Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Your Take on the Candidates: McCain

  1. #1

    Your Take on the Candidates: McCain

    Tell me why you would or wouldn't vote for him:

    For me, he's the best candidate among the republicans. Relatively moderate, strong on security, extremely experienced, has successfully worked across the aisle in the past and (for a politician seeking election) doesn't typically pander - all traits I want in a President.

    On the issues, I (generally) agree with him on stem cells and disagree on abortion, agree with him on pork barrel spending and earmarks, agree with him on Iraq, agree with him on balanced budget issues, agree with what he would have done with the surplus in 2000, agree with him on campaign finance reform, disagree with him on the confederate flag issue, agree with him on gay marriage, disagree on flag burning, disagree on the death penalty, disagree on "teaching creationism", agree on school choice, generally agree on energy policy, generally agree on foreign policy, agree on immigration . . .

    In general, McCain takes some stands I disagree with and some I agree with - nothing in his policy record stands out to me as so severely wrong or dangerous that I wouldn't vote for him, and there's a lot in there that strikes me as right. That's why he's my choice.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    I think he's solid. He's definitely not a panderer and he's definitely got good experience and was prescient about Iraq. I think he's an honorable man. I just think he's very wrong on taxes, campaign finance reform, global warming nanny-state nonsense, and the Gang of 14 stuff really bothered me too. If Romney drops out, I'll likely vote for him. But for now, Romney is my choice over McCain, but I think McCain is decent.

  3. #3
    I am not a fan of McCain and would vote for a fringe guy before him. Only Republican I feel strongly against. And the order of my preference goes like this:

    Romney
    Guiliani
    Thompson

  4. #4
    I'm rooting for McCain. To me, he is the most honorable of all the candidates. And I like McCain for the same reasons I dislike Romney. I may not agree with everything that McCain says, but at least he tells it like it is. And that's what we need right now... A president who is honest with the people. Romney will tell you anything to get a vote. He epitomizes everything I hate about politicians.

    Ideally, I would like to see Obama vs McCain. Both have favorability across party lines, and it would be a very interesting race. Nominations to either Clinton or Romney will bring out the bipartisanship of this country... both will be hated by the opposing side.

  5. #5
    [quote=sackdance;2319504][B]I am not a fan of McCain and would vote for a fringe guy before him. Only Republican I feel strongly against[/B]. And the order of my preference goes like this:

    Romney
    Guiliani
    Thompson[/quote]

    Why?

  6. #6
    Im not much of a McCain supporter. I agree with him on some issues and disagree drastically on others. He seems pretty solid on free trade and spending and he supports school choice, all of which are major positives in my book. He generally seems a little too eager to offer government solutions and entitlements although hes not terrible in those respects. My biggest objection to him is the McCain Feingold Act which I find atrocious. In my opinion it automatically makes him an inappropriate candidate for the presidency. Beyond that, hes certainly not the worst candidate running but Id probably never vote for him.

  7. #7
    He seems to be honest, which seems to be the determining factor in this election for me.

  8. #8
    Definitely the least scary of the GOP candidates for me.

    PROS: Decent, honest human being with an evident moral compass (see his unpopular-within-GOP anti-torture stance) and a record as a war hero. Not an ideologue, which is good, unless you want a hardcore conservative. Will work with the other party. Has the best "commander in chief" credentials of anyone running in either party. If you are of the persuasion that finds the surge successful, you have to credit McCain as the only GOP candidate who called for a force increase before it became policy. The rest of them were too chickensh!t to criticize even the most obvious war bungling by Bush et al up to that point... If you liked the Bush Immigration policy that kicked up the current sh!tstorm, he wrote it....

    CONS: Tends to self-destruct any time he sniffs the front runner role (see his debacle of a victory speech in NH for latest example). Will shelve his maverick tendencies for political expediency from time to time, like all pols. Says he wants us in Iraq for 100 years, which is not so good if you think our troops can be better used elsewhere. He's really, really old and has speculated he might only serve four years. If you hated the Bush amnesty-for-immigrants plan, he wrote it.

    If he runs against Hillary, I'd be tempted were it not for the Supreme Court, health care and energy issues, which I just trust Democrats a lot more on right now, as a lefty like me should.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2319817]Definitely the least scary of the GOP candidates for me.

    PROS: Decent, honest human being with an evident moral compass (see his unpopular-within-GOP anti-torture stance) and a record as a war hero. Not an ideologue, which is good, unless you want a hardcore conservative. Will work with the other party. Has the best "commander in chief" credentials of anyone running in either party. If you are of the persuasion that finds the surge successful, you have to credit McCain as the only GOP candidate who called for a force increase before it became policy. The rest of them were too chickensh!t to criticize even the most obvious war bungling by Bush et al up to that point... If you liked the Bush Immigration policy that kicked up the current sh!tstorm, he wrote it....

    CONS: Tends to self-destruct any time he sniffs the front runner role (see his debacle of a victory speech in NH for latest example). Will shelve his maverick tendencies for political expediency from time to time, like all pols. Says he wants us in Iraq for 100 years, which is not so good if you think our troops can be better used elsewhere. He's really, really old and has speculated he might only serve four years. If you hated the Bush amnesty-for-immigrants plan, he wrote it.

    If he runs against Hillary, I'd be tempted were it not for the Supreme Court, health care and energy issues, which I just trust Democrats a lot more on right now, as a lefty like me should.[/QUOTE]

    Good analysis. Obviously, the SC is a huge reason why I vote GOP. John Roberts and, to a lesser extent, Sam Alito are W's greatest accomplishments, sadly.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2319817]Definitely the least scary of the GOP candidates for me.

    PROS: Decent, honest human being with an evident moral compass (see his unpopular-within-GOP anti-torture stance) and a record as a war hero. Not an ideologue, which is good, unless you want a hardcore conservative. Will work with the other party. Has the best "commander in chief" credentials of anyone running in either party. If you are of the persuasion that finds the surge successful, you have to credit McCain as the only GOP candidate who called for a force increase before it became policy. The rest of them were too chickensh!t to criticize even the most obvious war bungling by Bush et al up to that point... If you liked the Bush Immigration policy that kicked up the current sh!tstorm, he wrote it....

    CONS: Tends to self-destruct any time he sniffs the front runner role (see his debacle of a victory speech in NH for latest example). Will shelve his maverick tendencies for political expediency from time to time, like all pols. Says he wants us in Iraq for 100 years, which is not so good if you think our troops can be better used elsewhere. He's really, really old and has speculated he might only serve four years. If you hated the Bush amnesty-for-immigrants plan, he wrote it.

    If he runs against Hillary, I'd be tempted were it not for the Supreme Court, health care and energy issues, which I just trust Democrats a lot more on right now, as a lefty like me should.[/QUOTE]

    Great stuff on the Pros and Cons.

    I would add one more pro, and thats Campaign Finance Reform as I wish this country had publicly funded elections.

    But other than that, I agree with your premise, especially his stance on torture, his foresight on Iraq and his military experience.

    For me I'm deciding on McCain and Obama. They're two radically different candidates but I think both are genuine patriots; by politicians standards, and while they disagree on a number of issues, I like McCain's real record of experience(not this "I was once the first lady" crap) and Obama's JFK like inspirational quality.

    And both are clearly very intelligent, unlike some of candidates and current Presidents...

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=MachineGunFunk;2319924]Great stuff on the Pros and Cons.

    I would add one more pro, and thats Campaign Finance Reform as I wish this country had publicly funded elections.

    [/QUOTE]
    Why? Corruption occurs anyway. It's another case of where the "government knows better." It's not reform - it's a barrier to new and lower income candidates.

    jets5ever, I think his CFR bill was pandering because it makes him seem like a "man of the people" even though all insiders know that CFR helps incumbents.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2320084]Why? Corruption occurs anyway. It's another case of where the "government knows better." It's not reform - it's a barrier to new and lower income candidates.

    jets5ever, I think his CFR bill was pandering because it makes him seem like a "man of the people" even though all insiders know that CFR helps incumbents.[/QUOTE]

    There are many different forms of CFR. It's not as if there is one form.

    Publicly funded elections would cut out the special interests and raise the level of debate as the air time would be relatively equal, so great fundraising candidates can't just bombard the airwaves.

    It's the only way, IMO, that the common people can regain a substantial amount of power.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=MachineGunFunk;2320163]There are many different forms of CFR. It's not as if there is one form.

    Publicly funded elections would cut out the special interests and raise the level of debate as the air time would be relatively equal, so great fundraising candidates can't just bombard the airwaves.

    It's the only way, IMO, that the common people can regain a substantial amount of power.[/QUOTE]

    No, publicly funded elections would ensure that money would flow behind the scenes instead of on the radar screen. My tax money should not go towards the advertising budgets of candidates I don't support.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=MachineGunFunk;2319924]Great stuff on the Pros and Cons.

    I would add one more pro, and thats Campaign Finance Reform as I wish this country had publicly funded elections.

    But other than that, I agree with your premise, especially his stance on torture, his foresight on Iraq and his military experience.

    For me I'm deciding on McCain and Obama. They're two radically different candidates but I think both are genuine patriots; by politicians standards, and while they disagree on a number of issues, I like McCain's real record of experience(not this "I was once the first lady" crap) and Obama's JFK like inspirational quality.

    And both are clearly very intelligent, unlike some of candidates and current Presidents...[/QUOTE]

    I was thinking how odd it seemed the other day that McCain and Obama were the two candidates doing best with independents, seeing how different they are on issues. (Disclosure: I'm an Obama supporter.)

    I was trying to figure out what the common thread was, and I think there's an authenticity to both men that clearly strikes a chord with voters. You get the impression that, most of the time at least, they are believing what they're saying.

    Even people who think Obama is a naive boy scout or whatever will rarely accuse him of being fake or pandering. (His most persistent critic on the left, Paul Krugman in the NYT, regularly savages him for not being partisan enough and for being willing to deal with people he disagrees with.) McCain, likewise, is distrusted by some of the true believers on the right because he doesn't always follow the party line (campaign finance, tax cuts, torture).

    I think there's a polarization fatigue in the country that's at least partially manifesting itself in the interest in these two candidates.

  15. #15
    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk[/url]

    plus Mccain had a black baby out of wed-lock!

  16. #16
    flushingjet
    Guest
    no one got it right, regrets....
    wouldnt take a lib's word for facts anyway

    mccain is good as a pro-war, pro-military hawk. thats it
    thats the # 1 issue
    even then he undermines our nation with this "torture" bs
    because he was beaten like a dog daily by dirty commies, any interrogation = torture?
    everything else is left of center
    RINO
    why be a republican then...do what bloomberg did & drop out
    ideologues form parties and have platforms
    even if they change, like the dems going full tilt stalinist
    and dropping pro-life pro-war folks
    and no , he's not a "good guy" either
    ask [U]his[/U] 1st wife

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    I think McCain is an honest guy and while I don't dislike him as many conservatives do his original stance on immigration considering he comes from Arizona and his involvement with the gang of five, or whatever the hell the capitulators who caved on the judges were named, is bothersome...

  18. #18
    If i were forced to vote Republican , McCain would be the one. I think hes probably the most experienced and distinguished of all candidates. Hes moderate and i can actually agree with him on a number of stances. Hes shown in the past that he is able to work across both sides of the isles. He is a man of character and is not afraid to criticize when needed even if its against his allies. That being said, i think he is too old and probably would want an independent psychiatric evaluation of him before he took office (i think all presidents should have this done). His maniacal grin scares me. Really, it does.

    I also think he is dead wrong on Iraq and the effectiveness of "the surge". His stance on this scares me when it comes to foreign policy. That said, i would not be upset at all if he was elected President

  19. #19
    McCain lost me on the biggest stage, in the first major GOP debate, when he decided to insult the intelligence and sentiment of every single viewer who is concerned with immigration - he took in the moment (and could not have overlooked immigration's role in it) and glossed over his illegal-friendly stance with a cute quip en Espanol. That is precisely the tin ear I am not looking for. I don't care how much he's listening to the citizens concerns about immigration now because I know how it would play out in a McCain administration: more Espanol zingers born of practicality.

    McCain has zero chance of beating Obama in a contest between two nice guys. It's why Democrats love him so much, he's Bob Dole II. If McCain wins the nomination, Democrats will suspend the love and revert to saying wonderful things about him by January 2009 after they beat his brains in in the general election. McCain could pull one out over Hillary, though.

    I feel, too, that Mitt Romney's intelligence and command of the issues would elevate him to the White House. He would match up even better against Obama than Hillary. Mano y mano vs. Obama he'd really crush the Illinois senator by articulately hammering home his platform. Sooner or later Obama is going to have to start pitching the liberal platform - and when he does - we'll all be underwhelmed (Obama is already not so hot getting into particulars as is - I've watched). Romney would probably have a stronger opponent in a debate vs. Hillary, but then again, she is Hillary, and Republicans, I assume, are wanting her to fight and fight and finally eke out the nomination. She is flat-out uninspiring.

    Romney might have benefited from better PR from the outset, but it's far from too late. I'm glad he cruised in Michigan. (The Dem-leaning media called the Michigan primary a setback for the Republicans with a more muddied field than ever, I disagree [and it's not like the pundits haven't been wrong [I]at every freaking turn![/I]]- it's what it simply is - Romney securing some traction in wide open race. The more I've learned about him the more I like him.)
    Last edited by sackdance; 01-17-2008 at 10:59 AM.

  20. #20
    It really won't matter as his presidential run ended in Michigan. Purely on economics: Arizona (McCains own state) is collapsing under the weight of illegal immigration, and yet he supports open borders. Secondly, while campaigning in Michigan, McCain actually stated that he would sponsor a program to supplement incomes of auto workers who were forced to take lower paying jobs.(i.e. the government would make uo the difference). There's a name for that sort of system, communism. I could go on, but why bother, since McCain won't.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us