[quote]lixy wrote:
Best argument yet.
http://imvotingrepublican.com/ [/quote]
Whatever. I’m happy to note you don’t get a vote.
You should support the GOP nominee because the Democratic nominee believes economic and social dynamism produce bad effects - you know, socialism… because obviously Obama could plan these markets into something better…
A selection from “Dreams of My Father,” one (how old is he again - multiple autobiographical works?) of Obama’s autobiographies (emphasis added by me):
[i]Before we left, Angela asked about the possibility of part-time work for the youth in Altgeld [a housing project]. Mr. Foster looked up at her like she was crazy.
“Every merchant around here turns down thirty applications a day,” he said. “Adults. Senior citizens. Experienced workers willing to take whatever they can get. I’m sorry.”
As we walked back to the car, we passed a small clothing store full of cheap dresses and brightly colored sweaters, two aging white mannequins now painted black in the window. The store was poorly lit, but toward the back I could make out the figure of a young Korean woman sewing by hand as a child slept beside her. The scene took me back to my childhood, back in the markets of Indonesia: the hawkers, the leather workers, the old women chewing betelnut and swatting flies off their fruit with whisk brooms.
I’d always taken such markets for granted, part of the natural order of things. Now, though, as I thought about Altgeld and Roseland, Rafiq and Mr. Foster, I saw those Djakarta markets for what they were: fragile, precious things. The people who sold their goods there might have been poor, poorer even than folks out in Altgeld. They hauled fifty pounds of firewood on their backs every day, they ate little, they died young. And yet for all that poverty, there remained in their lives a discernible order, a tapestry of trade routes and middlemen, bribes to pay and customs to observe, the habits of a generation played out every day beneath the bargaining and the noise and the swirling dust.
It was the absence of such coherence that made a place like Altgeld so desperate, I thought to myself; it was that loss of order that had made Rafiq and Mr. Foster, in their own ways, so bitter. For how could we go about stitching a culture back together once it was torn? How long might that take in this land of dollars?
Longer than it took a culture to unravel, I suspected. I tried to imagine the Indonesian workers who were now making their way to the sorts of factories that had once sat along the banks of the Calumet River, joining the ranks of wage labor to assemble the radios and sneakers that sold on Michigan Avenue. I imagined those same Indonesian workers ten, twenty years from now, when their factories would have closed down, a consequence of new technology or lower wages in some other part of the globe. And then the bitter discovery that their markets have vanished; that they no longer remember how to weave their own baskets or carve their own furniture or grow their own food; that even if they remember such craft, the forests that gave them wood are now owned by timber interests, the baskets they once wove have been replaced by more durable plastics. The very existence of the factories, the timber interests, the plastic manufacturer, will have rendered their culture obsolete; the values of hard work and individual initiative turn out to have depended on a system of belief that’s been scrambled by migration and urbanization and imported TV reruns. Some of them would prosper in this new order. Some would move to America. And others, the millions left behind in Djakarta, or Lagos, or the West Bank, they would settle into their own Altgeld Gardens, into deeper despair. [/i]
Good piece here on the positive case for McCain, written back when most people were writing him off as finished - note this was back before the benefits of the surge became well established:
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/NewsReleases/73079703-c3e0-43a9-a596-2fd7572d0658.htm
EXCERPT
[i]
RUMBLES LEFT AND RIGHT
Most of McCain’s conservative detractors concede that he would be a formidable candidate in November 2008. They question his ideological bona fides. But it would be a remarkably narrow definition of conservatism that excluded McCain.
“I think the important thing is you look at people’s voting record,” says McCain, “because sometimes rhetoric can be a little misleading.” Over the course of his career, McCain has compiled a pretty conservative voting record. Neither Giuliani nor Romney, as McCain implied, has a record to match. An objective observer looking at Bush and McCain in 1999 would have had to conclude that, based on their histories, McCain was the more conservative of the two.
The senator’s reputation changed during his exciting, disastrous 2000 presidential campaign. During the previous years, he had become a true believer in campaign-finance reform. His attack on monied special interests, and his bitterness at the Bush campaign’s attacks on him, seemed to pull him left across the board: on tax cuts, on the environment, on health care. The effect was to enhance McCain’s standing with independent voters and journalists while repelling conservatives. What further soured conservatives was that they were then starting, for the first time, to take a strongly negative view of campaign-finance reform, hardening into the conviction that it was an assault on free speech (and particularly on conservative organizations).
Independent voters and Democrats gave McCain some primary victories, but without Republicans he could not win the nomination. Still, he was America’s most popular politician, and for the next few years he continued to play the “maverick” Republican - and to reap the rewards in his press clippings, which annoyed conservatives at least as much.
From 2004 onward, however, McCain has been moving rightward again, emphasizing his support for the Iraq War and the War on Terror. So far, this move appears to have cost him support among independent voters and reporters without buying him many friends on the right. Conservatives still have the impression of him they formed when he was tacking left. Besides, even in the last two years he has taken some stands to which a lot of conservatives object.
The good news for conservatives is that some of McCain’s un-conservative positions concern trifling subjects, and some of them have little ongoing relevance. (Some of them are important, though, and I’ll get to them later.) After 9/11, McCain shepherded a bill to federalize airport security through the Senate. That’s not an issue that’s going to come up again. The corporate-accounting scandals gave McCain an opportunity to rail against malefactors of great wealth, which he took. He zinged Bush’s Securities and Exchange Commission for its inaction and urged more transparency in executive pay. But he gives no sign of itching to impose more regulations now. He supported a scheme of taxes and regulation to fight smoking. His bill didn’t become law, but it is no longer an issue since most of its provisions were adopted by the states.
Even campaign-finance reform isn’t the issue it once was. President Bush signed McCain’s bill, and the senator says he doesn’t want any more legislation. “I think that we need to give this law a chance to work.” He doesn’t think the Federal Election Commission needs any new powers, although, like most Republicans, he does want it to crack down on “527 groups” that fund political ads.
McCain supported a “patient’s bill of rights” that would regulate HMOs. But that bill has gone nowhere, and even if it passed it would not be a large step toward socialized medicine. It was small change compared with the gargantuan Medicare prescription-drug entitlement of 2003. (President Bush, and many conservative congressmen, supported that bill; McCain voted against it.)
McCain wants to make people who buy guns at gun shows pass a background check, ending what he considers a loophole in current law. Gun-rights activists have strong objections to this proposal. But they will have to measure his offense against Giuliani’s past, and never-repudiated, advocacy of licensing gun owners.
Some conservatives hold McCain’s participation in the “Gang of 14” against him. In 2005, most Senate Republicans, frustrated by unprecedented Democratic filibusters against judicial nominees, wanted to change the rules to prevent such filibusters. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans reached an agreement: The Republicans would leave the rules alone so long as the Democrats used the filibuster only in “extraordinary circumstances.” There were good arguments for and against the deal, although there were no good arguments for the preening collective self-regard with which the 14 senators announced it. McCain notes that months after his intervention, the Senate confirmed both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He thinks it “would have been almost impossible” to confirm them in the aftermath of a bitter fight over a rules change. “That’s why they called it the nuclear option, the Senate was about to blow up.” Conservatives might disagree with that assessment, while still regarding it as the type of prudential calculation on which allies can disagree.
In 2005 and 2006, McCain differed with the Bush administration about how to interrogate suspected terrorists. The senator, having survived torture himself at the hands of the North Vietnamese, understandably wanted tough anti-torture language put into law. The administration worried that such language, particularly if susceptible to creative interpretation, might make it impossible to conduct coercive interrogations even if they fell short of torture. In the end, Republicans reached a deal that preserved tough interrogations while addressing McCain’s concerns.
That leaves three substantial issues between McCain and conservatives. The first is global warming. McCain has been a believer throughout the Bush years. Most conservatives have associated the fight against global warming with environmental zealotry and overregulation. But McCain has tried to come up with a free-market solution, and he is now emphasizing nuclear power as a way to fuel this country without emitting greenhouse gases. “I don’t often like to imitate the French,” he says, but France is right to use nuclear power. His proposal, with Joe Lieberman, may not get the balance exactly correct, but right now it looks as though McCain was more prescient than most conservatives.
McCain was one of a few Republicans to vote against Bush’s tax cuts. He said that the tax cuts were fiscally reckless and too skewed to the rich. But he now accepts those tax cuts as a done deal. Reversing them now, or allowing them to expire, would constitute a tax increase, and McCain has never voted for a general tax increase. When I ask him whether there were any circumstances in which he would accept a tax increase, for example to get the Democrats to agree to spending cuts, he says, “No. None. None.” It seems pretty clear that a President McCain would seek spending cuts before tax cuts. But if you take him at his word - and he is a man who takes honor seriously - he won’t raise taxes.
Finally, there is immigration. McCain sees eye to eye with Bush on this issue. He thinks a guest-worker program would reduce illegal immigration, and that we should give illegal immigrants already here a path to citizenship since we aren’t going to deport them all. A lot of conservatives want tougher border security, period. Nothing McCain can do now will please some of his critics. But if his bill passes this year, he may try to move on. Or he could try to mollify his reasonable critics by supporting an amendment. Last year, Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia proposed that the bill’s border-enforcement provisions go into effect first, and be shown to work, before illegal immigrants could start on their path to citizenship. McCain is open to the concept.
A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE
McCain gets a bad rap from social conservatives. He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment on the theory that states should set their own marriage policies. But he opposes same-sex marriage, too, and says that he would support a constitutional amendment if the federal courts ever tried to impose it on reluctant states. As a practical matter, it is hard to see how any president could get such an amendment enacted without that type of provocation.
The senator has been rock-solid on abortion. Unlike anyone else in the race, he has a pro-life record stretching back to the early 1980s. Like President Bush, he says that the Supreme Court made a mistake in Roe; he goes further than Bush when he adds that the Court should overturn it. He voted to confirm all of the sitting conservative justices, plus Robert Bork.
McCain muddied the waters with one foolish remark in 1999. He was trying to make the point that the country is not ready for abortion to be prohibited, but in the course of trying to say that he said that the country wasn’t ready for Roe to go. He corrected himself quickly, but that lone remark has been used to portray him as a secret pro-choicer or a flip-flopper.
He really has broken ranks with pro-lifers twice. In the early 1990s, he voted to fund research using tissue from aborted fetuses, and he now supports federal funding for research on embryos taken from fertility clinics. But he draws the line at stem-cell research involving cloned human embryos. He says that he would prohibit that, even mistakenly claiming that he has co-sponsored legislation to that effect.
Social conservatives think that Republicans have repeatedly betrayed them. At the highest levels of national politics, that’s not true. The reason that social conservatives haven’t achieved many of their objectives even though they have helped to elect a lot of Republicans over the last generation is that those objectives are hard to achieve. It has been slow work to fight the pervasive liberalism of the elite legal culture. But when President Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy and the first President Bush appointed David Souter, they weren’t trying to betray conservatives; they didn’t know how those justices would turn out. McCain thinks that type of mistake can be avoided if presidents pick nominees who don’t just say the right things, but have track records of judging soundly. He’s right. Conservatives’ reception of McCain shouldn’t be colored by historical mythology.
For some conservatives, these discrete issues matter less than what they say about McCain’s instincts. His friendly relations with journalists - one of his campaign aides was only half-joking in 2000 when he called the media McCain’s “base” - often make conservatives suspicious. But McCain’s steadfast support for the Iraq War, and his advocacy of the surge, belie the claim that he will do anything for good press.
Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who has long clashed with McCain, says that the senator is worse than a flip-flopper: By voting right, tacking left, and then tacking right, he has shown himself to be devoid of principle. But as the foregoing review of his record suggests, most of McCain’s zigzags have been matters of tone and emphasis, not changes of position. He hasn’t switched his views as much as Romney or even Giuliani.
There are genuinely disconcerting elements to McCain’s politics. He talks about cutting spending, but he rarely connects limited government to individual freedom. He is an inveterate moralist, which eludes many observers because he is concerned about honor rather than virtue. In many of the cases discussed earlier, his moralism slid very quickly into support for regulation: of campaign contributions, of tobacco, even of boxing. At times, his rhetoric about the need for individuals to subsume themselves in the life of the nation verges uncomfortably close to idolatry of the state.
But McCain’s merits are considerable as well. He has been tough on spending, and been willing to ally with the most conservative members of the Senate to fight earmarks. He has been a stalwart free trader: “Since Phil Gramm left, there’s no greater free-trader in the Senate than I am.” (McCain supported Gramm’s presidential campaign in 1996, and Gramm is supporting his now.) Curbing the growth of entitlements, he says, will be one of his top priorities as president. He has long supported personal accounts.
Leave all of that aside for a moment. For a lot of conservatives, the War on Terror is paramount. That’s why some of them are willing to overlook Giuliani’s faults. But if toughness on terrorism trumps everything else, with toughness defined as competent execution of the administration’s basic strategy - and that’s the way it has to be defined for this argument to work for Giuliani at all - then McCain is hands down the best candidate. He has better national-security credentials than Giuliani, having been involved in foreign policymaking for more than two decades while the latter has barely been involved at all. More than any other candidate, he has shown a commitment to winning in Iraq. He has supported it, indeed, more vigorously than Bush has waged it, and he has put his career on the line.
McCain has the moral authority to get a country that has grown tired of the war to listen to him, an authority President Bush has seen slip away. That isn’t just because he is a former prisoner of war with one son serving in the Marines and another in the Naval Academy - although that helps. It is because he is not seen as playing politics with the war, as most Democrats and Republicans are, and he never will be.
Conservatives may need to reach some understandings with McCain before throwing their support to him: on the vice-presidential nominee, on immigration, maybe even on the number of terms McCain will serve as president. (He is 70.) But he can win both the nomination and the election. He is plenty conservative. And he deserves a long second look. [/i]
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Good piece here on the positive case for McCain, written back when most people were writing him off as finished - note this was back before the benefits of the surge became well established:
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/NewsReleases/73079703-c3e0-43a9-a596-2fd7572d0658.htm
EXCERPT
[i]
RUMBLES LEFT AND RIGHT
Most of McCain’s conservative detractors concede that he would be a formidable candidate in November 2008. They question his ideological bona fides. But it would be a remarkably narrow definition of conservatism that excluded McCain.
“I think the important thing is you look at people’s voting record,” says McCain, “because sometimes rhetoric can be a little misleading.” Over the course of his career, McCain has compiled a pretty conservative voting record. Neither Giuliani nor Romney, as McCain implied, has a record to match. An objective observer looking at Bush and McCain in 1999 would have had to conclude that, based on their histories, McCain was the more conservative of the two.
The senator’s reputation changed during his exciting, disastrous 2000 presidential campaign. During the previous years, he had become a true believer in campaign-finance reform. His attack on monied special interests, and his bitterness at the Bush campaign’s attacks on him, seemed to pull him left across the board: on tax cuts, on the environment, on health care. The effect was to enhance McCain’s standing with independent voters and journalists while repelling conservatives. What further soured conservatives was that they were then starting, for the first time, to take a strongly negative view of campaign-finance reform, hardening into the conviction that it was an assault on free speech (and particularly on conservative organizations).
Independent voters and Democrats gave McCain some primary victories, but without Republicans he could not win the nomination. Still, he was America’s most popular politician, and for the next few years he continued to play the “maverick” Republican - and to reap the rewards in his press clippings, which annoyed conservatives at least as much.
From 2004 onward, however, McCain has been moving rightward again, emphasizing his support for the Iraq War and the War on Terror. So far, this move appears to have cost him support among independent voters and reporters without buying him many friends on the right. Conservatives still have the impression of him they formed when he was tacking left. Besides, even in the last two years he has taken some stands to which a lot of conservatives object.
The good news for conservatives is that some of McCain’s un-conservative positions concern trifling subjects, and some of them have little ongoing relevance. (Some of them are important, though, and I’ll get to them later.) After 9/11, McCain shepherded a bill to federalize airport security through the Senate. That’s not an issue that’s going to come up again. The corporate-accounting scandals gave McCain an opportunity to rail against malefactors of great wealth, which he took. He zinged Bush’s Securities and Exchange Commission for its inaction and urged more transparency in executive pay. But he gives no sign of itching to impose more regulations now. He supported a scheme of taxes and regulation to fight smoking. His bill didn’t become law, but it is no longer an issue since most of its provisions were adopted by the states.
Even campaign-finance reform isn’t the issue it once was. President Bush signed McCain’s bill, and the senator says he doesn’t want any more legislation. “I think that we need to give this law a chance to work.” He doesn’t think the Federal Election Commission needs any new powers, although, like most Republicans, he does want it to crack down on “527 groups” that fund political ads.
McCain supported a “patient’s bill of rights” that would regulate HMOs. But that bill has gone nowhere, and even if it passed it would not be a large step toward socialized medicine. It was small change compared with the gargantuan Medicare prescription-drug entitlement of 2003. (President Bush, and many conservative congressmen, supported that bill; McCain voted against it.)
McCain wants to make people who buy guns at gun shows pass a background check, ending what he considers a loophole in current law. Gun-rights activists have strong objections to this proposal. But they will have to measure his offense against Giuliani’s past, and never-repudiated, advocacy of licensing gun owners.
Some conservatives hold McCain’s participation in the “Gang of 14” against him. In 2005, most Senate Republicans, frustrated by unprecedented Democratic filibusters against judicial nominees, wanted to change the rules to prevent such filibusters. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans reached an agreement: The Republicans would leave the rules alone so long as the Democrats used the filibuster only in “extraordinary circumstances.” There were good arguments for and against the deal, although there were no good arguments for the preening collective self-regard with which the 14 senators announced it. McCain notes that months after his intervention, the Senate confirmed both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He thinks it “would have been almost impossible” to confirm them in the aftermath of a bitter fight over a rules change. “That’s why they called it the nuclear option, the Senate was about to blow up.” Conservatives might disagree with that assessment, while still regarding it as the type of prudential calculation on which allies can disagree.
In 2005 and 2006, McCain differed with the Bush administration about how to interrogate suspected terrorists. The senator, having survived torture himself at the hands of the North Vietnamese, understandably wanted tough anti-torture language put into law. The administration worried that such language, particularly if susceptible to creative interpretation, might make it impossible to conduct coercive interrogations even if they fell short of torture. In the end, Republicans reached a deal that preserved tough interrogations while addressing McCain’s concerns.
That leaves three substantial issues between McCain and conservatives. The first is global warming. McCain has been a believer throughout the Bush years. Most conservatives have associated the fight against global warming with environmental zealotry and overregulation. But McCain has tried to come up with a free-market solution, and he is now emphasizing nuclear power as a way to fuel this country without emitting greenhouse gases. “I don’t often like to imitate the French,” he says, but France is right to use nuclear power. His proposal, with Joe Lieberman, may not get the balance exactly correct, but right now it looks as though McCain was more prescient than most conservatives.
McCain was one of a few Republicans to vote against Bush’s tax cuts. He said that the tax cuts were fiscally reckless and too skewed to the rich. But he now accepts those tax cuts as a done deal. Reversing them now, or allowing them to expire, would constitute a tax increase, and McCain has never voted for a general tax increase. When I ask him whether there were any circumstances in which he would accept a tax increase, for example to get the Democrats to agree to spending cuts, he says, “No. None. None.” It seems pretty clear that a President McCain would seek spending cuts before tax cuts. But if you take him at his word - and he is a man who takes honor seriously - he won’t raise taxes.
Finally, there is immigration. McCain sees eye to eye with Bush on this issue. He thinks a guest-worker program would reduce illegal immigration, and that we should give illegal immigrants already here a path to citizenship since we aren’t going to deport them all. A lot of conservatives want tougher border security, period. Nothing McCain can do now will please some of his critics. But if his bill passes this year, he may try to move on. Or he could try to mollify his reasonable critics by supporting an amendment. Last year, Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia proposed that the bill’s border-enforcement provisions go into effect first, and be shown to work, before illegal immigrants could start on their path to citizenship. McCain is open to the concept.
A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE
McCain gets a bad rap from social conservatives. He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment on the theory that states should set their own marriage policies. But he opposes same-sex marriage, too, and says that he would support a constitutional amendment if the federal courts ever tried to impose it on reluctant states. As a practical matter, it is hard to see how any president could get such an amendment enacted without that type of provocation.
The senator has been rock-solid on abortion. Unlike anyone else in the race, he has a pro-life record stretching back to the early 1980s. Like President Bush, he says that the Supreme Court made a mistake in Roe; he goes further than Bush when he adds that the Court should overturn it. He voted to confirm all of the sitting conservative justices, plus Robert Bork.
McCain muddied the waters with one foolish remark in 1999. He was trying to make the point that the country is not ready for abortion to be prohibited, but in the course of trying to say that he said that the country wasn’t ready for Roe to go. He corrected himself quickly, but that lone remark has been used to portray him as a secret pro-choicer or a flip-flopper.
He really has broken ranks with pro-lifers twice. In the early 1990s, he voted to fund research using tissue from aborted fetuses, and he now supports federal funding for research on embryos taken from fertility clinics. But he draws the line at stem-cell research involving cloned human embryos. He says that he would prohibit that, even mistakenly claiming that he has co-sponsored legislation to that effect.
Social conservatives think that Republicans have repeatedly betrayed them. At the highest levels of national politics, that’s not true. The reason that social conservatives haven’t achieved many of their objectives even though they have helped to elect a lot of Republicans over the last generation is that those objectives are hard to achieve. It has been slow work to fight the pervasive liberalism of the elite legal culture. But when President Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy and the first President Bush appointed David Souter, they weren’t trying to betray conservatives; they didn’t know how those justices would turn out. McCain thinks that type of mistake can be avoided if presidents pick nominees who don’t just say the right things, but have track records of judging soundly. He’s right. Conservatives’ reception of McCain shouldn’t be colored by historical mythology.
For some conservatives, these discrete issues matter less than what they say about McCain’s instincts. His friendly relations with journalists - one of his campaign aides was only half-joking in 2000 when he called the media McCain’s “base” - often make conservatives suspicious. But McCain’s steadfast support for the Iraq War, and his advocacy of the surge, belie the claim that he will do anything for good press.
Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who has long clashed with McCain, says that the senator is worse than a flip-flopper: By voting right, tacking left, and then tacking right, he has shown himself to be devoid of principle. But as the foregoing review of his record suggests, most of McCain’s zigzags have been matters of tone and emphasis, not changes of position. He hasn’t switched his views as much as Romney or even Giuliani.
There are genuinely disconcerting elements to McCain’s politics. He talks about cutting spending, but he rarely connects limited government to individual freedom. He is an inveterate moralist, which eludes many observers because he is concerned about honor rather than virtue. In many of the cases discussed earlier, his moralism slid very quickly into support for regulation: of campaign contributions, of tobacco, even of boxing. At times, his rhetoric about the need for individuals to subsume themselves in the life of the nation verges uncomfortably close to idolatry of the state.
But McCain’s merits are considerable as well. He has been tough on spending, and been willing to ally with the most conservative members of the Senate to fight earmarks. He has been a stalwart free trader: “Since Phil Gramm left, there’s no greater free-trader in the Senate than I am.” (McCain supported Gramm’s presidential campaign in 1996, and Gramm is supporting his now.) Curbing the growth of entitlements, he says, will be one of his top priorities as president. He has long supported personal accounts.
Leave all of that aside for a moment. For a lot of conservatives, the War on Terror is paramount. That’s why some of them are willing to overlook Giuliani’s faults. But if toughness on terrorism trumps everything else, with toughness defined as competent execution of the administration’s basic strategy - and that’s the way it has to be defined for this argument to work for Giuliani at all - then McCain is hands down the best candidate. He has better national-security credentials than Giuliani, having been involved in foreign policymaking for more than two decades while the latter has barely been involved at all. More than any other candidate, he has shown a commitment to winning in Iraq. He has supported it, indeed, more vigorously than Bush has waged it, and he has put his career on the line.
McCain has the moral authority to get a country that has grown tired of the war to listen to him, an authority President Bush has seen slip away. That isn’t just because he is a former prisoner of war with one son serving in the Marines and another in the Naval Academy - although that helps. It is because he is not seen as playing politics with the war, as most Democrats and Republicans are, and he never will be.
Conservatives may need to reach some understandings with McCain before throwing their support to him: on the vice-presidential nominee, on immigration, maybe even on the number of terms McCain will serve as president. (He is 70.) But he can win both the nomination and the election. He is plenty conservative. And he deserves a long second look. [/i][/quote]
Yes, but is vetoing every single beer going to fix all of the problems he had a hand in creating? I don’t think so.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Yes, but is vetoing every single beer going to fix all of the problems he had a hand in creating? I don’t think so.[/quote]
I hope he doesn’t veto beer - that would be sad…
Anyway, McCain is the anti-pork candidate - he’s going to veto bad spending bills. I think that gets to your point, but I can’t really tell…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Yes, but is vetoing every single beer going to fix all of the problems he had a hand in creating? I don’t think so.
I hope he doesn’t veto beer - that would be sad…
Anyway, McCain is the anti-pork candidate - he’s going to veto bad spending bills. I think that gets to your point, but I can’t really tell…[/quote]
McCains anti pork is about the only thing i like about him, but it is a good plus
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Yes, but is vetoing every single beer going to fix all of the problems he had a hand in creating? I don’t think so.
I hope he doesn’t veto beer - that would be sad…
Anyway, McCain is the anti-pork candidate - he’s going to veto bad spending bills. I think that gets to your point, but I can’t really tell…
McCains anti pork is about the only thing i like about him, but it is a good plus
[/quote]
But neither party is going to stop having pork, and these guys get elected in part because they bring home the bacon so to speak. Try to square these GOP ers ads from McCain’s promise.
[quote]100meters wrote:
But neither party is going to stop having pork, and these guys get elected in part because they bring home the bacon so to speak. Try to square these GOP ers ads from McCain’s promise.
[/quote]
If you weren’t so busy denying it, that was my point - the reform needs to be enacted systematically because the individual incentives are to bring home pork. And a president can make the issue into a popular national issue much more easily than a single member of Congress can - and he also doesn’t need to be worried about being shut out of a continuing trough feeding…
More reason to vote McCain: Fight socialism!
[i]The New Change Deal and Great Hope Society
Michael C. Moynihan | June 11, 2008, 5:13pm
In a blog post this morning, Matt Welch noted ( Beware the Secret Communist Muslim Anti-Trade, Windfall Profits Tax Guy ) “something that has received precious little attention this election cycle: The Democrats, while eyeing the prize of a unified Donkey government, have jerked themselves to the significant economic left of John Kerry and even Howard Dean of 2004, not to mention Gore 2000 and the two Bill Clinton terms.” Welch quotes the ubiquitous liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias acknowledging that “the ‘center’ wing of Democratic Party economic thought has shifted substantially left over the past few years.”
On CNN this weekend ( CNN.com - Transcripts ), historian Douglas Brinkley made a similar point - one that should terrify libertarians and limited government advocates. Because the Clinton administration “did triangulation,” Brinkley said, America “ended up not having a progressive movement, but kind of playing the middle centrist ground.” But Barack Obama, “if he becomes president, if he wins, he will have a Democratic Senate and Congress. They’re going to come in with the first sweeping legislative agenda which will be Johnson-like or New Deal like. That will be a big moment in this country.” David Gergen nodded his head in agreement.
So H&R Obamaphiles and Obamaphobes: Would President Barack unleash upon a wobbly American economy a “Great Society”-like expansion of government? Is Clintonian triangulation dead? Is Obama tacking too far to the left on the economy?
Discuss. [/i]
Addendum: More indications of radical leftism:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDkyZTNiZDdkMTNiNzViZTYxNDU0MTY4MzMzMzNmZDU=
And some very interesting speculation - N.B., yes, it’s largely speculation - about Obama’s radical background:
And because Obama likes $4 gas:
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTFmOTMxMzYyYjBkODk0YTg2MTRkYTQwZWVjMzIwMGY=
McCain should really play that one up - the GOP should hammer the oil issue w/r/t artificial constraints on domestic power supply (oil and nuclear).
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
More reason to vote McCain: Fight socialism!
[i]The New Change Deal and Great Hope Society
Michael C. Moynihan | June 11, 2008, 5:13pm
In a blog post this morning, Matt Welch noted ( Beware the Secret Communist Muslim Anti-Trade, Windfall Profits Tax Guy ) “something that has received precious little attention this election cycle: The Democrats, while eyeing the prize of a unified Donkey government, have jerked themselves to the significant economic left of John Kerry and even Howard Dean of 2004, not to mention Gore 2000 and the two Bill Clinton terms.” Welch quotes the ubiquitous liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias acknowledging that “the ‘center’ wing of Democratic Party economic thought has shifted substantially left over the past few years.”
On CNN this weekend ( CNN.com - Transcripts ), historian Douglas Brinkley made a similar point - one that should terrify libertarians and limited government advocates. Because the Clinton administration “did triangulation,” Brinkley said, America “ended up not having a progressive movement, but kind of playing the middle centrist ground.” But Barack Obama, “if he becomes president, if he wins, he will have a Democratic Senate and Congress. They’re going to come in with the first sweeping legislative agenda which will be Johnson-like or New Deal like. That will be a big moment in this country.” David Gergen nodded his head in agreement.
So H&R Obamaphiles and Obamaphobes: Would President Barack unleash upon a wobbly American economy a “Great Society”-like expansion of government? Is Clintonian triangulation dead? Is Obama tacking too far to the left on the economy?
Discuss. [/i]
Addendum: More indications of radical leftism:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDkyZTNiZDdkMTNiNzViZTYxNDU0MTY4MzMzMzNmZDU=
And some very interesting speculation - N.B., yes, it’s largely speculation - about Obama’s radical background:
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-sent-obama.html[/quote]
There is nothing but centrist thinking pro-business folks behind his economic agenda.
Granted his campaign management/strategy team has a populist bent, but that doesn’t mean we have to pretend we don’t know who helps him with the economy.
I still say line item veto
[quote]100meters wrote:
There is nothing but centrist thinking pro-business folks behind his economic agenda.
Granted his campaign management/strategy team has a populist bent, but that doesn’t mean we have to pretend we don’t know who helps him with the economy.
[/quote]
Provided he listens to them… BHO comes from a long marinade in radicalism. Normally I’d be happy with someone competent in foreign policy, but the thought of a radical President combined with a radical Congress is pretty scary.
From Peggy Noonan in the WSJ today - McCain represents Old America, and Obama New America - I’m not certain I like her adjectives chosen as defined terms, but I do think the definitions are apt…
EXCERPT:
[i]Mr. McCain is the Old America, of course; Mr. Obama the New.
Roughly, broadly:
In the Old America, love of country was natural. You breathed it in. You either loved it or knew you should.
In the New America, love of country is a decision. It’s one you make after weighing the pros and cons. What you breathe in is skepticism and a heightened appreciation of the global view.
Old America: Tradition is a guide in human affairs. New America: Tradition is a challenge, a barrier, or a lovely antique.
The Old America had big families. You married and had children. Life happened to you. You didn’t decide, it decided. Now it’s all on you. Old America, when life didn’t work out: “Luck of the draw!” New America when life doesn’t work: “I made bad choices!” Old America: “I had faith, and trust.” New America: “You had limited autonomy!”
Old America: “We’ve been here three generations.” New America: “You’re still here?”
Old America: We have to have a government, but that doesn’t mean I have to love it. New America: We have to have a government and I am desperate to love it. Old America: Politics is a duty. New America: Politics is life.
The Old America: Religion is good. The New America: Religion is problematic. The Old: Smoke 'em if you got 'em. The New: I’ll sue.
Mr. McCain is the old world of concepts like “personal honor,” of a manliness that was a style of being, of an attachment to the fact of higher principles.
Mr. Obama is the new world, which is marked in part by doubt as to the excellence of the old. It prizes ambivalence as proof of thoughtfulness, as evidence of a textured seriousness.
Both Old and New America honor sacrifice, but in the Old America it was more essential, more needed for survival both personally (don’t buy today, save for tomorrow) and in larger ways.
The Old and New define sacrifice differently. An Old America opinion: Abjuring a life as a corporate lawyer and choosing instead community organizing, a job that does not pay you in money but will, if you have political ambitions, provide a base and help you win office, is not precisely a sacrifice. Political office will pay you in power and fame, which will be followed in time by money (see Clinton, Bill). This has more to do with timing than sacrifice. In fact, it’s less a sacrifice than a strategy.
A New America answer: He didn’t become a rich lawyer like everyone else-and that was a sacrifice! Old America: Five years in a cage-that’s a sacrifice!
In the Old America, high value was put on education, but character trumped it. That’s how Lincoln got elected: Honest Abe had no formal schooling. In Mr. McCain’s world, a Harvard Ph.D. is a very good thing, but it won’t help you endure five years in Vietnam. It may be a comfort or an inspiration, but it won’t see you through. Only character, and faith, can do that. And they are very Old America.
Old America: candidates for office wear ties. New America: Not if they’re women. Old America: There’s a place for formality, even the Beatles wore jackets!
I weigh this in favor of the Old America. Hard not to, for I remember it, and its sterling virtues. Maybe if you are 25 years old, your sense of the Old and New is different. In the Old America they were not enlightened about race and sex; they accepted grim factory lines and couldn’t even begin to imagine the Internet. Fair enough. But I suspect the political playing out of a long-ongoing cultural and societal shift is part of the dynamic this year.
As to its implications for the race, we’ll see. America is always looking forward, not back, it is always in search of the fresh and leaving the tried. That’s how we started: We left tired old Europe and came to the new place, we settled the east and pushed West to the new place. We like new. It’s in our genes. Hope we know where we’re going, though.[/i]
Let’s see… I walk out into traffic, get hit by a car. I survive, but I’m a mess. So… do I walk out into traffic tomorrow? Not on your life.
We’ve already been through 8 years of walking out into traffic. How stupid will we continue to be?
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Let’s see… I walk out into traffic, get hit by a car. I survive, but I’m a mess. So… do I walk out into traffic tomorrow? Not on your life.
We’ve already been through 8 years of walking out into traffic. How stupid will we continue to be?[/quote]
Obviously you have many more problems if you’ve been playing in traffic for 8 years - but that would go a long way toward explaining your political outlook…
My political outlook is shared with damn near (if not more) than half the country, BB. We’re not all lawless dope smoking hippies like you continue to entertain yourself with thinking.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
My political outlook is shared with damn near (if not more) than half the country, BB. We’re not all lawless dope smoking hippies like you continue to entertain yourself with thinking.
[/quote]
Sorry, my response was prompted by your post, which didn’t have any particular arguments in it - particularly no arguments against McCain - or even for Obama. Left with that, I simply responded with my reaction to it…
However, I’d hope that “damn near (if not more) than half the country” can put together some more coherent reasoning behind their emotional responses. Seriously, your post essentially is “Bush is EVIL man, EVIL… pass the bong…” (had to throw in the bong reference, given your response…)
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
My political outlook is shared with damn near (if not more) than half the country, BB. We’re not all lawless dope smoking hippies like you continue to entertain yourself with thinking.
Sorry, my response was prompted by your post, which didn’t have any particular arguments in it - particularly no arguments against McCain - or even for Obama. Left with that, I simply responded with my reaction to it…
However, I’d hope that “damn near (if not more) than half the country” can put together some more coherent reasoning behind their emotional responses. Seriously, your post essentially is “Bush is EVIL man, EVIL… pass the bong…” (had to throw in the bong reference, given your response…)[/quote]
Well he is right, Bush is a Evil Man
[quote]lixy wrote:
Serious questions: Do you think McCain is more hell-bent on war than Bush? I don’t think he fits the “neo-con” label as well as Dubya, but his rhetoric coupled with his temper leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
With Bush’s abysmal approval rates, isn’t it very unlikely that people would vote for more of the same?
Also, what kind of conservative supports amnesty for illegals?
The way I see it, if the Republicans want to stay in the White House they either need to cut terrorists some slack or downright stage a big attack and blame it on Iran or some other pigeon.
In the many months left to the actual elections, a lot could happen. With the current data I wouldn’t bet on the Republicans - even if Hillary gets the Democratic nomination.
The economy will keep going south. That much is indubitable. The rate at which the decline continues will determine whether Paul will have a shot or not. And if only Al-Sadr resumes the activities of his militia or more Iraqis start shooting at the foreign troops, Ron Paul may just be the next US president.[/quote]
I believe McCain is just as much as a neo-con(lately) as Bush. I think his whole election bid is tied to this war and how the public percieves it. If it is still being viewed as unwinable and a complete disaster his election is dead in the water.
Paul as President would almost be a dream come true. However, he has got the military-industrial complex and big oil to fight so… Even though he has good support from the public, it won’t matter much. The public can be marganalized,