Originally Posted By skinnerbox Another reason why I'm glad this man didn't win in 2008: <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/18/446721/after-backing-anti-birth-control-blunt-amendment-mccain-now-says-gop-needs-to-get-off-war-on-women/" target="_blank">http://thinkprogress.org/justi...n-women/</a> <> After Backing Anti-Birth Control Blunt Amendment, McCain Now Says GOP Needs To ‘Get Off’ War On Women By Ian Millhiser on Mar 18, 2012 at 11:36 am Earlier this week, an Arizona state senate committee backed a “tell your boss why you’re on the pill bill” that would allow employers to demand proof that their employees are not using birth control for contraceptive purposes before their insurance will cover the pills. In an interview on Meet The Press this morning, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) slammed this assault on working women, and even urged his fellow Republicans to finally end their lengthy war on women’s reproductive health: GREGORY: Are you concerned at all to see the focus, with certain elements of the Republican Party, on social issues? In your own state of Arizona, there’s this contraception bill that even the governor has said would put women in the uncomfortable position where they had to say to their employers why they wanted contraception, and why it should be covered — is that a bad road? McCAIN: I am confident that that legislation will not reach the governor’s desk and if it did it would be vetoed. . . . It certainly does not reflect, in my view, the majority view of the people of Arizona. GREGORY: Do you think that there is something of a war on women among Republicans? McCAIN: I think we have to fix that. I think that there is a perception out there because of how this whole contraception issue played out — ah, we need to get off of that issue, in my view. I think we ought to respect the right of women to make choices in their lives and make that clear, and get back onto what the American people really care about. McCain’s concern for “the right of women to make choices” is touching, but it is also a very new development. Just this month, McCain backed the Blunt Amendment, a key prong in the GOP war on women that would have allowed employers to veto women’s access to contraception through their health plans. Nevertheless, McCain’s recent defection from the war on women is both a welcome development and a good political example for his fellow Republicans to follow. More than three-quarters of American agree with McCain’s new view that Republicans should stop forcing contraception into the national political debate. <> The GOP's recent all-out war on women is seriously hurting their election chances all over the nation, and not just for the White House. That's the only reason McCain has done this 180 spin from his support of the Blunt Amendment earlier this month. If you really felt this way, Gramps, that the GOP should back away from restricting women's reproductive freedoms, you wouldn't have voted for the Blunt Amendment in the first place. Just like all but three Dems (Nelson, Manchin, and Casey). Loser.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder So you'd have more respect for himif he stayed true to the War on Women?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Actually, I'd have the most respect for him if he quit lying through his teeth all the time just to remain in power in the GOP. I'd like for him to be CONSISTENT. Remember how he lied about DADT? How he would support it once the GENERALS supported it? Well... several years pass by and the GENERALS get in front of Congress and *surprise*... support DADT. McCain's head basically exploded. All of a sudden, the GENERALS were not to be trusted. They didn't know what the heck they were saying! "We need a study! We need more information! We need to closely investigate this more!!" Yeah, Gramps, whatever. You foisted off your responsibility to take a stand on DADT by delegating the decision to the one group you *knew* right down to your toenails would NEVER approve of DADT. You tried to play both ends against the middle, so you wouldn't be slammed for being against DADT by the moderates nor be slammed for being in favor of DADT by the conservatives. Then when the generals actually changed their minds and came out in support of it... WHAMMO! Your plan fell through and you were caught in a big fat hairy LIE! McCain is a coward. Whichever way the wind blows for political expediency. That's the way he's always rolled, like many politicians. And I'm sick of it.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Speaking of flip-flops, there was an interesting article on cnn.com today, regarding energy policy: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/18/politics/romney-obama-energy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/18/...pt=hp_t1</a> <<< According to Romney, Obama had an "election-year conversion" and now advocates increased U.S. oil drilling as well as natural gas and coal energy development. >>> Regarding "election-year conversions", I guess Mr. Romney would know.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I'll take any flip or flop if it's in the right direction.>> BS. I want honesty and integrity. If these losers are actually AGAINST women's reproductive freedoms, then they should have the intestinal fortitude to vote their conscience and stand by their decisions. I want to know what I'm getting in a politician when he/she runs for office. Constant flip-flopping like Romney is doing, like McCain has always done, just muddies the waters and makes our electoral process that much more difficult to navigate.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Taking a step back here, skinner, this isn't making much sense. Your anger would be better framed had he flipped to be FOR this stuff.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I want honesty and integrity.<< "Flip flopping" is often about that very thing. If your positions aren't evolving, then neither are you.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Your anger would be better framed had he flipped to be FOR this stuff.>> I respectfully disagree. The only reason Gramps is flipping on his original stance, is because he's now more afraid of what the GOP's war on women will ultimately do come November, than what the GOP leadership would have done to him, had he voted against the party line. McCain, like all of the other Republicans except for Snowe (who's retiring this year and doesn't need to worry about 'punishment' from the leadership), voted in favor of the Blunt Amendment. All of them except for Snowe; another lock-step vote to please the party leadership. But since then, Lisa Murkowski has publicly announced that voting for it was a mistake, realizing that she threw her much needed female constituents under the bus in a state infamous for very conservative macho oil riggers, ice road truckers, and fishermen who voted for Sarah Palin simply because she's MILF. Subsequent polling has shown that a large majority of the nation is against the Blunt Amendment and other bills restricting contraception access, in rather large numbers. So now we have moderate Republicans like McCain experiencing buyer's remorse over the anti-women's rights position the GOP has embraced this election year, and are starting to speak out. Too bad they didn't experience the buyer's remorse *before* they voted to restrict women's rights.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox In other words... I feel McCain voted for the amendment originally because he feared party retribution if he didn't. But now he realizes that the overwhelming majority of the nation doesn't like the GOP's 'war on women' and is having second thoughts about what he should actually be afraid of. Which, for Gramps, is not being re-elected to another term in a state growing crazier by the minute with ultra far right Republican fascists.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox And I believe those ultra far right Republican fascists will ultimately fail at the ballot box. YMMV.
Originally Posted By mele McCain supported it, realized it made people mad and changed his mind. We don't know if he actually changed his mind because he realized his support was wrong or if he is just saying that he changed his mind because he's realized the far-reaching consequences (meaning, he doesn't really think he was wrong, he just doesn't care enough to dig in his heels and suffer for this particular issue). I'm not convinced he really understands the issue and sides with women, just that he doesn't want the GOP to suffer the consequences. So, in other words, same political crap as usual. He doesn't deserve any pats on the head for this.
Originally Posted By mawnck Nothing gets done if somebody doesn't give them pats on the head for these things. Be realistic.
Originally Posted By mele No, I'd rather women finally just vote these bastards out of office. That would also be an efficient way of getting things done, no? Or, do we really just have to charm men into doing what we want?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't see anything wrong with an occasional flip-flop. At times the situation changes, the information you have changes, or what the public wants changes. It is entirely PROPER that politicians change to reflect that. After all, it is their job to represent us. That is what makes the Tea Party so damned dangerous... their complete unwillingness to ever bend or compromise. Can you EVER make a point without personal name-calling? I don't know what "Gramps" has to do with anything McCain has done or hasn't done. By the way... didn't your namesake "Skinner box" prove that animals modify their behavior in response to positive and negative feedback resulting from their actions? Go too far down this road and you'll have to change your screen name from “skinnerbox” to "teaparty".
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I'd rather women finally just vote these bastards out of office<< Not gonna happen. Be realistic.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I don't see anything wrong with an occasional flip-flop.>> Neither do I. But McCain flips on important positions more than "occasionally," RT. The worst being his refusal to honor his pledge to support DADT when the Generals changed their thinking and began supporting it. <<Can you EVER make a point without personal name-calling?>> Obviously I can. You're just upset because of I mostly do it in reference to public figures and/or political issues that you're in disagreement with me. <<I don't know what "Gramps" has to do with anything McCain has done or hasn't done.>> The man should have retired from politics a long time ago. Many of his positions such as the one on DADT and "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" do not reflect what the majority of the nation wants now. McCain is mostly stuck in the mid-20th century, politically and culturally. That is why I refer to him as "Gramps." (Stephanie Miller calls him "Grampy McSame" which I believe is totally fitting.) I highly doubt that you're completely above this behavior and never, ever engage in name calling for any public figure. So singling me out for this behavior seems a bit disingenuous on your part.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I liked the Y2K version of John McCain -- mostly moderate reasonable, will to buck his party now and then in the name of a more reasonable principle. McCain 2008 became a guy willing to give in to pressure from the far right in order to win, hence his selection of the inane Palin (shudder). Since then, he's really all over the map. Extreme rightwing one minute, attempting to be moderate the next. How can anyone know what he really believes anymore when it seems as if even he doesn't know?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan willing, not will. My new computer tries to "help" me by spelling words they way it thinks I want to. : p
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You're just upset because of I mostly do it in reference to public figures and/or political issues that you're in disagreement with me.>> No, more often than not I'm in agreement with your basic position. It just seems to me you have an extreme way of expressing that position. <<I highly doubt that you're completely above this behavior and never, ever engage in name calling for any public figure.>> Yes, I succumbed to calling Bush "Dubya", but that is about as disrespectful as I've gotten with politicians as far as name calling goes. I generally don't do it because the minute you do something like that you have totally lost any chance of changing the mind of someone who disagrees with you.
