Bayh is trying to create a Blue-Dog Senate Coalition

[President Marokai]

1. Social Issues do matter to me, in fact they matter more to me now than a few months ago. I just don't consider them an absolute deal breaker (particularly since some things like Roe being repealed will probably never happen). And in all frankness neither do you given your comments before.

2. Why do you need to hold economic positions out of 'principle' for them to be valid? Almost all of my economic views were actually the Democratic consensus from 1992-2006. But then again you and your ilk don't consider the Clinton wing of the Party to be 'real' Democrats, whatever the hell that means.

Then why in God's name did you vote for McCain? You once told me "McCain Democrats aren't really Democrats."

Also, my economic score is basically -4.5, and I consider myself a welfare-state loving, Social Democrat. Your economic score is basically +6 and you think you're a Clinton Democrat?

[Mint]

1. That was when I was more liberal on foreign policy, plus on some issues I think McCain would end up governing more centrist than he campaigned (e.g. Taxes).

2. Clinton did some deregulation, reformed welfare, and attempted to privatize social security despite favoring some liberal policies like UHC. He might have governed more conservative than his actual beliefs but his overall policies in that field (as well as others) were not that different from my own views.

Anyway, do you seriously think the Republicans would consider me one of them? The same people who call Arlen, McCain, etc. liberal RINOs? Please.

[President Marokai]

1. That was when I was more liberal on foreign policy, plus on some issues I think McCain would end up governing more centrist than he campaigned (e.g. Taxes).

2. Clinton did some deregulation, reformed welfare, and attempted to privatize social security despite favoring some liberal policies like UHC. He might have governed more conservative than his actual beliefs but his overall policies in that field (as well as others) were not that different from my own views.

Anyway, do you seriously think the Republicans would consider me one of them? The same people who call Arlen, McCain, etc. liberal RINOs? Please.

It doesn't matter what they call it, it matters what you are. And being a Democrat simply because you wouldn't be hailed as a Republican doesn't make you much of a Democrat.

I'm curious though, how could Obama's foreign policy be so utterly horrible that you would vote for McCain with Palin as Vice President, a one year recession, and horrible social issue positions of the Republican Party, over Obama?

[Mint]

It doesn't matter what they call it, it matters what you are. And being a Democrat simply because you wouldn't be hailed as a Republican doesn't make you much of a Democrat.

My views are still closer to the Democrats and you know it.

I'm curious though, how could Obama's foreign policy be so utterly horrible that you would vote for McCain with Palin as Vice President, a one year recession, and horrible social issue positions of the Republican Party, over Obama?

I could write several pages on why I preferred McCain to Obama in that area, most of which I've articulated before to you. Also his positions on social issues was not particularly terrible. McCain was no worse on gays than Obama, was anti-torture, pro-2nd amendment, etc. While anti-choice and less open to decriminalization, his views on social issues honestly don't strike me as worse than Obama's in practice. Besides that he'd have to contend with a Democratic Congress and had a more moderate record on issues like tax cuts  before he got into obvious campaign mode anyway.

Oh and to be honest, I just don't think a 1 term senator from Chicago is really qualified for the Presidency nor do I really like Obama. Sorry.

[President Marokai]

My views are still closer to the Democrats and you know it.

Forgive me, but weeks on end of reading your posts about us "angry liberals" and how "stupid" left-wing economics are, and your recent rejection of Theodore Roosevelt, I'm getting skeptical.

I could write several pages on why I preferred McCain to Obama in that area, most of which I've articulated before to you. Also his positions on social issues was not particularly terrible. McCain was no worse on gays than Obama, was anti-torture, pro-2nd amendment, etc. While anti-choice and less open to decriminalization, his views on social issues honestly don't strike me as worse than Obama's in practice. Besides that he'd have to contend with a Democratic Congress and had a more moderate record before he got into obvious campaign mode anyway.

Oh when did John McCain become a reasonable man on gay rights?

n 1996 McCain voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would have prohibited discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation.[297] When the bill was reintroduced in 2006, McCain told ABC's This Week, "I don't think we need specific laws that would apply necessarily to people who are gay."[297]

In December 2007, McCain said he supported the don't ask, don't tell policy, citing reports from military leaders that "this policy ought to be continued because it's working."[298]

In 2004, McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, arguing that each state should be able to choose whether to recognize same-sex marriage.[299][300] He supported the failed 2006 Arizona initiative to ban same-sex marriage[301] and the successful California Proposition 8. [302] He also voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 which barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.[303]

When asked if he supported civil unions for homosexuals, McCain said: "I do not."[304][305]

When it comes to the torture issue, John McCain (in contrast to Obama) had some nice words about that at the beginning but flipped and flopped on torture throughout 2007 and 2008.

McCain said in March 2007 that he would "immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases".[113] On September 19, 2007, he voted against restoring habeas corpus to detainees.[114]

In October 2007, McCain said of waterboarding that, "They [other presidential candidates] should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture."[115] In February 2008 he voted against HR 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which included provisions that would have prevented the CIA from waterboarding prisoners.[116][117]

As for the 2nd Amendment (Which really almost no one cares about and is just an easy issue to pull out of one's backside for political points or to fill a slot in a line before "etc.") the two were basically the same. McCain has mediocre grades from anti-gun control organizations.

When it comes to foreign policy, McCain made a series of gaffes while trying to run as the experienced foreign policy candidate. On the economy, John McCain is self admittedly a moron. On Social issues, he is a conservative in almost every way, just with a slight federalist streak.

You really should stop with this "moderate myth" perpetuated by the media. And if you're voting for someone on the hope that they moderate once they're in office, that's very shortsighted and some might say dangerous way to conduct one's self.

[Χahar]

What difference does it make? Washington is just a stopover.

While true, I'd like him to be denied what he wants on issues like these.

He's not a Senator in order to accomplish anything, is he?

Eh, I'm sure he'd like to some things. We wouldn't want Bobby to get too bored down there.

What exactly would he do?

[JSojourner]

America; Where one party is to the right, and the other party is more to the right.

Or as I like to say, "Indiana:  Where even our Democrats are Republicans."

[President Marokai]

America; Where one party is to the right, and the other party is more to the right.

Or as I like to say, "Indiana:  Where even our Democrats are Republicans."

I like it!

[Holmes]

I find the hostility and arrogance displayed by the liberals in this thread to be amusing. Keep it up guys, the Republicans are anxious for more members.

This is why I'm not exactly against this.

I mean yeah, I'd rather all my Democrats be gay loving, pro-choice, religious equality people, but it's good to have the ones who are less so to be in a group and not all over the place, more specifically with Republicans. Besides, this doesn't mean much, I think. These Democrats will still vote with their colleagues anyway.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A truly horrible person. Obama was supposed to be the most liberal Senator. Where's his token liberal in his cabinet?