Posted on 02/10/2008 5:52:17 AM PST by Brian Sears
Keyes talks about Romney's exit and McCain's record
Says McCain has put ‘knife in the back’ of conservative base
February 8, 2008
On Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes commented on Mitt Romney's decision to bow out of the presidential race, saying he never bought into the former Massachusetts governor's "whole phony business" of "reinventing himself" in contradiction of his record.
Keyes also addressed Romney's hand in instituting same-sex-marriage, repeating his charge that Romney pushed through same-sex marriage in Massachusetts without obligation or authority to do so, in violation of state law.
Keyes' remarks were made on KGNW's Thor Tolo show, which is based in Washington state.
Keyes also weighed in on Sen. John McCain's recent emergence in the presidential race, saying, "There's not a constituency of true conservatives that doesn't have one of John McCain's knives sticking out of [their] backs" — due to the senator's "determined effort to shut down true self-government in this country, so people can't organize, can't fundraise, can't associate, and can't communicate about the records of their representatives."
The former Assistant Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan called McCain's record an "assault" on conservatism and "a deadly blow against the possibility of self-government and constitutionalism." He added, "And we're just supposed to forget about it now and listen to his words . . . that he speaks to please and placate people, but I don't think people are that stupid. I really don't."
Keyes suggested that conservatives won't forget McCain's "work and record" when they go to the voting booth in the general election.
Asked if he personally would vote for McCain, Keyes said, "I'll just make it very clear: I'm not going to support John McCain, and that's just simply that."
Host Tolo led off the interview by raising the issue of Keyes' allegations that Romney forced same-sex marriage upon his state.
Said Tolo, "Alan Keyes believes that Mitt Romney single-handedly instituted same-sex marriage while governor of Massachusetts. . . . Keyes — who lobbied against that state's adoption of same-sex marriage 3½ years ago, when most people were unaware of the way Massachusetts had come to adopt same-sex marriage — believes that [the perception that] the state's Supreme Judicial Court [instituted same-sex marriage] is absolutely, positively a false perception."
Asked why this perception persists, Keyes said, "I think it persists because people don't actually look at what the court said in its decision."
Keyes noted that the court acknowledged it had no authority, under the state constitution, to change the law, and that when the legislature refused to comply with the court's directive to revise the law, "Mitt Romney, without any basis in the law, . . . ordered the justices of the peace to perform gay marriage, even though that order itself was unconstitutional and illegal."
As a result of Romney's public record, as well as the governor's lack of credibility in professing numerous changes of heart regarding his positions, Keyes said he couldn't support him for president.
Problem is, many have already made up their mind and are in a mode to look at whatever data and bend it to support their already arrived at conclusion, irrespective, IMHO, of what is there.
I do not believe Romney is pro-gay marriage in the least and that he fought it to the best of his knowledge and ability. Was he perfect? Are any of us? Answer to both is no. But did he try to fight it within what he honestly felt were the constraints of his office? I believe, yes.
Your article backs up my contention on several points:
The Declaration Alliance, a conservative, Washington-based group headed by former presidential hopeful Alan Keyes, began airing $40,000 worth of ads yesterday on Boston talk radio stations, challenging Romney to support an effort to replace the four Supreme Court justices whose Nov. 18 ruling legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts.Here we can see TWO things that back up my contention. First, the article clearly states that the ruling legalized gay marriage. And it does not include ANY quotes from the group opposing Romney which indicate they don't think the ruling legalized gay marriage.
In fact, what does the group want to do? Are they fighting Romney to ignore the ruling? To simply not enforce it?
No, they are calling for him to try to REPLACE THE JUDGES. Why would they take that step, if the ruling is meaningless? Why not just tell Romney to ignore the meaningless ruling?
The answer is that at the time, they DID agree that the court had legalized gay marriage, and felt the right course of action was to replace the judges with judges that would "correctly interpret" the constitution and NOT legalize gay marriage.
It wasn't until after the 180 days were up, and the ruling went into effect, that people started to argue that the ruling was meaningless.
No one. Not even the Court, or the Governor. What was ordered was that the JPs issue licenses in accordance to Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts code. That code says "the clerk or registrar shall deliver to the parties a certificate signed by him,..." [emphasis mine]. The Court had determined that "parties" eligible under Ch 207 included homosexuals.
Romney could not legally enforce this law for heterosexuals and not for homosexuals, unless other provisions of the 207 code was updated to exclude them from being eligible "parties". 207 only disqualifies blood relations, the already married, minors without permission, and out-of-state applicants avoiding the laws of their home states (originally due to interracial reasons).
He did Jeff, to the best of my knowledge. But the "bully pulpit" can only go so far....
Thanks to both of you for your kind words!
He did Jeff, to the best of my knowledge. But the "bully pulpit" can only go so far....
Thanks to both of you for your kind words!
oooooopppps!!!!! Sorry for the double post. :^(
I got my absentee ballot in Ohio. It has 6 names on it. McCain, Paul, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani.
If Ambassador Keyes were really running, he’d be on the ballot in Ohio.
Ambassador Keyes, a true committed conservative (except what’s the reparations thing?) hits it square on the head with his comments on both of these liberal phonies, and no matter how much spin anyone tries to employ to say otherwise, Keyes states exactly why conservatives and voters rejected Romney and why conservatives won’t back McCain.
While Mitt was supporting the slaughter of innocent pre-borns as governor of Massachusetts prior to his “miraculous” change of heart and while McCain was stabbing conservatives in the back at every turn possible, Alan Keyes was devoting his time to being a leading activist opposing the culture of death in our country. He is a man of integrity and passion who understands that the entire basis of conservatism is liberty and that there is no liberty without protecting life from conception to natural death. Neither of these two liberal yo-yos can match his commitment and integrity.
To agree with the conclusion you draw about what folks were urging Romney to do at the time seems to require pretending that the article I provided was a comprehensive discussion of all those urgings. To get a broader picture of what was being urged at the time, folks can listen to the audio of Keyes' Boston speech -- given the week before the article was published -- which as I mentioned, excoriated executive acquiescence to abusive judiciary. Keyes did provide alternative choice in that speech.
I don't claim that Romney was glad to be in the position of having to make the choice. That he did as much as he apparently thought wise is not in question.
If it were my state, I'd rather have a Governor who would have chosen not to acquiesce. That this matter has implications for who we want as president seems reasonable to me too.
I recall Alamo-Girl's excellent contribution to the Freeper community back in the impeachment days. Any disagreement with her here in no way diminishes my longstanding respect for her judgement and opinion. I also appreciate the enthusiasm and tenor you bring to the discussion.
I get the chance to vote for Alan Keyes tomorrow here in Maryland. I will do so because I think he'd be a better President than the other candidates. One reason is that he recognized executive acquiesence when he saw it in Massachusetts.
Me too, bmwcyle. Free Republic is sort of a microcosm of Conservative thought. Regrettably, the fact that we are so divided among ourselves this year is kind of a bellwether of the divisions in the wider public.
But as Ben Franklin put it, if we don't hang together, then certainly we shall hang separately.
It's time to put our "egos" aside and start working together again. It may be too late to do anything about the presidential contest. But there are plenty of conservative Congressional and Senatorial candidates out there who will desperately need our help this year. And we NEED to get our senators elected if we are going to hold the line against liberal court appointments, among other reasons....
We had better get pretty busy, pretty soon.
Just my two cents' worth, FWIW.
I share your frustration, bmwcyle -- as do many others around here. Thank you so much for writing!
Well, only sort of sort of, methinks.
FR is weighted IMHO heavily toward economy-first conservatives with a "rugged individualist" political worldview -- those who believe their personal bank accounts and portfolios are the most important issue.
Then probably comes national defense and sovereignty.
Then probably comes constitutional originalism.
Only after that, I believe, comes the most foundational and important issue: "that all men are created equal -- that we are endowed by our Creator with... the Right to Life," etc.
I have made a point to thank posts that either set a standard or distract from the crap.
If I saw someone in an alley holding a gun to someone's head, about to pull the trigger, I would be right to kill that person on the spot to save an innocent life.
If someone told you that they would kill an innocent child at a specific time and place, you would certainly show up at that time and place, and if it were true, would kill the evil man who was going to kill the innocent child.
So if you have not personally shown up at an abortion clinic, were you know for a fact that an innocent child is going to be brutally murdered, and walked into that building, and finding the evil man poised to commit murder, killed him, then you too have innocent blood on your hands.
In other words, you smear about "innocent blood on hands", is absurd.
All of us have the blood of innocents on our hands. Romney no more than the rest of us who KNOW what is happening and have done nothing of real consequence.
Oh, except that we convinced a man who could win for president to RUN FOR OFFICE, and to support life, and to promise to appoint judges who would overturn Roe. Except some pro-lifers attacked that man, smeared him with the "blood of innocents" crap, and maybe have contributed to 40 more years of abortion if a democrat wins the election.
Maybe THOSE people have the blood of innocents on their hands.
If you succeeded in getting Keyes as our nominee, only to have him fail miserably as he would in the general election, then maybe you would have the blood of innocents on your hands, since there were other candidates who would have WON and would have put the right judges on the court, but you rejected them and instead picked a man who could not win, thus giving the white house to pro-abortion democrats.
See, it is much easier to just spout off about "blood of innocents" than it is to actually reason and do what is right.
Alan Keyes is not on the ballot in Virginia, so I could not vote for him even if I were so inclined, which I am not.
Let me sharpen my last post here, just a little:
As with many self-described “conservatives,” it would seem, that word in their minds equates with the dominant greed in their hearts. It’s about “looking out for number one,” for many, many Republicans (and most of the rest of Americans).
And that, I observe, is the predominant reason for the strong antipathy against an uppity Christian conservative with his priorities in the right place, in FR and elsewhere.
Huckabee is not a conservative:
... Huckster is no savior for conservatives. He is perhaps less annoying than McCain, but in other ways he is even less conservative (eg fiscally, he’s a big govt nanny-state type, while McCain is a small govt nanny-state type). On balance, conservatives might prefer the RINO who can win, since Huckabee is danged near unelectable.
....
Plenty of reasons to run screaming away from the Huckster.
There are 9 reasons (with sources and citations to prove it) why Huckabee is a terrible choice, perhaps the worst choice, in the nomination race:
1. Soft-on-crime Governor who went on a pardon/commutation spree
2. Pro-instate-tuition for illegal aliens and for other giveaways - his record on immigration stinks
3. Fiscal liberal Tax-and-spender as Governor
4. Dissembled about his record when challenged
5. Not a conservative, hurt conservatives in Ark.
6. Ethics issues, taking public money for private use
7. Flipflopper, on immigration, Cuba and other issues
8. An incompetent Jimmy Carteresque boob on foreign policy
9. Will get beaten easily by the Democrats
Of the front runner candidates, Huckabee is the worst for many different reasons:
1. Soft-on-crime, paroled violent criminals like he was God ...
http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2007/12/huckabee-was-commutation-and-pardon.html
http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_07_21_04/huckabee5.html
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Questions+remain+about+rapist-turned-murderer&articleId=8ca3c723-a927-4f5f-83ab-a5d2780e7911
Here’s more stuff the liberals have on him and will use at their convenience (and our inconvenience) - the pleas from the Dumond victims to please not release Dumond the rapist:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/10/new-documents-revealed-in_n_76186.html
Huckabee’s Willie Hortons:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/12/huckabees-willie-hortons.html
2. Soft-on-illegals, giving in-state tuition for illegals was his “Jesus juice” ... HIS RECORD ON IMMIGRATION STINKS ...
Mike Huckabee disses Americans, Mexicans, promotes illegal immigration: http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/005609.html
While Gov. of Arkansas, Huckabee was AGAINST proving citizenship in order to register to vote. He called those who were in favor of this “racists”... http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050218/news_lz1e18perkins.html
Huckabee has personally attacks advocates for a bill he disagreed with as “unAmerican” and “unChristian”.
Huckabee fought hard to kill an Arkansas bill which would have cut off social services for illegal aliens. Huckabee called the bill, “anti-Christian” and “un-American”... http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/01/28/News/316347.html
“Even if benefits to people who are in the U.S illegally could be stopped, “I don’t understand how a practicing Christian can turn his back on a child from this or any other state,” Huckabee said.”
Huckabee supported in-state tuition for illegal aliens... http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/03/11/News/318458.html
Huckabee’s ‘drank different Jesus juice’ in opposition to the illegal aliens bill: http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000718.html
“Huckabee, also a Republican and a Baptist minister, said Arkansans should be welcoming hard-working immigrants of all races. He singled out Holt, who often talks of his strong Christian beliefs, saying, “I drink a different kind of Jesus juice.”
Wallace interview on Fox, Huckster flipflops back to pro-amnesty:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316253,00.html
3. Huckster was and is a tax-and-spend-aholic:
According to the Democrat-Gazette, “the average Arkansan’s tax burden grew from $1,969 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 1997, to $2,902 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005, including local taxes,” a whopping tax increase of 47% under Huckabee’s tenure. Tax legislation passed while Huckabee was governor totaled “a net tax increase of $505 million, a figure adjusted for inflation and economic growth,” according to the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration.
In February of 2004, Huckabee joined with two other Democratic governors in urging Congress to reject a bill that would make the Internet access tax moratorium permanent and embrace a temporary two-year extension of the ban instead.
Every two years, the Cato Institute grades the 50 governors on fiscal stewardship. Here’s last year’s assessment of Tax Hike Mike [emphasis added]:
Thanks to a final term grade of F, Huckabee earns an overall grade of D for his entire governorship. Like many Republicans, his grades dropped the longer he stayed in office. In his first few years, he fought hard for a sweeping $70 million tax cut package that was the first broad-based tax cut in the state in more than 20 years. He even signed a bill to cut the state’s 6 percent capital gains tax—a significant pro-growth accomplishment. But nine days after being reelected in 2002, he proposed a sales tax increase to cover a budget deficit caused partly by large spending increases that he proposed and approved, including an expansion in Medicare eligibility that Huckabee made a centerpiece of his 1997 agenda. He agreed to a 3 percent income tax “surcharge” and a 25-cent cigarette tax increase. In response to a court order to increase spending on education, Huckabee proposed another sales tax increase.
http://taxhikemike.org
Just because Huck talks a good talk doesn’t make this tax-and-spender a real conservative. Huckabee’s record is one of a tax-and-spend liberal.
“One of the governor’s biggest weaknesses is his record in Arkansas. While Huckabee did cut taxes during the early years of his tenure, the fact remains that he had a net tax increase under his watch, and the increase in Government size is terrifying. 21 tax increases went into effect, increasing tax revenue by almost $890 million under Governor Huckabee. These increases include the income tax, the sales tax, a cigarette tax, and a gas tax. Not only did he raise taxes, spending “more than doubled under Huckabee. “During Huckabee’s 10 years as governor, state spending more than doubled, from $6.6 billion to $16.1 billion in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.” There was an increase in state spending of over 65% during his tenure, and the size of the government increased by 20%. According to the Americans for Tax Reform, the states general obligation debt went up by “almost one billion dollars.” Arkansas state tax burden was at 9.8% when Bill Clinton left office in 1992. Under Huckabee, it was at 11.1%, reaching the rank of one of the top fifteen state tax burdens.”
Huck is simply NOT a fiscal conservative at all. His record on taxes is abysmal.
http://taxhikemike.org/
4. When challenged on points #1, #2 and #3, Mike Huckabee and campaign have lied and dissembled on his real record.
Example: He claimed falsely that the Ark supreme court forced a tax increase when they did not; his explanations about the Dumond case are contradicted by the evidence; he has played the ‘amnesty isn’t amnesty’ game on immigration.
5. IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE
“[Huckabee] has zero intellectual underpinnings in the conservative movement,” says Blant Hurt, a former part owner of, and columnist for, Arkansas Business magazine. “He’s hostile to free trade, hiked sales and grocery taxes, backed sales taxes on Internet purchases, and presided over state spending going up more than twice the inflation rate.”
Randy Minton, chairman of the Arkansas chapter of Phyllis Schlafly’s national Eagle Forum, said, “We called him a pro-life, pro-gun liberal, when I was in the state legislature and he was governor.” Phyllis Schlafly herself was even more direct.
President and Founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, said this about Governor Huckabee: “He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles.”
6. Lousy ethics.
http://therealmikehuckabee.blogspot.com/
Soliciting gifts from public: “Gov. Mike Huckabee and his wife, Janet, are registered for home furnishing gifts at Target and Dillard’s department stores as they prepare to leave the Governor’s Mansion in January and move into a house they recently purchased in North Little Rock. “
Even more on Huck’s hand-in-cookie-jar and using-public-money-for-private-purpose ethics issues here:
http://realmikehuckabee.blogspot.com/
http://realmikehuckabee.blogspot.com/2007/12/meet-huckster-san-diego-union-tribune.html
Over the years, Huckabee has:
-Used campaign funds to pay himself $14,000 for being his own media consultant.
-Used campaign funds to pay himself $43,000 for use of his private plane while attempting to hide what the payment was actually in return for.
-Used an account set up to cover operational costs of the governor’s mansion to pay such obviously personal expenses as fast-food and dry-cleaning bills.
-Set up a nonprofit organization that paid him $23,500 without disclosing the source of the money.
-Attempted to take $70,000 of furniture with him when moving out of the governor’s mansion.
-Took more than 130 gifts worth more than $300,000 – while suing to overturn a law that made him disclose the gifts. “
File this under: “Will be used by Hillary two weeks before the election”.
7. FLIPFLOPPER - flip-flopper on immigration and other issues ...
POWERS: “And another issue that’s come up is that you had previously been lobbying President Bush to lift the embargo on Cuba. And then in a recent debate said the opposite. What changed?”
HUCKABEE: “What changed was I’m running for president.”
Huckabee does a flipflop
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-huckabee11dec11,0,7354822.story?coll=la-tot-topstories&track=ntothtml
8. On foreign policy, he’s an ignorant boob.
Huck is completely ignorant on foreign policy, and when he gabs about it, he sounds like Jimmy Carter. He will be a disaster, and closing Gitmo and stopping waterboarding (which today’s report indicates actually worked and saved lives) is not the toughness we need:
“This is the kernel of Huckabee’s foreign policy. He wants to anthropomorphize international relations and bring a Christian commitment to the Golden Rule to our affairs with other nations. As he told the Des Moines Register the other day, “You treat others the way you’d like to be treated. That’s to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries.”
This is deeply naïve. Countries aren’t people, and the world is more dangerous than a Sunday church social. Threats, deception, and — as a last resort — violence must play a role in international relations. Differences cannot always be worked out through sweet persuasion. A U.S. president who doesn’t realize this will repeat the experience of President Jimmy Carter at his most ineffectual.”
9. HE WILL LOSE TO HILLARY. BADLY.
http://drudgereport.com/flashhu.htm
DEMS HOLD FIRE ON HUCKABEE; SEE ‘EASY KILL’ IN GENERAL ELECTION
Tue Dec 11 2007 10:27:53 ET
**Exclusive**
Democrat party officials are avoiding any and all criticism of Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, insiders reveal.
The Democratic National Committee has told staffers to hold all fire, until he secures the party’s nomination.
The directive has come down from the highest levels within the party, according to a top source.
Within the DNC, Huckabee is known as the “glass jaw — and they’re just waiting to break it.”
In the last three weeks since Huckabee’s surge kicked in, the DNC hasn’t released a single press release criticizing his rising candidacy.
The last DNC press release critical of Huckabee appeared back on March 2nd.
[DNC Press Release Attack Summary:
Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) – 37% (99 press releases)
Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) – 28% (74)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) – 24% (64)
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) – 8% (20)
Governor Mike Huckabee – 2% (4)]
In fact, as the story broke over the weekend that Huckabee said he wanted to isolate AIDS patients back in 1992, the DNC ignored the opportunity to slam the candidate from the left.
“He’ll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill,” mocked one senior Democrat operative Tuesday morning from Washington.
“His letting out murderers because they shout ‘Jesus’, his wanting to put 300,000 AIDS patients and Magic Johnson into isolation, ain’t even scratching the surface of what we’ve got on him.”
The discipline the Democrats have shown in not engaging Huckabee has earned the praise of one former Republican Party official:
“The Democrats are doing a much better job restraining themselves than the GOP did in 2003 when Howard Dean looked like he was on the brink of winning the nomination.”
Huckabee’s got all the warning signs of an electoral disaster waiting to happen.
Liberal Columnists Heap Praise on the Huckster (Conservatives Beware!)
http://realmikehuckabee.blogspot.com/
Bill Clinton + Jimmuh Carter + Pat Robertson + Barack Obama + Gomer Pyle = Mike Huckabee
12/14/2007 10:14:00 AM
Anonymous said...
What does it matter that the Huckster says he is a good Christian and pro-life when Huckabee will turn the U.S,. into a socialist state where we will all be starving?
Huckabee Begs For New Taxes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pLOC4krZI4
Huckabee Caught Lying About His Tax Hikes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYrGlfkvRV0&feature=related
Huckabee is a pro-illegal, pro-Amnesty, tax raising, big government loving, socialist/liberal, violent criminal pardoning, terrorist appeasing, false prophet. In other words Huckabee is really a Democrat.
Under no circumstances will I ever vote for this liberal/communist con man.
The Huckster Huckabee or Hillary will let in hundreds of millions of 3rd world socialist illegals.
The Huckster or Hillary will surrender to Iran and let Iran build a nuclear arsenal.
The Huckster or Hillary will raise taxes and increase the size of government putting the U.S. on the road to socialism which will destroy our way of life, destroy our economy, destroy our civilization.
If you think I’m exaggerating look at Huckabee’s record and into the dangers of socialism.
But hey , the idiot Huckster lies and says he is pro-life so that makes all of this ok huh?
Mike Huckabee disses Americans, Mexicans, promotes illegal immigration
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/005609.html
Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071102.html
While Gov. of Arkansas, Huckabee was AGAINST proving citizenship in order to register to vote. He called those who were in favor of this “racists”..
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050218/news_lz1e18perkins.html
Huckabee fought hard to kill an Arkansas bill which would have cut off social services for illegal aliens. Huckabee called the bill, “anti-Christian” and “un-American”...
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/01/28/News/316347.html
Huckabee supported in-state tuition for illegal aliens...
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/03/11/News/318458.html
Huckabee’s opposition to the illegal aliens bill:
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000718.html
Very well said, as always, betty. And I share your disgust at the choice it appears we will face in November.
You wrote in a recent post, If you can find anything "principled" about John McCain's public record, I'd gladly welcome examples. He is called a "maverick." In my book, looking at his record, in context, "maverick" is a euphemism for "traitor" -- to his party and ultimately to the national interest.
I, too, can’t help but keep noticing the way the media insist on referring to McCain as a 'maverick'. The term used to have a courageous, trail-blazing connotation, but the media seem bound and determined to equate it with betrayal of the principles with which one wants to be associated.
This ‘maverick’ (even Bret and Bart would hang their heads in shame) allied himself with Ted Kennedy on phony immigration reform, with Russ Feingold on major attempts to shackle free speech (at least where the average citizen is concerned), with John Edwards in an effort to expand the already bloated and toxic reasons for frivolous litigation on the so-called ‘Patients’ Bill of Rights’, and again with Lieberman in an attempt to allow congress to severely regulate American industries’ greenhouse gas emissions. No genuine conservative would ever align himself with, let alone serve as the author of, any of those unconstitutional, anti-liberty monstrosities.
Not only is he a leftist in conservative clothing, but he attempts to crucify any real conservative who questions his motives or tactics, by slapping unflattering labels on his opponents, or by simply closing down debate.
McCain isn’t a maverick. He’s a democrat.
Someone posted to me today in response to a recent post of my own, So you would prefer to see Hillary or Obama take over and surrender to Al Qaeda rather than vote for McCain?
There are many here on FreeRepublic, and most across the width and breadth of America, who cannot comprehend that there is a threat, every bit as toxic as that posed by Al Qaeda, simmering within our own borders, taking form among the ruling elite in our nation’s capital.
Do I want to see Al Qaeda’s brutality and hatred dismembered and expunged from the face of the earth? Absolutely!
Do I want to cast a vote agreeing to elect as the leader of the free world a man who deals in deception, and who enthusiastically supports (even authors) abominable legislation whose sole purpose is to:
(1) threaten free speech
(2) allow – even encourage -- the continued invasion of our republic by foreign criminals, the end result of which will be the incremental death of American sovereignty
(3) increase the already toxic power of special interest groups
(4) greatly expand the already bloated, repressive power of the federal bureaucracy ...
... simply because he has been vocal in support of the war on Islamic fascism? No!
McCain's record on the domestic front is that of an anti-Constitutionalist, elitist fraud. His record of integrity and honesty is dubious, at best. And his one area of ‘strength’ might well evolve into just another policy that will be ‘re-thought’, once his fellow democrats apply pressure on him to abandon our efforts in the Middle East.
The ability to engender trust is the most crucial characteristic of a leader of a free people, and in that all-important pre-requisite John McCain is running on empty.
~ joanie
Allegiance and Duty Betrayed
McCain's record on the domestic front is that of an anti-Constitutionalist, elitist fraud. His record of integrity and honesty is dubious, at best. And his one area of ‘strength’ might well evolve into just another policy that will be ‘re-thought’, once his fellow democrats apply pressure on him to abandon our efforts in the Middle East.As usual, I couldn't have said it better or agree more. McCain is no conservative, no leader, and no man I want voted into office of any kind, most especially, the highest office of the land.The ability to engender trust is the most crucial characteristic of a leader of a free people, and in that all-important pre-requisite John McCain is running on empty.
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.