I promised to get this up a few weeks ago, but it has been a behemoth of a task. So after thoroughly exposing the insanity and hypocrisy of a Dr. Ron Paul, I now turn my attention to John McCain, the Republican nominee for President of the United States of America.
Credit goes to Daily Kos and The Carpetbagger Report for some of the links.
The New York Times has created some controversy over the last month and a half over their treatment of John McCain. First, the paper endorsed his candidacy for the Republican nomination, and then a few days after Super Tuesday unleashed a massive piece filled with insinuation and allegations of impropriety. The Times rightfully took some flak for the manner in which the story was presented, but in the furor over whether it could reasonably be assumed based on circumstantial evidence that John McCain had an illicit affair, the real issue was obscured.
That issue: that John McCain had an improper (non-sexual) relationship with a lobbyist that had notably influenced the policy stances of his campaign, and that had even worried his inner circle of advisers.
From the original article:
quote:
By 2002, he had succeeded in passing the McCain-Feingold Act, which transformed American politics by banning �soft money,� the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and the rich that were funneled through the two political parties to get around previous laws.
One of his efforts, though, seemed self-contradictory. In 2001, he helped found the nonprofit Reform Institute to promote his cause and, in the process, his career. It collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlimited donations from companies that lobbied the Senate commerce committee. Mr. McCain initially said he saw no problems with the financing, but he severed his ties to the institute in 2005, complaining of �bad publicity� after news reports of the arrangement.
Like other presidential candidates, he has relied on lobbyists to run his campaigns. Since a cash crunch last summer, several of them � including his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who represented companies before Mr. McCain�s Senate panel � have been working without pay, a gift that could be worth tens of thousands of dollars.
In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has hired another lobbyist, Mark Buse, to run his Senate office. In his case, it was a round trip through the revolving door: Mr. Buse had directed Mr. McCain�s committee staff for seven years before leaving in 2001 to lobby for telecommunications companies.
Mr. McCain�s friends dismiss questions about his ties to lobbyists, arguing that he has too much integrity to let such personal connections influence him.
�Unless he gives you special treatment or takes legislative action against his own views, I don�t think his personal and social relationships matter,� said Charles Black, a friend and campaign adviser who has previously lobbied the senator for aviation, broadcasting and tobacco concerns.
Concerns in a Campaign
Mr. McCain�s confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.
The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain�s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.
Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, �Why is she always around?�
That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator�s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.
A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman�s access to his offices.
You might be saying... well, ok, there might be a linkage there, but did Iseman really influence his politics? The Times says yes.
quote:
A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman�s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.
In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain�s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain�s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.
Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.
Mr. McCain�s aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain�s advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.
It is important to remember that John McCain is a self-styled maverick when it comes to ethics reform. He has built his career (and mainstream popularity) on combating unethical behavior in politics, and in fact unsuccessfully based his entire 2000 Presidential campaign on that issue. So allegations of impropriety against McCain are not like those against any other Washington politician who has never raised his/her voice against ethics violations. McCain has cast himself as a symbol of ethical politics, and for him to have been influenced so personally by special interests in the midst of that campaign is a question of hypocrisy even more than ethics.
This then leads to the question - how did John McCain come to be such a champion of ethics reform? Certainly the passage of his 2002 Campaign Finance Reform Bill, co-sponsored with Russ Feingold (D-WI) went a long way to creating that persona, as few Republicans broke from party ranks to support the bill. But why would McCain feel such a need to see its successful passage? Well, nobody knows for sure. But you can make a pretty compelling case for his guilty conscience.
In 1987, while McCain was fresh of his first election to the Senate, he intervened in a federal investigation against a Savings & Loan operation on the behalf of a constituent, Charles Keating. McCain and four other Senators effectively delayed the investigation and eventual seizure of the business and indictment (and conviction) of Keating for two years. The subsequent Congressional inquiry into the role of the Senators in delaying actions by the government against Keating estimated that their actions had cost American tax payers an added $2.6 billion, and investors an additional $190 million.
McCain claimed that his role in delaying this process was minimal and that he had no relationship with Keating, but as Slate reported:
quote:
McCain defended his attendance at the meetings by saying Keating was a constituent and that Keating's development company, American Continental Corporation, was a major Arizona employer. McCain said he wanted to know only whether Keating was being treated fairly and that he had not tried to influence the regulators. At the second meeting, McCain told the regulators, "I wouldn't want any special favors for them," and "I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper."
But Keating was more than a constituent to McCain--he was a longtime friend and associate. McCain met Keating in 1981 at a Navy League dinner in Arizona where McCain was the speaker. Keating was a former naval aviator himself, and the two men became friends. Keating raised money for McCain's two congressional campaigns in 1982 and 1984, and for McCain's 1986 Senate bid. By 1987, McCain campaigns had received $112,000 from Keating, his relatives, and his employees--the most received by any of the Keating Five. (Keating raised a total of $300,000 for the five senators.)
After McCain's election to the House in 1982, he and his family made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, three of which were to Keating's Bahamas retreat. McCain did not disclose the trips (as he was required to under House rules) until the scandal broke in 1989. At that point, he paid Keating $13,433 for the flights.
And in April 1986, one year before the meeting with the regulators, McCain's wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating strip mall.
After his "exoneration" by the Senate Ethics Committee (which decided that McCain's role in the scandal was minor in comparison to two other Senators), McCain sought to re-mold himself into a champion of ethics reform. As he wrote in his own memoir, the Keating scandal was an extreme embarrassment for him, and something he sought to erase from the memory of his constituents in subsequent years for fear that it would be his permanent political legacy.
It is clear that the pristine image of John McCain widely portrayed in the media is an imperfect one at best. McCain has passed some good laws regarding ethics reform, though he has arguably had a difficult time in abiding by them himself. But the lunacy of calling him a maverick goes further than that.
Take a look at his Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) voting record. The ADA assigns scores based on the percentage of votes that correspond with the views of the Democratic Party on the twenty bills deemed most important by the party. In 2006, the latest year for which I could find numbers, McCain scored 15%. In other words, McCain votes with the Republican bloc on 85% of issues important to the Democratic Party. Hardly that maverick moderate he is construed to be. As comparison, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama scored 95%.
The votes in which McCain's views did correspond to the ADA position?
1. He voted against a bill authorizing taking $100 million away from the war effort in Iraq and putting it toward "democracy-building efforts" in Iran.
2. He voted against a bill making it a federal offense to cross over state lines in order to get an abortion. A little drastic, even for the pro-life crowd I would think.
3. He voted against passage of a constitutional amendment explicitly banning gay marriage. Hard to see from his voting record why he voted this way, but I would assume he has more issue with amending the Constitution than he does with eliminating gay marriage.
It is worth noting, of course, that McCain does not score particularly well in the American Conservative Union (ACU) marks. He is more moderate by their count, largely because of his stances on torture (which he has since reversed), abortion (on which he seems to be mostly ambivalent), and ethics reform (which he has a difficult time putting into practice).
I'm not going to get into McCain's war record, but it is worth noting that several groups of Vietnam veterans have formed interest groups opposed to McCain on the basis that he has not looked out for POW interests (and some allege has deep personal resentments towards the US... which I don't know if I buy): http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
It is also worth noting that he publicly uses racial epithets.
quote:
On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Although McCain said he was referring only to his prison guards, there are many reasons why his use of the word "gook" is offensive and alarming.
It is offensive because by using a racial epithet that has historically been used to demean all Asians to describe his captors, McCain failed to make a distinction between his torturers and an entire racial group.
It is alarming because a major candidate for president publicly used a racial epithet, refused to apologize for doing so and remains a legitimate contender.
John McCain has a habit of talking about things he doesn't understand. Or at least saying things that don't make sense. There are three that I want to draw upon here (though many more exist).
1. "Condoms stop the spread of AIDS. Oh wait, the President doesn't think so? Ok, we shouldn't be distributing condoms then. Wait, now I'm confused."
quote:
Reporter: "Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"
Mr. McCain: "Well I think it�s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes � and I was just reading the thing he wrote� that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn�t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I�m not very wise on it."
(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)
Mr. McCain: "I haven�t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don�t know if I would use taxpayers� money for it."
Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush�s policy, which is just abstinence?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president�s policy."
Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You�ve stumped me."
Q: "I mean, I think you�d probably agree it probably does help stop it?"
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I�m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I�m sure I�ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception � I�m sure I�m opposed to government spending on it, I�m sure I support the president�s policies on it."
Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: �No, we�re not going to distribute them,� knowing that?"
Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn�s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn�s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I�ve never gotten into these issues before."
Makes perfect sense that he doesn't even know his own position on the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), Bush's biggest foreign policy initiative outside the war on terror ($15 billion/year). Which is an interesting position in and of itself, considering the CDC's statement on the issue is :
quote:
a properly used latex condom provides a high degree of protection against a variety of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection.
Is it not also troubling that he is willing to completely dismiss science in order to pursue the Republican agenda? It seems he's done that before as well!
2. "Autism might be due to vaccinations."
quote:
McCain said, per ABC News' Bret Hovell, that "It�s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what�s causing it. And we go back and forth and there�s strong evidence that indicates that it�s got to do with a preservative in vaccines."
McCain said there�s "divided scientific opinion" on the matter, with "many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying that�s not the cause of it."
Do thimerosal-containing vaccines cause autism?
The study
Stehr-Green and colleagues compared the occurrence of autism in California, Sweden and Denmark with average exposures to thimerosal-containing vaccines between the mid-1980s through the late-1990s. The researchers collected data on children with autism and vaccination coverage levels�along with data on the amounts of thimerosal in specific vaccines�from Sweden and Denmark. Data from California were already available from an ecologic analysis presented to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Review Committee.
The findings
The incidence of autism in the U.S., Sweden and Denmark began to rise in 1985, with a peak of reported cases in the early 1990s. In Denmark, for example, the annual number of autism cases rose from less than 10 among 2 to 10 year olds before 1990 to 181 in 1999. However, thimerosal in Sweden and Denmark was low in the late 1980s and after 1993 none of their vaccines contained thimerosal. The opposite happened in the United States, where the average amount of thimerosal received from vaccines increased throughout the 1990s. The researchers concluded that the available data, including the evidence from their study, �are not consistent with the hypothesis that increased exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines are responsible for the apparent increases in the rates of autism in young children being observed worldwide.�
The relevance/bottom line
This study adds to the evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines do not cause autism or similar disorders.
NNii�s comment
The definition of autism has changed substantially during the time period analyzed in the study. Indeed, many authorities believe that the increased incidence of autism is largely due to this fact. Nevertheless, the findings of all of this and other studies should provide additional reassurance to families and others that there continues to be no evidence of a relationship between autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines.
Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: Lack of consistent evidence for an association. Stehr-Green P, Tull P, Stellfeld M, Mortenson PB, and Simpson D. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2003; 25(2): 101-6.
3. "Evolution is just a theory and so is Intelligent Design."
quote:
In 2005, he told the Arizona Star, "I think that there has to be all points of view presented. But they've got to be thoroughly presented. So to say that you can only teach one line of thinking � or one belief on how people and the world was created I think there's nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought."
When asked if intelligent design should be taught in science class, McCain said, "There's enough scientists that believe it does. I'm not a scientist. This is something that I think all points of view should be presented."
I'd like to see the reports of some of those "scientists" who believe in the legitimacy of intelligent design.
4. "You can walk freely through Baghdad."
Now this one is just absurd. Here's a candidate for President who is staking his campaign in large part on the continuation of policies in the War in Iraq. So you'd think he would know at least the basics of what is happening on the ground there, yes?
Well his record is pretty unsatisfactory. Remember McCain's triumphant visit to Baghdad, where he walked among vendors in a market discussing the security situation there with local citizens? Afterwards he held a press conference declaring that one could walk freely through Baghdad with no apprehension. Well, it was staged.
quote:
NBC�s Nightly News provided further details about McCain�s one-hour guided tour. He was accompanied by �100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.� Still photographs provided by the military to NBC News seemed to show McCain wearing a bulletproof vest during his visit.
And then Iraqis started coming out against the visit:
quote:
Jaafar Moussa Thamir, a 42-year-old who sells electrical appliances at the Shorja market that the Republican congressmen visited on Sunday, said the delegation greeted some fellow vendors with Arabic phrases but he was not impressed.
"They were just making fun of us and paid this visit just for their own interests," he said. "Do they think that when they come and speak few Arabic words in a very bad manner it will make us love them? This country and its society have been destroyed because of them and I hope that they realized that during this visit."
Thamir said "about 150 U.S. soldiers and 20 Humvees" accompanied the delegation.
McCain, a Republican presidential hopeful who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said he was "cautiously optimistic" after riding with other members of a Republican congressional delegation from Baghdad's airport Sunday in armored vehicles under heavy guard to visit Shorja.
The market has been hit by bombings including a February attack that killed 137 people. The delegation said the trips were proof that security was improving in the capital.
Yikes. Well at least it is safe in the Shorja market now, right? RIGHT?!!
quote:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The crack of shots fired by unseen snipers echoed on Monday through Baghdad's wholesale Shorja market, a day after U.S. Senator John McCain held up his visit there as one sign of improving security in Baghdad.
The Republican presidential hopeful said his hour-long tour of the sprawling market, where 71 people were killed by a huge car bomb in February, would have been unthinkable before the seven-week-old U.S.-Iraqi crackdown in the capital.
McCain is now back in Iraq for a �surprise visit with Iraqi and American diplomatic and military leaders.� He is joined by fellow Iraq war defenders Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). But it�s unlikely they will be visiting the Shorja market again. Today, CNN reported that they tried to visit the Shorja market, but it was too unsafe and they were unable to go:
We got close to that marketplace today, Jim, but our own security advisers here in Iraq did not want us to go there. They didn�t believe it was safe for an American to be in that area. We were in a thriving marketplace nearby.
But when you show up, the local Iraqis, while it is clear security is better on the street � it is clear there are more markets open, just the traffic jams alone tell you that things are better on the streets of Baghdad � it�s also a very sensitive potential neighborhoods.
That one marketplace, as a matter of fact, you do see Iraqi police, you do see the Iraqi army, but in truth, that area is controlled by the radical cleric Moqtada al Sadr�s Mahdi army.
. Nice to see that the SURGE! really did provide a better security situation in Baghdad, right Senator?
5. "Iran is funding the Sunnis against us."
Or was that the Shiites? John McCain isn't sure:
quote:
He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."
Note - al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Was that supposed to have been a purposeful linkage between al-Qaeda and the Iranian government? Is this 2003 all over again?
Yikes.
[b][color=orange]6. "The SURGE! is working."
I'm getting tired of typing and I have a long way to go, so I'll leave the brunt of this for later. If Opus wants, I'm sure he could fill in the detachment from reality needed to actually believe that the SURGE! has created any political change in Iraq (the stated goal by its proponents), or that any gains in security created were sustainable (wasn't this just the most violent week in Iraq in over a year or something?).
In any case, there are many more, but in the interest of covering some of McCain's policy positions, I'll move on. But if Hillary Clinton is taken to task for misrepresenting or misremembering things, then shouldn't McCain be just as responsible for his own gaffes?
John McCain's congressional record. Kudos to The Carpetbagger Report for putting this pretty comprehensive list together and kudos to the New York Times for already bringing this one into mainstream consciousness. But for those of you who missed it, the gist of the Times article was this: John McCain is extremely inconsistent in his stated positions on issues.
If the above AIDS/contraception gaffe weren't evidence of this little problem, perhaps this will convince you.
quote:
WASHINGTON � Senator John McCain likes to present himself as the candidate of the �Straight Talk Express� who does not pander to voters or change his positions with the political breeze. But the fine print of his record in the Senate indicates that he has been a lot less consistent on some of his signature issues than he has presented himself to be so far in his presidential campaign.
Mr. McCain, who derided his onetime Republican competitor Mitt Romney for his political mutability, has himself meandered over the years from position to position on some topics, particularly as he has tried to court the conservatives who have long distrusted him. His most striking turnaround has been on the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against twice but now wants to make permanent. Mr. McCain has also expressed varying positions on immigration, torture, abortion and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary.
For its part, the McCain campaign told the Times that the senator �has evolved rather than switched positions in his 25-year career.� That�s a perfectly sensible spin � when a politician holds one position, and then, for apparently political reasons, decides to embrace the polar opposite position, it�s only natural for his or her aides to say the politician�s position has �evolved.�
But in McCain�s case, the spin is wholly unfulfilling. First, McCain sells himself as a pol who never sways with the wind, and whose willingness to be consistent in the face of pressure is proof of his character. Second, Republicans have spent the last four years or so making policy reversals the single most serious political crime in presidential politics. The dreaded �flip-flop� is, according to the GOP, the latest cardinal sin for someone seeking national office.
And if we�re playing by Republican rules, McCain�s �inconsistencies� should be a fairly serious problem.
With this in mind, for the first time in months, I thought now would be a good time to update the list of John McCain�s Biggest Flip-Flops. There have been some key additions since the last time I did this (in November):
McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain if he were a ��read my lips� candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?� referring to George H.W. Bush�s 1988 pledge. �No new taxes,� McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, �I�m not making a �read my lips� statement, in that I will not raise taxes.� http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.co...ives/14761.html
McCain�s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign�s policy. http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.co...ives/14761.html
In November 2007, McCain reversed his previous position on a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that the �nature of the society in Iraq� and the �religious aspects� of the country make it inevitable that the United States �eventually withdraws.� Two months later, McCain reversed back, saying he�s prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/28...rea-withdrawal/ http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/04/mccain-100-years/
In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving �feedback� on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure. http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9658.html
McCain said before the war in Iraq, �We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.� Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was �probably going to be long and hard and tough.� http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/...r_flip_flopping
McCain said he was the �greatest critic� of Rumsfeld�s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as �a mission accomplished.� In March 2004, he said, �I�m confident we�re on the right course.� In December 2005, he said, �Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.� http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/18...reatest-critic/
McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as �an agent of intolerance� in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans �deserved� the 9/11 attacks. http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6988.html
On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were �too tilted to the wealthy.� By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/u...ain.html?ref=us
In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending �dirty money� to help finance Bush�s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1880630&page=1
McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation. http://www.nysun.com/article/36949
John McCain is breaking the law and nobody is calling him on it in the media. Luckily, activists are, by filing a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission. An excerpt from that complaint:
quote:
Senator McCain has simply announced his unilateral plan to ignore the spending limits that he agreed to, in writing, in August 2007....
As documented in extensive detail by the Democratic National Committee ("DNC") in its complaint to the FEC on February 25, 2008, Senator McCain did, in fact, obligate matching funds as security for private financing for a $4,000,000 line of credit from Fidelity & Trust Bank. Therefore, even if the FEC could consider Senator McCain's request to withdraw from the matching fund program, that request would not be granted because he pledge the certification of funds as security for a loan to his campaign.
At the time that the DNC filed its complaint, it was not yet clear whether Senator McCain had, in fact, violated the spending limit based upon disclosure reports that covered the period through January 31, 2008. On that report, Senator McCain had already spent approximately $49,600,000.
Now, though, it's clear that the McCain Campaign has violated the spending cap. On March 20, 2008, Senator McCain's campaign filed its March Monthly report covering the period from February 1, 2008 through February 29, 2008. That report disclosed that Senator McCain's campaign has, as of February 29, 2008, in fact, exceeded the $56,757,500 spending limit. As of February 29, 2008, Senator McCain has disclosed spending $56,916,682 in connection with his quest for the Republican Presidential nomination (A copy of the relevant pages of Senator McCain's report is attached to this complaint). Of course, Senator McCain appears poised to spend tens of millions more between now and the Republican National Convention in connection with his primary campaign in direct violation of the spending limits that he agreed to abide by during the primary election period. Ultimately, it is quite conceivable that Senator McCain may spend in excess of $100,000,000 on primary expenses during the period defined by federal law for qualified primary expenses. Thus, it is likely that Senator McCain will exceed the primary spending limit by $40 million dollars or more.
For the reasons stated above, the FEC should (1) find reason to believe that Senator John McCain and the McCain Campaign have committed, a violation of Chapter 96 of Title 26 and of the Commission's rules, and should conduct an investigation; and (2) pursuant to 26 U.S.C. �9040(c), petition the appropriate U.S. District Court for injunctive relief to implement and enforce the provisions of Chapter 96 against Senator McCain and the McCain Campaign.
As you likely know, the FEC is stymied at the moment due to the Bush Administration trying to shove Hans Von Spakovsky and all of his "caging" and other alleged nefarious campaign activities onto the election commission as a GOP dirty tricks ringer. Because the Democratic-led Congress said "no way" to Hans being voted through in a bloc vote, the Administration and their pal, Mitch McConnell, have balked at any FEC commissioner vote in the Senate. Which means that in this very important 2008 election cycle, the FEC is unable to act promptly to enforce the campaign finance laws.
You have to find it ironic and the pinnacle of hypocrisy that while the media is busy trying to determine whether Obama has sufficiently denounced Rev. Farrakhan, McCain gets a free pass on openly embracing the endorsement of Rev. Hagee, whose remarks are equally distasteful and hate-filled. After all, this is the man who said that New Orleans deserved Katrina, that the true path to rapture is a war with Iran, that all Muslims are genetically wired to fulfill a religious mandate to kill Christians, etc. Read this to get really enraged:
And is it not also ironic that as the media spends days debating whether Obama can be tied to the views and beliefs of his pastor, words that he never uttered himself, John McCain gets a free pass in violating his own promise, his own code of ethics that he worked so hard to establish, gaining him the nickname of maverick as a result of his efforts on campaign finance reform? Not only did John McCain break a promise, fail to live up to the reform he worked so hard to pass, but he also broke. the. law.
As The Carpetbagger concludes,
quote:
But therein lies the point � McCain was consistent on most of these issues, right up until he started running for president, at which point he conveniently abandoned practically every position he used to hold. The problem isn�t just the incessant flip-flops; it�s the shameless pandering and hollow convictions behind the incessant flip-flops.
And those are just a few of the reasons that you should not vote McCain.
Sunsnail
quote:
Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception � I�m sure I�m opposed to government spending on it, I�m sure I support the president�s policies on it."
Old senile man!
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
And those are just a few of the reasons that you should not vote McCain.
conservative judicial appointees.
low taxes.
strong national defence.
...a few reasons why you should consider McCain.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
conservative judicial appointees.
low taxes.
strong national defence.
...a few reasons why you should consider McCain.
Is it "defense" or defence"? I've actually seen it both ways.
Anyway, your point is well-taken. I think the one issue that the Conservatives play up far more than the Progressives/Liberals SHOULD consider more are the judicial appointees. This is a big issue for Conservatives, and rightfully so. It's something that I think is far too underplayed by us on the Left.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
conservative judicial appointees.
oh yay! :rolleyes: When the constitution has been chipped away at for 8 years, the last thing you want is more conservative judges allowing the right to do whatever they want with the liberties of the US citizenry.
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
low taxes.
How low? Like super low? So that the government just spends more of what it doesn't have in order to afford a
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
strong national defence.
?
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh yay! :rolleyes: When the constitution has been chipped away at for 8 years, the last thing you want is more conservative judges allowing the right to do whatever they want with the liberties of the US citizenry.
it's much more involved than that.
what you're basically going on about is the Executive's exercise of his/her Constitutional authority. our independent judiciary has checked the Executive with wins and losses on both sides. there are some fights that are still being fought with more to come, but ultimately will be decided by an independent judiciary.
what republicans want from their nominee is the assurance that Federal judgeships, from the lowest district courts to the SCOTUS, will not be filled with jurists that want to undermine the Constitution the way it was originally written.
and thats one of the finer points Bush can take away from his term as POTUS. he kicked serious ass appointing good men and women considering the fierce liberal opposition he faced.
quote:
How low? Like super low?
no, just not do with taxes what a Democrat would do.
quote:
?
i don't know, what? what is a strong national defence?
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Is it "defense" or defence"? I've actually seen it both ways.
i go both ways on it if you know what i mean ;)
quote:
Anyway, your point is well-taken. I think the one issue that the Conservatives play up far more than the Progressives/Liberals SHOULD consider more are the judicial appointees. This is a big issue for Conservatives, and rightfully so. It's something that I think is far too underplayed by us on the Left.
absolutely. i think its a hard sell though, convincing people, not just liberals, that you want this particular man/woman because he/she will shape the law the way that particular person see's fit, don't you think?
i mean, a liberal democrat almost has to be deceptive in their sell for their particular nominee if he/she is a known liberal jurist. i guess it all comes down to how well you think the Constitution was originally written
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
conservative judicial appointees.
Using abortion as a litmus test for judges isn't high on my list of priorities. And any Republican who doesn't use that gets hammered by their own party.
quote:
low taxes.
McCain has stated that he will continue tax cuts for the upper 2%... not my idea of low taxes.
quote:
strong national defence.
By remaining mired in an unnecessary war and perhaps provoking another in Iran? Not my idea of national defense, sorry. Let's actually go after the enemies we do have, and worry about creating more later.
quote:
...a few reasons why you should consider McCain.
Do you have any more?
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Using abortion as a litmus test for judges isn't high on my list of priorities. And any Republican who doesn't use that gets hammered by their own party.
no my friend, you are using abortion as a litmus test.
i'm not talking exclusively about SCOTUS appointees. you apparently are if abortion is the only thing you think about when refering "appointing conservative judges" :rolleyes:
im talking top to bottom, every aspect of the law as it applies to interpreting the Constitution.
appointing competent Federal jurists, i think, is one of the most important roles of the Executive regardless of any particular issue.
...as a matter of fact, you tell me where McCain stands on Roe vs. Wade.
quote:
McCain has stated that he will continue tax cuts for the upper 2%... not my idea of low taxes.
youre conveniently leaving out what he's do for the other 98%. compared to what a Democrat POTUS would do together with a Donkey party Congress i'll take my chances and i really can't lose.
quote:
By remaining mired in an unnecessary war and perhaps provoking another in Iran? Not my idea of national defense, sorry. Let's actually go after the enemies we do have, and worry about creating more later.
first off, lets not pretend you know who the "real enemies" are. because if you don't think we as a society shouldn't foster self determining democracy in the face of decrepit religious zealotry then you really don't have any business telling the rest of the world who youre going to fight and where.
so lets stop this false advertising about "taking the fight to the real enemy" when in reality, if your political philosophy resided behind the desk in the Oval Office, it would avoid confrontation at almost any cost. sorry, but im not about to take that risk either given a choice.
second, a strong national defence means anything that a Democrat WOULD NOT do to the size, scope and capability of what currently is the smartest, quickest, most highly skilled and the most magnanimous military the world has ever known.
quote:
Do you have any more?
i do but those three i think should be quite enough for any fair minded thinker consider against ANY Democrat, not just the Messiah.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
no my friend, you are using abortion as a litmus test.
i'm not talking exclusively about SCOTUS appointees. you apparently are if abortion is the only thing you think about when refering "appointing conservative judges" :rolleyes:
im talking top to bottom, every aspect of the law as it applies to interpreting the Constitution.
appointing competent Federal jurists, i think, is one of the most important roles of the Executive regardless of any particular issue.
You're right - I was talking mainly about the Supreme Court, largely because that's the Rose Bowl of appointments so to speak. But in terms of Circuit court judges, 60% of all existing appointments are already Republican appointees - a number that reaches up to 70% in at least four of the thirteen districts! Crying about the liberal justice system is a little absurd in my opinion.
quote:
...as a matter of fact, you tell me where McCain stands on Roe vs. Wade.
That's tough. It changes all the time. If you think for a second he won't bend to accommodate the religious part of the Republican base, you're naive.
quote:
youre conveniently leaving out what he's do for the other 98%.
McCain conveniently leaves that out as well. Don't you think he'd want to advertise it if he planned on cutting their taxes as well?
quote:
first off, lets not pretend you know who the "real enemies" are. because if you don't think we as a society shouldn't foster self determining democracy in the face of decrepit religious zealotry then you really don't have any business telling the rest of the world who youre going to fight and where.
so lets stop this false advertising about "taking the fight to the real enemy" when in reality, if your political philosophy resided behind the desk in the Oval Office, it would avoid confrontation at almost any cost. sorry, but im not about to take that risk either given a choice.
Are you kidding me? Are you prepared to make an argument linking Iraq to "religious zealotry" or terrorism? I'm talking about the elements of al-Qaeda that were, are, and will continue to be right under our nose in Afghanistan and Tora Bora. You criticized Obama just two weeks ago for being too hawkish and rudimentary in his pursuit of bin Laden and his surrogates! Now you're saying we would sit back and do nothing? Pick a stance and stick to it!
We're in a global war on terror, and the Republican administration took its eye off the ball. THAT is the issue.
quote:
second, a strong national defence means anything that a Democrat WOULD NOT do to the size, scope and capability of what currently is the smartest, quickest, most highly skilled and the most magnanimous military the world has ever known.
Again, show me something that suggests that either Democratic candidate would shrink the size of the military. There have been suggestions as to stream-lining funding, and closing over-funded congressional mandates, but that's about it.
quote:
i do but those three i think should be quite enough for any fair minded thinker consider against ANY Democrat, not just the Messiah.
You haven't even come close to making a convincing argument in my opinion.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You're right - I was talking mainly about the Supreme Court, largely because that's the Rose Bowl of appointments so to speak. But in terms of Circuit court judges, 60% of all existing appointments are already Republican appointees - a number that reaches up to 70% in at least four of the thirteen districts! Crying about the liberal justice system is a little absurd in my opinion.
If memory serves, the only Circuit that is not currently owned by a conservative majority is the 9th, correct?
Bush helped stack the courts chalk full o' Conservative judges who bend to none other than the Conservative ideology. If the argument is that Conservatives stick to the Constitution only and are more "strict constructionists" than liberals, fine, let's start with a bit of a few numbers like these:
In short, that's one of the biggest asinine and most absurd arguments out there. A Conservative judge is a Conservative judge, and if Q wants to argue that the Constitution is made more in lines of Conservatism, then why the are these favorite, most prized Conservative SCOTUS jackasses demonstrating exactly the opposite of what they supposedly preach and stand for?
The argument is disingenuous at best and an outright a lie at worst. But as I stated previously, it's one of the best arguments that Conservatives have to stir up their base, something that the Progressives have yet to accomplish or come close to accomplishing.
quote:
That's tough. It changes all the time. If you think for a second he won't bend to accommodate the religious part of the Republican base, you're naive.
You mean Mr. Kiss-up to Jerry Falwell himself? Say it isn't so!
quote:
McCain conveniently leaves that out as well. Don't you think he'd want to advertise it if he planned on cutting their taxes as well?
McCain, as much as I disagree with him and especially his foreign policy neoconservative views, simply isn't as much of a dip as Bush when it comes to domestic policy. I think even he realizes that the current economic state of affairs call for a little common sense, and that the continuance of lost revenue from government tax cuts simply can't go further, especially in a time of war that he fully advocates and may hold us to "another 100 years" if necessary.
I think he may actually understand the situation a bit better, just as Reagan understood it after his first gigantic tax cut, and just as Bush's daddy understood it when he had to it as well. Both of these Conservatives had to raise taxes, and rightfully so.
Strangely, those darn Conservatives who circle-jerk to their Reagan shrine seemingly and conveniently forget about the fact that Bob Dole told Reagan to raise taxes, and Reagan did so accordingly.
Are you kidding me? Are you prepared to make an argument linking Iraq to "religious zealotry" or terrorism? I'm talking about the elements of al-Qaeda that were, are, and will continue to be right under our nose in Afghanistan and Tora Bora. You criticized Obama just two weeks ago for being too hawkish and rudimentary in his pursuit of bin Laden and his surrogates! Now you're saying we would sit back and do nothing? Pick a stance and stick to it!
We're in a global war on terror, and the Republican administration took its eye off the ball. THAT is the issue.[/QUOTE]
But you see, if Obama was President, our country and military would do nothing but hug trees, smoke weed, and hold hands with the enemy.
So it has to be McCain.
quote:
Again, show me something that suggests that either Democratic candidate would shrink the size of the military. There have been suggestions as to stream-lining funding, and closing over-funded congressional mandates, but that's about it.
Kinda like what Bush I did, I suppose. Funny how so much gets blamed on Billy Boy on cutting the military when he only took over the gigantic gutting that Bush I did and which Cheney suggested to do at that time.
You haven't even come close to making a convincing argument in my opinion. [/QUOTE]
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Crying about the liberal justice system is a little absurd in my opinion.
judges come and judges go. all im saying is that every 4 years we get to decide what political philosophy gets to appoint what flavor of jurisprudence overseeing the the law in this country. i want someone who going to consider who i believe is the best in that regard.
a Democrat simply does not cut it for me.
quote:
If you think for a second he won't bend to accommodate the religious part of the Republican base, you're naive.
thats irrelevant as far as i'm concerned. McCain is a republican and right now he's the better choice by far with regard to Federal jurists.
quote:
Don't you think he'd want to advertise it if he planned on cutting their taxes as well?
who knows right now. will he ever? he has to eventually don't you think?
again, like judges, compared to what a Democrat would do with taxes, you bet your sweet ass i'll go for the Republican choice any day of the week.
quote:
Are you kidding me? Are you prepared to make an argument linking Iraq to "religious zealotry" or terrorism?
absolutely.
quote:
I'm talking about the elements of al-Qaeda that were, are, and will continue to be right under our nose in Afghanistan and Tora Bora.
thats what i'm talking about. you think airdropping two Marine divisions into Tora Bora will magically make a war against an ideology just go away.
quote:
You criticized Obama just two weeks ago for being too hawkish and rudimentary in his pursuit of bin Laden and his surrogates!
i said no such thing.
quote:
We're in a global war on terror, and the Republican administration took its eye off the ball.
i don't think we did. thats just a fundemental difference between you and i. i think Iraq was justified and the right thing to do
quote:
[gain, show me something that suggests that either Democratic candidate would shrink the size of the military.
1. William Jefferson Clinton
2. the liberal wing of the Democrat party and Barak Obama as the core of that wing.
quote:
You haven't even come close to making a convincing argument in my opinion.
judges. taxes. national defence.
i shouldn't have to convince you. those three issues have some pretty clear cut distinctions between both parties. they're make or break for most Republicans
if you believe Billary or Obama would follow in the footsteps of McCain on any of those issues then you sir are the naive one.
