Whilst hating to appear to promote someone's presidential campaign when I'm so opposed to his winning, I have a few notes to make on the opposition to John McCain by so many "conservatives."
McCain's record:
*opposed to abortion, voted to repeal Roe v. Wade
*opposed to gay marriage BUT thinks it should be handled at the state level (he voted against a constitutional ban on gay marriage)
[Conservatives are very strong on State Rights]
*voted YES on ban on flag burning
*Wants more death penalties, stricter penalties
*Strong supporter of the War on Drugs
[this is contrary to the more Libertarian of conservatives, but more in line with "popular" conservatism]
*Thinks teaching Creationism should be a call for local schools to make (although he personally believes in evolution)
*Wants more school choice, thinks Charters, homeschooling, & vouchers are key to success
*Thinks Economic & environmental interests not mutually exclusive
*Voted Pro-NAFTA, pro-GATT, pro-MFN, pro-Fast Track
*Mostly opposed to bans on guns, Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban
*Supported Reagan tax cuts because matched by spending cuts
[fiscally conservative and responsible]
*Opposed to a timeline for withdrawal in Iraq
*Has otherwise supported the war in Iraq
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
THIS is a liberal?
I'm wondering how far Right does a fella have to be to not be considered a traitor by the Limbaughs and Savages of the world?
Not that I mind "conservatives" kicking the poop out of poor McCain - I don't want to see him be president. My point is only that this fella is mostly Right in his voting record and positions and that it seems like the "conservatives" out there are looking for some sort of Rightwing Purity litmus test that is going to write them out of the history books.
Ironically, it's sort of Darwinism in action...
21 comments:
Really sort of odd that the far right would go after McCain like that. I guess he's just more to the middle than the they would like. Limbaugh, Hannity and the others have bullied this country for some time now. It just seems the independents have decided to show up.
For me, McCain would be Bush version 2.0. Like we need another four years of this.
If the Republicans want to stay home in November, be my guess.
In 2004 when Dems lost big (Presidential and Congress) Democrat leaders came out and declared themselves the opposition party. This meant they would blindly oppose anything. Social Security Reform, Judicial appointments, Immigration etc. . . McCain in an effort to work with the "opposition party" made the republicans look week and inefficient. Now he wants to be President?
Side note: History has thought us that Congressman make terrible presidential candidates and worse Presidents.
McCain is in the unenviable position of pandering to the far right and losing his moderates; or keeping his moderates and losing the far right. Oh well, let Ann Coulter figure it out.....
This comment has been removed by the author.
**removed my last post so I could replace osama with obama**
This my personal opinion, so take for what it is worth:
The Support McCain is getting that is putting him over the top is probably coming from dems.
It all boils down to proper nouns. Allot of dems don’t like the proper nouns Hillary is using and allot are suspicious of the lack of proper nouns in Obama’s speeches.
McCain would be the best candidate for the dems if they were not so absorbed in identity based politics and special interest groups.
"The Support McCain is getting that is putting him over the top is probably coming from dems."
Given the numbers, that seems unlikely. Democrats are showing up to the primaries, and voting for democrats in record numbers. There may be a few Democrats voting for McCain, but that seems pretty unlikely. What he is getting are the long ignored moderate Republicans.
McCain would be the best candidate for the republicans if they were not so absorbed in identity based politics (ie. the Cult of Limbaugh) and special interest groups (ie. the fundies.)
"History has thought us that Congressman make terrible presidential candidates and worse Presidents."
I'm not so sure about this. Its one thing to have a different political perspective, its another to make wild claims about history. I guess one could say that you have a "terrible" definition of the word.
"This meant they would blindly oppose anything."
I think what you mean to say is that they did not agree with the Republican lead congress. Not capitulating to the opposition in congress and doing what constituents want is what politicians are supposed to do. This is regardless of what issue is being discussed.
"The Support McCain is getting that is putting him over the top is probably coming from dems."
This just sounds like a little too much conspiracy theory to me. Is there any evidence of this? McCain won Tues. by large numbers. This hardly seems possible.
Here's a somewhat different take.
I'm undecided on whether or not I will vote for McCain. He'll probably be fine on national security. Shoddy on just about everything else.
Bob Owens quipped "McCain for President. Or we're really screwed." I understand voting for the lesser of two evils mentality. But somehow it is so very unsatisfying.
I've said in the past that I wanted to vote for someone who appeared to be somewhat mentally unstable and prone to violence. And I now have that choice. But I could have voted for Fred Thompson! Thompson got my hopes up for the Presidency. And now I have to settle....
Alan,
Do you really think identity based politics is listening to Rush Limbaugh?
I THINK identity based politics are politics based on identity, may be wrong on that one (example: vote for Clinton because she’s a woman, vote for Obama because he’s black)
Perhaps you should debate celebrities scandals or which video game is the coolest; instead of politics.
"I THINK identity based politics are politics based on identity,"
LOL. Nice definition.
"Identity politics is political action to advance the interests of members of a group supposed to be oppressed by virtue of a shared and marginalized identity" -- wikipedia. Not the greatest source, but a decent definition nonetheless, and it encompasses yours. I'd include fundies in this as well. Takes about 2 seconds of listening to them before you start hearing all about their martyr complex.
"Perhaps you should debate celebrities scandals or which video game is the coolest; instead of politics."
ROFL. Nice. Sorry, I thought you were being serious, not just trying to start a slap-fight. LOL
Although I like the way McCain has tried to be bipartisan on important issues and love the fact that he, unlike the other GOP candidates, is against torture and for closing the Gitmo Gulag, I fear his foreign policy would be "Bush on steroids." He doesn't care how long we are in Iraq and is promising more wars, has threatened to bomb Iran, etc.
So, although I expect the Right to eventually rally 'round him, I hope they take awhile. I'd like to see the GOP fight amongst itself for awhile until we Dems have a nominee--instead of watching McCain start a national campaign while we have no frontrunner.
I said:
"This year could be one of those Haley's Comet moments in history."
Nope. Sorry. This year WILL be one of those Haley's Comet moments in history. And God help us all.
I don't like many of McCain's positions.
I don't like many of Clinton's positions.
Obama may be - MAY be - somewhat better, he's certainly more inspiring and has a lot more going for him than the other two.
Regardless, this nation is much larger than one bad leader. If the US can survive eight years of Bush, we're not going to crash because of a Clinton or McCain presidency.
Although, if McCain turns out to be just Bush on steroids, as some think possible, God help us.
SIXTEEN years of that sort of policy would be a bit much and cause for a revolution to begin.
(I have no weapons, Mr CIA Nanny, no intent of dropping bombs - just for the record. I'm talking peaceful revolution...)
You realize, Eric, Drood, that for most of us, it seems like with McCain, "conservatives" have a candidate that agrees with them on 85/100 issues and that's not good enough for these extremists.
It appears to many of us out here that the Radical Right has gotten spoiled, thinking they can forever demand that people come all the way to their view on every point or they'll throw hissy fits and call you a commie.
Fortunately, it appears that the majority of the US - Republicans included - are rejecting those politics of division and whiny-ness.
The "radical right" ? Why are we radical? Because we choose to stand on principles rather than compromise like everyone else? We are radical because we hold those who desire to represent us to the standards they seek to represent? McCain calls himself a conservative, but he's comfortable with compromising conservative principles, whereas we, the "radical" right are not. No, he doesn't compromise on every issue. Not even on most issues. But he compromises, and flagrantly so, on enough issues to make many on the right question his pedigree.
Are there some on the right who demonstrate immaturity by resorting to epithets like "commie" and throw hissy fits? Absolutely. But that hardly makes them radical. What it does make them is equally immature as those on the left who resort to labels like "nazi," "smirking chimp," and overblown and irresponsible statements like..
"Team Bush has done for us as a nation what a rapist does to his victims..."
That one, I believe, is the most ignorant statement I've heard this century... and the most offensive. What surprised me most about it was its source. But then I do understand the politics of clique behavior. Sometimes people say things simply because they know they'll be rewarded in some fashion.
Understanding "why," however, doesn't excuse the behavior.
For myself, being one who considers the meaning of words, I am personally offended by the label, "Radical Right". There is nothing radical about standing on principle, nor asking that others do the same.
By "radical right," I am referring to the "extreme Right," if you prefer that title. That 10-20% of the Republicans for whom a candidate that is 85% in agreement with them is not only unsatisfactory, but is also a traitor.
What term would you have me use?
(For myself, I'd be pretty tickled if I ever had a chance to vote for a candidate that even 50% in agreement with me... So the fits about a candidate that doesn't match their needs 100% seems a bit whiny.)
awsome ELAshley, simply awsome
John McCain's actions as Senator have repeatedly undermined genuine efforts at reconciling the POW/MIA issue. He did in fact spend six years in captivity during the Vietnam War, so it's a tough argument to suggest that he would deliberately undermine the POW issue, but he has consistently opposed any POW/MIA related piece of legislation, including the 1996 Missing Personnel Act. In addition, John McCain violated the Military Code of Conduct, which specifically orders American personnel to give the enemy no information other than name, rank, serial number, and date of birth. It requires that they accept no favors from the enemy, and to make no written or oral statement disloyal to the United States.
The fact is, in exchange for better medical treatment, McCain violated this code four days after being captured on Oct. 26, 1967. In a U.S. News and World Report interview dated May 14, 1973, two months after he was released, McCain admitted that he exchanged military information in exchange for spending six weeks in a hospital normally reserved for North Vietnamese Military officers. Benedict Arnold was ALSO a war hero... that simple truth is very much in the minds of many Vietnam Vets.
Dude, you have more than simply crossed a line. You blew past it at warp speed. Whatever problems you (and I) can have with his political convictions, the guy did spent six more years in a POW camp than he was required to. He rejected special treatment and early release.
What veterans consider McCain to be a traitor? Names, please.
There are vets who think McCain is a traitor - Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain.
Here and Here
Doesn't appear that their swiftboat attacks are working however.
John, did you not read the statement that followed? This one?
"I can't honestly fault him for seeking medical help. I'm not crucifying him for his actions as a POW. But there are plenty of Vietnam Vets who feel betrayed by John McCain."
Nor do I think he's a traitor. His penchant for compromise, however, IS troubling.
I don't quite understand what the deal is either Dan. I'm surprised by how many conservatives really hate him.
My biggest issue with him is the campaign finance reform issue, not so much the issue itself, but I personally believe it conflicts with freedom of speech. I don't want to get into that debate, but my biggest issues with him have been some things that I believe to be anti-freedom, as opposed to anti-conservative.
I think border security is a fundamental issue for many conservatives, for me it's not that big of an issue, but for some reason that seems to strike at the core of many conservatives beliefs.
That being said, he doesn't really capture my political heart. But then again, no one really has. The closest was Thompson or Paul.
Post a Comment