"There is no doubt," McCain on running for President
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:36:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  "There is no doubt," McCain on running for President
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: "There is no doubt," McCain on running for President  (Read 1409 times)
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 23, 2007, 02:10:08 AM »
« edited: January 23, 2007, 02:39:24 AM by Frm. Governor Naso »

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/rss/s_489782.html

Video of McCain interview on his campaign for president, what a McCain Administration would bring: http://pittsburghlive.com/images/video/multimedia.php?res=hi&v=382&1=1
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2007, 03:57:17 PM »

Naso, McCain's a total RINO and a liberal.  Why do you support him?
Logged
TomC
TCash101
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,973


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2007, 04:05:23 PM »

Naso, McCain's a total RINO and a liberal. 

McCain's Lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 83 percent. He is quite far from being a liberal. He supprts sending more troops to Iraq. He supports legalizaing that a person is first a person at conception. He is for states rights on gay marriage, but was against gay marriage in Az. Hew is a conservative Republican, who, on occasion, reaches out in a bipartisan manner and takes a moderate position which he then espouses on every TV show he can.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2007, 04:10:03 PM »

Of course McCain's running.  Once you have an exploratory committee, you are effectively a candidate.  You can raise $ and do everything any other candidate can do.  We have even seen (in 2004) undeclared candidates who had exploratory committees participating in debates.  So McCain's announcement that he was forming an exploratory committee back in November was effectively his announcement of candidacy.  No real news here.
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,510
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2007, 05:05:13 PM »

Naso, McCain's a total RINO and a liberal. 

McCain's Lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 83 percent. He is quite far from being a liberal. He supprts sending more troops to Iraq. He supports legalizaing that a person is first a person at conception. He is for states rights on gay marriage, but was against gay marriage in Az. Hew is a conservative Republican, who, on occasion, reaches out in a bipartisan manner and takes a moderate position which he then espouses on every TV show he can.

Best summation of McCain I have seen here.  He was far enough to the right in 2004 to get Gary Bauer's enthusiastic endorsement over Little Lord Bush.  And McCain hasn't drifted toward the center since then.  If anything, he has drifted away.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2007, 05:41:42 PM »

he co-sponsored the BCRA for restricting political speech and increasing political welfare and he's pretty anti-gun.  Qualifies as a liberal for me.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,922


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2007, 06:05:31 PM »

His campaign finance reform and immigration positions are both marks against his conservative credentials. Depending on the atmosphere in 2008, the latter could be fatal for his chances at the nomination.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2007, 08:57:23 PM »

There is also no doubt McCain is now trailing Obama and Edwards (at least according to Rasmussen).
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2007, 12:13:10 AM »

There is also no doubt McCain is now trailing Obama and Edwards (at least according to Rasmussen).
and Hillary as well.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2007, 12:17:23 AM »

There is also no doubt McCain is now trailing Obama and Edwards (at least according to Rasmussen).
and Hillary as well.

McCain was leading Hillary in the last Rasmussen poll.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2007, 12:18:52 AM »

Everytime we go for a Carter-type "change" candidate, America gets screwed. Obama is that type of candidate.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2007, 12:32:01 AM »

Actually, it could well be argued that by NOT going for a Carter-type change in 1948, The U.S. was infinitely more screwed by Truman's questionable leadership. Dewey's Carter-esque tenure could have been much more advantageous.

Incidently, what do you mean by Carter-esque change? If you mean to imply that every time a reform minded Democrat takes over for an astoundingly unsuccessful Republican, then there's a few Clinton, FDR, and Wilson fans out there who may disagree.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2007, 12:33:41 AM »

Actually, it could well be argued that by NOT going for a Carter-type change in 1948, The U.S. was infinitely more screwed by Truman's questionable leadership. Dewey's Carter-esque tenure could have been much more advantageous.

Incidently, what do you mean by Carter-esque change? If you mean to imply that every time a reform minded Democrat takes over for an astoundingly unsuccessful Republican, then there's a few Clinton, FDR, and Wilson fans out there who may disagree.

Carter, Clinton...the only two democratic presidents since 1969. Both were elected to bring "change" and both brought weak foreign policy. In 2009, we are still gonna be fighting the war on terror and can not have weak foreign policy.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2007, 12:39:00 AM »

Forgive me, I somehow forgot that every President before 1969 was irrelevent. And an internationalist diplomacy is not 'weak'. If anything, it's a more adept use of the most powerful foreign policy tool the U.S. has: economic power. Guns and bombs may look good on CNN, but McDonalds and Nike do a lot more to placate potential enemies.

And can we please drop this ridiculous 'war on terror' term. It's no more possible to wage war on terrorism than it is to wage a war on salt.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2007, 12:45:32 AM »

Forgive me, I somehow forgot that every President before 1969 was irrelevent. And an internationalist diplomacy is not 'weak'. If anything, it's a more adept use of the most powerful foreign policy tool the U.S. has: economic power. Guns and bombs may look good on CNN, but McDonalds and Nike do a lot more to placate potential enemies.

And can we please drop this ridiculous 'war on terror' term. It's no more possible to wage war on terrorism than it is to wage a war on salt.

You are a defeatist, that's what I get from your remarks.
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,510
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2007, 04:25:27 PM »

Actually, it could well be argued that by NOT going for a Carter-type change in 1948, The U.S. was infinitely more screwed by Truman's questionable leadership. Dewey's Carter-esque tenure could have been much more advantageous.

Incidently, what do you mean by Carter-esque change? If you mean to imply that every time a reform minded Democrat takes over for an astoundingly unsuccessful Republican, then there's a few Clinton, FDR, and Wilson fans out there who may disagree.

Carter, Clinton...the only two democratic presidents since 1969. Both were elected to bring "change" and both brought weak foreign policy. In 2009, we are still gonna be fighting the war on terror and can not have weak foreign policy.

Let's take a look at this objectively. 

Jimmy Carter's foreign policy was regarded as weak, why?  Most people cite the hostage crisis.  First, that crisis was precipitated by decades of U.S. support for one of the most brutal dictactors in modern Middle Eastern history.  And Carter was hardly the first American President to back the Shah.  Uninformed students of international politics will say that Reagan frightened the Iranians with his toughness, that he gained the release of our hostages.  That is pure balderdash.  The hostages were held until his inauguration to embarass Carter, whom the Theocrats ruling Iran considered to be a friend of the Shah. Reagan had nothing to do with the release of the Iranian captives.  But, he went on to face hostage <u>crises </u> throughout his Presidency.  And he was as impotent to stop them as Carter.  The only choice Carter or Reagan had was a direct militarys strike on Tehran.  If not following through on that is weakness, then both were equally weak.  With Reagan being a tad more inept tactically, because Operation Sitting Duck in Lebanon occured on his watch.

With regard to the Soviet Union, I do give Reagan much higher marks than Carter.  Both men had a clear passion for bringing about tough controls on the proliferation of nukes.  Carter did some good in this area, but Reagan deserves credit for doing more.  (And I give Carter low marks for his grain embargo, which hurt U.S. Farmers more than it hurt the Soviets.) It may sound flip, but Reagan charmed the Russians into Perestroika and Glasnost.  Mikhail Gorbachev found, in Ronald Reagan, more of a close friend and less of a rival enemy.  But let's not kid ourselves and name Reagan the savior of the world with regard to the downfall of the Soviet behemoth. Ronald Reagan was one part of the puzzle, but just one.  Lech Walesa and the incredibly brave men and women of Solidarity should be revered as heroes for the role they played.  Vaclav Havel and other reformers did the hard work of pricking the conscience of their people and the world. Let's not forget the significant contributions of Karol Wotyla (Pope John Paul the second).  Former Presidents from Harry Truman to Gerald Ford also deserve credit, as do American citizens, allies and military personnel. And what about the moderate Communists themselves?  The changes they made, willingly in most cases, gave their people a taste for more. 

Then we have this notion that the Clinton administration gave us a weak foreign policy.  It couldn't be any weaker, any less competent or any more inept than the current one.  Somalia is cited as a Clinton disaster.  I might agree that the Clintonian response to Somalia was.  (I think I might have carpet bombed Mogadishu and said, " you all" after the way those American soldiers were treated.)  But we all forget.  Clinton did not put American troops into the IMPOSSIBLE mess that Somalia was.  George Herbert Walker Bush did.  He sent in our troops a month or two before Clinton took office.  And while I can't prove it, I believe he did so knowing in full that failure was the only outcome.  He intended to start the next administration off on bad footing.  On other matters, the Clinton responses to terrorism (frequent airstrikes on Iraq and occasional strikes on Afghanistan and Iran) were about what you would expect from any President from Harry Truman to GWB the first.  Ronald Reagan did not invade Libya and occupy it for years.  He launched an air strike.  Was his response weak and flaccid?  No.  But Clinton's was?  That's intellectually disingenuous.

I will fault Clinton on two foreign policy points.  I believed then, and despite the success of our mission, I believe now that the Balkan affair was a mistake.  I concede that our intervention saved hundreds of thousands of lives.  I concede that it was (and has been) carried out with remarkable efficiency in terms of loss of life. The Dayton Accord, though hardly a panacea was a good first start.  Yet still, I feel we were in the wrong.  I believe the Europeans to be fully capable of managing this region of the world. Indeed, with the decline of the Soviet machine, I think any more than a token U.S. presence in Europe is unecessary.  If American withdrawal from Europe means Germany, Italy and other nations have to step up their military expenditures, so be it.

President Clinton himself has said his worst decision was not to intervene in Rwanda.  I fault him, too.  While I believe Europe was capable of stopping the Balkan madness with minimal U.S. participation, I believe the Clinton administration erred egregiously in not demanding a forceful and vigorous European, African, and ultimately -- international -- response to Rwanda. Yes, even if it meant U.S. troops would lead the way.  Rwanda's African neighbors were in no position to effectively intervene.  So a multi-national peacekeeping force consisting of both African and non-African troops was essential. 

All this to say, Carter and Clinton made foreign policy mistakes.  At times, both looked less than strong.  But I fail to see how the current President looks any stronger.  Indeed, his bungling of Iraq makes the Clinton intervention in Eastern Europe appear Pattonesque, at least if you judge in terms of ending genocide with virtually no loss of U.S. life.  And the Carter handling of hostages was no more or less flaccid than the Reagan approach to the same issue.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 12 queries.