McCain says Yes We Can!...but Different
And for the real deal...
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
John McCain is so bad...
John McCain is so bad that U.S. News and World Report recently revealed that the White House is thrilled to have John McCain picking up where they're leaving off...
What's behind President Bush's expansive praise for John McCain? The president has become convinced that McCain will be an effective and strong defender of the Bush legacy in the general election campaign this fall, White House advisers to U.S. News. [...] In an interview broadcast yesterday on FOX News Sunday, Bush went further than he ever has in analyzing the 2008 presidential race. He came close to endorsing McCain outright, praising him more than he did McCain's competitor in the race, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
[...]
White House officials tell U.S. News that Bush is eager to help McCain as the party standard-bearer, mainly in three areas: helping to rally conservatives behind McCain, raising money for the Republican Party, and framing the political debate to portray the Democrats as tax-and-spend liberals who would prematurely remove U.S. troops from Iraq and endanger national security.
John McCain gives George Bush the third term he always wanted.
Courtesy of the DNC
What's behind President Bush's expansive praise for John McCain? The president has become convinced that McCain will be an effective and strong defender of the Bush legacy in the general election campaign this fall, White House advisers to U.S. News. [...] In an interview broadcast yesterday on FOX News Sunday, Bush went further than he ever has in analyzing the 2008 presidential race. He came close to endorsing McCain outright, praising him more than he did McCain's competitor in the race, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
[...]
White House officials tell U.S. News that Bush is eager to help McCain as the party standard-bearer, mainly in three areas: helping to rally conservatives behind McCain, raising money for the Republican Party, and framing the political debate to portray the Democrats as tax-and-spend liberals who would prematurely remove U.S. troops from Iraq and endanger national security.
John McCain gives George Bush the third term he always wanted.
Courtesy of the DNC
Saturday, February 9, 2008
I just sometimes love Ann Coulter...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/unhinged-coulter-uses-hit_n_85778.html
Unhinged Coulter Uses Hitler Analogy To Bash McCain
February 8, 2008 05:26 PM
Sam Stein
The Huffington Post
Ann Coulter wasn't officially invited to speak at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference -- many on the right were still upset at the bad publicity she brought last year after calling John Edwards a "faggot." But to no one's surprise, she showed up anyway, commandeering the spotlight.
Speaking before the Young America's Foundation, who invited her over CPAC's objections, the conservative author spent most of her time viciously attacking her party's new presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain.
No topic was out of bounds, including the five years McCain spent as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
"I know that [he was a POW]," Coulter declared, "because he mentions it more often than Kerry mentions he was in Vietnam. There were hundreds of POWs and we are not going to make all of them president. Can't we find a POW who doesn't want to shut down Guantanamo."
That was mild. Take Coulter's rationale for supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton's candidacy over McCain's:
"A serious case could be made to support Hillary Clinton," she declared, offering the analogy of Winston Churchill backing Stalin in the fight against Hitler in WWII. "I'm not equating Hillary Clinton to Stalin, and if I did I apologize to Stalin's descendents... I'm not comparing McCain to Hitler. Hitler had a coherent tax policy." Later, she added, "The only way I can promise that I won't vote for Hillary Clinton is if John McCain appoints her as his vice president."
Remarkably, Coulter's comments reflected what conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh predicted would be the reception McCain would receive from the antagonistic mainstream media.
"Once [McCain]'s got this sewn up you're going to see the Drive-By Media start doing stories on his age, and they're not going to be mean, they are not going to be vicious, they're going to be almost sorrowful," said Limbaugh. "I am telling you, if that doesn't work, they're going to go after this age business, and they'll do it almost regretfully."
And indeed, Coulter speech contained repeated subtle and not so subtle digs at McCain's age.
"He has been in the Senate for about 100 years," she said (he's actually 71), long enough "to vote on the Spanish-American War." She even declared, playing off the mutual admiration between McCain and the media, that "[he] is working for the New York Times obituary."
Coulter ripped him over policy issues as well, taking on his signature legislation McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, as well as his vote against President Bush's tax cuts, and his stance on climate change. In the process, she contrasted the Arizona Republican with the GOP candidates that he bested for the presidential nomination.
"McCain and [Mitt] Romney are mirror opposites of one another," said Coulter. "Romney is a conservative who had to win votes from liberals in Massachusetts. McCain is a liberal who had to win votes from conservatives in Arizona."
As for former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani: He "enthusiastically supported torturing terrorists," she said to great applause. "McCain hysterically opposes dripping water down the terrorist's noses."
And what if the unthinkable happens, and President McCain is inaugurated? I've led an impeachment movement before, Coulter said, and "I can lead another one."
Unhinged Coulter Uses Hitler Analogy To Bash McCain
February 8, 2008 05:26 PM
Sam Stein
The Huffington Post
Ann Coulter wasn't officially invited to speak at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference -- many on the right were still upset at the bad publicity she brought last year after calling John Edwards a "faggot." But to no one's surprise, she showed up anyway, commandeering the spotlight.
Speaking before the Young America's Foundation, who invited her over CPAC's objections, the conservative author spent most of her time viciously attacking her party's new presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain.
No topic was out of bounds, including the five years McCain spent as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
"I know that [he was a POW]," Coulter declared, "because he mentions it more often than Kerry mentions he was in Vietnam. There were hundreds of POWs and we are not going to make all of them president. Can't we find a POW who doesn't want to shut down Guantanamo."
That was mild. Take Coulter's rationale for supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton's candidacy over McCain's:
"A serious case could be made to support Hillary Clinton," she declared, offering the analogy of Winston Churchill backing Stalin in the fight against Hitler in WWII. "I'm not equating Hillary Clinton to Stalin, and if I did I apologize to Stalin's descendents... I'm not comparing McCain to Hitler. Hitler had a coherent tax policy." Later, she added, "The only way I can promise that I won't vote for Hillary Clinton is if John McCain appoints her as his vice president."
Remarkably, Coulter's comments reflected what conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh predicted would be the reception McCain would receive from the antagonistic mainstream media.
"Once [McCain]'s got this sewn up you're going to see the Drive-By Media start doing stories on his age, and they're not going to be mean, they are not going to be vicious, they're going to be almost sorrowful," said Limbaugh. "I am telling you, if that doesn't work, they're going to go after this age business, and they'll do it almost regretfully."
And indeed, Coulter speech contained repeated subtle and not so subtle digs at McCain's age.
"He has been in the Senate for about 100 years," she said (he's actually 71), long enough "to vote on the Spanish-American War." She even declared, playing off the mutual admiration between McCain and the media, that "[he] is working for the New York Times obituary."
Coulter ripped him over policy issues as well, taking on his signature legislation McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, as well as his vote against President Bush's tax cuts, and his stance on climate change. In the process, she contrasted the Arizona Republican with the GOP candidates that he bested for the presidential nomination.
"McCain and [Mitt] Romney are mirror opposites of one another," said Coulter. "Romney is a conservative who had to win votes from liberals in Massachusetts. McCain is a liberal who had to win votes from conservatives in Arizona."
As for former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani: He "enthusiastically supported torturing terrorists," she said to great applause. "McCain hysterically opposes dripping water down the terrorist's noses."
And what if the unthinkable happens, and President McCain is inaugurated? I've led an impeachment movement before, Coulter said, and "I can lead another one."
Friday, February 8, 2008
Avoiding a Convention Train Wreck
Avoiding a Convention Train Wreck
Posted February 7, 2008 | 10:39 PM (EST)
Doug Kendall
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-kendall/avoiding-a-convention-tra_b_85635.html
Paul Kane from the Washington Post has done the math:
There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination. To date, about 55% of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obama roughly splitting them at about 900 delegates a piece. That means there are now only about 1,400 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.
So, do the math. If they both have about 900 pledged delegates so far, they need to win more than 1,100 of the remaining 1,400 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting. Ain't gonna happen, barring a stunning scandal or some new crazy revelation. So, they'll keep fighting this thing out, each accumulating their chunk of delegates, one of them holding a slight edge and both finishing the voting process with 1,600 or so delegates.
What that means is a nomination fight brokered at the convention by super-delegates. At best, a lot of backroom dealing and arm-twisting will eventually produce a majority of delegates for the candidate who comes in with the most delegates pledged in the voting process. By then however, it will be late August and Democrats will have spent the entire summer fighting with each other instead of focusing on how to defeat John McCain. For the Democratic nominee, it may well be too late.
And that's the best case scenario. What if either Obama or Clinton comes out of the primary process with a pledged delegate lead, but is denied the nomination by super delegates? Maybe the party elders will decide in their great wisdom that Obama is more electable or Clinton deserves it more, or maybe the losing candidate will simply twist arms harder or promise more. In either case, the result could rip the party apart as a good and strong candidate who has won the primary/caucus process gets deprived of the nomination. And what if the yet to be named "credentials" committee decides to seat a Michigan delegation even though Obama kept his name off the ballot out of respect for the party's decision and these votes swing the election to Clinton? It could be 1968 in Chicago all over again.
Is there any way to avoid this train wreck? Yes, but only if super delegates and rank and file Democrats act fast. The virtual tie right now in pledged delegates offers what philosopher John Rawls famously called a "veil of ignorance." No one knows right now who will win the race for pledged delegates, it is clear only that the system picked by the Democratic party to avoid a train wreck is heading straight toward one. If the super delegates wanted to they could agree now to this simple pledge: "In my capacity as a super delegate, I will vote for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, depending on who wins the most pledged delegates in the primary and caucus process established by the Democratic Party." If 100 or 150 super delegates signed such a pledge (and there are 400 or so currently not supporting either candidate right now), such a block should be sufficient to swing the nomination to the winning candidate.
The problem of course is that this is asking to super delegates to give up the significant amount of power their position suddenly entails. The lure of a promised vote, project or prized appointment can awful strong. That's where rank and file Democrats could play a role. These super delegates hold a position of trust in the party, a position bestowed upon them, in one way or another, by members of the party. It would seem fair for these party members to ask these super delegates what they are doing to avoid a convention fight in August that could doom the party's chances in November.
There may be times when it is appropriate for super delegates of either party to broker the choice of a nominee. If a scandal erupts after one candidate has won a majority of the pledged delegates, for example. But with two strong and popular candidates waging a fierce but fair nomination battle, this seems like a case where democracy should be allowed to work its course.
Posted February 7, 2008 | 10:39 PM (EST)
Doug Kendall
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-kendall/avoiding-a-convention-tra_b_85635.html
Paul Kane from the Washington Post has done the math:
There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination. To date, about 55% of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obama roughly splitting them at about 900 delegates a piece. That means there are now only about 1,400 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.
So, do the math. If they both have about 900 pledged delegates so far, they need to win more than 1,100 of the remaining 1,400 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting. Ain't gonna happen, barring a stunning scandal or some new crazy revelation. So, they'll keep fighting this thing out, each accumulating their chunk of delegates, one of them holding a slight edge and both finishing the voting process with 1,600 or so delegates.
What that means is a nomination fight brokered at the convention by super-delegates. At best, a lot of backroom dealing and arm-twisting will eventually produce a majority of delegates for the candidate who comes in with the most delegates pledged in the voting process. By then however, it will be late August and Democrats will have spent the entire summer fighting with each other instead of focusing on how to defeat John McCain. For the Democratic nominee, it may well be too late.
And that's the best case scenario. What if either Obama or Clinton comes out of the primary process with a pledged delegate lead, but is denied the nomination by super delegates? Maybe the party elders will decide in their great wisdom that Obama is more electable or Clinton deserves it more, or maybe the losing candidate will simply twist arms harder or promise more. In either case, the result could rip the party apart as a good and strong candidate who has won the primary/caucus process gets deprived of the nomination. And what if the yet to be named "credentials" committee decides to seat a Michigan delegation even though Obama kept his name off the ballot out of respect for the party's decision and these votes swing the election to Clinton? It could be 1968 in Chicago all over again.
Is there any way to avoid this train wreck? Yes, but only if super delegates and rank and file Democrats act fast. The virtual tie right now in pledged delegates offers what philosopher John Rawls famously called a "veil of ignorance." No one knows right now who will win the race for pledged delegates, it is clear only that the system picked by the Democratic party to avoid a train wreck is heading straight toward one. If the super delegates wanted to they could agree now to this simple pledge: "In my capacity as a super delegate, I will vote for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, depending on who wins the most pledged delegates in the primary and caucus process established by the Democratic Party." If 100 or 150 super delegates signed such a pledge (and there are 400 or so currently not supporting either candidate right now), such a block should be sufficient to swing the nomination to the winning candidate.
The problem of course is that this is asking to super delegates to give up the significant amount of power their position suddenly entails. The lure of a promised vote, project or prized appointment can awful strong. That's where rank and file Democrats could play a role. These super delegates hold a position of trust in the party, a position bestowed upon them, in one way or another, by members of the party. It would seem fair for these party members to ask these super delegates what they are doing to avoid a convention fight in August that could doom the party's chances in November.
There may be times when it is appropriate for super delegates of either party to broker the choice of a nominee. If a scandal erupts after one candidate has won a majority of the pledged delegates, for example. But with two strong and popular candidates waging a fierce but fair nomination battle, this seems like a case where democracy should be allowed to work its course.
McCain's Real Record on the War in Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: VoteVets.org
RE: Senator McCain's Real Record on the War in Iraq
DATE: February 8, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator John McCain presents himself as a maverick and a critic of the Iraq war. But a close read of his record indicates that his position on the Iraq war has consistently matched President George W. Bush's.
Before The War:
McCain used many of the same arguments as Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney and President Bush when advocating going to war with Iraq.
McCain co-sponsored the Use of Force Authorization that gave President George W. Bush the green light—and a blank check—for going to war with Iraq. [SJ Res 46, 10/3/02]
McCain argued Saddam was "a threat of the first order." Senator McCain said that a policy of containing Iraq to blunt its weapons of mass destruction program is "unsustainable, ineffective, unworkable and dangerous." McCain: "I believe Iraq is a threat of the first order, and only a change of regime will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others, and where liberated people assume the rights and responsibilities of freedom." [Speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2/13/03]
McCain echoed Bush and Cheney's rationale for going to war. McCain: "It's going to send the message throughout the Middle East that democracy can take hold in the Middle East." [Fox, Hannity & Colmes, 2/21/03]
McCain echoed Bush and Cheney's talking points that the U.S. would only be in Iraq for a short time. McCain: "It's clear that the end is very much in sight. ... It won't be long...it'll be a fairly short period of time." [ABC, 4/9/03]
McCain said winning the war would be "easy." "I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women." [CNN, 9/24/02]
During The War:
Senator McCain praised Donald Rumsfeld as late as May 12, 2004, after the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Asked if Donald Rumsfeld can continue to be an effective secretary of defense, McCain: "Yes, today I do and I believe he's done a fine job. He's an honorable man." [Hannity and Colmes, 5/12/04]
Senator McCain repeatedly supported President Bush on the Iraq War—voting with him in the Senate, defending his actions and publicly praising his leadership.
McCain maintains the war was a good idea.
At the 2004 Republican National Convention, McCain, focusing on the war in Iraq, said that while weapons of mass destruction were not found, Saddam once had them and "he would have acquired them again." McCain said the mission in Iraq "gave hope to people long oppressed" and it was "necessary, achievable and noble." McCain: "For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush
Senator McCain: "The war, the invasion was not a mistake. [Meet the Press, 1/6/08]
Asked if the war was a good idea worth the price in blood and treasure, McCain: "It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell-bent on acquiring them." [Republican Debate, 1/24/08]
McCain defended Bush's rationale for war. Asked if he thought the president exaggerated the case for war, McCain said, "I don't think so." [Fox News, 7/31/03]
McCain has been President Bush's most ardent Senate supporter on Iraq. According to Michael Shank of the Foreign Policy in Focus think tank, McCain was at times Bush's "most solid support in the Senate" on Iraq. [Foreign Policy in Focus, 1/15/08]
McCain voted against holding Bush accountable for his actions in the war. McCain opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the development and use of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. [S. Amdt. 1275 to H.R. 2658, Vote # 284, 7/16/03]
McCain praised Bush's leadership on the war. McCain: "I think the president has led with great clarity and I think he's done a great job leading the country..." [MSNBC, Hardball, 4/23/03]
Senator McCain has constantly moved the goal posts of progress for the war—repeatedly saying it would be over soon.
January 2003: "But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily." [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
March 2003: "I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short." [NBC, Meet the Press, 3/30/03]
June 2004: "The terrorists know that this is a very critical time." [CNN, 6/23/04]
December 2005: "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have a fair amount of progress [in Iraq] if we stay the course." [The Hill, 12/8/05]
November 2006: "We're either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/12/06]
Senator McCain opposed efforts to end the overextension of the military that is having a devastating impact on our troops.
McCain voted against requiring mandatory minimum downtime between tours of duty for troops serving in Iraq. [S. Amdt.. 2909 to S Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote 341, 9/19/07; S Amdt. 2012 to S Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote #241, 7/11/07]
McCain was one of only 13 senators to vote against adding $430 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans. [S Amdt. 3642 to HR 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06]
Senator McCain has consistently opposed any plan to withdraw troops from Iraq
Senator McCain repeatedly voted against a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. [S. Amdt. 3876 to S.Amdt. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote #438, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.. 3875 to S.Amdt.. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote # 437, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.3164 to H.R. 3222, Vote # 362, 10/3/07; S.Amdt. 2898 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #346, 9/21/07; S.Amdt. 2924 to S.Amdt.. 2011 to H.R.1585, Vote #345, 9/21/07; S.Amdt.2 087 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #252, 7/18/07; S.Amdt. 643 to H.R. 1591, Vote #116, 3/27/07; S.Amdt. 4320 to S. 2766, Vote #182, 6/22/06; S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766, Vote #181, 6/22/06; S.Amdt.. 2519 to S.1042, Vote # 322, 11/15/05]
Senator McCain has consistently demonized Americans who want to find a responsible way to remove troops from Iraq so that we can take the fight to al Qaeda.
McCain: "I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender." [Charlotte Observer, 9/16/07]
McCain called proponents of a congressional resolution opposing the troop surge in Iraq intellectually dishonest. [Associated Press. 2/4/07]
The Future:
Senator McCain now says he sees no end to the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.
McCain: "[M]ake it a hundred" years in Iraq and "that would be fine with me." [Derry, New Hampshire Town Hall meeting, 1/3/08]
McCain on how long troops may remain in Iraq: "A thousand years. A million years. Ten million years. It depends on the arrangement we have with the Iraqi government." [Associated Press, 1/04/08]
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: VoteVets.org
RE: Senator McCain's Real Record on the War in Iraq
DATE: February 8, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator John McCain presents himself as a maverick and a critic of the Iraq war. But a close read of his record indicates that his position on the Iraq war has consistently matched President George W. Bush's.
Before The War:
McCain used many of the same arguments as Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney and President Bush when advocating going to war with Iraq.
McCain co-sponsored the Use of Force Authorization that gave President George W. Bush the green light—and a blank check—for going to war with Iraq. [SJ Res 46, 10/3/02]
McCain argued Saddam was "a threat of the first order." Senator McCain said that a policy of containing Iraq to blunt its weapons of mass destruction program is "unsustainable, ineffective, unworkable and dangerous." McCain: "I believe Iraq is a threat of the first order, and only a change of regime will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others, and where liberated people assume the rights and responsibilities of freedom." [Speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2/13/03]
McCain echoed Bush and Cheney's rationale for going to war. McCain: "It's going to send the message throughout the Middle East that democracy can take hold in the Middle East." [Fox, Hannity & Colmes, 2/21/03]
McCain echoed Bush and Cheney's talking points that the U.S. would only be in Iraq for a short time. McCain: "It's clear that the end is very much in sight. ... It won't be long...it'll be a fairly short period of time." [ABC, 4/9/03]
McCain said winning the war would be "easy." "I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women." [CNN, 9/24/02]
During The War:
Senator McCain praised Donald Rumsfeld as late as May 12, 2004, after the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Asked if Donald Rumsfeld can continue to be an effective secretary of defense, McCain: "Yes, today I do and I believe he's done a fine job. He's an honorable man." [Hannity and Colmes, 5/12/04]
Senator McCain repeatedly supported President Bush on the Iraq War—voting with him in the Senate, defending his actions and publicly praising his leadership.
McCain maintains the war was a good idea.
At the 2004 Republican National Convention, McCain, focusing on the war in Iraq, said that while weapons of mass destruction were not found, Saddam once had them and "he would have acquired them again." McCain said the mission in Iraq "gave hope to people long oppressed" and it was "necessary, achievable and noble." McCain: "For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush
Senator McCain: "The war, the invasion was not a mistake. [Meet the Press, 1/6/08]
Asked if the war was a good idea worth the price in blood and treasure, McCain: "It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell-bent on acquiring them." [Republican Debate, 1/24/08]
McCain defended Bush's rationale for war. Asked if he thought the president exaggerated the case for war, McCain said, "I don't think so." [Fox News, 7/31/03]
McCain has been President Bush's most ardent Senate supporter on Iraq. According to Michael Shank of the Foreign Policy in Focus think tank, McCain was at times Bush's "most solid support in the Senate" on Iraq. [Foreign Policy in Focus, 1/15/08]
McCain voted against holding Bush accountable for his actions in the war. McCain opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the development and use of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. [S. Amdt. 1275 to H.R. 2658, Vote # 284, 7/16/03]
McCain praised Bush's leadership on the war. McCain: "I think the president has led with great clarity and I think he's done a great job leading the country..." [MSNBC, Hardball, 4/23/03]
Senator McCain has constantly moved the goal posts of progress for the war—repeatedly saying it would be over soon.
January 2003: "But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily." [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
March 2003: "I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short." [NBC, Meet the Press, 3/30/03]
June 2004: "The terrorists know that this is a very critical time." [CNN, 6/23/04]
December 2005: "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have a fair amount of progress [in Iraq] if we stay the course." [The Hill, 12/8/05]
November 2006: "We're either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/12/06]
Senator McCain opposed efforts to end the overextension of the military that is having a devastating impact on our troops.
McCain voted against requiring mandatory minimum downtime between tours of duty for troops serving in Iraq. [S. Amdt.. 2909 to S Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote 341, 9/19/07; S Amdt. 2012 to S Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote #241, 7/11/07]
McCain was one of only 13 senators to vote against adding $430 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans. [S Amdt. 3642 to HR 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06]
Senator McCain has consistently opposed any plan to withdraw troops from Iraq
Senator McCain repeatedly voted against a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. [S. Amdt. 3876 to S.Amdt. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote #438, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.. 3875 to S.Amdt.. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote # 437, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.3164 to H.R. 3222, Vote # 362, 10/3/07; S.Amdt. 2898 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #346, 9/21/07; S.Amdt. 2924 to S.Amdt.. 2011 to H.R.1585, Vote #345, 9/21/07; S.Amdt.2 087 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #252, 7/18/07; S.Amdt. 643 to H.R. 1591, Vote #116, 3/27/07; S.Amdt. 4320 to S. 2766, Vote #182, 6/22/06; S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766, Vote #181, 6/22/06; S.Amdt.. 2519 to S.1042, Vote # 322, 11/15/05]
Senator McCain has consistently demonized Americans who want to find a responsible way to remove troops from Iraq so that we can take the fight to al Qaeda.
McCain: "I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender." [Charlotte Observer, 9/16/07]
McCain called proponents of a congressional resolution opposing the troop surge in Iraq intellectually dishonest. [Associated Press. 2/4/07]
The Future:
Senator McCain now says he sees no end to the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.
McCain: "[M]ake it a hundred" years in Iraq and "that would be fine with me." [Derry, New Hampshire Town Hall meeting, 1/3/08]
McCain on how long troops may remain in Iraq: "A thousand years. A million years. Ten million years. It depends on the arrangement we have with the Iraqi government." [Associated Press, 1/04/08]
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Wisdom bites for 2-5-08 (Super Tuesday)
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill, English Philosopher (1806 - 1873)
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith, American Economist (1908 - 2006)
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith, American Economist (1908 - 2006)
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Is this nation ready?...of course and We Can, Sí Se Puede!
Is this nation ready for a black president? I think it is! And I also think this nation is ready for a woman president. But we will know for sure soon. Below the link to the "We Can"/"Sí Se Puede" Obama '08 video, that is creating sensation all around the nation. Enjoy it as I did!
LeMonton
LeMonton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)