• Only 3 members are currently signed up to receive email digests. Click on the digests link on the right at the top of every page to learn more. This is a great feature for keeping updated on forum activity.
• Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule.
My nervousness about McCain stems from his statements about Russia and his apparent willingness to use military intervention. Even though he appears to be correct in that Russia, under Putin, is probably trying to restore the old Soviet empire, we should probably not verbally assault them publically at this early in the game. I really worry about how we label nations as "evil" or refuse to talk to them. I understand both perspectives on this issue, but I don't think I agree with the Republicans.
My nervousness about McCain stems from his statements about Russia and his apparent willingness to use military intervention. Even though he appears to be correct in that Russia, under Putin, is probably trying to restore the old Soviet empire, we should probably not verbally assault them publically at this early in the game. I really worry about how we label nations as "evil" or refuse to talk to them. I understand both perspectives on this issue, but I don't think I agree with the Republicans.
There are more than two perspectives on the issue of possible Russian expansionism, and "Republicans" do not all share the same approach to it in any case. Among the GOP you will find true right-wing hawks who want to roll American tanks into Georgia right now, Libertarian-style isolationists who demand complete non-involvement, and everything in between. Neither the Democrats not the Republicans have an established "party line" on this issue. At least not yet.
Senator McCain as president would likely adopt a Reaganesque position on Russia; prepare to fight and win a war against them while vowing not to strike first. Georgia is a friendly nation, but they are not in NATO or the EU. It is therefore extremely unlikely that any of the western powers are going to go to war on Georgia's behalf, regardless of who the sitting president is. I believe McCain would do pretty much what the Bush administration is doing right now: Condemnations, negotiating the removal Russian troops, and vauge threats about diplomatic and economic repurcussions if they don't comply.
The real difference between McCain and Senator Obama here is that McCain probably would use military force if Russia were to try something similar with a member of NATO (say Poland or Lithuania). Obama would be far more likely to try negotiating while the Russians shelled Warsaw. In such a circumstance, I would support the hypothetical McCain position over the hypothetical Obama position without any hesitation whatsoever. A hard line against Russian expansionism is the best stance we can adopt; Medvedev and Putin are exceedingly unlikely to provoke NATO if they know it means they're going to have a real war on their hands.
And just for the record, I don't believe that the Russians are "trying to restore the old Soviet empire". The invasion of Georgia was one part legitimate concern for ethnic Russians (South Ossetians) living in the breakaway region, and two parts aggressive posturing in response to increasing NATO influence throughout Eastern Europe. They don't like the idea of the Ukraine joining NATO and they really don't like that Poland and the Czech Republic have signed onto the US missile shield. Invading Georgia was a way for Medvedev and Putin to flex some muscle without risking a large-scale confrontation. It seems like that might have backfired on them.
Finally, it was really Frank's position that surprised me, not your's Chris. While I would never accuse you of being a pacifist, you've never been quite the hawk that Frank and I are. Knowing you as I do, I would fully expect this to be an election in which you'd have some trouble deciding who to vote for. On the other hand, this one seems like a no-brainer for Frank. It certainly is for me.
He is old… At his age his head could fall off at any time during his administration and I don’t yet know who would be taking his place… this issue could be dissipated for me once I know who he chooses as his running mate, if it is someone like Rice that’s fine but if his running mate turns out to be someone like Huckabee he just lost my vote…
McCain seems to willing to appease the religious right. I understand that presidents will do this from time to time but we need to break it up for the sake of equilibrium. Three administrations in a row that cater to that group seems dangerous to my personal freedoms.
McCain won’t talk to our potential enemies… this seems like a bad idea to me, it is true that we could get to the point where the only thing left to say is “Prepare to get hit hard and where it hurts” but I think an open dialog should be maintained with all other nations both friendly and hostile.
He is old… At his age his head could fall off at any time during his administration and I don’t yet know who would be taking his place… this issue could be dissipated for me once I know who he chooses as his running mate, if it is someone like Rice that’s fine but if his running mate turns out to be someone like Huckabee he just lost my vote.
Senator McCain is in excellent general health, and he has the vigor of someone 10 or 15 years younger. 71 (72 at the time he would assume office) is not exceptionaly old these days, anyway. With the right medical care, a healthy guy like McCain could live well into his 90s.
But if you're really that concerned about it, I'm confident that McCain is not going to pick Huckabee or any other hard-core social conservative. McCain himself has always been a social moderate; he believes in evolution, opposes the National Marriage Protection Amendment, and favors a much greener enviornmental policy than the Bush Administration. Secretary Rice would be his ideal choice IMO, but since she doesn't seem to want the job my money is on Governor Pawlenty, Governor Crist, or Mitt Romney (I'd be happy with either of the first two, but I don't like Romney).
Quote:
McCain seems to willing to appease the religious right. I understand that presidents will do this from time to time but we need to break it up for the sake of equilibrium. Three administrations in a row that cater to that group seems dangerous to my personal freedoms.
Exactly in what way do you believe your personal freedoms are threatened? Please be specific.
I don't agree with the religious right any more than you do, but, on the other hand, I do not feel threatened by them either. America is more libertarian and more secular now then it ever has been. In my experience, most secularists who rant about how the religious right is taking away their personal freedoms are full of shit. It's much more about heaping scorn on those they disagree with than about any real threat to their liberties.
Evangelicals, bible belt Christians, and other social conservatives are always going to be a significant political force; they vote in large numbers, and do so consistently. They are only exercising their right to participatory government, albeit in a highly effective and visible way. Even though you and I might disagree with them on a wide range of issues, we have no right to silence or marginalize them. To do so would be about as unamerican as you can get.
Quote:
McCain won’t talk to our potential enemies… this seems like a bad idea to me, it is true that we could get to the point where the only thing left to say is “Prepare to get hit hard and where it hurts” but I think an open dialog should be maintained with all other nations both friendly and hostile.
An open dialog at what level? We're talking to even our worst enemies all the time, it's just not done with ambassadors and official state visits. If an important message needs to get from, say, Tehran to Washington (or vice-versa) it gets there. Trust me.
But high-level diplomacy with a beligerant and tyrannical enemy isn't usually a good idea, especially for a superpower. It legitimizes that enemy, and allows them to stall progress under the guise of "negotiations". Some of the world's most repressive regimes - places like Iran, Myanmar, and Sudan - have become experts in using exactly this tactic to paralyze UN action against them. Diplomacy is only valuable if both sides are actually looking for a resolution; when the US refuses high-level diplomatic contact, it's not because we're trying to be cruel or insulting. It's because we know the country in question doesn't really want to solve anything, and meeting with them as equals will only legitimize their charade.
Anyway, who you decide to vote for is of course up to you. It just surprises me that you even have to think about this one, given that Senator Obama is the most liberal and pacifist presidential candidate we've had since the mid-70s.
McCain may be in great shape for someone his age but he looks so infirm compared to the man I was hoping to get the republican nomination in 2000.
As far as religion goes… it is well known that the religious right opposes stem cell research, abortion rights, the right for gays to marry, they now want to change the definition of science so that creationism can be taught in public schools.
While most of their agenda does not immediately affect me, the more power they attain the more restrictive their rules will become… bans on strip clubs and alcohol have been seen in this country already where the religious have their say. Anal sex is a crime in many states, especially in the case of two men. Many actively seek to destroy the separation between church and state and create a Christian theocracy; the list goes on and on…
Thomas Jefferson said it best…
Quote:
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
The simple fact is that religious dogma stunts freedom and candidates that accommodate those people worry me.
Frank, the main reason that I have been a McCain supporter all these years is because he is one of the few big-name conservatives who has effectively distanced himself from the religious right. He is a noted moderate on many issues and has never mixed his faith with his political ambitions. Quite the contrary; one of the biggest complaints that traditional conservatives have about Senator McCain is that he seldom speaks about his "relationship with God" and politicizes it even less. Unless you're actually hoping to get an atheist president, I don't see how you could ask for much better.
What has McCain done or said that makes you believe he'll be beholden to the religious right? I understand that's he's not your ideal candidate, especially given his long-standing opposition to abortion. But are those few issues that you disagree with him on actually enough of a reason to make you vote for a far-left liberal like Senator Obama? I still find that surprising. Shocking, to be honest.
McCain is without question the best candidate that nonreligious conservatives are going to get from the Repulican party for the forseeable future. We'd be foolish to not do everything we can to get him elected.
One other idea just occured to me regarding the 2008 presidential election: If Chris or Frank (or any other American) is having a hard time deciding between Senators McCain and Obama, there are two other candidates you might want to consider:
I know that many people feel like they're wasting their vote if they give it to a third (or fourth) party candidate, because such candidates have essentially no chance of winning. But my philosophy has always been that an honest vote is more important than a strategic vote; I went for the Libertarians in 1996 because I believed that Harry Browne was a better choice than either Clinton or Dole, and I don't feel like I wasted my vote at all.
But my philosophy has always been that an honest vote is more important than a strategic vote.
But why? Why is it important to vote for the person you actually want to win if casting that vote will lead to the election of someone you definitely do not want to win?
Take this to the extreme with a few scenarios.
Sometimes being honest causes more pain than gain. I agree that honesty is usually the best policy and that being honest usually makes the honest person feel warm and fuzzy, but what if that same honest gesture causes tremendous pain to other people?
- Your overweight wife asks you, "Honey, am I fat?"
- The Columbine killers ask you, as they point an AK-47 at your head, "Do you believe in God?"
- Your monster of daughter asks you, "Daddy, am I as pretty as Sarah?" ROFL Yea, that is such a mean scenario it makes me laugh.
What if you want McCain to win, but voting for McCain will fire an automatic bullet into the head of a random Croatian Airline stewardess?
The point, and believe you me there is one, is that sometimes the ends justify the means. Sometimes a little bullshit makes things smell better in the long run.
If one of the alternate candidates had a snowballs chance in hell of actually winning I might suggest throwing your vote that way, but the reality is a vote for Nader is the same as not even going to the polls. It is the same as telling your ugly little daughter that she is indeed ugly, just because it is the truth. It is like telling the Columbine killers that you love Jesus and then taking a bullet to the head.
The only two candidates that have a chance are Obama and McCain and I want my vote to make a difference. Yes, voting for an obscure candidate might feel good for those few seconds of popping out the chads, but in the end I have been selfish and placed my egotistical needs ahead of the nation’s best interest.
Chris, the reason that I said "an honest vote is more important than a strategic vote" is because I'm talking about voting. In an extreme social situation like you've described - or one in which my life was threatened, like you've also described - of course I wouldn't be honest just for the sake of being honest. To insinuate otherwise is absurd. If the truth is going to do absolutely nothing but hurt someone's feelings (or cost me my life) I'm not opposed to telling a lie.
In an election, however, there are very real benefits to voting for who you honestly feel is the best person for the job:
1) Federal Matching Funds. Elections are expensive, and one of the reasons that the Democrats and Republicans are so dominant is because no third party can afford to spend what they do. However, the federal government will help smaller political parties fund their campaign if they recieved a certain portion of the popular vote in the previous election. Therefore, if you honestly feel that a third-party candidate is the best person for the job, voting for him can positively affect his chances in the next election even if he has no chance of winning this one.
2) The lesser of "who cares?". Many voters who support a third party prefer neither major-party candidate over the other. In such as case there's no motivation to not cast an honest vote. Or to extend your analogy, what if the guy asking "Do you believe in God?" has an ice-cream cone instead of an AK-47? If there are no downside consequences to being honest - or if the downside consequences aren't severe enough to force you to act against your ethics - then why lie?
This was my situation in 1996; I disliked Clinton and Dole equally. Given that they were my only choices, I didn't care who won. So I cast an honest vote for Harry Browne with absolutely no regret. There are many Americans who feel this way in every election.
3) The system has changed in the past, and will again in the future. During America's early years, it was the Democratic-Republican Party vs. the Federalist Party. Then it was the Democratic Party vs. the Whig Party for most of the 19th Century. Since the end of the Civil War it's been Democrats against Republicans.
One day it will change again, and the cause will be millions of voters choosing a candidate from a party that might not even exist right now. This is the precise long-term goal of many third-party loyalists, and history demonstrates with absolute certainty that such a goal is achievable. Who are you or I to tell someone they're stupid for trying?
Thanks for the reply, Greg. I'm really torn on this one. When I weigh the pros and cons of each candidate I can't help but lean towards McCain.
Here is something that has impacted me over the past few days.
Matthews: You're a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?
Watson: I am, yes, I am.
Matthews: Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments.
Watson: We, uh ...
Matthews: No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments tonight, if you can.
Watson: Well, I, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he's offering the American people.
Matthews: No, no, what has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him, sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You've supported him for president, you're on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments. Barack Obama, sir.
Watson: Well, I'm not going to be able to name specifics.
Matthews: Can you name any? Can you name anything he's accomplished as a congressman?
Watson: No, I'm not going to be able to do that tonight.
On a side note it is sad to know that this Ohio Representative (Tubbs) died of a brain aneurysm while driving her car yesterday. She actually died later, I believe, but she was driving while it happened.
From what I heard a police officer pulled next to her while her car was driving and he saw her slumped over. He used his car to guide her to a stop. How horrible. Life is precious. She was 58 years old. This could happen to any of us at any time.
Thanks for the reply, Greg. I'm really torn on this one. When I weigh the pros and cons of each candidate I can't help but lean towards McCain.
Here is something that has impacted me over the past few days.
Matthews: You're a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?
Watson: I am, yes, I am.
Matthews: Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments.
Watson: We, uh ...
Matthews: No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments tonight, if you can.
Watson: Well, I, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he's offering the American people.
Matthews: No, no, what has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him, sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You've supported him for president, you're on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments. Barack Obama, sir.
Watson: Well, I'm not going to be able to name specifics.
Matthews: Can you name any? Can you name anything he's accomplished as a congressman?
Watson: No, I'm not going to be able to do that tonight.
I really do not like Chris Matthews too much. He pretty much sets only one possible track and then cuts people off when he does not get what he wants. Kinda like Christians framing an evolution debate and refusing to hear anything other than what they want to focus on.
Very few people could answer Chris Mathhew's question. Ask me about McCain's legislative accomplishments and I can't name a single one. Most people don't follow politics that closely. We form our opinions about the candidates from their campaign talks and we know very little else about their backgrounds and track records.
And YOU stop right there. I see you Googling for an answer. I felt a little bad for Kirk Watson. Chris Matthews was really playing Hardball.
You may be right about Matthews. I don't watch him. This shows you the power of the media. This video is circulating on the web on Blogs right now and is definitely influencing many people....one way or the other.
