Anyone else remember how Obama railed against McCain’s plans to tax employer-provided health care benefits? Anyone else remember how he attacked McCain during the debates as supporting a “multi-trillion dollar tax hike” on the middle class when he included that plan in his platform?
Well we can forget all of those strong words and high-sounding campaign rhetoric, because Obama is apparently OK with the idea of taxing our health benefits now.
You may recall that this tax-health-benefits scheme is the exact same idea Senator McCain proposed and was vilified for. To be clear, this is a new income tax on “ghost income” of the middle class. The income is in benefits provided by the employer, but no money has moved from employer to employee. However, the value of those benefits is to be taxed as income, requiring that employee to dip into his pocket and hand over cash to the government.
During the campaign, an Obama advertisement called this “a multi-trillion dollar tax hike.” It would almost certainly be the largest tax increase on the middle class ever by any honest measurement. At least, that’s what President Obama called it when he was against it during his campaign, and since he’s the smartest president ever, he must have been right about that.
About 70 percent of the 253-million people who do have health insurance get some or all of it provided by employers, and employer-provided health care benefits 3/5ths of the population under age 65. But didn’t Obama claim he was only going to increase taxes on the filthy rich five percent with incomes over $250,000? Wasn’t that the target group the president promised to tax into oblivion, to pay for everything he’s promised to everybody else?
Beware the politician bearing gifts. Especially one with a big, toothy grin.
All his promises about only raising taxes on the obscenely “rich” top 5% … well that was just campaign talk. The president has to find a way to pay for his multi-trillion dollar spending spree and since he couldn’t sneak his attack on veteran’s health care benefits through, your health care benefits are the next obvious place to look.
From their lackluster, distracted, and uninterested performance throughout the election, to the race to concede in time for supper and an early bedtime on election night, to now refusing to support the woman he argued was best person in the country to act as his second AND attacking (once again) his own party for seeking information on the Obama-Blago connection, McCain and his campaign have always appeared like they didn’t really take the whole presidency-thing seriously. McCain always appeared to prefer the Obama-Biden/Democrat option better than anything he or the Republicans might be able to put forward.
Now, what’s left of the McCain campaign is topping their poor showing with a white elephant-style sale of office equipment, computers, pdas, and the personal contact information of key Republican donors, private campaign-related email, and other inside-the-campaign information — all at bargain basement prices.
A FOX affiliate in the Washington, D.C., area was able to purchase private information at bargain prices, but it was the information’s source that is raising eyebrows.
An investigative reporter for WTTG bought two BlackBerry devices containing confidential information — including the cell number of a former Virginia governor — from the McCain-Palin campaign at a “gone out of business” sale at the campaign’s headquarters in Arlington, Va.
It’s not enough that they managed to nearly finish off what remained of spirit in the Republican Party during the election. Now they’re managing to share private party information and alienate party insiders as well.
It could be that this is the campaign’s way of reinforcing the notion that McCain is completely non-tech-savvy.
Nice work guys!
Just thought that I’d ask people coming to this blog what they are planning to do tomorrow to help get the vote out?
Since I wouldn’t ask people to do anything that I haven’t already done, here’s my partial list,
Again, I have to ask, what are you doing to stop Obama and the Dems from taking over Washington?
Here’s a suggestion if you can’t come up with something on your own – phoning for McCain.
Update below this post – very much in line with what I noted about taking anything from the New York Times with a grain of salt – McCain’s campaign went ballistic on the New York Times for the article discussed below.
Last week I posted some information and links that showed the close and very profitable relationship that Obama had with the people in charge of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failure. While the Obama campaign is attempting to distance itself from Franklin Raines, it is clear that he was (and remains) very close to Jim Johnson — who headed up Fannie from 91-98.
In that post, I noted that over the past decade, Obama had personally received $126,349 from people or PACs that were directly linked to Freddie and Fannie (since Obama has only really been on the federal political scene for about three short years (two of those were spent campaigning for the Presidency), he received those donations in a few months to three years), I did not, however, list the ties and funds that McCain had received. To even the record, from 1989 – 2008 McCain received $21,550 from individuals related to the two mortgage giants.
This NY Times article (take it with a grain of salt – the NY Times is well known for its overwhelming pro-Obama/anti-Republican bias) discusses the well-funded lobbying position that McCain’s campaign manager occupied for five years (from 2000-2005). According to the article,
(Rick Davis) … was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.
Despite the NY Times’ well-established trend of advocating on behalf of Obama and against McCain, the article does admit — after the eye-catching headline and introductory sentences — that the McCain campaign openly admitted Davis previous involvement with the group and noted that he has had no involvement with either Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae since the advocacy group was disbanded in ’05. The article also admits that while Davis was working with the group, McCain had supported legislation that would have increased regulation and oversight of Freddie and Fannie accounting procedures and their executive compensation packages.
The article also admits that Davis was hired as more of a figure head, that “he didn’t really do anything,” and that the monies were paid to the company, instead of Mr. Davis directly. Davis’ personal compensation from the venture is described as being “not unusual for the companies’ well-connected consultants.”
So the financial and political links to the mortgage scandal are clearly not as deeply embedded in the McCain campaign as they are in the Obama campaign. However, the fact that the scandals, and the costs taxpayers will bear because of them, cross party lines is also clear.
I’m not sure that the Republican side being only a little involved in corruption and scandal on this scale is all that reassuring.
Update – McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt has gone after the New York Times in a huge way. The quote is absolutely priceless and puts into words the feelings of many (if not most) Americans. The media has primarily become a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. They really have almost no credibility left except as a tool to promote Democratic talking points.
Let me first say we are First Amendment absolutists on this campaign. The press and anybody who wishes to cover this race from a blogosphere perspective or from a media perspective is of course constitutionally protected with regard to writing whatever they want to write.
But let’s be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by an standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin, and excuses Sen. Obama. There is no level of public vetting with regard to Sen. Obama’s record, his background, his past statements. There is no level of outrage directed at his deceitful ads. This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let’s not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective, that it is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate, in this case John McCain, and advocate for the election of the other candidate, Barack Obama.
Here’s the audio of the Schmidt quote.
Allahpundit’s second point about an employee of the co-author of McCain-Feingold calling themselves “First Amendment absolutists” is spot on. At best that is a grotesque abuse of the English language (to say nothing of our rights to free speech).
It’s interesting to see the media frenzy that is developing over the McCain campaign’s truth-distortions — or to quote Joy Behar, “lies.” Given the fact that the MSMs preferred candidate is (once again) limping toward the finish line of a campaign that conventional wisdom has him easily winning, it is clear that the media feels the need to get behind and give him a push near the end.
I’m not defending McCain in this. I have repeatedly stated on this blog the reasons why I dislike him as a candidate and have also said that the third party options might actually be an option in comparison to the two big candidates. To be blunt, I don’t feel like I really have a dog in this hunt. So, if McCain is producing campaign commercials that contain lies about Obama’s beliefs and policies, he should be called on it.
(Honestly, how much imagination does it take to come up with lies about Obama? You don’t need lies when you’re running against a race-baiting Marxist, an arrogant, big city elitist who has close ties, working relationships, and personal friendships with domestic terrorists, convicted criminals, and radical anti-American and racist religious zealots. You don’t need to stretch too hard to come up with campaign fodder there.)
Of course Obama and the DNC are not content to let the media do their dirty work this time. Coming from the party that said they were going to run their campaign for “change” in a wholly collegial, polite, and respectful manner, we have their recent ad that actually has the temerity to attack McCain as,
running ‘the sleaziest ads ever,’ ‘truly vile,’ ‘dishonest smears’ that he repeats even after it’s been ‘exposed as a lie,’ ‘truth be damned,’ a ‘disgraceful, dishonorable campaign.’ ”
“After voting with Bush 90 percent of the time, proposing the same disastrous economic policies, it seems ‘deception’ is all he has left,” the announcer concludes in the ad.
Of course the DNC and Obama campaign don’t bother to note that the quotes being repeated in the ad all come from media figureheads who work in the same “mainstream media” that has repeatedly demonstrated an unhealthy passion for Obama. No doubt those media figures had “tingles running up and down their legs” as they made those damning statements against McCain.
What makes the “phony outrage” now being shown by the DNC and Obama campaign over these campaign ads even more offensive is the fact that the Obama campaign has engaged in exactly the same vile sleaze, lies, disgraceful, dishonorable, deceptive, and dishonest smears. While he was mustering up all his sham outrage over McCain’s lies, Obama and his campaign were actively producing a new ad that would be run in Spanish only venues. In this ad, the Obama campaign actually attempt to hit McCain with the left’s standards “racist, anti-immigrant” smear.
This ad was so completely over-the-top and egregiously unfair that even ABC News had to admit just how bad it was.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has launched a new Spanish-language TV ad that seeks to paint Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., as anti-immigrant, even tying the Republican to his longtime conservative talk-radio nemesis Rush Limbaugh.
As first reported by the Washington Post, Obama’s ad features a narrator saying: “They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with…the intolerance…they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much.”
The screen then shows these two quotes from Limbaugh:
“…stupid and unskilled Mexicans”
“You shut your mouth or you get out!”
The narrator then says, “John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote…and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families. John McCain…more of the same old Republican tricks.” …
There are some real factual problems with this ad, which is titled “Dos Caras,” or two faces.
First of all, tying Sen. McCain – especially on the issue of immigration reform – to Limbaugh is unfair.
Limbaugh opposed McCain on that issue. Vociferously. And in a larger sense, it’s unfair to link McCain to Limbaugh on a host of issues since Limbaugh, as any even occasional listener of his knows, doesn’t particularly care for McCain.
Second, the quotes of Limbaugh’s are out of context.
Here’s the Obama campaign’s ad, Dos Caras (Two faces).
You may not like McCain’s policies, but no honest review of his work and history can reasonably claim that he is anti-immigrant — ask his daughter if you’re confused about the issue. It’s not even remotely fair to criticize McCain as anti-illegal immigrant. Anyone who has tracked McCain’s work over the past few years will know that McCain was openly in favor or amnesty for illegals.
Additionally, no honest review of either McCain or Limbaugh’s work can seriously try to tie the two together — Limbaugh has spent much of the past few years tearing McCain down at every chance he could get.
In this area, just like in his “lipstick on a pig” comment, just like his constant race-baiting (comments like “He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills”), Obama is playing the EXACT same dirty, bare-knuckled political game that McCain is playing. In this respect, one is no different from the other. And the fact that he clearly pledged to run his campaign in a clean, fair, and respectful manner demonstrates that he is every bit as much a liar as McCain.
Both candidates are eager to use any dirty, underhanded tactic to confuse voters and the issues and distort their opponent’s record. They are both interested in getting power more than they are interested in doing the right thing.
The more I see of these two men, the more I am convinced that neither of them is worthy of our votes.
Update: this Unionleader.com editorial outlines how Obama’s ads are growing increasingly negative and misleading.
In the past few weeks, Obama has thrown so many false accusations against John McCain that just keeping track of them has become difficult. And these aren’t innocent errors. They are deliberate distortions of the sort Obama has always said he reviles.
The article goes on to discuss the Obama campaigns deliberate misrepresentation of McCain’s record on the nation’s financial crises.
The editorial is spot on when it notes that Obama has lowered himself into the same mud that all the other candidates sling. The problem for Obama, however, is that he has always sold himself as something new and someone who did not engage in those sorts of attacks. Again, he has demonstrated clearly that he is no different than any of the other politicians out there. What matters to him is power and if he needs to sling mud to get it, OK.
Factcheck.org provides more information on an Obama campaign ad that misrepresents McCain’s position on Social Security reform. In fact, they refer to Obama’s misleading information as his “Social Security Whopper.”
In this particular ad Obama and his campaign workers try to scare senior citizens into believing that McCain wants to cut their Social Security benefits in half and that if the Bush plan to reform Social Security had gone through, they would have lost their retirement income in the current financial downturn.
In Daytona Beach, Obama said that “if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would’ve had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week.” He referred to “elderly women” at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support “grandmothers and grandfathers.”
That’s not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.
Obama would have been correct to say that many workers under age 58 would have had some portion of their Social Security benefits affected by the current market turmoil – if they had chosen to participate. And market drops would be a worry for those who retire in future decades. But current retirees would not have been affected.
Interesting to see how many people watched the four big campaign convention speeches.
Obama – 38.4 million
McCain – 38.9 million
Palin – 37.2 million
Biden – 24 million
(Hillary Clinton’s speech was estimated to have 25.97 million viewers.)
Interesting to see how Palin’s speech was received compared to both Biden and Hillary Clinton,
Palin won far more viewers than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) or Obama running mate Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who addressed the crowd on day two and day three of the Democratic convention.
Interesting also to see that more people were tuning in to the Republican convention than the Democratic Convention.
Nielsen said an average 34.4 million people watched the Republican convention over its main three days. The convention was scaled back on it’s opening day as Hurricane Gustav made landfall on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
An average 30.2 million viewers tuned in to the four-day Democratic Convention in Denver, Nielsen said.
I thought that the Republicans were supposed to be distraught, dismayed, and dispirited, but it seems like they’re packing in the crowds and the atmosphere at their convention was best described as ebullient.
This Business and Media Institute article tags the troubles with Fannie Mae – Freddie Mac as “Enron x19″. The authors note that if the socialist government bailout of these firms goes through, it could leave every taxpayer in the U.S. on the hook for a $2,000 share of the billion (+) pay day.
The article also details the close ties that the upper management in these firms have with many in government, especially the Democratic party, including high ranking members of the Clinton administration and members of both the Kerry and Obama presidential campaigns.
There were also political ties between Fannie Mae and the Clinton administration. Former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines and former Vice Chairman Jamie Gorelick were instrumental in the Clinton administration. Gorelick is also “rumored to be a possible attorney general in an Obama administration,” according to Politico.
According to the Dec. 23, 2004, Washington Post, Raines “was a director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration, and his name was mentioned as a possible Treasury Secretary had Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) been elected president.”
As Reuters explained on July 11, 2008, “Fannie Mae in particular has strong connections to Democratic politics.” In addition to Raines and Gorelick, “former Fannie Mae CEO James Johnson headed John Kerry’s vice presidential search team, and was doing the same job for Obama but left the post after reports he received favorable mortgage interest rates as a result of his ties to the chief executive of the troubled mortgage lender Countrywide Financial.”
Not wanting to be left out, high-ranking Republicans are also described as supporting the bailout, despite their knowledge of inappropriate goings on in the federally-backed mortgage companies.
The NBC “Today” show hinted at problems with the two government-sponsored companies on July 14 when Andrea Mitchell reported Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) reaction to a bailout:
“John McCain also says the survival of the mortgage giants is essential, despite some of their past practices,” said Mitchell. Viewers were left to wonder what those “past practices” could have been. Here are a few hints: billions of dollars in accounting scandals, stock prices that have plummeted, connections to prominent politicians and a high-risk portfolio.
As you read further through the article, you see that both parties (surprise!!!) are closely connected to the corruption.
“Political influence” was also cited by The Wall Street Journal in 2002. “During the 1999-2000 election cycle, Fan spread around $1.6 million and Fred $2.4 million, giving to both parties about equally. The total of $4 million is almost double what Enron spent.”
In 2004, Fannie’s CEO and vice chairman were former Clinton administration officials. A new article in the July 15 Journal said Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists “are said to have strongly influenced the 1992 legislation” that “created the companies’ regulator.”
The New York Times listed Fannie Mae’s Washington connections positively on April 20, 1997. That story, “The Velvet Fist of Fannie Mae,” focused on James A. Johnson, who was at the time chairman and chief executive of Fannie Mae.
That’s the same “consummate Washington player” Obama “tapped” to lead his vice presidential search, according to the June 11 ABC “World News with Charles Gibson.” After taking heat related to Countrywide loans, Johnson resigned from Obama’s campaign.
“Washington insiders respect him as the most skilled political operator in corporate America, protecting Fannie Mae’s franchise with an influential network that extends from the highest reaches of the Clinton Administration to the ranks of conservative Republicans on Capital Hill,” said the Times.
The July 16 Washington Post also linked ousted Fannie CEO Franklin Raines to Obama’s campaign. It said Raines has recently “taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”
Unfortunately, it seems that the news media has also been complicit in allowing this scandal to develop. While the big 3 networks could speak and think about nothing but Enron during the highly publicized breakup of that company, they have all but ignored the growing corruption at Fannie Mae. Only the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post have bothered to criticize the back room deals, influence peddling, shady lending practices, and careless money handling that was going on there.
Unlike the three networks, which were praising Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac earlier in the year, The Wall Street Journal has been sounding an alarm bell about the corruption and financial danger of the lenders’ practices for more than six years. The Journal has run at least 29 editorials or op-eds exposing the two businesses for political connections, preferential regulation, and Enron-like “cooking” of the books.
“The Washington political class has nurtured and subsidized these financial beasts for decades in return for their campaign cash and lobbying support,” said one Journal editorial on July 12. That editorial also pointed out the lack of reporting on the issue saying, “Maybe the press corps will even start reporting how this vast confidence game could happen.”
The Journal wasn’t alone. The Washington Post said on July 14, “Though the implosion of investor confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac last week was sudden, the worries driving it have been the subject of countless warnings over many years.”
So it seems that both major parties have been involved in helping foist this socialist behemoth on the taxpayers of the country. Now that their loose accounting rules and corrupt policies have brought about the same results as all socialist “businesses” eventually achieve (i.e.: bankruptcy), they and their willing accomplices in the media are largely refusing to get the information on the depth of the scandal out to those of us who will be forced to foot the bill.
Once again we see that Democrat-Republican … Republican-Democrat … there’s really not all that great a difference. More and more it is becoming a matter of Washington insiders and Washington elites (regardless of party affiliation) that the rest of America needs to watch out for.
James Kirchick @ Politico.com reviews the charges put forward by many Democrats and the Obama campaign that the Republicans would employ a vicious, racist, immoral smear campaign against Obama throughout the run up to the election. He comes away from his research noting that in both of the cases where anything even distantly resembling a “smear” could be linked to McCain, McCain immediately repudiated the charge and/or fired the staffer involved.
The Obama campaign and its supporters on the other hand have repeatedly engaged in flagrant, unsubstantiated personal attacks against McCain and his record of military service and Obama has done little, or nothing, to deal with them. Kirchick explains,
Contrast the absence of smears from the McCain camp with some of the outlandish remarks made by high-ranking Obama supporters. In April, West Virginia Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV said that because McCain “was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet,” and “was long gone when they hit,” the Arizona senator who spent five and a half years in a Vietcong tiger cage having his arms repeatedly broken didn’t really understand the carnage of war. …
Rockefeller’s smear was the first salvo in a pattern of attacks meant to insinuate that McCain’s Vietnam experience not only shouldn’t count as meaningful “experience,” but rendered him psychologically unfit for presidential office. …
It’s curious how anyone could argue that a man with such visceral understanding of the capacity for what America’s enemies will do to our men and women in uniform doesn’t fully appreciate the cost of war. But even more troubling is the unmistakable pattern of these smears, all of them unsubtly alleging that McCain is an unhinged, mentally unstable warmonger who would deploy soldiers capriciously because he hasn’t truly experienced the horrors of ground battle. Indeed, the claims of these four men — and the short period of time in which they were all uttered — are so similar in tone that one would be foolish not to at least consider the possibility they were coordinated by the Obama campaign.
Amusingly, Kirchick wraps up by noting that the only smears that the Obama campaign has actually endured have come at the hands of the Hillary Clinton campaign. However, the Obamaphiles still choose to believe that it is conservatives that smear and that every single individual who chooses to sit left of center on the political spectrum is as pure as the wind-driven snow.
Via NRO’s the Corner
We’ve all heard the MSM’s reports on McCain’s temper. However, there’s an interesting post on the NRO’s The Campaign Spot that describes how Obama had to be physically restrained during an altercation with another Illinois politician a few years ago. The quote is taken from David Mendell’s biography of Obama, Obama: From Promise To Power, on page 125-126
Soon, the two men were shouting at each other on the senate floor. They took their disagreement into a nearby room, and a witness said that Obama had to be physically restrained.
Read the rest of the quote here.
Nice choices that we have set up for our next president.
After several days of complaining from Obama and several more of the MSM harping on McCain for his having commented on Hamas support of an Obama presidency, Obama is now coming out and actually trying to use the support of a terrorist group as part of his campaign.
Sen. Barack Obama has harshly criticized Sen. John McCain for making an issue of an endorsement by Hamas, but the Democratic candidate said in a new interview he understands why the terrorist group supports his presidential bid.
“It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, ‘This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,'” Obama told the Atlantic magazine.
“That’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security,” the Illinois senator said.
So Obama is now reveling in the fact that he has the support of a terrorist group. The man is actually using it as a means of gaining your vote.
Twilight Zone doesn’t even begin to cover this one.
As an aside, did we all catch that Obama used his own middle name as a means of linking himself to — or justifying the support from — an islamist terror group. Why is it that he sees no issue with doing that to help himself get votes, but someone else even saying his middle name is cast as racism or fear mongering.
Three quick quotes that will help people understand just how “conservative” the Republican nominee, John McCain actually is.
1Cor 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.
Tell me what company you keep and I’ll tell you what you are.
To provide some further background for those quotes, we have a February 08 WorldNetDaily.com article describing who McCain associates with and where he gets a lot of his funding.
As Sen. John McCain assumes the GOP front-runner mantle, his long-standing, but little-noticed association with donors such as George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry is receiving new attention among his Republican critics.
In 2001, McCain founded the Alexandria, Va.-based Reform Institute as a vehicle to receive funding from George Soros’ Open Society Institute and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Tides Foundation and several other prominent non-profit organizations.
McCain used the institute to promote his political agenda and provide compensation to key campaign operatives between elections. …
The Reform Institute regularly has supported McCain in various legislative efforts, including on campaign finance reform, global warming and “comprehensive immigration reform,” all efforts widely opposed by many in the party’s conservative base.
Arianna Huffington, syndicated columnist and creator of the HuffingtonPost.com, has served on the Reform Institute’s advisory committee since the group’s inception.
According to FrontPage Magazine, Teresa Heinz Kerry has provided more than $4 million to the Tides Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by anti-war activist Drummond Pike in 1976 with a history of funding causes such as abortion, homosexual-rights activism and open borders.
Financial contributors while McCain was chairman of the Reform Institute also have included the Educational Foundation of America, a group that supports abortion and opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
The Soros-Kerry funding connection with McCain was first exposed by Ed Morrissey at the Captains Quarters blog in 2005.
If this is what passes for a “Reagan-Republican” nowadays, I’m thinking the Libertarian or Constitution Party deserve my vote more. (Note: I haven’t looked too far into the CP’s take on things. I need to do some more work getting up to speed on their platform and beliefs.)
McCain has never been a friend to those who like little things like the Constitution. His destructive legislative work in areas of free speech (campaign finance reform), immigration, climate change, and energy policy, as well as his tepid support of the 2nd Amendment are proof that he does not support limited government. Additionally, the fact that he works closely with and/or accepts massive amounts of funding from people like Huffington, Soros, and Heinz-Kerry, indicates that he is a least partially beholden to the extreme left.
I can’t really see myself ever being able to vote for someone like that.