Why McCain has a tough time with conservatives

Taken from ElectRomneyin2008.com

The Real McCain Record
Obstacles in the way of conservative support.

By Mark R. Levin

There’s a reason some of John McCain’s conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

— Mark R. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration, and he is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host.

Starred and Flagged my friend...

Were you at the meeting tonight and I missed you?

The more people know, the more informed they can be in making the right choice for America.

A vote for McCain is a Democratic vote, period. He is no Republican...

So many are supporting him because they think he is the only one that can beat the Dems and that is just plain silly. As much as the Dems are infighting, I don't see any problem in the General at all.

While all the Republican Candidates have their issues, I see Romney as the most qualified, intelligent and Conservative candidate that is not simply running on what he says, but his record as well.

They can and will all say whatever they must to get votes, but Romney stands on his record and well he should, it is impressive.

We got him a 3rd place here and that is what we expected. The Baptists are very hard core here and have no idea what they are supporting in Huckabee much less McCain.

Romney is still alive and well and moving on...

Semper

Don't forget that McCain was considered one of John Kerry's top choices to be Vice-President.

www.boston.com...

If there is a consensus among Kerry aides about who would be the boldest and most potent pick, it is Senator John S. McCain of Arizona -- a Republican.

That alone should be enough to disqualify him to true conservatives.

I wonder if McCains support among conservatives is as serious as Mitt's problems with the Religious Right, due to his Membership in the Mormon Church? Probably a toss up.

"The Mormon Card" just like the race or gender card, I'm sure it will turn up again.

As a Baptist myself, I don't see Mormons any different than I do Catholics. The only religion I would have a problem with is Islam or Scientology.

In fact I would rather have a Conservative Mormon, than a left leaning Moderate as President.

I stand by my judgement that religion shouldn't play a role in a candidates record. I may not post everything but if you do decide on being a Romney supporter, or already are please visit the site I mentioned in my post. I don't want to post it again for fear of looking like a link whore

Here's a possible scenario for ya:

Mitt Romney wins the republican nomination and either Obama or Hillary (toss-up at this point, imo) wins the democratic nomination. McCain runs with Joe Leiberman on an independent fusion ticket.

Why is this possible? At 74, this is McCain's last opportunity to run, and he just may believe that he is what America needs right now. Not a lefty like Hillary or Obama, and not a social-con (nowadays) like Romney.

McCain and Leiberman play the centrists running against the "cut-and-run" democrat and the "flip-flopper" republican.

Question: Will McCain/Leiberman's broad centrist appeal across party lines make their run not only viable, but winning? Who would be more hurt by a McCain/Leiberman ticket, Hillary/Obama or Romney?