Posted on 04/24/2008 3:26:14 PM PDT by RadioCirca1970
Mike Reagan just said he wouldn't campaign for John McCain. Michael is disgusted that he would go to New Orleans and condemn the Federal Government for inaction. He also called the people in NOLA who wouldn't step up and accept responsibility losers. He was referring to Nagin and Co.
He said McCain is an idiot.
(Excerpt) Read more at reagan.com ...
Michael’s show is nationally syndicated.
That may be true but it's meaningless. Heck, you could say that about Rush or anybody else. However, I would think that being the son of a President gives Michael insight and knowledge, as well as a unique perspective, that is totally unavailable to anyone else. His opinions are informed opinions. Michael Reagan is nationally syndicated, and I would guess that if he didn't know what he was talking about he would lose audience.
“McCain stepped way over the line. He sounded like a frikin’ moonbat! “
Well, at least he’s consistent!
More of the same.....
And Senator John McCain says Americans can’t handle farm work, even if it pays them $50 an hour.
Of all those advocating a guest worker amnesty program, few are as outspoken as Senator John McCain. We have reported here how the senator told leering construction workers that there are plenty of jobs that Americans won’t and can’t do.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: “ My friends, I’ll offer anybody here $50 an hour if you’ll go pick lettuce in Yuma this season and pick for whole season. So — OK? Sign up. OK. When you sign up — you sign up, and you’ll be there for the whole season. The whole season, OK? Not just one day. Because you can’t do it, my friend. Sign up.”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Can’t do it, eh? Well, Project USA has made it possible for to you apply for one of those $50 an hour McCain and company lettuce picking jobs. In response to the question, “Are you qualified?” You can check, “Yes, I am an American,” “Yes, I am an illegal alien,” or, “Yes, I’m a qualified engineer interested in automating lettuce picking, and thanks to the H1-B cheap human import program you support, I’m unemployed, too.”
You can also fill out your application online at projectusa.org. Project USA will deliver those personally to Senator McCain, I’m told.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/13/ldt.01.html
Here he insists his amnesty will pass:
BASH: Tragedy, these senators say, because they all still agree on a compromise they thought they would never find on a highly controversial issue, putting millions of illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: That agreement would get 65 or 70 votes. And it’s not going away.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/07/ldt.01.html
His comments about his bad amnesty bill.
BASH: Key supporters like Senator John McCain admit it’s not perfect.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Sure, there’s some complexities associated with it, but as compared with the status quo it’s nirvana.
MCCAIN: Every immigration expert that I know of say this is a workable solution.
DAN STEIN, FED. FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM: This is a workable solution if your goal is to destroy U.S. immigration enforcement for the next 30 years. Nothing about this compromise is workable.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/06/ldt.01.html
As Duncan Hunter stated during the campaign, if you vote for McCain, you are going to get amnesty.
W. isn’t serious about winning the war on terror. He never was. If he had been, he would have secured the southern border, would stop exporting our vital industries to China and wouldn’t have pursued trade policies ultimately so destructive to American prosperity and with it undermining the domestic political support needed to sucessfully finish the WOT.
I’m a conservative. I no longer drink the GOP, conservative-in-name-only, Kool-Aid.
I do say that about Rush. Pretty much all the talk show hosts are just blabberers who have never done anything constructive. The exceptions would be (disregarding his politics) someone like George Stephanopolous, who actually did some significant political work before becoming a TV host.
However, I would think that being the son of a President gives Michael insight and knowledge, as well as a unique perspective, that is totally unavailable to anyone else. His opinions are informed opinions.
I think that being the wife of a President gives Hillary insight and knowledge, as well as an unique perspective, that is totally unavailable to anyone else. Her opinions are informed opinions.
It's a silly argument when she makes it too.
I no longer drink the GOP Kool-Aid and will vote for the most conservative candidate, which excludes John MacCain. In picking MacNutJob, the GOP finally left me. I didn't leave it. I will not take an active role in conservatism's destruction as a genuine political force in this country by supporting someone who, true to his history, we know will betray the people who helped put him in power.
And in the end, it's always better to have the enemy in front of you, where you can see him/her, instead of beside you or behind you, masquerading as your friend, waiting to put the knife between your ribs.
Man, I like your style!
Bingo! With his history of constant betrayal of his political allies, probability says, true to form, he'll do it again.
A leopard does not change its spots.
Then you are a bloated fool.
Thank you for your response. I wish more people could see this situation for what it is, but that’s life.
The alternative is to wait until they get here to shoot them. I'd rather see most of them wiped out over there. Clearly, our leaders didn't have the guts to fight like WWII when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, they thought they could do this like we did with Vietnam. I guess it was a surprise to see the same result.
In any case, some 90% of the Muslims are of the type to hold a grudge for at least a millennium, and will need to be eliminated now that they have demonstrated an ability to steal and co-opt high technology. That still leaves 100 million of them, it's not the same as completely eradicating their religion, only the worst parts of it.
I do think he’ll continue to prosecute the WOT, though.
There are three parts to our current strategy to prosecute the war on terror: 1) Treat everyone like a complete terrorist when they try to fly anywhere, regardless of their solid-citizen, law-abiding status, giving no focus to certain swarthy types who have seemed to cause the bulk of the problem; 2) Baby-sit competing groups of Muslims (who Ronald Reagan was smart enough to get fighting each other), costing us enormously in terms of money, lives, and expanding the power of liberalism in the US; and 3) Fund both sides of the conflict by taxing or borrowing to build things that Muslims either don't want or will blow up anyway, and by pushing up the price of a resource the Muslim enemy has the greatest portion of in the world.
I guess I'm not as big a fan of prosecuting the WOT in that way as you are. At least if one of the Rats pulls us out, we can save some soldiers' lives while the Shia and the Sunni blow each others brains out. Then we can get some adults elected to Congress in 2010, and prepare the way for a Republican President to finish the matter off once and for all, if keeping the ragheads fighting with each other starts to peter out.
I wouldn’t have liked a lot of President Roosevelt’s policies, either. However, I probably would have voted for him, also.
Interesting that you mention FDR. He's the guy who was telling Americans to stay out of Europe's problems in the election that was held six months after Hitler marched through the streets of Paris. Decisive action to kill the Nazi regime in its crib in 1933 or 34 would have saved a lot of American lives and treasure. This is why I was giving the green light to GWB for invading Afghanistan and Iraq back when those things happened, little did I believe that we would just replace one set of Muslim fanatics with a different set of Muslim fanatics.
If we cannot fight this battle with the ferocity we used against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, then we had best figure out ways to get the Muzzies to off each other until we are capable of electing leadership that has enough testicular fortitude to do the job. Nobody taking the oath of office this coming January 20th qualifies.
Do you know why?
First, let me congratulate you on actually being able to argue your point in an intelligent manner.
My position is this: I think either Iraq will be stabilized in the next four years or it never will.
I completely understand why you think overwhelming force is the way to go. And, I have to admit you’ve got a point.
However, I also think war is as much political as force, in that force needs to be applied in relationship to the political calculations regarding what the population is willing to accept. (not sure I said that very well, I may have to come back to it)
I suggest what is happening in Iraq is that the US is trying to put together a country that has suffered for decades under brutal and despotic rule. In the process, we’re trying to “infect” the region with some sort of a representational democracy. This is a bold project and if it succeeds, it will completely transform the ME.
Right now, it looks like we’re finally having success. What is even more promising is that Iraqi forces took the lead in Basra. Considering Iraqi armed forces were built from scratch, this is an excellent first step.
So, only time will tell. My time limit is 4 years and I think McCain knows enough to allow the people on the ground to make decisions.
I think Senator Clinton or Obama would try to run the war out of the White House. We already know what happens when wars are micromanaged by presidents.
My point is more along the lines of a follow-up to your text (in green) suggesting that once McCain becomes the de facto 'conservative' leader (mostly per media re:Bush2) then just which China will he visit. I.e. which conservative foundations will he destroy, because he can? He could easily be the most dangerous of the three manchurians.
I would have to agree on that point. He could easily be.
Thank you, you're a solid debater yourself, and it's difficult coming up with things to refute some of your points. But I'm still going to try! :)
However, I also think war is as much political as force, in that force needs to be applied in relationship to the political calculations regarding what the population is willing to accept. (not sure I said that very well, I may have to come back to it)
Well, you might want to take that opportunity. I don't believe there is a political solution of any sort here, we are asking a multicultural Mideastern nation to deal with something it hasn't even earned. All of the current successful democracies in the world have fought tyranny to get them, learning important lessons in the process. We can no more hand the Iraqis freedom than we can hand a six-year old the keys to an automobile. In the 1300 year old history of Islam, there has only been one successful political nation-state that has not involved monarchy or dictatorship, and that is Turkey.
Turkey had their own George Washington in the form of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who strengthened that nation by his rejection of the caliphate, and turning his people towards Europe without fully emulating the fascism of Germany, Italy, and Russia.
Turkey faces being swept back into the grip of Islamic fundamentalism today, because statesmen have to be rediscovered at least once per generation for a country to retain its path to greatness. In Iraq, only the strongman represents stability to these people, whether its a caliph, a dictator, or a monarch. There's no George Washington there, not even a Millard Fillmore.
Right now, it looks like we’re finally having success. What is even more promising is that Iraqi forces took the lead in Basra. Considering Iraqi armed forces were built from scratch, this is an excellent first step.
I remember all the reports of 'success' coming out of our commanders in Vietnam, too. But in the end, it was all number shuffling without meaning. Iraqi troops might have been 'taking the lead', as you put it, but I think its more likely that they were just engaging in more sectarian violence under cover of a uniform. There is a huge danger in each new potentially democratic state that the electoral victors will just simply use the mechanisms of government to silence or eliminate their cultural opposition.
So, only time will tell. My time limit is 4 years and I think McCain knows enough to allow the people on the ground to make decisions.
I don't think McCain gets four years, even if he wins. Should he be the one taking the oath of office, it will not be because he's loved and admired, but because the alternative of Hillary or Obama looked so much worse to enough people in about five or six swing states. If he cannot bring substantial amounts of troops home in eighteen months, he risks the Rats coming up with enormous margins in Congress. They haven't been able to shoot straight since the 2006 elections, because they were trying hard not to cripple Hillary when she was the presumptive nominee, but if McCain is President, they'll go full tilt on cutting off war funding. If McCain goes into the election looking like a BIG eventual winner then there will be the tendency of many voters to send him there with an even more Democrat Congress to balance him out.
I think Senator Clinton or Obama would try to run the war out of the White House. We already know what happens when wars are micromanaged by presidents.
Who's to say that the 'compassionate conservative' President we already have has not done this? And if it was our present set of military leaders that has taken this long to pacify a technologically backwards enemy, why have faith in them to get us through the next few years under McCain?
Young Americans signed up in record numbers after 9/11. They really believed that their President would empower them to defeat islammunism, by stamping out the will of the enemy to fight, even if that meant wiping out the enemy. Now, they are the leading opposition to the war, many of them listening to the siren song of Obama, who really looks like a middle-aged guy to them. I saw America transformed from a state where even Democrats had to get tough on communism (Kennedy's Bay of Pigs was ill-conceived, but it meant well) to a nation where even the most bitter commie fighter of the postwar era went to make detente with the most notorious Communist states.
Our poor prosecution of this war, and the wasting of the power the American people invested in the President to fight it, has guaranteed that we will have a liberal in office for the next four years. I advocate that like with Jimmy Carter, the very worst liberal be in there, so the American people will be more able to wake back up again. When I say, "Sometimes you've got to go through a Jimmy Carter to get a Ronald Reagan," what I mean is that the American people need to see the extreme of where they've been drifting, in order to pull away from the rocks along the shore. It is those dangerous times that bring out the statesmen from the ranks of the American people, and that's who we're going to need in 2012.
Four years of John McCain is not going to give us that. All it's going to give us is the horrible time we got from 1969-1976, when we saw a Republican president continue to fiddle with an unwinnable war, muck up the free market with wage and price controls, expand welfare with the earned income credit, cripple the economy with the EPA, guarantee the profitability of drug trafficking with the DEA, push racial harmony back decades with support for forced busing and reverse discrimination, and strengthen the central government through 'revenue sharing' with its attendant strings. Republicans suffered in the 1970 elections, and even though Nixon won re-election, it was only because the Democrats nominated a truly stupid man, and Nixon felt he needed to cheat, anyway.
Would Humphrey really have been that bad? If we had taken Congress back in 1970, we could have avoided the disaster that was Jimmy Carter, and HHH's ties to LBJ and the war would have left him with the blame for the bug-out that would have happened in the early Seventies rather than the middle of that decade. Half the liberals minted during that time would have never been created, there would have been no Republican responsibility for losing Vietnam, and there would have been no Watergate. We might have even gotten Reagan in 1972 or 1976, before much of the damage of the Seventies had been done.
Thanks for the compliment. It’s nice to actually debate something. While we may not change each other’s mind, we’ll at least be able to hone our arguments and get an alternative point of view.
I tend to agree with you on the “Jimmy Carter to get to Ronald Reagan” theory.
My disagreement is whether or not we should let it happen now or in 4 years.
My position is McCain now, consequences later as I think we’re finally seeing some progress in Iraq. I do agree, things have to be a lot better in the next year and a half or the troops have to come home.
I’ll have to leave your Turkey of an argument (haha) for later, because that’s a good point. I’d forgotten about Ataturk. (It’s obvious you’re not a liberal, because you actually pay attention to history and are able to draw conclusions from it) I’m only leaving it for later, as I’m just having my morning coffee and need to get ready for work.
Keep it up, this is one of the few debates I’ve had that didn’t devolve into “you’re just a big poopy head and mean, too.”
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.