In defense of the republicans:

[vicarz]

I'm not going to defend Palin; however, I am going to point out that the lead member in the executive ticket is McCain and he doesn't suck. He is old, but he's fully functional and should be for years. He has tons of bipartisan experience, much of it respected for decades. He has flaws, but so do the other players.

You know what? His military experience DOES COUNT. Seriously. I just spent time with someone I hadn't really seen in ten years, and found they were different but their core as a person was pretty much the same. Why wouldn't McCain be the same? He was a prisoner of war - and by all accounts was not only dignified but far more resistant than many of his peers. He provoked the guards and got so abused...he only signed his fake confession when his captors re-broke his arm and left him in a pool of his own blood and fluids. They say after that "loss," he got even more provocative with his jailors - as though he was serving a personal penance. That was over 30 years ago, but it shows a strength of spirit and character that is unlikely to go away. Now, as a pilot perhaps his perspective on that war was, and remains, skewed compared to those who saw the issues on the ground - but I do believe that that type of behavior in his "youth" tells volumes about his core as a person (thank you long interview on NPR). This same type of analysis is why I respect Kerry, same war but on the ground (I don't buy that republican attack on his character or service) and why Bush is a fucking douche, who used the pseudo military experience and bolted from it to campaign as that was more important.

Why say this, rise to the "defense" of McCain. Palin is a twit and shames the entire platform, but I think the focus has moved too far away from Obama (oh, and for the love of cheese don't forget the other hundreds of races in November other than the superman allegory prez). I fall into the trap, as many do, of wanting to trash the entire republican party for Palin. That's lazy and too easy to do. When we descend into name calling and pointing out the weakest link's flaws as a standard debate tactic, we degrade the entire process and waste our abilities to engage in spirited debate on relevant issues. Our debates should be about broad patterns of behavior of multiple leaders, individual voting records, character shown over years of consistent (or in-) behavior, and most of all - policy arguments as supported by data and analysis.

Unless we're watching the daily show because that was just fucking hilarious.

Comments

[djpsyche.livejournal.com]

I remember well the 2000 primary. I was gutted when Bush beat McCain. You're right about his positive qualities -- or, at least, they applied at the time. Now, unfortunately, he seems to have lurched to the right especially on the abortion issue; and also in the intervening years we've got ourselves involved in a major and inappropriate war that I don't really trust a hawk like McCain to handle in the right way. So I was quite pro-McCain in 2000, not so much so now.

Notice how I slip back into the "we" in an election year. ;)

[djpsyche.livejournal.com]

The other problem here is, McCain is statistically very likely to die over the next four/eight years, which makes the veep choice far more relevant than it usually is.

[curvemudgeon.livejournal.com]

And don't think the right-hand-thread wingnuts haven't sussed that out. From http://www.forerunner.com/blog/2008/08/sarah-palin-sigh-factor.html :

I was hoping for a good showing for a pro-life third party candidate in this cycle, which could in turn affect the next elections in favor of conservative Christians. I'll explain my thinking on that later. The Palin nomination turned that chance on it's head. Even James Dobson, the Constitution Party's most well- known supporter who said he'd "never" support John McCain, has now reversed his decision based on Palin's nomination.
So here is my three point plan:

1. Vote Constitution Party. (I vote my conscience and cannot support McCain even with Palin.)

2. Pray for Sarah Palin to win. (I am an idealist, but also a realist!)

3. Pray for John McCain's salvation and speedy death. (Google The Forerunner's articles on Impecatory Prayer if you think this is harsh.)

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Ah wow, the mentality of it all. I love peering into their tiny little brains. Eep.

[unapologetic.wordpress.com (from livejournal.com)]

I'd agree with most of what you said. For me the case on McCain comes down to this: if he did everything he said last night he wanted to, I'd love it. But I don't trust him to deliver on those promises. Grampa Joe said it best: "[95% agreement] isn't change, it's more of the same."

Ultimately, that's not why I'm voting the way I am, though. There are plenty of reasons to vote against John McCain, but for once I'm not voting against someone. You're right to say the focus has moved from Obama, and I want to bring it back there, because I'm voting for him. I believe he can -- and will do everything in his power -- to deliver on his vision for the country, and I believe in that vision.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Obama has an amazing resume. I think inexperience might be the best criticism, but this guy utterly wins on the character issue. I am worried that having genuine character instead of rhetoric will lose on the american landscape (to say nothing of the racial landscape).

[calibraxis-x.livejournal.com]

I have a lot of mixed feelings about McCain. In fact, when he first ran against Bush, I donated money to his campaign. But I have really come to be disturbed by the foreign policy of, really, the US in general since the end of WWII...I just don't see McCain changing our course at all in that regard. Now, Obama is certainly not going to alter fundamentals of post-WWII US foreign policy, but at least he will tweak it in a more sensible direction.

The other issue is domestic policy---this health-care situation is getting out of control. There aren't a lot of perfect solutions being proposed out there, but at this point, the only ones proposing anything at all are the Dems. If Republicans are in control, absolutely nothing will happen with health-care.

I don't care if they do institute socialized medicine, just something has got to give---there are too many people getting sick who can't afford to get care (and who then stiff hospitals for their bills--or just suffer miserable illnesses and early deaths), and too many repetitively/chronically sick people (my Grandfather and Grandmother included--who are soaking up hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care, preserving their lives into their 90's by extraordinary means...) who are just sink-holes for infinite extreme care with astronomical costs. That's just an untenable situation!

At least if we let the Dems reform health-care, it will be in the direction of providing some coverage to a greater number of people...the Republicans seem to want to reform it by providing less...

that's a long way of saying that while personally I think McCain is a great man, and about the best Republican there is, his policy positions are the reason I cannot support him.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Very well thought out and put, not that different than my own views. The nice thing in this election is that Obama has some good character and qualifications - the right wing might fear a smart man, a man who genuinely takes his beliefs and applies them to practice (remember Carter the actualy Christian that the right wing hated?). There are things to criticize about Obama, but I don't feel like I'm just picking a less-bad candidate with him.

I'm so happy not to just be seeking the lesser evil!

[joanarkham.livejournal.com]

Any respect I had for his character disappeared when he started snuggling up to the religious right that he had previously denounced.

Is it worse to have once had character and then lost it or never to have had any at all?

[vicar.livejournal.com]

I don't know that much about his views, though NPR also ran on about that. One commentator noted that he really hadn't changed his views much at all - only his views on taxes (and one other issue that escapes me) had 180'd. When it came to the wackos, he was on that side but never declared 100% - he just took what he could get. I guess that type of ambiguous whoring isn't really a compliment, but it's better than just screaming kill all doctors.

[ex-dasboot.livejournal.com]

That commentator was an idiot.

-In 99 he said he didn't think Roe v Wade should be overturned, now he does.
-In 2000, he wanted to ensure that abortion was still an option for cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life was in danger. Now he's against all abortion, just like Palin.
-When it was first discovered, he critisized Bush's wiretapping program as circumventing the law, now he supports it.
-He used to insist that all detaines, no matter how terrible, get due process and are allowed some adjunction, now he doesn't.
-He strongly opposed indefinite detention, but when the SCOTUS recently ruled the same thing he called it "one of the worst decisions made in the history of this country." Recently he denied ever saying that.
-He was one of the most vocal opponants of the use of torture, agreeing with critics who stated waterboarding WAS torture. Then he voted No on a bill that would ban it.
-He's been for, against, and for kicking Russia out of the G8
-before we got there, he was very vocal about how easy Iraq would be and parroted the statements about being greated as liberators. Now he likes to claim he was critical of it form the start.
-He heavily critisized Jim Webb's GI bill, skipped the vote on it, and when it passed the son of a bitch tried to take credit for making it.
-Like Bush and every other republican a year ago, he was intensely against the concept of timetables for leaving Iraq. Now he's for them.
-In 06 he said, I shit you not, gay marriage should be allowed as long as it's somehow different from straighy marriage. Now, duh.
-He wrote a comprehensive immigration bill and now claims he wouldn't even vote for his own bill.
-Other bills he wrote then switched sides on include a lobbyist reform bill from 97, and a campaign finance reform bill from 06.
-In May of this year he approved a ban on lobbyists working for his campaign. Two months later he said it was fine if they worked for him.
-He once said he believed in evolution and while he respected creationism, he didn't think it should be taught in science class. Guess what his stance is now.
-He was ok with gay adoption, now he's not.
-He was recorded saying he didn't know much about economics, now he denies ever saying it.
-He supported the ban on offshore drilling Bush Sr. enacted. Now he's for off-shore drilling.
-In 02 he was in favor of repealing the estate tax. In 06 he was strongly against repealing it.
-In 99 he called Jerry Falwell an agent of intolerance. In 02 he was doing photo ops with him and speaking at his college. This is the guy who said we deserved 9/11. There are lots of others he has accused of corruption and so forth back in 2000, but now considers allies...Grover Norquist, Henry Kissinger. Either he's buried a ton of hatchets and everyone has come clean, or he's full of shit.

The sad thing is that this is a short list. I suppose there are some views you could say haven't changed, but only because he re-reversed his opinion. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it feels like some serious Manchurian Candidate level stuff would have to happen to get a guy who was tortured for 5 years of his life to reverse his opinion on the use of torture.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

I love the list - any place where this is compiled and verifiable?

Ugh - procon.org is not as well set up as it could be.

[ex-dasboot.livejournal.com]

Big list, mostly sourced. (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops)

Try to overlook the URL name, but they source both before opinions and afters. (http://howinsaneisjohnmccain.blogspot.com/2008/03/mccain-never-met-position-he-didnt-like.html)

[vicar.livejournal.com]

WOW, the really nice thing is that they cite his own friggin website for his revolving opinions. Very very nice indeedy.

Too bad the flip-flop Fox trickery only works on the feeble minded. Kerry flip-flopped, but not these fellas. Huh.

[ex-dasboot.livejournal.com]

I didn't like Kerry, but he didn't really switch positions much, especially compared to Bush then and ESPECIALLY compared to McCain now. Some of the ones they noted as flip-flops for Kerry were differing opinions expressed 30 years apart. McCain's range from years to months to even days apart. It was just a meme that stuck.

[2501.livejournal.com]

I think the simple fact is that when you have been trying to be president for more than a decade, and especially when you could have won in 2000 and you've watched the moron who beat you sit in the oval office for 8 years, you start to justify to yourself that anything is OK if it gets you elected.

[2501.livejournal.com]

no, he really has done a complete 180 on the whackos.
Here's what he said in 2000 when running against Bush:
"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

In 2007, McCain went and gave a speech at Falwell's Liberty University, and on Meet the Press declared that Falwell was no longer an agent of intolerance, in spite of the fact that in between 2000 and 2007, Falwell had both claimed that Homosexuals and Lesbians were to blame for both the 9/11 attacks and the destruction of New Orleans by Katrina.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Don't hide from the truth...

[http://users.livejournal.com/_blackjack_/]

No, actually, he really does suck. His military experience was minimal when he was captured, and he only got where he did because his dad was a Fleet Admiral. He has a violent temper and used to routinely get in fistfights when he was younger. He has almost no understanding of economics or geopolitics, and admits readily that he doesn't read and relied on others to keep him informed. He called his wife a cunt and a trollop in public. He kissed Bush's ass even after Bush's people smeared him in 2000, all to get a shot at the White House. He pretends to be a "moderate" but holds positions almost identical to Bush's on most issues.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_blackjack_/]

In addition, he only became interested in campaign finance reform after he was caught with his own hand in the cookie jar.

I could go on. McCain has done an amazing job of creating an image for himself that otherwise sensible people seem all-too-willing to buy, but it doesn't mesh with the facts.

[frontdoorangel.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this post, several of my family members happen to support Mccain and regardless of what anyone says, they are not idiots and have as much of a right to their opinion as anyone else. I'm getting really tired of seeing a lot of allegedly open minded liberals on livejournal adopt a "vote for Obama or you are retarded and evil" approach to this election.

[kelowna.livejournal.com]

So very very VERY well put.

Thank YOU.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

That is consistent with what you were saying somewhere else too - I think to Tony. It doesn't help any of us if we merely characterize "our guys" as all good, the "enemy" as all bad. Rhetoric ruins debate, and the issues get left by the wayside - more channels to further deride personal character.

I like this election better than the last one, but I'm worried that the sensational (celebrity?) issues will dwarf what otherwise might be healthy discussion of complex issues facing USia.

[ex-dasboot.livejournal.com]

Your parents are just as entitled to their opinions as those expressing the more harshly worded opinions you're getting really tired of seeing. Having an opinion doesn't grant you immunity from criticism of that opinion, however inaccurate it may be.

I get what you're trying to say, but it's a bit contradictory to defend some people for having an opinion then attack another group for expressing theirs, crass as it may be.

[frontdoorangel.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't think that having a think like me or shut the hell up kind of attitude is considered having an opinion.

Either way, it's not a contradiction to defend one group for having an opinion while also finding fault with another group for the way that they are expressing theirs.

[end-fate.livejournal.com]

After every convention I watch The Daily Show. XD

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Now THAT is good research. I mean comedy gold perhaps, but it's just amazing that it takes a comedy show to pull up the actual quotes in which the same speakers contradict themselves over the course of a couple of months.

[kelowna.livejournal.com]

I like McCain.

I like hearing all the details of flipflopping and mind changing.

Obama flip flopped and mind changed too.

PEOPLE CHANGING THEIR MIND. New evidence comes to light. Favours are bought and sold and people find ways to position themselves.

This is POLITICS. It is how the game is played.

Why there is more on McCain than Obama is because he has been around longer than Obama.

There are two parts to this:
1) WINNING the Election.
2) Doing the job.

You can't do the job unless you win the election and people in those positions know that and know who they have to please in order to do so.

Do I dig 2501's URL quotes. Sure thing. They are interesting. They are not drop your mouth and gasp and consider the dude the devil. All the quotes do is show he's changed his mind. I respect a person who changes their mind more than I do one who holds fiercely to some idea when that idea may not be exactly right.

My conversations with his daughter made me see things in a different light.

--k

[vicar.livejournal.com]

I like that - of course we should change our minds. Stay the course mentality is only a strength when the course is a good one. New data revealing new approaches probably SHOULD change minds.

The big problem I have with this administration was not only the single-mindedness and refusal to change course, but the fact that any member who so much as raised questions or debated behind closed doors was quickly shuffled off to "spend more time with their family."

[ex-dasboot.livejournal.com]

What about when people change their mind so thoroughly that they claim they never held the original counter viewpoint? I don't mind people changing their opinion, especially when they are a representative of a constituancy, but I very much mind it when they claim that we've ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia or when the opinion has been changed yet the conflict that formed the original opinion persists without resolution or address.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

But USia has always been at war with EurAsia...

[kelowna.livejournal.com]

I suppose it is all in the definition of war.

U.S. foreign relations and what they chose to observe or turn a blind eye to is very questionable.

--k

[ex-dasboot.livejournal.com]

Saying "I think [X]" then, years later, saying "I have always believed in [opposite of X]" is not a question of semantics.

That kind of discrepancy is one of the reasons why statements insisting that Obama and McCain are equal on position reversals, or that McCain's list is longer only because he has been around longer, are utterly incorrect.

[kelowna.livejournal.com]

True, a statement like that is arguable.

I don't consider it definable tho.

No one is perfect. People speak out of turn. People reconsider. People decide on a course of action to go forth. People have a spotty memory as to why they may have said/thought/did things in the past. I don't consider such situations as either commendable nor condemable.

In the end, people can nit pick at the details but none of that is ever really going to absolutely indicate how well someone can lead in the future.

They are interesting argument points for sure.

I still think there is a lot more to find out about McCain BECAUSE he has been involved in politics longer.

I think things could be good if either Obama or McCain get into office. I don't think things would be good if McCain died or became ill enough to be able to tend to his duties. I also don't think things would be good if Obama got assassinated (or attempted assassination) while in office.

--k

--k

[vicar.livejournal.com]

Mmm...given the long list of cited references (with amy citations from McCain's own web site), dates of those statements, and the degree to which the comments are simply not ambiguous - it appears as though this is not a case of simply misunderstanding, changing, or being reflected over a period of time. These appear to be not accurate to the degree any reasonable person would not commit such inconsistent statements in error.

[kelowna.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I didn't mean I was arguing against dasboot's point. I misworded that - I meant it was definitely something to argue. But that those points did not entirely define McCain as a person.

People can majorly fuck up and still be a great leader. Many many cases in point.

These aren't perfect consistent gods - they are human beings. Human beings with a whole lot of support people around them to boot.

Sure I'll shrivel my nose, or roll my eyes or groan when I hear some bullshit and some inconsistencies. But in the end... none of that really determines if a person is able to LEAD.

All that _really_ matters is what either of them are going to do in the future. Sometimes the past identifies that, sometimes it doesn't.

If I was always judged on my past I'd be six feet under by now.

--k

[vicar.livejournal.com]

I think when we're judging this level of leader, with this long and clearly defined a track record, you absolutely have to consider his past performance an indicator, heck a guarantee, of what his future perforamnce will be.

If we can't judge people by their past performance, and again we're talking about running the exec branch of the country for 4 years, then we might as well pick random strangers off the street.

You are not being asked to run the country, however, you have changed significantly over time. I would judge your expected behavior in the future based on your perfomance for say, the past 3-5 years. Might as well do the same here, only we're talking about job performance and someone many more years developed. These are not "youthful indiscretions" we're talking about, these are the stated views and actions of a man senior to both of us.

[kelowna.livejournal.com]

There are reasons that he may have lied in order to position himself for the future.

Have you ever lied to your boss? Not been exactly honest about your thoughts or feelings. Not entirely agreed with her but had to say you did lest you get her wrath. Bide your time until she's gone. Bite your tongue. Praise her above and beyond necessary to win her favour.

There is much people do in order to get into a position of control and power.

Some may call you a weak, dumbass shit head who couldn't be honest to save his life. Others may call you calculated and wise.

That is why it is called _politics_.

I was soooooo hoping for Obama's kids of Palin's lil one to speak up at the conventions. To say something totally child like and honest about their parents spontaneously.

That would have been gold.

Back to the original statement, I know a lot of people don't agree with me. Plus, perhaps I don't explain myself as accurately as I'd like. Oh well :)

--k

[ex-dasboot.livejournal.com]

There are reasons that he may have lied in order to position himself for the future.

So...lying to the people you are expecting to lead, in order that you may lead them, is not an inherently bad quality in a leader, to you? Believing that the people you are going to lead need to be told some lie in order that they accept you into a position to lead them as you think they should be lead, not as they want to be lead...is not an inherently bad quality in a leader of a democratic country, to you?

Keep in mind this was the person who devoted a lot of his speech last night to the concept of putting your country before your career or personal ambitions.

[kelowna.livejournal.com]

So...lying to the people you are expecting to lead, in order that you may lead them, is not an inherently bad quality in a leader, to you?

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Yet. I still consider him one of the finest leaders in my lifetime.

I realize, realistically, that lying is an aspect of playing in the political field and to nitpick at such is really not going to solve the problem of a very divided country. Politics are fucked up and in less than two months a decision must be made.

Call me wacked but I had a dream about Obama many months ago. It was a really really bad dream. That does not make me think he is a really really bad person. It created a timeline that caused me to sit up in a start.

Perhaps this is a ridiculous question, but let me pose it anyways: Would you vote into office a man whom you'd know would be assasinated if he won said position?

That sick dream just caused me to think beyond simply points and counterpoints I guess.

--k

[ex-dasboot.livejournal.com]

Agreed on Clinton, but it was a very different situation. His lie had nothing to do with administrative policy, nor was it done to achieve something. It was done to avoid an embarassing situation. Plus, it was while in office, not while seeking office. I'm not saying that lying, at its most basic level, is an inherently bad quality of a leader, as we're both well aware of what kind of role it plays in politics.

It's the context of the lies I mentioned that is such a bad leadership quality, as they are deceptions specifically designed to establish trust in the people the liar is seeking to lead, based on the ways in which those people desire to be led, with no clear intention that they plan to uphold them. I'm not so hardlined as to say that if a leader lied about some personal scandal, everything they say is suspect. But, if a leader has lied about their principles and beliefs, principles and beliefs that are similar to mine and played a large part in my support of that leader, and I discover that that leader no longer upholds those principles now that they are in a position where my opinion of them won't matter for 4 years; I'll never trust anything they say ever again. Being untrusted by your people is a bad quality in a leader, unless you rule by force and their trust doesn't matter.

In answer to your question, if I believed their VP would be a better president than their opponant, that their VP would be a man who would put far fewer members of his country recklessly in harm's way, than his oppponant, then yes, I would still vote for them. The position is bigger than the person.

[n8-zilla.livejournal.com]

but mccain wants to start all sorts of new wars... he's a pretty belligerent guy. his first reaction to international disagreement seems to involve more in the way of bombs, much less in the way of diplomacy. his record is also very conservative. aside from a few, high-profile defections on campaign finance, he's been a reliable social conservative vote in congress. he's voted with bush 90% of the time.

i don't see how that makes him all that much different than the rest of his party.