Talk:John McCain/Archive 1

message: The reason McCain was labeled as  a “RINO” by some Republicans was not because he was a social moderate, but rather he is a fiscal moderate/liberal.  McCain is in no way a fiscal conservative.  He is probably the biggest fiscal liberal in the Republican party in the Senate.  And I don't know how it's possible to label him as a social moderate, when on social issues he scores the same as Senator Sam Brownback, who is considered to be one of the most social conservatives in the Senate.  Here, look at this link: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm
McCain scores a 40% on social issues, when social Moderates are usually 50% or higher.  He only scores a 50% on fiscal issues which is very low for a Republican.  
Burroughsks88 17:29, 03 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for being labeled a "RINO"

message: I feel the following sentence fragment needs to be sourced, or otherwise deleted.
" ... though in the 2000 elections, many saw Bush as the more moderate candidate and McCain as the more conservative candidate."
While it may be true that some viewed the two candidates this way, it was not in my recollection a very widely held view. It also appears contradictory since this wiki article states that Senator McCain is considered to be a moderate Republican.   --198.70.80.65 20:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncategorized Comments

message: When one uses the "go" button on Mccain, or MCCAIN, or anything but McCain, it seems to automatically bring the user to McCain Foods, the company.  The disambiguation page works fine for McCain.  Is this a feature or a bug?  Could we correct it if it is a bug?
:Mccain used to redirect there. It's fixed now  --Berkut 12:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page 

message: "I work with boobs every day in congress"
Last night on Jat Leno When asked how he felt about having a cameo in "Wedding Crashers" a film that also contains brief topless nudity McCain joked.
I noticed he also has a long scar the left side (his left) of his face.
:He had a cancerous growth removed from his face in 2000, I think that's what it's from.  There was an article in the New Yorker about him a few months ago that mentioned this.  The growth's cancerous nature was detected by doctors in a routine checkup after he had been defeated in his run for the Republican nomination -- the article speculated that if he had been nominated, he probably would have put off the checkup until after the election, at which time it would have been much more serious. --Jfruh 18:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of Boobs and scars 

message: I'm intrigued that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was under the "control" of the United States but not, I don't think, technically considered a part of the United States during the course of its existance (a la Guantanamo Bay).  The fact that he's run for president no doubt means that smart legal brains have determined that he is in fact a "natural-born" citizen of the US, but it makes me wonder what the precise definition of this term is.  Does it mean that you are born on US soil (with that definition being loose enough to include the Canal Zone), or that you were a US citizen at birth (which McCain would have been no matter where he was born, by virte of his parents' US citizenship)? --Jfruh 18:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I see that some of this is considered over at Natural-born citizen.  Might be interesting to integrate into this article. --Jfruh 18:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think this has been resolved, but note that the qualifications to be US citizen are not just being a citizen, but also being a natural born citizen, that's why it might be an issue to determine where he was bornAronk 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Natural-born" citizen? 

message: The section titled "Intimidation of officer who tried to contact McCain about torture by US troops" doesn't contain any information about McCain.  It tells a story of someone trying to contact McCain, but not being allowed.  How is this relevent? Gronky 12:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's relevant either.  Why does it keep getting added back? --badlydrawnjeff 17:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section with no McCain information 

message: "His loss has been attributed to (...) the general reluctance of the American people to elect a senator to an executive position."
Is that reluctance a well known fact? Are there sources for this? Stats? An explanation? Michaël 23:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it's a well known fact or if that line merits inclusion in the article without citation.  Even if few senators have been elected president, can anyone cite a source saying this is why McCain didn't win his party's nomination?  However, senators are generally not elected to the presidency.  
In the history of the United States, only two sitting senators have been elected president (Warren Harding and JFK).  Only 14 of the U.S.’s 43 presidents have been senators.  Of those, eight had held at least one other major political office (governor, cabinet secretary, or vice president) in addition to being a senator.  (I’m not including Andrew Jackson as he was an appointed military Governor of Florida, which was a territory at the time).  Of the six remaining senators who became president, three were generals who relied heavily upon their military experience during their campaigns (Andrew Jackson and both of the Harrisons).  Only three of the U.S. Senators who became President were neither generals nor holders of other major offices (Pierce, Harding, and Kennedy).  As it stands, Governor is the office most commonly held by future Presidents.  Eighteen of the U.S.’s presidents served as governor before election to the presidency.  Eight sitting governors have been elected president.  Four of the U.S.'s last five presidents have been governors (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush; GHW Bush was not).  Hope this helps.Jim Campbell 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000 election 

message: Should this be included or not? 
"Washington is a funny town. One day your up, next day your down as I was saying to my driver on the way over here Scotter Libby." 
-Senator John McCain in response to the question from Jon Stewart whether Dick Cheney was insane.
I think it clearly shows McCain has a good sense of humor about his party. If anyone wants to comment feel free. Davidpdx 15:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could probably include the quote in a trivia section, but I don't think it should occupy the same section as quotes on issues and policy.  One thing I would recommend is a grammatical correction: "One day you’re up" (not your).Jim Campbell 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Appearance on The Daily Show 

message: A new user has decided that we need some sort of rather long area about McCain's ideas for the war, based almost entirely from a speech McCain made.  My personal view is that we're better off summarizing it and adding it to the article as opposed to creating a huge new section for it within the article that looks POV and isn't entirely necessary to McCain's history or even one of his more well-known causes.  If people disagree with me, perhaps we should hash it out here before getting into a bitter edit war over it. --badlydrawnjeff 20:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCain and the "Strategies for Winning the War" area 

message: That's some pretty strong language here! Unbelievable really. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wowzers... 

message: Okay, I'm getting a tiny bit frustrated about this particular section.  Since I've started editing this article, this certain section (some sort of lowbrow discrediting campaign coming from unknown camps about McCain in South Carolina) has reappeared in various forms, never with decent verifiable information.  We know the 2000 campaign was heated.  We know that McCain nods toward various allegations.  Whether the allegations are true, or even what they consist of (was it his daughters?  Was it fathering illegitimate children?  Was it an affair?) are something we DON'T know.  Until we have good, verifiable sources, we should keep the section trimmed to what we know, not what we assume. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-added this point. There is currently a reference to the general point. When I get home from work I will add a reference regarding the specific issues and allegations, as I found them when I added it originally. I certainly dont think that it is warrented to remove the point completely. Hopefully I will find the source I found originally. I think you will be satisfied if I can find it.--Andy 19:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll hope that it's a legitimate source and not a conspiratorial one.  It's most certainly in dispute, and I'll wait on further action until I see what you have coming. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure if this one is reputable, but heres one.. heres another .. unfortuntely its useless because it requries subscription. Heres a good one .  With that I am going to reintroduce it again. --Andy 06:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Boston.com one works fine, I've reworded it to make it make sense.  Thanks for getting the link. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whisper Campaign/Dirty Campaigning 

message: I reverted the controversy section with a new heading stating that it is a summary. I think it is useful to have them all in one place even if it repeats information in another section because readers very rarely read the entire article in one sitting. Having a controversey section with an in complete set is a little confusing when you have to go back up in the article and skim for the others.
:There's absolutely no need to duplicate the section.  For one, it reeks of POV pushing, for another, there's no need to mention twice what can be said in the article once.  Please don't add it back, the article is getting long as is, and if he runs for President in 2008, it's only going to get longer. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we arn't going to list all of the controversies in the controversies section, then it should be taken out and the orphans should be added somwhere appropriate. Which POV does it seem that I am pusing by the way? -- Andy 16:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not accusing you of pushing a POV, I'm merely stating that it looks like POV pushing when the same controversies are repeated throughout the article.  No controversies being removed from the "Controversy" header are being removed from the article at large, simply listed in context to situations already listed.  It's better to mention the SC whisper campaign issue in the 2000 campaign, it's better to mention the "Wedding Crashers" flap in the media section.  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with moving those 2, but I do have a problem with the fact that you removed the paragraph on the Keating scandal, replacing it with a one-sentence long parenthetical sidenote that fails to adequately explain the controversy.  It was a significant scandal and deserves a full paragraph.  It doesn't matter whether it's in the Controversy section or elsewhere, but it needs to be somewhere.  I'm going to add it back to the Controversy section since that appears to be the most appropriate place for it. - Maximusveritas 22:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll explain my rationale:  Since he was cleared of all charges and the article little to say about the scandal, I figured it could be boiled down to his Senate section.  I won't move it yet, but it's worth noting that it's hardly more than a footnote considering he was never charged or implicated in the scandal outside of the initial investigation. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I still think it would be usefull to have a complete controversy section but I suppose lableing it "Other Controversies" is enough to indicate that some were discussed before. Andy 17:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one sentence with a reference to the article for Keating 5 scandal is sufficient for this article.Jim Campbell 01:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: I agree with Rjensen that "overthrow" is a more neutral term than "invade" or "liberate."  However, the term does not imply a continuation.  Therefore, I added that McCain continues to support the war effort in Iraq. Kimathi 11:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for Iraq 

message: Is there a consensus on the use of anti-abortion instead of pro-life?  AP style aside, I would assume we'd use the Senator's own preferred nomenclature, just as we would when referencing someone's sexual orientation or ethnicity, so long as the nomenclature is clearly understood by the general public.  Would we call Sen. Clinton or Mayor Giuliani "pro-abortion"?  I'm reverting to "pro-life," but would love to hear discussion on this issue, and would defer to "pro-abortion" of course if there is a conensus supporting it.
:I'd call them pro-abortion, as I call myself pro-abortion.  I don't know if there's a NPOV standard for abortion description here, but I have no qualms with using the AP standards on this one. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not be opposed to calling advocates for abortion rights "pro-abortion."  However, I think the most NPOV terms would be anti-abortion groups and abortion rights groups since "pro-abortion" implies advocacy FOR abortion INSTEAD of pregnancy and partuition.  The term "anti-abortion" is not as loaded as "pro-life" or "pro-choice" because the opposite side of each implies a negative connotation - "anti-life" or "anti-choice."  In addition, a pro-life description is inconsistent with advocating for the death penalty as is the case with John McCain.  Journalists, exemplified by the AP reference, are moving away from the propagandistic phrase, and I think an encyclopedia should as well.  I simply do not accept the argument that John McCain should be called "pro-life" because he describes himself as such.  There are numerous examples where we have decided not to call a person by their own description when it portrays that person in an unfair light.  Kimathi 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pro-life" is a euphemism for "anti-abortion". --Hermitage 04:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "pro-life" not only implies a greater spectrum of views than "anti-abortion" (for example, some would disagree that McCain's views on stem cell research would qualify him as "pro-life"), it is a loaded term that should not conform to NPOV in an encyclopedia. As it stands in the article, I think the term, "anti-abortion", holds its own as a fair and accurate description. Kimathi 06:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I updated it to say Pro-Life but it was reverted. It is more approprate to say Pro Life or Pro Choice, especially if the link goes to Pro Life or Pro Choice. I see no consensus here, so I am changing it to the name of the linked article. --Nick Catalano contrib talk 22:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: McCain supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=108), which puts him at odds with the WP article about the Pro-Life position: "Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that all human beings have the right to life, and that this includes fetuses and embryos." Any objections/corrections to the following additional sentence, citing his Senate site? "He also supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=108)." Quena 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Abortion? 

message: I made a few changes in the section. 
-His campaign finance position is listed above so I removed the duplicity.
-I removed the sentence about tobacco. Maybe someone can explain the relevance or the significance to McCain, it seemed out of place to me.
-His "appeal" does not relate to his political views, and is stated in the 2000 presidential election section.
-Is it normal (in wikipedia world) to state in an article to read a speech?
-I took out this line - "He once fought against funding the construction of a new aircraft carrier, saying the money should be spent on the 12,000 enlisted families who were on food stamps."  I am not opposed to leaving it in if everyone feels like it represents a political view. However, it seemed more like a campaign sticker (and the "once fought" sounds silly, but that one is just me). 
Feel free to comment here about the changes.  Kimathi 06:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Views 

message: Removing the :Category:Intelligent design advocates. The cited source says McCain supports the teaching all ideas about the origin of life. This is not an advocacy statement for ID over any other idea about the origin of life. FloNight talk 15:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intellegent design advocate category

message: Could somebody please provide a source for the statement in the Trivia section that says that McCain was associated with mobster Joe Bonnano? (It was added by an anonymous user a few weeks ago.) Thanks! --Hnsampat 16:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John McCain and Joe Bonnano 

message: I added some more info and several photos to the John S. McCain, Sr. page. I'll add a photo to his dad's page when I find time. Usually from the Library of Congress, a great source for military folks' pics. Incidentally, I heard Senator McCain speak at the US Naval Academy at the graduation of the Class of 93.  Good public speaker, McCain,  especially on friendly turf.  Speaking of friendly turf, I can still remember the contrast in the response by the midshipmen to McCain's address compared to one at USNA in 1998, by by Bill Clinton that I watched on CSPAN. Seem's somehow that McCain was better received than Clinton. Go figure... But that's another article/discussion. isn't it? Maybe just home court advantage. SimonATL 01:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PS - Expanded the article on McCain's grandfather

message: The South Carolina primary has been white-washed beyond all reason.  Not only does the article try to skirt around Karl Rove's 'Black Baby' scandal, it seems to intentionally cite the weakest sources it can find in relation to this episode.  The article also has the gall to state that percieved cultural insensitivities towards vietnam cost him votes... in the Republican Primary... In South Carolina.  At the same time it refused to acknowledge the extremely well documented fact that George Bush's campaign used racism to sink McCain in said primary, by spreading a rumor that he fathered an illegitimate 'black' baby.  The truth was that he had adopted a foreign orphan.  This is extremely well documented, but the authors pretend that insensitivity towards asians played a bigger role among voters in the South Carolina Republican Primary.
These issues must be resolved.  Until they are this article is not only worthless but a huge discredit to the wikipedia effort as a whole.  I would very much like to work with people to correct his article, and would invite any suggestion or criticism with the issues I have raised.
Kind Regards,
CFoster
:Hi Foster. Did you know that you can sign your entries individually by putting for "squiggle signs" (?) in a row? --Hermitage 13:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3.  South Carolina Primary 

message: I note the article says he is an Episcopalian, however as I recall his campaing website said he was a Baptist. The citation appears to be a link about his voting record from a group which may or may not be authoritative. While he went to a high school affiliated with the Episcopal church, I see nothing that shows he has an affiliation today. jme66.72.215.225
:I have not been able to find a definitive reference (such as his Senate site) on his religious affiliation (of any kind), but there are multiple sources that list it as Episcopalian.  The most authorative I found was US News & World Report for the 2000 election.  --Mikebrand 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kimathi, I support your suggestion to move it to his personal life section (maybe with a satement along the lines that he is widely reported to be Episcopalian but his religious affilition is difficult to determine with certainty).--Mikebrand 18:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I support the criticism of points 1-3 and I don't think that the lack of information on McCain's religious affiliation is satisfyingly covered by the one sentence in 'Personal life'. However, my main problem with this article is the dubious order of the chapters. I came here to check McCain's early life, not knowing what he did before Vietnam. Hm, it came as a surprise to me that his early years were totally personal ('personal life'), even though he went to Annapolis...
To be frank, I think the order of the chapters, and the emphasis of this whole article, reflects the desire of some of the contributors here to present the most flattering info in depth and preferably close to the start of the article. Imho, this article would be quite good on the webpage of McCain, but here in Wiki we should follow a more encyclopedian approach. This means, after a short intro (what are the senate initiatives and the honorably discharge doing there?), there should be a chapter 'Early life' or something like that, covering his birth, parents, education and maybe the first years after graduation. That we have to scroll near the end of the article to find out to which high school he went is RIDICULOUS! Look at 'Contents' - Point 1: Vietnam. This sounds as if he was born there! Btw, about 40% of that chapter aren't about Vietnam, did anybody notice??? This got to change if we want this article to represent something remotely akin to NPOV.
Another, minor point: Even after I have read the article, I still don't know when exactly McCain was sent to (or near) Vietnam. Before or after his marriage '65? For an article THIS long (imho too long), the lack of data on some important points is pathetic. Gray62 10:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gray62, I agree that the order is different from most Senators' entries; therefore, I support efforts to make it consistent with their entries including order change.  I personally think the 'Personal life' section is poorly written, and should be revamped and then placed before 'Vietnam.'  Perhaps, an early life, education, and career section would be more appropriate, thus including Vietnam as part of his career.  I also wonder if the 'Vietnam' section could be more effective if it were more concise.  I also want to work to make this a better entry, and support your efforts to do so as you outline your approach and we continue our discussion on this page.  Kimathi 17:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, Kimathi, I was busy for some days and when I returned I saw that you already did a great job! Now this looks more like an encyclopedia. Thank you, well done! Gray62 20:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order! 

message: I don't believe the article mentions anything about what faith he his. I would add but don't know what it is.  ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 20:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the Personal life section, which, as of now, is at the bottom of the page.  We are discussing how this should be changed to allow readers such as yourself to find out what you want to know about Sen. McCain without first reading a massive section on Vietnam.  The community seems to believe that McCain is a member of the Episcopal church, but this is currently questionable.  Anything you find and your contribution concerning his faith tradition would be appreciated.  Kimathi 21:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Religion? 

message: Bilbray's event was not a "random fundraiser". Whoever made that comment knows zero about the House elections, Republican party politics, or California politics.
:That would be me that knows zero.  Is this event truly encyclopedic?  Does it warrant more words than the Keating Scandal or the Gang of 14?  As stated on a previous revert, Wikipedia should not document day to day activities.  If the community does think this event is significant, would you say this event has more to do with immigration or McCain's possible presidential run than a stand-alone paragraph in political views, and if so could we include it within that context?  Kimathi 01:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bilbray cancellation 

message: Wasn't McCain on Meet the Press a few years back?  I believe Tim Russert won some award for that episode. --Asulca593 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Meet the Press 

message: Perhaps I am missing sometghing obvious, but it seems that the McCain article lists his height as 57" (4'9" if I am correct). Can this possibly be true?
:I added a space between 5' and 7".  The ' did get lost making the entry look like 57"--Mikebrand 12:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: I am not sure that the following belongs in this article:
:After McCain's statement, Moore was caught on camera forming an "L" on his forehead with his thumb and index finger (in some circles this is a shorthand for "Loser", a term of derision). Moore also chanted "Four More Weeks" in response to the crowd's cheers of "Four More Years".
Those two sentences would be appropriate in an article on Moore but have very little to do with McCain.  I am inclind to remove them.  Any thoughts? --Mikebrand 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moore and Race for President 2004 

message: I just went through and did a clean up of the article, fixing grammar/spelling and adding  tags throughout. The entire article contains an incredibly large number of statements that have no back-up. The ones I marked are only the tip of the iceberg. Also, the page isn't using <ref> tags, so I'm going to be adding those soon. If anyone would like to help me start sourcing this article, it would be very much appreciated. --MZMcBride 01:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I'm not really sure how or if this information should be incorporated into this article, but I did a little bit of Google research on McCain's ideological status.  Searching for moderate "John McCain, I clicked through the first four pages of links, around 40 in all.  About 37 of these, which were mostly left of center blogs or political articles but also included a handful of conservative blogs, were arguing that McCain does not deserve the "moderate" reputation they say he holds.  Two of the articles were from moderately liberal opinion magazines and took slightly different approaches.  A 2002 Washington Monthly article argued that Democrats should attempt to get McCain to switch parties because his ideological differences with Republicans were growing too great. An April 2006 New Republic article argued that (1) McCain has only pretended to be a conservative the last couple years to get the support of the Republican base for a possible presidential run but he is really a liberal or moderate and (2) he should stop pandering to conservatives.  The other link in the search was to this Wikipedia article.  Most of the writers arguing that McCain is not a moderate are on the left, which is unsurprising and unconvincing, frankly.  However, McCain has also been given high marks by the American Conservative Union and has, of late, tended to toe the conservative line consistently.  I realize this is all original research.  However, it demonstrated to me, anyway, that almost no one is calling McCain a moderate anymore (though I tend to agree with the New Republic here).  I'm curious as to who is or was labelling McCain a "moderate" and why.  I realize that the campaign finance reform bill et al had something to do with it, and the 2000 primary probably did as well.  But is anyone aware of a reliable source that tracks McCain's ideology over time, especially for his pre-millennial career?  If nothing else, I think this information demonstrates the need for expansion of the section on McCain's ideology beyond its focus on the last 3 years (there is currently one paragraph on pre-2003 ideology, but it's entirely uncited). · j·e·r·s·y·k·o [[User 
talk:Jersyko|talk]] · 14:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCain as a moderate or conservative