McCain - Foreign Policy Genius

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:

McCain is the Bob Dole of the 2008 election. IF Hillary or McCain get the presidency there will be a mass exodus to Canada! I have already studied Canada’s gun laws and culture I am ready to move along with millions of others!

If either McCain or Clinton win 2008, you are headed to Canada?

That cements my vote - McCain/Clinton 2008.

A tough ticket to swallow, I know - but the sacrifice is worth it if we can get troops of half-educated, believe-anything-I-read-on-the-internet numbskulls to get out of the way of the rest of the other folk.[/quote]

Just curious, TB: did you read any of the links that Rocky provided? There’s a lot there and the stuff is sourced.

I don’t see how any Republican can vote for a guy who co-sponsors bills with Ted Kennedy. McCain agrees with Ted Kennedy, for crissakes!!

Remember when McCain formed his own little cabal to thwart the Republican majority in the Senate?

Keating 5?

Yeah, NcCain’s a big threat, say the Clintons. They recognize someone who is their EQUAL. Is THAT what we want in a President???

Man, I’d vote for Obama before I’d vote for McCain.

62

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Just curious, TB: did you read any of the links that Rocky provided? There’s a lot there and the stuff is sourced.[/quote]

I skimmed it, which is more than I usually do for barely literate trolls’ contributions - but I think you and I may have different opinions on what constitutes being “sourced”.

See, here is the problem - you view politics as naked ideological warfare. Doesn’t work that way. In order to do business, there has to be reaching across the aisle - the system is built intentionally to create this effect. It is not an accident.

And, working with a Senator from the other party is not evidence that “they’re the same!” nor that party affiliations require that they hate each other. Reagan and Tip O’Neill at various times worked hard to strike political deals, angrily drew lines in the sand and refused to budge on principles, and after hours were pals.

McCain has a reputation as a Senator that can “do business” - and while that can be taken too far, that isn’t a bad thing to be. That is, if you are interested in real politics, and not the zero-sum political battle on chatboards. A Senator who just stands up with an ideological script never to negotiate for “half a loaf” on legislation is a Senator that will quickly be nothing but a preening noisemaker soon to be term-limited by voters who appreciate the value of actually getting things done.

You mean the “cabal” that put Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court for the next 30 years? There are reasons to argue tactics for future nominations, but what were the results? Is the Supreme Court more or less conservative because of McCain?

Been dealt with. Go read Boston’s post.

This is borderline incoherence. What does “their EQUAL” mean? Does it mean they fear McCain in a general election, even when the GOP brand name is hurting? That isn’t a bad thing. If the Clintons are worried about you, you’re doing something right.

I want the best conservative who can get elected in the Oval Office.

Vote for whomever you want, but spend some time learning about the candidates outside of the fever swamps of the internet. You don’t have to vote for McCain or even like him - but do something, anything than get all your information from half-baked conspiracy sites and Ayn Rand chatrooms.

63

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

The smart people figured out a while ago the gov’t mission is to bankrupt us INTENTIONALLY. [/quote]

How could you possibly know what “the smart people figured out”?

64

I wonder, if McCain-Kennedy gets past Congress would President McCain sign it. Hmmm.

Remember the Gang of 14?

Then, McCain-Feingold. Hmmm.

65

Hope McCain reads this and gives it some thought.

David A. Keene

Serbia’s Lesson to Neocons
The Hill
January 22, 2008

The neoconservatives who have played so significant a role in shaping U.S. foreign policy in recent years tend to operate on the assumption that the peoples of various nations share our basic values and desires and will therefore react favorably to our magnanimous willingness to share or even impose those values on the world in which they live.

Indeed, they have managed at both the philosophical and policy levels to convince themselves that if we could just remake the world in our own image, people everywhere would be better off and we would see an end to the wars that have plagued us for as long as history has been written.

Indeed, they argue that the goal of creating a “democratic” world will lead to peace (because democracies don’t make war on one another) and have in the process married an overreaching internationalism with our own nation’s national interests. Thus, policies aren’t analyzed with an eye to our own interests, but instead give priority to an abstract view of what might be “good” for all the peoples of the world.

The problem is that when a nation begins pursuing foreign policy goals based on interests other than its own, it is likely to begin meddling in the affairs of other nations in ways that stir animosity and lead to unforeseen consequences. That is precisely what’s happening today not only in Iraq, but in the Balkans, where we’ve fought one war and may be providing the kindling that could lead to another…
http://www.conservative.org/columnists/keene/080122dk.htm

66

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Man, I’d vote for Obama before I’d vote for McCain.

[/quote]

Did you watch the Obama speech after his win? I won’t vote for the guy, mind you. But man, Rod makes a good point on the Crunchy-Con blog about him. The man sounds like the Democrat’s Reagan. He puts forth a helluva optimistic message, and sounds good doing it. If he gets the nomination (which I believe he will), I think he wins the whole shebang in an impressive fashion. I have to imagine the Republican Candidates are praying they’ll face Hillary instead of him.

You know I’d hate to say it, but for the general election, I think Huckabee would be the best matchup against him. I’m not impressed with what I know of his policy ideas, but the man sounds damn good saying it, for the most part. He shares the optimistic and hopeful quality Obama has. That’s not a plug for Huck, as I will not vote for him. Just an observation.

Now, here’s what I dread. What if Obama wins and spends at a lesser rate than the Republicans did? Wouldn’t it be a disaster if an Obama admistration made the Democrats look more fiscally responsible than Republicans? Might be a long time before we see Republicans back in the White House if that happens. I know it doesn’t seem likely, but G. Bush did spend like it was going out of style…

67

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That cements my vote - McCain/Clinton 2008.

A tough ticket to swallow, I know - but the sacrifice is worth it if we can get troops of half-educated, believe-anything-I-read-on-the-internet numbskulls to get out of the way of the rest of the other folk.[/quote]

Best post on this thread.

I hate McCain. I think he is a liveral at heart that has found a home on the right.

I am sad that Thompson dropped out. He had the best ideas in a field of very weak pseudo-conservatives.

Romney is a dick.

Where is Kinky Friedman when you need him?

68

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Where is Kinky Friedman when you need him? [/quote]

69

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hope McCain reads this and gives it some thought.

David A. Keene

Serbia’s Lesson to Neocons
The Hill
January 22, 2008

The neoconservatives who have played so significant a role in shaping U.S. foreign policy in recent years tend to operate on the assumption that the peoples of various nations share our basic values and desires and will therefore react favorably to our magnanimous willingness to share or even impose those values on the world in which they live.

Indeed, they have managed at both the philosophical and policy levels to convince themselves that if we could just remake the world in our own image, people everywhere would be better off and we would see an end to the wars that have plagued us for as long as history has been written.

Indeed, they argue that the goal of creating a “democratic” world will lead to peace (because democracies don’t make war on one another) and have in the process married an overreaching internationalism with our own nation’s national interests. Thus, policies aren’t analyzed with an eye to our own interests, but instead give priority to an abstract view of what might be “good” for all the peoples of the world.

The problem is that when a nation begins pursuing foreign policy goals based on interests other than its own, it is likely to begin meddling in the affairs of other nations in ways that stir animosity and lead to unforeseen consequences. That is precisely what’s happening today not only in Iraq, but in the Balkans, where we’ve fought one war and may be providing the kindling that could lead to another…
http://www.conservative.org/columnists/keene/080122dk.htm[/quote]

McCain has always been Jacksonian ( http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm ) w/r/t foreign policy (as opposed to neo-conservative ( The Times & The Sunday Times )…).

BTW, the best attempt I’ve heard to classify “neo-conservatism” into Meade’s 4 schools is: muscular Wilsonian plus the nationalism of Jacksonian.

70

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Did you watch the Obama speech after his win? I won’t vote for the guy, mind you. But man, Rod makes a good point on the Crunchy-Con blog about him. The man sounds like the Democrat’s Reagan. He puts forth a helluva optimistic message, and sounds good doing it. If he gets the nomination (which I believe he will), I think he wins the whole shebang in an impressive fashion. I have to imagine the Republican Candidates are praying they’ll face Hillary instead of him.

You know I’d hate to say it, but for the general election, I think Huckabee would be the best matchup against him. I’m not impressed with what I know of his policy ideas, but the man sounds damn good saying it, for the most part. He shares the optimistic and hopeful quality Obama has. That’s not a plug for Huck, as I will not vote for him. Just an observation.

Now, here’s what I dread. What if Obama wins and spends at a lesser rate than the Republicans did? Wouldn’t it be a disaster if an Obama admistration made the Democrats look more fiscally responsible than Republicans? Might be a long time before we see Republicans back in the White House if that happens. I know it doesn’t seem likely, but G. Bush did spend like it was going out of style…[/quote]

Eh, I think Obama is trying - and succeeding - to be more like Kennedy than Reagan. Of course, if he wants that nomination he’ll need to be, given he’s running against a female, Democratic Nixon (of course, Hill and Bill seem to have more of a race-focused Southern Strategy than Nixon did: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGNhOWRmMDMwYTExOWI4ZGFhODI4OTU0NmZjYjJkMjA= )… And Bill is going to be as Clintonian as ever: THERE’S A METHOD TO CRAFTY BILL’S MADNESS

I do think Hillary is more beatable in a 2-way national race - just like Bill would have been. But they’re also far slicker (for instance: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODQzNDk5ZmZlMjJkZmY3N2NmNWY1NjljYzUyMzFjMWU= ), which makes them very dangerous.

As far as match-ups go I still think McCain is the best match-up - but he is going to need to pick a running mate with more conservative bona fides in domestic issues - maybe ol’ Fred, but that would be an old ticket. I saw one person suggest Chris Cox, which would be a very interesting choice.

W/r/t spending, I suppose he could pull a Clinton and gut the military while growing everything else and achieve a net reduction - that’s about the only way I see that scenario happening with a Democratic Congress.

71

How about Real ID? Would any of you be OK voting for a person supporting that infamous act?

72

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

As far as match-ups go I still think McCain is the best match-up - but he is going to need to pick a running mate with more conservative bona fides in domestic issues - maybe ol’ Fred, but that would be an old ticket. I saw one person suggest Chris Cox, which would be a very interesting choice. [/quote]

There was a rumor that Fred might pair up with J.C. Watts - who knows how serious that was, but Watts-as-veep could be interesting for other candidates.

73

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

As far as match-ups go I still think McCain is the best match-up - but he is going to need to pick a running mate with more conservative bona fides in domestic issues - maybe ol’ Fred, but that would be an old ticket. I saw one person suggest Chris Cox, which would be a very interesting choice.

thunderbolt23 wrote:

There was a rumor that Fred might pair up with J.C. Watts - who knows how serious that was, but Watts-as-veep could be interesting for other candidates.[/quote]

Now that would be an interesting pair: McCain/Watts - that definitely gets the cultural conservatives on the bus.

74

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

As far as match-ups go I still think McCain is the best match-up - but he is going to need to pick a running mate with more conservative bona fides in domestic issues - maybe ol’ Fred, but that would be an old ticket. I saw one person suggest Chris Cox, which would be a very interesting choice.

There was a rumor that Fred might pair up with J.C. Watts - who knows how serious that was, but Watts-as-veep could be interesting for other candidates.[/quote]

OK, but in the brief time I spent in Washington, several years ago, J.C. Watts was considered an empty suit. NCAA legacy, social conservative…that’s it.

75

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Some thoughts:

In the event McCain did buckle under torture, who are we to judge? After Vietnam the military Code of Conduct was rewritten. I no longer recall the exact wording, but post-Vietnam it was changed from absolute resistance to resistance “to the best of my ability”. The point is that torture sucks and until you’ve spent a week buried with only a straw to breath then you have no business judging a man’s conduct under torture.

As for the gun stuff, gun advocates are perhaps the greatest supporters of the ENTIRE Bill of Rights…period. The second thing about the gun culture is that we don’t forget. But the reality is (thanks Rudy) that McCain’s gun talk isn’t any different than anything else he says. It’s the same double talk every politician has for every issue. He’s not anti-gun or pro-gun. He’s just pro-getting his ass elected.

What I find so strange about the man is the ire he gets from conservatives. Let me rephrase that. I can understand why conservatives don’t like him, but why is their hatred reserved to him? He’s more conservative than Rudy, Huck, or Romney. Yet we don’t hear Rush out bashing them.

mike[/quote]

Good post all around. I have problems with McCain, mainly immigration, but I admire the guy for what he’s been through, and he’s every bit as conservative as Huckabee or Romney.

76

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

OK, but in the brief time I spent in Washington, several years ago, J.C. Watts was considered an empty suit. NCAA legacy, social conservative…that’s it.[/quote]

Assuming you’re correct, I guess it matters whether McCain is picking the VP as heir apparent or just to add to the ticket to help him get elected. Most VPs don’t have the role in policy that Cheney has had…

77

Scarborough questioning McCain’s Conservative credentials.
http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/01/2008-01-31MSNBCMJScarborough.wmv