Flashback: McCain Objected To Granting Dem Senator More Time

more at msnbc.com, December 18, 2009

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• mccain
• chris matthews
• msnbc
• fresh clips
• robert byrd
• 2003
• additional moment

[DixieDale]

Yea - McCain has proven to be a hypocrite.

This is the same guy who claimed he wanted "country first", then chose the stupid inept Palin as running mate.

[TheAncord]

@draco

Wrong, you don't have to be the sitting chair to object to a unanimous consent request. That is why it is called UNANIMOUS consent. After an objection, the chair would not have been able to give more time under those circumstances even if he wanted to. So it may not be precisely the same situation, but it had the same effect, making McCain a hypocrite.

[Sulla2300]

Would have been a better and more effective video is we had actually seen McCain objecting. How do we know that was even him?

[imadumas2]

@onevoicemore- kudos!

[OneVoiceMore]

@OneVoiceMore But, in case my memory fails me, let me be clear:

I'm CERTAIN McCain was on the floor of the senate when an objection was raised to a dem senator asking for a 30-second extension, and my memory suggests McCain raised the objection.

Even if he didn't, he certainly didn't get on national TV for two days and bitch that it was done.

This is all just partisan rhetoric, and not some McCain defense of the Senate as a whole. PLEASE don't be fooled.

[OneVoiceMore]

@zigzagzoo12 Bad taste? When is bad taste ever a litmus test of the US Senate.

When McCain did what he did, have no illusions, it was to rush this country into a war based on faulty premises. When Al Franken did it, it was to speed up what he believes is better health care for US citizens.

I may get motivated to do the research for you, but if you assert something, you're responsible for proof. Somewhere in the miasma of notes I have, plus the internet, McCain was THAT impatient, yes.

[zigzagzoo12]

@OneVoiceMore, I doubt that McCain wouldn't allow a senator 30 sec more to finish, but I could be wrong; nevertheless, bottom line what Franken did is in bad taste and for Matthews to support that is also in bad taste.

[OneVoiceMore]

@zigzagzoo12 Yes, your point makes sense, when it's isolated from the contextual reality of what happens on the Senate floor many times.

As chairman, McCain has even denied thirty seconds to extend brief remarks, and he well knows it.

But this is all tempest-in-a-teapot politics. Making a big deal about this is like arguing that tying one's shoes MUST be right over left.

I think you know you're splitting hairs and exaggerating both their difference and importance.

[zigzagzoo12]

This is not hypocricy at all. In one instance where Lieberman is trying to finish his point, he just needed another minute or two, but with Bird, he is asking for more time before even starting! And he isn't even asking for a specific amount of time, but that his time is not counted against him, and everyone knows that Bird is a BIG talker...he just rambles on and on and on, so it was right for McCain to deny him unlimited time.

[zigzagzoo12]

@OneVoiceMore, McCain was very upset that Lieberman was not granted more time as is usually done when a senator is trying to finish a point and time runs out McCain denyed another senator more time before he even STARTED!!! And the time that Bird asked for was not limited. He didn't say I need a few more minutes, but that the time he "spends on this admendment is not taken out of his hour". THESE ARE VERY DIFFERENT. Does that make sense?

[OneVoiceMore]

@zigzagzoo12 McCain did not request more time for Lieberman. Lieberman did.

McCain voiced displeasure that Lieberman's request for unanimous consent was objected to.

To say this is TOTALLY different is a gross exaggeration.