The Instigator
jevan
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
mjvoss
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

John McCain should receive the Republican nomination instead of Mitt Romney.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,181 times Debate No: 1172
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (11)

 

jevan

Pro

John McCain is an experienced conservative leader in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. He is a common sense conservative who believes in a strong national defense, a smaller, more accountable government, economic growth and opportunity, the dignity of life and traditional values.

Let us start with a some points.

1. Mitt Romney lacks foreign policy experience. He was only the govenor of Massachusetts. John McCain has actually delt with foreign leaders. The next president needs foreign policy experience.

2. Bipartisanship. John McCain promotes bipartisanship. He has been endorsed by highly liberal newspapers, and by joe liebermann (and independant). When a government is not bipartisan nothing can be done. Look at our government today. The presidents cabinate is all republican. The senate majority is democrat. This causes a political standstill. Mitt Romney has never once promoted bipartisanship.

3.Flip-Flopping.

Republican Mitt Romney's has repeatedly flip flopped on some key issues. In doing so, he has only proved how easily he can let go of his principles in his bid for power. Or does it indicate that he simply does not have any principles to speak of?

For instance, in 1994, during his earlier, unsuccessful run for Massachusetts governor against Democrat Ted Kennedy, Romney projected himself as being committed to a pro-choice policy. Subsequently, in 2002, while running again for Massachusetts governor, Romney remained an ardent supporter of women's right to choose. But later Romney changed his position. He now calls for doing away with the Roe v. Wade ruling that would allow individual states to define their own abortion policies.

Romney similarly reversed his reformist views with regard to gay rights. After declaring himself staunchly in support of equal rights for gays in 1994—a position he retained even in 2002—he suddenly changed his stance and declared marriage out of bounds for gay couples.

Another issue is federal funding for stem cell research. In 2005, Romney held a position that favored state sponsored embryonic stem cell research, saying, "I believe stem cell research is important for our state and for our nation." However, he subsequently shifted to a more conservative stance, and opposed funding for research involving embryonic stem cells.

The ideal candidate for the post of president will be a leader who can take tough decisions. For this, he would need to have a strong internal value system. More importantly, he would need to have the mettle required to stand his ground. Such strong leadership is even more important today, when one considers the threats facing America. Romney may be a capable executive with the ability to get work done quickly. However, his compulsive flip flopping has proven that he lacks the moral fiber required to steer the nation during these difficult times.

America faces an enduring battle for security and freedom. We require leadership with resolve and experience with wisdom. Our next president must have the ability and experience to direct a global war on terror, manage and complete a war in Iraq and command the respect of our troops and allies.

Content
Click Here to Read the Other SideThe safety of Americans at home and abroad, and the security and prosperity of our nation and families is the preeminent issue for the 2008 campaign. John McCain's experience and national defense credentials make him the most qualified person to serve as our next commander in chief. As Republicans make their choice on whom to support in our primary, conservatives like myself will also consider fiscal concerns, social issues and governing philosophy. McCain's votes, words and actions consistently demonstrate a conservative commitment in each of these areas. Few Republicans in Washington have the reputation of fiscal restraint that McCain has developed in his opposition to pork barrel spending. A theme throughout his Senate career, he fights against government waste and for a line-item veto, so the president can cut excessive spending.

A budget hawk and advocate for a balanced budget, McCain represents a return to the fiscal discipline so many conservatives saw missing in the most recent election. McCain believes in cutting spending, not increasing taxes, which is verified by his Senate record. He will return our party to the smaller government, lower spending policies advocated by our movement and trumpeted by leaders like former President Ronald Reagan.

McCain says, "when the government's budget is tighter, the family budget won't have to be. If our government is forced to make more hard choices, our families will be forced to make fewer." And I agree. McCain has a 24-year pro-life record. NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood give him a zero percent rating. He supports a reversal of Roe v. Wade. His votes to ban partial birth abortion, support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, require parental notification and prevent funding for the distribution of morning-after abortion pills in schools show his support of life is not just words, but actions over two decades of legislative service.

In conclusion John McCain should receive the republican nomination instead of mitt romney.
mjvoss

Con

1. This site gives a good summary of Romney's foreign policy: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...
As you can see, Romney's foreign policy is pretty solid. He greatly sees the importance of enhancing our national defensive capabilities, working with other nations to solve important issues such as terrorism and the situation in Darfur, and he speaks extensively on energy independence, seeing the dangers in investing in foreign energy. Here's a good defense of his lack of actual foreign policy experience by Romney himself on an episode of Hannity and Colmes: "Well, if we want somebody who has a lot of experience in foreign policy, we can simply go to the State Department and pluck out one of the tens of thousands of people who work there. They, of course, have been doing foreign policy all their careers.

But that's not how we choose a president. A president is not a foreign policy expert. A president is a leader who understands how to make difficult decisions and does so in a way that brings together the best voices, that considers the upsides and downsides and predicts the credibility and the strength that America has always projected in circumstances like this.

One of our great foreign policy presidents was Ronald Reagan, who even though he had not spent years in the Senate, understood a vision of what we had to do to overcome the greatest threat of the last half of the last century, and was able to bring together the various experts and the various viewpoints and sort them through and take action that led America to be successful in that great -- that great challenge that we faced then.

So the kind of experience you want is someone who knows how to make difficult decisions, to bring together the right people that consider the various options that you have, and then to act with strength and resolve."

2.Sometimes, promoting bipartisanship is good, but it also can be bad. Promoting bipartisanship should be to express your ideas while also very firmly holding down to your convictions. John McCain typically sides too much with the democrats on issues. Why are we voting republican? We are because we think the republicans generally have the right idea, much more so than democrats. Since we are for that reason, it makes no sense to vote for someone whom we do not think will represent his ideas and keep onto them firmly. If he has to forsake some for some ideas that do not make sense, it solves very little.

For example, at the start of the Bush tax cuts, McCain was against them saying, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." He changed his mind after finding out that the tax cuts have increased tax revenue, helped to cut the deficit in half, lighten the recession's impact, and have also actually made the richer citizens pay MORE of the taxes than before. Simple conservative fiscal policy such as this cannot be compromised toward socialist fiscal policy.

Additionally, the McCain-Reingold bill, although good in nature, restricts free speech 60 days before an election. That's purely unconstitutional and for a presidential candidate to want to "uphold the constitution," that's not keeping to your convictions.

And actually, you are wrong. You said, "Romney has never once promoted bipartisanship." He has, and very successfully in the manner that bipartisanship should be promoted. He worked with democrats and experts to come up with his version of universal healthcare, which spurs competition between insurance companies and keeps prices down. It is the only current working version. The reason he did this successfully is because he kept to free-market principles (highly valued by conservatives) to enact a piece of legislation that was bipartisan.

3. Romney's alleged flip-flopping are not, by any means on "key issues." However, John McCain has expressed strong criticism on the Iraq war and has since changed that, pushing for a realization that he is the strongest supporter of "defeating terrorism."

Yes, it is true that in 1994, he had liberal positions such as being pro-choice and pro-equal rights. He has since changed those positions, which is valid to do so, considering it is nearly 14 years since then. The allegations in regards to his gubernatorial race are flawed since for pro-choice, he said that he would not impede on the law as it stands, but he never said he would champion for pro-life. He did demonstrate that he did not impede on the law, but he also demonstrated that he would not allow an abuse of the law, which shows from his numerous vetoes of pro-choice bills during his governorship.

On gay rights: Mitt Romney did support gay rights back in 1994; there's no question about that. In 2002, when he ran for governor, he said that he would not champion a fight for or against gay marriage. He is against discrimination, which includes gays, but he is against civil unions.

Additionally, in regards to stem cell research, the McCain campaign made a false attack since his position in 2005 is consistent with his current position. Stem cell research is a complicated topic with many facets. He supports research using existing methods, including extra embryos in in virtro fertilization which would normally be discarded without use. He does not support using taxpayer money to commit what he believes to be unethical, which is to expand embryonic stem cell research. I take a quote from Kevin Madden, a spokesperson for the Romney campaign: "The McCain campaign should actually watch these clips before they just send them to reporters. This one makes clear Governor Romney's views on the ethical guidelines needed for stem cell research. Governor Romney does not support taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research. Governor Romney supports ethical biomedical research that partners science with research in a way that protects the sanctity of life and still helps advance medical breakthroughs. The McCain campaign's continued assault on these views is the desperate act of a faltering campaign resorting to negative tactics. It's kinda sad that it's gotten to this point for the senator's campaign."

Before I say anything else, I have to ask that you do not copy and paste from a site, using their words, especially without giving them credit. That's plagiarizing. The rest of your post were direct words from the McCain campaign site. As such, I will not respond to it specifically.

Here are some good points with Mitt Romney:

1) Mitt Romney comes from an outstanding education. He graduated from Brigham Young University with a BA as valedictorian of his class. After that, he earned a JD and an MBA from Harvard University, graduating cum laude from law school and in the top 5% in business school. John McCain's education? He graduated from high school and attended the National War College, hardly compared to that of Romney. With great education comes great decision-making, which Romney has already demonstrated many times in the past.

2) Romney's executive experience is astounding to say the least. He practically saved the 2002 winter olympics by breaking the corruption and saving the fiscal crisis. They were about to scale back the games since it was becoming so unsuccessful. After Romney became CEO, the SLOC (Salt Lake Origanization Committee) eventually had a $100 million profit and the games were successful. Additionally, Romney has been CEO of Bain & Company, also creating a turnaround making a near financial collapse turn into profitability without layoffs or partner defections. He has also been governor, which shows political executive experience. John McCain's cannot compare to this.

Romney understands law, the economy, foreign affairs, and has demonstrated the necessary abilities for presidency
Debate Round No. 1
jevan

Pro

jevan forfeited this round.
mjvoss

Con

My opponent did not participate in this round. I have to admit that my argument was rather lengthy, but he still should give another pro argument. We will hope that he does for the next.
Debate Round No. 2
jevan

Pro

I am deeply sorry for going unresponsive in the last round. I will only hope you shall let me proceed with the rebuttal.

I shall start with the statement you made about the state department, and how that is not how we choose a candidate. Yes this is true, but you still need foreign policy experience. Mitt Romney has EXPERIENCE, while John McCain has EXPERIENCE and foreign policy experience. You need both, and I absolutely agree. We should not just pick someone from the state department.

Moving on, you stated that bipartisanship is sometimes bad and John McCain sides with the democrats too much. You asked arent we talking about conservatives. Yes John McCain sides with the democrats on certain issues, but on the major issues he is truly conservative. These issues include Healthcare, the war in iraq, and immigration reform.
Look at the government today. Nothing can be done because the lack of bipartisanship! Mitt Romney can say he can do and promise all these things, but unless the democrats agree with him, it shall never happen. John McCain is one of the most bipartisan republicans there are, and he can truly do something when preident.

You made a point on the McCain-Reingold bill, I would like you to please ellaborate on that in the round. So far it has no impact in the round because of it is too vague. Hence why I shall not refute it because it is irrelevent in the round.

On to the flip-flopping arguement. You stated he did not flip flop on key issues. The point is he still flip flopped. How can you trust to not flip flop on other issues. Also some of these issues can be considered "key issues" to other people.
You later said that McCain critized the war, then changed his mind. He critized how Bush handled the war, not the war itself. He staunchly supports the warm almost more then any candidate. Im clearly showing you here that McCain truly sticks to his values, and is trustworthy and reliable. Hence why John McCain, should recieve the nomination.

You briefly stated how John McCain was using negative tactics. I a little confused by this. I have a feeling you have your facts wrong. Mitt Romney has had some most negative tactics through this entire election. (i.e. his TV ads)

Finally you praised Romney on his outstanding education. How he is fit for president. John McCain yes went to an army college, but this doesnt make John McCain unfit for the nomination. Ronald Reagan never attended BYU or an Ivy League university. He was the alma mater at Eureka College, a small liberal arts college is Illinois. Was Reagan unfit for the nomination? I think not.

Once again, I apologize for going unresponsive.
mjvoss

Con

Hello, jevan. Thank you for giving a response, and I forgive you for omitting, intentionally or not, the previous round. =)

1) Experience. "Mitt Romney has EXPERIENCE, while John McCain has EXPERIENCE and foreign policy experience. You need both, and I absolutely agree. We should not just pick someone from the state department." Mitt Romney has considerable experience from being a business leader and governor. John McCain has experience from being a senator. The difference is management, which is precisely what the president is elected to do: manage the country. Romney is correct when he says that the president does not have to be a foreign policy expert. Romney has clear and precise goals regarding his foreign policy, and since he understands true leadership, he knows how to implement them effectively.

2) Bipartisanship. Romney has a few goals that he is absolutely determined to accomplish. One is to continue the Iraq war until we win. McCain is in agreement with that, and there's little compromising on that subject. Second, the economy. Romney is fully committed to making the tax cuts permanent, as well as hopefully lowering taxes more. He understands the economy more than any other candidate. He understands it so well that compromising with the democrats would be a complete mistake. He does know where it is appropriate. He took a topic doomed for failure and he turned it into a conservative topic. That topic being healthcare. It sweeped the Massachusetts senate with no fire from either side. I've elaborated as much as I could concerning McCain-Reingold. The bill itself is against the constitution because it abolishes free-speech within 60 days of the election. A president upholds the constitution, so for McCain to support a bill like that is not good.

3) Flip-flopping. "The point is he still flip flopped. How can you trust to not flip flop on other issues." I've shown why he did not, in fact, flip-flop. And key issues are dominantly the economy and the war in Iraq, both of which McCain has been questionable on. McCain was shown wrong, even after years of experience in which he should have known better, that lower taxes do stimulate the economy. He is running for president, and now, he must concede that he was wrong. And I actually didn't state that McCain used negative tactics. I quoted a spokesman of Romney's campaign.

4) Education. Like I've said before, with great education comes great decision-making abilities. Despite that Reagan may not have had an outstanding education, Reagan was an exception because of his enormous leadership capabilities and charisma. Romney has both of those, and as a very big added bonus, a very valuable education.

In closing, thank you for the debate. I have demonstrated Romney's wealth of knowledge, clear and precise goals, experience dealing with very successful businesses and political management, and his great leadership capabilities. Mitt Romney is nearly synonymous with "presidency." I have demonstrated why, if Romney were to be elected, he would be an outstanding president.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mjvoss 9 years ago
mjvoss
Actually, you said to "do your research" when referring to Feingold/Reingold. And when did McCain manage a large economy at any time during his career? Enough said.
Posted by txgopkid 9 years ago
txgopkid
By the way it was ruled money is property not speech.

Thanks
Posted by txgopkid 9 years ago
txgopkid
Starting off I'm sorry I said affect instead of effect, but how can you support Mitt. Yes he is a candidate for change, since his stances on many subjects change within a month, but going on don't you think the sun of two Navy Admirals and himself serving in our armed forces plus being in BOTH HOUSES of congress since 1982 . On tax cuts it is theorized, yes I know theorized, that 70 percent taxes can make the same revenue as 30 percent if you have any more questions on that subject just feel free to do your research. And by the way mistyping doesn't have anything to do with research. So if you want to debate I'll take McCain's side and you can take the businessman's side. Thank You and have a great day.
Posted by mjvoss 9 years ago
mjvoss
txgopkid, it's "effect," not "affect," do your research. I know it's Feingold. The name is irrelevant, however. It's its effect that is the problem, namely the fact that it restricts free speech. And please explain how tax cuts stimulate the economy to "a point." Also, being governor for one term is better than being senator at all considering the nature of the office of presidency.
Posted by txgopkid 9 years ago
txgopkid
It is McCain-Feingold not Reingold do your research, it limited campaign contributions and it is still in affect. Also he was governor for ONE term. Finally tax cuts stimulate the economy to A POINT.
Posted by Muhafidh 9 years ago
Muhafidh
[This site lies: Actual character limit = 1,990, counting line breaks as characters.]

Upstreamedge: The nominee needn't be a pseudo-Democrat to win. We're in mid-GDP growth cycle. The Democrats need a huge Bush scandal (Watergate + oil embargo; Lewinskygate + impeachment; Tet offensive + My Lai). But yes, if we needed a pseudo-Democrat, McCain would be our man.

The next President will be Republican. Don't worry about 2008. Worry about 2012, when the next cyclical recession point occurs. The closer we get to 1Q-2012, the more delicate is the economy, as increasing operational costs (natural consequence of cumulating demand in a growing economy) outstrip corporate profitability and hence the economy's capacity to sustain the jobs it has created. The Democrat minimum-wage increase will be a significant source of excessive weight on the economy at that point and will result in more jobs lost in the wake of 2012 than would have occurred without it.

As we approach that point, any scare that occurs (e.g., 1979 Iranian hostage crisis) is more impactful. We'll get through that recession, as always, but it will occur regardless of who is President. The question is not whether it will occur, but how bad it has to be. If the President we elect in 2008 gets a second term in 2012, it will be utterly unprecedented in history.

Either Romney can pull that off, or nobody can. Romney is the only candidate with the knowledge and experiential base to find a solution to that conundrum. He will be the most highly qualified President we will have ever had: JD from Harvard Law School, MBA from Harvard Business School, highly successful CEO more than once, and highly successful governor of a state dominated by the opposing party (and so requiring an ability to work successfully across the aisle) with an economy bigger than that of Switzerland, in which he turned a projected $3 billion budget deficit into a $700 million surplus in four years.

If Mitt can't do it, nobody can.
Posted by l2jperry 9 years ago
l2jperry
i'd take McCain over Romney, but then again i'd take the good Dr. Paul easily over both. But after reading through it, I have to give this debate to Con.
Posted by Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
McCain's also pro-amnesty for illegal aliens, which makes him REALLY popular in Arizona (my state), and anti-personal responsibility (taxing Big Tobacco instead of telling people it's their own fault if they smoke and get some horrible disease).

If he's conservative, so's Hillary Clinton.

I'm no big Romney fan, but I'd like to see McCain just disappear and write more memoirs about how he was a POW, which I won't buy. But at least it will keep him off TV and out of politics.
Posted by seldumonde 9 years ago
seldumonde
It just makes me furious when anyone calls McCain a conservative. I wouldn't really define Mitt Romney as one either, and Mike Huckabee is practically a liberal. As for McCain, he supports amnesty, the granting of constitutional rights to enemy combatants, opposed the Bush tax cuts, worked to limit free speech in McCain-Fiengold, and accepts the myth of man-made global warming. If that's a conservative, then I don't know what a liberal is.

Truly Fred Thompson is the most conservative of the top five but he's a bad campaigner. Please stop trying to label people as conservatives when they are at odds with the vast majority of actual conservatives.
Posted by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
Jevan, In your first argument, you say Joe Lieberman was an Independent. Well he is actually a Democrat but lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont. Who Joe, got the Conservative vote and regained a seat in the Senate from my home state of Connecticut.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
jevanmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by txgopkid 9 years ago
txgopkid
jevanmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by l2jperry 9 years ago
l2jperry
jevanmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
jevanmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mors202 9 years ago
mors202
jevanmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
jevanmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
jevanmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by upstreamedge 9 years ago
upstreamedge
jevanmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by thinkingduck 9 years ago
thinkingduck
jevanmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
jevanmjvossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30