My politics are more in line with the Democratic party, but in regard to who I might support for the presidency, I’m leaning toward McCain.
I don’t think that Gore is very bright, and further, I’m not comfortable with what I sense is his “good old boys” ties. Bradley hardly seems qualified, nor does he seem to me to be physically fit enough to hold up under the strain.
Bush makes me want to puke. He, like Gore doesn’t seem very bright and he also seems like he’s be a puppet to the good old boys in the background. Forbes, although probably very bright doesn’t have the personality or charisma to win.
That leaves McCain. I like his personality and I feel like he is an intelligent and fairly honest guy. At present, it looks like he doesn’t have the campaign money to stand up to the likes of Gore, Bush, or Forbes and I hope that he starts picking up some momentum in the primaries in order to bring in more cash to compete with these guys.
What do the rest of you folks think? Do any of you like McCain or think that he’d make a decent President?
Absolutely not, but you’re not the only one, Krispy. I’ve spoken to a few Democrats who are leaning toward McCain and it’s hardly surprising given the coverage he’s received. I think the media have focused so much on the campaign finance reform issue they’ve ignored McCain’s very conservative positions on other issues. Here’s a list of them from The Nation, January 3 issue:
“He supports school vouchers, privatization of Social Security and a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced federal budget. He backs the flat tax, the death penalty and a lock-'em-up approach to crime. He opposes gun control, abortion and increasing the minimum wage. He opposes government regulation as a matter of principle. He voted to impeach President Clinton, and he supported every item in Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract With America. He’s voted for an amendment to outlaw flag-burning. He backs tort reform and free trade, including NAFTA and normalizing trade relations with China. He voted against protecting homosexuals from job discrimination, and (though he’s changed his mind since) he voted against making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a holiday.”
I’m sure there are people here who think that all sounds just jim-dandy but I would think it would make most Democrats run away screaming.
I agree with ruadh as to the acessment of McCain. I find him to simply look good because he ISN’T Bush, not because of what he is, and Democrats are latching onto him because it does not appear likely that even their best hope has a chance in the election. Personally, I think they’re all deluding themselves.
Personally, I love Bradley. I’ve followed him for yearrs, always found him to have more integrity in his pinky than most politicos have in their entire family, and I think he really wants to do the right thing.
I’m not thrilled about his attack on Gore lately about Gore’s abortion flip-flop, and I think that his message should be more than election reform, but when I see him catching up with Gore since his attacks, and the fact that McCainhas become a viable candidate based on HIS own campaign reform views, it’s obvious that those topics seem to have America’s ear… sigh
All this said, I will probably vote Libertarian again.
As a conservative republican who made a big switch to a liberal democrat within the last 10 months, McCain does very little for me except he seems better than smirk Bush.
I believe that essentially all politicians are less-than-honest and with this in mind I’ll take Gore. He’s for environmental issues; he’s pro-choice and is smarter than Bush.
I don’t like McCain’s temper. He is a hot head, and that is not good for a President. Also, he talks out of the side of his mouth. Seems shifty. A pow for how long? 5 years? Very strange.
As usual, I don’t like any of the candidates. I vote for the the one I dislike least.
I suspect that most of the race will be determined by the time our primary rolls around. If it hasn’t shaken down to Bush and Gore by then, I’m not even sure which primary I’ll vote in (Dem or Repub). I took a multiple choice quiz on some internet site about various issues (sorry, can’t recall the name) and it said I was most in line with Bradley. Ok, I guess. But I don’t think he has a chance in hell.
I predict the next president will be Bush. But I hope I’m wrong.
While I think pretty highly of McCain (despite his onvolvement in the Keating 5 scandal), I don’t share this antipathy toward Bush that seems to drive most of you. I mean, sure, a lot of big-money folks are backing him, but does that negate the fact that Texans seem quite happy with his stewardship of their state? You accuse him of not being bright, but many accused Reagan of that as well, and in my opinion, he was probably the second best (after Truman) president of the post-WWII era. I realize that some may be put off by the fact that his family name has gotten him a number of advantages in life, but do you really think that alone would have gotten him such an overwhelming vote for his second gubernatorial term if he hadn’t done a good job? On top of that, he’s certainly done a serious job of reaching out to voters that most GOP candidates routinely write off, such as Hispanics. And of course, he’s conservative on most issues, but so’s McCain.
I’d be plenty happy to see Dubya as president next January. What do y’all have so much against him?
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
Isn’t McCain the one who fought to overturn a free election by the people of DC for something like legalization of medical marijuana? Isn’t he also the one who led the charge to levy a tax on America’s poorest citizens in order to punish the tobacco executives’ fraud?
Well, besides the fact that he kisses the ass of the religious right? That he “thinks” creationism should be in science class? That he thought the coup in Pakistan “brought stability” to the region? That he won’t tell the truth about his background? I could go on, but…
I kind of haven’t kept up, but what are the candidates promising this time? To “fix” social security? To give us tax relief? To eliminate the marriage penalty? To reform the election process?
Boy, talk about yer mass delusions and yer wholesale gullability.
This stuff is worse than a daytime soap. Tune out for a few decades and you probably haven’t missed very much.
Yup. Yup. Yup. Nope. (Well, McCain and Bradley are talking about reforming the soft money portion of the campaign, but they’re losing – in part because those who give money don’t want it reformed!)
Lib, I’m not disagreeing with you, but it should be made clear that what you’re talking about is a sales tax on cigarettes (or, alternately, fines against the tobacco companies to be passed on to the consumer). This is often combined with the fact that smokers are concentrated in the lower economic brackets to arrive at “a tax on America’s poorest citizens”, political doublespeak at its finest.
Like I said, I’m not disagreeing–I also think this should have been handled differently. Just a pet peeve. (It’s a tactic employed frequently by my Senator, Mitch McConnell, who spouts that one as well as “taking away the right to free speech” as a synonym for campaign finance reform.)
As for the election–I don’t know if I can take ten months of Gore vs. Bush–The Battle of Who Can Say Less. This should be the year that I serve my conscience and vote Ralph Nader, but Bush offends me for all the reasons David B. mentioned and more. (His mockery of Karla Faye Tucker’s pleas for her life really sickened me.) I think Gore would be Clinton without the sex, which doesn’t offend or excite me, but I’m pretty sure I’d vote for him if it meant a vote against Dubya.
I’d love to see a Bradley-McCain race, but our primary is at the end of May, so I don’t see much I can do about it.
I guess if I thought there was a “right to free speech” I might agree with your point, Doctor J. But when you punish a man for fraud by levying a tax on his victims, well, I don’t think you have political doublespeak at its finest; I think you have politics at its worst.
Kisses the ass of the religious right: he’s said he won’t push an anti-abortion amendment. He’s certainly less right-wing than Keys, Bauer and Forbes (who truly kissed ass in order to make his new run at office viable, totally changing his campaign), and not necessarily more so than McCain, who people here seem enamored with.
Creationism in science class: I hadn’t heard that one.
Coup in Pakistan: For what it’s worth, a) the Pakistanis, to the best of my understanding, are pretty happy about the coup, and b) I agree he’s not big on foreign policy just yet. Neither was Clinton, before he took office.
Truth about background: Really? Has he lied, or just refused to comment on certain questions? And wasn’t it just last year that people were screaming that people’s private lives (especially if their name is Clinton) should be ignored, re: their fitness for public office?
Bear in mind, though: I admit he’s a conservative. Of course he is. And many on this board are of a liberal bent. However, McCain is a conservative too.
Have any of these guys been certified to be not insane? I HAVE!
Hey, guys, dincha know? The winner of the next prexelection will be the Democrat. That-Psychic-Broad on That-Talk-Show-With-the-Bald-Black-Guy said so . . .
Seriously, though, look for the issue of the death penalty to figure much more prominently than it has recently. Bush was one of the busiest death-warrant signatories in the country, and it’s going to come back to bite him in the ass, I think. What with all the crap that’s coming out in L.A. about the cops framing innocent suspects, the DAs that played along, the suspension of the d/p in Illinois because of all the demonstrable screw-ups – what do you think would happen to Bush’s campaign if, late in the summer, evidence came out that he had signed the death warrant for an innocent man? And that the execution had taken place, effectively making every citizen of Texas above the age of majority the moral equivalent of just the sort of criminal they seek to eliminate?
Your kid may be an honors student, but you’re still an idiot. . .
Yes, he kisses their ass a little less than the others. Whoopdedoo. He won’t push an anti-abortion amendment? Big deal. The president isn’t involved in Constitutional amendments. And he knows it wouldn’t win anyway. So he says something nice to make himself look more moderate. But when those Supreme Court justices retire (and several probably will in the next few years), wanna bet on how many nominees aren’t pro-life if Bush is in office?
Yup. He’s said it several times.
Of course, it being a military dictatorship, you aren’t going to see a whole lot of opposition in the streets. But do you really think the majority wanted their votes overturned by the military? I rather doubt it, and it was stupid of Bush to say such a thing.
And this is supposed to make me feel better?
Maybe both, and that’s the problem. He says he won’t answer any questions, and then he answers the questions that he wants to answer, and then changes things around as it suits him. Maybe he did do drugs when he was a teenager. I don’t really care. But tell me the truth.
There is a difference between wanting to hear the truth and caring about what difference it makes. Like I said, if he did drugs, it’s behind him now. Maybe he learned something. But the fact that he is hiding it is, IMO, worse than the fact that he may (or may not) have done it. Just like, IMO, the fact that Clinton lied flat-out about his affair is worse than the affair itself, as far as his actions as president.
And your point is what? That the religious right holds such sway over the GOP that it’s impossible for a non-social-conservative to do anything? I knew that already.
I think it’s interesting how few people have mentioned the Keating 5 scandal since McCain’s entry into the presidential race. Back when that happened, people were screaming for his head on a stake. Ah, what short memories the public has.
Be that as it may, it’s a big deal to the religious right.
I’m willing to concede that point. On the other hand, a) this is true of McCain as well, and b) as long as said justices aren’t activists, the overturn of Roe v Wade is unlikely.
From what I’ve read in the paper, the elected president had been openly corrupt for quite a while, and the populace was extremely dissatisfied with him.
Better about having him for a prez? No. However, if you re-read the earlier parts of this thread, there seems to be some sort of rabid “anyone but Bush” sentiment, which I feel is extremely unwarranted.
So either he should answer everything or nothing? Why hold back the answers to questions he doesn’t mind answering?
Sounds like you do care. I don’t consider a resfusal to answer dishonest. It certainly gives one the impression that he’s trying to hide something, but it’s certainly not intentionally misleading.
Well, it was the perjury and obstruction he was impeached for, and not the affair itself.
My point is that those going ga-ga over McCain and retching over Bush are deluding themselves if their main objections to Bush are his conservative views.
