By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: June 17, 2008
WASHINGTON — The Democrats like to say that electing Senator John McCain would usher in the third term of George W. Bush, and they do not mean it as a compliment. The Republicans counter that calling the senator “McBush” is political spin and that Mr. McCain is his own man.
A look at Mr. McCain’s 25-year record in the House and Senate, his 2008 campaign positions and his major speeches over the last three months indicates that on big-ticket issues — the economy, support for continuing the Iraq war, health care — his stances are indeed similar to Mr. Bush’s brand of conservatism. Mr. McCain’s positions are nearly identical to the president’s on abortion and the types of judges he says he would appoint to the courts.
On the environment, American diplomacy and nuclear proliferation, Mr. McCain has strikingly different views from Mr. Bush, and while he shares the president’s goals in Iraq, he was at times an outspoken critic of the way the war was managed.
<...>
When it comes to dealing with terrorism suspects, Mr. McCain has supported imposing tighter rules than favored by the administration on the use of harsh interrogation techniques, but has consistently been with the president on limiting the legal rights of Guantánamo detainees. In one indicator that his view of executive power is moving closer to that of Mr. Bush, his campaign has recently signaled that he believes it was constitutional for the president to authorize wiretaps without warrants to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail.
Mr. McCain has reversed himself on some issues — most notably, embracing the Bush tax cuts now after deriding them initially as fiscally risky and excessively skewed to the wealthy — and continues to adjust his positions on others.
On Monday, he said he continued to oppose opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, leaving him at odds with the White House and most of his party, but said he favored giving states more flexibility to decide whether to explore for oil off their coasts.
<...>
Presidencies are about more than policies, of course, and Mr. McCain would bring a different style, background and world view to the White House should he be elected in November.
link"On Monday, he said he continued to oppose opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling"
That was Monday? WaPo reports:
McCain Seeks to End Offshore Drilling BanAccording to excerpts released by his campaign, John McCain will give a speech on energy to oil executives in Texas, where he’ll reverse his earlier stance and state his support for lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling. Below is a statement from Barack Obama in response.
“John McCain’s support of the moratorium on offshore drilling during his first presidential campaign was certainly laudable, but his decision to completely change his position and tell a group of Houston oil executives exactly what they wanted to hear today was the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades. Much like his gas tax gimmick that would leave consumers with pennies in savings, opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best since America only has 3% of the world’s oil. It’s another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil. Instead of giving oil executives another way to boost their record profits, I believe we should put in place a windfall profits tax that will help to ease the burden of higher energy costs on working families, and we should invest in the affordable, renewable sources of energy that Senator McCain has opposed in the past,” said Barack Obama.
This isn't McCain's first flip flop on ANWR.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN ON THE AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE DEVELOPMENT IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE For Immediate Release
Thursday, Apr 18, 2002
<…>
Opening the refuge could only meet about 2 to 5 percent of the nation's oil needs, at best. Even some oil company executives have expressed doubts about drilling in ANWR, as stated by one: "Big oil companies go where there are substantial fields and where they can produce oil economically...does ANWR have that? Who knows?"
And, let me also say that the answer to threats posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein is not to drill in ANWR but to end his regime sooner rather than later. Drilling in ANWR will not remove the clear and present danger posed by Hussein and will not stop in any way whatsoever his weapons of mass destruction program or for that matter his "inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing,"as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld so aptly described his lawless and murderous behavior. I also wish to comment briefly about the second degree amendment offered to the underlying ANWR amendment to divert a majority of revenues derived from oil and gas development to retirement and other benefits for the steel industry.
Mr. President, I'm not against our steel workers. They helped build our nation and are among the hardest working people in America. But to underwrite their retirement in a transparent effort to attract more votes is very bad policy. What do we say to all the other workers who are also suffering during economic hard times? Are we going to say, "sorry, but giving royalties to folks in your industry won't get us the votes we need to pass our bill"?
Mr. President, miners, teachers, construction laborers, and many other hard-working Americans have seen their jobs, benefits, and pensions endangered by the recent hard economic times. Yet, they would not benefit from this proposal. Nor would our veterans, who undoubtably could use more help paying for their medical bills. These last-minute tactics are not a credit to this deliberative body and only serve to increase the public's skepticism of government.
Mr. President, America will need oil for the foreseeable future. What gives this generation the right to deplete this vital resource when we have the opportunity to preserve it for the benefit of future generations? At the end of our day, we still have prudent alternatives to ANWR to meet our energy demands and we should aggressively pursue them. A more acute energy need than our own in the future may require development, where assurances of improved technology may better protect the environment.
With other viable energy options available to us today, to approve ANWR drilling would be a dereliction of our duty to posterity. Teddy Roosevelt, the champion of conservation, once said: "Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us."
Mr. President, I have thought long and hard about this debate and the vote that I will cast.
I still hope we can achieve a more balanced national energy strategy, but I am not convinced that a key component of that policy should be to drill in ANWR. I will vote against the motions to invoke cloture on these amendments.
link On March 16, 2006, McCain voted
To provide funding for implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 from ANWR.The Other List: McCain's Economic AdvisersJohn McCain Debates Himself on Supporting Bush John Kerry on Countdown: McCain Confused on Iraq (Video)
Kerry: "when McCain disavows diplomacy, he is stacking the deck in favor of war."Foreign policy train wreck: Bush, McCain, McBush -- No More YearsMcCain on Iraq
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
