The Case Against John McCain

CHANGE?? SMANGE.....

Every 4 years we hear the same tired old CHANGE angle and it is all BS.

A President needs to LEAD. I do not recall Obama being a leader at any time in his political life. A leader needs the respect of those who will follow. One earns respect by being experienced and having demonstrated leadership abilities.

Obama demonstrates none of these abilities. McCain does.

Leader sounds much better than change....you have to agree with that.

CHANGE?? SMANGE.....

Every 4 years we hear the same tired old CHANGE angle and it is all BS.

Yup, everything is just going swimmingly. Hell, if ya wanna see how great things are goin', just look at the prez's ratings.

A President needs to LEAD. I do not recall Obama being a leader at any time in his political life. A leader needs the respect of those who will follow. One earns respect by being experienced and having demonstrated leadership abilities.

Obama demonstrates none of these abilities. McCain does.

[img][/img]


[img]/img]

Not if there's no "leader", Brand X. How can a person who lies daily, who confuses the simplest of things, who has an exceedingly poor grasp of foreign affairs, who has an exceedingly poor grasp of most fact situations, who [fill in the blank] ever be considered a leader?

JTT wrote:

Not if there's no "leader", Brand X. How can a person who lies daily, who confuses the simplest of things, who has an exceedingly poor grasp of foreign affairs, who has an exceedingly poor grasp of most fact situations, who [fill in the blank] ever be considered a leader?

Thousands of Democrats had no problem overlooking all of those very same problems and voted for Hillary thinking she would be a good leader...

fishin wrote:

JTT wrote:

Not if there's no "leader", Brand X. How can a person who lies daily, who confuses the simplest of things, who has an exceedingly poor grasp of foreign affairs, who has an exceedingly poor grasp of most fact situations, who [fill in the blank] ever be considered a leader?

Thousands of Democrats had no problem overlooking all of those very same problems and voted for Hillary thinking she would be a good leader...

"thousands" Are you sure you wanna go down that road, Fishin'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dailymirror.jpg

Are you trying to claim that she didn't get thousands of votes? You can't really be that stupid...

Thousands of Democrats had no problem overlooking all of those very same problems and voted for Hillary thinking she would be a good leader...

fishin wrote:

Thousands of Democrats had no problem overlooking all of those very same problems and voted for Hillary thinking she would be a good leader...

There's no comparison between the two. You just think there is because McCain gets a pass from the MSM.

Rev. Wright dominated media's presidential primary coverage.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has officially crowned Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) relationship with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, "the dominant media story of the entire" presidential campaign, "by far." Wright's comments "received four times more coverage than any other theme or event throughout the campaign." Reports of the superdelegate role and Obama's so-called "bitter" comments were the second and third most covered stories, respectively. However, "[n]o other story line came close to attracting as much coverage as the Wright-Obama association, and most of it was negative."


http://thinkprogress.org/

Pro-choice groups attribute that gap to voters who confuse McCain-the-maverick with McCain-the-moderate, based on his willingness to split from his party on certain issues. Abortion, though, isn't one of them. "The press describes him as a moderate maverick, so people take that to mean that he's pro-choice, or not as bad on choice," says Ted Miller, a spokesperson for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "But if you look at his voting record, he's nowhere near moderate."

So What Does John McCain Think of the President's Constitutional Authority to Violate FISA?


Marty Lederman


Not even the Shadow knows.

There has been a spate of stories in recent days endlessly recounting, parsing and debating a long series of statements by Senator McCain and his campaign about the extremely important question of whether the NSA's domestic surveillance program was unlawful or whether, instead, the President has the constitutional authority to disregard limits on electronic surveillance that Congress imposed in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). See, for example, Glenn Greenwald's, Charlie Savage's, and Orin Kerr's accounts.

The whole, sordid timeline is provided in this Jake Tapper blogpost today, in which Jake appends the McCain campaign's latest, even-more-ambiguous flip-flop.

Personally, I don't think the great debate about McCain really thinks about the question is worth the candle. If one examines the entire series of statements, it soon becomes evident either that the Senator and his staff have no earthly idea what they're talking about or (more likely) that they are quite deliberately being as ambiguous, equivocal and contradictory as possible, so that they can embrace whichever view is politically expedient at any given time and with any given audience -- so that they can, for example, tell Charlie Savage that the President has no dictatorial constitutional power to disregard FISA, while at the same time reassuring the Republican base (i.e., the National Review) that, as President, McCain would scoff at statutes that get in his way.

Hullabaloo

Were you aware that John McCain wrote the foreward to an edition of The Best And the Brightest? And were you aware that it said this?

It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn't support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay. No other national endeavor requires as much unshakable resolve as war. If the nation and the government lack that resolve, it is criminal to expect men in the field to carry it alone.



Will anyone ask him about this?