The third and final debate is tonight. Will McCain "take off the gloves"? Will we hear anything new? Or will it be another snoozer? I predict that the numbers watching will be pretty low. People's attention span is wearing thin, and they are ready to vote already.
I read that Colin Powell will endorse one of the candidates after the debate, and speculation is that it will be Obama.
he's just going to say 'my friends' approximately 1215 times with a more authoritative tone.
Maybe some, EGHs!?
EGH?!
EGH?!
How about the squishy middle? CBS told me that there are still people who haven't made up their minds yet...
McCain take off the gloves for this debate? I can't help but think that NObama will be well prepared if this does happen. Also, I keep wondering when the NObama camp is going to spring the Alaskan Independence Party issue. Granted Scott, not Sarah was a member up until 2002 but Sarah has said some mighty nice things about a group that hates America with a passion. The guilty by association rule should also play here ala Ayers.
Is this really an issue? Well, it is if Scott Palin has the influence that he claims he has in Sarah's administration. (see troopergate)
Then again, NObama may keep playing it safe and stay the course talking about those crazy pointless issues like the economy.
Would I have voted for McCain? "You betcha(wink)[xx(] if he would have picked a vice president who wasn't a complete moron. I hope the taste of the religious right taint was worth it. What a sell out.
Can you tell I am still bitter over the 2000 Republican primary? [;)]
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
Or as the Daily Show referred to the undecided: "stupid"
John Oliver - "These people are idiots. You can't trust a word they say, and on November 4th the election will be in their hands.
The Daily Show (//%22http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=187570&title=the-stupid-vote%22)
quote:
Originally posted by mrburns918
McCain take off the gloves for this debate? I can't help but think that NObama will be well prepared if this does happen. Also, I keep wondering when the NObama camp is going to spring the Alaskan Independence Party issue. Granted Scott, not Sarah was a member up until 2002 but Sarah has said some mighty nice things about a group that hates America with a passion. The guilty by association rule should also play here ala Ayers.
Is this really an issue? Well, it is if Scott Palin has the influence that he claims he has in Sarah's administration. (see troopergate)
Then again, NObama may keep playing it safe and stay the course talking about those crazy pointless issues like the economy.
Would I have voted for McCain? "You betcha(wink)[xx(] if he would have picked a vice president who wasn't a complete moron. I hope the taste of the religious right taint was worth it. What a sell out.
Can you tell I am still bitter over the 2000 Republican primary? [;)]
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
I have been tempted to vote for Barr and still think McCain was the wrong choice, but compared to Obama, McCain is the lesser of the two "big government" loving evils.
McCain wants smaller-bigger goverment and Obama wants bigger-bigger goverment.
Both options suck.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
McCain wants smaller-bigger goverment and Obama wants bigger-bigger goverment.
On another thread, I posted that it was found by a nonpartisan group that McCain will have *larger* deficits than Obama.
So how is Obama bigger-bigger, when his deficits will be smaller?
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11787
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
McCain wants smaller-bigger goverment and Obama wants bigger-bigger goverment.
On another thread, I posted that it was found by a nonpartisan group that McCain will have *larger* deficits than Obama.
So how is Obama bigger-bigger, when his deficits will be smaller?
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11787
Deficits are only one facet relating to the size of government, and as I said before, I don't really care for either of them. I'm just not interested in voting for the guy who tells a small business owner that he wants to "spread the wealth around."
No thanks comrade.
BTW, the Tax Policy Center is NOT a non-partisan group. They are an offshoot of the Brookings Institute, which even the NYTimes describes as a liberal organization.
Just because a group claims to be nonpartisan doesn't make it so.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
McCain wants smaller-bigger goverment and Obama wants bigger-bigger goverment.
On another thread, I posted that it was found by a nonpartisan group that McCain will have *larger* deficits than Obama.
So how is Obama bigger-bigger, when his deficits will be smaller?
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11787
Deficits are only one facet relating to the size of government, and as I said before, I don't really care for either of them. I'm just not interested in voting for the guy who tells a small business owner that he wants to "spread the wealth around."
No thanks comrade.
BTW, the Tax Policy Center is NOT a non-partisan group. They are an offshoot of the Brookings Institute, which even the NYTimes describes as a liberal organization.
Just because a group claims to be nonpartisan doesn't make it so.
Those are raw, solid numbers that the Tax Policy Institute is putting up. Numbers don't have partisan leanings. If you want to poke holes or refute the actual numbers, by all means do so.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
McCain wants smaller-bigger goverment and Obama wants bigger-bigger goverment.
On another thread, I posted that it was found by a nonpartisan group that McCain will have *larger* deficits than Obama.
So how is Obama bigger-bigger, when his deficits will be smaller?
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11787
Deficits are only one facet relating to the size of government, and as I said before, I don't really care for either of them. I'm just not interested in voting for the guy who tells a small business owner that he wants to "spread the wealth around."
No thanks comrade.
BTW, the Tax Policy Center is NOT a non-partisan group. They are an offshoot of the Brookings Institute, which even the NYTimes describes as a liberal organization.
Just because a group claims to be nonpartisan doesn't make it so.
IMO, both candidates are comrades. See 700 billion "spread" bailout.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Those are raw, solid numbers that the Tax Policy Institute is putting up. Numbers don't have partisan leanings. If you want to poke holes or refute the actual numbers, by all means do so.
There are no such things as "raw, solid numbers" from policies that haven't been enacted yet. The numbers in the link you provided are speculative forecasts.
I think I will pretend to be German tonight instead. I pretty much know the substance of this one.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I think I will pretend to be German tonight instead. I pretty much know the substance of this one.
No need to pretend. You are a NAZI aren't you?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
McCain wants smaller-bigger goverment and Obama wants bigger-bigger goverment.
On another thread, I posted that it was found by a nonpartisan group that McCain will have *larger* deficits than Obama.
So how is Obama bigger-bigger, when his deficits will be smaller?
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11787
Deficits are only one facet relating to the size of government, and as I said before, I don't really care for either of them. I'm just not interested in voting for the guy who tells a small business owner that he wants to "spread the wealth around."
No thanks comrade.
BTW, the Tax Policy Center is NOT a non-partisan group. They are an offshoot of the Brookings Institute, which even the NYTimes describes as a liberal organization.
Just because a group claims to be nonpartisan doesn't make it so.
Those are raw, solid numbers that the Tax Policy Institute is putting up. Numbers don't have partisan leanings. If you want to poke holes or refute the actual numbers, by all means do so.
C'mon, we all know that reality has a well known liberal bias. [;)]
Polls show once again Obama won, by a significant margin.
CNN (//%22http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/debate.poll/index.html%22)
CBS (//%22http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/15/politics/horserace/entry4525171.shtml?tag=centerColumn;centerColumnContent%22)
I actually expected that the polls wouldn't have McCain doing so badly this time around, but I guess his personality/mannerism just turn people off. And they are tired of all the attacks.
McCain certainly has his work cut out for him now. How in the world is he suppose to turn this around? People have watched him and Obama now in three seperate debates. Each time, people become more comfortable with Obama, and like McCain less.
Wow, talk about "Angry McNasty"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGzfYOp34d8
And let's remind those women whose lives are endangered by pregnancy how McNasty feels on abortion when your life is at stake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N_UfQVuvXo
Somehow I believe the media will have a field day with this.
I'm guessing Tucker Bounds will have his work cut out for him tomorrow.
I think the real winner in the debate was of course Joe the Plumber. Talk about pandering to a small audience. Interestingly, on the morning shows, Joe admits that he wouldn't fall into the higher tax bracket, and therefore be taxed higher under Obama. He's just afraid of a "slippery sloap."
How much influence will Joe the Plumber have on the election? Not much. Apparently, he isn't registered to vote.
Maybe the plumber needs a helper.
It was another snoozer.
John McCain was wholly unprepared for the evening, as with the other two debates. He was said to have been studying for these debates unlike any other time before. I don't see that it payed off. He may as well have pulled a Tony Romo and taken the week off and went to Cabo.
I think it really hit me last night why conservatives are so frustrated by McCain's performance in these debates. John McCain is NOT a conservative. I keep expecting him to act as a conservative and espouse conservative principles and in each of these debates he has failed to deliver on that messsage....and it's because he doesn't believe in conservative ideas like limited government and personal responsibility.
Obama was the only candidate that told people to stop living beyond their means. McCain is still blaming everyone else and painting the American people as the only "white hat" in the room.
When the Ayers issue came up, McCain basically allowed Obama to innoculate himself, as with the issue of abortion. He had the opportunity to beat Obama over the head with Obama's committment that his first act as POTUS would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act which would re-legalize partial birth abortion. McCain's choice to give Obama a pass on these issues and then make a half assed attempt to bring up issues like Ayers in the debate frankly made him look weak. With Pelosi and Reid in Congress there will be NO OFFSHORE DRILLING, period, and just like Clinton who ran on a platform of middle class tax cuts and never delivered, there will be NO tax cuts for anyone during an Obama presidency.
This should be a good lesson for the Rep party in the future. You can't run a candidate like McCain and expect him to look different than the Democrat sitting across the table from him.
Ronald Reagan may have been his idol, but he apparently learned absolutely nothing from him.
John McCain stinks on ice, but the alternative is worse.
Correction--Joe the plumber is a registered republican. His registered name is misspelled. Good thing his name wasn't purged from the polls.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
It was another snoozer.
John McCain was wholly unprepared for the evening, as with the other two debates. He was said to have been studying for these debates unlike any other time before. I don't see that it payed off. He may as well have pulled a Tony Romo and taken the week off and went to Cabo.
I think it really hit me last night why conservatives are so frustrated by McCain's performance in these debates. John McCain is NOT a conservative. I keep expecting him to act as a conservative and espouse conservative principles and in each of these debates he has failed to deliver on that messsage....and it's because he doesn't believe in conservative ideas like limited government and personal responsibility.
Obama was the only candidate that told people to stop living beyond their means. McCain is still blaming everyone else and painting the American people as the only "white hat" in the room.
When the Ayers issue came up, McCain basically allowed Obama to innoculate himself, as with the issue of abortion. He had the opportunity to beat Obama over the head with Obama's committment that his first act as POTUS would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act which would re-legalize partial birth abortion. McCain's choice to give Obama a pass on these issues and then make a half assed attempt to bring up issues like Ayers in the debate frankly made him look weak. With Pelosi and Reid in Congress there will be NO OFFSHORE DRILLING, period, and just like Clinton who ran on a platform of middle class tax cuts and never delivered, there will be NO tax cuts for anyone during an Obama presidency.
This should be a good lesson for the Rep party in the future. You can't run a candidate like McCain and expect him to look different than the Democrat sitting across the table from him.
Ronald Reagan may have been his idol, but he apparently learned absolutely nothing from him.
John McCain stinks on ice, but the alternative is worse.
Exactly. Watching McCain in the debate was just sad. I kept waiting for some kind of conservative idea to be mentioned but it never happened.
I still can't believe McCain won the Republican party nomination.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
This should be a good lesson for the Rep party in the future. You can't run a candidate like McCain and expect him to look different than the Democrat sitting across the table from him.
The GOP was dealing with the best of a bad situation. It was dealing with one of the most unpopular presidents in history, so you're already talking about a party with one hand tied behind its back.
McCain was by far the best candidate the GOP had. He had positive ratings far higher than the other candidates. And you had to have someone running away from the current president to even have a chance. That's the reality.
The other ones had huge flaws. Romney was too robotic, Fred Thompson was too lethargic, Giuliani was too liberal, Huckabee was too evangelical, and the rest were too obscure.
Despite McCain's positives, he didn't do much to solidify himself to the electorate in the three-month period in which the Democrats were still fighting it out after he captured the nomination. And he didn't do himself any favors by picking the woefully ill-prepared Sarah Palin as his veep. She's been an albatross around his neck in a lot of battleground states, especially Florida. Imagine if McCain had picked the slick-talking Huckabee as his running mate instead.
That all said, McCain still has a chance to win this thing. But don't delude yourself into thinking that a true-blue conservative would be doing any better in this current atmosphere. The Republicans have damaged their brand with an ill-considered war, runaway spending, a slew of corruption convictions, Terri Schiavo, gay-bashing and torture. That's a lot of obstacles to overcome.
He's an embarassment to me and many other conservatives, especially fiscal conservatives.
If he would have had the balls to oppose that monstrosity of a bailout and put forth a solid plan for trimming government waste, lowering taxes, and promising criminal prosecutions for those involved in the Lehman/Fannie/Freddie mess he would be walking all over Obama today.
With Pelosi arguing for 300 billion more in another stimulus package, by the time the next president takes office, the national deficit could be somewhere between 1 and 1.5 trillion dollars. Someone needs to stand up and say STOP THE MADNESS!!!
On a related note, Bernanke came out yesterday and told us all that even WITH the bailout, there is still significant chances of a world-wide recession. That our efforts may have all been for nothing.
No one wants to face the truth, that we are going to suffer serious pain for a while in dealing with the excesses of living beyond our means both personally and corporately. No stimulus package or bailout plan will resolve this crisis. We need to stop trying to engineer fixes which are going to lead to unintended consequences and let the market and home prices fall until they hit bottom themselves. We can pick up the pieces THEN. Until they are allowed to fail and hit rock bottom, our "fixes" are artificial.
We keep creating false floors and then complain when we fall through them.
I heard several market experts on two different channels say almost exactly the same thing last night. They were saying, please, give the market some time to breath. Stop tinkering with the process, offering a new proposal every other day. These daily fixes are only causing uncertainty in the market.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
The GOP was dealing with the best of a bad situation. It was dealing with one of the most unpopular presidents in history, so you're already talking about a party with one hand tied behind its back.
McCain was by far the best candidate the GOP had. He had positive ratings far higher than the other candidates. And you had to have someone running away from the current president to even have a chance. That's the reality.
The other ones had huge flaws. Romney was too robotic, Fred Thompson was too lethargic, Giuliani was too liberal, Huckabee was too evangelical, and the rest were too obscure.
Despite McCain's positives, he didn't do much to solidify himself to the electorate in the three-month period in which the Democrats were still fighting it out after he captured the nomination. And he didn't do himself any favors by picking the woefully ill-prepared Sarah Palin as his veep. She's been an albatross around his neck in a lot of battleground states, especially Florida. Imagine if McCain had picked the slick-talking Huckabee as his running mate instead.
That all said, McCain still has a chance to win this thing. But don't delude yourself into thinking that a true-blue conservative would be doing any better in this current atmosphere. The Republicans have damaged their brand with an ill-considered war, runaway spending, a slew of corruption convictions, Terri Schiavo, gay-bashing and torture. That's a lot of obstacles to overcome.
Putting a fiscal conservative on the ticket would have done a lot distance the party from W. W is NOT a conservative, he is a big goverment republican, just like McCain.
Romney would have been the obvious choice, as his strength was the economy. He is a brilliant business man. He had the presidential look, and was extremely smart and quick with issues.
As per Palin, she's drawing crowds unlike any other VP candidate the republicans have ever seen. She frequently draws larger crowds than Obama. Like her or not, she's very popular.
As per the rest of your post, it's nonsense. This country is still center-right. Look no further than the candidates the Dems ran in '06. They were across the board conservative democrats. The majority of the country is in step with conservatives on gay rights issues. The majority of the country is not interested in imposing gay marriage. FYI, neither are your candidates. Americans may rightly think that Iraq war was a mistake, but the majority are in agreement that victory should not be conceded. And I don't think the name Terri Schiavo has been mentioned this entire campaign.
The Dems and Reps both have their fair share of scandals. Did you bother to see that the idiot that took Foley's seat is now being investigated for his own sex scandal? This line of argument is old and tired.
What I do know is that people don't trust the government to run anything, including healthcare. The aren't interested in increasing taxes, whether they be capital gains, personal, or otherwise. People think government is bloated and inefficient. They are overwhelmingly opposed to restrictions on Second Amendment rights. They are evenly divided on abortion, and they believe in personal responsibility and rugged individualism.
McCain has failed to connect with these core conservative ideas. That is why he losing.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
The GOP was dealing with the best of a bad situation. It was dealing with one of the most unpopular presidents in history, so you're already talking about a party with one hand tied behind its back.
McCain was by far the best candidate the GOP had. He had positive ratings far higher than the other candidates. And you had to have someone running away from the current president to even have a chance. That's the reality.
The other ones had huge flaws. Romney was too robotic, Fred Thompson was too lethargic, Giuliani was too liberal, Huckabee was too evangelical, and the rest were too obscure.
Despite McCain's positives, he didn't do much to solidify himself to the electorate in the three-month period in which the Democrats were still fighting it out after he captured the nomination. And he didn't do himself any favors by picking the woefully ill-prepared Sarah Palin as his veep. She's been an albatross around his neck in a lot of battleground states, especially Florida. Imagine if McCain had picked the slick-talking Huckabee as his running mate instead.
That all said, McCain still has a chance to win this thing. But don't delude yourself into thinking that a true-blue conservative would be doing any better in this current atmosphere. The Republicans have damaged their brand with an ill-considered war, runaway spending, a slew of corruption convictions, Terri Schiavo, gay-bashing and torture. That's a lot of obstacles to overcome.
Putting a fiscal conservative on the ticket would have done a lot distance the party from W. W is NOT a conservative, he is a big goverment republican, just like McCain.
Romney would have been the obvious choice, as his strength was the economy. He is a brilliant business man. He had the presidential look, and was extremely smart and quick with issues.
As per Palin, she's drawing crowds unlike any other VP candidate the republicans have ever seen. She frequently draws larger crowds than Obama. Like her or not, she's very popular.
As per the rest of your post, it's nonsense. This country is still center-right. Look no further than the candidates the Dems ran in '06. They were across the board conservative democrats. The majority of the country is in step with conservatives on gay rights issues. The majority of the country is not interested in imposing gay marriage. FYI, neither are your candidates. Americans may rightly think that Iraq war was a mistake, but the majority are in agreement that victory should not be conceded. And I don't think the name Terri Schiavo has been mentioned this entire campaign.
The Dems and Reps both have their fair share of scandals. Did you bother to see that the idiot that took Foley's seat is now being investigated for his own sex scandal? This line of argument is old and tired.
What I do know is that people don't trust the government to run anything, including healthcare. The aren't interested in increasing taxes, whether they be capital gains, personal, or otherwise. People think government is bloated and inefficient. They are overwhelmingly opposed to restrictions on Second Amendment rights. They are evenly divided on abortion, and they believe in personal responsibility and rugged individualism.
McCain has failed to connect with these core conservative ideas. That is why he losing.
If Romney was such an obvious choice, why couldn't he get arrested during the primaries?
Palin is popular with a certain segment. But she's got higher negatives than positives with the electorate. Fumbling around during interviews and not answering questions during a debate will do that.
I'm not denying that the country is center-right, going more center. That's why the Democrats' big tent has helped in elections. Meanwhile, the Republicans' tent has shrunk to a yurt, as Christopher Buckley would say.
Funny that you bring up Foley. He's about as responsible as anyone for the GOP losing its seats in 2006. It put the flaws of the GOP at that time in stark relief, especially when the Abramoff indictments (and convictions) were going hot and heavy.
I think Obama is connecting (so far) more with the electorate because 1) he's not Republican; 2) and he's more pragmatic and calming than McCain. Plus, the "he's a radical" canard doesn't work when they see Obama at the debates being cool and reassuring and McCain acting pissy and twitchy.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
If Romney was such an obvious choice, why couldn't he get arrested during the primaries?
Palin is popular with a certain segment. But she's got higher negatives than positives with the electorate. Fumbling around during interviews and not answering questions during a debate will do that.
I'm not denying that the country is center-right, going more center. That's why the Democrats' big tent has helped in elections. Meanwhile, the Republicans' tent has shrunk to a yurt, as Christopher Buckley would say.
Funny that you bring up Foley. He's about as responsible as anyone for the GOP losing its seats in 2006. It put the flaws of the GOP at that time in stark relief, especially when the Abramoff indictments (and convictions) were going hot and heavy.
I think Obama is connecting (so far) more with the electorate because 1) he's not Republican; 2) and he's more pragmatic and calming than McCain. Plus, the "he's a radical" canard doesn't work when they see Obama at the debates being cool and reassuring and McCain acting pissy and twitchy.
No one knew the major issue that would overwhelm this election cycle would be the economy. For a while, we all thought that it might be the Georgia/Russia issue. If we knew then what we know now, I can assure you that Romney would have been the choice.
I don't think Ayers, Wright, Pflager, and Rezco have anything to do with whether Obama is "radical." It has to do with his judgment. He sat in Wright's church for 20 years and never heard outrageous statements, he was only 8 when Ayers bombed, as if that has any bearing on the issue. He never heard Pflagers comments. He wasn't involved with Rezco, and on and on.
If we are to believe Obama, then we must conclude that Obama is the political equivalent of Mr. Magoo, stumbling through live without ever seeing or hearing anything.
The republicans don't need a tent. They need to speak to the issues I outlined previously. If they did that they would connect with the American people.
So far they have chosen not to do so and that is why they are losing.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
The GOP was dealing with the best of a bad situation. It was dealing with one of the most unpopular presidents in history, so you're already talking about a party with one hand tied behind its back.
McCain was by far the best candidate the GOP had. He had positive ratings far higher than the other candidates. And you had to have someone running away from the current president to even have a chance. That's the reality.
The other ones had huge flaws. Romney was too robotic, Fred Thompson was too lethargic, Giuliani was too liberal, Huckabee was too evangelical, and the rest were too obscure.
Despite McCain's positives, he didn't do much to solidify himself to the electorate in the three-month period in which the Democrats were still fighting it out after he captured the nomination. And he didn't do himself any favors by picking the woefully ill-prepared Sarah Palin as his veep. She's been an albatross around his neck in a lot of battleground states, especially Florida. Imagine if McCain had picked the slick-talking Huckabee as his running mate instead.
That all said, McCain still has a chance to win this thing. But don't delude yourself into thinking that a true-blue conservative would be doing any better in this current atmosphere. The Republicans have damaged their brand with an ill-considered war, runaway spending, a slew of corruption convictions, Terri Schiavo, gay-bashing and torture. That's a lot of obstacles to overcome.
Putting a fiscal conservative on the ticket would have done a lot distance the party from W. W is NOT a conservative, he is a big goverment republican, just like McCain.
Romney would have been the obvious choice, as his strength was the economy. He is a brilliant business man. He had the presidential look, and was extremely smart and quick with issues.
As per Palin, she's drawing crowds unlike any other VP candidate the republicans have ever seen. She frequently draws larger crowds than Obama. Like her or not, she's very popular.
As per the rest of your post, it's nonsense. This country is still center-right. Look no further than the candidates the Dems ran in '06. They were across the board conservative democrats. The majority of the country is in step with conservatives on gay rights issues. The majority of the country is not interested in imposing gay marriage. FYI, neither are your candidates. Americans may rightly think that Iraq war was a mistake, but the majority are in agreement that victory should not be conceded. And I don't think the name Terri Schiavo has been mentioned this entire campaign.
The Dems and Reps both have their fair share of scandals. Did you bother to see that the idiot that took Foley's seat is now being investigated for his own sex scandal? This line of argument is old and tired.
What I do know is that people don't trust the government to run anything, including healthcare. The aren't interested in increasing taxes, whether they be capital gains, personal, or otherwise. People think government is bloated and inefficient. They are overwhelmingly opposed to restrictions on Second Amendment rights. They are evenly divided on abortion, and they believe in personal responsibility and rugged individualism.
McCain has failed to connect with these core conservative ideas. That is why he losing.
You make some good points about McCain not connecting on core conservative ideas but it's not why he is losing. I think people are questioning a party who doesn't practice what they preach.
Abortion should not even be a topic. Kinda hard to make it one when the last three Republican first ladies are pro-choice. I am against abortion which is why I won't have one. It also helps that I am male. We can't talk about government intrusion then turn around and support it in a different form. Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned, even if the court is conservative.
The problem began when the extreme religious right and others vilified McCain and chose "W" in 2000. This blunder is what ultimately cost the Republican Party this election. Experience wasn't an issue then? Please. Let's face it, we screwed the pooch electing a man who will be regarded as the worst President in the history of this country. Thank you religious right of the Republican party! We now have a test to choose candidates. The dumber you are, the better. Deep pockets and a questionable, immoral past gets you extra points!
McCain had cross over appeal to democrats. During this year's primary McCain was still being vilified by his own party and Fox News, yet ended up winning the nomination. What was the lesson learned from that? People weren't hearing the same ol' case made time and time again by the hard right of the party. Again, if core values were of such importance, then McCain would not have been elected. History had already shown that McCain was middle of the road. This is why people liked him.
When McCain got the nomination I believed that the race was over. Neither NObama or Clinton could beat him due to his crossover appeal. What was the one catastrophe decision McCain made? Making Sarah Palin his running mate. He could have even chosen Huckabee(my preference) a religious right conservative who actually uses his brain. His abilities would have made the Reagan Democrats feel safe. Huckabee may be a bit right but he can at least name a periodical he has read and have the capacity to deal with the media and answer questions. Jeeeeeez.
McCain's campaign has been a repeating car crash. He lost his "Maverick" way while believing he still was. He became just another suck up to the extreme religious right . When he wasn't or tried to invoke his own stance, his previous suck up lines and Sarah Palin were right there to contradict him.
And the market issues added to his supposed demise.
I still don't believe Nobama has this election locked up but I do know the Republicans better get their heads out of the sand. Continuing to focus on issues of morality and then contradict them will eventually wears itself out. Fear based politics is out. It's cycle thing. Just ask any twenty something Iranian.
Sure Palin draws the crowds. I used to hang around Steve's bookstore and read Penthouse but I never bought one.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
"rugged individualism" a term straight from Herbert Hoover
I'm not buying it.
The "religious right" is a paper tiger, or better yet, a strawman. If the religious right were in charge of this party then we would have ended up with Huckabee. Palin was not chosen because McCain needed to appeal to the religious right, else again, he could have chosen Huckabee as you so rightly stated. She was chosen for a variety of other reasons which have been stated ad nauseam and have nothing to do with "religious" issues. The plain facts are that he was behind until he chose Palin. She energized conservatives and continues, to this day, to draw crowds which rival Obama's.
For example, Reagan had cross over appeal and won over many Democrats who ended up voting for him in his second race. If there were ever a voice for unabated, wholehearted belief in conservative principles, it was him. He did not engender favor from democrats by degrading his own party as McCain is famous for. Nor did he engender favor by standing for bigger government, higher taxes and additional encroachment into our lives.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
"rugged individualism" a term straight from Herbert Hoover
And?
Hoover's cry for rugged individualism to resolve the great depression didn't do much more than make the depression greater. Getting to the root cause: putting people to work is what helped get us back on our feet. That took government intervention.
No. Hoover's failure was raising taxes in a depressed economy.
Obama appealed last night to personal responsibility, which is inexorably tied to rugged individualism. I didn't see you bashing him.
Individualism produces excellence in our personal lives. People are useless in a group setting or a community if they lack personal responsibility and integrity. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Furthermore, individualism is the catylist for the greatest of all economic advantages for the US, competition.
Interesting. Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.
Has there been a successful conservative president since Reagan? If not, I'd venture to say that maybe Reaganism isn't repeatable.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I'm not buying it.
The "religious right" is a paper tiger, or better yet, a strawman. If the religious right were in charge of this party then we would have ended up with Huckabee. Palin was not chosen because McCain needed to appeal to the religious right, else again, he could have chosen Huckabee as you so rightly stated. She was chosen for a variety of other reasons which have been stated ad nauseam and have nothing to do with "religious" issues. The plain facts are that he was behind until he chose Palin. She energized conservatives and continues, to this day, to draw crowds which rival Obama's.
For example, Reagan had cross over appeal and won over many Democrats who ended up voting for him in his second race. If there were ever a voice for unabated, wholehearted belief in conservative principles, it was him. He did not engender favor from democrats by degrading his own party as McCain is famous for. Nor did he engender favor by standing for bigger government, higher taxes and additional encroachment into our lives.
I don't believe the religious right is in charge, but I do believe the imeshing of conservative values with the extreme religious right has taken place over the years which has backed the party into a corner. Candidates not being able to stray from a rigid agenda are taking a hard hit among voters. Especially when they try to appease both. I also believe the imeshing has dumbed down the party.
Huckabee is one who many would call extreme religious right but I think his personality, leadership abilities and more importantly his intellect would have appealed to the Reagan democrats. He is open to dialog. Picking Palin for whatever reason proves my point about the damage of imeshment.
Yep, Ronald Reagan was a true leader and one of America's greatest presidents. Even if you didn't like him at least you knew he was respected around the world and would represent America well. I watched the "American Experience" documentary on public television a couple of weeks ago. Seeing Reagan talk and campaign really magnified what a pathetic state the party has become since then.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Interesting. Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.
Has there been a successful conservative president since Reagan? If not, I'd venture to say that maybe Reaganism isn't repeatable.
It is. But we have unfortunately nominated candidates that don't believe in conservatism, hoping that candidates like McCain would appease the middle and/or pickpocket dem voters. Just like any political monster, Reps would rather "win" an election than hold to their principles, even when doing so isn't popular.
For example, the bailout bill. A fiscal conservative would have voted against it, even though it would not have been popular. And from what we heard from Bernanke yesterday, the bailout bill will not be able to stave off the coming international recession.
But McCain, out of fear, decided to vote with the masses because, hey, who wants to be the guy that tanks the economy? Even though the bailout has done virtually nothing and Bernanke is even admitting it. Many people like Dave Ramsey were telling us this was going to be the case, but guess what happens when you make decisions in a hurried and haphazard fashion. We made emotional decisions out of fear, and I am concerned that the fix may be worse than the problem.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I think I will pretend to be German tonight instead. I pretty much know the substance of this one.
No need to pretend. You are a NAZI aren't you?
Does that mean this thread has been Godwinned??
How did you know? Is it THAT obvious?
What I still can't manage to figure out, is why Gallup has the race at only 2% for Obama today. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING that was said last night by McCain impressed me.
It was the same regurgitated lines from both of them. The only difference was the "Joe the Plumber" story. Could it be that Obama's "spread the wealth" comment may be his undoing?
I don't get why the polls (Gallup, Zogby and Rasmussen)are closing in on Obama, honestly.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What I still can't manage to figure out, is why Gallup has the race at only 2% for Obama today. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING that was said last night by McCain impressed me.
It was the same regurgitated lines from both of them. The only difference was the "Joe the Plumber" story. Could it be that Obama's "spread the wealth" comment may be his undoing?
I don't get why the polls (Gallup, Zogby and Rasmussen)are closing in on Obama, honestly.
Because polls are just that..polls. I see many of them with Obama up 12, I see the expanded gallup wiht him up 6. I just think polls can't be counted on when the race is like this (tight).
The polls that matter post-debate are the ones from the undecideds, who really gave the debate to Obama.
I had to go up to NE OK this morning and listened to Boortz's take on it. He spent about 1/2 hour going over McCain's missed opportunities last night, they were many.
I really didn't believe McCain would get nominated. I admire his patriotism and truly believe he's always wanted to make a difference, but he's really hard to get excited about.
He's only slightly more exciting than Bob Dull.
The GOP needs to take a page out of the DNC book and try running someone younger and more charismatic next time. Running mates don't count. I don't think Quayle helped Bush in '88. That was all Reagan's coattails.
I hate to concede, but it's not looking well for McCain. He might have been able to beat Hillary, but I've had my doubts about an Obama match-up ever since McCains campaign was revived from life-support last year.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Interesting. Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.
Has there been a successful conservative president since Reagan? If not, I'd venture to say that maybe Reaganism isn't repeatable.
It is. But we have unfortunately nominated candidates that don't believe in conservatism, hoping that candidates like McCain would appease the middle and/or pickpocket dem voters. Just like any political monster, Reps would rather "win" an election than hold to their principles, even when doing so isn't popular.
But my question still stands. Why do the Republicans NOT nominate candidates who believe in conservatism? If Reagan was such a huge hero, why don't more people emulate him?
My suggestions are either 1) there aren't enough true-blue Reagan conservatives to nominate or 2) conservatism isn't really that popular outside the base, and needs to be watered down to sell to a bigger audience.
And the bailout is a perfect example. Congressional Republicans were stuck between their prinicples (laissez faire capitalism) and reality (an economy in dire need of direct and immediate assistance). In this case, reality won out. So, were Congressional Republicans wrong because they sold out their principles, or were they right because they what the situation demanded? Or is it possible that the principles themselves were all wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
But my question still stands. Why do the Republicans NOT nominate candidates who believe in conservatism? If Reagan was such a huge hero, why don't more people emulate him?
My suggestions are either 1) there aren't enough true-blue Reagan conservatives to nominate or 2) conservatism isn't really that popular outside the base, and needs to be watered down to sell to a bigger audience.
Because we buy into the lie that we need to appear quasi-democrat to appeal to independents. I don't think there is any question that Reagan was a hero to many. Reagan is a hard act to emulate. He was a powerful orator, but he also believed in the principles he stated. I think having a candidate for the last two elections who couldn't get his point across, we would have settled for anyone. Not that W is actually a fiscal conservative.
Reagan didn't win by a landslide because the people were craving a left leaning message. The American people still believe in the core values of conservatism in low taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility and ancillary ideas like the right to bear arms. If you can show me that this is not the case then I would agree with you.
quote:
And the bailout is a perfect example. Congressional Republicans were stuck between their prinicples (laissez faire capitalism) and reality (an economy in dire need of direct and immediate assistance). In this case, reality won out. So, were Congressional Republicans wrong because they sold out their principles, or were they right because they what the situation demanded? Or is it possible that the principles themselves were all wrong?
I don't think there was a delimma at all. I think principles like a free market economy should be followed because they actually work. This doesn't mean that there should be no oversight, but artifical involvement, like the bailout, will probably do nothing to stave off the coming recession here or internationally. Reality didn't win out, that's why Bernanke said that an international crisis will probably be unavoidable.
There are some problems which have no "fix" and they must be allowed to follow to their natural conclusion and fail. We cannot be saved from every crisis. Until we actually see the bottom, we're working with imaginary numbers that have been manipulated by artificial means. We still don't know what the real value of the markets are even today. That's why we continue to have several hundred point swings every day.
So in short, any Republican that voted for that sorry donkey bill didn't have faith in a system that works. 200 years of success are enough proof for me.
Free market principles have produced the most prosperous country the world has ever seen. American companies are the center of R&D for almost every technology sector. If it weren't for US big pharma, the rest of the world wouldn't have cheap, effective medication. If it weren't for American farmers, kids in Africa wouldn't eat. The list goes on and on.
Backhanding the free market and pushing lenders to give mortgages to people who wouldn't or didn't qualify for traditional mortgages is at the heart of this crisis.
We have to get away from thinking everything is a "right" that every American is entitled to. Home ownership is the American dream and is a priviledge; it is not a "right." A college education is not a "right" it is a priviledge.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Interesting. Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.
Has there been a successful conservative president since Reagan? If not, I'd venture to say that maybe Reaganism isn't repeatable.
It is. But we have unfortunately nominated candidates that don't believe in conservatism, hoping that candidates like McCain would appease the middle and/or pickpocket dem voters. Just like any political monster, Reps would rather "win" an election than hold to their principles, even when doing so isn't popular.
But my question still stands. Why do the Republicans NOT nominate candidates who believe in conservatism? If Reagan was such a huge hero, why don't more people emulate him?
My suggestions are either 1) there aren't enough true-blue Reagan conservatives to nominate or 2) conservatism isn't really that popular outside the base, and needs to be watered down to sell to a bigger audience.
And the bailout is a perfect example. Congressional Republicans were stuck between their prinicples (laissez faire capitalism) and reality (an economy in dire need of direct and immediate assistance). In this case, reality won out. So, were Congressional Republicans wrong because they sold out their principles, or were they right because they what the situation demanded? Or is it possible that the principles themselves were all wrong?
The minute the Republican Party started using tactics started by Lee Atwater and then Karl Rove is when the party moved away from true conservatism. It became divisive with an either you are with us or you are one of them. If you think about it, the moves that scumbag Rove did could only alienate people who generally voted Democrat. Heck, it even alienated within the party. Like you said, It is no longer about the issues, it's about getting your guy elected by any means, even if it goes against conservative principles. We talk about change, but Republicans settle for the same morons every election just like the democrats do claiming the lesser of two evils. Republicans are no better than democrats. Even at the end of his life, Atwater at least asked for forgiveness for the evil he invoked on his victims. Why wouldn't he? If you were a moral person would you not think the tactics used by Atwater and Rove are immoral? I believe these tactics could be used and defended , if the party believed in the seperation of church and state. If you are going to invoke a moral stand while campaigning you are going to have to practice what you preach. Remember, lying is sin, even when Republicans do it.
All one has to do is look at the first presidential Reagan ran, it's like night and day compared to the sleaze of the past ten years.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Interesting. Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.
Has there been a successful conservative president since Reagan? If not, I'd venture to say that maybe Reaganism isn't repeatable.
It is. But we have unfortunately nominated candidates that don't believe in conservatism, hoping that candidates like McCain would appease the middle and/or pickpocket dem voters. Just like any political monster, Reps would rather "win" an election than hold to their principles, even when doing so isn't popular.
But my question still stands. Why do the Republicans NOT nominate candidates who believe in conservatism? If Reagan was such a huge hero, why don't more people emulate him?
My suggestions are either 1) there aren't enough true-blue Reagan conservatives to nominate or 2) conservatism isn't really that popular outside the base, and needs to be watered down to sell to a bigger audience.
And the bailout is a perfect example. Congressional Republicans were stuck between their prinicples (laissez faire capitalism) and reality (an economy in dire need of direct and immediate assistance). In this case, reality won out. So, were Congressional Republicans wrong because they sold out their principles, or were they right because they what the situation demanded? Or is it possible that the principles themselves were all wrong?
If every state had closed primaries like Oklahoma, I might be able to buy into that. It's hard to take a scientific approach to that issue when liberal Dems and Inds can vote in the GOP primary. That dilutes the "true" conservative vote.
quote:
Originally posted by mrburns918
The minute the Republican Party started using tactics started by Lee Atwater and then Karl Rove is when the party moved away from true conservatism. It became divisive with an either you are with us or you are one of them. If you think about it, the moves that scumbag Rove did could only alienate people who generally voted Democrat. Heck, it even alienated within the party. Like you said, It is no longer about the issues, it's about getting your guy elected by any means, even if it goes against conservative principles. We talk about change, but Republicans settle for the same morons every election just like the democrats do claiming the lesser of two evils. Republicans are no better than democrats. Even at the end of his life, Atwater at least asked for forgiveness for the evil he invoked on his victims. Why wouldn't he? If you were a moral person would you not think the tactics used by Atwater and Rove are immoral? I believe these tactics could be used and defended , if the party believed in the seperation of church and state. If you are going to invoke a moral stand while campaigning you are going to have to practice what you preach. Remember, lying is sin, even when Republicans do it.
All one has to do is look at the first presidential Reagan ran, it's like night and day compared to the sleaze of the past ten years.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
I know this is more of an esoterical point, but it always amuses me when people attack Karl Rove because he was divisive and then use divisive, angry statements to make their point...
You're obsessed with the idea that the religious right is running the party. If that were the case, McCain wouldn't be the nominee.
You're shadow boxing a boogie man.
As to your points about church/state separation, I'm not following you. Maybe you could explain it differently or rephrase it.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by mrburns918
The minute the Republican Party started using tactics started by Lee Atwater and then Karl Rove is when the party moved away from true conservatism. It became divisive with an either you are with us or you are one of them. If you think about it, the moves that scumbag Rove did could only alienate people who generally voted Democrat. Heck, it even alienated within the party. Like you said, It is no longer about the issues, it's about getting your guy elected by any means, even if it goes against conservative principles. We talk about change, but Republicans settle for the same morons every election just like the democrats do claiming the lesser of two evils. Republicans are no better than democrats. Even at the end of his life, Atwater at least asked for forgiveness for the evil he invoked on his victims. Why wouldn't he? If you were a moral person would you not think the tactics used by Atwater and Rove are immoral? I believe these tactics could be used and defended , if the party believed in the seperation of church and state. If you are going to invoke a moral stand while campaigning you are going to have to practice what you preach. Remember, lying is sin, even when Republicans do it.
All one has to do is look at the first presidential Reagan ran, it's like night and day compared to the sleaze of the past ten years.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
I know this is more of an esoterical point, but it always amuses me when people attack Karl Rove because he was divisive and then use divisive, angry statements to make their point...
You're obsessed with the idea that the religious right is running the party. If that were the case, McCain wouldn't be the nominee.
You're shadow boxing a boogie man.
As to your points about church/state separation, I'm not following you. Maybe you could explain it differently or rephrase it.
Real quick....
Focus on issues using a true conservative voice like the economy, foreign policy, size of government, federal spending, etc. etc.
NOT...
McCain fathered an illegitimate kid, swift boating the competition, manipulation of power in a negative sense, Fear, etc. etc.
The Republican Party did not have to stoop to this level and now it has come back to bite them. Again, look at Reagan's campaign and it is clear why he appealed to Democrats. He stuck with the issues. The content of his character was real. Even if you didn't like the man and/or politics, you respected him.
If I come off as angry and divisive regarding Rove it's because he helped sink the Republican Party. My angry/devisive stance doesn't have the power that his angry and divisive tactics did. Don't use me as a distraction for his sick, immoral strategy that has put the Republican Party where it is today. The party has to get back on track and address where it went wrong. You can't blame anyone else on this one.
The separation of church and state was to simply point out that you can't use the above tactics if your platform incorporates a Christian value base. It would only work if you believed in the separation of church and state. That being said, actually it's pretty disgusting across the board whether you believe or not in the separation of church and state.
If I am shadowboxing because of the passion of what my former party has become, then I fully accept it.
Remember the good ol' days when the great William F. Buckley defended conservatism and why it's the right choice? Now, it's Sean Hannity. Please.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
If you could give me a person or party that was religiously liberal and fiscally conservative, I would be all about it.
We are going to have either raise taxes or cut social security, or both. But neither side could win saying that. So we are obviously going to be left choosing between competing packs of lies.
Whoever suggested enough of either of those, enough to do the job, they would lose to the rosy but fantasy story the other side would put forth. The sad fact of the matter appears to be that one party is going to have to take the fall. The most noble thing that could happen is that the Dems get control of everything, if it were likely that the republicans could do it now I would be saying this about them,,, but one party gets control of the whole kit and cabootle. We are in such a pickle now that the party is going to have serious pressure to essentially do the right thing. But the sad part is, they would be presiding over the hurt, the belt tightening, etc. and they know it, and would likely lose the next round of elections because the other party could all the while still be touting their fantasy answer that wouldnt require the real hurt. And people would buy it. Then later the economy would indeed be in better shape, under the party that didnt have to do the hurting. So that right there makes it highly likely that the "noble" thing will not get done. Nobody wants to be the party in power during the serious belt tightening, especially when the economy is down already. For they then know they would lose in the long run. So we will do half measures, play with numbers on paper, borrow more, cross our fingers, and push off that slowly worsening day of reckoning even further.
You know what I have been juuust seeing the glimmers of, future possibility wise? Notice how the rest of the world is suffering because of what we have done. Yes they have some blame in the matter, but we were really the ones making the mess and even exporting some of the notions which helped make their messes more likely. Regardless of even whether you agree if thats the cause, thats largely the perception in the rest of the world. So lets imagine keep making a mess, even possibly worse messes because we choose to believe in fantasies. Sooner or later the rest of the world is going to get tired of having us hurt them. We can already see how the EU has taken some lead once they realized they really had a problem and it wasnt something that was going to hurt just us. As we lose economic power on the one hand, yet still have the power to seriously hurt the rest of the world on the other. The rest of the world may decide they have had enough and start playing a more seriously active role in... well, pulling our strings. Taking sides politically even? They may start joining together to change policies here through both economic means and even getting involved more in our own politics and media.
Its one thing to say, we wont truly influence your politics or elections, public/media perceptions on sovereign issues during normal times. But when what you all do hurts us so quickly, deeply and readily,,, well thats another matter. Its a whole different ballgame.
Just a thought.
quote:
If you could give me a person or party that was religiously liberal and fiscally conservative, I would be all about it.
You might want to talk with Cannon Fodder. I think the libertarian party is a good fit for you.
I would much rather see the libertarian party in charge than a democrat any day. Right now, I'm thinking that they've become what the republican party should be.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
If you could give me a person or party that was religiously liberal and fiscally conservative, I would be all about it.
You might want to talk with Cannon Fodder. I think the libertarian party is a good fit for you.
I would much rather see the libertarian party in charge than a democrat any day. Right now, I'm thinking that they've become what the republican party should be.
That last sentence is a really good point.
The Libertarian Party had better start cultivating its grassroots and running viable candidates, or it'll be forever as respected as the Green Party, which is not at all.
However, I'm betting the GOP will turn more libertarian in the coming years. It has no choice. It's turning off scores of young voters in its current incarnation. Soon, the demographics will make change in the party inevitable.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
If you could give me a person or party that was religiously liberal and fiscally conservative, I would be all about it.
You might want to talk with Cannon Fodder. I think the libertarian party is a good fit for you.
I would much rather see the libertarian party in charge than a democrat any day. Right now, I'm thinking that they've become what the republican party should be.
That last sentence is a really good point.
The Libertarian Party had better start cultivating its grassroots and running viable candidates, or it'll be forever as respected as the Green Party, which is not at all.
However, I'm betting the GOP will turn more libertarian in the coming years. It has no choice. It's turning off scores of young voters in its current incarnation. Soon, the demographics will make change in the party inevitable.
RW, there are many, many centrist Republicans who are far better represented by the Libertarian Party.
One thing which would help palatability with many would be if they would drop the whole marijuana issue. Makes it sound like it's the political party for dope-smoking Reaganites.
Mssg to all- unfortunately, politics keeps getting uglier and more about personal attacks, instead of really caring about the problems facing most of us. The GOP just had to go after Clinton as retribution for Watergate and Iran-Contra. I don't think this crap is ever going to end.
D.C. is broken. Lobbyists are running it and there's an elite club of 537 or so elected officials lapping up the gravy- on our dime.
Until we can all say: "enough" and vote out every single incumbent, regardless of party affiliation and idealogical prejudice, this is the sort of governance we can expect, and it sucks. I don't know if there is such a thing as a liberal or conservative politician anymore, everyone is more worried about being re-elected and maintaining power, with the exception of precious few, it's hard to see their true colors. Witness the weak leadership in the house and Senate since 2000, it's nothing but a CYA game anymore.
/rant
Time to go act like a German w/ Cannon_Fodder and lighten up. BAH!