The case against McCain

Got this from Michael Medved's Blog, a conservative talk show host. I just wonder why if the numbers actually support his conservative stance, why people dont believe he is conservative enough. I don't agree with him on all the issues, but he and I agree on enough to say he is the canidate I am going to vote for in November.

McCain's "Radical Left Turn"?
Posted by: Michael Medved at 8:25 PM


Among the many distortions, smears and outright lies concerning the conservative record of John McCain, I’ve been struck by a new effort to discount his solid lifetime voting record of 82.3% with the American Conservative Union.

According to those who desperately desire some reason to discredit the Senator’s conservative credentials, this figure is misleading because it includes his early years in Congress when he was, indeed, a “foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution,” but doesn’t fully register the fact that he’s turned away from his rightist roots in recent years.


A caller to my radio show today accused me of misleading the audience because I cited Johnny Mac’s lifetime statistics without informing folks that in the last seven years he’s taken “a radical left turn.”

To respond to such nonsense, let us herewith set the record straight --- with a little “straight talk” in print.

Here are McCain’s ACU ratings, running from the last year of Clinton’s reign to the most recent available figures (2006)



2000 – 81%

2001—68%

2002---72

2003---80

2004---72

2005---80

2006---65

In other words, over the last seven years, McCain has come within two points of his lifetime average of 82% three times. His average since the turn-of-the century: a respectable ACU rating of 74%.

This doesn’t make him one of the most reliable, ideologically pure of Republican Senators (but he’s never claimed that), but it also leaves him a world away not only from Barack and Hillary, but also from true “mushy moderates” in the GOP who, in 2006, earned vastly lower scores, including Olympia Snowe of Maine (36%), Susan Collins of Maine (48%), George Voinovich of Ohio (56%), Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (43%) and the recently defeated Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island (24%).


For the record, one of McCain’s biggest critics in the Senate, Thad Cochran of Mississippi (who supported Mitt Romney for President) earned a 2006 ACU rating of 67% -- virtually identical to that of his Arizona colleague – but maintains a lifetime record of 80% (that’s below McCain’s).

In other words, the idea of McCain’s “radical left turn” in recent years is nonsense, as his forthright, specific, substantive and proudly conservative speech at CPAC surely made clear.

Doesn’t it tell you something that Planned Parenthood is already out with a McCain-bashing ad decrying his “Zero lifetime rating – lowest in the Senate” for his “Planned Parenthood Voting Record”?

Anyone who’s earned that kind of hostility from the Abortion Industrial Complex ought to have earned some gratitude from conservatives.

Personnally I am glad some people see him as a left leaning Republican, then the great undecided might see him as a more viable choice then a hard core Republican.

Remember the party die hards in the party do not decide the election it is that great independent 40% or so that make the decision.
 
thallub said:
McCain cannot get to the White House by declaring his support for Bush administration policies, especially the war in Iraq.
Exactly correct.

Most Americans have awakened to the fact that they were fooled into supporting the invasion of Iraq, and they're not happy about it. Regardless of how Iraq turns out in the end, people know they were lied to repeatedly. This is a large part of why Bush's approval rating is so low, and it's why Congress ended up in the hands of the Democrats after the last election. But now that the Democrats are failing to oppose Bush on Iraq, their approval rating is similarly low.

Now, where on earth did the GOP establishment get the idea that they were going to win this presidential election by running a virtual clone of a very unpopular president? At the very least, they're taking an enormous risk.

Then again, Hillary is such a polarizing figure that I can see a large GOP turn out just to vote against her, even if McCain isn't exactly an appetizing alternative. But I think Obama can beat McCain pretty solidly, and Obama is probably more likely to get the nomination than Hillary.

Wildalaska said:
Michael Medved? He is a neocon shill for the Israeli lobby.

WildseeitookcareofitforcertainfolkshowaboutathankyouAlaska ™
As a matter of fact, that's exactly what he is. Thanks for saying it for me. :)
 
The case for making the new gun bans easier to institute - read above and vote accordingly.

Maybe you invested your retirement in high cap mags? Hey - maybe do you think the GOP will also get clobbered in the House and Senate (thank you, GWB - watch him do a funny dance in Africa and watch presentations on abstinence)?

Then Obama or Hillary plus strong majorities can wait for the next school shooting, pass what they want and you can take your EBR and move into the woods and yell Wolverines.

The next bans will be confiscatory and will not expire.
 
Michael Medved hated McCain in 2000. I remember Medved denigrating McCain's time as a POW, because it was a "passive" form of heroism.
Whatever you're view of McCain it takes a special kind of sleaze to attack a POW.
Medved is for sale to the highest bidder and today that's McCain.
 
The case against McCain is this:

If a president were to push anti-gun legislation (and all three current viable candidates don't exactly seemed opposed to that concept) then the strongest opposition would be the republicans in congress. Would they fight harder/better/more coherently against a president that had an R next to his name or a D?
 
Author James Bovard reminds us of this previous incident involving John McCain and his wife.


McCain’s Other War Frauds

Saturday, February 23rd in News by James Bovard

Amongst all the media teeth-gnashing over the question of whether McCain did special favors for his blondie lobbyist, his wife’s sweetheart deal for massive narcotics theft in the 1990s has been forgotten.

If a poor black woman from Anacostia had committed the crimes that Cindy McCain committed, the black woman might have been sent to prison for the duration of her life.

John McCain has never shown any courage on the drug war. As long as people like his wife don’t need to fear jail time for crimes, there is no reason to reform the law to cease the persecution of other Americans.

Here’s an excerpt on the case from an article I did for Playboy in 1997. (Full text of the piece, which details how many congressmen’s kin escaped hard time for drug offenses, is here).

* Cindy McCain, the wife of Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), admitted stealing Percocet and Vicodin from the American Voluntary Medical Team, an organization that aids Third World countries. Percocet and Vicodin are schedule 2 drugs, in the same legal category as opium. Each pill theft carries a penalty of one year in prison and a monetary fine. McCain stole the pills over several years. She became addicted to the drugs after undergoing back surgery.

But rather than face prosecution, McCain was allowed to enter a pretrial diversion program and escaped with no blemish on her record. McCain did suffer from the incident, though: Shortly after the scandal broke, a Variety Club of Arizona ceremony at which she was to receive a humanitarian of the year award for her work with the medical team was canceled because of poor ticket sales.
 
There is no case against MCcain according to this:

February 24, 2008
The End of the Republican Split
By Steve Chapman

A couple of weeks ago, John McCain was straining to ingratiate himself with the activists gathered at the Conservative Political Action Conference. It was an uphill climb: By that point, some movement icons had publicly renounced the presumptive Republican nominee, and attendees were urged not to boo him. Some did anyway, and McCain was left to ponder the possibility of being abandoned by much of his party's base.

He shouldn't have worried. All it took to rally conservatives behind him was the intervention of The New York Times. Thursday, it published a flimsy, anonymously sourced story suggesting that nine years ago, he may have canoodled with a cute female lobbyist whose clients had business before his committee. How bad was the article? Years from now, if you type into Google, "Why do people hate the news media?" this story will pop up.

Those who had been angered by McCain's gentle treatment by liberal journalists were angered to see him handled roughly by the same scribes. They quit attacking McCain and began blasting The New York Times, which had given them plenty of ammunition. Note to the Times: When Sean Hannity sounds like the voice of responsible journalism, you've done something wrong.

And with that, the great Republican civil war was pretty much over. Conservatives will never embrace McCain for his views on immigration, campaign finance or global warming. But they may come to echo what was said about Grover Cleveland when he was nominated for president in 1884: "We love him most for the enemies he has made."

The closing of the rift should come as no surprise. After eight years in which they were about the only people to stick with the Republican president, conservatives have gotten used to thinking of the GOP as a wholly owned subsidiary of the right. In reality, though, they have never gained full control of the party, and as the pending McCain nomination suggests, they probably never will.

The party has long consisted of two groups, who might be called Eisenhower Republicans and Goldwater Republicans. In their narrative, conservatives relate a straight line of succession from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. In fact, the party took some major detours on the way.

After Goldwater in 1964, it veered toward the center, settling on Richard Nixon and then Gerald Ford. When Reagan neared the end of his presidency, GOP voters could have elevated any of several conservative candidates, including Jack Kemp, Paul Laxalt and Pat Robertson. Instead, they chose George H.W. Bush, long considered the embodiment of bland, moderate, East Coast Republicanism.

In 1996, the party faithful passed up Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, Phil Gramm and Dan Quayle in favor of Bob Dole, whom Reaganites once branded the "tax collector for the welfare state." Even in 2000, George W. Bush raised some suspicions on the right, due to his centrist pedigree and his habit of calling himself a "compassionate conservative," lest anyone mistake him for that other kind.

In the end, Bush won over conservatives, partly thanks to opposition from their nemesis, John McCain. But polls then showed that most Republicans, far from embracing Bush's support of tax cuts, preferred to concentrate on reducing the national debt. Theirs was, and is, a conservative party, but not that conservative. Hence, McCain.

The experience of the last 40 years shows two things. One is that conservatives can never be sure of getting their kind of presidential nominee. The other is that, as far as the fortunes of the party are concerned, it doesn't matter. Once the nomination is assured, the Republican candidate will always embrace conservative themes, and conservatives will close ranks behind him.

How come? Because somewhere between February and November, many things happen to remind them how powerfully they detest the common enemy. Not just the Democratic nominee, but all the Democratic Party elders, interest groups, celebrities and leftish ideologues.

McCain may seem unappealing when he's debating policy with Mike Huckabee or even Mitt Romney. But let him start taking fire from Al Gore, Gloria Steinem, antiwar groups, environmental activists and teachers' unions -- not to mention The New York Times -- and suddenly he will look lovelier than the Taj Mahal at sunset.

As a rule, mobilizing people in politics is not about giving them someone to love. It's about giving them someone to hate.
schapman@tribune.com

Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/the_end_of_the_republican_spli.html at February 24, 2008 - 11:07:27 AM PST

WildupearlyAlaska TM
 
The information is about a property theft perpetrated by Mrs. McCain.

I see. Valuable property. The junky "steals" some dope.

Shes a victim of our unconstitutional policies. She should be commended for taking back some of the property her tax dollars paid for.

WildhowsthatAlaska TM
 
Old old news. This is getting pretty weak. It's good sign that this is the worse that can be brought to bear. Looks mighty good for McCain.
 
I see. Valuable property. The junky "steals" some dope.

Shes a victim of our unconstitutional policies. She should be commended for taking back some of the property her tax dollars paid for.

It's not so much about the dope as about her husband's willingness to continue the War on Drugs, meaning that he's fine with his schnookums getting a free ride for a drug offense that would have landed anyone non-connected in the slammer for ten years.

Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do elitist hypocrisy is not just for liberals, apparently.

Old old news. This is getting pretty weak. It's good sign that this is the worse that can be brought to bear. Looks mighty good for McCain.

Yeah, it's almost as weak as dragging up some hobo who claims that he had gay sex with Obama while snorting coke. Apparently, the rules are flexible.
 

homer-drool.gif

Mmmmm Vicodin
 
It's not so much about the dope as about her husband's willingness to continue the War on Drugs, meaning that he's fine with his schnookums getting a free ride for a drug offense that would have landed anyone non-connected in the slammer for ten years.

Good point but I was being sarcastic anyway.

Wildobamawithcrackcindywithvicswhatshillarydoing?iknowMUSHROOMSAlaska TM
 
The first offender program she participated in is not exceptional treatment.

Further, addictions to pain medications due to cronic pain are not inicative of the charachter flaw of addiction to drugs for recreational reasons. She wasn't shooting vicodin to get high in lieu of coping with life.

Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do elitist hypocrisy is not just for liberals, apparently.

Not JUST for liberals.......you do realize the acknowledgement there right?
 
The American Voluntary Medical Team is a charity founded by Mrs. McCain. The import of the article is that, indeed, McCain did arranged for his wife to enter a diversionary program for the drug abuse, but nothing was done about the theft from a charity.

Prescription drug addiction and theft

In 1989, Cindy McCain became addicted to opioid painkillers such as Percocet and Vicodin.[23] She later attributed her addiction to pain following two spinal surgeries for ruptured discs[24][25] as well as emotional stress during her husband's entanglement in the Keating Five scandal of that time,[23] which also involved her role as a bookkeeper who had difficulty finding receipts of Keating-related expenses.[14] The addiction progressed to the point where she resorted to stealing drugs from her own AVMT.[24] During 1992, Tom Gosinski, the director of government and international affairs for AVMT, discovered her drug theft.[26] Subsequently in 1992, McCain's parents staged an intervention to force her to get help;[14] she told her husband about her problem, attended a drug treatment facility, began outpatient sessions, and ended her three years of active addiction;[23] a hysterectomy in 1993 resolved her back pain.[23][25] In January 1993, McCain terminated Gosinski's employment on grounds of budgetary reasons.[26] In spring 1993, Gosinski tipped off the Drug Enforcement Administration to investigate McCain's drug theft.[26] Her activities violated federal statutes, so a federal investigation was conducted. McCain's defense team, led by Washington lawyer John Dowd,[26] secured an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office that limited her punishment to financial restitution and enrollment in a diversion program, [4][26] without anything being made public.

Meanwhile, in early 1994 Gosinski filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against McCain, which he told her he would settle for $250,000.[26] In April 1994, Dowd requested that Maricopa County officials investigate Gosinski for extortion.[26] At this point, the Phoenix New Times was preparing a negatively-cast story about the whole affair and was about to publish it.[26][23] Cindy McCain pre-empted this[23] by publicly revealing her past addiction, stating she hoped it would give fellow drug addicts courage in their struggles: "Although my conduct did not result in compromising any missions of AVMT, my actions were wrong, and I regret them."[4] A flurry of press attention followed, including charges by Gosinski that she had asked him to lie concerning her drug use when the McCains were applying to adopt their baby from Bangladesh[23] and statements by past AVMT employees that Gosinski had once threatened to blackmail her. The Arizona Republic published an editorial cartoon showing McCain shaking an emaciated black child upside down, with the caption saying "Quit your crying and give me the drugs."[27] A few weeks after her announcement, the Variety Club of Arizona canceled its Humanitarian of the Year award dinner in her honor citing poor ticket sales.[4] In the end, both Gosinski's lawsuit and the extortion investigation against him were dropped.[23] AVMT concluded its activities in 1995.[11]
Attribution
 
LOL. Pat has his cut and paste goin strong.....:p

Your palms sweating a little there patriot?

McCain's too tough but his wife having had an addiction to pain meds over chronic pain....THAT you can get some hits on. Be proud........you have succeeded in smearbund on a woman that suffered through a serious medical condition and had to overcome an addiction to the medications to boot. Most consider overcoming such obsticles rather then using them as excuses to langish in on going bad behavior a mark of charachter.

Got addictions?
 
Back
Top