Of course I'm not talking about Lt Pete Mitchell in Top Gun, but John McCain. The reason why he's dangerous hasn't actually got anything to do with him but his running mate, Sarah Palin.
Remember, John McCain is 72, so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch of the imagination for him to die in office. If that were to happen, then Sarah Palin would become the 45th President of the United States.
It's not as if the situation never arises, as she would be the 6th president that wasn't elected to the position.
Why is she dangerous? Well in an interview with Charles Gibson on 11 September she said;
It's not as if that is untrue, if Georgia and the Ukraine were admitted into NATO then the US (along with the other NATO nations) would be obligated to protect and help them; but you just don't give an answer that basicly says we should attack Russia and start a nuclear war! What's even more scary is that she knows where Russia is (as she's keen to point out in almost every interview she gives)!
Sarah Palin is the reason why the Maverick is dangerous, she just doesn't know when not to give an answer. I bet McCain is questioning his own choice of running mate.
JR
Remember, John McCain is 72, so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch of the imagination for him to die in office. If that were to happen, then Sarah Palin would become the 45th President of the United States.
It's not as if the situation never arises, as she would be the 6th president that wasn't elected to the position.
Why is she dangerous? Well in an interview with Charles Gibson on 11 September she said;
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO. Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.
It's not as if that is untrue, if Georgia and the Ukraine were admitted into NATO then the US (along with the other NATO nations) would be obligated to protect and help them; but you just don't give an answer that basicly says we should attack Russia and start a nuclear war! What's even more scary is that she knows where Russia is (as she's keen to point out in almost every interview she gives)!
Sarah Palin is the reason why the Maverick is dangerous, she just doesn't know when not to give an answer. I bet McCain is questioning his own choice of running mate.
JR
Posts
3 comments:
it is a mystery to me why you are so pro-Conservative (with a C, not c), citing Boris Johnson as an "ideal" choice for Mayor of London, and no doubt George Osborne as a perfect Chancellor of the Excheque, a man who is in effect (as seen with Brown, from being Chancellor to leader), in as a commanding position as possibly an inevitable heir to Cameron; yet seemingly anti-Republican within the blog. With regards to foreign policy, anti-expansionist (to an extent), and shared thoughts on other such key issues such as the current economic crisis and straying away from Keynesianist/neo-Liberal economic prinicples the two parties seem to be pretty similar. Palin is a 'pitbull with lipstick' as she said herself, possibly more commendable than a 'snide' for want of a better word with Osbourne having previously been on cocaine and meeting up with Russia's richest man, Oleg Deripaska, possibly trying to raise further depleating party, and only strong due to the departure of the best PM since the Second World War, with regards to prosperity economically, and impossible to replace. Surely the nature of Palin's honesty would be prefered over Osbourne's buffonery if the two were comparable. And being open about Russia, which she was only hinting at to begin with, is in no way similar to the open and frank behaviour of the EU, cutting off contact with Russia during the Georgian conflict, surely a bigger spark or inkling to confict than a mere hint from someone who in American politics is nothing at the moment. However, you have nothing to fear. Obama will win. Fact. Rant over. Sorry mate, just got a bit hot under the collar there, and with no space to write! x
The centre of American politics is so much further to the right than in British politics. I consider myself to be a social conservative, and to the left of 99% of the Conservative Party but still completely to the right of Labour. For example, I think Brown did the right thing to part nationalise the banks rather than just give them billions of pounds.
This puts me marginally to the right of centre in the British political spectrum, but firmly to the centre left if I was an American (which, thank goodness, I'm not). A hot topic over the pond is abortion; I am most certainly pro-choice, again making me a Democrat rather than a Republican, whilst many Conservatives in Britain hold the same view as me.
It wasn't a go at you at all, merely a wonder, and posing the question. But although some issues, such as abortion and the possession of firearms are key issues in America, there is as much common ground as there is within British politics, meaning that, such as the Conservatives going away from the EU, and Labour being pro-EU, Republicans / Democrats are pro/anti-abortion. And just because the whole ideology of a party is pro/anti something doesn't mean it'll change, or you have to support it. Basically, you're a Conservative, supporting the representatives to a degree, but perhaps not fully subscribing to everything they stand for (such as anti-EU policy, for example), in the same way many Republicans may be pro-abortion, yet its just a policy not to agreed with by the hierarchy/ideology in the party. I'm not trying to change your view, just something I thought should raise.
Post a Comment