Can McCain beat Hillary?

What gun ban did McCain vote for?
Click to expand...

My mistake. He only said he supported bans. He also initiated legislation to require background checks on personal sales at gunshows (2004).

McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details.
Source: Los Angeles Times, “McCain Calls for Hearings” Aug 17, 1999
Click to expand...

And in McCain's defense, he did vote against the renewal of the AWB in 2004. Unfortunately, like Bush(43), he says whatever will get him elected. It would be nice if he would state as a fact he would veto any AWB if he were president.
 
No difference?
How about taxes, socialized medicine, appointment of judges, creating an extra-constirtuional office for Bill to be uber-ambassador to the world?
Click to expand...

I am talking about gun control, not every topic on the planet. I don't believe either one will protect the 2nd Amendment. The exact same position the NRA took with Bill Clinton and Bush(41).
 
Clinton (bill) is well aware of the response to the AWB and is aware that it was a large reason why there was a move toward a republican Congress.. I don't think he'd let Clinton (Hillary) forget that fact. It's a whole chapter in his biography "My Life" (don't worry, I read it so you don't have to)

Anyways, was listening on the radio today to interviews of women voters that had a strong positive reaction to HRC's emotion filled response the other night. They felt it was something that was currently lacking in the current administration and other candidates, and felt it was high time for a woman president. Yes, I know y'all feel differently, but it is an interesting reminder that 50% of voters are women.

75% of the USA still feels the country is headed in the wrong direction, and JMcC's comments on how people feel (about Iraq and us staying there for 50, 100 years, etc) is yet another hurdle he will need to overcome. (In addition to his own conflicting statements of how easy/hard it will be/was)

Is he an War Hero? Sure is.
Is he Presidential Material? Not because he was a War Hero. There is no correlation.

JMcC needs to stress his anti-torture statements more to separate from the "double the size of gitmo" guys.
 
Back to the 50's

Maybe I see things from a different perspective but McCain seem to think he is living in the 1950s. He is 70 years old and he just does not cut it for me. I've survived Reagan when he was showing great signs of dementia or maybe the first stages of Alzheimer's. In any event at my age I don't want another 70 year old thinking he going to save the country by returning it to 1950.

McCain certainly has virtues and experience. But he 30 years behind times when it come to how the military operates. I remember the vietnam era as a member of the US Navy. And I doubt the technical warfare training I had then would be very effective today.

I probably make some of my era colleges unhappy when I imply the 70 is not the time to be playing president as you drool into your soup. If elected McCain would probably do eight years. By the end he will be 80.

We need someone in the mid fifty age bracket. Someone old enough to have experience but your enough to realize the worls is changing constantly and your not going to survive living in the past. Unfortunately there is no viable candidate in that age bracket today.
 
Hopefully not McCain v Hillary

I hope that a wrong opinion as McCain is not going to make it. I'm not promoting Hillary but I am certainly not promoting McCain. He started in 1981 as a special envoy to the Senate for the US Navy. And now after being in the Senate for 25 year that gives him far too many years of being around the halls of Congress.

It seem like we hear endless posting on the problem with congress is the lack of limited terms. Twenty five years in the Senate screams he is part of the problem. You can not promote a need for change by keeping the same guy and putting him in charge.
 
Obama will beat McCain. Hillary may beat McCain. Democratic party wants McCain to win the Republican nomination, that is reason enough for me not to support McCain. But I'd rather have McCain than Rudy G. Democrats will still win. The best Democratic candidate just dropped out of the race.
 
As a Vietnam vet myself I respect what McCain lived through however I will never vote for him simply because he is an open border Amnesty type as is Hillary and I will never again vote the lessor of two evils,simply the choice is poor this election.
 
mccain-amnesty.jpg
 
If 22-rimfire is talking about Richardson being the best dem candidate, I beg to differ. No offense, but Richardson is an absolute moron when it comes to Iraq and military affairs. He supports forcing Musharaff out of office, creating a "caretaker govt", what's that?, and holding free elections in Pakistan. What if the people in Pakistan elect a jihadist thug? What do you do then, genius? It happened in Lebanon, lotta good we did by advocating elections there. Supporting a "cut and run" policy in Iraq is wrong in my view as well, we've invested a ton of money, blood, and time in that country, we need to see it through to the end. Its in our best interest in the end game.
 
Supporting a "cut and run" policy in Iraq is wrong in my view as well, we've invested a ton of money, blood, and time in that country, we need to see it through to the end.
Click to expand...
That sounds a lot like throwing good money after bad to me.

Iraq was invaded on the basis of lies and fabricated/falsified intelligence. What is it that we're trying to prove by staying there now? How "tough" we are? I think that would be counterproductive pride. America lost in Iraq before the first US bomb hit Baghdad. We lost because We The People allowed ourselves to be played for suckers by our government.

Most Americans have finally come to realize that invading Iraq was a mistake and has had no effect whatsoever on US national security. There is nothing stopping any terrorist from coming across the US border right now and blending into the population in order to prepare for a strike. If the current administration cared about US national security, then it would pull all US troops out of Iraq and use them to protect the US border.

THAT would be a true conservative solution, as opposed to the neocon way. It would save hundreds of billions of dollars, US lives and limbs, and America's reputation around the world.

Getting back to the main question of this thread, I doubt that ANY of the neocon GOP candidates (that is, anyone but Ron Paul, who is basically a traditional conservative) can beat the Democratic nominee. Most Americans hate Bush, and they hate Congress for not standing up to Bush on the issue of Iraq when they were elected to do so. Why would they elect someone who promises more of the same?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top