McCain- GOP's Last man standing?

[The_cavalierman]

Iran is Bush's making as well? :laugh:

It wouldn't have anything to do with Carter would it? You know, the guy that pulled the rug out from under the Shah and allowed fundamentalists islamist nuts to take over?

Still stupidly trying to blame Iran on Carter/dems I see. I guess Eisenhower's agreeing to that plot with the British in 1953 to destabilize Iran's government (for cheaper oil) did not piss Iran off one bit.

Just because Carter was president when Iran decided to take their country back after over 25 years of CIA destabilization activities you think it's Carter's fault....How enlightened and non-partisan of you.:doh:

I also notice you left out your boy REAGAN who cut and run from Lebanon which emboldened the terrorists after Reagan left. You republi-cants always blame liberals but conveniently forget your boy Ronnie Ray-Gun tucked his tail and ran from Lebanon.

Infact most of the terrorists we are dealing with today were once allies and they were courted by the GOP.

1. Osama Bin Laden - Reagan/Bush(41) - Contrary to GOP propaganda Clinton did not create this monster.

2. Saddam/AQ - Reagan/Bush (41) - We gave him the gas he used on Iran and his own people.

3. Iran - Eisenhower 1953 - for cheaper oil (boy that really worked out)

Thanks to the GOP their will always be a former ally turned bad guy to fight.

[PeterMP]

Pete you don't want to go there cause I throattled you on that argument already. The McCain torture bill isn't what is being discussed today. Congress has already passed two additional bills trying to do what McCain wrote into law.

What court decisions have up held the view that the McCain torture law gives the President all of these new and unbelievable powers?

Not a single one (the Bush administration is essentially 0 for 3 in arguing that case in court (the Hamdan case (all the way to the Supreme Court), extraditing the one guy from Gitmo (to Tunisia, I think), and force feeding people that are on hunger strikes).

The newer laws are a different story, and it'll be interesting to see how the Bush administration's interperation of them holds up, but IF it does hold up, it won't be the result of the McCain law (I'd actually like to see McCain address why he voted for the Detainee act, which does seem to (we'll see what the courts say) undermine his own anti-torture law.)

Good point, what about Guliani or Romney? aren't they fiscal conservatives too. Neither is a libertarian space cadet, nor a much of a social conservative.

I'll agree Huckabee is a social conservative, not a fiscal conservative.

I'm dubious of Guliani's record as a fiscal conservative. He was mayor of NY at the same time as Bush was Govenor of Texas. Balancing a budget in the late 90's wasn't difficult to do and isn't good evidence, IMO, of being a fiscal conservative so essentially IMO all I have in supporting that view w/ respect to Guiliani is his word and that doesn't carry much.

Romney's record as govenor of MA is a little better (came in w/ a projected debt and left w/ a surplus into the 2000's), but the scale of things are different on the federal level, and I don't hear about Romney talking about reducing the debt much (and certainly w/o much conviction) so there's no way I can conclude that he will do w/ respect to the debt what McCain will do w/ anything near the same conviction when McCain has been talking about it and trying to do something about it for the last decade.

I'd be a little more convinced by either one of them if they'd find some original things in the budget that they are against. McCain has been doing that for a while now, and it is easy now to say that you think the "bridge to no where" was a bad idea after it has become a symbol for goverment waste.

***EDIT***

I've answered this question w/ respect to my definition of fiscal conservative, which I'd guess is not the current President's defintion. My guess is that Guiliani is more of a fiscal conservative in the image of the current President, but McCain is a fiscal conservative more in the image of his father (and I'd argue Reagan).

Romney has been all of the place on the issue (as w/ most other issues) so it is harder to give a true opinion on him other than I'm not very sure about what he'd do.

[Teller]

HH, do we not have a budget? I thought there was a huge budget signed into effect last week (orthe week before).

It was a stop-gap spending bill to keep the federal government running, fund the wars, and provide earmarks to do other important things like study the migratory patterns of honeybees.

link.

#9

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your claim that the recent positive news coming out of Iraq works in the favor of the GOP and George Bush. I'm glad to hear you backing away from that ludicrous moronic claim, which it seems I falsely attributed to you.

Please in the future do not mistake my honest mininterpreting your reasoning with chicanery. That was not my intent.

Fair enough, but I did not say that Bush deserved more credit for defeating Saddam in more time than it took FDR to defeat Hitler. In fact, I said nothing of the sort. All I said was that the surge appears to be working, and that in doing so, it takes away an enormous talking point for the democrats on the campaign trail. Like I said, for months on end we heard "failed policy, status quo," ad nauseum. There's a very good reason why you don't hear that anymore. And that IS a good thing for republicans.

But don't take my word for it. How bout the New York Daily News? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/26/2007-12-26_dem_voters_no_longer_fight_battle_of_ira.html

Or maybe you'd prefer the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25dems.html

Or are you more interested in the Houston Chronicle/Chicago Tribune? http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5380715.html

Maybe you're the NPR type. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16919637

I think I've made my point.

Is it?

I hope it is but it looks much like status quo to me. Casulaties have remained roughly constant and the intent of the surge was to facilitate a political solution, but that seems as far away as ever.

Another indicator is that the international financial markets are moving away from bonds issued by the Iraqi government suggesting that they think there's a real risk of default.

Roughly constant? If a consistent drop constitutes "roughly constant," then I whole-heartedly agree with you.

As for the financial markets, sure, there's still risk involved in Iraq, no question. I didn't say everything was peaches and cream, I said the surge appears to be working, and that's caused the democrats to move toward complaining about other things. I've yet to see evidence in this thread, nor any other, to the contrary. I think I've provided more than enough to support my position.

In my opinion, the only way the "whole war thing" gets better is when we reduce our presence there and it gets better. I haven't seen that happen. You put the most advanced military fighting machine in the middle of hell and it would freeze over. I just can't see the surge as a success, it's a back track in my opinion.

McCain being the latest poster boy of the GOP just confirms that this race will either be decided not until September or ...

Okeedoke. If fewer American casualties constitutes a back track, then I guess we're back tracking. I happen to see fewer casualties as a good thing.

Why does the amount of troops used to improve a situation even matter? Clearly, the minimum amount of force necessary to control the situation was greater than we expected. But when the force level was increased, it worked.

Would you say that the Redskins last three games have been a failure because we've had 11 men on the field at all times, and should have been able to win with 9? Of course not. Success is success. And fewer Americans dying equals success. Period.

The ****-house lawyer speaks...

'Ello there, pot. I'm kettle.

If Hillary Clinton is qualified for the White House because she watched her husband be governor and president for 20 years, why haven't the Atlanta Falcons offered their quarterback job to Deanna Favre?

That's freakin' classic. :laugh:

Moreover, for a woman who claims to have shared a 50/50 presidency with her husband, I'd have to ask her why she went into Bosnia without Congressional approval (a mission that contiues today, BTW, despite the promise of a 90-day deadline IN ORDER to skirt Congress). I wonder if she would have supported GWB doing the same?

I love it. The left is going to end up screwing up one of the most gift-wrapped presidential elections in our history. I, personally, can't wait.