Hacker News Reader

Comment by jhancock | Hacker News Reader

ok, you had me until the last paragraph at which point you stuffed in your love for McCain ("place him among the best of any living politician") without providing anything to back that up. Precisely what "actions" over the last 8 years would you point to that prove McCain so "open-minded"? And yes, I do mean over the last 8 years. I am a "what have you done for me lately" kind of guy.

Torvolds' blog post is well written. Most none of us gets to meet the people we vote for in person. We have to settle for what we feel and perceive. It is not black and white.

View on HN

As a european, I see at least one action that makes McCain quite open minded. When the US Army decided that Airbus won the contract against Boeing, Obama took a protectionist stand and voted for the cancelation of it, while McCain said that Airbus won legitimatly and therefore, the contract shouldn't be canceled, because it's the way competition work : the best offer wins.

The contract was eventually cancelled. I believe that this kind of protectionism harms everybody, the US and the Europeans. Now Boeing won't try their best to make a better offer than Airbus, since they know they won't be allowed to fail, and the US taxpayer will ultimatly end paying higher for an inferior product.

“Man is neither angel nor beast; and the misfortune is that he who would act the angel acts the beast.” - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

I have no love for McCain; I'm certainly not voting for him. However, he is famous for supporting causes on both sides of the partisan divide (ex. supporting global warming measures, opposing the Bush tax cuts, supporting the Iraq War, supporting open immigration, etc). It would be hard to detect a coherent ideology in his voting patterns. That is why his selection in the primary process gave self-described "conservatives" fits.

That's true on some parts (though supporting Iraq was never crossing party lines) but I think you have to judge by both words and actions. His actions told one story, but then as soon as it came time to run for the big office his words reversed. He went from preaching against the agents of intolerance to nominating one as his VP.

You have to assume that if he is elected, he will do most of what he says he will and live up to his words of late. He will keep or further the Bush tax cuts (or try to anyway) despite having been previously opposed to them because to do otherwise would greatly lessen his chances of reelection. Even 2nd term Presidents, who have that pressure removed, still try to stay close to their promises for the next guy from their party.

If anything, their words are probably a better predictor of future actions, since they'll be held accountable. Every time they do something opposite of what they promised, the Daily Show will roll the video they archived.

>If anything, their words are probably a better predictor of future actions, since they'll be held accountable. Every time they do something opposite of what they promised, the Daily Show will roll the video they archived.

This certainly doesn't seem to have bothered Bush.

He's mostly done what he said he would. He said he'd cut taxes for the wealthy, he did.

TV shows a bunch of clips of him being a moron, but for the most part he's lived up to his campaign promises.

Nah... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slmr024JYaA

As much as I despise Bush, that video has very little substance. It's more bashing his mistakes than exposing his not having done what he said he would.

It points out some areas where he was wrong, but not really where he didn't try to do something he said. In that video, he said he'd lower taxes and end the surplus and he did. He said he'd try to fix Social Security, and in his own way he did.

Love him or hate him, the guy did pretty much what he told us he would. The problem was he also did a lot of stuff that was clearly never discussed, like ignore Katrina or launch the Iraq war. But that's not really hypocrisy.

I don't like that video either, but Bush clearly discussed having a humble foreign policy, not being the world's policeman, and not nation building. To me, that seems fairly inconsistent with what happened.

Well, that was in the pre-9-11 world. You have to admit that was sort of a game changer. Even though I didn't agree with the Iraq war when it happened, at that point it was clear that something has to be done about radical Islam. That wasn't the answer, but not being the world's policeman isn't possible when people are flying planes into buildings and bombing subways.

I would say that one was less an act of hypocrisy on Bush's part and more an adaptation to the post 9-11 world.

I would say Bush snatched the opportunity presented by 9-11. Before 9-11 he would not been able to do a tiny part of the damage he did. Come on... Iraq was not caused by 9-11: 911 only made an invasion based on doctored intellige possible.

Well, that's largely true but misses the point. The world is much different than it was in 2000. The War on Terrorism is real. Whether or not you agree with the Iraq War (and I never did) you can't call him a hypocrite for changing his foreign policy in the light of new and very important information.

You would expect the same from a good President.

Although terrorist threats are real, I don't consider our War on Terror to be anything but a method to ensure spending against it is the size of war spending. Bush is a war president who is the son of a war president who is the son of a Senator that was also made loads of money off wars. People do what they know.

On the general topic if words matter in politics -- my answer is "no"

Actions are all that count. People are a fickle bunch, and it's an old trick to sound good on TV and then do whatever you feel like -- as long as it's complicated enough to the average Fred that he's not going to get pissed.

That's true for both parties. Look to how people act in the past -- it's a good predictor for the future. (Aside from 9-11 type events)

"It would be hard to detect a coherent ideology in his voting patterns."

Weird, wouldn't a coherent ideology be something good? Because if there is no coherent pattern, I have to ask how can you be sure what he will vote next, and what if not ideology/conviction has determined his votes?

(Note: I don't know anything about McCain or Obama, just curious about the content of your argument).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com