It's John McCain against Mitt Romney. John McCain is a fine conservative with whom we'll always agree 80% of the time and disagree 15-20%. That's a lot better than the alternative and a lot better than the other guy, who some conservative pundits are mistakenly backing in this race.
John McCain has an 82.3% lifetime conservative rating in Congress. Overall, he’s far more conservative than Romney, a lifelong liberal who just last year forced government mandated health insurance in his state and just last week advocated extremely liberal government intervention to solve an economic crisis in Michigan that cannot be solved without the common sense solutions that McCain supported and Romney opposed.
There are many among the grassroots who believe as you do, that McCain is too liberal. It seems that this is because conservative media has only highlighted the few times that McCain supported anti-establishment legislation. In each of these cases Thompson (viewed as the “clear conservative” candidate although he’s to the left of McCain) was right there with him, as were many other conservative senators, yet Sen. McCain took most of the flack. His immigration policies are perfectly aligned with President Bush and are to the right of President Reagan as well as of Rudy Giuliani.
The way I see it we have a practical choice to make. We can support an electable conservative war hero with an 82.3% conservative rating, a candidate who is more conservative than Presidents Ford, Nixon or Eisenhower and who poll after poll places ahead of Hillary, Obama and Comrade Edwards, or we can nominate a candidate who’s a lifelong liberal (although he now supports some major conservative issues) and lose the general election to a Barack O’Hillary tag team that’s more liberal than McGovern.
It’s not just that Rudy would have been a disaster in the all important Midwest and that opposition to Romney is so intense, even among Republicans, that he can’t win. It’s also about the fact that both are far more liberal than Sen. McCain, yet somehow the opposition to them was/is less. As Ronald Reagan said, if someone agrees with you 80% of the time, chances are they’re your friend.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Thanks Slainte and Steve! Your comments are very appreciated.
Isn't it funny... like most McCain blogs, you won't address the lobbyist scandal surrounding him. My opinion? Here's part of it:
LUCILLE: Mr. Clean Needs to Get Out of the Kitchen
John McCain likes to pose as the anti-lobbyist, outside the Beltway reformer; Mr. Clean with hair. When The New York Times and Washington Post came out with stories about his questionable relationship with Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist for Paxson, he immediately began defending his honor, claiming to never have had a romantic relationship with "that woman."
Okay; he didn't say "that woman". But his intent was clear: take the focus away from the question of his relationships with lobbyists - who, by the way, make up virtually his entire campaign team - and throw it against the straw dog of marital infidelity. And it almost worked. Attacking the Times for impugning his honor, McCain was able to rally the right wing-nuts to his defense. But that was bound to happen eventually anyway. Do you really believe Rush and his partners in prattle would stand back and forgo attacking the Democratic candidate for the months leading up to the election?
But, here's the problem facing McClean; not only did he show incredibly bad judgment in hanging out with Ms Iseman (and taking multiple corporate jet rides with her), he apparently wrote a few letters to the FCC on behalf of her employer, Paxson.
McCain, in a news conference on Friday, February 22 said he had never done any favors for any lobbyist and his campaign insisted that McCain had never spoken to Ms. Iseman or anyone from Paxson prior to writing to the FCC.
Except he did. In a deposition in 2002, McCain acknowledged he sent those letters after meeting Mr. Paxson.
Disagree? go to www.politicaldoodle.com and post your comments
Hi Fellow Supporter of John McCain. On my blog, I've written recently about Rush Limbaugh's endorsement of Alaska Govenor Sarah Palin for McCain-s V-P choice, new information from Texas about the race there, and finally about Barack Obama's bizarre support of infanticide (in the case of so-called "live birth abortions"). If you'd ever like to use any of my material, please feel free to do so. I'd only ask you to cite my blog at: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. If I can ever offer any assistance to help you get your pro-McCain message out, please let me know. Comments are always welcome. All the best to you and your blog visitors.
Lucille,
Really now. The only thing clear from the Times' story, railed against by their own ombudsman as a baseless smear job, is how untrue, lacking of standards and childish the main stream media propaganda machine is. If this were ever said falsely of a liberal you'd rightly be up in arms. Well, have one set of standards. Don't attack the right for daring to express outrage at an unsubstantiated smear job.
Post a Comment