Which John McCain Will Become President, Should He Win?

Note: The article below is a subjective commentary which may contain views that do not necessarily represent the views of YouDecide2008.com as a whole. Our site features views of all angles so we welcome you to argue or agree with the commentary writers, enjoy!

I have discussed McCain’s flip-flopping many times before. Right now, I am pining for the McCain of 2000. If McCain were the same candidate as he was in 2000, he would really be giving Obama a serious challenge; though I wonder if he would even have made it through the Republican Primary.

Which policies of McCain’s will actually be advocated for should he win this election? I would think truly social conservatives would rebel against him and hold his flip-flopping against him, as they did with John Kerry. Or is it only bad for a Democrat to flip-flop?

Which stance on Gay Marriage do you support? Which version of McCain will you get if he wins this election?

There are a few who would not allow a gay or lesbian couple certain legal rights in regards to hospital visitation or estate planning. There are some who are simply opposed to the term “Marriage” but are OK with the idea of a “Civil Union.”

Well, nobody can get officially married in this country without a marriage license. So, wouldn’t it be the case that if the couple’s church was all right with marrying them, they should be allowed to marry? Isn’t that the freedom of religion that we all profess to hold dear to our hearts?

Now what about tax cuts? Would we have the McCain who opposed Bush’s tax cuts or the one who now wants to make them permanent?

Reversing a tax cut is only a tax increase based upon the current rate, but it is not a tax increase over what was being paid previously. In a time of war, the Federal Government needs the extra money in order to effectively wage the war; and in many cases, it’s the only way for some people to contribute to the war effort. Isn’t that an example of paying taxes being patriotic?

Roe vs. Wade has been a big source of disagreement between conservatives and liberals for a very long time. The levels of disagreement vary greatly – some say they simply think it should be State decision rather than a Federal one. Others think abortion should be completely illegal. What does John McCain think? Who can really know which is true today?

State-level legislation many times creates a situation in which a person is without the means to leave their particular residence or area, and thus is forced into an unfair/unjust law. Certain laws need to be at the Federal level to assure equal treatment for all Americans.

What about the big names of the Religious Right? Are Dobson, Falwell (may he rest in peace) or Robertson people John McCain would turn to for advice or policy decisions? I’m no longer sure. I can’t say which way he’ll go. Please note that most video clips documenting this are currently unavailable on YouTube. However, the content is well-covered within the two summary videos at the end.

Hopefully, McCain will not take too much advice from these religious talking heads. They badly represent evangelical people; whom the majority are level-headed and compassionate and do, indeed, believe in being good Christians; which, by definition means to be “Christ-like” in behavior and beliefs.

There are many more examples of John McCain’s flip-flopping. How could anyone could vote for him, based upon a complete lack of certainty as to who he would be were he to win – the John McCain of 2005 and earlier or the John McCain of 2006 and later? Do you want to take that chance?

Perhaps Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party would be a better choice? Or perhaps a write-in campaign for Ron Paul?

In any case, I wonder who will be hoodwinked; the supporters of the “old McCain” or those of the “new McCain”?

PeoplePower is a frequent commenter on YouDecide2008.com and now guest commentary contributor.

The commentary section features opinions and articles which do not necessarily represent the views of YouDecide2008.com as a whole. So enjoy their articles and argue with them or agree with them.

  • Dreadsen

    Hey people power

    You know the old saying we keep hearing with the candidates.

    “if this was McCain it would be all over the media”

    Or “the media is in the tank for Obama”

    They are so in the tank for Obama they didn’t have time to cover these flip flops.

    All of that is the MAVERICK they keep talking about. His stances now are not Maverick they are just to the right.
    If he still had those stances then he could still carry that brand. But for those waaay to the right wing people they better hope he isn’t just pandering to get elected because if he flips BACK on those stances they will be pissed.

    You should have included this video. This shows McCain and how he supports the so called socialism of taxing the rich and lowering them on the poor.


    He makes it perfectly clear that he didn’t like the Bush Tax cuts because it favored the Wealthiest of Americans and didn’t help the middle class.

  • PeoplePower

    Wow. I didn’t expect this to garner so little attention…

    Dreadsen, you’re right. That would have been a good one to include!

    Unfortunately, I expect that a lot of McCain supporters are viewing this as a vote for the lessor of two evils, as they’re painting Obama out to be some horrible nightmare, should he get in. Foolish, greedy and short-sighted.

  • dale

    Can somebody please write a commentary on the separate opposing goals of the Republican party.

    For mine, the financial policies of which we are all aware starkly contrast with finer points of their social policies which appeal to evangelicals.

    The starkly different groups between those who so aptly name themselves “Financial Conservatives” and those that are “Religious Conservatives” are so separate in their constituencies and values that lumping them together to me seems like an obvious cognitive dissonance. Not to mention the fact that most of those at the top of party are business leaders, not church leaders.

    By what convoluted logic are they linked together? Is there a reason why that point is not made more often?

  • Stalin

    From the very liberal, Obama endorsing, Washington Post:

    1. Special interests- In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as “special interest” money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of “working people” and says he is “thrilled” by their support.

    2. Public financing- Obama replied “yes” in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

    3. The Cuba embargo- In January 2004, Obama said it was time “to end the embargo with Cuba” because it had “utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro.” Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not “take off the embargo” as president because it is “an important inducement for change.”

    4. Illegal immigration- In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should “crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.” He replied “Oppose.” In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that “we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation.”

    5. Decriminalization of marijuana- While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

  • Babs

    Don’t forget the “without preconditions” flip, too, Stalin.

  • PeoplePower

    Stalin & Babs – this article is about McCain’s flip-flopping. If you want to comment on Obama’s changes in viewpoint, wait for someone to post some article about it.

    Which McCain will be in charge, if he wins? Which one would you *want* to be in charge?

    Or are you plugging your nose and voting for the “not-Obama” option?

  • Stalin


    You said, “There are many more examples of John McCain’s flip-flopping. How could anyone could vote for him, based upon a complete lack of certainty as to who he would be were he to win.” I’m countering by saying that Obama has done the same thing, thereby nullifying your entire argument.

  • PeoplePower

    No Stalin, it does not nullify my argument.

    However, let’s play. Assuming Obama flip-flops on the things you mentioned, most of them are minor policy stances or election decisions that aren’t relevant to policy. All that means is that it is uncertain if Obama would be for legalizing marijuana or opening up relations with Cuba. The latter is a little important, but not as huge as how to manage taxes and the economy. It may bring some small doubts about which way Obama will turn, but it doesn’t lessen how much and significantly McCain’s policies differ with McCain’s own policies.

    The issues you raise aren’t as significant of issues as whether or not he’s for or against Roe v. Wade or is for or against taxing the wealthy or he’s opposed to the power-brokers of the religious right or in bed with them.

    I would think that if you’re a social conservative (not sure if you are) that being certain about his stance on Gay Marriage, Abortion and Roe v. Wade would be big items for you. And if you’re a fiscal conservative, knowing whether he’ll tax the wealthy more or less and having a concrete rock to stand on about his economic plans would be critical.

    If you’re both, hoo-boy, lookout if you stump for the “new McCain” but end up getting the “old McCain”…

    This isn’t a referendum on whether Obama had some flip-flops, it’s a question about whether you’ll get what you pay for with a McCain administration.

    Personally, if the “old McCain” is the one we get (should he win), I would be less concerned about the consequences…I’d just pray very strongly that nothing happens to him…

  • Stalin


    I just gave a few from the Wash Post. Here are a whole host of other flip flops from various sources. It includes some very important issues including, fiscal, social, foreign policy:


  • Babs

    McCain is McCain. We’ll get McCain – not Bush.

    If you wish to control the context of my comments, I won’t comment on your commentary anymore. 😉

  • Bill Hedges

    People Power- Get on the internet and study Regan economics. I have seen countless people explain how lowerimg coperate taxes has lead to the longest BULL MARKET. That is McCain, the old wise man, belief.

  • dale

    Bill don’t even dare try to act like the economic expert we both know you aren’t.

    Should you or anybody else decide that might be a problem when wanting to act as an economic expert, here’s a 47 min short course on it’s history.

    Money as Debt

    The more detailed laws of supply and demand which we both know, again, that you decidedly don’t understand to any great degree are irrelevant when compared to the greater issues described in this presentation anyway.

  • Bill Hedges

    dale–I am just a day trader. I stopped when subb-prime notes was added to good notes to up value of the bundled. What I said earlier is correct. You do not wish to give another country as example. ok. I never said I was a expert. You gave me hat tittle. rNeithe are you. What Wilson have to do with our current situation is beyong me. But please explain. Oh, never mind. Supply and demand reminds me who you are. Never mind.

  • Bill Hedges

    dale- you want to go around insulting my comments, I will be glad to do the same to you. Last we met you did not know economic terms. You said you were expert. You are sore because I caught your simple mistake. I don’t like going around looking for your comments and giving you a hard time. But you push me, I will..

  • PeoplePower

    Bill – the “Bull Market” of the Reaganomics was partly due to false growth from various deregulations and new investment vehicles. These have kept the largely-bull market going, but it was an illusion, just as it was in the 1920’s when the Republicans jiggled with the system so some people could become hyper-rich, as they’ve done again.

    We have the same situation going on now and we are poorly equipped to pull out of another Republican Great Depression. We no longer have the manufacturing base, care of Reaganomics. We no longer are the greatest importer of raw materials and exporter of finished goods, thanks to Reaganomics. We are now the greatest debtor nation in the world, rather than the biggest lender, thanks once again to Reaganomics.

    The underlying companies who ran their businesses well have been and probably always will be a good investment. But the hyper-expansion of the stock market was a large bubble that was built on other bubbles…

    …and there’s one more that is yet to burst and when it does it will be utterly ruinous. I don’t recall the name of the investment vehicle, but it has something to do with the commodities and blended investments.

    Good luck to us all (worldwide)!

    If this does come to pass, I say “if” in a more hopeful way than expectant one, than it may be the last time we can say, “As the U.S. Market goes, so goes the world’s”…at least for a *very* long time.

  • Bill Hedges

    PEOPLE POWER-YOU ARE REFERRING TO SUB-PRIME. Many sub-prime loans grouped together in a bundle. These bad loans began with ACORN, Dodd, and Frank. And many others. When market stop rising, the whole thing fell apart. Not all these bad loans was to low income, rich got involved as well. Countrywide was a big part of this. These bundles was sold to Fanny , Freddy, and the rest. What you must remember. Bush and McCain wanted this to be regulated. They forcast this fall. There are many videos of hearings of Dodd and Frank saying reguations not needed…It was not false growth. During Clinton time, sub-prime went wild. Demand from government that increase loans be given out. Trillion of dollars supplied for that purpose….As far as debt. without counting bail-out, check the debt of Bush first 6 years in office. Then check last two under Democrat control. Or chck debt for Clinton, between the times Democrats an Republican control Congress. You should find Democrats outspent not Republicans.

  • Bill Hedges

    PEOPLE POWER– Go to..D.C.Examiner.. on the internet. They have some of the possible Democrat purposed bills.. There are sources that will show you the POR BELLY SPENDING for alll members of Congress.

  • Bill Hedges

    PEOPLE POWER–I am going to sleep soon. May I suggest you watch a show that Obama has mentioned many times. Badly. Hannity will have show Sunday about Obama’s past. I suggest you watch., On FOX NEWS

  • IndiMinded

    Wow. For a commentary about McCain, everyone seems eager to discuss Obama.

    The unspoken insinuation by several arguments made here is that McCain is bad, but the lesser of 2 evils.

    Well that’s a fine stance to take, but everyone could breathe easier, and the arguments made would be much stronger, if only that bit were mentioned when the case was made. If you dislike both candidates but think Obama is significantly worse, just say so. Stop beating around the Bush and let’s discuss the Elephant in the room, shall we?

  • dale

    Haha Bill, you’re absolute lack of proper understanding called you out, not me. You can say I was wrong till the cows come home. I gave you a link to wikipedia article that fully explained it, it even used pretty pictures. You chose not to read it, if you did, you may have understood.

    Since you didn’t read the article, don’t say I was wrong, because I most definitely wasn’t. How a tax is distributed is most definitely effected by supply and demand. Also, I would give you an example of a country with a good economic structure but all you would do is attack whatever perceived weaknesses (which all countries have, obviously) the country has or pick a few reasons why it wouldn’t work in your country. I just couldn’t be bothered having that conversation.

    You were wrong about that, and you were wrong about UN support for the Iraq war. BOTH of which I gave you good references for. I’m sure you didn’t read either lest you be forced to admit your own intellectual shortcomings.

    Your insufficient economic and political knowledge is only surpassed by your atrocious spelling and grammar.

  • bdjnk

    Good call IndiMinded.

    Lets all just agree to the fact that while McCain might be bad, Obama will be horrible.