Posted on 02/24/2008 5:04:07 AM PST by Kaslin
Did you hear the news about John McCain being so closely associated with the conservative right, than he alienated some Democrats and Independents?
I know, I know. The notion of McCain being “too conservative” just doesn’t fit with the headlines and the stereotypes. And given that America’s most politically influential Evangelical Christian, Dr. James Dobson, has stated that he will never vote for John McCain, it just doesn’t make sense that the Senator would have any association or connection with social conservatives at all.
But I’m headquartered in McCain’s home state of Arizona (the capitol city of Phoenix, no less), and I’ve been covering McCain in both local and national media for nine years. I can assure you that there are a few details about his “conservatism” most people around the country have either forgotten, or have never known about.
The frustrations among fiscal conservatives over McCain’s unwillingness to support President Bush’s tax cut proposals are quite widely known. I was frustrated at that time, as well, given that McCain was (and still is) representing me in the Senate. It’s such a rare thing when the President and a majority in the Congress actually agree that cutting taxes is a good and noble thing, and to think that my Senior Senator - - my Republican Senator, no less - - was voting against it, was repugnant.
McCain’s stated argument against the “Bush tax cuts” was that, in his view, any reduction in tax revenues should be accompanied by a corresponding cut in federal spending. I don’t agree with this argument. I think it’s just fine to “starve the beast” of government - - spending will necessarily have to be reduced sooner or later.
But McCain is the Senator, and I am not. And while I didn’t like they way he voted on this issue, it’s difficult to say that his arguing for “fiscal restraint” in the Congress wasn’t warranted - - even “way back then.”
What fiscal conservative could say that they are not sickened by the spending behaviors of both the President, and the Congress, for most of the Bush presidency? McCain’s stand on fiscal restraint is, unfortunately, a minority position among both Republicans and Democrats. Yet it is one that is part and partial to being a “fiscal conservative,” and Republicans would do well to heed Mr. McCain’s call for fiscal discipline.
But while I understand the “McCain pain” among many fiscal conservatives, I’m a little less understanding of the attitudes towards McCain emanating from many social conservatives. Throughout his career in public office, Mr. McCain has always been unapologetically “pro-life,” and has always insisted that “marriage” is defined as relationship between one man, and one woman.
Some would argue that McCain is not sufficiently “pro family,” because of his unwillingness to support a constitutional amendment that further strengthens this traditional definition of marriage. While the so-called “marriage amendment” was being contemplated in the Senate back in 2006, McCain argued quite out in the open that the question of how to define marriage is best left to the individual states, and ought not be dealt with in the Congress.
McCain further argued that, in any event, amending the constitution is very risky business, and should not be utilized by social conservatives as a political tactic, lest the Congress and the White House be taken over by the opposing party at some point in the future. This was during the late Spring of 2006; and McCain’s concerns proved to be valid, when, only a few months later in November of that year, the Democratic party won control of both the House and the Senate.
So if McCain is perceived as not being sufficiently “pro family,” how could he at the same time be perceived as “too closely aligned” with social conservatives?
Well - - turns out that in McCain’s hometown of Phoenix, Mayor Phil Gordon endorsed McCain’s presidential campaign. Mayor Gordon is a Democrat (albeit a moderate Democrat), and while it is not surprising to see Mr. Gordon support our Senior Senator’s presidential bid, his choice in doing so is strikingly different from the Obama endorsement that came from our liberal Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano.
But guess what has happened to Mayor Gordon, since he announced his support for McCain as president? He’s dealing with a backlash from Phoenix’ “LBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and Tran gendered) community.”
You see, back in 2006 Senator McCain did a television ad campaign supporting a statewide ballot initiative that sought to prohibit any changes in the definition of marriage (the “Protect Marriage Arizona” initiative). Social conservatives loved McCain for this, while moderates and liberals hated it (supporters of the initiative became known as “the McCain’backed bigots” in the minds of some).
The ballot initiative failed, and yet, in the process, McCain got labeled as a “social conservative” among many of the most liberal of Arizonans. Thus, when Mayor Phil Gordon endorsed McCain for president, the LBGT community of Phoenix felt a sense of betrayal.
So many details, and nuances, and different angles. They’re all a part of John McCain
John McCain with his most recent 65 percent American Conservative Union rating puts himself right in Arlen Specter territory, not Ronald Reagan country.
Include 2nd Amendment as well.
Bill’s dictionary
oxymoron:; noun “ahk-see-moe rahn”
1. two parts of a word or phrase that constitute diametric opposites.
2. John Mccain to conservative
So, I’ll take a “nuanced” position and state unequivically that I would never vote for Juan McCain, no matter what the crossdressers and the LGBT community thinks.
One of the favorite tactics of Congress & Senate Critters is to make soundbites in favor of ideas that they know full well haven’t a chance of making it into law and, in this way, they immunize themselves against criticism for not supporting one thing or another when it fails. In the same way, they can also argue, in retrospect and to an ‘anti’ lobby that they made a mistake or that they were forced to support some failed measure. In either event, pricipled, ocnsistent, service to the Republic is rarely evident. For true patriots, their principled service will show in a myriad of ways that may not capture headlines. Quite often, this would be work in critical commitees that kill bad initiatives long before they are ever considered on the floor or dismantling corrupt practices of past regimes (i.e., RAT rules and bulwarks erected to maintain RAT authority built up over nearly 70 years of Congressional control).
McCain has a career checkered with exactly this kind of high-profile wobbly fealty and nothing of the invisible and thankless acts of real conviction. Yes, we all know about his Vietnam service (Thank you, Mr. McCain), but his service then has nothing whatsoever to do with his acts now - that’s all one needs to know. The real proof of his underlying convictions would lie in the direction of what, exactly, he does accomplish. On that standard, by my lights, he only has his support of the war on terror (an issue separate from veteran support) and holding the line on taxation.
Even in this, not voting for new taxes, IMHO, is the weakest endorsement of his supposed Conservative principles. Cutting the living guts out of a bloated bureaucracy ought to be the benchmark and standard of real Conservatism - not putting the monster on a reduced calorie diet. To merely be against tax increase, in this day and age, is like offering advice on detering crime by leaving lights on and then crusading as a Judge Roy Bean law & order crime fighter. In all areas of his more legitimate claims, I find McCain weak with no real strength to demonstrate his “convictions.”
IMO, McCain will simply be the slower route to the modern socialist goals - and a wonderful ‘Republican’ in non-partisan RAT circles. He evidences no tendencies that I can see to actually support a resurgence of traditional American ideals, let alone cultivating a climate to increase Liberty. He is, in fact, the weakest man to send to do a job a true Patriot should be doing.
The alternative, of course, are rabid socialists bent on the destruction of America and all She stands for.
What a choice.
He’s dealing with a backlash from Phoenix’ “LBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and Tran gendered) community.”
Translation:
Queers and other perverts are upset that he has not yet endorsed government mandated adult lesbian and homosexual access to children for recreational sex or government mandated recognition and subsidies for abnormal and deviant sexual relationships.
Therefore he is labeled as a “social conservative”.
.
McCain-Feingold.
McCain-Kennedy.
McCain-Lieberman.
McCain-Kerry.
I don’t recall any such as these major pieces of legislation:
I don’t recall a McCain-Session
I don’t recall a McCain-DeWine
I don’t recall a McCain-Coburn
I don’t recall a McCain-Allen
I don’t recall a McCain-Santorum
McCain has a history of being more eager to work with those across the aisle than those on his side of the Senate.
Yep! That’s a Conservative all right!!!!!!!!!
What a bunch of idiots out there. So uninformed!
I’m a conservative from Phoenix and McCain is NOT someone I’d vote for again. And, after moving away from Az., I never thought I’d have to. McCain is “probably” better than Hillary or Obama, but that’s not saying very much. Besides, there’s no way to know which McCain he might be as President.
This just in, Ralph Nader is running! Now if Bloomberg comes in and gets Obama to run with him Independent. And Hillary is runnin Dem. And McCain RINO/RNC. We will pretty much have a full blown CIRCUS!
How about the Campaign Finance Reform aka McCain - Feingold - Thompson and the final version which was McCain - Feingold - Cochran
McShamesty is a RINORAT.
Or reality.
McCain’s stated argument against the “Bush tax cuts” was that, in his view, any reduction in tax revenues should be accompanied by a corresponding cut in federal spending.
An outright lie. His stated argument against the tax cuts was that they didn't soak the rich enough; it was pure class warfare at its worst. This kind of a lie calls the rest of the column into serious question.
But while I understand the “McCain pain” among many fiscal conservatives, I’m a little less understanding of the attitudes towards McCain emanating from many social conservatives. Throughout his career in public office, Mr. McCain has always been unapologetically “pro-life,” and has always insisted that “marriage” is defined as relationship between one man, and one woman.
He's completely in favor of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. That's a problem, and the author of course ignores it.
McCain further argued that, in any event, amending the constitution is very risky business, and should not be utilized by social conservatives as a political tactic, lest the Congress and the White House be taken over by the opposing party at some point in the future. This was during the late Spring of 2006; and McCain’s concerns proved to be valid, when, only a few months later in November of that year, the Democratic party won control of both the House and the Senate.
Does the author have any idea how the amendment process works?
So many details, and nuances, and different angles. They’re all a part of John McCain.
The author owes me a new keyboard; vomit and keyboards don't mix.
One would have thought so.
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.