March 6, 2008
Bush: McCain is "Exactly What We Need in a President"
Photograph of John McCain and President George Bush at the White House by Ron Edmonds/AP
Yesterday, Senator John McCain was welcomed and endorsed by President Bush. Bush referenced McCain's doubters and past history, "John showed incredible courage and strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment. And that's exactly what we need in a President: somebody that can handle the tough decisions; somebody who won't flinch in the face of danger."
McCain thanked Bush and mentioned how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama called him, "I pledged at that time, and I pledge again, a respectful campaign -- a respectful campaign based on the issues and based on the stark differences in vision that we have for the future of America.
Reporters asked Bush, "How would you counsel Senator McCain to choose a running mate, how quickly? And given the fact that Democrats will field a nominee who will make some kind of history -- a woman, an African American -- should Republicans consider that in selecting a Vice Presidential nominee?" To which Bush replied, "I'd tell him to be careful about who he names to be the head of the selection committee." (Bush's VP selection committee head was Dick Cheney.) Fun note: McCain was late to the endorsement press conference, leaving the president to do a tap dance (literally).
Bush also called the other Republican candidates, including Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani, to thank them for running good campaigns. Some speculation puts some of those rivals in a hypothetical McCain cabinet, but would Giuliani really want to be homeland security secretary?
And a Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Obama and Clinton both lead over McCain in a national poll. Obama has a 12 point lead over McCain, while Clinton has a 6 point lead, thanks to voters who disapprove of the war and President Bush.
|
hopefully this will be what we need to sink the mccain campaign...
"And a Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Obama and Clinton both lead over McCain in a national poll. "
I think polling is an imprecise exercise. Particularly in this election, where a significant number of people will make their decisions in the voting booth, perhaps on the basis of what kind of president they DON'T want to have (ie, African-American or Female-American).
The Democratic Party needs to get its act together to run a strong campaign against what many Americans will see as a moderate Republican, the un-Hillary or the un-Obama.
I don't suppose there are any quotes from Bush about McCain from the primaries before the 2000 election that say the opposite of this?
If Bush likes him he must be a complete disaster.
I used to think that if we had to put up with another Republican, McCain would be the least worst. Then I read about the "joke" he made in a 1998 speech: publicly making fun of a teenage girl's looks. And his involvement in the "Keating Five" scandal.
I now suspect he's just another slimeball politician. I'm so relieved most people seem to see that, too.
What we need is someone who is not the life form lower than a used cars salesman - a politician. It is a shame that only politicians are running. Well there is Nader, but he is just a nutjob.
The fact that Nader isn't part of one of the two major parties doesn't make him not a politician.
I think McCain has to be wondering, "How do you tactfully decline an endorsement from the sitting President?"
This is hilarious. Bush did not put his support behind McCain until he had mathematically eliminated all other Republican opposition. That's like sports fans who only support their team when they're winning. LAME!
Is there anything worse for a candidate than to have the backing of the worst president in the history of the United States. He has the backing of that bigot preacher, and now Bush. No way would I ever vote for McCain now no matter how much I may have liked him before.
Why do you guys think the second he locked in the nomination, he went straight to the White House?
Its best to get this endorsement over with asap as it will hurt him later on. This is an exercise that they have to go through, regardless of who is President.
Expect this to be the last time you'll see both of them together until after Election day.
The "Keating Five" "scandal" happened 20 years ago and by most accounts convinced McCain to reform not only the way he conducted himself but moved him to push for more ethics and fundraising reform in Washington. I'm sure we'll hear the term "Keating Five" tossed around constantly over the next six months by people who have no idea what even happened back in the 1980s. At least McCain learned something from the incident - unless you believe the New York Times. And frankly, I still can't determine what favors McCain did for the lobbyist he may have been spending an inappropriate amount of time with. Contrast that with the Clintons who stonewalled the Whitewater investigation so long that they were still investigating and uncovered the Lewinsky affair in 1998. Has it ever occurred to anyone that had the Clintons just cooperated the Whitewater investigation would have been over and done with by 1995 at the latest. Of course, that assumes there was nothing in the records they were hiding. Which makes me wonder what the heck is in their tax returns that they won't release. By most accounts the Clintons were broke in 2000 and now they own several multi-million dollar homes and are made a $5 million dollar loan to her campaign. We know about the huge book deals they each signed so what else is there to hide?
Aside from an exemplary military record, what's there to like about McCain?
Famdoc, Americans don't want another warmonger of president who admits he knows nothing about the economy.
The moderate, maverick McCain is dead. The Dems need to reinforce that.
So George Bush endorsed the Republican nominee.
In other equally surprising news, water is wet, the sun rises in the east and dogs can lick their own balls.
I think Bush's endorsement does McCain more harm than good.
I think Bush's endorsement does McCain more harm than good.
I doubt it. If it matters that much to you then you probably weren't going to vote for him anyway. This is pure politics. I don't make decisions on who to vote for based on endorsements. If I did I would have to stay home on election day every year. Even Democrats get some scary endorsements. Anyway, it's March. The election is in November. Everyone knows these guys don't really like each other. This is just a show of party unity. I expect we will see less of Bush on the campaign trail than we saw of Clinton stumping for Gore.
Funny, though, that McCain has previously said the opposite of Bush.
MJG: I couldn't agree more. But many Americans lack the basic knowledge you have about McCain and will step into the voting booth and say to themselves: "Self, I hate blacks and I hate women, so I'm gonna vote for the old white guy, cause he's no worse than that Democratic candidate."
My fear is that we'll all go to sleep on Election Day and wake up with another Republican president. And, a war that could last another 60 years.
But many Americans lack the basic knowledge you have about McCain and will step into the voting booth and say to themselves: "Self, I hate blacks and I hate women, so I'm gonna vote for the old white guy
That's b.s. Portraying anyone who doesn't want to vote for Hillary or Obama as a sexist or racist is just baloney. There are good reasons to vote for or against them that have nothing to do with sex and race.
And, a war that could last another 60 years.
If you truly wanted every American soldier home in the US you should have voted for Ron Paul or Kucinich. All Clinton and Obama have been saying is they will start bringing troops home soon after being inaugurated. If you read the language carefully they never say full withdrawal - or at least I have yet to see it phrased as such. And many of the troops will be redeployed to Afghanistan anyway. This idea that things are going to drastically change with a Democrat in the White House is a little farfetched. Even Bill Clinton left troops in Saudi Arabia and that was a sore point with bin Laden.
EastRiver,
Even bringing some troops home is a drastic change.
People will vote for McCain because Americans are, for the most part, gullible. Not because of racism or sexism, though those factors can't be discounted. McCain will do his best to portray Obama and Clinton as inexperienced in diplomacy and he will sell the Iraq war well enough to convince the majority that we need to stay in longer or face the consequences.
EastRiver once again proves the theory that GOPs can't make an argument without mentioning Clinton.
"Thank you, sir. Well, I'm very honored and humbled to have the opportunity to receive the endorsement of the President of the United States, a man who I have great admiration, respect and affection [for]. We -- he and I, as is well known, had a very good competition in the year 2000, and I was privileged and proud to have the opportunity to campaign for his election and reelection to the Presidency of the United States.
I appreciate his endorsement. I appreciate his service to our country. I intend to have as much possible campaigning events together, as it is in keeping with the President's heavy schedule."
Doesn't it just make you sick?
i sure would like to watch these two old bastards fistfight. Bush would keep trying to run off and McCain would have him by the hair wailing away at his throat....*sigh*
the laughable/sad thing is that i feel that most of you people actually believe the garbage that is coming out of your own mouth.
jrod...gullible to vote for mccain? are you sure that you are not the one that is gullible. believing that either obama or clinton is here to save our country? those two are nothing more then a talking suit and a talking pants suit. as is mccain for that matter.
speaking as an independant who agrees with the dems about bush...we independants are equally if not more disgusted with the democrats. the party that has controlled congress for the past four years has managed to do absolutely nothing to move our country ahead. quite the contrary
war that will last 60 years? are you listening to yourself? are you actually believing what you are saying. don't worry your man obama will talk with ahmadenijad and we'll just talk him out of nukes with our good looks and charm. please
I stand by my statement... Americans are gullible. Why do you think we got 8 years of Bush II? Because America fell for his line that the Republicans are tougher on terrorism and better at foreign relations, fiscally responsible, morally upright, blah blah blah.
but you jrod are not gullible. you have deemed yourself the model of knowledge. you are right and anybody who would vote for mccain is wrong. talk about arrogance...rivals the arrogance of our president.
but you jrod are not gullible. you have deemed yourself the model of knowledge. you are right and anybody who would vote for mccain is wrong. talk about arrogance...rivals the arrogance of our president.
Actually, ma bell, the Dems have only been in charge of Congress for the last 14 months, not four years. But it's true they haven't done squat in that time.
my apologies jen
If you truly wanted every American soldier home in the US you should have voted for Ron Paul or Kucinich. All Clinton and Obama have been saying is they will start bringing troops home soon after being inaugurated. If you read the language carefully they never say full withdrawal - or at least I have yet to see it phrased as such.
There are basically only two ways for this war to end: the bad way and the worse way. The bad way is to gradually pull troops out, and more American kids are going to get killed in the meantime. The worse way is to pull out immediately and completely. Anybody who thinks that's the better choice is delusional beyond words. Look at what happened because Bush didn't "stay the course" in Afghanistan and the Taliban got to regroup. And you want to give the radicals in Iraq a completely unchecked opportunity to regroup?