Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Party Man or Maverick?

Submitted by Jon Henke on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 14:37
in

Who gets to claim the Maverick mantle in the 2008 election?   Soren makes an interesting point...

John McCain is not Bush. The Dems tried that messaging and it didn't work. It seems to me to be even more unlikely to work now. Sarah Palin is not Bush.  McCain and, to a lesser extent, Palin have launched attacks on Washington and the GOP in a way that Barack Obama is not doing and is probablty not capable of doing against his own party.

While Obama attacks McCain for voting with the President 90% or 95% of the time (depending on time scale) and with the Republican Party 90% of the time, that same measurement shows that "Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time."

I don't know that Congressional votes are really a good measure of independence, though.  There are too many other factors at play, and it doesn't tell us much about how McCain or Obama would prioritize issues and legislation in an Executive, leadership role.

So here's the point.

John McCain is attacked for voting with the President 90% or 95% of the time (depending on time scale) and with the Republican Party 90% of the time, but McCain can credibly claim to diverge from the Republican party on some very major issues: global warming, immigration, campaign finance, torture, judges (Gang of 14) and the relative priority of tax cuts versus balanced budgets. 

Where has Barack Obama diverged from the Democratic Party on a core issue or against a core Democratic coalition group?   While he may diverge on the margins on minor votes, I can't think of any significant examples of Obama being ideologically independent from the traditional Democratic interest groups.  His agenda appears to line up neatly behind the Labor Unions, the Identity Groups, the Anti-war Movement and the Environmentalist Movement.

Whatever you might say about McCain's recent voting record, there's no doubt that he can be very independent from the Republican Party establishment and from the power centers within the Republican Party.  For better or worse, the term "maverick" does apply to John McCain. 

Whatever else might be said of Barack Obama, he is not a maverick. Obama is very much the Party Man.   The 1960's Democratic Party.  

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Faith In the People

Submitted by ali on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 21:24.

For months I've welcomed the "McSame" strategy.

Voters, who are more aware than ever, will see through the title and vote against Democrats for employing politics of a prehistortic era.

I have great faith in the Indepedants and Moderates. McCain is one of them and they will not let this oppurtunity to finally select a man who puts a traditional spin on progressive changes into office.

As a free-market, fiscal conservative Republican,

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 23:04.

mere words cannnot express the true feeling I have for your post. So I will just express them in this little .gif for the record:

ex animo

davidfarrar

Words cannnot express the

Submitted by Jon Henke on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 23:11.

Words cannnot express the true feeling I have for your post.

My sympathies on your difficulties.  Feel free to let us know which part of the post you disagree with.  Was it the part about McCain diverging from the Republican Party sometimes?   Or the part about Obama rarely diverging from the Democratic Party? 

I have no faith in McCain or his "Progressive" chummies.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 23:54.

I have no faith in the wisdom of Independents or Moderates, especially in their leader's wisdom to pull us through the next four years of coming economic hardship.

True, Obama and the Democratic Party's ideology will fair the country no better, but at least we know where they stand and what to expect.

Worse case scenario, McCain wins. The economy slows. McCain will do something stupid his new-found Independent and Moderate friends would suggest, driving the economy into a "Great Depression" type economic  bust.

By 2012 the people will have had enough and blame fiscal conservatism for all of their economic hardships and usher in a new era of yet more Progressive Democratic rule for the foreseeable future.

Sound familiar?

Let me know. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 03:14.

. . .when you sign up member #3, OK?

Ouch!

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 09:52.

Seriously Dave, we already have the Libertarian, Constitution, America Frist, and some group of Freepers who promiting something called the Falcon Party which all claim to be the true voice of limited government and fiscal conservatism but they only seem to attract a bunch of fringe, dissaffected voters of one stripe or another.  

I mean how in the hell is the National Online party going to be any different?

Well, Ben, you see. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 14:50.

. . .Dave's party is different in that it seeks to "collectivize" disaffected voters from across the spectrum in order to bring back Reagan conservatism and nationalize the healthcare system.

You see how that'll work, right?

In that case i guess he is a...

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 16:53.

a fabian socialist rather than a marxian one.  I guess thats the lastest "Third Way" option for those who don't believe in gneuine free-market capitalism or full-bore socialism.

The National Online Party...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 17:47.

 ...is simply a model, attempting to apply the communicative power of the Internet to the  democratic process. It is designed to convert the peoples' voice within their own parties into a "special interest".  Special interests use money to obtain political influence. The people have only their numbers, their votes, which, if honestly collectivized, can be as powerful as any special interest, perhaps even more so.

Once collectivized, the wisdom of the crowd will insure that the party's leadership will accurately reflect the will of the majority.  As Frederic Bastiat pointed out, "When the people's true political aspirations are accurately reflected by their political parties, all will seek the common good."

In short, the National Online Party is not designed to operate independently, but within the present partisian political structure -- a fact my friend, Walt, has failed to comprehend.

Lastly, there are very formidable web issues by way of effective deliberative groupware yet to be developed that would allow this type of cyber structure to achieve success -- another fact that Walt seems to have missed. But with a determined effort and a few pennies, it can be achieved. Unity'08 proved as much, among other things, regrettably.

ex animo

davidfarrar

I'll grant you one point, Dave:

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 23:14.

Yeah, sure....

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 00:05.

...whatever, Walt.

animo

davidfarrar

Dude seriously,

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:55.

third parties don't work.  They are waste of time.  You want real change then you need to work with the two major parties.  Since the Dems are beholden to the far left your only chance is to support real conservatives during the primaries.  Otherwise you might as well play the lottery in hopes of getting rich.

Ben, seriously...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 11:43.

...the National Online Party isn't designed to operate independently from or against the other major political parties. As you rightfully point out, that would largely be a futile effort.  What I am suggesting is that the communicative power of the Internet can best be utilized for the  re-empowering of the party's membership voice within each political party.

It is my firm belief that both of the two major political parties have been largely taken over by special interests and the political elite and no longer represents their membership's political interest . The overwhelming and largely unsupported enthusiasm for the Sarah Palin's Veep appointment is but the latest example of this phenomena.

As I have stated, if we can cyberly collectivize a good proportion of all registered Republicans, Democrats and Independents, the major political parties will then start acting to pursue common goals we all face. It can be done. As I said, Unity08 proved it is feasible. All we have to do is develop the deliberative groupware to the next level.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Unity '08 proved. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 16:25.

. . .that if you cobble together a gaggle of idiots and instruct them to come up with a list of priorities, they will eventually do something idiotic like trying to draft Michael Bloomberg as a presidential nominee.

What's most amazing about you, Dave, is that you seem convinced that you've hit upon some sort of idea that hasn't occurred to anyone else before.  It's as if you believe that the only thing that kept Ross Perot from being elected was the lack of "collaborative groupware".

As of now, Unity '08 is proving to be only slightly more successful than the National Online Party.

I am so alone.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 18:07.

Walt, admit it...you know nothing about Unity'08's "collaborative" groupware effort; do you?

What Unity'08 did prove is that given an opportunity to have their voices heard, and accurately counted, people would participate, and they would participate in larger and larger numbers. Unfortunately, what Unity'08's cyber efforts also proved was that the temptation to corrupt the group's voice was directly proportional to the number of participants. In other words, the larger a "collaborative" group became, the stronger the temptation to corrupt that group's "collaborative" voice became.  In my view, the only way to address this systemic problem is through structural transparency.

Your point about third parties is well taken. However, as I have stated on several occasions, the National Online Party is not designed to be a stand-alone political party, but an intergal party of the present partisian process, with the exception of the "Independent" section, which due to its present lack of any party structure, may find one useful.

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

 

Tiffany Jewellery is the best

Submitted by dizhi on Fri, 08/07/2009 - 22:02.

Tiffany Jewellery is the best online United Kingdom jewelry stores where you can buy the cheapest Tiffany & Co silver jewelry. Our huge selection of Tiffany provides the best Tiffany & Co jewelry, including Necklaces, Pendants, Bracelets, Earrings, Rings at the lowest prices. Tiffany co In 1950 Tiffany's had its biggest boost in popularity as Truman Capote's Breakfast at Tiffany's was published. Tiffany's was shot to worldwide fame in 1961 when the film adaptation staring Audrey Hepburn was released. This film and its star became icons, as did Tiffany's links of london Hundreds of links of london jewellery in stock,Free Gift Wrapping,Complete links of london jewellery collection,including links of london necklaces,links of london bracelets,links of london earrings.