I know, it's an overworked, unoriginal title. But I just like the phrase. Today, we examine John McCain, the one Republican who is actually liked in the mainstream Legacy Media.
John McCain has the kind of story that John Kerry wishes he had. Yes, Kerry was in Viet Nam, and yes, he received several Purple Heart awards. But John McCain actually served some real time there. In fact, he was a guest at the infamous Hanoi Hilton, beaten and tortured on a regular basis by the North Viet Namese. While Kerry supporters try to claim he was a war hero, McCain is the real deal.
But that is only one of the reasons the Legacy Media are so enamoured with John McCain. For the Legacy Media know a simple fact that many Republicans fail to remember: Conservatism wins every time you run on it. For all of McCain's excellent pedigree and proven courage in Viet Nam, he is far, far from Conservative. Furthermore, McCain seems to have a thin skin and an uneven temperament. And he can hold a grudge on a scale worthy of either Bill or Hillary.
Why is McCain not a Conservative? A simple look at his record should suffice. He has been a staunch opponent of tax cuts, garnering the sobriquet of "fiscal conservative", among the media elites, but leaving the true Conservative activists a bit cold. Indeed, when asked why he opposed the Bush tax cuts, he used rhetoric right out of the Democratic Party handbook, calling them "tax cuts for the rich".
Then there was McCain-Feingold. This atrocious assault on the First Amendment criminalizes certain examples of political speech at certain times of the election cycle. It empowers the Legacy Media and labor unions, while emasculating private citizens and their organizations. Should John McCain become president, it is very doubtful that he would appoint any Supreme Court justices who would overturn his pet project.
And he seems to have bought into the Left's shibboleth of man made Global Warmism, while using the debates to attack America's pharmaceutical companies. If the conventional wisdom that we are headed into a recession is correct -- an opinion that I, for one, do not share -- then this is the last guy we want in the White House.
McCain gets a lot of high marks for his Pro-Life positions. But is this warranted? Paul F. Campos, of the Scripps-Howard News Service, last week noted his shifting stances regarding abortions. In fact, it was only until the past year, running for the presidency, that John McCain became reliably Pro-Life. He now wants to outlaw almost all abortions and he claims he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. But can he be relied on?
Let's get back to the issue of judges. The only way to overturn Roe v. Wade would be to appoint originalist judges to the Supreme Court. Yet, when the Democrat minority in Congress used the fillerbuster to block such appointments, John McCain organized the so-called "Gang of 14" to prevent the Republican majority from exercising their Constitutional duty to stop these unconstitutional fillerbusters. How can we be sure he won't side with the Democrats and appoint more Liberal, "living document" judges to the Bench? Simply put, we can't.
McCain gets praise for being tough on the War on Terror. But just how tough is he? He's already proposed closing down the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and bringing terrorist suspects to American soil where they would presumably get rights to attorneys and appeals that no enemy combatants in the past ever had. He has used his experiences in the Hanoi Hilton to oppose enhanced interrogation techniques that have made America safer, as if waterboarding and loud music were real torture.
Let me take a moment to discuss waterboarding. This is a technique in which a suspect is laid on his back, his face covered with a towel. Water is then poured onto the towel so as to make the suspect think he is drowning. Many folks think this is torture, with Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy being one of the most outspoken critics. The fact of the matter is, waterboarding is used on our own soldiers and pilots as part of their training. Anti-war protesters routinely volunteer to be waterboarded at protests, as have several journalists. In fact, when I had researched waterboarding through Google, I stumbled on a pornography site that featured folks being waterboarded for recreational purposes! I humbly submit that, given the above fact, coupled with the fact that it works, waterboarding is not torture!
Then there is the matter of the Geneva Conventions. John McCain favors an expansive reading of the articles so that even enemy combatants -- a group that the Conventions specifically single out for exclusion -- should be treated the exact same way that criminals or POW's are treated. Again, this is something that America has never done in the past. We are faced with an enemy that doesn't even pay lip service to the Geneva Conventions. It's as if McCain wants to get tough with an asymmetrical enemy with one hand tied behind our back.
Speaking of national security, McCain has made a mockery of our borders and our concern for illegal immigration. The McCain-Kennedy Bill, which thankfully failed due to an overwhelming public outcry, would, despite McCain's preposterous claims to the contrary, have granted amnesty to 12 to 22 million folks who have violated our borders, stolen identities, and continue to flout our immigration laws. Of course, he had a lot of help from President Bush, but that is yet another reason why the Democrats are in the majority in Congress, along with big spending and failure to make the tax cuts permanent. Conservatives just stayed home in 2006, rather than vote for folks who failed to live up to their ideals.
And what about a consistent political philosophy? Isn't it important that a prospective president be absolutely clear on his positions and be firm in his resolve to govern by them? Well, McCain seems to think that his opponent, Mitt Romney doesn't measure up in this respect. Paul F. Campos's clearly lays out the inconsistencies in McCain's record. Of course, Mr. Campos was arguing from a Liberal perspective, but the fact remains: John McCain is the flip flopper, not Mitt Romney.
Let's not forget, either, that in the 2000 primaries, McCain described Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" yet spoke at his university last year, and is actively courting evangelicals in this election. So what does he really think? Who knows? He's certainly not telling!
We Conservatives are constantly being told that we must support John McCain, that he is the only candidate that could defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election. We are told that examining McCain's actual record, rather than parroting what he says is his record, would lead to the destruction of the Republican Party. But there's a problem with this. Historically, we need only look back to the Truman administration, which tired of Democrats siding with Republicans too often in Congress. President Truman once famously remarked, "Given a choice between a 'Republican' and a Republican, the voters would take the Republican every time."
Change the party name, and the same could be said about "moderate" Republicans like John McCain: Given a choice between a "Democrat" and a Democrat, the Democrat wins every time. Dennis Vacco, once New York State's attorney general, learned that the hard way when he refused the Right to Life Party's endorsement in protest of an abortion doctor's murder. Al Damato, once holding Chuck Schumer's New York Senate seat, also lost after moving to the Left on Life issues and letting Clinton slide in his Senate Banking Committee investigations. Even Mitt Romney learned after he lost to Ted Kennedy, after swinging to the Left to "moderate" his tone for Massachusetts's voters. Recall also that the Republicans who lost their congressional seats in 2006 did so against Democrats that ran as Conservatives, although those Democrats swung to the Left once in office.
There are two reasons why Republican candidates who run as Democrat-lite fail to win. First, is Truman's maxim: why vote for the pseudo Democrat when you can vote for the real thing. The second is that Conservative voters will not get excited about a RINO (Republican In Name Only)candidate. They see no reason to vote for said RINO since, win or lose, the RINO will vote just like a Democrat.
This is precisely why John McCain's candidacy is doomed to failure. The only states that McCain has won were states that allowed Democrats and Independents vote in Republican primaries. Conservatives have very good reasons not to like or trust John McCain. And one of the best reasons is that the Legacy Media likes him so much.
Or, at least, until or if he gets the Republican nomination. Then the Legacy Media will revert to form and trash John McCain like any other Republican nominee. They only want McCain because he would stand no chance at all against any Democratic candidate. The Legacy Media is trying to pick our nominee to blunt our drive to keep the White House.
The question then is, who will I support in November? Obviously, the Republican candidate, since, even with all these warts, McCain is the superior choice. But then I think of the joke that's been going around the Internet lately, the one about "Electile Dysfunction": the inability to get excited about any of the candidates in the presidential race.
But fear not, folks! I haven't talked about Mitt Romney yet!
Copyright Jan. 28th, 2008
John McCain has the kind of story that John Kerry wishes he had. Yes, Kerry was in Viet Nam, and yes, he received several Purple Heart awards. But John McCain actually served some real time there. In fact, he was a guest at the infamous Hanoi Hilton, beaten and tortured on a regular basis by the North Viet Namese. While Kerry supporters try to claim he was a war hero, McCain is the real deal.
But that is only one of the reasons the Legacy Media are so enamoured with John McCain. For the Legacy Media know a simple fact that many Republicans fail to remember: Conservatism wins every time you run on it. For all of McCain's excellent pedigree and proven courage in Viet Nam, he is far, far from Conservative. Furthermore, McCain seems to have a thin skin and an uneven temperament. And he can hold a grudge on a scale worthy of either Bill or Hillary.
Why is McCain not a Conservative? A simple look at his record should suffice. He has been a staunch opponent of tax cuts, garnering the sobriquet of "fiscal conservative", among the media elites, but leaving the true Conservative activists a bit cold. Indeed, when asked why he opposed the Bush tax cuts, he used rhetoric right out of the Democratic Party handbook, calling them "tax cuts for the rich".
Then there was McCain-Feingold. This atrocious assault on the First Amendment criminalizes certain examples of political speech at certain times of the election cycle. It empowers the Legacy Media and labor unions, while emasculating private citizens and their organizations. Should John McCain become president, it is very doubtful that he would appoint any Supreme Court justices who would overturn his pet project.
And he seems to have bought into the Left's shibboleth of man made Global Warmism, while using the debates to attack America's pharmaceutical companies. If the conventional wisdom that we are headed into a recession is correct -- an opinion that I, for one, do not share -- then this is the last guy we want in the White House.
McCain gets a lot of high marks for his Pro-Life positions. But is this warranted? Paul F. Campos, of the Scripps-Howard News Service, last week noted his shifting stances regarding abortions. In fact, it was only until the past year, running for the presidency, that John McCain became reliably Pro-Life. He now wants to outlaw almost all abortions and he claims he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. But can he be relied on?
Let's get back to the issue of judges. The only way to overturn Roe v. Wade would be to appoint originalist judges to the Supreme Court. Yet, when the Democrat minority in Congress used the fillerbuster to block such appointments, John McCain organized the so-called "Gang of 14" to prevent the Republican majority from exercising their Constitutional duty to stop these unconstitutional fillerbusters. How can we be sure he won't side with the Democrats and appoint more Liberal, "living document" judges to the Bench? Simply put, we can't.
McCain gets praise for being tough on the War on Terror. But just how tough is he? He's already proposed closing down the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and bringing terrorist suspects to American soil where they would presumably get rights to attorneys and appeals that no enemy combatants in the past ever had. He has used his experiences in the Hanoi Hilton to oppose enhanced interrogation techniques that have made America safer, as if waterboarding and loud music were real torture.
Let me take a moment to discuss waterboarding. This is a technique in which a suspect is laid on his back, his face covered with a towel. Water is then poured onto the towel so as to make the suspect think he is drowning. Many folks think this is torture, with Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy being one of the most outspoken critics. The fact of the matter is, waterboarding is used on our own soldiers and pilots as part of their training. Anti-war protesters routinely volunteer to be waterboarded at protests, as have several journalists. In fact, when I had researched waterboarding through Google, I stumbled on a pornography site that featured folks being waterboarded for recreational purposes! I humbly submit that, given the above fact, coupled with the fact that it works, waterboarding is not torture!
Then there is the matter of the Geneva Conventions. John McCain favors an expansive reading of the articles so that even enemy combatants -- a group that the Conventions specifically single out for exclusion -- should be treated the exact same way that criminals or POW's are treated. Again, this is something that America has never done in the past. We are faced with an enemy that doesn't even pay lip service to the Geneva Conventions. It's as if McCain wants to get tough with an asymmetrical enemy with one hand tied behind our back.
Speaking of national security, McCain has made a mockery of our borders and our concern for illegal immigration. The McCain-Kennedy Bill, which thankfully failed due to an overwhelming public outcry, would, despite McCain's preposterous claims to the contrary, have granted amnesty to 12 to 22 million folks who have violated our borders, stolen identities, and continue to flout our immigration laws. Of course, he had a lot of help from President Bush, but that is yet another reason why the Democrats are in the majority in Congress, along with big spending and failure to make the tax cuts permanent. Conservatives just stayed home in 2006, rather than vote for folks who failed to live up to their ideals.
And what about a consistent political philosophy? Isn't it important that a prospective president be absolutely clear on his positions and be firm in his resolve to govern by them? Well, McCain seems to think that his opponent, Mitt Romney doesn't measure up in this respect. Paul F. Campos's clearly lays out the inconsistencies in McCain's record. Of course, Mr. Campos was arguing from a Liberal perspective, but the fact remains: John McCain is the flip flopper, not Mitt Romney.
Let's not forget, either, that in the 2000 primaries, McCain described Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" yet spoke at his university last year, and is actively courting evangelicals in this election. So what does he really think? Who knows? He's certainly not telling!
We Conservatives are constantly being told that we must support John McCain, that he is the only candidate that could defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election. We are told that examining McCain's actual record, rather than parroting what he says is his record, would lead to the destruction of the Republican Party. But there's a problem with this. Historically, we need only look back to the Truman administration, which tired of Democrats siding with Republicans too often in Congress. President Truman once famously remarked, "Given a choice between a 'Republican' and a Republican, the voters would take the Republican every time."
Change the party name, and the same could be said about "moderate" Republicans like John McCain: Given a choice between a "Democrat" and a Democrat, the Democrat wins every time. Dennis Vacco, once New York State's attorney general, learned that the hard way when he refused the Right to Life Party's endorsement in protest of an abortion doctor's murder. Al Damato, once holding Chuck Schumer's New York Senate seat, also lost after moving to the Left on Life issues and letting Clinton slide in his Senate Banking Committee investigations. Even Mitt Romney learned after he lost to Ted Kennedy, after swinging to the Left to "moderate" his tone for Massachusetts's voters. Recall also that the Republicans who lost their congressional seats in 2006 did so against Democrats that ran as Conservatives, although those Democrats swung to the Left once in office.
There are two reasons why Republican candidates who run as Democrat-lite fail to win. First, is Truman's maxim: why vote for the pseudo Democrat when you can vote for the real thing. The second is that Conservative voters will not get excited about a RINO (Republican In Name Only)candidate. They see no reason to vote for said RINO since, win or lose, the RINO will vote just like a Democrat.
This is precisely why John McCain's candidacy is doomed to failure. The only states that McCain has won were states that allowed Democrats and Independents vote in Republican primaries. Conservatives have very good reasons not to like or trust John McCain. And one of the best reasons is that the Legacy Media likes him so much.
Or, at least, until or if he gets the Republican nomination. Then the Legacy Media will revert to form and trash John McCain like any other Republican nominee. They only want McCain because he would stand no chance at all against any Democratic candidate. The Legacy Media is trying to pick our nominee to blunt our drive to keep the White House.
The question then is, who will I support in November? Obviously, the Republican candidate, since, even with all these warts, McCain is the superior choice. But then I think of the joke that's been going around the Internet lately, the one about "Electile Dysfunction": the inability to get excited about any of the candidates in the presidential race.
But fear not, folks! I haven't talked about Mitt Romney yet!
Copyright Jan. 28th, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment