home

The New John McCain

The old John McCain abhorred intolerance:

In 2000, when he was running against Mr. Bush for the Republican nomination, Mr. McCain castigated Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell as “agents of intolerance.”

The new John McCain embraces intolerance:

The campaign has been peppering over 600 socially conservative grass-roots and national leaders with regular e-mail messages — highlighting, for example, Mr. McCain’s statement criticizing a May 15 decision by the California Supreme Court overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, or his recent speech on his judicial philosophy. ... Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s senior advisers, recently sat down with a dozen prominent evangelical leaders in Washington, where he emphasized, among other things, Mr. McCain’s consistent anti-abortion voting record.

Who says McCain is against change? He changes all the time. John McCain: the candidate who wants to return America to the 19th Century.

< John McCain's First Wife Issues: Will Women Voters Turn Away? | The Justice Department's Double Standard >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Tolerance doesn't fly in the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by neoliberal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    McCain found that out the hard way, it seems

    G*D D*MN the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:27:44 AM EST
    Thanks for putting us into this decision, Howard and Donna. Thanks a whole lot.


    no TChris, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    he's a "maverick", always willing to buck the tide, if he thinks it will get him votes. and yet, the country has eaten it up for 8 years now.

    the man knows which side his bread is buttered on, and intolerance is a far easier sell than tolerance.

    McCain reeks of desperation. (none / 0) (#10)
    by phatpay on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    He was a maverick.
    Then he became a boot licker just to earn his shot at the WH.
    I might have been able to vote for John McCain pre-2000 in some circumstances. But the embarrassingly gross way he has sidled up to the Neo-Con powers that be in his achingly desperate attempt to become president has forever soured me on him as a politico.
    How he could ever shake Bush's hand again after South Carolina, let alone give him a hug?

    Parent
    the problem is (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:56:11 AM EST
    most voters are going to have your previous position.

    Parent
    also there's an underground... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    ...campaign to attack Obama on the grounds of antisemetism and lack of support for Israel.
    Which suggests to me Lieberman is going to a point man for McCain. LGF are going off the handle with it. So it's going to be a mainstay of the internet war about Obama.

    Parent
    it will certainly be one (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:32:48 PM EST
    thing they use.
    it will be subversively linked to the muslim thing.
    and yep, I bet LIEberman has his clammy hands all over it.

    Parent
    There's a grain of truth (none / 0) (#102)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:45:12 PM EST
    to the overall thrust of the story. It's not about Obama though, it's about his supporters hopes and dreams.   One of the bizarre things I saw in Dkos was that Obama managed to solidfy the support of the adversaries on the I/P threads.  One infamous I/P censor was Geekesque, he hounded anything that was even sidesways antiIsrael. But Obam also got the antiIsrael Kossacks as well.  There are a number of them on MyDD like Shergald.

    So Obama very early on managed to unify two contradictory factions.

    One thing that will happen on Dkos right now is a further detailed purge of posters who attack Israel but Support Obama, in order to clean up the site for Mass Media consumption and watch Obama's back.

    Parent

    Well, it seems that is what is asked of the (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by jes on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM EST
    'losers' - to atone for their daring to run against the eventual nominee, they must prove their loyalty. Get down and grovel - seems to me at least what some of the Obama crowd request of Hillary.

    Parent
    "He was a maverick" (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:02:50 PM EST
    Tell this to the media.

    I think his VP choice will be telling. The right will still come out for him in the end. I believe that more than the Clinton Dems falling in line.

    Parent

    you got it (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:04:07 PM EST
    the right fears Obama far more than the left fears McCain.

    Parent
    The right, and many Clinton supporters, (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:05:31 PM EST
    apparently.

    Parent
    Yup. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:08:28 PM EST
    Those evangelicals are really against Obama. They aren't going to sit home like they did in 1996 and 2000 when while they didn't like Clinton or Gore they also didn't fear them much either.

    Parent
    I don't know about that: (none / 0) (#42)
    by eustiscg on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:41:12 PM EST
    A new generation of Evangelical leaders are coming to the fore; as a whole, they are not interested in unilaterally associating themselves with the Republican party, as their elders did, especially not to hawkish, corporation-boosting, irreligious Republicans like McCain.

    Plus, as reprehensible as Rev. Wright's recent comments have been to our Average Joes, Trinity UCC is more in line with my experience of Midwestern Evangelism than not.  In fact, notwithstanding political differences, my Evangelical high school classmates always looked to the African-American Church as a model of more genuine spirituality.  It will certainly be viewed more favorably (racist overtones and all) than McCain's watery non-religion.

    That's why Evangelical Christian leaders are now beginning to speculate about Obama earning as much as 40% of the Evangelical vote (i.e., almost twice what Kerry garnered).

    Parent

    TUCC (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    is out of the mainstream. Very much so. I've been to many evangelical churches and none of them were as bad as TUCC.

    Actually I know that the evangelical movement per se is moving away from politics but I'm really talking about the individuals coming out to vote against Obama.

    Gosh, do we really want another president beholden to evangelicals? They're the ones that brought you Bush. Your post actually makes McCain sound appealing. I'm really tired of the mixing of politics and religion and I'm a christian myself.

    Parent

    amen (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:22:30 PM EST
    A couple of points: (none / 0) (#89)
    by eustiscg on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:32:00 PM EST
    1. My twin is a pastor with the UCC.  The UCC is not an Evangelical church; my point is that the Evangelicals I knew, growing up in the Midwest, had surprising reverence for the black church movement generally.  I remember talking to a hard-line Evangelical who visited TUCC (many years before it was in the national headlines) and commented to me that, "For the first time, I felt the Holy Spirit present in a church service.  They really FEEL religion."
    2. The UCC is a church that applies Christian principles to secular missions of aid and assistance.  In this way, it is certainly more in line with new-wave Evangelism than most traditional Protestant denominations.
    3. If Evangelicals as a whole are moving away from politics, as you acknowledge, what is there in McCain's candidacy to rope them back in?  He doesn't have the religious background or the showmanship necessary to play Christian Crusader a la Bush.  It's quite possible that Obama will expand the Democratic share of the Evangelical vote partly because the Evangelical share of the total vote will drop sharply.
    4. No Dem is going to be "beholden" to the Evangelicals in the way that Bush is, because they will never be seen as a cornerstone of Democratic support.  It's a matter of winning a strong minority of the vote, not of crushing McCain among them.  No one would argue that Obama can actually BEAT McCain among Evangelicals.


    Parent
    not trying to argue with you (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:36:18 PM EST
    but I am in close contact almost daily with evangelical democratic political activists.  they are in the forefront of bashing Obama.  they absolutely hate and his church.
    they would vote for Bush before Obama.  and they HATE Bush.
    I dont know what evangelicals you were talking to but I would bet they never saw Wright humping the podium.


    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#98)
    by eustiscg on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:43:59 PM EST
    These are young, Midwestern, suburban Evangelicals ...

    It sounds like we're talking to very different subsets of this vast population.  :-)

    Parent

    they are midwestern (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:55:22 PM EST
    not young or suburban.

    Parent
    A Timely Story (none / 0) (#138)
    by eustiscg on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:24:37 PM EST
    Check out today's story from the Christian Broadcasting Network.

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:31:51 PM EST
    "The name is based on the biblical story of how Joshua's generation led the Israelites into the Promised Land."

    Parent
    Yeah, yeah, yeah (none / 0) (#144)
    by eustiscg on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:02:36 AM EST
    The "Promised Land" in question is gender and racial equality.  Care to snark now?

    Parent
    hate? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:17:43 PM EST
    not very christian now is that.

    Parent
    it was my word (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:32:28 PM EST
    not theirs.
    and I am no christian.  and proud of it.

    Parent
    perhaps (none / 0) (#142)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:39:40 PM EST
    you should not put words in peoples mouths then especially when it goes against the grain of the belief system, even if not yours.  

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:48:15 PM EST
    you are ignoring some facts.

    First of all the UCC is not an extremely doctrinal organization. Each church is more or less allowed to develop the theology that works for them. TUCC preaches Black Liberation Theology. It is not a mainstream theology and as a matter of fact, most AA churches DO NOT practice this theology. The AME church is more in line with a traditional evangelical AA church than TUCC.

    you know nothing about mainline denominations if you think they don't do aid and assistance. The churches that are very against aid and assistance are the fundamentalist churches.

    I think Obama's support with evangelicals mostly comes from black evangelicals doesn't it? IIRC, white evangelicals weren't voting for him.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#120)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:11:14 PM EST
    I don't know how the numbers break down, but presumably John Kerry would have gotten the large majority of the black evangelical vote in 2004.  So if there really is a theory that Obama could get a lot more evangelicals than Kerry got, it must be based on making significant inroads into the white evangelical demographic.  Either that, or this argument is just a subset of the "Obama will register millions of new black voters and win the South" argument.

    Parent
    unilaterally . . . Republican party (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:09:53 PM EST

    you are correct.  my family members, yellow dog democrats all, are in that group.
    but trust me.  they will not be voting for Obama.

    Parent
    This is one of the main issues I have with (none / 0) (#137)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:22:18 PM EST
    Obama.  I am not a Republican for many reasons, but one of the big issues I have with them is the separation of church and state. Obama's new Joshua Project feels all "Republican -y" to me. His outreach program is one of the major reasons I question his stands on reproductive rights and sex education.

    Parent
    As BTD would say... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:37:50 PM EST
    pols are pols.

    The enemy of yesterday is the ally of today and might be the bosom buddy of tomorrow...only to be avoided 3 weeks from now.

    We're seeing some of that play out as Obama and Clinton figure out how best to deal with each other now that the chips are falling.

    Parent

    There isn't actually any contradiction (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:47:54 AM EST
    there. McCain was always against Equal Marriage and choice. He wasn't a liberal just because he didn't like Falwell.

    may I live long enough (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:03:09 PM EST
    to see a world in which marriages, former or uncoming, first, second or fifth, unless they murdered their spouse, will not be an issue in a political campaign.


    Or how about (none / 0) (#136)
    by phatpay on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:03:40 PM EST
    to see a world in which marriage, as an institution, becomes more successful to deserve the emphasis it garners.

    Parent
    He's pandering like crazy (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:11:13 PM EST
    This was his last shot at the brass ring. He has wanted to be President for a couple of decades, and he will say and do anything to get elected. The real question's are about how he will govern if he wins and will enough people buy the new McCain to get him into office, without too many moderates changing their views. He is gambling that he can be a far right campaigner to get the right to vote for him and yet retain his reputation as a moderate right-winger to get the support of the center that he needs.

    I don't think that his position changes will be particularly relevant. Kerry was hurt by his changes because the right made it central to their campaign and had that "cute" little "flip-flop" thing going. If Obama tries the same game, he will be perceived as 1) nasty and 2) using old school politics. Whether the right votes for McCain or not will depend more on how badly the 527's tar Obama than on anything McCain does or says. If they can convince enough right-wingers that Obama is the devil incarnate, then McCain wins. Unfortunately, this is what 527's specialize in, and Obama seems to be highly vulnerable to these attacks.

    Let's stay in Iraq for a hundred years (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    This sentiment expressed by McCain, no matter his lame comeback a tiny bit a day or two later, is what Dems should pound on.  The American people are sick and tired of the war, and of the money spent there rather than here.  All Obama must do is connect the logical dots for the people, be a leader, and make clear that the economy is in the tank BECAUSE of the war.  That the war is not merely a contributing factor, that is IS the factor.  Because it is.  With money having no value but for peoples belief it has value, to continue such a wildly unpopular and insanely costly war is to CREATE a nosediving economy.  If you desired an economic collapse, what better way to acheive it than to wage a war of unprecedented cost and of unprecedented unpopularity among your people?

    Just tell the simple godd*mn obvious truth about this war, and how it has destroyed everyone involved, and every institution, theirs AND ours.  And that it must end immediately.  And then you force McCain to defend what has been hyper-logically laid out as indefensible, as a complete debacle, as the ORIGIN of the economic nightmare that is inarguably is.  The obscene amounts of money spent there, spent without the slightest regard for the utter lack of confidence of the people, is, again, a historic formula for nations to destroy themselves.  Napoleon McCain can't survive when he is forced to defend the source of our demise.

    The problem (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:38:57 PM EST
    is that Obama is starting to walk back his statements about getting out and has been talking about staying indefinitely. Indefinitely vs. 100 years? Hmm.

    Parent
    That's the odd thing (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:56:04 PM EST
    we can tlk about the next 1000 years as much as we like, but really this is about the next four years.

    What will you promise to do in the next four years Mr McCain and Mr Obama?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:10:28 PM EST
    Both Obama and Hillary qualified their withdrawal policy statements up the wazoo. For anyone paying attention there is zero change from what they have said. For anyone to believe that the perfect conditions would suddenly appear so that either Obama or Hillary could immediately start responsibly withdrawing troops when the Dems take control, they were not listening very carefully.

    Parent
    slimey (none / 0) (#67)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:11:37 PM EST
    AKA Typical Pols (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    when I sawsome of the debates in (none / 0) (#84)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:25:22 PM EST
    January and february I knew 100% that the occupation was Democratic policy. Lit themn it had merely been a suspicion aproaching 90%.

    :-(

    Most voters on the left don't seem to realize this state of affairs.

    Parent

    Hillary's withdrawal plan (none / 0) (#76)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    was excellent, IMO, very detailed and covered using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help with Iraq and targeted funding directly to groups that provide food and medical supplies straight to the Iraqis, bypassing the corrupt government there. She would have brought troops home very quickly, IMO; she had the military support and credibility to get that done. But her policy is kind of moot now, isn't it?

    Parent
    She was also going to pull contractors (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:25:59 PM EST
    and end no-bid contracts.

    Parent
    And she has been fighting Bush (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:44:51 PM EST
    hard on the subject of permanent bases in Iraq.  I can't believe even the Repub Senators would let Bush/Cheney get away with deciding what the next president should do. Just makes me sad to think of how fiercely she detests the imperial presidency and that she won't get a chance to end it herself.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:21:51 PM EST
    his advisors were making these statements below the radar but Obama was claiming in all his stump speeches that we was going to immediately start withdrawing from Iraq right? It think that's why he appears to be flip flopping and backing off.

    Parent
    quote? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    i have heard no such statements

    Parent
    Halliburton and other corrupt (none / 0) (#49)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:49:01 PM EST
    gov't contractors would be a good issue too. Didn't Halliburton lose at least $9 billion of our money in Iraq through "bookkeeping errors"? And the R's didn't hold them accountable, make them return it, or cancel payment on future contracts. The government does exactly that with small grants to social agencies, why shouldn't the same standard be applied here? A church group making breakfast for poor children is accountable, but huge multi-national corporations gets a free pass.

    And bringing the troops home immediately is our best issue, especially if we don't get bogged down into refighting how we got there and did the surge work. America wants OUT now, let's get on that.

    Parent

    Has Obama walked back leaving (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    private contractors in Iraq in place of soldiers for "security"?

    Parent
    The Mercs are the way we get the regular troops (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:11:09 PM EST
    out of Iraq. privatize the political risk.

    Parent
    I forgot about that. (none / 0) (#68)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:11:49 PM EST
    Haven't seen a recant, but I hope he does walk that back and right soon. :(

    Parent
    Neither Candidate (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:13:21 PM EST
    Had promised to get rid of all the contractors. Both promised to remove only a very limited amount of them. It sounded good until you read the fine print.

    Parent
    Our best issue (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:38:27 PM EST
    I agree 100% that getting the troops home immediately is the democrats' - or the republicans' - best issue.

    I haven't seen either presumptive nominee or leaders of either party proposing anything like that.

    So how do we get on that?

    One thing that occurs to me is that we who are on the democratic side of the fence need to pressure our presumptive nominee to make this the campaign issue of moment.

    Parent

    The big liberal blogs and (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    grassroots organizations really blew it by endorsing anyone, IMO. What we needed were strong issues advocate groups to hold our eventual nominee's feet to the fire on Iraq, universal health insurance, ending Bush's tax giveaways and corporate welfare, etc... How hard can they really push Obama on these issues after being so in the tank for him?

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:42:23 PM EST
    on the other hand Americablog always maintained that they had endorsed no one.
    does anyone believe that.
    advocacy is fine.  just be honest about it.

    Parent
    Totally agree... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:03:17 PM EST
    They should have pushed issues without railing against/drooling over anyone.

    Parent
    speaking as an unafiliated voter (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by kimsaw on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:58:20 PM EST
    I can't believe that McCain's infidelity is the first topic Obama Dems are going after, kinda of like Obama operatives asking when the press was going to bring up Bill's womanizing.

    You know I was a registered Republican in my youth, though I didn't always vote Republican, but when they went after Bill with such righteous indignation for something many of them have done but didn't get caught, I just changed to unaffiliated. I didn't approve of Bill's behavior, and I didn't trust the Dems because some of them were calling for his head. The worst of which was that Gore foolishly did not ask Clinton to campaign for him. Gore cared more for image than issues and campaigned in fear of the association when he should have embraced the talents of Clinton to help him.   The hypocritical blather about infidelity from conservatives and evangelicals, some Dems turned venomous and did nothing to benefit the people of this country or the issues facing our country at the time. I decided the parties to have to work for my vote from there on out. Loyalty to country not party. Since the Clinton years I have not been happy with the  choices presented by either party. I've voted but this year I'm not choosing the lesser of two lessers again. I'm done with that I expect to the candidates to be steeped in policy and have the ability to articulate their vision without a teleprompter. Both parties have failed.

    Today if so many Obama supporters are attracted to his politics of change why are they willing to engaged in the politics of personal destruction which is not new at all.  Its really hard to tell a Dem. from a Rep. anymore.  The issues and their solutions are only secondary to the hype of personality.  The anything to win mentality is the call to action in each party and it always has been. Again what's so new.  

    Believe me I get that politics is a dirty war and  the weapons are words and bucks spread to those words far and wide.  Could someone tell me what Obama means when he talks about changing politics?
     -Does it mean that the politics of personal destruction is acceptable if his campaign engages in it and his opponent can not?
    -Does it just mean that lobbyists can support his campaign but their relatives and employees can? -Does he mean a "stick to the issues" discussion is the alternative  when the candidate speaks, but his minions can deplore the tactics he publicly abhorr?
    -Does he mean he can pander with the best of them and offer that he's not?
    -Does he mean that new politicians get more chances to clarify their stances without the media questioning why?

    Before you start calling me a troll... I'd ask the same question of McCain, but Obama  stakes his campaign on political change.  

    McCain has stood opposed to his own party more than once.  His stance against earmarks and his position on immigration are examples of that. He tried not pandering to conservatives in 2000 how far did that get him?  Now he's no different than Obama, but Obama is pandering to the left, to the right, to the in betweens and the extremes.

    Who will be the purveyor of truth in this election. The media sure doesn't know what that is anymore and neither do people who throw  attacks while ignoring the facts in the blogosphere on behalf of their candidates. This is why voters turn apathetic, because nothing really changes. When McCain said we could stay in Iraq for a 100 years, how many followed through with the we've been in S. Korea for 60 yrs? How is staying in Iraq different from that?

    You can claim all you want that McCain's ethics are questionable in regard to his personal life, but that also means Obama's membership in a radical, racist church must be held up to the same scrutiny.

    And this all brings me to why in Nov. I'm  writing in Clinton's name 'cause neither party has presented a candidate as well versed on the issues more than Clinton. I'm sorry I can't do what she asks of me, but I have more respect for the truth than commit an act of hypocrisy. We live and die by the truth, and the Dems can offer Obama as change and McCain can mean change for Repubs, but what neither offers an ability to articulate solutions and their commitment to work on behalf of those solutions better than Clinton. Clinton embodies the change needed.

    May I suggest (none / 0) (#127)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:04:45 PM EST
    that you base your opinion of Obama's ideas of change on his own words and actions, not those of the "minions" who populate the blogs.

    No one controls the blogispere.  And there's really no way to tell if some of the trash posts we've seen came from Obama supporters or from Limbaugh's Republican Chaos operatives.

    Parent

    Basing our opinions on his own words... (none / 0) (#132)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    Basing our opinion of Obama by reading his own words...

    Here are some beauts:

    "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

    "... what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."
     "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate."

    "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse."

    "... I think there are elements within Pakistan right now-if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out..."

    Shall I go on?

    Parent

    So Obama is the purveyor of his own truth? (none / 0) (#139)
    by kimsaw on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:28:42 PM EST
    Well if that's the criteria, how could we dismiss the words of GWB as meaningless, he too speaks his own truth. Both gentlemen's actions speak louder than their words. You'll have to do better than tell me listen to Obama for the truth. His words are simply that just words solicited from eyes to lips with the help of teleprompted theatrics.

    I've got an opinion of what change means to Obama and it's not much of a definition. Obama is a word smith whether they are his words or someone else's.  We can split hairs about the semantics if you choose like the difference he offers between preparation and preconditions when he meets with our enemies, but I think I know bamboozling when I hear it.

    You're right we don't know where the trash talk comes from Limbaugh or Obama supporters. It's a toss up, there's an outside chance it's both. We can always blame the other guy, taking responsibility is hard. The good news is you didn't blame Clinton.

    Parent

    If this and the previous post (4.00 / 4) (#6)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:35:11 AM EST
    are the best Dems can do against McCain, he might as well start measuring for new White House curtains.

    Sorry, TChris, but this won't do.  McCain has always been pro-life and anti-gay marriage even when he was railing against "agents of intolerance."  Jeepers.


    You (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:50:41 AM EST
    aren't kidding. It's not exactly like Obama hasn't pandered to the same evangelicals. See McClurkin, Donnie for reference.

    I'm sorry but this and the 30 year old divorce story just reek of desperation on the part of dems.

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:22:51 PM EST
    At some level, I think you have a point.  Will attacks on McCain's character even work?  He's established his character over many years.  I don't know if anyone will be titillated discovering how horribly he treated his first wife esp. if she's willing to cover for him.  

    Sure, he's a shameless hypocrite.  But he's been doing it for so long, that it seems like we're going to have a hard time making people care by deploying personal attacks.

    Parent

    So Write A Diary (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    If you think that the TLer FPers are so inept. Unless, that is, you are campaigning for McCain, then your days here are numbered.

    Parent
    indeed (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:59:23 AM EST
    you know, as was demonstrated repeatedly in this primary, if you dont say it, it wont be true.


    Parent
    and by "left" (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:04:51 PM EST
    I am referring to democrats.  not Kossucks.


    Parent
    HA um, Kossacks (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    believe it or not that was a typeo.  if a Freudian one.

    Parent
    that totally went in the wrong place (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:06:51 PM EST
    I should just go to lunch now.

    Parent
    Don't worry (none / 0) (#27)
    by neoliberal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:16:37 PM EST
    Hillary can, and will, do much better in her efforts to help Obama win.

    Parent
    I hate to agree (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:30:54 PM EST
    to what degree this will or won't work might still be debatable, thing is, dailykos does this kind of thing better.

    Parent
    Clinton also does this kind of thing (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:46:50 PM EST
    better than Obama, IMO.  It's like the way Bill Clinton says "give me a break" - for some reason the Clintons do that kind of thing well.  3 am ad anybody?  It was a good ad and I'm sure we could come up with something as good against McCain.

    However, Obama just said something in his economic speech that was quite catchy (actually, I'm paraphrasing):  "families that can't afford healthcare or tuition."  Now that's a resonant line.  What can McCain say to that?  

    I hope we can discuss Obama's economic speech later.  Here's a snippet:

    "We will not privatize Social Security.  We will save Social Security for future generations."

    Parent

    re SS (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:14:57 PM EST
    He needs to get rid of some of his advisors to get credibility on that issue.

    Parent
    Same with trade and health care. (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:24:09 PM EST
    Actually (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:46:09 PM EST
    I do a lot of work with Planned Parenthood, many of his independent supporters don't know that McCain is Anti choice, Anti gay and so forth. his past statements lead people to believe he is moderate on these issues.

    So people pointing it out is important, and effective.

    Parent

    forgot to mention (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:47:06 PM EST
    the reason I mentioned PP is because they have done a good bit of polling on this.

    Parent
    As usual, you can't (none / 0) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:40:42 PM EST
    or won't actually read what's written.

    TChris's post wasn't about McCain's anti-choice position, it was about how that's somehow some kind of "flip-flop" from his tirade against Falwell and Robertson as "agents of intolerance."

    McCain is and always has been fervently anti-choice and has made no secret about it.  There's no "flip-flop" in there anywhere.  If people are unaware of that, they won't be for long.  Whether that's a good issue to go after him on is another subject entirely.  Trying to make him out to be a "flip-flopper" on the issue is nonsensical.

    Parent

    we simply have to hope (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:22:24 AM EST
    the original McCain is the one who will be sworn in in January.  I think the truth is he doesnt like those people much and would be perfectly happy to make them extremely unhappy after he gets elected.
    just MO.

    Well, my _hope_ is that he will not (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:25:33 AM EST
    be sworn in in January.

    Parent
    Here's my suggestion. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:09:47 PM EST
    Go to rightwing sites and use conservative talking points to undermine his conservative credentials.   Cointel Psy-ops.

    Parent
    That's my gut feeling too (none / 0) (#47)
    by zyx on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    I could be wrong, but my gut kind of likes McCain, though I don't want him to be president. But I do like him more than I like most Republicans.

    My speculation is that he has been a fairly compliant Bush republican--though not perfectly so--to get some good marks in these years, and to get in the lineup for running for president, and if he gets to BE president, he will be his own man again.

    "His own man" is anti-choice and objectionable on some other issues, but I believe that "his own man" is also not too bad on some other issues. I frankly think he is pandering to social conservatives in his own party, and he'll stiff-arm them a bit if he gets elected, because he's not so much a deep-dyed social conservative.

    David Brooks says McCain really doesn't know who's who in the social conservative milieu, and that is why he courted that crazy Pastor Hagee (who really isn't very important to social C's) and was so slow to distance himself from them.  It isn't who he is.

    Parent

    Conservatives... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:08:24 PM EST
    ...that I have met appear to viscerally hate him for challenging Bush.  Mention the guy and they squint, grimace and look really really angry.
    So who the hell knows what he is. We do know that Conservatives mistrust him. I think the way you beat him is infiltrate the rightwing blogs and do stories about how liberal he is and how mccain hates conservatives.

    calling him a flip flopper doesn't seem right.  I like a pol who changes their mind on secondary issues.  

    just do cointel and make him out to be a RINO mole for the DNC.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:25:45 PM EST
    It's funny but I had a republican trying to convince me to vote for McCain because he was really a Democrat. He also said the if the lights went off in the senate there would be five knives in McCain's back, all put there by his fellow GOP senators.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:14:57 PM EST
    5 is a "conservative" number

    Parent
    I've named my flip-flops (none / 0) (#9)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:52:43 AM EST
    John in his honor.

    No one will be talking about John McCain's (none / 0) (#21)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:05:51 PM EST
    divorce or his wife's prescription drug problems for too much longer.  Once the repubs get their 527s out there this will look like simple backyard fence talk.  

    Yeah, I can't wait for our 527s (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:18:41 PM EST
    to get out there and do a little McCain bashing.
    What's that, we can't cause Barack doesn't want us to?
    Oh,never mind.

    Parent
    Those issues (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:12:18 PM EST
    about McCain probably won't come up much simply because they are viewed as "old news". Didn't Cindy repeatedly talk about her prescription drug issues back in 2000? It seems, hindsight being 20/20, W probably did McCain a favor by throwing out all the oppo reasearch in 2000.

    Parent
    Which is more important: (1) (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:16:25 PM EST
    candidate's wife admits addiction to prescription drugs, or (2) candidate admits using cocaine?

    Parent
    The difference is (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:20:51 PM EST
    no one can claim it's racist to bring up Cindy McCain's drug use.

    Parent
    Good point. (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:21:47 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:33:59 PM EST
    the GOP will laugh if Obama uses the race card and just keep on going. It certainly isn't going to stop them.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#57)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:03:02 PM EST
    indeed,. Drug abuse becomes an issue for her...well you know what comes next. the interview with Obama's Coke dealers.

    Parent
    They never interviewed... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:19:46 PM EST
    bushs coke dealers.

    Parent
    The quick and the dead. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:23:05 PM EST
    he never admitted to using it and Gore and Kerry never made an issue of it.  Think about that for a moment.  

    Parent
    Ahh... (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:52:12 PM EST
    so if a pol never admits to something then they must be innocent?  Uh, ok...

    Parent
    It never quite became an issue (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:09:30 PM EST
    because Kerry and Gore decided to avoid it.

    I can only speculate as to why.     My hunch is that Bush took a lot of E, while it was legal (Texas boutique drug at the time) and no ne wanted to dredge it up.

    I really don't understand your point btw.  I'm not suggesting he did or he didn't take any drug. I dunno what the storty actually is.  It's just that his junkie buddies never ratted on him. His opponents never made a play on the issue and he seems to have escaped 8 years of scrutiny somehow.

    You have no point.  It seems like a stupid risk to take to attack Cindy Mccain for popping painkillers when Obama admitted to taking coke, hash and speed.   Just doesn't make anysense to raise any drug issues for obama.


    Parent

    My comment has as much of a point... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:14:13 PM EST
    as your comment about an interview with Obamas drug dealers.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:45:27 PM EST
    I thought that at Yale Bush was the coke dealer.

    Parent
    This is something that would irk me most (none / 0) (#88)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:29:09 PM EST
    OT

    It's almost as if it's a cultural heritage thing to have done coke... seriously, does attacking a black person for using cocaine mean you are attacking all black people? Listen to how crazy that sounds, and yet that's the way it goes in America. Really. Sad.

    Parent

    I had forgotten (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    about that. Yeah, the cocaine thing is a much bigger negative than the prescription drug addiction. Especially with older voters.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:31:53 PM EST
    Cindy McCain, in her mid-30's, became addicted to painkillers and stole drugs from a charity that she was supposed to be running.  She subsequently fired a whistleblower.

    Barack Obama, as a teenager, experimented with cocaine.

    Comparing the two is completely ridiculous.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    I guess it's ridiculous because you say so.

    Someone arguing the point from McCain's side would undoubtedly say, "Barack Obama is running for President, while Cindy McCain isn't.  Comparing the two is completely ridiculous."

    I guess at that point it would be up to the listener to decide who has presented a more valid distinction.

    Parent

    The issue I have isn't with drug use. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:41:39 PM EST
    It's stealing from charities and firing whistleblowers.  Substantially more serious.

    Parent
    That's great (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    I don't know why you feel your attempt at deflection is intrinsically convicing, but I suppose it depends on the listener.

    I don't know to what extent Obama's drug use will matter to voters, but for those who care about such things, I really doubt they will be persuaded by someone saying, "Who cares about drug use, these other things that McCain's wife did are much more serious."

    One reason the progressive blogs are much less useful than they could be is that, around election time, they mostly come to consist of the same people sitting around repeating the same arguments to each other that are only persuasive inside an echo chamber where everyone agrees to treat them as persuasive.  "Man, the GOP better not try to bring up Obama's drug use, we'll crush them by talking about how Cindy McCain stole from a charity and fired a whistleblower!"  Um, okay, if you say so.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:34:57 PM EST
    One reason the progressive blogs are much less useful than they could be is that, around election time, they mostly come to consist of the same people sitting around repeating the same arguments to each other that are only persuasive inside an echo chamber where everyone agrees to treat them as persuasive.  "Man, the GOP better not try to bring up Obama's drug use, we'll crush them by talking about how Cindy McCain stole from a charity and fired a whistleblower!"  Um, okay, if you say so.

    Your statement is very astute. That's why I was thrilled when BTD said we were going to keep it real here. I bought into the whole mindset you are stating above in 2004. Anyone who challenged me was a "gop troll" or "didn't understand the situation". Gawd, I was just as bad as some of the Obots are today in many ways. The letdown afterwards was just horrendous. I have no desire to repeat that. Best thing to do is face the facts HEAD ON from the beginning!

    Parent

    Beat that B____! really really (none / 0) (#53)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:58:19 PM EST
    really won't resonate the same way a second time round will it?   She's also a fairly disciplined tight lipped sort of woman as well. Has she produced any obvious gaffes yet?  None spring to mind.

    Parent
    What's funny is that (none / 0) (#54)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    these Obama fans shoul dbe logging onto right wing websites and spreading cleverly conceived cointel. Pretend to be conservatives who hate McCain for being impure etc.
    It's no good going on to TL and dredging up stuff about McCain in the comments section--most here will never vote for him.

    Parent
    And many of us know McCain's bagagge (none / 0) (#59)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    as we did with Clinton.

    Old news doesn't seem that effective these days when there's Obama's past to look into. That's new stuff! {rolls eyes}

    Parent

    Have you seen... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    the number of comments most right wing websites have?  Im sure Obama fans wonder why bother doing that when it would only be read by 12 people.

    Parent
    do you read em? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:13:58 PM EST
    They function in slightly different ways and they will get more trasffic. So you might want to sow the seeds of dissention ASAP.

    The RW blogs are more about transmitting key info.  They are not an organizational block.

    Parent

    I read them... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:22:49 PM EST
    on the days when the press decides to display the stupidity of the republican party.  Thats always good for a chuckle.

    Parent
    I'm not going to pretend... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:08:35 PM EST
    ... that I reflect the mind of the average voter. You may very well be right about that.  But if we're talking what is worse on substantive grounds, there's just no comparison.

    Parent
    Again (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:13:28 PM EST
    don't fool yourself into thinking there is any right answer on "substantive grounds."  Before you can even start comparing these two things, you have to get past the leap of logic that says it's fair game to compare one candidate to the other candidate's spouse in the first place.

    If you accused McCain of doing something bad, would you find it a compelling answer if someone said that Obama's wife did something even worse?  Or that Obama's brother or cousin or whoever did something even worse?  Again, it's up to each listener to decide what's persuasive, but to my ear the most compelling point is that Cindy McCain is not the candidate.

    Parent

    But when one situation is a non-issue... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    Obama's experimenting with coke didn't hurt anyone else (for the record, I'm not a fan of the war on drugs).  McCain's theft from a charity and firing of a whistle-blower, not so much.  So while Cindy isn't a candidate, she's the only person in these two situations who had serious ethical issues.

    So if egregious behavior by a candidates' spouse is fair game, it reflects badly on McCain; if it isn't, it's a wash.  In either case, Obama comes out fine substantively.

    Parent

    How long has Cindy been recovered? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:44:13 PM EST
    Remember, addiction is a neurologically based disease and not an uncommon one*. Many people have done things that are against their basic character because of additions. Saying she has serious ethical issues could be shakey ground.

    *My family is affected by it.

    Parent

    She's a wealthy heiress. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:04:19 PM EST
    I'm thinking that she had a few options to satisfy her addiction besides, you know, the stealing from a charity and firing people who try to call her on it thing.

    Parent
    Not if she's trying to hide it (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    rational answers don't fit the addictive profile. Believe me on this one.

    Parent
    Fair point. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:38:27 PM EST
    And (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:37:52 PM EST
    it's also about prescription drugs vs. street drugs too.

    Parent
    You mean... (1.50 / 2) (#41)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:40:08 PM EST
    ... upper class vs. lower class drugs.  Nice.

    Parent
    There was nothing lower class about ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Inky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:49:52 PM EST
    cocaine use in the 1980s -- everyone was doing it, even and perhaps especially the wealthy. It's not as if Obama was admitting to using crack or meth. And prescription drug abuse is not exactly confined to the upper classes either.

    For better or worse, many people react differently to prescription drug abuse than to illicit drug abuse because the second is, well, illegal. And lots of people sympathize with the fact that pain killers have addictive properties and the people who take them to manage pain can become addicted.

    Parent

    Prescription drug abuse is more the province... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    ... of the affluent, relative to "street drugs."  Precisely because they can be procured more easily by folks with means.  Certainly not cut and dried, but that's a significant distinction.

    Parent
    Yes, but cocaine ... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Inky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:14:43 PM EST
    particularly in the 1980s, wasn't you standard street drug. It was the drug of choice of Wall Street brokers, Hollywood celebrities, college students of means, etc.

    Parent
    Yes, but the comparison wasn't cocaine. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:44:58 PM EST
    It was "street drugs."  Prescription drugs vs. street drugs.

    And while coke was used by the rich, it was also used by the poor.

    Parent

    You still haven't convinced ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Inky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:10:48 PM EST
    me that prescripttion drug abuse in the province of the affluent. I've known several people who were hardly rich who became addicted to prescription drugs. And among youths, prescription drug abuse is higher in the lower income quintiles than in the upper quintiles. I don't know why you still insist on painting the earlier commenter as classist (with perhaps racist undertones) for merely noting that some people view the two kinds of drug abuse differently.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:36:54 PM EST
    I guess you've never watched the movie blow and heard of George Jung. He certainly wasn't bringing cocaine in to poverty stricken areas. It was all about delivery to people with the money.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:36:48 PM EST
    they are pretty much the same in the minds of voters: drug addiction. Axelrod said that Obama used drugs until he was 20 years old or so. So apparently it wasn't just as a teenager. Obama's drugs were illegal but Cindy's were not even though she obtained them illegally.

    Parent
    Who said Obama was addicted to coke? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:42:11 PM EST
    Who said (1.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    he wasn't? There's no way to know one way or the other is there?

    Parent
    Not true (none / 0) (#114)
    by CST on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    There was an article in the New York Times about this where they interviewed a number of people who knew him in college.  They seemed to think that Obama overstated his drug use if anything and that they never noticed, couldn't tell that he ever used.  

    If someone is addicted to coke you can tell.  I have had too many friends with this problem, it's not something you can easily hide.

    Parent

    Hahahah (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:43:56 PM EST
    "Axelrod said that Obama used drugs until he was 20 years old or so. So apparently it wasn't just as a teenager."

    I really don't know what to say.

    Parent

    They better stop - or Michelle becomes (none / 0) (#143)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:46:45 PM EST
    fair target.

    Parent
    I know the point here (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:47:35 PM EST
    Is to amass these narratives against mccain and create the moral imperative that he must not be president.  I wish was feeling it.

    The truth of the matter is I think he'll be less conservative than bush and even then the bush wing of the republican party never forced gov. Schwarzenegger into the cul de sac.  The republican party tent remains larger than we give it credit for.

    Anyway, as the saying goes, pols are pols, what they say and do to get elected should not be construed as anything more or less than precisely that.

    This quote is interesting... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    "Anyway, as the saying goes, pols are pols, what they say and do to get elected should not be construed as anything more or less than precisely that."

    ... when applied to the democratic primary.

    Parent

    I have stated calling him (none / 0) (#87)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:28:30 PM EST
    "Candidate McCain" (who he is now) to differentiate him from "Senator McCain" (who he used to be).  

    Stating (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:52:07 PM EST
    that I don't know something is same as making something up? That sounds pretty out there.

    This is what you wrote: (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:56:52 PM EST
    "They are pretty much the same in the minds of voters: drug addiction."

    Did you not mean to imply that Obama was addicted to coke (despite there being absolutely no evidence that this was the case)?

    Parent

    Abusing (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:00:30 PM EST
    drugs whether they are legal or illegal implies some sort of addiction doesn't it?

    Parent
    Circular reasoning (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:03:13 PM EST
    Using an illegal drug for recreational purposes may sometimes be classified as "abuse."  That certainly does not imply addiction.

    Parent
    Quiz (none / 0) (#128)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:08:24 PM EST
    Who made this statement?

    "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

    Hint:
    It was not McCain.

    Answer:
    It was made by the "change you can believe in" guy, our standard bearer.

    Sucks, don't it? I hate that cop-out by Dem pols. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:32:08 PM EST
    I wish straight Democrats would take some initiative on equal rights for gays.  What better way to nullify this wedge issue than to create equality at the federal level.  My personal opinion is that we'd be wiser to remove marriage from civil domestic contracts than keep trying to add gays to the current marital structure.  

    One of the disappointments about Hillary's policies is that she wants to amend DOMA instead of repeal it.  It basically denies equal rights to a subset of citizens and it reverses the American tradition of states respecting other states marital contracts.  

    Does anyone know what Hillary meant by changing DOMA?  Is the state to state piece the part she didn't like?

    Parent

    DOMA (none / 0) (#135)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:47:31 PM EST
    Hillary said she would repeal Section 3 of DOMA, which precludes the federal government from treating same-sex relationships as marriages for purposes of spousal benefits and the like.

    This means she would keep Section 2, which says that no state has to recognize another state's gay marriage.

    I think, actually, the longstanding tradition regarding marital contracts is exactly the opposite of what you wrote.  The way I learned it in law school, there is a "public policy exception" to full faith and credit which says that one state doesn't have to recognize a marriage performed under another state's law if it offends the first state's sense of public policy.  In other words, if one state says you can marry your brother, there's nothing anyone can do to stop them, but it doesn't mean the other 49 states all have to recognize that union.  In the past, I believe it's been applied to situations where a state lets the girl get married at age 12, or something like that.

    The important point is that DOMA merely codifies the public policy exception that is already recognized.  In other words, DOMA doesn't do anything to make interstate recognition of marriages harder to accomplish, because states were already entitled to rely on the public policy exception.  I see this aspect of the statute as more good than bad, because it takes away one of the strongest arguments in favor of a federal marriage amendment.  No one can say "it's in all our interests to stop Massachusetts from recognizing gay marriage, because if they do it we'll all be forced to accept it," since DOMA as well as the pre-existing public policy exception say that that won't happen.

    Parent

    Drug use, regardless of addiction (none / 0) (#133)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:22:02 PM EST
    is used against "lefties" to convince people it might impair their future judgement.  It's also why it was important that Bill Clinton didn't inhale.