Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
His record is pretty liberal, no matter how you look at it. But I want to hear some opinions, is he is a liberal or almost a liberal or just too liberal to be in the GOP?
I would consider McCain the epitomy of the neoconservative movement. They were liberals who decided to take over the Republican party to further their global desire to spread democracy.
hawkish foreign policy - 100 years in Iraq.
believes in lower taxes, but isn't totally adverse to some social programs.
not that big of a fanatic on gay marriage, stem cell research or abortion.
immigration stance - amnesty regardless of what he says.
He is liberal when it benefits him. He is conservative when it benefits him. He has no interest in benefitting anyone but himself. One of the most self-serving politicians to come along in a long time, which a pretty impressive feat considering most politicians are self serving to at least some degree. McCain beats them all.
I wouldn't call him a liberal because he's not even good at that. I thought he was for a while, but when you thoroughly review McCain's record, he's not good at being either liberal or conservative.
If the Republicans are fools enough to nominate him, I will enjoy the thorough beating he will take in the general election, and watching Hillary or Obama make him look like a moron in debates. He can run and hide with the friendly media right now, but when he gets the nomination, all the distractions will be gone and he will be forced to defend his positions and tell the truth, neither of which he can do.
Oh, I cannot deny McCain votes whichever way pleases his cronies and he is much like Hillary trying to play all sides of the field.
If McCain is the nominee, I am staying home in 2008. There is no way I am voting for either him or the other extremists such as Obama or Hillary.
I'd go for Paul, Mitt, and Huckabee. I am hoping Mitt gets the nomination, because Obama has no idea what he is talking about. He is just a good speaker with media worship and a great speech writer. Other than that, he is a complete dolt.
Hillary is from the same breed of rattlesnakes as McCain. These two cannot be trusted.
Mitt is an economic genius, he turns businesses around, has really help the decadent state of Masschussetts to stop losing as many jobs and is a truly intelligent guy. He is my pick and I am not even a Republican. I think Mitt would give the US a chance to compete with China and India and continue a moderate approach on the war on terror. But the rest, they suck (for lack of a better word). Specially Obama, this guy stands for nothing, he is a fraud, a media creation and complete dolt.
His record is pretty liberal, no matter how you look at it. But I want to hear some opinions, is he is a liberal or almost a liberal or just too liberal to be in the GOP?
Why or why not?
Specific votes would be interesting cites!
I guess an American Conservative Union rating of 83 is pretty liberal, the average of all GOP senators is 84.
I'm not crazy about Romney, but he knows economics more than McCain, Huckster, Hillary, and Obama combined.
I've already voted for Ron Paul, but the media blackout on him is making it obvious they have indeed silenced his movement effectively. Romney is the only one left that I could begrudgingly accept as a candidate for the Republicans, although I still would have trouble voting for him instead of 3rd party.
I think McCain is the only independent voice in either party.Obama;clinton and now Romney all say they will follow the party line. Romney has completely changed his mind from where he was as govennor to run for president.There is no Ron Reagan or John Kennedy in eirher party. Obama says change but his record compared to kennedy's shows he has not lead on anyhting in the senate but voted the party line same has hillary. Reagon changed the party but was willing to compromise to get tihngs done, Kennedy did the same ting including dropping txaes to spur the economy and god knopws he was worlds away from the party is now on foreign policy.
I think McCain is the only independent voice in either party.Obama;clinton and now Romney all say they will follow the party line. Romney has completely changed his mind from where he was as govennor to run for president.There is no Ron Reagan or John Kennedy in eirher party. Obama says change but his record compared to kennedy's shows he has not lead on anyhting in the senate but voted the party line same has hillary. Reagon changed the party but was willing to compromise to get tihngs done, Kennedy did the same ting including dropping txaes to spur the economy and god knopws he was worlds away from the party is now on foreign policy.
Obama and Clinton HAVE already been following party-line for years. Obama just gets a pass on that from the media. I think Romney will try and reach across the isle (like he did in Mass, an extremely liberal state) to get things done.
I'd much rather have a nice guy with social values like Huckabee blended with a smart, economically savvy guy like Romney to create a modern-day Reagan. But since genetics are not there yet, we have to settle for Romney. He can get the job done and he is conservative enough. Most importanbly, he will seal the border and deny amnesty for illegals, something that the survival of this nation depends on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paperhouse
I would consider McCain the epitomy of the neoconservative movement. They were liberals who decided to take over the Republican party to further their global desire to spread democracy.
hawkish foreign policy - 100 years in Iraq.
believes in lower taxes, but isn't totally adverse to some social programs.
not that big of a fanatic on gay marriage, stem cell research or abortion.
immigration stance - amnesty regardless of what he says.
100 in Iraq would be in a non-combate role (kinda like in South Korea, where US soldiers basically eat ice cream and play ball games in their base). Mind you, I am NOT a McCain supporter (I despise McCain).
His immigration stance is my #1 worry and his desire to help the Clintons complete their work in the North American Union (unification of the 3 countries), along with amnesties for illegals and open borders.
McCain is as Lou Dobbs points out, a "Neo-Liberal", a term also used for George W. Bush. "Conservatives" like these guys are just liberals who have taken over the GOP.
100 in Iraq would be in a non-combate role (kinda like in South Korea, where US soldiers basically eat ice cream and play ball games in their base). Mind you, I am NOT a McCain supporter (I despise McCain).
When would that start? I don't see any political progress still in Iraq. Petraeus told us last month he needs 6 more months to ascertain that the surge worked.
he endured alot as a POW during the Vietnam. The fact alone that he actually went to Vietnam instead of getting his rich daddy to bail him out of war proves that he is not a conservative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
