This is the end? (Hillary)

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Aeson
You're forgetting that the "constituents" are those that were pandered to.

Reps/senators are much easier to replace than a President. If right-wing rep/senators with right-wing constituencies consistently vote against unequivocally right-wing bills just for "revenge" against a moderate President, lets just see how long their careers last. Of course they'll vote for bills they already happen to support.

Originally posted by Aeson
You also forget that the other party has it in their own best interests not to jump ship and work with the President of the other party.

Compromises happen all the time. I'm not denying that it would require frequent concessions in the Dems' favor.

Originally posted by Aeson
Are you really trying to pretend that pols are not partisan at all once they get in office?

I'd never pretending politicians as a group are willing to thumb their noses at their own parties, and I don't even contend McCain would go that far. It's just annoying to me when I hear people say they liked the ~2000-2004 version and can't stand the 2008 version, as if there isn't even the slightest possibility that the ~2000-2004 version is what we'd actually see in office once all the election-year pandering has ceased to have utility.

Originally posted by Aeson
When's the last time an incumbent ever told their party to **** off during his first term?

I never said anything about telling them to **** off; all he'd really have to do is subtly de-emphasize certain issues, pretend grappling with them isn't feasible at the moment but maybe in a few years, etc. like every President has had to do when their fringes come knocking. Hell, even Bush has failed to deliver even half of what his base demanded, so I don't see why McCain couldn't get away with it too.

Originally posted by Aeson
When's the last time an incumbent didn't run for a second term?

Johnson because he believed he couldn't win, just like McCain would probably realize he couldn't win in the event that he does totally alienate his base and couldn't replace them with independent support. Or if in the alternative his numbers do show a likelihood of winning, well then I guess being a maverick wouldn't have ruined him after all.

Not to mention this would be the first time an incumbent would be 76 years old, so health reasons at least lower the probability he'd run again. (Ok fine Reagan was 73 in '84, but that one was a damn shoo-in...)

[Darius871]

Originally posted by snoopy369
2. You're just flat out wrong here... Presidents without the support of their parties are very ineffective. They cannot do most important things without senate and/or house approval. Further, remember that what we're really talking about here is McCain straying from the party line. How do you think he's going to successfully stray from the party line, without the support of significant numbers of party members (that he's lost by not following through on promises)?

Like I said before, no matter how much some far-right reps/sens might feel they owe McCain no favors after his "betrayal" (which is really a strong word for what could really be subtle de-emphasis and purported inability to meet their demands, not a flat-out rejection of them), they still have to at least vote for bills they already support anyway. Keeping their seats depends on it. Then for the ones they don't support (and wouldn't support as an exception without owing McCain a favor, which in this scenario they don't), would be something moderate R's and moderate D's (or even a slight majority of the total D's) could push through. The very existence of the DLC for instance illustrates that we're not dealing with monolithic blocs here, especially when McCain has more firsthand experience with bipartisan compromises than most politicians ever will. Again, I never said it wouldn't take significant concessions to get bipartisan support.

[snoopy369]

They most certainly will vote for bills they would support anyway. The point is that if he is NOT going to be a far-right pandering monkey, he must support things they will not support. Further, there are not enough moderate republicans that would defect from a party-ordered blocking of McCain's bill(s) to make them pass without nearly full Dem support (in which case let's just elect Obama and get it over with). Remember that the Republicans are much more party-line than the Democrats (particularly in the house)... not only with better 'control' at the party level, but also more people owing the party something (particularly the 1994-1996 crowd).

[Darius871]

While it's true that the GOP is more skilled at maintaining control, I don't share the assumption that there would be party "marching orders" to simply block any bill McCain proposes. It'd take a very explicit nose-thumbing from him for the party leadership to take an extreme step like that, whereas I picture him more delicately and subtly side-stepping and weaseling out of the fringes' demands on social issues while throwing a bone here and there on economic issues, so that he can maintain a thin veneer of conservatism more akin to the ~2000-2004 version than the 2008 version.

If he plays his cards that way, his problem wouldn't be "marching orders" but rather only that the fringe reps/sens would at best feel that they owe him no favors or at worst bear grudges, and in either case the moderates wouldn't be under lock and key. There may even be instances where getting a bill passed with 3/5 of Democrats and only 2/5 of Republicans might be a feasible option for him. Hell, in the house 17% of the ayes and 93% of the nays on McCain-Feingold were from the GOP for example, but somehow after leading a Dem-dominated compromise like that he still maintained enough clout to, you know, win the party's presidential nomination.

Look, I'm not saying this scnario's going to happen, as none of us can read his mind; I just fail to see how it's so utterly impossible. The last eight years show any realist that the GOP needs to shift to the center for the time being to survive, and McCain's experience with compromises has the best odds of accomplishing that task. Compare to an Obama presidency, where the GOP in Congress would stonewall so uniformly that he'd get almost nothing done. I may happen to like Obama's views somewhat more but that doesn't stop me from begrudgingly conceding that his odds of serious legislative accomplishment are much lower.

[Elok]

I'd like to make a joke about the thread title, but the more I think about it the more I realize that there are few people on Earth who are less like Jim Morrison than Hillary Clinton is.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Darius871
Reps/senators are much easier to replace than a President. If right-wing rep/senators with right-wing constituencies consistently vote against unequivocally right-wing bills just for "revenge" against a moderate President, lets just see how long their careers last. Of course they'll vote for bills they already happen to support.

But you're saying the President isn't going to propose right-wing bills.

He's playing to his right wing constituency more now. Not just the fringe, but the party as a whole. You're stating that he's going to go more moderate when in office (based off your crystal ball). He may or may not. But the right wing constituency he's playing to right now probably won't like it if he abandons them and starts proposing stuff they don't agree with.

Which is what you're saying he's going to do. Not that they're going to oppose stuff he's saying he's going to do right now while he's pandering to them.

Compromises happen all the time. I'm not denying that it would require frequent concessions in the Dems' favor.

And why do you presume I should like that outcome? (If we ignore for the moment that it's not necessarily going to happen.)

In many cases I didn't agree with him. I liked him because he wasn't some toe-the-line talking head like so many others. He's toeing the line now... so I don't like him. What's hard to figure about that?

I'd never pretending politicians as a group are willing to thumb their noses at their own parties, and I don't even contend McCain would go that far. It's just annoying to me when I hear people say they liked the ~2000-2004 version and can't stand the 2008 version, as if there isn't even the slightest possibility that the ~2000-2004 version is what we'd actually see in office once all the election-year pandering has ceased to have utility.

I liked the version from before. So what? You going to cry about it because I have a preference about it.



I never said I wouldn't like the future version, whatever that turns out to be. You're making up stuff to refute in your paranoid little reality.

I'm just not dumb enough to assume he's going to change to another specific stance in the future. If/when he changes his actions, then I'll change my opinion of him again (to some extent his flip-flopping would be something I would consider as well though).

I'll leave the mind reading and crystal ball stuff up to you. Especially in cases where you're arguing against what basically always happens in such cases.

I never said anything about telling them to **** off; all he'd really have to do is subtly de-emphasize certain issues, pretend grappling with them isn't feasible at the moment but maybe in a few years, etc. like every President has had to do when their fringes come knocking. Hell, even Bush has failed to deliver even half of what his base demanded, so I don't see why McCain couldn't get away with it too.

You assume it's fringe stuff (or even specific policy issues) I don't like.

Johnson because he believed he couldn't win, just like McCain would probably realize he couldn't win in the event that he does totally alienate his base and couldn't replace them with independent support.

And you find this the most likely scenario? That McCain will knowingly and intentionally undermine his chance for re-election, and to alienate his support in congress, to go back on what he's now saying?

Or if in the alternative his numbers do show a likelihood of winning, well then I guess being a maverick wouldn't have ruined him after all.

If he indeed does change his tune.

Not to mention this would be the first time an incumbent would be 76 years old, so health reasons at least lower the probability he'd run again. (Ok fine Reagan was 73 in '84, but that one was a damn shoo-in...)

We'll see. It's possible he wouldn't be in condition to run if he does end up in that situation next election, but you're suggesting he will want to abandon those who got him elected so as to almost assure he can't win. They are separate things.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the right wing constituency he's playing to right now probably won't like it if he abandons them and starts proposing stuff they don't agree with.

Well, not saying if he will or won't, but Clinton ran more to the left of the President he actually became for most of his term of office. Then again, he was fairly liberal his first two years and then shifted strongly to the right after the '94 Congressional elections.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Darius871
It'd take a very explicit nose-thumbing from him for the party leadership to take an extreme step like that, whereas I picture him more delicately and subtly side-stepping and weaseling out of the fringes' demands on social issues while throwing a bone here and there on economic issues, so that he can maintain a thin veneer of conservatism more akin to the ~2000-2004 version than the 2008 version.

What you're saying here is that you don't expect him to go back to how he was. This is where you fail to understand the draw (for me, if not others) of the "past" McCain. He was willing to take on his own party, disagreeing in a rather straightforward manner.

That's someone I can like and respect. "Subtly side-stepping and weaseling" and "maintaining a thin veneer of X" is not. Sorry if you can't understand that.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, not saying if he will or won't, but Clinton ran more to the left of the President he actually became for most of his term of office. Then again, he was fairly liberal his first two years and then shifted strongly to the right after the '94 Congressional elections.

Are you saying they will like it if he does?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But the right wing constituency he's playing to right now probably won't like it if he abandons them and starts proposing stuff they don't agree with.

Well, not saying if he will or won't, but Clinton ran more to the left of the President he actually became for most of his term of office. Then again, he was fairly liberal his first two years and then shifted strongly to the right after the '94 Congressional elections.

And I didn't like Clinton one way or the other

Honestly, though, this is an interesting comparison. I'd counter that Clinton had a huge advantage in that strategy: he was running against a moderate incumbent president; thus, running as more left was good and necessary. Running against an incument requires the candidate to differentiate himself; so running against a moderate requires being not a moderate yourself. The just slightly left moderate voters need a reason to vote Clinton; he gave them one (liberal policies, but not TOO liberal.)

McCain, on the other hand, is not running against an incumbent, nor against a moderate. McCain IS the moderate, and hopes to win the moderate voters (Reagan democrats, etc.) with reasonably liberal policies, basically suggesting "I'm better than Obama because I do some of the nicer (liberal) things he does, but also have these foreign policy benefits and experience, and am not going to do whacko-liberal things." Of course, he has to figure out how to keep the conservative voters as well, but either the VP choice or emphasizing certain areas that are safer for the moderates but good for the right (Realism in Iraq, for example, or Iran, or other FP stuff) will accomplish this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Aeson
Are you saying they will like it if he does?

The Democrats seemed like to still like Bill by the time he was done with the job.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by snoopy369
McCain, on the other hand, is not running against an incumbent, nor against a moderate. McCain IS the moderate, and hopes to win the moderate voters (Reagan democrats, etc.) with reasonably liberal policies, basically suggesting "I'm better than Obama because I do some of the nicer (liberal) things he does, but also have these foreign policy benefits and experience, and am not going to do whacko-liberal things." Of course, he has to figure out how to keep the conservative voters as well, but either the VP choice or emphasizing certain areas that are safer for the moderates but good for the right (Realism in Iraq, for example, or Iran, or other FP stuff) will accomplish this.

Of course, on the other hand, running to the extremes to win the primary and then to the center in the general is not unheard of.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Aeson
But you're saying the President isn't going to propose right-wing bills.

The President isn't the only person who can propose a bill.

Originally posted by Aeson
And why do you presume I should like that outcome? (If we ignore for the moment that it's not necessarily going to happen.)

In many cases I didn't agree with him. I liked him because he wasn't some toe-the-line talking head like so many others. He's toeing the line now... so I don't like him. What's hard to figure about that?

No problem here.

Originally posted by Aeson
I liked the version from before. So what? You going to cry about it because I have a preference about it.



I never said I wouldn't like the future version, whatever that turns out to be. You're making up stuff to refute in your paranoid little reality.

Lighten up, I couldn't care less about what your "preference" is. My first post was replying to Rufus' post back on the first page, and I was merely questioning a specific assumption of his that's been repeated by a number of people here and elsewhere. If you don't happen to share it, that doesn't make it a strawman.

Originally posted by Aeson
You're stating that he's going to go more moderate when in office (based off your crystal ball). ... Which is what you're saying he's going to do. ... I'll leave the mind reading and crystal ball stuff up to you... I'm just not dumb enough to assume he's going to change to another specific stance in the future.

Now you're putting words in my mouth; I've only 1) argued against the opposite assumption many have and 2) suggested that it's not as improbable as you and others think. Let me break it down for you:

Originally posted by Darius871 Why does everyone assume...I still fail to see why this is such a universal assumption...as if there isn't even the slightest possibility...It wouldn't surprise me one bit if McCain would...I don't even contend McCain would go that far...so I don't see why McCain couldn't get away with it...if he plays his cards that way...>>Look, I'm not saying this scenario's going to happen, as none of us can read his mind; I just fail to see how it's so utterly impossible.<<

Sorry, but if anyone's batting at strawmen today it's you.

[Ramo]

I don't know why everyone believes that McCain's going to govern like a moderate. Like Obama and Clinton, he has already outlined the legislation he plans on proposing, i.e. his tax cuts targetted to the rich or his recycling of Bush's health care proposal. He has abandoned his heterodoxies on campaign finance reform. He already pointed out what kind of Supreme Court Justices he's planning on appointing. And his position on the war is about as clear as can be. He made too many promises to too many people. He can't simply abandon them.

Of course, if you don't want universal health care or to leave Iraq, voting McCain makes perfect sense...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Darius871
The President isn't the only person who can propose a bill.

I didn't say it was. Keep running though.

Lighten up, I couldn't care less about what your "preference" is.

You fail. You started this whole dialog between us because I stated I liked McCain then, but not now, and you took issue with that. Your last post you said such opinions annoy you. Now you're saying you don't care about them.

Keep arguing with yourself about that though.

My first post was replying to Rufus' post back on the first page, and I was merely questioning a specific assumption of his that's been repeated by a number of people here and elsewhere. If you don't happen to share it, that doesn't make it a straw man.

Our discussion began when you directly quoted me. If you didn't intend to talk about my opinion, as you are now admitting you don't, you probably shouldn't have quoted my opinions and responded to them.

Very difficult concept to understand.

I never said or assumed any such thing; I've only 1) argued against the opposite assumption many have and 2) suggested that it's not as improbable as you and others think.

You presented the "assumption" that he would not be interested in a second term.

You denied that there were any political restrictions on what the president could do. Before I had ever even referenced the extent of any such restrictions. Now you want to pretend you were arguing against my proposed "probabilities" which is to say you were arguing against something which hadn't been said.

"Tell me precisely why a President can't do whatever the hell he damn well pleases within the bounds of his Constitutional authority, assuming he's not overly concerned about a second term." - Darius871

That in response to my statement:

"Also you pretend that pandering to special interests is something you can just drop whenever you want after getting what you want from them. Not all special interests are so weak as to be walked all over and not get what they're after.

He's in debt to people now. Repayment will come due. He'll have to repay at least some of them."

Since you don't understand the concept, I have highlighted qualifiers within my quoted statements. You are pretending that they didn't exist so you can "[suggest] that it's not as improbable as you and others think".

My "probability" expressed was that some of those he pandered to will be repaid. It is your argument that that is not true, and your statement did not denote any possibility for those parties to have a say in what happens. You also expressed the "assumption" that he would not be interested in running for a second term... and you did so without qualification. As such you were offering it as a "given", which is to say, an accepted fact.

It is you who are making the statements of denial of possibility. It is possible McCain gets into office and completely changes his conduct. It is possible that he doesn't.