Is John McCain Conservative? Show Me.
A staffer on Capitol Hill wrote this today this to Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO.
On the one hand, John McCain, who stands for smaller government and lower spending, is bemoaned as a non-conservative. On the other hand, House Republicans are chided for participating in a big spending farm bill boondoggle and not being conservative enough.
So let me get this straight…
One of the principal definitions of a conservative is that he believes in smaller government.
Yet John McCain is not a conservative.
Here’s my challenge to this Hill staffer: show me tangible evidence that John McCain believes in smaller government.
- Show me where he has, just once in the past ten years, stood publicly against his friends on the left against their bloated budget proposals.
- Show me where he has taken to task his friends Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Russ Feingold (a couple of whom have been co-sponsors on very public and very non-conservative bills) on their gigantic earmark requests.
- Show me where he’s pressed the President to veto any spending bill because it was just too much then rallied enough support in the Senate to make the veto stick.
- Show me where he’s led the charge to shrink any department in the Federal Government.
I am a conservative. I am willing to be won over by a conservative John McCain. You say he “believes in smaller government”. Show me the proof.
I’m waiting. All of us conservatives are waiting.
Other Posts of Interest:
- John McCain Has a Small Government Track Record? Who Knew?
- It Looks Like John McCain Has Learned His Lesson All Right.
- McCain Makes a Judicial Pitch for Conservatives
Category: Johnny Mac, The Economy and Your Money
You know the options. Actually, I feel I _have_ an option. I live in a blue state. My vote will count for nothing, as I'll certainly be outvoted by Dems. So…assuming Bob Barr is nominated by the Libertarians, I can vote for McCain, not vote, or vote for Barr. Voting for Barr would, I think, count as a protest vote. Not voting would be just negative…
I'm thinking.
sue, I really don't know what the best option is. For me, the most palatable option, for a couple reasons, is Hillary Clinton. That's more a tactical political decision than it is a purely principled one (though there are a couple principles at work, too).
I don't expect that most conservatives like that option, though.
I really disagree with you. I think Hillary is a socialist ideologue – maybe even communist. I also think she has the info on where the "dead bodies" are so that she could be much more effective in getting her agenda into place. She knows _how_ to ger her agenda into place. I don't think Obama does. I think he's just as much of a socialist/communist as she is, but he's still a newbie, imo, and will be "managed" by the party members. He won't get anything done unless they ok it. If he resists, then it will be stalemate until he does what they want – and then he can still veto them.
I think there are at least 3 activist SC justices who are simply waiting until a Dem is sworn in to resign. They are waiting in anticipation of a president who will replace them with equally activist judges. McCain _may_ not put justices in that I'd feel comfortable with, but I'm sure that either of the other two _would_ put justices into place who would bend the Constitution like a pretzel.
Hence, where I stand.
Have you introduced moderation for all comments recently, or am I special???
Perhaps.
Or perhaps conservative Senators will defy them like Democrats defied the nominees put forth by this President who has had a smaller percentage of his judicial nominees confirmed than any other President in modern history.
The possibility of three Supreme Court Justices, maybe and maybe not, isn't enough to overcome all the bad that John McCain brings to the table. Hillary Clinton is, believe it nor not, potentially less bad. I'll take her over either of the other two guys.
I'm not sure why your comment stays in moderation, sue. It shouldn't, since I've approved you a whole bunch of times before. I'll see if I can fiddle around in the settings and figure out why it's not working like it should.
Ah. So you _do_ have moderation in some form. I'm not disapproving – I comment on at least one blog where trolls are a major disturbing factor, so can appreciate it even when it creates a moment of annoyance – I just wasn't aware that you had moderation in effect, and it surprised me. When I commented the second time, the first comment had posted, and the second went right through.
Gremlins, maybe. They're about as annoying as trolls!
I'm chalking it up to gremlins.
My moderation is pretty simple. If someone posts here for the first time, it automatically goes into moderation. Often it takes my approving a couple or three comments for the software to recognize that I'm okay with the commenter's post going through without my approval.
Most comments (I'd say upwards of 95 percent or more) I approve. A few I deny outright. A few are spam that make it through the spam filter.
[...] a big fight, especially lately. But what, exactly, has he done? I brought this topic up before, and even invited one of conservativism’s more ardent McCain supporters to answer it but I never saw a response. I’ll ask the questions again. Perhaps Ed, or one of [...]