Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC)
By on Apr 27th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC)
begins backing down from his opposition to federally funding a 9/11 memorial in Pennsylvania, under intense public criticism.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Way to go guys.
April 27th, 2006 at 12:10 pmLol backing down from an unpopular position, so much for not flip flopping. I thought republicans didn’t rule by polls?
April 27th, 2006 at 12:14 pmTaylor’s excuse for opposing the memorial was that the U.S. Goverment already owns too much land. So he opposes a MEMORIAL?! For real HEROES? What a maroon!
April 27th, 2006 at 12:51 pmFamily members say they can show why about 1,200 acres are needed for access to the site and to show the drama of an airplane slamming into the earth at more then 500 mph.
They want 1200 Acres for a memorial site. Hey I’m all for a memorial but that’s one heck of memorial site. Kinda blows ground zero out of the water, Vietnam memorial, WWII memorial etc.
April 27th, 2006 at 12:56 pm1,200 acres isn’t much at all. Pres. Bush recently gave the timber industry the rights to begin logging and roadbuilding on 60,000,000 acres of national forest land.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:05 pmNO! Keep him up there and yelling, it will only help us defeat him here in North Carolina!
Help us defeat one of the most corrupt and unsavory figures in the American Congress – support Heath Shuler any way you can!
Heath stands the best chance of defeating this awful, arrogant Mr. Taylor. He can appeal to moderates and NASCAR dads in this mixed district, It is mostly conservative except for the wonderful progressive window of Asheville.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:09 pm1,200 acres isn’t much at all.
From Thinkprogress:
- The $592 million new US Embassy in Baghdad rivals the Vatican City in size (US embassy is 104 acres, about 80 football fields; Vatican City is 109 acres).
We need a memorial over 11 times the size of the Vatican for one of the planes? Yes I will agree they were heroes, but then I want memorials that size for all of America’s heroes.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:13 pmThis proves that public pressure works. Rep. Taylor had better heed and give the families of those heroes some respect and an apology for all the agony he put them through.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:16 pmWhat in the world does this have to do with the size of the Vatican??
April 27th, 2006 at 1:35 pmSorry, doesn’t happen often, but I am with Tundra on this one 1,200 acres is a lot of property. My grandpa owns an 80 acre farm in OK and that is plenty big enough to put a memorial and a parking lot on. WHy the hell does it need to be 1,200 acres.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:50 pmSorry, but this memorial crap is going to extremes. No memorial is needed….let’s spend the money on body armor, or PTSD treatment, or a some new legs for a few vets, or how about not BORROWING ANY MONEY for this or substitute expenditures.
Let the families buy a rock if they want a memorial.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:50 pmAnother comment sure to piss some folks off. “for Real Heros?” Real heros my ass. They were passengers trying to save their own asses. Good on them. I am glad they did, but trying to save your own ass doesn’t make you a hero. Overblown reaction to a true tragedy.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:55 pmMy heart goes out to the relatives of those who died in the crash, I feel sorry for them and all the sympathy in the world goes to them.
Having said that, 1200 acres is a lot of land… and why does everyone feel the need to memorialise everything? Don’t get me wrong -every untimely death is a tragedy; but we are gettingto the point where we are cheapening memorials: A “memorial” stretch of a highway, a “memorial” community children’s play ground, a “memorial” tree, etc… geess… is it because we lack people to look up to that we build memorials for everyone?
I am with Spudge_Boy and Tundra on this one.
April 27th, 2006 at 2:19 pmThe Vietnam memorial was created by 8.4 million raised by private people and takes 2 acres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Memorial
I sort of understand his plight to stop this.
April 27th, 2006 at 2:21 pmAs long as its not going to be that stupid cresent design from a few months ago, I’m for whatever is decided on.
April 27th, 2006 at 2:36 pmWhat in the world does this have to do with the size of the Vatican??
The exact same thing as the amount of timber logging in national forests.
April 27th, 2006 at 2:38 pm#13, Gregor Samsa
April 27th, 2006 at 3:19 pmWell said, and I am in total agreement with you SpudgeBoy and Tundra.
This time, this is way out all perspective. Tundra makes a good point about the VN Memorial.
What are they planning on memorializing? There was NO plane that crashed in PA. Just like the “phantom” plane that hit the pentagon. I’m sorry to raise the conspiracy factor, but a twenty foot hole in the ground filled with scrap metal is not the wreckage of a passenger plane. Why were NO bodies found?
April 27th, 2006 at 3:30 pmhehe we have left, right and center thinking this isn’t such a hot idea but noone of our representatives agree with this one LOL
April 27th, 2006 at 5:14 pmI hardly think this is the right thing to take the stance that Mr. Taylor wanted to do. It’s too sensitive of a subject to decide that the federal government already owns too much land.
As for the size, it is quite large, but didn’t they find some things from the wreckage quite a distance from where the plane hit the ground? Perhaps they are including all the area where the plane came down, and that accounts for the size (I admit I’ve read nothing about the details).
I believe there should be a memorial there because those forty people deserve to be remembered for being the heroes that they were. Knowing what was likely to happen to them if they didn’t do anything, they chose to try to stop the hijackers and as a direct result of their efforts, lives on the ground and at the intended target were saved. Surprising as this is, Oliver North said something that I agreed with completely (it never happened before and hasn’t since): Because of what those passengers did, no other terrorist will ever get away with a plan like that one again. I agree. They certainly wouldn’t on any plane that I was on.
I feel our nation owes a debt of gratitude to those passengers. They exhibited as much heroism as any fallen soldier from any of our nation’s wars. They deserved to be remembered.
April 27th, 2006 at 6:43 pmI, for once, have to agree with Tundra also. We have been complaining about pork for quite awhile now and this is some prime rib. A 1200 acre, $60 mil memorial? How many hundreds of thousands of dollers is that for every passenger? It is ridiculous. I think the families already have a memorial in their memories and in the mementos of their loved ones. I don’t see how spending that astounding amount of money for a glorified grave marker helps anyone.
April 27th, 2006 at 7:16 pmWayne,
I might agree with you that those passengers deserve to be remembered. But using 1,200 acres, at the tune of $60M seems a little excessive to me. Wait, make that obscenely excessive.
Why spend so much time, energy, money on the dead, when we have so many living to worry about?
I will risk sounding insensitive -but this is pork at its very best. I am not against a memorial, it’s just that this one is out of proportion. The USS Arizona memorial, and the WWII memorial combined are a fraction of the size.
April 27th, 2006 at 8:22 pm#22 Gregor,
I hope people think there should be more than just one of those roadside historical marker signs. As for the size, perhaps it is to accomodate the size of the debris field. There is disagreement over exactly why the plane crashed (though I’m sure the movie will gloss over the inconsistencies.)
I don’t see it as pork, but more as a tribute to a brave group of civilians who accepted a suicide mission when they decided to storm the cockpit (there was, realistically, very little hope of landing the plane safely even if they did subdue the hijackers) and, as a result, saved countless lives at the intended target site. We honor our fallen soldiers for their sacrifices with something less than this memorial, but those soldiers knew when they took the job that their fate was a possibility, even the ones at Pearl Harbor who enlisted during peacetime. The passengers of Flight 93 did not enlist in the Armed Forces, but they still volunteered to sacrifice themselves to save their fellow citizens. I believe that a fitting memorial to them will help inspire others to show that kind of bravery. This moment was unique in our history. I think the tribute should be the same. That’s just how I feel, but I respect everyone else’s right to disagree.
April 28th, 2006 at 7:49 am