Irish for McCain

Donegal newspaper endorses McCain
By RTÉ.ie journalist Blathnaid Healy

Barack Obama may have the support of Moneygall, Co Offaly, but it emerged that Republican party presidential hopeful John McCain has Ballybofey on his side.
The Vietnam War Veteran has been endorsed by The Finn Valley Voice in a front-page article headlined 'Vote for Cousin John McCain'.
The article reveals the US Senator's links to Co Donegal by way of his distant cousin Ivan Knox, a well-known Ballybofey businessman.
The discovery was made by a US geneticist Barra McCain, Mr McCain's eighth cousin, who carried out Y-Chromosome research.
He found some 400 people in the Finn Valley who could be related to the presidential candidate.
Mr McCain's relatives in Co Donegal are the equivalent of ninth cousins and spell their surname slightly differently.
The McKanes or McKeans were cousins of the senator's ancestor Alexander McCain who emigrated to the US from Co Antrim in the eighteenth century. However Alexander's uncle stayed in Ireland and eventually his children moved to the Finn Valley.
Finn Valley Voice Journalist Pat Holland says Mr McCain is as important to Ireland as John F Kennedy, but in a completely different way.
The Finn Valley area of Co Donegal, according to Mr Holland, is one of the only parts of the Republic that has a similar demographic to that of Northern Ireland.
Mr Holland said that the senator is very important because he is a symbol of the Finn Valley community and pluralist Ireland.
Mr Holland says he likes the Arizona politician. 'I don't see anything in his policies to scare me,' Mr Holland said adding that he probably had the right approach on the Iraq War.
Mr McCain voted in favour of the Iraq, but he wanted the US to invade with more troops. He also supported the recent troop surge.
Mr Holland thinks his newspapers endorsement will help 'a little', but does not think the Irish-American community in the US will swing in behind him in the same way they would for a candidate with an obvious Irish surname.
He is hopeful that Mr McCain will win the Republican nomination from other candidates Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. He said if the senator became the next president of the US it would be great for Ireland.
'It would be a good for the Finn Valley,' Mr Holland said. 'It would put us on the tourist map.'
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0118/uselection1.html

Norman Schwarzkopf Endorses McCain

Now, this for me is of significance. Another man who is dedicated to the security and sanctity of this Nation, coming out in support of John McCain. Rising above the tide of rhetoric and labels, General Schwartzkopf has made a statement by this action. An Important one for which I am grateful. As I peruse the daily news agencies, I become more and more annoyed with the "Conservative" part of the Republican Party. I too consider myself Conservative but recently, it seems, I have been disqualified. The pundits and reporters want me to believe that I am not a Conservative but a Liberal because of my support for Senator McCain. Regardless of my years of dedication to the Conservative ethos, now I am not a member of that group, so sayeth Sean Hannity and Chuck Norris.

So I say to you all, who are degrading and minimizing my beliefs and convictions with your quips and wit... Piss Off.

I suppose now it will be open season on General Scwartzkopf as well? I guess his record of service and dedication to this Nation will be brought to the fore and picked apart. His support of the Republican party will be negated and he will no longer be a Conservative any longer as well. He will be labelled a " Lib" and his love of country diminished. This is what I am seeing each and every day, and I believe it is beneath the Republican party to behave this way.

Hillary and Barack had it out on National TV the other night, to the joy of millions of Republicans. Their mudslinging and black attacks showed the world who and what they really are finally. This behavior is part and parcel for the Democrats. In fighting and back biting, has become so common place within their party no one seems to notice it any longer. They too have extremes within their organization, " The far Left", who are controlling their party at the moment. One of their favorite things to say is " If you support the war, you are a fascist."

Am I the only one who sees the similarities here? Countless times these past 8 years, Republicans have taken the High road when faced with negative attacks and behavior. They have said it was beneath them to even address some of the nonsensical, emotional arguments, thrown about by such outstanding people like Nancy Pelosi. Yet within our own ranks, and for the world to see, I guess it is a different set of rules. Just like the Dems, we have begun to attack our core and rely upon extremes. We have begun labelling each other and to my chagrin disqualifying long standing members of our party. I am sure if there was a way for the Hard liners to throw me out they would. I guess at least I wouldn't be alone as General Swartzkopf would be good company to keep. Lets get back to the High road, lets stop fooling around with labels and dividing our house. Ultimately we all have the same core beliefs, and we all vote accordingly. Let's stop acting like the Dems, and get back to the issues at hand. Piss off Walker Texas Ranger, McCain and Swartzkopf have done more for our nation than you and yours will ever do and then some.

Slainte'

Blighter

Norman Schwarzkopf Endorses McCain

by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, January 23, 2008

John McCain earned the endorsement of Gulf War commander Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Wednesday.
Schwarzkopf, who with McCain in 2004 was openly critical of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over his handling of the Iraq war, said in a statement the Arizona senator “has served our country with honor in war and in peace.”
“He has demonstrated the type of courageous leadership our country sorely needs at this time. For that reason, he has my complete support,” he said.
McCain is in a tight race for the Republican presidential nomination, but most polls show him leading the pack following his wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina. He and his rivals are in Florida Wednesday ahead of the state’s primary on Tuesday.
It is not clear whether Schwarzkopf will campaign with McCain, as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has done.
McCain thanked Schwarzkopf in a statement, saying, “General Norman Schwarzkopf’s distinguished lifetime of service and uncommon devotion to our nation has earned him the respect and admiration of the American people. I am honored by his support.”

Can we try to be Honest?

I listen to talk Radio every Morning and evening to and from my workplace. I switch between WLOB with Ray and Ted, to WGAN with Ken and Mike in the am. Evenings I get to hear Howie Carr, Sean Hannity, and occaisionally Bill O'Reilly if I happen to be stuck in traffic or am working late. These hosts keep me entertained and thinking about various topics of interest. Mostly though, I turn to these pundits for their particular views as concerns political issues. What I like about these shows is that they ask some pretty hard questions about some serious subjects.

For Example, Sean Hannity has been asking Supporters of Hillary Clinton this simple question:

" Name one thing Hillary has done or accomplished in her 8 years as a New York Senator?"

The answer is of course nothing, but the supporters continually reply with platitudes and rhetoric, never actually attempting to answer. I find it amusing and informative in the fact that so many people choose to support a Candidate without actually looking at what that candidate has done.

That being said, I must also state that I do not wholly agree with everything these shows promote or say. If I did I would simply be another Kool Aid drinker, as Mr. Hannity so dubs the fools who call his show without any facts or figures to back up their arguments. Which brings me to my topic.

Recently, many of the Hosts have been touting Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson as their candidates of choice. This in itself is not anything to be bothered by, but I found that one of their arguments faulty. It is one of the arguments used most frequently to discourage voters from casting their lot with John McCain. Yes you guessed it, I'm talking about McCain Feingold, or officially known as The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. This act is used like a dagger whenever one hears about John McCain and is used as a finish move of sorts in arguments. " What about McCain Feingold? " is bandied about so often I decided to look it up for myself to see why this law is so anathema to my Republican brothers. What I found surprised me a little.

As noted in McConnell v. FEC, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;

The proliferation of issue ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds.

This act given the name McCain Feingold for it's two main sponsors, is something that is subject to great debate all over the country even now, 5 years after it was passed into law by President Bush. Some say it is Unconstitutional, others say it's faulty, and still others feel it too liberal. There are good points on both sides and I feel personally that the law is faulty, but what I found is that Senator John McCain was not alone in his support of the Bill. Many other Republicans also gave their blessing to the BCRA.

Senator Fred Thompson

Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.
Vote on passage of H.R. 2356; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Shays-Meehan bill, House equivalent of McCain-Feingoldf bill). Vote to ban “soft money” contributions to national political parties but permit up to $10,000 in soft money contributions to state and local parties to help with voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. The bill would stop issue ads from targeting specific candidates within 30 days of the primary or 60 days of the general election. Additionally, the bill would raise the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 per election for House and Senate candidates, both of which would be indexed for inflation.
Reference: Bill HR.2356 ; vote number 2002-54 on Mar 20, 2002

Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.
Vote to ban soft money donations to political parties and forbid corporate general funds and union general funds from being spent on issue ads. The bill would increase the individual contribution limit to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000.
Reference: Bill S.27 ; vote number 2001-64 on Apr 2, 2001

Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.
Support of the campaign finance bill proposed by Senators McCain (R-AZ) and Feingold (D-WI). Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)53; N)47
Reference: Campaign Finance Reform Bill; Bill S. 25 ; vote number 1997-267 on Oct 7, 1997

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani

Giuliani is an ardent supporter of campaign finance reform as well. As he was contemplating a run for the Senate in 2000, Giuliani told Wolf Blitzer that he was a "very, very strong supporter of Campaign Finance Reform," adding that he'd been "a very strong supporter of McCain-Feingold for a long, long time now."
Source: Tom Bevan, "Deconstructing Giuliani", RealClearPolitics.com Aug 10, 2006


Debates on campaign finance reform miss the point on honesty
Debates on campaign finance reform miss the point. I favor it, but in the final analysis money will not make an honest man dishonest or a dishonest man honest.
In politics, there is an outcry whenever an officeholder who has received campaign contributions from a particular industry supports a position perceived as favorable to that industry. The implication is that, say, the tobacco industry's contribution "bought" the official's support or at least bought access. I would be the last to say it never happens, but much more common is a company choosing to support those it views as sympathetic to its interests. At any given moment in my administration, someone who supported me was angry because I didn't do what they hoped I would do. If they withdraw their support, you don't want them around anyway. There's no one thing you can do to establish the principle. All you can do is keep making decisions based on what you believe, and by your example, you will demonstrate your independence.

Govenor Mitt Romney

Boston Globe article from July 1994 reported that Romney publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs).

During remarks before the Burlington (Mass.) Business Roundtable in 1994, Romney spoke like the committed reformers who later enacted sweeping national reforms in Congress.

“I understand Ted Kennedy will spend about $10 million to be reelected — he’s been in 32 years, $10 million. I think that’s wrong because — and that’s not his own money, that’s all from other people,” Romney said during the 1994 presentation, which was aired by C-SPAN. “And to get that kind of money you’ve got to cozy up as an incumbent to all the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members. And that kind of relationship has an influence on the way you’re gonna vote.”Romney lost his race against Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). When he ran for governor eight years later, Romney again proposed dramatic changes to campaign-finance rules.

“Mr. Romney campaigned in favor of clean elections, which provides public money to candidates for state office who meet strict fundraising requirements,” the Telegram & Gazette reported. “But he suggested an alternative funding method. Instead of providing campaign funds from state coffers, his plan would tap 10 percent of the fundraising of candidates who choose to raise money privately.”

Kevin Madden, Romney’s campaign spokesman, declined to comment about campaign finance proposals his boss made in 1994 and 2002.

All of the Republican Primary candidates supported this bill Publicly at some point in their political careers. ( I could not find anything on Mike Huckabee's position on this subject). All of them stand by that support today except Mitt Romney, who like Hillary, takes a cameleon like approach to the issues, changing stances as the audience dictates.

Recently Gonenor Romney had this to say about Campaign Finance reform:

Referring to the bill, [Romney] called it ‘one of the worst things in my lifetime,’”

A South Carolina-based publication, The State, recently reported that Romney highlighted McCain’s support of campaign regulations in order to draw a contrast with his rival.
“That’s a terrible piece of legislation,” Romney said, according to the report. “It hasn’t taken the money out of politics … [But] it has hurt my party.”

My point is that if you are going to Villify one for support of a piece of legislation then you need to hold all the rest to the same standard. If the pundits, bloggers, and talk show hosts use the BCRA as a sticking point for Republican party voters when speaking of McCain, I daresay they need to look a little closer to those they support. If Senator McCain is not a conservative because he worked on BCRA then I contend that Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani are no longer entitled to be call such either. Let's try to be honest ok? It is embarrassing to be subjected to such blatant bias from ones own team.

Slainte'

Blighter

Media Bias Strikes again

Yesterday 1/8/2008 I spent a better part of my day, looking forward to the evening news. I couldn't wait to see the New Hampshire Primary coverage and how things were panning out for my chosen candidate John McCain. I have been pulling for the Senator from Arizona for 8 months now and yesterdays Primary was important to his campaign. So to the tele I turned for the 6 o'clock news and boy didn't the news agencies give me a dose of reality.

WCSH channel 6 covered 15 minutes of primary news and results, the problem is with how they covered it. By the time I walked away I was sickened to death, and thinking about Joseph Geobbles. Of that 15 mins, WCSH only mentioned the Republican forerunner twice in two separate clips. In one they showed Senator McCain looking harried in a crowd of people, with the reporters comment " McCain is currently in the lead for the Republicans." In another, they inverviewed two pundits from MSNBC who, after explaining how exciting it was to be seeing such great Democratic candidates for 3 mins, stated " McCain has to win here in New Hampshire or he's finished." The only other Republican clip available for our hungry eyes to consume was of Govenor Romney reaching out to shake the hand of a woman voter, who was obviously startled quite a bit as the Govenor Lunged forward to take her hand. She actually jumped back.

Obviously, WCSH News Editing staff has a particular agenda to put forward. For I am sure that there were other clips taken that day that showed Sen. McCain in a much better light, yet they chose not to air those. I am quite certain Govenor Romney shook thousands of hands without frightening a soul, yet again WCSH decided on a negative clip instead. Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?

Recently some studies were done that came to the conclusion that 78% of voters do not research the candidates and that they get most of their information from the news. If that news, is biased in favor of one party and puts forth its stories like I saw the other night, then that 78% is getting short changed. For they are not getting the whole truth or the facts. Their descisions then will be based upon mis information. This bias, is not only going to be a huge factor in the upcoming elections, but it is also going to hurt us all negatively by spinning out Media's " VERSION" of events and not the actual events as they occur. It smacks of Propaganda in it's worst forms.

If I was of that 78% I would have thought that, " It looks like Hillary is running against Barack for president." After hearing about the wonderful coffee Hillary gave to supporters at the polls and then watching Mitt Lunge at voters I think I could easily be swayed into leaning to the Dems for leadership. That is if I didn't take the time to look elsewhere for information. Which three quarters of our populace seems to find difficult.

Slainte'
Blighter