dajafi wrote:Limbaugh and his vile ilk aren't *for* anything.

Actually, they (Limbaugh, Coulter, et al) are for something... themselves. They are self-branded enterprises with a core consumer base. But the product isn't ideas or ideals, but material in nature (ad revenue, books, etc.).

It's really happening: http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/does_america_need_john_mccain

If Redstate is coming around on McCain it means that a) they're terrified of Huckabee, b) they're terrified of Hillary, and c) we might actually make a good decision.

I was thinking today while I was on the elliptical trainer that I might vote for McCain over Hillary.

Finally saw the much-discussed Mike Huckabee Christmas ad.

That can't be accidental, but what were they hoping to gain from it? I'd think plenty of people would think Huckabee was making himself out to be a "Christ-like" figure and that would offend people.

TenuredVulture wrote:I was thinking today while I was on the elliptical trainer that I might vote for McCain over Hillary.

In your state it might actually matter--though I suspect McCain would defeat Sen. Clinton rather easily, especially if he was smart enough to pick a moderate running mate (NOT Holy Joe Lieberman--someone like, though I know it won't be her, Sarah Palin) and really make it okay for wavering Democrats to back him.

There's a great piece in the NYT magazine from last weekend about "Clintonism" that was really eye-opening for me--it's amazing how prescient Bill Clinton actually was in 1992, and how much his outsider thinking from that time has become Democratic orthodoxy today. And yet, four election cycles later, that thinking has become ossified and the current standard-bearer of Clintonism offers nothing new or interesting, and Bill Clinton's triumphs and tribulations strike me as basically irrelevant to Hillary's candidacy except in how they reinforced her already-present inclination to be ultra-cautious about everything. (My take on it is here, if anyone wants to have a read.)

I couldn't stomach voting for any Republican, and as I wrote on (I think) the last page even a detestable individual like Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation probably would be better for the country by virtue of her anonymous appointees. But in a purely personal, irrational way, I'd probably prefer to see McCain in the White House than Hillary.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I was thinking today while I was on the elliptical trainer that I might vote for McCain over Hillary.

In your state it might actually matter--though I suspect McCain would defeat Sen. Clinton rather easily, especially if he was smart enough to pick a moderate running mate (NOT Holy Joe Lieberman--someone like, though I know it won't be her, Sarah Palin) and really make it okay for wavering Democrats to back him.

There's a great piece in the NYT magazine from last weekend about "Clintonism" that was really eye-opening for me--it's amazing how prescient Bill Clinton actually was in 1992, and how much his outsider thinking from that time has become Democratic orthodoxy today. And yet, four election cycles later, that thinking has become ossified and the current standard-bearer of Clintonism offers nothing new or interesting, and Bill Clinton's triumphs and tribulations strike me as basically irrelevant to Hillary's candidacy except in how they reinforced her already-present inclination to be ultra-cautious about everything. (My take on it is here, if anyone wants to have a read.)

I couldn't stomach voting for any Republican, and as I wrote on (I think) the last page even a detestable individual like Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation probably would be better for the country by virtue of her anonymous appointees. But in a purely personal, irrational way, I'd probably prefer to see McCain in the White House than Hillary.

It would obviously come down to what happened during the campaign. Running mates, whether McCain panders to the right, what kind of people the campaigns surround themselves with, and so forth.

McCain is likely to lose my vote with whoever he chooses as running mate.

Hillary could easily win Arkansas. From what I can tell, McCain would be the only Republican who'd give her a run.

dajafi wrote:I couldn't stomach voting for any Republican

You close minded left wing maniac - you don't vote FOR anything, it's all about your hatred of the right wing! You don't care! AAARRRGHHH!!!!!

TenuredVulture wrote:...whether McCain panders to the right...

I always read this kind of stuff, what does it even mean? "Pander to the base", "Pander to the right", "Pander to the left", "Pander to the whites", "Pander to the blacks"?

How would one know if a candidate is pandering or doing what they believe in? If pandering is saying whatever one doesn't like to a group one doesn't support, then doesn't that just mean that pandering means nothing, or conversely, that it's all pandering?

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:...whether McCain panders to the right...

I always read this kind of stuff, what does it even mean? "Pander to the base", "Pander to the right", "Pander to the left", "Pander to the whites", "Pander to the blacks"?

How would one know if a candidate is pandering or doing what they believe in? If pandering is saying whatever one doesn't like to a group one doesn't support, then doesn't that just mean that pandering means nothing, or conversely, that it's all pandering?

In McCain's case, he's got a pretty long record. It's also a question of emphasis. Is he focusing his attention on problems that matter to me like health care or the environment, or is he going on and on about two guys who want to marry each other.

I don't expect to agree with any candidates across the board. I'm more and more convinced that issues don't matter as much as tone. Bush and Gore were not all that different on any number of issues, but there was a significant difference in tone.

This may sound a lot like an "intangibles" argument in baseball. But basically, candidates spend most of the campaign avoiding saying anything specific regarding they policies they will attempt to implement once elected, because specific proposals are likely to alienate some important constituency. In addition, their proposals are going to be modified when they go through the legislative branch. Bush had to work with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind.

I've come to the conclusion that issues don't tell you much about how a candidate will govern as President, so I've got no choice but to look at the intangibles.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I couldn't stomach voting for any Republican

You close minded left wing maniac - you don't vote FOR anything, it's all about your hatred of the right wing! You don't care! AAARRRGHHH!!!!!

I always thought I was pretty straightforward about this. I dislike the Democrats, and I detest the Republicans.

Obama or Bloomberg I could vote "for." Any other Democrat would be an against.

And if anything, I care too much...

New polls--Iowa gonna be crazy up in here:

Political Wire got a sneak peek at the latest Strategic Vision (R) poll from Iowa that shows both the Republican and Democratic presidential races essentially tied.

For Democrats, it's Obama at 30%, Clinton at 29% and Edwards at 28%.

For Republicans, it's Huckabee at 29%, Romney at 27%, Thompson at 15%; and McCain at 14%.

The poll, which has a 4.5% margin of error, was taken over the last two days.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I couldn't stomach voting for any Republican

You close minded left wing maniac - you don't vote FOR anything, it's all about your hatred of the right wing! You don't care! AAARRRGHHH!!!!!

I always thought I was pretty straightforward about this. I dislike the Democrats, and I detest the Republicans.

Obama or Bloomberg I could vote "for." Any other Democrat would be an against.

And if anything, I care too much...

I was laughing because I know - in fact, the sentiment has been expressed here - that if a conservative or Republican expressed the same sentiment in reverse, it would just be proof that they were an evil hatefilled HATER HATER HATER with no logic reason or intelligence just HATE HATE HATE

TenuredVulture wrote:In McCain's case, he's got a pretty long record. It's also a question of emphasis. Is he focusing his attention on problems that matter to me like health care or the environment, or is he going on and on about two guys who want to marry each other.

Doesn't matter what he focuses on. If he goes on to talk about what will get Mister and Missus Vulture's vote, it's not going to change the fact that he's got a 0% rating from NARAL (for example), even if he never campaigns on abortion.

TenuredVulture wrote:I don't expect to agree with any candidates across the board. I'm more and more convinced that issues don't matter as much as tone. Bush and Gore were not all that different on any number of issues, but there was a significant difference in tone.

This may sound a lot like an "intangibles" argument in baseball. But basically, candidates spend most of the campaign avoiding saying anything specific regarding they policies they will attempt to implement once elected, because specific proposals are likely to alienate some important constituency.

So you agree with my first sentiment?

TenuredVulture wrote: In addition, their proposals are going to be modified when they go through the legislative branch. Bush had to work with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind.

Which doesn't matter cause the haters hate it anyway. I say with complete conviction that NCLB by Clinton and Kennedy would be considered a failure, but not a rally issue or the end of the educational system as we know it.

TenuredVulture wrote:I've come to the conclusion that issues don't tell you much about how a candidate will govern as President, so I've got no choice but to look at the intangibles.

I don't know - I think Bush fulfilled all of his campaign threats (big bloated government agencies, big bloated perscription drugs, educational change, and continued war without end from 2004), and so did Clinton before him. Granted - Bush did change from his 2000 campaigning in one monsterous way, and that's his sudden embrace of neo-con interventionalist stuff post 9/11. Ironically he gave one of the best arguments against state building during one of the debates with Gore, then flip-flopped. I think the significance of 9/11 had no small part to play in this (in other words, he showed no signs of changing his position in the brief time he was president before then).

For lack of any other option, I choose to evaluate what they say and hold them to it. Neither of our approaches gets to the truth necessarily, but the nuiance of believing them can be pretty illuminating (particularly when compared to their deeds).

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I couldn't stomach voting for any Republican

You close minded left wing maniac - you don't vote FOR anything, it's all about your hatred of the right wing! You don't care! AAARRRGHHH!!!!!

I always thought I was pretty straightforward about this. I dislike the Democrats, and I detest the Republicans.

Obama or Bloomberg I could vote "for." Any other Democrat would be an against.

And if anything, I care too much...

I was laughing because I know - in fact, the sentiment has been expressed here - that if a conservative or Republican expressed the same sentiment in reverse, it would just be proof that they were an evil hatefilled HATER HATER HATER with no logic reason or intelligence just HATE HATE HATE

Yeah, I hear you. But we just assume you're all like that...

Thing is, I'd love to find Republicans I could vote for. I hate reflexive partisanship, and I agree that it's now as bad on the left as it is on the right. But I can't stomach--and that is the word--the people who discriminate against gays, think tax cuts for billionaires are more important than making sure bridges don't collapse, never met a war they didn't like (so long as the hoi polloi actually fight it), and don't seem to care all that much about competent governance or empirical policy analysis (e.g. "The Tax Fairy").

There's a place for fiscal conservatism, operational skepticism about what government can accomplish at home and abroad, and even reverence for "tradition." But those things are all obscured or gone under the Republican Party of 2007. Basically when they clear out all the vestiges of DeLay/Bush/Cheney/Norquist/Dobson, I'll check back. Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen in my lifetime.

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:In McCain's case, he's got a pretty long record. It's also a question of emphasis. Is he focusing his attention on problems that matter to me like health care or the environment, or is he going on and on about two guys who want to marry each other.

Doesn't matter what he focuses on. If he goes on to talk about what will get Mister and Missus Vulture's vote, it's not going to change the fact that he's got a 0% rating from NARAL (for example), even if he never campaigns on abortion.

TenuredVulture wrote:I don't expect to agree with any candidates across the board. I'm more and more convinced that issues don't matter as much as tone. Bush and Gore were not all that different on any number of issues, but there was a significant difference in tone.

This may sound a lot like an "intangibles" argument in baseball. But basically, candidates spend most of the campaign avoiding saying anything specific regarding they policies they will attempt to implement once elected, because specific proposals are likely to alienate some important constituency.

So you agree with my first sentiment?

TenuredVulture wrote: In addition, their proposals are going to be modified when they go through the legislative branch. Bush had to work with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind.

Which doesn't matter cause the haters hate it anyway. I say with complete conviction that NCLB by Clinton and Kennedy would be considered a failure, but not a rally issue or the end of the educational system as we know it.

TenuredVulture wrote:I've come to the conclusion that issues don't tell you much about how a candidate will govern as President, so I've got no choice but to look at the intangibles.

I don't know - I think Bush fulfilled all of his campaign threats (big bloated government agencies, big bloated perscription drugs, educational change, and continued war without end from 2004), and so did Clinton before him. Granted - Bush did change from his 2000 campaigning in one monsterous way, and that's his sudden embrace of neo-con interventionalist stuff post 9/11. Ironically he gave one of the best arguments against state building during one of the debates with Gore, then flip-flopped. I think the significance of 9/11 had no small part to play in this (in other words, he showed no signs of changing his position in the brief time he was president before then).

For lack of any other option, I choose to evaluate what they say and hold them to it. Neither of our approaches gets to the truth necessarily, but the nuiance of believing them can be pretty illuminating (particularly when compared to their deeds).

Vox, I agree with your take on Bush--he kept his campaign promises, with one big exception. But if you look at his successes and failures, you can see how tone might have helped predict those.

But in the end, the Bush Presidency isn't going to be about no child left behind, or the failure of his attempt to reform social security or probably even tax cuts.

It's going to be about the increasing power of the executive, the way in which loyalty mattered more than competence in the administration, and the response to unpredictable 9/11 and Katrina.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I couldn't stomach voting for any Republican

You close minded left wing maniac - you don't vote FOR anything, it's all about your hatred of the right wing! You don't care! AAARRRGHHH!!!!!

I always thought I was pretty straightforward about this. I dislike the Democrats, and I detest the Republicans.

Obama or Bloomberg I could vote "for." Any other Democrat would be an against.

And if anything, I care too much...

I was laughing because I know - in fact, the sentiment has been expressed here - that if a conservative or Republican expressed the same sentiment in reverse, it would just be proof that they were an evil hatefilled HATER HATER HATER with no logic reason or intelligence just HATE HATE HATE

And that is wrong because?

dajafi wrote:
Yeah, I hear you. But we just assume you're all like that...

Thing is, I'd love to find Republicans I could vote for. I hate reflexive partisanship, and I agree that it's now as bad on the left as it is on the right.....

(cut for space)

I agree with you, but I think this is just an obvious situation that folks for some reason try to avoid - probably in a well meaning but ill concieved effort for "ecumenicalism". And a weak tactic where someone attempts to "shame" the other into being so "anti-intellectual" as to have an opinion. It's stupid. There is nothing wrong with saying "I can't ever imagine voting for a Republican/Democrat". When it comes to elections, it's not reflexive partisanship, it's having a command of the facts and issues. You can't imagine voting for a war guy who would give tax breaks to millionaires. I can't imagine voting for someone who is pro-abortion. There's no point in pretending otherwise. It's dimwitted to act as if it's better to lack that kind of decisiveness or to pretend there is some kind of solution by pretending to have a desire to meet in the middle. Nothing bothers me more than the celebration of these half-wit "undecided" voters in late October. You mean to tell me you can't make up your mind? Are you illiterate? Are you just waiting for some kind of half-assed scandal to break in the 13th hour? Or are you just "undecided" as a continuation of our celebration of relativity and medocrity (or so that fatty from Fox News will stick a microphone in your face)?

Where reflexive partisanship is stupid is when you automatically defend some action (not stand or policy) just because it was "your guy", or automatically assume the worst because it's the "other guy".

The Abu Ghraib thing was a perfect example. Conservatives were running around trying to make "light" of what happened there. Why? It's stupid. Three/four years later they aren't - why not? Because they aren't inherantly okay with that {I know you disagree, but bear with my point} - they just didn't like the idea of a Democrat/liberal "win" so they defended it. Ditto for NOW and the whole Clinton thing. Instead of following the predictable pattern they supposedly stood for when the Lewinsky thing came out, they played dumb and shifted focus to whether or not it was anyone's business what he was doing, blah blah blah.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:
Yeah, I hear you. But we just assume you're all like that...

Thing is, I'd love to find Republicans I could vote for. I hate reflexive partisanship, and I agree that it's now as bad on the left as it is on the right.....

(cut for space)

I agree with you, but I think this is just an obvious situation that folks for some reason try to avoid - probably in a well meaning but ill concieved effort for "ecumenicalism". And a weak tactic where someone attempts to "shame" the other into being so "anti-intellectual" as to have an opinion. It's stupid. There is nothing wrong with saying "I can't ever imagine voting for a Republican/Democrat". When it comes to elections, it's not reflexive partisanship, it's having a command of the facts and issues. You can't imagine voting for a war guy who would give tax breaks to millionaires. I can't imagine voting for someone who is pro-abortion. There's no point in pretending otherwise. It's dimwitted to act as if it's better to lack that kind of decisiveness or to pretend there is some kind of solution by pretending to have a desire to meet in the middle. Nothing bothers me more than the celebration of these half-wit "undecided" voters in late October. You mean to tell me you can't make up your mind? Are you illiterate? Are you just waiting for some kind of half-assed scandal to break in the 13th hour? Or are you just "undecided" as a continuation of our celebration of relativity and medocrity (or so that fatty from Fox News will stick a microphone in your face)?

Where reflexive partisanship is stupid is when you automatically defend some action (not stand or policy) just because it was "your guy", or automatically assume the worst because it's the "other guy".

The Abu Ghraib thing was a HAMELS example. Conservatives were running around trying to make "light" of what happened there. Why? It's stupid. Three/four years later they aren't - why not? Because they aren't inherantly okay with that {I know you disagree, but bear with my point} - they just didn't like the idea of a Democrat/liberal "win" so they defended it. Ditto for NOW and the whole Clinton thing. Instead of following the predictable pattern they supposedly stood for when the Lewinsky thing came out, they played dumb and shifted focus to whether or not it was anyone's business what he was doing, blah blah blah.

Though there's a flip side to this that's also somewhat distasteful--Republicans really went after Larry Craig not because they found what he did abhorrent (it might be icky, but it was hardly corrupt, and don't most people outgrow outrage at hypocrisy when they're 16 or so?) but because they felt the manufactured scandal might hurt the party. Sometimes, it would be nice to see a little personal loyalty. Frankly, it would have been decent if a democrat had stood by Craig.

I think this swings more to the right for the reason that conservatism is to the right, liberalism is really in the center and socialism is to the left. The entire gammut is offline and those on the right want to believe that the "left" is left of center when it really IS center.

|--Socialism----Liberalism-Center-----Conservatsim--|

It really doesn't get more conservative than the GW group besides electing Bill Donahue as president. It gets MUCH more liberal past the Clintons, Edwards and Obamas. And people who think they are in the center are really just unaware conservatives.

I won't vote for a Republican because they represent the many being controlled by the few (social control by religion and economic control by the rich). The problem is that there is really no wavering off of that. I think you'll find much more diversity among liberal views than conservative ones.