Infinite Wisdom

McCain and Obama Not Forthright About Nation's Challenges After Bush

Facts can often be inconvenient, unless you happen to be John McCain or Barack Obama in which case facts can be ignored.  In the case of the overtly pandering candidates, their rhetoric suggest they are oblivious to reality. Personally, I'm appalled at the lack of candor by the two major candidates.  They both seem to be engaged in what can only be descibed as...fuzzy math. One wonders in the case of McCain where the straight talk has disappeared to.    And with Obama, the oratory is top-notch, but the substance is lacking and he is almost certainly promising too much.  The next President will be faced with some daunting challenges, but neither McCain nor Obama give the impression they have what it takes to stare down the special interests and make tough choices even if politically unpopular.

In recent days, John McCain has announced his intent to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term.  Reestablishing some fiscal responsiblity in Washington is a laudable goal, but a quick glance at the McCain agenda suggests a balanced budget under McCain would be next to impossible to achieve.  This is because McCain asserts he can get to a balanced budget by cutting wasteful government spending.  The problem for McCain in his quest to curb spending is he won't have a friendly Congress to deal with.  Thus, McCain won't get all the spending cuts through Congress he will seek, so it is just about certain he'll come up short in getting to a balanced budget by the end of his first term.  If McCain were a true deficit hawk, he wouldn't discount the possibility of hiking taxes so revenue meets expenses.  Instead, McCain is proposing more tax cuts which if enacted will only deepen the disparity between incoming revenue and outgoing expenses(and no the economy won't grow fast enough from another round of tax cuts to make up the difference).  He refuses to consider a reduction in the bloated and wasteful military budget, and he is committed to a long term presence by American troops in Iraq.  Put it all together, and McCain's promise of a balanced budget at the end of his first term shouldn't be taken too seriously.  

As for Obama, lofty aims will likely be constrained by painful realities.  With the nation drowning in debt, more spending will exacerbate the budget deficit.   And since Obama isn't seeking to cut the military budget, he'll be hard-pressed to do everything he wants and not enlarge the budget deficit.  To avoid a larger budget deficit which will put greater pressure on the weakened American dollar, Obama will probably have to scale back his agenda some even if he is successful in raising taxes on the affluent.  As much as he may want to ignore the budget deficit, it isn't going away and it will complicate Obama's efforts to enact reform.

Bush is leaving behind a sea of debt that the next President will have to address.   Maybe Ross Perot has to reenter the political arena before the current candidates are compelled to face this issue forthrightly.

McCain Campaign Listless and Aimless So Far

Can someone succinctly explain to me why John McCain is running for President?  Because it would appear Senator McCain isn't really sure himself.  McCain isn't advocating a gutting of the Bush agenda, yet he knows if he can't distance himself from Bush, he is toast.  Paralyzed by an inflexible ideology of tax cuts mixed with militarism, McCain seems out of touch and unaware of the pervasive angst that has gripped many of the country's citizens.  McCain is clinging to the mantra that jihadists are this country's biggest threat, yet it is increasingly becoming a hard sell when Americans are increasingly uneasy about an economy teetering on recession(or worse).   So far the McCain campaign has been listless and aimless.  It can't decide how far to distance itself from Bush, and if there is an overall theme to the McCain campaign, it isn't very apparent.  Much of the reason McCain survived his near-death experience during the primary season is because it was perceived he might be the only Republican Presidential candidate who could avert what has looked like almost certain defeat for the GOP.  Because the media generally loves McCain, he gets pretty favorable press coverage.  Yet, even positive press can't completely camouflage the fact that as of right now McCain isn't giving voters a persuasive reason to vote for him, which is a rather fatal flaw.

Americans are anxious because of a shaky economy.  One would think the creaky economy would spur McCain to offer a more bold agenda.  Yet, here he is running on his impressive resume devoid of a serious plan that will energize the economy.  On too many issues, McCain is just too timid for his own good.  He has suggested he'll tackle global warming, but just recently came out in support of increasing off-shore drilling.  Talk about mixed messages.  And where is the reform in McCain's agenda that Americans seem to be clamoring for?  In regards to the Bush tax cuts, McCain wants to make them permanent even though that would seem unwise considering his apparent fascination with winning the Iraq war.  Remember when the Republican Party stood for fiscal responsibility?  I guess that is now an antiquated relic of a distant era, because endless war without sufficient revenue will mean the federal government will remain mired in debt.  If Bush were running, he'd be pushing for the tax cuts to be made permanent and for the American people to remain patient so that victory in Iraq can be achieved.  How this differs one iota from McCain is a mystery to me. 

Can McCain win?  Maybe, though the opening weeks of the general campaign have been anything but a resounding success for the Arizona Senator.   One gets the feeling McCain's campaign better invent a compelling reason for Americans to pick him over Obama if he doesn't want to be steamrolled in November.

Tis the Silly Season

After the hotly contested primary season, the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain are now preparing for the general election fight.  With McCain clinching his party's nomination way before Obama, he had some time to retool his campaign and hone his message before Obama could turn his attention to the general election.  Somewhat surprisingly, the extra time McCain has had hasn't seemed to be that much help.  He hasn't established much of an overall theme to his campaign, and he hasn't articulated a well-defined message.  Though McCain has frequently been categorized as a maverick, many voters still see his candidacy as a continuation of the Bush years.  To most, that would be as unwelcome as a medical test revealing the existence of lyme disease.  As for Obama, he has shown a centrist proclivity in recent weeks that was absent during the primaries.  While pivoting to the center may be precisely what Obama needs to do, his move to the center has been more jarring than graceful.  The campaigning by both camps in recent days suggests we are very much in the midst of the silly season before the more serious campaigning that will ultimately decide which of the two major party candidates will be victorious in November.

How do we know this is the silly season?  Because one of the main topics lately has been whether Obama is sufficiently patriotic to be President.  Amid a shaky economy that is either in recession or pretty darn close, it is hard to believe that this election will turn on whether Obama is perceived to be patriotic enough to one day paint his face red, white, and blue.  This is the type of idle chatter that comes along during the summer of an election year.  During the silly season, the issues are tucked away out of sight, so the chattering classes can focus on the truly important stuff like the rate Obama pays on his mortgage.  The mortgage issue is such complete hooey, I don't know how pundits talk about this with a straight face.   Of course, Obama got a good deal.  People with money always do.  On a slightly more serious note, an Obama supporter(Wesley Clark) asserted this week that although McCain may be a hero for his military service in Vietnam and his five years spent as a POW, that doesn't qualify as relevant experience for someone aspiring to be President.  Though there is at least a kernel of truth in his assertion, Clark must have been relieved he wouldn't have to describe the nature of Obama's relevant experience. The swipe at McCain gave the windbags of cable news something to bloviate about, but this isn't the type of strike I envision the Obama campaign using once things get serious.  And what would the inane season of early summer of an election year be without the repeated claims McCain is so hot-tempered he borders on the deranged?  McCain may have a tendency to get mad, but I don't think I'm being bold in predicting that McCain's temper won't be a major issue in the election. The silliness of the season is essentially an acknowledgment by the politicians and the pundits that what Americans are most focused on right now is their summer vacation plans(for those who can afford to get away) and/or the soaring price of gasoline and not who they'll be voting for in November.  Thus we are treated to the silly season of politics as the summer heat builds, but inevitably Americans will start paying more attention in eight weeks, and consequently that will foster more purposeful and spirited campaigning.

Hillary Clinton a Bad Choice for VP

With Barack Obama just about assured to win the Democratic Presidential nomination, attention is turning to whom he'll select as his running mate.  Because he might sense a need to assuage the hurt feelings of women who enthusiastically backed Hillary Clinton, Obama may choose the NY Senator to join him on the ticket.  Though at first glance choosing Clinton for the VP slot might seem to make sense, Obama and his team should not overlook persuasive reasons to spurn Clinton and select someone else.

As the primary season has dragged on, it has become evident a weakenss of Obama is his inability to connect with poorer white voters.  His overwhelming losses in Kentucky and West Virginia have glaringly exposed this weakness.  Thus, it isn't unreasonable to conclude Obama should pair up with Clinton in an attempt to mitigate his chief weakness.  Yet, the presence of Clinton on the ticket in no way ensures he'll capture the white blue collar vote.  This is primarily because most voters will choose between the two Presidential candidates on their merits not because of their Vice Presidential selection.  While the media makes a big deal about the VP choice, it has traditionally not been much of a factor in the race unless the VP candidate has a history of being emotionally unstable or a scandal is uncovered.  In other words, a VP selection won't account for winning usually, but a bad choice could derail a campaign.

The main problem with Obama picking his rival for the Vice Presidential slot is it undermines the very essence of his candidacy.  Obama is the likely nominee today because he has convinced enough primary voters he is a new kind of politician who will seek to improve the toxic political environment in Washington.  Because of how polarizing Clinton is, she'd be a liability if Obama really wants to bring this country together.  Also, Obama has gotten far because he's seen as a fresh face that can make a fresh start.  Putting Clinton on the ticket would damage this image Obama's campaign team has meticulously constructed during the primary season.  If Obama wants to be seen primarily as an agent for change and a clear break from the past, then why pick Clinton who may get points for resiliency but can't alter the fact that she is inextricably linked to the past?

While Clinton has shown she is as tough as nails on the campaign trail, she is poorly positioned to help Obama overcome his lack of foreign policy experience.  Though Clinton would strongly disagree, her years as First Lady shouldn't and won't be seen as vast foreign policy experience.  It would be best for Obama to choose someone who is seen as a foreign policy maven, and if this premise is accepted then this would essentially disqualify Clinton.

And what about the need to salve the broken hearts of women who have enthusiastically backed Clinton during the primaries?  There is no doubt Obama needs the votes of women to win.  But, he has several months to win them over.  And I don't see a majority of women flocking in droves to support McCain even if many are disappointed the female candidate fell short.  The bigger concern is a large bloc of female voters don't trek to the polls at all.  Though this is a valid concern after a hard-fought passionate primary season, the antipathy felt towards Bush and the GOP will probably trump any left over grudge women might still have in November because Clinton isn't on the ticket.  The women vote should be there for Obama whether Clinton is his running mate or not.

The most compelling reason to resist putting Clinton on the ticket is what it would mean if Obama were to prevail.  Hillary Clinton doesn't appear to be a person who is a good team player.  With Bill Clinton by her side, there will be too many egos to manage.  The media might love having as controversial a figure as Hillary Clinton in the VP role, but it will be a distraction for Obama that would have many minuses and few pluses.  Even if an argument can be made that Clinton could help Obama win(though I don't buy it), Obama ought to consider how the cohesiveness of his administration might be negatively impacted by having Clinton as VP.  Though the media touts the "dream ticket", Obama would probably rue the day he chose someone who is as nakedly ambitious as Hillary Clinton.

It has been a hard-fought primary.  Hillary Clinton has received positive press for her tenacity as she has soldiered on against increasingly tall odds.  Because she will almost certainly come up a little short in the nomination battle, there are those who'd argue she should be awarded the VP slot.  I couldn't disagree more.  There are enough drawbacks to the selection of Clinton as VP that Obama would be foolish to grant her a spot on the ticket.  The "dream ticket" might be the preferred outcome for the media(and maybe the Clintons too), but it would likely be a nightmarish scenario for Barack Obama.

The Overhyped Iran Threat

For McCain and the Republican Party, the new bogeyman is Iran.  It is now clear McCain(though this comes as no surprise) will attempt to hammer Obama on his lack of foreign policy experience.  That is certainly a good ploy for the Arizona Senator, because it diverts attention away from surging gas prices and a shaky economy.  According to McCain, Barack Obama is demonstrating his naivete by underappreciating the threat posed by Iran.  What should worry voters more than Obama's inexperience is McCain's evident miliaristic impulses.   

Does McCain really believe Iran represents a serious threat for America?   If he does, his judgment must be questioned.  If containment worked on the Soviet Union, why wouldn't it work with Iran which has only a population of seventy million and is surrounded by hostile forces?  Iran is in no position to attack anyone and hasn't for centuries.  Iran is at most a regional power that couldn't plausibly take on Israel, much less pick a fight with America.  One must wonder why America is so preoccupied with Iran, when its annual military spending is at most 1% of what America devotes to military spending.  Irresponsibly, there are those who can't talk about Iran without tossing in a reference to the once feared Soviet Union.  The idea that Iran poses as serious a threat as the Soviet Union once did is absurd.   There is no compelling reason to attack Iran except in the overactive imaginations of John McCain and other war enthusiasts.

If we are to accept the premise that launching an attack on Iran would be sheer madness, then the bellicose words from McCain are worrisome.  He seems too enamored with military might, when diplomacy must be given a chance.  Unless the Iranian regime is seeking its demise, it will not militarily challenge the US.  Shouldn't we spurn a candidate who seems all too ready to utilize military force when it is clearly unnecessary?

So even if McCain isn't about to initiate war with Iran, he stands to gain if he can convince Americans that Iran is a serious threat.  If McCain is successful in overhyping the threat posed by Iran and by doing so making Americans fearful, his chances to win improve.  To have a chance to prevail, McCain will have to make this another election focusing on terrorism and foreign entanglements.    Given his unremarkable domestic agenda, he wouldn't seem to stand a chance to win if when voters step into the voting booth they are thinking about the shaky economy.  Even if McCain's emphasis on Iran elicits a bit of discomfort from voters, discussing that issue is much better for him than getting dragged into a serious discussion about the domestic needs of the country.

The GOP needs to demonize Iran so that national security is a major issue in the campaign.  If the American people fall for this ruse, they'll unwisely elect another hawkish President who will be ill-suited to repair the frayed relations with our allies, and might imprudently stumble into another costly war this country simply can't afford. 

McCain's Muddled Message

There is little doubt the political climate this year isn't favorable for the Republicans.  It is widely expected that barring some unforseen event which triggers a major change in the mood of the electorate the Republicans will have a diminished presence in Congress next year.   Despite the unfavorable political winds, John McCain's candidacy gives the Republicans hope they can retain control of the White House.  What is undeniable about McCain is he has an appealing life story.   Also, he has the reputation of being a maverick, which the media loves.  And unlike the probable Democratic nominee Barack Obama, he can tout years of experience as a US Senator.  McCain does appear to have a legitimate shot to win in the fall, but he'll have to overcome the toxic Republican brand.  McCain and his team will also have to construct and convey a theme that will convince voters McCain isn't just someone with a compelling biography.  

While McCain has a clear advanatage over Obama in the experience department, I would argue Obama has a more thoroughly developed message to convey to voters.  Obama is promising to bring significant change, which most Americans are craving.  The clear message to voters is if they want change, Obama is their candidate.  Now what about McCain?  His message to voters has so far been rather muddled.  McCain doesn't seem to know if he is a reformer or a defender of the status quo.   It would appear McCain is trying to walk a tightrope where he distances himself enough from Bush so voters will perceive him to be someone offering a fresh start, but without a set of bold initiatives that would symbolize a clear break from the Bush years and be threatening to the Conservative base.  McCain's rhetoric suggests there will be little change in Iraq policy or the zealous focus on tax cuts if he were to be elected President.  That doesn't sound much like change.  I'd argue McCain needs to employ a retooled message with a more identifiable theme for the fall campaign, if he wants to win.  Because absent that, he is just a senior member of a discredited political party with an agenda too timid to make much difference.   And if that is how voters perceive McCain, he'll have to rely on Obama comitting political suicide to win. 

Obama an Elitist?

A few weeks ago in San Francisco, Obama described small town people as "bitter", and made the assertion that they are so frustrated by their government's unresponsiveness "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations".   These comments have caused a firestorm of criticism directed at Obama because his remarks about small town folk, many assert, demonstrate that Obama is an elitist who is out of touch with ordinary Americans living in small principalities in the nation's heartland.  Assuming Obama is the Democratic nominee, the charge he is an elitist will resurface since the Republican Party will have little choice but to tear Obama down since what McCain is peddling most Americans don't want.

Do I have to waste the time to convey how ridiculous it is to assert Obama is more of an elitist than Hillary Clinton or John McCain?  Obama's mistake seems to be his willingness to occasionally speak his mind.  This would appear to compare favorably to Senator Clinton who seems to be motivated only by her quest to attain power.  And her law degree obtained at Yale would suggest she isn't any less of an elitist than Obama.  In the case of McCain, his two decades in the debate club for millionaires has almost certainly resulted in a lost connection with ordinary people.  If Obama can be called an elitist because of his recent controversial comments that were an attempt to discuss candidly the frustrations many small town people feel, then what is the appropriate term for someone like McCain who hardly acknowledges the struggles of the poor and powerless at all?  What is truly perverse is that by largely avoiding any discussion regarding the plight of poor Americans, McCain will never have to spend time defending himself against charges he is an elitist.

Though both Kerry and Bush attended Yale, Kerry was the one who was defined as an insufferable elitist.  George W. Bush was seemingly re-elected because apparently Americans felt more comfortable with him than his Massachusetts rival.  It should be noted that while Bush may have been perceived as an ordinary guy, his policies have decidedly favored the already affluent and the well-connected.  As the economic conditions have soured early this year, Bush has stubbornly refused to advocate an extension of unemployment benefits.  During his tenure, the ranks of those without health insurance have increased.  Also, the American dream has become increasingly difficult to attain as college costs have soared.  Instead of facing these challenges, Bush has stuck to a rigid platform of cutting taxes that predominantly benefits the wealthy.  If this is a President who cares about the poor and middle class, he has a funny way of showing it.

Don't be fooled by those who accuse Obama of being an elitist.  Because it is these same people who don't care if the next President does anything to lift up those Americans who are falling further behind with each passing day.

Candor is not Clinton's Strong Suit

It hasn't just been a rash of bad policies mixed with callous indiference that has been so dismaying during the Bush years.  What really sets the Bush era apart is a seemingly never ending parade of dubious statements by government officials that have done more to obfuscate than to illuminate.  In the months preceding the Iraq invasion, Bush and his team marched to war offering justifications that buried the truth beneath a wave of lies and misstatements.  Though all governments stretch the truth, Bush has elevated prevarication to an art form.  Under Bush, communication from the White House has been utterly unreliable.  So for the last seven years, it is fair to say the American people have been willfully misled by the President and others, while the media has largely looked the other way.  Thus, a commitment to tell the truth would seem to be something to look for in a successor to Bush, which is a compelling reason to spurn Hillary Clinton.

During the weeks preceding the Ohio Primary vote, Hillary Clinton asserted she had been a tacit opponent of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement when it was signed into law by her husband.  She made this claim despite previous statements that she had made in support of the trade agreeement.  Because Ohio has been rudely treated by NAFTA and she desperately needed to win, Clinton was compelled to rewrite history and make the dubious claim she had grave doubts about NAFTA when it was enacted.  Clinton's claim she has always been an opponent of NAFTA isn't some small detail she got wrong during the course of a campaign.  It is a rather audacious falsehood that is easily debunked, yet she proceeded to lie anyway.  Clinton might have chosen a different tactic in explaining her position on NAFTA by suggesting that in witnessing the adverse effects of NAFTA, she no longer supports the agreement in its present form.  But Clinton apparently calculated being against NAFTA from the beginning would play better in Ohio, so she opted to lie. 

In an attempt to draw a contrast with Obama, Clinton has asserted she is ready to be President on day one because of thirty five years of experience.  That during much of those years she was first lady of Arkansas and the nation suggests her claims of vast experience are a bit shaky.  To buttress her claims she has relevant experience, she had made the claim that a trip she made to Bosnia while first lady was fraught with peril.  Clinton's story was quickly refuted by any number of news sources.  Also, Senator Clinton has made it sound like she played an important role in establishing peace in Northern Ireland.  Though this claim isn't as easily refuted as her fib regarding what she claimed was a dangerous trip to Bosnia, there is little doubt in my mind given the remarks of others that she wasn't as instrumental in bringing peace to Northern Ireland as she and her campaign has implied.  Moreover, her explanation of her vote in favor of the authorization to use military force against Iraq is patently absurd.  She might want to dupe people into believing her vote was made to force Saddam to accept weapons inspectors back into the country, but it is hard to believe a smart person like herself couldn't tell that Bush was marching to war regardless of what he said publicly.  Clinton's proclivity to stretch the truth should raise alarms especially after years of dishonesty from the current administration.

It shouldn't be too much to ask for the next President to be at least a bit more honest than the current President.  And because Clinton has demonstrated candor is not her strong suit, she isn't the right person to lead the country after Bush.

Wrong on the Issues and Wrong for the Country

McCain has built a reputation of being a maverick with an independent streak.  His candidacy nearly died after he supported immigration legislation that was loudly criticized by Conservatives.  He also has acknowledged the potential dangers of global warming, when most Conservatives largely avoid the topic.  And McCain ought to be commended for consistently rejecting the administration's appalling position on the treatment of detainees.  Thus, it can't be said McCain is or has been wrong on all the issues.  But,  it is my strong view he is wrong on enough issues that the American people would be foolish to entrust the Presidency with the Arizona Senator.

At a time when an unpopular conflict rages, how could McCain with his unrepentant hawkishness be the sensible choice for President?  What is worrisome about McCain is how certain he is that Bush's surge in Iraq is working.  After years of a bloody and brutal occupation in Iraq, along comes McCain who seems ready to wage battle in Iraq with at least much vigor as the current clueless Oval Office occupant.  With McCain, an exit strategy won't even be considered and the American people will be subjected to an endless array of empty platitudes asserting that victory in Iraq(whatever that means) is not only attainable but essential.   If McCain wins the election, American troops will almost certainly still be in Iraq in 2012.  This may be music to the ears of war profiteers, but a commitment to keep American troops in Iraq indefinitely is a policy voters should reject in droves.

McCain's position on Iraq is misguided though probably not dangerous.  The same can't be said for his overall hawkish stance.  The US needs in its next President someone committed to diplomatic resolutions to international disputes after the overtly militaristic proclivities of the current administration.  This would help repair the frayed relations the US has with its allies after Bush's reckless invasion of Iraq.  And it is hard to understand why Americans would want an overly miltaristic individual like McCain as President when the simmering feud with Iran remains unresolved(let's assume Bush leaves office without striking Iran).  I have little confidence McCain will go the extra mile to avoid a shooting war with Iran, and because such an occurrence would inevitably lead to disastrous consequences, the sensible action would be to vote for someone else.

In regards to foreign matters, McCain is dangerous.   On domestic policy, he is just plain inept.  The still unfolding subprime mortgage mess screams for a healthy dose of regulation, yet McCain seems ready to adhere to the same rigid market fundamentalism that set the stage for the crisis.  At a time when the federal budget is running a deficit and the US is involved in foreign entanglements, it is irresponsible to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent.  Yet, there is McCain defying logic by calling for an extension of the Bush tax cuts, even though he did not support the initial enactment of the tax cuts because at the time he claimed that the tax breaks were too heavily tilted to the affluent to merit his support.  Both the poverty rate and the number of Americans without health insurance have risen during the Bush years.  If McCain has any plan to address these issues, he isn't talking.  Though McCain won't admit it, his domestic agenda can be summarized rather neatly as more of the same.  With McCain as President, Americans shouldn't expect too many initiatives to be enacted that would help the beleaguered middle class or elevate the poor.  A McCain Presidency will mean a continuation of failed policies that have led to anemic job growth, stagnant wages(except for those at the top), decaying infrastructure, and an exploding wealth gap.   

In 2004, Americans re-elected Bush despite a pervasive feeling the country was headed in the wrong direction.  Can McCain instill enough fear in the public to steal a win for the GOP despite his unpopular stance on Iraq, his general hawkishness, and a domestic agenda marked by timidity and inaction?   McCain is wrong on the issues, and wrong for the country.

The Case Against John McCain

As the Democrats remain mired in a close struggle for the party's nomination, John McCain is sitting pretty these days.  McCain's greatest problem at the moment is seemingly not having a specific target to attack.  After a briefly competitive battle, McCain has the luxury of acting presidential by touring foreign countries while Obama's been forced to make a speech discussing race in an attempt to stanch criticism regarding his association with his church's pastor who has a history of making statements that many would consider inappropriate and vile.  It is hard to imagine how things could have turned out better for John McCain, as he largely stays above the fray as the Democrats pummel one another.  Though one would hope and maybe even expect McCain to be a better President than the current Oval Office occupant, it is troubling that McCain isn't even pretending to favor a radical change in Bush's overly aggressive foreign policy.  Because of his hawkish stance, McCain is a dangerous choice for President.

If McCain's rhetoric is to be believed, he will prosecute the Iraq war with as much vigor as Bush.  According to McCain, it is a mistake to leave Iraq without securing victory.  McCain's words suggest he is in favor of maintaining a large American troop presence in Iraq indefinitely.  This not only does not align with the desires of a majority of Americans, it is also a profoundly foolish position to have.  Conspicuously absent from McCain's rhetoric is any mention of how long it will take to successfully complete the ill-defined mission in Iraq.  Americans threw their support to the Democrats in the Congressional elections of 2006 in a stinging rebuke to Bush's Iraq strategy.  So it would seem illogical for the same electorate to then turn around two years later and elect a man who has been a stalwart supporter of the Iraq occupation and vociferously backed Bush's surge.   With McCain as President, there is every reason to believe there will still be a large American troop presence in Iraq until at least 2013.  Insistent on achieving victory, it is reasonable to conclude McCain may pursue an intensification of the aerial bombadment of Iraq that won't likely produce anything resembling victory though it will surely mete out more punishment to the already war weary Iraqi people.  Can anyone think of a better reason to spurn McCain?

And if McCain's ardent support of the Iraq mission isn't enough to dissuade voters from supporting him, then his overall hawkish stance should make voters reconsider.  Because of his hawkish tendencies, one wonders if McCain will resist the temptation to initiate a catastrophic war with Iran instead of seeking a diplomatic solution.   War with Iran would likely be disastrous, so common sense would suggest that McCain would avoid war with Iran.   Does McCain accept the prudent premise that war should be launched only as a last resort to eliminate a real potential threat?  His stint as a prisoner of war would suggest he understands the gravity of the decision to initiate war, but McCain's overall hawkish proclivity may mean he'd favor the instrument of war to deal with international crises when other solutions are possible.  Because I can envision McCain launching an unnecessary war,  I could never support him.

McCain hasn't been shy in expressing his hawkish proclivity during the primary season.  Thus, it is reasonable to ask whether he will strive to solve international disputes with good old-fashioned diplomacy or employ America's fearsome military might too readily.  It is possible McCain's hawkish words are only being expressed to evoke passion with Conservatives.  But after Bush, isn't it time for the US to concentrate on something other than terrorism and endless war?