On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:46:32 +0000, Canuck57 wrote:


Why McCain? I view him as having too many back room allegiances and
special interests to be any good. But then again, I can't vote -- just
curious on US politics. Kind of like Ron Paul myself.

True, McCain was one of the Keating Five. He admits to "poor judgement",
which it was, but it also seemed to be a wake-up call. Since that time,
he has been a lead voice in campaign finance reform, and from my vantage
point, a straight shooter. While I don't agree with many of his stands,
I think he is one of the few honorable men in Washington.

A refresher in McCain's involvement in the Keating scandal:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:46:32 +0000, Canuck57 wrote:


Why McCain? I view him as having too many back room allegiances and
special interests to be any good. But then again, I can't vote -- just
curious on US politics. Kind of like Ron Paul myself.

True, McCain was one of the Keating Five. He admits to "poor judgement",
which it was, but it also seemed to be a wake-up call. Since that time,
he has been a lead voice in campaign finance reform, and from my vantage
point, a straight shooter. While I don't agree with many of his stands,
I think he is one of the few honorable men in Washington.

A refresher in McCain's involvement in the Keating scandal:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/


His military service is also valuable, but not in a way that's obvious.
Success in politics (and other areas of life in general) often depends on
getting certain people to shut the **** up already and stop making noise, so
actual messages can be heard. There's a contingent of voters (unfortunately)
who believe that you cannot formulate foreign policy unless you've served in
the military. McCain's history silences those idiots, at least on THAT
subject.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:39:53 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


His military service is also valuable, but not in a way that's obvious.
Success in politics (and other areas of life in general) often depends
on getting certain people to shut the **** up already and stop making
noise, so actual messages can be heard. There's a contingent of voters
(unfortunately) who believe that you cannot formulate foreign policy
unless you've served in the military. McCain's history silences those
idiots, at least on THAT subject.

And interesting factoid you may already know. McCain was inadvertently
involved with the fire that almost sunk the Forrestal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:39:53 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


His military service is also valuable, but not in a way that's obvious.
Success in politics (and other areas of life in general) often depends
on getting certain people to shut the **** up already and stop making
noise, so actual messages can be heard. There's a contingent of voters
(unfortunately) who believe that you cannot formulate foreign policy
unless you've served in the military. McCain's history silences those
idiots, at least on THAT subject.

And interesting factoid you may already know. McCain was inadvertently
involved with the fire that almost sunk the Forrestal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal


That looks like it was a Very Bad Day for all involved. And I'm the king of
understatement today.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


His military service is also valuable, but not in a way that's obvious.
Success in politics (and other areas of life in general) often depends on
getting certain people to shut the **** up already and stop making noise,
so actual messages can be heard. There's a contingent of voters
(unfortunately) who believe that you cannot formulate foreign policy
unless you've served in the military. McCain's history silences those
idiots, at least on THAT subject.


I am not sure I understand the last two sentences of your post, but I *do*
believe that a military combat veteran is less likely to rush to war than
someone without combat experience.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


His military service is also valuable, but not in a way that's obvious.
Success in politics (and other areas of life in general) often depends on
getting certain people to shut the **** up already and stop making noise,
so actual messages can be heard. There's a contingent of voters
(unfortunately) who believe that you cannot formulate foreign policy
unless you've served in the military. McCain's history silences those
idiots, at least on THAT subject.


I am not sure I understand the last two sentences of your post, but I *do*
believe that a military combat veteran is less likely to rush to war than
someone without combat experience.

Eisboch



Perhaps, but formulating foreign policy has nothing whatsoever to do with
military experience.

wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:46:32 +0000, Canuck57 wrote:


Why McCain? I view him as having too many back room allegiances and
special interests to be any good. But then again, I can't vote -- just
curious on US politics. Kind of like Ron Paul myself.

True, McCain was one of the Keating Five. He admits to "poor judgement",
which it was, but it also seemed to be a wake-up call. Since that time,
he has been a lead voice in campaign finance reform, and from my vantage
point, a straight shooter. While I don't agree with many of his stands,
I think he is one of the few honorable men in Washington.

A refresher in McCain's involvement in the Keating scandal:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/


Find me a clean major league politician and I'll show you a guy with a
wide stance in the men's room.


--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:46:32 +0000, Canuck57 wrote:


Why McCain? I view him as having too many back room allegiances and
special interests to be any good. But then again, I can't vote -- just
curious on US politics. Kind of like Ron Paul myself.

True, McCain was one of the Keating Five. He admits to "poor judgement",
which it was, but it also seemed to be a wake-up call. Since that time,
he has been a lead voice in campaign finance reform, and from my vantage
point, a straight shooter. While I don't agree with many of his stands,
I think he is one of the few honorable men in Washington.

A refresher in McCain's involvement in the Keating scandal:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/

Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for
president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating
McCain's image.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/

Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for
president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating
McCain's image.

Oh come on, that article was written in 2000.

wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:50:13 -0500, BAR wrote:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
Why does slate.com want McCain as a the Republican nominee for
president? There is too much media involvement in rehabilitating
McCain's image.

Oh come on, that article was written in 2000.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't McCain run for President in 2000?

Chris Matthews, MSNBC/NBC, was hoping to get McCain to challenge bush in
2004.