Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/10/2008 2:09:16 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
1. McCain Should Be Feared, Writer Says
Presidential hopeful John McCain is being billed as the Republican that liberals can live with, but his credentials as a “bipartisan progressive” are in fact a “lazy, hazy myth,” according to liberal pundit Johann Hari.
“The truth is that McCain is the candidate we should most fear,” writes Hari, a columnist for The Independent in Britain, in an article that appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. “Not only is he to the right of Bush on a whole range of subjects, he is also the Republican candidate most likely to dispense with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.”
Hari writes of McCain: “Rage seems to be at the core of his personality. Describing his own childhood, McCain has written: ‘At the smallest provocation I would go off into a mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious. When I got angry I held my breath until I blacked out.’”
McCain has distinguished himself as an uber-hawk on foreign policy, according to Hari, who is on the editorial board of The Liberal magazine.
“To give a brief smorgasbord of his views: At a recent rally, he sang 'bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran,' to the tune of the Beach Boys' ‘Barbara Ann.’ He says North Korea should be threatened with ‘extinction.’
“McCain has mostly opposed using U.S. power for humanitarian goals, jeering at proposals to intervene in Rwanda or Bosnia . . .
“So why do so many nice liberals have a weak spot for McCain? Well, to his credit, he doesn't hate immigrants: He proposed a program to legalize the 12 million undocumented workers in the U.S. He sincerely opposes torture, as a survivor of it himself. He has apologized for denying global warming and now advocates a cap on greenhouse gas emissions but only if China and India can also be locked into the system.”
Hari concludes: “These sprinklings of sanity — onto a very extreme program — are enough for a superficial, glib press to present McCain as ‘bipartisan’ and ‘centrist.’”
2. McCain-Romney Rancor Dates Back to Olympics
The acrimony that developed between John McCain and Mitt Romney cannot be blamed simply on the heated primary campaign for the GOP presidential nomination — the two Republicans were at odds years ago over the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Romney took over operation of the then financially strapped Olympics in Salt Lake City in February 1999, and set out to enlist new corporate sponsors and fix a large budget shortfall.
Then in September 2000, McCain spoke on the Senate floor against what he called the “staggering” cost the federal government faced in helping stage the Games.
“The American taxpayer is being shaken down to the tune of nearly a billion and a half dollars,” McCain declared.
He vowed to “do everything in my power” to delay or kill “this pork-barrel spending,” the Los Angeles Times reported.
Romney responded by arguing that taxpayers would need to provide only $250 million, and said he was “quite confident” the Games would receive the funding they needed.
In early 2001, McCain sought to shift $30 million from the Treasury Department, earmarked for law enforcement personnel at the Olympics, to the Pentagon, but the measure was defeated.
Romney, in his 2004 book “Turnaround,” wrote that McCain and others in the Senate were threatening to revoke the tax deductibility of corporate sponsorship, which would “nail the coffin of the Salt Lake Olympics and future Games.”
The clash over Olympics spending, “which dragged on for two years, helps explain some of the acrimony that now characterizes the race between the two front-runners for the Republican presidential nomination,” the Times observed.
In the end, the federal tab — not including construction or improvement of highways, transit systems, and other infrastructure — totaled about $400 million, and the Games were a financial success.
3. Obama Wants Plane Conversations Off the Record
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has touched off a dispute with the press by insisting that conversations he has with reporters on his campaign plane are off the record.
The issue arose during a Feb. 2 flight when Obama entered the press section of his plane and began speaking with several reporters, including Jeff Zeleny of The New York Times.
“When Obama noticed that the red lights of the journalists’ recorders were on, including Zeleny’s, he said that the conversation was off the record,” politico.com reported.
Zeleny protested that he couldn’t take the conversation off the record. Obama answered a few more questions and returned to the front of the plane.
“In my view, whenever he comes back on the plane to talk to reporters, he is on the record,” Zeleny told politico.com.
“We’re not on the plane, in my view, to have private talks with presidential candidates. We’re here to report what they are saying and give our readers a better idea of their campaigns and their candidacies.”
But Jen Psaki, the Obama campaign’s traveling press secretary, responded: “There has never been a press corps in the history of our nation that got as many interviews as they wanted.”
Obama’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton has also said at times that a conversation at the back of her plane is off the record, although more recently her campaign said those talks would now be on the record.
“He was correct to silence Wisconsin Right to Life?”
This is over Campaign Finance Reform. You equate that with votes in favor of Bork, Thomas, Alito and Roberts; opposition to Partial Birth Abortion; Votes against Federal Funding of Abortion; Votes in favor of the Mexico City policy; votes against abortion on military facilities, and on and on. Talk about straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel.
“Throwing open our borders will sure make this country safer, won’t it?”
McCain says he is going to secure the borders first. You may choose to disbelieve him, but remember, Bush supported the same bill. If Bush could run for reelection, would you throw him under the bus on this issue?
“He was correct to prevent a rule change that would have required the Senate to actually carry out its duty?”
That rule change, the nuclear option, would have been a good thing. However, the only thing worse than not changing th rule was to ATTEMPT to change the rule and FAIL. To change the rule, you needed 50 votes plus Cheney. That meant you would have to rely on at least one of the following: Snowe, Collins, Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter and John Warner, and Mike Dewine. Every one of them was squishy on the nuclear option and if it had failed, it would have meant that the Dems could have filibustered Roberts and Alito (not to mention the excellent Appeals Court Judges Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor and Priscilla Owen, who were confirmed under the compromise.) Yet this is enough to make you cut McCain loose as far as reliability on judicial nominees is concerned. If Hillary or Obama is elected, we will need a lot more than a filibuster to block the kinds of judges they will appoint.
Then in September 2000, McCain spoke on the Senate floor against what he called the “staggering” cost the federal government faced in helping stage the Games.
“The American taxpayer is being shaken down to the tune of nearly a billion and a half dollars,” McCain declared.
He vowed to “do everything in my power” to delay or kill “this pork-barrel spending,” the Los Angeles Times reported.
Romney responded by arguing that taxpayers would need to provide only $250 million, and said he was “quite confident” the Games would receive the funding they needed.
In early 2001, McCain sought to shift $30 million from the Treasury Department, earmarked for law enforcement personnel at the Olympics, to the Pentagon, but the measure was defeated.
Romney, in his 2004 book “Turnaround,” wrote that McCain and others in the Senate were threatening to revoke the tax deductibility of corporate sponsorship, which would “nail the coffin of the Salt Lake Olympics and future Games.”
The clash over Olympics spending, “which dragged on for two years, helps explain some of the acrimony that now characterizes the race between the two front-runners for the Republican presidential nomination,” the Times observed.
In the end, the federal tab — not including construction or improvement of highways, transit systems, and other infrastructure — totaled about $400 million, and the Games were a financial success.
______________________________________________
McCain was right about this
How can something be a “financial success” if it costs the American taxpaqyers $400 Million ????
both. he wants to listen to conservatives
“We have had a few disagreements, and none of us will pretend that we won’t continue to have a few. But even in disagreement, especially in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives. If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in complete accord.”
the nuclear option would NOT be a good thing. imagine if the democrats are in the WH. We wouldn’t be able to filibuster THEIR radical judicial appointments because we set a precedent. mcCain maintained the stability of the senate and we got Alito and other judges in over a democrat filibuster.
I think on balance it would have been a good thing because it is consistent with the Constitution, which does not require a 60 vote supermajority to confirm judges. That said, you are correct that it has the downside that it eliminates the filibuster option for the GOP.
In any case, to jettison McCain over this is crazy. IMHO
I've voted nothing but republican since I've been able to vote, including for McCain, but not this time. Not again. If he wins, then I hope for the sake of the country and for the reputation of the republican party that I'm wrong. But I won't be wrong twice with my ballot by voting for him again.
I'd guess the folks in Kansas weren't too happy that McCain is planning to send the Gitmo detainees to Ft. Leavenworth the first day he becomes president.
This summer, Ft. Leavenworth had 450 prisoners. It can hold 500.
Gitmo has over 400 prisoners.
McCain has admitted he doesn't understand the economy. Does McCain understand elementary arithmetic?
Why wouldn't the Democrats set the precedent themselves?
They've been willing to do almost everything else to get their way.
(1) When have the Republicans ever even tried to filibuster a judicial nominee? (2) In the unlikely event that Republicans do mount a filibuster, what makes you think the Democrats won't change the rules to prevent it?
What dreamworld you must live in? mccain is NO conservative.
Great reason to fear McQueeg. Turns out NOBODY likes him.
Who knew?
Bush threw himself under the bus. We tried to stop him, but he weaseled past us. Yes, we fought McCain on this issue, but we fought Bush too, along with a couple of other self-proclaimed conservatives.
I also choose to disbelieve McLiar. When asked point blank if, as President, his bill were brought to his desk, would he sign it? McCain didn't hesitate in answering "Yes."
He cannot be trusted.
That doesn't make Hillary/Obama any better; McCain's simply the least of the four Evils still in the race.
Correction: He claimed to want to listen to conservatives.
His CPAC speech was pandering to a group he desperately wants to love him. And a weak attempt at that. Even Hillary can fake sincerity better than McCain.
“Correction. He is wrong on a few things, right on most. He is right on:
1) Right to Life
2) Government spending
3) National Defense
4) Judicial Nominations”
*sigh* You can pretend and pretend and pretend that he’s with us on those issues, but his history says otherwise. (1)He supports federal funding of embryo research. (2)He wants to create federal agencies to legalize all illegals and “fight” global warming. (3)He wants to close Gitmo and keep the borders fenceless. (4)He feels Alito is too conservative and employs the guy who pushed Souter on us.
Hasn't changed much, has he?
**“Not only is he to the right of Bush on a whole range of subjects, he is also the Republican candidate most likely to dispense with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.” **
Calling it like it is!
NOT EVEN CLOSE! Teddy charged San Juan hill!
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.