Does conservatism mean disagreeing with business, anti campaign reform, and increasing the federal deficit?

Radio talk show ';conservatives'; support these notions when speaking of McCain.





McCain introduced immigration reform legislation that business supported





McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts because without correspoinding budget cuts increased the federal budget deficit- which they did.





And finally, McCain co authored a bill introducing Campaign finance reform which was, and still is, needed





How in the world are these positions anti conservative?Does conservatism mean disagreeing with business, anti campaign reform, and increasing the federal deficit?
McCain is willing to work with democrats, which conservatives hate. I respect him for that. We need more of it to get things done.Does conservatism mean disagreeing with business, anti campaign reform, and increasing the federal deficit?
You are deluding yourself. Mr. McCain is not conservative. He is way too liberal. His name is on lots of really bad legislation. I am a conservative. I won't vote for Mr. McCain.





The claims in your first question are wrong. The immigration bill was amnesty. It was bad for the country. Allowing illegals into the country is wrong. It is against the law. Conservatives believe the borders should be controlled, illegals sent home, and only legal aliens be allowed in the country.





McCain was wrong about tax cuts. The economy has flourished under Mr. Bush. Deficits are caused by too much spending. No matter how much tax money the IRS brings in, Congress manages to spend more. Conservatives believe in less government and less government spending.





Campaign finance reform would be a joke if it were not a travesty. It is clearly contrary to the First Amendment, by stopping people from saying what they want to say, when they want to say it. It obviously has no effect on campaign spending. Look at how much has been spent already, and we are not even close to the general election. Conservatives value free speech. This law should be called the ';Get John McCain Re-elected'; law because it strongly favors incumbents.
Abortion is the spoiler, as are other religious based political notions. McCain is a man of the people. Conservatives of today want a man of the church going people. All other considerations of leadership ability pale to this desire to have the Bible rule above the constitution.
Conservatives do NOT disagree with business interests, they represent those interests first and foremost.
No.
i call a question like this rubberband theory, because it takes a bit of stretching and twisting to come to your conclusions,





a) its anti illegal immigration and what it stands for are business underpaying illegal immigrants instead of paying an American employee a competitive wage,





b) the bush tax cuts pulled America out of the popped .com bubble that was on the verge of recession, and it worked, so he was wrong, the deficit is war related not internal revenue related





c) McCain/finegold has legislation that violates the first amendment to our constitution, yes i agree we need a solution to special interest money, funding political campaigns, but not in a way that violates the first and most important law of our land, freedom of speech





now all that said, im not hell bent on squashing McCain, i think if everyone really wants bipartisan solutions from Washington, he is the best choice on all sides of the isle, but conservatives so have legitimate arguments against the guy
But you see we are tired of the liberal lie that we are pro business to our own detriment, the bill was basically a democrat bill. We disliked the same attribute in Bush and have said many times he was the lessor of two evils. McCain is even worse and in my book is not a lessor evil.





It was McCain's job on spending to insure that it was kept low. Presidents do not write spending bills Senators do. He failed in the job he had and is far from fit for the job he seeks.





The campaign finance reform was a joke why would I vote for a man that would limit my free speech while allowing corporate news/media say anything they want?








Or not pass it as has been the case for how many years?