http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...6&e=3&u=/ap/20040318/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_kerry WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president. "This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice," McCain said on "The Early Show" on CBS. "You know, it's the most bitter and partisan campaign that I've ever observed. I think it's because both parties are going to their bases rather than going to the middle. I regret it." Republicans, including President Bush (news - web sites) and Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), have sharply criticized Kerry on a range of defense and security issues, including not supporting the war in Iraq (news - web sites), voting against a measure to provide the war effort $87 billion, and voting against weapons systems critical to waging war. "The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security," Cheney said in a speech Wednesday. Asked on NBC's "Today" if he thought Kerry was weak on defense, McCain said: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don't agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that's going on on both sides. The American people don't need it." When asked on "The Early Show" if Kerry's election would compromise national security, McCain responded: "I don't think that — I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served his country." McCain, Bush's rival for the Republican nomination in 2000, said he believes Bush has led the nation with clarity since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that he supports Bush's re-election. "But I would certainly hope that we could raise the level of this debate. Otherwise, we're going to have very low voter turnouts in November," he told CBS. McCain and Kerry, both decorated Navy veterans of the Vietnam War, have worked together on veterans issues in the Senate. Although McCain said last week he would consider an offer from Kerry to be his running mate, McCain's office later issued a statement saying he would not run with Kerry. "I don't want to be vice president of the United States. I do not want to leave the Republican Party. I would not be vice president of the United States on either ticket," McCain told CBS on Thursday.
Being strong on defense doesn't mean throwing money at the Pentagon. Anybody can write checks they don't have to cash.
What do Kerry, McCain, Max Cleland and those guys who actually fought know about defense. Dubya and Cheney, respectively AWOL "Good Christian Man" and "too busy to serve" are the true experts on "national defense." Given the military industrial complex and the money to made which drives the whole affair, the businessmen Bush and Cheney actually are the true experts on the "national defense" industry as it really operates it at a level about 10 times what is actually needed to protect our citizens.
I am starting to like Mccain, he is the only politicain that doesnt show such an arrogant partisan "My party does no wrong" attitude. If he keeps this up I would consider voting for him one day. I hate partisanship so much it disgust me.
Proposition: That a Kerry/McCain ticket would neutralize the partisan rhetoric of the last several election cycles. nah...
If there's one thing I love about McCain, it's that he definitely speaks his mind rather than spewing crap just for election purposes. Do you think Dubya really believes that Kerry would screw up our national security if he became the president? Of course not. But if that's what it takes to strike a blow to Kerry's credibility, why does 'truth' need to get in the way?
This is getting interesting... WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- At the 1980 Republican convention in Detroit that nominated him for president, Ronald Reagan made genuine and repeated efforts to persuade his longtime rival, former President Gerald Ford, to become his vice presidential running mate. Although the "dream ticket" never came to pass, the Californian's bold move and lack of concern about being overshadowed gave those of us who watched it conclusive evidence of Reagan's emotional security, his authentic self-confidence and his total commitment to defeating President Jimmy Carter in November. The selection of a running mate says much more about the individual making the choice than it does about the individual chosen. Presumed Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Massachusetts, whose admirable record of courage in Vietnam combat has not been matched in his political fights, can permanently and positively define himself, change the entire dynamic of the 2004 campaign and practically guarantee the defeat of George W. Bush. Kerry just has to convince senator John McCain, R-Arizona, to join him on a national unity ticket. The case for McCain is as straightforward and compelling as the Arizona maverick, himself. Refusing to sulk after his unsuccessful 2000 presidential campaign -- conspicuous for the ugly smearing of him and his family by the Bush forces in South Carolina -- he has become an even more vigorous and influential political leader. He (joined by Kerry) led the Senate fight to increase CAFE standards that would have mandated all trucks and cars, by 2015, get 36 miles per gallon. He was instrumental in derailing the administration-backed energy plan as "just one park-barrel project larded onto another" and the "leave no lobbyist behind bill." McCain took on two Washington Goliaths -- the Pentagon and Boeing Corp. -- and their joint scheme to charge taxpayers $16 billion for leasing 100 of the company's 767s as tankers for the Air Force. He has had the guts to oppose easy tax cuts and popular spending, refusing to drown our children and grandchildren in an undertow of public debt. How popular is John McCain? The Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that overall, four times as many Americans give him positive ratings as give him negative marks. For Bush, the positive-negative ratio is barely five to four, and for Kerry it's positive by about three to two. But here's the key: Among the 41 percent of Americans who attend church at least weekly (Bush beat Gore among this group two to one), only 34 percent rate Kerry positively and 39 percent rate him negatively. Regular churchgoers by a 46 percent to 13 percent margin rate McCain positively! But what about John Kerry? The selection of the pro-life McCain would infuriate abortions rights groups. Important unions would oppose vehemently the free-trade McCain. Liberals with agendas of increased federal spending would object to his zealous budget-balancing. Would John Kerry stand up to the pressure? Could he take the heat and the inevitable press criticism about his "compromising" the cherished "Democratic legacy"? Somebody might point out that exactly one of the last nine all-Democratic national tickets has won a majority of the popular vote. Americans value principled independence in their elected leaders. Recall the great political credit for courage candidate Bill Clinton got in 1992 for publicly chastising, while standing next to Jesse Jackson, an African-American rapper named Sister Souljah, who had said: "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" For Kerry, the enlisting of John McCain would be more than a "Sister Souljah" moment, it would be proof positive that he can stand up to powerful individuals and interests, that he intends to make this election about much more than narrow partisanship and that the party platform will be a brief statement of principles and not simply the collected wish lists of the confederation of interest groups that have passed for a national party. Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, is that rare political grownup who knows who he is and what he believes and who as vice president would be an enormously valuable help to Kerry with Congress. With his winning "Two Americas" message, Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carloina., gave his party a soul. Sen. Bob Graham, D-Florida, an authority in national intelligence, has been all but unbeatable in his pivotal home state. But the selection of none of them would make the clear statement about John Kerry's boldness, political courage, leadership and commitment to victory that his selection of the Man from Arizona would. And as an added bonus, the ticket would be George W. Bush's and Karl Rove's worst nightmare.
I am so down for a McCain/Kerry... whoops, Kerry/McCain Democratic ticket. It would be easy to run as a "National Unity" ticket in a time of crisis. And genuine, too. We need national unity now to make the tough choices necessary in a world torn by upheaval abroad, in no small measure caused by the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, and a United States riven with divisiveness, in large measure caused by the same administration. Kerry/McCain would help bring us together at home and bring coherence to our policy abroad. If there is any way, do it.
Imagine how much better a place the world would have been if McCain had won the Republican nomination instead of Bush four years ago...
I would have voted for him in a second. I trust McCain, a co-sponsor of the first law to limit campaign contributions that I can remember. He is a very moderate Republican and does not seem to be driven by party ideology as much as most of the other politicians in Washington (both Dem and Rep). I am salivating for a Kerry/McCain ticket.
Me too. Unfortunately it will never happen. That's why I hope Kerry ultimately picks John Edwards. Outside of Kerry/McCain, that duo has the best shot at defeating the two headed neocon hydra.
McCain is soundly a conservative (versus right leaning moderate). McCain strength is that he is willing to compromise his conservative principles, reach across the isle, and get things done via moderate, bi-partisan bills.
Yes, but unfortunately, because of his GOP affiliation, he will be forced to lobby for Bush in '04. If he doesn't he can forget about getting any future campaign donations, and his party will disown him. Such is the nature of partisan politics.
His party would disown him, but do you think being VP with a shot to move up would discount that possibility? If McCain was ever to be Prez, that's how he'd have to do it. Kerry/McCain would be a formidable ticket, and one that I would vote for. This is probably Bush's worst election nightmare at the moment.
