Replies

How is he a treasonous bastard? "Treason," to my understanding of the word's definition, means that he gave aid and comfort to an enemy of the U.S., and "bastard" would mean that he is an out-of-wedlock son of his father. John McCain is neither. (Giving aid?) He was a tortured POW. (Bastard?) His father was a submarine admiral who was married to his mother (daughter of an Episcopal minister).
CFR was not an attempt to censor but rather an ambitious attempt at making the election process more democratic (i.e., making candidates less beholden to special lobby/interest groups). In the original form that McCain had crafted, it would have meant a lot more libertarians in office and a lot more hard right AND hard left extremists out of office...however and unfortunately, the compromise with Russ Feingold won out. BTW George Bush (the darling of conservatives) signed CFR into the law that you McCain haters so despise; therefore, is he also a treasonous bastard?
My disappointment with McCain is solely isolated to immigration (backing of the Bush guest worker plan) and I have certain issues with his 2nd Amendment philosophy. I do not, though, nor have I ever, understood how clamps on our country's expanding and outrageous campaign financing system is harmful to our democracy...perhaps someone on FR can enlighten me (but not until they can make me believe how money is really free speech).

May I suggest you read this from Captain's Quarters?

Both houses of Congress promise to return to this topic with a narrower exemption for bloggers, and the blogosphere will welcome that. It still doesn't address the real defect of the BCRA, though, which regulates political speech by treating it as a purchasable commodity. The First Amendment specifically protected the free exercise of political speech, and yet under the BCRA the First Amendment now offers more protection to nude dancing and pornography than it does to political candidates who want to communicate with prospective constituents. Somehow, I don't think it takes an originalist to understand just how wrong that result is. UPDATE: In the interest of cleaning our own house, here are the Republicans who voted against the bill: Boehlert.........Hobson.........Platts.........Upton Bradley (NH).....Johnson (CT)...Ramstad........Walden (OR) Castle...........Johnson (IL)...Regula.........Walsh Coble............Kirk...........Saxton.........Wamp Emerson..........LaHood.........Schmidt........Weldon (PA) Frelinghuysen....LaTourette.....Schwarz........Wilson (NM) Gallegly.........Leach..........Shays..........Wolf Gilchrest........LoBiondo.......Simmons........Bass Gillmor..........Osborne........Smith (NJ)..... Hefley...........Petri..........Turner.........

OH and by the way? - - don't think that there arent plenty of conservatives who are PO'd at Bush - his choice of battles to fight where vetos are concerned are troubling enough (Meiers, Dubai etc), and his LACK of fight concerning this abrogation of the First Amendment says some nasty things about an otherwise good President. HOWEVER - the bill has MCCAIN's and FEINGOLD's name on it - NOT BUSH'S!!! - and so the sh*t hits THEIR fan - if they can't take the heat their tag to this outrage of marxism, then THEY should leave the kitchen - along with all their groupies.

He swore an oath to uphold the Contitution when he was a soldier - he did so as a Senator. What he has done as a Senator however, has just wiped out whatever credibility he held as a soldier by pushing through a bill that cripples the first and foremost of our Constitution. If THAT doesnt make him a traitor, then I dont know what does.

As far as I am concerned, he can no longer claim the title of "veteran" with all the honor it deserves. He is an f'ing traitor. end of story.