another reason republicans will lose this year

McCain is in no position to unify the party; he's split too often from the conservatives, and made too many enemies. I'm not even sure why he's still a republican after the Bush henchmen destroyed him in 2004.

His support for the war in Iraq when our country is in a recession - and getting worse - can only alienate more voters than Campbell's alphabet soup.

After the destruction to our economy and foreign relations metted out by Bush for eight years, not many conservatives are happy with their own party. The federal deficit gets bigger and bigger while the middle class and poor are taking it in the chin with losing jobs, higher cost of fuel and food, and many losing their homes and cars. Not very many happy campers out there in America-land.

Those many Americans who followed Bush like ducks are now finding that they're drowning in debt. The good times are over, and many are going to see reality from the inside of their cars - if they still have possession of them, because they've lost everything including their homes.

Come November, many are going to vote for any democrat on the ballot; or even Ralph Nader. They are the most angry voters on this planet.

Ofcoarse, there will be those die-hards who'll vote for McCain to "stay the course."

A dem in the White House means a DEPRESSION on the streets.
Hungry, mad people rioting all around.

The Gimme-people want to be taken care of, and they want it right now.

Combine a DEPRESSION with a WAR and what do you have?

What makes you think we have to wait for a Democratic president to lead us into a depression, miller?

Our current Republican president is doing a great job of beating them to the punch.

He's going for your twofer too: a depression AND a war.

Them Dems keep killling each other, and he can win by default - again.

It's also possible that the extreme right side of the party isn't quite as representive as many think.

I sure hope you are wrong Roger.

The Democrats are widely united on policy; bring the war to end end, help for the middle class, increased civil rights... the Democratic squabble is mainly a matter of personality.

The Republicans are conflicted over much deeper issues of doctrine and deep philosophical fractures inside the party.

If the Democrats do lose this, with our real differences so minor in comparison, then we are idiots.

There was something in a poll a few weeks ago that pretty much made that assesment. The number of conservatives/Republicans that responded saying that they wouldn't vote for McCain because he wasn't "conservative enough" was something like 13% but it also showed that, given that the alternative was either Clinton or Obama, a huge majority of that 13% would vote for McCain in the end anyway.

Basically, the net result is was that the group Dodson speaks of numbers a few hundred people nationally at best. Most of the people that were in that 13% actually want McCain to find a VP running mate that is to his left - not to his right. The "divide" Dodson speaks of appears to be between Dodson and the rest of the world (which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.) - not McCain.

I'll have to see if I can find that poll again. I've looked at so many in the last week I can't remember which one it was at the moment.

Dodson, who seems to lie on the scale somewhat to the right of Chingiss Khan, is hardly to be considered an impartial viewer of this event.

BBB
When I worked for the doctor's union, they had a saying that if you are a cancer patient, the medical speciality of your physician will determine the type of treatment you will received.

Example:

Surgeons will want to operate to cut out the cancer.
Oncologists will want to use chemotherapy to treat the cancer.
Radiologists will want to use radiation to treat the cancer.

We see this same example with John McCain. His dominating interest as a Senator has been the U.S. Military to the exclusion of most other issues. He own and his family's history is military. It is obvious that his first approach to resolving any issue is reflective of his military chauvinism. He tends to believe that military action is the solution of choice. That's a very dangerous bias against peaceful methods.

The speeches McCain has been making on his latest tour are really scary. His militarism is unmistakable. I suspect he is scaring the leaders of other countries, too.

I wonder why McCain is so different from General Ike Eisenhower when he became president?

BBB

BBB, And to piggy-back on your post, I think most Americans who has any semblance of brains know that "military" men emphasize war over peace; and our country can't afford to be spending more money on wars.

Our economy is now in destruction-mode, and many are not only losing their jobs, but also their homes. If they wish to vote in another hawk with no experience in economics, they're just asking to be burried sooner.

I prefer somebody with brains who will listen to the experts, and make the right decisions to help Americans - not Iraqis or to bring democracy to the Middle East.

That's a choice we'll be making in November.

Most Americans with any semblence of a brain would know that this statement of your's is a crock of $hit...

Show me; especially as it concerns the Iraq war.

Fishin
Fishin, that's why I asked why President Eisenhower was so different from John McCain?

BBB

Borrowed from another thread on a2k (show us how this is not true):

British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes
By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:53am BST 05/04/2008

British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government.

A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment. In closely watched testimony in Washington next week, Gen Petraeus will state that the Iranian threat has risen as Tehran has supplied and directed attacks by militia fighters against the Iraqi state and its US allies.

The outbreak of Iraq's worst violence in 18 months last week with fighting in Basra and the daily bombardment of the Green Zone diplomatic enclave, demonstrated that although the Sunni Muslim insurgency is dramatically diminished, Shia forces remain in a strong position to destabilise the country.

"Petraeus is going to go very hard on Iran as the source of attacks on the American effort in Iraq," a British official said. "Iran is waging a war in Iraq. The idea that America can't fight a war on two fronts is wrong, there can be airstrikes and other moves," he said.

"Petraeus has put emphasis on America having to fight the battle on behalf of Iraq. In his report he can frame it in terms of our soldiers killed and diplomats dead in attacks on the Green Zone."

Tension between Washington and Tehran is already high over Iran's covert nuclear programme. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes.

In remarks interpreted as signalling a change in his approach to Iran, Gen Petraeus last week hit out at the Iranian leadership. "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said. "All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts."

The humiliation of the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki by the Iranian-backed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in fighting in Basra last week triggered top-level warnings over Iran's strength in Iraq.

Gen Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Baghdad, will answer questions from American political leaders at the US Congress on Tuesday and Wednesday before travelling to London to brief Gordon Brown.

The Wall Street Journal said last week that the US war effort in Iraq must have a double goal.

"The US must recognise that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq," wrote the military analyst Kimberly Kagan.

There are signs that targeting Iran would unite American politicians across the bitter divide on Iraq. "Iran is the bull in the china shop," said Ike Skelton, the Democrat chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "In all of this, they seem to have links to all of the Shi'ite groups, whether they be political or military."

link

Generals can only do their "jobs" during a time of war; that's when they are put to the mettle to show their "stuff." Without war, they're just desk jockeys - something they hate, because they can't make a name for themselves. Making rank during peacetime is also much more difficult.

"The poll also registered a new low on the question of whether the Iraq war was worth fighting. Thirty-four percent responded that it was, while 64 percent said it was not -- 51 percent strongly. On this question, 51 percent of military veterans and 53 percent of veteran households said they strongly believe that the war was not worth fighting."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600313.html

If, as you claim, "military men" push war over peace then why are 51% of veterans STRONGLY opposed to the Iraq war?

There are at least 20 different veterans groups that have been specifically created to oppose the Iraq war in particular. Your claim is just flat out nonsense.

fishin
fishin, please don't confuse my post with C.I.'s response. I never said anything about veteran's opinions. I said John McCain is a militarist, not the other veterans.

BBB

Interesting I suppose, in a mundane sort of way but I started this thread to bring up the topic of the far religious right and the possible effect they would have on McCain's campaign. I'm guessing that Dobson is not of the militarist ilk.

What does this have to do with your claim? You do realize that Petraeus is exactly ONE person right?

Here, I'll give you four from the other side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdN8XpL36Pk

4 to 1?




This just demonstrates your tenuous grasp on reality... You have ZERO clue what you are talking about.

Re: fishin


I haven't!

I'll have to think about your Eisenhower/McCain question for a bit before I can post anything on it... I'll see what I can come up with for contrasts and comparisons between the two.

You're the one who doesn't have any grasp of reality; the footsoldiers don't make the decision to go to war; the president does with the support of the military generals. General Petraeus is now playing politics rather than doing his job as a soldier; to protect America - not to bring democracy to the Middle East. His support of Bush's "surge" was a failure before it began. Even Petraeus said there needed to be a political resolution as well as a military one in Iraq, and if you understand anything about the puppet regime in Iraq, they're a big failure, and there is no solution in site.