Posted on 05/15/2008 3:38:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I just got off of another teleconference with John McCain. Here are my notes, not quotes, from the teleconference.
McCain's Opening Statement
I gave a speech this morning about how I would want America to look after my first term in office in 2013. I want people to see what I want to do. By 2013, I think we will have won in Iraq. There may be sporadic fighting or attacks by Jihadists, but the Iraqi military would have control of the country and American troops would be out of harm's way, even though we may still have our troops in the country.
I'd be glad to debate Obama or Hillary on whether the surge is working and whether we are winning right now. It's long, hard, tough -- and was mishandled for four years -- and I fought against that failed strategy, but in 2013 we will have won. That won't mean everything is perfect, but we will not have chaos, genocide, increasing Iranian influence -- and we'd have to go back. That's what would happen if Obama gets his way.
Q&A Session
What are your views of what is happening in Lebanon and do you think we should be talking to Iran? Also, Bush talked about the dangers of appeasement. Some comment on that?
Bush says he wasn't talking about Obama and there are plenty of examples in history of the danger of appeasement. I think one of the reasons the Democrats got so upset is because Obama is really naive to want to sit down with Iran. They pronounced Israel as a "stinking corpse," they're sending weapons into Iraq that are killing Americans, and they're a terrorist state.
In Lebanon, we essentially see a proxy war between the US and Iran. If Senator Obama wants to sit down across the table from Iran, what is it that he wants to talk about with them? The belief that communication has to be done face to face is unacceptable and that shows Obama doesn't have the knowledge, experience, or background to safeguard this country. I look forward to having that debate with him.
What would it take for you to sit down with Iran?
I would have Iran renounce their intention to wipe Israel off the map. If they did that and promised not to pursue nuclear devices -- and stopped training people to kill Americans in Iraq and their sponsorship of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, then perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion.
They are not interested in doing these things because they are trying to realize age-old Persian ambitions in the region. What does he want to talk to them about? All he would end up doing is giving them a prestige enhancement and more sway in the region.
How do you hold your opponent accountable when his staff flat-out lies and the media covers for him?
Obama says he's going to unilaterally negotiate NAFTA. Canada said that they might sell their oil to China if that happens. But, in NC, he says he's a free trader. He's changing positions. He's inconsistent and contradicts himself.
Have you talked to Newt about issues?
I have talked to him a few times, have watched him on TV, and have read a couple of his books. I would be pleased to have conversations with Newt because I think he has some of the best ideas in this country. I intend to talk to him from time to time because I think he's a very smart person.
You say that you're against subsidies, but you favor helping nuclear power. How do you reconcile this?
The problems with nuclear power are of our own making. We don't reprocess nuclear fuel. It takes 10-15 years to get a nuclear power plant going. The Yucca Mountain gridlock is remarkable. I want to encourage research and push very hard for nuclear power. I think it's important to reduce greenhouse gasses. We should invest in clean coal technology as well. I have always supported government investment in research and development.
Why did you announce a timeline to leave Iraq? (Hawkins' Note: What a stupid question.)
Either you didn't read or understand my speech. I know that we're going to win in Iraq as we did in WWII and the Gulf War. With victory comes the withdrawal of troops. You don't set a date for withdrawal. There is no date for surrender. I will have it dictated by the facts on the ground.
Let me explain the difference: if you announce a date for withdrawal as Obama and Clinton want to do, it means you are surrendering, and the bad guys just wait for the date.
How do you plan to take care of those troops when they do come home?
I've been recognized time and time again for supporting the troops by veterans' organizations. I will do everything I can to care for them. I believe in improving health care for vets. I want to increase their educational benefits. I also want to encourage people to stay in the military. I will match my credentials with veterans with Clinton or Obama any time.
You say you want to work towards bipartisanship. What positions would you be willing to appoint Democrats to in your administration?
I have a clear record of working with Democrats. I don't have a specific position in mind, but I will ask the most capable people, Democrat or Republican, for a position. I will appoint Democrats to my administration.
Summary: I gotta tell you: McCain sounded good in this teleconference. He trafficked in ideas, he had an appealing vision for the future, and he drew pointed comparisons between what he wanted to do and what Obama wants to do at every opportunity. For all of his flaws, McCain comes across as a tough, experienced leader -- and an unaccomplished empty suit like Barack Obama is really going to come across like a lightweight compared to McCain once people start getting down to brass tacks and making the decision between the two of them.
PS: Go here to check out John McCain's vision for America in 2013. I don't agree with every single thing, but overall, it's a pretty picture, especially compared to the sort of socialism that Obama wants to inflict on the country.
PS #2: The teleconference was packed and although I wanted to ask him a question, I didn't get the opportunity. However, they did tell us we could email in questions and I sent the following question, which I would have asked, to the campaign to get a response,
Mr. McCain, let me read something you were quoted as saying a few days ago, "We get in this kind of a circular firing squad on immigration reform in the Congress of the United States and the lesson I learned from it is we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform."
Now, you've been saying for months that you learned your lesson and that we need security first, not a comprehensive immigration bill. That doesn't seem to gibe with that quote. So, could you elaborate a bit?
When I get a response, I will post it to RWN.
Immigration still sitting out there.
Agreed. What he said in this teleconference sounds pretty good to me, but there are definitely plenty of other issues still to be addressed.
Juan has made himself very clear on this. He will demand amnesty. It will be another "Five Year Guest Worker" sham. Anyone that has been following the illegal alien issue knows that current immigration law allows application for citizenship if an alien is legally in the country for five years.
So, when you see "temporary visas" and "worker programs" check the term. It will always be five years or more or a renewal clause that will total five years or more.
And that IS amnesty.
Good answers from McCain on the appeasement flap.
Man,you can sure be fooled by this RINO can’t you?
I live in Az., Ive seen McPain up close and personal. If you think that this egomanaic is going to listen any words of wisdom, I got some great ocean front property that sits right next to McPain’s beachhouse.
As for his bipartisan approach, it really did wonders for Jorge Bush. I guess Teddy and Harry Reid didn’t get the message.
What would it take for you to sit down with Iran?
I would have Iran renounce their intention to wipe Israel off the map. If they did that and promised not to pursue nuclear devices — and stopped training people to kill Americans in Iraq and their sponsorship of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, then perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion.
They are not interested in doing these things because they are trying to realize age-old Persian ambitions in the region. What does he want to talk to them about? All he would end up doing is giving them a prestige enhancement and more sway in the region.
How do you hold your opponent accountable when his staff flat-out lies and the media covers for him?
—
I’m not so sure on his analysis of age-old Persian ambitions part, but at least he lays down some conditions versus pulling a Carter like Obama would.
Democrats are only worried about winning peace prizes anyway, most Republicans are more concerned about winning wars.
You know, if McCain jumped on the CO2 bandwagon...with nuclear plants in his satchel as a surprise, then I might have to be a Global Warming proponent myself!!!
If you want to make America energy independent, then nukes are certainly a way to get there. But if CO2 is what makes new nukes possible, then I'm all damn for it.
Well, politicians can't lie all the time.
Yup, one adult running, one juvenile. What he said, that could look like me. But don't underestimate the juvenile.
Are you supporting Obama?
IMO, the problem;
“You say you want to work towards bipartisanship. What positions would you be willing to appoint Democrats to in your administration?”
The actual question ought to be will he be appointing any conservatives to positions in his administration.
“I have a clear record of working with Democrats.”
No kidding? Try working with Republicans once in a while.
“I will appoint Democrats to my administration.”
shocking
I'll call your bluff mister.
The world's largest deposit of clean burn coal was locked up by Clinton in the Kaipirowitz Plateau (Grand Staircase) to appease the econazis, and to give the clean coal market to Indonesia for illegal campaign contributions.
Are you willing to reopen this deposit, Senator McCain?
Smooth out of the ballpark correct.
I am a little disappointed that there were no questions about him embracing the Global Warming BS and the Cap and Trade fiasco. That is my biggest concern with him.
Color me shocked.
So how does this jive with his earlier comment about what he would accomplish in his first term?
"Construction has begun on twenty new nuclear reactors thanks to improved incentives and a streamlined regulatory process."
Does he really believe that he can get Congress to change the laws, implement the resulting regulatory changes, get plans layed out and line up contractors, and actually begin construction within four years?
He's smokin' sumthin'.
Did he say anything about what level the ocean waters would be at in 2013?
ML/NJ
McCain = Pro Amnesty, Pro Roe v. Wade, Anti-Alito, Pro terrorist bill of rights, Anti GTMO, Pro Global Warming Trillion dollar tax increase, Anti-Tax Cut.
Face it we are royally screwed come November. Every candidate running makes GW look like Ronald Reagan. Costa Rica is looking better every day (Alec Baldwin can have France.)
With his global warming plan, you also get a huge new government bureacracy, trillions in losses to the U.S. economy, international regulation and taxation, the U.N. setting restrictions on how you lead your daily life, etc. This is the largest wealth redistribution scheme ever conceived.
There is no reason to tie nuclear power to global warming. It is ceding to the enemy and accepting global governance.
Thank you for posting this. I really like how John Sidney goes after Obama on Israel. He’s been pretty forceful in this arena lately.
New tagline...
Good solid stuff from McCain. Thanks for posting.
<<
I’d be glad to debate Obama or Hillary on whether the surge is working and whether we are winning right now. It’s long, hard, tough — and was mishandled for four years — and I fought against that failed strategy, but in 2013 we will have won.
>>
How very powerful this is.
Winning matters. Always. There is nothing so useless in the overall scheme of things as the ideas and policies of losers.
What you said!
Thank you for your thread and taking the time to communicate with McCain. Pardon my need for venting, but I just got a call from the RNC asking me for cash for McCain. I halted the lady as she started reading her script and really blasted her with my concerns. She stopped me with—bbbut, do you know how much is at stake? I said—excuse me, but you called me and want my money...so kindly make a note of my demands. When Senator McCain stops poking Conservatives in the eye and quits promising positions to Democrats, I will be happy to donate my time and money. And if he even thinks of putting Huckabee on as VP, he can kiss the election goodbye. You might want to alert the McCain campaign to the Free Republic website so they can get an idea of where we stand. She was laughing so hard during my rant saying—do you know how much I hear this all day long? I then thanked her and hung up.
Bush says he wasn't talking...
In Lebanon, we essentially see a proxy war between the US and Iran. If Senator Obama....
_______________________________________
The President is "Bush" and the clean, articulate one is "Senator Obama"
I could easily begin to hate McCain.
What are you? An eco terrorist? A multitasking rodeo rider trying to show the audience that the corruptness of the Dims and the lies of the Right are melded into one and the same political tune. Shame on you for bringing the truth to bear upon this man. His load is already more than he should have to carry.
Nobody's "plan" ever gets implemented in full.
I've seen ZERO evidence for this nonsense of anthropogenic GW, and am convinced (as are most freepers) that this is a power grab by the eco-marxists....
...however, I note that after 10 years of this GW nonsense that the people with the evidence an dthe science on our side ARE STILL IN THE VAST MINORITY OF PUBLIC OPINION.
So here we are being rolled by nonsense.
Bush was correct that Kyoto was a joke, and yet the Kyotoers won the PR wars.
So somebody's got to rope-a dope these guys in and move us forward in the energy angle.
Yep. It’s a regular conundrum. Poor ole Johnny’s gotta suck up to the sociopat-ecos, the globals, the Reagan democrats, the rino base, and the conservatives to pull this sucker off. Open up Kaipirowitz, and he loses funding from the ecos (the energy company board members, dollar wise) the other ecos (Clinton saved Kaipirowitz), the arabs (you are not worthy) the greens (strip mining?) and the only folk he’d appeal to would be conservatives, and he’s already thrown them under the bus and emptied his considerable bladder on them.
I’d still like to hear his answer. Twist er up John, yer on!
Ya know... I really think the most important question for John McCain is... what product will you endorse once you fade into oblivion. Bob Dole chose the limp d*** route. How in the world can McCain one-up that!
>I will appoint Democrats to my administration.<
That’s his way of saying, “I’ve sold out and I don’t even have the job yet. Yes, I am a political whore, a real slut.”
I’m sure that there are plenty of people who are directly talking to McCain about every single issue which they have questions with him about including but not limited to: his agreeing to the existence of man-made global warming, illegal immigration issues, the present campaign finance reform system, McCain’s age, McCain’s temper, McCain’s back stabbing of conservatives so often during his entire duration as U.S. Senator, the Keating Five Scandal, etc. Everything is truly on the table when running for POTUS for every candidate running. I just don’t see McCain really listening fully to what people who are criticizing him have to say, and this isn’t a very smart thing to do when one is truly supposed to try to get the most votes from the most people on November 4.
1. Amnesty = McCain / Kennedy (D)
2. Censorship = McCain / Feingold (D)
3. Gas Tax Increase = McCain / Lieberman (D)
4. McCain’s Proposed Democrat Ticket = Kerry / McCain (D)
5. Turncoats Who Asked to Switch Parties: McCain / Jeffords (D)
6. McCain’s American Conservative Union Rank 2006 ~ 40th / 100 = RINO
7. New York Times (D) Endorsed: McCain
8. Opposed Bush Tax Cuts = McCain + All Ds
9. McCain wants to keep the Death Tax
10. McCain wants to raise Social Security Taxes
11. McCain / ACLU (D) is Pro-Terrorist Rights
12. McCain/Kennedy(D)/Edwards(D) Tobacco = Trial Lawyers Dream Act
Don't piss in my eye and tell me it's raining.
Check out my personal page here: I am not "fooled" by any such thing, I merely know who the lesser of two evils is. I could join MENSA tomorrow if I were a "joiner" but I'm not (scored GT 128 on my ASVAB as a 14 year old). Senator Barack Hussein Muhammad Obama and his minions would destroy this country in short order. I don't see that I have any real choice but to vote for Senator McCain.
Leni
Wish McCain would stand to the Dems as much as he stands up to terrorist countries.
It helps to remember that the Clinton-Bush coziness goes back to the days of Iran-Contra, when Papa Bush was supervising covert arms shipments to Latin America out of Arkansas (with drugs making the return trip) and Governor Clinton was busy looking the other way. Further, as was clear during abortive Republican investigations into various Clinton scandals, in the culture of impunity of Washington, politics stops at corruption's edge. Almost all major corruption is either bipartisan or common enough that one side can effectively blackmail the other.
The irony of someone named Norman Bates being a McCain apologist is priceless. The GOP has gone psycho.
Norm I agree that he puts does conditions. Let’s recall the conditions he laid down concerning taking care of our borders before naturalizing the illegal aliens. Is anyone here honestly thinking John is going to make sure those conditions are honestly met? And if so, do we want to legalize 25 million illegals and accept the 1 to 75 chain migrants each will bring in?
John’s preconditions are merely pawns on a chess-board. I don’t trust the guy at all.
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on
appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.
In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.
They have no legal authority.
They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.
I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.
No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget.
He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the speaker of the House?
She is the leader of the majority party.
She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.
If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in Iraq , it’s because they want them in Iraq .
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like ‘the economy,’ ‘inflation’ or ‘politics’ that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist
of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper
That’s the way I see it....Obama is a huge threat to this country.
Damn straight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.