Kaine touts partnership with. . . George W. Bush?
Former Gov. Tim Kaine served for two years as President Barack Obama’s chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
So it’s no surprise that Kaine would tout his partnership with the White House in an ad for his U.S. Senate campaign. Today the campaign unveiled a new 30-second ad that includes an image of a smiling Tim Kaine sitting next to a beaming president.
President George W. Bush, that is.
Yes, Kaine is promoting his efforts as governor to work with presidents of both parties on issues important to Virginia. The ad features separate images of Kaine with Bush and Obama.
“I don’t agree with any president all the time, but I know that when our nation succeeds Virginia succeeds,” Kaine says in the ad. “As governor, I worked with the Bush administration to build rail to Dulles and with the Obama administration to stop an aircraft carrier from moving out of Virginia.”
Kaine’s campaign released another ad today in which the Democrat stakes out a middle ground between Obama and Republican Senate candidate George Allen on extending the Bush-era tax cuts. Obama wants to let the tax cuts expire on incomes greater than $250,000. Allen wants to extend all of the tax cuts. In the ad, called “Middle Ground,” Kaine says the tax cuts should expire on incomes greater than $500,000.
“This reduces the deficit, avoids devastating cuts to defense, education, and Medicare, and saves jobs,” Kaine says.
The ads were released on the eve of another debate between Kaine and Allen. The candidates will face off Thursday in McLean in a debate sponsored by the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce.
Allen’s campaign said the new Kaine ads were an attempt to “hide his record as one of the most partisan leaders in the nation.” Allen’s camp also pointed to a 2010 Bloomberg television interview in which Kaine was asked about the impact of closing the military’s Joint Forces Command in Hampton Roads. Kaine acknowledged that the closing would affect jobs, but added that, because of the budget deficit, “everything has to be on the table.”
– Michael Sluss
September 19, 2012 - 4:50 PM
We know what they each say about themselves, but I would like to know which one was the most fiscally conservative as governor. While Allen was in Senate, he voted for several big government initiatives, so he already has points against him. He has a voting record to contradict his claims. We don’t have that with Kaine, so looking at what they did as Gov is about it.
I wouldn’t want to align myself with either of these presidents. Bush tried to spend like a Democrat and Obama is spending like a socialist.
However, having said that, I don’t trust Kaine because of his current voting record. We have seen what George Allen did as Governor. His record on welfare reform, truth-in-sentencing and other measures speak for themselves.
Yeah, that Allen is a keeper:
He “supports drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;
Voted against including oil and gas smokestacks in mercury regulations;
opposes spending resources to stop global warming;
Supports overturning Roe v. Wade;
opposes the mandate for insurance plans to cover contraception;
opposes embryonic stem cell research;
Strongly supports charter schools;
proponent of School Choice Initiatives;
Supported use of military force against Iraq;
supported $86 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan;
in favor of more troops in Iraq;
favors a flat tax;
Repeal Obamacare;
Don’t allow the federal govt to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers for Medicare Part D;
against providing undocumented aliens a path to legal status;
opposes the DREAM Act;
Strong supporter of gun rights and the right to carry concealed weapons, including assault weapons.”
All good reasons not to vote for him IMO.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/George_Allen_vs_Tim_Kaine
And the good reasons to vote for Kaine:
“Supports clean energy technologies;
transition to a lower-carbon energy portfolio and energy conservation;
approved exploratory drilling for natural gas off the coast of Virginia;
As Governor supported the preservation of more than 400,000 acres of open space; championed allocation of $1 billion into wastewater;
Supports Roe v. Wade and the mandate for insurance plans to cover contraception;
Supports reform to early childhood education, K-12 curriculums, and technical education;
proposes making college more affordable;
Critical of Iraq war blaming it on poor civilian decision-making and of Congress; supports troops withdrawal;
Supports stimulus spending, targeted budget cuts rather than across the board cuts in govt spending, progressive taxation (higher income people pay at a higher rate), and letting Bush tax cuts expire for those making $500,00+;
Supports Obamacare; wants to allow federal govt to negotiate bulk purchase discounts from drug manufacturers;
championed a ban on smoking in public places;
Believes undocumented workers should pay a fine but be given a path to legal status;
supports the DREAM Act;
Supports the Second Amendment but in favor of some gun control measures like not allowing mentally ill individuals or convicted felons access to guns.”
Yes, the choice is clear. It always is.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/George_Allen_vs_Tim_Kaine
@Sandi – thanks for sharing what George Allen stands for – I like it!!!
4.The EPA has done many wonderful things cleaning up the air and water and I applaud them for that, however, their efforts now are producing deminishing returns at a huge price tag and are now a job killing, over reaching, leftist organization.
America cannot afford to borrow more money from China to keep our country afloat and continue to support their over reaching efforts in 2012 and beyond.
What happens when the US$ is no longer the global reserve currency? What happens when the yuan replaces it and we owe $16T in debt (mostly to China). Those of us who never lived through the great depression will wished we had compared to what America will face.
Virginians will then pine for the day that we had affordable coal. When your family is starving, I don’t think you’ll give two thoughts about if the emmissions rose a minute percentage that was unacceptable to the EPA.
By the way, if you beleive in it so much, why are the deferring the new restrictions until AFTER THE ELECTION IN 2012???
“The Environmental Protection Agency will reconsider and delay the final release of controversial regulations cracking down on power plant emissions.
In a statement released late Friday afternoon, the agency announced it would conduct a “reconsideration” of the rule, originally scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. The EPA now says it will complete the regulations by March 2013, and that the additional time is necessary because of “new information provided by industry stakeholders.”
“The agency’s review will not change the types of state-of-the-art pollution controls new power plants are expected to use to reduce this harmful pollution,” EPA said in its press release explaining the decision.
Under the rule — which Republicans have attacked as yet another example of the Obama administration’s hostility toward fossil fuels — power plants would be required to greatly limit their mercury and other toxic emissions.
The specific thresholds, widely expected to hit coal plants the hardest, will be set by the EPA and will be based on “levels achieved by the best-performing sources currently in operation,” the agency says on its website.
In its current form, the rule will affect any proposed new plants, while existing facilities will have up to four years from the date of implementation to comply with the regulations.
Coal plants currently generate about 45 percent of the nation’s electricity, and while increasingly popular and abundant U.S. natural gas likely will replace coal eventually as a means of producing power, many specialists think that change must happen gradually and be driven by market forces, not federal regulations.
The EPA has also proposed new restrictions on carbon emissions from coal-fired plants, effectively banning new coal facilities from being built. The carbon standards, which are not a part of the agency’s reconsideration, would require plants to use inexpensive and commercially unavailable carbon capture technology.
The Obama’s administration’s stance has also posed political problems for Democrats from coal-producing states, such as West Virginia and Ohio.
Last week, the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy and power held a hearing in Abingdon, Va., and heard testimony from coal miners and other stakeholders from the industry. Coal-sector workers told the committee that their way of life is under attack by the federal government.
“Under President Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency has cranked out one costly anti-coal regulation after another,” said Rep. Ed Whitfield, Kentucky Republican and subcommittee chairman. “The agency tells us we need these measures to protect us from global warming, but, in my view, the cure is considerably worse than the disease.”
Read more: EPA defers regulations for coal-fired power plants – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/21/epa-take-second-look-coal-rules/#ixzz277JL70bl
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Before I get corrected on some typos, let me do that for myself. I don’t depend on others to do things for me:
The EPA has done many wonderful things cleaning up the air and water and I applaud them for that, however, their efforts now are producing deminishing returns at a huge price tag and are now a job killing, over reaching, leftist organization.
America cannot afford to borrow more money from China to keep our country afloat and continue to support their over reaching efforts in 2012 and beyond.
What happens when the US$ is no longer the global reserve currency? What happens when the yuan replaces it and we owe $16T in debt (mostly to China). Those of us who never lived through the great depression will wish we had compared to what America will face.
Virginians will then pine for the day that we had affordable coal. When your family is starving, I don’t think you’ll give two thoughts about if the emmissions rose a minut percentage that was unacceptable to the EPA.
By the way, if you beleive in it so much, why are they deferring the new restrictions until AFTER THE ELECTION IN 2012???
That you “source” the Washington Times is all we really needed to know. Thanks.
I suspect we would all be in awe of the things others have done for you. We live in America, where that is rather a common occurrence.
For the record, wanting cleaner air, water and soil is not near the problem for coal that cheaper and cleaner natural gas is. Throughout history, pollutants have been discarded when a better and cheaper source is found. Whale oil lamps anyone?
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/13/156747559/whats-killing-king-coal-in-west-virginia
@Sandi, such hypcrosity. You source the Washington Post.
You may also pine for the day that you had whale oil, but no – wait – you can’t kill whales.
What say you about the US$ being replaced by the yuan as the global currency? How deep do you think or is it all superficial with you?
@Sandi – I just noticed you sourced NPR, now that’s objective isn’t it.
I will put the credibility of the Washington Post and NPR up against any right wing media source you can name, including the WSJ. Your disdain alone proves how often they tell the truth. Right wingers had to invent their own media because credible sources will not carry their water. “The truth has a well known liberal bias”. It always has.
There are too many organizations that exist to refute right wing lies for there not to be right wing lies.
Prove NPR or The Washington Post wrong on either citation. Find a credible source for your allegations, or as Ann Romney advises, “stop it”.
Kathie, I notice that you conflate “objective” with truthful. How is that? There is no need to tell “the other side of the story” when that side is a lie, or just plain wrong. That is what the right wing cannot grasp. Your POV does not create credibility if it is not there. That is why right wing media exists, to create credibility even where none exists. FOX and FlimFlambaugh are shining examples of that credo and the success it brings in telling you all what you want to hear instead of the actual truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
Let’s not lose site of the original argument. For Obama’s ‘fundamentally transformed’ America, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” (January 2008) and he is doing exactly what he said he would do.
Why do you think it is more important to get re-elected than to fix the economy? Go on The View rather than address the UN when Egypt is asking for our first amendment to be taken away.
He has a different future for my kids and grandkids than I do.