Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News McCain: I'm No Maverick

  1. Apr 7, 2010 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/mccain-maverick-hayworth-arizona/2010/04/05/id/354832

    I really used to like McCain. When he picked Palin for VP, he betrayed my confidence. Now he seems more like a joke. What is sad is that his base has moved so far to the right that he is forced to deny his long history of bipartisanship in order to save his career.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 7, 2010 #2
    Heh, to quote http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879#" [Broken]:
    I had considered McCain one of more honorable politicians around, to the extent that I was hopping for him to win the 2000 Presidential race. However, I feel he started slowly loosing his way since then, went down hill quick after Bush was was reelected, and his taking on Palin for VP put him right out the window for me.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  4. Apr 7, 2010 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You're misreading the situation, Ivan. Yes, he's downplaying it because he's not crossing party lines, but it isn't because his base moved to the right it is because the line between the parties moved to the left. We have an extreme left wing President and a democratic majority in both houses, pushing a very liberal adjendas. There is nothing even for a moderate republican to cross party lines on: it is just too big of a gap to cross. To the contrary: the democrats are so far left that you have democrats breaking ranks and making the much shorter trip across the line to the right.
     
  5. Apr 7, 2010 #4

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    While I won't argue the fact that both the President and Congress are pushing liberal agendas, on what basis do you make the claim that Obama is "an extreme left wing President"? During his roughly 1.5 year tenure in office, President Obama has agreed to send a 30,000 troop surge to Afghanistan, reconsidered nuclear power plants, opposed a single payer health care system, supported a cadillac tax instead of an income surtax on the wealthy, and permitted some off shore drilling.
     
  6. Apr 7, 2010 #5

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Not so fast. Some of these are, at least, questionable.
    Yes, and not just agreed, he executed. A substantial number are already there.

    He's certainly talked it up. In his first SOTU speech he said he favored a "new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country". Yet, the only concrete action he's taken to-date via Chu is to kill the Yucca waste repository. In February of this year he did announce (no execution yet) loan guarantees authorized back in the Bush 2005 Energy Policy Act for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021601302.html" [Broken] which he controls. Otherwise, he's done absolutely nothing tangible to change the status of nuclear power, the consequence of which is that there are currently no new nuclear plants under construction in the US today, and thus there won't be any online before Obama was to leave even a 2nd term.

    Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE&feature=player_embedded" SP in 2003:
    As President, he stopped promoting SP, but he still declines to argue directly against it; instead he threw his support behind the http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/05/obama_on_why_he_is_not_for_sin.html" [Broken], a close relative of SP that undoubtedly would become the thing itself in time, until the Public Option didn't exist as an 'option' any longer in Congress.

    Great idea, but I don't follow how support of any net tax increase is not left wing politics. In any case, the reality is there is no cadillac tax in place today, it is not scheduled to hit until http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/04/05/mass_communities_likely_to_feel_cost_of_employees_cadillac_plans/" [Broken] Obama backed down under union protests and pushed out into the future. Given that this ~super majority Congress failed to enact the cadillac tax today, the idea that some future 2018 Congress will go along is fantasy, and everyone knows it.

    As of today, Obama has permitted nothing new, so far he has only proposed to open some limited areas for offshore drilling.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  7. Apr 8, 2010 #6

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    True, but I think that you've missed my point (and likely because I wasn't particularly clear). For lack of better phrasing, a cadillac tax is generally considered a less liberal tax than an income surtax on the wealthy. If Obama were as extremely liberal as Russ seems to think, I would have guessed that he would support the income surtax on the wealthy over the cadillac tax. It's not really strong support that he's not a radical, but it does suggest to me that he's only moderately liberal.
     
  8. Apr 8, 2010 #7

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2017 Award

    Since healthcare reform has been the focus of Obama's policy, let's focus on that for a bit. Obama's plan is very similar to a Republican healthcare plan in 1993 (see comparison here). The bill, proposed by 20 Republicans and 2 Democrats in the Senate, included a mandate for individuals to buy insurance, subsidies for the poor to by insurance and the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package and refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions. The similarities between the 1993 bill and the current bill and the fact that these proposals are now anathema to Republicans suggest that it is the Republicans who have moved to the right, at least on this issue.

    On healthcare reform, you are correct the gap between Republicans and Democrats was too large. However, on other issues, moderate Republicans (and even not so moderate Republicans) are willing to sign onto Democratic plans. For example, 11 Republicans in the Senate supported Obama's "jobs bill." Furthermore, on the issues of energy and the environment, one of the domestic policy issues that Congress may tackle next, Republicans such as Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham seem willing to work with Democrats (see http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/11/senators-pitch-alternative-cap-trade-climate/, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/11/graham-backs-push-climate-change-legislation/, and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28friedman.html). Of course, only time will tell whether Democrats will chose to pursue more moderate, centrist proposals in this area, and whether some Republicans will support these proposals.

    One interpretation of this observation is that the Democratic party is adopting far left stances. Another interpretations is that the Democratic party has a very wide membership including liberals, moderates and conservatives. Whereas the Democrats have a group of conservative Blue Dog Democrats and acknowledge them as an important part of the party, the Republican party has proposed ideological "purity test" (an idea that was fortunately were shot down) and ostracized moderate members with the tag of RINO (Arlen Spector and Dede Scozzafava being two prominent cases). For the sake of the Republican party, I hope McCain and other more moderate members like him can maintain a strong moderate voice within the Republican party. Both parties, not just the Democrats, should be moving toward governing from the center. (Of course it is important to note that terms such as conservative, moderate, centrist, and liberal are all subjective and really more important for political name calling that anything else. Everyone, including myself, are likely to place policies with which one believes near the center of the political spectrum and classify those policies with which one disagrees at the extreme left/right.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
  9. Apr 8, 2010 #8

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I notice you haven't stated an opinion on Obama being an "extreme left wing President". Care to share?
     
  10. Apr 8, 2010 #9

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    IMO, the partisanism has little to do with philosophical gaps and more to do with political gain (determined largely by emotional reactionism).

    Example: McConnell and the 7 original Republican co-sponsors of the bill to set up the Conrad-Gregg fiscal policy commission voting against the bill after it had been strongly endorsed by Obama. Boo!
     
  11. Apr 8, 2010 #10

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For a year, everyone was complaining about him not setting up the blue-ribbon commission to look into waster disposal. Now that that's eventually happened, it's quickly forgotten?

    Mr "extreme left wing" Obama voted for the 2005 Energy Policy Act, while our "moderate Republican" John McCain voted against it.

    Is the absence of predictability of the NRC a fault of Obama's?

    And this is how much lower than the number of new licenses granted or plants built under say Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, or Reagan?

    In any case, the whole idea of funding nuclear plants is sort of silly to label as right wing philosophy, as a free market system would not accept nuclear power for decades into the future. Government overriding the will of the markets is supposed to be a left-wing idea, is it not? (which is to say that politics has only a little to do with the underlying philosophy and much more to do with short term control of emotional response)

    What he personally believes in is nowhere near as important as what he advocates for in the bills going through Congress. Despite his personal beliefs, he was right off the bat saying that Congress (meaning the Dems) ought to consider a bill which did not include a public option. Obama and Sebelius took plenty of flack from East and West coast Dems when they came out early with language that said it was okay to not have a public option.

    Can we agree that you need to start with a proposal? And the proposal is to drill in areas that were restricted by a moratorium put in place by what can only have been the ultra-radical communist President: George H. W. Bush.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  12. Apr 8, 2010 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It is also noteworthy that he has only been in office a little over a year. He walked into the greatest financial crisis and job loss rate since the Great Depression - both of which have turned around. He has two wars on his plate. He tackled health care reform - 100 years overdue - and passed the biggest piece of legislation to pass in 40 years. He cut the the first significant arms deal with Russia in 20 years. He has been strong on foreign policy and anti-terrorism. In fact, the Dems now rank higher than Reps on the issue of foreign policy. To cherry pick issues and complain that Obama hasn't done anything is disingenuous at best.

    The fact is that Obama has already done enough to secure his place in the history books as one of the great Presidents of all time.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2010
  13. Apr 8, 2010 #12

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Same here. The problem is endemic in the GOP. Conservatism is frowned upon there, and actual conservatives (and yes, there are conservatives in both parties, though far fewer than 30-40 years ago) are being edged out by a party apparatus that that rewards blindly pro-business neoconservatism. The GOP long ago gave up working for the common good. To the dismay of my father, I was a pretty loyal Republican for many years, until the party left me. I can't support the GOP or the Democratic Party anymore. They are both bought and paid for. All I can do is pick the lesser of two evils on election day, and hope that someday a strong independent party arises that distances itself from the DC partisanship and pay-to-play relationships with lobbies.
     
  14. Apr 8, 2010 #13
    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8154699&page=1
    "President Obama's endorsement of a health care surtax for the richest Americans has renewed criticism of the proposal, including from the man who once lorded over the nation's increasingly complicated tax code."

    OK so this is an older article but just because he didn't get what he wanted doesn't mean he didn't support it.

    Although (like the members of Congress who voted on it) I have not read the bill, it is my understanding that lots of taxes on the wealthy are on the way. These include eliminating the Bush tax cuts (I suppose some do not consider this a tax increase, but those paying it certainly do), raising the ceiling on self-employment tax and Medicare taxes, imposing new taxes on investment income, raising the estate tax, and so forth. These certainly seem like surtaxes on the wealthy to me. Oh, and they still get to pay the cadillac tax as well.
     
  15. Apr 8, 2010 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Your link doesn't work.

    Rolling back the Bush tax cuts puts the rate at the same level as under that raging liberal, Reagan. However, because of the economy, far fewer people will be affected.
     
  16. Apr 8, 2010 #15

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Quickly jumping in - I think you mis-characterize the comparison. Of course there is some commonality. I think the differences - tort reform, tax equalization for individual plans and several others - make them entirely different creatures. Also Keiser's wrong about the exchange - in the present law the exchange will be a creature of and by the federal government and not the states, even if it is hosted by the states.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2010
  17. Apr 8, 2010 #16

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Based on his actions to-date, not his rhetoric - owning GM, individual mortgage bailouts, vast spending, pending tax increases, the recent announcement by Volcker of the need for a US VAT, and this health law - yes I increasingly think he is very left wing. To place this in context, I'll add that I believe this to be the case at the US level; when comparing Obama to politicians abroad I'd place him much closer to past US politicians than most EU pols for example.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2010
  18. Apr 8, 2010 #17

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Rhetoric, plans, and announcements are all fine. My objection to jgens tally of political left/right data points was the listing of rhetorical references for political positioning, against a record of concrete actions ( or lack of when despite the power to do so). Much of the President's rhetoric I agree with - "new generation of nuclear", "this is America, we don't denigrate wealth", "For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. [...] Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms."
    And, regarding his actions, I have the impression they would have been even farther to the left if he thought it at all politically feasible.



    Nuclear ------------------
    Rhetorical case in point. Would you agree that if all one wanted to do was stall, delay and slow walk the nuclear issue, that creating 'commissions' on the subject would be a fine way to do so? The waste subject has been studied for decades. We have a prize winning physicist as Sec E. who can deeply grasp the subject, yet we get more commissions.
    Yes. He's the chief executive, the executive branch executes regulation. He appointed the NRC's Jaczko. For at least the regulation aspect, if not the legislation, he's responsible.
    We didn't have 50 year old plants, episodes of $150/bbl oil, new and safer AP1000 reactors under the latter three; Reagan came in just after Three Mile Island. Bush at least got the ball rolling with the 2005 Energy law, and ran the NRC in such a way that convinced some ~17 nuclear operators that the NRC was favourable enough to new plants to warrant paying large sums for permit applications. Still I'm happy to grant the Bush could have, and should have, done more to streamline NRC regulation.
    Obama proposed loans, not funding. I agree that subsidies of any kind are not the stuff of a free market, and in general should be avoided for several reasons (political corruption, distortions of other markets). Instead I'd like to see no subsidies and a more streamlined NRC that was amenable to small low cost reactor designs (they're not). The reality is that government a) creates much of the expense for nuclear via regulation and an open door for bogus law suits, and b) subsidises nuclear's competition, both renewables and fossil.



    Single Payer/Public Option ----------------
    Agreed. The claim was Obama didn't support single payer. There was no single payer bill in Congress to support, but he's surely spoken out in favor, and gives us an indication of where he'd like to go in the future. That, in conjunction with the Mini-Me single payer plan called public option, goes in my left wing column.
    Right off the bat is not my http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/05/obama_on_why_he_is_not_for_sin.html" [Broken] of events:


    Offshore Drilling ------------------------
    Of course. My point is I don't give any right or left wing credit for this, yet.
    I'm not familiar with the context of that ban, but HWB does not define conservatism for me. As WFB said of the son, "he may be conservative, but he is not a conservative."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  19. Apr 8, 2010 #18

    DavidSnider

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://news.harrisinteractive.com/p...sp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777

    Nearly a quarter of republicans think Obama "may be the antichrist" and you think it's the left that has become more radicalized?
     
  20. Apr 8, 2010 #19

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    After both the House and Senate passed their respective health care bills, Obama and his administration threw thier support behind the Cadillac tax over the income surtax on the wealthy. And at a time when both options were still on the table.
     
  21. Apr 8, 2010 #20

    edward

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Getting back to the OP
    Sarah Palin was in AZ last week stumping with McCain. Guess what she said???

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P57W20100326

    McCain can't keep that woman quiet. Oh and check out her black leather jacket.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook