Presidential Candidate: John McCain

[Jason Tate]

Other potential candidates have threads, so I figured I'd make one for McCain too.

[Jason Tate]

– McCain called for sending “another 20,000 troops” to Iraq. He endorsed Bush’s escalation strategy, but later claimed, “I would have liked to have seen more (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/21/mccain-small/)” troops on the ground.

– McCain claimed the Iraq war has been “easy (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/mccain-war-was-easy/),” except that he also “knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/04/mccain-iraq-easy/).”

– McCain claimed he “bitterly disagreed (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/30/mccain-redeployment/)” with the Iraq strategy from the beginning, except that he previously said, “We will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

– McCain was for withdrawing U.S. troops to the border of Iraq if escalation failed, but then later backtracked, saying he would only consider redeployment if “we have the situation under control (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/30/mccain-redeployment/).”

– McCain wants to establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, but “can’t tell you (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/04/mccain-benchmarks/)” what they are.

– McCain said that escalation could not bring about results in “a few months,” but then claimed, “I think in the case of the Iraqi government cooperating and doing what’s necessary, we can know fairly well in a few months (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/04/mccain-flip/).”

[thejetstolehome]

i think a lot of people have taken McCain down from the pedestal he once occupied.

[IAPAI]

ioy90nF2anI

[Love As Arson]

McCain may have been a viable candidate if he were not driven to the right by his presidential aspirations. His ties to the surge, as well as his ties to Jerry Falwell's university, have caused independents to abandon him in favor of other individuals.

[shes.a.ghost]

So I guess Jason is voting for McCain?

[Nowisnotthetime]

He's done the same flip-flopping (for lack of a better word) as all the democrats after this war started (ALMOST ALL OF THEM VOTED FOR IT). It's time we actually held them accountable for their actions instead of their current words. I hope Nader runs because he's much less of a waste than deciding between Democrats and Republicans.

[Jason Tate]

He's done the same flip-flopping (for lack of a better word) as all the democrats after this war started (ALMOST ALL OF THEM VOTED FOR IT). It's time we actually held them accountable for their actions instead of their current words. I hope Nader runs because he's much less of a waste than deciding between Democrats and Republicans.
Not the one I'm voting for.

[IAPAI]

He's done the same flip-flopping (for lack of a better word) as all the democrats after this war started (ALMOST ALL OF THEM VOTED FOR IT). It's time we actually held them accountable for their actions instead of their current words. I hope Nader runs because he's much less of a waste than deciding between Democrats and Republicans.

Wouldn't "Standing by his convictions" be considered an action?

[Nowisnotthetime]

Not the one I'm voting for.

Who's that? Barack? Because he won't win the primaries.

[Jason Tate]

Who's that? Barack? Because he won't win the primaries.
What's that have to do with any thing? You said "all the democrats after this war started (ALMOST ALL OF THEM VOTED FOR IT)" - and I proved you wrong.

[TheOtherAndrew]

i think a lot of people have taken McCain down from the pedestal he once occupied.
Yeah I remember when McCain was pretty much universally respected.

[aminorthreat55]

McCain may have been a viable candidate if he were not driven to the right by his presidential aspirations. His ties to the surge, as well as his ties to Jerry Falwell's university, have caused independents to abandon him in favor of other individuals.
That's why I don't like him anymore.

[selftitled85]

people keep forgetting the mccain is probably the last remaining true neo-conservative in office.

[Jason Tate]

people keep forgetting the mccain is probably the last remaining true neo-conservative in office.
Or that's exactly what people see and know are aware of.

[selftitled85]

Or that's exactly what people see and know are aware of.

yeah thats what i meant.

i should have wrote that people "kept forgetting"

[thejetstolehome]

That's why I don't like him anymore.

agreed.

[thatwasamoment]

I used to like McCain, but he scares me now. I don't want another war president in the office.

[captainhampton]

I prefer Giuliani, but I wouldn't mind a McCain/Giuliani ticket.

[Nowisnotthetime]

What's that have to do with any thing? You said "all the democrats after this war started (ALMOST ALL OF THEM VOTED FOR IT)" - and I proved you wrong.

No you didn't. I said almost all of them. Also, Dems in general did their best to make this war happen and just because there wasn't a democrat as president their trying to distance themselves as much as possible. I don't remember them shouting for more troops initially when the war started or saying not to go at all. We're talking about voting for president. That's why I said I HOPE NADER RUNS. Hilary will most likely win. Obama is already getting slaughtered in polls of a few states. You'll vote Democrat and it will be someone who voted for the war. You've learned what to believe and not how to think.

[Jason Tate]

No you didn't. I said almost all of them. Also, Dems in general did their best to make this war happen and just because there wasn't a democrat as president their trying to distance themselves as much as possible. I don't remember them shouting for more troops initially when the war started or saying not to go at all. We're talking about voting for president. That's why I said I HOPE NADER RUNS. Hilary will most likely win. Obama is already getting slaughtered in polls of a few states. You'll vote Democrat and it will be someone who voted for the war. You've learned what to believe and not how to think.

Obama didn't vote for the war.

[atticus1492]

I prefer Giuliani, but I wouldn't mind a McCain/Giuliani ticket.

My worst fears realized.

[Nowisnotthetime]

Obama didn't vote for the war.

I never said he did. I'm saying he has no shot in hell to win the primary and if he does (by some miracle), he will lose NY and Pennsylvania to Guiliani. He has no shot in hell so I don't understand why you're even putting him into the presidential mix. Voting for Obama suggests you just support his ideals because he has no shot to win and in that case I don't understand why you don't vote for someone more left who you agree with more than him.

[Jason Tate]

I never said he did. I'm saying he has no shot in hell to win the primary and if he does (by some miracle), he will lose NY and Pennsylvania to Guiliani. He has no shot in hell so I don't understand why you're even putting him into the presidential mix. Voting for Obama suggests you just support his ideals because he has no shot to win and in that case I don't understand why you don't vote for someone more left who you agree with more than him.

No shot in hell? Hmm, recent numbers disagree.

And why are you content on picking what/who I believe in and support?

[Nowisnotthetime]

No shot in hell? Hmm, recent numbers disagree.

And why are you content on picking what/who I believe in and support?

You're dead wrong on the recent numbers thing. http://americanresearchgroup.com/ In both these polls (Important states Iowa and New Hampshire) he's getting smoked by Clinton and getting beaten by Edwards.

If you believe things like a vast government conspiracy on 9/11, which I disagree with. I don't think you should be voting for the 2 parties that both would've had to have some knowledge as to what was happening.

[Jason Tate]

You're dead wrong on the recent numbers thing. http://americanresearchgroup.com/ In both these polls (Important states Iowa and New Hampshire) he's getting smoked by Clinton and getting beaten by Edwards.

If you believe things like a vast government conspiracy on 9/11, which I disagree with. I don't think you should be voting for the 2 parties that both would've had to have some knowledge as to what was happening.
I'm not referring to those polls.

I don't believe in a vast government conspiracy on 9/11.

[Nowisnotthetime]

I'm not referring to those polls.

I don't believe in a vast government conspiracy on 9/11.

Those are the newest polls (important polls so it would be good of you to take a look at them, ignoring polls doesn't make them go away) and I distinctly remember you sticking up for Loose Change.

[thatwasamoment]

Those are the newest polls (important polls so it would be good of you to take a look at them, ignoring polls doesn't make them go away) and I distinctly remember you sticking up for Loose Change.3rd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire. Thats not doing bad in my book.

[Jason Tate]

Those are the newest polls (important polls so it would be good of you to take a look at them, ignoring polls doesn't make them go away) and I distinctly remember you sticking up for Loose Change.
Questioning doesn't mean I believe in it. I question my own exisitence, does that mean I believe I don't exist?

[Nowisnotthetime]

3rd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire. Thats not doing bad in my book.

Those are states he'll have to win to win the primary. He's down by 17% and 20%!!!!! and losing to John Edwards in one. Your "book" needs some higher standards.

[aminorthreat55]

Those are states he'll have to win to win the primary. He's down by 17% and 20%!!!!! and losing to John Edwards in one. Your "book" needs some higher standards.
How much shit happens between today and the actual primaries? While they give a decent frame of reference for the general opinion of the American public, I wouldn't put much faith in current poll numbers to hold steady for the next twelve months. To say they represent what will happen a year from now is absurd.

[thatwasamoment]

Those are states he'll have to win to win the primary. He's down by 17% and 20%!!!!! and losing to John Edwards in one. Your "book" needs some higher standards.
As mentioned, the first primary is a year away. And 2nd and 3rd for a first time candidate isn't bad at all.

You seem so hell bent on Obama losing, yet I'm guessing you're not too excited Hillary will probably win the nomination?

[Nowisnotthetime]

As mentioned, the first primary is a year away. And 2nd and 3rd for a first time candidate isn't bad at all.

You seem so hell bent on Obama losing, yet I'm guessing you're not too excited Hillary will probably win the nomination?

No, I think they're both in it for the power. They're owned by the lobbyists in Washington. I never could understand why someone would get into politics for just the power instead of making a difference but they both seem to have been led astray. Obama is being wined and dined by the Democratic powers that be and soon he'll be another pawn in the pockets of the Democratic lobbyists. It's unfortunate and the truth is, the system isn't working.
Why won't they let people like Ralph Nader debate? He's not proposing anything assanine. He's the only candidate once they reach the presidential elections suggesting Universal Healthcare among other things, which a majority of the country wants. Dennis Kucinich can pretend that his voice in the primaries is all that matters but I think a lot of what Nader and others say needs to at least be heard by the public during the actual Presidential campaign.

[Jason Tate]

No, I think they're both in it for the power. They're owned by the lobbyists in Washington. I never could understand why someone would get into politics for just the power instead of making a difference but they both seem to have been led astray. Obama is being wined and dined by the Democratic powers that be and soon he'll be another pawn in the pockets of the Democratic lobbyists. It's unfortunate and the truth is, the system isn't working.
Why won't they let people like Ralph Nader debate? He's not proposing anything assanine. He's the only candidate once they reach the presidential elections suggesting Universal Healthcare among other things, which a majority of the country wants. Dennis Kucinich can pretend that his voice in the primaries is all that matters but I think a lot of what Nader and others say needs to at least be heard by the public during the actual Presidential campaign.
Do you have any facts to back up your accusations of Obama?

You also know he's (Obama) been purposing Universal Healthcare for years, right?

[Nowisnotthetime]

Do you have any facts to back up your accusations of Obama?

You also know he's (Obama) been purposing Universal Healthcare for years, right?

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allsummary.asp?CID=N00009638

and on the 2nd point, to put it in computer talk, ive been pwned

[Jason Tate]

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allsummary.asp?CID=N00009638

and on the 2nd point, to put it in computer talk, ive been pwned
That chart seems to disagree with, or at the very least not back up, your comments that he's in the pockets of lobbyists. Not sure how you're reading it ...

[Jason Tate]

AP: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), “a staunch supporter of sending more troops to Iraq, will skip a Senate vote on the war Saturday to campaign in Iowa while other candidates rearrange their schedules.”

[chronomic]

more like John...McCallister. haHA

[TheOtherAndrew]

No, I think they're both in it for the power. They're owned by the lobbyists in Washington. I never could understand why someone would get into politics for just the power instead of making a difference but they both seem to have been led astray. Obama is being wined and dined by the Democratic powers that be and soon he'll be another pawn in the pockets of the Democratic lobbyists. It's unfortunate and the truth is, the system isn't working.
Why won't they let people like Ralph Nader debate? He's not proposing anything assanine. He's the only candidate once they reach the presidential elections suggesting Universal Healthcare among other things, which a majority of the country wants. Dennis Kucinich can pretend that his voice in the primaries is all that matters but I think a lot of what Nader and others say needs to at least be heard by the public during the actual Presidential campaign.
I agree with you, I think Nader and other third party candidates should be allowed in the debates, however its clear that's not going to happen. At least for a while, anyway. After what happened with Perot, it became much harder for third parties to get candidates in presidential debates.

That's another issue though, and let's stick to McCain. Are there any issues at all where he's still to the left of the majority of the Republican Party? It seemed to me a few years ago that he had a few ideas that made him split from the rest of the GOP, but since it became clear he's running for president he seems to have shifted over to the right. Has he said anything lately that might cause right-wing primary voters to raise an eyebrow?

[WarpSpeedChewy]

I like McCain. I think a lot of the reason he's "flip-flopped" on certain things is because he's really kinda had to side with his party on things he didn't support. I've always had the feeling a lot of republicans didn't like him for leaning to close to the middle. I think he had to show some solidarity with his party so he can have some support at the cost of him voicing his real opinion. I think when he supported Bush's reelection showed that a lot.

I agree with McCain on alot of issues and I get a strong sense from him he's a really good and honest person. There are a couple of things though I would like to hear him explain about himself.

[concernedparent]

– McCain called for sending “another 20,000 troops” to Iraq. He endorsed Bush’s escalation strategy, but later claimed, “I would have liked to have seen more (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/21/mccain-small/)” troops on the ground.

– McCain claimed the Iraq war has been “easy (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/mccain-war-was-easy/),” except that he also “knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/04/mccain-iraq-easy/).”

– McCain claimed he “bitterly disagreed (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/30/mccain-redeployment/)” with the Iraq strategy from the beginning, except that he previously said, “We will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

– McCain was for withdrawing U.S. troops to the border of Iraq if escalation failed, but then later backtracked, saying he would only consider redeployment if “we have the situation under control (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/30/mccain-redeployment/).”

– McCain wants to establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, but “can’t tell you (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/04/mccain-benchmarks/)” what they are.

– McCain said that escalation could not bring about results in “a few months,” but then claimed, “I think in the case of the Iraqi government cooperating and doing what’s necessary, we can know fairly well in a few months (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/04/mccain-flip/).”

This list of facts sure didn't seem biased!

[TheOtherAndrew]

This list of facts sure didn't seem biased!
I demand more balance from my music fan site threads!

[Jason Tate]

Though he is blowing off today’s Senate vote on Iraq (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0217iraq-mccain0217.html), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has made time for two important events on Sunday in South Carolina: “The first is an ‘old fashioned’ ice cream and hotdog social at 4 p.m. at Sugar ‘n Spice. … Later in the day, McCain will speak in favor of abstinence-only education (http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/NEWS/702130330/-1/LIFE) at the Carolina Pregnancy Center’s Life in the City.”

[concernedparent]

Though he is blowing off today’s Senate vote on Iraq (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0217iraq-mccain0217.html), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has made time for two important events on Sunday in South Carolina: “The first is an ‘old fashioned’ ice cream and hotdog social at 4 p.m. at Sugar ‘n Spice. … Later in the day, McCain will speak in favor of abstinence-only education (http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/NEWS/702130330/-1/LIFE) at the Carolina Pregnancy Center’s Life in the City.”
I realize your post is supposed to point out flaws, but come on jason, hot dogs are more important than some little war in some country no one's heard of.

[Jason Tate]

In the February 26 edition (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17204927/site/newsweek/) of Newsweek magazine, White House correspondent Holly Bailey offered a " 'values voter' tally" of "the pros and cons of top GOP hopefuls" in the 2008 presidential campaign. The article listed one of Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "pros" as: "After condemning Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/patrobertson) as 'agents of intolerance' during his 2000 run, McCain has tried to make amends with the Christian right." However, the same article's profile of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney listed among Romney's "cons": "Evangelicals are skeptical of Romney's Mormon faith, but it's his alleged flip-flops that could really hurt. In his 1994 Senate and 2002 gubernatorial bids, Romney supported abortion rights and gay rights, positions he reversed as he prepared for a White House run."
Newsweek offered no explanation for reaching a different conclusion as to the effect on "values voters" of McCain's flip-flop on the Christian right versus that of Romney's "alleged flip-flops" on same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
Nor did the article note McCain's flip-flops and self-contradictions on abortion, one of the very factors Newsweek said could doom Romney with the Republican base. Claiming that another positive factor for McCain is his hiring of "a former Bush adviser, David Rexrode, to tout his conservative credentials, particularly his anti-abortion stance," Newsweek did not mention McCain's varying positions on the issue of whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned. As Media Matters for America noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200702150002), in 1999, McCain claimed that he would both support overturning and not support overturning Roe v. Wade and, in 2005, he claimed that he agreed "to some degree" that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. McCain also issued (http://www.google.com/items/200611180003#20070214) a statement in 2006 indicating that if he were the governor of South Dakota, he "would have signed" a controversial bill outlawing all abortions except in those situations in which the life of the woman is threatened, but that he "would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included." As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200603130012): "But that attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest."
From Bailey's Newsweek article:
THE RECONCILER: John McCain
PROS: After condemning Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" during his 2000 run, McCain has tried to make amends with the Christian right. He spoke at Falwell's Liberty University last year and has consulted with noted evangelicals, including megachurch Pastor John Hagee in Texas. (This week Falwell will host a "meet and greet" at the National Religious Broadcasters convention on McCain's behalf.) He's even hired a former Bush adviser, David Rexrode, to tout his conservative credentials, particularly his anti-abortion stance.
CONS: Evangelicals are suspicious. They question McCain's opposition to a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (McCain opposes gay marriage, but says the issue should be regulated by the states.) They haven't forgiven him for blocking the "nuclear option" in the Senate that would have forced an up or down vote on President Bush's judicial nominees. Last month Focus on the Family founder James Dobson vowed he would not vote for McCain "under any circumstances."
THE MORMON: Mitt Romney
PROS: Romney is against abortion and opposes same-sex marriage, and he's been aggressive in courting the Christian right. He's consulted with Falwell and Franklin Graham and is scheduled to deliver the graduation address at Robertson's Regent University this spring.
CONS: Evangelicals are skeptical of Romney's Mormon faith, but it's his alleged flip-flops that could really hurt. In his 1994 Senate and 2002 gubernatorial bids, Romney supported abortion rights and gay rights, positions he reversed as he prepared for a White House run. Last week Sam Brownback's campaign questioned his credibility.

[IAPAI]

Though he is blowing off today’s Senate vote on Iraq (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0217iraq-mccain0217.html), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has made time for two important events on Sunday in South Carolina: “The first is an ‘old fashioned’ ice cream and hotdog social at 4 p.m. at Sugar ‘n Spice. … Later in the day, McCain will speak in favor of abstinence-only education (http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/NEWS/702130330/-1/LIFE) at the Carolina Pregnancy Center’s Life in the City.”

abstinence only education? are you fucking kidding me?

Increase in teenage pregnancy, here we come!

[Jason Tate]

Despite his history of inconsistency on the subject, which Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200702150008), here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200611270007), here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200611180003), and here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200611220001)), the Associated Press uncritically reported in a February 18 article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2885810) Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) statement that "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

[concernedparent]

Despite his history of inconsistency on the subject, which Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200702150008), here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200611270007), here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200611180003), and here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200611220001)), the Associated Press uncritically reported in a February 18 article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2885810) Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) statement that "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."
Someone ought to just buy him some flip flops!

[Daveyhavok832]

tha'd be cool if Jason Tate wasn't so biased... I plan on voting for Hillary but I would deffinately vote John Mccain

[Jason Tate]

tha'd be cool if Jason Tate wasn't so biased... I plan on voting for Hillary but I would deffinately vote John Mccain
This is an open forum - why are you expecting me to not be "bias" in my posts? Anyone can post anything they want relating to the thread topics -- I just happen to post more than most in here I guess. Attack the points in the argument not the person making the argument to spur debate.

[Jason Tate]

In July 2004, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called Vice President Cheney “one of the most capable, experienced, intelligent and steady (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-28-mccain_x.htm) vice presidents this country has ever had.” But last month, McCain flip-flopped, attacking Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2390.html) for their mismanagement of the war in Iraq:
The president listened too much to the Vice President. … Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense.
But today in an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, Cheney said that McCain’s criticisms were nothing more than empty rhetoric: “John said some nasty things about me the other day and then next time he saw me ran over to me and apologized.”

[Jason Tate]

On the February 20 edition (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/20/sitroom.01.html) of The Situation Room, CNN correspondent Brianna Keilar uncritically aired Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) statement that Roe v. Wade (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113) "should be overturned," without noting that McCain has taken a variety of positions on Roe since 1999. Moments later, CNN political editor Mark Preston asserted without evidence that McCain currently has an "image as an independent thinker not beholden to any political party."
Keilar aired McCain's February 18 quote "I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned," without noting that McCain has previously said he "would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade." As Media Matters for America noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200702200008), on August 25, 1999, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that McCain had told its editorial board:
"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. ... But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations."
Several days later, he issued what the San Francisco Chronicle called a "clarification," reportedly saying: "I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal." He added (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199909/ai_n8855062):
"If Roe v. Wade were repealed tomorrow, it would force thousands of young women to undergo dangerous and illegal operations. I will continue to work with both pro-life and pro-choice Americans so that we can eliminate the need for abortions to be performed in this country."
On the January 21, 2001, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, McCain said "[y]ou can't" overturn Roe v. Wade without "get[ting] a majority of the American citizens to be convinced that there's great validity to your point of view" because "then it goes back to the states and then the debate and discussion would take place in the respective 50 states:"
TIM RUSSERT (host): You heard [first lady] Laura Bush say that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. [then-Attorney General nominee] John Ashcroft said it's settled law and that the new president would not seek to overturn it. Is that a good result? Should people across the country say, "We're not going to overturn Roe v. Wade"?
McCAIN: Well, I think it's a recognition of reality, number one, and number two is, a lot of us have said for a long time, "We have to change the hearts and minds of the American people. We have to convince them about the sanctity of human life." That's the way you win. You've got to get a majority of the American citizens to be convinced that there's great validity to your point of view.
RUSSERT: If you tried to overturn Roe v. Wade without doing that, it would --
McCAIN: You can't do it. And if you did overturn Roe v. Wade, then it goes back to the states and then the debate and discussion would take place in the respective 50 states.
And as Media Matters noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200702200008), according to CNN (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/26/mccain.abortion/index.html), when asked in January 2000 what he would do if his daughter became pregnant McCain said: "The final decision would be made by [daughter] Meghan with our advice and counsel."
As the weblog Think Progress noted (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/19/mccain-abortion/), on November 19, 2006, McCain told ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos that he would "support" a Supreme Court decision overruling Roe, saying that "it's very likely or possible that a Supreme Court should -- could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support. ... ecause I'm a federalist." Further, on February 28, 2006, McCain issued (http://www.google.com/items/200611180003#20070214) a statement indicating that if he were the governor of South Dakota, he "would have signed" a controversial bill outlawing all abortions except when the life of the woman is threatened, but that he "would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included." As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200603130012): "But that attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest."
Preston asserted that McCain currently has an image "as an independent thinker not beholden to any political party," but did not provide any evidence that McCain actually was an "independent thinker." Nor did he mention polls showing that independent voters have soured on McCain over the last year. In a December 11, 2006, Newsweek article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16013641/site/newsweek/), an anonymous McCain "campaign adviser" was quoted saying: "We lost independents. ... McCain will have to get them back to win, or at least convince them to trust him." Boston Herald columnist Brett Arends reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=177706) on January 18 (subscription required) that American Research Group (ARG) president Dick Bennett said McCain "is tanking. ... That's the big thing [we're finding]. In New Hampshire a year ago he got 49 percent among independent voters. That number's way down, to 29 percent now (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nhrep8-702.shtml).'' Bennett added that the trend extended to other (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/iarep8-702.shtml) states (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nvrep08-2.shtml) that ARG polled: "We're finding this everywhere." Additionally, a January 13-16 Los Angeles Times poll (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-01/27427417.pdf) found 43 percent of independent respondents said they were "[l]ess likely" (37 percent "[m]uch less likely") to vote for McCain because of his support for increasing the number of troops in Iraq. By contrast, 13 percent said they were "[m]ore likely" (8 percent "[m]uch more likely"). Preston did note that McCain was on a "tightrope" trying to "appeal to social conservatives" and that support for the war might be McCain's "biggest obstacle," but still asserted McCain's image as an "independent" was notable.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the February 20 edition (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/20/sitroom.01.html) of CNN's The Situation Room:
KEILAR: Both Georgia and South Carolina are Southern states where conservative voters have a big say in the Republican primaries. But John McCain defends his outreach and says he's not pandering to win the GOP nomination.
[begin video clip]
McCAIN: [B]I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned.
KEILAR: John McCain on the campaign trail in South Carolina, where Christian conservatives are a major force, and meeting with religious broadcasters at their convention in Florida.
McCAIN: I respect the work of the religious broadcasters, and I was glad to have the opportunity to meet with them.
KEILAR: The senator from Arizona seems to be saying the right things to make some social conservatives happy. Today, McCain won the endorsement of a past star on the right, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm [R]. This follows former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating's [R] endorsement over the weekend.
But many on the right are suspicious of McCain, who had no kind words for the Reverends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/patrobertson) during his 2000 presidential run. He's trying to extend the olive branch this time around, but when it comes to courting conservatives, McCain's work is far from over.
PATRICK MAHONEY (Christian Defense Coalition director): I think Senator McCain has a long way to go in rebuilding a bridge to the faith community.
PRESTON: Senator McCain is walking a tightrope as he tries to appeal to social conservatives who vote in the Republican primaries. At the same time, he's trying to maintain his image as an independent thinker not beholden to any political party. But perhaps what might be his biggest obstacle in this presidential race is Senator McCain's unabashed support for the Iraq war.

[senatorlamb]

From:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2895526&page=1



By NITYA VENKATARAMAN

McCain: Bush Pursuit of Iraq a 'Train Wreck'

Feb. 22, 2007 — Proving that presidential infighting isn't just for Democrats, Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., took several sharply worded shots at the Bush administration this week, distancing himself from an unpopular president and an unpopular war while wooing the right Republicans who put the president in power and once before denied McCain the White House. McCain's latest anti-Bush tirade came during a joint appearance Wednesday in California with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.
The two leaders met to discuss energy and the environment, but the subject turned to Iraq.
Though McCain is a staunch supporter of the president's plan to add troops in Iraq, the 2000 Bush foe and 2008 contender called Bush's initial pursuit of the Iraq War "a train wreck" and labeled the administration's record on global warming as "terrible."
During McCain's appearance with Schwarzenegger on the docks of the Los Angeles Harbor, the senator recalled "no cooperation from the administration" at recent Senate hearings on global warming and described Bush's recent commitment to global warming as "long overdue."

McCain Slams Rumsfeld

McCain's verbal lashing put President Bush in the company of his former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whom McCain blasted Monday as "one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."
"We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement — that's the kindest word I can give you of Donald Rumsfeld — of this war," McCain told a crowd of 800-plus supporters at a retirement community near Hilton Head Island, S.C.
"The price is very, very heavy, and I regret it enormously," the Vietnam War veteran and former prisoner of war said.
As the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services committee, McCain berated Rumsfeld for not putting enough troops on the ground in Iraq to succeed.

Cheney Fights Back

The White House stood by Rumsfeld and called on McCain to apologize for his remarks.
"I just fundamentally disagree with John," Vice President Dick Cheney told ABC News in an exclusive interview from Tokyo.
Cheney continued to tell ABC News' Jonathan Karl, who is traveling with the vice president, that "John said some nasty things about me the other day, and then next time he saw me, ran over to me and apologized. Maybe he'll apologize to Rumsfeld."

Cheney was referencing a February interview during which McCain said the president had been "very badly served" by Cheney and Rumsfeld. It appears there will be no apology from McCain, though.
McCain did not back down from his criticism of Rumsfeld on Wednesday, telling reporters, "I stand by my comment."
Cheney commended Rumsfeld on a "superb job" in his post at the Defense Department and acknowledged, "John's entitled to his opinion. I just think he's wrong."
In the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 71 percent of Americans say the country is headed seriously off on the wrong track. Sixty-four percent call the war a mistake, more than said so about Vietnam during that conflict.

Facing Backlash With Voters

For McCain, a Republican front-runner who faced heavy criticism for moving too far rightward when he pledged full-fledged support to the president's controversial Iraq strategy and sought endorsements from evangelical leaders, his airing of grievances and staged appearance with California's moderate governor are far from happenstance.
McCain's efforts to gain support from the right could face serious backlash at the polls from the moderates who once cast him as a "maverick" who upset then-Gov. George W. Bush in the 2000 New Hampshire primary and led the only serious challenge to Bush's otherwise smooth path toward the Republican nomination.
McCain's 2008 campaign has thus far been a tricky balance between shoring up the conservative voters who may have cost him the nomination in 2000 and trying to maintain his reputation as a straight talker who has the ability to woo independent and perhaps some Democratic voters in a general election.
During his previous run for the White House in 2000, McCain put off many Christian conservatives by saying he "reject[s] individuals such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who take our party in the wrong direction."
Since then McCain has tried to mend fences, including speaking at Falwell's Liberty University in May.
"He could, in fact, I believe, become the champion, the hero of religious conservatives," Falwell said of McCain.
Right now, though, conservatives continue to say they really don't have any major ally among the three Republican front-runners: McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who supports abortion rights, gun control and some gay rights.
Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family Action recently told ABC News' Jake Tapper, "So far, social conservatives have not found a Mr. Right."
If recent events are any indication, McCain's campaign desperately wants to present Mr. Right but the candidate hasn't yet parked the straight-talk express.
ABC News' Jake Tapper contributed to this report.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

He just announced that he will run for president on David Letterman, although he said he will make a formal announcement in April

[senatorlamb]

Link (http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/03/mccain-staffers-bail-off-his-crazy-train.php):

McCain Staffers Bail Off the Crazy Train
John McCain's Obama-esque remarks about our "wasted" resources in Iraq weren't the only comments that landed him in hot water after a recent appearance on Late Night with David Letterman. Many of his staff were blindsided by his campaign announcement. And several aides were so outraged that they've quit, say Republican insiders.

"They're imploding—he had a game plan that had him announcing much later in the year," one top Republican aide tells Radar, adding that the campaign is "in serious trouble ... Romney's plan and Rudy's jump in the polls caused him to scrap his plans completely. When you do that, and you're not prepared for it, the staff goes crazy. Some of his coordinators in different states were pulling their hair out!"

Another insider, a guru to the conservative movement, says that McCain himself is growing increasingly desperate in the wake of his downward slide in the polls—a slip hastened by his steadfast support of the very man who savaged him and his family during the 2000 election, George W. Bush, and the president's unpopular plan for troop surge in Iraq. "One of the top aides to the Republican leadership told me that McCain has lost so much support, he's simply beside himself. He's wringing his hands. Things are sinking fast—in two or three weeks, we'll know if there is any recovery."

It didn't help any that McCain was the one leading Republican candidate who skipped last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference. In CPAC's straw poll on Saturday, McCain came in fifth place—behind Sam Brownback. When the results were announced, attendees booed at the mention of his name.

[theguilt engine]

– McCain called for sending “another 20,000 troops” to Iraq. He endorsed Bush’s escalation strategy, but later claimed, “I would have liked to have seen more (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/21/mccain-small/)” troops on the ground.

– McCain claimed the Iraq war has been “easy (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/mccain-war-was-easy/),” except that he also “knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/04/mccain-iraq-easy/).”

– McCain claimed he “bitterly disagreed (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/30/mccain-redeployment/)” with the Iraq strategy from the beginning, except that he previously said, “We will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

– McCain was for withdrawing U.S. troops to the border of Iraq if escalation failed, but then later backtracked, saying he would only consider redeployment if “we have the situation under control (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/30/mccain-redeployment/).”

– McCain wants to establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, but “can’t tell you (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/04/mccain-benchmarks/)” what they are.

– McCain said that escalation could not bring about results in “a few months,” but then claimed, “I think in the case of the Iraqi government cooperating and doing what’s necessary, we can know fairly well in a few months (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/04/mccain-flip/).”


Thank you for linking those points because I was not about to go look for credibility.

[Lueda Alia]

Has anyone read this yet?


Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy."

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You’ve stumped me."

Q: "I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?"

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it."

Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?"

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before."


From here (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/).

[aminorthreat55]

Has anyone read this yet?


Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy."

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You’ve stumped me."

Q: "I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?"

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it."

Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?"

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before."


From here (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/).
That is fucking pathetic.

[BitterBuffalo]

NO
I would rather leave the country than have McCain run the goverment.
He wants more troops, (troops that we don't have)
But he doesn't want to draft.
He'd have to reinstate it to get those
troops that we "need."
He likes the way Bush is handling
the war.
NO NO NO NO!

[music3chick]

Has anyone read this yet?


Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy."

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You’ve stumped me."

Q: "I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?"

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it."

Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?"

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before."


From here (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/).

Wow. I thought this was a joke until I saw the link. Unbelievable.

[open mind]

i used to like mccain alot, but now he seems to be going the standard disingenous politician route to secure the conservative base.......so now he sucks.

[Jason Tate]

o-zoPgv_nYg&embed=1

If this is not his "Yeeehaawwwww" then I don't know what is.

[MotionIsntMeaning]

McCain was on 'The Daily Show" last night, it was pretty pathetic. He seemed really defensive and talked over everything Jon Stewart was trying to say. I don't see how anyone could vote for him after watching that interview.

[Jason Tate]

McCain was on 'The Daily Show" last night, it was pretty pathetic. He seemed really defensive and talked over everything Jon Stewart was trying to say. I don't see how anyone could vote for him after watching that interview.

Agreed, I heard the phrase "jon stewart just single handedly ended mccain's campaign" muttered a lot to day.

[aminorthreat55]

McCain was on 'The Daily Show" last night, it was pretty pathetic. He seemed really defensive and talked over everything Jon Stewart was trying to say. I don't see how anyone could vote for him after watching that interview.
Stewart shat all over him.

[Nevuk]

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2848396/show/17676 For the video of it. Yeah, Stewart slams him pretty bad, possibly worse than he should have.

[trindaddy]

im honestly not sure why any conservative would want to go onto the daily show. trying to take on the wit of stewart head on is biting off more than most anybody can chew.

[thejetstolehome]

it's funny 'cause McCain used to be a favorite of the Daily Show but the last two or three times he's been on, Stewart's come at him real hard.

[IAPAI]

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2848396/show/17676 For the video of it. Yeah, Stewart slams him pretty bad, possibly worse than he should have.

wow, great clip. thanks for that.

[Nevuk]

it's funny 'cause McCain used to be a favorite of the Daily Show but the last two or three times he's been on, Stewart's come at him real hard.
He also used to be an actual human being rather than a rote politician. Now all he does is throw out party lines. He was slandered out of the presidency in 2000, his own party stabbed him in the back with allegations of adultery, a crack-using wife, etc, so he thought to have a chance at it he'd have to sell his soul to them. (This is the current take on it I've heard espoused. Whether true or not, I'd say it is). The turning point is definitely him endorsing torture despite having suffered it.

[FallingOut]

If this old nutjob becomes President I might shat myself. This guy is completely out of touch with reality, he seems to be living in some other universe. Vote Bill Richardson.

[theguy77]

this guy is wayyy too interventionist and conservative for me. im a moderate.

[bethie]

god.
i used to like him
thank god he started being a dick so early on.

[trindaddy]

it has nothing to do with wit - it has to do with the fact that stewart can slam him all show long without any ramifications. what is mccain going to do - slam stewart about something regarding his t.v. show? furthermore, mccain is a conservative, so it's okay - there will be no ramifications on stewart (i.e. no one will be critical of him.) let's see if stewart is hard on the liberal candidates...i doubt it

jon stewarts popularity and tv show is almost solely based on his witty sarcasm, and ability to point out flaws with good humor. and you tried to argue this by reinforcing my point. what the hell can john mccain do except sit there and look like an idiot in front of a national audience? tell jon stewart his award winning show sucks? and how is everything just ok because mccain is conservative? mccain is more of a libertarian than stone could conservative anyways, and also would have no beneficial reasons to go onto the daily show with as many stance flops he's made over the past few years anyways.

[Rock'N'Roll]

He also used to be an actual human being rather than a rote politician. Now all he does is throw out party lines. He was slandered out of the presidency in 2000, his own party stabbed him in the back with allegations of adultery, a crack-using wife, etc, so he thought to have a chance at it he'd have to sell his soul to them. (This is the current take on it I've heard espoused. Whether true or not, I'd say it is). The turning point is definitely him endorsing torture despite having suffered it.



John McCain Doesn't Support Torture...And Its Because He Has Experienced It Himself That He Does Not Endorse It...Don't Know Where You Heard That At But They Lied...

[Jason Tate]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2056448.ece

And .... his campaign is going down in flames.

[saysmydoctor]

Alas. The only person who has truly stuck to their guns this election and not playing politics to win the appeal of the people. Too bad his guns aren't in favor of public opinion. Sadly McCain will lose and we'll suffer 8 years to Obama or Clinton. The state of America.

[Nevuk]

John McCain Doesn't Support Torture...And Its Because He Has Experienced It Himself That He Does Not Endorse It...Don't Know Where You Heard That At But They Lied...
Yeah, I've come to realize that now. I don't even remember where I read that. Nice caps, btw.

[thatwasamoment]

Alas. The only person who has truly stuck to their guns this election and not playing politics to win the appeal of the people. Too bad his guns aren't in favor of public opinion. Sadly McCain will lose and we'll suffer 8 years to Obama or Clinton. The state of America.
What a shame!

[saysmydoctor]

What a shame!
Indeed.

[Paul Tao]

So now it's going to be probably Thompson or Romney? I don't think Giulani will get the nomination, he's too socially liberal, and Fred Thompson might get it if he ever announces. Romney might but he still doesn't have the intense name recognition.

[Jason Tate]

Alas. The only person who has truly stuck to their guns this election and not playing politics to win the appeal of the people. Too bad his guns aren't in favor of public opinion. Sadly McCain will lose and we'll suffer 8 years to Obama or Clinton. The state of America.
I can only read your posts as sarcasm.

[saysmydoctor]

I can only read your posts as sarcasm.
I'm super cereal.

[Jason Tate]

I'm super cereal.
:ok:

[saysmydoctor]

I'm basically saying that if McCain didn't agree with the Iraq War so vehemently, he'd probably be more a frontrunner than anyone else, I think. Yet, he does and he isn't--and instead Obama/Hilary. And I'm not quite sure who is bullshitting more.

[Jason Tate]

I'm basically saying that if McCain didn't agree with the Iraq War so vehemently, he'd probably be more a frontrunner than anyone else, I think. Yet, he does and he isn't--and instead Obama/Hilary. And I'm not quite sure who is bullshitting more.
Well, what you said was, "The only person who has truly stuck to their guns this election and not playing politics to win the appeal of the people." Which is simply incorrect. He's switched sides more than Harvey Dent.

[saysmydoctor]

Well, what you said was, "The only person who has truly stuck to their guns this election and not playing politics to win the appeal of the people." Which is simply incorrect. He's switched sides more than Harvey Dent.
He has however stuck to his Iraq War rhetoric forever, however. And I am right, he hasn't play politics to win the appeal of the people, otherwise we'd hear alot more dissent concerning the war. Or am I wrong about that?

[Jason Tate]

He has however stuck to his Iraq War rhetoric forever, however. And I am right, he hasn't play politics to win the appeal of the people, otherwise we'd hear alot more dissent concerning the war. Or am I wrong about that?
Not true in the slightest (http://mediamatters.org/items/200609010002).

ioy90nF2anI

[Jason Tate]

Standing behind issues, when you're wrong, is not a quality that should be admired (or emulated or praised) by any man.

[saysmydoctor]

a completely partisan .org.
Most of his proofs are by totally partisan sources.

[Jason Tate]

a completely partisan .org.
It's a fallacy to attack the source - not the information contained within. If you have something to say about the sourced and cited material contained within, I'll be glad to hear it. However, if you're simply going to make passive aggressive attacks on the source itself - without addressing the content - you can kindly go piss up a rope.

[Jason Tate]

Most of his proofs are by totally partisan sources.
You too? I'm sorry you have no real response to cited material proving you wrong - but I would expect better. He either said these things, or he didn't, it doesn't really matter what source they come from for the sake of this argument - what matters is the content of the words spoken. You can Google for the transcripts of each dialog if you feel they are incorrect. If they are, please show us, but if the facts of the situation remain the same ... you're SOL.

[saysmydoctor]

I did watch it and I was right, he stuck by his support for the war even if his opinions on how it would take place changed as much as Bush, his support for it didn't. Do you read?

[Jason Tate]

I did watch it and I was right, he stuck by his support for the war even if his opinions on how it would take place changed as much as Bush, his support for it didn't. Do you read?
Your exact words were: "He has however stuck to his Iraq War rhetoric forever." One would therefore assume you to mean "Iraq War rhetoric."

If you are now deciding to change this statement to be "support for the war" - please let me know and I'll adapt my responses to reflect this changing of your position.

[saysmydoctor]

Your exact words were: "He has however stuck to his Iraq War rhetoric forever." One would therefore assume you to mean "Iraq War rhetoric."

If you are now deciding to change this statement to be "support for the war" - please let me know and I'll adapt my responses to reflect this changing of your position.
I'm basically saying that if McCain didn't agree with the Iraq War so vehemently
The only person who has truly stuck to their guns this election
By this I meant, support for the war. Rhetoric was the wrong term, I'm super sorry.

[Jason Tate]

By this I meant, support for the war. Rhetoric was the wrong term, I'm super sorry.
His adherence to a policy (staying in Iraq), that is inherently wrong, has been his downfall - this is obvious. However, to say he has "stuck to his guns" is ridiculous. He may have continued to "support the war," but that may well be the only thing he hasn't changed his position on in the recent months.

It's your "spin" on his take on foreign policy that is disingenuous. Furthermore, you need to realize the words you type matter. So don't try and use terms you don't understand or fully know the definition of in this forum. Because people will call you out on them. Especially when they are not factually correct.

[Jason Tate]

why am i not surprised that you had to throw that last part in?

Don't know, why aren't you?

it is not a fallacy to call out a source on being a completely partisan site when it clearly is.

Yes, actually it is. You can address the information contained within - but the fact that the source is partisan is irrelevant. If a member of the KKK says, "the sky is blue" - and we can confirm through checking the sources that the sky is, in fact, blue. Where the information came from is therefore irrelevant - as the information contained within can be proven correct. If you would like to prove the information from the source incorrect (it's only transcripts of different speeches), please do so. However, you must know saying, "it's from a partisan source" does not negate a single piece of information inside. The burden is upon you to prove the material within the source wrong. You have yet to do so.

the fact that it is partisan and has a clear agenda is an important piece of information when assessing the information contained within.

But it does not change the information contained within. Please show me a portion of incorrect information from the linked page. If you're unable to - I consider this topic closed. I don't feel the need to continue arguing with you over an irrelevant topic. If the information is bad - I'd like to know - if you cannot show this - then you're whining because you don't like the source and the information they provide. I don't really care if you like the source - I simply care that the information is factually correct. I will be more than willing to look at any evidence you can provide to the contrary ... but so far you have offered none. As I said, Google will provide the transcripts as well, you are more than able to search and find any doctored quotes. If you're able to do this - I will gladly recant the linked material as evidence of McCain's "flip-flop" and stand behind the video evidence as my sole example.

[saysmydoctor]

why am i not surprised that you had to throw that last part in? it is not a fallacy to call out a source on being a completely partisan site when it clearly is. the fact that it is partisan and has a clear agenda is an important piece of information when assessing the information and commentary contained within.
This is a textbook definition of a 'given.'
His adherence to a policy (staying in Iraq), that is inherently wrong, has been his downfall - this is obvious. However, to say he has "stuck to his guns" is ridiculous. He may have continued to "support the war," but that may well be the only thing he hasn't changed his position on in the recent months.

It's your "spin" on his take on foreign policy that is disingenuous. Furthermore, you need to realize the words you type matter. So don't try and use terms you don't understand or fully know the definition of in this forum. Because people will call you out on them. Especially when they are not factually correct.
He stuck to his guns...concerning his support for the war.

Only you react like that because you a tendency to read between the lines. If you had, you know, actually read the two previous posts, you would have understood quite clearly. Also, don't call me stupid, which is essentially what you are doing and which could not further from the truth.

t3h internetz r serious business, apparently.

[Jason Tate]

He stuck to his guns...concerning his support for the war.

This qualification ("support of the war") is needed for your statement to be factually correct. Now that you've provided it your statement is more in tune with reality.

Only you react like that because you a tendency to read between the lines.

No, I reacted that way because what you said was not true. I showed this with a variety of examples. If you make a statement - you need to be precise.

If you had, you know, actually read the two previous posts, you would have understood quite clearly.

I read all your posts - and none of them until after I had responded to you made the qualification that you were only talking about his support for the war.

Also, don't call me stupid, which is essentially what you are doing and which could not further from the truth.

Don't make stupid mistakes or stupid statements and no one will have the evidence by which to form this opinion.

t3h internetz r serious business, apparently.

If you're not going to take what you say seriously - why say it? I know this is a new "joke" to toss around the internet when someone takes things "too serious" - but why would you be in the "politics" forum discussing politics if you weren't going to be serious?

If you're not going to be taking this seriously - I'd ask you to leave the forum - we don't need a troll.

[Jason Tate]

there is no way i am going to go researching john mccain transcripts. i have zero inclination to do that. i'm not whining at all - i am just stating the obvious in that it is a partisan site. i really don't care whether you change your mind or not. if you want to accept that site as reliable - then that's fine - you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and similarly, i respect your opinion even though i may disagree.

This is exactly what I figured. You want to make sweeping statements that attack the credibility of a source without doing any sort of research to back up those attacks. It's an interesting tactic; however, as I previously said: it's a fallacy.

The difference here is that the burden lays with you to prove it to be unreliable - as you made the insinuation. Unless you're able to do so - the facts remain submitted, and unquestioned, as such.

[open mind]

ever since his loss to bush mccain has been trying to win the hardcore conservative base by changing his politics......as a result he's lost all moderate and left leaning support (which he had in abundance) and he's still failed to win over the kooky conservative base.

[Lueda Alia]

Standing behind issues, when you're wrong, is not a quality that should be admired (or emulated or praised) by any man.
Yeah, I don't understand why some people liked (and probably still like) Bush because he "stuck to his guns." Sticking to your guns isn't always a good thing and it takes a bigger person to admit they were wrong.

[8:17am]

I didn't want to sift through eight pages of posts before I gave my observation on the state of the McCain Campaign. Here's how I think it breaks down:

A lackluster second quarter in fund raising alone wouldn't be enough to disqualify him from the race, even though the mainstream media would beat him up over it. But if you couple it with the recent staff changes, which aren't quite wholesale but are pretty broad, it's a definite sign of panic. McCain needs a stellar third quarter in fund raising and an influx of support. He's probably going to start courting the conservative base even more aggressively as before, and he's going to be sticking his hands into some deep pockets to come up with campaign cash. Don't be surprised if you look up in October and see that he raised an incredible sum, and don't be shocked when you realize a lot of it came from conservative PACs and questionable businesspeople.

If McCain does fold, I think it would lead to a more exciting nomination race in the Republican field. Newt Gingrich and his amazingly huge ego may take it as an invitation into the race, and it's likely that with McCain gone, Chuck Hagel may be able to mount a credible campaign for that party's nomination. He's socially conservative, and his position on Iraq may seem more appealing to primary voters. With Hagel in, and possibly Gingrich, I think you'll see the second and third tier disappear. I think six candidates would be forced to fold because they couldn't compete for the conservative votes and money anymore. The presence of strong conservatives would put a lot more pressure on Rudy, and possibly diminish his campaign, and Flip Romney wouldn't be able to overcome the video of him debating Ted Kennedy from 1994.

The best thing that can happen for the right is Hagel winning the nomination. A conservative with his Iraq record could possibly nullify that topic in a general election, allowing Republicans to be a little more competitive. BUT, I still see the nation turning left and getting a little blue in the face in November 2008. Puns intended.

Long post, I know, but...whatever.

[kbauer]

yeah well im going to post and say congratulations on the new hampshire primary win. some believed he would have a shot in this one but still with his campaign funding in shambles this wasnt supposed to happen. ive liked him for years and i hope he continues to do well. forgive me for not liking Paul and Obama like everyone else.

[-Thrice-Ownz-]

I voted for McCain.

Side Note: Fuck Hilary, she's a Socialist and Obama is going to be her Vice so fuck'em both.

[anthony051]

I like McCain and he is definitelty going to get the Republican nomination. The only question now is who he is going to run on his ticket. If I were him, I'd patch up the problems with Romney and run him as his VP, that would give him his 256 delegates and he could secure the nomination within a couple of weeks. Then with the nomination secured they could begin a national campaign targeting both Hllary and Obama and narrow it down to whoever is going to be the winner of the nomination in a couple of months.

[chris1152]

I voted for McCain.

Side Note: Fuck Hilary, she's a Socialist and Obama is going to be her Vice so fuck'em both.

http://members.cox.net/bluegargoyle/images/Jesus-dumbass-Blue_Gargoyle.jpg

[takingbackrufio]

I never said he did. I'm saying he has no shot in hell to win the primary and if he does (by some miracle), he will lose NY and Pennsylvania to Guiliani. He has no shot in hell so I don't understand why you're even putting him into the presidential mix.
lol.

[Machu505]

http://members.cox.net/bluegargoyle/images/Jesus-dumbass-Blue_Gargoyle.jpg

My new favorite post.

[Machu505]

Some of my friends at school were saying that McCain has no chance at the nomination because Romney supposedly supports him. They felt this way because people didn't like Romney and him liking McCain would backfire. I told them that their logic was flawed.

[saysmydoctor]

I'd just like to point out, earlier in the thread while I was defending McCain for his views, I'm not much of a McCain supporter. I was, sort of (and by sort of, I mean he fights for what he believes in and I believe some things but most--not really) and I used to not be much of a fan of Obama. Mostly because I didn't really research him and went with the "inexperienced senator" school of thought. McCain does support the war, however. We may believe it to be horrible thing to support (it is), but he does and you can't deny he has been swayed from this support. You can't deny this when he makes remarks like "staying in Iraq for the next hundred years." He backs the war, he doesn't back its operation, he doesn't agree with the tactics, and the preparation he believes is downright deplorable.

Partisan websites are bad sources, because, get this, they benefit only one group or person. A conservative think tank isn't going to be a good source because they are going to use evidences that ONLY benefit their anti-liberal point. Essentially, you can't have a quarter without a heads and tails.

Concerning McCain, however, he is now approved by the ultimate conservative Satan, Newt Gingrich. At least a more liberal McCain ran for President rather than this guy. Newt Gingrich would have won the nomination and election, I guarantee it.

[tomeuc]

mccain is a moderate on many issues, he is a candidate that will follow through on a war we started and need to finish, he will keep us as safe as possible, and is a realist. Im sorry people but this world is full of war, violence, and everything in between, we need tough presidents who are willing to take the power away from the people who are trying to to steal it

im a moderate, i dont like wars, i love america, but im a realist

[ShoeSh1ne]

world is full of war, violence, and everything in between

If you're such a realist, you'll realize that no matter what, the world will ALWAYS have wars and violence.

[hxc ty hxc]

Yeah, I don't understand why some people liked (and probably still like) Bush because he "stuck to his guns." Sticking to your guns isn't always a good thing and it takes a bigger person to admit they were wrong.
exactly, he should have pulled out when he had the chance.....his dad obviously had the same problem, if he didnt we wouldnt be in this situation....wink wink! lmao, o i crack myself up.

[senatorlamb]

mad props to McCain for defending Obama on the Wright issue or maybe he doesn't want the anti-Catholic Preacher Hagee being used against him. Either way, very nice.

Ed1Tb-vrEww

[captainhampton]

mad props to McCain for defending Obama on the Wright issue or maybe he doesn't want the anti-Catholic Preacher Hagee being used against him. Either way, very nice.

Ed1Tb-vrEww

i agree, good political move. he knows he's got his own issues and that Obama could go right back at him if he tried to use Wright against him. plus he doesn't need to do anything either since the media will go on the attack with Obama and Wright and do the work for him while he takes the high road. also, it's also because he doesn't want to start any mud slinging just yet and he can just sit back and watch Obama and Hillary go at it with each other.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I love Sean trying to bait him into attacking Obama

Drives me up a wall

[mattybobviously]

McCain is a good guy. Disagree with him on most everything, but he's a good guy.

[loveisdead]

McCain is a good guy. Disagree with him on most everything, but he's a good guy.
Agreed. He handled himself very well in that interview. As much as I don't support him, he's the one that's sitting prettiest among the candidates, and it's only going to get worse with Obama and Hillary picking each other apart.

[IamTheINDUSTRY]

my question in this thread...

does anyone think mccain has a chance against EITHER democratic candidate?

(add odds if your so inclined)

[Justin_stacy]

Its starting to look more like will EITHER democratic nominee have a chance against McCain after their long and destructive nomination period is over....?

[wesgemm08]

cs-LqhK-c4Y


I don't like Abrams.. but its the only video I could find with mccains recent foreign policy blunder

[S/T]

McCain is a good guy. Disagree with him on most everything, but he's a good guy.

ha I feel the same way.

[tomeuc]

my question in this thread...

does anyone think mccain has a chance against EITHER democratic candidate?

(add odds if your so inclined)


he actually is ahead of obama in the national polls i think he will definitely win when it comes down to it..i hope so tho!

[offsetgroupie]

my question in this thread...

does anyone think mccain has a chance against EITHER democratic candidate?

(add odds if your so inclined)

against Obama, no chance. against Hilary, a good chance. The red states aren't ready for a woman in power yet.

but thats just my 2 cents.

[shit stroll]

yeah, and they're ready for a black president. racism in the south is non existent

[saysmydoctor]

Truth.

[offsetgroupie]

yeah, and they're ready for a black president. racism in the south is non existent

I think they'd go for a black man before a woman.

[shit stroll]

I think they'd go for a black man before a woman.
i think they'd go for neither candidates

[Justin_stacy]

I think they'd go for either if they represented their values.

[shit stroll]

I think they'd go for either if they represented their values.
no they wouldn't.

[Justin_stacy]

so you're just as ignorant as you present them to be....a black or female canidadate could carry any part of the nation, so long as they represent the voting public. Obama and Hilary aren't repesentive of the "conservative" south, so the fact they can't win there doesn't prove shit about "racism" or sexism.

[shit stroll]

so you're just as ignorant as you present them to be....a black or female canidadate could carry any part of the nation, so long as they represent the voting public. Obama and Hilary aren't repesentive of the "conservative" south, so the fact they can't win there doesn't prove shit about "racism" or sexism.
dude, there is know way a conservative black GOP candidate could ever win primaries in the southern states. no fucking way. next you're going to be telling me a gay man could carry the south as long as he represented traditional, conservative values. do you think a conservative atheist could ever win the GOP nomination? and thats pretty ignorant to ignore the fact that bigotry is widespread in the south

[Justin_stacy]

bigotry is wide spread everywhere, and representive of all races, the south is merely the easy scapegoat. And what I'm saying, for one, is that Hilary and Obama, even if they were white men, couldn't win the south in its current state given these two's politics. So their inability to do so as a female or a black man proves nothing about the perception of racism or sexism.

I'm confindent beyond a doubt that if Powell would run/had run he'd carry every southern state. Even Mississippi.

As for an atheist, Rudy could have captured the GOP nomination, and he's hardly the poster boy of the religious right. So yes the right atheist could run and win as a GOP, just like a religious democrat could run and win national as a Democrat. Its all about representing values of your voting public.

[shit stroll]

bigotry is wide spread everywhere, and representive of all races, the south is merely the easy scapegoat. And what I'm saying, for one, is that Hilary and Obama, even if they were white men, couldn't win the south in its current state given these two's politics. So their inability to do so as a female or a black man proves nothing about the perception of racism or sexism.

I'm confindent beyond a doubt that if Powell would run/had run he'd carry every southern state. Even Mississippi.

As for an atheist, Rudy could have captured the GOP nomination, and he's hardly the poster boy of the religious right. So yes the right atheist could run and win as a GOP, just like a religious democrat could run and win national as a Democrat. Its all about representing values of your voting public.
yes, bigotry is widespread. just not as bad as in places like mississippi, arkansas, alabama, the carolinas, and rural georgia. but i do understand your point on why its impossible for obama and clinton to win the conservative southern states based on their politics

if powell ran he could have possibly picked up northern states, florida and california. no way would he have won states in the deep south.

and how many states did rudy win? romney's mormonism cost him the GOP nomination, im pretty sure of it. so do you honestly think an openly atheist conservative could ever win the parties nomination?

[Justin_stacy]

There is less effort given to mask racism in the South, then in the North, but from what I've seen its just as strong with the people, if slightly more under the surface.

I disagree about Powell, he'd win ever Southern state in a land slide, and race, unlike with the Obama camp, would be a very minor issue given the man's history, accomplishments and respect. Powell would already have been our first Black president if he'd run in '88, '96 or '00 as many begged him to do.

As for an Atheist, I would ask could an Evangelican win in Massachusetts or bay area California? Personally, and again this is my opinion, is that anyone could win anywhere based solely on politics. Obama will lose the South, no question, and although some ignorant fucks (along with Obama probably) will say its do to his race, the fact still remains that from a political point of view he doesn't represent these people so therefore its unfair to label them "racists" because they refuse to election him. The point could be proven, however, if a Black moderate/conservative/libertarian rans and is beat in the face of someone more liberal then said individual.

[shit stroll]

this debate could go on forever. i dont think a conservative black, homosexual, or atheist could pick up the southern states; you think one could. there is no way to prove either one of us right. keep in mind mitt romney's mormonism cost him the GOP nomination. so if a mormon cant win the nomination, what makes you think an atheist could?

[Justin_stacy]

Romney's "fakeness" and opportunistic political views cost him the election in my opinion......But yes you're right until proven otherwise (which is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon) either of us could be right.

[HashHolly]

dude, there is know way a conservative black GOP candidate could ever win primaries in the southern states. no fucking way. next you're going to be telling me a gay man could carry the south as long as he represented traditional, conservative values. do you think a conservative atheist could ever win the GOP nomination? and thats pretty ignorant to ignore the fact that bigotry is widespread in the south

QF the muthafucking T

bigotry is wide spread everywhere, and representive of all races, the south is merely the easy scapegoat. And what I'm saying, for one, is that Hilary and Obama, even if they were white men, couldn't win the south in its current state given these two's politics. So their inability to do so as a female or a black man proves nothing about the perception of racism or sexism.

I'm confindent beyond a doubt that if Powell would run/had run he'd carry every southern state. Even Mississippi.

As for an atheist, Rudy could have captured the GOP nomination, and he's hardly the poster boy of the religious right. So yes the right atheist could run and win as a GOP, just like a religious democrat could run and win national as a Democrat. Its all about representing values of your voting public.

An atheist will never win the GOP nomination, are you fucked out of your mind? The Christian Right in the G.O.P would never allow that to happen.

[Justin_stacy]

QF the muthafucking T



An atheist will never win the GOP nomination, are you fucked out of your mind? The Christian Right in the G.O.P would never allow that to happen.

And the big bad scary religious right strikes again. Please, anyone can win anywhere, so long as they represent the core values and beliefs of their constituents.

[tomaro]

Honestly, I'd love to believe that, but if I did, and it was true, Romney would've won the GOP nomination hands down. McCain made it because he was the only constituent without a mormon/divorcee/deep south monkey on his shoulder and because quite a few Republicans see his independent streak as a plus, pulling in more independent and democratic voters. Plus he's the only candidate who has near the tripping over their heels, wanna hop in bed relationship that Obama has with the media. Clearly the only man many think can "make it". Attach Condi, and you have even wider pull. Hardcore Southern (and i say southern as the definitive adjective) Republicans can accept a black vice president, before a black president. To them it's like eating manure, or making your neighbor eat manure.
An athiest on the other hand, has no chance. How can a candidate represent a nation with as large as a "faithful" population of America if he has no idea what faith is beyond Starbucks will always sell coffee in some form. Think of it as a book burner being elected to the union of printists. Sure I, and many people can respect a persons beliefs, except when those beliefs infringe the beliefs of others. aka I can accept a black guy getting a job that i didn't because he's better qualified, or of the same quality, but i couldn't accept a lesser qualified candidate getting the job simply because he has a different/status quo appropriate skin color/hair color/dead uncle twice removed and married into the family.

[Jason Tate]

jbvIdKHY-HM

[Jason Tate]

1jgLNP-KLHg

[Machu505]

Fuck McCain.