John McCain instead of George W Bush

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by PMN1, Mar 21, 2008.

  1. PMN1 Member

    Jan 25, 2006
    What changes do you see if John McCain won the Republican nomination for the 2000 US Presidential election rather than George W Bush?
  2. lounge60 Member

    Mar 29, 2006
    Many things.
    A good moderate Republican like Eisenhower, instead that the worse President since Warren G. Harding.
  3. zoomar Curmudgeon

    Jan 5, 2004
    Occupied Sequoyah, CSA (Okla)
    (1) McCain can be a angry man. US initial response to 9/11 in Afghanistan might be quicker, stronger, and more unilateral than GWB, and the "us vs them" rhetoric would be even stronger. McCain might be more likely to see Pakistan as a potential target as well, and develop bilateral relationships with India to threaten and pressure Pakistan to eliminate it's frontier as a haven for the Taliban and AlQaida. However, McCain might be more willing to seek meaningful international coalitions before extending US interventions beyond the Afghanistan/Pakistan area where the actual attackers were based. Although he is now a strong supporter of the Iraq war, it is hard to imagine a realist like McCain would have invaded Iraq if he really knew the intelligence basis on which it was predicated and in face of such widespread international opposition. If he did, I suspect it would be with a larger force, including a force better equiped to occupy, rebuild, and govern Iraq after the initial campaign was successful.

    (2) McCain would govern more as the elder Bush in domestic and economic affairs. Lacking a strong affiliation with the social/religious conservatives, he might give lip service to the cause of theirs he might agree with (abortion), but be willing to compromise.

    (3) McCain would be more open to compromise with Europe on environmental issues

    (4) He would attempt to be a reformer regarding campaign finances and immigration, but would likely fail.
  4. Dean_the_Young Uppity Bad Spellar

    Jan 12, 2007
    A India-US relationship would be attempted anyways, for other reasons. What would not change, however, is that Pakistan is a unsteady nuclear power. There's only so much pressure you can put on someone who, if they fall, could lose control over their nuclear arsenal.

    If it goes beyond there. It might, but there's no guarantee.

    This assumes that McCain would take the same gamble that Bush did, and that's a bit more of a stretch. If he did, though, the differences may very well not be in the initial invasion, but in the run up and after effects.

    Why? If Bill Clinton wouldn't even submit the Kyoto treaty, why should McCain?

    Unless by "compromise" you mean "makes Europe change its mind on certain issues."
    Oh, he might get some gains, if not the whole deal. The Hundred Days, remember?
  5. Berra Friendly Pitchfork Operator

    Jan 21, 2006
    Ouch. Things goes political. Long debate on prez Harding. :D At least Harding didn't bog down the US in any unwinable wars. It would be fairer to compare Bush Kennedy/LBJ for the Vietnam thingy.
  6. lounge60 Member

    Mar 29, 2006
    Well,is for this that I LIKE IKE (and Nelson Rockefeller,and William Scranton...)
  7. Ynnead Don't call it a comeback.

    Dec 6, 2007
    Police State of Arizona
    teapot dome
  8. zeitenschmiede Well-Known Member

    Nov 2, 2006
    Since McCain was subject to torture himself, Guantanamo Prison would not exist in its current form.

    Maybe even Abu Ghraib would not have happened, but that depends on the level of authority that actually stood behind those procedures.
  9. whaleofashrimp Well-Known Member

    Jan 6, 2008
    I never realised teapot dome cost the lives of between 100,000- 1,000,000 people?
    (thats is big descrepancy the 100,000 number is just based on which civilian deaths are reported by at least two major news sources :rolleyes:
    And the math of 1,000,000 attributes EVERYTHING form gun shots to natrual causes to the war
    I heard the most realistic number is around 400,000-600,000
    even so did 400,000-600,000 die from teapot dome?
    i wont include afganistan in this numbers because i frmly belive it was inavoidable reguardless of president)

    As for john mccain I'm not sure.....on the one hand he's known for his temper,republican knee jerk support of military action,islamophobia and the inherant right of american suprime domination which means things might be ugly with those who dont bow down and suck the american cock of power and drink the jissem of corporte domination, lazee fair capitalism and american bases

    on the other hand he's an actualy veteran who's seen the worse of war and not some sniveling neo-con who's played one to many wargames and fancys himself napoleon
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2008
  10. TemporalRenegade -stan suffix afficianado

    Apr 16, 2007
    :rolleyes: McCain: Myth of the Maverick, Moderate he is not!

    Why lounge60 would continue to buy into the whole moderate McCain nonsense is a mystery. He may not be an ultra-conservative, but he is no moderate. I would say that John McCain is fairly conservative on social and cultural issues, though not theocratic, and right-of-center on economics, though moderate on environment and liberal on immigration. But if you ask me, John McCain is a fascist! I think should the country get drunk and elect him this November, we will have a head of state so bad that Bush will be sorely missed. I am not sure if McCain would have been better or worse than Bush. It has been years since such an overt imperialist made a presidential run. Juan McWar never met a war he did not like. Back in the Clinton years, when Slick Willie was calling for military action in the Balkans, while the GOP (in the phony partisanism that must continue to keep the illusion of popular sovereignty going) staged an opposition to the intervention of Bill Clinton, a neoconservative in all but name when you think about it, because Republicans are against wars initiated by Democrats, McCain was one of the few Republicans in Congress to throw support behind the war. The one way in which McCain is non-partisan is in his unconditional support of war.

    In short, McCain is a power hungry scoundrel who would do anything to gain votes. Unlike George W. Bush, who pretended to be a Christian to gain support from the religious right, McCain at least had the decency to call the religious right, including Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, agents of intolerance. Eight years later, Johnny Mac accepted an edorsement from John Hagee, a radical Zionazi and openly anti-Catholic pastor who makes Falwell and Robertson almost seem reasonable or tolerant.

    I fail to see how McCain would have been any better than George W. Bush.
  11. alt_historian Has returned... again

    May 18, 2007
    Republic of Surrey
    You're all over the place here, you realise...
    OK, up to this point you're saying McCain is generally in the middle of the Republican Party spectrum (if I understand US politics correctly), and in fact trends to the left in some ways. Then, you say:
    How the fuck does that square with what you stated just then? In the immediately preceding sentence? Remember you were stating that as your own opinion, not as public opinion.
    Right... so you think he'd be pretty awful, then? Much worse than Bush, right?
    FFS, man. Make up your mind before you start writing. If you haven't done so, at least read through what you've just written, to make sure sentence a, b, c and d all actually support your conclusion in sentence h. As it is, you're arguing back and forth with yourself, and nobody else.
    And again. I won't even bother with the rest.
  12. Timmy811 Member

    Apr 15, 2005
    I believe he would have put many more troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and this may have led to the capture of bin Laden.

    I don't believe he would have attacked Iraq. I believe he would have increased the size of the military right after 9/11 rather than resisting pressure to do so for years like Rumsfeld did. He would have done this with an eye towards confronting Iran. Something he may have done in his second term, if he was re-elected.
  13. Ibn Warraq Banned

    Sep 2, 2006
    You have done two things. First, you have shown that you haven't the slightest idea what a fascist is. Second, you have insulted everyone who actually had to live under a fascist dictatorship. Please go read a book so you have some understanding of what fascism is before posting on this subject again.
  14. TemporalRenegade -stan suffix afficianado

    Apr 16, 2007
    Exactly. McCain the Moderate is a media myth. He is "moderate" or "liberal" on a select few issues such as abortion or the environment, but when you ignore his stance on global warming, illegal immigration, and an assortment of wedge issues (phony issues that exploit the religious interests of segments of the population), then you realize what a hard right authoritarian McCain is.

    On social and cultural issues he may be "moderately conservative" he is somewhat to the "left" of a few Democrats on some environmental issues (being one of the few Republicans in favor of initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions) and he is in favor of amnesty for illegal immigration. On economic issues, McCain is by no means a fiscal conservative in the Old Right sense, but then again, very few Republicans are fiscal conservatives in the older sense. McCain, like the rest of his party, is just as Keynesian as the Democrats, albeit in a different way. Democrats can be called "left-Keynesians" as they are in favor of the welfare state (even though most Democrats nowadays are really not that far left), while the present day Republican Party can be called right-Keynesian. The neoconservative GOP is largely corporatist.

    By the standards of the New Right, John McCain is slightly to the right of his party. The only true fiscal conservative to run for presidency in 2008 was Ron Paul. But McCain is no liberal or moderate on economics. He is a corporatist whose first loyalties lie with the military-industrial complex. His opposition to the Bush tax cuts was not for left-liberal reasons but because cutting taxes is not feasible in time of war.

    No, I reject the media opinion that McCain is some sort of moderate or worse still "independent" though I conceded that he is more moderate or liberal than his party on a select few issues, many of which are completely irrelevant in practice. All in all, John McCain is a power-hungry authoritarian, and a hard right (notice I did not say "far right") one at that. I stand by my statement that he is fascistic (though certainly no Hitler or Mussolini). Despite his stance on illegal immigration or global warming, or even his bipartisanship, John McCain is an unapologetic war mongerer. You will not find a more neoconservative candidate than him. (Also, one need not be far right on economics to be fascist. In fact very few fascists were economic right-wingers except for Pinochet. Hitler and Mussolini were Keynesian corporatists.)

    John McCain, 2008 edition? Yes. If he is elected his term would be WORSE than Bush. I would expect McCain to start World War Three. I am not sure about the 2000 edition, the eight years saner, eight years more competent, eight years less senile McCain back when he ran against Bush for the GOP nomination.

    One thing is for sure, John McCain is stupider than Bush. I think that George W. Bush is in actuality extremely intelligent, possibly genius (or perhaps more likely, sub-genius) but he is also very cunning. I think that George W acts stupid to throw people off, so people think that he is an idiot when in fact he is a devious mastermind. Bush was an average student at an Ivy League school (whose less-than-good grades were more a result of partying than stupidity). McCain graduated at the bottom of his class in the military academy.

    Touche! Good point, I should have come to a conclusion faster. I said that I was not sure if McCain (2000 ed.) would have been better or worse than Bush if nominated in '00. Would a McCain 2000-2004 candidacy have been more or less disasterous than Bush? (Of course this would assume he could even beat Al Gore.) I do not doubt that he would be WAY WORSE than Bush if elected in 2008. But now that I think about it, John McCain would probably have been worse then as well. What impact did George W. Bush and his cronyism coupled with robber baron capitalism (corporatism as opposed to free market enterprise) have on the economy? How did his deficit spending affect the debt, the value of currency, etc.? Now remember that GWB had an MBA. McCain admit that he doesn't know shit about economics.

    But I guess one of the central issues is the Iraq War. If Bush decided not to start a war/intervention in Iraq, surely his candidacy would not have been seen as disasterous by many, and he probably would not rank as high among the truly bad presidents. Would John McCain have gone to Iraq? IOTL, he was a big time cheerleader for the war, but some think we probably would not have been in Iraq.

    John McCain is a hard-right authoritarian and a corporatist. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology and is usually coupled with corporatism. Other tenets of fascism include militarism and imperialism. As such, McCain meets many of the tenets of fascism at least minimally. McCain might not be a Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Francisco Franco, Hirohito, Ioannis Metaxas, Diem, Pol Pot, Augosto Pinochet, Idi Amin, or Saddam Hussein. I do consider him in the same league as some lesser authoritarian dictators such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Pilsudski, Peron, and Syngam Rhee.

    For instance, many people associate fascism with racism. While such dictators as Mussolini, Metaxas, Hitler, and Hirohito were all virulently racist, fascism was not necessarily always racist in nature. I do not think that John McCain is racist, though I would not be surprised if he was at least a little racist (he does admire that "progressive racist" Theodore Roosevelt but that may not mean McCain shares TR's belief in white man's burden), but I do not know enough so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

    I would argue that the "War Against Terror" is an effectively racist effort even if the neocons who advocate the war do not advocate racism. Like all wars against nouns: War on War (American entry into WW1, the "War to end all Wars"), War on Booze (Prohibition), War on Drugs, Culture War etc. that reactionaries and sometimes leftists (War on Poverty) advance, the War on Terror can be expected to fail. Such "wars" whether in the form of a literal war or a kulturkampf will fail. I think that The War Against Terror falls into that category.

    But how is T.W.A.T. racist? First off, what does this campaign entail? Everybody knows that the War on Terrorism is not about terrorism per se, rather it is about fighting Islamist terrorism. This anti-terror campaign is ostensibly about combating Islamic extremism, but if that is the case then it is doomed to failure. That is because Islamic fundamentalism can never be stopped by force of arms. As such, the only possible outcomes for this "war" are failure, extermination, or perpetual war.

    If the goal is to "win" (and finish) T.W.A.T. then it becomes a war of extermination. If the goal is to simply fight and refuse defeat then it becomes a perpetual war. I am not saying that Islamic extremism is immortal, only that it can not be eradicated through military activity. But how should T.W.A.T. be fought? Defining terrorism and terrorist acts is difficult enough with secular terrorists. In this great campaign against Islamic fundies, how do we know who the terrorists are? Offensive campaings against terrorism are extremely difficult to accomplish. And in the process there will be many civilian casualties. Many men resort to terrorism purely out of revenge, even if they were not believers in the cause. Some have had family killed, whether or not the victims deserved it, and resorted to retaliation. It happens to Israel and may happen to the US. We could certainly fight limited antiterrorism campaigns to bring those responsible for specific acts to justice. We could maybe even capture and kill leaders of terrorist groups. But to think that anyone could stop an ideology like that once and for all is insanely idiotic.

    So do you cut the heads off the hydra or burn it from the ground? Aimless campaigns against "the terrorists" without knowing friend from foe will create more terrorists. Western interventionism was one of the root causes of reactionary Islamic activity. To think that Western interventionism could solve the problem it created in the first place is nonsensical. Eventually such tactics will create more and more terrorists. The only way to stop it is to either kill off every last member of the group whether innocent or not, or else to decimate entire populations leaving too few survivors to carry out attacks, and leaving them defeated enough that they might finally give up. Hence why I think that T.W.A.T. is not only unwinnable, but almost genocidal. The neocons and their useful idiots who believe that Iraq is a battlefront in "The War Against Terrorism" have no idea what they are getting into.

    John McCain refuses to accept defeat even in an unwinnable war. So how does he define a win? Would he finish the job or just fight forever and call it a win because he never forfeit? The only options this would leave him are perpetual war or a genocidal war to exterminate or decimate much of the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia. Any one who would chose the latter option is little better than the Nazis, and thus seems pretty fascist to me. Whereas advocates of "perpetual war for perpetual peace" seem fascistic in a different sense, more like Big Brother from 1984. I trust that McCain is not that genocidal and that he prefers the former option (never ending war) as indicated by his 100 years in Iraq comment.

    Even Bush admit that such a war on terrorism is unwinnable, yet he refuses to forfeit or admit failure. Like Bush, I think that McCain favors perpetual war. It is said that warfare is the health of the state. Perpetual warfare is thus valuable to certain individuals who want to gain power and keep it. For such people and groups, world peace is not only unattainable, but undesireable. Now that the Cold War is over, the neocons must find more war to keep the proles in line.

    So when I call McCain fascist, I am NOT likening him to Hitler. I am equating John McCain to Big Brother from the George Orwell novel. Note also that while Bush is an ardent statist and quite authoritarian, I do not think that GWB is a fascist.
  15. Zyzzyva Was a Teenage Swine-Flu Vector

    Dec 20, 2005
    Karl Marx Cholm, Bygrad
    Well, at least it's not about Obama and Hillary... :eek:

    That said, PChat! Now! Move it!

    EDIT: Oooh, 666 posts!
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2008
  16. TemporalRenegade -stan suffix afficianado

    Apr 16, 2007
    P.S. Lest anyone think that McCain is a moderate, maverick, or any other magical word that begins with an M, check out this blog post:

    See where McCain ranks compared to four Democrats and two Republicans in Congress. He may not be as far right as Rick Santorum (a different kind of fascist), but he is closer to Santorum and Frist than Kerry or Clinton on most issues. He is even removed from more "moderate" Democrats like Harry Reid or Joseph Lieberman. The one area where he appears moderate or even liberal is the area of environmental issues.

    The thing that stands out about McCain is he seems more consistently authoritarian than any other candidate from either party. While theocratic social conservatives like Santorum want to run everybody's life, McCain will grab a little bit from that bag, a little bit from the PC thought police bag (McCain-Feingold), and will shill for any war!
  17. Reylance Unsigged Member

    Aug 14, 2007
    I will be interested in seeing what President Clinton or Obama will propose "for your own good," and the reactions of the posters on the forum to those proposals.
  18. Zajir ƶɑĵıř

    Nov 25, 2007
    TemperalRenegade,how was Emperor Hirohito a fascist,the man was supposed to be above politics?
    And Theodore Roosevelt a fascist?
  19. TimKeck84 Not dead yet

    Aug 21, 2006
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Completely Ignoring all of the political crap flying.......

    What if the POD for a McCain Election was that the "Push-polling" and other dirty tactics used in the primaries was found to be at Bush's direct request.

    Now IIRC this isn't how it happened, but this is Alternate History.

    The people know know that Bush is a dirtbag and have proof of it (his actions and words in that primary). What happens next?
  20. Reylance Unsigged Member

    Aug 14, 2007
    The media's support for John McCain evaporates the instant the nomination is decided. They decide to dredge up the Keating Five.