McCain Is A Flawed Candidate

John McCain is not a great candidate but if the Democrats keep shooting themselves in the foot with their back and forth then he could win the job. As a 72 year old running for president, he must show that his age will not be a problem along with his health. He is known to have had Melonoma or skin cancer in the past and he must show that this will not be a problem. The biggest problem that I think McCain has is his bad temper. It is not known if McCain was like this before being in a Viet Nam prison but his rage at times can be overwelming and he is not the one that you want to lead this country at a time when this country has not been very good with our foreign relations. Mr. McCain has also admitted that he is not real knowledgeable when it comes to the economy and do we really want a beginner to tell us on the job as to how bad we are doing with this Bush economy with no real insight on how to fix the problem. If you vote for McCain you better know his health and how much he knows about the issues that effect your life.

Big Allen,

Although I don't disagree with your statements, I think there are other, more compelling reasons, to believe that McCain is a flawed candidate.

He's voted against bills for our military troops.

He doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the complexities of the Iraq situation in regards to Al Qaeda In Iraq.

He seems uninquisitive about the U.S. economy (we've had 7 years of an uninquisitive president; the limit is eight).

He seems to be in favor of extraordinary rendition. Here's what leads me to this conclusion. On April 15, Chris Matthews interviewed Sen. McCain at Villanova University. When speaking about how he "differs" with President Bush concerning torture, he said,

"We should never, ever torture anyone who is in the custody of the United States of America...". (My emphasis.)

Later, in regards to the future of Guantanamo detention center for suspected terrorists, he said,

"And I promise you, my friends, I?ll close Guantanamo Bay and we will never torture another person in our custody again." (My emphasis.)

Using the same qualifying expression "in our custody" can only mean that he is parsing his words carefully. It implies that he is fine with the CIA handing over suspected terrorists to friendly countries who we "know", despite their assurances that "they don't torture" will so just that at our bidding.

The transcript to the interview is here.
I only saw McCain's first utterance of "in our custody" on MSNBC. When Matthews let such a red flag statement go unquestioned, I was too upset to watch it anymore. I tried emailing the show, but no one, including Matthews has asked McCain the question, "Do you support friendly countries torturing people at our direction?".

In most respects, McCain being elected would be "worse" than re-electing Bush, if that were possible, because he could then pronounce that his election was a plebicite by the people to continue this odious practice. Gotta spend that political capital somehow!

Thanks for your responce. I cannot tell you how frustrated that I am to watch all of the scrutinizing that Obama gets but McCain is not questioned on war costs and and when will Iraq end. Can the American public be dumb enough to elect another Republican that is not far from the one that is leaving, knowing what we know today? I would like to post on sites that might make a difference and get people too think but I have no idea where.