McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Susan, Massachusetts — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:48:40 GMT

Are you surprised McCain would resort to stretching the truth???
The taxpayer funded abortions were mandated by the legislature to be taken from public medical insurance.
Mass flourished under Romney. Mccain should check his facts.
Double child tax credit; add family incentives
McCain’s tax plan would double the child tax credit to $1,000 a year, expand tax incentives for savings and investment, reduce the tax on large estates, and reduce the marriage penalty for some people increasing the standard deduction for couples. McCain would offset a portion of the tax cuts by closing corporate tax loopholes. One analysis shows most tax cuts would go to the middle class, those earning between $39,000 & $130,000. The plan would do almost nothing for taxpayers with incomes below $39,000.
Source: New York Times, p. 22 Feb 27, 2000

Replace employer-provided benefits with a tax cut
Q: As part of your plan to pay for your tax cuts, you say we ought to eliminate what’s called employer-provided benefits to workers. Isn’t that a $40 billion tax increase? A: For the first time since President Eisenhower, we got a surplus and the question is what do you want to do with it? I want to give it to low- and middle-income Americans as a tax cut. I want to give them the benefits from this that they need that lower- and middle-income Americans need.
Source: GOP Debate in Johnston, Iowa Jan 16, 2000

Don’t promise tax cuts from future surpluses we may not have
McCAIN [to Bush]: I’m more concerned about the surplus gap [than Bush’s phrase, the “tax gap”]. It’s fiscally irresponsible to promise a huge tax cut that is based on a surplus that we may not have. My tax plan. is about the same as yours for middle-income and lower-income Americans. It places a top priority on saving Social Security. It offers a needed tax break for middle-income people and it begins paying down the national debt.
BUSH: In human terms, [a couple earning] $42,000 a year in income, under [McCain’s] plan, will receive a $200 tax cut. Under the plan that I proposed, they receive an $1,852 tax cut. The fundamental difference is that the additional $1,600 will go to Washington under your idea. And under my idea it goes into people’s pockets. There is enough money to take care of Social Security. There’s enough money to meet the basic needs of our government and there is enough money to give the American people a substantial tax cut.

Source: Republican Debate in West Columbia, SC Jan 7, 2000

Tax system is fair; wealthy pay bulk of taxes
Q: Wall Street executives are making millions, paying tax rates of 15%, while the average guy is paying 30% in taxes. Is this system fair?
A: Everybody's paying taxes, and wealth creates wealth. A vibrant economy creates wealth. Revenues are at an all-time high.

Q: So you're saying the system is fair?

A: Sure it's fair. The bulk of the taxes are paid by wealthy people. Should we reform our tax code? Absolutely we should fix our tax code, and we should fix it immediately.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Won't sign no-tax pledge; focus on cutting spending
Q: Six of your colleagues on this stage have signed the pledge of the Americans for Tax Reform to oppose any increase in marginal tax rates. Why have you refused to sign?
A: Because I stand on my record. And my record is 24 years of opposing tax increases. And I opposed them & I'll continue to oppose them. But my proposal in 2000 & 2001 was not just to cut taxes but to stop spending. We allowed spending to get out of control to the point where it bred corruption. I pledge to the American people, I will veto every pork barrel bill that comes across my desk. And I will make the authors of those pork barrel projects famous.

Q: Why not, if you are determined to not raise taxes, why not sign the pledge?

A: Because there's no point. I stand on my record. I don't have to sign pledges. We had automatic restraints in spending included in my tax-cut package, [but we Republicans] let spending get out of control and preside over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society.

Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007

Opposed Bush tax cuts, but must extend them now
Q: In 2003, I asked you, "Do you believe the president should hold off any future tax cuts until we have a sense of the costs of the war?" You responded, "Yes, I do. I believe that until we find out the costs of this war and the reconstruction that we should hold off on tax cuts."
A: Mm-hmm.

In 2004, I again asked you about opposing the Bush tax cuts, and you said, "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit." But now you voted to extend them.

A: I voted to extend them because it would have the effect of having a tax increase. The tax cuts have increased revenues enormously. They've been very beneficial. The problem is that spending has lurched completely out of control. My proposal was to restrain spending. I do not support tax increases. And the effect of not making them permanent would have the effect of a tax increase.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series May 13, 2007

Bush tax cuts fiscally reckless & favored rich;but keep them
Q: You were one of two Republicans to vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2001, one of three Republicans to vote against the Bush tax cuts two years later. At that time, you said that they were fiscally reckless and that they favored the rich. Now you say you would not allow the tax cuts to expire. Is that a flip-flop?
A: No, because it would have the effect of a tax increase, and I don't support tax increases. The fact is that in 2000 I had a proposal that restrained spending. I voted against those tax cuts because there was no restraint of spending, and spending lurched out of control completely.

Q: President McCain, no new taxes?

A: Of course not. I've never supported tax increases. I don't support them now.

Q: And that's a pledge that you would make over your four years?

A: I don't take pledges. The fact is my record is very clear of opposition to tax increases. I oppose tax increases. I don't take pledges.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2007 "Choosing the President" interviews Apr 2, 2007

Tax plan: $238B over 5 years; $500B over 10 years
McCain’s tax cut plan is valued at $238 billion over five years; and $500 billion over 10 years. Its centerpiece is an expansion of the lowest income tax bracket, the 15% bracket, to cover higher incomes.
Under the plan, the ceiling for the 15% bracket would rise to $70,000 from $43,050 for married couples filing jointly, and to $35,000 from $25,750 for single taxpayers. The effect is to give a $3,504 tax cut to a couple with taxable income of $70,000 or more.

Source: New York Times, p. 22 Feb 27, 2000

FactCheck: Criticized $3M "bear DNA" study, but voted for it
McCain's TV ad criticizes an earmark that provided "$3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana." This is not the first time McCain has poked fun at the bear project. He first mentioned it on the Senate floor, on Feb. 13, 2003: "One can only imagine and conjure up an idea as to how this might be used. Approach a bear: That bear cub over there claims you are his father, and we need to take your DNA. Approach another bear: Two hikers had their food stolen by a bear, and we think it is you."
Good laugh lines, maybe, but the USGS's Grizzly Bear Project didn't study DNA for paternity tests or forensics. Rather, it explored a means of estimating Montana's grizzly bear population by analyzing bear fur snagged on barbed wire.

McCain he didn't actually try to remove the bear project from the bill. He did introduce three amendments to reduce funding, but none removing the grizzly bear project appropriations. And despite his criticisms, he voted in favor of the final bill.

Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch of 2007 campaign ad, "Outrageous" Nov 20, 2007

No more ballot initiatives against immigration
Yes, we need to control our borders. No one argues with that. Just ask the recent immigrant who came here legally and is the first to be knocked off the ladder of opportunity by illegal immigrants. But we don’t need ballot initiatives that make people think we want them to abandon their hopes because some of us don’t believe the American Dream is big enough to share anymore.
Source: Landon Lecture at Kansas State University Mar 15, 1999

Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform.
Establishes specified benchmarks which must be met before the guest worker and legalization programs may be initiated:
operational control of the border with Mexico;
Border Patrol increases;
border barriers, including vehicle barriers, fencing, radar, and aerial vehicles;
detention capacity for illegal aliens apprehended crossing the US-Mexico border;
workplace enforcement, including an electronic employment verification system; and
Z-visa alien processing.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:

If we do not legislate now, we will not legislate later this year when our calendar is crowded with Iraq and appropriations bills. We are then an election year, and it will be pushed over to 2009. Circumstances will not be better then, they will be worse.

A vote against cloture is a vote to kill the bill. A Senator may vote for cloture and then express himself in opposition to the bill by voting against the bill.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

If this bill becomes law, we will see only a 13% reduction in illegal immigration into America, and in the next 20 years we will have another 8.7 million illegals in our country. How can that be reformed? I submit this would be a disaster.

The Congressional telephone systems have shut down because of the mass phone calls Congress is receiving. A decent respect for the views of the American people says let's stop here now. Let's go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that will work.

The American people get it, and they do have common sense and wisdom on this issue. They know repeating the fundamental mistakes of the 1986 bill, joining a big amnesty with inadequate enforcement, will cause the problem to grow and not diminish. They know promising enforcement after 30 years of broken promises isn't good enough. They know the so-called trigger is a joke because if the trigger is never pulled, the Z visas, the amnesty happens forever.

Reference: McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill; Bill S.1639 ; vote number 2007-235 on Jun 28, 2007

Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program.
Voting YES establishes a guest worker program with a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who have worked in the US for 5 years. The bill:
Increases border security and enforcement
Makes it unlawful to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a fee an unauthorized alien.
Establishes a temporary guest worker program (H-2C visa) with a three-year admission and one additional three-year extension; and issuance of H-4 nonimmigrant visas for accompanying or following spouse and children;
Provides permanent resident status adjustment for a qualifying illegal alien, and family, for aliens who have been in the US and employed for five years.
Proponents of the bill say:
Our immigration system is broken and needs to be repaired. This bill is a strong step in the right direction. We need to protect our borders and look out for American workers, and we also need a responsible way to meet the need for temporary workers, particularly in the agricultural area, where they represent about 70 percent of the U.S. agricultural workforce, with a path to earned citizenship for hard-working, law abiding temporary workers. This bill, the product of bipartisan compromise, takes a commonsense approach to all of these issues.
Opponents of the bill say:
Our country has been built by immigrants. But the reason we have had quotas for immigration is the world has progressed in different parts of this globe at a very different rate. In some countries, the economies have lagged far behind.
There are jobs available in this country with rates of pay that are far in excess of those of Third World countries. We have on our southern border people who aspire to come to this country. In order to protect our way of life and our standard of living and to protect jobs, we have quotas.
Reference: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act; Bill S. 2611 ; vote number 2006-157 on May 25, 2006

Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
Voting YEA would table (kill) the proposed amendment to prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security benefits. Voting NAY supports that prohibition, while voting YEA supports immigrants participating in Social Security. Text of amendment:
To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.
Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY because:
The Immigration Reform bill would allow people to qualify for social security based on work they did while they were illegally present in the US and illegally working in the US. People who broke the law to come here and broke the law to work here can benefit from their conduct to collect social security.
In some cases, illegal immigrants may have stolen an American citizen's identity. They may have stolen an American's social security number to fraudulently work. This amendment corrects this problem.
Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA because:
Americans understand that for years there are undocumented workers who have tried to follow our laws and be good neighbors and good citizens, and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund.
Once that person regularizes his or her status, and as they proceed down the path to earned citizenship, they should have the benefit after having followed the law and made those contributions. That is fairness.
We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts. That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions.
The amendment proposes to change existing law to prohibit an individual from gaining the benefit of any contributions made while the individual was in an undocumented status. I oppose this amendment and believe it is wrong.
Reference: Preclusion of Social Security Credits; Bill S.Amdt.3985 to S.2611 ; vote number 2006-130 on May 18, 2006

Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship.
This amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act would prohibit H-2C nonimmigrants ("Guest Workers") from adjusting to lawful permanent resident status. Voting YEA on the motion to table (which would kill the amendment) indicates supporting a path to citizenship for guest workers. Voting NAY on the motion indicates opposing any path to citizenship. The amendment says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien having nonimmigrant status is ineligible for and may not apply for adjustment of status.''
Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY because:
The Immigration Reform Act purports to create two different paths to citizenship for those, first of all, who are in the country living outside of the law in an undocumented status, and secondly, for those who are not yet present in the country but who want to come here at some future date to work.
We have given the somewhat misleading name of ''guest worker'' to the so-called future flow. A guest is not ordinarily defined as someone who moves in with you and never leaves.
These so-called guest workers could work here up to 6 years, after which they then apply for a green card. They then get on the path to American citizenship 5 years later.
It is important for us to debate this issue honestly. The amendment simply makes the point that a guest worker ought to be temporary.
Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA because:
If this amendment should pass, that whole compromise is destroyed because a fundamental part of that compromise was that those who have been here for 2 to 5 years would be eligible for green card status and citizenship. This amendment would destroy that compromise.
We have examples today in Europe of having people living in your country with no hope to ever be a part of that society. No hope, no opportunity, no future, but we will let you work.
Reference: Kyl Amendment to Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act; Bill S.Amdt.3969 to S.2611 ; vote number 2006-135 on May 18, 2006

Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work.
Vote to create a national registry containing names of U.S. workers who want to perform temporary or seasonal agricultural work, and to require the Attorney General to allow more foreign workers into the U.S. for farm work under H-2A visas.
Reference: Bill S.2260 ; vote number 1998-233 on Jul 23, 1998

Voted YES on visas for skilled workers.
This bill expanded the Visa program for skilled workers.
Status: Bill Passed Y)78; N)20; NV)2
Reference: The American Competitiveness Act; Bill S. 1723 ; vote number 1998-141 on May 18, 1998

Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants.
This amendment would have restored food stamp benefits to the children of legal immigrants
Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)59; N)41
Reference: Motion to table Kennedy Amdt #429; Bill S.947 ; vote number 1997-111 on Jun 24, 1997

Rated 18% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance.
McCain scores 18% by USBC on immigration issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 USBC scores as follows:

0%-30%: open-border stance (approx. 197 members)
30%-70%: mixed record on open borders (approx. 70 members)
70%-100%: sealed-border stance (approx. 202 members)
About USBC (from their website, www.usbc.org):
U.S. Border Control, founded in 1988, is a non-profit, tax-exempt, citizen's lobby. USBC is dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation's borders and reforming our immigration policies. USBC [works with] Congressmen to stop amnesty; seal our borders against terrorism and illegal immigration; and, preserve our nation's language, culture and American way of life for future generations.

Our organization accepts no financial support from any branch of government. All our support comes from concerned citizens who appreciate the work we are doing to seal our borders against drugs, disease, illegal migration and terrorism and wish to preserve our nation's language, culture and heritage for the next generations.

Source: USBC website 06n-USBC on Dec 31, 2006

John McCain on Jobs
Republican Sr Senator (AZ

Unions are monopolies; don't compel people to join
Q: Are unions good for America?
A: I think the unions have played a very important role in the history of this country to improve the plight and conditions of laboring Americans. I think that like many other monopolies, in some cases they have then serious excesses. I come from a right-to-work state. If someone wants to join a union in my state, they're free to do so, but they are not compelled to do so. I think the key to unions is that any American has the right and privilege to join a union but should never be forced to do so. And this latest ploy of the Democrats of signing people up in the most willy-nilly fashion is something that needs to be rejected, because it will not protect the rights of workers who do not wish to join a union.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Ethanol is not worth it, even in Iowa
I’m here to tell you that I want to tell you the things that you don’t want to hear as well as the things you want to hear. And one of those is ethanol. Ethanol is not worth it. It does not help the consumer. And those ethanol subsidies should be phased out and everybody here on this stage, if it wasn’t for the fact that Iowa is the first caucus state, would share my view that we don’t need ethanol subsidies. It doesn’t help anybody.
Source: Des Moines Iowa GOP Debate Dec 13, 1999

Ethanol bad for environment & bad for consumers
Ethanol subsidies “are an example of the influence of special interest in Washington.... I had the position I take on [ethanol] 17 years ago,” said McCain. “I’m convinced many people in Iowa believe as I do that ethanol is good for neither the environment nor the consumer.”
Source: Sustainable Energy Coalition, media backgrounder #2 Nov 18, 1999

Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25.
Vote to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour, over a two-year time period, in three incremental stages. Without the amendment, the minimum wage would increase to $6.25 per hour.
Reference: Amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; Bill S AMDT 44 to S 256 ; vote number 2005-26 on Mar 7, 2005

Rated 15% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record.
McCain scores 15% by the AFL-CIO on union issues
As the federation of America’s unions, the AFL-CIO includes more than 13 million of America’s workers in 60 member unions working in virtually every part of the economy. The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our nation. To accomplish this mission we will build and change the American labor movement.

The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: AFL-CIO website 03n-AFLCIO on Dec 31, 2003

Don't police Internet crime; go after money to reduce crime
Q: Would you police the Internet culturally, such as for predators & pornography?
A: Absolutely not, but I also want to point out this Internet child pornography is a terrible evil. It's got to be addressed. And everybody knows the way you stop it is go after the money.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Don’t promise tax cuts from future surpluses we may not have
McCAIN [to Bush]: I’m more concerned about the surplus gap [than Bush’s phrase, the “tax gap”]. It’s fiscally irresponsible to promise a huge tax cut that is based on a surplus that we may not have. My tax plan. is about the same as yours for middle-income and lower-income Americans. It places a top priority on saving Social Security. It offers a needed tax break for middle-income people and it begins paying down the national debt. BUSH: In human terms, [a couple earning] $42,000 a year in income, under [McCain’s] plan, will receive a $200 tax cut. Under the plan that I proposed, they receive an $1,852 tax cut. The fundamental difference is that the additional $1,600 will go to Washington under your idea. And under my idea it goes into people’s pockets. There is enough money to take care of Social Security. There’s enough money to meet the basic needs of our government and there is enough money to give the American people a substantial tax cut.
Source: Republican Debate in West Columbia, SC Jan 7, 2000
Tax system is fair; wealthy pay bulk of taxes
Q: Wall Street executives are making millions, paying tax rates of 15%, while the average guy is paying 30% in taxes. Is this system fair?
A: Everybody's paying taxes, and wealth creates wealth. A vibrant economy creates wealth. Revenues are at an all-time high.

Q: So you're saying the system is fair?

A: Sure it's fair. The bulk of the taxes are paid by wealthy people. Should we reform our tax code? Absolutely we should fix our tax code, and we should fix it immediately.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007
Won't sign no-tax pledge; focus on cutting spending
Q: Six of your colleagues on this stage have signed the pledge of the Americans for Tax Reform to oppose any increase in marginal tax rates. Why have you refused to sign?
A: Because I stand on my record. And my record is 24 years of opposing tax increases. And I opposed them & I'll continue to oppose them. But my proposal in 2000 & 2001 was not just to cut taxes but to stop spending. We allowed spending to get out of control to the point where it bred corruption. I pledge to the American people, I will veto every pork barrel bill that comes across my desk. And I will make the authors of those pork barrel projects famous.

Q: Why not, if you are determined to not raise taxes, why not sign the pledge?

A: Because there's no point. I stand on my record. I don't have to sign pledges. We had automatic restraints in spending included in my tax-cut package, [but we Republicans] let spending get out of control and preside over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society.

Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007

Opposed Bush tax cuts, but must extend them now
Q: In 2003, I asked you, "Do you believe the president should hold off any future tax cuts until we have a sense of the costs of the war?" You responded, "Yes, I do. I believe that until we find out the costs of this war and the reconstruction that we should hold off on tax cuts."
A: Mm-hmm.

In 2004, I again asked you about opposing the Bush tax cuts, and you said, "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit." But now you voted to extend them.

A: I voted to extend them because it would have the effect of having a tax increase. The tax cuts have increased revenues enormously. They've been very beneficial. The problem is that spending has lurched completely out of control. My proposal was to restrain spending. I do not support tax increases. And the effect of not making them permanent would have the effect of a tax increase.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series May 13, 2007

Bush tax cuts fiscally reckless & favored rich;but keep them
Q: You were one of two Republicans to vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2001, one of three Republicans to vote against the Bush tax cuts two years later. At that time, you said that they were fiscally reckless and that they favored the rich. Now you say you would not allow the tax cuts to expire. Is that a flip-flop?
A: No, because it would have the effect of a tax increase, and I don't support tax increases. The fact is that in 2000 I had a proposal that restrained spending. I voted against those tax cuts because there was no restraint of spending, and spending lurched out of control completely.

Q: President McCain, no new taxes?

A: Of course not. I've never supported tax increases. I don't support them now.

Q: And that's a pledge that you would make over your four years?

A: I don't take pledges. The fact is my record is very clear of opposition to tax increases. I oppose tax increases. I don't take pledges.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2007 "Choosing the President" interviews Apr 2, 2007
FactCheck: Criticized $3M "bear DNA" study, but voted for it
McCain's TV ad criticizes an earmark that provided "$3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana." This is not the first time McCain has poked fun at the bear project. He first mentioned it on the Senate floor, on Feb. 13, 2003: "One can only imagine and conjure up an idea as to how this might be used. Approach a bear: That bear cub over there claims you are his father, and we need to take your DNA. Approach another bear: Two hikers had their food stolen by a bear, and we think it is you."
Good laugh lines, maybe, but the USGS's Grizzly Bear Project didn't study DNA for paternity tests or forensics. Rather, it explored a means of estimating Montana's grizzly bear population by analyzing bear fur snagged on barbed wire.

McCain he didn't actually try to remove the bear project from the bill. He did introduce three amendments to reduce funding, but none removing the grizzly bear project appropriations. And despite his criticisms, he voted in favor of the final bill.

Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch of 2007 campaign ad, "Outrageous" Nov 20, 2007

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Marc Rivers, Gaviota, Calif. — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:02:33 GMT

Slanted yes. Negative questionable.

See the following negative sample posted on the Detroit Free Press site by what seems to be the Huckabee campaign team member:

Mitt Romney is identified with the Republican establishment who are blamed for the nation's troubles. He definitely cannot win in the general election. Mike Huckabee is a fresh face who is his own man and not a tool of the establishment. He knows how to govern the right way. He reaches out to people at all levels of society and can win the general election. If the Republicans want to hold on to the White House, they will select Mike Huckabee. Otherwise, Hillary Clinton will find herself in the oval office next year.

Posted by: David Anderson | January 13, 2008 1:26 PM
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080112/NEWS15/80112067/1001/NEWS&theme=MICHIGANPOLL022007

MSNBC how about just posting up the mailer.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

s richardson bedford, virginia — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:04:05 GMT

mcain is an old angry man----he's scared shitless of bush-which is very sad-being a pow is no resume for the presidency-mccain acts like he's owed it---he's irrevelant as he always us-take yer trophy wife and go back to az and shutup

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Morgan, Newcastle, WA — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:06:06 GMT

Stop the hipocrasy. I'm a fan of both Romney and McCain. In fact, they are the only 2 I support of the Republican field. However, I am SICK and TIRED of the negative attacks from EVERYONE on EVERYONE.

GET OVER IT, PEOPLE!

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Susan Wentworth, Myrtle Beach, SC — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:11:35 GMT

So John McCain is appealing to the Conservatives?

How will McCain explain his NUMEROUS ADULTEROUS AFFAIRS DURING MARRIAGE...

His latest wife looks like his granddaughter.

Get your OWN home in order before we trust you with the White House, John.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Joseph Antley — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:14:29 GMT

That's stupid. Romney never raised taxes and it was the legislature, not the governor, who put abortions in the health care bill. What a dumb article. At least Romney's ad against McCain was accurate.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Keith Sanborn, Clemson, SC — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:16:25 GMT

McCain is simply being his negative, nasty self - imagine what he would be like with a little power!

John, old buddy, you're too OLD AND ANGRY.

Mitt Romney is precisely what the nation needs.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Thomas Kincade, Detroit, Michigan — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:17:57 GMT

John McCain is proving to those of us in Michigan that he is a cranky, negative man.

While Romney tells us he'll do all he can, McCain tries to tell us its hopeless.

Romney is the leader with hope for the future.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Kendra Kaustien, Miami, Florida — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:21:17 GMT

I think thats a riot that McCain is talking bad about OTHER people... Hey John, who was that young hottie you were with the other night? Oh, your WIFE... WHICH ONE?

McCain has the morals of an alley cat!

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

sreid, Logan UT — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:22:37 GMT

McCain has provend in Nh, MI and now in SC that the negative reputation he tried to pin on Romney belongs on McCain.

the only things McCain was able to accomplish in WA were because of the backing of Kennedy and Feingold.

McCain likes to claim credit for the surge, but although he did call for it and backed the surge. The people who should have credit are the soldiers that have spent the last year with their lives on the line. The military leaders who planneed the surge should also have credit. I have never heard General Petraus give McCain the credit. Nor should McCain claim the credit.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Fran Thomas, Chicago, Ill. — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:22:38 GMT

I believe Romney has more morals in his little finger than the ever-adulterous McCain has in his entire body. John, you're just PROVING what a cranky, mean-spirited man you can be.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Rhonda Parkill, Kansas City, Kansas — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:24:17 GMT

McCain is intentionally being misleading, incorrect and unkind with those statements.

NOT the kind of man I want for President!

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Walter Boscoe, Philadelphia, Pa — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:25:06 GMT

Come on, John... your negative attitude is why we left you for dead months ago!

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Theo Clarke, Mobile, Ala — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:26:06 GMT

NOW who's desperate, John?

You're turning into a bigger hypocrit than Huckelbee!
(If thats possible!)

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

DOWN SOUTH — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:30:14 GMT

Wow this is a man that said, I don't have to go negative in order to win. While in N.H.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Stephanie Boston Danielson, Canon City, CO — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:30:37 GMT

McCain vs Romney--Who is really negative one?!
This ad appears more negative & misleading than anything Romney has said about McCain. Although I respect McCain's service to our country , I do not feel he is the right man to head our nation in these times. I also do not believe he has the personality for it! ugh...speaking of negative! He is known for his angry meltdowns and foul language on Capitol Hill. No matter how bad McCain tries to make Romney look, Romney just gets better looking! Romney also reflects a more positive Presidential picture to the world for the US--not a weak & grumpy image as McCain does. Okay, I'd better stop before I get too negative...

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Eric Meyer, Rochester, New York — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:30:53 GMT

It is ironic how John McCain portrays himself to be "above" negative campaigning, yet he himself has resorted to it both on the airwaves in New Hampshire and now as we are seeing in print in Michigan. Mitt Romney's governorship of Massachusetts was a huge success and proved how fiscal conservative principles can work in even the toughest environments. He rescued a state that was billions of dollars in debt, balanced the budget each year, increased jobs, and put all its citizens on a track to affordable high quality health care. Senator McCain does not have the energy, the temperament, or the style of management and leadership we need to solve some of Washington’s greatest problems. No more of the same; it’s time for something new in D.C.; it’s time for Mitt Romney to perform another great “turn-around,” this time on Washington.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Steve, West Bountiful, Utah — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:34:06 GMT

Mitt Romney you Have Broken Us, as always more flip flopping

More flip Flopping from Mitt Romney, do you really want a scumbag like this.

Governor Romney…imposed a slew of fee hikes and tax 'loophole' closures….The largest of these was $259 million worth of fee hikes in FY 2004, the bulk of which came from higher Registry of Deeds fees. Smaller fee hikes, including higher charges for boaters and golfers, we imposed in FY 2003 and FY 2005. Romney also sought $128 million worth of so-called tax loophole closures for FY 2004; $70 million for FY 2005; and $170 million for FY 2006, which were later reduced to $85 million due to backlash from business leaders."
- Club for Growth's White Paper on Mitt Romney

"Romney continues to oppose the flat tax with harsh language, calling the tax 'unfair.'"
- Club for Growth's White Paper on Mitt Romney

The Governor would also seek to raise $128 million in revenue by closing corporate tax loopholes (Rick Klein, “Massachusetts Governor’s Proposed Budget Includes Layoffs, New Fees”, Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, 2/27/2003)

Despite the governor's pledge of no new taxes, his proposal does increase some taxes and fees: The administration says it can collect an additional $70 million by "closing loopholes" in corporate and sales tax rules (Scott Greenberger, “Massachusetts Governor Sets $22.98 Billion Budget Blueprint”, Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, 1/29/2004)

“…business groups objected so strongly to a proposed $170 million tax increase that Romney snuffed the idea and proposed $85 million instead.” (Alexander Bolton, “Romney’s Tax Record Gets A Closer Look,” The Hill, 3/27/2007)

Governor Romney even raised taxes on some New Hampshire residents who worked in Massachusetts, taxing their income and their pensions. Learn more

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Edna....... Boise, Idaho — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:35:05 GMT

Do you want a President that belives this, if Mitt Romney want's to lead this country and all of the people we ask that he tells us Bringham Young was a false prophet.

Mormons are a Cult

Mormons believe Blacks are Cursed people they are the decedent of Cain.

Bringham Young stated the following: "For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every soul of them should repent, obey the Gospel, and do right from this day forward. . . . Cain and his posterity must wear the mark, which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller’s soap every day, they cannot wash away God’s mark; The Lamanites, through transgression, became a loathsome, ignorant and filthy people, and were cursed with a skin of darkness … yet, they have the promise, if they will believe, and work righteousness, that not many generations shall pass away before they shall become a white and delightsome people; but it will take some time to accomplish this at best. Source: The Latter-Day Saints Millennial Star, vol. 14, p. 418

1848, Brigham Young, as President of the Mormon Church, first preached the "Curse of Cain Doctrine". He said that Negroes, whom he considered to be children of Cain (son of Adam and killer of Abel) had the "mark of Cain" (black skin and kinky hair and flat nose) and they could not hold the priesthood until Abel was resurrected, had children, and all of Abel's children were given the opportunity to receive the priesthood first, then the Curse of Cain would be taken off his posterity (Negroes) and they would have the priesthood like everybody else. Brigham Young started the "priesthood-ban" in 1848, banning all Negroes, and even white men with Negro ancestry, from the two orders of priesthood, and banning all Negroes from the House of the Lord (the Mormon Temple). Mormon Church leaders
Now you are probaly asking yourself well back in those day's everyone was a racist, the blacks where not able to hold the priesthood until 1968 and many LDS faithful still believe in the curse of cain.
READ MORE CLICK LINK

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Jeff Hanning on how Mitt Romney is a Flip Flopper — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:37:07 GMT

More Bizzarre stuff from Mitt Romney

Already under scrutiny for shifting positions on key issues and his Mormon faith, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has made a bizarre new flip flop - saying on national TV his favorite novel is Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard’s “Battlefield Earth.”

The former Massachusetts governor told Fox News his favorite book was the Bible but his favorite novel was the science fiction tome “Battlefield Earth.”

“Actually, the one by L. Ron Hubbard,” Romney said when asked to name his favorite novel. “I’m not in favor of his religion by any means, but he wrote a book called ‘Battlefield Earth’ that was a very fun science fiction book.”

The Mark Twain novel “Huckleberry Finn” tops the book list on Romney’s My Space page. “Battlefield Earth” isn’t on the list.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said: “Battlefield Earth is pretty good science fiction. It’s about Earth being ruled by an alien race, sort of the way the Democrats are running Congress.”

Read More:

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18149/mitt-romney-3

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Ann, Iowa — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:40:39 GMT

More Flip Flopping on Mitt Romney

It has now come out that George Romney never marched with Martin Luther King watch how his campaign manager flips and flops in this interview with Chris Matthews please watch this video.

Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5eKfC6TYjk&feature=related

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Mark, Sioux City, Iowa — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:42:16 GMT

Mitt supporters, you reap what you sow. Get ready for a bronze in MI and SC.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Tucker Carlson on Mitt being a Flip Flopper — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:19:48 GMT

Mitt Romney as a Flip Flopper as you know Tucker Carlson has been strong with the Conservatives this is a real good video to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8bSyAihn18&feature=related

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Natalie Rix, Texas — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:21:12 GMT

Is this about mormons, or who's going to be the greatest leader of our country? These comments about mormons are irrelevent. Go to www.mormon.org if you want the truth. People Still think they can believe everything anyone tells them instead of finding out for themselves.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

sharon wlaker folsom CA — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:30:21 GMT

Dear Friends:
The lovely Cindy McCain does not deserve a potshot from the public or the press or the marriage of which is between the two of them.

Outside affairs of this nation are important and who is in the executive branch.
God bless this nation as he has.
He saved this man from the enemy and brought him home to the USA.

Vote for an experienced intelligent president not a jock strap with nothing in between or a mitt for a base ball.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Jason S., Arlington, VA — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:34:17 GMT

I'm an Democrat. If McCain is the GOP nominee. He will be easily wiped off by Clinton or Obama in general election!!! The only cadidate that capable of competing from republicans is Romney. Although he made filp-flops, he HAS DONE the job...

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Brent — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:53:10 GMT

There is nothing racist about churches. For some reason people think their entitled to some that they in actualality need to earn.
I don't care what church your in...for some reason there is always some that feels they were discriminated against.
The reality is it was never discrimination. People portray things the way they want to.

The real issue is not what religin but are you religous or do you have firm principles that can center you.
EVERY POLITICIAN will take heat for being a flip-flopper.
I think they should flip flop. Hopefully what ever

they are changing is the correct choice. That is what matters.

Change is inevitable. Gotcha reporting will continue on and we will be seeing more slanting and illusive positioning to get votes.

Romney has proven that he can change organazations for the better.
He knows how to do and does DO IT.

Huckabee is a funny guy. McCain is a grump and very rude to his associates. He will not do a good job. We commend him for trying to serve and when he does serve well
it is simply expected!

The GOP last chance is Romney. The DEMS hace a superior strategy and team.
Rarely vote DEM because they have idealogy problems. However, I have when the candidate certainly has capacity and a perspective unique unto their own.

They know how and when to cross over. Can work teams for either party. Like hard working candidates.

Mitt is a hard worker. He understands all levels of society.
If not Mitt it will be a vote for Clinton.
Let us Rally for the best!

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Kimberly Saphonchak — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:06:22 GMT

As republicans we should stop shooting each other to take down one candidate or change the numbers. Americans are looking for what do you stand for, where do you want to take the country. This party infighting is hurting us. I think that the party was very happy that Mike Huckabee was the 1st Republican Governor in AR and how he helped to bring about more elected republicans in AR. It is ok for liberal republicans in the north to work with democrates to make government work but not Governor Huckabee? Double standard. I have known for some time that Mitt Romney was a moderate and Fred Thompson was a closet pro-choicer. MaCain says what he believes yet I find him a little too harsh and so he is not a good choice for America. Guiliani is so liberal that the south and the heartland will not vote for him. We have to make a choice do we want to win or pick a side and the other will not show up to the polls or do we decide that even if we disaggree on minor issues we will work together. I do believe that if we as a party abandon our life position we will cease to be viable and thus we will go the way of the wiggs. I think that all of the candidates should give us their vision and the one that has the best one wins. The party does need to expand to reach beyond our base without comprising on our ideals. Do we want 40% of the party to stay home in November? Because that is what will happen if we keep a closed mind on how we approach issue like the environment, school funding, and especially ignoring the middle and lower class struggles. Myself I have always been in the lower class to lower middle class yet I have believed in republican principles and worked for that goal, if the party only listens to the wealthy part of the party and shuns folks like myself, we will not show up to vote. We are part of the party whether you like it or not. Do only the rich control how government is ruled or do the people rule. If the party only knew how many people support Mike Huckabee with small donations not large donations like the other candidates. Many of Huckabee supporters have never given to a campaign in thier life, do we really want them to not have a seat at the table? We will decide within the next few months I hope that the party will always stand up for the unborn and stand up for what is right and just.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Lori, Seattle, Wash. — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:12:17 GMT

To the Honest and Sincere Reader:
The anti-Mormon comments here are not true. I imagine these writers with pointed white hoods on their heads and running around in sheets. America is better than that.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

takeiteasy — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:36:22 GMT

Thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbors, Mr. McCain and Mr. Hucklebee.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Scott Chandler AZ — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:01:22 GMT

McCain is a hipocrite and an illegal loving idiot.... He gave Romney crap for going Negative in NH and Romney was just stating the facts....

McCain has won his last primary and I about 3000 other volunteers will make sure Romney wins Arizona on Feb 5th...

Go MITT, the country needs you !

Scott Taylor
Chandler, AZ

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

G, McCarthy, Jamaica Plain, MA — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:16:11 GMT

Mitt Romney couldn't do enough negative campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, now he's trying to paint himself as the victim of unfair attacks! As far as his governorship in Massachusetts, he was a mediocre governor and spent more time out of the Commonwealth preparing for his Presidential run than he did actually governing...unless, of course, it was to come back for a photo-op during one of his staged events to 'defend traditional marriage.' In 1994, he told the Log Cabin Republicans that he would run "to the left of Ted Kennedy" on gay rights.

So what was the real legacy in MA after Romney's time here? Increased fees on just about everything, the Republican Party in ruins and the first Democratic govnernor since William Weld beat John Silber in the early 90s! Not only would Willard Mitt Romney have been soundly defeated had he run again for Governor here, but he wouldn't be elected dog catcher if he ran for office here again!

Don't be fooled by this pandering, opportunistic, flip flopper!

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

js allen, salt lake city, utah — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:17:03 GMT

The more I see of Mitt Romney, the more Presidential he looks. I want him to represent our country. Is he perfect? No. Is he by far the best individual to lead our country? Yes!!!

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Jason, Waynesboro, PA — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:33:49 GMT

I think it's hilarious that those same Romney supporters who said that Mitt's misldeading ads were fine, are now up in arms over this McCain mailer. Give me a break. Mitt is simply getting a taste of his own medicine in Michigan. And I hope that after Mitt loses Michigan, he's finally out of this race for good.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Jason — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:38:42 GMT

Stop with all the anti-mormon talk. It is really annoying.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

JM Hanes — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:02:12 GMT

I don't mind candidates going negative. What I despise are candidates who falsify their competition's positions as a basis for attack.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

A. Burns — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:17:47 GMT

McCain is way off on this one. Sad. So much for straight talk.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

s creviston — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:21:51 GMT

All of the major candidates have recently or in the past been a part of negative campaigning. It's nothing new, but it's interesting that McCain would criticize Romney for it just a few weeks ago, as if he is above such a thing -- and he's not, and now turn around throw out negative campaigning of his own.Negative campaigning never gets my attention because I know that all of those "fact" can be construed to make just about any point.

So what to do? Listen to what they're saying. Do their lives and personal background show that they do what they say they will do? Do they live according to what they say they believe? This is where Romney comes out on top. He's a true problem solver that overcomes obstacles by getting people to work together. Forget the religious garble. Those who comment on Romney by injecting religious extremism into the discussion end up making themselves look like the fanatics they are.

McCain and Giuliani have loose personal morals, if that's what you want go ahead and vote for them. Huckabee is a Democrat in sheeps clothing, go ahead and vote for him if you want.

If you want to see some real positive change, vote for Romney. He's got the skill, talent and brainpower to do what the others can't and won't.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

A Romney Fan, US — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:06:48 GMT

Hello Michigan! Vote for Romney!! :)

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Susan, MA — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:01:03 GMT

Edna,
grow up. Americans don't attack each other because of religion. We are free to worship or not. Stop writing such negative attacks on religion. If you are a christian...so it.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

Marty CR Iowa — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:05:32 GMT

Talk about trashing someone. You posters do a fine job of it. I will vote for John McCain because I hear the truth from him, I am older than he is and I don't intend to be dieing soon. Experience, honesty, trust, patriotism, that is John. He has worked his butt off for us in the Senate for many years, don't hear much of him because of the loud mouths, Kennedy and Kerry, maybe with John in the Oval office we can clear out that dead wood in Congress, this is his time and with him as President we will regain our country.

McCain goes negative in Romney mailer

J Scott, SLC. UT — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:13:33 GMT

I agree with s creviston.
Take each candidate and remember that they will be representing the United States. Can you see Huckabee comming face to face with Putin? I can't. Does McCain have any business background in his resume? Does Huckabee? Does having a partial Theological degree qualify you to address the impending ressession? Do you want to vote in a person who will be 80 years old by the end of his term? Will a woman be able to stand up to the Chinese expansion? How about voting for the person who thinks everything is a US conspiracy?

Mitt Romney has more business experience than all of the Republican and Democrat candidates combined. We have more problems in the US than just ending the war. Who, besides Romney, can lead us through them? Think about it folks. Are any of the other candidates as well prepared to get us through this mess a Romney is?