Posted on 02/09/2008 10:32:20 AM PST by TenYearLurker
There's an old Groucho Marx riff in which he launches a new career as a stick-up artist -- while worrying that his native cowardice may not induce the requisite fear among his victims. Sure enough, after a little time in a dark alley he springs out to confront his first victim, points his gun to his own head and says, "Take one step closer and I'll kill myself."
Such is the posture today among pundits on the far right of the Republican Party as Sen. John McCain moves closer to receiving his party's nomination. Consider the destructive implications of their pledge to work against Mr. McCain's nomination and even -- in the event he is nominated -- not to vote in the general election. Start with where it would leave our country -- presumably under the leadership of either Democrat candidate -- in the two domains where we will face critical challenges in the years ahead: our national security and the threat of an economic meltdown.
>snip
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Your no posting virgin!
No, Conservatives say: "Not a chance in hell, John".
Good post.
I'd vote for Hillary or Obama if one of them actually did those things.
I agree. My primary is over and I gave it my best shot with Romney, who was my distant third chice after Hunter and Thompson. I think a brokered convention is a long shot, though. I think the most likely outcome now is a McCain/Huckabee ticket, which would lose big to either Dem.
A lot of people here are panicked at the idea of Hillobama, and I understand that, but I’ve thought and prayed about the situtation a lot, and in the long run it’s best that McCain not get in for the survival of Constitutional republican government. We’ve survived goofy, inept Marxists before. But we might not survive a consummately skilled politician wearing the uniform of our team while playing his heart out for the other one.
Well said ... my sentiments exactly. The McFarlane and Dole types can rush into try and salvage McCain ... but any self respecting pubbie conservative who was paying attention remembers well the number of times McPain shafted us ... delighting in the attention he was given by the liberal MSM. I've said it many times before, going back at least 8 years ... McCain is a hot dog, a loose cannon and a RINO.
Well, I guess not now. Is that what you meant? Ten years of reading FR posts certainly gives you the flavor of how dialog is conducted here. People have drawn the most amazing conclusions based on my posting one article here. But this isn’t about me, it’s about the candidates and what happens over the next nine months.
Do you believe we will fare just well or better with an Obama or Clinton Presidency than we would with a McCain Presidency, with regard to national security, military operations in Iraq and the War on Terror in general?
All in all, I’d call it a wash.
I am a retired military guy and a Vietnam veteran. I began my military career during the Johnson administration and retired at the beginning of Clinton's second term, though the Carter years nearly drove me to leave much earlier. My judgment after serving under Carter and Clinton is that it will not be a wash. Obama will cut and run and Hillary will cut and walk from Iraq. The only thing that will slow the retreat will be the logistics of removing personnel, military and civilian. In the end, the Democrats will leave the Iraqis high and dry, just as a Democratic controlled Congress betrayed the Vietnamese. Another Vietnam.
Many of us have seen this before, so we know that it entirely likely to play out that way.
Your mileage may differ.
First off, McCain has very little chance of winning, and that includes if every last Freeper votes for him.
No creature under heaven can make that prediction this far out and hope to be accurate. There are just too many opportunities for blunders and missteps by either Obama or Clinton. Now that this sweep of primaries is almost over, the dust will settle and we'll be able to get a better view of the field. As thoughtful as you are, I think you're probably three or four months too early in making this call.
The polling organization I pay most attention to in mid January placed McCain as either beating Clinton or lagging behind her by, maybe, 2 percentage points. Against Obama, McCain lagged as much as 5 percentage points. This far out, that makes any candidate's chances for election a toss up. These were polls compiled by surveying likely voters.
Being a crummy pilot forty years ago does not mean McCain knows how to run a war today, but he will try to micromanage instead of leaving it to the experts.
Why would being a crummy pilot have anything to do with anything? Yeah, I know about the four aircraft he lost, two of which were probably due to crummy piloting. The third a flameout. And the last because a rocket inadvertently fired into his plane, resulting in the death of 134 sailors. Well, JFK tore up docks with his PT boat. Maybe he wasn't such a good skipper, but it didn't stop his election.
McCain's years as a POW do matter, certainly among those people I know. It certainly brings to the office something Obama and Clinton can never have and bring into the office.
But on micromanagement, I think you might be right. I watch as religiously as possible, via C-Span, committee meetings I think might be important. I've seen flashes of McCain's agitation when things didn't go the way he presumably thought they ought to go. How that will play out as "The Decider," I don't know.
A telling point might be the military advisors he eventually puts on display during the campaign. If they're people like Tommy Franks, no boot licker, he'll score points. But, I doubt it will be Franks, specifically, because he'll draw fire for alleged lack of post operation planning.
And on age, yeah, I wish he were younger. Heck, I wish we had Fred Thompson, who isn't so young himself, but that didn't work out.
From your previous message:
McCain would wield power that few Presidents have, by virtue of being a nominal member of one party while ideologically aligned with the other. Republicans wouldn’t fight the POTUS of their own party, not if they wanted to keep their political careers. Democrats wouldn’t fight McCain, at least not much, because they ideologically support most of what he wants to do anyway.
That "might" have a glimmer of truth, only if McCain has a desire to be a one term President. To be elected, he has to mend fences, make promises, and in office he has to keep those fences in good repair and make good on those promises.
And if he strayed into the path you've prophesied for him? Your example is Richard Nixon. Eventually he so alienated the powers within his party that he was forced from office and it took Ford's Presidential Pardon to protect him from criminal prosecution.
“In the end, the Democrats will leave the Iraqis high and dry, just as a Democratic controlled Congress betrayed the Vietnamese. Another Vietnam.”
We’re leaving Iraq soon regardless of who’s President, and yes, I include McCain. If he wants a second term, he will withdraw the troops just like Obama and Hillary will, despite his campaign rhetoric. Outside of the far right, the war is NOT POPULAR and the American people aren’t going to go along with it much longer.
In fact, one of the many reasons McCain will lose in November is his “100 years” rhetoric. People on this forum, especially men, have no idea how badly such statements play to women, who are the majority of the electorate. I know married, family values-type, salt of the earth women, usually reliable Republican voters, who are ready to vote for the Dem in November because they see the “endless” war as a greater threat to their children than the terrorists.
“The polling organization I pay most attention to in mid January placed McCain as either beating Clinton or lagging behind her by, maybe, 2 percentage points. Against Obama, McCain lagged as much as 5 percentage points. This far out, that makes any candidate’s chances for election a toss up. These were polls compiled by surveying likely voters.”
If that polling organization is Rasmussen, McCain was beating Hillary like a drum as recently as late December, and Giuliani was beating her six months ago. It’s not too early to look at the potential dirt on McCain, see the MSM salivating, and realize it’s going to get very ugly. McCain is unstable, temperamentally unsuited, and corrupt. There are questions surrounding his time in Vietnam, the circumstances of his divorce and his handling of the information about POA/MIAs left in Vietnam. There is the Keating 5 scandal and 25 years of Senate votes to dissect. He has admitted, in troubled economic times, that he knows little about the economy. And the base hates him. It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that the only way he wins is if we have a serious terror attack on our soil before November 4th.
“A telling point might be the military advisors he eventually puts on display during the campaign.”
Funny how he hasn’t mentioned any military advisors. I’ve seen alist of endorsers, but most of those those guys are way past their prime, in the James Stockdale “What am I doing here?” sense. The only guy with a military background surrounding McCain these days is Lindsay Graham, God help us all.
“That ‘might’ have a glimmer of truth, only if McCain has a desire to be a one term President. To be elected, he has to mend fences, make promises, and in office he has to keep those fences in good repair and make good on those promises.”
There’s nothing in his history or temperament that shows he has it in him.
What a great tagline!!! Timely, too!!! From a REAL AZ Senator!!! (until he got old and got pillow talked in his last days by a liberal lover)
We’re leaving Iraq soon regardless of who’s President, and yes, I include McCain. If he wants a second term . . . In fact, one of the many reasons McCain will lose in November is his “100 years” rhetoric . . . I know married, family values-type, salt of the earth women, usually reliable Republican voters, who are ready to vote for the Dem in November because they see the “endless” war as a greater threat to their children than the terrorists.
Even if I were the anointed kingmaker and always made the President, we would eventually leave Iraq. In the same way we have left Japan.
McCain's "'100 years' rhetoric," wasn't so much rhetorical hyperbole as factual truth telling. People will react to it according to their world view. The more insular they are the less they'll accept it. The simple truth is we're in a seemingly "endless" war and it is a threat to the life of my only son who serves in it just as it threatens the children of the women you cite.
But, for me, in this election, women are problematic. Oh, I know the customary profiles and voting patterns. But this time out I don't yet have a comfortable sense how things will line up with them generally. So, for the time being, I simply bow to your observation and hope it is not predictive and does not hold true when it is time to choose.
It’s not too early to look at the potential dirt on McCain, see the MSM salivating, and realize it’s going to get very ugly.
No. It is not too early. Yes, it is going to get much . . . uglier.
I do have a high regard for Rasmussen and also for Larry Sabato's newsletter from the University of Virginia. I do not regard them or any other divining rod as . . . divining. I regard them as subjective guides for sensing the likely course of things.
Thus far, my sense is what I've told you, as of yet the election is too far off to count anybody out. That's what my January and your December compilations indicate: all is in flux.
It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that the only way he wins is if we have a serious terror attack on our soil before November 4th.
I still remember doing the "duck and cover" drill in elementary school. We never had a nuclear attack, not one, but our parents only chose Presidents who meant to protect us and were ready and willing to apply military force to promote that security. This election will tell me how far we have strayed from or how close we have returned to those days.
Funny how he hasn’t mentioned any military advisors. . . . The only guy with a military background surrounding McCain these days is Lindsay Graham, God help us all.
Haven't seen anybody of standing "surrounding McCain" lately, but that's also because I haven't done much looking. The kind of display I'm waiting for doesn't require any looking.
I'm pretty sure Colin Powell, Barry McCaffrey and Andrew Krepinevich are in the background somewhere still giving advice. They were with him when he first declared his candicacy. Can't see them bailing. Last month Norman Schwarzkopf gave McCain an enthusiastic endorsement, sufficient to confirm my vote for McCain. Don't know who else. Do want to know.
There’s nothing in his history or temperament that shows he has it in him.
That's the trick pony, isn't it? No showing will be enough. Demonstration is required. And even if he could do it before actually holding office, lots of folks here on FR still wouldn't accept it.
Gonna be as interesting as it is going to be ugly.
I’ve got nothing to quibble with about your post except to point out one thing you probably didn’t hear because it got no play in the MSM. There’s little known factoid about the 100 years statement, which is McCain’s NEXT statement. Here’s the whole thing:
“Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — “ (cut off by McCain)
McCain: “Make it a hundred.”
Q: “Is that ...” (cut off)
McCain: “We’ve been in South Korea ... we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans ...”
Q: [tries to say something]
McCain: “AS LONG AS AMERICANS ARE NOT BEING INJURED OR HARMED OR WOUNDED OR KILLED [emphasis mine] That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.”
You’ve got a military background. I’ve got a military background. What on earth does that statement mean?! Why have troops forward deployed to the Middle East if you’re not going to allow them to be “injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” That’s absurd, muddled thinking, the kind of stuff you get from the far left. “Let’s support our troops by wrapping them in bubble wrap and not letting them do their jobs.” It’s the pinnacle of dangerous dilettantism.
No matter how I read it, I see nothing that makes any kind of military sense, or even any kind of logical or common sense. Which is why I can’t find it in me to be too upset if this guy doesn’t become our next CINC.
I'd heard it before. When you mentioned it in your post, I went back to youtube to watch it again, just to make sure of what I might write back to you.
I cannot interpret what in the heck the interjection means, ". . . AS LONG AS AMERICANS ARE NOT BEING INJURED OR HARMED OR WOUNDED OR KILLED . . ."
It simply doesn't fit, even if he means something like, for example, Balad Air Base will have a primarily defensive mission, like Kadena Air Base performs on Okinawa.
Kadena defends Japan (primarily against China). Balad would defend Iraq (primarily against Iran) and, of course, support the Iraqi forces in any insurgency. But even on Kadena, safely removed as it is from immediate, hostile attack, airmen are subject to potential injury, harm, wounds and death. Balad, because of its location and the region's history, could never ever be immune to injury, harm, wounds or death inflicted by hostile forces.
To be forthright, I shrugged it off as an unfortunate slip which might have had meaning to McCain when he said it, but the tyranny of language being what it is, means nothing to the rest of us.
That’s absurd, muddled thinking, the kind of stuff you get from the far left.
Yes.
I cannot deny it. That's what it sounds like.
Which is why I can’t find it in me to be too upset if this guy doesn’t become our next CINC.
One thing is certain. Obama is an awesomely effective and quick thinking speaker. In public debate against Obama . . . and even Clinton's stiff and canned speechifying . . . McCain will reveal himself.
If that kind of absurd, muddled thinking and speech becomes apparent as an effect of age or personality, he's sunk. He'll be relegated to the status of Admiral Stockdale. (Ross Perot should never have put the Admiral in that position. Still makes me want to throttle Perot.)
Thanks very much for the exchange of thoughts.
“Thanks very much for the exchange of thoughts.”
Back atcha. It’s nice to discuss and even disagree without vitriol. All too rare these days.
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.