P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24785
Let's Closely Examine McCain's Record
by Chris Field
02/01/2008
Following his wins in the South Carolina and Florida Republican primaries,
Arizona Sen. John McCain has become the front-runner for the GOP
presidential nomination. He has spent the last year attempting to convince
the conservative base of the Republican Party that he is one of them -- but
his record in the Senate shows otherwise.
Most voters know about his anti-free speech McCain-Feingold campaign finance
reform. His temper is legendary, and his mistreatment of conservatives and
fellow Republicans has earned him accolades from the liberal media who
lovingly refer to him as a "maverick." And he suffered a blow to his
campaign last summer after his second failed attempt to pass the
McCain-Kennedy guest-worker/amnesty bill. But his apostasies go far beyond
that into taxes, judges, life concerns, same-sex marriage, energy and other
issues important to conservatives.
Here are some issues that many conservatives may have forgotten -- or never
known -- about John McCain's far-from-conservative record:
Taxes
Though McCain wants voters to view him as a strong, Reaganesque conservative
on taxes, his conduct has not been so positive.
He has established a record of not simply opposing tax cuts -- including the
Bush cuts of 2001 and 2003 and the attempt to eliminate the death tax in
2002 -- but of opposing them using class-warfare rhetoric (See "John McCain's
Top 10 Class-Warfare Arguments Against Tax Cuts," HUMAN EVENTS, January
14.). He even went so far as to be to the left of former NBC "Today" host
Katie Couric.
In response to McCain's claim that President Bush's tax relief benefited the
wealthy but instead should go to "average citizens who also are double-taxed
every single day" in a Jan. 7, 2003, interview on "Today," Couric said:
"But, Sen. McCain ... working Americans, the middle-class Americans, under
the Bush proposals will get a major break. A family of four making $39,000 a
year ... will get a $1,100 tax cut for several years, allowing them to plan
their individual budgets. That sounds like something that won't just simply
benefit the wealthy."
McCain's response: "Well, I think it will."
McCain, of course, had the backing of the New York Times in his
class-warrior fight against the Bush tax cuts. In a Jan. 7, 2000, editorial,
the Times said:
"On the tax-cut issue, Mr. McCain's approach is more sound than that of the
Texas governor. Mr. Bush's tax scheme is costly and unfair."
He tells voters that he opposes all tax increases, but he won't sign the
Americans for Tax Reform pledge to "oppose any and all efforts to increase
the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses." When asked
why in a Sept. 5, 2007, debate on Fox News, McCain said:
"Because I stand on my record, and my record is 24 years of opposing tax
increases, and I oppose them, and I'll continue to oppose them. . . . I don't
have to sign pledges. My record stands for itself. It's very clear to the
American people. I've been in this business a long, long time. But the point
is that I voted against the tax cuts because there was no restraint in
spending."
But how honest is McCain being about this claim? First, spending has
increased since he voted against the tax cuts. If excessive government
spending was a good enough reason to oppose them in the first place, shouldn't
that be a good enough reason to let them expire?
Second, McCain has given mixed messages about his support (or opposition) to
the extension of the tax cuts. McCain told NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim
Russert that he would not support extending the tax cuts because of size of
the federal deficit -- but then he voted to extend them. Here's the exchange
from May 13, 2007:
MR. RUSSERT: On tax cuts. You were on this program back in '03, and I asked
you this: "Do you believe the President, because of the war, should be
asking Americans for more sacrifice, should hold off any future tax cuts
until we have a sense of the costs of the war and the state of our economy?"
[McCain:] "Yes, I do. I believe that until we find out the costs of this war
and the reconstruction that we should hold off on tax cuts." You came back
the next year, I again asked you about opposing the Bush tax cuts, and this
is what you said:
[Videotape of McCain, April 11, 2004]: "I voted against the tax cuts because
of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would
clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the
deficit."
MR. RUSSERT: Disproportionate to the wealthiest Americans. And you wouldn't
extend them because it would hurt the deficit. [Yet] you voted to extend
them.
SEN. McCAIN: I voted to extend them because it would have the effect of
having a tax increase. . . . The problem is that spending has lurched
completely out of control. My proposal was to restrain spending. And now, if
you don't make them, those tax cuts, permanent, businesses, families, farms
all over America will have to experience what, for all intents and purposes,
the impact on them would be a tax increase. Would I have liked to have seen
more tax cuts to middle-income Americans? Did I have a different proposal?
Yes. But I supported tax cuts, and I have never supported -- I do not
support tax increases.
Third, he has said he is willing to raise Social Security taxes. In a Feb.
20, 2005, interview on "Meet the Press," Russert asked McCain if he would
support, "as part of the solution to Social Security's solvency problem ...
lift[ing] the cap so that you would pay payroll tax, Social Security tax,
not just on the first $90,000 of your income, but perhaps even higher."
McCain answered: "As part of a compromise I could, and other sacrifices. . .
.. I'm proud of the job that Sen. Lindsey Graham has been doing in his
leadership position on this issue and showing some courage."
Finally, despite his claims to have never voted for a tax increase, the Club
for Growth has pointed out:
"As chairman of the Commerce Committee in 1998, he sponsored and voted for
an enormous 282% tax increase on cigarettes. Sen. McCain defended the
proposal as a 'fee' rather than a tax increase, but his semantic tap dance
doesn't change the numerical facts."
Judges and Gang of 14
A key issue for conservatives every presidential election is the nomination
of strict constructionist judges to serve on the Supreme Court. Not only has
McCain supported President Bush's Supreme Court nominees, he has said he
would appoint justices that would please conservatives. But a January 28
report by the Wall Street Journal's John Fund raised concerns on the right.
Fund wrote:
"[McCain] has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of
Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw
the line on a Samuel Alito because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.'"
McCain, of course, immediately told reporters that that is not a statement
he remembers ever making and since has repeatedly said that he would appoint
justices like Roberts and Alito. But Robert Novak reported three days later,
in his January 31 column, that "multiple sources confirm [McCain's] negative
comments about Alito nine months ago."
Conservative former Sen. Rick Santorum (R.-Pa.) also raised doubts about the
kind of justices McCain would nominate. He told radio talk-show host Mark
Levin January 10:
"This is not a guy who would give me a lot of confidence that he would
appoint the judges who are necessary on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade,
who would be strict constructionist judges."
Also a concern for the right is McCain's involvement in the infamous "Gang
of 14." In late May 2005, just as then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
(R.-Tenn.) was ready to pull the trigger on the "nuclear option" to end the
filibustering of judicial nominees, McCain undermined his party with his own
solution. Mark Levin wrote this about it for HUMAN EVENTS (See "Call Them
the Sellout Seven"):
"On the eve of the day when the unconstitutional filibustering of judicial
nominees was going to be voted down by the Republican majority in the
Senate -- returning the body to the majoritarian rule on judicial
nominations that had stood for more than 214 years -- seven so-called
'moderate' Republicans sabotaged their 48 Senate colleagues, the Senate
leadership and the President. For weeks, they had huddled in secret with
seven Democrats looking for a deal to avoid the coming showdown. . . . John
McCain of Arizona, their leader, has built his career on undermining his
party."
Not surprisingly, the New York Times loved the Gang of 14. In a June 12,
2005, editorial, the Times said:
"The bipartisan 'Gang of 14' that struck a deal to save the filibuster could
start to be a powerful force for centrism on the most divisive issue on
Capitol Hill -- judicial nominations. . . . Last month, 14 senators injected
some sanity into the situation. . . . The moderate Republicans who signed
the agreement have done the country a service by preserving the filibuster."
Further discussing McCain and the judiciary on Levin's radio show, Santorum
said:
"That's another situation where we felt it was important to establish a
precedent where these nominations deserved an up or down vote on the floor
of the United States Senate and they couldn't use the rules that were not
meant for executive nominations to apply to them, to block those votes. We
were ready to go, and John McCain was not ready to go."
Same-Sex Marriage
McCain voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prohibits
federal recognition of same-sex marriage and provides that no state is
required to legally recognize same-sex marriages that are performed in
states that do recognize such marriages. But he has sent conservatives mixed
signals on his stance since DOMA's passage.
Following the Lawrence v. Texas case in which the Supreme Court found a
constitutional right to same-sex sodomy, the debate over same-sex marriage
was resurrected. The Massachusetts supreme court ruled not long after in
favor of same-sex marriage, citing the Lawrence decision. And it won't be
long before the Supreme Court will be forced to take up the
constitutionality of DOMA. Because of these circumstances, conservative
leaders proposed an amendment to the Constitution -- which would require the
support of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the
states -- defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
John McCain opposed the marriage protection amendment in 2004 and 2006. In a
July 13, 2004, Senate speech McCain said:
"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as
antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans."
He then voted against even allowing the measure to come to the Senate floor.
CNN reported that McCain wanted to "make clear to his constituents that he
is against the amendment itself."
And, in a June 6, 2006, floor speech, ignoring the Supreme Court's past
findings of a right to privacy and a right to sodomy in the Constitution,
McCain said:
"Another reason I am reluctant to support the proposed amendment at this
point in time is that I do not accept the proposition that the current
Constitution could ever reasonably be read to contain a supposed 'right'
that it plainly does not contain."
Right to Life
Though McCain campaigns on a strong pro-life record, he has caused many in
the right-to-life camp to wonder about his credentials. When asked at the
May 3, 2007, GOP debate whether he would expand federal funding of embryonic
stem-cell research, McCain answered:
"I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us
in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are
either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we
can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal
funding."
He also voted for the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007" (S 5) on
April 11, 2007. The bill allowed federal funding for embryonic stem-cell
research, regardless of the date when the cells were taken from the
destroyed embryo. (President Bush limited federal funding to only stem cells
that were derived by Aug. 9, 2001.)
McCain and 57 other senators (mostly Democrats) sent a letter to President
Bush on June 4, 2004, urging him to expand federal funding for embryonic
stem-cell research.
McCain's stance on embryonic stem-cell research has not been the only source
of frustration for pro-lifers -- he has flip-flopped his opinion of whether
Roe v. Wade should be repealed, according to LifeSiteNews.com. John-Henry
Westen wrote this in a Feb. 19, 2007, LifeSiteNews.com piece:
"Speaking in South Carolina this weekend, Sen. John McCain said that he
opposed the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed abortion in the United States.
'I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned,' the Arizona senator
stated, reports MSNBC.
"Speaking on Roe v. Wade [Aug. 25, 1999], McCain told the San Francisco
Chronicle: 'I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be
repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short
term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade,
which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and
dangerous operations.'
"It seems that McCain's flip flops come fast and furious, and are best
predicted by whatever way the political wind is blowing at the time."
Tobacco Bill
In May 1998, the Senate took up McCain's anti-tobacco bill ("The National
Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction Act") purportedly designed to
keep kids from smoking and cap the annual damages the tobacco industry would
be forced to pay plaintiffs.
The bill was described by Republicans as a "tax-and-spend piece of social
engineering that had less to do with cutting teenage smoking than funding
government programs," according to a CNN report. It contained a hike in
cigarette taxes, a restriction on the tobacco industry's ability to
advertise, greater regulatory powers for the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), annual multi-billion-dollar fines if youth smoking does not fall by
preset, agreed-upon goals, and a secondhand-smoke provision (which was an
unfunded mandate on state and local governments and private business).
According to the Senate Republican Policy Committee (RPC), the Joint
Committee on Taxation (JCT) examined the cigarette tax hike in McCain's bill
and how the price increases would affect income classes. The RPC reported:
"Statistics show that excise taxes are regressive and disproportionately
affect those in the lower-income brackets. JCT distribution tables found
that in 2003, a taxpayer making less than $10,000 per year would pay 35.1%
more in federal taxes; a taxpayer making between $10,000 and $20,000 would
pay 9.6% more; and a taxpayer earning between $20,000 and $30,000 would pay
4.2% more. Overall, taxpayers earning less than $75,000 a year would pay
54.5% more in taxes."
The bill would have severely limited tobacco advertising, which most
Republicans would recognize as an unconstitutional limitation of free
speech -- but not John McCain. His bill was a definite 1st Amendment
violation. The RPC wrote this about the advertising limits:
"Say what you will about Joe Camel or the Marlboro Man or any other pitchman
for tobacco, there are fundamental constitutional facts that Congress cannot
ignore when it considers a tobacco bill. When the owners of Joe Camel or the
Marlboro Man employ their costly cultural icons in an ad or on a package,
they are engaging in speech that is protected by the Constitution of the
United States. . . . First Amendment rights are not absolute, but tobacco
manufacturers (and tobacco retailers and tobacco consumers) do indeed have
rights of speech and expression under the 1st Amendment."
War on Terror
McCain's focus this campaign has been his purported strength on national
security and the War on Terror. Though he has been a faithful supporter of
the troops and was one of the original proponents of the troop surge that
has led to major success in Iraq, McCain's positions on the detention and
interrogation of known and suspected terrorists and unlawful combatants is,
at best, troubling.
First, he has called for the closing of the terrorist detainee facility at
Guantanamo Bay. An article in the March 18, 2007, UK Sunday Telegraph,
"Straight-Talking McCain Vows To Fix World's View of the 'Ugly American,'"
reported that McCain said "restoring America's sullied reputation abroad
will be 'a top priority' if he wins the White House." How would McCain do
this? He has a "series of measures to roll back Bush policies":
"I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Ft.
Leavenworth and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases."
According to McCain, cleaning up America's image is vital for successfully
fighting the War on Terror and winning over the hearts and minds of Islamic
extremists -- whether the issue is the detention of unlawful combatants or
the environment. When "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace asked the senator
in an April 29, 2007 interview how he "would ... fight the War on Terror
differently," McCain replied:
"I would probably announce the closing of Guantanamo Bay. I would move those
detainees to Ft. Leavenworth. I would announce we will not torture anyone. I
would announce that climate change is a big issue, because we've got some
image problems in the world. . . . Clearly, in the area of 'propaganda,' in
the area of the war of ideas, we are not winning as much as -- well, in some
ways we are behind. Al-Jazeera and others maybe, in ... my view, may
sometimes do a better job than we are. At the end of the day, it's how
people make up their minds as to whether they want to embrace our values,
our standards, our ideals, or whether they want to go the path of radical
Islamic extremism, which is an affront to everything we stand for and
believe in."
McCain's actions and rhetoric on interrogating known and suspected
terrorists have been a source of consternation for our military and
intelligence personnel working to protect American lives. His amendment to
the Defense Appropriations bill in 2005 (S Amdt. 1977), which was agreed to
90 to nine Oct. 5, 2005, limited interrogation methods to only those that
are authorized in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence
Interrogation and confused existing law on torture by demanding that,
according to the amendment's text, "no individual in the custody or under
the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of
nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment." But the amendment did not define these
terms.
McCain also has repeatedly railed against water-boarding, calling the
practice torture -- even though it does no lasting physical or mental
damage. Water-boarding is one of the most effective interrogation methods we
have and was used successfully on Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who confessed to a
number of ongoing plots against the U.S. and gave up information that helped
authorities arrest at least six major terrorists.
McCain even teamed with Senate Democrats in using the water-boarding issue
to delay the confirmation of Michael Mukasey to be attorney general. He told
CNN's Wolf Blitzer in a Nov. 4, 2007, interview:
"I am confident that [Mukasey] will declare that practice illegal, and
therefore, I will vote to support his nomination."
The ACLU has been a vocal backer of McCain's grandstanding. The day the
Senate agreed to McCain's torture amendment ACLU Executive Director Anthony
D. Romero said:
"Despite the Bush Administration's efforts, the torture issue has not gone
away and we applaud Sen. McCain for his proposal. The highest levels of our
government have not been held accountable and it's clear that this
administration lacks the political will to enforce proper interrogation
policies. Instead of taking proactive steps to hold officials accountable,
we see chief architects of torture policies receive promotions. Right now,
the Senate Judiciary Committee is considering the administration's
nomination of Timothy Flanigan for deputy attorney general, even though he
played a key role in approving torture policies at the White House and is on
record defending water-boarding."
Energy & Environment
John McCain has repeatedly said that America must reduce its dependence on
foreign oil, but he has frequently cast votes against measures to increase
our domestic oil supply, specifically in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR). McCain has cast several votes against drilling in ANWR, including on
April 18, 2002 (S Amdt. 31323), March 19, 2003 (S Amdt. 272), March 16, 2005
(S Amdt. 168), and Nov. 3, 2005 (S Amdt. 2358).
McCain, like many Republicans, has bought into the man-made global-warming
rhetoric perpetuated by liberal fear-mongers such as Al Gore. McCain's
gullibility on climate change led him to co-sponsor with Democratic
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act
of 2003. The bill, which lost 43 to 55 on Oct. 30, 2003, was typical leftist
legislation, complete with Kyoto-style goals and a cap-and-trade scheme.
In a Jan. 8, 2003, op-ed touting their bill in the Los Angeles Times, McCain
and Lieberman praised cap-and-trade:
"One way to limit the release of greenhouse gases is a simple but powerful
idea called 'cap and trade,' which is at the core of a bill we are
introducing in the Senate. Past strategies have failed because of the
belief -- and, sometimes, the reality -- that they would weigh down American
businesses with costly and complicated new mandates. Our proposal harnesses
the genius of American enterprise by creating a market for companies that
emit greenhouse gases to compete to clean up our air. The bill would cap the
country's overall emissions and allow individual companies to find the most
innovative and cost-effective ways to reduce their greenhouse gases. Under
this system, companies would also be able to trade pollution credits with
each other."
They also laid the typical liberal guilt-trip on Americans for being
selfish, polluting energy-hogs (not mentioning, of course, the positive
things America does with its energy use):
"The 'cap-and-trade' system is a constructive, business-friendly approach to
countering global warming. Ignoring global warming threatens our
environment, our economy and our international credibility. . . . The U.S.
produces about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases but has shown an
unwillingness to produce any of the world's climate-change solutions. That
is compromising our international stature and relationships with our most
important allies when we need them the most. We should never compromise
critical U.S. policy simply to satisfy the international community. But in
this case, doing what will earn respect and support around the world is also
in our own best environmental and economic interests and is the right thing
to do."
Analysis of the 2003 McCain-Lieberman bill provided by the Chicago-based
libertarian Heartland Institute revealed that the bill "mandated a reduction
in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, and cuts to 1990
levels by 2016." The Heartland Institute when on to say, "In essence, the
bill called for implementation of 'Kyoto-lite' energy restrictions on the
U.S. economy."
In 2004, McCain and Lieberman introduced a new version, advertised as
less-costly than McCain-Lieberman 2003. The Heartland Institute reported in
August 2004:
"McCain-Lieberman 2004 retains the mandate to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, but it drops the subsequent requirement to
reduce emissions to 1990 levels. Charles Rivers Associates, in cooperation
with the National Black Chamber of Commerce's United for Jobs project,
analyzed the projected costs of McCain-Lieberman 2004 in a study released in
June. According to the study, McCain-Lieberman 2004:
will cost the average U.S. household at least $600 per year by 2010, rising
to at least $1,000 per year by 2020;
will cost the U.S. economy at least 39,000 jobs in 2010, and at least
190,000 jobs by 2020;
will force at least a 13% rise in electricity prices by 2010, and at least a
19% rise in electricity prices by 2020; and
will force at least a 9% rise in gasoline prices by 2010, and at least a 14%
rise in gasoline prices by 2020."
The 2004 version failed to pass the Senate, but that didn't stop McCain. He
and Lieberman again introduced global-warming bills in 2005 (S 342, "Climate
Stewardship Act of 2005") and 2007 (S 280, "Climate Stewardship Act of
2007").
McCain was, of course, praised heavily by the New York Times for his efforts
to stick it to the Bush Administration and Republicans. In an Oct. 27, 2003
editorial, the Times said:
"There is a good test of senatorial courage coming this week. For the first
time, senators will be asked whether they are prepared to do something
serious about global warming. . . . It will provide the first true test of
the sincerity of senators who say they care about the problem and have
faulted President Bush for not doing enough."
And a Nov. 1, 2003, editorial two days after the first McCain-Lieberman bill
failed said:
"John McCain has failed in his first attempt to persuade his Republican
colleagues in the Senate to give the issue of global warming the urgent
attention it deserves. . . . But Mr. McCain, as we know, does not give up
easily. He started his quest for campaign finance reform in 1995 and
prevailed six years later. He promises to be just as tenacious on this
issue."
In what should be a warning to conservatives and Republicans, the Times went
even further in a May 24, 2004, editorial, saying:
"What's important is that over the last few years, Mr. McCain has morphed
into a different kind of Republican -- one who's true to the party's most
basic values, but with an appeal that transcends the current
red-state-blue-state national standoff. . . . The McCains of this world are
increasingly rare birds, and therein lies the strongest reason why he should
resist the siren call of presidential politics and remain where he is and
who he is. The gradual disappearance of moderates from the Republican
landscape has helped neither the party nor the country. Mr. McCain's voice
is more than a voice of bipartisan good sense. In time, it could lead the
Republican Party back to where it once was and where it ought to be now."
Gun Control
Not content with limiting Americans' 1st Amendment protections, McCain has
also taken aim at the 2nd Amendment. In 2001, he was the lead sponsor of an
anti-gun show bill (S 890) that gun-rights groups adamantly opposed. On Nov.
30, 2001, the NRA wrote about McCain's determination to push the bill though
the Senate:
"In an effort to help move his stalled legislation, McCain has embraced the
anti-gun organization Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the gun-ban lobby
formerly known as HCI, as well as the shameless strategy these groups have
adopted of exploiting our nation's legitimate fears over terrorism in the
wake of the attacks of September 11.
". . . McCain told USA Today: 'Clearly, alleged members of terrorist
organizations have been able to secure guns and weapons using the gun-show
loophole,' a bogus claim AGS began making within days of the terrorist
attacks. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker ... told USA Today,
'None of the terrorism we saw visited on this country on September 11 had
anything to do with firearms.'
"It should not be too surprising to find Sen. McCain reading from an
AGS-supplied script, however, as the Arizona lawmaker and the anti-gun
organization have schemed to promote attacks on gun shows for more than a
year. AGS -- founded and funded by billionaire and former HCI board member
Andrew McKelvey -- has committed to spend at least $1 million to promote
McCain's legislation. So much for McCain's 'opposition' to well-funded
special interest groups."
McCain introduced another anti-gun show bill on Oct. 31, 2003, based on the
2001 bill.
Describing McCain's political transformation on gun rights timed with his
2000 presidential run, Gun Owners of America, who gave McCain grades of
"F-minus" in their 2004 and 2006 grading cycles, recently said in an op-ed:
"Earlier in his career, McCain had voted against the Clinton crime bill
(which contained a ban on so-called assault weapons), and he did not join
the 16 Senate Republicans who voted for the Brady bill, which required a
five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun. But as he ramped up
for his presidential run in 2000, McCain, expanding on the 'maverick' theme,
staked out a position on guns far to the left of his primary opponent,
George W. Bush.
"McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he
entertained the idea of supporting the 'assault weapons' ban. . . .
"McCain was featured in radio and television ads in Colorado and Oregon
supporting initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun
buyers. Anti-gunners were ecstatic to get McCain on board. . . . The ads not
only pushed the anti-gun-show measure in those two states, they also served
to undermine the efforts of gun rights activists who were furiously lobbying
against the same type of bill in Congress. . . .
"John McCain tried running for President in 2000 as an anti-gunner. This
year it appears he is seeking to 'come home' to the pro-gun community, but
the wounds are deep and memories long."
Patients' Bill of Rights
In 2001, McCain co-sponsored with ultra-liberal Democratic Senators Teddy
Kennedy (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.) a "Patients Bill of Rights" (PBR).
The bill was a boon to the trial lawyer lobby -- Edwards' former colleagues.
According to a Senate Republican Policy Committee (RPC) analysis of the
bill, it would have created enormous health insurance mandates and appeals
processes that would have applied to the 194.6 million people covered by
private health insurance. The bill also would have created expansive new
rights to sue insurers, and employers who provide insurance, in federal and
state courts.
The RPC reported that the bill could hike health insurance costs by "as much
as 31% over two years" and that "nearly half of employers" said they "would
drop employee health coverage if Congress passes legislation exposing them
to increased liability."
RPC also said that "using data prepared by the Congressional Budget Office
and the independent Lewin Group, it is estimated McCain-Edwards-Kennedy
would cause some 1.3 million Americans to lost their health coverage."
Sen. Judd Gregg (R.-N.H.), one of the lead opponents of McCain's
legislation, called the bill the "Lawyers Who Want to Be a Millionaire Act,"
noting in a June 19, 2001, floor speech:
"The McCain bill creates two opportunities to take a bite at the apple.
First, it allows unlimited lawsuits against health plans and employers under
state law. Second, it creates an expansive new remedy with very large
damages under federal law ... and will encourage dual claims and forum
shopping."
During the June 2001 Senate consideration of the bill, McCain opposed an
amendment (S Amdt. 831) that, according to the RPC, would have capped the
fees for personal injury lawyers who represent plaintiffs filing suits under
any of various new causes of actions PBR would have created. "Specifically,"
the RPC wrote, "for any award of more than $100,000, the injured party would
have to receive at least 85% of the award, after subtracting the legal costs
of prosecuting the case (personal injury lawyers typically take 33%, 40% or
50% of awards in addition to any amounts they take to cover the costs of
bringing the cases)."
McCain, bowing to the wishes of trial lawyers such as John Edwards, also
opposed an amendment (S Amdt. 840), which, according to the RPC, ensured:
"that employers and unions that offered self-employed, self-administered
health insurance plans to their employees and members could not be sued for
damages under any of the numerous federal and state causes of action that
the bill would create if they also offered them the option either of
accepting instead a fully insured healthcare plan that would preserve all of
the rights to sue that this bill would give them or of accepting funds that
they would use to purchase their own health insurance policies."
McCain also voted to kill: an amendment (S Amdt. 846) requiring
union-negotiated healthcare plans to be subject to the bill just as all
other private group healthcare plans would have been; an amendment (S Amdt.
848) protecting from liability doctors who provide pro bono medical services
to someone who did not have healthcare coverage or was unable to pay for the
healthcare services provided; an amendment (S Amdt. 821) protecting from
lawsuits small businesses (two to 15 employees) that offer employee
health-insurance coverage; and a sense of the Senate amendment (S Amdt. 851)
that "a patients' bill of rights should ... make medical savings accounts
available to more Americans."
The New York Times, of course, backed the McCain bill.
Let's Closely Examine McCain's Record
by Chris Field
02/01/2008
Following his wins in the South Carolina and Florida Republican primaries,
Arizona Sen. John McCain has become the front-runner for the GOP
presidential nomination. He has spent the last year attempting to convince
the conservative base of the Republican Party that he is one of them -- but
his record in the Senate shows otherwise.
Most voters know about his anti-free speech McCain-Feingold campaign finance
reform. His temper is legendary, and his mistreatment of conservatives and
fellow Republicans has earned him accolades from the liberal media who
lovingly refer to him as a "maverick." And he suffered a blow to his
campaign last summer after his second failed attempt to pass the
McCain-Kennedy guest-worker/amnesty bill. But his apostasies go far beyond
that into taxes, judges, life concerns, same-sex marriage, energy and other
issues important to conservatives.
Here are some issues that many conservatives may have forgotten -- or never
known -- about John McCain's far-from-conservative record:
Taxes
Though McCain wants voters to view him as a strong, Reaganesque conservative
on taxes, his conduct has not been so positive.
He has established a record of not simply opposing tax cuts -- including the
Bush cuts of 2001 and 2003 and the attempt to eliminate the death tax in
2002 -- but of opposing them using class-warfare rhetoric (See "John McCain's
Top 10 Class-Warfare Arguments Against Tax Cuts," HUMAN EVENTS, January
14.). He even went so far as to be to the left of former NBC "Today" host
Katie Couric.
In response to McCain's claim that President Bush's tax relief benefited the
wealthy but instead should go to "average citizens who also are double-taxed
every single day" in a Jan. 7, 2003, interview on "Today," Couric said:
"But, Sen. McCain ... working Americans, the middle-class Americans, under
the Bush proposals will get a major break. A family of four making $39,000 a
year ... will get a $1,100 tax cut for several years, allowing them to plan
their individual budgets. That sounds like something that won't just simply
benefit the wealthy."
McCain's response: "Well, I think it will."
McCain, of course, had the backing of the New York Times in his
class-warrior fight against the Bush tax cuts. In a Jan. 7, 2000, editorial,
the Times said:
"On the tax-cut issue, Mr. McCain's approach is more sound than that of the
Texas governor. Mr. Bush's tax scheme is costly and unfair."
He tells voters that he opposes all tax increases, but he won't sign the
Americans for Tax Reform pledge to "oppose any and all efforts to increase
the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses." When asked
why in a Sept. 5, 2007, debate on Fox News, McCain said:
"Because I stand on my record, and my record is 24 years of opposing tax
increases, and I oppose them, and I'll continue to oppose them. . . . I don't
have to sign pledges. My record stands for itself. It's very clear to the
American people. I've been in this business a long, long time. But the point
is that I voted against the tax cuts because there was no restraint in
spending."
But how honest is McCain being about this claim? First, spending has
increased since he voted against the tax cuts. If excessive government
spending was a good enough reason to oppose them in the first place, shouldn't
that be a good enough reason to let them expire?
Second, McCain has given mixed messages about his support (or opposition) to
the extension of the tax cuts. McCain told NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim
Russert that he would not support extending the tax cuts because of size of
the federal deficit -- but then he voted to extend them. Here's the exchange
from May 13, 2007:
MR. RUSSERT: On tax cuts. You were on this program back in '03, and I asked
you this: "Do you believe the President, because of the war, should be
asking Americans for more sacrifice, should hold off any future tax cuts
until we have a sense of the costs of the war and the state of our economy?"
[McCain:] "Yes, I do. I believe that until we find out the costs of this war
and the reconstruction that we should hold off on tax cuts." You came back
the next year, I again asked you about opposing the Bush tax cuts, and this
is what you said:
[Videotape of McCain, April 11, 2004]: "I voted against the tax cuts because
of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would
clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the
deficit."
MR. RUSSERT: Disproportionate to the wealthiest Americans. And you wouldn't
extend them because it would hurt the deficit. [Yet] you voted to extend
them.
SEN. McCAIN: I voted to extend them because it would have the effect of
having a tax increase. . . . The problem is that spending has lurched
completely out of control. My proposal was to restrain spending. And now, if
you don't make them, those tax cuts, permanent, businesses, families, farms
all over America will have to experience what, for all intents and purposes,
the impact on them would be a tax increase. Would I have liked to have seen
more tax cuts to middle-income Americans? Did I have a different proposal?
Yes. But I supported tax cuts, and I have never supported -- I do not
support tax increases.
Third, he has said he is willing to raise Social Security taxes. In a Feb.
20, 2005, interview on "Meet the Press," Russert asked McCain if he would
support, "as part of the solution to Social Security's solvency problem ...
lift[ing] the cap so that you would pay payroll tax, Social Security tax,
not just on the first $90,000 of your income, but perhaps even higher."
McCain answered: "As part of a compromise I could, and other sacrifices. . .
.. I'm proud of the job that Sen. Lindsey Graham has been doing in his
leadership position on this issue and showing some courage."
Finally, despite his claims to have never voted for a tax increase, the Club
for Growth has pointed out:
"As chairman of the Commerce Committee in 1998, he sponsored and voted for
an enormous 282% tax increase on cigarettes. Sen. McCain defended the
proposal as a 'fee' rather than a tax increase, but his semantic tap dance
doesn't change the numerical facts."
Judges and Gang of 14
A key issue for conservatives every presidential election is the nomination
of strict constructionist judges to serve on the Supreme Court. Not only has
McCain supported President Bush's Supreme Court nominees, he has said he
would appoint justices that would please conservatives. But a January 28
report by the Wall Street Journal's John Fund raised concerns on the right.
Fund wrote:
"[McCain] has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of
Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw
the line on a Samuel Alito because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.'"
McCain, of course, immediately told reporters that that is not a statement
he remembers ever making and since has repeatedly said that he would appoint
justices like Roberts and Alito. But Robert Novak reported three days later,
in his January 31 column, that "multiple sources confirm [McCain's] negative
comments about Alito nine months ago."
Conservative former Sen. Rick Santorum (R.-Pa.) also raised doubts about the
kind of justices McCain would nominate. He told radio talk-show host Mark
Levin January 10:
"This is not a guy who would give me a lot of confidence that he would
appoint the judges who are necessary on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade,
who would be strict constructionist judges."
Also a concern for the right is McCain's involvement in the infamous "Gang
of 14." In late May 2005, just as then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
(R.-Tenn.) was ready to pull the trigger on the "nuclear option" to end the
filibustering of judicial nominees, McCain undermined his party with his own
solution. Mark Levin wrote this about it for HUMAN EVENTS (See "Call Them
the Sellout Seven"):
"On the eve of the day when the unconstitutional filibustering of judicial
nominees was going to be voted down by the Republican majority in the
Senate -- returning the body to the majoritarian rule on judicial
nominations that had stood for more than 214 years -- seven so-called
'moderate' Republicans sabotaged their 48 Senate colleagues, the Senate
leadership and the President. For weeks, they had huddled in secret with
seven Democrats looking for a deal to avoid the coming showdown. . . . John
McCain of Arizona, their leader, has built his career on undermining his
party."
Not surprisingly, the New York Times loved the Gang of 14. In a June 12,
2005, editorial, the Times said:
"The bipartisan 'Gang of 14' that struck a deal to save the filibuster could
start to be a powerful force for centrism on the most divisive issue on
Capitol Hill -- judicial nominations. . . . Last month, 14 senators injected
some sanity into the situation. . . . The moderate Republicans who signed
the agreement have done the country a service by preserving the filibuster."
Further discussing McCain and the judiciary on Levin's radio show, Santorum
said:
"That's another situation where we felt it was important to establish a
precedent where these nominations deserved an up or down vote on the floor
of the United States Senate and they couldn't use the rules that were not
meant for executive nominations to apply to them, to block those votes. We
were ready to go, and John McCain was not ready to go."
Same-Sex Marriage
McCain voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prohibits
federal recognition of same-sex marriage and provides that no state is
required to legally recognize same-sex marriages that are performed in
states that do recognize such marriages. But he has sent conservatives mixed
signals on his stance since DOMA's passage.
Following the Lawrence v. Texas case in which the Supreme Court found a
constitutional right to same-sex sodomy, the debate over same-sex marriage
was resurrected. The Massachusetts supreme court ruled not long after in
favor of same-sex marriage, citing the Lawrence decision. And it won't be
long before the Supreme Court will be forced to take up the
constitutionality of DOMA. Because of these circumstances, conservative
leaders proposed an amendment to the Constitution -- which would require the
support of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the
states -- defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
John McCain opposed the marriage protection amendment in 2004 and 2006. In a
July 13, 2004, Senate speech McCain said:
"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as
antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans."
He then voted against even allowing the measure to come to the Senate floor.
CNN reported that McCain wanted to "make clear to his constituents that he
is against the amendment itself."
And, in a June 6, 2006, floor speech, ignoring the Supreme Court's past
findings of a right to privacy and a right to sodomy in the Constitution,
McCain said:
"Another reason I am reluctant to support the proposed amendment at this
point in time is that I do not accept the proposition that the current
Constitution could ever reasonably be read to contain a supposed 'right'
that it plainly does not contain."
Right to Life
Though McCain campaigns on a strong pro-life record, he has caused many in
the right-to-life camp to wonder about his credentials. When asked at the
May 3, 2007, GOP debate whether he would expand federal funding of embryonic
stem-cell research, McCain answered:
"I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us
in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are
either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we
can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal
funding."
He also voted for the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007" (S 5) on
April 11, 2007. The bill allowed federal funding for embryonic stem-cell
research, regardless of the date when the cells were taken from the
destroyed embryo. (President Bush limited federal funding to only stem cells
that were derived by Aug. 9, 2001.)
McCain and 57 other senators (mostly Democrats) sent a letter to President
Bush on June 4, 2004, urging him to expand federal funding for embryonic
stem-cell research.
McCain's stance on embryonic stem-cell research has not been the only source
of frustration for pro-lifers -- he has flip-flopped his opinion of whether
Roe v. Wade should be repealed, according to LifeSiteNews.com. John-Henry
Westen wrote this in a Feb. 19, 2007, LifeSiteNews.com piece:
"Speaking in South Carolina this weekend, Sen. John McCain said that he
opposed the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed abortion in the United States.
'I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned,' the Arizona senator
stated, reports MSNBC.
"Speaking on Roe v. Wade [Aug. 25, 1999], McCain told the San Francisco
Chronicle: 'I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be
repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short
term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade,
which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and
dangerous operations.'
"It seems that McCain's flip flops come fast and furious, and are best
predicted by whatever way the political wind is blowing at the time."
Tobacco Bill
In May 1998, the Senate took up McCain's anti-tobacco bill ("The National
Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction Act") purportedly designed to
keep kids from smoking and cap the annual damages the tobacco industry would
be forced to pay plaintiffs.
The bill was described by Republicans as a "tax-and-spend piece of social
engineering that had less to do with cutting teenage smoking than funding
government programs," according to a CNN report. It contained a hike in
cigarette taxes, a restriction on the tobacco industry's ability to
advertise, greater regulatory powers for the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), annual multi-billion-dollar fines if youth smoking does not fall by
preset, agreed-upon goals, and a secondhand-smoke provision (which was an
unfunded mandate on state and local governments and private business).
According to the Senate Republican Policy Committee (RPC), the Joint
Committee on Taxation (JCT) examined the cigarette tax hike in McCain's bill
and how the price increases would affect income classes. The RPC reported:
"Statistics show that excise taxes are regressive and disproportionately
affect those in the lower-income brackets. JCT distribution tables found
that in 2003, a taxpayer making less than $10,000 per year would pay 35.1%
more in federal taxes; a taxpayer making between $10,000 and $20,000 would
pay 9.6% more; and a taxpayer earning between $20,000 and $30,000 would pay
4.2% more. Overall, taxpayers earning less than $75,000 a year would pay
54.5% more in taxes."
The bill would have severely limited tobacco advertising, which most
Republicans would recognize as an unconstitutional limitation of free
speech -- but not John McCain. His bill was a definite 1st Amendment
violation. The RPC wrote this about the advertising limits:
"Say what you will about Joe Camel or the Marlboro Man or any other pitchman
for tobacco, there are fundamental constitutional facts that Congress cannot
ignore when it considers a tobacco bill. When the owners of Joe Camel or the
Marlboro Man employ their costly cultural icons in an ad or on a package,
they are engaging in speech that is protected by the Constitution of the
United States. . . . First Amendment rights are not absolute, but tobacco
manufacturers (and tobacco retailers and tobacco consumers) do indeed have
rights of speech and expression under the 1st Amendment."
War on Terror
McCain's focus this campaign has been his purported strength on national
security and the War on Terror. Though he has been a faithful supporter of
the troops and was one of the original proponents of the troop surge that
has led to major success in Iraq, McCain's positions on the detention and
interrogation of known and suspected terrorists and unlawful combatants is,
at best, troubling.
First, he has called for the closing of the terrorist detainee facility at
Guantanamo Bay. An article in the March 18, 2007, UK Sunday Telegraph,
"Straight-Talking McCain Vows To Fix World's View of the 'Ugly American,'"
reported that McCain said "restoring America's sullied reputation abroad
will be 'a top priority' if he wins the White House." How would McCain do
this? He has a "series of measures to roll back Bush policies":
"I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Ft.
Leavenworth and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases."
According to McCain, cleaning up America's image is vital for successfully
fighting the War on Terror and winning over the hearts and minds of Islamic
extremists -- whether the issue is the detention of unlawful combatants or
the environment. When "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace asked the senator
in an April 29, 2007 interview how he "would ... fight the War on Terror
differently," McCain replied:
"I would probably announce the closing of Guantanamo Bay. I would move those
detainees to Ft. Leavenworth. I would announce we will not torture anyone. I
would announce that climate change is a big issue, because we've got some
image problems in the world. . . . Clearly, in the area of 'propaganda,' in
the area of the war of ideas, we are not winning as much as -- well, in some
ways we are behind. Al-Jazeera and others maybe, in ... my view, may
sometimes do a better job than we are. At the end of the day, it's how
people make up their minds as to whether they want to embrace our values,
our standards, our ideals, or whether they want to go the path of radical
Islamic extremism, which is an affront to everything we stand for and
believe in."
McCain's actions and rhetoric on interrogating known and suspected
terrorists have been a source of consternation for our military and
intelligence personnel working to protect American lives. His amendment to
the Defense Appropriations bill in 2005 (S Amdt. 1977), which was agreed to
90 to nine Oct. 5, 2005, limited interrogation methods to only those that
are authorized in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence
Interrogation and confused existing law on torture by demanding that,
according to the amendment's text, "no individual in the custody or under
the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of
nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment." But the amendment did not define these
terms.
McCain also has repeatedly railed against water-boarding, calling the
practice torture -- even though it does no lasting physical or mental
damage. Water-boarding is one of the most effective interrogation methods we
have and was used successfully on Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who confessed to a
number of ongoing plots against the U.S. and gave up information that helped
authorities arrest at least six major terrorists.
McCain even teamed with Senate Democrats in using the water-boarding issue
to delay the confirmation of Michael Mukasey to be attorney general. He told
CNN's Wolf Blitzer in a Nov. 4, 2007, interview:
"I am confident that [Mukasey] will declare that practice illegal, and
therefore, I will vote to support his nomination."
The ACLU has been a vocal backer of McCain's grandstanding. The day the
Senate agreed to McCain's torture amendment ACLU Executive Director Anthony
D. Romero said:
"Despite the Bush Administration's efforts, the torture issue has not gone
away and we applaud Sen. McCain for his proposal. The highest levels of our
government have not been held accountable and it's clear that this
administration lacks the political will to enforce proper interrogation
policies. Instead of taking proactive steps to hold officials accountable,
we see chief architects of torture policies receive promotions. Right now,
the Senate Judiciary Committee is considering the administration's
nomination of Timothy Flanigan for deputy attorney general, even though he
played a key role in approving torture policies at the White House and is on
record defending water-boarding."
Energy & Environment
John McCain has repeatedly said that America must reduce its dependence on
foreign oil, but he has frequently cast votes against measures to increase
our domestic oil supply, specifically in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR). McCain has cast several votes against drilling in ANWR, including on
April 18, 2002 (S Amdt. 31323), March 19, 2003 (S Amdt. 272), March 16, 2005
(S Amdt. 168), and Nov. 3, 2005 (S Amdt. 2358).
McCain, like many Republicans, has bought into the man-made global-warming
rhetoric perpetuated by liberal fear-mongers such as Al Gore. McCain's
gullibility on climate change led him to co-sponsor with Democratic
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act
of 2003. The bill, which lost 43 to 55 on Oct. 30, 2003, was typical leftist
legislation, complete with Kyoto-style goals and a cap-and-trade scheme.
In a Jan. 8, 2003, op-ed touting their bill in the Los Angeles Times, McCain
and Lieberman praised cap-and-trade:
"One way to limit the release of greenhouse gases is a simple but powerful
idea called 'cap and trade,' which is at the core of a bill we are
introducing in the Senate. Past strategies have failed because of the
belief -- and, sometimes, the reality -- that they would weigh down American
businesses with costly and complicated new mandates. Our proposal harnesses
the genius of American enterprise by creating a market for companies that
emit greenhouse gases to compete to clean up our air. The bill would cap the
country's overall emissions and allow individual companies to find the most
innovative and cost-effective ways to reduce their greenhouse gases. Under
this system, companies would also be able to trade pollution credits with
each other."
They also laid the typical liberal guilt-trip on Americans for being
selfish, polluting energy-hogs (not mentioning, of course, the positive
things America does with its energy use):
"The 'cap-and-trade' system is a constructive, business-friendly approach to
countering global warming. Ignoring global warming threatens our
environment, our economy and our international credibility. . . . The U.S.
produces about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases but has shown an
unwillingness to produce any of the world's climate-change solutions. That
is compromising our international stature and relationships with our most
important allies when we need them the most. We should never compromise
critical U.S. policy simply to satisfy the international community. But in
this case, doing what will earn respect and support around the world is also
in our own best environmental and economic interests and is the right thing
to do."
Analysis of the 2003 McCain-Lieberman bill provided by the Chicago-based
libertarian Heartland Institute revealed that the bill "mandated a reduction
in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, and cuts to 1990
levels by 2016." The Heartland Institute when on to say, "In essence, the
bill called for implementation of 'Kyoto-lite' energy restrictions on the
U.S. economy."
In 2004, McCain and Lieberman introduced a new version, advertised as
less-costly than McCain-Lieberman 2003. The Heartland Institute reported in
August 2004:
"McCain-Lieberman 2004 retains the mandate to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, but it drops the subsequent requirement to
reduce emissions to 1990 levels. Charles Rivers Associates, in cooperation
with the National Black Chamber of Commerce's United for Jobs project,
analyzed the projected costs of McCain-Lieberman 2004 in a study released in
June. According to the study, McCain-Lieberman 2004:
will cost the average U.S. household at least $600 per year by 2010, rising
to at least $1,000 per year by 2020;
will cost the U.S. economy at least 39,000 jobs in 2010, and at least
190,000 jobs by 2020;
will force at least a 13% rise in electricity prices by 2010, and at least a
19% rise in electricity prices by 2020; and
will force at least a 9% rise in gasoline prices by 2010, and at least a 14%
rise in gasoline prices by 2020."
The 2004 version failed to pass the Senate, but that didn't stop McCain. He
and Lieberman again introduced global-warming bills in 2005 (S 342, "Climate
Stewardship Act of 2005") and 2007 (S 280, "Climate Stewardship Act of
2007").
McCain was, of course, praised heavily by the New York Times for his efforts
to stick it to the Bush Administration and Republicans. In an Oct. 27, 2003
editorial, the Times said:
"There is a good test of senatorial courage coming this week. For the first
time, senators will be asked whether they are prepared to do something
serious about global warming. . . . It will provide the first true test of
the sincerity of senators who say they care about the problem and have
faulted President Bush for not doing enough."
And a Nov. 1, 2003, editorial two days after the first McCain-Lieberman bill
failed said:
"John McCain has failed in his first attempt to persuade his Republican
colleagues in the Senate to give the issue of global warming the urgent
attention it deserves. . . . But Mr. McCain, as we know, does not give up
easily. He started his quest for campaign finance reform in 1995 and
prevailed six years later. He promises to be just as tenacious on this
issue."
In what should be a warning to conservatives and Republicans, the Times went
even further in a May 24, 2004, editorial, saying:
"What's important is that over the last few years, Mr. McCain has morphed
into a different kind of Republican -- one who's true to the party's most
basic values, but with an appeal that transcends the current
red-state-blue-state national standoff. . . . The McCains of this world are
increasingly rare birds, and therein lies the strongest reason why he should
resist the siren call of presidential politics and remain where he is and
who he is. The gradual disappearance of moderates from the Republican
landscape has helped neither the party nor the country. Mr. McCain's voice
is more than a voice of bipartisan good sense. In time, it could lead the
Republican Party back to where it once was and where it ought to be now."
Gun Control
Not content with limiting Americans' 1st Amendment protections, McCain has
also taken aim at the 2nd Amendment. In 2001, he was the lead sponsor of an
anti-gun show bill (S 890) that gun-rights groups adamantly opposed. On Nov.
30, 2001, the NRA wrote about McCain's determination to push the bill though
the Senate:
"In an effort to help move his stalled legislation, McCain has embraced the
anti-gun organization Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the gun-ban lobby
formerly known as HCI, as well as the shameless strategy these groups have
adopted of exploiting our nation's legitimate fears over terrorism in the
wake of the attacks of September 11.
". . . McCain told USA Today: 'Clearly, alleged members of terrorist
organizations have been able to secure guns and weapons using the gun-show
loophole,' a bogus claim AGS began making within days of the terrorist
attacks. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker ... told USA Today,
'None of the terrorism we saw visited on this country on September 11 had
anything to do with firearms.'
"It should not be too surprising to find Sen. McCain reading from an
AGS-supplied script, however, as the Arizona lawmaker and the anti-gun
organization have schemed to promote attacks on gun shows for more than a
year. AGS -- founded and funded by billionaire and former HCI board member
Andrew McKelvey -- has committed to spend at least $1 million to promote
McCain's legislation. So much for McCain's 'opposition' to well-funded
special interest groups."
McCain introduced another anti-gun show bill on Oct. 31, 2003, based on the
2001 bill.
Describing McCain's political transformation on gun rights timed with his
2000 presidential run, Gun Owners of America, who gave McCain grades of
"F-minus" in their 2004 and 2006 grading cycles, recently said in an op-ed:
"Earlier in his career, McCain had voted against the Clinton crime bill
(which contained a ban on so-called assault weapons), and he did not join
the 16 Senate Republicans who voted for the Brady bill, which required a
five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun. But as he ramped up
for his presidential run in 2000, McCain, expanding on the 'maverick' theme,
staked out a position on guns far to the left of his primary opponent,
George W. Bush.
"McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he
entertained the idea of supporting the 'assault weapons' ban. . . .
"McCain was featured in radio and television ads in Colorado and Oregon
supporting initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun
buyers. Anti-gunners were ecstatic to get McCain on board. . . . The ads not
only pushed the anti-gun-show measure in those two states, they also served
to undermine the efforts of gun rights activists who were furiously lobbying
against the same type of bill in Congress. . . .
"John McCain tried running for President in 2000 as an anti-gunner. This
year it appears he is seeking to 'come home' to the pro-gun community, but
the wounds are deep and memories long."
Patients' Bill of Rights
In 2001, McCain co-sponsored with ultra-liberal Democratic Senators Teddy
Kennedy (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.) a "Patients Bill of Rights" (PBR).
The bill was a boon to the trial lawyer lobby -- Edwards' former colleagues.
According to a Senate Republican Policy Committee (RPC) analysis of the
bill, it would have created enormous health insurance mandates and appeals
processes that would have applied to the 194.6 million people covered by
private health insurance. The bill also would have created expansive new
rights to sue insurers, and employers who provide insurance, in federal and
state courts.
The RPC reported that the bill could hike health insurance costs by "as much
as 31% over two years" and that "nearly half of employers" said they "would
drop employee health coverage if Congress passes legislation exposing them
to increased liability."
RPC also said that "using data prepared by the Congressional Budget Office
and the independent Lewin Group, it is estimated McCain-Edwards-Kennedy
would cause some 1.3 million Americans to lost their health coverage."
Sen. Judd Gregg (R.-N.H.), one of the lead opponents of McCain's
legislation, called the bill the "Lawyers Who Want to Be a Millionaire Act,"
noting in a June 19, 2001, floor speech:
"The McCain bill creates two opportunities to take a bite at the apple.
First, it allows unlimited lawsuits against health plans and employers under
state law. Second, it creates an expansive new remedy with very large
damages under federal law ... and will encourage dual claims and forum
shopping."
During the June 2001 Senate consideration of the bill, McCain opposed an
amendment (S Amdt. 831) that, according to the RPC, would have capped the
fees for personal injury lawyers who represent plaintiffs filing suits under
any of various new causes of actions PBR would have created. "Specifically,"
the RPC wrote, "for any award of more than $100,000, the injured party would
have to receive at least 85% of the award, after subtracting the legal costs
of prosecuting the case (personal injury lawyers typically take 33%, 40% or
50% of awards in addition to any amounts they take to cover the costs of
bringing the cases)."
McCain, bowing to the wishes of trial lawyers such as John Edwards, also
opposed an amendment (S Amdt. 840), which, according to the RPC, ensured:
"that employers and unions that offered self-employed, self-administered
health insurance plans to their employees and members could not be sued for
damages under any of the numerous federal and state causes of action that
the bill would create if they also offered them the option either of
accepting instead a fully insured healthcare plan that would preserve all of
the rights to sue that this bill would give them or of accepting funds that
they would use to purchase their own health insurance policies."
McCain also voted to kill: an amendment (S Amdt. 846) requiring
union-negotiated healthcare plans to be subject to the bill just as all
other private group healthcare plans would have been; an amendment (S Amdt.
848) protecting from liability doctors who provide pro bono medical services
to someone who did not have healthcare coverage or was unable to pay for the
healthcare services provided; an amendment (S Amdt. 821) protecting from
lawsuits small businesses (two to 15 employees) that offer employee
health-insurance coverage; and a sense of the Senate amendment (S Amdt. 851)
that "a patients' bill of rights should ... make medical savings accounts
available to more Americans."
The New York Times, of course, backed the McCain bill.