Subscribe by RSSVideo: John McCain on This Week 4/20/08
John McCain sat down with George Stephanopoulos this morning on This Week to discuss the economy, war in Iraq, and other campaign issues. McCain’s been trying to sound stronger on economic issues releasing quite a bit in terms of policy and positions this week.
Here’s the video of the full 23 minute interview:
Here’s a report on it from Political Punch:
On “This Week with George George Stephanopoulos” this morning, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, unprompted, raised the issue of the connection between Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and William Ayres, a former member of the radical group the Weather Underground.
On the subject of whether McCain would attempt to attack Obama on patriotism, the presumptive GOP nominee said, “I’m sure he’s very patriotic. But his relationship with Mr. Ayers is open to question,… if you’re going to associate and have as a friend and serve on a board and have a guy kick off your campaign that says he’s unrepentant, that he wished bombed more.”
McCain said he was most offended by Obama’s comparison of Ayres to Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., during Wednesday night’s ABC News debate. Obama had said he doesn’t subscribe to the views of all his friends, and cited Coburn”s anti-abortion rhetoric as an example.
“The worst thing of all, that I think, really indicates Senator Obama’s attitude, is he had the incredible statement that he compared Mr. Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, with Senator Tom Coburn, Senator
Coburn, a physician who goes to Oklahoma on the weekends and brings babies into life,” McCain said. “It’s very insulting to a great man, a great doctor, a great humanitarian… (H)ow can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings which could have or did kill innocent people?”
McCain has been rising in recent weeks, I believe it’s mainly because he’s being perceived as “above the fray” of the Democratic campaign. He can focus on the issues and not deal with the personal attacks flying back and forth between Obama and Clinton. This is why Howard Dean is so eager to get a Democratic nominee since, as of now, McCain is basically unchallenged on most everything he says.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Loading ...
just watched it and all i can say is great job John! george tries getting on him and doesnt lethim speak but John did a great job and im proud to see that. GO JOHN SIDNEY McCAIN!
OS is the biggest tool in the shed…
explain that for me i wanna no how i am for showing my patriotism and my pride in John McCain. I will say this your probably some left wing who is just ashamed that they are going to lose the election
I think McCain is a fine presidential candidate– as I do Clinton and Obama. My issues with McCain are not ‘functionality’ like I had with our current president, but more with values. If he is going to cut 100s of billions of dollars, at some point “pork” for some people might appear to be “necessary spending” for others. For example, I feel the money that was cut from Planned Parenthood was atrocious, but those who have different values will feel it was “pork” that should be cut (or should be cut because of other religious reasons).
I am very skeptical about McCain cutting all the intended money he claims in order to ‘balance’ tax cuts from bi-partisan-considered pork belly spending. And much of his proposed budget relies on this claim.
Michael, I am so glad to see someone actually wanting to discuss the pork issue! Let me throw out a couple of reasons I support it.
First, between 2000-2008 (Bush’s term) pork barrel spending has totaled 188.4 BILLION dollars out of the federal budget. When we look at the criteria of labeling money “pork” we see that it is simple line items blended into otherwise legitimate legislation to be pushed through as a package deal. Are some of the projects worthy of endowments, grants, etc.? Absolutely.
But let’s look at the other side of this coin. Senators and Representatives push through these items for various programs that largely benefit only their districts, which is certainly the politically smart thing to do if they want to be popular and get re-elected, and some of them are definitely worthy. The problem is (and this leads to a discussion of another of McCain’s stances), these appropriations should be state funded, not federally funded. This is McCain’s argument against pork barrel spending, and I heartily agree with it.
Example, Clinton’s almost $300 in pork spending for 2008 consists of many MANY endowments for New York organizations that benefit only that organization or the people in that district. Obama’s almost $100 million is the same, groups and organizations get the pork he slides in to benefit Illinois, no other state.
Let’s pull it even further down to really really simple terms. Do you think its appropriate for your tax dollars to support my local volunteer fire department in my town (don’t laugh, its on the list)? And do you think my tax dollars should support the local library in your town? No, these are projects that should be supported by country or state budgets, not the federal budget. And lends itself to McCain’s belief that the federal government is dabbling too much in what should be state affairs.
Anyway you look at it, $188 billion is a big leak in the dam that hasn’t been plugged by Bush for 8 years. McCain has vehemently opposed it, another difference in Bush and McCain. I think if we could put that money back into the Federal budget, and let individual states support their district projects we would be ahead of the game. Is that all that needs to be done? Certainly not, but it’s a good start to solve problems on two fronts - cutting federal spending, and returning state spending back to their perspective states.
Sorry, I meant county budgets, not country budgets. And Clinton got $300M, not $300. It’s Monday, guys, sorry. *L*
Babs, it’s all well and good to tout McCain as the messiah of the economy and “hard on pork”, but look at the facts. That oft-cited $3 million project to study bear DNA? McCain voted for it.
Are Americans better off than they were eight years ago? “I think we are better off overall if you look at the entire eight-year period,” from the Jan 30, 2008 debates.
All of this, of course, is ignoring the 800-pound economic gorilla in the room. The Iraq War is costing us $341 million *per day*. I wonder what the price tag is on McCain’s desired 100 years of occupation…
Mike, can you refer me to that vote somewhere online? Also, just for the record, I don’t tout McCain as the messiah of anything, none of them are messiahs of anything. I’m just supporting his stance on pork barrel spending. Discussing an issue is much more productive than discussing the mud.
I was just listening to a financial debate of “experts” on Sunday, and there was evidence produced that the economy is indeed better overall than it was eight years ago. Doesn’t mean there aren’t major problems today, but the major economic indicators were supporting that statement all around the table. I admit I was surprised, but there they were - facts.
I won’t even address the 100 years crack again, but I will say as Iraq begins to shoulder more of the cost of the war we should see some relief on that gorilla (and I think it’s more like an elephant). Where did you get your figure on the cost? I thought it was higher than that.
Babs, good points on the spending differential. This is a problem with the current national politics– the politics of incumbency. So, I am there with you– I would agree that almost always local money should be spent on these local issues– excluding of course nationally funded local issues (like all local libraries across the country get funding to renovate for disability requirements, etc.).
But now I am suspicious as to how a President can change these politics. I know he has veto power, but there are limits. And certainly places in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, etc., need funding because of their global importance. Senators and Representatives know their local issues more so than others and should fight for those issues. With what is looking to be a Democrat Congress (stronger than the current), they’ll probably be able to override his vetoes if they group together along party lines. I am not saying this is good– I am just thinking ahead.
Babs, how do you think the choosing of lobbyist Tom Loeffler to head his fund-raising team affects McCain’s stance against wasteful pork?
Good point, Michael, and I’ll admit to not having enough political or economic savvy to know the answer. But to speculate, it wouldn’t have to be a veto situation neccesarily, would it?
Maybe I’m being simpleminded, but I think it should be a rule or law or whatever you want to call it, that legislative bills could not be submitted that contain line item requests for funds irrelavant to the bill you are submitting (which is the definition of pork barrel spending). If there was a ban placed on that practice (which I think is what McCain proposed on his site), then Senators and Representatives would have to devise another avenue to secure the money for the special interest projects. And if another separate avenue was devised, then new standards and restrictions - and a lift to the veil of deception - would protect the projects that are in legitimate need of federal funds and throw out the ones that are not.
Would that not mean a more transparent government, as well?
Well, Whobody, I think that it’s two separate issues. =)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the purpose of a lobbyist is to get (or pay) an elected official to basically champion their issue or get their opinion of an issue heard on the floor, no?
I think that McCain and Clinton has come under a lot of bashing from Obama on accepting contributions from lobbyists, but I also have learned that Obama actually ranks second in PACs and lobbyist/lawyer contributions. All three candidates have lobbyists on their payrolls, so I really don’t think there’s a difference in any of them from that standpoint.
If you’re asking do I think a lobbyist may have some influence over a politician in getting them to sponsor a line item that will net their organization funds, that’s possible. But if that’s the case, it doesn’t work with McCain, as he just simply “doesn’t do pork”.
Does that answer your question? =)
Well, it starts to answer my question. I’m not taking issue with him having a lobbyist on the payroll, because I know they all do.
Hasn’t Loeffler lobbied for pork projects though? That makes me think, okay, McCain doesn’t do pork, but he knows and associates with people who do.
I’ve read that at the time he was chosen, Loeffler had lobbied for nearly $40 million in pork projects. Now, I don’t put too much stake in such a number (because that doesn’t really break it down for us and say where the money was going), but isn’t that substantial enough that you wouldn’t want him heading up fund raising for a campaign that is going to take a major stand against the wasteful pork projects?
I’m not really coming down on McCain for this issue, because I’m okay with his stance on this one. I just want to know if you really think that he (including his associates) has kept his nose completely clean, because the GOP doesn’t seem to be shying away from “guilt by association” tactics(referring to the ridiculous Rev. Wright issue that we can’t seem to let be, and I’m sorry I even had to bring it up).
I don’t know anything really about Loeffler in that regard, but I know that Leiberman has done his share of porking and he doesn’t disassociate himself with him. The fact is there’s only about 5 senators including McCain who doesn’t submit any pork every year. I guess if you look at it that way if he distanced himself from every porker, he probably wouldn’t have anybody to talk to. *L*
But seriously, I don’t think that senators or reps are especially evil over pork spending, they’re just taking advantage of a broken system that’s been in place a very long time in government. They’re certainly not anti-american or anything. So it’s not something that a politician would distance himself from another politician over, just a difference in standards and policies that McCain wants to change. Like McCain voting against the Senate pay raise - he doesn’t take that raise after it passed, he donates it to charity because he was against it. But he doesn’t disassociate himself from all the others for accepting it, either. That’s a better comparison to your question, than say, Rev. Wright.
It’s link-tastic time!
I got my info on John McCain voting from the Bear DNA bill from factcheck.org…I really like them as a source since they’re surprisingly non-partisan and incredibly well-researched. Here’s the link:
http://www.factcheck.org/.....tions.html
As for the cost of war analysis, I’m getting it here:
http://www.nationalpriori.....ofwar_home
I realize it’s somewhat difficult to assess the true cost of the war so far, in no small part due to the same money exchanging hands more than once (e.g. government pays corporation, same corporation gets taxed, government pays corporation again, etc.).
..and since it came up, factcheck.org also has an interesting article concerning who does and doesn’t take money from lobbyists, depending, well, on how you define “lobbyist”:
http://www.factcheck.org/....._heat.html
Oh, one more set of links here, regarding the economy…The economic research division of the St. Louis federal reserve has some fantastic statistics on their website:
http://research.stlouisfe.....categories
Not only can you see a myriad of economic indicators, but any percent change they had from the previous year (i.e. the derivative). I confess, I don’t pretend to comprehend all of them, but a good deal of them are pretty clear. One graph that particularly stands out, though - Unemployment:
http://research.stlouisfe.....LOY?cid=12
Note that the number of unemployed always takes a nasty turn upwards just before a recession (those shaded gray regions). The sudden current up-swing does not bode well for the state of our economy.
Mike, thanks so much for the links! I’m a big fan of factcheck.org as well, I just missed that one on McCain from 2007. The economic links are great! Thanks again!