I would want to see either Bush or McCain in the White House and, in a 4-way race, would vote for whichever stood the best chance of winning.

In a 2-way race Bush vs. McCain I’d probably vote McCain, in line with my centrist leanings.

In a 2-way race, Kerry or Nader vs. Barney the Dinosaur (running mate Tillamook the painting dog), I’d vote for the Barney-Tillie ticket.

Posted by: Former Belgian at June 13, 2004 09:15 AM

With the results so far its pretty obvious where some are located————————————————————
If the presidential election were held today, for whom would you vote?

Votes
George Bush 61% 14
John Kerry 0% 0
John McCain 35% 8
Ralph Nader 4% 1

23 votes total
Results subject to error. Pollhost.com does not pre-screen the content of polls created by Pollhost customers.

Free polls from Pollhost.com!

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 13, 2004 09:42 AM

..not quite 7 on the left coast..give it a hour ;-0

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 13, 2004 09:45 AM

I’ll preface this by stating up front that I did vote for McCain over Bush in ‘00. I liked his populist message.

However, in retrospect, I’m more and more of the opinion that McCain may not have been a good choice to have had in there in the aftermath of 9-11. A lot of folks don’t recall, but Bush was IMHO extremely patient with the Taliban, giving them chance after chance to give up bin Laden. He also went to the UN in an attempt to get support for the Iraq war when a number of his advisors thought it would just muck up the process. I have my doubts whether McCain would have shown such patience, and who knows how much worse world opinion of the USA would be today if we’d lived up to the stereotype of the Yankee tromping across the globe with no attempt at diplomacy?

Its hard to say. There’s a big difference from being a Senator and being able to talk tough & criticize on the news shows, and being POTUS/CiC and having to live with the implementation of your decisions.

Posted by: tagryn at June 13, 2004 09:52 AM

The preliminary results of this particular poll seems to say more about the readership of this site than the general electorate. I have held for some time that this is an excellent forum, but one that is dominated by right wing (disproportionately ex-millitary) citizens.

That’s fine, but I think the results are way out of line with a wide range of broad-based polls.

Posted by: Patriot at June 13, 2004 11:09 AM

John Kerry is ridiculed by many Massachusetts news people and particularly Television people as “Live Shot”.

McCain is known to many in Arizona and Washington as “Showboat”.

That is NOT to say that BOTH men do not have some legislative qualities. They can represent their individual state interests from time to time.

However, in today’s perilous times, I believe we need a steady hand on the ship of state and NOT some politician “lusting and slavering for their next ego fix on the daily news”.

That eliminates Kerry, McCain and Nader.

Posted by: leaddog2 at June 13, 2004 11:13 AM

I wonder who McCain would suck votes away from, Kerry or Bush? After all, he’s pretty much a Democrat anyway.

Posted by: Tom at June 13, 2004 11:17 AM

Don’t worry, Patriot…

The DU people will be along later to skew the poll for you.

Posted by: eric at June 13, 2004 11:17 AM

TOM

My guess is that McCain voters are predominantly moderate Republicans and Independents. In 2000, those voters cast an anti-Clinton vote that cost Gore the White House. All indications are that center-right voters are very disappointed in Bush, and may split down the middle. That would be a net loss for Bush.

Posted by: Patriot at June 13, 2004 12:01 PM

“That’s fine, but I think the results are way out of line with a wide range of broad-based polls.”

Posted by: Patriot at June 13, 2004 11:09 AM

…ya know I`ve been thinking the same thing,but (((NOT))) about this poll ….

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 13, 2004 01:44 PM

..I wasnt to crazy about the per. info needed to register but anyhooo..interesting poll..showing GW with 154 EC votes with JFC with 144,with 230 undecided;GW with 20 states;JFC with 11..
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-polldatapage.htmlstory

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 13, 2004 02:22 PM

,,ooppps 240 ;;so shoot me;_))

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 13, 2004 02:24 PM

I think McCain would draw a few votes from Bush but more from Kerry. Specifically those who support Bush’s leadership in the war but don’t care for some of his domestic policies might see McCain as a reasonable option.

The self-proclaimed “true” conservatives who figure Bush has gone over to the other side on finance and who rate that ideological betrayal (as they see it) higher than the need to win the war will probably not vote at all, or at least I hope not.

McCain would suck Kerry dry among those liberals who truly don’t like GWB but can’t quite bring themselves to feel good about Kerry as the alternative. For what it’s worth, I work with a group of people among whom Anyone-But-Bush sentiment is taken as a given of intelligent life, but I’ve found that the mention of Kerry’s name has a curiously dispiriting effect on them nonetheless. And it’s occurred to me more than once that a Bush/McCain ticket would destroy their morale altogether.

The sad truth is that many liberals of the Vietnam generation, as often exemplified in the media and academe, do not understand soldiers as ordinary people. The American GI is a always a bit larger than life, a noble hero or an abject villian. It’s the Hanoi Hilton or My Lai and everything else is truly no-man’s-land.

That’s why they keep parroting away with Kerry the war hero vs. Bush the cowardly Guardsman; that’s why they swoon like middle-aged virgins at the sight of a man in uniform, no matter how stupid and self-serving he sounds; that’s why they truly believe you can support the troops and actively oppose the war at the same time.

Coincidentally I’ve often noticed the same people who cite the surrealistic “Apocalypse Now” as the ultimate Vietnam movie also find “The Deer Hunter” incomprehensible. Which has always fascinated me since it’s the precise reverse of my own perception. I never knew anyone like the soldiers in Apocalypse, but I recognized everybody in the Deer Hunter. That’s a bit off track but what the hell, DS is going to quote some movie sooner or later and I may as well get a good one in here as well.

So let’s all remember the last scene from the Deer Hunter, shall we?

Posted by: marymcl at June 13, 2004 03:57 PM

“I wonder who McCain would suck votes away from, Kerry or Bush? After all, he’s pretty much a Democrat anyway.” - Tom

McCain is for fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and straight talk. Not too long ago, this would have made him a Republican. I voted for McCain in the ‘00 primary. The tactics used by then candidate Bush to win that race (remember “McCain has a black baby” and “McCain’s wife is an addict”) made a new low bar for slimy politicians. Apparently another thing that makes McCain a “Democrat” is that when he says “family values,” he doesn’t mean “don’t disagree with me if you value your family.”

Of the four people on this list, McCain is the clear choice by a mile.

Posted by: Soli at June 13, 2004 04:51 PM

I have no love for John McCain what so ever and I thank God that he never won the primaries.

John McCain’s own speech advisor switched to the Democratic Party and in all respects John McCain is nothing more than a Democrat / Liberal. John McCain is as bad as Arlen Specter.

For those that have positive feelings towards John McCain… Then what the heck are you doing in the Republican Party? Switch over to the Liberal Democrats.

Countless times has John McCain voted and sided along with the wacko lefties, supporting the Kyoto Treaty and trying to pass a ‘Kyoto-esque’ Bill in the Senate. John McCain would have destroyed our economy for the sake of the animals we eat.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at June 13, 2004 05:43 PM

Soli wrote,

“McCain is for fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and straight talk. “

Oh Puke! I’ve heard this a thousand times and it is absolutely false.

If John McCain was all for fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility then he wouldn’t have spent the beginning days of the Bush Presidency shelving the Tax Cut Bill.

He spent his days burying the Tax Cut Bill to try and get his First Amendment Rights Repealment Act passed. I still hope today that we can get rid of this disgrace of a bill also known as ‘Campaign Finance Reform’ which is actually ‘Incumbency Protection Act.’

John McCain only cares about himself.

There is no way in God’s Green Earth that you can attribute ‘Fiscal Responsibility’ to John McCain when you take a look at that Grotesque Kyoto-Esque Bill that he tried to pass in the Senate. Luckilly at least THAT BILL never became law.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at June 13, 2004 05:48 PM

One last thing I want to comment on here:

Soli wrote,

“Apparently another thing that makes McCain a “Democrat” is that when he says “family values,” he doesn’t mean “don’t disagree with me if you value your family.””

That is 100% correct. Republican Conservatives believe in ‘Universal Morality’ while Democratic Liberals do not have any morals.

John McCain doesn’t have any morals if what you say is true about him. The whole idea that we can just ‘Pick and Choose’ whatever the heck we want and call it ‘family values’ is absurd.

Liberals love ‘Moral Relativity’ which is to say morals are whatever you wish them to be at any given moment. It is quite amusing to see that a lot of people who swallow ‘Moral Relativity’ actually live their lives through ‘Universal Morality’ but never want to admit it.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at June 13, 2004 05:54 PM

Why are all the American military men such nihilistic moral reletivist? Hasn’t any one told them that Bush is the Son of God?

Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go

WASHINGTON — A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush has damaged America’s national security and should be defeated in November.

Posted by: NeoDude at June 13, 2004 05:59 PM

I bet these All-American patriots were brought up in good moral Christian homes!:

If they let their feet or hands drop they were slapped and shouted at. Ahmad said he was forced to insert a finger into his anus and lick it. He was also forced to lick and chew a shoe. For some of the interrogation tissue paper was placed in his mouth and he had difficulty breathing and speaking. Sattar too said he was forced to insert a finger into his anus and lick it. He was then told to insert this finger in his nose during questioning, still kneeling with his feet off the ground and his other arm in the air. The Arab interpreter told him he looked like an elephant. . . .

Ahmad and Sattar both said that they were given badges with the letter “C” on it. They did not know what the badges meant but whenever they were being taken from one place to another in the base, if any soldier saw their badge they would stop to slap them or hurl abuse.

More Republican Moralism:
Exclusive: Shocking Details on Abuse of Reuters Staffers in Iraq

Posted by: NeoDude at June 13, 2004 07:18 PM

If John McCain was all for fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility then he wouldn’t have spent the beginning days of the Bush Presidency shelving the Tax Cut Bill. - Jeff MacMillian

Oh yeah, the guy who holds up three $1 bills and talks about a trillion for this and a trillion for that and another trillion … yeah that’s your fiscal responsibility right there. Let me explain what fiscal responsibility means … it means first shrink government and then cut taxes. Borrowing $500 billion to give a $300 billion tax cut … yeah I’ve got your “responsibility” right here …

Moral relativivity is saying “well sure the torture in the prison was bad, but not as bad as Saddam.” That is the definition of moral relativity. You know … it’s funny, but I didn’t hear that from a liberal. I’m sure you’re shocked. I won’t disagree with you that most Democratic Liberals do not have any morals, but your assertion that it doesn’t apply to the other side is laughable. Pols with morals are so amazingly rare that when I see a man like McCain and hear you slandering him, it’s extremely annoying.

Futher, are you seriously suggesting that McCain’s campaign finance reform is meant to help him personally retain his senate seat? Why don’t you go check the figures for how solid his seat is. McCain can keep that seat until he makes Strom look like a spry youth.

Posted by: Soli at June 13, 2004 07:19 PM

Posted by NeoDude:
“WASHINGTON — A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials…”

I’ll bet all 26 of those characters have been offered a position in a John Kerry administration, just to make that claim. Politics as usual.

Posted by: Radar at June 13, 2004 07:42 PM

Why is the media so inexplicably enamored with John McCain? News coverage of him was similarly fawning in 2000. The “maverick” senator from Arizona. He isn’t so much of a RINO for his politics to explain why the media likes him. I can’t figure it out.

Posted by: Moonbat_One at June 13, 2004 08:34 PM

Posted by NeoDude:
“WASHINGTON — A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials…”

of the 26, 20 of them are diplomats, mostly from the clinton years. I can see why diplomats might not like Bush policy. To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And too a diplomat, all problems require a diplomatic solution.

also posted by neo dude:
“Moral relativivity is saying “well sure the torture in the prison was bad, but not as bad as Saddam.” That is the definition of moral relativity”

No, the definition of moral relitivity is trying to say that the morality of an act is relative to the culture of the person who commited it. It is saying, for example “the torture commited by governments in the middle east is just part of their culture, but american’s have to be held to the standards of american culture”

You know . . . it’s funny, but I didn’t hear that from a conservative.

Posted by: Drunk Angry Republican at June 13, 2004 08:39 PM

Drunk Angry Republican,

1) No, the second part of your post was not about something by Neo Dude
2) What part of “relativity” do you not understand?

Liberal Moral Relativity:

“the torture commited by governments in the middle east is just part of their culture, but american’s have to be held to the standards of american culture.

“Conservative” Moral Relativity:

“well sure the torture in the prison was bad, but not as bad as Saddam.”

I’d love to see anyone explain how either of those statements is not an example of moral relativity. No, trying to say that moral relativity is only invoked if you include the word “culture” does not pass the laugh test. If you want to say it’s not morally relative, you have to base the judgement on the action involved, not the cultures or past conduct by third parties or childhood beatings or any other irrelevant garbage.

Conservative Moral Absolute (and the only sane point of view):

“The torture by Saddam is wrong and the torture by the US Military and private contractors is wrong.”

You could possibly make a case for toture in a moral absolute system, for example torture of a terrorist to get the code to disarm a bomb (relevant circumstance). “Because Saddam was worse” is not a relevant circumstance.

Posted by: Soli at June 13, 2004 09:12 PM

This is an interesting, but silly, exercise. Why don’t we ask another question like ‘what if I could secretly invent a pill that could give me the ability to eat beans and poop gold nuggets?’
John McCain isn’t on the ballots, it’s too late to GET on the ballots so he’s not going to take votes away from anybody.

Posted by: Peter at June 13, 2004 09:23 PM

Soli and others

Get up to speed. Abu Ghraib has been dealt with or is being dealt with. Get over it and come on along for the rest of the ride, we’ve got a govt to build and probably a coupla other countries to rile up the way things are going.

Chads

Posted by: chads at June 14, 2004 12:21 AM

First, McCain is a moderate republican, and because of that he’s able to reach across party lines and that pisses off the NeoCons who are so out of the mainstream they can’t even be called right wing anymore (they’re totalitarian globalist for the most part).
I would vote for McCain over Lieberman any day of the week, but nothing in this world would make me vote for a fascist like Bush. I don’t trust him, or for that matter, anyone who justifies their actions or beliefs with religious fervor.

Second, anyone who excuses the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib is not representative of the United States I love, but rather a twisted and distorted version I don’t recognize. One which bears no resemblance to the ideals upon which it was built.

Third, if we don’t follow the rules, how can anyone take us seriously when we complain that others don’t? We don’t throw away your ideals in order to protect them, just like we don’t throw away our freedom in order to protect it. We can’t torture POWs and then complain about the treatment of POWs when our guys are on the receiving end. It’s hypocracy at its worst.

And finally, The Kyoto Accord was about the environment, not politics or the economy. If we don’t protect the environment now, there won’t be an economy to protect in the future, it’s as simple as that. I can’t see how that accord was incorrect in any way. It’s perfectly fair that the world’s biggest polluter cuts back the most.
When you have 10 cars speeding, the one going the fastest will have to slow down the most in order to follow the speed limit. It’s just common sense… but then again, common sense is not something NeoCons have been known for.

Posted by: Jack Frost at June 14, 2004 12:23 AM

Jeff,

Here! Here! I agree wholeheartedly. The fact that Kerry and his supporters would even consider McCain as a running mate should tell you something.

Posted by: Thinks Too Much (Charles) at June 14, 2004 12:41 AM

Get up to speed. Abu Ghraib has been dealt with or is being dealt with. Get over it and come on along for the rest of the ride, we’ve got a govt to build and probably a coupla other countries to rile up the way things are going. -Chads

Has it been dealt with or is it being dealt with? If you don’t know, then get off your high horse. Well, since I actually am up to speed, let me tell you, it hasn’t been dealt with yet. Further more, since I do have morals, I’m not prepared to “just get over” what has been done in our names. In particular, it makes me sick to see all these fair-weather conservatives turning to moral relativism and cry-baby faux liberalism just because the going got a little rough. If we only stand up for justice and responsibility when the other side are the ones with their asses in the fire, then what does that make us?

Posted by: Soli at June 14, 2004 01:49 AM

..Soli,Soli,Soli, if you think this was torture;freind you are sadly mistaken;so from your comments one can only surmise you have a agenda..lib-con-Nader;or just anti-US..PLEEEZ give the Abu Ghraib thing a rest its, old news….yesterday is gone…tomorrow is coming; you going to be part of it or be in the corner playing with fuzz balls…

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 14, 2004 09:52 AM

Rob, Rob, Rob

Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control …. Beating, burning, rape, and electric shock are some of the grisly tools….

I am forced to conclude, by your logic, that the man who said this, a moral man, a responsible man who I respect, is a flaming leftie. Probably supports Nader.

PLEEEZ give the Abu Ghraib thing a rest its, old news….yesterday is gone…tomorrow is coming - Rob

Please have the intellectual integrity to consider for one second how you would react to your own comment if it came from someone “on the other side” to excuse something. I understand that it’s easier to just gloss over our own failings and assume that anyone who doesn’t must be “the enemy.” People that don’t take the easy road are rare. Senator McCain is one such individual and you can see above in the comments and elsewhere there are people who will try to claim, with little or no factual support, that he must be a Democrat.

Posted by: Soli at June 14, 2004 12:20 PM

I am shocked that many conservatives appreciate and embrace sexual molestation in pursuit of liberty and freedom.

Posted by: NeoDude at June 14, 2004 01:11 PM

With the “shelving” of the POW\MIA issue by both John Kerry and John McCain, in support of the Vietnamese Communist Regime, and by not providing clear-cut means to establish the locations of remains of those known to have been POW’s, I have NO FAITH NOR TRUST in either of their abilities. It would not surprise me to learn that the Vietnamese Communists had something on both of them.

Posted by: ET at June 14, 2004 01:26 PM

..pleeez,this issue is sooo transparent its pathetic.Where is the out cry for the masses of people that will soon be able to join the 21st century…you put your trust in the UN ;just how gullible can some one be…Talks cheap,and in this case it only gives the extremist time to prepare.You are trying to use our western values on a group that has their own.Dont believe me well just walk in your neighborhood mosque and try converting an Islamic extremist;I`ll. wait for your report…
As far as the torture thing goes(SK) visit your nearest frat house on Sat night …These folks are playing you and laughing their ass off….

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 14, 2004 02:52 PM

Rob,

1) I’d dearly love to see you support the statement that I “put my trust in the UN.” Mentioning President Bush is going to the UN does not count.

2) Where is the outcry for Freedom? Right here. I’m all for it, woohoo!

3) If I ran into a radical Islamic extremist, I’d shoot him, not convert him. My neighborhood mosque (here in Boise, ID) has quite a few very conservative religious people who would be happy to explain to you that the Wahhabis are a disgusting cult perversion of Islam.

As far as the torture thing goes(SK) visit your nearest frat house on Sat night …These folks are playing you and laughing their ass off…. - Rob

Hey Rob, why don’t you listen to your idol, Rush Limbaugh, who only said that when he had the first three pictures and has now admitted it’s much worse. Do you really mindlessly repeat this junk even after the guy who said it has admitted he was wrong? Or do you just not grasp the oh-so-subtle distinction between consent and non-consent?

Posted by: Soli at June 14, 2004 03:25 PM

…psst,Soli,people are dying here,uh excuse me but,priorities first.And to top it off the skinny is these poor tortured souls would rape your dog and eat your family…how sick is that..dang guy what’s your point you think we are going to ask them what their plans are and they are going to tell you? What type of spineless b….. would use a child for a shield. Think of me as you will but I have no qualms what so ever using what ever means necessary to bring this conflict to a end.I can only imagine what would have happen if Truman had asked the public what they thought before he made his decision, WAR SUX,PEOPLE DIE, I AINT HAPPY ABOUT IT.After these thugs realize its in their best interest to negotiate we must fight this to win.Then the panty waste UN can talk them in to some sort of civilized behavior;but I`m not holding my breath !!

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 14, 2004 04:10 PM

As far as Rush Limbaugh goes..”EVEN ON DRUGS RUSH IS RIGHT”

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 14, 2004 04:22 PM

Rob,

Here’s a brilliant idea … how about you look at the dates of the Abu Gharib torture, and then look at when combat deaths of our troops started going up instead of down. In order: 1) torture occurs at Abu Gharib and other facilities, 2) solid rumors of torture spread in Iraq, 3) combat deaths begin drastic rise, 4) story finally breaks in US. Can I prove they are connected? No. Can you prove they aren’t? I’d love to see you try.

these poor tortured souls would rape your dog and eat your family - Rob

Except they were the people we were trying to liberate … 70-90% wrongly picked up according to our military figures. You know we tortured them, but now we’re just letting most of them go with no charges, right?

what’s your point you think we are going to ask them what their plans are and they are going to tell you? - Rob

80% (avg) wrongly picked up. What are they going to tell you? Seven of them admitted to being Osoma bin Laden. Way to go, genius.

Think of me as you will but I have no qualms what so ever using what ever means necessary to bring this conflict to a end - Rob

Except going all the way up to the source of this torture, which is losing us the war, and tearing it out by the root. What if that would win the war? You still wouldn’t want to do it, right? What if winning the war actually required facts or any concept of reality? You wouldn’t be any help then. It’s funny that you mention Truman. Maybe you should look into World War II a little closer. You might notice that we had a little policy of “no torture” which seems to have contributed a whole lot to our victory (just look at how many troops surrendered to us versus how many surrendered to the Russians). Soldiers are much more likely to fight to the death against an enemy who they believe will torture them.

Finally, “Rush is Right” ™ … is he right when he says its a frat prank, or is he right when he now says he was wrong to say that and that he only made the claim before he saw the more detailed evidence. Is it possible for him to be right in both instances? What’s your policy when Rush admits he’s wrong? Or does your head just explode? Inquiring minds would like to know. :)

Posted by: Soli at June 14, 2004 04:46 PM

the only way i would vote for mccain over kerry would be if there were a picture of mccain creating a naked pyramid of jeff macmillan, leaddog, and rob nc.

Posted by: x at June 14, 2004 06:13 PM

..well I aint never ;-)))…Soli ya compatriot aint helping ya cause; another month he`ll be Hanitized..xxx you devil you…but thats ok; you are our little devil…lol ya`ll

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 14, 2004 10:55 PM

I would vote for McCain in a heartbeat. I have long wished that the Reps had at least floated another Republican before the electorate. I know that this goes against tradition and normal political sense, but in this case I would have loved a moderate Republican alternative to Bush. Has Bush done a fairly good job given his challenges? Yes and I respect him for doing the right thing. But he is not the right man for the current and future world situation. The war on terror needs someone who is far better at motivation and inspiration, like a Reagan, to keep things moving. Bush, for all his other fine qualities, is tragically inarticulate, the opposite of Reagan, and this is his fatal flaw. Whenever he gives an interview or departs from his script the impression he makes is pathetic in a way. I don’t think that he or his administration has everything thats needed to conduct this next phase successfully.

Posted by: peggy at June 15, 2004 12:05 PM

There are over 3,000 different religions in this world - many adherents claim that their religion is “the” right one. Organized religion is the cause of many military conflicts. I prefer to vote for a president that does not “flash” his religion to the public or who claims to be following God’s will when making decisions. I don’t know what God he is talking to - is it the same one I talk to, or a different one? Is it a “girl” God or a “boy” God? Is it a God with a huge ego, or a humble but just God? Who knows? I have no use for organized religion in my White House politics.

Posted by: Sandy Logan at June 15, 2004 11:10 PM

I guess you wouldn’t have voted for George washington, huh, Sandy?

Posted by: Just an American at June 16, 2004 12:47 AM

When McCain was first running for congress and he had a headquarters a mile away from my house where I met him - he seemed to be an ideal candidate! Seemed is the key word here. As an AZ resident for 22 years now, I have watched as others around the country are drawn to the seemingly ideal candidate. However, as time educates, it becomes ridiculously clear that there is only one person John McCain cares about and that is John McCain - hell even his wife and kids don’t just take a back seat, but a different vehicle altogether. Knowing many that have worked closely with him over the years - he is anything but that media darling - he is very bitter and ill-tempered in general and certainly not one that inspires those around him. On the surface it may be appealing, but believe me, many who bought the media appearance would surely express buyer’s remorse in short order. He has no profound guiding values, but weighs every decision and stance much like the Clinton White House - how will this personally affect me. The only saving grace is that at least he doesn’t do the Kerry shuffle following the decision - or at least not with the alarming frequency. What I describe above is exactly why Kerry and McCain can be friends - they don’t have guiding values that directly clash, they are both quite pessimistic and both have completely forgotten that their job is to represent a constituancy, not just use them to put you in a place to play for personal political power/financial gain. They are both power freaks and will change positions simply to enhance their influence.

Obviously Kerry and McCain are neither for me. Nader is not a serious candidate but someone who simply uses politics to garner attention for certain issues - he means well, but has also been blinded with his perceived power.

President Bush on the other hand is much more the Reagan mold of servant to the country with a firm set of guiding values. I may not agree with all decisions, but he has brought respect back to the office and has a clear view of where this country has to go, not 4 years from now, but 20 or 50 years from now. Communism was too strong to be confronted when Reagan came into office, terrorism is the undefeatable enemy today - they are not so different, although tactics certainly are profoundly different. In both cases it is simply a matter of empowering people to take care of their own problems. When governments suppress their citizens, the citizens cannot seek changes. President Bush has helped to free 50 million people in the ME and in a generation we will hopefully see the wisdom in the wars we fight today. How many more children are being properly educated today as compared to a few years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many women are more empowered today in those same countries? How much more free press exists today in the ME than a few years ago? These are profound systemic changes for the better that must be nurtured to grow in the coming years/decades. There is only one choice for our next 4 years and that would certainly also be the Gipper’s choice! GWB 2004!!!!

Posted by: politicals at June 16, 2004 04:21 PM

I will not vote for Bush unless he replaces Rumsfield and Ashcroft, and the OSP.

Rumsfield for the way he pretty much publicly mocked Shinseki. History shows that Shinseki was more right than wrong.

Ashcroft for his tactics with congress. I don’t care what branch of gov’t you’re in. Due deference should be made to all other branches. I’d be just as pissed if a Senator blew off a Supreme Court judge or the President.

The OSP because its a stove pipe that funnels information up based more on ideaology than hard facts and has proven to be flawed.

I demand accountability, and if Bush doesn’t, then he becomes accountable to me.

- From a registered republican who will write in McCain if the above doesn’t happen. I just can’t vote for Kerry … tried holding my nose, but the stink made it through.

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2004 08:11 PM

Sandy- the whole point is, it doesn’t matter if it’s the same one or not. Nobody’s forcing you to do anything. I’m certain that each individual’s perception of the divine is unique, whatever outward conformities of ritual or creed are apparent to others and I truly don’t get how or why the mere mention of one man’s faith poses a threat to everyone else in the nation.

What are you in danger of losing here exactly? Nothing. This isn’t a theocracy and it’s not about to become one. Now, you may find someone’s expression of faith inappropriate in certain circumstances or whatever but it’s hardly the same thing as Congress establishing a national religion and forcing everyone to practice that religion only. Or compelling the citizenry to religious practice at all or, likewise, forbidding them from it.

Or suppressing it, which is what separation of Church and State zealots have come far closer to doing in practice (Christmas, anyone?) than any Presidential testimony of personal faith ever could.

Posted by: marymcl at June 17, 2004 03:25 AM

McCain is Repuplican in Name Only.

But then again, so is W.

I’d like to see the next republican push as vigorously on getting control of our tax dollars and government off our backs so we can get on the business of making our lives better.

Thank you very much.

McCain is a republicrat. Damn nice guy though. When I was still a Dem, I would have voted McCain, so therein lies what I think of the author of this post. Don’t worry, you’ll see the error of your ways….

Posted by: Tsu-nami at June 17, 2004 09:24 AM

McCain may want ‘08.

Posted by: yk at June 17, 2004 04:37 PM

Which would make a Bush/McCain ticket in the best of McCain’s interest. The two would of course have to bury the hatchet and get along.
In light of the AZ. Senator’s stumping with Bush today, it looked as if a Bush/McCain ticket would be perfect for McCain. McCain being VP for only a couple of years would certainly make him the “08 headsup favorite. Or so it would seem to me.
Could McCain/Pataki be the 2008 GOP ticket? What about Colin Powell on the bottom of the GOP “08 ticket?
For now, is Bush to conservative to go with McCain? Or is it a matter of opting to go for a sure 2004 victory? There has always been the question of Cheny’s health which could keep him from being the 2008 nominee.
Colin Powell now says he is willing to serve a second term if Bush keeps the oval office. Powell has served under Regan, Bush 40, and now GW. Seems like he himself has a rather decent resume.
Just a few thoughts……….

Posted by: Eugene at June 19, 2004 12:39 AM

McCain is an idiot. I wouldn’t even let him pet my dog.

Posted by: Al-Uzza at June 20, 2004 03:46 PM

At times I like McCain but too often he just doesn’t seem consistent or disciplined enough.
But although I have a LOT of disagreements with Bush I think it is very important that he be re-elected, because anything less will be PERCEIVED by most of the world, including the terrorists, as ‘backing down’ on the war on terror, as ‘weakness’, and weakness FEEDS terrorists.

Posted by: Glenmore at June 21, 2004 08:59 AM

I choose Bush, and I am not a Republican - actually a Democrat, though like Zell Miller, ‘in name only’. More a Boortz Libertarian in philosophy.

Dave:
Shinseki lost credibility with his beret BS.

Posted by: Glenmore at June 21, 2004 09:16 AM

McCain and kerry shop at the same store for their flip-flop shoes;

But, X, I‘d vote for McCain if he could provide a picture of himself standing behind you while you were bent over, and you smiling and loving it.

Posted by: Al_Uzza at June 21, 2004 06:37 PM

..interesting read: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=216

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 23, 2004 08:10 AM

..interesting read: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=216

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 23, 2004 08:11 AM

..hey Alan ya noticed anything strange about the poll???

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 23, 2004 08:19 AM

..stuffing the box -so to speak…??

Posted by: Rob..NC at June 24, 2004 08:18 AM