John "maveriky" McCane does the Republic Party flip-floppy again!

Today:

Sen. John McCain and House Minority Leader John Boehner object to the economic stimulus plan. McCain also criticizes a Pentagon appointment and the decision to close Guantanamo.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-stimulus26-2009jan26,0,7544832.story


Campaigning then:

"Yes. I would close Guantanamo Bay. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/60minutes/main2658405_page5.shtml


Republic Party Flip-Flops; it's what they do best!

I read that he thinks Obama is "moving too fast" on Gitmo. I am so sick of McCain and the media still trying to prop up his maverickiness.

I also heard and read that he thinks Obama is "moving too fast". I wonder if by some accident McCain had become president, he would have just caved when his party told him he couldn't close gitmo. He doesn't even agree with Obama on the things he agrees with Obama on. Hopefully we can find some use for him down the line, but he's not being especially helpful or anything now.

I am one who is on the fence with closing Gitmo without understanding how it is going to happen and where the people will go. I think that once those questions are answered, then people will have something more firm to base their opinions on. Right now, people are going off their gut. McCain is saying that it should be closed, but thinks he is moving too fast, which in itself, is not an unreasonable thing to say. Had he said what others are saying, like he is ending the war on terror, or that he done more for terrorist than for Americans, then I would be pretty pissed about what he said.

On the fence about closing Gitmo?? Why would any sane person not want to close Gitmo??

NGU.

I guess my point is, the media has been going on and on about what an ally McCain will be for Obama in the senate, which I never really understood anyways since they are pretty different in terms of ideology....and, how much power does Mccain really have in the senate anyway (in terms of influence of other Republicans).

And I hate it. I never realized how dumb some of them were until this election. I never once thought that McCain was going to be his ally. I thought that he was going to help him bridge the gap, but push comes to shove, McCain is going to do what he did during the election...he decides that instead of doing whats right, he will get in line behind all the other republicans and be lock step behind policies that don't help anyone and it doesn't help him politically either.

...floop!

NGU.

I see nothing's changed. And remind me why this guy is so revered in the Senate?

within a few hours ...

He had one brush with financial taint-only Republican to have involvement in Keating 5 in 1980s and since has stayed pretty clean. Most of the rest of our politicians are financially tainted and this is our complete undoing.

(I'll give him a third-he stuck with federal financing of campaigns, which may have been his undoing).

...whenever he doesn't support it. :eyes:

By the way, can you prove your allegation, that "most of the rest of our politicians are financially tainted?" Or is that just your uninformed opinion?

NGU.

Right now I am checking out news stories on Pelosi's son Paul and big money from Countrywide. Also checking out recent Friday Night News Dump story from a few weeks ago on Biden's 2 sons and their ownership of a Hedge Fund (recent court case settled out of court). This story never reached DU.

Biden also has a long history of working for the interests of the credit card companies (major Delaware business interests). Most of the onerous credit card scams that are destroying individuals and families are Biden-backed legislation.

Voting for the Big Bank Bailout which put me on the massive debt hook was a Dem initiative and massive Dem vote--Pelosi was pressing for Republican votes so she would have cover when the bailout failed (if Dems thought it would succeed they would have not wanted any Republican votes).

The 700 giveaway was passed by Democrats in October , including Obama. McCain was vilified by them for attempting to block it.

Our problems are all generated by the nexus of corrupt politicians and big business and it is not a partisan issue-DeLay was self serving, so are many Dems. Huge numbers are multi millionaires

Incidentally, Ray La Hood from Illinois (Republican) as Obama's Secretary of Transportation will oversee big money to auto industry as well as road money--it doesn't matter whether Repub or Dem-crooked politicians will stick together so long as they can both make money.

out.
Dems accused him of obstructing and undermining the deal for the bailout which they had made in Congress and Senate.
McCain caved and agreed to bailout. Some Republicans did, others responded to their constituents and ran away from it.

Dems passed bailout. Bailout did not work. We owe 700 billion, big banks did not extend credit, other businesses failed.

NPR had a segment with NYT business reporter who praised Obama for working the phones and getting it passed; also said McCain no help at all.

The 700 billion bailout of big banking and Wall St was a Dem initiative (along with Bush).

I maintain that the Dems wanted to do it and knew it would not work, therefore they kept pressing Republicans to vote for it so the blame could be shared later. If they believed it would work they would have done it entirely alone and tried to keep Repubs out of it.

I am amazed that Bush fooled us 2x--first with Iraq (wmd, imminent danger!!!) and then with bailout (the plane is on fire!!!!!!).

The Dems weren't fooled. They, including Obama) work for the big banks and Wall St. These entities gave their big money to Dems last year and knew what was going to happen.

If you google : republicans oppose bailout , many news stories still available

McCain said that he suspended his campaign so he could go to Warrrshington and "broker and deal" between Republicans and Democrats so that they could pass the financial bailout, and he said that he refused to participate in the debate until a deal on the financial bailout was reached. He criticized Obama for not DOING enough to work towards a financial bailout, even though Obama was working for in more in private than in public. McCain wanted more concessions to Republicans in the bailout/less regulation, and the only reason why he was accused of getting in the way is that he was trying to take credit for the bailout PASSING (do you remember all of his surrogates coming out, before the actual vote, and saying that McCain should get credit for getting all of the Republicans on board with the financial bailout,before the House Repubs voted it down?), while he was just causing the whole situation to be even more politicized. So again, we have different memories of this, and I also disagree with your stance in another thread that Rachel Maddow was "drumming up support for the bailout, along with the sellout Dems". I remember Rachel having Barney Frank and Paul Krugman on (who only reluctantly said that the bailout was worth a vote), but she also had Democrats on who opposed the bailout and I remember her highlighting several things that she was very distrubed about on the final financial bailout package that was reached. I agree that many Democrats were complicit in the shit that has happened to the country, but the idea that McCain was trying to block the bailout and should get credit for it (and that he just caved, so is therefor less complicit) is simply absurd to me.

My point is that Obama was working for the bailout that was detrimental to citizens and gave free rein to banks and Paulson while McCain had tried to work with Republicans to change the package. He was excoriated by Dems for not getting behind their deal with Paulson and Bush. The bailout as it passed was a Democratic Party bill and, I believe, one that they knew would not work, hence their ongoing demand that they needed Republican support.


<http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/25/bailout-fall-apart/>

Noting that “it was McCain who urged President Bush to call the White House meeting,” Politico’s David Rogers writes that “the whole sequence of events confirmed Treasury’s fears about inserting presidential politics into what were already difficult negotiations.” One of the chief negotiators in the House, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), described it more bluntly:

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., told Democratic colleagues that McCain’s involvement has destroyed chance of an agreement, sources told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

Frank compared McCain’s involvement to: “Richard Nixon blowing up the Vietnam peace talks in 1968.”

Marc Ambinder reports that McCain and his staff are sounding out “moderate Democrats and conservative Republicans to see whether they support the conservative Republican Study Committee’s alternative bailout bill.” McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker denies McCain is “pushing any specific proposal.”

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos reports that when Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson told a room full of Democrats, “Please don’t blow this up,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “We’re not the ones trying to blow this up; it’s the House Republicans.” “I know, I know,” Paulson replied.
Republicans were pushing less drastic insurance plan for troubled assets

<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122235295272975207.html>

This WSJ article has much more:

Earlier in the day, congressional leaders had hammered together the outline of a compromise that involved allotting the bailout money in installments. It was widely expected to result in a deal. However a pivotal afternoon meeting at the White House, attended by President George W. Bush, congressional leaders and the two presidential candidates, broke with no agreement.

One cause of the delay: opposition from House Republicans who have tried to fashion an alternative plan that, instead of relying heavily on taxpayer money, could let banks buy insurance for the troubled assets weighing down their books.

The snafu spawned a round of political finger-pointing, with most Democrats blaming Sen. John McCain, whose decision to return to Washington and meet with congressional Republicans appears to have complicated days of negotiations.

Sen. McCain "goes to a meeting and all of a sudden, we lose all the Republicans who have been working with us for the last five days," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat. "This has to be a bipartisan deal. Unfortunately Republicans walked off the field."

McCain aides argue there was no deal at hand because there wasn't enough support among Republicans to move an agreement through the Congress. Instead, aides cast Sen. McCain as working to put together an agreement that can pass. His aides said the Arizona senator wants the Treasury to have flexibility to make loans as well as buy assets.

I asked for proof. Not more vague allegations.

NGU.

In September, even economists who did not like the form of the bailout were saying that something had to be done. Krugman was one of those who didn't like it, but thought the consequence of not doing it would likely be worse. It also was not a "Democratic" plan - that is a RW talking point. The original request - with absolutely no oversight or conditions was from Bush's Treasury Secretary.

Because the Democrats control Congress, they led the process to create a different plan. They were limited by negotiating to get a bill that Bush would sign - as they were unlikely on something like this to have been able to over ride a veto. The reason that there was a deal in both the House and Senate to get vote from both parties was the concern that the Republicans would for political reasons vote against it and demagogue the issue to defeat Democrats.

You might want to listen to some of the hearing in relevant committees - the biggest problem I see is that there are very few common sense Senators arguing that first we need to face the truth about the extent of the banking/financial problem. One example - Kerry quoted a Krugman article that spoke of zombie banks - where the real value of their assets was far lower than the value they still had in their books - and lower then the liabilities. The next day, Schumer brought up the issue and essentially said that the amount (he estimated $3 trillion) was too large to correct. There is a battleground here - and it will be interesting watching who is where.

As to your corruptions claim, I doubt Beau Biden owns a hedge fund - before going to Iraq, he was DE's AG. Neither AG or hedge funds is a part time job. In addition, it is legal to run a hedge fund. The only problem I ever had was when JRE spoke of "working" for the hedge fund as a way to learn about poverty - because it was not believable. Why quotes - he worked 2 or so days a month and earned about half a million dollars. I don't think having a kid working for a hedge fund hurts my opinion of Biden or HRC.

who are involve in the recently settled court case and upcoming court case as per AP:

<http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20090109/NEWS01/90109041>


Lotito claimed James Biden called him in early 2006 saying that his brother was concerned about the impact that Hunter Biden’s lobbying might have on the senator’s expected campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. His lobbying firm, Oldaker, Biden & Belair, had represented colleges and hospitals, mainly in an effort to secure money in appropriation bills. He stopped lobbying in September after his father was on the Democratic ticket.

According to the lawsuit, James Biden said his brother had asked him to seek Lotito’s help in finding a job for Hunter that wouldn’t involve lobbying.

The lawsuit claims that after Lotito helped set up a deal to purchase control of the hedge funds for $21 million in cash and install Hunter Biden in an executive position with a $1.2 million salary, his relationship with the Bidens soured. Lotito claimed that, without his knowledge, the Bidens then cut their own deal to purchase the same assets with an $8 million promissory note. The Bidens claimed Lotito misrepresented himself.

The Bidens and Lotito have been named as defendants in a separate lawsuit filed by investor Stephane Farouze, global head of fund derivatives for Deutsche Bank. Farouze claims in his lawsuit that the defendants fraudulently agreed to buy his membership interest in Paradigm knowing they didn’t have the money to back up their promise.

Oral arguments are scheduled for later this month in New York Supreme Court on the Bidens’ motion to dismiss Farouze’s complaint.

He should retire to one of his estates and count his wife's money.

And now he criticizes President Obama for actually putting those words into action? :eyes: I knew the united front was too good to be true. Maybe he read all the Freeper threads ripping him a new one over all this..LOL.

and now is back saying the same old Bushit.
I wish he'd lose his Senate seat next time. I called his office today and left him a piece of my mind. In fact, if anyone has the inkling, the number is (202) 224-2235