If you could vote, and would vote for McCain, dare you admit it here? and say why?

[lingle]

Anyone?

athenes reasons are thoroughly valid. This is after all a voting choice. Not a right or wrong.

The way Bush has screwed the economy is probably a good reason folks are changing voting loyalties. This has impacted petrol prices, housing, employment, industry. The recession is reality for millions of ordinary working folks
Yet then again I know of folks who vote single issue - abortion for instance. This poleaxes me more to be fair. Not that folks are anti abortion per se but that that issue alone can determine their vote.
And I admit the roadshow that precedes the US elections... Tis pretty bizarre imvho

Piffle

beforesunrise, your post of 19:40 is good. In fact I do wish that the Republicans would distance themselves from holy roller pro-lifers.

I didn't say I opposed healthcare for everyone. I said I opposed it being socialised, that is government run. I'd like to see it private. I'd like to see competition. And I'd like to see it affordable to everyone. This, incidentally, is something the NHS also has yet to achieve. I think that when you put something in the hands of big government it grows out of control. There is a lot of waste and little value.

Obviously, there are some members of society who could not possibly afford to provide for themselves such as the sick, disabled, elderly, or children. I am quite happy to give these groups my hard earned taxes. Oh, and veterans. They deserve far more than they get.

Cote, as for Iraq, I'm not avoiding you. But, you have completely skimmed over the horrors that inflicted on the people of Iraq by Sadaam. He was a really horrible man.

Ooh I came on mn to start exactly the same thread - as usual was beaten to it

Totally agree, stop bashing Athene, and congratulatons to her for her honesty. Can we have some more Republicans please? I was with a British friend today who is very pro McCain, speaks in debates arguing his cause etc. He gets flamed everywhere. His reasons are mainly to do with being very pro the Iraq war. He can't vote though.

Though Athene, in the absence of anyone else speaking up, I would be interested to know why you'd vote for a man with dodgy health and a deputy like Palin to be leader of the free world?

I found some of the readers' comments under this hilarious in a terrifying sort of way

An, but isn't that exactly the issue? that if the republicans distance themselves from the religious right, they don't get power? after all, McCain used to be a pretty secular candidate (and thus failed to energise the 'base') until he started running for president. that he had to pick Sarah Palin as his VP despite her appalling lack of experience and credentials in order to appease and attract the religious right is truly sad and depressing. i know it would depress me if i were a republican.

I think all candidates have to make compromises to please enough voters to get into office.

Thanks for being here Athene.

Your comment about "socialised medicine" reminds me of my first trip to the States. Working as a temp for a few days, my employer asked me about the price of petrol and then "is it true that you guys have socialised medicine?".
I had absolutely no idea what he meant!
Somehow the word "socialism" is used to tarnish the idea of providing healthcare free at the point of delivery. It's very interesting. Yet I think I have much more choice here in the UK. If I don't want to use the NHS, I can pay a private consultant a fairly reasonable fee for a consultation without any insurance. In the states, I dropped in at a clinic to see if they could remove a verruca and without insurance they wanted eight hundred dollars in 1995. oh dear -too much information. now the other republican sympathisers will definitely keep on hiding.

Inherent in the American psyche is a mistrust of government. President Clinton's universal health care plan was defeated after a whole scale bombardment of commercials, sponsored by the medical insurance lobby, asking Americans, 'do you want the government interferring in your health care? Images of civil servants stamping, 'yes' or 'no' to every x-ray request, scan or blood test was terrifying.

But the fact of the matter is that medicare, a government sponsored health care plan for low income people, the administration cost is around 2%. For private health care is around 25%, so the whole competition argument falls on its face.

More to the point. How can an administration who bails out financial institutions (and is effectively the majority share holder) sneer at socialism?

had to snigger the other day
Little byline in Sunday times.
As capitalitism eats itself sales of karl marxs dad kapital enjoy a 500% sales increase!

"More to the point. How can an administration who bails out financial institutions (and is effectively the majority share holder) sneer at socialism? "

I have not and will not defend George Bush' recent socialist tendancies. I'm not an economist so I don't know what the right soultion is to the financial crisis. But, Ilovemydog is right when she says "Inherent in the American psyche is a mistrust of government" and so I do not like the idea of the government owning the banks. Yikes!!

Y'know, whilst I'd always vote Democrat if I had the choice the Republican values which Athene talks about are pretty compelling. In fact, they've arguably been historically at the heart of what are generally perceived to be American value system, especially the implicit link between democracy and capitalism, individual liberty, opportunity for all and a moderate, but certain, belief in the importance of religion .

The difference to me is over the last 15-20 years these value have been warped beyond all recognition. I find it staggeringly hard to believe that, for example, the Republican party lead by Eisenhower who championed and supported the civil rights movement, provided continued funding and support to the New Deal programme, expanded social security and promoted the Baghdad Pact to develop Middle Eastern stability would find anything in common with the modern day Republican party. Or that the party led by Gerald Ford who supported Roe v Wade could sit side by side with a party that champions Sarah Palin as Vice President.

Athene: I'd be interested to hear what you say but I suspect that the Republican support base is increasingly factionalised between those who agree with the increasingly conservative policies of the last 15-20 years and those who believe in Republican values but dislike the way which the party has gone. The fall-out from a Obama win will be interesting to say the least.

i can't vote but if i did i'd be voting for mccain.
the reasons: obamas inexperiece would scare me and i think he'd invite crisis.he's never been in charge of so much as a city and that level of inexperience would scare me in charge of the only genuine super power left.it doesn't matter how good of a back room staff he has,either he is judged on his own merits or he is just the poster boy and others are pullng the stings,and from what i've seen of him i don't think he'd allow that so it would be him in charge.
as an irish person im a little bit concerned about his line "american jobs for american people in america" as we rely heavily on multinationals doing business here and any attemts by obama to tax or incentivise companies staying/returniong to america could hurt our economy further.

Interesting, cestlavie, the perception of the party is in my view much further right wacko than the Republicans I know. I often wonder if it is largely due to the European media and it's perception rather than the actual norm within the party.

if McCain wins,and dies in office, the security forces will immediately assasinate Palin. Surely?

Athene - re "Saddam was a horrible man".

Yes, he was. And there are quite a few other horrible men in the world, whose populations are being massacred today (rather than the Halabja etc of 1980s). What was so special about Iraq? Could it be that it is sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world?

You might have conveniently chosen to ignore this, but when US was about to invade Iraq, the reasoning was that Iraq was an "imminent threat", with huge arsenal of chemical weapons, looking to be a nuclear power. Nobody was saying "He is a horrible man" as justification for invasion.

In any case, "We think the leader is horrible" cannot justify invading a country and killing 90,000 of its civilians. There are international laws forbidding exactly this kind of flippant use of military force on other sovereign states.

And I still don't understand what the terrible alternative to invasion was. What do you think would happen if Saddam lived out the rest of his life isolated in his little corner of the Middle East? Killed a couple of hundred more dissenters. What else?

I don't really want to engage in a lengthy debate on the rights and wrongs of the war in Iraq. I think it was the right thing to do. It has not been executed very well. I'll give you that. What would have happened had we not removed him? Let's consider what would not have happened in Germany had we stopped Hitler in his early days? Think of all those lives.

Hitler was at the height of his military power and aggression when US invaded. Saddam was weak and was not at all aggressive against other countries when US invaded.

I'm sorry but you are only repeating the soundbites. "Saddam was horrible". "Saddam was like Hitler".

Next, you will be saying Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda (claims that were later debunked, in case you are wondering).

So, hoping you agree with me that Saddam wasn't about to start wars of aggression, what exactly was the terrible future that was averted by invading Iraq and killing 90,000 of its civilians? (I hope it was worth the price)

Sorry, Athene, I don't want to hassle you but ... Still v interested in your views on Palin.

AN: you're right, the European media does have something of an obsession with portraying the Republicans as gun-toting, evangelical neo-cons. Equally, I'm sure you're right that many Republicans do not share these values.

On the other hand it seems pretty hard to argue that a significant number of Republicans do have increasingly conservative views, and certainly views that would have been at odds with the Republican party a few decades ago. Can you really imagine Palin engaging in a meaningful debate on abortion like Ford or McCain brokering international diplomatic alliances in the Middle East like Eisenhower? Can you imagine the party as a whole promising an expansion of social security and healthcare or increasing taxes like both of these previous administrations? How can you reconcile a party which promises opportunities for all having presided over the fastest growing disparity between income classes in US history, or that promises individual liberty and respect for human rights whilst being responsible for Guantanamo and the Department for Homeland Security, or... or... ? It seems to me that there is a huge gap between what "Republicans" can and should stand for and what the current Republican party actually does stand for.

The Palin phenomenon alone highlights the divide within the party - those who believe she represents everything which the party is about and those which believe she represents a throw-back to an era best left behind. To me, if I was voting Republican, my concern would be that I'd be getting a party that didn't actually reflects my beliefs. I guess my point is that it's still possible to be "Republican" and be at odds with what it currently represents, even to the extent of not voting for it.

You would hope so panfriedpumpkin wouldn't you?

Cestlavie, today's Republican party is still much closer to my core beliefs than today's Democratic party.

What I would like to see is someone who is more fiscally conservative and socially a bit more liberal. I think Bush is the opposite. I actually wanted Giuliani but he buggered his whole strategy way at the beginning of the primaries. Pity.

Anyway, I think McCain does satisfy much of the criteria I have set out here. Palin satisfies some of it. I support her views on fiscal responsibility and cutting government waste.

By this time tomorrow you can all start a thread and say "Na na Athene you lost. " I'll live with it. (and I'll start a similar thread when we vote in Prime Minister Cameron)