ATTN Americans: John McCain is a whore

[Senethro]

Overturning Roe vs Wade? Guess who likes this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 082499.htm

Does he support the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom? I can't even tell!
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/mccain-creationism/

I hope I don't need to link him failing America on that torture bill.

The moderate "maverick" Republican has shown his true colours. He is not the saviour of the Republican party, just more of the same with a slavish adherence to political expediency and more colour changing than a chameleon.

[Steveo]

Yet more reasons to vote for Giuliani.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[novium]

you seem very upset and shocked senethro.


That's just how the game is played. Politicians who refuse to play don't get elected.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Senethro]

You elect the politicians you deserve.

[novium]

don't be naive.
McCain is a moderate. And an old-school republican, an old school politician, willing to work with the other party. As nice and good as that is, you don't win by catering solely to one faction. McCain has his moderate credentials. But he needs to gain the trust of the religious conservatives and the neocons. A little pandering is necessary. But you know what it means? That he really is a moderate candidate. Candidates that must kiss and make up with the radicals are truly moderates. It is a far better thing for that to be the case than what we've had more recently- those who already had the radicals in their pocket, and needed to kiss and make nice with the moderates. Because once the election is over, they always go back to relying on and pandering to their core support.

McCain has never denied being against abortion. But he's never shown any strong signs of moving for outlawing it. Personal is not always political. For one, even as president, he could not "overturn" roe vs wade, despite the fact that it was a monumentally stupid decision, and if it hadn't been for it, abortion would have remained up to the states and not have become the absurd hot-button culture-war issue it has. so don't get your panties in a twist over that. ""I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.""

No hardcore religious conservative would ever say something like that, even during an election period, because their base would then crucify them.

All politicians tailor their messages, depending on who they are talking to. Even the best, even the ones who are considered to be practically saints nowadays.

Giuliani is going to have to do even more pandering to the right, as he makes that religious conservative contingent even MORE nervous.
And just in case you forget- the relgious conservatives are not limited to the republicans. There are plenty of religiously conservative democratic voters- the ones who are blue collar and immigrant groups, for example.

Hillary clinton has been trying to court them for the last few years, which is a good move as they've been run over roughshod by the more radical democrats in recent years. But make no mistake, she too is going to have to start making the right noises for those radicals.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[David Bean]

Nice censorship there, Novium, but I found the original quotation a little more puzzling:

He added that while he ultimately favors repeal of Roe, "we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations."

Performing them? Seems doubtful to me...

Also, before it gets jumped on by a thousand people and derails the thread completely, could you clarify your position on Roe v. Wade, in characterising it as a 'monumentally stupid decision'? I suspect your criticism is of some aspect(s) of the decision that may be less well-known outside the USA rather than of the principle that abortion should not be legally prohibited; I could be wrong on that, but I'd be interested to hear your views either way.

As far as the Senator is concerned, there are several issues to consider here. Unlike Novium, my instinct tells me that he's more a genuinely 'right wing' Republican who has been spending a lot of effort portraying himself as a moderate, than the other way round; now that he has a primary to get through, he's had to shift himself (back?) to the 'right' to get the party base on board in an attempt to carry him through to the General. Were he to secure the nomination, which I very much doubt he will, we could expect his message to revert to the moderate position, but the problem with all of this seesawing is that it leaves us with little evidence on which to judge what he's actually do in office. As Novium notes, Giuliani will have a similar problem, except that he's more obviously a genuine moderate.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[novium]

What censorship? I did not censor anything; it's a direct quotation from the article. It was the original quotation. The article had several, I think i chose the first one mentioned.

As to roe vs wade. It was monumentally stupid, constitutionally speaking. Their justification for stepping in on what was up to the states made absolutely no sense. But's let's ignore that, for a second, and look solely at the fact that, at the time, practically all the states had either legalized it or were in the process of doing so- and it wasn't yet this huge "culture war" issue. As soon as it was Mandated From On High, (on extremely shaky constitutional grounds), then it became the Issue, and kicked off these endless, vitrolic, pointless diatribes.

I am very much pro-choice. But I am also very much against unelected figures deciding to overstep their jurisdiction (so to speak)...especially when it creates a headache like the this. It's such a silly polarizing issue (especially because the vast majority of the country does not like abortion, and would rather have it legal to varying extents. But the question is never phrased that way. It's always all or nothing. good or evil.) Distracts voters from more pressing issues while stirring them up at the same time. A politician's dream.

As to mcCain...well, I think he's an odd duck. He's both very traditionally republican on some issues, but on many others...well, he's hard to place. Moderate works best. At the very least, he is not a partisan warrior. And god, that is so wonderful. I'm not sure I would want him as president, but he has my respect. He's a politican. I don't trust him. But I respect him.

I think his actions speak louder than words. ALthough I must admit, the slurs thrown at him by some of his opponents during the 2000 election primaries also made me more inclined to like him.

But what clinched it for me was stuff like the gang of 14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_op ... g_of_14.22

Because it was the only reasonable course of action, but very few were willing to support it. Hell, I remember how vilified those people were- on both sides. All this yelling about how their political careers were over.

I also respect him for his desire for campaign fincance reform.
And the fact that he was the only senator that voted against that despicable digital spectrum thing- when the big media companies were buying politicans left and right, and threatening bad press for those who didn't toe the line.
I respected his anger over the whole torture debacle, even if politics won in the end.

I respect his stand against pork, and his arguments for fixing the budget over cutting taxes or taxing and spending. The fact that when it comes to (illegal) immigration, once again, despite the orthodox repulbican view, he seems fairly common sense about it, with citizenship, a guestworker problem worth speaking about, and a pragmatic approach to the politics surrounding it. I also respect him for his positions on the environment and global warming (the former should be protected, the latter is a very real and serious problem). And gay rights, as well.

Quoting David Bean from 21:52, 19th Feb 2007
Nice censorship there, Novium, but I found the original quotation a little more puzzling:



Also, before it gets jumped on by a thousand people and derails the thread completely, could you clarify your position on Roe v. Wade, in characterising it as a 'monumentally stupid decision'? I suspect your criticism is of some aspect(s) of the decision that may be less well-known outside the USA rather than of the principle that abortion should not be legally prohibited; I could be wrong on that, but I'd be interested to hear your views either way.

As far as the Senator is concerned, there are several issues to consider here. Unlike Novium, my instinct tells me that he's more a genuinely 'right wing' Republican who has been spending a lot of effort portraying himself as a moderate, than the other way round; now that he has a primary to get through, he's had to shift himself (back?) to the 'right' to get the party base on board in an attempt to carry him through to the General. Were he to secure the nomination, which I very much doubt he will, we could expect his message to revert to the moderate position, but the problem with all of this seesawing is that it leaves us with little evidence on which to judge what he's actually do in office. As Novium notes, Giuliani will have a similar problem, except that he's more obviously a genuine moderate.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Dave25]

No one doubt's McCain's decency and integrity but based on the current batch of opinion polls, the Arizona senator has a much bigger problem than Giuliani. Opinion Polls this early are of course crazy, but in the CBS poll on 17 Feb, 50% of Republican primary voters back Giuliani as opposed to 21% for McCain.

Novium says that Giuliani will have to pander more to the Christian right than McCain but the early evidence seems to be that Giuliani will end up making the Dobsons and Robertsons of the loony right irrelevant in this campaign. Let's face it, a pro choice Republican candidate who lived with a gay male couple is never going to get Dobson's support, so why would Giuliani waste political capital trying to secure it.

It is way too early to be making predictions, and Giuliani is a little unpredictable but the evidence seems to be that he is equally popular with conservatives and moderates and could secure the nomination while ignoring the Christian nut jobs. Furthermore if California moves its primary up as has been suggested, Giuliani could have it all sewn up before the Southern states can cause him problems. All of which leaves Sen McCain looking pretty lonely. He's being shunned by Dobson (for most sane people a plus) but is being eclipsed by Rudi's rising candidacy. McCain's efforts to mend fences with the right were mocked by Colbert at the White House Correspondents Dinner and all in all, if you are a pro choice voter, Giuliani is probably the candidate with the most consistent position on social issues. Which highlights Rudi's big selling point - Conservatives admire him, even knowing his views on abortion, because he has been consistent and has not resorted to political expediency, again reinforcing his steadfast 9/11 image.

[Senethro]

Quoting Dave25 from 15:33, 20th Feb 2007
No one doubt's McCain's decency and integrity

I do. <[img]littleicons/cross.gif[/img]>

but in the CBS poll on 17 Feb, 50% of Republican primary voters back Giuliani as opposed to 21% for McCain.

Hurrah! \[img]littleicons/laugh.gif[/img]/

[novium]

Senethro, I cannot understand why you act so shocked. You weren't born yesterday. Come on.


As to poll numbers, looking at a gazillion of them on wikipedia, I don't see a single one for McCain below 41%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_po ... on%2C_2008

Quoting Senethro from 17:35, 20th Feb 2007

Quoting Dave25 from 15:33, 20th Feb 2007
No one doubt's McCain's decency and integrity

I do. <[img]littleicons/cross.gif[/img]>

but in the CBS poll on 17 Feb, 50% of Republican primary voters back Giuliani as opposed to 21% for McCain.

Hurrah! \[img]littleicons/laugh.gif[/img]/

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[David Bean]

I was referring to the fact that the original quotation had American women 'performing dangerous operations', whereas you seemed to have corrected the slip of the tongue to '[undergo]'. Maybe you were using a different source.

Don't you think the Supreme Court has some role in issuing in social change? As a body it certainly hasn't shied away from that role, thinking of landmark decisions like Brown v Board of Education and the rest.

I gather people like Sam Brownback might be in contention for grabbing the extreme right wing vote, so they may indeed not be much of a factor.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[novium]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_po ... on%2C_2008

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[novium]

The quotation was pulled with no alterations by me from the article. Third paragraph down.


Social change is not the issue. Constitutionality is. That is what the supreme court deals with. There have been plenty of things that have gone on for a long time that were obviously unconstitutional, and were only corrected (if corrected) at a much later date. But the supreme court is not supposed to make law, it is suppose to interpret the law. And they sometimes stretch this to the point of incredibility. And they are not supposed to ursurp powers granted to the states or the federal government for that matter. If they stick to their jobs, any stupid decisions can be eventually remedied fairly easily. (For example, allowing things that are obviously unconstitutional). A recent example would be that whole eminent domain farce. The states immediately started psasing laws putting an end to such foolishness. At some later date, it would be a small matter for some other court to overturn the decision.
But Roe vs wade... that was about what they thought the law should be, not what the law was. And that means the issue was no longer, "is this constitutional" but "is abortion right". Upkeeping it or overturning it suddenly becomes an issue over the MORALITY of it.

Quoting David Bean from 20:11, 20th Feb 2007
I was referring to the fact that the original quotation had American women 'performing dangerous operations', whereas you seemed to have corrected the slip of the tongue to '[undergo]'. Maybe you were using a different source.

Don't you think the Supreme Court has some role in issuing in social change? As a body it certainly hasn't shied away from that role, thinking of landmark decisions like Brown v Board of Education and the rest.

I gather people like Sam Brownback might be in contention for grabbing the extreme right wing vote, so they may indeed not be much of a factor.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Senethro]

Talking about "State's rights" is right-wing doublespeak for getting their own abhorrent way, just like it was decades ago with segregation.

[novium]

oh yeah, that's why it's being used in order to push through medical marijuanna, against the feds.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Marco Biagi]

I think Mike Huckabee is considered more dangerous as a possible long shot darling of the religious right than Sam Brownback.

And novium, if McCain is so good on campaign finance reform, why is he opting out of his own system for both the primary and the general? Either the system doesn't work (and I've seen no indication by him that he wants to change it now, unlike co-sponsor Feingold) or he's a hypocrite. I tend to believe the former, but while that reflects better on his motives it doesn't reflect well on his ability.

And Senethro, don't wish for a Giuliani candidacy from the Republicans. He's way too hard for the Democrats to beat. Still, a double divorcee, marriage-breaking adulterer supportive of abortion, same-sex marriage and gun control is unlikely to win the Republican nomination. *crosses fingers*

[David Bean]

Personally I'd rather see two candidates I agreed with most going at it, not a vanilla candidate from one party and a jobber from the other. Not supporting Giuliani because you think he's too good seems like an odd idea to me.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[novium]

the main four are all such interesting candidates, I really hope they end up sharing each party's ticket.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.