Who Is This John McCain?
by Big Dog on Jan 8, 2010 at 16:44 Political
John McCain is running for reelection in Arizona and his campaign ads are already out. I have seen the transcripts of several of them and I am having a hard time figuring out who the McCain the ads talk about is. John McCain, the Senator from Arizona, has ads telling the people of the great state of Arizona that he bumps heads everyday with Barack Obama and that if he gets a bruise or two along the way, that is fine.
“I stand in his way every day,” McCain says. “If I get a bruise or two knocking some sense into heads in Washington, so be it.”
John McCain refused to bump heads with Obama in any meaningful way in the past election. Obama won that battle and, with majorities in both chambers, he is winning most other battles as well regardless of the bruises McCain gets. Another ad discusses McCain’s time as a POW and then goes on to say:
“But perhaps no battle in our lifetime is more vital than the one John McCain fights now… a battle to save America, save our jobs…
The ad discusses McCain and slashing spending as well as bloated government programs. For the most part McCain has been true to this with regard to his own actions. I have heard that he does not put earmarks in bills (though I also heard he has put small ones in). When he was running for president he said that he would veto bills with earmarks and name names of those who inserted them.
But he votes for them. When the Republicans were in power they controlled the legislation and they loaded bills with earmarks just like the Democrats did then and both parties do now. Pork projects are not party specific. If McCain is serious about no earmarks then he should not vote for any legislation that contains earmarks no matter who inserted them.
This bluster comes when his party is not in power and when he is running for reelection and, oh by the way, has a primary challenger. John, you cannot have it both ways. You were not this blusterous when your party was in control and spending like there was no tomorrow. You were not this blusterous when you supported the Bush TARP. You might claim to bump heads with Obama but you both voted for the TARP and that was the wrong thing to do.
The folks in Arizona might believe that you are going to save America and that is for them to decide on election day but the country decided that you were not that person in 2008. While you might have been better than Obama many folks believe there is not much difference between the two of you.
Claiming to be a conservative and then working with Ted Kennedy on things like amnesty for illegals does not send a very good message. Your primary opponent is very much against immigration reform and that puts him higher on the scale than you. In the overall scheme of things you are with Obama on this issue as both of you supported the last attempt at amnesty.
John, I have no doubt you are an honorable man and I admire your service to this country. You went through things many of us could not endure but you have allowed your years in the Senate to change you into a go along to get along guy until it is inconvenient.
You were not the choice of most Republicans in the last election. You were the choice of the media and you were pushed on us. If it had not been for Sarah Palin being your running mate I believe that Obama would have nearly run the table on you. People voted for her, not for you because she holds conservative values and she walks the walk.
And keep in mind John, you were a darling of the left as well. They liked the way you worked with their politicians, the papers loved you, and you were seen as a guy who they could work with which is why they pushed you. They felt that you were the lesser of all evils if their guy lost. But look at how they threw you to the wolves during the last election. I would have thought you might have learned from this but you have this history of talking tough (that “straight talk”) about things and then compromising when it is convenient.
So I ask; Who is this John McCain that has ads in Arizona? It is not the guy who ran for the presidency a year ago.
Not even close.
And it is not the guy Arizona will get if he wins reelection.
Source:
The Swamp
E-mail Print This Post
Tags: ads, election, McCain, Obama, tough talk
Loading ...
Loading...
Bigd: “When the Republicans were in power they controlled the legislation and they loaded bills with earmarks just like the Democrats did then and both parties do now.”>>
DAR
It’s a little worse than that:
Republican Hypocrisy on Earmarks? Ask Senators Cochran, Wicker, and Vitter
Excerpt:
“The self-righteousness among Republicans on the issue of government spending is rank and overwhelming….
So let’s go to the videotape. Or, rather, the Congressional Record, where we find the list of earmarks in the omnibus spending bill and discover that—wait for it—three of the top five earmarking senators are Republicans.
Yes sir. The Taxpayers for Common Sense group has listed the senators by the number of earmarks they introduced as individuals, and in collaboration with other senators. In both categories, Republicans did quite well—especially those southern rascals who, no doubt, will be on the stump two years from now campaigning against Democratic spending.
Republican Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi tops the list, with $470 million in earmarks for himself and his colleagues. Next up is Cochran’s seatmate—Republican Roger Wicker, hitting the scales at $390 million. Two Democrats—Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Tom Harkin of Iowa—come in at Nos. 3 and 4, before Republican David Vitter of Louisiana rounds out the top five. Of the top 10, six are Republicans.”
DAR
And don’t forget, if McCain was going to expose these earmark abusers and “name names,” he wouldn’t have had to look very far:
“…leading the nation in earmarks received per capita? Sarah Palin’s Alaska. (Alaskans got almost $210 per person in earmarks, while Californians got $16 and New Yorkers $13 in comparison.)”
D.
————-
And the money shot:
“Eight of the top 10 beneficiaries of federal largesse voted for John McCain for President. Unsurprisingly, all 10 states at the bottom of the list – those whose outflow of tax revenue that is funding programs elsewhere in the country – all voted for Barack Obama in 2008.”
Link
Darrel, in case you missed it, they are all full of hypocrisy. When the Dems were the minority they bashed out of control spending and deficits and now they are running the largest one in history.
Dems bash Pharma and take tons of money from Pharma. Dems bash health insurance and take tons of money from them. Obama says he took in small donations from the regular guy but he received a lot of money from lobbyists and big companies. He received ILLEGAL money from overseas. So there is enough of it to go around.
And I like how you write Arah Palin’s Alaska as if she controls those earmarks. The people in COngress sent those.
And they use per capita because Alaska got little in dollars compared to those huge states. But Alaska is solvent and California is bankrupt. Which state has a hand out?
Bigd: “they are all full of hypocrisy.”>>
DAR
Oh no, you guys take the cake, it’s not even close. Pick your category. Earmarks for instance. See above. Some of my favorite categories of republican hypocrisy are:
Family values, pedophilia, sex with animals, deficit spending, public gay sex, growth of government, chicken hawks, etc.
Bigd: “Alaska got little in dollars compared to those huge states.”>>
DAR
Not per capita they didn’t. And it’s the people that actually use that government money.
Bigd: “Alaska is solvent and California is bankrupt.”>>
DAR
Alaska’s fiscal situation goes up and down with the price of oil.
But they get more government handouts than any other state, per person. There’s your rugged individualists!
Speaking of Alaska and solvent… Solvent now found in 30 wells near refinery.
Bigd: “Which state has a hand out?”>>
DAR
Good question that deserves an answer. Let’s check:
Per Federal Tax Dollar Paid, How Many do states get back?
Alaska $1.84 (third highest in nation)
California $0.78 (only seven states lower, all blue of course)
So the answer to the question is, Alaska has the big handout, while blue states like California subsidize it.
Red state welfare
Bigd: “you write Sarah Palin’s Alaska as if she controls those earmarks. The people in COngress sent those.>>
DAR
Nice try.
***
Palin’s earmark requests: more per person than any other state
Excerpts:
Some of Palin’s requests were for science research, such as $499,900 to assess halibut harvesting; others for lighting village airports in the Alaskan bush, where small planes and gravel runways may be the primary link to the outside world.
Palin’s requests to Congress came at a time of huge federal deficits, while Alaska state revenue was soaring due to rising oil prices and a major tax increase on oil production that Palin signed into law in late 2007…
The state also has been able to tap into a gusher of federal money as its Republican congressional delegation rose in seniority and clout.
…by 2000, into her second term, the city [Wasilla] had hired a Washington, D.C., lobbyist, Steven Silver, a former aide to Stevens, then the ultimate rainmaker as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
“She was hungry for earmarks just like everybody else,” said Larry Persily, who worked at the Alaska state office in Washington, D.C., until earlier this year. “Everyone was feeding at the trough.”
Before she left office, Wasilla, with aid of the lobbyist and the blessing of Stevens and Rep. Don Young, got $27 million in earmarks,…”
Seattle Times.
D.
McCain was broken by the gooks. This was evident during the campaign with remarks like “he’d (barry) make a good president”. I think McCain could have been Pres if he and Sarah had attacked, attacked and attacked some more. Instead, John sat on his hands and lost a winnable election.
No amount of finger pointing at Repubs can justify what we are witnessing now as the RATS spend us into oblivion.