My reason for McCain would be that I don't see him surviving his whole term in office should he win and would love to see Palin as the President. I certainly trust Palin more than either of the 3 politicians running.

Well even thou I can't vote If I could it would be for Obama for one main reason. He doesn't look like continuing the hegemonic stance of the Bush White House which has damaged American power in the world to a serious degree.

The USA is completely devoid of soft power atm and due to Iraq its completely unable to answer the increased posturing of the Russian's or the Chinese spreading their influence into Africa. America is a very very flawed superpower but I'll take an Obama helmed America as the worlds main power over the continued idiocy of Bush (which McCain would be) anyday.

the US however does not an idealist in power either. However the other choice is a Neo-Con...


I would have preferred a moderate....


The US needs a moderate, who is in the middle, who is strong and has effective leadership. Someone like Eisenhower. He kept the Govt small and efficient, but did many things for Americans (especially public infrastructure) and he enlarged the social security program. He made defense a top priority but warned future generations of the "miltary industrial complex."

Leaders like him are what we need. Not Big dreamers, but doers. Not the ones who want small or big govt, but want smart govt.

Now we have two choice, and Obama is no Eisenhower, and McCain (he was sort of like him back before 2000) has become another typical Neo Con.


So I would have preferred a more moderate Democratic candidate and Obama's rather liberal views do upset me, however he is still clearly the better choice.

More liberal how? Every powerful Democrat is astounding centrist in a world context. The country has had such a knee-jerk built-in reaction to "liberal" that it's impossible for somebody like Kucinich to get elected, even though he's not really all that far left (though the UFO shit is pretty kooky).

True but America is a different world.


Like many people may hate the Conservatives in Canada and love Obama, but the conservatives here mostly support universal public health care.



Obama would be a perfect moderate in Europe and in Canada, but for the US he is still too liberal.
Maybe "liberal" is not the best word. Idealistic?

socialist?

Why too liberal for America?

Then what are they? That's what I'm asking. Why should we give Republicans 4 more years in the WH?

Palin is a pathological liar. I'm not sure she's told the truth about ANYTHING since August. She lied about the Bridge to Nowhere, the results of the investigation into her ethics violations, the wardrobe, Obama's policies, Obama's background. And she's a right-wing religious lunatic who actually believes in witchcraft and that the Earth is 6000 years old.

She's a female George W. Bush but less integrity and experience governing.

I'm still waiting for the PRO-McCain argument.

The closest anyone has come is that he might die in office and pave the way for Palin.

No takers?

This is what BJ meant by his reasons. I think. Just, yknow, since you're asking.

Though, technically, I think that's still more anti-Obama than pro-McCain.

Yeah, that's not pro-McCain. It would apply to any non-Democrat candidate.

I don't like either of em, don't trust politicians, I tow the balance of powers line and have no issue with voting either side so long as my vote might help even out the power, so that laws and policy can hopefully be negotiated and lead to a compromise between the parties.

bilge, explain.

OMG!!!! You think that one person controls the country!!! You really think that!!!!

well the last time the Dems had both houses was it better?

i don't think a mixed office is a good thing. the compromises usually favour one thing and worsens another. i only think the balance of power works with judiciary and the executive.

I've heard people use this argument before (all McCain supporters, no less). If that's the case, what's the point with supporting either of them?

There was the years between 1992-1994 that the democratic party had the house the senate and Bill Clinton, It was short lived and Clinton was not president till 1993 so only really a year. Clinton was perhaps the most moderate president of the last 28-32 years, the acts past within his time seek to help the people. With such a short space of time the Democratic Party did not capitalized on such a vast majority, there was legislation passed without a single republican signing, but none of it was one sided.

better than 4-8 years of absolutely no balance. I don't understand your last sentence.

They don't run the country they enforce the laws made by congress and hopefully represent the people. All three branches together controls the country.

They're only the paper-pushers now. Bought and sold and paid for. It's now a matter of supporting who'll assrape us a little less.

Sue the state.

Well yeah, I get that.

It's just whenever someone points to a flaw in McCain's character and why he wouldn't make a good President, a typical response is "Well he's not going to be in charge of everything, so don't worry."

It basically goes back to Beeblebrox's point of not being able to defend McCain without tearing down Obama or pointing to something else.

I think McCain is more likely than Obama to have a balanced budget.

I think McCain is less likely than Obama to create new entitlement programs and expand current ones.

I like McCain's tax proposals a lot better than Obama's.

I think McCain is much more pro-free trade than Obama.

I am not sure what the candidates' exact positions on Global Warming are, but just a hunch - McCain is much more skeptical than Obama - I agree with that stance.

These are a few. Mind you, I am supporting Obama for president.

Barr/Root.

The Republicans need this defeat to start some serious soul searching.