Posted on 07/27/2008 7:09:26 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Presidential challenger John McCain said Sunday that he supports a proposed ballot initiative in his home state that would prohibit affirmative action policies from state and local governments. A decade ago, he called a similar effort "divisive."
The reversal comes as McCain, a conservative senator from Arizona, seeks to tailor his policies and rhetoric to independent-minded voters who will determine the outcome of November election.
Both McCain and Democratic rival Barack Obama have accused each other _with good reason _ of "flip-flopping," a charge that carries weight with independents who seek consistency and authenticity in their political leaders.
McCain was asked specifically Sunday whether he supported an effort to get a referendum on the ballot in Arizona that would "do away with affirmative action."
"Yes, I do," said McCain in an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
The Republican senator quickly added that he had not seen the details of the proposal. "But I've always opposed quotas."
Over the years, McCain has consistently voiced his opposition to hiring quotas based on race. He has supported affirmative action in limited cases. For example, he voted to maintain a program that encourages the awarding of 10 percent of spending on highway construction to women and minorities.
In 1998, a resolution pending in the state legislature would ask Arizona voters to eliminate most preferences based on race, gender, color or ethnic origin. McCain warned against using ballot proposals to outlaw quotas or racial preferences.
"Rather than engage in divisive ballot initiatives, we must have a dialogue and cooperation and mutual efforts together to provide for every child in America to fulfill their expectations," McCain said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
It sure is..
He should just quote Reagan for all of August.
“The reversal comes as McCain, a conservative senator from Arizona...”
Uhhh, right.
Now he’s talking.
I’ll take it. Let’s hear what his opponent has to say.
So does Justice Thomas
"Yes, I do," said McCain in an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
The Republican senator quickly added that he had not seen the details of the proposal. "But I've always opposed quotas."
This is true: He has been consistent in opposing preferential affirmative action based on skin color, gender, ethnicity.
And with good cause too. Arizona has suffered a great deal of the same ailments CA suffered: The Human Bean counters demanded that public job X have 4 slots filled with persons of a specific skin color; but no one of that skin color applied; therefore, the job was not and could not be filled. Whether or not a Human Bean of another color trained, studied and was pining for the opportunity; too bad, job goes unfilled.
MaCain is starting to sound conservative. Well, it’s a first step in the right direction. I hope he keep moving that way.
For later.
If he keeps this up, I just might vote for him.
I’m not sure exactly what to do. I mean, I find myself in unfamiliar territory...
Agreeing with John McCain. If he keeps changing his positions on everything he might just become conservative enough I’ll have to vote for him.
A bit of an exaggeration, but only a bit.
Oh. That's right. McCain has been ever declared in this forum as "not a conservative, therefore, not even conservatives issues he supports should be given any positive attention or merit." No, blast him, the man. To hell with his visions, his proposals; any concurment he posits with conservatism.
Thistle-grinding must be so much more fun. Can't support conservative issues; can only blast the man; and go way overboard on Obamamania. What grist for the left, no?
Oh, well.
Of course opponents will say he is racist... even though affirmative action itself is racist at it's very core since it assumes that people of color are not equal and therefore need an advantage.
Alia, not sure you read my post closely.
Strictly sarcasm... there are some folks who will say what they feel is right and not bow to convention.
I want my country to be strong and it pains me to think all of the work Reagan and many others before did would be flushed down the toilet. I pray for John McCain and, if he is elected president, I just have to pray somebody is whispering in his ear that has some semblance of a conservative mindset.
But I fear that will not be the case.
So we wait...
I work for a staffing company and one thing I found very interesting is that, legally, we cannot do any staffing based on helping a firm meet affirmative actions targets. Any order that includes any requirements as to race, gender, etc. has to be refused.
It is perfectly legal for the federal government to award a contract with quotas in place, but illegal to do any hiring based on those quotas.
Unless there’s a BFOQ, of course. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)
A BFOQ is a legal exception to an otherwise discriminatory hiring practice that is “reasonably necessary to the normal operation of a particular business.” The BFOQ may be requested if “the essence of the business operation would be undermined if the business eliminated its discriminatory policy.” Note that allowing a company to hire employees based on their religion, gender, or national origin where those factors are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise does not permit religion-based, gender-based or national origin-based differences in pay to those holding the same job. With a BFOQ the burden of proof always lies with the employer.
Three principles to keep in mind if an employer is requesting a BFOQ.
Essence
Applies only to qualifications that affect employee’s ability to perform job
Romantic paternalism not allowed (for example denies women jobs that are dirty, dangerous, strenuous, but higher paying).
Cannot argue BFOQ for customer preference.
Authenticity (e.g. Male models).
All or substantially all persons of class cannot perform essential duties job duties.
Third party risk (e.g. Pregnant workers judged individually, not as class).
RACE: The law specifically states that it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of religion, gender, or national origin, except where any of these factors is “a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.” However, the law says that race can NEVER be a bona fide occupational qualification.
RELIGION: Besides the exemptions given religious organizations and educational organizations directed toward the propagation of a particular religion, religion could be considered a bona fide occupational qualification when membership in a certain religion is reasonably necessary to the performance of a job. For example, a company selling religious articles or books might be allowed to insist on hiring sales people of the particular religion involved. But the company could not refuse to hire a janitor because of his religion, as it would not be “reasonably necessary” to the operation of the business. (Note: This is a hypothetical example only. It would be very unusual for religion to be a BFOQ for any job outside a religious organization.)
GENDER: The gender as a bona fide occupational qualification causes more difficulty than any of the other provisions of this section of the law. Various state laws limiting the jobs women are allowed to do and regulating their wages and hours are now largely invalidated because they were based, in large part, on the traditional separation of “man’s work and woman’s work.” On several occasions, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said it will take a very narrow view of this exemption. According to its guidelines, the following factors are not considered valid reasons for establishing a BFOQ based on gender:
Assumptions about employment characteristics of women in general, such as the assumption that women have a higher turnover rate
Stereotyped opinions about the genders, such as the belief that women are better at assembling intricate equipment but not as good at aggressive selling
The assumption that a particular group of employers, employees, clients, or customers prefer working only with men or women.
Women applicants and employees must be judged on the basis of their individual abilities. You cannot refuse to hire or promote a woman just because most women or women in general cannot do the job. It’s unlawful, for instance, to classify jobs as “light” and “heavy” and to exclude women from the heavy jobs. The employer has to decide whether an applicant or employee, male or female, is individually capable of doing the work.
AGE: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits employers from discriminating against workers who are 40 years of age or older. The purpose of the Act is to promote the employment of older workers based on their ability rather than their age, to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment, and to help employers and workers find ways of resolving problems arising from the impact of age on employment. The Act does not protect under-40 employees from age discrimination in the workplace.
According to the ADEA, the following three elements must be met to establish a BFOQ.
The age limit is reasonably necessary to the essence of the business.
All or substantially all individuals excluded from the job because of age are not able to perform it safely or efficiently.
Some of the individuals excluded possess a disqualifying trait or susceptibility that cannot be explained except by the use of an age-based qualification.
There is a legal age requirement to perform that type of work. (For example, commercial truck drivers who cross state lines must be at least 21 years old, but the impact on insurance rates does not constitute a BFOQ for raising the age to 25.)
Like you, I too want the very best for our country. What do I know? I think Christopher Hitchen's (most recent article) has humorously nailed it. Obama's got "connections". And while some posit that some of the other GOP Presidential contenders were better, more principled, less principle, the entire lot was lousy, etc., what matters, ultimately, is how the camera (the media) presents or allows presentation.
Every last one of the GOP Candidates was good, and has good connections, not just within the US, but worldwide. But how were these candidates presented? Do we have a conservative PRESS? We have a few. The vast majority of the "handlers" (Media) are Democrats and Liberals.
Asserting that one is going to vote 3rd candidate is more a rejection of the Media, as far as political statements go; and of course the Media thinks such a vote is more grist for humor.
The idea of the "media" electing a candidate is, actually, a far more involved matter. It has everything to do with what types of connections a candidate has (worldwide); and what has been the past record on how a candidate might lend itself favorably to what interests the media the most.
Those who assert to not vote, are simply handing the Liberal Media a sanction: to continue to do what they do.
Say for example, Mitt Romney. Mitt came out as the pro-business candidate. Well, outside of advertisements and increasing rates, what can Media to get out of a Mitt Presidency?
Huckabee, they enjoyed; but I think the Media suspects Huckabee could just as readily harpoon the Media, in comedy, no less, should he be elected President. Ron Paul would have just given the media endless exhaustion; akin to their having to repeat a writing exercise on the chalk board, over and over. Giuliani, they liked. What they didn't like was how good he was at not only getting liberal voters to sway to his position on those things "law & Order"; but his complete ability to undermine those things the Media holds dear -- dictating to the Presidential Elect.
And so, they framed up the picture to elect John McCain. Why? Because they think they might get some of the "newer" visionary things the Media wishes for. Some. But on the other side, they'll get to keep their jobs writing anti-McCain editorials, too. It's a win/win for the Media interests, playing both sides against the middle.
But with Obama, the Media knows they'll get the whole Magilla; that Obama is quite happy to be loved by the Media; and so the Media knows it'll get all it wants out of an Obama President. That's starting to look rather dicey. And because, he can then blame the Press for any mistakes, misquotes, misdirections. I think this has them a tad worried.. And it should. Obama is a lose/lose, no matter how they spin. It's too late. They're, the Media, on record. So the best they can do is write Obama's "vision" thing for him, so they can analyze the pitfalls in advance, and those areas where he might be inclined to turn on them, and hurt them. They'll have their scripts ready to go.
Thanks for the reply.
The media is going to win for ratings sake no matter what happens, because they don’t report the news; they create it.
Of course, they do have their liberal bias and want things to swing hard left. I absolutely felt the frustration in your previous post and that you want what’s best. When I mentioned wanting what’s best, I was speaking of the struggle I have deciding what to do.
I’ve had little problem in the past drawing a clear distinction and being able to vote clearly, if not with a small amount of hesitation. But it seems more and more the lines of right and wrong are blurred in the world and in politics, while becoming much sharper in my mind.
I think there is a strong move by some to push this thing towards McCain just because he wears the “R”. Isn’t there more to right and wrong than a campaign button?
Thanks, again Alia.
GG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.