PDA

View Full Version : Editorial on McCain


AfricanHunter
01-23-2008, 11:23 AM
Found this article interesting.

http://thehill.com/david-keene/double-standard-bearer-2008-01-15.html

Double-standard bearer
By David Keene
Posted: 01/15/08 06:15 PM [ET]

To suggest that Arizona senator and serial GOP presidential wannabe John McCain enjoys a favorable relationship with what we conservatives call the “mainstream media” is to state the obvious. He is almost universally portrayed in print and over the airwaves as an unfailingly honest, courageous maverick devoid of the hypocrisy and word-parsing so common among Washington politicians.

McCain and his managers, of course, promote this image with the complicity of an adoring press corps. He travels through the primary states aboard his “Straight Talk Express” and vows at stop after stop that he alone among those seeking the White House has the courage to speak the truth to America and stick to his guns regardless of the consequences. Reporters traveling with him eat it up and pass this self-serving bunkum on to a public that should be able to rely on them for straight talk.

No one can question McCain’s courage or his patriotism. John McCain is rightly admired for his service and suffering on behalf of his country, but even the most cursory examination of his supposed courage and consistency as an elected politician reveals the man to something less that he claims.

Other candidates who change their positions on important issues are described as “flip-floppers,” but John McCain is viewed as that rare politician whose views on important issues have “matured” over the years.

Thus, McCain appears justifiably disgusted when confronting political opponents like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani for changing their positions on various issues over the years, but is never forced to face his own hypocrisy in doing the same. From taxes to his relationship with social conservatives and his position on Second Amendment or “gun” issues, McCain has shown an unending willingness to do just what he so self-righteously accuses others of doing — tailoring his position to suit his needs of the moment.

His opposition to the Bush tax cuts at the time they were passed, for example, was accompanied by quasi-class warfare rhetoric of the sort we now identify with Democratic populists like John Edwards. As he prepared to run this time, however, the rhetoric changed, as in deciding to get straight with the GOP base he discovered that maybe those evil tax cuts ought to be made permanent after all.

McCain and his friends wouldn’t describe that flip-flop as a flip-flop, of course, any more than they saw his flip-flop on Second Amendment questions some years ago as such. In fact, though the Arizona senator had been considered by most gun owners and NRA members like me as a reliable supporter of the Second Amendment, in 2000 he reversed field and threw in with the gun control lobby.

This, remember, was when he was trying to get to the “left” of George W. Bush and appeal to liberals to join what he at one point termed his attempted “hostile takeover” of the GOP. He joined Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, then a Democrat, in sponsoring legislation to kill what he termed the “gun show loophole” and jumped in to support a state anti-gun initiative in Colorado by appearing in television and radio ads paid for by Andrew McKelvey, the liberal multimillionaire founder of Monster.com and George Soros ally, and even made an anti-gun “trailer” shown in movie theaters around the country.

That, of course, was then. Today, the good, courageous and straight-talking senator is a born-again supporter of the Second Amendment who says, “John McCain believes that the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect.” He goes further, in fact, and claims that he has always opposed just the sort of anti-gun show legislation he put his name on not that many years ago.

He is now against the sort of background-check “waiting period” that would have essentially closed down gun shows attended each year by as many as 5 million Americans around the country — which he supported then, though he implies on his campaign Web page that his current stance has always been his position. This, from the candidate who will “always” tell us the truth.

When someone had the temerity the first time around to ask McCain why he had thrown in with McKelvey and his friends on gun control questions, McCain said, “I do believe my view has evolved.”

“Evolved”? That, one has to assume, is “straight talk” for flip-flopped.

Now his view has … what? “Re-evolved”?

Keene is a member of the Board of the National Rifle Association and is chairman of the American Conservative Union. He can be reached at Keeneacu@aol.com

Edited due to typo in title

ghettoshecky
01-23-2008, 1:03 PM
well what's the alternative???? Certianly Rudy will never have my vote, Huckabee as much as I want to like him seems too fake, and I can't take Mitt flippity floppity floo.

SemiAutoSam
01-23-2008, 1:13 PM
There is only one solution.

You know who he is. Don't make me call his name.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul

Ron Paul

I can sense him materializing as I type.

well what's the alternative???? Certainly Rudy will never have my vote, Huckabee as much as I want to like him seems too fake, and I can't take Mitt flippity floppity floo.

mk19
01-23-2008, 1:16 PM
The choice is Ron Paul. simply put. McCain was also the one who tried to ban Mixed Martial Arts(UFC).

Paradiddle
01-23-2008, 1:46 PM
We are screwed. Paul has no shot - which is unfortunate because he is what this country needs IMO.

I think McCain will get the nomination from the Republicans.

Of the 3 Democrats I'm wondering who will be most gentle to the 2nd - my guess is Edwards, but I have no data to back that up. Clinton scares me and Obama seems to go the way the wind blows so I don't trust him.

Wulf
01-23-2008, 2:10 PM
well what's the alternative???? Certianly Rudy will never have my vote, Huckabee as much as I want to like him seems too fake, and I can't take Mitt flippity floppity floo.

I think its unfair to judge Rudy's and Mitt's stance re: guns based on their tenures as governor and mayor. When you're governing from the "other" party in those kind of liberal areas, there are certain things you can do and certain things you cannot. Those guys could have spend every dime of political capitol they ever had on a pro-gun agenda and would not have moved things even a centimeter. There is just no traction to be had. It was not a battle that could have been won.

Basically what I'm trying to say is you're better off with a candidate or President that respects the will of the people (within the bounds of the constitution) whether that be a national (moderate) will or a local (liberal) will, than a President that seems compelled to advance politics based on their personal preferences even if that is in conflict with the will of the people. I think Rudy and Mitt are the kind of executives that can sublimate their personal ideas regarding the 2nd to a rational reading of the 2nd and the will of the people.

However, their ability to be effective, indeed, even to survive, in that kind of hostile political environment says a lot about their political acumen. About their ability to perceive where the political center of mass lies, and identify the small weights that CAN be moved to shift the balance the greatest amount possible......for sure not as far as it needs to shift, but the best possible outcome in the real politik.

As a republican candidate for the presidency neither will have much to gain by kissing the ring of the anti's (no serious anti is going to abandon Hillary or Obama). OTOH, any significant overtures to the anti's will loose them support by the bucketfull. I think either candidate will take a "let sleeping dogs lie" or "first do no harm" on the 2nd both as candidate's and in governance.

Particularly with Heller in the wings, it doesn't make sense to hang any political stock on the gun issue. It doesn't matter if you're pro or anti, in either case the court will be stepping in shortly with something that will likely either under cut you (times 10) or duplicate your efforts (times 10). Either way the political capitol you spent will be wasted.

Josh3239
01-23-2008, 2:28 PM
IMO, the only Republican that can beat Hellary or Obama is McCain. Giving the nomination to anyone else is putting a democrat in office. I don't like it but that is what I think is the truth.

mk19
01-23-2008, 3:26 PM
We are screwed. Paul has no shot - which is unfortunate because he is what this country needs IMO.

I think McCain will get the nomination from the Republicans.

Of the 3 Democrats I'm wondering who will be most gentle to the 2nd - my guess is Edwards, but I have no data to back that up. Clinton scares me and Obama seems to go the way the wind blows so I don't trust him.

not sure about that, i have heard Edwards say in a interview that owning firearms is not a right but a priviliage.
Ron Paul is the only choice, both for the country and for 2A.

AngelDecoys
01-23-2008, 3:56 PM
Thumbs up for the Manchurian candidate. Can't wait for the McCain madness to set in. I still remember several skits on him from Saturday Night Live 8 years ago. No doubt if he gets the nomination, those will resurface.

Honestly, McCain lost my vote with his stance on staying in Iraq for 100 years, or forever if need be. That and pushing campaign finance reform that restricted the NRA. Of course, the NRA won in court on that, but it still bugged me.

Still, he's the most Moderate. My folks are voting for him.

Can't I just take a piece from each candidate and combine them? We need an Ubercandidate.

stag1500
01-23-2008, 4:12 PM
Wulf, good analysis on Mitt Romney and Rudy Guliani. However, I can't get over the fact that Mitt Romney could have vetoed the Mass. AWB instead of signing it into law if he truly believed that gun ownership is a right of the people. Also, Rudy Guliani firmly believes that strict gun control works and is needed in big cities as opposed to rural areas. I think the guy is totally out of touch with reality if he's spewing that bull sh*t.

ghettoshecky
01-23-2008, 4:32 PM
I think its unfair to judge Rudy's and Mitt's stance re: guns based on their tenures as governor and mayor.

Well their 2nd amendment stances in the past have certainly been disappointing who says anything about me only voting based on that? Here's a big example why I can never vote for Rudy: When people in New Hampshire ask him why Terrorists attack us, he simply replies "because they hate us and not because of anything bad we have done..." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3684.html
That really hits a nerve with me. He simply plays off of America's fear of terrorism. Then when he could've sit down and listened and learned from the Iraq study group, he goes off to do paid speeches. That would have been a great educational lesson for him to learn the complicated situation in Iraq. http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-usrudy0619,0,7996765.story?wc
I really cannot take a lazy carpetbagging president and again it really does not help that he could not stand up for our rights against a bunch of liberal nazis.

As for Mitt he does not qualify at all as he signed the Mass AWB bill. What political acumen was needed to veto this? It was not like Rudy who would be pressured by an urban population that is misled and for all I care can stew in their crime problem. Mitt needs to stand up for the minority living outside of Beacon Hill. Also what's his deal with illegal immigration? He supposedly hires illegal immigrants to work on his mansion, yet takes a strong stance against them. I would rather hear him say he doesn't like illegal immigrants being taken advantage of instead of being "tough" on illegal immigration. That way he didn't need to sound like a flippity flop floo, but no he had to sound tough and therefore a total flip flop.

ghettoshecky
01-23-2008, 4:40 PM
The choice is Ron Paul. simply put. McCain was also the one who tried to ban Mixed Martial Arts(UFC).

HAHAH I remember that, I was confused as to why he was for banning it. UFC was hard back then and certainly was more entertaining.

Josh3239
01-23-2008, 5:15 PM
Also, Rudy Guliani firmly believes that strict gun control works and is needed in big cities as opposed to rural areas. I think the guy is totally out of touch with reality if he's spewing that bull sh*t.

IMHO he says that to try to get on the good side of the pro-gunners and hide the fact that he is anti-gun. He is about as anti-2A as they come. Gun control doesn't stop crime no matter where you are, cities or rural areas.

Patriot
01-23-2008, 6:06 PM
In terms of past actions, I think McCain has been more anti-2A than Romney, all things considered. Romney signed a bill in leftist Massachusetts. Compare that with McCain (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=83477)'s actions on the national level, where popular and legislative positions are far more pro-RTKBA.

In terms of current campaign rhetoric, Romney's website - amid some pro-2A talk - all but indicates that he would sign a federal AWB (unsurprisingly, given his past). McCain's website comes on so strongly pro-2A (given his past) that its credibility suffers IMO.

Romney's position at least has some consistency (signed state & probably would sign federal AWB). :hide: McCain's talking the talk, but his past is checkered at best, and he has swung back and forth significantly over the past decade. Given the media spin on gun issues and his centrist/independent oriented target voters, I tend to doubt that McCain would veto "reasonable" legislation pushed by the Bradys and a Dem Congress in the aftermath of a media-hyped incident. (There are those who say the Dems know better - and they have mostly skirted the issue compared to past Congresses - but hubris is endemic to politicians and I feel a presidential win + keeping the status quo in Congress would sufficiently embolden the Dems, certainly if there is enough public outcry following a high-profile shooting or terrorism concerns.) Romney made a 180-degree turn on most issues prior to his candidacy and he's no conservative (not that McCain is either), but since he hasn't been prominent on the national scene as long as McCain, it's hard to tell whether he's done flopping.

I don't share the 'for good or ill, all our eggs are in the Heller basket' mentality a few have been evincing recently on this and other forums. That might hold for CA, as [with the exception of a few congressional districts and the presidential primaries] pro-gunners have relatively little input on the first and second lines of defense at the national level (Congress and the Presidency). On the national scene, however, Congress and the Presidency are where battles should be fought when it comes to new legislation. Assuming a positive outcome, Heller-based challenges are going to take a LONG TIME, and in the meantime we could be in for the ride. Far better to nip it in the bud.

Josh3239
01-23-2008, 6:47 PM
In terms of past actions, I think McCain has been more anti-2A than Romney, all things considered.

Based on what? Read my post on McCain in a different thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=954112&postcount=18

Meanwhile Romney made his own AW ban in Mass., supported the Clinton AW ban, supported the Brady Bill, believes there is no reason a citizen should own NFA, and should ban weapons "dangerous to police".

Patriot
01-23-2008, 7:13 PM
Based on what? Read my post on McCain in a different thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=954112&postcount=18

Meanwhile Romney made his own AW ban in Mass., supported the Clinton AW ban, supported the Brady Bill, believes there is no reason a citizen should own NFA, and should ban weapons "dangerous to police".

Is it surprising to you that the governor and senatorial candidate from Massachusetts campaigned more to the left than a self-styled 'conservative' incumbent senator from Arizona? It is still fundamentally at a state level.

Hence

Romney made a 180-degree turn on most issues prior to his candidacy and he's no conservative (not that McCain is either), but since he hasn't been prominent on the national scene as long as McCain, it's hard to tell whether he's done flopping.

McCain has a history of shifting stances at the national level, both in Senatorial politics and as a presidential candidate.

I think we all know that Romney reversed most of his prior [Massachusetts-oriented] stances and tailored his current campaign to appeal to Republicans on a national level. The question is whether or not he is going to remain consistent at the national level.

Josh3239
01-23-2008, 7:35 PM
Is it surprising to you that the governor and senatorial candidate from Massachusetts campaigned more to the left than a self-styled 'conservative' incumbent senator from Arizona?

That is far from the point. He failed to stand up against the anti-gun and pandered to them. What makes you think he won't pander to the Brady's? He did vote for the Brady Bill as he did other anti-gun legislation. In other words there is zero history of him being pro-2A, a wealth on anti-2A legislation, and lies. Does anyone actually believe he is a life long hunter as he says? Even today he says he is open to an AW bill.

Your not actually saying he is pro-2A but he was elected for being anti-gun but truly holds pro-2A thoughts which is not only not backed up by his record, but that his record proves the opposite? Do you believe Guiliani is pro-2A regardless of his record on guns just because he happend to be elected in a liberal city?

I still see zero proof that McCain is anti-gun or that Romney is pro-gun.

McCain has a history of shifting stances at the national level, both in Senatorial politics and as a presidential candidate.

Certainly not with regards to guns. The only anti-2A legislation you will find on McCain is that "gun show loophole" garbage. But that doesn't make him anti-2A. The same cannot be said about Romney. What they vote for speaks louder than what they say.

SemiAutoSam
01-23-2008, 8:45 PM
Electile Dysfunction :

the inability to become aroused over any of the choices for president put forth by either party in the 2008 election year.

I have a feeling the Blonde just doesn't get it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6SfmXigHpE&feature=related

Patriot
01-23-2008, 8:55 PM
That is far from the point. He failed to stand up against the anti-gun and pandered to them. What makes you think he won't pander to the Brady's? He did vote for the Brady Bill as he did other anti-gun legislation. In other words there is zero history of him being pro-2A, a wealth on anti-2A legislation, and lies. Does anyone actually believe he is a life long hunter as he says? Even today he says he is open to an AW bill.

Your not actually saying he is pro-2A but he was elected for being anti-gun but truly holds pro-2A thoughts which is not only not backed up by his record, but that his record proves the opposite? Do you believe Guiliani is pro-2A regardless of his record on guns just because he happend to be elected in a liberal city?

I still see zero proof that McCain is anti-gun or that Romney is pro-gun.



Certainly not with regards to guns. The only anti-2A legislation you will find on McCain is that "gun show loophole" garbage. But that doesn't make him anti-2A. The same cannot be said about Romney. What they vote for speaks louder than what they say.

I'm not championing Romney by any means (nor McCain, for that matter).

I just happen to care less about an AWB in Massachusetts than McCain's long record of opportunism at the federal level. His senatorial shenanigans, alternating stance toward the national GOP platform, and potential reliance on independents worries me. I believe that McCain has been trying to carve out a niche in the "center" for some time (with the exception of certain rightward swings for the purpose of GOP presidential grooming). Guess where the "center" is on gun control? "Reasonable restrictions." I'd like to believe that McCain's current stance on RTKBA issues is more than a gesture for the primaries, but I have my doubts.

He [ROMNEY] failed to stand up against the anti-gun and pandered to them


And now I want him to pander to us. Romney's done a 180. McCain has a history of shifts. Now, McCain could have stopped moving around on issues and Romney could very well flop in the future.

What makes you think he {ROMNEY] won't pander to the Brady's?

What makes you think McCain won't "pander" to the "reasonable restrictions" crowd? Look at Bloomberg, who the media is fawningly casting as an "independent." The guy's as anti-gun as they come.

He did vote for the Brady Bill as he did other anti-gun legislation

Show me

What they vote for speaks louder than what they say

Unfortunately, Romney is an executive official, not a legislator.

I still see zero proof that McCain is anti-gun or that Romney is pro-gun.

Zero proof? Methinks you overstate your case. McCain participated in a gun control ad from a gun control group, regarding his gun control (gun show loophole) legislation, which he introduced and sponsored. He has been lauded in the past by 'Americans for Gun Safety' and 'Handgun Control Inc':

"Senator McCain has shown courage and just plain common sense in offering his voice in support of these measures," said Michael Barnes, president of Handgun Control, Inc. "This year, we have seen Republican leaders like Governors Pataki and Owens support sensible gun laws. We have seen pro-gun candidates like George Allen in Virginia and Bill McCollum in Florida flip-flop and attempt to hide their pro-gun votes. Senator McCain's public support demonstrates that the Republican party does not have to be owned and operated by the NRA."

The only anti-2A legislation you will find on McCain is that "gun show loophole" garbage. But that doesn't make him anti-2A

And why not? The only anti-2A legislation you will find on Romney is that "Massachusetts AWB" garbage. But that doesn't make him anti-2A.

Bottom line, I'm just challenging the assumption that McCain is necessarily better than Romney on 2A issues.

Patriot
01-23-2008, 8:56 PM
Electile Dysfunction :

the inability to become aroused over any of the choices for president put forth by either party in the 2008 election year.

I have a feeling the Blonde just doesn't get it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6SfmXigHpE&feature=related

Any? (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) ;)

Josh3239
01-23-2008, 9:27 PM
Romney could very well flop in the future.

He has done so so many times, would it be a surprise?

What makes you think McCain won't "pander" to the "reasonable restrictions" crowd?

Because he really hasn't yet. Short of his "gun show loophole" junk, he has been pretty conservative with regard to guns.

Show me
"...We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street..." - Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 16, 2007

"I would have supported the original assault weapon ban... And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that's something I would consider signing. There's nothing of that nature that's being proposed today in Washington. But I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality."
- Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 16, 2007

"First of all, there's no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban..." - 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

"The candidate reiterated his support for an assault weapons ban contained in Congress' crime bill, and the Brady law which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases. `I don't think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect,' Romney said." - Joe Battenfeld in Boston Herald Aug 1, 1994

"I also recognize that some types of extreme weapons, those which were not meant for hunting, sport, or self-defense, have no business being on the streets." - Red's Trading Post Tuesday, October 23, 2007

He has said a lot of things that I thought I would hear from Alison Merilees or Sarah Brady. He used a lot of words that to me set off red flags that the anti-gun likes. For example, extreme weapons not for sport or self defense that could endager police officers. That sounds like something from NFA or .50BMG all the way to something like an AR15 or an AK47.

McCain participated in a gun control ad from a gun control group, regarding his gun control (gun show loophole) legislation, which he introduced and sponsored. He has been lauded in the past by 'Americans for Gun Safety' and 'Handgun Control Inc

True, he isn't a model pro-2A candidate. But the facts still remain he voted against anti-gun legislation like the Clinton AW ban and Brady Bill and today still stands behind it, he continues to say it and post it on his website.

Bottom line, I'm just challenging the assumption that McCain is necessarily better than Romney on 2A issues.

Its no problem, just friendly discussion :D. I am by no means a fan of McCain, but I do believe his record on guns is much much better than Romney and is the only Republican left standing that can defeat Hellary/Obama.

SemiAutoSam
01-24-2008, 5:19 PM
Food for thought when heading to the polls.

Although I really don't consider McCain a conservative more like a NEO in my book but that's just my opinion keep in mind so don't get your panties in a bunch over it.

http://a662.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/54/l_d90221b32e0a2b4383223e51b1939315.jpg

Wulf
01-24-2008, 7:24 PM
Food for thought when heading to the polls.

Although I really don't consider McCain a conservative more like a NEO in my book but that's just my opinion keep in mind so don't get your panties in a bunch over it.

http://a662.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/54/l_d90221b32e0a2b4383223e51b1939315.jpg

Ann Coulter agrees with you......times 10.
http://www.anncoulter.com/