Thursday, December 27, 2007
|
|
More On Senator McCain's Record
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
5:46 PM
|
My column on Senator McCain's need for a neuralyzer overlooked other big problems with the Arizona maverick's record. From The Club for Growth's white paper on Senator McCain:
[H]is overall record is tainted by a marked antipathy towards the free market and individual freedom.
This antipathy is evidenced by the Senator’s vocal and class-warfare-laced opposition to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts; his occasional but eager support for increased government regulation; his support for raising Social Security taxes; and his persistent attacks on political free speech in the form of the McCain-Feingold Act.
“The Bush tax cuts were a driving force behind the economic prosperity of the last couple of years and a cornerstone of a pro-growth philosophy,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Not only did Senator McCain oppose these cuts, he aligned himself with the likes of Ted Kennedy in his rhetorical attacks in 2001 and 2003. Four years later, American taxpayers still have not heard the Senator disavow his misguided statements and votes.”
and
First, it is notable that Senator McCain stood so astride the Republican anti-tax position that he was one of only two Republican senators to oppose the 2001 tax cuts[5] and one of only three GOP senators to oppose the 2003 reductions.[6]
Second, Senator McCain's stated reason for opposing the Bush tax cuts rhetorically allied him with the most radical anti-growth elements of national politics. Senator McCain argued, "I cannot 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 need tax relief."[7] Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) sounded a similar theme, saying, "Now, they are proposing more of the same, more tax breaks benefiting only the wealthiest among us,"[8] as did Democratic Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35): "I voted against the Republican tax cut plan, which is an irresponsible tax cut that will further undermine the nation's struggling economy at the expense of middle-class American families."[9] Senator McCain's eager embrace of grossly inaccurate class-warfare demagoguery demonstrated, at best, a painful ignorance of pro-growth economic principles.
Third, Senator McCain not only voted against the Bush tax cuts, he joined leading liberal senators in offering and voting for amendments designed to undermine them. All in all, Senator McCain voted on the pro-tax side of 14 such amendments in 2001 and 2003. These included such odious measures as:
- An amendment sponsored by Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) to prohibit a reduction in the top tax rate until Congress enacted legislation to provide a prescription drug benefit[10]
- An amendment sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) against full repeal of the Death Tax.[11] This vote is in keeping with Senator McCain's 2002 vote against repealing the Death Tax[12]
- An amendment sponsored by Tom Daschle (D-SD) and co-sponsored by Senator McCain to limit tax reduction in the top tax bracket to one percentage point[13]
and
At first glance, John McCain's record on regulation appears generally positive, including a vote against a minimum wage increase in 2005;[48] a vote against the 2003 Energy Bill;[49] and a vote against the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Bill.[50] A deeper look at Senator McCain's record, however, reveals a number of votes and bills that reflect much less favorably on his commitment to free market principles and his claim to being an economic conservative.
Most egregious is Senator McCain's leadership role in two bills that would have drastically restricted free enterprise. The first was the Patients' Bill of Rights, which he sponsored with Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and former trial lawyer John Edwards (D-NC).[51] The bill allowed the government to impose a set of onerous mandates on insurance coverage instead of allowing individuals to make their own decisions about healthcare plans in the marketplace.
Two years later, the Arizona maverick took a another swing at the free market with the Climate Stewardship Act, a bill he sponsored with Joe Lieberman (D-CT)[52] to require greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 2000 levels by the year 2010. This intrusive bill was projected to cost $76 billion annually by 2025, with huge increases in the cost of electricity and gasoline according to the Department of Energy.[53]
Unfortunately, these two bills do not close the book on Senator McCain's regulatory indiscretions. Over the years he has voted for a number of other big-government bills. These include:
- Voted for an amendment that would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to set prices on prescription drugs under Medicare[54]
- Voted against a bill that would prohibit an increase in CAFE standards[55]
- Voted for an amendment that would prohibit oil drilling in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska[56]
- Voted (along with all of his Senate colleagues) in favor of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, an overreaction to corporate malfeasance that imposed heavy financial burdens on companies[57]
Much like his record on taxes, these terrible votes cast a dark shadow on Senator McCain's positive votes. His anti-growth votes are exacerbated by his characteristic vociferousness in cases like the Patients' Bill of Rights and the Climate Stewardship Act. His occasional eagerness to support and encourage increased government regulation suggests a troublesome mistrust of the free market.
and
Nowhere is Senator McCain's record on pro-growth issues more appalling than on the important issue of protecting political speech. Senator McCain was the driving force behind the ultimate passage of the McCain-Feingold Act, a bill that imposed grossly unconstitutional restrictions on citizen participation in the political process.[62]
Over the ten-plus years since Senator McCain first introduced campaign finance reform legislation, he has pursued his trampling of the First Amendment with a vengeance. On a April 28, 2006 taping of The Don Imus Show, McCain cavalierly admitted as much: "He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform . . . I know that money corrupts . . . I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."[63]
In defense of the provision banning issue advocacy ads that mention a candidate 60 days before an election, McCain said, "These ads are almost always negative attack ads, and do little to further beneficial debate and healthy political dialogue." In his brief to the Supreme Court, Senator McCain continued along the same lines: "These ads are direct, blatant attacks on the candidates. We don't think that's right."[64]
Thus, Senator McCain and his partner in crime, Senator Russ Feingold, have anointed themselves the arbiters of appropriate political speech, worthy of deciphering which speech is "right" and which should be permitted in American political debate. To this day, Senator McCain remains responsible for the greatest modern infringement of political free speech. While bestowing significant advantages upon incumbent office holders, this feat has created neither a less corrupt political domain nor a more democratic one.
and
Senator McCain's outspoken pursuit of anti-growth and anti-free-market policies in the realms of taxes, regulation, and campaign finance reveals a philosophical ambivalence, if not hostility, about limited government and personal freedom. This ambivalence, combined with a rebellious nature, often leaves taxpayers the victims of his latest cause clbre. Despite his positive votes-and there are several-his negative positions have tainted, perhaps beyond repair, the positive ones over his twenty-four years in Congress. The evidence of his record and the virulence of his rhetoric suggest that American taxpayers cannot expect consistently strong economic policies from a McCain administration.
|
|
John McCain is the only candidate of any Party who has the ability to lead America in time of war with Islamist Terror.
The day that former PM Bhutto was murdered by Islamists, Ron paul's followers were added up the costs of this War like CPAs on Crack.
Instead of walking around looking for nickles on the sidewalks Americans look to John McCain who has the integrity, courage, experience and the will to make Americans Proud. |
|
|
The is only one candidate who is consistently anti-tax, anti-spend, and pro-free market: Ron Paul. This article highlights McCain's big government tendencies, but all candidates except Paul have similar flaws. |
|
|
|
Why do NEOCONS think a tax cut without spending cuts is fiscally responsible?
NPR-With John McCain on vacation and Rudy Giuliani occupied elsewhere in the state, Mitt Romney sought this weekend to close the deal with New Hampshire Republicans who remain undecided about his presidential candidacy.
Romney fired away at McCain, repeatedly accusing the Arizona senator of failing “Reagan 101? by voting twice against Bush administration tax cuts. Romney also said McCain’s past support for allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the United States and work toward legal status amounted to amnesty.
National Debt Exploding under Bush (pushing $10 TRILLION!)
WATCH VIDEO
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/romney-lashes-out- at-mccain-in-nh
|
|
It's irresponsible to cut taxes without cutting spending at the same time. In the long term, the tax cuts will pay for themselves- but what about the short term?
What about Mitt Romney opposing the tax cuts at the time they were proposed?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWQxZTZmZjRlMTRiOW U4OTAxZjZlM2I0YWJiNzU2MDM=
What about him RAISING TAXES BY $700 MILLION DOLLARS in MASSACHUSETTS? Why do you give him a pass?
You would have been taken much more seriously if you had been more subtle in your Romney-trolling. Now everything you say can be written off as the ramblings of a hack. Stop smearing Senator McCain's record, sir. |
|
McCain wanted the tax cuts geared to the middle class and wanted them tied to a spending cuts.
Remember when fiscal conservatism meant less government? Hugh likes BIG conservative government. |
|
Hugh -- I have never commented on any blog board in my lifetime.
But, your recent attacks against McCain have set a new low.
Your blind allegiance to a terribly flawed candidate in Mitt Romney is appalling!
The most conservative and most liberal papers in NH have exposed Romney for the fraud that he is -- it's dizzying to read your spin about how it's good that Romney was pilloried by the NH press.
Please step out of your bubble and recognize that the Romney campaign is imploding.
$10 Million in Iowa to Huckabee's 500k! And Romney isn't going to win there?!?
Will you shut down this website when Romney goes down? |
|
|
|
The Union Leader, in Manchester, is influential in that city and the north country. In the past it has been furiously, wildly conservative, and its editorial page is much milder than the days, of say, Edmund Muskie railing against the paper’s attacks on his wife in the snow.“The editorial page has come mainstream quite a bit, but everybody in New Hampshire knows it, and they know what they’re getting... That ain’t that lefty rag in Concord.” This paper endorsed McCain.
The Fosters Daily Democrat is “interesting and influential – it’s a Republican paper, but it’s not read as an ideological paper. It’s not like reading National Review.” It’s sister paper is Laconia Citizen. They endorsed Rudy Giuliani.
The two biggest papers in neighboring Massachusetts have considerable penetration in the Granite State, with differing levels and styles of influence. The Globe is probably read as much as any other paper in the state, but mostly for its encyclopedic coverage of Boston sports teams. The Herald, the more conservative paper out of Boston, is probably read more cover to cover, because its articles are shorter, punchier, and funnier columnists. It, too, is often picked up just for the sports coverage.
The point of all this is that none of them have endorsed Romney, and some, in fact, seem to be in a contest to see who can criticize him the most.
Today's Union Leader: "THERE IS A reason Mitt Romney has not received a single newspaper endorsement in New Hampshire. It's the same reason his poll numbers are dropping. He has not been able to convince the people of this state that he's the conservative he says he is."
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2Y1MmU2MmU5 NzBiYTlkOTg2M2Q1YTA2OTEyNTc5N2I=
|
|
Governor Romney raises taxes (in the forms of fees and closed exemptions) in Massachusetts and Senator McCain is not free market?
"These certainly were tax increases and a new source of revenue for the commonwealth," said Brian Gilmore, executive vice president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the state's largest business lobbying group..."[Gov. Romney] indicating that he balanced a budget without raising taxes is misleading at best," Gilmore added. "We respectfully disagree." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21593946/ |
|
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019386.php |
|
Please provide some evidence demonstrating that Governor Romney ever "passionately supported" gay marriage. Or even that he ever supported it with flat emotions.
Or else do the honorable thing and apologize for your false accusation. |
|
McCain did exactly, nothing, except playing "kissy kissy" with the likes "Chappiquidicus Ted"!
There's very little differance between McCain and the "rats", IMO. |
|
|
He fought hard against Bush's tax cuts but merely talked about wasteful spending. He could have revived the "Golden Fleece" award to shower constant public attention on the many targets that were available. In fact, he could have been in the news permanently. Why didn't he? What exactly DID he do to be labeled a fiscal conservative? |
|
dan....your so wrong ....your "passionately supported" gay marriage (romney)! so you just pass on the same ol bull! after today dan,you and rest of us better be thinking in big terms! its called pakistan,taliban,alqueda,nuclear missles, and 48% of the people support them! but yes, mc cain does want to be on the ticket with hillary..if she was to offer! see, how easy it is to say something...even if it may not be true! think pakistan,etc!think israel..they would not let that happen..taliban/missles,etc! nov.8th looks small to me ,at the moment! elvis! |
|
If RINO Hugh Hewitt applied the same standards to Mitt Romney that he does to John McCain, then shouldn't he be blasting Romney as well? Don't forget, Romney, in the not-so-distant past, has passionately supported:
Abortion Gay Marriage McCain-Feingold Illegal Immigration Tax Hikes Gun Control
Where is Hugh criticizing that?
It's over Hugh. Romney is going down. You do realize that you've lost all credibility now, right? |
|
Now that the Huckabust posts are done to counter the surge, get ready for posts attacking McCain since McCain is said to be on the rise in NH.
Hugh is being asked to do something for the money he took from the campaign..oh Hugh - I know you wish you could take the money and sit back and watch some bowl games and do nothing(which no secret, any teams you root for WILL lose, but when you take money you have to deliver my friend.. |
|
|
McCain has been outside of and/or opposed to so many GOP positions, it's ridiculous that he could be the GOP's nominee. And simply it won't happen. |
|
"Now its on to McCain so with McCain challenging the lead in New Hampshire, the attacks are coming from Hugh. Imagine that."
It's plain that Hugh Hewitt favors Mitt Romney and disfavors John McCain.
I doubt that we need much more than 17,637 posts expressing astonished surprise at that fact. |
|
Now that McCain is closing on Romney, our once esteemed Hugh Hewitt attacks him. Hugh, you are increasingly becoming irrelevent. Very sad...
Phil Canyon |
|
|
|
|
I've suspected that McCain will be Hillary's running mate on a "national unity" ticket. They're that much alike. |
|
|
so with McCain challenging the lead in New Hampshire, the attacks are coming from Hugh. Imagine that. |
|
|
|