Maybe Johnny Mc is too old to be Prez????

Ck out the Youtube vid....

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/mccain-lied-again-this-time-about-never.html

I think he's too old. He would be close to 80 if he went two terms. We need someone younger, both from a health standpoint and a generational standpoint. It's time for the boomers and beyond to head out into the sunset.

Actually Obama is a younger boomer. Born in 1961 (1946-1964 boomer years)

And many of us boomers still have lots to give to the political arena.

I don't think age plays that much of a role in a person's ability to perform, however ones ideas can be "old" and out of step, which is where I put McCain.

When I speak boomer, I'm cutting the date back to the late 50's. I don't think someone born in 1964 should be considered a baby boomer.

Just letting you know what has commonly been known as the baby boomer years.

I'm older than Obama but I certainly don't feel like I should be told to leave because of my age.

I still got lots of energy Vitalogy as do many of my contemporaries. I'd be careful what you think old really means.

Hey, I was 1968 and that's right at the lower end of Gen X. How much difference does a few years make in this kind of thing?

Obama being about my age is one of the stronger appeals! The old guard is OLD. That's not always bad, but it's growing time for a change of the guard. McCain would put that off until I'm 50. No thanks.

I say there is no one who better understands the seriousness of war than a vet, especially one who has paid such a high price as a prisoner of war like Mr. McCain.

I've disagreed with him strongly on certain issues. Yet in these dangerous times, we would indeed be fortunate to have a leader with the background of John McCain. God bless him.

Herb

But what good is that with a party hobbled by having to cover it's ass for these last 8 years?

Seriously. For McCain to do the right things, he's got to come out and fix some very serious moves made by the party that's electing him. Given what has been done and the potential ramifications of it all rippling down through the GOP power structure, I find it very difficult to believe it would actually happen.

Why would it? There would be no motivation for that? Given the executive power abuses, electing another one would be sanctioning that as OK. Nobody wants that, but those that would continue along that path. Would be a gift!

He sucked up after being thrown under the bus! That's not indicative of the kind of person who is vital enough to get those kinds of things done.

"For McCain to do the right things, he's got to come out and fix some very serious moves made by the party that's electing him."

He's done precisely that. Look at the guy's record. He's an independent thinker, something the syncophantic, lockstep left can only dream about.

McCain's the real deal.

Herb

Military experience doesn't necessarily translate into being a good president. Just as being a person of deep religious conviction has made Bush a good president. It hasn't.

You have to use all parts of your mental abilities being president. Look at each situation for what it is and when you have to make a tough call you make it. If you're wrong you make it right the best you can.

McCain has found a way to be nominated this time around but it's certainly not a complete vote of confidence he is getting from the GOP.

Fuck it. These "Maybe McCain?" threads are a crock, and I'm no longer going to entertain them.

HE'S NOT AN OPTION PERIOD.

Why?

The Supreme Court. Just like I've focused on the end game in the election, there is an end game to that too; namely, the SCOTUS.

What kinds of people will he pick and how will that impact the overall balance on that court?

For a while it was left, then somewhat middle, now leaning right, with a strong right justice to boot!

What are the chances he will post up some nice justices for balance over the longer term?

Practically zero. Roberts was a big ass score too as he can always limit the left leaning cases, so the only option left is just to keep the court diverse enough to moderate it.

That's the real burden here, above and beyond the war and economy even. I'm not gonna lie: I would love a lefty court. Who wouldn't right?

I know better though, and the better path is to have these things well represented so that deliberations are robust. I can live with Roberts, given solid balance in the justices.

You have written here, "Roe V Wade is toast!".

Sorry man, but a court that would do that would also do a ton of other really bad things. Now, some of us don't think the pro-life bit is bad.

Fair enough. And this is not an abortion debate thread. Had enough of those.

However, the kind of legal thinking that's gonna get us there, from where we are now, would be just toxic and very likely would set us back a good long ways.

Not happening, not at all. There are a lot of decisions to be made. These involve the growing Internet, IP law, privacy, executive power, etc... Those things are gonna matter a lot. They will directly impact our daily lives significantly.

I think you will, and others like you, will say just about anything that could lead down that path. I know you could really give two shits about anything or anybody, so long as that is getting done.

McCain has accepted money and endorsements from organizations that play that exact game. It's an easy choice really.

Got an axe to grind? McCain is the third Bush term. He can't get elected without taking that position, period, so we all know what we are getting there, don't we?

With some balance on the court, I can live with it's decisions. When it's stacked pretty solid one way or the other, I have a much harder time with that --and that goes left or right, frankly.

This is the GOP base Herb. 23 percenters. They are not gonna budge because they are way too invested in it all.

Let's just say McCain proves out somehow --a miracle maybe. Even then, this is a set piece and there is no way I'm gonna cast a vote for a stacked court I'll end up having to live with for my remaining adult life.

He's off the table no matter what, and that's why at the core.

". . . no way I'm gonna cast a vote for a stacked court I'll end up having to live with for my remaining adult life."

Even President Marion Barry is more appealing than a stacked court.

"I say there is no one who better understands the seriousness of war than a vet."

Unfortunately this is not the case with John McSame. He's willing to continue the sacrafice of our brave military for a war with no payoff in order to prove a point they will never prove. His denial of reality means more dead troops for nothing.

"Now, some of us don't think the pro-life bit is bad."

Agreed. So how could a pro-life view, which you admit isn't 'bad,' be 'toxic' when placed in the context of the supreme court?

Herb

Because the legal reasoning that gets us there happens to impact a lot of other related decisions.

Also, I absolutely believe in some level of diversity in the courts, period.

If that is there, the decisions will be livable and that's very important. It's part of our process, it's the intent of the founders and it's just American on that basis, if for no other.

The GOP has Roberts. He's going to moderate the left leaning cases and thus limit those decisions. If the court itself is diverse, then the result will be moderate, with some right leaning decisions.

I'm ok with that. There is a lot of slack between legislation and what the courts get to rule on. Highly likely to be a solid balance.

Additionally, that will check the coming Democratic majority as well. IMHO, this too is important because neither ideology, nor neither economic view has it all correct.

There is no reason to continue the destructive and divisive, tit for tat, winner take all political scene. In that, we all lose pretty big. The losing has been going on for quite some time and the impact of that is really starting to show.

If McCain sees office, then the court will lean significantly right for a very long time. That is just not acceptable.

It's as unacceptable for me as it is for those who didn't like the court leaning strong left.

Balance then --a reasonable one, is the right path right now, in this time, when we need to be building for our future. We've already spent a bunch of it. That's trouble.

The beauty of that happens to be that we can easily build more, so we need that to happen, or risk outside limits on our freedom here. (having to be accountable to those that own us)

Heard Snow today talking about "packing the court". He's pointing the finger at Democrats for this. Well, he's right! A nice selection of new justices that don't lean strong right will yield a fairly balanced and thus livable court.

The alternative is one that's packed to the right --and that's not being said, but it's the between the lines motivation to prop grandpa McCain up long enough to get that done.

Sorry man. Not gonna bite.

I also will be spending a significant amount of my free time making sure others understand that implication too. It is in the interests of every American to do our best to make sure our process is running well.

Not doing this may bring personal gratification, but that comes with a very high cost --too high for most people, if they understand what those costs are.

That's the race, that's the overall framing. The rest is just a bunch of entertainment, from my perspective.


...and on the pro-life bit. From our discussions here, it is absolutely clear to me the issue can be addressed solid. We can mitigate the problem to such a minor status as to make the greater debate about it largely academic. Extremes on both sides can engage in that, leaving the rest of us time and energy to build up those other things falling apart right now.

Should the court lean one extreme or the other, that mitigation won't happen, and an ugly and divisive cycle will continue, and we will lose again, and again, and again.

Both camps can just deal. Physical realities and our current level of understanding AS A RACE, leave us with out a clear cut right answer. So our law needs to reflect that with the best case rulings that deal with the whole mess in a very high majority of cases.

And that's a high ground position. If I can deal, and I absolutely can, then my fellow Americans can deal; otherwise, they've got some personal issues and those have no business in the law, or politics for that matter.

It's not selfish, in that I can absolutely live with how things go, so long as the process is solid. That's democracy. We all can debate this, engage in advocacy, etc... and it happens as it happens. I won't engage in divisive crap anymore. The price of that is just way too high.

Don't take this the wrong way Herb. I like you, but you've made it clear that nothing else matters. That means I don't matter, my kids don't matter, etc...

I'm letting people know the implications of that. Not from you personally, but from the bloc of people that have bought into the idea that this is a matter of supreme importance. That's the 23 percenters, generally speaking.

The world can literally burn, and these people won't be happy until they see their particular morality legislated for the rest of us. It's a bunch of shit and everybody knows it.

It just isn't a matter of supreme importance. That's reality and that has implications for this coming election that trump most of the other crap being tossed around. Given that understanding, the whole thing is not all that tough.

So that's where the focus is. The rest is just noise.

The only rational reason to vote McCain is to be shown some value proposition that is worth more than the balance of the court is.

There is absolutely nothing so far that even comes close to meeting that burden.

"Also, I absolutely believe in some level of diversity in the courts, period."

Sorry. No period. Some 'diversity' is fine. But what you're calling 'diversity' is no such thing. Diversity is off the table when it comes to snuffing out innocent life. If it's wrong to put convicted criminals to death, at least the same standard should be used for the pre-born.

Herb

OK, Vita, if you have a bias against age, I guess I should stop being a liberal and become a neocon to get away from young whippersnappers like you.

Never trust anyone under 30 is my new motto.

What the liberals call packing to the right, is reading the constitution as it's written.

If it was packed to the right, it would be making up things, like the liberals want it to do, for their side.

President Bush is working on getting it back to the center, where it belongs, where its decisions are based on what the constitution says, not what someone wants it to say.

Herb, either it's diverse or it isn't.

This is not a pick and choose thing.

What I meant by "some" is that it does not have to be perfect. Justices vary over time, some are stronger, some are weaker, etc...

Nwokie, you are extremely full of shit this morning.

The law is what they say it is, period.

"The law is what they say it is, period."

Right on, screw the Constitution.

Radioblogman, I'm old enough to be president. And I don't have a bias against age, I just don't think it's a smart idea to elect a 72 year old president, for a variety of reasons.

No.

That is not what I said at all.

The Constitution is not an inclusive document. It is the core framework that defines the process and the boundaries for case law.

Go back and read through some decisions you don't agree with. I can do the same. Should we post up the reasoning we don't agree with, we are both very likely to find readings that appeared "literal", yet differ significantly.

It is what they say it is.

Now, if they make a mistake, what happens?

We wait until a new set of justices arrives that can overturn that decision, right?

Or we craft legislation to address that.

All of it can be checked and balanced. Some checks take time, others are fairly quick.

If we could go forward 100 years, we would find "it is what they say it is" still true then, with some decisions made today standing, others overturning.

Throughout that, our framework --the Constitution will not have changed. It's the defining document that controls how and when this all occurs. It does not however constrain the courts for most of their decisions.

The will of the people, through representation does that.

Go read the fucker. It's all in there. Learned this in primary school for god's sake.

The big mistake you, and a lot of others make, is that you believe the law is some absolute thing when it just isn't.

New law gets made when existing law becomes unclear. Existing law becomes unclear as we grow toward new understanding and change occurs.

A decision made today, with our current understanding, does not bind those in the future, should they bring new understanding to the table.

That's what public discourse is for.

Good god...

"President Bush is working on getting it back to the center, where it belongs, where its decisions are based on what the constitution says, not what someone wants it to say."

Nwokie, that jerk has trampled the Constitution. His ignorance of it is criminal.

"Nwokie, that jerk has trampled the Constitution."

How has he done that?

Again, if you have to ask --really ask out of profound or willful ignorance, then there is no hope.

I seriously doubt that with you Deane, leaving it just as a distraction.

"How has he done that?"

Let's start with no warrant searches.
Innocent people on no-fly lists.
Secret trials
Torture

"How has he done that?"

Here's just a few:

• orders spying that is in direct conflict with the 4th Amendment.

• permits tortures and extraordinary renditions that violate the 8th Amendment.

• wages war without required Congressional declarations (read the AUMF and the War Powers Resolution (sec. 5[b]) to see how this war is being waged unconstitutionally.)

Who'd he search. Not me.
How is someone accidentally getting on a no-fly list unconstitutional?
Who had a secret trial? Which American citizen?
Which American citizen did he torture?

I assume there will be no answers forthcoming. This is just liberal dribble left over from the 2000 election.

• orders spying that is in direct conflict with the 4th Amendment.

We spy all the time, on China, Russia, you name it.

• permits tortures and extraordinary renditions that violate the 8th Amendment.

Who has he tortured?

"Who has he tortured?"

Maher Arar. There are more, but it only takes one.

"We spy all the time, on China, Russia, you name it."

There is constitutional spying, and there is unconstitutional spying. Bush does both.

"Maher Arar. There are more, but it only takes one."

You don't happen to know when he became an American citizen and thus subject to the protection of our Constitution do you?

"There is constitutional spying, and there is unconstitutional spying. Bush does both."

I keep asking who he spied on and I never get an answer.

The US never tortured Maher Arar, if he was it was the Syrians, and he entered the country illegally, and deserved deportion.

Nwokie: A illegal Canadian deported to Syria? And you're telling me that if I hire out a hit job on someone that I'm not culpable of murder? Why do you think the US sent him to Syria? If this example isn't good enough for you (it was just the first one I found) I'll get more...but I'm sure you'll apologize for Bush's actions for them also.

Deane: As Harry Browne (former congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul) said here:

"...the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to "people." It applies to the federal government. The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and such). The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do . . .

"Where exceptions were meant to apply, they are specifically stated. And there are no exceptions stated for any type of guns, for any type of speech, for any specific crimes, or for crimes where non-citizens are involved.

"My overriding point in the article was that, until a suspected "terrorist" gets a fair and impartial trial, you don't know whether he is a terrorist. So even if you think non-citizen terrorists have no rights, how do you even know for sure that they are terrorists – or that they are non-citizens – until every facet of due process has been applied."

In short, the federal government cannot punish people unless convicted, and if convicted cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment ON ANYONE, which is what torture is. The government (specifically the executive branch, specifically Bush) failed on both counts with Maher Arar.

Again, if this example isn't sufficent, I'll dig up more.

Because his home country was Syria.

"Who'd he search. Not me.
How is someone accidentally getting on a no-fly list unconstitutional?
Who had a secret trial? Which American citizen?
Which American citizen did he torture?

I assume there will be no answers forthcoming. This is just liberal dribble left over from the 2000 election."


You do not have to be a citizen to have constitutional protection in this country, that is why we are still the greatest country in the world, though you neocons are going to run us into the ground as just another communist country that does not believe in individual rights and protections.

The bill of rights, are simply the first 10 amendments to the constitution, when you say constitution, it refers to the constitution, and all amendments. The constitution is a living document, in that it can be changed, but the method of change is set out in the constitution.

I think Age has nothing to do with Mccain. BUT what does have to do with Mccain is that he is a Bush Clone. Do we really need Bush in the White House another 4 years? Mccain and Bush are one in the same.

Apparently 51% of the expected voters do so far.

"...the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to "people." It applies to the federal government. The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and such). The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do . . .

Does it say we can't turn them over to the Saudi's to have their way with them, then send the left over pieces back to us.

"Apparently 51% of the expected voters do so far"

Let it go Nwokie. That was yesterday's news. Things have changed. An average of more recent polls done by RCP shows Obama ahead by 0.5% in a McCain-Obama matchup.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccai n_vs_obama-225.html

Read my lips everyone:

"It's the war, stupid"

When the 4,500 death is reached by November, McCain will be, in the words of the immortal Herb, "Toast!"

The unsurging of the Surge is gonna undo McCain even if Obama calls Clinton a bitch!