ellen_datlow | And here's a challenge

What seems like eternity ago now, McCain was the republican I found least repugnant: he was aware of issues like 'abortion rights', 'equal rights', or 'fiscal responsibility'- and weighed in on the same side of the scales that my rather liberal viewpoint weighs in on. His campaign also used to treat the (misnamed) Christian Right with the contempt they so heartily merit.

I wanna know when they pinned him down and forcefed him a few dozen gallons of the conservativism-as-liberalism Kool-Aid that the last 3 Republican presidents have had to show dyed their tongues dark blue before they could get elected, frankly.

Same here. I kinda liked McCain, years ago... it's depressing to see how much he's cozied up to the party mainline in order to get the nomination.

The big question is, would McCain revert to being himself in office? I suspect he would, but it's impossible to tell.

As a citizen of Arizona, I used to see John McCain as the maverick he claims to be, and as an honorable man. More recently, I've been learning a lot about McCain and unfortunately, I've learned very little that has made me think well of him as a candidate. One of the things I've learned is that his views on "women's issues" such as equal rights, equal pay, and freedom of choice are in direct opposition to mine and to those espoused by groups supporting women's rights, such as NOW.

NPR offers this article on Misperceptions About McCain's Abortion Stance, in which they state:

Many Republican voters, however, seem to believe, incorrectly, that the current Republican front-runner, Arizona Sen. John McCain, supports abortion rights, too.

[. . .]

"I have stated time after time after time that Roe v Wade was a bad decision, that I support a woman — the rights of the unborn — that I have fought for human rights and human dignity throughout my entire political career," McCain said. "To me, it's an issue of human rights and human dignity."

[. . .]

"He's been very consistent; he hasn't changed his position," O'Steen says. He says that his group has supported McCain in every one of his senate races. "We've always considered him pro-life," he says.

As for fiscal responsibility . . . well, he was involved in the Savings and Loan debacle (remember the Keating Five?) and he has been a strong proponent of the deregulation of the financial industry that many are blaming for our current economic crisis. These aren't new views for him.

However, McCain does seem more willing than many others to work for bipartisan agreements and, at least in the past, he was less conservative than many other Republican candidates. He also acknowledges that we've created problems with the environment that need to be addressed (unlike his running mate).

For an article that attempts to present the facts without a whole lot of editorializing, you can check out the article about him on Wikipedia (which provides a number of links to sites that attempt to sort out the issues). You can also view his voting record on The Washington Post's voting record for him.

ETA: Link to NOW. Note that NOW has endorsed Obama; the first time they've ever endorsed a presidential candidate.

Me too. When I saw that he was running, I thought I could live with his presidency. Then he turned.

In a post over here (http://strangerface.livejournal.com/1053274.html?nc=11), where she suggests a meme listing "five things you like about [not your candidate]",

strangerface says,

3. . In 2006, John McCain voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment. He does not support constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Also, he pointed out that creating a federal ban on something was "anti-Republican" (when the party usually favors less federal government and more power to the states). Which is so true and I always wondered why no one mentioned this!

2. Regard an interracial dating ban, McCain has said, “Look, what you’re doing, in this ban on interracial dating, is stupid, it’s idiotic and it is incredibly cruel to many people.”

1. He summed up my opinion on the environment which is, we gotta do something now because, even if the direness of the situation may be exaggerated, we cannot play Russian Roulette with the planet. Quote. “Suppose that climate change is not real, and we do adopt green technologies, which our economy and technology are capable of. Then all we've done is given our kids a cleaner world. But suppose that climate change is real and we've done nothing. What kind of a planet are we going to pass on to the next generation? We've got to address it with technology, with cap-and- trade, with capitalist and free enterprise motivation. We can pass on to our children and grandchildren a cleaner, better world.” -- Des Moines Register Republican Debate Dec 12, 2007

Yes, but has he maintained any of those positions?

Slightly less loathsome immigration policies than many Republicans (and, for that matter, Democrats).

I was thinking of asking this very thing, but I'm glad you did it first--you're sure to get more answers. Thank you!

Thanks to Laura Anne! She started it.

thanks to you both, then. :)

You're most welcome!

Sarah Palin vetoed an Alaska bill to deny benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. She vetoed it because her advisers told her the bill couldn't stand on constitutional grounds and would just cost the taxpayers more money.

Good for her.

It's no endorsement of her stance on actual rights for people, since she also desperately wants to change the constitution to allow that kind of discrimination, but it does represent her acting on sound governing advice.

I realize that but at least she seems to believe in the Constitution.

I sure was surprised to learn that.

McCain is smarter than George W. Bush. While malign, Palin is not the vast blob of Lovecraftian evil that Cheney is. Though perhaps McCain would make a worse president than George W. Bush, the election and inauguration of McCain/Palin would President Cheney off the table.

That's what I was going to say: they're not Bush & Cheney. That's about the only positive thing I can think of!

True. I keep having this (admittedly silly) hope that Palin wouldn't be as bad as we think she'd be. Yeah. I live in a dream world sometimes. That's me. The cockeyed optimist ;-).

I'm not sure that Palin isn't as bad as Bush, but I don't think either of them is as horrendous as Cheney.

McCain performs bipartisan work in Congress. According to one article, "since 2005, Mr. McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills, on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors."

Thanks for asking this question!

Good. I used to respect him a lot--until he backpedaled on the torture issue. From there he kept going downhill in my estimation.

Other comments have noted some of their good actions as politicians in the past. But the only thing I can see to admire about them as current candidates is that they were smart enough to hire some really diabolical consultants.

diabolical consultants are much like spam. they work, or they wouldn't exist. but (*&#$(#*#$. =/

...I got nothin'. Sorry.

That's ok, too.

They serve to further underscore everything that's wrong with the Republican Party at the moment, the Bush presidency, and Rovian politics -- and will therefore sending more voters running in the opposite direction? That's something, right?

I sure hope so.

I doubt I know anything about them that you don't know. While I am not voting for McCain, I've always respected the fact that he didn't toe his party's line. The fact that talk-radio republicans hated that he would be their candidate was--is--a plus in my book. In politicians and in real people too, I always like to see evidence that someone thinks for him- or herself. Now I know McCain has cozied up to the extreme right of his party in the last couple of years or so, but I find it hard to buy into the rhetoric that says he's basically the same as Bush. If that were so, why would the Bush republicans hate him so much (or rather, why did they hate him so much before he became their candidate and they had no choice)? I think the McSame rhetoric is part of the spin--the guy from the other party has to be portrayed as evil.

I've heard a lot of people say this is the most important election evau, and, well, all elections are important, but to me the really important one was 2004, when we knew how evil one of the choices was, and we lost that one. I'd say that this election is, of all the ones I can remember, the one where we have the least unpalatable choices. When was the last time the worst guy in the race was better than McCain? In voting for Obama, I don't feel I'm voting for the lesser evil; I feel I'm voting for the greater good. It's been a while since I could say that.

I don't think it's McCain that would make a McCain victory disastrous. I think a McCain victory would be disastrous because it would lend credence to a republican "mandate." All the other nastiness that evangelical neoconservative Christians have foisted on us for the last eight years or so would continue and strengthen. Further, I think the odds of McCain dying in office are rather high, and I think Palin would be much more disastrous. I think she'd be another W. Bush--I think Bush is an ass, but I see him as not so much personally evil as stupid, selfish, sort-sighted, and surrounded by much more evil puppet masters. If you look at <url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z75qsexe0ju">this interview with Palin, it's clear she's in way over her head. She seems to lack a basic foundation in current events. She's grossly unqualified, and can potentially become president within the next four years. I see someone like that as being likely very easy for the Cheneys and Roves of this world to control. The idea of a President Palin is very troubling. Finally, I think McCain should lose because I think the republican party needs to be punished for its misdeeds over the last decade or so. A message needs to be sent to them, and we can't send that message by electing their guy president.

How's that for backhanded?

Now Palin . . . I got nothing there. The republicans went out and got themselves a new Dan Quayle. Do you remember the debate between Gore and Quayle where Quayle kept quoting nutty things from Gore's book, and citing page numbers, and after the debate fact-checkers came along and showed that all Quayle's claims were false, that none of those things were actually in the book? My take on it at the time was that Quayle knew he was out of his depth going up against Gore, so he had to be aggressive to overcompensate. I see Palin's recent attack-dog speeches as being more or less the same.

But then again, I think Biden was a horrible choice as well. Here is this guy who's been promoting himself as all about Change, and he picks as his running-mate someone who is practically the poster boy for politics as usual? Meh. When it comes to veeps, I do view Biden as the lesser evil.

I agree with you on most of this. Thanks or the input.

And here's a challenge

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

President Cheney

Re: President Cheney

Re: President Cheney

Re: President Cheney

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject