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
Posts
You're aware we're talking about American politics too right?
You're aware that non-Americans can talk about American politics too right?
You seem to ignore the fact that just because someone sometimes gets faced with having to make a compromise somewhere doesn't mean that it is necessarily true that all politics requires extreme amounts of platform switching compromise.
But I can see this is a line that you will not give up. You were dumb enough to call it a necessity so there's no way you're going to see the logic of my response.
Well. I don't believe the Obama campaign, at least, is any more shiny clean than the Clinton campaign in some of the exchanges. But also: Obama hasn't had any impetus to change his positions, because he's pretty perfectly aligned with his party already, and hasn't had any serious policy challenge. The Democrats are so focused on winning back power that they have much better internal discipline, and much less criticism of their candidates.
Also: this electoral cycle is far from over yet!
Part of McCain's problem is that there are serious splits in the GOP, so he is running into the problems of having to try and unite a deeply fractured party.
On NS's side it seems silly to be dismissive of people upset over John McCain trying to position himself to build bridges with the conservative section of his party. Perhaps it is a permanent reality of politics - however the only reason anyone even knows who John McCain is, is because some people really like his Maverick moderate persona. It isn't stupid of them to be upset when McCain changes that, when he owes his entire national political fame to it in the first place.
Well I will say that if I need a dead horse beaten into meal he will be the first I call.
Sorry, your logic is tortured. I called it a neccessity for a reason, which I've posted several times. It's the mathematical impossibility of maintaining integrity when your choices are X, Y and Z, each are opposed to the other, and you need at least two to win.
That's the basic problem of electoral politics.
The fact that this extends to all sorts of politics is kind of a universal truth of history, going back way past Machiavelli and into the heart of Athenian democracy, but I can't read this stuff for you. At the very least, recent years should have demonstrated to you that unilateral, ideals-based action does no better in creating good solutions than underhanded dirty realpolitik. Yes, occasionally unilateralist leaders spouting radical new ideas do break through the system; but if you look at the topical history of Mr F Castro, this also isn't necessarily a good thing.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 ( precursor sponsored by McCain and Kennedy--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_America_and_Orderly_Immigration_Act_%28S._1033%29 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007
"Conservatives rejected providing amnesty for illegal aliens, as it would reward them for disregarding United States immigration laws."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jua_8BYS5ZE
McCain, 2003: “I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible…” (C. T. Revere, “McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program,” Tucson Citizen, 5/29/03)
Current position- 2007: “The fact is that I’ve never supported amnesty.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/30/07)
Sen. McCain Claims He Has “Never Supported Amnesty”
http://www.newhampshireforromney.com/?p=60http://www.newhampshireforromney.com/?p=60
[snide remark] If Romney really wants to support McCain, he should take his primary site down. haha
[edit] added in the bill he is famous for sponsoring in addition to the sequel.
A dignified pronouncement Dickerdoodle.
As a self described moderate I have to say I really did feel a bit betrayed. Someone in another thread used the wife beater analogy about how the GOP and Bush treated him and how he keeps going back. I would have voted for him 8 years ago. Much harder to reconcile now.
Well, look at the other side. One: he has no other choice if he wants to run. Two: he's certainly the best possible GOP candidate out of the field there was. The only other choice would have been Romney, and if flip-flopping is your problem...
Okay, let me explain this simply for you - McCain has shown that he's willing to cast everything aside to get the support of the diehards. How?
He voted for torture.
We're talking about a man who spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton, who still suffers from the damage done to his body by the North Vietnamese. Were talking about a man who had, for decades, been a passionate voice opposing torture. But when he was recently presented with the opportunity to vote on a bill that would get the US out of the torture business, he instead chose to vote against it. All to smooth over ruffled feathers to protect his candidacy.
When you pull that kind of bullshit, then I think it's safe to say you lack integrity.
We've addressed that. He voted against a large intelligence bill which contained a clause to normalise standards on torture throughout the US govt. That is no more 'voting for torture' than voting for the budget is to vote for whatever pork-barrel piece Congressman X has attached in the small print to subsidise his hairdresser.
Some one has lied to you.
That's actually a famous quote of his, and it's cited (as well as all over the web)
There may be something to the idea that he's trying to get the legislation in one piece at a time rather than all together so that one section doesn't overrule the overall good of any particular bill.
However he is lying when he says he didn't and never did support amnesty. That's a famous part of public record.
Regarding his age and the politics of the day- Likely, 20 or 30 years ago, you could get away with that kind of about-face because average Joe couldn't just hop on the web and look up the explicit opinions of politicians. Is McCain falling under an age gap in his campaigning that handicaps him?
That's nice honey, why don't you try addressing the point rather than jumping on the ad hom bandwagon. Because neglecting the former for the latter just looks like you're covering up lack of an argument.
And I was talking about electoral politics previously. You replied to me...so, QED.
Not really, unless you want to say that voting for the Budget is voting for everything in it? I mean, sure it's technically true, but you really believe that anyone who votes for the Budget does so believing in every piece of expenditure in hundreds of pages of documentation?
It's a bullshit rhetorical tactic that is constantly used to attack politicians in the US on a technicality, usually by other politicians. It's depressing if you actually start believing it is true. Politics, as this thread has occasionally touched on, requires unpleasant compromises.
Ideologically, he's still likely the same guy he was in 2000. He's just shoving his principles to the side to get in office. I sort of feel sorry for the guy. The GOP has structured the party such that you have to adopt extreme right-wing social and military positions to have a chance. Any decent fellows - and while I've never been a fan of McCain's forced maverickness, I've always thought him a decent fellow - are unelectable.
I don't think that's a very good comparison considering the fact that torture is a huge current issue and that part of the bill was highly publicized.
I think we call it what NS did, that he voted down a whole bill(at the time did he publicly state why he did so, and did he mention regrets about the torture section?) that included this one section.
These votes are not exactly rare when I think so often there are whole bills scrapped and instead put into other legislation to get them passed in any way.
Yes, because it's not like he actually publically stated that his vote was based on his newly found unwillingness to bind the CIA to the regulations of the Army Field Manual. Oh, wait.
He did do that.
Yeah, I think the person lacking the ability to actually comprehend what happened is you.
I'm not sure what publicizing it has to do with anything. The bill was a huge bill which encompassed many differing aspects of intelligence. You're saying that if McCain disagreed with all these things which regulate and inform your intelligence services, he should still have voted for the bill just on the torture clause? That would seem pretty irrresponsible to me; he would be placing his own political position over the aggregate priority of not fucking over the intelligence services?
Well, we can criticize the Republicans for being ideologically intolerant, but I seem to recall a certain pro-war, socially moderate to conservative Democrat being drummed out of the party in 2006.
Yes, he publically stated that his main reason for voting the bill down was because he didn't want to force the CIA to be held to the rules of conduct in the Army Field Manual (the matter in question.) So the argument that this section was only tangental is bullshit.
Fuck, you ARE a clueless git, aren't you?
McCain stated that his primary opposition to the bill was over the clause that would force all federal agencies, including the CIA, to abide by the Army Field Manual - A.K.A. the anti-torture provision. So what this means is that you're setting up a fucking strawman to avoid acknowledging the fact that You. Are. Wrong.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/did-mccain-flip.html
So, what was the logic?
The problem of course being that that interpretation is open to the administration and obviously, their interpretation of good faith is "In the view expressed by the Justice Department memo, which differs from the view of the Army, physical torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the psychological harm must last "months or even years."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html
Which of course means waterboarding is alright.
I think functionally McCain backed down so that he could get elected and used some contorted logic in order to do so. Much like his the confederate flag is a states' right issue, he simply used an excuse and cowered down to not upset his base.
If you want to read it: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_rpt/hrpt110-478.html
Er...well I'm glad you're citing serious news sources and not a polemicist with a chip on his shoulder. In that very video he cites McCain saying post the vote: I'm against waterboarding, which he translates as "saying he was against waterboarding before saying he is for it". It's dishonest presentation.
And you are aware of course, that the regulations of the Army Field Manual contain slightly more than just edicts on waterboarding? And that McCain saying that the situation in an Army prison in Iraq (McCain said there that he wanted forces in Iraq to abide by the field manual) may shockingly differ somewhat from CIA interrogations domestically or around the world?
It's a pretty weak case however you look at it, most of all because, oh yes, he continues to publically state his opposition to torture!.
That is not the same thing as endorsing torture. He continues to argue against torture. Either you don't have a clue about differences between security/military situations, or you're just strawmanning.
Put it this way: would you argue that the US domestic police should operate on army principles in Iraq?
There's a difference between being a moderate Democrat and being effectively a far-right Republican with a D next to your name.
I'll concede, though, that I'm not an expert on the inner-workings of the Democratic party. They may well be just as awful as Pubs when it comes to ideological purity tests as a precursor for presidential consideration. All I know is that the way the Pubs handle it sucks, especially since many of the groups to whom they must pander are pretty distasteful.
Yes, because torture == waterboarding. Here's the point - torture doesn't work, and it puts our soldiers in danger. There is NO reason that the CIA needs to use any means of torture. This means that there should be NO problem in forcing the CIA to abide by the Army Field Manual.
And you can keep saying that he publically opposes torture - that's not going to change the FACT that when he was given the chance to man up on the matter, he chose not to for reasons of political expedience, and then used tortured logic to justify that move.
With that in mind:
Public document means: the other side can train their blokes in what to expect too. We rather obviously don't want this.
Also note that McCain says he believes that the previous torture bill (which, oh by the way, he wrote & passed) covers the CIA already, therefore the Army Field Manual provision is unnecessary. You don't seem to be considering the possibility that this legislation may have been badly concieved: I'm fairly sure McCain knows more about interrogation than you do.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/17/america/17torture.php
Okay. I'll make this off topic bit brief. The Clinton campaign? Dirty as hell. I'm not saying that because I like Obama. I'm saying that because they've been race-baiting, rules-jimmying, ad hominem attacking anyone who stands in their way. There are plenty of anti-Clinton idiots that support Obama, like waterlogged, but those aren't Obama staffers. Obama's staffers have never dismissed the importance of a state just because it's been a red state in the past. They've never tried to change the rules in mid-primary.
If you think that the Democrats are unified, you haven't been paying much attention to the Democratic primary. This is about the most divided I've ever seen us. We have Clinton supporters that won't support Obama and vice versa. It's just that the Democrats are split not on ideology but on political style.
Back to topic, McCain does, in fact, have serious divisions within the GOP to worry about, but he could be handling them like Obama handles the diverse coalition that is the Democratic party: by sticking to his guns but seeming like he'd be willing to compromise and work things out for the greater good. People really liked gun-sticking McCain, but I'm afraid that his pandering to the far right is going to cost him not only the election, but peoples' respect as well, which would be a really unfortunate fate for someone who has sacrificed so much for this country.
The moment he embraced the idea of getting advice from Rove, who he admits "beat him" (mind you, he doesn't think Bush beat him, he thinks Rove beat him) so badly that he doesn't even want to think back on the defeat, it filled me with dull rage. He's willing to work with a man who prompted heinous character attacks on a 7 year-old girl, the adoption of whom was one of the best things John McCain ever did. If I were in John McCain's position, I would have thrown Rove's $2,300 donation right in his face and told him to fuck the hell off. That's if I didn't knock the scummy fucker down and take his lunch money. The John McCain we want to believe in would have done these things.
The John McCain we want to believe in would not sign off on waterboarding just to get Romney's endorsement. The John McCain we want to believe in (the one who co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform) would not take out a $1 million loan that he planned on paying back with public funds when he became the general election candidate. The John McCain we want to believe in would not have a "read my lips: no new taxes" moment when we're logged down by two wars and a recession.
I firmly believe that, if Obama is the Democratic candidate, McCain's only chance is to appeal to the center. He shouldn't give a rat's ass what the lunatic right wingers say, because at this point, it will take little more than some elbow grease to become the Republican nominee (the RNC hates Huckabee more than they hate McCain, after all). He can run as himself, maybe pull the first clean Republican campaign in modern memory, and give voters a real choice in November, rather than trying to play the 50%+1 strategy... which, frankly, I don't think is going to work on Obama.
Laddie, don't fucking lecture me about putting soldiers in danger.
Your opinion (as far as I can see, totally uninformed) is that there is no problem in forcing the CIA to abide by the AFM. Having actually had to abide by an AFM, I humbly offer that there may well be. You didn't answer the question: would you have us run the Police like the Army? Your opinion is that he chose not to for reasons of political expedience.
There is little FACT about it, no matter how much bold and caps you use.
what a politcian think means nothing. what they actually sign into law does.
I don't give a flying fuck if McCain in his heart of hearts is still against torture if he votes in favor of it he's for torture as far as I'm concerned.
Ref: the whole "We don't waterboard" *evidence* "okay, except those times, and we don't do it anymore" *evidence* "look, shut up already"
I really can't see how excluding a singular group from regulations on what they can or cannot do and oversight to verify this is happening properly isn't simply stating "If you want someone tortured, call the CIA, they'll move them to another institution, torture them, and hand them back to you!"
McCain not being adamantly against any and all forms of torture is a huge change from where he used to be. If this is his position now, fine, but expect people to feel somewhat betrayed and question his actual willingness to stick to his morals.
And no, I'm not willing to accept that we need shady fucks running things. If my choice is a working corrupt government or a deadlocked morally upright one, I'll take the latter.
Yep, I mostly agree. I wasn't saying that the Democratic campaigns are unified (they never are), but that the party is unified on policy, and for all the harping that is going on between Obinton, I suspect 99.9% of Democrats will unite behind the candidate, because they really hate the other lot.
I don't quite agree on the characterisation of McCain, but your assessment of his strategy against Obama is right. To be honest, I think he only really has a chance of winning against Clinton by taking the center & independents away from her, I'm not sure (barring catastrophe) he can do it against Obama.
So if a politician spoke out against his party, lead a change in consensus, framed and passed a law banning torture; that would be what you were concerned about? Like, say, McCain did?
Do tell us, what's it like having selective vision?
Fair enough, we'll see how long that lasts for. Experience of, oh everywhere else in the world that's tried it, suggests that you would be 5-10 years away from a nice shiny dictatorship.
Yes, insisting on keeping rules & regulations secret creates problems, but publishing them all also creates problems. I'm far from one to make the national security argument at every opportunity (almost never in fact) but it does rather negate the point of an intelligence service if you tell everyone everything about it, no?
Way to buy into the media narrative. In reality, Democrats are very much unified - the majority of primary voters polled have stated that they'll be supporting whoever wins the primary. Most of the "my candidate or the highway" people tend to be the younger new voters.
Won't work - the nature of the GOP coalition prevents it. We're talking three factions that, well...don't like the idea of compromise.
So, where does he get the ground game he'll need if he alienates the base? He has to pander to them, because if he doesn't, he loses everything. What I'd like to see Obama do is tell McCain to fuck off on the public financing matter - why should he be bound by McCain's incompetence?