During the primary season talk radio was screaming that John McCain was a liberal and McCain had SERIOUS issues with the republican base. He won the nomination for 3 reasons: Mike Huckabee split evangelicals (they would not vote for a mormon anyway) John McCain statistically performed better than any republican against democrats, Romney was the grand definition of a flip flopper. Now taking all of this into account how could one justify voting for McCain?
I don't know why but, occasionally, for a brief moment, I get the nagging feeling that talk radio is not always 100% accurate. http://voteview.com/sen108.htm http://voteview.com/sen109.htm http://voteview.com/sen110.htm Too liberal?
More complicated than that. McCain is a complex man and as far as his liberal leanings are concerned it depends on the punting season. It can change in a flash based on external stimuli and pressure - akin to a chameleon changing colors.
I'm not disputing the first paragraph but what does any of that have to do with "justification" of a McCain vote? A Fred Thompson, Romney, Huck, Paul or Rudy supporter would now vote for Obama? Plus the Palin pick brought some of those people back in the fold. I'm probably typical. I'm not a McCain person- Ron Paul best spoke my language-but I saw McCain as the only Republican who could win in November. Another "chicken-hawk" white guy wasn't going to cut it. Plus McCain's "moderate" image would bring in crossover Dem's who're distrustful of Obama's aggressively left of mainstream proposals. In politics you take what you can get. In a year of anti-GOP fervor you try to go GOP lite.
Look, you have a "San Francisco Liberal" as Speaker of the House and the world has not come to an end. If democrats sweep the presidency and congress and Obama is competent will you people disappear forever?
John McCain is and has been hated by the base of the Republican Party since he's held elected office. I am just now hearing real feedback about how Palin's VP Debate statement on supporting homosexual partners' benefits in terms of health insurance, life insurance and property rights went over like a LEAD BALLOON with Evangelicals. Stay tuned...
He's very conservative on spending. Pumps up his totals. America can remain blind but in the midst of this crisis further spending is DEAD. Big Federal outlays into health care ect just went bye-bye with Friday's vote. On top of it Europe's bank problems will cause a dire effect on Treasury rates. There's going to be an absolute GLUT of global fixed income securities coming on the open market. Soon. Perhaps a couple of trillion. At a time when world asset values have been halved. Not a great time to be auctioning off debt. Hence this isn't the era for ambitious spending and the attitude of "well Bush fucked us but we need to get some things done, we'll balance by 2014." The government debt markets may crater first. I want a President at this crucial hour who will CUT Federal outlays. Don't assume that 10tril and counting, guaranteed by the full faith and credit of Barrack Obama and the Democrats will find the same global market that Bush did.
John McCain will cut everything BUT the military, and he will jack up the military to insane levels. My personal opinion is that McLame won't stop till the military budget hits 1 trillion. Out of all reasons given to vote for McCain economic understanding is the most laughable. McCain had Phil Gram as an advisor. McCain does not understand economy as he should. It is a non starter.
He understands the ONLY thing that needs understanding. CUT spending. Now. Or die. The game is over. In this environment Congress would NEVER give McCain a blank check for Pakistan. They will for 'I better flex my military muscles" Obama. And BTW: Please tell us ANY differences in opinion between Gramm and Robert Rubin on banking reg. History ain't so kind to the fabled Clinton Treasury secretary either.
From what I've read during the primaries, Obama is a self-made millionaire. He is an excellent fundraiser and has shown creativity in using unconventional and unorthodox approaches effectively. As one person put it Hillary had the best fundraising system of the 20th century; Obama had the best of the 21st century. In terms of campaign strategy and tactics, his campaign was better run than Clinton's and it is turning out the same against McCain too. It shows good management. Obama's intellectual strengths and ability to look at multiple perspectives on an issue is also a safeguard against the possibility that he will try unsound and unproven economic policies. If you are going to ask me who is likely a quick study on economic issues amongst the candidates Obama is the obvious pick. It is interesting the tactics used in this thread against Obama trying to portray him as some communist. It's McCarthyism all over again. Should people condone such scaremongering when accusation after accusation has been shown to be false and the ones perpetrating such previously used such tactics to get the likes of George W. Bush elected?