What Exit?
You said “McCain looked a lot better in 2000”. That’s because McCain wasn’t pandering to the nutjob right wing lunatic fringe that “Dubya” was in 2000. Of course that’s the reason “Bubba Dubya” got elected … twice. :mad:
So, it seems to me that if he’s seriously considering getting elected President, McCain will visit Creationist Institutes, Jesus Theme Parks, Intelligent Design seminars at Bob Jones University, anti gay marriage rallies, etc. Yeah, that is pretty sad. Maybe McCain should just say ‘fuck it’ and drop the Presidential aspirations entirely.
I was in the camp that said “no way is that going to happen”. It’s a romantic idea that the parties could reconcile, but McCain might as well have joined the Democrats as run on he number 2 slot of Democratic candidate.
Yeah, this is not the most disturbing thing McCain has done. Still, I’d like to see what he says before I condemn him. Given that the Dems control both houses of Congress, I’ll be leaning slightly towards the Republican candidate for prez in '08 if I don’t have a good reason to vote for the Dem. For instance, if it’s Hillary vs McCain, it’ll be a tough choice-- who is the worst panderer? We don’t vote in a vacuum, and it’s almost always a choice between the lesser of the two bad candidates, as far as I’m concerned.
Operationally, the president has next to ZERO influence over school curricula. The only place it might come into play is in selecting SCOTUS justices, and I doubt that McCain’s pandering in a given election will influence what he actually does in that arena if he’s elected. He won’t decide on nominees based on what he thinks their beliefs are wrt evolution.
I think you and Liberal are both slightly off-target in interpreting this remark. I think statements like “I respect those who think that [whatever]” are just shorthand for “I respect the right of people to believe [whatever]”.
ISTM that this is not about whether or not McCain respects the personal virtues of YEC believers, nor is it about whether or not he considers the YEC hypothesis intellectually respectable. Since McCain isn’t personally acquainted with all YEC believers, and since some subset of them (as would be the case with some subset of any large group of human beings) are doubtless scummy individuals deserving no respect, it would be silly for him to declare that he has personal respect for all of them. What he’s trying to get at is that he respects their right to hold a belief that he may not agree with.
Pandering to the creationists by saying that ID should be taught in school science classes, though, is contemptible. If this is really the sort of hoop that all Republican candidates have to jump through these days in order to avoid losing the religious right vote, ISTM that that’s good news for Democratic candidates. Many Dems ran successfully in 2006 on the basis of growing popular acceptance of the accusation that “Republicans are crooks, liars, and incompetent”. Now the Dems will be able to hammer home the theme that “Republicans are crooks, liars, incompetent, and religious-fanatic nutjobs”.
I agree with John that it would be nice to see the restoration of the sensible, competent, non-extremist wing of the Republican Party as a defense against too much one-party rule (and in particular, I’d like Senator Linc Chafee (R-RI) back). But it looks like the Pubs have a long way to go to get there.
That’s the stupidest thing you’ve said all day. You’re condemning people who possibly have done charitable acts for people you care about. Your own ignorance needs some major work.
No problem with that. But sometimes the intellect misguides. A lot of monsters have been very intelligent.
[off topic]Er, ah, the Demogracts organized the Senate and named committee chairmen but they do not control the Senate. They have 49 voting Senators as do the Republicans. Then there is Lieberman so that as the the important issue of the Iraq war, the Republicans control the Senate.[/off topic]
That assumes that all Republicans are for the war, though, and that’s not always the case. Also, Republicans up for election in 2008 are going to have to explain their votes on the war, and I can’t see that becoming more popular in the next two years.
In the case of those like the people at the Discovery Institute (who are attempting to influence public policy based on their wrong-headed ideas) or John McCain (who is attempting to get a position to implement said policy) such disrespect is perfectly warranted. Your hypothetical “kind, generous, and charitable” person ceases to get a free pass at the moment they decide their flat-earth beliefs deserve to rise to the level of public policy.
Well, he could go out there and trash creationism while the fundies boo and throw shit at him, but I doubt that will happen.
Do you remember what George W. Bush said at Bob Jones U? I don’t. I know he put his stamp of approval on the place, however, by speaking there. McCain is doing the same thing with the creationist cabal. Even if he doesn’t explicitly endorse creationism at the event he is tacitly endorsing it by accepting the invitation to appear before a group best known for strongly espousing it.
Agreed. But I do hold that opinion about any sort of personal agenda, plan, or what-have-you. The only public policy ought to be the security of our rights and property. As far as I’m concerned, anyone can take his plan for me — no matter what shape he thinks the world is — and shove it.
Well, “organizing” the Senate is really where the power is. No party “controls” the Senate in the sense of controlling the vote unless they have 60 seats. I understand the distinction you are making, and I’ll gladly revise the wording I used, but it’s still the same issue-- The Dems run the Senate, if you will. That gives them a very important edge.
I’m more worried about a presidential candidate’s position on foreign policy, taxes, international trade, and SCOTUS appointments than I am on his views on religion or ID. I would probably be inclined to vote for McCain over Hillary or Obama, but we’ll have to see what the Iraq situation is like in '08. If there’s one thing that will make me dump McCain, it’s Iraq. I don’t like his position much, but at least I understand what it is. I think that even he will be ready to get the hell out of there in 2 years.
Why should I believe McCain regarding his position on Iraq if he has to radically altered his relationship with the most radically theocratic part of the Republican party? If he panders on one issue he will pander on another.
And do you mean that you think McCain will be ready to get out within two years or that that in two years he will decide it’s time to leave? In the latter case it will be another year or so (making a total of three years and another couple of thousand US deaths and 15000 wounded) to actually get out and it will be the baby on someone else’s doorstep.
Incidently, I think Hillary Clinton’s statements on her vote to authorize military action make no sense at all. She said she voted for it because she was fooled into it and besides she didn’t really think that GW would act on it. Absolutely incredible.
Like I said, you’re not voting in a vacuum. It’ll probably be a choice between Hillary (or Obama) and McCain (or Giulini). If it’s JM v HRC, then I’ve seen both pander shamelessly, and I can’t really use that a criterion for choosing. I can vote 3rd party, but I’ll only do that if it’s clear CA is going heavily for one candidate. What’s a poor boy to do???
It’s a long time to the selection of candidates. If the Democrats nominate Clinton they deserve to lose. Obama can still crash and burn although I think I could vote for him. Edwards is good if he can get enough money to make a good run at the nomination.
I’ll just hang loose and see how it turns out, except I’ve seen enough of McCain to rule him out.
Still, Richard Burton, singing How to Handle a Woman?, and I Wonder What the King Is Doing Tonight, and Camelot? Difficult concept to wrap my head around.