Interesting, but putting McCain in charge of a withdrawal from Iraq would be like putting Bill Gates in charge of a Linux marketing campaign; sure, he would know what he was doing, but he wouldn't want the job, and if he did, it would be for the wrong reasons.
See I disagree, I very much doubt McCain wants to be in Iraq, soldiers hate wars where anytime you shoot someone there is an enquiry, yet are expected to collect bullets and bombs like candy.
I think he would be very interested in making sure the withdrawal is done properly and with the appropriate respect for the troops.
During the election, McCain expressed no interest in withdrawing the troops. He was the 'pro-war' candidate.
So whether or not he would be a good choice in following Obama's directive to get the troops out of Iraq within 16 months depends heavily on whether he is willing to play the good soldier, who always does what he is told, or whether he will continue being a self styled maverick.
Either way, finding someone with McCain's level of experience would not be difficult, and finding someone who has that experience and agrees with Obama's policy is certainly possible.
This only leaves the issue of selecting McCain as a way of bringing together both sides, and, frankly, I think that Obama is a gifted enough statesman to do his job without resorting to what amounts to a cheap political stunt.
You obviously didn't pay that much attention to the campaign. McCain did have a plan for the withdrawal of troops by 2013. Obama's plan would have them out in 2010. Finding a middle ground between these two would not be insurmountable.
As for Good Soldier vs Maverick both get fulfilled as he would get the Maverick tag for accepting the position, which ironically he would do because he is a Good Soldier. The position would allow him to uniquely walk both paths.
On your final point you have either vastly overestimated Obama's ability or vastly underestimated the division which exists in American society.
Also if offering the head of the opposition a key cabinet position is by your definition a "cheap political stunt" I would like to know what you think is not one. This is not the same as Peter Garrett being made environment minister then promptly told to STFU.
Having never watched an episode I must have done it psychicly. :-)
I imagined I would probably spend too much time yelling at the screen so I avoided the series. Though I will admit my idea is as unlikely as a TV script, so perhaps I should be yelling at myself.
Only, McCain has completely different policies. And would probably be rubbish at it.
On the other hand, lots of people do seem to think that Obama is seriously considering either keeping Robert Gates, the current Defence Secretary and a Republican, or appointing Colin Powell. Either would satisfy the bi-partisanship angle, without putting in someone who disagrees with his actual policies. If he doesn't put in a Republican Secretary of Defence, the other rumour is that it will be because he wants to appoint a Repubican Secretary of State (and two GOP in his Cabinet is seen as taking bipartisanship a bit too far).
And McCain is well regarded amongst veterans, but serving troops apparently certainly didn't vote for him.
On your first point, I have already acknowledged his policies were different and that they were not so dissimilar that a common ground could not be met, McCain does not want the troops there forever, and in the 80s went up againt Reagan in regard to troops being in Lebanon. I wonder what justification you have for saying he "would probably be rubbish at it" other than a personal dislike?
On your last point I would love to know your source, so that you can go tell them they are outright wrong. My brother recently returned from over a year in Iraq and I put your point to him last weekend. He stated that every American solider of every rank and every race were McCain supporters and that he never spoke to a single one who supported Obama.
On your first point, I have already acknowledged his policies were different and that they were not so dissimilar that a common ground could not be met
If your aim is bipartisan agreement, you pick a Republican with whom you have policy sympathies, not one that has several directly contradictory policy points and that you are pretty much guaranteed to argue. Basically, Obama has already thought of your basic idea (a token symbolic bipartisan cabinet member in one of the more divisive areas) but has chosen to pick someone with whom there is likely to be a functional relationship instead of an increasingly erratic and divisive failed candidate
( ... )
Comments 13
Reply
Reply
I think he would be very interested in making sure the withdrawal is done properly and with the appropriate respect for the troops.
Reply
So whether or not he would be a good choice in following Obama's directive to get the troops out of Iraq within 16 months depends heavily on whether he is willing to play the good soldier, who always does what he is told, or whether he will continue being a self styled maverick.
Either way, finding someone with McCain's level of experience would not be difficult, and finding someone who has that experience and agrees with Obama's policy is certainly possible.
This only leaves the issue of selecting McCain as a way of bringing together both sides, and, frankly, I think that Obama is a gifted enough statesman to do his job without resorting to what amounts to a cheap political stunt.
Reply
As for Good Soldier vs Maverick both get fulfilled as he would get the Maverick tag for accepting the position, which ironically he would do because he is a Good Soldier. The position would allow him to uniquely walk both paths.
On your final point you have either vastly overestimated Obama's ability or vastly underestimated the division which exists in American society.
Also if offering the head of the opposition a key cabinet position is by your definition a "cheap political stunt" I would like to know what you think is not one. This is not the same as Peter Garrett being made environment minister then promptly told to STFU.
Reply
Reply
Having never watched an episode I must have done it psychicly. :-)
I imagined I would probably spend too much time yelling at the screen so I avoided the series. Though I will admit my idea is as unlikely as a TV script, so perhaps I should be yelling at myself.
Reply
They actually based the latino president character on Obama back when he was just starting out, but it's still pretty bizarre :)
Reply
On the other hand, lots of people do seem to think that Obama is seriously considering either keeping Robert Gates, the current Defence Secretary and a Republican, or appointing Colin Powell. Either would satisfy the bi-partisanship angle, without putting in someone who disagrees with his actual policies. If he doesn't put in a Republican Secretary of Defence, the other rumour is that it will be because he wants to appoint a Repubican Secretary of State (and two GOP in his Cabinet is seen as taking bipartisanship a bit too far).
And McCain is well regarded amongst veterans, but serving troops apparently certainly didn't vote for him.
Reply
On your last point I would love to know your source, so that you can go tell them they are outright wrong. My brother recently returned from over a year in Iraq and I put your point to him last weekend. He stated that every American solider of every rank and every race were McCain supporters and that he never spoke to a single one who supported Obama.
Reply
If your aim is bipartisan agreement, you pick a Republican with whom you have policy sympathies, not one that has several directly contradictory policy points and that you are pretty much guaranteed to argue. Basically, Obama has already thought of your basic idea (a token symbolic bipartisan cabinet member in one of the more divisive areas) but has chosen to pick someone with whom there is likely to be a functional relationship instead of an increasingly erratic and divisive failed candidate ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment