Kick John McCain out of the Republican Party!

I wonder what those in Arizona where he represents would say?

He might have lost the election if he didn't change his rhetoric to the tune of the current political winds. Other than slick talk he is the same career politician.

Oh, I do agree but was commenting on how often politicians get votes due to name recognition without the slightest knowledge of what they have done and how they've voted. Like in Missouri more politicians received votes due to their name recognition than any beneifits the've brought to their district. When I ask why you voted this or that way th eanswer sound more like a kindergatener trying to explain why it rains.

It didn't hurt that he out spent his competitor 7 to 1 either. What's the suprise, he has spent his career doing just that, going with the politial winds.

He's the perfect example of the Neoconsrvative Republicanl. Exactly the kind of Republican that needs to be defeated in the general election.

Thanks for posting this to Dicks Cafe.

not your choice

Not my choice, but I will see if I can persuade others.

Yeah, it's GREAT that John "We've Got Them Just Where We Want Them" McCain and Sarah "Cackle of Rads" Palin lost in 2008. But Chuck Baldwin? Seriously? If we're going to talk about changing with political winds, how many parties has Baldwin supported and then quit?

And come on, Baldwin is no defender of the Constitution. Hell, he hates half of it. He hates the 14th Amendment. He hates the 16th Amendment. He hates the 17th Amendment. With his list of "Dates That Destroyed America", it's not hard to see why Chuck Baldwin is in absolutely no danger of becoming a "career politician".

LOL, that "statist" label you stuck on McCain was a pretty hypocritical touch, don't you think? Yeah, McCain's a statist. So's Baldwin. So's Paul. So's Hayworth. So are you.

Sure, John "Complete the Danged Fence" McCain is a pathetic shell of a man, a hypocrite, and a sellout, but despite (or maybe because of) all that, he absolutely flogged Hayworth. And why's that? Because Hayworth was driving the Crazy Bus to Teabaggerville, and not enough Arizona Republicans wanted to go along for the ride.

This post is not about Hayworth.

I’d love to hear your explanation as to why you call me, Paul and Baldwin statist.

Last time I checked the constitution, amendments 14, 16, and 17 comprised about 7.9% of the constitution, not half.

"This post is not about Hayworth."

No? So you think it's a disgrace that McCain beat Deakin?

"I’d love to hear your explanation as to why you call me, Paul and Baldwin statist."

Because all of you advocate for the existence of the state and the use of the power of the state to achieve your goals. Why wouldn't I call you statists?

"Last time I checked the constitution, amendments 14, 16, and 17 comprised about 7.9% of the constitution, not half. "

Last time I checked the 2008 election results, 7.9% was about 50 times larger than the percentage of people who voted for Chuck Baldwin. Were you one of those people, Matthew?

I said it was a disgrace that McCain won his primary, but I said nothing good or bad about Hayworth.

What goals do we want the state to accomplish for us? We talk about taking power away from the state, which means the state isn’t doing anything for us.

Your last sentence doesn’t make sense; I don’t know what it has to do with what I was responding to in your original comment.

"I said it was a disgrace that McCain won his primary, but I said nothing good or bad about Hayworth."

To win, he had to beat somebody. Which one of his opponents did you want to win rather than him?

"What goals do we want the state to accomplish for us? We talk about taking power away from the state, which means the state isn’t doing anything for us."

Talking about taking power away from the state doesn't mean you're not a statist, Matthew. Are you talking about taking all power away from the state? If not, you're a statist.

I'm looking at Baldwin's old campaign website right now, and I see him saying he would use the power of the state to "seal our borders and ports".

I see him saying he would use the power of the state to free two convicted criminals (Ignacio Ramos & Jose Compean) from prison.

I see him saying he would use the power of the state to maintain "a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space."

I see him saying that he would use the power of the state to "end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades".

See what I'm saying, Matthew? Statist.

I have no preference who beat McCain in this post; all I am concerned with in this post is the fact that he was re-nominated yet again; he has no place in the party, if the GOP is supposed to be a conservative/libertarian party.

Statism and libertarianism are polar opposites. Obviously, Baldwin isn’t purely libertarian. He does takes some positions that can be argued as statist.

I don’t know whether we can or should move to 100%, pure libertarian society; but I think we must move much closer to one. For now, I don’t advocate complete dismantling of the state; in a few, limited areas, including defense (not today’s bloated version of defense, which is nothing but empire building).

So in those few areas you might be able to call me statist, but in most other areas, I am libertarian. On the whole, you cannot accurately label me a statist, as that suggests that I am a statist in the majority of issues.

And of course, by what you have said before, you’re definitely a statist too- more so than me.

"...he has no place in the party..."

Clearly he does have a place in the party, since enough other members of the party voted for him for him to win the primary.

"...if the GOP is supposed to be a conservative/libertarian party..."

LMAO!

"So in those few areas you might be able to call me statist, but in most other areas, I am libertarian."

I'm not describing your views on this or that issue or "area", Matt. I'm labelling you, like you labelled McCain.

"On the whole, you cannot accurately label me a statist, as that suggests that I am a statist in the majority of issues."

I can accurately label you a statist, because you are a statist. It's not about being a statist on this or that issue. Either you advocate for the existence of the state and the use of the power of the state to achieve your goals or you don't.

"And of course, by what you have said before, you’re definitely a statist too- more so than me."

Yes, I am a statist. I don't know anyone who isn't.

The Republican Party generally is the conservative party, and the Democrats are generally the liberal party. I don’t know what’s so funny about that.

I labeled McCain statist because on a majority of issues, he is statist. Where as on a majority of issues, I am libertarian. You’re playing word games again. You know that me being ‘statist’ in a few issues out of hundreds or thousands does not mean you can accurately blanket the term on my whole political philosophy.

You can’t be statist and libertarian on the same issue.

Do you consider Gather.com member Steve Bachman statist? How about Murray Rothbard?

"The Republican Party generally is the conservative party, and the Democrats are generally the liberal party. I don’t know what’s so funny about that."

I'm not surprised.

"You can’t be statist and libertarian on the same issue."

You keep trying to make it about different issues. It's not. Either you advocate for the existence of the state and the use of the power of the state to achieve certain goals, or you don't.

"Do you consider Gather.com member Steve Bachman statist? How about Murray Rothbard?"

Yes, I consider Gather.com member Steve Bachman a statist. I consider Murray Rothbard a dead statist.

It is about different issues, because I am not statist on all issues.

I mentioned Bachman and Rothbard as they are, as far as I know, anarcho-capitalists. Please explain how they are statists.

"It is about different issues, because I am not statist on all issues."

Regardless of your views on various issues, you support the existence of the state. You are a statist.

"I mentioned Bachman and Rothbard as they are, as far as I know, anarcho-capitalists. Please explain how they are statists."

Until recently, it's been quite a while since I've chatted with Bachman, but from what I remember, despite all the anarcho-capitalist stuff he throws around, at a practical level, he has OK'd the existence of the U.S. federal government if only it would adhere more stictly to the Constitution, or some-such. And if I understand his libertopian vision correctly, while his free society will have somehow thrown off the yoke of government on the national level, there would still be some form of government at the local level. Thirdly, despite how much he bitches and moans about the unjust power of the state, he chooses to subject himself (and his children) to it, and in fact to provide it with the money it requires to maintain its power.

As for Rothbard, sure he talked the talk. But the reality is that he was politically active. He tried to use the power of the state to achieve certain goals. He was a Republican for a while, then when that didn't work out for him, he joined the Libertarian Party, working with guys like Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul. Then when that didn't work out, he worked for Pat Buchanan. So not only did he try to use the power of the state to achieve his goals, he also hung out in some pretty unsavory company to do it. I don't really understand why you'd want to describe someone as not being a statist after he tried to put Pat Buchanan in the White House.

Thanks.

The main issue that I have is that while you can call someone like myself statist, it’s misleading by itself. It implies that statism can be blanketed over my whole political philosophy. In reality it can only describe a fraction of what I support or agree with. Whereas, John McCain- to get back to the post topic- believes the state should be involved in just about everything (as per his public statements and voting record). Calling him a statist isn’t misleading at all, because on a majority of issues, he is a statist.

And I think that you're being misleading by attempting to deny that you're a statist.

I understand that you're saying that McCain, in a way, is more statist on more issues than you are. But then, from what I can tell, so is the Republican Party (in terms of its platform), as well as most individual Republicans. So if anybody was going to get booted out of the party for not being Republican enough, or whatever, then shouldn't it be you?

Except I didn't deny that I am a statist in some ways.

The only booting out the the GOP that needs to occur is not re-electing McCain. I never said we should not allow him to be registered as a Republican. That's his own choice.

From what I hear from other Republicans, it's McCain that's got less in common with us, not me.

Dude, it's not that you're a statist in some ways. It's that you are a statist. Period. It's a binary thing. Either you are, or you aren't. Like theism and atheism. Either you believe in a god or you don't. If you do, then you're a theist. If you don't, then you're an atheist. It wouldn't make any sense for me to say that I am an atheist but I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created rum.

"From what I hear from other Republicans, it's McCain that's got less in common with us, not me. "

Maybe you should've ran against him, then. Because it seems that the Republicans that voted for him seemed to think that he had enough in common with them and their statist political views that they voted for him and not Hayworth or Deakin.

I think we've played the statist word game long enough. We both mostly agree, except that I insist it would be misleading to go around and call me a statist without further explanation.

Only Arizona residents can run in an Arizona primary. Those that voted for him fell for his slick talk, as most voters do. Had he not 'moved to the right' he would not have been re-elected. As I said in the post, "a politician that lets the political winds to determine where he stands, is merely seeking a powerful career instead of serving as a defender the Constitution and your liberty." Surely that kind of politician is not to your liking?

"Surely that kind of politician is not to your liking? "

As I said earlier, John McCain is a pathetic shell of a man, a hypocrite, and a sellout. But he's more to my liking as a politician than either Hayworth or Deakin.

Not knowing enough about either Hayworth or Deakin, I'll leave that for some other debate; but I do have a hard time believing McCain would be better than either one of them.

3081 and 3002 seem to be good proposals why are you saying they dilute freedom.

Jeffrey,

The titles and the brief descriptions almost always sound good. S 3081 allows U.S. citizens to be arrested and detained indefinitely. S 3002 destroys what is left of a ‘free market’ in the area of vitamins and minerals. Both of these bills are unconstitutional.

3801 described swift action against enemies of the state from forign coruption, the arresting of persons within the venue of America falls independantly with state and local agency's, the 3801 is more a federal power deligated in deterance propogated by outside influence. What I don't understand is why it has to be written down if we do it anyway, on this explanation you may well have a good arguement.

The problem is that bills like 3801 is that it destroys our constitutional rights to a speedy trial as well as Habeas Corpus.

And 3002 is only good for those that want an inefficient, centrally controlled economy, with their economic freedoms compromised in exchange for a false sense of security.

I don't always agree with everything McCain says...or any other politician from any party. But I'm not sure kicking them out of the party is the solution.
We wouldn't have anyone left.

Ideally, the voters would have kicked him out. All I would really like is for Republicans and conservatives to stop supporting hypocrites, who only pay lip service to us, (like McCain).

Thanks for commenting.

I believe John McCain is one of those come-back-to-bite-ya lessons we all learn at some point in our lives. When the Republican Party supported his presidential campaign, turned their backs while he flaunted a brainless, gun-toting, loudmouth as a legitimate running mate, said nothing when the two of them incited hatred and violence - they did give him a place in their party. A huge place. Possibly, a huge dark hole they'll never climb out of now that what few members they have left are rather fond of the Annie Oakley brigade of brainless, gun-toting, loudmouths following in her footsteps.

I am sincerely sorry for you since you sound like someone who cares. I want nothing more than for people like you to clean up that party. But, I don't see it happening any time soon if the people I talk to daily and the Republicans I read on the internet are any indication.

Well, I try to persuade them. Very few take the hard look at their own political party and hold them to the same standard as other parties.

Matthew, McCain's chameleon history was one of the reasons the some Republicans were not happy with the primaries. I blame the media, they favored him in the primaries before turning on him in the general campaign. I was against him for his stance on immigration, which, as you indicated he "changed with the wind". You are right he is a "liability to our cause". But I really am fearful of any 3rd party attempt... I see that as simply an election give away to the socialists Democrats.

I think one reason McCain lost in 2008 is because he wasn't anyone to get excited about; he was more of the same, part of the problem.

At this point, I know third parties may toss the election to the worse of the two evils, but it may actually be the path to real (long term) victory. It's kind of hard to explain, I did cover some of it in this post, there's probably more I need to write about it.

If we take a hard unbending unforgiving route, we will lose. That's equates to totally handing over our freedoms. I for one am not willing to risk that.

If we take a hard unbending unforgiving route, we will lose.

Correct. There certainly should be some 'wiggle' room. But some fundamental issues can't be compromised on, like the 10th amendment & sound money.

We'll never get that smaller federal government if we permit the likes of McCain or Lindsey Graham or Scott Brown to represent us.

Thanks for the post