Why are you for or against John McCain? - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 06-14-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

pan...you've conveniently twisted what I posted. I said IMO, his progressive policies are the best way forward for the country but the impact of any policy changes are not likely to be felt overnight....he has never suggested anything more.

One thing is more certain, IMO....a continuation of the same policies as Bush will only compound the problems we currently face and that is what you will get, for the most part, with McCain....

dc_dux, the economy will not improve without dramatic, swift, forceful, economic reform. The problem is that Obama is more progressive than McCain, but he does not even raise issues evinced here, by Ben Stein, who is certainly no "progressive", himself:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/bu...pagewanted=all
Everybody’s Business
The Long and Short of It at Goldman Sachs

By BEN STEIN
Published: December 2, 2007

...HERE is a query, as we used to say in law school: Should Henry M. Paulson Jr., who formerly ran a firm that engaged in this kind of conduct, be serving as Treasury secretary? Should there not be some inquiry into what the invisible government of Goldman (and the rest of Wall Street) did to create this disaster, which has caught up with some Wall Street firms but not the nimble Goldman?

When the Depression got under way, the government created the Temporary National Economic Committee to study just what had happened on the Street to get the tragedy going. Maybe it’s time for an investigation of just what Wall Street and Goldman did to make money as they pumped this mortgage mess into the economic system, and sometimes were seemingly on both sides of the deal.

Or is Goldman Sachs like “Love Story”? Does working there mean never having to say you’re sorry?

Obama is taking up the seat....squeezing out any opportunity for an actual progressive democratic candidate. Since one did not emerge, Edwards would at least have been a poor stepchild in that role....he showed potential to possibly rise to the occasion.

IMO, Obama cannot and won't....not when Ben Stein seems progressive, compared to Obama. The investigation driven reform needs to happen fast, if there is any hope of mitigating a downward spiral in consumer demand.

The folks in control got what they wanted...an ambitious, well spoken, charismatic young man....to take up the seat in the oval office. The people needed an intimidating firebrand, along the lines of a Huey Long, sans the ego and corrupted background. Things need to be shaken up....Obama is there because he will leave the folks at the top alone....at a time when they need to be investigated, exposed....effed with!

Paulson at treasury is a fox in the henhouse....why hasn't Obama been asking the questions that Ben Stein, in the NY Times, has? I've been asking them, and I''m nobody....but I know where we are, and where we're headed if something isn't done ASAP, by elected officials, or by the growing, deposed, increasingly desperate feeling, middle class mob.

dc_dux · 06-14-2008, 12:39 PM

host...I dont think we need another Huey Long

I would much prefer to see an open-minded intelligent guy who will be guided by his progressive tendencies (see my response to your other Obama thread) but also demonstrate a willingness to listen to all sides to understand the impact of policy proposals... and not surround himself with sycophants like we have seen for the last eight years and would likely see with McCain.

IMO, Edwards is an empty suit.

sapiens · 06-14-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

That's an easy one, pan....Obama is a defender of the status quo...the top fraction of one percent in this country who hold controlling interests in wealth...

An article in Le Monde Diplomatique this month makes a similar claim: That a vote for Obama may be a vote for the status quo...

Race and gender distract from class in US primaries: Some Democrats are more equal than others click to show

Quote:

http://mondediplo.com/2008/06/05equality
Class is the great unmentionable in the Obama-Clinton campaigns. US progressives want to diversify the elite across colour, gender and ethnic background, while accepting ever greater inequalities of wealth between the elite and the rest of the nation.

By Walter Benn Michaels

There have been two defining moments related to race in the Obama campaign, and more generally in United States progressive politics. The first was in January on the night of the Illinois senator’s victory in South Carolina when, in response to comments by Bill Clinton about the size of the black vote, the Obama crowd started chanting: “Race doesn’t matter.”

“There we stood,” said the novelist and Obama activist Ayelet Waldman, “in the heart of the old South, where Confederate flags still fly next to statues of Governor Benjamin Tillman, who famously bragged about keeping black people from the polls (‘We stuffed ballot boxes. We shot them. We are not ashamed of it’), chanting race doesn’t matter, race doesn’t matter. White people and black people. Latinos and Asians, united in our rejection of politics as usual. United in our belief that America can be a different place. United. Not divided” (1).

The second moment was in March when, in response to the controversial sermons of his former pastor, the Rev Jeremiah Wright, Obama gave his “more perfect union” speech, declaring: “Race is an issue this nation cannot afford to ignore right now” and inaugurating what many commentators described as a supposedly much-needed “national conversation on race”.

I say supposedly because Americans love to talk about race and have been doing so for centuries, even if today the thing we love most to say is that “Americans don’t like to talk about race”. What we aren’t so good at talking about is class, as Obama himself inadvertently demonstrated when he tried to talk about class on 6 April at a closed-door San Francisco fundraiser (“Bittergate”). He tried to explain the frustrations of some small-town Pennsylvanians: “It’s not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment.”
’Change we can believe in’

There seems to be an obvious contradiction here. First, the chant of race doesn’t matter; then the speech about why race does matter. But after reflection the contradiction fades, since the need for the speech, the history of American racism, is what prompted the promise of the chant: the idea that electing a black man would be a major step toward overcoming that history. Which, of course, it would.

It is the promise of overcoming the long history of racial division, the promise of solving in the 21st century what W E B Du Bois (2) described as the overwhelming problem of the 20th century, the problem of the colour line, that gives the Obama campaign its significance. The “change we can believe in” is not ideological, it’s cultural (Obama and Clinton are ideologically almost identical; if people had wanted ideological change, we’d be talking about John Edwards). And at the heart of that cultural change is the fact that it cannot be proclaimed. It must be embodied, and only a black person can embody it. We can elect white people who say that race shouldn’t matter, but only the election of a black person can establish that it really doesn’t.

So the Obama campaign is and has always been all about race, and especially about anti-racism as progressive politics. Whether or not he ultimately wins, and especially if he doesn’t, we are still being shown the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party leading Americans toward an increasingly open and equal society, for African-Americans and also for Asians and Latinos and women and gays.

But the problem with this picture – a problem that is also a crucial part of its attraction – is that it is false. There has been extraordinary, albeit incomplete, progress in fighting racism, but the picture is false because that progress has not made American society more open or equal. In fundamental respects it is less open and equal today than it was in the days of Jim Crow when racism was not only prevalent but was state-sponsored.

The hallmark of a neo-liberal political economy is rising sensitivity about differences of identity – cultural, ethnic, sometimes religious – and rising tolerance for differences of wealth and income. Readers who are familiar with the jargon of economic inequality will have an immediate sense of what it means to say that equality in America has declined when I tell you that in 1947, at the height of Jim Crow and the segregationist laws in the South, the US Gini coefficient was .376 and that by 2006, it had risen to .464. Since on the Gini scale 0 represents absolute equality (everyone makes the same income as everyone else) and 1 represents absolute inequality (one person makes everything), this is significant.

Back then, the US was in the same league as the countries of western Europe, albeit a little more unequal than them; today we’re up there with Mexico and China (3). In 1947, the top 20% of the US population made 43% of all the money the nation earned. In 2006, after years of struggle against racism, sexism and heterosexism, the top 20% make 50.5%. The rich are richer (4).
Legitimate the elite

So the struggle for racial and sexual equality – the relative success of which has been incarnated in the race and gender politics of the Democratic Party over the past six months – has not produced greater economic equality, but been compatible with much greater economic inequality, and with the formation of an increasingly elitist society (5). There is a reason for this. The battles against racism and sexism have never been to produce a more equal society; or to mitigate, much less eliminate, the difference between the elite and the rest; they were meant to diversify and hence legitimate the elite.

This is why policies such as affirmative action in university admissions serve such a crucial symbolic purpose for liberals (6). They reassure them that no one has been excluded from places like Harvard and Yale for reasons of prejudice or discrimination (the legitimating part) while leaving untouched the primary mechanism of exclusion: wealth (the increasing-the-gap between the rich and everyone else part). You are, as Richard Kahlenberg put it, “25 times as likely to run into a rich student as a poor student” at 146 elite colleges, not because poor students are discriminated against but because they are poor. They have not had the kind of education that makes it plausible for them even to apply to elite colleges, much less attend them.

What affirmative action tells us is that the problem is racism and the solution is to make sure the rich kids come in different colours; this solution looks attractive long after graduation, when the battle for diversity continues to be fought among lawyers, professors and journalists – in fact, any profession with enough status and income to count as elite. The effort is to enforce a model of social justice in which proportional representation of race and gender counts as success.

If what you want is a more diverse elite, electing a black president is about as good as it gets. Electing a woman president would be a close second. But if you want to address the inequalities we have, instead of the inequalities we like to think we have (inequalities produced by inherited wealth and poverty); if you want a political programme designed to address the inequalities produced not by racism and sexism, which are only sorting devices, but by neo-liberalism, which is doing the sorting, neither the black man nor the white woman have much to offer.

They are two Democrats who can’t even bring themselves to acknowledge publicly, in their last debate in April, that Americans making between $100,000 and $200,000 a year hardly qualify as middle class. Clinton committed herself “to not raising a single tax on middle-class Americans, people making less than $250,000 a year” and Obama (who was, as a commentator put it, “a lot squishier” about it) also committed himself to not raising taxes on people making under $200,000.
Root of inequality

But only 7% of US households earn more than $150,000; only 18% earn more than $100,000; more than 50% earn under $50,000 (7). Once you have Democrats who consider people on $200,000 as middle class and in need of tax relief, you don’t need Republicans any more. Clinton and Obama are the emblems of a liberalism which has made its peace with a political ethics that will combat racist and sexist inequalities, while almost ignoring inequalities that stem not from discrimination but from exploitation. The candidates’ death match prominently features charges of racism and sexism.

In 1967, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and at the beginning of the effort to make the rights guaranteed by that act a reality, Martin Luther King was already asking “where do we go from here?”

King was a great civil rights leader but he was more than that, and the questions he wanted to raise were not, as he pointed out, civil rights questions. They were, he told the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, “questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth”.

There were then, as there are now, more poor white people than poor black people in the US, and King was acutely aware of that. He was aware that anti-racism was not a solution to economic inequality because racism was not the cause of economic inequality, and he realised that any challenge to the actual cause, “the capitalistic economy”, would produce “fierce opposition”.

King did not live to lead that challenge and the fierce opposition he expected never developed because the challenge never did. Instead, not only the anti-racism of the civil rights movement but also the rise of feminism, of gay rights and of all the new social movements proved to be entirely compatible with the capitalistic economy King hoped to oppose.

It is possible but unlikely that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton might some day take up King’s challenge. Neo-liberalism likes race and gender, and the race and gender candidates seem to like neo-liberalism.

dc_dux · 06-14-2008, 12:48 PM

I think you guys are engaging in an interesting intellectual exercise, but IMO, it ignores the pragmatism that is required in pursuit of a political agenda that can generate majority support in Congress (and of the American people) and actually be implemented given the circumstances that will be inherited.

A guy like Kucinich (or even Nader) might fit your mold, but do you believe that such a president could get much of his agenda through a nearly evenly divided Congress? Hell,they probably wouldnt even get support from a majority of the Democrats for some of their truly "progressive" proposals.

Pragmatism is the word of the day.

host · 06-14-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think you guys are engaging in an interesting intellectual exercise, but IMO, it ignores the pragmatism that is required in pursuit of a political agenda that can generate majority support in Congress (and of the American people) and actually be implemented given the circumstances that will be inherited.

A guy like Kucinich (or even Nader) might fit your mold, but do you believe that such a president could get much of his agenda through a nearly evenly divided Congress? Hell,they probably wouldnt even get support from a majority of the Democrats for some of their truly "progressive" proposals.

Pragmatism is the word of the day.

Do you think it is at all odd, that you react to what I am bringing up in these two threads, the way that you do? You've posted that you started out in Washington in the office of a senator from WV, so I think you have an idea of the chronic, higher than average poverty level in that state.

What has all of the pragmatism of the representation in Washington, sent there by the people of WV, actually achieved for that constituency since 1936? Is wealth in the US more equitably distributed now, than then? Have the people of WV achieved anything comparable to what the average man in France has achieved through the effect of his vote?

Why not? If you can't even consider it happening, how could it, ever?

dc_dux · 06-14-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Do you think it is at all odd, that you react to what I am bringing up in these two threads, the way that you do? You've posted that you started out in Washington in the office of a senator from WV, so I think you have an idea of the chronic, higher than average poverty level in that state.

What has all of the pragmatism of the representation in Washington, sent there by the people of WV, actually achieved for that constituency since 1936? Is wealth in the US more equitably distributed now, than then? Have the people of WV achieved anything comparable to what the average man in France has achieved through the effect of his vote?

Why not? If you can't even consider it happening, how could it, ever?

host...I learned pragmatic progressive politics from Sen. Jennings Randolph.

I think you be surprised how much he achieved by understanding that politics in the US is a matter of give and take. He left idealism to the academics.

He was the force in Congress that created the Appalachian Regional Council that dramatically improved the lives of citizens in WV....but he had to give alot to get a majority support in Congress for a region in the country that most didnt give a shit about. As a result of the programs of the ARC over the last 40years, poverty in WV is half what it was in the 60s and per capita income, while still below the national average, has increased at a higher rate than many states during that period. As a rural state, WV will also be on the lower end of the scales.

I am all for idealism and I agree with most of your concerns.....I just dont see the practicality of your proposed solutions given the makeup of Congress.

Tophat665 · 06-14-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think you guys are engaging in an interesting intellectual exercise, but IMO, it ignores the pragmatism that is required in pursuit of a political agenda that can generate majority support in Congress (and of the American people) and actually be implemented given the circumstances that will be inherited.

A guy like Kucinich (or even Nader) might fit your mold, but do you believe that such a president could get much of his agenda through a nearly evenly divided Congress? Hell,they probably wouldnt even get support from a majority of the Democrats for some of their truly "progressive" proposals.

Pragmatism is the word of the day.

A good point, but I am unconvinced that congress will be all that evenly divided come next session. bush has poisoned the well for a lot of Repubs.

Charlatan · 06-14-2008, 05:35 PM

I think you make a very good point about pragmatism dc... Anyone running for President in this day and age could not win if he or she were to suggest that they were going to rock the boat as host suggests.

If progressives are truly interested in making these sorts of investigations occur they first need to make these sorts of things part of the popular discourse. At present this is fringe politics at best.

To be clear, we are living in an age where the crafting of public opinion part of the political process more than it ever has been... mostly because the tools with which public opinion is formed has become as much a science as it is (and was) an art.

In a US of 50/50 elections, it is not the candidates job to push too hard on changing public opinion. To do so can end up with losing the election. The pragmatist will stand a much better chance of winning than those who try to force something on the public that they are not quite ready to accept.

Starshine · 06-15-2008, 08:16 AM

I am completely against going back to the 'dark ages' of the 1950's view on woman's rights and sexual health issues. IMO, it's completely absurd to think that Abstinence Only education would ever work especially in our sex driven world today.

Also, as a woman who is on birth control not just to prevent pregnancy, but to keep a hormonal balance, I wouldn't be able to afford it if my insurance didn't cover a large portion of it.

All of the ideas he supports would do more harm than good for women and that alone besides other things makes me really against McCain.

dc_dux · 06-15-2008, 08:45 AM

On the issue of abstinence only education, federal funding for abstinence only education really stated as part of the 1998 welfare reform that Clinton negotiated with the Republican Congress. It was a "must include" on the part of the Republicans.

Bush took it to new levels and has included more than $1 billion in federal funding for abstinence only education in his eight years.

McCain has supported every budget request for these programs.

Even more frightening is this exchange where a reporter inquired whether McCain supports sex education that candidly discusses contraception and preventing the spread of AIDS and other disease, or whether he backs President Bush's abstinence-only education program

Quote:

McCain is confused about his position on sexuality education. After a long pause, he decided that he thinks he supports 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."

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...ng-john-mccain

He even doesnt understand the underlying issue in the exchange...not necessarily federal funding for contraception, but funding for contraception education.

pan6467 · 06-15-2008, 09:21 AM

First, just because McCain is a fool when it comes to this, does not mean any bill he puts up will be passed.

Secondly, why should contraception be funded by the federal government? Our government needs to stop funding some social programs. I mean come n, if you go to school, a doctor or even talk to your parents they should be able to help you understand contraception. How and why is it the federal government's responsibility to make sure you are educated and have these materials? If you can't afford birth control, condoms and so on then don't have sex.

Schools need to teach this. Parents need to teach this. You don't need special funding to teach this. You don't need to have government step in and dictate what your school can or cannot teach, let the school board and the voters who elect the boards decide what they want taught in their systems.

I know it's cold but God damn it I'm tired of watching money go to waste. I'm tired of people turning to government for issues that are personal choice and then demand that government helps them support their personal choice. I'm tired of government being so far into our lives we can't sneeze the wrong way.

It's not a return to the "Dark Ages" it's a return to common fucking sense and personal responsibility.

ratbastid · 06-15-2008, 09:40 AM

Schools DO need to teach this. Relying on parents hasn't worked--as can be seen from the results of Abstinence Only... which McCain supports AND wants to continue wasting money on.

You're really going to have to go through some logical flaming hoops to justify supporting McCain on this one, pan.

Hain · 06-15-2008, 09:44 AM

-deleted-

Starshine · 06-15-2008, 09:50 AM

Well, if it's cost you're concerned about don't you think it would be less expensive for the insurance companies to pay for birth control rather than the hospital expenses of having a baby?

That's common sense.

And as for my "dark ages" I meant that in the terms of McCain wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade, I don't think we should be taking steps backwards.

pan6467 · 06-15-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Schools DO need to teach this. Relying on parents hasn't worked--as can be seen from the results of Abstinence Only... which McCain supports.

You're really going to have to go through some logical flaming hoops to justify supporting McCain on this one, pan.

How did I say I support McCain..... I stated how I feel on the issue..... now it's up to me to decide who best represents that issue or is closest to it.

If you read my post nowhere do I say "Abstinence Only"..... nowhere do I state schools should not teach it....... nowhere do I state that contraception and education should not be available.

You twist my stating a belief that the federal government should in no way fund contraception to "Abstinence Only". That is a mighty huge jump and there is no justification that is what I am saying..... because it isn't.

But if you go by my true argument, the true belief I have stated..... you cannot truly argue against it because you have nothing to stand on. Thus, you need to twist and argue things that aren't even remotely close to what I said.

I don't believe in all honesty McCain cares one way or the other about birth control, hence, DC's post.

Obama on the other hand will do what he does..... he will say whatever is the "right" more popular answer.

I would rather have a man who is willing to state his personal views, even if he doesn't have any on an issue.... than someone trying to tell me what they think I want to hear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starshine

Well, if it's cost you're concerned about don't you think it would be less expensive for the insurance companies to pay for birth control rather than the hospital expenses of having a baby?

That's common sense.

And as for my "dark ages" I meant that in the terms of McCain wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade, I don't think we should be taking steps backwards.

I seriously doubt and hope to God Roe v Wade is never overturned.

So the Federal government should pay for those who want to have sex and use birth control??????

How and why is it the federal government's responsibility to make sure you are educated and have these materials?

That is just fucking insane.

dc_dux · 06-15-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Obama on the other hand will do what he does..... he will say whatever is the "right" more popular answer.

I would rather have a man who is willing to state his personal views, even if he doesn't have any on an issue.... than someone trying to tell me what they think I want to hear.

LOL....let me be sure I understand this, pan.

Obama's views on issues are what people want to hear and the most popular answer, rather than what he believes. (on what do you base this assertion?)

McCain states his personal views and what he believes.

WoW...and I thought it was McCain changing his views to ingratiate himself to the social conservatives that he needs as his base....his changing views since this campaign started on a marriage amendment, his tacit support for the Republican party platform calling for an amendment to ban abortions (this goes way beyond Roe),....his flips on embryonic stem cell research, immigration reform....

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I seriously doubt and hope to God Roe v Wade is never overturned.

Two appointments by McCain to the USSC could do it....given that those most likely to retire in the next 4 years are Roe supporters (Stevens, Ginsburg)

Hain · 06-15-2008, 10:14 AM

Sorry for just skipping to the end of this story, but there seems to be no climax.

The big issue is the economy. I don't believe in trickle-down economics... it just doesn't sit right with me. Granted every economy class I had ended with me arguing about the concept of money... so econ is a bit to far aside of me. Until I further research economics, I am voting for Obama. I have little against McCain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

So the Federal government should pay for those who want to have sex and use birth control??????

How and why is it the federal government's responsibility to make sure you are educated and have these materials?

When will the Federal government be paying for these things? If the birth control is medically required, as some of my girl friends require it for other medications, then I think why not have the gov't help pay for it. If it is just for people that want to fuck and have fewer consequences, than, yeah let them shell out the full payment.

But I also think the federal government should help out teaching kids that there are consequences when lil' Johnny puts his pecker into lil' Suszy. I am sure we can find some parents that are not qualified to have "the talks" to their children.

ratbastid · 06-15-2008, 10:17 AM

pan, I was basing my comments not so much on you pro-McCain views as your anti-Obama views. Which, based on the things you say, aren't grounded in anything like reality. From this side of it, it appears to be pure emotional knee-jerk on your part. Which is perfectly okay; in that respect you're similar to I'd guess 90% of the electorate.

I pretty much agree with your views on sex education and contraception, and so, more or less, does Obama. But you feel pandered to by him, so your emotional pull is not to trust him. Even though McCain has said right out loud that his views are the opposite of yours on this issue. Makes very little sense to me not to support the guy who says he thinks the same thing you think, but I don't really have an emotional dog in the fight, so I guess it wouldn't make sense to me.

Tophat665 · 06-15-2008, 12:27 PM

pan, based on your last post regarding Obama taking the position that is the most popular, I just want to clarify: Obama is the biracial man, Clinton is the older white woman. It sounds like you have them confused.

pan6467 · 06-15-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hain

When will the Federal government be paying for these things? If the birth control is medically required, as some of my girl friends require it for other medications, then I think why not have the gov't help pay for it. If it is just for people that want to fuck and have fewer consequences, than, yeah let them shell out the full payment.

I can agree with this, a medical requirement should be covered by insurance or med card.

Quote:

But I also think the federal government should help out teaching kids that there are consequences when lil' Johnny puts his pecker into lil' Suszy. I am sure we can find some parents that are not qualified to have "the talks" to their children.

A requirement from the federal government is a little much, I'm sorry. I want less federal requirements on social issues and more state and local, they know their communities better than the feds.

Look, if I live in some religious area (and believe it or not there are some), I don't want some politician in DC making laws on what my schools teach. Now, if I am a progressive and I do not like what that school district teaches, I move to another, I put my kid in a private school or run for the school board and try to change things. I work within the community for change, I don't rely on the federal gov't for it.

host · 06-23-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070413-2.html
Office of the Vice President
April 13, 2007

Vice President's Remarks to the Heritage Foundation
Ritz-Carlton Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

...Today, as the United States faces a new kind of enemy and a new kind of war, the far left is again taking hold of the Democratic Party's agenda. The prevailing mindset, combined with a series of ill-considered actions in the House and Senate over the last several months, causes me to wonder whether today's Democratic leaders fully appreciate the nature of the danger this country faces in the war on terror -- a war that was declared against us by jihadists, a war in which the United States went on offense after 9/11, a war whose central front, in the opinion and actions of the enemy, is Iraq....

...This leader of al-Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the caliphate. He has also said, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."....

9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11

Quote:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/maga...tford.fortune/
The evolution of John McCain
As a maverick Senator, he took pride in just saying no to everyone's wish list. But as a presidential contender, he's become a tax cutter and defender of home mortgages. The inside story of how the candidate is shaping his plan to fix the economy.
By David Whitford, editor at large
Last Updated: June 23, 2008: 2:59 PM EDT

....But we were asking McCain to rise above the news and look ahead to the day seven months from now when, he hopes, he'll be sitting in the Oval Office. We wanted to know what single economic threat he perceives above all others.

McCain at first says nothing. He sits in the corner of a sofa, one black, tasseled loafer propped against a coffee table. We're in the presidential suite on the 41st floor of the New York Hilton. McCain has come here - between a major speech on the economy in Washington, D.C., this morning and a fundraiser tonight at the 21 Club - to talk to us and to let us take his picture. He is wearing a dark suit, as he almost always does, with a blue shirt and a wine-colored tie. He's looking not at us but into the void. His eyes are narrowed. Nine seconds of silence, ten seconds, 11. Finally he says, "Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against radical Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences."

Not America's dependence on foreign oil? Not climate change? Not the crushing cost of health care? Eventually McCain gets around to mentioning all three of those. But he starts by deftly turning the economy into a national security issue - and why not? On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.

Absent that horror, however, the 2008 election will probably be a referendum on two issues that, according to every poll we've seen, trump national security in the minds of voters right now. .....

It almost seems that all you have to do is keep an eye on the polling to predict whether or not we're gonna "get hit again"..... 9/11 - 9/11 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Sep7.html
Cheney: Kerry Victory Is Risky
Democrats Decry Talk as Scare Tactic

By Dana Milbank and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 8, 2004; Page A01

COLUMBIA, Mo., Sept. 7 -- Vice President Cheney warned on Tuesday that if John F. Kerry is elected, "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by terrorists, as the Bush campaign escalated a furious assault on the Democratic presidential nominee that has kept Kerry from gaining control of the election debate.

In Des Moines, Cheney went beyond previous restraints to suggest that the country would be more vulnerable to attack under Kerry. "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again," the vice president said, "that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war."...

ottopilot · 06-23-2008, 07:40 PM

Has anyone mentioned 9/11?

The_Jazz · 06-24-2008, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Has anyone mentioned 9/11?

9/11? What's that? Can you tell me more or possibly point me to a website that debunks it?

dc_dux · 06-24-2008, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Has anyone mentioned 9/11?

It would be funny if not for the fact that for the last six years, Bush/Cheney used 9/11 to stoke the fears of the American people and justify the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq...

....and McCain continues to make some nebulous connection between continuing the occupation indefinetly in order to prevent further al Queda attacks on the homeland...despite the fact that he seems to confuse al Queda with the Shiite insurgency.

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://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...in_jordan.html

Tophat665 · 06-24-2008, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

...Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear....

I think that's where we can expect to see Little Joe for the rest of the year. I wish he would just go ahead and switch parties already so the good people of Connecticut can vote him out of office.

ottopilot · 06-24-2008, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

9/11? What's that? Can you tell me more or possibly point me to a website that debunks it?

No, and that wasn't my intention. I posted directly after host's 9/11 9/11 9/11 ... 9/11 rant. And then I said "has anyone mentioned 9/11?" My apologies. I'll stay out.

View Poll Results: Do you think McCain as frontrunner is positive for a republican presidential win?
No	49	73.13%
Yes	18	26.87%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

06-14-2008, 12:39 PM	#122 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	host...I dont think we need another Huey Long I would much prefer to see an open-minded intelligent guy who will be guided by his progressive tendencies (see my response to your other Obama thread) but also demonstrate a willingness to listen to all sides to understand the impact of policy proposals... and not surround himself with sycophants like we have seen for the last eight years and would likely see with McCain. IMO, Edwards is an empty suit. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-14-2008, 12:48 PM	#124 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think you guys are engaging in an interesting intellectual exercise, but IMO, it ignores the pragmatism that is required in pursuit of a political agenda that can generate majority support in Congress (and of the American people) and actually be implemented given the circumstances that will be inherited. A guy like Kucinich (or even Nader) might fit your mold, but do you believe that such a president could get much of his agenda through a nearly evenly divided Congress? Hell,they probably wouldnt even get support from a majority of the Democrats for some of their truly "progressive" proposals. Pragmatism is the word of the day. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-14-2008 at 12:55 PM..

06-14-2008, 05:35 PM	#128 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I think you make a very good point about pragmatism dc... Anyone running for President in this day and age could not win if he or she were to suggest that they were going to rock the boat as host suggests. If progressives are truly interested in making these sorts of investigations occur they first need to make these sorts of things part of the popular discourse. At present this is fringe politics at best. To be clear, we are living in an age where the crafting of public opinion part of the political process more than it ever has been... mostly because the tools with which public opinion is formed has become as much a science as it is (and was) an art. In a US of 50/50 elections, it is not the candidates job to push too hard on changing public opinion. To do so can end up with losing the election. The pragmatist will stand a much better chance of winning than those who try to force something on the public that they are not quite ready to accept. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-15-2008, 08:16 AM	#129 (permalink)
Starshine Tilted Location: Wisconsin	McCain on women's health issues I am completely against going back to the 'dark ages' of the 1950's view on woman's rights and sexual health issues. IMO, it's completely absurd to think that Abstinence Only education would ever work especially in our sex driven world today. Also, as a woman who is on birth control not just to prevent pregnancy, but to keep a hormonal balance, I wouldn't be able to afford it if my insurance didn't cover a large portion of it. All of the ideas he supports would do more harm than good for women and that alone besides other things makes me really against McCain. __________________ I fly like paper, get high like planes

06-15-2008, 09:21 AM	#131 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	First, just because McCain is a fool when it comes to this, does not mean any bill he puts up will be passed. Secondly, why should contraception be funded by the federal government? Our government needs to stop funding some social programs. I mean come n, if you go to school, a doctor or even talk to your parents they should be able to help you understand contraception. How and why is it the federal government's responsibility to make sure you are educated and have these materials? If you can't afford birth control, condoms and so on then don't have sex. Schools need to teach this. Parents need to teach this. You don't need special funding to teach this. You don't need to have government step in and dictate what your school can or cannot teach, let the school board and the voters who elect the boards decide what they want taught in their systems. I know it's cold but God damn it I'm tired of watching money go to waste. I'm tired of people turning to government for issues that are personal choice and then demand that government helps them support their personal choice. I'm tired of government being so far into our lives we can't sneeze the wrong way. It's not a return to the "Dark Ages" it's a return to common fucking sense and personal responsibility. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-15-2008, 09:40 AM	#132 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Schools DO need to teach this. Relying on parents hasn't worked--as can be seen from the results of Abstinence Only... which McCain supports AND wants to continue wasting money on. You're really going to have to go through some logical flaming hoops to justify supporting McCain on this one, pan. Last edited by ratbastid; 06-15-2008 at 09:45 AM..

06-15-2008, 09:44 AM	#133 (permalink)
Hain has a plan Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere	-deleted- __________________ ////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

06-15-2008, 09:50 AM	#134 (permalink)
Starshine Tilted Location: Wisconsin	Well, if it's cost you're concerned about don't you think it would be less expensive for the insurance companies to pay for birth control rather than the hospital expenses of having a baby? That's common sense. And as for my "dark ages" I meant that in the terms of McCain wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade, I don't think we should be taking steps backwards. __________________ I fly like paper, get high like planes

06-15-2008, 10:17 AM	#138 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	pan, I was basing my comments not so much on you pro-McCain views as your anti-Obama views. Which, based on the things you say, aren't grounded in anything like reality. From this side of it, it appears to be pure emotional knee-jerk on your part. Which is perfectly okay; in that respect you're similar to I'd guess 90% of the electorate. I pretty much agree with your views on sex education and contraception, and so, more or less, does Obama. But you feel pandered to by him, so your emotional pull is not to trust him. Even though McCain has said right out loud that his views are the opposite of yours on this issue. Makes very little sense to me not to support the guy who says he thinks the same thing you think, but I don't really have an emotional dog in the fight, so I guess it wouldn't make sense to me.

06-15-2008, 12:27 PM	#139 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	pan, based on your last post regarding Obama taking the position that is the most popular, I just want to clarify: Obama is the biracial man, Clinton is the older white woman. It sounds like you have them confused. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

06-23-2008, 07:40 PM	#142 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	Has anyone mentioned 9/11?