POLITICS <== Post Your Dumb Opinions Here

by **Trent Steele** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 19:38:27

dajafi wrote:More "straight" talk:

STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your position on gay adoption? You told the “New York Times" you were against it, even in cases where the children couldn’t find another home. But then your staff backtracked a bit. What is your position?

MCCAIN: My position is, it’s not the reason why I’m running for president of the United States. And I think that two parent families are best for America.
...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re against gay adoption.

MCCAIN: I am for the values and principles that two parent families represent. And I also do point out that many of these decisions are made by the states, as we all know. And I will do everything I can to encourage adoption, to encourage all of the things that keeps families together, including educational opportunities, including a better economy, job creation. And I’m running for president, because I want to help families in America. And one of my positions is that I believe that family values and family traditions are preserved.

See, this doesn't bother me. I'm as far left as it gets on these kinds of social issues, but I appreciate the pickle McCain finds himself in. At the end of the day, I know McCain could not care less about gay adoption (see his state decision langauge) and won't expend any capital leading any kind of effort on this type of issue.

by **steagles** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 19:44:08

Trent Steele wrote:
dajafi wrote:More "straight" talk:

STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your position on gay adoption? You told the “New York Times" you were against it, even in cases where the children couldn’t find another home. But then your staff backtracked a bit. What is your position?

MCCAIN: My position is, it’s not the reason why I’m running for president of the United States. And I think that two parent families are best for America.
...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re against gay adoption.

MCCAIN: I am for the values and principles that two parent families represent. And I also do point out that many of these decisions are made by the states, as we all know. And I will do everything I can to encourage adoption, to encourage all of the things that keeps families together, including educational opportunities, including a better economy, job creation. And I’m running for president, because I want to help families in America. And one of my positions is that I believe that family values and family traditions are preserved.

See, this doesn't bother me. I'm as far left as it gets on these kinds of social issues, but I appreciate the pickle McCain finds himself in. At the end of the day, I know McCain could not care less about gay adoption (see his state decision langauge) and won't expend any capital leading any kind of effort on this type of issue.

i don't buy that. i can buy that he doesn't really care about the issue, but i will not accept the assumption that he won't do anything about it. the fact that he doesn't care about the issue means that he'll cede judgment of it to a lesser official, but that official's opinion could be vastly more right wing than mccain's own.

by **dajafi** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 21:14:19

steagles wrote: i can buy that he doesn't really care about the issue, but i will not accept the assumption that he won't do anything about it. the fact that he doesn't care about the issue means that he'll cede judgment of it to a lesser official, but that official's opinion could be vastly more right wing than mccain's own.

Yup. If he can quiet a potential political rebellion by essentially saying "do what you want," than that's what he'll do.

On a personal level, I don't think Bush is homophobic either. But he empowered homophobes for political gain, as McCain is preparing to do. Is that better or worse than somebody like Huckabee, who at least is committed to the bigoted position?

by **WilliamC** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 21:19:40

dajafi wrote:
steagles wrote: i can buy that he doesn't really care about the issue, but i will not accept the assumption that he won't do anything about it. the fact that he doesn't care about the issue means that he'll cede judgment of it to a lesser official, but that official's opinion could be vastly more right wing than mccain's own.

Yup. If he can quiet a potential political rebellion by essentially saying "do what you want," than that's what he'll do.

On a personal level, I don't think Bush is homophobic either. But he empowered homophobes for political gain, as McCain is preparing to do. Is that better or worse than somebody like Huckabee, who at least is committed to the bigoted position?

How was his position bigoted? At least he was straightforward and honest. That's better than lying and portraying a stance which you don't believe in. It at least lets the public know the type of person in which you are voting for.

Huckabee seems like a better guy than both Obama and McCain.

by **WilliamC** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 21:29:08

BTW, I am fine with the idea of a gay couple having children. I just don't view Huckabee's stance as "bigoted".

by **TenuredVulture** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 22:11:24

WilliamC wrote:BTW, I am fine with the idea of a gay couple having children. I just don't view Huckabee's stance as "bigoted".

Huckabee's weird here. He surely had no problem articulating socially conservative positions, but during his last 6 years as governor (that's the period I lived here) they were not a central part of his agenda. I presume he supported the anti-marriage amendment that passed in 2004, but I don't recall him ever doing so publicly. Not that it needed his support--I think it passed overwhelmingly. Curiously, there was an attempt to get a referendum on gay adoption (actually, it would prevent any unmarried couple from adopting on the ballot here that might fail--they don't seem to be able to get enough signatures to do so. However, it wasn't a legislative priority for Huckabee-had it been so, it would likely have passed the legislature.

His Presidential campaign showed a different side of him, I think.

by **Rococo4** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 22:15:39

please no huckabee for vp mccain

by **TenuredVulture** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 22:17:05

Rococo4 wrote:please no huckabee for vp mccain

Huckabee would probably net mccain more votes than Romney.

by **dajafi** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 22:31:56

WilliamC wrote:How was his position bigoted? At least he was straightforward and honest. That's better than lying and portraying a stance which you don't believe in. It at least lets the public know the type of person in which you are voting for.

I think that it's fair to characterize a position that would use the power of law to discriminate against people for an innate trait* as "bigoted." That's all I'm saying.

That said, I see what you're saying about the value of his being "straightforward and honest" about it--at least you know what you're voting for or against. And on some level I like Huckabee.

*I'm not interested in getting into a whole conversation about whether homosexuality is innate or "a choice." I'm just using "innate" as a way to group people by who they believe themselves to be, akin to skin coloration or religion, rather than what they do. If one argues that, say, convicted murderers shouldn't adopt kids, that to me is different than asserting that view against gays.

by **VoxOrion** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 23:46:28

dajafi wrote:More "straight" talk:

STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your position on gay adoption? You told the “New York Times" you were against it, even in cases where the children couldn’t find another home. But then your staff backtracked a bit. What is your position?

MCCAIN: My position is, it’s not the reason why I’m running for president of the United States. And I think that two parent families are best for America.
...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re against gay adoption.

MCCAIN: I am for the values and principles that two parent families represent. And I also do point out that many of these decisions are made by the states, as we all know. And I will do everything I can to encourage adoption, to encourage all of the things that keeps families together, including educational opportunities, including a better economy, job creation. And I’m running for president, because I want to help families in America. And one of my positions is that I believe that family values and family traditions are preserved.

I'd wonder if he was also making references to the religious organizations that are bailing out of the adoption business because of legislation requiring agencies to allow adoption by gay couples despite their religious beliefs if I thought McCain was aware of anything.

by **dajafi** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 00:22:37

VoxOrion wrote:
dajafi wrote:More "straight" talk:

STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your position on gay adoption? You told the “New York Times" you were against it, even in cases where the children couldn’t find another home. But then your staff backtracked a bit. What is your position?

MCCAIN: My position is, it’s not the reason why I’m running for president of the United States. And I think that two parent families are best for America.
...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re against gay adoption.

MCCAIN: I am for the values and principles that two parent families represent. And I also do point out that many of these decisions are made by the states, as we all know. And I will do everything I can to encourage adoption, to encourage all of the things that keeps families together, including educational opportunities, including a better economy, job creation. And I’m running for president, because I want to help families in America. And one of my positions is that I believe that family values and family traditions are preserved.

I'd wonder if he was also making references to the religious organizations that are bailing out of the adoption business because of legislation requiring agencies to allow adoption by gay couples despite their religious beliefs if I thought McCain was aware of anything.

Yeah, he's probably not heavily engaged on that one.

But, while we're on that topic, isn't there the possibility of some middle ground between JESUS FASCIST SEZ NO GAY ADOPTIONS and THE GAYS ARE GOING TO TAKE GOOD CHRISTIAN BABIES ZOMG!!!1 At least rhetorically, how hard is it to argue that both sides have a point?

(Having read a little about this, I don't see how religious organizations engaged in social services could be compelled by the state without violating the First Amendment--which liberals sometimes forget runs both ways on the church/state separation. I guess the state could make financial assistance to the provider organizations conditional upon a certain level of compliance, but that's a little different.)

by **Rococo4** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 00:48:50

TenuredVulture wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:please no huckabee for vp mccain

Huckabee would probably net mccain more votes than Romney.

I doubt it. I think once he was exposed for the nanny state like liberal he is he would be rejected.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 08:08:22

Rococo4 wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:please no huckabee for vp mccain

Huckabee would probably net mccain more votes than Romney.

I doubt it. I think once he was exposed for the nanny state like liberal he is he would be rejected.

The reality of Huckabee's record is less nanny state than the media made it out to be. While he may not be a small government conservative, his record is one of being quite friendly to business. Remember, Romney is the pro-gay marriage pro-socialized medicine governor of Massachusetts.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:08:07

Tom Coburn makes me happy.

Edit: Wow, there's one in the NYT too.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:43:29

http://www.politickernj.com/editor/21821/cohen-resigns

Neil Cohen resigned. Class act.

by **dajafi** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:06:08

jerseyhoya wrote:Tom Coburn makes me happy.

Edit: Wow, there's one in the NYT too.

He's an interesting guy. On some level I have respect for what he does--it's obvious that he takes his job seriously and is a person of strong convictions--but on another, that sort of extremism isn't a good fit for the Senate, where they have to compromise on everything or else (as Coburn knows and shows) nothing happens.

After '94, some of those crazy partisans started moving from the House to the Senate. The Republicans went first, but once Schumer won his seat over Dirty Al D'Amato in '98, Democratic holy warriors started showing up in the upper house too. On the whole, this isn't a good thing.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:17:45

It just makes me happy that we have him there to be a total and complete jackass next year when you guys have 58 Senate seats, an unassailable majority in the House and Obama in the White House.

Also it pleases me that at least someone still cares about cutting spending.

by **dajafi** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:25:45

jerseyhoya wrote:It just makes me happy that we have him there to be a total and complete jackass next year when you guys have 58 Senate seats, an unassailable majority in the House and Obama in the White House.

Also it pleases me that at least someone still cares about cutting spending.

Yeah, I can't argue with that. As someone who doesn't trust unified government and is always scared that the Democrats will revert back to 1970s-vintage ineptitude, actually it kind of makes me happy too.

by **dajafi** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 13:14:11

Romney-VP buzz is really picking up. Our man Nate Silver has an interesting analysis of the possible impact.

I think this would be a mistake for McCain, as Romney's particularly egregious flip-flopping tarnishes McCain's straight-talk brand. (The brand is BS, but his media fan club will never tell...) Huckabee's line about The Mittster from the primaries--"people don't want to vote for someone who reminds them of their boss"--would seem to retain some relevance. And of course there's the Mormon thing. I don't know if that would tilt any states toward Obama, but I could see it further closing the "God gap."

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 13:15:56

dajafi wrote:Romney-VP buzz is really picking up. Our man Nate Silver has an interesting analysis of the possible impact.

I think this would be a mistake for McCain, as Romney's particularly egregious flip-flopping tarnishes McCain's straight-talk brand. (The brand is BS, but his media fan club will never tell...) Huckabee's line about The Mittster from the primaries--"people don't want to vote for someone who reminds them of their boss"--would seem to retain some relevance. And of course there's the Mormon thing. I don't know if that would tilt any states toward Obama, but I could see it further closing the "God gap."

fivethirtyeight has a pretty convincing (at least to me, but then again, I've thought Romney was a disastrous candidate from the get go) case against Romney.

Archived

POLITICS <== Post Your Dumb Opinions Here