NationStates Jolt Archive


John McCain--The Opportunistic Manchurian Candidate for the Neocons

Romulus Os
19-03-2006, 02:28
McCain: Stil Phony After All These Years

Here's a the best summary I've ever read on why this man isn't the solution; he's an even bigger problem. He's the guy the neocons should have anointed anyway. Bush was their biggest mistake. Warn your friends. The "McCain Train" has been carefully cultivated to appeal to the center and center-left. It's a complete hoax. If you don't want to see the conservative agenda advanced even further, we must work to defeat this man at the polls before he even gets there. One he gets the nomination, he will win. And we all lose.

The Right's Man
THE NY TIMES


It's time for some straight talk about John McCain. He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be.

Mr. McCain's reputation as a moderate may be based on his former opposition to the Bush tax cuts. In 2001 he declared, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us."

But now — at a time of huge budget deficits and an expensive war, when the case against tax cuts for the rich is even stronger — Mr. McCain is happy to shower benefits on the most fortunate. He recently voted to extend tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, an action that will worsen the budget deficit while mainly benefiting people with very high incomes.

When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. McCain was never moderate. During the 2000 campaign he called for a policy of "rogue state rollback," anticipating the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war unveiled two years later. Mr. McCain called for a systematic effort to overthrow nasty regimes even if they posed no imminent threat to the United States; he singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea. Mr. McCain's aggressive views on foreign policy, and his expressed willingness, almost eagerness, to commit U.S. ground forces overseas, explain why he, not George W. Bush, was the favored candidate of neoconservative pundits such as William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

Would Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, have found some pretext for invading Iraq? We'll never know. But Mr. McCain still thinks the war was a good idea, and he rejects any attempt to extricate ourselves from the quagmire. "If success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006," he wrote last year, "then we must increase our numbers there." He didn't explain where the overstretched U.S. military is supposed to find these troops.

When it comes to social issues, Mr. McCain, who once called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance," met with Mr. Falwell late last year. Perhaps as a result, he is now taking positions friendly to the religious right. Most notably, Mr. McCain's spokesperson says that he would have signed South Dakota's extremist new anti-abortion law.

The spokesperson went on to say that the senator would have taken "the appropriate steps under state law" to ensure that cases of rape and incest were excluded. But that attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest.

The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate's third most conservative member.

What about Mr. McCain's reputation as a maverick? This comes from the fact that every now and then he seems to declare his independence from the Bush administration, as he did in pushing through his anti-torture bill.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Guantánamo. President Bush, when signing the bill, appended a statement that in effect said that he was free to disregard the law whenever he chose. Mr. McCain protested, but there are apparently no hard feelings: at the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference he effusively praised Mr. Bush.

And I'm sorry to say that this is typical of Mr. McCain. Every once in a while he makes headlines by apparently defying Mr. Bush, but he always returns to the fold, even if the abuses he railed against continue unabated.

So here's what you need to know about John McCain.

He isn't a straight talker. His flip-flopping on tax cuts, his call to send troops we don't have to Iraq and his endorsement of the South Dakota anti-abortion legislation even while claiming that he would find a way around that legislation's central provision show that he's a politician as slippery and evasive as, well, George W. Bush.

He isn't a moderate. Mr. McCain's policy positions and Senate votes don't just place him at the right end of America's political spectrum; they place him in the right wing of the Republican Party.

And he isn't a maverick, at least not when it counts. When the cameras are rolling, Mr. McCain can sometimes be seen striking a brave pose of opposition to the White House. But when it matters, when the Bush administration's ability to do whatever it wants is at stake, Mr. McCain always toes the party line.

It's worth recalling that during the 2000 election campaign George W. Bush was widely portrayed by the news media both as a moderate and as a straight-shooter. As Mr. Bush has said, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Ravenshrike
19-03-2006, 02:32
McCain needs to be taken out back and shot. any other silly theories on your part?

Oh, and you along with every other person whining about the tax cuts on these boards seem to be forgetting the purpose of taxes. The purpose of taxes are to give the government revenue. Not to punish any group. Therefore, what difference does the actual tax rate make if the government is earning more money per year than it was before the tax cuts? It shouldn't make any, yet even though that is the current situation, people want to punish those they see as above them. It's quite funny really.
Romulus Os
19-03-2006, 02:34
Im working on more yeah
Canada6
19-03-2006, 02:49
The Republican party will never nominate McCain. I know from a reilable inside source that they consider him to be less hawkish and more pro-environment. Those are two reasons that would make him an improvement over Bush and also two reasons why the GOP won't nominate him. Go figure.
Romulus Os
19-03-2006, 04:20
of course hes better then Bush--my dog is for that matter--but as moderate as McCain tries to appear hes still a closet neocon
The Black Forrest
19-03-2006, 04:51
of course hes better then Bush--my dog is for that matter--but as moderate as McCain tries to appear hes still a closet neocon

I am not so sure. He was giving him bear hugs after the primaries and going on him being a great guy.

Did shrubby ever say anything nasty about Chelsea Clinton?
Romulus Os
19-03-2006, 04:55
I am not so sure. He was giving him bear hugs after the primaries and going on him being a great guy.

Did shrubby ever say anything nasty about Chelsea Clinton?
shrubby prolly cant even pronounce her name:p but he sure raked McCain over the coals along with his wife and family during the primaries in 2000 but McCain let Bush bitchsmack him HARD and he came back for some more--I dont trust McCain anymore
Straughn
19-03-2006, 10:28
It was Paul Krugman who's listed as writing this article, according to my local paper. I'd even considered posting it, but ya got it first.
Canada6
19-03-2006, 12:50
Paul Krugman
Romulus Os
19-03-2006, 23:56
TakeBack the Media
Ceia
20-03-2006, 00:30
The Republican party will never nominate McCain. I know from a reilable inside source that they consider him to be less hawkish and more pro-environment. Those are two reasons that would make him an improvement over Bush and also two reasons why the GOP won't nominate him. Go figure.

You have inside sources in the Republican party? Are you a journalist?
Canada6
20-03-2006, 01:25
No but I have a few interesting friends.
Revnia
20-03-2006, 03:02
No but I have a few interesting friends.

So.....who will they nominate? And do you know anything about the Democrats?
Romulus Os
20-03-2006, 03:03
Im betting the Dem nominee will be Hillary at this point and the repubs will prolly pick a woman to go up against her
Lachenburg
20-03-2006, 03:08
of course hes better then Bush--my dog is for that matter--but as moderate as McCain tries to appear hes still a closet neocon

Has your dog ever considered running for office?
Brians Room
20-03-2006, 03:25
Being a Republican party insider, I can confirm that McCain has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination.

There are few people within the Senate as universally disliked as McCain. Tom Coburn is probably the only other one.

The fact that he has so much crossover appeal with Democrats kills him with the party base.

When you couple that with his famous temper and his age, he's got too many liabilities.
Ceia
20-03-2006, 03:58
Being a Republican party insider, I can confirm that McCain has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination.

There are few people within the Senate as universally disliked as McCain. Tom Coburn is probably the only other one.

The fact that he has so much crossover appeal with Democrats kills him with the party base.

When you couple that with his famous temper and his age, he's got too many liabilities.

Interesting political compass score for a Republican party insider. Are you a Rockfeller Republican?
Brians Room
20-03-2006, 04:01
Interesting political compass score for a Republican party insider. Are you a Rockfeller Republican?

Roosevelt Republican. Theodore. For the most part Conservative, but pro-labor and conservationist.

B
Romulus Os
20-03-2006, 05:35
Has your dog ever considered running for office?
he'll do ANYTHING for a bone
Romulus Os
20-03-2006, 05:37
Being a Republican party insider, I can confirm that McCain has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination.

There are few people within the Senate as universally disliked as McCain. Tom Coburn is probably the only other one.

The fact that he has so much crossover appeal with Democrats kills him with the party base.

When you couple that with his famous temper and his age, he's got too many liabilities.
McCain lost most of his crossover appeal to dems
The Psyker
20-03-2006, 05:40
he'll do ANYTHING for a bone
Should fit right in with some of our past presidents:D
Romulus Os
20-03-2006, 05:42
Should fit right in with some of our past presidents:D
:D :D :D

I guess my dogs not too different then me either
Brians Room
20-03-2006, 05:47
McCain lost most of his crossover appeal to dems

I don't know. Anecdotally, among my Democratic friends, they all still seem to like McCain. I don't know why, but they do.

The most dangerous place in Washington DC is between John McCain and a television camera.
Romulus Os
20-03-2006, 05:49
I don't know. Anecdotally, among my Democratic friends, they all still seem to like McCain. I don't know why, but they do.

The most dangerous place in Washington DC is between John McCain and a television camera.
I think some Dems are starten to see thru McCains rank opportunism--I sure did and I used to like him
Brians Room
20-03-2006, 05:50
I think some Dems are starten to see thru McCains rank opportunism--I sure did and I used to like him

Good. Its about damn time. Outting McCain for the media whore and opportunist that he is happens to be one of my hobbies.

Let's hope everyone else figures it out before '08.
Romulus Os
20-03-2006, 05:52
Good. Its about damn time. Outting McCain for the media whore and opportunist that he is happens to be one of my hobbies.

Let's hope everyone else figures it out before '08.
I think the left and the right should unite to spit on McCain and Hillary
Brians Room
20-03-2006, 06:00
I think the left and the right should unite to spit on McCain and Hillary

Deal.

B
Romulus Os
20-03-2006, 06:01
Deal.

B
:cool:
Syniks
20-03-2006, 06:06
Every time over the past year or two that I have mentioned McCain I've called him a Manchurian Candidate.

The media is finally catching on - largely because they are realizing that his wacko ideas - you know, the ones that threaten the Internet in the US - will eventually impact the MSM.

He's a RINO at best... and an unpredictable one at that.

I'd almost prefer Hillary.
Romulus Os
20-03-2006, 06:08
McCain had me fooled for ten minutes but now I see right thru the Manchurian bastard
Canada6
20-03-2006, 11:02
So.....who will they nominate? And do you know anything about the Democrats?
I have absolutely no idea who either party will nominate. I simply know that McCain is perceived within the neo-conservative ranks as more pro-environment and less hawkish. He'll never get nominated. The neocons will never allow that.
Canada6
20-03-2006, 11:03
McCain lost most of his crossover appeal to dems
Definitely.
Lovely Boys
20-03-2006, 11:51
McCain needs to be taken out back and shot. any other silly theories on your part?

Oh, and you along with every other person whining about the tax cuts on these boards seem to be forgetting the purpose of taxes. The purpose of taxes are to give the government revenue. Not to punish any group. Therefore, what difference does the actual tax rate make if the government is earning more money per year than it was before the tax cuts? It shouldn't make any, yet even though that is the current situation, people want to punish those they see as above them. It's quite funny really.

I guess it depends on how you view income tax; if you're at the top, you might consider that because you have a higher wage, you have a 'duty' to help those less fortunate, there for, since you have more income, you should carry more of that burden.

The flip side of the argument is a wealthy person, who may have the same caring attitude as the first, might considering that his money is better spent investing into a business to provide well paying jobs with good benefits, or better still donate some of that money (Or setup a trust) to help those less fortunate.

Personally, I don't see tax as a punishment, but excessive taxation at those on higher incomes only perputates two problems; firstly, it provides a disincentive to people to work harder, when they work harder, they earn more, then they get taxed more where as if they stayed on their old job, and received assistance from social welfare, they only marginally worse off than if they worked hard. The second problem is that it provides a greater incentive for people to avoid tax; most people don't mind paying tax, but when that tax burden becomes unacceptable, people will look for ways to 'lighten the load'.

Also, you have the other problem that occurs; when politicians use the tax system to fix up issues with income inequality, through the idea of tax credits, rebates and the like; which cause great problems in terms of administration, and those who do need to be targeted, are never adequately helped hence the move by some on the right (such as me) to tax, and any inequality that needs to be corrected, should be done via the welfare system through targeted measures rather than adhoc taxation addons, that only make the system more clumberson and expensive to administrate.
Andaluciae
20-03-2006, 12:46
It's Krugman, what do you expect?

Beyond that, the general concept of the neo-conservative is rapidly wearing thin. No longer are the primary drivers of the movement in the DOD, instead they've been shunted off to other corners of the government where the realists feel that they can do less harm. Rumsfeld and Cheney (who were both schooled under Kissinger and Bush's father, the most obvious realists of the past half century) were never of that breed of thought, they were, and continue to be realists who were willing to give something Wilsonian a try for a little while. When they saw that it wouldn't turn out the way they wanted it to immediately went into realist mode again. They cut the number of troops that would have been required to maintain stability in an immediately post-conflict environment in Iraq, and since then they've also done their damndest to minimize their losses in Iraq.

As a result the realist branch of the Republican party has seized policy once again. Even if Bush himself continues to preach a Wilsonian ideology, that's not what is being put into force around the world. The troop levels in Iraq are a perfect example of that.