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

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.

Great article that should be read by all conservatives and even moderates.

41 posted on 01/11/2008 10:51:49 AM PST by MBB1984

I heard Thompson address McCain-Feingold yesterday on the radio. He said the bill was an attempt to reign in soft money that Clinton was spreading around back then perhaps illegally but definitely through loopholes. Clinton was gaming the system. Thompson said he backed the bill to address this corruption. He also said he was WRONG. Way better than any position McCain has taken on the bill.

He is spinning it differently than he did at the time, which leaves him misrepresenting his reasons. Also, look at all of his statements on it. He doesn't think it was all wrong at all. He is only backing off the very worst part of it. How he could have EVER supported that part is beyond me.

42 posted on 01/11/2008 10:52:13 AM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)

“McCain has gotten real squirrley on global warming”

I would not call it squirrley, more like full blown global warming alarmist. He has took the lie, hook line and sinker

43 posted on 01/11/2008 10:53:49 AM PST by NavyCanDo

To: Count of Monte Logan

MCain already is committed to opposing conservative judges through his leadership in orchestrating the gang of fourteen. With McCain you will have Souter style judges endorsed by his old buddy Mr. Rudman.

44 posted on 01/11/2008 11:01:25 AM PST by MBB1984

To: Cicero; Delacon

Another factor is that Fred and McCain are evidently personal friends.

IMHO, that's why Fred supported McCain's infamous attack on the First Amendment. It was just loyalty to his friend. Nobody is perfect.

45 posted on 01/11/2008 11:03:04 AM PST by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)

Not to mention of the Keating 5 he was the only pubbie.

All that needed to be said, IMO. Pure slime with a crust of self-aggrandizement...

46 posted on 01/11/2008 11:21:16 AM PST by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)

To: gov_bean_ counter

We must allow voters to choose and not before Feb. 5 should we dis any of our guys(excepting Paul who should be urged to leave the race and then support our nominee graciously)so that the MSM and Dems determine our guy. I do know that at least we have guys who will defend the nation unlike the leftist socialist pacifists that the Dems are. As to economic views, McCain and Huck have to be put on the fire to promise tax cuts, freedom of speech and good conservative jurist picks. If the Conservative Media has to do it, do it. Some of our guys are waiting for the VP pick in my opinion and that is why they won’t burn any bridges.

47 posted on 01/11/2008 11:38:34 AM PST by phillyfanatic ( tH)

To: Cicero; Delacon

P.S. Fred was probably counting on GWB keeping his promise to veto McCain-Feingold.

48 posted on 01/11/2008 12:18:55 PM PST by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)

No way I will ever vote for McCaine either. This is the guy who not only wants to restrict our freedom of speech but has constantly stabbed President Bush in the back ever chance he can get. I would almost rather see a Dem it the WH than McCaine if he is the Republican nominee; at least we would know for sure what we are getting. That's how much I despise his actions over the last 7 years.

There is no way I would ever vote for McCaine for ANYTHING!!!

49 posted on 01/11/2008 1:53:42 PM PST by Left2Right ("Democracy isn't perfect, but other governments are so much worse (especially Iran's)")

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

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

And the gang of 14 could be called "gang of 15". Thompson played go-between to give the group legitimacy.

50 posted on 01/11/2008 1:58:14 PM PST by Perchant

P.S. Fred was probably counting on GWB keeping his promise to veto McCain-Feingold.

Yes. There was huge pressure from the media to "reform" campaign contributions and supposedly eliminate dirty money. At least some of those who finally voted for it, after having voted against it for many years, did so because they thought that Bush would veto it. So they could pacify their constituents while still not seeing the bill pass.

Bush should have vetoed it. He couldn't have been more villainized by the media than he already was, and he could have given a speech emphasizing that it was a first amendment freedom that he was supporting.

51 posted on 01/11/2008 2:01:46 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)

That’s the way I see it, too. That’s exactly how I see Thompson.

52 posted on 01/11/2008 2:02:10 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)

53 posted on 01/11/2008 3:48:03 PM PST by Para-Ord.45

To: Scarchin; Rb ver. 2.0; Bird Jenkins; Y Ceratotherium; WOSG; jschner; patriciaruth; ...

54 posted on 01/11/2008 7:03:29 PM PST by Checkers (John McCain is Bob Dole minus the character, humor, class, record, loyalty, honor, mental fitness...)

Am I the only one offended that McCain and Huckabee inferred that all of us against amnesty are racists? I cannot and will not vote for anyone who called me a racist. Even against a dem.

55 posted on 01/11/2008 7:09:05 PM PST by libbylu

56 posted on 01/11/2008 7:13:22 PM PST by TigersEye (Crusty is as Crusty does.)

So who do you want to win a rather tenuous battle between cons and other republics? McCain? Huckabee? Giuliani? Or are you just trollin? If you are a Hunter supporter, then say it. Otherwise you are just a troll.

57 posted on 01/11/2008 7:34:36 PM PST by Delacon (Don't Immanentize the Eschaton.)

Thompson said he backed the bill to address this corruption. He also said he was WRONG.

Thompson did distance himself from some of the fund raising aspects of the bill and offered and amendment of his own to correct what he saw as deficiencies. I would like to find where he distanced himself from the advertising restrictions which are the most egregious parts of the bill IMO.

I have just begun asking around for that because I would really like to keep Fred in my "no problem to vote for" category. I don't want Duncan Hunter to be so lonely.

58 posted on 01/11/2008 8:27:43 PM PST by TigersEye (Crusty is as Crusty does.)

To: Count of Monte Logan

I hope McCain would commmit to that.,

commitments to Conservatives mean absolutely nothing to McCain. McCain's instinct is to screw conservatives. If McCain had any honor and decency, he would run as a Democrat.

59 posted on 01/11/2008 10:13:52 PM PST by sand88

There is no way I would ever vote for McCaine for ANYTHING!!!

great post!! I am with you 100%. McCain is a vile, corrupt, bitter old man who should be in forced retirement. He is a danger to our Republic.

60 posted on 01/11/2008 10:16:11 PM PST by sand88

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794