The following quote you’ve probably heard before is generally attributed to Pastor Niemoeller, a political prisoner of the Nazis on Hitler’s direct order:

First they came for the communists,
and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Next they came for the Catholics,
and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left,
To speak out for me.

It was brought to mind to me today as I read an article quoting a book by a Zimbabwean author, who was either intentionally or unintentionally paraphrasing Niemoeller but in respect to Mugabe.

http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/sep16_2009.html#Z17

Is a term coined by Homer Simpson upon learning that the Chinese use the same word to mean crisis as they do for opportunity, back when the Simpsons were worth watching, but then I digress.

A lot of management training courses and advice columns also stress how good executives can find opportunity in crisis situations.  “Great leaders know that significant opportunity lies in a world turned upside down”, according to an article on Forbes.com. 

A crisis also makes for good news, or at least is good for ratings. 

“Like other cable news services, Newsworld (the CBC’s CNN equivalent) does enjoy periodic spikes in viewership, almost always linked to major news events that supplement its core audience with legions of more transient news-watchers. The quintessentially Canadian political soap opera known as Meech Lake delivered such a spike, as did the horrific events of 9/11, not to mention two Persian Gulf wars, one waged during the presidency of George Bush, père, and the other mainly on the watch of George Bush, fils.
In each case, once the excitement and drama had eased, the Newsworld audience quickly reverted to its customarily modest size. This phenomenon poses a powerful temptation for Newsworld and similar services.

"You want to think about having lots of big events," says Christopher Waddell, director of journalism and communication at Carleton University. "You start turning small events into big events." "

http://www.thestar.com/article/674971

Obviously, the folks in the news industry are all aware of what attracts eyeballs, despite their pious moanings about journalistic integrity, story depth and quality coverage.  For which, as far as I can tell, the English translation is: I’m so much smarter than you, I’m morally superior to boot, and where’s my prune danish, anyways?  As such their opportunities lie in times of crisis, and since they decide is newsworthy it is unsurprising that they can find a crisis or two on a daily basis.

News about the economy is perfect for this, both because it affects everyone and because most people are so startlingly ignorant of even basic economics that they can be easily lead down the primrose path.

“Coverage of the economy is shrouded in gloom at the best of times, on the principle described by the American journalist Gregg Easterbrook: All Economic News is Bad. News is change; change helps some, hurts others; the ones it hurts are the ones we hear from; ergo, AENIB.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/12/04/never-let-a-good-economic-crisis-go-to-waste/

The first rule of robbers is to start a fire at the North end of town, and then rob the Bank at the South end of town.  Or, to put it another way, opportunity in crisis, and the incentive to create opportunities by manufacturing crisis, is also true of the Democrats, as we have heard straight from several donkey’s mouths:

“Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times right after the election. “They are opportunities to do big things.” Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told an audience at the European Parliament, “Never waste a good crisis.” Then President Obama explained in his Saturday radio and Internet address that there is “great opportunity in the midst of” the “great crisis” befalling America.”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDUwNzkzNjk0MGFjMzRkNWZkZmE1OWY5MGIwOGFmZmQ=

In a bit of irony, or more accurately psychological projection, Republican/Conservatives are often accused of doing this by the left.  The following blurb is for Naomi Klein’s new book, Shock Doctrine, the Rise of Disaster Capitalism.  I don’t think we need to read the book to know who she’s talking about, but who do you think best fits what’s being described?

“Around the world in Britain, the United States, Asia and the Middle East, there are people with power who are cashing in on chaos; exploiting bloodshed and catastrophe to brutally remake our world in their image. They are the shock doctors. Thrilling and revelatory, The Shock Doctrine cracks open the secret history of our era.”

http://www.naomiklein.org/main

This is one of the most important practical reasons for the symbiotic relationship between the press and Democrats.  The alignment is most perfect as a result of their shared ideological positions: they share the same profit motive to create a crisis and a similar sense of what a crisis usually means: bad things happen due to a lack of government intervention, the solution to which is increased government intervention.  Shared ideology is nice and all, but the reason the press and the Dems are joined at the hips is, like everything else, due to the bottom line.  The constant series of mini-crisis that they jointly create and/or exacerbate, the Gates incident being a good recent example of this, leads to ratings and money for the news shows and to contributions to Dems and their supporting organizations and to votes, which they parley into benefits for themselves and their supporters via the machinery of government.

And if you’d like an example of the trickle-down effect of these pronouncements, look at what my Google search for never allow a crisis to go to waste found, a recent article from an NIH publication entitled: “Mental health and human rights: never waste a serious crisis”, which actually quotes Rahm Emmanuel and uses this maxim to justify its criticisms and formulate proposed responses to the treatment of the mentally ill in Jakarta (the one in Indonesia, not Rhode Island).  These are imitable acts, people, and there are consequences, so cut it out, please, for the sake of the children.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2704170

I’d like to close with another Homer Simpson quote (with added comments in parantheses for the SCDS’rs reading) and by listing the three rules given by the Forbes article.  I think that the Dems and co. are very good at following two of the rules, and a disaster when it comes to the third.  I’ll let you figure out which one that is.

“Never Waste A Crisis.  Great leaders know that significant opportunity lies in a world turned upside down.”

“First, figure out how to survive.”

“Second, ask yourself what you can do now that you couldn't do before. This is the crux of successfully taking advantage of a world turned upside down. How can you position yourself now, so that you will be better off than you were, once the crisis is over?”

“Finally, no whining.”

http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/24/global-crisis-management-lead-management-cx_snj_1124joni.html

Homer: From now on, there are three ways to do things: the right (Conservative) way, the wrong (Democrat) way, and the Max Power (McCain) way.
Bart: Isn't that just the wrong (Democrat) way?
Homer: Yeah, but faster!

as we are painfully aware, successfully tried to pick a fight  in the media regarding a cop who was simply following up on a call about a suspected break-in.  As the cop in question was white, the media has gone crazy and cried racism, with help from Obama.

Gates himself apparently said to the officer “Do you know who I am?”, as if somehow his tenured position entitled him to much more respect and deference than your average Joe. I mean the cop didn’t even have the civility to raise his hand in order to receive the professor’s permission to speak. Most of the defence of Gates has also centered on his being a “respected professor of African-American Studies”, “a prominent black scholar at Harvard University”, and so on, and the argument boils down to as a scholar he is by definition such a respected member of society that the only possible factor that could come into play is his race.  

I also recently read an article that I find juxtaposes nicely with the thesis that being a highly-educated scholar somehow makes one above reproach or suspicion.  Since the article was written in Africa concerning African scholars, it’s probably as apples-to-apples as you can get. I think it also helps demonstrate the dangers of technocracy, a force that has also been rising in the West and has to date given us such wonders as the environmental scares (global warming/cooling, ozone depletion, acid rain, we’re all gonna die unless you give us public funding and follow our policy advice, which includes more public funding for our activities) and health scares (bird flu, swine flu, AIDS, we’re all gonna die, unless you give us public funding and follow our policy advice, which includes more public funding for our activities).  

Here’s some relevent excerpts from said article, “Education without civilisation“, by Abigail Mphisa:

“We Zimbabweans are a highly educated lot. Every analyst who talks about Zimbabwe's prospects for economic recovery lists as one of the assets our very admirably skilled human resources. At independence President Mugabe's cabinet ministers were hailed as among the most educated on the African continent, led by a man with seven university degrees.

Zimbabwe boasts of an adult literacy rate of 89.4 percent, which is higher than that of Malaysia (88.7) and Brazil (88.6).  Regional economic power house, South Africa, has an adult literacy rate of 82.4 percent. Malawi and Zambia are on 64 and 68, respectively, while Botswana's rate is 81.2 percent. Why then do we have the singular honour of being the most barbaric in the manner that we run elections within the SADC (South African Development Community) region?

None of our brothers and sisters in SADC brutalise each other during election related violence to the same extent that we do. Zambia, South Africa and Malawi held elections not so along. There were no body bags counted in these countries during the campaign periods, and yet our education statistics are more impressive.

Before we messed up our country, Malawians preferred Zimbabwe as a shopping destination rather than South Africa. The first thing my landlord asked me when I came to Malawi three years ago was how it was possible that even vendors on Harare's streets spoke good English. He told me how after the opening of Westgate shopping complex he and a friend drove to Harare to sample the new centre. Not knowing how to get there, they asked for directions from a teenager who was trying to sell them a pocket of oranges.  They were very much impressed after being given accurate directions in perfect English.

It would appear while we have been learning history and geography, civilisation, that which some people refer to as an advanced stage of social development, has eluded us. We have a president with seven degrees. He does not boast about them much. He prefers the one he has lived by for a bigger part of his life -violence. He boasts of having degrees in violence.

Without an aorta of shame, after the formation of the MDC during the run up to the 2000 parliamentary elections he thundered during an election rally, "To those who are bent on opposing us, death shall befall you!"

Then we have Dr Nathan Shamuyarira, academic, author and one time Minister of Information and Zanu-PF's secretary for information and publicity.  When the MDC was beginning to show signs of popularity in 2000 and beyond, Zanu PF went on a predictable smear campaign. Among other things, an attempt was made to pin the murder of Cain Nkala on the MDC. The late Justice Sandra Mungwira threw out the case and had the unfortunate MDC activists released.

In the meantime, Dr Shamuyarira had not wasted time in issuing a stern warning. The MDC, he said, should not even consider taking the route of violence. He reminded the new party that the area of violence was one in which Zanu-PF's skills could never be matched. You need to be uncivilised in order to be able to utter such statements, without shame, on behalf of any party.

The constituency in question, the very one where the 21 year old lost his arm, belongs to none other than one of Zimbabwe's world renowned agricultural research scientists and gender activist, Dr. Olivia Muchena. In this very constituency, among others, teachers were hounded out of classrooms and children stopped attending school altogether. I always used to beam with pride at the University of Cape Town's African Studies Library because Dr Muchena's work here was held in such high regard.

She has numerous publications to her name.

I recall how soon after the 2005 parliamentary elections Muchena appeared on the programme "African Review" which used to be run by SABC Africa. The topic under discussion was election related violence in Zimbabwe. Among the panellists were MDC activists who told harrowing stories of their close shave with death at the hands of the infamous Green Bombers.

Muchena, a former official of Bishop Abel Muzorewa's United African National Council, did a sterling job of toeing the usual Zanu PF line of victimhood, sanctions and Western propaganda. The embarrassing moment for her came when a caller, displaced by political violence from Muchena's constituency, stated in a very calm and collected manner "SABC, you are giving a voice to a perpetrator of political violence."

He then went on to mention by name some who had died. In a very thin voice, obviously drained of its previous confidence, Muchena tried her best to mount a very unconvincing defence, denying that the listed names of the deceased were from her constituency but rather from a neighbouring one. It was as if by merely suggesting that the dead were not from her constituency their brutal killing became acceptable.

She ended up cutting some very pathetic figure indeed.

Then there is our very own rocket scientist, Arthur Mutambara. A Rhodes Scholar with a PhD in Robotics and Mechatronics from Oxford University, Mutambara is ranked among Africa's top scientists. Sadly, on his journey to acquire impressive academic qualifications, the exposure he received did little for him in the area of social etiquette.

In one interview he boasted that he was more intelligent than most of these Western leaders because he had studied at Oxford while they had not. Now, that is just way too coarse even for a third world Deputy Prime Minister. In his desire to remind the world of his high intelligence quotient, it even escaped him that it was these very less intelligent people who could get us out of our economic quagmire.

In a recent interview with one Maureen Isaacson in Johannesburg, South Africa, Mutambara is quoted; "I am a very different kind of politician. I don't suffer fools. You understand? I might have to do so in politics..I am an independent thinker. I challenge conventional wisdom". Wow! We are still waiting for the independent thoughts to manifest themselves in the GNU for the benefit of Zimbabwe.

Sometime last year, one of the Herald's key hate columnists, Caesar Zvayi, was deported from Botswana where he had secured a lecturing post. Surprisingly, Zvayi had run away from the very economic meltdown which he argued did not exist.  Apart from the vitriol and scorn poured by Zvayi on that country's head of state in response to his deportation, Jonathan Moyo joined the fray. Of all the vulgar and foul-mouthed remarks he directed at Botswana, the one that I found most despicable was "What can you expect when a country has more goats than people." All this because the Batswana did not want Zvayi in their country and from a man who preaches sovereignty ad
nauseam?

They say Moyo is a Professor of Political Science and yet he is still to act in a civilised manner. In fact, the man is so uncivilised that he believes the practice of journalism, the profession of reporting on events, should be made more stringent than the practice of medicine, which has the potential of costing lives if not conducted properly.

How weird is that?

Perhaps it is the late Dr Chenjerai Hunzvi who should occupy one of the top spots in the area of incivility. The Polish trained medical doctor, a true disciple of Zanu-PF barbaric politics, believed that coercion was the answer to Zanu-PF's declining popularity. Yes, a doctor who took the Hippocratic Oath to save lives reportedly converted his Budiriro surgery into a torture chamber. In this the 21st Century, he believed that people should not be allowed the right to choose their own political parties. He was just so primitive, though armed with a medical degree.

We also have Chief Fortune Charumbira, a graduate of the University of Zimbabwe where he studied sociology. He is the president of the Council of Chiefs. One would have imagined that his superior education would also make him understand issues of citizenship and human rights. Not so. He is on record as having issued a statement to the effect that those who support any other party besides Zanu-PF would be expelled from his area.

It is as if one will be reading from a prehistoric script.

I remember former education Minister Samuel Mumbengegwi frothing on the mouth, furious because some NGO had highlighted the necessity of introducing human rights courses in the school syllabi. He made it clear such "misadventures" would not be tolerated by the government because the hidden agenda of the NGO was "regime change".

He could see the hand of the British in it too!”

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=20078

By way of introducing this piece, I was writing a response to Crawfish at Brian’s, in order to explain why I hadn’t commented on Barr’s column, and things started spilling out, and it got to be too long for a comment, and became a post.   Ain’t that always the way?

Back on point.  Explaining to my four-year old son that the bedroom is the exact same room with the lights off as it is with them on, just darker, does nothing to affect his fear of the dark, and it does not affect his reaction to the light being turned off in the least.  Any excuse to keep the light on is fervently sought and pursued with single-minded abandon.  When people are ruled by fear, there's just no point in trying to communicate with them using reason, they just lash out emotionally and only respond to whatever might calm their fears.  That's why I haven't joined in the ‘discussion’, such as it is, on either Barr's latest piece, or Deadhead's (Medved, for the uninitiated) latest for that matter.  There doesn’t seem to be any point whatsoever anymore.

Barr wrote a great article with a thoroughly conservative message, and one that was factually correct, pointing out some of the unfortunate truths regarding the united establishment party, specifically the Republican wing of it, and with respect to John McCain in particular.

(http://townhall.com/columnists/BobBarr/2008/10/24/as_the_election_draws_near,_americans_need_to_vote_for_real,_meaningful_change_in_other_words%E2%80%A6not_for_republicans_or_democrats?page=full&comments=true)

And  just look at the drivel posted under it, including someone who started out his comment by saying he didn't even read the article because it wouldn't matter what it said no matter how good it might be, because we can't let Obama win and don’t waste your vote.  Fear, the destroyer of souls, and, it seems, the Republican party.  It's like most of the stuff under the latest Deadhead screed, which has several glaring logical and factual flaws, yet has him praised to the Heavens by people grasping at the slender straws of hope he provides them.  I no longer think of it as scare tactics, but scared tactics, it is folks who are expressing their own fears and trying to make us share them and thus help them in their quest to find the salve for their fearfulness.

I just don't see any point, anymore, in trying to reason with people whose emotional levels are essentially similar to that of a terrified child’s.  It seems that to far too many previously rational beings, McCain is their safety blanket who will protect them from the bogeyman, in this case Obama who personifies their own worst fears, be they socialism, communism, etc.  By pointing out the inconvenient facts about McCain personally that demonstrate he offers little protection from Obama, and in many respects is cut from similar cloth, from their perspective all you’re doing is trying to take away their safety blanket, the one thing that they believe can keep them safe from the bogeyman.  If you’ve had kids, you know they don’t tend to react well to that sort of thing.  And in this context I still find it really funny that the security blanket, McCain, has come right out and said that the bogeyman, Obama, is nothing to fear.

Now this is not a blanket condemnation of every argument I’ve seen that supports voting for McCain or person making those arguments, but honestly I find that it characterizes the Kimbat-like tenor of the vast majority of noseholder comments of late, a trend that’s been growing for a while now.  It used to be that we'd say truth and logic were to liberals like garlic to vampires, and now there are many folks putting the blinders on to fact and reason in order to maintain the illusion of safety that McCain provides them with.

So allow me to close by dedicating a little paean to what I consider to be the rarest breed of voter this silly season, people voting for McCain not solely out of fear but because they have also looked at the evidence, analyzed it, and come up with conclusions different from my own.  I can respect their arguments and conclusions, even if I disagree; although I am right, of course. ;)  Right Brainer comes most immediately to mind as an example of such a person, but he is not the only one, apologies for those I’ve forgotten, I’m getting tired.  These are folks with whom I agree on the ultimate aim, increased conservative political strength because that is what is best for America, but disagree with slightly on some minor issues of strategy and tactics, like whether or not McCain’s winning or losing best furthers that end.  It is our two camps that will come together the quickest after this is all over, and Lord I can't wait for all of this to be over, and that will provide, IMHO, the best ideas and hopefully the best people to advance our common conservative cause for the immediate and foreseeable future.

One day last week when I picked up my kids my 8 year-old daughter she was quite upset, having been teased by everyone at her jiu-jitsu after school program about a boy she likes.  She was whining and crying in the car on the way home when all of a sudden my 4 year-old son crossed himself, clasped his hands, and earnestly prayed “Lord, please stop my sister from crying.”
 
My daughter turned to her brother and began explaining to him that this was not how prayer worked, things didn’t just happen because you prayed for them.  I casually pointed out that she had, in fact, stopped crying.  She seemed to think about that for a second, then started crying again.

Again, my son repeated his prayer, which stopped her crying and brought forth a chuckle, then she cried again.  After a couple more iterations, my son changed his prayer to “Lord, make my sister laugh”.  And laugh she did.

And once we got home, she went around to his door and got him out of his car seat, hugged and thanked him, and told him how happy she was that she had a brother like him.
 

Q.E.D.

I think I'll ask my son to pray for a conservative Congress in November. 

Apparently the good folks at the WaPo liked my look into McCain’s voting record, and specifically the angle of who he voted with, so they looked even deeper and came up with some interesting additional tidbits. As a respected journalistic endeavour, they were also able to go where I wasn’t and get some good quotes from respected ‘McCain campaign surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham’. That phrase just slays me, I still laugh every time I read it, but I digress.

More than half, 55%, of McCain’s political partners on legislation during the past two Congresses were Democrat. Specifically, since 2005 there were 82 bills for which McCain was chief sponsor and 120 out of the 220 co-sponsors of these bills were Democrats. Not only that, but McCain openly revels in his stances that defied in his own party, as recently as last month telling the folk at a values forum at Saddleback Church in California his list is extensive: "Climate change, out-of-control spending, torture." The WaPo even noted that “He could have added campaign-finance overhaul, immigration, a patients' bill of rights, gun control and tax cuts as other areas on which he's broken with the majority of his party.” I guess I must have missed the patients’ bill of rights, but then again I don’t have the research staff that the WaPo does.

According to ‘McCain campaign surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham’, bipartisanship is a frequent issue on the campaign trail, and the standard by which a candidate should be judged is: “how often someone takes leadership on an issue in defiance of his own party - a measure by which Mr. Obama falls short and Mr. McCain clearly excels.” So leadership means defying your party and its base. I guess this makes sense in much the same way that patriotism means rooting for American defeat in Iraq. Holy liberal logic Batman. Oh wait, I forgot, Grahamnesty is a liberal, never mind then. You know, Graham does have a point though. Obama may be a lot of things, but at least he’s not stupid enough or so arrogant as to stick it to his own base repeatedly then brag about it publicly.

And it gets even better, or should I say worse: “In a memo to reporters, his campaign points to bills he worked on that gained near-unanimous support from both parties.” I guess we really can all just get along. Say, I think my leg is starting to tingle, how about yours?

And you can just tell how much McCain loves being the Maverick, oops I mean ‘bipartisan’, given that “Mr. McCain on the campaign trail cites his own frequent Democratic legislative allies such as Mr. Lieberman, with whom he's worked on gun control and global warming; Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who was his partner for immigration and patients' rights; Sen. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, who worked with him on campaign finance; and Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who was the top Democrat on the Indian Affairs Committee when Mr. McCain was chairman.” What a long list of dubious friends and shady associates. You’d almost think that after spending years, and in some cases decades, very willingly associating and working with such people he might have come to share some of their beliefs. Well, assuming that he didn’t do so already.

He sure does works well with the Dems to get liberal legislation passed doesn’t he? But wait, that’ll all change once he has his ‘road to Damascus’ moment when he’s sworn in as President, then he’ll fight the good fight. Or else Sarah will very sternly say ‘On this issue, I’ll have to agree to disagree with the President’, and then use the ‘make Vice-President disappear now’ machine that Herr Rove designed for Cheney for his use whenever Bush did something stupid/liberal he disagreed with. As you may have noticed, or not noticed as the case may be, this machine has been extensively field-tested, especially during Bush’s second term.

And speaking of legislation that McCain wants passed, the only ones of those listed above that he hasn’t yet been able to pass are immigration reform and climate change, so look for those to be the top priority of America’s first Hispanic President. And just look at who he’s been working with on globaloney: 14 of his 16 co-sponsors are Democrats, including Democrat VP nominee Joe Biden. Given his record, can you honestly say that McCain wouldn’t rather work with Dem controlled Houses than Rep controlled ones? Perhaps an indication of that might also be gleaned by looking at how much support the McCain campaign been providing Republican candidates for the Houses in order to help them regain the majority? I mean aside from enough rope to hang themselves with.

Well, they didn’t give me a by-line, but if you’re going to borrow, you might as well borrow from the best I always say. Which is more than the New York Times can say, at least.

Thanks again to Pasadena Phil for bringing this article to my attention.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/?page=3

When the hats were all tossed in the ring at the beginning of the primaries, the one I found I liked best was Duncan Hunter.  He was one of the several nominees who had no chance because they were not given one, and I personally blame the RNC more than the MSM for this.  Too conservative and not well-enough known according to the party bigwigs and as parroted by the MSM; as opposed to say a first-term Alaskan Governor (how many of those can you name off-hand?)  brought in to save McCain’s bacon by taking the role of arch-conservative, as the candidate for veep, no less.  And we still know less about Palin now than we knew about Hunter then.   This isn’t a dig on her, but rather an indictment of the manipulation of the Republican primary process to make sure an actual conservative wouldn’t head the ticket.

He’s pretty much a solid conservative across the board, and his record backs that up.  Perfect?  No, but I don’t think he’d require much nose-holding for either the Republican base or conservatives, to the extent the two groups don’t overlap.  On national security you’ve got a Vietnam Vet and former Army Ranger, who’s headed the House Armed Services Committee and believes that the concept of national security also included border and immigration control, and building the dam fence!  On the economy he gets mixed reviews, he’s good on cutting taxes but seems to have generally gone along with the Republican spending spree, although he has also supported balanced budget amendments and the line item veto.   He opposed NAFTA and CAFTA, and while I’m a free-trader myself I’m not entirely convinced that these particular deals were very bright ideas.  No executive experience, private sector experience was as a lawyer, but as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee he was at least responsible for a sizeable budget.  Still, all in all, as good as or better than McCain, he of the self-professed lack of knowledge of economics, who opposed making the tax-cut permanents and who also was part of the spending spree.  Although McCain wins in the opposing earmark category, from what I can tell.  On foreign policy he opposed pressuring Israel to give up land for peace, against the Law of the Sea Treaty, in favour of forcing UN reform by withholding US funds and against permanent normal trade relations with China.

Duncan Hunter gets an A+ rating from the NRA, is rock-solid on abortion, received a 17% rating from the NEA (which must be a good thing), voted for building new refineries, against prohibiting drilling in ANWAR and against implementing Kyoto.  He opposes Kelo and gets lousy ratings from enviro-whacko groups.  He said: “The SCHIP bill is the first extension of socialized medicine” and had an 11% rating from the American Public Health Association, so strongly against Hillarycare, another good thing.

Actually my biggest beef with Hunter is that he didn’t oppose more of Bush’s big-government programs or McCain-Feingold.  He voted for No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Plan and McCain-Feingold (after initially opposing it).  Now, I have no indication that these issues were of particular importance to him and that he thought they were good ideas, so I don’t know whether or not he voted to go along to get along, or if he spent a lot of time receiving stern lectures from the Majority Whip.  Still, beats having his name on these and other disasters.

In terms of what he’s done lately, scroll down to the next post where I have taken a look at the bills Hunter’s sponsored or co-sponsored during the 110th Congress, as I previously did with McCain. 

http://www.ontheissues.org/Duncan_Hunter.htm
http://www.house.gov/hunter/biography.shtml
http://degreeofmadness.typepad.com/degree_of_madness/2006/10/california_rep_.html

During the 110th Congress, Hunter’s name appeared on 235 pieces of legislation.  Because of the number of Congressmen there can be a whack load of co-sponsors, which is why I haven’t even tried to look at that here, as I did for McCain.  Hunter’s also not a proponent of reaching across the aisle, and as you’ll see from names on the bills below having a lot of Dem co-sponsors was not likely an issue with him in any event.

I used the same standard I did when choosing which legislation to highlight from McCain, that being they appeared to touch, positively or negatively, on issues that we, as conservatives, would likely care about.  With respect to comparing the bills bearing Hunter’s and McCain’s names, I would just make the following observations. 

First of all, I didn’t find one bill that I recognized as representing a finger to the eye of conservatives.  Second of all, he covered a lot more ground than McCain on conservative issues.  Hunter had sponsored or co-sponsored bills on a number of topics that McCain didn’t, such as: abortion, parent’s rights, defence of marriage, the Pledge of Allegiance, taxes, the Fairness Doctrine, developing energy independence.  Third, the number of bills related to identifiable conservative issues was far greater than McCain’s, 78 to 40, and as previously mentioned you didn’t have the problem where a lot of them fell into the negatively touching on conservative issue category.   Fourth, pay special attention and compare the two of them on the issue of border security and immigration; can you see the difference, I can see the difference.  Free Ramos and Compaen isn't just a slogan, it's a piece of legislation with Hunter's name on it.

So, without further ado, the bills of interest sponsored or co-sponsored by Duncan Hunter during the 110th Congress (witty comments not being needed this time around):

H.CON.RES.40 : Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

H.CON.RES.83 : Expressing the sense of the Congress that State and local governments should be supported for taking actions to discourage illegal immigration and that legislation should be enacted to ease the burden on State and local governments for taking such actions.

H.CON.RES.244 : Supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act.

H.CON.RES.257 : Expressing concern regarding arms transfers to Iran and Syria by the Russian Federation and entities in the Russian Federation and urging the President of the United States to implement sanctions against such entities found to be in violation of United States law prohibiting arms transfers to Iran and Syria.

H.CON.RES.267 : Calling on the President to commute the sentences of United States Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean to time served.

H.CON.RES.315 : Supporting the idea that coalition victory in Iraq is possible.

H.RES.106 : Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.

H.RES.351 : Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Federal authorities should strengthen and vigorously enforce all existing immigration laws.

H.RES.499 : Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Administration should rigorously enforce the laws of the United States to substantially reduce illegal immigration and greatly improve border security.

H.RES.800 : Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the issuance of State driver's licenses or other government-issued photo identification to illegal aliens.

H.RES.925 : Condemning the People's Republic of China for its socially unacceptable business practices, including the manufacturing and exportation of unsafe products, casual disregard for the environment, and exploitative employment practices.

H.RES.951 : Condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations, and for other purposes.

H.RES.1076 : Calling upon the courts to uphold the fundamental and constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

H.J.RES.1 : Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

H.J.RES.9 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal penalties for that act.

H.J.RES.22 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

H.J.RES.89 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

H.R.19 : To require employers to conduct employment eligibility verification.

H.R.25 : To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

H.R.63 : To provide that the approved application under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for the drug commonly known as RU-486 is deemed to have been withdrawn, to provide for the review by the Comptroller General of the United States of the process by which the Food and Drug Administration approved such drug, and for other purposes.

H.R.98 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to enforce restrictions on employment in the United States of unauthorized aliens through the use of improved Social Security cards and an Employment Eligibility Database, and for other purposes.

H.R.322 : To derive human pluripotent stem cell lines using techniques that do not harm human embryos.

H.R.411 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent certain temporary provisions applicable to individuals, including the sales tax deduction, the child credit, the repeal of the estate tax, and the deduction for higher education expenses.

H.R.618 : To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.

H.R.697 : To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities.

H.R.699 : To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance.

H.R.724 : To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.

H.R.725 : To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to prevent the use of the legal system in a manner that extorts money from State and local governments, and the Federal Government, and inhibits such governments' constitutional actions under the first, tenth, and fourteenth amendments.

H.R.876 : To modernize and expand the reporting requirements relating to child pornography, to expand cooperation in combating child pornography, and for other purposes.

H.R.1063 : To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.

H.R.1112 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide individuals relief from the alternative minimum tax.

H.R.1295 : To provide for parental notification and intervention in the case of a minor seeking an abortion.

H.R.1314 : To provide that only certain forms of identification of individuals may be accepted by the Federal Government and by financial institutions.

H.R.1366 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the alternative minimum tax on individuals.

H.R.1399 : To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.

H.R.1586 : To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

H.R.1613 : To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to provide for legal protection against frivolous lawsuits directed at statutes prohibiting picketing at military and other funerals, and for other purposes.

H.R.1756 : To prohibit Mexico-domiciled motor carriers from operating beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border until certain conditions are met to ensure the safety of such operations.

H.R.1940 : To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

H.R.2104 : To protect the right of elected and appointed officials to express their religious beliefs through public prayer.

H.R.2253 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the rate of the tentative minimum tax for noncorporate taxpayers to 24 percent.

H.R.2275 : To restore the Free Speech and First Amendment rights of churches and exempt organizations by repealing the 1954 Johnson Amendment.

H.R.2380 : To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent.

H.R.2387 : To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.

H.R.2564 : To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human cloning.

H.R.2734 : To make the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and certain other tax benefits permanent law.

H.R.2784 : To greatly enhance the Nation's environmental, energy, economic, and national security by terminating long-standing Federal prohibitions on the domestic production of abundant offshore supplies of natural gas, to dedicate fixed percentages of the resultant royalties for environmental restoration projects, renewable energy and carbon sequestration research, and weatherization and energy assistance for those in need, and to share a portion of such royalties with producing States, and for other purposes.

H.R.2905 : To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.

H.R.3148 : To eliminate child pornography.

H.R.3192 : To provide for programs that reduce the need for abortion, help women bear healthy children, and support new parents.

H.R.3494 : To provide for enhanced Federal, State, and local assistance in the enforcement of the immigration laws, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, to authorize appropriations to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and for other purposes.

H.R.3654 : To establish a commission to develop legislation designed to reform tax policy and entitlement benefit programs and ensure a sound fiscal future for the United States, and for other purposes.

H.R.3675 : To prohibit Federal grants to or contracts with Columbia University.

H.R.3779 : To require the Architect of the Capitol to permit the acknowledgment of God on flag certificates.

H.R.3818 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the alternative minimum tax on individuals and replace it with an alternative tax individuals may choose.

H.R.3900 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt from tax income from domestic manufacturing activities.

H.R.4088 : To provide immigration reform by securing America's borders, clarifying and enforcing existing laws, and enabling a practical employer verification program.

H.R.4133 : To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions, and for other purposes.

H.R.4157 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

H.R.4160 : To withhold certain highway funds if a State does not comply with certain requirements in issuing a driver's license or identification card, and for other purposes.

H.R.4176 : To enhance national security by restricting access of illegal aliens to driver's licenses and State-issued identification documents.

H.R.4329 : To assess the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), to require further negotiation of certain provisions of the NAFTA, and to provide for the withdrawal from the NAFTA unless certain conditions are met.

H.R.4464 : To ensure that an employer may require employees to speak English while engaged in work.

H.R.4577 : To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to strengthen student visa background checks and improve the monitoring of foreign students in the United States, and for other purposes.

H.R.5031 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend relief from the alternative minimum tax.

H.R.5032 : To ensure that women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and the opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion.

H.R.5109 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for permanent tax incentives for economic growth.

H.R.5124 : To amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to provide for two-layered, 14-foot reinforced fencing along the southwest border, and for other purposes.

H.R.5131 : To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide criminal penalties for the destruction of memorials, headstones, markers, and graves commemorating persons serving in the Armed Forces on private property.

H.R.5222 : To rescind funds appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, for the City of Berkeley, California, and any entities located in such city, and to provide that such funds shall be transferred to the Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps account of the Department of Defense for the purposes of recruiting.

H.R.5440 : To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

H.R.5462 : To amend title 10, United States Code, to deny Federal funds for any State or city, county, or other political subdivision of a State that prohibits or unduly restricts the establishment or operation of a military recruiting office.

H.R.5552 : To require a report on the efforts of the United States Government to increase border security.

H.R.5695 : To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require applications for voter registration with respect to elections for Federal office to include a statement that an alien who falsely claims to be a citizen of the United States is deportable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes.

H.R.5752 : To provide for the security of United States passports, and for other purposes.

H.R.6107 : To direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in an environmentally sound program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska, and for other purposes.

H.R.6207 : To develop American energy independence, lower gas prices, and open reliable national sources of energy.

H.R.6348 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income gain from the conversion of property by reason of eminent domain.

In this, the silliest of all silly seasons, we conservatives find ourselves in a rather unfortunate position, given who the Republican standard bearer is.  He may be more conservative than Obama, but then again the odds are that any name randomly chosen from a phone book would be as well.   There has been much back and forth about McCain’s record and stance on the issues, and a lot of hope that McCain’s choosing Palin might indicate a more rightward change in direction on his part.  A lot of numbers have been tossed about regarding his voting record and how conservative his rating is from various groups in order to prove the point one way or the other. 

Not one to be all that comfortable relying on percentages arrived at by 3rd parties, I decided to undertake my own analysis of McCain’s recent legislative activities.  To that end I made a new friend, THOMAS, the legislative search engine of the Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/).  THOMAS and I focused on those bills McCain cared enough about to put his name on, the ones he either sponsored or co-sponsored. 

Now there are a few of these that we’re all familiar with, his signature pieces: McCain-Feingold (campaign finance reform, the 1st amendment takes it in the shorts), McCain-Lautenberg (closing the gun show loophole, the 2nd amendment takes it in the shorts, has BrianR mentioned his C rating from the NRA lately?), McCain-Kennedy (amnistia, por favor, every American takes it in the shorts), and last but not least McCain-Lieberman (CAP {economic growth} AND TRADE {prosperity for poverty, Christianity for Gaia worship}, globull warming, the Republican Party’s newest plank).

Now obviously while significant, these are just four pieces of legislation, and as bad as they are at least he agrees with conservatives on a majority of issues, certainly more than Barry, right?  So I thought I’d look at the other pieces of legislation he put his name on, the most recent ones from the current Congress to see what’s mattered to him lately.  McCain has sponsored or co-sponsored 245 pieces of legislation so far in the 110th Congress, and I’ve gone through the whole list.  Hey, if getting your name on legislation and getting it though the Senate is what a good Senator does, McCain’s one of the best.  The question is, just exactly what kind of legislation are we talking about here?

In the two posts that follow I have included a few details with respect to some 40 of the 245 bills or amendments sponsored or co-sponsored by McCain.  Specifically their title, sponsor, and co-sponsors, along with my usual witty and urbane comments.  I crack myself up.  I chose them because their titles indicated that they were relevant to an issue we as conservatives care about, either positively or negatively.  No, I did not read the text to any of these bills.  If you’re suffering from insomnia, go ahead.  Unlike U.S. Senators, I don’t have the ability to dip into the public purse to pay a bunch of relatives and drunken students, er Senate staffers, to read them and then give me the gist of it five minutes before they hit the floor of the Senate, that is to say five minutes before Teddy Kennedy hits the Senate floor on Martini Mondays in a more literal fashion.

To be fair to McCain, one thing that comes across loud and clear is his support for the military, and specifically its personnel.  There was a lot of legislation from him in support of the troops, funding for wounded warriors, posthumously awarded medals, etc.  Individually, none of these bills seemed particularly noteworthy, and thus aren’t listed below, but taken collectively they were pretty impressive.  In my opinion he does really mean it on this one because it shows.  In fact, after reading it all, if my kid was in the military, it’d be hard not to vote for him based on this issue alone.  Seriously.

There is a lot that can be drawn from the information in the following posts, I don’t have the time to slice and dice it as much as it could be, so please feel free to crib from them and make your own analyses of his record on your own blogs. 

What I want to bring your attention to at the moment is the following.  Look at the titles of the legislation, and whether or not you think he is supporting conservative causes or poking us in the eye yet again, and make a tally sheet.  Note that I have not deliberately excluded bills to make him appear either better or worse. 

Also, what I found even more interesting, look at who co-sponsors his bills and whose bills he co-sponsors.  A lot has been made of the company Obama has kept and what that says about him, and rightfully so.  Take a look at the company McCain has been keeping, legislatively speaking, and be consistent when considering what this says about him.  And bear in mind how long McCain has been working with some of these guys in the Senate, (I mean the collective amount of time served by the gang of 14 alone is measured in what, centuries or millenia?) and what conclusions can be drawn with respect to who has influence with him and who he has influence with.  I'm guessing that to our collective chagrin Sara is not even close to being in the picture.

 To that end, I’ll just post as a refresher the names of the gang of 14, most of whom were still around in the 110th: Byrd Robert (D-WV), Chafee Lincoln (R-RI), Collins Susan (R-ME), DeWine Mike (R-OH), Graham Lindsey (R-SC), Inouye Daniel (D-HI), Landrieu Mary (D-LA), Lieberman Joe (D-CT), McCain John (R-AZ), Nelson Ben (D-NE), Pryor Mark (D-AR), Salazar Ken (D-CO), Snowe Olympia (R-ME), and Warner John (R-VA).  For bonus points, count how often their names appear as sponsors and co-sponsors.

Finally, since this election is about McCain vs. Obama (the ultra-lightweight match of the ages), pay special attention to those bills they are together on, of which there are several.  The ones that struck me the most were McCain-Lieberman (same page wrt glbaloney), benefits and education rights for aliens (same page on illegal immigration), AIDS and other diseases funding for foreign countries (hey, why stop at nationalized health care when you can have internationalized health care), and nanny stateism (car seat safety laws and tobacco regulation).  How about this: Lieberman sponsored bills on both establishing (SPEW ALERT:) a Senate Office for Public Integrity and on earmark disclosure and McCain and Obama were both co-sponsors for each of them.  Then there’s this: Obama, McCain and even the Hildebeast co-sposored Jim DeMint’s amendment for an earmark moratorium for fiscal 2009.  Finally, here’s the kicker: McCain was one of only three co-sponsors on Obama’s bill to (SPEW ALERT:) strengthen transparency and accountability in Federal spending.  So if McCain can agree with Obama on global warming, illegal immigrants, health-care for illegal immigrants and foreigners, earmarks, integrity and accountability with respect to Federal spending, can I ask which of the following is true?

1)    John McCain is no better than Obama on these issues.
2)    Barack Obama is no worse than McCain on these issues.

S.84: A bill to establish a United States Boxing Commission to administer the Act, and for other purposes. Co-sponsors Byron Dorgan and Ted Stevens.  Baseball hearings weren’t enough, I guess.

S. 327: A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez and the farm labor movement. Co-sponsors include Barb Boxer, Ken Salazar and Robert Menendez.  Government subsidized, pro-illegal propaganda?

S. 463: A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees, and for other purposes.  One co-sponsor, Russ Feingold.  You think he’s changed his mind on campaign-finance reform?

S. 952 A bill to amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 to provide funds for training in tribal leadership, management, and policy, and for other purposes.  No co-sponsors.  Yep, after all, native Americans were just peaceful folk living in harmony with nature until whitey screwed it all up.

S. 1900: A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.  No co-sponsors.  Not even his Uncle Joe would touch this one.

S. 2890: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a highway fuel tax holiday.  Co-sponsors include: Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, Mel Martinez.  Well, he has been frank on how he knows nothing about economics.

S. ADMDT.650 to H.R. 1591 (I love this one): Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration.  The exact same statement accompanied S.AMDT 2974 to H.R. 1585, S AMDT.650 to H.R. 1591, S. AMDT 651 to H.R. 1591, S. AMDT. 2974 to H.R. 1585.

S. AMDT 1190 to S. 1348: To require undocumented immigrants receiving legal status to pay owed back taxes. (emphasis mine, boy he’s one tough hombre)  Three co-sponsors: Richard Burr, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter.

S AMDT. 29 to S.1: To provide congressional transparency. Co-sponsored by two Senators, Feingold and Graham.  Probably thought this one up when they took a bathroom break together.

S. 280: A bill to provide for a program to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to support the deployment of new climate change-related technologies, and to ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances, and for other purposes. (Joe Lieberman)  11 other co-sponsors, most notable: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dick Durban Susan Collins, Norm Coleman, Olympia Snowe.  Globalony, do I really need to say more?

S. 340: A bill to improve agricultural job opportunities, benefits, and security for aliens in the United States and for other purposes. (Diane Feinstein)  Un-friggin’ believable.  Note that 30 of the remaining 99 Senators co-sponsored this.  Other than McCain there were Joe Biden, Babs Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Larry Craig, Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold, Chuch Hagel, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry (who served in Vietnaaam), Leaky Leahy, Joe Lieberman, Mel Martinez, Bill Nelson, Barack Obama, Ken Salazar, Chuck Schumer, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, George Voinovitch.

S. 500: A bill to establish the Commission to Study the Potential Creation of the National Museum of the American Latino to develop a plan of action for the establishment and maintenance of a National Museum of the American Latino in Washington, DC, and for other purposes. (Ken Salazar)  Other purposes that would have nothing to do with promoting amnesty for illegals, right?  24 other co-sponsors, including usual suspects, Joe Biden, Babs Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Durban, Feingold, Feinstein, Teddy Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Mel Martinez, Rbert Menendez, Ben Nelson, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer.

S. 625: A bill to protect the public health by providing the Food and Drug Administration with certain authority to regulate tobacco products. (Teddy Kennedy)  Can never regulate anything too much, can we, especially not a cash-cow like tobacco?  Oh, no wait, I forgot, it’s regulated for health reasons.  LMAO.  56 Senate co-sponsors, including: Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton, Susan Collins, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Diane Feinstein, Dan Inouye, John Kerry, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman, Patrick Leahy, Barack Obama, Ken Salazar, Bernie Saunders, Chuckie Schumer, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter.

S. 694: A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes. (Hillary Rodham Clinton)  Yep, we conservatives love regulations, right?  I’m sure all those other purposes are part of the enumerated powers, too.   37 Senate co-sponsors, including: Barb Boxer, Chris Dodd, Dick Durban, Russ Feingold, Diane Feinstein, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Barack Obama, Mark Pryor, Chuckie Schumer, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter..  Sure is a lot of comity in the Senate these days, isn’t there?  At least between John and the Dems.

S. 774: A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit States to determine State residency for higher education purposes and to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien students who are long-term United States residents and who entered the United States as children, and for other purposes.  (Dick Durban) A little more illegal love. 26 co-sponsors, including: Joe Biden, Babs Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Larry Craig, Mike Crapo (great name for a Senator), Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold, Diane Feinstein, Chuch Hagel, Teddy Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Leahy, Joe Lieberman, Dick Lugar, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Bernie Sanders.

S. 1001: A bill to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia. (Kay Bailey Hutchinson) 46 co-sponsors.  Hey, credit where credit is due.

S. 1341: A bill to provide for the exchange of certain Bureau of Land Management land in Pima County, Arizona, and for other purposes. (John Kyl)  McCain was the only co-sponsor.  Land-deal Kyl?

S. 1742, 1748: A bill to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine. (John Thune; Norm Coleman)  Again, credit where credit is due.  Finally a bill where the other co-sponsors don’t contain the usual suspects.

S. 1771: A bill to increase the safety of swimming pools and spas by requiring the use of proper anti-entrapment drain covers and pool and spa drainage systems, to educate the public about pool and spa safety, and for other purposes. (Mark Pryor)  Holy nanny-state Batman!  Other co-sponsors included Dick Durban, John Kerry and John Warner.

S. 1780: A bill to require the FCC, in enforcing its regulations concerning the broadcast of indecent programming, to maintain a policy that a single word or image may be considered indecent. (John Rockefeller)  Can I think of a few single words for them, although they wouldn’t get past the TH censors.  Co-sponsors included Robert Byrd (betcha he knows an indecent word or two when he sees them), Daniel Inouye and Mark Pryor.

S. 1862: A bill to provide for the exchange and conveyance of certain National Forest land and other land in southeast Arizona, and for other purposes. (Jon Kyl)  Land-deal Kyl strikes again, McCain only co-sponsor.

S. 1984: A bill to strengthen immigration enforcement and border security and for other purposes. (Jon Kyl)  Co-sponsors include Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez and Arlen Specter, which leads me to believe the description is probably somewhat misleading, to say the least.  1984 is probably a good number for it, double-speak and all that rot.  Where’s the dam fence?

S. 2348: A bill to ensure control over the United States border and to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws. (John Cornyn)  Co-sponsors included Pete Domenici, Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez, Arlen Specter and John Sununu.  Again, nice title, but I’d be more impressed if the list of co-sponsors wasn’t dominated by guys I know are soft on illegal immigration.  And if something has actually been done on the issue, I must have missed it.  Where’s the dam fence?

S. 2543: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. (John Ensign)  This is a good one.

S. 2587: A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for compensation to States incarcerating undocumented aliens charged with a felony or 2 or more misdemeanors. (Diane Feinstein) Co-sponsors included Barbara Boxer, Larry Craig, Mike Crapo (I don’t know him, just like his name), Pete Domenici, Dick Durban, Charles Schumer and Fartin’ Arlen Specter (he stinks).

S. 2731: A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes. (Joe Biden)  Forget about nationalized health care, bring on internationalized health care.  Go for the gusto, I always say.  Co-sponsors included: Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, Chuck Hagel, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Carl Levin, Richard Lugar, Barack Obama, Olympia Snowe.

S. 3077: A bill to strengthen transparency and accountability in Federal spending. (Barack Obama)  I nearly peed in my pants when I saw this one.  Only three co-sponsors, McCain, Thomas Carper and Tom Coburn.

S. 3159: A bill to require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes. (Tom Coburn)  Yeah, right, I wish!  Again, I wish I had been wearing a pair of Depends when I saw this one.  Although since there was a scarcity of Dem co-sponsors, it might actually have been a decent bill.  If I understand the last major action report, it’s been sent to die in committee.

S. AMDT.30 to S.1: To establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Joe Lieberman) Are these guys politicians or comedians?  Look at the other co-sponsors: Susan Collins, Russ Feingold, John Kerry and Barack Obama.

S. AMDT. 43 to S.1: To require disclosure of earmark lobbying by lobbyists. (Joe Lieberman)  The other two co-sponsors: Russ Feingold and Barack Obama.  Good for you, Uncle Joe.

S. AMDT. 411 to S. 4: To advance and strengthen democracy globally through peaceful means using transformational diplomacy to assist foreign countries to implement democratic forms of government, to strengthen respect for internationally accepted human rights standards and norms in foreign countries through increased United States advocacy, to strengthen alliances of democratic countries, and to increase support for programs of nongovernmental organizations, individuals, and private groups that promote democracy. (Joe Lieberman) McCain was the only co-sponsor.  The McCain-Lieberman doctrine?  He really should’ve picked Uncle Joe for veep, two peas in a pod. 

S. AMDT. 990 to S.1028: To provide for the importation of prescription drugs. (Byran Dorgan)  Co-sponsors include: Chuck Grassley, Claire McCaskill, Bernie Sanders, Olympia Snowe.  Hey, as a Canadian I can hook you up to cheap meds, whaddaya need?  Probably Ritalin, you guys seem to go through that like Barry through weed.  Oops, I mean like Barry used to go through weed, yeah, that’s the ticket.  Hey, doping kids is easier than teaching them.  Now that’s school choice that even Marion Barry can believe in. 

S. AMDT. 1173 to S.1348: To provide for minimum sentences for aliens who re-enter the United States after removal. (Lindsey Graham)  Also co-sponsored by Mel Martinez.  I’m sure Lindsey meant to say minimal, and the typo will be corrected soon.

S. AMDT. 2412 to H.R. 2638: To ensure control over the United States borders and strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws. (Lindsey Graham)  Other co-sponsors: Norm Coleman, Pete Domenici, Mel Martinez and Arlen Specter.  Geez, I never knew Graham was such a hawk on border control.  Oh wait he isn’t.  Could somebody who speaks BS please read these and get back to me on what they actually say? 

S. AMDT. 2480 to H.R. 2638: To ensure control over the United States borders and strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws. (Lindsey Graham)  This one must have been good, 30 co-sponsors, divided almost 50-50 between Dems and Rinos, such as: Lamar Alexander, Sheets Byrd, Norm Coleman, Pete Domeneci, Diane Feinstein (she only signs on to the ones that are really tough on illegal immigrants, or the hired help as she calls them), Mary Landrieu, Mel Martinez, Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar, Arlen Specter, John Warner and Jim Webb.  Wow, Lindsey’s tackling this issue single-handedly!

S. AMDT. 3117 to H.R. 3222: To improve the security of United States borders. (Lindsey Graham)  Other co-sponsors include: Pete Domeneci, Mel Martinez, Mark Pryor and Arlen Specter.  So where’s the dam fence, or I have I said that already?

S. AMDT. 4302 to S. CON. RES. 70: To provide for a reserve fund for legislation to provide access, coverage, and choice for every American to quality and affordable care. (Judd Gregg)  But it must have been for the children, because Judd had 36 co-sponsors, including: Lamar Alexander, Larry Craig, Mike Crapo (man I love this guy), Jim DeMint, John Ensign, Joe Lieberman, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar and George Voinovich.  You have to have money put aside for legislation?  I thought these guys got paid salaries to pass legislation.  Care, huh, as in health care probably?  What does choice usually mean in this context? 

S. AMDT. 4347 to S.CON.RES.70: To establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal year 2009. (Jim DeMint)  Other co-sponsors: Hilary Rodham Rodham Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez and Barack Obama.  Good idea, but the motion was ruled out of order by the Chair.

You can search a number of different ways with THOMAS, and I thought it would be fun to take a stab at McCain’s legislative record from another angle, this time just some numbers.  Again, I’m going to focus on those bills important enough to merit having his name on them, either as a sponsor or co-sponsor, in the 110th Congress.

What I’m doing this time is to see who he worked with the most, conservatives or liberals.  To that end I have consulted the American Conservative Union’s list of Senate Standouts for 2007 to choose a sample of Senators.  (http://www.conservative.org/archive2/Senate_standout.asp) From the five with a 100% rating, we have John Barrasso, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, James Inhofe and Jon Kyl.  From the 21 with a 0% rating, I have chosen 10: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, Daniel Inouye, Teddy Kennedy, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Robert Menendez, Harry Reid, and Chuckie Schumer.

So the number next to each Senator’s name represents the number of times their name appeared with McCain’s on a Senate bill during the 110th Congress.
 
Barrasso: 29
Coburn: 69
DeMint: 64
Inhofe: 61
Kyl: 87 (the other AZ Senator, not a terrible surprise they worked together a lot)
 
Biden: 65
Dodd: 64
Durbin: 70
Inouye: 40
Kennedy: 56
Lautenberg: 45
Leahy: 44
Menendez: 53
Reid: 36
Schumer: 61

So McCain spent more a lot more time working with ten Dems with a 0% ACU rating than one of the Repubs with a perfect score, John Barrasso.   He spent more time with a zero, Turban Durbin, than with a hero, save for his fellow Arizonan Kyl, as much time with Schumer as Inhofe and as much time with Dodd as DeMint.  Who can credibly tell me that the Democratic Congressional agenda, such as it is, would move along faster under Obama than McCain?  I would suggest it would be the opposite.  I have a feeling that Obama would be such an inept boob that things’ll slow down because he can’t manage process or procedure; while McCain has ably demonstrated that he can keep things humming right along.  And, once again, what do the above numbers suggest about the type of legislation we’d get from President McCain, and where he’d look for support on his issues?

Update:  Even though not a perfect zero (7% ACU rating, pretty crappy but still nowhere near the most liberal Senator, at most the 22nd most liberal Senator), I really should have posted the number for Obama, which is:

Obama: 72

That's right, McCain's name appeared beside Obama's more than often than with any of the other Senators listed above save Kyl.  And you've seen what the important ones were about in my previous posts. 

And for added fun, I thought I'd just check up on the Hildebeast and McCain:

Clinton: 73

Wow, even better!  So during 2007 and 2008, when these guys are all campaigning for their party's nomination, they all decided to go in the same direction.  Sounds like they all must have had the same advice as to what the best direction would be for them during their campaigns.  Greats minds think alike!

Also, just to provide some comparative numbers, I took a couple of the 100% rated conservatives and searched how often their names appeared with Obama and Clinton.

DeMint-Obama: 27
DeMint-Clinton: 32

Kyl-Obama: 31
Kyl-Clinton: 36

And in every comparison for DeMint and Kyl, between 20 and 25 of the bills they were on with Obama and Clinton were simple Senate Resolutions, you know, useless declarations welcoming a dignitary, honoring a Senator, mourning the passing of a Senator or ex-Senator, celebrating the birthday of a Senator or ex-Senator, tut-tutting regimes like Iran or Burma.  And obviously for Kyl, even though he worked on a lot of bills with McCain, most of those weren't the same ones McCain was working on with the Dems.

2nd Update:  BrianR just noted on his blog that McCain's said that he and John F'n Kerry are 'buds', and so I thought that it'd be worth it to see how often they hung out:

Kerry: 61

Recently, I was asked by someone why it was that i didn't like political correctness.  I thought I'd share my unusually brief and concise answer with you, and see what you all think of it.

Well, I can't see what there is to like. It is an idealogy very similar to that which brought about what is known as La Terreur in revolutionary France. In addition, it is anti-rational and its main product seems to be solipsistic emperors wearing no clothes whose main pre-occupation seems to be ensuring that no one points out this rather inconvenient fact.