I’ve yet to address is what one poster called McCain’s “pompous” attitude. Just remember that’s what Democrats criticize President Bush for. If McCain’s brusqueness is what helped him blast out of the water a deal which would have wasted $6 billion in taxpayer money, or stubbornly refuse to accept earmarks for his state, or get Democrats to confirm Justices Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court, then by golly, I want McCain to be even more of a wiseass, unyielding and resolute. Besides, I’m not going to begrudge him a little grumpiness — he’s had some pretty rough experiences in his life. Look past McCain’s cockiness and see what he can bring to the presidency — a veto pen which actually works, good military insight and a very sensible position on social issues. He is pro-life, voted for the partial birth abortion ban, wants Roe v. Wade overturned, and brokered the deal in the Senate which confirmed two great conservative justices to the bench. On the subject of same-sex marriage, he believes it’s an issue best left to the states, and for this stated belief he is on record as having voted against the FMA — I know this conservative finds that position very appealing. John McCain deserves our support.

On the issue of harsh interrogation techniques, McCain may not be as robust as some of us may like. But realize that if we had implemented his surge strategy from the very start, we wouldn’t be in a position where we need to use those interrogation methods.

And it matters little whether or not Gitmo closes. If the liberals manage to get it shut down, just shrug your shoulders and realize that there are alternatives, but ones we should not be discussing openly during a time of war. (In fact, I consider our interrogation policy a matter of military strategy that we shouldn’t be discussing in wartime, whether or not we support it.)

I know, Sen. “F— You” McCain was a POW and tortured, but it is not the same. He was not a terrorist.

Exactly. Anti-Americans of various stripes have said to me before, “Well then, how would you like it if you were waterboarded?” My answer: Well then, how would you like it if I were a terrorist? genuinely looking to murder you and your family? – But I’m not, am I?

I guess that leaves me with just reiterating my view, that it shouldn’t be illegal for citizens to get together and run ads about Congressional candidates – at any time. (60 days before an election, or whenever.)

Also Houndentenor, just for the record: Bribery IS legal in America…. when it’s called “campaign contributions”. And I see nothing wrong with such contributions. What’s wrong is that we have a government so powerful and interfering, that citizens feel compelled to pay such bribes – in self-defense. And then McCain-Feingold comes along and says, (1) you can’t exercise speech outside of such bribes / campaign contributions, and (2) you can only pay your contributions to established parties and incumbents. That’s shockingly un-American and, dare I say, unconstitutional.

#19 Justin Wong: Thompson-Giuliani would be my dream ticket, at least in terms of policies and inner strength of principle. I won’t present a lengthy case why; thread is about McCain.

This country would be a lot better off if you had chosen McCain over Bush in 2000. I know you all hate him. I’m perplexed by that because he’s someone I actually respect in spite of disagreeing with him about almost everything.

Houndentenor, McCain has been a real stalwart on the Iraq war and on fiscal responsibility. But he objectively sucks ass on so many other issues: the destruction of free speech (did you know that McCain-Feingold shuts down citizen ads against Congressional incumbents, for 60 days before the election?)… Global Warmism… Immigration shamnesty… and more.

I believe McCain is an authoritarian at heart.

McCain was proven right when he warned us when we first went to Iraq that we needed more troops.

Disagree. What changed Iraq in 2006 (against us) was Iran and al Qaeda making a choice to step up their efforts… because of the weakness and division they saw on the American home front. And what changed Iraq in 2007 (in our favor) was changes to ROE and ground tactics, plus the perception that we’re not going to run after all. Military experts say, changes in raw troops levels have had little to do with it either way.

if the Democrats want to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”, John “F— You” Mccain will be glad to go along.

Agree. Terrible.

If we can do better, we will. But I will have no qualms for voting for him if he becomes the nominee; I simply will amp up the volume that he’d better secure the border, that he’d better do something about his asinine campaign-finance law, and that the way he stops global warming is by making efficiency more palatable, not forcing us all onto bicycles.

I’m still trying to decide if I think the Romney sons are good looking.

lol!

#9, I can think of a whole slew of reasons to vote against McCain, his age, however, is the most asinine reason I can imagine. Shame on you.

Let us not forget that before McCain finally got the “enforcement first” message on immigration, he got reaaaaaaal pissy. This is a man who resents being told what to do by uppity commoners.

And
#4. McCain would trick Democrats into voting for originalist judges and justices? I think that is a severe case of wishful thinking. I have zero confidence he would nominate conservatives to the courts. I seem to recall the words “consensus nominee” passing his lips on more than one occasion.

Please dont think that I’m saying this was a plan all along… Nothing about the White House gives any hint at such genius thinking..

Here’s why I think so…

If we had more troops in the beginning… this would have definately caused problems for our military everywhere else we have comitments.

From what I remember as well, the supply lines were taxed heavily due to the rapid movement of our army and the vanishing of the Iraqi regular army and republican guard.. in other words we were moving way faster than the plan thought we would.

Once we were in control. if we had 100,000s more troops occupying the cities, the insurgancy would have been way worse and way more culturely entrenched.

Now comes where our light footprint and Iraq’s downward spiral laid the foundation for the condition of today….

When Al Qaida and Iran started to set neighbor against neighbor, at first this was ok with the people because there were scores to settle… plus the infidel was there (us), distrusted and hated.

Once Al Qaida got Iraq’s mini civil war sparked. Al Qaeda declared the Islamic State of Iraq in Anbar and started to impose the most violent form of control on the people.

Our failure to secure the place, gave all those who opposed us what they wanted.. a chance to live under their own violence.

As Iraq slid into darkness at the end of 2006, the Surge idea and CI plan was decided upon, at the same momeent that the Iraqi people decided that the violence imposed on Iraq by various forms of Islam Inc was unacceptable.

And so just as AMerican troops were increased in number, they were also put out in the street more than before as well.. gaining the trust of desperate Iraqis who wanted to reclaim their security and country.

So by our mistakes, the Iraqis got a taste of things done their way and decided it was a bad idea and maybe AMerica is not the bad guy after all.

I dont know any other path that would have gotten here.

The major test in the future is.. will Iran destroy everyhting that has been achived…I think they will try.

McCain was proven right when he warned us when we first went to Iraq that we needed more troops.

Unless I’m mistaken, and I doubt it, McCain was of the mind that we needed like 200-300,000+ soldiers for the ivasion to be successful. In that case, he was still wrong.

Look, guys, we’re not going to find another Reagan among the current crop of GOP candidates. On issues like illegal immigration in particular, we’re not going to get what we want from any of the candidates. Huckabee unashamedly believes that American taxpayers should pay for the schooling of illegal children. Romney — well, who knows what he really believes.

But this is just one example of where candidates might not be perfect. We can’t be single issue voters — we have to look at all the issues, weight them according to their importance, and evaluate candidates based on the resulting broad range of criteria, not just one. McCain was proven right when he warned us when we first went to Iraq that we needed more troops. McCain was able to convince Democratic senators to let the confirmation of Justices Scalia and Roberts go through. McCain voted for the partial birth abortion ban and supports overturning Roe v. Wade. McCain has been somewhat successful in shaming his fellow senators to removing pork from bills — I hear lip service to Reagan-style economic conservatism from all the other candidates, but only McCain has the record to support it. McCain — insightful commander-in-chief, protector of life, guard of the treasury.

Sure, McCain was the culprit behind amnesty and illegal immigration. But no one is perfect — Huckabee believes in big government and Romney created socialized health care in Massachusetts. So step back, look critically — McCain is pretty good. And I’ll be happy with him until 2012 or 2016 when we can get Sen. Tom Coburn or Gov. Mike Sanford (SC) to run.