Home› A Moving Train

Well, That Didn't Long! (AKA McCain goes Far Right)

bryn_cmbsbryn_cmbs Posts: 407
edited November 2006 in A Moving Train
John McCain does a 180 on his abortion beliefs. I guess since he’s running in ’08 he’ll have to move to the right to get the GOP nomination. He was one of the few Republicans I respected. The key word being WAS.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/19/mccain-abortion/
http://alltimetopfive-boofcombs.blogspot.com/
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    while im disappointed that he's changing his mind, he's kinda right. roe v wade as a supreme court decision makes almost no sense.

    i wouldn't have voted for mccain anyway though.
  • shmapshmap Posts: 374
    Ah yes, it appears that his "moderate" veneer seems to be wearing away.
  • desandrewsdesandrews Posts: 143
    bryn_cmbs wrote:
    John McCain does a 180 on his abortion beliefs. I guess since he’s running in ’08 he’ll have to move to the right to get the GOP nomination. He was one of the few Republicans I respected. The key word being WAS.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/19/mccain-abortion/

    "Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade."

    RETURN TO THE STATES - Doesn't that mean each state could decide abortion is legal and nothing would change? What's your beef?
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    desandrews wrote:
    "Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade."

    RETURN TO THE STATES - Doesn't that mean each state could decide abortion is legal and nothing would change? What's your beef?
    If every state decided that abortion would stay legal, then nothing would change. Not all states would keep abortion legal, though. There's the problem.
  • desandrewsdesandrews Posts: 143
    RainDog wrote:
    If every state decided that abortion would stay legal, then nothing would change. Not all states would keep abortion legal, though. There's the problem.

    That would be the individual state's and the people of that state's decision, not McCain's though. Why do you (or the poster) hold McCain responsible for that?
  • shmapshmap Posts: 374
    desandrews wrote:
    That would be the individual state's and the people of that state's decision, not McCain's though. Why do you (or the poster) hold McCain responsible for that?

    For me anyway, it's not about holding McCain responsible. Not until he becomes President anyway (if he does), which is when he'll have the power to make good on his statement. The problem is that he's reversed his argument, which happens to coincide with the talks of him running for President. If you take a look at the link, and read what he says at the beginning of the article, it appears that he's now pandering to the Right.

    I'm not speaking for the person who posted this, but that's my stance.
  • desandrewsdesandrews Posts: 143
    shmap wrote:
    For me anyway, it's not about hold McCain responsible. Not until he becomes President (if he does), which is when he'll have the power to make good on his statement. The problem is that he's reversed his argument, which happens to coincide with the talks of him running for President. It can be seen as him pandering to the Right.

    I won't disagree with that but it seems to be me to be a pretty moot point. GW is probably as anti-abortion as anyone that will ever be elected to President and he hasn't done a damn thing to change Roe v. Wade. Neither will McCain.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,447
    I would love to have the opportunity to vote on abortion.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    RainDog wrote:
    If every state decided that abortion would stay legal, then nothing would change. Not all states would keep abortion legal, though. There's the problem.
    Why is this a problem? Unless access to abortions becomes a human rights issue I can't see any compelling reason to deny states their states rights.

    Strange how you don't think it's a problem for states that currently don't want to allow abortion to be required to provide for them though.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • shmapshmap Posts: 374
    desandrews wrote:
    I won't disagree with that but it seems to be me to be a pretty moot point. GW is probably as anti-abortion as anyone that will ever be elected to President and he hasn't done a damn thing to change Roe v. Wade. Neither will McCain.

    That's definitely a good point. Reading the article was also just...disheartening, I guess. I'm pretty far left-of-center, and it was nice to see a conservative who more or less supported Roe v. Wade. And I'm not sure if he really has changed his views or if, like I said before, he's merely pandering to the Right. Either way, I was just a little disappointed.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,447
    desandrews wrote:
    I won't disagree with that but it seems to be me to be a pretty moot point. GW is probably as anti-abortion as anyone that will ever be elected to President and he hasn't done a damn thing to change Roe v. Wade. Neither will McCain.

    I believe you are correct.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    RainDog wrote:
    If every state decided that abortion would stay legal, then nothing would change. Not all states would keep abortion legal, though. There's the problem.

    How is that a problem if it's what they decide?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    surferdude wrote:
    Why is this a problem? Unless access to abortions becomes a human rights issue I can't see any compelling reason to deny states their states rights.

    Strange how you don't think it's a problem for states that currently don't want to allow abortion to be required to provide for them though.
    Not strange at all. I believe that abortion should remain legal across the board.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    desandrews wrote:
    That would be the individual state's and the people of that state's decision, not McCain's though. Why do you (or the poster) hold McCain responsible for that?
    I don't hold McCain responsible for anything. I'm simply stating why I don't think Roe V. Wade should be overturned.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    know1 wrote:
    How is that a problem if it's what they decide?
    Because abortion should be legal in every state. If it's not then, to me, that's a problem.
  • desandrewsdesandrews Posts: 143
    RainDog wrote:
    I don't hold McCain responsible for anything. I'm simply stating why I don't think Roe V. Wade should be overturned.

    Well, not really, you didn't state why you think Roe v. Wade should not be overturned unless, that is, the reason is because you said so.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    desandrews wrote:
    Well, not really, you didn't state why you think Roe v. Wade should not be overturned unless, that is, the reason is because you said so.
    The reason I don't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned is because then some states would outlaw abortion. I suppose that's "because said so." After all, I'm saying abortion should remain legal across the board.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    surferdude wrote:
    Why is this a problem? Unless access to abortions becomes a human rights issue I can't see any compelling reason to deny states their states rights.

    Strange how you don't think it's a problem for states that currently don't want to allow abortion to be required to provide for them though.
    States aren't required to provide anything. They're only required to stay out of it. Private hospitals and clinics provide abortion services, not the state. The state just can't stand in the way of decisions made between women and their health care providers, which is as it should be.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    I'm really curious how big on states rights the supporters of the overturn of Roe v. Wade would be if it also meant that in the next ten years, let's say, 40 of the 50 states legalized gay marriage. Or what about if the legalization of marijuana was left up to the states and no longer a federal crime and most states opted to legalize it.
  • 1970RR1970RR Posts: 281
    Sounds like typical political pandering. I dont get how he says he wants a constitutional amendment banning abortion but then switches and says he is a "federalist" and the decision should be up to the states.
    IMO those two ideas are in direct conflict with each other. Either you want the Feds to run the show or you want the States calling their own shots - Which is it??
  • TeslarockerTeslarocker Posts: 123
    I always knew McCain was a right-winger. Not too long ago, He tried to bully nbc into adopting not just age-appropriate ratings for their tv shows, which they had agreed to do anyway. But he tried to bully them into adopting those"d, s, l, v" ratings that the other networks use for their shows. But Good For nbcs president for not being bullied
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    RainDog wrote:
    Because abortion should be legal in every state. If it's not then, to me, that's a problem.

    So you can't appreciate the position that McCain might actually be pro-abortion, but has come to the conclusion that it's unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to decide?

    In other words, you are pro-abortion by whatever means necessary?

    Furthermore, you apparently think it's only OK to have laws if you agree with them...
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    gabers wrote:
    I'm really curious how big on states rights the supporters of the overturn of Roe v. Wade would be if it also meant that in the next ten years, let's say, 40 of the 50 states legalized gay marriage. Or what about if the legalization of marijuana was left up to the states and no longer a federal crime and most states opted to legalize it.
    No, most of the state's rights folks like to pick and choose.

    I don't get the whole "state's rights" argument anyway. How is it any business of the state OR federal government? The Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." It seems to me that this is one that should clearly be reserved to the people themselves. The state has no business here.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,447
    gabers wrote:
    I'm really curious how big on states rights the supporters of the overturn of Roe v. Wade would be if it also meant that in the next ten years, let's say, 40 of the 50 states legalized gay marriage. Or what about if the legalization of marijuana was left up to the states and no longer a federal crime and most states opted to legalize it.


    Sounds GREAT to me!!!!

    But guess what...it's the states that are currently voting AGAINST gay marriage all over the country. Usually by a 75-25 margin too...stinks, but that's what we have right now. It's one fo those cases where I actually think the federal government needs to step in, since it really is a civil rights issue in my mind...but then again, I'm sure abortion is very similar in other people's minds...if that is what they call a mind ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    hippiemom wrote:
    The state just can't stand in the way of decisions made between women and their health care providers, which is as it should be.
    This would be an okay sentiment if this was people and their health care providers. And then imagine what you could go to the doctor for; "hey doc I want to get stoned tonight but don't want to buy street drugs, write me a prescription for something really good".

    But it all really goes back to Roe vs. Wade is a poor ruling because it wasn't supposed to be under federal jurisdiction. That's the only reason why it should be overturned. You shouldn't keep bad law rulings because you are afraid of giving states their constitutional rights. Sounds like the type thing people would accuse Bush of, doesn't it. I could imagine Bush defending it as "Well I'm not saying it's law or good law. But it is law, so we're gonna follow it. The law I mean."
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    know1 wrote:
    So you can't appreciate the position that McCain might actually be pro-abortion, but has come to the conclusion that it's unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to decide?

    In other words, you are pro-abortion by whatever means necessary?

    Furthermore, you apparently think it's only OK to have laws if you agree with them...
    I'm pro-choice by whatever means necessary. I'm no more "pro-abortion" than I am "pro-birth" as I wouldn't feel it my duty to encourage or discourage abortion; particularly when it comes to people I've never met nor know their circumstances.
  • 1970RR1970RR Posts: 281
    gabers wrote:
    I'm really curious how big on states rights the supporters of the overturn of Roe v. Wade would be if it also meant that in the next ten years, let's say, 40 of the 50 states legalized gay marriage. Or what about if the legalization of marijuana was left up to the states and no longer a federal crime and most states opted to legalize it.
    I would welcome the opportunity for the States to decide these issues on their own. Just as I support Oregons decision on assisted suicide, which the Feds have tried to undercut using the controlled substance laws. Also, see the Federal reaction to any medical marijuana law thats been passed by the states.
    Its too bad that many issues are decided in Washington using the threat of loss of funds - drinking age, blood alcohol levels, speed limits, etc. None of these issues are Federal in nature and should all be left to the states to decide.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,447
    hippiemom wrote:
    No, most of the state's rights folks like to pick and choose.

    I don't get the whole "state's rights" argument anyway. How is it any business of the state OR federal government? The Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." It seems to me that this is one that should clearly be reserved to the people themselves. The state has no business here.


    Ahhhh hippiemom...so wise and yet so wrong... ;)

    Shall we dance again? ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    gabers wrote:
    I'm really curious how big on states rights the supporters of the overturn of Roe v. Wade would be if it also meant that in the next ten years, let's say, 40 of the 50 states legalized gay marriage. Or what about if the legalization of marijuana was left up to the states and no longer a federal crime and most states opted to legalize it.
    Sounds good to me. There will be some hiccups in the system when moving to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. But then again Utah would be happy, they'd be able ot go back to state sanctioned polygamy.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    surferdude wrote:
    This would be an okay sentiment if this was people and their health care providers. And then imagine what you could go to the doctor for; "hey doc I want to get stoned tonight but don't want to buy street drugs, write me a prescription for something really good".

    But it all really goes back to Roe vs. Wade is a poor ruling because it wasn't supposed to be under federal jurisdiction. That's the only reason why it should be overturned. You shouldn't keep bad law rulings because you are afraid of giving states their constitutional rights. Sounds like the type thing people would accuse Bush of, doesn't it. I could imagine Bush defending it as "Well I'm not saying it's law or good law. But it is law, so we're gonna follow it. The law I mean."
    I don't think it should be under ANY jurisdiction, but it is and will continue to be for a long time, unfortunately. And as long as it is, I think that all American women should have equal access to the entire scope of health care options.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Sign In or Register to comment.