Why should I vote for McCain?
 

All I hear is that I should vote for McCain because Obama is Muslim, because Obama is tied to terrorist groups, because Obama will tax the rich more.

I have seen Obama's plan. It seems like there is more help in his plan that what i have (not) heard from McCain's plan.

So, what will McCain do for me? I haven't heard a single thing.

I am a 28 year old male, make $60k a year, homeowner.

Any thoughts?

You will be able to go to sleep knowing that you are RealAmerican.

That's a good fair question intecel.

I just want to ask before this thread goes in the wrong direction. Do you want this thread to be like a Public Discussion (topic of conversation you might find yourself having at a bar or coffee shop), or to include articles and proof of any points people have to make?

I have no answer to your question, because I don't see any reasons to vote for McCain (unless you're pro-life).

Too funny... that's exactly what I was trying to say. That is the type of response that comes out any time someone like me asks this question. I haven't yet heard an answer.

Vote for McCain if:

• You want taxes cut;
• You want government spending increased;
• You want "mission accomplished" in Iraq;
• You don't want to go to Cuba;
• You want the possibility of more pre-emptive strikes on other nations.

There are merely some highlights. It should be enough to get you started, though.

i don't see any reason to vote for mc-cain, but that's because i researched his positions--and because i think that the international community would assume that we in the us had collectively lost our minds were there to be another republican administration after this last one.

Erm - can you explain the apparent discontinuity of taking less money in tax, but sending more?

Also, didn't Bush declare "mission accomplished" a couple of years ago? :oogle:

I actually am looking for more public discussion on how the candidate will help the little guy (me), not the rest of the world. I am pretty set in my ways on voting for Obama because of what I have already read, and how disgusted I am with the current president and McCain's tactics.

I am pro-choice, but could care less on that issue. I am indifferent to the gay situation. I have pretty good health care through work that i only pay 1/2 of, and am fine with it.

More or less, I have seen nothing about how McCain could help me personally. I am trying to get some information from this thread about why people are voting for McCain, that are in my age / class range (and who are not racist).
-----Added 24/10/2008 at 04 : 40 : 51-----
Now, from what I've figured from each candidate's plans, my taxes will be cut under Obama, and not McCain. McCain, my taxes will stay about the same.

Is government spending going to help me? I make enough money to support my college education that I am going through. I don't own a business. I don't take welfare. What good comes out of more government spending for me?

Iraq will never be a mission accomplished. What a waste...

I don't understand the Cuba statement.

I am against unprevoked war, so I would rather have Obama in.
-----Added 24/10/2008 at 04 : 43 : 58-----
I also don't want this to turn into a thread slamming "the other guy" (or anyone else because of their ideas).

Welcome to McCain Palin 2008 : :

i assume you've looked at this, yes?

Certainly. Republicans have historically run deficits. They like to cut taxes and pump an increasing amount of money into things such as the military. Well, at least G. W. Bush does.

Yeah, but they way McCain is positioning himself on Iraq, it looks like he might want his own "mission accomplished."

Yeah I have been there. I can say the only thing that stood out (to benefit me) more is his stand on the second amendment, which seems to pretty much be GUNS GUNS GUNS!!! I Am completely for this.

I really wouldn't be opposed to Obama's idea either. Who *really* needs an assault rifle? I mean really? Also, he wants to close a loophole. Personal sales of guns at gun shows. I did this personally last year, but it was to a guy that had his CCW here in Florida, so it would have been legal/ok either way. I wouldn't have sold otherwise. How would I know if he was a convicted murderer and needed a gun quickly to kill again? I'd be fine with closing the loophole, but don't care if it stays open.
-----Added 24/10/2008 at 05 : 04 : 44-----
I guess what I'm really looking for is someone voting McCain to say: You should vote for him because ....

I kind of doubt that anything I might say would persuade you. Any particular point in favor of McCain would immediately be countered by the relatively large Liberal population of this forum. As in any other campaign, each point that a candidate might make has been researched and spun and a counterpoint developed and spun.

The fundamental difference between the candidates is that one is a centerist Conservative and the other is a classic Liberal. What you'll get from each is based on that, not on a campaign pitch.

The likelihood is high that Obama will win. This is simply a reaction to Bush-hatred and the problems of the last few years, and of course the historic opportunity to elect a black President, qualified or not. Never mind that many of those problems have been caused by a Legislature that has been controlled by the Left; that they have the lowest approval rating in memory; that they have reneged on almost every committent that they made in order to be elected in the first place; that they are in large part responsible for many of the recent financial crises.

So, rather than list the reasons why you might want to vote for someone other than a radical Liberal, I think I'll just hold on for a while. Most here in the forum will disagree with me on this, but I feel that Obama will say or do anything to get elected, and that by May or so of next year, we'll begin to see what his (and his Liberal Legislature's) concept of Socialism really is. I'll bookmark this thread and put a reminder on my calendar. On second thought, I think I'll start a new thread, to save for next Spring. Won't it be interesting to read next May or June?

i don't see even thoughtful conservatives agreeing with your assessment, mcgeedo.
to wit:

Reagan Appointee and (Recent) McCain Adviser Charles Fried Supports Obama - The Plank

make what you want of it, but to me it seems clear that yours is not a representative conservative line. the post sounded mostly limbaugh. fried is more serious and represents a REAL problem for what's left of the far right coalition that the republicans had put together.

and we should care about the global community why? :confused:

Because isolationism is bad.

* * * * *

intecel, the Cuba statement is in reference to Obama's plan to loosen up travel restrictions there. McCain will not do this.

And government spending is only good when the policies make sense and work in the grand scheme of things. None of us like waste and corruption. Do the programs make sense? Are they working? Is it worth running a deficit? (In this economic downturn, it just might.)

Because we all live on the same planet.

who said anything about isolation?? I simply don't understand why people get concerned about other countries/peoples approval about how/why we run our own affairs. so why be concerned about international approval?
-----Added 24/10/2008 at 08 : 28 : 00-----
again, so? do i need to worry about getting saudi arabias approval to legalize marijuana? or ban guns? anything?

I realize we're all on the same planet, but each country is different because each region of people/culture is different. so why be concerned about others approval?

You should care, in part, because the US being the 400 pound gorilla in international room affects and is affected by what happens in the rest of the world.

I don't think it's about approval. I think the idea is that it is easier to look out for your own interests if people like you; then, to a certain extent, your interests become their interests.

Because I like to travel outside the United States without having to say I'm from Canada?

Do you suppose the Chinese care whether the rest of the international "community" likes them?

This was exactly the OP's point. He doesn't want reasons NOT to vote for Obama (which, I understand, you have quite a list of), but reasons to vote FOR McCain. Two different things.

So, as a McCain supporter (I assume), give the OP the reasons you're voting for him. If your vote for McCain is really just a vote against Obama, I think that speaks to the weakness of McCain as a legit candidate.
-----Added 24/10/2008 at 08 : 46 : 17-----

like and respect are two different things.

well, you are starting to see the consequences of this parochial american exceptionalism mythology in the way this current financial implosion is playing out. like it or not--and it really is not at all important what any of us think on this--the us is now in a position of *having to* co-ordinate it's actions with those of other countries. there was a g-8 meeting a couple weeks ago--a g-20 meeting is being convened in the coming weeks to work out some way of getting a handle on the situation that's been generated not only by the particular idiocy of american cowboy capitalism and it's structuring myth of the "invisible hand" and "enlightened self-interest" but also by the transnational circulation of these effects. while folk were pretending that the entire world was subordinate to the united states, shit has changed. the consequences of your own economic ideology applied, conservative-types, has changed the situation. nationalism is no longer functional in general, and american nationalism in particular is no longer functional--american retro-nationalism was a symptom of the the period of empire--the same ideology that reflected the period of empire also made it impossible for the americans to function effectively in that position--because it has *never* been the case that the united states is isolated----and it's parochialism and stupidity that's enabled a (formerly) politically dominant segment of the population to pretend otherwise.

that one or another of us might actually believe in, and see the world in terms shaped by, an ideology that is fundamentally only parochial and stupid really changes nothing--and that folk can't see that there's a problem simply repeats the interior dynamic of exactly the kind of thinking that's landed all of us in the present farce of a situation.

i keep writing this because it's true: nationalism is dead. catch up now or catch up later, it is of no consequence--it's dead no matter what you think.
of course, you're free to exercise your irrelevance in any way that you want, but at the least you should understand that by hanging on to this idea that the united states is separate from the rest of the world, what you're doing is performing your own irrelevance.
you'll have to deal with this sooner or later.
i don't particularly care how that happens, but it will---the writing's already abundantly on the wall---i mean look around folks, just look at what's happening in front of you.

I acknowledge that McCain wasn't my first choice for a Republican candidate. Nonetheless, almost any Conservative is preferable to almost any Liberal. Being a Conservative is reason enough for me to choose to vote for McCain. It's a clear choice between ideologies.

Yes, "like" and "respect" are different. China cares about neither. Nor should we. "Fear" would be good enough for me.

so are you a neo-con?

well, in the end, for at least some conservative---not all, mind you---but some conservatives, what politics is about is identity. it's not what you think about situations, what policies might coherently address those situations--no no--it's about "being conservative"--and so is a matter of identity.

it's funny the extent to which an abstract categorization of oneself can be allowed to condition how one sees the world that is not oneself.

And many liberals act the same way. Welcome to sociology 101: people like to form groups to use as their identity :)

My feeling is that if you (the OP) have gone through the issues and compared the views of the candidates to your own and you have to ask the question, it means one of two things.

1) You already know the answer and are looking for confirmation or

2) You are just trolling for a forum to either attack the candidate or demean the candidate's supporters.

I hope that it's the first reason in this case, since I definitely think you already know the answer that you want ;)

Anecdotally... yes.

I work with socialize with a number of Chinese nationals and they say they do care.

Don't confuse the people with the government.

I'm specifically talking about the government.

And everyone else here isn't talking about foreign governments.

Another example of talking past each other...

I wanted to post an answer to this question, but was afraid I wouldn't be able to make my point, and then tonight when the evbening paper came, in the commentary section was the following article, he says just about what I wanted to say, only much better.



Why I'm voting for John McCain
By Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post
Article Launched: 10/23/2008 09:25:15 PM PDT


Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart. Nor will I countenance the

"dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9-11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the U.S. Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis - indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

Charles Krauthammer is a Washington Post columnist (e-mail: letters@charleskrauthammer.com).

That works for me.

I cant help but laugh at Krauthammer's characterization of McCain as the "most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the U.S. Senate..."

I doubt that any of McCain's colleagues in the Senate on either side of the aisle would agree.

so if you're looking for reasons to vote for mc-cain, you find yourself having to take seriously fuckwits like charles krauthammer?
why not do what people do in a democratic polity and research mc-cain, and research obama--compare their platforms with your assessment of the overall situation--and make up your own mind?

trust me, you're smarter than krauthammer.
do the research and make a decision for yourself.
you don't need the approval of people on a message board.
just do the work and make up your own mind.

I'll be doing some more research into his policies and plan for the next 4 years next week. He actually has a answer to this right on the front page of his website:
JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008

But what I like about him so far is:

1. $300 million for new battery technology (hopefully it won't be given to or bought by Chevron and then shelf the technology like they have done already...)
2. He was right about the surge and it would work in Afghanistan. Although the war should have been fought covertly, the American people wanted revenge after 9/11, not people dying 'accidental' deaths.
3. Cutting wasteful spending. There is a lot of 'extras' added to bills that if people voted against, it could be used against them politically and it isn't right.
4. Military/Veterans affairs
5. The dream that one day you will make a lot of money and don't want the government to take 50% of it.
6. (numbers made up for example) The idea that why should I work hard and make $40k, and pay 15k in taxes, but the guy who works part time and makes 25k doesn't pay anything. If you are down on your luck, you should be helped out, but there should be monetary incentives and benefits to hard work.
7. His call to service. This country would be much better if 18 year olds had to serve, work, or volunteer for 2 years instead of going into college right out of high school to do what everyone else is doing. There are a lot of older Americans that can still find a cause to work for instead of making more money as well. I know I would be happier if I had done something productive after high school, but before going to college.
8. He is willing to go against other people in his party when he knows that it isn't right.

ASU...just a couple observations on your list:

have you looked at McCain's voting record on veterans issues?

2007-2008 In 2007-2008 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a grade of D.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 20 percent in 2006.

2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a grade of D.

2006 Senator McCain sponsored or co-sponsored 18 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006.

2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 25 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the The Retired Enlisted Association 0 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003 Senator McCain supported the interests of the The American Legion 50 percent in 2003.

Project Vote Smart - Senator John S. McCain III - Interest Group Ratings

It looks like he had one reasonably good year for the vets, 2003.

Most recently, he was one of the few Senators who opposed the GI Bill for the 21st Century (but skipped the vote, then attended the WH signing and took credit for it)

You like his flip flop on tax policy?

That he now supports the Bush tax cuts that he opposed in 2001 and 2003 describing them as "fiscally irresponsible" because they were so heavily tilted towards the top wage earners

I have a thought...vote Republican Stand on your own two feet. Don't take handouts and support your constitution...or vote the other way. Tax the hard working smart people, support the underachievers by giving them more money, make everyone equal (because that's how it should be, right?) and by all means, take away my rights.

Between the "nail in the coffin" sensibility expressed in the last few words there, coupled with the sentiment expressed in your signature, I take it that you're downright furious about the Patriot Act? And so, you're standing up to vote Republican... why? The GOP in the White House and in the pre-2006-mid-term Congress took away more of your rights than any government in the history of our country. So you're going to vote for them to keep that power?

can I get a link that says Obama will tax me 50% in the future?

It's not just Obama, but there are a lot of taxes. He will tax the people making over $250,000 more. And while I am not in that tax bracket, I would like to be. And if these people work hard they should be rewarded. If they made their money from other means, I have no problem with taxing them more.

It's too tough to cover all incomes, but here is an example. For a self-employed person who stated their own successful business:

Self Employment Tax - The Basics Explained

12.4% for Social Security. The Social Security portion of the self-employment tax is limited to $10,788.00 for 2003 if you earn equal to or less than $87,000 ($87,000 earnings limit x .124 = 10,788.00). Once you hit $87,000 of self-employment earnings, you have paid all you need to for Social Security.

2.9% for Medicare. The Medicare portion of the self-employment tax is unlimited. No matter how much, or how little you earn, you will be paying for Medicare.

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2008

$164,550 - $357,700 = 33% (of amount after SE-taxes paid)


That's a lot before state taxes, city taxes, school taxes, property taxes, sales tax on goods you buy. And the health-care insurance(tax) is just a difference between paying a for-profit company and the government. It will cost about the same.

Sure there are tax loop-holes, write-offs and ways to reduce your taxes, but it's still a lot of taxes. (And it's still not enough to balance the budget, pay down the debt, and pay for all of the government spending)

For me its one subject. Gun Control. The democrat platform is basically to ban ALL guns eventually. Obama has made it clear that is his wish. ALL guns. While he will let us have single shot guns for a while. The democrat utopia is a gun free country like the UK. So my vote is ALWAYS republican.

Yet I am not ultra conservative and am liberal in many ways. Its the 2nd amendment that prevails in my decisions.

And Obama now wants my 401K and to tax the hell out of me. In my tax bracket if I work more (get promoted) I actually LOSE money at the end of the year. I must be promoted in the military so I don't have a choice but to be pushed into a higher bracket. This sucks telling my European liberal wife, that we will actually make LESS money next year with Obama's plan eventhough I am being promoted.

I realize its to help out the "poor" and those who don't want to work. But let the millionare liberals donate to them out of their own pockets, the Kerry, Clinton and Soros families can take care of that on their snack budget.

So thats MY reason. I am dismayed at ALL politicians and am not a die hard supporter, but its the lesser of two evils, by a LONG SHOT!

The differences between Republicans and Democrats has been getting smaller over the years. I am 48. I was raised in a Democratic party (my dad was a Union man) household and primarily believed that the Democratic Party was the party that cared about the "little guy". I generally voted Democratic through my 20's. In my 30's has I started saving, investing, raising a family, planning for my future - I became Republican, primarily because I believed Republicans would do things to allow me to succeed on my own merits. When I started my own business I went to the Libetarian Party, I concluded Republicans supported big business or corporate welfare and Democrats supported welfare for everyone else - all to be paid for by small/medium size business. I also became disappointed with the political games being played in Washington. After spending time with Libertarians, I realized it was a waste of time and I did not support their view of the Iraq war - I am now a Republican, primarily for national defense and my desire to have our tax code changed (I think the best way to get it done is with Republicans). I think many of the Democratic Party platform issues intended to help people actually hurt them. I support McCain.

I think your choice will depend on where you want to go in life. If you are satisfied with an average job, average salary, live in an average home, drive average cars (no horse power to meet EPA standards, and gov. help to keep GM alive and producing average cars), etc, then you will be very comfortable being a Democrat and voting for Obama. I am not passing judgment on that being better or worse. I know exceptionally good people across the spectrum.

Bottom line: If you desire to be above average, Obama will make it more difficult, McCain will make it easier.

The quote "Politics is not football...it's not just rooting for 'your team'. Had I been old enough, I would have voted for Bush over Gore (foolishly, in hindsight). I was evenly split between Kerry and Bush because I lived in a very conservative household that painted Kerry pretty badly. I might've voted Bush there. Here I will certainly vote Obama.

I admire people willing to hop the fence of their chosen ideology when the evidence is fairly clear that the other ticket will serve their country better for the next four years. I'm not saying this is the case here or that you are not one of these people...just your post smacks to me of 'Liberalism is a brain disorder', which I find abhorrent (just as I find 'Conservatism is a brain disorder'). I think you need to respect the opposing party as a valid viewpoint for politics to work in general.


As another note, in reference to your 'Does China care about the rest of the world?'

Yes, the average citizen very much does care. They're also fed blatant lies by their government. There was a poll done of the Chinese people (by an American...and numerous questions were censored by the government, thus he wasn't allowed to ask them.) and more than 95% of the Chinese people rated the global opinion of their country as the highest option. China and the US both aren't popular globally right now, but at least the majority of the US KNOWS this (even if many don't care). The Chinese honestly think that most of the world idolizes them. So I don't think your question is a fair one. The Chinese government certainly doesn't give two shits about what we think about them.

No, he might make it easier to be below average, though. If you accept the statistical definition of average as it applies to populations with broadly distributed characteristics, a very large portion of the population is necessarily below average. Joe the Plumber is below average.

But of course, ace is not "passing judgement" as he says:
It just reads like he is passing judgement... that if you are satisfied with being average (ie lazy and unambitious)....vote for Obama and if you aspire to better yourself...vote for McCain

44 posts in, and I still haven't heard one reason to vote for John McCain that isn't in reference to Barack Obama. I'm now all but convinced that there's NOBODY voting McCain this year that isn't REALLY voting AGAINST Obama. Which is fine, I just think it's interesting.

Would it have been different if it was Romney or Giuliani? Or if McCain had gone with Liberman as VP?

ace--what is seems to me that you are arguing in no.42 is that one should vote based on brand. just as miller lite would have you drink their products because chicks will dig you, so you should vote republican if as an expression of your fantasies of social mobility--which are simply inverted and then projected onto the imaginary democrats. by extension, you vote for the republican brand if you want to excel--but if that was really what the republicans were about, you'd think their campaigns would be less shabby and their arguments less superficial and they really wouldn't have spent the past 30 years trying to convince people that politics is a type of consumerism and that you should vote for brand rather than for policies, and on the basis of imaginary projections rather than based on assessments of the overall socio-economic situation, an assessment of concrete policy options, an awareness of what you values and some thinking about how to connect those values to policy options to a modification of the socio-economic situation that would make it accord more closely with them.
you'd think that political thinking would matter.

making political choices based on brand identification is lazy: odd that you find that to be so central for an ideology that claims to value work.

rat, much of what has been said about Obama is indeed a reason to vote for McCain. For example, Obama will move us towards socialism. Since McCain won't, you should vote for McCain. But of course, you'll disagree.

Obama son't move towards anything remotely close to socialism.

Even if it gets closer, you don't have to worry about the poor getting YOUR money unless you're a millionaire. The great Republican myth (right now) is that Obama is going to take money from the middle class to prop up the poor. This is completely untrue, but a lot of people are buying it.

"socialism" means nothing coming from the right at this point. nothing at all.
you could lay out your objections to obama in a coherent manner and maybe even make a case for them--but there's no hope of that if you're just going to rely on a conservo-meme.

(from my perspective) Vote McCain if you:

- value a leader with vast experience over an inspirational one.

- think that it's good for the economy for the middle class to continue paying a higher percentage of their income to support our government than the wealthy.

- want less gun control

- want current abortion rights overturned.

- are in favor of Palin taking over as president in the next 4 years

- are in favor of school vouchers

- are in favor of taxing employer provided healthcare benefits and giving up to a 2500/5000 credit to individuals who buy their own.

- are in favor of less state control over healthcare insurance companies.

- want less regulation on the banking industry

- want military presence in Iraq for next 100 years

- believe in a trickle-down economy

vast experience. Yep, I'll take that.
less gun control. Yep, that too.
abortion rights overturned. Works for me.
school vouchers. Hey, great idea!
less government control anywhere, anytime. Love that too.
The other two I think are "talking points," but what the heck.

Look, I'm not going to change your opinion, and you're not going to change mine. If McCain wins, then there's a little balance in Washington. If Obama wins, then he and the Legislature and the Supremes (when he loads that up too) ... well, then it's the People's Republic of Share the Wealth, and you get what you've wished for. Those of you in the Liberal community that actually work for a living will get an interesting lesson.

I do intend to follow through with my thread on Obama's promises. It's going to be a lot of fun.

Obama supporter here.
I find very little in the Republican platform that I can support.
I'm trying to be careful not to project my own agenda onto any candidate but I find more of my issues addressed by the Dems

Obama wont be "loading up" the Supreme Court. The next president will likely be replacing two of the more liberal justices most likely to retire- Stevens and Ginsburg - which wont change the current balance...The four most conservative will stay in place - Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito..as will the two centrists - Suter and Kennedy and the other liberal - Breyer.

So if you are really so concerned about balance, in fact, Obama would be the one more likely to maintain balance on the Court and McCain would be the one to drastically alter that balance.

As to following up with your thread on Obama's promises, I would suggest you will be taken more seriously if you stop with the People's Republic nonsense that says, at least to me, that you really are not open to an honest discussion.

It's sad to me that so-called "conservatives" don't get what on offensive sentiment this is. $250,000. Do you make that much, mcgeedo? I don't, not even close. I'm interviewing for a job this week that will make me just over a quarter of that, and I'll be damn glad to land it.

Who do you think you have to be to make $250,000? I'm not talking about businesses (although I could, because the numbers hold there too). I'm talking about these alleged "hard workers" who are going to be so put-upon under Obama's plan. Are they the folks working three jobs to make ends meet? Or are they corporate higher-ups? Who REALLY "works harder", ya think?

McCain and whatever diminishing slice of so-called conservatism he still represents only have emotional appeals, scare tactics like red-baiting. When you pull out the actual numbers, none of it makes sense.

dc, you are correct of course that the two justices likely to be replaced are already Left-leaning. But their replacements can be as radically Liberal as Obama and Pelosi might want, and certainly won't have any compunctions about legislating from the bench. The net shift will be to the left, and there won't be any stopping it in the confirmation process, will there?

As for an "honest discussion," no one on this forum is ever going to be converted. Every one comes here to argue and debate. Information is exchanged, ideas are traded, and I often learn something new. But no one is going to change their stripes because of a particularly witty post, by you, me or anyone else. As for the "People's Republic" crack: so, you can't crack wise unless you're of the same persuasion as the forum majority?

How can the next shift be more to the left of Ginsburg, who the conservatives shout is an "ultra liberal"? or even Stevens.

No, by most objective standards, Obama appointments would keep the same general balance as the current Court...described by most observers as four conservatives, two centrists and three liberals...if labels are to be applied.

And Pelosi has no role in the process. The Senate, not the House, advises and consents. Its just another cheap shot to play he "pelosi" card.

If by legislating from the bench, you mean judicial activism in overturning laws enacted by Congress....its the conservatives on the court who do it more frequently. This is from the Rhenquist court:
Liberal justices as the judicial activists who legislate from bench is another one of those myths that conservatives perpetuate.

I made my post of what I honestly thought were reasons why one would vote for McCain not in an effort to change anyone's opinion. I agree with him on less gun control and more school voucher programs. I prefer Obama's positions on most other issues but that is not the subject of this thread.

My decision to support John McCain is now basic. I absolutely, without question, believe Barack Obama to be a Marxist. Not the evil dictator type, but the one that honestly believes in the academic fundamentals of Marxism as a social governing ideology.

McCain reminds me of a post war (WWII) Democrat who is socially conscious, embraces the constitution, and believes in free enterprise. I see my choice as between an American constitutionalist vs. an American Marxist. It's that simple.

and what is this belief predicated on?

Predicated on the language used and policies championed by each candidate.

Why would I need a lesson when I live in Iceland, pay 40% of our taxes (we actually pay DOUBLE taxation, to Iceland AND the US!), 25% sales tax, and am still quite happy with the health care and education system that I see around me, as a result? I don't need a "lesson," thanks. I (along with millions of others on this side of the ocean) am living the very scenario what you are afraid of, and look!!! I'm not bleeding out of all orifices here, am I? Quite the opposite--my vote goes gladly to Obama, particularly based on my experience living outside the US and seeing how much better we could be as a nation if we took a few lessons from other countries on how to take care of one's people.

/waits for the accusation that I am not a "real" American, lol.

otto---for what it's worth, i know way more about marxism and marxists than any human being should as a function of my academic background (trust me on this one).
i can tell you, in my capacity as an expert on this area (pm me and i'll run out my credentials if you want), that obama is not a marxist.

the categorization is simply and entirely false.

in a more accurately calibrated scale, he is somewhere center to center-left of the american democratic party.
his policies are a mix of weak social-democratic (by weak i mean only not systematic) and more-or-less traditionally centrist democratic party elements.
the situation made by the previous 30 years of neoliberal domination will require actions that run outside the ideological frame around obama's campaign platform, i think, but that's inevitable.

but there is no way, by any informed, rational standard, that obama is a marxist.

specifically?

I was just about to say that I think Marxism would get in the way of Obama's quasi-socialist leanings. I'm relieved you came in here to say what you said first. But, yeah, even I--with no such credentials regarding Marxism--knew this to be quite false.

I'm thinking of starting a thread that explains the differences between Marxism, Communism, and socialism. There is much misunderstanding out there. But maybe it would be best for you to do this.

Do people know that socialism co-exists within capitalism?

if you see obama as a social democrat---which i think is only partially accurate---in 2008, you are not saying much of anything about any linkage to marx. if you had said the same thing in the 1930s, it'd have been different. but not now.

i only mentioned my academic self here because i am so fucking tired of conservative red-baiting.
and it is nothing other than that.

What's your point? I made a statement of my belief based on my observation of each man as a big picture. I do not say Obama is evil, I believe he is operating openly and says what he means.

Another example of from where I believe Obama's core ideology really "lurks" just came out in today's news...

While these sentiments do not use specific language of Marx, the spirit of the ideology is (IMO) there. I've posted on these "leanings" in Obama's ideology months back. We see reaffirmation of this rhetoric laced in his words throughout his career.

I don't hope to convert anyone here. The OP asks the question, I answered it.

There's clips of this 2001 WBEZ (Chicago) interview available on YouTube. Make of this what you will.

Your response partly repeats what I wrote, adding no value. I am clearly passing judgment on my preference for McCain. I have no problem with people who make economic choices different than the choices I make. Policies that make it difficult to get "rich" affect those who want to achieve that. I define "rich" as being above average. Those in the middle class, I think in Obama's words benefit under his economic plan. I define middle class, as average. I don't pass judgment on middle class people, there is nothing wrong with having priorities in life that involve things other than accumulating wealth.

I'm not red baiting, it's just a preference of ideologies. Obama is a closet Marxist IMO. He operates openly, but under the radar. The tanks won't come rolling in and we won't all be sent to re-education camps, but the conditioning of the population with terminology like "negative liberties" of the constitution is a glimpse into the mindset of the man's core ideology.

No-one can successfully operate openly in American politics as a "Marxist". Instead we accept pleasing terminology like "change" (what kind?), "progressive", "negative-liberties", and "redistribution of wealth". All Twinkies for the "useful idiots".

I would have actively supported Huckabee from the slate of primary candidates. I would have actively supported Condolezza Rice and perhaps a few Governors if they had run. From the business world I would have actively supported Steve Forbes.
-----Added 27/10/2008 at 11 : 24 : 07-----
Don't know where to start with this. But, you are correct "brand" is important to me as a starting point. I know generally what I want and it gets more specific from there, not as simplistic as you may think it is.

my point was to hear specific policy ideas that you consider Marxist, rather than a blanket statement (which I can only consider opinion without any facts to back it up). I have no problem if that is your opinion (we all have them).

That's your opinion.

otto---i'm not questioning your distaste at all: what you agree with or do not agree with is up to you.
i might not agree with your evaluations, and might argue against them, but in the end i entirely respect your right to make up your own mind and would not have it another way.

BUT

i am telling you--i am not suggesting--i'm *telling* you that your classification of obama as a marxist is simply wrong. if you persist in using it, knowing that the term does not refer to anything about obama, then it's red-baiting. no better and no different from the equally foul little claim concerning obama's middle name.

it's my opinion that you have an opinion?

If you say so. Do you have any documentation?

There was a post on one of my legal blogs talking about that interview. I'll quote it here, but I want to also point out that the interview is from almost 10 years ago. It's entirely plausible to think that Obama has moved to the center since then.

I've snipped the post a bit. It's written by David Bernstein, who is emphatically not an Obama supporter. In fact, he's one of the further right people on a generally right-leaning libertarian blog. The full post can be found here.

In general, I feel that the only reason people complain about Obama's socialism is that they have no idea what real socialism looks like. On the socialism/laissez-faire scale, Obama's probably in the middle. And it might be correct to think that the ideal economic policy is somewhat further to the right of Obama, though I would disagree. It's certainly not correct to say that Obama's anything resembling socialist, unless you thinks he's some sort of secret socialist. In which case, why not believe he's a secret muslim or baby-eater? There's about the same amount of evidence for those claims.

wow. you take dodging a question to all new heights

Obama may have changed his thoughts about economic principles from 10 years ago. Ayers may have changed his mind on domestic terrorism as well.

And Obama may not ne a Socialist or Marxist. But his ideas are close enough to make most productive people very nervous about what he'll do to the contry, with the help of the Legislature who are also a majority of those that appear to be close to Socialism. Very narrow definitions of socialism, as stated here by the academics of the community, don't change his stated intention to tax from the rich and hand out to the lazy.

What is it with conservatives wanting to redefine words? First ace and now you, mcgeedo. Socialism means something, it means a redistribution of wealth such that everyone has the same amount. And I'm not a word nazi; if one of the candidates was proposing a radical redistribution of wealth, unprecedented in this country, that was short of true socialism, I wouldn't be complaining about their word usage. But when a candidate's proposals are more or less in line with American precedent, it stretches the bounds of language to suggest that that's socialism.

And if you haven't missed it, "tax the rich and hand out to the [less fortunate]" is exactly what we're doing right now. That was Bernstein's point at the end of the post I quoted here -- mild redistribution of wealth isn't socialism.

Hertzberg has a pretty good rebuttal to all this non-sense in The New Yorker

Disclaimer-This is an elite magazine for the elites so if you're a "Joe six-pack" it may burn your eyes.

Like, Socialism: Comment: The New Yorker
Edit: I also meant to add these comments too

.. By which I'm to read "people who make over $250,000 a year?"

McCain today blustered that (and I paraphrase) "Obama's idea of change is to take your money and give it to other people."

I sort of wonder who the "you" in that sentence is. Is it as clear to everyone else as it is to me exactly who McCain is speaking to?

I've been away from the computer all weekend, so finally catching up. That's exactly what I'm looking for. I want someone to try to sell me on McCain for reasons that will help me personally. I want to know the reasons why others are voting for him, and not just voting because it's a vote against Obama.
-----Added 27/10/2008 at 05 : 55 : 03-----
Actually, for #1, I have ideas on what he stands for, but I want to see the reasons he is being voted for by others.

For #2, have I attacked either candidate? Have I shown disrespect to either candidate? I haven't said one bad word, nor implied that either candidate's plan is better than the other. I just want to hear reasons why people are voting mccain.
-----Added 27/10/2008 at 06 : 00 : 45-----

This is more like what I'm looking for in reply to my question.

Real America is a huge country. Iceland is a homogeneous society the size of a postage stamp. That is like saying that in Luxembourg a certain program works well so it should work equally as well in China if just mulitiplied x1000.

Or vice versa, US military strategy and spending GDP should work for Iceland if shrunk x1000.

A homogeneous society with a social identity and a historical and future path that everybody agrees on (like Iceland) can do anything it sets its mind on. I also wouldnt mind 50% income tax if it were used right and nobody freeloaded off of it.

But America is too big and there are too many ideas with scattered strategies that lack checks and balances. the money would be lost, wasted or flat out disappear.
What one race or culture in America sees as "right" is flat out wrong to others. Just look at the old South vs North mentality that prevails to this day.

Iceland doesn't have such a strong divide in race or cultural identity. (Guns Germs and Steel analogy stolen from Diamond)

Our closest model is Canada, and even then, they are a fraction of our population. Their taxes and health care system also leaves a lot to be desired. I don't like BIG government and how its managed.

I agree with the other posters, Obama=Marxist. Go visit Trier for a weekend, see the homeland of Marxism.

Please clarify what word I've redefined and how I redefined it?

That would have made a big difference to me. I think I may have voted Romney over Obama because of what I read about him during the primaries.

Would you say the same about the other Scandinavian countries? All of the Nordic countries have quite high percentages of immigrants at this point... they are no longer the "culturally and racially pure" societies that you imagine, I can assure you.

Iceland may be small, but it is no longer very homogeneous, nor does everyone agree on what path it should take in the future. Iceland based its banking practices on American ideals (yes, American) and now the country is on the edge of bankruptcy, at least with regards to the currency and banking systems. Everyone has been conflicted about this issue, not agreeing on what to do and where... they are begging the IMF to step in and fix things.

And you assume that no one freeloads off the system in Iceland and the other Nordic countries? Oh, people do, most certainly--and my god, they're not the immigrants, either! But that doesn't change the fact that people BELIEVE in a social democracy where you are charged with taking care of the people around you, no matter who they are or what they look like or what their status is. The Icelandic health care system takes care of EVERYONE here, regardless of whether they are a citizen or not. It is an ethical issue, and people are willing to put up the money to maintain that ethic. It doesn't make the Icelandic people "Marxist," for god's sake.

Frankly, I don't think it really matters what I say. No one is going to persuade you of anything if these are your foundational assumptions/beliefs:

I was reading the November issue of American Rifleman (NRA magazine) last night, they rate Obama an "F", meaning a "A true enemy of gun owners". Anyone who owns a private gun or cares about using a gun for self defense would be a fool to vote for Obama. Some of Obama's campaign statements have not been consistent with his voting record on individual gun ownership issues.

the nra?
i think that organization made an enormous mistake scurrying to the extreme right. now they're stuck there. one consequence of that is arguments that they generate are self-evidently geared toward the extreme right. it didn't have to be that way--they had a choice and could just as easily have remained an organization that advocated in a non-partisan manner for gun owners---but they didn't.

i am agnostic on the question of gun control, btw. i support it in cities. i am less in favor of it in other geographical areas. but i am definitely in favor of it in urban environments.

89 posts. STILL nothing saying why vote for McCain that's not "because Obama is X". Doesn't this tell you something?

Re "obama = marxist":

Know where that's from? Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776. Basically the bible of capitalism. In short, you don't know what you're talking about, you're spouting Fox News talking points, and you should just close your mouth and stop looking like an ass.

Overtaxed: Comment: The New Yorker

Because that's all that matters. In good times, you can shoot people who try to take your stuff. In bad times, you can shoot people and take their stuff.

I agree strongly with RB, it was a HUGE mistake for the NRA to jerk right. I was taught gun safety by the NRA as a kid, then comes the '90's and all of a sudden they're freaks.

The NRA used the same argument in '92. Are all your guns gone? Did Clinton take them away?

I hate guns, so I guess this should make me vote for Obama

Supporting the rights of individual to own and use firearms is extreme right? I think the 2nd amendment and the interpretation allowing individuals to own firearms is a part of the fundamental fabric of this nation.

As you say the NRA is "scurrying", what do you call what Obama is doing on the campaign trail?

Taking aim at Obama's stance on gun control | Philadelphia Inquirer | 10/14/2008

Which is the real Obama, his voting record or his rhetoric?
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 01 : 50 : 46-----
No one is going to give you a reason to vote for McCain, because there is no reason other than he is not Obama. That is McCain's case, that is what he has been running on, we know that now and we knew it since he got the nomination. His only hope to win is if Obama makes a mistake or if people wake up and see Obama for what he is.
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 02 : 00 : 15-----
Again, look at actual voting records or what people did in positions of authority. Bill Clinton was strongly opposed by the NRA and was not allowed to do what he wanted in this area. Clinton's obsession with gun control is partly to blame for the Waco mess. The matter could have been easily handled without a show-down.

Gun bans in areas that had them in the US did not result in less crime, in many cases violent crime increased. No lawful person wants to shoot people.
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 02 : 03 : 16-----
Yes. But do you also hate the US Constitution? Do you care about standing up for the rights of others even when you do not agree with them or what they do? What are you willing to do to those who use guns in criminal activities?

I'm not really familiar with the positions of the NRA, and don't really follow gun control arguments, but I suspect that the problem isn't merely asserting that individuals have the right to own guns. There are basically two extreme positions on gun control; one is that all guns should be banned, and the other is that all regulations on guns are illegitimate. I would be very surprised if Obama held the former view; it at least seems sometimes as if the NRA espouses the latter view.

Those who use guns in criminal activities are almost always punished more severely than if they hadn't used a gun. In the federal system, it takes the form of a sentencing enhancement if a gun is used in the course of a criminal transaction. In my view, this has been interpreted too broadly. If I'm selling you drugs, and I happen to have a gun in the car, I'll be hit with the firearm enhancement. But it's easy to see why such an enhancement is a good idea in general. Crime is dangerous enough as it is; it's even more dangerous when guns are involved.

And I thought that the organization that stood up for people's rights, regardless of whether they agreed with them, was the ACLU. I don't agree with every position the ACLU has ever taken. But they have a long record of taking cases that are unpopular with the left, the right, or even everyone.

ace--i don't think there's anything that is not clear in what i posted.
stop with this juvenile "whaddya call what obama's doing" bullshit.
i've had enough of it.
all i meant to argue is that the decision on the part of the nra to drift politically to the extreme right has undermined their ability to advocate their positions and not find themselves grouped with the far right of the republican party. if they really want to defend gun ownership in its absolutist form (all control=evil) then they made a mistake.
the reason i noted this self-evident fact (if you pay attention to such things in the empirical world) is that it hardly matters what the nra says about obama at this point because of the gamble they have made over the past years to alilgn with the far right.
so they're talking to a subset of the population that they hope to reach, and appeal mostly to folk like you, who need no convincing about this as gun control is one of the legion of republican-fabricated "wedge issues"...

The ACLU stands up for the causes they support, as does the NRA. I value these organizations even if I don't always agree with their agendas. They help keep the system honest.

I support what I consider reasonable gun control laws, like registration, waiting periods, background checks, mandatory training, and a few other controls - I am not in 100% agreement with the NRA. Most gun owners I know have similar views to mine. Obama has wanted to make it punitive for a person to use a firearm for self defense in their own home and supported a complete ban on handguns. Again, I understand people having opposing views on the issue of the degree of controls, but Obama's record indicates his views are out of step with the views of most reasonable people on the issue, and is now inconsistent with his words on the campaign trail.

Once agaiin, Obama's position is being distorted by the NRA, Op eds and ace.

It should be more accurately described as supporting state/local options to enact their own legislation to limit or restrict gun ownership that meet a Constitutional test.

The only restriction that I believe he supports at the federal level is a return of the ban on semi-automatics that had bi-partisan support when first enacted in the 90s but not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster when it was up for reauthorization several years ago.

First, my questions regarding Obama are my questions and I consider them legitimate. I don't care what you like or don't like. My question regarding his inconsitencies goes unanswered will will never be answered until he starts to execute his real agenda.


I don't agree with your premise. I don't think the NRA has "drifted". I think they have been consistent in their views and actions. You provide no support for your premise.

The NRA has a singular focus. The organization does not champion "right wing" issues, the champion gun rights issues. What is "self-evident" to you is not to me.

The NRA is a politically active group because they believe there is a need for them to be politically active, their political activity has increased because the threat to gun ownership has increased. The only thing we can honestly assume NRA members have in common, is the interest in guns. That is the subset. The issue is real, not fabricated. If those wanting to end the "wedge" on this stop trying to infringe on my rights the issue will stop being a "wedge issue".

Obama's position on gun control is only inconsistent if taken out of context.

Poor Obama, he seems to always have his position distorted. This one is simple. He or you can set the record straight.

Please give a source.

How do you reconcile the above with national gun control legislation he has supported? In 2005 Obama voted for legislation that would have had the impact of banning almost all rifle ammunition.

I don't want to be accused of repeating talking points because the only information I have seen on this issue has come from a small number of sources (I have looked for Obama's positions and could not find much), so I will simply state that Obama has not answered questions on this issue, perhaps partly because the biased media has not asked him questions but regardless he has not done it. At this point he wont clarify his position, and I think it would be foolish for any "gun rights" person to vote for Obama.
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 04 : 13 : 51-----
Give his position. My context is as follows: I want the right to purchase and own handguns and rifles. I want to purchase ammunition. I don't want excessive taxes on guns and ammunition. I want the right to qualify for conceal carry. I want the right to protect my family and my person using lethal force if necessary.