John McCain's "Profiles in Courage": A Couple of Examples of Why I Have Not Backed McCain ...
... both from Creative Minority Report:
McCain's Vociferous Defense of Marriage - NOT!Throw in McCain's support for ESCR and we have a trifecta.
Call Catholics Satan? Yawn. But Don't Mention the Jews
UPDATE
McCain must REALLY NOT want my vote, if what Feddie reports is true:
. . . this, this, or this, simply will not do.Even if he doesn't follow through on these things, the mere fact that McCain is considering them makes him completely untrustworthy in my estimation.
I suppose I'd prefer McCain over Obama, but it looks like the "maverick" is going to have to accomplish that feat without my vote.
Labels: Anti-Catholicism, Israel, Marriage, McCain, RINOs
posted by Pro Ecclesia 9:23 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
I am not too concerned about the bottom three things that are linked too.
As to Bloomberg and Ridge one must pay courtsey calls o this people. Especially if you expect them to go out and campaign for you As is pointed out by Newt in that abortion article we are a Pro-Life party with a pro-choice wing. that pro-Choice wing has to be handled with care
As to Hagee well I have made my thoughts on that issue well known I guess. I think we have opened up a can of worms here that is going to bite us as we have to monitor and only accept endorsements from people that have pleasant and acceptable Theology as to the Book of Revelation it appears
So, who's the alternative, in your mind?
"None of the above" is looking pretty good right now.
"None of the above" is looking pretty good right now.
The only problem is that unfortunately one of the above is going to win. So we have to decide whether or not the prospect of one of these guys winning is so bad that we are going to have to suck it up and vote for the other. I'm still planning on voting for McCain, but man does he make that decision tough.
The one point where I'd see a serious advantage to not voting (I'm not impressed right now with any of the protest vote alternative parties) would be if McCain did something that was obviously a total slap in the face to pro-lifers:
-Selecting a loudly pro-choice running mate
-Removing or modifying the pro-life platform plank
etc.
At that point, there might potentially be a value to making McCain lose simply in order to show that that behavior won't fly in the GOP. However, it would have to be a big enough affront, it seems to me, to justify having to live to Obama for four years. And that means a pretty big affront.
So far this is all media speculation. Let's see what he does. If he picks Tom Ridge or Bloomberg for veep I'm out. Seriously. I'll sit this one out.
But I don't think he'd do something so stupid.
If Ron Paul is still on the ticket, I will most likely vote for him. I have got to vote my conscience (prolife/anti-torture/not for preventive war), and I am not so sure that McCain is necessarily really the lesser of two evils anymore.
Maureen
It looks like McCain is solidly anti-torture (and for obvious reasons), but he seems more passionate about man-made global warming than he does prolife issues. Of course, actions are more important than passions, but so far, I haven't seen any strong actions on his part that show he is a big advocate for the unborn. And, as for preventive war, I think he would go to war with Iran as quick as Bush/Cheney would.
Maureen
I initially posted this at Feddie's site, but it was held as potential spam (hopefully, he'll post it) -- the amount of links probably. It obviously applies only to the Update here, Jay.
And Jay, the same thing I said to Feddie:
My apologies for the length of what follows, but I spent some time trying to track some of this down out of professional interest, until this post became its only justification. It was one of those things where the more you chase the links and the sourcing back, the flimsier it gets. It's as substantial as straw drifting in the Oakland breeze -- there is no there there.
The last link — about Michael Bloomberg — is nought but a "whispers"-type column with no direct quotes and only "some folks near McCain and others near Michael Bloomberg ... floating" the name,. There's not even unsourced indirect cites implying that the candidate is listening to said "floating."
The middle link — about Tom Ridge — if you go back to the Chicago Trib blog that K-Lo cites, at least has a concrete fact — that Ridge was invited to the ranch for the Memorial Day weekend, and it has a very good, named source (Ridge himself). But (1) as the Trib blog states, Ridge and McCain are longtime friends, so this is unremarkable in itself; (2) **Ridge isn't gonna be there** (prior business commitment); that is not something a serious auditionee does; (3) lots of people will be there other than Jindal, Crist and Romney (Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman e.g.), it's simply not in itself evidence of veepstakes-worthiness; (4) in fact, the very reason Jindal, Crist and Romney's being there is newsworthy is that none of those three had previously been to McCain's ranch; (5) **Ridge himself** throws cool, if not cold, water, saying he doesn't have any specific reason to think he's being considered and the obvious fact that he's a recent GOP governor of a big state and so on a lot of people's "speculation list."
As for the first item, the ABC News on changing the party platform in 2008, that may be the flimsiest of the lot. The headline says: "McCain Poised to Flip on GOP Abortion Platform." If this were a fight, I'd tell ABC News "buddy, your mouth just wrote a check your ass can't cash."
The article does not (repeat "NOT") provide a single quote, direct or indirect, from any source, named or unnamed, saying that McCain wants to overturn the platform. Read it carefully.
It starts out saying only that SoCons don't want him to change the party plank (DUH). The only contemporaneous quote from a McCain campaign source says "A senior Republican close to McCain told ABC News that building a more inclusive GOP is a top priority for the Arizona senator. But this adviser does not see changing the party platform to include exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother as necessary for achieving that vision."
And yet sane people (not just Feddie; it was posted by Free Republic, Jill Stanek and several pro-life discussion sites) are taking this ABC report seriously as saying "McCain wants to change platform," i.e., exactly the opposite. How is that possible?
The rest of the article repeats old news and prints quotes from the head of the pro-choice Republican group saying "he ought to change the plank and he could if he wanted." Oh ... and Sam Brownback, by-name and on-the-record, defending McCain and saying no platform change will happen (and he's the only source in the article who can be said to be close to McCain). That. Is. It.
As for the old news it repeats, even it is less than meets the eye when you look back at it.
The ABC News blog from April 2007 says "Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told ABC News Saturday that he still wants to change the GOP's abortion platform to explicitly recognize exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother." Damning if backed up ... but like the ABC News blog, it doesn't "back up the lead" either. The report never provides a direct quote that says that from McCain, the only quotes being on unrelated topics from a speech he gave at the same event. As best I can tell, no other news outlet picked this item up (for good reason, I'd say, given how flimsy it is). And I can certainly say I cannot find a quote in the Washington Times archives from April 2007.
A report in the Times from last month says McCain won't change the platform (the sourcing is anonymous but it is at least there) and that reporting was borne out by events earlier this month with the appointments to the platform committee. Ralph Hallow has his ears to the lips of every McCain-skeptical SoCon. If there were a move afoot to change the GOP platform that could be credibly sourced, he'd know and we'd print it.
At the end of the day, all there is is the 2000 debate clip, which tells you nothing that isn't long known -- that McCain doesn't "lead with" the social issues, and that he ran against Bush then from the left.
Flimsy. Flimsy. Flimsy.
So, Mr. Pro Familia, I suspect that you will only look for a Republican candidate? One who is 'Pro Familia'? Like George W. Bush?
Please tell me that you did not vote Bush/Cheney TWICE. Surely you can be forgiven for the first mistake, but never for the second one.
Pro Familia my ass.
"Pro Familia my ass."
Always good to have a member in good standing of the O-Cult pop by to spread a bit of bile. Will visit your site the day after McCain crushes the leader of the O-Cult in the Fall, or, if your glorious leader is elected, after about a year into his term with US troops still in Iraq.
Well said Donald, mud rake has no clue about the reality in this country or overseas.
OHIO JOE
"Pro Familia my ass."
You'll forgive me if I decline to take lessons on family values from the purveyors of abortion on demand, population control, and same-sex "marriage".
Or, for that matter, from asswipes.
Post a Comment
<< Home