McCain and Taxes

McPain needs to get strronger on taxes.

You will criticize anything, so long as you can take a shot at the Republican presidential candidate, won’t you?

I’m a conservative. Do you think McCain is a conservative?

McCain is against raising taxes, and for cutting taxes.
He is pro-victory in Iraq.
He is pro-life.
He is pro-trade.
He is for reducing government spending.

That sounds pretty conservative to me.
I take it you think Obama is more conservative?

The Senator needs to understand that he can't win this election by playing on this economic turf.

I'm by no means a fan of McCain, but the WSJ needs to stuff it. The man's been winning elections since before the author was born, more than likely.

And spending, McCain should polish his budget hawk resume and do some educatin’ about why tax cuts and reigned in spending works...everytime it is tried..

If and when McPain gets into the WH, he will make Bush look like Barry Goldwater. Mark my words.

McCain is the worst candidate in the world, except for all the others. For every good thing you can say about him, I can give you two negatives. But as a wise Sec Def once said, “You go to the election with the candidate you have.”

When has federal spending been reined (not “reigned”) in? You say it's been tried. I don't recall when it's ever been tried. I don't recall federal spending ever going down.

You didn’t answer my question.
Why do you think Obama would be a better president than McCain?

Of course not. You need to read up on logic and logical fallacies, my friend.

Yep. He needs to go “slash and burn” on taxation, in a manner reminiscent of Ghenghis- sorry, ‘Jinjiss’ Khan- and maybe then I’ll vote for him.

Supporting the Fair Tax and abolition of the income tax would be a good start.

I don’t vote for liberals. What do you suggest I do?

Too bad McCains ACU rating put him about 47th in the Senate for 2006...

Whats to criticize? McCain is a sanctimonious brown nosing - backstabbing weasel. You have to respect that in a man. He's got my vote.

Mark Levin had a great analysis this week, noting how McCain will screw us. McCain figures Republicans have no other choice but to vote for him. So he plans to suck up to more liberal voters and independents. This election will become a battle between liberals.

McCain is against raising taxes, and for cutting taxes.

McPain is one of the reasons the Bush tax cuts weren't made permanent from the start. He's one of the reasons the cuts will sunset unless extended. And even with the sunset provisions, McPain voted against the Bush tax cuts.

During the Clinton years spending was controlled.

The fact is as long as the poor states are controlled by the Fiscally Conservative GOP, we will never control our spending. Mississippi, Arkansas, the midwest are all various forms of parasites sucking the hard work and creativity from NY and California. Even if we could elect conservatives to those states, the farmers need their freebies, the hillbillies need their handouts.

Meanwhile, out of the other side of his mouth, McCain represents and thereby endorses a state with sky high taxation and MANDATED health care insurance. More double- speak. If you are falling for that, You are a LIBERAL at heart. There are definitely two McCains- one of talk and one of action. Which McCain do you believe represents his true character and the likelihood of him being any different than a leftie? His talk? Or his Walk?

There’s only one way to control Federal Spending, raise taxes. Because, we aren’t paying the full price for all those government programs, we want more of them. What McCain is saying - you farmers want 5 billion in payments, we need a new 5 billion dollar tax increase. — That changes everything.

We have been running at consistent and reckless deficits ever since “Conservatives” took control of Washington. The low dollar, the subprime credit crisis. are results of the Christian Conservatives running the GOP into the Ground.

For the record, according to OMB data, federal outlays under Clinton rose a cumulative 32.2 percent, or $453,668 million. That averages 4.0 percent outlay growth per annum over eight years. Not bad. Not bad at all. Remember, though, Clinton cut military expenditures:

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
$291,086 $281,642 $272,066 $265,753 $270,505 $268,207 $274,785 $294,394 $304,759
(millions)

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf

With McCain, Conservatives are going to get a few things that they don't like.

They are also going to get some things that they do like. And they are going to get the things that they do like until they howl for mercy.

McCain can talk all he wants about taxes, but the fact is that if President Bush and a Republican congress couldn’t make the tax cuts permanent, President McCain and a Democrat congress aren’t going to do it.

And then we have McCain-Lieberman, which would effectively act as one of the largest tax increases in history...

Right, because there was no need for such a large standing military force.

Being fiscally responsible means making tough choices. And until republicans realize that, we are going to be the fiscally irresponsible party.

Remember, China is financing our War on Terror, what happens when they’ve had enough.

“McCain is against raising taxes, and for cutting taxes.
“He is pro-victory in Iraq.
“He is pro-life.
“He is pro-trade.
“He is for reducing government spending.

“That sounds pretty conservative to me.”

It does to me, too.

And I’ll be damned if I can figure out how anyone can call himself or herself conservative who directly or indirectly assists Obama in become President/Tyrant by their feverish, self-centered, self-destructive, and ultimately suicidal criticism of the alternative to Obama just because he supposedly is not “conservative enough” and not their ideal (or idol) candidate.

When all the factors and vectors of this election are taken into consideration, McCain IS the man who stands the best chance at this time of gaining the White House.

If some want to spend their lives fretting about how many angels can dance on the top of a pin and make their focus their own navel, there are, on the contrary, plenty - plenty - plenty - of people in this great land whose rightful number one concern is the security and defense of this nation, that of everyone of us and our families.

Not voting for McCain this November is a vote for defeat in Iraq and American humiliation around the world.
These children pitching their temper tantrums need to think long and hard about the real world consequences of their actions.

America’s defeat in the War on Terrorism will rest on their shoulders.
Unless, that is, they believe 9/11 was an inside job like Obama’s buddies.

It sounds like 2000 all over again. Some conservatives, including me, were critical of the Bush nomination, complaining, among other things, that he wasn't a conservative. The responses were similar to your remarks here today.

You believe McCain will cut taxes? Because he says so?

How often has McCain lied to Republicans?

You are so gullible.

It was an intentional misspelling..

Not in my lifetime, even in the Newt 90’s, the budget was merely brought back into sanity, not reined in..

counterpunch: He is pro-life.

He is hardly pro life. His history on abortion proves otherwise:

‘Republicans for Choice’ Endorses McCain

CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer February 06, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - The Republicans for Choice Political Action Committee has endorsed John McCain (R-Ariz.), saying he is the best candidate now that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is out of the presidential race. (snip) Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life, said the endorsement should make some Republicans uncomfortable.“My first thought was how embarrassing for the pro-lifers who have signed on for McCain,” Parro said.

By Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee

(February 20, 2000) — The presidential candidacy of Senator John McCain (R-Az.) has posed a significant threat to future advances by the pro-life movement.

Earlier this month, the Board of Directors of the National Right to Life Committee — made up of an elected delegate from each state NRLC affiliate — overwhelmingly voted to endorse George W. Bush. That vote recognized Bush’s strong pro-life credentials. It also reflected the recognition among many knowledgeable observers that if elected president, McCain would be unlikely to use the office’s powers to advance the pro-life cause.

In earlier stages of his presidential campaign, McCain made little effort to conceal his disrespect for the pro-life movement. For example, during an appearance on the Don Imus radio show on November 23, McCain referred disparagingly to “otherwise intelligent people who say that that’s the only issue that will determine their vote.”

But after his victory in the New Hampshire primary on February 1, McCain began working hard to appeal to pro-life voters in South Carolina and other states.
B In response to criticism from NRLC and its affiliates, McCain has relied on two main defenses. First, he declares that his “17-year voting record” in Congress proves that he is “pro-life.” Second, he charges that NRLC’s criticisms are motivated entirely by opposition to his so-called “campaign finance reform” proposals” — a bill that, as McCain characterizes it, would hurt NRLC’s “business.” This second defense is basically a diversionary tactic, intended to evade close scrutiny of the inadequacies of McCain’s pro-life positions.

Roe v. Wade

McCain joined the House in 1983, and became a senator in 1987. During his 17 years in Congress, McCain has usually voted anti-abortion — but for a presidential candidate, that is not the only important data. After all, Al Gore had an 84% pro-life voting record as a member of the House of Representatives (1977-84), but he embraced the entire pro-abortion agenda once he reached the Senate and began to run for president. John McCain is not Al Gore — but the clearest warnings about what a McCain presidency might entail are found in things that McCain has said and done over the past year, since he started running for President in earnest.

One example is what McCain said when he met with the editorial board of the very liberal San Francisco Chronicle on August 19, 1999:

“I’d love to see a point where it (Roe v. Wade) is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”

This was no more mere inartful wording. Rather, McCain actually offered a rationale for opposing repeal of Roe — that it would “force” many women to have dangerous illegal abortions. This, of course, is a very familiar argument, voiced often by politicians who support the continuation of legal abortion. In short, McCain embraced the “necessary evil” thinking of the pro-abortion movement.

When ABC’s Sam Donaldson recently asked McCain about his statement to the Chronicle, McCain said that he “misspoke.” But McCain has yet to explain why he argued as he did to the newspaper’s editors. Did he believe what he said? And if he did, has he changed his mind, and if so, why?

On the January 18 Jane Chastain’s radio show, Cyndi Mosteller, who serves as “National Policy Advisor for Family & Cultural Issues” for the McCain campaign, was asked about McCain’s statement to the Chronicle. Mosteller replied that McCain had “made a mistake” under hard questioning by the newspaper editors. “They ate his lunch,” she said, adding, “They were getting on him. And he said [to Mosteller], ‘I was not strong when I needed to be strong.’”

In reality, however, McCain repeated similar arguments in at least three other interviews. At a campaign event, he said, “I would not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, because doing so would endanger the lives of women,” World magazine reported on August 21. In a written release dated August 22, McCain said, “If Roe v. Wade were repealed tomorrow, it would force thousands of young women to undergo dangerous and illegal operations.” And on Cable News Network on August 22, McCain said, “We all know, and it’s obvious, that if we repeal Roe versus Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.”

McCain also wrote, “I will continue to work with both pro-life and pro- choice Americans so that we can eliminate the need for abortions to be performed in this country.” [emphasis added]

These statements tracked the rhetoric of the pro-abortion movement. The pro-life movement does not believe that there is a “need” to kill unborn children, or that restoring legal protection to unborn children will “force” anyone to violate the law.

In more recent utterances, including appearances in South Carolina, McCain has said that he favors the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and that he believes that states ought to make abortion illegal (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). But pro-lifers would be foolish to ignore the evidence of McCain’s real inner thinking provided by his earlier statements. It is noteworthy that during McCain’s 17 years in Congress, he never had an opportunity to vote on Roe v. Wade until October 21, 1999, On the January 18 Jane Chastain’s radio show, Cyndi Mosteller, who serves as “National Policy Advisor for Family & Cultural Issues” for the McCain campaign, was asked about McCain’s statement to the Chronicle. Mosteller replied that McCain had “made a mistake” under hard questioning by the newspaper editors. “They ate his lunch,” she said, adding, “They were getting on him. And he said [to Mosteller], ‘I was not strong when I needed to be strong.’”

In reality, however, McCain repeated similar arguments in at least three other interviews. At a campaign event, he said, “I would not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, because doing so would endanger the lives of women,” World magazine reported on August 21. In a written release dated August 22, McCain said, “If Roe v. Wade were repealed tomorrow, it would force thousands of young women to undergo dangerous and illegal operations.” And on Cable News Network on August 22, McCain said, “We all know, and it’s obvious, that if we repeal Roe versus Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.”

McCain also wrote, “I will continue to work with both pro-life and pro- choice Americans so that we can eliminate the need for abortions to be performed in this country.” [emphasis added]

These statements tracked the rhetoric of the pro-abortion movement. The pro-life movement does not believe that there is a “need” to kill unborn children, or that restoring legal protection to unborn children will “force” anyone to violate the law.

In more recent utterances, including appearances in South Carolina, McCain has said that he favors the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and that he believes that states ought to make abortion illegal (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). But pro-lifers would be foolish to ignore the evidence of McCain’s real inner thinking provided by his earlier statements. It is noteworthy that during McCain’s 17 years in Congress, he never had an opportunity to vote on Roe v. Wade until October 21, 1999, Others Agree

NRLC is hardly alone in recognizing that Bush and McCain would handle the abortion issue very differently as president. Bush has been endorsed by the most prominent pro-life leaders in Congress, including Congressman Henry Hyde, Congressman Chris Smith, and Congressman Charles Canady. “I’m convinced of Gov. Bush’s commitment to the pro-life cause,” said Hyde, who has criticized McCain for advocating weakening of the Republican Party’s pro-life platform plank.

Pro-abortion leaders also see a big difference. Following McCain’s win in the New Hampshire primary, the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition said that based on exit polls, “pro-choice Republicans overwhelmingly preferred McCain above all the other candidates.”

Moreover, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) funded TV ads in New Hampshire attacking Bush for nearly a year before the New Hampshire primary, but never a single ad criticizing McCain.

McCain Winks on Abortion

A revealing observation was made on February 8 by Steven Brill, editor of the magazine Brill’s Content, which covers the news media.

Speaking on the Fox News Channel program “The Edge”, Brill said two reporters covering the McCain campaign told him, ‘You know, he really doesn’t feel that strongly about abortion and about — he isn’t really as pro-gun as he lets on in the campaign. He has to do that because it’s a Republican primary, but he’s kind of let us know that he’s not that hard-edged on those subjects.’”

Brill went on, “The point I’m making is that he was given permission, at least by these two guys [journalists], to pander. One of them actually said, ‘At least when McCain panders he sort of lets us know he’s doing it, and he kind of winks and kind of enjoys it, so he’s a good guy.’ Well, he’s not letting the rest of the country know he’s pandering.”

In the same vein, liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote on December 15, “McCain’s people whisper, Don’t worry. He’s not really so anti-abortion.”

Voting Record

McCain served in the House of Representatives from 1983-86 and in the Senate from 1987 to date. Throughout that period, McCain did not initiate pro-life amendments or otherwise take an activist role, but he did vote pro-life with a few exceptions. The most important exception was on the issue of federal funding of experimentation using body parts of aborted babies.

This question — usually referred to in the press as the “fetal tissue” issue — became a matter of major controversy during the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration blocked the use of federal funds for certain experimentation utilizing tissue taken from aborted babies.

In a January 7, 1992 letter to Arizona Right to Life, McCain promised to support President Bush’s ban on federal funding of such abortion- dependent research. “I have no intention of supporting the use of fetal tissue resulting from artificially-induced abortions for research purposes,” McCain wrote.

A few months later, however, McCain began voting to overturn Bush’s pro-life policy — a drive that succeeded after President Clinton took office.

The issue surfaced again in 1997, during consideration of a bill to expand federally sponsored research into Parkinson’s disease, sponsored by McCain and Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Mn.). Pro-life Senator Dan Coats (R- In.) offered an amendment to prevent the use of the newly authorized funds for abortion-dependent fetal tissue research, but McCain prevailed in defeating the amendment, 60-35. (Sept. 4, 1997, Senate rollcall Vote No. 215.) Recently, McCain has falsely implied that only four senators disagreed with his position on the issue.

[A detailed memorandum documenting McCain’s statements and votes on the fetal-tissue issue is available at www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/McCainrecordbodyparts.html]

Warren Rudman

On January 15, McCain said that if elected president, he might appoint former Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH) — his close advisor and the co- chairman of the national McCain campaign — as U.S. attorney general. As a senator, Rudman voted to preserve Roe v. Wade, and was an active opponent of other pro-life efforts legislative efforts.

The attorney general is the cabinet officer who most often serves as a president’s key advisor on Supreme Court appointments, and who oversees the positions taken by an administration on issues before the Supreme Court.

Rudman voted to confirm anti-Roe v. Wade Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, but later wrote in his 1996 memoirs, “If my vote had been the deciding one, I would have voted against Thomas, no matter what the consequences.”

Rudman has been harshly critical of the pro-life movement and of Christian conservatives. He wrote, “If someone had told me in the 1960s that one day I would serve in a Republican Party that opposed abortion rights — which the Supreme Court had endorsed — advocated prayer in the schools, and talked about government-inspired ‘family values,’ I would have thought he was crazy.”

Also, “Politically speaking, the Republican Party is making a terrible mistake if it appears to ally itself with the Christian right” — a group that he identified as rife with “antiabortion zealots” and “bigots,” among other undesirables.

In a February 15 debate in South Carolina, Bush confronted McCain regarding Rudman, noting that Rudman had described the Christian Coalition as “bigots.” Bush asked McCain, “I know you don’t believe that, do you?” But McCain refused the invitation to repudiate Rudman’s words, responding instead, “George, he’s entitled to his opinion on that issue.”

Moderator Larry King also invited McCain to “disclaim what Rudman said,” but McCain did not respond.

Subsequently, Rudman told Manchester Union-Leader reporter John DiStaso that “he most certainly did call the Christian Coalition bigots,” and “he included leaders of other conservative groups in the description, to boot.” (Union-Leader, Sept. 17)

When, in the February 15 debate, Bush said that “every child, born and unborn, should be protected in law,” McCain immediately attacked Bush for his opposition to adding exceptions for rape and incest to the pro-life plank in the Republican platform.

Free Speech About Political Figures

NRLC has certainly made no secret of its strong opposition to certain key components of McCain’s “campaign finance reform” proposals, which would cripple the ability of NRLC and other pro-life groups to communicate with the public about the positions and actions of those who hold or seek federal office.

In some recent communications, McCain has emphasized that the latest version of his bill, introduced last October, did not contain the provisions restricting commentary on politicians by issue-oriented groups such as NRLC. However, at the time McCain made it clear that he was proposing a “stripped-down “ bill only for tactical reasons, to try to overcome a filibuster for bill opponents — not because he’d changed his mind. Indeed, when Senate Democrats forced a vote on the House-passed Shays-Meehan bill which contains sweeping restrictions on political free speech by independent groups McCain voted for it. (Oct. 19, 1999)

As recently as December 22, McCain told the Associated Press, “If I could think of a way constitutionally, I would ban negative ads.”

[Further information on the how McCain’s proposals would cripple pro-life groups, and further empower the institutional news media, is found at the NRLC website, www.nrlc.org, under “Campaign Finance Reform and Free Speech.”]