This story is a dead giveaway to where McCain stands on things:
"WASHINGTON – Sen. John McCain says his opponent in last year's presidential campaign, Barack Obama, has "done well" in his first five months in the White House.
The Arizona Republican says that using a legislative scorecard to judge the presidency so far, Obama has achieved all his legislative goals."
The only "down side:"
"McCain says that Obama's successes in Congress have come with little or no Republican support.
McCain also is critical of Obama for setting a date for closing the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay without first developing a comprehensive plan for what to do with its prisoners.
And the Arizona senator says Obama should speak out more in support of protesters in Iran."
If the similarity of McCain's and Obama's policy positions were not obvious back in September, they sure are now. McCain agrees with the majority of Obama's policies and actions that blatantly stab America in the back, including:
- Slobbering all over the Islamic world; being either ignorant or disingenuous about the nature and aspirations of the America- and Israel-hating world-wide Islamic political movement.
- Apologizing all over the world for America's allegedly caustic behavior over the years
- Appointment of many racist or sexist, tax-cheating radicals to high level positions
- Being the "Enabler-in-Chief", using hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up failing companies that should be allowed to fail.
- Trashing our capitalist, "personal responsibility" culture
- Selling out future generations via excessive debt
- Putting everything in place to guarantee double digit inflation within the next 2 to 3 years
- Setting the stage for another round of illegal alien amnesty proposals
- Claiming that we will "solve" our economic burn-out by spending additional trillions on univeral health care.
McCain is an Obama in Republican clothing, as are many Republicans. The only differences are age and the inability of most Republicans to talk BS as well as Obama. I am thankful McCain was not elected. He would have screwed Republican/ conservative chances of election for the next two decades.
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Random Thoughts About India, Pakistan, Islam...
Islamic "ambassadors" from Pakistan brought terror to Mumbai, India last week. These ambassadors are reported to have a multi-hundred acre training site inside Pakistan and support from Pakistan's equivalent to our CIA.
Meanwhile, John McCain and Secretary of State Rice visit India and, in effect, tell India not to get excited, declaring that the US will not allow India to strike back at Pakistan. That is like Great Britain telling the US not to strike Afghanistan or Osama bin Laden after 9-11.
At this moment President-elect Obama is vindicating himself vis a vie McCain when he declared yesterday referring to the Pakislami visit to Mumbai, "Sovereign nations obviously have a right to protect themselves."
This is consistent with and reenforces his campaign statement of August 1, 2008, when he declared, concerning Pakistan, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will". He was criticised by Republicans, of all people, for being trigger happy and irresponsible.
Well, I would like to criticise John McCain for being a namby pamby milktoast who can't clearly express a consistent thought.
...McCain, and Obama.
Would decisive military action by India be impulsive? Hardly. Our own National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell recently expressed that the same group that carried out last week's attack is believed to be behind the 2006 Mumbai train bombings that killed more than 200. Terrorist bombings are an ongoing event in India. I wish we would all get over calling such bombers "suspected militants." What is the common denominator of 99.9% these terrorist acts? We know it's not the Methodists or the League of Women Voters. Hint: Its public relations team calls it "The Religion of Peace." That's about as true a depiction of Islam as Pakistan being called effective at ridding itself of Islamic terror camps.
Ex-Press Secretary Tony Snow (RIP - and I liked the guy) oozed way too much optimism about Pakistans' efforts against Islamist extremists when last year he said "Pakistan was working hard to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban... "At the same time, we recognize the sovereignty of the Pakistani government and realize that they're putting on a serious push ... They're taking the fight to al Qaeda"
Are they really? Sure sounds like a lot more talk than fight. What is the difference between Pakistan promising a "joint investigation" and "a fox in the hen house?" Not much.
The US will make a huge mistake if we discourage India from eliminating any Islamic training camp that is known to exist inside Pakistan. But, unfortunately for the rest of us, we don't even have the will to eliminate Islamic training camps in our own nation. We are peddling insanity with our failure to act in our own defense, never mind India's. We are laisse-faire-ing our own demise - ignoring the cancer within us.
And we want India to do the same with a hostile Islamic cancer at their back door.
Meanwhile, John McCain and Secretary of State Rice visit India and, in effect, tell India not to get excited, declaring that the US will not allow India to strike back at Pakistan. That is like Great Britain telling the US not to strike Afghanistan or Osama bin Laden after 9-11.
At this moment President-elect Obama is vindicating himself vis a vie McCain when he declared yesterday referring to the Pakislami visit to Mumbai, "Sovereign nations obviously have a right to protect themselves."
This is consistent with and reenforces his campaign statement of August 1, 2008, when he declared, concerning Pakistan, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will". He was criticised by Republicans, of all people, for being trigger happy and irresponsible.
Well, I would like to criticise John McCain for being a namby pamby milktoast who can't clearly express a consistent thought.
...McCain, and Obama.
Would decisive military action by India be impulsive? Hardly. Our own National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell recently expressed that the same group that carried out last week's attack is believed to be behind the 2006 Mumbai train bombings that killed more than 200. Terrorist bombings are an ongoing event in India. I wish we would all get over calling such bombers "suspected militants." What is the common denominator of 99.9% these terrorist acts? We know it's not the Methodists or the League of Women Voters. Hint: Its public relations team calls it "The Religion of Peace." That's about as true a depiction of Islam as Pakistan being called effective at ridding itself of Islamic terror camps.
Ex-Press Secretary Tony Snow (RIP - and I liked the guy) oozed way too much optimism about Pakistans' efforts against Islamist extremists when last year he said "Pakistan was working hard to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban... "At the same time, we recognize the sovereignty of the Pakistani government and realize that they're putting on a serious push ... They're taking the fight to al Qaeda"
Are they really? Sure sounds like a lot more talk than fight. What is the difference between Pakistan promising a "joint investigation" and "a fox in the hen house?" Not much.
The US will make a huge mistake if we discourage India from eliminating any Islamic training camp that is known to exist inside Pakistan. But, unfortunately for the rest of us, we don't even have the will to eliminate Islamic training camps in our own nation. We are peddling insanity with our failure to act in our own defense, never mind India's. We are laisse-faire-ing our own demise - ignoring the cancer within us.
And we want India to do the same with a hostile Islamic cancer at their back door.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Why Obama Won...
Here is one guy's analysis of why Obama won...
* He is a great orator.
* He was the beneficiary of the historic financial meltdown that occurred two months before the election and was seen as preferred over McCain because he articulated solutions better.
* Voters ignored Obamas past and significant radical associations and were enamoured by his rhetoric.
* He appealed to the younger (under 40) voters who, generally speaking, are not up on history and government, are accustomed to success without much hardship and need for personal responsibility, and are consumed by the entertainment industry which shares the same counterproductive values.
* He appealed to the many Americans who were unhappy with existing politics and policies even though the alternative remains nebulous and likely worse than what we have in the long run.
* He appealed to those who want "something for nothing"; promises of paying off mortgages, tax cuts, free health care, government assistance for this and that, bailouts and rescues. His economic policies were more tittilating than McCain's. It was a carnival midway-like come-on.
* He was considered Black (even though he is more caucasian and Arab), triggering a 95% turnout among blacks, despite the fact that many of these voters may not agree with his policies. It was race over policy. This is the converse of what one prominent black leader explained, one of the 5% who did not support Obama: "I didn't want to have race trump friendship", referring to his loyalty to Hillary.
* A gradually left-moving voter base.
And why McCain lost...
* Many of his policies were not that much different from Obamas' rheteoric despite his attempts to appear more conservative. For example, his desparate attempt to balance the ticket using Sarah Palin as a prop did not overcome his generally left leaning policies, especially his promotion of illegal immigration, and government bailouts. Ann Coulter amplifies this problem here.
* His age
* His mediocre communications skills
* He is a great orator.
* He was the beneficiary of the historic financial meltdown that occurred two months before the election and was seen as preferred over McCain because he articulated solutions better.
* Voters ignored Obamas past and significant radical associations and were enamoured by his rhetoric.
* He appealed to the younger (under 40) voters who, generally speaking, are not up on history and government, are accustomed to success without much hardship and need for personal responsibility, and are consumed by the entertainment industry which shares the same counterproductive values.
* He appealed to the many Americans who were unhappy with existing politics and policies even though the alternative remains nebulous and likely worse than what we have in the long run.
* He appealed to those who want "something for nothing"; promises of paying off mortgages, tax cuts, free health care, government assistance for this and that, bailouts and rescues. His economic policies were more tittilating than McCain's. It was a carnival midway-like come-on.
* He was considered Black (even though he is more caucasian and Arab), triggering a 95% turnout among blacks, despite the fact that many of these voters may not agree with his policies. It was race over policy. This is the converse of what one prominent black leader explained, one of the 5% who did not support Obama: "I didn't want to have race trump friendship", referring to his loyalty to Hillary.
* A gradually left-moving voter base.
And why McCain lost...
* Many of his policies were not that much different from Obamas' rheteoric despite his attempts to appear more conservative. For example, his desparate attempt to balance the ticket using Sarah Palin as a prop did not overcome his generally left leaning policies, especially his promotion of illegal immigration, and government bailouts. Ann Coulter amplifies this problem here.
* His age
* His mediocre communications skills
Friday, August 29, 2008
First Thoughts About Palin as McCain's VP
Yes, she's a conservative...good
Yes, she is pro-life...good
Yes, she is a woman...good
Yes, she is well-spoken and spunky...good.
But beyond that who is she? A maverick? A governor for a couple of years?
She is, to most of us, a great unknown. And there is not enough time for the public to get to know her well enough in the next two months for her to be an asset to the ticket. Will she be effective in her new responsibilities? Is she equipped to assume the presidency when the President dies in office? She will likely add some female and conservative boost to the ballot. Yes, she is likely to do these things for the ticket. But does she help create the best ticket for this nation? Is her level of experience what we need at this point in our history? She is too green for the job in spite of whatever talents she has.
In fact, my first impression is that McCain missed the mark by putting "getting elected" above securing the best candidate. But then, this is politics - the art of argument and compromise. As McCain sees it, if he doesn't do everything to get elected, there is nothing on the other side.
One of two things will happen. The electorate will agree that she does not add sufficient credibility to the ticket, and McCain will not be elected. Or, McCains' primary reason for selecting Palin - to get himself elected - will work, and the American people will have a Vice President ill-equipped for the task.
Time will tell. I hope I'm wrong.
Yes, she is pro-life...good
Yes, she is a woman...good
Yes, she is well-spoken and spunky...good.
But beyond that who is she? A maverick? A governor for a couple of years?
She is, to most of us, a great unknown. And there is not enough time for the public to get to know her well enough in the next two months for her to be an asset to the ticket. Will she be effective in her new responsibilities? Is she equipped to assume the presidency when the President dies in office? She will likely add some female and conservative boost to the ballot. Yes, she is likely to do these things for the ticket. But does she help create the best ticket for this nation? Is her level of experience what we need at this point in our history? She is too green for the job in spite of whatever talents she has.
In fact, my first impression is that McCain missed the mark by putting "getting elected" above securing the best candidate. But then, this is politics - the art of argument and compromise. As McCain sees it, if he doesn't do everything to get elected, there is nothing on the other side.
One of two things will happen. The electorate will agree that she does not add sufficient credibility to the ticket, and McCain will not be elected. Or, McCains' primary reason for selecting Palin - to get himself elected - will work, and the American people will have a Vice President ill-equipped for the task.
Time will tell. I hope I'm wrong.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Geneva Convention - My Letter to John McCain
I do not understand your position on the Geneva convention. I can see the value when nations engaged in war agree to the terms. But when we are fighting not a nation, but terrorists who are fighting assymetrical warfare and live a totally different standard of morality, the terms of the Geneva convention have no value. If our enemy does not abide by such rules, why should we.
My concern is for the future of this nation. If we fail to adapt to terms of battle established by our enemy, we lose. The analogy is the way the British fought in our revolution - strict rules of battle - the fledgling American fighters were probably thought of as fighting unfair - the British insisted on lining up in nice straight rows with their music playing... we know the outcome. We are doing the equivalent in our battle against Islamo fascists. I sense your thinking is warped by your experience as a POW. Not all sides play "fair". "Fair" is what is agreed to by both sides. We can agree to play by the terms of the Islamo Fascists...that would indeed become "fair." Please don't milquetoast us into oblivion with your soft, "proper" etiquette.
My concern is for the future of this nation. If we fail to adapt to terms of battle established by our enemy, we lose. The analogy is the way the British fought in our revolution - strict rules of battle - the fledgling American fighters were probably thought of as fighting unfair - the British insisted on lining up in nice straight rows with their music playing... we know the outcome. We are doing the equivalent in our battle against Islamo fascists. I sense your thinking is warped by your experience as a POW. Not all sides play "fair". "Fair" is what is agreed to by both sides. We can agree to play by the terms of the Islamo Fascists...that would indeed become "fair." Please don't milquetoast us into oblivion with your soft, "proper" etiquette.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)