About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Post claimed McCain "diverged from conservatives" on immigration, taxes, without noting his flip-flops

February 09, 2008 4:05 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: In an article on Sen. John McCain's efforts "to rally conservatives to his candidacy," The Washington Post asserted that McCain "has diverged from conservatives on several issues, including campaign finance legislation, immigration policy and President Bush's tax cuts." But, unlike a previous Post article that documented McCain's "flip-flops" on taxes and immigration, this one did not mention that McCain has changed his positions on those two issues to more closely align himself with the base of the Republican Party.

82 Comments

In a February 9 article on Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) efforts "to rally conservatives to his candidacy," Washington Post staff writer Juliet Eilperin asserted that McCain "has diverged from conservatives on several issues, including campaign finance legislation, immigration policy and President Bush's tax cuts." Yet Eilperin failed to note that on two of the issues she cited -- taxes and immigration -- McCain has changed his positions to more closely align himself with the base of the Republican Party. Indeed, Eilperin's colleague, Washington Post staff writer Michael Dobbs, documented several of McCain's "flip-flops," including on taxes and immigration in a February 5 Post article, which was paired with a sidebar.

In May 2001, McCain voted against the final version of Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax-cut package. In a floor statement explaining his opposition, McCain said that while he supported an earlier version of the bill "that provided more tax relief to middle income Americans," he could not "in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." In 2003, McCain voted against legislation to accelerate the tax reductions enacted in the 2001 bill and to cut dividends and capital-gains taxes. In 2006, however, he voted for the bill extending the 2003 tax cuts. When asked during the April 2, 2006, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press why he had changed his position, McCain replied: "I do not believe in tax increases. ... The tax cuts are now there and voting to revoke them would have been to -- not to extend them would have meant a tax increase." Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, reportedly said at the time: "It's a big flip-flop, but I'm happy that he's flopped."

A press release on McCain's campaign website asserts, "John McCain will make the Bush income and investment tax cuts permanent, keeping income tax rates at their current level."

Regarding immigration, McCain has reversed his position on a key element of the immigration debate. During the congressional wrangling over immigration reform in 2006 and 2007, he called for comprehensive reform that addressed the creation of a guest-worker program, a path to citizenship, and border security. He argued at the time that border security would be ineffective "no matter how formidable the barriers" without the establishment of a "temporary worker program." However, McCain now says border security must be addressed before other reforms can be made. A November 4, 2007, Associated Press article about McCain's change in position on immigration quoted him saying: "I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift. ... I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."

Further, McCain has made inconsistent statements on whether he would support his own immigration bill. During CNN's January 30 Republican presidential debate, McCain asserted that he "would not" support his own comprehensive immigration proposal if it came to a vote on the Senate floor, despite having stated on the January 27 edition of Meet the Press that he would sign that very legislation into law if he were elected president. In a February 5 column, nationally syndicated conservative columnist Mona Charen noted McCain's changes on immigration and wrote that "his own flip-flops leave him with a huge H (for hypocrite) on his forehead when he singes Mr. [Mitt] Romney for opportunism."

From Eilperin's February 9 Washington Post article:

With his top rival out of the race, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) sought to rally conservatives to his candidacy Friday on a cross-country campaign trip that included stops in Virginia, Kansas and Washington state.

A day after former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney abandoned his bid for the GOP nomination, McCain told a crowd in Wichita that while "primaries are tough ... we also understand once the dust settles, we come together, because we all know what will happen to America if the wrong party wins in November."

Promising that he would engage in "a spirited debate" with whomever the Democrats nominate, the senator promised to adhere to his party's values. "I am proud to carry the banner of a conservative Republican, with a record of conservative voting," he said.

McCain also said that he plans to meet with Romney, whom he fought openly with during the campaign, so they can work on "uniting the party and move on to victory in November."

While the senator tried to appeal to conservatives on the stump, his top advisers were trying to set up meetings with some of the nation's more influential evangelical ministers, including Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life," and Joel Osteen, to find common ground. The effort has been spearheaded by Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.), who endorsed McCain after dropping his own presidential bid in November.

When asked about that effort, McCain said, "I'll be glad and willing to meet with anyone who wants to meet with me." He added that there is no formalized strategy to reach out to religious leaders.

McCain has diverged from conservatives on several issues, including campaign finance legislation, immigration policy and President Bush's tax cuts. McCain has consistently voted against abortion but has argued against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the grounds that it is a state issue.

From Dobbs' February 5 article:

McCain has altered his position on such issues as taxes, immigration, the religious right, Roe v. Wade and ethanol. McCain has moved toward mainstream Republican positions on all these issues, including an embrace of the Ronald Reagan philosophy that tax cuts always lead to higher government revenue.

The senator has sought to disguise his flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts by arguing that the main reason he opposed them was that they were not accompanied by cuts in government spending. This was not the explanation he gave at the time, however. In a May 2001 speech on the Senate floor, he said he could not "in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief."

From the sidebar accompanying Dobbs' February 5 article:

Top McCain Flip-Flops

1. Taxes. John McCain was one of two Republican senators to vote against President Bush's tax cuts of 2001, saying that he could not support cuts that benefited the rich rather than the middle class. He now favors making the tax cuts permanent.

2. The religious right. During the 2000 presidential campaign, he attacked Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance." He withdrew that remark in a 2006 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying that the Christian right has a "major role to play in the Republican Party."

3. Immigration. Last year, he sponsored a bill that would combine a temporary-worker program and a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants while also increasing border security. He now emphasizes securing the borders first.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jjamele2880 (February 09, 2008 4:45 pm ET)
         

      As I said on a similar thread, McCain will always "adjust," or "backtrack," or "accomodate," or "evolve" his positions on key issues- he will NEVER, according to the media, FLIP-FLOP.  

      No matter how many right turns this guy takes, no matter how many times he FLIP-FLOPS, you can get that he will NEVER be called a "Flip Flopper."  That word is reserved for non-Mavericks and non-Straight Talkers who do exactly what McCain does.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (February 09, 2008 5:46 pm ET)
         
      John McCain lost his maverick sticker when he rolled over for BushCo, even hugging Bush in '04 after Rove hideously attacked his wife and child in South Carolina.  Now he calls for endless war, the neocon nightmare.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (February 09, 2008 6:51 pm ET)
           
        unfortunately, for the US Constitution, McCain is in full suck-up mode to Bushie ' mode.  and his " I led a squadron of jets "does not translate into civilian leadership. If you are in the military, disobeying/questioning order can get you court martialed.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by MickD (February 10, 2008 9:38 am ET)
           
        I can only hope that the Dems simply replay the Rove phone call from '00, juxtaposed with the image of Johnny hugging GWB later. That will give the voters the impression of the "mav."
        Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (February 11, 2008 11:50 am ET)
           

        Thats our John (An Islamofascist in every pot)MaCain.

        I missed your post thrusday Mary. As far as my normalcy goes, its questionable. One of my words to live by, stolen from the Bonzo Dog Band. "I don't plan to be normally called normal and I intend to be a freak for the rest of my life. And I shall baffle you with rinocerouses in the kitchen, and sets and quotations from "Now we are Six" from the mouth piece of Lord Snutty's Giant Poisoned Electric Head. So there!"

        When is Oregon going to weight in with a primary, or other?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (February 09, 2008 7:20 pm ET)
         
      without a doubt, mccain did do a turn on immigration in saying we should secure our borders.  and rightfully so.  i don't know why that idea leaves some people so aghast.   we have heard too many promises about controlling illegal immigration.  groups like la raza signed on to the "one time" 1986 amnesty, which promised stricter border control.  and then turned around and attacked any efforts to do so. 
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RINO Hunter (February 09, 2008 7:51 pm ET)
         
      Well, McCain still support a 50 cent increase per gallon on gasoline, so it's pretty obvious that he's still a big taxer. He hasn't changed on that. Instead of paying about $3 for gas we're now going to be paying about $3.50 regardless of whether McCain or the Democrats win. This is going to hurt the poor more than anyone, since they spend more on gasoline in proportion to their income. It will greatly hurt the economy and send us into an enermous recession. McCain has never been a conservative and never will be. The only issue that McCain is better than the Dems on is the Supreme Court. Other than that John Kerry's former VP pick is simply a RINO.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (February 10, 2008 7:50 am ET)
           

        mccain is not proposing a flat out 50 cent raise in taxes on gasoline, as far as i know.   he is cosponsoring a bill that would put a cap on greenhouse gases and any company that went above those limits would have to pay for that.  it's to encourage energy conservation.  [something that never gets discussed in the immigration issue, how do we make progress on this issue with a population increasing by over 3 million a year.]

        http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjA0NDgzNjBlYTQ3YWZlZDFlYWZiOTFhNTRlZTM5YzU=

        Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (February 10, 2008 10:32 am ET)
           
        You've got a lot of damned nerve coming here and questioning John McCain's conservative credentials.

        My president says he is a true conservative.

        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

        Who do you think you are questioning my president?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 7:23 pm ET)
             
          Ha ha, yeah, that would be reassuring if Bush were actually a true conservative.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 7:23 pm ET)
             
          Ha ha, yeah, that would be reassuring if Bush were actually a true conservative.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (February 12, 2008 2:03 am ET)
               
            Bush is conservative through and through. It just so happens that conservatism is bad for the U.S.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RINO Hunter (February 12, 2008 10:33 am ET)
                 
              Oh yeah, of course. A true conservative would indeed double the size of the department of education, add even more welfare with the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, support open borders and amnesty for illegals, and greatly increase the size of the federal government and take away our freedoms. Great thinking. NOT!
              Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 10, 2008 1:27 pm ET)
           

        RH,

        Please don't lecture us when you are going to vote for the man.  If he's not a conservative and he's a big taxer, don't vote for him.  Remember how the Bushies said that oil would be lower priced because of this war?  I assume these guys took into account future demand by emerging countries, right?

        Here's a few for you, RH: We don't know if McCain is a conservative or a RINO.  He has flip-flopped on: 1) The Religious Right, 2)Ethanol, 3) Bush's tax plan (he flat-out lied last week about this), 4) He flipped on his statements on Rumsfeld 5) abortion, 6) Charles Wyly and dirty campaigning, 7) Campaign finance reform, 8) his own immigration bill, 9) he succumbed to what the White House wanted on torture after speaking out against it, 9) the Confederate flag in the South (not a huge issue to me, but to some)

        He also called the CPAC attendees, "Washington Insiders" last year.  This year, he pandered.  He said he did not agree with Cheney on Iraq, now he does.

        Which McCain is the real McCain?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 2:42 pm ET)
             
          I didn't say that I would vote for McCain. I said that I would either vote for him or a third party candidate. But I haven't made up my mind yet. I voted for Ron Paul yesterday in the Kansas Republican Primary even though I knew he didn't have a chance. McCain has the nomination wrapped up. If I end up voting for him I'll simply be voting for the lesser of two evils. I don't agree with the guy on very much.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 2:47 pm ET)
             
          And also the one thing you can say about McCain is that he has been very consistent in his views. The only issue he has changed his mind on at all has been the immigration issue, and even on that he hasn't completely changed his mind. He still supports amnesty but just not until the border is secured. On taxes he simply wants to make the tax cuts permanent now because to let them expire would in effect be a tax increase. But he has said that he doesn't regret his vote against them the first time. He certainly hasn't changed on campaign finance reform. He still strongly supports it and even wants more restrictions. He's still against ethanol subsidies, he always wanted Rumsfeld to resign, etc. You're simply wrong on that.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 3:55 pm ET)
               
            Not really. He also caved on the torture amendment. He was just flat against it then softened. I am not saying this is a total reverse. I understand politics is sometimes compromise he also said he would END the corporate minimum tax so your take that he would JUST make the Bush tax cuts permanent is not quite accurate. McCain is my Senator and overall he is fairly conservative and shows flashes of integrity. The man will most likely NOT show conformity to the elite Republican agenda. I am fairly certain he is pandering to the Falwell crowd and will turn his back on them if elected.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tex (February 10, 2008 4:09 pm ET)
                 
              McCain has softened on torture. At first, he was simply AGAINST it. After being bashed by the Bushies, he has repented. Now it's OK to waterboard, as long as they use distilled water.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 5:20 pm ET)
                   
                That's simply not true. McCain is still adamently against water boarding and all other tough interrogation procedures. If you watched the Republican debates you would know that. He also wants to close down Gitmo and give all the foreign terrorists U.S. Constitution rights. He's no different from the Democrats on that issue.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 6:39 pm ET)
                     
                  Whatever he said in the debate he CAVED bigtime on the torture amendment. Actions speak louder than words.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 7:25 pm ET)
                       
                    He said that we're not going to have any foreign prisons period. He's going to bring all the terrorists to the U.S. How could we possibly torture someone in the U.S. with all the scrutiny that there will be?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 10:50 pm ET)
                         
                      Again what is said and what is DONE are different things he CAVED on the torture amendment when taking a stand could have made a difference. THAT says something. In the unlikely event he ever becomes president I am confident he will not be like Bush and condone torture. That doesnt change the FACT he caved when it mattered and the pressure was on.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 5:23 pm ET)
                 
              They changed the bill which is why he voted for it. And it was a bill dealing with military tribunals, not a "torture bill." The U.S. has laws against torture which we have always followed. And I don't ever remember McCain being against cutting corporate tax rates. If he was then you might have a point.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 6:41 pm ET)
                   
                No we havent. Wishing wont make it so neither will endless repitition. Waterboarding is torture. It was torture when it was used in the Spanish inquisitions, it was torture when we prosecuted a Japanese officer for using against OUR soldiers its torture now. You just never know what you are talking about and just dutifully repeat what you want people to think, what you have been TOLD to think.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 10, 2008 7:08 pm ET)
               

            Consistent?  Really?

            http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html

            1) Abortion, 2) Torture, 3) Tax cuts (did you enjoy his lie on that one?) 4) Immigration, 5) Rumsfeld, 6) Ethanol, 7) the Confederate Flag, 8) The Religious Right (agents of intolerance?) 9) Norquist, 10) check the list for the rest.

            Or just ask your boy Rush.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by DeminTX (February 09, 2008 8:40 pm ET)
         
      Rino:  When Jr Bush took office on Jan 20, 2001 the average price for a gallon of gas was $1.46/gallon.  Now, with Repos being in control of the administration the average price is nearly $3.00/gallon.  That's over a 100% increase in 7 years.  A nice return on your investment if your ties are to Big Oil.  But, not so much for the rest of us.  And, you're complaining about the price possibly going to $3.50?  If the price goes from $3.00 to $3.50, that's only a 17% increase.  I'd take that over what we've had to deal with this "chimp-in-charge".  We should be so lucky. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jjamele2880 (February 09, 2008 9:40 pm ET)
           

        But didn't you hear George Will a few months ago, responding to exactly that question concerning gas prices?  He told us that gasoline was actually cheaper NOW than it was in......1976.  The relevance of the comment totally escapes me, but George Will is a Very Smart Man, so the problem in comprehension must be OURS, not HIS.

        Personally, if I had been sitting next to Will when he made that comment, I would have asked him if gasoline was cheaper now than when Bush became President after promising to "jawbone" his Middle Eastern Masters to get them to pump more oil.  After all, isn't it slightly more to the point to ask if gasoline is cheaper now than it was in 2000, rather than in 1976? 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 09, 2008 10:11 pm ET)
             
          Not if you're trying to steer the conversation to Jimmy Carter, so you can blame Carter for everything bad that happened during the 70s, which sets up a very nice opportunity to tell the Legend of Ronald Reagan.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 09, 2008 10:15 pm ET)
               

            And along the same lines, while the economic problems connected to Reaganomics/Trickle down/Voodoo were all attributed to Carter, notice that RINOhunter is at the Vanguard, already blaming the coming situation on either a Dem, or a RINO.

            The cons do know how to pass the ol' buck.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (February 10, 2008 10:58 am ET)
                 
              RINOHunter is playing at the Village Vanguard?

              I wasn't aware that he was into Jazz.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (February 10, 2008 8:37 am ET)
             
          I'm sure prices were relatively higher during the oil crisis, when cars were lined around the block waiting for gas and many gas stations had to put up signs saying they were out.  My question would be, if oil companies are forced to make such high prices due to overhead costs, then why are they making record profits?  There's a big difference between supply and demand and gouging customers out of greed.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 3:10 pm ET)
               

            "My question would be, if oil companies are forced to make such high prices due to overhead costs, then why are they making record profits"

            Because people haven't cut back in their consumption, that's why. We still drive just as much as we ever did. If people would simply cut back they would force oil companies to lower prices in order to increase demand. But of course prices aren't going to go down when we still use as much gas as ever before.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by RINO Hunter (February 09, 2008 11:47 pm ET)
           
        The President has absolutely no control over what gas prices are. It's determined by the free market. We've seen big growth in demand worldwide and a shortage in supply. It's that simple. The only way the President can affect gas prices is by increasing or lowering the gas tax. Bush hasn't messed with the gas tax. McCain wants to increase it with 50 cents per gallon, though it seems you have no problem with that since you've probably never seen a tax increase you didn't like.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 12:01 am ET)
             
          And you have probably never seen starving children that you didnt cheer about. More inane talking points without the merit of actual logic. Ya think the relative stability in the middle east has nothing to do with gas prices or that unessasary wars like Iraq have nothing to do with instability in the middle east? You have your hivemind talking points down. Now if you could just make sense once in a while...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 12:48 am ET)
               
            So what tax hikes don't you support?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 10, 2008 3:59 am ET)
                 

              So what tax hikes don't you support?- RINO Hunter

              I'm not really hot on the ones that are designed to have the middle class support the breaks on those who are much more well off than the middle class. But you wouldn't know about those from listening to Rush, as he's told you that the ultra-rich pay all of the taxes and the other 90% of the country just sits around freeloading.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 3:06 pm ET)
                   
                The top 50% of tax payers do indeed pay about 96% percent of the taxes to begin with. And Bush's tax cuts actually made the tax code more progressive, meaning that the rich now pay a larger percentage of the overall taxes then they did before Bush's tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts benefited the lower and middle classes much more than they did the rich, because the lower and middle classes received a much larger decrease on their MARGINAL TAX RATES than did the rich. The idea that Bush's tax cuts only helped the rich is the biggest myth in the world.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 4:00 pm ET)
                     
                  No they didnt. That is amazingly brainwashed BS. About 15% of the tax cut went to the bottom 60% of the people. The reason they are paying more is they are MAKING so much more while the rest of the country is hurting more. This is a great economy if you OWN an oil company. If you work for a living prices are going up WAY more than the average income. Keep repeating this hivemind talking point it will NOT magically become true.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 5:28 pm ET)
                       

                    "About 15% of the tax cut went to the bottom 60% of the people"

                    Which is a higher percentage than they actually pay in taxes to begin with. Thanks for proving my point.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 6:44 pm ET)
                         
                      It only proves how BRAINWASHED you are. There are other taxes than income taxes. A tax package could have been made that spread the actual benfits more fairly instead those who already HAVE the most GOT even more. All your dancing around the point wont change that.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 7:41 pm ET)
                           

                        "A tax package could have been made that spread the actual benfits more fairly instead those who already HAVE the most GOT even more"

                        Right. Then the top 50% could pay 98% of the taxes instead of 96% of the taxes. Good idea.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 11:01 pm ET)
                             
                          The top rate has dropped from more than 90% in the fifties it would still be less than 40% if Bushs tax cuts expire. Cry me a river that those making millions of dollars a year are asked to kick in more than those of us in the middle class. I see you adding the middle class which got very little of the tax cut into your stats to pad them. If they paid that much they MADE that much, it IS income tax. They can afford it more. Every sector of society EXCEPT the wealthy has been asked to sacrifice since the Reagan days and you conservatives, green with class envy, cant carry their water fast enough. To help the economy we should put money into the hands of the lower classes who will spend it, consumer spending is the backbone of our economy and our spending power has been being eroded since Raygun. I am doing pretty well but a whole lot of people are out there hurting. Let those who can AFFORD to kick in a little more do so.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by RINO Hunter (February 11, 2008 12:54 am ET)
                               

                            "Let those who can AFFORD to kick in a little more do so"

                            But again, the top 1% pays about 43% of the overall taxes right now, so what percent of the overall taxes do you actually want them to pay? 60%? 70%? 80%?

                            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 5:43 am ET)
                 
              And when dont you cheer when you see children starving? I dont support raises in the FICA tax rate nor indexing it any further. I dont support any raises in income tax below 200,000 but I could be convinced they are necessary as part of a package that spread the burden around. I DONT support raising taxes on consumption except in very specific avenues nor any taxes that hit primarily on the lower classes.  Why do you do this? Why do you regurgitate such bone ignorant propaganda which no adult could possibly take seriously? Are you REALLY so brainwashed that you believe the ignorance the screechmonkeys have you regurgitate to denigrate liberals?Are you REALLY that stupid? Taxes are the price we pay to have a society. I do not have a knee jerk hatred of them. THAT serves power as they convince those with little to accept less so power can have more. That doesnt mean I or any other liberal I have ever talked to loves any tax. Only a complete moron would take seriously the charge that we do. Stop repeating such stupidity because the hivemind has instructed you to beleive it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 3:01 pm ET)
                   
                Well the Democratic candidates have both said that they won't make any of Bush's tax cuts permanent. And since the statistics show that the lower and middle classes received a much larger reduction in their marginal tax rates, not making the tax cuts permanent would be a huge tax increase for the poor and middle classes. So maybe you disagree with Obama and Clinton on this issue, but if you do indeed agree with them then you do support tax increases for the poor and middle classes. Obama and Clinton have never seen a tax increase that they didn't like and I just figured that you would be the same.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 4:04 pm ET)
                     
                  You dont figure anything. You REPEAT. Half the time you dont even KNOW why you believe what you are told to believe. You JUST REPEAT. So you didnt FIGURE I thought anything, we both know you dont have amazing mind reading powers, you just repeated another hivemind talking point someone told you to believe that liberals never saw a tax they didnt love. Its your MO. You can keep trying to pretend that the poor benifitted most from the Bush tax cuts which were heavily wieghted toward the rich but its BS. Less than15% of the benifits went toward the bottom 60% of the people. The debt has SOARED and when the enivitable day comes when taxes have to be raised to pay our bills it wont be the people who employ lobbyists, the ones that got most of the benifits that have to pay that bill. Your brainwashing is impressive it just leaves you making attempts at arguments that make no sense.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 5:32 pm ET)
                       

                    "The debt has SOARED"

                    Which is why we need to balance the budget by cutting spending instead of raising taxes. Raising taxes only hurts the economy and ends up decreasing the amount of revenue coming into the government. And you may actually agree with me in a couple areas in which I believe we should cut spending. I believe we should get rid of all corporate welfare and start closing down many of our military bases around the world which would save us billions of dollars.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 6:47 pm ET)
                         
                      More mindless repitition. I guess the economy was hurt and revenues dropped when Clinton raised taxes on the upper income. WAIT we had the longest peacetime expansion of the economy in history and tax revenues soared. Again you repeat what you are told to believe with no idea what you are talking about.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 7:33 pm ET)
                           
                        But he also cut taxes in some areas such as capital gains and dividends. And it was also during the big internet and technology boom. Nothing was going to slow that down. And you didn't even respond to what I said about cutting spending. How many conservative Republicans do you know of who want to end corporate welfare and close down military bases? I think we might have more in common than you think. We both want to balance the budget and pay down the debt, and those areas are a good place to start.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 11:08 pm ET)
                             
                          It is so easy to TALK about cutting spending. It gets harder when you have to do it. It is a fantasy that there is some huge bonanza of waste that will cure all our ills.  What do we cut? To this person cutting special ed might seem a good idea unless YOU have a dyslexic child. Sure, cut some boondoggle programs bridges to nowhere and the like everyone agrees on that. We will still be left holding the bag. IF we are lucky that will barely make up for the money we spend on servicing the debt. We need to invest in our country in the infrastructure and education of the next generation. Companies MAKE money by investing in their future and our country should do the same. Taxes are not evil and government isnt evil. They CAN do things well. It was the investments in things like rural electrification, the highway system, the satelite system that made our economy so strong for so long. We need to stop pretending that the answer to our ills is to give the rich everything and make the working class shoulder all the burdens.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by RINO Hunter (February 11, 2008 1:23 am ET)
                               
                            But there really is a lot of waste in the budget when you look at it. The budget is now over 3 trillion per year, which is simply enormous. In reality, all of the federal welfare programs that we have today are really unconstitutional. The constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to run these huge welfare programs that it runs today. An actual constitutional form of government would be much smaller than we have today. But even if you don't touch the entitlement programs, you could save over $100 billion per year simply by completely eliminating corporate welfare. I would imagine that you don't have a problem with that. And you could save hundreds of billions per year by closing down military bases around the world in places we don't need them like Europe, Germany, and Korea. These are two areas where we save a huge amount of money without even hurting the poor.
                            Report Abuse
                    • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 10, 2008 7:12 pm ET)
                         

                      Gotta love that the Republicans, the "small government guys" have grown the government far bigger than any other administration and spent more money than anyone, and yet they cheer Bush and chant "4 more years" at CPAC and supposedly hate McCain for the same things.

                      Bush liked McCain's immigration bill and he's cheered.  McCain brings up immigration and he's booed.

                      And RH, before you say he's liberal, spending money doesn't make you liberal, its WHERE and HOW you spend the money that makes you conservative or liberal.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by RINO Hunter (February 10, 2008 7:37 pm ET)
                           

                        Yes, Bush isn't a liberal, but he's not a true conservative either. He's basically a big government neo-con, and so is McCain. McCain wants big government here at home and endless war abroad. So yes, Bush made the government bigger and turned his back on true conservative principles. We all know that. That doesn't make true conservatism any less legitimate.

                        "The bad news is that conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works."

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 11:10 pm ET)
                             
                          I agree with most of that. I see Bush as a radical statist and McCain not far from that. The good news is LIBERALISM works. Conservatism has had its day since Raygun and the 80s and it has not only not worked it has PROVEN it doesnt work it has been a disaster.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by RINO Hunter (February 11, 2008 12:58 am ET)
                               

                            "Conservatism has had its day since Raygun and the 80s and it has not only not worked it has PROVEN it doesnt work it has been a disaster"

                            Conservatism worked very well in the 80's when the economy was booming and everybody was happy, but since then true conservatism hasn't been practiced. What we have today is simply big government neo-conservatism, which isn't the same as true conservatism or nearly as effective.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 11, 2008 9:33 am ET)
                                 
                              But you keep voting for these guys, why?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by RINO Hunter (February 11, 2008 11:12 am ET)
                                   
                                Because they're still a lot better than the Democrats. The Republicans at least appoint originalist justices to the Supreme Court, which is a big issue for me. The fact that Roberts and Alito are on the Supreme Court is a good enough reason to justify my votes for Bush.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 12, 2008 3:09 pm ET)
                                     

                                  RH,

                                  You REALLY need to get to law school quickly.  Your "originalist" argument is wearing thin.  Many of the situations that come before the Court these days were not even in the realm of possibility when the Constitution was written.

                                  If you make the Originalist argument, what do you think of the coercion of the Southern States into signing anti-slavery amendments?  They hardly had a role in any Constitutional convention.

                                  If Justices are your only criteria, I suppose that's fine, but by your votes you support endless war, nation building, huge debt, state-sponsored religious spending ("Faith Based Initiatives") violations of the 4th Amendment (with the FISA), depriving some citizens of a speedy trial, the rights of Cheney to say he is not a part of the Executive Branch.  How many of those things are Constitutional?

                                  Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 10, 2008 3:55 am ET)
             

          The President has absolutely no control over what gas prices are. ... The only way the President can affect gas prices is by increasing or lowering the gas tax. (Rinohuter)

          You should try saying these things out loud before posting. You do realize you tried to pre-emptively blame the imminent recession on the next President's raising gas prices vis à vis whatever tax he/she imposes?

          While others appreciate your arguing yourself into the ground, it still takes time to point out to you how you have beaten yourself.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (February 10, 2008 7:22 am ET)
             

          The free market controls fewer and fewer industries as the years go by.  Oil is obviously not one of them, as demand hasn't shifted between now and 2000, and supply is and was whatever the oil companies want it to be.

          Capitalism depends on healthy competition and having full information available to consumers.  Republicans hate both those things.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (February 10, 2008 4:27 pm ET)
             
          So Bush was a liar when he TOLD us that he WOULD get gas prices down in 2000 during the first debate with Gore.  Well, I knew that at the time, but a lot of people bought in.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by markjohn74937 (February 10, 2008 9:36 am ET)
         

      I find it humorous that most of these comments relate to gas prices and taxes, when the most important issue that faces the U.S. today is illegal immigration. The almost-instantaneous absorption of 20M felons will destroy this Country, and you all whine about gas prices!?!?

      Most of the fools who support McCain say that they do so because he will be " good on National Security." WIDE-OPEN BORDERS and AMNESTY simply do not comport with a "Strong National Defence!"

      Report Abuse
    • Author by thomp.steve9098 (February 10, 2008 11:13 am ET)
         

      Don't worry comrades. I sent the folks at MMFA a few emails explaining how the very suggestion that a Maverick "flip-flops" is akin to an oxymoron. I'm sure they've been inundated with similar emails admonishing them about the ghastly articles they've been posting about the Mav. Hopefully our letter campaign will work!!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 10, 2008 1:29 pm ET)
           

        Thomp, all kidding aside, what do you think of the Mav's latest decision to go to CPAC this year after calling the attendees "Washington Insiders" last year?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (February 10, 2008 4:31 pm ET)
             

          The really pathetic thing is, CPAC will have no problem with McCain totally ignoring them- when not insulting them- for years, as long as he shows up when he desperately needs their help, and kisses their ring (and ass.)  

          Because that's all the members of CPAC really want- fealty.  They embraced Mitt Romney, who was a liberal for his entire life before running for President. They'll embrace McCain when he sucks up to them, and never mind what he's said in the past- when he didn't need their help.  

          These people have no dignity and no real values, unless Power for Us is a "value." 

          Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (February 10, 2008 2:27 pm ET)
           
        Ze Fatherland thanks you Zieg Heil
        Report Abuse
    • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 10, 2008 1:43 pm ET)
         

      Here's another reversal for McCain

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/10/mccain-embraces-rove_n_85881.html

      Report Abuse
      • Author by thomp.steve9098 (February 10, 2008 2:11 pm ET)
           
        You're killing me Fried !!!!!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 10, 2008 7:14 pm ET)
             
          Sorry, Thomp, but you seem like a guy who would want all of the information at your fingertips before making a decision.  You're welcome ;).
          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.