Well, perhaps I could have worded it better but based on your question, and then my reply, I think the intention was quite obvious.
Let me clarify: I do not choose a President based on who I "like." I choose who to vote for based on their character, their record, their intelligence and their platform. John McCain is no dummy, but he fails on all other counts--and he's unlikeable, to boot. When this election started out, the person I "liked" the most was Huckabee (although I never even considered voting for him due to his nanny-state positions and his global-warming craziness.)
Now, you said the U.S. was not a dictatorship. Perhaps you meant something different than how I interpreted your sarcasm. I assumed you meant that John McCain's record and positions on global warming regulation, the border, amnesty, Law of the Sea, "League of Democracies," etc. were not relevant to his candidacy. Hence, I responded as I did.
I stand by my original assertion: John McCain as POTUS would be an imminent threat to the U.S.A. as we know it.
Perhaps, it was. To you and to others. Not necessarily so, for me.
I can't tell you how many times I've written the thought in my head, perfectly crafted it, sent it on its merry way, only to learn that it perfectly failed to do the chore it was assigned to do. That's simply the tyranny of language.
My fault. Your fault. Nobody's fault.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify. I do appreciate it and I do respect your thoughts. I hope this reply demonstrates that.
Now, you said the U.S. was not a dictatorship. Perhaps you meant something different than how I interpreted your sarcasm.
Ah, the perfect thought gone wrong. It wasn't sarcasm. It was bent humor with what I thought was a relevant point.
As President, there are only specific things McCain or Clinton or Obama can do as President. They can negotiate treaties but that can't ratify them, for instance. All Presidents are assigned credit or blame for things that really became reality only through legislative acts. Then, the power of President as a reflection of his ideology and character is his willingness to sign or veto the legislation.
In Roman times, the Senate would elect a dictator for a supposed temporary term who could override their powers to legislate. Of course, temporary didn't always turn out so temporary. The point was that McCain could only be the fundamental danger some think him to be if he had power over the Congress.
Here in Free Republic are so many people with whom I'm politically compatible and we're at odds. By magic, I guess you were supposed to know what I'm working out in my own mind.
I stand by my original assertion: John McCain as POTUS would be an imminent threat to the U.S.A. as we know it.
Somewhere in what I've written above I hope comes the rejoinder that what you assert is impossible. It presumes unchecked powers he simply wouldn't have.
And if he circumvented the will of the Party, say by executive order or administrative powers (i.e., allocation of resouces) or an unwillingness to use his veto against Democratic legislation, I doubt the party would be there to support and finance a second term.