Obama And The Dems

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I've been thinking McBush will win the election, but I've changed my mind. It seems like the nation is severly pissed with the Republicans. I think Obama will win and the Dems will gain more seats in Congress.

The Republicans are crying the blues now, but I think it's a blessing in disguise. When the shit hits the fan the Dems will be in the saddle.

Ten dollar gas is likely, war with Iran seems likely, more outsourcing, more foreclosures; the whole god-damned economy is gonna fall on Obama's feet.

 

[haldir]

So - are you happy bout this? sad bout this? dont know?

Seems to me that you guys in the good old US of A are having to re-balance with the world and that s the long and the short of it.

I live in Scotland - with one of the prime oilfields for "gas" in our coastal waters and we are already paying near enought ten dollars per gallon.

Our kids are being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq - and most folk certainly want them home from Iraq.

Seems to me that out of all the candidates Obama is the only one who offers a completely new vision. Are you guys realy ready to properly engage with the world - and I mean in a dialogue rather than you telling everyone what's best for them?

Just to make my politics clear - I am a member of the Scottish National Party, currently in power in our wee parliament in Scotland. We aim to make Scotland a fully autonomous, free state within the EU. I also happen to have a huge personal adimaration for JohnMcCain - if only he'd won the Republican nomination previously you wouldnt have had to watch your young men march of to die for the personal, family reasons that you are currently watching unfold. He knows about war from a personal perspective and would never take such decisions as lightly as I think GW did.

As an outsider, Obama is a refreshing breath of fresh air.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I've been thinking McBush will win the election, but I've changed my mind. It seems like the nation is severly pissed with the Republicans. I think Obama will win and the Dems will gain more seats in Congress.

The Republicans are crying the blues now, but I think it's a blessing in disguise. When the shit hits the fan the Dems will be in the saddle.

Ten dollar gas is likely, war with Iran seems likely, more outsourcing, more foreclosures; the whole god-damned economy is gonna fall on Obama's feet.

Why do you refer to "McBush"? McCain and Bush are very little alike. I read about people decrying the "guilt by association" of linking Obama with Wright and Ayers, but isn't this the same thing? And don't the complainers do the same thing?

 

[Pure]

jbj, i think you're on the money. obama has a shot at it, since "Bush III" is going to be the Dem's label as to McCain's plans, what he will do, e.g., continue to the war in Iraq, possibly following the Korean example.

further, if you've noticed, McC just said he will support the extreme position on abortion of the SBC, no exceptions for rape and incest.**
in wooing the xian right, McC may sink himself with lots of independents, not to say mainstream Repubs (even Reagan countenanced
exceptions.).

**Correction: in the posting following the reporter suggests that a Mc Cain flip, such as i described, is imminent. in any case, McCains drift to 'sleep with' the far right is evident in numerous ways.

 

[S-Des]

further, if you've noticed, McC just said he will support the extreme position on abortion of the SBC, no exceptions for rape and incest.

Which speech exactly, did he say that? I follow him pretty closely and haven't heard it, and checked on-line but could find no mention of it. While he's had a pro-life voting record, he's not overly outspoken on the subject. If he is altering his long-time position to appease the far Right, I agree it would hurt him with some key voters. Then again, there's a lot of misinformation floating around (and more every day), so I never believe anything unless someone can verify it.

 

[Pure]

note on mccain and abortion:

s-des,

i was perhaps premature, but note the following. i gather the issue is that the Rep'n platform plank on abortion has NO exceptions; it being influenced by the xian right.

McCain at one time appeared to think the platform plank should be modified to include rape and incest positions.

Now it's unclear. By doing nothing, of course, (if that continues) he affirms that he can at least live with the 'no exceptions' position. Perhaps his strategy is to blur his position enough so that the far right xians believe he's a fellow thinker, and vote for him.

McCain's flip re Falwell, is well known, and he ended up speaking at Falwell's university. See belown


http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4824779&page=1

McCain Poised to Flip on GOP Abortion Platform
In '00 and '07, McCain Called for Exceptions in GOP's Platform on Abortion for Rape, Incest, Mother's Life

By TEDDY DAVIS

May 9, 2008

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., faces enormous pressure from social conservatives to ignore his repeated commitment to change the GOP's platform on abortion.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., harshly criticized then-Gov. George W. Bush for not challenging the Republican Party platform for failing to permit abortions in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother, but the likely GOP nominee is now poised to take the same position. (ABC News Photo Illustration)

"If he were to change the party platform," to account for exceptions such as rape, incest or risk to the mother's life, "I think that would be political suicide," said Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, to ABC News. "I think he would be aborting his own campaign because that is such a critical issue to so many Republican voters and the Republican brand is already in trouble."

A senior Republican close to McCain told ABC News that building a more inclusive GOP is a top priority for the Arizona senator.
But this adviser does not see changing the party platform to include exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother as necessary for achieving that vision.

===


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8JPJOP00&show_article=1
McCain Would Consider Bob Jones Invite


Aug 28 02:56 PM US/Eastern
By JIM DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writer




COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Republican Sen. John McCain says he would consider speaking at Bob Jones University, a school he criticized during the 2000 presidential campaign for its ban on interracial dating and anti-Catholic views.

"I can't remember when I've turned down a speaking invitation. I think I'd have to look at it," McCain told The State newspaper in South Carolina.

The potential 2008 presidential candidate and Arizona senator said he would have to look at Bob Jones University's latest policy statements. "I understand they have made considerable progress," he said.

In 2000, McCain assailed the Christian fundamentalist school for its policies and rival George W. Bush for speaking there. During a debate, McCain said that if he were invited, he would have gone to the school and said, "Look, what your doing in this ban on interracial dating is stupid, it's idiotic, and it is incredibly cruel to many people."
Bush defended his speech there but later wrote Cardinal John O'Connor of New York and said he deeply regretted "causing needless offense" by not more clearly "disassociating myself from anti-Catholic sentiments and racial prejudice."
Mike Dennehy, senior strategist for McCain's political action committee Straight Talk America, said McCain has not asked to speak at the school and has no immediate plans to do so.

Bob Jones spokesman Jonathan Pait said no invitations have been made at this stage in the presidential campaign. McCain and other Republicans have traveled to South Carolina to campaign for 2006 candidates and meet GOP officials, building support for potential White House bids.

Since 2000, Bob Jones has lifted its interracial dating ban and has a new leader. School president Stephen Jones is the youngest son of Bob Jones III, who retired last year after running the school since 1971.
Some say the school has muted its Catholic sentiment, but Pait said, "We haven't changed our position at all" on the ideological merits of Catholicism versus Protestantism.

"We don't hate Catholics," he said. "We certainly disagree with Catholicism, but I think it's going a bit far to say it's anti- Catholic."
McCain has reached out to conservatives he once crossed. In May, he spoke at Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Virginia. In 2000, Falwell opposed McCain's campaign for the GOP nomination and supported Bush. At the time, McCain labeled Falwell and others on the right and the left as "agents of intolerance."
___

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

What changed my thinking was the election in Mississippi. A safe Republican district elected a Democrat to Congress.

I think the Republicans are gonna get sodomized by conservative voters in November. McBush, especially. But it needs to happen.

As for abortion: I dont think Roe vs Wade is in any danger. Scalia makes a good point: He says there's nuthin in the Constitution that prohibits abortions, and he's as conservative as we get.

I personally think abortions are sad, but it isnt an issue I obsess about.

 

[Pure]

a little bit of trivia

tennessee GOP goes after Michelle Obama as un patriotic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/tennessee-gop-attacks-mic_n_101967.html

see the video.
====

note on abortion:

jbjAs for abortion: I dont think Roe vs Wade is in any danger. Scalia makes a good point: He says there's nuthin in the Constitution that prohibits abortions, and he's as conservative as we get.

I personally think abortions are sad, but it isnt an issue I obsess about.
---

pure: good points. in canada the liberalization was simply the federals gov's deleting a law against abortion.

IN the US, the repeal or weakening of Roe v. Wade could come either 1) in that form [silence], OR 2) in the form of a "pro life law", upheld in the US SC.


So if the US gov and courts are neutral, as is the US Constitution, to all appearances, there would simply be an ABSENCE of federal laws against abortion. the first alternative [ 1)] , above.

that would turn the issue to the states. i think this is a second best solution, but it's consistent with 'limited gov't' conservatism (as opposed to far right xian positions in favor of using gov authority to enforce moral views.) some of the xian right like this outcome, since they can then battle state by state. probable result, a patchwork: pregnant citizens of conservative states drive to liberal states, as they did, pre Roe v. Wade.

 

[WRJames]

What is disheartening is that all three candidates are veering sharply to the right. Today Bush made some really stupid statement abount not neogotiating with Iran or Hamas -- apparently as a thrust at Obama -- and what did Obama do? Did he point out that negotiating with "terrorists" has resolved many conflicts -- no -- he just said that he had never proposed negotiating with terrorists -- that the Bush comment was a low blow -- etc.

And has any candidate dared to say that maybe the US should try to work with the context of the UN? The incoming president of Russia said this as he was taking office -- but no one in the US.

Has either Clinton or Obama spoken up for same sex marriages? They both issued statments today in the wake of the California Supreme Court decision that they personally believed that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Let's face it -- all three of these candidates are social conservatives. It's not clear what the Dems have to offer that differentiates them from McCain. And he has much more solid credentials.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

Before the Civil War there were two sovereign powers in America: the States and the Federal Govt. The Constitution made it clear how the authority was divided. What wasnt explicitly assigned to the Feds in the Constitution was reserved to the States or the People.

That's why Dred Scott was such a problem; suddenly slavery was legal everywhere.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

WRJAMES

America is a very conservative nation. The Red States will kick your ass if youre too left.

 

[WRJames]

PURE

Before the Civil War there were two sovereign powers in America: the States and the Federal Govt. The Constitution made it clear how the authority was divided. What wasnt explicitly assigned to the Feds in the Constitution was reserved to the States or the People.

That's why Dred Scott was such a problem; suddenly slavery was legal everywhere.

Certainly the Supreme Court has blown away a lot of repressive laws at the state level -- possibly without true constitutional authority.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

WRJAMES

Conservatives certainly believe the commerce clause and equal protection clause have been abused.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Could be.

There is this tendency for the electorate to appear to seek "balance" in ectoral outcomes, so if they perceive Dems will romp in Congress they'll pull the lever for McC. Individuals never acknowledge that they consciously do this in polling data, but in the aggregate the outcome nevertheless often looks as if they do.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I've been thinking McBush will win the election, but I've changed my mind. It seems like the nation is severly pissed with the Republicans. I think Obama will win and the Dems will gain more seats in Congress.

The Republicans are crying the blues now, but I think it's a blessing in disguise. When the shit hits the fan the Dems will be in the saddle.

Ten dollar gas is likely, war with Iran seems likely, more outsourcing, more foreclosures; the whole god-damned economy is gonna fall on Obama's feet.

I don't know that a local election is any kind of an omen at all. I sincerely believe that most voters vote for a candidate, rather than a party. A good example is Joe Lieberman, who was spurned by his party in a primary election, but won as an independent. I don't know anything about the candidates in the election being referred to but if Donald Duck runs against a respected citizen, the latter will win regardless of party label.

I still believe that McCain will win one of the biggest landslides in history, in terms of popular vote and electoral college. This has happened before, with a party nominating an extreme individual and losing because people registered in that party voted for the other candidate. At the same time, I believe the Dems will hold both seats of Congress. Party labels just don't mean that much.

I remember 1964 when the supporters of Goldwater trumpeted they would win easily, and were wallopped. The same thing happened eight years later to McGovern, although the two men were from different parties. They were both too extreme, at different ends of the spectrum, for American voters.

 

[S-Des]

s-des,

i was perhaps premature.....

Gee, ya think?

McCain has long been on record as opposing attempts to ban abortions in the cases of incest, rape, or health of the mother. He does recognize when he's taken positions that are indefensible, against the will of the voters, or just stupid for the sake of stupid (like his "agents of intolerance" comment), and isn't afraid to change them. I know it made Liberals like him because they hate people like Falwell, but refusing to be polite to someone who is admired (at least tangentially) by millions for the sake of impressing people who won't vote for him anyway (and will happily lie about him to help their candidate) is patently stupid, not a flip-flop. There is no harm in him making nice with these guys, they'll always be on the outside if he wins the election. That's the whole point of having a 25 year record....you get the chance to see where a person really stands and what they'll most likely do in the office. People like Bush and Obama are a crapshoot. They may do great things, or they might make Carter's administration seem like a fond memory.

 

[Pure]

ironically, of course, it's mccain's 25 year history that infuriates the far right. they yap a lot about him now, saying 'never.' but if they do carry through with not voting mccain, e.g. by staying home, the may tip the election.

i think it's an open question whether a candidate with a history of A, and campaign positions of ~A, will, once in office, return to A. if you move to the right, apparently, and they put you in office, arguably you may wish to continue to please them, as is the case with GWB.

 

[S-Des]

ironically, of course, it's mccain's 25 year history that infuriates the far right. they yap a lot about him now, saying 'never.' but if they do carry through with not voting mccain, e.g. by staying home, the may tip the election.

i think it's an open question whether a candidate with a history of A, and campaign positions of ~A, will, once in office, return to A. if you move to the right, apparently, and they put you in office, arguably you may wish to continue to please them, as is the case with GWB.

I don't disagree with any of this. McCain could get elected, then turn out to do everything the opposite of what he's done in the past. It's a real possibility. I think the more you know about them, the better you're able to make an educated guess about what they'll do, but you'll never catch me believing any politician when he makes claims.

You're dead on about his record and the Right. Even with an 86% Conservative voting record, they can't stand him. They believe he's a Liberal (which I'm sure makes people around here giggle), and intentionally goes out of his way to stick it to Conservatives. I think he's an imperfect guy who does the best he can. There have been a lot of claims about flip-flopping, but I see it more as someone who can be convinced he's wrong on an issue (like immigration reform without having border security first), which to me is a good thing. I know in the heat of an election, people are going to exaggerate things to get the upper hand, but this is a man who has (with a couple of exceptions) led an honorable life (personally & professionally). I think he'd make a good President, and I think he'd be a great step for the Republican party, which needs to get it's head out of it's ass. Even on the social issues he agrees with them on, he's not a demagog. His beliefs seem more personal and private, much like his actual private life (which is amazing, aside from his military service). His reticence to talk about it might hurt him in the election, since he's not in the same league as Obama in terms of eloquence in speaking. Sadly, it's one of the things that you can really use to get a handle on who he is, but he just doesn't talk about it that much.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Conservatives dont trust McBush.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Peggy Noonan sez McCain is perceived as Bush 3 and the Republicans are toast in 2008.

She sez the Republicans pretended to be conservatives, the voters wised up to the deceit, and now its the Democrats turn.

A very liberal Democrat said, a few years ago, that Bush gave the liberals everything they wanted, and if he hadnt defeated Al Gore in 2000 he'd be a liberal saint.