I like this one. Simple and straightforward. Everyone questions Obama's leadership qualities. Time to question McCain's.
Why McCain would be a mediocre president
Commentary: It's not a given that Republican candidate has the right stuff
By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- In his frivolous Paris and Britney ad, Sen. John McCain has asked the right question: Is Barack Obama ready to lead this country?
Since last January, Sen. Obama's fitness for the presidency has been the only question that matters in American politics. The pollsters and pundits agree that if Obama can show the voters that he's up to the job, he'll win. If not, he won't.
But that begs another question: Is McCain fit to lead America?
That question hasn't been asked, nor has it been answered.
The assumption seems to be that McCain's years of experience in the military and in Congress of course give him the background and tools he'd need in the White House. As Britney might say, "Duh! For sure he's qualified!!! He's Mac!!!"
But is that true? Does McCain have the right stuff?
A careful look at McCain's biography shows that he isn't prepared for the job. His resume is much thinner than most people think.
Here are some reasons why McCain would be a mediocre president.
Lack of accomplishments
Like the current occupant of the White House, McCain got his first career breaks from the connections and money of his family, not from hard work.
The son and grandson of Navy admirals, he attended Annapolis where he did poorly. Nevertheless, he was commissioned as a pilot, where he performed poorly, crashing three planes before he failed to evade a North Vietnamese missile that destroyed his plane. McCain spent more than five years in a prison camp.
After his release, McCain knew his weak military record meant he'd never make admiral, so he turned his sights to a career in politics. With the help of his new wife's wealth, his new father-in-law's business connections and some powerful friends had made as a lobbyist for the Navy, he was elected in 1982 to a Congress in a district that he didn't reside in until the day the seat opened up. A few years later, he succeeded Barry Goldwater as a senator.
McCain hasn't accomplished much in the Senate. Even his own campaign doesn't trumpet his successes, probably because the few victories he's had still rankle Republicans.
His campaign finance law failed to significantly reduce the role of money in politics. He failed to get a big tobacco bill through the Senate. He's failed to change the way Congress spends money; his bill to give the president a line-item veto was declared unconstitutional, and the system of pork and earmarks continues unabated. He failed to reform the immigration system.
Every senator who runs for president misses votes back in Washington, so it's no surprise that McCain and all the others who ran in the primaries have missed a lot of votes in the past year. But between the beginning of 2005 and mid-2007, no senator missed more roll-call votes than McCain did, except Tim Johnson, who was recovering from a near-fatal brain aneurysm.
Shallow
McCain says he doesn't understand the economy. He's demonstrated that he doesn't understand the workings of Social Security, or the political history of the Middle East. He doesn't know who our enemies are. He says he wants to reduce global warming, but then proposes ideas that would stimulate -- not reduce -- demand for fossil fuels.
McCain has done one thing well -- self promotion. Instead of working on legislation or boning up on the issues, he's been on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" more than any other guest. He's been on the Sunday talk shows more than any other guest in the past 10 years. He's hosted "Saturday Night Live" and even announced his candidacy in 2007 on "The Late Show with David Letterman."
McCain has not articulated any lofty goals. So far, his campaign theme has mostly been "McCain: He's None of the Above."
In the primaries, he campaigned on "I'm not that robotic businessman, I'm not that sanctimonious hick, I'm not that crazy libertarian, I'm not that washed-up actor, I'm not that delusional 9/11 guy." In the general election, he's emphasized that he's not that treasonous dreamer.
No leadership
McCain has frequently taken on near-impossible missions that go against the grain of his party. It's the basis of his reputation as a maverick. But McCain has never been able to bring more than a handful of Republicans along with him on issues such as campaign finance reform or immigration. Democrats on the Hill have accepted McCain's help on some issues, but except for a few exceptions (John Kerry and Joe Lieberman), they've never warmed to him.
To achieve anything as president, McCain would have to win over two hostile parties: The Democrats and the Republicans.
Living in the Sixties
McCain is still fighting the Vietnam War. But he's not fighting the real historic war, which taught us the folly of injecting ourselves into a civil war that was none of our business. We learned that, in a world where even peasants have guns, explosives and radios, a determined and popular guerrilla force can defeat a modern army equipped with the mightiest technology if that army has no vital national interest to protect.
Instead, McCain is fighting an imaginary Vietnam War, where a sure victory could have been achieved with just a little more bombing, just a little more "pacification," just a little more will to win at home. This fantasy clouds McCain's judgment on foreign policy.
Most of the other high-profile politicians who fought in Vietnam -- Colin Powell, Chuck Hegel, John Kerry, and Jim Webb -- aren't stuck in the past, and they don't view the Iraq War as a chance to get Vietnam right.
No principles
After years of honing a reputation as a guy who'll say the truth regardless of the political consequences, McCain has crashed the Straight Talk Express. On almost every issue where he took a principled stand against the Republican line -- taxes, immigration, oil drilling, the Religious Right -- he's changed his views.
We ought to like politicians who change their mind when the facts change; it shows maturity, judgment and flexibility. But politicians who change their mind to suit the prevailing winds show the opposite.
The bottom line
Successful presidents come from two molds: visionaries, or mechanics. The visionaries -- think Reagan or FDR -- see what others can't and say 'Why not?" to inspire the country. The mechanics -- think LBJ or Eisenhower -- know the ins and outs of government and are able to harness the power of millions of humans to accomplish great things, or at least keep the wheels from coming off.
McCain fits neither style. He's neither a dreamer, nor a detail guy. His major accomplishment, in Vietnam and in the Senate, has been merely to survive.
Just surviving doesn't make you're a hero, or a decent president. America needs to do more than survive the next four years.
I have to agree.
Why would he republican party nominate him? There were some very principled, very accomplished, and very likable republicans in the running at the first of the year.
I was amazed they picked this guy.
I think it is because they knew that they had no chance winning the White House after the disaster that has been George W. Bush. They picked him as a sacrificial candidate. His duty as a soldier and his sacrifice make him a hero and I guess that was enough. I do respect him for it as well.
The republican party has gone up in flames because of the current president. Out of the ashes will rise a new party that doesn't represent fiscal conservatives, limited government activists, evangelical values, security-obsessed, pro-nuclear energy, etc, all at the same time.
I believe the next leader of the republican party will be someone completely new from the ones who ran for president.
The republicans knew they would lose, with McCain, they lose with respect.
Nice RM....beat me to it. Here's the link http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7b4914192B-12AF-4623-AB18-5EFE91204B04%7d&print=true&dist=printMidSection
Wrong thread, however.
John McCain (R-Idiot) for President thread....
Landslide coming.....Paulson announced he's the first rat to jump ship come January....whole lotta mess coming the dems way.
To sum up my opinion:
No.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I have to agree.
Why would he republican party nominate him? There were some very principled, very accomplished, and very likable republicans in the running at the first of the year.
I was amazed they picked this guy.
I think it is because they knew that they had no chance winning the White House after the disaster that has been George W. Bush. They picked him as a sacrificial candidate. His duty as a soldier and his sacrifice make him a hero and I guess that was enough. I do respect him for it as well.
The republican party has gone up in flames because of the current president. Out of the ashes will rise a new party that doesn't represent fiscal conservatives, limited government activists, evangelical values, security-obsessed, pro-nuclear energy, etc, all at the same time.
I believe the next leader of the republican party will be someone completely new from the ones who ran for president.
The republicans knew they would lose, with McCain, they lose with respect.
Open primaries sure didn't hurt McCain.
I believe every state should have closed primaries like Oklahoma. Do you Dems want Repiglicans or Inds helping to decide your candidate?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I have to agree.
Why would he republican party nominate him? There were some very principled, very accomplished, and very likable republicans in the running at the first of the year.
No, there weren't.
All of the Republican candidates had huge liabilities. McCain had the fewest of them. Plain and simple.
Let's go down the list:
-- Romney: Too Mormon and too much of a flip-flopper on key GOP values. I also heard some Republicans who actually kinda liked him call him "Robo-Romney." Ouch.
-- Giuliani: Too much of a liberal as mayor, and his personal life is a disaster. Didn't seem to have any stances other than say "9/11" a lot.
-- Thompson: No energy at all. Sleepy. Sounded great on paper until he actually started campaigning.
-- Huckabee: Perceived as a liberal as governor, especially with taxes. And his evangelicalism creeped out a lot of moderate Republicans.
-- Tancredo: A one-issue candidate who had no wide appeal whatsoever.
-- Paul: Too much of a fly in the ointment to gain appeal to mainstream Republicans.
-- Hunter: Who?
-- Brownback: See Hunter.
-- T. Thompson: See Brownback.
So you're left with McCain, who has the fewest liabilities of the candidates.
A lot of GOP pundits b*tch about McCain being liberal, but the stats on his voting record belie that. He's a proponent on cutting spending. He's also not as big of a xenophobe as other Republicans (I'm looking at you, Tancredo) and thus doesn't turn off moderate GOPers and independents.
McCain also has the advantage of being somewhat of a Bush critic; it's apparent many GOP voters want to get away from Bush as much as possible and his 27 percent approval rating. Many Republicans loathe to admit that, but it's the harsh reality of 2008.
Romney had good hair, Huckabee could play the guitar, Fred Thompson worked with Ice T, Guiliani looked good in a dress and once kissed Donald Trump, Ron Paul was crazy enough to scare the terrorists...
What do you mean "liabilities"?
Neither are fit to be dog food, but we have to choose one. Obama is the most extreme leftwing of all Liberals, based on his voting records and his "birds of a feather", no matter how much he tries to lie his way out of it. (Can't hide from your own crazy wife)
He is a member of a church that puts Africa and black people first above all. They've taken that down from their website for some reason.[;)]
If I have a choice of eating regular sh*t or eating diseased sh*t, I suppose I'll take the regular sh*it. My vote, unfortunately, is for John.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I have to agree.
Why would he republican party nominate him? There were some very principled, very accomplished, and very likable republicans in the running at the first of the year.
No, there weren't.
Well, maybe they were attractive to some Dems as having no chance to win.
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
Neither are fit to be dog food, but we have to choose one. Obama is the most extreme leftwing of all Liberals, based on his voting records and his "birds of a feather", no matter how much he tries to lie his way out of it. (Can't hide from your own crazy wife)
He is a member of a church that puts Africa and black people first above all. They've taken that down from their website for some reason.[;)]
If I have a choice of eating regular sh*t or eating diseased sh*t, I suppose I'll take the regular sh*it. My vote, unfortunately, is for John.
Will Rogers WAS a Modern Liberal....
Congratulations! You have won the worst post of the week award and are in line for worst post of 08!
Now, go back to your supper.....
But if you keep scarfing that stuff down (and spewing it back on us),you'll only prove what kind of head you are.[:P]
Worst post of the week? Have you read ANY of your posts?
Will Rogers would PUKE on todays "Modern Liberals". I've read up on the guy. I had to, I went to a school named after him. He's no Obama, Pelosi, Franken or Edwards. They aren't fit to eat his shoe soles. He wouldn't be associated with todays nut case Liberals OR their nut case supporters.
I'm not sure why Bush didn't spend any time grooming his own successor. He's known Cheney wasn't gonna go for the VP-to-Pres route for a long long time now; why not find someone -- anyone! -- to carry the Bush Admin torch? McCain's such an imperfect vessel for all the neocon stuff, and all the Unitary Executive swaggering bullsh*t. McCain's got the maverick thing locked down tight, and is best doing his own thing; I don't get why he ended up being Mr. Party Line.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
I'm not sure why Bush didn't spend any time grooming his own successor. He's known Cheney wasn't gonna go for the VP-to-Pres route for a long long time now; why not find someone -- anyone! -- to carry the Bush Admin torch? McCain's such an imperfect vessel for all the neocon stuff, and all the Unitary Executive swaggering bullsh*t. McCain's got the maverick thing locked down tight, and is best doing his own thing; I don't get why he ended up being Mr. Party Line.
You guys got a four month (give or take) spirited battle.
Republicans were fed a sh!t burger the day after Super Tuesday and were told to enjoy it.
That's how it works sometimes.
I think GOP egos got so swelled, the expected leaders just fell off one by one. Overall, I think Romney was the best of the lot. Thompson's handlers should have taken him off the valuum, and Rudy just never really seemed to give a **** about running for office. I think he enjoyed the attention but really didn't want the job.
Absolute pick of the whole dogpile was Bill Richardson. I do hope whomever wins the WH will offer Richardson a spot on the cabinet. He's brilliant, brings a ton of creds, and experience. Not to mention, he's a guy I could definitely picture myself drinking a beer with and talking moderate political issues, snow skiing, or the contribution to the nuclear program to the state of NM.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Not to mention, he's a guy I could definitely picture myself drinking a beer with and talking moderate political issues, snow skiing, or the contribution to the nuclear program to the state of NM.
OK, pancakes with the beer? Why do you have to be able to hang out with your President? I know that lots of folks really dug that about Bush 2, and I honestly to this day don't know why. Enlighten me please.
McCain fit to lead? The Georgian president appears to think so. Seems he forgot to send his props to Obama.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/12/video-georgian-president-touts-mccains-solidarity-in-tbilisi/
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
McCain fit to lead? The Georgian president appears to think so. Seems he forgot to send his props to Obama.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/12/video-georgian-president-touts-mccains-solidarity-in-tbilisi/
All of Europe shows praise for Obama. You found the one ally who likes the sword rattling, threatmachine McCain.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
McCain fit to lead? The Georgian president appears to think so. Seems he forgot to send his props to Obama.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/12/video-georgian-president-touts-mccains-solidarity-in-tbilisi/
All of Europe shows praise for Obama. You found the one ally who likes the sword rattling, threatmachine McCain.
Oh Whatever Waterboy. "All of Europe" has not been invaded by Russia right now.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
McCain fit to lead? The Georgian president appears to think so. Seems he forgot to send his props to Obama.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/12/video-georgian-president-touts-mccains-solidarity-in-tbilisi/
All of Europe shows praise for Obama. You found the one ally who likes the sword rattling, threatmachine McCain.
Oh Whatever Waterboy. "All of Europe" has not been invaded by Russia right now.
The cool part is that Randy Scheuenemann, McCain's foreign policy advisor, used to be a lobbyist for Georgia (till approximately March of this year). So really, I don't see why anybody should be surprised that McCain is our newest and most patriotic howler monkey when it comes to the Caucasus.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Not to mention, he's a guy I could definitely picture myself drinking a beer with and talking moderate political issues, snow skiing, or the contribution to the nuclear program to the state of NM.
OK, pancakes with the beer? Why do you have to be able to hang out with your President? I know that lots of folks really dug that about Bush 2, and I honestly to this day don't know why. Enlighten me please.
pancakes, pancakes???? I like to drink beer!
Richardson strikes me as incredibly personable, in addition to the "real" reasons why he was a great candidate. Amiable is a good quality in the leader of the most powerful country in the free world.
The first election I was able to vote in was '84. Reagan was very popular on the OSU campus. In addition to his policy popularity, people loved the guy. You could picture him walking into your living room and shaking your hand. He was kind of like the grandfather people wish they had.
Neither Bush ever struck me as overly charismatic.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
McCain fit to lead? The Georgian president appears to think so. Seems he forgot to send his props to Obama.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/12/video-georgian-president-touts-mccains-solidarity-in-tbilisi/
John McCaint's camp pain is Georgia's DC lobby. Their jingo rat dog Lieberman made it sound like this whole thing was set up in order to make McCain look bolder and more ready than anyone including the Busheviks.
Guido, try not to make yourself look ridiculous.
Where was Condi Rice? Cheney? We know Bush was on TV from China. It's like we let the mob walk in there to eliminate their competition. Published reports indicate only that Secretary of State Rice was on vacation while Russian bombs rained down on nearby Georgia and tanks rolled in, resulting, apparently, in thousands of civilian deaths. Time magazine says "Rice showed no signs of emerging from vacation, but she dispatched an envoy to the region...." Obama is on an HONEST vacation. Every other important person in our current White House is on personal leave. McCain's on diplomatic leave and has Joe Lieberman on call to beat the retaliation-with-armor drum?
HERE....Let this sober you up! It's McCain we need to fear .....NOT OBAMA!Obama is only on an HONEST vacation in Hawaii....
http://current.com/items/89192617_russia_georgia_war_washington_risks_nuclear_war_by_miscalculation?xid=42#89192830
Russia Georgia War - Washington risks nuclear war by miscalculation
"The dramatic military attack by the military of the Republic of Georgia on South Ossetia in the last days has brought the world one major step closer to the ultimate horror of the Cold War era—a thermonuclear war between Russia and the United States—by miscalculation. What is playing out in the Caucasus is being reported in US media in an alarmingly misleading light, making Moscow appear the lone aggressor. The question is whether George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are encouraging the unstable Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili in order to force the next US President to back the NATO military agenda of the Bush Doctrine. This time Washington may have badly misjudged the possibilities, as it did in Iraq , but this time with possible nuclear consequences. "
SOBER UP!
Here's a guy with about the same amount of knowledge of the Russian-Georgian conflict as bozo FOTD:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/13/merkley-flunks-both-georgia-test-and-table-manners/
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
McCain fit to lead? The Georgian president appears to think so. Seems he forgot to send his props to Obama.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/12/video-georgian-president-touts-mccains-solidarity-in-tbilisi/
All of Europe shows praise for Obama. You found the one ally who likes the sword rattling, threatmachine McCain.
Oh Whatever Waterboy. "All of Europe" has not been invaded by Russia right now.
"Whatever Waterboy". I like that. Hope it sticks!
Why are we only getting one side of this story on our press? Surely the Russians feel they have some justification for this action. I saw one ambassador being interviewed on PBS ch11 last nite and he seemed to have a different take on it (of course). He said that Georgia had been attacking their own people who had wanted Russian sovereignty to return and had built a pipeline to transfer Russian oil to Asia. I don't understand it all but for heavens sake, do we have a media that reports all sides or just our allies' or leaders' perspective?
Its like the Olympic coverage...if our side doesn't win gold its a tragedy and you're hard pressed to know who did and have their performances shown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWX5u69hmzY
quote:
Originally posted by Nik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWX5u69hmzY
That was both hilarious and terrifying at the same time! Obama is only aheadby 4 pts over this guy?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Nik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWX5u69hmzY
That was both hilarious and terrifying at the same time! Obama is only aheadby 4 pts over this guy?
He'd be ahead of Hillary....
Obama in Landslide....83 daze to go.