The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
McCain v. McCain: Formidable Opponents
Derrick
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Abortion
1999-“in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.†because it would force “women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.â€
Now- For a constitutional amendment banning abortion except in the case of "Rape, incest and the life of the mother." As well as saying "Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade" which he supports.
Taxes
2001- Bush's tax plan- "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."
2003- the acceleration and continuation of those tax cuts- McCain [paraphrased]- taxes should not be cut in a time of war.
2005- switched his vote to extend the tax cuts, as not doing so would "amount to a tax increase."
While running in the primary, promises to cut taxes and escalate the war. From his website- "...there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq."
Religious Right
2000- Jerry Falwell is “an agent of intolerance.†(for those who do not remember, Falwell is the man who claims that the US "deserved" the 9/11 attacks for having ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the People For the American Way in our country.)
2006- Gives commencement speech at Liberty University (Falwell's school) and in general acts chummy towards him.
Torture
2005- "We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists. We have no grief for them, but what we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are," McCain said. "I think that this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the war on terror."
feb 13 2007- McCain voted against an intelligence bill that would have banned the CIA from waterboarding suspects.
A few "straight out of the horse's mouth" videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/2008/02/03/mccains-flip-flop-express/
1999-“in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.†because it would force “women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.â€
Now- For a constitutional amendment banning abortion except in the case of "Rape, incest and the life of the mother." As well as saying "Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade" which he supports.
Taxes
2001- Bush's tax plan- "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."
2003- the acceleration and continuation of those tax cuts- McCain [paraphrased]- taxes should not be cut in a time of war.
2005- switched his vote to extend the tax cuts, as not doing so would "amount to a tax increase."
While running in the primary, promises to cut taxes and escalate the war. From his website- "...there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq."
Religious Right
2000- Jerry Falwell is “an agent of intolerance.†(for those who do not remember, Falwell is the man who claims that the US "deserved" the 9/11 attacks for having ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the People For the American Way in our country.)
2006- Gives commencement speech at Liberty University (Falwell's school) and in general acts chummy towards him.
Torture
2005- "We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists. We have no grief for them, but what we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are," McCain said. "I think that this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the war on terror."
feb 13 2007- McCain voted against an intelligence bill that would have banned the CIA from waterboarding suspects.
A few "straight out of the horse's mouth" videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/2008/02/03/mccains-flip-flop-express/
Theodore Roosevelt-
"If a man does not have an ideal and try to live up to it, then he becomes a mean, base and sordid creature, no matter how successful."
Here is how I see the issue: John McCain is pandering to the Bush conservatives to win the primary. That much is, I think, obvious. However, many of his supporters I've talked to believe that he will "race to the middle" in the general election. For one, I find that somewhat unlikely as far as he has gone to the right. He's not just praising, he governing in that direction. For two, how much integrity can a man claim to have who drastically switches positions on every major issue he has... especially if he switches them back after having won the primary? (As many hope he will. I remain unconvinced.)
For the body of this thread, I'd like to discuss just how far to the middle McCain will go; if he shows any signs of his old self at all. Also, for any McCain supporters, I would love to hear your views on these apparent contradictions, and I promise that at least for my part your ideas will be weighed and treated with due respect.
Generally, contradictions of other candidates will be encouraged for comparison, but please try not to stay too far off the main course.
Steam and CFN: Enexemander
Derrick on
0
Posts
He was the Neoconservative's first choice back then. At the time, the didn't realize how much of a pushover Bush would be. McCain was pre-aligned with them.
Lack of integrity is one reason to eschew a candidate, but harmful policy is a significant one as well. The one thing McCain has been consistent on is a militaristic foreign policy.
2000 McCain would almost certainly have been fucking terrible.
He probably would have sold out pretty quick to the GOP Congress in 2000 too.
I'm not so sure. Certainly America would have been involved in Afghanistan, however I'm not sold on the idea of him invading Iraq. Really, there was no motive for it and Bush's advisers wouldn't have had much place with McCain.
I have some faith that a McCain lead war in Iraq would have been run in a less political fashion and more as the generals would have had it. Who knows if that would help or not though.
McCain would likely have been less malleable to the will of others, but we would likely be embroiled in a similar set of foreign policy fuckups, as his views on the matter are essentially the same as Bill Kristol.
And the whole integrity thing is just so, so false. The only stable position the man has is his Neocon cred.
And maybe immigration. But the same could possibly be said for Bush in that respect. :P
Bush's advisers were supporting McCain in the election.
Although I agree that it would likely have been less of a fuckup, insofar as Rumsfeld may have not held the position he did, and I would argue that his insistence on a transformed military (smaller, more tech-focused) is the biggest problem with Iraq, beyond the whole false pretenses thing.
I'm really bugged by how the media keeps parroting the maverick title without any comment on his rapidly changing policies.
Does no one remember his "black baby" in 2000? If someone slandered the daughter I adopted like that I sure as hell wouldn't show up for the photo op to kiss the guy's ass with open arms.
It seems like when a Republican changes his views to pander to his base, it's not because he's being disingenuous, but because he has to lower his intelligence level just to get votes. It's just a shame it happened to McCain.
NNID: Hakkekage
It's not a shame, it's frightening that a man who should still be furious with GW has fallen in line with him policies and how Bush staff members started backing McCain, before he became the front runner. He's turned his back on everything he really stood for (esp. things like the McCain Torture Compromise Bill).
I wonder why?
50% of population: We want only X and never Y!
50% of population: We want only Y and never X!
Intelligent man: Ah, let us make a system where you need 51% of the population to win...
I find it a bizarre strawman that you attack McCain for 'lacking integrity' when he has actually let his campaign run nearly onto the rocks several times by refusing to change his principles on certain issues. Not to mention the fact he's done the same thing endless times during his career & earnt the emnity of much of his party for it. No other candidate of any party has done that, bar only perhaps Obama, and he's had signficiantly less time in office to be compared against.
Perhaps, shock, McCain just doesn't find abortion etc such a vitally important issue, therefore is more malleable to changing his position if political necessity dictates. Otherwise, you are just arguing that there is no such thing as political necessity and unfortunate compromises, in which case: off to the children's corner with you please.
I'm fine with him in the running but I wish the media who stop fucking harping on the independent streak line over and over. It's simply not true and hasn't been for years.
Or put it this way: if the media have to stop harping on about the 'independent' streak for McCain, then they have to do the same thing about being 'independent' and 'new' for Obama. Oh my gosh, a politician who speaks well and promises change. We've never seen this before!
His independent streak has rapidly evaporated since 2006. I can't think of an issue right now where he isn't toeing the party line. Maybe immigration.
He may be promising change, but so far his campaign promises more of the same as what Bush has done.
Yes, as has been pointed out, because he can't get elected without it. But 25+ years in Congress previous to that of being a GOP rebel counts for something, or you are an idiot. In reverse, Bush spent all the 2000 election smarming about how he would be a compassionate conservative, a bipartisan uniter, and so on. But some people pointed out: but in the past you've been a cock. Who was right?
Only very, very silly people take election year talk & promises at face value. That's why you look at the candidate's record prior to the election.
Hence why I mentioned specifically in the OP that we can talk about how much we believe he will come to the center.
You really can't hold a discussion without being an ass can you?
Anyway, not only is he saying rightwing rhetoric, he's also legislating it. Secondarily, if a man doesn't have enough faith in himself to win on his own merits, and instead outright lies to deceive and acheive his aims, is such a man deserving of the presidency? More to the point, when running against a worthy opponent, could such a man even win? Consider how much fuel he's throwing on his own fire for the general. He won't be able to campaign much on his record if he professes diametrically opposed beliefs, and he can't profess to change his beliefs back in the general unless he wants his entire base to leave him.
Well...he's right wing. He is a Republican still? If you want independent to mean: be a left-wing Democrat, then sure, he's not independent. But actually independent means: follows his own compass rather than slavishly following party. And this electoral cycle aside, McCain has a better record of doing that than any other candidate bar none (Obama isn't exactly shaking the Democratic party with astounding new policies).
Secondly, yes such a man is deserving of the presidency. Because as I pointed out above, the idea that anyone wins on 'their own merits' is absurd. Everyone wins any political office by a certain amount of pandering, and the larger that office gets, the more pandering is required, because the more variety of opposing opinion there is in the electorate. When you have to balance 10 diametrically opposed opinions in the electorate, and win 6 of them, yes you have to pander. But to blame a candidate for that is ridiculous: blame the system, or blame the voters, or blame your bizarre idea that it is possible to satisfy everyone without offending anyone else.
As to whether such a man could win: look at your list of presidents. Every single one of them has done the above.
You aren't really talking about politics, you're talking about some mythical ideal of leadership. Nice though it might be, the two are not the same.
Sigh, no I just can't hold a discussion with ridiculously touchy people. It's not as if people don't constantly get called idiots around here by everyone else and brush it off as just a figure of speech, why so different with me? Grow some thicker skin & recognise that different cultures have different standards, and over here when you get told to cock off you laugh about it rather than crying to mother. Or don't, I really couldn't care.
Has nobody here ever been part of even the tiniest bit of a political organisation? Student representation, something at work, anything involving a committee...? They might be cunts, but you need two-faced underhanded bastards to keep political systems running. The high-minded uncompromising men of integrity get fucked over by the system and quite sensibly decide that they have better things to do than waste their time on the impossible.
If you want to call us stupid cunts, say it.
Yes, I've been a part of a student organization: student senate at my college in fact. You know what we do to the underhanded little fucks who try to screw everyone over? We rally and fuck that department. We fuck that department so hard that the little shit leaves office, tail between his/her legs, and then people don't get the stupid idea to start fucking everyone over again.
I'm no "high-minded uncompromising man of integrity," but you can stick to what you originally thought and believe in and through compromising bring people to you side or an agreement. Changing your opinion to the other side doesn't help you -- it makes you look like an underhanded little shit that people look at and go "who the hell is this person?"
Superb. Because once again, nobody on these forums has ever used: This just in: as a cliche for : this should be blatently obvious. If search were working, I bet I would find examples from tens of other people over the last week or two. Look, if you feel condescended too by something so utterly harmless then perhaps that says more about your insecurity and ability to take criticism than my evil manner. If you think that makes someone look like an ass, then I have no respect for your opinion of what an ass looks like.
I've said already that a politician doesn't 'follow his own compasses' in election cycles? He is still far out of line with the party on various issues however; the environment, immigration, criticising the administration's handling of Iraq, criticising torture etc. Moreover, he was the first Republican to openly criticise or break ranks on those issues.
[edit] Environment I will give you. Torture, as you can see if you read the OP, he has turned an about-face. Immigration is somewhat in line with the current administration (which is out of line with much of the base) so he's kind of even on that score. Note that before he was in favor of amnesty for illegals living in the borders of the US, and now he's not. On Iraq, everyone is critical of that at this point. With the polls the way they are, to be uncritical of the approach is political suicide. It should be noted, however, that he did say it would be a quick, painless little war in the beginning and that anyone who believed it would be quick and easy was deluded later.
It's there if you click the links.
No mate, read what I wrote. I was asking a question, and you have a fucking chip supper on your shoulder.
So: perhaps our experience of anything remotely political has differed, but you seem to be living in some college utopia. I wasn't talking about individual machiavellis trying to screw people over. I was talking about the fact that to keep even a tiny representative bureaucracy-cum-political system working requires massive amounts of compromise. In your student senate, you never got your plans frustrated by limitations of budget, resources, time, ability? You never had to ally with another person or department on something you didn't particularly care about or agree with to win support elsewhere? You never had to politely deal with people either above or below you who had no clue or radical / destructive / unattainable ideas which they just kept forcing through until people stopped trying to stop them?
If not: you need to find all those people again, and find a country for them to run.
God, are you aware of other cultures, countries, concepts and modes of language outside the US borders?
AKA: Yes, elsewhere, yes, not in your backyard, yes you can go into a debate thread & start with that line without people crying about being ridiculed.
Soooo... if it happens once - in student senate - then it's ok for it to be the political norm and we should all just accept that and play by the rules? Swallow being lied to and just shrug it off because that's just how it's always done?
I see where this is going...
Who was that in reference to?
Er, I'm sorry, you cannot count voting against a large intelligence bill which contains one clause on torture standards as voting for torture. If he had voted against a bill which only proposed to ban torture or enforcy the army standards, yes. As it was, there was a wealth of stuff attached to that bill, which he has said was the reason for voting against.
Wasn't aware of that change, linky?
It should also be noted that he was the first GOP guy to break ranks and start criticising the administration's handling of the war. Claiming that 'everyone is critical of that at this point' is a dishonest portrayal, because he was the first to be critical: he did not follow the crowd, they followed him.
The old "you're not American and must abide by our standards of existence" card is pretty sweet too.
You've been here long enough to observe the cultural norms of this forum, which is multi-cultural in its own right and we tend to get along rather nicely.
It's just you.
What? I think you might have misread something, because you seem to be confusing the fact that the student senate was not the political norm.
My point was not "that's just how it's always done", it was that is necessarily how it works. The student senate story aside (and I noticed he hasn't said that all the stuff I asked about above didn't happen), politics requires unpleasant compromises, and elections currently require telling different groups of people different things.
If you want to stop that happening, stop expecting the impossible of politicians. You think they like kissing babies too?
Sure, it's just that I don't agree with some of them. But yes you're right, let us all subsume ourselves to the expected norms and sacrifice our personality and values to mass opinion. Wait a spiffing moment Biggles! Isn't that precisely what you are arguing those politician chappies shouldn't do old bean?
Hypocrisy alert. Welcome to the state of Politics.
PS Cultural norms of this forum...which is multi-cultural in its own right? I don't think you know what multi-cultural means mate; just having people from around the world nearby isn't the point - trying the curry rather than insisting they eat hamburgers is.
I don't want to make this thread about Obama (we have the Primary thread for that), but McCain should have seen what way the wind was blowing and run his campaign based on appealing not to the base that hates him, but the multitudes of moderate conservatives in the middle who want to see something besides George Bush Redux.