McCain on Habeas Corpus

By TChris, Section Constitution
Posted on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:21:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As we have come to expect, John McCain's response to today's decision upholding habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees was, compared to Barack Obama's response, considerably less sensitive to our nation's constitutional values.

"These are unlawful combatants, they are not American citizens and I think we should pay attention to Justice Roberts' opinion in this decision," McCain said, referring to the chief justice's dissent.

McCain said he hadn't read the decision. Presumably, he hadn't read the Chief Justice's dissent, either. McCain's remarks confirm his blind faith in Chief Justice Roberts. That should tell you something about the kind of judge he'll nominate to the Court if he's elected in November.

[More ...]

Parse the response. It won't take long.

"These are unlawful combatants." Are they? The point of a trial, or some sort of evidentiary hearing that assures due process, is to answer that question, hopefully with some degree of certainty. Until that happens, they are only accused, and given the number of detainees who have been released during the last few years, there is reason to wonder whether the administration ever makes an accurate accusation. Six years of detention without a trial on the strength of an unproved charge. This is what you're defending, Senator McCain?

"They are not American citizens." They are held in American custody. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution limits the power of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The constitutional text does not restrict the writ's availability to citizens. While Justice Kennedy's opinion concluded that "the citizenship and status of the detainee" is relevant to the breadth of the Suspension Clause, it gave greater weight to "status" than to "citizenship." The real question is whether they are enemy combatants; if not, the government has no authority to detain them, citizen or not. The right to habeas corpus guarantees a fair procedure to determine that the detainees are actually enemy combatants.

"I think we should pay attention to Justice Roberts' opinion." Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion. The dissent tells us what the law is not. Don't you think, Sen. McCain, it would be better to pay attention to what the law is?

Compare Obama's response to McCain's and ask yourself how, in good conscience, anyone would want to give McCain the power to shape the Supreme Court?

< Obama's Statement On Today's Habeas/Gitmo Decision | DNA Testing For Innocence Funded in Dallas >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McCain on Habeas Corpus | 105 comments (105 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

My question is, if this judgement (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:32:42 PM EST

had not happened, and these detainees/prisoners were tried in a tribunal/military court, would they have the right to be represented and where would that representation come from?

Good questions...here's another: (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:45:48 PM EST

Why did they designate the term "non combatant" to exist outside the boundaries of the Geneva Convention? Why did they need to do that?


I may be off here, but at the time, (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:50:37 PM EST

I believe they needed a way to hold them w/o actually charging them and wanted to hold them indefinately. Then they could do what they wanted.


: nope. You aren't off. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:52:58 PM EST

You are exactly "ON"

They were being represented (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:50:52 PM EST

...by JAG officers, who were bitterly complaining about the process.

I had the opportunity to listen to them speak back in '06. They were very funny. Plenty of dark humor to be found in the way the commissions were to be set up.

Of course, the position of the administration was that they were not entitled to any relief.


McCain & Hillary supporters (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by ClareAK on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:37:03 PM EST

Hey,
if this is the way McCain thinks he'll get those disaffected Clinton supporters to vote for him - he is basically wrong.
He ought be getting some thanks from the Obama campaign for making their work in this regard much, much easier.

Maybe for those who are one issue (3.66 / 3) (#4)
by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:43:16 PM EST

voters.

Obama is doing a lot to scare us.


so this big reaction is a big yawn for you, eh? (5.00 / 6) (#8)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:47:12 PM EST

what issues are important to you? Or is it simply about personality?


You (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:11:16 PM EST

know what is sad? I have huge issues with both of them. Who is worse is yet to be determined. That's going to the motto for 2008? Who are you going to vote against not who are you going to vote for.


: I do not get that at all. (none / 0) (#32)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:13:26 PM EST

It's completely outside of my experience.

this is important (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by hookfan on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:26:40 PM EST

I would like an honest discussion on what issues Obama is worse on than McCain. It's difficult because Obama so often comes across as obscure, even contradictory on positions. True McCain appears more loyal to his issues, like Security and Republican views on the economy. But for me, his loyalty seems more often than not, on the wrong side of what I need (like social security). But Obama is where consistently? Does the choice come down to one who is wrongly principled vs one who is apparently unprincipled? If so, it's a tough choice for me, though I lean with much trepidation toward unprincipled. He still can learn pragmatism. Obama still might be pushed into helpful pragmatism if congress is willing to get in his face. A big if. . . I suspect McCain, based on his recent voting, will follow Bush.


How is he unprincipled? (none / 0) (#70)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:39:22 PM EST

He marched with gay rights activists, and against the war. He was a community activist in a poor black neighborhood. These were all prior to running for Pres, and even if they weren't, they aren't exactly actions that will attract votes for most Americans.


Unprincipled (3.00 / 2) (#86)
by hookfan on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:06:23 PM EST

He marched with gay rights activists, then has McClurkin as part of his campaign; makes a speech against the war, then votes to fund it at every turn; he was a community activist in a black neighborhood, then aligned with rezko who didn't provide heat for the poor in winter; on abortion and the right to choose, he was for it, but then he doesn't know when life begins, questions prochoice women's awareness of the moral issues, votes present; he was for counting the votes, then opposed having elections in Michigan; Come on! The guy is a walking contradiction.


: He didn't just vote to fund the war (5.00 / 2) (#87)
by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:10:42 PM EST

he came out in 2004 in support of both the war, and bush's handling of it. He flopped again recently because it was to his advantage in running for the nomination.

: I don't buy the part about (none / 0) (#107)
by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:29:30 AM EST

how the supporter = the candidate. I don't buy the part about MI, since the DNC had it's rules. I don't LIKE the part about the war, but we don't actually have a choice for someone who did not make that same mistake, unfortunately.
But of course, we are getting off-topic.

Example? (none / 0) (#51)
by anydemwilldo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:20:05 PM EST

I don't see much scary there. Most of the Obama complaints I read here are the ones that were popular during the primary: inexperience, can't-win, etc... What's scary about his platform?


What's his platform? (none / 0) (#58)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:24:14 PM EST

Platform? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by anydemwilldo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:27:06 PM EST

Almost identical to Hillary's, actually. Your implication seems to be that "he doesn't have one", which is just silly: a platform is the easiest thing to come up with. Every candidate ever has had an elaborate platform statement. You can find it on the campaign website with what, three clicks?

So let me turn the question around: what part of the Obama platform do you find "scary"?


He, himself, his ego, his elitism, (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:33:34 PM EST

his lack of judgement, his lack of ability, his talking out of both sides of his mouth, his pandering. By the way, his platform and how it will relate to the party's platform is something I am waiting to see. The dems are the party of the people, the new dems are the party of the people who Obama/his campaign deem to be acceptable and be able to worship him at a moment's notice. I know, snarky....P.S. What he writes on his website is of no interest to me. He writes what he only wants me to know. What I do like about him, I can relate to being brought up by a single mom (I am one)oh wait, that's really not true, on food stamps, oh wait, that's really not true either.


Those aren't examples (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by anydemwilldo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:39:46 PM EST

They're insults. I asked for examples of that stuff: specific instances of bad judgement, contradictory statements, etc... If you don't actually have that stuff in your head, how can you claim to have justified opinions? Think with your head, not your hate.

And your statement that you want to "see" Obamas platform but that the actual documents on his website details it don't interest you ... just confuses me. Sorry.


: First off, I do not believe in hate. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:00:29 PM EST

Secondly, Obama's platform is what he wants me to know. I have read speeches where he said he would appt. judges who were "sensitive" to gay needs and women's needs, other speeches he said he would appt. liberal judges..In the a.m. in Oregon he said Iran is not a threat, in the p.m. in Montana he said Iran is a threat. He said, then,he will take all the troops out of Iraq,he his emmisary in Canada said he will do differently when he gets into office, he now says he will leave troops there. I don't want to take up too much of this thread. Please don't believe everything you read at his website. I could have a website about me and say whatever I please about myself. So could you.

: You can use the search tool (none / 0) (#83)
by waldenpond on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:52:39 PM EST

There is no need to play another round of 'proveitproveit'. These issues have been discussed in detail. The search tool is very useful.
BTW, new commentors (those here less than 30 days) are limited to 10 comments per day.

That stuff is all superficial (none / 0) (#73)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:40:53 PM EST

do you really think you know what his personality is for watching him on Tee Vee?


coigue, you have taken the thread off-topic (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:32:16 PM EST

and nearly half the comments are yours. There are lots of people who comment here. The rules are easy to follow. Respect one another, don't chatter, and don't dominate the conversation.

I read some of your comments and have a vision of people against the wall with your finger wagging in their face.

Maybe it's just me, but I find this all very uncomfortable.


You Have No Credibility (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:38:08 PM EST

On chattering. Had coigue been singing your tune you would have been whistling along.

You may want to refresh yourself with what chattering is. The site is supporting the Democratic nominee.


The topic is McCain's statement today. (none / 0) (#96)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:45:09 PM EST

We all get a little off-topic, but we are way off.And, Jeralyn allows respectful dissent w/o name calling and insult.


: um...I've been insulted plenty of times (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:25:30 AM EST

please tell me where I've called people names.
All I am doing is trying to get people to justify their positions.

actually, I haven't (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:23:50 AM EST

I responded to others bringing up Obama, so take it up with them.

As to my finger, well, I can't really help you about your fantasies.


i dont know that obama can do anything (none / 0) (#23)
by tben on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:10:27 PM EST

when the problem is ODS.

Hopefully McCain will continue being the good Republican that he is, and people will finally wake up.

Anyone who supported Hillary Clinton, and then goes on to prefer McCain to Obama is obviously looking at the universe from a very strange angle.


The thing (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:12:43 PM EST

is you can't trust Obama because he has a history of telling different things to different groups of people. He'll say this today and then he'll go out and tell another group something different.


oh geez (none / 0) (#34)
by tben on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:14:39 PM EST

and no one named Clinton has ever done anything like that!!!

Mygod, that is the funniest comment in a long time!


that's a good point. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:18:52 PM EST

let's not idealize other pols, and let's not idealize Obama either.


Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#49)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:20:04 PM EST

is not the nominee. Do you guys have major transition issues or what? You've been calling him the nominee for months now but you still can't accept it or what? This is tiresome. Hillary has nothing to do with this. It's Obama vs. McCain. Continually attacking Hillary because Obama has problems is something you guys just can't seem to stop is it?


How old were you (none / 0) (#39)
by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:15:51 PM EST

when Clinton was president?


: if you must know (none / 0) (#61)
by tben on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:27:22 PM EST

38-46
do you have a point?

People of faith have far more in common (none / 0) (#72)
by Newt on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:40:12 PM EST

with the ideals and policies of Democrats than those of Republicans, but because our party is defined by our opponents as the immoral, non-religious left, we cede people for whom religion is important. The "Joshua Generation" outreach by Obama fits with his overall approach to change in that it's an empowering, progressive grassroots political approach defined by young people of faith based on their own values and it will be build and operated on their own terms. Religious progressives have been broadening their issues of concern beyond the right wing narrow set of issues that they continually beat over our heads (abortion, gay marriage). Obama is reaching out to people of faith and especially young people because it's important to address their concerns and because they will undermine the right wing's unethical smear strategies. The key is to open this conversation and bring them on board right away, and given how many of them are against the war, against torture, etc, the response by Bush & McSame to the Supreme Court decision is perfect. What better way to delineate between Obama and the Republican stance than through their own words. And today's responses will definitely be a topic of discussion amongst people of faith.


: Do you really believe this stuff or (3.00 / 2) (#92)
by Anne on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:19:27 PM EST

are you one of the people hired by the Grassroots Campaigns organization whose ad I see just to the right of this comment box?
The only things your comment are missing are the chorus of angels and the heavenly light.
Enough with the "people of faith" meme.

Disgusting (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:43:05 PM EST

coming from a former POW.

Seriously, the man dove head first into the dark side after being reprimanded by Cheney et al.....now he cannot even see what is right and just anymore.

Of course he can (none / 0) (#31)
by Lou Grinzo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:13:16 PM EST

In his mind, his ascension to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is right. Everything else is clearly wrong.


: I meant what is really right (none / 0) (#44)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:17:57 PM EST

Wow (5.00 / 7) (#5)
by Y Knot on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:45:26 PM EST

I wish McCain would stop using these scare tactics to intimidate Clinton supporters into voting for Obama. Its really disrespectful.

: Ha (none / 0) (#7)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:46:13 PM EST

too funny.

Okay, I've got the message (5.00 / 6) (#11)
by Coral on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:51:04 PM EST

I will vote Obama in November (not third party).

I guess I'll wait (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:54:39 PM EST

for more developments.

I won't vote for McCain, but I'm less than happy with the presumptive nominee.


Hey (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:59:17 PM EST

You are not alone, but you do not have to sleep with him, or be his friend. He is a Pol, but now he is our Pol. Make him pander to you. hold his feet to the fire, but at this point it makes no sense, unless you are for McCain to trash him as sport.


Criticizing him (none / 0) (#18)
by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:04:44 PM EST

is not trashing him, because he doesn't have a history I can rely on.

In fact, he has no political history, except that made up or embellished.

And I will continue to criticize him. If he's stop pandering and start acting like a democrat, I'd be happier.

She acts like one. She laid it all out for you guys, and you dismissed her.

Obama had better get a spine and decide who he is.


I'm starting to think I'd like to see him elected (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by blogtopus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:18:26 PM EST

Just so I can give his voters sh!t about his disappointing performance in the following years.

I will vote for Obama, but I'll be leaving my nose on Mars.


Pandering Is Good (none / 0) (#36)
by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:15:06 PM EST

That is what politicians do to get your vote. The trick is to get them to pander to you and represent you by voting for things you are in favor of.

Start acting like a Democrat is trashing him. And this shows me exactly where you are:

She laid it all out for you guys, and you dismissed her.

Time to get out of your imaginary schoolyard. Or take your childish fight to where you were hurt, because it is not with me or here at TL. I for one, as most here never dismissed Hillary. You are fighting phantoms in your head.


I never dismissed her either. (none / 0) (#42)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:17:22 PM EST

Good on ya, Squeak!


Oh, baby. (none / 0) (#47)
by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:19:36 PM EST

Not going to get votes that way.

He was my last choice.

It's going to take a whole lot of effort for him to become my first.


You Are Entitled (none / 0) (#63)
by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:29:17 PM EST

To vote as you choose. But if you want to stick around here you might want to stop making believe that those here, who are supporting the democratic candidate, are people that have done you harm.

You wind up sounding like those you seem to detest.


Of course, you are entitled (none / 0) (#99)
by blogtopus on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:52:34 PM EST

to vote as you will also. Nobody is telling you not to, at least from what I've seen on this thread so far. The night is young. :-P

However, there are many of us who cannot and will not forget how one of the candidates was treated with complete bias and unbridled prejudice, as well as two entire states and and 18 million people were dismissed as unimportant.

You'd be incredibly naive to think we would ignore those aspects of the Obama campaign's ascendancy in November; it might not alienate us enough to vote for McCain, but the damage has been done and Obama will have a helluva hard presidency if he doesn't realize it now.


18000000 Is Not The Number (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:04:01 PM EST

Because I was one of them, and I did not get bent out of shape because a'holes dissed Hillary. Perhaps the number is 100,000 who somehow got so involved that they took personally all the nastiness leveled against her.

Most of the voters do not see all the stuff that you see. Friends of mine who are progressives, feminists, intellectuals, artists, workers, et al would not be my friends if they supported sexism racism or bigotry, yet they supported Obama.

Not sure why so many took lowbrow idiots so seriously and projected what they said as something Obama supports.


: Well, we obviously must agree to disagree (none / 0) (#111)
by blogtopus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:02:58 AM EST

I can't convince you the sky is blue if you aren't willing to look up. Good luck with the Politics of Hope (TM). I'm hoping that someone will actually remember what happened this primary season.

Don't you get that 'pander' has a negative (none / 0) (#75)
by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:44:47 PM EST

connotation? And that the connotation does not include following through on what has been said?

And why would Obama, or any politician on earth, or any person on earth, suddenly start taking action or living up to his words when doing nothing gets him the votes?

I just don't get why you think the 'lying in wait' strategy will suddenly metamorphosis into a 'fight the good fight strategy' if he becomes president.

Even GWB and Reagan, who I could not have opposed more strongly, got into office with strong words and strong actions. I may disagree with both, but when was the last time we had a great milqetoast president?


: OK (none / 0) (#90)
by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:13:02 PM EST

So it is love when they tell you what you want to hear but when they are your opposition, they are pandering. I get it.
His votes are exactly the same as the one you seem to be smitten by. Personally I think it is strange that anyone gets smitten by a Pol, but to each his or her own.

How, exactly, (none / 0) (#55)
by A little night musing on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:23:27 PM EST

are we supposed to do this:

Make him pander to you. hold his feet to the fire,

He's essentially (through his campaign) told us he has no intention of reaching out to us, let alone pandering to us. [And that's after dissing certain of us explicitly during the campaign, so this is not just the usual "not pandering to me" I've come to expect from Democratic nominees. This is abuse.]

I've tried to get groups I work with to pressure him. Guess what? No go.


: OK (none / 0) (#68)
by squeaky on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:34:19 PM EST

If the Democrat is not for you, try McCain. Not sure what to tell ya. Apart from style Hillary and Obama have pretty the same platform, if you cannot see that, it must be something personal.

Nope, not my pol (none / 0) (#77)
by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:46:10 PM EST

as I just switched to Independent.


I have to say this again..everyone (none / 0) (#14)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:59:09 PM EST

believes that Obama will appoint liberal judges..if he wants to secure Reagan Dems. and Republican votes, he cannot promise this and still get their votes. Granted, McCain, we know, will appoint conservative judges. Congress has to approve these appts. so the congress needs to stay dem.


Obama just praised the majority (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:04:34 PM EST

McCain praised the minority dissent. What you are saying is thus proven false wrt Obama's strategic plan.

Time to reassess.


how do we know what Obama would do? (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by Josey on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:10:44 PM EST

Throughout the Democratic primary he used rightwing talking points against Dems and bashed Democratic constituencies!
Obama is a flim flam artist, deceptive, and I don't trust him.


3am ad. (none / 0) (#29)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:11:32 PM EST

That was a great ad (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Josey on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:16:09 PM EST

Hillary promoted her abilities and knowledge.
Obama bashed Dem constituencies.
See the difference?


latte-drinking liberal elites (none / 0) (#57)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:23:57 PM EST

are not a dem constituency? And the 3 am ad played on the GOP-created MISperception that Dems were weaker on defense.

But I really REALLy don't want to hash this out again. It was a nasty primary from both sides.


this was disinformation from Obama camp (none / 0) (#104)
by Josey on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:51:38 AM EST

>>>>And the 3 am ad played on the GOP-created MISperception that Dems were weaker on defense.

because it was obvious Hillary is more competent than Obama in most areas.
My family and friends certainly wouldn't feel safe with Obama in the WH!


: then your family and friends (none / 0) (#109)
by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:35:29 AM EST

bought the fear-mongering....just like all those security moms who voted for Bush.

He did exactly that, coigue, (none / 0) (#20)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:06:15 PM EST

however, he is a politician and he says what he believes people need to hear. This is true on both sides. That's why there is always room for one's own interpretation, both sides worth.


But your quote (below) is pure conjecture about (none / 0) (#22)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:10:12 PM EST

what he will PROMISE to get elected. In fact, what he did today in a very public way, in the context of the campaign...is PROMISE the exact opposite. How does this fit into your scenario? It doesn't help him get GOP votes to "pretend to be a liberal" . It simply makes no sense at all.

if he wants to secure Reagan Dems. and Republican votes, he cannot promise this

: I don't want him to get GOP votes! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:11:26 PM EST

Unity '08.
Disgusting.

: Knowing what McCain would say (none / 0) (#37)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:15:33 PM EST

he knew what he had to say. He may, indeed, appt. the most liberal of judges, but I kinda doubt it. If you read some of his speeches, he says what that particular audience wants to hear, then changes the same statements while w/another audience. Today, he took the majority opinion (and may indeed agree with it). Again, it's the congress that decides, the pres. puts names in for consideration. He has all but eliminated blue collar workers, some women, some latinos, he is after bigger fish and will do what he needs to do to get them.

Truth on Both Sides? (none / 0) (#62)
by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:28:36 PM EST

Many of the "progressive" issue are not debatable. The concept of truth to all sides means you will do nothing and accomplish nothing. He needs to stand up for something . I'm really tired of that concept. For almost 8 yrs I've seen no evidence of the Republican Party seeing two sides. He should have more principles and and less pander. I would love to see Obama campaign that he would never appoint another Scalia to the bench.


So I guess you mean (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by ruffian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:10:28 PM EST

everyone except Reagan Dems and Republicans think he will appoint liberal judges? Why exactly do you think they won't believe that - just because he won't say one way or another? This is the problem I have with him trying to court conservatives. They won't believe him anyway, so why not give us liberals some more love?

Liberals are supposed to believe he will appoint liberal judeges even though he won't promise it, and he wants conservatives to think he won't appoint liberal judges, so he doesn't promise it. Who exactly is he trying to fool?


He, himself, and his campaign talked (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by zfran on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:20:05 PM EST

about wanting to attract Reagan dems and repub. lites. It's not secret he wants to expand the party. That's great! What will he have to give away to get them?


He won't need to (none / 0) (#54)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:21:47 PM EST

not this year. Reagan Dems liked Reagan because of charisma....do you see where I am going with this?


Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:32:21 PM EST

Reagan Dems voted for Reagan because of national security and Carter's ineptness.


Some, yes. (none / 0) (#69)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:34:37 PM EST

Some, no. "The Morning in America" commercial did not talk about either of those things and was enormously effective.

Those times are very similar to these times.

So. I think I am right.


Morning in America (2.00 / 1) (#85)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:01:12 PM EST

was in 1984 against Mondale not when he ran against Carter in 1980. I find it interesting that many young people think that a presidential election is nothing more than american idol.


: I am not young (none / 0) (#108)
by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:31:25 AM EST

but frankly, it is American Idol.
That's how Reagan won, that's how Bush (who do you want to have a beer with)won, etc etc.

Hm (none / 0) (#76)
by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:45:26 PM EST

Well, Carter was running in 1980. Morning in America was in 1984. So you both could be right.


: other similarities 1980 (none / 0) (#81)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:49:51 PM EST

Bush was a disaster, the country was in an economic downturn....with high gas prices. Reagan was from the "other" party.
Most people don't decide who to vote for because of what is in policies or speeches.

All of this parsing is getting annoying (5.00 / 4) (#16)
by dianem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:59:51 PM EST

McCain is reading from the right wing playbook, Obama is reaching out to right wing fundamentalists, and we're all trying to figure out what these guys stand for. What do they really plan to do? Will McCain revert back to his relatively moderate stance (relative to the current crop of right-wingers) or has he truly converted to the dark side? Will Obama show himself as the solid "change" progressive he is perceived to be by the left, or will he be the centrist he is campaigning as. It seems as if both candidates are playing to the voters: McCain needs to solidify the right, Obama needs to reach across the aisle. I think I like politics better when I didn't know so much about it. What's the line? Politics is like sausage. You're better off if you don't see what goes into it.

They are both reaching to the right (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by ruffian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:15:00 PM EST

unfortunately for us old lefties.


Obama is a Centrist (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by Josey on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:20:34 PM EST

but his followers create their own reality and hear "a progressive."


: With a few exceptions.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:23:46 PM EST

...most Democrats are centrists of one sort or another, on one issue or another.
It is the GOP that has gone off the rails.

I agree 100% (5.00 / 3) (#41)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:16:50 PM EST

Which John McCain will you get if he's elected and which Barack Obama will you get if he's elected? The only advantage McCain has here is that he definitely has a history you judge. Obama doesn't have much of a record so you are left to guess what he'll do.


: yeah...a bad history. (none / 0) (#52)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:20:32 PM EST

so funny (none / 0) (#19)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:05:12 PM EST

and so true.


: Not that funny, actually. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by pie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:08:21 PM EST

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:31:15 PM EST

Solid points, one and all. The striking thing about McCain's response is that he clearly felt the need to have it both ways, to reach out to the GOP base by praising Roberts, but also trying to reach across the aisle by talking about closing Guantanamo. He's in an uncomfortable spot on these issues and I think Democrats need to attack the weakness.

McCain's statement almost proves (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by andgarden on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:34:18 PM EST

that Obama could have given a stronger statement. Indeed, that it would have been to his political benefit to do so. Alas. . .


McCain's statement... (none / 0) (#74)
by OrangeFur on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:42:11 PM EST

... was definitely trying to have it both ways. Limit the rights of detainees at these tribunals, but close Guantanamo so we won't have these tribunals in the first place.

Obama's statement was clearly better from my point of view, but not more than I would expect from any Democrat.


Has anyone (none / 0) (#79)
by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:47:47 PM EST

asked McCain where he plans to move the detainees once we close Guantanamo?


I don't know. (none / 0) (#88)
by OrangeFur on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:11:08 PM EST

Where is Obama going to move the detainees? I'm not sure if I've heard.

I feel like it's a "balance the budget" kind of promise. Easy to make, harder to execute.


Actually (none / 0) (#101)
by Steve M on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:28:13 PM EST

a little googling around the campaign website found an explicit statement that McCain will move all the detainees to Fort Leavenworth. I couldn't find anything from Obama, maybe he hasn't said.


: Wow, really? (none / 0) (#102)
by OrangeFur on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:38:40 PM EST

McCain's going to move them into the US? While that seems reasonable, I can only imagine how the GOP would have had a field day had it been a Democrat who proposed something like that.

Closing Guantanamo (none / 0) (#82)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:50:46 PM EST

so he can just use extrordinary rendition.

Mark my words.


Other aspect of ruling (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:48:56 PM EST

I still wonder why neither candidate addressed the ruling in regard to executive power? I think that's an area that the candidates and the media have hidden from since the start of the primary season. I haven't heard either address this issue. McCain did promise he would not issue signing statements. I haven't heard anything from Obama on the subject.

nope (none / 0) (#38)
by coigue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:15:47 PM EST

bad speller

Not a one-issue voter, me (none / 0) (#45)
by A little night musing on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:18:25 PM EST

But there are days I think it would be so much easier...

Obama made a better (not perfect, to me, but better) response to this decision. McCain made a D- response (only not an F because he bothered to respond at all).

I've also had nice things to say about certain statements Obama has made about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

It doesn't resolve my dilemma about voting in this presidential election (assuming the presumed nominee is the actual nominee and he doesn't do something to make me a whole lot less alientated than I am, which this ain't).

Dang, I wish I were a single-issue voter. Or, wait. No, I don't. I like being me!

[Hope this is not OT too much.]

: The thing is.. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by rjarnold on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:11:34 PM EST

on just about every issue, Obama is better than McCain. I can't think of a single major issue that I agree with McCain on.

Now they will just shoot to kill (none / 0) (#94)
by dualdiagnosis on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:35:38 PM EST

If they can't hold them for information, then they are free to just kill them. Killing them is legal.

Well, he's pandering to his base. (none / 0) (#97)
by masslib on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:48:15 PM EST

No wonder they hate him. This wasn't the strongest pander.

then your experience is (none / 0) (#103)
by cpinva on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:31:30 AM EST

quite limited.

It's completely outside of my experience.

which i suspect it is. i'm going out on a limb here, and guessing you're a 20 something, maybe barely out of college type person, with limited or no experience in the real world to speak of.

you're right TChris, mccain on habeas is a disaster. of course, he's not a lawyer, and doesn't play one on tv.

i would reasonably expect a far different opinion from an actual attorney (CJ Roberts notwithstanding), than a non-lawyer type.

however, one opinion doesn't allay my concerns regarding sen. obama's adult history of poor character judgments. i fear that a democratic majority congress would be more likely to confirm a pres. obama nominee, however poor, than they would an equally so pres. mccain nominee.

given his history of tacking in mid thought, don't be at all surprised if sen. obama changes his stance by friday afternoon.

: you guess wrong (none / 0) (#110)
by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:47:59 AM EST

waaaay wrong.