Cult of personality is one of the major flaws of the left. They don't know that of course, so let's not tell them. Conservatives are in danger of the same fatal flaw. Ideas move and shape society. Enough of the Palin worship already. It's better to focus on the ideas, not the package that delivered them. Palins intellect is sound enough to stand on its own merits. Conservatives emulating lefties makes me sick. There is nothing to learn from the left. Their biggest accomplishment the last fifty years is a two term president that managed a staggering 43% followed by a whopping 49% as an incumbent. Conservatives are the political grown ups, time to start acting like it.

I think that both the Democrats and Republicans made politically astute choices for their VP nominees.

Obama was very smart to choose a white, male, well-established, experienced and respected mainstream politician like Biden. This choice may offset the worries about Obama's lack of experience, and perhaps the hesitation of many Americans who feel uncomfortable voting for a black guy. The ticket had to be off-set on both counts. A black guy AND a female (white or black or whatever) on the same ticket? Come on! That would've been political suicide.

Whoever advised McCain to pick Palin should get a bonus. McCain is himself a white, male, well-established, experienced and respected mainstream politician. And, in spite of his "maverick" reputation, earned by early liberal stances on some issues that he's now reneged on, the man has voted with the Republican Party almost 90% of the time. He's no maverick, so he had the opposite problem of Obama's.

Given that Hillary Clinton was off the ticket, the Republicans' choice of a female was a master stroke. So now, just like the Demcrats, the Republicans can promise a "first": the first woman vp. So those who want to see a "first" can feel they're achieving that by voting Republican.

While being excited about a woman vp is understandable, let's not overstate the situation. Meryl Yourish calls herself a liberal on social issues (pro-choice, gay marriage, etc.), and is happy to see a woman in the White House as a step forward for women's rights. Well...Palin is no social liberal. She's four-square against abortion (unless the mother might die), she's against gay rights, she's for teaching creationism and "intelligent design" alongside evolution in the schools, she's against sex education, she's against stem cell research, and she opposes anything but a "market-driven" health care system (already shown to be a disaster).

All those women who are "energized" by the presence of Palin on the Republican ticket are behaving just as McCain's advisors figured they would. Bull's-eye! But these women should remember that Palin is still a Republican, and a right-wing one at that. For heaven's sake, look beyond her gender and see what she believes in! It's still the ideas that count. That's another reason why McCain's choice was a brilliant idea. In one fell swoop, he could attract moderates and liberals (by choosing a woman) and conservatives (by choosing a very conservative woman).

I'd like to see more women in leadership positions, and I'd like to see more blacks in leadership positions. Hell, I'd like to see more black women in leadership positions. But I'm not willing to vote for someone with whom I disagree on practically everything just to see a woman in a leadership position. I'll wait for a woman with whom I can honestly agree on the issues.

And, Meryl, don't "dis" the Democrats for not choosing a woman as candidate for Vice President. They just chose a black man for candidate for president! And, oh wait a minute, the Dems did choose a woman for candidate for VP. Yes, they did. Only, that was in 1984. They beat the Republicans to it by almost a quarter century.

...the hesitation of many Americans who feel uncomfortable voting for a black guy. The ticket had to be off-set on both counts. A black guy AND a female (white or black or whatever) on the same ticket? Come on! That would've been political suicide.

Come on, Joanne. Obama was way ahead in the polls two weeks ago. Are you telling me that Americans are inherently misogynistic and racist? If Obama had picked Hillary, you can guarentee he would have a lot more support today, partially if just for the simple reason of women wanting one of their own in the race. It would also have made sense with the 18 million votes that Hillary garnered in the primaries.

 And, in spite of his "maverick" reputation, earned by early liberal stances on some issues that he's now reneged on, the man has voted with the Republican Party almost 90% of the time.

So opposing his party on torture, campaign finance reform and two years ago, much of his party (including the "realist" school around Condi Rice) on the fashionable notion of giving up on Iraq, these do not qualify as a maverick?

She's four-square against abortion (unless the mother might die), she's against gay rights, she's for teaching creationism and "intelligent design" alongside evolution in the schools, she's against sex education, she's against stem cell research, and she opposes anything but a "market-driven" health care system (already shown to be a disaster).

Oh dear, how to fisk this?
1. Being against abortion does not make you a bad person, nor likely to tear off to legislate on reproductive rights.
2. This is the most popular "fact" about Sarah Palin doing the rounds on the MSM. No, she is for teaching creationism - if you go and read the debate in which the quoted remark was made, then you may find that she argued that it should not be excluded as part of a debate in class (free speech?) and that she does not think it should be placed on the school cirriculum.
3. So are a lot of Americans, and I disagree with them. But that is why we have a debate about this, not areas of policy marked "no go" because they are sacred shibboliths.
4. The charges I would place (as an enthusiastic supporter of the NHS) against the US healthcare system (for want of a better word) would be that it is actually rather inefficient and overmanned and that those on low incomes find reliable healthcare hard to come by and even those on higher incomes can be bankrupted by, for example, a child with a severe disability.
But a disaster? No, my dear Joanne, a disaster is the immeding collaspe of the "socialist" healthcare system in Cuba or the absence of a welfare based healthcare system in Britain prior to the NHS. The US healthcare system could use a single standard of insurance, which would solve the problem of portable health insurance at a stroke. It could use greater government support for those on the edge, or who might overwise be bankrupted by unavoidable costs.
But it is not a disaster.

But these women should remember that Palin is still a Republican, and a right-wing one at that. For heaven's sake, look beyond her gender and see what she believes in!

Problems with this statement: It might be, Joanne, that many of those women actually agree with Palin on those issues. And perhaps those issues, to which you seem to cling dearly, are not so dear to those women.

I'd like to see more women in leadership positions, and I'd like to see more blacks in leadership positions. Hell, I'd like to see more black women in leadership positions.

So would I but on their merits, not by virtue of a die roll at conception. Sorry if that is too free market for you.

They beat the Republicans to it by almost a quarter century.

And never tried it again.
Might I also add that Barack Obama, culturally speaking aside from the dark tone of his skin, is not a "black" man. He's mixed race and was raised in Hawaii and apart from three years of "community organizing", attended Havard Law School. He was not raised in Afro-American communities and that to my mind makes the notion of calling him a "black" man deeply dishonest. Because "black" as a political statement carries cultural overtones, which he does not share by birth or upbringing. His wife is "black", Barack Obama is not.

Guys, you might want to read this stuff from Michelle Malkin... I didn't have any idea how corrupt the Democratic Party really was...

I'll try to answer the comments by Richard:

Are you telling me that Americans are inherently misogynistic and racist?

No, I’m not.  Please don’t caricature what I’m saying or put words in my mouth. As it happens, there are Americans who feel uncomfortable voting for a black man. A black man plus Hillary (seen not only as a “feminist,” but also as an abrasive personality) would indeed be a turn off to many people. Where do you get from that any sense that I’m saying that “ALL Americans are inherently misogynistic and racist”?

If Obama had picked Hillary, you can guarentee he would have a lot more support today, partially if just for the simple reason of women wanting one of their own in the race. It would also have made sense with the 18 million votes that Hillary garnered in the primaries.

You can guarantee that? Based on what?  SSN recently featured an interview with a spokesman for “Clintons for McCain,” who said that many Hillary supporters do indeed dislike Obama.  I’ve read elsewhere that there a myriad groups with the same orientation, CfM just being one of them. So,  it was demonstrated even here on SNN that Hillary’s 18 million votes are not automatically going to Obama.

As for your point that Hillary would’ve helped the Obama ticket because of women wanting one of their own in the race: That would well be true for some. But Hillary Clinton isn’t just “one of their own.” She’s Hillary Clinton, with her own history and reputation. Many women, including liberal women, are very ambivalent about her.

So opposing his party on torture, campaign finance reform and two years ago, much of his party (including the "realist" school around Condi Rice) on the fashionable notion of giving up on Iraq, these do not qualify as a maverick?

 

No, they do not. As I've said, when you vote with your party almost 90 percent of the time, you're no maverick. This isn't Britain, where one is assumed to vote with one's party automatically. Here the legislators vote the way they want. In the USA, the parties are big tents. That's why we have traditionally had some liberal Republicans (nicknamed "boll weevils") and conservative Democrats (nicknamed "Dixiecrats"). Admittedly, both these groups have greatly diminished, but, still, voting with your party 90% is pretty high. 

It's true that McCain's held some moderately "liberal" views in the past. But he's reneged on a lot of those views. As for supporting campaign reform, he's flip-flopped on that, supporting it in 2003, but opposing it two years ago. He voted for Bush's tax cuts initially, but now supports extending them. On immigration, he's flip-flopped on his earlier position supporting eventual citizenship for undocumented aliens. He opposed the overturning of Woe v. Wade, but now says that its overturning wouldn't bother him. In fact, he's recently reversed his long-held view that there should be rape-and-incest exceptions in the GOP plank opposing abortion.

 And he's backpedaled on torture. A few years ago, he supported prohibiting certain methods of interrogation by the US military, indeed differing with Bush on this issue. But more recently, he had a change of heart, and supported Bush-favored legislation that gave the White House the power to ignore the Geneva Conventions if it wished to. On Iraq, McCain initially said that he'd support keeping American troops there for a hundred years if need be. But now he's distanced himself from that position, talking about supporting a withdrawal of most US troops within the next five years.

Apparently, he had a lot of good press about some of his earlier stands, especially about torture, and these helped established his "maverick" reputation.

Oh dear, how to fisk this?
1. Being against abortion does not make you a bad person, nor likely to tear off to legislate on reproductive rights.

I never said that being abortion made you a bad person. Again, don’t put words in my mouth. But, of course, it does make you a right-wing person on this issue. And this position puts Palin at variance with most people who are for women’s rights.

As for “tearing off to legislate on reproductive rights”: Well, I don’t know what Palin’s imput would be while she’s vice president; that would depend on McCain. But, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! We’re talking about the second-highest office in the land. We’re talking about someone who would be a heartbeat away from the presidency, and who might be well-placed to run for president later. So her opinion on this issue does matter!

2. This is the most popular "fact" about Sarah Palin doing the rounds on the MSM. No, she is for teaching creationism - if you go and read the debate in which the quoted remark was made, then you may find that she argued that it should not be excluded as part of a debate in class (free speech?) and that she does not think it should be placed on the school cirriculum.

 

First of all, no opposes  ever mentioning creationism in class, so this isn't a matter of free speech. It’s embarrassing that any First World culture would even take creationism seriously enough for it to warrant mentioning, but of course any mention of it shouldn’t be prohibited. Assuming that what you say is correct, it still sounds to me like a softening of her position for the sake of the election. This is what she said to the Anchorage Daily News about creationism and evolution two years ago:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Sorry, but this sounds to me as if she wants creationism to be *taught* in class, and given equal weight to evolution.

3. So are a lot of Americans, and I disagree with them. But that is why we have a debate about this, not areas of policy marked "no go" because they are sacred shibboliths.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it the Right who made this issue a shibboleth? Most mainstream Americans who grew up in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s assumed that the evolution issue had been settled in the Scopes trial.  All of a sudden, we’re hearing that the jury is still out on evolution, and that creationism should be presented in schools as holding equal scientific validity. This came from the Right, specifically from evangelical Christians. This issue of evolution vs. creationism is the right-wing’s baby, not the liberals’.

4. The charges I would place (as an enthusiastic supporter of the NHS) against the US healthcare system (for want of a better word) would be that it is actually rather inefficient and overmanned and that those on low incomes find reliable healthcare hard to come by and even those on higher incomes can be bankrupted by, for example, a child with a severe disability.  

Well, fine, I’d place some of those charges against the system, too. But overmanned? That I don’t know about that. There has been a shortage of doctors outside urban areas and a shortage of nurses everywhere in the US for at least 20 years. I recently even met an expatriate Brit living in NYC who made a specialty for himself of recruiting British health specialists to work in the US because there were jobs for them here.

The objections you make are substantial, but they don’t go far enough. With HMO’s, you have the worst of both worlds: the worst of a public system (unresponsive, labyrinthine bureaucracy; a confusing system that’s hard to understand, use, or protest against; limited choice of doctors) with the worst of a private system (lack of accountability; lack of competition among gigantic companies offering little difference in services; dishonesty and venality). We have arguably the worst set-up of any First World nation.

You’re a fan of the NHS? I don’t know that I am. I’ve heard mixed reviews. But I am a fan—not of socialized medicine—but of a national, single-payer health insurance. Something like Canada’s, but with more money spent on facilities. After all, we already spend more than Canada and get less health care and worse health statistics in return. OK, we could wait a bit for elective surgery, as they do in Canada, but at least we’d all get the surgery. What we have now is a disgrace.

And while we’re at it, you gave me your objections to the current health care system in the US, but what’s the point of that? We were talking about Palin’s views. What I said was that she was for a “market system,” and that this represents a view that’s not liberal, but conservative. Well, nothing you said here gainsays that.

But a disaster? No, my dear Joanne, a disaster is the immeding collaspe of the "socialist" healthcare system in Cuba or the absence of a welfare based healthcare system in Britain prior to the NHS.

Why are you going off on this tangent about Cuba? Where does Cuba come into this? Frankly, a system in a First World country that leaves tens of millions of citizens uncovered and that bankrupts or under-serves all but the very rich is, indeed, a disaster. OK, we’re not as badly off as the Cubans, but that doesn’t mean that our system isn’t bad, too. Of course Cuba’s system is terrible—rent by poverty, tyranny, economic failure, and corruption. But this is really beside the point. Sorry, but the fact that our system isn’t anywhere near as bad as that of a poor, Third World dictatorship isn’t really a compelling argument. As for Britain before WWII, before it had a welfare-based health care system, well…guess what? Except for our very poor and our elderly, we’re kind of close to that. And yet you’re willing to call the pre-NHS system a disaster.

If you want me to use a less dramatic word or phrase, I’ll be happy to comply. How about “misfortune,” “a bad policy,” “no policy,” “ineffective policy,” “substandard,” or any other that you might suggest. But please don’t bring up Cuba; that’s really a straw man if I ever saw one.

The US healthcare system could use a single standard of insurance, which would solve the problem of portable health insurance at a stroke. It could use greater government support for those on the edge, or who might overwise be bankrupted by unavoidable costs.No shit, Sherlock. And you make it sound so easy. Yeah, we could “use” a single standard of insurance…and that would solve the problem of problem of portable insurance at a stroke.

Yeah, at a single stroke. Just get that single standard insurance in there, and Bob’s your uncle. Except that getting a single standard of insurance isn’t so easy in this country. That’s what the debate has been about for the last 15 years or so. And that’s what Sarah Palin opposes, by the way.

I'll say it again: It is a disaster that, in a country as rich as ours, we doesn’t have the access to medical care that’s taken for granted in other developed countries in the 21^st century. It’s certainly been a disaster for many individual Americans and their families.

It might be, Joanne, that many of those women actually agree with Palin on those issues. And perhaps those issues, to which you seem to cling dearly, are not so dear to those women.

Yeah, but those are not the women I’m talking about. I’m talking about the moderate voters who are “excited” by Palin’s candidacy, but who are not evangelical Christians like Palin. That’s a lot of women, too. And these, I suspect, are the kind of women Meryl was referring to.

I'd like to see more women in leadership positions, and I'd like to see more blacks in leadership positions. Hell, I'd like to see more black women in leadership positions. So would I but on their merits, not by virtue of a die roll at conception. Sorry if that is too free market for you.

Well, that was actually the point I was making, that people should get past their excitement at a lady v.p. and scrutinize her actual views, as they should with any candidate. You really twisted this point around against me.

I don’t understand your comment about the free market, sorry.

They beat the Republicans to it by almost a quarter century. And never tried it again.

It’s true that they never tried again. But neither party has come up with a female or minority candidate until now. So my point still stands: The Republicans are not groundbreakers here.

Might I also add that Barack Obama, culturally speaking aside from the dark tone of his skin, is not a "black" man. He's mixed race and was raised in Hawaii and apart from three years of "community organizing", attended Havard Law School. He was not raised in Afro-American communities and that to my mind makes the notion of calling him a "black" man deeply dishonest. Because "black" as a political statement carries cultural overtones, which he does not share by birth or upbringing. His wife is "black", Barack Obama is not.

No, it is not dishonest. This is not the old South Africa, where one of mixed origins was referred to as Coloured, rather than black. Ever hear of the “one-drop rule”? In the USA, (with the exception of old New Orleans), if you were part black, you were black. Many, perhaps most, American blacks here have some white and/or Native American blood. You’re saying that black identity should be based on culture, not on the color of one’s skin. Swell, but that’s not the way it is here.

Even if you were brought up in a white upper-class community, had some Irish or British or French ancestry, and went to Harvard, if you are visibly African-American, then you’re African-American. Even if you had been brought up by a white family, you’re African-American. That’s not profoundly dishonest. Obama didn’t invent his blackness for the sake of the election. It’s the way it is. That’s how he sees himself and that’s how people in this country—black or white—see him. When one describes someone here as “black,” one is not just describing an ethnic group, one is describing a race.

Oh dear, so how should you fisk my comments. Well, you could start by not caricaturing my points, and you could proceed by presenting a stronger case. One more thing, you could also leave off with the patronizing tone. I'm not your "dear" anybody; you don't know me from Adam...or Eve. Haughty language will not compensate for weak arguments.

 

Sorry, the spaces are missing between a lot of the paragraphs and the fonts are a bit crazy. Those problems only appeared after I posted the comment. I apologize for the inconvenience.

RE: Joanne's comment about it being embarassing that any "First Worlders" give any belief of credibiltiy to creation or intelligent design :

I am reading a very insightful book based on SCIENCE, called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", and a point made was that when anyone, faced with facts still refuses to face them and accept their validity, is really being blind VOLITIONALLY - as Jesus himself said "there are none so blind as they that WILL NOT see". Usually these are people who don't even bother to inform themselves on anything that may run contrary to their "pet beliefs". I personally read a wide variety of POV so as to have some actual understanding of a POV.

In answer to Paul's comment:

Yes, I am embarrassed that creationism is taken seriously here in the States.  I won't go through any long arguments as to why. Instead, I'll let the highly respected magazine Scientific American do it for me.

Here's the link: www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

Funny thing: In the second paragraph, the article also refers to embarrassment. To whit:

"Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy."

 Hi all,

 if anyone is interested, the recent UK Channel 4 TV programme, Under Cover Mosque; The return, can be found at Youtube. Link here:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOIYkLWY4Fc

 It is disturbing viewing....but then you knew it would be. Islamism is still rife and despite the first programme finding extremism deeply embedded in Islamic life in the UK, the government continues on its merry, leftist, Stalinist way, fingers in ears shouting 'we can't hear you'.

 Where is our new Winston Churchill?..I really, really, do hope you are out there. Maybe we can borrow Sarah Palin after she has become VP of the USA? Any chance she could come over as a consultant to give lessons to our dick-brained politicians on how to do proper government and do what the people WANT!!

A revolution is coming and I hope I am around to take part. British politicos be warned!

You said "a black man and a woman"; that implies racism and sexism as a motivating factor in part of the electorate. At no point did I say "all Americans".

Hillary as VP candidate: There is no guarentee in what you say that CfM and other groups would not have split over a BO-HRC candidacy and the presence of HRC on the ticket may have neutralized the surprise value of the Palin selection.

McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform 1995/96 - Not maverick? Opposing the Private Securities Litigation Act 1995 - being one of only four Republican senators to oppose it? Line Item Veto Act 1996 - Acting against entrenched interests, not maverick? Opposing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - one of only five senators to vote against? Supporting Phil Gramm in the 1996 Republican race, especially against Pat Buchanan?
Attacking the tobacco industry in 1998, proposing legislation to increase cigarette taxes in order to fund anti-smoking campaigns and reduce the number of teenage smokers, increase research money on health studies, and help states pay for smoking-related health care costs, supported by health groups and the Clinton administration while opposed by most Republican senators - not maverick? 1998 and 1999 revision of McCain-Feingold ?
How about pushing (with Bob Dole) for NATO bombing of Bosnian-Serb positions in 1995, against the opposition of the British government? Opposing the Bush administration until Sept.11 2001 - not maverick? Writing with Lieberman the legislation that led to the 9/11 Commission? Cosponsoring the Aviation and Transportation Security Act? Finally achieving the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act in 2002? McCain protested the USAF award of a tanker contract to Boeing to lease aircraft to replace its aging fleet of aerial tankers - going against a cosy relationship between the Pentagon and a defence contractor?
Voting against the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 on the grounds that such a move was not sensible at a time of war? Or voicing concerns about the deteriorating situation in Iraq and recognizing the need for more troops in 2003? The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act 2003? Defending Kerry by labeling the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Kerry's Vietnam war record as "dishonest and dishonorable" and urging the Bush campaign to condemn it?
"May 2005, leading the "Gang of 14" in the Senate, establishing a compromise preserving the ability of senators to filibuster judicial nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances."
He played a leading role in exposing the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal - damaging his own party in the process. Or how about his push with Ted Kennedy and G.W. Bush for immigration reform in the face of furious opposition within the Republican Party? Is that not a maverick?

How has McCain backpedelled on torture? Is this a reference to the February 2008 vote against outlawing "waterboarding"? Which McCain refused to vote against on the grounds of "This wasn't a vote on waterboarding. This was a vote on applying the standards of the [Army] field manual to CIA personnel." That would sound to me like concern over division of legal distinction between the military and the intelligence services.

What Bush legislation on ignoring the Geneva Conventions? On Iraq and length of stay, the Iraqi government would like the US and her allies to leave in five years. Well, with the war against AQI nearing a close and the ISF increasingly able to stand on their own, how is that not the (at least indirectly) result of a maverick position? It is also possible that the Iraqi government will agree to the US maintaining bases in Iraq, much like in Saudi Arabia or South Korea or Germany.

I would still disagree with you over the notion of Palin's supporting the teaching of creationism. Creationism would, if taught, come under science and would first have to stand up to scientific criticism, which it does not, and not fall foul of the Constitutional  requirement for seperation of Church and State. As Creationism is a theological proposition and not a scientific one, then it will not pass that requirement.
The arguments against evolution do not stand up. That is the strength of the evolutionary argument and should be used when debated. Evangelical Christians are not the only ones pushing creationism - you might find it's popular amongst strict Muslims too.
The reason for not being afraid debating this is because of the strength of our arguments. Creationism is best destroyed in public for all to see the foolishness of which it is made.

The arguments you make against the US healthcare system (if such a word could be applied to that mess) are sound. But the US will not collapse for having to endure that mess for another four or eight years; the issue is not as important as the safety of the world as regards the rising tyrannies and the threat of Islamofascism.
Make a single health insurance payer system the reward of the American people for victory over Islamism. But it is up to the Democrats to regroup, rethink and reargue for what is the better long term solution. You have no idea how frustrated I am by the US Right's inability to come up with a better solution.
The Canadian system is good but it has flaws. It could use more flexibility with regards to patient choice, this being an issue of all state run institutions. And I don't like the scaremongering on the Right about these systems.

All of the terms you supply are better, I would happily agree with that. But "disaster" is too strong a word and paints a falsified picture. And yes, I will admit defeat with regards to Britain pre-1948! Yes, "completely unsatisfactory" would've been better.

I am sorry, if I seemed abusive of your words over the under-representation of  women in politics. I have had to argue too many times on this side of the pond against the idea of quotas based on gender or race. There was a major fuss two years ago when the Conservative defence spokesman criticized some black soldiers for using "race" as an excuse for being lazy; it was rather ironic that his former (black) sergeant major said that he was exactly right and that as a black NCO he'd had to push extra hard on those men to become good soldiers. I would not suggest that this is a broad example, but that it shows the dangers inherent in indentity based politics.
If you were not arguing for engineering increased representation, then I apologize.

The core of my argument against calling BO a "black" man is that it is dishonest because it takes no account of actual differences within the skin-based division you have described. Hell, one might argue that a white kid growing up in South Side Chicago, recieving the same education is more qualified to be called "black", when one identifies "black" as belonging to an African-American community. I feel uncomfortable with the division of people into racial groups because the act of division assumes similarity of interests. I know from London that while the Somalis may be have black skin, they divide along tribal and clan lines more readily than considering themselves "black".
"Black" seems to me in the US to claim a mantle of oppression or victimhood to which Barack Obama is not entitled to claim. He may not have invented his "blackness" but, by God, he's exploited it. That is dishonest.

Leaving aside the closing arguments, if I have patronized you, I apologize for using a familial tone. I can use cold language if you'd prefer.

On a techinical note, what browser are you using if you have problems with the font and spacing? I used to have those problems.
I suspect that it's either the browser or the Java plugins. If the problem continues, can I suggest typing the entry into a text or word processing program, then pasting?
If this advice is irrelevent, then please ignore.

OK, I really don't have time for this, so I'll make my answers to "Richard" as brief as possible, but it’s still long, so I’m dividing this up. Again, thanks for your understanding:

1. You said "a black man and a woman"; that implies racism and sexism as a motivating factor in part of the electorate. At no point did I say "all Americans".

Here's your exact quote, which anyone can find above: " Are you telling me that Americans are inherently misogynistic and racist?" I think it's reasonable to assume that you were implying "all Americans" or Americans in general. As far as implying racism and sexism on the part of the electorate, well...hell, yes...of course, I am. Or rather, on that part of the electorate that is at least somewhat influenced by those factors.

2. Hillary as VP candidate: There is no guarentee in what you say that CfM and other groups would not have split over a BO-HRC candidacy and the presence of HRC on the ticket may have neutralized the surprise value of the Palin selection.

 Of course there's no guarantee, of anything. But voters will probably split. Remember, it was you who first spoke in terms of guarantees, saying: "If Obama had picked Hillary, you can guarentee he would have a lot more support today." Now you say that the selection of Hillary may have neutralized the effect of Palin's selection. Among some voters, yes. Among many, no. As I said, there are a lot of even liberal voters who don't like Hillary.

 

3. Regarding the examples of McCain's maverick votes, well, something has to account for the 10 or 12 percent of his vote. I see you've made generous use of Google, as have I. OK, let me take each one in turn:

a)   McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform 1995/96 - Not maverick? Geez, I thought I already mentioned that.Well, here's The New York Review of Book's take on that:

"McCain has backed off the very issue that first won him such goodwill. For a while after the passage of the McCain-Feingold bill, McCain stuck with the issue, supporting reform of the so-called 527 groups that can spend large sums for advertisements attacking an opposition candidate and not exceed the limits on contributions (the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were one such). But by July 2006, his old allies on campaign finance—Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, Republican Congressman Chris Shays, and Democratic Congressman Marty Meehan—introduced a bill to shore up the public financing of presidential campaigns. McCain had put his name on essentially the same piece of legislation in 2003. Three years later, it was absent. Earlier this year, McCain unilaterally informed—by law, he was supposed to ask—the Federal Election Commission that he would not abide by primary spending limits he had previously accepted. He faces potentially severe financial penalties for doing so, although the FEC has become deeply politicized and hamstrung. In any event, McCain doesn't talk much about campaign finance reform today.

b)  Regarding the Private Securities Litigation Act 1995: I don't know much about it, and I don't have time to research it more than superficially. It was apparently a bill to stop frivilous suits by investors. Here is an interesting point about the votes on that bill, from answers.com:

"...the U.S. Senate approved it 68-30. Every Republican in the House voted in favor of the legislation, and only four Republicans in the Senate voted against it: William Cohen, John McCain, Richard Shelby, and Arlen Specter. Prominent liberals in the Democratic Party like senators Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Claiborne Pell, and Carol Moseley Braun voted in favor of the legislation while many conservative-to-moderate Democrats such as senators John Breaux, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings, and Sam Nunn and representatives such as John Murtha and Gene Taylor voted against it. Both the current Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, and the current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, voted for the bill."

 

So this vote was not a left-right, liberal-conservative issue. In voting against the bill, McCain was teaming up with moderate Republicans and moderate-to-conservative Democrats. So, he's a maverick on an esoteric matter that's not an ideological issue. 

 

 

c) "Attacking the tobacco industry in 1998, proposing legislation to increase cigarette taxes in order to fund anti-smoking campaigns and reduce the number of teenage smokers" Another flip-flop. He now opposes such a tax.

 

d) Line Item Veto Act 1996 - Acting against entrenched interests, not maverick?  By that standard, Bob Dole was also a maverick. He co-sponsored the bill with McCain, and the bill had bi-partisan support.

e) Opposing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - one of only five senators to vote against? I don’t know anything about this bill, but I found a few versions of his actions:

This from www.multichannel.com/blog, what appears to be a conservative blog: “McCain, the only Senate Republican to vote against the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because he thought it gave too much power to Hundt and Kennard, has, in fact, spoken out about consolidation among communications providers.”

This from The American Prospect, a liberal magazine: “In February 1996, [McCain] was one of only five senators and the only Republican to vote against the bill, which was supported enthusiastically by the Clinton administration and the House and Senate leadership. The Democrats who opposed it—Paul Wellstone, Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold, and Paul Simon—did so from the left. McCain objected to some of the special interest subsidies in the bill, but the heart of his dissent was that it "reregulated" rather than deregulated telecommunications. As an alternative, McCain promoted the disastrous solutions advanced by the Heritage Foundation and by the Progress & Freedom Foundation, which Newt Gingrich helped to establish. He called for eliminating rate regulation and doing away with the Federal Communications Commission. "The Progress & Freedom Foundation is right on the mark when it calls for the abolishment of the FCC," McCain declared in a floor debate on the bill.”

From The New York Times: “In 1996, McCain was one of five senators, and the only Republican, to vote against the Telecommunications Act. He did it because he believed the act gave away too much to the telecommunications companies, and protected them from true competition. He noted that AT&T alone gave $780,000 to Republicans and $456,000 to Democrats in the year leading up to the vote.”

I won’t go on and on listing more versions. Apparently, McCain was willing to oppose special interests, but that, too, is a bipartisan position. So, it demonstrates that by being a maverick, he is not necessarily more dependably liberal or centrist than other Republicans.

f) Supporting Phil Gramm in the 1996 Republican race, especially against Pat Buchanan? You must be joking. You’re not a maverick for opposing Pat Buchanan, you’re a maverick if you support him. He’s kind of out there, politically…mentally.

g) 1998 and 1999 revision of McCain-Feingold ?
In 1998, a lot of Republicans opposed the bill, but there were three Republican co-sponsors: Thompson, Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. In addition, GOP Sens. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, James M. Jeffords of Vermont and John H. Chafee of Rhode Island. I saw no reference to a 1999 revision bill, but I saw one for 2001, which passed with the support of 12 Republican senators, including McCain. Here, too, McCain seens to have teamed up with the more moderate Republicans. I don’t know if this makes him a maverick. He still had plenty of company.

 

h) How about pushing (with Bob Dole) for NATO bombing of Bosnian-Serb positions in 1995, against the opposition of the British government? Uh, so an American legislator is a maverick for opposing the…British government? That makes no sense. Anyway, in pushing for that bombing, he was at first against it, then changed his mind (along with a lot of other people) after Sebrenica and Rwanda. So he supported Clinton's policy to bomb, whereas many Republicans opposed just about anything Clinton was considering. Was this a maverick position, well, yes and no.

From The New York Times (5/18/08): "At the time, McCain was supporting the presidential campaign of his friend Phil Gramm, who was running against Dole in the Republican primaries. Gramm opposed the intervention, and he pleaded with McCain to stand by him; instead, this time, McCain decided to partner with Dole to ensure passage of the supporting resolution, stifling significant Republican opposition. It was a turning point, both for McCain and American consensus as a whole. “The Bosnian intervention was life-changing for a lot of people,” Bob Kerrey told me. “It caused even some liberals to go from opposing intervention to supporting it.”

 

i) Opposing the Bush administration until Sept.11 2001 - not maverick?  I’m not sure what this means. This is too general a point. Opposing the fact that Bush was president? Well…in favor of whom? Himself? Some other Republican? I don’t know.

 

j) “Writing with Lieberman the legislation that led to the 9/11 Commission?”  It’s true that Bush opposed it, but there was such general support for it that the bill was passed with a 90-8 vote in the Senate; even Bush had to come around and pretend to accept it. So this was not so much a maverick act as you might think. Yes, he angered Bush, but so did a lot of other Republicans.

k) Cosponsoring the Aviation and Transportation Security Act? The bill aimed to improve airport security; it established the TSA. The bill received unanimous support in the Commerce Committee, and passed unanimously in the Senate. In the House, it passed without objection. I don’t understand how he was a maverick here.

 

l) Finally achieving the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act in 2002? I already mentioned that. He later reversed his support for campaign finance reform. Here is a more complete quote from the NLRB article:

“[Cliff] Schecter's The Real McCain chronicles, in fine-grain detail, McCain's votes and positions, showing that they often seem to reflect hypocrisy, flip-flopping, and pure expediency, rather than the political courage for which he is famous.

“In a telling example, McCain has backed off the very issue that first won him such goodwill. For a while after the passage of the McCain-Feingold bill, McCain stuck with the issue, supporting reform of the so-called 527 groups that can spend large sums for advertisements attacking an opposition candidate and not exceed the limits on contributions (the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were one such). But by July 2006, his old allies on campaign finance—Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, Republican Congressman Chris Shays, and Democratic Congressman Marty Meehan—introduced a bill to shore up the public financing of presidential campaigns. McCain had put his name on essentially the same piece of legislation in 2003. Three years later, it was absent.

“Earlier this year, McCain unilaterally informed—by law, he was supposed to ask—the Federal Election Commission that he would not abide by primary spending limits he had previously accepted. He faces potentially severe financial penalties for doing so, although the FEC has become deeply politicized and hamstrung. In any event, McCain doesn't talk much about campaign finance reform today…”

 

m) McCain protested the USAF award of a tanker contract to Boeing to lease aircraft to replace its aging fleet of aerial tankers - going against a cosy relationship between the Pentagon and a defence contractor? So what? I briefly worked for a Congressman who was a rock-ribbed Republican. He made a big deal about inflated Pentagon spelling, privileged fat contractors, and lack of competitive bidding on defense contracts. This issue is a very old one, and a very easy one: if you’re a Republican who wants to be seen cutting wasteful spending, and who doesn’t happen to come from a district or state with an economy dominated by the defense industry. Now, if McCain had come from Washington State….

n) Voting against the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 on the grounds that such a move was not sensible at a time of war? He voted with two other Republicans against that act, granted.

 

o) Or voicing concerns about the deteriorating situation in Iraq and recognizing the need for more troops in 2003?  I’m confused. How is this a maverick act on the part of a Republican?

 

p) The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act 2003?  OK, granted. It failed to pass by just 12 votes, and enjoyed the support of only a half dozen Republican senators.

 

q) Defending Kerry by labeling the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Kerry's Vietnam war record as "dishonest and dishonorable" and urging the Bush campaign to condemn it? That doesn’t make him a maverick Republican, only an honest one.

 

r) "May 2005, leading the "Gang of 14" in the Senate, establishing a compromise preserving the ability of senators to filibuster judicial nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances." The York Times referred to the group as “an unusual pact that averted a Senate vote on banning filibusters against judicial nominees.” Apparently, conservative Republicans did not like this, but half of the gang of 14 were Republicans; two of whom I know to be moderates.

 

s) He played a leading role in exposing the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal - damaging his own party in the process. I can’t see an author, but here’s an analysis from Reuters: “But John McCain isn't kidding anyone. Not only did he flat out refuse to investigate any of his fellow members of Congress when his Senate committee investigated Abramoff, he refused to back the kind of lobbying reform that could prevent future lobbying … McCain even chose a top crony of indicted former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as his first campaign manager. 

               “Campaign McCain is desperately trying to revive his maverick image by pretending to have fought the Republican culture of corruption, but the real John McCain turned a blind eye to his corrupt colleagues and stood in the way of real reform," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Luis Miranda.”

And this from the Huffington Post: “A little-known document, however, shows that McCain may have taken steps to protect his Republican colleagues from the scope of his investigation...In the 2006 Senate report concerning Abramoff's activities, which McCain spearheaded, the Arizona Republican conspicuously left out information detailing how Alabama Gov. Bob Riley was targeted by Abramoff's influence peddling scheme. Riley, a Republican, won election in November 2002, and was reelected in 2006.”

 

t) Or how about his push with Ted Kennedy and G.W. Bush for immigration reform in the face of furious opposition within the Republican Party? Is that not a maverick? Not really It was a compromise immigration bill that would offered the possibility of legal status to millions of illegal aliens (favoring those in the country at least six years) while also beefing up the border. It was worked by the “gang of 12,” a bipartisan group of senators, and was supported by Bush. It passed 12-6 in a Republican-dominated committee, and passed in the Senate 64-35 with bipartisan support, though weighted to the Democrats. How is he a maverick here when he was supporting Bush. Less right-wing, relatively moderate? Sure. So?

 

My conclusions TO SECTION 3:

McCain didn’t agree with Bush 100% of the time, but that doesn’t gainsay the fact that he has been a true Republican. In some cases, it seems, his differences of opinion were not due to his being more liberal than other senators. And many of his most important “maverick” (i.e., liberal or centrist) positions, as I’ve already shown, were reversed later.

Your points above, Richard, show that McCain was certainly an active senator, and early on a moderate one, but now he’s not nowhere out there as a maverick.

Also, I have the sneak suspicion that you simply pasted one single list from one Web site. Some of the stuff here seems pretty esoteric. One more thing: McCain is dependably Republican on the big issues of health care, the economy, and for the most part on foreign policy.

 

First of all, let me redo letter "s", from the last e-mail, so at least you all can read it:

s) He played a leading role in exposing the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal - damaging his own party in the process.

Here's an analysis from Reuters: " But John McCain isn't kidding anyone. Not only did he flat out refuse to investigate any of his fellow members of Congress when his Senate committee investigated Abramoff, he refused to back the kind of lobbying reform that could prevent future lobbying...McCain even chose a top crony of indicted form Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as his first campaign manager.

'Campaign McCain is desperately trying to revive his maverick image by pretending to have fought the Republican culture of corruption, but the real John McCain turned a blind eye to his corrupt colleagues and stood in the way of real reform," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Luis Miranda'"

And this from the Huffington Post: "A little-known document, however, shows that McCain may have taken steps to protect his Republican colleagues from the sope of his investigation...In the 2006 Senate report cncerning Abramoff's activities, which McCain spearheaded, the Arizona Republican conspicuously left out information detailing how Alabama Gov. Bob Riley was targeted by Abramoff's influence peddling scheme. Riley, a Republican, won election in November 2002, and was reelected in 2006."

Now for the last of my answers:

 

4.  How has McCain backpedelled on torture? Is this a reference to the February 2008 vote against outlawing "waterboarding"? Which McCain refused to vote against on the grounds of "This wasn't a vote on waterboarding. This was a vote on applying the standards of the [Army] field manual to CIA personnel." That would sound to me like concern over division of legal distinction between the military and the intelligence services.

Here is what The New York Times said: “Mr. McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has led the battle in recent years on a number of bills to end torture by the United States. He said he voted against the bill Wednesday because legislation he had helped to pass already prohibits the C.I.A. from “cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.”

“Mr. McCain, of Arizona, said he believed it would be a mistake to limit C.I.A. interrogators to using only those techniques that were enumerated in the Field Manual, which he noted was a public document.

“’When we passed the Military Commissions Act, we said that the C.I.A. should have the ability to use additional techniques,’ Mr. McCain told reporters Friday in Oshkosh, Wis. ‘None of those techniques would entail violating the Detainee Treatment Act, which said that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are prohibited.’

“The problem, human rights advocates say, is that disagreement remains over which tactics are prohibited. Mr. McCain, for example, said waterboarding — a simulated drowning technique — was an illegal form of torture. But while the C.I.A. says it no longer uses waterboarding, the Bush administration has not ruled out its use in the future…. Although Mr. McCain has battled the Bush administration over whether waterboarding is illegal, his vote on Wednesday allied him with President Bush, who has threatened to veto the bill.” [emphasis mine]

What Bush legislation on ignoring the Geneva Conventions? The NLRB article mentioned this (6/12/08). Here’s the full quote:

"In 2005, he inserted language into the Detainee Treatment Act that Bush disliked because it forbade the military to use some methods of interrogation. The next year, after the Supreme Court had rebuked the Bush administration positions on detention in its Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision, McCain fought the administration for long enough to receive favorable attention in the press. But he finally declared—in a much-discussed "compromise" with the administration—that he was satisfied with the infamous Military Commissions Act, which contained provisions that prevented prisoners from challenging the basis of their detention. The bill gave the White House the power to ignore the Geneva Conventions if it wished to.”

 On Iraq and length of stay, the Iraqi government would like the US and her allies to leave in five years. Well, with the war against AQI nearing a close and the ISF increasingly able to stand on their own, how is that not the (at least indirectly) result of a maverick position? It is also possible that the Iraqi government will agree to the US maintaining bases in Iraq, much like in Saudi Arabia or South Korea or Germany.

It’s not a maverick position because the Bush administration is saying the same thing. This from the International Herald Tribune 8/22/08:  “The United States has agreed to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by next June and from the rest of the country by the end of 2011 if conditions in Iraq remain relatively stable, according to Iraqi and U.S. officials involved in negotiating a security accord governing American forces here.The withdrawal timetable, which Bush administration officials called 'aspirational goals' rather than fixed dates, are contained in the draft of an agreement that still must be approved by Prim