Is McCain Electable?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pat wrote:
Jason32 wrote:
Okay, so I guess everyone now votes for the guy who sucks less?

We’ve been settling since 1988.

I voted for Reagan in 1984 and it was settling for the guy who sucked less. He was far better than Mondale but Reagan was a phony politician just like the rest.

Politicians need to be measured with a different scale because they are all slimy. [/quote]

Perhaps, but Reagan’s home runs were grand slams. He did two very important things right. He got us out of the recession in the early 80’s pretty quickly and his foreign policy dealings were excellent. He made a sport out of making the Soviets shit their pants. His biggest failure was continuing the war on drugs Nixon started.

Will grant that at the time a crack epidemic exploded on the scene almost over night, but really, who cares if addicts kill themselves off. It’s their choice, let them have the freedom to make it.
Could you imagine Mondale? Holy crap that guy was an idiot of the highest order.

You were old enough to vote in '84?! And I thought I was old.

62

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…
Since Ron Paul only gets around 5% of the vote, it looks like only that % of people are worth anything at all.

We’re going to get everything we deserve.

You sound like a Nazi with this talk. I know you like to troll and it is occasionally amusing but I think you need to take a break.

Yeah, February always sucks for teachers. Probably sucks for everyone.

However, I do sincerely hope that we get just exactly what we deserve. That would be justice.

[/quote]

February just sucks period. No holidays, it’s cold, no baseball, no football, nothing on TV, Valentine’s day, etc. Give me May, warm weather and baseball every night!

63

[quote]Jason32 wrote:
John McCain... Electable? - YouTube [/quote]

Awesome video. I especially love the commentary by Pat Buchanan.

But I truly believe that McCain would lose to Obama.

Obama is 6’1, McCain is 5’7.

Forget the politics, people. This is 2008.

A 5’7 president, today? I don’t think so. Obama is WAY more presentable.

Hold on tight, we’re in for a Dem admin.

64

I strongly disagree… Tom Cruise is 5’7" and he would make a most excellent president!

I mean come on, have you seen Top Gun?

65

[quote]Jason32 wrote:
I strongly disagree… Tom Cruise is 5’7" and he would make a most excellent president!

I mean come on, have you seen Top Gun?[/quote]

Top Gun is loaded with gay references.

66

…What???

67

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Jason32 wrote:

Awesome video. I especially love the commentary by Pat Buchanan.
[/quote]

Yeah, he’s right. McCain is to be the War President. I’m entirely convinced that a McCain presidency will result in a wider conflict we can’t afford. But apparently, the only non-negotionable position of the Republican platform is the US as world cop and nation-builder. Republicans have effectively shut down any meaningful internal debate on foreign policy.

Indeed, to even suggest that by inserting ourselves in the middle of foreign conflicts we become a combatant is unpatriotic. Patriotism is now defined by supporting the defense of foreign nations and peoples (even when they don’t want it). “Unpatriotic Conservatives” are wasting their time with the party. Look elsewhere.

68

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Did McCain abandon the principles of the Republican Party in order to be more ‘electable’? If so then the Republican Party has morphed into something other than what attracted me to the Party in the first place.

I know I’m dooming my vote to irrelevency but I think I’ll vote Libertarian; that or for Hillary — if we have to have evil, I prefer it in pure form (my apologies to A. Lincoln).[/quote]

A vote for the candidate that you believe will do the best job of representing you is never an irrelevant vote.
Why don’t people understand this?
Could someone please prove to me that a vote for the candidate that wins is somehow more relevant, or matters more than a vote for a candidate who loses?
Personally, I cannot in good conscience cast my vote for a candidate who voted to fight the war in Iraq on borrowed money - or a candidate who voted the Patriot Act into law before reading it.

69

[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Did McCain abandon the principles of the Republican Party in order to be more ‘electable’? If so then the Republican Party has morphed into something other than what attracted me to the Party in the first place.

I know I’m dooming my vote to irrelevency but I think I’ll vote Libertarian; that or for Hillary — if we have to have evil, I prefer it in pure form (my apologies to A. Lincoln).

A vote for the candidate that you believe will do the best job of representing you is never an irrelevant vote.
Why don’t people understand this?
Could someone please prove to me that a vote for the candidate that wins is somehow more relevant, or matters more than a vote for a candidate who loses?
Personally, I cannot in good conscience cast my vote for a candidate who voted to fight the war in Iraq on borrowed money - or a candidate who voted the Patriot Act into law before reading it.[/quote]

These ‘Three Stooges’ are all the same, with a few minor differences. Anyway, no matter who wins, they are trapped: the budget and debt are wildly out of control. Its like choosing which victim gets to ride the biggest badass bull at the rodeo. Who would you like to see flopping around on top of the bull?

There are NO solutions to SS, Medicare, the Prescription Drug Plan, the spiralling debt. Who wins has become pretty irrelevant. The people realize this, which is why most don’t bother to vote anymore.

70

Maverick Fails The Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/

That must be some sort of “compromise”, right? Right?

71

[quote]pat wrote:
…

Perhaps, but Reagan’s home runs were grand slams. He did two very important things right. He got us out of the recession in the early 80’s pretty quickly and his foreign policy dealings were excellent. He made a sport out of making the Soviets shit their pants. His biggest failure was continuing the war on drugs Nixon started.

Will grant that at the time a crack epidemic exploded on the scene almost over night, but really, who cares if addicts kill themselves off. It’s their choice, let them have the freedom to make it.
Could you imagine Mondale? Holy crap that guy was an idiot of the highest order.

You were old enough to vote in '84?! And I thought I was old.[/quote]

His dealings with radical Islam were less than stellar but his dealings with commies was excellent.

His domestic policies were a mixed bag, as you pointed out the “war” on drugs was probably the wrong tactic.

I am sure if I flash back to my youth I could think of a number of other mistakes but he was easily the best choice for the job.

72

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
His domestic policies were a mixed bag, as you pointed out the “war” on drugs was probably the wrong tactic. [/quote]

Wrong tactic? It was a bloody catastrophe!

73

[quote]lixy wrote:
Maverick Fails The Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/

That must be some sort of “compromise”, right? Right?[/quote]

But he’s always got his principles to fall back on…whoops!!!
Fuck it, let’s post pics of hot women; makes more sense than thinking about these turds.

74

[quote]lixy wrote:
Maverick Fails The Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/

That must be some sort of “compromise”, right? Right?[/quote]

Yup, that’s bad.

In an effort to cozy up to the Republican base, who by and large despise him, he’s alienating Independants and right-leaning Democrats who might have voted for him instead of Obama/Clinton…

Of course, “bad” is relative. I think it’s wonderful news that “The Maverick” (for definitions of “maverick” than mean “pandering dick”) is setting himself as a pro-war, pro-surge, 100-years in Iraq, pro-Bush tax cuts, pro-torture, anti-science “can’t help you with jobs” kinda guy. Of course, that stance will change according to the audience he’s addressing at that moment, but that’ll catch up with him too.

Can’t wait for November.

75

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Maverick Fails The Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/

That must be some sort of “compromise”, right? Right?

But he’s always got his principles to fall back on…whoops!!!
Fuck it, let’s post pics of hot women; makes more sense than thinking about these turds.

[/quote]

Your going to make Lixy’s head explode. A decadent westerner without a burqua…shameful. After he jacks off on his keyboard he’s going to have burn an effigy of GWB to feel better about himself.

76

Three people have been waterboarded. Three.

Does anyone think this is an important issue?

77

[quote]pookie wrote:

Yup, that’s bad.

In an effort to cozy up to the Republican base, who by and large despise him, he’s alienating Independants and right-leaning Democrats who might have voted for him instead of Obama/Clinton…

Of course, “bad” is relative. I think it’s wonderful news that “The Maverick” (for definitions of “maverick” than mean “pandering dick”) is setting himself as a pro-war, pro-surge, 100-years in Iraq, pro-Bush tax cuts, pro-torture, anti-science “can’t help you with jobs” kinda guy. Of course, that stance will change according to the audience he’s addressing at that moment, but that’ll catch up with him too.

Can’t wait for November.[/quote]

I’d be careful relying on Lixy for decent coverage of the issue.

[i]The provision had not been part of the original authorization bills approved by the House and the Senate. It was inserted at the last minute by Democrats during conference negotiations as a way to extend the Army’s ban on torture to intelligence agencies.

House Democrats pushed through the conference report in December. The White House has threatened to veto final legislation if it includes the provision. Democrats and civil liberties groups argue the provision is needed to ensure the CIA does not use torture. [/i]

http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/2008/02/senate_to_battle_over_authoriz.php

So Democrats add the waterboarding ban at the 11th hour in order to stage political theatre to get the presumptive GOP nominee in the news for refusing to vote for it.

McCain may need to placate the base - and that may rankle some - but there is nothing smart to be done by letting Democrats define your candidacy by trying to manipulate legislation for political show.

The waterboarding ban wasn’t part of the debated bill - that is good enough reason to vote against it as a matter of principle. Regardless of McCain’s opinion, the Democrats set a clumsy trap with no expectation the ban would be passed - Bush assured a veto if the bill included a waterboarding ban.

Sloppy political move by Democrats using legislation as nothing more than a way to take a shot at McCain - and a wise move for McCain to ignore it.

78

[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Did McCain abandon the principles of the Republican Party in order to be more ‘electable’? If so then the Republican Party has morphed into something other than what attracted me to the Party in the first place.

I know I’m dooming my vote to irrelevency but I think I’ll vote Libertarian; that or for Hillary — if we have to have evil, I prefer it in pure form (my apologies to A. Lincoln).

A vote for the candidate that you believe will do the best job of representing you is never an irrelevant vote.
Why don’t people understand this?
Could someone please prove to me that a vote for the candidate that wins is somehow more relevant, or matters more than a vote for a candidate who loses?
Personally, I cannot in good conscience cast my vote for a candidate who voted to fight the war in Iraq on borrowed money - or a candidate who voted the Patriot Act into law before reading it.[/quote]

Yet, I bet you’ll pucker right up to elect a first term Senator who has no real achievments of his own. Vote the “feel good” candidate, it just illustrates your superficiality.

JeffR

79

[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
Maverick Fails The Test: McCain Votes Against Waterboarding Ban

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/

That must be some sort of “compromise”, right? Right?

Yup, that’s bad.

In an effort to cozy up to the Republican base, who by and large despise him, he’s alienating Independants and right-leaning Democrats who might have voted for him instead of Obama/Clinton…

Of course, “bad” is relative. I think it’s wonderful news that “The Maverick” (for definitions of “maverick” than mean “pandering dick”) is setting himself as a pro-war, pro-surge, 100-years in Iraq, pro-Bush tax cuts, pro-torture, anti-science “can’t help you with jobs” kinda guy. Of course, that stance will change according to the audience he’s addressing at that moment, but that’ll catch up with him too.

Can’t wait for November.
[/quote]

Well, well, well. Look who rears his little head sticking up for the weakling running.

obama in 2008!!!

Signed,

pookie.

80

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pookie wrote:

Yup, that’s bad.

In an effort to cozy up to the Republican base, who by and large despise him, he’s alienating Independants and right-leaning Democrats who might have voted for him instead of Obama/Clinton…

Of course, “bad” is relative. I think it’s wonderful news that “The Maverick” (for definitions of “maverick” than mean “pandering dick”) is setting himself as a pro-war, pro-surge, 100-years in Iraq, pro-Bush tax cuts, pro-torture, anti-science “can’t help you with jobs” kinda guy. Of course, that stance will change according to the audience he’s addressing at that moment, but that’ll catch up with him too.

Can’t wait for November.

I’d be careful relying on Lixy for decent coverage of the issue.

[i]The provision had not been part of the original authorization bills approved by the House and the Senate. It was inserted at the last minute by Democrats during conference negotiations as a way to extend the Army’s ban on torture to intelligence agencies.

House Democrats pushed through the conference report in December. The White House has threatened to veto final legislation if it includes the provision. Democrats and civil liberties groups argue the provision is needed to ensure the CIA does not use torture. [/i]

http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/2008/02/senate_to_battle_over_authoriz.php

So Democrats add the waterboarding ban at the 11th hour in order to stage political theatre to get the presumptive GOP nominee in the news for refusing to vote for it.

McCain may need to placate the base - and that may rankle some - but there is nothing smart to be done by letting Democrats define your candidacy by trying to manipulate legislation for political show.

The waterboarding ban wasn’t part of the debated bill - that is good enough reason to vote against it as a matter of principle. Regardless of McCain’s opinion, the Democrats set a clumsy trap with no expectation the ban would be passed - Bush assured a veto if the bill included a waterboarding ban.

Sloppy political move by Democrats using legislation as nothing more than a way to take a shot at McCain - and a wise move for McCain to ignore it.[/quote]

Thunder,

There is no chance that lixy/pookie/ or, unfortunately, sloth/headhunter is going to understand McCain’s reasoning on this.

It takes more than reading headlines and regurgitating them.

I have always had some trouble with McCain on some issues.

However, on this issue of torture, John McCain has and will always have one position.

The idea that he would flop this clumsily on HIS CORE ISSUE personally and to some degree politically, would only be entertained by a fool.

JeffR