Why McCain Must Win

canadafreepress.com ^ | 07/19/08 | Bruce Walker

[TornadoAlley3]

President McCain in 2000 I must be one of the few conservative writers in cyberspace who never feared a McCain presidency. When Senator McCain looked like he might win the Republican nomination in 2000, I asked what, exactly, my friends were so worried about. McCain was honest, like Bush, while Clinton and Gore were steeped in moral slipperiness. McCain was pro-life, like Bush, while Clinton and Gore were pro-abortion. McCain, like Bush, supported a strong military, while Clinton famously “loathed” the military and Gore followed him like a trained poodle. McCain’s ACU (American Conservative Union) voting record is conservative and was even more conservative in 2000. Who did I favor for the nomination in 2000? Bush, because I liked him more and I thought he would win, but was I afraid of a McCain presidency? No, I was afraid that the nation could not survive a third Clinton term. Has anything happened in the last eight years to change my mind? Not, not really. September 11, 2001 has driven all politics since then, even energy (remember how recently gasoline was cheap?) and while I can conceive of McCain handling the war on terror differently, in some ways, than Bush, I cannot see either man being particularly better than the other. Although we are sometimes loath to admit it, McCain appeared more prescience than Bush on Iraq: McCain supported the Surge, asked for the Surge when Bush was reluctant, and McCain was dead right. The Left would have vilified President McCain just as it vilified President Bush and for the same reasons: It wants America to lose all its wars.

[TornadoAlley3]

with Hussein it will be vocal, and ugly and ultimately conservatism will win.

How will that happen with a lib controlled Congress and lib controlled SCOTUS?

[hiredhand]

Explain to me how it is consistent with “pure conservative principles” to turn over the country, all three branches of the government: presidency, congress and the courts, to the far left Democrats.

For starters, the RNC did a damned good job on its own of handing power over to the enemy even when they had control fo the House and Senate!

I'm tired of explaining this to people washed over in fear. However, I pinged a bunch of people to this posting who will probably be more than happy to provide you with all the explaining you can stomach.

[calcowgirl]

Funny, that wasn’t the way the ACU looked at it. So tell me who is a better arbiter of the ACU standard of grading - you or them?

Norman, exactly what do you think that big "X" stands for?

It's called a NO SHOW... NO VOTE. McCain manipulated his score by not voting on 60% of the bills.

That is fact--yet instead of acknowleding it, you criticize me personally? Give me a break! Try a bit of honesty, please.

2007 ACU Ratings

Arizona	
McCAIN 	
2007 Votes	
1	+
2	+
3	X
4	+
5	+
6	+
7	-
8	X
9	-
10	X
11	X
12	+
13	+
14	X
15	X
16	X
17	X
18	X
19	+
20	X
21	X
22	X
23	X
24	X
25	X
2007	80
Life	82.16

[hiredhand]

BLOAT!

woof! :-)

[xjcsa]

That some people on this thread don’t understand the damage obama would inflict stuns me. Either they’re incredibly selfish or they just do not care what this guy will do to everyone down the road.

I absolutely understand the damage Obama would inflict. I have yet to be convinced the damage under McCain would be any less severe.

[calcowgirl]

If this is true, then we are no longer free citizens but subjects and serfs

Thankfully, it's not true, despite the mantra offered by campaign operatives.

[FreeReign]

Should be simple enough, Norman. Did he actually vote on all the bills the ACU used for analysis? In my book, a "no vote" is the same as a "wrong" vote, and should be counted against him as if he had voted incorrectly.

You do realize that using your logic, somebody who sits out an election "is the same" as somebody who votes for the wrong candidate, Obama....right?

[calcowgirl]

>>Should be simple enough, Norman. Did he actually vote on all the bills the ACU used for analysis?

It’s there in black and white. McCain didn’t show up for 60% of the votes.

http://www.acuratings.org/senate2007.xls

[FreeReign]

McCain manipulated his score by not voting on 60% of the bills.

When McCain voted, he voted 80% conservative.

I'm not defending missed votes. Just stating the facts.

[calcowgirl]

I'm tired of explaining this to people washed over in fear. However, I pinged a bunch of people to this posting who will probably be more than happy to provide you with all the explaining you can stomach.

All I gotta say is depicted below:

[Cyber Liberty]

I took the liberty of getting this tidbit from the ACU webpage: Here.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

4th term Republican from Arizona. First elected in 1986.

Bio Contact Committee Staff Votes

Current Elected Office Key Votes:

These are our key votes and this is how Sen. John McCain voted on our issues. Click on each heading to sort.

No votes available

Norman, the man isn't voting. How can he have an honest rating?

[FocusNexus]

FN: "Explain to me how it is consistent with “pure conservative principles” to turn over the country, all three branches of the government: presidency, congress and the courts, to the far left Democrats."

hh:"I'm tired of explaining this to people washed over in fear. However, I pinged a bunch of people to this posting who will probably be more than happy to provide you with all the explaining you can stomach."

===

IOW, you say that you and those you pinged actually believe that it IS consistent with conservative principles to turn over the country, all three branches of the government, to the far leftist Democrats. Some "conservative principles" you all must have!"

[Norman Bates]

Yes and his score is still 80%. BTW, in case you haven’t noticed he’s running for president. I’m sure Bush missed a lot of stuff in Texas when he was running but regardless being a chief executive is easier than a senator - because you are the head of state, a senator is not a head but part of a body.

[hiredhand]

There's not a drop of bugspit difference between the two contenders, and I don't care how people slice it. It's simply not worth arguing about. They're terrible pandering, vote selling, self serving people and maybe, just maybe someday, I'll get to live to see them tried in a court of law and hanged in public! I'm not holding my breath though.

But I will NOT be lead around by the GOP who thinks they can put a hook in my nose and set us all up the way they've obviously done.

This entire nasty situation has happened because "conservatives" have morphed. I have a theory that people like myself are "conservative" from a a viewpoint of back in the 1960s, or prior. Too many conservatives today are just slaves. By this, I mean that they fall into the statistic of the some odd 90%+ of all Americans who carry $20k in consumer debt spread across two credit cards, have a house payment, two car payments, and one youngster in college. They can't afford to have anything go wrong, and the prospect of a leftist President who's going to tax them even further, and take more from them is a terrifying prospect indeed! It's slavery. But they willingly enslaved themselves for gratification now instead of later. That's the reason we had the entire sub-prime collapse...which by the way has most likely started a landslide which as we all know is causing very serious problems in the finances of America at this very moment.

So my answer is still a resounding NO. I will NOT vote for John McCain. I am NOT in that 90%+ group of Americans I mentioned in the last paragraph. I will NOT fear, and I will NOT be driven by fear, nor will I be influenced by those who are!

[rabscuttle385]

I am one who is tired of voting against people, I want to vote for somebody.

"They say we are always 'against' things, never 'for' anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."
—Ronald Reagan, A Time for Choosing, 1964

What are we for? What is the Republican Party's purpose? The GOP needs to go back to its goals of preserving individual freedom and liberty, within the constraints of the Constitution. And, if it refuses, by putting McCain in the White House, then let the GOP wither on the vine.

[Norman Bates]

The ACU rated him at 80%. How? They counted the votes he cast. That simple.

[Cyber Liberty]

Those numbers are old. He hasn’t voted on ANY of the ACU ratings votes since 2006!

[Norman Bates]

He received 80% in 2007. That is the most recent number.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes and his score is still 80%.

Norm, he hasn't voted in years, so that argument's been decimated. You can't brush that off and come off as anything but a big ol' box of spin. Maybe it's just Saturday night or something...

[FreeReign]

...the man isn't voting. How can he have an honest rating?

An honest accounting of a voting record is a good thing no matter what it shows.

In 2007, when McCain voted on issues that were rated key by the ACU, McCain voted 80% conservative.

In 2007 McCain didn't vote 60% of the time on issues rated key by the ACU.