John McCain on The View - Is he really ready to be president?

If John McCain is elected as our next president I would give it a year before this country decides to remove him from office.

 

Yeah, it's like when football players thank God for allowing them to win the game. Except they have bombs.

 

I would have liked her better as a VP choice.

 

I watched all three segments. Although a lot of McCain's answers were not brilliant, they were not bad answers. I don't see Obama doing any better with the same questions. There were a lot of loaded questions and he handled them pretty well. Plus, the whole thing stayed pretty civil. It would have turned into mayhem if Rosie was still part of that group. Good riddance to that rubbish.

Personally, I'd like to see Palin go toe-to-toe with the same gaggle of liberal broads.

 

maybe they should do like bush and chaney and insist on appearing together.
google is going to ban his answer on god for keyword stuffing

 

WTF are you talking about? They are American citizens asking a candidate for the top position in this country important questions. There's no special criteria that anyone needs to pass to ask questions of our proposed leaders. That's what a Democracy is all about. Anyway, it's not about those asking the questions, it's about John McCain's weak pathetic answers (which included many LIES as always.)

Are you seriously calling Barack Obama a "pure idiotic moron." ??? Seriously? Do you think a moron would graduate with honors from Harvard Law School? Seriously? Did you know that John McCain finished 894th out of 899 at his school? Did you know that Sarah Palin needed 6 years and 5 schools to get her 4 year journalism degree. Watch who you are calling a moron.

As far as being in it for all the wrong reasons - how can you say that? how do you know what his reasons are? - how about John McCain's reason? In his own words he said he wanted to be President purely due to personal ambition. Again the facts are at odds with your statement.

Do you really think the smart option is 4 more years of the exact same policies and LIES that we've had over the last 8 years? You are not making much of a case. All of the facts are against you. Please try again.

 

"pure idiotic moron" is a great name for Obama ....As they say...If the shoe fits. Even Biden and Obama himself thinks Obama is not qualified and Biden is second on the ticket and Obama is the lead dog. You are not making much of a case for Obama. All of the facts are against you. Please try again.

Democrats say Obama is not qualified

Biden: Clinton might be better

Obama says he has no experience and shouldn't be president.

Obama lies about running

 

For once, Biz is right on the money.

 

@homebiz
on Obama saying he does not have enough experience in 2004
This is great.It gives me so much more confidence when i see such honesty. He did not know in 2004 if he has enough knowledge about foreign policy and he said he wouldn't run if he doesn't know enough . It is now 2008 so he is ready now I am sure he has worked on this and study all that is needed.He also added biden to the ticket so he will have an experienced adviser.this gives me more confidence. On the other hand we have reckless Mac. He wants to invite Georgia into NATO so we have to confront Russia. Really a fuc-ed up idea if you ask me. I do not know what the hell experience is for if you want to pursue these kind of policies.
==================================================================
I haven't seen the rest of the tape on biden but politicly Hillary might have been a better choice. But Obama has integraty and did not choose Biden to the ticket for political reason but for the benefits of the country and the citizens. Unlike Mcsame that choose Failin for political benefit.
===================================================================
On democrats questioning obama, I have to say the same thing that i say about the pugs attacks. these are political attack and are designed to defeat the opponent . They are not really how they feel but what is the best political position.
===========================================================
Ultimately I rather a person that can grasp and analyze information best. No body can know everything and we have professionals in our govt to inform and educate the president on all issues. I think Obama is a better choice in regard to comprehension and analyzes of the information. Thus he will make better judgment
Reckless Mac on the other hand wants to decide on his gut feeling and that to me is very very dangerous. Its playing Russian Rullet with the country

 

Even though Obama is not the most qualified out there, he's TWICE the man John McCain is. I'm sure John McCain would have made a good president TWENTY YEARS AGO but he's simply too old now and seems to share too much of Bush's ideas. I think he's a nice, kind-hearted guy but I don't want another Bush in office. Obama might start off a little slow in the beginning due to his slight lack of experience but I believe in the end he will be a good president. He's also about 25 years younger than McCain is.

 

I'm not sure what this means. He has no qualifications to be president. The only thing he has ever accomplished in his life is self promotion (he is very good at that) and setting new records for attaching earmarks to spending bills (he is very good at spending). Earmarks are one of the primary reasons for spending being out of control.

These are the facts:

1. He has zero management experience (his campaign does not count. He has a campaign manager).
2. He has zero legislative accomplishments (since getting elected to the Senate, the only things he has done is run for president and attach earmarks to spending bills).
3. He has zero military experience and he shows disdain for the military (just like the Clintons).
4. He shows disdain for the flag (he did remove the American flag from his plane and refused to wear a flag pin until pressured by political advisers).
5. He shows disdain for his country (his lack of proper respect during the National Anthem is legendary).
6. He has no history of uniting people, other than those who already agree with him. His record is one of extreme partisanship, which will just drive the country further apart. Remember that he stepped into the limelight after delivering a blistering attack on Republicans at one of the Democratic National Conventions. No one knew who he was before that.
7. He is an extreme left-wing socialist (he calls himself a Progressive, which is the same as an extreme left-wing socialist).
8. He will raise taxes for everyone, except those who do not contribute to society. He will pay those people with the money his new taxes will take from productive working people.
9. He is a very classic tax and spend Democrat. From that perspective, the only way to reduce the deficit is to raise taxes. Spending cuts, other than for the military, are out of the question.


The problem is that the few things that people know about this guy emphasize what he is not, which conflicts with what his followers want to believe that he is. His resume is blank and he gives new meaning to the term "empty suit".

Personally, I don't want a guy with absolutely no history of getting things done controlling the country.

 

Since Sarah Palin loves earmarks, how does this help your argument?

Mayor of Wasilla, hires a consulting firm to secure as much federal pork as can possibly be secured. It worked: $27 million in federal pork for a town of 6500, or $4200 per person. The outrageousness of this was actually specifically pointed out by John McCain himself - not knowing at the time that he would pick the mayor as his future running mate.

Fought for the "Bridge to Nowhere" funds - $200 million - until politically expedient to abandon it, on a wave of anti-earmarks crusading but higher powers that be. Abandoned the bridge, but kept the money.

As governor, Palin continues to oversee a state with the highest per capita pork in the nation.

Again, how does this help your argument?

 

and still better than Mcsame. easily twice as a good as Mcsame in everything.
The old man makes his mind based on his gut. Dangerous old man.
Half of the stuff you post are distraction. The rest irrelevant.

 

Get your facts straight. Sara Palin sought earmarks as a mayor, which is how poor towns seek funding. When she took over as governor, she saw how damaging they are and has been on a vendetta against them. Most of her reform accomplishments were as governor, where she has to manage a serious budget.

Palin is NOT pro-earmarks.

You are entitled to your misinformed opinion. McCain's history is not one of falling in step with other Republicans or Bush, as the Democrats try to make you believe. You can believe whatever you want to believe.

Obama hasn't shown that he is good at anything other than self-promotion. If elected, he will be the most inexperienced person to be elected president in at least 100 years.

 

In some people's eyes these are actually advantages. I'd prefer somebody with fresh new ideas over somebody who wants to follow in another "failure's" footsteps. The economy is the worst it's ever been and unless you have millions of dollars in the bank, voting McCain into office will really hurt you in the end. If Obama wants to raise taxes for certain people than he probably sees things that McCain is trying to cover up. Remember, the economy and the government revolves around taxes so maybe that's our only option now.

P.S. Bill Clinton was a pretty good president in my opinion.

 

I have. Which is why I wrote them.

Please do not try to portray $27 million in federal pork for a town of 6500 as anything other than what it is. Unless you'd like to call McCain to task, since he himself gave a specific, big WTF? in congress, on this very funding. He didn't know at the time the Mayor who sought and secured it would be his future running mate.

Please do not try to tell me that while she specifically campaigned for governor on her support for the $200 million in federal pork for the Bridge, and abandoned the project once Stevens and Co. got their ass in a sling, this somehow exemplifies her commitment to end earmarks, especially when she kept the money. Palin is a liar, in stating she told congress "thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere.

Please do not try to tell me her state's continued top post in federal earmarks per capita is an emblem of anti-earmark crusading. I'm aware John McCain either lied, or is too lost and confused to know his statement on the View - that Sarah Palin has not taken any earmarks for her state since assuming the governorship. But the facts are the facts, and she's raked in something like $450 million - as governor.

Let's keep in mind, too, that while we're arguing the "poor ole' Alaska needs pork for dinner" line, that Alaska is lone in the union for no income tax, and no sales tax, and WHY? Because Alaska's promise to its citizens is a swimming pool for every citizen - filled with oil, or cash, whichever you'd prefer. Alaska is loaded. Yet it has the highest per capita federal pork in the land.

Unless you'd also like to tell me her stand on abortion - opposition to it even in cases of rape or incest, while her state has the ignominy of having the highest per capita incidence of rape and sexual assault in the nation - is somehow an example of her "feminism," as some have tried to say (with a straight face, I might add).

If anything I've written is factually incorrect, please correct me. If not, please drop the propaganda.

 

Yet she continued to ask for them as governor. Perhaps it's you who needs to get your facts straight and not the party spin of things.

 

BTW The fact that Obama is "admitting" that he'll raise our taxes shows that he's an honest person who is ready to do business. That will obviously lose him some votes, but it's better to have somebody in office that's honest rather than have somebody who will say anything if they feel it will help them out.

 

This just shows how naive some people really are about the economy.

Sure the housing market is down after a huge growth bubble burst. The same thing happened in the 1970s and to a lesser degree in the early 1990s. There is always a housing bust after a housing boom. Ask anyone in California. They have seen this cycle repeated more than anywhere in the country. (I have a real estate license).

The economic indicators do not support what you are saying. We are not even in a recession, no matter how you measure it. (I also have an MBA). I don't think we are out of the woods yet with economic issues to deal with, but the doom and gloom is coming from the media and other liberals who want you to believe that. Given the same economic indicators during the Clinton years, everything was reported as being rosy.

I remember one of Clinton's first major economic lies when he was running for office. He called it, "The worst economy in the last 30 years." It is what Democrats want you to believe. In the early 1990s, the worst economy in the last 30 years was clearly in the 1970s, and particularly during the Carter years where he screwed up just about everything he touched.

You can believe what you want to believe. Read my signature. The first quote was from a good Democrat who I thought was very wise.

 

The supposed fiscal difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is largely a myth. Much like Ronald Reagan, who indeed cut taxes, but maintained spending (just on different stuff), both candidates will continue to bleed the budget - to within 8.5% of each other in fact, McCain's public line of the "fiscal disciplinarian" notwithstanding.