Rasmussen reports that GOP Presidential nominee John McCain has a 61% favorable rating amongst NJ voters, and that he is in a statistical dead heat both with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the presidency.
The Legacy of Thomas Lifson
1 day ago
Posts
6 comments:
I have said this before, he's a true American hero. And its not surprising that his favorables are so hi. He's not the typical Republican...at least, to me he's not. He's willing to work with the Democrats and I think that this is the way to get real things done.
If only he hadn't talked about being in Iraq for a hundred years. I bet his favorables would have been even higher. That is a real sticking point for me, and I'm sure for a lot of people that would have voted for him...if only....
Anyway, I just hope this is not your typical election cycle with more negative ads than positive. That would be sad to see. I would not feel good if anyone started bashing him after what he's been through for this country. And the same goes for the other side. I don't think we need to have anything like that now since the issues are fairly right down the center. Obama and Clinton will get us out of this quagmire, and McCain will keep us there for a hundred years.
That's big.
Rick,
Stop taking the quote out of context, anybody with a sense of logic knows what he meant. Despite how much Dems think voters lack logic, McCain's high approval rating shows otherwise.
And if you didn't know what he meant, look at the whole quote again and stop watching youtube.
This is going to be a negative campaign, but I know Sen. McCain will keep it respectful. We're talking about the same guy who openly criticized the Swift Boat ads and called on them to stop. Too bad the special interest groups will dominate the airwaves..on both sides. So far though, I've only seen the liberal ones (MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO, VoteVets or whatever partnership)
I don't think I'm the only one that sees this as wrong Eric....isn't Ron Paul considered a Republican?
Press Release Source: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
Ron Paul: McCain's Reckless '100 years in Iraq' Comment Endangers Americans
Monday January 7, 2:54 pm ET
ARLINGTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In response to John McCain’s comment at a recent town hall event that he would be fine with keeping American troops in Iraq for 100 – or even 1 million years – Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement: "John McCain's statement in favor of keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years or longer puts him out of sync with the majority of Americans, who want our troops to come home. Further, his comments recklessly put America at risk as such a statement will likely serve as a recruiting tool for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who appeal to radicals and incite violence against Americans by claiming that the US desires to occupy the Middle East indefinitely.
"It is time to act in the true national security interest of the United States and begin withdrawal from Iraq and the rest of the Middle East immediately. Americans will be far safer under a pro-America foreign policy that seeks to end the dangerous idea that the US should be the policeman of the world.
"Further, the financial costs of keeping troops in Iraq for a century would be massive - in addition to the steep price in American lives. If John McCain really wants such a long term presence, he needs to level with the American people and tell them that his policy means we will not be able to fulfill our obligations here at home."
Or, maybe its just you trying to put a spin on a wrongly worded answer.
Oh yeah, one more thing...I have never seen the You Tube video...I read about what he said. I'm a big fan of newspapers...they seem to give more of the whole picture.
Rick,
They are taking the quote out of context as well.
He meant we'd be in Iraq in a much more limited capacity, like we are in other countries around the world (Korea is an example). He mentioned it was about casualties as well.
Having a prescence in a country is much different from how many troops are in Iraq right now, McCain meant 100 years as a prescence, not at the same level now.
Unfortunately for him, the quote got taken out of context and it wasn't great wording.
Eric, I understood what he meant. That doesn't make it right. South Korea has adapted to a psuedo American way of life, as has Japan. Nato was needed after the second world war, but its not needed too much now, and the Euro contries can handle any situation. We don't need to be there either.
Does anyone really think that we could frame an Arab nation into a small version of the US. Does anyone really think that the Iraqis will put up with a military presence and NOT continue with a guerilla war? I certainly don't. I think that as long as we are there, we will be taking casualties. That is not acceptable to me, and hopefully, to a majority of Americans.
Post a Comment