Sma' Talk Wi' T

Current world events, politics, news, history, culture, trivia, religion, and the quirky

I’m Not !*(@*!(*^#! Supporting McCain And You Can’t Make Me

with 3 comments

On Meet The Press today, Huckabee looked good. He is confident and knows why he’s staying in the race. This is what primaries are all about. Voters can look at what really makes the person viable for being their presidential nominee. Huckabee is still viable and for me, the lesser of evils in the Republican party.

Dr. Dobson, fundamentalist founder of Focus on the Family, endorses Gov. Huckabee this week and his reasoning parallels mine. McCain’s financial scandals withstanding, Dobson pointed out that McCain’s nomination does not support the marriage act, is pro-embryonic stem cell research which is the main support of abortion, opposes tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and does not regard freedom of speech. Dobson continues with McCain’s organizing the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a reputation of anger, foul and obscene language, even in public Congressional hearings.

Despite McCain’s pro-military stance with his political career, his military career does not outweigh his past behavior. It’s not what did McCain do for us in the past, but what has McCain done for conservative Republicans lately? He has been the main factor in the reasons why Republicans have lost elections across the country.

Governor Huckabee moderate policies are a few similarities with McCain, illegal immigration for one, but I feel that Huckabee has more conservative values than McCain.

John McCain’s 2000 choice for Attorney General advisor is Warren Rudman. A Human Events article in 2000, touted Rudman’s anti-Christian beliefs:

John McCain has indicated that, if he is elected President, he may name former Sen. Warren Rudman (R.N.H.) as his attorney general.

The pro-abortion Rudman, one of the most liberal Republicans to serve in the Senate (1980-92) in recent decades, is McCain’s campaign chairman. As attorney general, Rudman would become the top advisor to President McCain for picking Supreme Court justices.

When he was a senator in the 1980s, he took credit for persuading President George Bush to nominate fellow New Hampshireman David Souter to the court, and Souter quickly became the crucial fifth vote needed to maintain the court’s pro-abortion majority.

Appearing. on CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt and Shields” on January 15, McCain was asked what he would do as President to keep six-year-old Cuban Elian Gonzalez in the United States. He converted the question into an opportunity to float Rudman as his attorney general nominee.

Said McCain: “If I had an attorney general, I’m sure that that attorney general would-maybe even Warren Rudman-would find away.”

After conservatives expressed horror and the National Right to Life Committee ran television ads blasting McCain for suggesting a liberal pro-abortion attorney generaL Rudman told Fox News he “probably” would not accept the appointment if McCain gave it to him. But he did not rule it out.

When it was reported during the South Carolina primary that Rudman had referred to Christian conservatives as “bigots,” he not only refused to retract the charge, but he also reiterated it, sending to the Manchester Union Leader the appropriate pages from his now out-of-print book in which he had made the charge. Here, along with that passage, are other choice statements from Warren Rudman’s Combat. Twelve Years in the U.S. Senate.

  • Christian Homophobes and Bigots – “Politically speaking, the Republican Party is making a terrible mistake if it appears to ally itself with the Christian right. There are some fine, sincere people in its ranks, but there are enough anti abortion zealots, would be censors, homophobes, bigots and latter-day Elmer Gantrys to discredit any party that is unwise enough to embrace such a…
  • Jesse Helms and Backwoods Preachers -“Why had abortion, a common medical procedure that the Supreme Court had ruled legal 17 years earlier, come to dominate our politics? “The answer lies in the rise of the evangelicals. There have always been backwoods preachers in America denouncing the wicked ways of city dwellers and the rich. But something had changed by the 1980s. One milestone may have been Nixon’s skill in rallying his Silent Majority against opponents of the war in Vietnam. The war passed, but not before such figures as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jesse Helms had seen the possibilities of using television to rally religious conservatives who felt threatened by a fast changing society.”
  • Colin Powell’s Dissenters – “In early November of 1995, in a remarkable display of political obtuseness, a group of far-right leaders called reporters in and denounced [Colin] Powell and his possible candidacy. They included Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation; Gary Bauer, head of the Family Research Council; David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union; Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; Chris Ardizzone, legislative director of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum; and former Defense Department official Frank Gaffney. Ralph Reed, director of the Christian Coalition, sent a letter of support. Not only did these political pipsqueaks question Powell’s views on such issues as abortion and gun control, but they challenged his character and military record. This from people who not only have never heard a shot fired in anger, but have never even dropped by a PX for an ice-cream cone. It was an amazing display not only of arrogance but of fear, because these people know that Cohn Powell embodies the very opposite of the ignorance and bigotry that they represent.”
  • Social Issues – “The New Right’s so-called social issues-opposition to abortion, gay rights, flag-burning and funding for the arts, along with support for prayer in schools– were increasingly on the Senate agenda in my first term. A reporter once asked me my views on this ‘social agenda.’ ‘Do you have 15 seconds?’ I asked. ‘That’s all it will take. I’m deeply committed to the right to choose, to the separation of church and state and to personal liberty. The conservative social agenda threatens them all.”‘
  • David Souter – “My guess was that he probably thought, as I did, that Roe had been wrongly decided, as a matter of constitutional law. The court had based the legality of abortion on a ‘right of privacy’ that many of us could not locate in the Constitution. Intellectually, that right of privacy was a very big leap. The court had, I thought, made the right decision for the wrong reason. I suspected that David shared this view, but that because of his belief in stare decisis (the Latin term for judicial respect for precedent) he would never vote to overturn the decision.”
  • Roe v. Wade – “Nor did I disagree personally with Roe v Wade. A decision as personal and momentous as bearing a child is not for government to make.” /li>
  • Abortion – “I was of course pro-choice. I find abortion a lesser evil than forcing women to bring unwanted children into the world. The Supreme Court had spoken on abortion and I respected its ruling.”
  • Repugnant Agenda of Conservatives – “I could see the Republican Party gradually being taken over by ‘movement’ conservatives and self-comissioned Christian soldiers whose social agenda I found repugnant.”

McCain’s A Vicious Person

“He had very few friends in the Senate,” said former Senator Smith, who dealt with McCain almost daily. “He has a lot of support around the country, but I don’t think he has a lot of support from people who know him well.”

Another former senator who requested anonymity recalled an exchange at a Republican policy lunch. McCain turned on another senator who disagreed with him.
“McCain used the f-word,” the former senator said. “McCain called the guy a ‘sh–head.’ The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said, ‘I apologize, but you’re still a sh–head.’ That was in front of 40 to 50 Republican senators. That sort
of thing happened frequently.”

“People who disagree with him get the f— you,” said former Rep. John LeBoutillier, a New York Republican who had an encounter with McCain when he was on a POW task force in the House. After LeBoutillier had openly tape recorded comments at a conference, McCain got the idea that LeBoutillier was secretly tape recording him.

“Are you wired up?”

LeBoutillier quoted McCain as asking. “Of course not,” LeBoutillier said.

“Prove it,” McCain said.

LeBoutillier said he lowered his pants, apparently satisfying McCain that he was not taping him.

“He is a vicious person,” LeBoutillier said. “Nearly all the Republican senators endorsed Bush because they knew McCain from serving with him in the Senate. They so disliked him that they wouldn’t support him. They have been on the hard end of his behavior.”

… Only a few news outlets, like the Phoenix New Times in Arizona and the National Journal, that ran an Associated Press story reporting McCain’s 1998 joke suggesting that Chelsea Clinton was ugly and Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton were lesbians. “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?” McCain said at a GOP fund-raiser in Washington. “Because Janet Reno is her father.”

McCain apologized to the Clintons. But more recently, McCain said on Fox News, “You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn’t have the face for it.”

“National reporters may genuflect, but local journalists cringe at the thought of covering McCain, better known in Arizona for his short temper, refusal to take calls, and attempts at media manipulation than for the ‘straight talk’ he doles out . . .” a Playboy profile said in February 2000. When people have come forward to relate their bizarre experiences with McCain, only minor publications or the foreign press have run their accounts. The favored treatment is reminiscent of the way the press turned a blind eye to John F. Kennedy’s dalliances — except that voters have far more need to know about evidence of instability than presidential infidelities.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, a Democrat, encountered McCain’s temper when he and other local mayors briefed the Arizona congressional delegation on local issues. After Johnson spoke, McCain said, “Hold it a minute. Somebody write down
everything this guy has to say. You know what, we need to record him. It’s best to get a liar on tape.” Johnson stood up and said, “Senator, if you have a problem with me, why don’t we go out in the hallway and talk about it.”

“You’re goddamn right I have a problem with you,” McCain said. “They’ve been treating you like a princess in Phoenix while they’ve been burning me over this damn deal, and I’m sick of it.”

A longtime member of Senator Dennis DeConcini’s staff, Judy Leiby, worked on veteran’s issues and had differed with McCain on some of them over the years. After DeConcini announced he was retiring in 1994, McCain showed up in his office. “I was standing around talking to about a half a dozen postal workers I’d worked real closely with,” Leiby recalled. “And McCain came in. He walked down the line, shaking hands, and he ignored me. And one postal worker said, ‘Do you know Judy Leiby?’ He said, ‘Oh, yeah, I know her.’”

McCain turned away from Leiby, trembling.

“You could tell he was so angry, he was white,” she said. “He turned back to me and said, ‘I’m so glad you’re out of a job, and I’ll see that you never work again.’”

Of this incident, McCain said that because he didn’t hold Leiby in “particularly high esteem,” he thought it would be hypocritical to shake her hand. “I didn’t raise my voice, didn’t offer any disparaging remarks or insults,” he said.

Meet McCain’s Open Borders Family Michelle Malkin’s eye opening article on Juan Hernandez.

McCain At CPAC – Not Quite The Uniter Michelle Malkin’s insight on CPAC response to McCain.

McCain’s Hispanic Outreach

McCain Was First Republican To Call For Gonzales’s Ouster

Radio talk show hosts not supporting McCain is not about being childish. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity were out there speaking for conservatives everywhere during the Clinton administration. They were the only conservative outlet for the conservative citizen. When GWB was elected, the liberal MSM’s were whining that conservative talk radio was the GOP’s mouthpiece and listeners were spewing everything they were told to say. Now that conservative talk show hosts are sticking to their conservative beliefs and core values in stating that John McCain is not a conservative, and not going to support him in the election they are lambasted as being spoiled children not getting their way.

Well, which is it? Liberals can’t have it both ways.

Rush Limbaugh is speaking for the millions of conservatives at home who are appalled by the McCain’s supposed inevitability as their nominee in the Republican convention. Governor Huckabee would be the lesser of four evils.

John McCain – you are not my representative.

And if he is nominated, McCain will lose from millions of Republican conservatives staying home. It will be the Republican leadership responsible again for not listening to their constitutents and putting a Democrat in the White House.

Other posts:

Shamnesty’s Voice McCain’s Aide Puts Mexico First

McCain Has Promises To Keep?

McCain’s Too Liberal For Me

Supreme Court Errs On The Right Side

Advertisements

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I agree with almost all that is said about McCain in T’s post. McCain is the one of the worst possible choices out of all the Republican candidates. If the question were really between McCain and Huckabee, there would be more to argue about, though I find it hard to see Huckabee as anything but McCain light.

    The differences between Huckabee and McCain on domestic issues are miniscule. Neither is a great tax cutter, and neither has previously opposed increasing the size of government as a core principle. The only real advantage I would see in Huckabee, if he were trying to win, would be on judges. There Huckabee would be a much surer vote for conservative judges. I have no delusion that McCain would nominate anyone who would outright admit he was against McCain-Feingold. So he is a crap shoot at best on such nominations.

    But whatever advantage Huckabee might have on judges, he loses it by a large margin on national defense. As horrible as I find abortion, I think having a feckless, or even clueless, president on foreign policy at this time is a worse result. Huckabee’s article in Foreign Affairs in my mind simply disqualifies him for commander-in-chief. Now if we saw some true Christian humility, an admission that he was just plain wrong, who knows (ala Romney on abortion). But I will not hold my breath.

    But McCain-Huckabee is not even the issue. Notice how vociferously Huckabee attacked Romney, but that he has never gone negative on McCain? If Huckabee were conservative at his core, why does he find so much in common with McCain, who true conservatives (including this one) so revile? If Huckabee serious about getting the nomination, he would attack McCain on the very grounds listed in T’s post.

    I think he is simply trying to accumulate delegates, without stopping McCain, for his own future personal ambitions. If he gets enough delegates before the convention to at least appear respectable, he can join a McCain administration from a position of strength, not weakness. McCain is open in his disdain for people he disagrees with and that makes him easier to combat. I truly get the feeling that Huckabee shares that contempt for others, but that he has hidden it under a more silken tongue.

    Thompson didn’t care enough to make the sacrifices to run properly. Romney switched too many substantial positions too close to the race, McCain is exactly how you describe him, and Huckabee seems tome to be McCain light. We have had a series of bad choices. If I had to cast the deciding vote between McCain and Huckabee…..I think I would rather shoot myself instead. But between either of them and Hillary or Obama, no way in hell could either of them be better for the country or the Republican party than any Republican nominee..

    I have only one question for anyone who says they would never vote for McCain – Who did you vote for in 2004? If you voted for Bush, you have already voted for a big government Republican, a huge new government entitlement program, the later adoption of the Clinton defense policy, a federal takeover of education, and almost saddled us with Harriet Meiers. And yes, I voted for him too, while holding my nose…both times. I knew what he was likely to do, and knew whatever he did would never be as bad as Presidents Gore and Kerry would have done.

    Conservatives have no candidate in this race. The question is which liberal will do the least damage. No one is saying don’t vote for Huckabee in any primaries, but once they are over and he has accepted his place in McCain’s proposed administration, let’s talk about who to support in the general election. Between McCain and any potential Democratic nominee, I will vote (ever so reluctantly) for McCain.

    Mercutio

    February 10, 2008 at 9:25 pm

  2. No, mercutio, Huckabee does not lose advantage on national defense, that’s just a perception created by out-of-context quotes, McCain being a war hero, and so on. McCain has already said (NYTimes, I think it was) that longtime close friend Gen. James Jones (very bad news for Israel and the war on terror) would have a key role in his administration, and has support of many who support Jim Baker. Huckabee unlike Arab League-appeasers Clinton, Obama, or McCain has wisely said he could not encourage Israel to give up the West Bank, Golan, or divide Jerusalem, and that any Palestinian state should be outside Israel. Huckabee has emphasized the need to also fight the ideological component of jihad, mobilizing Americans by communicating to them the nature of the threat (something the current administration shows no indication of comprehending).

    Huckabee consistently and adamantly stands up for both American sovereignty (against pressing encroachments) and within the country protection of both states’ rights and individual rights. He is not defined by external circumstances, but by principles held dearly, and this is what we need in a leader in the war on terror. His communication skills and respect for all people will also come in handy, both with informing Americans and also in talks with allies as well as enemies.

    ER

    February 11, 2008 at 12:03 am

  3. Well you make a VERY compelling case, i.e., there are many excellent reasons on which sane men and women can agree on to NOT vote for John McCain in the 2008 Presidential race (see McCain: The Myth of a Maverick), but I think you’re overlooking the value is his being huffy and puffy and pissed off — that just may be ONE good reason to vote FOR him.

    I’m not kidding.

    David Allyn, Ph.D., author of I Can’t Believe I Just Did That makes the case that hiding one’s emotions in order to be “nice” or “accepted” does way more harm (to you and others) than good.

    While John’s temper is, admitedly, not that much to have going for him, it’s not the liability everyone is making it out to be, and that’s my real point here. To understand way, see:

    Why John McCain’s Temper is Probably the only Good Reason to Vote for Him.

    christopher

    March 9, 2008 at 9:51 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: