Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Ahnold for McCain
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger joins Rudy Giuliani as another “moderate” Republican to back John McCain. Drudge is also reporting that Nancy Reagan privately supports McCain’s presidential bid.
And did you see the debate from the Reagan Library last night? Was it just me, or did they all look like they were sitting behind too-small, elementary school–size desks?
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
Keywords: Arnold Schwarzenegger, California, campaign-2008, John-McCain, Nancy Reagan, rudy-giuliani
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top64 Comments to “Ahnold for McCain”
Arnold, Rudy, the New York Times — The reasons not to like McCain are piling up!
Report comment to moderator
I don’t necessarily think that Ahnold’s influence is that great among conservative republicans.
Plus, the word is, Romney is getting ready to drop a huge pile of cash in CA.
I hope it makes a difference.
I watched the debate last night.
I think that CNN did Romney a service, by following their natural tendency to take down the perceived favorite Republican. Thanks CNN.
I thought that Romney definitely got the better of the exchanges with McCain. I thought some of the questions were designed to put McCain in the cross-hairs… BRAVO CNN!!!! (I’ve often wondered if I’d ever get the opportunity to say that sometime in my life..)
I also have to give Huckabee the Best leading actor award for the night.
If he had led my state like he proposed to run the country, I would be his number one supporter. This is why he disgusts me so.
He is the exact opposite of what he claims to be.
I realize that he isn’t even a factor anymore…but …man!..he ticks me off.
Most blogs I’ve read, the general consensus seems to be that McCain looked dishonest, and ill-tempered.
Report comment to moderator
I can hear Hannity and Limbaugh already:
A California RINO endorses neighboring Senator RINO.
Report comment to moderator
They all looked like junior birdmen in front of that jet and they talked nutty.
Report comment to moderator
Ahhhh-nuts to Ahhhh-nold.
I’m PO’d:
Bret McAtee thinks there is. And I’m right there with him.
McAtee’s piece:
backwaterreport. com/?p=836
And “Why Are Ron Paul’s Supporters So Angry?” (the Chuck Baldwin piece to which McAtee refers):
chuckbaldwinlive. com/c2008/cbarchive_20080129.html
(Delete spaces between DOTs and COMs)
Report comment to moderator
I’m sick and tired of RINOs and the MSM picking our presidential candidates.
Is anyone else?
Report comment to moderator
Victor Davis Hanson writes today On NRO that with all the carping about McCain the Republicans are involved in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Not too long ago the Democrats had a good shot at taking 2008; then the Clintons savaged Obama and seriously divided the party, giving the Republicans an opening.
Hanson, also, mentioned that Reagan was involved in some tax increases and supported an “amnesty” bill for illegal immigrants.
McCain, after a fair primary fight, has emerged as the victor. Republicans who wish to defeat Clinton or Obama should suck it up and form a phalanx behind McCain.
Personally, I supported Romney until it became clear that he had a serious likability problem along with a significant number of evangelicals who despised his Mormonism. It is unlikely he could win a general election.
Should the Republicans continue to carp and pout about McCain, they will surely lose the November election.
Report comment to moderator
6. OH YEAH!!!
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt wrote; “Should the Republicans continue to carp and pout about McCain, they will surely lose the November election.”
Peter, now is the legitimate time for good Republicans to speak out and advocate for a conservative and against John McCain. If McCain wims the Republcan nomination, then there will be no victory for conservatives at all possible in the November election.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, while McCain sometimes wanders off the reservation, I regard him as a decent conservative. He has an 82.3% lifetime rating on the Conservative Union Congressional rating scale.
He is solid on national security and pro-life iussues and moderate on issues of trade and taxation. While I disagree with him on several issues, I consider him a man of proved courage and a moderate conservative capable of serving the country well.
BTW, during his six years as a prisoner in North Vietnam he spent much time in solitary confinement foe speaking out. He, also, led the Christian religious services for the American prisoners.
BTW, McCain’s autobiography, Faith of My Fathers provides insight into McCain’s foibles as well as his great courage and integrity.
Report comment to moderator
I enjoyed Ron Paul’s, what, four minutes? But in those four minutes he sounded “more like a person than a politician” (as a Newsweek writer put it) — something the others, apparently couldn’t pull off.
The content of what he said was head-and-shoulders above anything the others offered up as well.
http://www.RonPaul2008.com/issues — I don’t see how truly conservative, Christian people can find Huckabee, Romney or McCain better than what Dr. Paul stands — and votes — for. Consistently. Constitutionally. I like was Arlo Guthrie said in his endorsement of Dr. Paul recently: Ron Paul is the only candidate who would have signed the constitution had he been there.
Report comment to moderator
Crossover. Step into the light. Feel the hope. Vote Obama!
You know you want to …
Report comment to moderator
Seriously, although I’ll take all the Obama voters I can get, I do not understand the antipathy for John McCain. He’s your best shot in the general, just as Obama is my best shot. You all put up Huckabee or Paul or even Romney and the Democrats will wipe the floor with you. Even Clinton would beat you.
Report comment to moderator
DCL– You’ve stumbled onto the difference between a conservative and a Republican. To a conservative, there’s almost no difference between McCain and Obama/Hillary. In fact, a liberal Republican is worse than a liberal Democrat, because conservative congressmen would support liberal ideas from President McCain out of party loyalty.
Your post #13 is dead-on for partisan Republicans, but not every conservative is a partisan.
Report comment to moderator
DC Lawyer, for once we agree. The outcome of the November election will hinge on whether the independents and party ccrossovers will vote for Obama or McCain.
How do you explain Obama’s one-hundred abstentions in a two-year period of being an Illinois Senator?
Normally good politicians vote yea or nea on issues.
Personally, I find Obama to be a frothy advocate of unspecified change and McCain to be a decent conservative of proved courage and integrity. We shall see.
Report comment to moderator
Peter,
Don’t be misled by statistics. In recent times, McCain’s voting has grown more and more liberal. And while he votes “conservative” on very minor bills and measures, he is liberal on nearly all the big ones. And ALL the legistation (of which I am aware) with McCain’s name on it (showing where his real heart is) are radically leftist or liberal.
McCain has also been busy preventing a lot of deserving conservative legislation from even coming to a vote. On domestic matters, John McCain is liberal. No one has done more to weaken our Presient and undermine Republicans in the last eight years than McCain.
He is NOT solid on pro-life matters. He acted aggressively to shut down the free speech of ‘Wisconsin Right to Life’ but fortunately the Supreme Court over-ruled him and his case by one vote.
He will be sure to appoint leftist jusitces to remedy such conservative outrages (in his mind). He has already said that he does not like Alito because he allegedly “wears his conservatism on his sleave.”
On national security, he is not solid. He is not for allowing our side to descerningly use the measures necessary to save lives by getting needed information from vicious terrorists. And he wants to close down Gitmo.
Plus, he used a very dirty and dishonest trick on Romney just before the Florida election.
Report comment to moderator
John McCain will not get conservative voters–at least not those who have thoughtfully followed politics in the last decade. He will probably do worse that Bob Dole did in ‘96, and Bob Dole did get a good portion of conservative voters.
Report comment to moderator
The New York Times has been following politics and that’s why it endorsed McCain. They know what they are doing.
Report comment to moderator
Arnold’s state is bankrupt. Why would anyone take his endorsement as a point in favor of McCain?
Report comment to moderator
Well then Joel, realistically whom would you propose as a credible Republican candidate who has a decent chance of winning the 2008 election? Bob Dole lost an election to Clinton because he tried to run on Reagan principles but was viewed by the electorate as a wooden, inauthentic candidate.
We conservatives can pine away for an ideal candidate, though in doing so we shall end up in the political wilderness nursing our idealistic wounds.
Report comment to moderator
Peter,
Bob Dole (whom I voted for) was a well known moderate, not a Reaganite. But he never actively undermined Republicans like McCain has.
I do not think Dole was seen as inauthentic by decent or thoughtful voters. But he was seen as wooden.
In my view, the best candidate for conservatives still standing is Gov. Romney. Not ideal, but decent, conservative and competent.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
I agree with you on many things, but I will not vote for anyone who is a leading member of a cult. There is NO VALUE in a cult. People can talk about family values forever, if the person who belongs to a cult, and believes the nonsensical things the Mormons believe, he would believe anything.
McCain has military background that’s a big PLUS, Romney has NONE!
Report comment to moderator
Joel, let’s see what happens next Tuesday. If Romney shows that he can appeal to a broad electorate, then I would be glad to join you in his support. Otherwise, I would urge you to consider McCain as a moderate conservative capable of defeating Obama or Clinton.
Report comment to moderator
Dang, now I’ve gone and offended both my friends, Joel and Victoria. My grandfather once advised me to keep both politics and religion to myself.
Report comment to moderator
Peter,
Respectful disagreement is NOT offensive to me. And I do agree with you about seeing what happens on Tuesday. My feelings mitigate against ever voting for McCain but my mind (to which I try to give the most weight) tells me not to make rash promises to myself or others. So I will wait and see and my November options remain open.
But now is the legit. time to make my case for Romney. If I don’t do it now, I would not feel entitled to comment about our two liberal options later.
And Victoria also has a right to support a liberal for a political office while undermining a candidate who is a competent conservative without me taking offense.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, thanks. I must say the following from NRO Corner is riveting:
From Steve Sailer:
Will McCain, who finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and who lost five jets, return competence to the White House?
That’s the kind of this someone should have brought up in a debate. If only we Republicans weren’t so darn nice!
Report comment to moderator
Brother Leavitt, might I console thee with a word of encouragement? I have read your posts here on WoW, and find us to be of like mind on many concerns. I would also like to be counted amongst your “friends”. Your grandfather and my grandfather gave us similar advice. My thinking abiout that is that was then, when the issues of pollytix and religion were of such private-to-oneself. In the world we live in, the 2 concepts are everyday discussion material, that really shapes our world, no matter what side of the discussion one finds themselves.
Going back to Mr. McLean’s original article, It appears Govenor Schwarzenegger is more of a wishy-washy politician who really has as much influence
endorsing a candidate as I do.
Those of you who have seen my posts concerning John McAmnesty will know I will do whatever I can to help defeat him.
A new article about Johnny Mac is now on Human Events Online by one of my personal heroes: Patrick J. Buchanan. Here is the link: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24666
Report comment to moderator
It’s interesting to watch the “true believers” in action on here. Whether they are supporters of McCain, Romney, Paul, Clinton, or Obama, they all talk a tough game. When I see people threatening not to vote if a certain person is the nominee, I laugh. Go ahead and stay home. That makes my vote more valuable.
Americans are practical, not partisan. They don’t vote for a person based on a narrow set of issues. Most Americans want someone who’s not an extemist or an ideological purist. They want someone who has principles, but it willing to compromise to get things done for this country.
There is a great middle in America that goes back and forth between the parties, depending on the man or woman who’s seeking office. The voted for Reagan and they voted for Clinton. Personally, I think they might give it back to the Democrats this time around. I could be wrong, but I just got a feeling.
At the rate things are going around here, we might need suicide counselors come November for all the people who go off the deep end when their guy (or gal) loses.
When Bush was elected 7 years ago, I had already prepared myself for the reality that we would have him for 8 years. And if need be, I can survive another 4 years of a Republican occupying the White House. Eight years of living in Bush’s hell-hole has made many of us Democrats determined
I think our Republican friends should prepare themselves for the worst. The geat middle of America may just decide they’ve had enough of a Republican and go for the other side.
One senses that the Democrats are determined and ready to unify around whomever wins the nomination. Adversity and being in the political wilderness has a way of bringing a party together again. One senses enthusiasm on the part of regular people who vote Democrat.
One also senses a feeling of pending doom for the Republicans this time around, no matter which guy wins the nomination. There is much carping and division and a general malaise on the part of people who normally vote Republican.
Finally, one senses that a large number of Americans are just plain ready for a change. And at the moment, the party of “change” is the Democrats.
Of course, there’s a long way to go and many, many things can (and will) happen. One never knows what is waiting in the wings from the Republicans in the form of a “Swift Boat” attack. I get the feeling people are tired of that tactic though, and it could backfire this time around.
I don’t know about y’all, but I’m having fun so far. I find the process to be interesting.
Report comment to moderator
Here is an excerpt from a liberal blog that I ran across called liberalvaluesblog.com It was obvious that the site’s owner is a pro-Obama person.
This person watched the Repub. debate last night. The writer noted how McCain lied about Romney wanting to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq. I thought that the following observation was quite telling.
“This is especially foolish for McCain considering that he could wind up running against Hillary Clinton. Against Clinton he might have had a strong case for being the honest candidate and could bring up all the lies Clinton has told during the campaign. When McCain pulls the same thing, even if not as badly as Clinton has, he reduces his ability to show a distinction between Clinton and himself on character. If the desire was to highlight Romney’s inconsistency, McCain also didn’t do himself any favors with an incomprehensible explanation of his own changing views on the Bush tax cuts.”
even liberals admit there’s no difference between McCain and Hillary, when it comes to honesty.
Report comment to moderator
Post 16,
Joel, are you seriously saying that in order to qualify as a conservative today a person has to condone immoral acts? You may prefer to phrase it nicely as you did, to “use the measures necessary to save lives by getting needed information”, I prefer to be honest and call it what it is. Torture.
Gtmo. There are some 260 prisoners now left there with some 500 having been released as non-combatants. If the United States is going to hold individuals indefinitely without trial we need a better way to discern who has actually acted against us. We are a democracy, not a thuggish dictatorship.
I would posit that those who think we must lose our values to save our values have already lost their moral way.
dp
Report comment to moderator
Coyoteblue,
Your spin does not hold. Saving innocent lives is moral, even if not pleasant for the vicious and immoral enemy.
Report comment to moderator
I would posit that those who think we must lose our values to save our values have already lost their moral way.
Indeed.
If I were the Democratic Party, one of the themes I would choose for the 2008 campaign would be “Restoring America’s moral leadership”. There are so many issues lying before them, from rendition, to torture, to secret prisons, to detention without trial, to the financial scandals in America, to the many Republican scandals, to the failure in Katrina.
If the Dems are smart, they’ll pick at most 4 issues to hammer on for the election:
1. Moral leadership
2. The economy
3. Health care
4. Foreign policy
All of those issues are ready-made for the Dems to run with this time around.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
It isn’t spin. What you are saying is that torture is justified. Just say it. Be honest about what you mean.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt (10): BTW, during his six years as a prisoner in North Vietnam he spent much time in solitary confinement foe speaking out. He, also, led the Christian religious services for the American prisoners.
BTW, McCain’s autobiography, Faith of My Fathers provides insight into McCain’s foibles as well as his great courage and integrity.
Frank: BTW, while McCain was my senator, he proposed another amnesty offer to illegal aliens.
BTW, McCain weants to require private parties to comply with federal background checks when engaging in private sales of private firearms. (He calls it “closing the gun-show loophole”!Hey, senator: freedom is a “loophole”!)
BTW, there’s this little law he helped write called McCain-Feingold … look it up.
BTW, McCain was one of the Keating Five. (Look that one up, too.)
BTW, in 1998 McCain tried throwing his considerable gummint weight around in this state to ban live, local cage fighting, apparently because he felt that it cut into his wife’s family’s beer distribution business (which advertises on pay-per-view sporting events, which the cage fighting enterprise didn’t want any part of).
phoenixnewtimes. com/1998-02-12/news/john-mccain-breaks-up-a-fight/
(Delete space between DOT and COM)
BTW, there really doesn’t seem to be any substantive difference between “100-more-years” McCain and the Hildebeest. They’re both bloody statists; they simply differ over who should benefit most from the State’s largesse.
VD Hanson can bounce up and …
Report comment to moderator
I don’t like McCain, Romney or Huckabee. Yet I still have to make a choice next Tuesday (or earlier if I want to drive to the new home site). I would like to have some reasons to vote FOR somebody, not reasons to vote against.
HELP!
Report comment to moderator
Peter – 24
You and Joel would always be welcome in our home, I’m sure our discussions would be a lively event!
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark (31): Saving innocent lives is moral, even if not pleasant for the vicious and immoral enemy.
Frank: That statement unjustifiably oversimplifies a complex matter. Most notably, the question must be asked:
How does the interregator know his suject possesses the information he is after?
Except in perhaps the rarest of cases, he most certainly cannot know, for he is not omniscient. But we haven’t used (ahem) “enhanced interrogation techniques” strictly on people that we knew had life-saving information.
No, we have used torture on anybody we picked up (or had turned over to us by Middle-Eastern cut-throats), regardless of their actual status as enemies, just to see what we might get out of them.
Their stories are inexorably coming out.
And our nation’s reputation for truth and justice — what’s left of it — won’t fare well.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles (35): I don’t like McCain, Romney or Huckabee. Yet I still have to make a choice next Tuesday (or earlier if I want to drive to the new home site). I would like to have some reasons to vote FOR somebody, not reasons to vote against.
HELP!
Frank:. Hmm. Interesting. Ron Paul isn’t in your list.
Google up some of the articles that Pastor Chuck Baldwin has written in favor of Ron Paul.
Read a few of them.
Pray.
And vote as you believe you are led.
Report comment to moderator
Incidentally, Barry Goldwater, Jr. endorsed Ron Paul a while back, so I think it is quite appropriate to say the following:
Ron Paul: In your heart, you know he’s right.
Report comment to moderator
One does have to admire Frank! Even though Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination, much less the Presidency, he carries on faithfully on here. I tip my hat to your dedication Frank.
I see Ron Paul as the “Ralph Nader” of 2008. He has a small band of diehards who will vote for him no matter what. It may be just enough to deny the Republicans the White House. And I doubt Ron Paul or his supporters will care one whit. I suspect Ron will run as an Independent when all is said and done.
Report comment to moderator
They want someone who has principles, but it willing to compromise to get things done for this country
So, what you mean Anlir, is that they want someone whose “principle” is compromising to get things done for this country. Whatever that means. Sounds like more “Change” speech. I HAVE A PRINCIPLE OF CHANGE!! WE NEED CHANGE!! AND I’M GOING TO BRING CHANGE TO GET THINGS DONE FOR THIS COUNTRY!!!!!
I suppose “change” is good if it means the government is going to return more of my change that they took out of my paycheck.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Ralph Nader and Ron Paul are polar opposites in many ways.
I suspect Ron will run as an Independent when all is said and done.
I doubt it, but I may write him in anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding Ron Paul, Mona Charen observed:
“Ron Paul… rails against the Bush administration for its supposed assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said no. “He doesn’t deserve one because he was instrumental in leading the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn’t need to be in.”
“Notice that he didn’t say it was because Libby was guilty of committing a crime. No, because Libby argued for a policy with which Paul disagreed, he deserved to serve time in prison. Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?”
Charen continued:
“Ron Paul is historically challenged. He argues that by embracing isolationism, he fits within a Republican tradition stretching back to Eisenhower ‘who stopped the Korean War’ and including Nixon ‘who stopped the war in Vietnam.’ Let’s recap. Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against China. It was the Eisenhower administration that had a hand in toppling Iran’s Mohammad Mossedegh (an intervention that Paul has elsewhere cited as causing the U.S. grief 25 years later when the Islamists took power). Eisenhower also intervened in Guatemala, Cuba (planning for the Bay of Pigs began during his tenure) and Lebanon.”
“Nixon, an isolationist? Most observers, whatever they may make of detente with the USSR and the opening to China, agree that Nixon was an emphatic internationalist. For the record, he intervened in many countries including Chili, Peru and Cambodia. And he saved Israel by resupplying her during the Yom Kippur war.”
Charen continued:
“Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals.”
My comments:
Ron Paul has some good talking points on fiscal matters. But as a social conservative and as a supporter of our military’s mission in the war on jihadist terror, I think that Ron Paul is the most unacceptble of all the Republican candidates.
Report comment to moderator
CB: It isn’t torture if it succeeds in getting good intel and saves lives. Period. There, I said it.
I’ll be for Romney as long as he’s in the race, but then would support McCain over a liberal like Hillary or Obama.
Report comment to moderator
#37 Frank asked; “How does the interregator know his suject possesses the information he is after?”
The interrogator surely has a far better grasp of this than a ploitiian in Washinton who just wants to rule out his viable options in any and all cass with the swipe of a pen so that he can feel moralistic from afar.
It has already been established by credible sources close to the field that waterboarding a known terrorist did save some innocent lives.
I am for giving the men and women who are putting their lives on the line in the real arena of war to protect us, the freedom to use the means they deem best (rather than the means that politicians from afar deem best in all circumstances) to save innocent lives.
I have conservative views that would limit the use of anything near to torture in most cases, but I am saying that in my safe office where I have the luxury of moral smugness. I would rather empower those close to the deadly danger to fight the war as best they can without me or politicians interfering from afar.
Politicans are not omniscient, not even Ron Paul.
Report comment to moderator
Frank wrote; “we have used torture on anybody we picked up (or had turned over to us by Middle-Eastern cut-throats), regardless of their actual status as enemies, just to see what we might get out of them.”
“Anybody?” Frank, I consider that irresponsible nonsense. I trust our military’s discretion far more than you do.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
You may be a better Republican than me. I am not ruling out a vote for McCain in November agianst the Democrat, but I cannot rule it in yet either. I was deeply alienated by McCain’s dishonest and blatantly false attack on Romney’s stance on the war. What is worse, McCain is stubbornly standing by his last minute Florida-race dirty trick. It was as Clintonian as anything Bill ever did in a campaign. I cannot dismiss that and as long as McCain refuses to own up to it honestly, I will not commit to voting for him in the future.
Report comment to moderator
All the leftists on this blog who have often said that we Republicans just vote our party and don’t hold them to the same moral standards that we hold Dems to, well, that does not apply in this case for me. When I see blatant dishonesty, on my side or not, I take it seriously.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Outkast. I appreciate honesty. I think the position is immoral, but at least you are honest about it.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I’m pretty sure Ron Paul does not argue for embracing isolationism; perhaps non-interventionism, but not isolationism.
The republican party position of non-interventionism stretches way before Eisenhower. Kudos to Eisenhower for recognizing the danger of the military industrial complex.
Report comment to moderator
Wiglaf -
Nail on the head.
The “muscular Americanists” are the actual isolationists. Our penchant for militarist foreign intervention is actually serving to isolate us from the world. America (say the “muscular Americanists”) is the only nation on the planet with the moral authority to use WMD in a first-strike in order to prevent other nations from ever achieving the capability to use WMD in a first strike! In foreign relations, it’s our way or the highway.
Yet they have the stones to label “peace and trade” non-interventionists like Ron Paul “isolationist.”
As re. the ability of the enemies of genuine liberty — including members of both political parties — to twist and misuse terms to bamboozle the electorate, sometimes I think Orwell was an optimist.
Report comment to moderator
A couple of things that come to mind reading some of the comments.
I could almost support Ron Paul before I could support McCain for the following reason;
There would be enough democrats who would refuse to go along with a premature troop withdrawal, given the success of the surge.
I don’t think the dems would want to be saddled with the blame, for what would happen in the region, if we were to remove our military presence. I think Paul would be unable to get it done, simply because of political pressure against it. Even though he would be CIC, congress still has the power to continue the war
Then I can see a frustrated Ron Paul taking it out on the remaining govt. agencies that deal with domestic spending. That would be a good thing.
Plus..I can’t imagine Ron Paul nominating anyone other than a strict constructionist for SCOTUS judge. Certainly can’t say that about McCain.
The only thing positive about McCain, is that he would continue the war in Iraq.
I’ve got news for you.
None of the the candidates, in either party will bring all the troops home.
Even Obama and Hillary have been careful to just give a date for beginning withdrawal.
(which means absolutely nothing)
So all you get from McCain, that is anywhere near conservative, is a position that will ultimately be the same that is taken by whoever holds the office.
Report comment to moderator
Exhibit A: Cuba.
How is it that the “isolationist” Ron Paul advocates ending the Cuban embargo and giving Americans the opportunity to go there to shop and vacation?
It is the false American exceptionalists — for there is such a thing as a genuine American exceptionalist — in both parties who insist in maintaining the Cuban embargo because … what? Castro poses some kind of threat to us? Because he had the nerve to help oust our preferred tyrant in the mid-Fifties?
What?
Whether out of ignorance or out of deceit, calling Ron Paul an isolationist amounts to slander.
Report comment to moderator
Mr_Meaner (52):Even though he would be CIC, congress still has the power to continue the war.
Frank: Not without declaring it first, they don’t.
Since the POTUS acted unilaterally to invade Iraq, the next POTUS can just as easily act unilaterally to leave.
Absent a clear declaration of war, i.e.
Report comment to moderator
Hasn’t it already been declared, in the Iraq War resolution act?
Report comment to moderator
rather ..declared via Iraq War Resolution Act
(or whatever it was called)
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm.
No answer.
Well let me do my part to bash McCain further, since the Ron Paul side topic seems to be at a dead-end.
From an article from (the non-partisan) thehill.com, called “Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.
In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.
Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.
Downey said Weaver is well aware that their discussion was much more than typical Washington chit-chat.
“Well, if the right people asked him,” Weaver said, according to Downey, adding that he responded, “The calls will be made. Who do you want?” Weaver this week said he did have lunch with Downey that spring, pointing out that he and Downey “are very good friends.”
“Within seconds” of arriving home from his lunch with Weaver, Downey said he was on the phone to the most powerful Democrats in town. One of the first calls he made was to then-Senate Minority Leader Daschle.
“I did take the call from Tom [Downey],” Daschle said in an interview. “It was Weaver’s comment” to Downey that started the McCain talks, he added.
Daschle noted that McCain at that time was frustrated with the Bush administration as a result of his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primary.
Daschle said that throughout April and May of 2001, he and McCain “had meetings and conversations on the floor and in his office, I think in mine as well, about how we would do it, what the conditions would be. We talked about committees and his seniority … [A lot of issues] were on the table.”
He’s certainly not Conservative.
It seems that sometimes, he isn’t even sure that he’s a republican
Report comment to moderator
Ok, seriously, who cares what Arnold thinks? I don’t. The guy is a Democrat in a conservative suit. And I care if one wacko left-wing liberal endorses another left-wing liberal because…?
Report comment to moderator
Mr_Meaner,
I’m at work and don’t have the time right now, but check back here in a couple hours or so for my argument and supporting documentation that the congressional Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq is not the Declaration of War required by the Constitution.
The late Rep. Henry Hyde himself admitted as much while debating the matter.
More to come …
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: When I saw Ann Coulter endorse Hillary for President over a McCain nomination (after I posted last night) I thought the same thing about the Scummy Senator (who basically is another Clinton with combat experience).
Report comment to moderator
Mr_Meaner:
It is quite clear from the language of the International Relations Committee’s debate that the “Authroization for the Use of Force Against Iraq” is not a Declaration of War.
When the Resolution was being debated in the IR Committee, Ron Paul sought an amendment requiring congress to Declaration of War, as the constitution say.
Note that committee chairman Henry Hyde didn’t reply, “Why, Rep. Paul, that is precisely what we’re debating here — a Declaration of War!”
Rather, he replied:
Thus, the “Authorization of the Use of Force” is clearly not a Declaration of War. Henry Hyde said so — openly, plainly and on the public record — in just so many words.
Think of it another way: Under the Constitution, it is Congress’s job to declare war — i.e., to declare that a state of war exists between America and some other nation(s). Then it is the President’s job to execute (or command) it.
But what Congress actually did in Oct. 2002 was abdicate their legal responsibilities, effectively delegating them to the Executive branch.
I know of no article, section or clause in the Constitution that authorizes any branch to so delegate its constitutionally-assigned powers and responsibilities to any other branch.
Report comment to moderator
Mr_Meaner,
To put it yet another way, the “Authroization for the Use of Force Against Iraq” was nothing more than Congress’s permission for the President to go to war, not a requirement that he do so.
Report comment to moderator
And in the same congressional spirit, don’t you thoink they’d take control of this thing, especially if a POTUS wanted nothing to do with it.
They have the same “in” for taking this thing over as the “out” they had for hot taking responsibility.
They let GWB declare war, (if thats how you want to see it).. War has been declared. Now it is congress who controls the purse-strings.
I suppose RP could pull a power play…once he is elected…with the people who will be making him look like an idiot.
Don’t you realize that if..by some freakish fluke, a republican that wanted out of Iraq was elected, the democrats, and the MSM would use it against him…Probably do things to make conditions worse…then run against him on the same platform that used to belong to the republicans. They would be running as the national defense party.
That’s the only thing that has kept them from absolute power. Whether they admit it or not….They are the party that is seen as weak on national security. With RP in office, we just become a less likable version of them, in the eyes of the dumbed-down masses
Report comment to moderator
Mr_Meaner,
I think your analysis assumes a substantive difference exists between the two parties.
Alas, there is little real difference.
Both parties believe in the power of the almighty State. They differ only slightly in how they wish to exercise the State’s powers.
Both parties promote unconstitutional/unjust (i.e., non-defensive) wars. They simply differ on who should receive our militaristic “benificence.”
And they both believe in unending borrowing and spending. They only quibble over who should receive our fiscal “benificence.” (And strangely, they act like a deer caught in the headlights when the inexorable laws of economics come to fruition and our dollar isn’t even worth the equivalent of a 1920 dime. “How did this happen?” they ask … and then shrug their shoulders and borrow/print more money to “stimulate the economy,” while the parties simply argue over who should receive the most largesse.)
Whether you realize it or not, you have admitted as much:
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!