A Cheer for McCain?

Folks outside the Beltway often wonder why reporters--even those of a liberal bent--have a fondness for John McCain. Yeah, he's a warmonger in that he's been an enthusiastic cheerleader for George Bush's misadventure in Iraq. Yeah, he essentially pimped for Bush in 2004--after the Bush campaign ran a scandalous and dirty-as-can-be campaign against him in the 2000 Republican primaries. Yeah, he sucks up to social conservatives, as he ponders another presidential bid. For instance, he recently said intelligent design should be taught in schools. (McCain is probably hoping that he can take the edge off social conservatives' suspicion of him.) But this week, he poked Bush right in the snout. Despite a veto threat from the White House, McCain led--yes, led--the Senate to a 90-to-9 vote in favor of setting humane limits on the interrogation of detainees in Iraq and elsewhere. Given the damage done by the Abu Ghraib scandal, it's shocking that Bush would not support such a measure. But he didn't. And McCain shoved it down his throat.

McCain attached to the $440 billion military spending bill a provision that both defines the permissible actions that can be taken by US interrogators--whether they are dealing with uniiformed members of an enemy army or stateless terrorists--and prohibits the use of inhumane and degrading tactics. For months, McCain and a few other senators (including Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Warner of Virginia) have pushed this measure, but they have been blocked by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. In July, Frist pulled the defense appropriations bill off the floor rather than permit McCain a vote on this provision. Instead, he scheduled a vote on legislation that would protect gun sellers from lawsuits. (Click here for more on that.)

But when McCain on Wednesday introduced this provision as an amendment to the military spending bill--which is considered as a must-pass bill--he and his comrades won over most of their fellow Republicans. Only one Republican--Ted Stevens of Alaska--spoke against the provision. Even at a time when Bush's supposed political capital is draining faster than the waters of Lake Pontchartrain pouring through a busted levee, this was quite an accomplishment for McCain. It was a major rejection of Bush's claim that he knows best how to be commander in chief. During the Senate debate--such as it was--Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee spoke eloquently of how the US Constitution assigns the task of creating rules for the capture of enemies to Congress, not the president. Finally, Congress--that is, the Senate (who knows if the House GOPers will follow its lead?)--has reasserted (for the moment) its standing as a coequal branch of government when it comes to fighting a war. This was McCain's doing.

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Bush's latest Big Speech on the war on terrorism, the troubled (?) Harriet Miers nomination, and other in-the-news matters.

*******

And this is why McCain tugs on the heartstrings of reporters stuck in Washington. He does occasionally go off the reservation for a principle. Not often enough, but more so than most of his fellow Republicans. After getting ensnared in the Keating Five money-and-politics scandal years ago, he took up the cause of campaign finance reform. (His McCain-Feingold bill was a mixed bag at best, but it was a try.) He tried to shout down Bush's call for tax cuts that would benefit the rich and increase the deficit (but failed). He went after Big Tobacco, one of the main sources of campaign dollars for his party. In recent years, he has worked with Senator Joe Lieberman on global warming legislation.

McCain's anti-Abu Ghraib measure could still be stripped out of the spending bill. Consequently, he has called for public pressure that might persuade House GOP leaders not to undermine this provision and that might make it tough for Bush to veto the measure. So his campaign to bring a dollop of honor to the United States' treatment of its enemies has not yet triumphed. But even if McCain's effort is undone by other Republicans and/or the White House, at least he has shown that when it comes to this issue of decency, Bush is far outside the mainstream.

Comments (109)

1. How ironic that the Republican senator most distrusted by the "morals & values" crowd is the one giving the lesson in morals and values to the administration that is so beloved by that group.

   So go ahead, Mr. President, veto the bill. Can you say "override"? I knew you couldn't...

   BTW, Mr. Corn, it is "Lake Pontchartrain", not Lake Pontchatrain

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/06/2005 @ 11:39am

2. It is truly remarkable that there could be a controversy -- in this case a potentially party-splitting battle -- over whether there should be guidleines and restrictions to ensure the humane treatment of prisoners. What century does Bush think he is operating in?

   Posted by Pancho at 10/06/2005 @ 12:08pm

3. This thing still has to make it through the House (which David pointed out). That makes it window dressing for now. These guys love to go on record with their principles when they know there's no real chance of passage. Hopefully, for the many Republicans who voted for it, it's a trial balloon to see if they can start talking about an exit strategy yet.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 10/06/2005 @ 12:42pm

4. All it is going to take....is a nod from Limbaugh, a "Yippee" from Hannity, and George W. Bush's blessing....to assuage the "anti-McCainites" on the Right to nominate him in 2008.

   and that's the ball game. The MSM would fawn all over him (even to the detriment of their OTHER fav Senator, Hillary) and he'd pick up the old "Reagan Democrats" as well. Ultimately, he'd win 40 states and 55-45% over most Democrats and 60-40% over Her Majesty.

   He'd resurrect the GOP from the "doldrums of 2005-2007" and would appoint Justices "just like" John Roberts and probably get 2-3 of them.

   The Republicans can be VERY dumb and try to muscle out McCain in the primaries in 2008....or put aside the 2000 primary fight, and get behind him and be guarenteed TWENTY years of GOP Congress (1994- )and a shot at crippling the Democrats.

   John McCain IS the "silver bullet" candidate, but there CAN BE enough morons on the Right, who won't see it.

   Posted by Mask at 10/06/2005 @ 12:51pm

5. ZERO:

   I don't like McCain much more than I like Bush. Anyone remember his involvment in the Keating Five? He should have done hard time.

   Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 1:21pm

6. Mask,

   I'd vote for McCain. The reason why is because he's actually fiscally conservative. One of four senators to vote "no" to the egregious highway bill. It isn't politics as usual with this true statesman and accountability means something to him (unlike virtually every other politician in the country). He has some faults but after eight years of drunken sailor type spending we'll need someone like him to get the country back on its feet.

   Posted by colmes at 10/06/2005 @ 1:24pm

7. I would actually prefer to see Warren Buffett or Bill Gates run for president before I would like to see McCain.

   Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 1:25pm

8. As a registered Republican (yes, really, but I vote my conscience and not strictly party line) I voted in the 2000 primary for John McCain (in fact my order of preference was: McCain, Bradley, Gore, and bringing up the rear was our current commando in chief). However, I lost a great deal of respect for Mr. McCain when he pandered to the right-wing by stumping for Bush in 2004. I know that re-election is what it's all about, but after all the mean-spirited and untrue filth that was spewed, McCain had an opportunity to hold his party to a higher ideal, and he dropped the ball. I thought he had more principles than that.

   Posted by Turk33 at 10/06/2005 @ 1:32pm

9. ZERO:

   Both of them did. At least with them, we wouldn't have to worry about having the estate tax revoked.

   Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 1:38pm

10. I.myself,would vote for McCain, for the reasons Mask stated.

    Buffet or Gates.....be carefull now, my friend runs the B & M Gates Foundation and that person is pretty red, in other words Buffet is blue, but I am not so sure the other guy is........evil corporate and all.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 1:40pm

11. Would this vote have happened if Bush were not tanking? There was no reason for this amendment to have waited for such a long time. Congress really gets ballsy when its competition has collapsed. I give them a slow, mocking bit of applause for finally behaving properly.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/06/2005 @ 1:41pm

12. Turk33,

    Ah, yes, there it is again tax'em when they dead...other peoples money..greed on the left keeps reappearing.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 1:42pm

13. David- on your previous story about "Harry" Miers- You see this is real affirmative action- to put a Born Again Christian soldier on the high Court (Molly Ivins, common dreams)- of course she won't change her mind, it is in Heaven! I bet if you press Bush a little more, he will say, I had a vision from God and he told me this was the best thing- in a theocracy, why shouldn't there be evangelicals, conservative Christians on the Court telling us how to live and not live our lives? Finally, I told my lawyer friends, the Sup Ct decisions will in the future include Biblical citations as warranted- we are a country under God, right? On the dollar bill it says "In God we Trust"! David White PS. the fun will start when those "determined Democracts" try to ask her about her religion!

    Posted by DavidWhite at 10/06/2005 @ 1:42pm

14. Sorry,turk, I was addressing jorcheim

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 1:44pm

15. JOHN MAASCH:

    No, you don't know what you are talking about. The estate tax is hitting mostly assets that have NEVER been taxed. You should really do yourself a favor and read the book Bill Gates' dad wrote. Very interesting stuff.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 1:44pm

16. And I find it interesting for you to say that it is greed on the left when it is precisely the greed of the right which doesn;'t want to give back to society at all.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 1:45pm

17. ok tax everything.. that will make all our livres better..

    Question: What DON'T you want taxed?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 1:48pm

18. Consumtion tax. Not income.

    Anyway got to go back to work and keep my taxes coming.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 1:52pm

19. Yeh thats it go Exxon and invade somebody.please

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 1:53pm

20. There are people in the Republican Party who can take on positions of enhanced power and prestige by succeeding in attacking Bush.

    Zero – I agree with your tactical analysis. I am not a McCain supporter. However, once in awhile, people who hold public office do the right thing; McCain's leadership role on this amendment is one of those times. I am willing to suspend judgment on his motives and grant him the benefit of wisdom learned from a life experience he suffered at the hands of tormentors in Vietnam. Surely one who endured that hardship would not want his country tarnishing itself by resorting to that same level of depravity.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/06/2005 @ 2:13pm

21. A misspelling of the lake next to New Orleans? My sincere apologies. I do this web column without a net--meaning without an editor or copy editor Thus, I have no one else to blame, except my assistance Clarisse Profilet. So let's blame her. In fact, I'll give her a medal.

    Posted by David Corn at 10/06/2005 @ 2:15pm

22. Don't forget that McCain introduced Bill 1504 into the Senate just a few months ago. This bill would remove from states and cities all control of where all cable and telephone companies run their cables and who they must serve. This bill will be the end of public access, which is currently the ONLY existing forum for opposition voices in this country on television. He also has a statement on his website supporting the nomination of non-judge, Bush-crony, political hack, born again zealot Harriet Miers. McCain is a self-serving bad guy.

    Posted by channelo at 10/06/2005 @ 2:20pm

23. Maasch – you demonstrate no knowledge of how most estate taxes are paid. Many of those wealthy enough to subject their heirs to this tax upon their death pay the obligation with tax-free insurance proceeds. Their attorneys establish a special trust that holds the insurance policy and the wealthy person pays the premiums during his/her lifetime. So, in effect, they pre-pay the tax by paying the insurance premiums. However, considering that the premiums cost pennies on the dollar, their actual tax burden is significantly reduced by this arrangement.

    "The rich are different from you and me."

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/06/2005 @ 2:46pm

24. Had Bush's dirty tricks in South Carolina not derailed McCain's 2000 bid for being the GOP presidental nominee he, instead of Bush, might be the Chief Executive today. I don't think that there would be a lot of difference between McCain and anyone of the DNC neo-liberal school. What a better world we'd be living in today!

    Posted by John Earl at 10/06/2005 @ 3:00pm

25. The Daily Show aired a pretty impressive exchange between McCain and those arrogant moron generals in charge of the Iraq debacle. I long for the days of the old-fashioned liberal vs. conservative debate MINUS the insidious extremist neocons that are nothing more than political terrorists who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals (which just happen to coincide with 90% of American big business). LP Anchorage

    Posted by aklplee at 10/06/2005 @ 3:02pm

26. Maasch continually shows little knowledge of the equal and fair burden of taxation. It is not his fault since the level of debate about taxation is generally grunts along the lines of "tax bad".

    Yesterday he told me that we should eliminate corporate taxes because corporations are patronized by people and people therefore are paying the taxes (which is true).

    When I pointed out that not all the people that patronize American corporate output are American and thus a corporate tax (as opposed to shifting the taxes directly to the American people) reduces the burden on American's he went silent. The same is true (and more obvious) of the ownership of those corporations. If John thinks that the Chinese and Japanese etc, etc don't hold significant US corporate share wealth and thus shifting taxation away from the corporation (and putting it directly on the people)is defacto shifting expenses from wealthy Chinese / Japanese directly to American's he's sillier than we all think.

    Posted by colmes at 10/06/2005 @ 3:06pm

27. If you talk to any professional interrogator prior to this administration the Geneva Conventions, US law and human treatment was the rule not to be broken. It wasn't until the current administration with their "the end justifies the means" and their evil holier than now attitude that memos were generated to defile the humane treatment policy.

    While I think the legislation is a good idea, I would suggest legislators look into removing the morally devoid individuals that corrupted our government policies making this legislation necessary in the first place.

    Posted by commander_w at 10/06/2005 @ 3:18pm

28. What's with the praise for McCain, at The Nation's site, no less. The man's a reactionary and he's proved it over and over again. A warmonger and a social conservative. So he's had the occasional difference with the Bush crowd. Big deal. On all the key issues he's very much stayed on the reservation.

    Posted by giorgionyc at 10/06/2005 @ 3:37pm

29. Ah, yes, there it is again tax'em when they dead...other peoples money..greed on the left keeps reappearing.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/06/2005 @ 1:42pm

    John, your posts are much better when you stick to topics you know something about. The estate tax has nothing to do with greed on the left. Go get educated about the topic instead of spouting right wing progaganda.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/06/2005 @ 3:42pm

30. Part of the reason I called McCain the "silver bullet" candidate....is evident in the posts above.

    Lotta "Libs for McCain" out there....who APPARENTLY haven't really looked that hard at his record OR stance on the issues, but merely liked the fact he opposed Bush in 2000 and pops up on "Chris Matthews" every now and then to berate GWB for something (before going off and being his Arizona Campaign manager).

    For the record....John McCain is "pro-life" and heartedly endorsed John Roberts and judges like him. I think a lot of the "liberal McCainiacs" seem to forget things like this...and probably would continue to (with kid-glove treatment in the MS Media during a Presidential run) in 2008.

    If Bush and Company endorsed McCain as the "rightful heir" (not UNLIKELY given McCain's loyalty during 2004)....it'd salve the Hard Right wing and give McCain the nomination BEFORE Super Tuesday over virtually any other Republican.

    If McCain gets the nomination in 2008....it's over for the Democrat. They'd have to "eat their words" from 2004 on the "importance of having a Vietnam war hero" as President, and would find it very tough to "link" McCain with Bush's policies, and therefore failures.

    Posted by Mask at 10/06/2005 @ 3:43pm

31. John, Another alternative is to find a dumb audience. Your false arguments don't fly here, but they might on a right-wing website. Go post at one of those and they will think you're a genius, as opposed to the people here, who only think you're gullible...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/06/2005 @ 3:45pm

32. MASK:

    The bottom line is, the Progressive element of this country needs to find an honest-to-goodness candidate of its own, instewad of trying to rehabilitate an old should-be ex-felon/Republican party hack whose grandfatherly appearance seems to assuage their guilt over voting against their interests.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 4:04pm

33. Woplock are you here? This is totally off subject but I don't have time right now to find appropriate subject title for what I want to tell you (before I forget it) Your governor is retracting his original position on drilling off the Florida coast,gulf side.He campaigned on "no drilling in Fla.waters on my watch" and now he's turn coating and knuckling under his brother's influence.If you are active and interested in state legislation this might be something you'd be concerned about.I'm a firm believer in writting congress if for no other reason but to let them know the voting public is aware of what they're doing.Have to go now but will check back later to see if you respond to this.Be well my fellow blogger.

    Posted by BusyHands at 10/06/2005 @ 4:05pm

34. "A warmonger and a social conservative. So he's had the occasional difference with the Bush crowd. Big deal. On all the key issues he's very much stayed on the reservation."

    That's why I like him, when he has had issues with the "Bush crowd" it always has to do with the corporate platform of the "Bush Crowd", not the social conservative family section of the "Bush Crowd".

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/06/2005 @ 4:34pm

35. JORCH.....

    problem is the "Progressives" don't HAVE a candidate like that...and don't seem to be any "in the field"....look-

    1. Hillary....supposed darling of "liberals", but she's pro-"stay the course on Iraq" and talking nice-nice on Faith-Based Initiatives and "common ground" on abortion. As Prez, would she go "old Hillary" (i.e. Hillary-care which was a disaster) or "new Hillary" (to keep her re-election bid in 2012 open)?....my guess..."new", and that means selling out the progressives like Bill did on welfare reform, NAFTA, Defense of Marriage Act, "era of Big Govt is over", etc.

    2. John Edwards....talks the Populism good, BUT...nobody that inexperienced has EVER made it to the Top Slot. Plus, after losing with Kerry, he's got "Lieberman'itis" (the smell of a "loser")....and one other problem, see below.

    3. Bill Richardson.....attractive candidate, if for the "Latino factor" and the fact he CUT taxes as governor. But his problem is the same as Edwards.....She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed. (see final paragraph)

    4,5,6,7- Kerry, Gore, Biden, Bayh....all "non-starters" for the same reason...."Ashaya" (It's from H Rider Haggard, by the way).

    In all the other candidate scenarios, it all depends on Hillary. At this point, with the MS Media behind her and the fundraisers and Bill and the D.L.C. too, if she really wants it....it's hers and nobody can stop her.

    Posted by Mask at 10/06/2005 @ 4:45pm

36. MASK:

    Point taken. But, on a quasi-rhetorical level, why do you think that is?

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 4:52pm

37. Breaking News:

    Rove wants to testify further....it's a gambit to see if he's about to be indicted. Gambit shows that he IS about to be indicted (Fitzgerald has to admit as much if an indictable witness wants to testify).

    Wow tough month for the "values" bunch!

    Posted by colmes at 10/06/2005 @ 4:53pm

38. Tax them when they are dead.

    Whether I have intricate(sp) knowledge of the tax codes really is not my point here. You liberals, however well intentioned, are perceived as haters of wealth accumulation. That you hate the creation of wealth and that the pie is finite. And as a result of said hate, wish to enforce punitive and confiscatory taxes in order to fund or "redistribute"(steal) the wages of others labor and redirect to areas of higher moral values based on YOUR values. If one who earns the wages objects to this he/she is labeled as an idiot or greedy or a subject of corporate brain washers or any other adjective in above posts. Or better yet a right wing nut.

    Any way I look at it, over 1/2 of what I work for disappears and it is frustrating and this is my point. I am not trying to introduce deep thought of philisophical proportions here, just that this how you are perceived in many quarters of our society, true or not.

    When this perception of you is mixed with the appearance of try to "get money" from a the dearly wealthy departed.....well, maybe you can see my point,many of us think his family in entitled and not the state.

    I admit I am influenced by the book "Millionare Next Door" as to who the actual wealthy people are and where they built their wealth. Not everybody is a Kennedy who earned their money under such high moral grounds. Many of us support more charities than you think.

    I can't wait for the salvos.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 5:19pm

39. John,

    Taxes give you what you want. If you don't want a military etc then we can cut taxes. Assuming you don't want to be invaded by those commies or those turban wearing terrorists then someone will have to pay. You don't want to pay half your income....me neither. If the very rich pay more you and I can pay less. The rich don't pay as much of a proportion of their income as you and I do because they've got the lawyers and tax accountants to get around it. I don't think that's fair. Obviously you do.

    Posted by colmes at 10/06/2005 @ 5:27pm

40. No salvo from me. Some people want more than others. I just wish that the people who have so much realized that they benefit from many who have so significantly less.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/06/2005 @ 5:30pm

41. I am not sticking up for the rich. That is the mistake most read into my post. The highest 1 or 2% pay 1/3 of all taxes anyway.

    I am telling you that this how you are perceived. Take it as info.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 5:36pm

42. Tax them when they are dead. Sounds good to me. I dont think they are going to need it. And since they cant take it with them, maybe they can generate More money to All those charities you support Mr.Maasch. You call the left greedy while you expose your own. Typical right wing hypocrisy. But McCain is the greatest Republican there is right now. Or at least one of the few showing spine against the corruption, cronyism and outright incompetence of most of this Administration. I would vote for him over most democrats.

    Posted by Fade at 10/06/2005 @ 6:01pm

43. Fade,

    Where is my greed? By wanting the fruits of my labor? Is that what you mean?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 6:15pm

44. Bravo:

    Who are the anti americans? Those who don't support the war? Liberals? Leave it to a pathetic hack like you to open this can of worms again! Hell, you called yourself an independent when I includeed you with the other conservaive's that post here! What a chiken shit - you've shown your true colors and your not fooling anyone.......

    Call yourself what ever you want to - I call you a fool! I'll bet your even one of those Swift boat vet's that eats your own!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 10/06/2005 @ 6:19pm

45. The fruits of your labor are brought to you courtesy of the United States of America. We all serve our country one way or another.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/06/2005 @ 6:23pm

46. I got this from IRS info for 2003 for individual returns. Just so we're all on the same page. It says, for example, that 8% of the total of all adjusted gross income comes from returns with $1M or more in adjusted gross income and those returns pay a total of 17% of all individual taxes.

    Adj'd Gross Inc % Tax % Income

    $0-$50K 13.0% 30.0%

    $50K-$100K 24.0% 30.0%

    $100-$500K 38.0% 28.0%

    $500K-$1M 8.0% 4.0%

    over $1M 17.0% 8.0%

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/06/2005 @ 7:01pm

47. John Maasch,

    You wrote:

    Ah, yes, there it is again tax'em when they dead...other peoples money..greed on the left keeps reappearing.

    And, sadly, the ignorance of so many when it comes to the estate tax. Not your ignorance, but the ignorance of those who ignorantly think the estate tax would apply to them when it doesn't. The minimum amount of the estate has to be $3 million to fall under the estate tax, yet so many head-in-the-sand Bushies think that every household is affected by it. That's, in part, due to Bush & Co.'s referring to it was the "death tax" rather than the "estate tax". Why? Because the word "estate" makes one think of a mansion or something of the like; using "death", which affects everyone -- poor, middle-of-the-road, rich -- puts it into people's minds that everyone is affected by this tax, when of course they're not. There was this old barber cutting my hair a couple of months ago in his one-seat barber shop, and he had his station turned to some right-wing station that was running an ad denouncing the "death tax", and the barber remarked that this tax wasn't right because his shop would be affected. Well, unless his shop is literally sitting on top of a diamond mine, then, no, his shop would not be affected. When I told him of the multi-million-dollar estate minimum, he just huffed and puffed and changed the subject. Now that's a clear-case example of ignorance. If Bush & Co. genuinely thought that repealing the estate tax was something that appealed to all people like this barber, then they wouldn't dress it up with this "death tax" facade.

    As for the evil of taxes, might I ask where the money is supposed to come from for the roads we drive on, the libraries we frequent, and the like? I always hear this "I give to charity so why do I have to pay taxes?" whining, when, last I checked, charities don't fund libraries and and highway construction. And you know what? People like you will be the first to gripe when there are no new roads or improved roads to drive on and no libraries so you can read John Grisham's latest novel. You shut your mind to the realities of what the no-tax approach would bring because these are inconvenient facts you wish not to deal with -- just like Bush & Co. lying us into war, with those deficit-contributing tax cuts buying off a hell of a lot of consciences in the anything-for-a-tax-cut crowd.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/06/2005 @ 7:48pm

48. Kevin,

    I am not against taxes as I use services here and we must fund the military , roads, ect.

    I lament the 50% of my income that disappears. And we are not done spending. Someday some idiot will want a national health care system run by the government. I will them lose another 10%. Drug prescription next another 5%, free education for everybody, another 5% No end in sight. We waste. I can't think of one thing the government does efficiently.

    This is my point, no end to it. You can argue about what % pays what, but in the end the trend is to 80% taxes.

    I, for one would quit.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 7:56pm

49. I am not sticking up for the rich. That is the mistake most read into my post. The highest 1 or 2% pay 1/3 of all taxes anyway.

    I am telling you that this how you are perceived. Take it as info.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/06/2005 @ 5:36pm

    Well, John, I cannot do anything about perceptions based on wrong information, except to tell the people who perceive liberals this way to learn the facts.

    Your statistic is incorrect, as FISHBITE pointed out in his post. This is what happens when you get your "facts" from Limbaugh or Hannity or Coulter or whomever else you listen to.

    The estate tax was originally supported by people like Andrew Carnegie, who was one of the richest men in America and about as liberal as Ronald Reagan.

    You wonder why liberals are constantly insulting conservatives, talking down to them, ridiculing their intelligence? This is why! Because you conservatives have so many perceptions that are based on a bunch of baloney, instead of being based on sound research and accurate data.

    Seriously, compare your statistic "the highest 1 or 2 percent pay 1/3 of all taxes anyway." It just isn't true!! Where did you get it? FISHBITE got his from the IRS website - straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

    Why is it liberals' job to defend themselves against perceptions that aren't true. WHY ISN'T IT YOUR CIVIC DUTY TO FIND OUT THE FACTS?

    Please, I am not trying to be a jerk. I just want an honest answer: Why isn't it a citizen's civic duty to find out the truth on political issues? Please, please answer me that.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/06/2005 @ 8:03pm

50. ILOVEPHYSICS:

    Good post. Exactly.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 8:06pm

51. This is my point, no end to it. You can argue about what % pays what, but in the end the trend is to 80% taxes.

    I, for one would quit.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/06/2005 @ 7:56pm

    John, I hope you are wrong about that, but I agree with your sentiment.

    On the bright side, I've heard Kucinich say that we could have national health insurance for less than what we pay through the workplace.

    Notice that's NOT national health care, but national health insurance.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/06/2005 @ 8:08pm

52. ILP..

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls

    From IRS web sites.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 8:09pm

53. ILP, This may interest you....and I know it is off topic, but here goes.

    I am one of those who is uninsured..by choice. Follow me... My premium for a family of 5 was $750.00 per month with a deductable of $3,000 for 2, which ever came first. Then 80/20 % up to, I beleive $20,000....

    So, I am out of pocket $12,000 before or even if no one is hurt. Crazy.

    Put it away and pay cash until you reach an age(50 say) when we all start losing parts. I then open HSA account and pay $5,000 deduct with $400.00 per month premiums..all this for a point below.

    It will be cheaper, better, and more efficient than any government program and I won't have to go to post office for care.

    Sorry for diversion.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 8:18pm

54. Notice that's NOT national health care, but national health insurance.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/06/2005 @ 8:08pm

    Same difference.

    Posted by usc1 at 10/06/2005 @ 8:23pm

55. Why do liberals think that just because someone is against the death tax it is because they are uninformed/ignorant/etc? Did it ever occur to them that we could be against it simply because we don't think it is our right to TAKE something from someone else; something we didn't earn, somthing that someone else worked a lifetime accumulating? Or that, if just out of pure serendipity, we earn/accumulate a fortune of our own, we would like to be able to pass it to our heirs without government getting its greedy little paws on it.

    Posted by usc1 at 10/06/2005 @ 8:30pm

56. Noticed, but the math is probable similar

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 8:30pm

57. Notice that's NOT national health care, but national health insurance.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/06/2005 @ 8:08pm

    Same difference.

    Posted by USC1 10/06/2005 @ 8:23pm

    Maybe on your planet, but here on earth there is a BIG difference.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/06/2005 @ 8:39pm

58. USC1, I have been trying to make that very point but it doesn't take.

    Good try,tho.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 8:40pm

59. USC1:

    Apparently you don't userstand the very basic concept of insurance. It is to spread risk across a large population. Well guess what? The most efficient way to do that is to spread it over the largest population available, that being the population of the country. National health care, on the other hand, is a system in which the entire health care industry is controlled from a central agency. As ILP stated, there is a HUGE difference.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 8:45pm

60. I am not sticking up for the rich. That is the mistake most read into my post. The highest 1 or 2% pay 1/3 of all taxes anyway.

    I am telling you that this how you are perceived. Take it as info.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/06/2005 @ 5:36pm

    OK, JOHN, I see what happened here. No offense, but your statement is a little vague. You were talking about AGI on tax returns when you referred to the top 1 or 2%. I checked your link, and you are right.

    But when I read your post, I thought you were talking about the top 1 or 2% in terms of wealth, i.e., how much they have in assets. Which of course, is quite different.

    Sorry for the misunderstanding, I should have gotten that clarified before arguing with you.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/06/2005 @ 8:48pm

61. To whomever made the passing comment about seafaring men and their reputed lack of fiscal sobriety:

    As a former U.S. Navy man, I resent the stereotypical imputation of inveterate inebriation and feckless fiscal irresponsibility so colloquially attributed to sailors. As a matter of incontrovertible historical record, I submit that the operative phrase for fiscal and monetary insanity should now read: "spending like drunken Reagans."

    Posted by Michael Murry at 10/06/2005 @ 8:49pm

62. MICHAEL MURRY:

    I thought the old adage was "Screwing like a drunken sailor."

    Or was I wrong on that one?

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 8:51pm

63. Or that, if just out of pure serendipity, we earn/accumulate a fortune of our own, we would like to be able to pass it to our heirs without government getting its greedy little paws on it.

    Posted by USC1 10/06/2005 @ 8:30pm

    That is one of the problems with conservatives - you want to tax money that a person earns by hard work, but you don't want to tax money a person earns from someone else's hard work.

    So the poor construction worker busts his ass for 12 hours, and pays a higher percentage in income tax than Warren Buffet pays on his stock dividends! Average Joe truckdriver has to be on the road for a week, and then pay a higher percentage in income tax than Bill Gate's kids will pay for the billions they inherit when Bill's days come to an end.

    In other words, you want to shift the tax burden from rich people to the average working stiff, and if liberals complain, you call them "greedy."

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/06/2005 @ 8:54pm

64. JORCHEIM, When I was in the navy I didn't drink, so I cannot attest to the accuracy of your alternative phrase.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/06/2005 @ 8:56pm

65. ILP,

    No problem, I could have been clearer(is this a word?) myself.(more clear?)

    You, sir, are a gentleman.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 8:57pm

66. It will be cheaper, better, and more efficient than any government program and I won't have to go to post office for care.

    Sorry for diversion.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/06/2005 @ 8:18pm

    Thanks, John, for throwing a new idea into the debate. Just out of curiosity, under your proposal, what do you do before age fifty, if you have a catastrophic health problem with astronomical hospital bills?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/06/2005 @ 8:59pm

67. John, by the way, I am uninsured by "choice" as well, because what is offered at work is really expensive. Actually, choice is the wrong word. I just can't afford the insurance they offer.

    It affects my lifestyle, because I have to be extra careful. I avoid driving at night on the weekends so I won't get hit by a drunk. I spend more time than I want to exercising, had to give up smoking even though I didn't want to, spend lots of $ on vitamins, etc.

    Sorry for all the posts, folks...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/06/2005 @ 9:03pm

68. I have heavy life insurance...my children were young and my wife healthy so we gambled. I am not saying this is the way to go, but we choose other necessitys of life and played the same odds the insursance industry plays. I would have had to cut deals with doctors and hospitals if a tragedy occured. Probably would have worked my whole life to repay.

    Thank God we were lucky. I paid for broken bones, braces, appendic operations, ect. It was still cheaper.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 9:07pm

69. Actually $750 for 5 sounds good. My insurance is covered through work and I pay for my wife's pre-tax. Still it pulls out over $400 per month from my paycheck. And the problem is, you never know what will happen: last year, at 38, I had to have my gall bladder removed after countless tests (far too many, but doctors are so skiddish now about making a diagnosis). Without insurance, I would have had to have taken out a home equity loan.

    Such a scary gamble.

    Should we ask what John McCain would do?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/06/2005 @ 9:16pm

70. ILP,

    I quit smoking and I drink alittle to much on week ends(fine, expensive wines, by the way, I always chose to spend my cash on wine instead of cocaine as so many of my peers in school)as well as but on 25 xtra pounds.

    God be praise for good genetics. ILP, I live life, traveled to Europe, Asia, Mexico, ect, sailed the great lakes on my own boat(4 of them) and then got married at 38, adopted 1, had 2 of my own and am now working. I traded in German cars for mini vans, private country clubs for christian schools, vacations for diaper changing marathons. I have been robbed and lost everything except my wife and got it back after a long haul.

    Not many regrets so far....oh yeah, I am always broke and blame myself. I am responsible for my state of affairs.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 9:18pm

71. Tj,

    Insurance is a tough choice as you are always betting on yourself. The $750.00 a month premium was 7 years ago. Who knows now and then you had to see a doctor from a list..crazy.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 9:22pm

72. I heard somewhere that Bush, as a Yalie Skull and Bonesman, was in charge of torture. It's what he was good at.

    Posted by motamanx at 10/06/2005 @ 9:27pm

73. MOTAMANX:

    While it wouldn't surprise me that what you say is true, to be honest, that sort of comment does nothing to further debate here. Sorry, I gotta be at least somewhat objective.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 9:32pm

74. USCM1,

    Why do liberals think that just because someone is against the death tax it is because they are uninformed/ignorant/etc?

    Spare me. I made it perfectly clear that I was referring to those who are truly ignorant as to the specifics of the estate tax, and I made a point of writing that I wasn't roping John in with them, since, from what I've read of his previous stuff, he's intelligent enough to know this. You don't address, however, Bush & Co. using the generlized term "death tax" to confuse the uninformed.

    I'm far from a liberal of the bleeding-heart variety. I wouldn't mind a flat tax, but we both know why that won't work: because a lot of liberals will complain that the poor are paying the same rate as the rich; and a lot of Republicans (sorry, I can't use the word "conservatives" when ya'll support an administration that's running record deficits, not having vetoed a single spending bill thus far, and is pissing your taxpayer money away on a lies-based war in Iraq) in the rich category will still try to beat paying their fair share. An area that really needs attention, though, is everybody who has a child in a public school to pay school taxes. It's mind-boggingly dumb -- not to mention, very unfair -- to have parents not being required to pay it because they live in an apartment or the like where they're not subjected to property taxes, while a childless person or couple who have a home to pay them. I'd vote for a fix-it to this in a nanosecond if it came on a ballot -- regardless if it were unpopular with my fellow liberals.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/06/2005 @ 9:33pm

75. Note: I forgot to include that parents who rent houses, rather than owning them (or, in reality, paying the mortgage company that pays the bank, in many cases), don't pay property taxes, either. So it's not just apartment-parents but rental-house-parents who should be paying taxes for school, too.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/06/2005 @ 9:37pm

76. Kevin,

    I also think my 80 year old mother has paid enough on her property for schools. A new system is needed. Total taxes per person(where I live) is almost the same as private school tuition.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 9:40pm

77. JOHN MAASCH and KEVIN COLLINS:

    I would agree that the way property taxes are assessed could be cinsidered unfair. In fact, I hate them. but just to play devil's advocate here, wouldn't you think that the taxes for schools are factored into apartment rent that is charged? Just curious.

    I think a better system than property taxes would be a local or state progressive income tax on ALL income sources, not just "earned" W2 or 1099 income.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 9:46pm

78. I don't know if school taxes are in apartments or not..I would guess no.

    As far as taxing, no not all income, but all spending. Everybody pays.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 9:49pm

79. Taxes are imposed because laws get passed. If you are unhappy about a particular tax, work through the political process to get it changed. Find other like-minded citizens and go for it. If a majority wants to get something changed and is motivated enough, then a change will get made.

    However, you will be amazed how difficult it is to get a consensus on tax changes, including at the grass roots level. As someone else mentioned, governments at every level get used to spending everything they receive, at the federal level even this constraint is removed. So the more they can get, the more they can spend. You've got to cut the spending AND cut the revenue for this to work - and boy is that hard for any governmental body to accomplish.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/06/2005 @ 9:50pm

80. JOHN MAASCH:

    I know for a fact that apartments get taxed for property taxes... at least in Pennsylvania, they are.

    And stop trying to foist the idea of a consumption tax on us again. That is possibly the most regressive type of tax there is.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 9:51pm

81. Spending taxes tend to penalize folks whose non-discretionary spending (food, clothing, lodging) makes up a large percentage of disposable income. If there's an exemption on first N dollars (somehow), perhaps this could work.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/06/2005 @ 9:53pm

82. Taxes are strange in my neck of the woods. When a half-cent sales tax is proposed for indigent care, for schools--it passes with ease. When property taxes and impact fees are discussed, every citizen raises hell, even if they have to drive in massive traffic on horrible roads through sprawling neighborhoods to get to the county commission chambers.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/06/2005 @ 9:54pm

83. TJBEHRENS1:

    I think that is pretty much everywhere. Part of it is, most people really don't understand how taxes really work, and who they truly affect.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 9:56pm

84. Exempt first 2X poverty level and dump mortgage deductions for people over N income for starters.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 9:56pm

85. JOHN MAASCH:

    Not a bad idea, actually. But that income level for N should be over $100k, and those exemptions should rise with the CPI on a yearly basis.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 9:58pm

86. TJ, Same where I live and nobody complains when cigarettes go up 40%

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 9:58pm

87. Sounds good to me Jorcheim, anything has got to be better than a tax code that you and I can't even lift.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 9:59pm

88. We just need to get the public as addicted to education as they are to nicotine.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/06/2005 @ 10:05pm

89. JOHN MAASCH:

    Agreed. The more complicated the tax code is, generally, the easier it is to get around paying taxes for those who can afford the legal assistance.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 10:07pm

90. Here here or is it hear hear?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 10:12pm

91. JOHN MAASCHE:

    I honestly don't know the answer to that... lemme check the dictionary of common usage.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 10:14pm

92. The proper usage is as such.

    The correct term is, "hear, hear!" It is an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 10:14pm

93. And no, I am not kidding. I cut and pasted that directly.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 10:15pm

94. Great humor.. I am getting hungry, gotta go

    Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2005 @ 10:18pm

95. ILP/JORCH:

    Maybe on your planet, but here on earth there is a BIG difference.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/06/2005 @ 8:39pm

    Apparently you don't userstand the very basic concept of insurance.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 10/06/2005 @ 8:45pm

    Spare me the condescension. How long do you think it's going to take before the corporations realize they are playing the financial "Seymour" in your medical Little Shop of Horrors? Do you honestly believe that upon noticing that they are getting WALLOPED with taxes in order to cover National Health Insurance that corporations are going to continue covering both the taxes and personal health insurance for its employees? It will be a matter of seconds before corporations drop employee health benefits, thus creating a whole new group of uninsured which will then be picked up by National Health Insurance (NHI). The dominoes will continue to fall until pretty much all employees except the extremely wealthy are on the government (our) dole.

    I imagine employees might even go willingly when they realize that they will also be paying for NHI (in the form of higher taxes) AS WELL AS their own personal health insurance. Why buy the cow when you're still gonna have to pay for the milk?

    Posted by usc1 at 10/06/2005 @ 10:52pm

96. USC1:

    You miss the point. I think everyone should be on the national insurance plan, depending on how it's structured. That would mean that those corps whose well-being you worry so much about would be free to stop providing insurance would be free to do so. I'm not seeing the problem here.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 10:57pm

97. Oops, sorry about the redundancy in the last post. Getting late.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/06/2005 @ 10:58pm

98. KC:

    Yep, I jumped the gun on that one. I'm a little jaded after having read so many liberal thoughts over the past few months.

    Incidentally, I am in favor of a flat tax as well. What better way to encourage people to work harder and try to improve their lot in life than not punish them for being successful through higher taxation.

    Jorch is right about the property taxes/education question. Apartments get hit for property taxes and the costs are then passed on to the tenants. At least in Illinois that was how it was done.

    Posted by usc1 at 10/06/2005 @ 11:06pm

99. JORCH:

    "I'm not seeing the problem here."

    Look at the problems with Medicaid/Medicare and multiply them by about 300.

    When has any government program made things cheaper/more efficient? When do government programs ever cost as little as they say it will? Who are you going to get to pay for this system (and increasing taxes on the rich ain't gonna be enough)? What doctor are you going to see since most near-retirement-age doctors would simply retire instead of deal with the hassle of more government regulation (not to mention younger doctors who would change careers)?Where are the new doctors going to come from, since young'uns these days are already staying away in droves precisely because they don't want to go $150,000 or more in debt only to be told how much they are allowed to make once they are out practicing (and worse, where they can practice and what specialty they can practice in)? Is government (us) going to pick up the tab on medical school as well? Is government (us) going to pick up the tab for malpractice insurance too? Who is going to come up with the new medicines/innovations when socialized medicine puts most drug and other medical device companies out of business?

    I could go on, but I have a feeling you started rolling your eyes after the first sentence. :-)

    Posted by usc1 at 10/06/2005 @ 11:34pm

100. Kevin Collins wrote:

     An area that really needs attention, though, is everybody who has a child in a public school to pay school taxes. It's mind-boggingly dumb -- not to mention, very unfair -- to have parents not being required to pay it because they live in an apartment or the like where they're not subjected to property taxes....

     I am a renter, and I absolutely pay property taxes. They just go through a third party first: My landlord. If you think my landlord isn't passing along his property taxes in the form of rent, I must call your sanity into question.

     Moreover, homebuyers get a massive federal subsidy in the form of the property tax and mortgage interest income tax deductions to which I, as a renter, am not entitled. That's a wealth transfer from renters to home-buyers, but I don't see many conservatives complaining about that.

     To all those who argue against the taxation of their hard-earned (insert violin music here) income to provide public goods and services:

     "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

     --Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

     Posted by Jim S at 10/07/2005 @ 02:44am

101. I can not believe some of you.Mc Cain is about the only Republican Senator who has had the courage to buck king george.In today's Washington that is no little undertaking.The Rove revenge machine is still alive and kicking--George is corrupt and has this country on a down hill slide we may not recover from and McCain has taken him on on several issues all the while trying to be respectful of the Office of the President,no matter how he feels about the king personally.Can any of you say we DON'T need campaign finance reform? If you can then I suggest you start reading something else besides your own posts.And do you condone torture? If you do what's wrong with you?Did you torture animals as a child? There surely are methods of extracting information without torture.I asked why not drugs and Rio Bravo I think said because it is against the Geneva Convention and military rule.Well,so is torture and that didn't stop them so I ask again why not drugs?Probably should ask Rumsfeldt about that,eh. That wouldn't work he'd just stay on the same sound track "we don't use torture" As long as they keep denying it they don't have to do anything about it.

     Posted by BusyHands at 10/07/2005 @ 04:00am

102. John McCain cannot be trusted. David lays it all out. How could we support a man for the presidency that will sell out for his party! Here we have a decorated Vietnam veteran who was slimed by the most disgusting administration in our nations history and he refused to call him out! As far as I'm concerned...I am voting against every incumbent! If your in office and supporting this mess...you're out...and...if you're in office and not speaking out...you're out! I am starting the anti-incumbent party

     Posted by Paisano at 10/08/2005 @ 4:39pm

103. McCain has NOT sold out his party--he's just trying to CLEAN it up.That has got to be the undertaking of the century. A McCain-Powell ticket would sew it up for the Republicans because both of them are disgusted with the corruption in their party.McCain didn't want the war but sees the nesessity of not leaving it open to civil war.I think the first thing he'd do is fire Rumsfeldt and actually devise a plan to get out of Iraq. There are no shining stars in the Independent or Democratic or Green parties that we've seen so I think McCain-Powell would walk away with it.If any of you have a Dem,Green or Independent we should be looking at PLEASE say so.

     Posted by BusyHands at 10/08/2005 @ 5:43pm

104. I'm confused wasn't the topic the illegal and unlawful detainment of possible insurgents (terrorists). I was in the Coast Guard for 22 and a half years. I was busted in rank more than once. I was sobber by then go figure. ;} I believe that Senator McCain was a P.O.W. and at one time M.I.A. His treatment was inhumane and unlawful at the time. What do you think his treatment would be like if we had treated V.C. like we are treating the insurgents (terrorist) oops we did. There would be no Senator McCain! Nuts when we where picking up Haitions. This one Haition lady got to the top of the ladder. She fell down. The BM stode over her his hand on his 9Mil and his foot back like was going to kick her screaming get up, I have no dought in my mind his look and behavore that had he been alone he would have pulled the 9Mil to make her get up. I steped in front of him said back off. I thought he was going to shoot me. I turned picked up the lady and carried her to the bow of the our S.E.S. the C.O. watched it all happen from one deck up. Didn't say anything about it. I felt my safest path was to not say anything. I am now. Then on the 378 Jarvis we where off the Coast of China interdicting Chinese Refuges. We where ordered not to call them "Political" refugies. They where to be refered to as "Economic" refugies. Because they would be treated differently by Imagration personal. Then there was the the adventure with a U.S. Navy's fast frigget. Back in 1986 off the Coast of Nicaragua. We were on our way to decom our 180' WLB Laurel in C.G. yard in Baltimore. We're underway looking for drugies and what not. The radar picks up a small fleet of Fishing boats. We are getting ready to board them. We pick up this larger vessel on radar behind the fleet. Like its shadowing the fleet. One there not sending out a Friend or Foe signal very not Ok. They refuse to respond to or Radio calls. We start getting nervous. We had no idea who this navy ship belongs to until they are almost upon us. They get in range to use semaphore and the signal light. Our Captain says we are going to board the fishing fleet. They send back we are not permitted to board the fishing fleet. Our captain says yes we will because we have the right to do so. They get nasty after a bit. Send us a very rude semaphore signal saying we will not board the boats. Then they get up on there turbines and cut across our bow. We where thinking our own navy was going to blow us out of the water. Wouldn't you know we get back to Long Beach,Ca. about a month or so. Six of us are at the Navy exchange waiting to get our hair cut like good Coasties. We are watching the senate hearing on the Iran Contra scandal. They're talk about the weapons and the time period. Asking Olie North about the arms. We all look at each other at the same time. I think to bad we didn't board those boats. Wouldn't that have been interesting paradoxes.

     Ben Franklin said at one time I quota,

     "Fear to do ill, And you need fear not else"

     Abraham Lincoln said and I quota,

     "Those who Deny freedom to others Deserve it not for themselves".

     The true George Washington in his Farewell Address I quota,

     "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations"

     Can any one tell me if they still read George Orwell's 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 on high School? I know we did back in Minnesota. With Big brother Bush tring to change things that are said like his statement about the CIA leak. That only if a law was broken who is he to pass judgement? Talking about Flip floping. It appears that they want to change the definition of war. What next a rewrite of the bible?

     Posted by chipkinsitka at 10/08/2005 @ 8:20pm

105. Chip you're a new comer,obviously.To change the subject is normal after 24 hours or so.Sometimes sooner!And on your thought about changing or rewriting the Bible: no they wouldn't try that but they do choose to ignore the parts that talk of love and caring for your fellow man,you know-the parts that talk of the teachings of Christ.Sometimes our war monger bloggers tend to forget those parts of the Bible.But after all their huffing and puffing they usually calm down and some of them can actually have some decent conversations with each other.

     Posted by BusyHands at 10/09/2005 @ 03:08am

106. Busy Hands...sorry I miss "typed"...the point I was trying to make is the he will sell us out for his party! He has had more than enough chances to speak out against this horrible administration! Vote out the Incumbent..paisano

     Posted by Paisano at 10/09/2005 @ 5:26pm

107. Paisano speaking out against his party brings him the wrath of Rove.Now,there's a dangerous man!McCain has already been through that with Rove when running in the primaries.I'm not trying to start a McCain fan club.I'm just searching for a viable candidate to start learning about.Is there one out there?

     Posted by BusyHands at 10/09/2005 @ 6:04pm

108. No answer to my viable candidated question.One of you said,either on this blog or one of the others,that you would not vote for any incumbant but how do you think Mr or MS un-heard of is going to get noticed unless they are filthy rich and can afford air time?Here's an idea but it would take MASSIVE effort on the part of the taxpayers:through petitions get a bill started that would outlaw all contributions to campaigns.GIVE FREE OF CHARGE equal time to candidates on PUBLIC TELEVISION.They are subsidized by tax dollars anyway.I don't know how they would weed out the thousands of people who think they could do a better job then our current politicians.There,of course,would have to be qualifying criteria for them to even be considered.I would think education and knowledge of current world events would be important.By education I do not necessarily mean "Ivy League" We have one of those now and look at the mess we're in.One more important thing:the equal time should be in the form of debates only.This way we avoid having to listen to all the mud slinging.Maybe give each one 5 min to tell of his/her qualifications then on to the debate on issues this country faces(no hidden microphones in jackets either)SEARCH THEM FIRST!!

     Posted by BusyHands at 10/09/2005 @ 8:46pm

109. Zero if you do happen to drop in tonight I want to ask you about the "Keating Five".NO sarcasim,Zero,I really haven't heard of it.Maybe it happened when I was working 7 days a week and too busy to pay attention to politics.

     Posted by BusyHands at 10/09/2005 @ 9:30pm