Wow... for the second time, I totally agree with you, both that he should run and that he could win (the first was on the abortion debate). He's the only politician I can think of off the top of my head in either party who really seems to be honest as a rule rather than just when it suits him.

Seriously, Bill, if you would climb down off your "Triumph of Western Civilization" high horse for a few minutes, I really think we have more in common than would seem to be the case based on our views regarding Iraq.

There you go again - John McCain agrees with me quite nicely on Iraq - how the HELL do his views IN ANY WAY square with yours? Give me a break!

Because I believe that if McCain decided to go to war on Iraq, he would at least do so for the right reasons. He seems less inclined to be manipulated by narrow interests, which I believe is probably due to a little idea that most in the Bush Administration seem not to grasp: honor. I certainly don't agree with all of his views, but I'm not looking for my clone to be in office, just someone I can trust, and who might occasionally make decisions based on logic and reasoning instead of following a pre-set ideologically motivated path that allows no deviation based on contradictory evidence (remember cancelling the Kyoto Protocol, No Child Left Behind, and all the other wonderfully effective policies the Bushies had in place long before 9/11?). I don't know what to tell you, I just get the impression that McCain would take a much more thoughtful approach, and even if he ended up implementing policies with which I disagreed (and I'm sure he would), I firmly believe that an open and constructive policy debate nearly always leads to, at the very least, a "less bad" implementation. Bush does none of that, and gives conspiracy theorists plenty of fodder with his secret energy task forces and various other shenanigans.

Final note: I think you should consider the fact that McCain, being a Republican, is going way out on a limb by criticizing Bush at all. Even if he did disagree completely with the war (remember, honor) he wouldn't be able to say so. I'm not saying he does, just something to think about.

"Because I believe that if McCain decided to go to war on Iraq, he would at least do so for the right reasons."

You provide irrefutable evidence of your inability to apply logical analysis.

Here.

Jesus, Bill, that was just one part of what I said. And it was supported by the rest... like I said, take the chip off your shoulder and we might be able to have a discussion.

UPDATE: The rest was ridiculous too.

"remember cancelling the Kyoto Protocol"

Kyoto was dead before Bush took office, I see few problems with No Child. If you are as against the war as you say, for the reasons that you say, then McCain would be invalidated by an honest decision. You are an ideological hack.

So in other words, even when I agree with you, I'm still wrong if I don't agree "enough". I was simply trying to say that McCain would be a reasonable alternative to Bush, because his views do not seem to be defined by such a narrow ideological agenda. Are you aware that you have yet to respond to me without including some kind of personal attack? Again, I beseech you to look up the definition of ad hominem, and just accept the fact that you need to learn how to present a case based on its own merits rather than simply attempting to demean your opponent.

Mike,

Logic doesn't work with you. If you had the moral convictions that you SAY that you do, specifically about life and death, then you would not support a candidate that proposes nearly the EXACT policy that you are against - I have no respect for this. And I'm out of patience, once again. Go haunt Atrios.

As far as supporting that candidate, you arrogant fucking ass, I don't really have much choice, do I? Who the fuck else am I going to support? John "The Belgian Waffle" Kerry? I have to support him because he's not Bush. My personal opinion is that among the candidates, Nader is the only real progressive, but it's not as if he's going to be elected, now is it? Your thinking is so fucking one-dimensional it's disgusting. I can't rule out a candidate just because he disagrees with me on some issues. I also have to consider whether he might be open to changing some of those views, ALONG WITH the probability of his being elected. Kerry changes his votes, but that appears to be mostly out of a keen sense of political expediency. McCain at the very least seems trustworthy, you simple-minded dolt, that's all I was trying to say. GET THE FUCK OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE and actually PAY ATTENTION to what people say, not just whatever convenient interpretation you make.

Mike, go away.

Easy come, easy go. (c)