How Would John McCain Govern?
By Tom Shoop | Monday, March 10, 2008 | 12:02 PM
By Tom Shoop | Monday, March 10, 2008 | 12:02 PM
We're only just beginning to see that question explored. McCain himself hasn't given a great deal of hints in this area, other than to say he's more of a leader than a manager and that he's not a fan of "bloated, irresponsible and incompetent government."
But eight years ago, McCain's then-communications director offered this morsel of wisdom about what a McCain administration would look like: it would, he said, be based on the idea that "government should have a limited but activist role in those areas where government is involved."
Former Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore., who served with McCain in the Senate, indicated he would be a hands-on manager as president. "He would be the chief of staff, he would be the commander, no question about it," Packwood said.
Comments
Well the Democratic fronrunner Obama is a co sponsor on Senate bill S2433 which pledges the US to contribute .7% of its GNP every year to the UN for global poverty. That equates to $150 billion a year, so all you died in the wool leftists better look for small pay raises in the future maybe even some years with 0% increase
dan ketter | Wednesday, March 12, 2008 | 10:58 PMOsama has a better plan his top bill that he introduced last year was the Global Poverty reduction bill that the House has already approved. It would have the US donate .7% of our GDP each year to UN for 3rd world countries. It amounts to a little over $150 billion per year.
If you think things are bad now hold on to your pants if Dumb and Dumber get elected
"limited, but activist role" for government.
Where? In my bedroom? On my phone calls? In lining defense contractor wallets?
Certainly not in the areas where real attention is needed: health care, banking...
Viper | Wednesday, March 12, 2008 | 11:17 AMLapel Pins? Public displays of "patriotism"? Labels of "Socialism", every time someone wants to break the stranglehold the AMA and drug companies have on health care in this nation? We are in an intractable war with no end in sight, the economy is in the crapper, the dollar is weak abroad, oil and energy prices are skyrocketing, and 15% of the houses im America are in foreclosure, yet this superficial crap is what is important to you right wingers? Focus on something important and stop annoying everyone with your petty nonsense.
JT | Wednesday, March 12, 2008 | 08:43 AMGosh, Really; Not in favor of "bloated, irresponsible and incompetent government." What a surprise. Just who is avowedly in favor of it?
Phil
flip | Tuesday, March 11, 2008 | 05:40 PMWhen you are confronted with no great candidate to choose you are left with the choice of the lesser of all evils. In this respect I believe that John McCain is the lesser of all evils when the other two choices are clearly socialists. On can not say that John McCain does not stand up for this country while the question has a nebulous answer at best when you consider the other potential candidates.
Maverick | Tuesday, March 11, 2008 | 01:47 PMIts amazing that Bush out performed Kerry and Gore in college, guess the real idots were those who voted for them
dan ketter | Tuesday, March 11, 2008 | 12:09 PMMcCain is not my first choice only because of his stance on Illegal Alien Amnesty. Beyond that, I believe that he loves my country as much as president Bush (our Commander-in-Chief). When Obama's spouse said, "For once in my life, I'm proud to be an American!" That killed any thought of him (or here). He refuses to wear an American Flag lapel pin, saying, "the issues are more important that some lapel pin." I'll take my chances with McCain rather than a guy who lacks "Love of Country" and will KILL ur Military in the process...
Chief | Tuesday, March 11, 2008 | 10:05 AMI think McCain is tweaking his policy stances to the right in order to appease the far right enough to get elected. I believe he is the only candidate left to can actually cross the aisle to get both parties working together to move the country forward.
Clinton and Obama are both too polarizing, so, in my opinion, having either of those dems in the White House would actually be closer to the status quo (ie. stalemate, partisan bickering) than McCain.
B | Tuesday, March 11, 2008 | 09:38 AMLMAO
Clearly "Pjwr" and "Sam" wouldn't know a Socialist if one bit them on the a**.
The corporate owners of the USA will be happy to see either Obama or Hillary elected in November. That would not be the case if a Socialist was on the ticket.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is suffering from a deficit in political awareness.
Clive | Tuesday, March 11, 2008 | 09:05 AMPjwr,
I agree with you. McCain is better than Tweedle Dee (Clinton) and Tweedle Dum (Obama) -- both of whom are socialists once you get past the obvious stylistic differences. Their policies are eerily similar -- left of center.
The country does not need another 'Bush' in the White House and McCain appears to be leaning in that direction more and more each day. Initially, I was under the misconception McCain with his background in the military would be an ideal candidate...however, with the backing of President Bush in his run for office, we can do without his incumbency. We've suffered enough with President Bush's 'mental midget' attitude during this regime and do not need another candidate who will imitate or closely resemble him in the White House. We need a fresh perspective governing the country and leading us in the right direction without being motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives.
CAE | Tuesday, March 11, 2008 | 08:26 AMIt's a trick question! He will die of old age his second day in office.
Joe | Monday, March 10, 2008 | 02:58 PMI do not believe that there will be much of a change, from Bush to Mccain, which will bode badly for this country, should he be elected. There is a need in this country for a change, a change in leadership style, and intelligence. After 8 years of having no intelligent person running this country, it is time that someone comes forward who can bring integrity and honesty back to government. McBush is not the person who will be able to do this, as he has strayed from his "straight shooter" stand, only to become "one of the guys". This country doesn't need another bush, but a true leader.
jd | Monday, March 10, 2008 | 02:13 PMThat certainly sounds better than the communistic sounding alternatives.
Pjwr | Monday, March 10, 2008 | 01:52 PMABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor Tom Shoop takes a look at news and events affecting the federal bureaucracy, from the perspective of a longtime observer of government.
feedARCHIVES
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
CATEGORIES
- Comings and Goings
- Congress
- Defense
- Factoid of the Day
- Fedblog
- General News
- Government Operations
- Headline of the Day
- Homeland Security
- Intelligence
- Management
- Oversight
- Pay and Benefits
- Photo of the Day
- Political Appointees
- Press Release of the Day
- Procurement
- Quote of the Day
- The White House
- The Workforce
- The Workplace