Skip to comments.Can't Touch This: McCain does not act like a true conservative
Posted on 03/02/2008 10:58:52 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Its no secret that John McCain is disliked in conservative circles. Whether it is because of his pro-amnesty stance on illegal immigration, his reputed hotheaded temper when dealing with interns and staffers or the medias unexplainable fetish for covering the travels of the McCain Straight Talk Express bus, McCain has a definite problem proving to conservatives that he is one of them. The thing is, though, if you have to remind and prove to people that youre a conservative (or a liberal, for that matter), youre probably not one.
However, for one Cincinnati radio commentator, the final nail in the Straight Talk Expresss tire came last week. Enter Bill Cunningham, host of WLW 700s The Big Show with Bill Cunningham, on the AM dial. Cunningham, along with former Cincinnati-area Congressman Robert Portman, opened for McCains campaign stop in the Queen City last Tuesday. Cunningham, in a horrible act of insensitivity, said Obamas full name! Oh, my stars and garters. He called Obama Barack Hussein Obama instead of Barack Obama or, as it seems Democrats have taken to calling him, Messiah. As if that was not enough reason for Cunningham to commit hari-kari right then and there, he then went on to say that the media needs to stop coddling Obama and start to peel the bark off of him.
As soon as McCain left the stage, he spoke with his favorite supporters, the national media. In a move that did Casca and Cassius the prototypical back-stabbers from Shakespeares Julius Caesar proud, McCain denounced Cunningham, and assured the media that he had nothing but warm, fuzzy feelings for Senator Obama. Is this what someone who is trying to convince conservatives that he is one of them would do? Does John McCain even care about the fact that he needs the conservative Republican vote in order to win the election? Let me shake my Magic Eight Ball of Politics here Well, the answer it gave is all signs point to no. For both questions.
Really, it seems like the only issue on which McCain is conservative is the war in Iraq. He likes to call himself one of the foot soldiers in the Reagan Revolution, but what would the Gipper think of the McCain-Feingold laws restriction of political speech? Would Reagan applaud McCains global warming fear-mongering bill, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act? How about McCains calculated opposition to President Bush that changed as soon as it became politically advantageous? Its things like this that make me wonder if McCain is an escapee from a mirror universe, one where conservatives are buddy-buddy with flaming liberals such as Obama and Clinton, the most widely recognized leader of the conservative movement would have liked cap-and-trade carbon credits and draconian arbitrary restrictions on political speech, and straight talk means saying whatever the audience wants to hear. If McCain ever decides to grow a beard, Ill be convinced that McCain is an evil mirror double. For now, however, itll have to remain a pet theory of mine.
John McCains strategy appears to go along the lines of Im going to win the Republican vote without getting the conservative vote. By constantly shifting his views with the tricky, fickle Independent winds, McCain is pinning his hopes on gaining more votes from the unwashed unaffiliated masses than hes lost from the conservative base. In essence, hes hoping to rob Peter to pay Paul. This is a bad strategy, one that may have worked in past years, but one that definitely wont fly in a race against the Democratic rock star, Barack No Middle Name Here Obama.
“even though that’s not the case, that’s good enough for me. I’m not going to abandon the troops just because McCain didn’t vote for every single tax cut.”
I will never forget, nor forgive the democrats betrayal of our troops on the battlefield.
And Obama chills me to the bone how far he will go to lower our defenses.
Funny how you McAmnesty supporters are so sure all the troops agree with you on McAmnesty.
Your Translation: I'm not going to abandon the troops just because McCain didn't vote for every single tax cut.
Reading Is FUNdamental!
“Funny how you McAmnesty supporters are so sure all the troops agree with you on McAmnesty.”
Who backstabbed them during this war?
Donald Rumsfeld might disagree.
but mccain also wants to
-balance the budget
-reform entitlements including social security, replacing it with private accounts
-abolish all corporate welfare
-is in favor of school choice
-wants a new tax code that you can fill out on a postcard
-wants to repeal the DC gun ban
- wants conservative judges like John Roberts on the SC
I care about all those things and I know I’m not going to get anything from Obama or Hillary.
well we know wesley clark supports hillary but...
Who are you voting for?
well we know wesley clark supports hillary's butt...
And you support McCains.
and you support...?
Conservatives for Senate and the House; either a write-in for the top slot, or else simply leave it blank altogether.
Ballots cast during any given election are not -- the huffy, red-faced insistings of McCain apologists notwithstanding -- fungible. Definition via link provided merely as a courtesy, in order to forestall the inevitable any-vote-for-anyone-not-named-McCain-is-really-just-a-vote-for-Hillary/Obama/Satan imbecility. You're welcome.
oh he hurt poor bill’s feeeeeelings. boo hoo. so sad.
I’m voting down ticket. To hell with rinos.
Nothing new for Johnnie, he’s never met a conservative he hasn’t stabbed.!
saying it won’t make it so. You didn’t cancel out the vote for the democrat therefore you are making it easier for the democrat to win.
The democrats understand this which is why they don’t like Nader at all even if nader voters may vote for other democrats down the ticket. They will even vote for an old shoe if that’s what it takes to get a democrat in the white house.
if that is called “stabbed” then bill needs to grow a thicker skin.
We all do, for we know psychotic Johnnie’s backstabbings will only continue..........
saying it wont make it so.
Either you are incapable of comprehending the comparatively simple "fungible," or else you simply prefer making up your own word definitions on the fly.
Massive Fail, either way.
yes I know what it means. It doesn’t apply to voting.
I have to add what does it matter how how any President treats the troops if he gives away the store back home ( amnesty ).
Who backstabbed the troops on Gitmo and waterboarding and leaving the southern border wide open during wartime?
Who is going to make their vote meaningless by destroying the two party system?
well in 2000 we had the same choice but republicans voted for Bush who broke the balanced budget, came up with a new medicare entitlement instead of fixing it and the last time I saw him, he was dancing with Africans who were happy that he gave them billions of taxpayer dollars. The dollar is now at record lows and Moody’s is threatening to lower the credit rating on US debt.
I’d rather have my back stabbed than my wallet.
So hand it over to Obama right?
If Obama was more conservative than mcCain on even one issue then I could understand why someone would not support mccain if that issue was very important to them.
well now your thinking rationally,
Can’t have that during a nice McCain bashing thread.
How about your right to free political expression?
The loss of the nation's sovereignty over its own borders?
The breakdown of the rule of law?
The invasion of America by tens of millions of foreign nationals, and that action being rewarded with the precious gift of American citizenship?
And, if you don't think those things are going to hit your pocketbook, you're being willfully blind.
Well when you republicans jump on his bandwagon when he is courting Democrats right in front of you there is no need for McCain to reach out to conservatives.
Ah, there he goes again—The Lesser of Two Evils ari! Hi ari. How’s it goin’? How are the numbers, ari? Still at 62% of Freepers for McLame?
Why are you here trying to convince us? You’ve already said that McCain will have more than enough moderates to make up the difference and win the election. What is the point?
so...when he is president we can oppose him on those specific issues. We did that with Bush. He was for the same bill and that didn’t stop conservatives from supporting him on the war and other things where we agree.
if Obama was strong on illegals you’d have a point. but he would be worse on illegals and everything else.
Your second sentence proves the first one a lie. Now you're simply embarrassing yourself, really.
For ballots in any given election to be genuinely fungible -- pay close attention, now; can't grasp anything as inarguable and baseline obvious as this, first time out of the chute, and I'm simply going to steer you right back towards the shallow end of the pool, along with the other kids -- they'd need to be, each and every blessed one of 'em, the "rightful" "property" of one (or more) of the nominees in question, prior to their being cast, in the first place. There would be votes that were already "rightfully" McCain's (let's say), prior to their being cast, simply because he had a large-but-inherently-meaningless capital letter "R" next to his name on the ballot. Anyone casting one of those votes for anyone other than McCain would, in essence, be stealing from him, as "fungible" automatically implies ownership, or the possibility of same (duh).
In the real world, however, of course: no voting adult "owes" his or her ballot to any given candidate(s), solely on the basis of party, or past votes cast. (Again: duh.) This is not a land of kings, and we (much as Juan McCain and his most ardent apologists might mulishly wish otherwise) are not yet serfs, obliged to show fealty to our self-annointed, self-appointed feudal lords. Each and every single, last ballot vast on behalf of any given candidate must, irrefutably -- like a job's wages; like a credit rating; like a decent reputation among one's peers -- be, instead, be e-a-r-n-e-d.
Grasp that much, at barest minimum, and we might yet continue profitably from there. Failing that: I am normally (and rightfully) paid for providing tutorials of this sort. FReep mail me for a rates list, if you're interested.
OH I am under no delusion of convincing hardcore McCain haters that staying home and letting Obama win is a bad idea.
But to other readers here, it will make sense.
I’ve edited your quote so that it now tries to look like a logical argument:
For ballots in any given election to be genuinely fungible they’d need to be, the “rightful” “property” of one (or more) of the nominees in question, prior to their being cast, in the first place. There would be votes that were already “rightfully” McCain’s (let’s say), prior to their being cast, simply because he had a capital letter “R” next to his name on the ballot. Anyone casting one of those votes for anyone other than McCain would, in essence, be stealing from him, as “fungible” automatically implies ownership, or the possibility of same.
In the real world, however, of course: no voting adult “owes” his or her ballot to any given candidate(s), solely on the basis of party, or past votes cast. This is not a land of kings, and we are not yet serfs, obliged to show fealty to our self-annointed, self-appointed feudal lords. Each and every single, last ballot vast on behalf of any given candidate must, irrefutably — like a job’s wages; like a credit rating; like a decent reputation among one’s peers — be, instead, be earned.
You are correct that a vote must be earned but there are only 2 choices. Either McCain wins or the democrat wins. What matters is the result. There is no choice called “both not win.” If that was the case, then not voting for mccain would not help the democrat. But since the democrats will vote for the democrat and you won’t counter that vote, your not voting helps the democrat win, de facto even if not de jure. The practical result is still the same.
I'm fast starting to believe the McCainophobes have become neonihilists.
they would probably have to argue that McCain is just as bad as Obama or Hillary.
If Hillary ran against Obama (and no 3rd option) in the general election then would you vote for Hillary? I would find it hard to vote for either one of them. In that case, I would probably consider moving to another country.
McCain got just what McCain-Feingold was planned to accomplish - empowering the media to pick our candidates. Sure enough, they picked McCain, who has sucked up to every liberal media outlet in the country for years and years. With 20-20 hindsight, it’s all to obvious that this HIS strategy to get to the White House. You McCainiacs are supporting a guy who knowingly crippled the ability of ALL of us to speak politically in public, for his personal benefit and IMHO nothing else. Other than his appearance, the man bears a striking resemblance to Vladimir Putin to me. Insulting Bill Cunningham just adds to the mountain of evidence. Like other posters here, I’m concentrating my money and my support down-ballot. The national party will get not a groat.
U need to ask....If your wife stepped out with your brother..would it be ok with u cause he’s part of the “family”???
It (demonstrably) already was; instead, you've merely succeeded in clumsily making a hash of things. Congratulations, of course, if such was your actual intention; if not, then you'd be materially better off leaving such matters to those of us as have concretely evidenced day-to-day competence in doing so for a living. Observe:
You are correct that a vote must be earned but there are only 2 choices. Either McCain wins or the democrat wins. What matters is the result. There is no choice called both not win. If that was the case, then not voting for mccain would not help the democrat. But since the democrats will vote for the democrat and you wont counter that vote, your not voting helps the democrat win, de facto even if not de jure. The practical result is still the same.
In order to lecture or admonish authoritatively, re: "logical arguments," it's rather helpful to be able, first, to credibly advance one of one's own. What you have jury-rigged, above, does not even remotely meet the minimum requirements for same, as:
1.) You fail to acknowledge your own (increasingly painfully apparent) inability to wrestle successfully with the concept of fungibility. Instead, you merely restate, obdurately: "But since the democrats will vote for the democrat and you wont counter that vote, your not voting helps the democrat win" (are you an ESL student, incidentally?) -- thereby simply re-demonstrating once again that, all huffed protestations and indignant arm-wavings aside, you still patently believe that there are somehow mysterious, phantom "votes" out there "rightfully" the property of either one candidate or the other (!!!).
Incredible. Simply incredible.
Once more, solely out of charity, and then never again: any ballot not cast on behalf of Candidate "A" does not, magically, transform itself into a ghostly ballot on behalf of Candidate "B." To believe otherwise is not one whit or jot different from a similarly sincerely held belief in the corporeal existence of unicorns, the Great Pumpkin, or Narnia; and, in all honesty, forevermore brands one as someone who, really and truly, probably shouldn't be allowed to vote for anything more lasting or significant than the position of Home Room Monitor, in any event. Whether or not you opt to continue publicly self-identifying as such, from this point forward, is your own lookout, of course.
2.) You hamfistedly attempt to distract with a straw man argument, and are caaught doing so. Not having ever once advanced your cobbled-up argument that "there is a choice called 'both not win'" (your own words) myself, you automatically cede all credibility in splutteringly attempting to remonstrate otherwise. That's a hard core leftist rhetorical habit, that is; you'll want to watch that, in the future, and restrain yourself simply to what's actually spoken (or typed), the way honest men do.
By all means, do avail yourself of the last word, if you like. I've taken your measure, and found it wanting; unless and/or until you eventually offer up anything better, you're dismissed.
I suspect that -- sadly; ultimately -- there are no means by which I might conceivably render such concepts simple enough for the shill(s) in question, FRiend... but, as salve to my own conscience: I made the one brave (and, most likely, doomed) effort to which simple courtesy obligated me. ;)
Theres your first mistake...You ASSUME that all Dems will vote for Osama....
But.....just like the conservative (R)’s not voting for McCain...there is a big faction of elitist Clinton (D)’s that will not vote for a black man in the privacy of the voting booth....I know lots of ‘em!!!....They don't mind them on the plantation..but they damned sure would never let them run it!!!
Bashing! Who's bashing?
The troops issue is the only reason to even consider voting for McCain. I had said I wouldnt vote for McCain and I wont unless I can be convinced our country/troops will be in great danger.
My point is conservatives cannot keep fighting a two front war...against the RATS and turn coat RINOs. Conservatives can recover from Obama. Maybe a landslide in 2010 as in 94?
McCain amended the heart out of the statute. For example, the 1995 version required a unit commander to report to his theater commander within two days that a person was missing and describe what rescue and recovery efforts were underway. The McCain amendments allowed 10 days to pass before a report had to be made.
In the 1995 act, the theater commander, after receiving the MIA report, would have 14 days to report to his Cabinet secretary in Washington. His report had to "certify" that all necessary actions were being taken and all appropriate assets were being used "to resolve the status of the missing person." This section was stricken from the act, replaced with language that made the Cabinet secretary, not the theater commander, the recipient of the report from the field. All the certification requirements also were stricken. 'Turn commanders into clerks' "This," said a McCain memo, "transfers the bureaucracy involved out of the field to Washington." He argued that the original legislation, if left intact, "would accomplish nothing but create new jobs for lawyers and turn military commanders into clerks."
In response, the backers of the original statute cited the Pentagon's stained record on MIA's and argued that military history had shown that speed of action is critical to the chances of recovering a missing man. Moving "the bureaucracy" to Washington, they said, was merely a way to sweep the issue under a rug.
Chilling effect cited
One final evisceration in the law was McCain's removal of all its enforcement teeth. The original act provided for criminal penalties for anyone, such as military bureaucrats in Washington, who destroy or cover up or withhold from families any information about a missing man. McCain erased this part of the law. He said the penalties would have a chilling effect on the Pentagon's ability to recruit personnel for its POW/MIA office.
Yes I remember that.....thanks for posting it.