Bypass Fox, CNN, etc. and go to the sources:
Anybody want to comment?
Anybody want to comment?
John McCain vs Barack Obama
- Thread starter Garifuna
- Start date
[14damoney look for a reason to pull the trigger on his Glocks... reads statement... puts Glocks back in holsters]
...sigh... "okay, agree".....
DAMN!
Do you agree with this:
"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve."
-Adlai Stevenson
I'll comment: Fuck that demented loser whack job John McCain. What are we talking about here? You want us to seriously look at McCain and discuss some advantages there might be with that loon versus a man who in all indications suggest he can make better decisions than both Bush and McCain on his worse day?
I'm not at all interested in anything someone else wrote for McCain to sell. He can't speak the language, he can't remember shit he said from a week ago, voted against extending the voting rights act and has no idea how people like us live. The same person who's campaign said the economic condition this nation is in today is all in our minds and that we should stop whining about it?
There is no question who is better suited to run this nation between these two men. Barack Obama.
However if you have anything personally you want to discuss that is better where McCain is concerned, we can discuss discuss it.
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/pOf_LT7WWMw&hl=en&fs=1[/FLASH]
Mr. Stupid Man
So Mark Halperin says John McCain had a better week than Barack Obama...but that's not the stupidest part. No, the stupidest part was Halperin's claim that the candidates are evenly matched on economic issues.
Economy: After a week in which both candidates presented their policies and attacked the other guy’s record and ideas, neither McCain nor Obama has broken out as the leader on this issue. For a question that should give a huge advantage to the Democrats, the answers still sound like “yada, yada, yada”—on both sides.
Need I remind Halperin that McCain did not get off a single shot at Obama all week long on the economy? And meanwhile he dug himself a deep hole on balancing the budget, Social Security, and, last but at all least, Mr. Mental Recession himself reared his ugly head.
So what in the world campaign is Halperin watching? The same campaign in which voters say they prefer Barack Obama by a 20 point margin on economic issues (51%-31%)?
There are three explanations for this analysis. Either (1) Halperin has an agenda, or (2) he wasn't doing his job and just doesn't know what he's talking about, or (3) he is staggeringly, monstrously stupid. I almost hope it is one of the first two, because if he really believes what he wrote...then he might in fact be losing his mind.
Update: Even The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett doesn't see things the same way as Halperin.
Update 2: Steve Benen and John Cole were on this way earlier in the day. Cole's post is hilarious.
-VG
Yes, I completely agree with that statement, which makes me extremely happy we live in a republic and not a democracy.DAMN!
Do you agree with this:
"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve."
-Adlai Stevenson
There is still a slight glimmer of hope, which is of course not evident in the post directly above this one.
Who the fuck are Mark, Dean, Steve and John?
I am more interested in what VegasGuy and the rest of the BGOL family think about the ISSUES the candidates claim are important. Not what Mark, Dean, Tom, Dick, Harry, and Rumplestiltskin manage to spin out of straw.
I am also interested in hearing what VegasGuy and the rest of the BGOL fam think SHOULD be the ISSUES that determine the outcome of this election.
I posted TWO lists of issues, because they are DIFFERENT. Not just the proposed solutions, the actual issues are different, and even when they seem similar, they aren't really.
Clearly, the lists will resonate differently with different groups of voters. America is not homogeneous.
The strategy employed by Ronald Reagan is his campaign against Jimmy Carter was, "Screw his list, that's the list for losers." The legacy of that election is that Civil Rights does not appear on John McCains list.
Discuss that.
Maybe Civil Rights does appear on McCain's list. He lists the following as one of his core issues:
Judicial Philosophy
John McCain believes that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, John McCain will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.
Stated and viewed different than Barack Obama, this I believe is John McCain's position on civil rights. Historically, we have framed the civil rights issue around the right to vote and impediments to equal treatment and participation in the system. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to frame the civil rights issue around the appointment of judges an juristsw whom, they say, do not venture into judicial activism.John McCain believes that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, John McCain will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.
It was always my interpretation that when Republicans use the term "activist judge" they generally mean the type of judges that have voted in FAVOR of civil rights issues from the Federal bench instead of allowing individual states to determine how biased or unbiased they choose to be. Maybe that isn't what they mean when it is said, but it is DEFINITELY what is interpreted by the constituents it is directed towards. That is one of those Dixiecrat campaign planks the Republicans adopted back in the 60's to get Southern votes.
So yes it is "civil rights", but whose civil rights? Those who feel their "right" to trample the rights of others has been assaulted?
Maybe Civil Rights does appear on McCain's list. He lists the following as one of his core issues:
Judicial Philosophy
John McCain believes that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, John McCain will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.
Stated and viewed different than Barack Obama, this I believe is John McCain's position on civil rights. John McCain believes that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, John McCain will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.
Historically, we have framed the civil rights issue around the right to vote and impediments to equal treatment and participation in the system. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to frame the civil rights issue around the appointment of judges an jurists, especially those whom they say do not venture into judicial activism. Of course, since the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately sets the tone on civil rights matters, the appointment of justices to the Supreme Court often determines how civil rights laws will impact the people.
Given the present membership of the Supreme Court, future appointments to the Court is to me the most critical issue of them all.
The Rhenquist Court was comprised of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Antonin Scalia, Antonin Scalia and Antonin Scalia. In 2000 that Court delivered the 5-4 opinion in Bush v. Gore that many feel was incorrectly decided.
Since 2000, G.W. Bush has appointed the new Chief Justice, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both conservatives. The present members tend to vote 5-4 in favor of a conservative view on cases involving Civil Rights.
Presently, 2 members of the Court's liberal or moderate wing, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 75, and John Paul Stevens, age 88, are extemely likely to be replaced (by death or retirement) in the next 4 years. If those appointments fall to the right-wing-nut-case element of the Republican party, the 5-4 split will increase to 6-3 or 7-2 (depending upon the swing vote).Since 2000, G.W. Bush has appointed the new Chief Justice, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both conservatives. The present members tend to vote 5-4 in favor of a conservative view on cases involving Civil Rights.
Further on in the McCain article that you posted, the following is stated:
John McCain believes that shaping the judiciary through the appointment power is one of the most important and solemn responsibilities a President has, and certainly one that has a profound and lasting impact. When he was running for President in 1999, he promised that, in appointing judges, he would not only insist on persons who were faithful to the Constitution, but persons who had a record that demonstrated that fidelity. A President should have confidence in the judicial philosophy of those he is appointing to the bench. That is why he strongly supported John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court and that is why he would seek men and women like them as his judicial appointees.
This I believes explains why the coming election is important.QueEx
Last edited:
As I understand it, judicial activism really is a buzz word for strict interpretation of the Constitution as opposed to the so-called 'living breathing' Constitution where the justices give meaning to the document based, in part, on what the founding fathers meant and, perhaps, would mean.
For example, the abortion matter points up the issue. Any reader of the Constitution would note that the term 'abortion' is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution nor is there any specific right to abortion mentioned. Nevertheless, Justice Blackmon in authoring the Roe V. Wade seminal abortion opinion found that there is a "Right to Privacy" (though that term is not in the Constitution either) that is found implicitly in the Bill of Rights and the 4th Amendment -- and that the abortion protections arise out of the Right ot Privacy.
The Roe V. Wade opinion has been criticised over the years on that Court's judicial activism -- that is -- finding things in the Constitution that is not explicitly stated. Opponents argue vehemently that under a 'strict interpretation' giving effect to the "Plain Meaning" of the words of the Constitution, there would be no room to "read into" the Constitution words, theories and protections, not explicitly written. (PLEASE NOTE: this is a very simple explanation of the doctrine of judicial activism).
QueEx
This is unrelated Que, but will you be around the forum after today?
^^HNIC is locking people out if they are not paying/"donating" members after today. I didn't see the donor sign next to your name so I was just wondering. 
if you'd be around the board.
if you'd be around the board.^^ I'm debating. Its not the money though - 10 bucks is nothing for what I find on this board in terms of articles/vids/comedy... but I admit that I wast too much time here (not the politics board) but the main board arguing with ignorant posters over things (http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?p=4428691#post4428691) when I could be focusing more on my career and reading more.
I'll see how the withdrawl goes and maybe I'll be back.
btw, have you seen this-
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=283597
I'll see how the withdrawl goes and maybe I'll be back.
btw, have you seen this-
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=283597
Last edited:
On debating: Use your best judgment.
On the Illegal Immigrants thread: I'm not surprised; the discussion level is one reason I left that side and took up this little project on the Politics board, a long, long time ago.
on the Obama Girls: As a matter of fact, I hadn't seen that one. Too bad you didn't post it up over here. Well, guess I'm going to move it here, with your permission.
QueEx
On the Illegal Immigrants thread: I'm not surprised; the discussion level is one reason I left that side and took up this little project on the Politics board, a long, long time ago.
on the Obama Girls: As a matter of fact, I hadn't seen that one. Too bad you didn't post it up over here. Well, guess I'm going to move it here, with your permission.
QueEx
yea, go ahead post here.
Thanks for taking up my challange. Good start.
You did prove my point. "...even when they seem similiar; they aren't really."
Sen. Obama writes about ways the Executive Branch can affirm Civil Rights.
John McCain writes about Federalism....
but then goes on with
Judge Roberts believe in expanding the powers of the Federal Government, not limiting them.
Anybody gonna tackle some of the other 25 issues?
The candidates have some similarities, however, I'm not so sure that they are similar in this regard as you say. I believe their judicial philosophies are inopposite. The general thought is that you don't generally move towards the civil rights goals espoused by Obama by appointing the Alitos and Roberts of the world. I think there is a significant difference between the candidates on this issue.
Not so fast. Roberts has virtually no history. How did you conclude this ??? Moreover, how did you conclude the Roberts-like appointments are more likely than not children of the Judicial Activist school ??? Does that not run completely afoul of Robert's known judicial philosophy, Bush's stated reason for appointing him and McCain's affirmation (or co-sign) of that apppointment ???Garifuna said:
QueEx
A Breakdown of BOTH Candidates Economic Plans and Tax Proposals
McCain is represented by his economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin
AUDIO: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92866043
Obama is represented by his economic adviser Jason Furman
AUDIO: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92866043
Economist Len Burman breaks down the tax proposals of both candidates
AUDIO: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92869736
Don't assume you know where these guys stand. Take some time and listen to what comes out of the campaigns mouths
McCain is represented by his economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin
AUDIO: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92866043
Obama is represented by his economic adviser Jason Furman
AUDIO: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92866043
Economist Len Burman breaks down the tax proposals of both candidates
AUDIO: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92869736
Don't assume you know where these guys stand. Take some time and listen to what comes out of the campaigns mouths
Hi, I'm John McCain, & I'm voting for Barack Obama
Hi, I'm John McCain, & I'm voting for Barack Obama
BY JAMES QUEALLY and CORKY SIEMASZKO
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Sunday, September 7th 2008, 12:21 AM
Gill for News
Yes, his name is John McCain and you can see why this Brooklyn Democrat has everyone confused.
John McCain is voting for Barack Obama - and he looks like him, too.
Only this McCain is Johnathan B. McCain, a Brooklyn-based musician, not the Republican presidential candidate.
"I travel to Europe a lot, and a few people have said I look like Obama," said McCain, 40. "When people ask me my name, I always say John McCain, like the senator."
McCain said he's never used his famous name - or his striking resemblance to the Democratic presidential candidate - to get a good table in a crowded restaurant or get out of a parking ticket.
The combination has gotten him on talk radio shows around the city, though.
"Once I mention that I'm interracial and my name is John McCain, they put me right through," he said.
McCain said he's toyed with the idea of turning the tables on gullible Republicans by holding a fund-raising dinner under the name "John McCain."
Then, when everyone is seated, McCain said, he would step out onstage with a wide smile on his face and declare, "Barack Obama thanks you for your contribution."
McCain said he first became aware of the Arizona senator when he voted against making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday.
"I was appalled that someone who shares my name would do something like that," he said. "He's not doing what I would do with the name."
Now McCain is squarely in Obama's corner.
"These are critical times, maybe the most important election in U.S. history," he said. "We have to restore the American dream for the common man."
Until now, McCain's main claim to fame was as the longtime drummer for the influential ska band The Toasters. These days, he pounds the skins for a two-man indie-pop outfit called Ghost Front, which recently played a gig at The Knitting Factory.
His mom, Shirley McCain, said she never thought her son looked like Obama until a few weeks ago, when a relative pointed out the resemblance.
"You know, I look at my son like most mothers do - he looks like his dad," she said. "My handsome son. The women love him."
As for her son being a John McCain, the proud Manhattan mom said, "I call him Johnathan, since I named him Johnathan."
csiemaszko@nydailynews.com
Hi, I'm John McCain, & I'm voting for Barack Obama
BY JAMES QUEALLY and CORKY SIEMASZKO
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Sunday, September 7th 2008, 12:21 AM
Gill for News
Yes, his name is John McCain and you can see why this Brooklyn Democrat has everyone confused.
John McCain is voting for Barack Obama - and he looks like him, too.
Only this McCain is Johnathan B. McCain, a Brooklyn-based musician, not the Republican presidential candidate.
"I travel to Europe a lot, and a few people have said I look like Obama," said McCain, 40. "When people ask me my name, I always say John McCain, like the senator."
McCain said he's never used his famous name - or his striking resemblance to the Democratic presidential candidate - to get a good table in a crowded restaurant or get out of a parking ticket.
The combination has gotten him on talk radio shows around the city, though.
"Once I mention that I'm interracial and my name is John McCain, they put me right through," he said.
McCain said he's toyed with the idea of turning the tables on gullible Republicans by holding a fund-raising dinner under the name "John McCain."
Then, when everyone is seated, McCain said, he would step out onstage with a wide smile on his face and declare, "Barack Obama thanks you for your contribution."
McCain said he first became aware of the Arizona senator when he voted against making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday.
"I was appalled that someone who shares my name would do something like that," he said. "He's not doing what I would do with the name."
Now McCain is squarely in Obama's corner.
"These are critical times, maybe the most important election in U.S. history," he said. "We have to restore the American dream for the common man."
Until now, McCain's main claim to fame was as the longtime drummer for the influential ska band The Toasters. These days, he pounds the skins for a two-man indie-pop outfit called Ghost Front, which recently played a gig at The Knitting Factory.
His mom, Shirley McCain, said she never thought her son looked like Obama until a few weeks ago, when a relative pointed out the resemblance.
"You know, I look at my son like most mothers do - he looks like his dad," she said. "My handsome son. The women love him."
As for her son being a John McCain, the proud Manhattan mom said, "I call him Johnathan, since I named him Johnathan."
csiemaszko@nydailynews.com
Photographer
Banned
Obama. McCain. What will we be voting for?
<iframe src ="http://feeds.feedburner.com/GeneGeter" height=1200 width=1200></iframe>
<iframe src ="http://GeneGeter.com" height=1200 width=1200></iframe>
<iframe src ="http://feeds.feedburner.com/GeneGeter" height=1200 width=1200></iframe>
<iframe src ="http://GeneGeter.com" height=1200 width=1200></iframe>
Re: Obama. McCain. What will we be voting for?
I'd rather take a chance on something then do nothing at all.
Go vote on Nov. 4th.
I'd rather take a chance on something then do nothing at all.
Go vote on Nov. 4th.
Re: Obama. McCain. What will we be voting for?
Main Concern Regarding The 2008 Presidential Election
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RBMlYV5Z3Uo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RBMlYV5Z3Uo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RBMlYV5Z3Uo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RBMlYV5Z3Uo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
For Vet affairs Obama got a B+, McCain got a D
McCain said in debate "the Vets know he'll take care of them." He just got a D
MCCAIN'S RECORD ON VETERAN'S ISSUES IS SHOCKING AND AWFUL
"McCain's record on veterans' issues paints a picture of a man who has been willfully negligent when it comes to providing for his former brothers and sisters in arms."
by: Cliff Schecter, In These Times
At a town hall meeting in Denver in early July, a Vietnam veteran asked presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) why he had opposed increasing healthcare for veterans whenever Congress had taken up the issue over the past six years. McCain virtually ignored the man's question, dissembling his opposition to an updated GI Bill for veterans. After the questioner challenged McCain's response, the senator reacted as he usually does when queried beyond his comfort level: He got visibly angry.
Because McCain is running for president almost solely on his biography as a war hero, he can't - and won't - allow the slightest doubt to linger about his dedication to soldiers both past and present. It didn't matter that the vet simply wanted to know how McCain - himself a former soldier and prisoner of war - could oppose important healthcare legislation for veterans. In fact, he didn't even ask McCain about the GI Bill that he opposed, which had been supported by a bipartisan group of 75 senators, including Republican veterans Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and John Warner (Va.).
Most notably, McCain also testily responded to his inquisitor that he had "received every award from every vets organization."
The problem is, not only is that assertion not true, but McCain's record on veterans' issues paints a picture of a man who has been willfully negligent when it comes to providing for his former brothers and sisters in arms.
As Iraq War veteran and former Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett says, "Here is a guy who touts himself as a friend of veterans, but his history shows just the opposite. How can someone who cares about our men and women in the armed services vote against the GI Bill or veterans' healthcare?" Dying on the vine
In 2005, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), now chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, introduced legislation that would have increased veterans' medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006. He also introduced another bill that would have set aside $10 million for "readjustment counseling services" - a program to provide a wide range of counseling, outreach and referral services for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, to ease their readjustment back into society. (This program was started in 1979 for Vietnam veterans, so one would think McCain is quite familiar with it.)
But McCain - and other Republicans who are more concerned with using government funds for tax cuts for multimillionaires or for corporate subsidies to oil and gas companies - voted this effort down.
The following year, Akaka requested $1.5 billion for veterans' medical care and an additional $430 million for the Department of Veteran Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. But, once again, McCain voted against these proposals, while offering no measures of his own, and without pushing his party to help U.S. veterans.
In 2005, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) saw their respective veteran amendments killed. These amendments would have funded additional medical care and readjustment counseling for Iraq veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder or substance abuse disorder. McCain voted "no" on both.
In 2005, and again in 2006, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) proposed legislation that would have indexed veterans' healthcare benefits to take into account the annual changes in inflation and veterans' population. She proposed paying for the indexing by restoring the pre-2001 top tax rate for income more than $1 million, closing corporate tax loopholes and delaying tax cuts for the wealthy. One guess as to how McCain voted.
In early 2006, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) proposed an amendment for additional funding to shore up the collapsing infrastructures at veterans' hospitals around the country. The bill would have mandated a minor rollback in the capital gains tax cuts that the Bush administration has given to the richest one-fifth of 1 percent of Americans. McCain, presumably more concerned about the 100-plus lobbyists associated with his campaign than the health of veterans, opposed this amendment.
Not long after, in February 2007, the Washington Post exposed horror stories about the crumbling infrastructure at Washington, D.C.'s Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
In February 2006, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) sponsored an amendment that would have rolled back capital gains tax cuts so that much-needed equipment for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan could be purchased. McCain and the Republican leadership made sure those tax cuts stayed in place, and, as a result, the troops didn't get what they needed.
Finally, in June 2006, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) authored a bill - S. Amdt. 4442 - "to require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror."
It received 13 votes. Needless to say, McCain's wasn't one of them.
McCain was also noticeably absent on two measures that members of both parties should be able to embrace.
The Homes for Heroes Act - which Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) introduced in April 2007 - would have helped provide housing for low-income veterans and helped tackle the problem of homelessness among America's military veterans. The bill died, though the House overwhelmingly passed a similar bill in July; its companion version still awaits a new vote in the Senate.
The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 - introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) - restores the old GI Bill and provides returning troops with the more robust educational benefits enjoyed by the men and women who served in the three decades following World War II. Although this bill did not initially make it to vote, it was incorporated into the new GI bill that the Senate - absent McCain, who was at a fundraiser in Caliornia - passed in May. Failing scorecard
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), the country's largest Iraq veterans' group, looked at 155 Senate votes since Sept. 11, 2001, on legislation that "affected troops, veterans or military families." It then awarded each senator a grade by comparing his or her votes to IAVA's view of what constitutes effective support for active troops, veterans and their families.
No senator received an "A" grade. Thirteen senators - all Democrats - received an "A-." The worst grade received by a Senate Democrat was higher than the best grade granted to a Republican. Obama, for his part, got a B+.
McCain received a "D."
In fact, IAVA founder and Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff says that "there has been no bigger obstacle to passage of the GI Bill than Senator McCain. Even though he'd now like to claim credit for it, he didn't even show up. He thought it was more important to be in California for a fundraiser."
In 2007, the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), after surveying McCain's votes on healthcare issues for its 1.3 million members, gave him only 20 percent. By contrast, DAV gave 194 Democrats and 7 Republicans a perfect 100 percent. Even by GOP standards, McCain's performance suffers.
Often times, his is a faithful vote for party above principle. This party-line voting pattern suggests that McCain is a legislative follower - if he bothers to show up at all.
In a 2006 Washington Post column by David Ignatius, McCain described his loyalty to Bush as being so profound that he said he wouldn't rule out giving up his Senate seat to become secretary of defense if Donald Rumsfeld were to leave.
"I would have to assess where I can be most effective," said McCain. "It's awfully hard to say no to the president of the United States."
McCain's record makes that abundantly clear.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3521
-VG
McCain said in debate "the Vets know he'll take care of them." He just got a D
MCCAIN'S RECORD ON VETERAN'S ISSUES IS SHOCKING AND AWFUL
"McCain's record on veterans' issues paints a picture of a man who has been willfully negligent when it comes to providing for his former brothers and sisters in arms."
by: Cliff Schecter, In These Times
At a town hall meeting in Denver in early July, a Vietnam veteran asked presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) why he had opposed increasing healthcare for veterans whenever Congress had taken up the issue over the past six years. McCain virtually ignored the man's question, dissembling his opposition to an updated GI Bill for veterans. After the questioner challenged McCain's response, the senator reacted as he usually does when queried beyond his comfort level: He got visibly angry.
Because McCain is running for president almost solely on his biography as a war hero, he can't - and won't - allow the slightest doubt to linger about his dedication to soldiers both past and present. It didn't matter that the vet simply wanted to know how McCain - himself a former soldier and prisoner of war - could oppose important healthcare legislation for veterans. In fact, he didn't even ask McCain about the GI Bill that he opposed, which had been supported by a bipartisan group of 75 senators, including Republican veterans Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and John Warner (Va.).
Most notably, McCain also testily responded to his inquisitor that he had "received every award from every vets organization."
The problem is, not only is that assertion not true, but McCain's record on veterans' issues paints a picture of a man who has been willfully negligent when it comes to providing for his former brothers and sisters in arms.
As Iraq War veteran and former Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett says, "Here is a guy who touts himself as a friend of veterans, but his history shows just the opposite. How can someone who cares about our men and women in the armed services vote against the GI Bill or veterans' healthcare?" Dying on the vine
In 2005, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), now chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, introduced legislation that would have increased veterans' medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006. He also introduced another bill that would have set aside $10 million for "readjustment counseling services" - a program to provide a wide range of counseling, outreach and referral services for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, to ease their readjustment back into society. (This program was started in 1979 for Vietnam veterans, so one would think McCain is quite familiar with it.)
But McCain - and other Republicans who are more concerned with using government funds for tax cuts for multimillionaires or for corporate subsidies to oil and gas companies - voted this effort down.
The following year, Akaka requested $1.5 billion for veterans' medical care and an additional $430 million for the Department of Veteran Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. But, once again, McCain voted against these proposals, while offering no measures of his own, and without pushing his party to help U.S. veterans.
In 2005, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) saw their respective veteran amendments killed. These amendments would have funded additional medical care and readjustment counseling for Iraq veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder or substance abuse disorder. McCain voted "no" on both.
In 2005, and again in 2006, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) proposed legislation that would have indexed veterans' healthcare benefits to take into account the annual changes in inflation and veterans' population. She proposed paying for the indexing by restoring the pre-2001 top tax rate for income more than $1 million, closing corporate tax loopholes and delaying tax cuts for the wealthy. One guess as to how McCain voted.
In early 2006, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) proposed an amendment for additional funding to shore up the collapsing infrastructures at veterans' hospitals around the country. The bill would have mandated a minor rollback in the capital gains tax cuts that the Bush administration has given to the richest one-fifth of 1 percent of Americans. McCain, presumably more concerned about the 100-plus lobbyists associated with his campaign than the health of veterans, opposed this amendment.
Not long after, in February 2007, the Washington Post exposed horror stories about the crumbling infrastructure at Washington, D.C.'s Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
In February 2006, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) sponsored an amendment that would have rolled back capital gains tax cuts so that much-needed equipment for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan could be purchased. McCain and the Republican leadership made sure those tax cuts stayed in place, and, as a result, the troops didn't get what they needed.
Finally, in June 2006, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) authored a bill - S. Amdt. 4442 - "to require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror."
It received 13 votes. Needless to say, McCain's wasn't one of them.
McCain was also noticeably absent on two measures that members of both parties should be able to embrace.
The Homes for Heroes Act - which Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) introduced in April 2007 - would have helped provide housing for low-income veterans and helped tackle the problem of homelessness among America's military veterans. The bill died, though the House overwhelmingly passed a similar bill in July; its companion version still awaits a new vote in the Senate.
The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 - introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) - restores the old GI Bill and provides returning troops with the more robust educational benefits enjoyed by the men and women who served in the three decades following World War II. Although this bill did not initially make it to vote, it was incorporated into the new GI bill that the Senate - absent McCain, who was at a fundraiser in Caliornia - passed in May. Failing scorecard
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), the country's largest Iraq veterans' group, looked at 155 Senate votes since Sept. 11, 2001, on legislation that "affected troops, veterans or military families." It then awarded each senator a grade by comparing his or her votes to IAVA's view of what constitutes effective support for active troops, veterans and their families.
No senator received an "A" grade. Thirteen senators - all Democrats - received an "A-." The worst grade received by a Senate Democrat was higher than the best grade granted to a Republican. Obama, for his part, got a B+.
McCain received a "D."
In fact, IAVA founder and Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff says that "there has been no bigger obstacle to passage of the GI Bill than Senator McCain. Even though he'd now like to claim credit for it, he didn't even show up. He thought it was more important to be in California for a fundraiser."
In 2007, the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), after surveying McCain's votes on healthcare issues for its 1.3 million members, gave him only 20 percent. By contrast, DAV gave 194 Democrats and 7 Republicans a perfect 100 percent. Even by GOP standards, McCain's performance suffers.
Often times, his is a faithful vote for party above principle. This party-line voting pattern suggests that McCain is a legislative follower - if he bothers to show up at all.
In a 2006 Washington Post column by David Ignatius, McCain described his loyalty to Bush as being so profound that he said he wouldn't rule out giving up his Senate seat to become secretary of defense if Donald Rumsfeld were to leave.
"I would have to assess where I can be most effective," said McCain. "It's awfully hard to say no to the president of the United States."
McCain's record makes that abundantly clear.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3521
-VG
Similar threads
