John McCain, having sewn up the nomination, went today to soothe the feelings of these people who call themselves "conservatives." He spoke to CPAC (I had to look it up, since I do my best not to let data about interest groups crowd the portions of my brain I prefer to use composing haiku, or thinking up Top Five lists). Here’s a release containing his entire speech, and here’s an excerpt:
I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles: that liberty is a right conferred by our Creator, not by governments, and that the proper object of justice and the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens. And like you, I understand, as Edmund Burke observed, that "whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither . . . is safe."
While I have long worked to help grow a public majority of support for Republican candidates and principles, I have also always believed, like you, in the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, who warned in an address to this conference in 1975, that "a political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers."
I attended my first CPAC conference as the invited guest of Ronald Reagan, not long after I had returned from overseas, when I heard him deliver his "shining city upon a hill" speech. I was still a naval officer then, but his words inspired and helped form my own political views, just as Ronald Reagan’s defense of America’s cause in Vietnam and his evident concern for American prisoners of war in that conflict inspired and were a great comfort to those of us who, in my friend Jerry Denton’s words, had the honor of serving "our country under difficult circumstances." I am proud, very proud, to have come to public office as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. And if a few of my positions have raised your concern that I have forgotten my political heritage, I want to assure you that I have not, and I am as proud of that association today as I was then. My record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstream conservative. I believe today, as I believed twenty-five years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense, judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are the true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and unborn….
I didn’t read past that because the topic bores me. Once people start genuflecting to Ronald Reagan, I look for the exits. But some of you might find it illuminating, so here.
Related Posts
Mccain is an amnesty, its his way or no way, that is unacceptable. I will hold my nose and vote for a democrat before I vote for Mccain. They all want amnesty, but at least the democrats will raise taxes to help pay for them, the new welfare folks.
Oh yeah? When’s the last time you saw a Democrat raise a tax? And when’s the last time you saw a Republican Congress hold down spending?
You folks just have to get over this “us vs. them” garbage. Parties are meaningless. What matters is the character of the individual candidate.
And none has a finer character than John McCain, although Obama’s is quite fine, too. If those two are on the ballot in November, EVERYONE is going to have to think past party and facile labels. And either way the nation chooses will likely be a good thing — but only if those are the two candidates.
The last Democrat that raised a tax?
That would be the last Democrat in the White House, Bill Clinton. His 1993 tax increase hiked taxes on Social Security benefits for seniors.
Before 1993, seniors paid taxes on half their Social Security benefits if their combined income exceeded $25,000 for individuals or $32,000 for couples. In 1993, the portion of taxable Social Security benefits increased to 85%, as individuals with incomes above $34,000 and couples with incomes above $44,000 became subject to the higher tax rate.
The last Republican Congress to hold down spending?
Well, in October of 1999, the Republican Congress sent Clinton a budget bill that would cut spending across the board, but he vetoed it. That same year, he vetoed a 10-year, $792 billion tax-cut plan sent to him by the same Republican Congress.
You see, Brad, it’s hard to cut spending whwn a Democrat’s got the government wallet in his hand.
Without us vs. them, the Democrats would have turned us into a third-world country by now.
The first paragraph you cite above, with McCain’s quote from Edmund Burke, is an elegantly concise summary of the conservative philosophy, one that open-minded people from all political viewpoints can at least hear, and respect. What the fringe right-wing ninnies are too dense to understand is, McCain actually could, through the strength of his personality, the widespread perception that he is a man of integrity, and the strength of his ideas, actually WIN converts to conservatism. That, in the good old days, was how ideas became policy: by argument, persuasion, compromise, consensus. Not by unilateralism, or “scorched-earth” partisanship.
Reading McCain’s entire speech, this progressive is enticed by the idea of a McCain-Obama matchup because it holds the potential of a civil but thorough debate between the two fundamental political viewpoints of our time, conservatism and progressivism, with all the sub-topics in-between. I envision debates that would rival Lincoln-Douglas.
Just to get it started, Johnny Mac: you slam the Dems for wanting some greater oversight over the government’s surveillance programs. How do you reconcile that with your statement today that “the proper object of justice and the rule of law is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty…of its citizens.” ?
When’s the last time you saw a Democrat raise a tax? 2007
And when’s the last time you saw a Republican Congress hold down spending? 2007
Since the Democrats won control of Congress in 2006, they have raised taxes on lower-income workers 50%, to take effect in Feb 2009, after the elections.
They have tried to increase spending by $250 BILLION more than the budget that was actually passed. The GOP and a few Demorats kept spending “down”, but still too high.
Democrats also want to repeal the small 2001 and 2003 tax cuts which lifted the economy out of the 2000 Clinton Recession.
Hillary proposes $800 BILLION in new annual social spending, over $300 BILLION of it for socialized medicine. Her proposed tax increases cover less than half the spending.
Obama proposes over $500 BILLION in new spending, and tax increase covering only half of that.
See the Wall Stree Journal, Nov 9, 2007 for a listing of tax and spending proposals of Democrats.
See Obama’s and Clinton’s web sites for their spending promises. I have their tax proposals captured from speeches and interviews. They are nuts
Brad,
I hope you listen to McCain’s comments on illegal immigration from this speech. To quote him directly:
“I respect your oppostion for I know the VAST MAJORITY of the critics of the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the RULE OF LAW.”
So if McCain says it’s not about Mexicans but about the rule of law, do you believe him?
Brad, I acknowledge that you were right about McCain being the presumptive nominee the other night. To hear you say it then irked me, but I gotta hand it to you: You called it.
I don’t thinks McCains’ speech today made or will make any real difference. I don’t think genuine conservatives are going to be fooled, and they surely aren’t going to rally around him as the year wears on. Ergo, I believe he’ll lose resoundingly in November. While I agree with you that party affiliation means nothing anymore, I think you’d have to agree with me that it once did. It mattered a lot back when there were real ideological differences between the parties. Sadly, the leadership in the republican party has abandoned conservatism…they left us, not us them. And John McCain has b*tch-slapped conservatives repeatedly and remorselessly over the years and recently. These things will not be easily forgotten. At this point I intend to write in Mickey Mouse for president, and if that means Clinton gets in, so be it. I’ll just do what I can to tie her hands in the legislature. Dvaid
that would be: David
You see, Brad, it’s hard to cut spending whwn a Democrat’s got the government wallet in his hand.
-Weldon
The Republican congress went on an orgy of spending during the Bush years. That’s why we went from a surplus to a huge and growing deficit. The spending was on useless military crap but damn it that stuff costs money too. And lots of it. Bush just proposed a budget with more than 1/2 trillion dollars in military spending. What a huge waste. We could adequately defend ourselves with about $150 billion. We could easily reduce our carrier fleet from 12 to 6. We certainly don’t need the worthless B-1 bomber that Reagan just had to have and still doesn’t have a mission. And what do we need attack submarines for? And don’t even get me started on the utter, collosal, criminal waste of money in Iraq, including a $700 million dollar embassy. So don’t give me this fiscal conservative crap from the GOP. It’s all pure baloney.
Senator Straight Talk also was unable to vote on the economic stimulus bill that was passed in Congress today. Could he have voted? Well, considering he was on his plane at the Washington Dulles airport today , it seems likely that he could have. But by not voting, it allows him to see what happens with the economy and then later say “I would have voted for it” or not depending on the outcome. Can’t accuse the Senator of not learning the tricks of the trade in his decades in Washington.
Here’s what Senator McCain said when asked about the bill today: “I haven’t had a chance to talk about it at all, have not had the opportunity to, even,” McCain said. “We’ve just been too busy, focused on other stuff. I don’t know if I’m doing that. We’ve got a couple of meetings scheduled.”
Focused on other “stuff” besides the economic future of the United States as the presumptive nominee of the Republican party. Hmmm… Apparently Senator McCain hasn’t had the time to pay attention to the business of being a U.S. Senator.
Doug, if McCain acknowledges that opponents to his bill had a principled position based on the rule of law, does that mean McCain is defacto admitting that his amnesty bill eviscerated the rule of law?
This guy is a charlatan, pure and simple. All the high sounding rhetoric and conservative chest-thumping we heard yesterday was nothing but a front. And we are in for a dumptruck load more of it this spring and summer. I don’t believe he really means a bit of it, but I do believe he’ll say whatever he thinks is necessary to get elected, and we can expect some fiery conservative speechifying by John McCamnesty between now and November. When I compare the CPAC speech yesterday to his recent record (recent meaning last presidential election to present), the discrepancies are starkly apparent. And the comparison hardens my dislike and distrust of this old bugger.
Hillary or BHO are looking pretty durn good right about now. david
Why, Bud, just yesterday the Democrats wanted to spend nearly 40 billion dollars more on the economic stimulus package and fell short only one vote. The Democrats turn every spending bill into a vote-buying exercise.
But you’re partly right. Republicans generally want to spend more on defense and maintaining our place in the world. Democrats generally want to spend more domestically, thus purchasing the votes of the poor with Republicans’ money.
When the Democratic dissidents are finally rounded up and spirited away to some place like Gitmo for the entertainment of all us bloodthirsty Republicans, I hope they let you keep the Internet, Bud. You do keep me chuckling.
The GOP has spent too much.
The Democrats wanted to spend $1.6 TRILLION MORE.
The small tax cut of 2001 ended the recession which began under Clinton, and generated much more tax revenue than the direct reduction in revenue due to the tax cut.
All the deficit spending was on new social programs. Without increases in spending on welfare, Medicare, and education, there would have been no borrowing, and the increased tax revenues from the growth in the economy would have paid for the entire war in Iraq and run a surplus which could have repaid the money borrowed from Social Security during the 8 Clinton years.
In fact, economic growth produced enough new revenues to pay off all of the $1.5 TRILLION of Clinton’s new debt, rolling the debt back to 1992 levels.
The more I consider what Brad is saying at the beginning of this string, the more astonished I am at where we are in american politics today.
Brad rightly points out that both McCain and Obama are men of fine character, and with that I have no arguement. But as near as I can tell, in making his point that americans need to get away from “us versus them” politics, Brad is passively asserting that “fine character” has essentially become the most important qualification that people ought to be considering as they select their next president. How one defines the specifics of ‘fine character’ is left to each individual I suppose, but the underlying theme seems to be that we needn’t worry too much about doctrinal differences…it’s now all about character and getting along with each other. To me, this is silly. It has never been about ‘us versus them’ to me. It has always been about the core principles I believed in. Another silly piece of this is that liberalism has never, in my recollection, gave a d*mn about getting along with conservatism. Compromise to liberals has always meant that conservatives give up what they believe in to move leftwards. I guess my position is that I don’t buy Brads’ kumbaya vision for a minute.
However, I HAVE pretty much arrived at a position I never ever thought I’d take. I am seriously beginning to believe that what this country needs is an unadulterated four dose of straight liberalism in the Whitehouse. We need everything that implies: Utter moral bankruptcy, political corruption on a biblical scale, cowardice in the face of and appeasement of enemies, huge increases in taxes and massive income redistributions as Bush tax cuts sunset and new ones are added, and accelerated erosion of personal freedoms as global warming and other pet agendas are nurtured and expanded. You mad about the flourescent light bulb mandate? I say let’s give liberals four years in the executive to jam it and more down our throats. You angry about truncations of the first amendment? The second amendment? I say let’s let ’em do their worst to molest the constitution for four years.
Just as Coulter said, nothing focuses people like pain. We need the pain of liberalism in the Whitehouse to wake us up. Mickey Mouse for president I say! David
four YEAR dose
dave,
Don’t smear liberalism by letting these anti-American Democrats call themselves “liberals”. They are socialists, and not egalitarian ones. They all believe that they are part of a ruling elite, who should now be restrained by the Constitution, Judeo-Christian morality, or the will of the majority.
From Salon.com:
On Thursday, John McCain was all but assured of the Republican presidential nomination. And that wasn’t the only present McCain received — along with the nomination came one very important campaign donation. Karl Rove, the former advisor to President Bush, reportedly donated $2,300, the maximum allowable, to McCain’s campaign Thursday.
Lee, you’ve made a logical contridiction here. If we elect liberals to office and they pass the legislation they say they will pass then how would that comply with your apparent belief that liberals should be constrained by the majority? Wouldn’t liberals BE the majority in that case? Further, how can they be anti-American since they are now acting on behalf of the people who elect them, Americans? That would seem to be pro-American by definition since the people doing the electing are American citizens. And finally, since the great majority of Americans are also Jewish or Christian how can liberals go against Judeo-Christian morality unless Jews and Christians vote for them?
bud,
The socialists we have running as liberals will not only pass what they have promised to the public in order to get the votes of the gimme-gimme rabble, but will work to pass their primary agenda, which is against the long-term interests of everyone except the ruling elites.
When MeCain avoids a direct answer to questions about whether he rejects the amnesty for illegals which he promoted in 2007, who can believe that he would do the will of the people? He didn’t care about them last year. The majority just overwhelmed his sneaky attempt to open the borders.
Likewise, have you ever heard Hillary renounce her work for radical socialist Saul Alinsky, the Communist Party USA, and the Black Panthers? Has she changed her very recent support for world government, disarming honest citizens, and making it illegal for doctors to treat patients outside a government system?
Lee, that really doesn’t address my questions. Even if McCain and Clinton do the things you say they will do they are just following the will of the people who elect them. Why should Hillary renounce her work for a radical socialist? Is there something illegal about being a radical socialist? Why should McCain renounce what you call an “amnesty” plan? His record is out there for all to see and decide for themselves.
I would suggest that in the arena of ideas if these ideas are embraced by the people that vote then that’s as American as apple pie. If someone else doesn’t like it it’s up to them to change it by convincing people to vote a different way. I happen to find McCain’s plan to stay in Iraq 100 years disgusting but if the people vote for him then that makes his plan the American plan, and I could not brand it as Un-American. That would be illogical.
Notice who else was on stage with Juan McCain yesterday at the CPAC conference? Yes, that was “conservative” icon/hero George “MACACA” Allen there introducing Juan.
I suppose that David Duke and Michael Richards were unavailable.
Perhaps Larry Craig, David Vitter, and Mark Foley will speak at the Republican National Convention.
Bud, You like logic and facts then remember this. Wars come and go but entitlements are forever.
How are McCain and Clinton “following the will of the people” when 95% of those who vote for them don’t even know their platform, much less their agend.
The answer is that each supporter has a narrow, selfish, usually materialistic set of wants which he thinks “his candidate” will deliver to him. Of the other 95%, they are totally ignorant.
Even if you believe that everyone who voted for Bill Clinton knew all of Clinton’s agenda and they were in total unanimous, fully-informed agreement, Clinton still never received a majority of the vote. He did’t get 40% in 1992.
And those who didn’t see any reason to vote compromise a significant number who feel that their will is being ignored or subverted.
These welfare entitlements are not forever.
Like every other government in history, they will bankrupt the treasury, and leave an angry population of people who do not know how to feed and take care of themselves. Like a bad case of musical chairs, the last ruler sitting will be dragged into the street and dispatched as a last hoorah for the rabble.
Dave said I care more about character than doctrine. I surely do. The great challenges facing the next president probably won’t be anything we’re arguing over today. That’s why character is what matters most. Never mind what’s being argued about in the current spin cycle. What matters is whether the candidate can be trusted to come up with right answers we can’t foresee?
If policy mattered most, the Edwards folks would have a point: They seem bewildered that their guy, who had such great proposals by their lights, didn’t catch on. But more and more people are doing what I’m doing — deciding whom they trust.
McCain is the most trustworthy guy among the Republicans, followed by Huckabee. So they’re still standing.
And while it might be hard for a lot of us to imagine why anyone would trust Sen. Clinton, I believe her supporters indeed trust her more. The rest of us trust Obama a LOT more.
Cindi Scoppe, a policy wonk if ever there was one, even broke down and supported Obama on that basis. It bothered her, but she had to acknowledge it. Me, it didn’t bother.
McCain is the most trustworthy guy among the Republicans, followed by Huckabee. So they’re still standing.
-Brad
Why not ask the first Mrs. McCain. He cheated on her for some bimbo that ended up as his trophy wife. Doesn’t sound so trustworthy to me.
Ask the folks affected by the Keating 5 scandal. Sounds like someone who can’t be trusted with money.
Or ask the folks who count on him to vote on important economic issues like the recent stimulus package. I’ve seen no excuse for his no-show on that close and important piece of legislation. Both Dem candidates managed to vote, but not our “trustworthy” septegenarian from Arizona.
I could go on but the facts speak for themselves, John McCain is hardly a man we can trust. His track record is filled with examples where he’s come up short in his ethical behavior. Apparently some people simply cannot see through the haze of their man-crush to appreciate all the examples of mistrust to both his family and the voters.
Bud, I think I love you man.
You and I are diametrically opposed on just about every doctrinal point, but I agree whole-heartedly with every one of the devastating things you’ve cited about McCain. You are right, they are undeniable facts, and there are plenty more where they came from. As you said, one could go on and on listing real things that point directly to McCains’ untrustworthiness.
I firmly believe that Clinton is just as untrustworthy as is McCain, but at least I am not surprised regularly by her mendacity and two-facedness. Clinton is clearly my enemy. I can live with that. McCain says he’s my friend and yet stabs me in the back repeatedly. I cannot live with that.
I’m just sayin. Red Ruffinsore
By the way Brad, the kind of enumeration of unadulterated and devastating truthes about McCain that Bud has just done here is exactly what I think we can expect the MSM to begin doing at any moment, now that it is clear that McCain will be the GOP nominee.
Had our nominee been Romney, the MSM would have had to resort to what they always do: Twist, contort, distort and lie about the republican through insinuation. There won’t really be any need for those tactics with McCain. The facts about him personally and about his public political record are plenty negative enough: They don’t need help being negative.
Bud has just unintentionaly reminded me how easy it will be this summer to obliterate the straight talk candidate. David
Both Obama and McCain have spoken truth to power. That truth is that we need to pay for what we get. The tax cuts over the last 8 years have resulted in the following: A national deficit in what?..millions? trillions…when it gets that high, the zeroes tend to get overwhelming; an army that’s close to being broken–we can’t pay to care for our wounded, and we can’t get more troops, because the repeated deployment of the same people over and over again is depleting them, and making it apparent to those who might consider signing up that it’s a very, very, bad idea; class warfare caused by creating a few more of the very rich and a lot more of the very poor while reducing the middle class; and increased difficulty in combating global warming and oil dependency because the Party of Greed (POG) insists on having it’s toys (e.g. SUV’s, cheap dirty power) whatever the ultimate cost to all of us. We have to be willing to pay for what we want; I want a non lethal environment, and freedom from subsidizing terrorists so well with frequent fill-ups of my gas tank. I want a leader with some integrity, who’s willing to weigh human cost and benefit, instead of someone who believes that the only people who count are his/her close circle of friends. I want a change in policy in Iraq to one that will give us a chance to win or get out, rather than one that continues to kill both our soldiers and their people while doing nothing to stabilize their country, and while continuing to sap our military. To accomplish these things we need a leader who can and will try to unite us so that we can use our collective knowledge, wisdom, and will to address these problems. We need a leader of integrity. What we don’t need is more polarization. We don’t need an extreme POG leader, who will continue the headlong rush downhill financially, morally, and evironmentally, nor do we need a know-it-all unwilling to listen to anyone who doesn’t already agree with him/her. Instead of screaming “Liberal!” or “Conservative”! at each other as if these words were epithets, let’s try to elect someone who has the wisdom, courage, and strength to search for the way that will best help us for the next 4 years because the challenges that person will have face are hard enough with support; we must hang together, because it’s all too easy to hang separately.
Again, well said, Karen. Why is it we can’t have more blog comments like this, and less trash? And Karen, did you ever consider running for public office?
Thank you, Herb. But I have neither the looks, nor patience to do so.
The deficits are not due to the small federal tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.
The tax cuts resulted in economic growth which brought in over $2 TRILLION in excess tax revenues. The problem is that both parties blew the surplus on social programs. All the deficit spending has been for new welfare programs.
In addition, state and local governments raised their tax rates to try to capture the federal tax cuts for themselves. The result is a contraction in investment due to a lack of savings by individuals.
All the deficit spending has been for new welfare programs.
-Lee
Nice try Lee but you are incorrect. The vast majority of new spending is related to the military: either our colossal spending in Iraq or Afghanistan or the standard military budget which amounts to welfare for the miliatary/industrial complex. Either way this huge waste on the military does very little to actually protect us from anything. But it does create enormous budget deficits.
Oh yes! Let’s blame the lack of savings in this country on high taxes! What a joke! Countries with far higher taxes do a much better job at personal savings. Keep it up, Lee. Your data provides for good entertainment, I must say.
The major reason we have such a high deficit is because we are waging a pre-emmptive war, without raising taxes or providing other income to cover it. This is a war we should have never been in, and it has caused us to start losing the war we should have won.
Most European countries have lower taxes than the US, and many do not tax interest or dividends. The US taxes both the business and the stockholder on dividends.
The first $800 BILLION of deficits were caused by the flat economy from the 1998 stock market crash in tech stocks, which became a recession in November 2000. Tax revenues fell, but Congress refused to reduce spending.
* Annual interest on the existing debt is $406 BILLION, just behind defense spending. Health and Human Services is the largest, at $500 BILLION.
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 produced enough new tax revenues from economic growth to have balanced budgets, but Bush and Congress spent it all and more on social programs.
* For example, a new projection by the Brookings Institution that includes the Medicare prescription drug bill, increases in discretionary spending by inflation and population, and the extension of the Bush tax cuts, shows the budget deficit rising to $687 billion by 2014. See Brookings Institution, “Restoring Fiscal Sanity: How to Balance the Budget,” January 2004, p. 5.
* Education spending has increase 361% since 2001
* combined Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security spending is currently rising at roughly $50 billion every year. 10 years from now, spending on these three programs without reforms will be rising by more than $100 billion every year.
* The tiny Bush tax cuts are not enough to keep government from absorbing an increasing share of the GDP.
Projections of large future budget deficits are based on rapidly rising spending, not a shortage of revenues.
Assuming that the Bush tax cuts are made permanent and the alternative minimum tax is fixed, federal revenues as a percentage of GDP will steadily rise from 16.2 percent in FY2004 to about 18 percent by FY2013.10 Since 1970, revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged 18.2 percent.11 Thus, the Bush tax cuts do not starve the government for funds, and revenues will slowly and steadily rise over time due to “real bracket creep” under the income tax. – source:
Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update,” August 2003, p. 9.