Subject: [big campaign] TP: McCain Wouldn't Vote For Everglades Because Of Pork But Will Fund Iraq At Any Cost
From: "Adam Jentleson" <[email-masked]>
To: "big campaign" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:34:45 -0400
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

New from Think Progress:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/06/mccain-everglades-iraq/

McCain Wouldn't Vote For Everglades Because Of Pork But Will Fund Iraq
At Any Cost
<http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/06/mccain-everglades-iraq/> 

 During a conference call with reporters today, the McCain campaign
tried to push back against Florida environmental groups who have
criticized Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for opposing a bill that would have
allocated $2 billion for Everglades restoration
<http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/05/after-standing-against-eve
rglades-restoration-mccain-visits-park-to-bolster-environmental-credenti
als/> . The campaign claimed that the senator has strong environmental
credentials and argued that he has "always stood for Everglades
restoration," and only opposed the 2007 Water Resources Development Act
because it included "other spending":

	REP. MARIO DIAZ-BALART (R-FL): The only thing that cannot be
said is that he voted against that bill because he is against Everglades
restoration. ... He has always been in favor of Everglades restoration.
... He voted against it because of other spending. ... What is totally
inaccurate is to say that he voted against Everglades restoration.

But McCain's argument that he often votes against causes he supports
because those bills contain "wasteful earmarks" does not hold water. In
May 2007, by his own admission, McCain voted for
<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/key-votes/>
a $120 billion dollar Iraq war funding measure
<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/1/votes/181/> ,
despite the fact that it contained $17 billion
<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/1/votes/181/>
in "other spending." Speaking on the floor of the Senate the day the
bill passed, McCain said he was voting for the bill "with deep
reservations":

	McCAIN: We are about to pass a bill that while better than the
last version, still contains billions of dollars that have nothing to do
with the War on Terror. We can do better than this. The American
taxpayers deserve and expect more.

During his speech McCain even listed "some of the un-requested and
un-authorized items
<http://2008central.net/2007/05/25/candidate-statements-on-the-war-fundi
ng-bill/>  contained in this bill":

	- $110 million in aid to the shrimp and fisheries industries;

	- $11 million for flood control projects in New York and New
Jersey;

	- $37 million to modernize the Farm Service Agency's computer
system;

	- $13 million for the Save America's Treasures program; and,

	- $3 billion in agriculture disaster assistance, including $22
million to support the Department of Agriculture in implementing
programs to provide this un-requested and unauthorized funding.

Despite the bill's "irresponsible" spending, McCain promised to "vote
for it nonetheless in order to support our brave men and women fighting
for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan."

McCain thinks funding the environment is too pricey, but he is willing
to support the Iraq war at any cost.

UpdateSam Stein reports that Diaz-Balart, in explaining why he voted for
a bill that McCain opposed, was attempting to argue that McCain is more
principled than him
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/06/mccain-surrogate-im-simpl_n_10
5704.html> .

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---