Dick Armey whitewashes John McCain’s fiscal irresponsibility record; Update: Armey walks it back
Scroll for updates…
You’ve got to be freaking kidding me.
I mean, really. Come on:
As former Rep. J.D. Hayworth prepares to officially enter the Republican primary race against incumbent Sen. John McCain, he probably had better not count on any support from FreedomWorks, the national conservative group closely associated with the Tea Party movement.
In a telephone interview with The Arizona Republic, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, FreedomWorks’ chairman, delivered a surprisingly harsh assessment of Hayworth, with whom he served on Capitol Hill…
…Armey, who was House majority leader from 1995 to 2003, clearly came down on McCain’s side. “There’s nobody who can match McCain’s record on fiscal responsibility,” he said.
Over the last year, John McCain supported everything that the grass-roots Tea Party movement has stood against:
*The $700 billion all-purpose, earmark-stuffed TARP bailout;
*The $25 billion auto bailout;
*The $300 billion mortgage entitlement bailout; and
*The first $85 billion AIG bailout.
When push came to shove, McCain and his economic advisers (including his hand-picked California GOP Senate candidate, Carly Fiorina) caved to the Chicken Little chaos in Washington every time and joined hands with Barack Obama.
Reasonable people may disagree on whether J.D. Hayworth or John McCain deserves Arizona’s Senate seat.
Reasonable people may not assert that John McCain is an unsurpassed paragon of “fiscal responsibility.”
***
A reminder from Neil Cavuto last fall:
CAVUTO: “For the life of me, Senator Straight Talk, I see no such straight talk with yours…You rail against big government, yet continue to push cockamamie spending plans that make a mockery of it. That’s why you’re losing right now, Senator McCain. Not because you don’t have the courage of your convictions. But because on economic matters, you have no convictions, period.”
***
Reminder Number Two – Conservatives: Beware of McCain Regression Syndrome.
***
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio – enemy number one in the Justice Department/DHS for his staunch enforcement of immigration laws — has endorsed Hayworth. He writes in a support letter:
“I just wish Senator McCain had run as hard against Barack Obama as he is against a conservative like J.D. That could have prevented the harmful, liberal agenda we are all now suffering through.”
***
FreedomWorks says that a New York Times article reporting that Armey has officially endorsed McCain is false. Well, how about correcting Armey’s all-but-official endorsement of McCain’s lousy fiscal record now?
***
Update 2/11. Armey walks it back…
A number of our members have asked about my recent interview regarding John McCain and the Arizona Senate race where I said: “There’s nobody who can match McCain’s record on fiscal responsibility.”
I was referring to his unparalleled record of fighting politically motivated earmarks. Very few of his colleagues can stand on that ground, but I should have been more clear. John McCain and many other Republicans did vote for TARP. They broke my heart by doing so.
Armey could have been even clearer. It’s not just that McCain voted for TARP. He crumbled. He rushed to embrace every other panicked bailout of failing companies. And these fiscal transgressions are just the tip of his progressive, big-government iceberg.
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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Biden: Tea Party stopped us from growing the economy
May 23, 2012 01:55 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Palin officially endorses desperate, clingy Orrin Hatch; time to rally around Dan Liljenquist
May 22, 2012 11:32 PM by Michelle Malkin
83 CommentsKiss of death: Specter endorses Beltway barnacle Orrin Hatch, trashes Tea Party “cannibals”
May 14, 2012 06:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
112 Comments
Harry Reid worried ‘Tea Party zealots’ tossed out Lugar just for cooperating with Dems
May 10, 2012 09:39 PM by Doug Powers
147 Comments
Eye on Indiana and Wisconsin; Update: Lugar defeated; Barrett to face Walker
May 8, 2012 06:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
129 CommentsIndiana Senate primary poll shows Mourdock extending lead on Lugar; Santorum endorses
May 4, 2012 10:10 PM by Doug Powers
110 Comments
If you’re gonna call Tea Party activists RAAAACISTS…
May 3, 2012 12:33 AM by Michelle Malkin
162 Comments
MSM: Occupiers Anarchists arrested for bridge bomb plot
May 2, 2012 11:45 AM by Doug Powers
79 Comments
“Happy May Day, now go kill”
May 1, 2012 01:02 PM by Michelle Malkin
73 Comments
Categories: Automakers,John McCain,Subprime crisis,Tea Party
Pundit & Pundette
» Patterico's chilling account of harassmentNice Deb
» The Organized Left Now Stalking RomneyNRO
» Unleash Biden!NewsBusters.org
» Very Annoyed Matthews Rips ‘Horse’s Ass Right-Wingers’ Who Cite ‘Thrill Up My Leg,’ Calls C-SPAN Host a ‘Jackass’Nice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of America
Proceed at your own risk.
Flyoverman, not sure I questioned their integrity but Sarah has jumped on to the Perry bandwagon in Tx,too.
Maybe she needs to learn the movement will not follow her blindly, either.
If Medina is who it’s claimed she is, that is a victory that would help
I believe she’s a little soft on illegals,too.
Not sure her influence has turned any election around yet for Conservatism
Hoffman in NY lost. Scott Brownisn’t a Conservative.
I have the feeling that she will be Party first
Hmmm…interesting…I wonder what moved Dick Armey so ?
The tea party movement represents the rise of the disaffected. They are individuals who have eschewed party labels, not because of partisanship, but because both parties have found it all too convenient to move to the left to buy votes. The Democrats, without question, have been taken over by the socialist progressives. The Republican Party has likewise been affected by “me too” progressive thinking – I note McCain and Graham as well as both Bushes. Unless the Republican Party purges the progressives, they will find themselves in permanent minority status seeking to make deals with independent conservatives who will stand on principle. The Democrats should fear what is happening because they have no mechanism or political basis for moving to the right and honoring constitutional principles..
Flyoverman,
The key difference between Conservatives – whether they be Tea Partiers, Libertarians, or just self-proclaimed conservatives – and “the left” boils down to a simple thing: open principles.
If you ask a leftist what their principles are, they will normally squirm. They are socialists, but they don’t want to SAY that they are socialists because they know that this is still a taboo word. They don’t want to come right out and say, for instance, “I’m for widespread redistribution of wealth, until we achieve global parity.”
They believe that, but most of them don’t want to say it.
Not so on the right. Our principals are simple: liberty, personal freedom, personal accountability, etc. and we are willing to debate them at the drop of a hat. Principles, not feelings.
What Dick Armey just did was abandon those principles for political expediency. He triangulated and backpedaled, like every no-good RINO we’ve seen for the past 12 or more years.
His principles are discernible by his actions: he wants to retain his power.
Our principles are different: the PEOPLE are the power. Our representatives merely represent us.
We have been kicked too many times to trust backpedalers. I’m sure some of them are sincere, but I can’t waste any more time trying to figure out which ones are.
Armey must go.
Again…
jeez, guys!!!
Armey said something dumb…something too broad by a mile…and clarified himself.
Anybody could say that McAnus was a “great patriot” while thinking of his service in uniform, at the same time forgetting his MANY bad acts since.
Are we really going to expunge people like Armey for making a dumb statement?
We’re gonna run out of people really soon…
Not for making a dumb statement, no. But if a person has a track record of making dumb statements and being on the wrong side of important issues ……
Armey is not on the side of conservatives. Never has been.
How about justifying that over-broad (maybe dumb) statement.
I live in Tucson AZ. John McCain is running some very negative ads against J D Hayworth, even though Hayworth hasn’t even entered the race. McCain is pulling his old sailors trick of tacking to the right every election year.
I don’t know about others, but this is one AZ Republican who will NOT vote for McCain!!!
Well, I am glad Armey clarified his statement. I suspect Armey felt a lot of heat for saying something so dumb.
McCain may not be the biggest, most profligate spender in the GOP but the direct consequences of his global warming, open borders nonsense is never-ending spending and deficits. McCain is a statist. And statists are NOT conservatives.
If Juan McAnus had done nothing wrong…ever…besides McCain-Feingold, that would ALWAYS be a fatal disqualifier for me.
He is no friend of the Constitution, and should be very firmly retired by voters.
Here’s my straight take on this:
I imagine that John McCain is an easy guy to get along with. If you objectively look at your own friends, you’ll find PLENTY of flaws there. The fact that McCain is a RINO doesn’t change the fact that he IS a war hero, and at one time was quite the bon vivant. That’s fancy-talk for “guy who liked to mess around, even if he happened to be married.”
I imagine he has some AMAZING stories to tell, and must be an absolute killer of a party guest. If you’re Dick Armey, a man with plenty of stories of your own, it’s easy to see why you and John McCain could become very close friends.
And, like I said, it’s hard for you to see the warts on your own friends.
But the trouble is, with McCain the “invisible flaws” are *precisely* the problem. He’s not a conservative. He’s NEVER been a conservative.
Immigration? Hardly conservative.
Global Warming? A pragmatist, willing to drink the Kook Aid if that’s what it took.
Fiscal Responsibility? Hardly.
Military? THERE he is conservative. We might not all agree on the next steps (I, for one, want us out of Iraq – leave just a large base behind), but there IS room under the tent for different conservative views.
These aren’t the only issues, but they do show that this guy has never been a conservative. But, again, I’m sure he’s a great friend… that’s how the whole “insider” thing happens.
Armey is an insider. Insiders get caught up in the social side of DC, and principles like conservatism become less and less important.
It’s hard to openly say that your friend is wrong. I get it.
But that’s what we need. Principles are principles, and they must trump friendship.
Armey didn’t say something dumb; he said what an insider would say. He defended his friend, even though his friend is wrong – and is very possibly a bad choice for America.
Armey must go.
Well, I am going with him. Because the one person who lives up to the standards people like you and flenser insist on was crucified 2,000 plus years ago.
If the Tea Party Movement is as rigid as it appears on these threads I want no part of it.
When Armey was in Congress no one was more principled about Clinton’s conduct than Armey.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/debatetext121998.htm
He spoke eloguently for fiscal restraint. I give you a small example from March 2008.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DickArmey/2008/03/18/will_congress_choose_to_stop_pigging_out
But because on this occcasion he misspoke or flat screwed up, he is now UNWORTHY and MUST GO. The same holds true for Sarah Palin.
I do not see Rush attacking Palin or Armey. Is he a RINO for not doing so? When does the “Turn RINO Rush Off” campaign start?
The movement is rapidly becoming all Law and no Gospel. I am conservative to the right of Atilla the Hun, but I want no part of this.
Don’t go! The comments on this tread are no more representative of “the movement” than anyone’s expressed beliefs.
One strength of “the movement” is that it really is a VERY diverse set of people who seem to be self-organized around a few very simple ideas…our government is out of control, our politicians are corrupt, we need to return to basics, etc.
When you go to a tea-party event (not the convention, BTW), you will literally find people of ALL stripes, who cross over all kinds of ideological cubby-holes. That is a strength, to my mind.
Tea-party people are not homogenized conservatives, but a bunch of people who are united (to some degree) by common cause.
Update: Dick Armey, another partly-pregnant, sometimes honest political weasel.
I’ll give your rude question a polite response. Look elsewhere on this thread for a link I posted showing Armey’s pro-amnesty stance. He also joined with the ACLU in attacking the PATRIOT Act and was a critic of the Iraq war, among other problems.
He may be a good Cato-style libertarian, but that makes him an enemy to conservatism. Do a little research on the man before jumping to his defense.
BTW, here is a “good Bloomberg article that pretty much captures the dilemna the GOP establishment is struggling with. Dick Armey is just the latest manifestation. Sarah Palin was the first and she was out campaigning for Al Gore’s 1988 Texas campaign manager Rick Perry over the weekend.
We need to be vigilant in preventing these interlopers from being accepted as THE leaders of the Tea Party. As far as I’m concerned, they are not part of the movement anymore.
But I didn’t defend him so much as ask you to justify your WAY over-broad mis-characterization of the man’s history. (“Never conservative”).
Do I agree with every jot and tittle of Mr. Armey’s positions? HELL NO!
But his “amnesty stance” was consistent with that of Milton Friedman. (One Dr. Friedman’s positions with which I disagree).
I was chary of the Patriot Act, too, but I saw it was being implemented by people who did care about civil liberties. That didn’t entirely set my mind at ease respecting what could happen under it if it were used for evil by evil people.
He was on author of the “Contract For America”, which was decidedly conservative, and worked for years to further its precepts.
He got stupid in his personal life, and he was arrogant, I think, in some of his interactions with others (see Cheney), but maybe not unjustified. Dunno…wasn’t there.
Funny, I don’t see libertarians as “enemies”. Not in lock-step with my thinking, perhaps, but VERY OFTEN in the same formation. Ron Paul, for instance, is a kook, in my book, but LOTS of other libertarians are better “conservatives” than a lot of what are sometimes called “fiscal conservatives”.
If that’s the best you got, I put your comment in the “dumb” column, along with Armey’s too-broad statement about McAnus’ fiscal responsibility.
You have yet to demonstrate that it was “way over the top”. And if what you just wrote is not defense I’d like to see what you think defense looks like.
You can put it where the sun don’t shine, Rags.
You’re always short on facts, aren’t you? Name just a few of those “LOTS” in the US Congress.
OK. I won’t look for you at any rallies in the future.
For my money, anybody who cares to show up is welcome. It is the public square, after all…
Seems like you don’t have much faith in the people to separate the sheep from the goats.
Your statement. Your dumb, ill-considered, and indefensible statement.
You were called on to defend it.
You can’t.
OK. Lesson taught.
I don’t have to defend Armey. I didn’t say he was God’s anointed conservative standard bearer (which would have been as dumb as your statement).
See?
Really? What was Friedmans stance on amnesty? I never heard that he said anything on the topic.
Friedman, consistent with his position on free markets, thought goods and people should flow across borders with very few restrictions. Generally, I agree, with the important caveat that people cannot be allowed to flood into a nation without restrictions. Legal immigration has been, and will be, a good thing if kept within bounds. It is also highly restrictive, if compared to “open borders”.
Armey was (I guess still is) a close disciple of Friedman’s.
Stop giving me your opinion as if it’s Holy Writ that was handed down on stone tablets from the mountain top.
If you disagre with me about something, explain why in clear rational language supported by evidence. You’re supposed to be lawyer, so I’d like to think that these concepts are not totally alien to you.
This “you’re dumb because I say so” crap is what I expect from a liberal. First, learn some manners. Second, learn to debate with people. Hint: debating with people does not consist of calling them names and declaring yourself the winner.
Then why are you doing it? Or are you one of those trolls who like to pick a fight with people because it gets their rocks off?
Good grief …..
Cites? Links? Evidence? Hello?
I think the posts speak for themselves.
Nobody reading what we have written will be confused.
Not. My. Job. I’ve spent the last several decades of my life educating myself.
Your turn.
I’ll prove the cite myself.
It didn’t work.
It’s quite uncanny. The egotism matched only by the ignorance – it’s exactly like talking with a liberal.
Projection, a little…?
I never called you anything. I said your statement was dumb, over-broad, and indefensible.
You, for your part, have called me several things, owing to your failure to support your statement.
Done. Thank you for your help in this demonstration.
More Q&A with Milton Friedman.
I’m shocked! to discover that even with his lifetime of education, Rags still does not know what he’s talking about.
By the time you are done the members of The Movement will be able to fit comfortably in a minivan.
It won’t go anywhere, because you will all be fighting over who is “pure enough” to be the driver.
Sorry, flenser.
Your lack of reading comprehension is on display.
Slowly, carefully, deconstruct what Dr. Friedman was saying. While doing that, ask yourself what Friedman’s position on immigration was, provided the right conditions.
Why don’t you “slowly and carefully” deconstruct your own inital claim, which was that Friedmans writings supported Armey on amnesty? Not, let me emphasize, that Friedman’s “position on immigration” was that in some abstact world with the right conditions it would be nice to get rid of countries.
To quote your own words:
No. No, it was not. It was very close to the exact opposite of Friedmans.
Rags,
Have a good one. I am off to do something enjoyable.
“Basketball is life: the rest is just details.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE&feature=related
I’ll accept your apology after you’ve had a chance to educate yourself.
Enjoy, dude. I’ll be here counseling against eating our own.
You continue to beclown yourself. Your youtube clip is from the seventies. My cites are from 1999.
I’ll accept your apology now.
Beclown? Friedman didn’t reverse his positions between the seventies and nineties. Is that what you are saying? C’mon, be clear…
Weren’t Armey’s positions supportive of Reagans actions?
Was that damn Reagan also “never conservative”…????
Hmmmm….???
I’ll let you make a fool of yourself as long as you care to.
Did you learn to read during your long, long, long years of education? He most certainly did. Here you can find an open borders economist crying about the fact that he did. Why don’t you drop Mr Caplan a note and let him know he was mistaken?
Bizarre…
I read you link. Friedman didn’t reverse positions on immigration.
What are you smoking, son?
Bizarre indeed. Do you know the means of any words?
Let’s walk you through this step by step. I guess I’ll have to do what your professors failed to do. (It’s not like law is an intellectually challenging profession.)
Do you or do you not agree that Friedman said “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfate state”?
How interesting that you choose to edit the question and answer….
The answer (which you chose to truncate) is extremely instructive in our debate.
Do you advocate open immigration?
“Unfortunately no.”
Why does Friedman feel that to answer “no” is unfortunate?
Well, he tells us in the next sentence.
“You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.”
So, there are two conditions in that argument: free immigration and a welfare state.
Now, which of those two conditions…the juxtaposition of which Friedman found “unfortunate”…do you think Friedman favored, and which did he deplore?
Hmmm…..????
You’re still struggling with this whole “debating” thing. Asking off topic questions does not a logical argument make. I assume that what you were trying to say was “Armey was elected in the Reagan years and was a Republican during the glory years of the eighties and nineties, and therefore is too a good conservative”.
If that’s what you were saying, the same thing could be said of John McCain. You could even use your whole “we can’t kick people out” line to defend McCain. Trouble is, McCain already made it clear that we’re not in “his” party. And Armey is rooting for McCain. Which sort of puts him at odds with us.
No, no, young friend.
Pres. Reagan presided over an amnesty program. Did you know that?
It was, in hindsight, a mistake.
Was Reagan, then, not enough of a conservative for you?
Armey’s positions were consistent with that program. Why, if you think Reagan was OK, is Armey “never a conservative”.
I know it might hurt, but try to think through these questions. It will make a muscle.
More awkard facts, which seem to be like garlic to Rags.
Forbes is yet another open-borders “libertarian”.
Ewww…
Armey stated an opinion about J.D. Hayworth (who I know nothing about and don’t give a rat’s asp about), reciting factual information for his opinion.
That somehow makes him “never a conservative”.
Maybe revealing weaknesses about Hayworth as a candidate is a good thing.
Hmmm….
Ted Kennedy’s positions were consistent with that program. The question is, is Armey more like Reagan or Kennedy on immigration? And the answer is, he’s more like Kennedy.
Reagan would not have supported Bush’s desired amnesties. Kennedy did. McCain did. Forbes did. I have not tracked down a quote by Armey on the subject yet but it’s clear where his sympathies are.
Why? What makes you say that?
I already explained why Armey is not a conservative. If you don’t want to hear it, that’s your problem. But don’t sit there and pretend you have not read what I’ve written. Stop making me long for the days when lgm posted here.
Since you answered your own question, provide something factual (not your obviously discredited opinion) to support it, please.
Reagan would not have supported Bush’s desired amnesties.
Classic Ragspierre. Is this what they thought you in law school? Change the subject when you’re losing?
The question is not what Friedman “favored” – open borders OR the welfare state. The question is whether he favored open borders AND the welfare state. Because open borders AND the welfare state is the position of McClown and Armey. And that was NOT Friedmans position. He tied open borders to scrapping the welfare state, they do not.
Do you get it now, or shall I explain it once again and even more slowly?
You’re really lucky that you can’t die from an overdose of irony. Well, I’ll do my best to match the high standards of factualism you set on this site, as contrasted to my “discredited opinions”. (Who says they are “discrdited” btw”>)
If you believe that, then I guess we can add historical illiteracy to your other problems. Reagan was not an open borders kind of guy. The amnesty he signed was supposed to be a one shot deal, after which the borders would be secured going forward.
That does not describe the position of Armey and McAmnesty.
If you really believe the nonsense you’re pushing here, did you support McCain in the last POTUS primaries? Did you support Bush’s amnesty bills? Try to answer a question for once. It won’t actually kill you.
Or, you can continue as you are – arguing from authority while claiming that the authority is … you.
Too bad you can’t answer these questions directely (i.e., honestly). It would boost your creds.
The point I made, which you said was NOT true, was that Armey and Friedman were consistent advocates for open immigration. You pretend, without ANY evidence, that Armey is an advocate of the welfare state. Politely, that is a lie.
You just admitted…in your own dishonest way…that both Friedman and Armey advocated open immigration.
Just to sum this little demonstration up…
Armey is not pure as the driven snow.
NOBODY is.
It is a STOOOOPID statement to say he was “never a conservative”.
We have to work with people…flawed, free-to-think stuff you HATE…people.
Are you so queer for J.D. Hayworth that you will assert he is a “pure” conservative without blemish?
(hope not)
McCain in the last POTUS primaries?
HELL, NO. I consider him MORE dangerous to the Republic than THE ONE. (You can find my writing on the supject, if you wish).
Did you support Bush’s amnesty bills?
NO.
See? That’s how its done. Give it a try…
LOL!!
Come on, you’re just joking around at this stage, right? Nobody is that dense and deluded.
Friedman was not a “consistent advocate for open immigration”. He was a qualified advocate for open immigration, and Armey and McClown are unqualified advocates for it.
Friedman thought that open borders were a good thing in theory, in an abstract world which does not exist. Armey thinks open borders are a good thing in this world.
I won’t accuse you of dishonesty.
I do strongly advise you to step away from the keyboard and have a nice cold drink when you feel the urge to call anybody on this board “queer” though. I’ve seen people banned for less, and silly though you are, I don’t want that.
If you can’t hack this sort of spat without losing your cool to that extent, your should not start it in the first place.
And now I’m going to invoke the rule that the first person to call other person a queer loses, and retire in victory.
Silly boy.
Nobody called you “a queer”. I asked if you were so queer (a perfectly good word, and properly used) for Hayworth that you thought him spotless.
PC much…!?!?!
You’ll be arguing about the meaning of “is” next. I don’t think the mods will even bother to listen to your excuses though.
I’m not the least concerned.
I thought you were “retiring in victory”.
But, again, thank you for helping with my little demonstration.
If you have a burning desire to make a fool of yourself, it would be churlish of me not to help you.
Oh, and strictly speaking, I’m a closet “queer for Hayworth”. Seeing as how I never mentioned his name once here today. But I guess that was one more instance of you “demonstrating” what you’re like to the world.
I gave you the chance to cool down and apologize. If you were a man you’d have taken it.
Um…
159 (above).
Lost track…again…???
Well, we both know who is who here. People can read the tread, and they can learn about Armey and Friedman for themselves.
My position is that we have real foes who pose real dangers to this republic. We need to align with like-minded people.
You delight in making such people enemies out of…nothing but your own perceived political piety.
That is both stupid and dangerous.
Dick Armey is more than welcome in the Tea Party Movement, just as is Sarah Palin.
We’re just saying they’re not appropriate people to have at the top.
The Tea Party movement is about a few simple things – no more insiders and a reverence for the Constitution, the Founding Fathers who wrote it, and the God that inspired it.
The Tea Party candidate for POTUS – or at least for consideration of a particular individual as the movement’s standard bearer (which is really what these debates and arguments are all about) – is going to be someone you and I do not even know today. That person will be a NOBODY when it comes to DC and its political spectrum. All this talk of “experience” will be thrown to the dogs, and rightly so.
We need someone with experience in the private sector, and someone who knows and adores the ideals of the Founders – someone who believes, unlike those in DC today, in freedom as the natural state of the human condition. We don’t need someone with experience in “politics as usual”, which is what we somehow seem to keep getting when people start crying out for someone with “experience”. It’s time for Hannity and Limbaugh to shut up about that and get to the real work of restoring liberty as the American way. There is much good they could be doing in that area, as much as I love the other work they do.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
John McCain is wrong for the US Senate. His record is VERY clear, at this point, and it clearly isn’t conservative.
John McCain must – must – go. He must be replaced by a true conservative, because that is what the country needs. Our children are being crushed by debt; our borders are porous; our nation is strangling under new taxes and the fear of new taxes.
And there’s John McCain, looking to open the borders wider, while suppressing freedom of speech.
He’s not what we need.
Dick Armey, however, supports him. It doesn’t matter if he retracts his statement, or if he never made that statement. Dick Armey thinks that John McCain is right for America – and Dick Armey is in a position where his thoughts and actions matter.
I don’t want McCain supporters in the Senate. Period.
This isn’t about Armey, per se. The lightning rod is McCain.
Armey just happens to love the lightning rod – and that’s all anyone should need to know here.
Armey, again, must go.
The Big Tent…
What is there room for, really, under the big tent?
Abortion? Sure, there’s room for a bit of debate there. But just a bit. Partial Birth abortions? No room. I don’t care if you sleep with an autographed picture of Barry Goldwater under your pillow: if you support partial birth abortions, you’re not welcome in the same tent as I am.
Defense? TONS of room under the tent, as long as we agree that the ultimate goal is security. You don’t like the F-35, but prefer the F-22 or new drones? Interesting debate. You want us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but think we should build a base there – sort of a “middle east Gitmo?” Interesting idea. let’s talk. But if you want to simply shut every base down, we’ve got a problem.
Iran: more room than you can imagine. This is a slippery subject. Do we intervene? Do we turn a blind-eye to Israel intervening? Do we supply more advanced missile defense to quasi-allies like Saudi Arabia? Lots to talk about – as long as we’re not talking about a kumbaya session with the tyrants.
Israel: plenty of room to talk there – as long as we agree on a few basics… Israel has a right to exist, and Israel is an ally. Not just another country in the mid-east, but the only ally we’ve ever had there. Other than that, let’s discuss.
Perhaps if Michael Steele wasn’t busy writing books that nobody cares about, he could articulate the boundaries of the tent – because that’s what’s behind this debate.
Somebody has to tell John McCain and ANYone who supports him: there is plenty of room for debate on illegal immigration, but the border is to be secured with a fence, and illegal aliens ARE to be detained and sent back to wherever they come from. If they then want to follow the process, we will grant them amnesty there, and only there: no hard feelings. Feel free to try it again, legally. We won’t hold your past visit against you.
THAT’S amnesty.
Etc.