6 posts tagged “john mccain”
We all know that the republicans have been having a lot of success in the past in painting virtually any Democrat as a rich elite snob. Of course, we all know that just about anyone who runs for national office these days is seriously richer than you or anyone you know. However, there's rich, and then there's rich. McCain falls into the latter category for sure...
From Tapped:
We know John and Cindy McCain are seriously wealthy
- Cindy's fortune has been estimated at $100 million, and they have
seven, yes, seven homes (if you're keeping track at home, there's the
estate in Sedona, which has two houses on it, the $4.7 million condo in
Phoenix, the condo in Arlington, VA, the condo in La Jolla, and the two condos in Coronado, California). But today, Politico managed to unearth
a few juicy details that show us just what kind of a lifestyle that
gets you. Sure, Cindy buys $3000 suits - not that big a deal. But here
are some other interesting points:
- Since 2004, they've spent $11 million on real estate.
- At times, Cindy has charged as much as $500,000 on one credit card and $250,000 on another in a single month.
You really have to work hard to charge three quarters of a million
dollars in one month. What is she buying, gold-plated Ferraris?
- Though the McCains spent a modest $184,000 on household
staff in 2006, in 2007 they spent $273,000. And who can blame them?
It's so hard to get good help these days.
- This is my favorite quote, about why they own two condos in the same building in the beachside town of Coronado: "When I bought the first one, my husband, who is not a beach person, said, 'Oh, this is such a waste of money; the kids will never go,'” she told Vogue. “Then it got to the point where they used it so much I couldn't get in the place. So I bought another one.”
It is pretty amazing that something so insipid as a "gas tax holiday" from John McCain could gain any traction with the media... and with Hillary Clinton. The whole idea is so ridiculous that I find it hard to believe that it is being taken seriously by anyone. Clearly, there is some world-class pandering happening here, but it just doesn't take more than two seconds to realize that the idea is just plain dumb. The tax is something like 18 cents a gallon. All of that goes to highway and road construction. So where would that money come from if the tax is gone? Hmmm, I guess we can put that one on the national credit card... as for Hillary's idea of taxing the oil companies to pay for it, any guess as to whether Bush will sign that law? Uh huh.
Another part of the stupidity of this idea is something that republican McCain is supposed to understand - supply and demand. One of the main reasons why oil is so expensive is that there is too much demand, and not enough supply worldwide. When price goes up, one is taught by economists, the demand goes down until there is an equilibrium. So we should expect that after a period of $4 a gallon prices, people might start thinking about trimming fuel use. Most people can't go out and buy a new Prius tomorrow, but they might think about it more when it is time to trade in the Chevy Suburban in a few years. The idea is that gas is somewhat an in-elastic commodity in the US. People need to get to work, and our urban environments are built around cars and cheap gas. Changing those patterns and building a public transportation infrastructure take time and money. The only way those individual and collective investments are going to happen is if high fuel costs are sustained over the long term. I'd be willing to bet that gas isn't going under $3.50 a gallon ever again. So with all that in mind, dropping the gas tax isn't going to help anything, it is going to make things worse. If the slightly lower price stops people from conserving even a little bit, it will keep demand high, and cause the price to go up with a tight supply. Furthermore, it will divert resources which could be going to other non-carbon based energy research and development into making up the fuel tax revenue.
Take a look at a great article in The Guardian on Sweden's experience with a carbon taxes:
Between 1990 and 2006 Sweden cut its carbon emissions by 9%, largely exceeding the target set by the Kyoto Protocol, while enjoying economic growth of 44% in fixed prices.
Under Kyoto, Sweden was even told it could increase its emissions by 4% given the progress it had already made. But "this was not considered ambitious enough," explains Emma Lindberg, a climate change expert at the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.
"So parliament decided to cut emissions by another 4% [below 1990 levels]. The mindset was 'we need to do what's good for the environment because it's good for Sweden and its economy'."
The main reason for this success, say experts, is the introduction of a carbon tax in 1991. Swedes today pay an extra 2.34 kronor (20p) per litre when they fill the tank (although many key industries receive tax relief or are exempted). "Our carbon emissions would have been 20% higher without the carbon tax," says the Swedish environment minister, Andreas Carlgren.
So basically, what we should be doing is raising the gas tax, not eliminating it. By making the public pay the costs of the externalities of oil use, we will allow people to make more environmentally-friendly choices. We have distorted the market in that we don't make anyone pay the full cost of using carbon-based energy sources. Once the true costs of it are factored in, and people have to pay for it, they will be more likely to act in their economic interests and choose energy which is cleaner for the environment. The demand for those energy sources will allow for sustained R&D in the least polluting energy sources.
Remember when you thought that it wouldn't be so bad if McCain won the election? Remember when you thought that he was a different kind of republican, a "maverick" who would vote his conscience instead of simply being a reactionary conservative? Yeah, read this, and then watch your old opinion of his supposed independence recede into the mists of history...
McCAIN vs. THE BASE, PART 487....National Journal sets the stage for today's Senate vote on a bill banning the CIA from using torture:
Supporters will need 60 votes to advance the bill, meaning they will need some Republicans to cross party lines. [Harry] Reid said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., could be a major swing vote, given his previous support for legislation against torture. But a spokeswoman for McCain, a Republican presidential candidate who has been trying to bolster support from party conservatives, did not return telephone calls and an e-mail late Tuesday seeking comment.
And why was the famously anti-torture and press-friendly senator avoiding phone calls last night? Because he ended up voting against the bill.
But hey — who can blame him? It's one thing to be against torture in a primary debate where you're trying to appeal to independents and crossover voters, but it's quite another thing to be against torture after you've won the nomination and need to appease a conservative base that's righteously pissed off and not afraid to let you know it. A base that Joe Klein watched in action last November when McCain told Mitt Romney, "We're not going to torture people. We're not going to do what Pol Pot did. We're not going to do what's being done to Burmese monks as we speak":
I attended Frank Luntz's dial group of 30 undecided — or sort of undecided — Republicans in St. Petersburg, Florida, last night...and it was a fairly astonishing evening. Now, for the uninitiated: dials are little hand-held machines that enable a focus group member to register instantaneous approval or disapproval as the watch a candidate on TV.
....When John McCain started talking about torture — specifically, about waterboarding — the dials plummeted again....Down to the low 20s, which, given the natural averaging of a focus group, is about as low as you can go. Afterwards, Luntz asked the group why they seemed to be in favor of torture. "I don't have any problem pouring water on the face of a man who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11," said John Shevlin, a retired federal law enforcement officer. The group applauded, appallingly.
These are the voters McCain needs now, and these voters don't want a president who opposes state sanctioned torture of captive prisoners. So McCain doesn't oppose it anymore. Any questions?
Hey, wasn't McCain against torture because he himself was tortured in Vietnam? Wouldn't you think that would give you the ultimate personal reason to buck the conservative orthodoxy on this issue? Hmmmm I guess he was against torture before his was for it...
All right Arizona! I just read this little tid-bit:
A newly released Behavior Research Center poll finds that Governor Janet Napolitano (D-AZ) would defeat John McCain for his Senate seat in 2010, with Napolitano ahead 47%-36%. The poll was conducted from July 27 to August 4.
So awesome. I'm not sure when the next time McCain is up for election is, but hopefully it is soon. It would be pretty awesome if that guy finally lost his seat. What a total phony!
I never watch the 24 hour news networks, mainly because they don't provide a lot of actual news. It is mostly fluff, and in the case of Fox - total lies - and not much is covered that I'm interested in. One of the things that I really hate about TV news is that they never call politicians on their bullshit. They basically allow them to lie to our faces, and virtually never call them out on it. I consider this one of the biggest failings of our new corporate news... that they don't actually aim for truth, but look for "controversy" to boost ratings. One of the more eggregious examples recently has been John Bolton's press tour over the past few weeks. He was on Jon Stewart's show, and got a mild grilling. However, I have seen him on some other network news shows, and they just let him spout all kinds of lies. I even saw him on the BBC, and the guy just lied through his teeth and obfuscated. They let him get away with it.
Here is one rare instance, where CNN actually tries to verify one of the more outlandish things uttered by a politician...
The Senate just
killed an amendment to ensure federal courts could review the
legitimacy of individual' imprisonment on suspicion of involvement in
terrorism. The amendment had been proposed by Sen. Arlen Specter
(R-PA), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It is a fundamental
protection woven into the fabric of our Nation," said Sen. Patrick
Leahy (D-VT), who supported the measure. It was defeated 48-51, largely
along party lines. Former torture victim Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), portrayed as a
"maverick" by earlier bucking the White House on the issue of detainee
treatment, voted against the amendment. The White House also opposes
the changes the amendment would make to the bill. Sens. John Warner
(R-VA) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who had also challenged the White
House over the bill, joined McCain in voting against the amendment.
From TPM Muckraker
