McCain shows his 'foreign expertise' in Jordan [Archive]

DaemonSeid

03-18-2008, 05:31 PM

By Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear
AMMAN, Jordan -- Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran.

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

The mistake threatened to undermine McCain's argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy makes him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.

McCain was in Jordan leading a week-long congressional delegation and has stressed that the trip was not political, despite the decision to hold a fundraiser in London later this week.

But advisers said a side benefit from the trip would be the image of McCain standing next to world leaders and showing his expertise on issues of war and terrorism.

The U.S. has long asserted that elements of the Iranian security forces have been training and supplying weapons to Iraq's Shiite militias. Iran is an overwhelmingly Shiite country whose government has applauded the emergence of a Shiite-led government in Iraq but has denied supporting Shiite militias inside Iraq.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan_1.html

Well, there is your foreign experience for you.

At one time he called Asians gooks, now he doesn't know who is funding whom...smh.

Pat Robertson's visions may come true yet.

So....who do you want answering that phone at 3am?

PhiGam

03-18-2008, 06:13 PM

http://triplehelix.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/barack-obama-is-an-idiot/

DaemonSeid

03-18-2008, 06:30 PM

http://triplehelix.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/barack-obama-is-an-idiot/

I post a legit news report and all you can come up with is a blog?

gosh you are lame.

shinerbock

03-18-2008, 06:32 PM

I certainly don't want Barack Obama answering that phone.

Sorry, but if you can't acknowledge where the threats to America originate, then I certainly don't trust you to protect us.

DaemonSeid

03-18-2008, 06:34 PM

I certainly don't want Barack Obama answering that phone.

Sorry, but if you can't acknowledge where the threats to America originate, then I certainly don't trust you to protect us.

Shiner...I respect that opinion....I also feel like I dont want me leader going somewhere and misquoting wrong information especially when they are AT thier doorstep selling themselves.

Kinda like we 'knew' where the WMDs were

shinerbock

03-18-2008, 06:37 PM

Shiner...I respect that opinion....I also feel like I dont want me leader going somewhere and misquoting wrong information especially when they are AT thier doorstep selling themselves.

Kinda like we 'knew' where the WMDs were

Then I guess you can disqualify anyone involved in American, British, Australian or Israeli intelligence from candidacy.

DaemonSeid

03-18-2008, 06:49 PM

Then I guess you can disqualify anyone involved in American, British, Australian or Israeli intelligence from candidacy.

Yup...'fraid so

"Intelligence"...an oxymoron at times....

moe.ron

03-18-2008, 10:54 PM

Then I guess you can disqualify anyone involved in American, British, Australian or Israeli intelligence from candidacy.

To go back:

British intelligence plagiarized a 3 years old doctoral thesis as their case for war.

Australian intelligence presented exactly the same case as the Americans, they have no intelligence presence whatsoever inside Iraq

American intelligence was at best speculative, but Rumsfeld and Cheney decided to silence those who question the assessment for the war.

Overall, it was a major intelligence failure which has never been truly investigated.

DaemonSeid

03-18-2008, 11:07 PM

To go back:

British intelligence plagiarized a 3 years old doctoral thesis as their case for war.

Australian intelligence presented exactly the same case as the Americans, they have no intelligence presence whatsoever inside Iraq

American intelligence was at best speculative, but Rumsfeld and Cheney decided to silence those who question the assessment for the war.

Overall, it was a major intelligence failure which has never been truly investigated.

the video BTW

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/03/18/VI2008031802504.html?hpid=topnews

nittanyalum

03-18-2008, 11:13 PM

moe.ron

03-18-2008, 11:22 PM

Yeah, McCain probably had a slip of the tongue. Happen to everybody. Happen to me a lot.

skylark

03-18-2008, 11:42 PM

http://triplehelix.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/barack-obama-is-an-idiot/

The author of this blog actually said:
One thing is for sure: Barack Obama is a total and complete idiot

It is one thing to say you disagree with someone but another to say that someone who was at the top of his law school class at one of the best law schools in the country and has went on to excel in politics "is a total and complete idiot." When someone says something like that (or links to a blog with implied approval) I think less of them and everything I see them write. PhiGam... a little less linking and a little more thinking for yourself would be appreciated, for a change.

DaemonSeid

03-18-2008, 11:43 PM

Ok, I'm also not a McCain voter, but I'll say this, dude's old. I actually don't question his foreign policy or military expertise, but, he's old. And the mind may be going, so he may misspeak. Happens to old people. Just sayin'.

nittany....let's give him the benefit of that doubt aabout the old thing, still,would someone want to have to worry about a slip like that with an important ally or an enemy we are trying to make into an ally?

nittanyalum

03-18-2008, 11:48 PM

nittany....let's give him the benefit of that doubt aabout the old thing, still,would someone want to have to worry about a slip like that with an important ally or an enemy we are trying to make into an ally?
Oh, I'm not defending or endorsing him, I'm just saying, dude's old. And to be fair, we've had 8 years of someone who can barely form a coherent sentence and has made more gaffes than the Keystone Cops, so I actually believe that even as old and possibly-headed-toward-feeblemindedness as he is, McCain would still be an improvement over what we have been living with.

DaemonSeid

03-18-2008, 11:54 PM

Oh, I'm not defending or endorsing him, I'm just saying, dude's old. And to be fair, we've had 8 years of someone who can barely form a coherent sentence and has made more gaffes than the Keystone Cops, so I actually believe that even as old and possibly-headed-toward-feeblemindedness as he is, McCain would still be an improvement over what we have been living with.

that scares me...

nittanyalum

03-18-2008, 11:58 PM

that scares me...
Actually, it isn't McCain that scares me, it's the lack of change that would come with him to D.C. If the GOP keeps the White House, there won't be much of a shake-up and that town NEEDS a shake-up. Sure, some of the WH personnel will shift around, but a lot of the cronies who are snuggled deep in the hearts of the bureaucratic agencies will stay put and the lobbyists who have had their run of things will keep it in high gear. It's like people who think term limits will make a difference in Congress. It would move the elected faces around, but the staffs would stay put, and ask anyone in D.C. who really pulls the strings in that town and they'll tell you it's the staffers.

jon1856

03-19-2008, 12:06 AM

Actually, it isn't McCain that scares me, it's the lack of change that would come with him to D.C. If the GOP keeps the White House, there won't be much of a shake-up and that town NEEDS a shake-up. Sure, some of the WH personnel will shift around, but a lot of the cronies who are snuggled deep in the hearts of the bureaucratic agencies will stay put and the lobbyists who have had their run of things will keep it in high gear. It's like people who think term limits will make a difference in Congress. It would move the elected faces around, but the staffs would stay put, and ask anyone in D.C. who really pulls the strings in that town and they'll tell you it's the staffers.
As I was told by a gentleman working for one of the other candidates:
With McCain you will get a smarter, angrier Bush.

nittanyalum

03-19-2008, 12:07 AM

With McCain you will get a smarter, angrier Bush.
This. Yes. (adding in all the same people and crap and whatnot)

PhiGam

03-19-2008, 02:26 AM

As I was told by a gentleman working for one of the other candidates:
With McCain you will get a smarter, angrier Bush.
McCain is ideologically different than Bush. Here's my opinion:

The ever-changing Republican party can be broken down into Neo-conservatives (Bush Jr., Cheney, Some would say JFK), Small government conservatives (Paul), Maverick conservatives (McCain, Specter), religious conservatives (Huckabee, Falwell), and traditional conservatives (Bush Sr., Powell). There is a lot of overflow here but I did my best to put famous conservatives in the category which they fit best.

The Maverick conservatives are often viewed as angry because they constantly lobby against pork barrel spending and campaign finance. It is very hard for them to stay elected unless they are involved in highly publicized national reform policy because they are unable to reward their states with specific projects and funding. The downside is that they are forced to be "media whores." McCain will call for a line item veto if elected and I think that the conservative supreme court would give it to him. McCain's biggest issue as a senator was cutting pork. I personally support the line item veto for whomever gets elected, even if it is Obama.

DaemonSeid

03-19-2008, 09:52 AM

This. Yes. (adding in all the same people and crap and whatnot)

That's only a step up and rarely do people think 'smartly' when they are angry...

shinerbock

03-19-2008, 09:58 AM

To go back:

British intelligence plagiarized a 3 years old doctoral thesis as their case for war.

Australian intelligence presented exactly the same case as the Americans, they have no intelligence presence whatsoever inside Iraq

American intelligence was at best speculative, but Rumsfeld and Cheney decided to silence those who question the assessment for the war.

Overall, it was a major intelligence failure which has never been truly investigated.

All three countries held investigations and blamed widespread intelligence failure. Most everything else is speculation and often tainted by personalities of questionable credibility.

shinerbock

03-19-2008, 09:59 AM

I don't want a shakeup that involves less autonomy, larger government, a weaker stance on terror, and Tribe-like SCOTUS justices. Sorry.

PeppyGPhiB

03-19-2008, 01:42 PM

A slip of the tongue is one thing, but I'm not so sure that's what this was. If he doesn't understand the difference between the two Muslim sects or the "organizations" that support them (Al-Q vs. general insurgents), that's a problem. And after reading the comments in full and in context, it doesn't really seem like it was just a slip of the tongue, but a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happening.

On a separate note, I agree with the "dude's old" comments. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time he would take office, he'd be older than Reagan was. I think McCain's running mate will become very important to his candidacy, and that we'll start to hear a lot more about his age as the selection of that running mate approaches.

nittanyalum

03-19-2008, 02:22 PM

I personally support the line item veto for whomever gets elected, even if it is Obama.
I know that sounds attractive, but legislatively and in practice, it would be a big, huge mistake and an enormous surrendering of check-and-balance in the functioning of our government.

PhiGam

03-19-2008, 02:26 PM

I know that sounds attractive, but legislatively and in practice, it would be a big, huge mistake and an enormous surrendering of check-and-balance in the functioning of our government.
I disagree. This power would be held in check by the public and the media. It may not be checks and balances in the constitutional sense but I think it would be effective.

nittanyalum

03-19-2008, 02:26 PM

I don't want a shakeup that involves less autonomy, larger government, a weaker stance on terror, and Tribe-like SCOTUS justices. Sorry.
Because the last 8 years have given us such shining examples of greater individual freedoms, a retraction in the size of the government, unmitigated success in targeting and really "defeating" terrorism (like that's possible... we still can't find bin laden for god's sake)?? And I have no comment on the SCOTUS because it's too split and they handed Bush his first term and I'm still not over it.

PhiGam

03-19-2008, 02:31 PM

nittanyalum

03-19-2008, 02:36 PM

I disagree. This power would be held in check by the public and the media. It may not be checks and balances in the constitutional sense but I think it would be effective.
I'm sorry, but that's naive. The lobbyists and the party heavy weights with the most access to the president and his staff (or even just a future president with a personal agenda he wants to enact) could potentially abuse the living crap out of this power. Deals would be cut so quietly and so far behind so many thick, soundproof doors the public and the media would have no idea what's going on (until it's too late potentially and then what's the recourse?).

nittanyalum

03-19-2008, 02:37 PM

Do I hint sarcasm?
Who, me? :D

PhiGam

03-19-2008, 04:56 PM

I'm sorry, but that's naive. The lobbyists and the party heavy weights with the most access to the president and his staff (or even just a future president with a personal agenda he wants to enact) could potentially abuse the living crap out of this power. Deals would be cut so quietly and so far behind so many thick, soundproof doors the public and the media would have no idea what's going on (until it's too late potentially and then what's the recourse?).
The recourse would be to take line item veto power away. The bottom line is that we need to drastically reduce government spending and the line item veto is a great way to do that. The only other ways to eliminate pork would be to elect honest politicians or become politically conscious as a nation, neither of those will ever happen though.

nittanyalum

03-19-2008, 05:03 PM

The only other ways to eliminate pork would be to elect honest politicians or become politically conscious as a nation, neither of those will ever happen though.
Lobby reform? Campaign finance reform? There are other places to look besides the executive branch to change how legislation is crafted, funded and passed in this country. And how much damage could be done before the line item could be taken back away? And how much pressure would be put on the members of the president's party in the Congress (by the party, by the president, by the special interests) to NOT to take it away? That would be a very hard bell to un-ring.

shinerbock

03-19-2008, 06:34 PM

Because the last 8 years have given us such shining examples of greater individual freedoms, a retraction in the size of the government, unmitigated success in targeting and really "defeating" terrorism (like that's possible... we still can't find bin laden for god's sake)?? And I have no comment on the SCOTUS because it's too split and they handed Bush his first term and I'm still not over it.

Do tell, what the hell does the next President have to do with Bush? Are you conceding the point that Obama will give us all of those things? If so, fine, and then we can get into whether my voting for GWB is hypocritical or not.

So I guess you'd be ok if the liberal half of SCOTUS had attempted to give the election to Gore? By the way, guess who represented Gore in his first trip to the Court? Lawrence Tribe.

DaemonSeid

03-21-2008, 10:38 AM

Opinion
McCain: A History of Being Wrong About Al Qaeda, Iraq and Iran

Adam Blickstein Thu Mar 20, 2:58 PM ET

John McCain on several occasions recently has asserted that Iran and Al Qaeda are working together, including last month in Houston, Texas. The facts are much more complicated. McCain's assertions directly contradict General Petraeus who stated just yesterday that Al Qaeda weapons and suicide bombers actually come primarily through Syria.

McCain made the same mistake in 2002, before the Iraq War, when he claimed that Iraq would be part of a "weapons assembly line for al-Qaeda's network." In reality the 9/11 Commission and a recent Pentagon report found no operational relationship.

McCain, too often mistaken for a purported national security expert, conflates and confuses various regional players -- the same kind of dangerous oversimplification that pushed us into war five years ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080320/cm_huffpost/092574_200803201358

I'm still wondering how people figure that this is the best possibly experienced nominee if there is and has been, in this writer's opinion, constant confusion about who is the enemy?

I will really cringe if he ever lets slip... "Well they all look alike..."

nittanyalum

03-21-2008, 01:23 PM

Do tell, what the hell does the next President have to do with Bush? Are you conceding the point that Obama will give us all of those things? If so, fine, and then we can get into whether my voting for GWB is hypocritical or not.

So I guess you'd be ok if the liberal half of SCOTUS had attempted to give the election to Gore? By the way, guess who represented Gore in his first trip to the Court? Lawrence Tribe.
Sorry, missed this retort.

My post was in response to your post in which you disagreed with my notion of D.C. being in desperate need of a shake-up. Your post implied that a shake-up (that by my intimation would need a party change) would result in a loss of autonomy, a growth in the size of government, an inability to defeat terrorism and a tribe-like supreme court, which I chose not to comment on. So my response was a suggestion back to you that keeping the GOP in place would not necessarily prevent those things from happening, just like electing the GOP 4 and 8 years ago didn't prevent those things from happening.

And my comment about the SCOTUS was just that I haven't gotten over that they gave Bush the presidency to begin with. I didn't try to pick a fight over them, that's just my personal feelings about it. And the SCOTUS wouldn't have had to "give" the presidency to Gore, the majority of American voters had already done that.

shinerbock

03-21-2008, 01:43 PM

Sorry, missed this retort.

My post was in response to your post in which you disagreed with my notion of D.C. being in desperate need of a shake-up. Your post implied that a shake-up (that by my intimation would need a party change) would result in a loss of autonomy, a growth in the size of government, an inability to defeat terrorism and a tribe-like supreme court, which I chose not to comment on. So my response was a suggestion back to you that keeping the GOP in place would not necessarily prevent those things from happening, just like electing the GOP 4 and 8 years ago didn't prevent those things from happening.

And my comment about the SCOTUS was just that I haven't gotten over that they gave Bush the presidency to begin with. I didn't try to pick a fight over them, that's just my personal feelings about it. And the SCOTUS wouldn't have had to "give" the presidency to Gore, the majority of American voters had already done that.

Your response had to do with Bush, who will not be running again in 2008.

Bush won in 2000. It is time to let it go. I'd much prefer the election to be decided by SCOTUS than the notably biased FL Supreme Court. There is even significant evidence that Bush would have won had the recount not been stopped.

DaemonSeid

03-21-2008, 02:02 PM

Your response had to do with Bush, who will not be running again in 2008.

Bush won in 2000. It is time to let it go. I'd much prefer the election to be decided by SCOTUS than the notably biased FL Supreme Court. There is even significant evidence that Bush would have won had the recount not been stopped.

He did?

Bush won like I used a cheat to beat Super Mario Brothers, won.

shinerbock

03-21-2008, 02:12 PM

He did?

Bush won like I used a cheat to beat Super Mario Brothers, won.

Coming from an unabashed liberal, I can't tell you how much legitimacy this holds for me.

DaemonSeid

03-21-2008, 02:35 PM

Coming from an unabashed liberal, I can't tell you how much legitimacy this holds for me.

I have this image of you pouting and stomping your feet when you say that too.....hehehehe.

shinerbock

03-21-2008, 02:48 PM

I have this image of you pouting and stomping your feet when you say that too.....hehehehe.

Be realistic. I'm a Republican. We don't pout. Leave the pouting and protesting to you guys. I'll be busy killing polluting and exploiting the poor out of anger.

DaemonSeid

03-21-2008, 02:56 PM

Be realistic. I'm a Republican. We don't pout. Leave the pouting and protesting to you guys. I'll be busy killing polluting and exploiting the poor out of anger.

you are going to hell.

Oh...wait...you are a Republican. That's a local trip for you...

shinerbock

03-21-2008, 03:56 PM

you are going to hell.

Oh...wait...you are a Republican. That's a local trip for you...

Save me a seat.

DaemonSeid

03-21-2008, 04:27 PM

Save me a seat.

Why?

I'm driving..dropping you and bringing back your friends!!

shinerbock

03-21-2008, 04:57 PM

Why?

I'm driving..dropping you and bringing back your friends!!

My bad, I thought you were workin' the door.

DaemonSeid

03-21-2008, 05:02 PM

My bad, I thought you were workin' the door.

nope....wrong dude....you got me mixed up with one of your rabble.

PeppyGPhiB

03-21-2008, 05:32 PM

My bad, I thought you were workin' the door.

nope....wrong dude....you got me mixed up with one of your rabble.

http://www.southparkfiles.com/art/SP1011.gif

"Satan is throwing the biggest Halloween costume party ever in an all-new 'South Park' entitled, 'Hell on Earth 2006.' Satan is busy checking the RSVP list and deciding what costume to wear to the big event. Every detail must be perfect for the prince of darkness. But even Satan can't foresee everything. A prominent religious organization, an ex-lover and the antics of the most notorious serial killers of all time threaten Satan's fun."

One of my favorite South Park episodes ever. For some reason the above back-and-forth reminded me of it. =)

DaemonSeid

03-21-2008, 05:54 PM

http://www.southparkfiles.com/art/SP1011.gif

"Satan is throwing the biggest Halloween costume party ever in an all-new 'South Park' entitled, 'Hell on Earth 2006.' Satan is busy checking the RSVP list and deciding what costume to wear to the big event. Every detail must be perfect for the prince of darkness. But even Satan can't foresee everything. A prominent religious organization, an ex-lover and the antics of the most notorious serial killers of all time threaten Satan's fun."

One of my favorite South Park episodes ever. For some reason the above back-and-forth reminded me of it. =)

peppy...get outta my head!!!

shinerbock

03-21-2008, 05:54 PM

macallan25

03-21-2008, 06:03 PM

yep

nittanyalum

03-21-2008, 10:42 PM

Your response had to do with Bush, who will not be running again in 2008.
I was making a sarcastic comment tinged with irony that was clearly lost on you.
Bush won in 2000. It is time to let it go. I'd much prefer the election to be decided by SCOTUS than the notably biased FL Supreme Court. There is even significant evidence that Bush would have won had the recount not been stopped.
I didn't say anything about the electoral college in my other post, but in my defense, I didn't know you were missing your sarcastic bone back then, so I'll just avoid it from now on.
Be realistic. I'm a Republican. We don't pout. Leave the pouting and protesting to you guys. I'll be busy killing polluting and exploiting the poor out of anger.
Don't forget to fit shooting guns, protesting in front of Planned Parenthood clinics, chasing illegals across the border, cutting taxes for the wealthy and ruining our relationships with foreign powers into your schedule, too...

BTW, I've always noticed HUGE differences in people who first and foremost say "I'm a Republican" versus "I'm a conservative." Pay attention, you'll see what I'm talking about. Well, you may not, you know, the semantics thing, but others probably will.

macallan25

03-21-2008, 10:50 PM

I've always said "I'm a conservative". I know what you are talking about.

Shooting guns, chasing illegals over the border, and cutting taxes for the wealthy sounds like a great time to me though.

shinerbock

03-22-2008, 12:16 AM

I was making a sarcastic comment tinged with irony that was clearly lost on you.

I didn't say anything about the electoral college in my other post, but in my defense, I didn't know you were missing your sarcastic bone back then, so I'll just avoid it from now on.

Don't forget to fit shooting guns, protesting in front of Planned Parenthood clinics, chasing illegals across the border, cutting taxes for the wealthy and ruining our relationships with foreign powers into your schedule, too...

BTW, I've always noticed HUGE differences in people who first and foremost say "I'm a Republican" versus "I'm a conservative." Pay attention, you'll see what I'm talking about. Well, you may not, you know, the semantics thing, but others probably will.

It wasn't lost on me. You weren't able or willing to argue the point about Obama, so you brought up Bush as a fallback. Attempted sarcasm or not, it simply wasn't relevant.

Thanks for the additions, shooting guns is certainly a good one. For your side I'll tack on crying, indie films, berating religion, cowering to terrorists, eco-terrorism and resenting the military.

I say I'm a conservative, and I'm a Republican. I could care less what other people say. I don't believe in everything every Republican proposes, but I've got no problem labeling myself for convenience.

nittanyalum

03-22-2008, 12:42 AM

It wasn't lost on me. You weren't able or willing to argue the point about Obama, so you brought up Bush as a fallback. Attempted sarcasm or not, it simply wasn't relevant.
What "point about Obama?" The conversation I came in on was about McCain. I never referenced Obama in this conversation until this post. And if you've read any of my posts on any other threads, I've consistently said that I'm not on the Obama train (although now that Richardson's endorsed him and I'm guessing might be his VP, I might feel better about him). I thought we were talking about much broader things -- I made the comment that DC (as a whole, I didn't say just 1600 PA Ave) needs a shake-up, you switched into commando-grab-the-guns-and-the-kids-momma-and-let's-head-fer-the-hills-the-reds-are-comin' mode and listed off the litany of evils that will most certainly come out of a switch to the non-GOP party. You also never mentioned Obama in that particular exchange. So my sarcasm was a response to that little back-and-forth we were having, I thought in a macro-kind of sense.
For your side I'll tack on crying
guilty, "Rudy" gets me every time
indie films
like "Passion of the Christ"? No, I don't like those. I like comedies and Die Hard-type movies
berating religion
my deeply Catholic family would kill me
cowering to terrorists
have family members serving front-line as we speak, so shut up
eco-terrorism
I did just have 3 trees cut out of my front yard, so I bet the foliage around here does see me as quite the threat
and resenting the military.
see my answer before last and again, shut up

I don't believe in everything every Republican proposes, but I've got no problem labeling myself for convenience.
I somehow doubt this. I was raised nestled deep in the feathers of the right wing and I've known many a true-blue party-machine guy in my day, you e-strike me as being of the same ilk. If that's an incorrect perception, I apologize, but I do have some preconceived notions about guys that bluster like you from my experience that I will unfortunately probably never get rid of at this point. But either way, it's not that serious here and I'll stop trying to have enjoyably sarcastic conversation with you from here on out.

shinerbock

03-22-2008, 01:29 AM

You seem a bit sensitive for someone so dead-set upon an exchange of enjoyable sarcasm. If you want to label my side as cruel or incompetent, I'll certainly label yours as weak and misguided. My reference to liberal stereotypes has nothing to do with your family members honorably serving our country, so please don't attempt to infer that it does.

You attempt to paint my original response as extreme, though you refute none of the original assertions. It has nothing to do with whether the next President is GOP, though given the dichotomy, that is certainly what I'd prefer. I did enjoy your commando/fear-mongering retort, which seems to be getting quite a bit of play from the left during this election cycle (though it notably doesn't apply if a liberal is talking about the Bush administration, global warming, or privacy).

Not to be rude, but I'm simply not concerned with what you believe about my party loyalties. I highly suspect your experiences with people of my "ilk," though perhaps based in reality, are significantly skewed by your own biases. However, if you equate being partisan to being unwilling to compromise on issues I believe are fundamental, then yes, I am partisan. That said, those views may or may not mirror those of the GOP.

nittanyalum

03-22-2008, 01:37 AM

Fair enough.

So back to the OP, well at least tangentially, a question somewhat about McCain: who do you think / who do you want to see as McCain's running mate?

moe.ron

03-22-2008, 01:42 AM

Fair enough.

So back to the OP, well at least tangentially, a question somewhat about McCain: who do you think / who do you want to see as McCain's running mate?

Some one who can actually wake up at 3 AM

[hiding under the desk]

nittanyalum

03-22-2008, 01:49 AM

LOL.

shinerbock

03-22-2008, 02:07 AM

Fair enough.

So back to the OP, well at least tangentially, a question somewhat about McCain: who do you think / who do you want to see as McCain's running mate?

Not sure if you were asking me, but I'd like to see Romney for personal motivation reasons. I am simply not at all fond of McCain as a politician, and Romney on the ticket would bring a little more excitement to the cycle for me. I think Romney is even more favored now than he was while in the hunt, and I think his "goodbye" speech made a lot of his GOP opponents feel pretty stupid. I love elections, and I'd really like to be at least partially advocating FOR something, and not just against Barack/Hillary.

After that, there aren't too many suggestions that thrill me.

I like Lieberman as a human, but we've already got one compromiser heading up the GOP side.

Charlie Crist is interesting, but I don't know enough about him, and the base doesn't trust him.

Mark Sanford is a guy I like, but his place as a future star seems to be in question now.

Mike Huckabee would be a horrid pick, IMO. He simply brings no skills to the table (not that the VP needs them), and although it would calm some of the base, it'd scare the moderates. I also found his final days as a candidate to be incredibly petty (notably: taking a shot at Romney AFTER Romney had dropped out).

Rick Perry- Not necessarily ideal, but I'd be comfortable with it. He was mentioned by insiders w/ the Giuliani campaign, so I'm sure it has crossed the McCain camp's mind.

Another guy on nearly every GOP candidate's list was Haley Barbour, and I'm sure McCain has given it some thought. I'd be fine with it, though
I'd prefer someone with a future.

Perhaps the latest developing sleeper is Bobby Jindal, and I like that idea a lot. I met Gov. Jindal for the first time a month or two ago in DC, and it certainly crossed my mind then.

PhiGam

03-22-2008, 03:05 AM

Charlie Crist is the man... that is all

macallan25

03-22-2008, 02:06 PM

Rick Perry- Not necessarily ideal, but I'd be comfortable with it. He was mentioned by insiders w/ the Giuliani campaign, so I'm sure it has crossed the McCain camp's mind.

Being from Texas, I really dislike this guy. Hell, I voted for Kinky Friedman in our last election, haha.

nittanyalum

03-22-2008, 07:23 PM

Not sure if you were asking me, but I'd like to see Romney for personal motivation reasons. I am simply not at all fond of McCain as a politician, and Romney on the ticket would bring a little more excitement to the cycle for me. I think Romney is even more favored now than he was while in the hunt, and I think his "goodbye" speech made a lot of his GOP opponents feel pretty stupid. I love elections, and I'd really like to be at least partially advocating FOR something, and not just against Barack/Hillary.

After that, there aren't too many suggestions that thrill me.

I like Lieberman as a human, but we've already got one compromiser heading up the GOP side.

Charlie Crist is interesting, but I don't know enough about him, and the base doesn't trust him.

Mark Sanford is a guy I like, but his place as a future star seems to be in question now.

Mike Huckabee would be a horrid pick, IMO. He simply brings no skills to the table (not that the VP needs them), and although it would calm some of the base, it'd scare the moderates. I also found his final days as a candidate to be incredibly petty (notably: taking a shot at Romney AFTER Romney had dropped out).

Rick Perry- Not necessarily ideal, but I'd be comfortable with it. He was mentioned by insiders w/ the Giuliani campaign, so I'm sure it has crossed the McCain camp's mind.

Another guy on nearly every GOP candidate's list was Haley Barbour, and I'm sure McCain has given it some thought. I'd be fine with it, though
I'd prefer someone with a future.

Perhaps the latest developing sleeper is Bobby Jindal, and I like that idea a lot. I met Gov. Jindal for the first time a month or two ago in DC, and it certainly crossed my mind then.

Charlie Crist is the man... that is all

Being from Texas, I really dislike this guy. Hell, I voted for Kinky Friedman in our last election, haha.
What about Tim Pawlenty from MN? He'd bring youth, a stake in the flyover states, he's always been stalwart in his support of McCain...

shinerbock

03-23-2008, 11:41 AM

Pawlenty would be fine, I'm a fairly strong supporter of his. I would prefer someone a little further outside of McCain's circle, but I wouldn't be upset if he's the guy.

Munchkin03

03-23-2008, 01:29 PM

Charlie Crist is the man... that is all

I would actually really like it if Charlie Crist is McCain's running mate. In fact, I would vote for a McCain-Crist ticket over a Clinton-??? one. The only downside of that is that he wouldn't be Florida's governor anymore.

Bobby Jindal is another possibility that I'm open to as well.

shinerbock

03-23-2008, 01:36 PM

I would actually really like it if Charlie Crist is McCain's running mate. In fact, I would vote for a McCain-Crist ticket over a Clinton-??? one. The only downside of that is that he wouldn't be Florida's governor anymore.

Bobby Jindal is another possibility that I'm open to as well.

Don't take this as an accusation, but why would Jindal on the ticket be something you'd support? From the McCain/Crist v Hillary scenario it sounds like you'd prefer someone a bit moderate, and Jindal is one of the most conservative potential running mates mentioned.

bowsandtoes

03-23-2008, 02:55 PM

I really don't see the appeal of Obama aside from the fact that he can give a good stump speech. Most of his platform is just adapted from other candidates, his immigration policy for example just McCain's proposal with his name on it, even though McCain was the one who took all the heat for it when it was on the floor, mostly from his own party. He also doesn't have the voting record to back up anything that he's talked about doing. Call me naive but I think there's a big difference between saying you're going to change something (like earmarks or pork barrel) and actually consistently voting against it for years.

As for other types of experience, I can't see how its even a contest. While McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam Obama was doing lines of coke and smoking weed in Hawaii. Again, call me old-fashioned but I would call things like that a reflection of character.

moe.ron

03-24-2008, 01:43 AM

While McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam Obama was doing lines of coke and smoking weed in Hawaii. Again, call me old-fashioned but I would call things like that a reflection of character.

I thought Obama was doing those thing while he was in grade school in Jakarta?

Wasn't he a Muslim and attended a militant Islamic madrassah while in Jakarta?

nittanyalum

03-24-2008, 01:44 AM

^^^LOL.

jon1856

03-24-2008, 09:13 AM

As for other types of experience, I can't see how its even a contest. While McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam Obama was doing lines of coke and smoking weed in Hawaii. Again, call me old-fashioned but I would call things like that a reflection of character.
IMVHO a better comparison would be what McCain was doing vs Bush.;)

bowsandtoes

03-24-2008, 12:28 PM

IMVHO a better comparison would be what McCain was doing vs Bush.;)

That comparison works just as well, I was too young to vote in 2000 but my family all went McCain and then refused to vote in the general election. We've been riding this bandwagon for quite awhile and its great to see him finally get a shot. Hopefully he'll make the most of it.

Munchkin03

03-24-2008, 01:04 PM

Don't take this as an accusation, but why would Jindal on the ticket be something you'd support? From the McCain/Crist v Hillary scenario it sounds like you'd prefer someone a bit moderate, and Jindal is one of the most conservative potential running mates mentioned.

I would prefer someone a bit moderate, which is why I like Charlie Crist. But, if Jindal was McCain's running mate, then I think that would actually help McCain with his base, since so many GOP folks feel McCain is too liberal (and I don't like his views on illegal immigration). Plus, Jindal has managed to get Louisiana a budget surplus, which I didn't think could happen in my lifetime.

jon1856

03-27-2008, 11:00 AM

A McCain Moment: Do You Want Four More Years
of This?
Arianna Huffington (http://www.caglepost.com/c/37/Arianna+Huffington.html) http://www.caglepost.com/lib/img/ico/rss.gif (http://rss.caglecartoons.com/columnist/8260eae7-eb36-4662-b5d6-0cdab6b4b19b.xml) 3/26/2008
If our polarized country can agree on one thing, it’s that the greatest danger facing America over the next decade will not be Islamic extremism and instability in the Middle East, but rather Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. That’s just “common knowledge,” right?

So it only makes sense that the media have focused nonstop on this looming threat while paying scant attention to the fact that the presumptive Republican nominee for president apparently doesn’t have a clue about what’s going on in the Middle East.

And with the U.S. death toll hitting 4,000 (with 25 American soldiers killed over the last two weeks, the deadliest fortnight for our troops since September 2007), and with another 57 people killed in Iraq on Sunday, John McCain’s tenuous grasp on what is happening in the region becomes all the more worthy of attention.
http://www.caglepost.com/column/Arianna+Huffington/5870/A+McCain+Moment+Do+You+Want+Four+More+Years+of+Thi s.html

DaemonSeid

03-27-2008, 11:08 AM