[Big Mac]

I have been giving this issue a lot of thought, and I have come up with some reasons why I think McCain deserves the Republican nomination even though he isn't all that conservative:

1. He had the foresight to recognize the need for and use of the surge;

2. He recognizes, like Bush, that we are a country at war with unrelenting foes, and he has a lot of war experience;

3. He has served the country with honor in the military and Congress;

4. The Republicans need a moderate in November or else we put ourselves at greater risk of the socialist nightmare of Hillary or Hussein;

5. Romney has time to run again in the future if he so chooses, but this is probably McCain's last stand;

6. The fact that McCain is today the frontrunner is amazing compared to where he was in the summer, and the fact he refused to give in then is a testament to his fortitude;

7. Bush's brand of conservatism really wasn't all that conservative, so there's little left to lose by giving McCain conservatism a try.

[OreoCookie]

4. Hillary or Hussein?
7. Hmmm, we've tried this flavor of conservatism, for the lack of better alternatives, let's try this? That's a rather weak attitude. You don't seem particularly convinced of `McCain conservatism'.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

1. He had the foresight to recognize the need for and use of the surge;

2. He recognizes, like Bush, that we are a country at war with unrelenting foes, and he has a lot of war experience;

And therein lies a huge part of the problem. A relatively tiny number of people with a voice larger than what they actually accomplish has too many Americans irrationally scared of them. You're going to die of any number of things other than a terrorist attack.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

4. Hillary or Hussein?

It's Obama's middle name.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

7. Hmmm, we've tried this flavor of conservatism, for the lack of better alternatives, let's try this? That's a rather weak attitude. You don't seem particularly convinced of `McCain conservatism'.

You think that if I can't find a really great choice, I should forgo the one that seems most likely to work out and instead tell people to choose something actively horrible? I would like to toss out all the candidates in this race and get another batch, as I suspect a lot of conservatives and libertarians would, but that's not really an option.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's Obama's middle name.

I'm aware of that, but it was a cheap irrelevant and obvious stab at both, Obama and Hillary Clinton. He didn't say Barak (which is the first name that he uses), but Saddam -- makes both sound `more evil'.

I don't mind when people don't like either of them, but cheap shots are not a good basis for political decisions.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You think that if I can't find a really great choice, I should forgo the one that seems most likely to work out and instead tell people to choose something actively horrible? I would like to toss out all the candidates in this race and get another batch, as I suspect a lot of conservatives and libertarians would, but that's not really an option.

No, that's not the point.
The way it was written was: well, we tried Bush (jr.)-style conservatism -- that didn't work. Now let's try McCain-style conservatism (whatever it is) and let's hope it works! It's not consciously choosing something else, it's choosing something else, because the Big Mac felt, `he has no choice'. The phrase `McCain-style conservatism' is empty.
There is a considerable overlap between McCain's and Bush's political opinions (create a path to legalization for illegal immigrants and staying in Iraq, for instance). So in many respects, the two are `one and the same'. Big Mac certainly doesn't give any examples where their opinions differ.

Again, I don't mind if someone is for or against a candidate because of his political stances on subjects. And personally, I think he's probably the best Republican candidate that is still running (I certainly prefer him to Romney and Huckabee).

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

1. He had the foresight to recognize the need for and use of the surge;

Seems to be working but I'm not a fan of putting more Americans in a war that cannot be won. too many factions that hate each other. Right now they have a unifying rally - hatred of us. The sooner we get out of there the better off we'll be

2. He recognizes, like Bush, that we are a country at war with unrelenting foes, and he has a lot of war experience;

So what does that mean we should invade other countries.

3. He has served the country with honor in the military and Congress;

Yes but that doesn't mean he'll be a great president. His voting track record shows that prefers giving illegal aliens the amnesty instead of trying to protect American jobs. He supported NAFTA which sped up the erosion of US manufacturing jobs.

4. The Republicans need a moderate in November or else we put ourselves at greater risk of the socialist nightmare of Hillary or Hussein;

While no Bush fan the same thing was said about him. I agree though a moderate is more likely to pull more independent/undecided to the republican fold then a conservative candidate

5. Romney has time to run again in the future if he so chooses, but this is probably McCain's last stand;

That is the lamest excuse. If McCain is too old to make another run, maybe he'll be too old to be president and the stress/demands that holding that office imposes. Ronald Reagan in his second term used to fall asleep in various meetings, leaving important policy decisions to be left to his staff. I'm not sure that was wise and I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want that to happen.

6. The fact that McCain is today the frontrunner is amazing compared to where he was in the summer, and the fact he refused to give in then is a testament to his fortitude;

Yes, it is but the final test will be this Tuesday. When other states, some of which probably are more likely to vote for Romney hold their primary.

7. Bush's brand of conservatism really wasn't all that conservative, so there's little left to lose by giving McCain conservatism a try.

How so, please explain. Other then increasing spending and government size his policy decisions were all but conservative.


My Take on this. You seem to be saying that McCain deserves to be the candidate because of his patriotism, his moderate stance and his fortitude during the lean times of his candidacy. Instead why not let the voters choose who they want.

I live in Mass. and as you know Romney was the governor. I can tell you how He ran his gubernatorial candidacy and how he's running his presidential campaign is a stark image of opposites. He painted himself as a moderate (even liberal) republican who supported various topics that he now opposes. He started changing his tune just as he was attempting to increase his national image. He was an all but absentee governor and so I really cannot tell you what he done as governor because he wasn't here.

That leaves McCain who I'll probably vote for, only because I know what he stands for. Some of which I may disagree but at least I know he'll be in office making some decisions for the right of the country. Romney will make decisions based on how it effect his image. I also believe he's the best man to beat Clinton or Obama who will take this country in a direction that I believe will cause more harm then good.

[♥]

I'm a Republican and I think he's too old and I have a feeling so will a lot of other folks. At the end of the first term he'll be 74. Who will vote for the second term for McCain? The prospect of an 80-year old president is not appealing. The next election will be worse. So the Republicans will lose then against a Democrat if not now.

[MacosNerd]

but by the same token lets not worry about his second term since he's not even been elected to a first term. I agree though his age is a factor in many people's mind.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

but by the same token lets not worry about his second term since he's not even been elected to a first term. I agree though his age is a factor in many people's mind.

I gotta agree with that.

Also, voting for someone you disagree with because they're more likely to be alive for a theoretical second term which, I imagine, you really wouldn't want them to be around for seems like convoluted logic.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I gotta agree with that.

Also, voting for someone you disagree with because they're more likely to be alive for a theoretical second term which, I imagine, you really wouldn't want them to be around for seems like convoluted logic.

Definitely, I want to vote on someone's leadership skills and not possible life span

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Definitely, I want to vote on someone's leadership skills and not possible life span

Well, the latter should be of some consideration -- you must also judge them on the quality of their VP.

[BRussell]

I've got to hand it to them, it looks like Republicans have made the right choice. Let's see if Democrats can too. If not, they deserve to lose.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Well, the latter should be of some consideration -- you must also judge them on the quality of their VP.

Agreed. His running-mate will matter.

McCain is a loose canon. He appears as if he's on the verge of losing his temper. His smile is entirely contrived and he's about as fresh a politician as... Richard Nixon today. He can't beat Hillary and he can't beat Obama.

ebuddy quatrain 1:1; 7 weeks unto the appeal of man, the white-haired one spoketh the indefensible. His legs shall mock him and his hand shall betray him. The great servant shall hide from his master.

About that Romney guy... I keep thinking a new Republican face will emerge just in time to save the day for me personally, but with each passing day the possibility diminishes.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I've got to hand it to them, it looks like Republicans have made the right choice. Let's see if Democrats can too. If not, they deserve to lose.

As far as I could tell, the race (essentially) between Romney and McCain hasn't been decided yet … 

[BadKosh]

I say let the Democrats ruin everything. They will be so much better and destroying everything than any conservative. Maybe a lesson will be learned.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

As far as I could tell, the race (essentially) between Romney and McCain hasn't been decided yet … 

Not officially, no.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I say let the Democrats ruin everything. They will be so much better and destroying everything than any conservative. Maybe a lesson will be learned.

Except that when Democrats do take control, they tend not to run up deficits and just generally "ruin everything." That's the other party.

[RAILhead]

[MacosNerd]

With super tuesday just a few days we still don't know who will represent the republicans. I can see either candidate pulling it off.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm aware of that, but it was a cheap irrelevant and obvious stab at both, Obama and Hillary Clinton. He didn't say Barak (which is the first name that he uses), but Saddam -- makes both sound `more evil'.

No, I said Hussein, which is his middle name. I've commented on why I like to point that out in other threads. Yes, it's probably bad form for me to harp on Obama's middle name, but I also think it's patronizing to him if everyone shies away from the minor issue that his middle name represents. I think it hurts his electibility in a small but nevertheless important way. I frankly just cannot conceive of the American people electing a guy president with the name Hussein, just as I cannot envision an Arafat or an Adolf or a Fidel getting elected. Furthermore, I think names have some importance and should not simply be ignored.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Not officially, no.

Also inofficially, from what I could gather, there is no clear front-runner yet.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, I said Hussein, which is his middle name. I've commented on why I like to point that out in other threads. Yes it's probably bad form for me to harp on Obama's middle name, but I also think it's patronizing to him if everyone shies away from the minor issue that his middle name represents. I think it hurts his electibility in a small but nevertheless important way. I frankly just cannot conceive of the American people electing a guy president with the name Hussein, just as I cannot envision an Arafat or an Adolf getting elected. Furthermore, I think names have some importance and should not simply be ignored.

I think that's kind of low of you: a name says zilch about a person. Plus, it perpetuates the myth that he might be a clandestine muslim (which he is not) and IMO this is based on a discriminatory sentiment.
No, feel free to disagree with him on issues, but if you have to resort to `name calling' (in the literal sense), I invariably get the impression that you've long run out of real arguments against him.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Also inofficially, from what I could gather, there is no clear front-runner yet.

All the conventional wisdom and polling suggests that Romney doesn't have a chance. But we'll see.

[OreoCookie]

Right, with him being a Mormon and all. I was just speaking of the polls.
In any case, I think it's good and refreshing that there is a real race to get the nomination on both sides of the aisle.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

All the conventional wisdom and polling suggests that Romney doesn't have a chance. But we'll see.

Conventional wisdom suggests the same of the two Democratic frontrunners. That would be an interesting race.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Right, with him being a Mormon and all. I was just speaking of the polls.
In any case, I think it's good and refreshing that there is a real race to get the nomination on both sides of the aisle.

What does Mormonism have to do with anything? I'm a Christ Follower and think Mormonism is about a millimeter from being a cult, but I'll vote for him. Like he said, he's running for President, not First Preacher.

[vmarks]

I'm unconvinced about McCain as a Republican candidate.

Allow me to express some reservations in one moment.

First, if you're going on middle names, it's Rodham and Hussein.

Good for one is good for the other. Parents give out names. There's plenty reason to not like Mr. Obama aside from the name his parents gave him. If you have an objection to him as a candidate, say it.

Now, onto McCain.

McCain tried to force an immigration bill through. (McCain-Kennedy) It was wildly unpopular, but his original position was that he was going to ram it through regardless with what people thought, because he knew best.

Now he says that he's learned his lesson and won't do that again. For me, the man's been in politics long enough to know that lesson before now.

He's an opponent of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
I do not make that accusation lightly.

The McCain-Feingold act is a violation of the 1st Amendment. (Supreme Court rulings aren't always correct. See 'separate but equal.') The 1st Amendment exists to protect speech, and especially political speech. By limiting when people can buy advertisements to exercise political speech, he championed a bill that abridged free speech. The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." and McCain did. There were several failures here: McCain and Feingold proposed it, Congress voted for it, Bush failed to veto it, and the Supreme Court decided to let it stand. No matter, they've all failed in their responsibility to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution.

And this isn't the first time.

"He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform....I know that money corrupts....I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government." -- heard on Don Imus - http://www.vmsdigital.com/download/0...3991_01DIS.MPG

That's right. McCain would rather have his concept of a 'clean government' than one where the 1st Amendment of the Constitution is respected.

He has also attacked the freedom to publish. Blogging is publishing.

Senator: Illegal images must be reported | CNET News.com is about legislation that McCain introduced in his war on blogs.

It says in part:

– Commercial websites and personal blogs “would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000.”

– Internet service providers (ISPs) are already required to issue such reports, but under McCain’s legislation, bloggers with comment sections may face “even stiffer penalties” than ISPs.

— Social networking sites will be forced to take “effective measures” — such as deleting user profiles — to remove any website that is “associated” with a sex offender. Sites may include not only Facebook and MySpace, but also Amazon.com, which permits author profiles and personal lists, and blogs like DailyKos, which allows users to sign up for personal diaries.

Now, it's one thing to want to fight criminals (sexual predators are criminals.) But 300k USD is going to put any blogger under. This in effect then is prior restraint - turning off comments, turning off forums, which then shuts down community, and shuts down sites in turn. Which has the neat effect of quashing that pesky free speech that McCain dislikes so much.

Such a bill's passage would have shut down DailyKos, LittleGreenFootballs, MacNN, and any other site you can think of.

Is this the best the Republican Party can offer? Really?

I think McCain's record is one that he ought to be ashamed of. He cannot be my candidate.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think that's kind of low of you: a name says zilch about a person. Plus, it perpetuates the myth that he might be a clandestine muslim (which he is not) and IMO this is based on a discriminatory sentiment.
No, feel free to disagree with him on issues, but if you have to resort to `name calling' (in the literal sense), I invariably get the impression that you've long run out of real arguments against him.

I agree that holding a name his parents gave him against him is absurd.

I must address the clandestine Muslim bit, because Obama has addressed it.

He sent out a flier in South Carolina to respond to these concerns.

The flier features Obama posing in churches -- in one instance, in front of a cross -- and reassures the reader: "Guided by his Christian faith, Barack Obama is the leader we can trust to challenge the ways of Washington."

It also includes a passage quoting Obama on the "power of prayer," saying: "We’ve got to express those values through our government, not just through our religious institutions."

It's one thing to run for President - quite another to run for First Preacher (as RailHEAD wrote. Thanks, Maury!)

Hawking faith in a leadership contest just doesn't really send me signals of high leadership.

Shakespeare wrote "I think he doth protest too much," meaning the person who protests too much is trying to hide the truth of what he's protesting.

Perhaps he isn't, but talking about taking the power of prayer to Washington and making it government policy doesn't really go over well with me. Carry your values into Washington, let them guide you as a person, but don't attempt to codify them into law or executive policy.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

What does Mormonism have to do with anything? I'm a Christ Follower and think Mormonism is about a millimeter from being a cult, but I'll vote for him. Like he said, he's running for President, not First Preacher.

Perhaps you misunderstood my post a little. In my opinion, the fact that he is a mormon doesn't really matter (unless he were to inject his faith into politics). It was a reply to BRussel's comment that `conventional wisdom' points to McCain. Looking back at the presidents, AFAIK there was only one Catholic president (JFK), so it's fair to say that it'd be unusual to have a non-Protestant in the White House. And Catholicism is a lot more accepted than Mormonism (and I agree it is a sect/cult).

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The flier features Obama posing in churches -- in one instance, in front of a cross -- and reassures the reader: "Guided by his Christian faith, Barack Obama is the leader we can trust to challenge the ways of Washington."

It also includes a passage quoting Obama on the "power of prayer," saying: "We’ve got to express those values through our government, not just through our religious institutions."

It's one thing to run for President - quite another to run for First Preacher (as RailHEAD wrote. Thanks, Maury!)

Hawking faith in a leadership contest just doesn't really send me signals of high leadership.

I think this also a side-effect of the Democrats being portrayed as Godless by the other side in the 2004 election.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I agree that holding a name his parents gave him against him is absurd.

I absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I must address the clandestine Muslim bit, because Obama has addressed it.

I've heard about that, he tried to be more Christian than your average Christian. I don't like it.
The reason I've brought it up is because Big Mac's comments were going in that direction, alluding to his `old past'. I've also seen on the news that to some, this was indeed used as an argument.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Hawking faith in a leadership contest just doesn't really send me signals of high leadership.

I agree, faith is private and shouldn't be abused to make you look `electable'. Unfortunately, IMO a sizeable chunk of the voters, in particular of conservative voters, thinks this is essential to being `a good President' (there was a question to Romney at the youtube debates to that effect).

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

ebuddy quatrain 1:1; 7 weeks unto the appeal of man, the white-haired one spoketh the indefensible. His legs shall mock him and his hand shall betray him. The great servant shall hide from his master.

Peter Pettigrew?

[vmarks]

Okay, this is the McCain thread. Let's talk McCain.

(and yeah, I took part in the side-track.)

The Obama thread is over there.

So, who thinks McCain deserves the nomination?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

What does Mormonism have to do with anything? I'm a Christ Follower and think Mormonism is about a millimeter from being a cult, but I'll vote for him. Like he said, he's running for President, not First Preacher.

I'm worried that someone so religious (just as Bush was) will whip out the veto pen on any matter that conflicts with his religious beliefs, putting all common and practical sense down the garbage.

I don't want religion interfering with my government.

[vmarks]

Bush did not do that. He barely used the veto at all.

And, there's a Supreme Court and Congress that both have ways to address overriding such a veto.

[Big Mac]

How are you going to determine the extent to which religion would effect a given candidate's policy choices? Not any easy thing to calculate.

For those who think names do not matter, I'll pose the question again: Would you vote for a candidate with the first name Adolf? Certainly it's not intellectually proper to hold something against a candidate just because of German ancestry, but would you cast your ballot for Adolf for president? We're all friends - let's be honest.

[OreoCookie]

Or Barak.
(Hint: add a c.)

To answer your question: The name doesn't enter into any of my considerations when I vote. Nor what ancestral background they have.
(BTW, many American Jews have a German background. Does the background really matter to you?)

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I think this also a side-effect of the Democrats being portrayed as Godless by the other side in the 2004 election.

In the case of Obama, it's also largely because opponents of his (like Big Mac) have sent out false mass emails saying he's a muslim, and he's trying to correct the record. If that had not been going around, I don't think Obama would have had to bring up his Christianity.

[Big Mac]

To answer your question: The name doesn't enter into any of my considerations when I vote. Nor what ancestral background they have. (BTW, many American Jews have a German background. Does the background really matter to you?)

I know about his first name. It's true that I'm less tolerant of circumstantial diversity as it relates to presidential politics. I don't consider Jews from Germany to be "Germans" except in a narrow nationalistic sense.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

In the case of Obama, it's also largely because opponents of his (like Big Mac) have sent out false mass emails saying he's a muslim, and he's trying to correct the record. If that had not been going around, I don't think Obama would have had to bring up his Christianity.

I haven't sent out such emails or made claims concerning his religion, but I have to admit I have trouble getting past that name.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm worried that someone so religious (just as Bush was) will whip out the veto pen on any matter that conflicts with his religious beliefs, putting all common and practical sense down the garbage.

I don't want religion interfering with my government.

You obviously haven't been keeping track of Romney, because the only time his faith is talked about, it's been due to the press. He's never grandstanded his beliefs.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't consider Jews from Germany to be "Germans" except in a narrow nationalistic sense.

That's wishful thinking: Jewish immigrants from Germany brought their German mindset with them to America -- which helped them become very successful.

Don't take this personally, to me, your distinction is even offensive as it is a continuation of a Nazi idea.

Edit: I think the others are right, we should get back on topic.

[Kerrigan]

"Were conservatives supposed to forget that a maverick Reagan raised some taxes, signed an illegal-alien amnesty bill, expanded government, appointed centrist Supreme Court justices, advocated nuclear disarmament, sold arms to Iran, and pulled out of Lebanon — but to remember only that John McCain was not for the original Bush tax cuts or once supported the administration’s offer of a quasi-amnesty?"
From Victor Davis Hanson

Edit: I'm sorry, I thought this was a thread about McCain, not Jews and Nazis.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I'll admit, I'd have trouble for a candidate that went by Joe-Bob. Adolf doesn't bother me, though I'd have a kind of "That's a shame" feel for the name.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

So, who thinks McCain deserves the nomination?

Maybe I'm splitting hairs but I don't like saying he (or anyone for that matter) deserves the nomination. He'll earn it if he comes out on top next weekend.

Pickings seem rather slim on both sides of the fence. I really cannot get excited for any of the candidates.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I wouldn't vote for anyone whose name was Napoleon Dynamite.

[Jawbone54]

I am absolutely not in favor of McCain gaining the Republican nomination.

1. He's not remotely conservative.
2. He has the personality of an angry brick (this lends itself to getting nothing done).
3. He has a track record of pandering to others across the aisle, as opposed to working with them.
4. I believe he's unelectable if he faces either Obama or Hillary. Either one would mop up the aisle with him.
5. His daughter acts like a Paris Hilton wanna-be.

Yes, Romney is a Mormon, which brings up all sorts of questions, but he has a lengthy history of every business he's ever touched turning into gold. Check his Wikipedia article.

I haven't seen a perfect candidate during this entire process. I don't particularly like any of the present candidates. The closest I've come to really getting totally behind a candidate was Huckabee, but his stance on illegal immigration and the excessive pardons as governor of Arkansas raised a few caution flags in my mind.

This presidential election sucks.

[smacintush]

I get so sick of people being "concerned" about what effing religion Romney or anyone is. It just doesn't matter and we shouldn't even be bringing it up.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Would you be more interested in the subject if there was an openly atheist candidate? Maybe people are "concerned" because they have more of a stake in it than you do, since none of the candidates share your religious choice... just speculating

[BRussell]

Which is a stranger name, Barack Hussein Obama or Willard Mitt Romney?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Bush did not do that. He barely used the veto at all.

And, there's a Supreme Court and Congress that both have ways to address overriding such a veto.

I'm speaking mostly about stem cell research.