Ny Post Endorses John Mccain

bhkad · #1 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

POST ENDORSES JOHN MCCAIN

September 8, 2008 --

THE Post today enthusiastically urges the election of Sen. John S. McCain as the 44th president of the United States.

McCain's lifelong record of service to America, his battle-tested courage, unshakeable devotion to principle and clear grasp of the dangers and opportunities now facing the nation stand in dramatic contrast to the tissue-paper-thin résumé of his Democratic opponent, freshman Sen. Barack Obama.

McCain has been in Washington for many years now, but he is not of Washington. He knows where the levers of power are located - and how to manipulate them - but he is not controlled by them.

McCain's selection of the charming, but rock-solid, outsider Sarah Palin as his running mate underscores the point.

Neither plays well with others.

And this is an unalloyed asset at a time when special interests - lobbyists, lawyers and organized labor chief among them - wield enormous influence in the nation's capital.

McCain's Democratic opponents, Obama and Sen. Joseph Biden, lead a party constructed of special interests - public-employee unionists in particular.

There are many reasons to support the McCain-Palin ticket. Here are but a few:

Quote:

* National security: The differences between McCain and Obama are especially stark.

[...]

* Taxes: McCain knows that when government absorbs ever-larger shares of national income, the economy suffers.

[...]

* Trade: "I object when Senator Obama and others preach the false virtues of economic isolationism," says McCain - noting that "globalization is an opportunity" for US workers. He adds that while emerging economies like those of China and India are worrisome, the answer is competition informed by education and innovation - not protectionism.

* Energy: On the economic issue most vexing Americans today - energy prices - McCain is aggressive

[...]

(S)ecurity, economic and energy policies - plus allegiance to principle - are critical to keeping America safe and strong.

On all counts, John McCain and Sarah Palin understand this - and that's why we're in their corner to the finish.

NEW YORK POST ENDORSES JOHN MCCAIN - New York Post

No White Guilt here!

Mikeyy · #2 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

NEW YORK POST ENDORSES JOHN MCCAIN - New York Post

No White Guilt here!

Everyone gets an opinion. I wonder if they supported Bush.

dabateman · #3 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Everyone gets an opinion. I wonder if they supported Bush.

They did from what I've read...

bhkad · #4 (**permalink**) 09-10-2008, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Everyone gets an opinion. I wonder if they supported Bush.

That would even further confirm their solid judgment if they had.

dabateman · #5 (**permalink**) 09-10-2008, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

That would even further confirm their solid judgment if they had.

It certainly shows a trend... The solid judgment part is debatable. We've been debating the judgment for 8 years and will continue to do so through out history. History will correctly judge George W. Bush... What the verdict will be is as of yet undetermined.

bhkad · #6 (**permalink**) 09-10-2008, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

It certainly shows a trend... The solid judgment part is debatable. We've been debating the judgment for 8 years and will continue to do so through out history. History will correctly judge George W. Bush... What the verdict will be is as of yet undetermined.

Damn! Sometimes I really believe you guys don't know your asses from your elbows.

There is little doubt about GWB's not being as bad as his BDS infected opponents say he is.

And those who are able to exercise some objectivity have rated him at least average.

A 2005 Wall Street Journal poll ranked George W. Bush the 19th best President.

Here are the ones he beat (20th - 43rd best).

William Howard Taft
George H. W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Calvin Coolidge
Rutherford B. Hayes
John Quincy Adams
Chester A. Arthur
Martin Van Buren
Gerald R. Ford
Ulysses S. Grant
Benjamin Harrison
Herbert Hoover
Richard Nixon
Zachary Taylor
Jimmy Carter
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore
Andrew Johnson
Franklin Pierce
Warren G. Harding
James Buchanan

Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wall Street Journal Online - Extra

dabateman · #7 (**permalink**) 09-10-2008, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Damn! Sometimes I really believe you guys don't know your asses from your elbows.

There is little doubt about GWB's not being as bad as his BDS infected opponents say he is.

And those who are able to exercise some objectivity have rated him at least average.

A 2005 Wall Street Journal poll ranked George W. Bush the 19th best President.

Here are the ones he beat (20th - 43rd best).

William Howard Taft
George H. W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Calvin Coolidge
Rutherford B. Hayes
John Quincy Adams
Chester A. Arthur
Martin Van Buren
Gerald R. Ford
Ulysses S. Grant
Benjamin Harrison
Herbert Hoover
Richard Nixon
Zachary Taylor
Jimmy Carter
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore
Andrew Johnson
Franklin Pierce
Warren G. Harding
James Buchanan

Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wall Street Journal Online - Extra

It's far too early to judge George W. Bush in historical terms. It's still too early to judge William Jefferson Clinton, George H. W. Bush, or even Ronald Reagan. History has a funny way of working things out. This has nothing to do with my personal opinion, this has everything to do with allowing history to play out. The impacts of policy decisions reach far into the future. We are still debating the merits of FDR's Social Security, Kennedy's Cuba Embargos, Johnson's Great Society, Nixon's opening of relations with China, Ford's pardoning of Nixon, and Carters Middle East Peace Process.

Let's not pretend that the window into our past is clear, nor is our future.

bhkad · #8 (**permalink**) 09-10-2008, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

It's far too early to judge George W. Bush in historical terms. It's still too early to judge William Jefferson Clinton, George H. W. Bush, or even Ronald Reagan. History has a funny way of working things out. This has nothing to do with my personal opinion, this has everything to do with allowing history to play out. The impacts of policy decisions reach far into the future. We are still debating the merits of FDR's Social Security, Kennedy's Cuba Embargos, Johnson's Great Society, Nixon's opening of relations with China, Ford's pardoning of Nixon, and Carters Middle East Peace Process.

Let's not pretend that the window into our past is clear, nor is our future.

Nah. YOU can revise history and interpret it through relativistic glasses but as long as we keep Iran in place and prevent efforts to subvert our government and this form of government, GWB will look fine.

Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh, the authors of After Bush: The Case for Continuity in American Foreign Policy are featured in the June 2, 2008 Wall Street Journal and give us their take on George Bush and the fate of US Foreign Policy post election season.

Quote:

Don’t Expect a Big Change in U.S. Foreign Policy

Want more George W. Bush foreign policy? Elect John McCain – or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Regardless of who wins in November, the current foreign policy will live on in the next White House.

None of the main candidates has disavowed the war on terror. Each has called Mr. Bush tactically deficient. But the debate over the war on terror is over how, where and when. The candidates have all argued that they would do a better job of fighting it.

Administrations bequeath foreign policies to their successors that are then tweaked, but rarely transformed. The seeds of Ronald Reagan’s Cold War strategy were sown in the defense buildup of the later Jimmy Carter years. President Bush’s purported “obsession” with Baghdad began in the hawkish statecraft of Vice President Al Gore. In 1998, Bill Clinton made regime change official U.S. policy, and in 2003 Mr. Bush made it a reality.

The last great liberal hope to win the White House – Bill Clinton – committed more troops to more parts of the globe than any president since World War II. Since the end of the Cold War, America has undertaken at least nine military interventions overseas, under three presidents of both parties in two distinct historical eras (pre- and post-9/11). This history suggests that the next great liberal hope – Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton – would probably continue the trend.

Furthermore, the departure of Mr. Bush will hardly leave the nation’s foreign relationships in tatters. Despite much American introspection, Euro-liberal sniping and Latin American leftist fantasizing, the quantity and quality of America’s formal friendships have endured, if not actually increased, since 2001. Eighty-four governments, out of a world total of some 192, are formally allied with the U.S.

Foreign leaders such as France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany’s Angela Merkel clearly see that their true interest resides in maintaining and renewing their relationships with the U.S. Few governments have prospered by severing such bonds. In Asia as well, nations are looking to strengthen their ties to America. China needs the U.S. market. India is moving toward America, not away.

The number of America’s foes hasn’t grown under the Bush administration. The actual number of our enemies can be counted on one hand: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela. With the exception of the latter, all these enmities predate Mr. Bush and his successor will inherit them.

Certain aspects of anti-Americanism are essentially immune to what any president does. The U.S. can bomb Christians to protect Muslims, as it did in Bosnia in 1994-1995 and Serbia in 1999, and still somehow augment the fury of radical Islamists.

It’s also important to remember that we’re winning the war in Iraq. A President Obama would risk too much with a precipitous withdrawal, especially if it was just to fulfill an early campaign pledge that was adopted more to establish blue water between him and Mrs. Clinton than to reformulate the war on terror. Mr. Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war is empirical – “it didn’t work” – rather than ideological.

Mr. Obama is capable of changing his position to reflect events on the ground. He is not dedicated to a peacenik vision of immediate withdrawal. He will not desert Iraq if doing so puts U.S. national security at risk.

The desire to get rid of George W. Bush will not make his replacement any less vociferous and committed to the current president’s pursuit of American prosperity and security. As such, rising expectations in and outside America for rapid foreign-policy transformation are likely to lead to disappointment. As a Romanian proverb reminds us: “A change of leaders is the joy of fools.”

Messrs. Lynch and Singh, academics at the University of London, are the authors of After Bush: The Case for Continuity in American Foreign Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2008).

http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/06...treet-journal/

I will say that if Obama wins in November and radically veers from the Bush commitment in Iraq that Iraq will likely descend into chaos and all the blame will go back on Bush for the short term. And then, after everyone has passed from today's scene (and assuming Democracy still reigns in the West) the dispassionate observers will recognize that not only was the invasion a logical progression from Clinton's 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and justified by Saddam's violations of the terms of the 1991 Cease Fire, but that Bush's prosecution of the War was very reasonable.

You guys can't see this because of your bias. Too bad you can't control your emotions.

dabateman · #9 (**permalink**) 09-10-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Nah. YOU can revise history and interpret it through relativistic glasses but as long as we keep Iran in place and prevent efforts to subvert our government and this form of government, GWB will look fine.

Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh, the authors of After Bush: The Case for Continuity in American Foreign Policy are featured in the June 2, 2008 Wall Street Journal and give us their take on George Bush and the fate of US Foreign Policy post election season.

This Side of the Pond » Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh in today’s Wall Street Journal

I will say that if Obama wins in November and radically veers from the Bush commitment in Iraq that Iraq will likely descend into chaos and all the blame will go back on Bush for the short term. And then, after everyone has passed from today's scene (and assuming Democracy still reigns in the West) the dispassionate observers will recognize that not only was the invasion a logical progression from Clinton's 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and justified by Saddam's violations of the terms of the 1991 Cease Fire, but that Bush's prosecution of the War was very reasonable.

You guys can't see this because of your bias. Too bad you can't control your emotions.

Actually, according to current reports, Bush has seen the errors of his ways concerning Iraq and is redeploying with a focus on Afghanistan...

faithful_servant · #10 (**permalink**) 09-10-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

Actually, according to current reports, Bush has seen the errors of his ways concerning Iraq and is redeploying with a focus on Afghanistan...

Actually, with the successful implemention of our tactics in Iraq, we now have the ability to increase our focus on Afghanistan. Things haven't always gone as planned in Iraq, but our people have adjusted to the situation and that adjustment is being highly successful (Anbar province!!!).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to dabateman For This Useful Post:
tristanrobin