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.

[no dems]

I asked today why Fred, after stomping a mudhole in Huck’s butt, didn’t go after McCain. Another Freeper said: “No need; SC Conservatives aren’t going to vote for McCain.

To that I say, don’t be too sure.

[no dems]

Fred endorsed McCain in 2000. There’s a friendship there, but don’t judge Fred by McCain.

Somebody better take the gloves off and sucker punch McCain SOON.

[curiosity]

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.

If all these great conservative minds think Romney's is a good choice for conservatives (Rush, Peggy Noonan, National Review, Hugh Hewett, Laura Ingram, etc.), is it not possible that you may be the one who's off, and not them?

Objectively, Romney's only recent conversion was on abortion. He gradually moved to the right on gay rights over a period of 14 years. And he slightly deviates from the conservative position on guns. But that's it. On everything else he's always been a solid conservative.

On gay rights, you've got to give him credit for always staunchly opposing gay marriage. You also have to give him credit for fighting hard to stop it in Massachusetts, at great political cost, even though he ultimately lost that fight. Yes, 14 years ago he supported gays in the military, but now 14 years later he supports the current policy. Hardly a recent change.

His position on guns hasn't changed and is pretty much the same as that of president Bush: good on everything except the assault weapons ban.

He's not without his flaws, but if he's been a consistent conservative on all but three issues, can you not forgive one recent conversion on abortion and small deviations from the conservative view on two other issues?

[kellynla]

“A deadlock Republican convention turns to the most qualified Republican of them all to be president on the fifth ballot, Dick Cheney. And he wins in a landslide in November.”

Bill Kristol
12/23/07
Fox News Sunday

[AuntB]

BTT! Time to end this McCain surge.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

McCain is a vile, corrupt, bitter old man who should be in forced retirement. He is a danger to our Republic.

Agree 100%. He's the most loathsome figure in American politics.

[Delacon]

Don’t forget he screwed over families of pows/mias who weren’t satisfied with Vietnam’s claims that all our soldiers were returned. He with John Kerry spearheaded the normalization of relations with Vietnam.

[Delacon]

Well said. I’d add that we should keep it in context that Romney had to govern a very liberal state. If he were to be president he will be free to find policies that are more conservative because the rest of the country as a whole is more conservative than MA. I’d like Thompson to be president, but Romney would be my second choice.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Suppose it came down to Clinton VS McCain? That would be the
most ghastly choice in my lifetime!

[ConservativeJen]

Yeah, call it “Democrat Primary: Round 2”