In last nights debate, Mitt Romney blasted John McCain for being too liberal.  He cited the NY Times endorsement, McCain/Lieberman,McCain/Feingold, and McCain/Kennedy as examples. He also weighed in on the votes McCain made against the tax cuts in 2001/2003 citing that these votes were not the act of a conservative Republican.  Do these really show McCain as a liberal or just a politician who knows how to get things done? 

  I say its the latter.  The NY Times does not really have to endorse anyone on either side, however they always have and probably have endorsed Republicans in past primaries, although I am not a reader so I cannot say for sure. 

As far as the legislative measures, I view them as a sign of a politician who disregards labels in the pursuit of building a coalition government whose purpose is to solve the major issues that face America daily. We praise these qualities in leaders around the world but disregard them in our own land.  In Iraq we are calling for a coalition government where Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds work together to solve their differences and unite in Democracy.  Why is this so different than working both sides of the aisle to solve immigration or finance reform? 

In 2001/2003, McCain did vote against the tax cuts because additional spending projects were attached to the measures.  How does one call themselves a fiscal conservative if they believe spending should not be checked when you cut income?  The votes he made then are being reflected now with Pres. Bush’s announcement of cutting earmarks from every bill that crosses his desk. 

 McCain’s actions on earmarks also speak louder than his words.  For 2008, so far, McCain has had 0 earmarks, while his Democratic rivals, and only other Senators running for President, have over 300 between them.  He has voted against earmark projects in his home state consistently during his term in Congress. 

 Liberal/conservative labels don’t matter. At the end of the day what really matters is will the next President be able to build that coalition government that will keep America the foremost power in the world, both economically and militarily.  John McCain is the only one with the paper trail to prove that he is concerned for America, not the party in power. 


Kennedy endorsement

So Hilary isn’t liberal enough? The Kennedys put their ultra liberal stamp on the Obama for Change campaign yesterday in a speech that went something like this–“change……change…….change…….Obama……change…..change…..”etc on and on.  How many times did he have to practice the word change? Ted Kennedy who has voted against change so often that he is one of the most entrenched Congressmen in the country. His solutions consist of money and more money.  He has led the partisan effort,with few exceptions, for the Democrats for decades. Add this endorsement to the “I did support the war before I was against it” endorsement of John Kerry and the “I never supported a candidate before now,but it certainly isn’t because he’s black” endorsement of Oprah and you have the making of the most hypocritical campaign of the election season.   

This endorsement was simply a political move by the Kennedys to get themselves reelected for years to come by hitching their wagon to a cute word that resonates with the youth vote. There is no substance to their endorsement and if Obama becomes President and tries to push through any of the programs he has endorsed, like school vouchers, the Kennedys will be the first to distance themselves from him.  The Kennedys and other Democrats will always vote to throw money at a problem and Obama does not have the guts to stand up to Ted Kennedy when enacting new ideas.

Published in: on January 29, 2008 at 2:44 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,