Posted on 01/30/2008 6:52:19 AM PST by Kaslin
While the liberal establishment may be conflicted over whether it wants Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee, there's no doubt which Republican it favors.
John McCain is the liberal elite's go-to guy in the GOP. They believe he'll be there for them when they need him.
That was the essential message of last week's New York Times editorial endorsing McCain for the Republican nomination.
"With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field," said the Times. "We have shuddered at McCain's occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle."
What the Times is saying here is that it does not take McCain's conservative campaign-season rhetoric seriously. No, they're convinced the man on the Straight Talk Express is railroading Republican primary voters.
Long experience has taught the Times to read McCain's sign language. No matter what contortions McCain undergoes to shape this language, its message is reassuringly constant from the left's point of view. It says: I am no threat to the liberal agenda.
Two Senate votes taken a day apart are illustrative. On June 7, 2006, McCain voted against a cloture motion that would have allowed the full Senate to vote yes or no on the Federal Marriage Amendment. Then, on June 8, 2006, he voted for a cloture motion that would have allowed the full Senate to vote yes or no on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which would have allowed Native Hawaiians to create a race-based separate nation within the United States.
In both instances, McCain voted with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and against most Senate Republicans.
McCain professed deep support for the underlying purpose of the marriage amendment, he just opposed allowing colleagues to vote on it. Conversely, he expressed deep opposition to the underlying purpose of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act -- he just supported allowing colleagues to vote on it. Each time, McCain gave rhetoric to the right and material cooperation to the left.
In the process, he demonstrated radical inconsistency in his willingness to defend federalism, a principal he says is at the core of his beliefs.
Updated: 9:06 AM 01/30/08 Silky Pony Out to Pasture Updated: 9:06 AM 01/30/08 McCain's No Threat to the Left By Terence Jeffrey Wednesday, January 30, 2008
While the liberal establishment may be conflicted over whether it wants Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee, there's no doubt which Republican it favors.
John McCain is the liberal elite's go-to guy in the GOP. They believe he'll be there for them when they need him.
That was the essential message of last week's New York Times editorial endorsing McCain for the Republican nomination.
"With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field," said the Times. "We have shuddered at McCain's occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle."
What the Times is saying here is that it does not take McCain's conservative campaign-season rhetoric seriously. No, they're convinced the man on the Straight Talk Express is railroading Republican primary voters.
Long experience has taught the Times to read McCain's sign language. No matter what contortions McCain undergoes to shape this language, its message is reassuringly constant from the left's point of view. It says: I am no threat to the liberal agenda.
Two Senate votes taken a day apart are illustrative. On June 7, 2006, McCain voted against a cloture motion that would have allowed the full Senate to vote yes or no on the Federal Marriage Amendment. Then, on June 8, 2006, he voted for a cloture motion that would have allowed the full Senate to vote yes or no on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which would have allowed Native Hawaiians to create a race-based separate nation within the United States.
In both instances, McCain voted with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and against most Senate Republicans.
McCain professed deep support for the underlying purpose of the marriage amendment, he just opposed allowing colleagues to vote on it. Conversely, he expressed deep opposition to the underlying purpose of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act -- he just supported allowing colleagues to vote on it. Each time, McCain gave rhetoric to the right and material cooperation to the left.
In the process, he demonstrated radical inconsistency in his willingness to defend federalism, a principal he says is at the core of his beliefs.
The marriage amendment was designed to prevent unelected judges from overruling state legislatures and voters and manufacturing by judicial decree a right to same-sex marriage, such as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did in 2003.
In a statement submitted to the Congressional Record, McCain acknowledged this and other extra-legislative challenges to traditional marriage, but said: "I do not agree that all the above circumstances have made it necessary to usurp from the states, by means of an amendment to the federal Constitution, their traditional role in regulating marriage. I'm reluctant to abandon the federalism that is part of the essence of conservative political thought in this country."
On one day -- June 7 -- so great was his commitment to federalism he could not allow the Senate to even vote on an amendment that would require a two-thirds majority in both houses and then ratification by three-fourths of the states before it could become law.
On another day -- June 8 -- McCain's commitment to federalism was a bit more flexible. Now the threat to state's rights was an effort to create a new nation out of one segment of the population of one state of the union.
"I have serious reservations about the wisdom of this legislation," McCain said on the Senate floor. "I am sure that the sponsors have good intentions, but I cannot turn away from the fact this bill would lead to the creation of a new nation based exclusively -- not primarily, not in part, but exclusively -- on race. In fact, any person with even a drop of Hawaiian blood would qualify to vote on the establishment of this new, legislatively created entity that would then negotiate with the Federal government of the United States and the state of Hawaii on potentially unlimited topics."
Nonetheless, McCain voted for cloture on this bill -- which, after all, he had already shepherded through the Indian Affairs Committee, which he then chaired. The cloture vote failed with 56 votes, just four short of the needed 60. Unlike the marriage amendment, this bill would become law with simple majority votes in both houses and the president's signature. (It won just such a vote in the House in October, and has been reintroduced in the Democrat-controlled Senate.)
McCain's deference to what liberal's wanted trumped his vaunted deference to federalism. When push comes to shove, would it be any different if he becomes president?
Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews
Be the first to read Terence Jeffrey's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
©Creators Syndicate McCain's No Threat to the Left By Terence Jeffrey Wednesday, January 30, 2008 Send an email to Terence Jeffrey Email It Print It Take Action Read Article & Comments (41) Trackbacks Post Your Comments 1 2 | Full Article & Comments | < Previous
The marriage amendment was designed to prevent unelected judges from overruling state legislatures and voters and manufacturing by judicial decree a right to same-sex marriage, such as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did in 2003.
In a statement submitted to the Congressional Record, McCain acknowledged this and other extra-legislative challenges to traditional marriage, but said: "I do not agree that all the above circumstances have made it necessary to usurp from the states, by means of an amendment to the federal Constitution, their traditional role in regulating marriage. I'm reluctant to abandon the federalism that is part of the essence of conservative political thought in this country."
On one day -- June 7 -- so great was his commitment to federalism he could not allow the Senate to even vote on an amendment that would require a two-thirds majority in both houses and then ratification by three-fourths of the states before it could become law.
On another day -- June 8 -- McCain's commitment to federalism was a bit more flexible. Now the threat to state's rights was an effort to create a new nation out of one segment of the population of one state of the union.
"I have serious reservations about the wisdom of this legislation," McCain said on the Senate floor. "I am sure that the sponsors have good intentions, but I cannot turn away from the fact this bill would lead to the creation of a new nation based exclusively -- not primarily, not in part, but exclusively -- on race. In fact, any person with even a drop of Hawaiian blood would qualify to vote on the establishment of this new, legislatively created entity that would then negotiate with the Federal government of the United States and the state of Hawaii on potentially unlimited topics."
Nonetheless, McCain voted for cloture on this bill -- which, after all, he had already shepherded through the Indian Affairs Committee, which he then chaired. The cloture vote failed with 56 votes, just four short of the needed 60. Unlike the marriage amendment, this bill would become law with simple majority votes in both houses and the president's signature. (It won just such a vote in the House in October, and has been reintroduced in the Democrat-controlled Senate.)
McCain's deference to what liberal's wanted trumped his vaunted deference to federalism. When push comes to shove, would it be any different if he becomes president?
McCain is the ideal GOP candidate for the left.
He has virtually no charisma, and he is a liberal. So, he’s easily defeated, and even if by some fluke, he does win, he’s a liberal! On top of that, he’s old, he’s a one term president.
The left is feeling very good right now.
He should become the VP for the Democrats
He still says God Bless America and calls himself a Patriot. That's threat enough for some of them.
Florida wake up call...Bump!
If McLame is the nominee, I will vote for Hillary. She helped us get conservatives elected to the house in ‘94, she’ll do it again in 2010.
He still says God Bless America and calls himself a Patriot. That’s threat enough for some of them.
And conservative enough for the majority of the GOP, apparently.
I doubt that...but what’s the alternative?
I would vote for Mc(whoever) before Hilga beast.
That’s why the MSM is pushing him so hard. An endorsement from the NY Times hardly burnishes his conservative credentials...
Why would you doubt what’s right in front of your eyes? He just won in a closed Republican primary. His only conservative credential (which isn’t really a conservative credential) is his support of staying in Iraq.
The alternatives are many. Conservatives could simply not participate in either of the anti-constitution parties. They can participate in a 3rd party.
They can form a new party.
One thing is certain, conservatives in the GOP are now the RINO’s and persona non grata, and socialists make up the majority.
Why else would the delegate leader be someone hostile to free speech, a man made climate proponent trying to punish americans for fossil fuel consumption through taxation, uncaring of US sovriegnty or economic interests (Shamnesty), and actively working to ensure judicial nominees that are strict interpreters of the constitution do not get seats in any of the vacant judicial seats?
OPEN A VEIN BEFORE VOTING MCCAIN!
> One thing is certain, conservatives in the GOP are now the RINO’s and persona non grata, and socialists make up the majority. <
How can you say that when ca. 65% of the GOP yesterday in Florida were AGAINST McCain?
Liberals are loving this set up....If McAmnesty beats either socialist 1 or 2, they can live with him. All three of them suck!!!
I can say that because they voted either for another liberal - Ronmney/Gulianni or a christian fascist - Huckabee. None of whom could be credibly considered long time proven constitutionalist, social conservatives. None of those on the ballot still in the race have a record of decreasing the size and scope of government in order to increase individual liberty. They all have plans to increase entitlement, some more than others. Federal entitlement programs ARE NOT conservative policy. Unless taxing income producers and giving the money to those not contributing to the economy is the definition of conservative, because if I have it wrong then Obama is the most conservative candidate for president running.
No the political parties are liberal. I still have hope that conservative policy is best for the country and people will respond to this like they did in the 80’s.
My point is the Parties are liberal and therefore the bulk of those participating in the parties must also be liberal, the trends scream this. It is definitely possible that the country is liberal but that’s hopefully due to ignorance, political apathy and MSM spoon feeding.
It may be hard to believe but McCain is not liberal enough for the NWO establishment. He is not a yes man and he still instills Patriotism and love of Country...and OMG...he still says God Bless America.
The country is center right.
Who set primary dates. State parties. Who run state parties, the party bosses. If what you are saying is true then the parties are no longer even really american institutions. Either way the result is the same. Those whom the parties back are not interested in constitutional integrety. Men like Hunter, Tancredo, Thompson and to a great extent Paul have been cast aside by the GOP, and voters, they also happen to be the most ardent defenders of the constitution of the slate of candidates. This is not a coincidence.
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.