The_SURGE

McCain drops out of race to open Cheese company !








You can't change the dynamics on the ground if you've criticized the brave leader of Iraq.
- Geroge Bush
The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate

Problem with the quote above is that now John McCain has critized the leader of Iraq for wanting the US out of his country ??
------------

some McCain quotes from 2000

Historically, foreign policy debates in the United States have been pre-occupied with a false dichotomy
between policies that are intended to protect our security interests and policies intended
to promote our political values. In truth, I've never been able to understand what the fuss is all about.
I think the debate is a waste of time. For the United States, values and interests are inextricably linked,
and traditionally, American leaders have designed policies to serve both ends.
The policy of containment was based first and foremost on our faith in our core values -
- individual freedom and rights, democracy, pluralism, free markets, and the rule of law.
Core values that are, by the way, universal values -- absurd pretenses like an "Asian way" not withstanding.


As I have noted already, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the clearest danger
we currently confront. Nowhere is the threat more worrisome than in rogue states such as Iraq, North Korea
and others. The United States should formulate a policy, in many ways similar to the Reagan Doctrine,
of supporting indigenous and outside forces that desire to overthrow the odious regimes that rule these states.
Call it rogue state rollback if you will. Such a policy serves both our security and our ideals because, again,
they are inseparable from one another.

Third, force has a role in, but is not a substitute for, diplomacy. In other words,
if you perceive a threat to our security and our values that warrants the use of force if necessary,
don't forget the "if necessary" part. All means short of force should be employed first.
And don't be dragooned by other countries or international organizations into risking American lives
in quarrels that are entirely someone else's affair, where no faction is committed to our values,
and no vital interest is at stake.
Moreover, when force must be used, have clear rules of engagement, define an achievable mission,
know how to recognize when it is accomplished, and bring them home as soon as possible.
And never, never, accept foreign or "dual key" authority for the command of an American military operation.



If climate change is a bona-fide global environmental problem, the solution must be global as well.
I have serious concerns about the Kyoto treaty because it fails to include the cooperation of countries
such as China and India. A problem that is serious enough to require U.S. action, should require
the responsible participation of other major countries as well
http://web.archive.org/web/19991007235849/http://mccain2000.com/


I believe that taxes are too high and the tax code too complex.
The average working family pays nearly 40% of their earnings to the taxman. That's not fair.


Q: Where does John McCain stand on abortion?
A: I am pro-life. I oppose abortion except in the case of rape,
incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.

Q: How does John McCain feel about Roe v. Wade?
A: Roe v. Wade should be overturned and we should endeavor to change cultural attitudes
about abortion in favor of life.


Q: What about exempting firearm sales at gun shows and pawnshops from background check requirements?
A: I believe instant background checks should be conducted for all commercial firearms sales,
including gun shows and redemption of guns at pawnshops. I helped lead the fight in the Senate
to assure such sales are covered.

Q: Where does John McCain stand on federally imposed "waiting periods" for firearm purchases?
A: I have opposed federally mandated "waiting periods"

Q: Where does John McCain stand on Campaign Finance Reform?

A: I have been privileged to lead the fight in Congress to clean up our corrupt campaign finance system.
I think most Americans understand that soft money - the enormous sums of money given to both parties
by just about every special interest in the country - corrupts our political ideals
whether it comes from big business or from labor bosses and trial lawyers.
The influence of money is corrupting our ability to address the problems that directly affect the lives
of every American. Without reining in soft money and reducing the role of money in politics
we will never have a government that works as hard for the average American as it does for the special interests.


Q: How should we prioritize use of the surplus?
A: First, it's important to understand that of the projected $3 trillion surplus over the next 10 years,
$2 trillion is a surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund. Let's keep that share away from politicians
and leave the revenues in the trust fund so that promised benefits can be paid without dramatic increases
in payroll taxes.
Of the remaining $1 trillion, I would dedicate 62 percent to shore up Social Security
as the President promised but has failed to make good on. Twenty-three percent should be used for tax relief;
10 percent should be dedicated to bolster Medicare and 5 percent earmarked for debt reduction.