To Onager re 9:07 PM post: no, Rush is off base in his attacks on John McCain. Rush has analyzed well issues in the past, but he has a personal animus toward John McCain that is resulting in intellectual dishonesty and destructiveness on Rush’s part.

That Rush or you or anyone would call John McCain a phony only reflects the lack of judgment. John McCain is more genuine tham most anyone else in American politics. John McCain is a genuine war hero. During the Vietnam War, he was a combat Naval avaitor; that meant he flew jets on and off carriers to carry out bombing missions over North Vietnam, which had one of the toughest air defense systems in military history. On the day that McCain was shot down, he had bombed a power plant in Hanoi; and thereafter, he endured six years as a P.O.W. during which time he endured real torture at the hands of sadistic North Vietnamenese guards. What defines phony, in contrast, is Rush in one of his newsletters having himself drawn with an infantryman’s helmet on when Rush never served in the military.

If Rush defines conservatism for you, then you do worship him. You are parroting his comments that are off base. Consider the following:

- John McCain has stated for some time now that he would make permanent the Bush tax cuts while working to cut federal spending suggests that you need actually to hear John McCain on the issues. John McCain originally opposed the Bush tax cuts because they did not include spending cuts and spending then got out of control; to McCain, the more Reaganesque position was to call for both tax cuts and spending cuts. More than any other candidate, McCain is a fiscal hawk serious about cutting spending.

- As for respecting the First Amendment, John Mccain has a good record on that. What you presumably are concerned about is campaign finance reform, which was an attempt at regulating the electoral process so as to reduce the influence of money on politics, which on its face is not a violation of the First Amendment. The problems in the law are not its intent but are definitional ones that are in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. I doubt that it is an issue in the future; radical jihadism will be.

- John McCain has been saying for months that he got the message, that law enforcement in immigration matters comes first. Actually, the current problem stems from the fact that the law enforcement provisions in the 1980s law signed by none other than President Reagan were not enforced. Last summer’s bill had law enforcement provisions that if enforced would mean that there would not be amnnesty, but as McCain acknowledges, the American people did not believe that the law enforcement provisions would be enforced and until they are, no other measures are acceptable.

Now, how about what Rush does not talk about? John McCain is a pro-life fiscal conservative who, at this time of struggle with the radical jihadists, is the best candidate to be the next Commander in Chief. That McCain knows his stuff on military matters is reflected in the fact that he has been right for years on the Iraq War, first in criticizing the Rumsfeld light footprint strategy and then in vocally supporting the surge when Democrats were declaring defeat and most Republicans seemed to be looking for a way out (e.g., Senator Lugar) or looking at their feet (e.g., Romney). That McCain knows his stuff in foreign affairs is reflected in the fact that McCain is endorsed by former Secretaries of State George Schultz, Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger and Lawrence Eagleburger and former Navy Secretaries John Lehman and William Ball. That McCain is far more conservative than what you lead people to believe is reflected in the endorsements of Senators and former Senators including Coburn, Gramm, Coats, Brownback, Burr, Thune, Domenici, Kyl, Lott and Warner; that’s pretty conservative group but what you would expect for a man (McCain) who has an 83% approval rating in his voting record from the American Conservative Union.

Also consider this: John McCain’s sons are in the military serving the country consistent with his family’s tradition of military service, and John McCain frequently calls for service to the nation. That is appealing to me. My older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant with Ranger tab who until last October served 15 months in Iraq as a platoon leader and who earned a Bronze Star and an Army Commendation Medal for actions under fire; and my younger son will be commissioned a U.S. Marines Second Lieutenant in May having already passed officer training at Quantico. In contrast to McCain’s sons and my sons, Romney’s sons work in Romney’s campaign, and Romney says that they are serving America by doing so. I am sorry, but that is phony to me, consistent with Romney having been a pro-choice and pro-gay rights candidate for Governor for Massachusetts when it was convenient. That Rush would go for Romney and be so personally opposed to McCain indicates that Rush’s judgment is way off.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 10:33 PM

to roux re 10:54 PM post: I suggest to you that you should not support Romney, but consider whether the personal animus toward John McCain is justified. I suggest also that the personla animus is not at all justified.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 10:56 PM

To NemoParticularis re 10:55 PM post: I think that if McCain is nominated, that if conservatives are true conservatives and THINK, they will realize that they should gladly vote for McCain, who is already endorsed by many Reagan era conservatives, who has an 83% lifetime approval rating from the American Conservative Union and who is heads above anyone else as being qualified to be the next Commander in Chief.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 11:01 PM