demagogue on 23/7/2008 at 21:17
Quote Posted by SD
McCain is no Democrat, in disguise or otherwise; he's classic paleoconservative through and through.
He's not a Democrat, but you have to admit that paleoconservatives are closer to the modern Left than the Christian coalition generation... McCain, like Goldwater before him, has his ideological sympathies with gays in the military, right to abortion, more immigration, and despises the vindictiveness and hypocrisy of "value" Republicans ... He flaunted the mid-90's Republican revolution with the same delight that Goldwater had in kicking Nixon out of office.
Ghostly Apparition on 23/7/2008 at 22:34
Quote Posted by demagogue
He's not a Democrat, but you have to admit that paleoconservatives are closer to the modern Left than the Christian coalition generation... McCain, like Goldwater before him, has his ideological sympathies with gays in the military, right to abortion, more immigration, and despises the vindictiveness and hypocrisy of "value" Republicans ... He flaunted the mid-90's Republican revolution with the same delight that Goldwater had in kicking Nixon out of office.
You've got to be kidding right?
John McCain Ideologically sympathetic to Gays in the military? Right to abortion?
In case you haven't noticed John McCain has changed his positions a lot since 2000,(sometimes every day it seems)
But just one example, You're stating that he's sympathetic to abortion, while
it plainly states right on his website thats he's for overturning roe v. wade
(
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm)
If I had one wish, it would be that people would keep up with candidates positions before espousing such obvious claptrap.
Chade on 23/7/2008 at 22:57
it's not unusual to change positions in the lead up to an election, though ... it doesn't necesarily mean much in the long term.
demagogue on 23/7/2008 at 23:32
I'm not kidding. (BTW, I'm talking about his ideological roots, not his election positions per se. His positions may change, but his roots have been rather consistent.)
In his political core basically Stronts was right; he's a paleoconservative of the Goldwater bent (cf. military, Arizona, Senate career). That's economic libertarian focused, cut down gov't regulation, cut out waste and corruption, stop the gov't telling individuals and businesses what they can/can't do, esp no legislating "values" when you do have to tell them, assertive military and police power. He's always been uncomfortable dealing with the moral turn of the Rep's, and the whole "culture war" thing, and that's when he likes being his most "maverick" by turning his focus on campaign finance reform or some crusade against "stupid regulation" (although for him, being "maverick" is just being consistent).
But of course he's a practical politician and has to appeal to the Republican base, which is still galvanized by the mid-90s turn to values ... so he has to watch what he says on these issues. And he's not going to miss the lesson of 2004 which is that pushing the culture war wins elections, even if you botch an entire war and make no noticeable domestic progress except a tax cut that even Alan Greenspan denounced.
.............................
Edit 1:
Quote:
John McCain Ideologically sympathetic to Gays in the military?
It definitely fits the profile; who a person has sex with is something the gov't should stay out of. He's not leaping for gay rights, but he doesn't think the gov't has a place telling people they can't choose their sexual lifestyle, or punishing them for it.
"Rated 33% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights."
"Leave gay marriage to the states."/ "Ban on same-sex marriage is unRepublican; leave it to states."
"1994: No Senate hiring discrimination by sexual orientation."
"Would be 'comfortable' with a gay president."
"Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion." ...
"Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)"
"Wants Roe vs. Wade made irrelevant, but would not repeal it. (Aug 1999)"
He has never taken an absolutist stand against abortion and always wants loopholes.
Abortion is a quintessential issue of personal choice and values where a classic libertarian doesn't like the gov't involved ... not in the "values" part of it anyway, more the "health" and policy end. He always tries to turn the debate to be dealing with unwanted pregnancies, and away from the absolutist moral end.
To the extent he can say he wants Roe v Wade overturned, it's a "free lunch"; he can say it, get support, but it won't happen (anytime soon) and he knows it ... Even in the link you posted, he appears most happy when the focus is on the policy problem of unwanted pregnancies itself. (There's also the democratic angle; seems he'd be more comfortable having an abortion loophole democratically ratified rather than by "judicial fiat".)
What both of these issues have in common is 1, they are issues a Goldwater conservative would think the gov't has no place in telling individuals what they can/can't do and 2, they are quintessential issues that galvanize culture-war voters. So it presses McCain between his natural ideological sympathies and his political instincts.
Quote:
If I had one wish, it would be that people would keep up with candidates positions before espousing such obvious claptrap.
You speak as if there were no real American political tradition to any of this, just "candidate positions" that magically pop into existence when a website goes up. The Goldwater-Reagan-McCain tradition has deep roots. Also, when looking at any candidate's position, you have to (or at least I try to) read behind the words, and really get at where they're coming from ... what do they really believe and what is just being politically expedient. Look at the wording and how they hedge things. That's how they're going to govern. Need I remind everyone that Bush II ran on a campaign of "compassionate conservatism" and "no foreign adventures", but the seeds of his leadership style were there from early on.
Edit 2: sorry to keep editing in caveats ... but also keep in mind the purpose of what I saw saying. McCain is still Republican. I wasn't saying he's crazy about gay affirmative action and free abortions ... My only point was just that there's a streak in McCain (his Goldwater roots) that's not too far from what's today often considered "Left" thinking, things he still hedges on, although he may bury it at times.
a flower in hell on 24/7/2008 at 00:14
Quote Posted by Thief13x
Don't know about anyone else but I'm voting Libertarian, the only way to keep more than 50% of your paycheck.
quoted for motherfucking truth
heretic on 24/7/2008 at 05:32
Some of you are having trouble telling the differance between paleocons and neocons.
The neocon movement goes back to the 50's, and Goldwater is widely recognized as being the first
succesfull neocon candidate, (who's candidacy took place in the 60's.)
As things stand now, folks such as Pat Buchanon and Michael Peroutka are the former (paleocon), while the Reagan, Bush and Mccain camps are most certainly the latter (neocon).
There is a huge differance, though I doubt it would be as apparent to most Europeans since all of the above could be seen as well to the right of the spectrum on this side of the pond.
demagogue on 24/7/2008 at 07:30
Yeah, I was using the term paleocon (admittedly incorrectly) because SD used it and I wasn't being careful; but I meant neocon as you're explaining it ... Goldwater, Reagan, Bush, McCain in ... Buchanon and Duke definitely out.
BTW, on that note, reminds me of the theory that there's pressure to re-split the political ground going on in both parties, between the pro-globalization types (Bush1&2, Clinton 1&2, McCain, Obama ... "third way", respect the market & liberalization, assertive foreign policy, social libertarian) and the protectionist types (Buchanon, Helms, Edwards ... progress lies inwards, de-liberalize, distrust foreign engagement). It doesn't fit everything of course, but there's something to it IMO.
Morte on 24/7/2008 at 08:18
Quote Posted by heretic
Some of you are having trouble telling the differance between paleocons and neocons.
The neocon movement goes back to the 50's, and Goldwater is widely recognized as being the first
succesfull neocon candidate, (who's candidacy took place in the 60's.)
As things stand now, folks such as Pat Buchanon and Michael Peroutka are the former (paleocon), while the Reagan, Bush and Mccain camps are most certainly the latter (neocon).
There is a
huge differance, though I doubt it would be as apparent to most Europeans since all of the above could be seen as well to the right of the spectrum on this side of the pond.
Oh, it's readily apparent if you don't lump everything on the right together. While I may disagree with many of the positions paleoconservatives take, you can usually at least respect them. They tend to be realists, with a semblance intellectual integrity.
Neocons are the frothing at the mouth lunatic faux tough guys like Bill Kristol and Joe Lieberman, possessing the idiotic manichean worldview that have led to the mess in Iraq.
I wouldn't lump Goldwater in with the neocons though. He might've laid the foundations for modern conservatism, andbeen militantly anti-communist, but I don't think he'd subscribe to the manufacturing of existential threats like the neocons do, nor the heedless military interventions.
McCain is very much in the neocon fold though. Which is why electing Stumpy the three-legged Wonder Dog and his parrot sidekick would be better than McCain and whoeve he picks as his running mate.
Rogue Keeper on 24/7/2008 at 15:22
Neocons are just lefty sissies converted to the Holy Right.
A PALEOCON TOLD ME THAT SO IT MUST BE TRUE.
