Subject:
|
Re: McCain etc. (was: Re: Reagan... not exactly libertarian, but close)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:52:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
430 times
|
| |
|
|
Chris,
> > Well, campaign finance is a HUGE one, for starters. I think the whols • system
>
> You're saying that campaign finance reform is a leftist topic?
The one he is for, yes.
> I don't think
> so.
Wow, there is a surprise.
> Gore isn't really reform-minded. In general no establishment politicians
> are going to be. If McCain truely is, then he's an exception.
I disagree with Mccain on his campaign finance reform because it is the same
line leftist have being saying for years. It hurts how the Republican
National Committee raises money, gives less voice for people in terms of
politcally contributing, and gives the press more leverage on politcal
coverage. It also makes government more in control. In my view, that is a
leftist agenda, and I don't think we need it.
> > He waffled on taxes, social security, etc. The
> Are you claiming that waffling is, in and of itself, a leftist
> stance/idea/tactic/attribute?
Did I say that? No. I am pointing out that Mccain has alienated most of the
Republican base for what? To have leftists and independents vote for him,
which most of the exit polls indicated that all these people are going to
vote for Gore anyway? They just wanted to upset GWB. Give me a break.
> Everyone who thinks waffles sometimes. These
> politicos, regardless of their party affiliation, do so a bit more than • most of
> us.
Really?
> > press also lifted him up to a god-like status, even though he is a
> > Republican. The press would also have more control of politics then they
> > already do, and for the most part, are the left/liberal mind. The refroms
>
> The press does generally seem to support a somewhat liberal agenda. But • how
> would they gain power over the political process?
See above.
> > Mccain wanted would have hurt Republican financing, which is both funny • and
> > pathetic.
>
> He wanted to bring the level of spending down for everyone, not just the • GOP.
> In what way would that be unfair?
Why should the level of spending go down? We spend, like, around 2 billion a
year for political running, which is less then what Americans spend on
bubble gum and candy! Its called freedom of speech, if you remember that
case back in the seventies. The government has no right to regulate
political spending by citizens.
>
> > > I think he tried and mostly succeeded in portraying himself as a
> > > reform-minded
> > > candidate, not a political outsider. Everyone knows that he's a career
> > > politico.
> >
> > Well, he didn't portary himself as a reformer,
>
> Um...can you support that. I guess I don't know how to argue when you • claim
> one thing, I claim another, and you rebut by repeating yourself as if my • claims
> weren't there. See my next statement below as an example...
>
> > he tried to portray himself as a outsider, when he isn't.
>
> No he didn't.
Oh, Barbara Streisand. He was claiming that from his starting point, how he
was outside the politcial process, how he was going to clean all the evils
of spending, etc.
>
> > Don't misunderstand, I really respect him, but
> > he would have gotten balsted just as GWB is now.
>
> Yeah, but he knows his right from his left and can tell you the names of • the
> leaders of the bannanna republic. Getting blasted is one thing when you • can
> respond intelligently, it's entirely another when you just look silly. • GWB
> sometimes has responded by looking silly. McCain didn't.
Oh yes, GWB is just a fruitloop. He's not the perfect person, but I still
think he is a viable candidate.
> > It doesn't matter who got it, because the votes in November will tell.
>
> What does that mean? I think that if McCain had won the primary, barring • as
> yet undiscovered closets full of skelletons, he would have beated Gore.
Either one would have. Look at the polls. Gore has never been on top of Bush
or Mccain.
> I
> doubt that Bush will. And for that matter, I don't much care. McCain • seemed
> novel and genuine and bright and so I was for him - even if he and I don't
> agree on everything. Neither Bush nor Gore demonstrate any of those
> attributes.
Well, good for you. I would have voted for either Bush or Mccain, even
though he doesn't seem to want my vote.
> > I think the independant voters thing is overblown, but we shall see.
>
> This is another statement that I just don't understand. Would you care to
> elaborate?
See above.
> Do you mean that the huge number of independent and Liberal voters who • would
> have likely joined the Republicans on election day don't matter? I think • you
> are very very wrong.
They weren't going to vote for the Republicans, they just wanted to screw up
the Republican Primary. They are going to vote for Gore due to the exit
polls, and by what they have said. Are you really this blind?
Scott S.
Scott E. Sanburn
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Coming Soon: The Sanburn Systems Company
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
58 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
