Main Reasons Conservatives Oppose McCain! by CrevanReaver

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Main Reasons Conservatives Oppose McCain!

POSTED BY: CREVANREAVER
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3349
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, February 10, 2008 4:17 AM

By LIBBY QUAID
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - While Republican John McCain is urging his conservative critics to rally around his presidential campaign, there is a lot of water under that bridge.

Here are the top 10 reasons some conservatives dislike the Arizona senator:

1. Campaign finance reform. McCain tried to limit the role of money in politics with measures that, critics say, stomp on the constitutional right to free speech.

2. Immigration. McCain has been a vocal supporter of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, although he now says he understands the border between the U.S. and Mexico must be sealed first.

3. Tax cuts. McCain twice voted against President Bush's tax cuts, saying in 2001 they helped the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and in 2003 that there should be no tax relief until the cost of the Iraq war was known. But he now wants to extend the tax cuts.

4. Gay Marriage. McCain refuses to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

5. Stem cell research. McCain would relax restrictions on federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research, which critics consider tantamount to abortion.

6. Global warming. Among the loudest voices in Congress for aggressive action against global warming and a frequent critic of the Bush administration on the issue.

7. "Gang of 14" member. One of seven Republicans and seven Democrats who averted a Senate showdown over whether filibusters could be used against Bush judicial nominees.

8. Kerry veep. McCain was approached by the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, about being his running mate. McCain talked with Kerry but rejected the offer.

9. Works with Democrats. See all of the above.

10. Belligerence. McCain can be acerbic toward his critics, such as when he labeled televangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance." He reconciled with Falwell in 2006. Conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said in a statement on the morning of the Super Tuesday primaries that he would not vote for McCain, citing among other things his "legendary temper" and that he "often uses foul and obscene language."

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=213&sid=1341683

As a libertarian my biggest gripe with Senator McCain is the campaign finance issue. The McCain-Feingold Bill was most certainly an attack on the First Amendment. That's why so many liberals supported it...libs despise the First Amendment almost as much as they do the Second Amendment.

As a libertarian I'm of course also against the federal government using taxpayer money to fund human embryo experimentation. The government has no business in medical research or any other type of socialized medicine. Besides, it's unethical to force millions of taxpayers to literally pay for something that they belive amounts to murder.

As a libertarian I'm also not on this socialist global warming bandwagon. Although, when I heard Senator McCain discuss the issue in one of the debates, his reasoning did sound logical; that even if it's not man-made (it's not, it's a natural phenomenon caused by an increase of solar activity), efforts to curb it will have still made America's environment cleaner for future generations. As a libertarian I of course believe environmental protection is the responsibility of the private sector, not the government, but I will admit McCain's reasoning isn't off the wall (unlike the far-left's anti-capitalist reasoning).

At the end of the day, I'm a Ron Paul supporter and will probably vote for the Libertarian Party ticket in November or Congressman Paul as a write-in candidate. But I would choose McCain over Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. Nothing against them personally, but they're both blatant socialists.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 4:51 AM

PIRATECAT

I agree I am not for this guy. So we get a black Jimmy Carter for 4 years and maybe the Republicans get back to core values.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 5:20 AM

KIRKULES

I'm not a big fan of McCain, but I'm certainly not going to waste my vote on a Libertarian or independent candidate. If there was a viable Libertarian candidate I would vote for them in a second, but that will never happen in my lifetime. McCain might not be my first choice, but he will be far superior to the Democrat options. The Democrats could do a lot of long term damage to this country if they are successful in starting another entitlement program that continues to grow endlessly like Social Security and Medicare.

On the "Gang of 14" issue it turns out McCain was in the right. His experience told him that the Republicans might not be in power forever and would someday need the filibuster for judicial nominees. Can you imagine Clinton or Obama in power and no filibuster power for the minority party. All the progress Bush has made in the Supreme Court could be erased with zero power to stop it.

Also don't forget the Second Amendment. McCain has always been a strong supporter of gun rights. Clinton will send Janet Reno's jack booted thugs to break down your door and confiscate your guns(slight overdramatization).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 7:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

He's a loose cannon and I think he's getting a little senile. That should make anyone think twice about electing him.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 7:43 AM

CREVANREAVER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
He's a loose cannon and I think he's getting a little senile.

SignyM, if you're going to make claims like that back them up with proof.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 7:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think you mean "evidence" not "proof". I can't "prove" senile dementia; I'm not his doctor and I can't administer tests. All I can say is that when I compare the McCain of today with the McCain of five years ago, he doesn't seem to have the same flexibility of thought or speech.

It's kinda like Bush. I saw videos of him campaigning for his dad back when he was in Natl Guard and just after. He moved confidently from person to person, capable of making small talk, giving speeches that were spontaneous and w/o verbal gaffes. Today? Not the same guy!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 8:18 AM

CREVANREAVER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
All I can say is that when I compare the McCain of today with the McCain of five years ago, he doesn't seem to have the same flexibility of thought or speech.

Once again gives us some proof (or evidence if you like).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 8:34 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:

As a libertarian my biggest gripe with Senator McCain is the campaign finance issue. The McCain-Feingold Bill was most certainly an attack on the First Amendment. That's why so many liberals supported it...libs despise the First Amendment almost as much as they do the Second Amendment.

Folks are using campaign money to buy politicians. That's the single biggest problem with the current system. How can you hope to see a Libertarian or even a small government conservative administration in this current situation? What can be done to correct it? The reason that beltway "conservatives" dislike this law has less to do with free speech than the basic understanding that guys with money can buy elections, it's an advantage they don't want to give up.

The guys putting big bucks into campaigns are expecting something back for that, favours that often come out of your pocket in taxes. Think on that a while.

Quote:

As a libertarian I'm of course also against the federal government using taxpayer money to fund human embryo experimentation. The government has no business in medical research or any other type of socialized medicine. Besides, it's unethical to force millions of taxpayers to literally pay for something that they belive amounts to murder.

Do people get to opt out of paying for military funding on that same principle?

Quote:

As a libertarian I'm also not on this socialist global warming bandwagon. Although, when I heard Senator McCain discuss the issue in one of the debates, his reasoning did sound logical; that even if it's not man-made (it's not, it's a natural phenomenon caused by an increase of solar activity), efforts to curb it will have still made America's environment cleaner for future generations. As a libertarian I of course believe environmental protection is the responsibility of the private sector, not the government, but I will admit McCain's reasoning isn't off the wall (unlike the far-left's anti-capitalist reasoning).

If you can get things done using less energy there is less dependence on foreign oil and therefore less compelling need for the US to "meddle" in that region to secure supplies. Isn't that the core of Libertarian foreign policy? It would be hard to do that if you do not have energy independence?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 9:00 AM

ALLIETHORN7

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
Folks are using campaign money to buy politicians. That's the single biggest problem with the current system. How can you hope to see a Libertarian or even a small government conservative administration in this current situation? What can be done to correct it? The reason that beltway "conservatives" dislike this law has less to do with free speech than the basic understanding that guys with money can buy elections, it's an advantage they don't want to give up.

The guys putting big bucks into campaigns are expecting something back for that, favours that often come out of your pocket in taxes. Think on that a while.

Well... yeah! That's been the politico's system for... oh, the past seven centuries or so? Money=Power, Politics=Power, so, therefore, Money=Politics. It works in a lot of other places, too. Money will get you most anywheres, nowadays. Sad but true.
Don't act like it surprises you bu now, Fletch.

-Danny

it was in His name that artillery lit the sky on fire
the people sang protest songs to try and stop the soldier's gun

Protest Songs in a response to Military Aggression
Protest songs to try and stop the soldier's gun
But the battle raged on......

The Band of the week is... Against Me!
Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein.
http://www.myspace.com/otherrandomdude

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 9:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

alliethorn- That money= politics doesn't surprise Fletch2 in the least. It DOES seem to surprise some who call themselves Libertarians. I think that's the point Fletch2 was making.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 9:24 AM

FLETCH2

It doesnt surprise me at all but I think the first amendment issue is a smokescreen. Fact is that while there is big money in the equation three things happen.

1) The people with the money drown out the ones without it. Since I'm not counting many millionaires in this group I'm guessing that means you and me.

2) It makes politicians beholden to the folks that finance their campaign. That can't be good for democracy.

3) It makes incumbents in races that much harder to displace if they are only doing a so so job. Politicians should fear for their jobs they should understand that they serve at the pleasure of the electorate. A lot of the BS we see would be easier to control if politicians did not feel entitled to power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 9:25 AM

SERGEANTX

Once again I find myself agreeing with the conclusion (McCain sucks) but disagreeing with the specific complaints.

Immigration. McCain has been a vocal supporter of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, although he now says he understands the border between the U.S. and Mexico must be sealed first.

-- Immigration is one of the biggest contributing factors to the American spirit. I admire people who are so in love with America that their willing to risk it all to come here.

Tax cuts. McCain twice voted against President Bush's tax cuts, saying in 2001 they helped the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and in 2003 that there should be no tax relief until the cost of the Iraq war was known. But he now wants to extend the tax cuts.

-- Tax cuts without spending cuts are stupid.

Gay Marriage. McCain refuses to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

-- What could be more anti-libertarian than a federal dictate on who can get married?

Stem cell research. McCain would relax restrictions on federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research, which critics consider tantamount to abortion.

-- selective application of libertarian principles. This is a pro-lifer thing pure and simple. I agree that scientific research isn't an appropriate way to spend tax money, but unless you're opposing all of it in general, banning bits and pieces is just playing politics.

Global warming. Among the loudest voices in Congress for aggressive action against global warming and a frequent critic of the Bush administration on the issue.

-- more fundamentalist ostrichism. I too see the socialist wedge that's making hay with the global warming issue. But ignoring it only gives them an advantage. We need to head them of at the pass with real effort to address the issue instead of just pretending it isn't real.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 9:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh BTW- Creavan - I can't provide you "evidence" without going back and analyzing McCain's news clips and speeches for the number of times he's changed topics or gotten lost in the middle of an answer. It's my impression and also the impression of some people who follow McCain closely. If you don't see the same thing that's fine. Just tossing out my opinion FWIW.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 9:37 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I'm not a big fan of McCain, but I'm certainly not going to waste my vote on a Libertarian or independent candidate.

This statement expresses one of the most idiotic and counter-productive delusions currently undermining real democracy. The only 'wasted' vote is one that doesn't express your true convictions. Voting isn't placing a bet, it's not about 'winning'. Its about taking advantage of that one small chance we have to make our voices audible to our leaders. Falling in line and choosing between neo-con A and neo-con B, just because you're afraid of 'losing' is moronic.

Quote:
If there was a viable Libertarian candidate I would vote for them in a second, but that will never happen in my lifetime.

Have you ever wondered why??? [see previous response]

Quote:
McCain might not be my first choice, but he will be far superior to the Democrat options.

How so, exactly? He might be slightly better than Hillary, if only because she's just as much of a neo-con imperialist as he is. But the truth is, amongst the mainstream candidates, the ones bought and paid for by 'vested interests', there's just not a dime's worth of difference. Voting for any of the pre-approved stoolies is the most colossal waste of a vote I can imagine.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 2:04 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I'm not a big fan of McCain, but I'm certainly not going to waste my vote on a Libertarian or independent candidate.

This statement expresses one of the most idiotic and counter-productive delusions currently undermining real democracy. The only 'wasted' vote is one that doesn't express your true convictions. Voting isn't placing a bet, it's not about 'winning'. Its about taking advantage of that one small chance we have to make our voices audible to our leaders. Falling in line and choosing between neo-con A and neo-con B, just because you're afraid of 'losing' is moronic.

Your idealism is admirable, but somewhat naive. Anyone who doesn't make their vote count by picking the candidate closest to their ideal that has a chance of getting elected is the moron. It's fine to campaign for the Libertarian candidate up until election day, but when polling shows the day before the election that they have 0.1% of the vote it's time to do what's best for the country. Allowing someone who you totally disagree with to take power because of blind idealism is irresponsible.

It really makes me laugh when people say there's no difference between Clinton and McCain on the issues. Things like the 2nd Amendment, abortion, fiscal responsibility, Social security, Medicare, Taxes, and the war on terror may be meaningless to you, but to some of us these are important issues. There's a huge difference between McCain and Clinton on all these issues.

Even your beloved Ron Paul understands that the way to make a difference is to work within the system. He understands that if a Libertarian is ever elected in this country it will happen by taking over the Republican party.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 3:39 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It really makes me laugh when people say there's no difference between Clinton and McCain on the issues. Things like the 2nd Amendment, abortion, fiscal responsibility, Social security, Medicare, Taxes, and the war on terror may be meaningless to you, but to some of us these are important issues. There's a huge difference between McCain and Clinton on all these issues.

There are differences in their claimed positions on carefully selected 'issues'. But their politically ideology is the same, which is really the lack of any ideology other than the desire for power. Neither of them has substantial respect for individual liberties and they both believe whole-heartedly in interventionist, imperialistic foreign policy - essentially they're both pretty happy with the "Bush Doctrine". They've both accepted and support the idea of pre-emptive war and they're both happy to piss away our rights in the name of security.

The thing is, despite differences you cited, neither of them is a threat to the status quo. For all the lip service about change, the overwhelming desire of the vested interests in the media and in government is "business as usual". That means they're immediately hostile to anyone who threatens the warfare/welfare machine. When those kinds of candidates are out there, and we ignore them, instead choosing between the lame candidates that the television tells us are "viable", we lose the best opportunity we have to demand a change.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 10, 2008 10:45 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Conservatives don't like McRINO because he is the opposite of a conservative.
I will not vote for him. This is almost as bad as 1976.
I will have to get my sample ballot early and check into all the choices.
Remember, if a 3rd party gets a certain percentage of the vote, they start to get campaign funding and other election benefits during the next election cycle.
If the Republican party refuses to produce an acceptable candidate, it would seem that it is time to vote for a conservative or libertarian party candidate.

BTW, my email is getting plastered from my posting on this topic on another forum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 11, 2008 2:33 AM

JONGSSTRAW

A'int nothin' gonna stop the Obama train.
No one saw it comin',
and no one can stop it.
It's destiny now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 11, 2008 4:35 AM

SERGEANTX

I suppose I'd have a slight preference for Obama over Clinton or McCain. But only slight. Certainly not enough to waste a vote on him. But he's at least not a proven neo-con cheerleader.

That says nothing about what he really is, or what kind of leader he'll be - which is kind of scary. He's been very careful to speak in nothing but mush. But mush isn't bad. Having no ideas is fine, much better than having bad ones.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 11, 2008 6:38 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
He's been very careful to speak in nothing but mush.

Hey Sarge, I think that's more the media's love of mush that gets his mush aired, again and again. Not saying he doesn't talk a lot of mush, but I've heard substance out of the guy a time or two. And of course, he has shown some rather good judgement on the war and certainly during this campaign.

Don't see another Carter happening, the country has changed too much since 1976 for us to walk down that dead-end road again. Call me starry eyed, but after 230 years we're finally inching towards Jefferson's dream of an "educated electorate." After the dems' recent failure to do anything about much of anything, I assumed that we the people would all go back to apathy and cynicism, but we're still plugging away, trying to get something happening in our favor. And if Obama fails us, I don't see a pendulum swing back to the GOP. I see further splintering of the right and left. Yay, democracy!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 11, 2008 6:51 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
...Call me starry eyed, but after 230 years we're finally inching towards Jefferson's dream of an "educated electorate." After the dems' recent failure to do anything about much of anything, I assumed that we the people would all go back to apathy and cynicism, but we're still plugging away, trying to get something happening in our favor. And if Obama fails us, I don't see a pendulum swing back to the GOP. I see further splintering of the right and left. Yay, democracy!

I'll have some of what you're having...

Hmmm, I don't know how you can really say that. We have an "inculcated electorate", but I'm still not convinced the vast majority knows anything about politics beyond what they're told by the television. They're upset, wars do that eventually, but I'm not sure they have a clue what's wrong or how to fix it.

Time will tell, but my (perhaps cynical) intuition is that Obama is bought and paid for or he wouldn't be "allowed" to make the push he's making. I'd sure like to be wrong as hell about that.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 11, 2008 1:16 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Sarge I gotta say I think you've nailed this issue down. Americans are underinformed and rely too much on radio and television for the little information they do get.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 6:30 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'll have some of what you're having...

Hmmm, I don't know how you can really say that. We have an "inculcated electorate", but I'm still not convinced the vast majority knows anything about politics beyond what they're told by the television. They're upset, wars do that eventually, but I'm not sure they have a clue what's wrong or how to fix it.

Hey Sarge, baby steps here. I said I could see that we were inching towards being educated, not that we'd achieved that ideal.

I can see that the general public is getting a ton more information about the goings on in D.C. than formerly. Of course, a lot of it is propaganda, but a good deal of it isn't. I can see the lack of trust in government actually inspiring people to do something about it instead of making them cynical and hopeless. Does the record turn-out for every caucus and primary so far this election cycle mean nothing to you? I see progress toward democracy here--nothing earthshattering, just progress. Isn't that what we want?

Quote:
Time will tell, but my (perhaps cynical) intuition is that Obama is bought and paid for or he wouldn't be "allowed" to make the push he's making. I'd sure like to be wrong as hell about that.

What I like about Obama and his supporters is that they're moving out of the "Just elect me president and you won't have to deal with anything" model we've gotten since forever.

All I'm really saying is that more people are getting involved in the process. More people in this country are taking personal responsibility for what our government looks like. I see that as progress is all.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 7:41 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As I understand it, Obama is campaigning on generalities because he's come to understand you don't win the presidency on issues. Unfortunately, people vote based on personality and media hype. Like for example, would you like to have a beer with the guy.

His policies are on his website:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:50 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As I understand it, Obama is campaigning on generalities because he's come to understand you don't win the presidency on issues. Unfortunately, people vote based on personality and media hype. Like for example, would you like to have a beer with the guy.

I'd love to have a beer with Obama, but if he breaks out the Cocaine I'll have to decline.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE