John McCain Denies Maverick Label to Secure Re-election

[Ivan Seeking]

...The Arizona lawmaker, looking to thwart a primary challenge from a conservative Republican former congressman, played down his history of working with Democrats on issues like overhauling US immigration policy, curbing big money influence in politics, or fighting climate change.

"I never considered myself a maverick," Newsweek quoted him as saying. "I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities."...

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/mccain-maverick-hayworth-arizona/2010/04/05/id/354832

I really used to like McCain. When he picked Palin for VP, he betrayed my confidence. Now he seems more like a joke. What is sad is that his base has moved so far to the right that he is forced to deny his long history of bipartisanship in order to save his career.

 

[kyleb]

Heh, to quote http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879#" :

John McCain is here. John McCain, John McCain, what a maverick! Somebody find out what fork he used on his salad, because I guarantee you it wasn't a salad fork. This guy could have used a spoon! There's no predicting him. Senator McCain, it's so wonderful to see you coming back into the Republican fold. I have a summer house in South Carolina; look me up when you go to speak at Bob Jones University. So glad you've seen the light, sir.

I had considered McCain one of more honorable politicians around, to the extent that I was hopping for him to win the 2000 Presidential race. However, I feel he started slowly loosing his way since then, went down hill quick after Bush was was reelected, and his taking on Palin for VP put him right out the window for me.

 

[russ_watters]

You're misreading the situation, Ivan. Yes, he's downplaying it because he's not crossing party lines, but it isn't because his base moved to the right it is because the line between the parties moved to the left. We have an extreme left wing President and a democratic majority in both houses, pushing a very liberal adjendas. There is nothing even for a moderate republican to cross party lines on: it is just too big of a gap to cross. To the contrary: the democrats are so far left that you have democrats breaking ranks and making the much shorter trip across the line to the right.

 

[jgens]

We have an extreme left wing President and a democratic majority in both houses, pushing a very liberal adjendas.

While I won't argue the fact that both the President and Congress are pushing liberal agendas, on what basis do you make the claim that Obama is "an extreme left wing President"? During his roughly 1.5 year tenure in office, President Obama has agreed to send a 30,000 troop surge to Afghanistan, reconsidered nuclear power plants, opposed a single payer health care system, supported a cadillac tax instead of an income surtax on the wealthy, and permitted some off shore drilling.

 

[mheslep]

While I won't argue the fact that both the President and Congress are pushing liberal agendas, on what basis do you make the claim that Obama is "an extreme left wing President"? During his roughly 1.5 year tenure in office,

Not so fast. Some of these are, at least, questionable.

President Obama has agreed to send a 30,000 troop surge to Afghanistan,

Yes, and not just agreed, he executed. A substantial number are already there.

reconsidered nuclear power plants,

He's certainly talked it up. In his first SOTU speech he said he favored a "new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country". Yet, the only concrete action he's taken to-date via Chu is to kill the Yucca waste repository. In February of this year he did announce (no execution yet) loan guarantees authorized back in the Bush 2005 Energy Policy Act for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021601302.html" which he controls. Otherwise, he's done absolutely nothing tangible to change the status of nuclear power, the consequence of which is that there are currently no new nuclear plants under construction in the US today, and thus there won't be any online before Obama was to leave even a 2nd term.

opposed a single payer health care system

Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE&feature=player_embedded" SP in 2003:

I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, [...] A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan...

As President, he stopped promoting SP, but he still declines to argue directly against it; instead he threw his support behind the http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/05/obama_on_why_he_is_not_for_sin.html" , a close relative of SP that undoubtedly would become the thing itself in time, until the Public Option didn't exist as an 'option' any longer in Congress.

supported a cadillac tax instead of an income surtax on the wealthy,

Great idea, but I don't follow how support of any net tax increase is not left wing politics. In any case, the reality is there is no cadillac tax in place today, it is not scheduled to hit until http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/04/05/mass_communities_likely_to_feel_cost_of_employees_cadillac_plans/" Obama backed down under union protests and pushed out into the future. Given that this ~super majority Congress failed to enact the cadillac tax today, the idea that some future 2018 Congress will go along is fantasy, and everyone knows it.

and permitted some off shore drilling.

As of today, Obama has permitted nothing new, so far he has only proposed to open some limited areas for offshore drilling.

 

[jgens]

Great idea, but I don't follow how support of any net tax increase is not left wing politics.

True, but I think that you've missed my point (and likely because I wasn't particularly clear). For lack of better phrasing, a cadillac tax is generally considered a less liberal tax than an income surtax on the wealthy. If Obama were as extremely liberal as Russ seems to think, I would have guessed that he would support the income surtax on the wealthy over the cadillac tax. It's not really strong support that he's not a radical, but it does suggest to me that he's only moderately liberal.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

You're misreading the situation, Ivan. Yes, he's downplaying it because he's not crossing party lines, but it isn't because his base moved to the right it is because the line between the parties moved to the left. We have an extreme left wing President and a democratic majority in both houses, pushing a very liberal adjendas.

Since healthcare reform has been the focus of Obama's policy, let's focus on that for a bit. Obama's plan is very similar to a Republican healthcare plan in 1993 (see comparison here). The bill, proposed by 20 Republicans and 2 Democrats in the Senate, included a mandate for individuals to buy insurance, subsidies for the poor to by insurance and the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package and refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions. The similarities between the 1993 bill and the current bill and the fact that these proposals are now anathema to Republicans suggest that it is the Republicans who have moved to the right, at least on this issue.

There is nothing even for a moderate republican to cross party lines on: it is just too big of a gap to cross.

On healthcare reform, you are correct the gap between Republicans and Democrats was too large. However, on other issues, moderate Republicans (and even not so moderate Republicans) are willing to sign onto Democratic plans. For example, 11 Republicans in the Senate supported Obama's "jobs bill." Furthermore, on the issues of energy and the environment, one of the domestic policy issues that Congress may tackle next, Republicans such as Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham seem willing to work with Democrats (see http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/11/senators-pitch-alternative-cap-trade-climate/, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/11/graham-backs-push-climate-change-legislation/, and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28friedman.html). Of course, only time will tell whether Democrats will chose to pursue more moderate, centrist proposals in this area, and whether some Republicans will support these proposals.

To the contrary: the democrats are so far left that you have democrats breaking ranks and making the much shorter trip across the line to the right.

One interpretation of this observation is that the Democratic party is adopting far left stances. Another interpretations is that the Democratic party has a very wide membership including liberals, moderates and conservatives. Whereas the Democrats have a group of conservative Blue Dog Democrats and acknowledge them as an important part of the party, the Republican party has proposed ideological "purity test" (an idea that was fortunately were shot down) and ostracized moderate members with the tag of RINO (Arlen Spector and Dede Scozzafava being two prominent cases). For the sake of the Republican party, I hope McCain and other more moderate members like him can maintain a strong moderate voice within the Republican party. Both parties, not just the Democrats, should be moving toward governing from the center. (Of course it is important to note that terms such as conservative, moderate, centrist, and liberal are all subjective and really more important for political name calling that anything else. Everyone, including myself, are likely to place policies with which one believes near the center of the political spectrum and classify those policies with which one disagrees at the extreme left/right.)

 

[Gokul43201]

Not so fast.

I notice you haven't stated an opinion on Obama being an "extreme left wing President". Care to share?

 

[Gokul43201]

IMO, the partisanism has little to do with philosophical gaps and more to do with political gain (determined largely by emotional reactionism).

Example: McConnell and the 7 original Republican co-sponsors of the bill to set up the Conrad-Gregg fiscal policy commission voting against the bill after it had been strongly endorsed by Obama. Boo!

 

[Gokul43201]

Yet, the only concrete action he's taken to-date via Chu is to kill the Yucca waste repository.

For a year, everyone was complaining about him not setting up the blue-ribbon commission to look into waster disposal. Now that that's eventually happened, it's quickly forgotten?

In February of this year he did announce (no execution yet) loan guarantees authorized back in the Bush 2005 Energy Policy Act for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021601302.html" ;

Mr "extreme left wing" Obama voted for the 2005 Energy Policy Act, while our "moderate Republican" John McCain voted against it.

however, the industry says that's nice but http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...0306052.html?KEYWORDS=nuclear+loan+guarantee" which he controls.

Is the absence of predictability of the NRC a fault of Obama's?

Otherwise, he's done absolutely nothing tangible to change the status of nuclear power, the consequence of which is that there are currently no new nuclear plants under construction in the US today, and thus there won't be any online before Obama was to leave even a 2nd term.

And this is how much lower than the number of new licenses granted or plants built under say Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, or Reagan?

In any case, the whole idea of funding nuclear plants is sort of silly to label as right wing philosophy, as a free market system would not accept nuclear power for decades into the future. Government overriding the will of the markets is supposed to be a left-wing idea, is it not? (which is to say that politics has only a little to do with the underlying philosophy and much more to do with short term control of emotional response)

Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE&feature=player_embedded" SP in 2003:
As President, he stopped promoting SP, but he still declines to argue directly against it; instead he threw his support behind the http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/05/obama_on_why_he_is_not_for_sin.html" , a close relative of SP that undoubtedly would become the thing itself in time, until the Public Option didn't exist as an 'option' any longer in Congress.

What he personally believes in is nowhere near as important as what he advocates for in the bills going through Congress. Despite his personal beliefs, he was right off the bat saying that Congress (meaning the Dems) ought to consider a bill which did not include a public option. Obama and Sebelius took plenty of flack from East and West coast Dems when they came out early with language that said it was okay to not have a public option.

As of today, Obama has permitted nothing new, so far he has only proposed to open some limited areas for offshore drilling.

Can we agree that you need to start with a proposal? And the proposal is to drill in areas that were restricted by a moratorium put in place by what can only have been the ultra-radical communist President: George H. W. Bush.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is also noteworthy that he has only been in office a little over a year. He walked into the greatest financial crisis and job loss rate since the Great Depression - both of which have turned around. He has two wars on his plate. He tackled health care reform - 100 years overdue - and passed the biggest piece of legislation to pass in 40 years. He cut the the first significant arms deal with Russia in 20 years. He has been strong on foreign policy and anti-terrorism. In fact, the Dems now rank higher than Reps on the issue of foreign policy. To cherry pick issues and complain that Obama hasn't done anything is disingenuous at best.

The fact is that Obama has already done enough to secure his place in the history books as one of the great Presidents of all time.

 

[turbo]

I really used to like McCain. When he picked Palin for VP, he betrayed my confidence. Now he seems more like a joke. What is sad is that his base has moved so far to the right that he is forced to deny his long history of bipartisanship in order to save his career.

Same here. The problem is endemic in the GOP. Conservatism is frowned upon there, and actual conservatives (and yes, there are conservatives in both parties, though far fewer than 30-40 years ago) are being edged out by a party apparatus that that rewards blindly pro-business neoconservatism. The GOP long ago gave up working for the common good. To the dismay of my father, I was a pretty loyal Republican for many years, until the party left me. I can't support the GOP or the Democratic Party anymore. They are both bought and paid for. All I can do is pick the lesser of two evils on election day, and hope that someday a strong independent party arises that distances itself from the DC partisanship and pay-to-play relationships with lobbies.

 

[dilletante]

If Obama were as extremely liberal as Russ seems to think, I would have guessed that he would support the income surtax on the wealthy over the cadillac tax. It's not really strong support that he's not a radical, but it does suggest to me that he's only moderately liberal.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8154699&page=1
"President Obama's endorsement of a health care surtax for the richest Americans has renewed criticism of the proposal, including from the man who once lorded over the nation's increasingly complicated tax code."

OK so this is an older article but just because he didn't get what he wanted doesn't mean he didn't support it.

Although (like the members of Congress who voted on it) I have not read the bill, it is my understanding that lots of taxes on the wealthy are on the way. These include eliminating the Bush tax cuts (I suppose some do not consider this a tax increase, but those paying it certainly do), raising the ceiling on self-employment tax and Medicare taxes, imposing new taxes on investment income, raising the estate tax, and so forth. These certainly seem like surtaxes on the wealthy to me. Oh, and they still get to pay the cadillac tax as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Your link doesn't work.

Rolling back the Bush tax cuts puts the rate at the same level as under that raging liberal, Reagan. However, because of the economy, far fewer people will be affected.

 

[mheslep]

Since healthcare reform has been the focus of Obama's policy, let's focus on that for a bit. Obama's plan is very similar to a Republican healthcare plan in 1993 (see comparison here). The bill, proposed by 20 Republicans and 2 Democrats in the Senate, included a mandate for individuals to buy insurance, subsidies for the poor to by insurance and the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package and refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions. The similarities between the 1993 bill and the current bill and the fact that these proposals are now anathema to Republicans suggest that it is the Republicans who have moved to the right, at least on this issue.

Quickly jumping in - I think you mis-characterize the comparison. Of course there is some commonality. I think the differences - tort reform, tax equalization for individual plans and several others - make them entirely different creatures. Also Keiser's wrong about the exchange - in the present law the exchange will be a creature of and by the federal government and not the states, even if it is hosted by the states.

 

[mheslep]

I notice you haven't stated an opinion on Obama being an "extreme left wing President". Care to share?

Based on his actions to-date, not his rhetoric - owning GM, individual mortgage bailouts, vast spending, pending tax increases, the recent announcement by Volcker of the need for a US VAT, and this health law - yes I increasingly think he is very left wing. To place this in context, I'll add that I believe this to be the case at the US level; when comparing Obama to politicians abroad I'd place him much closer to past US politicians than most EU pols for example.

 

[mheslep]

Rhetoric, plans, and announcements are all fine. My objection to jgens tally of political left/right data points was the listing of rhetorical references for political positioning, against a record of concrete actions ( or lack of when despite the power to do so). Much of the President's rhetoric I agree with - "new generation of nuclear", "this is America, we don't denigrate wealth", "For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. [...] Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms."
And, regarding his actions, I have the impression they would have been even farther to the left if he thought it at all politically feasible.



Nuclear ------------------

For a year, everyone was complaining about him not setting up the blue-ribbon commission to look into waster disposal. Now that that's eventually happened, it's quickly forgotten?

Rhetorical case in point. Would you agree that if all one wanted to do was stall, delay and slow walk the nuclear issue, that creating 'commissions' on the subject would be a fine way to do so? The waste subject has been studied for decades. We have a prize winning physicist as Sec E. who can deeply grasp the subject, yet we get more commissions.

Is the absence of predictability of the NRC a fault of Obama's?

Yes. He's the chief executive, the executive branch executes regulation. He appointed the NRC's Jaczko. For at least the regulation aspect, if not the legislation, he's responsible.

And this is how much lower than the number of new licenses granted or plants built under say Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, or Reagan?

We didn't have 50 year old plants, episodes of $150/bbl oil, new and safer AP1000 reactors under the latter three; Reagan came in just after Three Mile Island. Bush at least got the ball rolling with the 2005 Energy law, and ran the NRC in such a way that convinced some ~17 nuclear operators that the NRC was favourable enough to new plants to warrant paying large sums for permit applications. Still I'm happy to grant the Bush could have, and should have, done more to streamline NRC regulation.

In any case, the whole idea of funding nuclear plants is sort of silly to label as right wing philosophy, as a free market system would not accept nuclear power for decades into the future. Government overriding the will of the markets is supposed to be a left-wing idea, is it not? (which is to say that politics has only a little to do with the underlying philosophy and much more to do with short term control of emotional response)

Obama proposed loans, not funding. I agree that subsidies of any kind are not the stuff of a free market, and in general should be avoided for several reasons (political corruption, distortions of other markets). Instead I'd like to see no subsidies and a more streamlined NRC that was amenable to small low cost reactor designs (they're not). The reality is that government a) creates much of the expense for nuclear via regulation and an open door for bogus law suits, and b) subsidises nuclear's competition, both renewables and fossil.



Single Payer/Public Option ----------------

What he personally believes in is nowhere near as important as what he advocates for in the bills going through Congress.

Agreed. The claim was Obama didn't support single payer. There was no single payer bill in Congress to support, but he's surely spoken out in favor, and gives us an indication of where he'd like to go in the future. That, in conjunction with the Mini-Me single payer plan called public option, goes in my left wing column.

Despite his personal beliefs, he was right off the bat saying that Congress (meaning the Dems) ought to consider a bill which did not include a public option. Obama and Sebelius took plenty of flack from East and West coast Dems when they came out early with language that said it was okay to not have a public option.

Right off the bat is not my http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/05/obama_on_why_he_is_not_for_sin.html" of events:

If you don't have health care or you're highly unsatisfied with your health care, then let's give you choices, let's give you options, including a public plan that you could enroll in and sign up for. That's been my proposal. (Applause.)

Offshore Drilling ------------------------

Can we agree that you need to start with a proposal?

Of course. My point is I don't give any right or left wing credit for this, yet.

And the proposal is to drill in areas that were restricted by a moratorium put in place by what can only have been the ultra-radical communist President: George H. W. Bush.

I'm not familiar with the context of that ban, but HWB does not define conservatism for me. As WFB said of the son, "he may be conservative, but he is not a conservative."

 

[DavidSnider]

You're misreading the situation, Ivan. Yes, he's downplaying it because he's not crossing party lines, but it isn't because his base moved to the right it is because the line between the parties moved to the left. We have an extreme left wing President and a democratic majority in both houses, pushing a very liberal adjendas. There is nothing even for a moderate republican to cross party lines on: it is just too big of a gap to cross. To the contrary: the democrats are so far left that you have democrats breaking ranks and making the much shorter trip across the line to the right.

http://news.harrisinteractive.com/p...sp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777

Nearly a quarter of republicans think Obama "may be the antichrist" and you think it's the left that has become more radicalized?

 

[jgens]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8154699&page=1
"President Obama's endorsement of a health care surtax for the richest Americans has renewed criticism of the proposal, including from the man who once lorded over the nation's increasingly complicated tax code."

OK so this is an older article but just because he didn't get what he wanted doesn't mean he didn't support it.

After both the House and Senate passed their respective health care bills, Obama and his administration threw their support behind the Cadillac tax over the income surtax on the wealthy. And at a time when both options were still on the table.

 

[edward]

Getting back to the OP
Sarah Palin was in AZ last week stumping with McCain. Guess what she said?

"If you want conservative solutions and common sense leadership ... to fight for what this state and country needs, I'm asking you to vote for John McCain," Palin told several thousand people packed into a fairground in Tucson, Arizona.

"Let's send the Maverick back to the Senate," she added, in her first appearance at the stump with McCain since he lost the November 2008 presidential election to Democrat Barack Obama and Palin lost her bid to be vice president to Joe Biden.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P57W20100326

McCain can't keep that woman quiet. Oh and check out her black leather jacket.

 

[Gokul43201]

Based on his actions to-date, not his rhetoric - owning GM, individual mortgage bailouts, vast spending, pending tax increases, the recent announcement by Volcker of the need for a US VAT, and this health law - yes I increasingly think he is very left wing. To place this in context, I'll add that I believe this to be the case at the US level; when comparing Obama to politicians abroad I'd place him much closer to past US politicians than most EU pols for example.

Comparisons with EU pols are naturally not important here. By calling him "extreme left wing" one means Obama is far to the left of the middle of the Dem party (or if you wish, significantly to the left of average among recent Dem Presidents like Clinton, Carter, LBJ & JFK).

 

[mheslep]

Comparisons with EU pols are naturally not important here.

Ok, if you like.

By calling him "extreme left wing" one means Obama is far to the left of the middle of the Dem party (or if you wish, significantly to the left of average among recent Dem Presidents like Clinton, Carter, LBJ & JFK).

Lumping JFK in with that group politically is stretching the definition a bit. Also the Dem party has moved its politics to the left over time.

Regarding the points originally ticked off by jgen as evidence that Obama is not so far left: I'm increasingly convinced after some recent Machiavellian statements by R. Emanuel that the recent drilling and nuclear pronouncements are crap, just political game playing to hold down the Congressional wipe out come November. After November all these recent statements can all be quietly rescinded or thinned out to nothingness.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Your list of grievances against Obama are more the result circumstance than philosophy. To not acknowledge this is indefensible. The most obvious problem with the far-left accusations is this: Did Obama nationalize the banks when he had the chance and was urged to do so by many leading economists? No. In fact, in many cases, we turned a tidy profit by acting as the lender of last resort.

As for the auto industry, who voted yea?

10 Republicans in all, including Luger and Dole. Also in the list, Webb, Inouye, and Lieberman. With those names on the list, I fail to see how one can claim this as a far-left ideological maneuver.
http://www.chuckypita.com/auto-bailout-bill-senate-list-and-roll-call-vote-for-who-voted-yes-and-who-voted-no/

It was a decision based on risk assesment: We could not afford to allow the auto industry and the supporting industries to fail during the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. There is no justification to judge the actions taken in partisan or ideological terms. The response to the crisis was an engineered solution as required by the nature of the crisis. As with the bailout of the banking system, it would have been irresponsible and disastrous to act less boldly.

The conservative principle of deregulation, taken too far, left us with no options. There was the strong potential for a complete economic collapse that could last a decade or more. Many millions more jobs were at stake. To ignore the reality of this due to some fanciful ideology is ridiculous. Ideology is appropriate as a compass; not as an instruction manual based on a litmus test.

 

[mheslep]

As for the auto industry, who voted yea?

10 Republicans in all, including Luger and Dole. Also in the list, Webb, Inouye, and Lieberman. With those names on the list, I fail to see how one can claim this as a far-left ideological maneuver.
http://www.chuckypita.com/auto-bailout-bill-senate-list-and-roll-call-vote-for-who-voted-yes-and-who-voted-no/

You've confused events. There was no vote on the government takeover of GM. The above refers to government loans, made foolishly as it turns out, in December of 2008. The Obama administration acted unilaterally after the the GM bankruptcy in on June 1, 2009 to grab GM.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124385428627671889.html

As for the rest, if nationalizing companies is not a left-wing action then there are no left wing actions. The 'we had to do it to save this, that, and the other thing' defense goes much further back than Obama.

BTW, the fact that Webb or whoever voted for the original bailout means nothing to me. I mentioned earlier that I respect those men as Americans even though I disagree with, that was the point of the thread. That doesn't mean their politics are not left wing or even not foolish sometimes.

 

[Gokul43201]

Nuclear ------------------
Rhetorical case in point. Would you agree that if all one wanted to do was stall, delay and slow walk the nuclear issue, that creating 'commissions' on the subject would be a fine way to do so? The waste subject has been studied for decades. We have a prize winning physicist as Sec E. who can deeply grasp the subject, yet we get more commissions.

It's really hard to please you guys! Damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

I'm sure this will be made to fit into the shenanigans framework as well, but anyways ... from a 2005 hearing, when Obama sat in the Committee on Environment and Public Works: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1962764...Congressional-Report-109th-Congress-2005-2006

STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

As electricity demand throughout the Nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means creating jobs, protecting water and air quality, establishing energy independence, and using all of our energy resources fully and wisely.

I strongly support greater energy conservation and greater Federal investment in renewable technologies such as wind and solar, which ought to receive greater attention in our national energy policy than they likely will this year.

However, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable—and realistic—for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants—the most of any State in the country—and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table—and indeed planning for the construction of new plants—is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and I thank the Chair for holding this hearing.

Words of a truly extreme left wing nut!

 

[mheslep]

Words of a truly extreme left wing nut!

Obama is no nut; I've certainly not said so. On the contrary he's a very astute political operator.

 

[Gokul43201]

I should perhaps have written 'wingnut' or 'wing-nut'. I meant the term in the sense of 'radical' or 'extreme' rather than 'loony'.

And while the Right believes that Obama is an extreme left wing President, the Left believes that he is swinging too far to the Right.

For a taste of such opinion, see: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/18-7

His proposal for off-shore drilling has the environmental lobby mad at him. The Greenpeace director says that Obama has abandoned his own promises in favor of Sarah Palin's "drill, baby drill" policy. Others are likening him to Bush.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/03/lautenberg-obama-plan-kill-baby-kill-0

Here's the reaction from someone who I consider a typical left-wing politician (from above link):

Giving Big Oil more access to our nation’s waters is really a 'Kill, baby, kill' policy: It threatens to kill jobs, kill marine life and kill coastal economies that generate billions of dollars. Offshore drilling isn’t the solution to our energy problems, and I will fight this policy and continue to push for 21st-century clean energy solutions.

I wonder what words would be necessary to describe Obama if, as forecast by right wing soothsayers, he had: orchestrated the "catastrophic" pullout of Iraq and Afghanistan that would lead to immediate chaos and a return to power of AQ/Taliban; eviscerated military spending; let the labor unions "run the country"; shut down the coal plants and killed nuclear power; stopped all new off-shore drilling, and enacted a windfall tax on the oil companies; nationalized the failing banks, or even just reinstated Glass-Steagall, etc.?

And conversely, I wonder what resume of policy actions would be required to earn Obama the honor of a 'non-extreme left wing President' title?

 

[Zefram]

Great idea, but I don't follow how support of any net tax increase is not left wing politics.

Milton Friedman was too far to the left for you?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Milton Friedman was too far to the left for you?

You think Milton Friedman supported a net tax increase?

"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, "How do you hold down government spending?" Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like. If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up. The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes." -Milton Friedman

I can find many quotes like the above by Friedman supporting tax cuts. I can't find any of him supporting tax increases. I don't doubt that he would have supported a total package that would include raising some taxes, but with a large net tax decrease. He might have supported an increase in the sales tax but removal of the income tax, for example. (Just an example, I don't have any support for that.)

 

[mheslep]

I should perhaps have written 'wingnut' or 'wing-nut'. I meant the term in the sense of 'radical' or 'extreme' rather than 'loony'.

And while the Right believes that Obama is an extreme left wing President, the Left believes that he is swinging too far to the Right.

For a taste of such opinion, see: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/18-7

His proposal for off-shore drilling has the environmental lobby mad at him. The Greenpeace director says that Obama has abandoned his own promises in favor of Sarah Palin's "drill, baby drill" policy. Others are likening him to Bush.

Sure he calculates, in my view, that he can irritate the Al Gore lobby for awhile as they have no other option. It makes him look 'centrist', not beholding to an ideology, while no taking no real action until after the November elections.

I wonder what words would be necessary to describe Obama if, as forecast by right wing soothsayers, he had: orchestrated the "catastrophic" pullout of Iraq and Afghanistan that would lead to immediate chaos and a return to power of AQ/Taliban; eviscerated military spending; let the labor unions "run the country"; shut down the coal plants and killed nuclear power;

Who do you have in mind when you say 'right wing soothsayers'? Some guy in a Montana cabin? I've never seen / heard even the talking head cranks say Obama planned a sudden pullout of Afghanistan, or any of the rest for that matter. Even what we might all agree are hard left wing governments, like Venezuela, don't do some of these things, e.g. eviscerate military spending. My view is that most of Obama's leftist plans revolve around actions inside the US. To do that, he needs popularity and precipitating military disasters abroad does not gain popularity.

stopped all new off-shore drilling,

He did do that. Closed all the off-shore areas Bush opened via Salazar very soon after taking office. The announcement last week was about plans to re-open some off shore areas.

 

[turbo]

Take a rational look at Obama's drilling proposal. There are millions of acres of leases currently held by oil companies, and not being exploited. Why? That takes investment in equipment and jobs, and the leases are cheap. Cianbro has been building modules for drilling platforms here in Maine. They are good at what they do, and Maine labor is reasonably-priced (non-union). Cianbro ought to be expanding and hiring more welders, pipe-fitters, and electricians every day. They are not, because the oil companies are sitting on the existing leases and not developing them. They make plenty of money refining imported oil and selling the products. All their ads on PBS touting America's "energy independence based on natural gas and oil" are smoke and mirrors. Exxon-Mobil is doing just fine collaborating with OPEC, and they don't need to produce more jobs or reduce the cost of hydrocarbon-based products. Why would they?

 

[mheslep]

Take a rational look at Obama's drilling proposal. There are millions of acres of leases currently held by oil companies, and not being exploited. Why? [...] They are not, because the oil companies are sitting on the existing leases and not developing them. [...] Exxon-Mobil is doing just fine collaborating with OPEC, and they don't need to produce more jobs or reduce the cost of hydrocarbon-based products. Why would they?

[omissions mine] Assuming for a moment that this is all true, what does it have to do with Obama's off-shore drilling proposals?

 

[turbo]

[omissions mine] Assuming for a moment that this is all true, what does it have to do with Obama's off-shore drilling proposals?

There are plenty of folks who have criticized Obama for opening previously-closed areas, as if the oil companies are going to start throwing up oil rigs everywhere off the mid-Atlantic coast. They are not going to do so. They already have millions of acres of off-shore leases in the Gulf, near large ports and refineries (so transport costs would be minimized), and still they are not putting out any new rigs. In the interests of energy-independence for the US, oil leases should be rescinded if the oil companies do not actually develop the fields they hold. I feel that opening up more off-shore area for development is not a good idea unless there is some mechanism for rescinding leases (or steeply increasing lease fees) when fields go unexplored or undeveloped. Cheap leases are subsidies to oil companies - subsidies that should come with some strings attached to protect taxpayer interests.

 

[Gokul43201]

Who do you have in mind when you say 'right wing soothsayers'? Some guy in a Montana cabin?

No, I'm talking mostly about folks at Fox and talk radio. Not sure where they live, but surely you've heard plenty of their projections from around the election time. I don't have cable and still came across dozens of predictions of Obama's plans to turn the US into a socialist/communist (and/or nazi) state.

Some examples from a hurried attempt at Googling year-old stuff (Note: Some quotes, especially those from Fox, are uncited because I found them at various blogs, and do not have original transcripts. A careful search for the text in quotes might provide transcripts, but I'm skipping that out of laziness, and because the point below is simply to provide a flavor of the kind of right-wing rhetoric that was prevalent in 2008-2009.):

1. Brenda Buttner, Fox News host, May 2008: "Now, isn't Obama the guy who wants to yank our troops from Iraq? My next guest says surrendering isn't exactly completing their work."

2. Glenn Beck & Mark Vadum, June 2009, talking about ACORN and related matters:

Beck: "Barack Obama, we’ve never known who he is, right? He’s, he’s, he’s FDR, he’s JFK, he’s Lincoln. No, he’s not. No, he’s not. He’s a community organizer. There are new acorns on the tree! My theory is that Barack Obama is building a country, almost software, it’s like the Matrix. It’s running on top of the software of the Constitution or the Republic that we have. He’s got a new framework. There’s a new skeleton being built slowly but surely - and invisibly!”

Vadum: “It’s a new, radical, left-wing political infrastructure. And so by creating these structures and funding them with tax dollars... you create a loyal army of followers. It’s also happens to be the Chicago way of graft and corruption."

Beck: “In the 1960’s, the idea was to create a structure... then collapse the economy of the United States, so that structure would be in place. 1960’s theory.”

Vadum: “This is not some wild-eyed conspiracy theory.”

3. Glenn Beck, April 2009: "Because he [Obama] will slowly but surely take away your gun or take away your ability to shoot a gun, carry a gun. He will make them more expensive; he'll tax them out of existence. He will because he has said he would. He will tax you gun or take your gun away one way or another."

4. Milwaukee radio host Mark Belling, Dec 2008: "Well, OK. You're right about that. Everybody's buying guns before Obama comes in and outlaws them all."

5. G. Gordon Liddy, Nov 2008: "The first thing you do is, no matter what law they pass, do not -- repeat, not -- ever register any of your firearms. Because that's where they get the list of where to go first to confiscate. So, you don't ever register a firearm, anywhere."

6. Hannity, in Nov 2008, forecasting that Obama would raise tax rates above 60% of income: "“The new definition of patriotism and virtue is to give 60 or 70% of your income so that (Obama) can distribute checks to 40% of the population that pay no money in income taxes.”

7. In Mar 2009, http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/03/congress_passes_obama_youth_bi.php had this to say about the "GIVE Act": "At best, this reprise of Hitler Youth will nationalize charitable work, using slave labor to help the State to further marginalize Christianity, which is one of the few remaining obstacles to totalitarianism. At worse, this and Obama's Serve America Act are part of his stated plan to create a race-based, Gestapo-style "Civilian National Security Force" as large and well-funded as the military."

8. Hannity, Apr 2009: "This administration is taking steps to cut defense spending... that noise you hear off in the distance, those are the mullahs - well, they're cheering."

9. From a WSJ Op-ed in Oct 2008: "There is the candidate who insists, as he did last year in an article in Foreign Affairs, that "a strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace"; pledges to increase the size of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines while providing them with "first-rate equipment, armor, incentives and training"; and seems to be as gung-ho for a surge in Afghanistan as he was opposed to the one in Iraq.
...
But what if a President Obama doesn't actually believe in the importance of a strong military to keep the peace? Or has an attenuated idea of what qualifies as a "strong" military? Or considers military strength a luxury at a moment of financial crisis? Or thinks now is the moment to smash the Pentagon piggy bank to fund a second Great Society?"

10. Oct 2008, Fox's Neil Cavuto echoing McCain's claims about Obama in a query to DNC adviser Brad Woodhouse: ""You know, with the economy hurting, markets tumbling, John McCain is saying this is hardly the time to put limits on wealth. He says that is something that Barack Obama wants to do. Is he right? ... Brad, what do you make of that notion that what Barack Obama would want to do as president is maybe put a cap on how rich you can become, and maybe that's reverberating in these markets."

11. Steve Forbes, on Cavuto's show, Oct 2008, describing what it would mean to elect Obama: "That means more unionization. That means more regulation. It's going to be tough for the economy to emerge from those kind of burdens. ... The fear is not only are taxes going to be going up, but also you're going to have this mass unionization with card check. You're going to have other regulations coming in - the fairness doctrine - shutting down free speech, and all this is adding to the uncertainty. ... The market is saying it's riddled with uncertainty."Besides, why stop at hard-left-wing governments like Venezuela when you have outright Communist governments like China, the former Soviet Union, or the Vietnamese government to make comparisons with ... or did you miss the time when Glenn Beck "presented" Obama with a birthday cake painted red, with a large golden star on it? Or the time when Hannity labeled Obama the "Commissar-in-Chief"? Or Glenn Beck's "Obama National Anthem" video, set to the tune of the Soviet Anthem? (these should be easy to Google up)

 

[mheslep]

No, I'm talking mostly about folks at Fox and talk radio. Not sure where they live, but surely you've heard plenty of their projections from around the election time. I don't have cable and still came across dozens of predictions of Obama's plans to turn the US into a socialist/communist (and/or nazi) state.

Some examples from a hurried attempt at Googling year-old stuff (Note: Some quotes, especially those from Fox,

[...]

I would have stipulated that there was/is plenty of over the top criticism of the President, especially on things like guns. Perhaps it was pedantic of me, but I was taking issue with some of your earlier specific claims such as a precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan - I'd never heard that and I wouldn't expect it, since as far as I know Obama always supported the war in Afghanistan during the campaign. On issues like guns Obama supplied the ammunition for conspiracy theories with his closed door speech at the San Francisco billionaire's home and the http://www.cnbcfix.com/obama-cling-guns-religion.html" remarks.

Besides, why stop at hard-left-wing governments like Venezuela when you have outright Communist governments like China, the former Soviet Union, or the Vietnamese government to make comparisons with ...

Well it is difficult to find a good example of a hard left wing country among those. China and Vietnam, despite their communist governments, are doing all they can to encourage laissez faire free market economies which are booming while Venezuela is doing the opposite, nationalizing everything in sight, though it is at least barely democratic. N. Korea, the former SU, and one or two other Stalinist regimes are in a class by themselves.