Why John McCain could still beat Barack Obama in presidential race

[Teacher Mark 53]

We are all doing better now and much better off under GW Bush and we should all be thankful for his leadership economically. Get her done, get out there and work for a change and see what happens. Sure things cost more now but we are all making more money now and worth more than ever! Viva GW Bush!

Actually, I'm doing better than I ever have financially. It seems I'm the exception to the rule though.

I don't think you are. Most people I know do too.

Bush has absolutely nothing to do with my financial situation. I am in specialized portion of an Industry that is in desperate need of workers. I was the one who went to school, got the C.D.L., endured 2 years living out of a truck for what amounts to less than minimum wage, found the job in Entertainment, pursued it, got the job and chose to tour year round.

I can thank him for the fact that most people can't afford a vacation this year and will be going to more shows though.

You guys make sure and go to the Vans Warped Tour this year. We kick it off in Pomona in a couple of weeks.

P.S. Stay in school kids. I wish I would have!

Edited June 9, 2008 by WideAwakeInTheUSA

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Obama's tax relief:

• eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000

I don't get this - my 71 year old father makesgood money (but less than $50k) doing a job he doesn't really need to do and collects social security and receives payments on a private retirement plan. Why should he not pay taxes on his income?

[Teacher Mark 53]

I suppose you could argue that Bush has helped me in my line of work. I work for a homeless shelter.

A growth industry for sure.

[zqt3344 21]

GaryC you the man! Keep up the good fight. You make many good points along with many others here, but you are not going to change the radical liberal left bleeding hearts, in their eyes everything is someone else's fault like Bush or Republicans no matter how much you prove it is not.

Right whatever, Ovomit does not offer that, you only like him and other countries like him for the perceive him as being weak and soft and easily manipulated unlike current president. Well one thing is true, the only thing Ovomit can do is give a speech. That is it. Ovomit could not ride a tricycle, come on get real, what is this bike rider BS, eh!

McCain is a liberal republican and that is why he lost the last time he ran for president. If people think the next president regardless if it is Obama or McCain are going to turn things around and make the country grow at the rate it did in the last 20+ years they are crazy. The best thing we can hope for is someone who won't make things worse and that will keep us on a path of economic growth.

I think the best we can hope for is someone who can possibly mend the shredded relations we have with all other countries on the planet. That's a no-brainer...only Obama has that potential. Plus, with his excellent oratory skills, I'm sure he can tell Mexico and Canada to stick NAFTA up their arses in such a way that they think it's a good idea. I suppose he should tell the Auto Union (UAW) to go screw itself as well. Wait....it already HAS screwed itself. There's a reason GM, Ford, and Chrysler built factories in Mexico and Canada.....no unions. Ergo, no idiot making $37.00/hour to install ashtrays in GM trucks. It's a basic assembly line....no one should be making over $20.00/hour. The people who build HP computers make $6.50/hour.....which is more difficult?

So, I think Obama is our best bet. He's the polar opposite of "W" when it comes to public speaking. Wouldn't it be nice to not look like idiots to the rest of the planet for a change?

McCain would only make our strained international relations even worse.

Oh, and let's actually get serious about alternative fuels, rather than just some feel good ####### to appease the populace while raking in the oil dollars. No reliance on foreign oil = a more prosperous America. Again, only a Democrat is going to lead the country that direction. Obama is a bike rider AND a Democrat, so maybe we'll see a funding package for the construction of bike "highways" for easier commuting.

Hey, a guy can dream, eh?

You know, you would get a lot further if you left out the personal insults. While I appreciate some more people on my side of the argument having a point would help more.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He is pursuing more of the same in regards to healthcare and overall fiscal policy - the campaign rhetoric aside. McCain has voted with his Republican fellows 90% of the time and supported Bush by an even higher margin (remember when the Republicans broke ranks with W on immigration, McCain was sure to stand with him). However much he'd like to portray himself that way, McSame ain't no Maverick. The few issues he stood his ground on for decades and had disagreed with Bush and the majority of the Republicans on (Roe vs. Wade, Taxes, to name a couple prominent issues), he fell into lockstep as he started his bid for the Presidency 2008. He is Bush's Poodle. Woof.

To be fair, McCain sponsored the immigration reform bill (with, of all people, Ted Kennedy), and even Bush's position is at odds with most Republicans. Immigration reform is something McCain has supported since before Bush became president.

To be fair, McSame has since apparently abandoned that stance. Another one of his flip flops.

Q: Your 2006 immigration proposal was much broader and included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were already here. At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?

A: No, it would not, because we know what the situation is today. So to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that proposal. We will secure the borders first when I am president. I know how to d that. I come from a border state, where we know about building walls, and vehicle barriers, and sensors, and all of the things necessary. I will have the border state governors certify the borders are secured. Then we will move onto the other aspects of this issue, as importantly as tamper-proof biometric documents, which then, unless an employer hires someone with those documents, that employer will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That will cause a lot of people to leave voluntarily.

In other words, he was for the immigration reform bill he sponsored before he was against it.

All Hail the Double Talk Express!

[zqt3344 21]

Flip Floping by McSame? ummmmmm, sounds like you are comparing him to John Kerry the mighty Democrat from 4 years ago. Do you really think McSame is like Kerry? Because if you do, then you must think since Kerry is a Democrat then all Democrats = Flip Floppers and since Ovomit is a Democrat then that must mean he too is a Flip Flopper, this is so confusing, I am just overwhelmed, now what am I to think of the Great Ovomit?

He is pursuing more of the same in regards to healthcare and overall fiscal policy - the campaign rhetoric aside. McCain has voted with his Republican fellows 90% of the time and supported Bush by an even higher margin (remember when the Republicans broke ranks with W on immigration, McCain was sure to stand with him). However much he'd like to portray himself that way, McSame ain't no Maverick. The few issues he stood his ground on for decades and had disagreed with Bush and the majority of the Republicans on (Roe vs. Wade, Taxes, to name a couple prominent issues), he fell into lockstep as he started his bid for the Presidency 2008. He is Bush's Poodle. Woof.

To be fair, McCain sponsored the immigration reform bill (with, of all people, Ted Kennedy), and even Bush's position is at odds with most Republicans. Immigration reform is something McCain has supported since before Bush became president.

To be fair, McSame has since apparently abandoned that stance. Another one of his flip flops.

Q: Your 2006 immigration proposal was much broader and included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were already here. At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?

A: No, it would not, because we know what the situation is today. So to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that proposal. We will secure the borders first when I am president. I know how to d that. I come from a border state, where we know about building walls, and vehicle barriers, and sensors, and all of the things necessary. I will have the border state governors certify the borders are secured. Then we will move onto the other aspects of this issue, as importantly as tamper-proof biometric documents, which then, unless an employer hires someone with those documents, that employer will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That will cause a lot of people to leave voluntarily.

In other words, he was for the immigration reform bill he sponsored before he was against it.

All Hail the Double Talk Express!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

I agree that whoever is elected in November will be inheriting the current Administrations problems, but in the case of the last 8 years, you've got to give credit where credit is due. Marc framed the question to suggest that none of the major economic issues we're facing have anything to do with the Republican Party and that's not accurate. For one, the President's selection of cabinet members and appointees - many of whom have left their position under heavy criticism. The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history. The Republican Party's mantra is that government can't do anything and then when they are elected, they set out to prove it. Much of the legislation that was put forward by the Democratic majority in Congress dealt specifically with a lot of things that effect Americans. One may argue the merits of that legislation, but when it comes to the last 8 years and Marc's general question - just what can the Republican Party take credit for? As for electing a Democrat into the White House, I believe enough American voters realize that doing so will mean that the Democrats in Congress will then be able to move forward with the legislation they have worked hard for.

This is what you want?

Gary, it's not just what I want but what Americans are ready to try after 8 years of a miserable failure in the White House. Again, whether all of the credit belongs to incumbent party or not, the consensus (nearly 80 percent) is this country is in the wrong direction.

Your ready for higher taxes, bigger government and more deficits than we have now? Just because you think the country in in the wrong direction what makes you think that this is the right direction? Thats called jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

You keep framing it as me wanting it and then defining as something that is going to be bad for Americans. If Americans think it's going to be bad, they won't vote for it, but as I've try to get you to acknowledge before, American voters don't stick their nose up to legislation based on some ideological mindset. It's a simple as this (and the pendulum swings both ways), if one way of doing something isn't working, Americans are willing to try another way.

Obamas way is just another way to fail. He has managed to cover it with so much BS that they can't see it. It seems that you can't see it either. Just because it's different does not make it better.

Gary, I get that you don't agree with what you deem as liberal policies. What specifically don't agree with Obama and his policies that you agree with Hillary or Edwards if they were the nominee? Or Bobby Kennedy? The truth is, you'd be doing the same song and dance about any Democrat right now...which I find amusing. You've got no other argument other than you think any liberal policy is a bad policy.

As long as the liberal way is to raise taxes and grow the government then I will think that is the wrong way. However, Obama is at the extreme of that scale and that makes him worse than the average liberal.

Gary, you rely on the old rhetoric and American voters simply aren't buying it. Read the polls - a majority of Americans want universal healthcare, want us to withdraw out of Iraq and want us to turn the economy around. The rhetoric that under a Democratic President, we'll be worse off is like a stale joke....you keep saying it over and over without giving any substance to the idea. I understand you're an ideologue. When you see legislation, you like it or dislike it based on an ideological viewpoint as opposed to whether that legislation makes sense this time in history or not, and yet I'll keep saying this over and over - American voters (most of them) aren't that one-dimensional. This time around, McCain happens to be on the wrong side of what Americans are saying they want, and Obama is running on what issues are popular....it's really that simple. McCain wants to keep the status quo while nearly 80 percent of Americans want change.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Dan J 277]

He is Bush's Poodle. Woof.

I still like his economic policy better than Obama's.

McCain's tax relief:

• will permanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) - Will only affect a small number of people, mostly rich
• will double the personal exemption for dependents - Bad policy, this would encourage people to have kids, in some cases increase the load on public services
• will maintain the current income and investment tax rates and fight the Democrats' plans for a crippling tax increase in 2011 - The budget is not balanced, does he have some magical money trees?
• will make it harder to raise taxes (require a 3/5 majority vote in Congress) - Not very smart to take away a tool needed by goverment to run goverment
• will reduce the Federal corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent - Balanced out by what?
• will ban Internet taxes - States rely heavily on sales taxes for reveune. If McCain limits this as a possiblity, states will only raise income or other taxes.
• will ban new cell phone taxes - Its not taxes that are the problem, its fees charged by the phone companies.

Obama's tax relief:

• will reverse the Bush tax cuts for the "wealthy" taxpayers (which includes a lot of small businesses) - Small busniess can take alot of deductions on expenses. But Bush's tax cuts have taken a balanced budget and made it a very unbalanced one. With only the promise that it will fix itself sometime in the future.
• will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay. The new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family, will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. - If they are required to pay less taxes, which they can bearly afford in the first place, they have more money to spend in the US economny.
• will simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees. - Good. But the tax-preperar lobby will be all over this.
• will make college affordable by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans. - Considering college is nessary for success in this country, its a good start.
• expand the child and dependent care tax credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses - I'm not really a fan of this. If you can't afford children don't have them.
• eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 - This doesn't make alot of sense to me. But on the other hand it may be nessary. Pension plans are on the way out, and very few people have really done well saving for retirement. SS will not be enough to cover cost of living in most places.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't know Steve, I think you are the reverse side of the coin in some ways. I mean, change isn't any good if it is change for the worse now is it?

I don't think any politician is going to dare to really address the changes that need to be made unless Americans do want to see a country that is great to live in if you are rich and the divide between rich and poor gets ever wider though.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

He is pursuing more of the same in regards to healthcare and overall fiscal policy - the campaign rhetoric aside. McCain has voted with his Republican fellows 90% of the time and supported Bush by an even higher margin (remember when the Republicans broke ranks with W on immigration, McCain was sure to stand with him). However much he'd like to portray himself that way, McSame ain't no Maverick. The few issues he stood his ground on for decades and had disagreed with Bush and the majority of the Republicans on (Roe vs. Wade, Taxes, to name a couple prominent issues), he fell into lockstep as he started his bid for the Presidency 2008. He is Bush's Poodle. Woof.

To be fair, McCain sponsored the immigration reform bill (with, of all people, Ted Kennedy), and even Bush's position is at odds with most Republicans. Immigration reform is something McCain has supported since before Bush became president.

To be fair, McSame has since apparently abandoned that stance. Another one of his flip flops.

Q: Your 2006 immigration proposal was much broader and included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were already here. At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?

A: No, it would not, because we know what the situation is today. So to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that proposal. We will secure the borders first when I am president. I know how to d that. I come from a border state, where we know about building walls, and vehicle barriers, and sensors, and all of the things necessary. I will have the border state governors certify the borders are secured. Then we will move onto the other aspects of this issue, as importantly as tamper-proof biometric documents, which then, unless an employer hires someone with those documents, that employer will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That will cause a lot of people to leave voluntarily.

In other words, he was for the immigration reform bill he sponsored before he was against it.

All Hail the Double Talk Express!

He is saying is that he would not support amendements (such as a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants) from the original proposal, which was heavily criticized from the right and the left. I'm not sure it's a flip-flop unless politicians should never learn from the mistakes of flawed legislation and listen to voters.

You agree there should not be a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, correct?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't know Steve, I think you are the reverse side of the coin in some ways. I mean, change isn't any good if it is change for the worse now is it?

I don't think any politician is going to dare to really address the changes that need to be made unless Americans do want to see a country that is great to live in if you are rich and the divide between rich and poor gets ever wider though.

PH, this is how American politics go. One Party is in charge for awhile until Americans grow tired of what they have or haven't done and vote the other Party in. There are certain general criteria on what Americans look at and with this election and these candidates, McCain is the underdog. I'm not just saying that ....most of the Republican pundits know that. It comes down to status quo vs. change and sometimes status quo sits well with Americans, but not at this moment in history. There's just no getting around that reality of this election season.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[SteveLaura 0]

PH, this is how American politics go. One Party is in charge for awhile until Americans grow tired of what they have or haven't done and vote the other Party in.

This isn't a uniquely US situation, of course. See Tony Blair's win in '97 after nearly 2 decades of conservative rule.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

PH, this is how American politics go. One Party is in charge for awhile until Americans grow tired of what they have or haven't done and vote the other Party in.

This isn't a uniquely US situation, of course. See Tony Blair's win in '97 after nearly 2 decades of conservative rule.

That makes sense. GW Bush won in 2000, in spite of a robust economy and during a time of relative peace. Bill Clinton - for all his political accomplishes was looked upon by many Americans as a shameful representation of moral relativism...an extension of liberalism (as some would argue). GW Bush ran on change - but that change was packaged as a change in values. Some feat he accomplished on that idea...meanwhile pretty much undoing everything that Clinton had set out to do. The Democrats will not only take the WH handedly, they'll have win the majority in the Senate. For better or worse, Americans are willing to gamble on trying something different.

[mawilson 2,133]

PH, this is how American politics go. One Party is in charge for awhile until Americans grow tired of what they have or haven't done and vote the other Party in. There are certain general criteria on what Americans look at and with this election and these candidates, McCain is the underdog. I'm not just saying that ....most of the Republican pundits know that. It comes down to status quo vs. change and sometimes status quo sits well with Americans, but not at this moment in history. There's just no getting around that reality of this election season.

You should give the American voters more credit than that.

They are not going to blindly vote for change for the sake of change - the "change"

needs to be defined.

Voters are leery of change. They are used to the status quo no matter how good

or bad that might be.

[Dan J 277]

PH, this is how American politics go. One Party is in charge for awhile until Americans grow tired of what they have or haven't done and vote the other Party in. There are certain general criteria on what Americans look at and with this election and these candidates, McCain is the underdog. I'm not just saying that ....most of the Republican pundits know that. It comes down to status quo vs. change and sometimes status quo sits well with Americans, but not at this moment in history. There's just no getting around that reality of this election season.

You should give the American voters more credit than that.

They are not going to blindly vote for change for the sake of change - the "change"

needs to be defined.

Voters are leery of change. They are used to the status quo no matter how good

or bad that might be.

That depends on your personal situation. If you are doing well right now, change is not very attractive option. But if that is not your situation, change, even without details is sometimes better than the status quo.