Redstate

and I for one will not partner up with him.  McCain is not this stupid, but he has lost all vestiges of being human and is now 110% politician.

He is too confident in the supierority of his own ideas over those of our fore-fathers.  (As if they didn't have to deal with big money and corruption just as we do.  In fact, they probably had it worse because money was more concentrated back then.)

...of course is that McCain is exercising his 1st Amendment right to free speech, during an interview by a "reporter" (if you want to call Imus that) exercising his right to freedom of the press, in order to put forth the notion that we need to restrain the 1st Amendment to get a "clean" government.

The other irony is that the more the likes of McCain tampers with our freedoms, the more loopholes that get made by which money can poor into elections and campaigning, particularly for incumbents. Bleh.

I simply cannot stand McCain and his hypocricy/disloyalty to the US Constitution on issues such as this. One sure fired way for the R's to lose my vote for the '08 POTUS election will be to put McCain up as the Repub nominee. I'll vote for the Constitution Party or some other independent before I'll vote for McCain as POTUS.

I TOLD YOU SO...

John McCain is the most dangerous man in America.  He is a sitting US Senator who panders to the media's need for a Republican Renegade and has an out-sized voice because of his willingness take on non-issues that the media hopes will embarrass the Bush Administration.

He doesn't respect the Constitution, as evidenced by his flagrant disregard for arguably the protection the founders most cherished, the protection of political speech.  

He has no respect for the US military's adherence to the rule of law, as evidenced by his tortured reasoning with the "Torture Amendment", legislation which added no protection to foreign detainee because torture was already outlawed by international treaty, US law and the UCMJ.  He could cite no specific instance of torture or mistreatment in promoting his amendment.

He has no respect for US immigration law or for immigrants who have, for decades, played by the rules to legally enter the US and pursue citizenship, as evidenced by his collaboration with his good friend Senator Ted Kennedy offering amnesty and, fines aside, a free pass to US citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

He is dangerous specifically because of his ability to promote and pass legislation that is an anathema to vision of America put forth by the founders.  For his willingness to pander to media elites for face time on Sunday.  

John McCain is, to borrow the title of a book about another US Senator he considers a "good friend", "Unfit for Command".

But you are wrong about this:

the "Torture Amendment", legislation which added no protection to foreign detainee because torture was already outlawed by international treaty, US law and the UCMJ.  He could cite no specific instance of torture or mistreatment in promoting his amendment.

No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

In this section, the term ''cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

It added new protections for terrorist detainees against things that are not torture (not even close), but ordinary every day interrogation techniques. The purpose of his amendment was to redefine torture in a very expansive way (and get on TV while doing it).

My point about "no protection" referred to adding no protection from real torture.  

Thank you for pointing out that my complaint in my original post was way too narrow.  Not only does McCain have no respect for the US military, he goes beyond the pale by granting protection under the US Constitution to foreigners who are actively conducting a war against us.

He just committed political suicide.

Not many people will ever vote for him for anything with That comment on his record.  Even among Democrats, that's a mistake what with their much vaunted and fanatical support for the 1st Amendment...

He's not an idiot, or at least, he Wasn't an idiot.   can't imagine what could convince him to say something like that...

This is a blogad waiting to happen. Or happening. Or waiting to make happen. Or we're making it happen.

Or something. :)

Maybe something will make me change my mind, but for the moment, Senator McCain...BLAM.

I already knew it.  Those of us paying attention in AZ knew it by 1982 when the carpetbagger came to town and first ran for national office.  He is a SLEAZY politician.  (I know that is redundant, for the most part.)

He is a terrific AMERICAN citizen and a war hero; however, he should not hold any political office.  His humongous ego blinds him even from the Constitution and those that seek to correct him.  His temperment is legendary for those that know him.  He is beyond hope.

check into his wife's background.  Imagine the extra baggage in a vicious national campaign.  I cannot begin to phanthom her as First Lady or anyone else wanting her either.

Yes, I know we don't elect First Lady's, but, a candidate does not need that type of additional baggage in a national campaign.

You are right about his temperment and for my money, that is really the single thing that disqualifies him from office.  I think he really is dangerous in a position of high authority.

He is an American hero.  He just should have gotten a real job and rested on his laurels.  Or his wife's families laurels.

I'd give you a 5, but the 'most dangerous man in America' line is easily misinterpreted.  I might agree with that statement, but only with the explanation that "many Americans would be more dangerous, but McCain trumps them all because he has a position of ower, being a popular member of the Senate majority who gets all the free, positive attention he wants from the mainstream press."

He may have been popular during the '00 primary, but he still lost. Ever since then, the people have gotten to know him better and it seems to me that he's much less popular now among the Republican base.

The media's pseudo-endorsement of McCain is like Bin Laden endorsing Kerry in '04. I'm sure McCain won't be going anywhere in the '08 primary.

He is dangerous specifically because of his ability to promote and pass legislation that is an anathema to vision of America put forth by the founders.  For his willingness to pander to media elites for face time on Sunday.

I attempt to make a similar qualifier every time I note that I think McCain is the most dangerous man in America.  He can get things done.  All the wrong things.

McCain last year in the Gang of 14 Deal, crafted the deal with the express purpose of preserving the sanctity of the senate traditions.  Which he believe would be endangered with continued talks of the consitutional option/fillibuster commotion.

But when it comes to preserving the sancity of the consitution and the first ammendment all hands are off?  We shouldn't tread carefullly, for McCain knows best?

but I think this is one McCain story that won't plaster his grimacing, basketball shaped head on the front pages that he so adores.  But the media types are secretly having multiple O's at the idea of it.

     

Power is half the danger equation. If you do not have the power to do anything, you cannot be dangerous.

the meager chances of McCain winning the 2008 Primary flushing down the toilet.

Hillary must be laughing her head off... or cursing. This was the guy who was going to beat her?

The man has the political acuity of a potato*.

*lots of eyes; can't see (feel free to use)

I just think that strong statements like that need to be made carefully, is all.

I always try to add the qualifier as I did above.  To be fair, sometimes I probably forget it.  I just didn't this time.

in the MSM.  It won't rear it's ugly, basketball shaped head outside the blogs until the primaries.  At which point McCain's head will again explode and he will blame somebody for smearing him and taking his words out of context.

The only appropriate VP candidate for John would be Cynthia McKinney.

Is this (McCain admitting his true colors) related to this? (Frist finally moving forward on the nuclear option, re Kavanaugh and Boyle).  Without McCain's "stature" the Gang of Fourteen falls flat on its face...

5 doubled

With all that's going on I don't see what dire problem he's solving for with campaign finance reform that would necessitate more lousy attempts to limit free speech.  Sure, there's lots of money in politics but limiting speech is looking a lot like trying to manipulate free markets (e.g. price controls).  You can't do either.  

I'm picking Newt for POTUS!  Newt!  Newt!  Newt!

people here say they won't vote for mccain but when its hillary v. mccain in 2008, can you honestly say that you won't hold your nose and vote for mr. straight talk?  i didn't think so.

Not to be snotty or anything...

I would not vote for Hillary, but McCain will never get my vote.  Not even for US Senator, I've voted against him twice.

And I certainly wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher of Maricopa County.  I have to much respect for the dogs.

If McCain is the nominee, I will work for a third party candidate.  McCain won't, by the way, be the nominee.

Rasmussen just came out with a poll essentially asking if McCain or someone with similar beliefs on illegal immigration is the Republican nominee, a third party that enforces a barrier on the Mexican border and strict restrictions on illegals, the third party would garner more support than the Republican candidate, and only one percent less than the Democrat candidate.

Results:

Democrat: 31%

Republican: 21%

Third Party: 30%

Source

on the right don't usually agree with his CFR views.  It's a "nobody's perfect" mentality that balances positives and negatives.  Guiliani (pro-choice), McCain (anti-free speech), Newt (ugly divorces and mistreatment of ex-wives), Brownback (un-electable Religious Right icon), Allen (un-electable Bush clone), Romney (squishy on abortion, Mormon handicap) etc, etc.

McCain is not saying he wants clean government instead of the First Amendment.

What he's saying is "quote first amendment rights": in other words, when he puts it in quotes he is arguing that framing campaign speech as a first amendment debate is not always appropriate.

Personally, I think he's right in that regard; I get really tired of people on the left always invoking the 1st amendment.  There are certain kinds of speech that should be regulated or prohibited at times.

That said, I would like to see McCain/Feingold repealed.  As long as the funding is transparent, I don't care who says what.  I'd like to see him have the courage to stand up and acknowledge McCain/Feingold's irrelevance, repeal it, and move on.

CFR is an area where a lot of us part company with McCain, but otherwise, I like him a lot.  I consider him a very principled conservative.

As for all the other people you mentioned, I feel that way about all of them except Romney, whose Mormonism I consider a plus.

was to protect the freedom of POLITICAL speech and to protect religion from intrusion by the government.

My right to say f**k in public would never have been approved of by the founders.  On the other hand, my right buy political advertising two days before the election that says "John McCain is most dangerous and irresponsible politician in Amerian" is a principle the Revolutionary War was fought for.

John McCain is the Senator from Washington DC.  He doesn't give a rip about "clean government", he cares about representing the governors NOT the governed.  Just look at his career in the Senate, especially the last six years.  

• CFR is nothing but an incumbant protection measure.
• When folks with $$ and opinions figured out 527's (MoveOn) he demanded CFR be extended to 527's.
• When the SwiftVets documented Kerry's Vietnam service sham, McCain attacked them and defended "his good friend Senator Kerry".
• The G14 had NOTHING to do with getting qualified conservatives confirmed to the courts, it's whole purpose was to protect the tradition and comity of the Senate.  His "good friends".
• The Torture Amendment was nothing more that an opportunity for McCain and his "friends" to take an unfounded swipe at the military and the administration.

McCain doesn't care about "clean" government, he cares about "government".  CFR is John McCain's epitaph, it's what HE's all about.  Should he become President, he will nominate judges who will uphold CFR.  Don't look for Roberts or Alito, look at SDO or Souter and you're looking at the quality of McCain nominees.

I think that this will not amount to anything. John McCain is known to be passionate about this subject, and if anyone makes some kind of deal over it, he could easily explain himself with some back-pedaling. It will work because many people will agree with him. Politicians are viewed to be very corupt these days (as a general perception by a large percentage of people), and McCain's perceived stance against corruption will trump any off-the-cuff remark he made about limiting the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment is not interpreted to be absolute anyway. It is subject to the will of the people. McCain will be fine.

Do any of you remember George Romney, Mitt's father?

He was the front runner for the GOP in the '68 Presidential campaign.  It might have been '64.  Be that as it may, shortly before the New Hampshire primary he made a verbal gaffe about being "brainwashed by Johnson".  The effect was truly astonishing.  His candidacy just imploded.  In less than a week, he was reduced from "front-runner, probable winner" to "foot-note in history".

Is this a "George Romney" moment for our dear Senator from Arizona?  Would it not be interesting if this gaffe propelled Romney's son to the top?

I would vote for HRC... because it would be like not voting for McCain twice.

He will do this stuff over and over again... and it will become much more frequent if he were ever (ugh) to become the nominee. This isn't the first gaffe he has made. It isn't even the first one in the past couple months (remember the "why don't you vote for the Vegetarians" thing?), and the campaign hasn't even started yet. He hasn't even been targeted by the MSM yet.

It is subject to the will of the people.

This would only be true if it if wasn't in the Constitution. The point of the Constitution is to make it impossible for a simple majority to place restrictions on the rights enumerated within. That's why you need a huge super majority of Congress and the states to agree to any changes to it.

I meant that in a certain sense. We do have exceptions to the 1st amendment, and more importantly, we have interpretations. These can sometimes add a little bit of wiggle room to how we view the 1st amendment. As insulated from public sway as the supreme court is, they are people and they were appointed by way of national politics. In the end, the interpretation of the constitution is a reflection of the will of the people. The constitution is very stable, but not immovable.

 

anti-McCain limb than I am   :>)

said Yoda.

The only subject McCain is passionate about is McCain.  And this little faux paux will kill him.  The reason is that he will get confronted with this and with his amnesty program, with his total disregard for the rule of law with respect to immigration, and with the Torture Amendment.  He can't deal with hard frontal assaults, and these will be hard.

The First Amendment is no more "subject to the will of the people" than any other part of the Constitution.  Wanna have a referendum on the Article II powers of the CinC?  How about one on Search and Seizure?  

The Constitution is subject to nothing, it IS the subject of the Republic.  Congress passes laws.  Laws are subject to review by the judiciary and ultimately the SCOTUS.  CFR will likely be coming before SCOTUS in the next couple of years and in the Roberts Court, it likely will struck down in it's entirety.  If that happens before the '08 election cycle, I'm confident that Roberts will likely write the opinion and it will be clear and to the point and will pointedly say that John McCain and Russ Feingold are the biggest threat to the Republic since the British army in 1812.

Your post is the precise reason why John McCain is absolutely unfit for higher office.  He thinks the Constitution says what John McCain thinks it should say.  That is the same reasoning that brought us Roe.  

And kid yourself not, John McCain, if given the opportunity, will nominate justices who interpret a living document, not a Roberts or an Alito.

That is what I would have said, had I had the eloquence.

This will have no effect on McCain.  Not only did he say "quote First Amendment rights" (which the large majority of Americans who don't consider money to be speech will take to mean exactly what he meant for it to mean), but the average voter favors campaign finance reform.  Maybe not the average GOP primary voter, but I have yet to see any evidence of that.  The blogosphere right skews dramatically more libertarian than the real-world right and I can't see this doing anything to McCain's chances.

of legal limitations on how much someone can spend on a campaign or political cause. Such limitations without question strike at the heart of our liberties as a people. But my antipathy for Senator McCain on this score is tempered a bit because of a number of factors:

1. Our own president signed McCain-Feingold. If it's such a horrible piece of legislation (and I truly believe it is) why not reserve some scorn for the man who could have stopped the infernal bill in its tracks?
   
2. It seems to me a significant part of the GOP caucus in both houses simply loves the idea of campaign contribution limits. And that's not surprising, because it's such great incumbent protection insurance. McCain is far being the only Republican who's on the wrong side of this issue. He may even be in the majority.
   
3. If McCain-Feingold is so bad (and again, I believe it is) where's the organized effort to get it thrown out via the legislative process? If I'm not mistaken, there was a bill a few years back aimed at curbing soe of the absurd restrictions on the freedom to worship (I believe it passed, didn't it?). Where's the similar legislation aimed at protecting freedom of speech? Why isn't there a "Freedom of Political Speech Restoration Act" making the rounds in Congress?

In other words, as much as I absolutely detest McCain's championing of the CFR issue, and as much a I truly believe he's badly misguided, apparently he's far from alone among Republicans. I suspect that at least the Senator really believes he's doing the right thing on this issue. I wish I could say the same for the rest of the GOP.

 I didn't vote for the "compassionate conservative" in 2000, and I wouldn't vote for the "maverick Republican" in 2008 or any other year.

I'd never vote for Senator Clinton, but I'd honestly rather see her in office than Senator McCain.  In the short run she'd be moderately worse, but in the long run she'd unify, rather than destroy, the Republican coalition.

Quashing the First Amendment has been McCain's pet issue for years.  To support him despite that, would be like saying you like the Yankees' uniforms, except for the pinstripes.

with this, with the ill-conceived and do-nothing Torture Amendment, probably with G14 and generally with his incessant grandstanding.

This, and other issues, will beat McCain because he will blow up at being challenged on his beliefs and his actions.  John McCain, above all, does not have the temperment to be President.  

He is absolutely Unfit for Command.  Not to the same extent that his "very good friend Senator Kerry" is Unfit, but the end result is the same.

1. Bush has had all kinds of scorn heaped on him for signing CFR.  Personally, I think he may have signed it hoping SCOTUS would do his job for him.  W's domestic performance is absolutely Jimmy Carteresque and will absolutely keep him from being remembered as a "great" President.
   
   
2. All politicians, without regard to party, love anything that centers the money on them and shuts out opponents ability to raise or spend funds.  It's called Incumbant Protection.  And it's also why I used favor term limits but now favor capital punishment for serving two terms in Congress.
   
   
3. There are pending cases in the Federal Courts against MF.  SCOTUS upheld portions of it and overturned some last time around.  The Roberts Court should have a 5/4 majority to overturn the whole mess as the Court is currently constructed.
   

John McCain doesn't care one whit about the "right thing".  All he cares about is John McCain.

where to reply to your posts -- you are so prolific.  But all of your comments against McCain as our nominee, I've been High5-ing for some time.

Just thought I'd finally jump in to tell you to keep up the good work!  

1. He signed it expecting it to get thrown out by SCOTUS. Bush made it clear he did not care for the bill beforehand and did threaten to veto it. Signing it anyway was a bad thing for sure (and something that has Rove and Cards' fingerprints all over it), but it hardly can be compared to McCain's place in it.
   
2. The majority of the GOP opposed the bill. Only 9 Republicans (plus Jeffords) in the Senate voted for passage. The 9 consists of the usual suspects (Chafee, McCain, Collins, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Luger, etc). I would hardly call that a split in the caucus. 47 Democrats voted for it. McCain got more support from his true party as is usually the case with his pet issues.
   
3. And this is going to get passed by the Senate how? Where are the 60 votes against? SCOTUS is our best chance at killing it now.

Signing it anyway was a bad thing for sure (and something that has Rove and Cards' fingerprints all over it), but it hardly can be compared to McCain's place in it.

Really? I think one could argue that the president's signing it was actually worse than McCain's "place in it" because the former smacks of hypocricy and political cowardess. Why sign a bill you think is wrong or harmful to the country's interests and gamble that the judiciary will do your dirty work for you? Again, at least McCain's position on the issue smacks of true belief, however repugnant his beliefs may be.

And this is going to get passed by the Senate how? Where are the 60 votes against?

I'm not suggesting that a pro free speech bill would necessarily pass right now, but I'd welcome even a nascent movement to get something along these lines started. I'd welcome any movement in favor of the restoration of First Ammendment rights, even if it doesn't pass for several congresses in the future. I might cite the FairTax as an example -- hardly likely to become law any time soon, but the foundations are at least being laid for action when the political forces are aligned more favorably. This is my great worry: that our polity will become increasingly accustomed to contributions limitations, and so we'll reach a point where to most people such laws and such insults to the Bill or Rights are perceived as American as baseball and apple pie.

I hope, by the way, that your optimism concerning the Supreme Court and CFR is warranted. I've not yet analyzed what the presence of Roberts and Alito means.

Really? I think one could argue that the president's signing it was actually worse than McCain's "place in it" because the former smacks of hypocricy and political cowardess. Why sign a bill you think is wrong or harmful to the country's interests and gamble that the judiciary will do your dirty work for you? Again, at least McCain's position on the issue smacks of true belief, however repugnant his beliefs may be.

It is much better to sign something bad that you don't like (because you expect it to earn you some political capital or for some other reason) than it is to make it your personal crusade and to advance it at every opportunity.

True believers are dangerous. I don't give him any credit for being a true believer on this issue... that is a huge negative. I'd much rather he were just doing it for the cameras and didn't believe a word of what he was saying.

Ask yourself this: Just what kind of speech limitations would McCain be willing to sign into law? We know that if McCain was in charge he would be willing to go a lot further than this bill did.

on this.  He's certainly not.  I think he took a cowardly way out because McCain had generated so much favorable media about this monster.  Bush gets more than his share of the blame from me.

HOWEVER, it was McCain that orchestrated this thing - just like he orchestrated the Torture Amendment that Bush AGAIN didn't have the courage to veto.

McCain is dangerous BECAUSE he knows how to effectively work the system and the people.  He is a threat to the Republic.

and he's pushing the envelope with 527 restrictions now.

The buck stops at his desk.  He signed the bill.  The American people did not elect him to office to punt a political hot potato to the Supreme Court.

If he didn't like the bill, but felt he couldn't stop it, he could have simply refused to signed it.  It would have automatically become law without his signature.  Instead, he signed it.  His signature says to all the world that, in spite of cheap pandering words to the contrary, he supports the bill.

Mitt Romney talked about that very phrase in his C-span interview on March 20th as being the moment his dad lost his chance at the presidency.

I, too, hope McCain implodes.  I'm fearful that the MSM will continue to prop him up no matter what so he becomes our nominee.  Then, hardball time against Hillary, his usefulness will end and the MSM tides will turn. The beloved maverick will become the enemy.  

Senator McCain seems to have forgotten the place of the Constitution in our system. Laws may be declared unconstitutional but Constitutional provisions cannot be declared unlawful. The Constitution outranks the law ( and everthing else except the whims of Supreme Court Justices ).

Resolving a conflict between the first amendment and clean government in favor of CFR might work at the Vatican, but I doubt any other government would benefit.

the voters and other people running for office.  We've already had one instance where he came close to imploding at a town meeting here in Arizona about a month ago.

Just wait until the 527's get hold of this clip :>)...

This combined with pictures of illegals streaming across the border with a voice over of John blathering about amnesty.  Or not amnesty.  The guy running against Jon Kyl is already running McCain clips dissing Kyl on immigration.  

John McCain, once he gets out of the media spotlight, is an empty, cheap suit.  He'll crumble like a termite infested house.

What part of this aren't you getting... the pecking order is as follows:

1. John McCain's opinion.
   
   
2. US Senate tradition and comity.
   
   
3. Laws passed by congress (ask JMC & AS).
   
   
4. The needs of the various committee chairmen to be able to call for hearings and get on TV.
   
   
5. SCOTUS opinions that have withstood the test of at least one month's time.
   
   
6. The Constitution as interpreted by elected officials.
   
   
7. The text of the Constitution.

Take some time off and memorize the above.  It will save you a lot of trouble.  </snark&gt

but is there any evidence of any of that?  Is the Torture Amendment at all unpopular with the general public (or even the GOP primary-voting public)?  I realize it's not popular here, but RedState is, in a lot of ways, unlike regular Joes.

Also, while judges get us worked up, I can't imagine one of those average Joes getting particularly worked up about the G14 deal.  McCain brokers a deal in the Senate to keep the filibuster, gets a few judges through, throws a few under the bus, the world keeps turning.  We may get turned up by all that, but I think it's a pretty big yawner in the grand scheme.

All of that said, the real reason I'm supporting McCain is that I just don't think any of the alternatives are attractive.  I like Giuliani fine, but I don't want him to be president (I like his political impulses even less than you like McCain's).  I like Newt, but he's a pretty hopeless cause.  The rest - Allen?  Frist?  Brownback? - are more or less just empty suits.  Between Gore, Bush, and Kerry, I'm just about done trying to pick which empty suit I like best.

in the primaries.  Guys like me do.  JohnJohn skipped Iowa because he didn't want to face the folks in the cacuses.  He got trashed in South Carolina (or was it North, at my age all those directions run together) by the prolife folks when he waffled on abortion and said Roe should not be overturned.  His head blew up and he went on a rant about how the religious right owned the party and how wrong they were.  Blah blah blah.

He will never survive the onslaught of the 527's.  He didn't have to deal with the pros in 2000.  They'll eat him alive.