Why/Why not McCain?

[maxpower1227]

McCain is OK in some areas, others he's atrocious. Worst of all, he'll put another conservative on the Supreme court (if given the opportunity) making homosexuality practically illegal, church state separation would disappear, Roe v Wade would be out and all sorts of other theocratic, conservative crap would come into play.

Nothing like some good ol' over the top fear mongering. "Elect McCain and this country will be turned into a religious theocracy"

 

[BPSCG]

Nothing like some good ol' over the top fear mongering. "Elect McCain and this country will be turned into a religious theocracy"

It already is, if you believe Tony and a few others on this board.

 

[proxywar]

You for got to add he is pro-global-trade, is not an xenophobe, and almost switched parties twice.

He is a hell of alot more of a realistic choice than hilary clinton could ever be. The dirt on mrs. clinton is just too much for me to handle I can't vote for her ever. America does not need to leave one dynasty for another. Espeically knowing ann coulter is voting for her means voting for mccain is the proper choice.



http://www.usglobalengagement.org/JohnMcCainForeignPolicyQuoteArchive/tabid/1623/Default.aspx

John mccain quotes on Foreign Policy Topics: As president, I will employ every economic, diplomatic, political, legal, and ideological tool at our disposal to aid moderate Muslims -- women's rights campaigners, labor leaders, lawyers, journalists, teachers, tolerant imams, and many others -- who are resisting the well-financed campaign of extremism that is tearing Muslim societies apart.

The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment. It could provide unimpeded market access to those who share the values of economic and political freedom, an advantage no state-based system could attain. It could bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval. It could unite to impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions. It could provide support to struggling democracies in Ukraine and Serbia and help countries like Thailand back on the path to democracy.

 

[proxywar]

Are you saying no useful information was extracted from any of the three waterboarded prisoners?

If so, please explain how you know this.

george tenet's threat matrix agrees with you on KSM.

 

[proxywar]

Supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007)

What is his reasoning? e.g. Does he think the man should have some input? E.g. or is he against abortion period? I've never paid attention to this stance. Honestly, it Doesn't really bother me either way.

Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)

As it should be.

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)

Disagree harshly, creationsim should only be taught in private school or charter schools.

Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)

He exaggerated alittle here seeing how he won't be in office for 100 years and therefore can't predict the future. But I agree with him about stablizing Iraq during his term.

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)

This would Sort of I guess contradict his roe vs wade stance. But I agree with embryonic stem cell research supported by federal funding.

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)

I harshly disagree, but neoliberals will like this stance.

Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)

Of course why not, Theodore Roosevelt was a Conservationist who did similar activities.

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

I agree. I Just hope those citizens attained those guns properly.
i.e. Worded kinda of ambiguously.

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)

I don't think it is torture, but again neoliberals will like this stance.

Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)

True patriot, didn't sell out his country or his POW buddies, though they brutally beat him.

Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)

It's a flag, I don't give a care. I know the racist meaning behind it, but for crying outloud I'm black and it doesn't offended me. lynard skinner rocks it all the time.

Why or why not would you vote for McCain?

Anything is better than hilary even obama. Sadly obama can't beat her due to superdelegates.

 

[davefoc]

BPSCG's reply to davefoc's comment about McCain's bomb Iran joke:

Please. Guy makes a joke and all the lefties start wetting their pants that he's gonna start World War III. Y'all did exactly the same thing when Reagan was testing a microphone before a Saturday morning radio address and said, ""My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

Get a grip. As it turned out, Reagan was able to figure out a way to destroy the Soviet Union without dropping any bombs on them - something none of his predecessors had been able to do.

ETA: And before that, in 1964, Barry Goldwater was gonna launch World War III. LBJ's people even made a commercial. Of course, Goldwater was defeated and LBJ proceeded to ramp up the war in Vietnam and... Hey! Why are you walking away with your fingers in your ears?

I think you realize this, but for the record I am not a lefty by most definitions of the term.

Of course, my view of this joke and your view comes down to our subjective thoughts about it. For me the joke was highly distasteful for several reasons.
1. There was considerable tension that existed between the US and Iran at the time. A stupid joke like that could easily have exacerbated it. Think how a similar statement by Ahmadinajad would have played in the US.
2. One of the things I am looking for in a leader is a propensity for diplomacy. This kind of joke indicates a personality that finds pleasure in war and that will, from my point of view, be insufficiently motivated to pursue diplomatic solutions.
3. There are many Iranian Americans. This kind of joke might be particularly troubling to them. I know that as a friend of some Iranian Americans I was embarrassed and troubled by it.

Of course, some of this is redundant with respect to me. I believe strongly that the US needs to change its middle east strategy. McCain is an advocate for doing more of what I think is bad. Ending the war is now the most important issue for me when selecting a president. So with or without the joke I wouldn't vote for McCain.

 

[HereticHulk]

Get a grip. As it turned out, Reagan was able to figure out a way to destroy the Soviet Union without dropping any bombs on them - something none of his predecessors had been able to do.

Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union? OMFG!

NO! The Soviet Union (mainly) collapsed because they were trying to do essentially the same thing we are trying to do right now. Trying to maintain their empire, spreading themselves too thin. They were in a ill-conceived non-winnable war that bled them financially dry and it collapsed. History repeats.

 

[supercorgi]

I tend to agree with this somewhat. The bomb,bomb Iran joke was enough to keep me from ever voting for the guy. Somehow the Republican Party has been taken over by pro-war nut jobs. It is true lunacy. The idea that with sufficient bombing and warring the US can achieve perfect safety is in the end going to destroy the US unless it is stopped. We are driving fast for the cliff and bomb, bomb Iran McCain is just another Republican all fired up to push down harder on the accelerator.

I agree with this. I didn't use to think McCain was such a warmonger but he's really, really turned me off during this campaign. I wouldn't have voted Republican anyway but I used to have more respect for McCain.

 

[godless dave]

McCain supported the invasion of Iraq, has not recanted that support, and supports a continued American presence there. Dealbreaker for me.

 

[Kopji]

Being from Arizona I have a rather long and in some ways, admittedly distorted view of the man.

I think the OP does not represent my issues with him as much as a couple of other positions he has taken.

First, the McCain-Feingold "campaign reform" law needs a closer look by those who would vote for him. Some sections have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and its provisions definitely served to preserve and edify the major two parties at the expense of small party candidates.

The other issue is McCains fervent support of an extreme right wing Republican candidate for Arizona governor (who lost despite McCain's endorsement). Still another issue is McCain's support for not only forbidding homosexual partnerships, but overturning a long standing Arizona state policy of providing benefits to heterosexual partners outside of traditional marriage (common law marriages).

 

[BPSCG]

I think you realize this, but for the record I am not a lefty by most definitions of the term.

Understand that anyone to the left of me is a goddam pinko.

Of course, my view of this joke and your view comes down to our subjective thoughts about it. For me the joke was highly distasteful for several reasons.
1. There was considerable tension that existed between the US and Iran at the time. A stupid joke like that could easily have exacerbated it. Think how a similar statement by Ahmadinajad would have played in the US.

Substitute "Soviet Union" and "Gorbachev" (or whoever was running the USSR at the time) for "Iran" and "Ahmedinejad" and you have exactly the same situation. And yet, Reagan never bombed the Soviet Union; instead, he maneuvered it into an arms race that led to its eventual collapse.

2. One of the things I am looking for in a leader is a propensity for diplomacy. This kind of joke indicates a personality that finds pleasure in war and that will, from my point of view, be insufficiently motivated to pursue diplomatic solutions.

Just like Reagan. Oh, wait, he never bombed the Soviet Union.

As regards your claim that McCain "has a personality that finds pleasure in war," I submit that he's experienced the horrors of it a lot more closely than you have, so unless you have some privileged insight into his psyche as the result of your years of personal interaction with the man, I call BS.

3. There are many Iranian Americans. This kind of joke might be particularly troubling to them. I know that as a friend of some Iranian Americans I was embarrassed and troubled by it.

And there were Russian-Americans in 1984. So what? Are they Americans, or are they Iranians? If they're Americans, they recognize that Iran - certainly the current regime there - is no friend of America. If they're Americans, they understand that the current regime in Iran has bought and paid for weapons being used today to kill their fellow countrymen in Iraq. If they're Americans, then when they were naturalized, they swore an oath that they would no longer give any allegiance to any foreign country. So the fact that they are Iranian-Americans should be as irrelevant to them as the fact that my parents were French-Americans is to me when I hear a French joke.

If you have honest policy differences with McCain that make him lose your vote, fine. But spare us the faux horror at his joke about bombing Iran.

 

[SezMe]

And yet, Reagan never bombed the Soviet Union; instead, he maneuvered it into an arms race that led to its eventual collapse.

He also doubled the national debt to do so. And instituted tax and fiscal policies that have led to the disasterous fiscal position that our nation is now in. Unless these policies are reversed - something McCain will not do - we are headed for the same cliff.

 

[Kopji]

Here is a Phoenix editorial from a couple years ago on the McCain-Feingold act. Curiously, it looks like this may rise to being an issue again come about June.
(Yes, the Examiner has its biases.)

http://www.examiner.com/a-256840~Editorial__McCain_Feingold_was_a_mistake.html

From memory - the issue here in the last Arizona state elections centered around small parties like Green and Libertarian that had not traditionally invested in fielding candidates a long time in advance. When election time came around, they found that their traditional tactics of criticizing on "issues" were now illegal. They would have needed to have a long term strategy and finances similar to the major parties to compete with the Democrats and Republicans.

So a concern with McCain then, (and the editorial happened to mention it), is his support of transparency in government. Bush's has been one of the most closed and secretive administrations ever, and openness should hopefully be an issue by November. Where does McCain stand on allowing us to see into the workings of his government?

IMHO the Iraq war is a subject that McCain has always been courageous and forward about. He knows that his viewpoint will be unpopular with some and he stands by it. When he says 'long term presence' he means something more like we do in South Korea. I am not any more concerned about him being a warmonger (with Iran) than other candidates.

 

[davefoc]

If you have honest policy differences with McCain that make him lose your vote, fine. But spare us the faux horror at his joke about bombing Iran.

BPSCG, I am not sure that there is much to be said here. I was disappointed in your response in that it seemed unnecessarily hostile and it didn't seem to acknowledge the reality of the situation.

I am the only one who can no whether my horror is faux or not. You might reasonably enough have found the joke to be trivial and insignificant. I do not question that you have honestly conveyed your reaction to it. I don't even assert that the nature of the joke proves you wrong and me right. In the end it is a subjective judgment.

That Reagan made a similar joke is not proof that my judgment about the joke was wrong. Although it might be noted that Reagan made his joke privately and it was only happenstance that it became public. This suggests that Reagan might have shared my view that this kind of joke by a national leader is inappropriate.

I would also note that I made it clear that I would not vote for McCain regardless of the joke. I was not hiding this and did not imply that the joke was the sole basis for the reason that I wouldn't vote for McCain.

As to me being more left wing than you: Hmm, I'm not sure. I have fairly right wing opinions about the appropriate role of government and economics. Even where I favor government intervention, I generally believe that the government programs should be financed and run by the states. I am at least more right wing than the average Republican political leader on economic issues. I will concede that on the left/right scale of foreign policy I am more left wing than the average Republican politician and more left wing than you. But at one point my views on that might have marked me as right wing, but lately right wing seems to be used to describe people who favor nation building and military intervention more than the average citizen. I think the issue of whether you are more right wing than I am in total is murky and might swing on how you decided to weight different views of mine and yours.

Either way, I suspect that Rush Limbaugh is unlikely to favor the views of either one of us on many issues and I suspect that if we were national politicians he'd have plenty of bad stuff to say about both of us.

 

[Richard Masters]

You for got to add he is pro-global-trade, is not an xenophobe, and almost switched parties twice.

He is a hell of alot more of a realistic choice than hilary clinton could ever be. The dirt on mrs. clinton is just too much for me to handle I can't vote for her ever. America does not need to leave one dynasty for another. Espeically knowing ann coulter is voting for her means voting for mccain is the proper choice.



http://www.usglobalengagement.org/JohnMcCainForeignPolicyQuoteArchive/tabid/1623/Default.aspx

John mccain quotes on Foreign Policy Topics: As president, I will employ every economic, diplomatic, political, legal, and ideological tool at our disposal to aid moderate Muslims -- women's rights campaigners, labor leaders, lawyers, journalists, teachers, tolerant imams, and many others -- who are resisting the well-financed campaign of extremism that is tearing Muslim societies apart.

The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment. It could provide unimpeded market access to those who share the values of economic and political freedom, an advantage no state-based system could attain. It could bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval. It could unite to impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions. It could provide support to struggling democracies in Ukraine and Serbia and help countries like Thailand back on the path to democracy.

Don't forget he tried to kick Iran out of the World Cup. Fortunately, he failed.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Eh. As sad as this sounds, if the choice is him vs. Clinton, I'd vote for him. But I'm devoutly hoping that Obama gets the Dem nomination.

 

[Richard Masters]

Eh. As sad as this sounds, if the choice is him vs. Clinton, I'd vote for him. But I'm devoutly hoping that Obama gets the Dem nomination.

Maybe this belongs in another thread, but Why Obama, not McCain? In fact, I will start another thread.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I find it odd that some people seem on the fence whether to vote for Hillary or McCain (assuming it comes to those two). Upchurch, whom I respect, is one.

I think many of their stances are quite opposed to each other on most issues. So are the issues no longer important or do other less tangible factors decide the vote for an individual? Why do the less tangible factors outweigh the actual positions and goals of the candidates?

Turn on your stereo, and cue up the band "Living Color."

Cult of Personality

A timely tune for our electoral skullduggery, don't you think?

It's also what is going on. Person packaging.

Want to pick who to vote for? Figure out what the packagers stand for. It's a bit trickier than listening to the news, but I think it will be worth the effort. I am still working on that one.

DR