Wow: McCain attacks Romney for failing to endorse Bush tax cuts that, um, McCain voted against
posted at 11:26 am on January 14, 2008 by Allahpundit
Reminiscent of those Ron Paul ads pitched at the base that tout his military background and support among veterans while conspicuously omitting his foreign policy positions. You want to see what McCain means by “straight talk” when a race is thisclose? You got it. See this PDF at Politico for a close-up of the mailer.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
And to think this guy could actually be our nominee. Stop Huckabee and McCain…Vote Romney!
davenp35 on January 14, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Dude.
Spirit of 1776 on January 14, 2008 at 11:29 AM
to be fair to “Fightin’ John,” he did WANT to pass them, but there were too many spending bills attached to it…
wasn’t that the official line?
Vincenzo on January 14, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Wow, that’s some mavericky maverickness there. But remember, he suddenly supported the making the Bush tax cuts permanent at the debate last Thursday too. It’s Pander Season.
ReubenJCogburn on January 14, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Next he will attack Mitt on campaign finance, amnesty, Gitmo, drilling in Alasks, and global warming. Oops, the last three are positions he stands by at the moment.
libhater on January 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM
The pot is calling the kettle what?
thekingtut on January 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Well, if McCain gets a lot of votes, it shows that a lot of SC voters are ignorant, and will believe anything put in front of them…kind of like Mitt supporters.
right2bright on January 14, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Mitt needs to counterattack this hard, McVain has left a huge opening with this. Hammer him hard and make him lose his temper.
thirteen28 on January 14, 2008 at 11:36 AM
As a conservative, I’m starting to feel like a RINO if this is the future of the Republican Party.
Valiant on January 14, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I’m not great supporter of Romney, but what difference does it make if the governor of a liberal state doesn’t endorse something at the federal level?
Frozen Tex on January 14, 2008 at 11:39 AM
LOL well, that’s some, er, audacity right there, isn’t it? LOL
funky chicken on January 14, 2008 at 11:40 AM
McVain lies every time he says he is a conservative…so this is nothing new.
Roger Waters on January 14, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I’m not crazy about either of these guys, and I especially cannot stomach McCain after shamnesty. BUT… where does it say on the mailer that this is from McCain’s campaign? (Maybe I’m missing it…)
Lan Astaslem on January 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM
davenp35 on January 14, 2008 at 11:28 AM
That’s Mitt “Make all the promises you have to” Romney. Same RINO, Slicker package.
edgehead on January 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Fred!/Romney 08
Techie on January 14, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Oh my god. They’re driving me back to Fred.
*sob!*
Tanya on January 14, 2008 at 11:47 AM
When did Governors “endorse” federal legislation? They may support it or not but isn’t endorsement limited to those actually part of the process? Few governors would support something on the national level that ultimately means fewer dollars into their own state’s coffers.
Let us keep the big picture in focus here. John McCain, not Romney, actually voted against tax relief. John McCain has not been a champion of tax relief by any measure. John McCain’s amnesty plans would have caused massive tax increases. The people of Michigan should not be fooled by John McCain’s sophistry.
highhopes on January 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Wow. Is McCain a congenital liar like the Clintons?
This stunt is going to make it very difficult for Fred to endorse McCain.
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 11:49 AM
How can you take my name on HotAir?
Bryan and AP I don’t appreciate that.
lan astaslem on January 14, 2008 at 11:49 AM
If I actually could believe what Mitt says is what he’ll try to do, I could be aboard that train. Problem is, his record and what he now says have too many disconnects, no matter how pretty of a politician as he might be.
Go Fred!
michaelo on January 14, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Embrace it. Let it wash over you.
Besides, he’ll be finished by Saturday night.
Allahpundit on January 14, 2008 at 11:51 AM
The reason that I can’t consider Romney and acceptable 2nd choice is that he didn’t do just that. He seems to have a federal solution for every problem, real or percieved.
At this very moment he’s promising to revive the Michigan auto industry by “investing” with your tax dollars. His gun control stance in MA could’ve been forgiven, except he wants to bring it to the federal level too. The list goes on and on- when talking in vague platitudes he acts like a conservative, but corner him on specific issues and he’s another pandering, big government “compassionate” conservative.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM
SECOND LOOK AT STRAIGHT-TALKING NUANCE!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 14, 2008 at 11:57 AM
His point in Michigan is that the federal government has put in too many regulations on the federal level that has hurt the local economy by over regulating.
lan astaslem on January 14, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Romney cut taxes and reduced the deficit in Mass despite having to deal with a liberal Dem majority legislature, but it is true that it is ridiculous to pass the buck to Romney who had no authority whatsoever over the Bush tax cuts.
McCain is doing a great job of making me loathe him as much as I loathe Huckabee.
Hollowpoint,
He’s not asking for a welfare program, he’s asking for R&D and the like so we can compete with Asia. The unfunded mandates in CAFE standards will be the death knell for the state and the auto industry, with a larger impact on our entire economy, if something is not done. Mitt, not McSham is the one to solve this.
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 12:02 PM
This is why Rudy is the only true conservative. How bout dem apples?
froghat on January 14, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Chutzpa!
lodestonejames on January 14, 2008 at 12:05 PM
When did you become Nostradamus? Forgive me if I believe no prognostications after knowing that early polls have a very good chance of failing. Otherwise it would be a lgacy of President Gore and maybe Kerry.
CTDeLude on January 14, 2008 at 12:07 PM
I’m with Mitt!
McCain is McStupid.
madmonkphotog on January 14, 2008 at 12:07 PM
He’s said numerous times that he wants to “invest” in the auto industry- with “invest” meaning “spend federal tax dollars on”.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Why not? McCain has discovered that there really is a vast pool of uninformed voters(his polling numbers prove it), so he can pretty much say anything.
NellE on January 14, 2008 at 12:12 PM
R&D paid for with taxpayer dollars = welfare program.
If Detroit want to compete with Asia, they should do so by paying for their own R&D without the feds bankrolling them.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I don’t fault McCain for not supporting the tax cuts. He’s obsessed with getting to a balanced budget. But attacking Romney on this is really shameful. Just when I start liking McCain a little again he always shows his nasty side.
RW Wacko on January 14, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Very slowly now-
It’s an investment if it reverses a recessionary trend and makes the manufacturing sector profitable again. This impacts the entire economy, not just Michigan, and as an added benefit, that investment increases revenue to the federal treasury.
That is not the same thing as a handout in the form of welfare payments.
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 12:23 PM
We don’t need your dose of reality…we’re happy in our happy place.
right2bright on January 14, 2008 at 12:25 PM
The first word that came to my mind as well.
Not cajones. Just estupido.
Tzetzes on January 14, 2008 at 12:26 PM
McCain says he will still vote against them. At least Romney sees the success and wants to make them permanent. And I too see the future where all RINOs will be conservatives.
davecatbone on January 14, 2008 at 12:27 PM
This is the way Mitt helped the State budget. He projected a huge shortfall,and when the shortfall did not happen because the analysis was wrong, he took credit for cutting the shortfall.
He took credit for making a wrong prediction…a true bureaucrat.
Boston Globe
Romney defended his assertion that he closed a $3 billion gap.
Like the democrats saying cutting proposed spending is cutting the budget, even though the budget is greater. They say, a budget should be increased by 8%, and if they accept 4% then they claim they cut the budget by 50%.
Bureaucrats, you gotta love them…they try so hard.
right2bright on January 14, 2008 at 12:35 PM
It’s exactly the same thing as a handout… because it is. If the auto industry can’t compete due to lack of R&D spending, then they need to devote more of their own budget to R&D.
What Romney is proposing is corporate welfare with little or no guarantee of return. There is an economic system that believes in doing such things- it’s called “socialism”.
It is not the role of the federal government to use taxpayer dollars to prop up industries that are suffering from their own bad business practices. If Romney wants to help turn around the Michigan auto industry, he should be campaigning to be CEO of General Motors- not US President.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 12:35 PM
To me, any money put into the hands of people, the Government will get it all back, and more.
How?
Lets say they gave $1 to a person, who buys something from the McDonalds dollar menu, that cashier buys $1 of gas, that gas station attendant gets their hair cut for $1, that hair stylist uses it for paying her babysitter, that baby sitter goes to McDonalds and buys something from the dollar menu, cycle starts all over again. Each time that dollar changed hands, the government took a part of it. I could have i this example differently and went with $1.00 for dollar menu, then $0.80 for gas, $0.65 for a haircut, $0.50 for babysitter. The less price is the amount the Government takes in taxes.
So, every dollar handed out will be returned.
WoosterOh on January 14, 2008 at 12:44 PM
No it’s not. Michigan (or any state for that matter) can’t compete when the Federal government passes unfunded mandates in the form of CAFE standards or taxes corporations at a punitive rate, both of which make it impossible to compete with the rest of the world.
The CEOs have done everything in their power to stay afloat and don’t have the resources to invest in R&D at the level needed to get out of this mess.
It benefits all of us if manufacturing can be revived and made profitable again.
This is not “socialism” but you sound like a Useful Idiot when you make claims like that.
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM
When I first saw that, I thought you somehow were able to edit your profile this last open registration.
captivated_dem on January 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM
No, that’s a genital liar, not congential. I’ll say this, he either has a ginormous pair of gonads or he’s completely psychotic. Probably both.
Brass Pair on January 14, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Or vice-versa.
CABE on January 14, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Great. Send me ALL your money. Better yet- let’s have the government take all your money at gunpoint, then give it to me. After all, every dollar handed out will be returned…
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Lets just do this: Lets give all these guys an IQ test. Whoever is the brightest bulb gets the nomination. Me thinks it would go like this:
1st: Mitt (cum laude at Harvard JD and MBA; self-made trillionaire, something HA’s “NotSoBright” can only dream of)
2nd: Rudy (a bit ethically challenged but clearly smart.
3rd Ron Paul (Nutty but a respected physician and has an intellectual approach.)
4th: Fred (Nixon said he was a dim bulb, and he doesnt have much to show for his senate career; still, he gets the issues right, mostly.)
5th: McCain (Yeah, he was a prisoner of war, I know, I get it, he reminds us every damn day.)
479th: Huckster (wasnt there originally 479 candidates? Tells jokes that he, and the other dim bulbs find amusing but he is plays to the low IQers and in him they have one of their own. Oh, and apparently he believes in Jesus…he just doesnt treat people the way Jesus taught us to.)
Mitt Wins!!
Roger Waters on January 14, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Against them, before he was for them? Let`s call it a sudden revelation for ST. John. :-P
ThePrez on January 14, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Yes. Or senile, maybe.
sloopy on January 14, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Are you sure you’re not European? They just love subsidizing their industries with taxpayer money.
CAFE standards aren’t the problem with the US auto industry- it’s not like they’re being forced to compete with imports that get poorer gas mileage. They also pay the same corporate taxes that all other corporations pay- does that mean that all other industries should get corporate welfare too?
The problem with the US auto industry is simple- short term thinking, overbearing unions and building crappy cars. If they can’t survive without government handouts, then let them die. That’s how the free market works.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Rush is talking about how CAFE standards will destroy the auto industry right now, and how McCain is all wrong on this issue.
To quote El Rushbo, McCain is a transparent, quivering mass of jello.
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 1:13 PM
McCain calling himself a “straight talker” is like the Islamofascists calling themselves memebers of the “religion of peace.”
EJDolbow on January 14, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Heh, RW, it’s not them who vote.
Entelechy on January 14, 2008 at 1:18 PM
CAFE standards will force the auto industry to produce cars no one wants at a sticker price of $6,000 to $10,000 more per vehicle. That has nothing to do with the free market!
The unions did contribute to the problems, but that is water under the bridge at this point, and an innovative approach like Romney can provide is the only solution and he is not suggesting that unions be empowered.
Moreover, corporate taxes are too high across the board. Countries like Ireland who slashed corporate taxes are experiencing economic booms as they attract businesses to their country.
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Writing a check with taxpayer money to subsidize industry R&D costs is an “innovative approach”???
CAFE standards are a joke, but foreign auto manufacturers must meet those standards as well for cars sold in the US- if Honda and BMW can make cars profitably in the US, why not GM or Ford?
People aren’t buying imports because they don’t have to comply with federal regulations- they do. They aren’t buying them because they’re cheaper- most imports are more expensive than their American made competetors. People are buying imports because they’re simply better cars. Heck, we’re still making cars with pushrod engines- a design that should’ve been obsolete 25 years ago.
Rewarding poor performance with taxpayer handouts isn’t a free market solution- it’s a socialist solution.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Mitt and Fred were tied for my #1 and #2 choice. They’d make an outstanding ticket together. I noticed that neither of them are countering eachother (not burning any bridges)
I guarantee you that if either of them were to debate H. Rodham Clinton on national TV (with or without CNN planted questions) we’ll see more tears.
JetBlast on January 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Yes, you’re missing something. Go to the Politico link Allah posted, and look at the flip side of the flyer, where it says “Paid for by John McCain 2008.”
Nichevo on January 14, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I had a teach in jr. high that had been a Korean War POW. Let me tell, the abuse a POW goes through has to have some long-lasting damage on the psychosis. The teacher was breathlessly quite, never raising his voice even one teaching. But he snuck up on me one day and damn near neck-pinched my head off. Constantly licking his lips and drooling.
I think any observer can see the POW affect on McCain. His temper. The guy is as psychotic as Huckie is sly.
Mark my words. Trust no one.
You can’t shake hands with a clenched fist. – Indira Gandhi
Trust no one, tell your secrets to nobody and no one will ever betray you.
-Bigvai Volcy
Trust no one unless you have eaten much salt with him.
-Cicero
Trust everybody, but cut the cards. – Finley Peter Dunne
Love all, trust a few. – William Shakespeare
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_trust.html
mksmithwriter on January 14, 2008 at 2:13 PM
C’mon AP. Let them have 5 more days. What’s five more days?
csdeven on January 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Pay attention.
He proposed using the same tax dollars that are already being used, but in a way that is more productive.
That is the difference between a doer, as Mitt is, and a talker like Fred.
csdeven on January 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I thought Fred! was finished last Saturday.
Rode Werk on January 14, 2008 at 2:41 PM
When the Feds (with the help of John McCain) burden us with emissions standards without providing access to the R&D dollars to pursue the technology needed to achieve those standards it is (one last time!) an unfunded mandate.
The Japanese have already complained to the EU that they can’t meet their emissions standards.
Moreover, the Japanese auto industry benefits from an artificially deflated Yen, which works out to about $4,000 per vehicle. This make Japanese cars less expensive here and our cars more expensive in the Japanese market. This puts us at a huge disadvantage before we take into account labor costs, problems with the unions and so forth.
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 2:48 PM
I don’t fault McCain for not supporting the tax cuts.
I do! Besides, the excuse he gives for voting against the tax cuts: “we needed to get spending under control first”. That tells me basically that they can’t control their spending, so we have to pay!!
kcd on January 14, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Come to think of it, I recall that even Volvo, the ultimate crunchy granola auto company, said they couldn’t meet these standards either.
Not only that, it demonstrates ignorance on his part as to the positive effect on tax revenue that is achieved through tax cuts, and an adherence to the belief that it’s Washington’s money, not ours.
McCain is just another clueless bureaucrat who has never worked in the private sector.
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 2:58 PM
From what he’s been saying it sounds like he has a lot of things he’d be a “doer” on with regards to new and creative ways of spending more and more of our tax dollars.
We need someone who wants to eliminate excess spending on non-essential programs- not increased spending to subsidize whichever industry he thinks will help buy him the most votes using our money.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 3:04 PM
This is interesting, from RCP’s Horse Race blog:
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Ridiculous. They can spend whatever they like on R&D. By your definition, nearly all government regulations amount to an “unfunded mandate” that warrants government subsidy. You’d have a point if only domestic automakers were subject to the CAFE rules, but they aren’t and therefore you don’t- foreign automakers have to meet the same standards.
But which of the numerous reasons you cited justifies in your mind the corporate welfare Mitt is actively supporting? CAFE standards, which have been around for decades and affect all car makers equally? The Yen? EU regulations? Labor costs? And why auto makers and not every other industry that faces the same sorts of regulation and competition?
I suspect the obvious and most simple answer is as usual correct- Mitt supports it, and therefore so do you.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Ughh, I can’t stand John McCain. I respect what he’s done and been through. Aside from that, he’s too old, too easy to set off and does anyone else think he looks as though he just walked out of a mushroom cloud?
He blew it with me on the Amnesty (banana) bill.
It’s either Mitt or Fred. If Mitt gets pushed out and then Fred, or vice versa, I don’t know what I’m going to do.
Geronimo on January 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM
All this corporate welfare talk makes you sound like a Moonbat.
I suspect that because Mitt supports it…you don’t. You don’t have a shred of objectivity when it comes to him and have never found one positive thing to say about him. It’s been nonstop ragging from day one.
As for how much the auto industry has to spend, they don’t have unlimited resources, and there are all sorts of competing technologies out there from hydrogen fuel cells, flex fuels, and so forth. The technology needs to be developed way beyond where it is now before it can be adopted by the auto industry.
It’s like trying to decide if the 8 track cassette is the next big thing, putting all your resources into it, and finding out that it is obsolete in no time.
There is huge risk involved and the Fed dollars can help with absorb some of these risks. The end result will benefit every single one of us, including you – not that you deserve it.
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Hey Hollowpoint, who does this describe?
Invest in alternative fuels; with R&D to reduce CO2. (Sep 2007)
Deficit spending ok for military, infrastructure, and R&D. (Dec 2007)
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 4:04 PM
McCain shows little signs that he’s “lost it”:
Inability to remember what his position was some time ago…
Says things which clearly indicate that he hasn’t read and/or didn’t understand bills he has voted on…
The ease with which he gets talked into believing liberal fantasies…
It may not be Alzheimer’s, but whatever it is: it’s not good!
landlines on January 14, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Gee, I thought the liberal moonbat position was that government money is the solution to all problems, with hostility to the free market.
All car makers- foriegn and domestic- spend many millions on R&D. It’s part of their budget, no different than payroll or office supplies. It’s up to them to decide how to allocate their budget- not the government.
There is risk in all business endeavors- it’s not the government’s place to eliminate that risk. All they should be doing is insuring a level playing field, and propping up one specific industry with tax dollars isn’t exactly leveling the field.
Any industry would benefit from a federal subsidy… at the expense of everyone else paying for that subsidy. Your entire argument is a socialist one- that government is better at spending taxpayer money than the taxpayers themselves are. If the government wants to benefit me, they can let me keep more of my own money instead of using it to buy the votes of Michigan auto workers.
You have yet to make a coherent argument why this one industry deserves taxpayer money. Probably because there is none, short of being in the tank for Mitt (or a European-style socialist). Federal subsidies for special interests is not a conservative position. Never has been, never will be.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM
The military and infrastructure are legitimate government expenses. I disagree with Fred on spending taxpayer money on alternative fuel R&D- when fuel prices are high enough, industry will do so on their own. However he’s still not advocating subsidies for a specific industry in the blatantly pandering way Mitt is.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 4:24 PM
You don’t think it’s blatant pandering to the global warming fabulists to say you support R&D to cut CO2 emissions?
The auto industry directly employs 325,000 people. What do you think that does to the entire economy, not just that of Michigan? Investing in R&D is a win win for all of us, by helping the economy and providing us with better cars.
Developing alternative fuel directly impacts the auto industry. Oil Prices are already high and there is a huge incentive to make fuel-efficient cars, but it could be a very long time before we have affordable, safe, energy efficient vehicles that are big enough to accommodate families.
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM
I don’t live in Michigan, am not an auto worker, and already have a car (gas-guzzling 2000 V8 Jeep Grand Cherokee). If you want to support the auto industry, go buy a new American car with your own money. Just don’t expect me to be happy about being forced to help pay for it on tax day.
As demand for more fuel efficient vehicles increases, so will the incentive to develop and buid them increase- without the need for taxpayer handouts.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Amnesty Senator…we will not forget…never. Amnesty.
ronsfi on January 14, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Wow. Switch topics from health care to energy and all of a sudden you’re embracing collectivism. If people want alternative energy, they can invest in it themselves or buy their energy from companies who are funding the research. What’s unacceptable is having the government take people’s money at gunpoint “for the common good.” That’s classic “government knows best” / “society is more important than the individual” Liberal bulls***. Of course, this is Romney here, so it’s not unexpected.
Mark Jaquith on January 14, 2008 at 5:28 PM
IMHO you have just demonstrated exactly how some concervatives are completely misguided when they fail to connect the dots on how Mitt constantly drives policy to the right when confronted with a liberal situation. We are already in a liberal “government knows best” scenario for the common good. We already just passed an energy bill. Will already have future tech mandates. We already have government subsidies of ethanol. We already have rising CAFE standards. We already have the government collecing the tax money to implement these ideas.
Advocating the lessening of all of these mandates and government rules and regulation in exchange for more government funding of research is inherently a more concervative aproach then the path we are on. If your ideological purity evaluator is set so high that you only want a candidate who will totally cancel all these programs and directly return that tax money…..then guess what you are not going to ever get a realistic candidate.
Resolute on January 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Insisting that people carry health insurance (instead of dumping their medical costs on taxpayers) is collectivism?
Giving R&D support to an industry which is already nearing bankruptcy and has been mandated by the Federal Government to produce energy-efficient cars, despite the fact that adequate technology to produce these Utopian vehicles has not been sufficiently developed, is collectivism?
It sounds like conservatism to me.
Buy Danish on January 14, 2008 at 11:43 PM
The countries national interests lie with getting energy independent. If help the auto industry R&D that accomplishes that task, it would be well worth it.
csdeven on January 15, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Communist!
j/k
Buy Danish on January 15, 2008 at 7:21 AM