John McCain has shown through out his career that he is a thoughtful leader that can step across party lines to get things done in Washington. But I think there are two primary reasons you should vote for him as President in 2008.

1) He's A Veteran in the Battle Over Global Climate Change
Global Climate Change is possibly the greatest environmental threat we face today, and John McCain is among the few people that have actively confronted this problem outside of speeches. In 2003, McCain and Democrat Joe Lieberman introduced the first bill to address this issue called the Climate Stewardship Act. It proposed establishing a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions. Notice that this done when Republicans still held controled the Senate and the House, and a year before McCain was up for re-election. A pretty gutsy thing for a Republican to do, wouldn't you say?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.139:

While the bill did not pass, it was re-introduced in 2005 as S.280. Since then, it has sparked the first actual debate over how (not whether) America will respond to global warming.

2) His Health Care Proposals Will Lower Health Care Costs AND Expand Insurance Coverage
Sen. McCain's proposals for improving health care are more modest than his likely Demoractic opponent's, but they are also more likely to do actual good for America's working poor. His plan gets at what economists like Paul Krugman have called the "heart" of health care problem in America--rising costs. In particular, McCain proposes expanding Health Savings Account, which are available to individuals in High Deductable Health Plans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account

These encourage healthy and nominally well-off individuals to pay for more of their health care expenses. This means insurance companies will make fewer payments for these individuals and fewer health care resources will be consumed. And that is exactly what we want!

Think of it this way. There are only so many health care resources available to Americans in any given year (so many hours for doctors visits, so many hours for surgery etc). You can think of these scarce resources as a pie we're all eating. If rich people eat less of the pie, there will be more pie for poor people to eat! It really is just that simple. And to further assist poor people in getting their fair share, John McCain has proposed a $2,500 individual tax credit to increase their incentive for buying health care insurance.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm

Of course, these are not the only reasons to vote for John McCain. They are just the two that mean the most to me. Let's also not forget he has been a long-time defender of free trade and voice for fiscal responcibility in a time when it wasn't fashionable. John McCain has the guts and the sense to be one of the best Presidents in our country's history. I look forward to hearing why other people support Sen. McCain's run for the White House.

[Edited on February 24, 2008 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ``]

2/24/2008 6:45:54 PM

2/24/2008 6:53:05 PM

There are really only two good reasons to vote for McCain.

1.) HRC
2.) Obama

That's about it.

2/24/2008 6:55:00 PM

Here's another good reason. John McCain opposed ethanol subsidies in 2000 even though it cost him votes in the Iowa primaries. Guess what? He still supports them!

Quote :

"In 2000, McCain ran for president and reiterated his longstanding opposition to ethanol subsidies. Though it crippled his chances in Iowa, he argued that ethanol was a wasteful giveaway. A recent study in the journal Science has shown that when you take all impacts into consideration, ethanol consumption increases greenhouse gas emissions compared with regular gasoline. Unlike, say, Barack Obama, McCain still opposes ethanol subsidies. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26brooks.html?_r=1&ex=1361768400&en=39a237bfc2c711cd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

And guess which of the two candidates won Iowa in 2008? If there is anyone peddling to special interests in Barak Obama.

If you want a President that will actually stand up to big-money politics you only have one choice. John McCain!

2/26/2008 4:28:00 PM

lol, you're still just pissed that hillary clinton sucks and clearly your judgement is crap. let's go for the enemy of your enemy in McCain so long as Obama loses right socks?

You are so 1 dimensional. Please do vote for that old war pig, can't wait for later this year.

2/26/2008 4:30:03 PM

Quote :

"There are really only two good reasons to vote for McCain. 1.) HRC 2.) Obama That's about it. "

Thats how I feel

2/26/2008 4:37:54 PM

^^ You know me so well.

I have been vocally on the fence between McCain and Hillary (see previous McCain thread started like 2 weeks ago). I would have went for McCain sooner, but his new found supply-sider faith (among other things) make me nervous. I finally went for McCain when Hillary started showing how petty and bitter she can be (see the "Hillary is Pissed thread).

My conversion is pretty well documented in my posts. If you care so much you can look through them.

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 4:40 PM. Reason : ``]

2/26/2008 4:39:56 PM

Well it's just so freaking ridiculous if you claim to care about democratic policies and supported Hillary's platforms in all senses but her being 'petty and bitter' - which by the way is an obvious character flaw you MISSED but most of America didn't. That wasn't hard to figure out as we've moved along, that her character was clearly flawed. Again showing a lapse in your judgement which was only enlighted upon you conveniently enough as she started losing.

But that's off on a tangent - the point here is that if being 'petty and bitter' is all you had to go on to just dump her and jump aisle....that means you once were locked and loaded with her policy, a democratic policy, which is very very similar to the stances Barack takes holistically.

However, crossing the aisle pretty much abandons all that you supported to now arguing all empirically for a now shifty, pandering, wavering, war hawking John McCain agenda. That's like turning from one primary color to it's opposite in one fell swoop. You've gone from abandoning ideals and policy like they were nothing....the same things that tie many people for life to their parties.

You've shown alot of passion no doubt, but your fickle and erratic stances show you aren't really thinking about your decisions. That's where my criticisms come in.

2/26/2008 4:48:35 PM

I can see how it may seem that way, but I think my position is more consistent than it appears. I have a rough philosophical core that guides my political choices—largely influenced by economist Amartya Sen and philosopher Martha Nussbaum. The primary principal is that I think that the government has a large role in making sure that people have the means and resources to develop the capabilities they need to lead “choice-worthy” lives. That doesn’t mean ensuring everyone reaches the same outcomes as measured by income or even that everyone must have an equal opportunities to reach a certain level income.

People want different things. Some people want high paying jobs with little time off, others don’t care about money and want to have plenty of leisure time. And I think the government can help people develop the basic capabilities to pursue those life goals. Maybe that means helping them get medical care or education or housing or what have you. But at the same time, the government should also allow people to have the freedom to pursue those lives. That means few restrictions on trade.

Now, when it comes to picking a political candidate, I try to find those that have the best ideas for helping people develop their capabilities while preserving their freedom to live their lives. Hillary Clinton has a better plan for getting health care to more people than either McCain or Obama, but it isn’t perfect and she will likely not get elected anyways. McCain’s plan is less ambitious but will likely do more to improve the working poor’s access to medical care than Obama’s plan (at least in my opinion). McCain also supports fewer trade restrictions than Obama or Hillary (with the exception of smoking). Plus, I think that McCain is a more credible fighter on climate change and that his plans for Iraq will do more good for Iraqis than Obama’s (they’re people too you know). That’s on top of the fact that he has shown himself to be a first rate leader on politically dangerous issues.

My choices my seem fickle, but appearances can be deceiving. I already know what I want to see done, it’s just a question of finding the best person to do it. And knowing the minds of others is a much more difficult task than knowing your own.

2/26/2008 6:12:09 PM

Quote :

"Socks``: Here's another good reason. John McCain opposed ethanol subsidies in 2000 even though it cost him votes in the Iowa primaries. Guess what? He still supports them! .... And guess which of the two candidates won Iowa in 2008? If there is anyone peddling to special interests in Barak Obama. If you want a President that will actually stand up to big-money politics you only have one choice. John McCain!"

Yeah, just pandering to those special interests in Iowa...

...oh shit, wait...

Quote :

"Ethanol Production Capacity Ranked by State (Largest to Smallest Production Capacity as of October 2007) Rank State Ethanol Production Capacity (Million Gallons Per Year) 1 Iowa 3,357.5 2 Nebraska 1,745.5 3 Illinois 1,172.0 4 Minnesota 1,102.1 5 South Dakota 985.0 6 Indiana 848.0 7 Ohio 529.0 8 Kansas 507.5 9 Wisconsin 498.0 10 Texas 355.0"

Is it still considered special interests when they're your constituents?

(Source: http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/121.htm)

2/26/2008 8:09:04 PM

i dont get why republicans are so reluctant to vote democrat...you'd think they'd want a better america or something

2/26/2008 8:11:21 PM

^^

NICE!

2/26/2008 8:17:14 PM

i dont think my dad has ever voted democrat and he will if mccain runs

2/26/2008 8:42:52 PM

^if ?

2/26/2008 9:09:26 PM

lol if your dad has never voted democrat i dont get why he'd start with mccain

2/26/2008 9:11:17 PM

Thanks to the heroic efforts of John McCain , the United States already banned torture.

2/26/2008 9:13:10 PM

Nothing could make up for McCain's wild interventionism. Do you really want US troops in Iraq in 2108?

2/26/2008 9:37:42 PM

Kay_Yow,

Wait. So your argument is that it is alright for Obama to support a fuel alternative that is driving up food costs and actually hurting our environment because he is pandering to special interests in his "home" state as well Iowa?!?!? This is a good thing??

You really know how to sell your candidate.

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 10:01 PM. Reason : haha]

2/26/2008 9:38:26 PM

I think the Senator from Illinois should represent the people of Illinois...just as I expect the members of the NC Congressional delegation to represent the "special interests" of the people of North Carolina when it comes to issues like tobacco.

But you know me and my radical ideas about representative democracies...SCARY!

2/26/2008 10:24:06 PM

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I was voting for the President of the United States. Silly me.

I guess it's okay for Obama to support policies that hurt me, so long as they help him get elected.

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 10:52 PM. Reason : Obama really is magic. ]

2/26/2008 10:50:19 PM

But NAFTA's been good for New York!

2/26/2008 11:15:23 PM

America: We have ways of making you talk.

2/26/2008 11:25:45 PM

Kay_Yow, point? My guess is you're referring to Hillary Clinton. But she wasn't even in an elected office, let along representing New York, when NAFTA was passed. So that doesn't make sense.

And even if you want to argue the point, it misses the point any ways. The President is supposed to promote the interests of the nation as a whole, not just certain regions.

2/27/2008 12:36:34 AM

But I thought those 8 years as first lady counted as experience. It's either all or none. She isn't walking through a buffet line right now.

2/27/2008 12:39:33 AM

A few points:
1. I don't think you can call it pandering when the people of Illinois have a vested financial interest in ethanol's success.
2. Agree with his position or not, Obama's been consistent in his position on ethanol.
3. If he supported ethanol as a Senator and then didn't support ethanol as a presidential candidate, I have no doubt, Socks``, that you would've created a thread denouncing him for having shifted his position.

For the record, Hillary Clinton had always been against ethanol subsidies until ethanol plants started opening in New York and then she supported them.* Is it your argument that it's alright for Clinton to support a fuel alternative that is driving up food costs and actually hurting our environment because she is pandering to special interests in her "home" state as well Iowa?!?!?

* Source: Sen. Clinton's endorsement interview w/ the Cedar Rapids (IA) Gazette (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVHM8fHbi0c)

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 1:46 AM. Reason : add s]

2/27/2008 1:43:51 AM

^ Exactly. We can't expect Obama to take a position that would make him unelectable. Then we'd be denying outself of the warm glow he emits.

But seriously. You have not shown any evidence that the majority of people in Illinois benefit from ethanol subsidies or the expansion of ethanol production in general. Farmers and producers of ethanol will benefit, sure. But what about consumers of corn products that now have to pay higher prices?

But that's even besides my point. Obama has claimed time and time again that he is willing to tell people what they don't want to hear. He has never claimed to be a convictionless proxy for the will of the median voter. Yet, here's a clear case of Obama supporting a bad policy just to make himself electable (Note: you only said he supported it to get elected in IL, not because it's good policy). Why couldn't he tell the voters of Illinois something they didn't want to hear? You know, when it counted????

I want our President to be willing to stand up for what he believes in, even if that means taking big political risks. And I don't just mean making speeches about. That's why I support John McCain.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 8:16 AM. Reason : ``]

2/27/2008 8:06:55 AM

republicans dont like McCain and many will not vote for him.

its a clusterfuck

2/27/2008 8:19:58 AM

2/27/2008 8:25:35 AM

If you want thousands more American soldiers to die, war with Iran as well as Iraq, and Americans to become less safe as a result


Vote McCain!

2/27/2008 8:29:09 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

2/27/2008 8:30:42 AM

Quote :

"Do not consecutively reply to a topic - If you are within the alloted timespan for editing a message that no one has replied to and you think of something to add, EDIT the message. DO NOT REPLY AGAIN. Constant abuse of this will not be tolerated. "

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 8:57 AM. Reason : its easy to edit see and you have a half hour]

2/27/2008 8:56:55 AM

Quote :

"Stay On-Topic - Try to stick with the topic. If you have something important to say that doesn't relate to the topic, then start a new topic. If you have something useless to say, keep it to yourself."

Quote :

"Be thoughtful/humorous - Hundreds of people browse the message board each day. Before you post something, think to yourself, "would the majority of the users want to read this?". If the answer is "no", then don't post it."

Quote :

"No threads directed personally - Do you think the other thousand people on this site want to read some personal shit between you and your buddy? - NO."

2/27/2008 9:00:37 AM

Quote :

"I want our President to be willing to stand up for what he believes in, even if that means taking big political risks."

Word.

I mean...

Like standing up against torture.

Big political risk.

You know how Republicans love their torture.

But thank God for John McCain.

Unequivocal support of a torture ban.

That's some principled leadership right there.

Woohoo!

Except...

No...

Hang on a second.

What's that?

We can torture?

Just as long as the CIA does it and not the military.

Oh okay.

So much for principles.

2/27/2008 9:45:54 AM

I don't know where you guys get that McCain thinks the CIA can torture people. It's simply untrue.

It's not like Obama has done anything close to the level of prevention that McCain has undertaken.

I wonder if this topic is always brought up when McCain is in play because Democrats know that he owns this both in his actions, personal experience, words, etc.


Obama should have stuck to teaching the "change in time that saved 9" and left the heavy lifting to those that can get it done.

2/27/2008 9:51:50 AM

McCain:

He voted against torture

before he voted for it.

2/27/2008 9:53:56 AM

What a scumbag. I've seen curly fries straighter than his talk.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 10:07 AM. Reason : my friendshhhhh]

2/27/2008 10:06:48 AM

I will LOL all the way to the bank if the Democrats pull the same flip flop crap to win the election as the Republicans did in 2004. Poetic justice indeed.

2/27/2008 10:21:03 AM

he never voted for torture.

2/27/2008 10:23:39 AM

Looks like Ill have to vote for mccain. Between my pick of a democrat and a socialist, ill take the democrat.

2/27/2008 10:28:22 AM

Why I'm voting for John McCain:

1) He has a sense of humor about starting yet another disastrous war in the middle east that will surely end the lives of thousands

Quote :

"Republican 2008 presidential hopeful John McCain crooned the words "Bomb Iran" to a Beach Boys' tune in joking response to a question about any possible U.S. attack over Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program. "That old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran ... bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb," the Vietnam War veteran warbled softly to the band's "Barbara Ann" when he was asked when the United States would send an "airmail message" to Iran. The singing performance during a campaign stop on Wednesday in South Carolina drew chuckles from the audience and has already been viewed almost 11,000 times on the Internet video sharing site YouTube after being posted on Thursday."

2) Not only does he not know that condoms help prevent the spread of STDs, he doesn't even know what HE HIMSELF thinks on the

matter and has to ask an assistant to tell him

Quote :

"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."

3) McCain very well may have broken the campaign finance law that he himself wrote

Quote :

"The DNC's complaint will allege the following. Fist, that McCain used his status as a candidate operating under the federal matching fund program to gain access on state ballots without having to spend any money to submit signatures. From the DNC's press release: The McCain campaign has incorrectly stated that McCain is doing what Dean did when he withdrew from public financing in his presidential bid, but they have the facts wrong. Dean did not use the promise of matching funds as collateral for a loan. Dean withdrew before the FEC determined eligibility for funds, unlike McCain. And he spent millions of dollars to get his name on the ballot after withdrawing, unlike McCain, who had free ballot access in many states because he pledged to accept matching funds. That is a material gain from pledging to accept the matching funds. Another material gain from pledging to accept the matching funds is the ability to use his eligibility as collateral, which he did to secure his loan. Finally, by receiving these material benefits from his pledge to enter the matching funds system, he is bound to abide by the spending limits. The matching funds program requires one to spend no more than approximately $57 million dollars for the entire campaign up until he officially becomes the nominee in September. Through January, he had already spent over $46 million. If you follow the implications, since he entered the federal matching funds program, John McCain is now essentially at the spending limit, and is legally prohibited from spending any more money until September. To spend more money would be to break federal law. That law, by the way, is sometimes named after its Senate sponsors: McCain-Feingold. "

4) 9 out of 10 lobbyists agree--John McCain is the way to go

Quote :

"McCain began his anti-special-interest drive two decades ago after he and four other senators were accused of trying to influence bank regulators on behalf of donor Charles Keating, a savings and loan financier later convicted of securities fraud. The Senate ethics committee said McCain had used "poor judgment" but also said his actions "were not improper" and did not merit punishment. Ever since, McCain has made high ethical standards a hallmark of his public persona. In his 2002 memoir, he wrote that "money does buy access in Washington, and access increases influence that often results in benefiting the few at the expense of the many." Just this month in Detroit, he told reporters that he had "never done any favors for anybody -- lobbyist or special interest group -- that's a clear, 24-year record." Nonetheless, a recent study by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute and the liberal advocacy group Public Citizen found that McCain has more lobbyists raising funds for his presidential bid than do any of his rivals. He has 32 "bundlers" of donations who are lobbyists. Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) is the closest to him with 29 lobbyist bundlers, followed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) with 18. McCain's campaign has also been guided by lobbyists. Davis, the campaign manager, is a former lobbyist who represented major telecommunications companies. The campaign's senior adviser is Charles R. Black Jr., chairman of BKSH & Associates, which represents drug companies, an oil company, an automaker, a telecommunications company, defense contractors and the steel industry, among others. Former congressman Tom Loeffler (R-Tex.) was brought in to shore up the campaign's finances and operations. Yet he maintains his day job as chairman of the Loeffler Group, whose clients include oil, auto and telecommunications companies, as well as a tobacco firm and an airline. Other occasional McCain advisers include lobbyists Timothy P. McKone of AT&T, Robert S. Aiken of Phoenix-based Pinnacle West Capital, John W. Timmons of the Cormac Group and John Green of Ogilvy Government Relations. Also at Ogilvy is a major McCain fundraiser, Wayne L. Berman. Their firms' clients have been a significant source of contributions to McCain's campaign. Executives for the clients of Ogilvy Government Relations gave at least $271,000 for McCain's presidential bid. Loeffler Group client employees donated $118,500, according to a Washington Post analysis. BKSH clients' executives gave $24,000."

I think that's a pretty good start. Vote McCain in '08!!!

2/27/2008 10:31:59 AM

Kay_Yow,

So your biggest complaint is that McCain has not won every single political battle he's ever fought and that his torture "ban" came up well short of what he hoped? If that’s it I think he’s doing just fine. If you’re going to try and change Washington, you’re not going to win every battle. But it matters that you’re at least fighting the good fight.

McCain first introduced McCain-Fiengold in 1995. It did not become law until 2002. And his reforms were still not perfect. They are loop-holes and missed opportunities. But that's exactly why Democracy is an iterative process.

But at least McCain has been an active part of that process. He has major legislative battles to speak of. He may have won some and lost some, but at least he's been fighting the good fight on a lot of issues I care about. I can't say the same for Obama. I can't name a single legislative failure he's had. But, then again, I can't name a single success either. The man is really running on Hope.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM. Reason : ``]

2/27/2008 11:20:57 AM

Your only argument is experience.

If we look at the President who is currently in office, he has experience. He was governor of Texas for 5 years, and he has been President for 7 years.

Yet, he has fucked up this country more than any President in history.

So much for experience.

2/27/2008 11:23:14 AM

i'm a registered democrat

i thought I was sure I would vote for a democrat

but i'm not really sure anymore...

i don't know who i'm going to vote for, honestly

2/27/2008 11:28:14 AM

^^ No. The fact that he has experience is a good thing. Obama has been making speeches on Climate Change and Reforming the Political process, McCain has been actively working to address those issues. But that's not the only reason I support him (if experience was everything, Joe Biden would be the Democrat Nominee). I also like his POLICY PROPOSALS better than Obama's.

I have a laundry list in this thread of specifc proposals I like. Health Care, Climate Change, Free Trade, Ending Ethanol Subsidies. These are all good ideas in my opinion. And if you have any questions on why they are good ideas, I can explain it to you. Can you go into the same detail on Obama's proposals? If so, you're welcome to post your reply in my "Why do you support Obama" thread.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 11:33 AM. Reason : ``]

2/27/2008 11:32:00 AM

does anyone else find it hilarious interesting how socks has gone from supporting edwards, to clinton and then to mccain. i wonder what the common thread to these candidates is. . . .

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .]

2/27/2008 11:35:26 AM

i must say...spookyjons post like 5 posts up is pretty much the first post of his thats ever made me go "good point"

2/27/2008 11:39:28 AM

^ A concern for health care and environmental policy? Nah. I'm probably just racist flip-flopper.

But in actuality, I have been openly on the fence about who to support since Edwards dropped out. I even started a thread asking whether McCain was worth it. When and why I settled on McCain is pretty transparent and documented in previous posts.

PS* The question was addressed at length earlier in the thread with a short description of the my consistant political philosophy.

2/27/2008 11:42:47 AM

I would have thought that Obama's stance on health care would have been closer to the Edwards/Clinton stance. At least closer than McCain's.

2/27/2008 12:13:06 PM

Quote :

"If we look at the President who is currently in office, he has experience. He was governor of Texas for 5 years, and he has been President for 7 years. Yet, he has fucked up this country more than any President in history. "

Hyperbole much?

Or maybe you're just too young and too stupid to know our nation's history.

2/27/2008 12:13:39 PM

LOL What's wrong with Karen Hughes in that laughable depiction of bureaucrats in a "evil" kind of way?

2/27/2008 12:15:45 PM