Is Palin failin' ? or OMG McCain wins with Palin !! pt. 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of my more favorite editorial writers, whom I wish was more widely published.

He pretty much says exactly what I've wanted to say over the last week, if I had had the time to write it!

Corvino: Palin, pregnancy and principles | 365 Gay News

Corvino: Palin, pregnancy and principles

By John Corvino

I admit it: I was fascinated by the announcement that Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.

It’s no surprise that teenagers have sex—even evangelical Christian teenagers, and especially very good looking ones, in Alaska, where there’s not much to do but hunting and fishing and…well, you know.

And it’s certainly no surprise that sex makes babies.

But when a conservative politician who advocates abstinence education has a very public failure of abstinence in her own family, revealed just a few days after she’s announced as the Republican vice-presidential nominee, it’s bound to get people talking.

If nothing else, the social and political contours are interesting. Right-wingers admire Palin’s principles, but some wish she would put aside her political ambitions to tend to her family. Left-wingers reject this idea as anti-feminist, but they also reject Palin’s politics.

Let me make two things very clear.

First, Bristol Palin is not running for office; Sarah Palin is. Bristol Palin, like all expectant mothers, should be wished well—especially since she finds herself pregnant during the frenzy and scrutiny of her mother’s vice-presidential campaign. She deserves our compassion, as does her new fiancé.

Second, Sarah Palin is no hypocrite—as some uncharitable commentators have suggested—for embracing her yet-unwed pregnant daughter.

There’s no inconsistency in believing both that we should teach abstinence until marriage and that we should support those children who become pregnant anyway. There’s no hypocrisy in striving for an ideal that you and your loved ones occasionally fall short of. You don’t stop endorsing speed limits just because you (or your kids) sometimes lose track of the speedometer.

The fact is, Sarah Palin’s rejection of comprehensive sex education deserves criticism on its own merits. Her family’s behavior has nothing to do with it, aside from adding anecdotes to the statistics suggesting that “abstinence only” doesn’t achieve what its proponents hope and claim.

For example, abstinence advocates are fond of citing studies by Yale’s Hannah Brückner and Columbia’s Peter Bearman, who show that adolescents who take abstinence pledges generally delay sex about eighteen months longer than those who don’t. What the advocates don’t mention is the researchers’ finding that only 12% of these adolescents keep their pledges, and that when they do have sex, they are far less likely to use protection.

In other words, the failure rate of condoms pales by comparison to the failure rate of abstinence pledges—88%, if you believe Brückner and Bearman.

But it’s not Sarah Palin’s rejection of comprehensive sex education that’s bugging me here. What’s bugging me is the right-wing reaction, which for the most part boils down to “Nobody’s perfect, life happens, but you love and support your children and grandchildren.”

That, of course, is the proper reaction.

But it stands in sharp contrast to their usual reaction to gay kids, their rhetoric about “Love in Action” and “Love Win[ning] Out” notwithstanding.

For example, contrast the right-wing reaction to Palin’s grandchild with their reaction to Dick Cheney’s grandchild Samuel—son of his lesbian daughter Mary. At the time, Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America announced that Mary’s pregnancy “repudiates traditional values and sets an appalling example for young people at a time when father absence is the most pressing social problem facing the nation.” She was hardly alone in such denunciations.

Now here’s the same Crouse on Palin: “We are confident that she and her family will handle this unexpected situation with grace and love. We appreciate the fact that the Palins…are providing loving support to the teenager and her boyfriend.”

There are differences in the two cases to be sure. Bristol plans to marry the father, and thus will provide the baby with a “traditional” family (in one sense); Mary won’t. Bristol’s pregnancy was probably accidental, whereas Mary’s was certainly deliberate.

On the other hand, Mary’s child arrives in the home of a mature and stable couple; Bristol’s in the home of a young and hastily formed one.

But the sharpest difference in the cases is the contrast in right-wingers’ compassion. It’s the difference in empathy, a trait that’s at the core of the Golden Rule.

They tell heterosexuals: abstinence until marriage—and if you fail, we forgive you. For gays, it’s abstinence forever—and if you fail, we denounce you.

For heterosexuals, “Nobody’s perfect, life happens, but you love and support your children and grandchildren.”

For gays, not so much.
 
^:applaud:. It's one of the hypocrisies that angers me most about the church. We're loving and tolerant as Jesus was, unless you're different than us.:huh: It's appalling, and it needs to stop. Thanks melon.
 
Welcome Back, Dad
by Michael Reagan
Posted 09/04/2008 ET


I’ve been trying to convince my fellow conservatives that they have been wasting their time in a fruitless quest for a new Ronald Reagan to emerge and lead our party and our nation. I insisted that we’d never see his like again because he was one of a kind.

I was wrong!

Wednesday night I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my Dad reborn; only this time he's a she.

And what a she!

In one blockbuster of a speech, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin resurrected my Dad’s indomitable spirit and sent it soaring above the convention center, shooting shock waves through the cynical media’s assigned spaces and electrifying the huge audience with the kind of inspiring rhetoric we haven’t heard since my Dad left the scene.

This was Ronald Reagan at his best -- the same Ronald Reagan who made the address known now solely as “The Speech,” which during the Goldwater campaign set the tone and the agenda for the rebirth of the traditional conservative movement that later sent him to the White House for eight years and revived the moribund GOP.

Last night was an extraordinary event. Widely seen beforehand as a make-or-break effort -- either an opportunity for Sarah Palin to show that she was the happy warrior that John McCain assured us she was, or a disaster that would dash McCain’s presidential hopes and send her back to Alaska, sadder but wiser.

Obviously un-intimidated by either the savage onslaught to which the left-leaning media had subjected her, or the incredible challenge she faced -- and oozing with confidence -- she strode defiantly to the podium and proved she was everything and even more than John McCain told us.

Much has been made of the fact that she is a woman. What we saw last night, however, was something much more than a just a woman accomplishing something no Republican woman has ever achieved. What we saw was a red-blooded American with that rare, God-given ability to rally her dispirited fellow Republicans and take up the daunting task of leading them -- and all her fellow Americans -- on a pilgrimage to that shining city on the hill my father envisioned as our nation’s real destination.

In a few words she managed to rip the mask from the faces of her Democratic rivals and reveal them for what they are -- a pair of old-fashioned liberals making promises that cannot be kept without bankrupting the nation and reducing most Americans to the status of mendicants begging for their daily bread at the feet of an all-powerful government.

Most important, by comparing her own stunning record of achievement with his, she showed Barack Obama for the sham that he is, a man without any solid accomplishments beyond conspicuous self-aggrandizement.

Like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin is one of us. She knows how most of us live because that’s the way she lives. She shares our homespun values and our beliefs, and she glories in her status as a small-town woman who put her shoulder to the wheel and made life better for her neighbors.

Her astonishing rise up from the grass-roots, her total lack of self-importance, and her ordinary American values and modest lifestyle reveal her to be the kind of hard-working, optimistic, ordinary American who made this country the greatest, most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

As hard as you might try, you won’t find that kind of plain-spoken, down-to-earth, self-reliant American in the upper ranks of the liberal-infested, elitist Democratic Party, or in the Obama campaign.

Sarah Palin didn’t go to Harvard, or fiddle around in urban neighborhood leftist activism while engaging in opportunism within the ranks of one of the nation’s most corrupt political machines, never challenging it and going along to get along, like Barack Obama.

Instead she took on the corrupt establishment in Alaska and beat it, rising to the governorship while bringing reforms to every level of government she served in on her way up the ladder.

Welcome back, Dad, even if you’re wearing a dress and bearing children this time around.
.
 
Michael isn't a Reagan, however.

Ron jr is, and I doubt if he'd agree with the above.
 
Ooh, opposing views from the Reagan brothers. Who'd have thought? ;)

Ron Reagan: I doubt my father would back Palin
But when brother Michael looks at Alaska governor he sees his dad 'reborn'
Posted: September 06, 2008
4:48 am Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


SEATTLE – When Michael Reagan watched Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin thrill the Republican Party faithful Wednesday night, he saw his father "reborn."

But Ronald Prescott Reagan told WND yesterday he knew Ronald Reagan, too, and Sarah Palin, he insisted, is no Ronald Reagan.

The two brothers – talk radio hosts who live at opposite ends of the political spectrum – reflect the sharp divide across the nation over John McCain's running mate. Echoing the polarized reactions to President Reagan during his two terms in the 1980s, it's hard to remain indifferent to the hockey mom from Wasilla, whose meteoric political rise has taken her from the PTA to the governorship to a national ticket at the age of 44. Either you love her, it seems, or she epitomizes what's wrong with America.

WND met the youngest son of President Reagan, a self-described political "progressive," awaiting a flight to Seattle following the GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn.

Ron Reagan, 50, told WND he cannot speak for his father, who died in 2004, but doubts the 40th president would approve of Palin if he were alive and well today.

"Sarah Palin," he said, "has nothing in common with my father, a two-term governor of the largest state in the union, a man who had been in public life for decades, someone who had written, thought and spoke for decades about foreign policy issues, domestic policy issues, and on and on and on."

But many introduced to Palin this week say she excites them like Ronald Reagan did.

"I think they ought to start using their brain, instead of viscera," Ron Jr. said in reaction.

Isn't the excitement, however, simply over a charismatic candidate for national office who espouses conservative values and ideas without apology and already has successfully put them into practice?

"That may excite them," Ron Jr. said. "But many of those values are hypocritical and dishonest, and, frankly, scary."

Creationism is one of the scary beliefs Palin advocates, he said.

"It doesn't bother some people, I know, but, frankly, somebody like that has no idea what kind of planet we live on – literally has no idea what the planet is all about," Ron Jr. said.

"It's such a profoundly anti-intellectual, anti-science stance," he asserted. "I don't see how you can hold high office and believe something like that."

Some critics have charged Palin opposes the teaching of evolution in public schools and would mandate teaching creationism. But she has kept a pledge from her 2006 campaign for governor to not press for creation-based alternatives or seek creation advocates for the school board.

Asked what his mother, Nancy Reagan, thinks about Palin, Ron Jr. said he cannot speak on her behalf. But he related that when he briefly discussed Palin with her this past week on the phone, "she was a bit mystified by the choice." She previously announced her endorsement of McCain.


Michael Reagan, in his commentary piece, praises Palin as "a red-blooded American with that rare, God-given ability to rally her dispirited fellow Republicans and take up the daunting task of leading them – and all her fellow Americans – on a pilgrimage to that shining city on the hill my father envisioned as our nation's real destination."

The elder brother, whose adoptive mother was the late actress Jane Wyman, says he's been trying to convince his fellow conservatives they have been wasting their time looking for a new Ronald Reagan to emerge. But no more.

"I insisted that we'd never see his like again because he was one of a kind. I was wrong. Wednesday night I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my Dad reborn; only this time he's a she. And what a she!"

Two Americas

Ron Jr., who debuts a show Monday on the left-leaning Air America talk radio network, was asked his overall impression of the GOP convention.

"It's a little depressing to me, because I think, you know, John Edwards was right in the sense about the two Americas," he said. "But, you know, it's not just liberal and conservative, rich and poor, it's rational, and as Rachel Maddow, my colleague on Air America, put it, post-rational."

McCain's selection of Palin was "post-rational," he said, "one of the most irresponsible choices I have ever seen a presidential candidate make."

"It's clearly a tactical, political decision," he said. "It has absolutely nothing to do with governance. The woman is clearly unqualified to be where she is right now."

Ron Jr. said it was "right around puberty" when he began to realize he didn't agree with his father on many issues.

"There were some issues we did (agree on), of course," he said. "I thought standing up to the Soviet Union was a good idea. A totalitarian government, and who likes that? Tell them the truth. You know, want to call them an evil empire? Go ahead, stick it to 'em, get up in their grill a little bit. You don't want to take it to a military level, but speak the truth, speak the truth at heart."

On the other hand, he said, there was "vehement" disagreement over the environment and some social issues.

"We'd discuss it all the time over dinner," he said. "We'd have some good old arguments about it – always civil, but, nevertheless, spirited."

Meanwhile, in the "other America," brother Michael suggests elitism is blinding many critics to Palin's "stunning record of achievement," taking on and beating Alaska's corrupt establishment and bringing reform to "every level of government she served on her way up the ladder."


"Like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin is one of us," he writes. "She knows how most of us live because that’s the way she lives. She shares our homespun values and our beliefs, and she glories in her status as a small-town woman who put her shoulder to the wheel and made life better for her neighbors."

Palin is obviously "unintimidated by the savage onslaught to which the left-leaning media had subjected her," says Michael Reagan.

In a few words, Wednesday night, he says, "she managed to rip the mask from the faces of her Democratic rivals and reveal them for what they are — a pair of old-fashioned liberals making promises that cannot be kept without bankrupting the nation and reducing most Americans to the status of mendicants begging for their daily bread at the feet of an all-powerful government."

"Her astonishing rise up from the grass-roots, her total lack of self-importance, and her ordinary American values and modest lifestyle reveal her to be the kind of hard-working, optimistic, ordinary American who made this country the greatest, most powerful nation on the face of the earth," he writes.

Michael Reagan concludes: "Welcome back, Dad, even if you’re wearing a dress and bearing children this time around."
 
Ooh, opposing views from the Reagan brothers. Who'd have thought? ;)


The biggest difference between the two
is that during the 1980's when Reagan was President, Michael supported his step-father

and Ron Jr. did not.

I think Michael is a more legitimate judge on what Ronald Reagan would think about a politician.
 
The biggest difference between the two
is that during the 1980's when Reagan was President, Michael supported his step-father

and Ron Jr. did not.

I think Michael is a more legitimate judge on what Ronald Reagan would think about a politician.

Really? My mom and my brother are closer together on political views than she and I are, but I can state with certainty that I could more accurately express her thoughts on various subjects than he could.

:shrug:
 
The biggest difference between the two
is that during the 1980's when Reagan was President, Michael supported his step-father

and Ron Jr. did not.

I think Michael is a more legitimate judge on what Ronald Reagan would think about a politician.

I think that's bullshit, to be honest.
 
I think that's bullshit, to be honest.

since I lived through it, it is my recollection


you could look into it

there should be some information available

or,
just go with the fym standard
go with your bias or leaning
and argue like your life depended on it.
 
since I live through it, it is my recollection

you could look into it

there should be some information available

And so we have the implication, once again - last week I got it from Irvine, and now from you - that foreign posters really haven't a clue what they're talking about with regard to US politics.

Unfortunately, this seems to be coming more commonplace on FYM

Discussion of the Presidential election seems to be viewed as a private party

to which furrners are not invited and their views are not welcome

FYI, the British and Irish media report a lot on US politics and I, also, lived through the 80's.

(you could look into it

there should be some information available)
 
And so we have the implication, once again - last week I got it from Irvine, and now from you - that foreign posters really haven't a clue what they're talking about with regard to US politics.

Unfortunately, this seems to be coming more commonplace on FYM

Discussion of the Presidential election seems to be viewed as a private party

to which furrners are not invited and their views are not welcome

FYI, the British and Irish media report a lot on US politics and I, also, lived through the 80's.

(you could look into it

there should be some information available)



I usually do not even consider replying to these types of posts.



or,
just go with the fym standard
go with your bias or leaning
and argue like your life depended on it

no where did I say anything about 'foreign posters', I don't believe I ever have.


So you recall that Ron Jr. is a liberal and had an estrangement from his father during the time Reagan was in office. That Ron Jr is a favorite and darling of the left? He may even be an atheist, which is fine. But his father was someone that did get along and work with the religious right.

And Michael, Reagan's adopted son has always been a conservative like his father and a religious man.

So of the two sons, which one is more credible to you for giving an opinion of whether or not their father would like Palin.

If you could share your reasoning with me, I might learn something.
 
I usually do not even consider replying to these types of posts.

no where did I say anything about 'foreign posters', I don't believe I ever have.

I may have been incorrect in intrepreting your post as implying that I don't know anything about US politics because I am a non-US person, but you surely know that I am considerably over thirty, so implying that I don't remember the '80's and ought to educate myself about the decade before expressing an opinion is rather silly.

So you recall that Ron Jr. is a liberal and had an estrangement from his father during the time Reagan was in office. That Ron Jr is a favorite and darling of the left? He may even be an atheist, which is fine. But his father was someone that did get along and work with the religious right.

And Michael, Reagan's adopted son has always been a conservative like his father and a religious man.

So of the two sons, which one is more credible to you for giving an opinion of whether or not their father would like Palin.

If you could share your reasoning with me, I might learn something.

Hmmm. See, I think this is just too simplistic for words. Just because Ron jr happened to be to the left of his father, makes his point of view less valid than his step-brother, who was more right-wing? Sorry, I don't accept that.

Ron jr always had good relations with his parents, in spite of their political disagreements. That is not necessarily the case with Michael, from what I've read. *

But in answer to your question regarding which one is more credible for giving an opinion of whether or not their father would like Palin, in my view, quite honestly, it's Ron jr. He just has more political credibility full stop than the other guy.

And ulimately, I trust Ron jr's judgement more so than Michael's, because, frankly, I think Michael is band-wagon jumping tool, and Ron jr is a nuanced and intelligent person.

Who is the real Reagan, and not just by blood?

Edit: (* Actually I could be confusing Michael with Patti Reagan , now that I think of it)
 
It's probably statements like the following that lead me to my belief that Michael Reagan is a tool:-

When he said that children named Hezbollah, after the Lebanese group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., would eventually become terrorists themselves and, hence, "he would like to stick grenades in their rear ends and make them explode", the religion writer for the Austin American-Statesman characterized his words as "vile", "hateful" and "outrageous".[10] The liberal media watch dog group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting characterized statements by Reagan as "death threats" when he criticized Mark Dice and other individuals who sent letters and DVDs to U.S. troops stationed in Iraq blaming the government for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Reagan said, for instance, "We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them.... I'll pay for the bullets."

(source:wikipedia)
 
I may have been incorrect in intrepreting your post as implying that I don't know anything about US politics because I am a non-US person, but you surely know that I am considerably over thirty, so implying that I don't remember the '80's and ought to educate myself about the decade before expressing an opinion is rather silly.



Hmmm. See, I think this is just too simplistic for words. Just because Ron jr happened to be to the left of his father, makes his point of view less valid than his step-brother, who was more right-wing? Sorry, I don't accept that.

Ron jr always had good relations with his parents, in spite of their political disagreements. That is not necessarily the case with Michael, from what I've read. *

But in answer to your question regarding which one is more credible for giving an opinion of whether or not their father would like Palin, in my view, quite honestly, it's Ron jr. He just has more political credibility full stop than the other guy.

And ulimately, I trust Ron jr's judgement more so than Michael's, because, frankly, I think Michael is band-wagon jumping tool, and Ron jr is a nuanced and intelligent person.

Who is the real Reagan, and not just by blood?

Edit: (* Actually I could be confusing Michael with Patti Reagan , now that I think of it)

My initial response was a bit stronger than I prefer to write.

If you had asked me why I thought that instead of the short reply that is was bullshit,
I would have responded differently.

As for foreigners posting, it is one of the best things about fym.

and I believe most of the foreign posters have better reasoned responses than many of the casual U S posters.


The fact that I might get along better with Ron Jr than Michael
or that I also believe Ron may be his intellectual superior
does not lead me to conclude that his opinion is more correct.

Ronald Reagan Sr. was considered a tool by many.
and I could probably post some things he said that would look pretty silly, too.

Evil empire, I think he said trees cause air pollution. :huh:

Reagan electrified the base and had populace appeal.
Reagan attacked the media elites. (whatever that means)
Reagan preached against big government and for low taxes. (even on the rich)

I do see similarities with Palin :shrug:
 
Reagan electrified the base and had populace appeal.
Reagan attacked the media elites. (whatever that means)
Reagan preached against big government and for low taxes. (even on the rich)

I do see similarities with Palin :shrug:

I won't pretend to know everything about the Reagan era, I was young then, and a lot less politically aware than I am now, but wasn't he very secular, politically? Jr. made a comment that he would never have agreed with the religious right turn that the party has taken, and Palin seems to be a poster child for that segment of the party, so in that way, RR Jr's comments make sense.

Or am I misremembering what RR Sr was about?
 
I won't pretend to know everything about the Reagan era, I was young then, and a lot less politically aware than I am now, but wasn't he very secular, politically? Jr. made a comment that he would never have agreed with the religious right turn that the party has taken, and Palin seems to be a poster child for that segment of the party, so in that way, RR Jr's comments make sense.

Or am I misremembering what RR Sr was about?

One could say he was somewhat secular while Governor of CA.

But to say he was secular as President is revisionist history,
he is responsible for the Religions Right.
 
I am 23, so I was only alive for Reagen's second term and that was from birth to age 4, so clearly I wasn't able to observe him or form any opinions about him while he was in office. So what I am about to say is based only what I have been able so observe of him after the fact.

The biggest difference I see between Reagan and Palin is this: Reagan - and I see this characteristic quite a bit in Mitt Romney now as well - seemed to be a bit idealistic and pie-in-the-sky about America sometimes - the whole, "shining city on a hill", "what makes America the greatest nation on Earth is the American people", thing. When I hear that, I say, "no, it's not the American people, it's the fact that America is the wealthiest country in the world combined with the freedoms and rights guaranteed to all its citizens in the constitution on which it was founded that makes it the greatest nation on Earth, and even then it's subjective."

Point being, Palin doesn't strike me as a person who would believe in or publicly state that kind of fairy-tale pie-in-the-sky idealism. I find myself having a difficult time articulating this...she comes off as sort of, a more 'no bullshit' kind of person. But that 'no bullshit' mentality leads to a lack of charisma, which Reagan had a lot of(former actor and all). Like I said, I'm not articulating this as well as I want to. Maybe someone else understands what I'm trying to say and can articulate it better.

This is all personality stuff though. As far as pure politics are concerned, I see Palin being considerably further right than Reagan.

So, given that she has faaaaaaaar less charisma than Reagan and given that she doesn't seem to be nearly as moderate as Reagan was on some issues(and not nearly as knowledgeable either), I don't see why anyone would say they're so similar.
 
I am 23, so I was only alive for Reagen's second term and that was from birth to age 4,

So, given that she has faaaaaaaar less charisma than Reagan and given that she doesn't seem to be nearly as moderate as Reagan was on some issues(and not nearly as knowledgeable either), I don't see why anyone would say they're so similar.

As far as pure politics are concerned, I see Palin being considerably further right than Reagan.

It is kind of interesting to hear what people think
or feel, the impressions they have

so do a little research (google or any other search engine )

I'd like you to come back and give me some examples of a few of Reagan's moderate programs or positions ?
 
One could say he was somewhat secular while Governor of CA.

But to say he was secular as President is revisionist history,
he is responsible for the Religions Right.

I thought it was more that Falwell and the Moral Majority co-opted Reagan. :shrug: The article by Jr said that he didn't even attend church regularly.

The whole discussion is moot, though. I don't think either son can claim to know with any certainty what his thoughts would have been. Interestingly though, he did say that his mother thought the choice of Palin was suspect.
 
I'd like you to come back and give me some examples of a few of Reagan's moderate programs or positions ?

Good point. "Moderate" Reagan is revisionist history. His policies were most certainly conservative, and the judges he appointed were meant to be conservative, even if some of them didn't obey (although Scalia more than makes up for it).
 
It is kind of interesting to hear what people think
or feel, the impressions they have

so do a little research (google or any other search engine )

I'd like you to come back and give me some examples of a few of Reagan's moderate programs or positions ?

I wasn't saying that I think Reagan was was so much of moderate, that's just how far right I think Palin is. From what I read, Reagan was moderate as governor of California, and then not a moderate anymore as president. One could argue whether that change was genuine or not, much like Romney's move further to the right, or McCain's move further to the right during their presidential campaigns. In any event, as president, Reagan was right-wing, and Palin seems even more right-wing. In comparison to Palin, Reagan seems more moderate.

But again, I didn't know what politics was when Reagan was president, so maybe my interpretation is incorrect.
 
The whole discussion is moot, though. I don't think either son can claim to know with any certainty what his thoughts would have been.
Interestingly though, he did say that his mother thought the choice of Palin was suspect.

That is more about McCain
and it is true Reagan repulicans, right wing conservatives are not crazy about moderate McCain.
 
Good point. "Moderate" Reagan is revisionist history. His policies were most certainly conservative, and the judges he appointed were meant to be conservative, even if some of them didn't obey (although Scalia more than makes up for it).

c42963-19.jpg


Robert Bork - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

none of McCain's justices that would be approved

would be as bad as Reagan's pick
 
c42963-19.jpg


Robert Bork - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

none of McCain's justices that would be approved

would be as bad as Reagan's pick

It doesn't matter if they're "bad".

A court dominated by conservatives would be a bad thing, imo.

As it is right now, of the conservative wing, Roberts and Alito are under 60, Thomas is exactly 60, and Scalia is 72. The only one of these that seems to have any possibility of not being on the SCOTUS any time soon is Scalia, and even then, he seems in pretty good health and in no hurry to step down.

Of the liberal wing, Breyer is 70, Ginsburg is 75, Stevens is 88, and Souter is 68. Ginsberg is 75, has had cancer, and there has been rumor here and there for a while about impending retirement for her. Souter has been rumored to be thinking about retirement despite being only 68. The chances of Stevens, at 88, of being on the SCOTUS by the end of even Obama or McCain's first term are close to nil. I've read that the only reason he hasn't retired yet is because he doesn't want his replacement to be a GWB nomination. And let's not forget that Kennedy, a right-leaning centrist who is often the court's swing vote, is 72.

The point here is that it is highly likely that at least one or two of them will be replaced during the next presidency(especially if it's an eight-year presidency), and it's not too much of a stretch to think that more than that could be replaced. If Obama gets elected, then by way of his nominations, the court will probably end up being more or less the way it is now(unless Kennedy is replaced in which case the court could take a small step left), but if McCain gets elected, we could be looking at dominantly conservative court a few years down the line.

McCain's replacements won't have to be "bad" like this Bork guy to make the SCOTUS a dominantly conservative court - all they'll have to be is conservative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom