BS: Popular views on McCain

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 06:01 PM

Obama (is) walking away from... public funding for his campaign. Obama's had earlier promised to support mutual adherence to public funding with its concomitant spending limits.

                Yes, this is definately somebody you can not depend on!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 04:38 PM

Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, offered a scathing critique of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) today and predicted he would garner substantial conservative Republican support in a handful of battleground states critical to McCain in his campaign against Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

Barr, a one-time conservative Republican House member from Georgia who broke with the Bush administration and many of his former congressional colleagues, blasted McCain for his support of the war in Iraq, his energy policies and his stand on reducing government spending.

"With regard to domestic policy, Sen. McCain really has put forward nothing that would indicate he believes in dramatically shrinking the size and cost of the government," Barr said during an interview on washingtonpost.com's "PostTalk" program. "He does talk a great game about doing away with earmarks, but that really does not get near to the heart of the matter of the massive federal spending, the massive federal debt and the deficits we're running."

(wapo)

Also of note: McCain and others toward the right are now blasting Obama for walking away from 8 million dollars in public funding for his campaign. Obama's had earlier promised to support mutual adherence to public funding with its concomitant spending limits.

Obama's argument is that he is facing a broken system that his opponents have expertly gamed. The decision leaves him with a much larger warchest, without the spending limits, than McCain will have if McCain adheres to the public funding option.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 10:18 AM

I doubt it as well--they seem to have been trained not to think!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 08:24 AM

I doubt they'll think much--we have a massive cultural agreement not to look at that side of things.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 08:02 AM

If he's pretending to be addicted to the ancient superstition of Christianity, he's dishonest in the worst sense.

               If he's really an addict, you have to wonder what the MoveOn.Org folks will think.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 12:46 AM

I think we have been around this mulberry bush before, amigo. I certainly respect that conclusion, especially with regard to organized religions of any stamp. But I do not accept it absolutely, knowing there is far too much we do not know about that sort of thing, behind all the ridiculous answers that get passed about.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 11:37 PM

Sorry, but "religious" and "dishonest" are synonymous terms to me. The bright side for Obama supporters is there are very few people who will admit to realizing this.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 11:18 PM

Rig:

The slick manner in which you conflate "religious" wth "dishonest" is downright touching. But it smacks more of fear or grief than of courage, to be honest with you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 10:30 PM

Unsurprising to hear the usual smear against all religion from that source, but most of us realize that being religious does not disqualify one from being an "honest candidate".

Interesting the amazing creativity that poster has in devising flimsy excuses to not support Obama--now it's because he "may" appeal to evangelicals. Whereas it is crystal clear that McCain will actively appeal to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 10:21 PM

I doubt very much if anybody is much suprised, Little Hawk, but it's sad that we just can't seem to field an honest candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:36 PM

Any American candidate for president attempts to get the vote of religious people, doesn't he? Why be surprised about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:32 PM

"may"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 12:10 AM

The conservative Evangelical biographer of George W. Bush and Tom DeLay has moved on to a new subject: Barack Obama. And his new book, due out this summer, may lend credibility to Senator Obama's bid to win Evangelical Christian voters away from the Republican Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 11:02 PM

The question has only one possible answer. McCain--for all his virtues--would be the worse choice because of his canalized predisposition toward militarism and empire.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:26 PM

"Rumor has it" that certain posters who are forever ranting against religion will be just fine with a man--McCain-- who has stated that the US, according to the Constitution, was founded as a Christian nation. A view that even many Baptist ministers feel is way off base.

And that at least one of these posters is desperately trying to find whatever flimsy excuse he can to avoid supporting Obama--which is the only way to stop McCain from becoming president, and appointing Supreme Court justices who share his views.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 02:36 PM

Well, with McCain, if you've noted his voting record, you know what you'll get--more of the same. If you don't like that, Obama at least offers a possibility of change.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 02:32 PM

The question that remains to be answered is: what would be worse, McCain or Obama?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 06:24 PM

McCain is a creature of the past. He is operating under the assumption that the American
electorate will embrace his view of "security" through fear. He is attempting to be John Wayne. His analysis of the Iraq debacle borders on pathology. He is a corporatist through and through and has no regard for working-class families or their needs. He embraces a phony populism that reviles government. BushCo has sabotaged the US government
to the degree that they should be considered at the very least subversive. McCain
supports their war criminal behavior. The US government has become undermined.
Obama will not bring about the magical change that some hope for but if he doesn't win
the presidency, the US is in big trouble (even more than now).

Unfortunately, Hillary played into McCain's machinations by suggesting that only she or McCain were qualified to be president. This was terribly damaging to the Democratic Party.

At the moment, the Right-Wing Republicans are suggesting that Hillary supporters feed their anger by supporting McCain. This would be disastrous for those who espouse genuine feminism. McCain is anti-abortion, would reverse Roe v Wade and turn the glass ceiling into iron.

As far as the economy goes, if McCain gets in, the breadlines will form again and strife
will be rampant. Crime will go up since there will not be a level playing field for
those who can't afford high gas prices, health care or must decide between paying for rent or food and medicine.

A McCain presidency is a lose-lose proposition. Do we need this now on top of the
current economic Depression we are facing?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 10:40 AM

"John McCain's political evolution, or possibly devolution, during the last eight years speaks volumes about the hold of these special interests. During his 2000 race for the Republican nomination, McCain openly derided the religious leaders Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, as agents of intolerance.
Today, he actively seeks the support of such far right religious figures and has delivered a number of major speeches in recent weeks that narrowly appeal to social conservative audiences, on topics from defending religious freedom to attacking activist judges. In 2001 and 2003, Mr. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, but today he apes the supply-side economic theory and militant anti-tax orthodoxy of Grover Norquist and Club for Growth. Like Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis in the 1980s, Mr. McCain has demonstrated little choice but to embrace the policy agenda of his party's most prominent interest groups. His fealty to these groups not only limits his political mobility, but it threatens his once unimpeachable reformist image.
In 2000, John McCain declared of Republicans: "we are the party of Theodore Roosevelt, not the party of special interests." But Roosevelt split from the G.O.P. because of its growing identification with the nation's business trusts and its abandonment of progressive values. If Mr. McCain were the true descendant of Roosevelt, he would be running against the modern Republican Party and its special interests.
In the short-term Mr. McCain's moves may seem like smart politics; lock up the conservative base and spend the summer and fall reaching out to moderate voters. But as a generation of Democrats can testify, once the party gets into bed with its special interest groups it's not easy to end the relationship.
..." NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 12:01 AM

Rumor has it that Obama will have Jeremiah Wright writing his speeches for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:59 PM

Neither of them are, but of the two I wouod say McCain has more Bushoidity to live down than Barack does. I don't think you would ever find Barack Obama making facetious jokes about Bombing Iran, for example. If he was ever forced to do such a thing, he sure would not greet the duty as welcome, and he sure as hell would not be making pubescent wisecracks about the cost of doing so.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 01:40 PM

I am inclined to agree with Fantasma's general outlook which was that neither party (Dem or Repub) seem to serve the best interests of the American people. The USA has had one or the other in power for as long as I can recall and there is STILL no universal health care program; still wars every few years; still lots of poor people; still issues of race and gender.

IMO, the big thing that McCain has going for him is that he ain't George Bush. However, I could say the same of Obama, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 01:30 PM

Actually, Amos, I think Obama won the nomination because in the early going MoveOn.org decided to back him instead of Hillary or Edwards.

               Going forward, McCain will have to put into place a competitive fund raising mechanism, and about the only place he can go to do that is to the right-wing-religious-wakkos, so he'll have to cater to them.

               I don't see this as a good development for the country, any way you choose to look at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 10:57 AM

Actually, Rig, I think OBama has shown pretty good judgement to date. In fact, I think that's how he won the nomination.

I suspect you feel otherwise as a result of over-exposure to the hatemongering types who want to make Big Issues out of molehills and irrelevancies so they can look important.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 08:32 AM

One thing that McCain has going for him is this: in the next Congress, the Democrats are likely to hold large majorities in both houses. There's no telling what they will pass. With a Republican in the White House, anything they did pass would take a two-thirds majority.

                Given Obama's very questionable judgement to date many voters will be reluctant to allow him the option of simpyl rubber-stamping everything that comes out of Congress.

                Even scarier than that is the legislation that he himself might propose.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 02:22 PM

Snippets from Brave New Foundation, one of the orgs. I get email from:

John McCain's record on reproductive rights couldn't be more appalling. There, we said it! We said it because the corporate media won't confront McCain on the real issues in this election. They won't tell you, for instance, that McCain has consistently received a big fat zero from NARAL on its pro-choice scorecard. Nor will they tell you that McCain has flip-flopped on Roe v. Wade and now supports overturning this all-too-crucial case.

We must spread awareness about McCain's record now, especially considering a recent Planned Parenthood poll found that half of female voters in 16 battleground states don't know enough about McCain's views on reproductive health. What's more, one in four pro-choice McCain supporters would be less likely to vote for McCain after knowing he opposes Roe v. Wade and backs abstinence-only education.

We're talking about a man who has voted anti-choice 123 out of 128 times. A man who wouldn't require prescription coverage for birth control. A man who voted against allocating $100 million to preventative health services that would have reduced unintended and teen pregnancies. A man who could irreparably damage women's rights in our country unless we get the word out about him now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Just another reason, to me a BIG reason, NOT to even consider him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 09:43 PM

Obviously, this is a case made by somebody who is not familiar with the rigors of holding a civilian job. The guy is running for president, for christ sakes, he will be employed by the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 03:51 PM

Some interesting fallout from John McCain's release of his tax return and other financial disclosures: Ralph Vartabedian of the LAT reports today that McCain receives a tax-free, 100-percent disability pension (nearly $60,000 last year) from the US Navy.

McCain would be the oldest man to enter the White House if he is elected president, and questions have been raised about his health. McCain has twice developed melanoma, a potentially deadly form of skin cancer.The fact that he is legally designated with a disability pension may raise further questions.

"It is a legitimate question to ask about the commander in chief: Is he fit to serve," said Robert Schriebman, a senior Pentagon tax advisor and tax attorney who recently retired as a judge advocate for a unit of the California National Guard.

If McCain can hike across the Grand Canyon, then why should he be getting disability payments from the government that are tax-exempt, Schriebman asked.

McCain shattered his knee and broke both arms when he was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967.

---

Comments on the site:

Steve Perry :: LA Times: A president who's 100 percent disabled?

      
that's interesting...
considering that a number of returning vets with TBI and torn limbs are receiving a disability rating of 10 to 40 percent.
Here's how 100 percent disability is defined, according to the Military Times:

At the other end of the spectrum, the military may not exceed the rating ceiling for a specific diagnostic code under the VASRD. However, the VA can award a 100 percent disability rating for the same condition if it finds that the severity of the condition rises to the level that the veteran is incapable of being trained for any type of gainful civilian-sector employment.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by: Molly Priesmeyer @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 14:51:01 PM CDT
[ Reply ]


   
The smoking reg
Molly, a great and pertinent find. So there you have it: The US Navy opposes John McCain for president on grounds he is not capable of being trained for any type of gainful civilian-sector employment. Or else the Navy thinks Senator and President are not gainful civilian-sector employment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by: Steve Perry @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 19:59:34 PM CDT
[ Parent | Reply ]


   
Just to clarify
the DoD and VA have different disability ratings: If a soldier is rated 30 percent disabled by the DoD, he/she qualifies for discharge and VA benefits. Then, the VA applies another rating to determine what those benefits are. However both the VA and DoD define 100 percent disabled as the inability to maintain gainful employment due to service-related injuries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by: Molly Priesmeyer @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 20:29:33 PM CDT
[ Parent | Reply ]


   
Clarification Needed
What's not clear to me is whether a 100% tax-exempt disability pension (as is the case with McCain) means the recipient is 100% disabled.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by: Michael Blaine @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 20:34:55 PM CDT
[ Parent | Reply ]


   
yes, it means that he has a 100 percent disablity rating
what the article doesn't make clear is how much he receives in medical retirement (VA) and severance pay (Navy). However, pensions are paid by the VA. And either way, with a 100 percent rating, both define it as the inability to hold a civilian job.



(Minnesota Monitor.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:05 PM

Actually, I don't think it's helpful when the greatest orator in modern American politics says all of the wrong things.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 11:42 AM

"..But for all the talk about McCain wanting a "higher level of discourse," the bottom line is that he is begging to be rescued from the big problem his campaign has encountered: which is that the only thing their candidate is good at is town-hall meetings.

This was driven home Tuesday night when the Republicans decided to try to insert a McCain speech into the Democrats' final primary night. They were hoping to steal thunder from the moment when Obama clinched the nomination. The actual effect was to offer viewers a chance to compare the skills of the greatest orator in modern American politics with a guy who has never really learned how to read a teleprompter."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:18 PM

I, sir, do not have a weird sense of humor. Well if might be a little weird, but nothing like Bill Kristol's. Of course, he's kind of warped, but...


                      In any event, I think it's time to start thinking about VeePee's. If McCain picked Romney, I might vote for him. If he picked Mike Huckabee I'd probably vote for the Green candidate. The one thing he could do to get me to vote for Obama is to pick Joe Lieberman.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:37 PM

I am sorry to say that I think there are a couple. At least one. And I don't think your implication that this means anyone who thinks so is "irrational". The number of times I have had to call you out to explain some irrational statement (or excuse it as a weird sense of humor)! Your version of "rationality" seems to consist in finding faults in each caniddate, whether by association, conflation, misinterpretation, or just wide generalization.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:01 PM

Of course, if McCain wants to continue the War for Israel, Bill Kristol will be all for it. For rational thinking people, there don't seem to be any candidates left fit to vote for.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 10:47 PM

"ill Kristol today proudly announces that one of his Weekly Standard staff members, Michael Goldfarb, was just named the Deputy Communications Director of the McCain campaign. Last April, this newest McCain official participated in a conference call with former Senator George Mitchell, during which Mitchell advocated a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Afterwards, this is what Goldfarb wrote about what he thinks are the powers the President possesses in our country:

MitchellÕs less than persuasive answer [to whether withdrawal timetables Òsomehow infringe on the presidentÕs powers as commander in chief?Ó]: ÒCongress is a coequal branch of governmentÉthe framers did not want to have one branch in charge of the government.Ó

True enough, but they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war. So no, the Constitution does not put Congress on an equal footing with the executive in matters of national security.

After eight years of a President who literally believes in this Ñ and, indeed, proves it on a near daily basis Ñ shouldnÕt it be newsworthy that his Republican successor is, at least, surrounding himself with people who thinks itÕs a good idea?" (Crooks and Liars website)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 09:17 AM

I have no reason to stand up for McCain, but I don't see how Obama not having been in the senate, and only being 7 years old in 1968 does anything to help him for anyone actually looking at the facts of what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 04:51 AM

"Mr. McCainÕs record on Iraq is far worse than Mrs. ClintonÕs. He didnÕt just cast a vote but was a drumbeater for the propaganda Mr. McClellan cites, including the neocon fantasies of a newly democratic Middle East. On ÒHardballÓ and ÒMeet the PressÓ in March 2003, Mr. McCain invoked that argument, along with the promise that Americans would be Òwelcomed as liberators,Ó to assert the war would be Òone of the best things thatÕs happened to America.Ó

To cover up these poor judgments now Ñ and questionable actions, including his public boosting of Ahmad Chalabi, then a lobbying client of the current McCain campaign guru, Charles Black Ñ Mr. McCain is hoping that the Òliberal mediaÓ will once again be complicit enablers. WeÕll see. HeÕs also counting on the press to let him blur his record by accentuating his subsequent criticism of the warÕs execution Ñ as if the warÕs execution (also criticized by countless Democrats), not its conception, was the fatal error.

His other tactic is to try to create a smoke screen by smearing Barack Obama as unpatriotic. Mr. McCain has suggested that the Democratic front-runner is the Hamas candidate and has piled on to Mr. BushÕs effort to slur Mr. Obama as an apostle of Òappeasement.Ó A campaign ad presented Mr. McCain as Òthe American president Americans have been waiting forÓ (not to be confused, presumably, with the un-American president Al Qaeda has been waiting for).

Now Mr. McCain is chastising Mr. Obama for not having visited Iraq since 2006 Ñ a questionable strategy, youÕd think, given that Mr. McCainÕs own propagandistic visit to a ÒsafeÓ Baghdad market is one of his biggest embarrassments. Then again, in his frantic efforts to explain why he sided with Mr. Bush to oppose an expanded G.I. bill that the Senate passed by 75 to 22, Mr. McCain has attacked Mr. Obama for not enlisting in the military.

Besides making Mr. McCain look ever angrier next to his serene opponent, this eruption raises the question of why he chose double-standard partisanship over principle by not applying this criterion to the blunderers who took us into Iraq. Unlike Mr. Obama, who was 7 years old in 1968, Mr. Bush and company could have served in Vietnam as Mr. McCain did."...

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:00 PM

I do see a problem. There were public agencies set up to take care of social problems before Ronald Reagan and the Bush's destroyed them through lack of funding.
                I think it is terribly wrong to set something up to fill in for them that is based totally on people addicted to superstition with no other qualilifications.
                Addicts need to be treated and helped themselves; they shouldn't be allowed to run the locomotive.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:53 PM

OK. You never explained why the OFBI was a bad idea--by which I mean, in examining its actual policies and actions. I too dislike the name.   I see nothing wrong with having a Federal office to coordinate actions with the whole spectrum of faith-based charitable activities. Handling the homeless, and other actions that need a compassionate lift. Wish they would change the name though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:40 PM

I'll list two that have been previously mentioned. Leaving the Office of Faith Based Initiatives open, and granting "in-state" tuition to illegal immigrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 06:13 PM

Rg:

Since you say "he" I suppose you mean Barack Obama.

Specifically what has he proposed you think would be a bad idea? Or do you have nothign more concrete than generalized bad impressions?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 06:08 PM

McCain is so "all over the map" on these things that it's hard to know what to believe. The problem with his opponent is, everything he proposes is worse than what McCain fails to propose.
                  What is the voter to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: DannyC
Date: 29 May 08 - 05:27 PM

Here's McCain backing up the money men and dissing the laboring union man (no surprise there)....
Remember this in November!

McCain to visit area firm

By JENNA PORTNOY
The Intelligencer

In his first Bucks County campaign stop Friday, John McCain will host a town hall meeting at a Pipersville company embroiled in a battle with the state over employees' wages.

The presumptive Republican nominee for president will visit Worth & Company Inc. at 6263 Kellers Church Road .

The event is free and open to the public, said campaign spokesman Jeff Sadosky. Doors will open at 12:30 p.m. and McCain will give opening remarks and take questions for an hour starting at 2 p.m., he said.

Bucks County Commissioner Jim Cawley plans to be there.

"I assume part of the discussion is going to be on the economy as well as on the family-sustaining jobs that the company provides," he said.

President and co-founder Stephen Worth started the company after graduating from Central Bucks West High School . Today Worth & Company has more than 500 employees and earned $125 million in revenue last year. The contractor installs and services heating, cooling and plumbing systems in public and commercial buildings and residences.

Worth's story sets an example of American ingenuity that McCain will likely praise, said Geoffrey Zeh, president and CEO of the Southeastern Pennsylvania chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors.

The trade group was the first national association to back McCain back in February, Zeh said. ABC opposes project labor agreements, which are deals that usually limit a large-scale construction project to union workers.

"McCain certainly is in line with ABC on all our issues, particularly on project labor agreements," Zeh said. "That's why we endorsed him."

The issue has garnered attention in Bucks County because the county has not ruled out a project labor agreement for the proposed justice center in Doylestown. Republican commissioners have said they may at some point ask consultants Joseph Jingoli and Son Inc. to study the feasibility of such a deal.

Although labor supporters say in the long run hiring unions is cheaper than hiring nonunion shops, Zeh said union-only projects generally cost more than projects open to all contractors.

"The less companies that bid on a public job, the higher the costs seem to go," he said. "Competition keeps prices down. That's Economics 101."

Worth has expressed similar sentiments himself and McCain's presence at the company underscores the labor debate.

The visit is also significant because the state is investigating whether the company cheated employees out of $142,000 in wages on government projects, including Quakertown Middle School .

The state says the underpayments violated the state's Prevailing Wage Law, which sets pay rates for work on projects involving government entities. The charges could result in a three-year ban on any government work for Worth.

But Worth officials have said the state is unfairly targeting the company — the state's largest nonunion mechanical contractor.

Republican lawmakers have backed Worth with letters to the state attorney general arguing that state labor and industry officials were overly aggressive in pursuing what they called minor noncompliance with the wage law.
n backing the money...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:09 PM

It says she's only 53. I'll bet John is happy Bob Dole invented Viagra.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 04:51 PM

Cindy McCain hits he Vogue circuit to help out John-John.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 12:35 PM

"The revolving door connecting politics and interest-group advocacy is a Washington institution. For aspiring Democrats and Republicans alike, serving as a senior aide to a prominent politician is one of the main career paths for a lucrative career in lobbying -- and vice versa.

What McCain and Obama set out to do seems simple enough: ban lobbyists from their campaign staffs, thereby appealing to voters who have grown cynical in the wake of endless scandals involving politicians doing favors for lobbyists who plied them with campaign contributions.

Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) adopted such a standard when he launched his White House bid last year. Obama says that he now has no federal lobbyists on his campaign payroll and accepts no donations from lobbyists -- what would be a historic standard for a major-party presidential nominee.

Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), eager to compete as a reformer but stung by the disclosure of some of his aides' lobbying clients, announced his own policy this month: He too now bars lobbyists from staff positions. He will, however, continue to accept donations from them.

Unlike Obama, he also requires volunteer advisors to the campaign to disclose any lobbying ties and to agree not to lobby the candidate nor his Senate staff during the campaign.

While McCain and Obama exchanged barbs last week, it was McCain who was on the defensive after the resignation of five of his aides. They included a key fundraiser, Tom Loeffler, a former congressman who lobbied for corporate clients and the government of Saudi Arabia. Two other aides left after revelations that their lobbying firm had once represented the military government of Burma, now known as Myanmar.

In the Obama campaign, top strategist David Axelrod is an owner of a political consulting firm in Chicago and also is a partner in a company that specializes in what BusinessWeek magazine described as "astroturfing," also called grass-roots lobbying. It has organized campaigns to build public support to influence state and local government decisions, sometimes working with corporate-backed "citizen organizations" that espouse the company's point of view."



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Bobert
Date: 24 May 08 - 10:10 AM

Perhaps McCain was too busy sneaking his medical records and Cindy's tax returns by the American people knowing that a Friday before a holiday weekend would be the absolute best time to do so becuase the American people aren't paying alot of attention... BTW, the records were only available to the media for a short period of time...BTW, Part B... Cindy earned (???) over $6M last year...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:26 AM

The way things are for people working in the private sector, I can certainly understand anyone's objection to giving more benefits to veterans.

                   Still, if Bush hadn't engaged in this war for Israel, I don't think we'd be having this discussion at all right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 07:30 PM

For Memorial Day, 2008:

On Monday, the nation will join its nearly 24 million veterans in remembering the American heroes who have lost their lives in war. Yesterday, the Senate honored U.S. troops by passing a 21st Century GI Bill, expanding educational benefits for veterans who joined the service after Sept. 11, 2001. "Congress today resolutely asserted that it is time for those of us who have been calling on these brave men and women to serve again and again to assist in providing a meaningful chance for a first-class future," said Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), who sponsored the legislation. Seventy-five senators voted to fund veterans yesterday, providing a veto-proof majority. Yet not only did Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) not vote for the bill, he didn't even show up to vote (the only other senators missing were Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-CA), for health reasons, and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who had to attend a funeral). In the past, McCain has promised to "do everything" in his power to look after the nation's military. But a look at his record on veterans issues shows that he has unfortunately favored conservative pandering instead.

A COMPREHENSIVE NEW GI BILL: Yesterday's vote on the 21st Century GI Bill was 75-22. The legislation garnered wide bipartisan support, including Republican cosponsorsÊSens. Chuck Hagel (NE) and John Warner (VA). Under the bill, members of the military who have served on active duty since 9/11 are eligible to receive education benefits equaling the highest tuition rate of the most expensive in-state public college or university, along with a monthly stipend for housing determined by geographical area. It would also "create a program in which the government would provide a dollar-for-dollar match to contributions from private educational institutions with higher tuition rates than those covered under the bill." Despite claims by McCain and the White House, Webb's bill would help the military's enlistment rate. The new GI billÊ"is projected to cost about $2.5 billion per year," roughly the cost of U.S. operations in Iraq for one week.

DASHING HOPES AND DREAMS: McCain, however, opposes these generous benefits for troops' education. He instead signed onto a watered-down, Bush administration-approved version offered by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). This legislation would exclude many servicemembers by reserving the most generous benefits for soldiers who have served at least 12 years. It would also shortchange National Guard and Reserve members, offering them fewer benefits. McCain likes to say that as a former soldier, he understands what is best for veterans. But his version of the GI Bill was opposed by the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), and the American Legion. More than eight in 10 members of the American public also support a comprehensive GI Bill. Kristofer Goldsmith, who served in Sadr City and was stop-lossed after returning home, testified to Congress on May 15 that he had attempted suicide and was discharged. Because he couldn't serve a second term, he had to forfeit his "one hope and dream" to go to college under the GI Bill. "And currently there is a Senator in Congress currently running for president, who is fighting to kill our Webb GI bill," said Goldsmith. "And I'm one of the soldiers who will never get that money."

FAILING GRADES: McCain's record on supporting veterans is one of the worst in Congress. IAVA has given him a grade of a "D" for voting against veterans' priorities so often between 2000 and 2006. A scorecard of roll call votes compiled by the Disabled American Veterans found that McCain has voted for veterans funding bills only 20 percent of the time. For example, in May 2006, he voted against an amendment providing $20 billion to the Department of Veteran Affairs's (VA) medical facilities. In April 2006, he was one of just 13 senators to vote against providing $430 million to the VA for outpatient care "and treatment for veterans." McCain has railed against comprehensive universal health care and wants to give veterans the "freedom to choose to carry their V.A. dollars to a provider that gives them the timely care at high quality and in the best location." But as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman notes, "[T]he Veterans Health Administration is one of the few clear American success stories in the struggle to contain health care costs. ... [I]t's an integrated system -- a system that takes long-term responsibility for its clients' health -- to deliver an impressive combination of high-quality care and low costs." McCain's plan, however, would "privatize and, in effect, dismantle the V.A." In his narrow-sighted focus on eliminating earmarks, McCain may also cut funding for military housing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 May 08 - 12:09 PM

Doesn't it have something to do with extending benefits to family members, and not just the veteran him/herself?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views on McCain
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 11:39 AM

John McCain claims he stands for and the supports the troops, but when it comes to putting his money where his mouth his, he's a no show.

Yesterday, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a new G.I. Bill that they will increase and expand the educational benefits for soldiers who served in Iraq. Bush and Mccain both opposed this bill, but apparently their sway over the party is waining, because half of the Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill. Even Joe Lieberman voted for it!

With leadership like that, it's probably best McCain decided to rake in $2.5 million in California while the bill was being voted on.