Why is McCain the best choice for President?

spc wrote:This is why McCain is the best choice, he knows what he is good at & it ain't singing.

We also now know hes got sense of humor, thats tough to get up in front of live audience on a TV show and make a fool of yourself.

stockingfull wrote:So, quite frankly, I don't know why it is such a problem to discuss the possibility that McCain has PTSD and, if so, what that may mean in the context of performing the duties of President of the United States. And the angry attempts of some here to bat that issue away are, to me, themselves diagnostic -- of the state of denial. We've never yet had a President who's endured torture and, while nobody disputes the heroism involved, that doesn't mean there have been no after-effects which ought to be of concern. The issue isn't going away until it's been addressed, plain and simple.

Fine, then present an actual argument specifying what your precise concerns are, just how severe you think McCain's speculated PTSD condition is today, and if there is any degree of PTSD you would find acceptable in a presidential candidate.

I've been following these threads and I've seen little more than rank speculation that he has it, and that it is a "concern" that you see as reason to deny him the office of President. In reply you've had people express disgust in the rank speculation and ask for offers of proof. You came up with a data point that he's been to a medical facility or doctor or something that had a psychiatric flavor to it. I don't recall what the timeframe of this report was, but that was all of the evidence offered. Is this what we're supposed to base a serious discussion on?

1) He was maybe treated by a psychiatrist at some point since he got back from his time as a POW.
2) ?
3) PTSD! No Presidency for you!

Without a specific concern and you giving us some indication of just how severe you believe his supposed PTSD to be (and hopefully, why you believe it to be so) it is hard to engage in any kind of debate of the point.

If you're simply wanting more medical disclosure from McCain, they I humbly suggest that trying to stir up a debate with us is not the way to get this done. How much disclosure is enough for you? Suppose he has no PTSD treatment on his records for the last 10 years, even 20 years. Are you going to insist on disclosure clear back to his getting off the plane from Vietnam? What if there is nothing there either?

If you have a gripe with his temper issue then frame it as a problem with his temper and discuss it in those terms, instead of trying to provide some kind of hack psychiatric diagnosis that is immaterial to your real complaint.

And you just did this whole "I've got a concern" thing again in reference to his melanoma. Why do you have a concern? All but one of his melanoma's have been situ type, which are nearly 100% survival rate and generally treated with a simple excise. He had one spot, in 2000 I think, that was a slightly more serious type 15% recurrence rate and 9% fatality rate, but was also excised without difficulty and there has not been a recurrence of anything but situ type carcinomas since. Early treatment is key for these things and it is clear, even as a lowly senator, he is staying on top of things. As President he'd be able to get daily once overs by a doctor if he wanted. I do not understand how this is a point of serious concern for you.

Thanks, Paul, for a substantive reply.

On the PTSD issue, at this point, the evidence is of necessity circumstantial. His torture, and his temper, are both pretty well known. What is missing, and being speculated about, is a reliable medical link. But that needs to be developed not by me but after full medical disclosure by Senator McCain. He's put himself out there as a candidate for President of the United States. To the extent that there is a question like this out there, it's a serious one that shouldn't be brushed aside because it goes to the essence of what most agree the first duty of a President is: to make sound decisions under pressure in order to protect us all. Full and robust disclosure is the only way to put the issue to rest. I hope Senator McCain will realize this and make sure there is full and complete disclosure on the subject.

Shouldn't it be obvious that a candidate's mental health is an absolutely central issue for a presidential candidate? Anybody here remember Tom Eagleton? Some will recall he was McGovern's initial selection as running mate in 1972 -- until the word got out that he'd had shock treatments for, IIRC, depression. He got dumped from the ticket in a NY minute, and Sargent Shriver stepped in. It's useful for us in this context to remember that Eagleton was only a VP candidate, and the issue was only an episode of what at that time was fairly conventional treatment for depression (before all the modern drugs). So, with all due respect to those of you who think McCain's war hero status should simply trump the question, the answer is that it most certainly doesn't; to the contrary, in fact: the extent to which he was psychologically mistreated only amplifies the importance of it.

On the melanoma, I confess I haven't researched it exhaustively, but my brother has had in situ lesions removed and is under the constant care of a dermatologist, as am I, merely because I'm his relative. I know it's serious stuff, the most deadly form of skin cancer. The last I'd heard was that he had a serious problem, and there's no mistaking his distended left jowl (which is where I understood the lesion to have been). Hopefully, what you represent will prove true, because, as I understand it, once melanoma metastasizes, there is simply no way to arrest it. For some voters, that may affect their thinking about whether to vote for him, for others, it amplifies the importance of his VP choice. But there's no way to say melanoma isn't an important health issue. Again, the way to put it to rest is not to brush it aside but to make all the records public so people can ask questions and qualified physicians can answer them.

stockingfull wrote:On the PTSD issue, at this point, the evidence is of necessity circumstantial. His torture, and his temper, are both pretty well known. What is missing, and being speculated about, is a reliable medical link. But that needs to be developed not by me but after full medical disclosure by Senator McCain.

I don't think anyone is willing to give the guy a pass on anything just because he was a POW or a Vet. We're simply not going to get tied up in knots over a concern based on much speculation that he may have PTSD. The question is out there. The media certainly aren't going to let it pass for the entire general election. Indeed, I'm going to be very upset with the media if they already have strong evidence for this and are sitting on it until an "opportune" time. The fact it hasn't come out yet, though, given his long history in the Senate and in past presidential runs, is pretty good evidence that he has not been diagnosed with PTSD and that his personality traits, while perhaps traceable to his captivity, do not represent a clinical malady. It is simply hot-headedness.

He does have a temper that we can talk about that without speculation. Is his temper, in and of itself, a cause of concern for you, Stokingfull? Was Bill Clinton's temper -- attested to be many adminstration staffers and evident in many media encounters, including recently -- a problem that should have disqualified him from office? Hillary, too, has a penchant for flying off the handle at staffers. Is that a problem?

He's demonstrated on a number of occasions, just in this campaign, that he can dial up and down the "energy" with which he engages media questions and "townhall" type questions from voters. Do you believe he is actually incapable of controlling his temper?

I know it's serious stuff, the most deadly form of skin cancer. The last I'd heard was that he had a serious problem, and there's no mistaking his distended left jowl (which is where I understood the lesion to have been).

The more serious legion that I mentioned was actually from one of his temples. If he's had a legion removed from the jowl I'm unaware of it. I've seen what you're talking about, but it seems to come and go (may just be camera angles and lighting differences). It may be something unrelated to melanoma.

The research I did suggests that he hasn't had anything "serious" since that temple legion in 2000. He's had some small in situ legions removed in the intervening years, but they aren't generally considered serious so far as cancer or even skin cancer goes. And while melanoma is the most deadly form of skin cancer, this phrasing obscures the fact that skin cancers are not that deadly so far as cancer in general goes and that most melanoma's are in situ type and almost never fatal. Some stats: Roughly 50,000 die of melanoma worldwide each year. In 2007, 7.6 million worldwide died of cancer. .7% of all cancer deaths are melanoma. It is the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer and it is among the best treatable, particularly with early intervention. Serious stuff? For a person faced with a deep legion or other late stage form of it, sure. In a general sense? IMO, not really.

Hopefully, what you represent will prove true, because, as I understand it, once melanoma metastasizes, there is simply no way to arrest it.

I'm not sure what you mean by arresting it. If you've got a stage 3 or lesser spot then it is usually arrested by excision and little else. Once you've had it, it can never be said to be "cured". The possibility of recurrence is always there, particularly with the more advanced stage forms of it, but most people that get it will simply have a chronic problem with in situ legions that are almost never life threatening. What McCain had are stage 0 (in situ) and what I believe was a stage 1 or 2 for that temple spot.

As I said, there are most advanced forms of it that are very dangerous and thats when you start getting into high probability for spreading into other parts of the body and the need for traditional radiation or chemo therapy treatments. These forms also have much higher recurrence rates and the chance for jumping to new organs the next time around.

For some voters, that may affect their thinking about whether to vote for him, for others, it amplifies the importance of his VP choice.

Fair enough. However I'm guessing a great many people, particularly those with sunbird grandparents, know someone who has had a skin legion or carcinoma removed and they aren't going to get too bent out of shape about this aspect of McCain.

But there's no way to say melanoma isn't an important health issue.

In my judgement, with the information I have so far, I don't think it is that important so far as McCain goes. I'd actually rate his temper issue of higher importance than this, probably by a couple of pegs.

In a general sense I'd also say melanoma is pretty far down on the list of things to get on top of. Lots more death and pain and suffering happening due to other diseases, both in the US and around the world generally. Melanoma is about early detection and almost always a simple legion excision and biopsy of a near by lymph node to check for infiltration. Regular doctors visits and frequent self checks for growths and spots and whatnot is pretty good at fighting this one.

Again, the way to put it to rest is not to brush it aside but to make all the records public so people can ask questions and qualified physicians can answer them.

If he has a serious health problem then he should be disclosing early and often. If he is hiding something, it is going to come out and he's going to have to stand the fire for it, and that fire will be coming most strongly from the republicans who have backed him and those who have been forced into accepting him as their nominee. I don't believe McCain is so power hungry as to do this, though. I don't agree with him on a number of things, but I don't for a second believe he'd flush the party and the course of the country down the crapper by hiding any important medical conditions, thus handing the election to Hillary or Obama (or Gore! I can't believe people keep dragging his name into the brokered convention discussion!).

I suspect any hesitancy on his part is that releasing them (particularly records more than a couple years old) will set an unfortunate precedent and that unqualified and/or politically motivated physicians and hack commentators will drive misleading and false storylines. He'll let the dems chew each other up for a while longer and then jump back in with necessary disclosures of medical and financial records sometime in the next couple months.

It's OK to poke fun at yourself like DOle would do but to have an outsider say you walk like a Robot is crossing the line. The guy was injured defending our country so I believe his service and injuries from that experience should be respected. While I respect his service I'm not sure he would make a good president. Besides his politics which I mostly don't agree on he also crossed the line when he poked fun at Chelsea and Janet Reno. Could you imagine being a teenager and reading this headline: McCain's 1998 joke suggesting that Chelsea Clinton was ugly and Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton were lesbians.

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" McCain said at a GOP fund-raiser in Washington. "Because Janet Reno is her father."


He also has a temper:He had very few friends in the Senate," said former Senator Smith, who dealt with McCain almost daily. "He has a lot of support around the country, but I don't think he has a lot of support from people who know him well."


Another former senator who requested anonymity recalled an exchange at a Republican policy lunch. McCain turned on another senator who disagreed with him.


"McCain used the f-word," the former senator said. "McCain called the guy a ‘sh--head.' The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said, ‘I apologize, but you're still a sh--head.' That was in front of 40 to 50 Republican senators. That sort of thing happened frequently."

Trader, I agree with the first part of your post. He may joke about his injuries, but being ignorant of them and mocking him, in just or otherwise, is uncalled for. His Chelsea/Reno joke was also illadvised and out of line (even though I smile each time I hear it). He's also got a bad temper at times.

However, on the last quote, I find that to be totally endearing. That's just classic. Spoke his mind. Apologized and reiterated. Wasn't out of control. Likely came back and made amends after a breather. If you can't call a colleague/friend a shithead then who can you?

traderfjp wrote:The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said, ‘I apologize, but you're still a sh--head.'

Sounds like something Churchill would have said.

traderfjp wrote:It's OK to poke fun at yourself like DOle would do but to have an outsider say you walk like a Robot it crossing the line. The guy was injured defending our country so I believe his service and injuries from that experience should be respected. While I respect his service I'm not sure he would make a good president. Besides his politics which I mostly don't agree on he also crossed the line when he poked fun at Chelsea and Janet Reno. Could you imagine being a teenager and reading this headline: McCain's 1998 joke suggesting that Chelsea Clinton was ugly and Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton were lesbians.

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" McCain said at a GOP fund-raiser in Washington. "Because Janet Reno is her father."


He also has a temper:He had very few friends in the Senate," said former Senator Smith, who dealt with McCain almost daily. "He has a lot of support around the country, but I don't think he has a lot of support from people who know him well."


Another former senator who requested anonymity recalled an exchange at a Republican policy lunch. McCain turned on another senator who disagreed with him.


"McCain used the f-word," the former senator said. "McCain called the guy a ‘sh--head.' The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said, ‘I apologize, but you're still a sh--head.' That was in front of 40 to 50 Republican senators. That sort of thing happened frequently."

Very interesting post. I have just lowered my respect for Sen. McCain a few notches. As I said before, I have a good sense of humor but, assuming your statement about McCain's remarks about Chelsea Clinton's looks are true, that is just plain mean spririted & not funny at all! ( I am not being hypocritical here in that Chelsea Clinton is not a public figure running for office & thus can expect & deserves some privacy & protection) Further, just be cause a man was a POW does not earn him the right to be elected President, or even to expect respect. I too could not now vote for McCain strictly based on his present stance & many flips on major issues. I do also have serious concrens about his mental agility due to his age. Some people age very well, but Sen. McCain is not one of them. (My Father-in-Law just turned 93 & he is still sharp as a tack, so it isn't just ther number of years, but how they effect you)

Let me see if I have this straight.
You are questioning Sen. McCains ability to lead this country because of injuries he sustained while fighting for this country? (I would LOVE to see proof of his PTSD by the way. That is simply seculation by the left.) and the fact that he has a temper?? GOOD we need someone in there with some fire in his belly !!!! We need someone who will get pissed off when our country is attacked and not just immediately ask how they should repond and still be popular in the polls!

I know I would much rather have a man who actually fought for his country as our leader than one who did not serve and has ZERO experience as a military man.

McCain knows firsthand what it means to go to war and if he becomes President and actually sends our troops into harms way, you can bet your ass he knows what that means to the soldiers he sends.. Barak and Hillary has NO idea what that is like. their decisions will be based on polls and popularity, not our troops and what is best for America.
Yes, I am saying that military service should be a requirement. If you have no military service record than foreign policy and all foreign affairs should be delegated to someone that knows what the hell they are doing when it comes to war.

"It is hard to lead when you didn't participate to begin with."

Devil5052 wrote: just be cause a man was a POW does not earn him the right to be elected President, or even to expect respect.

Oh but it absolutely should earn him respect !!!!! the Presidency? no. respect? certainly

ktm rider wrote:

Devil5052 wrote: just be cause a man was a POW does not earn him the right to be elected President, or even to expect respect.

Oh but it absolutely should earn him respect !!!!! the Presidency? no. respect? certainly

Not if he throws away that respect by calling an innocent child ugly....Then he deserves contempt!

I want someone who speaks their mind but not someone who flys off the handle and is mean spirited. Calling a teenager ugly and saying Reno was her father is enough to remove the man from my list. I think Hillary has done some shady things too and Obama seems to be all talk with little experience and ties to radical blacks. So all in all they all suck reall bad, IMHO. I think Hillary may be the best of the worst. I bet she can keep it in her pants too.

ktm rider wrote:Let me see if I have this straight.
You are questioning Sen. McCains ability to lead this country because of injuries he sustained while fighting for this country? And what's wrong with that? If someone's injuries make him/her incapable of performing a given job, does it matter where those injuries were sustained? (Suppose a Marine is blinded by a mortar round in battle..... Is he still qualified to be the President's limosine driver because his injuries were sustained defending his country?



I know I would much rather have a man who actually fought for his country as our leader than one who did not serve and has ZERO experience as a military man. Me too....Which is why John Kerry should be sitting in the White House & not GW Bush with Dick "7 deferments" Cheney right behind him.

McCain knows firsthand what it means to go to war and if he becomes President and actually sends our troops into harms way, you can bet your ass he knows what that means to the soldiers he sends.. On this I agree with you.
Barak and Hillary has NO idea what that is like. Neither do Bush or Cheney.


Yes, I am saying that military service should be a requirement. If you have no military service record than foreign policy and all foreign affairs should be delegated to someone that knows what the hell they are doing when it comes to war.

"It is hard to lead when you didn't participate to begin with."

I disagree in that you would prevent men like Abe Lincoln or FDR from becoming the great Presidents that they were.

traderfjp wrote:I want someone who speaks their mind but not someone who flys off the handle and is mean spirited. Calling a teenager ugly and saying Remo was her father is enough to remove the man from my list. I think Hillary has done some shady things too and Obama seems to be all talk with little experience and ties to radical blacks. So all in all they all suck reall bad, IMHO. I think Hillary may be the best of the worst. I bet she can keep it in her pants too.

I agree with your line of thinking but Hillary has done nothing but be a cheerleader for Bush's war until she needed to "appear" more moderate to win the Democratic nomination. She was also a NAFTA cheerleader & now is trying to rewrite history to cover her tracks there too. Her main claim of "experience" (like landing under fire in a war zone) is mainly just bullshit. She is a liar who will say/do anything to get elected. (& we've had a liar in the White House for almost 8 years....Enough Lies!!) I like Obama who at least is not a proven liar!

spc wrote:

traderfjp wrote:The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said, ‘I apologize, but you're still a sh--head.'

Sounds like something Churchill would have said.

The Churchill quote I think you're thinking of was probably this one:

Lady Astor: "Mr. Churchill, you sir are drunk!"

Churchill: "You are quite right Lady Astor........But you are ugly and I shall be sober in the morning."