Didn't want to keep posting in the GOP thread so I started a new thread.

 

Here's McCain in 2006 suggesting we talk to Hamas (includes video): LINK

Now McCain is bashing Obama for wanting to talk to Raul Castro. First of all I didn't realize how big of a threat Cuba was to the U.S. today and what exactly has the decades long embargo accomplished that can be deemed a success?

Edited May 20, 200817 yr by BigSqwert

Cuba belongs in the "axis of unpleasantness" or "list of moderately annoying countries." I'm no expert on this really don't see what the big deal is there. I mean, it was pretty obvious when they were allies of the Soviets but we haven't had Soviets to worry about for almost 20 years now. Now we just kind of don't talk to them for the sake of doing it more than anything else.

Edited May 20, 200817 yr by lostfan

Cuba belongs in the "axis of unpleasantness" or "list of moderately annoying countries." I'm no expert on this really don't see what the big deal is there. I mean, it was pretty obvious when they were allies of the Soviets but we haven't had Soviets to worry about for almost 20 years now. Now we just kind of don't talk to them for the sake of doing it more than anything else.

Agreed. I also find it hypocritical that we treat China as an equal when they still have a dictator-like regime and treat their people very poorly.

Now McCain is bashing Obama for wanting to talk to Raul Castro. First of all I didn't realize how big of a threat Cuba was to the U.S. today and what exactly has the decades long embargo accomplished that can be deemed a success?

 

 

That was a speach McCain gave in Miami. He's trying to get the Cuban vote.

 

 

 

“John McCain doesn’t understand as well as Senator Obama and I do how the Castro regime works. John McCain — like George Bush — is afraid to talk to bad guys. He feels safer pretending to talk tough by hiding from them. Unfortunately ordinary people will pay for his lack of diplomatic skill. This is the Bush-McCain foreign policy that has failed all over the world, and it has failed to promote change in Cuba. I have successfully negotiated with Castro and many like him, and I know that Barack has the judgment and experience to nudge the Cubans toward a better future. He’ll do it without needlessly harming those who just want to send money to their families and visit loved ones. He knows that you need to talk to tough customers so that you can show them that you are tougher than they are. If you want to see real results, you need to do what Barack will do — talk to the bad guys. It’s through direct negotiations that you deliver your toughest message.” – Governor Bill Richardson

Edited May 20, 200817 yr by BigSqwert

I have before, and still do, applaud Obama and others who have the balls to confront leaders we disagree with in a way other than war. If this Bush Presidency hasn't made it clear that dialogue is a better alternative than bully pulpit bullying, then I don't know what would. Saying you won't talk to leaders of Iran or other rogue states doesn't make you tough - it makes you a coward.

 

But here is the thing. Ultimately, I'm willing to bet that the number of countries that Obama and McCain are willing to "talk" with is almost identical. Probably only a very few differences. I think McCain is more of a diplomat than he is showing right now, while he is trying to drum up the conservative base. And I think Obama will be tougher thatn he's being protrayed, when he's done drumming up the anti-war liberals.

 

I agree with NSS.

 

I can sort of understand why somebody wouldn't want to talk to Iran (although I question how effective our non-diplomacy has actually been). But Cuba? Cmon now.

Ultimately, I'm willing to bet that the number of countries that Obama and McCain are willing to "talk" with is almost identical. Probably only a very few differences.

Bush "Yes Man" John Bolton tends to agree with you saying that there's a 1% difference between McCain and Obama on diplomacy.

 

Sure he argues that that 1% difference is critical but it's going to be difficult to convince the average voter that a 1% difference in policy is a huge deal.

Edited May 20, 200817 yr by BigSqwert

Bush "Yes Man" John Bolton tends to agree with you saying that there's a 1% difference between McCain and Obama on diplomacy.

 

Sure he argues that that 1% difference is critical but it's going to be difficult to convince the average voter that a 1% difference in policy is a huge deal.

And the common theme (the one reinforced by the media) from the 2000 presedential debates/campaign was that there wasn't much difference between Gore and Bush as the two desperately dove towards the center.

 

I don't think the difference is difficult to see, no matter how downplayed it may be by anyone, let alone a YESman like Bolton.

And the common theme (the one reinforced by the media) from the 2000 presedential debates/campaign was that there wasn't much difference between Gore and Bush as the two desperately dove towards the center.

And we all saw how that turned out.

Bush "Yes Man" John Bolton tends to agree with you saying that there's a 1% difference between McCain and Obama on diplomacy.

 

Sure he argues that that 1% difference is critical but it's going to be difficult to convince the average voter that a 1% difference in policy is a huge deal.

 

There is about a 1% difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama policy-wise, yet that is horrible enough that many of one's supporters have said they won't vote for the other. It seems to be a huge deal in the Democratic race.

There is about a 1% difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama policy-wise, yet that is horrible enough that many of one's supporters have said they won't vote for the other. It seems to be a huge deal in the Democratic race.

*raises hand*

 

I'm in that category, and it isn't because of policy differences. Its about tactics, personality and management style, where those two are polar opposites.

 

*raises hand*

 

I'm in that category, and it isn't because of policy differences. Its about tactics, personality and management style, where those two are polar opposites.

 

As are Bush and McCain. McCain has a history of working bipartisianly, much more so than Bush, or even Clinton and Obama. He has bucked his party on issues where he feels they are wrong, again, have you heard that from either of those three?

As are Bush and McCain. McCain has a history of working bipartisianly, much more so than Bush, or even Clinton and Obama. He has bucked his party on issues where he feels they are wrong, again, have you heard that from either of those three?

 

That was the first thing that attracted me to McCain. I just hope he hasn't had to sell his bipartisan soul to get the nomination.

As are Bush and McCain. McCain has a history of working bipartisianly, much more so than Bush, or even Clinton and Obama. He has bucked his party on issues where he feels they are wrong, again, have you heard that from either of those three?

I'm not sure where the Democratic party (or Republican for that matter) stance was on the gas tax holiday but Obama broke pretty sharply from that even though it probably would've gotten popular support, and the other 2 candidates supported it. So that would be one quasi-example. Also all 3 of them were backing a bill to cut down on pork, of course that bill was mostly symbolic anyway and ended up getting defeated badly.

 

As far as voting record, he hasn't really been in office for long enough to develop a track record of bucking the party. The only thing that's really been going on since he got voted in in '06 has been the Dems fighting Bush on the war.

That was the first thing that attracted me to McCain. I just hope he hasn't had to sell his bipartisan soul to get the nomination.

He's trying his best to walk a fine and dangerous line.

According to 29-year CIA veteran and former NSC official Bruce Riedel, Wednesday's announcement of joint peace negotiations between Israel and Syria revealed President Bush's diminished standing in Middle East affairs.

 

"Think of the irony," Riedel said. "George Bush goes to Jerusalem last week. He gives an impassioned speech about never dealing with nasty regimes [that sponsor terror]. He basically says 'don't make agreements that appease [them].' And less than a week later, the Israeli government announces it is engaged in peace negotiations with the Assad dictatorship in Syria. We're talking about a rather distasteful regime that likely had a hand in the murder of [former Lebanese Prime Minister] Rafik Hariri. I guess [israeli Prime Minister] Ehud Olmert didn't think the speech was meant for him."

 

LINK

Joe Biden has an excellent WSJ piece on this matter today.

I think that it's interesting that Bush gets no credit at all for trying to deal with North Korea by "talking"... do people ever stop and think that there are some reasons why we "talk" to some and not others? And, oh by the way, I'm sure that Iran and the US can find each other to talk, if the need should ever arise.

He's trying his best to walk a fine and dangerous line.

 

eh, every candidate goes a little off to the left or right during the primaries... then more to the middle for the general election.

I think that it's interesting that Bush gets no credit at all for trying to deal with North Korea by "talking"... do people ever stop and think that there are some reasons why we "talk" to some and not others? And, oh by the way, I'm sure that Iran and the US can find each other to talk, if the need should ever arise.

 

Votes? Public Approval Ratings?

Votes? Public Approval Ratings?

In my opinion, it's more related to interests that we're all not aware of.

 

Joe Biden has an excellent WSJ piece on this matter today.

 

instigating an optional war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan

 

LOL

 

Biden voted for the Iraq war.

 

This guys character is about as bad as his ridiculous hair plugs.

In my opinion, it's more related to interests that we're all not aware of.

 

I agree, but I really dislike that whole "we're not aware of" reasoning. Seems as if we entered into a war or two based on "stuff we do not know about" and trusting leadership.