Clinton/Obama vs McCain & ?

[ben4prez]

He's been very rough on defense contractors and Congressional defense-related pork (buying ships and airplanes DoD didn't ask for and doesn't need, but which are built in somebody important's district). That's very, very far from being anti-military.

I couldnt agree more. Having done my senior thesis on the acquisition of the JSF and F-22 programs, the Congressional-Industrial-Military Complex is well in force. I sometimes wonder where $450 billion goes...As the education establishment will attest to (or objective observers of it anyway), throwing money at a problem isnt always the solution. Acquisition is a generally broken process, but its hard to figure out how to make it better. The Air Force does a great job of lobbying for lots of money on projects that maybe arent militarily necessity, yet bring in the bacon for a lot of Congressional districts. And their priorities seem to be for the "sexy" things like F-22s when the most used part of their fleet are the vital link their heavy lifters (C-5, C-17s) provide...and the latter are often given short shrift even though dollar for dollar they are more useful in the current conflict.

Far be it for me to call for a reduction in defense spending, but I think pushing for a more effective means of procurement involving competition would give us more for our money. Just because you oppose something, doesnt mean you are against it. It could mean you want to make it better -- as I think the case is with Sen McCain. We in the military are often incredibly territorial over everything we have from equipment to land. And while it may be justifiable given some attempts by true anti-military types, effectiveness sometimes dictates evolving and adapting.

An interesting book to read on this topic is "What We Need: Extravagance and Shortage in the US Military" by Barrett Tillman. its a fascinating look at how money in DoD is spent.

 

[ben4prez]

But here in the "Veteran's Issues" section, he seems rather anti-military in his voting; maybe he had other reasons to vote "No" though...?

10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV

-- No Vote really doesnt reveal anything. The Authorization passed 92-3...he may have been campaigning, lots of NVs throughout his record.

02/02/2006 Tax Rate Extension Amendment N
--may have voted against it because he didnt want to raise taxes. "reduce the deficit by making tax rates fairer for all Americans. " = Washington speak for raise taxes on dividends and capital gains

11/17/2005 Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment N
--dont know why he voted against

10/05/2005 Health Care for Veterans Amendment N
--Not really sure how he voted "no" considering the bill passed 97-0...unless it was the no vote to waive the budget act wrt the bill, in which case fiscal discipline issues may have prevailed, but I dont know

Needless to say, when it comes to Congressional votes, some are instructive, some are not. Its frustrating, but thats Congress for ya...

 

[Herc_Dude]

The way a guy votes can tell a story but sometimes it can be a little deceiving. The way they throw things into bills that have no place (i.e. min wage hike part of Iraq spending bill ?!?!) the vote might not tell the whole story.

Ron Paul has been riding his voting record for a while now. First of all, I give him a lot of credit for being honest about it, but I still find it a little deceiving ... What he has been doing is fighting to get certain ear marks into bills for his district (hey, thats what they elect him for, right?) but then he turns around and votes against the bill claiming he doesn't like the other spending in it. His vote doesn't really matter, bill passes by a land slide and he gets to claim a victory on both sides - his district gets their ear mark funds and he can claim he voted against all that government spending.

So, like I was saying - a vote doesn't always tell the whole story.

 

[Uncle Fester]

True dat, and that's why Congress uses riders and amendments: to sneak their pet rocks through the process. You can attach a million-dollar pork project onto the Puppies and Sunshine Act. If you vote against it, then your opponents can wave it around. "Look! Senator so-and-so hates Puppies and Sunshine!" Voting record in and of itself tells you almost nothing.

 

[Flash]

I don't like McCain because he has done everything he can to ignore the soldiers left behind in Vietnam. Read "An Enormous Crime."

I'm sorry but.....WTF are you talking about? The author of the book accuses every President from Nixon to Bush, George Schultz, Colin Powell, and a large part of the national security establishment of being complicit in this supposed 'crime'. Where the hell is this guy and you coming from? This book sounds in the same league as the 9/11 'truthers' and the Roswell nuts. Just in case you wanted more info on the issue, here is the site of a retired Army Col who was at DIA, and a Vietnam vet, and who worked the POW/MIA issue for several years in the 80's and 90's.

http://www.miafacts.org/fraud.htm

To accuse the servicemembers and the civil servants who worked this issue od betrayal is disgusting and insulting. To accuse someone like John McCain of leaving fellow POW's behind is reprehensible. You need to fix yourself.

For example, Hillary suggested a carbon cap-and-trade scheme. This is exactly what Enron had been trying to do up until it collapsed, which was why they lobbied to get carbon dioxide declared as a "pollutant." They also practically begged President Bush to ratify Kyoto. He would not do this because of the damage it would do to our economy. Kyoto and/or a cap-and-trade scheme would damage our economy a good deal, but apparently Hillary doesn't realize any of this since she suggested it.

Please post a link, or I will take it as seriously as your previous assertion.

 

[phrogpilot73]

No offense taken, maybe I am wrong, I recommend reading that book though.

But here in the "Veteran's Issues" section, he seems rather anti-military in his voting; maybe he had other reasons to vote "No" though...?

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV
02/02/2006 Tax Rate Extension Amendment N
11/17/2005 Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment N
10/05/2005 Health Care for Veterans Amendment N

First, NV is no vote. He may not have been present. October of 07 sounds like he's campaigning. Second, the Tax Rate Extension Amendment sets aside the budget act of 1974, so an amendment that violates that act can be considered. I would have voted no as well. As for the other two, I can't say what the riders are that would cause me to vote yes or no. However, don't look at just veterans issues, look at national defense and military issues for McCain on votesmart. Again, I don't see a trend of anti-military voting.

 

[Harrier Dude]

The way a guy votes can tell a story but sometimes it can be a little deceiving. The way they throw things into bills that have no place (i.e. min wage hike part of Iraq spending bill ?!?!) the vote might not tell the whole story.

Ron Paul has been riding his voting record for a while now. First of all, I give him a lot of credit for being honest about it, but I still find it a little deceiving ... What he has been doing is fighting to get certain ear marks into bills for his district (hey, thats what they elect him for, right?) but then he turns around and votes against the bill claiming he doesn't like the other spending in it. His vote doesn't really matter, bill passes by a land slide and he gets to claim a victory on both sides - his district gets their ear mark funds and he can claim he voted against all that government spending.

So, like I was saying - a vote doesn't always tell the whole story.

I think Ron Paul was basically saying, "I don't think we should spend this money at all. Don't do it!. IF you are going to spend this money anyway, then please send some of it to my people in my district."

I don't see this as duplicitous. It's really more consequence management than anything. As long as something is certain to happen, even if you don't like it, you might as well make the best out of it.

Ron Pauls biggest problem is that he is unable to adequately explain his message. You have to have a fairly deep understanding of the history and underlying intracacies of the issues to grasp his point on most matters. Most Americans knowledge on policy issues is less than powerpoint deep. His message is not easily broken down into soundbites. His points that are fairly easily broken down into brief bites get muddled by his delivery.

He's a smart guy, but a terrible speaker and even worse debater.

 

[Spekkio]

Ron Pauls biggest problem is that he is unable to adequately explain his message. You have to have a fairly deep understanding of the history and underlying intracacies of the issues to grasp his point on most matters. Most Americans knowledge on policy issues is less than powerpoint deep. His message is not easily broken down into soundbites. His points that are fairly easily broken down into brief bites get muddled by his delivery.

He's a smart guy, but a terrible speaker and even worse debater.

Definitely agree there.

 

[Random8145]

I'm sorry but.....WTF are you talking about? The author of the book accuses every President from Nixon to Bush, George Schultz, Colin Powell, and a large part of the national security establishment of being complicit in this supposed 'crime'. Where the hell is this guy and you coming from? This book sounds in the same league as the 9/11 'truthers' and the Roswell nuts. Just in case you wanted more info on the issue, here is the site of a retired Army Col who was at DIA, and a Vietnam vet, and who worked the POW/MIA issue for several years in the 80's and 90's.

http://www.miafacts.org/fraud.htm

To accuse the servicemembers and the civil servants who worked this issue od betrayal is disgusting and insulting. To accuse someone like John McCain of leaving fellow POW's behind is reprehensible. You need to fix yourself.

Yeah the book is controversial of course, IMO read it first though, then draw conclusions.

Please post a link, or I will take it as seriously as your previous assertion.

Read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.

 

[FLYTPAY]

McCain+Condi Rice......undefeatable!

 

[Bugsmasher]

You might get a better response Random if you just made some arguments from the book instead of telling everyone to go read the entire library.

 

[Random8145]

You might get a better response Random if you just made some arguments from the book instead of telling everyone to go read the entire library.

I agree it's always better to be able to quote directly from the book (s) but I don't have the books on me, I read them both from the library and they both had to be ordered in from other libraries.

From what I remember about Enron though, their primary business was energy trading. They were very successful with energy trading for one form of pollutant in the early 90s (I forget which, it's in the book though), but then they saw CO2 as the next big thing. After all, coal is the primary source for energy in the United States.

The problem was CO2 wasn't a pollutant. If you take coal, and burn it at 100% efficiency, you should get pure CO2 as the exhaust. The pollutants are the stuff that comes out of the burning process that didn't actually burn. Burning it all creates pure CO2.

So Enron lobbied heavily to get CO2 declared as a pollutant.

One of the big things the Kyoto Treaty pushed for was a cap on carbon emissions, likely through a carbon cap-and-trade scheme. Thus, it was very much to Enron's benefit to have Kyoto ratified.

Enron, with British Petroleum (now known as "Beyond Petroleum"), during the late 1990s, met with then President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore to discuss with them about getting Kyoto ratified, and Clinton did sign Kyoto, but he didn't ratify it.

Next came President Bush, who was friends with Enron CEO Ken Lay, but despite Enron's pleading though, would not ratify Kyoto.

Much has been made in the media about Bush's "refusal to sign Kyoto." In reality, he never had to sign it, just ratify it, as it was already signed.

This was very important to Enron because, though at the time no one was aware of it, Enron was on the verge of collapse. They couldn't cook the books anymore, and needed cash badly. Ratification of Kyoto, while doing a good deal of damage to the U.S. economy, would have allowed them to likely be very successful at trading carbon-based energy.

Since this didn't happen, and the company had been flat-out lying about its revenues, the old laws of the free-market kicked in and thus revealed what was to become one of the most spectacular corporate scandals in history.

Going back to what I said about Hillary, she had suggested a carbon cap-and-trade scheme. Considering this had been Enron's plan to get rich at the economy's expense, I can't really see any good in it. It will only drive up energy prices, in turn driving American jobs offshore, damaging businesses, causing more unemployment, while making whoever does the energy trading wealthy (and I have no problem with folks gettng wealthy, but when they create value and jobs, not when they destroy those things).

 

[raptor10]

"What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in the room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

 

[Random8145]

"What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in the room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

People asked me to explain more, so I did.

 

[Mumbles]

Condi Rice for VP?? I pray you jest.