Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: The More I Think About It 67

Journal by pudge

The more I think about it, the more I think McCain is the only real Republican choice for 2008, should he choose to run, and for a very simple reason: I think he's the only Republican who can either beat Hillary, or rein in federal spending. And I think he will do both.

Also, I was just informed by a friend that McCain just came out and said that we should not make torture illegal: the one in a million chance that it might be the right thing to do doesn't justify making it legal. If it's necessary, do it illegally, and take responsibility for it later.

Like Bush (and me), he thought threatening and even using force was a reasonable course of action. But he recognized a lot of mistakes being made, and even said so at the time. It took both intelligence and guts to speak out how he did, as very few other congresspeople spoke out as well he did, on either side of the aisle.

And on social issues ... why do people think Bush is more conservative? He's really not. People think Bush is the conservative one, but it's hard to figure out why. Maybe because they are not the issues he talks about most? Maybe because he doesn't nastily attack people or views he disagrees with? Regardless, this has been good for McCain, because it means the press and left have not made him out to be a rightwing monster, though it's hurt him in the party.

Even in the mess over judicial nominees, McCain is viewed as a villain in his own party, even though he is the man most responsible (after Bush) for getting those conservative judges on the bench, through his work with the "Gang of 14," and he has supported every single conservative nominee that Bush has offered.

I like McCain better than Bush on most issues, he is more conservative than Bush, he's smarter, he has more ability to get things done and bring people together, I think he will beat Hillary ... the only problem is his age and health. We'll see.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The More I Think About It More

The More I Think About It

Comments Filter:
  • mccain had his chance back in 2000. i voted for him, but not many other people did.
    • Too bad Karl Rove orchestrated his loss in 2000 with his normal political dirty tricks... did you post those to your evil Karl Rove blog, Pudge?
      • Too bad Karl Rove orchestrated his loss in 2000 with his normal political dirty tricks...

        Too bad there is precisely no evidence at all, of any kind, whatsoever, that this is true. It's an urban legend.
        • Funny, if you look up "dirty tricks 2000 mccain" on Google, you'll find tons of stuff on it. Of course, it can't be directly linked to the currently under investigation Karl Rove, but had all the earmarks of the activities he engaged in as "youthful indescretions" when he started in politics. All fingers point to Rove and the Bush campaign.

          Do you have any links for the urban legend conjecture?
          • Funny, if you look up "dirty tricks 2000 mccain" on Google, you'll find tons of stuff on it.

            And this proves it is true?

            Of course, it can't be directly linked to the currently under investigation Karl Rove, but had all the earmarks of the activities he engaged in as "youthful indescretions" when he started in politics. All fingers point to Rove and the Bush campaign.

            Again: there is not one shred of evidence Bush or Rove were in any way involved. Period. Look as you might, you'll find I'm right.

            Do you have
  • with your conclusions about him, the problem would be convincing enough other republicans. many really can't stand the guy. it really pains me too. especially when i see blogs that ridicule him when the guy is a genuine hero in my eyes and the least they could do is respectfully disagree.
     
    i wouldn't mind seeing it but i don't think it will happen, unfortunately.
  • Uh, remember the Keating Five [wikipedia.org]?
    McCain stands as much chance as Biden does.

    For the record, I know of NO conservative (or liberal) who thinks that Bush is a Conservative. Neither was his daddy (think ADA.)

    These are Yale guys, by nature not very conservative. But then, most true conservatives don't run for public office.

    McCain is DOA (too old, anyway.) I don't know who the GOP will put forth, but it won't matter, Hillary will win.
    Mark my words.
    • Uh, remember the Keating Five?
      McCain stands as much chance as Biden does.

      Oh please. McCain's record is cleaner than Hillary's.

      McCain is DOA (too old, anyway.)

      Maybe.

      I don't know who the GOP will put forth, but it won't matter, Hillary will win.

      Not if McCain is the GOP candidate, nope.

      Mark my words.

      Mark mine!
      • Look, you got a dude who has a corrupt history and has that Manchurian thing hanging over his head.
        Heck, hardcore GOP folks don't like him because he's liberal and might be nuts. Bush was just liberal.

        The only things working against Hillary is that no Northeaster has won the Presidency since JFK (41 and 43 notwithstanding since both have strong Texas ties.)

        Lindsey Graham would be good, but doubtful. I would love to see Norm Coleman give it a shot, but doubt he has staying power. We'll see what Mitt Romne
        • Look, you got a dude who has a corrupt history and has that Manchurian thing hanging over his head.

          He does not have a corrupt history. And no one takes that stupid Manchurian thing seriously.

          Heck, hardcore GOP folks don't like him because he's liberal and might be nuts.

          He's not remotely liberal.

          • He's not remotely liberal.

            There is a perspective that he is, though. Any chance you can dig into that in a future entry, specifically into why people believe this and whether or not it's justified? I'd like to hear more.

            You have a history of making me rethink my appraisal of various politicians. More than once before you've asked me, "What, exactly, is wrong with candidate X?" and I've discovered that the answer is actually "Nothing." I'm starting to worry that I'm just not thinking, or something.

          • He does not have a corrupt history.

            He does have a rather prominent scandal, albeit from almost 20 years ago. Heck, Biden's thinking of running again, so it's no big deal.

            And no one takes that stupid Manchurian thing seriously.

            My dad was a Viet Nam vet and I didn't trust him driving the car. This might be a bigger hurdle than you think. No, I don't think he was 'programmed', but vets from Viet Nam are, by and large, a little, uh, funny.

            He's not remotely liberal.

            McCain-Feingold ring a bell? Besides, anyon
            • He does have a rather prominent scandal, albeit from almost 20 years ago.

              Right. One scandal does not, to my mind, justify saying he has a "corrupt history."

              Heck, Biden's thinking of running again, so it's no big deal.

              Exactly. Surely the scandal will be brought up for either, but I can't see anyone caring, except those who are already against the candidate. I really don't think anyone will care. It's not like this has been swept under the rug, we already know what happened, and it's the "new allegations
        • The only things working against Hillary is that no Northeaster has won the Presidency since JFK (41 and 43 notwithstanding since both have strong Texas ties.)

          I don't know if you recall, but Hillary is NOT a "Northeaster". "Nor'Easter", maybe-- she's a destructive force just waiting to happen, just like the storms that go through here (by "here" I mean "New England").

          She's from Arkansas. She only moved to New York State because it was a convenient way for her to get into the Senate.
          • She's from Arkansas.

            She's from Chicago.
            And she was driven through New York once as a kid...that's why she's a Yankees fan.
          • She's from Arkansas. She only moved to New York State because it was a convenient way for her to get into the Senate.

            No, she's from Illinois. She's more a northeasterner than a southerner, although really, she's from the midwest.
  • I'm generally a conservative on most issues. I tend more towards moderate on social issues, but conservative on issues such as fiscal policy, state/local versus Federal control, and defense. I did vote for Bush, twice.

    Bush is no conservative. I'm not sure what he is, but he's spending my money like crazy and not just on defense. More Federal spending means more Federal control which I abhor.

    I think he's considered conservative by some for a few reasons. For one, if we play 6-Degrees-of-Ronald-Reagan he
    • For one, if we play 6-Degrees-of-Ronald-Reagan he scores a solid 2 -- and Reagan represents the revitalization of Conservatism in the US.

      Yeah, but that is only via his dad, who himself was no conservative. Not that many people realize this, either.

      Secondly it's been pointed out by others that God is a Conservative plank. Bush has made his religious beliefs clear and his policies (or at least his statements of policy) have followed those beliefs. For many, this is enough to label him a conservative.

      Yep.

      Byst
  • I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, I just think he'll win if he runs up against Guiliani.

    I hope either one takes the primary and chooses the other as his running mate (though many think that Condi should run just to take the 'woman' vote away from Hilary).
    • I don't like Condi as a candidate. She's not a politician, and I have no idea what her views on fiscal and social policies are.

      I don't like Rudy, for oh-so-many reasons. He's a social liberal (unlike McCain, who is a social conservative), and his personal and professional life have so many skeletons, in and out of closets, that there's no way it'll ever happen.

      My wife wants Lindsey Graham for VP. He'd be a nice choice for anyone, I think.
  • If I think my life is in danger and shoot someone, I'll probably get in big trouble if I wasn't and the guy is injured or dead. So if someone is tortured and no good comes from it, the torturer should be held accountable. Except he or she won't be because it'll be classified and for the sake of national security. It'll most likely be 20 or 50 years later that it's discovered. So I don't think I'll be changing my position on torture anytime soon.
    • If I think my life is in danger and shoot someone, I'll probably get in big trouble if I wasn't and the guy is injured or dead.

      Not if you had good reason for thinking you were in danger. If he said something threatening to you and then pulled a small black object out of his coat pocket that you thought was a gun, you would likely not get in trouble for shooting him, even if it turned out to be a cell phone.

      So if someone is tortured and no good comes from it, the torturer should be held accountable.

      No, no,
      • Then the torturer/superiors/intelligence agents should be held accountable for incorrectly justifying the torturing.
        • Just because torture produces nothing doesn't mean it is not justified. How successful torture is in a specific instance is *almost completely unrelated* to whether it is justified.

          Torture often works, but it is usually unjustified. And in the one-in-a-million incident where it might be justified, it might not work anyway.
          • I see the "*"s, but for example, if the torture was unsuccessful because the person was incorrectly linked to an event or group and thus didn't know what the torturers wanted to hear, that's unjustified torture. The inhumane treatment of prisoners and rendition to other countries for torture, such as the case of Maher Arar, is largely unjustified and shouldn't have happened.
            • I see the "*"s, but for example, if the torture was unsuccessful because the person was incorrectly linked to an event or group and thus didn't know what the torturers wanted to hear, that's unjustified torture.

              No, no, no. By focusing on the result, you are tacitly saying that torture may be justified if the result is a good one. You are saying the ends can justify the means. By saying the end result can make something unjustified, you are necessarily saying it can also justify.

              But the only thing that ju
              • And if on re-evaluation the reasons were bad, then there should should be accountability?
                • Um ... not per se. As I think I made clear: torture should be illegal. Period. Any time it is used, the presumption should be that it was not justified. The burden should be on the person committing or ordering torture to prove that what they did was justified, that the prosecutor might choose to not prosecute, or the court might show leniency.
                  • So my question to you is...and its trickier than it seems at first...is what is the definition of "torture"? Sleep deprivation? Drugs? Savage beatings? What about no-permanent-physical-damage application of pain?

                    Some things need to be allowed for interrogators to achieve their goals. Unfortunately, its not easy to clearly draw the line on what should and should not be legal.
                    • So my question to you is...and its trickier than it seems at first...is what is the definition of "torture"?

                      It may not seem like it, but that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is about broad policies, not specifics of one of those policies. And I am not dodging the issue by saying I don't have the time or inclination to get into it; I simply don't have the time or inclination to get into it.

                      Broadly, though, there's two legal definitions of torture, ours, and the UN's, which we've largely agreed
                    • Good point, and I apologize for getting off topic. You are right in that it is beyond the scope of this discussion.
                • And if on re-evaluation the reasons were bad, then there should should be accountability?

                  Absolutely not: hindsight is not an acceptable basis for judgement. The question is whether there was no reasonable alternative available based on the information at the time. If someone points a gun at a someone and is killed, that's valid self-defence - even if the gun turns out to be unloaded, or a replica which can't actually fire, becuase at the time the threat appeared real. Hindsight should never enter into the

                  • I'm thinking of if the gun was unloaded. I'm thinking of if the gun was actually a cell phone. If the intelligence people didn't think clearly and over-reacted, that's not acceptable to me. Just like the current administration badly wanted excuses to go to war in Iraq and exercised poor judgement with some of the intelligence.
                    • I'm thinking of if the gun was unloaded. I'm thinking of if the gun was actually a cell phone. If the intelligence people didn't think clearly and over-reacted, that's not acceptable to me.

                      If I am a cop, and I tell someone to freeze or I will shoot, and someone pulls out an unloaded gun or a cell phone and I can't tell it is unloaded or a cell phone, they die. Right there. They are dead. And I am fully justified in killing them. If you think I am not, then you are wrong.
                    • Yup, well I purposely avoided giving a thousand word scenario so we wouldn't have to argue over the effects of shadows reflecting off the recently rained-on streets. I'm just saying if the intelligence folks screwed up because for example, they didn't use the level of logic and knowledge expected from people holding those positions, there should be accountability.
                    • But that's a given from what I've been saying from the start, and different from what you were saying earlier, when you focused on the results.
                    • I know. I shifted to the reasons [slashdot.org] and not the results in that post.
  • Names, really:

    McCain-Feingold.

    That act of shredding the Constitution is sufficient to disqualify him. Having taken multiple oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution (first as a sailor, then as a senator), he should've known better.

    • That act of shredding the Constitution is sufficient to disqualify him.

      No, it's not. No one is perfect. And heck, Bush signed it, and lots of people voted for it.

      Having taken multiple oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution (first as a sailor, then as a senator), he should've known better.

      So should have a lot of people. This is a bad thing, but Hillary would be worse, as would most of the other Republican candidates who -- even if they COULD beat Hillary -- would spend like a drunken Bush.

      • That act of shredding the Constitution is sufficient to disqualify him.

        No, it's not. No one is perfect. And heck, Bush signed it

        True, unfortunately.

        and lots of people voted for it.

        Last time I checked, "but they're doing it too" wasn't an excuse for bad behavior.

        Having taken multiple oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution (first as a sailor, then as a senator), he should've known better.

        So should have a lot of people. This is a bad thing, but Hillary would be worse

        Also true.

        • Last time I checked, "but they're doing it too" wasn't an excuse for bad behavior.

          And last *I* checked, I wasn't excusing him for what he did.

          Also true. John "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" Kerry was a big part of the reason I voted twice for W. Instead of being stuck with a choice between getting 0% of what you want (Waffles or Shrillary) and getting maybe 50-60% of what you want (W or McCain)

          I think you are seriously misrepresenting McCain here. If Bush is about 50-60 percent of w
  • on social issues ... why do people think Bush is more conservative? He's really not. People think Bush is the conservative one, but it's hard to figure out why.

    He's a corporate and Christian conservative. A corporate liberal would be Ben & Jerry's, Costco, or REI. They care about their workers well-being a lot more compared to most large companies. Bush's social agenda would/does benefit the religious right far more than a secular approach.
    • He's a corporate and Christian conservative.

      He is not a Christian conservative, no. He's slightly right of center on social issues.

      As to "corporate conservative," that's not a phrase with any usefulness I am aware of.

      A corporate liberal would be Ben & Jerry's, Costco, or REI. They care about their workers well-being a lot more compared to most large companies.

      And Bush is ... what, against that? Sorry, you're not making sense.
      • So his positions on school vouchers, giving government money to religious charities, abortion, displaying the 10 commandments, and stem-cell research, all add up to just slightly right of center?

        Bush's corporate policies have been in favor of globalization that benefits companies who only care about their workers as much as public outcry forces them to.
        • So his positions on school vouchers, giving government money to religious charities, abortion, displaying the 10 commandments, and stem-cell research, all add up to just slightly right of center?

          Yes. School vouchers is not a far-right position; a great many left liberals in depressed areas are for them (cf. Cleveland and Washington, DC).

          Same thing with religious charities, which is even sillier: there is not one thing in the Constitution or precedent that disallows tax dollars being used for religious char
          • I'd say redirecting government grants to churches and other faith-based groups is pretty far-christian-right. How is not?

            About abortion, there is more support [cnn.com] for keeping abortion legal, 38 to 18%. So if anything the other 44% are conflicted, and that's the mainstream. Being anti-abortion is conservative.

            On stem-cells, he blocked funding for those who would create new lines leaving only the pre-existing ones that would not develop properly. That position makes him *right* of center.

            Clinton cut taxes on
            • I'd say redirecting government grants to churches and other faith-based groups is pretty far-christian-right. How is not?

              How is it different from "redirecting" government grants to any other charity?

              About abortion, there is more support for keeping abortion legal, 38 to 18%.

              And I have seen no evidence that Bush would actually make it illegal if he could.

              On stem-cells, he blocked funding for those who would create new lines leaving only the pre-existing ones that would not develop properly. That position mak
              • How is it different from "redirecting" government grants to any other charity?

                "...a religious group can hire and fire employees on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices, even if their salaries come from taxpayer funds. [washingtonpost.com]

                And I have seen no evidence that Bush would actually make it illegal if he could.

                The fact that Bush has finangled his way out of declaring if he would, doesn't mean that his position and statements are unclear. [issues2000.org] Bush talks about a fetus as an unborn child. He is a born-again Chri
                • ...a religious group can hire and fire employees on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices, even if their salaries come from taxpayer funds.

                  Yes, but how is that different from any other charity? Let's say I worked for a charity that helped homeless people because all people deserve to be treated with dignity. And I say, "well, I think homeless people don't deserve to be treated with dignity, because they are lazy." I would, and should, be fired, simply because I disagree with the core values
                  • So if the government is going to fund charities, why should it favor religious ones that discriminate on who they hire based on religion and practices? It would be fairer to give to non-religious charities that hire without that discrimination.

                    I believe the undeniable fact that a fetus is an unborn child. I am a born-again Christian. I likely would not sign such a bill.

                    If one of your reasons is that it goes against what's written in the Constitution, Bush appears to be less conservative than you in that re
                    • So if the [federal] government is going to fund charities

                      It shouldn't.

                      why should it favor religious ones that discriminate on who they hire based on religion and practices?

                      It doesn't. You are misrepresenting Bush's policy, which is not to favor religious organizations, but simply to not discriminate against them.

                      And again, I already pointed out the fact that all organizations, all charities, discriminate based on whether the people believe in the mission of the organization. Why did you not address that p
                    • You are misrepresenting Bush's policy, which is not to favor religious organizations, but simply to not discriminate against them.

                      And again, I already pointed out the fact that all organizations, all charities, discriminate based on whether the people believe in the mission of the organization. Why did you not address that point, which is the crux of the matter? Every organization should be allowed to fire someone who does not agree with the mission of the organization. If that mission is essentially religi

                    • Re:bush on social issues (Score:3, Insightful)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
                      If the mission is religious, then the federal government really shouldn't be giving money to that charity because of the separation of church and state.

                      If the specific work being funded is religious in nature, then yes, the government should not fund it. But that's not the case.

                      Every charity does some work, and they do it for some reason. The work is what is being funded, and it is distinct from the reason. The government doesn't and shouldn't care what the reason is, and if they did, THAT would be a vio

          • And if Bush were *truly* conservative, he would be against tax dollars being used for charities in the first place.

            How does McCain feel on this one? Am I likely to have any options to vote for in 2008 who hold this position?

  • I think you're giving Hillary Clinton too much credit. Despite her recent moving to the center, most people know that she's a dyed in the wool far left liberal. And while that may excite her base, liberal candidates (from George McGovern to John Kerry) lose elections.

    Plus, I really don't think that you've seen negative turnout until Hillary runs.

    Now, as far as McCain... I don't really like him. I hated McCain-Feingold (I hated that Bush signed it as well), and I honestly wanted the Senate to implement t

    • I hated McCain-Feingold

      Me too. Oh how terrible, one thing I really hate in his many years in the Senate! There will always be things you hate about a given candidate.

      I honestly wanted the Senate to implement the "Nuclear Option" on Judicial Nominations, and McCain stymied that. Strategically, it was too much of a compromise from a position of power.

      No. Strategically, it was absolutely the right thing to do. If the nuclear option happened at that time and in that way, it would have killed the GOP in 2006

      • I've never even noticed who Mitt Romney was until just now. From the discussion I expected he must be Jewish or something, which I suppose could give some pause to the evangelical community. Looking him up I see that he is Mormon, and in today's environment I can't see that making a statistically detectable difference in the extent to which evangelicals do or do not vote for him. I'm rather surprised anyone would think so; I think that idea can only come from assuming that evangelicals are all like funda

  • But how does McCain feel about this issue [l4l.org]?

    I've decided to vote straight Libertarian in near future elections after confirming there's noone on the ticket that I just can't stomach. If I'm going to comrpomise on The Issue then I want a lot more bang for my buck.

    I figure everyone else can use their votes to decide who runs the country, while I use my vote to send a message.

    I was for Keyes in 2000. Those were the days. :)

    • Okay, answer to the question in progress [issues2000.org]. Looks like it's not the exact answer I expected, and I'm not quite sure where I got the idea.

      • Yeah, a lot of people think McCain is pro-choice. It's amazing how wrong people are about him. That's my point: he is a lot more conservative than you think!

        • Apparently so. For the record, you've prompted me to do enough looking in to the guy that I am tentatively willing to vote for him, although I'm still planning on throwing my vote to the third party.

    • I totally agree with your "vote to send a message" philosophy. Third-party votes DO mean something!

      And I really like the libertarian philosophy. Use the government where they are required and let people take care of themselves.

      The problem I have with the Libertarian Party is with its leaders. I've researched Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik and I don't really like either one of them as President. Change happens slowly, unfortunately, and you can't just disobey the law because you don't like it. As a t
  • Anti-gay marriage. Pro-life. Pro-ID in schools. Etc. Fiscally, he's not conservative at all. Bush is completely opposite of my governing philosophy. And that's part of why I didn't like him before it was mainstream not to.

    McCain v. Hillary, I'd probably vote for McCain. I still regret being a registered independent in the 2000 primaries and not being able to vote for him then. That support has waned since he's moved a away from being a party maverick(I'm a sucker for the I'm my own guy bit), but des
    • Guiliani is another obvious choice for the Republican nomination, but people forget that while he was and is great in a crisis, he's not so good at the day to day governing and that's the majority of the job.

      The Republican party activists, who would select the nominee, don't forget this. That's why he has no chance.

      Hillary would probably beat him.

      It'd be interesting to see. I don't know if you recall, but they ran against each other for Senate, until his health forced him to drop out. It was to be a glor
      • It'd be interesting to see. I don't know if you recall, but they ran against each other for Senate, until his health forced him to drop out. It was to be a glorious, bloody, campaign that never happened.

        And depending on how the future turns out, it could end up being a critical point in history. I know she had tons of money, and a huge leg up with the media, but given the wave he was riding, I just can't imagine he would not have won. (And yes there was another issue with his withdrawal but I don't thin

  • RINO (Score:2)

    by GypC ( 7592 )
    You're joking, right?

Slashdot Top Deals

Recent research has tended to show that the Abominable No-Man is being replaced by the Prohibitive Procrastinator. -- C.N. Parkinson

Close