...OK, so how do things shape up from here? I'm trying to think through the issues debate;

McCain v. Hillary

#1 Iraq/Islamofascism

Hillary, if she is the nominee, will be in a quandary here. Can she back pedal enough to get by? Is she going to far left with withdrawal dates? If socialized medicine is her strongest issue, 'winning' in Iraq is his. Do they cancel each other out?

I can't think of any major differences between the two. I can see McCain supporting increases on taxes on oil companies, especially as he is a man-made global warming-ist these days.



McCain v. Obama

Again, Iraq is #1 and this is as clear cut as it could possibly get. Can a person named Barrack Hussein Obama, with an Islamic heritage actually win the presidency with a 'get out out of Iraq now' platform? Will he have enough credibility with his 'invade Pakistan' comments to be trusted to kill our enemies?

No other issue will matter besides this one if this is the match up.


McCain v. either one seems to be a single issue race; Iraq.

...OK, so how do things shape up from here? I'm trying to think through the issues debate;

McCain v. Hillary

#1 Iraq/Islamofascism

Hillary, if she is the nominee, will be in a quandary here. Can she back pedal enough to get by? Is she going to far left with withdrawal dates? If socialized medicine is her strongest issue, 'winning' in Iraq is his. Do they cancel each other out?

I can't think of any major differences between the two. I can see McCain supporting increases on taxes on oil companies, especially as he is a man-made global warming-ist these days.



McCain v. Obama

Again, Iraq is #1 and this is as clear cut as it could possibly get. Can a person named Barrack Hussein Obama, with an Islamic heritage actually win the presidency with a 'get out out of Iraq now' platform? Will he have enough credibility with his 'invade Pakistan' comments to be trusted to kill our enemies?

No other issue will matter besides this one if this is the match up.


McCain v. either one seems to be a single issue race; Iraq.

I just don't see Hillary being nearly as strong on the war/terrorism front as McCain. Consider another attack on our country. Consider the bombings occuring in our own streets. Consider Iran finally getting a nuke. Consider Pakistan's nukes falling in the hands of terrorist groups.

I always think about the Clinton influence looming on the WH; and his name is Bill. What did HE do about terrorism and Iraq throughout his presidency, other than just talk about it. Nothing! Do you really see Hillary doing things any differently? I don't.

I see Obama pretty cut and dry. He will cower in a corner.

McCain v. either one seems to be a single issue race; Iraq.

What about immigration? Oh that's right. Four years of prosperity for illegals, coming up!

I'll write in Ron Paul or maybe even myself. I refuse to ever vote for the lesser of two evils again.

Didn't they declare McCain DOA a few weeks ago? Now he is president? wtf?

It is like he is the Mahdi or something.

Ready to tackle global warming, sing kumbaya while we run from Iraq & Iran, fix all the terrible problems that Bush created.

The only people buying this are Public school products who got Lefty socialized History & government classes. Hate America, Globalism, Wacko environmentalism...I don't know how long Truth can hold out against the waves of "progressive" shallowness.

Like it or not, one of the three is the next President of the United States.

The only people buying this are Public school products who got Lefty socialized History & government classes. Hate America, Globalism, Wacko environmentalism...I don't know how long Truth can hold out against the waves of "progressive" shallowness.

Like the bulk of US millionaires who were educated in public schools and attended state colleges? :whistle:

washingtonpost.com: The Millionaire Next Door (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm)

I think it may be time to move outside the U.S.

I don't think the U.S. will survive any of them.

"But 55 percent of our children are currently attending or have attended private schools."


Real cheerleaders for Government education huh?
Notice the work ethic?....very interesting.

"But 55 percent of our children are currently attending or have attended private schools."


Real cheerleaders for Government education huh?
Notice the work ethic?....very interesting.

Keep reading: most of the wealth disappears with the next generation.

The Millionaire Next Door and The Millionaire Mind are books I go back and re-read often.

The only people buying this are Public school products who got Lefty socialized History & government classes. Hate America, Globalism, Wacko environmentalism...I don't know how long Truth can hold out against the waves of "progressive" shallowness.

I never thought I'd say this..but Thank GOD for Catholic School! Thanks Hessian for clearing that up for me...I've always wondered what I missed out on!:evil:

I believe Mccain can beat Hillary,but will have trouble with Obama.

I keep remembering an old hero: Dole, running against a youthful draft dodger Clinton.

Liberals are strong for getting out of Iraq they dont care how, or who dis because of it.

McCain will stay the course.

When it comes to immigration and many other liberal programs, Mccain is almost as bad as Hillary. Not quite as bad as Obama.

Didn't they declare McCain DOA a few weeks ago? Now he is president? wtf?

...this is NOT surprising, at all. McCain got a minority of the vote in every primary. He has been a little bit better than Romney, a governor of Massachusetts and all that that implies, and a little bit better than an overtly religious governor from Arkansas, and we heave reason to be suspicious of governors from Arkansas. Throw in Paul who doesn't present himself very effectively and Thompson who simply seemed to not be interested, plus Rudy who never seemed to get anything going and there we have it. A perfect divide and survive for McCain.

It's not like he's been some tidal wave. He's just been good enough.

...this is NOT surprising, at all. .... just been good enough.

Isn't that the way of most Presidents in modern history? Just good enough to get by. Just what we need leading the country. :sarcasm: Just good enough to get by.

We now have the choice of three; none of which really care about the Constitution or the rights of the citizens. Money and power, money and power, money and power, I'll say it again, money and power. That is what drives those in office for the most part. The citizens of the United States are getting what they deserve because they don't care enough to really know the candidates; someone who is just good enough; not outstanding, not at the top, not the epitome, not the best of the best; just good enough. :barf:

What about immigration? Oh that's right. Four years of prosperity for illegals, coming up!

I just thought he wanted to SECURE both borders first, then.....:shrug:

I just figured out how Shrillary is going to become President.

Obama is going to win the Dem nod. He and Shrill will be so mad at each other that he won't offer VP, and she wouldn't accept.

McCain realizes he can't beat Obama. He asks Shrill to switch parties and be his VP. They win in a landslide.

McCain has an "accident" or pulls a Vince Foster. Voila! Slick Willy becomes First Lady.

I just figured out how Shrillary is going to become President.

Obama is going to win the Dem nod. He and Shrill will be so mad at each other that he won't offer VP, and she wouldn't accept.

McCain realizes he can't beat Obama. He asks Shrill to switch parties and be his VP. They win in a landslide.

McCain has an "accident" or pulls a Vince Foster. Voila! Slick Willy becomes First Lady.

:neener:

I don't think Iraq will be the single issue that decides this election. The economy easily trumps that and is recorded so in numerous polls.

I just figured out how Shrillary is going to become President.

Obama is going to win the Dem nod. He and Shrill will be so mad at each other that he won't offer VP, and she wouldn't accept.

McCain realizes he can't beat Obama. He asks Shrill to switch parties and be his VP. They win in a landslide.

McCain has an "accident" or pulls a Vince Foster. Voila! Slick Willy becomes First Lady.

This sounds like a really bad made-for-TV movie that would star Bert Convy and Mr. T as Hillbilly! would it be aired first on Fox or TBS?

Here's another angle to consider: McCain, by his own admission, has always had trouble dealing with anyone telling him what to do. My Lucy 5-cent psych analysis says that this stems from him being the son of an admiral, but his record of disciplinary actions at the academy and during his naval service show a strong tendency to refuse authority and always assert his dominance. His time as a POW reinforced this, and he came out of it with many of the disorders common to long-term internees... violent outbursts, rages, rantings, feelings of persecution, etc. This is a guy who frequently gets into the classic definitions of "snits", and sometimes quite angrilly.

So I think people need to think about what a guy like this would/could do if America were attacked again. I know there are a lot of folks who yack about turning some country or another into a radioactive wasteland, but McCain would have the power to do that. We would be handing the keys to the world's most powerfull military to a guy with a long track record of personality and mental disorders. Is that such a good idea? Maybe we need to ask that question now rather than asking ourselves "what were we thinking???" a few years down the road.

When it come to the environment, Health care, entitlements, amnesty for illegals. These three could be triplets.

Mccain stands out on Iraq.

Here's another angle to consider: McCain, by his own admission, has always had trouble dealing with anyone telling him what to do. My Lucy 5-cent psych analysis says that this stems from him being the son of an admiral, but his record of disciplinary actions at the academy and during his naval service show a strong tendency to refuse authority and always assert his dominance. His time as a POW reinforced this, and he came out of it with many of the disorders common to long-term internees... violent outbursts, rages, rantings, feelings of persecution, etc. This is a guy who frequently gets into the classic definitions of "snits", and sometimes quite angrilly.

So I think people need to think about what a guy like this would/could do if America were attacked again. I know there are a lot of folks who yack about turning some country or another into a radioactive wasteland, but McCain would have the power to do that. We would be handing the keys to the world's most powerfull military to a guy with a long track record of personality and mental disorders. Is that such a good idea? Maybe we need to ask that question now rather than asking ourselves "what were we thinking???" a few years down the road.

Okay… Let me preface this with, I am not a McCain supporter, but……. This is crap. McCain came out of a level of torture and brutality that none of us could possibly fathom. Where so many vets coming out of that war never saw the inside of a POW camp became virtual mental invalids (God bless all of them), McCain saw through his pain – I’m sure with many mental and physical obstacles – to be one of the most successful statesmen of our time. I may not agree with many of his policies but to use this as a mark to define his qualifications for the WH (or disqualifications), is something that I will never subscribe to.

I would like to think McCain would use this aggressiveness you’ve defined as a strength to go after our enemy. We should all approach this terrorist situation with a certain level of anger and “snitiness”. McCain started his political career in 1976 and has served in Congress since 1982. This is a total of 42 years of experience that you just don’t get with a bad temper or violent outbursts, rages, rantings, or snits. I’m sure McCain has had his moments but this man has climbed up through struggles that most of us only experience when our eyes are closed.

Talk about his philosophy and ideas, but I say leave this personal crap out of it.

Isn't that the way of most Presidents in modern history? Just good enough to get by. Just what we need leading the country. :sarcasm: Just good enough to get by.

We now have the choice of three; none of which really care about the Constitution or the rights of the citizens. Money and power, money and power, money and power, I'll say it again, money and power. That is what drives those in office for the most part. The citizens of the United States are getting what they deserve because they don't care enough to really know the candidates; someone who is just good enough; not outstanding, not at the top, not the epitome, not the best of the best; just good enough. :barf:

...we either keep up the pressure on McCain and influence him and his choices, judges, legislation, etc, as much as possible or we cede the field.

I say keep up the fight.

I know there are a lot of folks who yack about turning some country or another into a radioactive wasteland, but McCain would have the power to do that.

If I thought McCain had the guts to actually pull the trigger, I'd consider voting for him. Unfortunately, he's full of crap like 99.999% of the rest of politicians.

If I thought McCain had the guts to actually pull the trigger, I'd consider voting for him. Unfortunately, he's full of crap like 99.999% of the rest of politicians.

...this is the one area I feel some comfort with McCain about; letting the military kill and break things to achieve the desired results.

I don't think Iraq will be the single issue that decides this election. The economy easily trumps that and is recorded so in numerous polls.

That's because we're a bunch of Cheeto eating morons. The economy is fine and fluctuating the way it always has. What's different is that Bush opened up a can on the terrorists, something that has been a long time coming and it's about friggin' time. But the media wants to focus on the niggling bits that have nothing to do with anything in the long run, because they don't like the success we're having on other fronts.

Certain vocal segments of our population have this fear of government. And that's great because you don't want those sneaks having too much power. But what they should REALLY fear is the media, because they control us like no fascist regime ever could. And yet their power is ignored and they are considered the friendly folks who give us information.

And THAT should terrify every single one of us.

...this is the one area I feel some comfort with McCain about; letting the military kill and break things to achieve the desired results.

He's already spoken out against...um...let's say "enhanced interrogation techniques". Of course, he has since "clarified" his position, but I do not trust him to allow our protectors to do the job in order to keep us safe. I think he is a worse appeaser than Bush, if that's at all possible, and will do whatever his Manchurian handlers tell him to do.

Certain vocal segments of our population have this fear of government. And that's great because you don't want those sneaks having too much power. But what they should REALLY fear is the media, because they control us like no fascist regime ever could. And yet their power is ignored and they are considered the friendly folks who give us information.

And THAT should terrify every single one of us.

...but the media has ZERO power over anyone who doesn't allow it. Not one person is prohibited from finding more about any story in the world; the history of Osama, his goals, what Hillary is all about, McCain, campaign finance reform, Saudi Arabia, global warming, all of it. People CHOOSE to be ignorant, unknowing, or choose to only believe what fits their faiths.

We are NOT allowed into the government, into what FBI, CIA and so forth are doing. I can be buried by the government and ruined by the media. The media does not have the power to impose. The government does.

Okay… Let me preface this with, I am not a McCain supporter, but……. This is crap. McCain came out of a level of torture and brutality that none of us could possibly fathom. Where so many vets coming out of that war never saw the inside of a POW camp became virtual mental invalids (God bless all of them), McCain saw through his pain – I’m sure with many mental and physical obstacles – to be one of the most successful statesmen of our time. I may not agree with many of his policies but to use this as a mark to define his qualifications for the WH (or disqualifications), is something that I will never subscribe to.

I would like to think McCain would use this aggressiveness you’ve defined as a strength to go after our enemy. We should all approach this terrorist situation with a certain level of anger and “snitiness”. McCain started his political career in 1976 and has served in Congress since 1982. This is a total of 42 years of experience that you just don’t get with a bad temper or violent outbursts, rages, rantings, or snits. I’m sure McCain has had his moments but this man has climbed up through struggles that most of us only experience when our eyes are closed.

Talk about his philosophy and ideas, but I say leave this personal crap out of it.
Tremendous post...this is one of the most well thought out posts I've seen here. There is no candidate in this election, that I can agree with on every issue. However, McCain is the one I believe has the most experience, and for all of his failings..(and who among us don't have our failings?) has the best temperment for the job, among the choices we have before us.
He has travelled back to Vietnam, met with those who were his captor, and forgiven them. What he endured during his years in prison camp would have provoked a hostility that I think few of us would be able to overlook. After his return, relations between the United States and Vietnam were 'normalized,' and he played a major part in the legislation that okay'ed the normalization. I would say that this is indication that he is able to put aside whatever personal animousity he might have for a person or government, so he can do what is right for our country.
Of the five remaining candidates (Hillary, Obama, Huckaby, Paul and McCain) think of which one will be our 'friends' in Iran and Syria the most cause for concern. Who will cause Assad, Khameinei, and Ahmadinejad to have sleepless nights?
Three of the remaining candidates say they would start pulling out our troops on 22 January 2009 (OK, Hillary has backtracked from that already, but does anybody really trust what she has to say?) Whether President Bush was right or wrong to go into Iraq in the first place is a moot point now...this will not be resolved during his Presidency, and will in all probability, not be completely resolved in 2012 either. However, to back away invites larger problems, that will require more lives and resources to solve.
I remember how all the newsroom pundits cried that a Ronald Reagan presidency woud lead to conflicts and war, and that the Gipper was somehow "trigger-happy," and that the nukes would be a-flyin'. I also remember the Iranians released our hostages about 15-20 minutes after President Reagan was sworn in. (I think they knew better than to mess with him! My favorite quote of his was "America has never lost a war because we were too strong!" GOD how I love that one!) I think we all agree that the Reagan Presidency worked out pretty darned well.

I think the choices are pretty clear (although Bru and Larry I think will respectfully disagree with me! But that is okay.....the disagreements and the right to hold our own opinions is what makes our country great.). I think McCain will keep our country safer than the others will. I mean, if you see a mean looking cop with a radar gun, you aren't going speed past him, are you?

Good post Psy!

I would like to think McCain would use this aggressiveness you’ve defined as a strength to go after our enemy. We should all approach this terrorist situation with a certain level of anger and “snitiness”. McCain started his political career in 1976 and has served in Congress since 1982. This is a total of 42 years of experience that you just don’t get with a bad temper or violent outbursts, rages, rantings, or snits. I’m sure McCain has had his moments but this man has climbed up through struggles that most of us only experience when our eyes are closed.

Talk about his philosophy and ideas, but I say leave this personal crap out of it.

I agree with your sympathy for McCain and what he and other POWs went through. It was awful, it was terrible, it was all manner of evil. But that's not what we need to take into consideration at this point. What do we know for about McCain? By his own admission, he has always resented authority and being told what to do. and these statements are supported by his 100+ demerits/per year for disrespectful behavior and poor discipline at the naval academy, his breaking of regulations at VA-174, and his being passed up for higher command. Later on, we saw him follow the same metal patterns in the Senate as he would support Republicans most of the time, but when it came to critical issues, where the Republican leadership would call on all members to support a particular position, McCain frequently would go the opposite way. This could be chalked up to just having an independent view, but his recent changing of reasons for why he voted the way he did on tax cuts shows that he did not make a principaled vote, but rather one based on his animosity for Bush and his resentment of the Republican leadership.

We also know that McCain lobbied Tom Daschle to bring him into the Democrat party because of his anger at losing to George Bush. If Jim Jeffords had not made the jimp first, McCain would have. This is just another example of a man who allows his anger to motivate him to do things that he might not ordinarily do. This is a serious issue for any president, but that's why presidents have advisers who can help adjust their views. Where I see danger is McCain doesn't like being told what to do, and that's a bad combination.

As we learned with Clinton, that "personal crap" does matter, and matters a lot. A lot of people knew about Clinton's issues with women, and decided to ignore them, write them off to youthful hormones, see them as a sign of his being macho and manly, etc., and in the end they humiliated the office of the President and the USA. I think we need to judge our assessments of this "personal crap" very, very carefully, and consider if we are fairly and accurately judging the character and personality of a person, or making excuses for them. Yes, McCain had a screwed-up upbringing (like a lot of military brats), and yes, he was brutalized as a POW and suffers the issues a lot of POWs suffer. While we can be sympathetic to that, we also have to be careful not to blind ourselves to what the impacts of these issues could mean to a guy sitting in the Oval Office. There were lots of stories about Clinton's behavior, and while some of them were bogus, a lot of them were true or based on the truth, which is why they persisted. There's a reason why stories of McCain behavior and personality issues are so persistent, and it's the same deal. If there really was no fire, there would be no smoke. Someone who has the anger to do a number on an enemy also has the anger to do a number on anyone else.

I'm somewhat annoyed by the assumption that just because someone served in the military and was taken prisoner, that somehow qualifies them to be President.

All of you who served or are currently serving, do you feel that every single one of your fellow military compatriots could be President?

I think it's fantastic that McCain served, and good for him that he survived capture. But that has nothing to do with whether or not I want him as a President.

I'm somewhat annoyed by the assumption that just because someone served in the military and was taken prisoner, that somehow qualifies them to be President.

All of you who served or are currently serving, do you feel that every single one of your fellow military compatriots could be President?

I think it's fantastic that McCain served, and good for him that he survived capture. But that has nothing to do with whether or not I want him as a President.

...interesting times. The leader on the left is a man, Obama, whose primary attributes are he is attractive, well spoken and has no history of governing anything nor has any positions on much at all except the worst possible position on the one issue, Iraq, that can beat him with the worst possible opponent for him, McCain. On top of that, the positions he does have is the most leftist voting record in the Senate.

Obama is dethroning a woman that no one likes and a political dynasty resented by everyone, the Clinton's, even though it was assumed to be hers, the nomination, for the taking.

And we have McCain, a pariah to his own party for numerous reasons who is going to win the race because he is the only one of the three who has strong appeal where presidential races are always won; in the middle.

I'm somewhat annoyed by the assumption that just because someone served in the military and was taken prisoner, that somehow qualifies them to be President.

All of you who served or are currently serving, do you feel that every single one of your fellow military compatriots could be President?

I think it's fantastic that McCain served, and good for him that he survived capture. But that has nothing to do with whether or not I want him as a President.

Vrai...a good point and to answer your question...No..I don't think they all should get to President, Senator, or even Dog catcher. Heck, there are a few of them I wouldn't trust alone with my dog (even if she is spayed. Due to WESTPAC rules, further embellishment is prohibited.)

As someone who came from a military family (My Grandfather was in the Army, as was my Father....both left some pretty deep footprints....so I joined the Navy instead.) both my Grandfather and Dad made it a point NOT to vote; their thinking was that voting, either for or against the Commander In Chief could be construed as disloyalty and therefore, prejudicial to good order and discipline. Dwight Eisenhower, while a Republican President, had a similar mindset, and did not reveal his political beliefs until after he had retired from the Army.

However, with so many people who have avoided Military service now occupying seats of power, especially those who would send our troops into harms way, but will not honor the nation's committment to our Soldier's, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines (or the widows and children of our fallen Patriots), it would be nice to have as our Commander in Chief someone who understands the commitment that so many of our Military have made, and hopefully will be as committed to them in return.

You are right in that Military service should not be the only qualification (I didn't vote for John Kerry either) of a politician, however, all things being equal, I do feel more comfortable if the person that I vote for has served in some capacity.

I'm somewhat annoyed by the assumption that just because someone served in the military and was taken prisoner, that somehow qualifies them to be President.

All of you who served or are currently serving, do you feel that every single one of your fellow military compatriots could be President?

I think it's fantastic that McCain served, and good for him that he survived capture. But that has nothing to do with whether or not I want him as a President.

I just want to, ONCE AGAIN, make it clear that I am not a supporter of McCain. I do think he is quite qualified, but not because he served in the military. Is he the best man for the job? I don't think he is. But up against Olabama or Snitlery, I have to pick McCain. It comes down to who more closely fits my philosophy. The two dems don't even come close.

I agree with your sympathy for McCain and what he and other POWs went through. It was awful, it was terrible, it was all manner of evil. But that's not what we need to take into consideration at this point. What do we know for about McCain? By his own admission, he has always resented authority and being told what to do. and these statements are supported by his 100+ demerits/per year for disrespectful behavior and poor discipline at the naval academy, his breaking of regulations at VA-174, and his being passed up for higher command. Later on, we saw him follow the same metal patterns in the Senate as he would support Republicans most of the time, but when it came to critical issues, where the Republican leadership would call on all members to support a particular position, McCain frequently would go the opposite way. This could be chalked up to just having an independent view, but his recent changing of reasons for why he voted the way he did on tax cuts shows that he did not make a principaled vote, but rather one based on his animosity for Bush and his resentment of the Republican leadership.

We also know that McCain lobbied Tom Daschle to bring him into the Democrat party because of his anger at losing to George Bush. If Jim Jeffords had not made the jimp first, McCain would have. This is just another example of a man who allows his anger to motivate him to do things that he might not ordinarily do. This is a serious issue for any president, but that's why presidents have advisers who can help adjust their views. Where I see danger is McCain doesn't like being told what to do, and that's a bad combination.

As we learned with Clinton, that "personal crap" does matter, and matters a lot. A lot of people knew about Clinton's issues with women, and decided to ignore them, write them off to youthful hormones, see them as a sign of his being macho and manly, etc., and in the end they humiliated the office of the President and the USA. I think we need to judge our assessments of this "personal crap" very, very carefully, and consider if we are fairly and accurately judging the character and personality of a person, or making excuses for them. Yes, McCain had a screwed-up upbringing (like a lot of military brats), and yes, he was brutalized as a POW and suffers the issues a lot of POWs suffer. While we can be sympathetic to that, we also have to be careful not to blind ourselves to what the impacts of these issues could mean to a guy sitting in the Oval Office. There were lots of stories about Clinton's behavior, and while some of them were bogus, a lot of them were true or based on the truth, which is why they persisted. There's a reason why stories of McCain behavior and personality issues are so persistent, and it's the same deal. If there really was no fire, there would be no smoke. Someone who has the anger to do a number on an enemy also has the anger to do a number on anyone else.

If McCain’s temper problem and his resentment of authority was such a problem I don’t think he would have become such a successful Senator. I’m not willing to say this doesn’t exist; but I’m also not willing to admit this is really that big of an issue. You’re making him out to be mentally unstable. I worry more about the likes of Charlie Rangel or Ted Kennedy or Cynthia McKinney or Hillary Clinton when it comes to managing one’s anger.

All that aside, I think I have made it clear that I am not much of a McCain supporter. He is much too far on the left for me. I am more worried about his left-leaning tendencies than I am how me manages his temper when making decisions.

I think where I am with this though is I am not willing to use his military service as a wedge or explanation for these things. I’d just assume leave that out of the conversation. Until anyone has been in his shoes, with his success as a statesman, I don't anyone can criticize him in that manner. Just my opinion.