We have TWO tax codes and TWO government benefit "packages." One would be set by the Democrats and on by the Republicans. Democrats can collect all the taxes they want from fellow Democrats, and Republicans from Republicans. Each party then has their own set of "perks."
For example, if you want "free," government-run health care, you can pay taxes to the Democrats and get that perk from them. If you would rather pay less in taxes and be responsible for your own health care insurance, then you could choose Republican. You get the idea.
Competition would then keep both parties on their toes. Everyone could decide which party gives you the most bang for your buck. High taxes and big perks? Or lower taxes and lower perks?
Of course, some functions would need to be agreed on and provided together from both parties (highways, national defense, etc.), but we'd have competition for all those fun little perks that politicians like to promise us (free health care, college education, welfare, etc.).
Of course, this plan would never work, at least not for the Democrats. Why? Because they need all those Republican entrepreneurs and business people to pay big taxes to pay for all their programs.
Obama's program is a simple three step plan:
1. Tax 5% of the population. 2. Give lots of perks to the other 95%. 3. Take all the credit, pat yourself on the back, and think YOU actually produced and accomplished something of worth.
One of these four people will be your next President.
John Edwards and Rudy Guiliani have both pulled out of the race. Huckabee and Ron Paul are so far behind in votes and delegates, and so low in national polls, they're out for any voter who wants their vote to have a chance of changing the outcome. Bloomberg may enter, but as history has shown us, will be a very long shot. So, this means we now know that one of the above four people will be our next president.
If you're a registered Democrat, you will be voting between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Republicans will be choosing between Mitt Romney and John McCain.
The race has narrowed from around 20 candidates, to just these four. Those of you who have been sitting on the sidelines, waiting for the choices to be scaled down, now is the time to look at these remaining few candidates and make a choice.
Choose wisely.
As for me, I'm choosing the one with a proven track record of solving tough problems. He has successfully turned around struggling businesses, saved the 2002 Olympics, and put Massachusetts on the right course as Governor. He's the only candidate to have succeeded in both the private and public sectors. He understands the economy better than the others. He's the only candidate who has said he'll get us out of Iraq, but with victory. (Clinton and Barack will pull out immediately in surrender, and McCain will keep us there indefinitely.) He's the candidate with the right views on immigration, taxes and health care. He's a true American that understands the importance of strong family values.
Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." If John McCain were a true Republican, I wouldn't be able to write this blog without violating this commandment, but he's not. John McCain seems to think the best way to beat the Democrats in November is to become one.
Here are 17 reasons I could not vote for John McCain:
1. McCain lacks knowledge and real world experience about the economy.
There are things a president can and can't do, but one of the things he most certainly can have an impact on is the economy. John McCain admits he has little knowledge about economic matters. Do we really want a president who can't help turn our economy around, particularly at this time with great economic challenges? Anytime McCain is asked an economic question, he looks like a deer caught in the headlights. He looks like how I'd react if you asked me about building a rocket ship...I wouldn't have a clue.
Admitting he's not an expert:
2. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts.
As evidence of his lack of knowledge on economics, McCain was one of only two Republican senators who voted against the Bush tax cuts. To this day he stands by his vote, even though he now says he wants to vote to keep them permanent. If he's going to flip/flop on an issue, at least have the honesty to admit you were wrong.
3. McCain echoes Democratic class warfare arguments.
Today, McCain falsely says that he voted against the Bush tax cuts because he wanted spending cuts attached. This is simply not true. If you go back and hear what he said at the time, he said he opposed them because they were a tax break for "the rich," an argument taken right out of the Democrat's playbook. "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 most need tax relief." As recently as 2004, McCain said on Meet the Press, "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit."
McCains weakness on economic issues is evident by his lack of understanding that lower taxes help the economy. Lower spending is certainly needed, but you don't bite off your nose to spite your face, and you don't vote against important tax-cutting legislation. He should have voted with his fellow Republicans for the tax cuts AND THEN continued to fight hard for spending cuts.
4. McCain limited free speech and helped Democratic candidates with his McCain/Feingold Bill.
It's interesting how McCain was willing to die for freedom as a soldier, only to become a politician and legislate that freedom away. If you don't like those negative ads you see running form 3rd-party groups, or if you think the media plays too big a role in who gets elected, you can blame McCain for that. When you try to limit personal freedoms, people will always find ways around those limits. Today, instead of hearing directly from the candidates, McCain/Feingold has limited their ability to share their message, turning it over to 3rd parties and the press. (Maybe McCain wanted to see this passed to keep him from the temptation of taking big money from people like Charles Keating again.)
5. McCain supported amnesty for all illegal immigrants.
Under the bill McCain supported, EVERY SINGLE illegal immigrant, unless a "criminal" (I guess just being in the country "illegally" isn't a crime?) would be pushed to the front of the line and could stay indefinitely in the country. So, according to McCain, if you come into the country illegally, you should be rewarded with a path to citizenship. That's not fair to the millions of foreigners who want to come into this country legally. I know of business professionals who have jumped through dozens and dozens of hoops for over ten years, paid tens of thousands of dollars, and played by the rules to be in this country and try to become a citizen LEGALLY. Why should those who broke our laws be given special privileges ahead of those who have obeyed them? Lastly, McCain says "I come from a boarder state, I know how to secure boarders." Then why hasn't he in the past 24 years he's been in Washington?
6. McCain sold out conservatives in appointing judges with his "Gang of 14."
John McCain, and his "Gang of 14," elevated senatorial privilege over efforts by the Bush administration to get conservative judges confirmed. He led this group that prevented conservatives from prohibiting the filibuster of judicial nominees.
7. McCain has consistently thwarted conservative efforts on domestic policy.
Listen to what Rick Santorum (R-PA) had to say about John McCain, "The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him, 6 years in the United States Senate as leader, one of the leaders of the Senate - the number-3 leader - who had the responsibility of trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side." 8. McCain is a good ol' boy Washington Insider.
Washington is completely broken. McCain has been there for nearly TWENTY FIVE YEARS! Think about that. What were YOU doing twenty five years ago? That's a long time to be in Washington, building up your old-boy network. The federal government in Washington is so messed up, we need someone from the OUTSIDE to help turn it around. If you're wondering why people like Senators Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman are supporting McCain, they were both part of his Gang of 14. Even Charlie Crist, Governor of Florida, is known to often take the non-conservative position on issues, so it's no surprise he chose to endorse McCain.
9. McCain has sadly resorted to Clinton-like lies and deceit.
Read my last blog for more on this one. McCain, feeling desperate as Romney gained on him in the polls in Florida, started telling a bald-face lie and misrepresenting Romney's position on the war. Time magazine agrees that McCain had no evidence for which to make his claim about Romney. This reminds me of what the Clintons tried to do to Obama when they took his remarks about Ronald Reagan out of context. Here is how the National Review saw it, "...doesn't justify the rank dishonesty of [McCain's] attack on Romney over the weekend. It's so shamelessly unfair, it's the kind of thing you'd expect of Bill Clinton attacking Barack Obama. Clearly, McCain wants to change the topic from the economy. And since he's suffering from his 'straight-talk' about his relative lack of knowledge of and interest in the economy, he's trying to compensate with the opposite of straight talk—blatant distortions—about Romney's record."
10. McCain, like the Democrats, disregards the economy in dealing with global warming.
The people in Michigan figured this one out, and is why Romney won easily there. McCain's ideas would have further handicapped our automobile industry. McCain wants to lay the burden of reducing CO2 emissions squarely on the American economy when it's a world problem. The 2003 McCain-Lieberman energy cap-and-trade bill would have increased energy costs for the average Florida family of four by $1,000.
11. McCain leans towards warmongering.
Read my last blog for more on McCain's position about the war in Iraq. He chides Romney for wanting to put pressure on the Iraqi government with plans and goals. I get this sense he wants the two wars we're already involved in to go on indefinitely, and can't wait to get his hands on Iran. I believe in negotiating from a position of strength, but that doesn't mean we write the Iraqi government a blank check and don't have a plan to win and withdraw. In his recent stump speeches in Florida, he talks about there being "more wars to come." (See video below.) The purpose for having a strong army and national defense is to AVOID wars. I want a president that will use our strength to keep us out of wars, not promise us more wars!
Listen to McCain promise us more wars:
12. McCain voted to keep us more dependent on foreign oil by voting against oil exploration in ANWR.
As we strive towards alternative fuels, we should at least buy us some time by getting off of foreign oil by utilizing the oil resources we have right here in America. Not only is McCain's position (as usual) opposite that of the Republican party, but he uses the harshest rhetoric of the left to convey that disagreement, saying that drilling in ANWR would be like strip mining Yellowstone, or drilling in the Everglades and the Grand Canyon. If we weren't as dependent on foreign oil, maybe McCain wouldn't need to be such a hawk in the Middle East.
13. McCain considered running as VP for Liberal Democrat John Kerry.
John McCain was offered the vice-presidential slot in the ticket by John Kerry and actually considered accepting running with Kerry against Bush-Cheney in 2004. Do you think Kerry made that offer because McCain is a strong, principled, mainstream conservative Republican? Do you think John Kerry would have ever made that same offer to Rudy, Mitt Romney or any other Republican? Do you think they would have even considered it?
14. McCain has a pessimistic, negative, and defeatist attitude
He calls it "straight talk," I call it defeatism. Instead of being optimistic and looking for a better way, his "straight talk" suggests we roll over and have to expect to lose jobs and fight more wars. No thanks! I want a president who believes in optimism and fighting for a better future, not just giving into the thinking of the past. If your president doesn't believe in a better economy and peace, how can we expect him to strive for it?
15. McCain can't control his temper.
McCain is well known for his hot temper. That's just not the image and temperament I want to have for the President of the United States and the guy with his finger on the nuclear trigger. Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known Senator John McCain for more than three decades, recently endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Cochran said his choice was prompted partly by his fear of how McCain might behave in the Oval Office, saying: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
McCain says "F-U" to fellow Republican colleague
16. McCain is a little "too" tight with many Democrats.
It's no surprise that Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton, as well as liberal media like The New York Times, like and support John McCain. What's not to like for them? Other than his position on the war, he's a lot like them. Listen to what Bill Clinton recently said, “She [Hillary Clinton] and John McCain are very close. They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history and they’re afraid they’d put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other.” Reaching across the isle to work together is one thing, but embracing so many of their ideals is another.
McCain and Hillary
17. McCain can't win in Nov. against the Democrats.
In November two things will likely still be true: 1) the economy will be a major issue for all voters, and 2) even with the success with the surge, Americans will want to know we have a plan to eventually get out of Iraq. McCain is weak on both these points. He's weak on economy issues and continues to beat the war drum, when even today, after the success of the surge, the vast majority of American's are very unhappy with the war. The Democrats will have a field day with McCain, and they know it.
Unfortunately, if McCain wins the nomination, conservative Republicans will feel like you have to choose between two Democrats. The one area the Democrats and McCain will differ on is the war, which remains unpopular amongst the vast majority of Americans.
"I'm here to tell you, if [McCain]...gets the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party, it's going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren't going to vote. You watch." Rush Limbaugh
Conservative Republicans are being asked by John McCain to make a whole pile of compromises to support him. I think some will, but it will be unlikely that he will win the Presidency. I know the polls TODAY say McCain has the best chance against the Democrats come November, but I think he'll fail to rally the conservative support. Sure, some may vote for him rather than Clinton or Obama, but will they raise money and campaign hard for him?
Want some help in deciding who you should support for President in 2008? Take this simple, one-question test to help you decide:
Which of the following three positions would YOU support with the war in Iraq?
Position 1: Surrenderand set an immediate timetable for withdraw from Iraq and announce the withdrawal timetable publicly?
Position 2: Stay in Iraq indefinitely, even 100 years if that's what it takes. Set no goals or benchmarks, even privately, with the Iraqi government. Win at all costs and give the Iraqi government a blank check and unlimited time to take over from US troops, without timetables, benchmarks or goals.
Position 3: Never surrender, but keep strong pressure on the new Iraqi government so the US troops can gradually withdraw.Have a plan, goals and benchmarks for withdrawal which are discussed in private with the Iraqi government. Withdrawal gradually, not in surrender, but as appropriate with a successful and timely handoff to a new and stable Iraqi government.
OK, have your answer?
If you like Position 1, then you should consider voting for any of the democratic candidates or Ron Paul.
If you like Position 2, you should consider voting for John McCain.
If you like Position 3, you should consider voting for Mitt Romney.
John McCain is feeling desperate and the pressure is getting to him. If you've followed his career, you know what McCain does when things don't go his way. He gets mean, loses his cool and starts distorting the truth.
McCain knows that the American people, particularly those in Florida on Tuesday, are more concerned about the economy than any other issue right now. That's bad news for McCain, who admits he is weak on economic issues. He started by distorting his OWN record in the debate this week in Florida when he plead ignorance when Tim Russert brought up McCain's own statements he made just last month about his lack of knowledge on the economy.
Now, in a desperate effort to bring the discussion away from the economy, John McCain is completely distorting statements Mitt Romney made on Good Morning America back in March. Romney (so much for McCain's "straight talk express"). Romney, who has always supported Position 3 above, is having these statements taken out of context by John McCain to suggest he supports Position 1. Nonsense.
For those of you who don't like reading only the headlines or statements taken out of context, here is the entire exchange on Good Morning America, and you judge for yourself:
Robin Roberts: “Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the President in the troop surge. Yet the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?”
Mitt Romney: “Well, there's no question but that the President and, and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police and the leadership of the Iraqi government. ”
Robin Roberts: “So private? You wouldn't do it publicly. Because the President has said, flat out, that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop, troop withdrawals. As President would you do the same?”
Mitt Romney: “Well, of course. Could you imagine the setting where, where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, ‘Gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, we’ll go home. Or if we haven’t gotten this accomplished, we’ll, we’ll pick up and leave.’ You don’t publish that to your enemy or they simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the, with the opposition.”
It's very clear in reading this that Romney takes Position 3. Romney is saying there SHOULD be a plan, discussions, timetables, goals, benchmarks, etc., discussed in private with the Iraqi government, so that we can start to pull our troops out. This is different than John McCain who has said he's prepared to stay in Iraq for 100 years, and blindly let the Iraqi government have a blank check to take their time without any goals (which is what he must believe if he takes issue with Romney's comments on Good Morning America).
Last week, the Clintons knowingly took comments made by Barack Obama about Ronald Reagan out of context. They intentionally twisted around what Obama was saying, even running radio spots taking his comments out of context, only to later pull the advertising when it was obvious what they were doing. John McCain is doing the exact same thing here. He is taking statements by Mitt Romney out of context, knowing full well Mitt Romney has never supported a public withdrawal timetable. Time magazine has said that there is no evidence of what McCain is claiming.
Just like this backfired on the Clintons, making them just look dishonest and deceitful, this will also backfire on McCain, in three ways: 1) It shows that McCain is getting desperate and resorting to slimy, dirty, political tricks, 2) its punctuates the fact that McCain is weak on economics and will avoid that topic at all costs, and 3) highlights his Position 2 on the war, when most Republicans like Position 3.
So, even if John McCain is successful in temporarily pulling people's attention away from the economy, he'll just end up spotlighting his irresponsible, ill-planned, and warmongering stance on the war in Iraq.
Kevin
PS: John McCain will be on Meet the Press tomorrow. Hopefully Tim Russert won't let McCain get away with how he's trying to distort Romney's record. It's pretty hard to get spin past Russert.
If I hear John McCain say "my friends" one more time, I think I'll have to turn off the TV and Radio until it's safe to come back out again.
Over 1,000 news stories containing both "John McCain" and "My friends" in just the last day!
I think we should replace water boarding war prisoners with a recording of McCain repeating over and over..."now, my friends...now, my friends...now, my friends..."
John, MY friend, GET A NEW LINE! You already come across as a grumpy old man, this only makes matters worse. =)
I'm sure many of you have watched the reality TV show Survivor. The one thing I really dislike about that series, is the strongest player almost never makes it until the end and wins. The concept of "may the best person win," rarely happens on Survivor. Why? Because the way the voting works on the show creates a dynamic where the weaker players are forced to ally themselves together to vote out the strongest player. After the tribes merge, the strongest player has a big X on his back, and becomes the target of the weaker players. If you've seen the show, you know exactly what I'm talking about, and you'll also understand how this same dynamic is playing out currently in the Republican primary.
Who is the strong player everyone is ganging up on? Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney had big leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and it was starting to look like he was going to take it all. No other single "player" was competitive in ALL of the early states, only Romney, so no one dared take him on one-on-one, so they formed an alliance.
Rudy was a no show in the early states, McCain, looking old and tired, was sinking in the national polls and in Iowa, and Huckabee was a no-show in New Hampshire and the other states where they didn't have a strong Evangelical Christian base. Romney was the ONLY candidate in a position to win the first few states. So, what did these weaker players do? The same thing the weaker players on Survivor do, they formed an alliance to take out the strongest player, giving them a chance.
An alliance formed between Rudy, Huckabee and McCain. Rudy needed Huckabee to take Romeny out in Iowa and McCain to take Romney out in New Hampshire. So, these three weaker candidates started gaining up on Romney. If you watched the Republican debate tonight, it was very clear who everyone was gunning for.
Once in a great while, the strong player on Survivor is able to win enough "immunity challenges" to actually make it to the end. It's very rare, but happens occasionally. If Romney can win in New Hampshire, he will have foiled the Rudy/McCain/Huckabee alliance's strategy. If he can't, just as is usually the case with Survivor, a less capable player will win the crown. (After the alliance takes out Romney, they then need to turn on themselves, fighting over which of these three now gets to take the lead if Romney is out. My guess is it will be McCain, leaving Rudy and Huckabee with the short end of their alliance.)
The real loser, however, should this happen, is the Republican party. The winner? The Democrats, who will have a field day with Huckabee, and stand a greater chance against the weaker, "grumpy old man" McCain or Rudy.
If you ever jump into Survivor in the middle of the season, having missed the first few episodes, and you want to know who the strongest player is, just look for the one everyone else is trying to take out of the game. You don't see any alliances to take out Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, or Paul, because none of them really fears any of the others, because they all have weaknesses that can be exploited. Romney is the one candidate that is strong enough it will take an alliance to take him out. For the sake of the Republican party, I hope this doesn't happen, and the strongest player stays in the game to take on the Democrats.
Kevin
PS: Something worth watching about Mike Huckabee by Glen Beck, who was recovering from surgery:
I also wanted to comment on this ad by John McCain...
McCain never specifically went after the "bridge to nowhere," in fact, he was absent for key votes on its funding.
McCain never proposed cutting the bear study and actually voted for the final bill containing it.
McCain wasn't present for the most important votes on the Woodstock museum, including one on an amendment he co-sponsored to kill the earmark and divert some of the funds.
If you're going to go after these pork projects, you need to be there to vote against them.
Posts
