If McCain were President Today...

[12th Doctor]

would the left be demonizing him as badly as they are Bush?

[Lunar]

I sure as hell wouldn't.  I would prefer the guy over most of the left.

[12th Doctor]

I sure as hell wouldn't.  I would prefer the guy over most of the left.

You don't demonize Bush to begin with though.

You disagree with Bush, but you aren't like one of these Alfie or Spinning Crackpot (forum equivilent to a seminar call) types.

[The Duke]

John McCain would not be demonized because

1.) He is not nearly as openly religious, and therefore is less irritating to the media.

2.) He knows how to work the media, as oppsoed to the Bush people who try to seal themselves off from the media.

3.) He'd have made fewer mistakes to begin with.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

would the left be demonizing him as badly as they are Bush?

Nope

[NHPolitico]

would the left be demonizing him as badly as they are Bush?

On Iraq, yes. He'd be like a pro-life President Lieberman, which is sort of like a President Zell Miller.  The left would hate him because he wasn't Gore or Nader or Kerry or Dean or pick-your-leftist-politician.  That would represent about 20% of the country max.  John McCain would not even formally announce he's running for president until the September convention. It would be a laugher of an election season.  

McCain is more of a hawk than Bush on North Korea, advocating that  "force could eventually prove to be the only means to prevent North Korea from acquiring a nuclear arsenal" with the end result being a "military occupation of North Korea."  Specifically, McCain calls for across-the-board U.N. sanctions; a U.S. blockade to interdict "critical shipments;" a threat to China that if it does not cooperate Japan will go nuclear; no negotiations with Pyongyang until it halts all nuclear programs, surrenders all its enriched uranium and plutonium fuel rods, and dismantles its nuclear reactor; and a promise to act unilaterally if that is required.




 

[MarkDel]

would the left be demonizing him as badly as they are Bush?

On Iraq, yes. He'd be like a pro-life President Lieberman, which is sort of like a President Zell Miller.  The left would hate him because he wasn't Gore or Nader or Kerry or Dean or pick-your-leftist-politician.  That would represent about 20% of the country max.  John McCain would not even formally announce he's running for president until the September convention. It would be a laugher of an election season.  

McCain is more of a hawk than Bush on North Korea, advocating that  "force could eventually prove to be the only means to prevent North Korea from acquiring a nuclear arsenal" with the end result being a "military occupation of North Korea."  Specifically, McCain calls for across-the-board U.N. sanctions; a U.S. blockade to interdict "critical shipments;" a threat to China that if it does not cooperate Japan will go nuclear; no negotiations with Pyongyang until it halts all nuclear programs, surrenders all its enriched uranium and plutonium fuel rods, and dismantles its nuclear reactor; and a promise to act unilaterally if that is required.




 

This is absolutely right on target.

[raggage]

Agreed. I'd even consider voting for the guy...

[Ben.]

I'd vote for him... thing is a McCain Administration (I can't help feeling) would have less of the corrupt edge which Bush's does, don't get me wrong I don't personally think Bus is deeply corrupt but the likes of Ashcroft and Cheney and Rumsfield are to an extent fairly underhand in many of their dealings and further more the whole means by which Bush came to office does not really lead a great deal of strength to the idea of an open and fair administration...

I mean I'd have voted for McCain in 2000 (only back then i was far more left leaning so i wouldn't have) but in 2004 i would have...

A McCain win would have been decisive (but not as crushing as some like to believe)…

 

…this would have meant he would not have been seen as somehow (as this is not my attitude towards the Bush Admin) “illegitimate” the left would have received a profound “beating” from this the senate would have been much the same, and then again in 2001 there would have been 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan, the midterms may well have lead to their still being a very close senate and GOP house but despite this Moderate and Conservative Democrats like Lieberman, Bayh, Breaux, Nelson and Miller would have assured McCain of a workable majority in the senate. The Budget would have been balanced but still affordable tax cuts targeted at the middle classes would have been introduced and the economy would have begun to recover with a surer foundation than it is at present. Schwarzenegger would have still won in California. The USA would have gone into Iraq but with different leaders at the defence department I think that the war would have been over quickly an Iraqi government established quickly with the US not forced to occupy the country but instead allowed to take a peripheral role training the new Iraqi Army and building US bases in the country, it is then very possible that McCain (far more internationals then even Bush) may have even attacked Syria.

In November McCain faces Howard Dean (Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman would not have run, Kerry becuase he was friends with McCain the others because they could not win) and while McCain has alienated some European nations (not to the extent Bush has) he enjoys very solid approval ratings of around 53% and goes on to beat Dean’s “Peace” Ticket by a wide margin…

   

[ATFFL]

Ben, you are a little too rosy on the situation under McCain, but not much.  We would be running deficits, but less.  We would have gotten a similar tax cut to Bush's first, but not a second round, more likely a Reaganesque slight scale back.

The run up to Iraq would be nearly identical, France is not going to change its self interest for McCain.  McCain would make a more balanced presentation on the reasons for going in.

Iraq is where you probably are too rosy, I don;t see it going much better.  Probably takes 9-12 months to set up a new government.

Overall, ver good an highly plausible, but a little too optomistic, I think.

[Ben.]

Ben, you are a little too rosy on the situation under McCain, but not much.  We would be running deficits, but less.  We would have gotten a similar tax cut to Bush's first, but not a second round, more likely a Reaganesque slight scale back.

The run up to Iraq would be nearly identical, France is not going to change its self interest for McCain.  McCain would make a more balanced presentation on the reasons for going in.

Iraq is where you probably are too rosy, I don;t see it going much better.  Probably takes 9-12 months to set up a new government.

Overall, ver good an highly plausible, but a little too optomistic, I think.

Well its' McCain I can be forgiven for being a little rosy

[The Duke]

I agree with ben that Iraq would be going better, but not that the budget would be balanced.

[elcorazon]

would the left be demonizing him as badly as they are Bush?

no, not at all.  He would have been a much better President than Bush and might have had an easy election in 2004, regardless of how close 2000 might have been (not as close as it was, I don't think).

[© tweed]

would the left be demonizing him as badly as they are Bush?

No

[zachman]

would the left be demonizing him as badly as they are Bush?

No

I second that, as long as he didn't do something foolish like conquer Iraq- and I don't believe he would. However if the war in Saudi Arabia- which is what I think he would have done- was going very poorly and Iran had the bomb, he would be like Truman. Otherwise he would be like Eisenhower.

[Ben.]

would the left be demonizing him as badly as they are Bush?

No

I second that, as long as he didn't do something foolish like conquer Iraq- and I don't believe he would. However if the war in Saudi Arabia- which is what I think he would have done- was going very poorly and Iran had the bomb, he would be like Truman. Otherwise he would be like Eisenhower.

I think with the evidence we had received about Iraq (that we thought was true) almost any administration would have been likely to attack Iraq that said any administration other than the Bush Administration (Which has always had an odd fascination with Iraq since day 1) may have studied the evidence more carefully… in the end McCain and Iraq wouldn’t have been dissimilar to Gore and Iraq perhaps a longer preamble to war, more concern to national egos at the UN (so Russian, Mexican and all the other neutral countries supporting it) and war in the fall I expect with a quick handover but with American and NATO troops remaining (France of course is outside of NATO so they don’t need to be asked about it ). An important thing to remember is McCain is inclined toward a neo-conservative way of thinking (as are many Republicans and Democrats weather they admit it or not, most of those ear marked for a Gore administration where inclined to this view Holenbrook, who would have been Sec of State for example, Rubin, Lieberman etc…) so there would still have been an emphasis on internationalism, which is no bad thing.          

[zachman]

would the left be demonizing him as badly as they are Bush?

No

I second that, as long as he didn't do something foolish like conquer Iraq- and I don't believe he would. However if the war in Saudi Arabia- which is what I think he would have done- was going very poorly and Iran had the bomb, he would be like Truman. Otherwise he would be like Eisenhower.

I think with the evidence we had received about Iraq (that we thought was true) almost any administration would have been likely to attack Iraq that said any administration other than the Bush Administration (Which has always had an odd fascination with Iraq since day 1) may have studied the evidence more carefully… in the end McCain and Iraq wouldn’t have been dissimilar to Gore and Iraq perhaps a longer preamble to war, more concern to national egos at the UN (so Russian, Mexican and all the other neutral countries supporting it) and war in the fall I expect with a quick handover but with American and NATO troops remaining (France of course is outside of NATO so they don’t need to be asked about it ). An important thing to remember is McCain is inclined toward a neo-conservative way of thinking (as are many Republicans and Democrats weather they admit it or not, most of those ear marked for a Gore administration where inclined to this view Holenbrook, who would have been Sec of State for example, Rubin, Lieberman etc…) so there would still have been an emphasis on internationalism, which is no bad thing.          

I'm sorry to break it to you Ben, but Iraq is not as much a threat as Iran or Saudi Arabia, and any other administration that would have chosen a retaliation to 9/11 would have done so in Fall of 2001 and would have gone after at least one of those two countries in addition to Afghanisthan.