McCain - "Taxpayers On Hook To Bail Out Fannie, Freddie"

"With combined obligations of roughly $5-trillion, the rapid failure of Fannie and Freddie would be a threat to mortgage markets and financial markets as a whole. Because of that threat, I support taking the unfortunate but necessary steps needed to keep the financial troubles at these two companies from further squeezing American families. But let us not forget that the threat that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to financial markets is a tribute to crony capitalism that reflects the power of the Washington establishment." -- John McCain

"Taxpayers On Hook To Bail Out Fannie, Freddie"
Sen. John McCain
St. Petersburg Times
July 24, 2008

Americans should be outraged at the latest sweetheart deal in Washington. Congress will put U.S. taxpayers on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's a tribute to what these two institutions -- which most Americans have never heard of -- have bought with more than $170-million worth of lobbyists in the past decade.

With combined obligations of roughly $5-trillion, the rapid failure of Fannie and Freddie would be a threat to mortgage markets and financial markets as a whole. Because of that threat, I support taking the unfortunate but necessary steps needed to keep the financial troubles at these two companies from further squeezing American families. But let us not forget that the threat that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to financial markets is a tribute to crony capitalism that reflects the power of the Washington establishment.

Fannie and Freddie buy home loans from lending institutions and reissue them as marketable securities -- creating a liquid market for mortgage debt that lowers borrowing costs for prospective homeowners. The two institutions have easy access to borrow at low interest rates because they were originally government agencies and continue to be viewed as being backed by the government. The irony is that by bailing them out, Congress is about to make that perception a reality, even though government backing is no longer needed for their original mission. There are lots of banks, savings and loans, and other financial institutions that can do this job.

Fannie and Freddie are the poster children for a lack of transparency and accountability. Fannie Mae employees deliberately manipulated financial reports to trigger bonuses for senior executives. Freddie Mac manipulated its earnings by $5-billion. They've misled us about their accounting, and now they are endangering financial markets. More than two years ago, I said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose." Fannie and Freddie's lobbyists succeeded; Congress failed to act. They've stayed in business, grown, and profited mightily by showering money on lobbyists and favors on the Washington establishment. Now the bill has come due.

What should be done? We are stuck with the reality that they have grown so large that we must support Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through the current rough spell. But if a dime of taxpayer money ends up being directly invested, the management and the board should immediately be replaced, multimillion dollar salaries should be cut, and bonuses and other compensation should be eliminated. They should cease all lobbying activities and drop all payments to outside lobbyists. And taxpayers should be first in line for any repayments.

Even with those terms, sticking Main Street Americans with Wall Street's bill is a shame on Washington. If elected, I'll continue my crusade for the right reform of the institutions: making them go away. I will get real regulation that limits their ability to borrow, shrinks their size until they are no longer a threat to our economy, and privatizes and eliminates their links to the government.

It's time to get America on the right track by creating the jobs that will build a strong foundation under our housing markets. We need to address the high cost of gasoline and other energy sources, and transform health care to be cheaper, higher quality and built around the needs of patients. But most of all, we need to reform Washington and wrest control from the special interests that have created this problem.

Read The Op-Ed.

McCain - John McCain On NBC's "Today"

"I'm glad that Senator Obama is going to get a chance for the first time to sit down with General David Petraeus and understand what the surge was all about. Why it succeeded. And why we are winning the war and that is because we carried out a strategy which has succeeded and Senator Obama rallied against, voted against, and used his opposition to the surge as a way of gaining the nomination of his party." -- John McCain

John McCain
NBC's "Today"
July 21, 2008

NBC's Meredith Vieira: "You have been tough on Senator Obama. You have questioned his judgment on foreign policy, called him naive and his trip little more than a campaign rally overseas. So, given what you have seen and heard over the past few days, do you still hold to that assessment?"

John McCain: "I'm glad that Senator Obama is going to get a chance for the first time to sit down with General David Petraeus and understand what the surge was all about. Why it succeeded. And why we are winning the war and that is because we carried out a strategy which has succeeded and Senator Obama rallied against, voted against, and used his opposition to the surge as a way of gaining the nomination of his party. I hope he will have a chance to admit that he badly misjudged the situation, and he was wrong when he said that the surge wouldn't work. It has succeeded and we're winning the war. I think it's important that the American people know that that is the situation. I have mentioned general Petraeus, yes."

Vieira: "I'm bringing him up because he told the AP on Saturday that al-Qaeda may be shifting its base back to Afghanistan and then on Sunday Barack Obama reiterated his belief that Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terrorism. Do you agree with that?"

John McCain: "I agree with General Petraeus when he said Iraq was the central battleground in the war in the struggle against al-Qaeda and he said that repeatedly. And I agree with him when he said we will be able to withdraw troops as conditions on the ground dictate, not to do what Senator Obama wanted to do which was that we would be out by last March and never have had the surge and the success. And you can't choose to lose a war in Iraq in my view in order to win in Afghanistan. Of course we have problems in Afghanistan and as we succeed in Iraq there will be troops available to go to Afghanistan, but it's more than just troops. Senator Obama doesn't understand that it is a strategy, the same strategy that succeeded in Iraq, we will employ in Afghanistan, the one that he rejected and still does not accept the success of."

Vieira: "Senator Obama's timetable of removing U.S. troops from Iraq within that 16-month period seemed to be getting a thumbs up by the Iraqi prime minister when he called it 'the right timeframe for a withdrawal.' He has backed off that somewhat, but the Iraqis have not stopped using the word timetable, so if the Iraqi government were to say -- if you were President -- we want a timetable for troops being to removed, would you agree with that?"

John McCain: "I have been there too many times. I've met too many times with him, and I know what they want. They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that's what happens when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even Senator Obama has admitted. But the fact is that it should be -- the agreement between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government and the United states is it will be based on conditions. This is a great success, but it's fragile, and could be reversed very easily. I think we should trust the word of General Petraeus who has orchestrated this dramatic turnaround. And by the way, we would have been out last march if Senator Obama's original wish would have been called for. Not 16 months from now, but last March. He was wrong on the surge, he was wrong today when he says it didn't succeed. And obviously we have challenges in Afghanistan which will require more troops and more NATO participation, but we can win. If we had lost in Iraq, we would have risked a much wider war that would have put enormous challenges and burdens on our military."

Watch John McCain.

Mccin - "McCain Has Delivered And Will Deliver Change"

"His record as an independent reformer makes our job of rallying New Hampshire independents to John McCain's candidacy a straightforward endeavor. Simply put, John McCain can point to a strong record of bipartisan achievement -- one that appeals to Democrats, independents and Republicans."
-- Democratic Activist David Lee

"McCain Has Delivered And Will Deliver Change"
David Lee
Portsmouth Herald
July 20, 2008

Editor's note: The writer is a resident of Derry and a longtime Democratic Party activist.

John McCain has a special relationship with New Hampshire. During the primary, he held more than 100 town hall meetings across the state, providing voters with a rare opportunity in modern politics: the chance to directly ask a major candidate challenging questions in an unscripted environment and without a media filter.

What did we learn from these sessions? We found that John McCain's candor, commitment to country and, most of all, his independence reflects the political spirit of most Granite State residents. That last point -- independence -- is of particular interest to me. I judge candidates based on their qualifications, not their party. Although I've supported several Democrats over the years -- including John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign and John Lynch in all of his campaigns for governor -- I recently agreed to serve as co-chair of New Hampshire Independents for John McCain.

Our local group, which is part of the national organization "Citizens for McCain," is spreading the word across New Hampshire about John McCain's long record of putting the nation's interests ahead of politics. Based on John McCain's many acts of political courage, we have a compelling story to tell.

Throughout his time in public life, McCain has never been afraid to buck his party and the status quo in Washington. Eager to work across party lines, McCain joined with Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold to fix America's broken campaign finance system. Last year, McCain teamed up with Sen. Ted Kennedy to try to reform our immigration laws. And before it became popular to criticize George Bush on how the war in Iraq was managed, McCain was one of the first Republicans to call for a change in the administration's military strategy.

As John McCain has said many times, he did not go to Washington to win the prize for congeniality. By putting principle over politics, McCain has rightfully been declared a true maverick. The majority of voters here in New Hampshire, and throughout the nation, prefer a leader who is not afraid of taking positions because they are the "right thing to do" for this country, rather than caving in to special interests or their respective political party's line.

His record as an independent reformer makes our job of rallying New Hampshire independents to John McCain's candidacy a straightforward endeavor. Simply put, John McCain can point to a strong record of bipartisan achievement -- one that appeals to Democrats, independents and Republicans.

John McCain has laid out a vision for our country that meets challenges head-on and aims to deliver the change we need. A few examples are worth noting. Defying party labels, he believes global climate change is the single greatest environmental challenge of our time and has called for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Recognizing that members of both parties have abandoned their responsibility to taxpayers, McCain will stop runaway federal spending and eliminate wasteful programs. He wants to unleash the American economy by keeping taxes low while also modernizing programs that help workers obtain the skills they need to compete in the global marketplace.

And he wants to lead America to energy independence through a comprehensive program that relies on green and proven energy sources.

It's an ambitious agenda, but John McCain has spent his entire career fighting to do what's right for his country and delivering real results.

John McCain's record and life story make him a natural fit for New Hampshire's independent voters. Based on his unimpeachable character, independents know they can trust McCain to do what is right for our country -- in good times and in bad. Bringing forth a new day in our national political life, McCain will bring "straight talk" to the White House and will set to work on America's challenges with tested leadership only he can provide.

Our country has a real choice in this election. While Barack Obama talks of change, always in a very eloquent manner, John McCain has shown he knows how to deliver change. New Hampshire voters, who have all but trademarked the word "independent," can easily differentiate between the two. As McCain's campaign has said: don't just hope for a better life, vote for one. I encourage my fellow independents to give their strong consideration to John McCain.

Read The Op-Ed.

Statement by John McCain on Recent Iraq Progress

U.S. Senator John McCain issued the following statement on recent progress in Iraq:

"Progress between the United States and Iraq on a time horizon for American troop presence is further evidence that the surge has succeeded. Most of the U.S. forces used in the surge have already been withdrawn. When a further conditions-based withdrawal of U.S. forces is possible, it will be because we and our Iraqi partners built on the successes of the surge strategy, which Senator Obama opposed, predicted would fail, voted against and campaigned against in the primary. When we withdraw, we will withdraw with honor and victory. An honorable and victorious withdrawal would not be possible if Senator Obama's views had prevailed. An artificial timetable based on political expediency would have led to disaster and could still turn success into defeat. If we had followed Senator Obama's policy, Iraq would have descended into chaos, American casualties would be far higher, and the region would be destabilized."

Statement by Senator Phil Gramm

Today, former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm issued the following statement:

"It is clear to me that Democrats want to attack me rather than debate Senator McCain on important economic issues facing the country. That kind of distraction hurts not only Senator McCain's ability to present concrete programs to deal with the country's problems, it hurts the country. To end this distraction and get on with the real debate, I hereby step down as Co-Chair of the McCain Campaign and join the growing number of rank-and-file McCain supporters."

McCain - Barack Obama 'Refining" Iraq Position on Own Website

Today (July 15, 2008), the New York Daily News reported that Barack Obama has begun to "refine" his Iraq position by removing from his website the statements that he would "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq" and the Surge is "The Problem" in Iraq:

Barack Obama "Refining" His Position On Withdrawal...

New Obama Website: "The Removal Of Our Troops Will Be Responsible And Phased" And Would Be Done In 16 Months. "The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 more than 7 years after the war began." (Obama For America Website, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/, Accessed 7/15/08)

Vs.

Old Obama Website: "Obama Will Immediately Begin To Remove Our Troops From Iraq." "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." (Obama For America Website, Accessed 7/3/08)

· Click Here To View This Part Of The Old Website.

Barack Obama "Refining" His Position On The Surge...

This Weekend, The Obama Campaign Removed All Criticism Of The Troop Surge From His Website. "Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop 'surge' in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a 'problem' that had barely reduced violence. 'The surge is not working,' Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks -- not U.S. military muscle -- for quelling violence in Anbar Province." (James Gordon Meek, "Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq," New York Daily News, 7/14/08)

· The New Website Cites An "Improved Security Situation." "Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an 'improved security situation' paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007. It praises G.I.s' 'hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.'" (James Gordon Meek, "Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq," New York Daily News, 7/14/08)

New Obama Website: Problem Is "Inadequate Security And Political Progress In Iraq." "Inadequate Security and Political Progress in Iraq: Since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died, and despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge. Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. This is a testament to our military's hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops and military families. It is also a consequence of the decision of many Sunnis to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, and a lull in Shia militia activity. But the absence of genuine political accommodation in Iraq is a direct result of President Bush's failure to hold the Iraqi government accountable." (Obama Fo r America Website, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/, Accessed 7/15/08)

Vs.

Old Obama Website: The Surge Is Part Of "The Problem." "The Problem -- The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war." (Obama For America Website, Accessed 7/3/08)

· Click Here To View This Part Of The Old Website.

McCain - "Obama Overstates His Role On Immigration"

"No matter if you are -- or are not -- voting for presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), he deserves credit for trying to forge a bipartisan deal on immigration in 2005 and 2006 at great personal political risk, a situation unfamiliar to rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)." -- Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet

"Obama Overstates His Role On Immigration"
By Lynn Sweet
Chicago Sun-Times
July 12, 2008

No matter if you are - or are not -- voting for presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), he deserves credit for trying to forge a bipartisan deal on immigration in 2005 and 2006 at great personal political risk, a situation unfamiliar to rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

McCain put his comeback presidential bid in peril because of his leadership role with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to find a path for millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S.

The Kennedy-McCain legislation stalled in 2006, because the hardline pro- and anti-immigration forces preferred the status quo to a compromise. Another try in 2007 -- in a bill backed by McCain and Obama -- also failed.

McCain and Obama, wooing Hispanic voters, each has madeclear in recent appearances before the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the League of United Latino American Citizens a few days ago that he would make immigration reform -- and legalizing the status of millions of illegal immigrants -- a priority if elected president. I expect each to send the same message at the upcoming National Council of La Raza conference in San Diego, where Obama speaks Sunday and McCain on Monday.

In the meantime, Obama on the campaign trail inflates his leadership role -- casting himself as someone who could figure out how to get something done. Obama "did not absolutely stand out in any way,'' said Margaret Sands Orchowski, the author of "Immigration and the American Dream: Battling the Political Hype and Hysteria," and a close follower of the legislation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a McCain ally and a key player on immigration, said Obama was around for only a "handful" of meetings and helped destroy a 2007 compromise when he voted for making guest worker visa programs temporary. A permanent guest worker program was to be a trade for a legalization program to cover many illegal immigrants.

"When it came time to putting that bill together, he was more of a problem than he was a help. And when it came time to try to get the bill passed, he, in my opinion, broke the agreement we had. He was in the photo op, but he could not execute the hard part of the deal," Graham said.

An Obama Senate staffer who did not want his name used disputed whether the sunset provision in the guest worker program killed the bill and said that either Obama or his top immigration staffer were in strategy sessions and that Kennedy, in his speech endorsing Obama vouched for Obama's work on immigration.

On Thursday in Fairfax, Va., Obama was asked about his qualifications to understand Latino needs. After noting his work as a community organizer and state senator -- he spoke of McCain. "John McCain bucked much of his party and worked with Ted Kennedy, worked with me and others to help shape comprehensive immigration reform legislation in the Senate. And I thought that was courageous of him." Obama, in a sly verbal stroke, made himself an equal on immigration leadership to Kennedy and demoted McCain to a helper.

McCain -- after the two failed attempts to pass a comprehensive bill -- now wants to satisfy conservatives by first passing a border security and enforcement measure.

Obama said that approach means McCain "can't give you confidence that he is going to be serious about that issue. I will be."

McCain is not saying enforcement only. He is saying enforcement first.

Read The Column.

McCain Campaign Conference Call On Barack Obama's Iraq Position

"You know last week, Barack Obama had indicated he was going to refine his position on Iraq, and then a few hours later he then said that, really with a mix of qualifying sentences, that there were going to be no changes. We're back again today to highlight the fact that Barack Obama has seemingly been very unsure -- his words have been, to me, very unclear about where he really is on his original unilateral 16 month withdrawal proposal from Iraq." -- Rep. Eric Cantor

Today (July 6, 2008), U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign held a press conference call with U.S. Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) and McCain 2008 senior policy adviser Randy Scheunemann to discuss Barack Obama's position on Iraq:

Representative Eric Cantor: "You know last week, Barack Obama had indicated he was going to refine his position on Iraq, and then a few hours later he then said that, really with a mix of qualifying sentences, that there were going to be no changes. We're back again today to highlight the fact that Barack Obama has seemingly been very unsure -- his words have been, to me, very unclear about where he really is on his original unilateral 16 month withdrawal proposal from Iraq. These are vital questions obviously to the American people as we approach November, and I'd just like to make a few points. First of all, both candidates in this presidential election want to end the war, but John McCain clearly has indicated he wants to see the gains in Iraq -- as discussed by The Washington Post, The New Yorker and others -- he would like to see those ga ins solidified on the ground before a withdrawal.

"And secondly, I've said before that Barack Obama is a great politician, but he is a politician who's caught between a rock and a hard place politically, because his anti-war base has frankly fueled the campaign, but reports have indicated now that the reality on the ground in Iraq is that there is progress that has been demonstrated. And I think that there is an agreement on the part of everyone that a secure Iraq helps the United States, it helps Israel, and it also helps with the security of the region against a nuclear-crazed Iran. And as a member of Congress, I have seen just a pretty unprecedented event or happening that occurs repeatedly and that is an anti-war base that has pushed the Democrats into taking one vote after another, and I think over 50 attempts trying to de-fund our troops in the middle of a war. We have spent hours on the floor debating withdrawing from Iraq and we've taken these votes all to no avail because really the reality on the floor in Congress is the votes aren't there, because I believe that that reflects where the American people are, and the American people simply do not support a unilateral, unwise decision to leave our job in Iraq unfinished."

Randy Scheunemann: "I want to put Senator Obama's positions on Iraq in a little bit of context because he has held almost every conceivable position in the course of his relatively brief career in the Senate. In 2004-2005, at one point, he indicated he was open to additional troops to stabilize the situation. He said he was opposed to a deadline for withdrawal. He said it would be wrong to cut off funds for troops that are fighting in the field. In January 2007 when the surge and the new strategy was first announced, he indicated that he didn't think the additional 15 to 20,000 troops had any chance of reducing sectarian violence, and in fact, he indicated it might make the situation worse. In May 2007, he voted with a small minority to cut off all funds for troops in the field, and had his position prevailed on that funding bill, we would have forced the most precipitous kind of withdrawal imaginable. Fortunately, his position did not prevail. In the fall of 2007, he said explicitly that he would overrule the advice of commanders in the field to secure the withdrawal along the rigid deadline that he had proposed, and he also said the time to end this war is now. That was in September 2007.

"Now at the end of this week, we've seen a completely new position from him where he claimed he has always said the safety and security of the troops and the need to maintain stability in Iraq would guide his withdrawal -- that is a new position, the need to maintain stability. He also said he would continue to refine his position. With this new position, of course, there was quite a bit of interest in the media and a number of people pointed out it was a significantly new departure from any of the previous positions he had on Iraq. He then came out and claimed that he was puzzled by the reaction.

"And the position of our campaign is that words do matter. And Senator Obama's words have left significant questions as to exactly what he intends if he is now joining Senator McCain's position and saying that the need to maintain peace and stability in Iraq is a prerequisite before a responsible withdrawal which is Senator McCain's position. We welcome his conversion to that position, but that's significantly different from the position he's had in the past which is an irresponsible withdrawal, disregarding the advice of commanders in the field and irrespective of conditions on the ground.

"Now it's been 910 days since Senator Obama's been to Iraq, so it's understandable if he's a little bit unclear on what the situation on the ground is, but I think this key question if he now is going to maintain that the need to maintain stability in Iraq is an essential prerequisite to withdrawal, we need to understand if this is clearly a position he is going to hold moving forward, or if in fact he's being intentionally vague, and we've got yet another position on Iraq, because you do literally need to have a kaleidoscope to follow Senator Obama's positions on Iraq."

Listen To The Full Conference Call.

McCain - "Why Two Democrats Are Backing McCain"

"New Englanders know that they can trust McCain and that he will do what is right for our country - not only when times are easy, but when they are difficult. He will not put his finger to the political winds when deciding what to do, but will rely on his unparalleled judgment and experience. McCain's history of putting his country first and working across party lines provides a contrast with Obama, who cannot point to a similar record of bipartisan achievement." -- New Hampshire Democrats for McCain Co-Chairs Jim McConaha and Valery Mitchell

Why Two Democrats Are Backing McCain
Jim McConaha and Valery Mitchell
Concord Monitor
July 7, 2008

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama went to great lengths last week in Unity to prove that the Democratic Party has put its internal acrimony aside. We believe that John McCain's support from Democrats and independents demonstrates that he is the best candidate to unite our entire country and not just a political party.

Why is this? Granite State voters put a premium on judgment, character, courage and principle over politics and partisanship. These are precisely the areas in which McCain stands head and shoulders above Obama.

McCain's unparalleled leadership, experience and willingness to put aside partisan politics are what America needs in these challenging times and why we are proud to help lead the New Hampshire chapter of "Citizens for McCain," a national grassroots organization dedicated to rallying Americans of all political parties behind John McCain's candidacy.

New Englanders know that they can trust McCain and that he will do what is right for our country - not only when times are easy, but when they are difficult. He will not put his finger to the political winds when deciding what to do, but will rely on his unparalleled judgment and experience. McCain's history of putting his country first and working across party lines provides a contrast with Obama, who cannot point to a similar record of bipartisan achievement.

The majority of Democratic and independent voters remain concerned about national security issues and keeping America safe at home and abroad and are discovering that McCain's leadership experience is simply in a different league than Obama's. McCain has been involved in every major national security issue our country has faced over the past 20 years and knows what we must do to succeed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in the future security challenges that our nation will inevitably face.

McCain will reach across party lines to solve the daunting domestic challenges we face, such as making health care more affordable, combating climate change and reducing the tax burden on middle-income Americans while stopping unchecked, rampant federal spending.

There may not be one Democrat or independent (or Republican) in New Hampshire who agrees with McCain 100 percent on every issue. But voters know he will be honest with them. They will know exactly where he stands on issues, and they will be able to count on him to stand for what he believes is right for our country.

New Hampshire, with its proud independent and moderate streak, knows the difference between substance and rhetoric when it comes to unity. Our state will unite to make John McCain our next president.

Jim McConaha and Valery Mitchell of Concord co-chair New Hampshire Democrats for McCain.

Read The Op-Ed.

McCain: "U.S. Shouldn't Put Vital Ties With Canada At Risk Over NAFTA"

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama does not understand this. He has called NAFTA 'devastating' and 'a big mistake,' characterizations that are out of touch with the reality of NAFTA in Michigan. What truly would be devastating is to jeopardize the trade expansion of NAFTA through a misguided, isolationist impulse that would inevitably and understandably alienate a key partner like Canada." -- John McCain

U.S. Shouldn't Put Vital Ties With Canada At Risk Over NAFTA
By Sen. John McCain
Detroit Free Press
June 20, 2008

As one end of the bridge that connects America to our neighbors to the north, Detroit knows well that a close U.S.-Canada relationship is vitally and increasingly important.

In Michigan alone, 221,000 jobs are supported by trade with Canada. NAFTA countries comprise by far the largest export market for Michigan manufacturers. Last year, Michigan businesses sent more than $23 billion of exports to Canada, more than 20 times the total of their exports to China.

At a time when Michigan's auto industry faces serious pressure, $11 billion of vehicles and parts were exported to Canada. The task for the next president will be to build on these ties in order to make North America more secure, more prosperous, and more open to opportunity for all our citizens.

The North American Free Trade Agreement has provided our economy with a framework in which we can become more competitive. We will never achieve our goals by simply demanding the unilateral reopening of the treaty or threatening to unilaterally abrogate it. Such a move would be the height of economic and foreign policy irresponsibility.

What is needed is the cooperative work of partners to reduce the burden of complying with NAFTA's rules of origin and to reduce border delays so they do not become impediments to trade or the equivalent of a tariff. Perhaps most of all, those who would lead our countries must work to ensure that the benefits of NAFTA are understood throughout our countries, and not jeopardized through "cowboy diplomacy."

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama does not understand this. He has called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," characterizations that are out of touch with the reality of NAFTA in Michigan. What truly would be devastating is to jeopardize the trade expansion of NAFTA through a misguided, isolationist impulse that would inevitably and understandably alienate a key partner like Canada.

Our economic ties are not all that so closely binds Canada and the United States. Whether it comes to the protection of our national security, the future of our environment, or the flows of our energy, we rely on the cooperative relations Canada and the United States have forged. We import more of our oil and more of our natural gas from Canada than any other country.

As governments, we have made real progress in keeping our borders closed to terrorists and open to trade. In extending our security partnership with Canada, we can ensure continued flows of people and commerce while maintaining security on which these very flows depend.

In countless areas of international security, from Afghanistan to Haiti to proliferation, our common interests require common action. Sen. Obama's take-it-or-leave-it approach to dealing with America's friends would not rebuild the alliance relationships we need.

On my watch, America will listen to the views of our democratic allies. When we believe action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

Canada and the United States have a shared destiny. We are both continental powers, nations shaped by our diverse heritage and our frontier experience. We are also both Arctic nations. And because of this common geography, we must be acutely aware of the perils posed by global warming and take immediate steps to reverse its effects.

I was among the first in Congress to introduce legislation to curb greenhouse gasses. We must also work to ensure reliable energy supplies and increase sources of renewable energy. Canada is America's largest energy supplier and not one that we need fear will pose a threat to our energy security.

As you read this, I'm scheduled to be visiting Ottawa to demonstrate how much we value our relationship and the economic and security benefits it brings -- for Michigan and all of America. Allies and partners like Canada cannot be taken for granted. If I am elected president, they will not be.

Read John McCain's Op-Ed

Libertarian Party asks McCain: 'What's so wrong with habeas corpus?'

The Libertarian Party is questioning comments made by Sen. John McCain following the recent Supreme Court decision that granted the right of habeas corpus to detainees in Guantanamo Bay. "We’d like to ask John McCain what's so wrong with habeas corpus," says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis.

The presumptive GOP presidential nominee called the ruling "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

"The writ of habeas corpus is one of the key pillars of freedom in Western civilization," says Davis. "To have the leading figure of any political party come out so strongly against the basic idea that one should have protections against false imprisonment is both puzzling and frightening. Perhaps Sen. McCain needs a refresher course in civil liberties and the foundations for justice in civilized societies. Justice will prevail, Sen. McCain. There is no need for shortcuts."

The Libertarian Party has frequently criticized the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans for what the Party sees as rampant abuse of civil liberties that frequently defy the Constitution. The Libertarian Party calls for the repeal of legislation like the Patriot Act and the Military Commission Act, which increase the power of the federal government at the expense of civil liberties.

“The Court’s habeas corpus decision was a victory for all Americans more than any particular litigant, since it affirmed the duty of the executive branch to obey the law,” says former Congressman Bob Barr, who is also the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nominee. In fighting terrorism, “we must not sacrifice those liberties which make America the unique nation that it is,” Barr adds.

Barr suggests that he and Sen. McCain approach such leading legal organizations as the ACLU and Federalist Society to jointly host a debate on the role of habeas corpus and other constitutional protections for civil liberties in the fight against terrorism.

“I’m ready to meet Sen. McCain any time and any place,” says Barr.

Prominent Democrats and Independents Join "Citizens for McCain"

U.S. Senator John McCain's campaign today (June 14, 2008) announced a group of prominent Democratic and unaffiliated leaders and activists who have joined "Citizens for McCain," a new grassroots effort headed by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to rally Americans of all political parties to support John McCain's candidacy.

"Citizens for McCain is an organization within the McCain campaign for people who put country before political party and support the presidential candidate who has a proven record of bipartisanship," said Senator Joe Lieberman.

As part of the campaign's continued effort to build on growing support from voters joining "Citizens for McCain," John McCain, along with RNC Victory Chair Carly Fiorina, will participate in a virtual town hall with Democrats and Independents today to discuss John McCain's record of putting country before political party. Many town hall participants are expected to be former supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign. The town hall will be held today Saturday, June 14th at 3:30pm EDT. To participate, the general public should please visit cityhall.johnmccain.com. Members of the media should email press@mccain08hq.com to receive call-in information.

Prominent democrats and independents join "Citizens for McCain"

Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson (Arizona)
Former Arizona State Legislator Phil Hubbard (Arizona)
Mammoth Mayor Craig Williams (Arizona)
Former Arizona LULAC Director Ray Gans (Arizona)
Democratic 25th Precinct Chair Silverio "Silver" Salazar (Colorado)
Adviser to Democratic Presidential Candidates and Georgetown University Professor Robert Lieber (District of Columbia)
Blogger on HillaryClinton.com Renee Slater (Florida)
Former Sheriff of Highlands County Howard Godwin (Florida)
Jewish Outreach Adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton Rabbi Cheryl Jacobs
Georgia Political Director for Gore-Lieberman '00 Joseph O'Farrell Jr. (Georgia)
Former Democratic Des Moines County Chair Bruce Shulte (Illinois)
Former State Representative Brian Golden (Massachusetts)
Commander of Newport Memorial-VFW Post 1119 Francis Harding, Jr. (Maine)
Former Palmyra Budget Committee Member Herb Bates (Maine)
Former Lt. Governor and State Supreme Court Justice Alexander "Sandy" Keith (Minnesota)
Former U.S Representative and 2002 Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tim Penny (Minnesota)
Former State Representative Steve Wenzel (Minnesota)
City Clerk Judi May (Mississippi)
County Supervisor Gary Dearman (Mississippi)
Alderman Bill Mosby (Mississippi)
Former State Representative Jim Gamache (Missouri)
Presiding Commissioner in New Madrid County, Clyde Hawes (Missouri)
Former Concord Mayor Bill Veroneau (New Hampshire)
Former Democratic Mayor of Waterford Township George Fallon (New J ersey)
Former Democratic Committeeman in Warren Township Jeffrey Golkin (New Jersey)
Former State Chair of Environmentalists for Clinton-Gore 1992 Roberta Weisbrod (New York)
Former Majority Leader in the State Senate David Carlin (Rhode Island)
Former Texas Democratic Party Chairman Roy Orr (Texas)
Elected National Delegate for Senator Hillary Clinton Debra Bartoshevich (Wisconsin)
Former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Philip Frye (West Virginia)

McCain - Barack Obama's Tax on Seniors

Today, on the fifth day of Barack Obama's "Change That Works For You" tour, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement:

"Barack Obama likes to think that his tax increases will only hit a few Americans, but in truth, his economic plan will be a disaster for everyone, especially seniors. Because of Barack Obama's tax increases, one out of every three senior households will end up paying higher taxes. That's not change we can believe in when so many seniors are struggling to cope with higher gas prices and food prices. The last thing we need to do is raise their taxes. Unfortunately, all too often, that is the first thing Barack Obama will do."

Barack Obama Will Raise Taxes On 10 Million Seniors (One Out Of Every Three Senior Households In America)

Tax Policy Center: Barack Obama Would Raise Taxes On One Out Of Every Three Senior Households. "Even though Senator Obama's plan eliminates individual income taxes for seniors with incomes less than $50,000, his plan would raise taxes for almost 10 million senior households, over a third of the total (not shown in table). On average, seniors would face a tax increase of about 2 percent of income." (Burman et al., "A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans," The Tax Policy Center, 6/11/08)

· Tax Foundation: Seniors "Rely Most On The Stable Flow Of Income That Dividends Provide." "Most debate over whether to extend the reduced rates on dividends and capital gains has focused on the tax benefits of these cuts to high-income taxpayers. What has been largely ignored is the impact these tax policies have on corporations' decisions on how best to distribute their income to shareholders -- including senior citizens, who rely most on the stable flow of income that dividends provide. A recent Tax Foundation analysis illustrated that a large number of those benefiting from dividends are seniors and those on the verge of retirement (See www.taxfoundation.org). A further analysis of these seniors earning dividends reveals that lower-income seniors who file tax returns depend more heavily on divide nd income than high-income seniors." (Gerald Prante, "The Importance Of Dividend Income For Low-Income Seniors," Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1354.html, 2/8/06)

Barack Obama "Has Changed His Position" On Social Security "In A Matter Of Months"

The Washington Post's Dan Balz: "[O]bama Has Changed His Position On What To Do About The Government Retirement System's Financial Problems." (Dan Balz, "What's On The Table For Obama And Social Security?" The Washington Post's "The Trail" Blog, www.washingtonpost.com, 10/30/07)

· Balz: "In a matter of months, Obama has moved from being open to a solution that might include raising the retirement age or indexing benefits to prices rather than wages -- as Republican Fred Thompson has recommended -- to one of making the protection of benefits one of his three core principles for dealing with Social Security." (Dan Balz, "What's On The Table For Obama And Social Security?" The Washington Post's "The Trail" Blog, www.washingtonpost.com, 10/30/07)

· Balz: "He Needs To Say What Is Now On The Table And What Isn't." (Dan Balz, "What's On The Table For Obama And Social Security?" The Washington Post's "The Trail" Blog, www.washingtonpost.com, 10/30/07)

Barack Obama Wants It Both Ways Can't Decide If All Options Are "On The Table," Or If He Wants To Be "Very Specific" About His Plan To Fully Fund Social Security

In May 2007, Barack Obama Said "Everything Should Be On The Table" To Ensure Solvency Of Social Security, Including Raising Payroll Taxes And The Retirement Age. ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "You've also said that with Social Security everything should be on the table." Obama: "Yes." Stephanopoulos: "Raising the retirement age?" Obama: "Everything should be on the table." Stephanopoulos: "Raising payroll taxes?" Obama: "Everything should be on the table. ... [I] don't want to lay out my preferences beforehand, but what I know is that Social Security is solvable." (ABC's "This Week," 5/13/07)

In September. 2007, Barack Obama Wrote An Article That Said Cutting Benefits Or Raising The Retirement Age Were Off The Table As Options To Fund Social Security. Obama: "[I] do not want to cut benefits or raise the retirement age." (Sen. Barack Obama, Op-Ed, "Fixed-Income Seniors Can Expect A Tax Cut," Quad City [IA] Times, 9/21/07)

In November 2007, Barack Obama Denied That He Had Taken Anything Off The Table. NBC's Tim Russert: "But, Senator, you said last year--earlier this year that everything should be on the table for Social Security, including looking at raising retirement age, indexing benefits, and then suddenly you said, 'No, no. Those aren't ... on the table; I'm taking them off the table.'" Obama: "Tim, that's not--that's not what I said. What I said was that I will convene a meeting as president where we discuss all of the options that are available." ... Russert: "But they would be on the table?" Obama: "Well, I will listen to all arguments and the best options, finding out what is it going to take to close that gap." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/11/07)

But Only Days Later Said He'd Been "Very Specific" In Opposing Benefit Cuts And Raising The Retirement Age; He Favored Raising Payroll Taxes. Obama: "So I've been very specific about saying that we should not privatize, we should protect benefits. I don't think the best way to approach this is to raise the retirement age. But what we can do is adjust the cap on the payroll tax." (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Las Vegas, NV, 11/15/07)

Barack Obama Opposes Privatization Of Social Security But Suggested Personal Accounts As A "Complement" To Social Security

Obama: "First, I will fight against efforts to privatize Social Security, as I and others did when President Bush proposed private accounts a few years ago. Privatization is wrong." (Sen. Barack Obama, Op-Ed, "Fixed-Income Seniors Can Expect A Tax Cut," Quad City [IA] Times, 9/21/07)

In The Audacity Of Hope, Obama Supported A "Universally Available Pension System" As "A Complement To Social Security." "And if Americans are going to depend on defined-contribution plans like 401(k)s to supplement Social Security, then the government should step in to make them more broadly available to all Americans and more effective in encouraging savings. ... As a complement to Social Security, we should...begin moving toward a beefed-up, universally available pension system that not only promotes savings but gives all Americans a bigger stake in the fruits of globalization." (Barack Obama, The Audacity Of Hope, 2006, pp. 182-183)

Senator Sam Brownback On Barack Obama And Gas Prices

"You got a difference of opinion between John McCain and Barack Obama. John McCain, he's for pulling off the federal gas tax and having a holiday. Barack Obama says well the prices are high and my only objection is they went up too fast'. That's a big difference of opinion and this is the big issue staring at the country, these gasoline prices." -- Senator Brownback

Senator Sam Brownback
MSNBC
June 12, 2008

Senator Sam Brownback: "I think the real key issue here that we're going to be talking about a whole lot going into this fall are energy prices and gasoline. You got a difference of opinion between John McCain and Barack Obama. John McCain, he's for pulling off the federal gas tax and having a holiday. Barack Obama says well the prices are high and my only objection is they went up too fast'. That's a big difference of opinion and this is the big issue staring at the country, these gasoline prices. You're going to have a difference of opinion between these two candidates on that. I know the country favors John McCain on this opinion."

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell: "But doesn't John McCain have a problem when it comes to perception, when you look at tax policy? The Obama camp keeps hammering him on tax cuts for the wealthy. Given the economy, given people being really pressed on energy costs, aren't most voters going to respond more to that message than to the message of tax cuts to the rich and corporations?

Brownback: "I don't know anybody that thinks a gasoline tax cut is a tax cut for the rich. As I'm doing town halls across my state, this is the number one topic by a long distance, and everybody's saying we're paying too much for gas, and they don't consider that a tax cut for the rich."

Mitchell: "I was talking more about the other Bush tax cuts that John McCain has supported. The gas tax holiday, at least a lot of voters in Indiana, in the Democratic primary, thought that it was not more than a band aid. That it was a gimmick and they pretty much rejected the idea."

Brownback: "Well, I tell you what, you take off that much money off of a gallon of gas right now and I think people will be cheering you and carrying you on their shoulders. People are fed up with these high prices. We're going to have to do more drilling to get more supply out here. You've got Barack Obama pushing the windfall profits tax, which might feel good, but is only going to drive up the price of gasoline. John McCain is on the other side saying you don't get something cheaper by taxing it more. I think you're going to see a clear difference on this and this is a big, driving issue and going to be in this country. If we start getting $4.50 a gallon for gasoline, people are going to be saying what are you going to do now and in the future to get these prices down. These candidates are very different on gasoline."

Watch Senator Brownback

John McCain 2008 to Host Virtual Town Hall with Democratic and Independent Voters

U.S. Senator John McCain's campaign today announced that John McCain, along with RNC Victory Chair Carly Fiorina, will participate in a virtual town hall with Democrats and Independents this Saturday to discuss McCain's record of putting country before political party. Many town hall participants are expected to be former supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The town hall is part of the campaign's effort to build on growing support from voters who are rapidly joining "Citizens for McCain," a new grassroots organization headed by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to rally Americans of all political parties to support John McCain's candidacy.

"The American people know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving," said John McCain. "They've seen me put our country before any president, before any party, before any special interest -- and before my own interest. They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am, but I am her servant first, last and always. I look forward to talking to voters across the country of all parties to present them with my vision for the future of our great nation."

Saturday, June 14, 2008

WHAT: Virtual Town Hall Meeting

WHO: John McCain & RNC Victory Chair Carly Fiornia

WHEN: Saturday, June 14, 2008
3:30p.m. ET

PARTICIPATE: To participate, the general public should please visit cityhall.johnmccain.com. Members of the media should email press@mccain08hq.com to receive call-in information.

McCain - Statement on Barack Obama Saying His Tax Increases Will Hurt the Economy

Today, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement in response to Barack Obama admitting that his proposed tax increases will harm our economy:

"Barack Obama's admission that his tax increases could harm the economy begs the question as to why he supports them. At a time when family budgets in this country are stretched thin and employers are facing tough economic challenges, the idea that Barack Obama would even propose tax increases reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the economy. We will not get our economy back on track by raising income taxes, Social Security taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes and corporate taxes as Barack Obama proposes. That's change we just can't afford."

Yesterday, Barack Obama Admitted That His Tax Increases Will Harm The Economy:

Barack Obama Admits That His Tax Increases May Harm The Economy.

CNBC'S JOHN HARWOOD: "And I found this fascinating, Maria, that on the issue of taxes, he looked to insulate himself by saying that if, in fact, economic conditions justify the fact that it might harm the economy, he might be willing to hold off some of his tax increases when he takes office in January. Let's take a listen to Barack Obama."

BARACK OBAMA: "Some of those, you could possibly defer. But I think the basic principle of restoring fairness to our economy and encouraging bottom-up economic growth is important. So here's what we know: We know that over the last decade or so, that more than half of the economic growth has been captured by the top one percent of U.S. citizens. That means the other 99 percent have seen their effective incomes go down. That is not a recipe for long- term economic growth." (CNBC, 6/9/08)

Watch Barack Obama On CNBC.

Barack Obama Has Proposed A Slew Of Tax Increases:

Barack Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As "Massive New Domestic Spending." "Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?" (James Pethokoukis, "Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?" U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)

Barack Obama Also Called For A Tax On Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: "What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas." ("Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama," San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

Barack Obama Called For A Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies. Obama: "I think it is appropriate for us to impose a windfall profits tax on our oil companies." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Charlotte, NC, 5/2/08)

"[Obama] Wants To Raise Taxes Even Above The Levels Of The Clinton Era, Including A Huge Increase In The Payroll Tax." (Editorial, "The Obama We Don't Know," The Wall Street Journal, 6/4/08)

If Barack Obama Is Elected To The Presidency And Democrats Get A 60-Vote Majority In The Senate, Taxes Will Go Up. "What will happen to the U.S. economy if Barack Obama wins the presidency and he's backed by a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Taxes will go up." (Rich Karlgaard, Op-Ed, "Where Will Taxpayers Hide?" Forbes, 6/16/08)

Barack Obama's Plan To Raise Taxes During An Economic Downturn Would Only Further Weaken Our Economy:

CNBC's Maria Bartiromo Asked Obama: "Why Raise Taxes At All In An Economic Slowdown? Isn't That Going To Put A Further Strain On People?" (CNBC's "Closing Bell," 3/27/08)

U.S. News & World Report's Michael Barone Said Obama's Fiscal Policy Is Akin To Herbert Hoover's -- Raising Taxes And Backing Protectionist Trade Policies During An Economic Slowdown. "On fiscal policy, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want higher taxes, at least on high earners. They want to let at least some of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, as scheduled. On trade, they oppose new free-trade agreements and want to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. As it happens, another president embraced such policies in a time of economic slowdown and financial market turbulence: Herbert Hoover raised taxes on high earners sharply and, ignoring a letter signed by 1,000 economists, signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930. The results were not pretty. Until now, his example has not commended itself to Democrats. One wonders whether voters will agree that tax increases will stimulate the economy." (Michael Barone, Op-Ed, "Uncle Sam Pays? Sure, Whatever," U.S. News & World Report, 4/21/08)

Clinton Supporters Voting For John McCain

"I think both of us would support Senator McCain. ... And Cynthia and I and two other members of our group are going to definitely support Senator McCain in the upcoming election because we feel he's the best candidate. And we need a strong leader to govern in the coming years." -- Marilu Sochor

Fox News' "Fox & Friends"
June 9, 2008

FOX NEWS' BRIAN KILMEADE: "Hillary Clinton is urging her supporters to unify and get behind Barack Obama this November. So why are some of them telling her no way and pledging to vote for John McCain? Let's ask Cynthia Ruccia and Marilu Sochor, co-founders of Women for Fair Politics. First off you Cynthia, you heard Hillary Clinton ask you to support her rival, Senator Barack Obama. Why won't you?"

CYNTHIA RUCCIA: "We love Hillary Clinton. We are so proud of the job that she has done. We feel very upset with our party. We feel that they have absolutely betrayed us. The amount of sexism that came out during the course of this campaign was completely unacceptable, and we feel that we want to make a statement we're going to support John McCain. Our organization, we have had in one week just under 600,000 people visit our web site -- 80% of them feel the way that we do."

KILMEADE: "Marilu, I understand that Howard Dean has contacted your organization and said basically what do you want? What did you tell him?"

MARILU SOCHOR: "Well he's contacted Cynthia and myself twice over the last week and basically, he wanted to know what we felt and how we could get on board the Obama train. And we told him that we didn't feel that it was an option. That we felt that the DNC did not stand or defend Senator Clinton during the whole primary campaign and that we did not feel that we could, for more than one reason, throw our support toward Senator Obama, no matter what Senator Clinton suggested that we do."

KILMEADE: "Cynthia, where did you hear the sexism? Tell us what really ticked you off."

RUCCIA: "It was a lot of big things, you heard them all before. It was a lot of little things. It was a day to day to day thing. Even last week when it was very apparent that Barack Obama was going to be the presumed nominee and Hillary had lost and they consider her the person who lost, Governor Richardson went on the air and started bashing her. It was just completely unacceptable. I couldn't imagine --"

KILMEADE: "You don't think he would have bashed her if she was a man?"

RUCCIA: "No. Because I think in the traditions of our Democratic party when someone has been declared the winner and someone has been declared the loser that the winner doesn't bash the loser. It's just unacceptable."

KILMEADE: "What have you done in terms of contacting the McCain camp? Would you vote for John McCain or sit it out?"

SOCHOR: "No. I think both of us would support Senator McCain. But, our group, which started with five members all have different opinions on this matter. That's why Women for Fair Politics, that's what it's all about. We have some people who are going to write in Hillary's name. We have some people who are going to sit it out. And Cynthia and I and two other members of our group are going to definitely support Senator McCain in the upcoming election because we feel he's the best candidate. And we need a strong leader to govern in the coming years."

KILMEADE: "The fact that he reached out to you right away on Tuesday night I'm sure didn't hurt either."

SOCHOR: "No."

KILMEADE: "All right. Cynthia Ruccia and Marilu Sochor thanks for joining us this morning."

Watch The Fox News Segment.

McCain - Barack Obama's Higher Taxes Agenda

Today, with the start of Barack Obama's "Change That Works For You" tour, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement:

"While hardworking families are hurting and employers are vulnerable, Barack Obama has promised higher income taxes, Social Security taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, and tax hikes on job creating businesses. In fact, during just three years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has already voted 94 times for higher taxes. Barack Obama doesn't understand the American economy and that's change we just can't afford."

Barak Obama's Platform of higher taxes will further weaken our economy.

Barack Obama Has Proposed A Slew Of Tax Increases:

Barack Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As "Massive New Domestic Spending." "Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?" (James Pethokoukis, "Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?" U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)

· Barack Obama Also Called For A Tax On Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: "What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas." ("Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama," San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

· Barack Obama Called For A Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies. Obama: "I think it is appropriate for us to impose a windfall profits tax on our oil companies." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Charlotte, NC, 5/2/08)

"[Obama] Wants To Raise Taxes Even Above The Levels Of The Clinton Era, Including A Huge Increase In The Payroll Tax." (Editorial, "The Obama We Don't Know," The Wall Street Journal, 6/4/08)

If Barack Obama Is Elected To The Presidency And Democrats Get A 60-Vote Majority In The Senate, Taxes Will Go Up. "What will happen to the U.S. economy if Barack Obama wins the presidency and he's backed by a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Taxes will go up." (Rich Karlgaard, Op-Ed, "Where Will Taxpayers Hide?" Forbes, 6/16/08)

Barack Obama's Plan To Raise Taxes During An Economic Downturn Would Only Further Weaken Our Economy:

CNBC's Maria Bartiromo Asked Obama: "Why Raise Taxes At All In An Economic Slowdown? Isn't That Going To Put A Further Strain On People?" (CNBC's "Closing Bell," 3/27/08)

U.S. News & World Report's Michael Barone Said Obama's Fiscal Policy Is Akin To Herbert Hoover's -- Raising Taxes And Backing Protectionist Trade Policies During An Economic Slowdown. "On fiscal policy, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want higher taxes, at least on high earners. They want to let at least some of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, as scheduled. On trade, they oppose new free-trade agreements and want to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. As it happens, another president embraced such policies in a time of economic slowdown and financial market turbulence: Herbert Hoover raised taxes on high earners sharply and, ignoring a letter signed by 1,000 economists, signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930. The results were not pretty. Until now, his example has not commended itself to Democrats. One wonders whether voters will agree that tax increases will stimulate the economy." (M ichael Barone, Op-Ed, "Uncle Sam Pays? Sure, Whatever," U.S. News & World Report, 4/21/08)

In The United States Senate, Barack Obama Has Repeatedly Voted For Higher Taxes.

Barack Obama Voted At Least 94 Times For Higher Taxes In The U.S. Senate. (RNC Research)

· To Date, Barack Obama Has Voted For A Tax Increase Approximately Once Every Five Days Congress Has Been In Session. (RNC Research; The Library Of Congress Website, thomas.loc.gov, Accessed 6/8/08)

Barack Obama Voted In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget, Which Would Raise Tax Rates For Americans Earning As Little As $31,850:

Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85, Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

The Democrats' Budget Would Raise Taxes On Individuals Earning As Little As $31,850. "Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent." (Andrew Taylor, "Presidential Hopefuls To Vote On Budget," The Associated Press, 3/13/08)

In The Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama Had A Record Of Voting For Higher Taxes.

In The State Senate, Barack Obama Supported "Hundreds Of Tax Increases." ABC's Terry Moran: "[O]bama was considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in Illinois. For instance, voting for most gun control measures, opposing efforts to ban so-called partial birth abortions and supporting hundreds of tax increases." (ABC's "Nightline," 2/25/08)

In 2004, Barack Obama Voted For A $304 Million Tax Increase On Businesses In Creating The Tax Shelter Voluntary Compliance Act. (H.B. 848, Illinois Senate Floor Third Reading, Passed 30-28-1, 5/20/04, Obama Voted Yea; Dave McKinney, "Blagojevich Threatens Up To 5,000 State Layoffs," Chicago Sun-Times, 5/21/04)

· The Legislation "Triggered A Huge Outcry From Business Groups," Which Contended It Would "Drive Companies Out Of State" And Cost Jobs. "The governor's bid to raise taxes and fees by close to $400 million and reel in another $300 million-plus in corporate tax breaks has triggered a huge outcry from business groups, which contend the moves will drive companies out of state and cause Illinois to lose jobs." (Dave McKinney and Leslie Griffy, "Blagojevich Threatens Up To 5,000 State Layoffs," Chicago Sun-Times, 5/21/04)

In 2003, Barack Obama Voted For A Bill "That Raised A Huge Number Of Fees And Taxes" On Businesses And Licenses. "Obama voted for a bill during the 2003 Illinois General Assembly legislative session that raised a huge number of fees and taxes for businesses and licenses to cover day-to-day expenses of state government." (Terrence L. Barnich, Op-Ed, "4 Partisan Questions For Obama," Chicago Tribune, 7/29/04)

· The Legislation Negatively Impacted Illinois' Trucking Industry, Costing The State 25,000 Licensed Trucks In 2005. "Almost 17,000 fewer commercial trucks and 2,700 fewer trucking companies have been registered in Illinois for 2005, fueling the trucking industry's claim that Gov. Rod Blagojevich is driving businesses out of the state with his new fees and business taxes." (Brian Wallheimer, "Governor's New Fees Are Driving Trucking Firms Out Of Illinois, Industry Says," St. Louis Post- Dispatch, 5/5/04)

In 2003, Barack Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchased Outside Of Illinois. (S.B. 1733, Bill Status, www.ilga.gov, Accessed 2/11/08; S.B. 1733: Concurrence In House Amendment #4, Passed 31-27-00, 5/31/03, Obama Voted Yea)

· The Natural Gas Tax Made Natural Gas More Expensive For Industrial Buyers Such As Manufacturers. "The natural gas tax. A new policy under Blagojevich's budget will make natural gas more expensive to industrial buyers. Currently, Illinois offers an exemption on the sales tax paid for natural gas, but the new budget ends that exemption, a move that could become a major expense for steel mills and other factories that use large quantities of natural gas." (Kevin McDermott, "Area Dodged Legislative Hit On Schools, Roads," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/8/03)

· Barack Obama Voted For The Natural Gas Tax, Which Threatened Jobs, At The Same Time That Illinois Was Leading The Nation In Jobs Lost. "Just as harmful to the state's economy are the large taxes on natural gas brought from out-of-state suppliers and the rolling stock sales tax. Both of these taxes will negatively affect important businesses as well as the employees who are dependent on these Illinois companies. I have received phone calls and letters from all sectors of the business community who reported that the projected loss of revenues due to these increased taxes and fees may well cause them to close their facilities in Illinois and move to a more business-friendly surrounding state while still serving Illinois customers. Illinois leads the nation in jobs lost. We cannot afford to drive more businesses from our state." (State Rep. Carolyn Krause, Op-Ed, "Increase Tax Incentives, Not Taxes For Businesses," Chicago Tribune, 6/13/03)

In 1999, Barack Obama Voted In Favor Of S.B. 1028 To Create The Illinois First Infrastructure Program, Which Raised 146 Taxes And Fees. (S.B. 1028: Senate Floor Third Reading, Passed, 58-0-0, 3/23/99, Obama Voted Yea; S.B. 1028: Senate Conference Committee Report, Passed, 42-17-0, 5/21/99, Obama Voted Yea; Editorial, "Jack Ryan Woefully Unprepared For Attack On Obama," The State Journal-Register, 4/18/04)

Statement By Governor Mitt Romney on "Citizens For McCain"

Governor Mitt Romney today (June 6, 2008) issued the following statement to voters in Michigan on joining "Citizens for McCain," a new grassroots effort headed by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to rally Americans of all political parties to support John McCain's candidacy:

"I was humbled by the support I received from Michiganders on both sides of the aisle during my run for the Republican nomination. Through my father's leadership as governor of the great state of Michigan and during my time spent in business, government and running the Olympics, I learned the important lesson of working with different stakeholders to accomplish great things. I know Michigan voters want a president who is willing to reach across the political aisle to accomplish the goals of protecting our country, growing our economy and reforming our government.

"John McCain has proven that, as president, he will put our nation's interests first. Michigan voters who have grown tired of lofty rhetoric and want a real record of reform should visit John McCain's website, www.johnmccain.com, to learn more about his extraordinary record of leadership. I know what it will take to successfully lead our country, and I am asking you to learn a little more about John McCain, a new kind of candidate at a time when we need real leadership."

Letter from U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman on "Citizens for McCain":
To: Fellow McCain Supporters
From: Senator Joe Lieberman

Date: June 5th, 2008

Today, I asked Senator McCain if I could create and chair a new grassroots organization, "Citizens for McCain."

Citizens for McCain is an organization within the McCain campaign for people who put country before political party and support the candidate for President who has a proven record of bipartisanship.

As you know, I caucus with the Democrats as a United States Senator and was the Democrat Party's nominee for Vice-President of the United States against President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

But first and foremost, I am an American. I have an obligation to do what I think is best for our nation regardless of political party. My love for this country and strong belief in John McCain's character, judgment, and willingness to work with leaders of both parties has convinced me to support him for President.

I have worked with John McCain for many years in the U.S. Senate and know from experience that he can unite Democrats, Republicans and Independents like no one else in this country. He did it in the United States Senate and he can do it as President of the United States.

But we need help from McCain supporters such as you to reach out to Americans who are not currently involved in the campaign. Will you help us by recruiting your friends, family, and co-workers who may not consider themselves members of the Republican Party and ask them to join the Citizens for McCain organization?

I am confident we will find many Democrats and Independents who, like John McCain and me, put country before political party and will support a leader with a real record of bipartisanship.

Time and time again John McCain has put his country first. He refused early release when he was held captive in Vietnam. He continued to put his country first as a national leader in the U.S. Senate. He put country before party when he fought to pass campaign finance reform, sought a bi-partisan solution to the immigration problem, and consistently supported pro-environment policies. His courage to stand up to the failed Iraq war plan of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and lead the fight for a new strategy in Iraq will go down in history, and it saved American lives. These were not always the easy things to do. In fact, they were usually very difficult, and often threatened his political career. But John McCain did what was right.

He said it best in his speech in New Orleans on Tuesday night:

"(The American people) know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving. They've seen me put our country before any President -- before any party -- before any special interest -- before my own interest. They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am. But I am her servant first, last and always."

The phones at the campaign headquarters have been ringing with disaffected Democrats calling to say they believe Senator McCain has the experience, judgment, and bipartisanship necessary to lead our country in these difficult times. Many of these supporters are former supporters of Senator Clinton.

Senator McCain has had a very good working relationship with Senator Clinton and will continue to do so in the future. In the same New Orleans speech he said:

"Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received. As the father of three daughters, I owe her a debt for inspiring millions of women to believe there is no opportunity in this great country beyond their reach. I am proud to call her my friend."

I am proud to call John McCain my friend and ask you to help our friend become the next President of the United States.

Please forward this eail to your lists today and ask your friends, family, and coworkers who do not consider themselves Republicans to join me in filling out the Citizens for McCain form today.

Thank you for your willingness to help me expand this new organization. Together, we will make history.

Bob Barr Tells John McCain: No Spying Outside the Law

Last year Sen. John McCain explained that “Presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce the laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.” He’s right. “I agree with John McCain about the importance of the president obeying the law,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president.

Unfortunately, Sen. McCain apparently no longer agrees with Sen. McCain. Doug Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain’s chief policy adviser, recently contended that the Constitution gives the president unilateral authority to spy on Americans without congressional authority. “Along with President George W. Bush, Sen. McCain seems to believe that the president, like the British king of old, possesses unconstrained and unreviewable power,” warns Barr. “This is a truly shocking claim: when the American colonists created a new nation, they were determined to limit both government and executive power.”

Indeed, if the president can do whatever he deems necessary in wartime, and America is a battlefield, then the executive branch can ignore the entire Constitution whenever the president believes convenient. “This is not the republic under law in which Americans thought they were living,” insists Barr.

Sen. McCain has sought to distance himself from President Bush, but he now sounds like a member of the Bush administration. “The Constitution must come before any political party,” says Barr.

Of course, the government must combat those who would do us ill, but, emphasizes Barr, “the Constitution establishes oversight and accountability for every executive power.” Lord Acton warned us many years ago that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is no different in America. “The next president must reverse the aggrandizement of power to the executive branch and defend the privacy and liberties of Americans from every encroachment,” says Barr.