Over the past two weeks, McCain’s rapid fire, acrobatic flip-flops have produced whiplash, at least for voters. 10 times since the beginning of June, McCain has retreated from, upended or just forgotten positions he once claimed as his own. On Social Security, balancing the budget, defense spending, domestic surveillance and a host of other issues so far this month, McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” did a U-turn on the road to the White House.
1. Social Security Privatization. John McCain has apparently learned the lesson that the more President Bush spoke about his Social Security privatization scheme, the less popular it became. On Friday, Mr. Straight Talk proclaimed at a New Hampshire event, “I’m not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.” Sadly, McCain and his advisers like ousted HP CEO Carly Fiorina are on record declaring fidelity to the idea of diverting Social Security dollars into private accounts. On November 18, 2004, for example, McCain announced, “Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.” And in March 2003, McCain backed his President, declaring, “As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it – along the lines that President Bush proposed.” As they say, let’s go to the videotape.
The graphic is for all the “wheres the tech?” whiners. The other eye-opening flip-flops reside here.
#35–Lou==I reviewed your posts in this thread. In summary, the 40% tech articles are not interesting enough to you to ouweight the continuing slide into political activism brought on by Pro-Obama clips and stale posts regarding social issues? In fact, you are “about” to leave: “If dvorak.org continues to be a shill site for the Obama campaign, many of us will go elsewhere.”
So, its not sufficient that you like the sliding appeal of the 40% tech items. Do you want all tech all the time or an increasing % of pro McSame articles? What would be those pro-McCain issues?
Please provide a time table for Dvorak Blog to comply with your desires before you do leave?
@#35 Lou
Lou, I mean this with full sincerity but most Republicans only voted for McCain because it was either him or commit suicide with Huckabee.
Enthusiasm for McCain is tepid among Republicans.
If you are excited about McCain, be a pioneer and write a glowing post about how you’ve waited for years for someone like McCain to run for President and all of your dreams have come true.
I’ve not read an article like that in any newspaper or any website so how is a link to a glowing McCain article going to appear on this blog.
This whole election year will mostly be about Obama and how is the greatest or most terrible candidate ever.
#30, HMeyers,
You make a good point. I think that most of those who wouldn’t vote for Obama because of his color, wouldn’t vote for a Democrat anyway. Or even just not vote in many cases because they are too extreme.
But I agree whole heartedly with your anti-Republican mood of the country. For that reason Obama will get at least 55% of the vote. If McBush continues with his flip-flops and supporting of Bushes positions, watch that number to increase.
So, is he for or against abortions?
If Obama is elected, it will not be illegal, and thus a choice for the future mother or not, not society.
#25, since I’m assuming you aren’t using it as a reference to a homosexual male pedophile, I guess you mean “chickenhawk” to be just another one from the list of silly names that Liberals like to call the people who they disagree with.
@#39 Mr. Catshit
I believe fear is a primary motivator for a large segment of population.
Obama isn’t running against McCain, he’ll be running against himself.
Obama is new so he isn’t well known and some people don’t trust that.
Plus he is running on “change”.
McCain represents “stay the course”. He has the default position.
To win:
1. Obama will need to clearly define himself, clearly define what he will and will not do.
2. Obama needs to somehow make a broad connection to the general electorate, beyond the high minded rhetoric which appeals to me, but most voters aren’t intellectuals.
Some segments of the electorate aren’t 100% comfortable with Obama and aren’t sure what he stands for.
Dvorak was on the money with the Adlai Stevenson comparison:
“During one of Stevenson’s presidential campaigns, allegedly, a supporter told him that he was sure to ‘get the vote of every thinking man’ in the U.S., to which Stevenson is said to have replied, ‘Thank you, but I need a majority to win.'”
John Kerry in 2004 was not able to seal the deal because he never quite made it clear what exactly would happen if he were elected, i.e. he said many different things about Iraq.
For Obama to win, he’s gonna need to get over the hump.
#30, “On the other hand, the country is fed up with Republicans.”
Minor quibble – most Americans aren’t fed up with Republicans per se, just the ones who were supposed to be for limited government and fiscal restraint and proved to not be.
#41 Sea Shyster
>>I guess you mean “chickenhawk” to be just another
>>one from the list of silly names that Liberals like
>>to call the people who they disagree with.
Don’t be an ass, ass. I disagree with McCain, but he’s not a chickenhawk. There’s a well-accepted definition of chickenhawk, and it involves cowardice, hypocrisy, active avoidance of military service (especially combat duty), and strong support of a war that poses no physical danger to them or their family.
http://tinyurl.com/5hd8mb
Dumbya is a chickenhawk (as is most of his administration). Obama is not.
#44, Oh, well I’m glad you cleared things up for me. Name-calling is completely reasonable as long as the slur being slung is used in a well understood manner.
#45 – Sea Shyster
>>Name-calling is completely reasonable as long
>>as the slur being slung is used in a well
>>understood manner.
ToMAYto, ToMAHto. I don’t consider it “name-calling”; it’s merely descriptive language. There’s a definition of “chickenhawk”. Some people fall into the category, some people don’t.
It’s no more name-calling than saying that Obama is a person of African descent, or that McCain is a Viet Nam war veteran.
Dumbya’s a chickenhawk, Obama is not.
In any case, if you object to the the use of the term chickenhawk, complain to your brother-in-arms, Lyin MikeN. He’s the one who first used it in th is thread in reference to Obama:
Criticism of McCain flipflops from people who only a few years ago were touting military service as a requirement for political office, but are now supporting a candidate who is a chickenhawk and engages in false patriotism.
Yeah, Obama said a flag pin is a substitute for true patriotism and he won’t wear it, then started wearing it.
#46, I’m failing to see what the post of somebody else has anything to do with my objection to the use of word directly meant as a slur?
#46 Sea Shyster
>I’m failing to see
Take the fucking cucumber slices off of your eyes, then!
You were busting my balls about using the term “chickenhawk” (which, btw, DOES happen to be an accurate description of Dumbay), but it was your pajama buddy, Lyin’ MikeN, who introduced the term into this thread in an inaccurate and pejorative fashion (calling Obama a chickenhawk, which he most definitely is not).
It’s like when you say that a gay person is gay, it’s descriptive. If you inaccurately characterize a hetero as gay in a hatemongering effort to slander him or her, it’s not OK.
So STFU, and get with the program. Dumbya is a chickenhawk (in the commonly accepted definition of the word), Obama is not.
#25, it was lefties that brought up military service as the standard. Now Barack Obama has said he supports the first Pres. Bush’s actions in Iraq, but he did not serve, even though he was age-eligible at the time. Thus he is a chickenhawk.
Actual flip-flops by Obama are numerous, and have been pointed out before. Take a look at his speech to AIPAC calling for an undivided Jerusalem and then within days telling Palestinian groups otherwise.
#48, You’re right, I must have just been picking on you, sorry you got your feelings hurt. 🙁
Now back to using descriptive terms to refer to people. Is it okay then if I call the black people I see “blue gums”? I mean, most of them really do have dark blue/purple gums; so it’s just a statement of fact, and not a slur.
What’s curious is that this list of flip-flops aren’t all in his interest politically, with some of them adopting more Republican positions instead of his previous Democrat/bipartisan ones.
So is this pandering, and he is just off as to what the public wants?
Or has he actually changed his mind?(Unlikely)
Or could it be that he was chasing media attention before and adopted liberal positions to get it, and now has gone back to where he was all along?
#49 – Lyin’ Mike
>>Now Barack Obama has said he supports the
>>first Pres. Bush’s actions in Iraq, but he
>>did not serve, even though he was
>>age-eligible at the time. Thus he is a
>>chickenhawk.
You’re really living up to your name today!!
Obama was almost 30 when the first President Bush got us into the Gulf War. A little long in the tooth to be signing up for the military. He was in law school at the time, not a warmongering, war-profiteering politician. Once he DID become a politican, he was against Dumbya’s trophy war right from the get-go.
And it’s one thing to say you “support” something; quite another to put your life on hold for years to engage in it. I support the efforts of firefighters; that doesn’t mean that I’m going to go out and BECOME one.
Are you really as dumb as you seem, or is it just your lyin’ nature coming through?
Dumbya was of combat age while there was still a draft, and rather than allow himself to be drafted (and probably see combat duty in Viet Nam), he had Pappy get him into the Texas ANG, where he selected “do not volunteer” on the form for combat duty. Instead, he spent what little of his enlistment that he actually served flying potted plants around Dixie, doing everything in his power to avoid having to defend his country. And then, as “president”, he became a bloodthirsty warmonger, engaging in wars of choice to further his own fetid, reprehensible goals.
>>Actual flip-flops by Obama are numerous, and >>have been pointed out before.
Oh yeah. He doesn’t wear a pin, then he wears a pin. Christ. Some days I wear a tie, some days I don’t. I suppose according to your Bobbonian pretzel logic, I’m a flip-flopper too.
#50 – Sea Shyster
>>You’re right, I must have just been picking
>>on you, sorry you got your feelings hurt.
Heh heh. It takes more than verbal frothing from a lawyer to hurt my feelings, son.
>>Is it okay then if I call the black people I
>>see “blue gums”? I mean, most of them really
>>do have dark blue/purple gums; so it’s just
>>a statement of fact, and not a slur.
The term “blue gums”, in its accepted usage as a racial epithet also includes “laziness” as one of its defining traits. So what you’d be calling them is “a lazy person of African descent”.
I’ll leave it up to you whether or not you choose to use the term.
Dumbya, on the other hand, fits the dictionary definition of “chickenhawk” to a tee. Obama’s not even close.
#52, if you said I’m not wearing a tie because I think it represents conformity to dull society, and then you wear a tie the next die, I would say you are deliberately choosing to conform to dull society.
Barack would have been about 28 at the start of the Gulf War, and eligible. The comparison isn’t just to George Bush. Lefties have been calling any number of people chickenhawks, not just hose making the policy, but those supporting as well(like me). They have been touting military service at many different levels of government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avddxEad7u8
Some people’s opinion of Barack Obama.
#54 – Lyin’ Mike
>>Lefties have been calling any number of people
>>chickenhawks, not just hose making the policy, but
>>those supporting as well(like me).
The difference between someone who “didn’t serve” and a chickenhawk is that the person 1) must have ACTIVELY AVOIDED MILITARY SERVICE (most applicable to people who were of age during the draft) and 2) must VOCIFEROUSLY SUPPORT A WAR now that they’ve managed to protect themselves from the caustic reality of fighting for your country.
As to whom the “Lefties” have been calling what, I think you must be having excessively vivid dreams. Must be that melatonin you’re taking. I’m a “Leftie”, and I never heard any of that shit.
Do you truly not see the difference? Are you daft? Or dishonest. Pick one.
well if you want to limit chickenhawks to people of age during Vietnam, then Obama is not a chickenhawk, and neither are any of the people supporting the current war now who weren’t around for Vietnam. That’s not how the word has been used, and it makes no sense to use it that way since it would mean the word goes extinct shortly unless you institute a draft.
OK, Lyin’ Mike, I’ve decided that you’re just daft. If you really don’t understand, then there’s no amount of explanation that will make you understand.
If it would help you to understand the current administration, we can substitute “hypocritical coward” for “chickenhawk”.
How’s that?
The results are still the same though; Dumbya and his administration are hypocritical cowards, and Obama is not.
Sorry.
#53, you keep bringing up Obama as if I care at all about him. I’m not MikeN, and we are not having the same discussion.
Let’s see, from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Chickenhawk – 2. Informal A person who favors military force or action to carry out a foreign policy but has never served in the military.
Seems to me anybody who has never been in the military is a chickenhawk if they advocate its use by this definition. The issue isn’t what it means, but why it is used. The fact is that the use of the term is directly meant as a political slur. Would you call Bill Clinton a chickenhawk? He actively avoided being drafted, yet several times during his presidency employed military force against others, justified or not. Maybe you are suggesting that any decisions made earlier in life should automatically make you impotent when considering actions for circumstances you face in the future, lest you face verbal berating from your childish opponents.
“I suppose according to your Bobbonian pretzel logic, I’m a flip-flopper too.”
Funny that you and Bobbo are both Liberals, yet you are always engaged in some form of spat.
Maybe it’s because he does actually attempt to apply some logic to what he says, whereas yours are usually nothing more than a poor man’s attempt as sophism.
#60–SeaLawyer, thanks for the compliment, but I have to say, I hardly ever get to the threshold of logic. Most conversations end in a morass of individual’s idiosyncratic word definitions?
By happenstance, you evidence this just above. You most appropriately provide a dictionary definition of the word “Chickenhawk” but then unexplainedly continue the discussion with a different definition as if it was what you posted? You just can’t rely on Mustards attention deficit syndrome to get away with such a lack of rigor?
Funny, you also misuse the word/concept of sophistry when characterizing Mustards contributions (sic!) to this blog. Do you think he is really using an artful discourse for the purpose of leading others astray, or he’s just stupidly using his own definitions as you do?
#61 – Boboli
If you’re getting in bed with Lyin’ Mike, claiming that you don’t know who’s a chickenhawk and who’s not, then tsk, tsk, tsk.
At least with Lyin’ Mike, I can understand what he’s saying (wrong-headed, ignorant, and incorrect as it may be).
Sometimes with you, I just have to shake my head in dismay, wondering “what the fuck is that guy talking about?”.
#62–Mustard, quite right. A learning experience you choose to ignore. I suppose the world will continue to rotate, as will LyinMike?
#63 – Bobbo
>>Mustard, quite right. A learning experience
>>you choose to ignore.
Oh, so often I have to say it: “what the fuck is that guy talking about?”.
Yeah that definition makes more sense. I was pointing out that Obama was a ‘hawk’ when the First Pres Bush was President, but was not volunteering to serve.
Mustard, the chicken part comes from not serving. You don’t have to be a draft dodger.
#61, how was I being inconsistent? I show an actual definition that is more broad than what he has made up in his head, yet, even using his own, I ask if he would apply the word to Bill Clinton. Nevertheless, I maintain the contention that the word would never be used if it wasn’t meant as a vulgar political attack, which was my original point.
Concerning the other issue, I can look to yet another gay marriage thread where emotional concerns are used to rationalize a court decision, completely dismissing as invalid the real issue of courts applying faulty reasoning to circumvent the proper legislative process in order to achieve a desired outcome. Heh, I never said I found him to be particularly artful.
#66–SeaLawyer==I respect your definitional exactitude, so maybe you simply left out the word “wrongly” in describing the use of chickenhawk?
Chickenhawk–one who uses/advocates military action without having served. THAT definition does fit Bill Clinton.
Another definition from Urban Dictionary is probably what you are thinking of. One who hypocritically advocates war when he would not serve himself, or not want his children to serve in same? Clinton might not fit that definition, but I don’t recall Chelsea signing up for her 4 years. Like Cheney, she had better things to do?
So maybe a third definition is needed: One who sends others to fight and die in a war they do not believe in for political advantage? Oops, can’t tell if Clinton avoids that definition either.
OK–a forth definition. Not the one you provided, but the one you are using: Someone who engages in war without any valid geo-political rational at all? I don’t think Clinton would fit that definition of a chickenhawk, but its one I made up.
Words are tricky.