McCain finally endorses campaign to end racial preferences…or does he?
Over the past year, I’ve blogged repeatedly about true maverick and civil rights pioneer Ward Connerly’s Super Tuesday for Equality campaign to end discriminatory government race/gender preferences across the country and urged you to get involved in the multi-state initiative movement (see here, here here, and here.)
As I’ve mentioned to you before, Connerly and his volunteers are an example of principled conservative leadership at its finest. Everywhere they have taken their fight, they have won–and won big–against massive, entrenched liberal opposition, GOP establishment cowardice (see, for example, how Jeb Bush helped strangle Connerly’s efforts in Florida and how the big business and the GOP establishment joined left-wing grievance-mongers and race hustlers in a failed bid to stop the anti-preference movement in Michigan). Connerly’s bitter opponents in both parties blame “racism” and “sexism” for the movement’s huge victories in California, Washington state, and Michigan. The real reason the measures passed with overwhelming margins: Because when push comes to shove, and when equal rights are on the ballot, the majority of Americans of all races and political parties resoundingly reject government social engineering in the name of “diversity,” color-coded treatment, and special preferences in the name of “equality.”
Until this weekend, John McCain had refused to take a position on Connerly’s measures–one of which will likely be on the ballot in Arizona. McCain has been a squish on the issue for years and remains untrustworthy now. He supported minority contracting set-asides and opposed an anti-preference measure proposed in 1998 by an Arizona state senator, which McCain told Hispanic leaders was “divisive.” Stephen Hayes reported in March:
In 1998, as McCain began planning for his presidential bid two years later, Arizona state senator Scott Bundgaard was pushing for a measure similar to Proposition 209. McCain, in a speech to Arizona Hispanic leaders, called such measures “divisive.” He did not directly oppose Bundgaard’s initiative, but news reports at the time claimed that McCain told others in the state legislature that he thought such a measure would be counterproductive. (That same year, McCain joined 14 other Republicans and 43 Democrats to vote in favor of a Department of Transportation set-aside requiring that 10 percent of highway contracts go to minority-owned businesses. Again, news reports suggested that McCain warned his colleagues about appearing divisive.)
By 2000, McCain’s comments as a presidential candidate seemed to reflect a slight shift. In February, McCain told reporters aboard his campaign bus that he opposed racial preferences and quotas. When they asked why he voted for race-conscious programs in the Senate, he told them that he did not want to eliminate the old programs until new programs based on economic need had been implemented to replace them.
But it was what he said before articulating that position that was more revealing. An account in the Orange County Register said McCain was “unfamiliar” with Proposition 209 in California in 1996, which the paper correctly described as having “set the tone for a national movement to ban government preferences based on race and gender.”
A dozen years after that ground-breaking victory, McCain has apparently changed his mind and dropped his opposition to the anti-preference movement–but still hasn’t bothered to familiarize himself with the basics of the anti-preference measures and the principles of equality under the law that undergird them.
ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Kevin Kilbane Report: During a “This Week” interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos John McCain reversed himself on affirmative action and endorsed for the first time a proposed state ballot measure which would end race and gender-based affirmative action in his home state of Arizona.
“I support it,” McCain declared when asked about the referendum. “I do not believe in quotas… I have not seen the details of some of these proposals. But I’ve always opposed quotas.”
McCain has long opposed quotas but his new support for ending affirmative action programs which stop short of quotas puts him at odds not only with Democratic rival Barack Obama but also with the Arizona senator’s own views in 1998.
Back then, when the legislature in McCain’s home state of Arizona considered sending the voters a measure to end affirmative action, McCain spoke out against it calling it “divisive.” McCain’s campaign does not dispute that the Arizona senator spoke out against the 1998 effort to end affirmative action in his home state. When asked about the apparent change in position, a McCain spokesman was not able to distinguish the two measures.
“I do not have a firm enough grasp on the historical and relevant context of McCain’s remark in 1998 to give you the pushback that this question deserves,” McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds told ABC News.
The McCain camp can’t push back because there is no difference between the 1998 measure and the one that citizens in his state may finally have a chance to vote on in November. They can’t explain why it’s not a flip-flop, because it is a giant, XXL one.
If, that is, McCain meant what he said. Big if.
Roger Clegg, a leading activist in the long fight to overturn racial preferences, argues that McCain should be applauded for his remarks yesterday. I must respectfully disagree. McCain’s ridiculous “have not seen the details” clause gives him just the space he needs to renege–and turn his back on conservatives when his open-borders friends and Big Business donors start pressuring him to back off. Like he’s done before.
Bottom line: On yet another major issue so important to grass-roots conservatives, McCain has put expedient politics above demonstrated principle. On immigration. On drilling. And now on an issue that ought to have highlighted the stark differences between two parties and two ideological approaches to civil rights. Instead, McCain has pandered away any credibility he had, tainted diehard anti-preference activists with his cynicism, and sown exactly the kind of divisiveness he’s always accusing movement conservatives of whenever he’s sucking up to left-wing grievance lobbies.
Barack Obama, a lifelong preference-monger, has the wrong convictions on this issue.
McCain doesn’t have any.
You asked for straight talk. You got it.
***
The good news: The movement to abolish government race/gender preferences doesn’t need McCain or the Beltway GOP establishment to win.
Support Super Tuesday for Equality here.
The Colorado Springs Gazette endorses Amendment 46:
It will be a great day for scholars – red and yellow, black and white – when state-sponsored racism finally ends. If Coloradans approve Amendment 46 in November – the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative – the University of Colorado and other public institutions of learning will have to stop discriminating on a basis of sex and race and such. As it stands today, the University of Colorado blatantly uses racial discrimination practices that are part of its official admissions policies and procedures. If approved, the Civil Rights Initiative would say: “The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public contracting, or public education.”
Unfortunately, the amendment doesn’t protect against “religious” discrimination, which is rampant on state university campuses. But that may be another amendment for another election. For now, voters have the option to eliminate five categories of government discrimination.
Up in Boulder, university officials are scrambling to figure out their strategy in the likely event this amendment should pass. That branch of the university alone must select for admission fewer than half of 23,000 applications a year. Race is a consideration whenever possible. The biggest problem for the university is that minorities seldom apply. For years, the Boulder campus has struggled with racial crimes and complaints that say the mostly white campus is generally hostile to ethnic and racial minorities. School oficials, with sincerely noble intentions, have tried to address the problem by enrolling more ethnic and racial minorities, simply because they are minorities. Amendment 46 would end that practice.
A more minority-friendly environment at the state’s flagship campus is a laudable goal. Racist admissions policies, however, are not the solution.
Would that the GOP presidential candidate could articulate this position as clearly and convincincly.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- La Shawn Barber's Corner
- The Other McCain: McCain supports civil rights
- McChange of heart on racial preferences « Seeing Red AZ
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: John McCain, Race relations
Ed Driscoll
» In The Midnight Hour, She Cried, More, More, More…
Right Pundits
» Stupak Amendment: Abortion Restriction Amendment Passes, Healthcare Reform Passes HouseAmSpecBlog
» Members to WatchWeekly Standard
» House Passes Democratic Health Care Bill 220 to 215
I’m desperate for any differences between Obama and McCain. So I’ll take this baby step.
I’ll take the steps, too, but I cannot help but think of the political expediency this issue brings when you are running for the White House and haven’t fully sewn up your base.
Film at 11…
On July 28th, 2008 at 7:23 am, POTUS said:
Ditto! That’s why I’m voting AND supporting President Elect John McCain. Conservatives at least have of a chance of bringing him around to our side; the same cannot be said of BHO.
On July 28th, 2008 at 7:23 am, POTUS said:
Real differences and political differences are not the same thing.
Let us hope this is a real difference. It would make sense politically for McCain to be against affirmative action since he is going to lose 95% of the black vote no matter what he says he believes.
Is DIVISIVE the most overused word in America or what!
I don’t believe there are actually that many differences between the two. They will both say and do anything that will make them more powerfull. I don’t think either of them puts our great country first. They always come first.
This iis a very big IF from McCain. I can only hope he really believes this now. I wish he would also see that he needs to quit pandering to the illegals in this country. IF he would only try to do a few more conservativew things, it would be much easier to vote for him without holding my nose or taking a puke bag into the booth.
#2 ACHefty
I agree. John McCain has shown he’ll say what he thinks you want to hear. He’s also shown he’ll change in a minute if he feels it’s politically expediant.
Actions speak louder than words. His actions over the last eight years give me no reason to believe that I should believe him now.
Exactly, tre.
What has McCain done to make me believe anything he says?
Let us hope, at least I do, that Senator McCain means something. This pandering to the illegals for the sake of cheap labor is costing the Republican Party dearly. The fool sure wanders when asked about the question.
No credibility here. None. Go away, Mr McCain.
This reminds me of Bob Dole’s last minute support of the California ballot measure to end race/gender preferences (I forget the ‘96 proposition# but I am sure someone will remind me). Establishment RINOs knew which way the wind was blowing and thought it might help Dole’s lackluster campaign. It didn’t. Nothing helped Mr. Dole, who had little more to talk about than his war injury (check both the ‘76 vice-presidential and ‘96 presidential debates). And nothing will help Mr. McCain’s lame campaign now (though admittedly Obama is doing his very best).
What a tool McAmnesty is. I don’t believe ANYTHING the old, broken panderer has to say. I am SO not excited by him. I am so disgusted he is my only choice…
(Conservative VP, Conservative VP, Conservative VP, click heels together three times, repeat…)
Whether you believe McCain or not, you can join the American Civil Rights Coalition here.
I encourage all to join. It feels great. Even better if you make a donation.
I dislike and distrust McCain, but the thought of what the Dems could do with Obama (and a filibuster-proof majority) is too awful to allow. Thye’d shove through same-day registrations, bans on state voter ID laws..anything to make a permanent Dem majority with voter rolls so swollen with dead and double registrations the GOP could never take back the federal government.
Given that, the Dems would push through every socialist program they could – universal health care, “equal pay” laws, union card-check elections, onerous tax and environmental legislation, and putting the US under international environmental and criminal law. So it’s McCain or socialism for decades..
That said, I think McCain does not flip flop as much as shift to the right. He justified his change on drilling on the economic and defense need for sources of cheaper fossil fuels and the need to be free of so much foreign oil. He said the facts changed, so he was willing to change his mind.
He could justify this by saying that the last ten years had shown that “affirmative action” meant nothing more than quotas, and anyone who said they believed in AA, but not quotas, doesn’t recognize they’re the same thing.
Obama said in a debate that he wanted AA for the economically deprived, yet wanted to keep AA based on race and ethinicity. He conceded his daughters had so many advantages that they didn’t need AA.
So what happens when the poor white kid is tied for admission or a job with the black kid? Which version of Obama’s AA prevails?
What makes you think so?
McCain as Nixon.
flenser #15:
The same reason people keep buying lottery tickets hoping to win $100 million dollars!!
There is no bringing McCain around to the good side of the force. He is damaged, untrustworthy, and an abomination to what was once the conservative party.
I guess the moderate liberal blue-haired Republicans must finish their experiment. Their monster John S. Frankenstein will sink in November like a fiber-laden turd and many of us who are victims of his maverickism will enjoy watching it.
I wonder if liberals would have second thoughts about affirmative action if it were widely known that it was Richard Nixon who promoted and implemented federal affirmative action programs.
That, a.k.a., hope, plus the fact he’ll never get his agenda passed without us – conservatives – applying pressure on Congress.
I watched the other McCain threads from the weekend. Interesting…thats all i can say.
Legitimately, I still have a problem voting for this guy. I certainly dont want Obama to win, but…McCain isn’t that attractive either.
And playing the “well, he’s better than Obama” card is, really…you can tout the ACU ratings all day, but it doesnt change his stances or his flipping on issues when its expedient for him to do so. Even with the premise that he’s better than Obama, in this case, its the same screwing over we’re going to get from Obama, but its going to be in a different form, and take longer. But its still being screwed regardless.
The fact of matter is, McCain supports open borders and is a La Raza cheerleader. He panders to illegals, regardless of the fact that they dont care about him, and is willing to just let illegals infiltrate our country.
It’s been mentioned though that people who are here have looked illegal immigration as some single issue, and it being a deal breaker. But the fact is, illegal immigration ties into almost EVERY major facet of problems we have in our country. Look at just a handful of examples I can think of offhand:
1. Crime statistics in locations who are sanctuaries rather than tough on illegal immigrants.
2. Home lending to illegals has had an impact, as demonstrated and discussed here ad nauseum.
3. Social Services programs, Healthcare and Education costs for children of illegals (born here or not).
4. The price of fuel based on consumption. If there are 20 million people using the same resources we are, the demand goes up, and so does the price.
5. Wages earned by hard-working citizens vs. the wages earned by illegals. Granted, the business owners are exploting this and should be severely punished. But it doesnt change the fact illegals are taking jobs, and wages, from citizens. And for the most part, those funds are being sent back to Mexico via sources like Western Union.
Those are just some larger ones i can think of off the fly.
Is Barack YoWallet bad for us? Absolutely. Will he screw us over? Of course.
But for those of us who are still on the fence about McCain, and refuse to just hold our nose and vote for a shamnesty clown, he’s not giving us alot of reason to want to vote for him willinging. And again, the “he’s better than Obama” doesn’t apply. My dog is better than both of them combined, but she isn’t running.
I’m asking
More McCain nonsense.
Has McCain ever sponsored or co-sponsored ANY conservative bills?
That’s the strange thing. I see a lot of people here who are terrified of Obama becoming president, but seem completely indifferent to the creation of millions of new voters who love Obama.
Assume for the sake of argument that McCain wins this years, then pushes through his beloved amnesty bill with the help of his “dear friends” in the Democratic Party.
With several million new left-wing voters on the rolls, how does Obama not win in 2012? People are willing to sell the future in their desperation to win now. Not a very conservative thing to do.
On July 28th, 2008 at 9:38 am, Valiant said:
No one’s arguing that McCain is any good, except the establishment Republicans who think this is the way to consolidate their power. That being said, I think your glee at McCain’s failure will disappear rapidly once you realize that we have our first communist President. I also have to disagree that The Obama is the inevitable winner, on two grounds: first, he’s arrogant and condescending, which most Americans can’t stand; also, remember our long list of other inevitable candidates from recent history — Algore, John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), Hillary…
I’m not under any delusions that McCain won’t dump a steaming pile on conservatives at every chance; if he’s President, it’ll be an uphill battle for four years to keep him and Congress in line. That’s a battle we know we can win, though: remember amnesty? At any rate, I’d much rather have to fight McCain and get some response, than try to fight The Obama and a Democrat Congress (though why people think the Democrats have that in the bag too eludes me — see their approval ratings) and get waffles.
Abstract, that’s the way I feel.
I’ll channel Mad-Eye Moody for just a wee little moment here… “CONSTANT VIGILANCE!”
Again, why? Has McCain ever given you any reason to think that he likes conservatives any more than Obama or the Democratic Congress do?
OOPS
hit wrong button
I’m asking though…for a minute, throw aside the LOTE argument. Throw aside the other arguments we try to use to equivocate the 2 candidates.
Give me good reasons why i would want to vote for someone who panders to illegals and cant stay solid on basic policy decisions?
I am only gleeful at the prospect of a conservative fight after 8 years of Bush. With President McCain, the Republicans will move swiftly to pass his liberal agenda much as under Bush. With President Obama, there will be gridlock. Although the conservative agenda will not move forward, neither will the liberal agenda.
Obama is an empty suit. McCain is a back-stabbing traitor.
Remember La Raza?
I remember. I remember how we narrowly escaped disaster, and that only because we got the politicians to thinking that there might be consequences for their actions.
After the two biggest amnesty supporters in the country won their respective nominations, the amnesty supporters now believe (probably correctly) that they are safe. We won’t defeat them again.
Of course we did not defeat them before, we simply held them to a stalemate. Victory would be passing good legistation, not blocking bad bills.
McCain would be extremely wise to align himself with the fight against the various liberal race based “remedies” like “affirmative action” and bilingual ed.
To wit:
In Massachusetts (yes, that Massachusetts), the November 2002 elections included a referendum question (Question 2) on whether or not Massachusetts should continue its 30-year-old bilingual education policy, or if it should be changed. The winning vote was for change (68%), favoring English immersion.
Yes, deep blue Massachusetts.
And the advertising and protesting and commercials were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping bilingual ed. UMASS Amherst was deluged with flyers etc. telling all the “horror” stories.
Point 2: in the recent conversion to a gay marriage state, why do you think that the legislature denied the public a chance to vote on the law?
Because the public was dead set against it, and it never would have happened if our “representatives” allowed the people to speak (who do they represent anyway?).
Again, this is Kennedy country.
If it can happen here, believe me, it can happen anywhere.
If voters are satisfied with a president who makes U.S. foreign and domestic policy in deference to the whims, wishes and dictates of “old Europe” – which B Hussein Obama’s recent trip there has proven he will do as president – then by all means they should feel free to sit home and allow Oabam to become president by default.
But I will proudly vote McCain this fall because I know he is his own man and with him, our country has a chance of remaining relatively unscathered by the torrents of change Obama promises to bring about – change that threatens to wash away the things that make our nation great, read: free enterpise, and that does not put this country’s best interests above those of the other nations of the world.
Same statement for McAmnesty, just change
old Europeto Mexico.Mr. Connerly started his movement here in CA. (labled by the MSM and et al as ANTI-affirmative action).
He was and is crusading for the old MERIT system-work hard-get good grades -etc. = your accepted at university or “your hired!”
PS-
Mr. McCain-what’s wrong with that?
RE:CS post # 35———
McCain and his advocates have the message of well at least we are better than Obama and this is a message that irks me beyond belief. McCain’s support for illegal immigration and amnesty is to me just as much of a national security issue as Obama’s cut & run strategy in Iraq
I have yet to see how McCain is better for our country than Obama when they have similar positions on many controversial issues.
Will McCain overturn Roe vs Wade…. NO
Will McCain end support for Amnesty… NO
Will McCain put an end to the bailout of …. NO
Is McCain really that different than Obama…. NO
I think it is time we send a message loud and clear a la Brewsters Millions NONE OF THE ABOVE
#29.. great point!
I would like to add 1 more item to your list, if I may.
Spiraling education costs and the associated increased taxes to pay for it. This past week a Federal judge ruled that Texas was not providing equal education to spanish speaking students. Hence why their drop out rates and test scores were attrocious. Bottom line, we will need to spend over $200M MORE on bilingual education (we already spend $1B/annually on bilingual education, aka educating illegals and anchor babies). Of course, there is no more $ which means I get to pay more taxes. Who is behind it? Yep, LULAC. So I paid taxes, some of which is given to this POS organization, which were then used to sue me to make me pay more taxes. Of course, our entire gov’t tacitly supports this nonsense by not stopping the invasion. Death spiral.
Is there something you haven’t told us, Michelle? Some little “Geraldo Moment” you and McCain shared somewhere in the past, maybe?
With your perception and intelligence, you should be able to see clearly that, at his worst, McCain is now all that stands between us and a communist government.
And yet, I don’t think at this point you could report on what he had for breakfast without saying “well, he had something else a few years ago…can’t trust him to stick to Wheaties!”
Such narrow moral absolutism is great for those times when we have the luxury of being theoretical, when it is possible to work in a positive way to win the nomination for a candidate who fits all your criteria (and who, pray tell, might that be?), but is simply destructive when the Republican voters have chosen a candidate. At a moment when the initial choices have been made on both sides and a badly flawed candidate must face a truly dangerous candidate, a moment when the choice is less than we want versus certain disaster, continuing snark-bites are not good.
I’m sure the MDS crowd will have plenty of sarcastic replies for me. After all, Michelle despises McCain, Ann Coulter despises McCain, even Rash Limbaugh despises McCain. So what’s wrong with me?
In these times of a lame-duck president and runaway congress who embody much of what can go wrong in this country, I fear for the continued survival of the greatest nation that has ever existed on this plant.
For clear and obvious reasons, I fear the future more if Obama is elected. Which, with the help of his pet media and the continued destructive ranting from the Right, he will be.
Just asking that question is the first step…
So do I. But I have no illusion that McCain is anything other than part of the problem threatening us.
If you wanted a high-class discussion you would not make the pre-emptive strike of referring to “the MDS crowd”. It’s your side that drags all discussion of McCain into the gutter.
If that’s true then the country does not deserve to exist, and should be scrapped ASAP.
But that’s my point: McCain has a record of being reasonable and making compromises; so it’s fair to say conservatives may be able to bring him around to supporting our issues.
BHO has no record to speak of and from what little we know of him, he is rabidly partisan and does not compromise even on issues that have proven to be in this nation’s best interests, i.e., his vote along party lines against the successful Surge in Iraq.
People keep saying this. Again, what is it based on?
No one is really addressing my questions to my satisfaction at this point. Compromise is just fine. But there’s a point where you’re not compromising, but giving the farm away.
If we pick on the illegal immigration issue, and say thats “compromise”, he’s giving them exactly what they want. What are we getting in return? Higher crime rates, higher taxes, unskilled workers in our workforce, avoidable accidents on our highways, and so on….where is the benefits for us again?
When has McCain been reasonable and made good compromises? I’d like to see some specific instances cited.
It seems Michelle is actually upset that John McCain is now against affirmative action. Since he has the Republican nomination, I am happy that he states he is against affirmative action and will appoint Supreme Court justices with these views.
I agree with Ann Coulter and what she wrote in How to Talk to a Liberal: You should NEVER criticize the more conservative candidate. . .because you are only doing the bidding of the liberals and MSM. Michelle’s constant carping is only benefiting now Barack Hussein Obama, who wants affirmative action and health care for all illegals in America.
McCain states he is against affirmative action. Good for him. If he goes against his campaign promise and position, we have the 2012 primary. Maybe we want be so self-destructively divided and hyper-critical of every conservative candidate, as Michelle was, thus leading to the least conservative getting the nomination.
Michelle is the one who is flip-flopping. I heard her on the Laura Ingraham show specifically state in an interview about Huckabee she has no problem with candidates changing positions, coming around to the conservative position. All except John McCain.
I know. Her hatred towards John McCain is really starting to be frustrating, simply because it is benefiting the most socialist candidate we have ever had. Barack Hussein Obama is a guy that wants ALL illegals to be covered in his health plan, and yet she is helping this guy by her constant criticisms of McCain’s CONSERVATIVE POSITIONS: Hello, Michelle?! McCain just said he is AGAINST affirmative action.
So, according to Gabe, we can NEVER criticize ANY Republican candidate – even when they’re wrong.
One change:
Of course, she doesn’t “hate” John McCain. But the CONSTANT criticism can only benefit Barack Hussein Obama, an unabashed communist. It is time to unite and if McCain does not govern as a conservative, you have the 2012 primary.
I notice that the liberal pretending to be a conservative Flenser is back in force on this thread.
More liberal code words. The battle is not against McCain. It is against liberalism. The MDS trolls are on the pro-McCain side. They have yet to demonstrate a single conservative McCain position. No, a 100 year occupation of Iraq is not a conservative position. Try again.
JHSII states:
Where is John McCain wrong on this issue?! He just said he is AGAINST affirmative action.
I’m just stating what Ann Coulter wrote in her excellent book How to Talk to a Liberal. Any criticism of the conservative is doing the bidding of the MSM and Democrats. This applies to John McCain as well, now that he has the nomination and is the FAR more conservative candidate that the communist Barack Hussein Obama.
I notice that the liberals pretending to be conservatives are the ones who work overtime to start fights on every thread.
I also notice that, like all liberals, they are a lot more proficient at being obnoxious then they are are making rational arguments.
McCain is not “far more conservative” than Obama. On most issues there is little daylight between them.
I find it strange that Coulter wrote the words you quote, as she seems perfectly happy to trash McCain now.
Wouldn’t that be a “flip-flop”?
Just think “fairness doctrine.” Goodbye Ann, goodbye Michelle.
Welcome to the end of America, presided over by BH Obama and a corrupt, left-wing congress.
Valiant, you are a liberal pretending to be a conservative who won’t vote for McCain and probably on the payroll of Obama. This is the oldest trick in the world, and we all know it. For example, I’ve never seen half of these commenters ever posting on any conservative threads. But they suddenly pop up whenever there is an Obama post to divide conservative opinion! It is like they all get the memo at the same time.
For example, if you are so dense enough not to be able to comprehend that McCain is more conservative on every issue than the socialist Barack Hussein Obama. . .you are either incredibly stupid or are a liberal pretending to be a conservative in order to divide conservatives. Of course it is the latter.
McCain and the Law Of the Sea Treaty.
Google me here and at Hot Air. I am a paleocon who finds neocons and both these candidates totally unacceptable. I am voting Chuck Baldwin.
My god, how many Baldwin brothers ARE THERE???
Gabe #52
Thanks for missing my point completely!!
Good Job!!
/sarc
I’m voting for Stephen. The one Baldwin brother I like
On July 28th, 2008 at 11:46 am, flenser said:
Me too. Hows that working for you?
Indeed, some of them don’t even know what “socialism” is.
On July 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am, flenser said:
McCain has a lifetime conservative union rating of 82% and Barack Obama was the most liberal senator in 2007 according to National Journal.
So that is simply false.
Don’t feed the troll (flenser). He’s not even an American.
On July 28th, 2008 at 11:44 am, Valiant said:
Like “RINO”?
Seems that way.
So helping to elect Barack obama is fighting against liberalism… Riiiiight.
“It’s easy to get caught up in the pursuit of political perfection, and to assume that if a candidate doesn’t agree with you 100% of the time, then he doesn’t deserve your support. In fact, Mr. McCain is a lot closer to 100% than many conservatives realize. He has never voted for a tax increase in his 25 years in Congress. He holds an 83% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. He is listed as a taxpayer hero by Citizens Against Government Waste. And he is supported by noted conservatives Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp and others.”
On the surpassing national-security issues of the day – confronting the threat from radical Islam and winning the war in Iraq – no one is more stalwart. Even McCain’s fiercest critics, such as conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, will say so. “The world’s bad guys,” Hewitt writes, “would never for a moment think he would blink in any showdown, or hesitate to strike back at any enemy with the audacity to try again to cripple the US through terror.
…on the whole his record has been that of a robust and committed conservative. He is a spending hawk and an enemy of pork and earmarks. He has never voted to increase taxes, and wants the Bush tax cuts made permanent for the best of reasons: “They worked.” He is a staunch free-trader and a champion of school choice. He is unabashedly prolife and pro-Second Amendment. He opposes same-sex marriage. He wants entitlements reined in and personal retirement accounts expanded…
“Even with all the blemishes,” notes National Review, a leading journal on the right (and a backer of Romney), “McCain has a more consistent conservative record than Giuliani or Romney. . . . This is an abiding strength of his candidacy.”
Indeed, as this thread shows the guy can’t catch a break here. Even when he comes out against “affirmative action” it’s not enough, or its too late, or he doesn’t mean it, or it doesn’t matter because we are going to believe what we want to believe here even if it means that we are cutting our own throats.
Lets call it what it is: This is an hysterical reaction against his support of the “immigration reform bill” mostly by people who would never bother to get involved in promoting sane immigration control.
So what is the solution? Working to promote an intelligent solution to the issue or having a never ending fit that will elect someone who is across the board against immigration restrictions and FOR “affirmative action”?
The word “Conservative” seems to be used here as someone who insists on shooting themselves in the foot.
BG – I admire your assement of Mccain. However, I believe you can drop the part about taxes. I agree he wants the Bush tax cuts to become permanant. This will be of little value to the electorat given his stance on global warming/climate change. His views on this will increase taxes as bad as any democrats.
Assuming that is true for a second we will be presented with a choice: get organized, get loud and insist on a rational approach to the situation or roll over and take it.
How many times are we going to be faced with a choice like that with McCain and how many times are we going to be faced with a choice like that with Obama? Who will be more amenable to hearing what we have to say? McCain or Obama. That is really the key question.
Obama has stated that he will get us entangled on international treaties mandating this nonsense. McCain has said he wouldn’t. Even if we had 4 years of this nonsense, the damage done to the USA and our economy by Obama turning over US sovereignty to international organizations would be far more lasting then McCains wrong-headed, yet toothless approach to the issue.
Ann Coulter has been critical of McCain (articles in H.E) …SO…
What does that make McCain???
McAmnesty will need a V.P. pick more conservative than he is. Wonder if Hillary will accept?
Obama, look at his “voting” record in Illinois. Not voting there is playing both sides.
I still don’t think there is much difference between the two. They both want what ever is better for them and the he** with everyone else. I don’t trust McCain anymore than I do BHO. I do think I know more of where BHO will take us. I also don’t think the American populace will let him get away with as much as everyone here seems to think. Having to choose the LOTE year after year has made me abit callous maybe.
On July 28th, 2008 at 4:36 pm, John Ansell said:
I suspect that Obama looks upon you (and me) from his lofty, completely unearned position upon high as a tractor driving, straw hat wearing, shoeless, jug swilling, toothless, corn cob pipe smoking, 7th grade drop out, “bitter, gun clinging” cracker who calls his older brother daddy. People like us need to be reeducated in to compliance in his world view. Shooting ourselves in the foot in this election isn’t going to do much to disprove his outlook.
His voting record in Illinois included things like prosecuting people who defended themselves with a “gun” in their own home and outright baby killing, as well as many other little atrocities.
Bill Grant, I know Obambi’s votes and I can’t stand to see him this close to winning the thing. That’s why I’m baffled that McAmnesty’s campaign team doesn’t switch on his Immigration (amnesty) policy. He’d win 50 states. I’m not changing my stance on it. Too many dead Americans at the hands of these illegal invaders.
He should do the right thing and call for enforcing the laws on the books as they are.
Bill, I would bet good money that McAmnesty could take at least 48 states (New York And California the two states voting for Ears) if he just switched on that one issue. Heck, he’s not even getting the Latio support with all his pandering. It’s 100 days out and I hope he learns this.
McAmnesty would also serve himself good to announce that his first action as POTUS would be a Pardon!
Sigh. Bologna killer has ties to McAmnesty?
Well, great news! He has promised to go the enforcement first rout. That ought to give us time to push for REAL immigration reform. (Of course “push” means pushing, but if we don’t, like we haven’t been, will that be McCain’s fault?)Is it [hysterics on]“Juan Mc Shamnastys”(TM)[hysterics off] fault that we haven’t had any real immigration enforcement since Eisenhower?
Pinning this all on him is 1) not fair and 2) just helping elect a GENUINE open borders lunatic who won’t give us time to push for anything and wouldn’t listen if we did. It may feel good to vent at a scapegoat, but it isn’t going to fix anything.
Not according to the link you posted. What’s it going to take to lure you in off the ledge John? While you are out there give Rob a nudge.
Bill, McAmnesty’s “Secure the border first” is a shame. He says that he’d require the border states to secure them. LOL, the Gov.’s don’t secure them now. They say it’s the feds jobs and blame goes to the feds and the feds say that the states need to fix the problem. He’ll keep playing that game until nothing gets done but his amnesty. Think he won’t push amnesty through after failing at securing the border?
Serious, the old grump is willing to lose the race just because he supports amnesty. HE’S Bought and paid for by La Raza. A person willing to sell our sovereignty is not worth being POTUS!
Come on out on the ledge, the breeze is just right.
That’s in the link. He is connected to McAmnesty.
Sham?
That’s why he will “require” it.
He will if nobody gets involved to stop it. Complaining here just isn’t going to get the job done, is it? Nor will electing Obama.
Well, no, you see the folks out there don’t seem to respond to reason. You are hooked on this one issue and willing to let someone who is a million times worse take the presidency because McCain will take work to stop. Additionally, presidents don’t write laws, congress does. Electing McCain will get him out of the law writing business and he will be replaced by an Arizona conservative. Electing Obama will just get him replaced with another Chicago open borders idiot.
That’s not a connection. If it is he is connected to you as well.
The alternative:
OK, Not only is he going to leagalize the illegals here now he is going to ship money to Mexico to build their economy. (What the hell was NAFTA supposed to do?) that will be signed as soon as congress sends it to him, perhaps in his first 100 days.
GAME OVER.
I am voting “none of the above”.
You said it Bill.