How McCain Could Win the White House

[WRJames]

One thing about the McCain vs Dems race is that everyone is going to run for the center, most likely.

Is Obama really a liberal? What has he said that would suggest that he is less of a social conservative than McCain? Both Obama and Clinton came out against same sex marriages yesterday in their responses to the California Supreme Court decision, and Obama's reaction to Bush's stupidity was to deny that he would ever consider talking to "terrorists". None of the candidates has mentioned the need for more cooperation with the UN.

All three of them are so busy pandering to the blue collar vote that they are abandoning any ideals that might impede their popularity with the least educated, least sophisticated element of the electorate. By the time we get to November its going to be Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Given that choice, McCain wins.

 

[Pure]

how mccain with take the white house

seeing him speak tonight to the NRA. he intends to get there as did GW Bush.

[ADDED: These are summary points, partly in my words, of claims I heard McC making in the excerpts from his speech played on CNN]**

Obama wants to talk to evil dictators. Obama is reckless, and would give them favorable publicity.

[Bush just implicitly compared Obama to Chamberlain; Obama would appease Iran, which wants to destroy Israel.]

Obama wants to surrender [has a "choose to lose" position] in iraq, instead of have victory with honor.
Obama would leave Iraq with a strengthened al qaeda, ready to exert its evil influence on Iraqi politics.

The old Republican standbys: my opponent is weak, of dubious loyalty to america, if not traitorous. i am the one who believes in America, and that we should stay strong and safe.

It's going to be a dirty one. will americans believe that mccain, more or less following in Bush's footsteps, will keep America safe?

Obana has reacted. Can he avoid 'swift boating'?

**
first url, exceprts of McC speech, second is whole speech, i believe

http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/videojohn-mccains-speech-nra-obama-reckless

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/418348

 

[SavannahMann]

seeing him speak tonight to the NRA. he intends to get there as did GW Bush.

Obama wants to talk to evil dictators. Obama is reckless, and would give them favorable publicity.

[Bush just implicitly compared Obama to Chamberlain; Obama would appease Iran, which wants to destroy Israel.]

Obama wants to surrender in iraq, instead of have victory with honor.
Obama would leave Iraq with a strengthened al qaeda, ready to exert its evil influence on Iraqi politics.

The old Republican standbys: my opponent is weak, of dubious loyalty to america, if not traitorous. i am the one who believes in America, and that we should stay strong and safe.

It's going to be a dirty one. will americans believe that mccain, more or less following in Bush's footsteps, will keep America safe?

Obana has reacted. Can he avoid 'swift boating'?

First, let me address the Swift Boating. John Kerry ran on among other things his record in Viet-Nam, and one of the things that enabled the Swift Boat Veterans group to gain ground was the commercials the DNC and Kerry was running showing pictures of John Kerry in Viet-Nam and the voice over actually said. "If you want to know what kind of man John Kerry is, just ask those who served with him." The commercial then went to two people who served with Kerry and said he was the most awesome thing ever.

The problem was the picture shown, something like nine of the men pictured hated Kerry, and thought he was a glory hound. So Kerry opened the door directly into his own face, and let the issue get fired up. The claims made were opinions, and like in any business, they were valid to the holder of the opinion. Kerry filed a lawsuit, and then dropped it over the claims made by the Swift Boat vets. We're left with obvious conclusion, again opinion, that the lawyers felt that Kerry couldn't win the lawsuit.

Now, the same old Republican tactics. I agree to a certain extent. It didn't work in 2006, but the problem is that the DNC isn't doing their job either. Pelosi and Reid have sat on their hands, and handed Bush everything he wanted on a Silver Platter. They rail before the cameras about how they're not going to go along, and then when they vote, they vote with Bush. A mind boggling and asinine activity if there was one.

I'm very disappointed in this election cycle, it's like we got the three weakest candidates running at the moment. McCain is an Ass, and I don't want him in the White House. I didn't see anyone running this time who did inspire me like Herman Cain did when he ran for the Senate here in Georgia. I talked him up, and was saddened when he didn't get more of the vote. Such is life though. I sometimes wish we could talk Zell Miller out of retirement, but that's another discussion.

I think the reason I'm disappointed with the Obama campaign is his seemingly inept manner of running. I'm left with the impression that this run was meant as a trial, sticking his toe in the water so to speak. I feel like he was surprised at how well he did. Remember that when he announced, Hillary was a shoe in. The contest wasn't a nomination, but a coronation. I'm impressed with some parts of his campaign, he delivers a hell of a speech by teleprompter, but is awful off the cuff as in the Debates. The Rev. Wright dust-up, how in the hell did they not see that coming? They were caught off guard by that? That should have been a no brainer that was discovered the first weekend after Obama said. "I'm thinking about running for President."

I'm left remembering the theory put forth by Douglas Adams. Anyone who wanted the office of President was automatically unqualified for the job.

My issues with Hillary are fairly long held. Almost as long held as my disagreements with McCain. Frankly, I don't see a way that I would vote for McCain. Satan could be running against him and I would shrug and say that I didn't see much difference between the two. Yeah, I'm a little annoyed with him.

To conclude an entirely too long post. There isn't anyone in the race right now that I would comfortably trust with a potato gun, much less the nation. Sad isn't it?

 

[Pure]

hi savannah man,

interesting points. may i ask what's wrong with mccain from your pov? i know there are conservatives with reservations, e.g. about his view of amnesty. are their reservations, yours?

 

[S-Des]

Obama wants to surrender in iraq, instead of have victory with honor.

Damn, this is such a weak-assed comment. It has nothing to do with "honor" (other than it being not honorable to leave people in a vulnerable position when we're the ones who put them there), it's all about making sure the country is stable before we pull out. There is a myriad of reasons cited (including a very interesting interview I just listened to with Madeline Albright), but to me the most important one is the people themselves. Bill Maher recently said that the Iraqis just want to kill each other anyway, so we should "pull off the band-aid and let them do it". I think this is cowardice of the highest sort (not to mention a level of arrogance and disrespect for people's lives that is staggering).

If you read Michael Yon or listen to almost any of the military leaders, there is progress at the moment that includes (most importantly) rebuilding infrastructure that gives people a chance to work, which gives them more options than just joining an extremist group to survive. It should have been accomplished long ago, but Bush's miserable post-war planning shouldn't be an excuse to leave these people when many have made a stand against the factions pushing violence. There has even been a program in place that arrested people committing or planning violence, then teaching them reading and various skills, then releasing them back into Iraq (with surprisingly low recidivism rates).

None of these guarantees "victory" (whatever that means at this point), but they are accomplishments that weren't possible just a year ago. The people who have turned on the extremists deserve better than to have us turn and run without concern for their safety. I couldn't give a shit about our "honor" or Bush's legacy....I don't want to see tens of thousands (or vastly more) murdered in a free for all if we leave before the time is right. I understand we can't stay there forever, but I also remember a mere 9 months ago when everyone here was "sure" that General Patraeus was lying to Congress, because things couldn't have possibly improved as much as he was claiming. Now that we know they have (and he was never proven wrong about a single claim), we've got Obama saying that if they "can't get it together in seven years, they won't do it in fourteen or twenty-eight", which is a completely disingenuous statement considering how bad things got preceding the surge. I don't care if the Democrats get credit for salvaging the situation, or if Bush goes down in history as the worst President, or whatever the fuck people worry about. I want those people in the middle of that mess to be given every chance we can give them. If someone comes up with a better answer (like involving NATO), I'm all for it. If the best they can do is, "Let them kill each other," then they can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Pure]

contrary to mccain, i don't think obama has called for immediate, 'damn the consequences' withdrawal. i'm not sure of his [O's] timetable for withdrawing "most" of the troops. my impression is one to two years-- a figure mainstream Dems roughly agree upon, afaik.

NOTE: "Obama wants to surrender in iraq, instead of have victory with honor." This is my summary and paraphrase of what i heard McCain say. Instead of 'surrender', McC may well have said 'immediate withdrawal.' i shall try to find a transcript of the speech.

ADDED: McCain's words about Obama were "choose to lose" in Iraq.

URLS: first is for excerpts, second for entire speech.

http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/videojohn-mccains-speech-nra-obama-reckless

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/418348

 

[S-Des]

contrary to mccain, i don't think obama has called for immediate, 'damn the consequences' withdrawal.

Well, his statements are pretty much immediate withdrawl, but he does stagger it over the course of 16 - 18 months (hence his 7 year comment). He was asked what he would do if his generals advised against it and he said it wouldn't matter (that the President sets the agenda). To be fair, no one can predict exactly what would happen, although most experts lean towards incredible chaos with a possibility of all out civil war (with foreign fighters pouring across the border to further destabilize the situation). This is a reason I lean towards Hilary on the Dems side, because she seems to be more cautious about the situation. I believe she'd be much better at seeking help from other governments, which might be a way to lessen the attraction for extremists who are attracted there by our troops presence.

This is my summary and paraphrase of what i heard McCain say. Instead of 'surrender', McC may well have said 'immediate withdrawal.' i shall try to find a transcript of the speech.

It's possible he said something like this. I don't think John seeks "glory and honor" in war, but I do believe he is concerned for the plight of the Iraqis (I'm pretty sure he's been on the ground there more than any other Congressman). Having two sons in the war (at least at one time....I'm not sure if they're both still there), I can see him not wanting to leave the country in total chaos because it makes the sacrifice we've already made seem meaningless. There is also the fact that he is a politician in a race, so there are going to be some harsh statements flying around. I guess the "victory with honor" thing rubbed me the wrong way. It really shouldn't have anything to do with that, it should be about the people who need to be supported for as long as we can.

I keep hearing people say they're "against the war" as if it means something. The war has been over for years, now we're trying to fix the mess (created by the war, then multiplied by the incompetent handling of the aftermath). People who only see staying as somehow doing Bush's bidding are really beginning to bother me. There are real people there whose suffering has gotten marginally better over the last year. Millions are returning to their homes. These are real and important issues and shouldn't get lost in the whole, "Bush is an idiot" discussion. I agree with you that McCain is wrong to pin all the bad things that might happen on Obama, especially when he's the one who didn't vote for the authority in the first place. I just get very nervous when Barack makes declarative statements and says he'll follow through no matter what he's told. The progress being made there deserves to be told without any political prism (whether things are positive or negative). Just around the time that Patraeus made his first appearance in Congress, two Liberal journalists (and very strong critics of Bush) came back from Iraq and pointed out that things had in fact improved and there was hope for the situation, only to be attacked mercilessly by bloggers and listed as the "Worst persons in the world" by Keith Olbermann. That situation and the Iraqi people's lives deserve better than to be treated as a political game. If Obama can prove to me that he has a better plan, I will not rule out switching allegiances. To me, that's the number one issue in this election (since neither candidate has a real plan to improve the economy or energy in the foreseeable future).

Sorry if I snapped at you. It's probably more my touchiness on the subject than what you said.

 

[SavannahMann]

My problems with McCain.

hi savannah man,

interesting points. may i ask what's wrong with mccain from your pov? i know there are conservatives with reservations, e.g. about his view of amnesty. are their reservations, yours?

First McCain was elected into the senate in 1986. He was one of those who campaigned on the Immigration reform of that era. He said that it would fix the problem. No, it gave Amnesty to millions, and just encouraged tens of millions to do the same thing.

First, my issue with Immigration. I liked the idea of Ellis Island. Among other things, it screened people for heath issues. I helped keep disease out of our population. Doctors, and I'll readily admit that many of them were barely medical people, identified and treated the sick, before they were allowed entry into our nation. Today's diseases include Ebola, Dengue Fever, and more than I can possibly list here. None of them are good, all of them are dangerous, and we should screen people coming in to identify, and treat these diseases before the person enters. Criminals should be refused entry, or at least screened more diligently to make sure they pose a low threat to our population.

McCain has made a career of insulting Conservatives, and then basking in the glow of the press for doing so. His campaign finance reform has made the situation worse, instead of better. It's made sure that only the rich, and powerful, will run for office, taking away the possibility that a poor or middle class person can hope to get in and make a difference. He made it a crime to run a negative ad for sixty days before an election. So from September on, I'm not allowed to run an advertisement saying he's a jackass. Even if it's true, and he is.

McCain and his gang of seven held up hundreds of appointee's to jobs, that were apparently so critical, that we needed them filled. He voted against the tax cuts because the rich would get to keep some of the money they earned. He says he's in favor of pro life, yet when an abortion amendment was proposed, he said he would not support it, nor would he vote for it. He says he's opposed to gay marriage, but when he could have voted for an amendment to ban it, he again decided that would be "un-republican" of him to do so. He is a liar. I have more respect for Obama, barely, than I do for McCain. If you are in favor of something, you are in favor of it. Denouncing Judicial activism is one thing. When you have a chance to really stand up and show you are opposed to it, you don't say that wouldn't be right.

Wouldn't be right? What about an amendment wouldn't be right? Giving the states the opportunity to vote on the amendment? The will of the people, as stupid as they are at times, is the purpose of our Government. For him to denounce Judicial activism, and then take no action when there is a chance to really start the ball rolling, shows he's words, with nothing behind them.

Gay marriage. Yes, I'm opposed. Here's why. Marriage was originally a religious practice. We started to put legal requirements on it when we started having divorces. Even though I'm married, I still need all the documents that anyone else needs like a will, power of attorney, oh, and let's not forget a living will. The arguments for it, are lame. The same liberals who can manage to find a way to get a thirteen year old girl across state lines to have an abortion without parental consent can't figure out how a homosexual man or woman can leave their belongings to someone?

Abortion, I really don't like it, but I really am not going to get upset about it. I don't like the way the argument is phrased. I prefer to drop automatically on the side of life. If I have a doubt, I'm going to decide for life. Yes, that means in the courts as well. No, I'm not opposed to the Death Penalty. Yes, I could throw the switch myself. Heck. In the case of Tim McVeigh I could probably manage to do him with a couple car batteries and a set of jumper cables. I prefer the death penalty to be used as sparingly as possible, about the same way I'd prefer abortions be used. In extreme and unusual cases.

Before I dash for the day, I'll give you an example of what I call a conservative answer. Convicted Criminals. They've served their time, and they've be returned to society. We pass more laws all the time making sure they aren't allowed to work, or live, anywhere really. We hold that conviction over them for life, never forgiving them for their error. Never giving them a chance to rejoin us chastised, and hopefully better people now. We set them up to fail, giving them almost no chance at life. Punishment for a wrongdoing is a social responsibility. So is forgiveness. We should forgive, if not forget, what they've done. We shouldn't pass laws prohibiting someone from working in a field, especially a manual labor field, because of a conviction. We do it all the time. I'm not surprised at the high rate of repeat offenders. I'm surprised it's not higher.

Long answer, but it's a complicated question.

 

[SavannahMann]

Must be tired, I forgot something

I decided this needed an additional post. Gay Marriage. I commented above I was opposed. I am, and I said shortly why. I didn't say something important.

I don't care who you sleep with, how often, or how many. What you do in your home, or wherever you do it, is none of my damn business. I've had, and have, gay friends. They know my feelings on the Gay Marriage, and they know I don't give a damn about their sexual orientation.

I wanted to make sure we were on the same sheet while you rip my a new one for my opinion. I'm not homophobic. I don't care what anyone does, so long as all parties are consensual. (I'm not going into a discussion of age here. Just assume I mean legal adults and leave it at that please?) I'm also a firm believer that No means No, not try again in a minute and see if I give in then.

I hope this helps your argument that I'm a horrible person for opposing Gay marriage. I'm off to bed now, I work the night shift for the next several days, and I'm off and running early.

 

[rgraham666]

You're not a horrible person for opposing gay marriage.

But you are a hypocrite for opposing it and claiming at the same time saying you're not a homophobe.

As one of the other posters on this board put it, "It's love. It's a gift. Why quibble about the wrapping?"

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Sorry, SM, but your assessment that marriage is a religious issue is historically incorrect, legally too. I don't feel like putting out page after page of text on a website but must strongly suggest that you read a couple of works by John Boswell. He was as brilliant and thorough a scholar as one can find, his book pages being about half footnotes (many of them in Greek!). Marriage is the legal joining of two families for the purpose of preserving family money and continuing the family. It is and remains to this day a civil contract. Any adult should be allowed to enter into whatever contract that adult wants. I stress the word "adult". Religion only stepped into the issue when the Vatican needed more money to build St Peter's and started selling the marriage blessing as a sacrament. It never was and is not now. Check with your theologially sound mainline religions. They say the same thing, it's a civil contract. All the church does is extend a blessing to those who want it.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes, I figured this was coming.

You're not a horrible person for opposing gay marriage.

But you are a hypocrite for opposing it and claiming at the same time saying you're not a homophobe.

As one of the other posters on this board put it, "It's love. It's a gift. Why quibble about the wrapping?"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobic Homophobic

1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

Now, I have and have had friends in the past who are homosexual. I've gone out an partied, with a group, and been to dinner and a movie with just the gay person. I've dined at, and had them dine with me. To the best of my knowledge, I've treated them no differently from any other friend as far as I know, or they have said. Yes, I asked when this issue came up originally.

I'm personally opposed to abortions, and have argued against them. Does that mean I'm opposed to womens rights? No. There is more to homosexuals than Gay Marriage, and more to womens rights than the issue of abortion. Only a fool would wrap all of the larger into the lesser issue.

It would be as if I argued the people should be allowed to carry firearms 24/7. The only exception being courtrooms. You would disagree, and I would declare that you're opposed to all civil liberties because you oppose the idea of people being armed at all times. It's dishonest to say the least.

Marriage. My recollection of history had the Marriage being first a Religious ceremony, and not until John Calvin and the Protestants did it get the duel requirement of Government and Religious approval. I think that was in the 1500's.

I'll agree on part of the Taxation argument. The Government will tax anything they can. Which is why some studies say that roughly fifty percent of your income is lost to taxes. We still have a tax on our phones here, to pay for the Spanish American War.

 

[rgraham666]

Surely you can do better than 'some of my best friends are.…'.

 

[S-Des]

Religion only stepped into the issue when the Vatican needed more money to build St Peter's and started selling the marriage blessing as a sacrament. It never was and is not now.

That's not true either as Moses laid down God's laws on what circumstances allowed couples to divorce. I'm also tired of every time someone objects to anything, they're immediately labeled "____phobic". It's a weak argument that just tries to cast aspersions on the person, rather than to actually discuss the substance of their disagreement.

I remember listening to a sports radio show where the hosts (two black men) were speculating about the reason Allen Iverson wasn't as popular as some of the other NBA stars. The first host decided it was because white people were afraid of his "blackness" (especially his corn rows & tatoos). That was the exact moment when I stopped taking people seriously who use that tactic.