March 7th is the California Primaries, and I am in a quandry about who to vote for. I am a registered Republican, and I am torn about 50/50 on the Bush/McCain issue.

I started out being 100% Bush, thinking he would have the best shot at the Presidency, but the more I heard McCain, the more I liked him. Now both claim to be taking the moral high ground, both claim to be reformers and Reagan Republicans, both claim to be pro-life, both claim the other isn't, both claim to be Christians and deeply religious, both claim the other is a bigot ... I was hoping I could get opinions about both candidates from the forum so you could help me make an informed decision here. Especially now with certain members of the "Religious Right" (I consider myself both "religious" and "right", and those people really turn my stomach!) are waging what I consider to be very underhanded, unchristianlike smear campaigns against McCain now.

Anyway, I would appreciate any and all opinions on the subject. Thanks!

In His Service,

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

Answers

Alright.....here is how my thought processes are going.....

Gore....gag Bradley.....not a chance.

McCain....let's see.....Democrats like him, the press loves him, and Independents vote for him....that's enough to show me there's something wrong there.

Well....that leaves Bush.

So....I'll hold my nose go into the booth and pull the lever.

My vote goes to the man or woman that will do the most to keep government OUT OF MY LIFE!!!

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

One more thing.....

If McCain would get off his "campaign finance reform" bandwagon....I could lean more towards him.

As it is.....campaign finance only hurts the Repulicans.....and changes nothing for the Democratic power base...i.e., Hollywood and the media.

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

Bush will be just as strong on Veteran's issues as McCain.

BTW.....yesterday McCain blasted the religous right and said, "This is not the party of such people."

Who made McCain "god" and gave him the power to kick anyone out of the Republican party??

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

Cliffy......

Many of us are working to "get Satan".......out of office!!! LOL!!

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

John....

I continue to be disturbed by McCain's anti-Christian sentiment.

While I may not agree with Robertson or Falwell theologically, I have always appreciated their voice on speaking on moral issues.

It bothers me when a "would be" President seems to be suggesting that "Right Wing" (i.e., Christian) elements of the Republican party are "evil influences."

Talk about getting good and evil mixed up.

Of course, if he is a Mason....that helps to understand where he got his concept of good and evil mixed up. LOL!

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2000

Well, after leaving four years in Texas while Bush was governor, I know one thing: I am not supporting Bush.

I could go on and on, but much to be said about him is well documented here: http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

To summarize, Bush supporters will say he is a successful businessman, but he didn't have a drop of success until his daddy was VP and especially President. They will say that Bush is a successful governor, but political scientists will tell you that Texas has the weakest governorship in the country and that the Lt Governor actually has more power in Texas. Ask his supporters about successful legislation he saw past in Texas. What they will cite for you was NOT initiated or even heavily influenced by Bush (check the record -- look at the archives online of the Texas papers). The Texas Legislature meets only once every two years, and in 1995, the agenda was set before Bush's election in 1994. In 1997, Bush pushed a huge tax reform package (shifting taxes from heavily dependent on property taxes to business and service taxes). That reform failed so miserably that it should have killed his presidential campaign -- but didn't for reasons political. Bush's last session, in 1999, he choose to push ... nothing. He didn't want to fail again, having already decided to run for president. His big goal was to see that anything that might embarass him was squelched in committee (there was a hate crimes bill that was making it through the legislature -- and Bush knew if it made it to his desk for signature, his odds of winning the presidency were dimished. The bill's definition of hate crimes included crimes against homosexuals. To sign it would undermine support from the religious right, to veto it would make him seem intolerant when a campaign theme was to be "compassionate conservatism".)

Bush is a man who got into a prestigious prep school with mediocre grades because his daddy was U.S. Senator, got into Yale where he made "gentleman C's" because his Daddy was who he was and a Yale graduate himself, avoided Vietnam because someone recognized his name on the waiting list for the Texas Air National Guard, never accomplished anything worthwhile before age 40 (he basically was supported before then by mommy and daddy and jobs daddy arranged for him). Come on! Can't we do better than this for President?

In picking a candidate to support, I like to evaluate the person as a human being first, checking out first their character, intelligence, etc., setting aside issues at first. The survivors of that screening are then judged on issues. I have evaluated Gore, Bradley, and Bush (among others who have since dropped out). Gore and Bradley make the first cut (being politics, we grade on a curve). Bush does not. I haven't yet examined McCain's record, having expected that once it was a two-person race, it would be Forbes or Dole against Bush. I am interested what others have found out about the McCain, but since we in NC don't get to vote until May, I have kind of skipped checking out McCain so far.

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

McCain is using religion to divide the Republican party. His advisors have made very harsh statements about devout Christians. He openly lied about making phone calls to Catholics (one day he knew nothing about them, the next he admits that he okayed them). He hasn't summarized his positions on a great many topics except to say that his positions don't side with most Republicans (he said this last year).

I'm not necessarily a Bush fan (and thanks for the update, Mark), but I'm learning that John McCain's integrity depth runs an inch deep. He's honest when it looks good, but not as a rule. In short, he's simply another politician who'll do whatever it takes to win - including putting a religious wedge into America.

I do think that whoever runs in November has to beat Gore, who doesn't know integrity to spell it. Unfortunately the burning sands of the Republican primary season thus far isn't growing any fervor among voters anywhere. I have no stout opinion at this time, but based on winning the November election, I'd lean toward Bush - and it's purely because he has a larger and better organization. The liberals and moderates voting for McCain in open Republican primaries won't stick with him in the fall - they'll vote for Gore, for the most part. So I don't think he can keep the people he's getting at this stage of the game and I think we'll all learn as the election comes closer that he's not the man he's been painted to be.

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

Let's not forget one other thing: McCain was considering a Bob Jones visit as well, but couldn't for scheduling reasons - not for integrity or moral or ethical reasons. So chalk up hypocrisy as well.

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

If we don't wish to see Gore as President...perish the thought!...then we need to give our vote to the candidate most likely to be able to defeat him. In all the polls, as well as in the primary polling places, the statistics show that Bush might barely defeat Gore, but is not as likely to, while McCain can handily beat him.

If we examine each man's personal life closely, we will find their individual skeletons, pecadillos, fetishes, foibles, and weaknesses. If we look instead at the big picture of who is being supported by The Big Machine, who is a friend of the NWO, and who wants Big Government, then we perhaps need to consider the maverick senator.

Also, we need to look at who has the proper experience and mindset to protect this nation. When I was recently EA to the Ntl. ExecDir of the Navy League of the US, I saw the immense annual struggle of the knowledgeable military men, even countless retired ones, to present to our government leaders the serious deficiencies in our Navy, Marine, Coast Guard and Maritime services, due to underfunding and cutbacks. When I was there I'd say, "If John McCain were ever to run for President, I'd be at the voting booth with bells on."

Today I will vote in Virginia's primaries, "with bells on!!"

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

Elaine, you have a point there. I once said that just about anyone with an ounce of charisma could beat Al Bore, er, Gore, who has hugged trees so many times he has taken on the attributes of a stump. But now I'm not so sure. "Dubya" (or as our hispanic constituents here say, "Doe-blay-ooo") comes off as being just slightly more charismatic than a tree stump himself. I also like that McCain, being a former POW, is very strong on veterans issues. Which may sound strange from me, as I have never been in the military. But my dad was a proud Pearl Harbor survivor and I have a deep respect for all our fighting men have done to secure our freedom.

(IMHO a McCain-Dole (thats Liddy) ticket would be a very interesting ticket ...)

Well, anyway ... dropping back into the shadows to hear what more people have to say ... thanks for all the comments so far!

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

It's a shame no one takes Keyes more seriously. Here we see a man who has, IMO, not only won every debate/discussion, he won them decisively. He does not evade questions by telling stories and anecdotes - he does answer the question in a way that is not misunderstood. It's a shame, again, IMO.

I had the coordinator for the Broward Co. Right to Life in my office today and I asked her about their records on abortion. She said that Bush was pro-life but not as strongly as we would want. McCain, on the other hand is not the pro-lifer he makes himself out to be. He has a solid record on voting for fetal tissue research as well as some other abortion related subjects. I did not write down the info because it was a more-or-less casual conversation.

To me, I look at a man's position on the sanctity of life. Everything else he does will flow from that position.

As far as a smear campaign against McCain, I think he's using that to gain some ground. I don't see the smear except for what he has stepped in and tried to wipe off.

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

I think it is dangerous to vote based on who one thinks can actually win the general election in November. For too many times we have settled for a less than adequate candidate only because we thought he had a chance of winning. Now that "everyone" thinks that and votes that way, it becomes a fait accompli. Our country would be in a much better shape if we voted for the "best" candidate period. Because of their statements and voting records on abortion that excludes Bush, McCain, Gore and Bradley. How can we possibly think that there is a value in having our country run by someone who considers the action of murdering an innocent human being a "good" or a "right" even if only in a few cases? How far have we come that we are willing to cooperate in committing murder in order to maintain our economy or welfare or whatever? Can we wonder why first graders are killing each other when we kill children even younger only because they have interrupted our plans?

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

If you haven't heard John McCain's stellar performance on Michael (son of Ronald) Reagan's talk show, you missed it. John McCain lost every vote in the audience, including that of Michael Reagan. I'm sure it will be available within the next few days on the Internet. In short, McCain refused to talk issues and wanted only to talk down Pat Robertson, and angrily so. Unbelievable.

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000

If I have a choice between a candidate who cannot win popular support, and supports a total ban on abortion, and a candidate who is popular, and supports restricting abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, I would vote for the latter candidate, even though I don't think rape and incest ought to be exceptions. Why? I'd rather save 98% of the children whose lives are taken through abortion than save none.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Beerman is right. Most people vote for who they are told is going to be a winner. Wake up you SHEOPLE. I suppose if Satan himself was running for President, people would vote for him if he had a chance of winnng! Of course there is the lamest excuse of all time: I will vote for the lesser of two evils! Do you suppose God approves of one evil candidate over another. What is the lesser of two evils? Vote your conscience, and I pray your conscience is aligned with the word of God. Just think, if everyone you met who said " I will vote for the winner", had instead voted for the right candidate; the numbers of the independent votes would be substantial enough to cause the Demorats and Republicon's to take notice. Even though Alan Keyes is in the Republicon party, my choice is between him and Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party. One more thing: If the Christian Churches would unincorporate and get rid of thier 501(c)3 tax-exempt status so they can endorse and promote Godly leaders; we would probably not be voting for the lesser of two evils.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

One little tidbit of information I just learned: McCain apparently is a Freemason. At least thats what I gather from his remark that Pat Robertson espoused some cockamamie theories about the Free Masons in last night's debates. Bush apparently is not a Mason; at least in examining several photographs of him I do not see any Masonic ring, and I see nothing about it in his online bio. That in itself is enough to swing me back into the Bush camp.

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2000