McCain says Obama "Dangerously naive"

[techs]

http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/502235.html

Barack Obama's offer to meet face to face with Fidel Castro's successor is "dangerously naive," Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday, testing out a potential fall campaign strategy to cast the Democratic presidential candidate as too inexperienced for the world stage.

Obama, who made the comment at a Thursday night debate with rival Hillary Clinton, rapidly returned fire, saying McCain "would give us four more years of the same Bush-McCain policies that have failed U.S. interests and the Cuban people for the last 50 years."



Never mind that Obama is 100 percent correct and McCain 100 percent wrong, this is a preview of McCains strategy.
If Obama wins it will be terrah, terrah, terrah. Obama wants to let terrorists kill your babies!

Why is it the US "punishes" countries by not talking to them? Sounds like the policy of adolescents.
If Nixon could vist the largest despotic country on earth and break bread with its tyrants, why do we still refuse to speak with people we have disagreements with?

 

[jpeyton]

The latest poll shows 61% of Americans want troops home from Iraq within a year.

The war has been political poison since 2004. It helped the Democrats steamroll in 2006, and it will help again in 2008. It will help in every election cycle until we withdraw.

Bye bye "100 more years" McCain.

 

[glenn1]

Your link leads to an article on a completely different subject: "Bush Says Companies Need the Protection of the Wiretapping Law." Could you correct this, as I would like to see if there were any additional context provided regarding McCain's statement.

And while I agree with your "it doesn't matter if Obama is 100% correct, or McCain 100% correct," I still see this as an improvement over most of what we've experienced between Hillary and Obama - at least this is a discussion over questions of policy, not personality quirks. Of course, to be fair, there were almost no substantive policy differences between BO and HC, so perhaps that was a moot point.

 

[Farang]

Is this a preview of the techs campaign strategy?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Farang
Is this a preview of the techs campaign strategy?

:laugh:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs
Why is it the US "punishes" countries by not talking to them?

That's backwards.

In many cultuers, geting an audience with the "ruler", the "big country" etc is an honor or reward.

They are merely NOT being rewarded. Whether that's a good policy or not is another matter I'm not going to address.

This line of attack has already tried against Obama. Didn't work than, I don't see how it'll work now.

Using the term "dangerous" to describe a meeting with some tin-pot geezbag dicatator of a rinky -dink Caribbean island strikes me as humorus. "Oooh, Raul is sooo dangerous".

I think we're seeing just how much trouble McCain and the Repubs are gonna have against Obama in the general election.

Meeting with crazy leaders like Akmadinejad might be a waste of time, or unneccesarily give them a publicity in the worse case . But I fail to see how it could be "dangerous". Too much artificial drama, John boy.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: techs
If Nixon could vist the largest despotic country on earth and break bread with its tyrants, why do we still refuse to speak with people we have disagreements with?

This is the Republican practice of playing politics with our security issues. If a democrat had gone to China, it's dangerous and wrong; if Nixon did, it's bold visionary leadership.

Win win for them, for those foolish enough to fall for it.

When JFK was elected to follow the popular Eisenhower, extremely respected by the nation on security issues Ike told JFK that he would not criticize his foreign policy publically, with one exception, if JFK tried to recognize China diplomatically. That was off-limits. But a decade later, *after* Mao had committed the horrific crimes of the cultural revolution, Eisenhower's former Vice-President did just that, to great acclaim. Hypocritical? Irrational? Welcome to the backwards world of right-wing politics.

It's a simple but effective technique - they demonize their opponents to the point that only they can be 'trusted'. After more than a decade out of power since FDR was elected, and not able to wi many elections, they finally found their issue to get power - fear and paranoia about the communists. Accusations flew that Truman's government was filled with communists - charges never proven, of course, but which created enough 'fear, uncertainty and doubt' to put more Republicans back in office.

The price our nation's principles paid for McCarthyism were small for the reward of power.

The power of the issue is why JFK was barely able to win, as a wealthy, attractive, eloquent, Pulitzer-prize winning war hero, against the man already known as 'tricky dick', whose background was largely commie scares, including the smears against his Senate opponent, a rare woman in the Senate who was dubbed the 'Pink lady', and about whom his own President, Eisenhower, told reporters when asked in 1960 to name Nixon's accomplishments, said with a couple weeks he might think of one.

It's why Kennedy had to run such a strongly militaristic platform, one key issue being the mythical 'missile gap' with the USSR (we actually had thousands, they had four). That envrironment shows how Kennedy's later efforts for peace, for detente, with the USSR were incredibly courageous and principled, to try to lead the world to peace, with results such as the extremely hostile Kruschev praising Kennedy's later peace speech and playing it unedited all across the USSR.

The Republicans need to be held to some rational standard on security, but they have unfortunately ridden the issue and scared the public for decades.

Their gretest hero since Eisenhower sponsored death squads and terrorists, illegally sold missiles to Iran for hostages and money for a terrorist army in Nicaragua, through Israel creating excessive obligations for America to Israel, and sent the Marines into Lebanon with Israel, only to pull them out after a bomb attack, and he's the 'strong hero'. Let's not forget his great military victory, though, against the threat of the left-wingers in Grenada, to 'rescue' some medical students whose families said they weren't in danger, don't invade.

Of course we should speak with enemies - and pursue the agenda that's good for us and the world - something harder to do in the wake of the reckless Bush administration, as shown by Sec. of Defense Gates recently going around the world to ask nations for help in Afghanistan, and getting none at all, after which he said that his view is that the disapproval of our Iraq policy has led allies not to want to help.

Republicans are all too good at exploiting fear and prejudice - not only commies, but things like gay marriage are good for them.

Note how nearly every issue turns into some nonsense that prevents the issue being discussed, for example, how the war policy becomes 'democrats don't support the troops'.

 

[NoStateofMind]

and McCain is dangerously stupid...

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: techs
If Nixon could vist the largest despotic country on earth and break bread with its tyrants, why do we still refuse to speak with people we have disagreements with?

This is the Republican practice of playing politics with our security issues. If a democrat had gone to China, it's dangerous and wrong; if Nixon did, it's bold visionary leadership.

Win win for them, for those foolish enough to fall for it.

* * *

Of course we should speak with enemies - and pursue the agenda that's good for us and the world - something harder to do in the wake of the reckless Bush administration, as shown by Sec. of Defense Gates recently going around the world to ask nations for help in Afghanistan, and getting none at all, after which he said that his view is that the disapproval of our Iraq policy has led allies not to want to help.

Craig - talking to enemies is not an ends to itself, and there are times when it's indeed counter-productive. I don't believe that talking to Cuba is something we should avoid, but would like to hear more of Obama's reasons for wishing to do so and what he hopes to accomplish.

 

[NoStateofMind]

More trade is good.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: techs
If Nixon could vist the largest despotic country on earth and break bread with its tyrants, why do we still refuse to speak with people we have disagreements with?

This is the Republican practice of playing politics with our security issues. If a democrat had gone to China, it's dangerous and wrong; if Nixon did, it's bold visionary leadership.

Win win for them, for those foolish enough to fall for it.

* * *

Of course we should speak with enemies - and pursue the agenda that's good for us and the world - something harder to do in the wake of the reckless Bush administration, as shown by Sec. of Defense Gates recently going around the world to ask nations for help in Afghanistan, and getting none at all, after which he said that his view is that the disapproval of our Iraq policy has led allies not to want to help.

Craig - talking to enemies is not an ends to itself, and there are times when it's indeed counter-productive. I don't believe that talking to Cuba is something we should avoid, but would like to hear more of Obama's reasons for wishing to do so and what he hopes to accomplish.

I agree with you, that it's not an end in itself and needs to be done 'right', and that when done wrong, it can be harmful.

The issue here is that Obama's saying that in general talking is better than not contrasts with the right's attempts to mis-portray that as helping enemies, just to find an attack.