McCain: a Maverick no longer - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-11-2006, 01:24 PM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,211
Local Time: 12:27 AM
McCain: a Maverick no longer

potential problems with McCain ...



[q]Why It's Dangerous For the Maverick To Be the...Front Runner

By KAREN TUMULTY

As a rallying cry. "Common sense conservatism" doesn't have quite the ring of "Straight Talk Express." But the new slogan on the website of John McCain's presidential exploratory committee--a slogan he manages to repeat at least three times in every speech he gives these days--tells you all you need to know about how different this presidential campaign will be from his last one. McCain '08 will be a bigger, more conventional operation--a tank, not a slingshot. The prevailing wisdom about McCain used to be that his bipartisan appeal would make him a sure bet in a presidential race--if only he could get past the Republican primary. But as more and more of the party establishment climb aboard a campaign that McCain has not yet even formally launched, it's starting to look as if the opposite may be true. By trying to become the perfect candidate for the primaries, McCain could be creating difficulties for himself in a general election.

His hard-line position on Iraq is a perfect case in point. McCain has continued to press for more troops there, and spent last week dismissing the Iraq Study Group recommendation to bring them home as nothing short of a recipe for defeat. That's the kind of strong, consistent hawkishness that G.O.P. primary voters look for. "Besides," says McCain strategist Mark Salter, "it's what he believes." The problem is that exit polls in last month's election said only 17% of voters overall share that view, which could leave the other 83% wondering whether McCain's famous independent streak, so appealing on most issues, would be such a good thing to have in a Commander in Chief who has the power to take the country to war. Already there are signs that his image is taking a hit. In the CBS/New York Times poll, McCain's favorability rating slid 6 points, to 28%, between January and September.

McCain insists that he has always been more conservative than many of his fans believe him to be. But the most important perception people have about McCain is not about ideology; it's about integrity. After staking his reputation on the moral high ground by speaking truth to power on issues ranging from deficits to torture, McCain is uniquely vulnerable to anything that hints of hypocrisy--even on questions that ordinary politicians would get a pass on. To have a shot at winning a presidential election these days, for instance, it is nearly a requirement that candidates opt out of the federal finance system, forgoing its matching funds because it's too difficult to mount a credible campaign within the law's spending caps. But that move, however pragmatic, would look bad coming from an author of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform law.

Also, it's harder for McCain than most to explain away inconsistencies. How, for example, could a deficit hawk vote to make President Bush's tax credits permanent after opposing their passage in the first place as fiscally irresponsible? Or why, after declaring Jerry Falwell to be an agent of intolerance during the brutal 2000 primary campaign, did McCain deliver the commencement speech last May at Falwell's Liberty University in Virginia?

Such overtures might make inroads in a skeptical Republican base, but these shifts make some of his longtime allies worry. "A profile in courage can become a profile in unrestrained ambition," says former Reagan White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein, who was one of the few G.O.P. establishment figures to support McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. "He has to remember who his friends are and not spend his integrity on one-night stands with those who will never fully trust him."[/q]



negative, Ghost Rider?
__________________

Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-11-2006, 05:08 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:27 AM
I was a McCain voter in 2000, but it doesn't look like I'm going to be one in '08. Instead, I'll be voting for someone in the Democratic primary. That was weird, voting in my first ever Republican primary to vote for McCain against George Bush. I had a serious partisan identity crisis as I've always voted Democratic.
__________________

verte76 is offline  
Old 12-12-2006, 05:07 AM   #3
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 04:27 AM
I liked Irvine's topic title for a previous McCain thread....McCain:bending over for Falwell.
Hideous image though.
Question: Irvine511, does it make you wanna go hetero?
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 12-12-2006, 08:29 AM   #4
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,211
Local Time: 12:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by blueyedpoet
I liked Irvine's topic title for a previous McCain thread....McCain:bending over for Falwell.
Hideous image though.
Question: Irvine511, does it make you wanna go hetero?

no. but it makes me want to gouge my eyes out.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-13-2006, 01:41 AM   #5
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 04:27 AM
maybe their not so dissimilar
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 05:19 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: mar-a-lago delenda est
Posts: 20,580
Local Time: 12:27 AM
McCain is one of the few Republicans I've always held a lot of respect for (well, at least since I started following politics in the 2000 campaign), and one of the few right-wingers I'd actually consider voting for if I could.

Personally right now I don't see another option for the Republicans for '08. Giuliani is the only one who really comes close as far as I've seen.

If McCain runs, it will take a pretty solid candidate from the Democratic side to retain my support. Not Hillary, though. That would be probably the dumbest thing Democrats have done in a long time to have her on the ballot (at least at this point - people will be voting for her based on her husband's presidency rather than her qualifications, and that could be really dangerous).

Sometimes I wish I could vote in American Presidential elections - to see something as critical to the free world go down and have no say whatsoever is a little unsettling.

But then I remember I live in Canada, and I have the power to boot out Harper, and that makes me happy too.
DaveC is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 07:48 AM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,753
Local Time: 12:27 AM
I lost respect for McCain during the 2000 primaries and he's done nothing to win it back since.

He was never the maverick people claim he is. He just managed to frame the discourse in such a way to convince people (through the media) that he's really independent minded. Bullshit, he's cut from the same cloth as the right. I wouldn't vote for him in a million years.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 09:20 AM   #8
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,211
Local Time: 12:27 AM
i could handle a McCain presidency -- a sure thing, if some posters are to be believed, so sure, in fact, that we might as well not even bother having an election in 2008 -- if for no other reason than i do think he's actually an adult, and pretty much anyone is going to look good in comparison to the rhesus monkey currently in office.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-13-2006, 10:36 AM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:27 AM
I think McCain's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq is going to go over like a lead balloon. We just voted the Republicans out of power in Congress over Iraq. We'd have to "win" the war for a Republican to get in, something that's not likely to happen.
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 01:31 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 04:27 AM
McCain lost me in '04 when he kissed up to Bush as much as he did. Shameful
U2democrat is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 01:23 PM   #11
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,211
Local Time: 12:27 AM
[q]McCain no longer rocks in Granite State
By Brett Arends
Boston Herald Business Columnist
Thursday, January 18, 2007 - Updated: 12:17 PM EST

As Mitt, Hillary, Barack and a dozen others jump into the presidential stampede, something interesting is happening in New Hampshire.

For seven years, conventional wisdom has said that the state’s pivotal independent voters would line up behind maverick Sen. John McCain, as they did so famously in the 2000 GOP primary. But new polling data, to be released later this week, will suggest that might no longer be the case.

Manchester, N.H.-based American Research Group finds that McCain’s popularity among New Hampshire’s independent voters has collapsed.

“John McCain is tanking,” says ARG president Dick Bennett. “That’s the big thing [we’re finding]. In New Hampshire a year ago he got 49 percent among independent voters. That number’s way down, to 29 percent now.”

American Research Group, which is New Hampshire’s leading polling company and has been operating in the state since 1976, polled 1,200 likely Granite State voters in the survey.

Bennett says ARG is finding a similar trend in other states polled, including early primary battlegrounds like Iowa and Nevada. “We’re finding this everywhere,” he says.

The main reason isn’t hard to find: His hawkish stance on the Iraq war, which is tying him ever more closely to an unpopular president. “Independent support for McCain is evaporating because they view him as tied to Bush,” says Bennett.

The McCain camp yesterday said the senator, who is pushing for a bigger troop surge in Iraq than the president, will stick by his guns. “He has been and will remain committed to achieving victory in Iraq,” a spokesman said.

New Hampshire is among the states that allow independents to vote in either party’s primary. It was their support that gave McCain his huge primary victory there over then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush in 2000.

If the senator is losing that base, it opens the GOP race to other challengers. And it weakens his strongest pitch to Republican die-hards - namely that his appeal to independents makes him the most electable candidate in the general election.

“It’s significant that McCain is going down rather than up at this critical juncture in the early maneuvering,” comments Larry Sabato, who chairs the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “It suggests that, contrary to conventional wisdom, John McCain may not be secure as the GOP front-runner. But a lot can change.”

The big question for 2008: Where will all those independents end up?

Mitt Romney could have made a strong pitch to them if he weren’t instead running to the right. ARG’s poll finds some like Rudy Giuliani. Others, switching sides, are warming to Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

But most are now up for grabs. [/q]
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-18-2007, 01:32 PM   #12
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 64,184
Local Time: 12:27 AM
one can only hope that mayor mike decides to run and the majority of the country decides to ignore the fact that he's jewish and vote for him anyway
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 02:11 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]McCain no longer rocks in Granite State
By Brett Arends
Boston Herald Business Columnist
Thursday, January 18, 2007 - Updated: 12:17 PM EST

As Mitt, Hillary, Barack and a dozen others jump into the presidential stampede, something interesting is happening in New Hampshire.

For seven years, conventional wisdom has said that the state’s pivotal independent voters would line up behind maverick Sen. John McCain, as they did so famously in the 2000 GOP primary. But new polling data, to be released later this week, will suggest that might no longer be the case.

Manchester, N.H.-based American Research Group finds that McCain’s popularity among New Hampshire’s independent voters has collapsed.

“John McCain is tanking,” says ARG president Dick Bennett. “That’s the big thing [we’re finding]. In New Hampshire a year ago he got 49 percent among independent voters. That number’s way down, to 29 percent now.”

American Research Group, which is New Hampshire’s leading polling company and has been operating in the state since 1976, polled 1,200 likely Granite State voters in the survey.

Bennett says ARG is finding a similar trend in other states polled, including early primary battlegrounds like Iowa and Nevada. “We’re finding this everywhere,” he says.

The main reason isn’t hard to find: His hawkish stance on the Iraq war, which is tying him ever more closely to an unpopular president. “Independent support for McCain is evaporating because they view him as tied to Bush,” says Bennett.

The McCain camp yesterday said the senator, who is pushing for a bigger troop surge in Iraq than the president, will stick by his guns. “He has been and will remain committed to achieving victory in Iraq,” a spokesman said.

New Hampshire is among the states that allow independents to vote in either party’s primary. It was their support that gave McCain his huge primary victory there over then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush in 2000.

If the senator is losing that base, it opens the GOP race to other challengers. And it weakens his strongest pitch to Republican die-hards - namely that his appeal to independents makes him the most electable candidate in the general election.

“It’s significant that McCain is going down rather than up at this critical juncture in the early maneuvering,” comments Larry Sabato, who chairs the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “It suggests that, contrary to conventional wisdom, John McCain may not be secure as the GOP front-runner. But a lot can change.”

The big question for 2008: Where will all those independents end up?

Mitt Romney could have made a strong pitch to them if he weren’t instead running to the right. ARG’s poll finds some like Rudy Giuliani. Others, switching sides, are warming to Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

But most are now up for grabs. [/q]
Unlike candidates in the Democratic party, McCain is sticking to what he knows is best for the country. Clinton, Edwards, and certainly Obama, don't even touch McCain when it comes to knowing and understanding US National Security interest and Foreign Policy. The Democratic candidates are concerned about getting votes, McCain is concerned about having the best policy for the country in National Security, something he has dedicated his life to.

McCain's incredible record of service to this country is something that the general republic will soon be reminded of and will contrast significantly with the Democratic opposition and will indeed impact peoples decisions on who to vote for in November 2008.
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 02:22 PM   #14
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 64,184
Local Time: 12:27 AM
if the democrats can't win the white house in 2008 then they should really just fold the party.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 09:32 PM   #15
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 12:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
if the democrats can't win the white house in 2008 then they should really just fold the party.
Just like the GOP should have when they couldn't control Congress in over 40 years?

Right. Let's get some perspective here and fewer histrionic statements. The Democratic Party was dominated by Kennedy/Johnson, and when that fell apart, the Democratic Party went into a tailspin. RFK's assassination certainly contributed to their problems. Then Bill Clinton dominated(/ates) the party, and it's back into that same old identity crisis that they're currently digging out of.

Think the GOP is immune from that? Here's a party that has so closely identified itself with religious fanatics that its presidential choices are limited. McCain is probably their only hope, which means that he's an easy target for the Democrats to rip down over the next two years. Giuliani? Too much baggage to make the religious fanatics support him.

Beyond that, we have the "neo-con" generation, which have, basically, been the same cast of characters since the Nixon era. As formidable of a group as they have been, they're not going to live forever, and a handful of them have already died. The GOP is going to have a rather huge power vacuum once they die, and they're bound to fall into a tailspin for at least a few years.

But let's not underestimate this: McCain is formidable in his own right, and he certainly has a great chance of winning this election. But, compared to the wave of popularity he had a few years ago, McCain is much more vulnerable. His actions since 2000 have seemed much less "maverick" and much more party loyal. His rather unpopular stance on Iraq is also a vulnerability. However, even if he is to win, there's still the issue of who's after him in the party. And currently? There's no one. The GOP is quickly becoming the party of dinosaurs and cavemen.
Ormus is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 09:49 PM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,226
Local Time: 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus

The GOP is quickly becoming the party of dinosaurs and cavemen.
Optimistic thinking. Unfortunately the GOP is doing a great job attracting young hateful and bigoted men, if they start running we're in for a very bumpy ride.
BVS is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 10:06 PM   #17
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 12:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Optimistic thinking. Unfortunately the GOP is doing a great job attracting young hateful and bigoted men, if they start running we're in for a very bumpy ride.
Attracting young, hateful, and bigoted men will mean repulsing moderate independents who ultimately determine the results of every election.
Ormus is offline  
Old 01-18-2007, 10:13 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,211
Local Time: 12:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Unlike candidates in the Democratic party, McCain is sticking to what he knows is best for the country. Clinton, Edwards, and certainly Obama, don't even touch McCain when it comes to knowing and understanding US National Security interest and Foreign Policy. The Democratic candidates are concerned about getting votes, McCain is concerned about having the best policy for the country in National Security, something he has dedicated his life to.

McCain's incredible record of service to this country is something that the general republic will soon be reminded of and will contrast significantly with the Democratic opposition and will indeed impact peoples decisions on who to vote for in November 2008.

yes, the Iraq Debacle has certainly beeen in the best interests of the country.

let's all say that with a straight face, like these conservatives:

[q]Iraq is a "Black Hole" for Republicans

From the latest Evans-Novak Political Report: "President George W. Bush's attempt to revitalize his Iraq War policy has been a political failure. His 'surge' in troops won no converts, and all efforts now are based on attempting to prevent a negative resolution from being passed in the Senate."

"The gloom pervading the Republican Party cannot be exaggerated. The long-range GOP outlook for 2008 is grim. The consensus is that U.S. troops must be off the ground of Iraq by next year to prevent an electoral catastrophe in the next election."

"Iraq, one of Bush's top political advisers now notes, is a black hole for the Republican Party. A nationally prominent Republican pollster reported confidentially on Capitol Hill after the President's speech that if U.S. boots are still on the ground in Iraq and U.S. blood is still being spilled there at the end of the year, the GOP disaster in 2008 will eclipse 2006."[/q]


McCain will be forever tied to Iraq, and to the greatest moral failure of the United States since Vietnam: we had a moral responsibility to the thousands of Iraqis murdered under U.S. occupation. the laws of warefare tell us that an occupying army is responsible for the basic securiety of hte population under its care.

McCain helped break Iraq. McCain owns Iraq, not as much as Bush, but as much as any Republican in the Republican party. he saw the violence grow into one of the most brutal civil wars in modern history that saw 34,000 (at least) Iraqis die in 2006 alone.

McCain will bear the burden of what Iraq has done to the United Statesin the minds of the rest of the world, and not least in the Muslim world.

never forget: McCain voted to authorize torutre. he supported men like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney who have led us into the greatest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam (so say his fellow Republicans).

so sad that a man with such an honerable past has pissed it all away.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-18-2007, 10:27 PM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,226
Local Time: 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


Attracting young, hateful, and bigoted men will mean repulsing moderate independents who ultimately determine the results of every election.
Perhaps...
BVS is offline  
Old 01-19-2007, 03:33 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



yes, the Iraq Debacle has certainly beeen in the best interests of the country.

let's all say that with a straight face, like these conservatives:

[q]Iraq is a "Black Hole" for Republicans

From the latest Evans-Novak Political Report: "President George W. Bush's attempt to revitalize his Iraq War policy has been a political failure. His 'surge' in troops won no converts, and all efforts now are based on attempting to prevent a negative resolution from being passed in the Senate."

"The gloom pervading the Republican Party cannot be exaggerated. The long-range GOP outlook for 2008 is grim. The consensus is that U.S. troops must be off the ground of Iraq by next year to prevent an electoral catastrophe in the next election."

"Iraq, one of Bush's top political advisers now notes, is a black hole for the Republican Party. A nationally prominent Republican pollster reported confidentially on Capitol Hill after the President's speech that if U.S. boots are still on the ground in Iraq and U.S. blood is still being spilled there at the end of the year, the GOP disaster in 2008 will eclipse 2006."[/q]


McCain will be forever tied to Iraq, and to the greatest moral failure of the United States since Vietnam: we had a moral responsibility to the thousands of Iraqis murdered under U.S. occupation. the laws of warefare tell us that an occupying army is responsible for the basic securiety of hte population under its care.

McCain helped break Iraq. McCain owns Iraq, not as much as Bush, but as much as any Republican in the Republican party. he saw the violence grow into one of the most brutal civil wars in modern history that saw 34,000 (at least) Iraqis die in 2006 alone.

McCain will bear the burden of what Iraq has done to the United Statesin the minds of the rest of the world, and not least in the Muslim world.

never forget: McCain voted to authorize torutre. he supported men like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney who have led us into the greatest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam (so say his fellow Republicans).

so sad that a man with such an honerable past has pissed it all away.

Ah yes, please explain how the United States fundamental security needs in the Persian Gulf would be more secure with Saddam still in power than it is now? Explain, how after the deaths of 1.7 million people from multiple wars, Iraqi's and their neighbors would be safer with Saddam in power? Yes, lets keep the leader who used WMD more times than any other leader in history, who was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions , the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire, lets keep that person in power. We'd all be safer right? I mean, when the United States is forced to deploy a half a million troops in under a few months to prevent the seizure and sabotage of the planets energy supply, thats a good thing? We'd want to repeat that whole process instead of preventing it, right?


Iraq is not in a Civil War yet, and the violence in Iraq pales in comparison to the violence that was seen in Bosnia, Sudan, Congo, Afghanistan, and many other area's around the world. To put the violence in Iraq up with these other conflicts is simply ignorant. Far more Iraqi's were killed and slaughtered during multiple points during Saddam's time in power than have been killed in the past four years. Yet, this is the man Mr. Obama and several Democrats would have prefered to keep in power.

The moral failure of Vietnam is found in those that pushed for and successfully brought about the abandonment of that country after the United States and South Vietnamese had been successful in defeating the insurgency within the country as well as defending it from North Vietnamese invasions. The abandonment led to the slaughter and current imprisonment of South Vietnam. The Democrats are looking to repeat the process in Iraq.


No matter how you stack it, McCain is on the right side of history, because no one in the future will be able to successfully argue that a man like Saddam should have remained in power after everything he had done to Iraq and the region. But some people can't see that because they think the history of Iraq started in March 2003.

The Democrats now have the majority in congress, but their not going to do a damn thing, except offer up irrelevant resolutions and discussions to simply criticize the President. They will not present any sort of a viable alternative, nor will they cut off funding, making them seem essentially irrelevant.


McCain understands the United States fundamental security needs in the region and understands that the United States can't simply abandon Iraq like it did Vietnam. The Democrats will continue to be more concerned about their political prospects for 2008, rather than being concerned about the countries national security. They will continue to claim that the United States can simply walk away from Iraq without explaining who is going to replace coalition forces if their withdrawn so quickly. They will continue to make the bogus claim that we can just withdraw and have a reconciliation/peace conference and everything will fall into place. The ultimate contradiction of calling an Iraq a debacle but claiming the United States can withdraw its troops without endangering the stability of Iraq will continue.

Democrats will continue to support military operations in Afghanistan in the name of fighting terrorism, despite the fact that Al Quada is far more active in Iraq.

In Clinton, we have a relative national political novice who supported the invasion of Iraq and has tried hard to pretend to be a supporter of the military and national security, but is in the process of back tracking in order to preserve her previous untouchable pole position as the Democrats #1 candidate for 2008.

In Edwards, a strong candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2008 who supported the war like Clinton above, but has now "changed his mind", so he too can have a shot at the Democratic nomination where one has to get past the liberal/pacifist wing of the party.

Obama, even more of a novice than Clinton, with lots of Charisma but no substance. He is trying though, to find that middle ground that will satisfy the liberal/pacifist wing of the Democratic party without seeming like he is one of them. His latest is that were going to cap the number of troops in Iraq. When he thinks of Iraq, its about finding a way to oppose the President and find favor with the liberal wing of the Democratic party, its not about the best policy for bringing stability to Iraq and protecting long term US Security interest in the region.

McCain has dedicated most of his life to issues of national security. He was a Navy Pilot who had a good service record prior to his deployment to Vietnam where he served well. He was shot down and spent over 5 years in North Vietnamese prison. He understands torture in a way that few humans do. After his release from Vietnam, he served in congress and supported the Reagan defense build up, which provided weapons and training needed to rebuild the United States military from the condition it was in, in the late 70s as well as making it the strongest military in the history of the world which was demonstrated in the historically quick, and low casualty rate of the 1991 Desert Storm operation. He has spent his time in congress supporting the US military and sound US foreign policy. He has an incredible and distinguished record when it comes to US National Security going back half a century which stands in stark contrast to the above Democratic candidates. His idea's and views are based on what is best for the country, NOT what would best support his personal political future based on which ever way the current political wind is blowing.

If you value intelligence, experience, and someone who is willing to do the right thing, on the most important issues this country faces, regardless of how it effects their political fortunes, McCain is your man. A big contrast to the current field of leading Democratic candidates.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×