Is the McCain Brand Damaged? »
Posted by: ybdogsct 2 months, 2 weeks ago114 Comments Report this Story
"Maverick" used to be the cliche to describe McCain. But in a Pew Poll, "old" was the word most voters used to sum up McCain. McCain has changed positions on a number of issues. Today, only 40% call McCain's views "just right," while 52% think Obama's views are "just right." 57% think McCain would be a contin
Read Full Story at blogs.abcnews.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 114
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.33 Replies
-
-
0%
wtagg2 months, 2 weeks ago
Absolutely. I would have voted for McCain in 2000. He realized that he needed to become acceptable to those that want the status quo.
I've had enough of the status quo.
Reply -
0%
raats66622 months, 2 weeks ago
I've been saying the same thing for a very LONG time.
The McCain of 2000 would not vote for the McCain of 2008 and the reason is because he found out that the 200 McCain was unelectable (to Republicans).
He decided that it was much more important for him to be the Republican Nominee so he sold his soul to the devil to get the nominee.
Reply
-
-
0%
not2needy2 months, 2 weeks ago
McCain is too old, i have been saying that for a long time. Some people are old at 40, some are still young at 90, but McCain doesn't even know how to use a computer, he forgets what he's said from one day to the next and he is very intimidated by Bush/Cheney, and would allow them a lot of control if he were elected, IMO.
Reply-
0%
memestryker2 months, 2 weeks ago
Even I'm intimidated by Bush/Cheney! But I don't think he'll give them a lot of control--especially not Bush, especially since he remained quiet and let Rove swift boat McCain. Cheney is a strong operative, so he could be retooled if his heart holds up.
Reply-
0%
cowboygrandpa2 months, 2 weeks ago
memstrker:
No need to fear the evil twins. Their power here on earth is short. Their reckoning is comming soon.
They are the ones who will be terrified with the outcome.
God does not favor men who commit evil against their brothers and sisters for monetary gain. Murder is murder in Gods' eyes.
McCain is just as one of them a simple tool being used by evil.
Reply -
0%
ciera-marie2 months, 2 weeks ago
memestryker lets be real and honest here.
1. McCain has done a complete 180 since he ran for election in 2004. So much I don't reconize him anymore.
2. With how much Bush and Cheney, really Cheney have changed America for the Corporations benefit that they'd just leave quietly?
3. Last and most importantly McCain HAS admitted that if elected Cheney will be on his cabinet. That he has room for him.
I'm sorry but I think Cheney will have more control, if McCain is elected, than McCain realizes.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Spadecaller2 months, 2 weeks ago
With all his flip flopping on the war, torture, and lobby reform, McCain has lost all credibility for me quite some time ago. He's an Episcopalean in the midwest and a Baptist in the south, but one thing I know for sure, he is no maverick.
McCain has shown his true colors; and like a chameleon he changes them to suit the momnent.
Reply-
0%
chuck-the-canuck2 months, 2 weeks ago
Absolutely.
I don't think that anyone really knows who McCain is. He is trying to be everything to everybody and in the process is showing himself to be untrustworthy.
Be a man. Grow a set. Take a stand. Quit pandering to the biggest voting block.
Reply
-
-
0%
Spadecaller2 months, 2 weeks ago
With all his flip-flopping on the war, torture, and lobby reform, McCain has lost all credibility for me quite some time ago. He's an Episcopalean in the midwest and a Baptist in the south, but one thing I know for sure, he is no maverick.
McCain has shown his true colors; and like a chameleon he changes them to suit the momnent.
Reply -
0%
cowboygrandpa2 months, 2 weeks ago
When asked to to describe him. Old and honest were used. Well they got the old part right anyway.
I don't know, he may be honest it is hard to tell with as much flip flopping as he does.
Is it senility or lies?
Either way he is not acceptable as a candidate. His VP would end up running the country. You know kind of like Cheney and Bush.
I think that is the neocon plan anyway.
Try to slip McCain in there as a RINO, with a conservative VP who will assume the presidency when McLame is declared unfit mentally.
Sounds like a Rovian type plan.
Reply -
gbilly08Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
nightschase2 months, 2 weeks ago
I would say so, although he doesn't need to have the republican brand for people to see he's damaged goods.
Reply -
0%
Gransater2 months, 2 weeks ago
McCain lost my attention when he came up with the "another 100 years in Iraq statement", and failed to qualify it.
Reply-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin2 months, 2 weeks ago
he actually said 'maybe 100'
he qualified it by saying as long as Americans aren't being hurt or killed, a hundred years is 'fine' with him
here's the clip in a post I made this morning:
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/06/19/...
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 2 weeks ago
There are two problems with McCain's "maybe 100 years" statement.
1) It demonstrates that flip flop McCain was against timetables before he was for timetables.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/politics/1...
"John McCain declared on Thursday that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013. The remarks offered no proposals for how he would achieve that vision.
During his primary battle, Mr. McCain accused his rival Mitt Romney of setting a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, even though Mr. Romney was merely speaking generally about timetables that might be set in private discussions among Iraqi and American leaders. Since then, Mr. McCain himself has come under repeated fire for offhand comments that he could envision a United States peacekeeping presence in Iraq for 100 years."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 2 weeks ago
2) There's NO WAY we could keep a long-term American presence in Iraq without eliciting a severe and fanatic backlash.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/100_...
"The problem with John McCain's 100 years in Iraq formulation isn't that he's calling for 95 more years of combat--he isn't--but that he thinks you can have a long-term basing arrangement in Iraq similar to those we have in Germany or Korea. That betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam. Iraq is--and has always been--volatile, tenuous, centrally-located and nearly as sensitive to the presence of infidels as Saudi Arabia. It is a terrible candidate for a long-term basing agreement. McCain's carelessness and oversimplification, and wrong analysis, when it comes to the situation in Iraq puts him in a surprisingly vulnerable position."
Reply -
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin2 months, 2 weeks ago
shoulda just posted the link: I see the post taken out of the context of the thread doesn't quite stand alone well.
Felt the need to point out exactly what McCain said and to point out that yes, he actually did qualify the 'maybe 100 [years]' statement, and what he actually did say.
To qualify the statement with 'as long as no Americans are being hurt...or killed' assumes the killing will eventually stop, but it also ignores the thousands of American deaths that already have occurred .
And to say he would be fine with 100 years of US occupation of Iraq 'as long as no Americans are being hurt...or killed' also seems logically to indicate that he is NOT fine with our being in Iraq lo these '5 long years'[an excellent old blues title].
so to me, there is a typical McCain-esque logic problem there caused by conflicting statements
Reply
-
-
-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin2 months, 2 weeks ago
He DID qualify it, unless I do not understand the definition of the word 'qualify' as used.
If you check the link I posted he basically said he was fine with the US being in Iraq for 100 years AS LONG AS Americans are not being hurt, maimed or killed.[and if you think about it-could there be a more 'terrorist-emboldening' statement? It seems to say that all they have to do is keep up the IED's and the US will eventually change policy and hit the bricks. an idiotic thing for him to say]
Is this how erroneous notions get started? People just repeat something and ignore what actually transpired?
here is the 100 years segment of his speech again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
I'll listen to it again myself. maybe it's me, it's my hearing or something, but I don't think so.
Reply
-
-
