Posted on 02/01/2008 10:32:20 AM PST by frankpooler
McCain thought nothing of insulting and embarrassing President Bush in the eyes of the world while our brave soldiers were bleeding and dying on the battlefield.
Apparently not always, according to my friend who used to go to the town meetings and harangue him about his stand.
All of the candidates couldn’t stand Romney. The reason is that he is patently dishonest, will lie about anything and say anything to get a vote. He backs his lies with money.Based on the above, I believe that I can say that John McCain should be the nominee for President, of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 10 posted on 02/01/2008 1:44:31 PM EST by Bobkk47
- Against drilling in ANWR
- Believes in global warming scam
- Voted AGAINST tax cuts and LIED about the reason he did it.
- Gang of 14
- AMNESTY Bill
- Seriously considered being John Kerry’s running mate.
- Says he going to punish those evil Wall Street capitalists.
Read the list above, and add to it McCain-Feingold - and the fact that McCain admitted that it hadn't taken money out of politics and threatened even more unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment to try to make it work. Whereas, to actually take the money out of politics you would have to shut down every operation which makes money talking about politics - that is, not just Rush Limbaugh and talk radio but The New York Times and all the rest of mainstream journalism. Just because they get paid by shoe advertisers and brassiere manufacturers instead of political parties does not make their money any "cleaner" than Mitt Romney's.And FR spends money too (in case you didn't contribute to the fundraiser it's never too late). So actually taking the money out of politics would be a disasterous and tyrannical infringement - and McCain talks about it as if it were the Holy Grail.
The one thing that we have seen is that nobody but Romney ever seriously attacked McCain on his egregious deviations from support for the American middle class. Certainly Fred Thompson (whose worst failing as a politician was supporting McCain-Feingold) never did. And that has given McCain a free pass right up to Florida, for policy preferences which all conservatives would attack in any Democrat. I find McCain very nearly as distasteful as the Clintons. And trust me, that is not a compliment.
You would find it distasteful if in debate Romney deliberately and outrageously insulted McCain to cause McCain to lose his temper. But trust me, the Democrats will find a slimy, underhanded way to do just that. Once McCain is running against Hillary or Obamma the MSM will suddenly not be McCain's friend any more. And McCain will implode faster than you can say "Howard Dean."
Well said. I’m not a McCain supporter, but it’s good to see smarmy Romney go down in flames.
“3. Voted AGAINST tax cuts and LIED about the reason he did it.”
McCain now says he is for making the tax cuts permanent, because to allow them to expire would amount to a Tax increase. And while we are talking about tax increases, let me take you on a little walk down memory lane, as the Gipper told the Dems at the convention in Dallas.
Let’s talk tax cuts first. Reagan put across the largest tax cuts in U.S. history, a 25% reduction in 1981, accompanied by spending reductions. McCain voted for it.
The Gipper again cut taxes in 1986, this time a massive permanent rate cut from 50% to 28%. Both these cuts were passed in spite of Democratic control of the House. McCain voted for both.
Reagan left office in 1988, and Bush 41 was elected to what was in effect Reagan’s third term, promising at every campaign stop, “ Read my lips, No new taxes”. He signed on to a Dem plan to raise taxes from 28% to 31% in 1990. Breaking with his President and his party ( You probably approve of this kind of maverick behavior but maybe not) MCCAIN OPPOSED THE BUSH TAX INCREASE (the largest in U.S. history up to that time). Predictably, the Bush tax hike precipitated a recession and his own defeat and the election of Clinton. Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate from 31% to 39.6%. Again, McCain opposed the Clinton tax increase.
Throughout the Bush 41 administration and the Clinton administration, spending exploded. The deficits began to rise around the 2000, when Bush 43 took office. War was in the offing with Iraq. McCain had a tax cut plan modeled after the Reagan tax cuts, both of which were accompanied by domestic spending restraints. Bush rejected it and continued to spend at levels not seen even in the Great Society, expanding medicare and a host of federal programs. McCain voted against the Tax cut, and made an unfortunate comment, which you cherry pick to leave the false impression that McCain is against tax cuts.
You ought to post there entire context of the record, including the responsibility that the Bush presidencies bear for taxes being where they are today. Bush 41 (Rates were28% took office) raised taxes to 31%; causing him to lose to Clinton, who raised them to 39.6%. Bush 43 takes office and gives back a sliver (4.6%) of the 11.6% tax increase that can be laid to his father’s charge. I would like the other 7% of the tax cut which the Bushes are responsible, directly or indirectly, for foisting on us. And if Bush 43 had restrained spending, we might have gotten it.
Trying to blame McCain for this totally ignores the historical context. 20 years is long enough for 2 families to control the Presidency. I think it is time to end the Bush-Clinton 20 year reign and I think McCain is the only one who can do it.
Glad to oblige. I know McCain’s record and he is no liberal. He was for Reagan BEFORE being for Reagan was cool. Mitt waited until he was sure it was popular before he ever embraced Reagan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.