U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) David Seligman

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Shannon Bird

45%↓

40%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 02, 2008 09:40 AM UTC

McCain, the Anti-Conservative

  • 4 Comments
  • by: NEWSMAN

It’s true that McCain is unpopular with Reagan conservatives because he decidedly is not, on far too many issues, a Reagan conservative. But it’s more than that. He is the anti-conservative. He instinctively sides against conservatives and relishes poking them in the eye.

He enjoys cavorting and colluding with our political enemies and basks in the fawning attention they give him. Adding insult to injury, he now pretends to be the very thing he is not: an across-the-board Reagan conservative. This fraudulent pretense inspires fundamental distrust among Reagan conservatives.

Consider: Robert Novak has corroborated John Fund’s account of McCain dissing Samuel Alito as too conservative, or as “wearing his conservatism on his sleeve.” True, McCain voted to confirm Alito, but that’s a far cry from nominating such a judge in the first place.

McCain’s characterization of Alito is troubling on another level, as well. There is a difference between a judicial-restraint philosophy and judicial activism that promotes conservatism. McCain wholly ignores that distinction and echoes the liberal line of disinformation that judges like Alito are conservative activists. This type of thinking is born of liberal instincts; McCain often thinks like a liberal.

That’s unfair, you say? Well, isn’t it true? Doesn’t he have liberal instincts, or at least an irrepressible desire for liberal approval on global warming? Don’t liberal assumptions underlie his crusade for campaign-finance reform?

How many times have we heard him say: “Money corrupts all of us. We need to get money out of politics”? Assuming he really believes money ineluctably poisons every politician, it is astonishingly naive to believe such ubiquitous corruption can be eradicated with a mere finger on the dike aimed at restricting certain avenues where money enters the process. It’s as insultingly ludicrous as John Edwards’ promise to end all poverty.

Plus, it’s not as if the campaign-finance-reform experiment is just a well-meaning but harmless enterprise. On top of its woeful ineffectiveness, perhaps even counter-productiveness, it also has egregious consequences: It does violence to free political speech — the most important category of speech essential to the preservation of our republic.

McCain’s tunnel vision on this and his refusal even to consider the speech-suppressing aspects of his reckless, utopian fantasy bespeaks an ends-justifies-the-means attitude, also typical of the liberal mindset. “We know what is best for you, so there is no harm in our beneficent suppression of the most important freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.”

But perhaps most troubling about McCain is his habitual resort to class warfare. While he now says that he opposed the Bush tax cuts because he received insufficient guarantees that they’d be coupled with spending cuts, his stated reason at the time was that they were cuts just for the rich. This is demonstrably untrue.

The reductions were across the board and skewed, if anything, in favor of the middle- and lower-income earners. Only liberals mouth these disingenuous and destructive platitudes — destructive because they alienate and polarize people, stirring resentment and demonizing producers and wealth. And don’t forget that McCain was only one of two Republican senators who opposed the plan. That speaks volumes — and it should open the eyes of those resisting the truism that McCain is not a reliable Reagan conservative. They’re the ones with blinders on, not those of us laboring to unveil the truth.

Lest you think McCain’s opposition to the Bush tax cuts was just a single exception to his stellar conservative economic credentials, I cite the recent California debate, in which McCain similarly disparaged big business, profits, producers and wealth. This constant harping against the engine and fruits of capitalism is tantamount to waging war against the American ideal. McCain’s liberal instinct once again rears its unflattering head.

Whoa, you object. When it comes to the most important issue of all — the war — McCain is more hawkish and more conservative than anyone. But even that is not entirely true on closer inspection. He’s been good mostly on Iraq — from a conservative perspective — but very disappointing on opposing tough, life-saving interrogation techniques, in wanting to close down Gitmo, and in favoring constitutional protections for enemy combatants. Only liberals think like that. Only liberal instincts tell us that if we are tough on them, they’ll be tougher on us — as if they need any excuse to be barbaric toward us. They just are.

It ought not to be necessary to have this debate about whether McCain is a Reagan conservative. Beyond the non-exhaustive list here, just look at the people who are constantly cheering him on — liberals in the mainstream media, Hollywood and New York entertainers, and Democrats. Why? Because McCain not only often thinks and acts like a liberal, he also routinely and joyously sticks it to his own team; he’s the “maverick” — the anti-conservative in our huddle.

By: David Limbaugh

http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/m…

Comments

4 thoughts on “McCain, the Anti-Conservative

  1. Patriot Candidate Profile: Mitt Romney

    By Mark Alexander

    (Publisher’s Note: The Patriot’s editors have provided Presidential Candidate Ratings on our Patriot Policy Papers page. These ratings are based on comprehensive analysis of many factors, including each candidate’s record, experience, capability, character, leadership qualifications and, of course, their demonstrated ability to grasp the plain language of our Constitution-and promote it accordingly.)

    Once again, risking a mix of approval and disdain from our Patriot readers, I offer another candidate profile from The Patriot’s perspective-this one on Mitt Romney.

    Let me start with the obvious: Romney’s record in the private sector is outstanding.

    He holds post-graduate degrees in both business management and law (cum laude) from Harvard. Despite that deficiency (as my friends at Yale and Princeton would say), he led Bain & Company management consultants out of financial woes between 1978 and 1984. He then founded Bain Capital, a successful venture-capital firm.

    He was recruited in 2002 to salvage the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, which had run up $380 million in debt, and turned that fiasco into a $100 million profit maker. He then returned his salary as a measure of good will.

    Unlike John McCain, the other leading contender for the Republican nomination, who has a substantial congressional voting record for examination, Mitt Romney has but one term as governor of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts from which to glean some understanding of his public-policy record.

    Romney’s record as governor is a source of both contentment and concern for conservatives.

    To his credit, Romney helped turn Massachusetts’ $1.2 billion deficit into a surplus over the course of his four years as governor, though credit for that success is shared by an upward economic trend and, accordingly, increased tax collections.

    However, his recent campaign promise to implement a $233-billion stimulus package, sans any spending cuts-a package far larger than the $145 billion in largess proposed by President George W. Bush-certainly implies that he would not take federal-deficit reduction any more seriously than would the current Beltway politicos.

    Social conservatives can’t overlook his 1994 stump speeches, when Romney attempted to unseat Sen. Ted Kennedy (notably, coming closer to ridding the nation of that disgrace than any Republican ever has).

    Back then, Romney supported abortion on demand and special rights for homosexuals.

    After being elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002, though, Romney opposed so-called “same-sex marriage” and, after closer study of the abortion issue, became decidedly pro-life, even opposing cloning and embryo farming.

    On the subject of cloning, Romney told The Boston Globe in 2005, “Once cloning occurs, a human life is set in motion. Calling this process ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer,’ or conveniently dismissing the embryo as a mere ‘clump of cells,’ cannot disguise the reality of what occurs.”

    The nation’s leading abortion advocate, NARAL Pro-Choice America, criticized Romney, writing: “[A]s governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice.”

    Constitutional constructionists also take note of Romney’s support for extra-constitutional initiatives undermining the “palladium of all other rights,” the Second Amendment. He supports the Brady law and Feinstein-Schumer gun-control regulations, going as far as to say that he, like President Bush, “would have signed the [so-called] assault weapon ban” if it had passed Congress for his signature. He signed a similar bill in Massachusetts.

    He now says, “I do not believe we need new [federal] legislation. I do not support any new legislation of an assault-weapon-ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that, if implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people.”

    In his last year as governor, Romney proposed and signed into law what he describes as market-based reforms to provide every Massachusetts citizen with health insurance-without raising taxes. However, a plan that neither allows individuals to opt out nor deregulates the insurance industry is not exactly “free market.” The outcome of those reforms, as with most states which have implemented such reforms, is mixed, though one outcome is clear: Insurance in Massachusetts has about the highest price of any state.

    Also in 2006, affirming his standing among his peers, he was elected to chair the Republican Governors Association and raised some $27 million for State House contests around the nation.

    Of vital significance to his prospective role as Commander in Chief, Mitt Romney gets high marks for his grasp and support of critical national security initiatives, and the threat posed by jihadi terrorists and Islamic fascism.

    His positions on border security and immigration are consistent with those of mainstream Republicans.

    Romney is, unquestionably, a man of strong faith. He is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a religious sect that includes about two percent of the U.S. population.

    Mormons are a decidedly conservative lot, albeit with some regrettable exceptions, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

    Understanding that few Americans outside of Utah know much about Mormonism, Romney spoke plainly about his faith on 6 December 2007 at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University: “I do not define my candidacy by my religion,” he said. “A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith. Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.”

    He continued, “I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs… I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.”

    He concluded his comments by noting that during the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, there were objections to a call from the floor to prayer. “Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. And so together they prayed.”

    Personally, I would not be inclined to subscribe to the extra-biblical prophecies of the Mormon Church, but then, I am a fifth-generation Episcopalian who checked out of that institution about ten years ago because of extra-biblical doctrines. Though I would not be a good prospect for Mormon proselytizers, I have no reservations about Romney’s reliance upon the Gospel of Christ over and above any church doctrines.

    Finally, unlike some other notable Republicans, Mitt Romney is still devoted to his first wife. Romney has a great marriage, according to his closest friends, and is part of a large, loving and caring family. Perhaps the greatest of Romney’s endorsements, though, is the utter contempt with which he is regarded by the mainstream media. I subscribe to the old maxim, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer,” because knowledge of your enemy’s objectives is critical to his defeat. To that end, as Leftist talkingheads and scribes swoon over McCain and Huckabee, while expressing their contempt for Romney, take note.

    The bottom line: Romney rates a somewhat respectable “7” in our Presidential Candidate Ratings compared to McCain’s decidedly unflattering “5” rating.

    Quote of the week

    “Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is a different kind of act, one intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them. In 1994, Romney struck me as an extraordinarily bright, talented, and decent man-and a political neophyte who fell for the canard that the only way a conservative could win in Massachusetts was by passing for liberal. [Now,] Romney is where he should have been all along.” -Jeff Jacoby

    On cross-examination

    “Turn on any cable news show right now, and you will see Democratic pundits attacking Romney, calling him a ‘flip-flopper,’ and heaping praise on McCain and Huckleberry-almost as if they were reading some sort of ‘talking points.’ Doesn’t that raise the tiniest suspicions in any of you? Are you too busy boning up on Consumer Reports’ reviews of microwave ovens to spend one day thinking about who should be the next leader of the free world? Are you familiar with our ‘no exchange/no return’ policy on presidential candidates? Voting for McCain because he was a POW a quarter-century ago or Huckabee because he was a Baptist preacher is like buying a new car because you like the color. The candidate Republicans should be clamoring for is the one liberals are feverishly denouncing. That is Mitt Romney by a landslide.” -Ann Coulter  

  2. .

    wow.

    double wow.

    Newsman believes that we should torture.  

    Newsman believes that it saves lives.  

    Newsman believes that the USA should torture.  

    You have indicated that you served in the Army,

    maybe even in the Infantry.  

    There aren’t many combat arms vets that I know that feel that way.

    remarkable.

  3. Like I have said before, I post things I find interesting.  I don’t have to agree with it.  I posted Peggy Noonans rant about “Bush Destroyed the Republican Party”, not because I agreed or am Anti Bush, I didn’t and I am not. I posted it because It was a newsworthy interesting perspective from someone I have respected in the past.

    Now, since you asked.

    If my WIFE, or Family is held hostage buried in an underground vault, with limited air, and the guys that know where they are won’t talk.

    Waterboard the S.O.B.

  4. In my experience, lots of folks claim to be conservatives.  But, when you ask them to define or describe what constitutes conservative principles, you get a lot of looking a shoes, changing the topic (“Look over there, a jet plane crashed!”) or diatribes on issues (abortion, immigration, gun, etc.).  Few so-called conservatives can actually articulate a collection of philosphical principles that define the term.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

116 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols