ONE THING OBAMA AND ROMNEY AGREE ON
What do Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have in common? Both agree McCain & Hillary are 'indistinguishable' from each other.
McCain cannot present stark constrast with Hillary, cannot energize the vote, and absolutely cannot win a general election. Republican Moderates like McCain ALWAYS lose elections (Ford 1976, Bush Sr 1992, Senator Dole war hero 1996).
MCCAIN THE FLIP-FLOPPER
John McCain is a huge flip-flopper on almost every major issue. McCain is not a social conservative, not a fiscal conservative, and not even a foreign policy conservative!! His positions are that of a blue dog Democrat. McCain is a total fake when he avows to the American people that he is a 'conservative.'
1) AGAINST federal funding for stem cell research before he voted FOR federal funding for stem cell research. AGAINST repeal of Roe v Wade before he was FOR repeal of Roe v Wade
2) AGAINST gay marriage before he voted FOR gay marriage and judicial activism by voting AGAINST the Federal Marriage Amendment
3) said he was FOR Amnesty (Tuscon Citizen May 29, 2003 & McCain Kennedy) before he ran for office and now he's AGAINST Amnesty
4) voted twice AGAINST Bush tax cuts (2001,2003, one of only two Republicans to vote against tax cuts) before he ran for the Republican nomination (2008) and now he is FOR the same Bush tax cuts he originally voted against (even lied about why he originally voted against the tax cuts, because they benefit the rich)
5) AGAINST ethanol subsidies before he ran in Iowa primary and was FOR ethanol subsidies
6) AGAINST American jobs goings overseas before he voted FOR McCain Lieberman (raises carbon tax 50 cents per gallon, or $1000/yr per tax-payer) and voted FOR McCain Edwards Kennedy (more litigation and frivilous lawsuits for doctors) which forces American corporations overseas through over-regulation and over-taxation and also increases cost of products and services exponentially
7) AGAINST facism and attacks on the Constitution before he voted FOR McCain Feingold which was ruled unconstitutional violation of free speech by the U.S. Supreme Court (Alito was part of the majority decision, McCain said Alito ‘wore his conservatism on his sleeve’ and so wouldn’t nominate justices like him)
8) AGAINST terrorism before he was FOR open borders and FOR criminal trials (constitutional rights) for terrorists and FOR weakening interrogation practices by the CIA
9) voted FOR War in Iraq before he was AGAINST the Bush Adminstration
Ironically, McCain would rather give foreign terrorists constitutional rights (8) than to give American citizens the constitutional right to free speech within 30 days of an election (7)!! What is he hiding about his record that he wants to pass a Law that you can't criticize him 30 days before an election?
NOT TOUGH ON TERRORISM
Besides open borders, criminal trials for terrorists, and weaking of CIA interrogation practices on terrorists, McCain's claim to be the master-mind behind the Troop Surge is his biggest lie. A few Democrats and anti-Bush Republican Chuck Hagel were actually the originators of the troop surge policy, and wanted to criticize Bush for not having enough troops in Iraq (at the same time other Democrats criticized Bush for not pulling troops out!!). Bush would have done troop surge with or without McCain, and McCain needlessly politicized the issue by attacking and with the Democrats piling on Bush’s administration (Rumself was Bush’s Secretary of Defense) instead of just advocating Troop Surge without bashing Bush. McCain is amazingly arrogant to take ALL THE CREDIT for the troop surge policy despite the true master-mind behind the troop surage, General Petraeus and GW, and despite Romney and Guiliani’s support for the troop surge as soon as Bush announced it. McCain’s arrogance makes him a horrible diplomat who would rather ‘get credit’ than ‘help people.’
DEMOCRATS ORIGINATED "TROOP SURGE" POLICY IN 2003/2004!!
John Kerry and Hilary Clinton said we needed more troops 12/3/03
Kerry warns of 'cut and run' in Iraq, Democrat assails Bush policy, aide keeps open possibility of sending more US troops, Dec 3, 2003
"Kerry foreign policy advisor Rand Beers told reporters Kerry “would not rule out the possibility” of sending additional U.S. troops to Iraq. "It is very clear the number of troops is inadequate” in Iraq, Beers told reporters in a telephone conference call previewing the speech. Kerry’s first preference, he said, would be to persuade foreign governments to deploy more troops to help share the burden with Americans.
But by not foreclosing the possibility of dispatching more U.S. troops to Iraq, Kerry seems to have changed his position and to have repositioned himself as a more hawkish alternative to Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean.
In a Sept. 4 debate in Albuquerque, N.M., Kerry said, “We should not send more American troops. That would be the worst thing. We do not want to have more Americanization. We do not want a greater sense of American occupation.”
As he flew back to the United States from his Thanksgiving visit to U.S. troops in Iraq, Bush said he had told American commanders there, “My message was, I know you’ll succeed, and I’m here to tell you we’re going to stay the course.”
But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said recently, “We’ve got 127,000 men and women over in Iraq, and that’s a lot. It’s not permanent. What we hope to do is to continue to increase the Iraqi security forces to take over those responsibilities.”
Kerry’s speech comes at a time when Democrats are moving to outflank Bush on both the doveish and the hawkish sides.
On the left, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich continues to press for rapid withdrawal of all U.S. forces, while on the hawkish side, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, just back from a tour of Afghanistan and Iraq, called for more U.S. troops in Iraq... Clinton’s call for more troops puts her at odds with Kucinich and the left wing of her party. The argument for more troops in Iraq got articulate support Tuesday from Iraq expert and former Clinton administration National Security Council official Kenneth Pollack. “We desperately need more people. We need more civil affairs officers…. There are not enough of them; they are horribly understaffed,” Pollack argued in a talk to policy-makers and reporters at the Brookings Institution in Washington."
Democrats criticized Bush for not sending enough troops. This was never "courageous" but mere partisan bickering and attacking a Command-in-Chief during the Middle of a War. http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=239352&&
John Kerry and Hilary Clinton said we needed more troops Kerry says he would send more troops to Iraq if necessary 4/18/04 http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-18-kerry-nbc_x.htm
Kerry proposes 40,000 more troops, as Democrats back Bush war spending By Patrick Martin, 19 February 2005
McCain says Bush was not "as straight as we would like to see" about need for more troops (Sept 19,2004)
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel with McCain (campaigned for McCain in 2000 bid for Presidency) and many Democrats in 2004 said we need more troops or a 'troop surge', until the Democrats won in 2006 and then Hagel in 2007 did a 180 and came out against the war and against the troop surge
MCCAIN LIES TO CREATE AN IMAGINARY DIFFERENCE IN POSITION
McCain has the same position on the War in Iraq that McCain has. Bob Bennet, who endorsed (voted for) McCain for President, said McCain owes Romney an apology for lying about Romney's Iraq position. Romney always supported troop surge, and McCain always supported secret benchmarks. Would McCain seriously have us believe he would never scale down troops even after the Iraqi security forces are prepared to take over their own security?