We don't need a Trillion in new taxing and spending programs in this country at this time.
You linked to an anti-McCain screed on an AFL-CIO website? LOL.
If they don't like him that's a good sign that I should probably vote for the guy.
Nice try.
Posted by: Smoley on March 14, 2008 05:02 PMHe is qualified.
But we are in need now.
McCain won the nomination...but the problems in our economy, in our society are here, now, March 2008.
I want to see John McCain acting right now to help us pull out of the mess. Those events are fuel...use it, John McCain...show us now what you can do...
Someone one here has to say it....Maybe you should have voted for Ron Paul. ('scuse me while I ROFL)
Good for him...he's qualified to lead the Military.
"The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should. I understand the basics, the fundamentals, the vision, all that kind of stuff" - John McCain.
I can see the Ad's now:
It's 3am in the White House, a phone is ringing, the Chinese have started selling off US Dollars and the US Economy is going to collapse unless we do something. Who do you want to answer that phone? A man who is not so good with that economics stuff, or Candidate X who has worked on several budget committees and has a strong fiscal policy. Vote Candidate X on Nov. 4th.
The last part doesn't apply, because you are a liberal - to put it nicely.
Posted by: KS on March 14, 2008 09:31 PMCertainly no one on Sound Politics here would ever use an out of context quote to attack any of the Presidential candidates. No, were above that sort of thing here. Uh uh, no way, never. =P
We now return you to the usual partisan bickering.
Bush was before he came to office? Maybe that's why were winning in Iraq.
If it doesn't....
....it should.
As for "who I'm going to vote for..." well, I'll be sitting this one out. Same for Rossi.
Thanks for asking.
Posted by: Hinton on March 14, 2008 11:37 PMPOW John McCain?
Hillary, being married to Bill?
Bill, being married to Hillary?
Obama, going to Wright's church?
McCain has the better claim. His military service was voluntary, but his incarceration in Vietnam was certainly against his will.
The others went through their "trials and tribulations" of their own free will and could have gotten out any time they wished.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 15, 2008 07:29 AMNo, he was given the chance to hand his captors a propaganda coup and accept something, that while to his own great personal advantage, was not offered to his fellow prisoners. He chose not to cooperate. To me that reeks of class. A kind of class you're probably not accustomed to while associating with Hillary and Obama. (Suppose you can find even *one* example of Hillary willfully accepting a great personal cost for the benefit of others?)
Posted by: jopalm on March 15, 2008 09:04 AMNo, he was given the chance to hand his captors a propaganda coup and accept something, that while to his own great personal advantage, was not offered to his fellow prisoners. He chose not to cooperate. To me that reeks of class. A kind of class you're probably not accustomed to while associating with Hillary and Obama. (Suppose you can find even *one* example of Hillary willfully accepting a great personal cost for the benefit of others?)
Posted by: jopalm on March 15, 2008 09:04 AMThe "option" was a choice between violating his oath and duty as an officer and betraying POW's that had been imprisoned longer than himself or gain an early release and hand a propaganda victory to the enemy in wartime. What a deal.
Of his own free will, he did his duty, regardless of the cost to himself - he "chose" to stay.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 15, 2008 10:20 AMBut you think we CAN afford Obama or Clinton proposals of billions of dollars of new spending?
" ...as a nation we are staring at more than a $50 trillion hole -- an invisible mortgage of $450,000 for every American family...Mrs. Clinton has already proven skillful at snagging pork. Over the past few years alone, she has attached some $2.2 billion in earmarks to federal spending bills. Mr. McCain has asked for exactly $0 in earmarks." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120553936399438277.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Obama's wife got a 260% increase in salary when he was elected to the Senate and he returned the favor with a $1 million earmarks to reward her employer. The Senate couldn't even pass a one-year moratorium on earmarks.
Enough! Stop the gravy train before it runs over all of us. Only McCain will try.
Posted by: Realist on March 15, 2008 10:49 AMWhat does this have to do with being President? Who suffered more the man whose military service was voluntary, but his incarceration in Vietnam was certainly against his will?
Or the man who grew up in a political family, was an average student at his prestigious university (which his father went to), and occupied every office his father ever held, and brought on to half his father's staff when he took office?
If suffering for your country is the prime consideration for being POTUS then why didn't the GOP pick McCain eight years ago?
He feels no one's pain unless it profits himself.
I choose McCain thanks!
Posted by: GS on March 15, 2008 01:45 PMThe point being, of the leading candidates, which one has shown the most dedication, devotion, committment, and leadership to the country through their actions, past and present?
I believe that McCain has shown more of all of these than Clinton and Obama combined. Is he perfect? No. Does he have flaws? Yes. Of these candidates, which one's flaws and imperfections can I tolerate best? McCain.
Of these candidates, which one do I believe has the control and will power to do their duty for the betterment of the country? Which one do I believe is the most capable to be Commander-in-Chief? McCain.
Why he wasn't the nominee in the past is irrelevant.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 15, 2008 01:57 PMRelatively speaking, compared to McCain, either "d" isn't qualified to run an elevator.
But experience doesn't matter to leftists. The ONLY thing that matters is if, in fact, you ARE a leftist. If you are... well, the sheep of the left like the duffer will just dutifully fall in line and support you... as illustrated by the MONUMENTAL curb-kick the democrats gave the left in 06.
Didn't they promise "change" as well?
Well, how'd that work out for cato and duffer?
Posted by: Hinton on March 15, 2008 03:02 PMDo share McCain's qualifications to be POTUS in comparison to say a "real conservative" like Romeny, Dubya, or Reagan. Looks to me like he's a conservative senator with a very liberal streak who has flip-flopped more times than Romeny & Kerry combined. Heck, McCain flipped flopped on the use of torture just last month (last year he was against it, but this year he's for it).
Experience doesn't matter to leftists.
ROFL, then why the hell did the GOP elect Dubya then? Boy wonder never did a thing in his life without his Daddy's help.
Dubya's pre-Presidency "real" experience consisted of bankrupting a few oil companies, running a baseball team (we all know how Conservatives love pro-sports teams that ask for public funds to build new stadiums , especially ones that use eminent domain to grab the land), and was a one-term Governor of Texas which if you know anything about Texas politics is a pretty weak position.
I'm going to love to see these experience arguments paraded around because when you actually examine the facts behind what your saying it borders on ridiculous.
Everyone promises change, even this guy.
Maybe you should ask yourself the classic Reagan question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
If the answer is No, maybe you too should think about "change".
Get rid of them all!
Posted by: GS on March 15, 2008 05:57 PMSocialists have not won a war ever. And they don't know how to fight one. Add up the dollars spent on the senseless war on poverty and compare it to the relatively few dollars spent for the past 5 years in Iraq. At least we are winning the war in Iraq. Can't say the same for the war on poverty.
Posted by: Snuffy on March 15, 2008 10:07 PMIf you want a repeat of the war in Bosnia, the tail wagging the dog, corruption up the wazoo on one side and the increasing possibility of Sharria law infiltrating this country with more tolerance for Islamic theocracy and in both cases more income redistribution and a deeper economic recession, vote Democrat AKA the Irresponsible Party.
Posted by: KS on March 15, 2008 10:46 PMWe are? The surge is quelling violence but are the Iraqi's picking up the slack? I think not.
Winning to me implies the ability to have troops leave a country and have it function on it's own. Do you feel Iraq is close to that point?