Comments on: Reports of John McCain’s differences from Dick Cheney and James Dobson are greatly exaggerated

by: longpost

Tue, 21 Nov 2006 01:38:23 +0000

Well, I guess one could argue that everything is a state issue unless a single government actor policy affects the entire nation. Otherwise, in a federalist system, people vote for political representation and issues in their state and the nation, and the majority rules. I completely agree that no one should tell a woman what she can and can’t do - or anyone for that matter, as long as it’s not hurting someone else. Some do view abortions as harming the “a life” depending on views on validity. If a majority in a state decides (less that the “woman doesn’t have a choice”) - in the pro-life lexicon - that the fetus is a life, then if the system functioned properly, that person(s) could move to a state in which their values are more closely represented. The federal government certainly has the responsibility to ensure all rights, but the argument if you believe pro-lifers, is that the fetus is a life, and not that women are being denied a choice. Due to the contentiousness of this view and the diverging views on what is the human rights violation occuring, states might more closely approximate the views of its citizens. And until there is a wider consensus on it (or until politicians stop sneaking in divisive national legislation) it does - and I believe should - remain a state issue. I only believe that because of the potential for the national government, with the Supreme Court as it is, to chip away at Roe v. Wade. And I believe the states more responsibly and less politically can oppose national bans on certain kind of abortions at this point. The partial-birth abortion ban displayed the pernicious nature of leaving abortion policy to national legislatures far removed from their constituents.

by: St. McCain Redux « Beware The Man

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:06:17 +0000

[…] Here’s the delightful and fetching Amanda of Pandagon weighing in. […]

by: Jocie

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:01:32 +0000

I don’t really see it as an issue of “small” versus “large” goverment in this case. The fact is that some things, particulary certain freedoms pertaining to human rights (the right to choose, the right to marry) should be protected NATIONALLY. These rights should be protected by federal laws. Legal abortions and legal same-sex marriages do nothing but offend those that disagree with them. If you don’t like the idea of abortion, don’t have one. If you don’t like seeing same-sex couples married - turn the other cheek. Seriously, what does it matter? This is not a state issue. Not one state’s population 100% wholeheartedly opposes abortion. Those that want choice must be protected in ALL states. These are basic freedoms. You can’t ignore that, whether you agree with them or not.

Thanks for blogging my photo!

by: Monday Afternoon Links « Abstract Nonsense

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:45:23 +0000

[…] Amanda writes about McCain’s support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. McCain is a long-term opportunist - he doesn’t flip-flop incessantly the way Kerry does, but instead builds a persona in line with what is popular. When Bush was popular, he was a maverick in order to capture pro-Bush independents; then when it became impossible, he started shoring up the base. […]

by: Kristen from MA

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:29:38 +0000

“When conservatives promote “small�? government”

But not so small that it can’t control whether you give birth or not.

by: a reader

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:58:56 +0000

My first reaction to this post was, “Man, bellybuttons are really weird.”

Then, once I got beyond the picture, my second reaction was, “Who hasn’t figured out that McCain’s an asshole?”

Then, my third reaction was, “Hmm…bellybuttons kind of look like assholes…”

Then, my fourth reaction was, “OK, time to leave the office after a very loooong day.”

by: Chuut

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:42:11 +0000

Seems to me that McCain’s position is basically the same one he had when he opposed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. When that Ammendment to the US Constitution was being considered, McCain opposed it as he felt it was an issue for the states to decide. Many of those who would criticise him now praised him then. His stance hasn’t changed, the only thing that changed was that these critics don’t like it when the same principles work against their preferences.

I’m pro-choice, but I believe in the rule of law and state’s rights. McCain has held true to those concepts even if his critics will waver on them due to the issue in question. To me that makes McCain worthy of more respect than those who would put issues before process.

by: hf

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:08:16 +0000

oh, right, this system doesn’t recognize “end pointlessness” tags.

by: hf

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:07:27 +0000

My esteem for “libertarians�? falls by the minute. How can you claim to be against “big�? government authority and then troll around the blogs supporting police brutality?

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the spinning of the Chao
It is hovering o’er the table where the Chiefs of Staff are now
gathered in discussion of the dropping of the Bomb
Her Apple Corps is strong!

by: A Blog Around The Clock

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:32:46 +0000

Repeat this mantra every day: McCain is not a moderate maverick…

As John said right after the last election: Besides picking our candidates and races, I think the most valuable thing most of could do is to help shape the conventional wisdom. We blog, we write letters to the editor, we……