10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't)
Posted by: fred simon on 06 April 2008
10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.
Sources:1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagenam..._learn_scorecard2007"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/f...ain_temper_is_tamed/8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=42102519. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/...spiritual-guide.html"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/ Posted on: 08 April 2008 by u5227470736789439
My goodness; that is such an apt observation! I don't care for any of the leaders of our parties in UK, but they seem positive paragons compared to the shilly-shallying dissemblers you are blessed with.
Perhaps there is something to be said for having a non-party-political head of state, and basically government by an elected committee, where the overweening power of one individual is moderated by the fact that they can be sacked within a democratic arrangement, without the need for an impeachment...
George
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by djftw
Well put George. One reason I've always regarded advocates of electoral reform with a certain amount of contempt. PR might be overtly more democratic, but the greatest strength of our system is the ability of the electorate to dismiss a government. Not to mention that the executive is picked as a direct consequence of an election, rather than by negotiations post election between the parties.
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by fred simon
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
You have 300 million people and yet you are down to these three as your next leader.
Many of those 300 million are quite proud and excited to have two stronger-than-average, historically precedent setting candidates, each of whom would make a fine president, certainly improving both America and, by extension, the world, compared to the disaster of BushCo.
You don't agree with their politics, plain and simple. That's a different matter.
All best,
Fred
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by fred simon
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:
My goodness; that is such an apt observation! I don't care for any of the leaders of our parties in UK, but they seem positive paragons compared to the shilly-shallying dissemblers you are blessed with.
In what sense are Obama and Clinton "shilly-shallying dissemblers"?
In what sense was Tony Blair a "positive paragon" considering that in global matters he was largely Bush's spineless lap dog? Last I heard, most of the British population was not too happy with that.
All best,
Fred
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by fred simon:
You don't agree with their politics, plain and simple. That's a different matter.
The man's quoting Cecil Rhodes, for pete's sake. It's hardly indicative of the enlightened high ground.
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by u5227470736789439
Tony Blair has gone, and in my view he departure represents no loss, but I would prefer him to any President the US has had since Jimmy Carter if they were to be leading in Britain! As I am not old enough to remember what Carter did, then I cannot compare!
Either the various "ten things" posts mean nothing and your candidates may be still be paragons, or they do mean something true, in which case they are not paragons. To say something one day having a voting record that is contrary is shilly-shallying hypocracy, and it seems to be fairly shared round!
Nothing personal, but I cannot see how anyone can be so excited about a politician as you seem to be about Obama!
If I were to wish the World one gift, it would be that among the candidates that the US electorate shall choose the one who is least likely to provoke further trouble in the World, such as it seems the "Neo-con" opperators have managed in one way and another by influencing GW Bush's administration. Bush is President, and so the buck stops with him, in my view. The World needs the US to do better in choosing the next President, for everyone's sake.
Otherwise than World Peace, I think we can see that for all three candidates you have ptentially standing, gaining and wielding power is probably more important than avoiding compromises that will materially affect decisions made in governement. Thus I could never get very enthusiastic about any of them, as they are all after power, and have already made compromises, as you say yourself, of your chosen candidate, Obama!
So yes, the truth is that, I do find that I prefer Bristsh politicians to yours, as at least we can get rid of them, as happened to Mrs Thatcher, when they go too far off the rails!
To shully-shally is to pretent one thing and do another. I see evidence that Mrs Clinton has already done this on the HMOs, and see no reason to suppose that Obama is any less likelty to continue as an opportunist compromiser, saying what ever is necessary to get into power, but we must all fear that his integrity is already compromised so much that all the kind words mean next to nothing concrete. That is my impression from this side of the pond. In my view he may be the least bad option, but then so might Mrs Clinton, and only a guess and time will tell.
McCain is something of a non-starter for me, though...
It is your election, but it fair enough to observe that I prefer the British system to that of the US. It does not ruin the candidates before the start of the election!
ATB from George
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Fred,
I think you may have seen your first convert [to admit it publicly] to Mrs Clinton. So much for negative politicing. It certainly back-fires in Britain. I suspect that with Mrs Clinton the World will at least know what to expect. Not perfect, but known, and safe enough. Heaven knows what Obama will bring!
And McCain may well be Bush Mark Three. Not good.
George
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by Mick P
..
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by Mick P
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mick Parry:
GFFJ
Obama is high on platitudes and there are enough mugs to fall for it.
God help them if he ever gets in.
Fred . you said ... Many of those 300 million are quite proud and excited to have two stronger-than-average, historically precedent setting candidates,
Please tell me you were kidding.
The truth is that you have a choice between a bullshitter, a liar and someone who is well past his sell by date in terms of policy (not age I may add). If that is the best three people your system can muster out of 300 million then the system has spectacularly failed.
Regards
Mick[/
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
The truth is that you have a choice between a bullshitter, a liar and someone who is well past his sell by date in terms of policy (not age I may add).
They don't stack up well next to that young-thinking, ever-honest, always-sincere Gordon Brown, that's for sure. The man makes Mother Teresa look like a complete slacker.
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by Mick P
Jay
You are becoming incredibly defensive.
Gordon Brown was a reasonably successful Chancellor and the recent troubles have been caused by the credit crunch which started in the US. The sub prime let fiasco is a poor indictment of your financial acumen and you are doing very little to correct it. Dropping interest rates is going to ruin your economy in the long term.
Brown has a lousy public image but he is lining us up with China and that will bear fruit in years to come. He will lose the next election but that is a couple of years away and at that time we should be well in bed with China so he will have served his purpose.
The fact of the matter is that you have 3 lousy candidates to choose from.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Jay
You are becoming incredibly defensive.
Gordon Brown was a reasonably successful Chancellor and the recent troubles have been caused by the credit crunch which started in the US. The sub prime let fiasco is a poor indictment of your financial acumen and you are doing very little to correct it. Dropping interest rates is going to ruin your economy in the long term.
You have always professed such insight into my personal life - do go on about my financial acumen, and what I'm doing to address the current financial atmosphere.
(Better defensive than offensive, btw.)
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by Howlinhounddog
quote:
each of whom would make a fine president, certainly improving both America and, by extension, the world, compared to the disaster of BushCo.
Fred, with the greatest respect, let the rest of us worry about our little corner of the world. If any US president would be willing to raise your level of GDP in world aid to the first world international average(without ties I may add)then they may truly improve the world,
regards (and wishing you all you wish for in your next Pres...as long as he/she does'nt interfere with me and mine)
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by fred simon
quote:
Originally posted by Howlinhounddog:
Fred, with the greatest respect, let the rest of us worry about our little corner of the world ... (and wishing you all you wish for in your next Pres...as long as he/she does'nt interfere with me and mine)
But that's the point: eight years of BushCo have tragically interfered with the rest of the world. Like it or not, America is the sole remaining super-power (for now) and its policies and actions, or non-actions, have significant repercussions.
This is one of the main reasons I support Obama, because he's not gonna be a reckless cowboy exerting hegemonic havoc in service of the neo-con "Project for the New American Century" which seeks to mold the world in America's image.
All best,
Fred
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by fred simon
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:
Nothing personal, but I cannot see how anyone can be so excited about a politician as you seem to be about Obama!
George, what do you actually know about Obama? How much of his web site have you read, paying special attention to
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/, which serves to debunk the mountain of disinformation about him? How many of his speeches have you watched online?
quote:
If I were to wish the World one gift, it would be that among the candidates that the US electorate shall choose the one who is least likely to provoke further trouble in the World, such as it seems the "Neo-con" opperators have managed in one way and another by influencing GW Bush's administration. Bush is President, and so the buck stops with him, in my view. The World needs the US to do better in choosing the next President, for everyone's sake.
I share your wish whole heartedly, and, again, this is why I support Obama ... of the three candidates he is clearly best suited to be the one "least likely to provoke further trouble in the World" as you say.
quote:
I could never get very enthusiastic about any of them, as they are all after power, and have already made compromises, as you say yourself, of your chosen candidate, Obama!
I don't agree that they are "all after power," not even McCain. I think they all feel they are best suited to serve and to improve the world. I never felt that about Bush, and even less so about Cheney, the true power behind BushCo.
Compromise is the name of the game ...
no world leader can come to power without it, and global politics cannot exist without it. It's a fact of life.
All best,
Fred
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by _charlie
I just hope to Christ this doesn't degenerate into one of those USA vs UK threads. Jesus god,...enough already...
Charlie
Posted on: 08 April 2008 by fred simon
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Obama is high on platitudes and there are enough mugs to fall for it.
God help them if he ever gets in.
Fred . you said ... Many of those 300 million are quite proud and excited to have two stronger-than-average, historically precedent setting candidates,
Please tell me you were kidding.
No, I'm not. And I don't appreciate being called a fool.
You don't agree with Obama's politics, fine, just say so and be done with it. It's disingenuous of you to extrapolate that people who do agree with his politics are fools.
Sincerely,
Fred
Posted on: 09 April 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Fred,
I agree with Howlinghounddog.
Your negativity [and patronising point about McCain] has been enough for me to shift my opinion from your enthusiasm, as it is really lowers the bar. You left it open for the the same to be done to your chosen candidate.
George
Posted on: 09 April 2008 by Mick P
Fred
George is spot on, you come across as someone who thinks himself soooooooo intelligent and hence patronises.
This is a marked tendency with Democrats in America and socialists over here and it most certainly loses you support.
I think Kerry suffered at the last election because of the patronising attitude by his supporters.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 09 April 2008 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
This is a marked tendency with Democrats in America
Curious to know exactly how many American Democrats you know - is this "observation" based on 1000 close acquaintances with American Democrats? 100? 10? 1? Stuff you hear on tv and the internet? Stuff you make up in your head?
Posted on: 09 April 2008 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:
Dear Fred,
I agree with Howlinghounddog.
Your negativity [and patronising point about McCain] has been enough for me to shift my opinion from your enthusiasm, as it is really lowers the bar. You left it open for the the same to be done to your chosen candidate.
George
Seems worth noting though, that in the great spectacle that is the American political process, Fred and I are participants; HHD, GFFJ, MP et al. are spectators, and distant ones at that.
Crowd noise doesn't distract me, really. Noise is noise.
Posted on: 09 April 2008 by Mick P
Jay
I live in the Uk and as a consequence I have my news and TV services bombarded with your presedential election stuff. We see it all.
The Dems seem to assume a lofty air of I am so clever and the Republicans are so thick.
I spent a couple of weeks on a Cruiser just before the last election and the boat was filled with Republican supporters who often said the good thing about dumb Dems is that they all think they are clever. Thats why they lost the last two elections.
This thread seems to bear that out.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 09 April 2008 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
I live in the Uk and as a consequence I have my news and TV services bombarded with your presedential election stuff. We see it all.
<snip>
I spent a couple of weeks on a Cruiser just before the last election and the boat was filled with Republican supporters
So, no actual data points then. That's what I thought.
Posted on: 09 April 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Jayd,
You wrote:
"Seems worth noting though, that in the great spectacle that is the American political process, Fred and I are participants; HHD, GFFJ, MP et al. are spectators, and distant ones at that."
Quite right! And this is why the only interest I had in it till this thread was whether Obama would roll back the "Neo-con" foreign policy influence. But obviously it is still open to have a view if I did not have a strong one. My view is entirely irrelevant to the electoral process in the USA! Having irrelevant views is hardly new, and this thread is after all on a Forum belonging to a British company, so it seems to me that the views of UK subjects are not quite so distant [if still irelevant] as you might suggest - with due respect.
This thread has prompted me to change my view, and that is not serious, but perhaps it does indicate a difference between US and UK politics.
Negativity goes down quite badly, though this does not stop it happening on occasion. I would describe it as foolhardy though, because it alienates the electors, who come to the conclusion that their vote is for the least bad option in the end, rather than someone they might feel that they can have some modicum of faith in. This may well go some way to explaining the sometimes painfully low turnouts at elections.
What certainly always goes down badly in the UK is a patronising tone.
Our current government has this in spades: The "We know what is best for you, better than you know for yourself" - Nanny State - approach, and eventually it leads to profound unpopularity.
Unfortunately Fred’s thread has taken exactly this approach.
Fair enough - it is a free World [at least fairly free in the US and UK] - but is also fair enough, finding the patronising aspect irritating! That nature of a Thread like this is actually to elicit a response, even if not the response wanted or expected.
George
Posted on: 09 April 2008 by Mick P
Jay
Try living in the UK, we get as much exposure to your elections as we do on the news.
Regards
Mick
