Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 49 of total 49 in this topic |
petey23
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Oct 6, 2008 - 06:02am PT
|
This was a first draft of an op-ed piece I was working on that I scrapped when I lost interest in the premise. Given the events of the last 2 weeks, other things have taken priority politically and otherwise, so this doesn't really seem relevant anymore. Nonetheless, I thought I would share it with the Supertopo community so that they can tear it apart as they see fit.
How John McCain lost the Centrist Vote
In a political environment full of cynicism, and pessimism, John McCain seemed different. In 2000 I saw members of my party engage in negative push-polling that destroyed the McCain campaign’s chances in South Carolina, and I saw Senator McCain pledge honesty in his ads and statements. I saw him take unpopular stands on the issues that divorced him from his own party. I admired John McCain.
More than that, however, I agreed with him. Respect and admiration for a candidate is important, but I also valued that he was a conservative in the old sense. He was a free trade fiscal conservative, who opposed Bush’s reckless tax cuts in the face of a looming national debt. He was that now-rare Republican politician who voted against a Federal Amendment banning gay marriage, who accepted a scientists’ view of stem cell research, and who held an enlightened view of global warming. He had me when he called Falwell and Robertson “agents of intolerance.” He was a Republican after my own heart and that of many others: a free marketer who wanted government to stay out of the bedroom.
I was excited to see Obama and McCain—both respected candidates who tend towards positivity—fight for the presidency in what The Economist called “America at its best.” What we’ve received has been nothing of the sort.
I overlooked McCain’s support of the foolish gas-tax holiday, recognizing that a bit of populism and pandering in an election year is not unheard of. I looked past the Hagee endorsement, admitting that political expediency sometimes requires you become friends with unsavory individuals. I understood when McCain altered his views subtly on abortion, comforting myself with his 1999 statements that he would nominate Supreme Court justices based on experience and that an abortion litmus test would not be implemented.
But then McCain reneged in his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, signaling a move away from fiscal conservatism. After blasting the President for not supporting spending cuts to match his tax cuts, McCain has decided to support making those cuts permanent, without citing where he will cut revenue aside from those ubiquitous earmarks he is always condemning. This is fiscally irresponsible on a huge scale, given the size of the national debt and the recent economic crisis necessitating a $700 billion piece of economic crisis legislation.
He moved away from his moderate stance on illegal immigration, arguing for militarizing the borders in contrast to his earlier positions that angered the right-wing of his own party.
He also engaged in negative campaigning. In fact, independent sources indicated his negativity had far surpassed that of the Obama camp. Where had the McCain of old gone?
And finally, he exercised what many Americans are considering to be poor judgment when he chose an inexperienced running mate with limited command of the issues. An inexperienced, but dynamic young voice in the campaign would have been a positive thing. But McCain was so blinded by his need to appeal to the religious right that he made what--by most objective standards--was a dangerous decision. Conservative pundits and independent journalists alike are wondering aloud what this says about McCain’s judgment and whether it bodes well for his decision-making on tough issues and in times of crisis.
Speaking frankly, John McCain is alienating his once-strong supporters in the center of American politics. I would demand “Bring back the real McCain!” but I’m starting to wonder if this is the first we’ve ever seen of him.
It’s not too late Senator.
|
|
Mtnmun
Trad climber
Top of the Mountain Mun
|
|
He is a maverick no more. He abandoned his beliefs that differed from the party. He has lowered himself to attack ads as a last ditch resort to gaining votes.
Palin is a total tool, scripted and delivered with the McCain smirk and grin.
There is nothing christian about Republican politics.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Nice, but you left out his flip flop on torture. Something that deeply disgust me. And yes, I would be more likely to vote Republican if they really were conservatives, but the party no longer is.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
While McCain is home in Sedona Palin is sent out to work the crowds as his front man.
His campaign clearly believes McCain is not personally able to build support for himself.
But that is the first skill a president must have in a democracy. To be able to build support.
Draw your own conclusions.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
At this point, it pretty much depends on the two coming debates.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Woody:
Care to share the data you have on this with us?
McCain is going to great lengths to persuade us he is a Maverick. This is probably true. He was 895th out of 899 cadets at Annapolis, reportedly because he loved to jerk his commanding officers around. He got poor performance reviews. He was quite happy to accept participation in a "system" while refusing to work with it.
These are the qualifications for a person who plans to become a tyrant. Not the qualifications for a President in a representative democracy.
McCain is running for a job that does not exist, at least as far as centrists are concerned. On the other hand some of us may yearn for a tyranny. They assume, of course, they will be good drinking buddies with the guy at the top and they will become wealthy.
Just like they became wealthy under Mr. Bush.
|
|
petey23
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 6, 2008 - 11:42am PT
|
John: That is one issue that I forgot, which also upset me at the time. I suppose I've become used to disappoint over the last year or so, so maybe I forgot that.
Warbler: I agree with your assessment--this is part of the reason that I abandoned the article. It no longer seemed relevant, because I no longer feel it is possible to fix his position in the eyes of centrists.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
McCain has become a total slime ball in his campaign.
Palin is even worst, because she's so stupid she hasn't a clue to what she's doing.
Most disgusting two politicians ........ please go away you two.
|
|
Witch Hunter
Social climber
Templeton, CA
|
|
Don't put it pass the people of this country electing him. If you all thought the last eight years were bad, just wait and see what John and Sara will bring for Christmas.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
If you are the one in control of your own life, it doesn't matter who the President is.
I don't give a sh#t who gets elected next month, MY world will rock just the same regardless.
I feel sorry for you people, though.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
"MY world "
That's a good summary of Republican principles the past several years: "MY world." In other words, it's all about me.
|
|
Binks
Social climber
|
|
McSmear has only succeeded in smearing himself. He's a miserable creature now and it can be seen in his eyes. Millions of Americans held him in good esteem myself included. He squandered it all. He's shown that he's nothing but a slime ball in this campaign. Country last. The racist and low ball tactics continue from his court. Gone is any pretense of being more qualified at tackling the actual issues.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Yeah it's way, way too late for him.
|
|
TwistedCrank
climber
Ideeho
|
|
It's a sad state in Amerika where the country has been so dumbed down by 8 years of a so-called administration that a genuine spitback ditz from the crystal meth capital of Alaska is thought of as intellegent by a significant percentage of comrades.
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
Seems like Palin is now the hatchet person al la Cheny. She can do no better than calling Obama a terrorist ...... What evil LOSERS the republicans have become. I used to be a republican not so many years ago.....
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
don't overestimate the intelligence of the american voter.
|
|
Witch Hunter
Social climber
Templeton, CA
|
|
And speaking of Palin, how long until Obama starts pointing out the she is "literally" sleeping with the enemy?
Also, did anyone catch Palin's comments last week about how her treasonous husband and her couldn't afford health insurance for her family until she and Todd "found good union jobs"?
|
|
Chris2
Trad climber
The Gunks to Joshua Tree
|
|
There is one certainty with Palin. Win or lose in this election, she is going to be a force to deal with for many years to come!
|
|
rockgirl
Sport climber
Flagstaff, AZ
|
|
How's that? When McCain/Palin lose this election, Palin will be forced to crawl back under the rock she came from and will fade into history a la Ferraro.
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
What is sthe story on the husband???
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Chaz: If you are the one in control of your own life, it doesn't matter who the President is.
And what if you're not in control of your own life?
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
I think he belonged to a group that wanted Alaskan independence. If you have been to Alaska, or know many Alaskans, you'll know that belonging to such groups is no big deal.
|
|
Chris2
Trad climber
The Gunks to Joshua Tree
|
|
Because rockgirl, the republican party loves her and people in general are intrigued by her.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
"I think he belonged to a group that wanted Alaskan independence."
In other words, he's an America-hater.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
Probably more of oil industry lover than America-hater.
They drool at the prospect of resource extraction without meddling from the lower 48.
It's just a nutty Alaska thing. What's alarming is that some one stupid enough to actually pursue such a thing could have the ear of the president.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
If McCain/Palin lose, especially if the Democrats also have a majority in the Senate and House, the unwieldy Republican coalition will start disintegrating. Its various uneasy bedfellows won't get along so well without the rewards of power, and don't have much else in common.
After nearly 30 years controlling the government, the Republicans are essentially bereft of constructive ideas or leadership. (As the supposed "anti-government" party, they arguably never had any constructive ideas, and were primarily a vehicle for gaining control.) Loss of power may cause the party to reformat itself as a more traditional conservative body, and jettison the fringe elements. It may have to substantially reform to have any credibility, as happened in the 1850s, and again under Theodore Roosevelt and then in the 1930s - 1950s.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
How do you figure "...nearly 30 years controlling the government"?
The Republicans held the Presidency and Congress at the same time for maybe five years ('01 - '06).
But five's close enough to thirty I guess, if you don't really care too much about accuracy.
You can say five years is plenty enough to f#ck things up, and you probably won't get much of an argument, but I am interested to know how you arrive at the "nearly 30 years" number.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
You're forgetting the conservative 3rd branch of government.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
OK then.
The Republicans have held the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court at the same time for what, THE SAME FIVE YEARS! ('01 - '06).
Jesus!
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Well Chaz, your typical rethuglican BS misrepresenting the facts goes like this:
'Well, the repthugs only controlled both presidency and congress for like 5 (which is wrong BTW) out of 30, so, .... blah blah blah...:
BUt you see Chaz, even a 5 year old can understand that you DON"T NEED BOTH CONGRESS AND the PRESIDENCY to control govenrment.
In fact, after the rethuglican revolution led by Gingrich, just how much did Clinton get done?
And there there is the bully pulpit, used so effectively by Ronnie Rayguns, to set in motion the crap that has ruined our country.
BUT let's look to an arch conservative authority on the subject, one who USED to vote republican without hesitation, but now feels differently.
Bacevich, retired army colonel, serious conservative (real conservative, not neo-con) is one of the sources for the 28 years of republicans in power and what do we have to show for it???
LIES!!!
THey SAID smaller government, but htey give us bigger and moreintrusive govenrment. . this happened under Reagan, Bush, and Bush 2. BTW, that's 20 years of rethug neo-con presidents, if anyone is counting.
They SAY they are for balanced budgets, but EVERY rethug president had given us bigger and bigger deficits, while ONLY CLINTON, the DEMOCRAT, made a balanced budget.
Now don;t take my word for it, go to bill moyer's site and read the transcript where Bacevich says these things.
And here's more news: HE's not the only conservative who feels betrayed by the rethugs.
So there, Chaz, I hope this helps a little, although I suspect you are probably in the same hopeless category as LEB.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Reagan: 1981 - 1989.
Bush I: 1989 - 93.
Bush II: 2001 - 2009.
All Republicans. And Clinton was at most a centrist.
House of Representatives:
Democrat majority 1981 - 1995
Republican majority 1995 - 2007
Senate:
Democrat majorities 1987 - 95, 2005 -
Republican majorities 1981 - 87, 1995 - 2005
(More or less tied 2001 - 03)
Hopefully I haven't misread the official websites of the two bodies. Pretty hard to quantify the Supreme Court, but again a gradual tilt towards conservatism.
Overall, the Republicans have pretty much had the initiative since 1981.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
"OK then.
The Republicans have held the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court at the same time for what, THE SAME FIVE YEARS! ('01 - '06).
Jesus! "
For that time, they had control over at least 2 out of 3 branches and for some of the time, they had control over all 3. That's a conservative-run government.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
So the Republicans controlled things from the MINORITY?
You're not making good sense.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Hardly from being a gradual shift, the Supreme Court has taken a dramatic shift to the right with the appointments of Roberts and Alito (who, BTW, had earned the nickname "Scalito" prior to his appointment for his rigidly conservative opinions, just like his namesake Scalia). Add in Thomas and you have a perfect storm of conservative judicial activists, three of whom are pretty young and likely to be around another 20 yrs.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Can we stop using the word "activist" in the reference to "judges?" It's such a bullshit concept.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
HiDesertDJ,
Well, yes and no, but I agree with you in spirit so I'll oblige.
I've used the term in my post because it was a label used so frequently by the right to criticize decisions they did not like, even when there was strong precedent supporting a decision. Now that a group of openly conservative justices are on the bench, they have displayed a policy of overlooking precedent when reaching certain decisions, though no one on the right (who agreed with the rulings) have sounded the activist alarm.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
"I think he belonged to a group that wanted Alaskan independence. If you have been to Alaska, or know many Alaskans, you'll know that belonging to such groups is no big deal. "
Sounds like a "Domestic Terrorist" to me. It can't be true, the backlash against Palin's "America hating terrorist lover" would be all over that
Peace
Karl
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
How is it not a big deal to hate America so much that you want to secede from it? We send billions of taxpayer dollars to Alaska every year (the highest per capita of any state) and so many Alaskans want to take the money and run that it's not a "big deal?"
|
|
nick d
Trad climber
nm
|
|
Whats really funny is their buddy in the secessionist party was killed in "a plastic explosives deal gone bad"
LOL! You just can't make stuff like that up!
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
How McCain lost the economist vote:
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
chaz: How do you figure "...nearly 30 years controlling the government"?
The Republicans held the Presidency and Congress at the same time for maybe five years ('01 - '06).
But five's close enough to thirty I guess, if you don't really care too much about accuracy.
You can say five years is plenty enough to f#ck things up, and you probably won't get much of an argument, but I am interested to know how you arrive at the "nearly 30 years" number.
Chaz, do you understand how our government functions? There has been a Republican administration for 28 of the last 40 years. The executive branch not only has veto power over the legislative branch, they also have responsibility of enforce the laws and regulations of our nation. Or not enforce those rules as the case may be.
Correct me if I am wrong, but at no time in the last 40 years has their been enough Democrats in congress to over ride a presidential veto.
So which party do you think has been most influential over the last 40 years?
|
|
petey23
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2008 - 12:24pm PT
|
Hey HDDJ, what issue was that in? I must have missed it, unless it's in the most recent issue that I haven't had time to read yet.
I'm surprised by those numbers, frankly. Obama's saber-rattling over NAFTA would have concerned most economists I would have thought, but perhaps the general malaise of McCain's campaign and his calling for the firing of Cox made economists nervous about his knowledge of the subject.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
I'm making progress. Gary's giving ground.
It's gone from "controlling the government" to "most influential".
Which is it?
Please advise.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Ouote:
"He's going to be Bush on steroids," says Johns, the retired brigadier general who has known McCain since their days at the National War College. "His hawkish views now are very dangerous. He puts military at the top of foreign policy rather than diplomacy, just like George Bush does. He and other neoconservatives are dedicated to converting the world to democracy and free markets, and they want to do it through the barrel of a gun."
unquote.
Quote:
"Privately, McCain brags that he was the "original neocon." And after 9/11, he took the lead in agitating for war with Iraq, outpacing even Dick Cheney in the dissemination of bogus intelligence about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein."
unquote.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Your choice, chaz. Which party do you feel has had the most control of our government over the last 40 years?
Or, which party do you feel has been most influential?
Or do you feel that the president has little influence in our political system?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
"I'm making progress. Gary's giving ground.
It's gone from "controlling the government" to "most influential".
Which is it?
Please advise. "
Oh sh#t, this is what it's come down to?
They controlled at least 2 out of 3 branches of government for at least the last 14 years.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 49 of total 49 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!