• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scorecard so far. [If McCain would've won]

Oliver

Penultimate Amazing
Oliver
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
17,396
I agree that this will be hard to evaluate, but given the right's criticism of Obama's policies so far, let's try to compare the current developement in contrest to what probably may have happened in a McCain-Administration so far. Here are my speculations about McCains "scoreboard" so far:

1. McCain wouldn't have touched regulations to appeal to the Rebublican line. Thus, the next devastating Bubble would be right around the corner.

2. McCain wouldn't have given a speech to the Muslim World, so as a result, he wouldn't have caught the moderates attention for a different US approach to the issue. Thus, the protests in Iran might have been less dramatic concerning the opposition to Iran's leader from within - Netanjahu wouldn't have make a step towards a compromised solution.

3. McCain, while knowing about the need to reform the unsustainable Health-Care conditions, wouldn't have touched any reform that aims at any Government solution to compete with the private sector, disallows "cherry picking pre-condition policies" and/or covering the uninsured because all of that is "socialism".

4. McCain would've supported the same hard stance against Middle-Eastern resistance and thus, continiue to radicalize their views [aka: recruitment tool for AQ/Hamas&Co] and he wouldn't have had the guts to officially critizise westbank settlements.

5. Concerning the Korea-Issue, the outcome might have been the same.

6. US Allies most probably would still say: "Same ****, different clown.

7. There wouldn't have been any efforts to find a different solution concerning the Gitmo-Issue - and McCain wouldn't have made a binding commitment to get out of Iraq.

8. On the Afghanistan Issue, McCain probably would've supported more military intervention to Obama's approach.

9. Under a McCain-Administration, they may have allowed more vital companies to go down, thus having a major negative impact on the whole economic situation resulting in a longer-lasting depression.

10. ... [add your own points]
 
Last edited:
I think McCain would have been a 600% improvement on Bush, given that he was one of the few Republican candidates who criticised #43 and seemed sincere, but I doubt he would have been a very good President. The sheer insanity of picking Sarah Palin would have a made a consistent mockery of his Presidency.

But I don't know where you are getting the idea that McCain would have supported more military intervention in Afghanistan than Obama. The latter supported, and implemented, a huge increase of military effort in that region, and a much tougher line on the Afghan/Pakistan border than the former did. Besides, McCain wanted to concentrate on Iraq, limiting concentration on the Afghan issue. Where's the evidence McCain would have been more involved in Afghanistan?

Besides, If your mate Ron Paul had got elected, you can get your briefs he would have done the same as you think a hypothetical McCain Presidency would have done in 1,2,3 and 9.
 
Last edited:
I base the broader involvement in Afganistan due to current developements regarding the new rise of the Taliban and thus, the threat to Pakistans stabillity. You're right that I cannot know this for sure, but listening to the Hawk's stance, I guess McCain would choose the tougher line here.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
How? He would have been tied up in Iraq.
Click to expand...


Concerning the current resources, indeed. But that does not mean that he wouldn't have increased military spending and at the same time, promoted the need for more intervention, would he?
 
So Obama would have been ahead of McCain on both those criteria at the moment.

Besides, Obama has been much more hawkish on the Afghan/Pakistan border than McCain ever was.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
So Obama would have been ahead of McCain on both those criteria at the moment.

Besides, Obama has been much more hawkish on the Afghan/Pakistan border than McCain ever was.
Click to expand...


You may base your opinion on what McCain said during his presidential campaign. But that is like comparing Bush's campaign to what his actual policies were. In other words: While Obama get's support for liberal views concerning non-democrats and their ideology, McCain wouldn't have been able to get his base support by taking a liberal or "moderate-conservative" stance - simply because the Republican base isn't liberal whatsoever concerning new ideas in contrast to Obama's base which is ... well ... liberal/[aka:more openminded].

Concerning "Hawkishness", Obama seems to understand that peace in Afghanistan would profit in terms of national security due to stabillity in the whole region while the Hawks rather focus on Pakistan when it comes to Afghanistan, thus calling for more intervention than Obama does - which includes military expansions in spending and presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. For Obama, on the other hand, Iraq now is a secondary issue - and I tend to agree - even before that specific war started.
 
Oliver said:
1. McCain wouldn't have touched regulations to appeal to the Rebublican line.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of McCain-Feingold? The one thing McCain is not is an anti-regulation Republican.

McCain wouldn't have made a binding commitment to get out of Iraq.
Click to expand...

You're right, he wouldn't have. Because there was already one in place by the end of 2008.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Besides, If your mate Ron Paul had got elected, you can get your briefs he would have done the same as you think a hypothetical McCain Presidency would have done in 1,2,3 and 9.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you're asking for consistency, which is far more than Oliver can handle.
 
It is impossible to know what kind of president McCain would have made. One thing is clear, though: if he had followed EXACTLY THE SAME policies Obama is following about the stimulus, Guatanamo, and other issues, the same people now singing Obama's hoshannas in the media would have been apoplectic with rage at the deficit-creating, future-generations-endebting, human-rights-abusing, idiot-war-criminal-in-chief.

(To clarify, I am not claiming Obama IS an idiot war criminal -- I am claimining that if McCain had followed the same policies as Obama he would have been CALLED an idiot war criminal.)
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
1. McCain wouldn't have touched regulations to appeal to the Rebublican line. Thus, the next devastating Bubble would be right around the corner.
Click to expand...

It could be now. Regulation isn't all that different. Bubbles are a natural economic occurrence.
 
Skeptic said:
It is impossible to know what kind of president McCain would have made. One thing is clear, though: if he had followed EXACTLY THE SAME policies Obama is following about the stimulus, Guatanamo, and other issues, the same people now singing Obama's hoshannas in the media would have been apoplectic with rage at the deficit-creating, future-generations-endebting, human-rights-abusing, idiot-war-criminal-in-chief.

(To clarify, I am not claiming Obama IS an idiot war criminal -- I am claimining that if McCain had followed the same policies as Obama he would have been CALLED an idiot war criminal.)
Click to expand...

The same could easily be said about the reverse. It's called partisanship.
 
Last edited:
...US Middle East policy would not be alienating the only true democracy in the region and its only true ally--Israel--while tacitly accepting brutal totalitarian regimes that espouse annihilation of Israel and genocide of Jews, all in the interest of appearing fair and balanced.
 
McCain would have already had a heart attack from the stress, and Palin would be President.
 
Madalch said:
McCain would have already had a heart attack from the stress, and Palin would be President.
Click to expand...


Yes, of course he would.

I have a sneaking suspicion that many on the left are just counting the days until he actually does pass away, so they can so "SEE, HE WOULDN'T HAVE MADE IT A FULL TERM!!!" and other such nastiness.
 
Madalch said:
McCain would have already had a heart attack from the stress, and Palin would be President.
Click to expand...

McCain didn't have a heart attack from the "stress" of being tortured for five years as a POW, while Obama is going grey overnight from his stress. I'm not sure Biden would fare much better as president than Palin.
 
10. I doubt McCain would've issued many (if any) of the executive orders Obama has issued. In particular, I'm thinking the closing of Guantanamo orders, the review of interrogation methods and the rescinding of the Mexico City Policy (gag order wrt condoms).

I'm highly critical of Obama for maintaining the policy of extraordinary rendition, for failing to ban discriminatory hiring in organizations that receive taxpayer money under the Faith-Based Initiatives deal, and failing to get rid of don't-ask-don't-tell (or otherwise addressing gay rights issues).

Still, he's way better than McCain (who voted with Bush most of the time despite trying to present himself as something different than another Bush administration).
 
Skeptic said:
the same people now singing Obama's hoshannas in the media
Click to expand...

Whiplash said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that many on the left are just counting the days until he actually does pass away, so they can so "SEE, HE WOULDN'T HAVE MADE IT A FULL TERM!!!" and other such nastiness.
Click to expand...

It's easy to argue against an opponent if you can put words (or hosannas) in their mouths.

Actually, I think most of us who supported Obama have been openly critical of some of his decisions. (And some of us--me, for one--actually predicted that would be the case before he even took office.)

I think it's unfair (and false) to characterize Obama supporters as a monolithic mass of cheering fans.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom