McCain is learning the price he has to pay for being a maverick:
Employees from the securities, construction, pharmaceutical and energy industries, who accounted for about a tenth of Bush's money in 2004, are turned off by his record and giving more to his Democratic rivals, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.(via)``A significant percentage of your base Republican support, whether financial or otherwise, are not fans of McCain because of various things he's done or said or sponsored,'' said Republican consultant Eddie Mahe, who is supporting the Arizona senator. ``Many of them don't see Mr. McCain as being a lot better'' than the Democrats.
Obama and Clinton each raised close to $11 million from the four industries through the end of March, compared with $6 million for McCain. In 2004, Bush raised three times more money from those sources than Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee that year.
[...]
``Our PAC supports members of Congress who are supportive of increased transportation investment,'' ARTBA spokesman Matthew Jeanneret said. ``I don't think he fits that definition.''
McCain, 71, who voted against the 2005 legislation allocating $286.5 million for highways and transit, proposed suspending the 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal gas tax for the summer, eliminating the main source of revenue for federally funded road projects. Clinton also supports a gas-tax holiday.
[...]
``McCain has not characterized himself as a friend of the industry,'' said Dan Mendelson, president of Avalere Health LLC, a Washington research company.
[...]
``How could pharmaceutical companies be able to cover up the cost to the point where nobody knows? Why shouldn't we be able to re-import drugs from Canada?'' McCain asked.
One of his opponents, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, interjected, telling McCain not to paint drug companies as ``big bad guys.''
``Well, they are,'' McCain responded.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"You reek of jealousy, sir. It is unbecoming."
nice try, numbnut. i figured that you would toss that one. it's a desperate attempt and a weak ad hominem first of all because you obviously had no idea that i make close enough to 6 figures to keep me happy, and i'm hardly jealous of any doctor or manager job.
still, thanks for unwittingly reinforcing my point. your base claim is that if someone is "disadvantaged" it's because they're not some sort of surgeon or manager. my point is that not everyone could be a manager or surgeon. who would all of the managers manage? all the surgeons and each other, maybe. then according to you, their numbers would drive down wages.
your concept of what drives wages is very oversimplified (as is your definition of communism) and shows a lot of ignorance in the matter. clearly you're neither an employer nor small business owner.
"Certainly there are homeless, hungry and destitute people, and we can and do help them. But implying that their numbers are vast enough to justify national shame is just silly."
oh? so more than 1 in 10 people and families living in poverty is acceptable to you? why is it that women still earn only 77 cents to each dollar that men earn? why is it that minorities are more likely to earn less than white men? is it because they are not capable or just don't want to be doctors and managers?
"80 percent of the world's wealth is owned by one percent of the world's population. I don't think all those crusty OT prophets would approve."
I think of the crusty OT prophets saw the wealth that even our poor live in, they would be shocked that anyone would be complaining.
"Gosh, another "conservative" caught in flagrante dilecto doing selective (Wright) pull quotes.
WHY am I not surprised?"
Um...you're behind the curve on the news there guy. Your own candidate said that those quotes were more representative than he realized. So that leaves you out of step with your own candidate. He distanced himself from the quotes, maybe you might want to do the same thing.
"more than 1 in 10 people and families living in poverty "
We define "poverty" arbitrarily as a percentage of average income. The poorest single mother, living in the worst slum in America, is better off than 90% of the population of Africa.
again, you're ignorant of the issue. the poverty line is not defined arbitrarily. i'll leave it to you as a learning exercise to find out what factors are used, okay peanut?
"The poorest single mother, living in the worst slum in America, is better off than 90% of the population of Africa."
sure, i'd rather be homeless and starving in america than homeless and starving in africa. wouldn't everyone? it makes all the difference: location, location, location.
the poverty line here is higher than the poverty line in underdeveloped countries, which should be obvious to anyone with a clue. you're not comparing apples to apples in your over-used argument so it can't excuse the problem that we have here.
you've made it clear that 1 in 10 people and families living in poverty in the u.s. is perfectly acceptable to you. that's good to know. how about answers to the rest of my questions?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.