Posted on 07/08/2008 2:05:44 PM PDT by Maelstorm
Do you think the government will turn around without first going through a crisis of legitimacy? Barring miracles at both the Republican Convention and the General Election, I can imagine no plausible scenario by which that could occur.
If there is to be a crisis of legitimacy, I would suggest it would be better triggered by a big overreach than by a small one. The bigger the overreach, the more likely the enemies of the Constitution could be forced to surrender peacefully.
I do have a serious problem, with the tactics of distortion, hysteria, and politicized paranoia that many of the special interests have used and exploited to oppose this man.
If John McCain is not elected President, lets hope he doesn't get reelected in Arizona.
Jerry Doyle has been hammering away at the fact that
the FOUR SCOTUS judges that gave us the recent legislating
from the bench ... John McCain voted FOR them all!
Hey if it works. I do think there is a lot to vote for McCain.
1. He is committed to smaller government and the only tax on record that he has voted to increase is one on cigarettes. I don’t agree with sin taxes but this is a small thing in comparison to his other votes which I think most here would find admirable.
* A 2006 amendment to cut $74.5 million for various agriculture programs[17]
* A 2006 amendment to cut $6 million for sugarcane growers in Hawaii[18]
* A 2003 amendment to reduce funding for the Yazoo Basin Backwater Pump Project in Mississippi[19]
* A 2002 amendment to eliminate $2.5 million for coral reef mapping of the waters off the coast of Hawaii[20]
* A 1998 amendment to cut $78 million in projects from an emergency supplemental appropriations bill[21]
* A 1994 motion to kill an amendment to provide $40 million for the conversion of a New York City post office into an Amtrak train station[22]
* A vote against the 2003 Medicare prescription drug plan[23]
* A vote against the Farm Security Bill in 2002[24]
* A vote against the 2005 Highway Bill, one of only four senators to object to the pork-stuffed bill[25]
* A vote against providing Amtrak with an extra $550 million for the fiscal year 2007[26]
* A vote against $2 billion in milk subsidies[27]
* One of fifteen senators to vote for Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) amendment transferring $223 million for the “Bridge to Nowhere” to the repair of a Louisiana bridge damaged by Hurricane Katrina.[28] Senator McCain was also one of only thirteen senators to vote for an amendment by Senator Coburn to eliminate $950,000 for a parking lot for the Joslyn Art Museum in Nebraska[29]
* A vote for welfare reform[30]
(* The above came from the Cato Institute)
2. He has strongly opposed special rights for sexual activists in employment and supports the marriage as being being a man and women. He believes that the legislature and the people not the courts should decide this issue.
3. He has been a consistent Pro-Life vote. There may be some who question his purity but his voting record shows someone who clearly believes in the Right to Life.
I think I’ll stop there. He does have black marks especially on immigration and campaign finance but for those who think he doesn’t have clear redeeming value other than the fact he is running against Obama should take a look with an unbiased eye. No one is saying McCain is perfect but the more I look at his record the more it becomes clear that he is more conservative than GW Bush especially on the key issue of government spending. Wouldn’t be to nice to reclaim some credibility on that issue as a party?
Thanks for an important post.
“Obama will kiss the ass of Islam. McCain will kick it.”
Not the most important issue in this election.
Someone should ask Senator Maverick if he regrets any of his votes.Works for me. I'd LOVE to hear his answer to that one.
“Leahy on the judicial comittee will just say “no” and then we get the Juanito doing what he does best, working with his (actual) political party to (once again) screw America.”
I stand by it.
I'll vote for McRINO, but will hold my nose big time.
“He is committed to smaller government”
How does that wash with him wanting to give those leeches sneaking in here from the 3rd world amnesty, which will be followed by every tax payer give away that you could think of?
If we get another Souter on the Court, it won't be the fault of the Senate; it will be the fault of McCain. If McCain were a real conservative, it wouldn't matter what the Senate tried to do--we'd get a 4-3-K or 4-2-K court.
I agree McCain's likely to Souter us. As such, I fail to see why he's better than Obama. Better an openly leftist Democrat than a phony "conservative" Republican.
“I agree McCain’s likely to Souter us.”
You give him too much credit. I doubt his picks would turn out to be even THAT good.
So you think the future President’s handling of the War on Terror is not the most important consideration.
Incredible.
I had heard that Bork was clueless on the Second. Fortunate that his eventual replacement, Kennedy, did vote the right way in the recent Heller case.
“So you think the future President’s handling of the War on Terror is not the most important consideration.”
The election will be decided on gasoline/energy costs and the economy/jobs. IOW, it will be decided on that which Americans actually face every day, rather than some camel-jockey boogeyman half a world away. Research any poll you wish to see the truth of what I say.
That would be a good argument, with one major problem.
It would work, PROVIDED that you have a president with strong, consistent principles who refuses to buckle to the liberals in the Senate. Go ahead and let Chuck Schumer and Co. vote down conservative nominee after conservative nominee. In the meantime, the liberals die off, giving the conservatives majority control. In the meantime, an enraged GOP base takes out its revenge on any 'Rats or RINOs who get in the way.
All in all, a win-win for both conservatives and the GOP!
Think back a couple of years. This is EXACTLY the scenario we faced as Bill Frist prepared to enact the Constitutional Option ending the unconstitutional filibustering of judicial nominations. It would have worked to, except seven RINO senators "reached across the aisle" to stonewall efforts to bring conservatives to the judiciary.
I probably don't have to remind you who led the Gang of 14. It was one John McCain, supported by his girlfriend (and likely VP nominee) Lindsay Graham.
Therefore, your argument is invalid.
The most likely scenario is this: McCain nominates what he calls a "mainstream conservative," most likely a Kennedy/O'Connor type. The 'Rats promptly announce the "right wing extreme" nomination is dead on arrival.
McCain then shrugs his shoulders, says there is nothing he can do and thus, in the interest of comity and bipartisanship, he will reach across the aisle to his good friends Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer to determine an acceptable nominee. Said nominee will likely be from David Souter-land.
People who expect McCain to actualy nominate AND fight to confirm conservatives to the SC are purposely ignoring history.
Many Republican senators who voted to confirm Ginsberg and Breyer have said that they would not have appointed them themselves, just that they were the best nominees one can reasonably expect from a Democratic president.
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.
