President McCain

[Erin]

I''d like to introduce a small thread for Republicans and conservatives to help me learn more about the candidate McCain.

Tell me why he''d make a good president, why he is the right candidate, or why you support him.

There is one rule:

You cannot hijack this thread into a "Obama is great" rant.

Stick to McCain. There are plenty of other threads boosting Mr. O.



Okay, I''ll start. On second thought, I''ll borrow...

http://www.sicsemper.com/node/157

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Is this strictly a McCain thread or a general conservative thread? I only ask because there might be supporters of Ron Paul or Bob Barr who would run on an independent or libertarian ticket, though they would be considered "conservative" by the general public''s standard.

 

[Erin]

I suppose my assumption is that this should be reserved for McCain. As a Dem, I would be more open to support Ron Paul. I know some of what he stands for and I think he could have started a following if he were the primary candidate. However, given the general election front runners - I''d like to stick to the contest majority, McCain.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

This is very interesting--I''ve noticed a few democrats who support Ron Paul despite him being much more conservative than McCain. I''ve only voted for Ron Paul in the past, so I''m not a McCain supporter, but I do find it interesting that dems don''t want to vote for him because he''s running on a repub ticket and repubs don''t want to vote for him because he leans so far to the left. He''s in a rough spot.

 

[FrekeChild]

Ok, I can''t help but want to post this here, because it IS about McCain, and I find it fascinating. Plus, it doesn''t really belong in the Obama/Hillary threads.

thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

It''s not an attack on McCain from my point of view, more of a exploration of pop culture, architecture and other stuff that has happened in the past almost 72 years (and actually Ron Paul is listed as being NOT younger than John McCain-although only around a year older).

BTW I kind of like Ron Paul. Yes he''s conservative, but he''s not afraid to speak his mind and let his real opinions out. Honesty (even if only some of it) is refreshing in politics.

 

[Dancing Fire]

wellll....the one good thing about "OLD" McCain...he won''t get caught with his pants down.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 6/5/2008 7:25:23 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
wellll....the one good thing about ''OLD'' McCain...he won''t get caught with his pants down.

Nah. But they may be soiled.


Freke, he''s older than the margarita! lol

Ok sorry. If this thread turns into a true discussion I will totally stop cracking the jokes (and start a new thread).

 

[MoonWater]

Freke, did you read all the entries on that site??? http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/?p=159

By law, many Federal employees are younger than John McCain.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Title 29 of U.S.C. Section 633a states that agencies are (permitted) “to establish a maximum age requirement only in instances where they have proven to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that age is a bona fide occupational qualification necessary for the performance of the duties of a particular position.”

LOL you have to be kidding me!

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 6/5/2008 7:44:15 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 6/5/2008 7:25:23 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
wellll....the one good thing about ''OLD'' McCain...he won''t get caught with his pants down.

Nah. But they may be soiled.


Freke, he''s older than the margarita! lol


Ok sorry. If this thread turns into a true discussion I will totally stop cracking the jokes (and start a new thread).

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!

I can''t believe he''s older than the margarita!

 

[MoonWater]

Ok, this is crazy. Did I create this website? LOL http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/?p=107

I’ve received a bunch of emails - and read a number of posts in the comments section - that questioned whether or not this blog is ageist. It’s a fair question and I wanted to take a minute to offer my answer.

It isn’t. Here’s why:

Before the blog launched, I thought long and hard to see if I could come up with reasons how gender or race could negatively impact on someone’s ability to do an effective job as President… and I couldn’t come up with a single one. But I was able to come up with reasons why age - at least, potentially - could be a factor:

* Memory loss
* Decreased stamina
* Greater susceptibilty to illness
* Possible lack of ability to relate to the issues and concerns of the vast majority of younger Americans
* And, of course, the increased likelihood of dying in office… throwing the country into temporary turmoil and placing a greater importance of the role of Vice President

Furthermore, I got to thinking how the framers of the Constitution saw fit to attach an age minimum of 35 to the office of the President. Presumably, they felt that people younger than 35 lacked the skills necessary to be able to run the country. While I’m certainly not suggesting that we have a Constitutional amendment creating an age maximum, it does tell me that my line of thinking (namely, that age does matter) is clearly not without precedent.

Now, does all this mean that John McCain would AUTOMATICALLY be a bad President JUST because he’s 72? Of course not (he’d be a bad President for a whole host of other reasons!), but I am saying that it’s reasonable to make the subject of his age - and all that it entails - part of a dialogue about his qualifications… and that we shouldn’t run from the topic because it has an “ism” attached to it.

That’s what I say - what say you?

 

[luckystar112]

Nevermind. It's not worth it.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I had a feeling it would be impossible for there to be a conservative thread on here, and I was right!

 

[FrekeChild]

Well, no conservatives are contributing. I, for one, would like them to.

And Moon...I think you and that blogger share a brain.

 

[diamondfan]

I am not a conservative or a liberal. I am not into labels, I vote with my heart and conscience on a lot of issues, and think there is a lot of gray in some of the solutions to the manifold problems affecting our great nation. Clearly fixing things is not simple and easy or it would have been done already.

I am not sure who I will vote for, as certain things still bug me.

McCain's age is a tough one. I know many people his age or older who are amazingly energetic and focused. I personally do not know his mental status, but assume it is reasonable. Do I think he will make it all four years in perfect health? Hard to know. Could anyone fall ill suddenly? Yes. Of course his age does beg certain questions, and the answers are not easy. I know he must pick an amazing VP that is for sure. He has a clean bill of health, so for now, I have to assume he is up to the job. People are living longer and healthier lives, and there is every chance he can do it.

I think he served our country well, showed bravery, has a lot of experience politically. What he would do in office I am not sure. None of us really knows til push comes to shove, as I think ALL candidates are in it to win it and say various things to accomplish that.

His pants might be down a lot cuz older men have to visit the facilities a lot more often~

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Lol!!! And I''m with you on not taking on a political label, DF. I am registered unaffiliated.

 

[Selkie]

Actually, I am honestly interested in hearing more about what people think of McCain, since as it stands there''s about a 50/50 chance he will end up being president. So, I think this thread is worth it.

 

[miraclesrule]

I''m not a Republican or a Democrat. I don''t particularly like labels anyway. They tend to pigeonhole people into a stereotype that is misleading. (Why do they use the word pigeonhole?) I for one, LOVED Ron Paul. Again, it''s too bad that Americans, and many humans, feel the need to belong to what is really nothing more than a GANG!! Democrats are a GANG, Republicans are a GANG, and so forth.....

I for one, am committed to dismantling gang psychology in it''s formative stages.

But the reality is...that''s not the world we live in...YET!

However, back to McCain. My thoughts (as I try to keep feeling and emotion out of it...but I am human after all), are a lot like they were about John Kerry and Al Gore and George Bush. Is this really the best we have to offer?

I can''t help but wonder whether the American Presidency has been reduced to the level of "Who is brave enough, dumb enough, pretty enough, rich enough, connected enough, clever enough, poster-child enough, pliable enough....to be a party''s candidate.

Frankly, I am more concerned with Congress, but let''s assume that the leader of the free world should possess certain characteristics. This is a question I ask of all candidates for a job I might be interviewing them for:

If you could engage in a sort of "Wierd Science" project and create your perfect Leader, what are the top three characteristics you would choose? Then, in your opinion, what three characteristics would be indicative of the worst Leader/Boss?

Once I get those answered, I can compare them to all facts I can accumulate and identify with a particular candidate. Honestly, I don''t know a whole lot about McCain. I actually know more about his wife.

But I hope that will change. I think I know about as much as most Americans do....he was a prisoner of war, is of advanced age, and he identifies himself as a Republican and sucks at speeches. McCain has yet to inspire me, or engage me enough for me to develop the record, so to speak. I admit that I am only seduced by intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, common sense, broad-based experience and rational application of knowledge.

I welcome more in-depth discussion to educate me.

 

[FrekeChild]

I like the way you think about it Miracles. I think that''s a fantastic idea. I''m going to copy it. 3 of the best and 3 of the worst for a leader.

(I know more about Cindy as well. Most of what I know about her is because of her wealth and fashion sense. Most of what I know about John is from the fact that AZ and NM share that big fat border and he and Sen. Pete Domenici have had words.)

 

[luckystar112]

Okay...here are a few reasons why I tend to like McCain (I''m going to avoid the "hot topics", because I just think that this isn''t the place to talk about stuff like that).

-I like that McCain can speak for himself when he truly believes in something. He''s spoken out on things that he disagrees with in his own party, and he has openly criticized Bush and Rumsfield.

-I would like to see a tax cut for the middle class.

-I feel that gun manufacturer''s need to be held more liable for crimes, and background checks on potential gun buyers

-I agree with his position on the war. I don''t agree with the war, but I agree on his position on where we go from here.

-I agree with his views on national security--I don''t think terrorism is going away anytime soon.

-I agree with privatized social security, since we''re all pretty much SOL unless we''re working a government job

I DON''T agree with

-his position on healthcare. I''d like to see something with a little more substance other than a tax credit for families with insurance. I''d like to see more done for those WITHOUT insurance, and not by government spending. More like...tweaking the whole insurance/drug company shebang. But I''m bitter. heh.

I know this was really vague, maybe I should elaborate on it.
I''ll be back.



-

 

[miraclesrule]

That''s a good start luckystar!!

It certainly sparked a flame about McCain that I hadn''t had previously. I have some radically different views on non-violent conflict resolution than most people...well, except Ghandi and MLK, Jr. and Mother Theresa....yet, I do think that McCain has some insight into torture that would be interesting to explore and analyze and debate.

I am very intrigued that many Republicans feel that McCain is more of a Democrat than the other "picture perfect" candidates. This makes me want to investigate his voting record and position on a variety of social and economic issues.

Freke,
That question is one of ten that I use in my phone screening of every applicant. If the characteristic''s they name reflect strongly for or against the kind of supervisor/boss...I prefer mentor...that I am...than I usually know that candidate is not going to be a good fit.

I have had some applicant''s list everything that I am....in their worst boss category...D''oH!!!!
But because of the nature of the work I do....I require the most open, honest, candid, confident applicant, due to the potential of embezzlement and internal misappropriation of funds opportunity. So, I am sort of hard core. You can''t prepare for my phone screening. You can''t "fake" or "schmooze" your way into my department. You must be real, genuine, authentic, honest and smart. It''s amazing how difficult that is to find in a 30-minute phone screening.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 6/6/2008 12:09:37 AM
Author: miraclesrule
I''m not a Republican or a Democrat. I don''t particularly like labels anyway. They tend to pigeonhole people into a stereotype that is misleading. (Why do they use the word pigeonhole?)

Haha! That''s how I feel about labels.

Well, I use to like McCain, back in 2004. But I feel like he sold his soul to the devil in order to become President. I''m extremely disappointed in the man. And the things he''s been saying lately...well. If he has always been like this, I obviously wasn''t paying enough attention before.

FI''s dad is Republican...and I''m talking a Fox News loving one at that. He hates McCain.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 6/6/2008 1:51:05 AM
Author: luckystar112
Okay...here are a few reasons why I tend to like McCain (I''m going to avoid the ''hot topics'', because I just think that this isn''t the place to talk about stuff like that).

-I like that McCain can speak for himself when he truly believes in something. He''s spoken out on things that he disagrees with in his own party, and he has openly criticized Bush and Rumsfield.

-I would like to see a tax cut for the middle class.

-I feel that gun manufacturer''s need to be held more liable for crimes, and background checks on potential gun buyers

-I agree with his position on the war. I don''t agree with the war, but I agree on his position on where we go from here.

-I agree with his views on national security--I don''t think terrorism is going away anytime soon.

-I agree with privatized social security, since we''re all pretty much SOL unless we''re working a government job

I DON''T agree with

-his position on healthcare. I''d like to see something with a little more substance other than a tax credit for families with insurance. I''d like to see more done for those WITHOUT insurance, and not by government spending. More like...tweaking the whole insurance/drug company shebang. But I''m bitter. heh.

I know this was really vague, maybe I should elaborate on it.
I''ll be back.



-

Well, I''m fairly certain McCain is going to be hoist on his own petard for comments made - and well-documented - that he is now flipping on.
The link below is one that makes me run screaming from him. I''ve said in other threads that I see McCain as unwilling to dismantle the illegitimate powers collected by this administration to itself in it''s quest for a unitary executive. This article pretty much confirms the position I thought he would take. Now, understand, I understand perfectly well that surveillance may be necessary, but surveillance that essentially sneers at the normal checks and balances this country was founded on - that do damage to the fabric of the constitution, and because they are so utterly secret they allow no redress if they are misued, no. No, no, and no. The only way a person can be complacent about some of the things that have happened is if they don''t know, don''t understand, OR have no ability to project a scenario where those powers might actually be used against THEM. Amongst many other things, when I heard that the Pentagon had a database spying on dangerous domestic groups like the Quakers,

my imagination got pretty darn honed.

The president should never be above the law. Haven''t we had enough of that by now? All flippancy aside, McCain may really BE a Bush third term, if he endorses these actions....

Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 6/6/2008 1:51:05 AM
Author: luckystar112
Okay...here are a few reasons why I tend to like McCain (I''m going to avoid the ''hot topics'', because I just think that this isn''t the place to talk about stuff like that).

-I like that McCain can speak for himself when he truly believes in something. He''s spoken out on things that he disagrees with in his own party, and he has openly criticized Bush and Rumsfield.

-I would like to see a tax cut for the middle class.

-I feel that gun manufacturer''s need to be held more liable for crimes, and background checks on potential gun buyers

-I agree with his position on the war. I don''t agree with the war, but I agree on his position on where we go from here.

-I agree with his views on national security--I don''t think terrorism is going away anytime soon.

-I agree with privatized social security, since we''re all pretty much SOL unless we''re working a government job

I DON''T agree with

-his position on healthcare. I''d like to see something with a little more substance other than a tax credit for families with insurance. I''d like to see more done for those WITHOUT insurance, and not by government spending. More like...tweaking the whole insurance/drug company shebang. But I''m bitter. heh.

I know this was really vague, maybe I should elaborate on it.
I''ll be back.



-

I tend to agree on a lot of these. I know something HAS to be done about healthcare considering the number of people without health insurance, and I have not heard any candidate give a viable solution to that yet.

I also agree with those who said there are a lot of conservatives and republicans who are not in love with McCain. I do think he is a weak candidate to run against Obama. I can''t get any enthusiasm about either one of them. I won''t vote for Obama just because he is young, handsome, and intelligent, either. I have no real idea if he is qualified for the presidency or not. I do know there are a few specific issues that would not allow me to vote for him. I might have to write in someone, maybe Ron Paul perhaps (I''d still have to study a little more about him, though). I think Obama will win unless something comes out between now and then to hurt him. Then, after 8 years, it''ll probably swing back the other way if the other side can come up with some decent candidates. The country seems to be pretty well split in half.

 

[MoonWater]

DS, I really don''t understand how the Republian Party ended up with McCain. Surely there was someone more viable. But then again, a lot of this crap seems to work by seniority so people say it was "his turn." I don''t get that line of reasoning.

 

[MoonWater]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/johnmccain.uselections2008

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 6/6/2008 8:27:31 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 6/6/2008 1:51:05 AM
Author: luckystar112
Okay...here are a few reasons why I tend to like McCain (I''m going to avoid the ''hot topics'', because I just think that this isn''t the place to talk about stuff like that).

-I like that McCain can speak for himself when he truly believes in something. He''s spoken out on things that he disagrees with in his own party, and he has openly criticized Bush and Rumsfield.

-I would like to see a tax cut for the middle class.

-I feel that gun manufacturer''s need to be held more liable for crimes, and background checks on potential gun buyers

-I agree with his position on the war. I don''t agree with the war, but I agree on his position on where we go from here.

-I agree with his views on national security--I don''t think terrorism is going away anytime soon.

-I agree with privatized social security, since we''re all pretty much SOL unless we''re working a government job

I DON''T agree with

-his position on healthcare. I''d like to see something with a little more substance other than a tax credit for families with insurance. I''d like to see more done for those WITHOUT insurance, and not by government spending. More like...tweaking the whole insurance/drug company shebang. But I''m bitter. heh.

I know this was really vague, maybe I should elaborate on it.
I''ll be back.



-

Well, I''m fairly certain McCain is going to be hoist on his own petard for comments made - and well-documented - that he is now flipping on.
The link below is one that makes me run screaming from him. I''ve said in other threads that I see McCain as unwilling to dismantle the illegitimate powers collected by this administration to itself in it''s quest for a unitary executive. This article pretty much confirms the position I thought he would take. Now, understand, I understand perfectly well that surveillance may be necessary, but surveillance that essentially sneers at the normal checks and balances this country was founded on - that do damage to the fabric of the constitution, and because they are so utterly secret they allow no redress if they are misued, no. No, no, and no. The only way a person can be complacent about some of the things that have happened is if they don''t know, don''t understand, OR have no ability to project a scenario where those powers might actually be used against THEM. Amongst many other things, when I heard that the Pentagon had a database spying on dangerous domestic groups like the Quakers,

my imagination got pretty darn honed.

The president should never be above the law. Haven''t we had enough of that by now? All flippancy aside, McCain may really BE a Bush third term, if he endorses these actions....

Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps

Quote from the article: And if Mr. McCain is elected president, Mr. Holtz-Eakin added, he would do everything he could to prevent terrorist attacks, “including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.”

Since when is following the Constitution unconstitutional?

 

[ksinger]

Date: 6/6/2008 5:50:47 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 6/6/2008 8:27:31 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 6/6/2008 1:51:05 AM
Author: luckystar112
Okay...here are a few reasons why I tend to like McCain (I''m going to avoid the ''hot topics'', because I just think that this isn''t the place to talk about stuff like that).

-I like that McCain can speak for himself when he truly believes in something. He''s spoken out on things that he disagrees with in his own party, and he has openly criticized Bush and Rumsfield.

-I would like to see a tax cut for the middle class.

-I feel that gun manufacturer''s need to be held more liable for crimes, and background checks on potential gun buyers

-I agree with his position on the war. I don''t agree with the war, but I agree on his position on where we go from here.

-I agree with his views on national security--I don''t think terrorism is going away anytime soon.

-I agree with privatized social security, since we''re all pretty much SOL unless we''re working a government job

I DON''T agree with

-his position on healthcare. I''d like to see something with a little more substance other than a tax credit for families with insurance. I''d like to see more done for those WITHOUT insurance, and not by government spending. More like...tweaking the whole insurance/drug company shebang. But I''m bitter. heh.

I know this was really vague, maybe I should elaborate on it.
I''ll be back.



-

Well, I''m fairly certain McCain is going to be hoist on his own petard for comments made - and well-documented - that he is now flipping on.
The link below is one that makes me run screaming from him. I''ve said in other threads that I see McCain as unwilling to dismantle the illegitimate powers collected by this administration to itself in it''s quest for a unitary executive. This article pretty much confirms the position I thought he would take. Now, understand, I understand perfectly well that surveillance may be necessary, but surveillance that essentially sneers at the normal checks and balances this country was founded on - that do damage to the fabric of the constitution, and because they are so utterly secret they allow no redress if they are misued, no. No, no, and no. The only way a person can be complacent about some of the things that have happened is if they don''t know, don''t understand, OR have no ability to project a scenario where those powers might actually be used against THEM. Amongst many other things, when I heard that the Pentagon had a database spying on dangerous domestic groups like the Quakers,

my imagination got pretty darn honed.

The president should never be above the law. Haven''t we had enough of that by now? All flippancy aside, McCain may really BE a Bush third term, if he endorses these actions....

Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps

Quote from the article: And if Mr. McCain is elected president, Mr. Holtz-Eakin added, he would do everything he could to prevent terrorist attacks, “including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.”

Since when is following the Constitution unconstitutional?

The Constitution is pretty terse when you read it, and has been interpreted from day one. What is "constitutional" seems depends alot on whether you''re an ordinary person, a lawyer or judge, or a power-hungry politician...

The reason that the 1978 FISA laws came about was because the FBI had unlimited wiretap authority, and that was abused. An example of this would be the FBI recording the phone calls of MLK Jr. to his mistresses, and sending the tapes to his wife. Hardly a proper use of Article II, don''t you think. The executive branch has already proven by they will abuse powers such as wiretaps by going far beyond what powers may have been granted to a wartime president, and which are not to be extended beyond wartime, and by ignoring statute passed by Congress, the traditonal check on abuses of executive power. Article II does not give the president any sweeping powers, it merely says the president will be commander in chief of military services. The courts have ruled in war time the president may have extraordinary powers, but during peacetime, powers such as this are granted to the executive by the courts, which the Bush administration has repeatedly sneered at.

The power to declare war rests with congress, and congress has never declared war since WWII. We are in this strange limbo land where the war has never been declared and yet we are psychologically on a permanent war footing, thanks to the fear-mongering rhetoric that streams from the executive every time someone tries to challenge their abuses of power. The implication is, that if congress has not declared war, then these extraordinary powers the executive are claiming are shaky at best, and completely illegitimate at worst. And most of this discussion is moot, because according to Nixon, Yoo, and this administration, if a president orders something, it cannot be agains the law, or an abuse of power.

Nice work if you can get it. There''s some stellar reasoning.

Basically, since this administration has thumbed it''s nose at the legislative and the judicial branches, AND McCain is best buddies with Bush, I don''t believe him one iota. Power granted is not ever given back, it has to be WRESTED back. McCain is proving this.

Great line from a book about the hypocrisy of the republican methods, that I was thumbing today: (roughly stated):

They say that we need to empower the government to collect a comprehensive dossier on every single American because otherwise our freedoms may be taken away by The Terrorists.

 

[Erin]

They say that we need to empower the government to collect a comprehensive dossier on every single American because otherwise our freedoms may be taken away by The Terrorists.


Sounds like we''re a an injected computer chip away...

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 6/6/2008 6:51:37 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 6/6/2008 5:50:47 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 6/6/2008 8:27:31 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 6/6/2008 1:51:05 AM
Author: luckystar112
Okay...here are a few reasons why I tend to like McCain (I''m going to avoid the ''hot topics'', because I just think that this isn''t the place to talk about stuff like that).

-I like that McCain can speak for himself when he truly believes in something. He''s spoken out on things that he disagrees with in his own party, and he has openly criticized Bush and Rumsfield.

-I would like to see a tax cut for the middle class.

-I feel that gun manufacturer''s need to be held more liable for crimes, and background checks on potential gun buyers

-I agree with his position on the war. I don''t agree with the war, but I agree on his position on where we go from here.

-I agree with his views on national security--I don''t think terrorism is going away anytime soon.

-I agree with privatized social security, since we''re all pretty much SOL unless we''re working a government job

I DON''T agree with

-his position on healthcare. I''d like to see something with a little more substance other than a tax credit for families with insurance. I''d like to see more done for those WITHOUT insurance, and not by government spending. More like...tweaking the whole insurance/drug company shebang. But I''m bitter. heh.

I know this was really vague, maybe I should elaborate on it.
I''ll be back.



-

Well, I''m fairly certain McCain is going to be hoist on his own petard for comments made - and well-documented - that he is now flipping on.
The link below is one that makes me run screaming from him. I''ve said in other threads that I see McCain as unwilling to dismantle the illegitimate powers collected by this administration to itself in it''s quest for a unitary executive. This article pretty much confirms the position I thought he would take. Now, understand, I understand perfectly well that surveillance may be necessary, but surveillance that essentially sneers at the normal checks and balances this country was founded on - that do damage to the fabric of the constitution, and because they are so utterly secret they allow no redress if they are misued, no. No, no, and no. The only way a person can be complacent about some of the things that have happened is if they don''t know, don''t understand, OR have no ability to project a scenario where those powers might actually be used against THEM. Amongst many other things, when I heard that the Pentagon had a database spying on dangerous domestic groups like the Quakers,

my imagination got pretty darn honed.

The president should never be above the law. Haven''t we had enough of that by now? All flippancy aside, McCain may really BE a Bush third term, if he endorses these actions....

Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps

Quote from the article: And if Mr. McCain is elected president, Mr. Holtz-Eakin added, he would do everything he could to prevent terrorist attacks, “including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.”

Since when is following the Constitution unconstitutional?

The Constitution is pretty terse when you read it, and has been interpreted from day one. What is ''constitutional'' seems depends alot on whether you''re an ordinary person, a lawyer or judge, or a power-hungry politician...

The reason that the 1978 FISA laws came about was because the FBI had unlimited wiretap authority, and that was abused. An example of this would be the FBI recording the phone calls of MLK Jr. to his mistresses, and sending the tapes to his wife. Hardly a proper use of Article II, don''t you think. The executive branch has already proven by they will abuse powers such as wiretaps by going far beyond what powers may have been granted to a wartime president, and which are not to be extended beyond wartime, and by ignoring statute passed by Congress, the traditonal check on abuses of executive power. Article II does not give the president any sweeping powers, it merely says the president will be commander in chief of military services. The courts have ruled in war time the president may have extraordinary powers, but during peacetime, powers such as this are granted to the executive by the courts, which the Bush administration has repeatedly sneered at.

The power to declare war rests with congress, and congress has never declared war since WWII. We are in this strange limbo land where the war has never been declared and yet we are psychologically on a permanent war footing, thanks to the fear-mongering rhetoric that streams from the executive every time someone tries to challenge their abuses of power. The implication is, that if congress has not declared war, then these extraordinary powers the executive are claiming are shaky at best, and completely illegitimate at worst. And most of this discussion is moot, because according to Nixon, Yoo, and this administration, if a president orders something, it cannot be agains the law, or an abuse of power.

Nice work if you can get it. There''s some stellar reasoning.

Basically, since this administration has thumbed it''s nose at the legislative and the judicial branches, AND McCain is best buddies with Bush, I don''t believe him one iota. Power granted is not ever given back, it has to be WRESTED back. McCain is proving this.

Great line from a book about the hypocrisy of the republican methods, that I was thumbing today: (roughly stated):

They say that we need to empower the government to collect a comprehensive dossier on every single American because otherwise our freedoms may be taken away by The Terrorists.

I just want to say that I enjoy your thoughtful posts. We are all free to think what we like - however, I feel you are being a bit presumptuous about what McCain will do. Kind of like if someone were to say . . . Obama was buddies with Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko - and now has said about both, "I’ve known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago” and “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew." I suppose one could presume he may end up saying, "This isn’t the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew . . . "

 

[ksinger]

"I feel you are being a bit presumptuous about what McCain will do."

Not really. I honestly don''t think the man KNOWS what he thinks on alot of issues. He says he''s a foe of lobbyists and then has almost nothing but lobbyists on his staff. He says that we must someday speak to repressive regimes, (it''s on YouTube for viewing) and then 6 months (or however long) later, says that HE''d never speak to these people. So which one is it?

Bottom line, he has a history of supporting Bush, by which I assume, not unreasonably I think, that he supports quite a few of his policies. Him stating that the executive and the telecoms don''t owe the American people an apology smacks of Bush''s "I never make mistakes" mentality. I just don''t see that on many issues, such as economics - an area where he sounds like a complete doofus, - he has a position. All of this fills me with fear.