36 posts tagged “politics”
Reporter: Senator, Maya Rodriguez at the CBS station out of New Orleans. My understanding is you have voted twice against the creation of a commission to investigate the levee failures in New Orleans. And my question is, why have you voted against that? McCain: I’ve supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy. I’ve been here to New Orleans. I’ve met with people on the ground. I’ve met with the governor. I’m not familiar with exactly what you said, but I’ve been as active as anybody in efforts to restore the city. Lieberman, Jan. 24, 2006: There has been a near-total lack of cooperation that has made it impossible, in my opinion, for us to do the thorough investigation we have a responsibility to do. McCain: I also voted against one of the bills that came down that was loaded with pork barrel projects that had nothing to do with New Orleans too. It had billions for projects and programs that had nothing to do with the recovery of the city of New Orleans. McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers: It doesn't bode well for Senator Obama's pledges to run a campaign of hope and change when on the first day of the general election he's launching the same tired negative attacks that the American people are so sick and tired of. McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers (continuing): As Sen. McCain said, he wasn't familiar with the specific votes the questioner was asking about. Instead he was speaking to his strong support for the Homeland Security Committee's comprehensive, bipartisan investigation of Hurricane Katrina, which was already fully underway when these other proposals were suggested.
McCain actually voted twice, in 2005 and 2006, to defeat a Democratic amendment that would have set up an independent commission along the lines of the 9/11 Commission. At the time of the second vote, members of both parties were complaining that the White House was refusing requests by Senate investigators for information.
The McCain campaign accused the Obama campaign of "tired negative attacks" for pointing out and documenting McCain’s gaffe.
McCain did, as the reporter said, twice vote against legislation that would have created an independent commission, much like the 9/11 Commission, to investigate the government's role in preparedness for and response to the hurricane. Here's the exchange:
The reporter was referring to votes on an amendment offered by Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 to set up an independent commission to look into the government's actions regarding Katrina. The commission would have been made up of non-federal-government employees, appointed by the president and Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress. Republicans defeated both attempts, with yeas and nays cast completely along party lines.
McCain lined up with his party at a time when the White House was being accused on all sides of withholding information from the Senate.
Before the second vote, on Feb. 2, 2006, Clinton charged: "We are seeing the administration withholding documents, testimony, and information from the ongoing investigations by the House and Senate."
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who co-chaired a Senate investigation into Katrina by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, argued against the measure, saying her committee "has been conducting a thoroughly comprehensive, bipartisan, and thorough investigation into the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina." But about a week earlierCollins had been telling reporters that it was "completely inappropriate" for the White House to forbid government officials from talking to the committee and that "the White House has gone too far in restricting basic information about who called whom on what day."
The other co-chair of that Senate investigation, Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, more forcefully chastised the White House and other federal agencies for withholding documents, refusing interviews and derailing the Senate's work.
Lieberman voted for the creation of an independent commission, both times. He was later defeated for his party's nomination in 2006 but won reelection to the Senate as an independent and is now backing McCain.
We don't know whether an independent commission would have gotten more information from the Bush White House, and we take no position on whether creating such a commission was appropriate or needed. But McCain's statement that he "supported every investigation" is false. The record shows McCain lined up with his party as it circled the wagons to defend the Bush administration against a more aggressive probe of what went wrong before and after Katrina.
McCain suggested that he was merely voting against wasteful spending. He told the Louisiana reporter that he voted against "one of the bills" because it was riddled with pork.
The Clinton amendments, however, would have provided $3 million for the investigation but no funds for anything else.
McCain's gaffe put his campaign on the defensive. A spokesman issued a statement accusing Sen. Barack Obama of "launching ... tired negative attacks."
That referred to an e-mail that the Obama campaign sent to reporters. It said: "Whether he simply wasn't aware of his voting record again or he was intentionally misleading the people of Louisiana, John McCain certainly isn't offering us 'leadership you can believe in.' " Other than that, the e-mail simply quoted McCain and gave the dates and Senate numbers of the votes.
The McCain campaign also said that in his response to the reporter he was"speaking to his strong support" for the Homeland Security Committee probe:
It's true that McCain did tell the reporter that he wasn't "familiar with exactly what you said." However, his response to the reporter made no specific mention of the Senate investigation. Furthermore, the Senate investigation was not "fully underway" when the idea of an independent commission was suggested. The first vote on Sept. 14, 2005, was held the same day the committee opened its first hearing.
-by Lori Robertson
McCain (June 2): We must apply the full force of law to prevent business dealings with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. I was pleased to join Senators Lieberman and Kyl in backing an amendment calling for the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq. Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama. He opposed this resolution because its support for countering Iranian influence in Iraq was, he said, a "wrong message not only to the world, but also to the region." McCain Web site: The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment Designated Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps A Terrorist Organization - But Senator Obama Opposed It. Iran Counter-Proliferation Act: The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization ... and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224. McCain Web site: After The Kyl-Lieberman Vote, Barack Obama Often Criticized The Amendment Without Mentioning Any Support For IRGC Designation ... Before Responding To John McCain, Obama's Website Provides No Indication That Obama Favors Designating The IRGC As A Terrorist Organization.
Let's start with that whole Revolutionary Guard business. Here's McCain at AIPAC:
TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images
On his Web site, McCain makes the point even more bluntly:
McCain implies that Obama doesn't think Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist organization. That's wrong. Before the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was introduced, Obama cosponsored a bill that called for the IRGC to be designated as "a Foreign Terrorist Operation." Obama was one of 72 cosponsors of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which states (in part):
The McCain campaign notes that the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act has yet to come to the floor for a vote. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama's sponsorship put him on record in favor of labeling the IRGC a terrorist organization, contrary to McCain's insinuation.
As for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, it too called for the executive branch to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The amendment, which passed the Senate on Sept. 26, 2007, by a vote of 76 to 22, is not as bold a step as it might sound, considering the White House had announced a month earlier that it was debating naming either the entire IRGC or the Quds Force, an elite wing of the IRGC, as a terrorist organization. The Kyl-Lieberman amendment expressed "the sense of the senate" that the IRGC as a whole ought to be so designated. Proponents argued that the designation would pressure Iran to change its behavior in Iraq.
Sec. 1538 of H.R. 1585
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(4) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
Obama did not actually vote on the amendment – he was campaigning at the time. But he did publicly oppose it, calling it excessively provocative:
Obama press release (Sept. 26, 2007): Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.
The 19 Democrats, two Republicans and one Independent who voted against the amendment included many of the Senate's leading voices on foreign relations. Joseph Biden, the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, opposed the amendment, as did Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the same committee. In fact, nine of the 23 senators who opposed the amendment sit on the Foreign Relations Committee.
McCain's Web site offers another curious – and convoluted – argument about Obama and the IRGC:
The argument is faulty. First, as mentioned already, Obama is on record in favor of designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Second, even if Obama had not cosponsored the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, failing to state support for something on your Web site doesn't mean you therefore oppose it (and vice versa). Such reasoning constitutes a logical fallacy that philosophers call an argumentum ad ignorantiam, or an argument from ignorance. The fallacy occurs when someone asserts that the lack of evidence against a claim means that the claim is true. Should we conclude that because McCain's Web site says nothing about torturing kittens that he supports it? Of course not.
We take no position on the wisdom of the Kyl-Lieberman act. The Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly, and our colleagues at PolitiFact found thatexperts were divided over the implications of the amendment. We do know that McCain's claim that Obama's opposition to the bill was based on an unwillingness to label the IRGC as terrorists is false.
Also worth noting: For all the time McCain and Obama have spent arguing about the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, they were the only two members of the Senate who failed to show up for the vote.
-by Joe Miller
The DNC plans "unlimited" spending against McCain; some of its claims are misleading.
The Democratic National Committee proposes to spend unlimited amounts of money to "tell the real story" about John McCain before Republicans can "start smearing" the eventual Democratic nominee. But the line of attack the Democrats outline to their potential donors in an e-mail contains some claims that are false or misleading.
- The
DNC paints McCain as favoring "endless war" in Iraq. What McCain
actually said is that he wouldn't mind a hundred-year troop presence
"as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or
killed."
- It
says McCain "looked the other way" rather than investigate Jack
Abramoff and a Republican "Culture of Corruption." In fact, McCain's
investigation led to a prison term for Abramoff and the downfall of
several powerful Republicans. His investigators didn't probe members of
Congress directly, but that wasn't the job of his Indian Affairs
Committee. And in any case, federal prosecutors opposed a competing
congressional investigation which might have interfered with their own
efforts.
- The
DNC message makes criticisms of McCain that could be directed at its
own leading candidates as well. It notes that he lacks training in
economics, which is equally true of Clinton and Obama. And it accuses
him of "staggering" reliance on lobbyists for campaign help, when
Clinton also has substantial aid from lobbyists and Obama has some from
former lobbyists.
<Stolen from FactCheck.org>
- It
says he "wants to raise Social Security taxes by a trillion dollars," a
big distortion. Obama has said a “good option” would be to apply Social
Security payroll taxes to incomes over $97,500 a year, but that would
only affect taxes paid by 6.5 percent of individuals and couples. And
he hasn’t formally proposed such a move anyway.
- The
Clinton mailer says Obama has "no plan" for a moratorium on
foreclosures such as the one Clinton has proposed. That’s true, but
Obama has his own plan for homeowner relief. The mailer leaves the
impression that Obama has "no plan" at all, which is false.
- It
says Obama "voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill that gives huge tax
breaks to oil companies," another distortion. By the time Congress
passed the 2005 energy bill, it raised taxes on the oil industry more
than it decreased them and also contained billions for alternative
fuels research and subsidies for energy-efficient buildings and
vehicles.
<stolen from FactCheck.org>
Clinton and Obama left their recent bitterness behind at the Democratic debate prior to a nationwide series of primaries and caucuses on Feb. 5. They emphasized their areas of agreement and looked more like running mates than rivals for the nomination. By the end, both were ducking a question about whether the other would be their pick for vice president, and afterward they practically embraced in front of the cameras.
Amid all the mutual admiration, however, we still found a few factual missteps:
- Obama
claimed Democratic voter turnout has doubled in "every single election
that we've had so far in this [nominating] contest." Not true. It
doubled in only two. In New Hampshire the turnout increased by 30
percent.
- Obama
misleadingly said corporate tax loopholes totaled $1 trillion. That
figure is an estimate for a 10-year period and includes items such as
low-income housing tax credits and tax-free bonds for state and local
governments.
- Obama
mischaracterized Clinton's earlier statements on driver's licenses for
illegal aliens, saying, "You said you were for it. Then you said you
were against it." Actually she avoided giving a yes-or-no answer in one
debate, then made clear she opposed the idea.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on FactCheck.org.
With a nationwide wave of nominating contests looming next week, Republican presidential candidates held their last scheduled debate against the backdrop of Ronald Reagan’s retired Air Force One. But we found some of the candidates' facts just won’t fly.
- Romney complained that McCain used "the wrong data" about job creation to support his assertion that Massachusetts had ranked 47th among the 50 states while Romney was governor. Romney was wrong; McCain was correct.
- Romney said his hundreds of millions of dollars in "fee increases" merely caught up with years of inflation and weren’t tax increases in disguise. Independent budget experts contradict him on that.
- Romney said the over-budget costs of his Massachusetts health care plan were due to changes made by his successor. Authorities on the plan say that’s mostly untrue; costs went up because more people than expected signed up for state-subsidized insurance.
- Romney wrongly claimed McCain’s anti-global-warming bill would boost gasoline prices by up to 50 cents per gallon. Actually, the official estimate is 40 cents for most vehicles, and not until the year 2025.
- McCain and Romney traded oversimplified assertions regarding a "timetable" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
- Huckabee cited a Heritage Foundation study to back up his assertion that rebates to taxpayers aren’t as good a way to stimulate the economy as the highway construction he favors. In fact, the study does disparage rebates but urges tax cuts instead, not increased spending.
- Ron Paul repeated his claim that defending the U.S. "empire" is costing "a trillion dollars a year." But the dubious figure includes costs such as the entire Veterans Affairs budget. Paul also claimed "nobody" is talking about cutting spending, even as his rivals did so 14 times during the same debate.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed at FactCheck.org.
My Groups
-
Let's Run! Updated: Yesterday
-
Macintosh Updated: 5 days ago
-
apple, inc. Updated: Oct 29, 2009
