PDA

View Full Version : What will McCain do in the WH that he has a demonstrated record of in the Senate


jAZ
04-07-2008, 11:00 PM
There are a lot of things that he's now claiming that he'll do that are at odds with his record. What's left?

wazu
04-07-2008, 11:05 PM
WTF are you talking about?

SBK
04-07-2008, 11:48 PM
He'll screw his party more than his wife?

jAZ
04-07-2008, 11:55 PM
WTF are you talking about?
In the Senate, McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts as irresponsible during a time of war. He's now claiming support for the tax cuts.

In the Senate, he opposed torture unequivically. He's now waffling on that.

He's voted repreatedly against funding for vet services. He's now saying he'll expand them.

Border/Immigration?

What did he support (or oppose) in the Senate that you expect he is continuing to support (or oppose) on the campaign trail... and which you ultimately expect he will support (or oppose) when in office?

wazu
04-08-2008, 12:11 AM
In the Senate, McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts as irresponsible during a time of war. He's now claiming support for the tax cuts.

In the Senate, he opposed torture unequivically. He's now waffling on that.

He's voted repreatedly against funding for vet services. He's now saying he'll expand them.

Border/Immigration?

What did he support (or oppose) in the Senate that you expect he is continuing to support (or oppose) on the campaign trail... and which you ultimately expect he will support (or oppose) when in office?

First of all, it's doubtful I'll vote for the man because of his imperialistic views of American foreign policy, but regarding what you have posted here, it all comes down to simple choices between him and Democrat opponents:

Point 1, Taxes: I'd say he's less likely to sign a tax hike than Obama and Hillary.

Point 2, Torture: Most Americans aren't as tender-hearted as McCain when it comes to this issue, but I suspect that most are like myself, and will yield to somebody who really knows a thing or two about it. In any case there is no way on earth the Democrats want to challenge McCain on the torture issue.

Point 3, Vet Services: Don't know what you are referring to, but I'll take your word for it. Okay, this loses him a couple of hundred votes.

Point 4, Immigration: I don't hear him backing off much on this, other than to say that he will secure the borders first. Regardless, there can be no doubt that however weak he is in this area, he's stronger than any Democrat on the issue.

jAZ
04-08-2008, 12:16 AM
First of all, it's doubtful I'll vote for the man because of his imperialistic views of American foreign policy, but regarding what you have posted here, it all comes down to simple choices between him and Democrat opponents:

Point 1, Taxes: I'd say he's less likely to sign a tax hike than Obama and Hillary.

Point 2, Torture: Most Americans aren't as tender-hearted as McCain when it comes to this issue, but I suspect that most are like myself, and will yield to somebody who really knows a thing or two about it. In any case there is no way on earth the Democrats want to challenge McCain on the torture issue.

Point 3, Vet Services: Don't know what you are referring to, but I'll take your word for it. Okay, this loses him a couple of hundred votes.

Point 4, Immigration: I don't hear him backing off much on this, other than to say that he will secure the borders first. Regardless, there can be no doubt that however weak he is in this area, he's stronger than any Democrat on the issue.
Fair enough, but that's an answer to a different question. Not one I'm posing in this thread.

Which issues do you believe he will act in accord with his record in the Senate?

wazu
04-08-2008, 12:18 AM
Fair enough, but that's an answer to a different question. Not one I'm posing in this thread.

Which issues do you believe he will act in accord with his record in the Senate?

Earmarks.

wazu
04-08-2008, 12:19 AM
Oh, and unchecked imperialism.

SBK
04-08-2008, 12:26 AM
Fair enough, but that's an answer to a different question. Not one I'm posing in this thread.

Which issues do you believe he will act in accord with his record in the Senate?

This got me thinking, do you think Obama (who is the most liberal member of the Senate) will act in accord with his record?

Honest question, maybe I should start a new thread instead of hijacking this one?

Are McCain and Obama both Senators that will need to convince people that they're different, even a little bit, from their Senate records?

wazu
04-08-2008, 12:30 AM
This got me thinking, do you think Obama (who is the most liberal member of the Senate) will act in accord with his record?

Honest question, maybe I should start a new thread instead of hijacking this one?

Are McCain and Obama both Senators that will need to convince people that they're different, even a little bit, from their Senate records?

I don't think so. The beauty of being in the Senate is that most of the time, such as in Obama's case, you have no record. McCain has actaully gotten his name on some legislation, which makes him vulnerable...in the Republican primary.

jAZ
04-08-2008, 12:39 AM
Earmarks.

Do you really expect that he will never vote for a bill with ear marks? That's basically his record in the Senate.

jAZ
04-08-2008, 12:41 AM
This got me thinking, do you think Obama (who is the most liberal member of the Senate) will act in accord with his record?

Honest question, maybe I should start a new thread instead of hijacking this one?

Are McCain and Obama both Senators that will need to convince people that they're different, even a little bit, from their Senate records?

I think voters are choosing to support him in spite of being more liberal than what they are accustomed to considering themselves. He's also about as liberal as the average American is when you break it down issue by issue. He presents the material in a way that helps people be comfortable with supporting the policies and overcome the labeling of others. That's his strength.

wazu
04-08-2008, 12:49 AM
Do you really expect that he will never vote for a bill with ear marks? That's basically his record in the Senate.

Not really. That's kind of like expecting a Democrat to de-fund the Iraq war. Instead, I think he'll be generally intolerant of them, and embarrass a few of the biggest abusers. Better than we have now, and better than we could hope for from Barack Hussein or Hillary Rodham.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-08-2008, 12:57 AM
This got me thinking, do you think Obama (who is the most liberal member of the Senate) will act in accord with his record?


Do you even know who Bernie Sanders is??

jAZ
04-08-2008, 12:59 AM
Not really. That's kind of like expecting a Democrat to de-fund the Iraq war. Instead, I think he'll be generally intolerant of them, and embarrass a few of the biggest abusers. Better than we have now, and better than we could hope for from Barack Hussein or Hillary Rodham.

I dunno. I think Obama's transparency effort is the only necessary solution. Always make earmarks public. Problem solves itself as bad earmarks (and not all are bad) become subject of ridicule by everyone.

ClevelandBronco
04-08-2008, 01:01 AM
...Always make earmarks public...

With what vehicle shall we drive that information home to voters?

wazu
04-08-2008, 01:03 AM
I dunno. I think Obama's transparency effort is the only necessary solution. Always make earmarks public. Problem solves itself as bad earmarks (and not all are bad) become subject of ridicule by everyone.

Isn't that already in effect? As I understand their names are all next to them already. McCain has promised to use the bully pulpit to escalate this further.

Earmarks are a relatively small part of the budget, so I'm not saying this makes McCain Jesus. Just that it's something I think he will keep a magnifying glass on in his own self-righteous way, which I would somewhat enjoy.

jAZ
04-08-2008, 01:12 AM
Isn't that already in effect? As I understand their names are all next to them already.
Not completely, and wasn't really at all before Obama's legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s.2261:
http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/

The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act
This bill would shed light on the almost 16,000 earmarks that were included in spending bills in 2005. Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate. Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists.

jAZ
04-08-2008, 01:12 AM
Isn't that already in effect? As I understand their names are all next to them already. McCain has promised to use the bully pulpit to escalate this further.

Earmarks are a relatively small part of the budget, so I'm not saying this makes McCain Jesus. Just that it's something I think he will keep a magnifying glass on in his own self-righteous way, which I would somewhat enjoy.

It's a fair answer to my question, no doubt.

patteeu
04-08-2008, 10:30 AM
In the Senate, he opposed torture unequivically. He's now waffling on that.

:spock: No he's not.

jAZ
04-08-2008, 10:49 AM
With what vehicle shall we drive that information home to voters?

The internet, blogs, local & national media, non-profits, citizen groups, elected officials, campaigns, any manner of methods, really.

jAZ
04-08-2008, 10:54 AM
:spock: No he's not.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q_HhAyNsR0o&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q_HhAyNsR0o&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Adept Havelock
04-08-2008, 11:00 AM
:spock: No he's not.

:spock:

In 2005 and 2006 he repeatedly insisted the US had to abide by the Geneva Convention when it came to the interrogation of detainees.

In 2007, when asked about Waterboarding he said: “All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today,”

Of presidential candidates like Mr. Giuliani, who say that they are unsure whether waterboarding is torture, Mr. McCain said: “They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.”

In 2008 he opposed making the Army guidelines, written in accordance with the Geneva Convention,apply to the CIA. While it would have outlawed Waterboarding (which he has previously defined as "torture"), he preferred to leave the propriety of any and all interrogation techniques to the judgment of the President.

That may not qualify as "waffling" for you, but IMO it's an IHOP Belgian special with blueberrys, powdered sugar, and a side of bacon.

He was presented with the opportunity to outlaw something he has defined as torture, and apparently decided supporting the party line was more important than his declared principles.

What else would you expect from a congresscritter? :banghead:

patteeu
04-08-2008, 11:34 AM
Do you really expect that he will never vote for a bill with ear marks? That's basically his record in the Senate.

I think McCain might set a record for vetoes if he wins the presidency. Not only will he have promised to veto bills with earmarks, but he will likely be facing a democrat-controlled congress featuring a filibuster-proof senate which would make McCain the only point in the legislative process where misguided democrat-spawned legislation could be stopped. Of course, he'd probably be inclined to compromise more than some other Republicans, but I think he'd probably find plenty of opportunities to exercise his veto power.

jAZ
04-08-2008, 11:45 AM
I think McCain might set a record for vetoes if he wins the presidency. Not only will he have promised to veto bills with earmarks...
I don't believe it's possible to veto every bill with earmarks in it. That won't happen.

patteeu
04-08-2008, 11:47 AM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q_HhAyNsR0o&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q_HhAyNsR0o&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

:LOL: That's what you get for letting Olbermann interpret your news for you.


:spock:

In 2005 and 2006 he repeatedly insisted the US had to abide by the Geneva Convention when it came to the interrogation of detainees.

In 2007, when asked about Waterboarding he said: “All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today,”

Of presidential candidates like Mr. Giuliani, who say that they are unsure whether waterboarding is torture, Mr. McCain said: “They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.”

In 2008 he opposed making the Army guidelines, written in accordance with the Geneva Convention,apply to the CIA. While it would have outlawed Waterboarding (which he has previously defined as "torture"), he preferred to leave the propriety of any and all interrogation techniques to the judgment of the President.

That may not qualify as "waffling" for you, but IMO it's a IHOP special Belgian with blueberrys, powdered sugar, and a side of bacon.

He was presented with the opportunity to outlaw something he has defined as torture, and apparently decided supporting the party line was more important than his declared principles.

What else would you expect from a congresscritter? :banghead:

With all due respect, I don't think you understand McCain's position. (Or, alternatively, if you do, I don't think you're being fair). He opposed the bill you described not because he's waffled on his position regarding torture (or waterboarding which, afaik, he still considers torture), but because it would tie the President's and the CIA's hands wrt all sorts of non-torture techniques not currently approved by the US Military. It's a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, from McCain's pov.

No one has any reason to believe McCain would oppose legislation that narrowly prohibits waterboarding. Indeed, given his view that waterboarding is torture, he's already voted to ban it with his anti-torture legislation.

patteeu
04-08-2008, 11:48 AM
I don't believe it's possible to veto every bill with earmarks in it. That won't happen.

That may be true, although it really depends on how the public reacts to a faceoff like that. But regardless of whether or not he has to back down from that commitment, I think he might set a veto record if he's elected for the reasons I already described.

RedDread
04-08-2008, 11:55 AM
This got me thinking, do you think Obama (who is the most liberal member of the Senate)


This got debunked months ago.

patteeu
04-08-2008, 11:58 AM
This got debunked months ago.

No it didn't. It's an opinion. You may not agree with the National Journal's methodology, but there is nothing inherently "wrong" with it. And it's not like the National Journal is a partisan publication so it's hard to attribute an anti-Obama bias to their results (or a pro-Obama bias from the pov of people who think liberal = good).

jAZ
04-08-2008, 12:10 PM
With all due respect, I don't think you understand McCain's position. (Or, alternatively, if you do, I don't think you're being fair). He opposed the bill you described not because he's waffled on his position regarding torture (or waterboarding which, afaik, he still considers torture), but because it would tie the President's and the CIA's hands wrt all sorts of non-torture techniques not currently approved by the US Military. It's a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, from McCain's pov.

He's willing to tie the President's hands with the Field Manual standards.

"I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and effective. I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn’t think they need to do anything else. My friends, this is what America is all about."

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GbQLuZ28EEM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GbQLuZ28EEM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

As long as it gets him political points.

patteeu
04-08-2008, 12:21 PM
He's willing to tie the President's hands with the Field Manual standards.

"I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and effective. I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn’t think they need to do anything else. My friends, this is what America is all about."

***deleted video***

As long as it gets him political points.

Your quote and your video don't support your assertion, IMO. An army guy may well believe that the army field guide provides adequate techniques for army interrogation purposes. But that's not what the proposed legislation was about. The proposed legislation was about the universe outside the military, including but not limited to the CIA. What does an army general's commentary have to do with that? Not much in my view.

But your video did two things:

1) It reminds me that Mitt Romney would have been a better POTUS than anyone currently running, and

2) It supports the idea that McCain voted against the legislation in question based on his understanding that waterboarding and other forms of what he considers to be torture are already illegal. With that in mind, his vote to reject that legislation was clearly based on the non-torture techniques that would have been banned as opposed to waffling on the waterboarding issue.

Logical
04-08-2008, 01:34 PM
Oh, and unchecked imperialism.
When you say this do you mean he will act in a way that expands American Imperialism, because that is what he seems to be hinting at.

Logical
04-08-2008, 01:41 PM
Interesting tidbit, I don't think a sitting Senator has been elected President since before WWII. This election that streak will be broken.

jAZ
04-08-2008, 02:08 PM
Your quote and your video don't support your assertion, IMO. An army guy may well believe that the army field guide provides adequate techniques for army interrogation purposes. But that's not what the proposed legislation was about. The proposed legislation was about the universe outside the military, including but not limited to the CIA. What does an army general's commentary have to do with that? Not much in my view.

But your video did two things:

1) It reminds me that Mitt Romney would have been a better POTUS than anyone currently running, and

2) It supports the idea that McCain voted against the legislation in question based on his understanding that waterboarding and other forms of what he considers to be torture are already illegal. With that in mind, his vote to reject that legislation was clearly based on the non-torture techniques that would have been banned as opposed to waffling on the waterboarding issue.
You had no idea that he offered the McCain Detainee Amendment which prohibited inhumane treatment of prisoners (including those at GitMo) by "tying the hands of the President" to techniques in the very field manual he has since waffled from.

RedDread
04-08-2008, 07:14 PM
No it didn't. It's an opinion.

Then why is it being stated as a fact?

wazu
04-08-2008, 07:14 PM
When you say this do you mean he will act in a way that expands American Imperialism, because that is what he seems to be hinting at.

Yes.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-08-2008, 08:58 PM
Interesting tidbit, I don't think a sitting Senator has been elected President since before WWII. This election that streak will be broken.

John Kennedy??

Logical
04-08-2008, 09:28 PM
John Kennedy??Good catch, alright the first since Kennedy (so we are still talking what 48 years?)

patteeu
04-09-2008, 07:41 AM
You had no idea that he offered the McCain Detainee Amendment which prohibited inhumane treatment of prisoners (including those at GitMo) by "tying the hands of the President" to techniques in the very field manual he has since waffled from.

You're wrong again. The McCain Detainee Amendment only restricts *military* interrogators to field manual techniques. Non-military interrogators would not be so limited.

patteeu
04-09-2008, 07:47 AM
Then why is it being stated as a fact?

It's a fact that Obama is the most liberal according to the National Journal's methodology. SBK's statement is either his own personal opinion or, more likely, a reference to the NJ assessment. Either way, it hasn't been and can't be debunked.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-09-2008, 10:52 AM
Good catch, alright the first since Kennedy (so we are still talking what 48 years?)

Well, you know the old saying:

It's hard to run for President as a Senator because every vote you've made in the legislature can and will be used against you.

You have a much better chance if you are a governor...even a shitty one.