home

McCain Means More of the Same

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:49:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The similarities in policy positions between John McCain and President Bush overwhelm the differences. The New York Times has a handy comparison showing a confluence of their beliefs regarding abortion, judicial appointments, continuing the war in Iraq, opposition to habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees, the expansion of executive power, warrantless wiretapping, and the privatization of social security, among other issues.

Some of McCain's positions are politically opportunistic flip-flops, most notably his newfound respect for the Bush tax cuts he once opposed. And there's this:

Mr. McCain says Roe v. Wade "should be overturned," an idea he spoke out against in 1999 ...

As this article observes, "McCain appears to have ceded some of his carefully cultivated reputation as a maverick." No kidding. [more ...]

On health insurance, a signature issue for Democrats in this election:

“In general, they’re much more similar than different,” said Drew Altman, the president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research group. “In terms of their goals, they’re more focused on making the market more efficient than in expanding coverage.”

On courts, an issue that should be of great concern to all:

Mr. McCain has strongly embraced the judicial philosophy of Mr. Bush and vowed to appoint conservative judges in the mold of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

McCain is marginally better than Bush on the environment (including global warming), although he "missed votes on toughening fuel economy standards and has opposed tax breaks meant to encourage alternative energy." McCain claims to be "angry at the oil companies" because they've failed to invest in alternative energy, but that position is difficult to square with his opposition to a tax policy that would encourage alternative energy development.

McCain is no maverick. The election of McCain in 2008 would condemn the country to four more years of the failed policies that Bush has pursued for the last eight.

< Grand Jury Investigating Testimony Over Hiring Policies in Civil Rights Division | Safavian Conviction in Abramoff Scandal Overturned >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    McCain Means More of the Same | 207 comments (207 topical)
    I approve this message. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:06:00 AM EST


    OT: New Ohio poll (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:24:24 AM EST
    Obama  11 point lead (pdf warning) -- 50-39 lead over John
    McCain in Ohio, according to the newest survey from Public Policy Polling.

    If this holds, I'd say this is good.

    gee, how can this possibly be? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by tben on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:56:51 AM EST
    He lost Ohio in the primaries. Doen't that mean he cant win it in the GE?
    its all so confusing sometimes....

    Parent
    That should hold. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:25:46 AM EST


    Parent
    I Wondered About This (none / 0) (#38)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:31:21 AM EST
    But I read somewhere that the polling was done by a firm that had a fairly accurate read of Clinton's primary win and the spread just before the primary in Ohio.

    Wow, if it holds. Wow.

    Parent

    Not to mention the impact of Hillary (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:34:57 AM EST
    on the ticket. I'm not sure if I believe the party ID figures, but the PPP blog makes a compelling case for them.

    Anyway, good news.

    Parent

    Be careful with polls (none / 0) (#118)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    I mostly post here trying to build bridges with the PUMA/nobama crowd, so I'm branching out here a little.

    Nonetheless, it's important to not get too worked up  over any single poll number.  All the other Ohio polls have shown a very tight race.  Until we get more to confirm it, prudence demands that we treat this as an outlier.  It might be the start of a trend, or it might not.  We really just don't know yet.

    I want to believe it too.  But the numbers just aren't there yet.  Every election has a few bizarre outliers that never get explained well.

    Parent

    SUSA had him up by 9 (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by tben on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:55:54 PM EST
    last month, didnt they?

    Parent
    Yep. (none / 0) (#188)
    by jtaylorr on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:15:22 PM EST
    This latest poll confirms that SUSA's wasn't an outlier.

    Parent
    Quote: If this holds, I'd say this is good. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:22:31 PM EST
    I think my caveat is in line with yours.

    Parent
    Going from memory (none / 0) (#144)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:38:59 PM EST
    the PPP polls consistently favored Obama in the primaries, compared to actual results.

    This was a bigger survey sample than their usual, that might be an argument for more accuracy.  But I was checking RCP almost daily and was never impressed with PPP.

    If more polling turns up similar, then that's a much stronger case.

    Parent

    I'm Skeptical of Polls (none / 0) (#181)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:07:17 PM EST
    this far away from the GE, in any case. And one poll by itself certainly doesn't predict much.

    But one thing I found intriguing was this quote from Eric Kleefeld or TPM Election Central:

    "Also worth noting: PPP's final pre-primary survey of Ohio got Hillary's primary margin almost exactly right."

    Parent

    Of course John McCain will be (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    more of the same - there's no reason to expect someone running as a Republican to be doing so on a non-GOP-type platform is there?  The question is, what kind of Republican is John McCain - because there are all kinds of them, just as there are all kinds of Democrats.

    And remember this: even if we have a Democratic Congress, and even if that Congress has enough Democrats to be filibuster-proof and veto-proof, the person who moves into the WH in January, 2009, will find it fully furnished with an abundance of executive power that can - and likely will - be used to go around whatever the Congress does, to weaken it, to thwart its intentions.  There is more power in the Office of Legal Counsel than you could possibly imagine - and whether the president is McCain or Obama, and whether either or both commit to not abusing it, to ending the practice of issuing signing statements and executive orders, keep in mind that every president going back decades has availed himself of that power.

    I'd be feeling a lot more confident about the Congress' ability to check President McCain if it weren't for the fact that the current Congress has been an enormous disappointment, rolling over whenever the going got tough, failing to vote the right way on a number of issues.

    And pardon me for bringing this up, but is there some reason we would necessarily want President Obama to have unbridled power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue?  Is there a case to be made that it would be dangerous to put a President Obama in the executive limo with no brakes?

    We know, I think, that a Democratic Congress will roll now and then for McCain - but do we have any idea whether that same Democratic Congress will push back against Obama when he needs pushing back against?

    I think we are, in many respects, and to my great disappointment, damned if we do and damned if we don't.  Not something I ever expected to be saying or feeling about the outcome of an election after 8 years with arguably the most incompetent and dangerous president in history.

    a frimly manned Democratic Congress (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:35:57 AM EST
    should ensure that Mccain is nothing like Bush.

    The supreme court would be the only worry because it is so influenced by executive selection.

    McCain's arguments about the war have been serious and substative IMHO He's been critical of management but he's always had a clear focus on what to do there in terms of Grand Strategy. It would serve Obama very well if he addressed the more serious aspects of McCain's POV and counter that POV and plans with contrasting proposals that are rational.  

    The sense that I get from Obama is that he substantively agrees with McCain's current POV and wouldn't do anything much differently from what McCain is proposing.  Fareed Zacharia sensed the same thing and he was an early obama backer.

    Obama will also be heavily invested in earning his spurs once he is president. You could see brinksmanship like Kennedy at the bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis or a new deployment that could easily dwarf Iraq.

    Parent

    A Firmly Manned or ((Wo)manned) Dem Congress (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:42:48 AM EST
    Sounds great.

    Where do we find one?

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#81)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:59:55 AM EST
    I think we'll have to go 'outside the box' for that one.

    Parent
    Just to get your (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by mikeyleigh on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:57:01 AM EST
    history correct:  the Bay of Pigs fiasco was the result of planning during the Eisenhower administration and the Cuban Missile Crisis came about due to some serious miscalculations by Khrushchev and Castro.  Kennedy made mistakes during both episodes, but "brinksmanship" wasn't one of them.

    Parent
    However, JFK, instead of adopting (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:34:32 PM EST
    the Bay of Pigs plan, should have reviewed and rejected it.  

    Parent
    As I said, JFK (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by mikeyleigh on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:48:23 PM EST
    made mistakes during both episodes.  Of course, it didn't help that the CIA was telling both Kennedy and his National Security advisers the most outrageous lies about the odds for success, the overwhelming anti-Castro sentiment inside Cuba, etc.  All that was missing seems to have been a Cuban Chalabi.  At least Kennedy wasn't cherry-picking the intelligence.

    But this brings up a broader questions concerning experience.  Obama's supporters often compare him to JFK.  The comparison just doesn't hold water.  Almost from birth, the Kennedy kids moved in political circles, both foreign and domestic.  They were scions of two powerful poltical families.  Their father served as amabassador to Great Britain and through their father, JFK and his siblings had powerful family connections to England.  As almost eveyone knows, JFK served in the Navy during WWII and had acquired a heroic patina to his reputation.  To pretend to wax poetic, I cna say that politics was in the very air they breathed.  Obama's background pales besides this.

    Parent

    Rather frightening, isn't it. (none / 0) (#157)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:50:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Terryifying (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:10:25 PM EST
    that Obama was so right about Iraq and Afghanistan....while Cheney and Rumsfeld, experienced hands that they were, were so wrong.

    RE: JFK.  I find it interesting that Ted Sorensen strongly backs Obama, comparing him to JFK....No mere speech writer, he helped write the response to Krushchev's second letter.  I'll pay attention to Sorensen....  

    Parent

    The GOP were lying. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    They were not wrong--per se.

    we really don't knwo what they were up to yet.  Kennedy, only recently, has had his papers published.  

    Parent

    Lying about WMDs; (none / 0) (#203)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:49:40 PM EST
    wrong about being greeted as liberators.

    Parent
    Allen Dulles (none / 0) (#174)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    was the one who should be blamed...He should have been booted from the CIA, just as his brother was booted from State....

    Parent
    As I said to you awhile ago about this... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    "a firmly manned Democratic Congress should ensure that Mccain is nothing like Bush."

    Whatever it is youre smokin, pass it over cause its got to be good.

    Parent

    He's not actually the same. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:49:55 AM EST
    I just don't see it as a serious argument.

    It prevents a winning arguement from actually happening.  We certainly don't want a third term GOP President, but we also have to make sure that there is a plan B and that teh Dems are committed to doing something if Plan A actually happens.

    Parent

    Somehow, Obama doesn't strike me (none / 0) (#65)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:50:48 AM EST
    as the ruthless power hungry type we've seen in the Oval with so many Repubs (Junior, Nixon, Reagan's manipulating people) and exactly one Dem (Lyndon).  All of those presidents were corrupt or had (RR) corrupt and power-mad devious types working for them.  Obama strikes me as no worse than a political opportunist, and not the type to give in to his truly dark side.

    Divided power WH-Congress also means no progressive legis is likely, absent a truly massive Dem win in cong'l races this year --  which almost never happens w/o the Dem nominee also being elected.  Divided power just means stalemate and more of the same -- hardly objectives to be wished for as the middle class suffers and Iraq continues unabated and global warming threatens all.

    You want progressive change, then we need to control the levers of power.  See the 1930s with FDR and a huge Dem majority in Congress.  The next progressive era was the 1960s, again with 2 Dem presidents and one very blue Congress.

    Parent

    Doesn't work in reverse (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:59:59 AM EST
    You want progressive change, then we need to control the levers of power.

    Yes, but having control of the levers of power does not mean we will get progressive change.

    People want something strong to vote FOR, not just voting against McCain. So far, Obama and his campaign have done a lot to make people wonder if he is really progressive. I'm not saying he won't make progressive changes, I'm just saying it's rally hard to tell at this point. There are lots of reasons - but pandering to evangelicals is one of the most worrisome to me.

    Parent

    Dr Molly, remind me when a Dem (none / 0) (#121)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    nominee ran as something close to a "pure" progressive in the general and actually won.  McGovern tried it and we know about that one.  Only LBJ could do it, and then only so because he essentially ran with the ghost of the beloved slain liberal president.

    In the 40+ yrs since, no Dem has won the WH running as a liberal's liberal.  They've all had to run to the center, at least in one major area.  JFK got elected by sounding tough and Cold Warriorish -- he knew that anything less and he'd be labeled, successfully, as "soft" on the communist threat.  Unfortunately, for a while anyway in the fall, too many libs back then got worried about this rhetoric and concluded, wrongly, that there was no difference between Kennedy and Nixon.

    History and the true record of moderate pro-détente FP by JFK shows they were mistaken.

    As for progressive change, history also shows (as I tried to suggest above) that it only happens with the Dems in control of both the WH and Congress, and with a very solid majority in the latter.  Divided gov't means no chances for much more than slight and inconsequential change at the margins.  Period.

    Parent

    Everything you say here is true (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:35:09 PM EST
    But it still doesn't mean we'll get progressive change with Obama. UHC for example?

    Parent
    O will have to get UHC (none / 0) (#150)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:46:17 PM EST
    or at least something like his 90% solution.  Much depends here on what sort of working majority he'll have in Cong in 09.  But the issue is not only not going away, it's going to be unavoidable for him to deal with fairly quickly.  

    Hopefully he'll have learned from the Clinton example and arrange carefully with Dem leaders to have them initiate one consensus bill in Congress that is something at least 90% but perhaps closer to Hillary's and Edwards' proposals.  

    O won't have the luxury of sitting on this one until the 2d term.  It's 15 yrs after HillaryCare, and things have gotten far worse for most people.  O is not stupid, and won't be acting in ways to ensure he becomes an immediate lame duck president looking at only one term.

    Parent

    Why are you convinced this will be (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:48:18 PM EST
    a "must do" for Obama, if President?  To me, it appears he could interpret his "win" over Clinton as a repudiation of UHC.  

    Parent
    The People will demand UHC. (none / 0) (#166)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    That's how serious the issue is for most families in the middle.  O will have no choice but to deal with it, in the 1st term, and in the most progressive way possible that can get a majority.

    And "repudiation" of UHC seems quite a wild stretch.  O did after all offer coverage to 90% of the public.  Hardly perfect or universal, to be sure, but hardly something halfhearted that indicates his lack of concern about the issue.  

    McCain, however, with his status quo/inconsequential tax adjustments proposal is essentially offering the "repudiation" of Hillary's UHC.

    Parent

    I don't envision Obama spending his (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    political capital on this particular issue.

    Parent
    I guess we'll have to take your word for it. (none / 0) (#179)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:06:11 PM EST


    Parent
    You know what is funny? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    I can't remember the last time anyone, Dem or Repub, ran with a specific platform and actually did what they said they would do.

    Remember George H.W. Bush?  "Read my lips, no new taxes"?  And then, there were new taxes.

    Remember George W. Bush?  "I'm a uniter, not a divider"?  "I don't believe in nation building"?  And then there was division and nation building.  

    I doubt seriously that either Obama or McCain is going to do what they say they will do once they get in office.  All we can go on is their records of what they have done in the past.  Thankfully, McCain has a record to look at.  Obama?  Eh, not so much.  

    Anyway...  Regardless who wins this time around, there are going to be a lot of disappointed people in two years or so.    

    Parent

    "Pandering to Evangelicals" (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:41:52 PM EST
    That is why Obama has a solid lead in Colorado....

    And, it would be nice if the Democratic candidate did not have to run against religion for once.  

    The problem has not been religion per se but the takeover of various demominations and churches by the rule-mongers and authoritarians.   Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist Convnetion over this.  Every religion has its reactionary authoritarians....The wheel has turned, however, and their time seems to be up.  Modern, younger evangelicals are concerned about global warming and AIDS.  Gay marriage does not upset as many.  

    Obama's outreach to religious groups has very real potential to put the Republicans into a permanent minority status.  And, yes, one can be religious and still support Roe.

    Parent

    Obama appears to be (none / 0) (#162)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    a "hands off" manager, much like Bush is now.  That means the power will lie in those who are under him:  VP, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, etc.  

    From that article in the NYT yesterday, it seems Obama likes to give speeches and work on the advertising message.  If elected, I expect his golf game to improve (which means I wouldn't be expecting much).

    I think McCain would be more hands-on in a lot of ways.  He certainly has ideas about how the war in Iraq should be fought and probably ideas on the war on terror too.  I'm waiting to see who his VP pick is to decide what effect it will have on the economy (which is my number one issue).    

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    with McSames record of anti choice, Im sure he will be more 'hands on'.

    Parent
    this gratuitous insulting of Obama (none / 0) (#178)
    by tben on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    is really tiresome.

    IF you actually beleive all this nonsense about Obama, then you should be thrilled at the prospect of him in the WH, because it means that the really tough politically savvy operators, like Hillary, will be able to roll him and get what she wants.

    And why on earth would you look to McCain's VP pick for clues to his economic positions? You have already characterized McCain as hands-on - so why would his VP have any effect on policy? And why not look to McCains quarter century record for clues as to his economic philosophy. He isnt a member of the Republican party by accident, y'know.

    Parent

    McCain has already said that (none / 0) (#189)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:17:23 PM EST
    he doesn't know much about the economy, so hopefully, he'll pick someone with some economic experience.  

    I'm waiting to see who Obama's pick is for VP too.  

    Right now, I'm not thrilled with any of the candidates for president -- and that includes Bob Barr and Ralph Nader too.  It's tempting to just not vote for anyone but I've never done that before.  I feel I have a duty to vote for someone.

    Also, the story in the NYT yesterday, about Obama being a delegator and not a hands-on kind of guy -- I thought they were the newspaper of record?  I don't consider that to be an insult.  If they printed it, I imagine it's a fact.  The story didn't run on the Opinion pages.    

    Parent

    So every story... (none / 0) (#190)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    the papers posted about Hillary was a fact?

    Parent
    Much Worse Than that (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by pluege on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:42:54 AM EST
    he election of McCain in 2008 would condemn the country to four more years of the failed policies that Bush has pursued for the last eight.

    Much worse than 4 or 8 years of mccain's endless warmongering, give away's to the rich, abuse of the disadvantaged, and illegal activities would be the long term mostly permanent damage he would inflict were he able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. As much as there is no real recovery from bush - only moving on and trying to improve things - one more radical rightwing extremist Supreme and the country as we knew it truly is gone.

    One must imagine that the framers got something (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:45:51 AM EST
    wrong after all.

    The Congress could block any appointment, you know.

    Whic hdoesn;t fill me with any hope for UHC or the Middle East situation even if we have Obama as a figurehead.

    Parent

    Obama won't balance the courts with liberals (3.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:21:05 AM EST
    And in any case, the same Congress that poorly vetted Roberts and Alito -- and is currently ridiculously caving to Bush for no conceivable reason -- won't fight for them.

    Besides, Obama's so hand in glove with his new BFFs on the right, I had to choke on my preferred hot morning beverage to be greeted with this item about his VP:

    Some are buzzing about Chuck Hagel, a strong critic of Bush and the war, for the Democratic ticket. A bold idea or political fantasy? [...]

    Now, some Democrats want Obama to look outside the proverbial box for a running mate, courting the independent voters Bloomberg would have sought. "He was not the candidate of the Democratic establishment although he's courting the establishment now," Democratic strategist Donna Brazile told Salon. "This is an opportunity to go outside the traditional walls of looking for some kind of geographic or political balance [in a running mate]. The country's in such a mood now, it's in a pickle almost," she added, referring to the possible appeal of the national unity ticket.

    Hagel would also bring some strong credentials, says former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Democrat and fellow Nebraskan, who ran for president himself in 1992. "He's fun to hang out with, he's got terrific knowledge of foreign policy and national security, and he enjoys the work," Kerrey said. (And Obama's veep is ... a Republican? By Mike Madden, Salon, 06/17/2008)

    This Unity Pony fraud won't get another proud liberal like Thurgood Marshall on the SCOTUS or even another Sandra Day O'Connor.

    But hey, as long as the Dem ticket is fem-free and has two guys that have fun hanging out it'll be kinda sorta cool.

    Hagel is a very conservative Republican (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:34:40 AM EST
    In fact, he is probably more conservative than McCain. The only area that he has deviated from Bush is that he has spoken out against Bush's actions in Iraq. Even when he has made statements against Bush's Iraq policy, when it came time to actually back up his words with his vote, he voted with Bush.

    Hagel would put choice and every other Democratic value just a heart beat away from being on the line. It would give his positions validity within the Democratic Party. It would also set Hagel up as the future presidential choice in 8 years.

    I am currently not inclined (subject to change) to vote for Obama but Hagel as VP might actually get me to vote for McCain for the reasons stated above.

    Parent

    I'd imagine there would be (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    a fair-sized uproar among the party liberal base if O should fail to appoint mod-lib to lib fed judges, including for Scotus.  And I would think the opening(s) on Scotus would occur in his first year, so the test would be immediate.  He would be unlikely to alienate the people who put him in office, à la Carter in 77, by picking too moderately or conservatively.  That way takes him down a lame duck one-term presidency.  Don't bet on it.

    As for the Veeper talk by Brazile and Kerrey, DB, now the establishment media pundit for CNN, has no credibility on the nominee going "outside the box" in looking for a VP.  As Gore's camp mgr, she famously went along, with no resistance whatsoever, for Al's  "outside the box" nontraditional pick.  And we know how well that one turned out.

    As for BK, he supported Hillary this cycle, he's from NE and he's one of those maverick types himself, like Hégel.  He's also smart enough to point out Chuck's vy conservative positions on non-Iraq DP matters and how those will likely mean Chas is a very long shot.

    It's a Dem year, solidly.  No need for some bogus bipartisan Unity Ticket.  This isn't 1864, where arguably (at the time of the unfortunate pick by Abe, his re-elect chances looked grim) the pick made a certain sense.  This isn't a year where we need to get crazy and go against our values for dubious electoral advantage by picking a Repub.

    We have a solid advantage, and shouldn't squander it by screwing up a winning theme of Change and some progressive momentum in the country overall.

    Parent

    RE: Obama won't balance the courts with liberals (4.20 / 5) (#50)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:39:25 AM EST
    And McCain's SCOTUS picks will be better?

    The two candidates are not equivalent and neither would their judicial appointments be.

    Parent

    SCOTUS is Obama supporters problem now (3.67 / 6) (#60)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:48:28 AM EST
    You should be talking to Donna Brazile and the Obama camp. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

    They're the ones pre-emptively embracing the hard right; I became an Independent Free Range Liberal because I was against that.

    A strong Congress free of the influence of the pandering Obama faction -- who'd cave to McCain anyway -- is what we need.

    Obama's already in the pocket and palms of the hard right we're supposed to be fighting.

    He's not a liberal, not progressive and barely even a Dem. Your McCain or Obama or ELSE fearmongering isn't based on reason or events.

    Parent

    I Beg Your Pardon (none / 0) (#85)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:01:42 PM EST
    But you're slinging it at the wrong Obama supporter.

    I'm on record here as not demanding, asking or even trying to persuade anyone to vote for Obama or to desist from voting for McCain. People will vote as they wish. I feel no particular power to influence that.

    Fear mongering? C'mon.

    I merely stated an opinion that Obama's judicial selections will be better (more progressive) than McCain's and will, in no way, be equivalent. Nothing you've written persuades me otherwise

    Parent

    he likely to pick a good conventional liberal. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:08:07 PM EST
    or maybe even two of them.

    That's one of the positives for Obama.  But it's equally true of any Democratic President.

    Howvere if you asked Obama about the SCOTUS on TV he'd deny he'd pick SCJs based on a liberal criteria.  (he's wooing conservative evangelicals right now)

    Parent

    Obama won't pick anyone (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:47:58 PM EST
    with solid liberal cred.

    He'll pick the most moderate, unobjectionable jurist he can find, one with as little a record as possible on abortion, civil rights, affirmative action, what has been termed 'judicial activism' from the right, and any other controversial topic.  Anything to prevent a fight in the Senate over his picks, and esp. anything that might cause conservative Dems to vote with the other side.

    Obama just hasn't come forward strongly on any liberal issue, there's no real reason to think his SCOTUS picks would be any different.

    Parent

    Also because he isn't stupid (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:53:52 PM EST
    You don't EVER say you are going to select "Liberal" judges.  You talk about justices that respect the Constitution and understand what the framer's wanted and other empty stuff.  

    Anything else is pure political fodder for the other side.

    Parent

    Equally True of Any Dem President (none / 0) (#115)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:16:11 PM EST
    Which is exactly why I would be voting for Clinton if she were the presumptive nominee.

    You're probably right about the liberal criteria. On the New Republic Stump website,in an excerpt of a Wall Street Journal interview about his economic ideas, Obama states (this is a snip of a sentence, by the way): "...I'm going to make these judgments not based on some fierce ideological pre-disposition but based on what makes sense."

    Frankly, I've come to know that whomever I vote for I may not always agree with their choices. They won't always live up to (even my diminished) expectations. But I like my chances better with Obama than with McCain.

    Parent

    Obama's got too (none / 0) (#204)
    by tree on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:51:07 PM EST
    many adviser's from the U of Chicago school to assure me that his picks will be standard liberals and not new-wave libertarians.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#159)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST
    You don't even bother with skimming by reality.  Just create your own myths.

    Yes, it's the "Obama faction" of Congress that is preventing them from acting tough.  

    Parent

    Not better, but more subject to (none / 0) (#200)
    by tree on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:47:09 PM EST
    thoughtful criticism. I don't think that the majority of Dems will look critically at anyone Obama nominates. He'll get a free ride. McCain's choices won't. Its a crap-shoot either way on what kind of SC judges we'll get, IMO.

    Parent
    The Hagel speculation is ridiculous. (3.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:26:12 AM EST
    No chance he'd go with someone who disagrees with him on everything but the war.  Just silly speculation on Madden's part.

    As is your speculation that Obama wouldn't appoint liberal justices.  He's been consistently critical of the opinions of Roberts/Scalia/Alito.

    Parent

    Tell it to Brazile, Dem Congress and Obama himself (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:33:48 AM EST
    Obama was about to annoint Roberts, who Dems greased onto the bench anyway. They also annointed scAlito.

    This is Obama's biggest Dem booster prancing out there and into the arms of the right.

    This isn't an invention.

    You can't make this sh!t up or pretend it isn't there in black & white from your own "side".

    Parent

    I have no idea what you're talking about. (3.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:42:39 AM EST
    I'm assuming you mean "appoint."  Obama voted against both Roberts and Alito, and has publicly disagreed with their poor rulings.

    What connection are you drawing between Brazile and the SCOTUS?  Seems like a random jab at a favorite target.

    Parent

    I recommend reading the post, getting a dictionary (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:51:26 AM EST
    No, I did mean annoint.

    Parent
    I recommend spell-check, in that case. n/t (1.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:56:18 AM EST


    Parent
    I can't handle this anymore (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    Here you go:

       1.  To apply oil, ointment, or a similar substance to.
       2. To put oil on during a religious ceremony as a sign of sanctification or consecration.
       3. To choose by or as if by divine intervention.

    Parent

    LOL, see above. (1.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    Getting incredibly o/t here, sorry.

    Parent
    OMG, you don't even have basic vocab skills (2.60 / 5) (#109)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:14:18 PM EST
    Really, learn to look up words you don't know. Language is a gift.

    Parent
    a-n-o-i-n-t (2.33 / 3) (#116)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:16:32 PM EST
    That's how it's spelled, LOL.  Look it up.

    And since we were talking about SCOTUS confirmations, in which context "appoint" makes a whole lot more sense than "anoint" anyway (neither of which are correct for what the Senate does, which is confirm, but whatever), you can imagine how I made the mistake.  :)

    Parent

    Actually, (3.66 / 3) (#123)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:20:48 PM EST
    it's spelled either way. You're a horse with wings, right?

    Parent
    Not in any dictionary of modern usage. n/t (2.33 / 3) (#129)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:24:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Try Merriam- Webster, published 1993 (3.66 / 3) (#138)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    But depending on how old you are, that might not be a "modern" dictionary to you.

    Parent
    You're in the self- flattering Creative Class huh? (2.33 / 3) (#132)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:25:40 PM EST
    It suits you.

    Parent
    Troll rating me for your error is pure class (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:51:41 PM EST
    Really, astro-trollers, this is an active example of why the "brilliant" Obama campaign strategy didn't work in the nomination race, and will be a disaster in the general.

    You were and still are demonstrably wrong in the fight you picked on usage and spelling.

    That's not a troll, invention or smear. It's not going to garner support for Club Obama.

    It's not going to help your candidate or the Dems.

    Seriously, get a clue.

    Parent

    Class? LOL (1.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    You're in the self- flattering Creative Class huh?

    I guess it's "pure class" to lob grenades at a big chunk of the Democratic coalition like that, too.

    And I'm not even creative.  Can't draw or write prose worth a damn.  :(

    Parent

    The troll rating... (1.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    came from your insulting another poster.

    Parent
    Uh, "annoint"? (3.00 / 2) (#137)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:29:15 PM EST
    I don't think that word means what you think it means.  Obama supported cloture for Roberts.  That's a practical issue, not a principled one.  He perceived, rightly or wrongly (FWIW, I agree) that a filibuster of the Roberts appointment would end up hurting the democrats in the 2006 elections.  This was hardly an uncommon position.  I believe it was the position held by Hillary too, no?

    Obama, like most of the party, voted against the Roberts appointment out of principle.  For you to claim that somehow he would now appoint a justice like Roberts is either very mistaken or just plain dishonest.  Stop it.  There are plenty of justifiable reasons for a Hillary supporter to want to vote against Obama.  This one is just ridiculous.

    Parent

    LOL, I stand by my choice of words (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    ... and my low opinion of congressional Dems that greased those appointments onto the SCOTUS.

    Parent
    This is not just speculation on Madden's part. (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:48:44 AM EST
    The notion that Hagel might be on Obama's list for VP consideration has been discussed on the Democratic blogs for months. Every state poll that I've seen that polls results based on various VP selections, has Hagel as a possible VP choice for Obama.

    Also, the one name that seems to bandied about as Obama's choice for the supreme court is Cass Sunstein. Sunstein and Roberts are considered proponents of "judicial minimalism" who consider Roe v Wade as wrongly decided. He has publicly supported various of George W. Bush judicial nominees, including Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts and does not believe the Constitution guarantee a right of privacy and definitely not a right of patients and doctors to decide as they see fit.

    Parent

    Prof Kmiec's endorsement of Obama (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:04:57 PM EST
    is not to be ignored either.  Note, Kmiec had endorsed Mitt Romney just 6 months prior to the endorsement of Obama.  Kmiec is an ardent pro-lifer/conservative/Roman Catholic.  He has the creds. to be a serious contenter for SCOTUS.  Kmiec uses as a basis Obama's personal feelings and beliefs which do not support abortion at all.  

    Parent
    Obama is very ambivalent about Abortion (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:10:02 PM EST
    in Audacity of Hope.

    he suggested that teh left uses the issue cynically as a wedge issue. The Irony is that he's using it on liberal blogs as his trump card.  It makes me feel temporary contempt for him as a cynical politician.

    Parent

    There are a lot (none / 0) (#128)
    by indy in sc on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:24:07 PM EST
    of people who are pro-choice but are not pro-abortion.  I don't think there are many people advocating for more abortions in this country (that is how the ultra-right likes to paint the pro-choice movement).  A lot of pro-choice people are simply against the government making that decision for a woman by telling her she cannot have an abortion.  I think to say that Obama's personal beliefs do not support abortion is accurate, but that doesn't equal him believing that the government should make that decision for everyone.

    Parent
    Since Obama will never be pregnant (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    I don't really care what his personal beliefs about abortion are. In fact, I wish that he'd keep that to himself.

    Parent
    It's speculation on Madden's part (none / 0) (#73)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:55:50 AM EST
    and on the part of everyone who has mentioned it.  There's been zero indication from anybody related to the Obama campaign that a crossover ticket is in the works.  In the absence of confirming evidence, it's just speculative chatter.  And because it makes no political sense, IMO it's silly.

    Same goes for the speculation about Sunstein.  Who is, incidentally, generally considered to be liberal, although he keeps his cards pretty close to the vest.

    Parent

    Sunstein (none / 0) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:08:56 PM EST
    is a law professor and has never sat on a bench.  The closest he's come is clerking.  The only practice of law he has is a year working for Justice back in 1980-81.

    Not that he couldn't be appointed to the S.Ct without ever working as a real-life judge or been in practice, but I just don't see it in practical terms, even from Obama.


    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#135)
    by indy in sc on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:28:10 PM EST
    That would just be asking for another Harriet Miers style smack down from Congress.

    Parent
    Arguing against Sunstein bec of (none / 0) (#146)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:40:03 PM EST
    lack of actual lawyering experience is one of the weaker arguments to be made, and the comparison to HM is ridiculous.  He's 4-5 times the more powerful thinker than Miers, and his high-powered and acclaimed academic background is the stuff that is normally not considered a disqualifying attribute among Scotus potentials, just the contrary.  

    Whereas, the unfortunate Miers had only her 3d-rate law school diploma and a lotta work for her boss Junior to recommend her.

    Hard-to-peg Sunstein definitely would be on O's short list for the Court and would likely be easily confirmed -- and with no embarrassment along the way.

    Parent

    One of the main (none / 0) (#164)
    by indy in sc on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:56:04 PM EST
    arguments against Miers was her lack of judicial experience.  In "vetting" a nominee, congress likes to look at prior decisions made by the nominee to get an idea of how that person practically applies his or her high-powered academic background to different sets of facts.  It's not a requirement, but it helps.  They also look at writings, etc., of which there are plenty for Sunstein, but judicial behavior can be quite different.

    Parent
    Sunstein=Harriet Miers is ridiculous (none / 0) (#176)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    bec no one who looks at CS's resume and current position would even hint that he's intellectually not up to the task of Sup Ct Justice.  That was the suggestion with HM, who's resume and current WH duties smacked less of ability and intellectual heft than political connections and major-league sucking up to the Bushes.

    She also put in some embarrassing "performances" just in the usually easy private pre-hearing chats with senators.  Recall the very mixed signals sent by Arlen Spector after his talk with her.  And that was from a Repub.

    As for prior judicial experience, as some of the REpub presidents' picks have shown, it's maybe a little better not to have too much time on the bench wrt confirmation chances.  It's certainly better to have some record, overall, which suggests some ambiguity and flexibility.  Sunstein fits that mold and has a very high legal IQ.  The latter was not the case with poor Harriet ...

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#196)
    by indy in sc on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:41:00 PM EST
    with most of your points. I didn't say that they were equals. My point is that no time on the bench was a problem for her (though not her only problem) and would be a problem for him.  He certaintly has more street cred on intellectual abilities than she did going into the nomination.  I would hope he would perform better than she did in one-on-one meetings, etc.  I still think people like to see some actual decisions to see how a person's intellectual bent plays out in real life.  I'm not just talking about the right here.  The Dem's don't want to be surprised 10 years down the road with his decisions either.

    Parent
    I knew my comment would get this reaction (none / 0) (#175)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    I didn't argue against Sunstein, note.  Nowhere did I say he'd be bad, or advocate against his appointment.

    In fact, I rather like Sunstein.  Not that I agree with everything he's written, but he's thoughtful and has interesting ideas.  He often turns traditionally conservative economic thinking on its head, and I really enjoy that.

    Being a professor, esp one who's written as much as Sunstein, though is not a plus.  Everyone will be able to find something to object to.

    When was the last time a S.Ct. justice had no time on the bench and no experience in the practice of law?  Ever?

    Parent

    I don't know about "no" prior (none / 0) (#187)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:15:20 PM EST
    law practice experience, but the name that comes to mind is one of the better (overall) Scotus justices of the 20th C, Felix Frankfurter, who'd been a famous Harvard Law prof for many yrs prior to FDR picking him for the bench.  Not great, but perhaps near-great justice.  A little too disappointingly moderate and conservative for many (which could also be the case for CS, who knows).

    People may object to Sunstein's writings, but they won't be able to object to his intellect or his commitment to basic Const'l rights.  He would immediately become one of the most influential members of the Court.

    Btw, didnt' people object to RFK for AG bec of his utter lack of prior legal practice experience?   Turned into the best AG of the 20th C, imo ...

    Parent

    Yes, he's generally considered liberal (none / 0) (#134)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:27:37 PM EST
    but I think Mo Blue is correct that he doesn't think Roe was correctly decided. It would not surprise me in the least if he were an Obama appointee to the SC. And does anyone think the Senate will stop him? They didn't stop Roberts or Alito, why would they stop Sunstein?

    Parent
    From what I've read (none / 0) (#148)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    of his work (which is a fair but not huge amount), whether or not he thinks it was correctly decided, he doesn't think it should be overturned.  He considers a decision to overturn such a significant precedent as straying too far from the proper role of a judge.  That's the difference between him and the conservative bloc.

    Parent
    It's been a while (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    but while Sunstein thinks Roe was wrongly decided (a LOT of lawyers and liberals feel this way, on varying grounds), I don't think he'd vote to overturn.  He'd rather decide the same result, but on stronger grounds.

    Maybe I'm way off, and his writing has changed radically recently, but I doubt it.

    Parent

    Majority of proponents of (none / 0) (#171)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    "judicial minimalism" do not believe that it Roe v Wade should be overturned in one fell stroke but should chip at abortion precedents rather than proclaim a lasting ban or legalization on abortion via Constitutional rulings.

    Parent
    Hagel (none / 0) (#61)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:48:35 AM EST
    would be a Secretary of Defense pick, not a VP. I think a likely pick as well.

    Parent
    Yuck (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:01:00 PM EST
    Hagel anywhere in the administration is just indefensible and repellant.

    Parent
    Hagel would be (none / 0) (#155)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:49:00 PM EST
    Secretary of Defense, not VP....Hagel of course opposed the war in Iraq, so he is on the Demcratic side of the issue.  

    As to appointing a former Republican Senator to be Secretary of Defense, see Cohen under Bill.  

    Parent

    This is silly (none / 0) (#156)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:50:05 PM EST
    If you think that a Democratic President with a Democratic Senate won't select liberal justices you are living in a delusional world.

    Parent
    If we survived 8 years of GWB... (1.57 / 7) (#6)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:08:36 AM EST
    we can survive four years of John McCain.

    But why do it, when there's a better alternative? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    Economy in the tank, military bogged down overseas, judicial majority on Roe hanging by a thread... "we can survive" rings pretty hollow as a justification.

    Parent
    IF there were a better alternative (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:55:12 AM EST
    is key.

    McCain doesn't have the ideological or religious architecture all planned, the way Reagan and the second Bush did.  I fear him a whole lot less than those two.

    I have no faith that the Democrats in Congress would get a whole lot done, or do a whole lot of standing up against McCain, but I do have rather a lot of faith that their continued lack of commitment to any issue plus a not particularly competent Republican will put us in pretty much a holding pattern for 4 years.

    Obama's been walking back the getting out of Iraq thing for months, ever since the 'best case scenario' comment.  And the 'indefinitely' comment.

    The next president is facing a whole host of insanely difficult problems.  It will take a strong hand, a practical mind, and a consistent and well-planned agenda to overcome them.  I don't see that in Obama.  I'd truly rather the next Jimmy Carter be a Republican.  I'm much, much more afraid of a Republican party that's had 4 years to regroup and that goes on the attack in 2012 than I am 4 years of McCain.  Four years of a weakish Republican now versus 8-12 strong Republican years later is a better prospect, imo.

    Parent

    You're OK with four guaranteed years (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:09:01 PM EST
    of GOP rule because you think you can read the future?  Did you see eight years of Bush coming in 2000?

    Let's deal with the here and now first.  We're going to have at least one, and probably two or three SCOTUS justices retiring in the next four years.  Bush has expanded executive power beyond all bounds, and McCain's neocon agenda cannot be given access to that.  We've got 45 million uninsured Americans who can't wait four more years, and Obama plan, though imperfect, will insure tens of millions more than McCain's will.  Etc., etc.

    I'm not willing to risk these things on the hunch that we can beat McCain (or whomever) in 2012.  Nor on the hunch that Obama will do poorly and lose himself.  We'll deal with 2012 in 2012, we've got serious problems already in 2008.

    Parent

    The 45 million will wait (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:11:48 PM EST
    and the marines will be kicking their heels in Falluja or Mosul for decades.

    That was the message i got from the primaries.  loud and clear.

    Parent

    Tomato, tomahto n/t (3.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#168)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    In 2000 I though Bush was a weak minded fool who would be ineffectual as a President.  While I certainly didn't like him I thought he would be harmless.

    Boy, was a I wrong.

    Parent

    I OTOH (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    Thought he'd shove every last conservative policy down our throats as quickly as he could.  

    Biy was I right.

    (I also wrote against the Iraq invasion.)

    Parent

    I concur re: weak republican prez now (3.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Mari on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:25:11 PM EST
    Obama is not a good alternative to McCain. Obama increasingly reminds of GWB with regards to his character. The pettiness (the Soliz-Doyle incident), the disdain for basic democratic principles such as the integrity of the vote, and the need for absolute control (eg. moving DNC HQ to Chicago). But the biggest obstacle to voting for Obama is we don't really know what he will do as President.

    At this point, I'm willing to settle for a competant administrator which I think McCain fits better than Obama. Heaven help us if we have another natural disaster such as Katrina, and FEMA is staffed by incompetants. Obama's has no experience with administering large organizations. With his affiliation with the Chicago machine, it is likely he would make FEMA a patronage job.

    Parent

    So you would prefer (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:12:34 AM EST
    to "survive" under McCain than vote for Obama?

    You think our soldiers will continue to "survive" under McCain?  

    "I'm getting sick and tired of old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in." - George McGovern

    Parent

    The military are bound to be stuck (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:21:02 AM EST
    in Iraq with or without McCain.  They won;t leave unless they are shoved out by a superior conventional army.

    Parent
    The problem is... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:25:30 AM EST
    McSame is backed by neocons, who want to go to war with Iran.  Thats the real worry with the next president.

    Parent
    That's not an argument. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:27:33 AM EST
    you shouldn't try to change the subject quite that quickly.

    What you are doing is more or less admitting that Obama is for the status quo instead fo the staus quo ante.

    Parent

    You can... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:30:22 AM EST
    twist my comment as much as you like.  My real point is that 1). McSame is backed by neocons (true), and 2). neocons want to go to war with Iran. (true)

    Id say both of those are major concerns and, regarding the Middle East, isnt off topic.

    Parent

    Yes....but (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Radix on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:51:57 AM EST
    The fact that Neocons support McCain doesn't mean he supports them. For example, if there are anti-choice folks who support Obama, does this mean Obama supports them?

    Parent
    Anti-choice isnt... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:55:46 AM EST
    part of the democratic base.  Neocons are apart of the republican base.  Theres a difference.

    Parent
    You are incorrect. (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Radix on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:58:34 AM EST
    There are Dems, life long Dems, who are against choice.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM EST
    and Lincoln Chaffee was an elected republican, but that doesnt mean he was apart of the republican base.

    I dont think its a stretch to say commonly accepted democratic values are Pro Choice, not anti choice.

    Parent

    Yet Obama actively courts no-choice fanatics and (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:04:39 PM EST
    ... dismisses pro-choice Dem loyalists, whom he treats viciously as his enemies.

    He praises anti-choice leaders like Reagan and disgraces the legacy of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

    You're on thin ice and so is Obama.

    Parent

    McSame does the same... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:15:37 PM EST
    I wanted HRC to be our nominee, so Im making due with what we have, which is better than McSame.

    So, having said that, out of the two of them, Obama could possibly get elected with little to no anti choice votes, but it would be impossible for McSame to win, and more importantly, get reelected without them.

    Parent

    Actually...... (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:15:43 PM EST
    that there is a worrisome issue for me. Numbers show that really firm pro-choice dems are decreasing according to NARAL. And the fact that Obama is pandering to evangelicals and McClurkin mega-church types makes this issue even more worrisome to me personally. And lots of religious AA's are not so firmly pro-choice either, or at least that's the lecture I got on Kos once from an AA defending Obama's present votes, overt  religiosity, comments about women consulting with their pastors and doctors first, and weird statements about tough moral and ethical issues that pro-choicers are not facing.

    This stuff really worries me. Further, from what I've seen of the lengths to which many Obama supporters will go to rationalize some of his non-progressive moves and the lengths they will go to deny sexism exists in the democratic party, it concerns me that if Obama did move to the center or even to the right on this issue, they would find a way to rationalize that as OK too.

    Parent

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:24:03 PM EST
    Im definitely not one of those, which is why I preferred Hillary.  And your concerns are mine as well.  From what Ive seen though, the trend is less extreme positions (far Pro Choice and far anti choice) and more in the middle, wishy-washy crap.  

    Personally my view is that every woman should be able to get abortions whenever they want.  I dont care if its crowning.  She says I dont want it, thats it, no questions out, she gets an abortion.  So no candidate will ever be with me on this issue.

    Parent

    Obama got a lot of praise (none / 0) (#52)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:41:14 AM EST
    from Kristol and the gang, or have you forgotten that too?  The Neo-cons will latch onto Obama in the same way buit with different personnel.You've already seen Obama pander to AIPAC. (I loved the Stewart skit with the Kosher-Meter....My son the Doctor.

    Parent
    I didnt say off topic. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:43:20 AM EST
    I'm simply trying to assess Obama's intent in Iraq. Evidence points to Status Quo. which will probably lead to a low level conflict with Iran anyway.  The strategy doesn't seem to be that different (or at least the likely outcome of the strategy adopted by either candidate)

    Parent
    My point... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:50:32 AM EST
    that McSame is backed by neocons is actually a fact.  You are just speculating what Obama will do (fiction).  Fact > Fiction

    Parent
    Faulty logic. (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Radix on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:57:11 AM EST
    You are also speculating as to what McCain will do, based on views of some of those who support him. So how is it unreasonable for anyone else to speculate in the same manner regarding Obama?

    Parent
    I'm actually speculating about (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    Obama based on his own attempt to absorb the legacy of JFK.

    JFKs Foreign Policy was belligerant.  Had he survived Dallas, he'd have mired the US in Vietnam.  He ordered the aby of Pigs and brought the world to the edge of nuclear war.  He was a prime cold warrior.

    Everyone is comparing him to Kennedy, so i'm merely bringing up the darker legacy of that Presidency.

    Parent

    That's simply nonsense re JFK. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    Post-BoP, he went against the grain of Cold Warrior thinking.  Refused to send in troops to Laos (Ike's recommendation).  Ditto for VN (JCS, CIA, cong'l leaders, nearly all his NS staff in favor).  Decided against CW hawks during Missile Crisis by achieving a peaceful resolution with no attack/invasion of Cuba.  Test Ban Treaty.  Backchannel overtures to Khruschev and Fidel wrt easing CW tensions/beginning dialogue to new relations.  Nixed outrageous JCS proposal re Northwoods, and canned crazy cold warrior CJCS who proposed it.

    I hope and trust Obama is better informed about JFK's progressive FP legacy than some are here.  And he would do well to generally follow in Kennedy's pro-peace/non-aggressive/Pentagon-skeptical footsteps.

    Parent

    He was a cold warrior. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    The Cuban Missile Crisis indicates how far he was willingto go in his brinksmanship.  

    My old man was a Paratrooper in the British Army at the time and they were getting ready for the Russians to roll into their basecamps in Northern Germany at that very moment.

    It was a close run thing.

    Parent

    CMC -- he went against (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    the rec's of all his military and most NS advisors and said No to attack/invasion.  Some Cold warrior he.  Also declined to send a single combat unit to Nam -- a most peculiar CWer that guy was.  Ordered a shut-down of attempts by anti-Castro Cubans to overthrow Fidel, and instead sent a friendly media guy down to Havana as his unofficial emissary to explore thawing relations.  Odd behavior for such an alleged CWior.. etc etc

    Parent
    he sponsored the Emigre's invasion of Cuba (none / 0) (#117)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:17:07 PM EST
    He continued the buildup in Vietnam.   he sponsored Mike Hoare in Congo.  

    Parent
    Umm. We were already mired in (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:04:07 PM EST
    Vietnam.  As to Bay of Pigs, I've read Kennedy adopted a pre-existing plan w/o really vetting it.  Bad advice.

    Parent
    I agree with your assessment (none / 0) (#103)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:10:45 PM EST
    People do tend to glamorize JFK.  there was much good about him, but foreign policy and his wisdom in that were lacking.  He was a hawk as it turns out.  

    Parent
    Is your assertion... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:09:00 PM EST
    that neocons have very little influence on republican presidents?

    Parent
    Currently, under Bush II they do. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Radix on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:15:03 PM EST
    Under Bush's father they didn't. The fact that neocons exist and support McCain, doesn't mean that McCain supports them, which has been the essence of you argument.

    Parent
    "Under Bush's father they didn't." (none / 0) (#120)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    I guess youve never heard of the first Iraq war?

    My argument is that, were McSame to get elected, he'd also have to get reelected, and if he didnt do what a large part of his base demands of him, he'd lose in 2012.

    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    if he didnt do what a large part of his base demands of him, he'd lose in 2012.

    Hello Hillary! ;-)

    Parent

    I wish this were true Grace... (none / 0) (#205)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:51:42 PM EST
    but if Obama loses this year Im quite sure a lot of people are going to blame Hillary for it, which means voting blocks might just stay at home in 2012 rather than vote for her (similar to what we might see this election against Obama).

    Parent
    Well yes, I've heard of the Gulf War. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Radix on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:39:47 PM EST
    Perhaps you might want take a closer look at Bush's reasoning? You might want to look at what was going on with Neal Bush at the time.

    As for McCain getting re-elected, my understanding is, he has already said he wont seek a second term.

    But all this is beside the point. Your argument is based on looking at who supports McCain, in order for us to make a judgment as to whether or not we should vote for him. Fair enough, what you can't do is say that that same line of reasoning may not be applied to Obama. If it's fair for McCain, then it's fair for Obama. You can't have it both ways, that is unreasonable.

    Parent

    And your point... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:56:28 PM EST
    relies on taking every single persons views who'll vote for Obama.  In a national presidential election where its a two party system, both candidates are going to get votes from all over the political spectrum.

    So there will be anti choice candidates voting democrat, but that isnt the core of the party.  Neocons, however, are the core of the republican party.  That is what Im speaking to.

    Parent

    Are you sure (none / 0) (#172)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    that neocons are 'the core' of the republican party? I thought that lots of republicans are soured on the war, and that the republican party was a mixture of neocons, corporate welfarists, right-wing evangelicals, and lots of other folks? What is your assertion of 'the core' based upon?

    Parent
    Whatever... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:09:16 PM EST
    positive % bush still has.

    Parent
    Kristol made comments that... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:57:24 AM EST
    ...I considered to be endorsements. Indeed the Sullivans of the world, who got us in Iraq are known Obama backers.

    And sadly, all we have with Obama is speculation. he has so substancial record on which to base opinion of what he might do.  All we have is an  textually unreliable auto-biography.

    Parent

    That Is Absurd And False (none / 0) (#201)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:47:54 PM EST
    Just because you are too lazy to look doesn't mean that
    ...he has no substantial record  on which to base opinion of what he might do.
    Here is his voting record in the Senate. Here is his voting record in the Illinois Senate plus other stuff.

    This NYT article also sheds some light on his 4000 votes while in the Illinois senate

    Parent

    There isn't much to go on. (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:55:52 PM EST
    State level politics are like little league stats.  The Senate reord itself is too short.

    Lazy?  You go too far.  I've seen shifting positions and signals from him over the last year. A rightward drift that should make people sit up and take note.  Especially if they are actually antiwar.

    Parent

    News stories like (none / 0) (#139)
    by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:33:12 PM EST
    this certainly aren't going to help get us out of there quickly.

    Iraq not going away soon
      June 17: President of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haas says the next president will have a lot on his hands with multiple insurgencies in Iraq.

    Blech.  Same old nonsense.

    Parent

    I Don't Believe That Obama Will End (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:23:08 AM EST
    the occupation of Iraq. If I did, that would be a major factor.

    Parent
    Why not? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    That's contrary to every single one of his public statements.  You just have a hunch?

    Parent
    He voted to keep funding the war he's against? (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:00:27 PM EST
    Speeches are speeches.

    Obama has no palpable record of meaningful actions opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    Actions speak louder than words. For example, his courting of Chuck Hagel which Obama's biggest Dem booster Donna Brazile is playing up in media.

    These aren't inventions but actions which Obama has to address.

    Parent

    So you don't think Clinton would have (none / 0) (#87)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:03:30 PM EST
    withdrawn troops, either?  Their votes have been identical.

    Parent
    Great. I missed Clinton resuming (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:07:59 PM EST
    her campaign.

    Parent
    Just asking. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:11:58 PM EST
    Seems like a fair question to me -- if the standard can be applied to Obama, it can be applied to anyone.

    Parent
    Actually, (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    I don't think she would have begun removing the troops immediately either. The precipitous withdrawal of troops from Vietnam is a memory that she still has, I'm sure. I would hope that she would have taken the time to fully assess the situation and be measured in her actions. But we'll never know.

    Parent
    No, I don't (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:21:25 PM EST
    I don't think Clinton, McCain, or Obama will voluntarily withdraw all the troops. We'll get out of Iraq when people march on Washington repeatedly and demand it.

    Parent
    I'm on record as saying that none of the (4.75 / 4) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    top Democratic candidates would end the occupation of Iraq. So no I don't think Clinton would have truly ended the occupation either. But the point of this discussion has been that people have to vote for Obama to end the occupation. If I do not believe that Obama will end the occupation, and I do not, then that is not a reason for me to vote for him. To me personally it is a completely invalid talking point.    

    Parent
    Obama's supposed to be CHANGE, remember? (4.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:09:39 PM EST
    He's not. He's worse than Clinton and can't even live up to his own Unity Pony / Hopey Changey promises for even a day.

    Saying he's just like Clinton anyway isn't the kind of argument I'd present for a candidate who's can't even distinguish himself against freakin' McCain.

    The failure to do so now or in future is all on Club Obama. Our apathy is mutual and the turfing isn't likely to excite me (speaking as only one of 18 million voters.)

    The Hagel talk from Brazile pretty much seals the divorce.

    Parent

    Not based on a hunch but on quotes from (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    Obama and his advisors. Quite a lot of contradictory information out on exactly what ending the occupation really means.

    During a debate that Russert monitored Obama refused to commit to having all American troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term saying that troops would be required to fight al-Qaeda, make sure there was not genocide, try to secure the country. No exact number of troops that would remain were specified.

    In March, Obama foreign policy aide Samantha Power told BBC that the senator's plan for Iraq withdrawal was only a "best case scenario."

    In April, Colin Kahl, the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign's working group on Iraq, writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground).

    A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in.
    ...
    Obama's broader Iraq withdrawal plan provides for some US troops to remain in Iraq -- how many his advisers won't say. But it's clear that Obama's "follow-on force" will include a robust security force to protect US personnel in Iraq, US trainers (who would also require security) for Iraqi forces and military units to "strike at Al Qaeda" -- all very broad swaths of the occupation

    Links: Political Punch,
    Examiner and Alternet


    Parent

    You copuld drive and Abrams (none / 0) (#70)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:53:42 AM EST
    through the responsible/irresponsible phrase that obama endlessly recycles.

    He fuly intends to keep his options open and he is trending toward Status quo policy positions in Iraq that echo McCain's possition there.

    One of the things I was hoping to enjoy was Obama chiding Mccain for wanting to keep occupying iraq.  That hope is now waning.

    Parent

    Do you believe that he would invade Iran? (none / 0) (#192)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:34:34 PM EST
    Cause I am certain that given the flimsiest provocation, McCain would

    Parent
    technically (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Y Knot on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:24:37 AM EST
    Yes, you're probably literally correct.  The nation as a whole, will probably outlast four years of a McCain administration. (we might lose another city or two like New Orleans, but whatever right?  

    Problem is, the idea that it would be only four years is extremely risky. Who would have thought in 2000 we'd be looking at eight years of Bush?  (which, right now, you are effectively advocating twelve.)  

    Personally, I say enough.  

    Parent

    Pragmatic maverick.... (3.85 / 7) (#17)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:18:39 AM EST
    McCain has been running for President since 1999... and since 9-11, he has had to tow the Bushco line in order to make him viable as the GOP nominee.

    So, when I look at a potential McCain presidency, I discount most of what he's done since 9-11.  

    ...and what I see prior to that point is not-unacceptable.  And while I'd prefer a Democrat, that Democrat has to be someone who is suited to the Oval Office.  And Obama just isn't suited.

    My lifelong association to the Democratic party will keep me from voting for McCain, and my lifelong association with the principles of the Democratic party will keep me from voting for Obama.

    Parent

    My head's spinning. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:22:29 AM EST
    OK, so you're saying nothing McCain has done since he started running for POTUS "counts."  And you're saying Obama is unsuited for the office because of... what, exactly?  Presumably, things he's done while running.  But I thought things done while running didn't count?  

    Parent
    what I'm saying is that (4.33 / 6) (#53)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:41:56 AM EST
    McCain has an actual record of accomplishments from before the time he had to kowtow to the far right to get the nomination.  His earlier record tells us far move about how he would govern than what he's done to get the nomination.

    Obama has no such record -- that in itself should be a disqualifying factor.  But when you go beyond that lack of record, and start trying to determine what kind of president he would make based on the choices he's made in the rest of his life, Obama becomes more than just "unqualified", its clear that he's "unsuited" for the Oval Office.


    Parent

    Your argument... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:52:55 AM EST
    means that any republican trying to get elected is going to bend over for conservatives.  Unfortunately for you (and America) that also applies to any reelection.

    Parent
    In fact... (none / 0) (#102)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    that's not true.

    An incumbent president is a shoo-in for the nomination of his party for re-election -- once elected, they no longer have to pander to their base, they have to pander to 'the middle'.  

    Parent

    Like George W. Bush did? (none / 0) (#195)
    by nr22 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:39:08 PM EST
    Your argument might carry more weight if we didn't have a counter-example in office right now.

    Parent
    He does? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:11:36 PM EST
    Snark aside, McCain is not going to govern moderately. He has a base to satisfy and they won't be satisfied with Democratic lite.

    Furthermore his record on Roe goes back to his earliest political run. HE is anti-choice. That is his record. He has promised to nominate more Scalia's- that is consistent with his record. More Scalia's would be bad for civil rights, bad for choice, bad for worker's rights.

    Parent

    I'm sorry to say (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:36:10 PM EST
    neither you nor I knows how either Obama or McCain will govern, but I think it's not out of the realm of possibility that both will govern to the middle.  Obama has never reliably shown progressive tendencies.

    Parent
    Darn. (none / 0) (#143)
    by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:36:48 PM EST
    should be "know."

    Parent
    McCain is 71 (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:16:26 PM EST
    He doesn't have to please his base.  The Republican party hasn't always treated him terribly well and he could choose to do what other presidents have done:  Whatever is best for the country.  

    In 4 more years, McCain will be 75 and I wouldn't bet that he'll want to run again.  In fact, I seem to remember that he has promised to stop the idea that presidents spend all four years in non-stop campaign mode.  

    Parent

    Scalia and Crawford (none / 0) (#124)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    Crimial Defense attorneys can thank Scalia for Crawford.  Scalia authored the majority opinion.  Crawford severely limits the use of hearsay now in criminal prosecutions, based on the Confrontation Clause, Sith Amendment.  

    I like him from the criminal defense prospective.  This was a huge opinion with great ramifications for those accused of crimes in this country.  The most important opinion for the criminal defendant in my lifetime.  

     

    Parent

    This is not a shining moment in logic. (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:27:35 AM EST


    Parent
    Please note Maureen Dowd sd. (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:09:15 PM EST
    Obama IS an electable suit.

    Parent
    ODS alert (2.33 / 6) (#16)
    by tben on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:18:31 AM EST
    really bad case here.

    Lets subject ourselves to 4 more years of Republcian rule as penance for having failed to nominate the most awesomist goddess of politics evah.

    Parent

    you're doing yourself no favours. (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:23:34 AM EST
    every vote is worth fighting for.  All you are doing is pissing of the bereaved.

    Parent
    Agreed, but at some point some of the bereaved (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:28:20 AM EST
    need to, at the very least, stop being apologists for a third Bush term.

    Parent
    No i see it as sharpening the argument. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:39:09 AM EST
    we'll lose if the rational arguments teh GOP make are not properly addressed.

    Parent
    No one died, and it isn't about (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:15:17 PM EST
    bereavement; it could just possibly be about 18 million or so people who think that if Obama is supposed to be representing the Democratic Party, we have something to say and something to offer about what we want in and from that nominee.  And the party.

    Obama is conducting himself, and many of his supporters are following his cue, as if this isn't about us, but about him.  Kind of a "my way or the highway" with taunting and gloating in the mix.  It isn't designed to include - it's designed as a "take it or leave it" strategy, and many are choosing to leave it.  It's "they'll come back - there's nowhere else to go."

    Again - no one died and we are not bereaved.  We are not processing the 5 stages of grief; we are trying to avoid the possibility of having to come to terms with a loss in November which might have been avoided if only the nominee had actually, affirmatively, taken up the cause of unity and issues that matter to real progressives by paying attention to people who did not vote for him in round one.

    Parent

    what are you talking about? (1.00 / 3) (#151)
    by tben on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:46:47 PM EST
    this thread is about someone trying to assure us that 4 years of McCain would not be so bad.

    That person is either a Republican troll, or someone who seems in deep bereavment for his/her candidate. Processing grief seems like a perfect description, although it is a rather public and melodramatic processing. I dont see how you can characterize it as "trying to avoid the possibility of having to come to terms with a loss in November".
    They seem to be encourging a loss in November.


    Parent

    You would know what I was talking (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:35:37 PM EST
    about if you had bothered to see that I was responding to Pegasus, who was him/herself responding to someone's use of the term "bereaved," and suggesting people needed to get past it, lest they be deemed apologists for McCain.

    I was explaining that the reluctance to get behind Obama is not about bereavment, because no one died.

    And I, at least, make no apologies for McCain and have stated on numerous occasions that I will not vote for him under any circumstances.

    I am quite aware of what this thread is about - hence my first comment that no one should expect anything but the same from the Republicans, and should certainly not expect anything different from McCain.

    What I and others are processing are the choices before us, and the feeling we get that Obama is not the least bit interested in listening to or opening up to the millions of Democrats who did not vote for him in the primaries.  That strategy would seem to be one possibly fraught with peril - with the possible result being that those who continue to gloat and taunt may be engaged in their own processing of an electoral loss in November that could have been avoided.

    I appreciate that you are certain there is no way Obama can lose - but your cause is not helped when every single comment you post manages to convey your utter comtempt for anyone who does not see things the same way you do.

    It's June - we have a long way to go before we get to November 4th - neither you nor I have any idea what lies ahead on a number of fronts, or what Bush and the GOP will do between now and then to skew things their way.  Because we know they will be manipulating this any way they can, it would seem to be in Obama's best interest to be really, truly uniting the party, instead of pretending that the 18 million-plus who voted for Hillary do not exist.

    Parent

    apologies Anne (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by tben on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:01:52 PM EST
    I was assuming that you were commenting on the same orginal comment that Pegasus, and everyone else in this thread was commenting on - i.e. the original comment which was explicitly pro-McCain.

    I dont think anyone was claiming that you personally were in bereavement, or processing grief - we werent talking about you. Why do you assume that if those terms are not appropriate descriptors of you, then they are not appropriate for anyone?

    I have never said there is no way Obama could lose in November. What on earth make you conclude that I believe that? In fact, the reason I get upset with people like the one who started this thread, or the many others who seem to wallow in Obama-hate - characterizing everything he says or does in the most cynical light, as if this were some REpublicna site, - the reason that upsets me is precisely because I recognize that victory is never assured.

    As far as I see, Obama is not ignoring or dissing large parts of the Democratic party. There does seem to be though, at least around here, a group of people who seem totally unwilling to look at him as a Democratic leader, not even as some neutral political figure. They still seem him as "the enemy" - because that is what he was relative to the Clinton campaign.

    I have been through 9 presidential elections, and of the competitive ones, I never got the nominee that I originally wanted. But I never then went on a public campaign of continuing to disparage and demean the nominee - I just went to work for him. Thats how, I think, a grownup "processes" a primary defeat.

    Yeah, Obama should work to unite the party - and if we look at recent polls, he is doing a pretty good job of it. But you also need people to be open to being convinced. Maybe you are such a person - good for you. But that doesnt seem to describe the person who started this thread, and our comments were about him/her, not about you.

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#177)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    That person MUST either be a 'republican troll' or 'in deep bereavement'. There is simply no other choice.

    Parent
    glad you agree Doc, (none / 0) (#182)
    by tben on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:08:45 PM EST
    although there are probably a few more possibilities, but I am trying to be polite.
    :)

    Parent
    She suspended! (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:06:15 PM EST


    Parent
    That was cribbed from a memo by Kerry, right? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:12:10 AM EST
    just as he endorsed Obama.

    Parent
    of course, (none / 0) (#35)
    by byteb on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:28:51 AM EST
    thousands of soldiers didn't survive under Bush and thousands more are physically and emotionally wounded for the rest of their lives...and of course, under McCain it's likely that noting will change but only get worse in Iraq and Afghanistan (Iran, anyone?), but, hey, McCain sounds nifty as President.

    Parent
    As a back up plan (none / 0) (#1)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:03:59 AM EST
    will the congresional dems promise to thwart mccain in the same way that they have thwarted Bush's Machinations at every turn?

    snark. (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:04:38 AM EST
    Obama is plan A.

    A brave Congress is Plan B.

    Parent

    uh... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:28:23 PM EST
    given recent discussions of caving on FISA...

    Is there a Plan C?

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    QED: we need a Democrat in the WH.

    Parent
    This might be obama's trump card (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    look at these cowards and fools America, they can't be trusted to stand up to Mccain if Mccain goes bonkers.

    I LOVE cynical arguments like that.  It's why i wakle up every morning.

    Parent

    It's pretty close to what I would argue (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:12:50 AM EST
    At least Obama says he won't propose the insane BS that McCain would.

    Parent
    I'm Sane he's McSame. (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:16:00 AM EST
    That's what i tend to see Dems as in the end.
    you can smell the medieval irrationality on a GOPer. Whereas it's Eau D'enlightenment with Dems.


    Parent
    eau d'enlightenment (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:02:49 PM EST
    is that what that smell is?

    ;-P

    Parent

    Nuclear Reactors,Domestic Drilling, New Refineries (none / 0) (#7)
    by fctchekr on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:09:42 AM EST
    That's why debates are a must right now. The information is flying at us from every which angle, it's been asserted, contradicated, and changed so much, people aren't really sure where they stand. On the issues in the subject line, most Democrats would be opposed. They do represent four more years of the same...

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/mccain-to-lay-out-his-energy-prescription/index.html?h p

    This isn't going to hold up, imo (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:23:29 AM EST
    The Democratic National Committee responded that Mr. McCain's speech "will cave in to his friends in the oil and gas industry'' and that he would be offering "more of the same failed Bush policies that have driven energy prices through the roof.

    Obama's not so great in this area and did vote for the Cheney energy bill. McCain didn't, so which one is supporting Bush's failed policies?

    Parent

    The one who agrees with the Bush tax cuts (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:25:49 AM EST
    and says Iraq for 100 years. Any questions?

    Parent
    I was referring to the energy issue (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:31:55 AM EST
    Parroting that McCain will be more of the same failed policies as a response to everything if Obama isn't really that much better or perhaps has a voting record that doesn't support it. All McCain has to do is respond. Clinton couldn't always do that, but McCain has no restrictions.

    Now, when is Obama getting us out of Iraq?

    Parent

    Indefinitely, last I heard. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:38:25 AM EST


    Parent
    More importantly... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:34:49 AM EST
    when is McSame going to go to war with Iran?

    Parent
    whyy don't you ask him? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:37:46 AM EST
    Equally what is Obama proposing in Pakistan?

    what Kennedyesque adventures might we expect from JFK's reincarnation?

    Parent

    Don't know, same for Obama. (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:38:49 AM EST
    But that wasn't the question, now was it? Deflecting may have worked in the primaries, not so sure it will in the GE.

    Parent
    Actually... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:43:29 AM EST
    I kind of like your original question since it acknowledges Obama will be president.

    Parent
    No it doesn't (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:53:39 AM EST
    or asking when McCain starts a war with Iran would assume the same  ;)

    Still no answer, eh?

    Parent

    I have a slightly different (none / 0) (#12)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:13:58 AM EST
    take on teh drilling issue.

    Supose for a moment that the supply is disrupted by some unforseen conflict in the ME or Russia?  How long would it tale to get domestic oil fields pumping in an emergency situation?

    Parent

    Nationalization (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by thentro on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:24:28 PM EST
    The only way that drilling will have any affect on US oil prices is if we nationalize the drilling and make the oil available to Americans only - something that would never ever happen.

    This is why I think we should be an electric producing nation not an oil producing one because electricity is not a global commodity, it is regional.

    Parent

    Sounds like a great argument... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:15:35 AM EST
    for alternative fuel.

    Parent
    I consider a major disruption to be a serious (none / 0) (#15)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:17:54 AM EST
    possibility in the mid term.  

    What might happen in an emergency is synthetic oil from coal like the Germans in WW2. But that should only be done as a wartime expedient.  

    Parent

    Problem of scale (none / 0) (#184)
    by Llelldorin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    According to the CIA 2005 figures, the US produces 8.32 million bbl/day, and consumes 20.8 million bbl/day. Peak ANWR production, if we opened it up, is projected to be .78 million bbl/day. If we ignored environmental restrictions on the CA and Gulf coastal waters, we could get a bit more. Without new technologies, I'm not sure how you'd  replace our imports.

    If we're ever really stuck, the pressure will mount to simply ignore the environmental issues and burn coal to generate electricity, then move to electric vehicles. The (better) alternative is aggressive energy research to find superior options to this. Ideally, we should start this research in the late 1970s, and pursue it aggressively through the 1980s. Unfortunately, we "survived" eight years of Reagan, too.

    Parent

    Dad & I were talking about that (none / 0) (#133)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:27:19 PM EST
    over the weekend.

    McCain Means More of the Same | 207 comments (207 topical)