McCain Presidency Would Be a Disaster

[kimba1]

I`m not talking 8 hours
I`m talking 10 to 16 hours

and the doctors who make it does not mean they are immune to lack of sleep

I do hear at not too small of a percent of pill popping going on caused by these hours.
but I`ll admit it`s strange how a people here actually would defend the practice of doctor to work long hours and not think it`ll effect performance.

do you folks think the currents new about americans not sleeping enough a liberal myth?

[Rich]

I worked my way through college as an orderly. There's no doubt that doctors work long hard hours. However, they do sneak away when possible for 40 winks, or simply rest whenever they can.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Conservatives are movement driven. They don't look at an issue and analyze how it will effect their electability. We see Conservatism as a movement that is best for all America. We see it in the founding principles of this country and believe in the power of individuals in a conservative government. Rush had a nice discussion on this subject today.

===============================
Conservatives may actually feel that the government will raise more money by lowering taxes, but this doesn't make it true. Mostly, they believe that they are the only good thing about the country and everything they believe is absolutely true, just like the Stalinists.

The problem is that it isn't true. Nearly everything that Reagan 'knew' was true was actually false.

Rush is paid lots and lots of big bucks to spout his crap. But it wasn't true when he started, isn't true now, and will never be true. Conservatism is as obsolete as Herbert Hoover's celluloid collars. His clever solution was to get McArthur to clobber the hell out of the Veterans on the Bonus March, and deny them their WWI benefits into 1946. They could collect their checks of $400-$800 oly if they died.
 

[sirs]

Conservatives are movement driven. They don't look at an issue and analyze how it will effect their electability. We see Conservatism as a movement that is best for all America. We see it in the founding principles of this country and believe in the power of individuals in a conservative government. Rush had a nice discussion on this subject today.

===============================
Conservatives may actually feel that the government will raise more money by lowering taxes, but this doesn't make it true.

Actually, the FACTS make it true

[Rich]

>>Actually, the FACTS make it true.<<

Once again they prove to be stubborn things.

[_JS]

So, if I read this correctly, voting for McCain could be the death knell for the conservative movement? A disastrous presidency by a self-professed Reagan Republican...

I wonder when strategic voting should come into place?

[sirs]

So, if I read this correctly, voting for McCain could be the death knell for the conservative movement?

Naaa, just set it back for about a decade or 2 before the pendulum swings back, and people grasp how disastrous leftist policies like Carter's were, to this country.  But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions.  I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss

[modestyblase]

I seriously doubt McCain will win the GOP nomination, precisely because of his infidelity to conservative principles. Consider:

- He crusades against Guantanamo, favors constitutional rights for terrorists but opposes tough interrogation techniques, was the ringleader of the Gang of 14, which legitimized the filibustering of judicial nominees, and is the godfather of political speech-suppressing and Democrat-favoring campaign-finance reform legislation.

- He has displayed contempt for conservative evangelicals, opposed Bush's pro-growth tax cuts for reasons other than he says (spending), has engaged in other class-warfare rhetoric like demonizing oil and drug companies, co-sponsored the abominable McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant-forgiveness/open-borders/Social Security zapping bill, and even voted for the Specter amendment, which could have conferred consulting rights on Mexico concerning the erection of a southern border fence.

- He sold out on global warming, opportunistically opposed drilling in ANWR, favors re-importation of drugs from Canada, and promoted the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards patients bill of rights. Even his pro-life credentials are not as pristine as we're told: He opposes reversal of Roe vs. Wade and sided with anti-political speech zealots in filing an amicus brief against Wisconsin Right to Life.

McCain isn't my main choice, but he has more integrity than Romney. Part of McCain's appeal is that he *is* liberal on some issues, and can pull in SoDem voters who oppose Hildebeast  and Obama. The democrats, should McCain get the GOP nom, had better be careful.

I don't agree that he will "ruin the party". The opposite fairly stands to reason: McCain has reached across party barriers to champion campaign finance reform and immigration reform, and could only improve the party image, especially after the embarrassment of Bush&Co.

On the Cornyn/Immigration bill issue: I've not read the bill, and have only seen synopses of it on the internets. However, at a function recently a group of all-star Texas attorneys, and attorneys from neighbouring states, were discussing the bill and had essentially the same worries Cornyn had. Many people are sick of "legislating from the bench" especially as precedents set in Texas carry weight in nearly every other state; McCain *will* have to take that into consideration.

I'd love to see McCain run with Biden as the veep, given Biden's experience with the judiciary.  Could fare very well, actually. They'd have my vote.

[_JS]

So, if I read this correctly, voting for McCain could be the death knell for the conservative movement?

Naaa, just set it back for about a decade or 2 before the pendulum swings back, and people grasp how disastrous leftist policies like Carter's were, to this country.  But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions.  I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss

I'd hardly call Carter a leftist. Maybe in terms of a tiny piece of the American center from a very relative look at that narrow view. Carter introduced monetarist policy along with Volcker, that was pure Milton Friedman right there. He signifcantly reduced the public debt. He introduced zero-based budgeting, which is a nightmare, but for whatever reason the right-wing seems to like it. Carter fought Congress on the "hit list" of pork barrel spending. Carter deregulated the airlines, along with oil, finance, trucking, and railways. He initiated the funding and transfer of weapons to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, eventually leading to the collapse of the USSR. He also sent weapons, advisers, and aid to some of the absolute nastiest right-wing regimes in Central and South America as well as Africa.

So no, despite revisionism by the Reagnites, Carter was by no means a leftist President. He and Reagan fucked up the airline industry royally hence all of our wonderful bailouts since. Both supported some of the world's worst regimes ever known to mankind in terms of human rights abuses. Monetarist policy, as the UK and US discovered was a disaster. Many people wonder what the hell Friedman was thinking. Zero-based budgeting is, in a manner of speaking, simply a way of ignoring historical data and trends and starting from scratch every year. While it sounded good in Harvard theory, it was ultimately a massive waste of time and resources with very little savings. Carter fought pork barrel spending but was not able to outdo Tip O'Neil. To his credit, he fought much harder than Reagan and especially W, who seems to be in love with anything porcine.

I think Carter's post-presidency has led to a bit of historical revisionism. He wasn't a pie-in-the-sky liberal leftist as many claim. He was more fiscally conservative than his successor and certainly more so than the current POTUS. Personally, I think he was a terrible president, but mostly for the same reasons that Reagan was so awful.

[sirs]

So, if I read this correctly, voting for McCain could be the death knell for the conservative movement?

Naaa, just set it back for about a decade or 2 before the pendulum swings back, and people grasp how disastrous leftist policies like Carter's were, to this country.  But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions.  I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss

I'd hardly call Carter a leftist.  Maybe in terms of a tiny piece of the American center from a very relative look at that narrow view.

I think History provides a different perspective.  But hey, if he isn't so far left, as you claim, and his presidencial policies were so economically devastating to this country, makes an actual leftest like Hillary or Obama, that much more frightening to this country.  As would McCain's

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

.  But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions.  I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss
===========================================================================
So what would your solution do? Catch and repatriate 12,000,000 illegals, and then deal with the consequences of an impoverished Mexico and Central America whose populations would be in sympathy with those returned?

How, exactly do you return 12 million people, anyway? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

McCain had as practical solution to the illegal immigrant problem that I think anyone could come up with. Juniorbush's policy was about the only one of his initiatives that made much sense.

Allowing the rich to get richer as the poor get poorer is not going to lead the US to any shining utopia, either. The more the US resembles Venezuela in inequitable distribution of wealth, the sooner we will have our very own Hugo Chavez.

[Rich]

>>I'd love to see McCain run with Biden as the veep, given Biden's experience with the judiciary.<<

Do you remember when there was specualtion that McCain might run as VP with a democrat in 2000? I seem to recall that, and I've heard others remind Conservatives of that. Despite a 82 percent conservative voting record conservatives don't limit free speech, they don't work with Ted Kennedy on education bills, they support their president on tax cuts, and they aren't part of the gang of 14. I won't vote for John McCain, and I supported him in 2000.

[sirs]

.  But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions.  I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss
===========================================================================
So what would your solution do? Catch and repatriate 12,000,000 illegals, and then deal with the consequences of an impoverished Mexico and Central America whose populations would be in sympathy with those returned?

Nope....at least not in the vain you're portraying.  You ENFORCE the current laws...which includes prosecuting employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.  That works to dry up the amount coming over.  You also work on arresting and deporting about 100-200 a week, sending a clear message to the other 11,999,000 that they could be next.  You finish building a fence along the border, OR put a portion of the military on the border, again giving the would be illegal 2nd thoughts.  

AFTER all of that, THEN we see what we can do to streamline the current immigration process, so that it doesn't take years upon years, but perhaps 1 at the most, but more so a few months, allowing for much more orderly and organized transition into this country, so they can they reap the rewards of coming to America, and not have the stigma of taking away from those immigrants who did come here legally or Americans fed up with the mentality that we're here, tough, now where's mine?, attitude.

[modestyblase]

>>I'd love to see McCain run with Biden as the veep, given Biden's experience with the judiciary.<<

Do you remember when there was specualtion that McCain might run as VP with a democrat in 2000? I seem to recall that, and I've heard others remind Conservatives of that. Despite a 82 percent conservative voting record conservatives don't limit free speech, they don't work with Ted Kennedy on education bills, they support their president on tax cuts, and they aren't part of the gang of 14. I won't vote for John McCain, and I supported him in 2000.

Yeah I remeber that. Did Kerry ask him to be VP in '04? There was something on the news about that.
100% conservative or not, you have to consider who McCain would appoint. Also, he can draw votes away from Southern Dems-people seem to forget just how outrageously conservative they can be. Nunn is a "southern dem" but was also a warhawk, advocated prayer in school, opposed don't ask don't tell and generally gave Clinton one hell of a difficult time. 

[The_Professor]

So, if I read this correctly, voting for McCain could be the death knell for the conservative movement?

Naaa, just set it back for about a decade or 2 before the pendulum swings back, and people grasp how disastrous leftist policies like Carter's were, to this country.  But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions.  I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss

I'd hardly call Carter a leftist. Maybe in terms of a tiny piece of the American center from a very relative look at that narrow view. Carter introduced monetarist policy along with Volcker, that was pure Milton Friedman right there. He signifcantly reduced the public debt. He introduced zero-based budgeting, which is a nightmare, but for whatever reason the right-wing seems to like it. Carter fought Congress on the "hit list" of pork barrel spending. Carter deregulated the airlines, along with oil, finance, trucking, and railways. He initiated the funding and transfer of weapons to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, eventually leading to the collapse of the USSR. He also sent weapons, advisers, and aid to some of the absolute nastiest right-wing regimes in Central and South America as well as Africa.

So no, despite revisionism by the Reagnites, Carter was by no means a leftist President. He and Reagan fucked up the airline industry royally hence all of our wonderful bailouts since. Both supported some of the world's worst regimes ever known to mankind in terms of human rights abuses. Monetarist policy, as the UK and US discovered was a disaster. Many people wonder what the hell Friedman was thinking. Zero-based budgeting is, in a manner of speaking, simply a way of ignoring historical data and trends and starting from scratch every year. While it sounded good in Harvard theory, it was ultimately a massive waste of time and resources with very little savings. Carter fought pork barrel spending but was not able to outdo Tip O'Neil. To his credit, he fought much harder than Reagan and especially W, who seems to be in love with anything porcine.

I think Carter's post-presidency has led to a bit of historical revisionism. He wasn't a pie-in-the-sky liberal leftist as many claim. He was more fiscally conservative than his successor and certainly more so than the current POTUS. Personally, I think he was a terrible president, but mostly for the same reasons that Reagan was so awful.

It will takes eyars ot prove this, but I believe you will find that Ronald Reagan will be thought of as above average if not higher via historical perspective, JS. Even my father who is Left of most in this Forum agreed Reagan was a Leader, even if he did lead us in the wrong direction (according to my father anyway). The nation, at that time, needed a Leader. There is no way to know whether YOUR asessment of Ronald Reagan or mine will prove to be accurate, but I'd bet my mortgage on it, and five will get you ten, my mortgage is agreat deal larger than yours..