John McCain constantly touts his honesty and refers to his campaign as the "Straight Talk Express." Is he serious?

 

This past weekend, McCain accused Mitt Romney of advocating withdrawal from Iraq. Did McCain lie? I believe that he did. At the very least McCain deliberately tried to mislead voters about Romney's Iraq War position.

 

The Arizona senator opened the skirmish by reviving remarks Romney made last April on ABC's "Good Morning America." When asked whether he favored a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, Romney said, "There's no question that [President Bush] and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about," but added those benchmarks should not be a "public pronouncement."

 

McCain seized on the comment Saturday morning while visiting the Shell Factory and Nature Park in Fort Myers. Speaking to reporters after a crowded town hall meeting, he charged that Romney "wanted to set a date for withdrawal similar to what the Democrats have [been] seeking, which would have led to a victory by Al Qaeda in my view."

 

"If we surrender and wave the white flag, like Sen. [Hillary Rodham] Clinton wants to do, and withdraw as Gov. Romney wanted to do," McCain said, "then there will be chaos, genocide, and the cost in American blood and treasure will be dramatically higher." McCain, Romney trade accusations

QUESTION: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?

 

MR. ROMNEY: Well, there’s no question but that — the president 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.

 

QUESTION: 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 withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?

 

MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven’t reached the Rhine by this date, why, we’ll go home, or if we haven’t gotten this accomplished we’ll pull up and leave? You don’t publish that to your enemy, or they just 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 opposition.

Contrast Romney's words with what McCain said a few months earlier:

McCain in no way is withdrawing his backing for the war or President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops. It was unclear what consequences or timetables McCain would spell out, or whether he believes that Congress has the authority to enforce them.

Still, several Senate Democrats who oppose the troop buildup and also may seek the presidency said they were struck by McCain's comments.

"We Catholics call that an epiphany," said Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., who is sponsoring the main Democratic resolution opposing the troop buildup.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said: "I called for that . . . several weeks ago. I'm glad that John McCain agrees with me.

"He's somebody who has enormous influence with the White House. He's been one of the key champions of this escalation of troops." McCain considers setting benchmarks for Iraqis

I leave it to you to decide which candidate has come closest to mirroring the Democrats' views on timetables for withdrawal from Iraq.

 

In my opinion, and in the opinion of many objective observers with no dog in this fight, McCain owes Romney the apology that Romney demanded.

Looks like John McCain needs to plug some of the loopholes in McCain-Feingold that have allowed lobbyists to continue to exercise an inordinate amount of influence in our electoral process. Some might see Senator McCain's own reliance on lobbyists somewhat hypocritical. By some accounts, McCain's campaign employees more lobbyists than any other candidate of either party.

 

Ex-reformer McCain depends on lobbyists

 

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) built a name for himself fighting to reduce the influence lobbyists have over Washington.

Now his 2008 presidential ambitions may rest with a handful of lobbyists.

After a disappointing first-quarter fundraising effort, McCain put two lobbyists -- Tom Loeffler and Wayne Berman -- in charge of raising cash for his campaign. This week, after burning through campaign cash in the second quarter, he moved another lobbyist -- Richard Davis -- into the role of campaign manager.

 

In effect, that means lobbyists now both raise and spend McCain's campaign cash, fundamentally tying the most recognizable name in campaign finance reform to Washington's money complex.

 

But the greatest irony of all is that success by his new team in righting the campaign's momentum could mean that, of all the 2008 hopefuls, McCain could be most indebted to the lobbying and special-interest-money community that he has long sought to diminish.

Maybe we should bring up their spar over jobs in Michigan where McCain not only affirmed his campaign's nomenclature but showed he has a better grasp on how to create jobs in a global economy.

Maybe we should bring up their spar over jobs in Michigan where McCain not only affirmed his campaign's nomenclature but showed he has a better grasp on how to create jobs in a global economy.

The Republican voters in Michigan were not nearly as impressed with McCain's grasp on the economy. If you believe that US jobs in the auto industry have been permanently lost, then how do you explain the success of Toyota, Honda, and other foreign companies thriving by making automobiles on American soil, using American labor?

 

McCain has never met a payroll and he has never created a job in the private sector - at least none of which I am aware. If you have information to support McCain's claimed grasp of the global economy, I would love to see the evidence.

Of course, Mr. Romney has chosen to criticize McCain about McCain-Feingold, conveniently flip-flopping from his own 1994 positions about limiting campaign contributions.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-04-30-1717068794_x.htm

Of course, Mr. Romney has chosen to criticize McCain about McCain-Feingold, conveniently flip-flopping from his own 1994 positions about limiting campaign contributions.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-04-30-1717068794_x.htm

I agree with Romney's current position, not the one that he espoused 14 years ago.

I agree with Romney's current position, not the one that he espoused 14 years ago.

 

The Republican voters in Michigan were not nearly as impressed with McCain's grasp on the economy. If you believe that US jobs in the auto industry have been permanently lost, then how do you explain the success of Toyota, Honda, and other foreign companies thriving by making automobiles on American soil, using American labor?

 

:lol: How do I explain the success of Toyota and other Asian car manufacturers in the U.S. when I was talking about Michigan? Perhaps you should explain the massive unemployment figures in Michigan since so much success is to be had in the auto industry.

 

McCain has never met a payroll and he has never created a job in the private sector - at least none of which I am aware. If you have information to support McCain's claimed grasp of the global economy, I would love to see the evidence.

 

If you support free-trade then you're going to have a hard time retaining manufacturing jobs, which Romney claims he would be able to do in Michigan. McCain has said that new jobs in Michigan need to and can be created, rather than wait on the old manufacturing jobs to come back, all while a retirement plan could be set up to phase out older workers. If the U.S. wants to be the benefactor and not the victim of globalization we're going to have to increase education in science and math and embrace new jobs rather than stamp our feet and hope we can retain our factory jobs. Especially in the auto industry, where we are facing a looming energy crisis.

Most people have probably never heard of Cablevision. My guess is that Hillary Clinton will make sure that most people will hear about it if McCain is the Republican nominee.

 

Recently the Reform Institute, which bills itself as "a thoughtful, moderate voice for reform in the campaign finance and election administration debates," launched what it calls the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. And what does natural resources stewardship have to do with "campaign finance and election administration"? As near as I can tell, its only connection to campaign finance and election administration is, as the institute's site tells us, that "Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman have introduced the Climate Stewardship Act" in Congress. And, of course, John McCain is planning to run for president again, and his signature issue, other than campaign finance regulation, is global warming. To run the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, the institute hired John Raidt, who, you guessed it, served 15 years working on "environmental initiatives" for Sen. McCain.

 

And how is the Reform Institute funded? With contributions, in six figures or more, from individuals and corporations, including the cable company Cablevision. Cable companies are constantly before the Senate Commerce Committee, which Sen. McCain chaired at the time of Cablevision's contribution. In fact,

Cablevision gave $200,000 to the Reform Institute around the same time its officials were testifying before the Senate Commerce Committee. Appearance of corruption, anyone?

John McCain's War on Political Speech

:lol: How do I explain the success of Toyota and other Asian car manufacturers in the U.S. when I was talking about Michigan? Perhaps you should explain the massive unemployment figures in Michigan since so much success is to be had in the auto industry.

Romney understands the relationship between tax policy and jobs. The Democrats who have been running Michigan's state government apparently do not.

 

Nothing is going to help Michigan until its tax rates are dropped but the situation is far from hopeless. Romney's optimism and his understanding of how the private sector economy works would give him a shot at winning the state in November and might help bring about change on the state level. McCain's "straight talk" and his failure to grasp the root of Michigan's problems give him no shot at carrying the state in the general election.

If you support free-trade then you're going to have a hard time retaining manufacturing jobs, which Romney claims he would be able to do in Michigan. McCain has said that new jobs in Michigan need to and can be created, rather than wait on the old manufacturing jobs to come back, all while a retirement plan could be set up to phase out older workers. If the U.S. wants to be the benefactor and not the victim of globalization we're going to have to increase education in science and math and embrace new jobs rather than stamp our feet and hope we can retain our factory jobs. Especially in the auto industry, where we are facing a looming energy crisis.

Again, foreign companies are operating profitably in this country. There is no reason to believe that Ford and GM cannot do the same and there is no reason that the people of Michigan cannot demand the kind of change that will make it possible.

 

I agree that improving science and math education is also a key to keeping this country competitive in the manufacturing sector.

McCain now

 

MR. GOLER: Senator McCain, you opposed President Bush's 2001 tax cuts. Now you say you were wrong. How can you convince Republican voters you will push a Democratic Congress hard enough to make those tax cuts permanent, sir?

 

SEN. MCCAIN: Well, first of all, I didn't say that I was wrong.

I said that the reason why I opposed those tax cuts was because we didn't rein in spending

.

Republican Presidential Debate in South Carolina

 

McCain then:

 

First, it is notable that Senator McCain stood so astride the Republican anti-tax position that

he was one of only two Republican senators to oppose the 2001 tax cuts[5] and one of only three GOP senators to oppose the 2003 reductions.[6]

 

Second, Senator McCain's stated reason for opposing the Bush tax cuts rhetorically allied him with the most radical anti-growth elements of national politics. Senator McCain argued,

"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 need tax relief.

"[7] Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) sounded a similar theme, saying, "Now, they are proposing more of the same, more tax breaks benefiting only the wealthiest among us,"[8] as did Democratic Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35): "I voted against the Republican tax cut plan, which is an irresponsible tax cut that will further undermine the nation's struggling economy at the expense of middle-class American families."[9] Senator McCain's eager embrace of grossly inaccurate class-warfare demagoguery demonstrated, at best, a painful ignorance of pro-growth economic principles.

 

Third, Senator McCain not only voted against the Bush tax cuts, he joined leading liberal senators in offering and voting for amendments designed to undermine them.

All in all, Senator McCain voted on the pro-tax side of 14 such amendments in 2001 and 2003.

John McCain's Record on Economic Issues

Senator McCain has repeatedly boasted about his lifetime 82 American Conservative Union rating. Just how conservative is John McCain?

 

In 2006, the last year for which ACU ratings are available, McCain ranked 47th among US Senators.

 

In 2005, McCain ranked 45th among US Senators.

 

McCain's lifetime rank among US Senators (in office in 2006) is 39th.

 

Rankings of 39th to 47th seems to place McCain squarely among the moderates in the Republican Party. Should we accept McCain's word that he is a conservative, or should we look at his actual voting record?

AcesFull, in the other thread, you stated that John McCain was as "dishonest as the day is long." I challenged you to find examples or retract the statement. You stated you would start a thread last night, and you started this one.

 

So far, what you have posted here is a series of articles that depict McCain's history of championing policies that are centrist, not conservative, and in which he opposed his party. I think my posts here will demonstrate that I absolutely 100% agree with you on those items. McCain is a centrist and not a conservative, and his record demonstrates that.

 

But NOTHING you have posted here tells me that he LIED about something. You called him a LIAR, and that is a very serious accusation. The closest thing you have done is pull an excerpt where he recently accused Mitt Romney of supporting a timetable for pullout, and you said that was a lie. I put Romney's statement on there showing it was not a lie, that he had made that statement, he had just characterized it as a "private" timetable and not a "public" one, and McCain had not mentioned that. That might be "spin," but it is not "lying."

 

I am asking again for you to give evidence that he is a liar. If it is merely that he is trying to paint himself as a conservative when he is not, that's fine, but then you need to be intellectually honest and do the same with Romney, whom I support but whom has changed his position on MANY issues in the last several years.

He's a politician, of course it's fiction.

He's a politician, of course it's fiction.

 

:thumb:

 

Does anyone really believe that McCain, a career politician, is somehow above the fray and an honest man?

 

I certainly don't. He plays the political game just the like the rest of the "contenders". The real "straight talkers" get ridiculed and trampled down by the media, so they never have a chance. If you want to get to the level McCain's at, then you play the game, and honesty is not the best policy if you want to win.