I wanted to put this in the specific republican debate because this question is aimed at republicans and those that voted for Bush in 2000.

I know you prefer Bush over Gore and Kerry but after what has happened do you now feel as though you should have voted for Mccain in the republican primaries in 2000?

In addition what kept you from voting for Mccain in 2000 and what made you a Bush supporter?

The reason for this question is because alot of republicans tend to tout Mccain and show him a great deal of respect yet most republicans voted for an inexperienced governor from Texas over Mccain in 2000.

So in short is George still your boy or do you wish you would have went the Mccain route?

I also wouldnt mind some explanation why republicans decided to choose an inexperienced governor over a much celebrated and experienced politician in the first place.

This is a good question, Kalabus, and I'd be happy to post it in the Republican area for you if you like. For now, I'll just respond to it here and see how this thread goes.

I like John McCain, I think he's a decent guy and trying to do his best for his country. However, I did not support, nor would I support him for the office of President instead of President Bush. I think he lacks some of the qualities of leadership that President Bush has demonstrated, both as Governor of Texas and now as President of the United States. John McCain is a consummate populist, a "man of all things to all people", the greatest thing since sliced bread to coin a phrase. We've seen examples of that here in this very forum. People like McCain, so they ascribe to him positions and qualities that he doesn't take and doesn't have. One member of this forum who is pro-choice said that McCain was pro-choice on the abortion issue and as I pointed out to that poster, that is wrong, McCain doesn't support the Roe v. Wade decision, not at all, which puts him to the right of me in that area. How could something like that happen? How could someone make such a basic mistake in judging McCain's position on an issue like abortion? I think the answer lies in the way that John McCain has chosen to define himself, or not to. People hear him say something that they agree with and hear him say something else that they agree with and pretty soon, they assume that he agrees with them on everything! That's what a "moderate populist" does, they seek to appeal to all people, and that's fine...... for a senator. Gets them re-elected in a landslide, but that's not what I want in a President. I want a President who stands for something. I want a President who knows who he is and isn't afraid to say so. I want a President who leads, not one who follows, a President who makes decisions based on what they think are right and not on one who decides based on opinion polls and focus group research. President Bush is that kind of person. Like him or not, agree with him or not, one has to admit that he doesn't waffle on important issues. He tells you what he's going to do and he does it. That's called "Leading". And, that is what I want in a President. And, that is a capacity I believe John McCain to lack.

That was me that mistakenly acredited him to being pro-choice, and that is mostly because I had lumped him with my own senator, and it had been since the primaries with Bush since I last read his positions on line, vs any other reason- just faulty memory!

The reason I think McCain is better than Bush is his ability to admit when he is wrong- something Bush finds impossible to do- it is not "waffling"- it is a true examination of conscience! - For instance, McCain was implicated in a scandal, the "Keating 5" or one of those, if I recall- and not only admitted he was wrong and duped, but apologized and admitted embarrasment. This is something GW just does not have the strenght of character to admit- it is not wafflinig- it is being a man, a stand up guy and being able to see all sides of the debate, even more importantly being able to form a debate, to be educated about both sides of an issue than just arbitrarily picking a position that plays to your core constituents and sticking with it. I think I was most impressed by McCain taking on the religious right in the primaries- that took courage, character, and strength of conviction despite it probably costing him the primaries, something GW just plain doesn't have.

To put it simply, McCain (and people he would have had under him) would run a constitutional government and passed some serious additional campaign finance laws.

We wouldn't have been hiding things from congress or have had any of the Plume/Novak treasonous shenanigans. We would have good campaign finance laws passed, and it would have made our country more "ours" and less the property of big money 'n big business. McCain wouldn't have intimidated the head Medicare actuary to get him to withhold info, to pass a subsidy for his Pharma buddies (Medicare drug-industry subsidy wouldn’t exist as written). Also, but not a side-note, McCain wouldn’t have ignored the terrorist threat for 8+ months.

I also don't think that McCain would have had his VP lean on the CIA to get them to cook the Iraq intelligence. I don't think that McCain would have deliberately misled the Secretary of State (Powell) and forced him to mislead the world in a widely-discredited UN speech.

Better, so much much much better, but not political heaven.