2 of 6
2

I knew we would lose with McCain
Posted: 13 November 2008 03:08 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 16 ]  
Leader
Total Posts:  179
Joined  2008-09-27

Given the unprecedented amount of dirt, actionable material, whatever you want to call it that exists on Obama, from his utter lack of a voting record to his background (I’m not going to recite the litany here; we all know it by heart by now), the only way he could not have been devastated by a series of simple, honest “attack” ads, is if those ads never aired.

Put it this way: if Lee Atwater were alive and have been allowed to run the McCain campaign unfettered, does anyone seriously doubt the outcome would more than likely have been different?  An old friend of mine said in passing a month ago, that he didn’t think McCain wanted to win.  This thought was unthinkable to me at the time, so I ignored it, but now it seems self-evident.

The malfeasance was always in our face, from his opening lie about financing to the upfront corruption in the credit card donations.  It was not used.  His very viability as a candidate, given his birthplace: ignored.  His past associations with domestic terrorists, and the simple fact he would be the first President in American history who could not pass a simple background screening: ignored.  (Try and imagine Ronald Reagan at a debate, armed with that fact.)

And on, and on we could go. Let’s stop kidding ourselves: McCain dropped the ball, and most likely on purpose.

 
 
Posted: 13 November 2008 03:22 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 17 ]  
D. Eisenhower
Total Posts:  618
Joined  2006-11-04

And on, and on we could go. Let’s stop kidding ourselves: McCain dropped the ball, and most likely on purpose.

My own brother has been telling me that for months. A brother who I converted just a few years back for a Commie Lib who could have made Wraptard almost look sane.

I didn’t want to believe it, yet two sentences into each debate I had to shut him off. You couldn’t write a more pathetic scrip if you were a Hollywood leftist.

I just wish I didn’t get to look forward to him stabbing us in the back from his perch in the Senate. I mean the guy won’t even come out and defend his running mate, Sara Palin.

You sure gotta wonder.

 Signature 

First They Came for Joe the Plumber…

 
 
Posted: 13 November 2008 03:34 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 18 ]  
Leader
Total Posts:  166
Joined  2008-09-26

McCain was indeed a disaster. He was absolutely his own worst enemy. He didn’t do all that he could have done to win which is pretty pathetic when you think about it. And his campaign staff were an equal disaster, making a long list of critical mistakes. We’ll never know for sure if Romney, Guiliani, or even Huckabee would have been a better candidate but I am at least reasonably certain that any one of those three guys would have run a better and more aggressive campaign.

 Signature 

"How do you tell if someone is a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell if someone’s an anti-commmunist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin” - Ronald Reagan

 
 
Posted: 13 November 2008 03:59 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 19 ]  
Strategist
Total Posts:  112
Joined  2006-11-06

And on, and on we could go. Let’s stop kidding ourselves: McCain dropped the ball, and most likely on purpose.

I find this so hard to believe. McCain has wanted to be prez for years. This whole disaster of having him as our candidate is because he wanted to be president and he didn’t care that we didn’t want him. He was our candidate and if a large part of the GOP base didn’t like it, too bad.

But the man doesn’t have the substance we look for in a leader. It really was apparent. The inevitable conclusion is there’s not much substance to the guy and it takes a lot more than a loathing of liberals to make one president.

And I think McCain reasonably expected, no matter what he did—or didn’t do, that half this country’s aversion to progressive liberalism was going to prevail over his own substance.

With this attitude, he didn’t have to do anything except rely on half this country, the conservative half and a few fence-sitters, to sweep him into office just to defeat the “other guy.” And so it would almost appear as if he didn’t want to do anything to win. If he drops the ball, doesn’t matter, half this country still cannot abide Obama and don’t want him to be president.

And that’s a sorry excuse for a would-be president, let alone a world leader.

 Signature 

Faint not, poor soul, in God still trust,
Fear not the things thou suffer must;
For, whom he loves he doth castise,
And then all tears wipes from their eyes.
Honorable William Bradford ... Governor, Plymouth.

 
 
Posted: 13 November 2008 04:06 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 20 ]  
Leader
Total Posts:  179
Joined  2008-09-27

So this leads us to another, more important question: given the Democrat Congress and the state of the economy right now, would we want anyone even remotely Republican in power right now, from the standpoint of, for lack of a better term, protecting the brand name?  Granted, if these wingnuts forego all common sense and march in lockstep towards a illusory Socialist Utopia, the argument could be made that it would have been better to have McCain there to rein them in. 
But, given that more than a few Moderate Democrats have established a fairly Conservative voting pattern, and assuming they will act as a buffer against any truly insane forays into non-functioning financial theories, perhaps two years of guaranteed disaster will wake a few people up to reality. 

What Republicans absolutely must do is scream and yell for voting reform.  “No one should be afraid of a fair election” should be the mantra, and identification at Voting Precincts must be implemented everywhere.  Believe me, sitting here in Houston, where I present my Voter’s Registration card and driver’s license to vote, and watching the chaos in Philadelphia where cheerful CNN reporters document a man’s multiple votes, is positively surreal, and wrong beyond the capacity of language to express.

 
 
Posted: 13 November 2008 04:35 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 21 ]  
D. Eisenhower
Total Posts:  684
Joined  2006-11-06

I’m not convinced that the Republicans wanted to win this election.  The choice of candidates was poor and there wasn’t much enthusiasm about a party platform.  No ideas, very little emotion.  The ONLY bright spot was Sarah Palin.

 Signature 

En la Sua voluntade è nostra pace (In Your will is our peace) — Dante Alighieri, Divine Comedy (1308-1321)

 
 
Posted: 13 November 2008 05:18 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 22 ]  
Leader
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-06-20

All of you here, except the lib loons, are starting to come to your senses, after the late debaucle, I’m relieved. Something has to be done about the election proccess, that lets party officials ram down our throats people who couldn’t get elected dogcatcher in a one horse town, and I wont even mention the fraud and corruption going on. This whole cycle has left me sick and demoralized.
We can’t do much about the Dhims, they’ll carry on with their shinanigans unoppose, but we’ve either got to change the stupid party, or get rid of it completely. Change it by withholding donations,time, and votes, and not falling for the old chesnut of voting for the lesser of two evils. Until you do your going to get more of the same, you can take that to the bank. I started when they gave us McChump, the balls in your court.

 
 
Posted: 13 November 2008 07:06 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 23 ]  
Leader
Total Posts:  179
Joined  2008-09-27
old foot soldier - 13 November 2008 05:18 PM

All of you here, except the lib loons, are starting to come to your senses, after the late debaucle, I’m relieved. Something has to be done about the election proccess, that lets party officials ram down our throats people who couldn’t get elected dogcatcher in a one horse town, and I wont even mention the fraud and corruption going on. This whole cycle has left me sick and demoralized.
We can’t do much about the Dhims, they’ll carry on with their shinanigans unoppose, but we’ve either got to change the stupid party, or get rid of it completely. Change it by withholding donations,time, and votes, and not falling for the old chesnut of voting for the lesser of two evils. Until you do your going to get more of the same, you can take that to the bank. I started when they gave us McChump, the balls in your court.

Respectfully, not voting to punish a party for an inferior candidate only plays into the hands of the other party.  I really can’t imagine proudly telling my kids or grandchildren that my response to encroaching Socialism/Marxism was to do nothing.

 
 
Posted: 13 November 2008 10:52 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 24 ]  
Leader
Total Posts:  258
Joined  2006-12-22

Everyone can pile on McCain all they like, but this loss would have happened regardless of who we nominated. Personally, I think McCain was probably the only one that had a chance in an environment that was the most anti-Republican that I’ve seen in my life time.

As I noted before, McCain was ahead in several polls before the economy imploded.

As for McCain not wanting it: That’s absurd. The guy did 7 states in one day at the end. he fought as hard as he could. I have this feeling that the people saying he didn’t want to win are the same ones that sat on their posteriors through the whole election, not donating their money nor their time.

I could make an case as to why any other Republican candidate would have been similarly pummeled. But by all means, kick the guy while he’s down.

 Signature 

I will give the boy communist the same level of support and respect that the Democrats have given President Bush the last 8 years.

 
 
Posted: 13 November 2008 11:31 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 25 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
E. Burke
Total Posts:  964
Joined  2007-03-30
GScott - 13 November 2008 10:52 PM

Everyone can pile on McCain all they like, but this loss would have happened regardless of who we nominated. Personally, I think McCain was probably the only one that had a chance in an environment that was the most anti-Republican that I’ve seen in my life time.

As I noted before, McCain was ahead in several polls before the economy imploded.

As for McCain not wanting it: That’s absurd. The guy did 7 states in one day at the end. he fought as hard as he could. I have this feeling that the people saying he didn’t want to win are the same ones that sat on their posteriors through the whole election, not donating their money nor their time.

I could make an case as to why any other Republican candidate would have been similarly pummeled. But by all means, kick the guy while he’s down.

The economy imploding was a missed opportunity.
The war was a missed opportunity.
The voting fraud was a missed opportunity.

McCain ran against a guy that is more liberal than George McGovern and couldn’t close the deal.  What Republican wouldn’t want McGovern as an opponent? 

McCain couldn’t win because he couldn’t bring himself to do what everyone knew was necessary to win.

McCain refused to stand up and fight.

He wouldn’t attack his buddies in the House and Senate.

He wouldn’t put the screws to BO.

Could have.  Didn’t.

 Signature 

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”

P. J. O’Rourke

 
 
Posted: 14 November 2008 12:38 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 26 ]  
E. Burke
Total Posts:  973
Joined  2006-11-09

Wouldn’t.

 Signature 

“Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.” - Mark Twain

 
 
Posted: 14 November 2008 01:23 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 27 ]  
E. Burke
Total Posts:  964
Joined  2007-03-30
Pandora - 14 November 2008 12:38 AM

Wouldn’t.

touché

 Signature 

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”

P. J. O’Rourke

 
 
Posted: 14 November 2008 02:17 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 28 ]  
Leader
Total Posts:  258
Joined  2006-12-22

When your opponent is spending you into the ground and the media is little more than the public relations arm of your opponent’s campaign, your attacks do only so much damage.

McCain may have run a poor campaign, but I am far from convinced that a better campaign or a better candidate would have mattered. Romney, Thompson, Huckabee and Rudy would all have lost. You can pillory McCain if it makes you people feel better, but he isn’t why we lost.

 Signature 

I will give the boy communist the same level of support and respect that the Democrats have given President Bush the last 8 years.

 
 
Posted: 14 November 2008 11:21 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 29 ]  
Activist
Total Posts:  91
Joined  2006-11-09

I don’t agree that McCain wanted to lose.  But it did seem clear to me that he only wanted to win on certain terms; those that, to his mind, were “honorable.” He wanted it, but would not fight for it, because doing so would dishonor him, he thought. 

The irony is, the one and only time he was really able to reach people a little bit was when he, at the Convention, implored people to Stand Up and Fight with Him.  If only…

Oh well, Sarah Palin was certainly a find, as far as I’m concerned.

 
 
Posted: 14 November 2008 11:33 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 30 ]  
Strategist
Total Posts:  112
Joined  2006-11-06

the argument could be made that it would have been better to have McCain there to rein them in. 

But the reality is, he has been there all along and has done nothing to reign them in.  He’s still there. 

He’s in his correct element:  Judas Goat.

 Signature 

Faint not, poor soul, in God still trust,
Fear not the things thou suffer must;
For, whom he loves he doth castise,
And then all tears wipes from their eyes.
Honorable William Bradford ... Governor, Plymouth.

 
 
2 of 6
2

You need to be logged in to reply. Please Login or Register