McCain On DADT: ‘I Will Be Glad To Listen To The Views Of Military Leaders’
McCain On DADT: ‘I Will Be Glad To Listen To The Views Of Military Leaders’
In October 2006, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that “the day that the leadership of the military comes to” and says the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy “ought to change,” he would “seriously” consider changing it. In an interview with the Washington Blade in 2008, he said he would “defer to our military commanders” on the issue.
But in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, McCain bristled when the Pentagon’s top military and civilian leaders, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, announced they were in favor of overturning the policy. “I’m happy to say we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to pass a law to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, despite your efforts to repeal it in many respects by fiat,” said McCain.
In an interview on Bill Bennett’s radio show today, McCain claimed “the policy is working” and repeated his opposition to repealing, but claimed that he would “be glad to listen to the views of military leaders”:
MCCAIN: Look, the policy is working. I talk to military all the time. I have a lot of contact with them. The policy is working and the president made a commitment in his campaign that he would reverse it and the president then made the announcement that wants it reversed. And it is a law. It has to be changed. So Admiral Mullen said, speaking for himself only, he thought it ought to be reversed and of course Secretary Gates said that. I do not. I do not know what the other military leadership wants. I know that I have a letter signed by over a thousand retired admirals and generals that said they don’t want it reversed. And so, I will be glad to listen to the views of military leaders. I always have. But I’m not changing my position in support of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unless there is the significant support for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I would remind you that we’re in two wars. You know that and our listeners know that. And do we need, don’t we need a serious assessment of the effect on morale or battle and combat effectiveness before we go forward with a reversal in a campaigning, carrying out an Obama campaign.
Listen here:
On Fox News last night, McCain also said that he was hoping “to get the opinion from our military leadership,’ saying that “If they can show me the evidence that it needs to be changed, obviously, then I would give that serious consideration.” McCain says that he has “respect” for Mullen’s view, but he dismisses it as simply an “individual opinion.”
But McCain has previously said that the “individual opinion” of military leaders for whom he has “respect” influenced his views on military policy. In June 2009, he told Ana Marie Cox that he originally supported the policy because General Colin Powell had “strongly recommended” it and he hadn’t “heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position.” Powell released a statement yesterday saying he now opposes the continuation of DADT because “attitudes and circumstances have changed.”
So basically, McCain is willing to “listen” to military leaders on DADT — he’s just not going to let their expert opinions get in the way of what he already thinks.
Transcript: More »
- Comments
- 142
Senate Republicans Called For Commitment To PAYGO Before Voting Against It
Senate Republicans Called For Commitment To PAYGO Before Voting Against It
Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME)
Today, the Senate followed through, and considering all of the deficit fearmongering that has been going on in Congress, you’d think that it would have passed by a fairly wide margin. But no. Instead, the rules passed on a party line vote of 60-40.
And the blanket Republican opposition is particularly interesting considering that some Senate Republicans used to support PAYGO, even when it was opposed by their own party. For instance, in 2004, three current Senate Republicans — Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — joined 47 Democrats in adopting PAYGO, against the majority Republicans’ wishes (although the rule was ultimately scuttled when Congress failed to pass a budget). The next year, the same three senators were joined by Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) in a failed attempt to implement the rule.
Yet all four of them opposed the rule today. Here’s what they’ve had to say in favor of PAYGO in the past:
VOINOVICH: I just don’t understand how we can continue to go this way. We’re living in a dream world. This deficit continues to grow.
COLLINS: [PAYGO is] much-needed restraint for members of Congress as we wrestle with fiscal decisions.
SNOWE: I believe now is the time for both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to commit to pay-as-you-go rules for both revenues and spending.
Just last year, Snowe approved of Obama’s advocating for PAYGO. And in the last few weeks, all of these Republicans have voiced concerns about the deficit and spending. So what changed? And why did all the supposed deficit hawks in the Senate — like Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) — vote against it as well? Could it be that they’re actually deficit peacocks, who “like to preen and call attention to themselves, but are not sincerely interested” in addressing deficits?
In last night’s address, Obama chided Senate Republicans, saying that “just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together.” They’re not off to a good start.
Cross-posted at The Wonk Room. DJ Carella contributed research to this post.
McCain seen mouthing ‘blame it on Bush’ when Obama outlines the problems he inherited.
McCain seen mouthing ‘blame it on Bush’ when Obama outlines the problems he inherited.
Tonight in his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined steps he plans to take “to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.” However, he first addressed right-wing criticisms that he is overseeing out-of-control spending by noting the situation he faced when he took office:
By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.
The camera then cut to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who leaned over to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and appeared to whisper, “Blame it on Bush.” The two men then laughed. Watch it:
Stating facts is not blaming Bush. A CAP analysis concludes that 41 percent of the source of increased spending in 2009 is attributable to the financial rescues begun by Bush.
AZ Sen. candidate Hayworth panders to birthers: ‘We all had to show our birth certificates’ to ‘play football.’
AZ Sen. candidate Hayworth panders to birthers: ‘We all had to show our birth certificates’ to ‘play football.’
This past weekend, right-wing shock jock and former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth announced he is planning to run against Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for U.S. Senate. In an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball With Chris Matthews this afternoon, Hayworth joined the chorus of far right-wing “birthers” who continue insisting that President Obama may have been born in another country:
MATTHEWS: Are you as far right as the birthers? Are you one of those who believes that the President should have to prove that he’s a citizen of the United States and not an illegal immigrant? Are you that far right?
HAYWORTH: Well, gosh, we all had to bring our birth certificates to show we were who we said we were and we were the age we said we were to play football and youth sports. Shouldn’t we know exactly that anyone who wants to run for public office is a natural born citizen of the United States and is who they say they are? [...]
MATTHEWS: Should the Governor of Hawaii produce evidence that the President is one of us, an American? Do you think that’s a worthy past time for the Governor of Hawaii?
HAYWORTH: No, look…I’m just saying the President should come forward with the information, that’s all. Why should we we depend on the Governor of Hawaii?
Watch it:
However, Obama has in fact, presented a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate that includes a raised seal and the signature stamp of Hawaii state registrar. During the 2008 presidential election, the McCain campaign investigated and dismissed claims that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Nonetheless, stubborn right-wingers have continued incessantly demanding Obama provide a long-form version of his birth certificate. Mother Jones reports that birthers are spending exorbitant amounts in legal fees to pursue this conspiracy.
Right-Wing Fringe Rebels Against Palin Over Her Endorsement Of ‘RINO’ McCain
Right-Wing Fringe Rebels Against Palin Over Her Endorsement Of ‘RINO’ McCain
Since she was picked as Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) running mate, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has been one of the right’s most beloved political figures. But when Palin announced last week that she would campaign for McCain in his reelection primary battle against ultra-conservative former congressman J.D. Hayworth, some of her most vocal supporters were outraged that she would endorse McCain, who they see as a Republican in Name Only (RINO).
On Friday, Paul Streitz, the co-founder of the 2012 Draft Sarah Committee — a group trying to get Palin to run for president in 2012 — sent out an e-mail slamming Palin for supporting McCain:
She has now chose to align herself with several bad actors. What should this be called, the Rinoization of Sarah Palin. [...]
She is certainly entitled to write a book and make money for her and her family, but other than what has she has done to support Republican and patriotic candidates. … Perhaps, Sarah was too busy talking to her agent about her Fox deal. Where the hell was Sarah?
Streitz is no longer involved with the Draft Sarah Committee, which condemned his e-mail, but he is not alone in his view. Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin wrote on her blog that “Tea Party activists are rightly outraged by Sarah Palin’s decision to campaign for McCain, whose entrenched incumbency and progressive views are anathema to the movement.”
On his radio show yesterday, Fox News host Glenn Beck told a caller upset by Palin’s move that “This Sarah Palin thing really bothers me.” “I am absolutely no fan of John McCain,” Beck said. “I want to have another sit down with her. How does she believe he is a good man when everyone in his organization trashed her?”
Thomas Lamb at Red Country called the endorsement Palin’s “political Waterloo.” He added that “by Palin supporting McCain, she is supporting an enemy to [the Tea Party] movement and by de facto, becomes the enemy.” In a post titled “Yes, Sarah Palin is a RINO” on the Christian-right blog RealityCheck, ZbigniewMazurak called McCain “a despicable traitor” and wrote that by endorsing him, “Palin has proven that she IS for sale.” “I was a fan of Palin myself,” he added. “But I’m now convinced that she’s not a conservative, nor is she a politician qualified for the Presidency of the United States. … No real conservative would ever endorse McCain for the Senate.”
Moreover, nearly every comment on Palin’s Facebook post announcing her endorsement of McCain is negative. Some examples:
– Sarah has made it clear that her loyality to a Liberal RINO Duck McCain, is more important then her loyality to the Stability of the country and the Conservative Folk.
– I am so sorry to hear that you are supporting John McCain. He is the ultimate RINO that the Tea Party movement is trying to expose. How can you accept $100k from the Tea Party movement and support John McCain?
– I would NEVER vote for John McCain. Why are you endorsing him, Sarah? I like you, but on this, I must question your motives.
– YOU had my FULL support, but now – NO!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! If you support [McCain] – forget about it!!!!
Will Palin bow to the right-wing fringe and cut and run from the man who plucked her from relative obscurity?
FLASHBACK: Obama Criticized Spending Freeze As ‘Using A Hatchet Where You Need A Scalpel’
FLASHBACK: Obama Criticized Spending Freeze As ‘Using A Hatchet Where You Need A Scalpel’
The Obama administration has announced that in tomorrow’s State of the Union address, President Obama will call for a freeze on non-defense discretionary spending. The freeze — which will keep fiscal year 2012 and 2013 spending at the 2011 level — is designed to save $250 billion over ten years, and will “exempt security-related budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”
So it seems that Sen. Evan Bayh’s (D-IN) estimate that “there’s a fighting chance” of Obama proposing a freeze has been proven correct. Of course, during the Presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proposed a similar spending freeze, which Obama repeatedly condemned as an “example of unfair burden sharing,” and “using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.” Here’s a compilation placed on YouTube yesterday of Obama scoffing at a spending freeze in all three presidential debates:
The administration’s contention is that, unlike McCain’s proposed freeze, this operates more like a spending cap, with some programs’ funding going up and others down. As Matthew Yglesias put it, Obama is “aiming for what you might call a ‘cut and invest’ strategy — slashing certain programs and boosting others. And I think anyone who looks at it would have to admit that there is, in fact, a lot of discretionary spending on programs of little value.”
But still, many economists have blasted the plan for its potentially anti-stimulative effects and its focus on spending that is not the root cause of the country’s long-term deficits. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman wrote that the freeze is “appalling on every level…shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead.” Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said that the freeze “will make it impossible for [Obama] to do much of anything for the middle class that’s important.” U.C. Berkeley economist Brad DeLong added “this is a perfect example of fundamental unseriousness: rather than make proposals that will actually tackle the long-term deficit…come up with a proposal that does short-term harm to the economy without tackling the deficit in any serious and significant way.”
And at its core, Obama’s decision cedes to the right-wing both the idea that blanket cuts are necessary and the notion that cuts should be focused on domestic programs while defense spending goes untouched. And already, the right-wing is claiming the freeze as a victory, with the National Review’s Jim Geraghty writing, “if the arguments in the coming years are between spending freezes and spending cuts, then we’ve already won.”
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
The ‘facts’ of the Christmas Day plot are ‘clear’ — to everyone except John McCain.
The ‘facts’ of the Christmas Day plot are ‘clear’ — to everyone except John McCain.
Today, the Senate Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on the failed Christmas Day bombing. One of the administration officials who testified was National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) asked whether anyone had been “held accountable” for the intelligence lapses, saying that the “facts” of what happened were “clear.” However, McCain’s summary distorted a couple of key facts. When Leiter tried to correct him, McCain became defensive and tried to accuse Leiter of avoiding his question:
McCAIN: I think everybody knows the facts of the Christmas bomber. A person buys a ticket with cash, one-way ticket. His father has already warned the CIA. The series of missteps have taken place, what were — led to this near tragedy. … It’s fairly clear the facts of what happened, isn’t it?
LEITER: Well, actually I think many of the facts are clear. I would correct the record on a couple of points. In fact, the fact is not that he bought a one-way ticket, he bought a round-trip ticket. The fact that he used cash, frankly, is in Africa, completely and utterly —
MCCAIN: That was in Copenhagen, not Africa.
LEITER: No, sir. I believe he bought —
MCCAIN: Did he have someone who facilitated — if you think — if you’re defending –
LEITER: No, sir –
MCCAIN: – that we shouldn’t have found — shouldn’t have been alerted to this individual, sir, then –
LEITER: Then I apologize.
Watch it:
Leiter didn’t need to apologize; he was just trying to get the correct facts on record. The accused Christmas Day bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab, did not have a one-way ticket, but rather paid $2,831 for a round-trip ticket from Nigeria to Detroit via Amsterdam. He “bought his ticket with cash in Ghana eight days before the flight departed Nigeria” — not in Copenhagen, as McCain claimed. (HT: TPMmuckraker)
Flashback: Bush Also Threatened To Withhold Loan Guarantees From Israel
Flashback: Bush Also Threatened To Withhold Loan Guarantees From Israel
This past Wednesday, U.S. Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell — who successfully brokered peace in Northern Ireland — suggested to a PBS host that the United States could “withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel” as one tool to pressure the Israelis to seriously engage in peace efforts.
Mitchell’s remarks have sparked an “uproar” among the Israeli right, which has been intransigent on the issues of settlement expansion and the economic blockade of Gaza. Israel’s Maariv newspaper called Mitchell’s suggestion a “bombshell,” and Israeli finance minister Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz snapped, “We don’t need to use these guarantees. We are doing just fine.” Additionally, “senior members of Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party…[said] in a statement that they would not be ‘threatened’ by the US.”
Meanwhile, a group of legislators — Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), John Barrasso (R-WY), and John Thune (R-SD) — appeared at a press conference in Jerusalem and slammed Mitchell’s openness to using all available tools to forge a Middle East peace:
Lieberman, after saying that an administration official had already disavowed Mitchell’s statement, said that in his opinion “any attempt to pressure Israel, to force Israel to the negotiating table by denying Israel support, will not pass the Congress of the United States. In fact, the Congress will stop any attempt to do that. I don’t think we will come to that point.”
McCain was equally unequivocal, saying that this type of pressure would not be helpful “and I don’t agree with it.” McCain added that he was sure that the administration would make it clear in the future that this was not its policy.
What right-wing critics of Mitchell’s suggestion do not acknowledge is that threatening to freeze loan guarantees is hardly unique to the Obama administration. In fact, the last time such a threat was made was under President George W. Bush. In 2003, Bush made the explicit threat to withhold loan guarantees from the Israelis due to the expansion of their “security fence” deep into Palestinian territory. Bush’s father went even further. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush briefly cut off loan guarantees to the Israeli government over their settlement policies, successfully forcing “Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir…to attend the Madrid Peace Conference.”
As Ori Nir of Americans for Peace Now writes, Mitchell’s “determination deserves support” in his effort to use every option in our diplomatic toolbox to successfully bring about peace in the Middle East. The former senator made peace “in Northern Ireland and he is determined to do it in Israel-Palestine as well.”
Flashback: McCain Refused To Grant 30 Seconds Of Time During Iraq War Debate
Flashback: McCain Refused To Grant 30 Seconds Of Time During Iraq War Debate
Yesterday, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), acting on the orders of the Senate leadership, refused to grant Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) “an additional moment” to continue speaking on the Senate floor after his 10 minutes expired. Franken’s objection caused Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to groan about how Franken’s move was unprofessional, unprecedented, and disrespectful:
McCAIN: I’ve been around here 20-some years. First time I’ve ever seen a member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks. … I just haven’t seen it before myself. And I don’t like it. And I think it harms the comity of the Senate not to allow one of our members at least a minute. I’m sure that time is urgent here, but I doubt that it would be that urgent.
Unfortunately, McCain’s memory is suffering. In fact, McCain has engaged in the very same behavior that he was criticizing Franken for yesterday.
On October 10, 2002 — just ahead of the looming mid-term elections — the Senate rushed a debate on a war authorization giving President Bush the power to use force against Iraq. The resolution ultimately passed the Senate after midnight on an early Friday morning by a vote of 77-23.
During the course of the frenzied floor debate, then-Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) spoke in favor of an amendment offered by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) that would have restricted Bush’s constitutional powers to wage war against Iraq. After a minute and a half, Dayton ran out of time, prompting this exchange:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired.
Mr. DAYTON. I ask for unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds more to finish my remarks.
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
Byrd stepped in to grant Dayton time to finish his remarks. But just moments later, Byrd asked for more time to speak for himself. Again, McCain objected, prompting Byrd to chide him for doing so. “This shows the patience of a Senator,” Byrd said. “This clearly demonstrates that the train is coming down on us like a Mack truck, and we are not even going to consider a few extra minutes for this Senator.”
After being publicly shamed, McCain acquiesced to Byrd’s request. But moments later, McCain added this disclaimer: “I wish to say very briefly that I understand people have a desire to speak. We have a number of Senators who have not spoken on this issue. It is already looking as if we may be here well into this evening. From now on, I will be adhering strictly to the rules.” In other words, he acted just like Franken did yesterday.
McCain Waffles On Support For Stimulus: Goes From ‘Hell No’ To ‘I Don’t Know’
McCain Waffles On Support For Stimulus: Goes From ‘Hell No’ To ‘I Don’t Know’
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) has taken a lot of heat from the right about his embrace of Obama’s stimulus package, fueling a right-wing challenge from former state Speaker Marco Rubio’s (R) in his senatorial campaign.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) came to Crist’s defense yesterday, telling the St. Petersburg Times that, while Rubio is “mounting a serious threat,” he still thinks Crist “will win.” Asked if Crist’s support for the stimulus was a political mistake, McCain dodged the question, saying, “I don’t know.” McCain explained, “I haven’t kept up enough to really know about that. I can’t judge other people.”
But McCain had a much clearer opinion on the stimulus just two weeks ago when he appeared on Don Imus’ radio program:
IMUS: Did you support that bill?
MCCAIN: Hell no.
IMUS: I don’t think you have to swear at me Senator when I’m just asking a…
MCCAIN: I’m not swearing at you. I’m swearing I would’ve had to have been smoking something pretty strong to have voted for that outrageous use of taxpayers’ dollars.
Watch it:
It seems unlikely that McCain wouldn’t “really know about” the politics surrounding Crist’s endorsement of stimulus. The governor was a key early supporter of the plan and helped pitch it at a high-profile February town hall with President Obama in Ft. Myers. Caving to right-wing attacks, Crist has since tried to walk back his support of the measure, telling CNN last month that he never “endorsed” the stimulus. His flip-flop “made headlines all over Florida” and has been, perhaps, the most important issue driving Rubio’s unlikely lead in the Senate race. As the St. Petersburg Times notes, McCain is likely ignoring the facts to defend his “pal” because McCain “won Florida [in the 2008 GOP primary] in part due to Crist’s endorsement.”
Ironically for Crist, he is distancing himself from the stimulus at the same time it is bearing fruit. Approximately 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs have been created or saved nationally through September, according to the CBO. And nearly $7 billion has flowed from the stimulus into Florida, helping to create or save approximately 29,000 jobs. (State officials put the number closer to 47,000.) Meanwhile the nation’s economy grew during the third quarter of 2009, and job losses have slowed from 652,000 in March to only 11,000 in November.
Franken refuses Lieberman’s request to drag on Senate debate. (Updated)
Franken refuses Lieberman’s request to drag on Senate debate. (Updated)
This afternoon, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) spoke for 10 minutes on the Senate floor about a health care amendment he is co-sponsoring. After his 10 minutes expired, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) — the president chair of the Senate at the time — informed Lieberman his time was up. When Lieberman requested “just an additional moment,” Franken retorted, “In my capacity as Senator from Minnesota, I object.” “Really??” a surprised Lieberman said, “don’t take it personally.” Lieberman’s friend, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), flipped out, erupting in anger at Franken’s move:
MCCAIN: I’ve never seen a member denied an extra minute or so, as the chair just did.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): If the chair would yield for that…I think the same thing did occur earlier this afternoon, for reasons which have to do with trying to get this bill going. […]
MCCAIN: I think it harms the comity of the Senate.
Watch it:
McCain Introduces Legislation To Repeal The Financial Disaster Created By His Friend Phil Gramm
McCain Introduces Legislation To Repeal The Financial Disaster Created By His Friend Phil Gramm
Today, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John McCain (R-AZ) introduced legislation to reinstate the firewall between commercial and investment banks. “We need to rebuild the wall of Glass-Steagall so banks will stop diverting resources to Wall Street speculation and get back to more business lending to main street,” Cantwell said.
The legislation puts McCain in an awkward position, given that the firewall that had existed until the late 90s was torn down by his good friend, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX). It was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that allowed financial institutions to abolish all of the significant rules put in place at the time of the Great Depression designed to prevent a repeat.
Gramm was of course McCain’s close economic adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign. McCain said last year that, if elected president, he would “rely on the circle” of friends he had developed over many years, “people like…Phil Gramm.” Gramm was later sidelined as a formal McCain adviser after he said Americans were suffering a “mental recession” and had turned into a “nation of whiners.”
Today, a reporter asked McCain if he had spoken to Gramm about his new legislation:
QUESTION: Senator McCain, your friend and former colleague, Senator Gramm, was the one who spearheaded Gramm-Leach-Bliley — the 1999 law that brought down a lot of these walls.
MCCAIN: Yup.
QUESTION: Have you talked to him about – one of his big accomplishments, maybe the after-effects it has had?
MCCAIN: I’ve talked to Senator Gramm, my old friend Senator Phil Gramm many, many times on many issues. … I’m sure that Senator Gramm probably does not agree with this legislation. It doesn’t change our relationship. We just don’t agree.
Watch it:
The repeal of Glass-Steagall is blamed for helping Wall Street firms grow into the too-big-to-fail institutions that exist now.
Huffington Post reports that reinstituting Glass-Steagall “hasn’t gotten any attention from the Obama administration, which does not attribute the current crisis to the law’s repeal, and dismisses the idea that reinstating it would have any impact on the financial sector.” Obama’s head of the National Economic Council, Lawrence Summers, strongly supported the repeal in 1999. Fed chief Ben Bernanke opposes the Cantwell-McCain legislation.
Hoyer: I’m ‘Disappointed’ In John McCain’s Flip Flop On Climate Change
Hoyer: I’m ‘Disappointed’ In John McCain’s Flip Flop On Climate Change
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called on the U.S. to urgently address climate change, proposing cap and trade legislation and presenting his policies as a break from the backwards views of the Bush administration, which was reluctant to acknowledge the dangers of manmade greenhouse gas emissions. From remarks he made in May 2008:
We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge. … A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. And the highest rewards will go to those who make the smartest, safest, most responsible choices.
Now that McCain isn’t fighting in the general election, however, he’s more than happy to tout the Republican line. He has turned on cap and trade legislation, calling it “cap and tax” and dubbing the American Clean Energy and Security part of a “far left” agenda.
Yesterday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) was at the Center for American Progress Action Fund for a speech on “The Minority in Congress: Loyal Opposition or Deliberate Roadblock?” Afterward, ThinkProgress caught up with him and asked him about McCain’s flip flop. Hoyer expressed his disappointment that the senator hasn’t been able to rise above partisan loyalties and be a “statesman”:
HOYER: Well, I’m very disappointed in that and I’m surprised by it. I think Sen. McCain has an opportunity. As I referenced Sen. Edward Dirksen in the civil rights debates in the ’60s, had an opportunity — took an opportunity — to rise above simply party loyalty to assist in accomplishing national objectives. Clearly, Sen. McCain observed — both in health care and in energy — that national objectives needed to be accomplished. He has not been, however, unfortunately, particularly constructive in engaging with President Obama to accomplish those objectives. And, frankly, where he has differences, to discuss them constructively.
So, I’ve been disappointed and frankly, somewhat surprised, and I would hope that Sen. McCain would see his role as larger than simply the former presidential candidate of his party, but as someone who becomes a statesman in the objective of obtaining legislation and policies that will be good for our country.
Watch it:
McCain says Afghanistan withdrawal has to be tied to ‘success,’ forgets he declared victory years ago.
McCain says Afghanistan withdrawal has to be tied to ‘success,’ forgets he declared victory years ago.
Following President Obama’s speech last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) predictably hit the airwaves. On CBS immediately after the speech, McCain praised the decision to add more troops but said that setting a timetable was wrong because “[s]uccess is what dictates dates for withdrawal.” “If we don’t have that success and we only set an arbitrary date it emboldens our enemies and dispirits our friends,” he added. Watch it:
However, according to McCain, the U.S. achieved “success” in Afghanistan years ago:
- “Could I add, it was in Afghanistan, as well, there were many people who predicted that Afghanistan would not be a success. So far, it’s a remarkable success.” [CNN, 3/2/05]
- “Afghanistan, we don’t read about anymore, because it’s succeeded.” [Charlie Rose Show, 10/31/05]
- “Nobody in Afghanistan threatens the United States of America.” [Hannity & Colmes, 4/10/03]
Since the conditions on the ground clearly had no impact on McCain’s decision to proclaim “victory,” all the President really has to do to achieve victory in Afghanistan, based on McCain’s example, is to just arbitrarily say it. More on the Wonk Room.
Despite Proposing $1.3 Trillion In Medicare Cuts Last Year, McCain Condemns Much Smaller Cuts In Senate Bill
Despite Proposing $1.3 Trillion In Medicare Cuts Last Year, McCain Condemns Much Smaller Cuts In Senate Bill
This afternoon, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the first Republican amendment to the Senate’s health care reform bill. The so-called ‘motion to commit’ would send the legislation back to the Senate Finance Committee and instruct that committee to remove the $491 billion in proposed reductions from Medicare and Medicaid programs:
Madame President, simply put, this motion to commit would be a requirement that we eliminate the half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts that is envisioned by this bill. A half a trillion dollars in cuts that are unspecified as to how, and a half a trillion dollars in cuts that would directly impact the health care of citizens in this country. … All of these are cuts in the obligations that we have assumed and are the rightful benefits that people have earned. … I will eagerly look forward to hearing from the authors of this legislation as to how they can possibly achieve a half a trillion dollars in cuts without impacting existing Medicare programs negatively and eventually lead to rationing of health care in this country. That is what this motion is all about. This motion is to eliminate those unwarranted cuts.
Watch it:
McCain was for far more drastic Medicare cuts before he was against them. In October 2008, the McCain campaign announced that the Senator would pay for his health plan “with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid…in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs.” Those cuts would have reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending by as much as 20% over 10 years and cut into benefits.
In 1997, McCain (along with many Democrats) voted for a series of Medicare cuts as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. That act decreased Medicare spending by 12.7% over 10 years and instituted the kind of payment updates that the Senate bill is now recommending. In 1995, moreover, Republicans sought to cut 14% from projected Medicare spending over seven years and force millions of elderly recipients into managed health care programs or HMOs. As Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich admitted, “We don’t want to get rid of it in round one because we don’t think it’s politically smart,” he said. “But we believe that it’s going to wither on the vine because we think [seniors] are going to leave it voluntarily.”
While Republicans wanted to strip funding from Medicare to ultimately kill the program, Democrats are finding cost savings to extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund and expand the number of seniors eligible for assistance with premiums and co-pays.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
John ‘100 Years’ McCain: Afghanistan Policy Needs Less Focus On ‘An Exit Strategy’
John ‘100 Years’ McCain: Afghanistan Policy Needs Less Focus On ‘An Exit Strategy’
Last night Fox News, host Greta van Susteren asked former GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) what he thought of reports that President Obama plans announce his intention to send 34,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan. McCain said he’s not concerned about how many troops Obama is sending, he just wants to succeed — regardless of whether we have an exit strategy or not:
VAN SUSTEREN: What do you think about that? Is that a decision that — that you think is a wise one or do you want the full 40,000 that was originally requested?
MCCAIN: Well, I’m not so much concerned about the number because I understand that it may be additional allied troops to help out, too. I’d like to look at the overall strategy. I would like to see the emphasis on succeeding, not on an exit strategy.
Greta, the exit strategy takes care of itself once you succeed just as it did in Iraq. But I’d like to hear the whole thing. I hope the president will make the right decision here. And I would like to support him if he does.
Watch it:
At least McCain is consistent; an exit strategy for the war in Iraq has been of little concern to him as well. When running for president, the Arizona senator and fervent Iraq war supporter said he would “be fine with” the U.S. military staying in Iraq for “a hundred years” and later “excitedly declar[ed] that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for ‘a thousand years’ or ‘a million years,’ as far as he was concerned.”
Indeed, as the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss has noted, McCain’s knee-jerk reactions to the crises in Iran last June and in Georgia last October, and now with his “no exit strategy necessary” policy, reminds the U.S. of the bullet it dodged last November by not electing him president.
Obama reportedly plans to announce an exit strategy in the coming days.
McCain urges town hall attendees to cut up their AARP membership cards.
McCain urges town hall attendees to cut up their AARP membership cards.
Last week, the AARP, a nonpartisan organization that advocates on behalf of those aged 50 and over, endorsed the House health care bill. “We can say with confidence that it meets our priorities for protecting Medicare, providing more affordable health insurance for 50- to 64-year-olds and reforming our health care system,” AARP vice president Nancy Leamond said. At a town hall meeting in Arizona on Friday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) vowed to “fight with every fiber of my body” to oppose a similar health care reform bill in the Senate. He then claimed that Medicare will actually be “cut” and reportedly urged the town hall attendees to tear up their AARP membership cards:
The 2,000-page bill would mean more regulation and mandates, he said. People wouldn’t be able to keep the coverage they had. It would also increase taxes and the cost of Medicare, he said.
The bill claims to save $500 billion in waste from Medicare, he said.
“I don’t think so,” McCain said. “I think it’s going to cut it.”
He encouraged audience members to cut up their AARP cards and send them back.
McCain dodges when asked if Cheney is ‘helping or hurting’ the GOP.
McCain dodges when asked if Cheney is ‘helping or hurting’ the GOP.
Yesterday on CBS’ Face the Nation, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — a frequent face on the Sunday show circuit — joined conservatives George Will and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in denouncing former Vice President Cheney’s recent statement that President Obama is “dithering” on Afghanistan. “I wouldn’t use that language,” McCain said. But later in the segment, host Bob Schieffer asked if Cheney is “helping or hurting” the Republican Party with such comments. While noting that the former Vice President has the right to speak out, McCain dodged the question:
McCAIN: I think we should as much as possible say — and our message is, we want this strategy and we want to support the president and unite the country behind it. Let’s face it. The president, when he makes his decision — and again, I believe that he will– will have trouble with the base of his own party. And so the more united we can be behind him, I think the more the chances are of success and American public support.
“I don’t believe I heard you say whether you thought that was helpful or unhelpful,” Schieffer noted. “I don’t know. I would leave that to others to judge, really,” McCain again dodged. Watch it:
On ABC’s This Week, Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta said, “I think if Cheney is the voice of the opposition, that’s fine. I think he has the least credibility. Almost every strategic piece of advice he gave the president was wrong. I think President Bush stopped listening to him by the end of the administration. So if that’s what the Republican Party has decided — that they want to have him as their most outspoken critic of the administration — I think President Obama ought to welcome that.”
John McCain — ‘Tech Troglodyte’ And Top Recipient Of Telecom Cash — Unveils Bill To Block Net Neutrality
John McCain — ‘Tech Troglodyte’ And Top Recipient Of Telecom Cash — Unveils Bill To Block Net Neutrality
On Thursday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) became the Republican Party’s lead man on technology issues (and probably made Glenn Beck a happy man) by introducing the “Internet Freedom Act.” The legislation would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from making sure that Internet service providers don’t create a pay-for-play system where they could selectively block or slow content and applications. McCain called these net neutrality rules a “government takeover of the Internet.” From his press release:
This government takeover of the Internet will stifle innovation, in turn slowing our economic turnaround and further depressing an already anemic job market. Outside of health care, the technology industry is the nation’s fastest growing job market. Innovation and job growth in this sector of our economy is the key to America’s future prosperity. In 2008, while most industries were slashing jobs in the worst economy in nearly 30 years, high tech industries actually added over 77,000 good high-paying jobs. Just this month, Google and Yahoo both released positive earnings reports.
First of all, it’s ironic that McCain cites Google and Yahoo as examples of why net neutrality rules need to be blocked. In fact, both companies have said that without such measures, the “longstanding openness of the Internet” will be threatened. From a letter they wrote to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in 2006:
Until FCC decisions made last summer, consumers’ ability to choose the content and services they want via their broadband connections was assured by regulatory safeguards. … This “innovation without permission” has fueled phenomenal economic growth, productivity gains, and global leadership for our nation’s high tech companies.
To preserve this environment, we urge the Committee to include language that directly addresses broadband network operators’ ability to manipulate what consumers will see and do online.
However, telecoms largely support blocking net neutrality rules, and McCain is a long-time friend of these businesses. McCain was the top recipient of campaign contributions from the telecom industry, taking in $894,379 in the past two years.
Even as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee from 1997 to 2001 and again from 2003 to 2005, McCain made sure to craft technology rules that benefited his campaign donors. He opposed a program designed to provide discounts to schools and libraries to connect to the Internet and supported large telecom mergers.
Of course, the GOP point man on technology issues is someone who, just last year, called himself a computer “illiterate who has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get.” In July 2008, he said he has “never felt the particular need to e-mail.” As former FCC chairman Reed Hundt has explained, “Basically, John is a technological troglodyte, and proud of it” — and we’re now supposed to trust him to shape the way we use the Internet.
Telecoms, Internet service providers -- they already have a kind of monopoly. The idea here [with net neturality] is to prevent them from abusing that monopoly. ... They want freedom all right. They want to find new ways to charge us more money. [...]Whenever there's a fight on the Internet, it's always good to side with the geeks who built the Internet, rather than the fat-cat telecom lobbyists.
McCain To Make His 15th Appearance On A Sunday Show This Year
McCain To Make His 15th Appearance On A Sunday Show This Year
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been booked for yet another Sunday talk show appearance this weekend — this time on CBS’ Face The Nation. Despite a “wildly unsuccessful presidential campaign” last year and his comparative irrelevancy in the U.S. Senate, this will mark the 15th time McCain has appeared on a Sunday talk show since January.
The Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen and Media Matters’ Jamison Foser have previously expressed confusion about McCain’s popularity on the Sunday show circuit:
Foser: “John McCain is not president, he chairs no Senate committees, he represents two percent of the U.S. population, he lacks a strong constituency even among his own party — a party that is pretty widely disliked and has taken a thumpin’ in two straight elections. He is not playing a central, or even peripheral role in the health care debate. And yet he’s on television all the time.”
Benen: “But it’s the Sunday shows’ obsession with McCain that continues to be so absurd. … McCain isn’t playing a role in any important negotiations; he hasn’t unveiled any significant pieces of legislation; he isn’t being targeted as a swing vote on any major bills; and he’s not a member of the GOP leadership. He’s just another far-right senator, with precious little to say that couldn’t have been predicted in advance. Indeed, we already know exactly what he’s going to say this week.”
Two weeks ago, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos justified booking McCain on This Week arguing that he “is the leading GOP voice on Afghanistan.” Yet McCain has consistently been off the mark when in comes to the war there. In fact, during McCain’s last Sunday appearance discussing Afghanistan, he dodged questions of the role the war in Iraq — a war he fervently supported and much of which he was also wrong about — in the deteriorating situation there.
Foser has noted that when Al Gore and John Kerry lost their presidential bids, “the media had a clear message for them: Get out of the way and let George W. Bush govern.” In fact, Kerry appeared on just three Sunday talk shows in the first eight months of President Bush’s second term.
It appears that the Beltway media are just still in love with their maverick pal John McCain.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll