The Empty Chair

Unfortunately, the legacy of John McCain will be that nobody has done more to counter the GOP in 2017 - 2018 than John McCain.

the legacy of John McCain will be that nobody has done more to counter the GOP in 2017 - 2018 than John McCain.

I'd imaging as history unfolds Senator Mccain will be remember for far more than trying to bring sanity to a time when an unpredictable non-fiscally conservative, democrat convert turned republican president took office.

You know and for little contributions of Senator Mccain's like this VA Health Bill of today, The one trump would have liked to taken credit for:

bing

I'd be more concerned about how trumps presidency goes down in history if you back him. 

History will be far more kind of John McCain then it will be to Donald Trump. 

The day is coming when all Trump supporters will deny they ever fell for his bs.   Treason and lies,  fraud and incompetence.  Then he makes as much money as possible for his business from taxpayers at his resorts weekly.  Suckers haven't even seen his tax returns and believe his lies about his wealth. 

I guess we will never know

Only if liberals continue to teach history

His tax returns are the least of my concerns

Only if liberals continue to teach history

When did teaching facts become a liberal concept?

It's not. 

It's not. 

Then what is the current problem with teaching history as it happened instead of how you want to believe that it happened?

Then what is the current problem with teaching history as it happened

That is what I want. Shall I allow this conversation to wander a bit?  Please tell us how you would teach children how America entered into the Vietnam war? How Prime minister Diem died?  Who de-segregated the US military?

It seems our children are ignorant of such historical events

That is what I want. Shall I allow this conversation to wander a bit?  Please tell us how you would teach children how America entered into the Vietnam war? How Prime minister Diem died?  Who de-segregated the US military?

1.) Truman desegregated the military in 1948. Executive order 9981.

2.) The US got involved in Vietnam to support the French in the early 1950s and as the French pulled out after the loss at Dien Bein Phu we stepped up our unofficial involvement with "advisors".   We made it official after the questionable Tonkin Gulf incident in 1964.

3.) Ngo Diem was assassinated in an apparent coup.

1.) Truman desegregated the military in 1948. Executive order 9981.

Correct

         2.) The US got involved in Vietnam to support the French in the early 1950s and as the French pulled out after the loss at Dien Bein Phu we stepped up our unofficial involvement with "advisors".   We made it official after the questionable Tonkin Gulf incident in 1964.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was the starting point. 

         3.) Ngo Diem was assassinated in an apparent coup.

A coup instigated & approved of by JFK


I'm sorry I can only give you a passing grade

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was the starting point. 

The US military was very involved in Vietnam before the Tonkin Guilt incident.  Almost 15 years before. 

July 26 19590, - United States military involvement in Vietnam begins as President Harry Truman authorizes $15 million in military aid to the French.

American military advisors will accompany the flow of U.S. tanks, planes, artillery and other supplies to Vietnam. Over the next four years, the U.S. will spend $3 Billion on the French war and by 1954 will provide 80 percent of all war supplies used by the French.

September 16, 1950 - General Giap begins his main attack against French outposts near the Chinese border. As the outposts fall, the French lose 6000 men and large stores of military equipment to the Viet Minh.

September 27, 1950 - The U.S. establishes a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Saigon to aid the French Army.

You didn't ask me if I thought that the CIA was behind the coup. You only asked how he died. 

Washington D.C., November 5, 2003 - A White House tape of President Kennedy and his advisers , published this week in a new book-and-CD collection and excerpted on the Web, confirms that top U.S. officials sought the November 1, 1963 coup against then-South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem without apparently considering the physical consequences for Diem personally (he was murdered the following day). The taped meeting and related documents show that U.S. officials, including JFK, vastly overestimated their ability to control the South Vietnamese generals who ran the coup 40 years ago this week. The Kennedy tape from October 29, 1963 captures the highest-level White House meeting immediately prior to the coup, including the President's brother voicing doubts about the policy of support for a coup: "I mean, it's different from a coup in the Iraq or South American country; we are so intimately involved in this…." National Security Archive senior fellow John Prados provides a full transcript of the meeting, together with the audio on CD, in his new book-and-CD publication, The White House Tapes: Eavesdropping on the President (New York: The New Press, 2003, 331 pp. + 8 CDs, ISBN 1-56584-852-7), just published this week and featuring audio files from 8 presidents, from Roosevelt to Reagan.

The US military was very involved in Vietnam before the Tonkin Guilt incident.  Almost 15 years before. 

I will concede that point and it could have remained that way with the US supplying aid and/or advisers, but eventually a President did devise a way (the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) to put US combat troops into the war and that President was LBJ. Are you going to stress that to the young, impressionable minds?

You didn't ask me if I thought that the CIA was behind the coup.

And now you supplied the rest. Your thoughts on the coup and the man who approved of it?

I will concede that point and it could have remained that way with the US supplying aid and/or advisers, but eventually a President did devise a way (the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) to put US combat troops into the war and that President was LBJ. Are you going to stress that to the young, impressionable minds?

Vietnam was a loser from the start because we didn't have the support of the people. 20 years and a couple of million lost lives in the US, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia later we learned that fact. We promised Ho Chi Minh at the start of WW2 that we would got to bat for the Vietnamese people against the French to help them with their fight for independence if they would help us fight the Japanese in a guerrilla war in SE Asia. 

And now you supplied the rest. Your thoughts on the coup and the man who approved of it?

That was not our decision to make, just as we should have stayed out or Iran instead of removing Mohammad Mosaddegh via a coup when he threatened to take state control of their oil resources from BP.

The Gulf of Tonkin was in August 1964....At that time we have around 23,000 troops in Vietnam. We were technically adviser's but served in combat operations going back to 1959 with ARVN units. 

The ARVN Airborne division, the Rangers and the Marine Division were the best of the best in ARVN.

Binh Chung Nhay Du 

Just a little additional information.

Vietnam was a loser from the start because we didn't have the support of the people. 20 years and a couple of million lost lives in the US, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia later we learned that fact. We promised Ho Chi Minh at the start of WW2 that we would got to bat for the Vietnamese people against the French to help them with their fight for independence if they would help us fight the Japanese in a guerrilla war in SE Asia. 

There is a lot in what you say. I always thought that it was how we fought that war. I would have preferred that we invade North Vietnam. LBJ feared Soviet intervention. He ran that war.

That was not our decision to make, just as we should have stayed out or Iran instead of removing Mohammad Mosaddegh via a coup when he threatened to take state control of their oil resources from BP.


JFK gave the green light. Carter didn't support the Shah. Make sure the kids know.
Otherwise your'e on top of your game tonight!

Your'e keeping me honest.

It's good to get insight from someone who was there. Thanks

I could add a lot more but that would totally derail your article. 

Perhaps another article at some time might be of interest. We do have a fair amount of old farts here that were there. I don't know if any (other than me) were before 1964 though.

Could be, 61/62 and 64/65 for me.

Perhaps another article at some time might be of interest.

Agreed. Food for thought. Many lessons learned there. 

There is a lot in what you say. I always thought that it was how we fought that war. I would have preferred that we invade North Vietnam. LBJ feared Soviet intervention. He ran that war.

The Vietnamese people didn't want to be an American colony any more than they wanted to be a French colony, so an invasion of the North would have been a loss like Iraq was. They wanted sovereignty to make their own decsions, even if they failed. History proved that the domino theory didn't exist as many thought that it did. 

Most history classes run out of time by the time they get to the 1960s, so that period is glossed over or only covered in passing. 

An American Colony?

An American Colony?

The Vietnamese government would have been under the thumb of Washington and American companies would have been the first choice to get their natural resources. Vietnam suffered under French rule for more than 200 years and they wanted to have the authority to rule themselves. 

The Vietnamese government would have been under the thumb of Washington and American companies would have been the first choice to get their natural resources.

That really was the main issue for Eisenhower and the profoundly corrupt Dulles brothers, that US companies would have an advantage.    It certainly was the case when they overthrew Iran's democracy in 1953 and in Guatemala in 1954, and the record of the 1954 Geneva peace accords shows that it was John Foster Dulles' main reason for scuttling the accords and having the US take over the role as colonial master in Vietnam.    It was a very short sighted and unethical policy.

From 1948 through 1954 in Vietnam the involvement of French, British (non involvement) US and China and with the Vietnamese starting their campaign of throwing of the yoke of colonial western powers was an amazing part of US history and after a good decision we followed it with a series of bad decisions. 

Mao Zedong amassed 200,000 troops on the border with Tonkin (north Vietnam) and began supplying the Vietnamese with weapons 1948/49 The British wanted no part of the disaster that started to unfold in 1948. 

As the war progressed and the French were trapped at Deim Bien Phu they asked for support from the Americans in the form of bombing runs by US planes. The decision was up to Gen. Mathew Ridgeway and he declined to provide any air power. He was of the mind that if we became involved in addition to air support we have have to provide 7 to 8 combat divisions to stop the North Vietnamese. That soon after Korea it was not going to happen. 

Sadly, a few short years later we were in it up to you ass. And the rest is history. 

All the death and destruction could have been avoided if we had simply stood by our word to North Vietnam. Or if Truman had responded to the communiques from Ho Chi Minh.

. Vietnam suffered under French rule for more than 200 years and they wanted to have the authority to rule themselves.

They wanted more than that. In 1978 they invaded Cambodia.
Btw Nixon could have done a better job with the treaty we negotiated. Originally there were real safeguards for South Vietnam, but Nixon stalled the negotiations so they would produce a treaty just before his re-election. The North Vietnamese knew what he was up to and withdrew some of those safeguards in the end. And the end came for the US in 1973. South Vietnam was defeated two years later.

They wanted more than that. In 1978 they invaded Cambodia.

The invasion of Cambodia was to put an end to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge because other countries were ignoring their atrocities and their political ambitions.  Vietnam helped Cambodia/Kampuchea start to get back on their feet after the end of Pol Pot's reign of terror.

The North Vietnamese knew what he was up to and withdrew some of those safeguards in the end. And the end came for the US in 1973. South Vietnam was defeated two years later.

The South Vietnamese had no intention or ability to fighting the NVA/VC because that was obvious during the Vietnamization/handover phase of the war in 1970 onward.  It was just a matter of time until South Vietnam fell. 

The invasion of Cambodia was to put an end to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge

That was the stated objective, however it didn't turn out that way:

"Vietnam launched an invasion of Cambodia in late December 1978 to remove Pol Pot. Two million Cambodians had died at the hands of his Khmer Rouge regime and Pol Pot's troops had conducted bloody cross-border raids into Vietnam, Cambodia's historic enemy, massacring civilians and torching villages.

Pol Pot fled ahead of the onslaught and Phnom Penh was placed under Vietnamese control in a little over a week.

Those that survived the Khmer Rouge regime initially greeted the Vietnamese as liberators. Years later, however, Vietnamese troops were still in Cambodia and by then, many Cambodians considered them occupiers."

bbc

th Vietnamese had no intention or ability to fighting the NVA/VC because that was obvious during the Vietnamization/handover phase of the war in 1970 onward.  It was just a matter of time until South Vietnam fell. 

True

  It was just a matter of time until South Vietnam fell.

Also true, so long as the US never invaded the north, nor kept it's promises to the south. The US could have won that war alone and as far as I'm concerned once the US commits to war, it must prevail. What we got was a long drawn out police action managed by those who didn't want to go all the way.

We were technically adviser's but served in combat operations going back to 1959 with ARVN units. 

Did you volunteer?

Did you volunteer?

Do you mean did I enlist or was I drafted. I was  regular army (RA) a volunteer.

Yes I volunteered for Vietnam.

Those that survived the Khmer Rouge regime initially greeted the Vietnamese as liberators. Years later, however, Vietnamese troops were still in Cambodia and by then, many Cambodians considered them occupiers." bbc

Cambodia could not have defended and managed themselves or started the process to rebuild in 1979.   They are still not a completely stable government more than 30 years later. Most people do not understand just how violent that the Khmer Rouge were to the Cambodian society. 

Most people do not understand just how violent that the Khmer Rouge were to the Cambodian society.

Gives just an idea.

My daughter, who is also an engineer, spent 90 days in Cambodia helping an NGO rebuild their infrastructure in rural areas as part of a work-study in college.  She came back a changed person because of what she saw and what she learned about their past. 

This was the whole point of me using the Vietnam topic to demonstrate how liberals would teach history.

Do you realize what you are doing? You are now defending the foreign policy of Vietnam (at every turn). Earlier, you described them as a nation fighting off the old chains of colonialism. Yet, when Vietnam became an occupying force in Cambodia, you say it's ok because it wasn't as bad as the regime they replaced.

You also had a hard time admitting that JFK gave the green light to the coup. Revisionist historians have tried to give some cover to the young president, claiming that Kennedy didn't seem to understand that Diem could be killed.

All the details are important in learning history.

Actually, no - LBJ believed he could "manage" the war from DC along with McNamara and Westmoreland.

Funny how that didn't work out.

Didn't I list that as the key problem?

Do you realize what you are doing? You are now defending the foreign policy of Vietnam (at every turn). Earlier, you described them as a nation fighting off the old chains of colonialism. Yet, when Vietnam became an occupying force in Cambodia, you say it's ok because it wasn't as bad as the regime they replaced.

Vietnam did not try to impose their power and colonize Cambodia. Cambodia(Kampuchea) was so unstable after the end of the Khmer Rouge that they could not have stood on their own. They needed outside help to start to recover and rebuild and that recovery continues to this day, even though that they are now self-governing.

Pol Pot could not have come to power had it not been for the US involvement in SE Asia that destablized the entire region.  The 2003 invasion of Iraq destabilized that region which led to the rise iof ISIL and likely the Syrian civil war. John Bolton is currently saber rattling and trying to start a war with Iran in his immutable religious idiocy. 

She came back a changed person because of what she saw and what she learned about their past.

Was she involved in forensics? Although, as an engineer, i am not sure how the 2 would tie together?

Was she involved in forensics? Although, as an engineer, i am not sure how the 2 would tie together?

No. She merely saw the various memorials and other reminders of that very violent past and the poverty that still grips much of the country.

If you did, I apologize for not seeing it.

This was the whole point of me using the Vietnam topic to demonstrate how liberals would teach history.

That is pure nonsense Vic. 

Between 1975 and 1979 the Khmer Rouge conducted cross border raids killing thousands of Vietnamese civilians. In addition they killed between 1.5 and 2 million of their own people. Pol Pot and the KR were the worst type of genocidal monsters. If you have never seen the movie, ''The Killing Fields'' it will give you a good idea of the monsters that the KR were. 

Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978 and at that time they had to be damn careful since the main supporter of Pol Pot was the Chinese. When the Chinese were distracted in dealing with the US and other internal situations the Vietnamese stuck and drove to within 30 miles of Phnom  Penh. 

The Vietnamese stayed in Cambodia for 10 years after they invasion of 1978 (actually they did a smaller invasion in 1977 and captured many Chinese military personal)...The Chinese punished the Vietnam by an invasion of Vietnam in Feb or March of 1979..Which the Vietnamese fought off. 

There are many historians that believe that JRK was ready to pull out of Vietnam. True or not we'll never know since he was assassinated. My own personal opinion was that he was thinking about it because of what had and was happening in South Vietnam. Again, true or not we'll never know. 

What we do know is that the US fucked up big time in advancing a war on the principal of the ''Domino Theory''.....

For a really good view of Vietnam read ''A Bright and Shining Lie. John Paul Vann,  America in Vietnam...the Author is Neil Sheehan.

They occupied another country against the will of it's people. You simply can't get around that.

No problem, my friend

For a really good view of Vietnam read ''A Bright and Shining Lie. John Paul Vann,  America in Vietnam...the Author is Neil Sheehan.

I have but I suggest you take a look at the interview JFK gave to James Reston.  BTW most of what you say is spot on!

I have but I suggest you take a look at the interview JFK gave to James Reston.

I have and it was quite interesting.

Unfortunately he should have ran as a Democrat long ago.  He didn't even represent his constituents as he promised to do.

Yup, of course if he did that he never would have been elected to the US Senate

I believe John McCain would have been POTUS had he not had a Saturday Night Live character for a running mate.

Really?  I doubt any Republican could have won in 2008. However your point about Palin is valid. The democrats can get away with a Biden or a totally ignorant socialist, but Republicans can never get away with a Palin

I agree Vic, no Republican would win after two terms of George Bush.  It wasn't in the cards, especially with the housing bubble burst, which wasn't his fault, but when you're driving the airplane, you get blamed for anything that goes wrong with the flight, no matter who caused it.  Just the way it works.  I'm not going to get into all the other tit-for-tat bullshit.  McCain can't fulfill the job he was elected to do, so he needs to step down.  Exit gracefully while he still can.  Others should have also-Strom Thrumond comes to mind and Justice Bader-Ginsburg while we are at it.

McCain had no shot in 2008 and really wasn't very interested in winning the last month or so. 

But there were a few studies after the election that showed the Palin pick actually helped him. The people who hated Palin weren't going to vote for him under any circumstances and she was liked by enough Republicans in 2008  because she actually went after Obama while McCain wouldn't.  Her effect was minimal, but what effect there was resulted in a slight boost for the McCain ticket.    

Well said!

But there were a few studies after the election that showed the Palin pick actually helped him.

True.

The pick gave the campaign an initial boost. She really connected with the average blue collar guy (her "Joe Six-packs"), her first speech for the campaign was awesome, but it soon became clear that she sorely lacked general knowledge of important issues. They tried to keep her under wraps for a while, but she was done in with the Katie Couric interview, which she was totally un-prepared for. The enemies of Palin were legion on both sides. As you correctly point out there were some within the campaign who wanted her out and as usual those on the left who hate the idea of a Conservative female.

Justice Bader-Ginsburg while we are at it.

Based on WHAT? It must be agism because is sure as hell isn't about her ability to do her job. 

Asleep during oral arguments?  Are you crazy?  This is the highest court in the land, that is the ultimate decision maker and yet, she falls asleep? 

Asleep during oral arguments? 

Link? 

Are you crazy? 

That reads as close to a personal attack. 

This is the highest court in the land, that is the ultimate decision maker and yet, she falls asleep? 

Got a link? 

Well said Buzz.  Imo, Sarah was unqualified and not very bright but she helped catapult the extremists on the right.

Imo, Sarah was unqualified and not very bright but she helped catapult the extremists on the right.

She was more a lightning rod for the scoundrels on the left, as evidenced by all the bashing she endured

Nah, she wasn't very bright.  I used to wear my hair up until I had multiple people tell me I could pass for Sarah palin.  I quickly changed my style.  

Nah, she wasn't very bright. 

Clearly not an intellectual.

I used to wear my hair up until I had multiple people tell me I could pass for Sarah palin. 

I'm sorry to hear that. Many men thought she was attractive

I quickly changed my style. 

Beauty and intelligence don't necessarily go hand in hand. You may have been both. I think you should wear it high again.

I confess that I went back to wearing it up most of the time because it was a pain having it down.  

Lol, I'll bet it was because you like seeing those heads turn!

"I quickly changed my style."

LOL

"Beauty and intelligence don't necessarily go hand in hand."

Ergo - blond jokes.

Those were the days!!!

If Donald Trump tells the Unthinking Faithful ^TM to hate George Washington, they'll do it. McCain is nobody.

What does that have to do with the article, Bob?

BTW< you don't have a Trademark on anything and throwing that little 'TM' on words just makes you look foolish.

McCain is more of a somebody than Trump will ever be.  Trump would not last 2 seconds in a deep pit as a POW.

Trump would not last 2 seconds in a deep pit as a POW.

You never know who can survive what until it happens. Fortunately this is not a survival contest, it's about serving the nation. Trump is fighting to keep his promises and Mr McCain is not fulfilling his duties. That's the bottom line.

Trump is fighting to keep his promises and Mr McCain is not fulfilling his duties.

I hate to butt in and disagree, But, I am and do.

IMO: Both trump and mccain are doing what they each really do believe is the best thing to do for the country. That's politics.

Mccain still seems relevant even from his death bed, will trump be ?

militarytimes

Mccain still seems relevant even from his death bed

Explain how someone who is not able to fulfill his duties as Senator is relevant?

There is only one answer and that is to try and deny the Trump agenda by reducing the Republican majority in the Senate. Mr McCain is obstructing his party's agenda as well.

He was using Barry Goldwater's desk. I think he should send it back to the Goldwater family.

Explain how someone who is not able to fulfill his duties as Senator is relevant?

Maybe he is hoping for a reprieve from the grim reaper. 

I don't think McCain is at all as politically moderate as some in the media try to paint him as, but he is 50 times the man Trump is. 

But you couldn't answer the question.

Sorry, John, youv'e done it again

Explain how someone who is not able to fulfill his duties as Senator is relevant?

What makes you think that McCain is not fulfilling his duties as Senator of AZ? 

Explain how someone who is not able to fulfill his duties as Senator is relevant?

There is only one answer and that is to try and deny the Trump agenda by reducing the Republican majority in the Senate. Mr McCain is obstructing his party's agenda as well'

Thank you very much for answering your own question. I think you nailed it, while president trump really believes He is doing the best he can for America, so does Senator McCain.

It's called politics. 

What makes you think that McCain is not fulfilling his duties as Senator of AZ?

He hasn't been in the Senate since late last year, thus he hasn't been able to vote on anything. Do you think that is fulfilling his duties?
So the huge question is why Dosen't he step down?

while president trump really believes He is doing the best he can for America, so does Senator McCain.

Then McCain should change his party affiliation

Then McCain should change his party affiliation

Maybe, I dont know, isn't he pretty fiscally conservative ?  

I never really knew how perseptive Mccain really is because much of what he suggested and proposed militarily never seemed to get much consideration. Mccain I believe is referred to as a war hawk because of some of his proposals in past years. But he was pretty damn logical and knew his subject so I always wondered if he did have some stuff right and instead the way we whent was wrong after all.

From the way it sounds in many countries we fought in and still are fighting in its not like we've had real great results in many of endeavors that Mccain thought we should go a different direction in from the start, even under Obama.

We'll never know, But I always wondered. 

PS: As independent I dont care much who is what party. IMO: Neither represents me anyway.

Maybe, I dont know, isn't he pretty fiscally conservative ?  

Ya, when he returns to Arizona to campaign for his Senate job, otherwise he was not present for the TAX ACT vote!

when he returns to Arizona to campaign for his Senate job, otherwise he was not present for the TAX ACT vote

I may be mistaken but wasn't senator Mccain hospitalized during that vote ? And didn't the VP stand in for him ? 

I may be mistaken but wasn't senator Mccain hospitalized during that vote ? And didn't the VP stand in for him ? 

Yes and Yes. Iv'e already stated that earlier. I'm not sure you are getting my point. It is perfectly understandable that someone battling brain cancer can't be in the US Senate to vote. He hasn't been in the Senate since late last year. He may never return.
What is not understandable is why he dosen't resign so that someone else can represent Arizona and vote on all the important issues, legislation and the appointments that is the business of the US Senate.

What is not understandable is why he doesn't resign so that someone else can represent Arizona and vote on all the important issues

I dont know either, I suspect its because he still believes his voice and experience can help. I also expect he will step down soon unless he can fulfill more of his duties. 

I dont know, long ago I didn't even like the man. As I saw him on TV and listened to him I was drawn to how detailed and logical he was. He seemed to know a great deal about what he talked about and usually seemed to have what sounded to me logical reasonable solutions.

I think congress is lacking that now I wish Mccain well. I am also in agreement with you Mccain should and I believe he will step down soon and IF he is no longer relevant. 

I dont know off hand how much if any Mccain was involved in the latest VA bill ut I do know he advocates for the veterans a lot. It sucks at this time the president didn't even bother to give a dying war veteran the time of day or recognition he or any vetrenen in that position would have deserved. 

To me that says more about trump than mccain and his service to our country.

sad

I dont know off hand how much if any Mccain was involved in the latest VA bill ut I do know he advocates for the veterans a lot.

He was deeply involved in veteran & military affairs, among other things. He was also an advocate for native Americans. I am not saying I dislike McCain or disrespect his service, but we do have the right to criticize our public officials. Holding onto a Senate seat, while not being able to act as a Senator for over 6 months, is a serious dereliction of duty.

Holding onto a Senate seat, while not being able to act as a Senator for over 6 months, is a serious dereliction of duty.

Too hard to argue that point. So I'll jut add in my opinion, lol 

IMO: I like the fact that some of our congress is pushing back on trump. I believe its very healthy in fact.

I wrote this many years go.Its kind of pertinent to my reasoning and today with this president  in charge:

        “United we stand, divided we fall”

Does Anyone remember this is still AMERICA ?

America needs a mix of all, conservatives, liberals and progressives.

A good blend will move America forward at a reasonable speed. 

Too many of any one ideology is bad for America.

America needs to move forward as the world progresses. 

Too many cons = little to no forward movement.

Too many libs = move too fast forward.

Too many Independents = well you can’t have too many…. (I’m one) LOL

Please research ALL candidates  before you VOTE

The more Americans that research all the candidates for all the offices before they vote and vote for the most qualified  candidates, the better our government and country will be.

.

PS: I consider myself {a pragmatist, realistically moderate,  a independent and progressive Deist with both some conservative and liberal tendencies, depending on the issue or subject.}

Hard to pigeon-hole that one. Drives me nuts sometimes, but I’m not. My mother had me tested.

Although it has been suggested, I be retested. At this point, I see no point of it.  lol

........................................................

Thanks for the conversation Vic, I enjoyed it.

He hasn't been in the Senate since late last year, thus he hasn't been able to vote on anything.

So is your posit that voting is the only thing that qualifies as working for your constituents? 

Do you think that is fulfilling his duties?

IMHO, unless your are a resident of Arizona, it ain't none of your bee's wax. 

Secondly, judging from the press releases and co-sponsorship of bill that McCain has documented, YES, I would say that he IS fulfilling his duties. 

So the huge question is why Dosen't he step down?

Is there a hue and cry for McCain's resignation by his constituents?

If NOT, 'it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg'. 

The YUGE question is, if you aren't a resident of Arizona, WTF do YOU care? 

What is not understandable is why he dosen't resign so that someone else can represent Arizona and vote on all the important issues, legislation and the appointments that is the business of the US Senate.

Gee, maybe you can post a list of all of the votes that McCain has missed to prove that his would have been the deciding vote. Then we would be actually looking at the facts instead of assuming that McCain's one vote has been critical as you claim. 

Please proceed.

Thanks for the conversation Vic, I enjoyed it.

Thank you, the pleasure was mine

So is your posit that voting is the only thing that qualifies as working for your constituents? 

That is the essential part of being a Senator. So you think he works for his constituents by not voting? Unusual argument, even for you.

IMHO, unless your are a resident of Arizona, it ain't none of your bee's wax. 

Oh yes, I should shut up. It must go on....Why is that?

Secondly, judging from the press releases and co-sponsorship of bill that McCain has documented, YES, I would say that he IS fulfilling his duties. 

Things he once did as a functioning Senator now justify his long absence?

Is there a hue and cry for McCain's resignation by his constituents?

And it is his constituents you are concerned about?

If NOT, 'it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg'. 

Oh, but it does, this feud has narrowed the GOP majority in The Senate down to a single vote, something that his progressive defenders are keenly aware of!

The YUGE question is, if you aren't a resident of Arizona, WTF do YOU care? 

That is not the question at all. The question, the one I posed is the one that needs to be answered. I notice you haven't done it.

The YUGE question is, if you aren't a resident of Arizona, WTF do YOU care? 

Thats not the question

Actually, I recently found this:

govtrack.us

Sen. McCain has missed 44.4% of votes in the 115th Congress (2017-18).   This makes him the 1st most absent member of the Senate.   See his missed vote explanations.

Actually, I recently found this:

Perhaps you misunderstood. Please whittle your list down to those votes missed by McCain which would have passed had he voted. 

BTW, through Dec. 2017, McCain only missed 22.2 % of the votes. Your list should start in Jan. 2018.

Why not? 

That is the essential part of being a Senator. So you think he works for his constituents by not voting?

Again, I don't see his constituents demanding his resignation so I will bow to their evaluation of his work for them.  

Unusual argument, even for you.

Snark noted. 

Oh yes, I should shut up. It must go on....Why is that?

Hey, flap your gums all you want. Yet since your are not one of McCain's constituents, don't be surprised if it falls on deaf ears. 

Things he once did as a functioning Senator now justify his long absence?

NOWHERE did I infer anything about 'justifying' anything. Do try to address what I actually said, rather than what you read into my comments. 

And it is his constituents you are concerned about?

Unlike you, I respect THEIR position on this issue. 

Oh, but it does,

Nope. 

this feud has narrowed the GOP majority in The Senate down to a single vote, something that his progressive defenders are keenly aware of!

Well gee Vic, I can't count how many times I have seen conservatives mockingly suggest that the solution is for Democrats to WIN ELECTIONS. In a couple of months, the GOP needs to do just that if they want to guarantee Trump's agenda. 

Of course, they could have worked in a bipartisan way all this time and passed compromises but it's obvious that passing legislation to help the country isn't nearly as important to the GOP as one party rule. 

That is not the question at all. The question, the one I posed is the one that needs to be answered. I notice you haven't done it.

Perhaps that's because the answer is self evident.

McCain doesn't WANT to resign.

Wow, I'm beat. /s

The problem with this pushingh back form the Senate is, you actually need to be in the Senate, office buildings and on the floor to efectiely push back.  One of the 2 senators representing Arizona are unable to do that and has, in fact, to been there to do it for a good while.

BTW, as an overall observation, I really love watching the Left here now standing up for John McCain, the same left that did eveything they could to smear him in 2008.........the hypocrisy is there for everyone to see.

Actually, I recently found this:govtrack.us

your post inspired me to look to see what the rules are about this practice of AWOL senators. It seems this is certainly not the first time these guys stay in office when not there to participate. 

And that's OK with the rest of them, maybe they take turns...lol

........................................

So this is definitely not the first time:

     you actually need to be in the Senate, office buildings and on the floor to efectiely push back.

Yes "pushing back" in person is probably more effective, but no pushing back at all is even less effective.   

BTW, as an overall observation, I really love watching the Left here now standing up for John McCain

Well it's logical that the left would support senators that agree with their desires. 

Personally for myself like I said, " long ago I saw him on TV and listened to him I was drawn to how detailed and logical he was. He seemed to know a great deal about what he talked about and usually seemed to have what sounded to me logical reasonable solutions."

IMO: If Senator Mccain stays just a little longer its OK with me if its OK with congress. I think it's good to have checks and balances in place even ones not fully functioning. 

PS: Thanks for the civil conversation on a sticky subject. 

Please whittle your list down to those votes missed by McCain which would have passed had he voted. 

Oh, that's funny. No I'm not diluting anything. That list shows a complete disregard for the people he represents and is a dereliction of duty.

Once again, I provide links and evidence for you to shrug off. 

Of course, they could have worked in a bipartisan way all this time and passed compromises but it's obvious that passing legislation to help the country isn't nearly as important to the GOP as one party rule. 

Well, that's too bad to quote John McCain "the democrats have poisoned the well" and to quote your very own Barak Obama "I won".  Unfortunately, because of progressives, the days of compromise are over. You can prepare yourself to be even more outraged this November.

BTW, as an overall observation, I really love watching the Left here now standing up for John McCain,

Yup, it's really a big joke

Steve thanks for contributing.
The problem isn't adding rules. Someone with the stature of a United States Senator should have enough integrity and common sense to resign if he/she cannot fulfill their duties.

I'm only stating the reality. Do you have a solution?

Perhaps some people shouldn't renounce their representatives at any level then.

Hard to claim someone doesn't represent you when you had an opportunity to vote someone else into office.

Unless you think everyone who voted for any candidate whoever lost an election are not represented somehow.

Senator should have enough integrity and common sense to resign if he/she cannot fulfill their duties.

Thanks for responding, and I agree. The problem is some don't have that integrity, and unless its a rule you know people... they do it. ( Many do shit regardless of rules or not, but not me.. )

I also believe some do it because they really do believe to the bottom of their being it is the "best" thing to do for the good of the nation.  Staying on that is.

I'm not trying to put words in any politicians mouth or even think I know what these politician's ulterior motives are of not stepping down when all indicators point to that would be the best way to go.  I'm sure there are many. 

But, I'm using my own reasoning of why I might feel "Bucking the system" in this way may make enough since to me to do as some of them do, have done in the past and probably will in the future. I doubt this isn't the last time we see a politician not able to fulfill his duties stay in power when otherwise it seems wrong. 

For myself, I think Mccain is staying in as long as he believe he can make a difference that He believes is helpful to the nation.  

Not everyone sees it that way, that ok, to each their own.

Thanks again   

Just because some don't like their reps, or how they are represented, doesn't mean they are not represented.

I'm only stating the reality. Do you have a solution?

I dont know of anyone who knows how to get American politicians compromising again. 

For my part what I've done what I can think of doing, I've dropped my party affiliation so neither party now gets to count me in their number base.

I also research every candidate for all parties and vote for the Person I believe is best qualified for the position they are running for. ( I stopped voting straight party line some time ago recognising that was helping bad politicians get elected.) 

And I try to look at the world we all live in from both sides of the ideological viewpoints myself, before I commit to what I believe to be best way to go on whatever is on the table to be decided for our nation in each endeavor or solution. (Which surprisingly enough many time to me to be somewhere in the middle of both ideologies) 

So far of course, I Don't see a great deal of change in the compromising efforts of our leaders. Perhaps I should also write them another letter.. Its been a while.

lol

Once again, I provide links and evidence for you to shrug off. 

Yet you failed to provide the evidence I asked for, which makes your long list irrelevant. 

Well, that's too bad to quote John McCain "the democrats have poisoned the well"

If you're going to hang your hat on McCain's quote, the least you can do is admit that he was only talking about the rest of 2010. That was 4 Congressional session ago...

Oh dear!

I so specified

Really? Then why are you throwing that quote out in connection with the 17-18 session? 

McCain is nobody.

He's AWL

All I can remember of John McCain right now:

A Dinosaur Senator with a huge EGO,  that should have gotten out of the game a couple years ago. That would have been the RIGHT THING to do, not what he's doing now.

Have you ever served in the military?  My future response depends on how you answer.

Have you ever served in the military? 

Why does that matter, and what does that have to do with a Senator that should have given up his seat awhile back.

Vic, I'd like to get into a discussion with you about your seed but I have a question first. Should I expect to see you lock it after you've availed yourself of the last word but before the discussion has run it's course? 

This particular discussion will remain open for a while. It's something I feel very strongly about and I will see to it that you get to respond to everything I say.

I will see to it that you get to respond to everything I say.

That will be a great change of pace. 

So to your posits about McCain.

McCain was well aware that the ACA wasn't 'rammed through Congress' because he PARICIPATED in MONTHS of negotiation, multiple Committee hearings/write ups and hours of debate on the Senate floor. In short, McCain knows from personal experience that the ACA went through 'regular order'.

Which brings me to my second point.

McCain made it CLEAR why he didn't vote for Trumpcare and it goes back to regular order.

McCain wanted the bill to go through the Senate under regular order INSTEAD of being 'rammed through Congress'. In short, McCain wanted the Senate the be run the way it was designed to be run. McCain stated that desire multiple times and implored McConnell to hold hearings and allow amendments. McConnell refused. Thus McCain voted nay, as he said he would. 

Now I don't know about you but I don't elect a representative for him/her to vote in lock step with the 'leadership'. I elect him/her to vote their conscience in the best interest of our community, not the best interest of their party. 

McCann was well aware that the ACA wasn't 'rammed through Congress' because he PARICIPATED in MONTHS of negotiation, multiple Committee hearings/write ups and hours of debate on the Senate floor. In short, McCann knows from personal experience that the ACA went through 'regular order'.

hum...I seem to recall that he called for non-cooperation after that saying " the democrats poisoned the well"!   Does that ring a bell?

McCann wanted the bill to go through the Senate under  regular order  INSTEAD of being 'rammed through Congress'. In short, McCann wanted the Senate the be run the way it was designed to be run. McCann stated that desire multiple times and implored McConnell to hold hearings and allow amendments. McConnell refused. Thus McCann voted nay, as he said he would. 

oh yes, that was the explanation for tuning his thumb down when his party was depending upon him, however shortly before the vote he said he would vote the way of the Governor of Arizona supported it:

• McCain suggested he might "reluctantly" vote for a new Obamacare replacement bill if Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey supported the legislation — which the governor promptly did.
  
  cnbc
  
  
  
  
  Now I don't know about you but I don't elect a representative for him/her to vote in lock step with the 'leadership'. I elect him/her to vote their conscience in the best interest of our community, not the best interest of their party. 
  
  So do we all, but my opinion is based on McCain's actions and I believe that everything he's done since election day is revenge driven

I believe that everything he's done since election day is revenge driven

Some will say that's a perfect description of the behavior of President Trump.

Jest sayin'...

How do you arrive at that?

He made campaign promises on Immigration, taxes, deregulation, tariffs & the economy, destroying ISIS, addressing the threats from North Korea & Iran and the appointment of judges who follow the original intent of the Constitution. He's attempting to keep those promises. Where do you see revenge in that?

hum...I seem to recall that he called for non-cooperation after that saying "the democrats poisoned the well"!  Does that ring a bell?

No, not really. How would that support your claim that it was about 'ramming it through Congress'? 

oh yes, that was the explanation for tuning his thumb down when his party was depending upon him, however shortly before the vote he said he would vote the way of the Governor of Arizona supported it: McCain suggested he might "reluctantly" vote for a new Obamacare replacement bill if Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey supported the legislation — which the governor promptly did.

Wow, 'suggested he might', now THAT is a defining statement isn't it? /s

So do we all, but my opinion is based on McCain's actions and I believe that everything he's done since election day is revenge driven

I disagree about McCain's actions. Yet even if that were so, it merely places McCain on a similar emotional level as Trump, who never fails to punch down. 

I also disagree that 'we all' want to elect an 'independent' representative. All too many are more than willing to vote for anyone who vows fealty to Trump even though not one of them KNOW WTF Trump will demand from them from one day to the other.  

He made campaign promises on Immigration, taxes, deregulation, tariffs & the economy, destroying ISIS, addressing the threats from North Korea & Iran and the appointment of judges who follow the original intent of the Constitution. He's attempting to keep those promises. Where do you see revenge in that?

When did Trump campaign on 'tariffs' on the EU, Mexico and Canada? Link please? 

BTW, Trump promised to pass the End the Offshoring Act in his first 100 days. That would have put Tariffs on stuff produced by those who offshored jobs. In short, targets at businesses, NOT entire countries. The only ones that have filed a bill anything like it are Democrats and they have NO GOP co-sponsors...

When did Trump campaign on 'tariffs' on the EU, Mexico and Canada?

You have my comment right there. If does not name countries, if that's where you are going. However I am glad to provide a link to the campaign promises Trump made regarding trade and tariffs, which everyone who even casually followed the 2016 campaign would know

Here you are:

" It is hard to understand the public meltdown over Donald Trump’s promised tariffs on nations that  cheat  on trade agreements. This is exactly what he promised during the campaign.

When Trump accepted the Republican nomination for president in Cleveland on July 21, 2016,  he said , “No longer will we enter into these massive deals, with many countries, that are thousands of pages long – and which no one from our country even reads or understands. We are going to enforce all trade violations, including through the use of taxes and tariffs, against any country that cheats.” Tariffs were directly referenced by Republican nominee Trump as a way to punish nations that cheat.

thehill

I really don't mind providing all the links which you have habitually asked me and others for. Reviewing an obvious truth really drives home the points being made here.

I especially want to thank you for giving me the excuse to publish all the votes Senator McCain has missed since he has been away from his duties

I really don't mind providing all the links which you have habitually asked me and others for. Reviewing an obvious truth really drives home the points being made here.

So your posit is that the EU, Canada and Mexico cheat. Got ya. 

It's total bullshit, but I got ya. 

So your posit is that the EU, Canada and Mexico cheat.

Cheat?   Their tariffs are built right into the agreements.
Don't you remember when this was a democrat issue? 
It still is for Chuck Schumer. I notice you didn't mention the #1 offender in there - China!
Here:

"Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer on Sunday praised President Trump for  slapping tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese products  and said he urged the chief executive to do this “three weeks ago.”

“Not only do they steal our intellectual property, they keep our good companies out, and say the only way you’re going to be able to sell your American products in China … is if you come to China, make them there, and give us the techniques and intellectual property,” ​the New York lawmaker told John Catsimatidis on his AM-970 radio show."

nypost.com/2018/06/17/schumer-says-he-told-trump-to-impose-china-tariffs-3-weeks-ago/

So, we learned that it was McCain who started the feud, used obstruction over principle and some here are happy about it.

I'll give you the last word.

This now lengthy seed will be closed at 5:00 PM EST

Thank you all

Cheat?   

Your 'evidence' about Trump campaigning on tariffs stated that he would use them against countries that 'cheat' did it not Vic? Yep, says it right there. 

BTW, the irony of citing one statement by Trump on his ever changing position is galactic. 

Their tariffs are built right into the agreements.

Exactly HOW is it 'cheating' if a country is FOLLOWING the provisions 'built into' a decades old trade AGREEMENT Vic? Please explain.

Oh and BTFW, you realize that NAFTA has 'built in' tariffs on IMPORTS of specific goods into the US too right? RIGHT? 

Don't you remember when this was a democrat issue?  It still is for Chuck Schumer. I notice you didn't mention the #1 offender in there - China!

Why are you deflecting? My question was about the tariffs Trump foisted on the EU, Canada and Mexico, Trump DID NOT campaign on those tariffs. 

BTFW, I remember that Trump bitched ad nauseum about China being a currency manipulator and PROMISING, that in his first 100 days, he would direct the Treasury to label them as such. So far, NADA and suddenly, China's leader is Trump's buddy and they 'get along great'. So much so that Trump tried to reverse the decision by the IC to sanction ZTE to save jobs in China despite it's threat to national security. You can't make this shit up...

So, we learned that it was McCain who started the feud, used obstruction over principle and some here are happy about it.

Why are you making a 'statement of facts' that you've failed to prove by anything that you've posted? Bad Form.

BTFW, your statement makes it clear that you're more pissed about McCain actually voting then you are about him not being there to vote...

I'll give you the last word.

Then my last word would have to be that you were unwilling and/or incapable of documenting that McCain's absence from the Senate has had any effect on the passage of GOP legislation or conformations and therefore the posit of your seed is a total failure. 

Thanks for the conversation Vic, I enjoyed it.

Thank you, the pleasure was mine