Wash. Post uncritically reported McCain adviser's assertion that McCain "has been seen as standing up to his party and fighting on issues" including "immigration"
SUMMARY: A Washington Post article uncritically reported the claim by a senior adviser to Sen. John McCain that McCain "has been seen as standing up to his party and fighting on issues -- the war in Iraq and immigration -- that have damaged him politically." The Post did not report that McCain has reversed his position on immigration to more closely align himself with the Republican Party's base.
In an April 12 article, The Washington Post uncritically reported the assertion by Steve Schmidt, an adviser to Sen. John McCain, that "attacks from Democrats," including Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean's comment that McCain is a "blatant opportunist," are " 'not very worrisome' because McCain has been seen as standing up to his party and fighting on issues -- the war in Iraq and immigration -- that have damaged him politically." However, the Post did not mention that McCain has reversed his position on immigration in order to align himself more closely with the base of his party. Indeed, as the Post itself noted in a February 20 article, "What McCain is saying has changed. Whereas once he firmly said that no immigration legislation could work unless it twinned tougher border enforcement with a guest-worker program and a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, he now maintains that sealing the border must come first."
Additionally, during CNN's January 30 Republican presidential debate, McCain asserted that he "would not" support his own comprehensive immigration proposal that included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants if it came to a vote on the Senate floor:
JANET HOOK (Los Angeles Times staff writer): Senator McCain, let me just take the issue to you, because you obviously have been very involved in it. During this campaign, you, like your rivals, have been putting the first priority, heaviest emphasis on border security. But your original immigration proposal back in 2006 was much broader and included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here.
What I'm wondering is -- and you seem to be downplaying that part. At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?
McCAIN: It won't. It won't. That's why we went through the debate --
HOOK: I know, but what if it did?
McCAIN: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the borders secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate -- it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever -- that proposal.
From the April 12 Washington Post article, by staff writers Michael D. Shear and Juliet Eilperin:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean recently called McCain a "blatant opportunist" on Iraq and the economy, prompting an angry response from Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan, who accused Dean of making "reckless statements attacking John McCain's character and integrity."
Schmidt calls the attacks from Democrats "not very worrisome" because McCain has been seen as standing up to his party and fighting on issues -- the war in Iraq and immigration -- that have damaged him politically.
Independent polling data suggest Schmidt may be right. McCain's favorability, especially among independents, remains far higher than that of Bush or congressional Republicans, suggesting that voters view him differently -- at least for now. Republican support for McCain is stronger than Democratic support for his rivals.
McCain did cave in a "bit" on the Immigration issue.
A bit? Are you serious?
"America is still the land of opportunity, and it is a beacon of hope and liberty and, as Ronald Reagan said, a shining city on the hill," McCain said. "And we're not going to erect barriers and fences." June 6, 2007 GOP contenders held their first debate in New Hampshire.
FLIP FLOPPING McCain
TIM RUSSERT: If the Senate passed your bill, S-1433, the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, would you as president sign it?
JOHN MCCAIN: Yeah, but the lesson is that it isn't going to come, it isn't going to come. The lesson is they want the borders secured first. January 27, 2008
And not just immigration either:
“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]
“But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that–as the previous tax cuts–that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans.” [NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003]
FLIP FLOPPING McCain
“I think it’s very important that we make the Bush tax cuts permanent. I voted to make them permanent twice already.… And if we don’t make the tax cuts permanent, then they will experience what amounts to a tax increase.” [Republican Presidential Debate, MSNBC, 1/24/08]McCain Voted with the Bush Administration 89 Percent of the Time. Since President Bush took office, McCain has supported Bush’s positions 89 percent of the time. McCain’s support of Bush’s policies reached as high as 95 percent in 2007. [Congressional Quarterly Voting Study, 110th Congress]
I'd say that McCain has done an excellent job of standing up against the republican party...rather than standing up for it.
His conservative rating by the ACU has dropped like a rock over his career. Following are his 5 year avg ratings:
1990-94 = 87
1995-99 = 82
2000-04 = 75
2005-06 = 73 (which includes his 2006 score of 65...which ranked him as the 47th most liberal republican.)
Call him an opportunist...a flip flopper...or a maverick...but the case is very weak that he is a conservative.
The very fact that McCain is an opportunistic flip-flopper solidifies the argument that he is a true conservative.
Call him an opportunist...a flip flopper...or a maverick...but the case is very weak that he is a conservative.
Assuming that the scoring you provided are percentages, then over the 16 year period McCain has a weighted average of about 81%, which makes for a strong case even among conservatives that he's one of the boys. Furthermore, without more details on how these ratings are made, there's no way to know if McCain has changed or the metrics for messuring have changed. The issue with McCain isn't so much that he's a "flip-flopper . . . or a maverick," as that he proves time and again to he's a dimwit, which perhaps explains why he's the natural heir to continue represent the Republican Party and the current White House occupant.
This is a topic where my candidate, Obama, really shines! While McCain has on occasion shamefully gone against his party and spoken out against conservatives, Obama has NEVER EVER challenged his party or voted against any liberal issue. This is why Obama is the most liberal senator. Obama is completely loyal to the leftwing of his party and is proud of it.
So who do you want? A disloyal man like McCain who goes against his party on occasion? Or a completely loyal liberal who will never challenge the leftwing of his party?
Go Obama!
You really are a Repugnate.
And 30% some odd percent of the US of A will still support W and all his failed policies.
Actually, its closer to 33%, however I am not one of them.
But you do realize that the democrat controlled congress is hovering around 20%.
Actually 28%, 2-5% have seen the light recently. There is hope for a few more percentage points before Nov. While you and a like minded population continue to act as if your positions and strenths are unchanged from say year 2000.
Smoke and mirrors, a hard shell that contains a vacume. After you break it will be thought amazing how long the bluff held out.
Loyalty comes in all forms NAC.
LOL
And no one knows that better than Republicans.
Here is the total amount of Federal debt outstanding at the end of the government's fiscal year for each of the last 7 years, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
The current total is $9,238,008,942.11 http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
You do realize that the national debt doesn't necessarily have to be repaid like a credit card, right?
Also, our national debt as a proportion to our GDP is not bad at all compared to other 1st world countries.
Just stating a shear number like the debt value does nothing when its not put into the correct context.
Please explain "not necessarily be repaid".
What I don't get is why Republicans continue to believe they're voting for fiscal conseratives. GWB has had the Congress with him for much of his term, but has had no problem flashing the federal credit card and keeping the war "off the books". As a % of GDP, Bill Clinton inherited a 66% ratio of Debt/GDP and shrunk it to 57%. GWB has escalated it back to 67%.
Wait wait....lets hold up a second and make sure you know what your talking about when throwing these numbers around.
First, the national debt does not necessarily need to be repaid, as there is thinking for & against it. Im not going to go into detail, but this is an area I have done much reading on. For a short answer regarding it, I would suggest looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt
Second the public debt as a % of GDP inherited by Bush as compared to today has only increased roughly 3%. That is due to great economic conditions and a rising GDP up until 2007.
The amount of debt owned by foreign governments has about doubled since 1988, and that part scares even me. However, that number will soon decrease due to the devaluation of the dollar because we technically will not be paying the foreign governments the true amount of what they had worth. Remember, that them investing in our country, including our debt, is still bound by the laws of deflation and inflation.
Thanks for the backhand - "know what I'm talking about". The arguments you plucked from wikipedia are arguments about the merits of paying the debt "down" not about not paying it "back".
If the dollar stays weak for extended periods of time, the Ponzi scheme of the last 30 years with the Fed printing more money (aka issuing bonds as debt instruments) will no longer prop up the economy - our national "Visa" card will no longer be accepted by the creditors. The "real" value of property secured by paper (homes, 401ks, IRAs, etc.) will get whacked far more severely than they already have been. Sound fiscal policy requires small and incrementally increasing steps to start reducing the debt. This is doubly important with the enormous public obligations coming due in SS and Medicare over the next 20 years.
I apologize, as I wasnt trying to make offense on ya. I should have worded it differently.
We may have different views on each of those items. The property values will come back around, as right now is the perfect time to buy for first time home buyers. I personally think there will be about another 10-12 month decline...then it will stay stable for a while...then increase again. As far as SS and Medicare are concerned, Im only 28 and have already started doubling my 403B contributions to the maximum allowed to prepare for old age as I dont expect to get anything back from SS...and who knows about medicare. Just a shame that more young people are thinking that far ahead
how long will this name last?
Conservatives have had all three branches of government sewn up for the better part of eight years yet they still couldn't muster any of that responsibility they drone endlessly about.
Sucker. They're lying to your face and you love it.
But maybe you're onto something. Tell me more about this idea of yours. For as shallow and falsely intentioned as I suspect your premise to be, I still desire to understand the moral framework upon which you hang your conclusion.
First briefly explain how your complaint has any validity. I suspect you are woefully exaggerating the influence that those who pay no taxes have in directing how our taxes are spent. I believe this because if there even is a portion of our consumerist society that pay no tax, I can't really imagine there is a significant enough percentage of them to even merit the proposal of such an idea.
Next enlighten me on how restricting the free speech rights of our fellow citizens has a moral connection to the meaning of the words, "one nation under God." You argue for an us and them society instead of a we the people society. I mean if you're a citizen of our country none of our foundational documents argues for the infringement of your liberties. Nothing in them says you are unequal.
What do you have to say for yourself?
Also, just an FYI - only 25% of our national debt is owned by foreign governments. The rest is Public Debt. If youd like to see the public debt as a percentage of our GDP compared to other nations, go and look at the link I've provided. We are right in the middle - lower than Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan, India, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_debt
Also, just an FYI - only 25% of our national debt is owned by foreign governments. The rest is Public Debt.
About two trillion dollars is from social security borrowing primarily by Reagan and Bush 2 to mask their economic failures.
And if you include the debt of all local and state governments, private households and businesses, our debt is substantially higher.
Also, just an FYI - only 25% of our national debt is owned by foreign governments. The rest is Public Debt.
About two trillion dollars is from social security borrowing primarily by Reagan and Bush 2 to mask their economic failures.
And if you include the debt of all local and state governments, private households and businesses, our debt is substantially higher.
NAC,
You seem willing now to talk about McCain's record, check out the links on the other thread and let's have a conversation about why McCain votes against government benefits for vets, shall we?
I've watched you chase NAC around several threads with this question and you've aroused my curiosity...do you have a link with those bill numbers where he voted against funding for the vets?
Thanks in advance.
Wesley, Here they are. I copied this post from the other thread, but you might need to copy and paste them.
In 2007, McCain only showed up for 4 of the 14 Iraq votes. He was the only political candidate to miss one vote on Iraq, much less 10:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccains-missed-votes-on-iraq-trigger-reid-rebuke-2007-05-17.html
In September 2007, he voted against specified times between deployments for the troops:
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00341
He was only one of two Senators to MISS a vote about troop drawdowns
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00075
He voted against providing, with an offset, $20,000,000 for the Department of Veterans Affairs for Medical Facilities:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00111
He was one of ONLY 13 Senators to vote against an additional $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00098
He voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00041
He voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00040
He voted to table this one which was To appropriate $1,047,000,000 for procurement for the National Guard and Reserves.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00116
To provide an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00376
In August 2001, he voted against this one:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00263
Links were pulled from this site:
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/page/article/id/9559
bergboy,
Thanks again for the links...but I have to tell you...they don't do much to support your position that McCain is against funding for veterans. They are all multi-faceted bills (a good example of how our laws get screwed up) with plenty of reasons to support or oppose them...irrespective of the provisions to increase funding for vets.
They are laden with pork and all kinds of amendments from soup to nuts...min. wage, Iraq oil, organic farming, the Post Office, seat belts, wind fall profits, hurricane Katrina...and time tables from with drawing from Iraq.
In fact, one of the bills you list as McCain voting against...he voted FOR the bill...Hillary voted against the bill.
In another bill that you cite as proof that McCain voted against funding for vets...he voted against the bill...along with Clinton and Obama.
All in all, it looked like pretty sloppy work from the website Veterans for Common Sense...and from this info...I don't find any way to link McCain with being against funding for veterans.
Appreciated the links...it was an interesting exercise.
Well, Wes, let me ask you this: Why did McCain miss 10 of the 14 Iraq war votes in 2007?
If he is for vet benefits, why is he not co-signing the new GI Bill with Webb which has large bi-partisan support? One of the links shows that McCain was one of only 13 against it?
McCain has not come up with a single substitute bill to propose these benefits separately.
The first link I left about defined rest for the troops was an amendment of a bill co-sponsored by Duncan Hunter and Ike Skelton. It was the military budget for 2009. The amendment had 56 "yea" votes, but not McCain's.
He didn't show up for a troop draw down vote when this is one of his primary issues. Why?
He was one of only 13 Republicans to vote against the amendment that would allow a ton of money for troops, why?
He won't support the 21st century GI Bill, why? The VFW wants it, but not McCain.
Some of the votes I posted were amendments, not just the bills themselves.
I guess we will agree to disagree on most of these, but why did McCain not show up for 10 of the 14 Iraq votes in 2007. Also, why is McCain not supporting Webb's new GI Bill?
If McCain was against all those amendments, can you show me where he has made an effort to procure veteran's benefits that are not attached to "pork." After all, if its that important to him, he would introduce a bill pork free, correct?
-- can you show me where he has made an effort to procure veteran's benefits that are not attached to "pork."
That's a virtual impossibility in today's congress...on any issue.
I'm not a big fan of McCain and missing votes by any senator is not performing their elected job...so I don't have a clue why he was derelict.
But I still find it a real stretch to try and label McCain as "anti benefits" for veterans...and all of those votes you cited don't cut it either.
Concerning the 21st Century GI Bill...the last thing I heard McCain say about 2 weeks ago was that he was having talks with Webb and was supportive of the concept but hadn't had time to study the proposal...but he thought it was a good thing. Maybe you have some more current info that shows him in opposition?
As you said...it looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree...at this moment in the cosmos.
Wesley,
I find it odd that the media has not asked McCain about his missed votes. After reading all of his links, I went to his website to see if he sponsored any legislation regarding benefits recently and was sorely disappointed.
I figured that he would have started legislation since he voted against all of those bills. Since there was none, I figure he could have done more.
He was derelict to 10 of the 14 major votes on his major issue. To me, that is completely unacceptable. None of the other candidates missed one one, much less 10.
How can we take him seriously on Iraq if he won't show up to vote on major Iraq issues? How can we take his votes seriously if he is only one of 13 voting against benefits?
Wesley,
Here is the most recent thing I could find on the GI Bill from military.com on April 10:
http://www.military.com/news/article/vets-to-mccain-back-new-gi-bill.html
Among the highlights:
"John McCain has refused to comment on the bill. Numerous calls and e-mails to McCain's Senate office in Washington and campaign office in Virginia seeking comment on this story went unreturned. "
"But organizations that have followed the senator's voting record have noted that McCain's actions are rarely in line with the interests of veterans' organizations. In 2006, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a failing grade of "D" based on his voting record. "
"The same year, McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans just 20 percent of the time. The main reason for the low scores is a consistent pattern by Senator McCain of voting against appropriating money for veterans' health care and disability payments. "
"According to Disabled American Veterans, McCain voted almost a dozen separate times against spending additional money on veterans' health care in 2005 and 2006, even as hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Marines were returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and filing disability claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs. "
"During that time, McCain voted against expanding mental health care and readjustment counseling for returning service members, efforts to expand inpatient and outpatient treatment for injured veterans, and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans must pay to obtain prescription drugs. "
"McCain's vote also helped defeat a proposal by Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow that would have made veterans' health care an entitlement program like social security, so that medical care would not become a political football to be argued over in Congress each budget cycle."
Its an interesting read.
A war hero and true patriot that missed so many important votes and want to continue Bush/Cheney's war.
Go McCain?
I've done some research and found this information about McCain's record on veteran's affairs:
Commitment To America's Service Members: Past And Present
It's very interesting stuff. Please read it all. When you are finished I'll have some more assignments for you.
Go Obama!
NAC,
You linked his website! I have read it before, thank you. He did not list a single matter he introduced or voted for specifically and his quote is from 1995. Why didn't he link any measures he voted for on his own website. What do you make of him missing so many Iraq votes?
What have you done personally, NAC to support this war? Have you given money to charity? Have you helped fund equipment to those who need it? Are you enlisting?
But you do realize that the democrat controlled congress is hovering around 20%.
Why do you think that is?
You tell me, they have the power. And dont even give me the whole "Bush vetoes everything" argument, because by comparison, Bush has vetoed much less than the average president.
the point of achieving veto proof power is by bringing a bi-partison bill...not a pet project bill, and thank god for that. Thank god for no line item veto either, as that would totally neglect the point of a bipartisan bill.
As far as fillibusters, I'm not so up to date on that part, so in all honesty, youd have to fill me in.
Thursday, September 20, 2007:
"A Republican filibuster in the Senate yesterday shot down a bipartisan effort to restore the right of terrorism suspects to contest in federal courts their detention and treatment, underscoring the Democratic-led Congress's difficulty with terrorism issues.
The 56 to 43 vote fell short of the 60 needed to cut off debate and move to a final vote on the amendment to the Senate's annual defense policy bill. But the measure did garner the support of six Republicans, a small victory for its supporters. A similar proposal drew 48 "yea" votes last September.
The detainee rights amendment was an effort to reverse a provision in last year's Military Commissions Act that suspended the writ of habeas corpus for terrorism suspects at the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other offshore prisons.
The Supreme Court had previously ruled that such detainees did have the right to appeal their detention in federal court, but the court invited Congress to weigh in on the issue. At the urging of the Bush administration, the Republican-controlled Congress last year voted to sharply limit detainee access to the courts. Since then, the high court has agreed to hear in its upcoming term another legal challenge concerning the habeas corpus rights of detainees at Guantanamo. " from Washington Post
Makes sense now. I thought it was something similar to that.
However, I dont see either party as having the upper hand in the fillibuster process.
Im sure theres plenty of bills that would upset me, the rights of terrorist, or terrorist suspects are not exactly on the top of my list. Dont get me wrong, Im not for beating them to a pulp, but i certainly would stand up for any of them either.
What if the suspects are Americans, Columbus?
What about these bills, are you happy they were filibustered:
http://blog.peakdems.org/2007/07/republican-filibuster-status-report.html
You do realize that they have used the filibuster more than any part in any term and we are just over halfway through their term, right?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/18218.html
http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/24368-gop-officially-breaks-filibuster-record.html
And you wonder why the Congress isn't doing anything?
Im not going to research all of them tonight, its almost 10pm and have to get up early for work.
However, I will comment on one that quickly caught my eye...the minimum wage act. No, I would not be upset if that got turned down. Simple economics show that if minimum wage is raised, so is the product price. The point of a business is to profit, so if they are forced to pay more for labor, they will increase the to adjust their profit. All that will do is hurt everyone else not working for minimum wage.
I find it so amusing the way some folks simply accept as gospel truth that companies have the god given right to externalize the cost of doing business to the consumer. Where's that responsibility bs cons are always spouting? If someome wants to start a business they need to have enough character to pay for the cost of running their business and not hand it off to the community at large.
What a pantload.
You are a gravely sheltered little man.
First off, its the businesses right to increase or decrease prices as they wish - and we have laws against monopolies and price fixing. So if they want to raise prices to the point of not being competitive and lose their business, then so be it. If they want to lower prices to force others out of business, while not making that much money, then so be it.
The companies are not owned by the government, and they are not non-profit companies. Their goal is to make money for whoever owns them - a single person, a joint venture, or public shareholders. Lets see here Mr Smartazz, if there were no profits to be made in a company, and their costs of doing business keep rising, why would anyone start a company or invest in one when you wont let them run their own business.
Dumbass.
I was in your wheelhouse I thought. I was talking about character and responsibility. You have no response on those grounds because simply existing to make profits with no concern for people aound you is morally depraved.
"The point of a business is to profit, so if they are forced to pay more for labor, they will increase the to adjust their profit. "
I guess this mean that you will not accept your next pay increase.
What does minimum wage have to do with my salary? Minimum wage is just a cop out to keep unskilled people from falling further between the cracks.
My wages increase not becuase the cost of living increases, but because my hard work and valuable skills that are difficult to replace. If they do not increase my pay to counter my skills, then they know i will go somewhere else who will pay more for them.
However, people who make minimum wage - fast food employees, baggers at grocery stores, shelve stockers and walmart,etc....you do realize that they do not have any special skill that is in high demand nor is it difficult to replace quickly. That is the problem with you democrats. You believe that how hard you work, not how skilled you are, should determine your pay. But the problem is theres too many people who just dont know how to do anything but sit on their ass, and they want a paycheck for it. So if you double the BK guys wage, you'll cause a meltdown in the rest of the industry because we'll also want that same proportion of an increase, or threaten walk outs. Businesses will be forced to comply, cost of doing business will increase, and therefore the cost of the products will increase....and in the end, the cost of living just went way up to the point that the minimum wage increase did not for the person earning wage, and just caused a massive inflation in the dollar. Woohoo, what a fantastic idea you economic repugnates!
Wow - your hatred of your fellow man is appalling.
It's been proven time and time again that when you raise up the lower income earners, the entire economy prospers. But you are one of those disgusting "I've got mine screw everyone else" type of people that is patently un-American and un-Christian.
It must be sad to be a bitter, hateful person like you.
You don't see any party with the upper hand? How bout the party that has set a record for the most in one session?
Sept 2007:The Senate just voted 56 to 44 on Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) amendment “requiring that active-duty troops and units have at least equal time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas.” The bill failed to garner the 60 votes needed to move forward. (Republicans blocked)
You tell me, they have the power. And dont even give me the whole "Bush vetoes everything" argument, because by comparison, Bush has vetoed much less than the average president.
I believe part of the reason is that the public expected the Dems to pass a suitable timetable for withdrawal out of Iraq, but they failed miserably. They barely have a majority in the senate, and yes, I will use the fact that Bush will veto any such legislation. The "Bush vetoes everything" argument is a straw man; Bush specifically vetoes many things that the Democrats push (i.e. withdrawal in Iraq). The fact that he has vetoed much less than the average may have to do with the fact that during the majority of his Presidency the Congress was controlled by the Republicans.
Once again why media matters (very little) is because they continue to flail at windmills when real stories are just being ignored, like hoping no one will notice the elephant, or in this case donkey, in the living room.
If I was a Clinton supporter, I would be enraged that MM(vl) turns a blind eye to Obama's comments about small town folk. http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/under-fire-obama-clarifies-small-town/n20080412151709990085
I know that there will be complaints about kidnapping the topic but come on, how much whinning over nothing stories will MM(vl) generate. Even the last paragraph sounds like an 'Emily Latella Nevermind' moment from Saturday night Live.
(National Review Online) This column was written by the editors of National Review Online, from January of this year,some excerpts:
...There is a lot to like about Senator McCain, and we do not fault the Union Leader for endorsing him. We do fault its double standards. The newspaper counts it as a damnable “flip-flop” every time Romney has changed his position or even his emphasis. McCain can switch his views on the very same issues without a disparaging word from the Union Leader.
Take taxes. Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, stayed neutral in the battle over President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts. We wish he had spoken up in their favor. Senator McCain, alas, was not silent: He voted against the tax cuts, as he had voted against the 2001 tax cuts. He flip-flopped on estate taxes, defending them after having voted to get rid of them. As he geared up to run for president this time around, however, McCain became a born-again supply-sider. Now he wants to keep the tax cuts he originally opposed.
The Union Leader has blasted Romney for changing his mind on immigration. It accused him of lying, too, for saying that McCain wanted to let illegal immigrants earn Social Security benefits while working here illegally. But Romney was right. McCain has voted to let illegal immigrants who meet certain conditions become citizens and then receive benefits for their prior illegal work. Few Senate Republicans joined him.
We won’t throw around the word “lie” quite as recklessly as the Union Leader, but its candidate first argued for an “amnesty” and then spent months claiming that his immigration bill did not amount to one. And if flip-flopping on immigration is a crime, McCain can be charged with it, too. He himself says that he has changed his position on the issue. One of the principal points at issue in the debate over his bill was whether we should try “enforcement first.” Since the bill’s collapse, McCain has said that he now understands that we should. If that is not a flip-flop, it is only because his claims of a change of heart are insincere. (The liberal newspapers that have endorsed him seem to think so.)
Some of Romney’s critics allow that all politicians change their positions over time, but say that Romney stands out for changing his very political identity. Supposedly he ran as a moderate technocrat in Massachusetts, but is running as a culture warrior in the Republican primaries. We think both halves of this characterization are overstated, but in any case it is not a critique that John McCain’s supporters can credibly make. McCain was a reliably conservative legislator for 15 years. Then he moved left for three years, so much so that liberals began urging him to change parties. Then he zigged back to the right.
For us, the most important question about a flip-flop is whether the movement is in the right direction. We are glad that Romney has changed his mind about abortion and McCain has changed his about taxes, although we prefer Romney’s open admission that he was wrong in the past to McCain’s evasiveness. We hope McCain comes around some more on immigration, and campaign-finance reform, and a lot of other issues -- and we will not attack him as a flip-flopper if he does. Voters who hold flip-flops against politicians, however, should be warned: McCain is every bit as much of one as Romney is, and all the bile of New Hampshire’s editorialists cannot change the fact.
Here you go...back on track:
LOL Mary LOL
the point of achieving veto proof power is by bringing a bi-partison bill...not a pet project bill, and thank god for that. Thank god for no line item veto either, as that would totally neglect the point of a bipartisan bill.
Just because ending the war is not a bi-partisan issues doesn't mean you should dismiss it as a "pet project bill".
Perhaps not the war, that part I would agree on. I may not agree with how the democrats want to do it, but I do agree that we should be planning on migrating out.