S7 of The West Wing - an older, more moderate Republican vs a young, energetic Hispanic Democrat who ran for the nomination against the party machine. Both of whom are Senators.
Most likely scenario for the general election - an older, more moderate Republican vs a young, energetic, black Democrat who ran for the nomination against the party machine. Both of whom are Senators.
Kinda creepy.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Either of them as president would be inordinately creepy, yes.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Sorry Lisa, neither of them as President would be inordinately sad.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I hope you're right about the most likely scenario.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Sorry Lisa, neither of them as President would be inordinately sad.
Agreed. For the first time in recent memory, we may have no truly awful options.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't dislike McCain, but I do think he is a poor choice given his policies and our current situation. But I also think he's better than the status quo.
Miro - Funny thing is, your analogy goes deeper. Obama is Santos, and Clinton is Bob Russell. The establishment candidate with all the party machinery behind them, won all the big states, but Santos won more total states, except a couple big states like Texas and Illinois. There's obvious differences yes, but the similarities are certainly there if you look for them.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Lest anyone continue to mislead themselves into thinking that McCain is a man of integrity
quote:the Senate passed legislation Wednesday that would impose sweeping new restrictions on interrogation methods used by the CIA and ban a widely condemned technique known as waterboarding...which...would outlaw an array of coercive interrogation tactics that U.S. allies have denounced... The measure, already approved in the House, would require the CIA to abide by strict interrogation guidelines adopted by the Army after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.
The decision by Republicans to allow a vote on the measure...suggested that party leaders saw political advantage in setting up a presidential veto. The bill was approved 51 to 45 in the Senate after passing the House in December, 222 to 199. Neither margin would be sufficient to override a veto.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona...voted against the measure. McCain led earlier efforts in the Senate to ban cruel treatment of prisoners, and has denounced waterboarding in presidential debates. But preserving the CIA's ability to employ so-called enhanced interrogation methods has broad support in the party's conservative base.
McCain...considers waterboarding illegal under existing U.S. law but he does not want to bind U.S. intelligence officers with restrictions designed for the military. "I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values," McCain said.
Thus proving himself to be wormtongued as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
He was against waterboarding before he was for it, huh
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yeah, McCain's vote Wednesday against the torture ban, and his general pandering to the pro-torture wing of the GOP is really sickening, whatever he really believes. It's really made me lose most of the respect I once held for him.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Lisa is by definition outspoken in her political beliefs. The day she is in step with the voice of the majority is the day I believe in alien abduction and brain implant programming.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Now, the torture subject has me fascinated in a Mr Spock kind of way. We learned in archaeology class that a society continues to do something as long as it continues to work. When it no longer works, they must change or die.
I'm not naive enough to think W is the first president to use torture. I think he's the first president naive enough to think we want to know he uses torture. So, in theory, torture has been used because it works.
Yet McCain's own biography (as summarized by Wiki) talks about his efforts to resist torture. Even when they broke him and he agreed to sign a confession, he made sure it was obvious to any native English speakers that he was coerced. So torture didn't work.
I can see a few theories. Torture as used by the CIA is different from torture used by the military and has a better success rate. The torture worked more than McCain would like to admit. Or it didn't really work, but the bill in question contained other methods that do and he was looking for a political way to oppose the bill without getting into a detailed debate on the merits of various forms of torture.
I'd be interested to see someone in the CIA give us some hard numbers on how often torture is used, how often it's successful at getting information, and how much better cases turn out over cases where it wasn't employed. Does it really work as well as the conservative base thinks it does? No one would even need to touch the lengthy moral debate if they could show torture isn't effective.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...his general pandering to the pro-torture wing of the GOP..."
A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim -- George Santayana
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Lisa is by definition outspoken in her political beliefs. The day she is in step with the voice of the majority is the day I believe in alien abduction and brain implant programming.
I'll admit that I'm outspoken in my political positions, but why "by definition"? Is that a misuse like "I'm literally starving to death"?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think she means it's a defining trait of yours.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, then why didn't she say so? It's not a bad thing, so long as I'm right. Which I am.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Lest anyone continue to mislead themselves into thinking that aspectre is a man of integrity
quote: The leading Democratic contenders for president, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, did not vote.
From your link.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I don't see where aspectre said anything about how Clinton or Obama did or did not vote on this, therefore I don't see how that information has any impact on aspectre's integrity.
That having been said, I don't like that senators even have an option to not vote on laws that come up to general assembly vote. But it is a pretty common practice, regrettably.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Either of them as president would be inordinately creepy, yes.
Why do you say that?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Lest anyone continue to mislead themselves into thinking that aspectre is a man of integrity
quote: The leading Democratic contenders for president, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, did not vote.
From your link.
It's a political maneuver. It's them saying "I don't believe in this law, I don't want it passed, but it's going to pass whether I vote 'nay' or not, and I don't want a 'nay' vote used against me in the future".
It's smart is what it is. Obama is really bloody inspiring, but he's also a wily and brilliant politician. Which he'll need to be if he's to get Washington under control.
I don't hold not voting on something like that against either of them.
Now when Hilary vote 'yes' on the Iranian measure, that I hold against her.
[ February 14, 2008, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Either of them as president would be inordinately creepy, yes.
From the "Wow, just...wow" department.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I apologize for dropping aspectre's name into his sentence like that.
But I think trying to spin Obama's not voting into a smart move is ridiculous.
I think it's more likely that it had to do with it being the CIA, which operates under the executive branch. Anyone considering becoming president would not want to hamper the CIA's powers.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
The problem with McCain is that he is trying too hard to appeal to a conservative base. He earned the respect of many by being a more reasonable, more moderate republican. This is one of many reasons why I dislike the two-party system. It seems to leave out moderate candidates who are the very ones I would like to have a choice of voting for.
From what I've seen of Obama so far I like him. If it does come down to Obama vs. McCain, it may be a tougher choice than usual. McCain has said/done some things that I don't like lately, but I can't dismiss him entirely. I think his personal beliefs really are more moderate. My real fear with him would be whether, as president, he would be himself or his party.
For that matter, I often wonder if we have a choice to vote for people or if it comes down to voting for parties.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:But I think trying to spin Obama's not voting into a smart move is ridiculous.
I think it's more likely that it had to do with it being the CIA, which operates under the executive branch. Anyone considering becoming president would not want to hamper the CIA's powers.
How much did the vote pass by and how many people didn't vote? Could they have turned the vote the other way if they had voted? If not then it's the maneuver I just mentioned.
Obama has railed against torture and using torture, it's one of his primary talking points. I honestly doubt very much that he would be actually against legislation restricting it.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote:The problem with McCain is that he is trying too hard to appeal to a conservative base. He earned the respect of many by being a more reasonable, more moderate republican. This is one of many reasons why I dislike the two-party system. It seems to leave out moderate candidates who are the very ones I would like to have a choice of voting for.
I agree completely. I've developed a certain respect for McCain based on his moderate views and willingness to speak his conscience instead of always saying what the party wants him to say. It's disappointing that the political parties and their members appreciate rhetoric more than integrity, morals, and intelligence.
That being said, if it comes down to Obama vs. McCain, I think it will be a very interesting race.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"When you run a Democrat against a Democrat, the Democrat wins."
If McCain gets the nomination, the next president will be from the Democratic party.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Only if you count McCain as a Democrat, Kat.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: "When you run a Democrat against a Democrat, the Democrat wins."
If McCain gets the nomination, the next president will be from the Democratic party.
He has one, maybe two liberal issues that he supports, though he still doesn't fully support them. Other than that he's a right winger all the way. Other than his stance on immigration and his willingness to support watered down global warming legislation, I can't think of any of the upcoming real issues that face us that he'd be with the Democrats on.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: "When you run a Democrat against a Democrat, the Democrat wins."
If McCain gets the nomination, the next president will be from the Democratic party.
I'm surprised to see you take this view.
McCain's not a liberal disguised as a conservative. He's not a democrat in republican's clothing. That's a ridiculous charge fit for AM radio, but really, what does he gain through such a subterfuge? To what end is this nefarious plot directed? No, he's a republican because he feels the republicans are more in line with the total of his beliefs. But he thinks for himself and doesn't toe the party line. And, while it's certainly fair to disagree with him on any issue, including those where he doesn't toe the party line, I really hate it that he's seen as not being what he claims to be, as somehow dishonest or predatory, because he freaking has a mind of his own and a backbone.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Well said, Icarus.
I mean, take a look at the man's voting record. He toes the party line something like 90% of the time.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:...I don't like that senators even have an option to not vote on laws that come up...But it is a pretty common practice...
quote:It's a political maneuver. It's them saying "I don't believe in this law...I don't want a 'nay' vote used against me in the future".
In this particular situation, nope, not at all in that sense. It has to do with...
...Short of a miracle (as Huckabee puts it), McCain has such a large pledged-delegate lead that he has a free ride to the Republican nomination. So he has no need to engage in more than token PrimaryElection campaigning, mostly for free advertising via news media coverage. Instead he has to engage in looking forward to the GeneralElection; most especially including rallying all factions of the Republican base for campaign volunteers and financial&voter support. Thus being in WashingtonDC for symbolic*votes on Senate legislation is part of his GeneralElection campaign.
...Contrary to the nonsense recently being promulgated by too much of the press, Obama and Clinton are locked in a very close death-match over the remaining delegates to be pledged by vote in the upcoming state PrimaryElections because: currently-unqualified pledged delegate results are at best a dubiously reliable reflection of true voter preference due to the uncontested nature of the FloridaPrimary; currently-unqualified pledged delegate results are unreliable due to near-fraud by the state party-machine in the MichiganPrimary; and those two states have thus far refused to hold new elections or caucuses to qualify their delegations as demanded by the DemocraticNationalCommittee. As I said before...
To keep Obama from having that clear victory, all Clinton needs to do is make sure that the combination of her currently-official pledged-delegates and the currently-official delegates-pledged-uncommitted-by-vote totals at 1535 or more. Then it's a floorfight over seating Michigan's and Florida's currently-disqualified pledged-delegates. A floorfight decided by the superdelegates. Which is gonna get really ugly if Obama were to have more-than-1626 but less-than-1719 currently-official pledged-delegates by the time of the Convention.
I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat. -- Will Rogers
And thus Clinton and Obama are too busy on the campaign trail fighting over the remaining states' DemocracticPrimary voters to take a day off to fly to WashingtonDC for a purely symbolic*vote upon a matter they have already given their positions: Clear opposition to torture as the GenevaConvention defines it, and as how the governments (excepting Dubya&Gang) of the FreeWorld interpret those GenevaConvention rules.
* There aren't enough votes in favor of passage to override Dubya's veto.
[ February 15, 2008, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
One of the things that really bugs me about the McCain hate is the "There are only two sides" aspect of it. Either you believe what the Republican base does, or you are on the other side.
It's crop and it's crap thinking. One of the things we should be looking for is more than two perspectives on things. If you think that there are only two ways to look at any of the complex issues facing the country, you are very wrong.
For that matter, while I can see the campaign finance thing (although, I don't so much see that as a "liberal" thing per se), the other places where McCains fails the "conservative" test is places where the base believes stupid things.
Immigration - Throw them all out!!! Tax Cuts - McCain isn't against tax cuts. He's against tax cuts in a time of incresed spending. He is against growing the deficit. Or, you know, fiscal responsibility. Torture - Wow, he is (or used to be) against torture.
They don't like him because he subscribes to a nuanced view of illegal immigration grounded in reality as opposed to stupid rhetoric, belives in fiscal responsibility, and is against torturing people.
These are bad issues. There's a reason why the hate mongering wing talks about them in generalities. Addressing the specifics makes you look pretty bad and not too bright. If the Democrats had the smarts and the balls to do it, the attacks on John McCain and what they mean the Republican base stands for would be a key point in their congressional election strategy for 2008.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
--Enigmatic
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Obama vs McCain: NOM NOM NOM!
--Enigmatic
... I sense a rival slash fanfiction coming on.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe it's nothing so lurid. Wasn't there a rumor awhile back about McCain fathering a black child? Maybe it's Obama! That was a simple father son moment.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
So Obama isn't a Muslim terrorist sleeper agent—he's the illegitimate son of a Democratic sleeper agent? In some people's eyes, that's almost as bad.
Of course, Obama's mother was white, so I'm not quite sure how the math would work out there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Of course, Obama's mother was white, so I'm not quite sure how the math would work out there.