Why I can't get behind McCain... (2 Viewers)

[Sardonios]

There is a lot to like about McCain, but some of his positions aren't conservative.

I've yet to see a candidate whose name couldn't replace "McCain" in this sentence.

----
I see McCain as the best of our options this cycle. I don't care for McCain-Feingold. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "his record against Industry;" I'm not aware of any consistent anti-business record he has. As for the "for enemy combatants" dreck, I just can't get on-board with any line of thinking that identifies a remarkably bellicose candidate who happens to oppose torture as "pro-enemy-combatant."

Even if I agreed (aside from McCain-Feingold) that his record on these issues were blemishes, none of them strike me as a disqualifying problem. His record on free trade is excellent; I like his positions on health care, social security, and the war going-forward; and he seems to be one of the few candidates who can repair some of the fracturing of the conservative movement.

All of those issues seem to me to be far more urgent and important than whether McCain would waterboard an enemy combatant who knew the shutdown code of the Ticking Bomb.

The one thing that does trouble me a bit about McCain is the scuttlebutt claiming he's pretty intolerable behind the scenes. Still, if anything, that would seem to indicate that he might be a weak executive, and, after the last 15 years, I'm pretty much fine with that prospect.

 

[LSSpam]

If that's the case then you're going to have a difficult time voting for anyone unless Nader runs again...

Funny you mention my 2000 vote

Yeah, I agree. Look I vote in Mississippi, I know where my electoral votes are going right now (the answer is "Red" regardless of who runs for that color), so I can afford to be principled.

 

[LSSpam]

As for the "for enemy combatants" dreck, I just can't get on-board with any line of thinking that identifies a remarkably bellicose candidate who happens to oppose torture as "pro-enemy-combatant."

Especially when it's John freaking McCain. I'm not saying you have to have been tortured to have an opinion on torture, but if any politician has the moral authority to be a little self-righteous about that topic, you know...yeah.

 

[MLU]

Funny you mention my 2000 vote

Yeah, I agree. Look I vote in Mississippi, I know where my electoral votes are going right now (the answer is "Red" regardless of who runs for that color), so I can afford to be principled.

LOL

<---- Nader 2004

 

[TPS]

>><---- Nader 2004

Pfff. Nader 1996, before it was cool. :17:

McCain is the only Republican presidential candidate I've ever considered voting for in any past election, and I might vote for him in 2008 . However, that party, since the Ike days, has been nothing but a bunch of criminals and zealots at the federal/executive level. It's been that way since the 1960's.

How people continue to paint any of their presidencies as glory days just goes to show how terrible things really are in America from an intellectual standpoint.

TPS

 

[wamland]

The man gives a good hug

 

[dapperdan]

I'm having a tough time with this year's republican candidates. It's coming down to the last man standing.

Huckabee is out - for some reason, I just don't trust Huckabee, how can you trust a fellow who USED to be a minister, but turned to politics. Was he looking for redemption?

Romney. oh, no way I could vote for Romney, he comes off as Mr. Slick; I don't like his haircut and good god, the guy is just full of himself. He is the Republican equivalent of John Edwards.

Fred Thompson. How can you not like Fred. He's got a mug that looks like Jed Clampett's ol' dog Duke. But good god, show some energy. I just don't see the passion. I keep hearing comparisons with Reagan, but unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember the '76 Convention, when Reagan inspired. Maybe I'm too old, or jaded, but I just don't see anything inspirational with Fred.

Rudy...Unfortunately Rudy has fallen off the face of the political earth. I have no idea where he's been the last three months. He comes out for the debates and then goes back to his room. Very odd. I've never seen a national poll leader intentially disappear like Rudy has.

Ron Paul. You've got to be kidding. Whip out the tinfoil hats. His domestic message gets lost because of the messenger. The Republican Party's version of the KosKids.

McCain...Probably not emotionally suitable to be President. And he's written, and supported, some really bad legislation. Personally, I don't mind his immigration stance, it's pretty realistic. But, by and large, I agree with his viewpoint on Iraq, and how he plans on confronting radical Islam.

 

[SaintsBrazil]

Fred Thompson's your man. He is the candidate that best represents conservatism. He's rising in the South Carolina polls and will probably beat Romney and Huckabee, but it's going to be tough to beat McCain. Hopefully McCain will fizzle again like last time.

Over the past several days, the only real movement in South Carolina’s Republican Presidential Primary has been a four-point gain for Fred Thompson and a five-point decline for Mike Huckabee. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ection_2008_south_carolina_republican_primary

Thompson raised over a million dollars online since the most recent debate. The pundits and focus groups all gave the debate to Thompson. He was really inspired.

More so, the factcheck.org site always has stuff that the candidates said that were exaggerations or untruthes, Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee, and McCain always have lists of stuff they spouted out that's not really accurate, but Fred Thompson got and all clear. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html

Go Fred.

 

[MLU]

>><---- Nader 2004

Pfff. Nader 1996, before it was cool. :17:

TPS

That's because you're a hippie. I'm a misanthropic pragmatist...

Fred Thompson's your man. He is the candidate that best represents conservatism. He's rising in the South Carolina polls and will probably beat Romney and Huckabee, but it's going to be tough to beat McCain. Hopefully McCain will fizzle again like last time.


Thompson raised over a million dollars online since the most recent debate. The pundits and focus groups all gave the debate to Thompson. He was really inspired.

More so, the factcheck.org site always has stuff that the candidates said that were exaggerations or untruthes, Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee, and McCain always have lists of stuff they spouted out that's not really accurate, but Fred Thompson got and all clear. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html

Go Fred.

So what has Fred Thompson done besides get himself seen more than the other candidates? It seems that the most electable quality in a politician is name recognition these days.

Thompson isn't really saying much these days. He's content to keep his views to himself and let the other candidates cancel each other out. It's a great way to get elected, but it's not a great way for us to elect someone.

 

[TPS]

>>Fred Thompson's your man. He is the candidate that best represents conservatism. He's rising in the South Carolina polls and will probably beat Romney and Huckabee, but it's going to be tough to beat McCain. Hopefully McCain will fizzle again like last time.

Aren't there Brazilian elections coming up or something? "Representing Conservatism" isn't in the interest of that many Americans IMHO.

TPS

 

[blackadder]

But, by and large, I agree with his viewpoint on Iraq, and how he plans on confronting radical Islam.

You can confront radical Islamists without invading whole countries and whipping up a total clash of civilizations, which is the false rhetoric McCain buys into. At best you are treading water becuase for every radical you kill, you inspire a new one to take his place.

His judgement is as poor as the rest of the field, or he is just plain saying what his backers want to hear.

Either way, no thanks. I've had enough of that, although I'm probably kidding myself that politics can change in any fundamental way.

 

[Mamba]

You can confront radical Islamists without invading whole countries and whipping up a total clash of civilizations, which is the false rhetoric McCain buys into. At best you are treading water becuase for every radical you kill, you inspire a new one to take his place.

At the risk of hi-jacking the thread, how do you propose dealing with radical muslims whose chief goal is making Islam the world's uniform religion (by force or otherwise)?

 

[BOO]

At the risk of hi-jacking the thread, how do you propose dealing with radical muslims whose chief goal is making Islam the world's uniform religion (by force or otherwise)?

I was about to ask that.

 

[blackadder]

At the risk of hi-jacking the thread, how do you propose dealing with radical muslims whose chief goal is making Islam the world's uniform religion (by force or otherwise)?

The idea is laughable.

Just like Communism was going to take over the world...

If McCain believes that there is some possibility in which someone will force Americans to bow down to Mecca five times a day then that is indicative of his judgement.

 

[LSSpam]

You can confront radical Islamists without invading whole countries and whipping up a total clash of civilizations, which is the false rhetoric McCain buys into. At best you are treading water becuase for every radical you kill, you inspire a new one to take his place.

His judgement is as poor as the rest of the field, or he is just plain saying what his backers want to hear.

McCain was very critical of our early-war strategy in Iraq. It's only recently he's been supportive, and not coincidentally it's been our current strategy that's been most succesful.

I would say that it appears McCain's experience is serving him extremely well in regards to the war.

I have no complaints about McCain's foreign policy positions. It's the speaking at Bob Jones University in 2006 when back in 2000 he was critical of it like he should have been that bothers me.