Posted by
Glen Albrethsen on Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:42:24 AM
Dear Senator McCain:
In last night's Republican Presidential debate at the Reagan Library, you claimed that Mitt Romney was for setting a specific date of withdrawal because he used the term "timetable" when talking about private conservations between President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki.
You based that on the fact that, at the time, the term "timetable" was being used by others that meant "set a date."
You told him his answer should have simply been, "No."
I daresay Senator, that such conviction and decisiveness is what well may win you the nomination, if not the presidency.
However, if no, rather than a more thoughtful, detailed explanation is all Romney should have said (which, by the way, he did actually say, in the part of the conversation you have neglected to mention), why then, did you not just say no on z visas, campaign finance reform and cap and trade?
You've mentioned quite a few times now that you represent a border state, and because of that, you know how to secure the border. Yet, Senator, Arizona continues to be one of the most porous states as far as illegal immigration is concerned. Why then, when given the opportunity to, when your name got placed on a bill that was not only liberal in its scope, but not helpful for your own state's battle with illegal immigration, did you NOT know that it would be so resoundingly opposed by the people of this country and utterly defeated? Anyone with the finger on the pulse of illegal immigration, as you claim to have, should have seen that coming.
Why, sir, did you not stand up then and say, "No," instead of backing an amnesty bill that happened to have a $3,000 fee attached to it?
Regarding cap and trade, if you are so aware of how the economy works, from your time on a Senatorial committee, no less (even though you now deny admitting that you needed some help on that particular issue), why are you in favor of legislation that will only hurt the United States economy and its citizens when it comes to energy? Sure, we're innovators and sure we can do lots of things, but don't we already spend enough on energy and gasoline without having more costs added in, which will only be passed on to us?
Why isn't "no" the answer to unilateral cap and trade that will do little, if it's actually true, to reduce global warming because India and China pollute far more than we do? Do you want us to defeat Al Qaida, or Radical Islamic Jihadism, only to have our economy bow even further under a debilitating tax? What happened to being for smaller taxes?
And finally, Senator, you've made a big deal about the money that Romney has spent, money he was able to raise, as well as his own money, as if such spending was despicable. Yet, were you and Senator Russ Feingold not responsible for the current state of affairs as far as campaign finance is concerned? You've been in the US Senate for some 20 years now. You've ran for president once already, and have ran for US Senate four or five times now. You knew full well how money worked in campaigns. Yet, you sponsored the legislation which has changed it.
Why, sir, didn't you just say, "No," to campaign finance reform, only to complain about how Romney is spending his own money to work by your rules?
Here's some straight talk for you, sir. You don't have a comprehensive understanding of everything a president needs to know. You know about military strategies and defense. But, sir, that note, while important, is not the only one you have to hit. You have to also be knowledgeable with how the economy works. You need to be able to be strong on that issue, or there won't be a strong defense. We cannot continue to borrow from China, a nation that does not have our national interests at heart. At some point, we will be in so much debt to them, there won't need to be war. They'll just simply foreclose.
Next time, when it comes to sponsoring more liberal legislation, Senator, why don't you just say, "No."
P.S. Distorting what other people say is not only an attack and is negative, it's not becoming of someone who is known for their straight talk. Defining and contrasting records of two candidates is neither negative or attacking. It's called making the case. If you're not up to having your record compared, then maybe you should just say "no" to continuing your campaign.