While I may not agree with him on several issues, I believe that should Senator McCain be elected in 2008, it would be very good for America.
Edit: I guess Jingles beat me to the McCain suggestion. But still, discuss.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
giuliani (sp?) would be good too i think. he cleaned up NYC...
I was a McCain backer in '00.......things would be far better now, I believe, had he won the nomination instead of Bush.
Trouble is, and even the most ardent Bush haters cannot really argue, Gore had 8 years to accomplish something, and failed. Kerry is a failure as a US Senator.
What cogent argument can anyone make to say things would have turned out any better under either of those two failed politicians?
Needless to say, while McCain is a good man, and would make a good president IMO, he will be what, 74 or 75 when '08 rolls around?
Methinks it is time for some new blood. We do not know, though, enough about the Obama's and his ilk yet to make a decision, do we?
Trouble is, and even the most ardent Bush haters cannot really argue, Gore had 8 years to accomplish something, and failed. Kerry is a failure as a US Senator.
What cogent argument can anyone make to say things would have turned out any better under either of those two failed politicians?
Needless to say, while McCain is a good man, and would make a good president IMO, he will be what, 74 or 75 when '08 rolls around?
Methinks it is time for some new blood. We do not know, though, enough about the Obama's and his ilk yet to make a decision, do we?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I was a McCain backer in '00.......things would be far better now, I believe, had he won the nomination instead of Bush.
Trouble is, and even the most ardent Bush haters cannot really argue, Gore had 8 years to accomplish something, and failed. Kerry is a failure as a US Senator.
What cogent argument can anyone make to say things would have turned out any better under either of those two failed politicians?
Needless to say, while McCain is a good man, and would make a good president IMO, he will be what, 74 or 75 when '08 rolls around?
Methinks it is time for some new blood. We do not know, though, enough about the Obama's and his ilk yet to make a decision, do we?
[/QUOTE]
Any suggestions?
Trouble is, and even the most ardent Bush haters cannot really argue, Gore had 8 years to accomplish something, and failed. Kerry is a failure as a US Senator.
What cogent argument can anyone make to say things would have turned out any better under either of those two failed politicians?
Needless to say, while McCain is a good man, and would make a good president IMO, he will be what, 74 or 75 when '08 rolls around?
Methinks it is time for some new blood. We do not know, though, enough about the Obama's and his ilk yet to make a decision, do we?
[/QUOTE]
Any suggestions?
Not yet.....
In todays political climate, who in their right mind would even WANT to run? If you'r enot getting blasted by the media, you're getting blasted by your opponents.
It will be fun, though, I must admit, to watch the scramble on the Democratic side. It's gonna be a bloody mess. Hillary, like Ricky Bobby, plays for keeps.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv54QcbmmhM
In todays political climate, who in their right mind would even WANT to run? If you'r enot getting blasted by the media, you're getting blasted by your opponents.
It will be fun, though, I must admit, to watch the scramble on the Democratic side. It's gonna be a bloody mess. Hillary, like Ricky Bobby, plays for keeps.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv54QcbmmhM
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Trouble is, and even the most ardent Bush haters cannot really argue, Gore had 8 years to accomplish something, and failed. Kerry is a failure as a US Senator.[/QUOTE]
Gore failed at what aside from saying that he invented the internet? By miles Gore is a better choice than someone like Gingrich.
Kerry on the other hand failed miserably when he gave the re-election to Bush after voting for the war in Iraq and then being against it.
Trouble is, and even the most ardent Bush haters cannot really argue, Gore had 8 years to accomplish something, and failed. Kerry is a failure as a US Senator.[/QUOTE]
Gore failed at what aside from saying that he invented the internet? By miles Gore is a better choice than someone like Gingrich.
Kerry on the other hand failed miserably when he gave the re-election to Bush after voting for the war in Iraq and then being against it.
BUSH FOR PRESIDENT!!
I mean Reggie.
I mean Reggie.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Trouble is, and even the most ardent Bush haters cannot really argue, Gore had 8 years to accomplish something, and failed. Kerry is a failure as a US Senator.[/QUOTE]
Gore failed at what aside from saying that he invented the internet? By miles Gore is a better choice than someone like Gingrich.
Kerry on the other hand failed miserably when he gave the re-election to Bush after voting for the war in Iraq and then being against it.[/QUOTE]
Gore had 8 years in office as VP to run off of, as well as 8 years as Senator in Tennesee, and 8 years in the House of Representatives.
All of that, and he could not even convince the people of Tennessee to vote for him for President.
John Kerry's problems run far deeper than that flip flop.
Trouble is, and even the most ardent Bush haters cannot really argue, Gore had 8 years to accomplish something, and failed. Kerry is a failure as a US Senator.[/QUOTE]
Gore failed at what aside from saying that he invented the internet? By miles Gore is a better choice than someone like Gingrich.
Kerry on the other hand failed miserably when he gave the re-election to Bush after voting for the war in Iraq and then being against it.[/QUOTE]
Gore had 8 years in office as VP to run off of, as well as 8 years as Senator in Tennesee, and 8 years in the House of Representatives.
All of that, and he could not even convince the people of Tennessee to vote for him for President.
John Kerry's problems run far deeper than that flip flop.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think, even though I would prefer the Republicans to win in '08, that Hillary running on the Dem side would be very very bad for our country.
We need new ideas, new people, not the same old rehashed nonsense that we get.
Murdoch funding her only goes to show that there is literally not much of a difference between the two parties. The country is run by big business and big money, period.
The question is, how do we, as Americans, break this cycle? [/QUOTE]
R.M. is funding her because he knows the Americans are too conservative to elect a woman president. He's making his campaigning for the R. side cheaper.
We need new ideas, new people, not the same old rehashed nonsense that we get.
Murdoch funding her only goes to show that there is literally not much of a difference between the two parties. The country is run by big business and big money, period.
The question is, how do we, as Americans, break this cycle? [/QUOTE]
R.M. is funding her because he knows the Americans are too conservative to elect a woman president. He's making his campaigning for the R. side cheaper.
Jingles,
Regarding Newt, read up on what he is doing now.
He makes a lot of sense on a lot of topics, especially Health Care.
www.newt.org
Everyone won't agree, but he does make sense. I just don't see how, with the tar and feather job he got at the end of his speakership, that he could withstand the media for the '08 cycle.
Regarding Newt, read up on what he is doing now.
He makes a lot of sense on a lot of topics, especially Health Care.
www.newt.org
Everyone won't agree, but he does make sense. I just don't see how, with the tar and feather job he got at the end of his speakership, that he could withstand the media for the '08 cycle.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think, even though I would prefer the Republicans to win in '08, that Hillary running on the Dem side would be very very bad for our country.
We need new ideas, new people, not the same old rehashed nonsense that we get.
Murdoch funding her only goes to show that there is literally not much of a difference between the two parties. The country is run by big business and big money, period.
The question is, how do we, as Americans, break this cycle? [/QUOTE]
R.M. is funding her because he knows the Americans are too conservative to elect a woman president. [/QUOTE]
American women aren't.
; )
We need new ideas, new people, not the same old rehashed nonsense that we get.
Murdoch funding her only goes to show that there is literally not much of a difference between the two parties. The country is run by big business and big money, period.
The question is, how do we, as Americans, break this cycle? [/QUOTE]
R.M. is funding her because he knows the Americans are too conservative to elect a woman president. [/QUOTE]
American women aren't.
; )
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>?Sasha wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think, even though I would prefer the Republicans to win in '08, that Hillary running on the Dem side would be very very bad for our country.
We need new ideas, new people, not the same old rehashed nonsense that we get.
Murdoch funding her only goes to show that there is literally not much of a difference between the two parties. The country is run by big business and big money, period.
The question is, how do we, as Americans, break this cycle? [/QUOTE]
R.M. is funding her because he knows the Americans are too conservative to elect a woman president. [/QUOTE]
American women aren't.
;)[/QUOTE]
They allow you to vote? Wow. The second progressive move the US government made since the Civil War. It's almost starting to look like a trend.
We need new ideas, new people, not the same old rehashed nonsense that we get.
Murdoch funding her only goes to show that there is literally not much of a difference between the two parties. The country is run by big business and big money, period.
The question is, how do we, as Americans, break this cycle? [/QUOTE]
R.M. is funding her because he knows the Americans are too conservative to elect a woman president. [/QUOTE]
American women aren't.
;)[/QUOTE]
They allow you to vote? Wow. The second progressive move the US government made since the Civil War. It's almost starting to look like a trend.
Like I said before, I don't really think issues should be a dominant part of the next presidency. Someone like McCain could easily unite both parties, which I think is the main problem of the present. Right now, the differences between the two parties are minimal at best, but you could never tell.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Jingles,
Regarding Newt, read up on what he is doing now.
He makes a lot of sense on a lot of topics, especially Health Care.
www.newt.org
[/QUOTE]
After misusing tax exemptions for political purposes there's not much hope for any politician.
Aside from that, the constant anti-gay and sexist remarks through his political career and the constant displays of public hypocrisy for claiming to be a man of morals when he's clearly not, show that Newt is one of the least qualified politicians to run the country.
Chances are that since the late 90s the man has changed, but it will be definitely hard to gain his trust.
Regarding Newt, read up on what he is doing now.
He makes a lot of sense on a lot of topics, especially Health Care.
www.newt.org
[/QUOTE]
After misusing tax exemptions for political purposes there's not much hope for any politician.
Aside from that, the constant anti-gay and sexist remarks through his political career and the constant displays of public hypocrisy for claiming to be a man of morals when he's clearly not, show that Newt is one of the least qualified politicians to run the country.
Chances are that since the late 90s the man has changed, but it will be definitely hard to gain his trust.
Which is why he would have a tough time even winning the nomination.
That said, his ideas are definately worth a look.
That said, his ideas are definately worth a look.