Why shouldn't I support McCain?

[MarkWarner08]

Why I'm considering supporting John McCain.

1. John McCain is a leader on the issue of global warming. Unlike other Republican Presidents who have accepted millions in contributions from energy interests and done their bidding, McCain has stood up these very interests in Congress. In 2004 McCain held hearings on global warming and he later co-sponsored a landmark global warming bill. As a Republican President, McCain would have the leverage to convince intransigent oil companies (here's to you, Exxon Mobil) to move toward renewable energy. He'd likely sign a cap-and-trade legislation and could push for a carbon tax, which is backed by some of his economic advisers.

2. John McCain opposed Bush on judges, tax cuts, and reckless pork barrel spending. These areas are self-explanatory I oppose unelected activist conservative judges, irresponsible tax cuts and profligate spending.

3. John McCain will inherit the Bush mess. From the growing Medicare trust fund shortfall to the acceleration of global warming, America faces a plethora of problems will likely cloud the next President's ability to enact any agenda. McCain will be at loggerheads with the Democratic Congress over war spending, budgeting, and much, much more. If his angry streak percolates to the surface, voters will see the McCain who Thad Cochran described as "erratic" and "hotheaded."

4. McCain will help the Democrats solidify their Congressional majorities and perhaps hit the magical 60 mark in the U.S Senate. If Obama becomes President, history tells us that barring a catastrophic event, the President's party loses seats during his first midterm. 2010 is a critical midterm because several big-state governorships are up for grabs and so are many closely-divided state legislatures. The Senate cycle also heavily favors Democrats, because the GOP made large gains in 2004. If McCain is the GOP nominee and Republicans lose control of redistricting in CA, OH, MI and NY, the GOP could lose an additional 5 House just from those states.

5. Obama could hurt the Democratic Party in the long run. If Obama's hollow message fails to translate into serious legislative achievements, many young voters will again become disillusioned and politically apathetic. Boomers will compare Obama to Carter and punish Democrats at the ballot box in 2010 and 2012. The brand will be tarnished and the GOP will be poised to recapture the White House in 2012.

Please explain why I'm wrong. Why should I oppose McCain?

[MarkWarner08]

I think I've reconciled the issue of the Supreme Court. Unlike Bush, McCain cannot appoint an Scalia clone the SCOTUS. Does anyone on this forum believe that a Democratic Judiciary Committee (which Reid stacked with fiery liberals like Schumer, Whitehouse, and Feingold) will approve of an activist conservative SCOTUS nominee? The likely replacement for Stevens (who probably will retire in the next four years) would be a Anthony Kennedy type -- hopefully, the pick won't have an ego that matches Kennedy's.

[Verily]

Given how quickly they caved on Roberts and Alito while it would have been perfectly possible to stop either...

[Nym90]

1. Agreed, and I do applaud McCain for his stance on global warming. But he's not going to be better than Obama on that issue, is he? He's not going to convince big business to back him simply because he's a Republican; they are going to pursue their own interests regardless.

2. He supported Roberts and Alito and now supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I see no evidence he'd nominate moderate judges, and the combination of his support of the tax cuts and staying in Iraq forever would make goals such as advancement on global warming, alternative energy, health care, infrastructure improvements, etc. financially impossible.

3. Shouldn't fixing the Bush mess be our ultimate goal? Obama can clearly do that far better than McCain. Plus, the Democratic Congress isn't going to stand up to McCain on the war anymore than they have Bush; if anything they'd be less likely to.

4. Yes, this is likely true. Of course it's no guarantee; Republicans gained seats in 2002 and if McCain is popular and well liked the same thing could happen in 2010. Likewise a popular President Obama would suffer minimal if any losses in 2010. I guess it all comes down to how fatalistic you are about how badly things are going to go regardless of who is President.

5. Sure, he could. But that's the risk you always take by having power. By that logic, the Democrats should just let the Republicans win the White House forever so that they can keep benefiting from the backlash when they screw up. The ultimate goal should be to change the country for the better, and that's only going to happen with a Democratic President. We might as well start now and worry about the next election after we've won this one.

[Alcon]

It's sort of funny how the Democratic Senate's incompetence is now one of the better arguments for moderate Democrats to vote against McCain.

[Nym90]

It's sort of funny how the Democratic Senate's incompetence is now one of the better arguments for moderate Democrats to vote against McCain.

Agreed, but 'tis unfortunately the truth.....of course, if we can get to 55-56 seats in the next term things might improve.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1. in 1997, McCain was part of a unanimous vote that the Kyoto agreement would seriously harm the US economy.

2. McCain voted to make the Bush tax cuts permanant.

4. Didn't happen in 1934, 1998, 2002.

5. Yeah, never vote for party X or that will hurt party X.

I think I've reconciled the issue of the Supreme Court. Unlike Bush, McCain cannot appoint an Scalia clone the SCOTUS. Does anyone on this forum believe that a Democratic Judiciary Committee (which Reid stacked with fiery liberals like Schumer, Whitehouse, and Feingold) will approve of an activist conservative SCOTUS nominee? The likely replacement for Stevens (who probably will retire in the next four years) would be a Anthony Kennedy type -- hopefully, the pick won't have an ego that matches Kennedy's.

Oh yeah, the same Senate that just voted 69-29 to give Bush retroactive immunity for breaking the law to illegally spy on Americans are going to suddenly do the right thing for once? What are you smoking?

[Mr. Morden]

Given how quickly they caved on Roberts and Alito while it would have been perfectly possible to stop either...

Umm....you are aware that that was back when the GOP was in the majority, and that all of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voted against moving Alito's nomination to the floor?

[Verily]

Given how quickly they caved on Roberts and Alito while it would have been perfectly possible to stop either...

Umm....you are aware that that was back when the GOP was in the majority, and that all of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voted against moving Alito's nomination to the floor?

Cloture motion.

[Mr. Morden]

There was no filibuster because of the Gang of 14.  But if you're in the majority, and control the committees, you don't need to filibuster.  You can just kill something in committee.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There was no filibuster because of the Gang of 14.  But if you're in the majority, and control the committees, you don't need to filibuster.  You can just kill something in committee.

Actually you can't for Supreme Court nominations. The vote was 5-9 against Robert Bork in committee, and he still went to a floor vote. You need either need 41 instead of 25 to vote against cloture, or 51 instead of 41 to vote against the nominee.

Anyone claiming that McCain wouldn't get some far right-wingers on the court (provided that there are vacancies; Stevens will be 92 in 2012), is sorely delusional.

The sad thing is the right-wing already owns the court. We need Democratic Presidents to move the court back the center.

[JSojourner]

Why I'm considering supporting John McCain.

1. John McCain is a leader on the issue of global warming. Unlike other Republican Presidents who have accepted millions in contributions from energy interests and done their bidding, McCain has stood up these very interests in Congress. In 2004 McCain held hearings on global warming and he later co-sponsored a landmark global warming bill. As a Republican President, McCain would have the leverage to convince intransigent oil companies (here's to you, Exxon Mobil) to move toward renewable energy. He'd likely sign a cap-and-trade legislation and could push for a carbon tax, which is backed by some of his economic advisers.One of the things I have always admired about McCain.  And I believe he has consistently voted against allowing drilling in ANWR, which I really respect.  That's a position that took courage.  You have a very credible point here.

2. John McCain opposed Bush on judges, tax cuts, and reckless pork barrel spending. These areas are self-explanatory I oppose unelected activist conservative judges, irresponsible tax cuts and profligate spending.Whoa, whoa.  He did?  Didn't he help ram Alito and Roberts through? Maybe I missed his opposition.  He wisely spoke out against tax cuts at first.  But just as he flip-flopped on the religious right being "agents of intolerance" (which they certainly are), so he flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts.  And if you think John Kerry's "I was for the war before I was against it" was damaging...just wait until they start doing McCain on tax cuts ads.

3. John McCain will inherit the Bush mess. From the growing Medicare trust fund shortfall to the acceleration of global warming, America faces a plethora of problems will likely cloud the next President's ability to enact any agenda. McCain will be at loggerheads with the Democratic Congress over war spending, budgeting, and much, much more. If his angry streak percolates to the surface, voters will see the McCain who Thad Cochran described as "erratic" and "hotheaded."I know, but I guess I would rather have someone in office who wanted to REPAIR the damage Bush has done.  McCain wants to roll back some of the stupid environmental decisions, which is good.  But he won't be able to restore American credibility in the world with his 100 years strategy in Iraq.  And comparing Iraq to Japan or Germany like he did really shocked me.  A military man should know better.  There is no comparing a completely dejected, defeated and submissive enemy with a nation of insurgents, jihadists and self proclaimed "freedom fighters". Does McCain think we should have stayed in Vietnam for 100 years?

4. McCain will help the Democrats solidify their Congressional majorities and perhaps hit the magical 60 mark in the U.S Senate. If Obama becomes President, history tells us that barring a catastrophic event, the President's party loses seats during his first midterm. 2010 is a critical midterm because several big-state governorships are up for grabs and so are many closely-divided state legislatures. The Senate cycle also heavily favors Democrats, because the GOP made large gains in 2004. If McCain is the GOP nominee and Republicans lose control of redistricting in CA, OH, MI and NY, the GOP could lose an additional 5 House just from those states.I understand and affirm the sentiment and I think you might be right.  But I would rather approach this from the standpoint that IF McCain is elected, this may be one good result.  Rather than voting for him to try and make this happen.  KWIM?

5. Obama could hurt the Democratic Party in the long run. If Obama's hollow message fails to translate into serious legislative achievements, many young voters will again become disillusioned and politically apathetic. Boomers will compare Obama to Carter and punish Democrats at the ballot box in 2010 and 2012. The brand will be tarnished and the GOP will be poised to recapture the White House in 2012. There is nothing shallow about Obama's message.  Every single person here who has criticized him for not taking specific positions and submitting detailed plans has been proven wrong. Obama's plans and proposals are no less and no more complete and detailed than Hillary Clinton's.  And much more detailed than John McCain's.  If you want to talk about hollow messages, how about the ridiculously absurd mantra we'll be hearing from McCain supporters about "ending class warfare" and how helping the wealthy helps everyone?  Or here are a few really hollow messages for you -- "If we don't fight them over there, we'll fight them over here." "We thought oceans would protect us." "We're finally turning a corner in Iraq."

I will say this about John McCain.  He is an American hero and just the thought of what he endured for his country makes me get choked up.  I'll always love him for that.  And what's more, he has taken that experience and drawn from it to oppose waterboarding and other forms of torture.  And that's one criticism of Bush I don't think he has backed away from.  Does anyone know if he has?

I like McCain.  And if he wins, I won't feel like I did in 2000 -- as though we just elected the village idiot.

Please explain why I'm wrong. Why should I oppose McCain?

[หมูเด้ง]

It's pretty simple, basically. One second he's basically dead center, the next second, he has his tounge in Karl Rove's asshole.

[NHPolitico]

It's pretty simple, basically. One second he's basically dead center, the next second, he has his tounge in Karl Rove's asshole.

It's "tongue." Sorry, it's a pet peeve.

[TheresNoMoney]

A John McCain presidency will be very similar to a Bush third term. A continuation of the Iraq War strategy, more wars threatened against Iran, more deficit spending and tax cuts for the rich, more ultra-conservative judges like Alito, no serious action on our healthcare problem, more giveaways to Big Business and a white house controlled by lobbyists, etc.

As a Democrat, why would you support McCain? I don't understand it. Yes, he has been a supporter of global warming action, but he has caved on all his other past stands since he started running for president. He will continue to cave to right-wing Republicans as president.

I also agree with most of Nym and JSOsojourner's post, they make some good points.

[perdedor]

You mean outside of the fact that he is a delusional, war-mongering hack? I will give you the global warming issue, but that is about all McCain has going for him as he made a complete 180 on tax cuts and has done the same in regard to the religious right. McCain is as fake as they come.

[JSojourner]

It's pretty simple, basically. One second he's basically dead center, the next second, he has his tounge in Karl Rove's asshole.

It's "tongue." Sorry, it's a pet peeve.

True but I LOL'ed

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

You mean outside of the fact that he is a delusional, war-mongering hack? I will give you the global warming issue, but that is about all McCain has going for him as he made a complete 180 on tax cuts and has done the same in regard to the religious right. McCain is as fake as they come.

^^^^^^^^

[All aboard the Carney-val]

John McCain loves the brand of detergent that Bush uses.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

BTW can you explain this logic? Summarized some parts:

3-McCain would lose in 2012 (I doubt he'll run for reelection at his age, but whatever), and guarantee a new Democratic president.
5-Obama could lose in 2012.

So what makes 2012 more important than 2008? Should parties never try to win elections out of fear they'll screw up later and just lose? What's the point then?

[MarkWarner08]

1. Agreed, and I do applaud McCain for his stance on global warming. But he's not going to be better than Obama on that issue, is he? He's not going to convince big business to back him simply because he's a Republican; they are going to pursue their own interests regardless.
I do think that McCain would have a greater ability to persuade Republicans in Congress to back cap-and-trade and other such measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions. I agree that big business won’t simply roll over and change because happens to be a Republican.

2. He supported Roberts and Alito and now supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I see no evidence he'd nominate moderate judges, and the combination of his support of the tax cuts and staying in Iraq forever would make goals such as advancement on global warming, alternative energy, health care, infrastructure improvements, etc. financially impossible.
I accept your notion that the fiscal profligacy of the Iraq War will sap funds from implementing the very policies that I agree with John McCain on. However, I disagree that McCain would continue to support additional Bush tax cuts (which are essentially tax increases on future generations, because they aren’t accompanied by spending cuts) and nominate conservative judges. While McCain would pick judges that lean to the right, he can’t stack the federal bench with hard-line conservatives of the Bork ilk, because the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee would quash those nominee.

3. Shouldn't fixing the Bush mess be our ultimate goal? Obama can clearly do that far better than McCain. Plus, the Democratic Congress isn't going to stand up to McCain on the war anymore than they have Bush; if anything they'd be less likely to.
If seen no reason to believe that Obama can find a way to withdraw from Iraq without involving tensions in that region and allowing the nation to dissolve into sub-states, many of which could fall under the control of terrorists. This is no easy way to leave Iraq – to pretend that Obama had a Nixon-type “secret plan” to fix the problem ignores the realities of the situation.

4. Yes, this is likely true. Of course it's no guarantee; Republicans gained seats in 2002 and if McCain is popular and well liked the same thing could happen in 2010. Likewise a popular President Obama would suffer minimal if any losses in 2010. I guess it all comes down to how fatalistic you are about how badly things are going to go regardless of who is President.

I do tend to be fatalistic, and in this case, I probably expect the worst.

5. Sure, he could. But that's the risk you always take by having power. By that logic, the Democrats should just let the Republicans win the White House forever so that they can keep benefiting from the backlash when they screw up. The ultimate goal should be to change the country for the better, and that's only going to happen with a Democratic President. We might as well start now and worry about the next election after we've won this one.

While I agree with your premise, I’m not sure that Obama is the leader to “change the country for the better.”

Thanks for your well-reasoned responses.

[MarkWarner08]

BTW can you explain this logic? Summarized some parts:

3-McCain would lose in 2012 (I doubt he'll run for reelection at his age, but whatever), and guarantee a new Democratic president.
5-Obama could lose in 2012.

So what makes 2012 more important than 2008? Should parties never try to win elections out of fear they'll screw up later and just lose? What's the point then?

I never meant to say that 2008 is more important than 2012, or visa versa.  I'm not saying Obama shouldn't try to win, I'm only pointing out that he'll inherit a miserable mess and a series of national and global challenges that will likely hinder his ability to enact a progressive agenda.

[Jake]

The biggest reason to vote for McCain is the dangerous amount of political capital Obama will have if elected. He'll have the power to run wild for at least the first year. And remember, his agenda is nothing new; more stupid schemes to "fix" healthcare (when single payer is the only way to do so and cover everyone), higher taxes or even more deficit spending, ignorance of the national debt to pursue pet projects, opposition to free trade, and above all meaningless platitudes about lobbyists, reform, and the evils of business.

Someone tell me which part of Obama's platform is different than the standard Democratic line? I mean, he doesn't even have the balls to back single payer.

[MarkWarner08]

Why I'm considering supporting John McCain.

1. John McCain is a leader on the issue of global warming. Unlike other Republican Presidents who have accepted millions in contributions from energy interests and done their bidding, McCain has stood up these very interests in Congress. In 2004 McCain held hearings on global warming and he later co-sponsored a landmark global warming bill. As a Republican President, McCain would have the leverage to convince intransigent oil companies (here's to you, Exxon Mobil) to move toward renewable energy. He'd likely sign a cap-and-trade legislation and could push for a carbon tax, which is backed by some of his economic advisers.One of the things I have always admired about McCain.  And I believe he has consistently voted against allowing drilling in ANWR, which I really respect.  That's a position that took courage.  You have a very credible point here.

2. John McCain opposed Bush on judges, tax cuts, and reckless pork barrel spending. These areas are self-explanatory I oppose unelected activist conservative judges, irresponsible tax cuts and profligate spending.Whoa, whoa.  He did?  Didn't he help ram Alito and Roberts through? Maybe I missed his opposition.  He wisely spoke out against tax cuts at first.  But just as he flip-flopped on the religious right being "agents of intolerance" (which they certainly are), so he flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts.  And if you think John Kerry's "I was for the war before I was against it" was damaging...just wait until they start doing McCain on tax cuts ads.

I don’t remember McCain leading the fight to confirm Alito and Roberts. I acknowledge that he voted for  them, but if IIRC Chafee was the only Republican who opposed Alito. The Kerry Iraq flip-flop reaffirmed the frame that he was an indecisive NE liberal. Attacks on McCain’s tax record will likely elicit yawns, at best. If the ads are part of a Democratic  narrative that McCain will say and do anything to be POTUS, the attacks may work; if the ads are part of a desperate 11th hour gambit to tarnish McCain’s record of integrity, it will fail.


3. John McCain will inherit the Bush mess. From the growing Medicare trust fund shortfall to the acceleration of global warming, America faces a plethora of problems will likely cloud the next President's ability to enact any agenda. McCain will be at loggerheads with the Democratic Congress over war spending, budgeting, and much, much more. If his angry streak percolates to the surface, voters will see the McCain who Thad Cochran described as "erratic" and "hotheaded."I know, but I guess I would rather have someone in office who wanted to REPAIR the damage Bush has done.  McCain wants to roll back some of the stupid environmental decisions, which is good.  But he won't be able to restore American credibility in the world with his 100 years strategy in Iraq.  And comparing Iraq to Japan or Germany like he did really shocked me.  A military man should know better.  There is no comparing a completely dejected, defeated and submissive enemy with a nation of insurgents, jihadists and self proclaimed "freedom fighters". Does McCain think we should have stayed in Vietnam for 100 years?
. I couldn’t agree more with your criticism of McCain’s foreign policy views.  Equating Germany and Japan (two nations without polarized ethnic groups) with Iraq (an artificial nation that has been only ruled by despots since its post WWI creation) shows a shocking lack of understanding of this critical issue.


4. McCain will help the Democrats solidify their Congressional majorities and perhaps hit the magical 60 mark in the U.S Senate. If Obama becomes President, history tells us that barring a catastrophic event, the President's party loses seats during his first midterm. 2010 is a critical midterm because several big-state governorships are up for grabs and so are many closely-divided state legislatures. The Senate cycle also heavily favors Democrats, because the GOP made large gains in 2004. If McCain is the GOP nominee and Republicans lose control of redistricting in CA, OH, MI and NY, the GOP could lose an additional 5 House just from those states.I understand and affirm the sentiment and I think you might be right.  But I would rather approach this from the standpoint that IF McCain is elected, this may be one good result.  Rather than voting for him to try and make this happen.  KWIM?
I can understand this viewpoint . If I come to believe that Obama can overcome the institutional challenges he’ll face and will navigate the partisan traps set by those who seek to stall progress, I will come to endorse. The way he can do that is by outlining his domestic agenda in the coming months. If he can argue forcefully for  green jobs, expanded health care, increased funding for jobs retraining programs  to help workers displaced by globalization and other crucial issues, I will defiantly consider voting for him in November.

5. Obama could hurt the Democratic Party in the long run. If Obama's hollow message fails to translate into serious legislative achievements, many young voters will again become disillusioned and politically apathetic. Boomers will compare Obama to Carter and punish Democrats at the ballot box in 2010 and 2012. The brand will be tarnished and the GOP will be poised to recapture the White House in 2012. There is nothing shallow about Obama's message.  Every single person here who has criticized him for not taking specific positions and submitting detailed plans has been proven wrong. Obama's plans and proposals are no less and no more complete and detailed than Hillary Clinton's.  And much more detailed than John McCain's.  If you want to talk about hollow messages, how about the ridiculously absurd mantra we'll be hearing from McCain supporters about "ending class warfare" and how helping the wealthy helps everyone?  Or here are a few really hollow messages for you -- "If we don't fight them over there, we'll fight them over here." "We thought oceans would protect us." "We're finally turning a corner in Iraq."

I will say this about John McCain.  He is an American hero and just the thought of what he endured for his country makes me get choked up.  I'll always love him for that.  And what's more, he has taken that experience and drawn from it to oppose waterboarding and other forms of torture.  And that's one criticism of Bush I don't think he has backed away from.  Does anyone know if he has?

I like McCain.  And if he wins, I won't feel like I did in 2000 -- as though we just elected the village idiot.


Both McCain and Obama resort to using platitudes and soundbytes to summarize their messages. McCain has a vast record to back up his rhetoric; Obama doesn’t. Obama’s continuous harping on “change," is quite tiresome. If he would articulate what the changes means (e.g., contrast his views on important issues with those of George W. Bush), he’d be a more credible change agent.

[MarkWarner08]

The biggest reason to vote for McCain is the dangerous amount of political capital Obama will have if elected. He'll have the power to run wild for at least the first year. And remember, his agenda is nothing new; more stupid schemes to "fix" healthcare (when single payer is the only way to do so and cover everyone), higher taxes or even more deficit spending, ignorance of the national debt to pursue pet projects, opposition to free trade, and above all meaningless platitudes about lobbyists, reform, and the evils of business.

Someone tell me which part of Obama's platform is different than the standard Democratic line? I mean, he doesn't even have the balls to back single payer.

Thanks for explaining your reasoning,. I must admit that I'm wary of arguments that are predicated on voting against one candidate, instead of voting for the other candidate. The issue of political capital is a valid one. I agree that balanced government is preferable to one-party control. I don't buy the fiscal recklessness argument about Obama. As someone who has lived under the most profligate President since LBJ, I've seen that the Republican argument on that issue is no longer convincing. If Obama doesn't propose another Medicare Part D type boondoggle, he will already have proven himself to be a more fiscally conservative President than the last Republican in the Oval Office.

I share your concerns that Obama is scapegoating lobbyists, businesses, and free trade. But McCain has also bashed drug companies and lobbyists in his campaign speeches. The argument that Obama has too much support from the media can also be applied to John McCain.

Finally, the only substantive area where Obama deviates from the standard Demcoratic orthodoxy is merit pay for teachers.