If you want to claim that he talks big but his voting record doesn't show any particular independence, then that also means he can't be a RINO.

I'm sure that sometimes, like any other politician, he votes in a way that doesn't seem to stroke with his prior rhetoric. And since his rhetoric tends to be more blunt and higher-profile than that of many others, it may be more noticeable when that happens. Like I said, yeah, I can see your point about the self-aggrandizing aspect and how that would be grating. It doesn't necessarily make him wrong, though, and I'm glad that there are still people around who can go against the grain like that.

And while I already said that his voting record on the whole is really still pretty conservative, it does have some actually substantial 'maverick' items in it. McCain-Feingold being probably the most obvious example, though if I recall correctly you're really not a fan of that. Another example, admittedly obscure but for some reason it really stuck with me, was the controversy back in 2006 when the Emirati state-owned company DP World took over P&O and in so doing gained ownership of a number of American port terminals. Most Democrats and Republicans in Congress teamed up against the deal and left president Bush mostly isolated with his position that to block the deal would insult the UAE and display either racism or blatant American protectionism. But McCain went out on a limb to leap to Bush' and DP World's defense. 'Bad blood' or no.

I guess maybe one of the reasons why I like McCain is that I have a pretty strong anti-bandwagon reflex myself - when I find myself in a group of people who are all strongly expressing the same view, I have a tendency of involuntarily starting to look for counter-arguments.

I won't comment on that as I was too young at the time of the 2000 presidential race to follow it closely.

The first part, okay, I understand how that pissed a lot of people off. The second part though, that's your interpretation, and if you ask me a rather far-fetched one. What, you think he picked Palin with the purpose of losing the race? I think we can all agree that it was a terrible decision to pick her, but saying that he intentionally did it in other to hurt the party is a pretty extreme claim.

Here as well, that's your opinion and I will have to respectfully but strongly disagree. I don't say that the man is a saint, and yeah, I'm sure sometimes his positions or statements are driven in part by his ego. But I do think his foreign policy views, much as I may sometimes disagree with them, are based on his interpretation of how best to defend America's interests. For that matter, I think the same thing about various other politicians with whom I agree even less often.

Screw decorum. Being a decent human being says you shouldn't wish him to die of cancer.

Subtle, that. Didn't notice it until replying...