No, McCain is willing to lose a war

[evanrick]

I liked John McCain a lot more before he ran in the Republican primary.

Why is it that every seemingly decent Republican throws their ethics, morals and principles away when election time comes around?

And McCain says Obama would be willing to lose a war...no, thats just something Republicans would do.

Something that continues to amaze me is that the Democrat is always held to a higher standard than the Republican. People expect Republicans to be corrupt, lying cheats but if a Democrat ever has a non-politically-correct moment the media goes insane!

I think Americans have problems with people that are better than them, I don't mean richer or smarter, just people who actually are honest law-abiding citizens.

I think Americans feel much better about themselves when they see the goody-two-shoes Democrat caught doing/saying something the backstabbing backroom dealing Republican does every day of the week.

And the icing on the cake is that the Republicans claim the "moral high-ground" when they are willing to throw it all away when it suits their needs.

 

[White Eagle]

Very interesting observation.
I have to agree with you about mccain before this election. When he tried to run in 2000 I thought how close he was to being a Dem. If there had to be a Rep Pres, I would be satisfied with him.
The rest of your post is what is interesting. It gives me something to ponder.

 

[robertstar]

There’s a very simple reason why ‘politically incorrect’ moments from Democrats are a much bigger story than similar moments from Republicans and it really is that one is a Democrat and the other is a Republican. Democrats (rightly or wrongly) are seen as the ‘equality party’, they’re the pro-gay rights party etc. so when one of them does something that goes completely against that view point it’s a much bigger story than when a Republican (who have the bigoted we hate everyone image) does the same thing.

 

[evanrick]

I don't think its as much as "Equality" as it seems. There are many conservative democrats and many liberal republicans, like John McCain.

I honestly believe people get much greater satisfaction voting for their flawed candidate than voting for someone "who knows better".

It makes them feel better about themselves when they see someone as dumb as they are beat someone who is 10x more qualified to do the job.

The most stark contrast of this is the African American community, where they know who they support and why.

I think many Americans forget the struggles of their ancestors unlike African Americans who struggle every day.

 

[CoolBlue71]

I liked John McCain a lot more before he ran in the Republican primary.

Why is it that every seemingly decent Republican throws their ethics, morals and principles away when election time comes around?

And McCain says Obama would be willing to lose a war...no, thats just something Republicans would do.

Something that continues to amaze me is that the Democrat is always held to a higher standard than the Republican. People expect Republicans to be corrupt, lying cheats but if a Democrat ever has a non-politically-correct moment the media goes insane!

I think Americans have problems with people that are better than them, I don't mean richer or smarter, just people who actually are honest law-abiding citizens.

I think Americans feel much better about themselves when they see the goody-two-shoes Democrat caught doing/saying something the backstabbing backroom dealing Republican does every day of the week.

And the icing on the cake is that the Republicans claim the "moral high-ground" when they are willing to throw it all away when it suits their needs.

It's not so difficult to understand.

McCain got in bed with Bush for the conservative base of the Republican Party. He appeased them. McCain had to—in order to win their support in this election year. And he's simply campaigning. What McCain cannot do, from a strategical standpoint, is blast the collective performances of Bush and his administration.

What's the game plan? As I've said in another thread—talk about Obama being the risky candidate. Try hammering it in one speech followed by the next—as if repeating it makes it true. Or, better yet—that it leaves voters convinced.

 

[robertstar]

I don't think its as much as "Equality" as it seems. There are many conservative democrats and many liberal republicans, like John McCain.

I honestly believe people get much greater satisfaction voting for their flawed candidate than voting for someone "who knows better".

It makes them feel better about themselves when they see someone as dumb as they are beat someone who is 10x more qualified to do the job.

You’re missing the point I’m making.

The view of the Democratic Party is that they’re all inclusive and that they campaign for equal rights for everyone, whether that’s the case across the board is ultimately irrelevant because when you ask someone to create the standard Democrat the equality candidate is what they’d give you. In contrast to that the Republican candidate would be the gospel quoting bigot, it doesn’t matter that there are liberal Republicans because they aren’t the norm and don’t represent the bulk of the party.

With that in mind when a Republican screws up or does/says something completely politically incorrect it isn’t really a story because that’s what people (on the whole) expect from Republicans. It has nothing to do with viewing Democrats as being ‘above us’ or ‘better’ it’s simply that the view is that the Democrats see themselves in that way, they believe they’re better than everyone else and perfect so when they screw up it’s laughing at the holier than thou kid at school.

 

[Chalchalero]

I would have to agree with the above poster here. I think people expect more from Democrats because that is the role they have laid out for themselves. It is not a role I fundamentally believe to be entirely accurate (Bill Clinton was the implementer of DADT and signed DOMA after all), but it is an expectation which they have cultivated and which many people actually believe. So when one (or more) of them acts contrary to the image they have attempted to portray, it is considered to be more heinous, as they want to be seen as the "anti-Republicans". Engaging in Republican style behaviour therefore goes completely counter to what their core supporters expect and want from them.

When a Republican is exposed for his hypocrisy and corruption, however, the party and its supporters have a more pragmatic view. Their man has kept the party in power. Their man delivers more pork than a pig farm and their man is still a church going back slapping all around swell guy. So they keep him, all is forgiven, and he lives to thieve, pillage and plunder another day.

 

[evanrick]

So the bottom line is, a Republican would be more willing to sacrifice American lives for his own personal political gain.

That is why I say John McCain would be willing to lose a war to win a political campaign, he would do anything to win.

He has no morals, no ethics and is unprincipled.

Ask yourself, who would be more likely to be willing to sacrifice American lives for more power? The democrat or the republican?

 

[robertstar]

So the bottom line is, a Republican would be more willing to sacrifice American lives for his own personal political gain.

That is why I say John McCain would be willing to lose a war to win a political campaign, he would do anything to win.

He has no morals, no ethics and is unprincipled.

Ask yourself, who would be more likely to be willing to sacrifice American lives for more power? The democrat or the republican?

I don’t even know what point it is you’re trying to make anymore.

Your assertion that McCain would be willing to ‘lose a war’ for political capital is one that I simply cannot understand. It is McCain who, despite intense media backlash and huge public pressure supports staying in Iraq until ‘the job is done’, if he were willing to sacrifice his principles and belief’s for political capital he would have denounced the war in Iraq and promised a with drawl of troops as Obama has.

It is also worth pointing out that in the midst of all the Iraq with drawl hysteria it has been somewhat lost that Obama has pledged more American troops in Afghanistan, do you believe Americans won’t die there? He has also promised military support to Israel should the conflict with Iran escalate, do you believe American’s won’t die there? And that promise of support comes after constant claims through the primaries that he wanted to open up talks with Iran, how willing do you believe they’ll be to talk to America and Obama when he’s already pledged full support to Israel? This concept that Obama is some how anti-war is massively off point, he’s so determined to prove he’s not soft on terror and foreign policy that he’s promised a surge of troops in Afghanistan and practically declared war on Iran. And none of this touches on how he’d handled what is becoming an increasingly difficult and hostile Russia, which stems from proposed missile defence systems that I (offhand) have absolutely no idea where Obama stands on.

It’s also worth pointing out that the supposedly principled and moral Obama has barely made it through a week since winning the nomination without some kind of policy u-turn that makes him more electable.

 

[MrWright]

It's *withdrawal*. One word, two a's.

Or with-drawl if your from the South.

 

[robertstar]

Yes lets debate spelling rather than issues.

Although if you want to debate spelling you should brush up on your history and realise where the language you use originates and who's doing the '(mis-)spelling'