Redstate

By that I mean Will the media choose to put the Baker Commission report on a pedestal or will they put McCain's courageous plan on a pedestal? McCain's plan is courageous. Baker's plan is defeatism disguised as realism, which aren't the same by any stretch of the imagination.

McCain's SO-CALLED support of hte troops is at odds with his open borders stance and his anti-torture bill that was a slap inthe face of the soldiers, who have already proven they already had perfectly good procedures in place - and didn't need to have been thrown to the wolves of Europe by McCain!

(That is aside from the McCain Feingold, and separately, its timing, and also the Gang of 14.)

Do what you like, I won't vote for him - he is too far left for ME, and when I think of the ones I voted for that most of my area refused to support as too far left - INCLUDING for Bush Jr, both Presidential runs - and I refused to vote for Robert Dole.

That tells me that millions of others won't be blackmailed into supporting that creep. NO MATTER WHAT.

I see no significant difference between Hanoi John and Bill Clinton, and McCain - NOT ENOUGH to make it worth supporting him for the General election NO MATTER WHO HIS TICKET PARTNER IS or which position he has!

I think I am leaning towards something like Rumsfeld/John Bolton/Oliver North/Ann Coulter/Michael Reagan/Cheney/Franklin Graham/John Hagee....

are good on most things, But my real fear is that he is not sane. Honestly, have you heard of his infamous blow ups and his bizarre dependency relationship with the media?
Does he really have both oars in the water?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Am I the only one who finds it a bit suspicious that McCain is supporting a plan of action that has no chance of succeeding (no matter how advisable/inadvisable it may be) just about the time that he needs support from the GOP base to give him momentum for the nomination? Isn't it interesting that, since his plan will never get implemented, his position will cease to be an issue after the nomination process, allowing him to move back center for the general election?
I'm sure that I'm just being overly skeptical though.

...(instead of the faux-fighting/appeasing mode that the current WH has been in the last couple of years) is the only reason I'm even considering the possibility of voting for him (in the general, NOT the primary), and if I did vote for him in the general, I'd do it with teeth grinding and brow furrowed. But, like a couple of other people have mentioned, I distrust how genuine even this position of his (which he has been consistent on since 9/11) is given his seeming obsession with picking a position soley becuase it's the one that makes him look most like a "maverick" and will contribute the most to his media darling gig...and I do worry about how stable he is too, although who knows how much of that reputation (the tantrums and other kinda sorta odd behavior) is real or just leftover smear/whisper stuff from the 2000 campaign.

I'm afraid that this is heading for exactly the same situation that I considered the 1988 presidential race to be...1988 was the only year I've not voted for president since I was old enough to do so because the person that I liked the *least* (by a pretty wide margin too) in each party ended up being the nominees that year...so, with a McCain vs. anyone who the Dems will actually nominate race, it'll be like deja vu all over again for me, but we're at war so I'll have to grind my teeth, furrow my brow and go vote anyway this time...and take some aspirin and sit in a quiet, dark room until the headache goes away after I get back home...arghhhhhhhhhhhh!

It is too important an issue to compromise on and if people like John McCain are not listened to and a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq does indeed take place, we will pay the price for years to come in lost credibility, perceived weakness and in having Iraq potentially turned into an anarchic state where terrorists and insurgents are able to run wild and plan asymmetrical operations against the United States and against American interests

Lost credibility, perceived weakness are abstract terms. I don't disagree with the concept, but perhaps we can look at what happened when we quit the fight in Vietnam for tangible effects.

First a little history. The 1968 Tet offensive was the tipping point, and the elections that year pitted the peace candidate Nixon against the peace candidate McCarthy. Nixon won obviously, and set us on a plan to withdrawl troops. Johnson took five years to build 10,000 advisors up to 500,000 troops, it took Nixon about five years to draw down that number to under fifty thousand "advisors" This is the period from 1969 through 1974. In 1975 the North chased us out of Saigon and the following year Jimmy Carter began his feckless leadership.

So the period effected by American loss of prestige begins in 1969 and continues through 1980. Now that we understand the time frame, we can look for specific economic effects of that lost prestige.

OPEC Emboldened by American cowardice OPEC came into power, ceased oil assets and imposed an embargo. Gas became scarce and prices went up 3-5 times pre-embargo price. If you didn't live through this, you can't imagine it. There is a big difference between paying through the nose for gas, and not being able to get any, at any price. A direct result of "percieved weakness"

High interest rates. My father in law still laments the end of his last 15% treasury bond, expiring only a few years ago. While he loved that high interest the US had to pay to fund it's debt, the results were devastating. Remember 18% home mortgage rates? Remember a housing market where you couldn't sell a home unless you gave it away? Imagine what a buyer of your current home is going to be willing to pay, if they have to pay double digit mortgage interest rate? The housing crash, high interest rates and resulting inflation where result of perceived "lost credibility".

High Unemployment. During these years many of our industries faltered. High interest rates prevented American companies from getting the funds they needed to invest in expansion. Markets dried up, American goods lost appeal. Jobs became scarce and the country was struggling to create jobs fast enough resulting in double digit unemployment. In fact, a special name was coined for the combination of double digit inflation and double digit unemployment: STAGFLATION. A direct result of the combination of both perceived weakness and lost credibility.

Iranian Hostage Crisis. During this time our current nemisis, Iran, experienced a revolution, and for good measure held some 200 American citizens as hostage for several years. A direct result of perceived weakness.

I could go on, but you get the point. Lost credibility and perceived weakness have direct and tangible results. The world is like a big school yard, and the only way to keep the bullies from taking your lunch, is respect. Surrendering it for what ever reason is costly.

This is a message that all those liberal and libertarian democrat supporters need to hear. Our economy, currently driven by low interest rates, low inflation and consistant job and economic growths depends on maintaining American credibility and a perception of strength. We don't want to risk high interest rates again because the resulting real estate colapse would be devastating on both personal finance and the banking system in general. There was nothing good about the 70's economically. Kiss your financial nest egg goodbye, kiss your real estate equity goodbye.

Anarchy in Iraq. This is something that we didn't have to worry about after Vietnam. After all it wasn't a war, and we were only advisors. Iraq is a formally declared war, and as of the end of major military operations we were the internationally recognized victors. Under international law, victors or conquering nations have obligations. If we leave Iraq after having displaced their government the resulting anarchy will be America's holocost. And the UN and international community will rightfully hold America accountable. This is something that all those internationalists, and all those "UN is best" liberals should realize. A blood bath in the middle east similar to what happened in SouthEast Asia after the fall of Saigon would be disasterous to American international relations. While I personally believe that the UN is worst than useless, a parasitic enemy sucking the life blood out of America, I also realize that trade sanctions, tarriffs and a desire to punish American businesses would hit home, raising prices and reducing choices at the Market. From Wal-Mart to the food market, in everything electronic, and made of metal or plastic, the impact of international disatisfaction would hit Americans where the care the most, in the pocket book.

Is this history important?
Even my liberal acquaintences, relatives and friends get that "deer caught in the headlights" look when you remind them that the "lost prestige" of our Vietnam experience could be put into practical terms like "housing market colapse","rising ARM Rates", "bank repossession" "stock market malaise", "rationing", "unemployment", "bankruptcy".

I have not met a liberal yet, who remembers applying for or paying an 18% mortgage rate, that is willing to give up all the equity in their home in exchange for a quick exit from Iraq.

Support the Mission - Honor the troops
Exsolvo Orbis Terrarum