Reports over the last few days have highlighted Senator John McCain’s ties to certain lobbyists, and the favorable treatment he has given their clients.
McCain has challenged Obama to accept public financing in the general election – not out of principle, but simply because Obama can raise more money than McCain. How do we know it is not out of principle? Because, as the Washington Post details in a report today, over the course of his current presidential campaign, McCain has repeatedly opted in and out of public financing, depending on what best suits his campaign. The man’s “principles” are nothing more than opportunistic positioning.
Here’s the scoop, coming from the Washington Post, in a story reported by Matthew Mosk and Glenn Kessler:
“Within hours of the [New York Times’ publication of a controversial article detailing McCain’s ties to a young, attractive lobbyist for the telecommunications industry, which McCain oversees], McCain sought to turn it to his advantage, sending out a fundraising appeal decrying the "baseless attacks" and urging contributions. "With your immediate help today, we'll be able to respond and defend our nominee from the liberal attack machine," McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, said in an e-mail.
“But McCain's attempts to build up his campaign coffers before a general election contest appeared to be threatened by the stern warning yesterday from Federal Election Commission Chairman David M. Mason, a Republican. Mason notified McCain that the commission had not granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw from the presidential public financing system.
“The implications of that could be dramatic. Last year, when McCain's campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio.
“By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party's nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement.
“But after McCain won a series of early contests and the campaign found its financial footing, his lawyer wrote to the FEC requesting to back out of the program -- which is permitted for candidates who have not yet received any federal money and who have not used the promise of federal funding as collateral for borrowing money.
“Mason's letter raises two issues as the basis for his position. One is that the six-member commission lacks a quorum, with four vacancies because of a Senate deadlock over President Bush's nominees for the seats. Mason said the FEC would need to vote on McCain's request to leave the system, which is not possible without a quorum. Until that can happen, the candidate will have to remain within the system, he said.
“The second issue is more complicated. It involves a $1 million loan McCain obtained from a Bethesda bank in January. The bank was worried about his ability to repay the loan if he exited the federal financing program and started to lose in the primary race. McCain promised the bank that, if that happened, he would reapply for matching money and offer those as collateral for the loan. While McCain's aides have argued that the campaign was careful to make sure that they technically complied with the rules, Mason indicated that the question needs further FEC review.
“If the FEC refuses McCain's request to leave the system, his campaign could be bound by a potentially debilitating spending limit until he formally accepts his party's nomination. His campaign has already spent $49 million, federal reports show. Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.”
...
The sad truth is that McCain is just as opportunistic -- just as willing to break the law when it suits his own ambitions -- as his fellow republicans Delay, Abramoff, Cunningham, Dolittle, Renzi, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Scalia, Thomas, Bush, etc.
I suspect the story of McCain’s duplicity and opportunism is just getting started. After all, McCain was one of the infamous Keating 5. And his current campaign is run entirely by lobbyists, supposedly for free. He may do it for a different reason than some – rather than calculating, he seems easily swayed (some would say duped) by swaggering, powerful people – but the end result is the same. Ethics take a back seat to the quest for power. Pure and simple, the man does not have what it takes to be a good president
Friday, February 22, 2008
Another one bites the dust.
Today, the Associated Press reports: "Republican Rep. Rick Renzi was indicted Friday on charges of extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other matters in an Arizona land swap scam that allegedly helped him collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs."
Is anyone surprised? No, of course not. Most people are starting to understand that behind that false front of piety and overly-starched moral rectitude, Republican lawmakers are, by and large, a corrupt, bitter, nasty, incompetent bunch of people. And when you’re incompetent, but you have power, you can just force other people to give you stuff. That’s the Republican way!
The entire "conservative" philosophy of government is a fraud. It is not system for governing a nation, but one for transferring the accumulated wealth and power of a nation into the hands of a very few as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
What does the whole anti-regulatory, anti-tax scheme accomplish? It greases the economic rails, allowing money to slip and slide quickly into the pockets of those few who hold the reins of power. And they could only do any of this because, during the era of higher taxes and stronger regulation, our government built up a solid foundation for the country, in its infrastructure, its market supervision, its educational system, its legal system, its social safety net. After decades of neglect resulting from the Republican assault on government, all of this stuff is now falling into disrepair.
The infrastructure is a perfect example. We rely on the infrastructure that was built up during the golden age of liberal government, under FDR and Truman. Streets, highways, bridges, sewer systems, sewage treatment plants, storm drain systems, natural gas systems, electrical wiring, fresh water delivery. All of these systems are falling into disrepair for lack of sufficient investment in their upkeep. Sewage leaks are becoming more common, treatment plants are overwhelmed by the output of growing populations, pipes burst or break, a foul smell fills the air. I’m sure that if you think about any aspect of infrastructure, you’ll find plenty of places where investment is sorely needed.
A country that does not invest in itself cannot survive. It is that simple. Democrats, progressives, liberal republicans all know this. But we don’t hold the reins of power right now. Not in the executive, not in the judiciary, certainly not in industry or the corporate world. We have a thin majority in the House, and a plurality in the Senate, where one man, Joe Leiberman, can scuttle even the best-laid plans.
Meanwhile, all of those taxes that should have been paid over the last thirty years to invest in the upkeep of the nation’s (and in California’s) infrastructure, all of that money has instead gone into the pockets of the Rick Renzis and Rupert Murdocks and Dick Cheneys, the Halliburtons and Enrons and Exxons of the country.
And lets face it, they made their money on the backs of the investments of an earlier generation of Americans. Had the people in the 40s, 50s and 60s not paid those higher taxes, there wouldn’t have been any infrastructure, educational system, regulated (and thus trusted) market system to rely on – there wouldn’t have been any rails to grease. It is only because liberal policies worked so well that the republicans were able to come in, lower taxes on themselves to the point of non-existence, grab hold of the reins of power and rake in the money by the billions.
We have been living on borrowed time, and somebody, eventually, is going to have to pay the bills. Otherwise, the country and its people will continue to fall into disrepair. Shame on you, Rick Renzi, for being an agent of misery! But none of us should be surprised -- that is the Republican way.
Is anyone surprised? No, of course not. Most people are starting to understand that behind that false front of piety and overly-starched moral rectitude, Republican lawmakers are, by and large, a corrupt, bitter, nasty, incompetent bunch of people. And when you’re incompetent, but you have power, you can just force other people to give you stuff. That’s the Republican way!
The entire "conservative" philosophy of government is a fraud. It is not system for governing a nation, but one for transferring the accumulated wealth and power of a nation into the hands of a very few as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
What does the whole anti-regulatory, anti-tax scheme accomplish? It greases the economic rails, allowing money to slip and slide quickly into the pockets of those few who hold the reins of power. And they could only do any of this because, during the era of higher taxes and stronger regulation, our government built up a solid foundation for the country, in its infrastructure, its market supervision, its educational system, its legal system, its social safety net. After decades of neglect resulting from the Republican assault on government, all of this stuff is now falling into disrepair.
The infrastructure is a perfect example. We rely on the infrastructure that was built up during the golden age of liberal government, under FDR and Truman. Streets, highways, bridges, sewer systems, sewage treatment plants, storm drain systems, natural gas systems, electrical wiring, fresh water delivery. All of these systems are falling into disrepair for lack of sufficient investment in their upkeep. Sewage leaks are becoming more common, treatment plants are overwhelmed by the output of growing populations, pipes burst or break, a foul smell fills the air. I’m sure that if you think about any aspect of infrastructure, you’ll find plenty of places where investment is sorely needed.
A country that does not invest in itself cannot survive. It is that simple. Democrats, progressives, liberal republicans all know this. But we don’t hold the reins of power right now. Not in the executive, not in the judiciary, certainly not in industry or the corporate world. We have a thin majority in the House, and a plurality in the Senate, where one man, Joe Leiberman, can scuttle even the best-laid plans.
Meanwhile, all of those taxes that should have been paid over the last thirty years to invest in the upkeep of the nation’s (and in California’s) infrastructure, all of that money has instead gone into the pockets of the Rick Renzis and Rupert Murdocks and Dick Cheneys, the Halliburtons and Enrons and Exxons of the country.
And lets face it, they made their money on the backs of the investments of an earlier generation of Americans. Had the people in the 40s, 50s and 60s not paid those higher taxes, there wouldn’t have been any infrastructure, educational system, regulated (and thus trusted) market system to rely on – there wouldn’t have been any rails to grease. It is only because liberal policies worked so well that the republicans were able to come in, lower taxes on themselves to the point of non-existence, grab hold of the reins of power and rake in the money by the billions.
We have been living on borrowed time, and somebody, eventually, is going to have to pay the bills. Otherwise, the country and its people will continue to fall into disrepair. Shame on you, Rick Renzi, for being an agent of misery! But none of us should be surprised -- that is the Republican way.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Rhetoric v. Reality - a false choice
Unhappy with her current second place standing in the Democratic Primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton is again engaging in some poorly considered attacks on Senator Obama. “There's a big difference between us - speeches versus solutions,” Clinton stated last week, “Talk versus action. You know, some people may think words are change. But you and I know better. Words are cheap.” Cheap words indeed.
Never the first to come up with any idea in his entire career, John McCain attempted to hop on the Hillary train: “To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas . . . is not a promise of hope,” McCain said last week, “It’s a platitude.”
Trouble with both of these statements – as applied to Obama, they are not true. Anyone that cares to know whether Obama has any specifics to offer need only pick up his book or check out his web site. Obama gives reams of specifics. And some of them are pretty good specifics. While I have preferred some of Clinton’s policy proposals to Obama’s (particularly regarding health care), and have noted that Paul Krugman has taken issue with some of the specifics of those proposals, let’s face it, Krugman can only take issue with Obama’s specifics because they exist! If memory serves, it was Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, that was late to the specifics game, choosing instead to triangulate and equivocate through much of the 2007 primary race.
But is in overarching governing strategy, rather than the specifics, where Obama differentiates himself. And I think it’s the real reason he won me over.
Clinton talks only specifics (she now calls them solutions – a better word, but not a change of tactic). Like Bill Clinton, the Great Pragmatist, Senator Clinton has a number of specific solutions to specific problems, but gives you no idea how she got to those solutions, or how she might tackle new problems. To me, way too much focus on individual issues without painting an overall governing strategy. Her “solutions” are to particularized problems, with no vision at all (or at least none articulated) for where she wants to take the country.
McCain wouldn’t know a solution if it bit him in the ass. His whole platform is “four more years … of whatever that other guy has been doing, even though I don’t have a clue what it is.” That is McCain, in a nutshell. He can’t give you an idea of his problem-solving strategy because he doesn’t have any. He tilts at windmills: that’s his thing. That’s his only thing. Not a clue about the vast, non-windmill landscape.
Obama gives us more than either Clinton or McCain: he actually explains how he approaches a problem. In his book -- and less completely in his speeches -- he explains his goals, his method of analysis, the balancing of interests he believes are important, and the overall end result he seeks to achieve (e.g. increased opportunity and better-shared prosperity). Obama is a deep thinker; has given serious study to political history, constitutional law, and political economic theory (i.e. how government interacts with the economy). It’s all right there in his book, if anyone cares to check.
Obama starts his problem-solving analysis by trying to understand various points of view, where people are coming from, what are their motivations and concerns. There’s a word for that process, its called empathy. It is a powerful tool, and Obama isn’t at all afraid to use it.
And Obama is clear about his goals: he seeks to build a country that really is a land of opportunity: opportunity and all that it encompasses (national security, education, research, anti-poverty, better safety net, updated military, etc.) All good stuff.
Never the first to come up with any idea in his entire career, John McCain attempted to hop on the Hillary train: “To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas . . . is not a promise of hope,” McCain said last week, “It’s a platitude.”
Trouble with both of these statements – as applied to Obama, they are not true. Anyone that cares to know whether Obama has any specifics to offer need only pick up his book or check out his web site. Obama gives reams of specifics. And some of them are pretty good specifics. While I have preferred some of Clinton’s policy proposals to Obama’s (particularly regarding health care), and have noted that Paul Krugman has taken issue with some of the specifics of those proposals, let’s face it, Krugman can only take issue with Obama’s specifics because they exist! If memory serves, it was Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, that was late to the specifics game, choosing instead to triangulate and equivocate through much of the 2007 primary race.
But is in overarching governing strategy, rather than the specifics, where Obama differentiates himself. And I think it’s the real reason he won me over.
Clinton talks only specifics (she now calls them solutions – a better word, but not a change of tactic). Like Bill Clinton, the Great Pragmatist, Senator Clinton has a number of specific solutions to specific problems, but gives you no idea how she got to those solutions, or how she might tackle new problems. To me, way too much focus on individual issues without painting an overall governing strategy. Her “solutions” are to particularized problems, with no vision at all (or at least none articulated) for where she wants to take the country.
McCain wouldn’t know a solution if it bit him in the ass. His whole platform is “four more years … of whatever that other guy has been doing, even though I don’t have a clue what it is.” That is McCain, in a nutshell. He can’t give you an idea of his problem-solving strategy because he doesn’t have any. He tilts at windmills: that’s his thing. That’s his only thing. Not a clue about the vast, non-windmill landscape.
Obama gives us more than either Clinton or McCain: he actually explains how he approaches a problem. In his book -- and less completely in his speeches -- he explains his goals, his method of analysis, the balancing of interests he believes are important, and the overall end result he seeks to achieve (e.g. increased opportunity and better-shared prosperity). Obama is a deep thinker; has given serious study to political history, constitutional law, and political economic theory (i.e. how government interacts with the economy). It’s all right there in his book, if anyone cares to check.
Obama starts his problem-solving analysis by trying to understand various points of view, where people are coming from, what are their motivations and concerns. There’s a word for that process, its called empathy. It is a powerful tool, and Obama isn’t at all afraid to use it.
And Obama is clear about his goals: he seeks to build a country that really is a land of opportunity: opportunity and all that it encompasses (national security, education, research, anti-poverty, better safety net, updated military, etc.) All good stuff.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Obama and the roll of the dice
The choice between Obama and Clinton has clarified, and it looks like Obama has the edge. Ironically, it was Bill Clinton himself who convinced me that Obama was the man for the hour. I’ll explain.
The evening before Super Tuesday, I was invited to attend what turned out to be the San Francisco leg of Senator Clinton’s national town hall meeting. Bill Clinton was there, and I got to shake his hand. Pretty cool.
Anyway, as Bill was making the rounds after the event, he focused on a knot of people, myself among them, who remained undecided. And he said, in effect, "If you think that inspiration is the most important thing right now, then by all means you should vote for Obama. If you think, however, that the ability to wrestle with and solve the many problems we face to day is the more important, then you have to vote for Hillary." Bill made clear he felt she was the best he had ever seen at coming up with solutions to complex problems.
And my decision was confirmed right then and there - I was an Obama man. I think Bill nailed it, just as he had when he exclaimed that a vote for Obama was a role of the dice. What he didn’t realize, or more likely just doesn’t want to admit, is that we need that roll of the dice right now, we need that inspiration. The whole world needs that inspiration.
I’ll admit right of the bat that I still like Senator Clinton’s policy proposals a whole lot more than I do Obama’s. Hers are clearer, more focused, and better targeted to achieving the results she seeks. At least to date, Obama’s are comparatively broad and less likely to achieve positive results. But here’s the thing – I don’t think a President Hillary Clinton will be able to get her proposals enacted. She doesn’t inspire that call to action, that passion that is required to accomplish real change.
Obama has that ability to inspire. He charges us to believe in the possible, to feel good about our country and our people again. And, because he can summon that passion, he will get things done.
So the choice for me was between Clinton, who’s policies I prefer, but whom I suspect will not be able to bring those proposals to fruition, and Obama, who I suspect just may well be able to accomplish whatever he sets his administration’s sights on. Clinton would approach foreign policy as a deal-maker, whereas Obama will approach foreign policy by calling on people to rise to greater heights. With Obama, there is a possibility for real transformation, both within our country and throughout the world, and that is worth a roll of the dice.
The evening before Super Tuesday, I was invited to attend what turned out to be the San Francisco leg of Senator Clinton’s national town hall meeting. Bill Clinton was there, and I got to shake his hand. Pretty cool.
Anyway, as Bill was making the rounds after the event, he focused on a knot of people, myself among them, who remained undecided. And he said, in effect, "If you think that inspiration is the most important thing right now, then by all means you should vote for Obama. If you think, however, that the ability to wrestle with and solve the many problems we face to day is the more important, then you have to vote for Hillary." Bill made clear he felt she was the best he had ever seen at coming up with solutions to complex problems.
And my decision was confirmed right then and there - I was an Obama man. I think Bill nailed it, just as he had when he exclaimed that a vote for Obama was a role of the dice. What he didn’t realize, or more likely just doesn’t want to admit, is that we need that roll of the dice right now, we need that inspiration. The whole world needs that inspiration.
I’ll admit right of the bat that I still like Senator Clinton’s policy proposals a whole lot more than I do Obama’s. Hers are clearer, more focused, and better targeted to achieving the results she seeks. At least to date, Obama’s are comparatively broad and less likely to achieve positive results. But here’s the thing – I don’t think a President Hillary Clinton will be able to get her proposals enacted. She doesn’t inspire that call to action, that passion that is required to accomplish real change.
Obama has that ability to inspire. He charges us to believe in the possible, to feel good about our country and our people again. And, because he can summon that passion, he will get things done.
So the choice for me was between Clinton, who’s policies I prefer, but whom I suspect will not be able to bring those proposals to fruition, and Obama, who I suspect just may well be able to accomplish whatever he sets his administration’s sights on. Clinton would approach foreign policy as a deal-maker, whereas Obama will approach foreign policy by calling on people to rise to greater heights. With Obama, there is a possibility for real transformation, both within our country and throughout the world, and that is worth a roll of the dice.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
McCain gives middle finger to the elderly, unemployed, and disabled veterans
Interesting news item below from the Associated Press. Although the headline says "Republicans block stimulus bill" it would more appropriately read "McCain Blocks Stimumus Bill." Why? The vote was 59 to 40, with 60 votes needed to pass, and McCain, alone out of all Senators, deciding not to vote. Harry Reid switched his vote at the last minute to "no" (thus the 58 to 41 final tally), which allows him to bring the measure back for a revote in the future.
If John McCain had voted yes, then the economic stimulus plan would have included aid for the elderly and disabled veterans, and an extension of unemployment benefits. Because 60 votes were needed to break a republican filibuster, McCain's refusal to vote was the same as voting "no". But he was too chickenshit to actually go on record! Make no mistake, though, by refusing to vote, McCain gave a big middle finger to the elderly, disabled veterans and the unemployed.
And he wants to be president. What a tool!
---
Republicans block stimulus bill
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and ANDREW TAYLOR,
Associated Press Writers 12 minutes ago
Senate Republicans blocked a move by Democrats on Wednesday to add more than $40 billion in checks for the elderly, disabled veterans and the unemployed to a bill to stimulate the economy.
The 58-41 vote fell just short of the 60 required to break a GOP filibuster and bring the Senate version of the stimulus bill closer to a final vote. The Senate measure was backed by Democrats and a handful of Republicans but was strongly opposed by GOP leaders and President Bush, who objected to the costly add-ons.
The vote left the $205 billion Senate stimulus bill in limbo and capped days of partisan infighting and procedural jockeying over the measure. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois flew to Washington for the vote. GOP front-runner John McCain of Arizona did not vote.
Supporters actually had 59 votes in favor of the Democratic proposal, but Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to 'no' at the last moment, a parliamentary move that allows him to bring the measure up for revote.
Republican leaders objected to add-ons such as a $14.5 billion unemployment extension for those whose benefits have run out, $1 billion in heating aid for the poor and tax breaks for renewable energy producers and coal companies.
The measure builds upon a less costly $161 billion House-passed bill providing $600-$1,200 checks to most taxpayers and tax breaks to businesses investing in new plants and equipment.
The Senate version would provide checks of $500-$1,000 to a broader group that includes 20 million older Americans, 250,000 disabled veterans and taxpayers making up to $150,000 for singles — or $300,000 for couples.
Reid denied Republicans an opportunity to offer changes to the measure, provoking the filibuster. The calculus was that enough Republicans would relent in the face of political pressure to vote for unemployment insurance and heating aid to join with Democrats to force the measure through.
"Our constituents will look at us as the folks that slowed it down, (and) added a bunch of spending to it," said Sen. Jon S. Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, who called the measure "a Christmas tree package."
GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he wants to amend the measure to add the provisions favoring disabled veterans and the elderly and making clear that illegal immigrants can't get rebate checks.
Reid rejected the offer — at least for the time being — but Republicans seemed confident he would eventually agree to comparable changes since the alternative would be to approve the House bill and leave retirees living on Social Security and disabled veterans without rebate checks.
The dramatic vote came after an intense lobbying effort by Democrats to convert wavering Republicans, including several facing tough re-election fights. Their efforts were getting a boost from outside groups leaning on senators to back the package, including home builders, manufacturers and the powerful seniors lobby.
GOP leaders, working to stem defections, were assuring Republicans that they would have another chance to support adding senior citizens and disabled veterans to the aid plan even if they opposed the Democrats' bill.
That wasn't enough for Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. who threw his support behind the measure during a brief floor debate.
"I made my decision on what was best for New Mexico and what's best for America," he said.
But other targets, such as Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., stuck with McConnell.
Asked Tuesday whether the administration would accept adding rebates for the elderly and disabled veterans to the stimulus measure, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson declined to say definitively, but he told the Finance Committee, "I'm sure we'll be able to work something out and get something quickly done that's broad-based."
The dispute has slowed down the stimulus measure, but there's no indication that it will delay rebate checks, which are expected to begin arriving in May. The rebates will be based on 2007 tax returns, which aren't due until April 15.
If John McCain had voted yes, then the economic stimulus plan would have included aid for the elderly and disabled veterans, and an extension of unemployment benefits. Because 60 votes were needed to break a republican filibuster, McCain's refusal to vote was the same as voting "no". But he was too chickenshit to actually go on record! Make no mistake, though, by refusing to vote, McCain gave a big middle finger to the elderly, disabled veterans and the unemployed.
And he wants to be president. What a tool!
---
Republicans block stimulus bill
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and ANDREW TAYLOR,
Associated Press Writers 12 minutes ago
Senate Republicans blocked a move by Democrats on Wednesday to add more than $40 billion in checks for the elderly, disabled veterans and the unemployed to a bill to stimulate the economy.
The 58-41 vote fell just short of the 60 required to break a GOP filibuster and bring the Senate version of the stimulus bill closer to a final vote. The Senate measure was backed by Democrats and a handful of Republicans but was strongly opposed by GOP leaders and President Bush, who objected to the costly add-ons.
The vote left the $205 billion Senate stimulus bill in limbo and capped days of partisan infighting and procedural jockeying over the measure. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois flew to Washington for the vote. GOP front-runner John McCain of Arizona did not vote.
Supporters actually had 59 votes in favor of the Democratic proposal, but Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to 'no' at the last moment, a parliamentary move that allows him to bring the measure up for revote.
Republican leaders objected to add-ons such as a $14.5 billion unemployment extension for those whose benefits have run out, $1 billion in heating aid for the poor and tax breaks for renewable energy producers and coal companies.
The measure builds upon a less costly $161 billion House-passed bill providing $600-$1,200 checks to most taxpayers and tax breaks to businesses investing in new plants and equipment.
The Senate version would provide checks of $500-$1,000 to a broader group that includes 20 million older Americans, 250,000 disabled veterans and taxpayers making up to $150,000 for singles — or $300,000 for couples.
Reid denied Republicans an opportunity to offer changes to the measure, provoking the filibuster. The calculus was that enough Republicans would relent in the face of political pressure to vote for unemployment insurance and heating aid to join with Democrats to force the measure through.
"Our constituents will look at us as the folks that slowed it down, (and) added a bunch of spending to it," said Sen. Jon S. Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, who called the measure "a Christmas tree package."
GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he wants to amend the measure to add the provisions favoring disabled veterans and the elderly and making clear that illegal immigrants can't get rebate checks.
Reid rejected the offer — at least for the time being — but Republicans seemed confident he would eventually agree to comparable changes since the alternative would be to approve the House bill and leave retirees living on Social Security and disabled veterans without rebate checks.
The dramatic vote came after an intense lobbying effort by Democrats to convert wavering Republicans, including several facing tough re-election fights. Their efforts were getting a boost from outside groups leaning on senators to back the package, including home builders, manufacturers and the powerful seniors lobby.
GOP leaders, working to stem defections, were assuring Republicans that they would have another chance to support adding senior citizens and disabled veterans to the aid plan even if they opposed the Democrats' bill.
That wasn't enough for Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. who threw his support behind the measure during a brief floor debate.
"I made my decision on what was best for New Mexico and what's best for America," he said.
But other targets, such as Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., stuck with McConnell.
Asked Tuesday whether the administration would accept adding rebates for the elderly and disabled veterans to the stimulus measure, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson declined to say definitively, but he told the Finance Committee, "I'm sure we'll be able to work something out and get something quickly done that's broad-based."
The dispute has slowed down the stimulus measure, but there's no indication that it will delay rebate checks, which are expected to begin arriving in May. The rebates will be based on 2007 tax returns, which aren't due until April 15.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Hogan v. Norris
If you ask me, there is no question but that Hulk Hogan could take Chuck Norris in a fight. Once Hogan slipped past those side kicks, it would be all over. There is also no question but that Hogan could kick Schwarzie's butt in an arm-wrestling match. And Hogan has already shown he can kick Stallone's butt (see Rocky III).
This is, of course, in response to one of my favorite headlines of the week: "Hulk Hogan Has Obama's Back."
There is this myth that liberals can’t be tough – that they are always pushovers, fearful of confrontation and ready to lay down and capitulate at the slightest physical threat. This, of course, is a load of crap.
There is a corresponding myth that liberals shouldn’t be in charge of the military, and that they even loathe the military, because of their fearful nature and penchant for shrinking from a fight. Equally crap. Utter and complete bullshit.
Where does the myth come from? Certainly FDR was no Milquetoast, nor JFK, nor MLK, Jr., nor Wes Clark, nor Madeline Albright, nor Hulk Hogan! I don’t see any of that in either Obama or Clinton.
I understand that the myth was born in the turbulence of the late-1960s and early 1970s, but I suspect the myth had much more to do with deliberate Republican distortions than on actual events. I’d illustrate that with a conversation I overheard recently between a family of tourists at a local coffee shop.
A guy in his early sixties was there with his teenage kids, and was commenting rather loudly to his kids on how different San Francisco was from Kansas, where they were from. He was blustering on about communism and homelessness and how he’d just round them all up – the typical bullshit that conservative types like to throw around to pretend that they have even the slightest clue as to what they are talking about (which they never do). It was clear, even from across the coffee shop, that his kids really, really disliked him, and were quite embarrassed.
He continued his rant, oblivious (as conservatives always are) to his kid’s discomfort, and started commenting about the whole Haight-Ashbury scene from the late sixties, and then said: "I was liberal back then too – free drugs, free sex, no draft . . . ."
Well, that’s not liberalism, that’s selfishness. And in his case, it laid bare his hypocrisy. As he went on to extol the great merits of the Bush Administration’s foray into Iraq, it was clear that he was against war when he might have been at risk, but was all for it if it was someone else’s neck on the line.
So, I submit to you that it was largely craven, conservative assholes who gave liberalism a bad name, and they were never liberal at all. George McGovern, the anti-war activist Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential Candidate, gave those craven conservatives real hell in a series of speeches in the late sixties and early seventies.
They paid him back in kind. It was none other than right-wing lickspittle Robert Novak (yeah, that Robert Novak) who ran an article on McGovern quoting an unnamed Democratic Senator as charging that "all McGovern is for is abortion, amnesty (for draft dodgers), and the legalization of pot."
So liberalism has been tainted with the Novak brush ever since. But it was a load of crap then, and it’s a load of crap now.
And cravenness has been a hallmark of Republicanism ever since. If there is one thing that all the Republicans I know have in common, it is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of terrorism, fear of death, fear of "others" . . . . But the Republicans had the cash, and were successful at painting liberals with the "fearful" brush, thanks to Novak and Nixon.
So, I’m happy to see the Hulkster strutt his liberal stuff. He was always my favorite 1980s wrestling superstar anyway.
This is, of course, in response to one of my favorite headlines of the week: "Hulk Hogan Has Obama's Back."
There is this myth that liberals can’t be tough – that they are always pushovers, fearful of confrontation and ready to lay down and capitulate at the slightest physical threat. This, of course, is a load of crap.
There is a corresponding myth that liberals shouldn’t be in charge of the military, and that they even loathe the military, because of their fearful nature and penchant for shrinking from a fight. Equally crap. Utter and complete bullshit.
Where does the myth come from? Certainly FDR was no Milquetoast, nor JFK, nor MLK, Jr., nor Wes Clark, nor Madeline Albright, nor Hulk Hogan! I don’t see any of that in either Obama or Clinton.
I understand that the myth was born in the turbulence of the late-1960s and early 1970s, but I suspect the myth had much more to do with deliberate Republican distortions than on actual events. I’d illustrate that with a conversation I overheard recently between a family of tourists at a local coffee shop.
A guy in his early sixties was there with his teenage kids, and was commenting rather loudly to his kids on how different San Francisco was from Kansas, where they were from. He was blustering on about communism and homelessness and how he’d just round them all up – the typical bullshit that conservative types like to throw around to pretend that they have even the slightest clue as to what they are talking about (which they never do). It was clear, even from across the coffee shop, that his kids really, really disliked him, and were quite embarrassed.
He continued his rant, oblivious (as conservatives always are) to his kid’s discomfort, and started commenting about the whole Haight-Ashbury scene from the late sixties, and then said: "I was liberal back then too – free drugs, free sex, no draft . . . ."
Well, that’s not liberalism, that’s selfishness. And in his case, it laid bare his hypocrisy. As he went on to extol the great merits of the Bush Administration’s foray into Iraq, it was clear that he was against war when he might have been at risk, but was all for it if it was someone else’s neck on the line.
So, I submit to you that it was largely craven, conservative assholes who gave liberalism a bad name, and they were never liberal at all. George McGovern, the anti-war activist Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential Candidate, gave those craven conservatives real hell in a series of speeches in the late sixties and early seventies.
They paid him back in kind. It was none other than right-wing lickspittle Robert Novak (yeah, that Robert Novak) who ran an article on McGovern quoting an unnamed Democratic Senator as charging that "all McGovern is for is abortion, amnesty (for draft dodgers), and the legalization of pot."
So liberalism has been tainted with the Novak brush ever since. But it was a load of crap then, and it’s a load of crap now.
And cravenness has been a hallmark of Republicanism ever since. If there is one thing that all the Republicans I know have in common, it is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of terrorism, fear of death, fear of "others" . . . . But the Republicans had the cash, and were successful at painting liberals with the "fearful" brush, thanks to Novak and Nixon.
So, I’m happy to see the Hulkster strutt his liberal stuff. He was always my favorite 1980s wrestling superstar anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)