home

McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Over War

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 11:13:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Wall St. Journal (free article) reports that Republicans are unlikely to oppose Bush over the War in Iraq:

National security remains a potent unifying issue for Mr. Bush's political coalition, he retains overwhelming personal popularity among Republicans, and the party's leading candidate to succeed him strongly backs the nation's continued presence in Iraq.

"We can't afford to lose," says Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a maverick on other issues, but a Bush ally on Iraq. While "there's nervousness" among Republicans, he says "I do not see any significant erosion or inclination to jump ship."

So, John McCain is the leading candidate to replace Bush? We're in deep trouble. Suburban Guerilla points out this Arizona Star interview with McCain in which he supported teaching intelligent design:

On Tuesday, though, he sided with the president on two issues that have made headlines recently: teaching intelligent design in schools and Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who has come to personify the anti-war movement. McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes "all points of view" should be available to students studying the origins of mankind.

McCain all but announced to the Star that he will seek the nomination:

... the Arizona Republican didn't skip a beat Tuesday when asked why he would want to run for the White House in 2008. "Because we live in a time of great challenges," McCain said in an interview with Arizona Daily Star editors and reporters....My ego is sufficient to say that I think I have the background and experience to take on these challenges," he said.

McCain said he and Rudy are the two most popular Republicans:

As long as I have strong approval and support from most of the Republican Party, then running is a viable option," he said.

< Iraq: Why Should We Support An Islamic State? | Stevens on Raich >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Over War | 47 comments (47 topical)
    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    President Bush is on a course for American defeat in Iraq. Democrats must do better. For one proposal, see: "What Is to Be Done: A 10-Point Plan for Iraq."

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    We can't afford to lose," says Sen. John McCain
    Would someone please tell us what winning is!? No WMDs, saddam is gone, they had a 'free election', the revolution is in it's 'death throes', they have a 'constitution' ...

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Continuing to buy the BS is not an 'alternative proposal.' While Prof Cole's ideas seem sound, the fact is that FIFTEEN AIRBASES and a plan to attack Iran in a ('retaliatory') strike this fall (82nd Airborne just deployed under a cover story), make such moderate, reasonable theories of the future MOOT. McCain has ZERO chance of winning a fair election, but our election system, or rather Diebold's, isn't fair. On policy, he is a warhawk, and I don't know a single person on my side of the aisle who doesn't think he is a turncoat for not fighting Bush tooth and nail. The photo of his blatant father-son hug with Bush, after Bush attacked his family, has ended his credibility with a great many. What a coward, in political terms. Anyhow, the Bush junta is going to pull down the unconstitutional 22nd Amendment (good riddance), and he will run again, and again, and again, until either scandal, indictment, or refreshment of our voting rights prevails.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    the man will be 72 in 2008. the normal physical problems of a man his age, combined with the extra abuse he suffered as a POW will, in my opinion, render him unfit for the riguers of another presidential campaign. i know, reagan was old also, but he never actually served in combat, other than in movies, sen. mccain has. much as i'm sure he would like to, i'm betting he just doesn't have it in him. look for someone else to carry the republican pitchfork come 2008.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    i find cpivna's comments mean-spirited. democrats could do a whole hell of a lot worse than john mccain as a candidate. while his recent support for bush is obviously politically motivated and out of character, to call him a coward is pretty horrendous considering his service and unfortunate torture. and cpivna - do not use that against him, as bush did in 2000. we're democrats. we're supposed to be better than that. personal attacks (and no 2 ways about it, that's what it is) is a republican strategy. considering the lengths as to which mccain has agreed with hillary, for example, it would be a fair idea for all democrats to back off the mccain bashing and stick to maiming those that deserve it. shame on you. i realize this is a liberal blog, and those that blog here are more liberal (and conversely, more conservative on the other blogs) than mainstream culture. nonetheless, let's bash mccain on the issues, like his illogical support for teaching creationism ("intelligent design") and not on his person, on his history, and his age. please. democrats are better than that.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Anyhow, the Bush junta is going to pull down the unconstitutional 22nd Amendment (good riddance), ... Um, why is the 22nd Amendment unconstitutional?

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#7)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Paul in LA: Um, it was 1500 troops from the 82nd. Not the entire 82nd. You should make that clear.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    McCain - ick. CINO - Conservative In Name Only. Sorry, I'm a 1,2,4 absoluter and McCain doesn't meet two of those tests. -C

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#9)
    by Rational on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    We got gamed by the Iranians. The idiots running the present junta have led us to a point where we can admit we have lost and leave now or we can stay waste more money, murder more civilians, and further encourage a irresponsible mercenary military to even greater depths of criminial behavior. Time to get out and start proscuting people for war crimes.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    paul, the fact that the 22nd amendment is, well, an amendment makes it, by definition, constitutional. you may not like it, but there it is. out of curiousity, how do you feel about term limits in general?

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    Terrors attack or wars make for knee jerk reactions.
    National security remains a potent unifying issue for Mr. Bush's political coalition, he retains overwhelming personal popularity...
    The same can be said for Democratic leaders. We may get some traction on the slippery slope of war time thinking as long as there is not another terror attack on US soil. The 22nd amendment was unconstitutional before 1951 even though no President other then war time Roosevelt served more than two terms. NYC Mayor Giuliani was hated by most New Yorkers in August '01. After 9/11 he became a hero. I couldn't believe how such a mendacious, nasty, ego maniacal fascist could suddenly become a hero. War time cloudy thinking was the obvious answer. I thought that NYC had lost it's distinction as a place where knee jerk reactions were tempered by above average levels of education and below average tolerance for BS. When Giuliani announced that he was going to cancel the NYC mayoral election and stay on a bit longer because NYC needed him I was flabbergasted by his shameless opportunism and resigned to giving up my view of NYCers as above the national average when it comes to being duped. Well much to my surprise NYC said no way, we had elections, and Giuliani lost even after being named Person of the Year by Time magazine. Bush's popularity is sinking fast although almost all of congress is still in lockstep support of the Iraq debacle. The neocon rule book, an amalgam of Machiavelli, Strauss, and Goebbels, has proven itself 100% effective as a guide designed to manipulate the American public. One more terror attack and America will be a fascist country. Forget the 22nd amendment, not only will it be eliminated (I'm for that), but Bush will one up Giuliani by 'temporarily' eliminating terms altogether. Fascism slips in by another name (patriotism, nationalism) and once it is seen for what it is, it is it too late to stop it. Sad to say, I am not hopeful that America will react to Bush's future pranks as NYC did with Giuliani.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    But what can you expect from the Republicans and conservatives in this country? Time and time again they have shown that rather than try to actually think for themselves they would rather ride the coattails of a supposed can-do guy like Shrub. Even though he plays dirty pool, they would rather be seen as winners(and really image is more important to Republicans than substance ever since Nixon, in that unforgettable debate with Kennedy, looked like some crook who has been caught in the spotlight)than to be seen as people with a plan. Can't say the Dems are fairing any better, in fact I have pretty much given up on the majority of the D's leadership. But Republicans, and the supposed "conservatives" like cliff(and yet again idjits like him have nothing in common with somebody like say Teddy Roosevelt)are always saying that they at least have a plan for just about everything, yet they leave out that their plans are easily shot down by a Second Grader.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#13)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    All the evidence points to John McCain being just one more extremists prostitute for religious non ideals. In Many ways McCain is like bush and business, both love the ideals of one world. In fact both are being told what to say and how to act. Iran is a low life non nation but is the next target and the next little harlot for the real power that is in full control of you. Read Squeaky he understands what is happening.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    The 22nd amendment was unconstitutional before 1951 even though no President other then war time Roosevelt served more than two terms.
    Actually I think you mean it didn't exist before 1951, but I won't quibble. BTW - You noted that you were in Norman, OK. I assume you never leave the campus. John5 writes:
    we're democrats. we're supposed to be better than that. personal attacks
    Uh, have you been following the comments re Bush? Cheney? Rice? Rove? Heck, Squeaky even blamed Rove for the sins of Rove's Grandfather.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    PPJ- are you drunk, or just your usually inchoherent self?
    BTW - You noted that you were in Norman, OK. I assume you never leave the campus.
    Hey if someone acts just like Goebbels and his granddaddy was a Nazi, yes there must be some connection. Be it social or genetic I could not tell you. If someone's grandad was Stalin and they devoted their life to the cause of peace activistism there would also be a connection: responsible attonement for family sins. When someone inherits $ from generations of ill gotten gains and is continuing the tradition like Bush, they have learned well and are perpetuating an evil dynasty.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    Need a laugh? Gannon/Guckert has decided that being against the Iraqi war is a defining characteristic of being on the left. Well let the ranks swell. On to victory '06 and '08. Has he not looked at the polls? Oh look at his new non-porn pic (hard to get the other one out of mind). He has a small airbrushed afro going on or is is a halo. Maybe it is an inside a sex joke his clients would only get.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    Hey if someone acts just like Goebbels and his granddaddy was a Nazi, yes there must be some connection. Be it social or genetic I could not tell you.
    Rove acts like Goebbels? That is so laughingly dumb I am almost speechless. Plus, your continuous contention that people should be judged by their grandparent’s actions is totally un-liberal. This is America, Squeak. We should be judged by our actions, not something done in the "old country" two generations back. Shame on you for such an attitude. DA - Your last was pretty un-jointed but I'll try. My comment was a reminder to John5 about the sins of the Left. You are certainly welcome to comment on the sins of the right. You wrote:
    Re Rove: Howbout using an old cliche? "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree."
    Do you really want to revert back to those terrible days of yesteryear when people were judged by such things as family actions, social position or genetic code? I don't. And I don't think you do.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    PPJ-Dumb as a post. Perhaps you need to spend time with remedial reading lessons rather than comment misrepresenting what I said. Seems like the Grandpa issue is quite loaded one for you. Care to tell us a bit about yours? It may explain a few things here.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Posted by Keith Thompson: "Um, why is the 22nd Amendment unconstitutional?" Because it is ARBITRARY. The Executive is not originally confined to two terms, traditions aside. Rapid turnover of the Executive is harmful to public order, as has just been proven. Even with the (betrayal of the C.) impeachmnent scandal, Clinton would have been elected to a third term HANDILY (if not for Diebolding). The Executive was originally chosen by legislatures. It is now universally chosen by the people acting as the states. The Exec. has a unique character as a representative of the 'mythic' purpose of the country, and should not be arbitrarily confined. Washington, the originator of this false tradition, was himself in favor of a president elected for life. That, of course, would be unworkable in such a diverse country, but making every president a lame duck in their second term has produced bad government while not confining true traitors like GW Bush. There is no evidence that the popular (with EC) election of the presidents needed amending. Most presidents are done in a single term -- those who succeed, as clearly Clinton did, in providing stable government should be allowed to continue, if such is the people's will. Posted by Wile E. Coyote: "Um, it was 1500 troops from the 82nd. Not the entire 82nd. You should make that clear." Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was 700. If you think they are being deployed as prison guards, I have a demockery in the ME I'd like to sell back to you.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Squeak
    Hey if someone acts just like Goebbels and his granddaddy was a Nazi, yes there must be some connection. Be it social or genetic I could not tell you
    . Do you realize that the above is exactly the same positions that the KKK and racists around the world take? So don't worry about me, Squeak. Look in your closet. It sounds like there is a white robe somehwere in there.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Jim: "Rove acts like Goebbels? That is so laughingly dumb I am almost speechless." When you get your troll voice back, you might notice that this was yet another nonresponsive attempt to blur what is an adequately demonstrated correlation. (insert famous Goebbels quote about driving a country to war with false threats and pomp)

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    PPJ- you and the KKK, who would have ever thunk it. Go back to reading the NY Post even if it taxes your intellectual ability, you are at least among friends.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Jim: "Do you realize that the above is exactly the same positions that the KKK and racists around the world take?" Not in the slightest. To compare two individuals is nothing like generalizing about entire populations LIKE YOU DO EVERY STINKING DAY ON THIS (liberal online magazine) BLOG. You really are the ultimate in blindspots. Except yours are IN FRONT. Or is that A front? Or an affront? Anyhow, it is just like the KKK and racists in the Racist Party of Amerika, previously the GOP.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    PIL writes:
    Washington, the originator of this false tradition, was himself in favor of a president elected for life
    Got a link?
    Because it is ARBITRARY. The Executive is not originally
    So what? Women couldn't vote and slaves were held. Weren’t the amendments regarding them arbitrary? Wasn't the FIT 13th arbitrary? So what? Women couldn't vote and slaves were held. Weren’t the amendments regarding them arbitrary? Wasn't the FIT 13th arbitrary? So your point is???

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Washington's view (also held by J. Adams) is a matter of history. Look it up yourself. Giving the franchize to more people and especially women and blacks is not arbitrary in the slightest. It is directly on a line with the values this country is founded upon, however unrealizable in the infant country. As with stuffing 'under God' into the P of A, the 22nd Amendment was shoved through the Congress and the States as a DIRECT result of hatred of the New Deal. The New Deal has proven itself in the years since. The 22nd has not. Indeed, the 22nd is simply another example of laws, rules, and traditions that the so-called Conservatives put into place while they are out of power, and then take out once they are back in. Two stolen presidential elections in a row, the 22nd A will not stand in the way of Bush's treason and the USPNAC coup. It's the No-Bid Contract on America.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Paul in LA writes:
    Posted by Keith Thompson: "Um, why is the 22nd Amendment unconstitutional?" Because it is ARBITRARY. The Executive is not originally confined to two terms, traditions aside. Rapid turnover of the Executive is harmful to public order, as has just been proven.
    "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo Montoya I think you're saying that you don't like the 22nd Amendment, that it's unnecessary and harmful. That's a perfectly valid stance, but it's very different from asserting that it's unconstitutional. The only way for a Consitutional Amendment to be unconstitutional would be for it to deprive some state of its equal suffrage in the Senate, or for it to have been ratified improperly (the latter allegation has been made about the 16th Amendment, but not the 22nd as far as I know). (There were originally a couple of other requirements, but they expired in 1808.) If you can quote wording in the Constitution saying that an amendment cannot be arbitrary, or cannot be harmful to public order, then you might have a case. Now if you want to argue that the 22nd Amendment is a bad idea, that's an entirely different manner. As a practical matter, I might agree with you if it led to a third term for Clinton, but not if it led to a third term for GWB. (And no, I'm not seriously suggesting that that kind of partisan argument should be used in deciding whether to amend the Constitution.)

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Paul in LA writes:
    Two stolen presidential elections in a row, the 22nd A will not stand in the way of Bush's treason and the USPNAC coup.
    Repealing the 22nd Amendment would require a 2/3 vote in each house of Congress, plus ratification by 38 states. The only rationale for doing this now would be to allow George W. Bush to run for a third term. I've heard nothing about any serious move to repeal it. Unless Bush's allies cheat more blatantly than they've been accused of doing so far, there's virtually no chance of the 22nd Amendment being repealed in time for the 2008 election. There's also virtually no chance of the Constitution being ignored so blatantly. Do you seriously believe otherwise? In any case, the right wing has no need to reelect Bush. All they have to do is elect someone they can control.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    KT: "The only way for a Consitutional Amendment to be unconstitutional" You're just being pedantic. I didn't say anything about repeal. And you aren't thinking 'heads up' like the Bush coup does. Maybe you didn't hear the General say that "if there was another terrorist attack, the American people would DEMAND cessation of the Constitution for their own safety." I did. After another terrorist attack, pending, the rules that you quote so marvelously may fly out the window with a War President needing to remain in power, and the SCOTUS ruling that the 22nd Amendment is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it confines the needed war powers during an emergency. They may not even need an election to carry that off. And if you think that's hysteria, then you aren't paying much attention to the VICIOUS TRAITORS who have seized control of our country.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Paul in LA: Are you saying that you think the 22nd Amendment is unconstitutional, or that you expect the Supreme Court to rule that it's unconstitutional? I think you're dead wrong either way, but I'm curious which assertion you're making. Sure, the right wing loonies who are currently running the country could conceivably suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, and make GWB President for Life. I don't believe they can do so without risking a popular uprising. And, most importantly, they don't need to. They don't need to cheat big. They only need to cheat just enough to win.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    KT-they only cheat big, so big that no one could possibly believe it.. BTW repealing the 22nd amendment is more popular then adding the Flag Burning amendment which is only 6 votes shy of he required two thirds. The republicans hate Clinton so much that they would go for repeal believing Clinton on the ballot would provide a certain republican victory. The democrats know the opposite is true. Bill & Hillary v GW & Mom + Dad. By your logic the 22nd would, by definition be un-constitutional as soon as it was repealed, much like like Humpty Dumpty's un-birthday present. BTW if we have another terror attack the polls for Bush will skyrocket, he will be invincible. All proclamations will mean their opposite. Through the Looking Glass will be required reading.
    and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents -- ' `Certainly,' said Alice. `And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!' `I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected. `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Squeaky – You can run but you can’t hide. Your hatred for Bush has caused you to be trapped into a position that any KKK group would welcome. Racist is as racist does, Squeak. And you have defined yourself. Repent and be saved. PIL writes:
    Washington's view (also held by J. Adams) is a matter of history. Look it up yourself.
    PIL, I don't have to look it up. It aint true. But it's not like you haven't made up stuff before. You have. BTW – When I condemn the political activities of a diverse group of people – “Lefties” – that is not racism. They are not a race. It is simply a condemnation of a diverse group of people’s political positions. I plead guilty of doing that. DA writes:
    No, it's just the folk wisdom saying recognizes that people as a rule don't tend to stray far from family traditions, attitudes, etc. Seeing such phenomenon take place doesn't entail judgement, but recognition, which are two different things.
    DA when you say someone is acting a like a well known thug, you are making a judgment. And you can’t parse your way around it. Anyway you slice it when you judge a person based on their family, or their social position, or their genetic code that is racist. Period. Now, if you want to say that Rove acts like Goebbels, fine. But when you say he is bad because his grandfather worked for the Third Reich, you have brought in his family, his social position and genetics. That is a classic racism position. I.e. you judge him not for what he does, but for his race, position and family. I think Martin Luther King covered that really well. To say otherwise is hypocritical to the max. BTW – I can think of a lot of “folk wisdom” that was 100% racist. I suspect you can do the same.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    PPJ- mind if I just call you Humpty or do you prefer Master.
    `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    BTW repealing the 22nd amendment is more popular then adding the Flag Burning amendment which is only 6 votes shy of he required two thirds.
    Perhaps, but amending the Constitution isn't just a popularity contest. Repealing the 22nd Amendment would risk a third term for GWBush. I don't believe that the legislators in the blue states would be willing to take that risk. [...]
    By your logic the 22nd would, by definition be un-constitutional as soon as it was repealed, much like like Humpty Dumpty's un-birthday present.
    What? I don't even know what that means. If the 22nd Amendment were repealed, of course it wouldn't be part of the Constitution; you can call that "unconstitutional" if you like. As it stands now, it is part of the Constitution, and any suggestion that it's "unconstitutional" is absurd. As for "cheating big", look at the 2000 and 2004 elections. In both cases, GWB supposedly won by a single state (Florida and Ohio, respectively), after winning that state by a narrow margin. They don't care about winning by a landslide; they only care about winning -- and once they've won, they claim a "mandate" anyway. Yes, I expect them to cheat, but they're not so stupid that they'll take any more risk than they need to. They don't need to keep Bush in the White House past 2008; all they need is another puppet.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#36)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Bush and the Republican leadership allow Senators like McCain and Chuck Hagel to gradstand and criticize the administration on Iraq because they know that they will tow the line when their votes are needed. As Matthew Yglesias and Mark Goldman have pointed out in a recent American Prospect article, a major reason that there haven't been any "hearings to examine the politicization of prewar intelligence, the Coalition Provisional Authority's apparent loss of nearly $9 billion, the no-bid contracts, the shoddy prewar planning, or any other aspect of the strategy" is because these so-called independent, "moderate" Republican Senators closed ranks with the Republican leadership and defeated Democratic attempts to hold hearings. You hear people like McCain and Hagel talk the talk but when it comes to walking the walk, they support the protective bubble covering Bush and the Republican leadership. Progressives shouldn't just listen to what they say, but watch what they actually do.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    KW-rigging the election is cheating big.
    As it stands now, it is part of the Constitution, and any suggestion that it's "unconstitutional" is absurd.
    you're sounding a bit like Alice:
    Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!' `Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?` `Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
    Things are absurd. That is the point.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    KW-rigging the election is cheating big.
    (That's KT.) Yes, rigging the election is, in a sense, "cheating big". My point is that they didn't engineer a Bush landslide in either 2000 or 2004 because they didn't need to. Similarly, they won't (I believe) attempt to circumvent the 22nd Amendment for the 2008 election -- not because they would have any moral qualms about doing so if it suited their purposes, but because they don't need to.
    you're sounding a bit like Alice: [...] Things are absurd. That is the point.
    Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to go along with the absurdity. My point about the consitutionality of the 22nd Amendment was really quite simple. Don't try to create complexity where there isn't any.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    OK, so McCain can't realistically be called a "coward". what he CAN be called is a BushCo ass-kissing sell out. c'mon it's soooo freaking obvious that McCain intends to run in 2008 and he knows damn well he can't do it without the $400 million campaign money made available by the people who actually run the repuglican party. why do you think he backed off in 2000 after BushCo threw him under the bus the way they did?

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    KT-How do we stop gong along with the absurdity? I do not have the power to stop it. Do you?

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    PPJ- mind if I just call you Humpty or do you prefer Master.
    Call me anything but late for supper, Squeak. But most of all know that I am an old man who has seen people such as you before. People who claim to be the greatest in virtue but who have all the appetites of those who don't. As I said. Criticize all you want. I'm no particular fan of any of'em. But don't adopt racist positions and not expect to be called on it. Why you may ask? Because it hurts the moral position of those of us who condemn racism. Think about it. And the sad part is, I don't think you are a racist. You just don't understand what one is, so you adopt their position out of a lack of knowledge.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    PPJ-You are a racist position, no need to adopt one. And your Fake non-virtous yet sentimental virtue is transparant BS. Something must be making you nervous here for you to sound so pathetic. Which white men are you rushing to rescue here from my racist/non rascist lack of knowledge rant. Is it a nazi's or KKK? Perhaps Karl Rove or is it your grandfather.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Posted by Keith Thompson: "Are you saying that you think the 22nd Amendment is unconstitutional, or that you expect the Supreme Court to rule that it's unconstitutional?" Both. "And, most importantly, they don't need to." O'Reilly. Well, they don't 'need' to control the ME, but they intend to. "They don't need to cheat big. They only need to cheat just enough to win." That won't be good enough. They have lost too much of the illusion, and either have to up the ante, or stonewall until they fall from power by their own weight. A coup is like the famous shark -- it has to keep swimming forward, or it drowns. Jim: "PIL, I don't have to look it up. It aint true." Then, once again, your ignorance is safe. And that's what's important. Mission Accomplished, Jim.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    The reason why Adams and Washington wanted a president elected for life was in order to COMPETE with the monarchies in Europe on a (relatively) even ground. The 'president for life' plan was originated by Alexander Hamilton, and was a Federalist staple. Indeed, Adams even toyed with calling the president a word which Jeffersonians would rather paint on an effigy: Adams wrote, I am "not Solicitous about the Name of the first Magistrate," "even King Sir! I am not afraid of the Word." In Novanglus, Adams made frequent reference to his Federalist theory that the United States should be a "monarchical republic." Well, that's just on quick perusal. Nevermind -- you're perfect in your ignorance. It's so much easier that way. Sorry for the OT, TL.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    "I suppose next, you'll be saying that "Like father, like son" The correct spelling, Dark, is like the bumper sticker: Lie Father, Lie Son

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    DA - Ramble on, ramble on. You can't defend judging people's actions by their genetic code, their family's past or their social position. It is racist. Squeaky - As I said, repent and be saved. You don't have to support racist positions to attack Rove for his politics.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    DA – On another thread you, again, attack me because I made a typing error. Now that really doesn’t add anything to the discussion, does it? In the past I have just ignored you about this, or shrugged it off with a (to me) humorous comment. But enough is enough. So, if you want to play proof reader, I will accommodate you. The following errors are noted in your latest. BTW – This is silly. Want to declare a truce? Discuss issues instead of trollish attacks?
    and your argument over his judgement about
    Would you learn how to spell?
    , Prof. Avenger(retired),
    And put spaces where they belong?
    insistance in linking my
    And spell?
    Or here, where you demonstrate in your comment about people's smartness or lack thereof the truth of the Biblical injunction about beams and motes?
    And quit worrying about typing and spelling of others when you have so much to worry about yourself. Including in your above example? Or maybe here were you show the same problems?

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    Posted by Jim: "You can't defend judging people's actions by their genetic code, their family's past or their social position. It is racist." That's nonsense, but tell it to Ronald Reagan. His "welfare queen" rhetoric was a lie, and it actually was racist. His implication that (BLACK) welfare recipients were "lazy" was racist. Equally is the Minuteman rhetoric racism, which you lot support with your cloven hooves in the air. Equally is attacking a disarmed, non-involved country over 9i1 racist. You have been here for two years judging Iraqis and Arabs and Muslims as if their religion is sufficient to make them terrorists. The racist who can't tell what is racism wants to define racism so narrowly it doesn't exist. What a freakin' surprise. You're an embarassment, but don't let the mirror of your own actions ever inform you of the fact. Just wipe away the blood as it accumulates around your fanaticism, Jim.

    Re: McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Ov (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:47 PM EST
    DA – Frankly, my dear, I don’t care what you do. You have made snarky remarks about spelling, etc., for months because you don’t have the intellectual capital to engage in a straight up debate, so you change the subject, etc. You now have my attention. I’ll gladly check every comment you make for errors. And psycho babble aside, typing errors are just errors. Only a card carrying Leftie would try to act as if they meant something. The game is up, DA. Your unimportance is revealed. Try to say something intelligent.

    McCain and Repubs Likely to Stick With Bush Over War | 47 comments (47 topical)