The Real McCain Record (Obstacles in the way of conservative support.)

National Review Online ^ | January 11, 2008 | Mark Levin

[Delacon]

There’s a reason some conservatives who support John McCain are rarely willing to discuss the bulk of his record. They want to discuss his personal story, his position on the surge, and his supposed electability. And when questions are raised about McCain’s broader record, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as negative attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say that he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. McCain’s record on a host of major domestic issues is among the most anti-conservative in the Senate. And I would encourage conservatives to examine it. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights, since the tobacco settlement.

McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also lead the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule’s change that would have ended the systematic use or threatened use of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, i.e., McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prison population — despite both the legal rights that would immediately inure to the enemy and the burdens of managing such a dangerous prison population.

And while McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was placed in the difficult circumstance of having to rebuild the United States military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and his friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain’s voice when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? And McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of the rest of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

— Mark R. Levin is author of the bestselling Men In Black, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, and a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.

[Delacon]

"My fingers are crossed that at the next debate either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t as he is apparently in the tank for him.)"

Come of Fred, take the gloves off!

[gov_bean_ counter]

When I hear the name McCain, two numbers quickly come to mind...

5 and 14

Those are enough to keep him out of th WH should he get past the primaries.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

First one on the list could be called McCain-Feingold-Thompson.

[tips up]

Will Fred go after McCain like he went after Huck? I don’t know. They are friends. Senate old boys club, etc

Very interesting watching the alliances between candidates. Who is willing to go after who, and who protects who.

[jbwbubba]

Romney tried in NH, but was labeled as too negative. So last night he backed off. Last night was amazing one of the few times that a front runner (thats what McCain is now) gets no attention or attacks.

[Count of Monte Logan]

” his position on the surge”

Honestly, this is the most important issue, the surge and Iraq.. #1, #2 and #3 right now. McCain took leadership on this issue.. whereas so many wheenies in congress and around the country did not.

I’m warming to McCain (I hate Romney.. and I’m a Mormon). I would like Fred too, but it might be too late.

[umgud]

McCain still doesn’t get it. During last night’s debate, he said that he had heard the people, and will secure the border first........... unfortunately, he thinks that means he can still push thru a path to citizenship after he secures the border (which is still amnesty).

He doesn’t understand that the majority of the people don’t want amnesty, with or without a sealed border.

[Cicero]

It was argued on another thread that Fred needs McCain to help fend off Mitt Romney in Michigan. So it’s really a question of when to take the gloves off. Mitt is a more dangerous adversary than McCain, I think.

Another factor is that Fred and McCain are evidently personal friends. But I don’t think that’s the reason Fred is holding back. He needs to let the others fight it out at this stage in the process. He needs to play the balance perfectly if he is to break out of the media embargo against him.

[GBA]

Why would any conservative vote for McCain? Why would any Republican who wants 4 more years of a Republican presidency vote for McCain? Same questions apply to the Huckster supporters. Look closely. You do NOT want either of these men in the White House...nor does the rest of the country.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I actually found one reference that said that from contemporary news articles.

But you have to admit, Thompson’s name isn’t on all those other bills. Mark Levin did an excellent job laying out the cumulative assault on conservatives that changed McCain from a solid 2nd choice in 2000, to the anathema that he has become today for many conservatives.

[Soliton]

The McCain-Feingold-Thompson proposal bars the national parties, federal officeholders, and candidates from soliciting, receiving, or spending any funds that are not subject to the limitations and reporting requirements in federal election law. This provision would categorically shut down the Washington soft money fund-raising machine. The legislation also provides that state and local parties that engage in activities during a federal election year that might affect the outcome of a federal election, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, may only do so with funds raised under the federal limits surprise

[tips up]

Was Fred in the Senate for these bill votes? Anyone know how he voted on all of these. I hope he was against them.

Wonder how the three Dem candidates voted on these too. Interesting if the three Dems voted with McCain. I’d love to see that brought up in a debate.

[org.whodat]

The huckster and Mclame have the same amnesty program, so the two are in bed together. Neither is worth spit!

[stephenjohnbanker]

Well stated.

[Russ]

McCain lost me with his stand on global warming. He mentioned it briefly in last night’s debate but I haven’t seen much attention being paid to it. He seems to want to be the Republican Al Gore on this issue.

[Old Retired Army Guy]

I have been sitting back and watching talk radio and other conservative journals go after Mc Cain, Huckabee and Rudy. At this point in time however, it looks like one of them may very well be the nominee. What is their position going to be then? This morning I even heard Rush make a passing mention of Romney as a Conservative. I couldn’t believe my ears. Does he really believe Romney’s recent conversion is for real? I have been a big Rush fan for years, but these last few weeks of listening to him has been hard. Ingraham has been even worse. They make like Fred which I do to, but it’s awful late in the game for Fred to gain any footing. Conservatives need to concentrate their ire on the Democrats.

[Count of Monte Logan]

McCain is right on Iraq. He has led on this issue.. just as Gulliani and Bush led on 9/11. However, I would prefer more judges like Bush has done.. I hope McCain would commmit to that.

[bennowens]

McClain is in the “no fly” zone at my house. I will not listen to, or even consider voting for this RINO. Anyone that thinks he could be elected is delusional.

[BluH2o]

All you have to remember about McPain ...

hotdog, loose cannon, & a RHINO. Not to mention of the Keating 5 he was the only pubbie.

[Maelstorm]

Yes he should. He is warming up to it. There is no use for him to attack McCain too early. He did say he disagreed with him on Amnesty. McCain now says he NEVER EVER supported amnesty. That is not a little "I changed my mind, I was wrong". Click to watch McCain on Amnesty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCmwzlklEYE

Click to watch McCain and the gang of 14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W53n2i-avk