In two insightful posts, University of San Diego law professor Michael Rappaport argues that John McCain is very bad on a wide range of policy issues and that pro-limited government conservatives might well be better off with a Democratic candidate winning this fall than with a President McCain.
I agree with most of the points Michael makes in his first post. On two of the issues he raises (immigration and torture/interrogation) my position is much closer to McCain's than Michael's is. I also give McCain great credit for opposing Bush's 2003 Medicare prescription drug plan - the biggest of all the Bush Administration's domestic policy boondoggles. He was one of only nine GOP senators to buck the administration on that issue.
I therefore give McCain higher grades on policy than Michael does. Nonetheless, the overall picture Michael paints is far from a positive one. McCain seems less of a big government conservative than Bush has turned out to be. But the difference is more one of degree than kind. On judges, I agree with Michael's suspicions that McCain might appoint moderate to liberal "stealth" nominees to the Supreme Court in order to preserve his beloved McCain-Feingold campaign finance restrictions. I'm not certain about that, but it's a real possibility.
I am much less convinced by Michael's argument that the cause of limited government will be better off in the long run if the Democrats win. Michael argues that, just as Jimmy Carter's failures in office paved the way for Ronald Reagan, the shortcomings of a Hillary Clinton or Obama administration will pave the way for a Reaganite resurgence. By contrast, if McCain wins, the Republicans will end up adopting his pro-government agenda if he is politically successful or will be blamed for his shortcomings if he fails in office.
Maybe Michael is right. But Carter failed to win reelection in large part because he was the victim of circumstances outside his control: a severe recession and the emergence of foreign policy crises in Iran and Afghanistan. Had he been luckier and a more skillful politician, he might not have lost in 1980. In all three cases, Carter probably made a bad situation worse. But his bumbling would have been much less noticeable to the electorate if he had been blessed with better circumstances. By contrast, the next president will probably enjoy a favorable economy two or three years into his term (once the current pseudo-recession ends). And we don't yet know how international events will play out. When you consider that Obama and Hillary are both more skillful politicians than Carter, and that Obama at least is highly charismatic, it's quite possible that a Democratic president will enjoy considerable political success. Unlike Michael, I am not convinced that the Democrats will repeat the political mistakes of Bill Clinton's first two years in office. They (especially Hillary) might well have learned from those errors and be more effective in enacting their agenda this time around.
The Dems might turn out to be a political success even if they adopt policies that cause great longterm harm (as I think is quite likely). The harm may not yet be apparent to voters in 2012 or even 2016. Even when it does become evident, rationally ignorant voters might lack the knowledge necessary to connect it to the big government policies enacted by the Democrats years earlier.
Finally, even aside from McCain's strengths and weaknesses as an individual, there are great benefits to divided government. As I argue here and here, it's one of the best ways of limiting the growth of government power. Since the Democrats are almost certain to retain control of both houses of Congress and Mitt Romney has almost no chance of winning the general election, John McCain may be the only hope for maintaining divided government in 2008.
Maybe Michael is right to suppose that things will go better in the long run if the Democrats win than if McCain becomes president. But I have even more doubts about that scenario than I do about McCain himself. McCain is very far from ideal. But his election might well be a lesser evil than the available alternatives.
UPDATE: I have deliberately avoided discussion of the war in this post. If you support a quick withdrawal from Iraq, Obama is probably your best bet, followed by Hillary Clinton (though neither is likely to withdraw quite as fast as many liberals want). My own view on Iraq is somewhat similar to McCain's, who gets credit in my book for favoring a "surge" long before Bush came around. However, I don't really have anything to say about the issue that hasn't already been said by others with greater expertise.
UPDATE #2: Michael Rappaport responds to this post here. I lack the time to respond in detail and in any event our views are not that far apart. However, I will briefly respond to Michael's claim that the usual benefits of divided government won't happen under McCain because "McCain enjoys his maverick, bipartisan reputation and will only be too happy to sign many of the Democrats’ bills." It is true that McCain probably would sign some Democratic bills that Michael and I would both find objectionable. However, he would be unlikely to cave in to the Democrats on a wide range of important issues, including spending and foreign policy. The key comparison is not between divided government and some ideal state, but between divided government with McCain and united government with the Democrats controlling the presidency and both houses of Congress. Given the Democrats' likely agenda, the latter scenario could well lead to a major expansion of government that will be difficult to undo even if the Republicans return to power in 2012 or 2016.
Related Posts (on one page):
- An Overlooked Potential Benefit of Conservative Distrust for McCain:
- The Downside of Mavericks:
- Assessing McCain:
- McCain & Romney On Judges:
- Calabresi & McGinnis on McCain & Judges:
- John McCain and the Judiciary:
- Novak on McCain & Judicial Nominations:
- Levy on McCain and Judges:
- McCain & Judicial Nominations:
"Those who would govern others must first govern themselves."
John McCain does not govern himself.
I am a conservative Republican and intend to vote for Hillary Clinton if she and McCain are the nominees. I dislike her character and know her policies are far worse than McCain's, but the prospect of her as President does not terrify me. McCain does.
Character is the most important attribute in a President. IMO John McCain's character flat out disqualifies him from that office.
What are the Democratic policies that you afraid will "cause great longterm harm"? Do you think Roosevelt's policies caused "great longterm harm"? What about Johnson's policies? What about, yes, Bill Clinton's?
I am seriously interested in your position as a libertarian. To my mind, the least libertarian administration by far is the current one. And its record of claiming virtually unlimited executive powers far exceeds that of any Democratic president.
If either Obama or Clinton win (as I think is likely), the probable consequence would be less executive power, in my view.
McCain is not the safe candidate conservatives seem to be assuming he is. Eight years have passed since his "straight talk" campaign blew up with the right wing surge in the GOP. Just last March McCain struggled to remember what his position on contraception was, in a very ugly interview with the New York Times:
"Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”
Uh huh. McCain's image as a straight talker and "maverick" is fabricated. The Dems, Obama or Clinton, will make mince meat of him in 2008. Proponents of judicial abdication appear to believe they can avoid a Democratic win by supporting someone who once had cross-over appeal. The year is 2008, not 2000. Bush's win was razor thin in 2004, given that we were at war. And the young voter turnout, at least if Obama wins, will probably be greater than it was last time around. A McCain victory almost guarantees that there will not be an increased conservative turnout, as in 2004.
The Democratic Party will be in clean up mode (including the courts; one of the reasons I am voting for Obama is because I have absolute faith his nominees will be 180 degrees from the Federalist Society, without even Breyer's more moderate criminal jurisprudence).
So knock yourself out with a McCain vote, but he has already shot himself in the foot more than once.
. . .
As a liberal, I’m entirely stunned at the number of conservatives who claim they’ll vote for Hillary if McCain is the nominee. I don’t for a second believe that most of them actually will, but I’m surprised so many will at least currently claim they will. I can’t stand Hillary and will not vote for her in the general election because of her vote for the war in Iraq. I’m old fashioned and think that exercising poor judgment (especially when it leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people) permanently disqualifies you for a promotion. But despite my strong feelings on that, I wouldn’t for a second consider voting for the Republican candidate. I’ve seen a lot of liberals voice a similar position, and I haven’t heard any liberal claim they’d vote for a Republican if Hillary wins the nomination.
It’ll be interesting to see a McCain – Hillary showdown. Activists on both sides will dislike their own candidate. The general public, on the other hand, seems to like McCain and Hillary. The campaign will likely turn ugly quickly. They’re both professional politicians who will lie, distort, smear, and do whatever it takes to win the nomination. I suppose people on both sides will try to take the high ground and claim the other side is worse and started it.
It’s a shame the election couldn’t be a Obama – Huckabee contest. Setting aside their policies, they both seem like decent, genuine human beings. I guess that’s why neither will be running in the general election.
PoA
On prospective policies, I would list nationalized health care, protectionism, and expansion of regulation in many areas. I would answer "yes" to your questions about FDR and LBJ. Probably a no on Clinton, though he certainly did some things that I disagree with. His most harmful longterm proposal (the health care plan) failed in Congress).
I don't doubt that McCain is popular (at leeast relative to Romney and the other Republicans). My doubts have to do with his policy preferences.
Good luck with claiming the surge succeeded in March. I just hope this administration is actually planning for the end of the Sadr truce.
If she manages to get elected, gets some political capital in the election, and then doesn't completely blow it, then I would probably agree that she is a better pol than Carter was. But now, I think that it is at best undecided.
One other thing -- are the people who say that Romney doesn't stand a chance basing that on general polls, or is it on a state by state basis. Which are the states that Hillary would win against Romney that Bush took in the Bush/Gore election?
The Dems didn't lose Congress because of the failure of the health care initiative. Clinton raised taxes (at Greenspan's prompting), which brought about a surplus, but cost the Democrats control of Congress.
Issues and character are not the same. IMO Hillary cares only about power. This means that her potential acts as President can be affected by external factors such as public opinion and results.
John McCain, OTOH, has shown that he is vain, impulsive, prejudiced and ignorant. His judgment sucks. And he persists in wrong decisions,even when they obviously aren't working, because of his vanity. This can get a lot of us killed when he is President.
Character in a President matters a lot. If Hillary Clinton and John McCain are the nominees, I'll vote for Hillary based on character rather than issues.
McCain is that scary.
Wait you say, any manager that wants to stay employed will take any opportunity he has to score runs, even he has two banjo hitters followed by a pitcher with an .075 batting average? Well goes to show sports analogies don't always translate to politics.
Well just like a baseball manager we should make the best of the opportunity rather than squander it because our clean-up hitter struck out to end the last inning.
There is one major issue coming up early in the next term that it is going to be critical to have a Republican President in office to handle. The Bush tax cuts are expiring in 2010, if Hillary or Obama are in office, they will use the opportunity to stick it to the economy. They'll probably preserve tax cuts for the middle class but they'll jack up taxes for millionaires. In case you are wondering millionaire will be defined as someone who makes 25,000 a year over a 40 year career.
I'm not glossing over McCains weaknesses but he will be the most conservative major party candidate on spending since at least Goldwater. That is at least something. McCain has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 82.3. That isn't great and for the 2006 term it was 65. Hillary has a lifetime rating of 9.2.
In the Soviet Union, various offenses, by Soviet citizens, against the state, resulted in reasonably predictable sentences, in cold prisons, with inadequate food, but no actual torture, within Soviet territory, of X number of years for hooliganism or whatever.
In Bush-America, various allegations, about citizens of faraway places, against the U.S., result in indefinite imprisonment, including torture in some cases, without trial, without habeas corpus, in an offshore port occupied by the U.S. military, part of an island nation with which we have no diplomatic relations and which it illegal for American citizens to visit.
Yes, Guantanamo is worse. It is worse because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship and the United States is supposed to be a representative democracy. It is worse because in the Gulag, after a prisoner served a 10-year sentence, he was free to go, but in Guantanamo, most of the prisoners have never been convicted and face imprisonment with no end in sight. It is worse because in the Soviet Union, families knew the whereabouts of prisoners, but in Guantanamo, everything is secret, and we even send people in "extraordinary rendition" to third countries for months of torture, again without even trying and convicting first.
An Iraqi general walked into Abu Ghraib, got stuffed head-first into a sleeping bag, and was tortured to death. He was one of hundreds or thousands like that.
No, I don't believe the conduct of the Bush administration is comparable to, say, the Andropov administration, in its treatment of suspected offenders against the state. I believe the Bush adminisistration's conduct in this regard is worse.
I welcome reasoned evidence to disabuse me of this view.
Evidence and judgment are not the same. They are different.
You would get along just fine with a McCain administration.
Huh?
Perhaps 600 people are in Guantanamo. 2,000,000 died in the Gulags.
The prisoners in Guantanamo are illegal combatants -- in earlier conflicts they would have been shot out of hand.
The prisoners in the Gulags were accused of effectively nothing. Some of them might have been prisoners of conscience, that is, they made the mistake of speaking their minds, but the vast majority did not even do that.
The conditions in Guantanamo may not make it a pleasure cruise, but inmates have health care, regular food, books, opportunity for worship, and so forth.
The Gulags were effectively death camps. Although outright execution was usually only used as a penalty for violating camp rules, the cold and the hard conditions made the odds of surviving a 10-year sentence rather low.
And what to make of "eyesay"'s apparent belief that the fact that the Gulags were embedded in the larger evil of the Soviet Union somehow improves the Gulags' moral standing? The kindest thing I can think of to say about that is that it's ridiculous.
I guess you haven't heard of the First Amendment, then? Of all the different sorts of speech there are, surely speech to and about the government is the most protected by it?
Likewise, I can't believe that ANWR (symbolic, perhaps, but inconsequential in our total energy policy - we also lose out by not being able to drill off of California's coast, but nobody's making that a defining conservative litmus test) global warming, and the reimportation of drugs (a pretty classic wonk issue, no?) constitute three other defining issues here.
Excluding those, we would be left with campaign finance (on which his position is clear) immigration (on which the author claims to not "believe his recent 'conversion' on the issue...yet we're suppose to believe Romney's conversion on, you know everything?), and then unsubstantiated claims on McCain's 1) favoring business regulation and 2) possibly being weak on judges (again, "despite his claims to the contrary", when we have nothing greater than that for the supposedly 'true conservative' candidate in the race).
Nobody's perfect, but in the scheme of things, if this is the best list of horror that the elites can come up with to scare us into backing Romney, I'm understanding why people remain unconvinced. Reagan raised taxes, broke up AT&T, granted an amnesty, and pursued a moral foreign policy opposed to the short-term, pragmatic needs of the war we were fighting, yet I'd still proudly say he has a strong conservative record - on the balance, I do not see how McCain's is really different. Balance his short list of negatives against his positives - say, a strong record on other conservative issues, including judges, plus foreign policy leadership and a moral fortitude to lead on issues dear to the country - and the fact that his opponent's record - if we're going to go by that and not "believe conversions" - would look better next to Ted Kennedy's and Obama's, and I think we're getting closer to understanding why he has a shot at this thing...
Bush (despite being better than the Gorebot or Kerry) has proved a disaster for libertarians (and I'm not referring to hysterical protestations over the Patriot act or "warrantless wiretaps"). Can the limited government wing of the Republican party really survive another 4 or 8 years of a big government president who thinks regulation is the way to solve all the country's ills? Its hardly reassuring that McCain's biggest obstacle to big government is his inability to find the money to pay for it - not any ideological objections to state intrusion.
I made an extreme argument because I am outraged by the lack of due process, the use of torture, Bush administration doubletalk on torture, the U.S. Senate's approval of an attorney general who bullshitted about torture, and the whole machinery that has been created to defeat accountability and preserve this horrible status quo.
My earlier posting began:
maie wrote: "Christopher Cooke - you don't actually believe that our Guantanamo facility is comparable to the Soviet Gulag?"
A more thoughtful response on my part might have continued something like this: "Well, of course the Gulag was one of the more notable inhumanities of the Twentieth Century, for its long duration, for the number of people affected, and for the misery it inflicted on so many people. But, there are ways that our much smaller Guantanamo facility does compare to the Gulag." And then I should have listed the similarities.
But again, I admit without reservation that my earlier posting was over-the-top.
I do believe that with democracy comes responsibility. As Peter, Paul and Mary said in a 1968 song:
It robs us of the honor that our country's known before
When we would not pursue a peace and end an unjust war
We are all responsible for what's done in this war
Democracy means we can decide, that's what our vote is for
If I thought that the congress would act the same under either, and the only barrier to continued government growth was the president, then I would obviously have to support McCain as the lesser of the two evils.
I also agree with those who don't see the war in Iraq as a decisive issue, only because I don't believe the Democrat rhetoric about precipitous withdrawal. I agree that neither Clinton nor Obama will risk open surrender and betrayal of our Iraqi allies.
In any case, its a hard choice, and one I haven't made yet.
True, and if a pig had gills and fins, it would be a fish.
On topic, I'm getting tired of hearing that conservatives who would not vote in a general election, or who might pick one of the Democrats over McCain, are variously insane, deranged, petulant, or stupid. A guy who would consider jumping parties for a committee chairmanship simply because he felt he was portrayed badly in primary campaign ads is a little too impetuous for me. He's supposed to be a steadfast man of great character, huh? I don't see a lot of difference between him and Hillary, with the exception that he's willing to sell out his political positions in order to be popular.
Nothing compels me to vote, and nothing compels me to pick the lesser of two evils when the alternative of abstaining presents itself. Based on the lesson learned by Republicans in 2006 (the people seem to want more earmarks and backroom deals, let's give them to 'em) the Republican Party needs to be spanked a bit harder before they deserve our votes.
Wherever the Clintons go there are reeking scandals like this. These scandals will surely surface in the coming election. Mitt is squeaky clean and I suspect the poll results will start reversing, as people regain their forgotten knowledge of just how corrupt the Clintons are and actually have to consider the real possibility of four more years of the Bill &Hill show.
Sounds like a pretty good description of the way the Bush years contrast with the Clinton years.
Say what you will about Newt Gingrich (and there's plenty to say) but he was a Republican leader who was not afraid to break from the party orthodoxy.
The only thing that’s kept the Republican Party viable has been the incompetence of the Democrats. Until the Republicans get their act together and stop recycling Reagan’s platform they’re destined to be a party in decline.
"True" conservative this year, but not last year. Will he be a true conservative next year?
Figuring that a Democratic victory is likely, if not probable, conservatives should aim, first and foremost, to avoid a Democrat landslide.
McCain's nomination would attract the most independent votes, and would be more likely to prevent the worst case scenario.
The prisoners in Guantanamo are illegal combatants -- in earlier conflicts they would have been shot out of hand.
In no earlier conflict would businessmen arrested in Gambia be shot out of hand. Or unarmed people arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani police. Or alleged plotters arrested in Bosnia, and then ordered released by the Bosnian courts because there's no evidence of the plot. Yes, there are some Taliban privates, and some Arab irregulars (of exactly the same type we supported in the war against Russia). But there have been enough stories or error -- like the one in todays NYT about the Afghan who died of cancer in Gitmo -- that it's clear enough that meaningful judicial review is really necessary here. (And the Administration is doing all it can to thwart even the lame review ordered by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act).
The conditions in Guantanamo may not make it a pleasure cruise, but inmates have health care, regular food, books, opportunity for worship, and so forth.
1. Tell this to the guy who got AIDS -- probably through a botched blood test. Or the guys who get an aspirin for infections, or have untreated Hep. There's a reason the government refuses to turn over medical records to the prisoners' lawyers, and it isn't pride in the quality of care.
2. We're not starving them. A triumph of American values.
3. Unless the books are subversive: like dictionaries, or Dr. Seuss. Or USA Today. Or nearly anything but Harry Potter and Agatha Christie. Can a prisoner take a correspondence course? No. Nearly all of them are going to go home in the next year or two -- 92% of Saudis have gone home already -- and what are we doing to aid in rehabilitation, and reintegration? Precisely nothing.
4. The DC Circuit just rejected a solid claim for interference with religious worship, finding the prisoners aren't 'persons.'
This last is the real problem with the whole policy: so many people are so caught up in the myth of 'would be shot on sight in earlier conflicts' that they've adopted a decidedly Dred Scott view to the whole thing: these people have no rights we are bound to respect. Wrong as a matter of law, and of morality.
(It is a very good screen for the sincerity of libertarians, though.)
Like Rappaport, I also disagree with McCain on many issues. But the one thing I find refreshing and admirable is that he isnt afraid to anger his party and come to his own conclusions. While I believe Libertarian positions are mostly consistent, I have a deep distrust for any person who supports the conservative or liberal position across the board. They just arent consistent positions.
I have always wondered where this "Romney is a conservative" came from.
I guarantee that the media will declare the economy miraculously improved shortly after either Clinton or Obama enter the white house.
Still is, evidently.
On releases: It's a good thing that so many Saudis have gone home -- in contrast fewer than 12% of Yemenis have been sent back. It's not because of any difference in their conduct in Afghanistan, or in Gitmo. You can bang the bars and swear to kill Americans when you get out, and if you're Saudi, you can get sent home. Why? Three powerful little words: Oil, Iraq, Iran. Smart politics, to be sure, but it's also long past time to drop the pretense that there's much of a security thing going on here. The whole operation is a proof of all the truisms of unchecked and unreviewed power.
OK, off the soapbox.
A. Zarkov,
I can't speak to your other charges, but the reason Senator McCain can't raise his arms is due to his torture in Vietnam. He can't raise his arms above his head without assistance. He can't even comb his own hair. This has nothing to do with age.
I don't think surviving torture should bar anyone from the Presidency, do you?
This is not true. I cannot let it stand without objection!
Other than that, I suggest this speculation, like all political speculation is fascinating for us political junkies and I include myself. However, I think its a bit premature and I prefer to see who the nominees finally are and what the prospects for congress like--that won't emerge until a bit later.
While I would always prefer an election based on someone I can vote for, there are times when I have to either abstain, vote third party, or vote for the lesser of two undesirable choices. Looks like this election is shaping up to be the last situation. Anyone more conservative than Senators Obama and Clinton, will probably be my criterion.
<blockquote>
Many conservatives believe that the key question in this election is: Are there to be two multiculturalist open-borders parties or one? If McCain’s election were to make the GOP fundamentally similar to the Democrats on immigration, bilingualism, racial preferences, and all the National Question issues, that would be a resounding historical defeat for conservatives.
</blockquote>
McCain has repeatedly made it clear he favors racial preferences. Most writers on this blog seem to oppose same, so why do they support McCain?
You have every right to argue that Jimmy Buffet was the greatest rock singer in history, plus that the BeeGees were the best group, and demand that people here prove otherwise with evidence and reasoned argument. Just expect only a few replies, all of them addressing your judgment in derisory terms, and none on the merits.
Because (1) the other Repubs are even less likely to win, and (2) the Dems support racial preferences plus many other repugnant-to-VCers things that McCain does NOT support ... so McCain is the least bad choice.
Really, I don't see what's so hard about this.
If McCain wins, so be it. All true conservatives will support him, if only because everything they suspect McCain of, HRC and Obama proudly embrace. We're at war, this is no time for silly gamesmanship. McCain is a better wartime leader, this isnt the time gambling on political clout 4 years down the road.
Then why support McCain's immigration policies also? Current immigration patterns will guarantee preservation and expansion of racial preferences. Chancellor Birgeneau at UC Berkeley said the following in an interview
Romney, Hillary and Obama are cautious and prudent. McCain isn't. He's reckless. That is a dreadful trait in a President, especially in wartime.
Then why support McCain's immigration policies also?
Again: Assuming that it's either McCain or the Democratic nominee, then the Democratic nominee is going to have no less liberal immigration values than McCain's (Mickey Kaus notwithstanding).
McCain's "bad" qualities -- such as reservations about torturing human beings -- largely cancel out, in Republican eyes, because they are by definition shared by the Democrats, who are of course Evil Incarnate.
Whereas McCain is likely to have some "good" qualities, such as enthusiasm for an endless occupation in Iraq, which being "good" are not shared by the Dems (see "Evil Incarnate," above).
Thus, McCain is the better choice for a Republican, at least for a Republican who's not a pill-popping mouth-breather like Limbaugh, or a narcissistic sophist like Coulter.
How are they going to fix abandoning Iraq?
I love it. Apparently, the notion that the people to whom Iraq belongs, and who should fix its problems, are "Iraqis," does not seem to be on the table.
In what regard, and where is the evidence of that? I'll support Romney 100% if he gets the nomination, but the idea that HRC or Obama have proven themselves trustworthy with the keys to the car is far from clear to me.
And again- we are supposing that McCain might do what HRC and Obama are promising to do. We will have some leverage with a Republican president. Once HRC is sworn in with her democratic congress, we might as well all go on vacation for 4 years and be prepared to come back to a drastically different nation.
Agreed -- given our reckless Cheney, for instance -- but what is the evidence for McCain's recklessness? I am genuinely curious.
That is the idea, yes.
Funny, coming from the 'it takes a village' people. Abandoning Iraq to be torn apart by Al Qaeda and Iran doesnt seem like empowering the Iraqis to me. Note that 'indefinate' is your term. There is a difference between stabilizing Iraq over the next few years and staying forever. Both of which differ significantly from pulling out all our troops within 6 months hell or high water.
Thank you. I'm not a McCain supporter, but the original comment was absurd. Hell, FDR couldn't walk unaided, but that had nothing to do with his ability to be President.
What's even funnier is that the people who oppose nation-building in the South Bronx support it so enthusiastically in Iraq.
I have the same curiousity. Is it just the fact that he has an ornery personality at times? Or this there any evidence that he's made reckless political decisions?
Both efforts are hampered by nearly unbridgeable linguistic and cultural differences. Fortunately for the south Bronx, however, there is no oil under their city.
As for the polls that say some large number of people won't vote for a Mormon, consider that it's easier to admit that prejudice to a pollster (as alot of people probably don't know any Mormons, so prejudice against them is more socially acceptable), than it is to admit that you would never vote for a woman (Hillary) or a black (Obama). I suspect the latter prejudices are more pervasive than the polls make them out to be. Though there are undoubtedly some evangelicals who would sit at home on election day if Romney were the nominee, I suspect that many of the millions who are regular talk-radio listeners will sit at home or make a protest vote if McCain is the nominee, myself included. If I could stomach voting for that goofball Badnarik in '04 to protest Bush, I can stomach whatever goofball they put up this year if McCain is the nominee.
Even more fortunately for the South Bronx, there has been a lot of rebuilding.
When the Fed feels compelled to ease 125 basis points in an 8 day period, unemployment has risen from 4.1 % to 5% in a short period, when banks and brokerages firms write of 10 to 15 billion dollars a quarter with consistency and foreclosures are climbing at an astronomical rate - this is not "pseudo." This is the real deal.
The base will do anything to stop Teh Hillary or Teh Hussein, I'm sure, but Romney has very little appeal to independents, who seem to believe that he is a pandering phony who tells different constituencies whatever he thinks they want to hear.
McCain by contrast has a mysterious appeal to independents, who fail to notice his consistently conservative voting record, his nasty temper, and his hateful sense of humor.
I definitely agree with this. Heck, New Hampshire exit polls pretty much proved it.
Gab, please cease and desist with your reality-based commenting, whose liberal bias is unacceptable.
A number of politically moderates, especially women, whom I know say they could never pull the lever for him (WWe have voting machines with levers where I live).
The comments I have heard are something like this:
He's creepy-- seems plastic and insincere.
He has a plastic family.
He seems like a plutocrat who doesn't understand and doesn't care about the needs of the middle class.
Basically, they don't trust him, and are convinced at a gut level that he does not have their interests at heart.
Conversely, I have never met anyone who was enthusiastic about him as a person.
Many pepole vote for or against the person, not the position. Romney will do badly there.
If I were pulling the lever on the basis of the candidate's polition papers, I would vote for Romney. I am plannng, however, to vote for McCain because I think he is electable and because I-- well-- don't trust Romney either. It has nothing to do with his membership in the LDS church, which I regard, if anything, as a positive. It's because of what he seems to be as a person.
Anyone who thinks we're in an actual recession has no grasp of the factual definition. 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. We havent had 1 quarter of negative growth.
Strawman. How McCain’s physical infirmities came about is irrelevant.
“Only consitutional (sic) requirements for the Presidency are age and nativity IIRC.“
So that means a candidates physical and mental heath don’t matter?
“Hell, FDR couldn't walk unaided, but that had nothing to do with his ability to be President.”
The appropriate comparison to FDR is 1944 not 1932 when he was 50. In 1944 at age 62 FDR was in poor health, which affected his ability to meet the demands of office. He was on his last legs at Yalta and died shortly after. Had the public known the true state of his health in 1944, they would not have reelected him.
Age matters in a candidate. Look at the force-of-mortality curve for men. You can see that the slope of the curve is pretty steep after 60. The probability dying between age 60 and 65 equals the probability of dying between birth and 60. At age 72 the slope is even steeper. If you think age doesn’t matter, then would you be willing to vote for someone at age 95 for president?
Now if McCain is in exceptionally good health that might mitigate his age. But he isn’t. If anything he appears worse than average. Why should we gamble?
I assert that McCain is too old to be president, and no one has provided any evidence to the contrary.
Anderson, it's not mysterious. The left-wing press, from the NYT to Rolling Stone, lionize the man in exchange for his willingness to trash the Republican base and to fight for onerous legislation like McCain-Feingold that they support for their own reasons.
Once he get the nomination though, that all goes out the window. Young Independents who get their news from Rolling Stone and the like will be re-introduced to John (Keating 5)McCain as the nasty, corrupt jerk that he is, at which point you can kiss that support goodbye.
Understandably, the fear is that prompt action is needed to *ward off* a recession. Obviously, Bernanke et al. are worried about *something*.
On the Republican side, we have Mitt Romney who is the ultimate flip flopper on major policy issues. We have Mike Huckabee who couldn't come up with an original public policy idea on his own and is a complete ignoramus on foreign policy. We also have John McCain, who somehow becomes a military expert and a war hero because he couldn't properly evade a North Vietnamese SAM fired by a peasant. Finally, there is Ron Paul.
Based on the foregoing, if I am an officer in the Chinese Military Intelligence, I am probably preparing a memorandum for my superiors on how the immediate decline of America's political class will likely accelerate the timetable for China's supremacy over the United States in five (5) years instead of fifty (50) years.
McCain's mother is still going strong at 96. That's not proof, but it's certainly evidence.
In other words, McCain might compete for moderates and independants, but that's nothing you can build a victory around if you don't have the base of your party forming the core of your support. Most moderates and independants are what they are precisely because they are politically ignorant and/or because they lack any kind of foundational principles to guide them. They don't firmly commit to anybody or anything, and on election day they could go anywhere. If McCain is counting on them, he will be sorely disappointed come November.
I can think of a few, 2004 and 2000 to begin with...
I hadn't seen this video before, but it confirms my reasons for rejecting Romney. It was posted by Co-Conspiritor Zywicki's co-Dartmouth trustee, and Adler's co-Corner blogger Peter Robinson. The six degrees of the Volokh Conspiracy.
"What's even funnier is that the people who oppose nation-building in the South Bronx support it so enthusiastically in Iraq."
Mark Field, your comment is frivolous and unworthy of you: there has been a lot of rebuilding in the South Bronx; the issue in Iraq is not nation-building but defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq and preventing chaos and civil war; and in fact there are hawkish Democrats like Joe Lieberman who favor what you call nation-building in both Iraq and the South Bronx.
Huh? The comment was regarding the crop of presidential candidates. I think both the Democratic and Republic candidates are better in 2008 than they were in 2000 and 2004. I prefer nearly all Republican candidates to Bush. I prefer Obama to both Kerry and Gore.
Does that mean you voted for either or both of Gore and Kerry? I suppose that's a legitimate response to the question, "What Would Marius Do?" but surprising nonetheless.
I have plenty of disagreements with McCain, but let's at least hew to the actual facts when criticizing them man.
Pooh.
(1) Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a sideshow that will fade when there are no more Americans to blow up.
(2) We are not competent to defeat Iraqi terrorists (al-Qaeda or not), prevent chaos, or stop the ongoing civil war. We don't speak the language, grasp the culture, or have the resources. What we *can* do is continue an inevitably heavy-handed occupation.
(3) The only way that the violence and terror in Iraq will be stopped is by NATION-BUILDING ... i.e., by the Iraqis themselves. That is the only possible way, though I don't think it's likely, because there are few if any "Iraqis," as opposed to Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, etc.
The basic problem is that our stupid President ginned up a war to remove an evil tyrant who was keeping a Sunni minority on top of a Shiite majority, and whose neighbor Iran was a Shiite adversary of the U.S.
Once the Sunni cork was blown off the bottle, there was not much hope for any outcome other than these two: (1) a Sharia-style mullocracy under the Iranian-friendly Shiites, or (2) Saddam 2.0, another Sunni dictator who would reprise Saddam's hostility to Iran and tyranny over the Shiites.
Iraq has no (recent) experience of the rule of law, no stability, none of the things needed to grow a democracy.
So, I don't really expect "nation-building" to work, either; the pooch is screwed, and the only choice that remains to us is to decide how many more Americans are going to die for Bush and Cheney's screw-up.
None of this is really intended to *persuade* anyone here, but to explain how silly the italicized comment at the top appears.
CDU, don't bother arguing McCain's military tradition - it's like Kerry's - no matter what he did, he won't be good enough for some folks.
Ah, the paranoid mind never sleeps.
Obviously you think you have more expertise concerning Iraq than Gen. Petraeus.
I didn't say a word about democracy. There is a possibility that if we stay long enough to help the Iraqi government defeat Al Qaeda and the rest of the insurgency and improve its army and police force, that some sort of federal result is possible in which there is relative stability, and a government not hostile to us and not nearly as brutal as Saddam's.
Is there any historical evidence to support giving much weight to these polls?
That said, I like neither McCain nor Romney nor Obama nor Clinton. Are these really the only choices?
How are his infirmities “clearly” not age related? Absent more information like medical records we are left to wonder. Even if all his muscular-skeletal problems are solely the result of his Vietnam War captivity, they could affect the way he ages. If he were 50, I would be much less concerned, but age 72 is another matter. Considering his age, he has to convince us that he is physically and mentally up the job. He hasn’t.
Your response seems inconsistent to me, but perhaps it's just too short. I don't get what Lieberman has to do with this, unless you're claiming that it's ok to support nation building. However, Bush specifically opposed it in the 2000 campaign.
The fact that there IS rebuilding going on in the South Bronx is irrelevant unless you can show that conservatives who opposed "nation building" support the efforts in the South Bronx. BTW, I'm sure the citizens of the South Bronx would be more than happy if $700 billion (and counting) were expended in those efforts.
Your comments about the "real issue" in Iraq seem to me so totally divorced from reality that I don't know where to begin. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until after we invaded. Chaos and civil war did not exist there until after we invaded.*
But even if we assume that peace and stability are goals of the occupation, they aren't the purpose of the occupation. The purpose, as Bush himself stated expressly, is to create time to build a new Iraqi nation. IOW, nation building.
Nor is Bush alone in stating this. While justifictions for the invasion have proliferated like kudzu, the idea of creating a free and democratic Iraq both as a goal in itself and as a basis for transforming the Middle East has been prominent among many war supporters.
*It should be obvious that this is NOT a defense of Saddam Hussein. Whatever his flaws, though, the nation was under control. Firm control. Stalinist control. That's the very opposite of "chaos and civil war".
The fact that his father died at age 70 is also evidence, but not pointing in the same direction
My point about Lieberman was that there are some politicians who supported both nation-building in Iraq and domestic social spending.
I'm not sure what the difference is between nation-building and securing peace and stability in Iraq, but whatever the difference is, and whatever Bush said we were doing four or five years ago, now we are simply trying to help the Iraqi government prevent the worst from happening, and the fact that those things (Al Qaeda and chaos) did not exist under Saddam is irrelevant to the question of what we should be doing now.
Fair enough, but they weren't the target of my original snark.
Ah, the quiet tyranny of low expectations.
Be that as it may, my original point still stands: many war supporters advocated grandiose schemes to remake Iraq or even the entire Middle East in ways which they spent their whole lives opposing when it came to government intervention in US problems.
The Iraqis are too backward and uncivilized to run their country. They need either a secular dictator or a religious dictatorship imposed on them to keep them happy.
Be that as it may, my original point still stands: many war supporters advocated grandiose schemes to remake Iraq or even the entire Middle East in ways which they spent their whole lives opposing when it came to government intervention in US problems.
And my point still stands: all this is irrelevant in deciding what to do now. I wish Clinton and Obama realized that.
About 60 million Americans disagreed with you. But you're welcome to your minority opinion.
"I love to distort what Anderson said. And I am still sticking with baseless Utopian neoconservative fantasies"
Actually, a majority of people voted for Al Gore. So, as far as that goes, that is not the majority opinion.
Also, I think that Kerry would have won, if people realized what a horrible job Bush would do in his second term. People gave him a pass during his first term because of 9/11. Only in retrospect is it obvious that this was a stupid mistake.
Are you leading the charge for the repeal of Medicare? If so, are finding it an easy sell?
Better, not more.
There is a possibility that if we stay long enough to help the Iraqi government defeat Al Qaeda and the rest of the insurgency and improve its army and police force, that some sort of federal result is possible in which there is relative stability
The problem here, quite seriously, is that it assumes the conclusion. How is Iraq ever going to do those things *without* the stability? The "Iraqi government" is largely a legal fiction masking conflicts between entities that consider the present power arrangements to be purely temporary. You "train the police," and then they join the militias. Etc., etc.
Leaving aside that the occupation denies the gov't the very legitimacy it would need to accomplish its goals. You may have a hard time seeing this, but "tools of the American occupiers" is not a positive credential in most Iraqis' eyes.
The Iraqis are too backward and uncivilized to run their country. They need either a secular dictator or a religious dictatorship imposed on them to keep them happy.
Liberal democracy, my friend, is not a self-evident social arrangement that ordinary people leap to embrace. In modern times, it's arisen only after a certain level of economic and legal development was reached.
I don't consider the Iraqis uncivilized or backward. I doubt very much that a democratic government is high on many Iraqis' list of priorities. They have other fish to fry.
JosephSlater: kind words, thx!
Actually, a majority of people voted for Al Gore
Plurality, not majority. Obviously, the American people are too backward and uncivilized to enjoy the blessings of direct democracy ....
I doubt that most Iraqis want us to leave yet. I also doubt that the current government there wants us to leave in order that it can become more "legitimate."
Yeah, the left-wing press really supported McCain-Feingold so they could take in less advertising revenue. That was a great business decision they made. Geez people, use your brains.
In any case, it is the libertarian argument that the government has no responsibility to help the poor. Conservatives argue that particular policies can be counterproductive--hence the 1995 revisions to the welfare state which, shock of shocks, actually didn't produce the starvation and disasters that liberals predicted. But the conservative argument isn't that the government should let the poor starve, but that the most effective strategies for helping the poor involving providing educational opportunities and encouraging economic growth---positions anethema to liberals, because it would involve telling teachers' unions that the students matter more than the teachers.
Conceivably, both sides of the problem could gradually increase until stability &a working security force were both achieved.
I think that this however goes back to the comments above (srg?) that it's "possible" that a happy ending occurs in Iraq. I don't think it's practical, or even sane, to make our foreign policy decisions on the basis of what's not completely impossible. What's probable is what we need to look for. And there are way too many obstacles to American success in continued occupation for us to spend Other Americans' Lives on a boondoggle with no end in sight.
I totaly agree. However I seem to recall some small fledgling country that tried an experiment with liberal democracy. An experiment that took hold at first, then a long period of increasingly devisive debate about human rights exacerbated by regional strife disentigrated into a horrific civil war. But still they persevered and kept trying. But it took a lot longer than 4 or 5 years.
But of course there have been lots of similar examples of countries with ethnic and religious strife where any progress at all has taken a lot longer to achieve than in Iraq, such as Spain, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, England, India as just a few examples, and yet I don't think anybody thinks they were or are lost causes. There is nothing unique about Iraq, other than the fact that so many people are desperate to give up with out giving it a fair chance.