ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “John McCain

Security

McCain Says He’s Opposing Hagel Because Hagel Was Mean To Bush

McCain and Hagel in 2004

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told us how he really feels about Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel on Fox News this afternoon, saying “people don’t forget” when you cross your own party.

Speaking to Fox News host Neil Cavuto, McCain said that he still believed that Hagel would get the votes required to be confirmed. What followed was the clearest indication yet that he’s still bitter that Hagel turned against the Iraq War:

McCAIN: But to be honest with you, Neil, it goes back to there’s a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly and say he was the worst President since Herbert Hoover and said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War, which was nonsense. He was anti-his own party and people — people don’t forget that. You can disagree but if you’re disagreeable, then people don’t forget that.

Watch McCain’s statements here:

McCain had just voted “no” on the bid to end debate on Hagel’s nomination, supporting the Republican filibuster. Just days ago, McCain insisted that he would do no such thing, and is currently claiming that he’ll vote to break the filibuster following the Senate’s President’s Day recess ten days from now.

The two, formerly close friends, faced off during Hagel’s confirmation hearing over the success of the 2007 surge in Iraq, highlighting McCain’s lingering frustrations with the former Republican Senator from Nebraska. That frustration is shared among many of Hagel’s other opponents, including the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, forming the backbone of neoconservative opposition to his confirmation. McCain is right, however, that once the filibuster breaks Hagel is still set to be confirmed in an up-or-down vote.

Security

BREAKING: Senate Republicans Make History, First To Filibuster Defense Secretary Nominee


Senate Republicans today chose to uphold a filibuster against Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel, despite many of them previously pledging that they would be willing to allow him to be confirmed.

Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and John Cornyn (R-TX) all voted against cloture, despite their pleas during the Bush administration that a president’s Cabinet nominees should receive an up-or-down vote.

Four Republicans, Sens. Thad Cochran (R-MS), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mike Johanns (R-NE), voted to break the filibuster. The final vote was 58-40, with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) voting present, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) not voting at all, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) voting “no” as a procedural move so that he can bring another vote to the floor at a later date.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had originally scheduled the cloture vote for tomorrow morning, but surprised many by pushing it up to this afternoon. Earlier today, Reid took to the Senate floor to lambaste his Republican colleagues for delaying an up-or-down vote on Hagel, the first filibuster of a Secretary of Defense nominee.

Prior to the roll call’s beginning, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) attempted to explain that the vote that was set to take place was the vote “to confirm Chuck Hagel,” rather than merely being a procedural vote. Inhofe also claimed that a 60-vote margin was common practice, rendering the actions of the Republicans not a filibuster. However, the motion was still filed by Reid as cloture — the ending of debate — rather than the actual confirmation of Hagel, as laid out be Levin before voting. This leaves the door open for Hagel’s nomination to remain on the Senate floor and renders the GOP’s actions a filibuster under the Senate’s rules.

While Senate Republicans are opposed to voting on Hagel today, they seem to believe that they’ll change their minds after the Senate returns from its President’s Day recess in 10 days. This morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that he expected to be willing to move Hagel forward at that time, “unless there’s some bombshell that he likes blood sucking vampires.” Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and John McCain (R-AZ) said roughly the same thing today, leaving their votes against Hagel today confusing.

The hope for such a bombshell emerging seems far less than likely. A speech given by Hagel in 2008 that conservatives have long-sought as evidence that Hagel falls far outside of the mainstream was released today, turning out to be a dud. Likewise right-wing implications that Hagel was secretly being backed by a group called “Friends of Hamas” also proved to be utterly false, fabricated on a far-right media outlet.

After today’s filibuster, the Senate will reconsider Hagel after their break. While today’s vote showed that the GOP was willing to obstruct and delay, they ultimately will be unable to do this forever. In the end, Hagel still possesses more than the majority vote needed for final passage.

Security

‘Senator Cruz Has Gone Over The Line’: Colleagues Slam Ted Cruz For Irresponsible Rhetoric On Hagel

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) criticized Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) during an Senate Armed Services Committee meeting today on Chuck Hagel’s Defense Secretary nomination for suggesting that Hagel is being influenced financially by foreign countries.

During the meeting, Cruz objected to moving forward with Hagel’s nomination, saying — without offering any evidence — that the former Republican senator may have received money directly from countries like North Korea and Saudi Arabia.

“This Senator feels like that Senator Cruz has gone over the line,” Nelson shot back at Cruz. “He basically has impugned the patriotism of the nominee.” The Florida Democrat continued:

NELSON: In your conclusions which you are entitled to come to about him in essence about him being cozy with Iran. And you have also stated your opinion that you don’t think he has been truthful with this committee. Now those are two fairly strong statements. And I couldn’t help but having had the privilage of serving on this committee for a while, and seeing the two former chairman on either side of the nominee and I looked at the former Repubican chairman John Warner’s face as some of the questions were asked as he visibly winced. There’s a certain degree of comity and civility that this committee has always been known for. And clearly in the sharpness difference of opinion to question in essence whether somebody is a fellow traveler with another country I think is taking it too far.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) piled on: “I just want to make it clear. Senator Hagel is an honorable man. He has served his country and no one on this committee at any time should impugn his character or his integrity,” he said. Watch the clip:

Justice

Not Bought And Paid For: 10 Senators Who Are Bucking The NRA On Guns

While top House and Senate recipients of National Rifle Association’s NRA Political Victory Fund PAC have mostly towed the line organization’s extreme opposition to any gun violence prevention measures, ten Senators who have received heavy financial backing from the NRA have bucked the group in light of the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Ten Senators have received more than $10,000 from the NRA’s political action committee over their Congressional careers, yet have at least expressed an openness to some new common-sense gun laws. They include:

1. SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ) — AT LEAST $33,200


McCain said last month that while he would not support bans on assault weapons or high capacity magazines, he was open to expanding background checks: “If there are improvements that need to be made, as I said, to keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals, I’m sure all Americans, including the NRA, would agree with them, I would think.”

2. SEN. PAT TOOMEY (R-PA) — AT LEAST $27,250


Toomey said last month: “Second Amendment rights are important to many Pennsylvanians and must be protected, but there may be areas of agreement with the White House that can be addressed to improve public safety.” Reports suggest he is also open to stricter background checks.

3. SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT) — AT LEAST $27,250


Baucus indicated in December that he was open to a discussion of an assault weapons ban. In January, his office said he is still undecided on expanding background checks.

4. SEN. DEAN HELLER (R-NV) — AT LEAST $21,350


Last week, Heller endorsed expanded background checks, saying: “I think it’s a reasonable step forward.”

5. SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV) — AT LEAST $19,900


Last week, Reid expressed support for expanding background checks and said
gun-magazine limits were “definitely something we have to take a look at.” He also promised to use his position as Senate Majority Leader to bring gun violence prevention measures to the Senate floor.

6. SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ) — AT LEAST $18,400


Last week, Flake reiterated his support for expanded background checks, saying: “All of us, Republicans and Democrats, have recognized that we need more effective and broader background checks than we have in the past.”

7. SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK) — AT LEAST $17,850


Coburn is part of a bipartisan group of four Senators working to tighten background checks. He noted that “the whole goal is to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals.”

8. SEN. TIM JOHNSON (D-SD) — AT LEAST $16,250


Johnson said last month at a press conference that “one size doesn’t fit all” states for gun laws, but agreed that clip size makes some difference in preventing mass shootings and that a package of approaches should be considered. He has indicated a willingness to expand background checks as well.

9. SEN. JOE DONNELLY (D-IN) — AT LEAST $13,900


Donnelly said last month: “In 2007, just weeks after 32 people at Virginia Tech were murdered by a single gunman, Democrats and Republicans came together to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is used to check the backgrounds of most prospective gun buyers. That system still does not work as well as it should and should be examined again in the coming weeks.”

10. SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV) — AT LEAST $11,450


Manchin said last month that expanded background checks are “common sense,” asking, “Why would a legitimate gun retail shop have to go through that, but then the unfair advantage for someone at a gun show doesn’t?” In the days after Sandy Hook, Manchin was among the first to call for new action on gun violence. Like Sen. Coburn, Manchin is part of the bipartisan quartet crafting a background check proposal.

While these Senators may not receive future contribution checks from the NRA PAC, they really have little to worry about politically as a result of standing up for common-sense measures. Even most NRA members differ with the hard-line national leadership and support background checks. Last year’s elections revealed the NRA to be the paper tiger that it is: an analysis of the NRA’s spending revealed that “NRA contributions to candidates have virtually no impact on the outcome of Congressional races.” Recent polling suggests voters are more likely to punish a candidate for having NRA backing than to reward allegiance to the gun lobby.

Economy

McCain Says He’ll Consider New Revenues To Offset Sequester Cuts

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would consider new revenues to offset sequester cuts, breaking from Republican leaders who have taken new taxes off the table. 

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, McCain took “responsibility” for the GOP’s role in creating the “new cliff” of the sequester, but insisted that Congress must act to prevent cuts to military spending. He admitted that new revenue could be part of the conversation to avoid reductions to defense:

MCCAIN: I don’t want to see taxes increased, but what I would like to see is the president call the leaders over to the White House and say, “Look, we have to solve the problem, the sequestration… We are — Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the new cliff and I’ll take responsibility for it for the Republicans, but we have got to avoid it. We have to stop it.

CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): The president says — the price of that is more taxes.

MCCAIN: The President is the same person who during the campaign said it will not happen. remember that? He dismissed it and a lot of us — Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte traveled around the country warning about what will happen as a result of sequestration… The consequences are severe and it requires bipartisanship and, will I look at revenue closers? Maybe so, but we have raised taxes. Why do we have to raise taxes again?

The sequester will have a devastating impact on already underfunded programs like early childhood education, health research, and law enforcement.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) who had agreed to a deal that included $1 trillion in revenue, has portrayed the fiscal cliff deal as “the last word” on taxes, since it included $600 billion in revenue. However, the deficit reduction achieved since 2011 has still overwhelmingly favored spending cuts to tax increases, meaning that any budget deal going forward should include new revenue in order to be truly balanced.

Politics

McCain Goes After Conservative Opponents Of Immigration Reform: ‘What Do You Want To Do?’

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) responded to critics of the bipartisan immigration principles developed by eight senators and pushed back against conservatives who argue that undocumented immigrants should not be granted a legal status until the borders are completely secure.

Under the bipartisan agreement, unauthorized immigrants who pass a background check can qualify for probationary status as soon as reform becomes law, but can only achieve permanent legal status (and eventual citizenship) once the borders are certified as secure by the Department of Homeland Security. McCain explained that the principles he helped develop are fair and would require immigrants to pay substantial fines and back taxes if they want to attain legal status:

CHRIS WALLACE (HOST): Under your plan, though [undocumented immigrants] wouldn’t get the path to citizenship until you got the border enforcement certification, they would almost immediately gate what is called “probationary legal status” which means they can continue to live in this country legally. Some of your critics on the right are saying that is amnesty.

McCAIN: Well, I don’t think it is amnesty to start with. Second of all, what do you want to do with them? That is the question in response and third of all, it is a tough path to citizenship, you have to pay back tax and learn English and have to have a clear record and get to the back of the line behind to the people who have come here legally or waiting legally. So, i just reject that.

Conservative pundits like Laura Ingraham and Charles Krauthammer, and conservative members of the House have led the charge in demanding that the borders be secured before unauthorized immigrants can come out of the shadows and work legally. However, as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) — on of the leaders of the group of eigh — explained, doing so would only encourage a rush of immigration, as more will try to come into the country under the deadline.

Security

Hagel Takes On McCain: Calls Iraq War ‘Most Fundamentally Bad, Dangerous Decision Since Vietnam’

(Photo: AP)

The confirmation hearing of former Sen. Chuck Hagel to take on the role of Secretary of Defense — already sure to be testy — heated up with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) pointedly asking Hagel to justify his stance on the Iraq War.

McCain, an ardent supporter of the Iraq War from the start, began his questioning of Hagel by asking about the latter’s past statements regarding the so-called “surge” of forces into Iraq in 2007. Hagel, by then a vocal critic of the war, came out strongly against adding additional troops to the conflict soon after the policy’s announcement — just like President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had — calling it “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”

Hagel didn’t back away from previous statements, saying “Senator, I stand by them, because I made them.” When McCain continued to push Hagel, refusing to allow him to offer a nuanced response to the question of the surge, the Nebraska Republican shot back, noting that the surge tactic took place in the wider context of the most “dangerous decision since Vietnam”:

MCCAIN: Are you going to answer the question? Were you right or wrong? That’s a straightforward question. Answer whether you are right or wrong and then you are free to elaborate.

HAGEL: I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer.

MCCAIN: Let the record show he refuses to answer the question. Please go ahead.

[...]

HAGEL: I’m not going to give you a yes or no. It’s far more complicated than that. I will defer that judgment to history. As to the comment I made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since Vietnam, that was about not just the surge, but the overall war of choice going into Iraq. That particular decision made on the surge, but more to the point, our war in Iraq, I think was the most fundamentally bad, dangerous decision since Vietnam.

Watch their exchange here:

“Aside from the cost that occurred to blood and treasure, what that did to take our focus off of Afghanistan, which in fact was the original and real focus of the national threat to this country. Iraq was not. I always tried to frame all of the different issues before I made a decision on anything,” Hagel continued. Hagel’s response is a continuation of his previous assertions that the war in Iraq is one of the “great blunders” of American history.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) picked up on Hagel’s critique in his questioning, referring to Iraq as a war that never should have taken place. “I always ask the question is this going to be worth the sacrifice, because there will be sacrifice,” Hagel said in response. “In the surge in Iraq, we lost almost 1200 dead Americans and thousands of wounded. Was it required? Was it necessary?” Over four thousand Americans total lost their lives during the Iraq War.
Read more

LGBT

McCain Compares Same-Sex Couples To Abortions

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) dismissed questions about same-sex families during a discussion about immigration reform on Wednesday morning, saying that questions about whether or not protections should be extended to binational gay and lesbian couples represent a “red herring.”

The United States is home to at least 28,500 same-sex couples in which one partner is a citizen and the other is not, but federal law does not recognize these relationships and prohibits gay and lesbian couples from seeking visas on the basis of same-sex unions. The Obama administration’s framework would allow couples to apply for visas on the basis of their permanent unions, while the bipartisan senate principles do not.

“I think it is a red herring. I think then, do we want to guarantee a tax payer free abortion?” McCain asked in response to a question about the provision from Politico’s Mike Allen. “I’m telling you now, if you love this up with social issues and things that are controversial, the it will endanger the issue. ”

He added, “I’ll be glad to talk about, discuss it, what the ramifications are, but if someone does that as the most important aspect of comprehensive immigration reform, then we just have a fundamental disagreement.” “Which is more important, LGBT or border security?” McCain finally said.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a member of the bipartisan group of Senators who are pushing for immigration reform, said that lawmakers must agree to a broad framework before tackling the equality amendment.

LGBT

Obama’s Immigration Plan Protects Binational Same-Sex Families

On Tuesday, President Obama unveiled a comprehensive plan for immigration reform based on four tenets: continuing to strengthen border security, cracking down on employers hiring undocumented workers, creating pathways to earned citizenship, and streamlining legal immigration.

Speaking in Nevada, Obama said that the bi-partisan enthusiasm in the Senate is “very encouraging,” and offered a plan that closely resembles the framework outlined by a bipartisan group of eight senators. ”So at this moment, it looks like there’s a genuine desire to get this done soon,” Obama said. “The ideas I’m proposing have traditionally been supported by both Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Republicans like President George W. Bush.”

Obama’s proposal shares common ground with the bipartisan framework, but also goes further, specifically permitting binational same-sex couples to apply for legal residency. From the administration’s fact sheet:

The proposal seeks to eliminate existing backlogs in the family-sponsored immigration system by recapturing unused visas and temporarily increasing annual visa numbers.  The proposal also raises existing annual country caps from 7 percent to 15 percent for the family-sponsored immigration system.   It also treats same-sex families as families by giving U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the ability to seek a visa on the basis of a permanent relationship with a same-sex partner. The proposal also revises current unlawful presence bars and provides broader discretion to waive bars in cases of hardship.

Under current law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents the government from recognizing the marriage of same-sex couples in which one partner is a U.S. citizen and the other is not. As a result, couples cannot petition for citizenship and are often separated by deportation, at great costs both emotionally and financially to their families.

Republican senators who are considering immigration reform generally oppose the amendment, however. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has said that protecting same-sex families is “not of paramount importance” and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called their inclusion a mistake, adding, “Why don’t we just put legalized abortion in there and round it all out.”

Update

McCain offered the following statement in response to Obama’s speech: “I appreciate the President’s support for our bipartisan effort on comprehensive immigration reform. While there are some differences in our approaches to this issue, we share the belief that any reform must recognize America as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. We should all agree that border security and enforcement is particularly important in order to ensure that we don’t repeat the mistakes of the 1986 immigration reform.”

LGBT

McCain: Binational Same-Sex Couples Are ‘Not Of Paramount Importance’ To Immigration Reform

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — one of the architects of the bipartisan Senate plan to reform the immigration system — told CBS on Tuesday morning that including binational gay and lesbian couples whose relationships are currently not recognized by the federal government in the proposed legalization process is a “red flag” that is “not of paramount importance.”

Responding to a BuzzFeed report that President Obama will incorporate same-sex couples with one American citizen and one foreign partner in the administration’s principles for reform, McCain promised to consider the amendment and “gauge how the majority of Congress feels.” “We need to get broad consensus over on our proposal to start with,” McCain added, “and there are a number of very difficult issues we have to resolve.” Watch it:

During a conference call with LGBT groups on Sunday afternoon, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Dick Durbin (D-IL) claimed that the inclusive LGBT language was not included due to Republican opposition, but added that Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (D-VT) “will offer an amendment in his committee to protect gay couples.”

In a statement released on Monday, Immigration Equality — the group lobbying on behalf of the measure — expressed disappointment that it was left out of the Senate principles and promised to “work non-stop to make sure our families are part of comprehensive immigration reform legislation when it is introduced.” There are “at least 28,500 same-sex couples in the United States in which one partner is a U.S. citizen and the other is not, and 11,500 same-sex couples where neither partner is a U.S. citizen,” the Williams Institute estimates.

Addressing another sticking point — the role a new commission of Southwest governors and lawmakers will play in approving security along the border and triggering the pathway to legalization– McCain said that border state governors and other experts “will make recommendations” but “the final decision will be made by the Secretary of Homeland Security.” The answer pits McCain against Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), another sponsor of the immigration framework, who wants to beef up the role of the commission.

Update

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is rejecting the same-sex couples amendment:


Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up