What was McCain thinking?

Rather than who's preacher said what or what the conditions were in Bosnia 14 years ago, this is the kind of thing we should be focused on:.

WASHINGTON — John McCain dropped a little-noticed bombshell into his March foreign-policy address: Boot Russia from the G-8, the elite club of leading industrial democracies whose leaders try to coordinate economic policies.

One major problem: He can't do it because the other G-8 nations won't let him.
But the fact that he's proposing to try, risking a return to Cold War tensions with the world's second-largest nuclear power after 20 years of prickly partnership, raises questions about McCain's judgment. It also underscores that many of his top foreign-policy advisers are of the same neo-conservative school that promoted the war in Iraq, argue for a tougher stance toward Iran and are skeptical of negotiating with North Korea over its nuclear program.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/35556.html

Or that Russia and Georgia are posturing for potential war.

By the way, have you seen that McCain's former wife had a black baby? I think she had it with John Kerry while shooting him in the butt so he could receive a purple heart.

Furthermore, Cruz Bustamonte is a racist Mexican extremist who wants to give California back to Mexico.


I lernt bunches from them what told me.

Should we not be worried about that direction Russia is headed Ziggy?

Aaron wrote:Should we not be worried about that direction Russia is headed Ziggy?

We should be more "worried" about which direction the U.S.A. is headed.

But anyway, so why try to throw Russia out of the G-8?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Should we not be worried about that direction Russia is headed Ziggy?

We should be more "worried" about which direction the U.S.A. is headed.

But anyway, so why try to throw Russia out of the G-8?

You do understand the concept of the original G7, don't you Ziggy? I'm not saying I necessary agree with McCain because last night was the first I read about this but considering the G7 was a meeting of DEMOCRACIES, if Russia is headed back to a Communist state, why should they continue as a member?

How does an organization that operates by consensus expel one of its own members?

I am reminded that at one time the Church of God based in Cleveland Tennessee had segregated churches, meaning that chirches were recognized by the national headquarters as either of the "Church of God, black" division, or the "Church of God, white" division. Each division had its own governing bodies, totally separate from the other. Their only common bond was, supposedly, their professed association with the national headquerters based on a common creed or doctrine. The two divisions' annual national meetings, called "General Assemblies", were held separately.

As far as I know this black / white division of the Church of God based in Cleveland Tennessee was not a problem for anyone. "Black" division churches allowed white members and attendees, and "white" division churches allowed (usually) black members and attendees. The assigned divisions were based on the individual churches' simple declarations that they were "black" or "white".

But by the late 1960s there developed a movement within the WHITE division of the Church of God to combine the white and black divisions of the C.O.G. into one single national Church of God, without delineations as to race.

But the black division was proud of its designation as am autonomous black denomination- for whatever reasons. And so it resisted the merger efforts. Frustrated, the "white" division eventually simply moved to combine the two divisions into a single denomination- without the consent of the other, and issued national and local edicts to ALL the C.O.G. affiliates accordingly.

That the white C.O.G. General Assembly felt empowered to summarily unilaterally declare that the two "separate" divisions as no longer separate then gave lie to the white pretense that there were two separate, autonomous divisions of the Church of God.

And so as John McCain might presume to throw Russia out of the consensus operated Group of Eight, I am reminded of how equal parties presumably operating under consensus are not always equal. If some combination of the G-8 can throw out Russia, then why couldn't some combination of the same group throw out the U.S.A.?

Besides, nobody would throw them out for a quaint notion like "Democracy"....not when there's money and oil at stake.

The G8 has more to do with the size of your economy than the rights of the citizens.

So the answer is no then.

Can the DNC throw a registered Republican out of the County or State Democrat Party?

.

The question is why would Democrats allow Republicans a voice in choosing their candidates or running their Party?

Makes no sense to me why they let Republicans vote in their Primaries.

Likewise with the G-7 or G-8.

It goes back to their mission or purpose.

If they dont agree with the mission or purpose they should no longer be part of the group.

Exactly Sherm. The misssion of the G7 is an informal (key word-no treaties or formal policies are set) meeting of the leading DEMOCRACIES of the world to discuss common interest and goals.

If Russia is headed BACK to communism, they would no longer have common interest or goals, so why would other members want them to attend.

Yes, it is true that we as the United States cannot kick another member out of the G 7 or G 8 or G 8+5 or whatever the group is. We can refuse to attend the meetings though. IMO, if McCain, upon winning in November, does not wish to attend the Summit along side what he perceives as a communist Russia in attendance, then he needs to take his ball and go home.

SamCogar wrote:Can the DNC throw a registered Republican out of the County or State Democrat Party?

No, not in West Virginia.

shermangeneral wrote:The question is why would Democrats allow Republicans a voice in choosing their candidates or running their Party?

Makes no sense to me why they let Republicans vote in their Primaries.

Likewise with the G-7 or G-8.

It goes back to their mission or purpose.

If they dont agree with the mission or purpose they should no longer be part of the group.

"Dont agree with the mission or purpose", as determined by whom? By Aaron? By John McCain?

Aaron wrote:Exactly Sherm. The misssion of the G7 is an informal (key word-no treaties or formal policies are set) meeting of the leading DEMOCRACIES of the world to discuss common interest and goals.

Says who?

The G8 was originally formed for industrial nations to address economic concerns—specifically the recession sparked by the oil crisis in the 1970s—but politics were introduced to the agenda soon after the group's founding.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/10647/#3

ziggy wrote:

shermangeneral wrote:The question is why would Democrats allow Republicans a voice in choosing their candidates or running their Party?

Makes no sense to me why they let Republicans vote in their Primaries.

Likewise with the G-7 or G-8.

It goes back to their mission or purpose.

If they dont agree with the mission or purpose they should no longer be part of the group.

"Dont agree with the mission or purpose", as determined by whom? By Aaron? By John McCain?

By the member countries. Maybe you should try reading about teh summits and their goals and not jump bassackwards into the conservation simply to disagree with a Republican or Aaron. You might actually learn something dude.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Exactly Sherm. The misssion of the G7 is an informal (key word-no treaties or formal policies are set) meeting of the leading DEMOCRACIES of the world to discuss common interest and goals.

Says who?

The G8 was originally formed for industrial nations to address economic concerns—specifically the recession sparked by the oil crisis in the 1970s—but politics were introduced to the agenda soon after the group's founding.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/10647/#3

Your source. It's a 'get-to-gather' if you will and according to your source...

What is the extent of the G8’s efficacy and influence?

Opinions vary. The G8 issues numerous statements, makes various commitments, and draws attention to certain issues, but experts say most achievements are on a small scale and made behind the scenes. Joseph Nye, professor of international relations at Harvard University, says the G8 "gets the bureaucracies to focus," and John Kirton, director of the University of Toronto's G8 Research Group (which analyzes each summit), notes that commitments and compliance have increased over the years. Such a finding, however, coincides with a decrease in combined economic power of the G-8 nations. Regardless of waning influence, James Goldgeier, CFR adjunct senior fellow for Europe Studies, says the G8 was not designed to have much political impact to begin with; for political change, he says, more countries would need to be involved.

...very little is even expected to be accomplished.

I'll bet it sucks to be proven wrong by your own source. Nice try though!!!

http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/summit/1990houston/political.html

Zig this sort of gives some background and foundation about mine and Aaron's remarks here, I think...

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

shermangeneral wrote:The question is why would Democrats allow Republicans a voice in choosing their candidates or running their Party?

Makes no sense to me why they let Republicans vote in their Primaries.

Likewise with the G-7 or G-8.

It goes back to their mission or purpose.

If they dont agree with the mission or purpose they should no longer be part of the group.

"Dont agree with the mission or purpose", as determined by whom? By Aaron? By John McCain?

By the member countries.

Exactly. Now you are back to the point of original post of this thread- that it would take Russia's agreement to throw Russia out of the G8- McCain's expression of U.S. unilateralism notwithstanding.

Zig I dont think you read my reference.

Or at least you did not read it the same way I did.

(about encouraging the rooskies to adopt truth, justice, and the American way)...

I think we need to lead by example and if we don't want the Russians in, we don't try and throw them out, we walk away. That is my opinion.

Aaron wrote:I think we need to lead by example and if we don't want the Russians in, we don't try and throw them out, we walk away. That is my opinion.

And it's a very good one.

But that is not what McCain said. McCain seems to prefer throwing U.S. weight around to make someone else do something- in the situation we are discussing here, to make someone else "walk away". It is a recipe for more foolish, avoidable and unnecessary international confrontation.

Foolish and unnecassary mabye. Unavoidable? I don't think so. Should Russia head back down the path to communism, there will be confrontation somewhere at somepoint. But I agree, we don't need to push it, merely respond accordingly when the confrontation comes.

Sherm,

Both parties have open primaries, depending on the state. "Raiding" another party's primary is not new and not the invention of either party.

Your beef is better put on the state parties and the state legislatures.

SheikBen wrote:Sherm,

Both parties have open primaries, depending on the state. "Raiding" another party's primary is not new and not the invention of either party.

Your beef is better put on the state parties and the state legislatures.

Well Mike just for the record, I don't think Dems should be voting in republicans either.

Same principle applies either way.

And I certainly prefer a Primary to a caucus where there is too much intimidation factor involved.

But bottom line I think if parties are going to run Candidates then the Parties should choose those candidates.

(I also think the Parties should bear the expense of choosing them, but that's another argument for another day.)

Good. I agree we should let folks vote. Does that mean you oppose card check legislation?