 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
NY Slimes endorsements
:p
Predictably they endorsed Evita :eek: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html . But check out their kudos to John McCain : We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice. Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. Primary Choices: John McCain - New York Times No word yet on if McCain will demand a retraction .:D :D Their critique of Rudy on the other hand is enough to convince me to give him my support . |
||||
|
||||
|
Tom, I had just read the McCain endorsement prior to your post and man did they slam Rudy. It does kind of make me like him even more :D
Here's an interesting take on the McCain endorsement from Hugh Hewitt:
The Times' editorial board --the most reliably anti-conservative, anti-defense, anti-life, anti-originalism, anti-growth opinion machine in the major U.S. media-- loves John McCain and expects that if he is the nominee the Arizona maverick will govern in ways acceptable to them, especially on global warming and immigration.
They know their man. Does the GOP? |
||||
|
||||
|
We have shuddered at Mr. McCain's occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle
Yep ;when he's not pandering he's got that principle thing going for him. American Spectator's Peter J. Wallison compares him favorably to Reagan.
John McCain, although he has failed to toe the line of conservative orthodoxy, has many of the characteristics that the American people admired in Ronald Reagan, including the key elements that made him a successful president. In fact, given his electability, McCain offers a rare chance for conservatives to recapture the essence of the Reagan revolution.
So... he's Reaganesque without having the conservative orthodoxy. I get it. But what was Reagan without his strong advocacy of conservatism ? As I recall McCain often betrayed conservative principles in the pursuit of building the reputation of a maverick. I think there has to be a lot of healing in the ranks before he is accepted . |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by speechlesstx
As for your "journalist"'s article: how much drama are you trying to create when you label someone as against life, against being original, against growth? |
||||
|
||||
|
Michael Reagan seems to think Newt could end up healing the ranks. As it is I'm bracing for the idea of McCain or Romney as the guy. Of course I don't get to vote until March 4th so they may very well be the only two choices left by then... other than Ron Paul :D
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
As for your "journalist"'s article: how much drama are you trying to create when you label someone as against life, against being original, against growth?
|
||||
|
||||
|
There is still the prospect that Bush will cancel the election and execute a "Bush/Cheney/Rove dictatorial coup." :rolleyes:
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Slimes writes: "The leading (Republican) candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq." Who has no plan? The Dems have no plan and no concern for a plan, other than ditching the plan President Bush and military leaders are developing right now; and all the Dems can say is, We have to stop the plan before it gets approved. Some criticism by the Slimes.
As for McCain, too late for a retraction; the other candidates can use the endorsement to Deep Six him in the South, probably in the West, also. Bwe he he he |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by George_1950
... each of the big three Democratic candidates for president has pledged to withdraw large numbers of troops from Iraq during their first year in office. They also all say they oppose the construction and maintenance of permanent bases in Iraq. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say they're planing to remove approximately 6,000 American soldiers from Iraq every month during the first year of their presidency.
"We will begin to withdraw our troops within 60 days," Clinton promised last Sunday during an interview on NBC's Meet the Press program.
The concept, dubbed ''strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal...
House Democrats on Thursday drew a veto threat from the White House after unveiling a plan that sets specific timetables to remove U.S. combat troops from Iraq and bring them home before fall 2008.
|
||||
|
||||
|
So then ;why haven't the Democrats defunded the war yet ? They have been in control of Congress for a year . The reason ? They know that being weak on defense is not a good campaign position to take. They know that America does not want phased withdrawal time lines announced to the enemy. Their 6,000 per month proposal is a scam . The surge added about 50,000 troops to the 130,000 already there . 6,000 per month will bring us back to pre surge levels by November 2009 .Which means that it will take 2 1/2 years for complete withdrawal. Are they really campaigning on that ? Lol
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have listened to three Democrat debates and the only plan the candidates talk about is how fast they plan to leave. Which, in my view, is no plan; or a plan to surrender; but it is not a plan to keep the peace in the sense that we North Americans had the Atlantic Ocean on one side; and the mountains on our West, so that self government had at least a chance to evolve. Democrats have lost sight of the precious gift of liberty and the sacrifice it takes; listen to the next debate for any mention of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You will not hear any of that; Democrats have 'evolved', so it is the right to health care, right to a job, right to housing, right to unlimited abortions, right to complete gender/sexual freedom, etc. ad nauseum. Of course, in this cycle we may be hearing more about the right for whites to vote for whites, and blacks to vote for blacks; such is the path of Democrat evolution.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Did anyone notice Hillary taking credit for progress in Iraq in the debate a few days ago?
"I believe what you're seeing happen is twofold. Of course the surge, the so-called surge, was able to pacify certain parts of Iraq. If we put enough of our men and women and equipment in, we're going to be able to have some tactical military success. But the whole purpose of the surge was to force the Iraqi government to move quickly towards the kind of resolution that only it can bring about.
"I think what is motivating the Iraqi government is the debate in the political campaign here. They know they will no longer have a blank check from George Bush, that I will withdraw troops from Iraq. And I believe that will put even more pressure on the Iraqis to finally make the decisions that they have to make. |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Recent endorsements
[ 26 Answers ]
For all who have speculated on how the religious right might react to the GOP candidates, Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani, Paul M. Weyrich endorsed Romney, and the one time hope of the religious base, Sen. Sam Brownback endorsed McCain. Does this clear anything up? Any projections on what...
View more questions Search
|
