Obama has had a rough ride so far but he can crush McCain on the policy debates if he ever gets a chance to focus on them. McCain has produced nothing but vacuous ill-conceived rubbish so far whereas Obama has been tested time and time again and is still standing.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

But Sunny, Obama’s message of hope has won him the nomination. He could have easily resorted to the gutter politics of Clinton’s campaign. I have to disagree with you wholley on this. Obama’s campaign message of hope and change has galavanised a US electorate that has been disillusioned under the Bush administration. I believe Obama needs to reinforce his message even further (if possible!). The so called “pragmatics independents” that will swing the presidential nomination won’t be fooled by dirty tricks politics.

“Most Republicans are scum of the earth. They are fantastic strategists but nevertheless they are scum.”

That a blogger over the age of sixteen would make such a claim is amazing. It speaks of an utterly infantile rage, or perhaps the anger of a spoiled brat. Do you know most Republicans Sunny, do you know any in person?

You see I don’t hold any such hatred for Democrats because in my mind, they’re just naive and misguided rather than bad.

“You see I don’t hold any such hatred for Democrats because in my mind, they’re just naive and misguided rather than bad.”

Well, it’s faintly irrelevant whether John McCain is merely misguided or genuinely bad, as the effects themselves will be equally dreadful. In previous years he has spoken strongly against torture, and yet he voted against the prohibition of waterboarding, against habeus corpus for Guantanamo detainees and against requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.

http://thesituationeer.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/actions-speak-louder-than-words/

Does anyone else see the connection between Sunny’s initial comment of
“This is going to be by far the nastiest presidential race you have ever seen and will ever see”
and his followup of
“Most Republicans are scum of the earth. They are fantastic strategists but nevertheless they are scum.”

Surely such comments contribute to a nasty presidential race or maybe a Nasty race is where my side can be nasty but the other side cannot?

Seriously though, I started reading this site hoping to find reasons to think that the left or centre-left still deserved my support. Instead there is tribalism and an automatic assumption that the right is always wrong.

I believe Obama needs to reinforce his message even further (if possible!). The so called “pragmatics independents” that will swing the presidential nomination won’t be fooled by dirty tricks politics.

Sure, but what do you do when you have so much mud thrown at you? After all, swift-boating worked against a war veteran.

My point isn’t that Obama has to go negative. My point is that his surrogates and other Democrat strategists have to play dirty politics. For example, constantly associating McCain with Bush. Asking questions about his age. Emphasising that he is a flip-flopper. Emphasising his (previous) links with Christian fundamentalists like John Hagee etc.

This is what the Republicans will be doing. They’ll be passing around emails saying he’s Muslim… he’s not patriotic enough… he wants reparations for black people… he is linked to Louis Farrakhan. etc etc. It’s going to get nasty. One of the ways to counter that would be to turn the electorate off McCain too.

Do you know most Republicans Sunny, do you know any in person?

Ok, I meant the Republican party rather than half the population. But my point still stands.

Instead there is tribalism and an automatic assumption that the right is always wrong.

The right isn’t always wrong. But the Republicans are way more right than the Tories here. Anyway, I’m not going to make excuses for my hatred of the Republican party.

“Seriously though, I started reading this site hoping to find reasons to think that the left or centre-left still deserved my support. Instead there is tribalism and an automatic assumption that the right is always wrong.”

If memory serves, every Republican congressman – with the exception of Ron Paul – voted in favour of using force against Iraq. In view of this, I don’t believe that it would be entirely unfair to hold a certain vehemence against them.

[McCain] he voted against the prohibition of waterboarding

This is rather misleading.

“This is rather misleading.”

In that case, “waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods”. I agree that the bill did not explicitly target that particular practice, but I believe that it was the implied motivation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/washington/13cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1212759930-z2PbOuwcUy6aAVbqml3L8A

“My point isn’t that Obama has to go negative. My point is that his surrogates and other Democrat strategists have to play dirty politics. For example, constantly associating McCain with Bush. Asking questions about his age. Emphasising that he is a flip-flopper. Emphasising his (previous) links with Christian fundamentalists like John Hagee etc.”- I hear you Sunny, but to base the campaign on this won’t win it for him, chiefly for the reason that the points you raised ( bar the flip-flop position) are probably the reasons why most US Republicans will vote for McCain.

I’m sure Obama’s press people will be feeding news agencies on anti McCain propaganda, as will any politician vying for a lucrative position, but i’m still resolute that he needs to further more positive messages and also more innovative policy measures he wants to implement, once in power.

Sunny and BenSix,

“Every Republican congressman – with the exception of Ron Paul – voted in favour of using force against Iraq. In view of this, I don’t believe that it would be entirely unfair to hold a certain vehemence against them.”

That the Republican Congressmen voted for the Iraq was stupid and wrong but it doesn’t mean that you have the right to judge their moral worth on the basis of their opinions.

“the Republicans are way more right than the Tories here”

Really? well what’s so right wing about John McCain?

Can his open-boarders immigration stance be called ‘conservative’ in any sense of the word? Can a vote to confirm the pro-abortion leftist Ruth Ginsburg be considered as right-wing?. What about the McCain-Feingold Bill which denied pro-gun and anti-abortion groups their 1st Amendment right to identify friends and foes in TV election ads? And tell me what’s right-wing about a interventionist nation-building foreign policy? The real conservatives like Pat Buchanan have been the strongest opponents of this war.

On the two issues where Bush has been a conservative; on taxes and judges, McCain has gone against him. On the three issues that have destroyed the Bush presidency the Iraq campaign, immigration, and the trade policy which has buggered the dollar, McCain has always sided with Bush.

The truth is that McCain is a left-wing, globalist, Wilsonian war-monger with no interest whatever in furthering the conservative cause. If he’s right-wing then … well … I must be left-wing and you must have no grasp of politics.

BenSix, McCain voted against a Bill that would (among other things) limit the CIA’s interrogation techniques to those allowed by the Army Field Manual. In this context, saying “he voted against the prohibition of waterboarding” would be the same as saying “he voted for putting detainees on the rack”.

You might infer he supports waterboarding, but it isn’t implied.

Well, we shall have to respectfully disagree, ukliberty. Days before the vote, General Haydn had made the admission that waterboarding was used in Guantanamo, and the Bill was imperative to prohibiting it.

It seems unreasonable to believe McCain supports waterboarding based on the fact that he voted against a bill that did not mention it.

Where McCain went wrong, in my view, was in his support of the proposition that the CIA should be allowed to use techniques that weren’t in the Army Field Manual. However it all seems rather moot: after all, the executive may modify the AFM without involving the legislative branch.

He (and other opponents of waterboarding) should perhaps have sponsored an amendment that explicitly prohibited waterboarding.

It is worth noting, however, that he sponsored an amendment that prohibited cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of foreign prisoners held overseas, making something explicit that had been the subject of a long running battle in the courts, which made it into law.

“It seems unreasonable to believe McCain supports waterboarding based on the fact that he voted against a bill that did not mention it.”

But my point, ukliberty, was that the Bill was debated mere days after Haydn’s admission. Such a discovery should have been acted upon immediately, and the Bill, in limiting interrogation techniques to those used in the Army Field Manual, would have been such an act.

,.Barack Obama is as white as he is black./b>, Please stop fetishising him as the black candidate and ignoring that he won through superior campaigning.

Really don’t know why you’ve got a bee in your bonnet about this Sunny. Obama’s has stated he’s black, why shouldn’t he be referred to as such? Part of his appeal is the fact that he represents (within certain parameters) something new, part of that is that he’s black.

#11 Chris, Chris, Chris….

Oh dear, you were on such safe ground earlier in the thread with all that outrage over Sunny’s ‘Republicans = Scum’ comment. You could’ve just left it at that and spent the weekend basking in the knowledge that you’d claimed a crucial moral victory over one of those devilish Liberal Conspirators.

But no.

No, you had to come back and argue that John McCain isn’t a conservative by pointing to a series of actions or positions that are either factually innaccurate, one-sided or completely irrelevant. Because my mission is to share love & good vibes wherever I go, I’ll present my contentions in list form and even include a few helpful URL links.

1. It’s the height of dishonesty to claim that McCain has an ‘open borders’ policy on immigration; even his anti-immigrant critics have only ever called his bill an ‘amnesty’. Why isn’t it open borders? Because the McCain-Kennedy bill that failed to pass the Senate would’ve kept the border fence, and, well, your borders aren’t very open when there’s a great big fence in the way! (http://tinyurl.com/4mnkfg)

2. Yes, McCain voted against Bush’s tax cuts in 2003, but voted for them in 2006. He’s also on record as wanting to make those tax cuts permanent. If anything, he’s more conservative than Bush on tax & spending because he wants tax cuts matched by cuts in public spending, which has dramatically escalated during his presidency (http://tinyurl.com/4obsr6)

3. You’re really going to give us ‘he voted for Ginsburg’ as a reason he’s not right-wing? You really want to do that? Well, okay, but he voted for the current Associate Supreme Court Justice along with 41 (yep, that’s fourty-one) other Republican Senators. The woman got 96 ‘yea’ votes for crying out loud, including Strom Thurmond, the guy who tried to fillibuster the Civil Rights Act! (http://tinyurl.com/8r2qt)

4. I’ll give you half a point on the foreign policy aspect, since historically Democratic Presidents have tended to be more overt when it comes to intervention. However, this conveniently avoids the fact that the past half century has seen plenty of Republican presidents trying to intervene in other countries’ affairs through covert means (for example, which party does Kissinger belong to?).

5. I’ll give you another half point on McCain-Feingold; it hasn’t held up well over the years and flaws (soft money, 527s) have certainly been exposed. That said, conservatives never really opposed the bill on its merits, but because it would’ve restricted their ability to inflict the kind of divisive emotioneering that’s become their raison d’etre. McCain-Feingold was about the old-fashioned belief that political campaigning should really be about debates, policies and ideas, not about which candidate can scare up the most votes in 30 second commercials. If you wish to disassociate this motive from conservatism, that’s your perogative, but to do so really doesn’t reflect well on the right.

Lastly, when I want to look at whether someone is really right-wing/conservative, I go for trusty old (and I mean OLD) American Conservative Union, which has been obsessively compiling lists since 1971 (yeah, they have too much time on their hands). In 2007, the ACU gave McCain an 80% conservative rating, which his just a wee bit lower than his all-time rating of 82%. Sure, he’s no Larry Craig, but these ratings at least qualify him as a B+ right-winger, right?! (http://tinyurl.com/3rhgqb)

In conclusion, sir, I’d suggest that it’s much safer to use the ‘you must have no grasp of politics’ put-down when your case is completely watertight. When it isn’t, such a comment reeks of the self-defeating smugness of the guy who holds up a placard proclaiming ‘Get A Brains! Morans’ (http://tinyurl.com/5mqhms)

Have a nice weekend

McCain may give the impression of being intelligent, calm and reasonable but there’s one problem – he is a Republican. Most Republicans are scum of the earth. They are fantastic strategists but nevertheless they are scum.

Let me guess Sunny: you dislike them because they are bigoted?

My article on the matter can be seen here:

http://www.scriboergosum.org.uk/revamp/803

Suffice it to say that I have my disagreements with Sunny’s understanding of the American political landscape.

Neil,

And there was me thinking I had buried the great Sunny Hundal for good. I was away yesterday at a funeral of a close relative and all the while your little post was lodged in the back of my head. Thank you for blighting my weekend.

Your point about immigration:

That the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill would have KEPT the boarder fence is certainly no proof that McCain’s personal views on illegal immigration are conservative or that he would not personally have favoured an open-boarders policy. You’ve forgotten that he voted FOR an amendment that demanded consultation with the Mexican government in regard to the fence’s construction; more or less ensuring that no fence would ever be built. Very tellingly, he also voted AGAINST the Coburn Amendment which had called for the enforcement of the existing immigration statutes, He also voted AGAINST the Ensign Amendment – so (despite his current dishonest claim to the contrary), he would favour rewarding illegal aliens with benefits for committing identity fraud.

http://ensign.senate.gov/counties/record.cfm?id=257162

And what about McCain’s Hispanic “outreach director”, the Mexico-first, open-borders fanatic Juan Hernandez? He has been quoted,

“I never knew the border as a limitation. I’d be delighted if all of us could come and go between these two marvellous countries… There are twenty million people, like myself, who have one foot in Mexico and one foot in the United States, and we’re very proud of it… We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people.”

And whilst McCain’s own views are probably not quite as extreme as this, how could he possibly have chosen such a character as an advisor if he were honestly concerned about securing the border?

here’s a video of the man if you want to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeQ3z5UiLXc

And then there’s also the enthusiastic support he’s received the N.C.L.R., a radical pro-illegal immigration group which marginalizes its conservative political opponents as un-American “haters” while pushing for the absurdly named “Fairness doctrine” to silence them. And as far as I know, McCain is scheduled to attend the N.C.L.R. Annual Convention in July.

http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/2649/
http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/2178/
http://www.wecanstopthehate.org/

Another noteworthy report from ‘Slate’ Magazine:

“In Milwaukee, in front of an audience of more sympathetic businessmen, McCain had been asked how debate over the immigration bill was playing politically. “In the short term, it probably galvanizes our base,” he said. “In the long term, if you alienate the Hispanics, you’ll pay a heavy price.” Then he added, unable to help himself, “By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the god-damned fence if they want it.”

Now these are not the words of a conservative, or for that matter, anyone committed to the rule of law.

Taxes

I’ve read your link and McCain’s claim that he wanted tax cuts matched by reductions in spending. That would be perfectly arguable from a conservative point of view. Only, every other conservative is adamant that his real reasons for his opposition in 2001 were left-wing ones. This is very murky lens through which to judge him and we’re not going get to the bottom of it here, so let’s leave this aside.

On Ginsburg,

Yes, other Republicans did vote for Ginsburg and for Breyer, admittedly a weak point on my part – Incidentally, just contrast this to the character assassinations of Bork and Thomas and the similarly disgraceful attacks on Alito by Democratic Senators – However, when President Bush (another fake conservative) tried to restore originalism to the Supreme Court, McCain as you know helped to form the Gang of 14 which stopped a changing of the rules to prevent any filibustering of the judicial nominees, Now I know that some have attempted to defend this from a conservative point of view but if you would care to read it, this National Review article will explain in detail, why this is not possible.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTI2NzVjYzY5MGZkMDMzOWVkMjMyNzhlZjQ2Njg0Y2Y=&w=MA==

On McCain Finegold,

You say that the act restricted the ability to ‘inflict divisive emotioneering’ What is this verbal maneuvering of yours? Say it how it is – it was a direct attack on political free speech. The liberal media conglomerate already owns the primary means of televised publicity. In order for a conservative message to attain a comparable influence, expensive advertisements must be bought from the television networks. This requires that people donate their money collectively to a political organisation representing their interests. By prohibiting large contributions to political parties, the media is left with a monopoly of free speech. But the American news media, just like ours is not impartial. The effect of the Act has been the suppression of non-media voices in the political arena. And this is why Democrats have overwhelmingly supported it.

On foreign policy,

And of course under both Republican and Democratic presidents there have been many covert interventions in foreign countries to prevent threats, both real or imagined. But conservatism does not necessarily require total isolationism, It must however, be opposed to idealistic and selfless foreign policies especially when this involves military deployments. There is nothing particularly conservative about war which has always been the handmaid of socialism and big-government. But a war to implant democracy and prosperity in Iraq so that this might reduce Islamist inflammations is automatically a left-wing idea. A conservative conscience holds that politicians do not have the right to wage war unless the nation is threatened with ruin, subjugation or fatal humiliation, i.e. it must be unambiguously in the national interest.

And did you know that McCain’s average ACU rating for the years 1998-2006 is 74? This makes him one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress. This would be understandable if he were representing a blue state, but John McCain is representing Arizona, whose other senator John Kyl, has a rating of 97, whilst most of its other congressmen have ratings of 94 or higher. Imagine if McCain were the senator for Maine? I wonder how his voting record would look then. Come to think of it, what he were elected president? How much more unfettered would his liberalism be?

Chris,

Much as I enjoy mounting my high horse and swashbuckling with the enemy, I don’t harbour any delusions about how effective I am at it; I’m certain you had far more pressing matters to deal with over the weekend than my belch of studied smugness, and for whatever it’s worth, I offer my condolences.

At this point, I doubt either of us will manage to do much convincing, but I appreciate you returning to add depth to the questionable assertions made earlier.

1. Immigration
The last I heard the name Juan Hernandez was him being described by McCain aides as an unpaid volunteer who had no formal policy role within the McCain campaign. I doubt that’ll placate you too much, but that was the official explanation at the time. It won’t surprise you to learn that I think ‘fanatic’ is a bit strong and that his support of the Kennedy-McCain amnesty suggests that he’s willing to settle for something that falls rather short of open borders.

So why, if McCain doesn’t share Hernandez’s beliefs, did he appoint him Hispanic outreach co-ordinator? Well, for reasons not dissimilar to the Rev Hagee endorsement. McCain’s trying to win an election; he, unlike any other Republican who wanted the nomination, has a genuine opportunity to court the Hispanics who have the potential (albeit probably overstated) to give him a win Florida, New Mexico & Nevada. Hernandez is a passionate advocate for Hispanic issues and the respect he has in the Latino community means they’ll at least listen to McCain’s case. You know all of this, of course, so I’ll shut up.

One last point about NCLR – it’s not that they cast opponents as ‘unAmerican haters’, but that they cast opponents as anti-immigrant bigots, and frankly if the Republicans want to avoid being in the minority for a long time, they’re really going to have to quit with the scaremongering anti-immigrant commercials they peddled in ‘06 – they’ve contributed massively towards leading a GOP-leaning minority towards the Democrats.

2. Judges
Surely it’s not the Supreme Court you want to be angry about here – the right’s happy with the judges Bush appointed – but the way the Gang of 14 conspired to assist the blocking of conservative appointments to the federal & circuit courts of appeal, where conservatives can do much more damage/good (delete as appropriate).

I took the time to read that NRO thing, but was surprised that it didn’t address what I thought was the main conservative motive behind not using the nuclear option – that to do so would set a dangerous precedent, allowing the Democrats to do exactly the same thing if they had control of the White House & Congress. Given the pessimistic predictions for 08, I would’ve thought there’ll be a few Republicans breathing a sigh of relief that the nuclear option wasn’t ever used.

3. McCain-Feingold
“You say that the act restricted the ability to ‘inflict divisive emotioneering’ What is this verbal maneuvering of yours?”

Come on, I should get points for valour! Rather than an attack on free speech, I think it was a botched attack on expensive speech; the kind the likes of you or I or 99% of the American electorate wouldn’t be able to afford. Alas, debating this would extend the thread well into the next Presidency, so how about we agree let the disagreement stand and not inflict any more wonkish rants on the poor LC community than we absolutely have to?

4. McCain’s conservative rating

No, 74′s still way too conservative for Maine – haven’t Snowe & Collings been in the mid-30s of late? Again, to you this figure reveals an uncommitted RINO; to me it reveals a conservative who’s been so desperate to become President that for the past decade he’s moderated himself in order to become electable.

On this point we may have a slight agreement: I suspect McCain’s political ideology (with the exception of Iraq, where he had no other recourse but belligerence) has been calculation and opportunism for the sole purpose of burnishing his public persona. That said, his party will ensure that he governs from the right when possible (though the Democratic congress wouldn’t make it easy for him), he’d continue Bush’s failed foreign policy and since his cabinet, his staff and his surrogates will all be conservatives (or, if you prefer, ‘so-called conservatives’), that’s plenty of reason for me & the people on this site to oppose him.

Hmm, it’s late & I sense I’m trailing off a little, so I shall do everyone a favour and leave it at that.

Good post, I actually came upon it on accident. You can actually make money now for good articles. At SayItAloud you can write good articles like you already have, but you can get better exposure and earn some decent money in the process. No matter what you decide I bookmarked your page. You can check out my site by clicking on my name.%d%a%d%aGoodluck and I look forward to your future postings.

Good article, I found yours on accident. I just thought I would let you know that you can make money now for your articles. At SayItAloud you can post your articles like you already do, but you can get better exposure and make some decent money in the process when companies sponsor your article. I bookmarked your page and I look forward to your future articles.%d%a%d%aYou can check out our site by clicking on my name.