Since so many of you think so, post why here. I'd like to see individuals articulating specific reasons why they do not support John McCain or find him to be a "Liberal". Because the completely lost talking heads on radio say so doesn't cut it, and the Bush tax cut opposition doesn't either since he actually did it on the principle of fiscal conservatism.

1/31/2008 6:54:27 AM

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.”"

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

1/31/2008 8:17:30 AM

Bush tax cut
McCain-Feingold
McCain-kennedy

I basically view him as more of the same W.

Despite talking about being tough on border security arizona has the most pour through it, and the idiot uses that as an example of how well he does on enforcing immigration.

I tell ya what. You guys run Liberman and we will run McCain.

1/31/2008 8:56:28 AM

John "Bush Junior" McCain

1/31/2008 9:18:09 AM

^ congratulations, you added nothing to your cause.

^^ As has been covered many times, he voted against the Bush tax cut because it did come with simultaneous spending cuts. McCain-Feingold is a travesty that should be over-turned by the Supreme Court . . . the sooner the better.


Keep going folks.

1/31/2008 9:54:06 AM

^ McCain-Feingold is probably one of the only things keeping this country with some semblance of representative democracy. To repeal it would say that we should allow the open sale of congress and government contracts to the highest bidder.

I know Republicans are tolerant of corruption but COME ON

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 9:59 AM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 9:58:52 AM

I've got a big problem with the fact that an organization can't mention a candidates name 60 days out from an election. WTF is that shit? It's a convoluded piece of legislation with some merits, but that sort of thing is unacceptable.

1/31/2008 10:08:24 AM

Of all the loop holes in that bill, you take issue with THAT?

Really?

1/31/2008 10:18:15 AM

The majority of the electorate starts paying attention less than 60 days out. That sort of provision is set up to give the incumbents an edge in the general election, you're damn right I take issue with that.

Anyway, back on track, why shouldn't McCain be the nominee?

1/31/2008 10:20:39 AM

limiting free speech is a good thing steve? huh

one of two republicans to vote AGAINST a taxcut... yeah, I dont see why republicans should worry. Ill use what Huckabee said last night, look at someone's actions not by what they are saying.

Anyone else find it funny McCain said he wouldnt vote for his own bill now.

McCain will get the nomination unless a miracle happens.

Oh, and forgot to mention he is a senator is one reason to not vote for him.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 10:22:42 AM

Quote :

" That sort of provision is set up to give the incumbents an edge in the general election "

Thats no different then mainstream news organizations giving majority airtime to a particular set of candidates that they view as having a compelling story.

See: Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul in the debates last night. Clearly a subtext to the Main Event (TM) of McCain and Romney that CNN was egging on.

1/31/2008 10:24:49 AM

Anderson Cooper is a terrible moderator.

1/31/2008 10:28:12 AM

Quote :

"Despite talking about being tough on border security arizona has the most pour through it, and the idiot uses that as an example of how well he does on enforcing immigration."

Arizona has recently come up with the solution to the problem that I like best, only problem for McCain is that it's being done by the state legislature, and was signed by the governor, who is a Democrat.

-Increased security at border
-Any business knowingly hiring an illegal will receive a fine on their first offense, on their second offense their business license will be revoked and they will be unable to operate in the state.

1/31/2008 10:39:26 AM

markgoal, I totally agree.

The problem with Arizona's solution is that they didn't know that illegal immigrants made up a very very large portion of their workforce. How that plays out economically we'll see.

1/31/2008 10:50:00 AM

McCain was a member of the notorious Keating Five. 21,000 investors lost about $285 million in life savings from the Lincoln Savings & Loan bankruptcy.

McCain was one of five senators who put pressure on the prosecutor to ease off of Keating. Keating, BTW had contributed $1.3 million to the five's campaign coffers.

But I guess if we don't let politicians get elected because they are corrupt, we wouldn't have any candidates.

1/31/2008 11:44:24 AM

i dont get how the republicans think romney is a better choice than mccain

1/31/2008 11:55:47 AM

^^ McCain did not pressure the "prosecutor" (I think you mean regulators). And in fact, he was later exonerated by the Senate Ethics Committee, only slightly rebuked for "poor judgment".

Quote :

"McCain defended his attendance at the meetings by saying Keating was a constituent and that Keating's development company, American Continental Corporation, was a major Arizona employer. McCain said he wanted to know only whether Keating was being treated fairly and that he had not tried to influence the regulators. At the second meeting, McCain told the regulators, "I wouldn't want any special favors for them," and "I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper.""

Quote :

"The Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Keating Five began in November 1990, and committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. They were not. McCain believes Democrats on the committee blocked Bennett's recommendation because he was the lone Keating Five Republican. In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said, and declared his actions were not "improper nor attended with gross negligence." McCain considered the committee's judgment to be "full exoneration," and he contributed $112,000 (the amount raised for him by Keating) to the U.S. Treasury."

http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 12:09 PM. Reason : 2]

1/31/2008 12:08:01 PM

Welcome back to 1996, voters

1/31/2008 12:32:34 PM

Regardless of how you feel about any of the candidates, is anyone else annoyed at McCain's insistence to continue repeating lies in debates, despite being called out by the press, moderator, and Romney? The giddy geriatric smirk doesn't help, either.

1/31/2008 1:00:01 PM

I think his age really could have an effect on his presidency.....I'm sure he's strong and healthy being former military and all, but at 75 and 76, who knows what could happen to his health

1/31/2008 1:08:26 PM

he's a stubborn old man

kind of like bob dole

a moderate conservative that probably wont beat whoever the dems send his way

1/31/2008 1:10:44 PM

Quote :

"imiting free speech is a good thing steve? huh"

When monied interests are the only onces with the ability to affect policy through campaign donations, instead of the American public? I think its not only an acceptable infringement, its absolutely necessary to continue any semblance of freedom and accountability in government.

Quote :

"one of two republicans to vote AGAINST a taxcut... yeah, I dont see why republicans should worry. Ill use what Huckabee said last night, look at someone's actions not by what they are saying."

We're trillions of dollars in debt. Cutting taxes is suicidal economic policy and detrimental to our long term economic stability. The majority of Americans feel our tax policies are reasonable,tolerable and fair. This insistence that we continue to cut taxes out of existence is ruinous and will lead us to financial insolvence. If Republicans want less taxes, end the war.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 1:33:50 PM

then other side will respond and tell you to roll back welfare, etc

see this thread: /message_topic.aspx?topic=512650

1/31/2008 1:36:34 PM

Quote :

"Cutting taxes is suicidal economic policy "

since when?

1/31/2008 1:39:19 PM

Quote :

"When monied interests are the only onces with the ability to affect policy through campaign donations, instead of the American public?"

Unfortunately, this includes organizations who band together as interest groups. If he Free the Indigenous Marmots Association, wants to band together to oppose a candidate, what is more American than that?

Why shouldn't the NRA, or the AFL-CIO, or PETA, or any other organization not be able to campaign for or against a candidate immediately before the election?

1/31/2008 1:40:13 PM

^steve read up on hard vs soft money, then tell me what it addressed and if it changed anything.

Yes are a country in debt have been our whole existance. Cutting taxes stimulates the economy. Ending the war would help some, eliminated or reforming entitlments would help the most. The majority of people who think the current system is fair, is because 92% of people pay 15% or less in taxes... so really they arent paying for it. So thats not saying much.

If 9 out of 10 got free cars, but the 10th guy had to buy all 10 cars.. You could still say the majority of people think its a great idea.

How about we stop penalizing people for working and saving? Sounds like a great idea. That or a flat tax.

1/31/2008 1:40:16 PM

right now these interest rates cuts are killing my savings accounts

1/31/2008 1:41:20 PM

Quote :

"then other side will respond and tell you to roll back welfare, etc "

Well if we are trying to save money, sure. Lets not worry about the over 1 trillion a year and GROWING fast expense. No, lets tackle the 90 billion a year. that will solve things. LOL

marko, on the rates. Now would be a good time to get some properties as investments. esp in growth place and if you can get a forclosed or about to home. Probably give you a much better return than the low rates.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 1:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 1:43:24 PM

Thats the idea, it makes more sense to spend or borrow right now than loan. It keeps money moving through the economy and stimulates growth. Theoretically.

It also encourages Americans to increas their debt burden, which is already being taxed by falling house prices.

1/31/2008 1:44:35 PM

Quote :

"since when?"

since we have this monumental debt. we pay down the debt, we cut taxes.

Quote :

"is because 92% of people pay 15% or less in taxes..."

I'd like to see that cited, but if thats true than the top 8% have 85% of the taxable wealth?

Quote :

"That or a flat tax."

The majority of Americans will never willingly vote to increase their taxes so that the wealthy get a dramatic cut. No politician would ever win reelection. So you can forget such ideological jibberish.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 1:48:09 PM

Quote :

"since we have this monumental debt. we pay down the debt, we cut taxes."

every time (at least in the last 20-30 years that i can recall) we've had a tax cut, its stimulated the economy...i still strongly disagree with your assertion that tax cuts are a "suicidal" economic policy

suicidal economic policy imo would involve raising everyone's taxes and putting the money towards welfare programs like 'free' healthcare

1/31/2008 1:54:28 PM

stimulating to whom? has median income increased? or just an improvement in gdp? has quality of life improved for the average american? or have the top 1% just gotten richer?

1/31/2008 1:57:05 PM

Quote :

"we've had a tax cut, its stimulated the economy."

It has risen the amount of private wealth, but every significant tax cut has resulted in more debt load. We can continue down this route, but it will eventually lead to financial insolvency. I would rather some of the super rich pay a higher part of their unneeded discretionary income that have this country devolve into anarchy, despair and perhaps the end of American dream.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 1:59 PM. Reason : ..]

1/31/2008 1:58:40 PM

taxes were raised SIGNIFICANTLY on the rich in the 30s and 40s and it lead to the longest period of economic prosperity this country has seen.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 1:59:39 PM

stimulating to EVERYONE

you have more money than you normally would because the government takes less of the money you have earned

if you have more money, you'll be more likely to spend it...if you dont want to spend it, then save it and you'll be better off

1/31/2008 1:59:39 PM

care to back that up with anything other than caps?

1/31/2008 2:00:09 PM

i was just following your lead

Quote :

"I would rather some of the super rich pay a higher part of their unneeded discretionary income "

i would rather the poor get jobs

1/31/2008 2:01:23 PM

i can get you numbers tonight if you need them. but i think it's fairly common knowledge that economically, most americans were doing well in the 50s and 60s. there was a massive amount of wealth redistribution that helped most everyone except for the very rich.

1/31/2008 2:03:09 PM

The poor have jobs, usually with little or no benefits that the elites do not provide. If they want less taxes, then they should provide benefits. Your perception that the poor are largely poor because they are lazy/ don't want jobs is spurious and without merit. Take off the ideological handcuffs and be a human being for once.

Quote :

"if you dont want to spend it, then save it and you'll be better off"

Massive saving causes recession. Consumption is the driver of economic growth.

[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2008 2:04:17 PM

He used to be more moderate, but then he became more of a Bush lackey, which isn't the good kind of conservative.

He can flip flop with the best of them.



And he has some fun ideas on war with Iran.





And relative to a lot of his party he is liberal on immigration which I think bothers some of the right wing.

1/31/2008 2:05:31 PM

Quote :

"If they want less taxes, then they should provide benefits"

how is it not a benefit if less money is taken out of their pay check each pay period? they will have more money to do whatever they want with, ie pay for some of those benefits

are some of you people opposed to tax cuts because even though the poor and middle class people would have more money from those tax cuts, the rich would also get benefits and thats just not fair to you all?

1/31/2008 2:07:23 PM

Quote :

"i would rather the poor get jobs"

You can't really be serious with that. Where does this notion that poor people sit on their asses come from?

1/31/2008 2:08:19 PM

^apparently the same place where the rich earn "unneeded" income

oh and of course based on the portion of the poor population who DO sit on their asses and collect government handouts

1/31/2008 2:08:56 PM

There's a huge difference in working two jobs and trying to feed your family and praying to god they don't get sick than in pondering hard whether your beach house should be in East Hampton or Southampton.

1/31/2008 2:10:12 PM

did you ever stop and think that the people pondering on which beach house to buy used to work 2 jobs to feed their family and eventually (GASP) their hard work paid off?

let alone, if you are pretty much poor, maybe you shouldnt start a big family until you know you will be able to support them

1/31/2008 2:11:10 PM

McCain is the best chance the GOP has to winning the election, the candidate with the most experience, and is not a religious zealot.

I'd fear the bible police bashign my door down if huckabee wins

1/31/2008 2:12:42 PM

or they inherited a big chunk of it. but oh no we can't get rid of the "death tax." that would mean people would have to work more for themselves.

1/31/2008 2:13:20 PM

I'm sure that happens, but more times than not, those people were given EXTRAORDINARY opportunities as children as a result of the families they came from.

My beach house will be in Southampton, but that doesn't stop me from realizing that there are people out there who were born into a cycle of poverty and have probably worked TEN times harder than me and will never see the lifestyle that I will live.

1/31/2008 2:13:26 PM

I agree that my "unneeded" comment was subjective in nature, but vast material wealth used primarily for luxury expenditures cannot be construed as "needed" by any definition, as most people in the country/world live with luxuries on a daily basis.

1/31/2008 2:13:31 PM

you guys arent supposed to hate the rich and want to take their money because you're jealous of their situation and because not everybody is as rich as them

you're supposed to use them as motivation for you to work harder and get rich like them

THAT is the american dream

not to redistribute the money that they earned, or their parents earned, or their grandparents earned simply because other people dont have as much

1/31/2008 2:17:48 PM