Why I support McCain

[LinkManDX]

I'm gonna start this out by stating that not all Republicans are the same. Specifically, George W. Bush =/= John McCain. There would be no debate amongst the Democrats if this were true (Because the two major political parties are essentially the same but with different ideologies). Hell, there wouldn't be any intraparty debate if this were true. Read This article for an explanation of the situation.

First, the Iraq war. Both democratic candidates have been vocal about ending this war immediately. This is a bad idea. A popular idea, but a bad one. Consider this: What happens to Iraq when we leave? This question becomes easier to answer when one considers why we're still there, namely, because we're setting up and stabilizing the new Iraqi government until there's a large enough domestic army and police force there to be able to do it themselves. They haven't done this yet. When a country can't stabilize it's own government, it collapses. Therefore, we need to stay there to make sure that Iraq doesn't fall into anarchy, which would either allow for either another dictatorship to take over or for a pseudo-governed terrorist state to be created. Some say we should just start ignoring the Middle East, as we can't mediate a conflict that some say is insolvable. Taking an "I don't give a damn" policy about the Middle East is both impractical and impossible, the former because of the fact that we need to make sure that we at least make sure that terrorism isn't flourishing in our ignorance, and the latter due to our long standing ties with Israel.

A second prominent issue brought up by democrats is universal healthcare. I look at this policy as merely throwing money at the system and hope that it works. This is true because the problem is the cost of healthcare, and the proposed solution is paying for some or all of it. This would be tacked onto the national debt, which, in case you haven't noticed, is pretty high already. I'm not going to lie to you and say that the system is working fine, because it isn't. However, throwing money at the system merely postpones the problem until it becomes huge and unwieldy. A better plan would be twofold: one, disallow pharmaceutical companies from advertising. The only people who have a need to know about which medicines solve what problems in what people are the doctors themselves, as consumers simply do not have the medical education to make the decision themselves. This would have a secondary effect of cutting the cost of medicine, as the huge budgets for advertising by pharmaceuticals would be essentially cut. Second, make an attempt to reduce frivilous lawsuits against doctors. These cost the hospitals and doctors a lot of money, money that gets tacked onto the medical bill. Reducing the spending of doctors on lawsuits and malpractice insurance would reduce the amount of money needed to pay them, thus trickling down to the populous.

Thirdly, and finally, economic policy. Essential Republican idealism is to have lower taxes and a lower budget (An ideal that George W. Bush encroaches). Because of the US's deficit and a looming economic slowdown, clearly we need to embrace this policy. The tax cuts for the upper class, the opinion on which is divided strongly on party lines, is of a benefit for an economic slowdown. This is true because people with more money are likely to invest it in an attempt at "Money Making Money", and that would help fuel business, which would then improve the economic situation. Also, because the economy is usually cyclical (The last recession being in 2001, the one before that in late 1990-1991 (See this list)), it does a relatively good job of regulating itself, with the help of the Fed. It will eventually right itself, all it needs is a little push. We're currently not even on pace to hit a recession, as the GDP actually grew 0.6% in the first quarter of 2008, with a recession requiring a negative GDP growth of two quarters straight ([url=http://www.haver.com/COMMENT/080430a.htm]Source on 1Q growth of GDP). We don't need a proverbial sledgehammer to nail a proverbial nail.

To conclude, John McCain, a moderate Republican, is the best choice for president because we can't pull out of the Iraq war, Universal healthcare is a bad idea, and republican economic policy will help mitigate economic slowdown.

__________________________________________________ ___________

Wow, that took me a while to write. Enjoy.

[Panfan]

Obama and Clinton don't want to get out immediately. They just want to get them out faster.

[LinkManDX]

Originally Posted by Panfan

Obama and Clinton don't want to get out immediately. They just want to get them out faster.

Faster than what? Any withdrawal before we fully complete the stabilization of the Iraqi government will create the effects described in that paragraph.

[Bomby]

Originally Posted by LinkManDX

What happens to Iraq when we leave?

See "Britain Leaving India."

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by LinkManDX

Specifically, George W. Bush =/= John McCain.

I stopped reading after this line because you obviously haven't been paying attention. McCain's been a vocal supporter that has crossed the line on no issues. He supports an intellectually and morally bankrupt foreign policy based on misinformation and is currently coddling the radical right. Why doesn't his pastors get lead-story coverage? One blamed 9/11 on "feminists, abortionists, gays, etc" and another blamed Katrina on "some gay parade" or "unconfessed sins." He apparently has no qualms with Bushian (read: ruin the dollar, housing market, job market and overall economy) economics because he probably would have said something in 8 years. Acceptance by silence is just as good as vocal acceptance.

If he's willing to continue failed programs across the board and pursue failed programs through policy initiatives, I don't really see how they are different.

Though you are right, they don't equal each other on one point. There was 0% chance Bush would die in an 8 year term. McCain will probably keel over and croak before the halfway point of term 1.

[Metal Man]

If McCain was actually not such a Bush-supporter, then I might give him a look. There have been plenty of good Republicans, like there have been good Democrats.

Truthfully my beliefs fall in-between the candidates, and I'm looking closely for some sort of end in the Democratic madness primary before I pick...

[Crazyswordsman]

The only difference between Bush and McCain is that McCain is willing to listen to moderates and compromise and that McCain doesn't surround himself with Karl Rove. Beyond that, they're basically one in the same. McCain will continue to support corporate welfare (and if you say these people are more likely to invest, why haven't they (question mark) because usually it's the middle class that invests). And while the surge is working TO AN EXTENT, there are still major problems in Iraq and we can't fix them. Leaving Iraq is the lesser of two evils.

And McCain isn't as socially moderate as he seems. He thinks Roe v. Wade should be COMPLETELY overturned and isn't willing to look at middle ground on the divisive abortion question, and he wants to ban gay marriage in every state with constitutional amendments, especially his home state of Arizona, which is going to have it's anti-gay amendment again this year. -CSM

[Bomby]

Ban same-race marriage.

[Crazyswordsman]

I don't think the government ought to define marriage. That's what churches are for. -CSM

[LinkManDX]

CSM: Although he does go against abortion (I'm personally against it in every case except for rape and incest), his policy actually is against banning same sex marriage, even though he wants to define marriage as between a man and a woman (See This). This is a distinct separation from President Bush, and a distinct moderate Republican stance.

Lurch: He actually has vocally criticised not only Bush but the entire Republican party on the fiscal issue:

Originally Posted by John McCain

I am a Republican. I'm loyal to the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. And I believe that my party, in some ways, has strayed from those principles, particularly on the issue of fiscal discipline.

This also shows his general dissatisfaction on the Republican party as it currently is. He is a moderate Republican, and George Bush is a evangelical, conservative Republican. In basic ideology they are different. You accuse me of not paying attention. I disagree.

On Foreign Policy, I'm going to use Iran as an example, due to it being one of the if not the greatest foreign policy problems besides Iraq that we currently have. His policy on Iraq is that he would leave military action on the table, but would consult congressional leaders beforehand. Take that with a grain of salt, but at least he's willing to consult members of Congress before making a decision to go to Iran and fight (See [url=http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.iran.html]this[/quote]).

The point about the pastors you make is somewhat irrelevant as we have to look at what he himself believes to figure out what he himself believes, as we do with every candidate (Which is why I personally am sick and tired of the Jeremiah Wright controversy). Here's a quote showing his moderate beliefs on religion (Read: Not Religious Right):

Originally Posted by John McCain

I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.

Bomby: Did India have a theological warfare going on that could tear apart a country? Did India have a dictator who was maleficent to the people? Did India have numerous bombings and attacks on their own people? We cannot draw a correlation between the two situations.

[speed]

I want to believe McCain won't be Bush 3rd term but after flip floping on literally everything he may actually be worse.

[Crazyswordsman]

^That's because most of the Republican leadership hates Lincoln. -CSM

[Kargath]

Originally Posted by LinkManDX

Bomby: Did India have a theological warfare going on that could tear apart a country? Did India have a dictator who was maleficent to the people? Did India have numerous bombings and attacks on their own people? We cannot draw a correlation between the two situations.

Since I legally can't comment on political matters, I'll just provide the info.
Yes, no, yes, can't comment.

[Crazyswordsman]

^YESNOYOUCANTNOTCOMMENT -CSM

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by LinkManDX

CSM: Although he does go against abortion (I'm personally against it in every case except for rape and incest), his policy actually is against banning same sex marriage, even though he wants to define marriage as between a man and a woman (See This). This is a distinct separation from President Bush, and a distinct moderate Republican stance.

Lurch: He actually has vocally criticised not only Bush but the entire Republican party on the fiscal issue:



This also shows his general dissatisfaction on the Republican party as it currently is. He is a moderate Republican, and George Bush is a evangelical, conservative Republican. In basic ideology they are different. You accuse me of not paying attention. I disagree.

On Foreign Policy, I'm going to use Iran as an example, due to it being one of the if not the greatest foreign policy problems besides Iraq that we currently have. His policy on Iraq is that he would leave military action on the table, but would consult congressional leaders beforehand. Take that with a grain of salt, but at least he's willing to consult members of Congress before making a decision to go to Iran and fight (See [url=http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.iran.html]this).

The point about the pastors you make is somewhat irrelevant as we have to look at what he himself believes to figure out what he himself believes, as we do with every candidate (Which is why I personally am sick and tired of the Jeremiah Wright controversy). Here's a quote showing his moderate beliefs on religion (Read: Not Religious Right):



Bomby: Did India have a theological warfare going on that could tear apart a country? Did India have a dictator who was maleficent to the people? Did India have numerous bombings and attacks on their own people? We cannot draw a correlation between the two situations.

He was pandering to the evangelical base saying he would put in socially conservative justices that would work to overturn Roe v Wade (which was actually 'overturned' in Casey but whatever) and (between the lines) promote other socially conservative platforms from the bench last week. Seems exactly the same as the Bush position IMO.

Vocally criticizing while getting behind him at every opportunity is inconsistant. I go with the insane pro-Bush voting record.

I can say I'm a social conservative gun-nut, but if I vote like an archliberal and contribute money to Planned Parenthood and anti-gun groups, I'm not. Much like this, McCain can say he's a moderate, but he's been doing everything in his power publically for the last two years to dispell this notion.

He, exactly like Bush, is unwilling to recognize the truth on the ground in Iraq: it is a civil war and we should have no part in it. Iran is more a danger now because we took out the only power buffer in the region, but I have major problems believing the same people that said Iraq had mobile labs and nuclear launches out of Bagdad were imminent. He's also perpetuating the myth that we are fighting al qaeda in Iraq, when the vast bulk of the fighting is sectarian forces in a civil war. He's also constantly perpetuating this fantasy that Iran is training and resending al Qaeda forces, which was debunked on all grounds. (I won't link to Mediamatters or some other watchdog group because I'll just laugh and let FOXNEWS tell you).

I find it pretty deplorable to pander to hatemongers. There's a difference between sitting in a pew and having your preacher shout out things you don't agree with (sidenote: it's the equivalent of saying I'm anti-divorce because the local Catholic priest would rail about it every other week when I was a kid) and actively seeking out the endorsements of hatemongering hacks. Let's look at two of McCain's preachers (ignoring the easy target of Pat Robertson and the thankfully late Jerry Fawell):

Hagee (confirmed McCain approached him): Called Catholicism the "great whore" that drinks "the blood of the Jewish people." Also went on NPR and said Katrina was punishment for a gay parade and repeated this since then.

Parsley, whom McCain calls a "spiritual advisor": America was created to fight a holy war against Islam. Compares Planned Parenthood and other reproductive services to "nazis" and the KKK and claims that the US is an accessory to murder.

This is a guy who once called the religious right "agents of intolerance." He's courting them actively to seek their endorsements. That's what makes it important. He's seeking endorsements of people and their flocks (haha doublemeaning), and this comes back into play when they have their hands out if he gets elected.

[Metal Man]

Loyal to the party, but not to the ideas, of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.

Those two had potential and they used it. Rather than get into dicey political smack talk, I'll just ask this honest question:

Is there really any way to tell if any of these candidates will actually do anything if elected, or if they'll just settle in and do nothing while things continue to fall apart as-is?

In the past there were people who did things, people who had strong platforms and great character. These people do not seem to be getting through anymore. The best I can say of Clinton is that he didn't make things worse in a major way. The Republican presidents surrounding him are fine until you hit Bush jr, which makes me wish Bush Sr. had run instead. (One less term, more experience, etc. etc.)

Mostly I wish candidates would do more than throw around lies to get elected and actually go out and do things to prove they aren't a bunch of smooth-talkers.

[Crazyswordsman]

Lurch, you forgot that Hagee said that New Orleans deserved to get destroyed by Katrina.

And now we're seeing Bush's legacy with judges: forcing Indiana voters to have a photo ID, essentially shutting out minorities and poor people and seniors. -CSM

[LinkManDX]

Originally Posted by Lurch1982

He was pandering to the evangelical base saying he would put in socially conservative justices that would work to overturn Roe v Wade (which was actually 'overturned' in Casey but whatever) and (between the lines) promote other socially conservative platforms from the bench last week. Seems exactly the same as the Bush position IMO.

On Meet the Press, John McCain said that he had:

Originally Posted by John McCain

come to the conclusion that the exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother are legitimate exceptions

That doesn't sound like an evangelical position to me.

[quote]He, exactly like Bush, is unwilling to recognize the truth on the ground in Iraq: it is a civil war and we should have no part in it. Iran is more a danger now because we took out the only power buffer in the region, but I have major problems believing the same people that said Iraq had mobile labs and nuclear launches out of Bagdad were imminent. He's also perpetuating the myth that we are fighting al qaeda in Iraq, when the vast bulk of the fighting is sectarian forces in a civil war. /quote]

I agree with you that Iraq is in the state of a civil war. However, if we were to pull out, and if Iraq were to fall into anarchy, the blame would fall squarely on our shoulders by the majority of foreign peoples, and we would look even worse to them.

I find it pretty deplorable to pander to hatemongers. There's a difference between sitting in a pew and having your preacher shout out things you don't agree with (sidenote: it's the equivalent of saying I'm anti-divorce because the local Catholic priest would rail about it every other week when I was a kid) and actively seeking out the endorsements of hatemongering hacks. Let's look at two of McCain's preachers (ignoring the easy target of Pat Robertson and the thankfully late Jerry Fawell):

Hagee (confirmed McCain approached him): Called Catholicism the "great whore" that drinks "the blood of the Jewish people." Also went on NPR and said Katrina was punishment for a gay parade and repeated this since then.

Parsley, whom McCain calls a "spiritual advisor": America was created to fight a holy war against Islam. Compares Planned Parenthood and other reproductive services to "nazis" and the KKK and claims that the US is an accessory to murder.

This is a guy who once called the religious right "agents of intolerance." He's courting them actively to seek their endorsements. That's what makes it important. He's seeking endorsements of people and their flocks (haha doublemeaning), and this comes back into play when they have their hands out if he gets elected.

The problem with this is that every candidate seems to have ties to some sort of extreme religious fundamentalist. The Obama situation is fairly obvious, but Hillary Clinton allegedly has ties to some sort of fundamentalist religious sect. Obviously, you have to take this with a grain of salt (again), but if this is true, this could be either the same or worse and thereby putting everyone on the same level with ties to religous fundamentalists.

In the end, the question I asked originally was:

Originally Posted by LinkManDX

The point about the pastors you make is somewhat irrelevant as we have to look at what he himself believes to figure out what he himself believes

You seem to answer this by saying he's "actively seeking endorsements", but in the research I did, the most I saw was a quote saying he was "proud" to be endorsed by one of them. However, I have a theory on this.

Examine the Jeremiah Wright situation. Obama gave what most consider a very good speech saying he didn't approve of the comments that Wright made, but couldn't disown him. Seems like a pretty good compromise. But, Wright took offense to this, giving a speech saying that this was a political ploy. McCain wants to avoid this -- I didn't see a whole quote on his acceptance (The only part of the quote only quoted in what I looked at was the word proud), but I'm assuming it was more of a passing statement than a whole speech.

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by LinkManDX

On Meet the Press, John McCain said that he had:



That doesn't sound like an evangelical position to me.

I could say that I'm a gun-nut fundamentalist social and fiscal conservative opposed to divorce, women's rights, gay rights and abortion. And it's worth nothing if I run out and get endorsments from anti-gun groups, planned parenthood, NOW, GLADD, the ACLU, and vote like a socialist.

McCain went from calling these people "agents of intolerance" to actively seeking their endorsements.

I agree with you that Iraq is in the state of a civil war. However, if we were to pull out, and if Iraq were to fall into anarchy, the blame would fall squarely on our shoulders by the majority of foreign peoples, and we would look even worse to them.

If Iraq were to fall into anarchy? What exactly do you call it when the central government has no authority once you get out of the protected zones, the military doesn't show up because they overslept, Iraqi military divisions acting like "death squads" against other ethnic or religious groups, kidnap+executions, open fighting against coalition forces, IEDs/roadside bombs, mortar attacks, etc.

It's already in anarchy or something close to it. After 8 years of not giving a **** of what foreign powers think, why exactly should we start now?

The problem with this is that every candidate seems to have ties to some sort of extreme religious fundamentalist. The Obama situation is fairly obvious, but Hillary Clinton allegedly has ties to some sort of fundamentalist religious sect. Obviously, you have to take this with a grain of salt (again), but if this is true, this could be either the same or worse and thereby putting everyone on the same level with ties to religous fundamentalists.

Here's the difference: Obama's the equivalent of sitting in church and having your preacher say some stuff you don't agree with. Hillary joined some Washington group that really hasn't fallen out of step with US foreign policy in terms of supporting facists. Neither Hillary nor Obama sought endorsements from these groups. McCain sought out the endorsements of hatemongering kooks. That is the difference. If Obama is elected and the Wright scandal never happened, Wright wouldn't have any say or position in his administration. If McCain is elected, all of the kooks he got the endorsements of (in order to force Huckabee out of the race) are going to stand there with their hands out expecting some sort of quid pro quo exchange. IOW: one of their own in powerful positions.

You seem to answer this by saying he's "actively seeking endorsements", but in the research I did, the most I saw was a quote saying he was "proud" to be endorsed by one of them. However, I have a theory on this.

He's a liar and sought out endorsements.

Also:

CSM: Although he does go against abortion (I'm personally against it in every case except for rape and incest)

Concerning exceptions for abortion flip-flop.

[betasoldier]

Originally Posted by Crazyswordsman

And now we're seeing Bush's legacy with judges: forcing Indiana voters to have a photo ID, essentially shutting out minorities and poor people and seniors. -CSM

Funniest thing I've ever heard. That talk was around a long time before Bush. I live in Indiana dude, come on. Also, you can apply for the plain state ID, for free, and get it, for free, for voting. It was all put out in plenty of time for everyone eligible and wanting to vote to get one. Or you could use a drivers license or other form of state/federal ID. **** man come on, that ****ing hilarious.

I live in the poor area of my town, one of the few white families, love all my black neighbors (we actually help each other out with stuff, I love neighbors like that). Basically, I don't know a single person that wants to vote and doesn't have an ID. Maybe there are some, but I haven't met them yet. Seriously, thats weak man.

Hell, I've helped my teacher help the elderly get their state ID's so they can vote. Not getting to vote because of no ID The ones that didn't vote didn't want to. Seriously, I'm laughing so hard I'm crying.

Oh, and Lurch, the whole problems with the Iraqi military that you mentioned, are in the minority and few and far between.

My advice to LinkManDX, don't bother. Just give it up. I agree with you on most of what your saying, but as I've come to learn this is the wrong forum for it man. You won't win, eventually Lurch will just resort to posts of just 100% insulting you without any other details. Just not worth the trouble because no one else seems to care about that fact, or if anything just egg him on to do it more. Other then those things, I'm not bothering to get involved in this.