Democratic Senators Dick Durbin (IL), Chris Dodd (CT), Tom Harkin (IA), Jack Reed (RI) and Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ) held a press conference this afternoon to praise the passage of the legislation. Senator Durbin (IL) said, “The tobacco companies’ days of peddling one of the most deadly products in the world have finally come to an end. With the passage of today’s legislation we will begin to reduce the terrible toll tobacco has taken on children and families across the nation.”

The Washington Post reported:

“…Congress has been trying for more than a decade to regulate tobacco, coming close several times but faltering in the face of opposition from the tobacco lobby, the White House or procedural hang-ups. But in the years that the debate has raged, changing social attitudes toward tobacco helped transform the idea of regulation from controversial to common sense.

"There's not a smoker in the country that's an adult who wishes their children would begin smoking," said Sen. Chris Dodd, himself a former smoker. "And there are many adult smokers today who wish they never started. . . . This has been a very long battle. . . . For the first time we're going to make a difference. The FDA is going to regulate the production, sale and marketing of these products. That is history."

UPDATED by Cloe:

The House passed the bill today 307 to 97. Minutes after the legislation passed, President Obama made a statement from the Rose Garden. It’s excerpted here:

"…For over a decade, leaders of both parties have fought to prevent tobacco companies from marketing their products to children, and provide the public with the information they need to understand what a dangerous habit this is. And after a decade of opposition, all of us are finally about to achieve the victory with this bill, a bill that truly defines change in Washington.

"I'm proud that the House and the Senate have acted swiftly and in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion to pass this legislation that will protect our kids and improve our public health. Along with legislation to protect credit card owners from unfair rate hikes, homeowners from mortgage fraud and abuse, and taxpayers from wasteful defense spending, this kids tobacco bill would be the fourth piece of bipartisan legislation that I've signed into law over the last month that protects the American consumer, and changes the way Washington works and who Washington works for...."

Democratic Sen. Bill Dotzler of Waterloo said he hopes people treat each other with respect today.

“Everyone just needs to remain calm,” he said. “We need to analyze the decision.

By giving a unanimous decision it seems to me the court really thinks it’s an issue of rights. It will be up to the legislature to look at their ruling and see how we’re going to proceed.”

At a joint rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa Thursday, Republican John McCain slammed the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) for being "asleep at the switch" saying that if he were president, he would fire Chris Cox, the chairman of the SEC since 2005 and a former Republican congressman.

McCain said the SEC has allowed trading practices such as short selling to stay in place that turned the "markets into a casino."

"The regulators were asleep, my friends," McCain said. "The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the president. And in my view has betrayed the public trust. If I were president today, I would fire him."

But while the president nominates and the Senate confirms the SEC chair, a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president. [emphasis added]

One would think that after 26-years in Washington, John McCain would have known that already.

"Thank you so much Iowa, it is so good to be in Grand Rapids," Palin said. OOOPS. She's in Cedar Rapids.

Wanna get away?

Perhaps Congressman King should watch Univision. During an interview aired this past Sunday, McCain suggested he disagreed with his Party's platform on immigration and legalization of undocumented immigrants, and even suggested he opposed the Republican platform's call to make English the official language and end bilingual education. As the New York Times' editorial board noted, the Republican platform adopted just last week treats "undocumented immigrants as, more or less, criminals." [New York Times, 9/3/08]

"Clearly someone isn't telling the truth, and John McCain owes the voters an explanation," said Democratic National Commitee spokesman Luis Miranda. "Are voters supposed to believe Steve King and the Republican Party platform or should they believe John McCain? This is one more example that John McCain doesn't offer change, he promises more of the same misleading politics of the last eight years."

Below are excerpts of McCain's interview that aired on Univision on Sunday September 7, 2008:

Univision: Senator, the platform of your party says, and I am quoting, "We support the adoption of English as the official language of the United States, and we demand the abolition of bilingual education." Do you agree with this?

John McCain: No, look it's fine with me if English is the official language, because it is our official language, it is. Anyone that comes to this country that wants to move up the economic ladder, we all know has to learn English, is a requirement for citizenship, so we all know that, but the point is...If you want to call it official, it already is official, official or unofficial it is our language, but I come from a state where Spanish was spoken before English, o.k.? So, I cherish Spanish language, our heritage, our culture, our food, everything about our Hispanic culture and that is what I want our party and Americans to do...

Univision: Senator, the last time we talked, you told us that it would take a year or two to secure the border, and then you said we can address the other part of it. Would that include massive legalization of millions of undocumented immigrants in this country?

John McCain: I think it means that we go through a step by step process of allowing people to apply and achieve citizenship in this country, of course. But, I want to point out again; it's a little more complicated.

Univision: It goes against the platform of your party, by the way, because they are against the legalization of millions of undocumented immigrants.

John McCain: My position is very clear, and that was part of our proposal, that I took up twice…So, what we need to do is take the two million according to Chertoff, that have broken laws in our country, and deport or imprison them, they are law breakers. Other people who have come here and have been here for a period of time and are law abiding citizens and are willing to go through a certain process, of course, there is not a twelve million pairs of handcuffs in America. So, we can together republican and democrat work out this issue, provide a path to citizenship, on the principle that they do not take any priority over anyone who came to this country legally, or waited legally...

Univision: Senator Barack Obama told us in an interview that he would present a comprehensive immigration reform to congress during the first year could you match that?

John McCain: Sure, I would do it in the first day, but I was the one who led, I was the one who led with Senator Kennedy, a great political risk to my self.

It’s not easy having to hold more than one job, just to make ends meet. It’s not easy not having access to health care when you need it.

This is the greatest country in the world. Yet people like me and my younger sister Barbara are going through real hard times. Barbara has cerebral palsy and is developmentally disabled and in a wheelchair. I took her under my wing because my mother has heart problems and is physically unable to take care of my sister’s needs. Now, I go to school and work nights at a company that cares about me.

But it’s still hard when I have to take my sister Barbara to school, to her medical appointments and I have to fight for the services and resources she needs. I am determined to do well and get a degree and a different pay grade so I can live a better life and provide for my family. But I am tired and overwhelmed, stuck in a system that tells me there is not enough funding for disabled kids like my sister. I am told we have to wait, we have to be patient. But I am running out of patience. And I am done waiting.

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time for a change. It’s time to elect Barack Obama President of the United States. Barack Obama understands the needs of real families like mine. He understands that access to health care isn’t a luxury for the few, but a necessity for all of us. He understands that higher education isn’t just for the privileged few, but also for people like me who are fighting to get ahead.

Under President Obama, we’ll have tax cuts for working families and an increase in the minimum wage. We’ll have bankruptcy protections for families who are hit with unexpected medical bills. We’ll have a credit card bill of rights for consumers, so credit card companies can’t raise interest rates without notice. And we’ll reward companies for keeping jobs here in America, not for shipping them overseas.

Barack Obama understands that we all have a stake in each other. That our whole country moves ahead when we all move ahead together. I ask each and every one of you: see Barack Obama with my eyes. Feel him with my heart. And support Barack Obama for President of the United States for the change we need.

This summer in Iowa, we saw the motivating power of hope and determination when our state was hit with one of the worst “natural disasters” in U.S. history. Despite three tornadoes and 500- year-flood levels, countless Americans rallied to help us. So, on behalf of every Iowan, I want to say thank you for assisting us in our time of need. We will get through this difficult challenge! We know the Iowa values of faith, hard work and common sense will guide us and strengthen us, as we rebuild an even better, safer and stronger state.

Today I stand proudly with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, no strangers to Iowa, who share our “heartland” values. When they are in the White House, our country will once again rise to meet the great challenges of our time.

And, at the top of that list of challenges is securing our energy future. For the last eight years, the big oil companies and their Washington lobbyists have literally written our national energy policies. They have made billions, while the rest of us are stuck paying the bill.

Now the oil companies are placing their bets on John McCain, bankrolling his campaign, and gambling with our future. McCain has voted against tax credits for renewable energy 11 times, and his only idea to solve our energy crisis is to keep doing what we’re doing, as we watch prices go up and up and up.

Barack Obama understands our need for change. Only Barack Obama has a detailed plan to give us the change we need: lower energy prices and more “green-collar jobs.” If anyone still doubts whether renewable energy can lower prices and create jobs, look no further than Iowa. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in renewable energy, created more than 100,000 good-paying jobs and provided clean alternatives to overpriced, foreign oil.

Iowa is becoming the “renewable energy capital” of the United States, and other states, like Colorado, are doing the same. All around the country, entrepreneurs and innovators are joining state and local governments on exciting, cutting-edge projects. Just think how much we’ll do when we have a president who shares our vision.

Barack Obama’s clean energy plan will create 5 million new jobs. He will crack down on the special interests who intentionally “bid up” energy prices for their own profit. And he will set a national goal of producing 25 percent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2025.

In just more than two months, Americans will decide the most important election in a generation. Our choice is to stick with the status quo or to move our country forward. On energy, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

So, my fellow Democrats, let’s lock arms and work together. Let’s ensure that the journey that began in Iowa will continue on from Denver to Washington, D.C. Let’s put Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the White House and put our country on a path towards energy independence!

The second debate, led by Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican to be elected president, was about definitions—whether The Rights of Man applied to individuals who were neither pale nor male. It took almost two centuries of struggle, hallmarked by a civil war, the suffrage and abolitionist movements, the Harlem renaissance and a courageous civil rights leadership to bring meaning to the values embedded in the Declaration of Independence.

The third debate, symbolized by the new deal of Franklin Roosevelt and the emphasis on individual initiative of Ronald Reagan, involves the question of opportunity, whether rights are fully meaningful if all citizens are not given a chance to succeed and provide for their families.

The fourth debate, which acquired grim relevance with the dawn of the nuclear age, is the question of whether any rights are possible without peace and environmental security.

The American progressive tradition reflected in these debates spans Democratic standard bearers from the prairie populist William Jennings Bryan to the Camelot statesman, John F. Kennedy. It includes Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt, who built up the National Parks system and broke down corporate monopolies, and Dwight David Eisenhower, who ran on a pledge to end a war in Korea, brought a stop to European colonial intervention in the Middle East, quietly integrated the Washington, D.C., school system and not so quietly sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to squash segregation in public schools throughout the country.

In models of international statecraft, progressive leadership includes Al Gore, who helped galvanize worldwide understanding of the most challenging environmental threat currently facing the planet, and our current president’s father, who led an internationally sanctioned coalition to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

In Congress, Democratic senators like Pat Moynihan and Mike Mansfield served in Republican administrations. On the Republican side, Arthur Vandenberg helped President Truman launch the Marshall Plan, and Everett Dirksen backed Lyndon Johnson’s landmark civil rights legislation.

In troubled times, it was understood that country comes before party, that in perilous moments mutual concern for the national interest must be the only factor in political judgments. This does not mean that debate within and between the political parties should not be vibrant. Yet what frustrates so many citizens is the lack of bipartisanship in Washington and the way today's Republican Party has broken with its conservative heritage.

The party that once emphasized individual rights has gravitated in recent years toward regulating values. The party of military responsibility has taken us to war with a country that did not attack us. The party that formerly led the world in arms control has moved to undercut treaties crucial to the defense of the earth. The party that prides itself on conservation has abdicated its responsibilities in the face of global warming. And the party historically anchored in fiscal restraint has nearly doubled the national debt, squandering our precious resources in an undisciplined and unprecedented effort to finance a war with tax cuts.

America has seldom faced more critical choices: whether we should maintain an occupational force for decades in a country and region that resents western intervention or elect a leader who, in a carefully structured way, will bring our troops home from Iraq as the heroes they are. Whether it is wise to continue to project power largely alone with flickering support around the world or elect a leader who will follow the model of General Eisenhower and this president’s father and lead in concert with allies.

Whether it is prudent to borrow from future generations to pay for today's reckless fiscal policies or elect a leader who will shore up our budgets and return to a strong dollar. Whether it is preferable to continue the policies that have weakened our position in the world, deepened our debt and widened social divisions or elect a leader who will emulate John F. Kennedy and relight a lamp of fairness at home and reassert an energizing mix of realism and idealism abroad.

The portfolio of challenges passed on to the next president will be as daunting as any since the Great Depression and World War II. This is not a time for politics as usual or for run-of-the-mill politicians. Little is riskier to the national interest than more of the same. America needs new ideas, new energy and a new generation of leadership.

Hence, I stand before you proud of my party's contributions to American history but, as a citizen, proud as well of the good judgment of good people in this good party, in nominating a transcending candidate, an individual whom I am convinced will recapture the American dream and be a truly great president: the senator from Abraham Lincoln's state—Barack Obama. Thank you.

Today, I am a 39 year old wife and mother of three children. I work part-time from home. I can't even say this experience is like a dream coming true, because I've never allowed myself to dream so big! I am here today because of Senator Obama.

I first heard of him when my pastor gave me his "Call to Renewal" speech to read. I saw common beliefs, and I wanted to learn more. I read The Audacity of Hope. It was simple and straight-forward, with no political game-playing, just bringing people together so real changes can be made that affect the everyday lives of people like me.

When Senator Obama announced he would run for president, I was thrilled and, for the first time in my life, I decided to get involved. Living in Iowa, we had the opportunity to attend many events and to meet Senator Obama, Michelle and their family. We learned that they are very down-to-earth, genuine people who truly understand our point of view.

When I listened to Senator Obama speak, my children stood next to me, and I understand what he means when he talks about the "fierce urgency of now." If not now, what will our country look like in four or eight years? What will my children's future hold? During the course of this campaign, I have been involved like never before. I am a precinct captain. I go door to door, talking to my neighbors about Senator Obama. I donate money, and I had the opportunity in May to introduce Senator Obama in front of a great Des Moines, Iowa crowd.

Yes, Senator Obama inspired me with his words, but he then motivated me with his good, solid plans for action. He convinced me that I was an important part of making these plans happen. He convinced me that my voice does matter. In fact, he was so convincing that I've decided to go back to college, finish my bachelor's degree and pursue something that I'm now very passionate about– public service!

I am convinced that Barack Obama is the best choice for President of the United States. He has the judgment, compassion, intelligence, perseverance and experience needed to be the next leader of our country.

Brad Anderson, a spokesman for Obama's Iowa campaign, said Leach's endorsement shows that Obama's message of change "appeals to Democrats, Republicans and independents alike."

"Our campaign is proud to have former Republican Congressman Jim Leach, who is widely respected for his intellect and independent streak, speak directly to millions of Americans on Monday night about how Sen. Obama can bring people together to change Washington," Anderson said.

The dramatic resurgence of registered Democrats in Iowa means the Midwestern battleground that Republican George W. Bush carried by a whisker four years ago may be far less competitive in November, national experts in voter registration say.

None of the states viewed early this year as competitive in the presidential campaign has swung more decisively than Iowa since Bush's re-election, based on a comparison of voter registration statistics. [...]

"I think you're looking at the possibility of a fairly seismic shift," said Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate and a leading scholar on voter registration and behavior.

"When you have that kind of shift in registration, you tend to have that kind of shift in voting," he said. "And based on the trend, that would be true in Iowa this year."

McCain Said As President, Would Veto Current Farm Bill. Speaking at a town hall in Iowa, McCain said, "I do not support it. I would veto it. I would do that because I believe the subsidies are unnecessary and I do not believe we should have tariffs against imported products." McCain added, "I just thought I'd start out with that non-controversial statement." [Des Moines Register, 5/1/2008]

McCain Would Veto Farm Bill "In a New York Minute." "We are, we are now have a Farm Bill that's winding its way through the Senate and the House of Representatives which protects sugar. Why should we do that, when, when we have - see and increasing in cost of food, and particularly those, including those that have sugar in it. Why shouldn't we, uh why should we raise protectionist barriers to sugar into this country. And why should we pay farmers who make as much as nine-hundred thousand dollars a year additional tax dollars of yours and mine. If I were the President of the United States I would veto that Farm Bill in a New York minute." [CNN Live Feed (Charlotte, NC), 5/5/2008]

Farm Bill Includes Important Disaster Relief. The farm bill authorizes a "$3.8 billion disaster relief fund for farmers and ranchers." [Reuters, 5/15/2008]

Farm Bill Authorizes Important Conservation Programs. The farm bill includes $1.1 billion in funding for the Conservation Stewardship Program, "a green payment scheme that pays farmers who practice land, water and wildlife conservation on working lands." There is also $1.3 billion included for Wetlands Reserve. [Reuters, 5/15/2008]

Biofuels Get Boost in Farm Bill. The farm bill "provides $300 million in mandatory funding for payments to support production of advanced biofuels including cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel." There is also "$250 million in grants and loan guarantees for renewable energy and energy efficiency systems for agriculture and rural small businesses." [Reuters, 5/15/2008]

YET MCCAIN HAS REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST INCENTIVES FOR GREEN JOBS AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

2007: McCain Opposed Legislation Extending The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit; Recent Study Concluded More than 116,000 Jobs Could be Lost If the Tax Credit is Not Extended. John McCain supported the filibuster of the 2007 energy bill that included an extension of the production tax credit to 2011. While McCain missed the vote to on the bill, according to his staff he did, in fact, support the continuing the filibuster, which eventually killed the bill. In its place, Congress passed another version of the legislation that did not include an extension of the tax credit. A 2008 economic study by Navigant Consulting found that "over 116,000 U.S. jobs and nearly $19 billion in U.S. investment could be lost in just one year if renewable energy tax credits are not renewed by Congress. The study concluded that over 76,000 jobs are put at risk in the wind industry, and approximately 40,000 jobs in the solar industry." [HR 6, Vote 425, 12/13/07, Failed 59-40: R 9-39 D 48-1 I 2-0; Forbes, 12/13/07; U.S. News & World Report, 12/14/07; American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association press release, 2/4/08]

Las Vegas Review-Journal: Legislation McCain Opposed Included Investment Set To Expire Next Year For Generators Of Geothermal, Wind And Solar Power. "Compromises that won passage for a major energy bill in the Senate this week left investors for geothermal, wind and solar resources out in the cold. After a long struggle, the Senate passed the bill late Thursday. It increases vehicle fuel mileage standards and encourages energy efficiency in federal buildings and in electricity-guzzling appliances. The House is expected to take a final vote next week. But passage was assured only after negotiators removed provisions that would set a requirement that 15 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. Also gone were extensions for investment and production tax credits set to expire next year for generators of geothermal, wind and solar power. 'From the standpoint of renewable energy, the compromises were certainly a missed opportunity, and they were out of step with much of the support we get from across the country,' said Gregory Wetsone, director of government affairs at the American Wind Energy Association." [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 12/15/07]

San Francisco Chronicle: Legislation McCain Opposed Also Sought Eliminate Tax Cuts for Oil Companies and Instead Fund Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the 2007 energy bill that McCain opposed "would have revoked $13.5 billion in tax breaks from the five largest oil companies. The money would have been redirected into tax incentives for solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, wave energy and other renewables. Consumers would have received a $3,000 tax credit for buying an electric plug-in hybrid and a tax credit of up to $4,000 for installing solar panels to power their homes. But the measure failed on a 59-40 vote, falling one vote shy of the 60 votes needed to end debate and move the bill forward." [2007 Vote 425, 12/13/07; The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/14/07]

2006: McCain Voted Against Extending The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit And Over $290 For Renewable Energy Research. McCain voted against an amendment to extend the renewable energy production tax credit and clean renewable energy bonds programs for four years including $290 million for renewable energy R&D on Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower. [2006 Senate Vote #42, 3/14/2006]

HE'S SPOKEN OUT AGAINST ETHANOL...REPEATEDLY

1998: McCain Sponsored an Amendment to Kill Ethanol Subsidies After 2000. McCain sponsored an amendment to prohibit extension of ethanol subsidies from 2001-2007. According to McCain's press release, "The amendment strikes the Finance Committee amendment that extends for an additional seven years the tax credits for ethanol and methanol producers. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated lost revenues total $3.8 billion. McCain's amendment would have allowed the existing subsidies to continue through the year 2000 but would have eliminated the seven-year extension." [S.AMDT.1968 to S.1173, 3/11/98; McCain Senate Press Release , 3/11/98]

1998: McCain Called Ethanol "Inefficient" and a "Prime Example of Corporate Pork." McCain stated in March 1998, "Ethanol is an inefficient, expensive fuel." He further claimed, "If ever there was a prime example of corporate pork, the unnecessary, inequitable ethanol subsidy program is it." [McCain Senate Press Release , 3/11/98]

1999: McCain Said Ethanol Subsidies Are "Not Worth It." During a 1999 Presidential debate in Iowa John McCain said, "Ethanol is not worth it. It does not help the consumer. Those ethanol subsidies should be phased out." [Des Moines GOP Primary Debate, 12/13/1999]

2000: McCain Said Ethanol Should Be Phased Out. During his 2000 campaign, McCain called for eliminating the "corporate welfare doled out to" ethanol grants, and stated "ethanol is not right, the subsidies should be phased out." [Houston Chronicle, 2/11/2000]

2003: McCain Voted To Allow The President To Waive Ethanol Requirements. McCain voted for an amendment to the 2003 Energy Policy Act allowing the President to waive ethanol requirements if the administration has determine that the requirement resulted in an increase in average cost of gasoline to end users in a State or region of 10 cents per gallon or more. McCain: Y [2003 Senate Vote #206, 6/4/2003]

2004: McCain Voted Against Tax Credits For Ethanol; Measure Also Banned MTBE In Four Years. McCain voted against moving forward on an amendment to the 2004 Internet Access Tax bill that banned methyl tertiary ether (MTBE) in four years, eliminated, 270 days after enactment, oxygen requirements under Clean Air Act and established a renewable fuel standard requiring use of 3.1 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2004, increased to 5 billion gallons in 2012. The amendment also established a credit trading program, increased credit to 2.5 gallons of renewable fuel for the use of cellulosic biomass (ethanol) derived from agricultural residue and included no liability protection for either MTBE or ethanol. [2004 Senate Vote #73, 4/29/2004]

2005: McCain Voted To Strike The Renewable Fuel Mandate, Including Ethanol, From 2005 Energy Policy Act. McCain voted in support of an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 striking the renewable fuel (ethanol) mandate from underlying amendment. [2005 Senate Vote #138, 6/15/2005]

2008: McCain Supports Eliminating Ethanol Subsidies And Tariffs On Imported Ethanol. When explaining his economic plan, McCain said, "Become--make it a national priority to--for energy independence." Later, he says, "But I'll tell you what, I would eliminate ethanol subsidies. I would eliminate the tariff on imported ethanol… I'm for biofuels, I'm for all that stuff, but let's let the market play. Let's not subsidize ethanol or any other alternate form of energy." [CNBC, "Kudlow & Company," 4/15/08]

MCCAIN SET TO MAKE PROFIT FROM BUDWEISER SALE TO INBEV

"Anheuser's stock price opened at $67.55 today, almost a 50% gain over the near $47 price in February when the possibility of a deal was made public. Cashing out could leave the McCains with hefty capital gains…" [Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire Blog, 7/14/08]

MCCAIN HAS WALKED AWAY FROM POSITIONS, HE ONCE HELD

McCain Panders, Votes Against Grassroots Lobbying Reform Similar to What He Once Sponsored. McCain voted for the Bennett amendment to the Senate Ethics Reform Bill to strike provisions requiring that activist organizations which engaged in grassroots lobbying efforts had to report details of their activities and finances. "While grassroots groups on both sides of the political spectrum oppose the proposal, social conservative leaders such as Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, who broadcasts a radio program to hundreds of thousands of evangelical Christians, have been its most vehement critics. McCain sponsored legislation last Congress that included an even broader requirement for grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors." [The Hill, 1/18/07; S.Amdt.20 to S.1, Vote #17, 1/18/07, agreed to 55-43; R: 48-0, D: 7-43, McCain voted "Yea"]

McCain's Flip-Flop on Immigration. Though once McCain, through his Kennedy-McCain immigration reforms, "want(s) to allow undocumented workers who participate in a guest worker program to be able to stay in America and apply for permanent residency or citizenship after paying fines and satisfying other requirements." [Los Angeles Times, 11/29/05] Now, "Republican presidential hopeful John McCain on Thursday backed a scaled-down proposal that imposes strict rules to end illegal immigration but doesn't include a path to citizenship...Among other things, the bill makes being in the country illegally a criminal misdemeanor and toughens penalties for re-entering after being deported." [AP, 8/2/07]

John McCain Voted For Bush Tax Cuts And Defended The Flip-Flop As A Legislative Gimmick. John McCain voted to extend tax cuts supported by the president that were set to expire between 2005 and 2010. "The Senate voted 53-47…in favor of extending the president's investor tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. Joining in this breakthrough vote was John McCain, the senator who voted against these tax cuts when they were introduced in 2003. This is an important shift for the GOP presidential frontrunner[.]" McCain's vote was described as "a sharp reversal of his anti-tax-cut posture," though he defended the shift, saying, "it was a gimmick," reasoning that "the tax cuts were temporary and then had to be made permanent. The tax cuts are now there and voting to revoke them would have been to--not to extend them would have meant a tax increase. I've never voted for a tax increase in my life." [Senate vote #10, H.R. 4297, 2/2/06, passed 66-31; New York Times, 2/21/06; Washington Times, 3/6/06; NBC News, 4/2/06]

WELL THIS ONE WAS JUST TOO EASY