Subscribe to EspressoPundit

« No More Gatekeepers... | Main | The Laughing Karamargins »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dang, how many times does he want to poke his finger in the eye of the GOP base? Maybe he thinks he can overwhelm a challenger with money, but still....

I would never have voted for Nancy Reagan or her children.

I'm glad I voted for Ronald Reagan.

I'm with Travis. While I'm disappointed with the ad and that Cindy feels that those of us that support marriage are hate mongers, I don't think McCain agrees with her.

The Senator and his wife need to be asked whether support of marriage as the union of one man and one woman equals hatred. Because that is exactly what the photo implies.

Does Cindy McCain believe her husband to be hateful? (And if so, why should we vote for him?) Or is he somehow exempt from being a hater, unlike the rest of us rubes?

She's got wonderful timing. Prop 8 trial going on in San Francisco, and one of the opponents' big arguments is that Prop 8 drafters and supporters acted out of animus.

But yeah, perhaps Sen. McCain has no idea about any of this, or doesn't agree with his wife or daughter.

It does not matter. If a corporation deems it necessary to have gay marriage, it only needs to buy a few legislative seats.

The grand experiment in democracy officially came to an end today in the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the "conservatives" on the court declared that corporations are people and that spending billions of dollars to get pro-corporate candidates elected is "speech."

Corporations and other special interests will now be allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to get their candidates elected. Americans essentially lost our voice today. I am angry beyond all comprehension.

R.I.P. United States of America
1776-2010.

It bothers me that a majority of Republicans are so supportive of more governmental intrusion in our lives. Why does conservatism have to be tied to religion?

You don't need religion to tell you that the marriage of a man and a woman is the building block of society. You need reason.

And Bergie, nice attempt at hijacking a thread.

This is what you choose to blog on? What about a ruling that pretty much puts an end to matching funds in Arizona and possibly the Clean Elections Act (at least until something else hits the ballot)? Or how about using your law to degree to analyze the blatant road map the judge ruling on the case gave on how to fix Clean Elections? Or the Supreme Court ruling that corporations and unions can contribute to Federal campaigns now? Or John Edwards FINALLY admitting he fathered his mistress' baby? Or speculating on the impact Scott Brown's victory will have on mid-term elections? What is the point of having a conservative political blog if you don't blog on major issues?

Gee, Bergie, you need to adjust that 1776 date. First because the US Constitution was not ratified until 1789. Oh, and corporate money in elections has been in play for most of US history anyway.

Besides, the billions in corporate money you fear is already being spend at the federal level through lobbying expenditures. Does anyone think that now corporations are now going to suddenly increase their net spending on political stuff? They've been doing it all along. I bet they just take some money out of their lobbying budget and move it over to the campaign column.

Its not a question of should Gay Marriage be legel or not.

It is a question of should marriage be something that the federal government regulates through the IRS. And then the whole medical/insurance practise of confidentiality, disclosure and coverage. They are the ones who started "family" definitions.

Who your having sex with has nothing to do with a legal contract unless the parties make it so.

Perhaps you "holier than thou" types should show some respect to the human rights of all people.

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE! I would argue Republicans are barely human, but I don't want to hijack this blog.

This seat is J.D.'s if he wants it.

No matter how much money McCain spends, the conservatives that show up to a Republican primary are HIGHLY informed voters that know the real John McCain, the one that loathes the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

My guess is if McCain loses the Republican primary, he will suddenly become an outspoken liberal, similar to the new Arlen Specter.

Brian Smith,

I agree with everything you just said. I just want to add one thing:

McCain will become an outspoken liberal, similar to Arlen Specter, if he WINS the Republican primary.

Remember folks, once McCain wins the Republican primary, he gets another six years in the Senate no matter how liberal (I mean "statesman-like") he becomes, and there's not a darn thing you can do about it.

Once McCain wins the primary, it's full speed left to get back in the good graces of the New York Times and the mainstream media.

Cindy McCain has a right to voice her opinions whether she is the wife of a Senator or not. If we don't like it, we don't have to support her, or Senator McCain. It is nice of her to come out with her opinion in such a manor when her husband is actively campaigning for reelection. Now, does Hayworth have the ability to make use of this?

I guess my question is "why is religious marriage even recognized by the government?"

I understand contracts, like civil unions. I don't understand why we would want to endanger freedom of religion by governmentalizing religion.

Jim and Crabby R.,

Marriage does not have it origin in religion. In a philosophical sense it is a worldview issue. In a practical sense it appears to be an organic aspect of human society.

Governments and religions do not create marriages nor did they create the institution of marriage. Governments only recognize and regulate marriage. Religions do the same plus they also consecrate marriages.

All of the concerns about McCain (and MANY other big-government Senators over the past 90+ years) illustrate why the 17th Amendment should be repealed as soon as possible.

If Senators were still appointed by state legislatures, subject to replacement at any time, they would NEVER collectively violate the 10th Amendment unless they were collectively ready to immediately retire. This was one of the vital checks and balances the Founders built into the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. Even if the "people's house" (the House of Representatives) got carried away with a temporarily popular notion, the Senate by its very nature would act as a check on the growth of the federal government. The Founders knew the inherent wisdom of making sure the people could not collectively "impulse buy" expanded federal power. Anything truly necessary or desired could be accomplished slowly and deliberatively, with the damaging fads falling by the wayside during the slowed legislative process.

That system worked pretty effectively until the Progressives/Populists convinced the people they were somehow being "disenfranchised" by not directly electing their U.S. Senators. The federal government has grown exponentially ever since.

Politicians are just like "magicians" - always watch the EMPTY hand, not the one with the shiny new "gift."

What office is Cindy McCain running for? If the answer is 'none', then the follow-up question is -- Why is her personal opinion relevant to a political discussion?

Sorry Brian but I think the latest Rasmussen Poll says different: http://politicomafioso.blogspot.com/2010/01/sen-john-mccain-surges-way-ahead-in.html

Bob, you mean her personal opinion that her husband is a hater?

"Redefine Republican"? Nonsense. It's the same old tedious failed RINOism. But what a revolting ad. I briefly admired this woman when I first saw her last summer. But this reflects such poor judgment and contempt for moral disagreement, and is done up in such a trademark Cosmo liberal hate-mongering style, I can only imagine what an self-righteous elitist idiot she must really be.

Cindy helped campaign for McCain during the Presidential election and all her volunteerism came across loud and clear...thus attempting to sway voters and make McCain look good. No we weren't voting for her but like it or not public officials many times come as a package.

McCain is running for reelection and she decided that this CA Prop 8 is worth personally promoting. Now we don't know what goes on in the McCain household but I don't know "many" married wives or husbands who would go as far as she has gone with this "IF" their spouse didn't somewhat agree...especially with those in public office.

This should be concerning for the citizens of AZ. The majority of Arizonians believe that marriage should be between a man and woman. This group that she has endorsed has essentially taken the stance that if you don't agree with THEM then you are a hater. Remember what happened after the PROP 8 vote in CA? Those who had supported PROP 8 were harassed, threatened and stalked...some were actually approached at their workplace. Others lost their job under the pressure from those who opposed it. The home addresses of those who supported it were made public on a special website. Not a lot of tolerance shown to those with opposing view points.

So the statement that Cindy has made in my opinion doesn't really have to do with the gay marriage issue but it has to do with those who have differing beliefs and if you do not fall in step with their agenda then you are considered a hater. So if her husband doesn't agree with her stance is he also a hater?

And to have the wife of not only a senator but ex presidential candidate take this stand should be extremely concerning to all of us. Remember she could have been the first lady.

So in short, no her name isn't on the ballot but she does have great influence and she has been a tool that the McCain camp has used to gather votes.


The majority of Republicans and most other people don't give a tinkers cuss about Gay Marriage.

Gay Marriage is an inflated issue that only ends up driving more Democrats to the polls.

I wish all states would adopt Gay Marriage so that the Democrat saboteurs who use this issue wouldn't have it to swing around any more.

When McCain/Feingold was passed and signed into law, I thought George W. Bush had lost his mind. A sitting president signed into law an act to eliminate the free speech rights of ALL Americans, not just corporations and unions. Those critical 30 days prior to an election are when it is most heated in discussion, argument, stating of the issues, and one's preferences. Eliminating one's right to state his/her case during that period is what gave rise to the term, "the incumbent protection act." How could McCain have reasoned otherwise? That a majority opinion of the SCOTUS overturned those portions of McCain/Feingold as unConstitutional is righteous. Forget about corporations, all of you! You got your very own voice back. You can be heard again without fear of prosecution. Doesn't that mean anything to you? Must you always demonize corporations? They ARE people! That's who owns corporations! Stockholders! Unions ARE people! Who do you think is in unions? Machines?

Go home McCain enjoy your late years with your very pretty wife. JD Hayworth will take back the true conservative party. You can relax and enjoy your Country for a while. God Bless you and we wish you health and long life.

The comments to this entry are closed.