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.