Little Ricky The Elephant Poops On McCain

It’s that every other Thursday, and we’re talking about the Philadelphia Inquirer of course, so we know the drill, don’t we?

OK, then, let’s get started (from here – Senator Man-On-Dog attended the Council for National Policy freeper circle jerk where McCain showed up to try and placate these self-serving hypocrites*)…

(*-sorry if I’m more strident than usual…OK, I’m not, really…but as far as I’m concerned, these noxious charlatans should have no voice in our national discourse since they proved long ago that they don’t have anything intelligent to say.)

OK, Little Ricky, you have the floor…

McCain has opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment in the past because he said states could handle the assault on marriage. Have they? No. Although some state courts have sided with the voters' wishes in their states, courts in other states have forced same-sex marriage and civil-union laws on the public.

Notwithstanding the typical bilious propaganda in that passage (“assault on marriage”??), I thought this was some interesting information on what is basically a campaign by the Republican Party to discriminate primarily against gays and same-sex marriage (full disclosure: I don’t support same-sex marriage either, but I support all full legal rights for LGBT individuals aside from that, and I won't work against gays who advocate for it.)

The FindLaw information tells us that the Republicans originally tried to pass the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, but Trent Lott (of all people) believed that the Act violated the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, so instead, those opposed to gay marriage worked to have it banned in 37 states while it was passed in Massachusetts (Dubya, when campaigning in 2000, sought to leave it up to the states also).

However, when you fast forward to 2004, you found “the party of states rights” sought to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution in 2004 (as in ’96 with the DOMA, both were pushed for passage shortly before the election), but it failed in the Senate (yes – so glad the Repug 108th Congress felt that they needed to pass a bill to tell me what constitutes such a union).

And Santorum tells us the following concerning McCain and the climate crisis…

If the science is changing, so are temperatures. Yes, 1998 was the warmest year since 1938, but every year since has been cooler, and we just learned that 2007 was the coldest year since 1966.

Let's put these inconvenient truths aside and assume man-made global warming exists. The fact is, McCain's legislation would cost hundreds of billions and have almost no effect on global temperature.

How magnanimous of Little Ricky to concede the obvious (I wish I had a nickel for every post and letter to a newspaper I’ve written on global warming…and I caught his idiotic snark towards the Al Gore movie as you did also I’m sure).

However, I don’t know what legislation in particular Little Ricky is referring to here, but this article in The Nation tells us the following about how “green” McCain really is…

• He voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and has sponsored or cosponsored the occasional, modest environmental protection bill (protecting whales; awarding tax credits for energy efficiency; boosting fuel efficiency). (Note, however, that his lifetime rating from LCV is a measly 29%.)

• In 2003, he and Sen. Joe Lieberman introduced the first-ever climate bill to the Senate: the Climate Stewardship Act, which would establish a carbon cap-and-trade system to reduce US emissions. It was introduced and voted down in 2003 and again in 2005.

• He acknowledges, without hedging, that anthropogenic climate change is real, and speaks eloquently about the need to address it. He has frequently criticized the Bush administration for inaction.

Fair enough. But…

• On June 21, 2007, the Senate voted on the Baucus amendment to the energy bill, which would have removed some oil company subsidies in order to fund renewable energy. The amendment failed to pass. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.

• On the same day, the Senate held a cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass the energy bill. The vote succeeded. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.

• On Dec. 7, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat on the energy bill, which had become substantially bolder after being aligned with the House version. The vote failed. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.

• On Dec. 13, 2007, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass the energy bill, which had the Renewable Portfolio Standard stripped out of it but retained a measure that would shift oil company subsidies to renewables. The vote failed -- by one vote, 59-40. Where was McCain? He didn't vote -- the only Senator not to do so.

• On Feb. 6, 2008, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass a stimulus bill containing a number of green energy incentives. The cloture motion failed, by one vote. Where was McCain? He didn't vote -- again, the only Senator not to do so.

And you didn’t honestly think the intrepid Inky propagandist was going to give McCain a pass on stem cell research, did you…

New science also has upended the debate over federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. It is now clear that the pursuit of federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research is not only unnecessary, but with the advent of embryonic-like adult stem cells, it is now counterproductive, since it would displace money for more promising research.

I’ll tell you what; feel free to read about the differences between adult and embryonic stem cells from this link and tell me if you agree with “Dr.” Santorum and his prognosis. To me (admittedly, a layman), it sounds like much more study is needed before embryonic stem cells can be dismissed for the purposes of research as “unnecessary” and “counterproductive.”

And finally…

Conservatives are not asking him to execute a series of 180s. We're looking for policy adjustments that show he has the independent spirit and pragmatic sense to change prior stands not simply because of new political realities, but new facts. Facts - which, as Ronald Reagan used to say, are also stubborn things.

I don’t know if Reagan ever said that or not, but I can tell you that the author of that quote is John Adams, the second president of the United States (as noted here…God, Little Ricky is such a toad). And by the way, please allow me this opportunity to plug the upcoming HBO miniseries on Adams based on David McCullough’s book here; if you have that cable channel, I’d highly recommend watching it.

So it sounds like our former Senator doesn’t intend to go out of his way to do anything but vote for McCain in the general election. And that’s fine, especially since I found this survey echoing information I’ve found elsewhere showing (as of now) Barack Obama defeating John McCain head to head in the general election (though we can’t assume anything of course). As you can see, it shows Obama with 280 electoral votes, which is enough to win given that fact that 270 are required to secure the presidency.

And facts, as Little Ricky will certainly tell us, are stubborn things.

Update 4/23/08: Of course "no one could have predicted" this, right? Not much.