Right-Wing Angst Over McCain

[D H]

He would have gutted the Exploration Initiative (it has some other name now) in favor of education. Only in a politicians' mind can one delay a project to the extent proposed. The vast majority of the knowledge and expertise in any high-tech endeavor is in the people involved in the endeavor. Cutting the program down to a starvation level is tantamount to killing the program. The people involved will not wait, unemployed, for the program to restart. They will move elsewhere. The program will have to be restarted more-or-less from scratch should Obama's proposal take effect.

[iNow]

I seem to remember in the thread we had about that that Obama was saying he would delay one program a few years in favor of several others, particularly completing the ISS, expanding unmanned exploration, and developing the replacement for the space shuttles.

 

Roughly posts 16 to 29 here --> http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=375508#post375508

[Pangloss]

I guess our previous discussion was more or less indeterminate. If anybody finds out any more about his plans in this area, please pass them along. Unfortunately since he started doing well in the primaries policies statements and announcements from the Obama camp have been two: Slim and None. We'll just have to keep an eye out for more info.

 

I did find this article from a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647

 

But it focuses on the positive and reads like a press release (it probably is one). No sign of programs he would cancel, of course. But it DOES pledge to complete the ISS, continue unmanned missions and (and this is key per the earlier discussion) continue development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle project (the Shuttle replacement) and the Ares launch vehicle.

 

The release generated some amusingly entertaining angst over at the Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/9710/60633/713/435590

[D H]

and (and this is key per the earlier discussion) continue development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle project (the Shuttle replacement) and the Ares launch vehicle.

 

The release generated some amusingly entertaining angst over at the Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/9710/60633/713/435590

The Obama release does not talk about timetables other than the very vague "As president, Obama will support the development of this vital new platform to ensure that the United States' reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period." Minimum with respect to what? There is already a four or five year hiatus between the last Shuttle launch and the first Ares/CEV launch. Obama's initial plan would have extended that delay another five years to fund education. This makes for a ten year hiatus, and I suspect that that is the minimum possible time period that the "new and improved" Obama plan is talking about. That he still has a bunch of stuff on education in the plan bolsters this view.

 

Speaking of education, the blogger at Daily Kos says

Okay, here's the thing - what exactly does this have to do with Space? I don't deny that its true, and there are serious issues in science and math education,

but exactly what does this have to do with Space?

 

===================

 

Many of you (most, or even more likely, all of you) at SF reject Huckabee out-of-hand on the very narrow issue of his rejection of evolution. I do not fault those of you who take this point of view. First, it is your political opinion, and you are entitled to it. Second, it would be rather hypocritical of me to fault anyone for such a POV, as this one issue invalidates Huckabee as far as I am concerned.

 

My point: A seemingly minor issue can sometimes trump the big picture. Obama's space policy might be a minor issue to some, but to me it alone invalidates Obama as a viable candidate. That is my political opinion, and I am entitled to it. Besides that, he is far too liberal for my tastes. That is another political opinion, and I am entitled to it, also.

[ecoli]

But these are not the only reasons Ron Paul didn't have traction with the voters, Ecoli. You can't chalk it up entirely to that.

No of course not... I blame his national campaign even more than the media for his lack of national attention and support.

And then there are people who just don't have libertarian ideals...

 

However, I read somewhere that about 25% who take the 'world's smallest political quiz' (although it may have been a different test) fall under the libertarian category. Yet, the Libertarian party has no where near that many members. Is this because people don't join third parties, because of the hold the two parties have, lack of attention given to third parties, etc? Not an easy question to answer.

 

My own reasons for not voting for the guy had zip to do with whether I thought he could win. Granted I'm just one guy, but where do you think waves of popularity (and press support, and money) originate?

Obviously I'm not expecting all of his ideas to be accepted, but that fact that pundits almost exclusively treated his ideas as 'fringe' is worrying to me.

 

I can't tell you how many people I talked to were literally angry and frightened that I supported Paul. My grandparents were concerned about his "anti-Israel" approach, my father was worried about his "isolationist" approaches. Yet, when I explained, in detail, his actual positions, they say how he wasn't at all 'anti-Israel' and 'isolationist.' And they saw, even if they didn't agree, how his ideas could be beneficial to our society.

 

I think that political ideas that can be boiled down to a single sentence are the most likely to take root, whether or not they may be harmful.

 

It's easy to say that 'islamofascism is the greatest threat facing the nation' but it's not so easy to prove. It's easy for Romeny to say "I'm going to fix the economy." If he keeps saying it, than he doesn't have to really prove it.

It's easy to say 'let's cut spending' not so easy to come up with a feasible plan for it (as we are seeing with Bush's new budget proposal).

 

So, when a guy like Paul comes along and says, listen everyone, the best way to decrease immediate spending is to pull back military spending, change monetary policy, increasing freedoms, rely on the free market not government... etc.

Well, I think that's threatening to the way politics is usually done, with empty rhetoric and campaign promises.

 

And the main problem with it, is that it's hard to explain in a 30 second debate format. If someone asks Paul how he's going to cut spending, he'll say "get rid of the dpt. of Ed, energy, roll the FBI, CIA into the military or police, pull all our troops home, etc" All people hear is "I hate public education, and I want the terrorists to kill us all." Well, that's not his positions, but he doesn't have the time to explain his points in detail.

 

Perhaps it's a problem to the way Paul approached the debates, perhaps it's a problem with the debate format itself... but either way, you can see how it's a problem.

[Skye]

And if he's more or less unopposed at this point, he can drift toward the center instead of having to worry about the far right, and be better positioned than the democratic nominee (assuming that takes a while to get sorted out), as Hillary and Barack will be fight for support from those farther away from center.

He can concentrate on what's needed to win the election now. I'm not sure he'll drift too far away from the right though, at least if there are real concerns over the 'right-wing angst'. But you'd expect him to put more effort into the issues and states that are going to be crucial in the election.

[ParanoiA]

However, I read somewhere that about 25% who take the 'world's smallest political quiz' (although it may have been a different test) fall under the libertarian category. Yet, the Libertarian party has no where near that many members. Is this because people don't join third parties, because of the hold the two parties have, lack of attention given to third parties, etc? Not an easy question to answer.

 

I don't think it's any of that, or at least not for the most part. I think it's a combo of two things:

 

1) Most people are quite libertarian and don't know it. Don't believe me? Try making your own little quiz and just ask people their real thoughts on each issue, without polarizing the query with partisan or ideological overtones.

 

2) The ole, I can do it, but those other "poor people" can't. This idea that WE can handle all the shit life dishes us, but OTHER people can't, so...

 

Just my take on it. And now work is calling...got to go

[DrDNA]

And the main problem with it, is that it's hard to explain in a 30 second debate format. If someone asks Paul how he's going to cut spending, he'll say "get rid of the dpt. of Ed, energy, roll the FBI, CIA into the military or police, pull all our troops home, etc" All people hear is "I hate public education, and I want the terrorists to kill us all." Well, that's not his positions, but he doesn't have the time to explain his points in detail.

 

Perhaps it's a problem to the way Paul approached the debates, perhaps it's a problem with the debate format itself... but either way, you can see how it's a problem.

 

I've pondered this nugget for a while.....how did Paul run his Congressional campaigns and how did the media react to him there?

I can't imagine that there was much of a similarity....but if there wasn't...why?

Conversely, if they were similar, why such dramatically different outcomes?

 

It can't be just the difference in local/national vs national/national....could it?

Could Paul's home base populace/media be soooooo fundamentially different?

[Pangloss]

Some rude and pointless rants between two members have been removed. Take it to PMs, guys. That was just silly.

[DrDNA]

OK. I'll ask it again.

Other than stating he is a pro lifer and pro second amendment, what makes Huckabee a conservative?

[Pangloss]

Other than stating he is a pro lifer and pro second amendment, what makes Huckabee a conservative?

 

Immigration (rejection of "amnesty"), support for the death penalty, and rejection of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research should be pretty good clues.

[D H]

Huckabee is a liberal in conservative's clothing, at least in some regards. On immigration he championed giving in-state tuition to children of illegal aliens. On fiscal responsibility, he oversaw massive increases in Arkansas' state spending and state taxes.

 

Regarding evolution, stem cell research - he is a social conservative. Conservatives come in many flavors these days. Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, ... Because these different brands of conservatives have conflicting ideals, there is no one person who can fit in all of these categories. People who claim Huckabee is not a conservative pick on the areas where he doesn't fit.

[DrDNA]

Immigration (rejection of "amnesty"), support for the death penalty, and rejection of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research should be pretty good clues.

 

Here's an interesting bit of information ........ain't Google great.

 

Obama says the death penalty "does little to deter crime" but he supports it for cases in which "the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage." While a state senator, Obama pushed for reform of the Illinois capital punishment system and authored a bill to mandate the videotaping of interrogations and confessions.

 

Clinton has been a longtime advocate of the death penalty. Clinton cosponsored the Innocence Protection Act of 2003 which became law in 2004 as part of the Justice for All Act. The bill provides funding for post-conviction DNA testing and establishes a DNA testing process for individuals sentenced to the death penalty under federal law. As first lady, she lobbied for President Clinton's crime bill, which expanded the list of crimes subject to the federal death penalty.

 

McCain supports the death penalty for federal crimes. As senator from Arizona, he voted to prohibit the use of racial statistics in death penalty appeals and ban the death penalty for minors. He also supported legislation to allow the death penalty for acts of terrorism and has said he would consider further expansion of capital punishment laws for other crimes.

 

Paul opposes the death penalty and would vote against it in "any legislative body he was a member of," according to campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. In 2005, Paul praised the late Pope John Paul II for being an "eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty."

http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Death_Penalty

 

Woooo hooooo. My man Paul!

 

So, if I were basing the "liberal" label solely on the death penalty, Paul, considered perhaps the most conservative, would be the only the liberal apple in the barrel.

[Sisyphus]

I've pondered this nugget for a while.....how did Paul run his Congressional campaigns and how did the media react to him there?

I can't imagine that there was much of a similarity....but if there wasn't...why?

Conversely, if they were similar, why such dramatically different outcomes?

 

It can't be just the difference in local/national vs national/national....could it?

Could Paul's home base populace/media be soooooo fundamentially different?

 

I think there are many people who are glad of Paul's input who still don't think he should really be running things. Being in Congress, where he can have a pulpit and shake things up while still being kept in check by 434 others could be considered a good place for him, while the Presidency might not be.

[DrDNA]

Regarding Huckabee having "conservative" immigration policies....

 

some of his Republican Party opponents are criticizing his record on illegal immigration as being un-conservative and not in line with what American voters want from their next president.

 

Some GOP Concerned about Huckabee's Immigration Views

..................When he was governor, Huckabee held the following positions on illegal immigration: He supported higher education benefits for children of illegal immigrants, opposed a federal roundup of illegals from his state in 2005, opposed a 2001 bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote in the state, and in 2001, a member of his administration pushed for legislation to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200712/POL20071204b.html

[Pangloss]

Here's an interesting bit of information ........ain't Google great.

 

Obama says the death penalty "does little to deter crime" but he supports it for cases in which "the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage." While a state senator, Obama pushed for reform of the Illinois capital punishment system and authored a bill to mandate the videotaping of interrogations and confessions.

 

Clinton has been a longtime advocate of the death penalty. Clinton cosponsored the Innocence Protection Act of 2003 which became law in 2004 as part of the Justice for All Act. The bill provides funding for post-conviction DNA testing and establishes a DNA testing process for individuals sentenced to the death penalty under federal law. As first lady, she lobbied for President Clinton's crime bill, which expanded the list of crimes subject to the federal death penalty.

 

McCain supports the death penalty for federal crimes. As senator from Arizona, he voted to prohibit the use of racial statistics in death penalty appeals and ban the death penalty for minors. He also supported legislation to allow the death penalty for acts of terrorism and has said he would consider further expansion of capital punishment laws for other crimes.

 

Paul opposes the death penalty and would vote against it in "any legislative body he was a member of," according to campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. In 2005, Paul praised the late Pope John Paul II for being an "eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty."

http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Death_Penalty

 

Woooo hooooo. My man Paul!

 

So, if I were basing the "liberal" label solely on the death penalty, Paul, considered perhaps the most conservative, would be the only the liberal apple in the barrel.

 

What does any of this have to do with your question regarding Mike Huckabee's qualifications as a conservative?

 

I'm not going to argue with you or D H about whether Huckabee is a "valid" conservative. That's like trying to tell somebody what their opinion should be. You asked me what makes Huckabee a conservative. I've answered your question. You want to try and convince people that people have to be WAY right of center, or hold certain specific positions, in order to qualify as conservative, you go right on ahead. I listened to two hours of this on Rush today, and I was laughing the whole time. So I see no point in arguing about it.

 

All you're really accomplishing in the end is handing the election to Obama on a silver platter.

[DrDNA]

I think there are many people who are glad of Paul's input who still don't think he should really be running things. Being in Congress, where he can have a pulpit and shake things up while still being kept in check by 434 others could be considered a good place for him, while the Presidency might not be.

 

 

Yep. I wonder if he is not one those people himself.....

While Paul's failure to achieve the big chair was not so dramatic, it does remind me a LOT of Ross Perot self imploding....neither of those guys are stupid....

 

Dang he would have made a big splash....if the powers that be didn't kill him first....

 

What does any of this have to do with your question regarding Mike Huckabee's qualifications as a conservative?

What does it have to do with Huckabee's qualifications as a conservative?

You stated that Huckabee is a conservative at least in part because of his views on the death penalty. In fact, his record on that point is not greatly distinguished from Clinton, Obama, or McCain (who is generally not considered a "true conservative" either) in that regard. ALL of them support the death penalty.

 

Only Paul (generally considered the most conservative) opposes the death penalty.

 

I left the Huckabee part out....

Huckabee supports the death penalty. In his book, From Hope to Higher Ground, he described the death penalty as "a tough issue." He wrote that he believes "some crimes deserve it, but that does not mean I like it." He also described carrying out the death penalty as the worst part of his job as governor of Arkansas. In a December 2005 interview on PBS that he said that he has had to "carry out the death penalty more than any governor in the history of my state" and that "it is not something I'm proud of.

 

I listened to two hours of this on Rush today, and I was laughing the whole time. So I see no point in arguing about it.

 

All you're really accomplishing in the end is handing the election to Obama on a silver platter.

 

1. How can you listen to the nonsense that comes out that guy's mouth?

2. I might actually be ok with that. As I stated before (probably deleted), I'll take an honest well intentioned "liberal" that actually believes what he utters over a pandering opportunist that is trying to wear ill fitting "conservative" clothing any day. We have that now and where/what has it gotten us.

 

Eg, swattin hornets nests in Iraq while Bin Laden roames free, 7 trillion dollars in debt... and this

More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the former second-in-command of that office is going public with an insider’s tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15228489/

 

More of that nonsense for me, no thanks buddy, my belly's full.

The fact of the matter is. There is very little POLITICAL difference between Bush, Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee...... I believe their main differences are in character. Unfortunately, character is VERY difficult to discern and most people don't vote character, they vote 30 second bites.

[Pangloss]

1. How can you listen to the nonsense that comes out that guy's mouth?

 

I don't think it's nonsense at all, I think it's a particularly insidious brand of emotional rabble-rousing that has a major impact in the current political climate, and has for a significant period of time. My interest is clinical and academic, primarily from the perspective of a political observer.

[DrDNA]

I don't think it's nonsense at all, I think it's a particularly insidious brand of emotional rabble-rousing that has a major impact in the current political climate, and has for a significant period of time. My interest is clinical and academic, primarily from the perspective of a political observer.

 

I hear you. I used to find some level of humor and sarcasm in him, kind of like Monty Python, and even thought it was fun to study his audience....but I just can't do it anymore.....

 

Reality is scary enough as it is without facing the fact that millions of Americans actually follow the advice of a man that has "his brain on loan from God". I knew God's brain. God's brain was a friend of mine. And Rush ain't got God's brain.

[ParanoiA]

I consider Rush a *lawyer* for the republican/conservative party cause. There is much to learn from this disposition if you absorb it within that context.

 

And honestly, he's interesting to listen to. It's fun to hear him jab "the libs" with his uber-confident tone, smug style and self anointment - I like the whole act.

[ecoli]

I think there are many people who are glad of Paul's input who still don't think he should really be running things. Being in Congress, where he can have a pulpit and shake things up while still being kept in check by 434 others could be considered a good place for him, while the Presidency might not be.

The problem is that with 434 other voices that tend to disagree with him, he gets ignored alot... but don't worry the RP revolution is working on getting at least some of the gang of 434 replaced by Paul-type people.

 

I consider Rush a *lawyer* for the republican/conservative party cause. There is much to learn from this disposition if you absorb it within that context.

 

And honestly, he's interesting to listen to. It's fun to hear him jab "the libs" with his uber-confident tone, smug style and self anointment - I like the whole act.

 

Yeah, as much as conservative talk show hosts annoy me at times, they are entertaining. And, even though they see things in black and white, it's good to see the other side. I actually find Papa bear, Bill O'reilly, to be the most accepting of differing ideology. However, he also covers plenty of celebrity type news that doesn't interest me.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, as much as conservative talk show hosts annoy me at times, they are entertaining. And, even though they see things in black and white, it's good to see the other side. I actually find Papa bear, Bill O'reilly, to be the most accepting of differing ideology. However, he also covers plenty of celebrity type news that doesn't interest me.

 

Yeah, I've heard him a few times and he's actually surprised me on a number of issues - once I heard him say he'd have no problem with marijuana being legalized.

 

Jason Lewis is another interesting one. The few times I've heard him he was particularly good at the fundamentals of political philosophy, but just like a good lawyer he always puts the best spin on events, selectively and specifically ignores evidence, and seems to suffer from the party mentallity.

[iNow]

I consider Rush a *lawyer* for the republican/conservative party cause. There is much to learn from this disposition if you absorb it within that context.

 

And honestly, he's interesting to listen to. It's fun to hear him jab "the libs" with his uber-confident tone, smug style and self anointment - I like the whole act.

 

I am not really addressing this post at you, ParanoiA, but your post really helps set the context for my comment. I agree with your point completely, but want to make another... That said...

 

 

When you go into a cult to study it, you cannot help but have part of the core of your being influenced by their cult indoctrination. When a stealth officer infiltrates a gang, they cannot help but absorb part of the gang mindset. ... When someone listens to Rush (and all of the other "false prophets") they cannot help but swallow some kool-aid.

 

 

Stop listening. Stop sipping the kool-aid and pretending that you're not drinking it because you're studying it.

 

I'm so frustrated right now. I live in Texas, but I'm not really sure it's different anywhere else. So many people... so many ... so very many... are locked into...

 

<sigh>

 

 

Never mind.

[ParanoiA]

iNow do you hear yourself? You're actually advocating putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to ideas different from yours? This is poetically, exactly what Rush says liberals advocate. And here you are increasing his credibility while denouncing his "core".

 

And your point is wrong since I actually started listening in lockstep with Rush's "core" and gravitated away, and continue to everyday I listen. Get it yet?

[iNow]

Yeah. I actually cannot argue your point. I really don't like the comment about me putting my fingers in my ears, but I cannot argue your point.

 

I'm just so very tired of people close to me becoming zombies. So... very... tired.

 

Thanks ParanoiA. Hopefully you won't mind if I continue to choose to avoid tuning into Rush and his compatriots.