Cato Institute: McCain worse than bush

[bascule]

...on foreign policy, anyway:

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9689

 

In the end, both candidates have significant flaws in their foreign policy ideas. Yet McCain's approach seems likely to amplify and repeat the errors of the Bush administration. A President McCain would promise more provocation, more intervention, and more strain on the military, the budget, and the country.

 

I'm something of a fan of the Cato institute, more on social than economic issues, so I suppose this doesn't come as a surprise to me. However, the Cato institute is generally regarded as being conservative-leaning, and while the article certainly criticizes Obama, it was interesting to see the final judgment was that Obama is better than McCain.

 

This was also interesting:

 

Republican John McCain, with his long stint in national politics, has attempted to frame the foreign policy issue around the question of experience. But evaluating McCain's foreign policy positions reveals a candidate consistently dedicated to confrontation, threats, and the use of military power.

 

It's nice to see the idea that more experience isn't always better acknowledged. McCain may have more experience, but that doesn't necessarily make him the better candidate.

[jackson33]

I tend to agree with the idea, McCain would continue the same 'Foreign Policy' as GWB. Frankly IMO there has been much difference in the past 30 years or back to Carter. I would suggest the failures of the Bush policy, had more to do with trial and error where most mistakes have already been made. The first major error was said to be insufficient force when going into Iraq, which McCain basically pushed...

 

Most elected presidents, do not come from the diplomatic profession, but all of them have access to the brightest and most experienced in many areas and can draw on them for their advisor's and of course 'Secretary of State' who does represent the Administration around the world. As with Clinton (Albright), Obama would likely choose someone that he could control or has similar uneducated opinions IMO. McCain on the other hand has met many foreign dignitaries, has a military education, knows a good many qualified people and shows no signs of fearing others opinions.

[iNow]

McCain on the other hand has met many foreign dignitaries, has a military education, knows a good many qualified people and shows no signs of fearing others opinions.

 

Interesting your choice of the word "fear." FWICT, McCain also shows little or no signs of listening to others opinions.

 

I believe FRONTLINE touched on that very issue here, where members of the McCain campaign indicated their inability to impact his decisions since his mind is so often already made up and he's so stubborn to opposing viewpoint once it is.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/

[Mr Skeptic]

That's the downside of being a maverick. Sometimes other people have good ideas too!

[jackson33]

McCain made his 'surge' policy based on opinions of generals on the field. He had no combat experience or pretended to. No decision is worth more than the acceptance of opinions of others or a discussion of those knowledgeable. GWB error was accepting the idea, the people would embrace an overthrow of Saddam, probably from Powell and/or Chaney, neither understanding the sectarian or the revenge problems. Beyond this the policy has been successful, which credit must go to Bush, not McCain.

 

My point regardless, McCain has listened, has based actions based on procedure or codes of conduct and places his view of American Interest ahead of his own. Whether amnesty, education, Iraq or Afghanistan and would be a LISTENER to advise, where I feel Obama is concerned primarily with Obama. If this had been McCain's philosophy, he would have died in Vietnam years ago, or selling cars in Florida.

[iNow]

My point regardless, McCain has listened, has based actions based on procedure or codes of conduct and places his view of American Interest ahead of his own. Whether amnesty, education, Iraq or Afghanistan and would be a LISTENER to advise, where I feel Obama is concerned primarily with Obama.

 

Care to cite the specific examples which have led you to this conclusion regarding what does and does not concern Obama? Also, simply stating that McCain HAS listened doesn't mean this is one of his strong suits. As my link indicates, people very close to him have suggested very much the opposite.

[jackson33]

About three years ago 'Illegal Immigration' raised its ugly head as a issue for National Concern. Bush, McCain and others realized something needed to be done and the Democratic viewpoint already well known. McCain led a few Republicans in a compromise with the loyal opposition forming what ended up being a failed 'Immigration Reform Act'.

It would be true he did not listen very well to the needs of his party, but was certainly listening to the needs of the country and a somewhat realistic approach with both party ideology. In Congress there is no real 'go it alone' mentality and McCain learned this years ago. Might add the political dreaded 'flip/flop' is a result of listening, whether to the public or others.

 

I am aware of McCain's passions on some issues. The 'surge' was one of many he refused to listen to 'public opinion' preferring those generals involved. Being passionate about certain issues IMO is required to lead a society. Frankly whether I agree or not is of no importance. What is important at the 'National Level' is that International leaders know when he speaks, he is going to follow those words. You can't lead and ride the fence at the same time.

 

Obama, has NO firm track record. What he said two years ago and today are all over the road. Understanding his campaign handlers were/are trying to get him elected, I won't fault him for these contradictions. However he has written two books, what is known about him and what he professed prior to politics, indicates to me a very different person to what being presented and a high probability of being a poor leader. Think the word is 'populist' which usually means socialism. I will add being a Harvard Law Graduate and in Constitution Law, leaves no room for compromise or in fact the policies he seems to want for his Nation.

 

That's the downside of being a maverick. Sometimes other people have good ideas too!

 

Have you ever wondered why so often any Congressional Vote (both chambers) follows party lines. How every member of one party could possibly agree on any issue, much less in the numbers they do. The short answer they are told how to vote, obliging if for no other reason to get some local spending placed in the 'bill' or some future bill. More than once, McCain has stood before the Senator and condemned a 'Bill/Act' and if nothing else has fought 'pork barrel' attachments to them, even on those he eventually votes for. This is his Maverick image (never sponsored pork spending, even for Arizona), not so much his opposition to Bush or his policy. Remember he and Bush were political enemies in 2000 and seemingly agreed on nothing. Rather than questioning 'some' party loyalty, maybe a review of those days is in order. Sneaking expenditures into any bill, even for worthwhile causes is never a good "idea" and not even close to what was intended by the founders and literally the only way Senators can achieve pork for their State. This is the job of House Members in total...and for their district.

 

Note; Until 1914, State Legislatures CHOSE those to represent their State, NOT the electorate.

[iNow]

Jackson, have you ever encountered spin which you didn't like.

[bascule]

The 'surge' was one of many he refused to listen to 'public opinion' preferring those generals involved.

 

You mean he towed the Republican party line instead of the Democratic party line?

 

Bush has given carte blanche to Petraeus with zero concern for the effect it's having on our country.

 

In a Time article titled Why Barack Obama Is Winning they point out what Obama does differently in that regard. When Obama met with Petraeus they apparently had a rather rousing discussion about how Iraq and Afghanistan are playing out on the world stage, and apparently by the end of it had reached a sort of mutual understanding of each other's positions, as opposed to the Bush / McCain approach of "we should listen to the generals and do whatever they say"

 

Obama is certainly demonstrating leadership in that regard

[Sisyphus]

...as opposed to the Bush / McCain approach of "we should listen to the generals and do whatever they say"

 

At least that's an improvement over the original approach, "We should do whatever Rumsfeld says. What's a general?"

[jackson33]

You mean he towed the Republican party line instead of the Democratic party line?

 

Bush has given carte blanche to Petraeus with zero concern for the effect it's having on our country.

 

In a Time article titled Why Barack Obama Is Winning they point out what Obama does differently in that regard. When Obama met with Petraeus they apparently had a rather rousing discussion about how Iraq and Afghanistan are playing out on the world stage, and apparently by the end of it had reached a sort of mutual understanding of each other's positions, as opposed to the Bush / McCain approach of "we should listen to the generals and do whatever they say"

 

Obama is certainly demonstrating leadership in that regard

 

The issue is now mute, but...

 

Obama first campaigned on total withdrawal from Iraq, and since it changed from those early days to the election, pick your favorite time line. Bush has Military Advisor's as have all presidents. Advisor's from each service to help make decisions. After Vietnam, most military people blamed 'politics' for the eventual loss and surely politics did play a roll in that loss. Obama had no such advise to this day or the complicated issues that exist in that area of the world. I am not going back over each comment, but one thing NO leader ever does or should do is give his/her plans, unconditionally.

 

 

Infinite; What you consider spin, to me may be the facts. On political issues there are obviously going to be disappointments and/or successfully achieved objectives. On Iraq, we have no idea what would have happened if GWB had not toppled the Hussein Government, or followed up on attacking the tracking down terrorist. Historians will determine what is spin and or the truth, the best they can from the results. This will be true for Obama as he take the US in a different direction. I feel this direction is going to be wrong, is not spin, its my OPINION.

[iNow]

The word you're looking for is "moot."