man. I have a great record in the Senate. I am the conservative who can reach across the aisle.' And unfortunately for the rest of us, there seem to be a fair number who believe him when he says this without doing their homework. They think 'Oh, he will be a great president because I recognize his picture, and he says he is a true conservative.'
For myself, I would rather vote for Obama or Hillary than McCain. I hope I get the chance to vote for Mitt Romney this November, but if not I will definitely be voting blue.
Don't Ask McCain - video powered by Metacafe
McCain, the Republican's Democrat
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You're for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.
Posted by Amy on 2/02/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I agree to an extent with your assessment of McCain. He certainly has been pretending to be something he isn't since he started his most recent presidential run.
McCain has always been a moderate conservative, willing to compromise with democrats on a variety of issues, if only to get the work of the Senate done. He was an influential senator for some time.
In the presidential primaries for the 2000 election, his place in the middle hurt him. Republicans wanted a neoconservative, while McCain was more of a traditional conservative, closer to Goldwater than Reagan.
So now he insists on pretending to be a NeoCon, refusing to make the mistake he made in 2000--that is, being himself. Unfortunately for him, Republicans and Americans are sick of the NeoCons after the last 7.25 years of bumbling, war, and rolling back civil liberties. They want a more traditional, more moderate conservative. They want the real John McCain, not what McCain is pretending to be.
Despite his miscalculation of what the voters want in 2008, I still think he'll win the Republican nomination because of his history in the Senate.
I dislike McCain politically as much as anybody, and I have for the past 8 or 10 years. You know what, though? A moderate McCain would still be better then either Democratic candidate. I'm voting for the Republican nominee, whomever that may be (barring a real conservative running as a third party candidate, which I may then consider).
I faced the same crap decision in 2004, when I hated my choices. A lousy, bad, fiscally irresponsible, secretive, war-mongering Bush or a very liberal (and everything that goes with it) Kerry. I would have liked to vote "Other", but then I may as well have not voted. I figured Bush is at least socially conservative, and he would appoint conservative Supreme Court Justices. He would screw up the rest of the country, but Kerry would too. So I voted for the lesser of two evils, and I got my two Justices.
If I have to make a similiar lousy decision this year, I'm making the same choice.
A lot of conservatives still believe McCain is the lesser of two evils. Is he really? Everyone has their opinion. I don't think voting for him is different from voting for hillary. Click here to see a great comparison video.
Jackson, you say McCain is pretending to be a "neocon," but that everyone is sick of "neocons." But if McCain is supposedly leading the race while pretending to be a "neocon," then wouldn't that mean that "everyone," is therefore not sick of conservativism? In actuality, I think it proves the point, just as during the 06 mid-term when democrats got their "mandate from the American people to end the war," in actuality most of the dems that won seats ran more conservative than they actually are. I am convinced that if McCain ran as himself he would loose, (and why even try to run according to what you think voters want, you're either what they want or not.) His success is obviously due to his deciet. Let me know if there is something that you think I missed, (I think I might get some flack for all my "____," usage, but I am in a goofy mood so be nice.)
As far as voting for him goes, it would seem that while appealing to social conservatives and lying to economic conservatives, I believe the saying goes, "Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line," I don't remember where I heard that, but the point is that we ultra conservatives ARE being told to fall in line, that if McCain wins the nomination that we should all "fall in line," cause its better than a Dem. But, I think, and have heard from many (including Amy,) that we won't be manipulated and over look this blunder. My opinion is that I would rather have someone like Obama who is atleast honest about himself, (notice I didn't include Hillary,) who is a man of Character and seems to honestly believe he is doing what is best, than someone who will sell his soul and decieve any one who'll be decieved and lie about his positions and play dirty politics just to get into power. Cause that is all he wants is power. It seems when someone is in politics as long as he has been, their perspective becomes warped. Just as Hillary and Bill are pining to be back in the White House, they are all blind to purity and integrity. John McCain and Hillary Clinton have very few differences in their motives and in their positions, and the ones that are different, they are lying about. These two would be the worst for the country because they are unpredictable. They aren't guided by principles. So if you think that atleast he (McCain) will appoint the right Justices, be careful, they have obviiously lied before what's to say that they aren't about this.
And furthermore, Jackson, if you think Bush is a NeoCon, think again. I believe I would be stereotyped into that catagory and I don't agree with him on many issues. Maybe we need to define that term and make sure we are on the same page. But atleast he was willing to act and try to do something about terrorism and other things, instead of sitting on his thumb like Clinton did on the terrorism front (Osama.) I don't see the "secretive" part in your comments Joel.
Great clip Johnathan, I guess we were posting at the same time so I didn't see it before my other comment, but great clip, that was spot on.
I love this theme of Sen. John McCain pretending to be something he's not. Everyone has already discussed his flip-flopping of opinions and lack of loyalty to one political party's ideology; but I want to point out that he's also pretending to be a U.S. Senator.
I am an Arizona native and have watched this man "represent" my state in the Senate for some time now. I have met him and shaken his hand probably 5 times now, and I'm still not impressed. He makes me feel used and abused because he is just using my state as a launch pad for his further political ambitions.
Ok, on with my argument. My reasons for saying that John McCain pretends to be a Senator are as follows:
-An East Coast man growing up, John McCain moved to Arizona in 1980 to start his new life with his 2nd wife. He ran for the House in 1982 as a Republican. The point is, he wasn't registered as a Republican before he came out here!!!!!! McCain knew the demographic in this largely conservative state and capitalized on it.
-John McCain uses his office to bolster him up on the campaign trail. For example, in the time period of 10/17/05 to 1/28/08, Sen. McCain missed 300 votes in the Senate. He has a missed vote percentage of 56.3% (251 missed out of 446 total votes) just for the 110th Congress. He is second only to Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, only because Sen. Johnson suffered a brain hemorrhage on Dec. 13th 2006 and hasn't returned to the Senate. I got this info from washingtonpost.com if you want to look at it too.
This information makes me sick. I feel like I am being cheated of my Constitutional right to two senators. Article 1 Sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."
How can we trust a man to be President of the United States and come through on his campaign promises, when he can't even fulfill his duties as a U.S. Senator? Keep this in mind the next time you hear him say, "Look to my record...My record in the Senate is clear....You can check my record anytime and it will stand up to yours, etc." What record Sen. McCain?
I like all the crap you are giving McCain, becuase heaven knows he deserves it. He's a weasel. That is my entire opinion on the subject. As it stands, though, McCain WILL get the Republican Nomination - if he doesn't, I'll be shocked and overjoyed. SO, the right thing for you all to do is to tell all your friends, family members, spouses, lovers, etc. to go and vote for Obama, so that he can get the vote over Hillary, so that come november, we as a nation aren't chosing between Hillary Clintona nd John McCain. Cause, as much as you all Love Mitt, the man will NOT win over McCain, if for no other reason than he's Mormon - so vote for someone who has more chance! That was my cry to deaf ears, I'm sure, but I felt it was only right to make the cry, none the less.
Interesting Rick. You know what? I've heard a lot of people say from both sides of the fence that they actually really like Ron Paul, but because they think he won't have a chance they aren't voting for him. A lot of Dems like him because he's basically the only candidate who as anti-iraq war from the very beginning and didn't change their mind when the populace decided they didn't want a war.
Anyway, I find this interesting simply because I wonder how well Ron Paul would really be doing if people voted their conscience and not based on who they think realistically has a chance.
Well I am happy to see that everyone who reads this post has found something to agree on... A strong disdain of McCain.
If this feeling can be communicated and shared throughout the country then perhaps Romney does stand a chance.
He can win the conservative "Anyone but McCain vote" now and then he can win the "Anyone but Hillary" vote in November.
I am a believer and an optimist. I made phone calls yesterday and there is a grassroots effort swelling. I am going to vote right now at the Registrar of Voters.
P.S. McCain has 8% of the delegates he will need to win the nomination.
Romney has 7% of the delegates he will need. This is just the first act and we have a long way to go. Please don't give up on the Mormon just yet.
I support Romney because of his stance on the issues I believe he is the only one with the experience, ideas and knowledge that can really work to save us from the coming economic depression and fix the illegal immigration problem. Read his issues.
Jaronius, I'm defining "NeoCon" as: tax-cut-but-spend-spend-spend fiscally, with policies of bigger government, greatly increased executive power (almost to the point of dictator, if possible), and greatly decreased civil liberties.
I would define a traditional conservative as: fiscally responsible "don't-tax-don't spend," with general policies for smaller government, state's rights, and letting individuals make their own choices (although they still embraced socially conservative "values.")
There are some big differences between the two ideologies. NeoCons are basically just fiscally irresponsible, socially conservative Democrats. Can you see why I don't like either party?
Anyway, Bush fits very firmly into the category of NeoCon, not traditional conservatism. Since Reagan, NeoCons have played an increasing role in the Republican party.
So, is Mcain winning because he's pretending to be a neocon? I'm not sure, but look: Huackabee, arguably the only candidate with a really neoconservative record, is behind McCain, with his more moderate history, and Romney, with his more moderate history. Based on that, I'm feeling like Republicans are sick of NeoCons. Both Romney and McCain are pretending to be NeoCons, but historically, neither one has been.
If you think Romney is a neocon, think again.
Oh, and while I'm on the subject of Romney: He is a HUGE flip-flopper. Almost nothing he's said in his presidential campaign matches up with what he did as Gov. of Massachusetts.
Don't trick yourselves into thinking that just because he's Mormon he's not playing politics and pretending to be something he's not.
Here's a pretty big list of his flip-flops.
I'll get on the McCain hatin' bandwagon. :) Something everyone can agree on!
I'm terrified that we're going to have a McCain/Clinton race to the finish and (at least) half the country is going to spend the next four years feeling disenfranchised, lied to, and...well, pretty much like a lot of us feel now. Divided.
I've got to say though, that in my other online interaction, I'm not hearing *anything* about Romney. I just don't think he's going to come out on top. I do think Obama has the potential to pull out the win, but it's going to be close.
I recommend we listen to what the candidates say. I have listened to Romney explain each situation that the MSM are calling flip flops and the only thing I can find that has any merit is a change on his political stance on abortion. Go to MittRomney.com and check it out.
I think this blog is a good example of how we can all share the same basic strong principles and beliefs and yet have very different views on matters when we consider the details. Having researched each detail I can fully understand why Romney has made each decision he has. Romney is consistent, honest and a man of principles. Romney makes decisions based on all the variables and I am comfortable that he consistently chooses wise pragmatic solutions. That is why I voted for Mitt.
On the other hand McCain is a flip flopper consistently lying to keep up with his last lie. Unfortunately he is too stupid to remember what his last lie was. Follow this link to see what I mean. This is McCain in his own words...
Click Here
Thank you, Rachael - that's exactly what I was saying. I wish people could see that and support Obama - who has a chance still. Oh well, not a lot we can do about it.
Dang, I spent the whole weekend moving into a new apartment and missed a bash McCain thread.
I loathe John McCain. I've learned over the last few months that I don't understand Republicans. They have a legit Reagan conservative in Fred Thompson, a true libertarian in Ron Paul, a Johnny-come-lately conservative in Romney (who, at least, has a stellar econ record), and they... are going to nominate... John McCain. John McCain, the worst try-to-please-everybody politician I have ever seen - and he's getting away with it! I just don't get it!
So, what happens now? McCain vs Hillary or McCain vs Barrack? McCain vs Hillary and McCain wins, based on fear and loathing of the Clintons, which is what McCain will run on, and what establishment republicans want; but McCain vs Barrack and I think Barrack wins. He's very likable.
As a side note, I am not going to vote for anyone this election (unless it is a third party candidate.) Although it has been pointed out to me that it is very important to still make it to the voting polls to decide on the congressional votes. The only change we can make now conservatives, is in the House and Senate.
Jackson, it doesn't really matter, but to help me clarify my understanding of the matter... in your first post you said McCain was a moderate conservative, which I am having a hard time grasping, because moderates are more liberal, and conservativism is the antithesis of liberalism. I would think he is definately a neoconservative on the basis of being a liberal Republican strong on foreign policy issues. Then you said that he was more of a traditional conservative, which I whole heartedly disagree with. Maybe the confusion is spawned from McCains willigness to say and do anything to get elected. Unless you feel traditional conservativism is more left than right. I have always thought that traditional conservativism was closer to Reagan conservativism. Let me know what you think.
Anyhow he's locked the nomination, whether by deceit, political warfare, media affectation, misleading endorsements, or savvy strategery, it remains that these next 5 years are gonna be crazy.
Jaronius, when I say that McCain is a moderate conservative, all I mean is that he's more willing to compromise with liberals on more issues than a staunch conservative would be. Or at least, that's how he acted in the Senate...
Other than that, I'm not sure that I can explain what I think any better than in my posts above, sorry.
Mike I meant to comment to you also... whatever your feelings are of Rush Limbaugh, I think he hit the nail on the head. (I summarize at the end if you can't stand reading Limbaugh, but if you want the full transcript it is on his sight, www.rushlimbaugh.com.
"George Neumayr, writing today a column -- he used to be the editor of the American Spectator -- makes a great point. He said, "Once the Republican Party decided..." This was largely due to abortion, by the way. "Once the Republican Party decided to be a big-tent party, its days were numbered; its identity forever changed," because the definition of "big tent" was to bring in people who normally would not be in the tent, that there was no litmus test anymore for the party, and this was about abortion, because the establishment, blue-blood, country club-type Republicans were always embarrassed of the evangelicals and the hardcore conservatives to whom the issue of life mattered most -- and so we had to be big tent. And one of the reasons also for the big tent was to contrast ourselves with the Democrats who did have litmus tests."
"Yet because Republicans felt all defensive and we felt all ashamed, and we were being shamed by the media, we adopted this "big-tent" strategy, and the big-tent strategy effectively eliminated the three legs of the conservative stool I've been telling you about: fiscal, foreign policy, cultural. Once in a while we allowed those legs of the stool to be whittled down and others added to the stool. Neumayr's point is: Hey, Republicans have only themselves to blame here -- and he's got a point. But who is to blame for this? If you want to assign blame, if you want to talk about it in terms of blame you can say, "Okay, how did it happen?" And that's what I'm telling you. The failure of establishment Republicans -- whether they're a member of Congress, Washington or New York editorial writers; even some talk show hosts who live and work and socialize in that community -- to uphold conservative principles during the last decade or more, has resulted in the mess that they are now complaining about.
They are complaining about us failing to join them as they have changed the party, as they have watered it down. This confusion, this mess -- contrary to the take of the Drive-By Media -- that conservatism, slash, Republican Partyism finds itself in today, is a reaction to the establishment Republicans who have ignored conservative principles and watered down their party for the last decade or more and their failures. This mess has resulted from them and their failures and their false promises. These very same people now who were the big-tent guys, which resulted in -- and, by the way, I'm all for big tent, but you bring people in as us; not as them. Don't misunderstand. There's nothing exclusionary about me. You want to expand the party? I'm all for it. It's what we've been trying to do here, in fact, with conservatism! Now, these very same people now who sought to expand the party by essentially marginalizing conservatives and bringing in their buddies (the moderates, the independents, even some liberals) are now demanding that the people they took for granted -- us, and the evangelicals and so forth -- continue to follow them, continue to be swayed by their demeaning and condescending lectures."
"I don't control. I want everybody in the Drive-Bys and liberals to listen to this. I don't control the real disaffection conservatives are feeling for the Republican Party and for Washington in general. I don't control that. This isn't some manufactured view that people didn't hold and all of a sudden they do because I have been saying it. This isn't some view that's turned on or off by me, or other talk show hosts. This is a result of years of contempt of the grassroots; years of negotiating, false promises, pseudo-conservatism here and there; a primary system put in place by the party and state parties intended to quickly choose a nominee, which benefits a Washington insider, on and on and on and on."
"You realize, this is what they're counting on? They're counting on a reunification, or unification of the party based on fear and loathing of Hillary -- and it may not even be Hillary when all is said and done. It may end up being Obama. And you can't gin up fear and loathing of Obama. You just can't do it. If somebody tries to gin up fear and loathing of Obama, it isn't going to work."
Sorry, that was longer than I intended, but basically, there has been those in our party who have been trying to expand the party and have brought in liberals and moderates and all sorts to try to claim the party from conservatives, and some conservatives have been caught up in the lies and haven't been able to see the battle that is going on, and that is why those more in line with traditional conservativism had such an uphill battle on this one.
Again sorry to be long winded.
Jackson you are right. McCain is totally more willing to compromise with liberals. ex. McCain/Finegold, McCain/Kennedy. He is willing to lean across the aisle to the left to get things done but never does he ask liberals to lean to the right.
JUAN McCain is a democrat in rebuplicans clothing.
I agree with Kevin that Juan is a terrible Senator. When asked by talk radio what his opinion on the Employer sanctions bill was he said he didn't know because he had never read it. He didn't know about a bill that addresses the most important issue facing his border state?
McCain also has Juan Hernadez working on his campaign. Juan used to work for Vicente Fox. McCain said he didn't know what policies Hernandez had regarding illegal imm.(which are pro ill. imm. and pro "United Northern Nation" or Mexamericanada)."I just know he supports mine", McCain said.How can you not know the policies of your own "Hispanic Outreach" campaign manager? I want to punch him in his cheek!!!
Seriously, I hate to nitpick but I find the repeated references to "Juan" McCain rather offensive. There are a lot of people named Juan in this country, and most of them have as much right to be here as any one of us. Using the name in such a derogatory fashion is just rubbing me the wrong way.
I dislike reducing any person to one "idea" (ie Hillary = socialized healthcare, George W = Iraq war) as I find it counter-productive and divisive. One usage of the term would have gotten the point across.
That is all. :)
I only had 2 references to "Juan" McCain. The other is the guys actual name. But anyway It's just my venting of a man I have no respect for. Im not trying to degrade him by saying he is Hispanic but more so that he does not represent America. I have no problem with Hispanics. They are great hardworking family people. I do however have a problem with the illegal part. (I'm not saying all Hispanics are illegal). I also have a problem with the policies of John McCain and others who try to defend the rights of people that have no rights to defend.
I will agree that labeling a person to one idea can be divisive. This is not my intent. It' just my vent.
I don't think you were trying to be offensive, but it just seems like separating things further into "us and them". There's already that viewpoint in the US, and while it is largely due to the tensions and stressors of illegal immigration and all the problems that is causing (aka not of our doing), I feel like we need to do what we can to defuse the situation, not inflame it.
That's just my two cents and I didn't feel comfortable not saying something. ;)
Oh, and Jaron - not sure if you'll see it because it's kind of an old thread, but that Rush quote was actually very thought-provoking for me (maybe it's easier to read than to hear him say it in his Rush Limbaugh voice??) I might just do my next post on that subject - how the two-party system is not really serving anyone very well, parties homogenizing or being defined by litmus-test issues...very interesting, so thanks.
Post a Comment