McCain on Saxby

Saxby ran for Senate in 2002 on a series of negative ads that , as Ralph Reed mentioned helped the People of Georgia " to elect a senator who supports president Bush" - and call out how shameful Max was, for trying to add support for the middle class into homeland security legislation that the Bush/Rove machine was trying to rush into law (he was just trying to get overtime paid) - the ads painted Max Cleland as someone who was in league with the terrorists - it flashed images of Bin Laden and Cleland. And these slick ads were paid for by lobbyists of course. ... McCain, in 2002, was quoted on the record, about Saxby's tactics - by saying:
"I'd never seen anything like ( Saxby's political ad). Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible." -- Sen. John McCain

McCain will be here in Georgia tomorrow. The goal seems to be to rally everyone for Chambliss, because the GOP are now working hard to keep their lobbyist money by making sure that the radical change our country needs can be blocked by men reading off recipes for chicken soup for twelve hours at a time. Maybe big oil is trying to keep their profits going just one more quarter. Drill baby drill.

Ultimately, in 2002, the Karl Rove style tactics delivered to the Georgian voter, a senator who voted with Pres. Bush 94% of the time and helped build the might Bush administration economic and foreign policy machine. Ralph Reed was right about that - the people of Ga. have every right to know that Max Cleland would have tried to stand up to the Bush/Rove machine.

Lobbyist money probably won't disappear if they become irrelevant - They know this - still - they are desperately trying to turn the chance that our country has for change, into a political process that blocks reform long enough for their ideologues to get another great ad campaign together. Its easier to tear something down than build it up. Thats why out of work entertainers can make it on the talk radio circuit. "Less is more"

Martin was fighting wars while Chambliss was dodging the draft. It would appear that Chambliss wants to help the Senate dodge its duty - Obama will soon come to the Senate to ask them to help their country.

Georgia is, in general - a state of conservative voters. Unlike Saxby, Martin's voice for the State of Georgia is disciplined and independent. Martin opposed the 400 billion dollar bill that was recently passed - which seems to have no effect whatsoever on our economy. Its certain that the new administration will, perhaps even like the old one - try to rush legislation into place. Saxby fought against Cleland on the basis he tried to stop George W. Bush from pushing huge increases in government irresponsibly. Georgias duty is to find a senator that expresses their voice.

Its hard to grasp why a not-so-failed Senator that disagrees with Saxby so fundamentally would fly down to Ga. to rally for him. Maybe its just another evangelical leap of reason that they are calling for - Ralph Reed is likely going to be a key player in all of this. Evangelicals are people the GOP are trying to rely upon - they are people that they hope they can exploit by making them essentially afraid, and so thinking not of the immediate issues that they must deal with but the long range, abstract stuff that many Bush Republicans were good at - Freedom vs. Fear, Pre Emptive Self Defense, Tax Cuts that Stimulate the Economy ... woops... they didn't stimulate the economy.

Ron Paul said that big , unbridled spending is a tax upon the middle class. And ignoring deficits is irresponsible. He said that conservatism is a valid direction for government. What Ron Paul doesn't say, is that Obama came to power in a very similiar way that Ron Paul came to power: large numbers of small donors. That freedom to be able to articulate change, and real direction - is one that played heavily into Ron Pauls campaign. The GOP will likely rally behind him, and well they should - all government should have checks and balances, and a conservative drive in Government is healthy.

But Ron Paul is in the end, catering to that party of corruption when he attempts to paint Obama as simply "another engineer at the head of a runaway train". Failed policies have created unlinked, autonomic, and wasteful entities. Just as Sarah Palin's bridge to nowhere - the one that she campaigned for, and kept the money - was half built before it was stopped , so too are Ron Pauls remarks half focussed at appeasing his own party. Effecient government arises with Effecient, independent voices.

And McCain was once an Independent, straight talker. But with 134 paid lobbyists he kept on staff for his campaign - there is a small chance you will hear McCain endorse fellow Vet and political independent - Jim Martin.

However, if he really wants to shake things up in Washington. Thats exactly what he should do.


M@ said…
I don't think your evidence supports the notion of Ron Paul's hypocrisy. I'm no Libertarian, though.

If McCain were to endorse Jim Martin (which would be wonderful), The New York Times would still hate him. Democrats hate independents, too. The democrats here all hate independent progressives for tilting some elections (Vermont's gubernatorial race) toward the republicans.

"Well, it's the law of the land," the say.

Nope. Nowhere does the Constitution enshrine democrats and republicans in power as a duopoly. Nowhere. I wish McCain truly would rebel now that he has no shot at the White House. He should use this as an opportunity to secure his legacy as a "maverick," The New York Times be damned.