Why McCain?

[rapuda]

I understand it's early and anything can happen between now and November, but currently John McCain is leading in the national polls?
Can someone please explain to me why we would want our next president to be someone whose policies are very close to the president we have now. Our current president has an approval rating of about 29% right now. Why would a candidate who is similar to our current president actually have a strong chance of winning?
Is the democratic party that bad? Are the American people that blind?

Seriously. I need someone to explain to me how McCain will be different than what we have now. I truly don't understand what is happening.:confused:

[Modica]

With the economy as bad as it is, how could they vote for McCain? I really don't understand it either. He is also really uninspiring and dull.

[collie]

I think he has a few mental issues with Alzhiemer's setting in and I mean that in all seriousness. His temper is notorious; screaming, yelling, banging his fists. Cripe, who wants him answering the red phone at 3 am - his first nasty instinct would be to blow something up. Plus the confusion he showed over the differences between Sunni and ****e don't bode well for his cognitive abilities. Remember how Reagan hid his Alzhiemers.

[alwaysright]

I think he left quite a bit behind in that bamboo cage in vietnam. If we elect him we'll be in for lots of war and pestulence. Bad economy and we will lose even more of our rights than we already have under little george's unfortunate presidency.

[BillCarson436]

Hello...

I saw just last night a poll that says that 50% of Hillary supporters will
go over to the McCain camp if she is not the party nominee.



After EIGHT YEARS of an IDIOT in the White House and the Countrty
in shambles.... Why Obama I ask I you!

[collie]

Obviously there are more Republicans at heart in the Democratic Party. Anything but change should be their motto.

[Modica]

I do have to say that I enjoyed McCain when he played "The Crypt Keeper" on Tales from the Darkside. Just because he played a ghoul so well, does not make him qualified to be president.:eek:

[eds]

The Obama supporters will vote McCain if they don't get their wish; Clinton supporters will do the same. The Dem's are split. Half the dems, no matter what, will suicide vote for McCain. Even only a quarter of them do that, McCain will win.

The question is not "Why McCain?", it is "What will McCain do in his first 100 days in office?"

[rapuda]

You're probably right about the suicide vote eds. Lets not forget Nader either. Some of the unhappy democrats will vote for Nader thinking it won't be as bad because he's not republican. I still haven't seen anybody reply yet to my original question of how McCain will be any different than what we have now.

Alright everyone. Lets pretend I'm an undecided voter. Why should I vote for McCain, especially since I can't stand Bush? Show me how McCain won't be another 4 years of Bush.

[eds]

Objectively speaking there is no evidence that can be provided to say that McCain will or will not be any different. The people, Bush and McCain, are two independent thinkers capable of independent actions. Statistically speaking, there is not enough data to compare.

If were to look at the past voting records of both Bush and McCain, we can see that Bush and McCain have similar voting records on some issues, and very different records on others.

The war, they are the same. They both would continue the fight. On healthcare they differ slightly. On firearms, they differ slightly.

To answer the question correctly, we need to look at a specific issue like healthcare, economics, or war and then compare the voting records of Bush and McCain. With Bush it would be which bills he signed and for McCain it would be which bills he voted in favor of or supported.

Generically speaking, McCain is not a conservative like Bush is. McCain is a centrist. That alone should be indication that McCain will probably not be like Bush for another 4 years.

[Modica]

How is Bush a conservative? Bill Clinton was more of a conservative than Bush. Everytime my 4 year old nephew sees McCain on television he gets scared. McCain looks frightening and should stays indoors and away from small children.:p

[eds]

I can't respond to how someone looks. I'm no model and I've never been on the cover of any magazines. So I can't comment on looks.

But I can respond to "How is Bush conservative?".

Conservative actually refers to "political conservatism" which is defined as one who wants to maintain the status quo. Bush certainly maintains the status quo at all costs. No radical changes were implemented during the Bush(II) administration. No improvements made. Just the same old rhetoric.

McCain tries to enact change as a senator and proposals as president, though not as much as Obama or Clinton would claim to do as senators or as future presidents. McCain-Feinstein campaign finance reform for starters. McCain is viewed as a political centrist much like Gov Schwarzenegger. Bush leans way right, whereas McCain tends to walk the middle of the aisle trying to bridge the left and right.

Obama and Clinton are viewed as left leaning, liberal Democrats who want to enact social change in a big way. They are left leaning because they are not for maintaining the status quo in any way. McCain is centrist because he changes things only slightly more than a conservative, right leaning politician would, and slightly less than a liberal, left leaning politician would.

[Modica]

How do you people continue to support the Republicans? The damage they have done to our country has been devestating. High gas prices, high food prices, a ponderous war that never should have been, pompous policies, wire tapping, outing CIA agents, New Orleans, destroying our constitution, the encroachment of a fascist state through using the 10 classic steps all dictators or would-be dictators use. The list goes on and the Republican party will not accept a centrist as their candidate. Only a fool can hope that McCain will be any different than Bush. He may say he is different than Bush, but we all know that politicians lie.

[eds]

I don't blame a political party for problems of one or a few of its members. The situation we are in now cannot be entirely blamed on a single party or a single person. There are certainly contributors to the problem, and Bush definitely was a contributor, but he was not the sole contributor. As if Kerry being elected would have made any difference today. The housing market would still have crumbled having gotten its start before Bush/Kerry would be elected. Gas prices would still be high. The Democrats are not known for lowering gas prices.

That said, I would consider myself neither Republican nor Democrat. I consider myself more politically objectivist in the manner of Ayn Rand than anything else.

But there are really only two political parties from which to choose. Democrats feign altruism when they really wish to create a beholden nation. I prefer individualist thinking and reasonable self-determination. The only political party which comes close to that is the Libertarian Party. I would support Wayne Allyn Root were he on the ballot in CT. For lack of that I support McCain. I cannot in good faith support Obama or Clinton.

[collie]

Do you really think Kerry would have declared war on Iraq based on a pack of lies? I don't and that would have made all the difference. We are trillions in debt now because of the war in Iraq, I think. Iraq has been the tipping point. The housing crisis and Katrina would have played out differently, I think, if we were not at war in Iraq and Kerry had been at the helm.

[eds]

As I recall, the allegation was made regarding faulty intelligence. The decision for war was not solely Bush's. His advisors, Rumsfeld, the Pentagon, and even Congress all approved going to war based upon faulty intelligence. Kerry would have been influenced by the imminent threat of WMDs just as Bush was. The decision to go to war would have been made. British PM Blair also agreed. Many people were fooled. Were there WMDs? Who knows really. We certainly did not find any. Were they moved? Perhaps. Was it a good decision? I think so. Should we have stayed as long as we have? No. In the end Saddam was captured and killed. That is the point when we should have left. We found Saddam, then we should have left.

I don't think Kerry would have seen through the veil and not gone to war. The only difference perhaps is that Kerry might have pulled out sooner. But again, once in the quagmire, it's hard to get out. Even Clinton supported the war, and also supports staying the course. Perhaps Clinton would do so to a lesser extent than McCain. The only one who would be anxious to get us out is Obama.

[collie]

Personally I think Kerry would have surrounded himself with more astute "advisors" than Bush did. I caught a PBS show on the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Colin Powell was the only advisor Bush put in place who had any sense and they choose not to listen to him. I like to think Kerry would have had advisors ala Powell but unfortunately, we will never know the road not taken, in this case.
In many ways, Bush's legacy will be one of a somewhat naive, bumbling puppet for Cheney and Rumsfeld. Cheney and Bush are so desperate to redeem their images, they have lately taken to hiring comedians to writing funny speeches for them. At least, I don't think either of them wrote those comedy routines.

[eds]

Bush is the only sitting president to have had a animated cartoon made about him. Lil' Bush. Now that's funny.

[RC12L4]

Personally I think Kerry would have surrounded himself with more astute "advisors" than Bush did. I caught a PBS show on the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Colin Powell was the only advisor Bush put in place who had any sense and they choose not to listen to him. I like to think Kerry would have had advisors ala Powell but unfortunately, we will never know the road not taken, in this case.
In many ways, Bush's legacy will be one of a somewhat naive, bumbling puppet for Cheney and Rumsfeld. Cheney and Bush are so desperate to redeem their images, they have lately taken to hiring comedians to writing funny speeches for them. At least, I don't think either of them wrote those comedy routines.

You realize Kerry read and reviewed the same documents as Bush before supporting military action in Iraq? No wait, in fact I don't believe he did actually, from what I understand the information was all made available to everyone to look over but few, very few, actually did.

[collie]

No, frankly, I didn't realize anyone could be so stupid. Another reason not to register as a Democrat!

[RC12L4]

Why not!!
\

http://members.cox.net/rc12l4/mccain.gif

[rapuda]

We don't know for sure what would've happened with Iraq had Kerry been president. What we do know for sure is that Cheney and Rumsfeld would not have been in control like they were during that time. Lets face it. Those two men had more to do with the outcome in Iraq then Bush did. They influenced Bush. You could even argue that they controlled Bush. Kerry would've had a different cabinet with different advisors. Would he have had the war-hawk advisors around him that Bush did? I don't know. I believe things in Iraq would've unfolded differently. The president may be the leader but he doesn't do everything. He has a cabinet and many advisors. It's up to him to choose the people he has working with him. It's obvious Bush chose unqualified people in many positions, and followed poor advice from his advisors. I believe Kerry would've chosen a better cabinet and listened to different advisors within our government and abroad. Don't forget, we had foreign intelligence that contradicted our intelligence on Iraq. Bush and company listened to what they wanted to hear and shut out what they didn't want to hear. They did that on Iraq and many other areas as well. I don't believe Kerry would've had the cowboy attitude that Bush has, which has alienated our allies and the rest of the world. It's possible Kerry could've done just as bad of a job as Bush has done, or even worse. I don't believe so though. I believe much of our mess is due to Bush and company, and a congress that was too weak or stupid to control its president.

[gene36]

Think!
Becouse of our party system we will have a choice of McCain, Obama or Clinton.
Our only choice will be to vote for who will do the least damage.
Forget parties and think for a change.
Forget what Obama and Clinton say about pulling the troops out at once as this can't be done without a blood bath,including our own troops.
Obama and Clinton are trying to out do each other in what they will give away and will have to be payed by those of us who pay taxes.
Forget rep. or Dem. or what ever.
I think McCain would bring about an orderly withdrawel AND NOT SPEND US INTO OBLIVIAN while doing it.

[collie]

For a Republican, Bush has sure spent us into oblivion!

[RC12L4]

For a Republican, Bush has sure spent us into oblivion!

Hey now Nancy Pelosi is doing her fair share as well:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-buys-16k-worth-of-flowers-2007-12-12.html

[billd531]

As a Conservative Republician, I'm asking myself the same question. On my side of the fence, McCain is only strong in the defence department. If you look at many of the bills that he has co-sponsored, they were pure Democrate!:( One of the worst has proved to be the McCain/Finegold Bill that was suppose to take care of the corruption in political contributions. It didn't and cause a lot of trouble.
What I am personally looking at is voting for three Democrates; Clinton, Obama and McCain!:mad: As I stated, I'll only vote for McCain because of his defence policies. What other choices do I have?:mad:

[eds]

Another reason I do not like Obama or Clinton.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/30/clinton-hits-obama-in-new-ad/

Obama and Clinton both have similar plans to bail out the mortgage/housing industry on the backs of taxpayers and corporations by taxing profits and using tax dollars to pay for collective "bailout" funds.

[RC12L4]

Another reason I do not like Obama or Clinton.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/30/clinton-hits-obama-in-new-ad/

Obama and Clinton both have similar plans to bail out the mortgage/housing industry on the backs of taxpayers and corporations by taxing profits and using tax dollars to pay for collective "bailout" funds.

Agreed, no bailout

[cherrybarbs]

What about Ron Paul?, I know he doesn’t a chance, but out of all of them, it’s seems he’s the only one that knows The Constitution. He does make the most sense on a lot of the issues facing us right now. John McCain, he’s a little to trigger happy, that concerns me, especially with is anger problem. One thing I might be in favor of and none of them are talking about, is the draft. But that would be political suicide for any Politician right now.

[eds]

Ron Paul is a proven racist and anti-semite.

His comments in the Ron Paul Report in the early 90s sealed the deal for me.

I posted quotes to them somewhere else on these forums. It's well documented. Just google "ron paul racist" and you will find them.

Ron Paul is just passing through politics and not a viable candidate.

[billd531]

The bottom line for me is we need to have change ( not Obams's type, though). For one thing, term limits! Another, truth in spending! ( Meaning that when a bill comes up before Congress, all monies being allocated should be looked at and if need be removed from that bill ) I may be not saying this correctly but I just see our tax monies being spent all over the place and for what? Super computers, bridges to no-where, studies of the sex lives of the lady bug.....etc! I'm tired of voting for these people who keep spending my money and telling me that my taxes are going up because there isn't enough money.
I'm afraid that no matter which one gets into office, McCain - Clinton - Obama, I will have no money left to live!:mad:

[Modica]

Maybe if we stopped spending money on the silly, unimportant things then we might be able to take that money and spend it where it is needed. Also, I don't think we should bail out the people who can't pay their mortgages, but we should also not have to bail out the big companies who ran into trouble because of greed.

[Common Sense]

I believe we need to do hard research on all the candidate's voting records in the lame election for President. Not just compare McCain to Bush but those who will eventually be in the Oval office. We should also take a hard look at our Senator's and Representatives.

[eds]

One can start by using Cox On Demand Election 08 if you have ondemand. You can get that program which will help start a hard in-depth look at the candidates. Its channel 1 or 0 if I recall...