Take It To The Politics Thread

I think McCain is terrible for national security. He wants to stay in Iraq, and whether you're a warmonger or a peacenik, that's a catastrophe. If you want war, we need to leave Iraq so we can concentrate on Afghanistan. If you want peace, we should just leave. In either case we should be out by last week. His service during Vietnam was very commendable but nonetheless his judgement is terrible on the most important national security issue we face.
 
<p>I am a life long dem who is crossing the line and voting for McCain in the fall because of one reason and one reason only-</p>

<p>Obama can make a hell of a speech, but he's not qualified to run a Dariy Queen. Hilly and McCain are both qualified to hold the office. One of those isn't going to be on the ballot, and Obama is off the grid in my world, so to speak.</p>
 
Obama has just run the possibly the most impressive primary campaign in history. Best ground game, most volunteers, most prepared, most donors, most money, broadest reach. Ever. He has been renowned as an organizer since his massive voter registration drive in 1992 reputedly got Carol Mosely Braun elected Senator from Illinois. What has McCain ever done to show he's a great organizer and manager? Or even a decent one? His campaign was desultory and he won on long-term familiarity and free media support.
 
We have no dangerous enemies in Iraq, and, for that matter, few enemies of any sort other than those created by our being there. From that point, being in Iraq is a terrible waste, a truly phenomenal one in view of the multi-trillion costs we've committed ourselves to. But even worse, it makes us look like fools. Our substantial enemies are in Afghanistan. Being in Iraq shows that you can get away with attacking the United States because the US will then go attack <b>somebody else</b> and then stay there for years.<p>



In terms of bothering Iran, Iran <b>loves</b> us being in Iraq. For one, we're not much danger to them when our entire ground military is tied up in a quagmire. But more to the point, Bush is supporting their puppet regime. SCIRI, now SIIC, the leading party in the Iraqi goverenment, was founded by Ayatollah Khomenei, was completely dependent on Iranian support until 2003, and at late as last year still <b>officially</b> called the Ayatollah Khamenei its <a href="http://www.nepr.us/BRIEF-BADR.pdf">supreme leader</a> (warning: pdf). President Ahmadinejad of Iran was recently <a herf="http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0303/p01s04-wome.html">welcomed</a> to Iraq by President Talibani of Iraq, an old ally of Iran: "We reminisced about the joint struggle in the old days against the dictatorship ? we both wished for the dictatorship to fall.... And here we are welcoming them in Baghdad," said Talabani, as a smiling Ahmadinejad stood by his side.<p>



So that's staying in Iraq for you. Bankrupting the US. Helping Iran expand its influence. Letting bin Laden off the hook. Woo-hoo!
 
<strong><em>Obama has just run the possibly the most impressive primary campaign in history. Best ground game, most volunteers, most prepared, most donors, most money, broadest reach. Ever. He has been renowned as an organizer since his massive voter registration drive in 1992 reputedly got Carol Mosely Braun elected Senator from Illinois. </em></strong>



Based on your critera we should get Karl Rove on the ballot ASAP. I disagree with your premise of 'the most impressive primary campaign in history." Karl gets that award for running that donkey GWB to a comeback victory in 2000 (his stunt using the phone campaign to sabotoge McCain in South Carolina in 2000 was classic). Plus, Obama hasn't won anything yet.





Just because you can run a campaign doesn't mean you are qualified to be POTUS. It is my opinion that Obama is not qualifed to be POTUS, and thus I will not be voting for him in the fall. I have voted straight party Dem in every election - <em>every one -</em> since the primary of 1988. I have never crossed the line - <em>not once</em> - and voted for a Republican in <em>any election</em>. This is the first time. If Hillary wins I vote for her. She won't IMO, so I'm voting for the next best qualified candidate, McCain.





I may be the only one in OC with a "Democrats for McCain" sticker on my car this fall, but my mind is made up. I've had 8 years of somebody who wasn't qualifed to be president. Somebody change the constituion and allow Bill to run again would ya?
 
McCain better qualified? How? You said Obama wasn't qualified to run a Dairy Queen, and I showed some IMO conclusive evidence that he has stellar organizational, budgeting, management, and motivational skills and would <b>certainly</b> be able to run a Dairy Queen. Can you dispute my evidence or will you only make unsupported assertions?<p>



Can you name anything that would indicate McCain is better qualified to run a Dairy Queen than Obama? Heck, can you even show he'd be as good?
 
<p>No, I can't. But I can't prove my 16 year old kid sister isn't the best qualifed candidate either because she organized the local school bake sale either. Your logic is flawed. I was using hyperbole. Let me try a different way. </p>

<p>I think John McCain and Hillary Clinton are both equally qualified to be POTUS. In an election between these two, voters have a legitimate decision based on how two qualified candidates view the world, and their opinion on how we best address the issues facing the US and the world. An election of two qualified candidates, who are arguing style points. </p>

<p>When you make the election between McCain and Obama, you get another factor to consider - relivant experence. Now you have two candidates who disagree on style points AND an issue on qualifications. I'm sorry to disagree with you, but being a political organizer and running a successful campaign is not the sort of experence I was looking for when considering who to vote for POTUS.</p>

<p> You chose to ignore it, but I'll bring it up again - given your critera that running a successful political campaign as a qualifier, Karl Rove is the most qualifed candiate eligible under US law. He has raised more money than anyone else in the history of the planet and never lost an election. Not one. Do you find Karl to be an acceptable candidate? You keep bringing up Obama's track record as a orgainzier and I keep making reference to Karl Rove and you keep ignoring the question. I'd appreciate it if you'd give it an honest response.</p>

<p>I understand that Obama is an exciting candidate who makes great speaches and runs a great campaign. You might consider that I'm not the only bozo on the bus who thinks he's not qualified. I've not missed a single election (not one!) in 20 years and I've voted straight party Dem the whole time. If a Kool Aid drinker like me is asking the question............and the answer is "I can't do this - he's not qualified - i need more tacit qualifications"...........what about those in the middle that are more conservative than me? </p>

<p>On a side note, I campaigned heavily for Paul Tsongas in 1992 as I felt he was/is the most qualified candidate. He lost, I got stuck Bill, and begrudgingly voted for him. In retrospect, the extra cirrucular activites aside, I got exactly what I wanted from Bill. I may feel the same way about Obama, but I can't bring myself to vote for him. I just got done with eight years with a certain yo-yo who I felt wasn't qualified but ran a 'pretty good campaign'. A pretty good campaign that won by the thinnest of margins and gave 42's admin a twisted sense of huburus that is autocratic, top down, and functionally impotent (look at FEMA and the Iraq war). Another bunch of folks who run a great campaign who can't run my mythical Dairy Queen. Can you feel me?</p>

<p>I don't have anything else to add to this thead or topic and likely won't be responding further. Sorry to edit it so many times, I did a poor job of explaining myself the first three times.</p>
 
<p>Skek:</p>

<p><em>If you want peace, and if you think you'll have peace if you "just leave," then I guess Obama is your man. But I don't think you get peace in that circumstance. Maybe in the short term. But in the long term, I think you get an emboldened Iran, an even more deceptive North Korea, an increasingly belligerent Russia and a more confident China. That doesn't sound like a recipe for peace.</em></p>

<p>Sounds like the same reason why the U.S. just could not pull out of Vietnam in 1972. . .dominoes tumbling. . .Communism rule the world. . Wait. . .that did not happen. . .</p>

<p>The parallels between Vietnam and Iraq are simply incredible. </p>

<em>For the record, I'm not saying that Russia and China will inevitably end up as military adversaries, but they are adversaries in a "balance of power" sense, and there are certainly circumstances where I could envision a military confrontation. There are other circumstances where I think either Russia or China could be a stabilizing and positive force in the world...</em>

<p>We won the Cold War not by beating anyone militarily but rather because we beat them economically. The United States has severely damaged its influence and will over the rest of the world by going into and staying in Iraq as well as become an economic disaster. The U.S. being in Iraq has dramatically weakened its standing in the world. Also, the U.S's new policy of invading country at random gives countries like China free reigns to crack down on dissidents while calling them "terrorists." (See also Turkey).</p>

<p>No_Vas</p>

<p><em>No, I can't. But I can't prove my 16 year old kid sister isn't the best qualifed candidate either because she organized the local school bake sale either. Your logic is flawed. I was using hyperbole. Let me try a different way. </em></p>

<p><em>I think John McCain and Hillary Clinton are both equally qualified to be POTUS. In an election between these two, voters have a legitimate decision based on how two qualified candidates view the world, and their opinion on how we best address the issues facing the US and the world. An election of two qualified candidates, who are arguing style points.</em></p>

<p>Neither Abraham Lincoln nor Teddy Roosevelt had much experience and they worked out pretty well. I am certainly not saying that experience is not relevant (see Carter) but it is not only criteria. Inspiration and vision are also important. To me, McCain and Clinton are basically the same candidate. They represent the status quo. More fighting in the government. More "We are going to ram this down our throat whether you like it or not". More "it is the other party's fault" I am so sick of it. </p>

<p><em>On a side note, I campaigned heavily for Paul Tsongas in 1992 as I felt he was/is the most qualified candidate. He lost, I got stuck Bill, and begrudgingly voted for him. In retrospect, the extra cirrucular activites aside, I got exactly what I wanted from Bill. I may feel the same way about Obama, but I can't bring myself to vote for him. I just got done with eight years with a certain yo-yo who I felt wasn't qualified but ran a 'pretty good campaign'. A pretty good campaign that won by the thinnest of margins and gave 42's admin a twisted sense of huburus that is autocratic, top down, and functionally impotent (look at FEMA and the Iraq war). Another bunch of folks who run a great campaign who can't run my mythical Dairy Queen. Can you feel me?</em></p>

<p>GWB's compaign was politically good but polar opposite of Obama. GWB's compaigns (esp. the one in 04) emphasized a "us v. them" mentality where Obama is a "we are together" theme. I can only hope that Obama can unite the nation half as well as GWB did in ripping it apart. </p>
 
<p>IC,</p>

<p>In comparing HRC and McCain, you are forgetting a major point: The issue that conservatives have with McCain is his record of compromising with Democrats and co-sponsoring legislation in direct conflict with a conservative philosophy. While it hurts him with conservatives in the Republican party, McCain isn't the kind of politician that wants to "ram this down our throat whether you like it or not" or tries to blame the other party.</p>

<p>FE,</p>

<p>McCain has more than 20 years experience working within the Senate. That can be a huge benefit to a Presidential administration. By contrast, HRC has over 7 years experience as a Senator while Obama has just 38 <strong><em>months</em></strong> experience in the Senate. While Bill Clinton may not be part of her Cabinet or her Administration, his experience as President will be available to HRC at every moment. Since experience in the Senate is the only common denominator among the three, by that metric McCain is far more experienced than either Democrat challenger. He has military experience and experience fighting unpopular wars, which neither Democrat candidate will ever have. And as for that fictional Dairy Queen, let's keep in mind that McCain's campaign was broke less than a year ago and yet he was able to win his party's nomination. He cut his expenses to the bone, carried his own bags, flew coach on commercial airlines... alone, and drastically cut his staff, all so he could continue on his campaign. In my opinion, he is more qualified to run that Dairy Queen because he has shown that he will do what it takes to keep it going in both good times and bad.</p>
 
<p>Nude, </p>

<p>I would agree with you before McCain's campaign run but McCain has basically sold out his beliefs and stances for a shot at being president. That does not make me feel warm or fuzzy. To me, McCain has become a shell of himself.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>skek,</p>

<p>The "present" vote thing in the Illinois state legislature is misleading: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html">www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</a></p>

<p>Nude:</p>

<p>Against tax cut before: <a href="http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009781">opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html</a>, for tax cuts now: <a href="http://johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/0B8E4DB8-5B0C-459F-97EA-D7B542A78235.htm">johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/0B8E4DB8-5B0C-459F-97EA-D7B542A78235.htm</a></p>

<p>Against overturning Roe v. Wade before: <a href="http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL999/mccain.html">www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL999/mccain.html</a>; for overturning Roe v. Wade now: <a href="http://johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm">johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm</a></p>

<p>Against religious right's tactics before: <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/28/se.01.html">transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/28/se.01.html</a>; for them now: <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/02/mccain-falwell/">thinkprogress.org/2006/04/02/mccain-falwell/</a></p>

<p>Immigration shift: <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1108mccain-immig1108.html">www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1108mccain-immig1108.html</a></p>

<p>Not to mention McCain cozying up to GWB after what he did in 2000: <a href="http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522">www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php</a></p>
 
<p>From your links, IC:</p>

<p><em>Let me be clear, let me be clear. Evangelical leaders are changing America for the better. Chuck Colson, head of Prison Fellowship, is saving men from life -- from a lifetime behind bars by bringing them the good news of redemption. James Dobson, who does not support me, has devoted his life to rebuilding America's families. Others are leading the fight against pornography, cultural decline and for life. I stand with them. I am a pro-life, pro-family fiscal conservative, an advocate of a strong defense, and yet Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and a few Washington leaders of the pro-life movement call me an unacceptable presidential candidate. They distort my pro- life positions and smear the reputations of my supporters. </em></p>

<p><em>Why? Because I don't pander to them, because I don't ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message. I believe in the cause of conservative reform. I believe that because we are right we will prevail in the battle of ideas, unspoiled by the taint of a corrupt campaign finance scheme that works against the very conservative reform of government that is the object of our labors. The Republican Party will prevail...</em> </p>

<p>...</p>

<p><em>Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.</em> -John McCain 2.28.2000</p>

<p>As much as you might want to paint this kind of thing as a "gotcha", what McCain was talking about was the effect of the Religious Right on his campaign and the money they bring into American politics. Here is what immediately followed the snippet quoted by thinkprogress:</p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>MR. RUSSERT: After September 11<sup>th</sup>, let me show you what...</em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>SEN. McCAIN: Go ahead. Yeah.</em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>MR. RUSSERT: ...Reverend Falwell had to say. “What we saw on [September 11<sup>th</sup>], as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve. ... I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle ... I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’”</em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>SEN. McCAIN: You’ll have to...</em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>MR. RUSSERT: Are you embracing that? </em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>SEN. McCAIN: I am speaking at the, at the graduation of his, his university. I’m not embracing all of the tenets that are expressed at the new college in New York City, nor other liberal universities and institutions that I have spoke at. For example, I don’t agree with the Ivy League colleges barring recruiters—military recruiters from their campuses, but I still speak there.</em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned that people are going to say, “I see. John McCain tried ‘straight talk express,’ ‘maverick,’ it didn’t work in 2000, so now in 2008 he’s going to become a conventional, typical politician, reaching out to people that he called agents of intolerance, voting for tax cuts he opposed, to make himself more appealing to the hard-core Republican base.”</em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>SEN. McCAIN: I think most people will judge my record exactly for what it is, where I take positions that I stand, that I stand for and I believe in. Whether it be climate change, whether it be torture, or whether it be a number of other issues with which I am—immigration. I, I don’t think that my position on immigration is exactly pleasing to the far right base. I will continue to take positions that I believe in and I stand for. And I recognize that a lot of my credibility is based on that, and I think most Americans will judge me by my entire record. </em>- John McCain 4.2.2006</p>

<p class="textBodyBlack">It's worth noting he had yet to decide whether he would run for President in 2008 at the time of that interview. Let me quickly point out some other quotes:</p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><strong>Tax Cuts:</strong></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>MR. RUSSERT: Let’s talk about it. Bush tax cuts. You did vote against them in May of 2001, May of 2003...</em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.</em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>MR. RUSSERT: ...and, in fact, you said “We can’t afford tax cuts for the fortunate at the expense of the middle class who need tax relief.”</em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>SEN. McCAIN: Well, I also said that the reason—major reason why I was opposed to it was because there was no spending cuts. I was proud to be part—a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution. And we had tax cuts, but we had spending cuts that went right along with it. And without spending cuts, it was clear that the—we would be facing the financial debacle that—fiscal debacle that we are in today. I had a tax cut proposal which had significant tax cuts, but it had spending restrain in it too. And unless we cut spending then, then we are going to end up in a—the serious situation we’re in today. I will cut spending. And I will continue to support making the tax cuts permanent, which I’ve voted already twice.</em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>MR. RUSSERT: But you voted the third time for the tax cuts, but there weren’t spending cuts.</em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. No, but I thought that we ought to keep the tax cuts permanent because if we had increased taxes, which that would have had the effect of, if I had voted in the other way. So, look, we need to have spending cuts. I know that, everybody knows that, and if we had done what I wanted to do in 2000, we would now be talking about more tax cuts because we would have had spending cuts to go along with it. And it’s just facts.</em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that voting against the Bush tax cuts was a mistake?</em></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>SEN. McCAIN: Of course not. As I just said, I believe that we needed spending cuts to go along with it, the way we did in the Reagan years. In the Reagan years, we cut spending along with the tax cuts. Unfortunately, later on, we did away with Gramm-Rudman and some of those other requirements for spending cuts, then that—and that caused us problems. But, look, you can’t—Ronald Reagan used to say you can’t expand the size of government without paying for it. And if you’re going to pay for it, obviously, you can’t have tax cuts. So it has to go hand in hand, and that’s, that’s what I will do as president. </em>- John McCain 1.6.2008</p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><strong>About the comments in your 1st abortion link:</strong></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>SEN. McCAIN: Well, it was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of, of America as regards to this issue. That is a conversation that I had in that context. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support a woman--the, the rights of the unborn. I have fought for human rights and human dignity throughout my entire political career. To me it is an issue of human rights and human dignity. That conversation was in the context of we have to help young women who are experiencing a crisis pregnancy. We have to help them with compassion, and we hope--have to help those young women with courage. And we also have to do whatever we can to let them know that if they don't want the child, if they'll bring them into life, that we'll do everything we can to help with adoption. Just like there's three--I have three adopted children. It's a wonderful thing. But my position has been consistently in my voting record, pro-life, and I continue to maintain that position and voting record. Is it a tough issue in America? Yes. But I believe the states should be making those decisions. </em>-John McCain 5.13.2007</p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><strong>About the immigration issue:</strong></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>SEN. McCAIN: The bill, the bill is dead as it is written. We know that. We know that. And the bill is going to have to be, and I would sign it, securing the borders first and articulating those principles that I did. That's what we got out of this last very divisive and tough debate. And we have to get those borders secured. That's what Americans want first. </em>- John McCain 1.27.2008</p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><strong>About his support of GWB:</strong></p>

<p class="textBodyBlack"><em>SEN. McCAIN: Quote, “Ran an honorable campaign.” I put those things behind me. I don’t look back in anger. I don’t think the American people expect me to look back in anger. Things are said and done in political campaigns which are pretty, which are pretty tough. And they are—and campaigns are tough in America, and they should be. But my support for him was announced three months after the primary was over in the year 2000.</em> - John McCain 4.2.2006</p>
 
<p>no_vaseline - also a life-long democrat (never have voted republican in any election - and I have always voited) and I will vote McCain if Obama is the democratic candidate - or if for some reason I become to upset with McCain I will not vote at all. Either way I will not vote for Obama.</p>

<p>I am tired of the democratic party continually ignoring thier middle ground members - sick of it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
<em>>>I am tired of the democratic party continually ignoring thier middle ground members - sick of it.</em>





MA, perhaps you could explain further. What has the party done to lead you to believe that it is continually ignoring their middle ground members?
 
FWIW, I would have voted McCain in 2000 had he received the nomination. I was heartened by his independent ways. Sadly, it appears that he is now more interested in getting elected president than in being a maverick. <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/161172.php">This</a> is just . . . sad.





-------------




<p>Perhaps the moral of the story is that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) would be far better off avoiding religion as a campaign issue. It's been dogging him for years, and his fall from grace continues.</p>

<p>In 2000, the Arizona senator gambled that denouncing religious right leaders like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would pay off, and went to Virginia to condemn the TV preachers as "<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/02/29/bush.2.t_9.php">agents of intolerance</a>." The gamble failed; the GOP base was offended; and McCain's campaign never recovered.</p>

<p>More recently, McCain, a life-long Episcopalian, raised eyebrows by telling a reporter, unprompted, "By the way, I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist." In context, it looked as if McCain may have claimed a new affiliation simply in the hopes <a href="http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12916.html">it would give his campaign a boost</a>.</p>

<p>The senator ran into additional religious trouble in a BeliefNet interview in which he <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054560.php">said</a>, "I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." This despite the fact that the Constitution, which McCain has presumably read, does the exact opposite.</p>

<p>And as if that weren't enough, in the same interview, McCain suggested he <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/29/2007-09-29_mccain_no_muslim_president_us_better_wit.html">wouldn't want a Muslim president</a>.</p>



<p>"I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it," he said. "But I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith."</p>



<p>Apparently, McCain later realized he'd made a mistake, because the transcript of the interview added, "McCain contacted Beliefnet after the interview to clarify his remarks: 'I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values.'"</p>

<p>In other words, McCain was for discrimination before he was against it.</p>

<p>Former Bush White House aide David Kuo, now a BeliefNet contributor, said McCain was "pandering to what he thinks the Christian conservative community wants to hear" and predicted he "will have a lot of explaining to do about this interview."</p>
 
<em>"FWIW, I would have voted McCain in 2000 had he received the nomination. I was heartened by his independent ways."</em>





I would have voted for him then too. I might have voted for him in 2008 had Bush and the 107th Congress not been such complete disasters to turn me off all things Republican.
 
Back
Top