Obama Vs. McCain: The Wisdom Factor

You nailed it. With age, comes wisdom.

And that's McCain.

Kyle-Anne, I'm vehemently opposed to Obama, but, although 99% of this article is OK, there's one part that isn't:
"the grown-up conversations that inevitably centered around the contest between the young, handsome, well-connected John Kennedy and the old grouch, Richard Nixon."
Nixon was hardly an old grouch in '60. Although he was 4 years Kennedy's senior, he was only 47 back then - Obama will be 47 later this year. So, if Obama is too young to be President (I'd say he is), so was Nixon (I'd say he was, as was JFK).
Nixon first run for Veep in 1952, when he was 39. Was it a good decision or not for Ike to choose him as Veep? What do you think? What do others think?

'No wonder European leaders are beginning to get nervous about Obama's prospects of success'
Well, not all of them, but many are. Clowns like the British PM and the British Opposition Leader (a bull younger than Obama) are Obama's fans. Indeed, British newspapers have reported that 'British politicians are agog [about Obama]'.
However, many other European leaders are worried about Obama. The Polish and Czech Presidents, and the Czech PM, are worried because Obama would cancel the missile shield program (which the US promised to Europe and which all NATO leaders endorsed in April). 5 days from now, the Czech government will sign an agreement about it. To cancel the missile shield, Obama would've to abrogate that agreement - thus stripping America of credibility, humiliating it, disarming it. I, along with Presidents Kaczynski and Klaus, former PM Kaczynski and PM Topolanek, believe that the missile shield is necessary to secure Europe.
Just a few weeks ago, French President Sarkozy has declared that France will create her own missile shield (while modernising its nuclear deterrent at the same time). I'd wonder why that may be ;)
Even that socialist Sarkozy is, so far, shunning Obama (but has already welcomed McCain twice to the Elysee, the first time was in July 2007, when McCain's campaign was nothing more than a theoretical possibility). So either Sarkozy is a prophet or he has concluded, as other people have, that McCain is way better.
Few European national leaders (Zapatero, who has made Spain irrelevant, and a few other clowns) have met with Ajad, Kim, Chavez or Castro so far. Yet Obama said he'd meet with all of them - unconditionally. Loon.
Obama is such a naive novice that he will have to travel to Europe and the ME this summer to get his first foreign policy credentials, and even then, he'll be inferior to McCain.
So, contrary to the myth spread by the MSM, it's Obama who would make America LESS popular, LESS credible, and LESS ally-rich.

By 1960 we already had twice the number of nuclear warheads required to incinerate every major city in the USSR. Ronald Reagan was an 'old bull' when he went on a Walmart style shopping spree on behalf of our military. The US was nearly engaged in another missle crisis when that old pugilist announced military exercises. He got scared too but not much was made of it. Iran knows we're spent militarily. Bush was quibbling over whether we had spent better than a $1B at the time of his reelection. Now it's going to be $1T on the low side; the US has a phobia about the middle east.

What is McCain going to do? Scare all of the terrorists into Pakistan and Afghanistan and round'm up? McCain was a loyalist. His service sounds a bit inflated as the General and others have been implying; no one has the guts to say it. McCain was born to an elite military family. He may have performed in an heroic fashion but he lacks compassion...and we are reminded every other day about his service. I know a former POW from a Nazi concentration camp, a friend of my father. He weighed 90 pounds when he was released. He was jocular and friendly and never in my presence did he ever tell any war stories, nor did he use his service to gain favor.

McCain is a politician and an old one. We need to clean house and he's got to go, and keep the Republican twits like Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld, Inc. out of Washington for at least two terms.

Ms Shiver, you'd hit it right on the head. from somebody in his 40's, Obama has absolutely NO life experience much less worth experience to speak of. They way he keeps flip flopping and stumbling through critical issues I just know he'll make Carter look positively statesman-like. There is still alot of time between now and November and I still get the feeling that hell screw it up even more as this election WILL be more about Obama than McCain. The republicans, especially McCain, just can't blow it. One thing that is very telling is that back in '00 and '04 I saw tons of Gore and Gore/Leiberman and Kerry and Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers and this year I see nearly no Obama bumper stickers. I am beginning ot think that people open to reason are starting to realize that Obama is a sock puppet with nothing to bring to the table except a crafted and polished image.

As a boomer also born in 1950, I share both your views and experiences...perhaps even more so as I have lived abroad for most of the last 46 years.
On top of the dengerous world comparisons I also rank another issue with equal footing. I will retire next year and live off investment income. The 66,6%+ tax increase I will recieve during my golden years under Obama, coupled with a rapidly insoluble entitlement problem for my children, on top of a massive inheretance tax, crowned by energy driven high inflation scares my to death......figuratively speaking.

This piece illustrates why you have become my favorite commentator.
Linden Swift

"By the time November 4 rolls around, I suspect that nearly all voters over the age of 30, save the most leftist among us, will decide that competence and wisdom trump fancy-footwork oratory."

I pray you're correct, but I fear you're not. Not having to think is simply too comfortable for too many.

Thinking about your husband's metaphorical joke about the two bulls, why do I get the feeling that we're the heifers and we're about to get f**ked?

Shiver reminds us of a valuable lesson from history that Senator Obama seems never to have learned. And she does it very well. Thanks.

Bravo Kyle- well said. Great scene from the movie Thirteen days was when the Kennedy brothers and Kenny O'Donnell came to the conclusion this was "Munich all over again". Any appeasement that was to be made would still lead to nuclear war down the road. Another thing the Liberal left fails to take into consideration is Kennedy was a neo-con (ask Richard Perle) by today's foreign policy definition. Obama comparing himself to Kennedy is ludicrous. Better comparison for Obama is to Jimmy Carter or Neville Chamberlain. Obama gets his way trying to appease the islamofascists, expect a big war - down the road. That's not using fear, that's using the fact of what happened in the past and how it identically relates to today.

"Now, I don't know what you're thinking, dear readers, but the word, "brilliant," is not what comes to my mind, when hearing this."

Brilliant statement! I too sense the frightening lack of historical knowledge in the Dem's soon-to-be nominee. I feel like voting for Mr Obama is more like walking on a knife edge: I am intensely insecure.

Thus, I'm staying away from Mr. Obama.

I think these types of articles that are side by side comparisons of McCain vs. Obama are helpful for conservatives who seem so annoyed / betrayed with McCain's moderations. The alternative is so disastrously worse.

Obama's experience is so lacking that his surrogates were forced to use false claims - politics of the gutter - against McCain regarding the Arizonian's own exp., but that will haunt Obama back. Obama has also claimed that he's supposedly the best foreign policymaker because he lived in foreign countries as a child and played with Indonesian kids. For Obama, rhetoric about experience has become a substitute for experience itself.
Many US foreign policy experts have said that Europe is America's chief ally. And yet, Obama has, so far, visited only 2 European countries - Russia and Britain. His newest European itinerary includes only the UK, France and Germany. It doesn't feature Italy (a strategic European ally of the US more important than Germany) nor America's newest allies: Ukraine and Georgia (the Caucasian country, not the US state).
Obama has never chaired any Congressional foreign policy related Cmte.
Obama's FP credentials are null, and this will cause him to lose the 2008 election. McCain won against his Republican opponents earlier this year because he used the experience card. He has had a few VERY experienced rivals, like Giuliani (I like Italian Americans) and Hunter, but he's even more experienced. A McCain-Obama election will be akin to a MUTD vs Lech Poznan match - it will be no contest.
It's no wonder that almost no veterans have endorsed Obama (most of those who have done so are former Clinton supporters). McCain has enlisted more than 100 Generals and Admirals, and many officers of junior ranks, incl. the most decorated living American officer, George Day.
Obama promised to deploy next-generation broadband, but he doesn't seem to be using broadband himself, because if he had, he would've visited the www.globalsecurity.org website, which contains a huge package of publicly-available data that has proved how grave the Iranian threat is.
He could've attended a briefing to the Senate Foreign Affairs Cmte. He hasn't. Since he arrived in Congress in 2005, he's been continually running for the WH.
Obama should be obliged to answer the questions asked within this, and other AT-published, articles.

Another thing that comes to mind when considering Obama's foreign relations bravado is the way Carter screwed things up with N. Korea. How different would things on the Korean peninsula be today if it weren't for Carter's concessions to that sawed-off two-bit thug. Concessions that led to N. Korea becoming a nuclear threat and the continuation of a brutal regime that has resulted in the deaths of countless thousands of his own people.

The world cannot afford a Barrack Obama presidency.

This guy is Bill Clinton without the substance. Clinton was elected based on the wrapper he created or thought he created with the help of Perot. His team was particularlly good in this regard. Whatever else you say about Clinton he at least had some substance. This is not about agreeing with that substance, but he in fact was Govenor of Arkansas for many years and also Attorney General. From these perches people could at least summon up a vision how he would govern. Obama, on the other hand, has done nothing but polish his wrapper so to speak. Tell me Mr. Obama what is it you have really done. The page looks pretty blank to me. We have nothing other than you rhetorical skils and over brimming confidence in your betterness to judge you buy. For those on the left you may appear to be Ronald Reagan in terms of communication but in fact you lack his vision, substance and experience.

This article provides a good anaology in terms of the bulls, you are the young charging bull, the one whose energy clouds his judgement, theone who creates havoc with that energy.

It is interesting that there is a young Nazi movement kicking around (see Jueng...).
My friend in Milan compares Obama with Mussolini in the late 20's. He was a socialist that joined the splinter socialists called Fascisti.

Much of the description of Obama in this article reminds me of George Bush.

I think that comparing Obama to Neville Chamberlain is unfair. I am not an admirer of Mr. Chamberlain but his problem in 1938 was not a simple one because he had a tough choice between:
a) Great Britain and France fighting Hitler on their own;
b) Appeasing Hitler;
c) Trying to unite with Stalin against Hitler.
It is a big question if the last option was viable because Stalin before WWII put efforts to use Hitler against the West, while hoping to bring world Revolution to exhausted adversaries later. I would compare Mr. Obama rather with crush workers who were habitually elected to Communist's Parliament (Supreme Council) to show the whole world that Russia is the worker's paradise. Stalin's and communists' criteria for candidates were based on class origin, we use race, but in essence there is no difference. We are trying to show, by exculpating past guilt of our great-grandfathers, that time of slavery and Jim Crow is over. For me the fact that time changed is self-evident, as to the other people we will see results in November. I do not hold my breath.

Jeugenen, how many times will list all those things. You are pretending as the conservative but you are not.

We heard you before and you're Obama's anti-smear agent.

Those issues you have raised are so miniscule compared to the corrupt practices, anti-american ideologues, ideological flip flops and total lack fo character of your Obama.

Sorry.

Ronald Reagan was an 'old bull' when he went on a Walmart style shopping spree on behalf of our military.

Yeah, Shepton, Reagan went on a Walmart spending spree... bringing military pay back up in line with the median income. Thanks to Bubba Jimmy Carter, by 1980, military personnel, who have the most dangerous jobs on earth, were earning 15% less than the median income. LESS than someone serving burgers at McDonalds. Try and research prior to posting comments. I lived through it. I knew more than one person with a family who worried how they were going to eat the day before payday.

McCain was born to an elite military family.

I know you are kidding with this comment, because it's so ridiculous, it's beyond the pale. There is no such thing as an elite military family. Yes officers earn more than enlisted, because they have the greater responsbility in war time. Even though it's been posted here numerous times, let me refresh your memory - It was McCains father who had to make the decision to bomb Hanoi when his son was imprisoned somewhere there. I don't begrudge him one penny of his salary. Would YOU have had that type of fortitude?

Kyle-Anne: You've set par for this course at five. You've hit two perfect shots.
Keep it up. Bravo, Bravo

Obama's continuing comparisons of himself to greats in our history is really, really getting to be irritating. B. Hussein O. is no Thomas Jefferson, no John Adams, no Abraham Lincoln, no John F Kennedy, to name but a few in his repertoire.

The more I hear this guy the more I think "you know, I'm just listening to another LAWYER". We just had 8 years of that lest anyone forget the argument over the meaning of "is".

Obama obviously reads and believes too much of his own propaganda as espoused by the MSM. "Camelot" indeed. (finger down the throat).

JFK was second in line for the Presidency behind his brother. They were trained from birth for that position. JFK was in combat in WWII and had his PTboat shot out from under him and behaved heroically. JFK was a US Senator that actually got some legislation passed.

Obama really, really needs to "get off it"

Age, Experience, Charactor, real for sure Love of Country, and an irrefutable list of germain Accomplishments are "absolutes" in what I look for in my President.

Obama, quite frankly, fails on all counts.

PC is Thought Control
LEE

While I don't think we picked the right Republican candidate,he is what we have.There is no way Barako could have enough experience to run this country.No matter how inteligent one is you must have wisdom from experience.

Furthermore, has anyone really heard McCain talk about his military experience? He speaks of it rarely, does he not? Except, as a joke during a speech once when he said he didn't get to Woodstock because he was tied up at the time.

I've heard he's actually rather reticent to talk about it.

I'd vote for him because he's like the toilet paper in a Wal-Mart bathroom, he don't take sh*t off no one.

Best regards to all.

I am another boomer born in 1951. I was in the Navy from 73 to 79 and served on Fast Attacks (Nuclear Subs for the ill informed) Carter was the President during my last two years. I also served with several officers and enlisted who knew Carter personally. He was a disastor in the making when serving on Submarines. Many of the predictions made by those who knew him turned out to be true. At the time I was a Carter supporter but quickly learned the truth that he had no real leadership skills. What has not been talked about is leadership. McCain has it in Spades, and Obama is proving to be not only and empty suit but apparentlly the suit keeps changing color.

McCain was not my first, second, third, or even fourth choice for the Republican nomination, but what is important is now the real choice comes down to Obama or McCain. Which candidate do you think has the best chance of preserving the country in these dangerous times? To me it is an obvious choice. Only McCain seems to at least have a real world understanding of the very real threats we will be facing for the forseeable future. To place Obama in charge will be placing this country in the greatest jeapordy it has ever faced since the Civil War, when the very existence of the U.S. was at stake.

What we need is a leader, not a pontificator.

Zbigniew, Nixon was already an old grouch at 47.

Actually, McCain talked about his military exp. frequently - but why shouldn't he? He's allowed to use whatever quals to prove to yet undecided American citizens (those like Mrs Shiver have decided long ago) that he's the best candidate for the job.
When I applied for my first job, I gave my employer all job-relevant truthful data about me.

All ABOARD! Hurry if you want to ride The Stop Obama Express seats are filling up fast, full steam ahead WHOO WHOO
Check us out on the web at
www.StopObamaExpress.com
www.StopObamaExpress.com

You know your history on JFK and your assessment of him is historically accurate. That is more than can be said of anyone on Obama's staff. Bringing up any comparison of Obama to JFK is arrogant, ignorant and totally bereft of any knowledge of that time. I was there in JFK's time. I'm a retired newspaperman who was the weekend managing editor of a daily newspaper in the JFK years, and I put together the Saturday morning editions on the Friday he was assassinated. JFK, on a personal level, was a witty, brilliant off-the-cuff speaker (see tapes of his news conferences), but he was politically native on a score of cold war issues, and Nikita K. did almost hand him his head. Obama not only is just as naive on security issues, he couldn't hold a candle to JFK's charisma. Tom Sowell summed up Obama in one word: "Dangerous."

Most of us agree on the clear and present danger of an Obama presidency. Yet, he remains close in the polls. McCain needs our help beyond just our postings on the Web. Indeed, our country needs our help. Obama and the Democrat machine will convert a close race to victory by cheating at the polls and we all know McCain's character will not allow him to challenge close contests. We need to work for an overwhelming McCain victory, a grassroots campaign to counter the machine politics of the DNC. It is not like we don't have the legitimate arguments, but individually we fall, collectively we can win.

Kyle-Ann, you have so many admirers here who post eloquent bon mots on your behalf that I feel that anything I say is just redundant. Great job slicing an dicing. You must be grand in the kitchen, too. And, yes, I do love Southern cooking...red beans & rice, blackeyed peas and ham hocks, sweet potato pie, sweet tea, etc...

N'Obama '08!!!

Hell, even Ron Paul would be better than Hussein. Not by much but at least he isn't a Marxist-Socialist controlled by the far-left, anti-American, economy-destroying democRats.

To Zbigniew: The following was Kyle-Anne's wonderful use of SARCASM...

"the grown-up conversations that inevitably centered around the contest between the young, handsome, well-connected John Kennedy and the old grouch, Richard Nixon."

The comparison of Obama to a young bull charging at everything reminded me of his unofficial biography titled Don Quixote and his biographer Miguel De Cervantes! How did Miguel see so far into the future?

Windmills take cover!

'Zbigniew, Nixon was already an old grouch at 47.'
Hm. That's possible, Pete. But I wasn't around in '60 yet. I guess I'll trust you and Kyle-Anne on this one.

Briefly, with all that we have at our disposal in the way of instant information, I don't understand how any American, whether Liberal or Conservative, could even consider voting Obama. This is a man who not only changes his stripes on a daily basis but also will clearly send this country into an economic spin the likes of which we have never seen before. Not to mention the security and national policy mess he will create.

Why do I say this? Let's just examine what so many have said already. Obama will push all of his agendas (most, very socialistic in nature) with the assistance of a democratic run congress. If we get Obama together with Reid, Palosie, Schumer and the rest of the gang, it will be like a hyper active child after eating a dozen chocalate bars. He states he stands for change, America, is change worth giving up our country for?

Thanks for the opportunity to vent, Gary

Story of the two bulls, one old one young: Both of them are standing together on top of a hill looking down on their herd of cows. The young bull nudges the old bull and with a wink and a twinkle in his eye says: "Let's rush down and do over that cow there". The old bull replies: "No, let's walk down and do the whole herd".

Kyle-Anne, you got the politics right, but not so much the zoology. You should have illustrated your good point with deer, not cattle.

During rutting season, the young bucks rush out and fight all comers, and exhaust themselves in the process. The old stags hold back and round up a harem while the young bucks are worn out.

I'm not sure how Hillary fits into this analogy, but she certainly exhausted herself and her finances. Obama is still charging headlong into situations he knows nothing about.

Meanwhile, McCain conserved his resources, let his opponents make the mistakes, and is now quietly standing by while Obama shoots off his mouth in all directions.

This is getting good.

Dear Commentators:

I get far more kicks out of reading your comments than writing my columns! Y'all make writing worth it.

Thanks very much, and have a great Independence Day!

Kyle-Anne

An excellent analogy and article...however,I am gravely afraid that your assumption that the people are smart enough to figure ANYTHING out is doubtful. I part with the old adage, "A man who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool." That about describes one-half of Americans today.

I love this article. I'll relate a statement from the philosopher Bert Carty. When you try emulate your icons you generally only pick up their bad habits.

Thanks for the insightful, spot-on commentary.

I'm a boomer just past 60. I remember that weekend in October when none of us knew whether we'd be alive to go to school on Monday. I remember the concern my parents had, but tried to hide. Those were scary days.

And, yes, I remember how JFK seduced us all.

Personally, though, for the good of my family and everyone's children and their children--and those of my friends--and, yes, even me, I'd like to see a grownup in the White House. Someone who's earned eary one of his gray or white hairs and more. One who actually seems to care about our country. Someone who seems to have the testicularity to do the right thing. And someone who doesn't hide behind the skirts or pants of others.

What I loathe even thinking about is how the Democrats, liberals and leftists have given us all the one-finger salute and selected the inexperienced, arrogant, whining, ignorant of history and economics and international relations, narcissistic empty suit from Chicago as a potential candidate.

That said, Happy Independence Day! May God continue to forgive and bless us--and keep the young fascist out of the White House.

Kyle-Anne: Thank you and have a happy Independence Day, too!

Jarhead68: Good point.

Roger B: This was an inaccurate comparison. Don Kichot harmed only himself. Obama (if elected President) would harm all humans around the world - he would cede this planet to totalitarian dictators while slowing its economic growth.

Obama isn't much like Chamberlain at all. Chamberlain has the unfortunate reputation of being this overly optimistic and naive buffoon in popular culture, but in reality he was one of Old Englands imperialistic hardliners.

I'm sure he was well aware of how dangerous Hitler was, but he wanted to empower him hoping that it would mean military conflict with Stalin in the near future. The gambit failed and Hitler wound up decimating Western Europe first. It was more a miscalculation of a diabolical plot to provoke war in the east between two enemies than it was capitulation out of fear of the Nazis.

Kelly-Anne, USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Just a small correction, but I can understand that not many people remember the name of a former foe that died in the manure heap just almost two decades ago.

Real Words Of Wisdom

Kyle-Anne wants us to wisely help America to continue fighting the Republican Bay of Pigs / Bay of Iraq. This is a Youtube link showing how history repeats itself.

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imiZapfY0y0&eurl=http://www.spartacus.sch...

Change is Always Met with Resistance

This is a Youtube link to a Dwight D. Eisenhower exit speech on Jan.17,1961. Warning us about the military industrial complex. 2 min 30 sec. Please watch & I am sure you will reject Rebub propaganda.

Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

This is an excerpt of the Military-Industrial Complex Speech by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961. Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040 ..

"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration."

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

It is clear that the Repug-blican agenda lacked / lack balance. The info they used to go into this war in Iraq was not balance, They did not weigh the cost of the war with any balance, & they also used 9/11, knowing that the average American was not thinking clearly (balanced).

I would like to invoke two great, WISE leaders, Franklin Roosevelt & Harry Truman. Do you think those wise men would buy into many of the pugnacious talking points?...Heck no!

If we can learn one thing from John F. Kennedy's war called The Bay of Pigs, is that poor plan will never succeed. Here is the failed plan to invade Cuba in what is called the Bay of Pigs.

"Ronald Reagan was an 'old bull' when he went on a Walmart style shopping spree on behalf of our military."

Oh. I know how to research. I don't begrudge military families decent pay and veterans better health care. McCain is an Annapolis grad and I think he has an overgrown opinion of himself.. Whether I would have done what he did, you cannot even guess, nor is it relevant. And when the author talks about "unscripted manure," which, "some folks calls "gaffes."" With McCain where do you begin?

"Reagan came along and brought such programs to life with an infusion of money. Defense spending hit a peak of $456.5 billion in 1987 (in projected 2005 dollars), compared with $325.1 billion in 1980 and $339.6 million in 1981, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Most of the increase was for procurement and research and development programs. The procurement budget leapt to $147.3 billion from $71.2 billion in 1980." (Reagan's Defense Buildup Bridged Military Eras:Huge Budgets Brought Life Back to Industry," by Greg Schneider and Renae Merle,Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page E01)
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
(President Reagan on live radio, August 1984)
"Few Americans at the time realized how President Reagan's loose talk about fighting and winning nuclear war had frightened the Soviets and pushed the world toward the brink of nuclear war."
See Martin Walker, The Cold War (pp. 274-75)

These references are easy picking. Yes, some wisdom may come with age, but our world changes and so do the facts. Generals and military people are strategists. They are wired to win wars. They are not by any means trained to govern. I would hope that O'Bama retains the smartest strategists and throws out the idiologs. I don't care what party is sitting at the table, I just don't like seeing the ones with their hands out, the ones who are reaping the harvest of our government's mistakes. I don't see that now. Therefore I look for change

Obama claimed that not talking to countries isn't a punishment. But it is. After Spain betrayed the US, the Bush Admin began to shun it. Consequently, Spain is an isolated, parochial, weak, irrelevant socialist state. Zapatero has a perma non-relationship with Dubya. Even Rice did not bother to stay in Spain overnight. Spanish newspapers have even photographed Zapatero sitting alone at a NATO conference table while ALL OTHER NATO LEADERS were courting Dubya.
Why should Obama get elected, instead of McCain? Because of McCain's FP credentials. Obama would allow Iran to produce nukes and cancel the missile shield program. So he would only endanger the ME - the most volatile (but the most oil-rich) region of the world. McCain would stabilise the ME.
There is no one besides America who could secure the ME.
Britain can't. France can't. Germany can't. Australia can't. Canada can't. Only America can.

History has a way of repeating itself, not only was JFK responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis, he also sealed the fate of the failed Bay Of Pigs, by refusing to help, and letting those Cubans fighting to regain their land launch into certain defeat. JFK also had to promise to never invade Cuba, was forced to remove the missiles that the US had stationed in Turkey and may be in some ways responsible for the building of the Berlin Wall.

Carter repeated some of the same mistakes and by abandoning the friendly though flawed Shah of Iran, he was instrumental in the rise of the Ayatollahs to power and thereby turning Iran into one of the biggest threats for peace in the Middle East. Had the Shah stayed in power and slowly been pressured into establishing a true democracy in Iran, there may never have been a need to invade Iraq in the first place, as Saddam would have been countered by a strong US ally right next door.

Reagan on the other hand negotiated out of strength and forced Gorbachev into accepting his terms for an arms reduction treaty, by walking out on the Reykjavik summit. Reagan is credited with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ensuing victory in the Cold War.

Obama proposes an Iran policy that combines the inexperienced diplomacy of Kennedy while at the same time, he would abandon the friendly Iraqi government by pulling out before time, following Carter's lead from the 70's. It should come as no surprise that Barack Obama has been compared with Carter, as they share many of the same views of the world, including foreign policy advisor Z. Brzezinski. What this combination of mistaken policies would bring is a strengthened Iran controlling a region of vital interest and a debilitated ability to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, which they may not be so unwilling to use.

Yes European leaders have a strong incentive to be weary of an Obama presidency, so too should all Americans.

History has a way of repeating itself, not only was JFK responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis, he also sealed the fate of the failed Bay Of Pigs, by refusing to help, and letting those Cubans fighting to regain their land launch into certain defeat. JFK also had to promise to never invade Cuba, was forced to remove the missiles that the US had stationed in Turkey and may be in some ways responsible for the building of the Berlin Wall.

Carter repeated some of the same mistakes and by abandoning the friendly though flawed Shah of Iran, he was instrumental in the rise of the Ayatollahs to power and thereby turning Iran into one of the biggest threats for peace in the Middle East. Had the Shah stayed in power and slowly been pressured into establishing a true democracy in Iran, there may never have been a need to invade Iraq in the first place, as Saddam would have been countered by a strong US ally right next door.

Reagan on the other hand negotiated out of strength and forced Gorbachev into accepting his terms for an arms reduction treaty, by walking out on the Reykjavik summit. Reagan is credited with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ensuing victory in the Cold War.

Obama proposes an Iran policy that combines the inexperienced diplomacy of Kennedy while at the same time, he would abandon the friendly Iraqi government by pulling out before time, following Carter's lead from the 70's. It should come as no surprise that Barack Obama has been compared with Carter, as they share many of the same views of the world, including foreign policy advisor Z. Brzezinski. What this combination of mistaken policies would bring is a strengthened Iran controlling a region of vital interest and a debilitated ability to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, which they may not be so unwilling to use.

Yes European leaders have a strong incentive to be weary of an Obama presidency, so too should all Americans.

I've read the transcripts of all 4 Nixon-Kennedy debates. I've gathered much info from them.
Moreover, Kennedy has proven himself to be not so good on foreign policy as the Dems have claimed he was. He criticized the Eisenhower administration for not performing well for Eastern Europe.
Nixon pointed out that the Eisenhower Administration did in fact care for that region and even gave Poland $500 mn (in 1960 dollars) of financial aid, and Nixon, as a VP, visited Poland and talked to Gomulka, who told him that he couldn't conduct a sovereign policy because of the Soviet troops stationed in Poland.
JFK was elected in 1960. He served for 3 years; during that time, he NEVER bothered to visit Poland. Nixon was elected in 1968; he was the first US President to visit Poland; he gave Poland a certain international role - the DOS conducted SALT negotiations in Poland, in Warsaw, in the Myslewicki Palace. He also signed many agreements with Poland.
And that's just one example.

With McCain in office, deficit spending will result in the complete collapse of the American Dollar. It won't matter then, whether you think we should spend a trillion dollars a year projecting our power. It will end one way or another.

Obama is not only a Socialist, who wants Americans to hand over their hard earned cash, in a grandiose scheme to redistribute America's wealth ... he spent 20 years listening to the anti-American, racist sermons of black liberation pastor Jeremiah Wright, which were based upon Marxist ideology ... along with his wife and two children ... and they still attend the same church, listening to the same anti-American trash!