Zetterson & DfDeportation:

Let’s, for a moment, take your list and ignore John McCain’s strengths that make him by far the best candidate to handle the responsibilities of Commander in Chief.

Immigration: what is so great about Romney on the subject of immigration? John McCain has been for months and is quite clear that law enforcement must come first. Even Rush has applauded McCain’s answer on immigration. Let’s keep in mind that the current problem stems from the 1980’s legislation signed into law by Ronald Reagan. The problem with that legislation was not the provisions themselves, but with the failure of the law enforcement provisions to be enforced. What John McCain sought more recently, along with President Bush, was legislation that was not on its face amnesty assuming that the law enforcement provisions were enforced. As John McCain concedes now, however, the American people simply do not believe that law enforcement provisions would be enforced.

McCain-Feingold: it was intended to reduce the influence of speacial interest money on politics, and John McCain was attracted to it in the interests of a more responsive system to ordinary Americans. Regulation of the electoral process is not by definition a violation of the First Amendment. Can you explain how it was that McCain-Feingold was constitutionally problematic and why that so offends you? Remember that Fred Thompson voted for McCain-Feingold and President Bush signed it into law.

Tax Cuts: John McCain opposed the original tax cuts because there were no accompanying spending restrictions; and spending did go out of control. Had there been spending restrictions, then as John McCain has pointed out, more tax cuts could be discussed now. No one is clearer at present than John McCain about the need to keep the present tax cuts. In fairness, you have to concede that John McCain is an anti-spending hawk.

Gang of 14: the Senatorial compromise enabled John Roberts and Sam Alito to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and other conservative jurists to be appointed to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. With the compromise, the filibuster power was preserved for when there might be a Democratic Congress, which there has been since the 2006 election. Without the compromise, we don’t know that the “constitutional ooption” would have worked, not with real RINOS such as Lincoln Chafee then in the U.S. Senate. It is Chuckie Schumer who complains that Democats were snookered by the compromise; that says something about the merits of the compromise such that John McCain should not be criticized for it.

Keating Five: just what was John McCain found to have done? Just saying those words is not fair without specifics which apply as well to John Glenn of Ohio. And don’t do what one poster once did and cite to a recommendation of Special Counsel as to Alan Cranston in an unpublished report and pretend that it referred to McCain, which it did not.

Now, after one looks closely at your list, why don’t you acknowledge that Romney has done such things as say he would be more vigorous than Teddy Kennedy in promoting gay rights. Why don’t you acknowledge that Romney has no foreign policy experience?

Why don’t you also acknowledge that John McCain has been and is right about Iraq? He has been because he does know his stuff on military matters and indeed on national security and foreign policy matters as well. That is why former Secretaries of State Schulz, Kissinger, Eagleburger and Haig all support John McCain. Why don’t you also acknowledge that John McCain’s wartime record does reflect courage and character — for his service as a combat naval aviator, he was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, a Legion of Merit, a Purple Heart and a Distinguished Flying Service; and John McCain endured six years as a P.O.W. during which he was subjected to real torture by the North Vietnamese.

Let me put it in a more personal way. My older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab) who until last October served as an infantry platoon leader in Iraq, and for my older son’s service, he earned a Bronze Star and an Army Commendation Medal for Valor for actins under fire. I know how magnificent our military men and women have been. I also remember well how for 2006 and a good part of 2007 the Democrats were proclaiming defeat and many Republicans were hedging their bets. But not John McCain. He was a strong and clear voice for the troops and their mission; and he visited them often. Where was Romney? McCain had to correct him in September about how the surge was working, not appeared to be working. In the world we live, we need a President who knows what he is doing concerning military and foreign policy matters (McCain); we don’t need a President who lacks foreign policy experience and thinks that it is a management issue (Romney).

I care about who will be the next Commander in Chief, not only for the sake of my older son but also my younger son who will be commissioned a Seocnd Lieutenant in the U.S. Marines in May having already passed officer training at Quantico. As I remember, Romney once talked about how his sons were serving America by working for his candidacy — I am not impressed with that statement when one of John McCain’s sons is a U.S. Marine and the other is attending the Naval Academy.

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Zetterson: so instead of replying to my points in response to your supposed negatives and responding to my challenges, you allude to other so-called negatives, which comes down to supporting the use of waterboarding and calling John McCain a liar. You can’t defend your original position an dyou can’t respond to my challenges, so you try to change the subject. That, Zetterson, is a poor showing on your part.

As for torture, ponder what I wrote at 1:53 PM to davenp35 and that there is disagrement over whether waterboarding is torture because of its psychological effects. Current U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has called it represensible, and there is a good reason for that. Even if one conceded your position on waterboarding as not being torture, are you in disagreement with John McCain’s reasons for opposing use of torture in general?

As for calling John McCain a liar, please get a grip. John McCain’s service to the country deserves better. Also, Romney has a history of changing positions, but I don’t call him a liar.

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 2:04 PM

To mb4: I referred to the service of McCain’s sons because it reflects the genuine commitment of John McCain to service to the country. What is more, I have been dealing with the issues all through this thread. For you to suggest otherwise is not candid on your part. But then again, you are the one in another thread who tried to make fun of John McCain’s wartime service.

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 2:11 PM

To mb4: you have put up a number of glib comments, including making fun of John McCain’s wartime service. So let us consider that one as a way of seeing how way, way off base you are generally.

What John McCain and his fellow naval aviators did during the Vietnam War was to take off from carriers and fly jet aircraft on bombing missions in North Vietnam, which had one of the better air defense systems in military history. On the day that John McCain was shot down, he took off from a carrier, flew over Hanoi, North Vietnam, bombed a Hanoi power plant that was the target that day and then was shot down by a surface-to-air missle. He survived bailing out of his aircraft but was very badly injured; he then endured six years of captivity in North Vietnam and was subjected to real torture. John McCain may joke now about being shot down, but no one should question for a second the courage and character involved in John McCain’s wartime service. But you, mb4, have; why should we take anything you write seriously?

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 2:59 PM

One last reply to mb4: quoting liberal Newsweek editor Jon Meacham against John McCain saying that we were founded as a Christian nation only makes John McCain more attractive a candidate to me. One of John McCain’s P.O.W. experiences provided a good illustration of how, while John McCain does not wear his religion on his sleeve, John McCain is a believer. One time after a very unplesant interrogation, one of the North Vietnamese guards loosened the ropes binding McCain. At the next Christmas Eve, that guard came up to McCain, drew the sign of the cross in the dirt in front of McCain and silently stood next to McCain. After a while, the guard wiped out the cross, as that was a prohibited sign in Stalinist North Vietnam. McCain took it as a getsure of a Christan who did what he could to give comfort in that awful situation.

Jon Meacham forgot to consider George Washington’s words in the Farewell Adress about religion and morality being indispensable pillars of the American republic and the number of times other founders such as John Adams referred to America as a Christian nation.

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 3:11 PM

To Buy Danish: what Jefferson wrote in a private letter about the wall of separation between Church and State has been taken by the ACLU and given a different meaning than what Jefferson meant and used in constitutional adjudication in a way that it should not be used.

In 1802, Jefferson wrote a private letter to a congregation of Baptists in Connecticut reassuring them about their religious freedom. At the time, Connecticut had an established Church, the Congregational Church. How was that so after the First Amendment? Because the First Amendment was not yet held apply to the states and woulld not be until the mid-20th century concerning the religion clause. There were established churches at the state level in the United States in the early 1800’s. But Jefferson was a believer in the what the First Amendment stated on religion: that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor abridge the free exercise thereof. Note there is no language about the wall of separation between Church and State. What Jefferson did in writing the Connecticut Baptists was to assure them that the American conception of freedom of religion guaranateed the freedom of individual religious conscience and that accordingly there was a wall of separation existed between Church and State. Jefferson was using metaphorical terms to express the First Amendment’s anti-establishment clause. Jefferson was not adjudicating a court case, was not making an official presidential pronouncement and was not purporting to put an official gloss on the language of the First Amendment. Nor did Jefferson with hs words mean to keep religion out of the public square. In fact, it is clear that Jefferson did not use his language to mean keeping religion out of the public square because as President he ordered the Marine Band to play at Church services then held at the Capitol Building and would walk around carrying a Bible in what may be called an act of ceremonial theism. Jefferson was a very atypical free thinker in contrast to the dominant orthodox Christianity of the day, and in any event, what Jefferson meant is not what should dictate today the interpretation of the anti-establishment/free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The words of the First Amendment are the starting point supplemented by what was intended by those who actually passed the First Amendment — the First Congress that also approved congressional chaplains. Reagan’s “evil empire” speech contained a good discussion of basic points about how the First Amendment on religion should be read.

Even with two more quotations, mb4 is of course still woefully incomplete, especially since Adams at one point did call America a Christain nation.

But all this beside the point of my posts today defending John McCain.

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 4:40 PM

To Vanceone re 2:1 PM post: Because John McCain did not seriously consider it. That was a Democrat pipe dream. John McCain’s faithful support of the Iraq War, anti-spending and pro-life stances, support of the nomination and appointment of judicial conservatives (check the record when it came to vote), general fiscal conservatism and strong foreign policy hawkishness would not work for one second in the Democrat Party. Having just some of those views has made Joe Lieberman an outcast in the Democrat party.

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 5:01 PM

To DfDeportation re your 8:45 PM post: you still have not responded specifically to what I wrote in my 1:19 PM post concerning immigration. I wrote:

“[W]hat is so great about Romney on the subject of immigration? John McCain has been for months and is quite clear that law enforcement must come first. Even Rush has applauded McCain’s answer on immigration. Let’s keep in mind that the current problem stems from the 1980’s legislation signed into law by Ronald Reagan. The problem with that legislation was not the provisions themselves, but with the failure of the law enforcement provisions to be enforced. What John McCain sought more recently, along with President Bush, was legislation that was not on its face amnesty assuming that the law enforcement provisions were enforced. As John McCain concedes now, however, the American people simply do not believe that law enforcement provisions would be enforced.”

Repeating, as you do, that McCain supported amnesty does not respond to my points that the legislation supported by McCain was not on its face amnesty (which McCain denied it was amnesty), just as the 1980’s law signed into law by President Reagan was not amnesty on its face, that the problem with the 1980’s law was that the law enforcement provisions were not enforced, which is what created the present problem, and that the verdict as to this last year’s bill was that the American people did not believe its law enforcement provisions would be enforced either — hence, law enforcement must come first, a verdict that McCain has accepted.

By purporting to deal with only one of five issues you raised and to which I responded in my 1:19 PM post by not dealing with any of the challenges I raised with you in my 1:19 PM post, I take it that you have no responses as to the other four issues raised by you and none of the challenges I raised with you.

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 9:12 PM