It appears that John McCain is positioning himself as the de facto head of the Republican Party – a voice of moderation and fiscal conservatism. But since I judge a politician by his actions, not his words, it appears that we must reconsider the consequences in returning John McCain to the Senate.
It appears to me that John McCain is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) as he gallivants around the country with his “special friend and advocate” Lindsey Graham.
Consider that John McCain was always quick to hop across the aisle to embrace his democrat colleagues in pursuing their agenda.
Let’s recap …
- McCain-Feingold (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) which did very little to reform Campaign finance, introduced crazy – and possibly unconstitutional – rules which ceded power to private groups like those headed by George Soros.
- McCain-Kennedy (Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act) which attempted to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens without protecting our borders from a continuing onslaught of new illegal aliens. Convoluted rules which did little or nothing to weed out criminals and other undesirables. Included policies which insured that the United States would continue to import poverty, illiteracy, low work skills and possibly third-world disease.
- McCain-Lieberman (Climate Stewardship Acts) which are based on faulty science and amount to a government imposition of a command and control mechanism over all energy generators and consumers. Affecting the entire economy in undesirable ways such as enlarging government, increasing taxes and reducing personal freedoms.
- Cantwell-McCain to re-impose some of the provisions of the abandoned Glass-Steagall Act which separated the activities of banks, brokerages and insurance companies. Under this Administration and Congress, this could simply be a further complication of our financial recovery.
We know candidate McCain has a formidable temper and is part of the “old boys” network. It is my belief that McCain, should he be reelected, will continue work on his amnesty initiative and promote democrat-led policies which do not bode well for America or the American people.
While we thank John McCain for his service and suffering long ago, we must realize that he is all about compromise and conciliation NOW. He is not about putting forth a bold new conservative Republican agenda and differentiating the Republicans from the democrats. The time when he could rely on the sympathy of a nation welcoming a “war hero” is long past and our nation is at the precipice. We cannot afford sentiment or mushy-headed feelings that contribute to the democrat juggernaut to destroy the America we all know and love.
Bottom line …
Truth-be-told, John McCain seems to be “democrat-lite” and as far as one can be from the tough-minded conservatism evidenced by former President Ronald Reagan. This guy appears to be all talk and very little walk.
We saw what he was all about during the previous Presidential campaign. Almost as if he was the hand-picked candidate of choice selected by the democrats.
I am willing to discuss this matter further, but I strongly suggest that we can replace John McCain with a principled conservative rather than just reelect another complacent liberal Republican to office.
Example: The problematical McCain-Feingold Constitutionality Issue …
From BigGovernment.com (January 21, 2010) …
“Fans of the First Amendment can rejoice. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down large portions of the abomination known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, especially those aspects of the law that imposed restrictions on corporate spending on political issues.”
“From The New York Times:
“Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.”
“The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.”
Did any of these loons actually notice that democracy has been severely corrupted, not by the advertising of corporations and others, but by the corruption, complacency and laziness of our elected officials and bureacrats? Not out in the open, but behind closed doors where lobbyists, lawyers, counselors and consultants provide promises of campaign funding, voter support and the actual text of bills that will be introduced as if they were actually created by the politicians and their staffs.
Did anyone notice the rise in toxic organizations, like those headed by George Soros and the far-left environmentalists who mobilize public support among the rabid supporters and scare the bejesus out of politicians seeking to gain or maintain office?
Did anyone notice the activities of supposedly bias-free community organizers like ACORN whose support seemed to fall 99% to the benefit of the democrat party. Or the unions like the SEIU whose support also tends to fall 99% towards the benefit of the democrat party.
“’If the First Amendment has any force,’ Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, ‘it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.’”
Perhaps the Supreme Court Justices have the wrong theory …
Could it be that the Supreme Court Justices have the First Amendment down pat, but simply did not use the right theory. Corporations and other forms of organizations are treated like “artificial citizens” under the law. That is, they can own property, sue in a court of competent jurisdiction for redress and, in general, enjoy the rights of living individuals. Perhaps one should have considered that the fundamental rights cannot be enjoyed by these artificial legal constructs – such as the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and just as they cannot fully enjoy the right of the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, perhaps there are limitations on their free speech rights when it comes to political speech on behalf of a politician or cause?
Perhaps if the government and the Supreme Court were more open and honest with the people, they would have considered that nobody is really enforcing the rules and regulations governing “truth in advertising” and that misleading, inaccurate advertising on behalf of candidates and their causes is not being punished in a more substantial manner and on a time-relevant contemporaneous basis. Merely quoting a publication which put forth speculation or other drivel is not a defense of the truth. But, of course, by the time the authorities take action, the campaign group is dissolved and there is nobody left responsible. And even if charges are prove true and the organization fined, the damage was done and “we the people” have “no practical redress” against a corrupt, complacent, inept or lazy politician.
What does it really mean?
In the final analysis, all of the time, effort and money that was spent on creating, promoting and adjudicating McCain-Feingold’s abominable bill were for naught. Corporations, associations, the unions and others are now free to spend anything they want on this 2010 election cycle – just in time to assist the democrats in staving off voter anger and disaffection using massive indoctrination (oops – I mean advertising) campaigns.
And if you think McCain-Feingold was bad, just consider what McCain-Kennedy would have done to our political, social and financial infrastructure or that McCain-Lieberman is based on demonstrably false data regarding global warming.
Things that make you think that John McCain is enabling the democrats and the far-left to subvert traditional American values and moving our nation farther towards socialism.
I think we need to really reexamine McCain’s candidacy for reelection and I am now inclined to say “thank you, but no thanks.”
One of my facebook friends, a campaign consultant, pointed out that although conservative former congressman J.D. Hayworth may challenge John McCain, he is not without some ethical baggage. Mostly involving PAC (Political Action Committee) funds which were paid to his wife and some involvement in the Abramoff/Indian scandal. She also pointed out that McCain significant war chest would demand serious money in a head-to-head matchup. Normally, I would have welcomed Hayworth with open arms -- but am holding off until I do further research.
Open question: will Sarah Palin's support of McCain damage her conservative position or simply improve the chance that we will be returning an amnesty-loving RINO to office for another six years? I know that it appears that Sarah Palin's loyalty to McCain for promoting her to the national scene is admirable, but I can help but thinking that he needs to go -- regardless of who supports him or how much money he has in his warchest. We just cannot afford another McCain-whoever amnesty bill.
Reference Links …
“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS