Open-borders/BigGov/Climate Change huckster John McCain blames “Eastern press”
You have got to be freaking kidding me. Mr. I Was The Nation’s Number One Illegal Alien Amnesty Champion Before I Was Against It/Mr. Call Me Maaaaaverick Except When I Need The Right To Get Re-elected is attacking his erstwhile friends in the “Eastern press” for creating the impression that he is a desperate political opportunist clinging to entrenched incumbency.
Here is your emetic of the day, via The Hill:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Monday blamed the “Eastern press” for planting the idea he has changed his positions on key issues in recent months.
McCain dismissed the notion that he has tacked to the right on matters such as immigration and climate change in order to beat back a primary challenge from former Rep. J.D. Hayworth.
Asked by Politics Daily about comments his close friend and colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) made about his move away from edgy past positions because “John’s got a primary. He’s got to focus on getting reelected,” McCain responded, “Lindsey knows that I don’t change in my positions.
“I have not changed in my positions. I know how popular it is for the Eastern press to paint me as having changed positions,” he said. “That’s not true. I know they’re going to continue to say it. It’s fundamentally false. Not only am I sure that they’ll say it, you’ll say it. You’ll write it. And I’ve just grown to accept that.”
Funny. McCain sure didn’t have a problem sucking up to the “Eastern press” — his real base — at his cozy backyard “thank you” barbecue for the elite media just a few short years ago.
Remember?
Straight talk from my non-Eastern blog about McCain’s motion sickness-inducing, election-year lurches on immigration and climate change speaks for itself:
Flashback: John McCain: Unrepentant Climate Change Republican
Flashback: Ugh: McCain & Company melting on cap-and-tax
Flashback: McCain’s “climate change” tour bypasses cooler heads
Flashback: McCain and La Raza/The Race: A “serious lapse of judgment”
Flashback: John McCain gets away with his slippery, open-borders talk again
Flashback: The McCain camp sticks with Juan Hernandez, denies it torpedoed immigration enforcement bill
Flashback: John McCain: La Raza’s voice in Washington
Flashback: Meet the open borders family: McCain, Hernandez, Soros, and the “Reform Institute”
Flashback: McLame: All for his own maaaaaaverick-iness before he was against it
Flashback: Attention, GOP: John McCain is the problem
McCain has never admitted he was wrong about his support of:
*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.
His latest McLame-est excuse for supporting TARP? He was “misled.” Via the Arizona Republic:
Under growing pressure from conservatives and “tea party” activists, Sen. John McCain of Arizona is having to defend his record of supporting the government’s massive bailout of the financial system.
In response to criticism from opponents seeking to defeat him in the Aug. 24 Republican primary, the four-term senator says he was misled by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. McCain said the pair assured him that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program would focus on what was seen as the cause of the financial crisis, the housing meltdown.
“Obviously, that didn’t happen,” McCain said in a meeting Thursday with The Republic’s Editorial Board, recounting his decision-making during the critical initial days of the fiscal crisis. “They decided to stabilize the Wall Street institutions, bail out (insurance giant) AIG, bail out Chrysler, bail out General Motors. . . . What they figured was that if they stabilized Wall Street – I guess it was trickle-down economics – that therefore Main Street would be fine.”
Nearly 15 months later, commercial lenders still are in shaky condition and the commercial real-estate industry is in trouble, he said. On Friday, President Barack Obama announced $1.5 billion in funding for new measures to help Arizona and four other states hit hard by the tanked housing market and by joblessness.
But McCain stopped short of calling the TARP a mistake.
“Something had to be done because the world’s financial system was on the verge of collapse,” he said. “Any economist, liberal or conservative, would agree with that. The action they took, I don’t agree with.”
All the warning signs and red flags about Henry Paulson’s incompetence and untrustworthiness were there before McCain joined the Chicken Little crowd. (See September 22, 2008, “Why Henry Paulson must be contained.”) Stalwart fiscal conservatives like GOP Rep. Mike Pence saw through the smokescreen and kept their heads. McCain’s trying to have it both ways — refusing to admit he was wrong, blaming crapweasel Paulson for duping him, and creating the illusion that he’ll be competent enough to resist the next inevitable bailout temptation when White House, Treasury, and Fed officials hit the panic button.
He blew it on TARP.
Blew it on the auto bailout.
Blew it on the mortgage entitlement bailout.
Blew it on the AIG bailout.
Blew it on amnesty.
Blew it on campaign finance.
Blew it on global warming.
In short: McCain blows.
I’ve already warned about McCain Regression Syndrome. The GOP hasn’t even begun to cure itself.
Flashback: John S. McCain, Will You Please Go Now?
Asked by a conservative constituent at a recent town hall meeting why the four-term senator deserved to be elected, McCain stammered before giving his best argument: He had more “standing” than anyone else. Entrenched incumbency is not an argument for more entrenched incumbency. Stop this ride. It’s time for McCain to get off.
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.
 |
John McCain: GOP Should Avoid the Contraception Issue
March 18, 2012 05:10 PM by Doug Powers
143 Comments
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsObama and Jan Brewer Have Words on Airport Tarmac; Update: Brewer Book Sales Skyrocket
January 25, 2012 09:54 PM by Doug Powers
165 Comments
Gingrich channels open-borders SEIU; Rubio rebukes; Update:Newt retreats
January 25, 2012 10:56 AM by Michelle Malkin
155 Comments
Obama heads to Disney World to push looser visa policies
January 17, 2012 01:14 PM by Michelle Malkin
95 Comments
Obama’s “Razist” Lobbyist Moves Up
January 13, 2012 06:29 AM by Michelle Malkin
233 CommentsRomney and McCain: The GOP Frenemies’ Club
January 10, 2012 09:53 PM by Michelle Malkin
219 Comments
Oops (video): McCain calls Romney “President Obama”
January 7, 2012 12:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
134 Comments
The Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
Categories: Immigration,John McCain
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearSister Toldjah
» Barack Obama: Can we call him a Socialist now?Redstate
» Daily Links – May 25, 2012
Which is better is irrelevant.
You go to the polls to vote for a candidate that espouses your ideal. If Chuck DeVore is that candidate, then you vote for him. Continuing to vote for people like Fiorina only encourages the Republican Party to look at you as a free vote – a pawn.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
That’s not true.
First, it’s never a choice between two 100% Progressives. It’s usually 100% vs 40%, or less. I’ll take that 60% everytime.
Also, it makes a huge difference what party is the majority, wrt legislative agenda, vote schedule, committee memberships and chairmanships, etc.
Fight for purity in the Primaries.
Vote for the MOST CONSERVATIVE during the General. If that means voting for a RINO as opposed to a Socialist, so be it. Our agenda is advanced (or theirs slowed) on at least a few fronts.
IMHO
I only contend that having Obama now will allow for a quicker turnaround for the direction of the Country as a kneejerk reaction to the massive overreach by the Dems. If we had McCain, the incremental creep of liberalism might have been such that like the boiling frog, we would have been slowly inured to the death of America and been unable to recognize and reverse our course. And yes I do kid sometimes.
***
John McCain served his country bravely in time of war. And he is good on right to life and no earmark issues.
***
But I think he took too many “shots to the cabeza” during his tortures in the Hanoi Hilton.
***
No more 80 percent RINO reach across the aisle types. Hasta la Vista, Juan–or better–Vaya Con Dios. Vote in J.D. Hayworth instead.
***
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER 2010–choose wisely–clean out all DimocRATS and RINOS while we still have a country left.
***
John Bibb
***
It’s not simple minded.
It’s simple.
And it doesn’t have to be any more complicated.
Look, I don’t begrudge you guys your LOTE vote, as foolish as I believe it is, if you believe that is what is best for America. That you would begrudge my non-LOTE vote, as foolish as you believe it is, because I believe that is what is best for America, merely plays into the hands of the progressives.
Sadly, I must admit I was once a militant LOTE voter myself. That is why I am so sure you will come around. Once you understand the damage you are doing to this country, and the magnitude of that damage, you will have no choice but go ahead and eat the crow. I can personally attest that it tastes pretty bad, but that once you know you are standing on the most firm foundation of all, you will be glad you did.
I sure am.
RWR
http://www.righwingrocker.com
I don’t agree with your assessment.
Gauge your choice based on the Constitution, and you will see that it’s much closer to 100% on both sides than you think.
Forget the ACL – read the platform and the Constitution for yourself. Only you can make the proper determination. If you do that and believe you are making the right decision, then by all means vote for the Republican (or if you think the Donk fits the bill, vote that way), but make the decision on your own with good research and information that you got yourself.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
You will not get purity in the primaries if you don’t have purity in the general. Unless “the party” knows that its candidate must continue to follow the Constitution after the primary and then while in office, it will continue to dump all of its resources into the party favorite, including its deliberate campaign to get you to vote for him because he is the Lesser Of Two Evils.
When Americans stand up and say no to the primary winner when it is appropriate to do so, you will then achieve the opportunity for purity in the primaries.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
And, how long will that take? How much of the Progressive agenda are you prepared to allow to be achieved to ensure those stupid LOTE-voting Americans learn their lesson?
Sorry, I can’t agree.
ANYONE McCain would have nominated for the SCOTUS would have been better than Sotomayor and Kagan.
I wouldn’t be so sure of that, DA. It’s McCompromise we’re talking about.
That’s true– and given a couple of Reagan’s and Bush I’s appointments, it may be hard to tell how they would vote… until they vote.
Still, siding with the Conservatives on the Court in 1 case out of 10 is better than Zero.
The only way to achieve purity in the primaries is to have a run-off of the top two if the top one is less than 50%. We have to stop nominating ringers who are at less than 50% ‘first choice’ support. That was McCain in 2008 and he would have LOST head to head against many of the other candidates. For example, I don’t think Duncan Hunter would have scurried back to DC to join Obama, kowtowing to Bush and the democrats shoving TARP 1 down our throats.
And …if only they had all stayed in the race which brings up the other problem – the primary calendar. Who decides the schedule and WHY does it have to match up with the democrats anyway? I know that I sure don’t have any say in it. Whoever in the RNC who decided to start the primary in January should be put out to pasture IMO.
It wouldn’t have mattered if McCain won & nominated Sotomayor herself–the Dems would’ve fought it all the way.
When the republicans were in control, McCain led the group of bipartisan senators that put the kibosh on the conservative agenda. When the democrats took control, McCain was in the vanguard to push immigration reform, aka amnesty. You can’t trust this guy.
Also, it is not simply a choice of adding up individual votes and then deriving the percentage of conservative versus progressive tendencies. Immigration is an issue is of such great significance that being on the wrong side of that issue is a show stopper.
What are you talking about? The Democrats didn’t win in 2008 because conservatives abandoned the GOP at the polls. You’re not entitled to your own facts here.
Concur. The sad thing is I think McCain & Graham know a mass amnesty will destroy conservatism as we know and that’s their agenda. I hope the conservatives in Arizona wake up before it’s too late.
I don’t vote for liberals or Democrats, especially when they run as Republicans. If you Republicans want to win elections by running Democrats to appeal to liberals, don’t blame us conservatives when you keep losing elections. What did it get you in 2006 and 2008?
Wake up Arizona! You know how you just can’t understand how San Francisco can keep re-electing Pelosi? Duh!!
BTW, the “he’s with us 80% of the time” argument. Read that list in Michelle’s post. If that is the 20% of the time he votes against us, who cares about the 80%? It’s a phony statistic. ACU scores don’t mean anything.
I dunno about “playing into the hand of the progressives”, RWR, or anyone else for that matter. But I do believe the American way is that every American votes for whomever s/he wants. It’s their business, that’s why voting booths have curtains. If someone gets worked up & pops a vein over another voter’s choices, it’s really their own problem and not the problem of the voter in question.
Great. Another LOTE discussion. Can’t we talk about spacey’s shoes or something?
RWR, nice effort but the txvet “Republican Uber Alles” types just can’t grasp that having a Democrat run as a Republican is a bad thing. No matter where you start, what facts you introduce, whatever logic you present, all roads lead to voting Republican no matter what. It’s a character flaw and mental defect.
But we greatly outnumber these guys. Almost two-thirds of Americans identify as conservative or right-leaning center. Republicans are down to the low 20s, just a sliver about those who identify as liberals. Same character flaw and mental defect. Their thought process is stuck on a rail.
As I recall, 20% of self described conservatives voted for Obama, according to post-election analysis and I seem to remember that turnout among that group was down significantly as well. However, I’m depending on a very faulty memory, so maybe you can present some facts to the contrary.
Speaking of liars, nice that you came back. I’m not, and never have been, a Republican. I generally vote for them, because voting “present” or “none of the above” doesn’t seem very effective. I support the candidate of my choice in the primaries with money and whatever, but I don’t vote primaries because that would make me a Republican, which I’m not. Get it? You still haven’t explained why you think it’s better to not vote (or vote third party) and allow Boxer to win re-election rather than elect Fiorina. Run away, run away…..
Because the two are mutually exclusive.
Blackstone says you’re wrong, but Phil argues the opposite point without realizing it.
We conservatives could sure use your help/vote in the republican primaries, txvet. It’s the only reason I’m still a registered republican.
BTW Phil, if you’ve been keeping up, you’ll already be aware that Democrats aren’t running as Republicans – they’re running as “tea party” candidates, backed by the DNC. The point is to get uninformed fools to vote for them to split the conservative/Republican vote so that Dems can keep their seats.
txvet, you have absolutely no credibility. You are a die-hard Republican who will make up your own facts and say anything to win an argument. Were Obama to switch parties you be arguing that we should vote for him because as bad as Obama may be, just imaging how bad the Democrats must be.
There are more than two choices on the ballot. I plan to make use of them. I don’t vote for liberals or Democrats, especially when they run as Republicans.
I know. Doesn’t compute. Brain cramps.
Wouldn’t make any difference here anyway. I’m in Lamar Smith’s district. He’s one of the more conservative members of Congress and nobody runs against him anyway.
Off topic but how did we miss this? Ray Bradbury says America needs a revolution? Government is just too big?
I’ve given you many opportunities to debate and you run away every time. If you think I make up facts, then present some facts to rebut me. You advocate voting for Democrats, and then turn around and lie about it in virtually your next post. No credibility? All you do is whine and moan about McCain but you won’t even discuss your own state, where you could actually do something. You call others RINOs, complain that Democrats are running as Republicans, then do nothing at all to stop the reelection in your own state of one of the most leftist senators in the country. No credibility? Look in the mirror.
So Phil that leads to the following question. For CA Senate race do you plan to vote for:
1) Boxer
2) Fiorina
3) Third Party candidate
4) Write in vote
5) Not vote for this office
If they voted for Obama, that would pretty strongly suggest that they weren’t rejecting McCain because of his support for amnesty, carbon limits, and bailouts. These are simply people who bought into Obama’s “moderate” hope-and-change image. Most likely Colin Powell and Arnold Schwarzenegger supporters.
If there truly had been any kind of conservative revolt whatsoever against McCain, then Obama’s percentage plus McCain’s percentage would have added up to something less than 100%.
100% of people who voted for the office doesn’t add up to 100% of the electorate, and there wasn’t any 3rd party candidate (of any note, anyway). You can do better than that. You claimed I was making up facts, so provide facts, not conjecture. Here’s one, although I’m not sure I’m completely accurate because it’s been a long while since I looked at the numbers: Although the percentage of black (and I think Hispanic) voters was up, total turnout was not. Draw all the wrong conclusions you care to.
Come on, come on, I’m giving you every advantage – I’m quoting off the top of my head, depending on a very poor memory. All you have to do is provide the actual data to prove me wrong and I’ll cheerfully admit my error.
Oh well, thanks for the shout out John Deaux. I do have some lovely new Guccis to talk about.
Exactly. It would be much better if it was a LOTR discussion! I’ll start: who’s more of a hero, Frodo or Sam?
Well, I’m back.
See? Isn’t that more fun, Dexter? LOL
Frodo’s all hype. He wusses out at the end and would have kept the ring for himself if Gollum hadn’t tried to take it.
right, and he would’ve never made in nor out of Mount Doom if Sam had not been there.
Yet because he bore the ring’s burden, he was allowed to go to the Grey Havens with Galadriel, Celeborn, Gandalf & Elrond.
and Bilbo
Smeagol/Gollum bore it longer. Had events at Mt. Doom occurred differently, would he have been allowed to go, too?
one can only wonder Dexter…or, wonder how long Frodo or Bilbo could have gotten away with carrying it before they turned into a Gollum.
Bilbo was getting close, but I think his good heartedness slowed his decline.
Smeagol, on the other hand, was obviously a Liberal Democrat since he was a control freak and wanted to take others’ treasure and use it for no good purpose.
Of of them all, Sam was the greatest hero. True heroes are rarely given the credit. Most of them just die unsung, so Sam came out of it better than most.
No band playing, no flags flying.
My thoughts too, Dexter and Roland.
Now.
Do you think Obi-Wan Kenobi was the greatest Jedi ever?
Greatest Jedi, Yoda was!
Small of stature, he was. But, great in him, the Force was.
no way–Yoda may have been one of the council, but Kenobi was the only one to have beaten Darth Vader/Anakin
Hmm. A point you have. Reconsider, I must.
Ok.
On to a discussion of the Chief Rabbit in Watership Down.
Puh-lease. Darth Vader was a total wuss about hurting his little boy. Obi-wan may have helped Luke find himself, but Yoda taught him how to actually use the force. Even Obi-wan knew his limitations. That’s why he sent Luke to learn from Yoda.
Oh, and Han shot first.
Ok, John, but the discussion has moved on to Watership Down.
LOL
Which there would have been, had conservatives been upset enough at McCain’s liberalism to make some kind of protest against him. You were claiming that the strategy of not voting for Republicans who glide to the left is what got us Obama. There would be some indication – either through write-ins or actual votes for 3rd party candidates (they did exist) – that that was anywhere close to Obama’s margin of victory (7%). It wasn’t even a rounding error.
Obama won the election the moment McCain won the nomination. And it’s because Republicans like McCain have achieved the kind of prominence they have that they were able to position themselves to deliver disasters like that. Enemies behind the lines can do more damage than enemies in front.
Can’t we talk about the similarities between Ferngully and Avatar? It’s been a long time since I’ve seen/read Watership Down
Well I guess we can be thankful he didn’t blame Bush for his problems. That tells me he’s only a RINO and not a democrat yet. But that’s coming as soon as he is re-elected.
Dexter–nope.
Watership Down is one of the best books in the entire history of the world.