McCain!

McCain is too old, way too old to run a country of this magnitude.
Of course the other candidates are no picnic either. It's a question of
who is the lessor evil.

Correcting John McCain

John McCain's latest big foreign policy speech was, bizarrely, reported as him positioning himself as more moderate than George W. Bush. Talking to rightwing radio, though, McCain is singing a different tune, emphasizing that "no one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have." He goes on to explain that "there are many national security issues that I have strongly supported the president and steadfastly so."

In some respects, though, McCain has been a less-than-steadfast supporter of Bush. He, for example, spent most of 1999 and 2000 criticizing Bush for being unwilling to adopt a doctrine of rogue state rollback. Back in 2002 while Bush was unwilling to publicly argue for invading Iraq, McCain was doing it. And while Bush was full of talk about disarmament, McCain was clear from the start that he would settle only for regime change.

McCain spent a lot of time criticizing Bush for not sending enough Americans over to Iraq [..], and has also been known to criticize Bush for insufficient saber-rattling directed at such countries as Iran, Syria, and Russia. So, really, it's not fair to say that McCain is just like Bush -- he's been a much more consistent proponent of the worst policies associated with the Bush administration.

I'd love a Libertarian, although Ron Paul isn't selling it as well as he could, but as far as what may or might get elected? McCain!!!

There's nothing to prove, they're here and more could be here if they wanted to, they just ain't doing too much except getting apprehended now and then. You got to know they had access to the joint in the Clinton administration something like 9/11 takes more'n 13 months to work out.

As for telling someone to 'STFU' in a forum - were you an only child? Parents, father at least over 35 perhaps?

hanno wrote:

There's nothing to prove, they're here and more could be here if they wanted to, they just ain't doing too much except getting apprehended now and then. You got to know they had access to the joint in the Clinton administration something like 9/11 takes more'n 13 months to work out.

As for telling someone to 'STFU' in a forum - were you an only child? Parents, father at least over 35 perhaps?

no and no and mind your f*cking business.... how 'bout that?

I do not like green eggs and McCain
I would not like it with Pinky and the Brain
I do not like endless war fought in vain
I do not care for Republicans such as John McCain
Not in '08 not in '12
Let's put the guy on the shelf

STRAIGHT TALK.

I just saw Doug Holtz-Eakin lay out the John McCain economic agenda at an Urban Institute event. Needless to say, he didn't really answer any of these questions. But one bit footwork struck me as particularly impressive. Most estimates of McCain's tax agenda suggest that making permanent the tax cuts, adding two new corporate cuts, and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax would cost around $2-$3 trillion over 10 years. He disagreed. McCain's tax plan, he said, will only add $20 or $30 billion to the deficit.

On first listen, I assumed Holtz-Eakin was just using wildly different numbers than everyone else. Not so. As I reconstructed my notes, here's the magic: First, Doug Holtz-Eakin lambasted the "fantasy baseline" that assumes the Bush tax cuts will end, as they're currently set to do. This knocks a couple trillion off the total, particularly if you assume that it also means the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Then he moves us to a year-by-year time frame, rather than the more traditional 10-year window. Then, he assumes this stuff will partially pay for itself down the line. Then he assumes some closed earmarks and eliminated waste. And so we end up with $20-$30 billion a year. The actual hole in the deficit doesn't change -- that's still in the trillions -- but the amount McCain takes responsibility for is now in the low billions.

That, my friends, is straight talk.

Posted by Ezra Klein on April 7, 2008

Book: McCain temper boiled over in '92 tirade, called wife a 'c*nt'

John McCain's temper is well documented. He's called opponents and colleagues "shitheads," "ass holes" and in at least one case "a f*cking jerk."

But a new book on the presumptive Republican nominee will air perhaps the most shocking angry exchange to date.

The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. [..]

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

Temper, temper!

John McCain appears to be as foulmouthed as, say, Rev. Wright... even just showing what he said on this forum will take some innovative typography.

Quote:

Book: McCain temper boiled over in '92 tirade, called wife a 'c*nt'

John McCain's temper is well documented. He's called opponents and colleagues "shitheads," "ass holes" and in at least one case "a f*cking jerk."

But a new book on the presumptive Republican nominee will air perhaps the most shocking angry exchange to date.

The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. [..]

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

This is typical of a silly sort of tit for tat advocacy that argues: "Yeah my guy was a real jerk but yours was a worse one!"

Sorry nimh, but I am just not going to take the word of a guy trying to make millions on a book who, on a second hand basis, cites anonymous sources. I doubt you would either if the tables were turned.

You seem to pride yourself in what amounts to nimhish objectivity and reason, and yet you repeat this tripe as if it were undisputed fact.

Even if it turns out to be entirely accurate, will that, in some way, excuse any and all of Obama's failings as respects the Rev Wright?

"Basically, which is it?" the man asked Mr. McCain. "Straight talk: Do you want to raise taxes, cut entitlement spending, cut defense spending, or have a deficit?"

"When Ronald Reagan came to office,'' he said, noting that few in the audience were old enough to remember, "we had 10 percent unemployment, 20 percent interest rates, and 10 percent inflation, if I've got those numbers right. That was when Ronald Reagan came to office in 1980. And so what did we do? We didn't raise taxes, and we didn't cut entitlements. What we did was we cut taxes and we put in governmental reductions in regulations, stimulus to the economy, and by the way, Jack Kennedy also did that as well - and so my answer to it is a growing economy. And I think you best grow the economy by the most efficient use of the tax dollar.''

Mr. McCain - who has said that he wants to balance the budget while making the Bush tax cuts permanent, cutting additional taxes, and keeping troops in Iraq - said: "I believe we can grow this economy, and reduce this deficit.''

[McCain] approvingly cited the example of President Ronald Reagan. There was one thing he did not mention during his response: the deficit nearly tripled during the Reagan presidency, partly due to tax cuts and increases in military spending.

nimh wrote:

Temper, temper!

John McCain appears to be as foulmouthed as, say, Rev. Wright... even just showing what he said on this forum will take some innovative typography.

Quote:

Book: McCain temper boiled over in '92 tirade, called wife a 'c*nt'

John McCain's temper is well documented. He's called opponents and colleagues "shitheads," "ass holes" and in at least one case "a f*cking jerk."

But a new book on the presumptive Republican nominee will air perhaps the most shocking angry exchange to date.

The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. [..]

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

When we see a video of McCain making such a disgusting comment, as opposed to the assurances of annonymous sources, perhaps then we can draw comparisons between him and Wright.

This is typical of a silly sort of tit for tat advocacy that argues: "Yeah my guy was a real jerk but yours was a worse one!"

Sorry nimh, but I am just not going to take the word of a guy trying to make millions on a book who, on a second hand basis, cites anonymous sources. I doubt you would either if the tables were turned.

You seem to pride yourself in what amounts to nimhish objectivity and reason, and yet you repeat this tripe as if it were undisputed fact.

Even if it turns out to be entirely accurate, will that, in some way, excuse any and all of Obama's failings as respects the Rev Wright?

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

hanno wrote:

There's nothing to prove, they're here and more could be here if they wanted to, they just ain't doing too much except getting apprehended now and then. You got to know they had access to the joint in the Clinton administration something like 9/11 takes more'n 13 months to work out.

As for telling someone to 'STFU' in a forum - were you an only child? Parents, father at least over 35 perhaps?

no and no and mind your f*cking business.... how 'bout that?

Come on, it's called a forum for a reason - if I'm wrong tell me I'm wrong. Did your folks own a Chrysler at some point? Biggish house perhaps - my nurturing-atmosphere detector has buried the needle...