There’s no indication of that. He said in his own biography that he likes to make snap decisions and then deal with the consequences later.
His voting record has been solidly conservative. He’s not a moderate by any means.
He was far more bellicose than Bush during the recent Georgia crisis. His record suggests that he’s actually MORE likely to use military force over diplomacy than the current administration.
You’re plannin on voting for a fiction. Take a closer look at the real McCain.
It’s a little more of a grey area.
Does that make it better or worse?
I think it’s better to make a mistake out of a lack of knowledge (which can be gained) than out of mailice (which tends to stick around).
I would hope he would be as good as Bush. Our country has been extremely stable over a fairly rough patch. Thank god Jimmy Carter wasn’t President over the last 8 years.
So, your basic premise is flawed. Bush has been a pretty good President.
Assuming McCain wins, I see us taking out strategic targets in Iran with air strikes and then getting ground troops involved inside Iran in the border regions of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Another quagmire.
Possibly attacks against Syria and Hezbollah sites in eastern Lebanon.
A naval blockade and possible invasion of Venezuela to capture H.C.
He’ll need a draft.
More government bailouts, but lots of new jobs at defense contractors.
You are part of a very small group of people that believe that. He has been the worse President in my lifetime, worse than Carter or Nixon.
I based my statement on what McCain himself said on the subject. I would expect a pilot to know what it is that he is flying. I suppose that advances in technology might blur the line between a light bomber and a fighter, though.
Dear God, we’re all doomed.
Yow. Mr. Bush and his people have mortgaged our financial future to China, gotten us into a war that has worn down our military and strengthened our key adversary in that region (Iran), ignored the need to rebuild our national transportation and energy infrastructure, actively pursued the gutting of key government services (remember FEMA?), politicized the law enforcement and prosecutorial offices, stifled scientific research and communication, delayed any effort to address climate change for a crucial decade, utterly failed at capturing or killing the key criminals behind 9/11, exposed an intelligence agent for purely political purposes, alienated key allies across the globe, etc., etc., etc.
If McCain is “as good as Bush”, we’re toast. McCain is a solid conservative, no doubt. But I don’t think he is nearly as ideological as Bush. McCain is much more of the old-style fiscal conservative - reducing the scope and cost of government, strengthening the military, pushing down most other government to the state and local level. I don’t think he’s going to be as susceptible to the neocon ideas of empire building, but will be open to use of military force for the traditional “protection of American Interests”. I think he goes along with the cultural conservatives for election purposes, but he’s definitely not in their corner in terms of policy - remember his “agents of intolerance” comments re: Falwell and Robertson? I think he’s sincere about wanting to reach across the aisle to Democrats he can work with, but I also think his choice of Palin shows how he’s been pushed into pandering to the cultural right.
For both McCain and Obama, the first critical decisions will be who ends up in their cabinet and staff. That will show who they’re beholden to. I have to see their respective VP selections as huge indicators of that issue, and IMHO, Obama won that round hands down. It remains to be seen whether that will be the difference in the election.
I hear people say that McCain is willing to reach across the aisle, is a fiscal conservative, isn’t interested in nation building…but all of these could have been said (and were said) of Governor Bush in 2000. We saw how well he fulfilled this promise once he was elected.
My belief is that McCain would, like Bush before him, be largely beholden to the infrastructure that brought him into office. His inner circle would be the same neo-con policy wonks that dictated Bush’s leadership style, and we should expect similar policy positions as we’ve had over the last 2 terms - government spending would actually increase as our military expenditures continue to rise, targeted tax cuts for big businesses and the top 1% of the population, blustering agressive rhetoric towards our enemies, and hollow plattitudes about “christian values” at home.
Along with his aggressive posturing towards Iran and Russia, a lot of this perception stems from his pick of Palin as VP. She is a prime example of McCain making a decision to appease his base, as determined by his handlers. It speaks to me that McCain isn’t running the operation, but is following the directions that are being given to him. I have no reason to believe this would change once he is elected.
I’ve often heard RWs cite Carter as an example of weak-kneedness, but I have never heard one make a plausible case for how he could have handled the Iranian hostage crisis any better than he did.
Gee, as a famed for micromanaging President, perhaps his rescue attempt could have been a little better planned. Also he handled it badly and should have considered threat of war on the new Iranian government. Why is this such a difficult concept?
Well - first, a lot of the problems with the rescue attempt came from mistakes made far, far below Carter’s pay grade. For example, the helicopter’s weren’t equipped for desert flight, and so the engines got fouled by dust. President Carter was a smart, capable president, and a capable nuclear engineer - but he wasn’t a mechanic.
As for threatening war - well, threats of war don’t work so well unless you’re prepared to follow through. Remember that at this time, Iran still had a modern, effective air force, (supplied by the US while the Shah was in power), a large, powerful army, and hadn’t been through the wringer of the Iran-Iraq war. Iran would have been a tough nut to crack, even with its internal political problems. Quite aside from that - going to war in the Mideast, at the same time as the Soviets were mucking about in Afghanistan, might have been seen as a bit provocative.
So, “better rescue planning and War with Iran” aren’t difficult concepts - but the reality is a bit different.
Well, I guess the good news is that most people seem to think that McCain would be at least a little better than Bush.
So no matter what, our new president will be an improvement over the current one.
Yes but a Kermit the Frog/Miss Piggy ticket would meet that criteria.
But, ye Gods, think of the lipstick-on-a-pig comments we’d have to endure!
One important point is that McCain is a lot more likely to die or become gravely ill in office, especially if he gets to a second term.
I think the biggest difference is McCain is less of an idealogue than Bush. Bush really believes in Compassionate Conservative and has attempted to govern by that principle. McCain’s governing principle seems to be goo-gooism. The real reason he picked Palin is he thinks she shares his passion for googooism. When you see the real enthusiasm in a McCain speech is when he talks about government reform and ear marks. Plus given the likelihood of a sharply divided congress, his googooist agenda would likely be popular enough with voters to encourage congress to go along with him.
She is one of those who consider war just another tactic in international relations. Her casual suggestion that we should consider going into Georgia is scary. The Bush Doctrine should be repudiated loudly . McCain and Palin find war far too acceptable for me. They are people who believe they should run the world.