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

niamh8888

I've always automatically rooted for the democrats. But all of a sudden McCain seems like the good guy. He's outside the Bush camp, a war hero and decidedly moderate. This wise old guy could be a great president. You need some sort of experience to govern america and the world don't you??

PHB

I'm left wing, but I find that McCain is the only one I respect. He's relatively moderate, although some of his social issues do concern me, but compare that to pandering democrats who are just trying to get elected and i'll take McCain.

flogen

Before this election season I felt McCain would be a very good candidate - a friend and I had the discussion that had he gotten nominated in 2000 he would have obliterated anyone the Dems put in his way (and we felt the same in 2004 even though he couldn't have run).

However I'm worried by how hard he's been pushing to the right in order to appease the NeoCons and the more extreme wing of the party; what would be known as GWB's "base" at this stage.

I do still think he'd make a good president - better than Bush anyway (not exactly a compliment) - but I kind of get the jitters when I think of his joking reference to bombing Iran and things like that.

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. It's something Bush has opposed and while McCain hadn't at the time opposed it it seemed odd, given his background and concerns, that he wasn't falling over himself to endorse it. Not like the general public, or even the nuttiest nutjobs on the right, would have had much of a case against him if he had.

Manic Moran

Given his background, and the fact that all three his male sons are veterans (Two of them still in), I think it's highly likely that there is some very valid reason that he has been against it. Perhaps because it was going to take more funds than were in the budget, he's occasionally voted against things he's supported in the past on the basis that the result would be an unbalanced budget.

He's had the odd interesting moment of late, such as the Sunni/Shia balls-ups he seems to keep making, but overall, he seems to be a generally honest person. Obama seems to be as well, but I'm decidedly less sure about Hillary. The problem for me with Obama is he's a little bit on the 'hard-line' side, I prefer moderates who are willing to go against their party from time to time and work with the opposition than people who are in lock-step.

NTM

Black Swan

McCain = War

is_that_so

I also find myself warming to McCain for many of the reasons above. I like the fact that he is not pretending he can fix the world and I would see him as a pragmatic realist,as he has described himself. I also think he would be far more of a bi-partisan president than either of the other two.

I suspect the kowtowing to the right is something that is wise at this point given the fact that the Dems have no-one yet.

It also looks like there will be votes to be had from the other side, due to the splintering nature of the Dems contest, so he may not need that right wing as much. I'd like to think that will be the case.

Even so if is is Clinton, they 'll be out in force, if not they may not come out at all. I am hoping that this election will see some very marked decline in the type of influence neocons and their ilk can have on the world.

mike65

McCain unless he does something very silly (always time for that of course) should win, the Democrats, both of them are a bad advert for that party. Though some would say the ongoing scrap is a perfectly summation of the party.

Right now McCain needs to say the right things to keep everyone in the tent, if he gets elected that will not be concern esp as he'll be a one term President who will probably have to work with a Democrat House all the way through that term.

Mike.

bonkey

I think its interesting to watch how opinions have been swayed based on the process that we've been going through.

On the Republican front, McCain was written off right at the start. Nice guy, but all sorts of reasons why he wouldn't ever be chosen as the candidate for President. If memory serves, Giulani was being touted as a shoe-in (albeit one that the critics weren't too enamoured with).

Then, rather quickly, Giulani was seen as both having a high-risk election strategy and was recognised as a less-popular-with-the-voters-than-expected (even before anyone had a chance to vote for him) and McCain started looking mroe plausible, but still short on funds, short on friends in the party....still no chance.

Then the primaries started, and all of a sudden everything changed. McCain became the front-runner...the one to catch, and it soon became apparent that no-one had a chance to catch him. Now, many are saying exactly what we see on this thread...that he's become a shoe-in, even though the polls in teh US show this as no means certain.

Over on the Democrat side, it was Hilary all teh way, unless Kerry could pull a real upset early on. Obama was a nice guy, but for all sorts of reasons (just like McCain) had no chance of even being there at the Democratic showdown, let alone getting the nomination.

This too all changed, albeit more slowly, and it turned out to be a much closer race than predicted. Both candidates have been written off at least once, and even now when its practically impossible for one to have a decisive lead over the other come the convention, some are trying to cast it as an all-but-insurmountable lead.

So we have McCain unexpectedly taking not only an early lead, but an early nomination, and the Democrats involved in a close-run call that from day 1 right through to today, the commentators seem to be trying to cast as anything but a close-run fight.

Here's my prediction...regardless of who gets the Democratic nod, once the two sides go at it head-to-head, its all going to change again. The predicted massive rifts in teh Democratic Party (caused from there being such a close-run bid for the nomination) will no be as massive as some currently make them out to be, and McCain will not just walk away with it.

And on a side note...can I just remark that I'm always somewhat suspicious of one-post posters coming on with comments like "I've always voted for party X, but for some inexplicable reason I favour the candidate from party Y".

ShaneU

hehe

banquo

HA! Excellent.

ghostdancer

niamh8888 wrote: »

I've always automatically rooted for the democrats. But all of a sudden McCain seems like the good guy. He's outside the Bush camp, a war hero and decidedly moderate. This wise old guy could be a great president. You need some sort of experience to govern america and the world don't you??

he's not outside the Bush camp.
"a war hero" is supposed to be a credential how exactly?
he's sometimes moderate. and he's sometimes as far right as Wolfowitz and Cheney.

wise? he doesn't even know who's fighting who in Iraq....

do you need experience? i mean, George Bush Snr. had plenty of experience and he did a pretty ****ty job.
his son has been in the job for 8 years, and isn't exactly doing a tip-top job either...

niamh8888

Ah, he's definitely outside the Bush camp.... so much so that Bush's daughter declared on late night tv last week that she'd be voting for Clinton or Obama.

And yes, I have to say that I respect a guy that's spent 6 years as a prisoner of war and spent much of his life significantly disabled as a result. Its kinda something you look up.

So he gets his iraqi terms mixed up from time to time - I think its a bit of a cheap shot to rank that as a significant flaw here.

Belfast

Mccain says the main problem that America and the World is facing is islamofascism and is in favour of keep American Troops in Iraq for a 100 years.
Not much different to Bush there.

He is against Torture. This is different.

He claims to be against earmark and waist full spending and for fiscal responsibility but all the ideas he has spoken about like expanding the war on Drugs and bailout problem mortgages will only bankrupt America faster.

If asked which one of the 3 to pick, I say none of the above.

brianthebard

McCain's one of the old republican stock, when the party wasn't ultra conservative. I also see him as the best candidate, fwiw considering I have zero imput in the election.

KerranJast

Belfast wrote: »

Mccain says the main problem that America and the World is facing is islamofascism and is in favour of keep American Troops in Iraq for a 100 years.

As a security issue the first one is true. The second is quoted out of context. In no way does he want to keep American soldiers at the current troop level in Iraq for 100 years. That's crazy and even Bush wouldn't want that. What he was asked was how long would there be some form of US presence in Iraq. He cited Germany, Japan and South Korea as examples of where there are small contingents of US personnel remaining on bases after majority hostilities were over. I am proponent of the break it-bought it principle that Colin Powell mentioned. Fair enough the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq but they did, screwed up the post invasion planning and broke the country. They need to fix it before high tailing it out or it'll end up as another Afghanistan or Iran will take huge chunks out of it.

Manic Moran

Given not only his own experience, but the fact that if he sends the military somewhere, he's also sending two of his kids, I don't think he'll go about declaring war on a whim. Sounds more like fearmongering.

He claims to be against earmark and waist full spending and for fiscal responsibility but all the ideas he has spoken about like expanding the war on Drugs and bailout problem mortgages will only bankrupt America faster.

Not necessarily. He'd try to cut back a lot of other programs to counter it. He's looking at a re-prioritisation.

If asked which one of the 3 to pick, I say none of the above.

Heard a riddle today.

Q: McCain, Clinton and Obama are in a small boat in the ocean. Suddenly, the boat starts to take on water, founder and sink. Who comes out the best?

A (Highlight): The American People

NTM

forkassed

You dont like mccain.

He's a liar and a warmonger.

Do you want more war that they still cant justify?

ghostdancer

niamh8888 wrote: »

Ah, he's definitely outside the Bush .... so much so that Bush's daughter declared on late night tv last week that she'd be voting for Clinton or Obama.

And yes, I have to say that I respect a guy that's spent 6 years as a prisoner of war and spent much of his life significantly disabled as a result. Its kinda something you look up.

So he gets his iraqi terms mixed up from time to time - I think its a bit of a cheap shot to rank that as a significant flaw here.

eh, no, he's completely playing right up to the Bush voting base, either falsely, in which case he's a spineless pandering liar, and nothing like the maverick tag he somehow has (here's a hint, look at his voting record, bar some notable bills here and there, he's a full blooded stereotypical republican), or else he's actually part of the bush camp.
even more embarrassing is his pathetic attempts over the weekend to say that he did vote for GWB in '00. i'd have more respect for him if he actually stuck to his guns and the remarks he had previously made saying that he didn't vote for him, but i guess when a lot of your own party's voters view you with suspicion, being a suck-up is something that you have to do, no matter how cowardly it is. he's some maverick eh?

you may respect him for getting shot down in war and sticking being held prisoner, but that doesn't remotely qualify him to be president of the USA. it may be something you look up to, can't say i particularly do. i look up to people who serve their country well. his story garners no more respect from me than any other american serviceman or women.
either way, being in the military doesn't qualify you to run the country.

i never said it was a significant flaw. perhaps a significant flaw would be that he either consistently gets things mixed up (ie. a 'senior moment' as some of the US media have took to calling it), or else he's being wilfully incorrect for convenience sake, although while sometimes this seems to work, it usually makes him look like an even bigger fool than he actually is (eg. obama's pakistan remarks, gas tax, iran).

Manic Moran

ghostdancer wrote: »

either way, being in the military doesn't qualify you to run the country.

You are correct in that it is far from an exclusive qualification, but it does have two advantages. Firstly, it is a level of executive authority unmatched at any level until you get to "State Governor", of which none remain in the race. Secondly, it provides excellent insight into the workings of a none-too-insignificant organisation (I might argue the only organisation, given the limits on, say, the IRS or FBI) of which the Presidential position gives command authority over. It is a factor which can weigh in his favour, much as Obama's legal background will weigh in his favour when looking at some other criteria. His conduct as a POW may not be a qualification in any sense of the word, but is certainly a testament to strength of character; just another factor to be weighed.

NTM

lee_arama

niamh8888 wrote: »

I've always automatically rooted for the democrats. But all of a sudden McCain seems like the good guy. He's outside the Bush camp, a war hero and decidedly moderate. This wise old guy could be a great president. You need some sort of experience to govern america and the world don't you??

Well - why would a leftie automatically support the Democrats? I understand that the Republican intolerance to many aspects of society is an anathema to us more 'liberal' Irish but realistically the Republican views are far more in keeping with how we view ourselves.

The 'I don't like the Republican Party' conceit probably arises from the string of war Presidents they've had in Nixon and the Bush duo, and in fairness no country deserves 2 generations of ineptitude.

Consider this:

Ireland is by and large family and religion orientated; we may like to think that religion takes a back seat in our modern Ireland but I can guarantee that if the Parish Priest called round that the best china would be out in a flash.

You can't look at the gun issue as being definitive - more than 70% of Americans believe that gun control is inadequate and want it improved; yet nothing ever gets done. That's not the Republicans acting there - that's American in general.

**********

We've all seen The West Wing and like to think of the Democrats as being top heavy with Nobel Laureates like Jed Bartlett but the truth of it is that politicians like that are, at once, a thing of the past, and a thing of the far future.

When Rudy 9/11 announced he was running for nomination I felt that he would win - not because I like the guy, but simply because he appealed to both sides of the Red-Blue divide. He was Mayor of a Blue city and stood a great chance of making it a Red state.

It's like the Jimmy Smits/Alan Alda characters in Season 7 of the WW. Either one could have won and it would be the same, simply because both had personal beliefs the other party could empathise with.

At the end of the day it's still a 2 party system and in a 2 party system there can never really be any serious options available.

*************

Write down your own thoughts on the following subjects (don't post them because many will lie through their back teeth) - you'll see that we're not really either/or here.

Abortion
Guns
Family
Religion
Homosexuality

Manic Moran

You can't look at the gun issue as being definitive - more than 70% of Americans believe that gun control is inadequate and want it improved; yet nothing ever gets done.

I would argue that you can easily come to the wrong conclusion from that sound-bite, as there are two dramatically different ways of carrying out that improvement. For example, big city Democrats tend to view 'improving gun control' as 'passing additional restrictive laws', whilst flyover Democrats view it as 'focusing on fewer, but better targetted and better enforced laws.' The two D candidates are both of the city school of thinking, which has historically shown to be a loser, hence they've been trying to avoid the topic of late. For example, look at the case of Montana's Democratic government earlier this year making the hyperbolic threat to secceed from the US if the right to own firearms is removed. http://sos.mt.gov/News/archives/2008/February/2-19-08.htm. Of course, everybody knows it's just hyperbole, but it does show that feelings on the issue are strong and not confined to Republicans. This is of particular note when fighting over the Independents.

NTM

LuckyLloyd

Like McCain?

flogen

McCain seems to be doing a bit of flip-flopping, or at least some flips have been highlighted lately.

Example - he's bashing Obama saying he'll talk to Hamas and then this turns up:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html

He has bashed the Dems and his Rep opponents for suggesting timetables are needed in Iraq and then he comes out with this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/mccain-predicts-the-iraq_n_101969.html

Apparently that's not a timetable, though... just a prediction, or something.

Beelzebub

ghostdancer wrote: »

he's not outside the Bush camp.
"a war hero" is supposed to be a credential how exactly?
he's sometimes moderate. and he's sometimes as far right as Wolfowitz and Cheney.

wise? he doesn't even know who's fighting who in Iraq....

do you need experience? i mean, George Bush Snr. had plenty of experience and he did a pretty ****ty job.
his son has been in the job for 8 years, and isn't exactly doing a tip-top job either...

Being the man of integrity that he is, he actually stated that he was a war criminal for bombing innocent people, dropping napalm on them etc.

But he wears the war hero tag or 'air pirate' tag with pride.

Beelzebub

Belfast wrote: »

Mccain says the main problem that America and the World is facing is islamofascism and is in favour of keep American Troops in Iraq for a 100 years.
Not much different to Bush there.

He is against Torture. This is different.

He claims to be against earmark and waist full spending and for fiscal responsibility but all the ideas he has spoken about like expanding the war on Drugs and bailout problem mortgages will only bankrupt America faster.

If asked which one of the 3 to pick, I say none of the above.

You are incorrect about his being against torture - yet another issue he has flipped on.
In February of this year he voted against a bill banning the CIA from using torture, specifically against waterboarding.

He also said
"I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for one hundred years or a thousand years or ten thousand years."
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-permanent-bases


The American government has no intention of leaving Iraq ever.

They are building an embassy on 104 acres costing over $700m.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/usa.iraq

Manic Moran

In February of this year he voted against a bill banning the CIA from using torture, specifically against waterboarding.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. You make it sound like the bill was a one-liner saying "The CIA shall not use waterboarding."

In actuality, this is what Section 327 of HR 2082 said.

(a) Limitation- No individual in the custody or under the effective control of an element of the intelligence community or instrumentality thereof, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.

(b) Instrumentality Defined- In this section, the term `instrumentality', with respect to an element of the intelligence community, means a contractor or subcontractor at any tier of the element of the intelligence community.

Well, guess what. The CIA isn't the Army. You may as well restrict the police force to crowd control techniques used by the Army or civil engineers to use techniques in use by the Corps of Engineers. On a similar note, you don't want surgeons restricted to the same techniques ambulancemen use. Everyone's working to the same goals, just some people are more skilled than others, hence those who are less skilled are not authorised to perform those acts, even if they're all legal.

NTM

ghostdancer

flogen wrote: »

McCain seems to be doing a bit of flip-flopping, or at least some flips have been highlighted lately.

Example - he's bashing Obama saying he'll talk to Hamas and then this turns up:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html

He has bashed the Dems and his Rep opponents for suggesting timetables are needed in Iraq and then he comes out with this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/mccain-predicts-the-iraq_n_101969.html

Apparently that's not a timetable, though... just a prediction, or something.

heh, the ol' straight talk express seems to be losing it's bearings :pac:

and speaking of flip-flopping....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

ghostdancer

Manic Moran wrote: »

You are correct in that it is far from an exclusive qualification, but it does have two advantages. Firstly, it is a level of executive authority unmatched at any level until you get to "State Governor", of which none remain in the race. Secondly, it provides excellent insight into the workings of a none-too-insignificant organisation (I might argue the only organisation, given the limits on, say, the IRS or FBI) of which the Presidential position gives command authority over. It is a factor which can weigh in his favour, much as Obama's legal background will weigh in his favour when looking at some other criteria. His conduct as a POW may not be a qualification in any sense of the word, but is certainly a testament to strength of character; just another factor to be weighed.

NTM

i'm not sure i'd equate being a CO of a training squadron to being almost at the level of governor, in all fairness...
yes, having a detailed knowledge of military/government relations is not new to him, and will stand to him, but I would be of the opinion that ultimately, this will not be much of a "leg up" so to speak, given that his JCS's, SecDef, advisers, etc. will basically be the ones dealing with these matters on a day to day basis.

Manic Moran

ghostdancer wrote: »

i'm not sure i'd equate being a CO of a training squadron to being almost at the level of governor, in all fairness...
yes, having a detailed knowledge of military/government relations is not new to him, and will stand to him, but I would be of the opinion that ultimately, this will not be much of a "leg up" so to speak, given that his JCS's, SecDef, advisers, etc. will basically be the ones dealing with these matters on a day to day basis.

Believe it or not, CO of a training squadron is just as hard, if not harder, than being CO of a fleet squadron. Commanders are responsible for far, far more than just 'Who shall bomb whom?', it's the day-to-day administration which takes up a Commander's time, and with the distractions of shore facilities, families, and other nuisances it just gets worse. At least fleet commanders don't have to worry so much about Lt JG Smith getting into a bar brawl down the local town when they're deployed and trying to keep the local mayor and police department happy.

Not least also, the responsibility for the training of personnel to go to the Fleet is no small responsibility. Usually training commanders have had a previous line command first, for example I'm currently attending a school, my schoolhouse battalion commander had previously commanded a line battalion in Iraq, and my small group instructor had previously commanded a line unit before commanding a Basic Training Company and then moving to teach my course.

That he was selected to command a training squadron without having commanded a line unit first may be a point in his favour, demonstrating particular confidence in his competency.

And no, I would not say that a Squadron CO is 'almost' the same level as a State Governor, but I can't think of any civilian positions which fit in between the two when one takes into account the breadth of authority, responsibility, delegation, and decision-making involved. And yes, I'll count positions such as "CEO of Microsoft" in that statement. For example, last I checked, CEO Micosoft couldn't act as judge, jury and executioner, confining a person to jail for a month at the stroke of a pen.

NTM

Sand

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.

snow scorpion

niamh8888 wrote: »

You need some sort of experience to govern america and the world don't you??

You don't think the Oval Office is the place to be learning the basics of Management 101?

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.