McCain further alienates Conservatives, embraces “green” agenda

In a move all-but signaling McCain has little to no interest in widely appealing to Conservatives in the Republican Party, he announced today a new “green” initiative that would be taken up by his administration to fight global warming. While the mainstream media and the Democratic Party has bought into the notion that there is no longer debate on climate change, a good majority of Conservative Republicans aren’t entirely sold on the notion of “man-made” global warming.

A report on it from Fox News:

PHOENIX — Republican John McCain, reaching out to both independents and green-minded social conservatives, argues that global warming is undeniable and the country must take steps to bring it under control while adhering to free-market principles.

In remarks prepared for delivery Monday at a Portland, Ore., wind turbine manufacturer, the presidential contender says expanded nuclear power must be considered to reduce carbon-fuel emissions. He also sets a goal that by 2050, the country will reduce carbon emissions to a level 60 percent below that emitted in 1990.

“For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction — toward machines, methods and industries that used oil and gas,” said McCain. “Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs we weren’t counting, and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up now, in the atmosphere, in the oceans and all across the natural world.”

The Arizona senator promised to challenge China and India, two economic rivals who are fueling their challenge to U.S. market supremacy with heavily polluting fuels such as coal, gas and oil.

To his credit, McCain is trying to appeal to conservative principles of free market economics suggesting that is how he will curb global warming.

Video from the Associated Press of McCain discussing his platform on the topic:

McCain’s latest TV ad targeting “green” voters:

I believe this falls in the category of the self-righteousness which has alienated many conservatives from McCain, similar to illegal immigration. He has bought the notion of man-made global warming and seems to indicate the debate is, indeed, over.

For further illustration of the alienation, take this excerpt from Rush Limbaugh:

RUSH: Senator McCain with a story here that’s on the French News Agency: “‘McCain Faces Doubts Among Republican Conservatives’ — While John McCain is practically assured the Republican presidential nomination, many party members are having a hard time accepting him — and showing it with symbolic votes against him in primary contests. … The Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, calculated that McCain had garnered no more than 45 percent of the Republican vote since January.” People are missing something. He’s not seeking the Republican vote at this point. Well, he’s not. A lot of people think I’m being flippant with that, but he’s not. You people have probably seen this story: “‘McCain Urges Free-Market Principles to Reduce Global Warming’ — Republican John McCain, reaching out to both independents and green-minded social conservatives,” do you know who that is?

Do you know who the “green-minded social conservatives” are? Evangelicals. Apparently, there is a significant number of evangelicals that are going green, and McCain’s reaching out to them. They’re going green along the same side of the aisle as Algore and the rest of these hoaxers are. Now, when these evangelicals decide to side with liberals, the Drive-By Media loves ’em; the Drive-By Media thinks they’re wonderful. They call them green-minded social conservatives, not evangelicals, because they hate evangelicals. They think evangelicals pose a great threat. So, “McCain, reaching out to both independents and green-minded social conservatives, argues that global warming is undeniable and the country must take steps to bring it under control while adhering to free-market principles.” (sigh) Making it so hard on me.

Now, whether you agree with Limbaugh or not, he does speak the minds of a huge voter block McCain should, or so it would seem, be trying to reach. I’m guessing at this point his campaign has done enough internal polling to decide that he will run this campaign from the middle and try to skim off the moderates and independents from supporting Obama, if they were planning to. That coupled with the fact that most average Republicans will still vote for McCain simply for the (R) next to his name and the idea that they agree with him more than Obama or Clinton.

We’ll see how this develops…

  • Josh

    Rush Limbaugh does not speak the minds of neo-cons, he programs them…It doesn’t seem that McCain is well liked most Republican circles, how is it that he got the nomination?

  • I would say McCain’s military experience and his appeal to independent voters who voted in the GOP primaries.

  • Josh

    Hmm, I think that your right. I wonder where the logic comes from that makes people believe that military experience is what makes a great president. Sure, military experience is never a bad thing (well, maybe not never, but…) but it doesn’t amount to the traits neccessitated by a great president. McCain doesn’t seem to exude much experience aside from his military experience…

  • Michel

    I don’t think is the “military experience” thing s much as his title of “hero”. In this country, after all, that word has a very powerful effect, along with “patriot”, “patriotism” and “right of speech”. It’s in the presidential candidate playbook.

    If McCain is trying to sell the idea of free-market reducing the golbal warming effects, he’s doing a very intelligent move. I don’t say the idea is wrong, but the logic seems to be a little far-fetched. However, he’s right, he can’t be with God and the Devil at the same time, so he needs to align with the views of those who will be a stronger voters block in November without renouncing to the other one. The republican party is losing more and more support, so he can adopt now a non-conservative outlook without risking to much in the process.

    But linking global warming that to a reduction of the free market is a very, very smart move. I don’t buy it still (I could be wrong) but I bet a lot of people won’t demand further analysis.

  • Dreadsen

    hmmm this is pretty good. This may be what Rush Limbaugh and Ann Couture complain about with him.
    Good Job McCain. In a sense this IS conservative. Hopefully he’ll be moving towards us being foreign oil independent. This is good for everyone. And for every conservative vote he’ll lose going in this direction he’ll pick up a few democrats on the fence and independents.

  • Michel

    You’re right, Dreadsen. This is indeed a positive move for McCain, in any sense.
    However, I don’t like politics that go “by the polls” and act based on what may gather a wider support and what not. The best example of that is the “gas tax holiday”, which I haven’t heard him mention again since Hillary campaigned heaviliy for it and had terrible results.

    A politician must learn from his/her mistakes. A politician must hear the experts in their specialties and try to get a broader view from that. A politician must have also a strong position, and not bend it according to what may be best for him… but for the people.
    I this case, I hope, is good for both. But I’ also trying to see how encouraging free-market is good for the enviroment.


    McCain does not go “by the polls” Michel. When he was down and out in New Hampshire and Iowa he didnt not care for the polls, he spoke his mind and what he believed, and people took that because it was mostly true. McCain has never been by the polls.

    McCain doesn’t seem to exude much experience aside from his military experience…

    Josh,Josh, Josh, you just make yourself look kind of silly with that statement. Look at McCains records in the senate he has had experience there for over 20 years. Much more than Obama who has had like 3 years or so. Dont try and play that he only has military experience. I believe even the far left people on here would even agree with me that that is a completely false statement.

    Also Nate McCain reaches across the aisle, and thats is something we need now more than ever, and is one reason why he won the GOP nomination. Many conservatives liked his approach in many ways because of that, and i believe it is also a big reason why he won.

    Michel I am also very confused by your statement hear “I don’t think is the “military experience” thing s much as his title of “hero”. ”

    What exactly are you trying to say i had trouble reading it because like youve said your english is poor. So are you saying you dont believe McCain was a hero?

  • Dem ’08

    Wow, the whole gang is here!

    McCain: This guy is more than 70 years old so the VP spot is more important in this scenario. He will not stop immigration and he will cost more people health care coverage. He has no plan to drill our own oil and the war may never end in his control. No chance he will get elected, like him or not. Just truth here!

    Obama: Most popular although he has ties to radical, racist, and muslim people. Many talk about how this don’t matter but in the general election this will become more of an issue then it has been. His policy is similar to Clinton policy so the change theme is just a gimmick to get attention from those who are searching for something to hold onto and it has worked.

    Clinton: Was by far most popular and had many people hoping she would run. Excitement was heard all around when she made known her plan. Obama jumped in and got the black vote wraped up and his new found popularity was pushed by his change theme and there went Clintons chance.

    Fact is that it is likely that Obama will win the White House and the presidential limo will be on Unique Whips tv show with Will Castro…..LOL

    Ok, maybe that was a bit much but a black coworker told me that and we all laughed.

    Clinton would do us best but it don’t matter because like it or not…..Obama’s coming!

    Ron Paul would be good as well I think but he has no chance. How about Chuck Baldwin? Something about a preacher trying to be president just don’t settle with me. It’s kinda like Huchabee, if the man was called to serve God and teach his word in a minister role then how could he have genuine interest in a presidential bid? Just don’t add up!

    Clinton ’08

  • Michel

    Never by the polls? Oh, then how can you explain he changed some issues in his health care plan after being confronted in a press conference by the father of a child who wasn’t covered by McCain’s new insurance plan?

    Or how do you explain why he kept his support for the so called “gas tax holiday” plan while so many experts exposed it as flawed but most voters felt it was good for them? How do you call that? Sticking to principles?

    How can you conceive someone who doesn’t follow the polls but speaks of bipartisanship while trying undermine Obama’s Supreme Court opinions calling them “liberal” and “activist” (the conservatives pejorative for liberal).

    Yeah, I can see now he isn’t going by the polls. He’s just trying to be with god and with the devil at the same time. I’m sorry, you’ll just have to enlighten me how he’s not going after the interests he needs in this campaign. I don’t say he doesn’t have a great record. But he’s betraying that record with every step he takes, and not even running for president justifies that.

    And regarding experience… a position doesn’t make someone capable for the job. He’s been in the Senate for more than 20 years, yet his current plans lack the sanity one would expect (maintaining our troops stationary in Iraq with all its financial costs??). It it was for experience, then voting for a second Bush term was the best thing we could do… because he already had four more years of experience, and all his time as a governor.

    I know he has more than military experience…. but his current plans are so out of contact with reality that it makes me wonder the reasons you think he’s the better candidate out there. Just because he had more time in the Senate? Just because he was a war prisoner? Why?

    I do believe he was a war prisoner. And I do believe his silence during prisoner time was heroic. I can’t see how being through the experience of a failed war haven’t taught him the lesson of Iraq, and I don’t want him to become the next president with his current plans… because there, the distance from “hero” to “villain” is as narrow as you can think of.

  • Michel

    By the way, this is an example of McCain’s record, where we can see him sticking “consistently” to his points of view on the enviroment, by the Washington Post:

    This is Barack Obama’s take on McCain’s new stance on climate change:

    “It is truly breathtaking for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent effort to actually invest in clean energy. You don’t have to look further than the wind turbine plant where Senator McCain is speaking today to assess his commitment to this cause. While Senator McCain talks about the need to invest in alternative energy, he rejected the single biggest investment in renewable energy in history, including incentives that contributed to a nearly 50% increase in wind power generation last year, and he has repeatedly opposed renewable fuel mandates and higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

    In stark contrast, I’ve called for a national standard to ensure that we’re using more renewable energy, an expansion of our green energy sector that would create millions of green jobs, and a bipartisan plan to double our fuel efficiency standards. That is why the American people will have a clear choice in November when I am the nominee – between a candidate who opposes real solutions to our energy crisis, and leadership that will solve it once and for all.”

    Aaaand, to be fair, here’s the reponse from John McCain’s spokesman Brian Rogers:

    “It is hypocrisy — we would say ‘breathtaking’ hypocrisy, but for the fact that it’s so common in the Obama campaign — for Senator Obama to today use John McCain’s vote against the 2005 Bush-Cheney energy bill to question his record and sincerity as an advocate for addressing climate change. Senator Obama voted for that bill, which included billions in oil and gas company handouts that Senator Obama claims to oppose daily on the campaign trail. By contrast, John McCain opposed that bill because it did nothing to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and failed to address global climate change while doling out over $14 billion in corporate subsidies and tax breaks. Further, John McCain has been fighting for higher fuel economy standards since 2001, before Senator Obama joined the Senate. John McCain was a driving force in pushing fuel economy standards at a time when gas prices were low and it took will and resolve — not cheap political posturing.”

    Hmmm, “pushing fuel economy standards”. I hope he doesn’t mean the gas tax holiday.

    So, Obama_S., I hope you reconsider if John McCain goes by the polls or not. If you think he doesn’t, then some evidence from your part will be much appreciated.

  • Nate, I have to take issue with your description of conservative here. Conservative values were MUCH broader just ten years prior, and encompassed environmentalism among other things.

    McCain is taking issue with NEO-conservativism, which is a different animal, and Rush rides the Party waves. He’ll come around eventually.

    And I will state again, McCain does not have to “cater” to the Republican Party. He has them, hook line and sinker, hence the “Presumptive nominee” title. He towed the Party line to win the nomination, and now he is broadening his base, which is strategically sound.

    In the end, Republicans (not conservatives) will have to choose between McCain, Obama, and a handful of people who will not be viable candidates. The vast majority will follow the Party line and vote for McCain, so the question now lies as to how many Independents and Democrats can he grasp.

  • Dreadsen

    Yes John McCain has lots of experience in not knowing what his position is. How straight is this talk?

    All experience isn’t good experience.

    “Obama: Most popular although he has ties to radical, racist, and muslim people. Many talk about how this don’t matter but in the general election this will become more of an issue then it has been.”

    Boy we just can’t TRY to stay a little close to topic and away from propganda hate can we? If there are people saying that those alleged things don’t matter maybe it’s because McCain has REAL TIES to radical, racist people who incite violence. And the INTENTIONAL neglect of embracing these people will get aired out in the general. Especially if someone tries to play illogical connect the dots.

    Hillary also has direct ties to racist. Fulbright. So if we are going to point out these ALLEGED bogus ties. Whether they are TRUE or not. Might as well point out how the rest have even stronger or even far worse ties.(even possible case of being a racist themselves) Makes it an even playing field doesn’t it? If people are banking on the election to be about loose and flimsey connect the dot associations being completely bias on one candidate while acting like the same case doesn’t exist with the other, someone is going to be disappointed.

  • Josh

    O.S., and what has McCain done while in the Senate? He has spent almost his entire time there serving on the armed services committee. What does this tell you about him?

    Dem08, Clinton has ties to just as many radicals, all politicians do because these are the types of people who constantly hound theme, and when you are running for office you must try to not alienate anyone. The reason you don’t know it about Clinton is that she’s White, and because Obama didn’t bring these points up. As for Clinton’s early popularity, I was a Clinton supporter. Her tactics and plans lost her my vote, and lost her the nomination.

    Good point about Huckabee, too, that guy always scared me a little bit. I don’t think that it is prudent to have a clergyman as president either, especially one who believe we need to change the Constitution to fit “God’s standards”.

  • Babs

    O_S, of course I agree with you about McCain not going by the polls. Nate, I believe McCain is standing on issues he believes in, and lets the chips fall where they may. This is just the man, always has been. If he were going to cater to conservatives, don’t you think he would have done it years ago in the Senate? His Senate career would have gone a lot more easy on him if he had. He’s infamous for crossing party lines, attacking Republicans as often as Democrats, and that’s what makes him even more attractive as a candidate of real change.

    He brings much more to the table than his military experience, and references to his being a POW only speaks to his character under pressure. Not even the Obama machine can attack that, and that is a major cause of frustration to them.

    Those looking to tear McCain’s policies apart will always be able to find ways to do it. Those looking to tear Obama’s apart will do the same. In the end, it will come down to character, experience, trust, and credibility. And McCain will take it.

  • Michel

    No, Babs, it will come down to issues and policies. It’s the right thing to do. Do you want to criticize Obama’s plans? Be my guest. But to avoid those comments trying to focus con petty things like character…. that’s just the lazy approach, IMHO.

    I’ve said many times I do believe that he had a pretty impressive record on doing things that have not pleased many in his own party, but that’s really overstated. You need to check the washington post article I posted a few comments above. Several of McCain’s previous work on the Senate have been “flaky” at least, and we also have to concede that playing the “maverick” greatly helped his campaign.

    And if he didn’t ever do things to please the conservatives of his party, why did he campaign so heavily for Bush in 2000 and 2004?
    Answer yourself those questions.

    I don’t say he’s not a maverick at all. He is indeed. But he’s much more worried now with doing what he thinks will be best for his campaign among influential circles. And that’s comprehensible.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    He does good advertising, McCain does. He sounds sensible, if you believe in being economically strong while “saving our planet.” But only if you believe we’re destroying our planet (which I don’t).

  • Michael

    Chris, are you already going to vote for him though? I don’t think he’s aiming for you (or your type of ideologies) at the moment. He’s figuring he already has you or won’t.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    It’s interesting how McCain has shifted his emphasis since the time before he had the Republican nomination. Before the Kansas caucus, I got a call with his recorded statements about being a strong conservative, and he was very specific about it. Then, once he was certain that nothing could stop him from getting the nomination, he made offensive statements about not needing conservative voters. He gave a Jimmy Carteresque speech in California, later on, about creating world peace. And he tried to stop NC’s Republicans from airing an ad about Obama. I won’t vote for him is the answer to your question, Michael. He’s trying to appeal to the far left and the far right and create a “moderate” stance that’s twice as liberal as Franklin Roosevelt’s “moderate” stance.

  • Dreadsen


    Do you think Michel may possibly have a point about him making this stance for polls?
    What is his past record on Green issues? Is this stance NEW? if it is brand new with no record of him supporting it in the past then I think we all had better keep one eye open on this. He could quite possibly have been swayed by Gov. Arnold. But when something is new with ANY of these politicians during an election that doesn’t reflect their voting history we have to be a little skeptical.
    I hope he’s being sincere.

  • Christopher Schwinger,
    I agree with your analysis on McCain. I will not be voting for McCain, as much as fellow republicans try to strong arm me into voting down party lines I refuse to vote for him. I’m glad you brought up the McCain “I’m a strong conservative when I need your conservative vote, the rest of the time I will walk all over your principals” phone call. Then there is the slip that he made a month or so ago when he stood on stage at a Military event stating that he was a “conservative liberal” after stumbling he claimed it was a slip of the tongue. Sigmund Freud had a theory that there no such thing as an slip of the tongue, rather it was Freudian slip, that what you say you didn’t mean to say you actually did, your subconscious makes no mistakes. Although there are some who deny that Rush has had any influence with operation chaos (that’s why there were states such as Texas which were threatening lawsuits) he has a huge listenership which are either registered conservative or are republican conservatives who refuse to have others tell them that they have to vote for McCain. Personally I will be moving to a different state in a few months and intend on registering as a Conservative under the Conservative party.

    It’s funny how some in this particular forum think that Rush will come around. You’re wrong, and maybe should take a listen to his show. There’s NO way that Rush will be voting down party lines or that would make him a hypocrite which he’s not. You can’t force a tycoon like Rush or anyone for that matter to vote as you see fit. SO McCain is calling himself a republican these days, I think I will vote for him b/c there’s an “R” next to my name. If you’re uninformed then of course you will, probably 85 to 90% of my family will end up voting for McCain, why…b/c they choose to be uninformed on key issues. They claim they’re “too busy” to stay informed. Whatever the excuse the truth of the matter is Republicans are in for a big liberal surprise when McCain wins the Presidency in November, which there is no doubt in my mind that he will be the next President of the United States.


    Babs I think that we should not even try to say anything good about McCain ever because if we do its like the gang of obamacans comes at us with relentless attack. You need to realize this. McCain has done great things in the senate and dont talk about him never voting for green and crap because ill tell you one thing, Obama never votes Yes or No he always just votes present, unless it is for some far leftwing pork project. And also I dont like McCain stance on being “green” The earth has gone through cycles over many years. It becomes hotter and colder in periods. In the 1960’s if you will remeber all the far leftwing liberals came up with the theory that we were going to go into an iceage. Well for some reason even though they promised it would happen, it never did. Now people like Al Gore say ridiculous things about global warming, scientists proved the oceans wouldnt rise 6 feet like he said. All that stuff is B.S.
    Since 1999 the core temperature has decreased and the ocean temperatures have been low and a small amount below normal temp. SO for some reason all the facts show global warming is complete BS but liberals still like to act like its some big issue. Its not.

    McCain will win the election not on policies especially, He will lose on his policy in iraq but will win on the economy, and environment, and healthcare. He will win the election because he is a real man, a man of pride, honesty, integrity, and courage and that is what independents will see and will vote for over the most far left person in the senate. THE US CAN NOT HAVE A FAR LEFT PRESIDENT! IT WILL BE ANOTHER JIMMY CARTER AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE CANT TOLERATE!

  • Michael,
    I think you’re correct, blue-blooded “Republicans” will support McCain. Conservatives, on the other hand, I think will have and are having a hard time swallowing him. You have to remember, the strong conservative base who follows people like Limbaugh and Hannity would feel a bit hypocritical if they voted for McCain. Mainly because he’s been fighting against many of things conservative have stood for.

    I am separating Conservatives from the Republican Party, as in recent years there has been the beginnings of a split. Therefore, yeah, he has the GOP, but he has in no way, shape, or form even begun to secure Conservative votes.

    Plus, campaigning for Bush in ’00 and ’04 does not mean he’s catering to conservatives. Politicians campaign for each other all the time. I’d call that campaigning a way for McCain to stay in the national spotlight. McCain’s record of thumbing his nose at conservatives speaks more than anything, in my opinion.

    McCain probably does appeal to more independently minded people who aren’t kosher with either party. That being said, neither liberals or conservatives like him all that much. Liberals simply because he has an (R) next to his name and supports winning the Iraq war, and conservatives because he often has sold out the conservative agenda, without hesitation. So his “strengths” are only strengths depending on the constituency you’re speaking of.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    This is for you especially, Conservative Gal:

    Rush Limbaugh is one of the most misunderstood friends of freedom in this country, I think. I’ve come to realize the same about Ron Paul, who actually approved of going after bin Laden.

  • Michel

    “…he is a real man, a man of pride, honesty, integrity, and courage and that is what independents will see and will vote for…”

    Obama_S, this is for you. Take it or leave it:

    I expect you to not change your mind at any cost and even try to find flaws and excuses for not seeing the proof right in front of you. You may want to think of him as a good president, even a great man… but he’s far from being the paradigm you say. I don’t even believe Obama to be one. Good evening.

  • Dreadsen

    geezus get out of fantasy land. O.s. your vision is way too skewed.


    “Babs I think that we should not even try to say anything good about McCain ever because if we do its like the gang of obamacans comes at us with relentless attack.”

    read up. I see no attacks. Just regular points being raised in a respectful manner.
    I’m not trying to compare Obama to McCain in this thread. Only trying to learn more about his green stance which I like and have said so. So could you answer the question in my last post with out avoiding the question with an Obama attack?

    Also look at C.G. post and learn something. See if you can make some posts along the same lines. geeze man.

  • IndiMinded

    Speaking for myself, the major reason I won’t vote for McCain is not because he wants to continue the Iraq war, but that he wants to continue on the EXACT SAME course we’re on, without any evidence that final victory is even possible within the next 4 years. If he were to lay out a plan of action that seemed plausible and choose a decent VP, he’d probably have my vote.

    I just can’t support banging our collective heads against a wall in the hopes that one day we’ll knock it down.

  • Christopher Schwinger,
    thanks for the site link. I gave a few pretty pennies in trying to elect Fred Thompson. I was a Fred Head for sure who passed the message on faithfully. Not to mention the respect I have for his wife, what a lady.
    As for Ron Paul, I do like him, the only thing I disagree with is his anti-war policies. Still I would vote for him over McCain any day.
    Democrats can say what they will of Rush, I truly think its b/c there simply jealous of his conservative success. No liberal talk show host has ever made it as big as Rush, and you can’t credit a liberal with the success of talk radio. Just look at how Air America is working out, riddled in debt and the place to go for washed up left wing actors to hang there hats, that is until there pay check is in question.

  • Michel

    And what about Bill Maher or Ed Schultz? Are they jealous of Limbaugh’s success as well? What about Michael Moore, can he be considered a liberal commentator? And Air America is in debt, but why don’t you talk about Jones Radio Network?

    I don’t think things can be so simplified that in the end it’s only a matter of jealousy between commentators. I think that, at the bottom, the main thing is the political ideology… then the professional envy. Specially when you are a liberal, because the left in this country has never been the most popular of the two.

    But I don’t deny that Limbaugh’s success has something to do with it.

  • Michel

    Oh, and in my humble opinion, the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh is Randi Rhodes. None of them ever feel the need of offering proof to back up their claims.


    Michel please dont refer to michael moore ever again. That man is so beyond the idea of an asshole and he is also so corrupt. I despise him not only because of his agenda at all but in the way he presents himself and the way he changes peoples words and stories. He is dispicable, a fat lazy slob who can only make videos like farenheit 911 because of the soldier.

  • Michel

    Well, that’s funny because Michael Moore is one of the people I respect the most, so…

    I won’t even try to discuss the accuracy of his books and his films. I know you are one of the ones one can’t reason with. Let’s try to stick to the issue of this post, can we?

    Oh, and I will refer to Michael Moore every time I consider fitting. But it was nice of you to say please.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I don’t agree with you on politics, Michel, but I greatly appreciate the respect you show others!

  • Michel

    Believe me, it’s mutual. And I greatly appreciate the way you present your arguments. Keep up that way, even when you’re provoked.

  • Babs

    Dreadsen, no, I don’t believe McCain is posturing on the environmental issue for the polls, and thanks for asking. His voting history shows he has been involved and supported the environmental preservation issues for years. I’ve copied below the votes that are his earliest, back to 1996, that show his interest in the environment is long term.

    09/13/2005 EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule
    S J Res 20 YES VOTE Resolution Failed: (Senate) – S
    (47 – 51)
    10/30/2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
    HR 1904 YES VOTE Bill Passed (Senate) – S
    (80 – 14)
    04/06/2000 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Drilling amendment
    S Con Res 101 YES VOTE Amendment Tabled (Senate) – S
    (51 – 49)
    09/17/1996 Federal Land Grazing Fee Amendment
    HR 3662 YES VOTE Tabling Motion Rejected (Senate) – S
    (50 – 50)
    08/02/1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995
    S 1316 YES VOTE Conference Report Adopted (Senate) – S

    Scientists and experts in the field don’t seem to be able to agree on whether global warming is real or not, so I don’t think we can expect any of the candidates to know difinitively, either, nor anyone on this forum. But I tend to think that if we do nothing and it’s real we’re in more trouble than if we do something and it’s not. Personally, I see the clouds of pollution over China and even California and I wonder how people live like that. But then I’m insulated to a great extent from that environment here in the many timberland forests and plantations where wildlife and land conservation are just second nature to us. So naturally I’m going to agree with any effort any of the candidates make to preserve the environment. In fact, anytime these issues come up the old Sonny & Cher song comes to mind “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot”. *LOL*

    O_S, when the dog fight is over and the general election is in front of us with defined candidates, there will be plenty of issues for us to discuss about McCain on this site. Nate and Michael go out of their way to be fair in their news reporting. There will always be fanatics who want to change your opinion as they’re too narrow minded to accept that’s one of our basic freedoms. But there are still plenty of people here that support Obama that we find common ground to discuss issues with – without the disrepect and sarcasm. Hang in there, you know the old saying. He who laughs last laughs best. =)

  • Babs

    Dreadsen, one more for you:

    ABC News: “McCain Has Spoken Out Often On Climate Change.” “During his presidential quest, McCain has spoken out often on climate change. He was one of the only Republican candidates do so and was the most forceful GOP contender to talk about the issue. In 2003, he sponsored the first bill calling for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” (Ron Claiborne, “McCain Breaks Sharply From Bush On Environment,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, 5/12/08)

    So, no, he’s not playing to the polls.

  • Stalin


    I’m sorry to tell you but McCain is losing my vote by the day. In the Republican primary debates he said several times that whether global warming is a problem or not, he’d rather err on the side of caution. Now he’s saying that global warming is a foregone conclusion. He’s not being genuine.

    What is he going to change his mind on next?

  • Babs

    Stalin, if McCain is going to lose your vote, let it be over something more than this. Don’t you think it’s possible that since saying he’d rather err on the side of caution, which means a position of positive action, that he just may have continued to study the problem until he is now convinced of it? What’s the problem with that? That’s not being ingenuine, that’s doing research and coming to a conclusion. The fact that he came to this conclusion during the election process shouldn’t cost him points IMHO. He hasn’t changed his mind, he’s simply become more convinced that global warming is a problem. Check out the statement I quoted above, “In 2003, he sponsored the first bill calling for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” So how is he so different today?

  • Stalin


    It is more than this issue. I don’t think that he suddenly did the research and came to the conclusion that global warming is a fact. I have no problem with him erring on the side of caution…to a certain point, but don’t close the debate like the media, celebrities, and many politicians have.

  • Babs

    Stalin, close the debate? Are you meaning that being convinced is closing the debate? Not sure I followed you on that, just asking. Or is it that this is an issue that does offend conservatives and you’re a conservative? Just trying to understand here……….

  • Christopher Schwinger

    It’s hard to go into all of this stuff about McCain, because frankly I find it overwhelming. There are a lot of YouTubes deriding McCain’s hypocrisy, but it’d be easy to dismiss those as being extremely slanted and taken out of context (which is easy to do with/on YouTube). Maybe I’ll just mention three things here.

    1. McCain used to say Samuel Alido was too conservative, and now he denies saying that, even though it was recorded.
    2. McCain got angry on a plane recently when asked about whether he was considered for John Kerry’s running mate.
    3. McCain twisted Romney’s statement in the California debate before Super Tuesday: Romney said we need to have benchmarks/milestones, and McCain said Romney was advocating an abdication of our duty to win a war.

  • Babs

    Well, Chris, we could do this for all the candidates, couldn’t we?

    Obama recently said he had visited 57 states, his staff wouldn’t let him visit Hawaii and Alaska. Does this mean the man thinks the US has 59 states?

  • Stalin


    I’m saying that McCain changed his position from erring on the side of caution to being convinced. I don’t want him to fall into the same category as those who have been brain washed by the Al Gores of the world. You can err on the side of caution while still encouraging more debate and research on global warming. Maybe he is doing that, I don’t know.

  • Babs

    Ok, I’m following you now. I don’t know if he is doing that either, but I don’t think he closed the door on further research. I’d like to know that, too, and I’ll do some homework to see if I can get us an answer to that one.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Yup, we could do it for all the media darlings (Huckabee, Obama, McCain, etc.–and everyone agrees that Hillary lies). But there were/are a few honest candidates: Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin. I suppose there are RUMORS that say these candidates have been bad, but you won’t find blatant dishonesty associated with them on the invaluable Judicial Watch. Saying McCain’s no worse than the other candidates does not make his cover-ups justifiable.

  • Babs

    It’s amazing to me what high standards we hold our candidates to.

    1. They must walk on water.
    2. Their opinions must be written in stone and never changed.
    3. They must have the ability of total and accurate recall.
    4. Human emotions are not allowed.
    5. Refer to number 1.


  • Dreadsen


    interesting info there thanks.
    Now i see what Stalin is saying though. He was green already and probably already had his stance on global warming. He just didn’t reveal his true stance on global warming until after he got the nomination. hahaha Which is fine with me. At least he hid something positive which could have held him back then holding some sinister evil plot.
    I’m also skeptical of global warming. My wonder is the proof that HUMAN activity is the direct cause of global warming. That is open for debate. But going greener is something we should be considering anyway regardless of our role is responsible or not.
    This is not a McCain endorsement from me but i will say “Go McCain on the Green agenda”

  • Babs

    That’s what I said, Dreadsen. It’s better to do something and it turn out to be needless, than to not do something and suffer the consequences if it turns out to be an accurate accessment.

    I support him on this one, too, and even though I do support his candidacy, I don’t always agree with him. So you’re safe on that one. *L*

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I like your sarcasm, Babs 🙂 . Actually, I don’t happen to find any of those qualifications on my list for what makes a good candidate (LOL)! I would add, though, that it’s illegal to accept campaign funds from donors who aren’t American. Hillary did it with Elton John, and McCain did it in March with the Rothschilds.

  • Babs

    Just a little humor there, Chris, not directed at anyone in particular. 😉

    Really? I’m surprised the media didn’t jump all over that one. What’s your source there?

  • Dreadsen


    “Obama recently said he had visited 57 states, his staff wouldn’t let him visit Hawaii and Alaska. Does this mean the man thinks the US has 59 states?”

    Yeah see he was talking about Palmyra Atoll, Baker Island, Johnston Atoll. That will take us to 59 states haha! Hey there are even more areas that can be added which will probably take us to 63!

  • Babs

    Oh yeah, Dreadsen, and don’t forget Coney Island and Avery Island. And if Ron Paul wins and abolishes the federal government, we can probably start calling them all countries. 😉


    McCain did not reveal his stance on global warming till now because he needed the conservative vote. Now I will agree with Michel for the first and probably the last time. McCain is playing by the polls in a small amount here. HE has always been green but brings it up more now to court more independents and democratic voters, so please Stalin and other conservatives who dont like this, you must realize he needs to do this to win the election.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I apologize for not qualifying the claim, because the fact is that since the Federal Election Commission is effectively shut down, we don’t know what transpired at the Rothschild event. The McCain campaign’s invitation to the event said only Americans would be able to provide funds or donations; however, it has not responded to Judicial Watch’s questions about specifics. I think that a lack of openness in itself means the McCain campaign is hiding something. However, I fully know and understand why many would not find that suspicious.

    I don’t think McCain respects the law. He’s violated McCain-Feingold, which he created, by withdrawing from “campaign finance” without the Federal Election Commission’s permission. The FEC lacked enough members to meet and grant McCain permission, so McCain withdrew without permission. The chair of the FEC warned him that he needed permission, or he might face severe punishment. McCain did it anyway. After all, if the FEC’s shut down, it can’t stop McCain.

  • Here’s a few more reasons why I won’t be voting McCain:

    1.Kennedy/McCain Amnesty Bill
    2.McCain/Feingold campaign finance Bill
    3.His stance on Stem Cell research, and he calls himself pro-life, Please. As a side not, National Right to Life rated him 33% in 2001-2002 and 75% in 2005-2006.
    4.Supports bailouts on the sub-prime mortgage issue
    5.McCain voting against renewing tax cuts that were put in place by the current administration
    6.Openly admitting that he doesn’t know that much about economics, a BIG NO, NO when were going through an economic down turn.
    7.McCain voted against Justice Samuel Alito

    John McCain proved himself to be a populist anti-capitalist when he called the pharmaceutical companies “the enemy” during the most recent South Carolina debate. George Will is even wondering why John is a Republican and hasn’t switched yet.

    8.John McCain claims he is against water boarding terrorists b/c it’s unconscionable torture, but is A.O.K with our soldiers being water boarded when receiving training for a hostage situation.
    9.He’s all about the Gun Control. Gun Owner’s Of America rating – F…NRA gave him a C+
    10. John McCain has swallowed the “Man Made Global Warming” pill whole.
    And Finally, Drum Roll Please…John McCain considered leaving the GOP to become an independent caucusing with the Dems, and only balked when Jeffords beat him to it. Daschle and others swear its true.

    People he’s not a Republican, he’s really a Democrat! Go figure!!! It explains his voting record. I can’t believe this doesn’t effect Republicans that he all but became a Democrat. However, this seems to be the direction the Republican party is going in, in that case I want no part of it.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Hey Conservative Gal, you know the most absurd statement I read about McCain? “McCain is 85% conservative”. Give me a break!


    OK Conservative gal if you are a true conservative i would believe you would want McCain over an Obama or Clinton for the simple fact that he is more in touch with a conservatives beliefs then they are.

  • As a true conservative why in the world would think that I would back John McCain. McCain has proved himself to be a populist anti-capitalist when he called the pharmaceutical companies “the enemy” during the most recent South Carolina debate. Just because he looks more republican then Obama or Hill doesn’t mean he is the lesser of the evils. I really think you need to look it Conservative Principals to fully grasp why conservatives would never vote for McCain. Clinton looks better then McCain at this point. At least she’s real about what she stands for, that I can respect…and no I will not be voting for Clinton either so don’t start traveling down that road.

    As for the whole Global Warming debacle, scientist are always wrong, thats why scientist are not running a business! You don’t have to be right as a scientist to get paid, you just have to come up with data and theories.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I love what Fred Thompson said, namely that the so-called scientific experts are trying to tell us what happened 200,000 years ago when they get the forecast wrong half the time. Give me a break, “experts”!

  • McCain’s Record
    There was a survey done recently (still trying to find the link) that tallied all the close Senate votes during McCain’s terms. Apparently, there were 89 particularly close and important occurences, and McCain broke from Party lines for roughly 25 of those situations, and was a no-show for around 19.

    These are numbers, so they do not reflect what the issues were, how the behind-the-door politics were working, or the true impact McCain had during these important events. However, what they do show is that he is not a lemming. The man votes based on other factors than simple “Party” affiliation, which in my book is an important trait to have in a politician.

    I would not want a liberal candidate who always voted Democratic, nor a conservative candidate who always voted Republican, because I do not believe either Party has the monopoly on good ideas.

    Nate I would again stress that conservative philosophy is distinct from neo-conservative philosophy.


    Um i would say McCain is by far the lesser evil than Barack Obama. BY FAR. I do not understand your logic. You tell me to look at the conservative principles, I am a conservative I know what they are. So dont tell me to go down that road. I believe McCain is a better choice over Obama anyday. He will keep taxes low, and cut spending. He is more skilled in foreign policy and his stances on foreign policy and war I agree with much more than Obama. He says he is pro-life even though he may not act like it, ill take his word over Obama who is pro-choice, which is murder. So yes I will be voting for John McCain over Obama for those reasons and others. I would hope you would to because of some key conservative issues he he holds to.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    O_S, how do you know McCain will lower taxes and spending? Don’t you think he supports the Al Gore tax to stop global warming (something like 1.2 trillion dollars)?


    Chris just a dumb question. McCain is only talking big on global warming( Not real and just a leftwing conspiracy) to get the independent and liberal votes that he can win by talking about this. People see Bush as a failure about the environment so McCain is trying to further himself from Bush in the aspect that he wants to seem like he cares about the environment to get those votes.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    But what do you think a President McCain will do when asked to heavily tax people to stop global warming? (I ask sincere questions, and am personally not too fond of rhetorical questions.)


    PResident McCain will not tax heavily to stop global warming. Plain and simple he wont, he does not care enough about it and is not crazy like Al Gore over it. McCain is concerned with the environment but not in a leftwing way were he would tax people over it. He is mainly doing this now just to win some votes. So no McCain will not tax heavily to stop global warming, that is a question i have never heard before and is just not smart. Global warming is not an issue especially its not an issue to tax people over.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    What makes you so certain that he won’t get into hard-core environmentalism? How do you know? Just because McCain doesn’t say what he means all the time does not mean he won’t mean some of the things he says.


    Hey maybe I dont know what he will do but what makes you so sure he want laugh in the face of those leftwing people and just brush them off when he has won the election. Your question is plain trash, come up with some real point to make not some bs leftwing question about taxing for global warming.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I’ve studied McCain. He’s not conservative on one issue. Why would global warming be the exception?

  • Michel

    Oh no, Chris, you’re doing it, you’re actually trying to reason with O.S.

    Babs, that must be an impressive record of enviromental voting to you but, in you constant eagerness for putting info into proper context, did you actually felt the need to read the W. Post article I posted about McCain’s voting record on enviromental issues?

    Please do.

  • Babs

    Michael, I don’t know about the link you’re searching for, but according to my online sources McCain has voted with Republicans 88% of the time, so you’re stats follow that line. I’m not sure how that’s supposed to make him a democrat, but I’m with you. I don’t want someone who doesn’t have a mind of their own.

    Irregardless, here are a couple of snippets on the subject of party lines from McCain in a speech delivered today:

    “I’m not interested in partisanship that serves no other purpose than to gain a temporary advantage over our opponents. This mindless, paralyzing rancor must come to an end. We belong to different parties, not different countries,” McCain says in remarks prepared for delivery in the capital city of Ohio, a general election battleground. “There is a time to campaign, and a time to govern. If I’m elected president, the era of the permanent campaign will end; the era of problem solving will begin.”

    “I will respect the responsibilities the Constitution and the American people have granted Congress,” the senator said, “and will, as I often have in the past, work with anyone of either party to get things done for our country.”

    So there you have it. John McCain will side with Democrats if he believes they’re right. Well, God help us. I heartily agree with both of these statements, which is why I’m considered an Independent I suppose, another label. We have somehow reduced the integrity of both the Democratic and Republican parties to sectors that have come to carry the same connotations as a black man or a white woman, actually invoking prejudice into the two and drawing lines in the sand like children. It’s ridiculous. We allow our media to ask asinine poll questions further dividing us into categories of educated and uneducated, middle and lower classes. And which of those should we put at the back of the bus? :0

    We’re one nation, and we must work together to survive and prosper, no matter what “party” you call yourself belonging to, or whether your sub-label is conservative or liberal. What have we become, the Stepford children? It’s supposed to be wrong for a republican to vote against republicans on anything? Well, here’s one McCain voted yes against the republicans on, and while it failed, I’m glad he did. Obama voted no against his party on it as well:

    Vote 132: S 2611: Salazar Amdt. No. 4073 As Modified; To declare that English is the common and unifying language of the United States, and to preserve and enhance the role of the English language.

    I personally don’t understand why ANY American, republican or democrat, would vote no to this bill but my Republican Congressman got a letter from me about his vote and lost my support for his re-election. Because that’s what we are allowed to do in America, stand up for ideals and issues based on our own beliefs whether anyone else agrees or not. We don’t have to be party robots.


    I really could care less about McCain stance on global warming you need to realize that global warming was just a leftwing conspiracy,it has been proven that the world goes through cycles. Ah and McCain is conservative on many issues so I dont know what your studying Chris

  • Whobody

    Global warming is the term used to describe the increase in AVERAGE temperature of the earth as it goes through those CYCLES. The term “global warming” doesn’t deny the reality of those cycles in any way, shape, or form, it actually is defined by those cycles.

    Saying that it’s “proven that the world goes through cycles” does not disprove the global warming theory.

    Just thought you might want to reword that argument.

  • Babs

    Defining global warming that way then, Whobody, couldn’t we say that global warming could actually be defined as a cycle? It seems to me we could. Would that make conservatives happier? 🙂

  • Christopher Schwinger

    O_S, I agree that global warming is a hoax to expand the power of government. The two issues people say McCain is conservative on are FIGHTING TERRORISM and DEFENDING THE UNBORN. Embryonic stem cell research is necessary, he says. And he wants to close Guantanamo.

    What else do you think he is conservative on?

  • Michel

    I’m not sure about McCain’s support of stem cell research, and I highly doubt he wants to close Guantanamo, but as always, if you present links with evidence of this I will accept my mistake.


    He is conservative on his tax cuts, he only voted against Bush’s tax cuts because of the spending control, and voted for the tax cuts when we started to cut spending. But also Whobody if u say global warming is just the world going through a cycle, then why do leftwing people like Al Gore like to make up stupid facts like the oceans rising 6 ft and idiotic stuff like that. So your statement about global warming means a cycle is comepletly false because when anyone hears global warming they do not think oh thats just the earth’s heating cycle, they think what liberals say, and that is the world is because so hot because of us humans and global warming is causing hurricanes, and more natural disasters.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Here are your answers, Michel. The media just doesn’t focus on this stuff!

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Take it or leave it, O.S.

    I suppose you’ll reject it, but oh well. McCain changed his tune about his reasoning. That phrase “don’t cast your pearls before swine” might apply, except that you’re not swine. Calling someone a swine is very disrespectful and improves nothing. I just think you just are so defensive that you won’t consider other perspectives in a reasonable sort of way.

  • Michel

    Thank you very much, Chris.

    What I find funny is how many people here are using the word “conservative” as a virtue and “liberal” as an insult. Why do you do that? It is because of the conservative commentators out here are much more agressive? They’re just political postures, and they both have (subjectively) good or bad characteristics. To try to evaluate McCain on whether he is a conservtive or not is foolish. If he’s a moderate, let him. If Obama’s a liberal… let him be. At the bottom, none of them is a radical, no matter what some people want to think. (Babs, I’m looking at you and your opinions about Obama and his supposed “Alinsky poverty brain-wash”.

    Let’s be respectful about poelitical ideologies, please. Let’s try to look at what’s good at the core of each stance and just insult what’s wrong… not just the whole ideology. It’s not to attack conservatives, it’s just that they are the ones who are being portrayed as the right thing to be. If this were happenin the other way around, I’d still be complaigning.

    Thank you.

  • IndiMinded

    I still remember reading the rumors that Kerry was offering McCain the VP slot, and you know I really crossed my fingers that he would accept (it would have made Kerry’s ticket so much more appealing). Of course he didn’t, and now even that offer has come back to haunt him – but there was a reason that John Kerry felt that McCain would make a good runningmate on a democratic presidential ticket, and obviously it’s not because McCain’s a conservative’s conservative.

    The man thinks for himself, and he’s got views ranging across the board. I always felt that was a strength, but then I could never figure out what the common thread was in abortion, gun control, and the death penalty that allowed people to form into two neat little groups of unanimous agreement.

    I do feel pretty bad for you conservatives without a candidate to vote for this time around. Our two party system is kind of letting you down this election.

  • Michel

    The conservatives don’t need a new party. They need to fix/rebuild this one. I think they shouldn’t be looking to put blame on some people they deem as traitors to conservatism, but finding ways to fix grave mistakes they have within the GOP. Check this up:

  • Dreadsen


    You are back misrepresenting arguments so you can refute the newly packaged point. This is equivalent of arguing with yourself. I can’t believe you are still doing this.

    “But also Whobody if u say global warming is just the world going through a cycle, then why do leftwing people like Al Gore like to make up stupid facts like the oceans rising 6 ft and idiotic stuff like that. So your statement about global warming means a cycle is comepletly false”

    Whobody posted this

    “Global warming is the term used to describe the increase in AVERAGE temperature of the earth as it goes through those CYCLES. The term “global warming” doesn’t deny the reality of those cycles in any way, shape, or form, it actually is defined by those cycles.”

    In his post he makes it clear that Global Warming is not just earth cycles as you tried to put it. But the “INCREASE IN AVERAGE TEMPERATURE” as it goes through the cycle and he made that absolutely clear.

    I am also skeptic on Global Warming. But I also acknowledge that it is NOT just Al Gore but Al Gore has based his evidence on scientists who study all of these things for a living. Contrary to that there are also scientists who say it’s a Hoax. Al didn’t create this all by himself. There have also been scientists who have been trying to build a case of our behavior contributing to the damage of the Ozone layer back in the 80’s. So “theories” along these lines have been around. But it is controversial since these scientists can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt with their own colleagues that it isn’t just a “theory”.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    The point of talking about how McCain is not conservative is not to insult liberals, but just to say that he does not remotely represent the core principles of the Republican Party (the official tenets).

  • Babs

    I get emails from the McCain camp, and this morning I got one that contained this excerpt:

    “One of these challenges is global climate change. Whether we call it “climate change” or “global warming,” in the end we’re all left with the same set of facts. Good stewardship, prudence and simple common sense demand that we act to meet the challenge and act quickly. And if we are wrong and climate change is not a threat, all we are doing is leaving a better planet for our children and lowering our dependence on foreign oil.”

    For the life of me, I don’t understand how this could offend anyone. Do vacinations for your children offend anyone here? Do you with hold them from your children in stubborn argument that they might or might not get chicken pox, that chicken pox may not even exist anymore so why pay for a shot?? That if you vacinate them you might be considered – OMG – a liberal?? To reject even a possiblity that climate change or global warming could exist, aren’t we cutting off our nose to spite our face? And isn’t it our children and grandchildren that will pay the price for our mistake? Isn’t this about much more than politics?????

  • Stalin


    The issue is the economics of global warming. There are many who want to tax greenhouse gas emissions. If you think gas prices are bad now… We have to very careful and consider the effect on the economy if we are going down this road. I am all for protecting the planet, but our plan of action needs to be based on sound science and not scare tactics.

  • Babs

    Well, Stalin, some people’s issue here seems to be whether it exist or not. O_S is even calling it a left wing conspiracy. I think we have to get beyond that, and deal with the economic issues of how to fix it, and that was my point. 😉

  • Stalin


    I’m one of those people who question Global Warming and I will question it until we have more sound evidence. There is a lot of evidence that we are entering a cooling period. I am willing to hear both sides. Regardless of how the debate turns out, I am for energy independence, alternative fuels, and being responsible with our environment.

  • Stalin


    I agree with McCain that we should act as though it does exist until we know otherwise…to a certain point.

  • Babs


    I agree to most things only to a certain point, so I’ve no problem with that. We’re still on the same page.

  • Babs


    I have a question for you. You said this:

    “The point of talking about how McCain is not conservative is not to insult liberals, but just to say that he does not remotely represent the core principles of the Republican Party (the official tenets).” and you gave a link above that to an article that says McCain had changed a reason for voting against Bush’s tax cuts. The reason “changed” to:

    “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief.” (quoted from a McCain floor statement)

    My question is:
    1) is this last quote your argument that McCain is not conservative, or
    2) that he gave two reasons for voting against the tax cut, or
    3) that he voted against Bush on the tax cut period?

    Trying to understand here……….which makes him not conservative?


    Babs, the idea of global warming, which many leftwing say causes hurricanes and will cause the world to flood under 6 feet of water is completely false. Yes we need to be better about greenhouse gases but seriously in the 60’s the left said we were coming to another ice age, and it never happened. Over 40 years later the left starts this idea of global warming. The earth is getting so hot that it will melt all the ice and cause the earth to be flooded with water. Now recent studies shows the temperature of the earth is decreasing and that the ocean temperature is low and not excessively hot like many believe it is. The leftwing always comes up with these crazy ideas, but there thinkings of an iceage and the horrible outcomes of what global warming would do are conspiracies, and by believing both of these things, their party contradicts themselves. It shows specifically republicans and sciencetists and right when they say the world goes through cycles. So by believing in an ice age and in global warming, the left just solidifies the rights views on global warming.

  • Babs

    And the left are the ones who accuse the right of using scare tactics. Ok, light bulb. 🙂

    One comment, though, I don’t know about hurricanes causing the world to flood under 6 feet of water, but I do know we lose real estate after every one. We have a saying down on the coast “Beach front property is a temporary buy”. I can show you homes on the beach that used to have a back yard several hurricanes ago. Now they’re gone.

  • Stalin

    From the NOAA website: There is no evidence that global warming causes hurricanes.

    1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.

    2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.

    3. The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has been largely caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.

    4. Tropical cyclone wind-speed monitoring has changed dramatically over the last few decades leading to difficulties in determining accurate trends.

    5. There is an observed multi-decadal variability of tropical cyclones in some regions whose causes, whether natural, anthropogenic or a combination, are currently being debated. This variability makes detecting any long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity difficult.

    6. It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. Model studies and theory project a 3-5% increase in wind-speed per degree Celsius increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.

    7. There is an inconsistency between the small changes in wind-speed projected by theory and modeling versus large changes reported by some observational studies.

    8. Although recent climate model simulations project a decrease or no change in global tropical cyclone numbers in a warmer climate there is low confidence in this projection. In addition, it is unknown how tropical cyclone tracks or areas of impact will change in the future.

    9. Large regional variations exist in methods used to monitor tropical cyclones. Also, most regions have no measurements by instrumented aircraft. These significant limitations will continue to make detection of trends difficult.

    10. If the projected rise in sea level due to global warming occurs, then the vulnerability to tropical cyclone storm surge flooding would increase.”

  • Babs

    Now your quoting my biblical website, Stalin. 🙂 All USCG captains swear by NOAA and I (being one) am no different. If you think, though, that I meant hurricanes were a direct cause of beach erosion, let me explain.

    It’s the storm surge mentioned in #10, the by product of the hurricane, that causes the property erosion. And it’s become not a small problem on the gulf coast. Many times the hurricane will make landfall well west of the area, but the highest storm surge will be east of that and many times cause more damage than the hurricane itself. Panama City, Florida has, over the last few years, had to import sand by the ton to restore many of their beaches. As have Ft. Walton, Destin, and probably others I can’t swear to.

    Is global warming causing the hurricanes that cause the storm surges? Who knows, not me, for sure. Doesn’t matter, really. It’s just a fact of nature that’s become a real problem we deal with every hurricane season.

  • Stalin


    I was just laying to rest the idea that hurricanes are caused by global warming. I hear you about the erosion. My family has been going to the Florida panhandle/Alabama beaches for over 30 years now. In fact, my wife is down there right now. After Ivan, the beach and dunes were devastated. It is just now getting back to normal. You are absolutely correct that beach front property is a temporary buy. Hurricanes have not really increased in intensity there is just much more development and the destruction is more obvious.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Well, Babs, McCain said at the time of rejecting the tax cuts that they hurt the middle class and didn’t take away from the rich. Government-directed restribution of wealth, specifically robbing the rich to give to the poor, is contrary to the Constitution, first and foremost, but also to the conservative consensus that’s based on the Constitution. McCain now gives a different reason for rejecting the tax cuts, trying to sound like a champion of restrictions on government spending. There’s his belief about government’s role, and his hypocrisy/flip-flopping, that both concern me about this.


    Babs i never said hurricanes were going to make it flood the earth 6ft and if i did i didnt mean that. What i meant to say is that these types of things like antartica melting and the polar caps melting will cause flooding up to 6ft higher is just pure studpidity. I never understand how the left believes someone like Al Gore a politician over scientists who have said there is no way the water could rise that high. I mean its just like the left always comes up with these sort of conspiracies. If global warming is real why did we have the coldest january and february ever in the northeast? I thought the earth was overheating

  • Babs

    That sounds like a Robin Hood syndrome, Chris. *LOL* So you’re saying that tax cuts for the middle class to equal proportionately the tax breaks for the wealthy is contrary to the Constitution, and apparently only conservatives follow the constitution? You’re not making any sense to me, McCain opposed the tax cuts, for whatever reason. Does that make him not a conservative? Or does stating 2 reasons – both of which could be geniune – make him not a conservative? And what about his belief about the government’s role makes him not a conservative?

  • Whobody

    The theory of global warming does not disallow the presence of cold weather. Global warming refers to an increasing AVERAGE temperature of all locations on earth across a period of time. Also, global warming does not imply OVER-heating, but merely increased average temperature. That’s why it’s “global warming” and not “global combustion.”

    Knowing the definition of the term doesn’t make you a “left-wing conspiracy theorist.” It doesn’t even imply that you buy into the theory. It just illustrates that you know what you are denying and arguing against.

    And there are scientists on both sides, so it almost makes a mute point to say that we should believe the scientists over a politician. (Which we should look into a politician’s sources. If a politician says something like Gore has, we should find out where his information is coming from, and what info he may be leaving out. Then we can better support or deny it.)

    Don’t be offended. I just think your point would be better stated if you refuted the arguement closer to its actual meaning.

  • Stalin


    Have you noticed that recently “Global Warming” has become “Climate Change”. I believe this is an attempt by global warming deciples to hedge their bets. That way they are coving all bases. I noticed that this started happening more over the last year because we had a much cooler year. This may have been caused by La Nina, maybe not. Just something to think about.


    WHOBODY i think i meant to say that people were saying the average temperature was rising, but recent studies from 1999 show that the average temperature is dropping and that the oceans temperatures are dropping to.

  • Michel

    Haha, we got little flags now? 🙂 Got a cuban one.

  • Yeah, a new plugin I found that automatically displays the appropriate flag of the country everyone’s from.

    Adds a little nuance to the discussion.

  • Michelle

    I’m trying out the flag.

  • Michelle


    Just to weigh in a bit: I’d have to say that I’m happy to hear McCain’s taking a stance on global warming. At least all sides are talking about it. I do not, however, see exactly how his outline for a plan will benefit anyone. Taxing carbon emissions? I thought he was all about tax cuts. You know, for the wealthy.


    Obama’s just climbin’ in those polls! Fantastic! I can’t wait to vote for him in November.

  • Babs

    Nate, love the plug in. Is this detecting computer IPs folks are posting from?

  • Stalin


    Yes, it detects the IP addresses. Pretty cool I think. That’s funny that Michel has a Cuban flag, because he says he lives in Florida.

  • Babs

    I see that, Stalin. I remember asking him if he was Cuban the first day he posted on the site, and he got defensive and brushed it off. He may have relatives aplenty in Florida, especially in Miami, but I see he hasn’t caught the boat yet. There are plenty of foreign allies I respect and do value on this site, the UK for instance, and their opinions of our governmental system and election processes. But not all.

    At least now we can see who we’re dealing with when they are slamming our democracy, huh? 😉 Thanks, Nate.

  • Stalin

    I’m tired of talking about Colin Powell. Here’s some news on climate change…looks like we are back to 1978 temperature levels.