Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Mud-slinging by Democrats gets McCain's vote

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 16 March 2008
HE'S not the president, at least not yet, but when John McCain shakes hands with Gordon Brown in Downing Street this week, he will be doing his best to look the part.
Having secured the Republican nomination, McCain is making London the centrepiece of a European trip designed to highlight the contrast between him and the chaos engulfing his Democratic presidential rivals.

While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
continue a nasty battle for their party's nomination, McCain is sitting pretty and able to act the part of globe-trotting statesman.

"He's going to come across as very presidential – that's the hope," said Phillip Klein of the American Spectator.

"While he will come across as a statesman, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are fighting over the latest silly conversation by their supporters."

A two-day visit to London is the centrepiece of a visit that also takes McCain to Israel, Jordan and France.

Officially, he is on senate business, but not many senators get to see the prime ministers, presidents and a king on their travels.

Brown can expect an easy time of it when he sits down to tea with the Arizona senator.

McCain has put national security at the centre of his presidential campaign.

It is not known whether he will ask Britain to match his pledge to keep US troops in Iraq for "100 years", but he will be keen to rekindle the 'special relationship' among one of a dwindling band of American allies.

National security also puts him on firm ground with the Republican party, the conservative wing of which remains suspicious of McCain's liberal social policies, not least his opposition to torture at Guantanamo Bay.

McCain, perhaps anticipating his Downing Street visit, has released a campaign commercial comparing himself to Winston Churchill and playing the great man's famous "Fight them on the beaches" speech.

The wonder for McCain's foreign hosts is that, after the disasters of the Bush administration, a Republican has a decent chance of becoming the next president.

The secret lies in McCain's career as an outsider. He was not part of the Bush Cabinet, and Americans do not hold him responsible for its many failures.

"He's been known for years as a maverick," says Klein. "Swing voters are not going to see him as a Bush clone."

This week he introduced a bill into Congress to call a one-year freeze on earmarks, a system which involves members inserting pet projects into federal spending plans.

The bill was defeated by a large margin but this played into McCain's hands, allowing him to protest that Congress is wedded to pork-barrel politics.

He also gets high marks for his 'apple pie' home life: no scandals have muddied his marriage to the presentable and attractive Cindy. The couple have three children, one of whom has served in Iraq.

It all adds up to a presidential hopeful who many Americans, particularly the all-important swing voters, would be happy with.

Polls show him tied with Clinton in a presidential race, and only a few points behind if the contest is with Obama.

By contrast, the Democratic nomination race gets ever dirtier.

With few real policy differences, Clinton and Obama have become focused on taking swipes at each others' character.

The once squeaky-clean Obama is under fire for his relationships with a landlord now being tried for fraud, and with a Chicago priest who has been outed for a number of racist remarks.

Clinton, meanwhile, is facing increasing pressure to declare her tax returns and make public papers from the time when she shared an office in the White House with husband Bill.

Obama's foreign policy adviser Samantha Power resigned after calling Clinton "a monster" in The Scotsman.

Then last week Clinton fundraiser Geraldine Ferraro quit after saying Obama's success was down to the fact that he is black.

The problem with all this is that it dents the credibility of both candidates, and makes their party look foolish. But despite the urgings for an early end to the race by Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean, they are in for a long fight.

This is because Clinton's only realistic chance of catching up Obama's delegate lead lies in getting Florida and Michigan to re-run their primary votes.

Originally, their elections were declared void because both states brought forward their primary dates without permission.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 15 March 2008 8:06 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
 
1

Rozz Fyffe,

Scotland 16/03/2008 05:03:19
I hope he gets in, he will let the generals get on with it,
2

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 16/03/2008 05:12:07
McCain? I like his politics. And I like his chips too.....
3

Liam,

16/03/2008 08:13:27
All the while the Democrats drag out their internal differences in an extended leadership contest the Republicans will benefit. The system of candidate selection in the States is appalling. What's wrong with one member one vote, with a contest decided on one day instead of dragged out across half a year. But April voters in one state are hardly voting for the same thing voters in another voted for in February and you end up with an extremely distorted election indeed. The states should be forced to except that they are electing a federal office and that rather than having 'their day' they will have to vote when everyone else votes. The number of times the Democratic poll has seemed to swing from Clinton to Obama to Clinton to Obama is evidence enough that the system is corrupt and anti-democratic, and being largely decided by the media and who their man (or woman) of the moment is.
4

,

16/03/2008 11:00:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

American,

16/03/2008 13:07:40
I dont like mccain. I dont like clinton. And I certainly dont want a president whose wife & preacher are anti-whitey, PLO sympathizing anti-jewish, and anti-US, #1 lib in the senate obama.
6

American,

16/03/2008 13:07:44
I dont like mccain. I dont like clinton. And I certainly dont want a president whose wife & preacher are anti-whitey, PLO sympathizing anti-jewish, and anti-US, #1 lib in the senate obama.
7

Publius,

Girvan 16/03/2008 14:21:20
Democrats in the US have a choice between a woman who voted for war in Iraq and a man who voted against. Give me the man every time.
8

57Nomad,

california 16/03/2008 18:30:49
#3 Liam

Liam said:

"What's wrong with one member one vote"

Liam could you please clarify this please, especially this, "one member." I don't know what you mean by that, member of what?

and

"But April voters in one state are hardly voting for the same thing voters in another voted for in February and you end up with an extremely distorted election indeed."

'An extremely distorted election,' can you explain why, where, and how the election becomes 'distorted.' The voters are voting for one of the candidates, how does that constitute, 'hardly voting for the same thing'?

and:

"The states should be forced to except that they are electing a federal office and that rather than having 'their day' they will have to vote when everyone else votes."

The states should 'be forced'? Liam, this exemplifies the truly unbridgeable gap between the US and Europe. America is not a monarchy. The underlying assumption is that power and rights descend from the State (in this case the Federal Government) down through the states and finally to the people.

In the US all the power is held by individual citizens. That power, which is the sum of the rights of each citizen, is loaned to the various levels of government by the citizens in order to protect their individual liberties. The Federal government is expressly forbidden to do what you are suggesting and for very good reason. The people know best. So the notion of the Feds 'forcing' the states to unify their primaries is tyranny and an affront to the citizens. The government exists at the pleasure of the citizens, and, being a free and sovereign people, the citizens of each state decide the details of the election.

and:

"The number of times the Democratic poll has seemed to swing from Clinton to Obama to Clinton to Obama is evidence enough that the system is corrupt and anti-democratic"

It's difficult to respond to this because the conclusions you have drawn, 'is evidence enough that the system is c
9

57Nomad,

california 16/03/2008 18:34:50


#8contd.

It's difficult to respond to this because the conclusions you have drawn, 'is evidence enough that the system is corrupt and anti-democratic' are illogical. It is proof of nothing of the kind. Poll fluctuate on a moment to moment basis. This is true no matter where an election is being held. Poll fluctuate in Russia, they fluctuate in Great Britain, they always fluctuate. If you are going to make a statement like that you are going to have to do more than simply proclaiming it. You are correct in saying that the press influences how people think about each candidate. We actually have a name for that and a description of it. Here is the description. "Bill of Rights Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This is what's called "Freedom of Speech." Your statement suggests that freedom of speech is anti-democratic. That is a tough one to swallow and it would be nice if you could explain yourself more clearly on this point.
10

ac3p,

Eseex Md USA 16/03/2008 19:24:46
For Liam:

I the US each sovereign state is responsible for its own election.

These primaries are not only for federal office but for state and local offices as well. It's just that in a presidential year, the top office is getting all the press.

Here in Maryland an incumbent congressman was turned out of office by a challenger from his own party on the same day that Obama and McCain won the state.

11

enmuffins,

novato california 17/03/2008 05:31:17
57Nomad said:
"The government exists at the pleasure of the citizens, and, being a free and sovereign people, the citizens of each state decide the details of the election."
Nomad,
Did the sovereign people of Florida vote for the early Primary?
12

Faustus,

17/03/2008 08:33:45
#8 "The government exists at the pleasure of the citizens, and, being a free and sovereign people, the citizens of each state decide the details of the election."

That's the biggest laugh I've read in here all year. What happened in Florida in 2000 when the pleasure of the people of Florida was that Al Gore should be their candidate, but the partisan state official (forget her name) ruled in favour of her man, and hence fixed the election for Bush. Please don't tell me there is anything fair, free or democratic about US presidential elections. Liam is right, the selection process is a joke.
13

57Nomad,

california 17/03/2008 21:51:44
#12 Flatus

Flatus said:

"That's the biggest laugh I've read in here all year. What happened in Florida in 2000 when the pleasure of the people of Florida was that Al Gore should be their candidate, but the partisan state official (forget her name) ruled in favour of her man, and hence fixed the election for Bush. Please don't tell me there is anything fair, free or democratic about US presidential elections. Liam is right, the selection process is a joke."

You are basing your opinion on a fantasy of yours. What you are describing not only didn't happen, it couldn't possibly happen. No Florida state official ruled 'in favor of her man,' thereby fixing the election. The reason why that is true is this. We have in the US what is called 'the separation of powers.' There is a legislative branch, an executive branch, and the judicial branch. The woman you referred to was the Florida Secretary of State. As such she was the official responsible for certifying the vote totals and was required by law to do so. Had she not done so by the required time she would have been in violation of the law and subject to rather severe penalties. Is that clear to you?

Later the Democrats went to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida court whose justices were nearly all appointed by Democrat governors and hardly above partisanship, ordered the certification to be nullified, and this decision was appealed to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme court upheld the general notion of a recount, recounts being allowed in nearly all elections, but that if there was a recount, then all the precincts had to be recounted not just the heavily Democratic precincts that the Democrat party had wanted. Consequently, there was no recount and the voting stood as originally counted. This should also make clear that your allegation the the Florida Secretary of State somehow fixed the election is ludicrous. Only the courts can make those kind of decisions. They are an independent branch of gove
14

57Nomad,

california 17/03/2008 22:03:09
#11 Muffy

"Did the sovereign people of Florida vote for the early Primary?"

Yes, I believe they did. The responsible state officials who moved the primary forward were all elected by the people of Florida. Few states other than California have provisions for the type of direct democracy I believe you are alluding to. The US practices a Republican form of government wherein elected representatives carry out the will of the people who elected them. This was the case in the shifting of the Florida primary. If the majority of Floridians wish to reverse this decision by their elected representatives then those representatives will be voted out of office in the next election and replaced by people who will move it back to where it was.



 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.