Sunday, January 27, 2008

Danger Mr. Robinson

THEN:In 2003 McCain said he wants amnesty. In 2006 and 2007 he led the fight in the Senate to give amnesty to illegals. He worked with Ted Kennedy on this issue.

NOW: In 2008 he now say he never was for amnesty and is for border security. And he still wants a "temporary" worker program. If anyone
can find an example of a temporary government program that didn't become permanent, I would be curious to see it. McCain has not changes his tune whatsoever. He is still for amnesty. You don't fight for a cause over a decade and then suddenly change your mind.

THEN: In 2001 McCain voted against tax cuts. In 2003 he voted against tax cuts. Both times he played the socialist class warfare game. He said, on numerous occasions, he thought the rich got too much of the tax cut at the expense of the poor. He ignored the fact that the poor pay no taxes and hence cannot logically get a tax cut. He sounded no different than Hillary or Kerry or Kennedy.

NOW: Says he wants to make the tax cuts permanent and voted against the cuts not because of class warfare but because there weren't enough spending cuts. The man is a fiscal liberal. He believes in the "soak the rich" mentality. Again, you don't fight against tax cuts for a decade and then flip flop overnight.

THEN: Founding member of Gang of 14. Opposed every conservative judge appointed by Bush. Worked with Harry Reid to filibuster judge after judge after judge.

NOW: No change. He still believes conservative judges are dangerous.

This man has been a Senator for 20 years. He has done everything in his power to thwart the conservative agenda.

This man is more dangerous than Hillary Clinton. If Hillary wins, it will galvanize conservatives for 2010 and 2012. It will lead to a revolution like 1994. 2 years of a Hillary/Dem congress would be awful, but we could get through it. It would be such and awful 2 years that nobody except the DailyKos crowd would want 2 more years and in 2010 things would turn around.

If McCain wins, it will devastate conservatives. We will have a far left liberal president and far left Congress. Amnesty will be a done deal, taxes will be raised by unimaginable numbers. Say bye bye Social Security income cap. Say 45% top marginal rates. Say hello socialized medicine for and all, including of course the 20 millionnew citizens from south of the border. And all the while conservatives will be kicked and spat on as being mean spirited racist crazies. The MSM will cheer 'bipartisanship'. Look how wonderful it is that a Rep and Dems can work together to turn is into a Spanish speaking France.

And finally just remember the NY TIMES has endorsed him. If nothing else makes you run away from this man, this should.

Please, I urge, beg and plead with you, do not vote for this man.

5 comments:

Sean said...

The first convincing vote-dem position I have ever heard. I know you have made the point before, but this time I am persuaded.

Malcolm said...

It’s a primary, he’s playing to the right.

I have to disagree with you, given the other republican choices:

Mitt – if you like bush, you’ll live Mitt. He’s Rove’s wet dream.

Rudy – ya, it was brave the way he didn’t run away screaming “oh my god, we’re all going to die”; and he has his list of 911 reason why we should vote for him.

Huckabee – I’m sure he’s a decent man, but we don’t want a Baptist preacher as president.

Paul – can’t get enough votes for the nomination, so debating him is pointless

Anonymous said...

Playing to the right. With the key word being PLAYING.

Mitt looks like a president would look if you had to make a president from scratch. But he's a business guy, I believe him on illegals and that's good enough for me, wet dream or no wet dream from Mr. Rove.

Malcolm said...

@ Anon

I could live with Mitt, except that a few of his statements are “deal killers” for me. Whenever asked about civil liberties, his answer is “the commander and chief can do whatever he wants”.

He even went as far as to claim this right even if the congress passes a law against it, and the supreme court upholds the law.

(Ref: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/RomneyQA/)

We’ve had nearly 8 years of people who believe that the constitution is an inconvenience to be avoided. That’s enough for me. If that means having a dem president, it’s worth it to pull back from the abyss that the anti-freedom crowd has taken us to.

Ed said...

ABM - Anyone but McCain