Early next week the U.S. Senate will vote on an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with a few small amendments intended to immunize telecommunications corporations that assisted our government in the warrantless and illegal wiretapping it has grown to love.

That such a gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution even made it out of committee is yet another stain on the gutless and seemingly powerless Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

That a majority on both sides of the aisle — not least of them the presumptive nominees for president of both political parties — intend to vote for such a violation of Americans’ right to privacy and of the sanctity of their personal communications is a stunning surrender to those who want us to live in fear forever.

We are living in a time when the right of habeas corpus — which simply put is your right to be brought before a proper court of law where the government is made to prove that there is good and legal reason to detain you — recently survived by a margin of only one vote at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now these bad actors are prepared to set aside your right to privacy — written into the Constitution as a key part of our Bill of Rights — with hardly a nod in the direction of the true patriots who rebelled against an English king and his army to guarantee those rights.

That they will do this while the last empty phrases of the political windbags at the Fourth of July celebrations are still echoing across a thousand city parks and the bright red, white and blue bunting and blizzard of American flags still flap in the breeze is little short of breath-taking.

How dare they?

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 07/03/2008 | Commentary: How dare they rip the Fourth Amendment?.

Here is an excerpt of his take on the weak effort by Obama to justify his support of FISA.

Barack Obama has issued a new statement on FISA in response to the growing number of his supporters objecting to his position. Genuine credit to him for being responsive this way and for having his site be a forum for disagreement among his supporters and himself. Providing a forum for those sorts of debates is a sign of a secure and healthy campaign.

Despite that, the statement contains many dubious claims and, in a couple cases, outright misleading statements. Worse, Obama’s statement only addressed the objections to the telecom immunity provisions of the bill, while ignoring the objections to the (at least) equally pernicious new warrantless eavesdropping powers the bill authorizes. Taking Obama’s claims in order:

“It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration’s program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That’s why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.”

Obama says he will vote to remove immunity from the bill but knows full well that this effort will fail, and that the final bill will have telecom immunity in it. The bottom line is that he will nonetheless end up voting for this bill with immunity in it even though he previously vowed to support a filibuster of “any bill” that contains retroactive immunity. Put another way, Obama claims he opposes telecom immunity but will vote for a bill that grants it.

“But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year.”

Whether it’s better than the Protect America Act (PAA) is irrelevant. The PAA already expired last February. If the new FISA bill is rejected, we don’t revert back to the Protect America Act. We just continue to live under the same FISA law that we’ve lived under for 30 years (with numerous post-9/11 modernizing amendments). So whether this bill is a mild improvement over the atrocious, expired PAA is not even a coherent reason to support it, let alone a persuasive one.

UT Documents: Obama’s new statement on FISA.

There is no Telecom Constituency. There is no Telecom Immunity movement. There is no Telecom Immunity voting block.

Here is Chris Dodd’s statement regarding the move to consider the FISA legislation:

“I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has voted to move forward with the consideration of this misguided FISA legislation. If passed, this legislation will ratify a domestic spying regime that has already concentrated far too much unaccountable power in the president’s hands and will place the telecommunications companies above the law.”

“I stand ready to offer an amendment that strips the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. I implore my colleagues to support of the rule of law and join me in voting against retroactive immunity.”

The President of the United States has only one oath, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution. Everything else is secondary. Everything.

Senator Obama, you know you will not get the Telecom Immunity stripped from the FISA bill. Your statements in the past say that passing a bill like the current FISA legislation would be wrong.

Senator Obama, will you vote for a bill you yourself said was wrong?

By the way, we are way too knowledgeable to be hoodwinked by generalizations like “this is an improvement over the Protect America Act”. That does not make it okay to gut the Fourth Amendment. FISA has worked and will continue to work, without these proposed changes. You said so yourself.

Here are your words from January 28, 2008:

“I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.” “Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.”

“The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.”

“No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people — not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.”

“That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd’s amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens - and set an example to the world - that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.”

Talking Points Memo has the complete rundown on Obama’s changing positions on FISA. It is well worth reading.

People ask, what is the big deal about FISA?

Without every part of the Constitution intact, we do not have a representative government. We have at best a benevolent dictator, who can change his intentions on a whim, if he so chooses.

Why are we reacting to the prospect of Barack Obama voting for FISA?

In Barack Obama’s own words:

“I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington… I’m asking you to believe in yours.”

Well, too bad for you Senator Obama, we believe.

It’s nice to know that I am not alone in my concern about Barack Obama’s betrayal of his pledge to filibuster Telecom immunity and expansion of warrantless wiretapping.  Consider joining yourself and give Barack Obama’s campaign an earful about his double-dealings on FISA.

I wonder what Chris Dodd has to say about this FISA reversal, since Barack Obama spoke in no uncertain terms about his position against Telecom immunity when receiving Chris Dodd’s endorsement?

The Nation’s Ari Melber has more:

Protesters are storming Barack Obama’s website. But they all support Obama.

A grassroots group of activists has been organizing on MyBo, Obama’s official social networking portal, to protest the Senator’s recent decision to back controversial legislation granting the President more spying powers. The effort hit a big milestone on Tuesday afternoon: It is now the largest self-organized group on Obama’s website, topping networks that were launched over a year ago. The spying protest, “Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity – Get FISA Right,” launched last week. (See Obama Network Organizes and Revolts Over Spying, The Nation.)

Membership spiked to about 8,900 people on Tuesday, edging out a student group with roughly 8,600 members, and one organizer estimated that the growth rate reached a rapid four percent during the daytime. The group initially spread through the Obama network, since the site’s platform instantly connects members through a dedicated email listserve.

On Monday, for example, over 200 emails shot across the wire, reaching the roughly 2,300 members who opted to receive individual messages. The exchanges ranged from policy debates, like whether immunity was acceptable if the telephone companies acted in good faith, to organizing strategies, such as promoting the group on sharing sites like Digg.

Then some activists open-sourced the project, creating a wiki-hub for additional actions — from calling Obama’s office to urging Keith Olbermann to promote the group — and launched partner groups on other sites like Facebook.

It is reminiscent of the same bad judgment that Nixon used when going after the Democrats, when he could have done nothing, literally, and been re-elected easily.  No - he couldn’t let that remote possibility remain even a possibility, so Nixon pursued the events that lead to the Watergate cover-up and his resignation.

Does Barack Obama have the same bent for self-destruction?  Is he trying to pull defeat from the jaws of victory?  Millions of people have been shocked over his FISA betrayal.  Perhaps Obama has just calculated that these supporters of his would never vote for McCain.  After doing the math, Obama may have just said, let’s go for the crossover Republicans and Independents and support FISA.

I hope he has plenty of other donors lined up.  I was actually concerned that I would be reaching my donation limit too soon before the November election.  He will not get one thin dime from me ever again.

Talking Points Memo has some interesting video:

McCainPedia.org is a project of the Democratic Party to use the new media to overcome the strong media bias toward McCain that exists in the mainstream media.

McCainpedia.org is a wiki run by the DNC’s Research, Communications, and Internet teams. The goal is to centralize research material, allowing the general public to use it as they see fit. Unlike some wikis, McCainpedia is read-only and can’t be edited by the public. This allows us to fully validate all of the information that appears, ensuring accuracy and reliability.

McCainpedia follows FlipperTV, which puts video taken by Democratic “trackers” of John McCain as he campaigns across the country, and allows users to watch, download, and use the footage as they wish. FlipperTV has now been incorporated into McCainpedia alongside all of the research information.
Using the Wiki

If you’re familiar with Wikipedia, then this should look very similar — it’s based off of the same underlying technology, MediaWiki. First, you can try viewing a category based on your interests and then using that to find an article you’d like to read about. From there, you can follow links to other articles that are linked from within that article.

Or, you can try navigating directly to a page by using the search box in the left column and selecting “Go.” If, instead of “Go,” you click “Search,” then instead of going directly to an article with that name, it will search the text of all articles for that term and return all results.

Next, try checking out FlipperTV, which we’ve incorporated into McCainpedia. FlipperTV is yet another project we put together during the Republican primary where we immediately had our “trackers” in the field (who were videotaping the candidates) upload their video directly to our website for anybody to mash up however they’d like. If you find something interesting you want to use, like McCain flip-flopping on an issue, simply find the video on Blip.TV and you can download it.

We’ll have lots of new content coming in the days, weeks, and months ahead, so be sure to keep coming back for the very latest. In fact, on the front page you’ll notice a list of the most recent articles that were newly created — so when you visit again, that’s a good first place to look.

McCainPedia:About - McCainPedia.

By the way, good luck with that campaign to make Barack Obama seem naive about foreign affairs. At least he knows more than a 5^th grader about Sunni and Shia and Al Qaeda, something McCain can’t say.

To him, an “ay-rab” is an “ay-rab”. That’s all he thinks he needs to know. I suppose it would be a shock for McCain to find out that the Iranian people are Shiite muslims, and considered to be Persians.

The man seems incapable of being civil - a great drawback for a potential world leader.

In the clearest indication yet of how he intends to confront Senator Barack Obama on foreign policy issues in the general election, Senator John McCain on Friday again portrayed the Democratic contender as being the favorite of Hamas, the militant Palestinian group, and implied that he would also be friendly with Iran, a Hamas ally.

Speaking at a news conference in New Jersey, Mr. McCain said he believed that comments made by a Hamas leader approving Mr. Obama’s candidacy were “a legitimate point of discussion,” and he went on to accuse Mr. Obama of agreeing to negotiate with the president of Iran, who on Wednesday referred to Israel as “a stinking corpse facing annihilation.” He described that as “a distinct difference between myself and Senator Obama.”

Mr. Obama has not let attacks go unanswered. On Thursday, he replied by saying that Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, was “losing his bearings” and engaging in “smear” tactics. “My policy toward Hamas has been no different than his,” Mr. Obama said in an interview on CNN.

Mr. McCain’s attacks are part of a broader effort by his campaign to depict Mr. Obama, the leader in the delegate count in the Democratic race for president, as inexperienced and naïve on foreign policy in general and soft on terrorism and its sponsors specifically. Throughout the campaign, Mr. Obama has also had to fight a related perception, one encouraged by his Democratic rivals, that his support for Israel is also weak.

But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

The McCain-Obama dispute about Hamas began last month, after Ahmed Yousef, a political adviser to the group’s leadership in Gaza, made complimentary remarks about Mr. Obama in an interview with WABC radio in New York. After initially complaining that “everybody tries to sound like he is a friend of Israel” when out on the campaign trail, including Mr. Obama, Mr. Yousef shifted tone.

“We like Mr. Obama,” Mr. Yousef said, “and we hope that he will win the election.”

“I do believe that Mr. Obama is like John Kennedy, a great man with great principles,” he continued. “He has a vision to change America, to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with domination and arrogance.”

Though Hamas describes itself as both a political party and a movement with an armed wing, the State Department, as well as Israel and several other countries, classifies it as a terrorist organization. The group has sponsored suicide bombings against Israeli military and civilian targets, and its charter calls for the elimination of Israel and its replacement by an Islamic Palestinian state.

The United States has pursued a policy of isolating Hamas while trying to strengthen moderate Palestinian leaders.

For his part, Mr. McCain has taken pride in the enmity with which he regards Hamas. “I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare,” he said late last month in a conference call with conservative bloggers.

Conversely, he has tried to portray Mr. Obama as sympathetic to Hamas.

“I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States,” Mr. McCain said to the bloggers. “If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”

And in a fund-raising letter sent out in April, a spokesman for Mr. McCain wrote: “We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.”

On McCain, Obama and a Hamas Link - New York Times.

In addition, the man to whom McCain has hitched his political star is someone that McCain called, “dumb as a stump”.

I can’t argue that point, and his assessment of George Bush, Reverend Falwell, and Pat Robertson were that these were not honorable or well-intentioned men.

Then someone sat McCain down, most likely the Bush Crime Family, and said, “Look, we know how to win. You won’t make it distancing yourself from me.” McCain bought it hook, line, and stinker.

As a lawyer might say (OK, I am one), I have no personal knowledge of whether John or Cindy McCain voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election. However, now that that has been called into question by Arianna Huffington (who says no) and Huffington’s truthfulness has in turn been questioned by the McCain campaign (although not yet by the McCains), I can offer the following anecdote as admissible hearsay shedding a little light on the subject:

Over the Fourth of July weekend of 1999, I had the good fortune to accompany my then fiancée (and now happily my wife) to the McCain vacation home in Sedona where she was interviewing them for a Home and Garden Television show. The interview itself was entirely apolitical, focusing on fabrics and furnishing in their lovely Oak Creek abode, topics about which I do recall the senator was less than comfortable discussing.

Always the goods hosts, the McCains also invited us to spend the day with them, including for barbeque, a favorite of John’s. And as McCain flipped burgers, I could not help but ask his views about then candidate George W. Bush.

“He’s as dumb as a stump,” McCain offered. We then went on to discuss other matters (including Vietnam) but that quote remains seared in my memory.

So how the McCains actually voted that November is between them and their voting booth. But if John McCain did end up voting for Bush, then by his own admission he voted for a stump.

Al Meyerhoff: McCain to Me in 1999: Bush As Dumb as a Stump.

The McCain Source has collected some of McCain’s statements on our occupation of Iraq. Remember these are his words. Even though he calls for an unending presence in Iraq, as long as Americans take no casualties, John McCain never says how he will get to that position. If he knows right now how to stop American casualties, he should speak up now, and not wait until he is President.

No, McCain has no clue as to how to stop the violence in Iraq. His “take no casualties” style of occupation is simply a far-fetched hypothetical situation.

It is very reminiscent of Steve Martin’s joke about how to have a million dollars and not pay any taxes. The humor in the joke is that it starts off by saying, “First, get a million dollars…*”

That is what John McCain is saying here: “First, take no more casualties…”, then we can stay in Iraq as long as we feel like it.

Here is more from the McCain Source:

McCain: “It Doesn’t Matter…We Could Be There For A Hundred Years, For All I Know.” During an interview with the editorial board of the Detroit News, McCain was asked, “When should the United States leave Iraq?” McCain responded, “It doesn’t matter.

We’re still in Kuwait since the first Gulf War. If we can continue to show this progress, we could be there for 100 years, for all I know, as long as Americans are not dying. It’s not a matter of American presence; it’s a matter of success so we can beat back this adversary. If we’d done what they wanted us to do six months ago, al-Qaida would now be trumpeting to the world that it defeated the United States of America.” [Detroit News, 1/3/08]

McCain Said U.S. Could Stay In Iraq For “Maybe A Hundred Years” And He Was “Fine” With It. In January 2008, McCain said the U.S. military could stay in Iraq for “a hundred years” and that “would be fine with me.”

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a questioner said, “President Bush is talking about our staying in Iraq for 50 year,” at which point McCain interrupted and said, “Make it a hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.

That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured, or harmed, or wounded, or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you.” [Town Hall Meeting in Concord, NH, 1/3/08; emphasis added]

McCain: “I Don’t Think Americans Are Concerned If We’re There For 100 Years Or 1,000 Years Or 10,000 Years.” In an interview on “Face the Nation,” host Bob Schieffer asked McCain about staying in Iraq for 100 years.

McCain responded, “We’ve got to get Americans off the front line, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities. And then I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years. What they care about is a sacrifice of our most precious treasure, and that’s American blood.

So what I’m saying is look, if Americans are there in a support role, but they’re not taking casualties, that’s fine. We’re in Kuwait now. As you well recall, we had a war, we stayed in Kuwait. We didn’t stay in Saudi Arabia. So it’s going to be up to the relationship between the Iraqi government and the United States of America.” [CBS, “Face the Nation,” 1/06/08; emphasis added]

McCain: “We’re Going To Be In This Struggle For The Rest of The Century.” While speaking at a town hall meeting in Sun City Center, Florida, McCain said, “I’d like to look you in the eye and tell you there’s not gonna be any more wars.

I’d like to look you in the eyes and tell you that this terrible evil called radical Islamic extremism is defeated. I can’t do that. I’ve got to tell you that we’re gonna be in this struggle for the rest of this century because it’s a transcendent evil.” [Town Hall Meeting; Sun City Center, FL 01/26/08; emphasis added]

McCain: “We Are In A Greater Struggle That Is Going To Be With Us For The Rest of This Century.” While giving a speech in Nashua, New Hampshire, McCain said, “We are in two wars.

We are in a greater struggle that is going to be with us for the rest of this century… He added, “These young people that are in this crowd, my friends, I’m going to be asking you to serve. I’m gonna be asking you to step forward and serve this nation in difficult times.” [Speech in Nashua, New Hampshire, 1/7/08; emphasis added]

McCain Source | News.

*For those of you interested in the end of the Steve Martin joke, because you already have a million dollars, Steve Martin said, “don’t pay taxes and when they come to investigate, tell them ‘I forgot!’”

As John McCain heads to Memphis on the anniversary of Dr. King’s death, it’s worth noting his record on the issue of a holiday in King’s honor. When he was a Congressman in 1983, McCain voted against creating a federal Martin Luther King Holiday and his home state rescinded recognition of the holiday in 1987.

While he has claimed his position has ‘evolved’ and that his original vote was ‘wrong’ his record of support for racist individuals, and his consistent votes against civil rights legislation belie that claim. And he has employed controversial individuals on his own campaign whose own nasty comments about Martin Luther King undermine McCain’s claims of inclusivity and evolution. 

McCain Voted Against Creating Martin Luther King Holiday.

In 1983, McCain voted against a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill to designate the third Monday of every January as a federal holiday in honor of the late civil rights leader, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The motion passed 89-77. [HR 3706, Vote 289, 8/2/83; CQ 1983]

McCain Said His Position Has ‘Evolved.’

During a 2000 interview, McCain compared his evolution on this issue to former Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater. “I believe that Barry Goldwater, to start with, regretted his vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act,” McCain said. “I think that Barry grew, like all of us grow and evolve. In 1983, when I was brand-new in the Congress, I voted against the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King. That was a mistake, OK? And later I had the chance to … help fight for … the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King as a holiday in my state.” [ www.salon.com 4/18/00; Accessed 4/2/08]

Arizona Governor Rescinded Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

In 1987, One of newly elected Governor Evan Mecham’s first acts in office was to rescind Arizona’s recognition of the Martin Luther King Holiday. “Mecham strikes many voters as a simpleminded ideologue who is giving a bad name to the nation’s second-fastest-growing state. After rescinding the Jan. 19 holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr., Mecham defended the use of the term “pickaninnies” for blacks.” [Time 11/9/87]

McCain Said He Thought Governor Was Correct in His Decision According to the Huffington Post,

“In 1983, McCain voted against passing a bill to designate the third Monday of every January as a federal holiday in honor of King. Four years later, then-Arizona Governor Evan Mecham rescinded Martin Luther King Day as a state holiday, saying it had been established through an illegal executive order by his Democratic predecessor. McCain said he thought Mecham was correct in his decision.” [Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 4/1/08]

McCain Consistently Voted Against The Civil Rights Act Of 1990.

In 1990, McCain voted against a bill designed to address employer discrimination at least 4 times. According to the Washington Post, the “Civil Rights Act of 1990 is designed to overturn several recent Supreme Court rulings that made it much more difficult for individual employees to prove discrimination. The legislation, being fought by business, also would impose new penalties on employers convicted of job discrimination.” [S 2104, Vote #304, 10/24/90; Vote #276, Vote #275, 10/16/90; Vote #161, 7/18/90; Washington Post, 7/9/90]

McCain Avoided Directly Answering Question on Affirmative Action, Finally Said He Opposed Quotas.

While appearing on Hardball, McCain was asked about his views on affirmative action. After criticizing teachers’ unions, McCain said, “I want to test voucher programs. Cindy and I have chosen to send our 15-year-old daughter to a Catholic school, because we think that’s the best.” He added that he’d ensure that, “Every school and library in America is being wired to the Internet… But, no, I do not support quotas, and have seen the results of it.” [NBC, “Hardball,” 2/9/00]

McCain Would Not Support Affirmative Action for College Admissions.

In a 2004 questionnaire, Senator McCain indicated he would not support affirmative action policies in public college admissions. [2004 National Political Awareness Test- Senator McCain]

McCain Voted Against Addressing The Disproportionate Number Of Minority Children In Prison.

In 1999, McCain voted to table an amendment that required States to address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without numerical standards or quotas, disproportionate number of juvenile members of ‘racial minority groups’ who come in contact with juvenile justice system. The motion to table passed 52-48. [S 254, Vote #130, 5/19/99]

McCain Strategist Opposed King Holiday

McCain defended controversial spokesman Richard Quinn, who called the MLK Holiday “Vitriolic and Profane.”

Richard Quinn, was a South Carolina “strategist” for McCain in the 2000 campaign. In a Partisan View column, Richard Quinn wrote,

“King Day should have been rejected because its purpose is vitriolic and profane. By celebrating King as the incarnation of all they admire, they [black leaders] have chosen to glorify the histrionic rather than the heroic and by inference they spurned the brightest and the best among their own race.

Ignoring the real heroes in our nation’s life, the blacks have chosen a man who represents not their emancipation, not their sacrifices and bravery in service to their country; rather, they have chosen a man whose role in history was to lead his people into a perpetual dependence on the welfare state, a terrible bondage of body and soul.”

Quinn has also advocated electing David Duke, and sold T-Shirts through his magazine celebrating Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. [Partisan View, Southern Partisan, Fall, 1983; Partisan View, Southern Partisan, Winter, 1989, PFAW Release, 2/17/00] [Spartanburg Herald-Journal, 12/23/05; Vanity Fair, 11/04]

McCain Defended Quinn as ‘Respected’ and a ‘Fine Man.”

Despite Mr. Quinn’s writings and history of racial insensitivity, McCain defended him as a ‘respected’ and ‘fine man’ and refused to fire him. [Associated Press, 2/18/00; New York Times, 2/8/00]

McCain Is the Same As Bush: Wrong on Key Progressive Issues

McCain on Iraq: “I Don’t Think Americans Are Concerned If We’re There For 100 Years or 1,000 Years or 10,000 Years.”

 In an interview on “Face the Nation,” host Bob Scieffer asked McCain about staying in Iraq for 100 year. McCain responded, “We’ve got to get Americans off the front line, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities. And then I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years. [CBS, “Face the Nation,” 1/06/08]

McCain Housing Speech Blamed Americans Who “Bought Homes They Couldn’t Afford” and Argued Against Vigorous Federal Intervention.

On March 25th, John McCain delivered a speech on the housing crisis. According to the New York Times, “McCain appeared to be trying to confront questions about his dexterity in dealing with the economy, a subject that he has admitted is not his strongest suit.”

During the speech, McCain said, “Some Americans bought homes they couldn’’t afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates.”

The New York Times reported, “Mr. McCain argued this week against a vigorous federal intervention to address the crisis, saying Washington should not bail out banks and homeowners who in his view had knowingly taken on risky mortgages.” [New York Times, 3/26/08; 3/28/08]

McCain’s Plan: Tax Cuts To For Businesses 

John McCain proposed a long-term economic plan that would lower the corporate income tax rate and provide several other tax breaks for businesses. McCain proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent. McCain said that his plan was “pro growth, less taxes and less spending” versus “the Democrats’ tired ideas of tax and spend.” [Associated Press, 1/17/08]

McCain Repeatedly Voted Against Raising The Minimum Wage.

In the senate, John McCain voted at least eight times against measure to increase the minimum wage. [HR 2, Vote #23, 1/24/07; S.Amdt. 44 to S. 256, Vote #26, 3/07/05; S.Amdt. 128 to S. 256, Vote #27, 3/07/05; S.Amdt. 3079 to S.Amdt. 2951 to S.Con.Res. 101, Vote #76, 4/07/00; S.Amdt. 1383 to S. 1429, Vote #239, 7/30/99; S. 96, Vote #94, 4/28/99; S .Amdt. 3540 to S.Amdt. 3559 to S. 1301, Vote S.Amdt. 4272 to H.R. 3448, Vote #183, 7/06/96]

NOW: In A “Breathtaking Turnabout” McCain “Embraced” the Bush Tax Cuts.

The New York Times reported, “But an equally breathtaking turnabout occurred earlier in the year, when Mr. McCain embraced the Bush tax cuts he had once denounced as an unaffordable giveaway to the rich. In an interview with National Review, Mr. McCain justified his reversal by saying, ‘Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues.’” [New York Times, 10/9/07]

THEN: McCain Voted Against the Bush Tax Cut Citing Benefits For The Wealthy.

In 2001, John McCain voted against final passage of the Bush tax cut. McCain said, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.” [H.R. 1836, Roll Call Vote #170, 5/26/01; Los Angeles Times, 5/27/01]

ColorOfChange.org.