Senator McCain adopts Bush positions on unitary executive, domestic spying

[solarbird]

Senator McCain has adopted Chief Executive Bush's positions on the unitary executive, domestic spying, warrantless wiretapping, and immunity from law. His new deputy communications director, Michael Goldfarb, also endorses torture, or, to cut it a bit more finely, contemptuously mocks the idea that it shouldn't be used, and also claims that the Chief Executive has, and this is a quote, "near dictatorial power" to be used however that executive sees fit if that executive sees fit to declare it related to foreign policy or security matters. Which, of course, means for anything and everything.

Senator McCain's position is a direct reversal from his own positions six months ago, where here was at least pretending to oppose torture and other grotesque abuses in the name of "security." So please remember: McCain is campaigning for Mr. Bush's third term. If you want more of what you've had the last eight years, that's what he's offering, and you should vote for him.

Comments

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Pulling together two threads for you:

Phil Gramm, McCain's "economic brain," was until just a few weeks ago a lobbyist for UBS bank Switzerland, a bank seriously embroiled in the subprime crisis. Now, it seems UBS is the subject of investigations (http://www.newsweek.com/id/139443) into whether or not it helped wealthy Americans evade tax laws. Gramm's aide John Savercool remains on UBS's payroll.

Gramm rammed through Congress a series of loopholes that contributed to our financial disaster (http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2767), and created the hyper-unstable Credit Default Swaps with their current poor oversight.

[shikyrie.livejournal.com]

er.. nothanks... I'll pass.

[partywhipple.livejournal.com]

Ah well. I think he won't win anyway. Don't get me wrong, while I approve of the social views of Obama, sans abortion, I think he's is going to destroy our economy even faster than Bush did. It's a hard choice between Torture/slow economic death and Abortion/faster economic death. I may actually just sit this one out. or write in my friend Eric. :P

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: I don't share your views on abortion. I think it's not only a choice that should be legal but a choice that is very often morally superior to the alternatives.

That said, the number of abortions that occur is not tied to the legality of abortion, it's tied (inversely) to the availability of birth control, pre-natal care, and social welfare assistance for young mothers. It is tied to demographic factors, and economic factors such as unemployment and poverty. Governments that address inequality, poverty, and unemployment (like most of those in Europe) have lower rates of abortion regardless of the legal status of abortion. The US has fewer abortions per capita in times of better economic performance. Fewer people had abortions per capita when Bill Clinton was president than in any of the Republican administrations since the legalization of abortion nationally in 1973. If you want to limit abortion rather than simply make those same abortions illegal and add in a lot more, your best bet is to elect Barack Obama.

[partywhipple.livejournal.com]

Without agreement of basic terms and definitions further discussion is an excercise in futility. I will ask, though, the source of your numbers.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Actually, I mischaracterized the US incidence statistics a bit, though my general point is correct: (See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html) There was a sharp rise in incidence during the Nixon/Ford years, followed by a much slower increase during the Carter administration. Every year from 1973-1980 posted an increase.

Since 1982, there's been a steady decline, with the largest decline during the Clinton administration (particularly his first term). The only years after 1981 with an increase in incidence were 1988 and 1990. In 2005, there were about as many abortions per capita as in 1974.

To support my point about abortion rates per country, see Chart D at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html. The only European countries with a higher rate than the US are former Soviet-bloc countries with a strong Orthodox church and poor social welfare support. The same source points out that there is no correlation between incidence in a country and legality in that country. For example, Latin America as a region has high abortion rates and restrictive laws against abortion. Where there is a correlation is in deaths among women undergoing abortions and illegality. When abortion is legal, it is safe. When it is illegal, it can be unsafe for many women. So abortion illegality does not reduce abortion, but does hurt women.

Edited to add, these numbers represent LEGAL abortions, so one reason there was a sharp rise after 1973 is that it took several years for access to legal abortion to become widely available across the country. Most doctors were not certified to give abortions--thus, in those early years, it's possible that the abortion rate was higher but that many of those were not counted officially and technically illegal. See http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/trends.pdf for more information (including correlation between poverty and incidence of abortion, among other things.)

[solarbird]

while I approve of the social views of Obama, sans abortion, I think he's is going to destroy our economy even faster than Bush did.
Higher taxes will do less damage at this point than the unending escalating deficit-spending spree. If a Chief Executive (or possibly even President) Obama and party move towards balanced budgets, the possibility of mitigation is present.

I may actually just sit this one out. or write in my friend Eric. :P
Vote for somebody - anybody - on the ballot you could even consider supporting. There are other parties out there. It's not a wasted vote to vote for the person who doesn't win, no matter what Big Man Politics tells you.

eta: how do you think I feel? I was a McCain county delegate in 2000. I get the fluffy extra bitter marshmallow layer of betrayal on top of everything else.

[partywhipple.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry. The uy is a jerk. And I am really getting sick of not finding ANYONE who I feel I can vote for in good faith. Can you point out a cadidate who is:

Pro Life
Anti Torture
Respects the entire Bill of Rights and Constitution, not just the First OR Second Ammendment
Pro separation of Church and State (without being anti religious rights)
Pro removal of marriage from fed gov control entirely (straight or gay)
Actually someone who will get big government the hell out of ourprivate lives entirely, including removal of the so called "Patriot Act"
Anti borrowing money from anyone unless an emergency situation exists and then never from any country that actively promotes our downfall

Anyone fit that bill?

[solarbird]

There are lots of reasons I disagree v. strongly with you about abortion and abortion rights, but this is one of them.

[solarbird]

There've been a lot of big-L Libertarians on your side except for the abortion issue, and I've voted for a lot of 'em, despite the big-L Libertarian party being such a clown car of an organisation. That's the best I can do. As votes of principle go, tho', you can do a lot worse.

[solarbird]

Yeah, I've been holding off on that UBS link until I had something a little meatier, but yeah.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Ron Paul seems to fit most of those criteria.

[wrog]

Ron Paul is very much anti-separation of Church and State. It was Pat Robertson who got him into this business, after all.