Huge Win For Obama In South Carolina Primary Saturday!

[blankall]

Originally Posted by driveway

Really? The republicans to loose? With Bush's approval rating in the toilet, no real conservative in the race now that Hunter and Thompson are out, and an unpopular war still claiming lives? I think the democrats could run a bag of sand and walk away with this election - people are going to come out and vote against the party in power and that is going to translate into a Democrat president, and give them control over both houses, and more state governorships, more city councilors, etc. etc. etc. This election should prove to be a watershed for progressives in America.

McCain is too 'old-guard' republican to win a General Election. There's no way liberals and progressives will vote for a republican, and he's too far left for conservatives. His only 'base' is moderates and I think even moderate Democrats would vote for that bag of sand before any Republican candidate.

Here are some of his policy quotes from his website:

Health Care -
Bringing costs under control is the only way to stop the erosion of affordable health insurance, save Medicare and Medicaid, protect private health benefits for retirees, and allow our companies to effectively compete around the world ... promote competition throughout the health care system - between providers and among alternative treatments.
[emphasis added]

Iraq & Military -
A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq ... John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today.

Abortion -
John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states.
[emphasis added]

Gay Marriage -
The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Stem Cell Research -
John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes ... Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals.

Environment -
John McCain believes that America's economic and environmental interests are not mutually exclusive, but rather inextricably linked. Our economic prospects depend greatly upon the sustainable use of ample and unspoiled natural resources. By addressing this problem responsibly, John McCain believes we can meet our obligation to be proper caretakers of creation.
[emphasis added]

Gun Control -
Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime ... John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans ... John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations ... He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing." ... John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.

all quotes from www.johnmccain.com

I think this is the smartest and most informed post yet. You actually looked at someone's stance before making a decision about how right or left wing their views were.

Some of these stances are archaic. Repealing Roe v. Wade (really?) and banning stem cell research. This guy may be a "maveric" who is willing to stand up to his party, but he is also a raving lunatic with regard to certain issues.

The only strong point that McCain has for me is that he is willign to leave behind partisan politics and vote freely on many issues. Unfortunately, the way he votes is absolutely insane sometimes. Basically I agree w/ his methods but think the substance of his views represent an absolute disaster.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames2007FIRE IT UP

A big thing working against McCain is his long history in the Senate. Very easy to bring out bills he has changed his mind on, things he was wrong on, etc, etc. The longer a person is in the Senate the tougher it is to be president, that is why Gov. tend to win the Presidency. I think McCain will have a very tough fight in the general election no matter who he faces. How does he defend a bad economy and unpopular war, both the fault of his party?

Bring the same stuff up against Hillary too.

"I don't remember meeting him...."

Drudge Report then proceeds to show Hillary and Bill meeting with the exact person she claims not to know.

Hillary reminds me of Sheri from 24.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by blankall

Some of these stances are archaic. Repealing Roe v. Wade (really?) and banning stem cell research. This guy may be a "maveric" who is willing to stand up to his party, but he is also a raving lunatic with regard to certain issues.

In your opinion.

What the previous poster and yourself fail to realize is that McCain's published positions are likely an attraction for about 40% of the population, just as they might be a repellant for another 40%.

In other words, about 40% of people probably think you're the one who's a raving lunatic.

It's the 20% in the middle who can blow either way who may overlook some of the less palatable positions of McCain . . . . or of Clinton or Obama . . . . . who will eventually tilt the balance one way or the other.

And that's really what it often comes down to. . . . . for the non-partisan, the self-described independent, there is never an ideal candidate and rarely one that can be entirely agreed with.

More often than not, someone who agrees entirely with the position of a candidate is either his/her mother or a fanatic of one sort or another.

EDIT: Great opinion piece on The Mischief Of John McCain by the always interesting Meyer at CBS:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3746433.shtml

Cowperson

[peter12]

The abortion issue is an interesting one, but he's less of a moralist and more of a constitutionalist. Chances are 98% of the states would ratify pro-abortion legislation anyway. Those that wouldn't would probably go the Supreme Court again... which defeats the whole purpose. Stupid democracy.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Your absolutely right. The US should go back in time to when every thing was happy and joyous and suicide bombers killed people other than Americans - ahh those were the good times.

Some people make me sick.

Good win for Obama - makes super Tuesday more interesting as it places the black vote against the woman vote with men likely going 60/40 for Obama.

Yup. Remember when it was just the Israelis and Northern Irish who had to worry about being blown up? I don't know any of them. It was great!

And I know what you mean: Bush makes me sick too!

[Table 5]

Seems like social topics like abortion and gay marriage are only important during election time. As soon as presidents take office, core issues of economy and foreign relations take over (as they should i think). Stems cell policy was about as close as even Bush, a pretty hardcore conservative, would touch.

I doubt even Mike Huckabee would seriously try to repeal the two. There is just too many other issues going on, and any sort of real regression on these topics would be extremely risky for any President to try to push through. I doubt they would take the chance. Personally I think anyone who votes based on abortion is wasting their time.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

The abortion issue is an interesting one, but he's less of a moralist and more of a constitutionalist. Chances are 98% of the states would ratify pro-abortion legislation anyway. Those that wouldn't would probably go the Supreme Court again... which defeats the whole purpose. Stupid democracy.

One of the big stances and you've said it right here, is that Abortion shouldn't be a federal issue, it should be a state issue. So the concept of striking down Roe vs Wade dosen't mean the end of the right to body, or the right to abortion, it just means that each state will have the right to establish its own abortion laws.

However Roe vs Wad, Welfare Programs and Pension plans are considered to be the three central rails in the train tracks of U.S. democracy. Touch them and die.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

One of the big stances and you've said it right here, is that Abortion shouldn't be a federal issue, it should be a state issue. So the concept of striking down Roe vs Wade dosen't mean the end of the right to body, or the right to abortion, it just means that each state will have the right to establish its own abortion laws.

However Roe vs Wad, Welfare Programs and Pension plans are considered to be the three central rails in the train tracks of U.S. democracy. Touch them and die.

Well, a change is coming pretty soon, I hope. Libertarian philosophy may be flawed in some regards, but it's not a bad idea to re-think what the role of government is. In some cases, the Feds should just get their nose out of where it truly doesn't belong.

Look at the Canadian Feds and healthcare. That one still doesn't make sense to me.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, a change is coming pretty soon, I hope. Libertarian philosophy may be flawed in some regards, but it's not a bad idea to re-think what the role of government is. In some cases, the Feds should just get their nose out of where it truly doesn't belong.

Look at the Canadian Feds and healthcare. That one still doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe you can give me some details about this. Are you saying that Healthcare shouldn't have federal oversight? Or governmental oversight? If thats the case then don't you risk having uneven healthcare across the country and no set of stable guidlines.

I'm all for a lot of laws being redefined to state or provincial level, some laws have no business being mandated by the federal government.

If I was to go really harsh, then I would say that the only thing that the Federal government should be controlling is health care standards, defense, some law enforcement, interprovincial and international travel and ifrastrucure and federal trade agreements. Everything else should be handled on a provincial level (That includes social programs, pensions etc)

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Maybe you can give me some details about this. Are you saying that Healthcare shouldn't have federal oversight? Or governmental oversight? If thats the case then don't you risk having uneven healthcare across the country and no set of stable guidlines.

I'm all for a lot of laws being redefined to state or provincial level, some laws have no business being mandated by the federal government.

If I was to go really harsh, then I would say that the only thing that the Federal government should be controlling is health care standards, defense, some law enforcement, interprovincial and international travel and ifrastrucure and federal trade agreements. Everything else should be handled on a provincial level (That includes social programs, pensions etc)

Well to me it boils down to a conflict between the Constitution and the Charter. Technically speaking, healthcare is a provincial jurisdiction as governed by the Constitution. I'd argue that the Federal government got involved under Trudeau with the Canada Health Act under the pretense of equalizing regional disparity but in the interest of winning votes for the Federal Liberal Party.

The Feds, while having no legal say in the way provinces run their healthcare, do have the spending power. If you don't follow the provisions of the CHA, you get your Health and Social Transfers taken away. It actually disallows good policy. How does the Federal government in Ottawa know what is good for New Brunswick or Albertan healthcare?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

In your opinion.

What the previous poster and yourself fail to realize is that McCain's published positions are likely an attraction for about 40% of the population, just as they might be a repellant for another 40%.

In other words, about 40% of people probably think you're the one who's a raving lunatic.

It's the 20% in the middle who can blow either way who may overlook some of the less palatable positions of McCain . . . . or of Clinton or Obama . . . . . who will eventually tilt the balance one way or the other.

And that's really what it often comes down to. . . . . for the non-partisan, the self-described independent, there is never an ideal candidate and rarely one that can be entirely agreed with.

More often than not, someone who agrees entirely with the position of a candidate is either his/her mother or a fanatic of one sort or another.

EDIT: Great opinion piece on The Mischief Of John McCain by the always interesting Meyer at CBS:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3746433.shtml

Cowperson

Your right. I am making some assumptions about the positions of the posters on this board. I realize there are some people who vote for ultra-conservative and religious views. I was more responding to the posters on this board who were touting McCain as some kind of centrist saviour. Clearly he is anything but.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Table 5

. Personally I think anyone who votes based on abortion is wasting their time.

Truer words have never been spoken (posted).

Roe V. Wade will not be overturned. The system in place is a good one. Don't legislate morality. Leave it up to the states to restrict it as their people see fit.

Banning abortion would be a disaster. I don't like abortion, I would try to talk my daughter out of it. BUT....it is not my place to tell someone else they can't do it. I even believe that it is probably the right choice sometimes.

I just think that abortion as a form of brith control is sick.

BTW...saw an article the other day that stated that abortion rates are the lowest since 1974. Seems to me that education and contraception are achieving a lot.

Aside from all that, the change in the court that would have to happen to overturn the decision is probably impossible without several assassinations and subsequent Senate payoffs. Won't happen. Irrelevant issue.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by blankall

Your right. I am making some assumptions about the positions of the posters on this board. I realize there are some people who vote for ultra-conservative and religious views. I was more responding to the posters on this board who were touting McCain as some kind of centrist saviour. Clearly he is anything but.

Who was touting McCain as a centrist saviour? I guess I missed that post.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think this is the smartest and most informed post yet. You actually looked at someone's stance before making a decision about how right or left wing their views were.

Some of these stances are archaic. Repealing Roe v. Wade (really?) and banning stem cell research. This guy may be a "maveric" who is willing to stand up to his party, but he is also a raving lunatic with regard to certain issues.

The only strong point that McCain has for me is that he is willign to leave behind partisan politics and vote freely on many issues. Unfortunately, the way he votes is absolutely insane sometimes. Basically I agree w/ his methods but think the substance of his views represent an absolute disaster.

Interesting that you interpreted the quote as 'banning stem cell research'. That's not what the quote stated. Not even close. You also ignored the fact that the basis of his roe v wade stance is constitutional, not moral. Your reactions to his policy points are knee jerk.

You should take your own advice and actually LOOK at the candidate's positions before calling them archaic and him a raving lunatic.

[HOZ]

The thing that bothers me about this election is the notions of...

If you are not for Hillary you hate women.

If you are not for Obama you are a racist.

The party of identity politics may have this come back to bite them in the bottom.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by HOZ

The thing that bothers me about this election is the notions of...

If you are not for Hillary you hate women.

If you are not for Obama you are a racist.

The party of identity politics may have this come back to bite them in the bottom.

Not to mention that they are beating the crap out of identity groups that are not an effective part of their nomination coalition. You have to think that Billary's comments regarding Blacks after this South Carolina primary are going to come bite them in the butt later.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Interesting that you interpreted the quote as 'banning stem cell research'. That's not what the quote stated. Not even close. You also ignored the fact that the basis of his roe v wade stance is constitutional, not moral. Your reactions to his policy points are knee jerk.

You should take your own advice and actually LOOK at the candidate's positions before calling them archaic and him a raving lunatic.

The way the stem cell stuff was posted was actually kind of misleading. Yeah I was guilty of not looking it up myself. He actually isn't anti-stem cell but that doesn't excuse his other right wing lunacies.

Constitutional to overturn Roe vs. Wade however? Since when does the US Supreme Court not have the constitutional rights to make these kind of decisions? it is the highest court in the country. This is just political pandering to wash his hands of what is clearly a political issue.

McCain has been one of the strongest pro-life advocates in the world. McCain has a 0% NARAL rating, indicating one of the strongest pro-life records in the Senate.
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

He also supports bans on gay marriage, he is anti gun control, he is anti universal health care, he has expressed that he would like to keep military action in iran on the table....

My favorite John McCain quote of all. When asked if non-Christians should be president:
"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...cCain#_note-59

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Who was touting McCain as a centrist saviour? I guess I missed that post.

"I think this election is honestly the Republican's to lose. I like McCain, he's more of a moderate republican, and I think he gains a lot of points due to his age, experience and track record."

"That simply highlights that BOTH parties are desperately in need of shedding the extreme but very loud partisans that have been controlling them lately and I think the American public agrees with that somewhat, hence, as I noted earlier, middle-of-the-road appeal of a Democrat like Hillary, who would hang around Iraq for awhile, and McCain, a Republican a lot of Republicans hate for his "liberal" points of view."

"The Republicans also have a horrible showing of candidates with the exception of John McCain. I think that he would be the ideal leader for their side. Moderate republicans tend to have the best balance of policy and ideology, sort of a blend of the best parts of Democratic and Republican playbooks. Giuliani isn't exactly loved, but he'd be an excellent foil for McCain. It be nice to have candidates who aren't taking their marching orders from an evangelical cult... I mean church."



Guess you did miss that post eh? and the one after it... and the one after that.... I guess I have different ideas of what being moderate means.

[OILFAN #81]

Anyone else watching the State of the Union Address right now? I can't wait till November comes. The US desperately needs another leader. 31% approval rate is absolutely horrible. Bush preaches about all these things that we must do in the future yet in his two terms he didn't do much except drive the economy into the ground. I miss the days when Bill Clinton was the President.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by blankall

Guess you did miss that post eh? and the one after it... and the one after that.... I guess I have different ideas of what being moderate means.

I totally see your point. What you have to remember, however, is that the last (present) administration is so far right, that they've effectively redefined what constitutes a moderate position in the US. By Canadian standards, Hillary is right of center. By the new American Standard, she's to the left. Stick McCain in Canada, he's a hardcore Conservative. But in the States, and especially compared with what they've had in power for the last 8 years, he's effectively a moderate candidate.