I'm a leftie but why do I like McCain?

wiredup

Sand wrote: »

If Obama - or any of his supporters - attempts to dismiss or diminish McCains military service in any fashion whatsoever [ which will be tempting as McCain will undoubtedly use it as a comparison between the experienced, proud veteran whose ready to lead a nation in a time of war, as opposed to green, naive Obama whose not...] then Obama will be destroyed in the polls. The foolish attempt to forge documents to discredit Bush - whose military record is far less than McCains - backfired badly on the Dems last time around. Trying it with McCain would be suicide.

Personally I reckon McCain will win. Obama is an excellent candidate to win the Dem nomination, but McCain is better placed to win the US presidency. McCain is fairly moderate [ Hes not a Dem, but neither is he a foaming at the mouth bible bashing racist right wing fanatic Obama is attempting to smear him as - politics of change right?], he is the ideal republican candidate in an election in which being seen as a Bush-Republican is not a winning strategy, has a strong miltary record which people will probably consider better preparation for leadership with the current Iraq war and has demonstrated hes not afraid to take on unpopular stances if he thinks its the right course.

He can certainly pull more of the independants than Obama can given the amount of skeletons falling out of Obamas closets these days are startling the horses.

McCains not a certainty though - if Iraq deteriorates again hell be in trouble as Obamas "Arrrrrgh - every man for himself!!!!" Iraq strategy will seem sound as opposed to naive. McCains not a huge hit with all the "****ing crazy" Republicans either. This may cause problems for McCains campaign if people arent pitching in properly.

As for Obama - Hes likeable. Gives a good speech. He has got a massive, well organised campaign and will easily outspend McCain. But hes inexperienced and hes got some embarrassing associations with lunatic fringe Dem ex-terrorists and preachers who have a habit of saying stupid things. Hes made several blunders - describing people in rural areas as bitter and running straight into the trap of saying hed speak to any regime, no matter how despicable anywhere anytime with no pre-conditions...sounds nice on an internet debate, but in the real world? He will be beaten with this every day of the election by McCain and Co.

I think you are deeply misunderstanding the feeling in the US.
Obama represents change. He's very dynamic, a great speaker, he's full of ideas, he's certainly understands where the US has been going wrong and the man has energy.

McCain on the other hand looks like he's about to drop at any moment. I've yet to hear anything intelligent come out of his mouth let alone an idea.
He represents the Republicans perfectly. Tired, worn out and past it.

I don't buy the experience argument. History has shown us that it takes deviation to bring about innovation. Obama will win a land slide election in November.

gordon_gekko

wiredup wrote: »

I think you are deeply misunderstanding the feeling in the US.
Obama represents change. He's very dynamic, a great speaker, he's full of ideas, he's certainly understands where the US has been going wrong and the man has energy.

McCain on the other hand looks like he's about to drop at any moment. I've yet to hear anything intelligent come out of his mouth let alone an idea.
He represents the Republicans perfectly. Tired, worn out and past it.

I don't buy the experience argument. History has shown us that it takes deviation to bring about innovation. Obama will win a land slide election in November.

you really do know very little about american politics if you believe obama will win by a landslide , this is the general election now , not the democratic primaries , you have the remaining half of the country who didnt vote for either hillary or obama voting now
there are tens of millions of people in the usa who would never vote for a democrat , let alone a black democrat , even now , george bush still has 30% of the population onside , theese kind of people while they dont like mc cain will certainly not vote for obama

the only president in modern times who has ever won by a landslide was ronald regan ,regan was incredibly popular with people from across the spectrum , the terms regan democrats was coined with regard those who were traditonal democrat voters but who crossed to the other side and who in many cased havent come back
mc cain is more likely to win theese voters , obama will get the black vote and the youth vote , both of theese demographics traditionally are not reliable to come out and vote

i would like to see obama winning but would not be at all surprised if mc cain won , oh and mc cain is not at all a typical republican , the republican base do not like him at all
he has often been at odds with his own party on many issues , republicans are like fianna fail , they dont like independant types , lucky for mc cain , there is a large number of independant voters in the usa and mc cain will probably do just aswell with those as obama will

Manic Moran

wiredup wrote: »

I think you are deeply misunderstanding the feeling in the US.

I don't know what impression you're getting of the feeling in the US where you're at in Mayo, but from where I'm sitting on this side of the water, Obama is far from a shoe-in. It would only take two or three States to swing Red instead of Blue and it's President McCain, not President Obama. Hillary's argument about being more popular in the important States had merit.

NTM

wiredup

I still think you are ignoring the simple fact that the majority of people in the US yearn for change, a major change in the direction the country is going. Obama clearly is the only choice for that.

I agree there will be a minority of folks who will only vote for the party they have always voted for or wont vote Obama because he's black but I believe you will see a lot of people come out for this election that wouldn't normally vote. Obama will pick up a big chunk of the republican vote.

But what ever happens the next 4 months will be very interesting.

Manic Moran

wiredup wrote: »

I still think you are ignoring the simple fact that the majority of people in the US yearn for change, a major change in the direction the country is going. Obama clearly is the only choice for that.

It appears we shall have to agree to disagree. McCain is not Bush. He may not have made the mantra of "Change" his election slogan, but it's not business as usual from him either.

From MSNBC today.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25028512

But as Obama shifts his attention from his primary victory over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) to his test against McCain, the electoral map nonetheless foreshadows another highly competitive race in November.

McCain and Obama offer a rare combination of nominees able to poach on the other party's turf. Both have proven appeal to independents. McCain will target disgruntled Clinton supporters; Obama will target disaffected Republicans. Women, Latinos and, especially, white working-class voters will find themselves courted intensely by the two campaigns.

There are only a dozen or so States in play, and no matter how many young liberal college students come out and vote in California or Massachusets, they're not going to change the outcome in their States. The Swing States very really could go either way because they have populations to whom both McCain and Obama appeal.

NTM

Essexboy

McCain has voted to restrict union rights across the US, has backed cuts in health provision for the elderly, supports the burden of health insurance being taken away from employers and put on the shoulders of individuals, and would see social security privatised in the form of private accounts.
In April, he skipped a Senate vote on giving women equal pay for equal work, arguing that it would encourage litigation.
He has opposed every attempt to raise the minimum wage since it was last increased in 1997.

Manic Moran

Essexboy wrote: »

McCain has voted to restrict union rights across the US, has backed cuts in health provision for the elderly, supports the burden of health insurance being taken away from employers and put on the shoulders of individuals, and would see social security privatised in the form of private accounts.
In April, he skipped a Senate vote on giving women equal pay for equal work, arguing that it would encourage litigation.
He has opposed every attempt to raise the minimum wage since it was last increased in 1997.

You realise that half the country will look at that list, and say "And what's the problem?"

NTM

gordon_gekko

Manic Moran wrote: »

It appears we shall have to agree to disagree. McCain is not Bush. He may not have made the mantra of "Change" his election slogan, but it's not business as usual from him either.

From MSNBC today.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25028512



There are only a dozen or so States in play, and no matter how many young liberal college students come out and vote in California or Massachusets, they're not going to change the outcome in their States. The Swing States very really could go either way because they have populations to whom both McCain and Obama appeal.

NTM

both of those states you mentioned are certaintlys for the democrats , but i agree with you that no matter how many young students or even blacks in say , alabama come out to vote, the republicans will still win it

as i said earlier , only ronald regan won every where , he won 48 of the 50 states in 1984 and against jimmy carter in 1980 he won at least two thirds , since then its been down to only a handfull of states , mainly in the mid west

singloud

mccain strikes me as a decent skin

id vote for him

Essexboy

Manic Moran wrote: »

You realise that half the country will look at that list, and say "And what's the problem?"

NTM

So McCain wants to screw the workers, the elderly, the poor and you think that is Ok? Happy with invading Iran if he is elected?

Manic Moran

Essexboy wrote: »

So McCain wants to screw the workers, the elderly, the poor and you think that is Ok? Happy with invading Iran if he is elected?

I would submit that what you or I think individually is somewhat irrelevant given that the elected leader is supposed to represent the overall populace. It happens that by American standards, even conservative parties in Europe tend to have socialist leanings.

However, I might submit that there may be more to it than simple one-liners. McCain has a record of voting against things which he is in favour of if the legislation is poorly thought out. It's very easy for someone to say "Let's increase health provisioning for the elderly" and a lot harder to come up with the cash to pay for it all. Yes, it looks harsh in the soundbites, but fiscal irresponsibility isn't any better.

As for the other questions, I happen not to like unions. I have never been a member of one, and have seen what has happened to US industry as a result of Union excesses. Look at the American auto industry for an example. Their union-created overheads are incredible compared to their Japanese counterparts, the companies are now uncompetetive. I'm sortof ambivalent on the minimum wage and can see the arguments both ways, and as far as Iran, I've no problem with attacking the place if required.

Do I agree with all McCain's policies and standpoints? No. I rarely ever seem to find a politician I do agree with in entireity. But I don't think he's unpalatable either.

NTM

wiredup

singloud wrote: »

mccain strikes me as a decent skin

That would be the botox injections

gordon_gekko

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would submit that what you or I think individually is somewhat irrelevant given that the elected leader is supposed to represent the overall populace. It happens that by American standards, even conservative parties in Europe tend to have socialist leanings.

However, I might submit that there may be more to it than simple one-liners. McCain has a record of voting against things which he is in favour of if the legislation is poorly thought out. It's very easy for someone to say "Let's increase health provisioning for the elderly" and a lot harder to come up with the cash to pay for it all. Yes, it looks harsh in the soundbites, but fiscal irresponsibility isn't any better.

As for the other questions, I happen not to like unions. I have never been a member of one, and have seen what has happened to US industry as a result of Union excesses. Look at the American auto industry for an example. Their union-created overheads are incredible compared to their Japanese counterparts, the companies are now uncompetetive. I'm sortof ambivalent on the minimum wage and can see the arguments both ways, and as far as Iran, I've no problem with attacking the place if required.

Do I agree with all McCain's policies and standpoints? No. I rarely ever seem to find a politician I do agree with in entireity. But I don't think he's unpalatable either.

NTM

i agree with much of what you say , especially about unions and i too like mc cain but why would you be ok with attacking iran

what possble good would come from it and why would you attack a country that is no threat to your country

wiredup

gordon_gekko wrote: »

i agree with much of what you say , especially about unions and i too like mc cain but why would you be ok with attacking iran

what possble good would come from it and why would you attack a country that is no threat to your country

Wars make rich people richer. The war on terror is a great idea because this war never ends. Naturally a war with Iran is sold on the 'Nuclear threat to Israel' but the real reason has nothing to do with 'doing the honourable thing' its all about $$$$. It makes me quite sick.

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

It happens that by American standards, even conservative parties in Europe tend to have socialist leanings.

Quoted for truth.


It always baffles me hearing Americans here talk about how much they love some of Europes right wing parties and revile the democrats despite the overlaps that often occur.

Black Swan

Reading back over prior US presidential elections, one (quoted) statement seems to stand out above all the political rhetoric on what determines the election: "It's the economy stupid!" The US has runaway fuel prices that are impacting the working and middle classes, the housing bubble has burst (over 1 million US housing foreclosers reported recently), credit card debt has never been higher, and the US economy is currently in a recession, and has been since about November 2007. Warren Buffett proclaimed a recession recently, and he's a conservative Republican who has a brain for financial trends and investments. Now the Bush administration does not want to officially mention the R-word, because historically there has been a tendency for the party that controls the executive branch to lose office during economic downturns. So if this quote is predictive, then McCain will not win in 2008, even if Mickey Mouse was the opposing candidate from the Democratic party.

the_syco

flogen wrote: »

I also read recently that he had failed to support a bill for an improvement in Veteran's rights going through the US houses at the moment.

This the bill that gives you college fees after a 3 year stint in the army? In an era where the US needs people, this would be a shot to the foot, tbh.

CtrlSource

i like McCain too. If i had a vote and a choice between Clinton and McCain, i think i'd vote for McCain.

1) He's not W. That's a pretty important distinction there!

2) He's not a crony of W. Not a neocon.

3) Has been a maverick in his own party. Will have to tone it down unfortunately, in order to appeal to as much of the GOP base as he can.

4) A genuinely likeable guy. If you only know him to see since this election thing began, you might not see it. He's doing a lot of waffling and displaying some fuzzy logic. But i've watched interviews the guy did over many years and he's seems to be a politician that cares. One of the few.

5) He's a decorated veteran who was tortured and was a POW for 5 years. Talk about turning a minus into a plus!

6) He's a moderate. Though i fear he might have to go more right wing to get elected (sort of like what Hillary was doing in her party).

7) Was shafted in 2000 when Bush got the nomination. Maybe Karma might favour him this time?

8) Did i mention he's not Dubya?


GOBAMA!

Manic Moran

gordon_gekko wrote: »

i agree with much of what you say , especially about unions and i too like mc cain but why would you be ok with attacking iran

what possble good would come from it and why would you attack a country that is no threat to your country

Note that there's a world of difference between saying "I will attack Iran" and "I will attack Iran if required." Taking the option entirely off the table is flat stupid. Military force is still a useful tool and the fact that it was misapplied in the case of Iraq does not automatically nullify its utility in future situations. Saying "I will not attack Iran" is just as stupid as "I will."

This the bill that gives you college fees after a 3 year stint in the army? In an era where the US needs people, this would be a shot to the foot, tbh

The argument that he used. Sure, it may increase the raw number of accessions, but the studies showed that a similar number of junior leaders (E-5 Sergeants) would get out after the first stint. They can either have a larger number of recruits, or a larger number of trained and experienced soldiers. You can see where a balance is required.

So if this quote is predictive, then McCain will not win in 2008, even if Mickey Mouse was the opposing candidate from the Democratic party.

This is McCain's worst problem, and you have hit the major nail on the head. The fact that McCain is still considered quite a viable candidate in spite of the current political situation indicates just how close to Mickey Mouse the Democratic Party have managed to pick. Not attempting a slur at Obama, just that somehow the Democrats are looking at the White House as their entitlement right now, and I think it stands a nasty chance of backfiring on them. And McCain does have a reputation for fiscal responsibility. The Democrats have many appealing policies on the face of it, but so far nobody's explained just how it will all be financed. In today's era of high fuel prices (By American standards), Americans may not be so inclined to say "Yes! We'll take the higher taxes required to fund the various social initiatives!"

NTM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you could cut military spending and give diplomacy a shot, crazy idea I know but I find it difficult to believe young arab men would be incensed enough to blow themselves up in public areas through the actions of american diplomats.

brianthebard

fwiw op, since McCain became the presumptive nominee, he's started trying to appease the most conservative elements of the republican party. Its not like they would even think about voting democrat, but that seems to be the root he's going.

gordon_gekko

brianthebard wrote: »

fwiw op, since McCain became the presumptive nominee, he's started trying to appease the most conservative elements of the republican party. Its not like they would even think about voting democrat, but that seems to be the root he's going.

agree , mc cain has been playing tunes that the right wing of the gop like to hear in recent months
he looks decidedly uncomfortable too , coming out with statements that would be right at home on rush limbaugh , i guess he has to appeal to the base though

Manic Moran

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

you could cut military spending

The first target is always military spending. The US military was underfunded before it went into Iraq, compare 1991 with 2001 strength levels. Part of the reason they didn't really have the troops and equipment available to do a proper job of occupation.

and give diplomacy a shot,

We agree on Plan A.
What's your Plan B?

To quote two famous dead guys.
"Walk softly, but carry a big stick"
"You can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word"

NTM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

true enough on both counts, I suppose I just don't have any awful lot of faith in the idea that mcain's plan a is a tough diplomatic effort.. his league of democracies fantasy is pretty worrying.

bob barr ftw

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is McCain's worst problem, and you have hit the major nail on the head.

Manic Moran and Blue Lagoon agree on something? Blue grabs oxygen mask and takes a deep breath!

Manic Moran wrote:

The Democrats have many appealing policies on the face of it, but so far nobody's explained just how it will all be financed.

I know where to start. How about that billion-dollar-a-day Iraq War budget proposed by Bush? A trillion or more, if it continues into the future? It might not finance all the rebuilding of the US infrastructure that's been neglected for war, but it's a place to start?

Or how about asking the "good citizen" US corporations (that claim to be good citizens when they donate millions to PACs), to rather contribute those funds to rebuilding the nation's infrastructure (instead of buying candidates and expecting favours that result in corporate profits if elected)? The US needs real campaign finance reform, where corporations are not allowed to donate to PACs. Saying that a corporation is an artificial entity (hence a de facto citizen with rights to organise for political action, or contribute to such special interests, is pure bull, and a hedge to get around existing campaign laws). So long as this practice continues, corporations with millions (controlled by a few rich fat cats at the top) will disproporationately influence US politics to enrich themselves.

I know another place I could visit for funds to finance rebuilding the US infrastructure? How about the millions (billions over years) in subsidies to US oil corporations? Has anyone heard of anything more contradictory than giving tax money to oil corporations, that currently are reporting the highest profits in their history? Then I could visit the tobacco industry subsidies? Now, that makes me cough! Of course, before that happened, I would probably have an accident (like JFK or RFK?).

OK-Cancel-Apply

He's just a stock Republican candidate, singing from the same tired hymn-sheet and standing for the same tired old right wing policies. Of course his party and the media are trying to paint him as being a little bit of an outsider, but what else should we expect? They want him elected.

Obama really does stand for change, and the right wing media know that (see how they keep calling him 'Osama', and reminding everyone of his middle name). He may not be flawless, but then, who is? I just hope people get out there and vote.

auerillo

While Obama is, as yet, unproven, he does seem to have an ability to convince people to vote for him and to support him financially. Perhaps his decision not to accept money from lobbyists and the large corporations also helps him to appear to rise above the accusation of being in hock to them.

The economist points out "It does not help Mr McCain that the Republican brand is, for now, unloved. The president remains unpopular—his approval rating is one of the lowest since modern polling began. Just 16% of those polled say that the country is on the right track. Those calling themselves Democrats outnumber Republicans by 37% to 28%." And thats not going to help McCain.

Whatever is the outcome of the election, it promises to be exciting and interesting.

toiletduck

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Of course his party and the media are trying to paint him as being a little bit of an outsider, but what else should we expect? They want him elected.

For those familiar with him since pre-2000, he's always been portrayed that way. Nothing new.

Obama really does stand for change, and the right wing media know that (see how they keep calling him 'Osama', and reminding everyone of his middle name).

Do they keep calling him that? Didn't it happen a few times before the start of the Primaries... The question is what "change" does he stand for? Protectionism? Abandoning Iraq? I mean what is he for? Now college is done I have time to start into his books

auerillo

toiletduck wrote: »

For those familiar with him since pre-2000, he's always been portrayed that way. Nothing new.



Do they keep calling him that? Didn't it happen a few times before the start of the Primaries... The question is what "change" does he stand for? Protectionism? Abandoning Iraq? I mean what is he for? Now college is done I have time to start into his books

It's a common criticism to question where Obama stands on issues. Check out http://www.nationalplatforms.com/candidates/barack_obama.html if your question was real and not rhetorical!

brianthebard

we are starting to get a true sense of what mccain is about.his comments on last weeks supreme court ruling shows at heart how conservative he is and suggests he would hold nothing
back in 'the war on terror'. ie torture at gitmo,drawing out the wars even longer.Posted via Mobile Device