August Max: January 2008

Thursday, January 31, 2008

John McCain Hates Me

By Michael Reagan

January 31, 2008

Until last night, when I watched the Republican debate, I had no idea how much John McCain dislikes me and just about everybody else but Rudy Giuliani, who, if you believe The New York Times, is a pretty good hater himself.

As I watched McCain and Governor Romney go at it during the debate at the Reagan Library, I was struck by the huge gap that separates McCain -- whose contempt for his fellow humans is patently obvious -- and my dad, Ronald Reagan, who had nothing but the deepest affection and respect for the American people.

The feeling is mutual between McCain and me. I don't like the way he treats people. You get the impression that he thinks everybody is beneath him. He seems to be saying, "I was a war hero, and you had damn well better treat me as your superior."

He has contempt for conservatives who he thinks can be duped into thinking he's one of them, despite such blatantly anti-conservative actions as his support for amnesty for illegal immigrants, his opposition to the Bush tax cuts which got the economy rolling again, and his campaign finance bill which skewed the political process and attacked free speech.

I am appalled by his contempt for the intelligence of his listeners when he flat-out lies and expects them to believe what he says even when the truth is staring them in the face.

A prime example cited by columnist Robert Novak was McCain's denial that he had privately suggested that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative, insisting that he recalled saying no such thing, adding that Alito was a "magnificent" choice.

"In fact," wrote Novak, "multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago."

In last night's debate, McCain stubbornly defended his charge, false on the face of it, that Romney wanted a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

"I have never, ever supported a specific timetable for withdrawing troops," Romney said, adding that McCain's accusation on the eve of Tuesday's primary "...sort of falls into the dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible."

What Romney said last April, was merely that U.S. and Iraqi leaders "have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about" in private, which in no way suggests he was in any sense talking about troop withdrawals.

Despite the evidence, McCain charged that "of course he said he wanted a timetable" for a withdrawal, even though he had never said any such thing. It was McCain daring to ask us if we wanted to believe our lying eyes or his demonstrably false allegation.

McCain must think conservatives are dumb enough to allow him to get away with claiming he's one of them. This is from a man who opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and who twice voted against President Bush's tax cuts and sponsored the campaign-finance reform legislation that Romney claimed "took a whack at the First Amendment."

In John McCain's eyes, conservatives are the Viet Cong of this generation, and he treats us as such. It's either his way or no way.

I despise his habit of talking down to us, like a wise father to an idiot son. He's just at a loss to understand why everybody doesn't grovel at his feet and accept his every word as wisdom handed down from his lofty perch atop Mt. Olympus.

I can't help it. I know in my heart he hates me, and every conservative. If he gets the nomination. the only way he could win against Hillary or Barack Obama would be to be part of a McCain-Limbaugh ticket.

Bob Novak Confirm's McCain's Alito Comment

By Kyle Hampton

Robert Novak confirms what John Fund said last week: McCain has serious reservations about conservative jurists like Justice Alito. Novak writes:

I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund's source, and neither knew I was talking to the other.

As I said last week in response to Fund’s assertion:

As for the judges, this is truly disturbing. Alito is no Ann Coulter, a provacative figure that takes pleasure in deriding McCain's friends across the aisle. He is a thoughtful and intelligent jurist whose measured approach has been a model of restraint. To say that Alito wears his conservatism on his sleeve is just patently false. If Alito's conservatism is worn on his sleave, there are few conservatives that do not.Moreover, this issue gets at the question of McCain's ability to judge the judicial philosophy of judicial nominees. If Alito's conservatism is too provacative, principled jurists like Scalia and Thomas would certainly be excluded. We have had many Republican presidents who have been unable to distinguish between conservative and liberal jurists. President Eisenhower nominated two of the most liberal judges (Warren and Brennan) the court has ever had. Gerald Ford nominated Justice Stevens. Bush 41 famously got "Soutered" by one of his picks to the Supreme Court. All of these misteps have further entrenched liberal ideology and seriously hindered true conservative change.

Ed Morrissey over at Captain's Quarters says this:

This actually makes it slightly worse. The Fund quote implied that McCain wouldn't appoint an Alito because he thought Alito was too overtly conservative. Novak's report shows that it wasn't Alito's overtness, but his conservatism that McCain found unattractive. That won't help convince conservatives to trust McCain on judicial nominations.

--Posted By Kyle to My Man Mitt at 1/31/2008 10:22:00 AM

The Encyclopedia Mittanica

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Two Mistakes Made by the Florida Voters

By Kyle Hampton

From the results of the Florida primary, there appears to be two distinct mistakes being made by supporters of John McCain:

The first mistake is that voters have mistaken McCain for General Petraeus. McCain is correct in identifying himself as one of the chief advocates for a change in military strategy. It is one thing, though, to have been an advocate for change and the actual accomplishment of it.

It is not McCain that has been implementing strategic and tactical decisions. That post has been occupied by David Petraeus. To equate or conflate the two is to seriously misunderstand McCain’s role in the success in Iraq. McCain was an important voice, but that is all we can credit him for. McCain would have us not distinguish between the advisory role that he has played for the last 25 years in the Senate and the executives (Petraeus, Reagan, etc.) who have actually brought about the real changes McCain has only talked about.

The second mistake being made is the diminution of the role that the economy plays in our individual and national liberty. The principle and lasting accomplishment of Reagan’s tenure was a rethinking of the economy. Through the reorientation of the economy, Reagan was able to not only end the stagflation of the 1970’s, but was able to win the Cold War.

It was through economic dominance that the United States beat the Soviets. It was not the result of superior battle strategies (given that there weren't any military engagements as such), but through prosperity brought about through a strong economy.

Likewise, today our ability to defeat our foes (i.e., al Qaeda) abroad and compete with rivals (i.e., China) depends on the health of our economy. Reagan’s use of the economy to defeat the Soviets is one of the underappreciated truths of our time.

Milton Friedman’s book, Capitalism and Freedom, notes the relationship between a free and prosperous economy and individual freedom:

On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.

A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on.

Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.

Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important because of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.

Thus, our economic freedom has a close relationship to our political freedom. Increasing regulation of our economic freedoms (McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman) are essentially assaults on our political freedom. Our tax burden (votes against the Bush tax cuts) likewise limits our political freedom.

These are not old positions that McCain has learned from, but are currently held positions where McCain seeks to limit our freedom. By doing so he diminishes our political freedom and our ability, as discussed above, to fight our foes and compete with our rivals.

--Posted By Kyle to My Man Mitt at 1/30/2008 07:03:00 PM

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

A McCain Monarchy? Heaven Forbid.

The facts and stats are simple and straight: according to CNN's Election Center 2008, McCain did not win amongst Republicans -- and that loss was by a wide margin.

Despite the urgency of certain issues affecting our country, particularly the present delicateness of our economy, moderates and liberals persist in helping McCain win delegates.

Non-Republicans once again took the win away from Mitt Romney (the only candidate of either party capable of harnessing and controlling our economic instabilities, as well as standing nose to nose to our enemies) and handed it to John McCain, who has little or no experience in the financial arena (proven by his evasive answers to clear and direct questions asked of him at the January 24, 2008 debate in Boca Raton on how he would -- or could -- provide a list, or at least suggestions, of practical remedies and/or solutions).

In a January 30, 2008 Time article, writer Michael Scherer makes clear: "McCain, Huckabee and a nation of disconcerted Republican voters now threaten to reformulate that coalition. Romney is certainly not a lifelong member of the old conservative movement. But as it stands, he may be the only thing left to hold it together. " And this is from a liberal mainstream journalist.

As we all know, Florida is a take-all state with open voting. Fred Thompson dropped out in the middle after absentees were sent out and the Florida governor (who loves McCain's immigration stance) was behind McCain.

Despite all the shmoozy liberal media coverage given to him, McCain still did not get a majority of the state ... and the "conservatives in the know" are betting they were not the majority of conservative votes.

In "McCain: Shifting American Politics to the Left -- MSM Loving It!", the author provides serious information and irrefutable points of view. This is a must read for conservatives who consider McCain's candidacy only fanciful -- and that kind of thinking will only serve to sink the Republican Party.

Which leads me to ask: Are conservatives deaf, dumb and blind? Don't they see what is happening? Yes, McCain is the "chosen" darling of the liberal media (as are all of the other Democrat candidates). But if McCain gets the nomination -- with the help, of course, of the mainstream media -- then the only candidates left standing will be two liberal Democrats (Clinton, Obama) and one liberal Republican (McCain). And then it wouldn't matter which of those three would succeed to the Presidency, because their dynamics would shift the entire United States of America to the left, away from conservatism, possibly for the next 20 years.

Columnists such as John LeBoutillier and Ronald Kessler are in agreement about John McCain, and are unafraid to state the truth, that McCain is not the man best able to control the White House on the basis that he is psychologically unsound. Think about this: Remember the Iranian speed boats confronting our naval task force? If it were President McCain in that moment, he, with his uncontrollable temper, probably would've given our Navy commanders the order to shred the speed boats and hence initiate World War III. And then the U.S. economy would take a death dive (as it nearly did directly after 9/11, from which we're still trying to recover).

Florida's gift to McCain is a hard pill to swallow, but remember: the RNC still has a large number of votes that they pulled back from states that moved their primaries -- and McCain has ticked off many members of the RNC.

Mitt Romney is still in this race, and he's made it clear he won't quit. In light of his determination, no true conservative should rest his or her efforts on Mitt's behalf, because, as Yogi Berra said: "It ain't over 'til it's over."

Thereafter, the new conservative motto will be: "It ain't over 'til WE say it's over."

McCain to Kerry: "I want to join the 2004 Democratic Ticket"

If you thought you knew the real John McCain -- foul mouth and all -- then you're mistaken.

Back in the 2004 Presidential race, McCain approached John Kerry and told him he wanted to cross over to the Democrats, because he wanted the Vice Presidency.

If you doubt this, here is the interview, print and audio.

THIS IS NOT ALTERNATE HISTORY:

John Kerry: McCain Approached Me About Joining Dem Ticket in 2004

by Jonathan Singer

Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:30:45 AM EST

Note: You can now read the rest of the interview with Senator Kerry here.

On Monday afternoon I had the chance to speak with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic Party's nominee for President in 2004. During the interview, which covers a range of topics and which I will be posting later this afternoon, an item of particular interest jumped out at me: According to Sen. Kerry, it was John McCain's staff who approached his campaign about potentially filling the Vice President slot on the Democratic ticket in 2004. Take a listen to and a look at the interchange...

If you're having trouble with the Odeo player you can download the .mp3 file here.

Jonathan Singer: There's a story in The Hill, I think on Tuesday, by Bob Cusack on the front page of the paper talking about how John McCain's people -- John Weaver -- had approached Tom Daschle and a New York Congressman, I don't remember his name, about switching parties. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your discussions were with him in 2004, how far it went, who approached whom... if there was any "there" there.

John Kerry: I don't know all the details of it. I know that Tom, from a conversation with him, was in conversation with a number of Republicans back then. It doesn't surprise me completely because his people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President. So his people were active -- let's put it that way.

Singer: Okay. And just to confirm, you said it, but this is something they approached you rather than...

Kerry: Absolutely correct. John Weaver of his shop... [JK aswers phone]

As you might know from reading my posts in the past, I don't usually addend my own thoughts to my interviews. I like to think they speak for themselves. But in light of the fact that I have written about a closely-related subject and I think this item is particularly newsworthy, if you'll oblige me I'd like to write a few words here.

For many Republicans, it has been bad enough that John McCain has voted and worked with Democrats against the majority of Republican Senators on a number of occasions in recent years. For Republicans, I would imagine that reports that he approached the Democrats about leaving the Senate GOP caucus in 2001 represent a borderline unpardonable offense.

But it seems that reaching out to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to talk about running on that party's ticket would be tantamount to the highest form of political treason to Republicans.

Certainly, I would assume that McCain's campaign will deny Kerry's account of their interactions. In fact I would be surprised if they didn't push back on this story, as they did to the story in The Hill last week. (A call for comment to the McCain campaign was not returned before the time this story was published.)

That said, at least from my vantage this story could hardly come at a worse time for McCain, whose campaign for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination is already noticeably foundering.

Monday, January 28, 2008

McCain's Desperate Dishonesty

Originally posted by Kyle Hampton at http://www.mymanmitt.com/:

There's a lot out today about McCain's continued dishonest portrayal of Romney's Iraq position and I thought I would do a run down:

Paul Mirengoff: In doing so, he relies on a statement, which cannot fairly be construed as advocating withdrawal. This is the conclusion of virtually everyone who has looked at the issue, except for some of McCain’s supporters. McCain, in short, has smeared Romney.

Quin Hillyer: John McCain today flat-out lied about Gov. Romney's position on the troop "surge," etc. This is no surprise. McCain's "straight talk express" has been anything but straight for quite some time now. He has been making false claims about what his position on immigration was just last summer. He has been making false claims about why he opposed Bush's tax cuts. He has been making false claims about Romney's stance on "torture." He has made misleading (not exactly false, but certainly misleading) representations about Giuliani's position on the line item veto. He has misrepresented his helpfulness on judicial nominations. And I know I am forgetting some of the other things he has not been exactly straight about.

Mark Levin: Since McCain and his surrogates insist on making this a big issue, let's engage them. They are dissembling about what Romney said. I have provided quotes below. We have now heard from Woolsey, who is repeating the disinformation. And we have now viewed the video-tape, which clears Romney of the allegation, i.e., he did not call for a specific time to withdraw our troops. Now, if this is the big bombshell the McCain campaign is using in the days before the Florida vote (albeit people are casting votes throughout via absentee ballots), it's pretty disgraceful stuff.

Allahpundit: Yeah, pretty egregious. He never said he “wanted” to withdraw or that he wanted a date set, and it’s patently clear he doesn’t want any timetables publicly announced.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: It’s a reminder — like the McCain campaign’s dishonest line of attack this weekend — that as admirable McCain is as both a hero and a politician, he is not irreproachable even on national-security issues. McCain is fond of saying he’d rather lose a political campaign than a war; he now seems to be swimming close to using the war to win a political campaign in the most dishonest of ways. It’s conduct unbecoming a man we all respect.

Marc Ambinder: Then he was asked to justify his contention that Romney once supported a withdrawal timetable for Iraq . (I wrote this morning that McCain "stretched" history with the remark, and a few moments before this particular question received a stern talking to by two McCain aides and one reporter.)

Ed Morrissey: This is a fundamentally dishonest attack. One of the reasons why some Republicans who have opposed McCain over issues like the BCRA and immigration have tried to keep a civil tongue in discussing McCain is because of the respect he has earned as a stalwart on the war. He deserves that respect; he has been an indispensable voice for the effort and has the right to hold himself up as that. However, he should be showing that respect to others who have supported the war and the troops.

David Freddoso: McCain’s unfair stab at Romney this weekend may not cost him anything. The endorsement from Florida ’s popular governor, Charles Crist, came at just the right time to bury the item in the local news. And if he does win the nomination, this moment may not even be remembered. Unfortunately, the truth is always too complicated for a quick explanation.

Additionally:

John Fund says that John McCain didn't like the nomination of Justice Alito:

“Mr. McCain bruised his standing with conservatives on the issue when in 2005 he became a key player in the so-called gang of 14, which derailed an effort to end Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve."”

Therein lies the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain. It is the nagging feeling that after all of his years of chummily bonding with liberal reporters and garnering favorable media coverage from them that the Arizona senator is embarrassed to be seen as too much of a conservative.”

Couldn't have said it better myself. McCain should just come out and say it "I'm a moderate." For all his "straight talk" McCain has left out the most important piece of the puzzle: humself. If McCain were being honest with himself he would come out and tell the world that he is no conservative.

As for the judges, this is truly disturbing. Alito is no Ann Coulter, a provocative figure that takes pleasure in deriding McCain's friends across the isle. He is a thoughtful and intelligent jurist whose measured approach has been a model of restraint. To say that Alito wears his conservatism on his sleeve is just patently false. If Alito's conservatism is worn on his sleave, there are few conservatives that do not.

Moreover, this issue gets at the question of McCain's ability to judge the judicial philosophy of judicial nominees. If Alito's conservatism is too provacative, principled jurists like Scalia and Thomas would certainly be excluded. We have had many Republican presidents who have been unable to distinguish between conservative and liberal jurists. President Eisenhower nominated two of the most liberal judges (Warren and Brennan) the court has ever had. Gerald Ford nominated Justice Stevens. Bush 41 famously got "Soutered" by one of his picks to the Supreme Court. All of these misteps have further entrenched liberal ideology and seriously hindered true conservative change.

John McCain, whose conservatism begins and ends with the War in Iraq, would be an absolute disaster for America domestically and especially with the courts. His disdain for "agents of intollerance" and other advocates on issues of life, gay marriage, and other social issues is barely contained. He has tried at every point to undermine their ability to advocate (i.e. McCain-Feingold) and now would avoid nominating judges who supposedly wear their conservatism on their sleeves. The contempt for social conservatives could hardly be more.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

The Media's Calculated Contrivances

We're all familiar with the fact that the mainstream media makes a pig's breakfast out of Presidential Primaries. They deliberately pick and choose which candidate or candidates should be favored over others when it comes to press coverage.

Searching Google News for the winner of each primary or caucus, we used the following specific terms to gather data:

The first number inside the parentheses is the approximate number of results found. For comparison, the second figure is the number of delegates won by the candidate (according to CNN).

Huckabee won in Iowa (2,365 - 17)

Romney won in Wyoming (270 - 8)

McCain won in New Hampshire (5,145 - 7)

Romney won in Michigan (1,239 - 24)

Romney won in Nevada (1,173 - 18)

McCain won in South Carolina (3,806 - 19)

Of the three states he was declared the winner, Mitt Romney received the most coverage for his win in Michigan, about 1,239 stories, where he earned 24 delegates.

By contrast, John McCain earned only 7 delegates in his New Hampshire win but enjoyed the publicity from 5,145 news stories.

To look at this another way, the most stories written about any of Romney's three wins was 1,239 for Michigan while the fewest stories written about any of his opponents' wins was 2,365 for Huckabee's win in Iowa.

If Mitt Romney, who has gained more delegates than any other Republican candidate, were to receive the same coverage for his primary/caucus wins, it's reasonable to believe he might be enjoying the frontrunner status that too many in the myopic mainstream press are giving to McCain today.

This is just another example of the MSM reporting only what they want "We, the People" to see, hear, and know.

What's worse, if voters accept everything the press delivers and swallow it whole and elect the wrong man, the People will end up choking on it ... and by that time it will be too late.

Friday, January 18, 2008

We should pity people like these ... or not

Chinese Navy Confronted USS Kitty Hawk

Newsmax.com

Chinese Navy Confronted USS Kitty Hawk Wednesday
January 16, 2008 9:07 AM
By: Newsmax Staff

A Chinese attack submarine and destroyer confronted the U.S. carrier Kitty Hawk and its battle group in the Taiwan Strait, sparking a tense 28-hour standoff that brought both sides to a battle-ready position.

The American ships were heading to Japan following China’s sudden cancellation of a scheduled Thanksgiving port call in Hong Kong when they encountered the Chinese vessels, according to the Navy Times, which cited a report in a Chinese-language newspaper in Taiwan.

The Times reported that the encounter caused the carrier group “to halt and ready for battle, as the Chinese vessels also stopped amid the 28-hour confrontation.”

The encounter ended without incident, however, and the U.S. ships continued on to Japan. The two Chinese vessels were also headed for a port call in Japan.

The Chinese destroyer, Shenzhen, is armed with anti-ship missiles, while the Song-class attack sub is equipped with anti-ship missiles and a variety of torpedoes.

China has expressed “grave concern” to the U.S. over the Kitty Hawk’s transit through the Taiwan Strait, the Times notes. Beijing claims Taiwan is Chinese territory.

But Admiral Timothy Keating, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters Tuesday: “We don’t need China’s permission to go through the Taiwan Strait. We will exercise our free right of passage whenever and wherever we choose.”

Shortly before the Kitty Hawk battle group was denied entry to Hong Kong, China had refused safe harbor for two U.S. Navy minesweepers seeking refuge from a storm.

As Newsmax has reported, some U.S. politicians have rung alarm bells about China's increased military spending and technological revamping of its armed forces.

China’s military budget had an average annual growth rate of nearly 16 percent from 1994 to 2004, and China's reported 2006 military budget is about $35 billion, according to Beijing.
But Pentagon sources have said these numbers fail to demonstrate the true scope of the growth, and the real 2006 figure could be as much as $105 billion.

In recent years China has upgraded its nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles; bought state-of-the-art warships, fighter planes and submarines from Russia; and begun development of a number of so-called "asymmetrical" weapons, including informational warfare and anti-satellite systems.

In November, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda warned that China’s continuing military buildup could eventually pose a “major threat” if the Chinese government decides to exercise its power.

August Max