McCain Campaign: This Is Not About Issues.

[SirNitram]

Link

Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain's presidential bid, insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues during an interview with Post editors this morning.

"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

Davis added that issues will no doubt play a major role in the decisions undecided voters will make but that they won't ultimately be conclusive. He added that the campaign has "ultimate faith" in the idea that the more voters get to know McCain and Barack Obama, the better the Republican nominee will do.

Davis generally dismissed the controversies surrounding McCain's vice presidential pick -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- as a media creation but did acknowledge that her acceptance speech, which seems likely to come tomorrow, is critically important to defining who she is to the American public.

As for the speech itself, Davis said a generic, "masculine" speech was being prepared before the pick was made and, now that Palin is the choice, she is adapting the speech to her own needs and personality.

Davis demurred when asked when Palin will sit for interviews with major news organizations, pointing out that now would not be the right time given the "combative" attitude the media has seemingly adopted toward Palin. Pressed on the issue, Davis insisted that "we allot a lot more access in our campaign than any campaign in modern political history....we'll get around to it."

On the general election playing field, Davis alleged that Obama had tried -- and failed -- to expand the political map, and that 11 or 12 states (and maybe as many as 13) would be truly competitive. He added that campaign operatives are feeling better than they did a month ago about Iowa and Minnesota and believe their prospects have not dimmed in any competitive state during that time.

Davis did admit, however, the challenges of running for president as a Republican in this political atmosphere.

"We are in the worst Republican environment since Nixon in 1972," said Davis. "We take that seriously. We get the joke."

Issues: NOT IMPORTANT! It's the modern GOP in a nutshell.. Not surprising, given the issues and plans to tackle them laid out last Thursday, to 35 million people watching at home..

[rhoenix]

Heh.

Hehe.

Hahaha!

AAAAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Right, because in a country where issues need to be seriously addressed, this should instead turn into a personality contest.

[LadyTevar]

Welcome the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.

[Derek Thunder]

Issues have never been important, at least since the Republicans launched the "Southern Strategy" in the late 60s to capitalize on the backlash from the civil rights movement. National campaigns have almost always hinged on trivialities.

Now, it's not to say that issues are never considered, but in my experience people who have concrete positions on issues tend to not be in the vast realm of undecided voters, at least not for very long.

[SirNitram]

Obama's campaign responds.

"We appreciate Senator McCain's campaign manager finally admitting that his campaign is not in fact about the issues the American people care about, which is exactly the kind of cynical old politics people are ready to change."

[rhoenix]

Ouch. That one burned from here.

[frigidmagi]

ICE BURN BITCH!

[General Havoc]

Honestly, Obama should be taking McCain and his people to the mat. This sort of crap should be front page news all over the damned country, and Obama's campaign should be shelling out the money to make sure of it.

McCain could lose this campaign by himself if they could just start raising more awareness of the mind-boggling idiocy at work here.

[SirNitram]

I recignize the frustration for how blatantly one-sided the media is, but somehow blitzing every bit into a media campaign is not very useful. We saw how such focus is immediately turned into 'Whining' by the media, and mocked openly. No one remembers Kerry? When he did go on the attack, the national political media did what they always did: Sided with the GOP.

Obama's present track, letting the Palin chaos happen without drawing attention to himself, benefits him immensely, as the polls practically scream. McCain has been shedding independents and democrats like crazy.

Between Aug 28 and Sept 1, Obama leapt from 35-56 in white, non-hispanic men to 42 to McCain's 46. Women went from 40 to 44 for him, while dropping from 53 to 48 for McCain. That's just the whites.

Obama hit 50% in a national poll not so long ago, though he may have dipped since. The Electoral spread currently looks like it could go 307.1 to 230.9.. A historic blowout.

[Derek Thunder]

Based on reading the speeches of Giuliani and Palin tonight, I can say that no, this campaign is not about the issues, at least from the right.

What I will say is this: Conservatism should be stamped out like a vile disease.

E: The mocking of community organizers by elites such as Rudy Giuliani was sickening on so many levels.

[General Havoc]

Based on reading the speeches of Giuliani and Palin tonight, I can say that no, this campaign is not about the issues, at least from the right.

What I will say is this: Conservatism should be stamped out like a vile disease.

E: The mocking of community organizers by elites such as Rudy Giuliani was sickening on so many levels.

This is not Conservativism.

I am a conservative. I believe in conservative values like small government and individual choice and a strong national defense coupled with a sound foreign policy. I believe in the private sector as the solution to many of our problems. I believe in the right to bear arms and take drugs, and the right of society to execute people who prove themselves grossly unworthy of living within it. I believe in fiscal responsibility. I believe in low taxes and low expenditure. I believe in individual rights trumping social equality initiatives. I am a conservative.

These people are not conservatives.

These people do not believe in small government. They do not believe in individual choice in anything, save for their own corrupt backers. These people pay lip service to the idea of national defense such that they can use it to enrich their political backers or impose sanctions of normal people, and I don't know which is more sick. They would not know a sound foreign policy if it bludgeoned them in the face. They trust the private sector only insofar as it benefits them personally, and impose economic warfare against anything they don't personally like. They support the right to bear arms as a sop, a scrap from the table while they abolish every other right there is, from free expression to free assembly to privacy. They pervert justice whenever feasible, stonewall the efforts of people to correct abuse, and amass power as its own end. Their idea of fiscal responsibility is for them to take and spend all of our money on their own benefit, their idea of low taxes applies to the wealthy only, and their idea of low spending is so absurd as to make it a joke. They do not place individual rights above or below social equality, for they believe in neither, and openly mock and belittle those who do.

These people are not conservative.

You do not need to worry about stamping Conservativism out like a disease. Conservativism is already dead. It ceased to exist many many years ago, and now it's re-animated corpse is being paraded around by power-mad kelptocrats who are using it as a puppet on which to hang their own greed. Unless you are considerably older than I am, you have never in your life known a Conservative in office. We are politically extinct.

I will never be a Liberal. Ever. I hate Liberalism in most of its (admittedly extreme) manifestations. But I would sooner vote for a Liberal every day of my life than see these lying thugs dressed up as Conservatives get one more day in the White House. That's why I am voting for Obama. Not because I want to destroy Conservativism, but because I want to destroy the people who did.

[SirNitram]

Can the No True Scotsman fallacy die in a fire, please?

[General Havoc]

Did you have an actual point to make, or would you like to continue to pretend you have the first fucking idea of what you're talking about without actually being required to say anything?

[Dark Silver]

I think Nitram's point, Havoc, is that despite the fact they aren't your definition of conservatives, they are actually conservatives.

Corrupt, big headed, pompous jackasses that they may be, they are still conservatives. It doesn't paint correctly to say "Their not conservatives!" when they still run the conservative standpoint and identify themselves as conservatives even if their out of control.

[General Havoc]

Explain to me how they are conservatives then. Look up the definition and tell me how it is that they represent conservative values and conservative ideologies. I'm serious. Perhaps I am mistaken as to what a conservative is, but the definitions I have and use are not exactly in line with what these morons are doing.

I can call myself an Australian Sheep Farmer, but that does not make me one. Not unless I go to Australia and start farming Sheep.

[SirNitram]

Did you have an actual point to make, or would you like to continue to pretend you have the first fucking idea of what you're talking about without actually being required to say anything?

No True Scotsman Fallacy. That is what your last post was. No True Conservtive Would... And it's a Fallacy. That means it's total bullshit.

In fact, it's the self-same excuse you see spat out by Marxists.

You put forth the 'values' of conservatism, but all you need to do to get from there to these goons is remove the brakes, which is of course what they did, turning the opposition into enemies to be reviled and being in charge.

'Small Government' has always, always been about reducing the laws that govern businesses and the powerful, otherwise known as Deregulation. As a result, we got the housing bubble and credit crash.

'Individual Choice'? Free market pandering, except that conservative movements in multiple governments over the decades all oppose the regulations that the architects of Free Market Theory say are needed.

'Strong National Defense'? You got it: Two wars embarked on because of threats or attacks.

The 'Private Sector'? Maybe for some goods, but reality has a harsh calling card, as we see in such things like the health care crisis, and the deregulated housing market. You know what the private market's solution for the healthcare crisis is? Higher deductable plans. Not really working.

The Right To Bear Arms, well, fine. Of course, if the hyper-exagerrations of those who actually do the work of Liberalism in politics would cease, you'd find most agree with you beyond limiting shit that's already sensibly limited. Drugs? California, not Texas, allows the use of marijuana for it's proven painkilling facets.

Death penalty? Not really a conservative/liberal principle, as much as some like to scream it. New York having it should point that out.

Fiscal Responsibility... Well, no conservative group has ever exercised it. History shows us this. Indeed, the only way England saved itself from bankruptcy a long time ago was for Parliment to seize the Power Of The Purse and stop the ego-wars.

Low taxes doesn't work in a society with infrastructure, in case you didn't see the bridge collapse. Of course, the logical conclusion is to find the most beneficial recipient for low taxes, and the conservative movements of the past have almost always favored the aristocrats and merchant princes. That they now favor nepotism and big business is not a change.

Low expenditure is from cutting bullshit, but conservatives have proven to love their expensive wars, often for little or no reason, usually deciding to shit on Wealth Of Nations and just stop funding or selling the roads and the like. Yes, Adam Smith had quite a bit to say on what the government must provide.

Individual rights trumping social equality? You've certainly seen it.

So what you get, is not 'THEY ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES'. They are clearly conservatives, with every break, failsafe, regulation, and speedbump assembled into place to stop the extremism that forms from unrivaled power. They are the extremists of the conservative movement, but they doesn't make them 'not conservative'. It makes them the ultimate expression of a political concept taken to it's farthest extreme.

BTW, you forgot such planks of historical conservatism as 'Traditional Values', which of course results in pandering to the religious and seeking not to change things, or actively regressing. That conservatives with no breaks begin turning to the ancient forms of government like authoritarianism and autocracy shouldn't surprise. It's what happens when you remove the breaks.

So yes. I had something to say. I laid it out more clearly, but the point is simple: Your claim was a fallacy.

[SirNitram]

To hammer home the idea that conservatism has not drastically changed, let's open the boxes of history. A box left in a library, which records showing the conservatives in the mid 1960s. These come from the time around the Voting Rights Act. This legislation, as anyone with some time on their hands can verify, contains no housing provisions.

I am white and am praying that you vote against open housing in the consideration of Equal Rights.
Just because the negro refuses to live among his own race--that alone should give you the answer.
I was forced to sell my home in Chicago ('Lawndale') at a big loss because of the negroes taking over Lawndale--their morals are the lowest (and supported financially by Mayor Daley as you well know)--and the White Race by law.
Please don't take away our bit of peace and freedom to choose our neighbors.
What did Luther King mean when he faced the nation on TV New Year's day--announcing he will not be satisfied until the wealth of America is more evenly divided?
Sounds like Communism to Americans. 'Freedom for all'--including the white race, Please!

Do you or any of your friends live next door to a negro--why should we have them pushed down our throats?

As a citzen and a taxpayer I was very upset to hear about 'TITLE IV' of the so-called civil rights Bill S. 3296. This is not Civil Rights. This takes away a person's rights. We too are people and need someone to protect us.
We designed and built our own home and I would hate too think of being forced to sell my lovely home to anyone just because they had the money.

As a Gage park resident & that of my in-laws & my parents, & their familes we are living as decent, hard-working people, you should consider martial law to prevent a peaceful community from getting harassed. That you should consider re-establishing law &order & change laws to protect the people and not criminals & people who openly voice their opinions against the majority as well as the government. Our children don't get sprinklers, day courts, new schools, elevators, cheap rent, yet they will be asked shortly to go fight on foreign shores. I think its time to defend our country from within. I have 3 sons & I will gladly have them defend this country here.

It's called Box 722. It holds little bits like this.. They go on and on.. From 1965 and 1966. I'll close this particular box with a poster from a politician in Chicago.

"OUR SLOGAN: 'Your Home is your castle--Keep it that way by Voting STRAIGHT REPUBLICAN.
VOTE STRAIGHT REPUBLICAN IF YOU ARE:
"AGAINST--violence, riots, and marches in the streets;
"AGAINST--disregard for law and order;
"AGAINST--The 3 Rs of today--Riots, Rape & Robbery...
"Did Mayor Daley make a secret deal with Martin Luther King to stop the marches until after the election?... This is you chance to show where you stand on FORCED HOUSING.... Renters, as well as homeowners, would be effected for the law applies everywhere, including the suburbs. WHERE WOULD YOU GO TO BE SAFE?
"The only way to stop this program is by you, your family, and neighbors voting Republican on November 8th."

We can step into the depths of history further. Perhaps the attacks on FDR? Or the virtues of being led into WW1 based on the same ideas that work today, by a conservative? The line goes back a long ways. The southern states in the Civil War? The Lord Protector Of England?

What one finds, when one defines 'Conservative' as 'Not like this', is that the rabbit hole you must go down to find one is infinitely deep. The reason it hasn't been as bad as it is now is because of either the rose coloured glasses peering back through history(One doesn't hear much about how FDR was a communist plant, ready to make everyone march to La Internationale instead of Star Spangled Banner, f'r example.), or the regulations brought on by the fits and starts on liberalism through the ages.

[LadyTevar]

Damn... In any of those quotes you can replace "negros" with "Gays" or "Mexicans", and they'd be updated for today.

[General Havoc]

No True Scotsman Fallacy. That is what your last post was. No True Conservtive Would... And it's a Fallacy. That means it's total bullshit.

In fact, it's the self-same excuse you see spat out by Marxists.

I'm aware of what the No True Scotsman Fallacy is, but apparently you are not. The reason it's a fallacy is because the definition of what a "true Scotsman" is shifts such that you can make any specific subgroup of people is in or out of it.

But to make it a fallacy, you can't just sit back, cross your arms, and declare that it is. Otherwise you're guilty of an Appeal to Motive fallacy at best. You have to prove that there is no such thing as a solid definition of a "True Scotsman", and that I'm just shifting the definition around as it suits me, as many Marxists do.

And I'm not.

'Small Government' has always, always been about reducing the laws that govern businesses and the powerful, otherwise known as Deregulation. As a result, we got the housing bubble and credit crash.

The Housing bubble and its consequent credit crash had nothing whatsoever to do with Deregulation, nor, incidentally, is Deregulation the soul of the concept of 'Small Government'. Small Government is the theory that government should restrict itself to those things that only government can do, and the definition of what that means exactly varies (of course). The Republicans of today do not even pay lip service to the idea of small government. The Department of Homeland Security is not small government. The TSA is not small government. Neither of those are regulatory agencies (primarily). They are new branches of government established by these so-called Conservatives. New bureaucracies, new cabinet positions, new government spending programs, and yes, new regulation. Explain how these are the actions of Conservatives.

'Individual Choice'? Free market pandering, except that conservative movements in multiple governments over the decades all oppose the regulations that the architects of Free Market Theory say are needed.

You yourself just a few days ago posted a rant about how conservative-minded Judges prohibited a meat company from testing their meat for Mad Cow Disease. How exactly is that opposing regulations?

Of course many of these Neo-con charlatans do oppose specific regulations, because it will enrich their own constituency. This is not because they are conservative. This is because they are corrupt

'Strong National Defense'? You got it: Two wars embarked on because of threats or attacks.

Two wars embarked upon because of made-up reasons that deluded most of the country (including me) into thinking that they had something to do with threats or attacks. Particularly in the case of Iraq, the war was the exact, cardinal opposite of "strong national defense". It was a revenge fantasy taken to some kind of nightmarish extreme. Explain to me how these have a thing to do with classical Conservativism?

The 'Private Sector'? Maybe for some goods, but reality has a harsh calling card, as we see in such things like the health care crisis, and the deregulated housing market. You know what the private market's solution for the healthcare crisis is? Higher deductable plans. Not really working.

So hang on, I thought we were discussing whether or not Bush and McCain are Conservatives, not the pluses and minuses of relying on the Private Sector for health care? I happen to believe that health insurance must be handled by the government, as it has proven to be one of the things that the private sector cannot do. There are others who disagree with me. Bush does not believe one way or the other. His decision is not based upon his belief that the Private Sector can better manage health care. He thinks people should go to local government-funded ERs for fuck's sake! His positions are not ideologically based, they are based on corruption and cronyism and what will enrich his supporters at present.

The Right To Bear Arms, well, fine. Of course, if the hyper-exagerrations of those who actually do the work of Liberalism in politics would cease, you'd find most agree with you beyond limiting shit that's already sensibly limited. Drugs? California, not Texas, allows the use of marijuana for it's proven painkilling facets.

None of which has stopped California's gun laws from being the most restrictive in the nation, and I defy you to explain to me how California is not somehow representative of Liberalism. As to drugs, you are correct. It is California, and not Texas, that allows the use of Marijuana for its painkilling effects. It is also not Washington DC or Connecticut or New York. There are a lot of brands of Conservativism that disagree with the Libertarian-Conservative view I have on drugs. There are also brands that agree. Like with Liberals, Conservatives have a spectrum of opinion centered around certain core beliefs. My point is not that every Conservative agrees with me. My point is that Bush and Co. are in direct violation of the core beliefs of Conservativism.

Death penalty? Not really a conservative/liberal principle, as much as some like to scream it. New York having it should point that out.

California's got it too, and so does (well... did) Illinois. You're right, it's not a very Conservative/Liberal principle. It's more Libertarian/Populist.

Fiscal Responsibility... Well, no conservative group has ever exercised it. History shows us this. Indeed, the only way England saved itself from bankruptcy a long time ago was for Parliment to seize the Power Of The Purse and stop the ego-wars.

So Eisenhower wasn't a conservative when he dialed back military spending to the (relative) bare bones to give the private sector room to breathe after WWII and Korea? There is a reason they call it "Fiscal Conservatism". This aspect crosses party bases. There are Republicans who are fiscally conservative and Republicans who are not. There are Democrats who are and who are not. Bush & co are NOT fiscally conservative by any stretch of the imagination. They have spent more money and inflated the federal budget by so much more than any Democrat administration that I can think of, to the point where one must turn to the Democrats to find any evidence of fiscal responsibility. These current crops of Republicans are not fiscally conservative by any stretch of the definition or imagination, and appeals to the Power of the Purse in the 16th century do not change that fact. One is not fallacious for refusing to define black as white.

Low taxes doesn't work in a society with infrastructure, in case you didn't see the bridge collapse. Of course, the logical conclusion is to find the most beneficial recipient for low taxes, and the conservative movements of the past have almost always favored the aristocrats and merchant princes. That they now favor nepotism and big business is not a change.

I scarcely know where to begin here. The bridge collapse was as a result of low taxes? How about that cave-in in Boston after the Big Dig was completed? Massachusetts has the highest tax rates in the country, much of which they spent on their brand new Boston transit system, which proceeded to collapse and kill someone as soon as it was opened. Low taxes are relative. Some arch-conservatives argue for abolishing all taxes. Some argue for moderate tax reductions. Some for no reductions at all, but caps upon future tax increases. All of these viewpoints exist within Conservativism, just as there are some Liberals who feel taxes should increase slightly for the wealthy and some who feel they should increase slightly across the board and others who feel taxes should be jacked through the roof.

Low taxes do work in a society with infrastructure, incidentally, but this is not the time or the place for that argument. And "conservative" movements of the past have not favored merchant princes and nepotism for all time unless you have a particularly fallacious view of Conservativism. I remind you that it is ALSO a "No true Scotsman" fallacy to declare that every evil thing in the world is to be lumped under the artificial title of "conservative", especially since some of the abuses you are speaking of predate the very term.

Low expenditure is from cutting bullshit, but conservatives have proven to love their expensive wars, often for little or no reason, usually deciding to shit on Wealth Of Nations and just stop funding or selling the roads and the like. Yes, Adam Smith had quite a bit to say on what the government must provide.

I love the complete lack of examples in the above section.

Let's see... shall we pick Vietnam? Started and escalated by a pair of Liberal presidents (Kennedy and Johnson), who got involved after a Conservative president (Eisenhower) refused point blank the demands of the French that we intervene in it. Dragged on for many many years until it was finally ended by... you guessed it... another Conservative president (Nixon).

Reagan, for all his non-conservative military hyper-spending, never got involved in a war larger than Grenada. Every major war of the 20th century that was entered into by the United States, rightly or wrongly, was entered into by a Liberal Democrat (Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy). Bush Sr, a Conservative. got involved in Gulf War I, and then pulled out as soon as the job could reasonably be called "finished". Rightly or wrongly, in this country it is the Liberals who traditionally are willing to pour "blood and treasure" out on foreign battlefields, not the Conservatives. In other countries (like Britain), I am aware that it works differently, but we are not discussing Britain here. There is a strong isolationist streak in American Conservativism, which is not to say that all conservatives are isolationists, but merely that it is there. Of all the various so-called conservative politicians out there, none of them (and none of the Liberal ones either) have been anything close to as hawkish as this administration.

Individual rights trumping social equality? You've certainly seen it.

No, what I've seen are nepotistic Kelptocrats trumping everything, both social equality and individual rights. How exactly is the Patriot Act a triumph of Individual Rights? How are the persistent abuses of the Justice Department? How is hard-core wiretapping? Nixon resorted to such things because he was paranoid and possibly even sick. I reserve judgment on Bush' mental health as that's not in question. Individual rights does not mean that everyone who is a friend of George Bush (or whoever) gets to flaunt the law and everyone else lives in a constricting police state. If you think that those are "conservative" values, then I question your qualifications to define conservativism.

So what you get, is not 'THEY ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES'. They are clearly conservatives, with every break, failsafe, regulation, and speedbump assembled into place to stop the extremism that forms from unrivaled power. They are the extremists of the conservative movement, but they doesn't make them 'not conservative'. It makes them the ultimate expression of a political concept taken to it's farthest extreme.

No.

Simply put, no. That is not correct.

They do not simply take conservative values to the extreme. I have seen many politicians who do such things, and this is not them. Unless we are making the case that they have wrapped so far around the political spectrum that "Conservative" and "Liberal" no longer have meanings, this is simply not them. They are not taking "Conservative" values and extending them to the extreme. They are taking Conservative values and doing the precise opposite of what those values are. All of the accusations that Conservatives throw at Liberals (rightly or wrongly, and mostly the latter), about how Liberals are addicted to spending, about how they want to take our freedoms away (or hate them), about how they are elitists and unconcerned with individual rights, about how they refuse to be pragmatic and drop programs that don't work, about how they are wedded to their ideology, all of these accusations apply in every case to Bush and Company. I'm not claiming that Bush is a Liberal in any sense, but that he's not at all a Conservative, and nor are the people he's wrapped around him, no matter what they pretend to be.

BTW, you forgot such planks of historical conservatism as 'Traditional Values', which of course results in pandering to the religious and seeking not to change things, or actively regressing. That conservatives with no breaks begin turning to the ancient forms of government like authoritarianism and autocracy shouldn't surprise. It's what happens when you remove the breaks.

Yes, there are some issues upon which these people support traditionally 'conservative' values. They are, by and large, pro-life. They are, by and large, evangelical christians. They are, by and large, socially conservative in general. There are (quite clearly) parallels between these people and Conservativism, which is to be expected given where they all came from. But I'm sorry, Conservativism is not measured solely by one's stance on Stem Cell research. Moreover, not all Conservatives take those positions. Consider Barry Goldwater, one of the architects of modern Conservative politics. Consider the Libertarian Republicans, or the so-called "Classical" Conservatives (like Eisenhower's granddaughter). Consider the Paleoconservatives.

The charge by conservatives that Neo-cons are not conservative is, by the way, not new. Nor does everyone agree with me (certainly the neo-cons don't). It is not however a goddamned logical fallacy. There is twenty years of complex argument behind this.

You don't have to believe me. Pat Buchanan, one of the most conservative people in this country, way beyond the pale of where I want to go, calls the Neo-cons "Squatters, who take a once-beloved home [the Republican party] and turn it into a crackhouse", and "Trotskyist, socialists or Social Democrat", then became 'JFK-LBJ Democrats', but broke with the Left during the Vietnam War and 'came into their own' during Reagan's administration."

I cannot believe I just cited Pat Buchanan...

Regardless, Buchanan is a very very conservative person, way way beyond me, an arch-conservative if you will. Normally I wouldn't care what he thinks, and certainly I don't see Neo-cons in the same way that he does, but given that Buchanan is both manifestly the extreme of the Republican party, and manifestly not a neo-con, what conclusion do we draw?

The Neo-cons are not just conservatives with the brakes removed. I am not simply trying to artificially cut them out of conservativism because I do not like them. I am not making the argument that they are not "true" Scotsmen, I am making the argument that they are not Scotsmen at all, in the way that a man from Gibraltar is also not a Scotsman. They are in direct variance with many if not all of the fundamental tenants of American Conservativism, and those which they are not at variance with come from completely distinct ideological bases, just as a Libertarian and a Liberal can both be pro-choice without necessarily being the same political thing. Bush and his Kelptocrats are not Conservatives. There was perhaps a time when they were Conservatives, but once they dropped all of the Conservative ideals and Conservative ideologies, and replaced them with others, they ceased to be Conservatives.

Christianity was derived from Judaism, but it is not Judaism, because it repudiated Jewish philosophy and religious thought and law and custom, and replaced it with something else. It is not a fallacy to say that a Christian is therefore not a Jew. Nor is it a fallacy to say that Bush is not a Conservative. He is not.



EDIT: Forgive me Nitram, it took me a long time to write this, and your second post wasn't up when I started. I'll try to be brief...

All of those quotes in the box there are from conservatives, I would imagine. I however don't see what any of them have to do with Bush and his Neo-cons, nor with the distinction between conservativism and Bush's policies.

Indeed, all I see here are attempts by you to claim that Conservatives are somehow naturally evil, and since Bush is evil...

Well forgive me, Nitram, but I just don't have the stamina for a fight with you on the subject of whether every conservative who ever lived was a racist asshole. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand, nor was I attempting to defend the most extreme versions of Conservativism out there. I know of the long and ugly history of Conservative politics. I am not trying to defend it. There are racists and vile people within the spectrum of Conservative politics, and I acknowledge that they are part of the Conservative heritage, as I have always done. Just as I imagine you acknowledge the various idiocies and crimes of people far more extreme than you in your political spectrums. I never attempted, nor will I ever attempt to claim that those people are not conservative.

I will however claim that Bush is not. And I will not here get into a debate about whether or not Conservatives are to blame for all that is dark and evil in the world, for that is not at all the subject we are discussing.

[SirNitram]

Okay, since you're apparently not really aware of what you're talking about, I'm not bothering. Seriously. Anyone who stands there are calls the present movement Neocons is wrong. Neocons are those advocating Imperialism in Iraq and so forth, not the domestic policies. The Housing Bubble damn well was caused by deregulation, as several things done during it were flatly illegal not too long ago, like over the requirements to be a mortgage lender. Hell, Enron? More deregulation, by stating you don't need to report energy trading.

But no! You grab onto the buzzword of the day and treat it like it's not a defined movement, originating in liberalism and mutating over the years and then latching onto the National Security platform of conservatives.

I can't debate someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. The mere fact you pretend Fiscal Conservatism defines conservatism as not being reckless loonies with money is all I need to see this isn't a debate, it's your preaching. Define something as itself and you haven't won an argument, you've made a tautology.

Goldwater? Man who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Openly calling for legislating morality in his Presidential run("…we, as a nation, are not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the fall of other nations and people…I say it is time to put conscience back in government. And by good example, put it back in all walks of American life.")? Hell, one quote sums him up: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

What was that you said about not extremist? I mean the man just endorsed it.

Fiscal responsibility.. Well, numbers and facts > Rhetoric.

Link Go to 7.1 Download and view. Or, use this version, divided into Presidencies.

Here

Ike did cut the debt(Getting out WW2 is a major factor there; that was massively deficit spending), but the only poor performer in the Dem's house for reducing was Carter, who quickly discovered that conservatives will listen to a movie star rather than a nuclear technician on energy issues.

And this?

And I will not here get into a debate about whether or not Conservatives are to blame for all that is dark and evil in the world, for that is not at all the subject we are discussing.

Ram your strawman up your ass.

[Derek Thunder]

The furious typing in this thread, if harnessed, would be sufficient to power most of the United States. At any rate, as I don't have the e-fortitude to tackle these posts, I will take on a few points.

The Housing bubble and its consequent credit crash had nothing whatsoever to do with Deregulation, nor, incidentally, is Deregulation the soul of the concept of 'Small Government'.

This is not the case. Part of the reason that the housing bubble took off was the removal of rules on what banks must do with mortgages. Before, banks would simply hold mortgages; after banking deregulation spearheaded by McCain adviser and 'classical conservative' Lindsey Graham, banks could repackage, chop up, and sell mortgages to investment firms for a profit as a securitized loan. A lack of transparency requirements made it so that these investment firms had no idea where the money was coming from - it could be coming from safe, fixed-rate mortgages, or it could be coming from sub-prime or alt-A mortgages. Because there was a huge incentive to get more mortgages to sell, banks offered more and more to people who would not normally be able to purchase a house and who often times do not have solid financial advisers or legal counsel. Combined with a self-perpetuating speculation market that tempted ordinary Americans into flipping houses for short-term profit, a collapse was imminent. Of course, when the collapse did come, those who had lit the fuse had mostly cashed out.

His decision is not based upon his belief that the Private Sector can better manage health care. He thinks people should go to local government-funded ERs for fuck's sake! His positions are not ideologically based, they are based on corruption and cronyism and what will enrich his supporters at present.

But they are ideologically based - conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and academics such as the late William F. Buckley have been warning for decades against the perceived evils of a regulated health care market and the virtues of a free-market system.

In response to the idea of restricted civil liberties as not being conservative, this went out the window during the Nixon administration and has never returned to mainstream conservative thought. Nixon was able to use the specter of communism, of the civil rights movement, and of internal dissent to rally the 'silent majority' towards voting for a strong authority figure capable of protecting America from both real and illusory enemies.

Ultimately the conservatism you're describing is something that may well exist, but it's not represented in any mainstream republican/conservative politicians in existence today, and it certainly wasn't on display last night at the Republican National Convention. What I saw was the worst of jingoistic worship at the altar of nationalism, utter contempt for the poor and their defenders, such as community organizers, and broad, largely untrue platitudes about the virtues of private business and deregulation. A discussion of theoretical conservatism would certainly be interesting, but what I am interested in dealing with is the conservative movement here and now.

E: Not to introduce a distraction, but citing Pat Buchanan? In his most recent book, he suggested we could have avoided WW2 by giving Hitler Poland, and we should have not interfered.

[SirNitram]

Derek, I will make a small correction or two:

1) Gramm's deregulation was not a leap straight from 'holding' the mortgage. There were incremental steps, as the Birch Society has always employed for deregulation, first stepping down into selling the loans to the government to supply cash for more loans. Of course, this process too was more heavily regulated. You also skipped the Alt-A madness, which will do more damage than Subprime ever will(Alt-A is where interest-only, no-money-down, and 'liar loans' came from. Subprime is an ancient practice of lending to someone with poor credit, usually by more stringent standards until the madness of the bubble set in.).

2) The lack of what he views as conservatism.. Which as I've shown, I doubt ever existed in politics(It's more than racism, as he says I must be calling it, but a general push of the same stuff).. at the rally is his point.

[Derek Thunder]

You're correct about the Alt-A madness, I am not an economist by training and the subprime market has received a lot more coverage than Alt-A.

With the second point, I am trying to say that the essential definition of conservatism is derived from its major practitioners today rather than a hypothetical small-L libertarianism which, although popular with the 18-29 demographic on the internet, has no relation to conservatism as it is promoted by major party figures and intellectuals.

[General Havoc]

Okay, since you're apparently not really aware of what you're talking about, I'm not bothering.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have here yet again the usual routine of ignoring everything that was said in favor of making shit up about it. Notice how he claims I do not know what I'm talking about, but does not provide any example about what I said...

Seriously. Anyone who stands there are calls the present movement Neocons is wrong.

... still looking for the reasons why, Nit.

Neocons are those advocating Imperialism in Iraq and so forth, not the domestic policies. The Housing Bubble damn well was caused by deregulation, as several things done during it were flatly illegal not too long ago, like over the requirements to be a mortgage lender. Hell, Enron? More deregulation, by stating you don't need to report energy trading.

Since when were we talking about Enron? And by the way, the Housing Bubble was not caused by de-regulation. I'll concede for the sake of argument that it was a factor, but it was neither the primary factor nor the indispensable one. That's another debate however.

But no! You grab onto the buzzword of the day and treat it like it's not a defined movement, originating in liberalism and mutating over the years and then latching onto the National Security platform of conservatives.

Hold on... so now you're claiming that Neoncons DID originate in Liberalism and mutated before latching onto the National Security segment of the Conservative platform? That's... Nitram you just proved my point! Surely that's not what you meant to say...

I can't debate someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

You're the one who just changed arguments mid-stream! Now you're claiming that the Neo-cons AREN'T conservatives?

The mere fact you pretend Fiscal Conservatism defines conservatism as not being reckless loonies with money is all I need to see this isn't a debate, it's your preaching. Define something as itself and you haven't won an argument, you've made a tautology.

Coming from someone who just tried to define Neocons as having no domestic platform whatsoever, AND who apparently now agrees that Neocons are simply parasitic opportunists who use part of the conservative platform, that's a case of the Black Hole calling the Kettle Black. You just, in two paragraphs, completely redefined everything that we were talking about so that you could be right. Great debating job, champ.

Oh and by the way, I love that you accuse me of mis-defining Fiscal Conservativism, and then don't define it yourself.

Goldwater? Man who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Openly calling for legislating morality in his Presidential run("…we, as a nation, are not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the fall of other nations and people…I say it is time to put conscience back in government. And by good example, put it back in all walks of American life.")? Hell, one quote sums him up: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Look back up at my post, seriously. Look at it. Tell me where it was that I defended Barry Goldwater as a moderate.

I'm waiting.

Back yet? Don't worry, take your time.

Still nothing? I'll explain why. I DIDN'T

Barry Goldwater is an Arch-conservative. Pat Buchanan is an Arch-conservative. These people hold positions that are reprehensible to me, but they are DEFINITELY NOT Neocons, nor are they Bushites. A point you have (yet again) conveniently forgotten that I made.

What was that you said about not extremist? I mean the man just endorsed it.

Yes, that's a good question, what WAS that I said about not extremist? I ask because as I remember it, I never said anything of the sort. I never at any point even spoke of Goldwater's extremism, let alone of it as a positive thing. In fact, I cited him specifically because he was a conservative extremist, which is very different than a neocon.

If you're going to put words in my mouth, at least try and have them bear some relation to what I actually said, rather than the exact fucking opposite

Fiscal responsibility.. Well, numbers and facts > Rhetoric.

Link Go to 7.1 Download and view. Or, use this version, divided into Presidencies.

Here

Ike did cut the debt(Getting out WW2 is a major factor there; that was massively deficit spending), but the only poor performer in the Dem's house for reducing was Carter, who quickly discovered that conservatives will listen to a movie star rather than a nuclear technician on energy issues.

I STRONGLY AND WILDLY encourage people to visit those links Nitram thoughtfully posted. They show the following: The three presidents during whose terms the debt was the lowest (as a percentage of GDP) were Ford, Nixon, and Carter, the former two conservatives. The four presidents who cut the deficit the most (or who had the economy grow fastest relative to the deficit) were Eisenhower, Nixon, LBJ, and Clinton, the former two conservatives. As I said, fiscal conservativism crosses party lines.

Ram your strawman up your ass.

Nitram, you have a seriously unhealthy fixation with ramming things up my ass.

You're clearly not interested in having an adult conversation about this, so I'm gonna sum up. You are a rank hypocrite. You erect Scotsman fallacies and then accuse me of erecting them. You erect strawmen, and then accuse me of erecting them. You literally accuse me of saying the exact opposite of what everyone with eyes can see that I said, and then you have the temerity to get pissy with me when I call you out on it?

Since I don't have a straw man, I can't ram one up my ass, and since every argument I have with you ends with you insisting that I do the impossible with something I don't possess, I'm going to save us all a lot of time. The next time you want to twist people's words around so as to make them sound like bad people, do it somewhere where the original version of what they said isn't sitting above your own.

Now I could get all upset about you doing these things, but given that you do this every time we have a debate, it really would not be fair for me to do that. I would be getting upset at you, when I really should get upset at myself. After all, when every time I debate you (seriously, go back and check), it degenerates into you refusing to read word one of what I say, and just making shit up while telling me to fuck myself, or some such, why do I insist on assuming that "this time, this time it will be different!" You scanned my post, picked out the name Goldwater, and ranted about how he was a bad person. Why should this surprise me? It's all you ever do.

So I'm sorry Nit, this is my fault. I am continually expecting more from you than you are prepared to give, and there's nobody to blame for that but me. I look forward to the next political thread in which I will make an argument, and you will gesticulate wildly at the names of various logical fallacies that you yourself are making and then tell me to ram things up my ass. I should not get upset at these things. They are a natural part of the cycle.

Until next time... :)

[General Havoc]

You're correct about the Alt-A madness, I am not an economist by training and the subprime market has received a lot more coverage than Alt-A.

With the second point, I am trying to say that the essential definition of conservatism is derived from its major practitioners today rather than a hypothetical small-L libertarianism which, although popular with the 18-29 demographic on the internet, has no relation to conservatism as it is promoted by major party figures and intellectuals.

Dear god, I'm going to give myself Carpal Tunnel...

I really really disagree with you there Derek. I'm sorry. I just do. The Neo-con agenda bears no relation with the Conservative ideology as I understand it from the last hundred years. It's not about Ron Paul wannabes or small-L libertarians that are no more than a drop in the bucket. It's a matter of the platform of the Republican party being taken over by a minority group of non-conservative neocons. That's honestly how I see it.

I'll respond to your larger post in a second...