McCain Romney Huckabee Politics Personal Destruction Dole Electability Obama Clinton 2008 Election Polls Truth Rhinos

Monday, February 4, 2008

McCain the Flip-Flopper ('I voted for the 85 billion before I voted against it')

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).

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?

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.’

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.
John Kerry and Hilary Clinton said we needed more troops Kerry says he would send more troops to Iraq if necessary 4/18/04
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 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?


Anonymous said...

C'mon, nobody is a bigger flip-flopper or phony than Romney. Sorry, he may win California, but he won't win much else. Huckabee is going to see to that. :) Tis going to be a long night for you Eric.

Political Junkie said...

California is the biggest state in the union, so I could live with that. Liberal states have engineered election laws for 'win or take all' so all the Romney voters in those states are disenfranchised (New York, New Jersey, etc.). Romney will take his home state that knows him best, Massachusetts, by a decent majority, but McCain will barely win his home state of Arizona with a small margin and only a mere 40%minority. Romney will take Colorado, Montana, Alaska, Utah, California, and more. Super Tuesday used to have only seven states, but this year all the RINO states have moved their primaries to Feb 5th to help out McCain.

The RINOs have united against Romney, now the Conservative Republicans have to unite against McCain. The media hates Romey and knows McCain cannot beat Clinton or Obama. So it was the media who is behind this silly 'flip-flopping' charge. Ann Coulter has pointed out that Romney "flipped" on this one issue but never "flopped," so he's not a flip-flopper.

Ann Coulter points out that Romney ran for office in a Blue State (the most liberal state in the country), so his original views on abortion represented the majority of the people and not his own views:

"One clue that Romney is our strongest candidate is the fact that Democrats keep viciously attacking him while expressing their deep respect for Mike Huckabee and John McCain...Never take advice from your political enemies...

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.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich says Romney "is trying to sell himself as a leader," but he "is actually a follower and a panderer, as confirmed by his flip-flops on nearly every issue."

But Rich is in a swoon over Huckabee. I haven't seen Rich this excited since they announced "Hairspray" was coming to Broadway.

Rich has continued to hyperventilate over "populist" charmer Huckabee even after it came to light that Huckabee had called homosexuality an "abomination." Normally, any aspersions on sodomy or any favorable mentions of Christianity would lead to at least a dozen hysterical columns by Frank Rich...

Curiously, however, Huckabee's Christianity doesn't bother Rich. In column after column, Rich hails Huckabee as the only legitimate leader of the Republican Party. This is like a girl in high school who hates you telling you your hair looks great.

Liberals claim to be enraged at Romney for being a "flip-flopper."

Romney's first race was against Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- whom he came CLOSER TO BEATING THAN ANY REPUBLICAN EVER HAD. If Romney needed to quote "The Communist Manifesto" to take out that corpulent drunk, all men of good will would owe him a debt of gratitude.

Even when Romney was claiming to support Roe v. Wade, he won the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life -- a group I trust more than the editorial board of The New York Times. Romney's Democratic opponents always won the endorsements of the very same pro-choice groups now attacking him as a "flip-flopper."

After his term as governor, NARAL Pro-Choice America assailed Romney, saying: "(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."

Pro-abortion groups like the Republican Majority for Choice -- the evil doppelganger to my own group, Democratic Majority for Life -- are now running videos attacking Romney for "flip-flopping" on abortion.

Of all the Republican candidates for president, Romney and Rudy Giuliani are the only ones who had to be elected in pro-choice districts. ROMNEY GOVERNED AS A PRO-LIFER AND HAS BEEN VICIOUSLY ATTACKED BY PRO-ABORTION GROUPS.

By contrast, Giuliani cleverly avoids the heinous "flip-flopper" label by continuing to embrace baby-killing. (Rudy flip-flops only on trivial matters like illegal immigration and his own marital vows.)

And, of course, Romney is a Mormon. Even a loser Mormon like Sen. Harry Reid claims to be pro-life. So having a candidate with a wacky religion isn't all bad" (Ann Coulter, The Elephant in the Room,

Use your own brain, stop echoing mindless media talking points, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do you want others to misrepresent your positions? But you're right, Romney was a 'phony' when he ran as a moderate Republican in Massachusetts, because's he's really a conservative Republican. The Massachusetts Republicans love him, so why can't we? Arizona Republicans hate McCain, so that tells you something.

Anonymous said...

It really pains me to do this, but, TOLD YOU SO!!! He didn't even take California. Go Mit! Cough, Cough. Mit is a loser. And a Mormon, FREAK!