Saturday, January 26, 2008

John McCain, Democrat

With all of the election coverage right now, it might be easy to think that the Presidential race is almost over. By listening to the media, and reading the newspapers, it might be easy to believe that McCain has already won the Republican nomination. This would be impressive, since he isn't winning the delegate race (actually he is running third) and he hasn't won the most states up until now (Romney is at three, followed by McCain at two). However, it is also easy to understand why the news media likes him so much: he is a Democrat.


With the exception of Ron Paul, there is very little difference between the Republican candidates when it comes to the war on terror. After that, McCain starts sounding more and more like he should have a (D) beside his name and not an (R). For example: McCain is a big believer in the man-made global warming myth. McCain is a cosponsor of the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act. This would impose many of the Kyoto type regulations on the United States without the U.S. ever signing on to to Kyoto. You may believe that climate change is happening, but the impact of a law like this on U.S. companies could be devastating. Democrats typically favor this type of global legislation, not Republicans.


McCain not only supports a higher tax burden on American citizens, he also believes in the same class warfare the Democrats resort to when they discuss taxes. McCain originally voted against the Bush tax cuts. On the campaign trail, he is saying he did this because the tax cuts weren't coupled with spending cuts. I can understand this point of view. However, originally he didn't vote for the tax cuts because they helped out "rich Americans" at the expense of the "working class". Which party does that sound like?


Most people who follow politics remember the recent "comprehensive immigration reform debate". Senator McCain was a very vocal supporter of the bill, and a supporter of the lack of debate that went along with it. Senator McCain is on the record supporting amnesty. He is also on the record attacking those who want to build a fence on our borders. Remember, comprehensive immigration reform was never suppose to be debated. It was suppose to be brought up, voted on, and passed before the American people even knew it was being discussed. But considering another piece of the Senators work, why should we be surprised by this?


Most conservatives and many Republicans hold the Bill of Rights as sacred. Not Senator McCain. To me, the position that prevents him from being considered for my vote is his position on the First Amendment. The Freedom of Speech clause in the First Amendment is suppose to protect political debate. We can and should debate if it pertains to the New York Times or not, but we can all agree that a citizens right to criticize his government is protected. The McCain-Feingold Bill, as Robert Tracinski says, "...has the evil distinction of being the nation's first direct attack on the freedom of political speech during an election campaign, precisely when such speech is most important." If you arn't familiar with this bill, look it up, it's law now, so you should know about it. In a nut shell, it prevents candidates who are trying to defeat an incumbent in an election from running adds on TV. It is still legal for the incumbent to make any number of press conferences, thus getting air time. I can not vote for a Presidential candidate who limits the freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights.


You may be sitting at home reading this and thinking that you agree with Sen. McCain. By all means vote for him. But don't for one minute think he is a conservative or a Republican. His past record shows that on domestic issues, and some foreign ones, he will vote and think the same way Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. McCain may be the chosen candidate for the media. He should run in the party that most closely represents them.

10 comments:

slclemens said...

Thank you, Andy.

If McCain is elected, businesses like mine would either be compelled to reduce our emissions or be forced out of business to make way for wind or solar power or energy "efficiency". This would be the worst miscarriage of justice in American history--possibly in world history.

McCain doesn't get it: freedom begins at the smokestack. The only person who should have any say about what comes out of my company's stack is me--not my nosy neighbors, not "scientists" or "medical specialists", and certainly not the administration of John McCain.

Our most basic freedom is at stake here: the constitutional freedom to burn coal.

David Weisman said...

I don't know if it's good or bad, but this will spare me a difficult choice in November. McCain is the only candidate who has knowledge, who comes from military training and a military family, who can do more than more of the same, or hoping he chooses good advisors. It may be good - I would be tempted to believe we could win in Iraq, and if this was ever possible it may no longer be. India cost the British Empire more per capita than Vietnam cost us.

The India reference is explained more fully in my post.

http://theartofpeace.blogspot.com/2008/01/avoiding-hard-choice.html

pack04 said...

3 thoughts that are sort of relevant: This one is towards a comment. I have been thinking about this whole "win in Iraq" thing. I thought we had won. I think what we are doing there is helping a country that was a dictatorship switch to a democracy. I believe that is a good thing. We have had troops in Korea for 50 years protecting that democracy. Are we talking about bringing all troops home or just the ones in an area that is a political hot bed that will get people elected?

This one is towards your post: I have a boss that likes to say "I've never had a poor man give me a job or a loan?" Attacks on the "rich Americans" are getting old and have always been dumb.

And finally: limiting speech = scary. It is scary even if they tried to limit some of the NY Times speech...

familyman said...

He panders to the Christian Right like a Republican.

He didn't the last time he ran. But he's learned his lesson.

Andy D said...

Slclemens, I think to a certain degree you are right. There should be some thresholds on what pollutants any industry is allowed to release into the environment. However, the current discussion has gotten way out of hand.

David, I read your article. It sounds like you would only consider voting for McCain because of his stance on Iraq. There is no question he has been tough on how the Iraq war has been handled. I think some of this has simply been pandering to the left. The media loves it when he attacks Bush. I also don't agree with him on G'itmo or waterboarding. It is tough to know how any candidate is going to handle Iraq, and I think McCain is no exception.

Pack, like I said, I can't vote for McCain because of his attack on Free Speech. Next he will be talking about the fairness doctrine.

Family, nice to hear from you. He doesn't pander to the Christian Right very well. He supports abortion, that is a very non-Christian right view.

familyman said...

Well, compared to his position the last time he ran - I think he said something like "Falwell and Robertson wre agents of intolerance" - his position now is pandering.

slclemens said...

Andy, I think you are sorely mistaken to allow big brother government to regulate any "pollution" from our plants. If our emissions aren't harmful (and they're not), why should we let government regulate us at all?

As soon as you say that my plant's emissions (whether it's CO2 or sulfur dioxide or mercury or air borne particulates or nitrogen oxide or carbon monoxide or arsenic or lead or cadmium, etc) are in the least bit harmful and should be regulated, you're going down the same road as John McCain and the Democrats. They want "scientists" and "public health professionals" setting limits on these emissions instead of those of us in the industry who know coal best.

Why should anyone get to tell me what can come out of my own smokestack?

Andy D said...

I have to be very careful here. I don't want anon to attack me as being inconsistent. In the interest of full disclosure, I have a background in civil engineering that included some study of environmental engineering.

There is a very fine line between what the government should be able to regulate and what they shouldn't. In any case where we arn't sure, the default position should be that the government doesn't regulate it.

In the case of actual pollutants, I think the government should regulate some sort of acceptable level of pollutants released. I think the current legislation has gone way overboard. However, I also don't think any business should be able to dump unlimited amounts of pollutants. There has to be a balance between what we allow into the environment, and what business can tolerate.

David Weisman said...

Pack04, no. What happened was Al Qaeda started attacking Sunnis, who turned against it. This stroke of luck helped us a great deal - but we can't count on it lasting forever. The Shia government won't do anything to make it so - at least so far.

Nobody knows why Sadr did his cease fire. My guess is that Iran doesn't actually want refugees streaming across their borders, so they told him to ease off. But Iran doesn't want things to improve so much that we can attack them as Bush is always threatening to do.

Meanwhile, the military says we can't support the surge much longer. If we're lucky it will turn out the surge didn't have much to do with the decrease in hostilities, and the descrease in troop strength won't be a problem. If we're not ...

Kram said...

Great post, Andy! In my opinion, none of the Republican candidates are truly "conservative."