Buy at Amazon

Sunday, January 27, 2008

"I'M MAD AS HELL . . . AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!!!": How McCain Lost His Integrity in Dishonest Political Trick Against Romney

(Apologies to the film Network for borrowing the headline above . . . YouTube here--a great moment in cinematic history and worth the 4 minutes)

Much has been said on Romney blogs and elsewhere expressing outrage at McCain's desperate tactic to dishonestly smear Gov. Romney's stance on "timetables" and the Iraq war. It's blatantly apparent that McCain only did this to bring the issue of "Iraq" back into the race. McCain knows (and has repeatedly admitted) that "the Economy" is not his strong point, and that he'll lose to Romney in a head to head fight when that is the #1 issue. So, McCain's solution is to invent a controversial position for his main rival that plays to his own strength. Pitiful politics at its worst.

I've heard this false "timetables" accusation once before (good old Huck), so I was initially willing to believe that McCain was maybe just going off of bad information--that he would correct the situation once he realized the context. But when Romney's recommendation for a McCain apology was met with a "Romney should apologize to the troops for being willing to abandon them" (paraphrased) rebuttal I started getting downright angry.

When I realized that yesterday McCain said "My friends, I was there — he said he wanted a timetable for withdrawal" my anger turned to OUTRAGE!

Then on Meet the Press this morning, Tim Russert went softball on McCain on this issue with no follow-up, allowing McCain to repeat his position unchallenged with the follow-up of "please read on Senator" when Romney says that he would, like President Bush, veto any legislation setting timetables for Iraq. That's either biased or shoddy journalism folks.

McCain is LYING! He's inventing this pseudo-smear to bring back his preferred issue into the limelight . . . Iraq. Then I find out that, last year, McCain recommended a similar strategy (and his would have been PUBLIC . . . in contrast to Romney's) of benchmarks that, if not met by a certain date, would lead to pulling out of Iraq before success was achieved!! This took my OUTRAGE to the next level . . . the "I'M MAD AS HELL! AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!" level.

Who's with me here?

I'm sure every Romney supporter is at least outraged. Most may be outraged enough to make it harder for McCain to count on any significant support from Romney's base if he were to get the nomination. I can tell you that I'm mad enough that I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR JOHN McCAIN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND I'LL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO INFLUENCE OTHERS TO WITHHOLD THEIR SUPPORT AND VOTES FROM HIM AS WELL. Romney has always supported the troops and the war, even while governing liberal Mass. For McCain to imply otherwise is sickening (McCain went further and actually implied that Romney's position was the same as Hillary Clinton's on timetables!).

Beyond Romney's supporters "McCain Disdain" should be felt by every conservative and pro-Military American, who should view him with much less respect for dragging the American soldiers into this contrived controversy. Utterly shameless Senator McCain.

I know a lot of conservatives with influence see how dishonest McCain is being. But even the liberal MSM is calling this "scuffle" for Romney. This isn't just a nuanced misunderstanding, this is dirty politics full of tricks and lies, and it's pretty easy to see where the facts stand.

The evidence:

I've documented before how slanted the AP has been in their pro-McCain/anti-Romney bias.

So when the AP sides with Romney over McCain, you KNOW it's iron clad and there's no way for ANYONE to honestly see things from McCain's point of view.
The Arizona senator stood before a crowd in Sun City, Fla., and said he was quoting Romney as favoring a ''timetable for withdrawal.'' However, quotes circulated by McCain's campaign didn't show Romney making that comment.
. . .
By raising Iraq, McCain sought to shift the campaign in Florida back to his strength, national security, and away from Romney's, the economy.
. . .
During the campaign stop later in Sun City, McCain clipped three words from a quotation of Romney's last April, saying the former Massachusetts believed the country should set a ''timetable for withdrawal.''

In an interview with ABC News last April, Romney never uttered those words
. . .
Romney aides labeled McCain's charge ''stunningly false'' in an e-mail to campaign reporters.
Other liberal sources that see McCain's misleading dishonesty include the New York Times (yep, the same paper that just endorsed McCain again . . . and yes, McCain sought out that endorsement), and Time Magazine (yep, the same magazine that just ran an incredibly positive cover and story about McCain being the "Phoenix Rising" in the race).

And CNN legal analyst calls it right in the YouTube below:

Text here:
JEFF TOOBIN: Speaking of straight talk, no American politician has gotten more adoring press coverage than John McCain. But let's be clear about what John McCain is doing about Mitt Romney. He's lying. He's lying about Mitt Romney's position, no question about it. And you know I think that — this idea that Mitt Romney supports timetables, in fact most Americans support timetables to get out of Iraq, Mitt Romney doesn't happen to be one of them. That's really outrageous what McCain is doing bringing up this ancient interview and distorting it at the last minute so he doesn't have to talk about the economy.
Among conservatives there's plenty of displeasure with McCain's tactic as well:

Brit Hume flat out said that "McCain was dishonest" on this issue on Fox News Sunday this morning. Hume said it TWICE! He was even exasperated that Chris Wallace was trying to present McCain's side of it by rebutting (paraphrased) "Chris, as journalists we have a duty to try to present things accurately . . ." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 1/27/08)

Sean Hannity was railing on McCain for this tactic last night on a special Saturday edition of Hannity and Colmes. Expect more of it from Sean on his Radio and TV shows tomorrow (not to mention what Rush will have to say tomorrow!!)

"The Great One" Mark Levin, has seemed to make somewhat of a personal crusade out of this issue. See here, here, here, here, and here.

Center-Right influential blogger Ed Morrissey has plenty to say about the whole affair, but even his title "The Low Blow" pretty much sums it up. (BTW, he just endorsed Romney over at Captain's Quarters)

Katherine Jean Lopez of the National Review has chimed in too.

Powerline's Paul Mirengoff blast's Lindsey Graham for trying to defend McCain (and mis-characterize Romney) on this issue.

Bill Bennett (a strong McCain apologist and friend) said on CNN (CNN's "Newsroom," 1/26/08) that McCain's Iraq hit on Romney [was] "Way Below The Belt.":
"But the blow he took at Romney was way below the belt." . . .

"He's a maverick candidate. He should apologize for it." . . .

"He Twisted That Entirely Out Of Context." . . .

"He's always criticizing people doing that to him and he absolutely should not have done it." . . .

"It just wasn't fair and honor is his watch word and he -- I think it would be great if he said I got that one wrong. And that would be a rare thing."
Mark Steyn gets in on the act at NRO's "The Corner" by calling McCain's petty attacks unseemly for a candidate trying to give the impression that he always "takes the high road of honor"

Hugh Hewitt presents the Romney Campaign's defense.

Andy McCarthy also chimes in with a little sarcasm directed McCain's way (saying he should follow his own Campaign Finance Reform guidelines and not drop baseless bombshells within 30 days of an election)

By contrast, Huckabee (on Fox News Sunday) said that McCain has NEVER been dishonest, and sided with the Senator's opinion that Romney really did support a timetable for withdrawl. Big surprise there, eh?

If Romney survives this tag-team from his two main GOP rivals in addition to the nearly incessant negative media coverage (present topic excluded) he'll really be "The Resilient One"--a nominee we can put up against the Dems and their MSM machine with no fear of whether he can survive such a media/DNC onslaught.

Update: Adding to the sources above, Kyle Hampton's post adds some more confirmatory evidence of McCain's lie.
Quin Hillyer: John McCain today flat-out lied about Gov. Romney's position on the troop "surge," etc. This is no surprise. McCain's "straight talk express" has been anything but straight for quite some time now. He has been making false claims about what his position on immigration was just last summer. He has been making false claims about why he opposed Bush's tax cuts. He has been making false claims about Romney's stance on "torture." He has made misleading (not exactly false, but certainly misleading) representations about Giuliani's position on the line item veto. He has misrepresented his helpfulness on judicial nominations. And I know I am forgetting some of the other things he has not been exactly straight about.

Allahpundit: Yeah, pretty egregious. He never said he “wanted” to withdraw or that he wanted a date set, and it’s patently clear he doesn’t want any timetables publicly announced.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: It’s a reminder — like the McCain campaign’s dishonest line of attack this weekend — that as admirable McCain is as both a hero and a politician, he is not irreproachable even on national-security issues. McCain is fond of saying he’d rather lose a political campaign than a war; he now seems to be swimming close to using the war to win a political campaign in the most dishonest of ways. It’s conduct unbecoming a man we all respect.

Marc Ambinder: Then he was asked to justify his contention that Romney once supported a withdrawal timetable for Iraq. (I wrote this morning that McCain "stretched" history with the remark, and a few moments before this particular question received a stern talking to by two McCain aides and one reporter.)

David Freddoso: McCain’s unfair stab at Romney this weekend may not cost him anything. The endorsement from Florida’s popular governor, Charles Crist, came at just the right time to bury the item in the local news. And if he does win the nomination, this moment may not even be remembered. Unfortunately, the truth is always too complicated for a quick explanation.
Update #2 (2/3/08) Yet more evidence of McCain's blatant dishonesty:

Michael Reagan, in a piece that strongly argues that "McCain's no Reagan", says:
In last night’s debate, McCain stubbornly defended his charge, false on the face of it, that Romney wanted a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

"I have never, ever supported a specific timetable" for withdrawing troops, Romney said, adding that McCain's accusation on the eve of Tuesday's primary "sort of falls into the dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible."

What Romney said last April, was merely that U.S. and Iraqi leaders "have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about" in private, which in no way suggests he was in any sense talking about troop withdrawals.

Despite the evidence, McCain charged that "of course he said he wanted a timetable" for a withdrawal, even though he had never said any such thing. It was McCain daring to ask us if we wanted to believe our lying eyes or his demonstrably false allegation.

McCain must think conservatives are dumb . . .


Thomas Sowell (who rarely ventures deeply into "horserace" politics) penned a piece entitled "McCain's Straight Lies":

The fact that McCain makes short, blunt statements does not make him a straight-talker.

There are short, blunt lies — and he told a big one
on the eve of the Florida primary, when he claimed that Mitt Romney had advocated a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
. . .

Confronted with his lie on Wednesday night's debate, McCain blustered and filibustered in a manner reminiscent of Captain Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny," when he was caught in a lie during a navy inquiry.

When confronted with any of his misdeeds, Senator McCain tends to fall back on his record as a war hero in Vietnam.

Let's talk sense. Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal.

Being a war hero is not a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. And becoming President of the United States is not a matter of rewarding an individual for past services.

The Washington Post (who has endorsed McCain) even gave him "Three Pinnochio's" for this whopper:
Talking vaguely about "timetables and milestones" is not the same thing as setting "a date for withdrawal," from Iraq, as Senator McCain has tried to argue. And while Romney has talked about secret understandings with the Iraqi government, that is very different from promises by Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates to remove most U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2009.


The AP's follow-up story "Fact Check: Romney didn't say what McCain says he said on withdrawing from Iraq" also bashes McCain's dishonesty:

Republican John McCain tried to lump Mitt Romney with Democrats who want a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq.

But Romney never called for the kind of public withdrawal date or timeline that Democrats in Congress sought last year.
. . .
THE FACTS:

Romney never embraced the idea of a public withdrawal date.


Reuters saw the distortion and political ploy for what it was:
SHIFTING TOPICS

A day earlier, McCain accused Romney of backing a set withdrawal date for U.S. troops from Iraq, a distortion of Romney's record that he angrily denied.
George Will condemned McCain on this, accusing him of "Crooked-talk" in his recent piece "Staying the Coarse":

This was a garden-variety dishonesty, the manufacture of which does not cause a Clinton in midseason form to break a sweat. And it was no worse than -- actually, not as gross as -- St. John of Arizona's crooked-talk claim in Florida that Mitt Romney wanted to "surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do" in Iraq because Romney "wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster."

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, the Clintons should bask in the glow of John McCain's Clintonian gloss on this fact: Ten months ago Romney said that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki should discuss, privately, "a series of timetables and milestones." That unremarkable thought was twisted by McCain, whose distortions are notably clumsy, as when Romney said, accurately, that he alone among the candidates has had extensive experience in private-sector business. That truth was subjected to McCain's sophistry, and he charged that Romney had said "you haven't had a real job" if you had a military career. If, this autumn, voters must choose between Clinton and McCain, they will face, at least stylistically, an echo, not a choice.

But that dreary scenario need not come to pass. Romney seems to have found his voice as attention turns to the economy, a subject concerning which McCain seems neither conversant nor eager to become so.

Rush Limbaugh of course, covered the topic and chose to title the segment "McCain's Clintonesque Lie About Romney and Iraq Is Disappointing"

Now, this was totally dishonest. This attack by Senator McCain just wasn't true. Romney has never advocated timetables. The New York Times labeled this as untrue. The AP leveled it as untrue. Senator McCain had to change the subject because I think they got some bad polling data to indicate that they had to change the subject. But this really roiled a lot of people over the weekend. This was just blatant, this was just an out-and-out lie, and many people thought that the McCain camp thought they would get away with it because of their love and slavish devotion of the Drive-By Media. But it didn't work. He didn't get away with it. It remains to be seen what impact it will have on primary voters in Florida tomorrow. My friend Andrew McCarthy had the funniest take on this. I so wanted to steal this as my own, but I have ethics, and I think when people come up with great stuff, they deserve the credit for it. Andrew McCarthy, on Saturday afternoon in the midst of all of this, said, "I'm starting to think Senator McCain should not be allowed to mention the other candidates' names within 30 days before a primary."

He levels an allegation about Romney that's just flat not true, and if some organization wanted to run an ad calling him on it they'd be in violation of McCain's reform of campaign finance regulations. What a racket McCain is running. Is that not brilliant? And it's absolutely right. McCain comes out with this lie about Romney in the middle of the afternoon on Saturday, and there's no way a Romney camp or group can run an ad on television here in Florida refuting it because you can't do that 30 days before a primary under McCain-Feingold's restrictions on free speech, but the candidates can go out there and say what they want. So Romney had to do the replying himself. He put a video up, and they were quick getting it out, but McCarthy's point is right on the money. It's hilarious. Hey, Senator McCain, you can't say anything about any candidate within 30 days before the election. McCain-Feingold ought to extend to the candidates, too, don't you think?
And even more from liberal networks that I'm pasting in from a Romney Campaign Press Release:
CNN's John King: "Governor Romney Did Not Say That." "He did not say the president should go to Iraq and give Al-Maliki a timeline for withdrawal in private. Governor Romney did not say that." (CNN's "Newsroom," 1/26/08)

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "He's Desperately Trying To Change The Topic From The Economy..." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/28/08)

· Scarborough: "He Did Lie About, Everybody Knows That He Lied About Mitt Romney." "If John McCain did lie and he did lie about it, everybody knows that he lied about Mitt Romney, everybody knows he lied when he said that he wanted to put a timeline on it and get us out of there." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/30/08)

· Scarborough: "I Haven't Met Anybody In The Media That Hasn't Said John McCain Lied About Mitt Romney." "I haven't met anybody in the media that hasn't said John McCain lied about Mitt Romney and it threw Romney off for two days. What's wrong with saying that?" (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/30/08)


MSNBC's David Shuster: "John McCain Is Being Misleading." "Actually, Mitt Romney is on the money with this one, and John McCain is being misleading." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/28/08)

· Shuster: McCain's Attack Was "Not Right." "But the fact of the matter is, when John McCain says that Mitt Romney was for public timetables, in other words, letting the Iraqis know when U.S. troops are leaving and that therefore Mitt Romney should apologize to the troops, as John McCain said, that's not right." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/28/08)


On Hannity and Colmes lastFriday night (Feb 1st) Newt Gingrich was giving his opinion on the GOP race and distinctly mentioned that McCain was "wrong" and "dishonest" in this attack.

Bob Dole even chimed in on the issue:
I do not agree that Governor Romney ever suggested a timetable for troop withdrawals in Iraq.

Is it sinking in that this isn't just a bunch of pro-Romney people making this point?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

saw this on a blog......

Francis Steffan
John McCain Ineligible To Be President
Mon Jan 28, 2008 03:45
63.162.62.6


John McCain was born August 29, 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone, to two U.S. citizens. It's a common misunderstanding that the zone was a U.S. territory - in fact, the U.S. had lease rights, but not territorial rights.
The US Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
No law or court ruling has ever established the precise definition of a natural born citizen. It is generally agreed that a natural born citizen of the United States is any person born in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia.
John McCain's father "Jack" was born in Council Bluffs, Iowa. McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1931. Like his father and son, he graduated near the bottom of his class. He married Roberta Wright, a wealthy oil heiress, on January 21, 1933, in Caesar's Bar, Tijuana, Mexico. During WW II he commanded the submarine Gunnel at Operation Torch. After the end of the war, he was assigned to the Office of the Chief of Naval Personnel until 1948. He assumed command of Submarine Division 71 in the Pacific the next year. In 1950, he was assigned to a series of posts at The Pentagon. He spent the 1960s in a series of commands in the Atlantic, becoming Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces in Europe in 1967 and 1968. Admiral McCain directed an investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and he wanted the investigation done in less than a week even though the court’s president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to conduct properly. Admiral McCain also wouldn’t permit Admiral Kidd to travel to Israel or to contact any potential Israeli witnesses. In fact, the written affidavits of 60 witnesses from the Liberty itself who were hospitalized at the time of the restricted inquiry, were also excluded from the final report and not considered as part of the evidentiary record. The investigation was completed in just ten days. The National Archives in College Park, Maryland includes in its files on casualties from the Liberty copies of the original telegrams the Navy sent out to family members. The telegrams which called the attack accidental, were sent out June 9, the day before the Navy court of inquiry convened .
When Senator McCain was asked to reopen and conduct a proper investigation into the USS Liberty's attack he stated that he wasn’t going to do anything about it because the “matter was thoroughly reviewed.”
Senator McCain also collaborated with ultra liberal Senator Ted Kennedy to attempt to provide amnesty to nearly 40 million illegal aliens, mostly Mexican.
When the Constitution was established, the United States government did not have a empire builder foreign policy. The United States military was for defensive purposes only. As a matter of fact, the U.S. is not to have a "standing Army" and all the documents evidencing the intent of the authors of the Constitution, warned against becoming involved in foreign entanglements. The U.S. had zero foreign based military forces and certainly did not approve of, envision, or condone having babies and raising families on foreign based U.S. military installations. The intent of the authors of the Constitution is exactly opposite the policy twentieth century U.S. government has pursued.
The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8, vests in Congress the power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." "Naturalization" is NOT synonymous with "Natural Born Citizen."
In order to come to a Constitutional definition of "Natural Born Citizen," one must look to the common meaning and understanding of the phrase at the time it was written.
The Constitution has been called a "living document" by liberal progressives who think they know better than the authors of the Constitution and want what they want with disregard for The Supreme Law of the Land. In one way, and one way only, is the Constitution a living document. The authors of the Constitution gave a specific process to add to or subtract from the Constitution and that is by amendment. The Supreme Court, the U.S. Congress nor the President of the United States are granted the authority to define or change the Constitution in any way, they only have an obligation and duty to obey it.
There were no foreign based US military forces at the writing of the U.S. Constitution, therefore, it is impossible that the intent of the Constitution was to have babies born to civilian wives of military personnel be considered "Natural Born Citizens." The only authority the government may lawfully exercise, through the U.S. Congress, is to declare these children to be "naturalized Citizens" at birth based upon the U.S. , Congress's authority "establish an uniform rule of Naturalization." I must reiterate, not the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court nor the President of the United States is "authorized" to define or change the meaning, definition, or intent of "Natural Born Citizen" as prescribed by the authors of the Constitution.
The original "intent" and therefore meaning and definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is one free white man being delivered through natural progression of a pregnancy, born within the geographical boundaries of one of the several States of the union, and later the District of Columbia. This is very clear and simple and what it means is born HERE.
In the Fourteenth Amendment the eligible group allowed Citizenship was expanded from free white men to "All persons." This would have been better stated “all people” to avoid the bogus recognition of a corporation being a "person.” This would have been better as it would have clarified the meaning as intended, which is having rights of people but lacking any of the liabilities. One cannot imprison a corporation, but that is for a later article.
The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 actually defines "natural born citizen" by stating, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
One’s wishes of what one feels things should be must yield to facts of law and one must accept the way things are according to the law until such time one is able to change the law.
There are two types of Citizenship in the United States, Natural Born and Naturalized. The fourteenth amendment defines "Natural Born Citizen" as persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It goes on to explain that there exists a dual Citizenship that includes the United States and of the State in which on lives. This in itself serves to demonstrate that Natural Born Citizen being born in the United States means within one of the several united States of America.
People may feel that it is not right that John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States of America, however, this is a fact of law. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President. There are two types of Citizenship in the United States "Natural Born" and "Naturalized." Congress has authority to make rules as to how to become a "naturalized citizen." There is no such authority granted to Congress, the Court, or the President to define "Natural Born Citizen."
Given the fact the United States official and long term military enclaves presence within foreign nations was not authorized and in fact was cautioned against by the authors of the founding documents of this nation including but not limited to the Constitution it is not only unlikely but impossible that the authors intended anyone born outside the several States of the United States, for any reason, to be considered "Natural Born Citizens" of the United States. This position and fact is second witnessed and verified by the fourteenth amendment, section 1 where it states clearly the two forms of United States Citizenship and defines Natural Born Citizen as "all persons born...in the United States...".
Some will attempt to argue the point that U.S. military bases are under the jurisdiction of the United States and the fourteenth amendment mentions that. The fourteenth amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The word "and" means "as well as" being born in the United States. Being born only under the jurisdiction of the United States, as some misguided military people would like to imagine, is not good enough. Some would like to believe that because the "United States" has a Status of Forces Agreement with a foreign government that military bases are somehow "sovereign" U.S. territory. If you murder a Panamanian citizen in Oregon you will be arrested by Oregon police, go through the Oregon courts and be imprisoned in Oregon, and now some other state maybe, but still within the U.S. If you murder a Panamanian citizen on a U.S. military base in Panama you will be arrested by Panamanian police, go through the Panamanian courts and be imprisoned in Panama. So much for "sovereignty."
All this discussion is nothing more than hot air and a waste of time that is off point. The point is that one cannot build a viable position on a non-existent foundation. In this case the foundation is the Constitution and the intent of the authors, NOT Status of Forces Agreements and worthless arguments by military men who would like to have babies on foreign soil, calling them natural born Citizens and have them run for President some day.
The authors of the U.S. founding documents counseled against becoming entangled in foreign wars. They also had a distinct distaste for colonial empire building. So now we are to believe that it was their intent to designate the prodigy, born on foreign soil, of the American centurion colonizing for the empire as a Natural Born Citizen?
The fourteenth amendment states "born or naturalized in the United States," that is IN the United States. At the time of the writing of the Constitution it was properly written as united States of America as the word “united” was describing the condition of the States not a proper name of a thing. The Congress can direct that persons may be "Naturalized" "in" the United States to mean embassies, military bases or wherever else they decide. That is what they are authorized to do. However, they are NOT authorized to redefine what "Natural Born Citizen" means. It means what it meant to the authors of the Constitution. The US did not have foreign military bases at the time the Constitution was authored. Therefore "born on a US military base in a foreign country" is NOT what they meant by "Natural Born Citizen."
The intention of the authors of the Constitution was that no person born outside the geographical boundaries of the several States of the United States of America be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States of America. Animus ad se omne jus ducit - It is to the intention that all law applies. Animus moninis est anima scripti - The intention of the party is the soul of the instrument. 3 Bulstr 67 - Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.
There are consequences to disregarding the Constitution and the intent of the authors of our founding documents. There are consequences to following a course of empire building by military might. There are consequences to being born on foreign soil as a son or daughter of a centurion of that empire building military. You are not Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States of America.
You may think it's not fair. You may feel it's not right. You may think because military and government "experts" tell you a military base in a foreign country is actually the United States that it's okay for John McCain to hold the office of President of the United States. You are nevertheless wrong and so are they, no matter how long they have told the falsehood and believed in error. communis error no facit just - A common error does not make law. -Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.
The position stated in this article is based only upon the Constitution and the intent of the authors of the founding documents of this nation. The only authority on this matter is the Constitution and the intent of the authors. Argumentum ab authoritate est fortissimum in lege - An argument drawn from authority is the strongest in law. Co. Litt. 254.-Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.
If you don't like the law, by all means work to change it, however, until such time that it is changed John McCain III is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President of the United States of America.

Charles Ratliff said...

John Kerry: McCain Approached Me About Joining Dem Ticket in 2004


On Monday afternoon I had the chance to speak with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic Party's nominee for President in 2004. During the interview, which covers a range of topics and which I will be posting later this afternoon, an item of particular interest jumped out at me: According to Sen. Kerry, it was John McCain's staff who approached his campaign about potentially filling the Vice President slot on the Democratic ticket in 2004.


Take a listen to and a look at the interchange...
Go to http://mydd.com/story/2007/4/3/11936/97033 to hear John Kerry giving this interview.


Jonathan Singer: There's a story in The Hill, I think on Tuesday, by Bob Cusack on the front page of the paper talking about how John McCain's people -- John Weaver -- had approached Tom Daschle and a New York Congressman, I don't remember his name, about switching parties. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your discussions were with him in 2004, how far it went, who approached whom... if there was any "there" there.

John Kerry: I don't know all the details of it. I know that Tom, from a conversation with him, was in conversation with a number of Republicans back then. It doesn't surprise me completely because his people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President. So his people were active -- let's put it that way.

Singer: Okay. And just to confirm, you said it, but this is something they approached you rather than...

Kerry: Absolutely correct. John Weaver of his shop... [JK answers phone]

As you might know from reading my posts in the past, I don't usually addend my own thoughts to my interviews. I like to think they speak for themselves. But in light of the fact that I have written about a closely-related subject and I think this item is particularly newsworthy, if you'll oblige me I'd like to write a few words here.

For many Republicans, it has been bad enough that John McCain has voted and worked with Democrats against the majority of Republican Senators on a number of occasions in recent years. For Republicans, I would imagine that reports that he approached the Democrats about leaving the Senate GOP caucus in 2001 represent a borderline unpardonable offense. But it seems that reaching out to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to talk about running on that party's ticket would be tantamount to the highest form of political treason to Republicans.

Certainly, I would assume that McCain's campaign will deny Kerry's account of their interactions. In fact I would be surprised if they didn't push back on this story, as they did to the story in The Hill last week. (A call for comment to the McCain campaign was not returned before the time this story was published.) That said, at least from my vantage this story could hardly come at a worse time for McCain.