Who Now For Pres??? McCain???

Originally Posted by Bulldog1967

And the reason the economy was so "GOOD" under Clinton was because he totally devastated and gutted our military.

"Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts.The statistics for America's defense during the Clinton years reveal the deep-seated animosity of the administration toward those who served in the military. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50."

Link.

Bologna, Greenspan was the root cause of the economy. Coincidentally Greenspan is the root cause of our economy now.

And let's not forget that the tech economy, and especially the internet exploded in the early 90's. It had nothing to do with Clinton, just good luck (although I guess Al Gore deserves some credit for inventing it and all ). People also seem to forget the country was in a recession at the end of the Clinton administration, and the tech bubble had burst.

Originally Posted by Trim2L

Bologna, Greenspan was the root cause of the economy. Coincidentally Greenspan is the root cause of our economy now.

The PRESIDENT set policy...Greenspan didn't tell Clinton to cut army divisions.

Mona Charen has an exceelnt piece on the problem conservative voters have with McCain......and the problem HE has with THEM:

http://tinyurl.com/2ogsar

Why They Can't Vote for McCain
By Mona Charen
Friday, February 8, 2008

I posted a squib on the National Review website about a robo call I received from John McCain (Virginia's primary is Tuesday). The call stressed that he would, if elected, be a down-the-line limited government conservative who would never raise taxes, would defend life, would enforce immigration laws and would win the war on terror. The candidate is trying, I said, to meet conservatives "more than halfway." The response of readers was, shall we say, emphatic.

One lady wrote that she would never vote for him as "He is the most disloyal, ill-tempered man and he brings out the worse in all of us...." Several readers made the point that after decades of suffering abuse at McCain's hands, conservatives are not going to fall into line for him now, no matter what blandishments he offers.

I know how they feel. The problem with McCain is not just that he strays. George Bush has strayed from conservatism, too. So has Fred Thompson. Certainly Mitt Romney has as well. But Sen. McCain has a knack for saying things in just the tones and accents that liberals prefer. In 2000, he condemned the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance." In 2004, when Sen. John Kerry was getting his comeuppance from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, vets who had known him during the war and couldn't remain silent as the Democratic nominee distorted his war record, McCain weighed in by calling the Swift Boaters "dishonorable and dishonest." When the Bush Administration was being vilified as a nest of Torquemadas for using waterboarding on three occasions, McCain came forward to condemn waterboarding as torture.

McCain was a Vietnam hero. Conservatives in particular revere him for this. Indeed, his return from the political grave can probably be traced to the moment (Oct. 22) when he joshingly referred to having missed the Woodstock music festival in 1969 because "I was tied up at the time." In that instant, he came to personify for many the conservative side of the great 1960s chasm that (Barack Obama's irenic rhetoric notwithstanding) continues to divide our society. Not only was he not smoking pot and lolling in the mud with his girlfriend, you could almost hear Republicans telling themselves, he's standing up to torture at the hands of America's enemies!

And yet, a better man would not stoop to suggesting that military service is the only way to show love of country and sneer that -- unlike Romney -- he served for "patriotism, not profit." Profit is a four-letter word in the McCain vocabulary, whether applied to "Big Pharma" or other businesses.

McCain reaches too hard and too transparently to turn everything into a contest about military service. When Romney observed that Bob Dole wouldn't necessarily be the one he'd want an endorsement from, McCain pronounced himself "very sad and disappointed to see that kind of comment about a person who was an American war hero" and demanded that Romney apologize!

There is a strutting self-righteousness about McCain that goes hand in hand with a nitroglycerin temper. He flatters himself that his colleagues in the Senate dislike him because he stands up for principle whereas they sell their souls for pork. Not exactly. He is disliked because on many, many occasions, he has been disrespectful, belligerent and vulgar to those who differ with him.

Bradley Smith, former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission and the leading legal scholar on campaign finance issues, experienced the McCain treatment firsthand. Because Smith opposed limits on political speech, he was denounced as "corrupt" by the senator (as was Commissioner Ellen Weintraub). Smith, who lives modestly, jokes that his wife has complained about the absence of jewels and furs.

Though he served on the commission for five years and made several attempts to meet with McCain to discuss the issues, Smith was rebuffed. The two did accidentally meet outside a hearing room in 2004 when they were both scheduled to testify before the Senate rules committee. At first, McCain grasped Smith's outstretched hand (Smith was in a wheelchair, recovering from surgery), but when he recognized his campaign finance opponent, he snatched his hand back, snarling, "I'm not going to shake your hand. You're a bully. You have no regard for the Constitution. You're corrupt."

Smith, a soft-spoken scholar, ardent patriot and lifelong conservative Republican, cannot, as a matter of honor, pull the lever for McCain. He is far from alone, and that is the Republican Party's heartbreak in 2008.

Originally Posted by Bulldog1967

The PRESIDENT set policy...Greenspan didn't tell Clinton to cut army divisions.

Cutting defense spending wasn't the cause of the economic state of the US during the '90s.

Originally Posted by Trim2L

Cutting defense spending wasn't the cause of the economic state of the US during the '90s.

Cutting the largest part of the budget (Defense) DID have a significant effect on the economy.

For 23 combat missions (an estimated 20 hours over enemy territory), the U.S. Navy awarded McCain a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars, two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service medals.

"McCain had roughly 20 hours in combat," explains Bill Bell, a veteran of Vietnam and former chief of the U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs -- the first official U.S. representative in Vietnam since the 1973 fall of Saigon. "Since McCain got 28 medals," Bell continues, "that equals out to about a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat. There were infantry guys -- grunts on the ground -- who had more than 7,000 hours in combat and I can tell you that there were times and situations where I'm sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that number of medals for not being shot down."

source: http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

But McCain was the son of an Admiral, lol

Originally Posted by Bulldog1967

And the reason the economy was so "GOOD" under Clinton was because he totally devastated and gutted our military.

With all due respect, Bulldog1967...oversimplified balderdash.

It was the liberal media, of course, that obfuscated what was really happening to the economy.



Low-hanging fruit, at best, and proof that spin and talking points really do sway the electorate.

Well, I pulled the lever, actually pushed the button, for Huckabee in the Louisiana primary on Saturday. Huckabee carried the state, though it was very close, 43% to 42%. Obama handily beat Hillary in Louisiana.

But I think the big story in my state was the turnout. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the turnout on the Republican side was 120,000 or so. On the Democrat side, there was a turnout of nearly 400,000. This is in a "red" state that GW Bush carried twice and just elected another Republican govenor! Maybe that is because the Democrat race is more competitive, but I'm thinking that many Republicans are simply not satisfied with their choices. I'm hearing a lot of people saying that if McCain is the nominee, they simply won't vote. I won't go that far, because I think that Hillary, and particularly Obama, will be very bad for this country in so many ways. So I'll hold my nose and vote McCain, but I know a lot of people that won't.

If McCain is the nominee, as he almost certainly will be, he is going to have to do something to win in the South. He can't win the presidency without winning here. In my opinion, Hillary will be easier to beat than Obama. And an Obama presidency scares the hell out of me.