WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican John McCain says he opposed President Bush's tax cuts because they didn't come with spending cuts. That is not what he said at the time.

"In a presidential debate on Wednesday, McCain said he voted against the Bush tax cuts because he wanted to rein in spending.

"I disagreed when we had tax cuts without spending restraint," the Arizona senator said.

"The explanation fits with his history of railing against wasteful federal spending. But it does not fit with McCain's comments when he opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

"In 2001, McCain said the tax cuts favored the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. In 2003, he said there should be no tax cuts until the Iraq war costs were known.

"His aversion to the Bush tax cuts is just another reason McCain gives heartburn to many in the conservative GOP base. Besides taxes, there is also his more forgiving attitude toward illegal immigration, his effort to limit money in politics and his long-running feuds with leaders of the Christian right."

Myway news, 01/31/08

Hopefully the choices will be Ron Paul and Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Hopefully the choices will be Ron Paul and Obama.

---

You are an optimist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

You are an optimist.

---

Yep, that why I'll live longer than most. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Hopefully the choices will be Ron Paul and Obama.

---

Ron only needs 1185 more delegates :D

I have never understood why anyone would say that the Bush tax cuts are for the rich. I noticed that I am allowed more personal deduction, and I am far from rich. My youngest son is a single parent with 3 children, and the additional amount allowed per dependent certainly helped him! According to the figures I have heard, the treasuy is better off after the effects of the tax cut kicked in. In light of that, it seems irrelevant why McCain opposed the tax cuts. Additionally, he sided with liberals in opposition to some conservative judicial appointments, wants to give terrorists US civil rights (laywers & trials here), doesn't seem to worry about border security. I heard Ann Coulter say today that she believes that Hillary is more conservative than John. Say what?

Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain

John McCain on the Issues

Having been a senator for along time, I'm sure it is fairly easy to find inconsistencies in his voting record.

- pro- life but pro embryonic stem cell research?

I agree with the principle of cutting spending AND cutting taxes.

On Medicare part D, like Presisdent Bush, he increased the size and the expense of government.

Hillary Clinton on the Issues

On abortion, affirmative action, allowing US flag burning, death penalty, gun control, tax cuts among others, McCain is the opposite of Clinton.


So, NO, I don't think Mccain is a "Clinton light." :)

Given the choice McCain would be the better President. But I will not enthusiastically support his candidacy . Twice he considered switching parties in the last 7 years .

The first time was in 2001 .The Democrats were actively recruiting Repubulcan Senators to change parties after the Republicans has gained a one vote majority in the Senate. They contacted Sen Chafee of R.I. and Sen. Jeffords of Vt. Who eventually went turncoat .

But according to 'The Hill.com' it was John Weaver, McCain's chief political strategist who contacted the Democrats asking why they had not courted McCain . Conversations were then commenced with Democrat leader Sen.Tom Daschle S.D and other Democrat leaders.

Quote:

---

Daschle first made some of these assertions in little-noticed parts of his book, titled Like No Other Time: The 107th Congress and the Two Years That Changed America Forever.

The book states that in 2001, Daschle and other Democrats were attempting to persuade three Republicans to leave their party: Jeffords, Chafee, and McCain.

Asked which one was the closest to committing, Daschle answered, “Depended on the day.”

On page 62, Daschle wrote that McCain and Chafee “seemed like real possibilities” to bolt their party. He pointed out that few, if any, of McCain's people were hired by the Bush administration.

“John didn't think that was right,” Daschle wrote, “that his staff should be penalized like that.”

---

McCain denies ever having considered caucusing with Dems, but the story is hard to dismiss . Daschle had little reason to make up the story 10 months ago, when it initially ran.

In 2004 there was speculation that McCain would make an independent run for the Presidency. But the bigger news from that time was the discussions that were ongoing between John Kerry and McCain over a possible Democrat Kerry-McCain ticket . According to Kerry, it was McCain's staff who approached his campaign about potentially filling the Vice President slot on the Democratic ticket in 2004.
April 2007 Jonathan Singer interviewed Kerry and the issue came up .

Quote:

---

Jonathan Singer: There's a story in The Hill, I think on Tuesday, by Bob Cusack on the front page of the paper talking about how John McCain's people -- John Weaver -- had approached Tom Daschle and a New York Congressman, I don't remember his name, about switching parties. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your discussions were with him in 2004, how far it went, who approached whom... if there was any "there" there.
John Kerry: I don't know all the details of it. I know that Tom, from a conversation with him, was in conversation with a number of Republicans back then. It doesn't surprise me completely because his people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President. So his people were active -- let's put it that way.
Singer: Okay. And just to confirm, you said it, but this is something they approached you rather than...
Kerry: Absolutely correct.

---

MyDD :: John Kerry: McCain Approached Me About Joining Dem Ticket in 2004

McCain frequently co-sponsors important and controversial legislation with Democrats like Feingold,Kennedy and John Edwards . He also in his "maverick "role crosses the aisle and votes with the Democrats ,even against overwhelming Republican positions. His votes against the tax cuts are but one example of this . He now lies about his reasoning behind his opposition .He was NOT concerned about spending cuts but was vocal about what can only be described as class warfare issues.

He is also lying about immigration on the campaign trail abut illegal immigration. He was champion of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill .He now says that he is for tougher border security but in truth he could care less about it.

"I got the message," he told voters in South Carolina. "We will secure the borders first." But during the debate McCain tried to steam roll members of his party who tried to make border security the priority . F**k you!" and "Chickensh*t" were the words he had for Texas Sen. John Cornyn during "the debate " over enforcement provisions.

Now he tells the voters what they want to hear but his bitterness over the debate he cannot hide. "By the way, I think the fence is least effective," he told executives in Milwaukee, according to Vanity Fair.... "But I'll build the G*d d*mned fence if they want it."

Hello George:

If it's Clinton and Clinton light, relax... You've got TWO Republicans. Whatdoyawant??

excon

Pity the poor dead-enders, whining because the Republican front-runner looks more like a Democrat. That very fact tells you something about the degree to which the electorate has turned its back on the politics of bite and snarl. Turns out that the Rove-Cheney presidency has damaged the Republican Party even more than it damaged the Nation. Perfect justice, it seems to me.

And yet polls show McCain beating both Obama and Evita.

When the dust settles I will vote for McCain over either . But this is the primaries and us dead-enders still have a voice in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello George:

If it's Clinton and Clinton light, relax.... You've got TWO Republicans. Whatdoyawant???

---

A conservative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Pity the poor dead-enders, whining because the Republican front-runner looks more like a Democrat. That very fact tells you something about the degree to which the electorate has turned its back on the politics of bite and snarl. Turns out that the Rove-Cheney presidency has damaged the Republican Party even more than it damaged the Nation. Perfect justice, it seems to me.

---

I wonder what the Democrats did to deserve Clinton and “What’s his name; I can’t even pronounce it? Talk about “Dumb and Dimmer.” What they both propose is akin to “Setting the table for dinner” when the house in on fire. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

I wonder what the Democrats did to deserve Clinton and “What’s his name; I can’t even pronounce it? Talk about “Dumb and Dimmer.”

---

You can't pronounce "Obama"? A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

I wonder what the Democrats did to deserve Clinton and “What’s his name; I can’t even pronounce it? Talk about “Dumb and Dimmer.” What they both propose is akin to “Setting the table for dinner” when the house in on fire. :p

---

The left has purged many "middle-of-the-road" Democrats; others left voluntarily, believing the Democrat Party was lurching to the left. Also, the Party selected Clinton because it was felt he could win.

I always have trouble with names of Hebrew origin. But then that's me. The guy can't help what he was named, and if questioned on it, can point to his attendance in a Church of Christ, his relationship with Rick Warren and the history of Hussein as a family name. I guess the litmus test for Democrats now is to take a HIV test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

The left has purged many "middle-of-the-road" Democrats; others left voluntarily, believing the Democrat Party was lurching to the left. Also, the Party selected Clinton because it was felt he could win.

---

They also seem to have purged the Party of “Pragmatic thinkers.”:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

I wonder what the Democrats did to deserve Clinton and “What’s his name; I can’t even pronounce it? Talk about “Dumb and Dimmer.” What they both propose is akin to “Setting the table for dinner” when the house in on fire. :p

---

Bite and snarl.

You better sit this one out. McCain isn't belligerent enough, and Mitt is too good looking. Maybe in four or eight years blind rage will be in again.

Naw, I don't have a dog in the race…the last time I voted was for Kennedy and Goldwater before that. I just like the Game, I'll argue either side.