I’ve made my feelings pretty clear on the election, but as of yet, I’ve tended to stay away from the whole handwringing on the front page before November 4. I struggled with posting this, however, I felt the need to respond to DaveG’s earlier post.
Oh, snap! Like I said before, the post-election Republican Party will polarize around visions for the future. It won’t be fi-cons against so-cons or libertarians versus populists or even elites versus the grassroots. It will be Republicans who seek to modernize the party against those who are resistant to any change. It will be Republicans who want to open doors versus those who want to build up walls. It will be Republicans who want fresh blood against those who want excommunication of heretics.
In one sense, DaveG is right. The party will be completely split- if McCain does indeed lose on November 4. However, the party has no one to blame but themselves, at this point.
It is very difficult to say some of these things before the actual election on the front page here at this site, but this needs to be stated, especially with all the handwringing (cough… Rush…) and 2nd guessing going on by some who loved the idea of John McCain as our nominee not so very long ago (cough…DaveG… cough… Tom Ridge…). Instead of admitting that they were wrong or fighting for the candidate that they supported, they instead cast the blame on those who either didn’t see things their way, or they act as though they never supported the idea to begin with.
The party will be split not because we ‘nominated’ a moderate, as was the argument between Rush Limbaugh and Ross Douthat (who DaveG agreed with), but because we nominated a candidate who, despite possibly being considered our best chance earlier in the process, was probably the last candidate who would be able to lead the party in defeat. In that, I mean that the risk of nominating John McCain was that if he did not win, the party splitting and playing the blame game, exactly as we are now witnessing even before the final vote has been counted, was going to be the obvious outcome. Up to this point, the McCain campaign has shown no ability to lead the party in a new direction. It has been a campaign of gimmicks, which may be sad and skeptical, but it is the truth.
There was no real debate about the risks of nominating McCain, at least later in the process. It was only that “he’s the guy who can beat Obama.” People bought into that without examining the downside that his nomination would have on the party.
McCain spent so much of the primary campaign under the radar that it was too late to re-examine the positive or negative effects of his nomination. It was a brilliant strategy, in so much as he really had to do nothing but show up and say “I supported the surge.” He let the other candidates weaken each other, while not having to worry about weakening him anymore because to them, he was done.
In that strategy, he showed a great shrewdness, but he did nothing to prove that he would be able to handle the process of surviving a two man race. Even when it was down to himself versus Mitt Romney, he was still able to rely on the fact that Mike Huckabee was quite determined to take the former MA governor down a notch, much as he had done to Fred Thompson in South Carolina.
The truth of the matter is that the whole of the Republican party primaries were a complete waste because no one had any inkling as to why any of the candidates would be able to handle a campaign where there was only one opponent, leaving them completely exposed to the Democratic attack machine. For any of our five or six semi-major candidates to have won the primary, it required nothing more than a great deal of luck and to be in the right place at the right time. Both Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson gambled and failed. Both miscalculated McCain’s appeal and neither made any effort to deliver a knock out blow that would’ve ended McCain’s candidacy. It cost both of them their realistic shot at the nomination. Mitt Romney relied on a more effective strategy and much deeper resources, but still came up short. In retrospect, he should’ve been much more aggressive in going after Mike Huckabee much earlier in the process, instead of relying on Thompson to do it. In the end, that blunder may have cost him the nomination.
John McCain built up the Huckabee candidacy because it kept any scrutiny away from his own shortcomings. In fact, he was masterful in his tactics, in this regard. He knew that Huckabee would never be able to beat him one on one, and he used Huckabee to deflect Romney’s criticism. With Romney having to deal with both his and Huckabee’s attacks, plus the fact that Huckabee caused a split in the social conservative vote. There was little chance McCain would lose.
Huckabee miscalculated McCain, and was turned into nothing more than a semi-willing pawn. John McCain played him like a flute, and he happily went along, apparently under the seriously misguided notion that Romney and Thompson supporters would flock to his side, once their candidates were out of the way. Of course, McCain was fully aware that this was not going to happen. Despite their disagreements with him and each other, all three candidates (Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani) played the game by the rules, put the party over their personal ambitions, and knew that John McCain was the only chance left standing for the Republican Party to keep control of the Presidency. What made the whole primary process a complete failure was the fact that John McCain was not tested against a single candidate who could beat him. His supporters (including one DaveG) and detractors were both wrong in their assumptions that this year’s version of McCain was the same model as the one of 2000, which was also a flawed calculation.
John McCain is a great candidate when he is running against the establishment, but a terrible one when he is the establishment. To be the nominee of the Republican Party, one must have the ability to unite both factions. Popular or not, George W. Bush proved that he could unite both factions of the party in both of his campaigns for president.
McCain, on the other hand, has never shown the ability to unite and ultimately lead the Republican Party anywhere except straight down the toilet. In 2000, he ran against the party, and was almost able to pull it off. However, when he tried to be the establishment candidate at the beginning of 2007, he was a disaster, and had to rely on the fact that the other candidates canceled each other out. While some people openly stated that McCain would be a candidate of ideas and maturity (cough… DaveG… cough), they were ultimately wrong.
It was blatantly obvious to anyone but the biased and the blind that McCain being the nominee could turn into a monumental disaster. Some fooled themselves into thinking that the party would fall in line behind the newly cemented face and leader of the party without a second thought (for once, I won’t name any names), and that is where they were completely wrong.
To be the leader of a political party, one must be able to unite it into a single functioning weapon to use at their disposal, as is the way of all campaigns. To steal a phrase from the man who may be the most unpopular person in the world, one does indeed have to be a “uniter and not a divider.” While George W. Bush is the last person suitable to lead the Republican Party after 2008, in this instance, he was right.
John McCain has never, not once, shown the ability needed to do be able to do the single thing that had to be done. This isn’t even about winning the 2008 election, but leaving the party strong enough to continue the fight after his candidacy, or possible victory, is nothing more than pages in the history books. In that category, he is proving no better than the current Commander in Chief.
For the Republican Party to continue to be relevent in defeat, it must be left with something to fight for. This isn’t about whether Rush Limbaugh or Ross Douthat think it’s too moderate or too socially conservative. To be sure, that only further proves the point. If John McCain had shown any real ability to be the leader of the Republican Party, there would be no arguments.
Some people have tried to look to history to see into “the future.” Some have tried to compare this election cycle to 1976, 1992, or whatever year fits their own worldview. In the end, it’s a flawed tactic. The 2008 campaign is not the 1976 campaign. There is no Ronald Reagan. The 2008 campaign is not 1992, 1960, or whatever year fits into the puzzle that is the United States electoral process. None of those years had this many major candidates with a viable chance of winning their party’s nomination, and in none of those years would the nation be on the verge of electing quite possibly the least qualified candidate in recent, if not the entire history of the United States.
However, if someone had asked me earlier in the whole process which year I would “compare” this election to if I knew that we were going to lose the White House later on, I would’ve said that I hoped that it would be 1964. A year where we lost the White House by a huge margin, but in the process, had a leader with a vision that would unite and reignite the passion that ultimately led to what would become the peak of the Republican Party vision. Instead, we are left bitter, angry, and distrustful of the motivations of those who claim to have the vision to lead us. I guess, if we’re going to play the history game, at this point, I might even say that we’re in for a repeat of 1932, at the rate this party is headed. If there is no leadership, then there is little hope.
In the end, maybe John McCain could pull this thing off, and DaveG (who I do actually like and respect) will be able to retake his seat at on the McCain bandwagon. Maybe those who have been openly skeptical, like Rush Limbaugh, will have to eat crow, and maybe folks like myself will actually see a glimmer of hope in the future of the party. I hope so, but at this point, I wouldn’t bet on it.
In the face of all this negativity about its strength at this point, it would be wrong of me to act as though the Republican Party has no future. All is not lost, and the actual general election campaign has shown that the potential for greatness, ideas, ideals, and leadership may not be forgotten, once the race is over and if Obama is the victor.
Some of our primary candidates have redeemed themselves of their earlier failures, and we have a Vice Presidential nominee who may potentially have a bright future. I am nowhere near willing to hand Governor Palin the keys to the Republican Party, and she is not ready to be it’s leader in the immediate future, but it would be foolish to disregard her potential. She may one day prove to be the candidate who can rise and bring back the party, but her time is not here. A couple of previous candidates have somewhat come out of the election looking much better than they did when they conceded to McCain. While potential future candidates like Tim Pawlenty, Mark Sanford, and a couple of other names have been somewhat quiet during this cycle, a few names from the not-so-distant past have been front and center in this cycle. Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have both vigorously campaigned, raised money, and fought for John McCain, as has Rudy Giuliani. Romney may very well have put to rest the skepticism that always followed him during the primaries, while Thompson has campaigned for McCain like many had hoped he would have done for himself. These men have been front and center in the fight for the White House, and if the party does indeed lose on November 4th, they have proven that they have the ability to speak on behalf of the party, and lead it into the future. It may be that neither Romney, Thompson, or Giuliani will run again. They may never be the Republican nominee for president, but they have shown that they can fight for it, when it seems that nobody else has the strength. The party will not find a better representative than Mitt Romney to speak on it’s behalf on economic matters, it will be hard pressed to find someone who can fight for it like Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson has the intellectual vision, and the ability to communicate it. He has also campaigned his heart out for McCain. Of course, one would be hard pressed to find someone who represents the social conservative wing like Mike Huckabee, and he isn’t going to disappear from the scene either.
In the end, this post is not an “I told you so” or “You should’ve voted for this candidate” post. That’s history, and I think the whole historical precedence idea is highly overrated. However, what is so disappointing about the John McCain’s candidacy, to this point, is that he has set no direction for the future of the party, and has failed to unite all of it’s different wings. Of course, no one is ever going to be completely satisfied, and I highly doubt that anything would’ve ever satisfied the hardcore supporters of Ron Paul except his nomination. At the same time, if the party had known that it was going to lose before the Iowa caucus, and the candidate would undoubtedly be beaten by Barack Obama, then we probably would’ve been better served nominating someone who all the wings would’ve accepted and could lay the groundwork for 2012 and beyond. Instead, at this point I feel like we (the party) ultimately took the easy way out. We nominated “the next guy in line” who had the best chance, although it more and more looks like not much of one, to beat either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Not that we should have nominated anyone with the idea of losing, but to be honest, this election cycle was going to need a Hail Mary pass, and so far, this fourth quarter has proven that John McCain has more in common with Bubby Brister than John Elway. It is possible that what the party needed was a Dan Marino or an Archie Manning.
Maybe the football analogy isn’t the best way to communicate. In fact, I will, once again, play the historical game that I don’t find relevent. Maybe this party should’ve looked to 1964, and chosen an idealistic candidate who could unite it in victory or defeat, as opposed to 1992 or even 1996, where the handwringing occurs as the writing starts to appear on the wall and the fat lady can be heard warming up her vocal chords in the distance.
I hope and pray that on November 4th, John McCain proves that he does have a 4th quarter comeback left in his aging gastank, but he has to prove it. Until then, it may be a very long road ahead of us.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Nicely done.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Great article and sums up a lot of how I feel. My dislike of McCain has been obvious since the primaries and I was never remotely excited about his candidacy in the generals. He’s clearly a million times better than Obama but I still think he was the wrong guy for this race. I won’t resist the temptation to say that I think my guy could have done better. I hope McCain wins but his heart hasn’t seemed to be in it from the beginning and, as someone said, it seems like he misses being the media darling.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Tommy – great post!
Something I’ll spend my sleeping hours (which are about to start any minute now) pondering over.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Tommy,
McCain is the quarterback, but we are the ones who will carry the ball to victory.
It is up to us now.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
It’s interesting that each of the R4’08ers have a lot in common with the candidate they supported in the race, and Tommy is no exception as he, like Fred, has the demeanor of a reliable, solid oak tree that is decidedly sensible with a first class temperament.
Both Matthew Miller and Tommy have now eluded to my support for McCain, at least in the later primaries if not earlier (once I decided that Rudy was done), and I confess that I misjudged McCain as a politician. In no universe, I thought, does a guy like McCain win so many elections to national office without developing basic political instincts. It never occurred to me that McCain was only capable of running one type of campaign.
Politically, McCain is like the guy who juggles 5 or 6 girlfriends, dumping them when he’s bored with them. In the ’80s and ’90s he was a Phil Gramm Republican, but then he got tired of that base and moved on. In 2000, he became a sort of hybrid between a Northeastern liberal Republican and a fiscally conservative Perotista. But he soon got tired of that schtick too. Then came Iraq and McCain became a NeoCon hero along with Joe Lieberman. He was basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat in the ’08 primaries. And finally, for the general election, he became a conventional Republican. Each time, he cultivated a political base and then abandoned it, leaving it to wonder just what happened to the flyboy who had seduced it.
McCain has ultimately always been the same guy: the maverick flyboy who plays by his own rules. In the end, to McCain, his stated policies and veep selection didn’t matter — he had always planned on governing this country alone, as he saw fit, day by day. That is, after all, the maverick thing to do. That’s why his campaign was about biography. This campaign was always about how we should trust HIM and not his ideas. In the end, it was a poor, poor strategy.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
The biggest element in winning elections is having a charismatic politician who can articulate a vision.
John McCain is very honorable but he rarely is charismatic and rarely articulates a vision (instead of a slogan).
Part of the reason I supported Huckabee (although I disagree with him on a lot) is that he was charismatic and understood the election was about the economy. He became a candidate for the Evangelical ghetto after Iowa which was disappointing for this staid Lutheran. I know many of Huckabee’s Catholic supporters were also sad to see that happen.
In retrospect I sympathize with a lot of Romney supporters’ criticism of Huckabee after Iowa.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
After South Carolina and even earlier, Huckabee wasn’t in it to win it. His goal was to take Romney down and to set himself up for later. It didn’t surprise me in the slightest that he cashed in the whole experience for his gig with Fox. It was about how much more he could milk out of the process not what was best for the party or country. Of all the candidates, I despise him the most although it boggles my mind how Giuliani was so ineffectual and how he simply abandoned NH and allowed McCain to win there. If on Nov 5th we wake up unhappy I will probably immediately start thinking about 2012.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
That’s a poignant summary of a McCain weakness: his weakness in defeat. Then again, you could also argue that, as he was the one to break with nearly 100 years’ worth of tradition, it was Dubya’s “innovation” of selecting a non-contender for Veep back in 2000.
I’m not blaming Dubya for doing so, to be honest, although I’ll gladly blame him for expansionist government and unbridled entitlement growth. But the fact that there was such a divided field to kick off the GOP primaries was due to the lack of an obvious successor. All the GOP candidates were thus viewed popularly as relative nobodies in national politics.
I’ve often wondered whether Bush’s current unpopularity might have something to do with the fact that he has no natural, obvious successor to tout his political policy legacy. If so, this would clearly have major implications for his party’s current no-win position.
What is heartening, should Bam become the next President, is that he has followed this Bush innovation by nominating the aging if cosmetically enhanced Joe Blow. The Dems have no logical successor to a potential two-term O.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Mcon, if you want to know why Rudy abandoned NH, read this: http://race42008.com/2008/01/30/a-post-mortem/
October 26th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Tommy,
“Maybe this party should’ve looked to 1964, and chosen an idealistic candidate who could unite it in victory or defeat”
In point of fact, Goldwater was actually quite divisive in the party. While Nelson Rockefeller was scolding Goldwater and his supporters at the Cow Palace convention (ironically held in San Fran), the Goldwaterites were booing him. While Goldwater was certainly an idealist, that is the LEAST unified the GOP has ever been. The civil war played out in the primaries and the general election. And one could argue that that civil war wasn’t settled until 1980.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
very nicely written, tommy. good post. that about sums up the primaries, and how we got where we are.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Why can’t we talk about this stuff on Nov 5?
We still have work to do.
We are not going down without a fight. But some here are actually fighting to go down.
Unless you want to see the evaporation of 25% of our military, the government takeover of health care and 401K, and a dramatic move towards a socialist state, please let’s work on electing John McCain and let’s spread the blame AFTER the election.
This is a winnable race, with several different paths to victory.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Goldwater.. Reagan.. can’t get a candidate with VISION today?
October 26th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
WiseGuy, it’s only winnable when the guy at the top of the ticket starts leading.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
While I agree McCain can be more assertive, it’s winnable right now, MI. If turnout is similar to 2004 or 2006, McCain can still receive 270.
In 2006, there was a dramatic tightening of the polls within the final days. There was a 5% Republican shift as voters came to their senses. Remember, 2006 was also a very toxic environment for Republicans.
Believe me, the base will not sit out in 2008 like they did in 2006.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Metro #14: Mac has tried many times to lead, but each time has looked at the results and shifted his tactics. A large part of this has been the press that is historically negative. Another large part was the “shock and awe” in learning that the base he thought loved him actually hating Republicans generically: He had learned to rely on the MSM in 2000 and later in the 2008 primaries, and suddenly they joined their traditional hard-leftist Obama campaign.
I’m 100-percent, unapologetically behind Mac and eager to vote early (despite annoyances like his support for cap’n'trade). I don’t think he is or was a disaster, although the campaign faces some of the most extreme obstacles ever, most of which were beyond his control. If he loses, it’s not a sign of much other than the present, shifting conditions he has had to run in, which have given an overwhelming advantage to Obama. It has long been Obama’s race to lose.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:21 am
5
“In the end, to McCain, his stated policies and veep selection didn’t matter — he had always planned on governing this country alone, as he saw fit, day by day. That is, after all, the maverick thing to do.”
My theory for the last 2 months since the RNC and further illustrated since September 15th (the bookend date to 9/11) is that McCain’s plan was to become the President and kick some A$$ internationally. The guy never had a domestic agenda and never cared to articulate even a mediocre one.
Complete speculation: One of, if not the, main idea of a McCain Presidency was to spend billions to pay off whoever needed to be and create the scenario to get bin Laden. Once it became abundantly clear we don’t have the money, the political will and the electorate’s desire to get him any longer. The opportunity for the resources, military force, and popular desire to kill bin Laden was years ago.
If we get bin Laden now 8 years after we wanted his head on a platter, then there will be much celebration… with people worrying about the eceonomy inside of 48 hours of the news. McCain is. not. interested. in that type of Presidency.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Blaming losing on McCain is like blaming losing a suicide military mission on the soldier wearing armor. So we picked McCain and we’re very likely to lose, well McCain’s happens to be running in a party with a President who has a 20 something aproval rating, the economy’s tanking… The other canidates would have likely lost too. Of course everybody thinks there canidate would have one – what an amazing coincidence! I think the ” I told you so, my canidate would have done better”, is a sign of a real lack of objective thinking.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Huckabee was in it to win it. If you want to know why McCain is the nominee look to SC and Fred Thompson.
If fred had dropped out after he knew there was no way he could win any state ie after Iowa,
then Huckabee would have won in SC and McCain would have been at least second or third in FL. Then you have a race between HUCK, RUDY, and MITT. with RUDY being gone after MITT takes FL and then it is just HUCK and MITT. My thinking is HUCK would have won in the end. Not one single candidate running would have endorsed MITT over HUCK except maybe FRED who would have done it just out of spite for not being able to come in and take HUCK out. If you go back HUCK was way in front of this economic mess and McCain, Mitt, FRED and RUDY, were all still singing the same “everything is good.” song. Only RUDY and HUCK were charismatic enough to hang with Obama and Rudy couldn’t swing the base.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Oh, and it’s not over and we should wait one week to discuss why he lost – if he loses. One Week! why is that hard to wait one week!
October 27th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Yes, I agree totally with 20. The folks here are an impatient lot.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Tommy,
Good post. I probably mostly agree.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Tommy, I’d have to say that this is your best post yet and one of the best posts I’ve ever read here. Good job.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:32 am
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/756hfpns.asp
undecideds shoukd break toward mccain. look at obama’s percent of support less than his margin. obama seemed to hit a certain level of support during the primaries in the pre-primary polls, but Hillary would win most of the rest of the vote. In NH, Obama polled at like 36% and thats what he received when the votes were cast. Problem for him was that Hillary (though behind 8-10 pts in the polls) made up that 10 pts to overtake Obama. Obama polled at about 45% in PA, but trailed Hillary by 5-7 pts in the RCP avg of polls right before the election. He lost by 10 pts in both states with about 45% of the vote in both states. It’s not about margin, because that will be reduced and McCain will get nearly all of the undecideds. It’s a question of whether Obama gets enough (50% or more) support in the pre-election polls to have enough support to still get more than the support McCain gets in his gains among undecideds.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Plus see anecdotal evidence from pollster:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/899f6bf2-cfea-4c19-9d6b-51bf2481ab5d
It looks like McCain will win:
Florida,
Ohio,
Indiana,
Nevada,
North Carolina
Missouri
It looks pretty probable that McCain will win (as long as turnout is similar to 2006):
Virginia
The dead heats are:
Colorado
New Hampshire
McCain has a 25% chance of winning:
Pennsylvania
October 27th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Zogby has it Obama 49.9, McCain 45.1… same marhin as yesterday (5 pts). Undecideds/others dropped by 1.5 pts… McCain got 1 pt from them. Obama got 0.5 from them. So not totally going to McCain I guess. But they favor him 2-1. IBD/TIPP shows this pattern too. McCain shaved Obama’s lead yesterday by 0.7 pts as the undecides dropped by 1-1.5 percent.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:11 am
#25… Zogby contradicts this. He has Obama ahead barely in FL, by 4 in OH, by 2/3 in NC, by 4 in NV, McCain ahead by 6 in IN, McCain behind by 7-8 in VA, behind by 1 in MO. But he notes that they’re all within the margin of error. Obama hits 50 only in VA, though he’s very close to 50 in NC. So I think FL, NC, IN, MO go to McCain. VA and NV and OH I dont know.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:14 am
I think we just need one powerful talking point that will puncture Obama’s “messianic aura”.
The Israel-bashfest that Obama recently had with Khalidi would be one such talking point, but alas, the LA Times is refusing to release the video.
It is reported that this Israel-bashfest with pro-PLO Khalidi featured Obama having a grand old time with Khalidi & company, and speeches were made comparing Israel’s actions to terrorism, etc.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:23 am
#19
The 2008 primary election came down to the murder-suicide.
The democratic one where it was coined, happened in 2004, with Dean and Gephardt, in which Kerry came out the winner and that horrible candidate was crushed by Bush.
The Republican one lead to the same result in which the worst candidate won, which leads to an obvious crushing defeat in the general. Thompson, a close supporter of McCain, knowing he had no chance of victory, committed siucide with his campaign and murder of the Huckabee campaign through the nasty fight between them in South Carolina.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:22 am
Tommy that’s a great post. I take back what I said about you losing it.
25 – hope you right but I have more chance of winning the lottery than McCain has of winning all those states.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:41 am
As a Brit I’d like to know where do American conservatives go from here?
October 27th, 2008 at 5:48 am
I have a bad feeling for this year election.
10 accidents which will make condition even worst to US.
1. When GOP start , came Gustav & Ike, hit state of Illinois, Texas, Florida.
2. Barack Obama Jr. has less experience to be Chief Commanding Officer,
3. Barack Obama Jr. , the first nominated US President which his father ancestor family tree direct from Kenya
( It makes USA like an NBA Rockets basket ball team, “imported” Yao Ming from China, or David Beckham from England plays for LA Galaxy club ).
4. Because No. 2, for the next term, US nominated president from Dem Party will be Kim Jong Ill IInd Jr., of Osama bin Laden IIIrd Jr., (Loyality, Integrity , Contribution of Ancestors of US President nominated do not count, the important thing the president nominated can spell excellent and eloquance)
5. Most countries in the world support Barack Obama
6. W Bush is the worst President that US has ever had. And John Mc Cain gets significant impact of W Bush’s performance, more John Mc Cain trying to explain , more people do not trust Mc Cain
7. Because of W Bush, US gets crisis, and the crisis come exactly when Mc Cain start to strengthen his campaign team.
8. Barack Obama Jr. has a scandal with Acorn case, Antoine Reszko, but people still believe, Barack Obama is the key person / guardian angel to overcome Americans’ most problem, crisis ( like Barack Obama Jr. says : “It is an economy , stupid !).
9. Barach Obama Jr. has very strong spell : “tang te la tang tang, change change change I (Obama Jr.) need.
10.Sarah Palin brings troopergate
Those 10 accidents will make US condition getting worst, if Barack Obama Jr. win on Nov 04th.
I have prayed Novena a lot for Mavericks to win.
That is all I can do for only one week left
tks & best rgds,
TonyK
October 27th, 2008 at 7:51 am
a Romney/Thompson ticket would have wiped the floor with Obama/Biden. Thompson’s genuineness would make up for any lacking in Romney’s, and Romney, who, if anything, erred on being overly substantive, would have run an issues-driven campaign, exposing Obama’s ridiculous plan for communism.
Ahhh, if only. BTW, Huckabee sucks.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I notice no one is posting Intrade info anymore. What do they say about Ohio and Florida?
October 27th, 2008 at 9:50 am
John Mark, you misunderstood me.
I’m not mad at McCain for trailing in the polls. I’m not mad at him for his results.
I’m mad at him for his lack of action to win. For screwing up every opportunity to win, except the first 30 min of the last debate. For things that are entirely under his control.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
#36, for once Metro and I agree completely on something. McCain just doesn’t have his heart in it.
October 31st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
for once I fully agree with #36 and #37.
The answer was given by #5 DaveG plus #17 evil conservative:
“McCain has ultimately always been the same guy: the maverick flyboy who plays by his own rules. In the end, to McCain, his stated policies and veep selection didn’t matter — he had always planned on governing this country alone, as he saw fit, day by day. That is, after all, the maverick thing to do. That’s why his campaign was about biography. This campaign was always about how we should trust HIM and not his ideas. In the end, it was a poor, poor strategy.”(DaveG)
“If we get bin Laden now 8 years after we wanted his head on a platter, then there will be much celebration… with people worrying about the eceonomy inside of 48 hours of the news. McCain is. not. interested. in that type of Presidency.”