I don't recall the precise history of it. However, I think I heard some commentators speak to this very issue. This this was an event that “changed” McCain and transformed him into an “anti-corruption” type of politician. The thinking was therefore that this was a “moment of conversion” who makes him what he is today and I think it should therefore not hurt him.
I think McCain was involved or implicated in some sort of lobbying scandal or enabling legislation that was at the heart of the scandal. I also seem to remember hearing that he was a personal friend of Michael Keating.
The American people won't remember the Keating 5 scandal, and those who are going to vote for McCain (which I won't be), will be voting for him because he's the lesser of two evils proverbially. Obama has a darker history to overcome than McCain because he was involved in the dirty mess that is Chicago politics. But I'm going to write in Ron Paul this November because I'm sick of settling on moderate-liberal nominees in the GOP. I think both major political parties have some deep soul searching to do because they are pulling further and further away from their respective electoral bases.
The American people won't remember the Keating 5 scandal, and those who are going to vote for McCain (which I won't be), will be voting for him because he's the lesser of two evils proverbially. Obama has a darker history to overcome than McCain because he was involved in the dirty mess that is Chicago politics. But I'm going to write in Ron Paul this November because I'm sick of settling on moderate-liberal nominees in the GOP. I think both major political parties have some deep soul searching to do because they are pulling further and further away from their respective electoral bases.
Here, I have to disagree with you. Both parties are growing closer to their true bases, which are whoever happens to throw the most money at them. National politics has been divorced from the will of the people since at least the First Adams administration. I can think of few presidents who actually cared what the common man wanted, strangely they seem to be considered among the greatest. Men such as Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, Reagan, and Ike. I wonder why people dont wake up and instead of counting on empty promises hold our elected leaders feet to the fire and force them to deliver on their campaign promises.Bush is widely lambasted by the left for delivering on his promises to lower taxes and require accounatbility in education. While I dont agree with all or even many of his policies, I have to give him credit for trying to do what he said he would. It is my firm belief that history will treat him much more kindly than it will treat Bill Clinton.
The Evangelical Conservative Right is the true base of the GOP, but for some reason, they want the Log Cabin RINO's to be the nominees. In the process they are alienating people like me. I'm not saying McCain is a horrible person, or Obama for that matter, but neither truly represent what I stand for. I agree with McCain on the WOT and on abortion, but that's about it….and that isn't enough. I agree with Ron Paul on far more issues, and I think the GOP dropped the ball by not giving Paul the nod.
Alright, I'll split the middle. I agree with Donnie that the base of the Republican party is the conglomeration of Christians that is particularly staunch on social issues. I don't think that McCain represents this entirely, but at the same time I don't think McCain is antagonistic to this base. The base of the party is a bit to the right of John McCain.That said, I think that Donnie's argument might have held more weight during the primaries. I think that Ron Paul has a greater message than McCain, though his stance on removal of the troops - including troops stationed in military bases around the world - is likely at odds with the majority of Republicans. In the end, however, Ron Paul isn't the candidate that the people chose and the way our system works he therefore will have no realistic chance of winning.
Isn't the rise of social conservatism a recent development in party history? It is my understanding that the traditional Republican base is not social conservative but traditional liberal democrats from before when liberal was a dirty word. I am talking advocates of liberal democracy in the 19th century mold. Remember, it was the Republicans who freed the slaves and led reconstruction as well as the final conquest of the west. Republicans also are not traditionally isolationist like the Libertarians.My biggest problem with Ron Paul, among many, is his isolationist streak. I fail to see how isolationism helps American security. I also don't like his tax ideas.Sadly, there was not a good candidate among the entire bunch this go round. I will literally hold my nose and vote for McCain simply because the big government position of the Democrats scares the wits out of me. Every time Obama or Hillary talk about their social engineering proposals I hear Big Brother in the background, same goes for supposed Republican security initiatives.I want Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan or hell, even U.S. Grant back.
A third party candidate has not won a presidential election in a long time, if ever. So voting third party “to make a statement” is throwing away your vote, IMO. My fear is there are going to be more angry Republicans doing it this year, so we should get used to saying President Obama.Think of this, McCain may not be the ideal Conservative candidate, but his cabinet will be far more effective, experienced, and Conservative than Obama's. McCain will probably keep Gates, Obama probably won't.Ron Paul may be the awesomest, but his ideas still have to pass through a very likely Democrat Congress. It ain't gonna happen.
If we want to avoid a pseudo-communist Obama presidency we will have to hold our noses and vote for McCain. He is an imperfect candidate but far superior to what the Democrats are offering this year. Unfortunately, whoever, is elected all we can hope for is that things don't get worse, which I am afraid they will do. We will still be mired in Iraq, unless Obama runs away, and the government will still be running huge deficits.I wish I could get away with deficit spending. I have said for years that if I balanced my checkbook like the federal Government, I would be in jail for fraud. Some amount of public debt is warranted, even necessary, but the current public debt is obscene and unsustainable in the long run. I don't see either major party talking sense about that and neither does Ron Paul for that matter.
I don't place my vote for who I think has a realistic chance of winning. I vote for who I think best represents me….if everyone would do the same, the best candidates would win every time.
I don't place my vote for who I think has a realistic chance of winning. I vote for who I think best represents me....if everyone would do the same, the best candidates would win every time.
I do that in the primaries. What I refuse to do is vote for someone with no realistic chance of winning in the general election. I did that for Perot in 92 and 96 and got Clinton instead. That is a mistake I will never make again. I would rather vote for an electable person that shares most of views than an unelectable person who shares all of them. I too, am on the political fringe in my opinions and I hope to one day see a like-minded person in the position where they can get elected but ubtil then I will do everything I can to ensure that someone completely opposite my views like and Obama or Clinton does not get elected because I petulantly vote on a forlorn hope.This does not mean that anyone else is not free to vote their conscience, I simply choose pragmatism over idealism.