The idea/thought of John McCain being "too liberal" makes my blood run icy cold ~ ~ Sooz

Arizona GOP Censures McCain For 'Liberal' Record
TERRY TANG – January 26, 2014, 7:55 AM EST

PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Republican Party formally censured Sen. John McCain on Saturday, citing a voting record they say is insufficiently conservative.

The resolution to censure McCain was approved by a voice-vote during a meeting of state committee members in Tempe, state party spokesman Tim Sifert said. It needed signatures from at least 20 percent of state committee members to reach the floor for debate.

Sifert said no further action was expected.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers declined to comment on the censure.

McCain isn't up for re-election until 2016, when he will turn 80. He announced in October that he was considering running for a sixth term.

According to the resolution, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee has campaigned as a conservative but has lent his support to issues "associated with liberal Democrats," such as immigration reform and to funding the law sometimes known as Obamacare.

Several Republican county committees recently censured McCain.

Timothy Schwartz, the Legislative District 30 Republican chairman who helped write the resolution, said the censure showed that McCain was losing support from his own party.

"We would gladly embrace Sen. McCain if he stood behind us and represented us," Schwartz said.

Fred DuVal, a Democrat who plans to run for Arizona governor, called the censure an "outrageous response to the good work Sen. McCain did crafting a reasonable solution to fix our broken immigration system."

McCain has been dogged by conservatives objecting to his views on immigration and campaign finance, among other issues, since he first ran for Congress in 1982. Republican activists were also turned off by his moderate stances in the 2000 presidential race.

McCain was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982 and won his Senate seat in 1986.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/arizona-gop-censures-mccain-liberal

How was he censored?

I'm not sure that I would disagree regardless. He belongs to a Party that embraces certain ideals and philosophies. If he is out-of-step with those ideals and philosophies, the Party has a right to distance themself from him.

For example, if I belong to a Star Wars club, and one member always trashes Star Wars, doesn't the club have a right to distance itself from that member and say that the member doesn't represent the club's ideals? Should that member be allowed to publish articles in the club newsletter that trashes Star Wars? Shouldn't the club have the right to censor that member?

The word "censor" has a negative connotation, but it has to be viewed in context. The government has no right to censor free speech, but individual organizations do.

SciFi, check the definitions of "censor" and "censure" ~

Sooz

The R party is broad - Rand Paul and Chris Christie are poles apart.

I am thinking the AZ republicans do not want an 80 year old McCain running in 2016.

The Star Wars club example. I'd let the Star Wars trasher in to provide counter point. I'd also let him trash the film in the newsletter and let the fans rally behind the film and illustrate how the trasher is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I think Star Wars's Anakin Skywalker is the best character in film. However, I think the actors who portrayed him in the first and second trilogies were awful. Jake Lloyd and Hayden Christensen were wooden and awful actors in the role. They say it's because Lucas doesn't work well with actors.

I used this example to say; you can agree with core policies but disagree with details and implementation.

The word "censor" has a negative connotation, but it has to be viewed in context.

"Censor" was used by no one but you.

I meant "censure". The term "censured" is in the title of the article as well as the title of this thread.

The Arizona Republican Party formally censured Sen. John McCain on Saturday, citing a voting record they say is insufficiently conservative.

The problem with politics today (at least in the U.S.) is that everything has to be labeled 'conservative' or 'liberal'. We've gotten to a point were we can no longer look at the issues facing the country and discuss what are the best solutions. A politician cannot consider ideas and if he/she thinks they have merit then support them, they have to consider whether it is a 'liberal' or 'conservative' idea and act accordingly.

I'm not sure that I would disagree regardless. He belongs to a Party that embraces certain ideals and philosophies. If he is out-of-step with those ideals and philosophies, the Party has a right to distance themself from him.

I've always considered it to be one of the strengths of American political system that members of congress in both house can and do vote their own consciences regardless of party. It's far superior to the lock step party voting method of the Parliamentary system which really does render Members of Parliament superfluous. The party leader tells everyone under him how to vote and they do it automatically.

John McCain censured for voting his having a conscience