McCain: Collaborate more with allies

AP on Yahoo ^ | 3/26/08 | Liz Sidoti - ap

[calcowgirl]

Here is a link to the video of his speech via Cspan (RealPlayer)

rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/c08/c08_032608_mccain.rm

[trenton1776]

Sorry! My mistake. After all, I’m just human.

[NeoCaveman]

I don’t think I could take anymore.

[Finny]

Elections nearly always come down to voting for the lesser of two evils -- that's the way it is; there's no more "fair" or "unfair" to it than there is fair or unfair to high tide and snow. It is just simply a fact of life.

The trick is identifying WHICH is the lesser of two evils. People willing to vote for McCain because they think he's "the lesser of two evils" are wrong to identify him as such. Pitted against either Hillary or Obama, he is the GREATER of the two evils.

It's true: McCain's version of Liberalism in the form of acceptance of "global warming" hoax, national health care, etc., would accrue terrific damage to the Republican party and hence to any hope for voters searching for an alternative to intrusive government liberalism. Likewise, a McCain presidency would do NOTHING NADA ZERO ZILCH to reveal the bankuptcy of the principles that guarantee failure of Democrat policies; worse, it would shield the Democrat party from being identifed as the rightful culprit of failed, stupid policies. McCain would be the GREATER of two evils.

Hillary or Obama would be the LESSER of two evils compared to McCain because the damage they would do would be temporary and do a lot of harm to the morale of the Democrat party, the Democrat party would get the blame, and Republicans would probably pick up a lot of seats in Congress next time around.

Please understand: McCain IS the greater of two evils. Thinking that just because he's a Republican makes him the lesser of two evils, is a fallacy that we Republican Californians learned the hard way when we stupidly voted for Schwarzenegger out of belief in the same myth. Cruz Bustamonte, uber-Raza-Liberal that he is, would have been worse short-term, but better in the long term. If I had it to do over again, I'd let Bustamonte win. I've learned my lesson and will do what I can now to warn Republicans not to make the same mistake with McCain that we did with Schwarzenegger: BE CAREFUL that you correctly identify the lesser of two evils before voting for it.

[Finny]

Yep. Unless he has a truly small-government conservative VP, McCain will be the GREATER of two evils come the presidential eleciton. Republicans who vote for him thinking he's the lesser of two evils just because he's got an R behind his name, very much mistake the matter. Certainly Hillary, and likely Obama, as president would be lousy for the U.S. short-term but long-term would be GREAT for limited government conservatism and hence the Republican party, and hence the future of American freedom and prosperity. They would reveal the Democrat party and its Intrusive Government tenets (that McCain and Romney buy into wholeheartedly, by the way) as bankrupt and destructive.

A McCain presidency would be lousy for the U.S. AND for the Republican party and it would SHIELD the Democrat party from being exposed for its utter bankruptcy of ideas. At least there's a decided up-side to an Obama or Hillary presidency. There is ZERO such thing with a McCain presidency.

[dforest]

Olive Oyl is what McCain takes each day to keep his bowels clear for the Democrat collusion.

[PA-RIVER]

When McCain talks, he sounds like a boxer that got whacked upside the head one time too many.

I think they literally beat his brains in when he was a prisoner.

We are screwed .... The world is screwed.

[travlnmn41]

>>Watch McCain link this to “cooperation on climate change” a.k.a. carbon credit trading.<<
That’s when the sh*t is really going to hit the fan! As with his Shamnesty plan, he’ll find out the hard way how out of touch he is.