John McCain Wins Florida Primary

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Link?

I'm guessing what you've posted isn't what was said.

McCain is definitely in favour of putting more troops in Iraq. I dont think he has ever explicitly said he supports more wars though. I'd also be interested in seeing a quote

[underGRADFlame]

I'd trust McCain over Bush when it comes to military issues, thats not saying a lot though, I think i'd trust a 12 y/o girl more than bush right now.

I hope McCain wins it, he would be the only Rep. I could vote for and not feel dirty.

But as my uncle keeps reminding me, as a Canadian I know nothing about american politics , so it doesn't matter what i think.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Link?

I'm guessing what you've posted isn't what was said.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/..._in_nh_wo.html

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned.

the 100 year part of it is on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by badnarik

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/..._in_nh_wo.html

i believe the 100 year part of it is on youtube

Is that where the 1000 or even a million years part is too?

[Clever_Iggy]

Iowa_Flames_Fan: if McCain wins the nomination, who do you see as his running mate?

A few months ago I thought Mike Hucklebee was a shoe in for a lot of candidates as a solid VP - solid in the Republican base, very good domestic policy record but didnt have the international/foreign policy experience to be legit in the big seat.

However, that was before he went all hardcore Christian publicly and before McCain made his comeback. Now Im not sure who is a good fit... someone from the Republican base to solidify the Conservative vote but I dont know enough to start naming names.

Ive met Senator McCain several times since I moved to Arizona. A great person and I think a solid Republican President to repair the damage done after Georgey-boy.

[badnarik]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain..._war_0127.html

talks about more wars on the video

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by badnarik

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/..._in_nh_wo.html

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned.

the 100 year part of it is on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM

If you listen to it, his point is not to continue occupation in Iraq but merely a presence, like Korea, Japan, etc...

Doesnt the US still have military bases in Germany and other places in Europe?

Way to take the comments completely out of context.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by badnarik

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/..._in_nh_wo.html

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned.

the 100 year part of it is on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM

And the truth comes out. He's not talking about an occupying force, he's talking about having troops stationed there. I don't know that that is a good idea, but it certainly isn't as sinister as it was made out to be.

Interesting that Lieberman was by his side. Maybe that will be the ticket.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by badnarik

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain..._war_0127.html

talks about more wars on the video

Oh wow, what a stretch. There might be wars in the future? Who knew?

[csnarpy]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

While I agree this is an issue for the primaries, for the General Election, it won't matter. Given a choice between McCain and Obama/Clinton staunch conservatives will vote for McCain.

Re: The Iraq war, there is a huge difference between "staying the course" and what McCain is saying (at least that's what I get). Isn't he more in the "tactical withdrawl" camp?

I know they are on the Conservative side but I think I'd rather have my countries welfare taken care of instead of a waisting funds in another Vietnam like war.

• Iraq War
  
  
• Help Maliki government move forward as rapidly as possible. (Nov 2007)
• I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war. (Oct 2007)
• Stategy in Iraq: defeat al-Qaeda; limit Iran's influence. (Sep 2007)
• Iraq is now the central front in the war against al-Qaeda. (Sep 2007)
• Americans want to win; bin Laden thinks he's winning now. (Sep 2007)
• Democrats proposing failure in Iraq by withdrawing. (Sep 2007)
• Reducing military presence has never in history won a war. (Sep 2007)
• Bring troops home the right way: home with honor. (Sep 2007)
• Surge is working; let it continue until it succeeds. (Sep 2007)
• Support the surge even if benchmarks are not met. (Aug 2007)
• Did not read NIE before war vote, but was fully briefed. (Jun 2007)
• If new strategy not working by Sept., we still must succeed. (Jun 2007)
• Willing to be last man standing for US involvement in Iraq. (May 2007)
• Consequences of failure: regional chaos & we must come back. (May 2007)
• In hindsight, Iraq invasion was still justified. (May 2007)
• Timetable would be catastrophe, even if Iraq wants it. (May 2007)
• Advocated leaving Somalia, but no comparison to Iraq. (May 2007)
• War has been mismanaged, but we are now on the right track. (May 2007)
• War in Iraq has not gone well: dire but not hopeless. (Mar 2007)
• Al Qaeda may take over Iraqi oilwells. (Mar 2007)
• Prefers more troops for surge, but 20,000 is sufficient. (Jan 2007)
• Bush now has the right strategy, and it's our last chance. (Jan 2007)
• Generals advising "no more troops" was a failed policy. (Jan 2007)
• If we leave Iraq, terrorists will follow us home. (Jan 2007)
• Send in a heavy wave of troops to Iraq to establish order. (Nov 2006)
• Looting, terrorism in Iraq a result of US mistakes. (Sep 2004)
• The Iraqi war was necessary after years of failed diplomacy. (Aug 2004)
• Saddam would have acquired terrible weapons again. (Aug 2004)
• The Iraqi war was necessary, achievable and noble. (Aug 2004)
• The cause of the Iraqi war was just. (Apr 2004)

http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Joh...tm#War_+_Peace


Yep, he's the man alright

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

And the truth comes out. He's not talking about an occupying force, he's talking about having troops stationed there. I don't know that that is a good idea, but it certainly isn't as sinister as it was made out to be.

Interesting that Lieberman was by his side. Maybe that will be the ticket.

McCain's "Iraq problem" is to me a public relations one more than a policy one. The fact that he wants to keep troops there for the foreseeable future means that most people who don't look deeply at these issues assume he's just a Bush lackey--which is a bad thing to be right now.

But McCain has been saying for a while now that one of the major problems in Iraq has been not enough troops. I don't pretend to be an expert, but in my view there's a good chance he's right about that; and if he is, that's as damning an indictment of the Bush administration's arrogance and incompetence as any.

His stance on the Bush tax cuts is worse, IMO. That's a pure flip-flop, and one of numerous pretty weak attempts to pander to the right wing of the party.

Another McCain problem: he lacks charisma. He's older now, and a lot grumpier than he used to be, and whoever the Democratic nominee is, he's likely to face a funding gap and a charisma gap at the same time. The GOP has historically been good at raising money, but the Democrats have closed the gap in the last few elections--and McCain doesn't have the support of the GOP establishment for whatever reason. A McCain candidacy is likely to be outspent by a Democratic party that is enjoying an energized base--not a recipe for success. Remember Bob Dole? Yeah--me neither.

As for a running mate, Lieberman would be an interesting choice, but it might compound some of McCain's problems. Giuliani has even less charisma than McCain, and has been a terrible campaigner, so I think that would be an awful choice. If McCain's smart, he picks a mainstream Republican who's more solid on the issues than he is, from a swing state that he needs to win the general election.

[Thor]

A moderate republican that I actually like, hope he wins the Republican ticket.

That way I'm happy with whomever wins.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by badnarik

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/..._in_nh_wo.html

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned.

the 100 year part of it is on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM

I think he meant a millitary presence in Iraq forever and not necessarily fighting. Such as the US has had a military base in Germany and the Phillipines since WWII!

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

McCain's "Iraq problem" is to me a public relations one more than a policy one. The fact that he wants to keep troops there for the foreseeable future means that most people who don't look deeply at these issues assume he's just a Bush lackey--which is a bad thing to be right now.

He's been consistent in his message.

When the conflict appeared to be going badly, his candidacy disappeared even as he stayed on message. With the conflict appearing to go well, the message has remained consistent and he's shot back to the top.

Americans, generally, have never seemed to be bothered by any moral ambiguity regarding Iraq. What bothered them is they were promised an easy win and the thing got tough, potentially even a loss since Pres Bush put it into that characterization. At that point, it was the age-old rationale of "fire the coach." Now that the coach (McCain) appears to be winning, with a strategy he touted all along, he's a genius again.

Iraq has really been a key to his revival. His policy is not a repellant. It's an attraction.

A little known factoid that he's kept largely under wraps is that he had a military age son volunteer in the Marines and was scheduled to serve in Iraq . . . . not sure if he's there or not.

An interesting point that seems to be overlooked about his candidacy though is that he's the guy most likely to initiate a military-age draft, something that would probably defeat him outright if he were ever backed up to the wall on it.

Another McCain problem: he lacks charisma. He's older now, and a lot grumpier than he used to be, and whoever the Democratic nominee is, he's likely to face a funding gap and a charisma gap at the same time.

His lack of charisma is his charisma.

Seriously.

Crotchety old fart/curmudgeon has a certain attraction for voters at certain moments.

Cowperson

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

His lack of charisma is his charisma.

Seriously.

Crotchety old fart/curmudgeon has a certain attraction for voters at certain moments.

Good post, Cow.

Here's where I disagree, though. For a radio host or a television District Attorney, people might find "crotchety" appealing. For a presidential candidate, people like sunny optimism.

In all honesty, I don't think McCain is a very strong candidate for the GOP. He's lost his "maverick" status with excessive pandering to the extreme right, and if as you suggest his fortunes depend on Americans NOT having "Iraq fatigue" next November, then he may well be in big trouble.

One common fallacy is that because elections come down to "swing states" that candidates who do well among independents are guaranteed to win. In fact, George Bush did quite poorly among independents. What he did was energize his base. The Democrats' base is energized right now--the GOP base is divided, a problem that won't be helped by the candidacy of McCain, who enjoys little support from the extreme right, and whose support among independents will erode if he continues to pander to the base.

McCain's opportunity was in 2000--and he lost. American politics is not exactly the land of second chances. He'll lose the general election for the same reason Bob Dole did--because a moderate republican can't compete for liberals with a moderate Democrat, and he'll fail to energize the GOP base in crucial swing states.

Will he win in the South? Sure. But he'll lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and California. It all adds up to bad news for the GOP, which is why the GOP establishment is starting to line up their punditry against McCain's candidacy. They don't have good choices right now--but they understand that McCain is a bad choice. They'd be better off with Huckabee--honestly. He's at least likeable.

[troutman]

Hictchens on Withdrawl From Iraq:

http://fora.tv/2007/08/23/Christophe...awal_from_Iraq

Christopher Hitchens, author, columnist and vocal supporter of the U.S. war in Iraq, discusses possible consequences were the U.S. to rapidly withdraw from the country.

[mykalberta]

RIP Rudy, you were the last hope, but there is another.... no there isnt.

McCain will die durring campaigning and Romney is as fake as fake can get.

[Muta]

Vote Ron Paul! The only sensible Republican candidate out of the group. He lives and dies by the Constitution!

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

McCain's opportunity was in 2000--and he lost. American politics is not exactly the land of second chances. He'll lose the general election for the same reason Bob Dole did--because a moderate republican can't compete for liberals with a moderate Democrat, and he'll fail to energize the GOP base in crucial swing states.

Nixon is an example of second chances... and is republican.

I think the most energizing factor for the Republican party at this point is actually the nomination on the Democrat side. If Clinton gets the Democrat nomination, I see the Republican base thinking that even though McCain isnt right enough for their liking, they have to support him to avoid Clinton getting into office. Obama isnt as disliked by the right as Clinton and probably wouldnt cause the same type of reaction.

If McCain receives the support of the Republican base, I think he wins easily. Hilary is too left for many moderates and the battle between her and Obama is creating a divide in that party. Plus McCain is moderate enough to even attract some Democrats who are scared of Hilary.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

RIP Rudy, you were the last hope, but there is another.... no there isnt.

McCain will die durring campaigning and Romney is as fake as fake can get.

Rudy never had a chance at a national stage. McCain has a good shot at it since he's not a scary conservative Christian. If he goes against Clinton that is. If Obama wins the nomination, Democrats win hands down.

That's my feel of the current situation though. The race is starting to get interesting now that the loonies are out of the running.