Talk:John McCain/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

AfD on lobbyist article again

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hair color

I was just wondering, is there any reason for Sen. McCain's hair to turn white in his twenties? Vileplume drugs (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe it's just a really light blond and poor quality of the picture70.78.209.64 (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

- The reason is that when McCain was 20 years old no other hair color had been invented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.187.74 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

He lost his hair color while being a POW in Vietnam. Stress, hunger, dehydration, etc. can cause people to lose color in their hair and skin. It was permanent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.180.14 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Running for President agian.

John McCain is running again in 2011.

QUOTE:

Being the Republican nominee for President was one of the great honors of my life and an experience I will never forget. Some have wondered, after my hard fought presidential campaign, if I plan to run for re-election to the United States Senate.

Join my re-election team I want you to know that I do intend to seek re-election. [rest snipped] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.42.243 (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

He's running for Senate again in 2010. As our article states: "In mid-November 2008 he met with President-elect Obama, and the two discussed issues they had commonality on.[255] Around the same time, McCain indicated that he intended to run for re-election to his Senate seat in 2010.[256]" Which you would know if you had read this article instead of just being a troll. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What--why-- where--guess it's because you want ot limit American's comment

I have never seen a federal legislature's page filled with such ego issues and so difficult to make an entry--why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.212.13 (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WOW-- what a wall to respond unless you have a masters..........

WOW--would like to sign in yet I don't have a masters in the level your pages require. Sure glad my state,s federal representatives don't have such a determent/wall to communicating with them. All the warnings "no negative comments, be civil", etc. Guess I know the reason for these guides lines. [...] Guess this web site tell a lot about McCain's desire to communicate with Americans whose vote affects their lives. [ anti-McCain diatribe removed per WP:NOTAFORUM ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.212.13 (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is not for posting your views on McCain in general, but for posting your suggestions for improving the Wikipedia article about McCain. This page is not like communicating with legislators and you're right, McCain doesn't read it. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'wall' has now been reduced somewhat. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Update to latest official photo?

User:Happyme22 has added the image File:John McCain Senate portrait 2009.jpg, which is now up on McCain's Senate website and is thus presumably the most recent official portrait photo we have of him. That's usually the one we pick, and this also has the MOS:IMAGES advantage of looking into the text when used on the right side. So, any reason not to use this as the top photo on this article? So far, Happy only added it to Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present. It could also be used in templates such as Template:John McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I second this, without any objection. Cassandro (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I third it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A rare occation but I "fourth" it and object it since the new image is a really bad capture compared wich the recent one. So I'd say, keep the "old" one for now where possible.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Even so I would like to see an image of him where he smiles.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried it out in preview mode on this main article and it was just a little too unsharp to use, in my opinion. We really need a higher resolution on it. I did use it in Template:John McCain. I didn't use it in Template:JohnMcCainSegmentsUnderInfoBox because at that very small size, it seemed ineffective compared to the previous image. Others can change this as they see fit. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone would contact him on his site asking kindly for a higher resolution picture of it for download.Anyone out there for this task? --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I really would like to do it but I'm from Hungary, so I have problems with the e-mail form from Senate webpages (e. g. ZIP Code). Cassandro (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I found a slightly larger version on his Facebook page. But once again, there is no high-res version. MTLskyline (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a mail to his PAC, maybe this could help. Cassandro (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The current pix kinda shows it better, especially with the flag and its crisper. The old one was definitely ugly, the BackGround is too photoshopped!Ayyah tubby (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama and Citizenship

I have brought this up in Talk:Barack Obama, but as there is sometimes a need to coordinate the resolution of neutrality issues between articles, I am bringing it up here as well.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain are both currently featured articles. Both men have had questions raised about citizenship and eligibility to be President of the United States. Neither the McCain nor the Obama citizenship disputes ever gained much mainstream traction, but there is an entire paragraph dedicated to the issue on the McCain article while any information about questions raised about Obama's citizenship have been consistently blocked. High high-profile and politically sensitive featured articles should follow the same standard if they are going to appear unbiased, however I am neutral as to whether this means that the paragraph should be removed from this article or if text should be added to the Obama article. -Neitherday (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The two situations aren't parallel. In the McCain case, even assuming the WP:RS fact that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, there were reputable academics who thought the constitutional question was not settled. That's what this article mentioned. There was also a conspiracy theory that he was actually born outside the PCZ; that we didn't mention. In the Obama case, all of the objections either claim he wasn't born in Hawaii, or claim weird legal theories that no reputable academics support. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

McCain's birth certificates clearly show that he was born in Colón Hospital, Colón, Republic of Panama: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11110505/ — so I guess your WP:RS on this alleged birth in the PCZ are wrong. Looks more like a case of rewriting history to me. And everyone's falling for it. Aw, no, wait… that would be a primary source, right? And therefore WP:OR. How convenient! —85.178.78.80 (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A fuzzy document uploaded onto some random website by some random person. No go. What did you think we were going to say? Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Mea culpa. :\ This website has a good case against the document's authenticity. At least it casts some serious doubt. Another article here states the Coco Solo submarine base hospital as place of birth. The author has apparently seen the certificate himself. In addition, the Panamanian American (from the Libr. of Congress) states the same hospital as the place of birth. I don't know how much of this is in the article itself—or if you want to include it… in any case: sorry for wasting your time. —85.178.78.80 (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The main reason not to include it is that it's immaterial. Some of the people stressing his place of birth, whether it be a military base or a military hospital or the Canal Zone or some other part of Panama, don't seem to have thought through the implications. If a pregnant Panamanian woman with a Panamanian husband had happened to wind up in the room next to Mrs. McCain's, would her kid also be a U.S. citizen? If Mrs. McCain had been on a vacation trip to Costa Rica when she gave birth, would that have disqualified John from the Presidency? No and no. McCain is a natural-born citizen because, at the time of his birth, both his parents were citizens. JamesMLane t c 06:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That assumption is based on outdated legislation. The Naturalization Act of 1790 conferred statutory natural-born citizenship to children born abroad of two US parents. But the Act of 1795 specifically removed natural-born, and now only statutory citizenship is conferred… no mention of natural born. From a historical standpoint that's understandable, because the original 1790 Act was the US version of jus sanguinis as found in British common law: a child born of a British father abroad was a natural-born British subject. But the US constitution codified the common law that had been applied in US state courts before, which rendered it inoperative. (Federal courts never applied common law.) So the founders (apparently) didn't want the 1790 relapse into common law. In any case, it means that today, when a child is born outside of US territory to US parents, he/she is in the words of the law a citizen, not a natural born citizen. The Foreign Affairs Manual accordingly states that "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen" (1131.6–2). (They don't mention the back and forth with the Naturalization Act of course.) —85.178.69.139 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: A child born in the PCZ of a Panamanian woman and a Panamanian husband would have been (and would still be) only a citizen of Panama, because the PCZ is not US territory. It's unincorporated (cf. Downes v. Bidwell and other Insular Cases like Rasmussen v. US). —85.178.69.139 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be contradicted by info in the "Transmission Requirements Table" currently available on the website of the US Embassy to Australia, presuming that the child and at least one citizen parent met certain residence requirements detailed in that table. See this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, correct. The Immigration Act has certain requirements if only one parent is a US citizen and the child is born abroad. But if the parents are both non-US citizens and the child is born outside of the US, then the US have nothing to say in terms of citizenship. Come to think of it… I'm not even sure why JamesMLane brought that argument up. (???) —85.178.69.139 (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not quite as I understand it. The law at the time of birth applies. McCain was born in 1936. The source at the link I provided above says that nationality law then in effect required that one parent must have resided in the US, and the law in effect since 1941 requires that One parent resided in the U.S. or its possession. Under either criteria, McCasin was a citizen at birth (which may or may not be the same thing as a "Natural Born Citizen" -- some do dispute that, and the point has not been adjudicated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I brought up the argument as a reductio ad absurdum. Some of the commentators on the McCain eligibility issue seem to suggest that, if he was born in the Canal Zone, he was therefore a natural-born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of his parents. They state or imply that the Canal Zone doesn't come under the phrase "born outside of the US" (from 85.178.69.139's post). If that were correct, then U.S. citizenship would extend to a child born in the Zone to two Panamanian parents. I don't think it would, though. Arizona, pre-statehood, was part of the United States, so the quibble about Goldwater's eligibility was groundless. The Canal Zone, however, was not part of the United States. It was a part of Panama that was administered by the United States. Of course, the main McCain bio shouldn't get into much detail on this subject. JamesMLane t c 11:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Early life and military career of John McCain article, which covers his early biography in much more depth than this summary main article, already included the Panamanian American cite and one of the Dobbs WaPo cites. I've now added to it the other Dobbs WaPo cite, which somehow I missed when it came out last year. (So you didn't waste anyone's time.) I've also added both WaPo cites to the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility article section, since they give a flavor of what the discussion was like during the campaign. As for JamesMLane's point, some people held that both parents being citizens was enough, but many others, including the Olsen/Tribe opinion, held that birth on the naval facility was an important additional point in support of McCain's natural born citizenry. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the Olson/Tribe opinion (perpetuated by the pro-McCain senate resolution) goes against the Foreign Affairs Manual 1111.3 (see especially 1116.1–4.c with regard to military installations), and against the ruling in Downes_v._Bidwell that unincorporated territories like the PCZ are "not the United States". Of course McCain was born on a military base in the PCZ, but that doesn't mean he was born on US soil. Birth of two US parents abroad doesn't constitute natural-born citizenship either, since the Naturalization Act of 1795 only confers citizenship, not natural-born citizenship. It's understandable why Chin criticized the assumptions by Tribe/Olson. —85.178.78.80 (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In the end, "natural born citizen" is a political test and spirit-of-the-law legal test as much as a letter-of-the-law legal one; as long as the political establishment sees someone as eligible to be president, that's enough, as the judicial branch is unlikely to intervene. And being born on a overseas U.S. military base to a U.S. military family with a long heritage of service is something that no politician is ever likely to oppose. That's why John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Eligibility mentions the Olsen/Tribe opinion and the Senate resolution, regardless of what anyone thinks of the reasoning. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. (Which doesn't mean that I like it.) There are those who like the spirit of the law (mostly the liberals, even if they call themselves "conservative") and those who follow the letter of the law. But here everyone was protecting McCain from constitutional discomfort, including Obama, who co-sponsored the senate resolution. As Spiro put it: "No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board." If the political establishment has an opinion, if everyone "is on board", that's the opinion for the history books, even if the laws might say otherwise—with regard to the "letters", that is. ;) No court intervened, because nobody filed a suit and because there is the separation of powers. And since McCain lost the election and will probably not run again, it's unlikely a court will decide the issue in the near future. The whole thing is terribly messed up, but it may not be the worst thing to ignore democratic systems and/or the law from time to time. —85.178.69.139 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You're reading an awful lot into the absence of a particular phrase. There's a substantial body of opinion that says a natural-born citizen is one who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, rather than by some subsequent act or procedure (naturalization). On that view, if the legislation states that a child born under certain circumstances is a U.S. citizen, but that same legislation doesn't expressly address the "natural-born" question, then that child is a natural-born citizen. It's hardly following the letter of the law to read into it a sentence disqualifying some U.S. citizens from the presidency. JamesMLane t c 11:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Political positions section updates

I have updated the "Political positions" section for the 2008 ADA and ACU ratings and I have updated the accompanying chart. The The Almanac of American Politics ratings won't be updated until their 2010 edition is published.

Much of the section consisted of a discussion of McCain's 2008 positions on the economy and Iraq. This was explicitly pitched as a voter guide ("The two political issues that voters have been most concerned about in 2008 are ...") and was thus now obsolete, not just because the election is past, but also because the economic positions were mostly written before the late 2008 financial crisis/recession/et al and because there's no longer much disagreement about the course to take in Iraq. Of course McCain's economic and Iraq positions do have historical/biographical significance, and are covered in the appropriate places in the main chrono text (including his oppposition to the 2009 Obama stimulus package, for instance). But this material doesn't belong here anymore. (I moved one paragraph of it into Political positions of John McCain, but the rest seemed already covered in that subarticle; others could double-check more carefully.)

As I've said in past Talk, I don't think any specific positions should be included in these main article "Political positions" summary sections. It's too hard to get the right balance and to summarize without oversimplifying. The Political positions of ... subarticles are the place to get into specifics. This material that was removed was put in as an election special, and whatever the merits of that decision, its time has passed. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

John McCain's Official 2009 recent Senate Photo

Could someone please update John McCain's recent 2009 Senate photo, and put it as his original photo, above his elected offices section on his wikipedia page article. Please update it, as it is his most recent photo. Thank you. Darren Monaghan, 4 April, 2009, 11:33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.220.242 (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

See #Update to latest official photo? above. Unless you can find a higher resolution version of it than what's here, no go. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

John McCain and Anti-Crypto

I have a copy of the book, Crypto, by Stephen Levy, which discusses the history of computer cryptography in the United States, and the government's efforts to contain it. It discusses some efforts by Senator John McCain, introducing with Senator Bob Kerrey in June 1997 a bill that would deny the right to any government-sponsored certificate authority to anyone who refused to put their encryption keys in escrow (Levy, 305). While McCain switched by 1999, becoming "Mr. Crypto," I believe the article should note it (Levy, 305).

Similarly, the book points out that Senator Joseph Biden was willing to compromise individual privacy for law-enforcement concerns. I have noted this on his discussion page, as the article is protected. Samcan (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not one of McCain's better-known legislative positions or actions. Therefore I would suggest adding it to the House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 subarticle, rather than to this the biographical main article. Political positions of John McCain is another place it could go. Both of these articles are unprotected. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Place of residence

Since you currently cannot Edit: John McCain, could someone please put his residence down as Phoenix, Arizona, in his file table, along with others (eg. Date of birth, nationality, Spouse and children, etc.). Thank you for your understanding. Thanks.

Darren Monaghan, 30 June, 2009, 17:24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.113.24 (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Russian shootdown claim

This addition by User:Tonio82 is not appropriate for this article for two reasons:

1. This is an overview article per WP:Summary style that deliberately avoids getting into military detail. Thus, even identifying the missile as an SA-2 was intentionally left out last year, much less who fired the missile. The Early life and military career of John McCain article goes into much more detail on all military matters.
2. The generally accepted story as to who shot McCain down is that it was done by the North Vietnamese Air Defense Command's 61st Battalion, commanded by Captain Nguyen Lan and with fire control officer Lieutenant Nguyen Xuan Dai. And Nguyen Xuan Dai was awarded the title Hero of the People's Armed Forces for the action. See this military history of the North Vietnamese air defences and this Washington Post story by respected writer Michael Dobbs for the sources. Now, Yuri Trushechkin's claim is possible, as there were clandestine Soviet military personnel in action during the war, but his account relies upon a memory going back 40 years and his claim has to be viewed as secondary compared to these other sources.

In any case, I've added the Yuri Trushechkin claim to Early life and military career of John McCain, but given the complexity of this matter, it definitely does not belong in the John McCain main article. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Trushechkin was an instructor, he has not pressed the button, but the process is constantly monitored. Many in Russia believe that the participation of our officers, it was one of the reasons Russophobia McCain. Tonio82 (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible that he was attached to the same unit as Nguyen Lan and Nguyen Xuan Dai. However, the Nguyen Lan account has only one missile being fired at McCain's plane, while the Trushechkin account has two being fired. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

Since Senator McCain spends lots of his time in Washington, D.C., as the United States Senate have meetings there, could someone please put his residence as Washington, D.C., but keep Phoenix, Arizona there as he lives there. Thank you for your understanding.

Darren Monaghan, 16 August, 2009, 18:00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.113.24 (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The residence line of the info box is intended to be the persons permanent residence (for politicians this would clearly be wherever they are registered to vote), rather then a listing of all the places where they spend significant time or own homes. Washington, D.C. should not be listed as McCain's residence because of the common sense reason that if he resided there he would legally not be able to be the US Senator from Arizona. Yes McCain and his wife own a house in the District (the McCain's own several houses) but it not home. It seems to me that maybe the desire to list Washington D.C. as McCain's residence, has less to do with the facts and more to do with possible POV motives. Highground79 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Highground79 about what 'residence' should list. It can be assumed that all members of Congress have residencies of some sort in the immediate D.C. area, unless they already live in that area or commute from reasonable distance (as Joe Biden did throughout his Senate career). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"despite a high IQ"

Is having a high IQ supposed to defend the fact that he graduated 894th in his class? It doesn't seem neutral, for one - it's as if it's trying to excuse it or make him seem more intelligent... plus, IQs aren't really valuable assessments of intelligence, especially the versions that were around when McCain was young... I'm not going to delete it from the article because I'd like to see other people's opinions before I do anything with it. Thorns Among Our Leaves (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's in the article to better describe McCain. Some people finish at the bottom of the class because they lack the basic abilities to do better. Some people finish at the bottom of the class because they are underachieving screw-ups. McCain is the latter case. That's not a "defense", just an explanation. I agree wholeheartedly that intelligence is a multidimensional characteristic and hard to measure and that IQ tests are quite imperfect. Nevertheless, it's the only such published measure we have to go by. Per Paul Alexander's biography, McCain took IQ tests twice his life, getting 128 the first time and 133 the second (in a test taken in 1984, I think as part of a POW follow-up study). I doubt that a non-intelligent person (however you define that) would get scores in that range twice by accident. McCain's biographers think these tests are relevant to shedding light on McCain's Naval Academy performance, and thus so should we. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Main photo

I'm not too pleased with the recent change in the main photo. Though a higher resolution, the crop is too tight around McCain's face and honestly makes the photo resemble a floating head. The main image should be returned to the full version of the 2009 official portrait. Happyme22 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Happy that Image:John McCain official portrait 2009.jpg is better. But I lost every McCain image battle I ever had with Ferrylodge, so my track record isn't too good ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The larger version is far superior to the crop. -Rrius (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

was mccain really ever offered early release?

all versions of this story seem to go back to mccain. the vietnamese could have easily returned him at anytime, by simply taking him to a neutral country and turning him over to the american embassy. one right pows don't have, even under the geneva convention, is to remain a prisoner if his captors want to release him. has there ever been a vietnamese confirmation of this story?(OO7-AAA (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC))

Yes, there was North Vietnamese confirmation at the time. McCain's refusal to be released was remarked upon by North Vietnamese senior negotiator Le Duc Tho to U.S. envoy Averell Harriman, during the ongoing Paris Peace Talks. See Robert Timberg, An American Odyssey, p. 209: "Harriman's September 13, 1968 cable said: 'At tea break Le Duc Tho mentioned that DRV had intended to release Admiral McCain's son as one of the three pilots freed recently, but he had refused.'" To address your first point, the North Vietnamese didn't want simply to get him out of the country, but rather to score a worldwide propaganda coup by appearing merciful, and also wanted to show other POWs that members of the elite like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially. For that propaganda victory, they needed McCain's cooperation, which he wasn't willing to give them. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

that is still not vietnamese confirmation. averell harriman's mother-in-law died on sept. 12, 1968, and harriman flew back to the states on the 15th for the funeral, seems funny he would be bothering with cables, knowing he would be back in the states. vietnamese confirmation means an account that a vietnamese has signed off on, not a secound hand version as told by an american diplomat, reported by a new york daily news reporter.(OO7-AAA (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

Actually, it is good enough. If you want to introduce some doubt into the article, you need to find some support. So far we have books and news stories going back to the time it happened, and you have your own doubts based on your own questionable assumptions. Please come back with something meaningful. -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Like Rrius said. The early release offer to McCain is supported by both of the major accounts of all the American POWs in Vietnam, Hubbell's P.O.W. and Rochester & Kiley's Honor Bound, as well as by both of McCain's biographers, Alexander and Timberg, as well as by the contemporary evidence as shown. Your theory is supported by no reliable sources at all, just your speculations. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Residential property

Hi folks. I am a WikiNewbie so I apologize for not knowing protocols and proceedures to suggest improvements or information to add. Hopefully someone here will. I am posting a link for some info I have found about Senator MaCain and his residential property. If you deem it useful, p[lease feel free to use it. Thank Jajpaf (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Jajpaf http://classifieds.robbreportcollection.com/AuctionLuxuryEstateHomeandPersonalProperty

Nice looking place. If I had the spare $5.9M to spend on it ... Generally, WP doesn't cover things like this. The number of homes the McCains own became one of those silly campaign issues that arose during 2008, and maybe it's mentioned in the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article somewhere, but if it's not, that's okay too. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"...[his book received] positive reviews..."

Clear bias, fails to include negative or neutral reviews. I motion to remove 'positive' from the sentence. 38.100.3.106 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A statement like this means that overall, the positive reviews significantly outweighed any negative or neutral ones. It's supported by a cite from one of his mainstream biographers, and there is no reason to remove it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't Ask Don't Tell position

This video should be addressed in the article.
https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=689
Native94080 (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is already alluded to, in the sentence "This may have been a factor in McCain reversing or muting his stance on some issues such as the bank bailouts, closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, campaign finance restrictions, and gays in the military.[264]" It is elaborated on in much more detail in Political positions of John McCain#LGBT rights and issues. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing the appropriate article. Reference to that article should be kept in this talk page.
Native94080 (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Clinton impeachment

The article says, "In the February 1999 Senate trial in the impeachment of Bill Clinton....". Actually, the Senate trial was not part of the impeachment, but rather was in consequence of the impeachment. Generally speaking, the House impeaches, and the Senate convicts.166.137.139.86 (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that the House impeaches, but in general usage, impeachment refers not just to the accusation, but also to the whole process, including the trial. This this law school page titled "The Impeachment Trial of President Bill Clinton" or this PBS page called "The Impeachment Trial". Thus there is an Impeachment of Bill Clinton article but no Trial of Bill Clinton article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

But on second thought, I've tweaked the wording to "In the February 1999 Senate trial following the impeachment of Bill Clinton..." and used the whole thing as an overlink. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Naturalized citizen

John Mccain was born in Panama. But was not a citizen of Panama though. He was an american citizen at the time of his birth. So we need to put the category Naturalized citizens of the united states for John Mccain. But you know should know That just because someone was born in place it does not mean they are from the place they were born. There is a chance they are not from the the place they were born. John Mccain was born in Panama, but he is not from Panama though. He was an american expatriate in Panama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.92.71 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, we're not adding any such category. All of this is dealt with at John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#Eligibility. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Panamanian citizenship

The section above set me to wondering about McCain's status re Panamanian citizenship, considered separately from and without regard to any separate questions re his U.S. citizenship status. A lot of googling eventually turned up

• Richard W. Flournoy; Manley Ottmer Hudson (1983), A Collection of nationality laws of various countries, as contained in constitutions, statutes, and treaties, Wm. S. Hein Publishing, ISBN 9780837705446

which contains the Nationality and Citizenship portion of the 1904 constitution of Panama beginning on page 458. My understanding is that this constitution was in effect when McCain was born in Panama in 1936. The constitution specifies that all persons born in Panama are Panamanian. It appears to me that unless he renounced his Panamanian citizenship at some point, John McCain was a dual citizen of the U.S. and of Panama at birth and (see article 7 re loss of Panamanian nationality) would have lost his Panamanian nationality when he accepted employment with the U.S. Government. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Panama considered children of U.S. military forces born on U.S. bases inside the Panama Canal Zone, who soon relocated to some other part of the world, to be citizens of Panama? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The response which I thought I had posted here apparently didn't get posted after all. In response to your question, I see no indication that the Panamanian government did not consider such persons to be Panamanian citizens, as Article 6 Section 1 of the 1904 Panamanian constitution appears to declare them to be. Your question did send me back for a second look at the source I mentioned above, and I see that there's a footnote about a a 1928 amendment to Article 6,. Reading that amendment on page 468, I see that it affects only naturalized Panamanians. Also, I hadn't previously read Article 7 regarding loss of Panamanian citizenship. As I read that article, McCain would have lost his Panamanian citizenship when he accepted employment with the U.S. government.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Claimed That He Wasn't A Maverick

Why isn't this mentioned? During the election he ran on being a maverick. He recently told Newsweek, "I have never considered myself a maverick"--Iankap99 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

it's in the Senate career 2001 to present page. It's just baloney cause of primary challenge. He was a maverick whether he says so now or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.208.79.102 (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It already was in the article. I've added a bit today, and it now reads: "With Hayworth using the campaign slogan "The Consistent Conservative", McCain said (despite his own past use of the term),[265] "I never considered myself a maverick. I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities."[266]" Wasted Time R (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't McCain make it to Bush H.W.'s short list in 1992?

In the book Man of the People by Alexander Pope, I think McCain was asked by George H.W. Bush to run with him in the 1992 as his running mate. My memory is foggy, since I only browsed that book in the library and that was over a year ago. Either way, I know McCain was on the short list for Bob Dole and even John Kerry in 2004. Can someone give me some confirmation so I know I'm not just getting confused here? --Screwball23 talk 04:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It was 1988, not 1992. Per the article, "He delivered a well-received speech at the 1988 Republican National Convention, was mentioned by the press as a short list vice-presidential running mate for Republican nominee George H. W. Bush, and was named chairman of Veterans for Bush.[89][96]" Footnote 96 is to Man of the People pp. 115–120, which is what you're remembering. McCain was not asked by GHWB, and per Alexander wasn't even contacted about a background check, so it's hard to know how seriously he was considered. GHWB picked Dan Quayle instead. In 1992, Quayle was the incumbent veep, and GHWB decided early on that he'd keep Quayle on the ticket, as he thought the political cost from dumping him would outweigh any electoral benefit. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

McCain IQ

The reference The Nightingale's Song [ does mention McCain as being intelligent, it does not make specific mention of his IQ. It also appears to have been written in reference to opinions of McCain's friends and classmates. This source should probably be removed. --68.32.17.238 (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two footnotes on the sentence. The second – Alexander, Man of the People, p. 207 – is the source for the IQ. The first – the one you mention – is the source for the rest of the sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Souldn't McCain's Religion be listed with dates the same way as is done with Jeb Bush's? McCain became a Baptist in 2007; presumably to have a better shot at winning the South in 2008 GOP Primary race, yet the way it is listed here, it makes it seem that McCain has spent his adult life as a Baptist. Either Jeb's should be altered to this model, or McCain's should be altered to the dated model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.236.242 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Read footnote 1 in the article and some of the sources in it. McCain has never been baptized or become an official member of the church which he attends. He began attending that church about 20 years ago because that's where his wife goes, who is was baptized. He was raised an Episcopalian but because he's been attending a Baptist church for so long, that's what he self-identifies as. This more a matter of gradual drift than anything else. Denominational affiliation is a lot more fluid in America than pigeonholers realize. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)