Posted on 01/21/2009 11:50:44 AM PST by rightinthemiddle
It's why I couldn't vote for him in the 1999 primaries. It's why I didn't want to vote for him this time either. Palin won my vote for him.
This is why...
“J D Hayworth for Senate !!!!”
I’ve listened to JD’s radio show a few times recently. Last night he mentioned that he just keeps getting emails and letters from people urging him to run for the Senate in 2010. But he said it would be a tough thing to do, and he’d have to think a lot about it, but that he had time.
He also said those who wanted to could contact him from the KFYI site, or from his own website:
http://www.jdhayworth.com/about-jd.html
His show is on from 5:00 to 8:00 pm Central Time. Of course, he’s in either Pacific or Mountain time.
GAG! It killed me to vote for this POS. If it hadn’t been for Sarah I probably would have sat this one out.
The more I see and hear about McCain, the more clearly I understand his relationship and backstabbing of his running mate Palin.
I do believe it was a backroom deal to destroy her so that she would have a difficult ever trying to unseat “The Chosen One”.
A lot of good it did. Looks like she’s in
Why would you wanna call me over just to McLame on my feet? Are you OK? Can I call a doctor for ya? McLaming like that could be symptomatic of something serious, you know.
But, since people learn best when they actually contribute to it, and if you're not just shill(not accusing, that's why the "if" is there...) do the following:
Ok - I went to the lifetime average scorecard - what am I missing? Because he isn’t in the 90% percentile? Hey Larry Craig from Idaho is - and you’re saying you’d rather have a gay felon over McCain? Sure there are going to be super far righters. However, when you have real heroes like Hagel, Graham and McCain over 80% and you’re bashing them then where do you stop? These guys are true Americans and so what the Conservative Union doesn’t give them the ultimate highs - there are a ton of Republicans listed like those from Maine and Alaska a lot lower
Nothing personal, but for me, (and it is a personal decision), I had decided early in the year to clean out ALL of my FR ping lists for 2009. Just as something new and fresh and "maemuki" 前向き to do.
There are some other, and now very pressing things I want to now focus 80-90% of my life and time on from these days, and they probably would be somewhat away from Free Republic; Secondly, I resolved on New Years to eliminate that scumbag of a RINO, Senator McCain as an unwanted occupant of any more of my daily cognizant mindshare in 2009. I have had so much of him I just dont want to be reminded anymore of his existence in the party or in Congress, and want to move forward on some positive things. It will be good to hear of him being unseated in the Senate primaries by a true Arizona patriot somewhere.
It has been nice being on the ping least. Keep up the good work. I will probably be sending TennesseeNana, and others, similar epistles shortly.
Please kindly remove.
Cheers and best for 20009.
LOL, good one! BTT.
A lot of good it did. Looks like she’s in
^^^
Oh, I had no delusions that Cornyn would suceed, but it was good to hear what he had to say. McCain, on the other hand,....
from Senator C...
Yesterday I requested a full and open debate regarding the nomination of Senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The accepting of foreign donations by the William J. Clinton Foundation may provide possible conflicts of interest for Senator Clinton as she serves the American people. In trying times like these, it is crucial that our government be transparent to ensure that our officials are held accountable. This nomination was far too critical not to be discussed openly. Following today’s vote, I will continue working to ensure transparency transcends partisan politics and the American people are given answers to tough questions.
BTW, I'm accessing the net via pda, and its got a tiny buffer, so I abbreviate a lot.
Ex.s:
1) did you know that there were years McC didn't break 70%? Since you state you only looked at the average, I guess not.
2) Issues aren't weighted, so a Conservative vote on a minor bill, or one pre-doomed is the same as voting against McCain-Feingold.
In highschool, does a 1st-yr B still count more than a 4th-yr B? (I'm over 60, so high school was a little while ago[wink]) This is called "frontloading", and colleges do it all the time. Does the CU? Don't take it for granted... Those trying to render the Constitution irrelevent are counting on most everyone taking key things just that way.
Look, I'm old, but contrary to rumors, Its not true I actually knew any of the Founding Fathers... I've just read all their stuff. They stated time & again that Liberty required work; "constant vigilence" did not refer only to external enemies -- it applies even more to those who are always saying "My Friends!" and hug you with a dagger.
They also wrote that one reason to use onerous taxation was to make sure the electorate's free time was taken up earning a living... except for the "kept" classes. They'd get lots of free time so they could protest in favor of increasing the gov.'s power.
Lunch is up! Got to go!
BTW, GerardKempf, I'll overlook the snotty "rather have a gay crook" comment -- I know you're operating from abismal ignorance. [grin]
You’re now a member of the Forget* McCain faction
It’s the only part of the GOP that is growing in membership.
*couldn’t use the other F-word
Thanks for the clarification!
Umm Mike I didn’t respond because of the pure logic involved:
1) If you reference the source (the Union) to which you judge and base your argument/findings on THEN
2) It is safe to say that you agree not to be selective of just tidbits of what they publish HENCE
3) When they publish a lifetime average they use that as a relative gauge of the whole (not just a selective tidbit) and use that lifetime average/stand by it ALSO
4) You mention that sometimes he barely broke 70% and last I saw in year alone average it was above 80% so hmmm appears that John is doing just fine in the eyes of the Union
5) Your standalone opinion is fine, but sounds like you bend the evidence to fit your own conclusion.
Lets look at some stats, shall we:
McCain's strongest point, or so I'm told: his “lifetime CU” score of 82%. Frankly, that argument leaves me unimpressed. I only use it since it seems to be every McCainannite's loadstone. As I've said previously, their results are unwieghted so a bill to create the office of "Federal Dogcatcher" has the same weight as the bailout bill.
Here are some of his rating for 2007 = 80%
2006 = 65%
2005 = 80%
2004 = 72%
2003 = 80%
2002 = 78%
2001 = 68%
2000 = 81%
1999 = 77%
1998 = 68%
Of course, Graham's lifetime CU (LCU) is 90.39%, Martinez's LCU is 86.67% (better than McCain!).
And, if a candidate's LCU rating is the last word, lets not forget Sen Craig, with his 93.32% rating.
So, I've exploded the myth of his LCU ranking. Which when broken down is anything but laudable, pretty much the lowest of the "R" with Presidential aspirations.
I guess you get the idea. If you continue with the data through the Clinton years, available at The American Conservative Union and you to graph it, it shows that when his vote could have made a difference - after the Congressional upset during Clinton Admin, he went Left like he had a rocket up his butt!
His voting record had taken up residence across the isle until the prep. phase for the 2000 primaries started, when it started meandering toward Conservatism. The only brake on his actions seemed to be what he thought he could get away with and still run for the Presidency. So what that he voted with the herd when his vote was empty. When you look at individual votes, he often votes conservative when a veto loomed and changed it when an over-ride was attempted. One of a block of "R"s who's vote could stop nothing... and it looked good. Somewhat like HS GPA, where the first 3yrs of classes are the easiest, but will pad your GPA so you can "D" most of the senior classes and your GPA still comes out pretty good.
Incidentally, I wasn't the one who brought up his voting record initially. I was answering your question. I, in fact, don't normally use the CU, but mine the data directly. I have used the CU here as an example because it is a common reference, but if you wanted to simply buy a subscription to the Congressional Record you could tract almost as well.
If you'd like, I'll try to remember the links to the sources where he's recorded with his own words where he thinks "his" party, when it is adhering to Constitutional Principles -- as apposed to Socialist ones, is wrong. It has "gone down the wrong road", but the Dems are a "fine party, and a fine philosophy and I see nothing wrong with it" to use his turn of phrase!
Perhaps, instead of simply appearing occasionally to say "that's a silly notion", you'd like to actually support your opinion with a few facts?
On 2nd thought, I'm not going to do your work for you. These quotes were posted on this blog by lots of different people, along with sourcing. Find them yourself. I will leave it to others to judge which of us know what we're talking about.
And, your attempt to cast my arguments into a syllogism has produced several falacies. I'll give you a hint on one error though. If you'ed actually read what I posted to you previously you'll notice that I tell you not to rely on the CU, as they use a sledgehammer approach. Any 1/2way awake politician can get a good CU rating by gaming the system. So, no, I'm not alright with them. Go look up the CU ratings for some of the Dems. They have good CU ratings because the leadership allows them to vote conservative when they need to for re-election. The major point of my comment to you, as far as the data was concerned, is that to infer motive you have to analyze more than just "yay" or "nay". Timing, veto threats, importance of the bill -- all need to be factored in.
Add to this his attempts to switch parties, his lying about it when called on it. His Lying about Romney's comments, in FL, and insisting that we wasn't lying even when corrected. Add his claim to being a "Right to Life" candidate but the Wisconson incident. Add to that McCain-Fiengold's stab at the 1st Amendment. Add his lying on his 2nd Amendment stance, which you can look up here:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5043 which states, in part:
McCain’s gun show regulations, instead of simply requiring background checks on sales at gun shows, would make it extremely difficult for gun shows even to function. A special license would be required to operate gun shows. Licenses could be denied without the federal government even having to give a reason, and no time limits would be placed on how long the government had to make its decisions.
While gun-control groups have tried for years to register the names of gun owners, McCain’s legislation helps accomplish this by effectively requiring the registration of all people who attend a gun show. Gun show operators would even face criminal penalties and imprisonment if any unregistered attendees were to trade a gun after the show if the gun were discussed in any way during the show. The only option to operators would thus be to register everyone.
McCain acknowledges that these regulations could be abused, but, according to him, the goals are too important to compromise, and McCain assures us that we should trust the regulators. Yet, it was not so long ago that the Clinton administration constantly halted gun sales nationwide as background checks broke down and kept records long after the law explicitly allowed.
Most troubling are McCain’s extreme measures for what is essentially a non-existent problem. The Bureau of Justice Statistics under Clinton conducted a survey of 18,000 state prison inmates in 1997—the largest survey of inmates ever conducted. Less than one percent of inmates (0.7 percent) who had a gun obtained it from a gun show. The vast majority of criminals—40 percent—say they got their guns either from friends or family, and 39 percent got it on the street or from other illegal sources.
Of course, like with many gun-control regulations, this call for more regulations rests on distortions. Despite the “gun show loophole” term used by McCain and others, there are no special exemptions for buying a gun at a gun show. Dealers must perform the same background checks as in a store. What gun-control groups refer to is the non-regulated private transfer of guns. Eighteen states regulate the private transfer of handguns, with some having regulations going back more than several decades. However, not surprisingly, just as with the semi-automatic gun bans, there is not a single academic study showing that these regulations reduce any type of violent crime.
McCain has also done advertisements on behalf of Americans for Gun Safety, a gun-control organization that supports licensing and registering every gun owner in the United States. He has used the ads to greatly exaggerate the risks of children getting access to guns in the home—a claim that is based upon a questionable survey—and asked that people lock up guns. With the threats he claims existed, few would know that in 2002, for example, the number of children under 10 who died from accidental gun shots was 20, and the number of children under 15 was 56. Obviously, one death is too many, but McCain has launched no similar campaign against other much more dangerous items in people’s homes.
No mention was ever made by McCain about using guns for self-defense or that gunlocks might make it difficult to stop intruders who break into your home. And research indicates that McCain’s push for gunlocks is far more likely to lead to more deaths than it saves.
Mike:
Please know that I am pro-gun rights. However let’s look at a couple of items you posted on McCain’s so called smothering of the gun show/gun dealer industry.
1) You reference a study done by Clinton about interviewing 18000 felons in prison - wow what a great study and a great truthful pool to base study on (a Clinton study no less). Umm when a prisoner’s testimony is ripped apart in court of law, in my mind, their honest answer on a survey is a little suspect as well.
2) A lot of licensed gun dealers (note not gun shops) buy their guns from shops and shows. Here is an article from Dan Noyes (an investigative reporter and Republican and Jay Wachtel from ATF:
Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you’re likely to hear this hard boiled response: “They steal them.” But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners’ homes and cars. “Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,” Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.
In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1999 ATF study on “Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California,” many straw purchases are conducted in an openly “suggestive” manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a gun store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel’s own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that’s where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.
According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that “of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime’ of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity.”
The report goes on to state that “over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs” and reveals that 23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, when a new law took effect requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours. This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show “Hot Guns” only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years.
Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts.
While many guns are taken off the street when people are arrested and any firearms in their possession are confiscated, a new study shows how easily arrestees believe they could illegally acquire another firearm. Supported by the National Institute of Justice and based on interviews with those recently arrested, the study acknowledges gun theft is common, with 13 percent of all arrestees interviewed admitting that they had stolen a gun. However a key finding is that “the illegal market is the most likely source” for these people to obtain a gun. “In fact, more than half the arrestees say it is easy to obtain guns illegally,” the report states. Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it.
ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation’s 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. Cracking down on these dealers continues to be a priority for the ATF. What’s needed, according to Wachtel, is better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers. This means examining FFL paperwork to see where their guns are coming from, and making sure that those guns are being sold legally. But he says, “Let’s be honest. If someone wants a gun, it’s obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market.”
3) In conclusion, can you see why McCain may have wanted to prevent criminals from obtaining guns circa dealers who get them readily at shows/shops and in turn are used to shoot innocents and police officers. C’mon Mike.
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.