Suppose for a moment that ....

[EasyEd]

"I'm sorry, but this flies in the face of what McCain's positions on the issues actually are. He's not a center-right Maverick (TM), he's a right-wing ideologue. The maverick thing was all image and little substance."

If McCain is such a right-wing ideologue, why is it the conservative wing of the Republican party was and is so much opposed to his getting the nomination? A right-wing ideologue would not have voted against the Bush tax cuts, would not have been a sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, would not have been such a strong backer of the "comprehensive immigration reform" act, would be in favor of drilling in ANWR, would not have come out in favor of closing GITMO and against what he called torture, would not have been such a continual critic of Bush, particularly about Iraq, etc. You have got to be a far left-wing ideologue to consider McCain to be a right-wing ideologue.

[The Stig]

I wouldn't mind the John McCain of 2000 being President. That guy was a solid, credible candidate who did what he thought was right. He didn't kowtow to anybody.

But the John McCain of 2008 isn't the same John McCain we saw in 2000. He got burned in 2000 by the religious right (see South Carolina), and he decided he wasn't going to let that happen again. The result is that he's spent the past 8 years kowtowing to the Jerry Falwells of the world in order to prevent a repeat of 2000. As somebody who's biggest problem with the current administration is their stance on religious issues, that makes McCain a non-starter for me.

Now, there is a chance that if he gets into office he'll suddenly turn around and go back to the way he was in 2000, but there's no way of knowing for sure.

[strummer8526]

I agree with a lot of what's been said here--Filo, Boz, Stig...even Hifi. Stig, the funny thing is that the political climate has changed such that I think McCain of 2000 would run away with this election. He didn't need the far-right of the party to get the nomination. There were no viable candidates other than Huckabee who had that strong religious angle, but he fizzled. It's very frustrating that he kowtowed sort of preemptively to make sure 2000 didn't happen again, but because there was no GWB in this republican field, I don't think he ever actually needed to go as far as he did to the right. The moderate, centrist McCain of 2000 w/ all his political and military experience would have trounced the field, Democrat and Republican.

[Bando]

Jun 23, 2008 18:49:23 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

"I'm sorry, but this flies in the face of what McCain's positions on the issues actually are. He's not a center-right Maverick (TM), he's a right-wing ideologue. The maverick thing was all image and little substance."

If McCain is such a right-wing ideologue, why is it the conservative wing of the Republican party was and is so much opposed to his getting the nomination? A right-wing ideologue would not have voted against the Bush tax cuts, would not have been a sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, would not have been such a strong backer of the "comprehensive immigration reform" act, would be in favor of drilling in ANWR, would not have come out in favor of closing GITMO and against what he called torture, would not have been such a continual critic of Bush, particularly about Iraq, etc. You have got to be a far left-wing ideologue to consider McCain to be a right-wing ideologue.

Yeah, he's reversed course on about every position you listed. Keep up, won't you?

[HoyaSinceBirth]

i agree with stig this isn't the same McCain that far right conservatives hated. He sold his soul for the nomination. I very well could see myself voting for the old McCain. This McCain... probably not.

[EasyEd]

Jun 23, 2008 21:09:50 GMT -5 Bando said:

Jun 23, 2008 18:49:23 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

"I'm sorry, but this flies in the face of what McCain's positions on the issues actually are. He's not a center-right Maverick (TM), he's a right-wing ideologue. The maverick thing was all image and little substance."

If McCain is such a right-wing ideologue, why is it the conservative wing of the Republican party was and is so much opposed to his getting the nomination? A right-wing ideologue would not have voted against the Bush tax cuts, would not have been a sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, would not have been such a strong backer of the "comprehensive immigration reform" act, would be in favor of drilling in ANWR, would not have come out in favor of closing GITMO and against what he called torture, would not have been such a continual critic of Bush, particularly about Iraq, etc. You have got to be a far left-wing ideologue to consider McCain to be a right-wing ideologue.

Yeah, he's reversed course on about every position you listed. Keep up, won't you?

Not true. He has not changed his views on McCain-Feingold, on comprehensive immigration reform except for saying closing the borders should come first but as part of comprehensive reform, on drilling in ANWR, on closing GITMO and on his opposition to "torture", or on his opposition to the way Bush was conducting the war pror to the surge. The only place where he has changed is he is now in favor of keeping the Bush tax cuts.

As conservative I can assure you that McCain is not considered to be a right-wing ideologue and because of his views he was near the bottom in my preferences for the Republican nomination. Rudy was the only one far behind him.

[Filo]

For pure entertainment purposes, I am hoping Bando decides to educate Easy Ed about what it means to be a right-wing idealogue. ;D

[hifigator]

I just don't understand why anyone views McCain as some sort of ultra conservative. I'm not saying that it is good or bad to be one, just that he isn't. Personally that is the general category of candidate that I am favoring right now. In McCain's case however, my concerns -- as I said before -- is that he is too conservative on some issues and too liberal on others. Furthermore, in some cases, I think it is more a matter of misplaced priorities rather than misplaced beliefs. Again, I mention the internet gambling and steroids in baseball issues. Regardless of your stance on either issue, I think we would all agree that those two issues are not worthy of center court. Lord knows we certainly have more pressing issues to tackle.

[Bando]

Jun 24, 2008 12:21:32 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I just don't understand why anyone views McCain as some sort of ultra conservative. I'm not saying that it is good or bad to be one, just that he isn't. Personally that is the general category of candidate that I am favoring right now. In McCain's case however, my concerns -- as I said before -- is that he is too conservative on some issues and too liberal on others. Furthermore, in some cases, I think it is more a matter of misplaced priorities rather than misplaced beliefs. Again, I mention the internet gambling and steroids in baseball issues. Regardless of your stance on either issue, I think we would all agree that those two issues are not worthy of center court. Lord knows we certainly have more pressing issues to tackle.

HiFi, McCain is to Bush's right on all things national security. That right there is enough, but he's pretty much 100% there on the GOP platform as well. He has Bush's position on immigration and he created the stupid campaign finance laws, that's about it for heterodoxy.

[The Stig]

The 2000 John McCain wasn't an ultra-conservative. But on some issues the 2008 John McCain can be one when he wants to be.

[hifigator]

With regards to National Security he is admittedly conservative. We disagree on whether that is a good thing or not. I think in today's global economy, you have to think a bit differently than you did in earlier generations. Policies that work fine when you are over here and they are over there, don't quite work the same now. I think that being strong on security is a must. That doesn't mean that you can't work together with other nations however. I think that often gets lost in the shuffle. There is some implicit reasoning that being tough on security also necessitates being intrusive to others. It doesn't necessarily. But you do have to be aware of the views of others and unfortunately there are those who warrant attention. sad ... but true.

[Boz]

Jun 23, 2008 21:09:50 GMT -5 Bando said:

Jun 23, 2008 18:49:23 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

"I'm sorry, but this flies in the face of what McCain's positions on the issues actually are. He's not a center-right Maverick (TM), he's a right-wing ideologue. The maverick thing was all image and little substance."

If McCain is such a right-wing ideologue, why is it the conservative wing of the Republican party was and is so much opposed to his getting the nomination? A right-wing ideologue would not have voted against the Bush tax cuts, would not have been a sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, would not have been such a strong backer of the "comprehensive immigration reform" act, would be in favor of drilling in ANWR, would not have come out in favor of closing GITMO and against what he called torture, would not have been such a continual critic of Bush, particularly about Iraq, etc. You have got to be a far left-wing ideologue to consider McCain to be a right-wing ideologue.

Yeah, he's reversed course on about every position you listed. Keep up, won't you?

OK, probably an exercise in futility, but I'm going to go ahead and take issue with this point anyway.

On tax cuts, yes, you are correct. He has definitely changed his position on that.

On ANWR, he has not changed his position, but I think it's fair to say that he probably will do that soon, so I'll give you that one too.

However...

He has not changed his position on immigration, except only to say that securing the border has to come first. He still advocates a path to citizenship along with border security....and conservatives do not like him for that.

He has not changed his position on campaign finance reform...and conservatives REALLY do not like him for that.

I think the torture one is the issue that has been the most widely misrepresented by his opponents. Yes, he voted against a bill that would have applied the Army Field Manual to all interrogations. That does not mean -- as much as liberals wnat to try to make it mean this -- that he is now in favor of torture. What it means is that there are techniques available to the CIA that are not included in that manual, and he wants to keep those techniques available to intelligence officers. It does not mean that they are free to do whatever they want. The CIA is still bound by the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits cruel inhumane or degrading treatment.

Andrew Sullivan can cry about it all he wants, but this vote and McCain's position do not constitute a capitulation to torture. I think this one is pretty personal to McCain, and he is still at odds with many conservatives over waterboarding (McCain also still opposes sleep deprivation, stess positions and other techniques and has said that he would investigate if the CIA were found to still be using these techniques). Whether those are torture or not is another topic, but he is still against them.

The problem with this, is that so many on the left are ready to call just about anything torture. I think I'd rather trust McCain on that issue, who knows what torture really is.

As far as I know, McCain also has not changed his position on closing Gitmo. I'll stand corrected if someone knows differently. Yes, he disagrees with the recent Supreme Court decision, but those are not the same issues and that is not a flip-flop.

[hifigator]

On a more general level, I think that "flip-flopping" is tremendously over emphasized. Changing your mind is a natural thing as more information comes about or as more thought is given to the issue. Now that doesn't mean that I am giving candidates a free shot to say whatever they want to please whatever group they are talking to at a given time. Nor do I in any way support taking a position just to get elected and then acting/voting in an entirely different fashion. I do think that there are some candidates who have shown a history of changing position with the times. That is not admirable or acceptable, but changing position on a particular issue here or there is not really a big deal to me in most cases. That is why I don't criticize Obama for his change of mind on campaign financing.

[moe09]

Jun 23, 2008 20:38:44 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I wouldn't mind the John McCain of 2000 being President. That guy was a solid, credible candidate who did what he thought was right. He didn't kowtow to anybody.

But the John McCain of 2008 isn't the same John McCain we saw in 2000. He got burned in 2000 by the religious right (see South Carolina), and he decided he wasn't going to let that happen again. The result is that he's spent the past 8 years kowtowing to the Jerry Falwells of the world in order to prevent a repeat of 2000. As somebody who's biggest problem with the current administration is their stance on religious issues, that makes McCain a non-starter for me.

Now, there is a chance that if he gets into office he'll suddenly turn around and go back to the way he was in 2000, but there's no way of knowing for sure.

Stig's got it right. If you can't see that John McCain has become more conservative to get the nomination and please the more conservative Republicans, then you might want to get yourself checked out.

McCain of 2000 would've made for a good candidate. I don't think he'll be unexpectedly changing his tune if he ended up in office, though, as usually at that point it's time to pay the piper, aka those who got you there.

tinyurl.com/6xm9ov

[The Stig]

Jun 25, 2008 12:11:07 GMT -5 hifigator said:

On a more general level, I think that "flip-flopping" is tremendously over emphasized. Changing your mind is a natural thing as more information comes about or as more thought is given to the issue. Now that doesn't mean that I am giving candidates a free shot to say whatever they want to please whatever group they are talking to at a given time. Nor do I in any way support taking a position just to get elected and then acting/voting in an entirely different fashion. I do think that there are some candidates who have shown a history of changing position with the times. That is not admirable or acceptable, but changing position on a particular issue here or there is not really a big deal to me in most cases. That is why I don't criticize Obama for his change of mind on campaign financing.

First off, it's pretty incredible for a conservative to be defending 'flip-flopping' considering what happened 4 years ago.

Changing your mind based on additional evidence that was not previously available is fine, as you said. If I get a make a decision based on a report that Iran has nuclear weapons, I'd be stupid to not reconsider that decision if I received reliable information that the report was wrong. One of the biggest reasons for the current administration's failures was their inability to re-evaluate their prior decisions. They could never admit that they were wrong.

But changing your mind is different than pandering, and I think McCain is guilty of the latter. Pandering is changing (or saying you've changed) your views in order to appeal to a specific audience for the sake of your personal gain. McCain didn't change his positions with regard to the Christian right because he'd suddenly gotten new information about religion, he did so in order to gain their votes in the primary this year. The pandering worked.

I also think you're pretty ignorant in saying that strong national security is a conservative position. I'd say that a bullish, warlike, and counter-productive national security policy is a conservative position, but I think that position is a lot stronger in name than in substance. I don't think the past 8 years of following that policy have made us safer.

[Boz]

Wait, how is McCain pandering to the Christian right again?

He has always been pro life and he has always been against same-sex marriage.

On the other hand, he is still for federal funding of stem-cell research, which hurts him with that group. I wouldn't go so far as to say this so'called "pandering" has worked, since they're still pretty lukewarm about him. Yes, he's talking to them now, big deal. And yes, he needs their support. But until he radically changes views on some of the key issues, I don't think it's really fair to call it pandering.

Just because Obama is currently Editeding those people off, don't blame John McCain. That was bound to happen and we all know it.

EDIT: There is actually a pretty good article on Townhall today about just how much trouble McCain might be with this group, because he doesn't work with them/pander to them/engergize them the way George Bush does.

[hifigator]

Jun 25, 2008 17:17:58 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Jun 25, 2008 12:11:07 GMT -5 hifigator said:

On a more general level, I think that "flip-flopping" is tremendously over emphasized. Changing your mind is a natural thing as more information comes about or as more thought is given to the issue. Now that doesn't mean that I am giving candidates a free shot to say whatever they want to please whatever group they are talking to at a given time. Nor do I in any way support taking a position just to get elected and then acting/voting in an entirely different fashion. I do think that there are some candidates who have shown a history of changing position with the times. That is not admirable or acceptable, but changing position on a particular issue here or there is not really a big deal to me in most cases. That is why I don't criticize Obama for his change of mind on campaign financing.

First off, it's pretty incredible for a conservative to be defending 'flip-flopping' considering what happened 4 years ago.

Changing your mind based on additional evidence that was not previously available is fine, as you said. If I get a make a decision based on a report that Iran has nuclear weapons, I'd be stupid to not reconsider that decision if I received reliable information that the report was wrong. One of the biggest reasons for the current administration's failures was their inability to re-evaluate their prior decisions. They could never admit that they were wrong.

But changing your mind is different than pandering, and I think McCain is guilty of the latter. Pandering is changing (or saying you've changed) your views in order to appeal to a specific audience for the sake of your personal gain. McCain didn't change his positions with regard to the Christian right because he'd suddenly gotten new information about religion, he did so in order to gain their votes in the primary this year. The pandering worked.

I also think you're pretty ignorant in saying that strong national security is a conservative position. I'd say that a bullish, warlike, and counter-productive national security policy is a conservative position, but I think that position is a lot stronger in name than in substance. I don't think the past 8 years of following that policy have made us safer.

I think your argument from a theoretical point is pretty sound. As I said before, and you agree, I think that harping on someone for changing their mind is not the legitimate flaw that it is made up to be. As more information comes out, or as more thought is given to an issue or as circumstances change, the proper viewpoint can ... make that will change as well. But, also as you point out, saying whatever pleases your audience for political support is not the same thing. My original point on the issue is simply that flip-flopping is overblown to a degree. That is not the same as saying that it is a legitimate concern sometimes. Like I said before, criticism of Obama for his change in public financing is overblown in my mind.

As for McCain, I still don't see the evidence for your position. Of course he wants the conservative vote. So what? It isn't as if he is pro-choice in one crowd and pro-life in another. As Boz pointed out, McCain is for the funding a stem cell research, as am I. I have said all along that Nancy Reagan had it right and W. had it wrong. I think you could argue that W. was the one pandering. I'm not even sure he knows what stem cell research is, but his advisors told him that the religious right was agin' it, so he should be too.


I also think you're pretty ignorant in saying that strong national security is a conservative position.

I think you are the ignorant one for making that statement. There can be little debate over the fact that conservatives are more concerned with national security. There can be little debate over the fact that conservatives tend to favor a strong military. Likewise, there can be zero debate that the military vote goes very strongly to the conservative/right/republican candidate by and large. I am expecting that your point was that a strong military and/or a stronger focus on military isn't necessarily the same as a stronger national security. If so, then we agree to disagree, but as to the literal interpretation, it is quite evident that I am right and you are wrong. In fact, very few would even begin to argue that much.


Lastly:

I don't think the past 8 years of following that policy have made us safer.


We can both be free to "think" whatever we want to think. The fact remains that since 9/11 bombings and the ensuing anthrax incidents, there hasn't been a serious attack on America. However there have been serious attacks all over the rest of the world. Israel, France, Spain, Russia, Malaysia and numerous other countries have suffered serious deadly attacks over that very same period. Now whether the long term effect of the past 8 years will be positive or negative remains to be seen, but to say that at this point we aren't any safer is just plain silly. Don't get upset though. It isn't just you. I have heard a number of clowns try to spin that position. Theoretically they can conjure up all kinds of reasons to support their position, but the bottom line is that we were hated among the extremists then and we are hated among the extremists now. But we have significantly hampered the abilities of many of those extremists to attack us. Again, the fact that we haven't had a serious attack for nearly 7 years while so much of the rest of the world has most certainly indicates at least that much.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

I'm sure he was arguing that a strong military and or a stronger focus on military isn't the same as a stronger national security. and I agree.
I also think it's nearly impossible to prove one way or another whether we're safer now or not. I do think that you've actually indicated that we're not safer. because as you said they hated us then and they hate us now. And they probably hate us more now. I don't think you're ever going to be 100% safe if a large group hates you and wants to do you harm.

[Bando]

Jun 26, 2008 10:48:23 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Jun 25, 2008 17:17:58 GMT -5 The Stig said:

First off, it's pretty incredible for a conservative to be defending 'flip-flopping' considering what happened 4 years ago.

Changing your mind based on additional evidence that was not previously available is fine, as you said. If I get a make a decision based on a report that Iran has nuclear weapons, I'd be stupid to not reconsider that decision if I received reliable information that the report was wrong. One of the biggest reasons for the current administration's failures was their inability to re-evaluate their prior decisions. They could never admit that they were wrong.

But changing your mind is different than pandering, and I think McCain is guilty of the latter. Pandering is changing (or saying you've changed) your views in order to appeal to a specific audience for the sake of your personal gain. McCain didn't change his positions with regard to the Christian right because he'd suddenly gotten new information about religion, he did so in order to gain their votes in the primary this year. The pandering worked.

I also think you're pretty ignorant in saying that strong national security is a conservative position. I'd say that a bullish, warlike, and counter-productive national security policy is a conservative position, but I think that position is a lot stronger in name than in substance. I don't think the past 8 years of following that policy have made us safer.

I think your argument from a theoretical point is pretty sound. As I said before, and you agree, I think that harping on someone for changing their mind is not the legitimate flaw that it is made up to be. As more information comes out, or as more thought is given to an issue or as circumstances change, the proper viewpoint can ... make that will change as well. But, also as you point out, saying whatever pleases your audience for political support is not the same thing. My original point on the issue is simply that flip-flopping is overblown to a degree. That is not the same as saying that it is a legitimate concern sometimes. Like I said before, criticism of Obama for his change in public financing is overblown in my mind.

As for McCain, I still don't see the evidence for your position. Of course he wants the conservative vote. So what? It isn't as if he is pro-choice in one crowd and pro-life in another. As Boz pointed out, McCain is for the funding a stem cell research, as am I. I have said all along that Nancy Reagan had it right and W. had it wrong. I think you could argue that W. was the one pandering. I'm not even sure he knows what stem cell research is, but his advisors told him that the religious right was agin' it, so he should be too.


I also think you're pretty ignorant in saying that strong national security is a conservative position.

I think you are the ignorant one for making that statement. There can be little debate over the fact that conservatives are more concerned with national security. There can be little debate over the fact that conservatives tend to favor a strong military. Likewise, there can be zero debate that the military vote goes very strongly to the conservative/right/republican candidate by and large. I am expecting that your point was that a strong military and/or a stronger focus on military isn't necessarily the same as a stronger national security. If so, then we agree to disagree, but as to the literal interpretation, it is quite evident that I am right and you are wrong. In fact, very few would even begin to argue that much.


Lastly:

I don't think the past 8 years of following that policy have made us safer.


We can both be free to "think" whatever we want to think. The fact remains that since 9/11 bombings and the ensuing anthrax incidents, there hasn't been a serious attack on America. However there have been serious attacks all over the rest of the world. Israel, France, Spain, Russia, Malaysia and numerous other countries have suffered serious deadly attacks over that very same period. Now whether the long term effect of the past 8 years will be positive or negative remains to be seen, but to say that at this point we aren't any safer is just plain silly. Don't get upset though. It isn't just you. I have heard a number of clowns try to spin that position. Theoretically they can conjure up all kinds of reasons to support their position, but the bottom line is that we were hated among the extremists then and we are hated among the extremists now. But we have significantly hampered the abilities of many of those extremists to attack us. Again, the fact that we haven't had a serious attack for nearly 7 years while so much of the rest of the world has most certainly indicates at least that much.

HiFi, this is ridiculous. There's been plenty of attacks on the US sincle 9/11, they've just been thwarted. That doesn't mean attacking Iraq has aided the thwarting, especially when you consider the boon our occupation has been to terrorist recruiting, and the resources we've diverted from the fight at the Afghan-Pakistani border.

I think it speaks to your hobbled and limited mindset that "securing the nation" and "making war" are synonymous to you.

[hifigator]

Bando, you are using quite a bit of literary freedom in your interpretations and conclusions. I was responding to the specific claim that we aren't safer now. While there are still dangers, I would argue that the attention that we have given to radical groups has made us somewhat safer. You say there have been attacks since 9/11 but they have been thwarted. That is what I was meaning when I said that we hadn't suffered a significant successful attack since then. I didn't mean to imply that no one wants to or has tried to attack us since then. Furthermore, the number of largescale attacks in many of those countries I listed only further validate my point. Lastly, at no point did I ever say anything similar to "securing the nation" being synonomous with "making war."