John McCain turns far right

[Kopji]

John McCain came out in favor of an obscure Arizona proposition in mid 2005. He is a clever guy and it has been a little unclear if he actually support this harmful and religion driven law, or was just riding along as a safe place.

The proposition is one of the usual anti gay marriage proposals that the country has seen. The Arizona law goes much farther though, and eliminates existing partner benefits for both heterosexual and homosexual couples in state government.

State employee partner benefits for non marrieds would end.

Some crimes now considered spousal abuse would no longer be considered such, unless they were married.

McCain's support for this proposition places him firmly outside of the "moderate" political definition and into the most extreme of the far right religious fundamentalists.

McCain is not only wrong to support this flawed bill, he is now acting against the good of the public employees of Arizona in favor of his national aspirations to President.

[Art Vandelay]

It does seem (from your one-sided and uncited description) to be motivated by anti-gay feelings, and I don't think that it's good policy, but to call it "far right" is absurd.

[a_unique_person]

I'm guessing he wants to be pres. You have to be nominated first, and that means appealing to those who vote in the primaries.

[Questioninggeller]

With the stuff BJU pulled and the treatment he got by the "far right" in 2000, he's got to remember that. So I wonder after playing politics and humoring the Falwell/Dobson types to get elected in 2008 if he'll turn his shoulder on them once in power.

[fuelair]

I'm guessing he wants to be pres. You have to be nominated first, and that means appealing to those who vote in the primaries.

Who is this John McCain person? I seem to remember a reasonably good politician with that name from several years back but he's old news and I only vaguely remember him now.

[ponderingturtle]

With the stuff BJU pulled and the treatment he got by the "far right" in 2000, he's got to remember that. So I wonder after playing politics and humoring the Falwell/Dobson types to get elected in 2008 if he'll turn his shoulder on them once in power.

I don't know if I buy that, I have gotten the feeling that he is basicly in bed with the administration and pretty far right for a while, he just is good at winking to the left and convincing them he does not actualy beleive in what he is doing.

I lost any and all respect after he caved in to the president on torture.

[Jocko]

John McCain came out in favor of an obscure Arizona proposition in mid 2005. He is a clever guy and it has been a little unclear if he actually support this harmful and religion driven law, or was just riding along as a safe place.

The proposition is one of the usual anti gay marriage proposals that the country has seen. The Arizona law goes much farther though, and eliminates existing partner benefits for both heterosexual and homosexual couples in state government.

State employee partner benefits for non marrieds would end.

Some crimes now considered spousal abuse would no longer be considered such, unless they were married.

McCain's support for this proposition places him firmly outside of the "moderate" political definition and into the most extreme of the far right religious fundamentalists.

McCain is not only wrong to support this flawed bill, he is now acting against the good of the public employees of Arizona in favor of his national aspirations to President.

Bullsh!t. McCain has been categorically against gay marriage (in the formal sense, anyway). If he had NOT supported the initiative, that would be characterized as going far LEFT. And in case you haven't noticed, McCain is a republican as well as a populist.

As one who believes the government ought to be out of the marriage business altogether, I see nothing wrong with the measure as described. Lots of employers don't offer spousal benefits, let alone domestic parter benefits. What makes this any different? Could it be more entitlement mentality recoiling at the idea of taking a little friggin' responsibility for one's own life, which may even mean - gasp -getting a different job?

Another non-issue from the smear machine. Thanks for repeating it here. :rolleyes:

[Mephisto]

I lost any and all respect after he caved in to the president on torture.

I agree 100%. I also think that Eric Hoffer's The True Believer outlines McCain's stance perfectly; it's easier to change someone at either end of the political/religous spectrum 180° than it is to have them become a moderate.

McCain showed promise once, but has since embraced his party values and blown himself out of consideration for any higher political office.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree 100%. I also think that Eric Hoffer's The True Believer outlines McCain's stance perfectly; it's easier to change someone at either end of the political/religous spectrum 180° than it is to have them become a moderate.

McCain showed promise once, but has since embraced his party values and blown himself out of consideration for any higher political office.

I am not sure that he ever didn't hold to those value's, he is just good at pertending to give a wink to the left to get them to think he agrees with some of what they do. Like record deficits are bad and such.

[Kopji]

Bullsh!t. McCain has been categorically against gay marriage (in the formal sense, anyway). If he had NOT supported the initiative, that would be characterized as going far LEFT. And in case you haven't noticed, McCain is a republican as well as a populist.

As one who believes the government ought to be out of the marriage business altogether, I see nothing wrong with the measure as described. Lots of employers don't offer spousal benefits, let alone domestic parter benefits. What makes this any different? Could it be more entitlement mentality recoiling at the idea of taking a little friggin' responsibility for one's own life, which may even mean - gasp -getting a different job?

Another non-issue from the smear machine. Thanks for repeating it here. :rolleyes:

I'm a little confused by your position Jocko. You say government ought to be out of the marriage business, but seem ok with adding a constitutional amendment dictating exactly that.

As a private business person it might be just dandy to have this passed. There are plenty of quality gay or heterosexual people who would leave the employment of the government. We are always looking for good people.

There might be a problem where it would be difficult to hire top people like teachers and stuff, but being about #50 in education we are already at bottom.

McCain promoted eliminating partner benefits for hundreds of state workers without any moral qualms at all. He endorsed a religious fanatic in Munsil: a guy who almost indiscernible from an extremist mullah.

If you want someone like that as President he'll just be another Bush, in a prettier wrapper.

[Kopji]

The "McCain Feinhold" so-called election reform bill is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever. The biggest impact was to eliminate election funding for small parties like the Libertarians or Greens.

The Libertarians especially in Arizona, were almost completely silenced by this law. A law John McCain is proud of, since it squashes criticism of the status quo and enshrines incumbents of the two major parties.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

John McCain has always been far right.

[pipelineaudio]

For those of you who may have missed it, McCain got a VERY thorough smackdown for daring to defy or run against bush in 1999

hes been a useless puppet ever since

I dont blame him, I dont think Id have the balls to take a second beating the way he had

[SezMe]

It does seem (from your one-sided and uncited description) to be motivated by anti-gay feelings, and I don't think that it's good policy, but to call it "far right" is absurd.
So, Art, since, for example, all the state-level anti-gay legislation is sponsored and supported by the far right why should it not be called "far right"?

[Jocko]

I'm a little confused by your position Jocko. You say government ought to be out of the marriage business, but seem ok with adding a constitutional amendment dictating exactly that.

If it was anything other than a response to a pre-existing challenge, you'd be right. But since there's no chance of getting government out of the equation, I think you'd better look at who actually put the issue on the table.

As a private business person it might be just dandy to have this passed. There are plenty of quality gay or heterosexual people who would leave the employment of the government. We are always looking for good people.

Er, so? You do know that people opt for private sector jobs for reasons other than sexual orientation, don't you?

McCain promoted eliminating partner benefits for hundreds of state workers without any moral qualms at all. He endorsed a religious fanatic in Munsil: a guy who almost indiscernible from an extremist mullah.

You're flirting with Godwin's here; maybe you could explain how such man can keep winning his Senate seat with such views? Just something to consider in the midst of your colorful comparisons.

If you want someone like that as President he'll just be another Bush, in a prettier wrapper.

If you really think McCain's career - and marketability - begins and ends on this point, you really don't understand politics. Perhaps you ought to take a look at the other anti-gay marriage referendums in the pipeline... start with Virginia if you like.

[Pardalis]

The proposition is one of the usual anti gay marriage proposals that the country has seen. The Arizona law goes much farther though, and eliminates existing partner benefits for both heterosexual and homosexual couples in state government.

State employee partner benefits for non marrieds would end.

So he's not "anti-gay", whatever that means.

[ponderingturtle]

So he's not "anti-gay", whatever that means.

Well, sort of, as he is against any legal recognition of homosexual relationships, while keeping legal recognition of heterosexual relationships. So the disparity of these could be taken as a form of bais agenst homosexuals.

[Katana]

Well, sort of, as he is against any legal recognition of homosexual relationships, while keeping legal recognition of heterosexual relationships. So the disparity of these could be taken as a form of bais agenst homosexuals.

Or against the legal recognition of any relationship besides a heterosexual, married one since he sought to eliminate benefits to heterosexual partners, too.

[Pardalis]

Well, sort of, as he is against any legal recognition of homosexual relationships, while keeping legal recognition of heterosexual relationships. So the disparity of these could be taken as a form of bais agenst homosexuals.

That's not a bias. It seems to me that this goes for all paraphilias.

[Jocko]

Or against the legal recognition of any relationship besides a heterosexual, married one since he sought to eliminate benefits to heterosexual partners, too.

Which can only be attributed to heterophobia, naturally. It's plain as day that's what it's really about, isn't it?

[Katana]

Which can only be attributed to heterophobia, naturally. It's plain as day that's what it's really about, isn't it?

Not following you there.

[zakur]

McCain's not going to around very long. After all, he said he would kill himself (http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27269196.shtml) if the Democrats took over the Senate. Maybe he's just waiting for the recount in Virginia before offing himself.

[Kopji]

If it was anything other than a response to a pre-existing challenge, you'd be right. But since there's no chance of getting government out of the equation, I think you'd better look at who actually put the issue on the table.

I'm still not really following your train of thought. Common law marriage has been the norm in Arizona for longer than I've lived here. 'Man & woman' who live together as domestic partners are treated as married - have been for a long time. They even have kids and stuff.

So this new law, whatever you felt about gay marriage... would have treated these long time public employees as the evil sinners they are: They would need to go get married or lose family support. The government suddenly saying that it is going to take away existing benefits unless they get married sounds an awful lot like support of religion to me.

The alternative solution of allowing the state employees sounds quite socialist to me - just let anyone pick someone to share benefits. Now to me that sounds like a huge increase in expense. ALL government employees suddenly demanding support of their deadbeat brothers, sisters, and adult children who just can't seem to leave home.


Er, so? You do know that people opt for private sector jobs for reasons other than sexual orientation, don't you?

This argument seems a little obtuse. State government is a large employer, and competes for employees with the private sector. I promise you that any employer large enough to compete is already providing domestic partner benefits as part of the package. This is not by the way, 'entitlement' in any sense. Wages are only one segment of what an employee costs, benefits are another part of that and are not 'free', even if the employee does not easily see that they are both part of the package.


You're flirting with Godwin's here; maybe you could explain how such man can keep winning his Senate seat with such views? Just something to consider in the midst of your colorful comparisons.

You're flirting with making an argument for a theocratic style of government where the strong religious majority exerts a kind of tyranny over a weak minority.


If you really think McCain's career - and marketability - begins and ends on this point, you really don't understand politics. Perhaps you ought to take a look at the other anti-gay marriage referendums in the pipeline... start with Virginia if you like.

Arizona set an example of decency for Virginia, let them look over here.

[Bill Thompson]

Isn't all sex supposed to be gay? I never heard of miserable sex.

Marriage should be gay too. Otherwise, seek marriage consoling.

[Bill Thompson]

McCain's not going to around very long. After all, he said he would kill himself (http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27269196.shtml) if the Democrats took over the Senate. Maybe he's just waiting for the recount in Virginia before offing himself.

Wait. All liberal pundits are comedians. But when a Republican tells a joke we take him seriously. OK, I just have to keep up with the rules.

[Jocko]

Final word on this silly subject,

I'm still not really following your train of thought. Common law marriage has been the norm in Arizona for longer than I've lived here. 'Man & woman' who live together as domestic partners are treated as married - have been for a long time. They even have kids and stuff.

Yeah, so? Laws can't be changed? Common law used to be in force all over the country, now it's not. Illinois is a good example. "It's always been this way" really isn't a compelling argument.

So this new law, whatever you felt about gay marriage... would have treated these long time public employees as the evil sinners they are: They would need to go get married or lose family support. The government suddenly saying that it is going to take away existing benefits unless they get married sounds an awful lot like support of religion to me.

Please point me to the terms "evil," "sinner," or "religion" in the text of the document to prove that these characterizations exist anywhere else than your imagination. This, too, is not a compelling argument.

The alternative solution of allowing the state employees sounds quite socialist to me - just let anyone pick someone to share benefits. Now to me that sounds like a huge increase in expense. ALL government employees suddenly demanding support of their deadbeat brothers, sisters, and adult children who just can't seem to leave home.

Who's suggesting this false dichotomy? Apart from you, that is?


This argument seems a little obtuse. State government is a large employer, and competes for employees with the private sector. I promise you that any employer large enough to compete is already providing domestic partner benefits as part of the package. This is not by the way, 'entitlement' in any sense. Wages are only one segment of what an employee costs, benefits are another part of that and are not 'free', even if the employee does not easily see that they are both part of the package.

If employers offer benefits, I can "promise" (an easier word than "prove," ain't it?) that those employers offer them because it makes good business sense, not out of any sense of moral responsibility.

What you call obtuse I call capitalism. If indispensible people want to work for shiny pebbles instead of US Dollars, then that's what the employers will give them. It all adds up to "so friggin' what?"

You're flirting with making an argument for a theocratic style of government where the strong religious majority exerts a kind of tyranny over a weak minority.

Where did I say that? All I said was that McCain must be doing something the voters like, as evidenced by his re-elections. Kindly provide some evidence that democracy is inherently theocratic, or consider retracting your loaded allegations.


Arizona set an example of decency for Virginia, let them look over here.

I guess they did it for Colorado, North Carolina, Idaho too, among others. You really should take a closer look at all those statewide referendums before you start declaring others "evil" for the "sin" of disagreeing with you.

[Darth Rotor]

They would need to go get married or lose family support. The government suddenly saying that it is going to take away existing benefits unless they get married sounds an awful lot like support of religion to me.

Not quite. A marriage by Justice of the Peace is not a religious event. It is a legally binding contractual event covered under marriage laws. What is being done here, among other things, seems to be a move toward demanding formalization of relationships, since the follow on effects are then not as ambiguous. Common Law, for all that it is a very old tradition, may leave too many loose ends in these days quickly soluble marriages.

Qui Bono? The JP's and the Notary Publics, and possibly a few clergymen. ;) There's an unholy alliance! :jaw-dropp

DR

[Beerina]

So, Art, since, for example, all the state-level anti-gay legislation is sponsored and supported by the far right why should it not be called "far right"?

As a point of rhetoric, since much of this legislation just passed statewide referenda two days ago, it's actually mainstream.

Calling it "far right" is just far left propaganda. :jaw-dropp

[RandFan]

As a point of rhetoric, since much of this legislation just passed statewide referenda two days ago, it's actually mainstream.

Calling it "far right" is just far left propaganda. :jaw-droppYeah, Defense of Marriage act won in a landslide here in California 4 - 6 years ago. California is not a "far right" state.

[Beerina]

The Arizona law goes much farther though, and eliminates existing partner benefits for both heterosexual and homosexual couples in state government.So he's not "anti-gay", whatever that means.

No. They ended partner benefits for both gay and strait couples lest someone challenge that in court if they only ban gay couples.

...such is their hatred of gays.

[Dave1001]

No. They ended partner benefits for both gay and strait couples lest someone challenge that in court if they only ban gay couples.

...such is their hatred of gays.

but it failed, right? So they're not in the majority in AZ.

[Art Vandelay]

So, Art, since, for example, all the state-level anti-gay legislation is sponsored and supported by the far right why should it not be called "far right"?So, since some people that support it are far right, everyone is? Are you really this incredibly stupid?

Well, sort of, as he is against any legal recognition of homosexual relationships, while keeping legal recognition of heterosexual relationships. So the disparity of these could be taken as a form of bais agenst homosexuals.Not "relationships", "relationship". He supports one relationship: marriage. And homosexuals are free to enter into that relationship.

[steverino]

John McCain came out in favor of an obscure Arizona proposition in mid 2005. He is a clever guy and it has been a little unclear if he actually support this harmful and religion driven law, or was just riding along as a safe place.

The proposition is one of the usual anti gay marriage proposals that the country has seen. The Arizona law goes much farther though, and eliminates existing partner benefits for both heterosexual and homosexual couples in state government.

State employee partner benefits for non marrieds would end.

Some crimes now considered spousal abuse would no longer be considered such, unless they were married.

McCain's support for this proposition places him firmly outside of the "moderate" political definition and into the most extreme of the far right religious fundamentalists.

McCain is not only wrong to support this flawed bill, he is now acting against the good of the public employees of Arizona in favor of his national aspirations to President.

McCain is a has-been who never has been. At best he will be considered for a VP spot with a minor Republican candidate in '08. I feel sorry for him getting tortured in VN, but I think there is just something missing about his personality that makes him nationally unelectable.

[SezMe]

So, since some people that support it are far right, everyone is? Are you really this incredibly stupid?
You'll be quite unable to find any post in which I made that assertion. Are you really that incredibly poor at reading and thinking?

[jay gw]

McCain has never done anything to stop the illegal aliens coming into the US through his state. Some of the highest crime cities in the US are in Arizona.

[Art Vandelay]

You'll be quite unable to find any post in which I made that assertion. Are you really that incredibly poor at reading and thinking?That's the obvious implication. So, what, now you're trying to get around it on the loophole that it was in interrogative form rather than, technically, an "assertion"? Now, let's review. You could have worded you post this way:

All the state-level anti-gay legislation is sponsored and supported by the far right. I believe that this establishes that the term "far right" is appropriate because [whatever the hell your reasoning is]. Do you have a counterargument for that?

Instead, you put it this way:

So, Art, since, for example, all the state-level anti-gay legislation is sponsored and supported by the far right why should it not be called "far right"?

You presented no reason why "far right" is appropriate, and in fact implied that the reason was your vague, unsupported claim about people on the far right supporting it, and then asked me to prove a negative. And then, when I called you on your implicit argument that merely being supported by those on the far right makes it far right, you denied it. This isn't how someone who is interested in a productive discussion acts.