John McCain is a hero.  He put up with unimaginable horrors while a Prisoner of War in Vietnam.  He honored his country by his steadfastness in the face of mortal danger and his refusal to be treated with favor when offered the opportunity to be released earlier than his order of capture.  He understood the offer to be a propaganda ploy because the enemy knew him to be the son of the Navy Admiral in charge of the Pacific Fleet.   We all owe a debt of gratitude to John McCain and we must pay homage to the metal he showed as a member of the US Navy.  Homage, yes, but do Arizonans owe him their vote?

There was a time I would defer to John McCain on most matters both foreign and domestic because I truly believed his service merited such deference, but no more.    I have been discouraged too many times by Senator McCain and the positions he has taken on matters like the following:

McCain – Feingold – This act, provisions of which were recently ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court denied persons and corporations the right of free speech immediately prior to an election.  It was in direct conflict with the 1^st Amendment.      

McCain – Kennedy – This bill never made it to the floor because many persons, including myself, flooded the Congress with telephone calls stating our opposition to a proposal that would grant amnesty, no matter what Senator McCain wished to call it, to persons who violated our laws and entered this country illegally.  Senator McCain argued that it was not amnesty because a fine would be imposed on those seeking the opportunity to remain but the fine was no more than a slap in the face to the time and cost of those who chose to legally apply for access to the United States. 

Gang of 14 – Senator McCain’s Gang of 14 preserved the Senate’s right to filibuster presidential appointments by guaranteeing cloture could be reached except under “extreme circumstances”.   A constitutional showdown was exactly what was required because the framers of our Constitution never intended that Advice and Consent would require a super majority.  The question must be whether one branch of government has the power to develop rules that impact another branch of power from dismissing its Constitutional Obligations.  If so then what is to stop the Senate from demanding a unanimous Advice and Consent?  To the contrary, there is no hint of procedure in the requirements for Advice and Consent that would even suggest a vote was required.  Yes, Republicans are set to filibuster any radical appointment by Barack Obama as a recognition that they cannot allow the Democrats to play by different rules.  But, will the same Nuclear Option decried by Democrats when considering Bush appointments be respected when reviewing radical Obama appointments?

Most recently I am concerned as I watch from a neighbor state to Arizona and I see the strength and aggressiveness of the campaign being waged by Senator McCain and I have to ask, where was this aggressiveness when Senator McCain sought the presidency against Barack Obama?  This seems to be a no holds barred type of campaign for that Senate seat in Arizona by a man who insisted that his own presidential campaign be waged by gentleman’s rules known only to his campaign and not used by his opponent.  Senator McCain, if you are indeed the aggressive campaigner as you described to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, April 18, 2010 why did we not see any example of this in 2008?  That campaign was far more important to this nation than your Senate seat.