Romney Mops the floors with McCain

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

Post by _DonBradley »

Miss Taken wrote:Isn't McCain, a Veteran? For those of us who don't study American Politics, we immediately think of 'warmonger'. In effect McCain, was a professional killer.


This is what I would have thought as well. But the relationship doesn't hold, at least not at the level of US Secretary of State. When a veteran serves as Secretary of State, the chances that US troops will be deployed drops significantly. I don't know of any similar studies on the relationship of veteran status to a president's likelihood of deploying troops, but the inverse relationship between veteran status and troop deployment for the Secretary of State suggests that having been a soldier may make one more judicious about putting those who are now soldiers in harm's way. How much does somebody like W. know what it's like to be a soldier??

Don
_Mary
_Emeritus
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by _Mary »

DonBradley wrote:
Miss Taken wrote:Isn't McCain, a Veteran? For those of us who don't study American Politics, we immediately think of 'warmonger'. In effect McCain, was a professional killer.


This is what I would have thought as well. But the relationship doesn't hold, at least not at the level of US Secretary of State. When a veteran serves as Secretary of State, the chances that US troops will be deployed drops significantly. I don't know of any similar studies on the relationship of veteran status to a president's likelihood of deploying troops, but the inverse relationship between veteran status and troop deployment for the Secretary of State suggests that having been a soldier may make one more judicious about putting those who are now soldiers in harm's way. How much does somebody like W. know what it's like to be a soldier??

Don


I didn't know that. Makes sense though....
Has he given any indication of what he thinks about current foreign policy?

Mary
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Post by _why me »

It should be obvious that Mitt's ability at public speaking as been enhanced by his Mormonism. Giving talks in sacrament meeting, handling callings, sunday school teaching and participation all give an individual confidence in public life, if used properly.

Also, Mitt is a sure fire cure for the 'church is a cult' crowd. Mitt is articulare, independent minded, opinioned, a problem solver and a good fathe. Certainly I see no cult traits in Mitt. He did a wonderful job during the debate and put the LDS church in a positive light by his performance even though indirectly.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

DonBradley wrote:
Miss Taken wrote:Isn't McCain, a Veteran? For those of us who don't study American Politics, we immediately think of 'warmonger'. In effect McCain, was a professional killer.


This is what I would have thought as well. But the relationship doesn't hold, at least not at the level of US Secretary of State. When a veteran serves as Secretary of State, the chances that US troops will be deployed drops significantly. I don't know of any similar studies on the relationship of veteran status to a president's likelihood of deploying troops, but the inverse relationship between veteran status and troop deployment for the Secretary of State suggests that having been a soldier may make one more judicious about putting those who are now soldiers in harm's way. How much does somebody like W. know what it's like to be a soldier??

Don


I don't see how "Veteran" translates into war monger. My guess is that most people who have seen combat feel the exact opposite.

Neither does it translate into professional killer. Most soldiers experience a strong revulsion to killing and never get over it. The innate human resistance to taking human life is quite strong. I recommend that you read the very fine book, "On Killing."

I'd much rather have someone who's experienced combat making decisions about sending our nation's sons and daughters into harm's way as opposed to someone for whom warfare, death, and killing are but theoretical abstractions. As the father of a draft-eligible son, I am not wild about the prospect of any foreign military adventures, particularly ones based on faulty intelligence, wishful thinking, ideological stupidity, and impenetrable cognitive dissonance.

As for Wilson, the great statesman was also a petty tyrant. My esteem for him dropped significantly when I learned of the oppressively tyrannical policies he imposed on the American public during WWI. For reference, I recommend the fine book "The Great Influenza."
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_richardMdBorn
_Emeritus
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am

Post by _richardMdBorn »

DonBradley wrote:Wilson's most prominent achievements as president were in the field of international relations---statesmanship. But, judging from the size of his head (evidently too much smaller than Teddy Roosevelt's), his skill in this area was merely illusory.
Don
Wilson was an arrogant man. He snubbed the Republican senators at Versailles. Henry Cabot Lodge would have agreed to ratify it if Wilson had made some compromises but he refused to make any. I like Georges Clemenceau's quip about Wilson's Fourteen Points, "The good Lord only needed ten."
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

bcspace wrote:
I don't get it. How can anyone support McCain over Romney after this and the last debate. Yet all the heavy reublicans are rolling out their endorsement for McCain.


Because not all Republicans are conservatives.

Also many Republicans erroneously believe that a shift to the center will attract more voters. Problem with that is why would a Democrat vote for a liberal Republican when he can vote for a liberal Democrat? It's better to differentiate and therefore, Republicans will always do better with a more conservative candidate.


True

As Dick Morris noted,the republicans seems to be shifting more center. But really, I think most people are more center types.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

DonBradley wrote:A quick wit, alpha-male behavior, and being more articulate than the next guy are not--I should hope--the only, or most important, things a citizen would look for in a president.

Oh...I have to tell this. It just popped into my mind. Years ago I read through the voluminous diaries of Joshua R. Clark, father of J. Reuben Clark, Jr. The elder Clark, like his more famous son, had a great interest in politics, and was, of course, an ardent Republican. On a trip to Washington, DC to visit his politician son, Joshua R. Clark got to see Woodrow Wilson give a speech. Clark's judgment on the man was emphatic: "His is not the head of a great statesman. It's too small."

Wilson's most prominent achievements as president were in the field of international relations---statesmanship. But, judging from the size of his head (evidently too much smaller than Teddy Roosevelt's), his skill in this area was merely illusory.

Somehow this country has survived presidents who were small-headed pencil necks (Wilson), chronic depressives (Lincoln), 'cripples' (FDR), a bit callow (JFK), a bit doddering (Reagan)...but we'd never survive one who ever mumbled. People like that couldn't possibly earn the respect of their peers and acquire political clout, like, say, a longtime powerful position in the United States Senate--much less the Presidency. Never!

Don


Interesting.

Of course articulation is not all it takes. But I do remember when Bush 2 was talked about as a candidate. He seemed pretty sharp based on what I had read. Then I heard him speak for the first time and was disappointed. And that disappointment has continued even though I voted fro him twice.

Romney, in my opinion, is the smartest candidate on the republican side and best prepared to lead vibrantly in the areas that are mot important to me-Economy, defense and immigration. McCain is ok but he does seem worn out a bit.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

DonBradley wrote:I should have mentioned another noted mumbler, and relatively poor debater--George H. W. Bush, who demonstrated his abilities as a statesman while serving as a US Representative, US ambassador to China, US ambassador to the United Nations, director of the CIA, vice president, president, and, as president, an effective builder of international coalitions and proponent of Middle-East peace.

If we'd had this level of foreign-policy competence in the presidency during the latest regime, the past several years might have been quite different.

Maybe this gene skips a generation?

Don


Amen. I actually liked George 1 quite well.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Based on the current candidates, I like Obama.

And I'm a Republican.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

liz3564 wrote:Based on the current candidates, I like Obama.

And I'm a Republican.




Not only an Obama girl, but a Super Obama Girl, eh liz?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AIiMa2Fe-ZQ
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Post Reply