Posted on 08/07/2008 2:30:08 PM PDT by EveningStar
I supported and voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger for California governor over Tom McClintock. Not only that, I ridiculed McClintock and his supporters.
If I knew then what I know now, I would have supported and voted for McClintock.
I hereby openly apologize to McClintock and his supporters. I was wrong.
How about the other people here who supported Arnold in 2003: Agree? Disagree?
Yeah I do value the social stuff pretty highly (of course I was accused of being a RINO for backing the so-called “nanny stater” Huckabee, nevermind that Huckabee was the only candidate pushing to abolish the IRS and was loved by freepers when he was Governor)
But overall you can never be quite sure how someone will govern. I was spot on about Arnold, and while Bush overall was as I expected, I was totally wrong about how he’d govern on abortion (I figured he’d wimp out and sign embroyic stem research, given that his whole family has historically been “pro-choice” and Bush ran as “Mr. Compassionate Conservative”), but instead Bush has been rock solid on the life issue. On the other hand, when Bush said he was “against amnesty”, I took him at his word, especially since he had the reputation of a tough law-and-order guy from Texas, his friendliness to American hispanics notwithstanding. Oops, big mistake on my part.
My big beef with McCain is how he’s such an arrogant jerk when it comes to amnesty and so on. He was my second least favorite candidate after Giuliani.
But I find alot to like about McCain’s fiscal policies. About 1/3rd of it is garbage but about 2/3rds of the time he’s spot on. He’s certainly MUCH better than Bush when it comes to standing up against goverment spending. He’s the polar opposite of Arnold “Ve need government programs for all de people” Schwartzekennedy in many ways. When running for Governor, Arnold just spouted meaningless rhetoric about admiring “Milton Friedman” and wanting to “cut up the credit cards”, when in reality this RINO was the guy who worked his butt off to get the government to fund “after skool programs for de children” of California. But McCain actually has a CAREER record of opposing big government bailouts and funding for pet projects.
You say conservatives haven’t made any effort to move McCain to the right, but I think he actually has felt the heat and that’s why he’s changed his views on the Bush tax cuts and off-shore drilling. When did he, a bunch of people here accused him of lying and pandering. They can’t have it both ways. If he sticks to his guns, they scream RINO @$$hole, if he caves to conservatives and does our bidding, they bash him for flip-flopping.
Here are some of McCain’s fiscal record that shows some pretty stark differences from “community activist” Obama’s:
EARMARKS
McCain has been called one of the Senate’s most outspoken critics of pork barrel spending. In March 2008, Gannett News Service reported that McCain’s home state of Arizona ranked last in federal earmarks, because three of the state’s ten lawmakers in Washington — McCain and House Republicans Jeff Flake and John Shadegg — refuse to ask for any federal money for local projects. In March 2008, he was one of twenty-nine U.S. Senators to vote in favor of a one-year moratorium on earmarks. McCain says he hopes to stop special interests from lobbying for special projects. His 2008 campaign website includes the statement that “The federal government spends too much money, squanders precious resources on questionable projects pushed by special interests, and ignores the priorities of the American taxpayer.” Earmarks total about $18 billion a year, according to independent estimates.
TAXES
Although McCain has historically opposed tax cuts in favor of deficit reduction, he favors tax cuts as long the government reduces government spending to make up for the tax cuts. McCain supported the Bush tax cut extension in May 2006, and January 2008 he told Russert that he favors making those tax cuts permanent to prevent an increase in taxes while the economy was “shaky”. McCain has stated that he believes in keeping marginal tax rates low, but that lower taxes work best “when accompanied by lower spending.” In a major economic speech on April 15, 2008, McCain proposed a number of tax reductions. His speech focused on cuts to corporate tax rates and the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and also called for eliminating the alternative-minimum tax and doubling the value of exemptions for dependents to $7,000, This is in contrast to McCain’s historical emphasis on deficit reduction over tax cuts. McCain’s proposal for decreasing the federal budget deficit includes reforming the “self-serving largesse that defines the current budget process.” In the speech, McCain said that the savings from eliminating earmarks, reviewing federal programs and other budget reforms would be “on the order of $100 billion annually.” On July 8, 2008, in an interview, McCain said that “historically when you raise people’s taxes, revenue goes down. Every time we cut capital gains taxes, there has been an increase in revenues.”
ECONOMIC PLAN
McCain fleshed out the main points of his economic plan in an April 15, 2008 speech at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania.[70][71] In summary, McCain would make the Bush tax cuts permanent instead of letting them expire, he would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax in order to assist the middle-class, he would double the personal exemption for dependents, reduce the corporate tax rate, and offer a new research and development tax credit. At the same time, he pledges to eliminate pork-barrel spending, freeze nondefense discretionary spending for a year or more, and reduce Medicare growth. McCain’s Economic rating by the Almanac of American Politics (2008) on Economic Policy is 64% conservative, 35% liberal
SOCIAL SECURITY
In June 1999, McCain said “The only way to increase the yield on Social Security dollars is by allowing workers to make investment decisions for themselves; by empowering American families to invest, in most robust portfolios, a portion of their earnings for Social Security that they would otherwise pay in taxes to Social Security.” In January 2000, he repeated his strong support for creating partially private Social Security accounts. In 2004, he said, “Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.”
MINIMUM WAGE
McCain opposes the federal minimum wage; instead he believes that each state should decide its own minimum wage. McCain has consistantly voted against federal miniumum wage laws. On January 24, 2007 he voted Yea on legislation that would allow employers to pay less than the federal minimum wage if the state set a lower minimum. He also voted in favor of maintaining the filibuster against a bill to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25.
EQUAL PAY LAWS
McCain has said that he favors the concept of equal pay (the abolition of wage differences based on gender).He has, however, opposed specific legislation that would have given workers more time to discover sex discrimination before bringing suit under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. In 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, would have allowed “employees to file charges of pay discrimination within 180 days of the last received paycheck affected by the alleged discriminatory decision.” The bill would have overturned the Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. There the Court dismissed a woman’s discrimination claim because she had filed it more than 180 days after the first affected paycheck. McCain opposed the bill, and it failed
ANTRAK FUNDING
McCain is opposed to federal funding of Amtrak. He considers it to be a “pork barrel project”, particularly as far as longer distance trains are concerned. He has opposed all federal subsities to Amtrak.
MORTGAGE CRIS
McCain addressed the situation in a speech: “I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis. I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now. I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.” McCain went on to say he would entertain the thought to only give temporary assistance to homeowners for their primary homes, but not to others who owned homes to rent out nor to speculators. He also proposed that mortgage lenders do more to help the economy by helping their customers.
I think McCain is about 60% of the way there, he’s certainly not “liberal on most issues” as some McCain haters here claim (of course they claim the same thing about Huckabee so I don’t waste my time with the “if you’re not with me 100% of the time, you’re a RINO” crowd)
Now the downside if he’s 60% of the way there, that means he’s a freakin’ Democrat 40% of the time, and if I got 60% of the answers correct on a test, I’d fail. So I myself am undecided for President. It doesn’t matter much to us in the commie red Democrat states but I post this info. for the benefit of any undecided freepers in swing states.
Basically I can vote McCain or cast a pointless protest vote for Chuck Baldwin (I think Chuck is a good guy, don’t know why so many freepers bash him). That’s the only two options, and like you said, the next President will be either McCain or Obama. If McCain does something to really piss me off, I’ll vote Baldwin. If McCain works with consrevatives and meets us halfway, I’ll vote for him. What McCain does over the next couple monthes will determine whether I vote for him (as I’m going to turn out to vote for the downticket races anyway)
Regarding the excerpts of McCain's positions, he's already flip-flopped on a bunch of those (SS taxes, and AMT, at a minimum). And his offshore drilling support may sound good, but I don't see it accomplishing much (as the State governors would have to be willing to go along). If McCain really supported the Drill-here Drill-now crowd, he'd reverse his position on ANWR. He wouldn't have signed away millions of acres of land to conservation (and UN oversight) supporting legislation that put the land off limits for drilling--forever. Nothing like signing away our nation's natural resources for generations and putting them under the control of international organizations. Really, really stupid moves, IMO.
While our views vary slightly, we both end up in much the same place. I'll wait and see what McCain does in the next few monts before making any final decision. But after a 26 year record, I'm not sure what he could do to give me any feeling of confidence that he won't be another Arnold. I do see some benefit (since my vote doesn't count anyway) in registering a vote for someone who more closely represents my views than McCain does. Giving him my support, when he's so blatantly (and arrogantly) worked against things I think are important, goes against the grain.
I'll tell ya... I'm enjoying this adult-like discussion with you and NVDave. Thank you for that! Had this thread had the word "McCain" in it, there would probably be a bunch of flamethrowers around here, LOL.
Au contraire. I had a few of the paid agents admit (usually to the point of being enraged) that they didn't CARE Slick Willard wasn't a Conservative. That money shot from a now-banned shillbot was great for months, the trolls hated seeing it every time I pulled it out.
"You're right that the Mittwitts infestation on FR is really beginning to be problematic though. They weren't much of a factor in the primary until it was reduced to three candidates and some former FDT supporters sold out and became Mittwitts. However, the "Mitt for veep" movement is really popular on FR now, as if we need the McCain ticket to be any more liberal than it already is. (If it was the other way around, would ANYONE seriously suggest McCain as Romney's veep?!) The Mittwitt presence on FR seems to have increased 20X from where it was in 2007. I can't figure out why freepers are so in love with Rudy McRomney lately."
A little more than just "beginning." They were quite bad on this board late last year (around October-November) and continued unabated for months. It died down in the Spring but picked up again in the past month. There's just a vocal and obnoxious cluster of paid agents, Mormons (who'd support Harry Reid if he were the nominee), and mooning moonbats who think Slick's good hair is a sole qualification for President/VP, post the same talking points that have been debunked endlessly. Given that the talk has shifted from Slick Willard, I think we may have successfully fought back against that selection.
Bloomberg was never a Republican to begin with. As a Democrat, he saw an opportunity to purchase the Republican line for Mayor in 2001 from a cash-poor but sincere party switcher with many years of experience, Herman Badillo, and did so. His switch to Independent was largely irrelevent, and was more likely based on his brief flirtation with running for President 3rd party (more predicated upon whether Hillary got the nomination — he wasn’t going to run if Obama got it).
Yikes!
I knew I hated him for a good reason!
Ed
He showed his true douchebag colors and personally attacked Jim. Then he got in trouble for ripping off a copyrighted picture and lying about John Kerry with it. Karma's a bitch.
Apology accepted. :-)
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.