As an Arizona Democrat, I can tell you quite a bit about why McCain is loved by Democrats-in-general.

He's a fiscal conservative, in the sense of being against wasteful transfer payment welfare, and wasteful corporate welfare alike.

He is personally against abortion, but has never supported a bill that would reverse Roe v. Wade.

He's a man who served in the military with distinction and honor, and keeps the troops in his thoughts. I don't recall McCain ever joining the chorus of "Wag the Dog" when Clinton precision-struck the hell out of that pharmecutical company. (As for that... ah well. The building we bombed on Day 0 of the Iraq War didn't even have a basement, much less a bunker. Intel screws up, it's why the joke is "We bet YOUR ass.")

He is decent and respectful, even to his opponents. In ten years of watching politics in AZ, I don't think I've ever seen him use an ad hominem attack. He's used other forms of crappy logic that have made me wonder what he was thinking, but he's never played in the mud.

Last, and most importantly, he's willing to criticize his leadership. Democrats criticize our own leaders all the time, as a mental excersize, and to make certain the best things are being done. This administration has seen more gain in painting its critics as unamerican than in thinking through the concerns espoused. Intellectual honesty is the first step to moral honesty.

I end up voting for McCain over the Democratic Senatorial candidates, because he's the better choice, and the better man.

Then again, I'm not all that good of a Democrat. :)

McCain/Powell 2004

"too liberal on social issues"

Translation:

"signed a bill permitting civil unions for gays"

Let's be honest, here.

He's also too liberal on abortion.

Don't forget, Dr. Dean worked for Planned Parenthood as well and was later on the board of directors.

GWB is a somewhat socially conservative moderate.

In case you weren't paying attention, McCain has strong neo-conservative tendencies, much more so than GWB. However, he sells himself as a moderate and his tendency to buck the GOP leadership makes him a hero to the press and most liberals. (BTW, McCain-Feingold was the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.)

I find it humorous how many liberals love McCain. He's actually quite conservative.

wayward2

That's probably because McCain fits the old mantra of "less government and less government spending" whereas Bush does not. He has only expanded the government and increased spending. He created a new department (Homeland Security). More people work for the federal government than ever. More power has been given to the federal gov't under the PATRIOT Act, etc, etc...the list goes on and on. The old rhetoric of less big government and lower spending does not apply to modern day Republicans.

"McCain/Powell 2004"



Yes.

Bush/Powell 2004



Just not the same.

McCain is just a liberal in Republican clothing. He should be treated like all liberals (Guantanamo Bay)!

Hyernel

Look up the definition of "integrity"

Clinton really should have done that before lying to a Bataan Death March survivor.

Tinian saying "It's pretty clear leftists are pleased by the deaths of American soldiers" is playing well out of the field. The commong reason people state for wanting our soldiers brought back home is concern for their safety and a desire to limit the number who are killed or maimed. Note that the number in service grossly maimed by this war, that is missing appendages or more, is well into the thousands at this point. It really does not seem realistic to assert that anyone is happy about any kind of casualties since civilians should not be involved and the real enemy is best off questioned at length. Instead of going after a straw man enemy like "leftists" it would be better to aim for some common ground since there seems to be quite a bit of that surrounding this issue.

Dunvegan

Thank you very much, kind sir. You've made this poor "bleeding-heart liberal"'s day.

(Note: I was actually called this, after saying that GWB's rationalizations for the Iraq War were all great, if only he could pick the best one (humanitarianism, IMO) and stick with it. Changing the story five times does not lead to a credible argument nearly so much as it leads to accusations of floudering about looking for the answer that will shut people up.)

That's probably because McCain fits the old mantra of "less government and less government spending" whereas Bush does not. He has only expanded the government and increased spending. He created a new department (Homeland Security). More people work for the federal government than ever. More power has been given to the federal gov't under the PATRIOT Act, etc, etc...the list goes on and on. The old rhetoric of less big government and lower spending does not apply to modern day Republicans.

Republicans - Party of Big Government and more spending.

Democrats - Party of Bigger Government and even more spending.

Take your pick...

Actually, the Democrats spend less than the Republicans - and more of it goes to people who need it. They're also more inclined to balance the budget, instead of racking up huge debts for the next generation.

So it's really:

Democrats - Party of Big Government and More Spending

Republicans - Party of Insolvent Government and More Pork

wayward2

Your argument makes no sense. Under the past "Democratic" president (in quotes because he wasn't really liberal) the amount of government spending went down! The amount of people cut from welfare was astronomical (even tho 66% of all people on welfare are children), etc. So please support claims of "even more spending" when all we've done lately is passed $400B worth of handouts to HMOs and Big Pharm, possibly money handouts to energy companies if they revise and pass the energy bill, $87B to pay for reconstruction of a country we destroyed. I know what we've done to cut spending...cut the troops' hazardous area pay (for being in a war zone) and family separation pay for married folk, and veteran's benefits (ever been to a VA hospital? HA)! I'm so glad they're cutting back on that sort of spending. I'm also glad my mom that served this country in the Navy for 20+ years is being thought of by these chickenhawks in office. /end sarcasm

Your argument makes no sense. Under the past "Democratic" president (in quotes because he wasn't really liberal) the amount of government spending went down!

Only from 1995-2000 when he had a Republican Congress. When the Dems were in power from 1993-94 it was Tax & Spend. The only thing he cut was Defense.

Clinton cut spending to avoid looking like a tax & spend liberal after the Democratic party took it hard inubian. Bush spends to avoid looking like a mean old conservative. Truth is they are both moderates.

took in hard inubian, that is.

1994, what the fark?

I wish McCain were president instead of that figurehead, Bush.

"Dunvegan
Thank you very much, kind sir. You've made this poor "bleeding-heart liberal"'s day."

Dunvegan says, "Thanks, Major Malfunction. But she's just going with the best people available for the governance of the country considering the current field of "possibles."

Met Powell once...he has an astoundingly intellegent mind and commanding presence. When I asked him about running for president, slowly, slowly, a mercurial, enigmatic, and utterly insrutable smile grew to grace his face.

IMHO...I think a McCann / Powell ticked could put together the exact coalition required to secure an election. And, even as a progressive liberal, I'm a dratted parched for a great big cup of intellegently-constructed practice regarding ethics in the Executive Branch.

I think Powell's a chess player. For example, his pawn-by-pawn rise to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shows his carful he's mapping his moves and carefully assessing the field of candidates.

I may not agree with all of his views on the issues, but I think McCann is very straight shooter, and that's a priceless foundation for a president.

To his credit (and indicitave of his frustration as part of the current administration) Powell did lose it amd throw the UN speech notes up in the air, Oval Office be dammed, while calling "Bullshiat!"

Um...in order...

* ticked = ticket
* a dratted = dratted
* shows his carful = shows how carefully
* indicitave = indicative

I'm proud to say that all three of my congressmen voted against the $400 Billion Medicare boondoggle.

Thank you, Fritz Hollings.
Thank you, Lindsey Graham.
Thank you, Gresham Barrett.

(Maybe "nice try" is more accurate. Oh well.)

Republicans who opposed the Medicare bill:

Senate

Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Don Nickles (R-OK)
John Sununu (R-NH)

House

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
John Shadegg (R-AZ)
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Thomas Tancredo (R-CO)
Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Jeff Miller (R-FL)
Charles Norwood (R-GA)
Dan Burton (R-IN)
John Hostettler (R-IN)
Mike Pence (R-IN)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Jim Ryun (R-KS)
Nick Smith (R-MI)
Gil Gutknecht (R-MN)
Todd Akin (R-MO)
Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
Walter Jones (R-NC)
Scott Garrett (R-NJ)
Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Pat Toomey (R-PA)
J. Gresham Barrett (R-SC)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Zach Wamp (R-TN)
John Culberson (R-TX)
Ron Paul (R-TX)

DUNVEGAN

My apologies, madam, for the error I made in assigning that gender-specific pronoun. Please understand that I meant it in the neuter-pronoun sense, as is standard english practice when addressing an individual whose gender one is uncertain of. No offense was meant, I assure you.

I have not been so fortunate as to have met Secretary Powell, but I have read his books and feel quite confident in his intelligence and integrity from that evidence.

Obviously, I've gotten to meet Senator McCain on several occasions, and he's never disappointed me with what he had to say or how he said it.