Buchanan: "McCain would be worse than Bush"

[Ioannis]

In 2004, the voters of Arizona, by 56 percent to 44 percent, enacted Proposition 200, requiring proof of citizenship before an individual may vote or receive state benefits. Forty-six percent of Hispanics voted for Prop. 200, giving the lie to those who say Hispanics support the illegal invasion of their country.

Over 190,000 Arizonans petitioned to put Prop. 200 on the ballot. As it simply required proof of citizenship before receiving the benefits and privileges of citizenship, who could oppose it? Answer: the entire GOP congressional delegation, led by Sen. John McCain.

This is the same John McCain who battled the border fence and colluded with Teddy Kennedy on the amnesty bill rejected by Congress last year after a national uproar.

Bottom line: If the presidential race is between Hillary and Amnesty John, the border security battle is over and lost. As Laura Ingraham asks, "If Congress passes McCain-Kennedy in 2009, would President McCain sign it?"

For conservatives, the stakes could not be higher.

For on the great controversies, McCain has sided as often with the Democrats and the Big Media that pay him court as with conservatives.

Where President Bush has been bravest, on taxes and judges, McCain has been his nemesis. Not only did McCain vote against the Bush tax cuts twice, he colluded to sell out the most conservative of the Bush nominees to the courts.

In 1993, McCain voted to confirm ACLU liberal and pro-abortion Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But when Bush set out to restore constitutionalism, McCain colluded with Democrats who wanted to retain power to kill Bush's most conservative nominees.

McCain helped form the Gang of 14, including seven Democrats, who agreed to block a GOP Senate from using the "nuclear option" ? allowing a simple GOP majority to break a Democrat filibuster of judicial nominees ? unless the seven Democrats approved. McCain thus conspired with liberals to put at risk the most courageous conservatives nominees of President Bush.

With his record of voting for liberal justices Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and of colluding with Democrats in their campaign to kill the most conservative Bush nominees, what guarantee is there a President McCain will nominate and fight for the fifth jurist who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

In the battle over campaign finance reform, McCain colluded again. The McCain-Feingold law denies to gun folks and right-to-lifers their basic First Amendment right to name friends and foes in ads run before elections.

As for the policies that have transparently failed Bush and the nation, McCain remains an obdurate advocate.

After America has run five straight record trade deficits that have denuded the nation of thousands of factories and 3 million manufacturing jobs, McCain is still babbling on about Smoot-Hawley.

"When you study history, every time we've adopted protectionism, we've paid a very heavy price," McCain told a Detroit paper after informing Michiganders their auto jobs are never coming back.

But what history is John McCain talking about?

Was the Tariff of 1816, which saved infant U.S. industries from the malicious dumping by British merchants after the War of 1812, a failure? Were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Calhoun and Henry Clay fools to support President Madison's tariff?

From Abraham Lincoln through Calvin Coolidge, the Republican Party ? the Party of Protection ? put 12 presidents in the White House to two for the Democrats, and the United States became the mightiest industrial power in history, producing 42 percent of the world's manufactured goods.

This is failure ? while Bush free trade is a success? Tell it to Ohio.

Even Hillary Clinton, whose husband enacted NAFTA with McCain's support, has begun to question the NAFTA paradigm. Not McCain.

Where Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon came to office determined to extricate the nation with honor from a war whose costs had begun to outweigh any benefit, McCain is talking about spending 50 or 100 years in Iraq.

Where Bush, by moving NATO onto Russia's doorstep, planting bases in Central Asia and intervening in the affairs of Russia's neighbors, has undone the work of Reagan in making Russia a friend, he sounds like George McGovern alongside the braying McCain, who can't wait to get into Vladimir Putin's face.

Where Bush finally cleansed his administration of neocons, if not of their legacy, a McCain candidacy is the last, best hope of a neocon restoration and new military adventures in the Middle East.

If Rudy Giuliani founders in Florida, neocons will be chanting, "Mac is back!"

The three issues that ruined the Bush presidency are this misbegotten war in Iraq, the failure to secure America's borders from invasion and a mindless trade policy that has destroyed the dollar and left foreigners with $5 trillion to buy up America at fire-sale prices.

McCain remains an unthinking advocate of all three.

But where Bush was at his best, on taxes and judges, McCain was collaborating with Hillary. The question conservatives may face if McCain is nominated is not whom should I vote for, but should I vote.

Why McCain would be worse than Bush

[Marulus]

Sure he would, he is a monster in human shape.

Even more of a warmonger and imperialist than Bush.

[Marulus]

February 12, 2008

John McCain and the Neocon Resurgence

Philip Giraldi

The neoconservatives, who have never been right about anything, have lately suffered more knockdowns than "The Bull of the Pampas," Luis Firpo, did in his first round with Jack Dempsey in 1923, but hopes for their demise as a political force have unfortunately proven to be premature. Part of the problem is that the blog and counterculture world where the neocons have been eviscerated is not the world of the New York Times, the Washington Post, Fox News, or the Wall Street Journal, where they continue to set the pace on the editorial and opinion pages. The presence of two neoconservatives, William Kristol and David Brooks, at the ostensibly liberal New York Times is a testimony to their resiliency, as is the Times' endorsement of John McCain as the Republican presidential nominee. Beyond the media, the neocons have deeply embedded themselves in the political system and continue to play a major role in the campaigns of the various presidential candidates of both parties, frequently as foreign policy advisers.

With the withdrawal of Romney, Washington pundits unanimously agree that John McCain will defeat Huckabee to become the Republican nominee. McCain is the neocons' anointed choice for president of the United States, and has been so for many years. He was their candidate when he ran against George Bush in the primaries in 2000 and again when he announced his candidacy for 2008. When McCain's campaign underachieved last summer and it appeared that Rudy Giuliani would be the Republican candidate, many leading neocons, including Norman Podhoretz and Daniel Pipes, joined the New Yorker's campaign. Now that Giuliani has withdrawn, they will presumably return home again, rejoining Robert Kagan and James Woolsey, both of whom have been with McCain since early 2007. That McCain is no traditional conservative if measured by his views on cultural and fiscal issues matters not at all, because the Israel-and-empire-fixated neocons consider such issues unimportant. Nor is there any concern for McCain's hypocrisy on other issues, such as torture, where he publicly opposed the administration before agreeing to a White House-supported bill that permitted waterboarding and other practices.

With McCain as their nominee, the Republicans will be running on a "fear" platform, emphasizing the threat posed by terrorism. Mitt Romney withdrew citing the necessity of winning in Iraq and not surrendering to the terrorists, implying that such pusillanimity is precisely what one might expect from the Democrats if the Republicans do not present a united front. McCain's subsequent speech at the American Conservative Union (ACU) convention provided more of the same, calling for action against Iran and victory over Islamic extremists. On the following day, President Bush called for Republican unity and made essentially the same points about terrorists. It is clear that the Republicans will be the party of war and that they will emphasize their ability to deal with international threats better than the Democrats.

The neocons and McCain do not disguise their belief that Iran must be dealt with by military means because diplomacy has failed. Indeed, one might well regard de-fanging Iran as their principal foreign policy objective, one that they share with the White House and the Israeli government. John McCain's sentiment toward Iran is unrelentingly belligerent. One only has to recall his rendition of the Beach Boys' song "Barbara Ann" substituting the words "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to realize that the ideologically driven Arizona Republican is not interested in talk if cruise missiles are available. McCain's version of "straight talk" on Iran suggests that he lacks the basic good judgment the American public would presumably like to see in a president.

McCain's speech before the ACU revealed that he supports the U.S. presence in Iraq until there is a "victory," that he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and that he is committed to fighting against "Islamic extremists" for as long as it takes to defeat them. In an earlier speech in New Hampshire he stated that it would be fine with him if the U.S. were to remain in Iraq for one hundred years. In Florida, shortly before that state's primary, McCain declared that there would be "other wars" in America's future, but that "we will never surrender." There should be no confusion about McCain's intentions, which are basically all war all the time. He has also declared that the United States has a right to deal with "rogue states" as it sees fit, and he has thrown down a challenge to Russia, insisting that Moscow should be expelled from the G-8 group of industrialized nations and that NATO should be expanded to include the Ukraine and Georgia, which the Kremlin would see as a direct threat. Ronald Reagan, who won the first Cold War, would undoubtedly be horrified by McCain's intention to start a second one.

Many observers in Washington believe that McCain intends to pull a shrewd maneuver to enhance his electability by packaging himself as someone who can end the partisan divide in Congress. McCain knows that the Republican Party's conservative base, which mistrusts him, has nowhere else to go in national elections. Able to take them for granted, he is already speaking of reaching out to moderates, liberals, and traditional Democrats. He has worked closely with the Democrats on many occasions, and his voting record on many issues is decidedly non-Republican. He co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold legislation on political contributions and collaborated on the stillborn McCain-Kennedy amnesty plan for illegal immigrants, both of which were opposed by the Republican Party's conservative base.

To turn himself into a one-man bridge over troubled political waters, McCain will reportedly insist that his vice president be Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat who currently calls himself an independent. Lieberman endorsed McCain at the end of December and campaigned actively on his behalf in New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida. In Florida he spoke to numerous Jewish groups around Miami, emphasizing McCain's support for Israel. Photos of McCain campaigning frequently feature Lieberman standing in the background. Joe Lieberman is also no social conservative, so he and McCain should get along just fine on most issues. Sources in Washington believe that Lieberman will conveniently become a Republican to gain the GOP's acceptance.

Joe Lieberman denies that he would even consider the position of vice president with his friend McCain, but one should note that an initial denial of one's true intentions has become routine in American politics. As the self-described "conscience of the Senate," Lieberman has voted a straight Democratic Party line on most issues, though he is most definitely a hard-liner when it comes to Israel and the Middle East. When he ran against Ned Lamont for the Senate in Connecticut in 2006 he denounced the latter as weak on Israeli security, saying that Lamont had surrounded himself with "people who were … explicitly against Israel." Lieberman, like McCain, would like to attack Iran. He was the co-sponsor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that passed Congress in September 2007. Kyl-Lieberman declared that Iran is killing American soldiers and led to the naming of part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, which would permit military action against it without any deliberation by Congress. Lieberman is opposed to negotiating with the Iranians, claiming that it is akin to a firefighter negotiating with an arsonist. He favors military action to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons program and asserts that Iran is already at war with the U.S.

Americans who have opposed the Iraq war and who are against another war with Iran should begin to worry, because a McCain-Lieberman ticket would be very electable. It would be promoted as a demonstration that bipartisanship can work in Washington, and it would draw support from many independents and from a Democratic base that would welcome its relatively moderate positions on social issues and immigration. Many would be attracted by its lack of close ties to the religious Right. McCain-Lieberman would also play the fear card extremely well, rallying both the Republican base, which is largely willing to ignore social issues when it comes to national security, and conservative Democrats. This would likely complete America's transition to a militarized state and would empower terrorists everywhere, resulting in constant warfare and bankrupting the United States in fairly short order. Such is the price of the neocon new world order.

[source]

[Marulus]

McCain funded by George Soros

[Errigal]

The Election From Hell

by Steven LaTulippe

Good God! What a terrible election this is!

I keep reading about the huge turnout in various primaries, and I’m dumbfounded.


How on earth could anyone be enthused about this slate of candidates?

Am I missing something?

At the onset of this election season, I vowed that there were two candidates I absolutely, positively would never support. For a plethora of reasons, I consider both John McCain and Hillary Clinton to be totally unsuited to occupy the office of the presidency (actually, Rudy Giuliani was a third, but his candidacy thankfully never got off the launch pad).

So, as if to mock my concerns, the black-hearted gods that rule American politics have seen to it that these are precisely the two candidates who may well win their respective nominations (with Barack Obama as the possible spoiler for Hillary).
John McCain is on my verboten list for a simple reason: he’s crazy.

Polls show that Americans are overwhelmingly disgusted with our dual, no-win wars in the Middle East. But that hasn’t stopped McCain from telling crowds that he wants to occupy Iraq for another "50 or 100 years." Not satisfied with only two quagmires, he has darkly warned that there will be yet "more wars." He even sang the "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" spin-off of the old Beach Boys tune at one of his campaign rallies.

And alongside his warmongering, he has an explosive temper and a fanatical look in his eyes that should unsettle even the most militaristic of voters. (To be brutally honest, whenever I see him speak, I half expect him to start ruminating about "fluoride" in his "body fluids" like that character from Dr. Strangelove.)

Lest I seem unkind, I should add that I harbor genuine sympathy for what Senator McCain endured as a POW. His suffering during those long years in captivity is beyond the imagination of the average person.

Unfortunately, sympathy for John McCain the man must not blind us to the policies of John McCain the candidate.

One would think that McCain’s experiences would have made him all the more skeptical of military misadventures. After all, if America hadn’t been involved in the ridiculous Vietnam War, John McCain would have been spared the entire horrific ordeal. He would have been home enjoying a normal American life instead of being tortured in the Hanoi Hilton.

But by some strange logic, McCain’s experience seems to have made him even more eager to start new wars. Perhaps it’s one of those odd, Freudian syndromes where the victim is compelled to repeat the same mistake over and over again, in the vain hope that he can "get it right" the next time.

Whatever the case, the last thing this country needs is to be dragooned into John McCain’s Kafkaesque psychodrama.

Simply put, his election would be nothing short of a catastrophe.

As for Hillary Clinton, I am stunned to disbelief that she has even gotten this far.
Before any Democratic voters pull the Hillary lever, they need to ask themselves a few simple questions:

Given the political freak show that we were forced to endure the last time; do we really want to go there again? Do we really want the Clintons – along with their retinue of clowns, court jesters, and small-time con artists – back in the White House? Do we want to read about new semen-stained dresses? Or more purloined FBI files? Or new stacks of missing law firm billing records?

And how is this woman getting any votes at all from a party whose members claim to be opposed to the war?

After all, Bush’s hideous bloodbath in Mesopotamia has the Clintons’ fingerprints all over it.

Hilary likes to brag that she gained valuable experience serving as her husband’s most trusted advisor.

OK...fair enough.

Would that be the same husband who slapped crippling sanctions on Iraq that killed over a quarter of a million Iraqi children? Would that be the same husband who bombed and strafed Iraq for eight long years, degrading its infrastructure and spreading death and misery in his wake? Would that be the same husband who signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, thus making regime change in Baghdad the official policy of the U.S. government?

And what about Hillary’s own actions concerning Iraq?

In the Senate, she voted for the resolution that gave President Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and she enthusiastically supported the war in its early stages. And just like McCain, her current plans call for residual American troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely.

So can someone please explain to me the twisted logic by which Hillary Clinton is an antiwar candidate?

In truth, if the Democrats nominate her, they will make a farce of any claims that they were truly opposed to this war. They will, instead, make themselves and their party an accomplice to the whole bloody mess.

Since McCain and Clinton should be excluded from any reasonable voter’s consideration, we are left with Barack Obama.

On the surface, he seems like a nice enough guy. He has none of McCain’s psychological instability, and he doesn’t come off as a shrill ideologue like Hillary.

But when I listen to his speeches, I come away without any clue about his plans or policies. His orations are short on substance and laden with vague banalities and marketing jingles. I’m reminded of that old hamburger commercial where the two old ladies ask, "Where’s the beef?"

Furthermore, I’m suspicious about the motives of his followers. His rallies have the whiff of a Moonie conclave.

This celebrity adulation may be just harmless nostalgia, but it doesn’t make Barack Obama presidential material.

Truth is, he is too inexperienced to be trusted with the power of the presidency, and he is far too vague about exactly what he will do if he takes office.

Perhaps if everything was going swimmingly, we could indulge in this sort of politics, but America finds herself in a situation that is more precarious than at any time since the Great Depression. We are losing two wars, our banking system is insolvent (thanks to the Feds’ reckless monetary policy) and our government is spiraling toward bankruptcy.

Despite the seriousness of our predicament, the way out is simple (though not easy). We need a leader who clearly grasps the fundamentals of market economics and who appreciates the basics of our republican form of government. We need a leader who will reduce our overseas commitments, balance our budget, and restore our constitutional liberties.

In short, America needs a president with a solid, rational plan based on fundamental principles.

Looking at the polls, it’s becoming apparent that the American people want none of this. A significant portion of our population still thirsts for imperial glory. Another healthy slice wants the government to serve as a giant teat in the sky, regardless of the financial consequences.

Very few, on the other hand, seem willing to take the hard path that an authentic American restoration would require.

So instead, it looks like our next president will be a deranged militarist, a shrill neo-Marxist, or a sloganeering lightweight steeped in cultish adulation.

And all the while, the USS Titanic churns ever closer to its rendezvous with the icebergs.

The Election From Hell by Steven LaTulippe

[Almost a Christian]

McCain is desperately unstable. His domestic positions are savagely left wing while his foreign policy is naked plutocratic expansionism so much so that he isn't even all that popular within his party as opposed to the rank and file republican, the latter of which venerate him for his war record. Of course if he did suceed and survive power it would bring everything to a head. However I think Obama is a shoe in and thus the pace of America's implosion will be slightly slower..

[Errigal]

That's right. Obama would make the better president simply because he's not insane. Obama himself got to the top of the Democratic Party's list because of the colour of his skin. What a mess.

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Almost a Christian

McCain is desperately unstable. His domestic positions are savagely left wing while his foreign policy is naked plutocratic expansionism so much so that he isn't even all that popular within his party as opposed to the rank and file republican, the latter of which venerate him for his war record. Of course if he did suceed and survive power it would bring everything to a head. However I think Obama is a shoe in and thus the pace of America's implosion will be slightly slower..

McCain's war policies are insane. During the bombing of Serbia he called for hospitals to be bombed (including maternity wards) because he thought it would take 3 days for Serbia to capitulate (instead it lasted 2.5 months).

Not only that but he supports Albanian expansionism not only in Kosovo but in other neighbouring territories.

I think the below image sums up John McCain:

[Marulus]

More precious pearls...

McCain criticizes Putin for leading 'puppet show'

REUTERS

Reuters North American News Service

Feb 15, 2008 14:56 EST

OSHKOSH, Wis.(Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain accused President Vladimir Putin of preparing to lead a puppet government in Russia in a blistering critique Friday.

The Arizona senator, long critical of Putin, had harsh words for the Russian leader as he prepares to give up the presidency to a hand-picked successor and then take on a powerful role as prime minister.

"I think that Mr. Putin is trying to restore the old Russian empire. Obviously he is perpetuating himself in power in Russia virtually indefinitely by this setup of having basically a protege, someone who is doing his bidding as president while he serves as the prime minister," McCain said.

"We knew the puppet show was going on, we just didn't know who the puppet was."

McCain, who was asked about the state of affairs in Russia during a town-hall meeting, is seeking the Republican Party's nomination to face the Democrats' choice in November's election to succeed President Bush.

McCain, who often says that when he looked into Putin's eyes he saw a K, G and B, added he was concerned about Russia but not worried about a resurgent Russian empire.

"I'm not concerned that we will see a reignition of the old Cold War. Russia doesn't have the assets or the capability or anything else to pose the kind of challenge" that it did during the days of the Soviet Union, he said.

McCain said Russia was blocking U.S. efforts to contain Iran and help in the Darfur region of Sudan. (To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at Tales from the Trail: 2008 (Reporting by Steve Holland; Editing by John O'Callaghan)

Source: Reuters North American News Service

[source]

[Kernunnos]

There is also suspicion that Mccain, beside being psychologically unstable according to many sources, might have been actually a traitor, rather than a war hero..

How the Clintons will undo McCain

the article is interesting also because it hints at the fact that a defunct CIA executive had revealed while drunk that Bill Clinton had been a cia asset since the beginning of his career.

[Marulus]

Michigan delegates swing behind McCain - Yahoo! News

[Errigal]

There are now interesting indicators that Obama will run up against the most powerful supporters of Israel.

The War Party Targets Obama: They\'ll never let him become president
by Justin Raimondo