If elected, which John McCain will become president?

[Dari]

I've seen more flip-flops out of McCain this electoral season that I've seen in any other politician. From Katrina to torture to housing to taxes to religious fanatics. Is he doing all this for political expediency or is this the real McCain? I find it hard to believe that a man who built his career on principals would fold so quickly when in the limelight. Is this the new McCain or this the same guy Republicans have liked from a distance?

 

[Genx87]

Who cares, he has a Democrat congress to hold him in check.

 

[bamacre]

I hope we never find out.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Hmm, sounds like he might be a politician. Are you suggesting the candidate you support is above that?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Are you suggesting the candidate you support is above that?

Yes. 😀

 

[ericlp]

To the OP, Arn't you smart enough to figure this shit out for yourself?

Wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's gonna be a Bush Repeat with about 10-15% change for his own idiotic idea's nothing too radical or out of line with the McSame bush policy.

 

[woodie1]

Out of the three currently in the running which one isn't pandering?

 

[Lemon law]

I somewhat disagree that he will be a complete Bush repeat. In many ways it will depend on the set of advisers McCain would choose if elected. On one had the semi sane set of advisers from the GHB years are now largely too old and the younger set that came in GWB are pretty used to the GWB policies, but if McCain sends the neo cons packing out of Washington, that can be huge. Nor can we forget that McCain was a member of the gang of 14 that stopped the GOP voting the Filibuster out.

But still, I think the question is academic because I doubt McCain will win in November.

 

[nageov3t]

he's going to have a democratic congress to keep him in line, and he's shown a willingness over his long career to suck it up and compromise to get things done, something Bush was never able to do.

Bush and Obama both kinda seem like "my way or the highway" guys, while McCain and Hillary are more ambivalent towards political reality.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: loki8481
he's going to have a democratic congress to keep him in line, and he's shown a willingness over his long career to suck it up and compromise to get things done, something Bush was never able to do.

Bush and Obama both kinda seem like "my way or the highway" guys, while McCain and Hillary are more ambivalent towards political reality.

Are you lying to us or just ignorant of reality? If neither, care to provide proof?

 

[theeedude]

That is a key question for me. McCain was the "change" guy in the "more of the same" 2000 election, but he is the "more of the same" guy in a "change" 2008 election.
He can't have it both ways. He is either going to be a maverick who appealed to independents like me in 2000 and pissed off conservatives, or he is going to be the typical GOP guy spewing same old failed Republican policies that not only failed, but that he himself rightfully and courageously opposed, Bush tax cuts being the prime example. There will be no sitting of the fence for Johnny Boy. He will have to pick between pushing the GOP party line and doing what is right for this country.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: loki8481
he's going to have a democratic congress to keep him in line, and he's shown a willingness over his long career to suck it up and compromise to get things done, something Bush was never able to do.

Bush and Obama both kinda seem like "my way or the highway" guys, while McCain and Hillary are more ambivalent towards political reality.

Are you lying to us or just ignorant of reality? If neither, care to provide proof?

maybe I'm ignorant.

the closest I've seen to Obama compromising is winning people over to his original position.

 

[Vic]

The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.

Yup, and the aggression toward Iran will continue as well.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.

where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.

where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?

In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.

 

[Tab]

Enough fuss over McCain. He has always been conservative and has always been a member of the Republican party. Is that good or bad? Who knows, voters will decide.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.

where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?

In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.

100 years of troops not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed is war?

shit, I guess we've been at war with Germany for almost 70 years.

NO BLOOD FOR LEDERHOSEN!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.

Look who's trolling... again. Is that all you know?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.

where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?

In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.

100 years of troops not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed is war?

shit, I guess we've been at war with Germany for almost 70 years.

NO BLOOD FOR LEDERHOSEN!

Because we've been "mission accomplished" in Iraq for 5 years and no troops have been "injured or harmed or wounded or killed," right? And we don't call it "war"?

Of course they have and of course we do. McCain's qualifiers on those comments were ridiculously disingenuous, and everyone knows it. Iraq is not Japan, Germany, or SK.

edit to your edit: that's one of the stupidest comments I've seen here yet. Since April 1945, the leading cause of death among US soldiers in Germany has been accident. Can we say the same since "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq?

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.

where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?

In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.

100 years of troops not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed is war?

shit, I guess we've been at war with Germany for almost 70 years.

NO BLOOD FOR LEDERHOSEN!

Because we've been "mission accomplished" in Iraq for 5 years and no troops have been "injured or harmed or wounded or killed," right? And we don't call it "war"?

Of course they have and of course we do. McCain's qualifiers on those comments were ridiculously disingenuous, and everyone knows it. Iraq is not Japan, Germany, or SK.

edit to your edit: that's one of the stupidest comments I've seen here yet. Since April 1945, the leading cause of death among US soldiers in Germany has been accident. Can we say the same since "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq?

Yes, Iraq is not Germany... but McCain still did not say he wanted 100 years of war.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.

where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?

In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.

100 years of troops not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed is war?

shit, I guess we've been at war with Germany for almost 70 years.

NO BLOOD FOR LEDERHOSEN!

Because we've been "mission accomplished" in Iraq for 5 years and no troops have been "injured or harmed or wounded or killed," right? And we don't call it "war"?

Of course they have and of course we do. McCain's qualifiers on those comments were ridiculously disingenuous, and everyone knows it. Iraq is not Japan, Germany, or SK.

edit to your edit: that's one of the stupidest comments I've seen here yet. Since April 1945, the leading cause of death among US soldiers in Germany has been accident. Can we say the same since "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq?

just because you say it's disingenuous doesn't make it so... the only people I know who are convinced to their core of the fact are liberal hacks.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.

where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?

In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.

100 years of troops not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed is war?

shit, I guess we've been at war with Germany for almost 70 years.

NO BLOOD FOR LEDERHOSEN!

Because we've been "mission accomplished" in Iraq for 5 years and no troops have been "injured or harmed or wounded or killed," right? And we don't call it "war"?

Of course they have and of course we do. McCain's qualifiers on those comments were ridiculously disingenuous, and everyone knows it. Iraq is not Japan, Germany, or SK.

edit to your edit: that's one of the stupidest comments I've seen here yet. Since April 1945, the leading cause of death among US soldiers in Germany has been accident. Can we say the same since "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq?

just because you say it's disingenuous doesn't make it so... the only people I know who are convinced to their core of the fact are liberal hacks.

:roll:

Has McCain called for ANY reduction in troop strength in Iraq? Or for ANY reduction in hostilities there?

Hmm... let's check his website:

Bolster Troops on the Ground

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.

Whoa, looks it must have been "hacked" by liberals...

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.

where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?

In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.

100 years of troops not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed is war?

shit, I guess we've been at war with Germany for almost 70 years.

NO BLOOD FOR LEDERHOSEN!

Because we've been "mission accomplished" in Iraq for 5 years and no troops have been "injured or harmed or wounded or killed," right? And we don't call it "war"?

Of course they have and of course we do. McCain's qualifiers on those comments were ridiculously disingenuous, and everyone knows it. Iraq is not Japan, Germany, or SK.

edit to your edit: that's one of the stupidest comments I've seen here yet. Since April 1945, the leading cause of death among US soldiers in Germany has been accident. Can we say the same since "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq?

just because you say it's disingenuous doesn't make it so... the only people I know who are convinced to their core of the fact are liberal hacks.

:roll:

Has McCain called for ANY reduction in troop strength in Iraq? Or for ANY reduction in hostilities there?

Hmm... let's check his website:

Bolster Troops on the Ground

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.

Whoa, looks it must have been "hacked" by liberals...

But that does not say he wants 100 more years of war. His comments were incorrectly attributed and obviously continue to be.

 

[Vic]

I'm sure that has something to do with the fact that situation in Iraq is not similar to that in Japan, Germany, or SK.

So, it's not that McCain's comments were incorrectly attributed, but that he was being intentionally misleading in his use of analogy.