Lobby dominated, Republicanism has long patronized the wealthy at middleclass expense. The freedom to become wealthy is welcomed. Domination by the wealthy is not. The Republican middleclass base apparently rebelled to regain party control. A rebellion requires a rebel leader. The middle-class found one in maverick John McCain. His electoral success is a message for change in Republican priorities. Except for the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, most party loyal Republican conservatives will credit McCain’s 80 percent conservative voting record and support him. Negatives: He promises secure borders; however, 40 percent of illegal employment balanced with additional work visas would be well received. He’s weak on global warming and business savvy. Positives: McCain’s aggressive stance on terrorism and stabilizing Iraq should trump Democrat doves. McCain would end the flawed corn ethanol program. He requested no earmarks last year, and as president will attempt to end them. He tried but failed to control campaign fi - nancing. He opposed Bush tax cuts, convinced they favored the rich, but accepts making them permanent (knowing full well congressional support is lacking). Any concessions made to intransigent conservatives will alienate McCain’s middle-class base. His potential presidential triumph requires remaining steadfast, true to his principles. Perceived as a centrist hawk, he will harvest middle-class votes, regardless of party affiliation. My guess is he’s the optimum candidate to overcome strong odds against a Republican win. WALLACE J. HUGHES Charlton
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Hillary Clinton’s blessing notwithstanding, many of the New York senator’s supporters will resist the handover to Barack Obama. The sexism that permeated the recent campaign still rankles, and John McCain is far from the standard-issue Republican they instinctively vote against. A big sticking point for wavering Democrats will be McCain’s position on reproductive rights. Clinton’s backers are overwhelmingly pro-choice, and they’ll want to know this: Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade? The 1973 decision guarantees a right to abortion. The answer is unclear but probably “no.” While McCain has positioned himself as “pro-life” during this campaign, his statements over the years show considerable latitude on the issue. In a 1999 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, McCain said, “I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America” to undergo “illegal and dangerous operations.” George W. Bush turned that statement against him in the 2000 race for the GOP nomination. The National Right to Life Committee ran ads denouncing McCain — one reason he lost the important South Carolina primary to Bush. Addressing conservative South Carolinians last year, McCain said that Roe should be overturned. Primary politics or a change of mind? The former is my guess — and also that in his current pursuit of Hillary Democrats we may see a softening of that position. Whatever McCain really thinks, the chances that he would submerge his presidency in the maelstrom of abortion politics seem slim. Partisan battles over court nominees aren’t his thing, either. McCain played a central role in the Gang of 14 — the seven Democratic and seven Republican senators who joined hands to find common ground on court appointments. For his efforts at compromise, McCain took a pummeling from the right wing. Note that Obama, the self-styled foe of division, declined to join the bipartisan group. And if a President McCain did put forth
ARLINGTON, Va. — Sen. John McCain said Monday the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling should be lifted, and individual states given the right to pursue energy exploration in waters near their own coasts. With gasoline prices rising and the United States chronically dependent on foreign oil, the Republican presidential contender said his proposal would “be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis.” McCain also suggested giving the states incentives, including a greater share of royalties paid by companies that drill for oil, as an incentive to permit exploration. Asked how far offshore states should be given control of drilling rights, he said that was a matter for negotiation.
Have you seen the "Baby Alex" political ad that the radical-left, George Soros-funded organization MoveOn has produced? To some, it plays like a "Saturday Night Live" skit, but the intent is deadly serious: It is designed to damage John McCain.
In the ad, a young mother holding a baby says, "Hi, John McCain, this is Alex and he's my first . . . So, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for a hundred years, were you counting on Alex? Because, if you were, you can't have him."
I know, you think I'm making that up. No way.
These loopy MoveOn people spent more than one-half million dollars making and marketing the ad. No word on what Baby Alex's cut was.
My question is this: Who on earth would take that message seriously? What kind of voter is that supposed to reach?
The basic premise of the ad was a conversation from last January between Sen. McCain and the late Tim Russert. McCain told Russert that U.S. troops are needed around the world but we have to keep them safe. The Q&A went like this:
Russert: "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years."
McCain: "Maybe 100 . . . We've been in South Korea — we've been in Japan for 60 years. That'd be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed."
Now, Baby Alex might not understand the geo-political implications of the comment, but honest adults should. The U.S. military is stationed overseas to protect our interests and to defuse dangerous situations, like turmoil in the Persian Gulf. That's tough for a child to digest, but, come on, it's not a kooky position even if you disagree.
Propaganda aside, I liked the Baby Alex ad so much that I'm suggesting MoveOn produce a series of them. Let's see . . . how about Baby Alex thanking his mom for not aborting him? That has a political theme to it.
Also, Baby Alex could extend his gratitude to the FBI for keeping his parents safe since the attack on 9/11. Alex could also, through his perspicacious mother, demonstrate his eagerness to see Islamic fascism defeated — so he and all the other babies won't have to deal with it when they grow up.
Perhaps Baby Alex's mom could also explain to him that he will never have to live under a tyrant like Saddam Hussein because his country embraces freedom. And then, after all that, Alex could settle in for a nice nap knowing that a nutritious meal will be ready for him upon awakening — a meal millions of babies in other countries will never get.
Those ideas should keep MoveOn very busy this election year, and I am definitely looking forward to seeing the spots on TV. Thank you, George Soros. You're a patriot.
When I heard Bush talk about this during his last press conference, I could have just about jumped through my radio and slapped these words out of (or a better idea into) his mouth.
He stated that there are 2 things that are stopping us from drilling off the coasts. This is almost as bad as Governor Paterson's comments that he'll lower the taxes as soon as the T-Rex (no, not fossil fuels, check out http://www.shrunk.us/07n) calls him and says that he won't take the extra money for profit.
Okay-----now they are ALL talking in the same damn box....and the only thing that box that they are fighting for is our tax dollars....tree huggers still like to spend $70 on hiking shoes----I'm sure they all follow the branches of the birth tree for those shoes......no different than a 401k or the likes----I'm not sure who they think will be wiping their a@# when they get old or even if they know what old is.....
as for the oil execs---kiss my a@# before I have to wipe yours while you are in a wheelchair and cant tell the difference from a comb and a fork or even what day of the week it is,,,,much less your own birthday......take your money now cause you'll be giving it to me or someone else later.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Mr. McCain seems to have flipflopped on the oil issue. What does that mean? It means he’s doing what the system is set up to do. Listen to the people. Sure, it may not be what he believes, but it’s the majority of Americans who feel we need more oil. So he is flip-flopping. Not necessarily a bad thing (listening to the people). Mr. Obama doesn’t tell us what he’s going to do, besides raise taxes (Mr. Obama can pay with no problem) and punish the United States — no, he tells us just what Mr. McCain will do (even if he takes it out of context). Hopefully when Obama’s speech writer tells him what he’s going to do, he will tell us. More taxes in New York state? Nope, they’re fees now — like user fees when you register your vehicle. There’s a new one for you. Look at your renewal. If Mr. Obama wants to win, he’d better start flip-flopping. BILL ZILBERMAN Niskyauna
By: Phil Brennan Wooing conservative evangelical voters at a private meeting, Republican presidential candidate John McCain promised to speak out against gay marriage and seriously consider picking an anti-abortion running mate.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Senator McCain had a private confab in Ohio with several influential social conservatives who have criticized him for failing to toe the conservative line embraced by evangelical Christians. The newspaper reported that McCain scored some points with his audience.
Some of those attending the meeting confided to the Times that McCain would take seriously their requests that he choose an anti-abortion running mate and promised that he would talk more openly about his opposition to gay marriage, a pledge the Times wrote he carried out later when he endorsed a ballot measure in California to ban gay marriage.
"It was obvious there were a lot of changed hearts in the room," said Phil Burress, who led Ohio's anti-gay-marriage ballot measure in 2004. "We realized that he's with us on the majority of the issues we care about."
Meeting privately with evangelicals and promising to heed their concerns won't cut it with the evangelicals attendees, participants told the Times, adding that McCain needs to embrace their positions publicly, not just privately.
"We told him that if he didn't come out and share his pro-family stances on these issues, then he can kiss Ohio goodbye," Burress said. "We can't deliver his message for him."
The Arizona senator is showing his determination to win evangelical support by scheduling meetings with top Christian leaders. He is due to fly to Asheville, N.C., Sunday to meet privately with the Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, who met with Obama earlier. McCain told the Ohio group that he hopes to meet with Focus on the Family's Dr. James C. Dobson, who has said he would not vote for McCain.
"The senator spoke fondly of him, but believes there's probably room for some bridge-building," said Mike Gonidakis, head of Ohio Right to Life.
Just be a leader......as a leader the 'kids' are not always correct....but leading by example/teaching is a good thing(unless you have a Hitler complex)----are we perfect no---but, for heaven's sake lead......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
But Will They Respect Him in the Morning? by Ann Coulter (more by this author) Posted 07/23/2008 ET Updated 07/23/2008 ET
Back before the Republican Party was saddled with John McCain as its nominee, The New York Times called him "the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe." The paper praised him for "working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation" and predicted that he would appeal to "a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field."
At the same time, the Times denounced "the real" Rudy Giuliani as "a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man" and Mitt Romney as "shape-shifting," claiming it's "hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts."
Here are a few issues I found that Romney hadn't switched positions on, and it wasn't "hard": tax cuts, health care, same-sex marriage, illegal immigration and the surge in Iraq. The only issue on which Romney had changed his position was abortion, irritating people who would prefer for Republicans to refuse to run in places like Massachusetts and New York City in order to preserve their perfect pro-life credentials.
Times columnist Nicholas Kristof echoed the editorial page in early February with a column titled: "Who Is More Electable?" In the very first sentence, Kristof concluded that McCain is "the Republican most likely to win the November election." Kristof touted McCain's "unusual appeal among swing voters" and cited polls that showed McCain would do "stunningly well" in a general election.
Also in February, CNN produced polls showing McCain doing better than "generic Republican" in a general election, which Jeffrey Toobin said was a tribute to how "well respected" McCain is. Hey, is it too late for us to nominate "generic Republican"?
And on MSNBC's "Hardball," from the way Chris Matthews carried on about McCain, you'd think he had caught a glimpse of Obama's ankle. Matthews said that McCain was "the real straight talker ... a profile in courage ... more seasoned than the current president, a patriot, of course ... honest and respected in the media. He has all the pluses in the world of a sort of a, you know, an Audie Murphy, if you will, a real war hero."
I guess the party's over.
Now the Times won't even publish McCain's op-ed. I wouldn't have published it either -- I've read it twice and I still can't remember what it says -- but I also wouldn't have published McCain's seven op-eds in The New York Times since 1996.
Since McCain has gone from being a Republican "maverick" who attacks Republicans and promotes liberal causes to the Republican nominee for president, he's also gone from being one of the Times' most frequent op-ed guest columnists to being an unpublishable illiterate.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Froma Harrop McCain of yesteryear better than today Froma Harrop is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Too bad there’s no time-traveling on Election Day. The more moderate John McCain of eight years ago would make a very attractive candidate, and Barack Obama eight years from now could offer an impressive track record. Of course, we can time-travel in our heads. And that ability accounts for polls showing a tight race in a year when the Democrat should be surfing double-digit margins. We know what McCain was like in 2000, when he ran for president with a fresh maverick message. There was no Obama eight years ago — or even four years ago — at least on the national stage. The lack of ballast makes his messianic rallies, now spanning the continents, a bit creepy. Where did he come from? The miracle of McCain’s poll numbers is that they are so high at a time when economic meltdown has become the top anxiety, and he has little to say about it. In terms of policy, he’s actually moving away from the light. The McCain of 2000, who opposed Bush tax cuts for being tilted to the rich, has transformed himself into a classic moneybags Republican. He now vows to preserve the Bush tax cuts and cut the corporate tax. It’s pointless to wave the charts showing that rich people pay most of the income taxes. That’s how it should be, since the tax is supposed to be progressive — and it doesn’t include the payroll and other regressive taxes that the non-rich shell out. The main problem with our taxes is that we’re not collecting enough of them to cover government costs, hence the galloping budget deficits. McCain has a good record on the spending side, but the government must still pay whatever bills come due. If it doesn’t do this with tax revenues, it does it with borrowing, which is a tax on the next generation. The McCain of 2000 would not have put the words “Social Security” and “disgrace” within an hour of each other. The disgrace, he said in a recent speech, was “paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today.” That happens to be the way Social Security works, and contrary to its critics, the system is in pretty good shape. We may have to fiddle with contributions or benefits in the future, but that need not be a big deal. Baby boomers had both their payroll taxes hiked and retirement ages delayed, and no one’s burning tires in the streets. (Medicare is something else ...) Occasionally, McCain 2008 is more progressive on taxes than Obama 2008. McCain would repeal the 54-cent-a-gallon tax on imported sugar-based ethanol. (Most of it comes from Brazil.) Obama supports the tariff, and a cornucopia of other corporate subsidies for the domestic corn-based ethanol industry, which so generously fills his coffers. Corn ethanol is a very mixed bag. It plays a large role in rising food prices. And it is less energy-efficient than the kind made with sugar cane. McCain positions like this one — especially gutsy when advanced in corn-producing states — keep the spark going for moderates through the dark hours. And again, we have our memories. Jonathan Chait writes in The New Republic that “the upside to a candidate who changes his philosophical orientation as often as McCain is that he could always switch back.” That possibility, combined with McCain’s respect for bipartisanship, is why this campaign doesn’t have “that death-and-life quality” acutely felt when the candidate was George W. Bush. That’s why, as Chait well puts it, “a lot of liberals (still) kind of like John McCain.” And that’s why the polls are a lot closer than they ought to be.
Logged
