TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Batshit Crazy Pt. Deux: John McCain
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Mar-30-2008 17:47:

Batshit Crazy Pt. Deux: John McCain

I promised to get this up a few weeks ago, but it has been a behemoth of a task. So after thoroughly exposing the insanity and hypocrisy of a Dr. Ron Paul, I now turn my attention to John McCain, the Republican nominee for President of the United States of America.

Credit goes to Daily Kos and The Carpetbagger Report for some of the links.

The New York Times has created some controversy over the last month and a half over their treatment of John McCain. First, the paper endorsed his candidacy for the Republican nomination, and then a few days after Super Tuesday unleashed a massive piece filled with insinuation and allegations of impropriety. The Times rightfully took some flak for the manner in which the story was presented, but in the furor over whether it could reasonably be assumed based on circumstantial evidence that John McCain had an illicit affair, the real issue was obscured.

That issue: that John McCain had an improper (non-sexual) relationship with a lobbyist that had notably influenced the policy stances of his campaign, and that had even worried his inner circle of advisers.

From the original article:

quote:
By 2002, he had succeeded in passing the McCain-Feingold Act, which transformed American politics by banning �soft money,� the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and the rich that were funneled through the two political parties to get around previous laws.

One of his efforts, though, seemed self-contradictory. In 2001, he helped found the nonprofit Reform Institute to promote his cause and, in the process, his career. It collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlimited donations from companies that lobbied the Senate commerce committee. Mr. McCain initially said he saw no problems with the financing, but he severed his ties to the institute in 2005, complaining of �bad publicity� after news reports of the arrangement.

Like other presidential candidates, he has relied on lobbyists to run his campaigns. Since a cash crunch last summer, several of them � including his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who represented companies before Mr. McCain�s Senate panel � have been working without pay, a gift that could be worth tens of thousands of dollars.

In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has hired another lobbyist, Mark Buse, to run his Senate office. In his case, it was a round trip through the revolving door: Mr. Buse had directed Mr. McCain�s committee staff for seven years before leaving in 2001 to lobby for telecommunications companies.

Mr. McCain�s friends dismiss questions about his ties to lobbyists, arguing that he has too much integrity to let such personal connections influence him.

�Unless he gives you special treatment or takes legislative action against his own views, I don�t think his personal and social relationships matter,� said Charles Black, a friend and campaign adviser who has previously lobbied the senator for aviation, broadcasting and tobacco concerns.

Concerns in a Campaign

Mr. McCain�s confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.

The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain�s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.

Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, �Why is she always around?�

That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator�s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman�s access to his offices.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/u...HGUmT7/nn2Koy3g

You might be saying... well, ok, there might be a linkage there, but did Iseman really influence his politics? The Times says yes.

quote:
A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman�s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain�s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain�s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.

Mr. McCain�s aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain�s advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.


It is important to remember that John McCain is a self-styled maverick when it comes to ethics reform. He has built his career (and mainstream popularity) on combating unethical behavior in politics, and in fact unsuccessfully based his entire 2000 Presidential campaign on that issue. So allegations of impropriety against McCain are not like those against any other Washington politician who has never raised his/her voice against ethics violations. McCain has cast himself as a symbol of ethical politics, and for him to have been influenced so personally by special interests in the midst of that campaign is a question of hypocrisy even more than ethics.

This then leads to the question - how did John McCain come to be such a champion of ethics reform? Certainly the passage of his 2002 Campaign Finance Reform Bill, co-sponsored with Russ Feingold (D-WI) went a long way to creating that persona, as few Republicans broke from party ranks to support the bill. But why would McCain feel such a need to see its successful passage? Well, nobody knows for sure. But you can make a pretty compelling case for his guilty conscience.

In 1987, while McCain was fresh of his first election to the Senate, he intervened in a federal investigation against a Savings & Loan operation on the behalf of a constituent, Charles Keating. McCain and four other Senators effectively delayed the investigation and eventual seizure of the business and indictment (and conviction) of Keating for two years. The subsequent Congressional inquiry into the role of the Senators in delaying actions by the government against Keating estimated that their actions had cost American tax payers an added $2.6 billion, and investors an additional $190 million.

McCain claimed that his role in delaying this process was minimal and that he had no relationship with Keating, but as Slate reported:

quote:
McCain defended his attendance at the meetings by saying Keating was a constituent and that Keating's development company, American Continental Corporation, was a major Arizona employer. McCain said he wanted to know only whether Keating was being treated fairly and that he had not tried to influence the regulators. At the second meeting, McCain told the regulators, "I wouldn't want any special favors for them," and "I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper."

But Keating was more than a constituent to McCain--he was a longtime friend and associate. McCain met Keating in 1981 at a Navy League dinner in Arizona where McCain was the speaker. Keating was a former naval aviator himself, and the two men became friends. Keating raised money for McCain's two congressional campaigns in 1982 and 1984, and for McCain's 1986 Senate bid. By 1987, McCain campaigns had received $112,000 from Keating, his relatives, and his employees--the most received by any of the Keating Five. (Keating raised a total of $300,000 for the five senators.)

After McCain's election to the House in 1982, he and his family made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, three of which were to Keating's Bahamas retreat. McCain did not disclose the trips (as he was required to under House rules) until the scandal broke in 1989. At that point, he paid Keating $13,433 for the flights.

And in April 1986, one year before the meeting with the regulators, McCain's wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating strip mall.


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/

After his "exoneration" by the Senate Ethics Committee (which decided that McCain's role in the scandal was minor in comparison to two other Senators), McCain sought to re-mold himself into a champion of ethics reform. As he wrote in his own memoir, the Keating scandal was an extreme embarrassment for him, and something he sought to erase from the memory of his constituents in subsequent years for fear that it would be his permanent political legacy.

*********************************************************************

It is clear that the pristine image of John McCain widely portrayed in the media is an imperfect one at best. McCain has passed some good laws regarding ethics reform, though he has arguably had a difficult time in abiding by them himself. But the lunacy of calling him a maverick goes further than that.

Take a look at his Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) voting record. The ADA assigns scores based on the percentage of votes that correspond with the views of the Democratic Party on the twenty bills deemed most important by the party. In 2006, the latest year for which I could find numbers, McCain scored 15%. In other words, McCain votes with the Republican bloc on 85% of issues important to the Democratic Party. Hardly that maverick moderate he is construed to be. As comparison, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama scored 95%.

The votes in which McCain's views did correspond to the ADA position?
1. He voted against a bill authorizing taking $100 million away from the war effort in Iraq and putting it toward "democracy-building efforts" in Iran.
2. He voted against a bill making it a federal offense to cross over state lines in order to get an abortion. A little drastic, even for the pro-life crowd I would think.
3. He voted against passage of a constitutional amendment explicitly banning gay marriage. Hard to see from his voting record why he voted this way, but I would assume he has more issue with amending the Constitution than he does with eliminating gay marriage.

http://www.adaction.org/ADATodayVR2006.pdf

It is worth noting, of course, that McCain does not score particularly well in the American Conservative Union (ACU) marks. He is more moderate by their count, largely because of his stances on torture (which he has since reversed), abortion (on which he seems to be mostly ambivalent), and ethics reform (which he has a difficult time putting into practice).

A more detailed breakdown of his ACU scores can be found here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008...cu_ratings.html

*********************************************************************

I'm not going to get into McCain's war record, but it is worth noting that several groups of Vietnam veterans have formed interest groups opposed to McCain on the basis that he has not looked out for POW interests (and some allege has deep personal resentments towards the US... which I don't know if I buy):
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

It is also worth noting that he publicly uses racial epithets.

quote:
On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Although McCain said he was referring only to his prison guards, there are many reasons why his use of the word "gook" is offensive and alarming.

It is offensive because by using a racial epithet that has historically been used to demean all Asians to describe his captors, McCain failed to make a distinction between his torturers and an entire racial group.

It is alarming because a major candidate for president publicly used a racial epithet, refused to apologize for doing so and remains a legitimate contender.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml

*********************************************************************

John McCain has a habit of talking about things he doesn't understand. Or at least saying things that don't make sense. There are three that I want to draw upon here (though many more exist).

1. "Condoms stop the spread of AIDS. Oh wait, the President doesn't think so? Ok, we shouldn't be distributing condoms then. Wait, now I'm confused."

quote:
Reporter: "Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"

Mr. McCain: "Well I think it�s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes � and I was just reading the thing he wrote� that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn�t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I�m not very wise on it."

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: "I haven�t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don�t know if I would use taxpayers� money for it."

Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush�s policy, which is just abstinence?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president�s policy."

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You�ve stumped me."

Q: "I mean, I think you�d probably agree it probably does help stop it?"

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I�m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I�m sure I�ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception � I�m sure I�m opposed to government spending on it, I�m sure I support the president�s policies on it."

Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: �No, we�re not going to distribute them,� knowing that?"

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn�s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn�s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I�ve never gotten into these issues before."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...hiv-prevention/

Makes perfect sense that he doesn't even know his own position on the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), Bush's biggest foreign policy initiative outside the war on terror ($15 billion/year). Which is an interesting position in and of itself, considering the CDC's statement on the issue is :

quote:
a properly used latex condom provides a high degree of protection against a variety of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fa...ransmission.htm

Is it not also troubling that he is willing to completely dismiss science in order to pursue the Republican agenda? It seems he's done that before as well!

2. "Autism might be due to vaccinations."

quote:
McCain said, per ABC News' Bret Hovell, that "It�s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what�s causing it. And we go back and forth and there�s strong evidence that indicates that it�s got to do with a preservative in vaccines."

McCain said there�s "divided scientific opinion" on the matter, with "many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying that�s not the cause of it."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...mccain-ent.html

Erm. No.

quote:
The question

Do thimerosal-containing vaccines cause autism?
The study

Stehr-Green and colleagues compared the occurrence of autism in California, Sweden and Denmark with average exposures to thimerosal-containing vaccines between the mid-1980s through the late-1990s. The researchers collected data on children with autism and vaccination coverage levels�along with data on the amounts of thimerosal in specific vaccines�from Sweden and Denmark. Data from California were already available from an ecologic analysis presented to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Review Committee.
The findings

The incidence of autism in the U.S., Sweden and Denmark began to rise in 1985, with a peak of reported cases in the early 1990s. In Denmark, for example, the annual number of autism cases rose from less than 10 among 2 to 10 year olds before 1990 to 181 in 1999. However, thimerosal in Sweden and Denmark was low in the late 1980s and after 1993 none of their vaccines contained thimerosal. The opposite happened in the United States, where the average amount of thimerosal received from vaccines increased throughout the 1990s. The researchers concluded that the available data, including the evidence from their study, �are not consistent with the hypothesis that increased exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines are responsible for the apparent increases in the rates of autism in young children being observed worldwide.�
The relevance/bottom line

This study adds to the evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines do not cause autism or similar disorders.
NNii�s comment

The definition of autism has changed substantially during the time period analyzed in the study. Indeed, many authorities believe that the increased incidence of autism is largely due to this fact. Nevertheless, the findings of all of this and other studies should provide additional reassurance to families and others that there continues to be no evidence of a relationship between autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines.

Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: Lack of consistent evidence for an association. Stehr-Green P, Tull P, Stellfeld M, Mortenson PB, and Simpson D. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2003; 25(2): 101-6.

3. "Evolution is just a theory and so is Intelligent Design."

quote:
In 2005, he told the Arizona Star, "I think that there has to be all points of view presented. But they've got to be thoroughly presented. So to say that you can only teach one line of thinking � or one belief on how people and the world was created I think there's nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought."

When asked if intelligent design should be taught in science class, McCain said, "There's enough scientists that believe it does. I'm not a scientist. This is something that I think all points of view should be presented."


http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/...=2897153&page=1

I'd like to see the reports of some of those "scientists" who believe in the legitimacy of intelligent design.

4. "You can walk freely through Baghdad."

Now this one is just absurd. Here's a candidate for President who is staking his campaign in large part on the continuation of policies in the War in Iraq. So you'd think he would know at least the basics of what is happening on the ground there, yes?

Well his record is pretty unsatisfactory. Remember McCain's triumphant visit to Baghdad, where he walked among vendors in a market discussing the security situation there with local citizens? Afterwards he held a press conference declaring that one could walk freely through Baghdad with no apprehension. Well, it was staged.

quote:
NBC�s Nightly News provided further details about McCain�s one-hour guided tour. He was accompanied by �100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.� Still photographs provided by the military to NBC News seemed to show McCain wearing a bulletproof vest during his visit.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/mccain-iraq-stroll/

And then Iraqis started coming out against the visit:

quote:
Jaafar Moussa Thamir, a 42-year-old who sells electrical appliances at the Shorja market that the Republican congressmen visited on Sunday, said the delegation greeted some fellow vendors with Arabic phrases but he was not impressed.

"They were just making fun of us and paid this visit just for their own interests," he said. "Do they think that when they come and speak few Arabic words in a very bad manner it will make us love them? This country and its society have been destroyed because of them and I hope that they realized that during this visit."

Thamir said "about 150 U.S. soldiers and 20 Humvees" accompanied the delegation.

McCain, a Republican presidential hopeful who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said he was "cautiously optimistic" after riding with other members of a Republican congressional delegation from Baghdad's airport Sunday in armored vehicles under heavy guard to visit Shorja.

The market has been hit by bombings including a February attack that killed 137 people. The delegation said the trips were proof that security was improving in the capital.


http://abcnews.go.com/International...tory?id=3003020

Yikes. Well at least it is safe in the Shorja market now, right? RIGHT?!!

quote:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The crack of shots fired by unseen snipers echoed on Monday through Baghdad's wholesale Shorja market, a day after U.S. Senator John McCain held up his visit there as one sign of improving security in Baghdad.

The Republican presidential hopeful said his hour-long tour of the sprawling market, where 71 people were killed by a huge car bomb in February, would have been unthinkable before the seven-week-old U.S.-Iraqi crackdown in the capital.


http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...r_mccain_visit/

quote:
McCain is now back in Iraq for a �surprise visit with Iraqi and American diplomatic and military leaders.� He is joined by fellow Iraq war defenders Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). But it�s unlikely they will be visiting the Shorja market again. Today, CNN reported that they tried to visit the Shorja market, but it was too unsafe and they were unable to go:

We got close to that marketplace today, Jim, but our own security advisers here in Iraq did not want us to go there. They didn�t believe it was safe for an American to be in that area. We were in a thriving marketplace nearby.

But when you show up, the local Iraqis, while it is clear security is better on the street � it is clear there are more markets open, just the traffic jams alone tell you that things are better on the streets of Baghdad � it�s also a very sensitive potential neighborhoods.

That one marketplace, as a matter of fact, you do see Iraqi police, you do see the Iraqi army, but in truth, that area is controlled by the radical cleric Moqtada al Sadr�s Mahdi army.


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/16/mccain-market-iraq/

Shit. Nice to see that the SURGE! really did provide a better security situation in Baghdad, right Senator?

5. "Iran is funding the Sunnis against us."

Or was that the Shiites? John McCain isn't sure:

quote:
He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."


http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com...s_or_shiite.php

Note - al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Was that supposed to have been a purposeful linkage between al-Qaeda and the Iranian government? Is this 2003 all over again?



Yikes.

[b][color=orange]6. "The SURGE! is working."

I'm getting tired of typing and I have a long way to go, so I'll leave the brunt of this for later. If Opus wants, I'm sure he could fill in the detachment from reality needed to actually believe that the SURGE! has created any political change in Iraq (the stated goal by its proponents), or that any gains in security created were sustainable (wasn't this just the most violent week in Iraq in over a year or something?).

*********************************************************************

In any case, there are many more, but in the interest of covering some of McCain's policy positions, I'll move on. But if Hillary Clinton is taken to task for misrepresenting or misremembering things, then shouldn't McCain be just as responsible for his own gaffes?

*********************************************************************

John McCain's congressional record. Kudos to The Carpetbagger Report for putting this pretty comprehensive list together and kudos to the New York Times for already bringing this one into mainstream consciousness. But for those of you who missed it, the gist of the Times article was this: John McCain is extremely inconsistent in his stated positions on issues.

If the above AIDS/contraception gaffe weren't evidence of this little problem, perhaps this will convince you.

quote:
WASHINGTON � Senator John McCain likes to present himself as the candidate of the �Straight Talk Express� who does not pander to voters or change his positions with the political breeze. But the fine print of his record in the Senate indicates that he has been a lot less consistent on some of his signature issues than he has presented himself to be so far in his presidential campaign.

Mr. McCain, who derided his onetime Republican competitor Mitt Romney for his political mutability, has himself meandered over the years from position to position on some topics, particularly as he has tried to court the conservatives who have long distrusted him. His most striking turnaround has been on the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against twice but now wants to make permanent. Mr. McCain has also expressed varying positions on immigration, torture, abortion and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/u...ain.html?ref=us

The article then goes on to pick apart a few of his policies for their inconsistency. The Carpetbagger goes even further by providing links.

The following can be found here: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.co...ives/14763.html

quote:
For its part, the McCain campaign told the Times that the senator �has evolved rather than switched positions in his 25-year career.� That�s a perfectly sensible spin � when a politician holds one position, and then, for apparently political reasons, decides to embrace the polar opposite position, it�s only natural for his or her aides to say the politician�s position has �evolved.�

But in McCain�s case, the spin is wholly unfulfilling. First, McCain sells himself as a pol who never sways with the wind, and whose willingness to be consistent in the face of pressure is proof of his character. Second, Republicans have spent the last four years or so making policy reversals the single most serious political crime in presidential politics. The dreaded �flip-flop� is, according to the GOP, the latest cardinal sin for someone seeking national office.

And if we�re playing by Republican rules, McCain�s �inconsistencies� should be a fairly serious problem.

With this in mind, for the first time in months, I thought now would be a good time to update the list of John McCain�s Biggest Flip-Flops. There have been some key additions since the last time I did this (in November):




As The Carpetbagger concludes,

quote:
But therein lies the point � McCain was consistent on most of these issues, right up until he started running for president, at which point he conveniently abandoned practically every position he used to hold. The problem isn�t just the incessant flip-flops; it�s the shameless pandering and hollow convictions behind the incessant flip-flops.


And those are just a few of the reasons that you should not vote McCain.

Posted by Sunsnail on Mar-30-2008 19:18:

quote:
Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception � I�m sure I�m opposed to government spending on it, I�m sure I support the president�s policies on it."


Old senile man!

Posted by Q5echo on Mar-30-2008 20:26:

Re: Batshit Crazy Pt. Deux: John McCain

quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
And those are just a few of the reasons that you should not vote McCain.


conservative judicial appointees.

low taxes.

strong national defence.

...a few reasons why you should consider McCain.

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Mar-31-2008 00:21:

Re: Re: Batshit Crazy Pt. Deux: John McCain

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
conservative judicial appointees.

low taxes.

strong national defence.

...a few reasons why you should consider McCain.


Is it "defense" or defence"? I've actually seen it both ways.

Anyway, your point is well-taken. I think the one issue that the Conservatives play up far more than the Progressives/Liberals SHOULD consider more are the judicial appointees. This is a big issue for Conservatives, and rightfully so. It's something that I think is far too underplayed by us on the Left.

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Mar-31-2008 00:28:

Re: Re: Batshit Crazy Pt. Deux: John McCain

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
conservative judicial appointees.


oh yay! When the constitution has been chipped away at for 8 years, the last thing you want is more conservative judges allowing the right to do whatever they want with the liberties of the US citizenry.

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
low taxes.


How low? Like super low? So that the government just spends more of what it doesn't have in order to afford a

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
strong national defence.


?

Posted by Q5echo on Mar-31-2008 01:10:

Re: Re: Re: Batshit Crazy Pt. Deux: John McCain

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh yay! When the constitution has been chipped away at for 8 years, the last thing you want is more conservative judges allowing the right to do whatever they want with the liberties of the US citizenry.


it's much more involved than that.

what you're basically going on about is the Executive's exercise of his/her Constitutional authority. our independent judiciary has checked the Executive with wins and losses on both sides. there are some fights that are still being fought with more to come, but ultimately will be decided by an independent judiciary.

what republicans want from their nominee is the assurance that Federal judgeships, from the lowest district courts to the SCOTUS, will not be filled with jurists that want to undermine the Constitution the way it was originally written.

and thats one of the finer points Bush can take away from his term as POTUS. he kicked serious ass appointing good men and women considering the fierce liberal opposition he faced.



quote:
How low? Like super low?


no, just not do with taxes what a Democrat would do.



quote:
?


i don't know, what? what is a strong national defence?

Posted by Q5echo on Mar-31-2008 01:30:

Re: Re: Re: Batshit Crazy Pt. Deux: John McCain

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Is it "defense" or defence"? I've actually seen it both ways.


i go both ways on it if you know what i mean

quote:
Anyway, your point is well-taken. I think the one issue that the Conservatives play up far more than the Progressives/Liberals SHOULD consider more are the judicial appointees. This is a big issue for Conservatives, and rightfully so. It's something that I think is far too underplayed by us on the Left.


absolutely. i think its a hard sell though, convincing people, not just liberals, that you want this particular man/woman because he/she will shape the law the way that particular person see's fit, don't you think?

i mean, a liberal democrat almost has to be deceptive in their sell for their particular nominee if he/she is a known liberal jurist. i guess it all comes down to how well you think the Constitution was originally written

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Mar-31-2008 16:19:

Re: Re: Batshit Crazy Pt. Deux: John McCain

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
conservative judicial appointees.


Using abortion as a litmus test for judges isn't high on my list of priorities. And any Republican who doesn't use that gets hammered by their own party.

quote:

low taxes.


McCain has stated that he will continue tax cuts for the upper 2%... not my idea of low taxes.

quote:

strong national defence.


By remaining mired in an unnecessary war and perhaps provoking another in Iran? Not my idea of national defense, sorry. Let's actually go after the enemies we do have, and worry about creating more later.

quote:
...a few reasons why you should consider McCain.


Do you have any more?

Posted by Q5echo on Apr-01-2008 01:18:

Re: Re: Re: Batshit Crazy Pt. Deux: John McCain

quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Using abortion as a litmus test for judges isn't high on my list of priorities. And any Republican who doesn't use that gets hammered by their own party.


no my friend, you are using abortion as a litmus test.

i'm not talking exclusively about SCOTUS appointees. you apparently are if abortion is the only thing you think about when refering "appointing conservative judges"

im talking top to bottom, every aspect of the law as it applies to interpreting the Constitution.

appointing competent Federal jurists, i think, is one of the most important roles of the Executive regardless of any particular issue.

...as a matter of fact, you tell me where McCain stands on Roe vs. Wade.


quote:
McCain has stated that he will continue tax cuts for the upper 2%... not my idea of low taxes.


youre conveniently leaving out what he's do for the other 98%. compared to what a Democrat POTUS would do together with a Donkey party Congress i'll take my chances and i really can't lose.



quote:
By remaining mired in an unnecessary war and perhaps provoking another in Iran? Not my idea of national defense, sorry. Let's actually go after the enemies we do have, and worry about creating more later.


first off, lets not pretend you know who the "real enemies" are. because if you don't think we as a society shouldn't foster self determining democracy in the face of decrepit religious zealotry then you really don't have any business telling the rest of the world who youre going to fight and where.

so lets stop this false advertising about "taking the fight to the real enemy" when in reality, if your political philosophy resided behind the desk in the Oval Office, it would avoid confrontation at almost any cost. sorry, but im not about to take that risk either given a choice.

second, a strong national defence means anything that a Democrat WOULD NOT do to the size, scope and capability of what currently is the smartest, quickest, most highly skilled and the most magnanimous military the world has ever known.



quote:
Do you have any more?


i do but those three i think should be quite enough for any fair minded thinker consider against ANY Democrat, not just the Messiah.

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Apr-01-2008 01:32:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Batshit Crazy Pt. Deux: John McCain

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
no my friend, you are using abortion as a litmus test.

i'm not talking exclusively about SCOTUS appointees. you apparently are if abortion is the only thing you think about when refering "appointing conservative judges"

im talking top to bottom, every aspect of the law as it applies to interpreting the Constitution.

appointing competent Federal jurists, i think, is one of the most important roles of the Executive regardless of any particular issue.


You're right - I was talking mainly about the Supreme Court, largely because that's the Rose Bowl of appointments so to speak. But in terms of Circuit court judges, 60% of all existing appointments are already Republican appointees - a number that reaches up to 70% in at least four of the thirteen districts! Crying about the liberal justice system is a little absurd in my opinion.

quote:

...as a matter of fact, you tell me where McCain stands on Roe vs. Wade.


That's tough. It changes all the time. If you think for a second he won't bend to accommodate the religious part of the Republican base, you're naive.


quote:


youre conveniently leaving out what he's do for the other 98%.


McCain conveniently leaves that out as well. Don't you think he'd want to advertise it if he planned on cutting their taxes as well?

quote:

first off, lets not pretend you know who the "real enemies" are. because if you don't think we as a society shouldn't foster self determining democracy in the face of decrepit religious zealotry then you really don't have any business telling the rest of the world who youre going to fight and where.

so lets stop this false advertising about "taking the fight to the real enemy" when in reality, if your political philosophy resided behind the desk in the Oval Office, it would avoid confrontation at almost any cost. sorry, but im not about to take that risk either given a choice.


Are you kidding me? Are you prepared to make an argument linking Iraq to "religious zealotry" or terrorism? I'm talking about the elements of al-Qaeda that were, are, and will continue to be right under our nose in Afghanistan and Tora Bora. You criticized Obama just two weeks ago for being too hawkish and rudimentary in his pursuit of bin Laden and his surrogates! Now you're saying we would sit back and do nothing? Pick a stance and stick to it!

We're in a global war on terror, and the Republican administration took its eye off the ball. THAT is the issue.

quote:
second, a strong national defence means anything that a Democrat WOULD NOT do to the size, scope and capability of what currently is the smartest, quickest, most highly skilled and the most magnanimous military the world has ever known.


Again, show me something that suggests that either Democratic candidate would shrink the size of the military. There have been suggestions as to stream-lining funding, and closing over-funded congressional mandates, but that's about it.

quote:
i do but those three i think should be quite enough for any fair minded thinker consider against ANY Democrat, not just the Messiah.


You haven't even come close to making a convincing argument in my opinion.

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Apr-01-2008 02:06:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Batshit Crazy Pt. Deux: John McCain

quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You're right - I was talking mainly about the Supreme Court, largely because that's the Rose Bowl of appointments so to speak. But in terms of Circuit court judges, 60% of all existing appointments are already Republican appointees - a number that reaches up to 70% in at least four of the thirteen districts! Crying about the liberal justice system is a little absurd in my opinion.


If memory serves, the only Circuit that is not currently owned by a conservative majority is the 9th, correct?

Bush helped stack the courts chalk full o' Conservative judges who bend to none other than the Conservative ideology. If the argument is that Conservatives stick to the Constitution only and are more "strict constructionists" than liberals, fine, let's start with a bit of a few numbers like these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/o...serland&emc=rss

and this about Scalia, the General of Strict Constructionism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html

In short, that's one of the biggest asinine and most absurd arguments out there. A Conservative judge is a Conservative judge, and if Q wants to argue that the Constitution is made more in lines of Conservatism, then why the fuck are these favorite, most prized Conservative SCOTUS jackasses demonstrating exactly the opposite of what they supposedly preach and stand for?

The argument is disingenuous at best and an outright a lie at worst. But as I stated previously, it's one of the best arguments that Conservatives have to stir up their base, something that the Progressives have yet to accomplish or come close to accomplishing.



quote:
That's tough. It changes all the time. If you think for a second he won't bend to accommodate the religious part of the Republican base, you're naive.


You mean Mr. Kiss-up to Jerry Falwell himself? Say it isn't so!


quote:
McCain conveniently leaves that out as well. Don't you think he'd want to advertise it if he planned on cutting their taxes as well?


McCain, as much as I disagree with him and especially his foreign policy neoconservative views, simply isn't as much of a dipshit as Bush when it comes to domestic policy. I think even he realizes that the current economic state of affairs call for a little common sense, and that the continuance of lost revenue from government tax cuts simply can't go further, especially in a time of war that he fully advocates and may hold us to "another 100 years" if necessary.

I think he may actually understand the situation a bit better, just as Reagan understood it after his first gigantic tax cut, and just as Bush's daddy understood it when he had to it as well. Both of these Conservatives had to raise taxes, and rightfully so.

Strangely, those darn Conservatives who circle-jerk to their Reagan shrine seemingly and conveniently forget about the fact that Bob Dole told Reagan to raise taxes, and Reagan did so accordingly.



Are you kidding me? Are you prepared to make an argument linking Iraq to "religious zealotry" or terrorism? I'm talking about the elements of al-Qaeda that were, are, and will continue to be right under our nose in Afghanistan and Tora Bora. You criticized Obama just two weeks ago for being too hawkish and rudimentary in his pursuit of bin Laden and his surrogates! Now you're saying we would sit back and do nothing? Pick a stance and stick to it!

We're in a global war on terror, and the Republican administration took its eye off the ball. THAT is the issue.[/QUOTE]

Agreed:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4196581

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSN23651062

But you see, if Obama was President, our country and military would do nothing but hug trees, smoke weed, and hold hands with the enemy.

So it has to be McCain.


quote:
Again, show me something that suggests that either Democratic candidate would shrink the size of the military. There have been suggestions as to stream-lining funding, and closing over-funded congressional mandates, but that's about it.


Kinda like what Bush I did, I suppose. Funny how so much gets blamed on Billy Boy on cutting the military when he only took over the gigantic gutting that Bush I did and which Cheney suggested to do at that time.





You haven't even come close to making a convincing argument in my opinion. [/QUOTE]

Posted by Q5echo on Apr-01-2008 03:02:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Batshit Crazy Pt. Deux: John McCain

quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Crying about the liberal justice system is a little absurd in my opinion.


judges come and judges go. all im saying is that every 4 years we get to decide what political philosophy gets to appoint what flavor of jurisprudence overseeing the the law in this country. i want someone who going to consider who i believe is the best in that regard.

a Democrat simply does not cut it for me.



quote:
If you think for a second he won't bend to accommodate the religious part of the Republican base, you're naive.


thats irrelevant as far as i'm concerned. McCain is a republican and right now he's the better choice by far with regard to Federal jurists.




quote:
Don't you think he'd want to advertise it if he planned on cutting their taxes as well?


who knows right now. will he ever? he has to eventually don't you think?

again, like judges, compared to what a Democrat would do with taxes, you bet your sweet ass i'll go for the Republican choice any day of the week.



quote:
Are you kidding me? Are you prepared to make an argument linking Iraq to "religious zealotry" or terrorism?


absolutely.

quote:
I'm talking about the elements of al-Qaeda that were, are, and will continue to be right under our nose in Afghanistan and Tora Bora.


thats what i'm talking about. you think airdropping two Marine divisions into Tora Bora will magically make a war against an ideology just go away.

quote:
You criticized Obama just two weeks ago for being too hawkish and rudimentary in his pursuit of bin Laden and his surrogates!


i said no such thing.


quote:
We're in a global war on terror, and the Republican administration took its eye off the ball.


i don't think we did. thats just a fundemental difference between you and i. i think Iraq was justified and the right thing to do





quote:
[gain, show me something that suggests that either Democratic candidate would shrink the size of the military.


1. William Jefferson Clinton
2. the liberal wing of the Democrat party and Barak Obama as the core of that wing.


quote:
You haven't even come close to making a convincing argument in my opinion.


judges. taxes. national defence.

i shouldn't have to convince you. those three issues have some pretty clear cut distinctions between both parties. they're make or break for most Republicans

if you believe Billary or Obama would follow in the footsteps of McCain on any of those issues then you sir are the naive one.

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Apr-01-2008 03:17:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Batshit Crazy Pt. Deux: John McCain

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
absolutely.


I'm all ears. Or eyes. Or whatever. Go ahead, I'm dying to hear this.

quote:
thats what i'm talking about. you think airdropping two Marine divisions into Tora Bora will magically make a war against an ideology just go away.


No, I don't think it will "magically make a war go away" - but I do think it will do more to address the problem than dropping two Marine divisions into a random country like Botswana just because.

quote:

i said no such thing.


http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&pagenumber=154

quote:
i don't think we did. thats just a fundemental difference between you and i. i think Iraq was justified and the right thing to do



Seriously, I would absolutely love to hear your justification. I've been waiting to hear a justification that rings true for five years now.

quote:

1. William Jefferson Clinton
2. the liberal wing of the Democrat party and Barak Obama as the core of that wing.


Opus already explained the Clinton cutbacks... they were an extension of cutbacks already begun under a Republican administration.

And what liberal wing of the Democratic Party? Obama is the core of this wing? I'd love to see sources that show that he wants to cut back our military.

quote:

judges. taxes. national defence.

i shouldn't have to convince you. those three issues have some pretty clear cut distinctions between both parties. they're make or break for most Republicans

if you believe Billary or Obama would follow in the footsteps of McCain on any of those issues then you sir are the naive one.


I don't think they'd follow in McCain's footsteps, and I'm glad, because I think he'd continue to mislead us on each just as this last Administration has done. My point isn't that those aren't distinctions. My point is that those are distinctions that McCain has no real advantage on.

Posted by Q5echo on Apr-01-2008 04:47:

quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I'm all ears. Or eyes. Or whatever. Go ahead, I'm dying to hear this.


Links. Ties. Operational links. Sponsorship. These terms have vastly different meanings to different members of the media when they discuss relations between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al-Qaeda network. This became clear yet again last week when news outlets reported on the Department of Defense-sponsored Iraqi Perspectives Project (all five volumes of which are now available here). The vast majority of news reports focused on a single sentence that was incorrectly taken to mean that no ties, links, relations or connections of any sort existed between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the al-Qaeda movement.

What exact word or phrase best describes the relations between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda, as well as other Islamic terror groups, is certainly debatable. What is not debatable, based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, is that Saddam Hussein's regime funded, trained, and assisted terrorist groups (including al-Qaeda proxies), and sometimes actually ordered them to attack American citizens, American interests, and American allies. To compound the danger, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was simultaneously using its intelligence and security apparatus to plot and conduct terror attacks of its own.

The most contentious issue regarding Saddam Hussein and terrorism may be the extent to which Saddam supported anti-American terrorist groups (as opposed to his more agreed-upon support for anti-Israeli groups), particularly Islamic terrorist groups. On this topic the report says that Saddam's animosity towards the United States continued after the first Gulf War, so he reached out to and supported Islamic-fundamentalist and related terrorist organizations that also saw the U.S. as an enemy. Internal Iraqi documents reveal that Saddam's regime knew it had to keep these relations top secret, due to the increased Western scrutiny that Islamic terrorism began receiving during the 1990s because of Iran's open support for Hezbollah.


Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al-Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al-Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.

Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al-Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision.


From 1991 through 2003 the Hussein regime "regarded inspiring, sponsoring, directing and executing acts of terrorism as an element of state power." White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe commented to me that the report confirms that Saddam "had ties to regional terrorism" and that in a region where there was "no lack of terrorist groups willing to attack the U.S.," it was not surprising to see who Saddam had been supporting.

The former regime's stash of documents includes a list of some of the groups that were willing to commit these attacks on behalf of the Iraqi regime. The "Renewal and Jihad Organization" was one group willing to "carry out operations against American interests at any time." The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri's group, which merged with Osama bin Laden's terrorists to form al-Qaeda) is described in the report as having "agreed" on a plan for attacks against the Egyptian government. The Islamic Scholars Group in Pakistan is described by Iraqi officials as willing to "carry out any assignment we task them with." Another Pakistani organization, which the report refers to as the Pakistan Scholars Group, is listed as not being "tasked with commando operations during the (Gulf) war," possibly implying that the group was available to commit "operations" at Iraq's beckoning. (For more on Saddam Hussein's associations with Islamic groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Ray Robison's "Both in One Trench" is a must read.)

The report also reveals that in the late 1990s Saddam was willing to "support or co-opt" a group named "Army of Muhammad" that it knew to be loyal to Osama bin Laden. Iraq was aware that the group had plans to attack American military bases in Arab countries (a goal that Saddam's regime shared) and American embassies (another shared goal). Internal Iraqi documents note that the group was seeking Iraqi assistance, though they do not mention what Iraq's response was. Saddam was impressed with al-Qaeda attacks on American embassies and other targets, and his pattern of support for groups wishing to attack American interests suggests that refusing to grant the desired assistance to the Army of Muhammad would have been a deviation from normal behavior.

Another document lists an Islamic militant group in Afghanistan as dependent on Iraq for financing, and an Islamic group in Egypt as agreeing to make attacks in exchange for financing and training from Iraq. Saddam's regime also provided supervision and oversight, as well as 30,000 rifles and 10,000 pistols, to help get a Sudanese terrorist training camp off the ground at a time when anti-American Islamic terror groups were prevalent in the country. According to the report, Saddam's regime also maintained in-country training camps for all kinds of non-Iraqi groups, many of which were looking to destabilize America's allies in the Middle East.

Other documents show that a Kurdish Islamic group received "financial and moral support" from Saddam's regime and that the regime wanted to establish an organizational relationship with the group. This is probably the group referred to later in the report as conducting attacks against American and other U.N. humanitarian workers, as well as Kurdish officials and civilians, on behalf of the Iraqi regime.

A September 2001 document mentions Saddam's efforts "make common cause" with a number of Islamic radical groups in Kuwait, including a Shiite group. Another document mentions a Sri Lankan group that volunteered to carry out suicide bombings on Saddam's orders during the first Gulf war. Additional internal memos show Iraqi officials reporting to one another that Hamas was willing through the 1990s to conduct suicide attacks against Americans on behalf of Saddam's Iraq. These memos also listed Abu Abbas, the notorious Palestinian terrorist, as another man willing to lead his forces for Saddam in attacks against Americans.

The sheer number and consistency of Saddam Hussein's contacts and agreements with, and assistance for, terrorist groups show that these relationships were part of a larger pattern, as Saddam looked to expand his relations with anti-American Islamic militant and terror groups. The authors note that some of these groups took orders from Saddam's regime to carry out attacks on American interests and allies.

A less contentious issue is the use of terrorism by arms of Saddam Hussein's intelligence and security branches. In 1993 Saddam ordered his men to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil, especially Somalia." This occurred within days of al-Qaeda's decision to do the same thing. In 1990 terrorists acting on behalf of the Iraqi regime attempted to bomb an American ambassador's home in Jakarta and an American Airlines office and the Japanese embassy in the Philippines.

The regime later showed a willingness to use suicide terrorism, possibly due to the limited effectiveness of previous anti-U.S. attacks. A late September 2001 document reveals that the Iraqi regime had been recruiting volunteers for suicide attacks. The authors state that training for suicide bombings became so routine that eventually a formal national policy and training schedule were adopted. Some of the regime's willing "martyrs" were likely the topic of a document pertaining to plots in Saudi Arabia, for which these suicide bombers signed secret agreement forms affirming their commitment to Saddam. Plots described in additional documents (and possibly referring to the same plots) discussed blowing up buildings in Saudi Arabia (a country that did see terror attacks of this nature during the 1990s) and killing members of Kuwait's royal family. Again, it should be noted that these terrorist attacks were to be committed at Saddam's behest and to be done secretly.

The files continued to detail orders for "operatives (being) sent into countries around Iraq to attack American installations." In these examples we have direct orders from Saddam to Iraqis and non-Iraqis to target and kill Americans.

The former regime's documents also discuss a 1999/2001 plan called "Operation Basra Revenge" that would have used missiles, rockets, and later suicide attacks with speedboats to "destroy American and British naval vessels." (This document was pointed out by the writer Scott Malensek.)

The report details the regime's production of suicide vests, IEDs, and car bombs for plots that included targets in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Saddam's embassies in these countries were warehouses for missile launchers, plastic explosives, TNT, Kalashnikovs, booby-trapped suitcases, and grenades. These tools were all available to a regime that had internal orders to attack American civilians, military members, bases, embassies, and ships.

All this capability would be meaningless, of course, if there were no intention of using it. The authors make clear that Saddam was willing to conduct anti-American terrorism, saying: "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces."

Instead of squabbling over who is and isn't a member of al-Qaeda and what the requirements of a "link" or "connection" are, this report details Saddam's broad support for (and sometimes direction of) a multitude of terrorist groups targeting Americans and American allies. Based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam's Iraq did not just use terrorism against America and her allies but took advantage of "the rising fundamentalism in the region" as an "opportunity to make terrorism . . . a formal instrument of state power." Because of Saddam's removal, which came at considerable cost in American blood and gold, a "formal instrument" of state terrorism is no longer secretly plotting to kill Americans. The American public deserves to know what a threat was removed for that price.

By Mark Eichenlaub
National Review Online

quote:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&pagenumber=154


the issue was whether or not it was right to bomb an ally without consent and whether or not he should have been questioned about it. not about the pursuit itself.

quote:
Seriously, I would absolutely love to hear your justification.


i believe that the fundamental right of all people, regardless of their religion or race or gender, is to have a self determinate government and all the great things that governments like those throughout history has proved to be common and viable.

i believe that the Arab nation of Iraq will prove to be no different and they will continue fight alongside all other self determinate governments in the effort against Islamic fascism. whether that Islamic fascism is the fake kind such as under Saddam Hussein and his children or the very real kind such as the Taliban and Al-Queera.

quote:
I've been waiting to hear a justification that rings true for five years now.


you have heard the justification for years now. you just don't believe in it to be true. i or anybody else can't do anything more about that.

quote:
Opus already explained the Clinton cutbacks... they were an extension of cutbacks already begun under a Republican administration.


point taken. i have some disagreements with opus about that of course and i would happily discuss them. i'm just calling them the way i see them.

a liberal Democrat has yet to prove to me in practice or rhetoric they would support a strong national defence as much as John McCain would.


quote:
And what liberal wing of the Democratic Party?


youre joking right? do you think all Democrats share the same worldview?

quote:
Obama is the core of this wing?


yes. he has the endorsements of just about every major left-wing PAC known. (if he doesn't, tell me which ones haven't)

quote:
I'd love to see sources that show that he wants to cut back our military.


i really don't think he would be dumb enough to run on a campaign in favor cutting back the military. but i'm not daft enough to think that the most liberal Senator in Congress, together with the willing intent of a Democrat controlled Congress would not.

and again, given the choice between him or McCain, i'll take my chances with the latter.


quote:
My point is that those are distinctions that McCain has no real advantage on.


he has more of an advantage than my alternatives.

Posted by Capitalizt on Apr-01-2008 04:54:

G5...Nothing Mccain is advocating could be considered a strong national DEFENSE. If anything he is pushing the opposite. He wants a strong offense and endless military presence around the world that leaves us extremely weak at home...both economically and militarily. Mccain wants to reshape the world with US treasure and blood. Defense is way down on his list of priorities.

Posted by Q5echo on Apr-01-2008 05:08:

quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
If anything he is pushing the opposite. He wants a strong offense and endless military presence around the world that leaves us extremely weak at home...both economically and militarily. Mccain wants to reshape the world with US treasure and blood. Defense is way down on his list of priorities.


i guess that matters if we take the word DEFENCE in national defence literally in its meaning.

it wouldn't take much to convince me that thats how a liberal Democrat would see it.

the way i understand national defence can be summarized HERE

nice try though

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Apr-02-2008 03:53:

quote:
McCain Gets Iraq Facts Wrong Again: Says Sadr � Not Maliki � �Asked� For Ceasefire�

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he was �surprised� by violent clashes between central Iraqi government and militias connected to Shi�ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr last week in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. �Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,� McCain told reporters on his campaign bus.

As MSNBC�s Keith Olbermann noted last night, at the same time McCain expressed surprise about the developments in Basra, he also got basic facts wrong about the ceasefire that halted the violence on Sunday. McCain claimed that �it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire,� not Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki:

Asked if the Basra campaign had backfired, he said: �Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn�t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire. So we�ll see.��

Watch it:

As Mother Jones� Jonathan Stein notes today, McCain�s description of what happened is �completely misleading� and wrong. In fact, Sadr�s call for a ceasefire only came after members of Maliki�s political party traveled to Iran to broker a deal with him:

The backdrop to Sadr�s dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran�s holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country.

There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran�s Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.

Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki�s Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.

According to the AP, �the peace deal between al-Sadr and Iraqi government forces� not only �left the cleric�s Mahdi Army intact,� but it also left Maliki �politically battered and humbled within his own Shi�ite power base.�

This is not the first time in recent memory that McCain has gotten basic facts about Iraq wrong. Two weeks ago, he repeatedly made false claims that Iran was training al Qaeda fighters in Iraq.

Matt Duss has more at the Wonk Room.


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/01...dr-facts-wrong/

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Apr-02-2008 13:37:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i guess that matters if we take the word DEFENCE in national defence literally in its meaning.

it wouldn't take much to convince me that thats how a liberal Democrat would see it.

the way i understand national defence can be summarized HERE

nice try though


You really don't think defense funding should be stream-lined to reduce waste? That's mostly what the Democrats are talking about these days - they understand we're in a precarious security position as well, but the opportunity cost of throwing money into over-funded mandates is pretty high, and a source of concern among Dems. Yesterday's WashPo ran a story about inefficiency in the Pentagon on the front page -

quote:
GAO Blasts Weapons Budget
Cost Overruns Hit $295 Billion

By Dana Hedgpeth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 1, 2008; A01

Government auditors issued a scathing review yesterday of dozens of the Pentagon's biggest weapons systems, saying ships, aircraft and satellites are billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule.

The Government Accountability Office found that 95 major systems have exceeded their original budgets by a total of $295 billion, bringing their total cost to $1.6 trillion, and are delivered almost two years late on average. In addition, none of the systems that the GAO looked at had met all of the standards for best management practices during their development stages.

Auditors said the Defense Department showed few signs of improvement since the GAO began issuing its annual assessments of selected weapons systems six years ago. "It's not getting any better by any means," said Michael Sullivan, director of the GAO's acquisition and sourcing team. "It's taking longer and costing more."

Chris Isleib, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a written statement, "We'd like to look at what GAO has said, and then at the appropriate time make an informed comment."

The Pentagon has doubled the amount it has committed to new systems, from $790 billion in 2000 to $1.6 trillion last year, according to the 205-page GAO report. Total acquisition costs in 2007 for major defense programs increased 26 percent from first estimates. In 2000, 75 programs had cost increases totaling 6 percent. Development costs in 2007 for the systems rose 40 percent from initial projections, compared with 27 percent in 2000. Current programs are delivered 21 months late on average, five months later than in 2000.

"In most cases, programs also failed to deliver capabilities when promised -- often forcing war fighters to spend additional funds on maintaining" existing weapons systems, the report says.

The GAO chose 72 of the 95 systems to examine, based on high-dollar value and congressional interest. The various systems were at different stages of the acquisition process over the last year.

The report details such projects as the Navy's $5.2 billion Littoral Combat Ship, which has had such extensive troubles that the service expects the cost of its first two ships to exceed their combined budget of $472 million by more than 100 percent. The Navy canceled construction of the planned third and fourth ships by Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, the prime contractors on the project.

The government is facing higher development costs on eight major programs, including Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter and Boeing's Future Combat Systems, a technology to connect unmanned aircraft and vehicles. The prices for those two programs have risen 36 percent and 40 percent, respectively, from the initial contracts, the GAO said, partly because the government wants "new and unproven technologies" and did not undertake early analysis to make sure its requirements could be met.

In a statement, Lockheed said that the Joint Strike Fighter "is performing solidly, making outstanding technical progress in the context of the most complex aircraft ever built" and that "the bedrock and the cornerstone" of the F-35 program have been "affordability and cost containment."

In another case, the initial contract target price of Boeing's program to modernize avionics in the C-130 cargo plane is expected to skyrocket 323 percent, to $2 billion. Another Boeing program, for a radio system, is up 310 percent, to $966 million.

"Boeing's commitment is to deliver on our promises to our military customers and meeting their requirements in the most cost-effective way possible," the company said in a statement.

The GAO's Sullivan said the reasons for the cost overruns and delays are threefold: There are too many programs chasing too few dollars; technologies are often not mature enough to go into production; and it takes too long to design, develop and produce a system.

"They're asking for something that they're not sure can be built, given existing technologies, and that's risky," Sullivan said in an interview.

Costs of some systems were driven up as much as 72 percent when changes were made to the program requirements after development of the system had begun, the report says. Half of the programs studied had 25 percent increases in the expected lines of code in their software.

Steven L. Schooner, co-director of the government procurement law program at George Washington University, said the GAO's report reveals the recurring problems the Pentagon faces with its costly procurements.

"The nature of major weapon systems development is that you have to expect that the initial estimates, and typically the initial contracts, are overly optimistic and unrealistic," he said. "Unfortunately the purchaser -- the government -- typically lacks the discipline to freeze the configuration such that the contractor has any reasonable chance of developing what it promised on time and for the price promised."

Defense Department officials have tried to improve the procurement process, the GAO said, by doing more planning and review in the early stages of a contract. But "these significant policy changes have not yet translated into best practices on individual programs," Gene L. Dodaro, acting comptroller general of the GAO, wrote in the report.

"Flagship acquisitions, as well as many other top priorities in each of the services, continue to cost significantly more, take longer to produce, and deliver less than was promised," Dodaro said. "This is likely to continue until the overall environment for weapon system acquisitions changes."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews

Defense spending is getting out of control - it doesn't need to be decreased so much as reviewed for what is actually necessary and what is being wasted.

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Apr-02-2008 17:32:

quote:
And He's Great To Have a Beer With, Too
by Hunter
Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:41:14 AM PDT

Sigh. Media Matters points out, yet again, the inconsistencies behind what John McCain says and what John McCain does, and how easily it gets lapped up by "pundits" who supposedly have the experience and analytical skills to know better:

quote:
On the March 30 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, New York Timescolumnist David Brooks asserted that Sen. John McCain's March 26 foreign policy speech "was so important because he broke with [President] Bush on several ways" and described one of those ways as, "Should the U.S. go it alone on certain issues? He said no, we are -- we need a strong America, but in the community of nations. And he detailed that." Similarly, David Broder wrote in his March 30 Washington Post column that McCain "outlin[ed] a vastly different approach from President Bush's" in the speech, in part by offering a "repudiation of unilateralism."


I think the problem here isn't that Brooks or Broder are willingly misrepresenting anything as much as they are just profoundly gullible people. You know the other prominent Republican that is constantly emphasizing the importance of a world community of nations, in his speeches? George W. Bush. Does it all the damn time.

Of course, what Republicans like George Bush and John McCain consider "multilateralism" consists of other countries doing what America wants, or we'll do it anyway and rename food to spite them. This is the neoconservative foreign policy lifecycle: praise the community of nations. Demand the community of nations do something. Ignore the community of nations and do it anyway. Mock the community of nations. Then come back to the community of nations when something else needs doing, and repeat the process.


This is a pattern, in coverage of John McCain, and it's the exact same pattern that we saw in 2000 when Bush unveiled the phrase "compassionate conservatism" and a lot of other teleprompter driven hoo-ha to make profoundly conservative, even reactionary policies sound practically, peppily populist. In McCain, we're already seeing it in a stream of small absurdities, like the press-wide pronouncements that he opposes bailouts of failed banks while he... supported the bailouts of failed banks.

People like Brooks and Broder spend their time admiring what McCain says; what McCain actually has done is a secondary point. So McCain is subject to the usual Bush rules: he can do whatever he wants, so long as he speechifies something up to the contrary. Nobody worth caring about will ever actually check.

Well, Hmm. I think my basic premise may need some reworking, here. Brooks I think does it out of gullibility; Broder, though, has such a consistent history of "independently" finding praise for conservative speech while ignoring the results of conservative action that for him, I don't think gullibility has much to do with it.

This, though, is going to be the dynamic of the campaign. Listen to what I say, don't watch what I do, McCain will say. And since we've got an entire phalanx of press people who are skilled in the Pavlovian analysis of political blustering, but not very good at sussing out the truth behind it, most of our "elite" pundits will lazily go along.

Honestly, Senator John "Let's Bomb Iran" McCain as the picture of multilateralism? Do these people read their own papers, or roll them up and smoke them?


http://www.dailykos.com

Posted by HardTranceProd on Apr-02-2008 18:18:

I don't like McCain but at least he did call all those religious nuts "agents of intolerance" back in 2000.

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Apr-02-2008 18:51:

quote:
Originally posted by HardTranceProd
I don't like McCain but at least he did call all those religious nuts "agents of intolerance" back in 2000.


That was a long, long time ago.

Columbia Journalism Review:

quote:
Campaign Desk
The McCain-Hagee Connection
Why is the press ignoring this hate-monger?
By Zachary Roth Fri 7 Mar 2008 02:27 PM

More than a week after John McCain�s endorsement by the anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic pastor John Hagee, the media continues to give the GOP nominee a free pass.

Consider the following pronouncements by Hagee, the man who McCain proudly introduced as an ally last week.

On Jews:

quote:
It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God�s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.


And:

quote:
How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for his chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings he had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.


On gays:

quote:
All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are � were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.


Hagee, of course, is also a virulent anti-Catholic, who has suggested that the pope is the anti-Christ, and that Adolf Hitler�s anti-Semitism was the result of being educated at a Catholic school.

One would think that when a leading presidential candidate proudly touts the support of such a figure, the issue would receive close scrutiny from the press. But last week, once McCain assured reporters that, just because Hagee was endorsing him, it didn�t mean he agreed with everything Hagee said, the mainstream media essentially let the matter drop. Chalk another up for the Straight-Talking candidate.

That�s all the more remarkable given the high-profile grilling Barack Obama has received on the subject of Louis Farrakhan. In a recent Democratic debate, Tim Russert asked Obama to reject Farrakhan�s support. And in January, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen drew attention to the fact that a magazine controlled by Obama�s pastor had given an award to the Nation of Islam founder.

But so far, neither Russert nor anyone else at NBC News has seen fit to press McCain on the subject, and Cohen hasn�t chosen to write about it. And remember, Obama did nothing to solicit Farrakhan�s support, while McCain actively sought Hagee�s and appeared on stage with him.

We�ve asked both NBC News and Cohen whether they plan to, given their concern about Obama�s Farrakhan �ties,� and will let you know what we hear.


http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/th...onnection_1.php

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Apr-06-2008 00:24:

In lieu of me explaining why the SURGE!! isn't working, I'll let the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee do the legwork:

quote:
WASHINGTON � A leading Democrat on Saturday declared last year's troop buildup in Iraq a failure. Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the military push didn't succeed because U.S. troops remain committed there in large numbers and political reconciliation has not been achieved. "The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically," said Biden, D-Del., in this week's Democratic radio address. "Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together." He later added, "There is little evidence the Iraqis will settle their differences peacefully any time soon." Biden offered an early rebuttal to next week's testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador there. Petraeus and Crocker are expected to say the recent buildup in troops has succeeded in improving security. But they also likely will say that a period of assessment is needed this summer before officials can decide whether troop withdrawals can continue. Democrats have called this approach unacceptable and said they would pursue an alternative policy through legislation. They said their focus will be on restoring the strength of the Army and Marines and refocusing the nation's resources on fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. "I believe the president has no strategy for success in Iraq," Biden said. "His plan is to muddle through, and hand the problem off to his successor." Republicans say they are satisfied with the recent drop in violence and that more time is needed to improve the situation there.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/...-a_n_95221.html

Posted by jerZ07002 on Apr-06-2008 00:53:

quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I�m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I�m sure I�ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception � I�m sure I�m opposed to government spending on it, I�m sure I support the president�s policies on it."


that's too funny.

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Apr-06-2008 17:01:

I'm just going to keep cataloguing articles that display inconsistencies in the McCain platform (there have been a lot of them of late):

This from the Boston Globe:

quote:
McCain camp working out healthcare details
Aides struggle to sort out his promises

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | April 3, 2008

WASHINGTON - When Senator John McCain unveiled his healthcare proposal last fall, a journalist asked whether the Arizona senator's battle against skin cancer would make him sympathetic to the idea of requiring that insurance companies provide coverage to people with preexisting conditions.

McCain flatly rejected the idea. "That would be mandating what the free enterprise system does," McCain said.

McCain's response highlights the challenge he faces as he prepares to try to sell his healthcare plan in the fall campaign. He says the country must provide access to healthcare for all our citizens, and that "we need to help people who need it." But McCain also wants to shrink government's role in healthcare and doesn't want to impose regulations on insurance companies.

As a result, McCain's aides have been scrambling to come up with ways to satisfy those who want more coverage without violating what they call McCain's conservative principles on the issue.

McCain, for example, has spoken in general terms about how he might help people with preexisting conditions. He has said he favors what he calls a "special provision including additional trust funds for Medicaid payments." The comment left even some of his aides unsure of his meaning. Medicaid funds are generally used to help lower-income Americans.

Lately, some of McCain's aides have said he might try to divert some Medicaid funds into a program that would help people with preexisting conditions, but his advisers can't yet say how such a program would work or how many people would be covered.

"These are real questions, and I think there will be answers, and there better be, but they are not there yet," said McCain adviser Thomas P. Miller, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot more remains to be hammered out."

Indeed, while McCain talks about having a comprehensive healthcare plan, many of the details are being debated within the campaign as aides try to determine how to pay for McCain's promises.

The crux of McCain's healthcare plan is to end a tax break for employers who provide health insurance premiums now utilized by many workers. That would be replaced with a tax credit worth as much as $5,000 per family for the purchase of health insurance. McCain would also promote cost controls and competition among insurance companies. He has also joined with Democrats to support legislation that would allow the purchase of prescription drugs from Canada.

But McCain's plan has no guarantee that people could get insurance, and no requirement for people to do so. McCain believes his plan would make insurance more affordable, which would bring it within reach of many more families. But many critics say that failing to require insurance companies to provide coverage could leave millions of people without affordable medical care.

The McCain plan has come under attack from Democrats, who say it mostly benefits the wealthy and the healthy. "It's fine except for the poor and the sick," said Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has worked on Democratic healthcare plans.

Still, Gruber said, McCain's plan "has a lot to recommend it," particularly the tax credit to buy health insurance.

The question of how to provide insurance for people with preexisting conditions is increasingly a focus of scrutiny in McCain's plan. Shortly after McCain unveiled his proposal last October, Dr. Timothy Johnson, the Boston-based medical editor of ABC News, pressed McCain at a forum to explain why he felt no need to "prevent insurance companies from cherry-picking" healthier customers and denying coverage to some people with preexisting conditions.

McCain responded that the idea of imposing mandates on insurance companies was a simple answer, but one that he was not sure would be effective. McCain then spoke of the need for Americans to improve their physical condition and suggested some people with preexisting conditions could be put in what he called "high-risk pools." But McCain's bottom line was that he would not put requirements on insurance companies.

But even some pro-business voices have said McCain's plan falls short of helping enough people in need. Fortune magazine said earlier this month that McCain had the best health insurance plan, but then criticized his handling of people with preexisting conditions.

"The problem with McCain's approach - and it is a huge problem - is that McCain ventures so far toward total laissez-faire liberty that he risks leaving the poor and sick behind," the magazine said. "Anyone with cancer, diabetes, or other preexisting conditions will see their premiums multiply, too."

Grappling with such criticisms, some of McCain's aides have floated the idea that people with preexisting conditions could get an extra tax credit to help pay for insurance, funded by savings in the Medicaid program. But the amount of the credit hasn't been determined, the possibility of extracting enough savings from Medicaid is debatable, and it is unclear whether a credit would be enough to persuade an insurance company to accept a person who would be likely to have large medical expenses.

"We are working on it," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's top policy adviser. "We'll put out more details. As we do, it will be clearer to people."

McCain has frequently sought to downplay the oft-cited statistic that 47 million people do not have health insurance. He has said that a very large portion of them are healthy young Americans who simply choose not to get insurance. However, the American Medical Association has said that 8.3 million of the 47 million are between ages 18 and 24. A McCain aide said the senator was referring to a study that found about half of adults without health insurance are between 19 and 34. Democratic critics said that many younger Americans don't have health insurance because they can't afford it and their employers don't provide it.

McCain's plan is starkly different from those put forward by the Democratic presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton wants to mandate that all Americans get health insurance, while Barack Obama would require that all children have insurance. McCain has criticized their programs as "government-run healthcare," while the Democrats say their plans will offer choice from private plans.

McCain compared health insurance to buying a home, saying it was desirable but not required. "I think that one of our goals should be that every American own their own home," he said. "But I'm not going to mandate that every American own their home. If it's affordable and available, then it seems to be that it's a matter of choice amongst Americans."


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...thcare_details/

Posted by Krypton on Apr-06-2008 17:18:

Lebez, if the Democrats can hone in on McCain's gaffs, the election is theirs to win.


Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.