How can McCain win?

Danzig · #1 10-08-2008, 07:09 PM

it just kills me that they spout that a candidate has to appeal to his 'base'. in mccains case, the base is his ultra right religious zealots. you know, the kind of folks who think someone should lay hands on the governor of alaska to protect her from witches spells(and yeah, that really happened). jeez louise.
but why do they have to appeal to them? if mccain had chosen a normal person for example...what, the far rights would be so pissed they'd vote for obama?! yeah, RIGHT!!
much of the reason that congress went from majority R to majority D is that many ran on a ticket of reform, as being centrists. that drew a lot of votes. problem is, then you get to d.c. and the corruption inhales these newbies and spits them out as party pols.
term limits should be instituted in congress. it's in the executive, as well as in many state govts. it should be there as well, so that these folks won't be able to grow their offices, their lobbying groups, etc like they do. they don't become entrenched, and corrupted if they aren't there long enough to get to that point. how many staff members does a freshman senator have? i read once that ted kennedy had over 500 on his staff.
you think ted's paying for that?

Mike · #2 10-08-2008, 07:11 PM

From Dalakhani:
The perfect guy would never make it out of his/her respective primary...unless he fibbed on his position on a number of issues.
__________________

Absolutely agree.

ateamstupid · #3 10-08-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

it just kills me that they spout that a candidate has to appeal to his 'base'. in mccains case, the base is his ultra right religious zealots. you know, the kind of folks who think someone should lay hands on the governor of alaska to protect her from witches spells(and yeah, that really happened). jeez louise.
but why do they have to appeal to them? if mccain had chosen a normal person for example...what, the far rights would be so pissed they'd vote for obama?! yeah, RIGHT!!
much of the reason that congress went from majority R to majority D is that many ran on a ticket of reform, as being centrists. that drew a lot of votes. problem is, then you get to d.c. and the corruption inhales these newbies and spits them out as party pols.
term limits should be instituted in congress. it's in the executive, as well as in many state govts. it should be there as well, so that these folks won't be able to grow their offices, their lobbying groups, etc like they do. they don't become entrenched, and corrupted if they aren't there long enough to get to that point. how many staff members does a freshman senator have? i read once that ted kennedy had over 500 on his staff.
you think ted's paying for that?

While I agree that it's ridiculous that McCain was required to appeal to the lunatic fringe of his party, the fear wasn't that they'd vote for Obama, but that they wouldn't vote at all.

Danzig · #4 10-08-2008, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

While I agree that it's ridiculous that McCain was required to appeal to the lunatic fringe of his party, the fear wasn't that they'd vote for Obama, but that they wouldn't vote at all.

i just have a hard time believing that they wouldn't vote. no way many in that mindset would want to take the risk of a dem, and a liberal dem at that, winning the election.

Mike · #5 10-08-2008, 07:42 PM

Danzig, there's a huge difference between Obama's ability to pick an intelligent team, and G. W. Bush's

dalakhani · #6 10-08-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike

Danzig, there's a huge difference between Obama's ability to pick an intelligent team, and G. W. Bush's

I dont know Mike. Remember the respective resumes of Bush's original cabinet. It was a "who's who". Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice were all extremely experienced and highly regarded...before the last eight years.

Mike · #7 10-08-2008, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I dont know Mike. Remember the respective resumes of Bush's original cabinet. It was a "who's who". Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice were all extremely experienced and highly regarded...before the last eight years.

Wow Dalakhani. Didn't you know the Cheney/Haliburton connection and how that was going to be exploited?

Rumsfeld? An obvious ass!

To be honest, I can't remember their qualifications, or lack of

dalakhani · #8 10-08-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike

Wow Dalakhani. Didn't you know the Cheney/Haliburton connection and how that was going to be exploited?

Rumsfeld? An obvious ass!

No doubt...you know i agree. But...check out each of those guy's resume. Long and distinguished in both private and public sector.

Regardless of everything, one could not say they werent tremendously qualified.

edit

I dug this up

http://transcripts.cnn.com/2000/ALLP...heney.profile/

Danzig · #9 10-08-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike

Danzig, there's a huge difference between Obama's ability to pick an intelligent team, and G. W. Bush's

and how do you know that? the guy talks up a storm about change in d.c.
and then he picks one of the most senior senators in that city to be his running mate.
now, biden is no sarah palin.....but he certainly is closer to the 'more of the same' camp, then an agent of change.

Mortimer · #10 10-08-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

and how do you know that? the guy talks up a storm about change in d.c.
and then he picks one of the most senior senators in that city to be his running mate.
now, biden is no sarah palin.....but he certainly is closer to the 'more of the same' camp, then an agent of change.

Now say....

..I would like to suck your dick,Morty-poo.

Danzig · #11 10-08-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mortimer

Now say....

..I would like to suck your dick,Morty-poo.

don't stay up all night waiting for that.

Mortimer · #12 10-08-2008, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Oh my god.

Not YOU!!

#13 10-08-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

and how do you know that? the guy talks up a storm about change in d.c.
and then he picks one of the most senior senators in that city to be his running mate.
now, biden is no sarah palin.....but he certainly is closer to the 'more of the same' camp, then an agent of change.

I guess we could ask how could he be worse than GW.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Alberto G., Mr. Fema, Libby, Rove... the list is huge.
GW picked all his buddies. The first two mentioned are not
incompetent just out of touch. But so many appointments
that were absolute disasters. So many stepped down,
or just got into legal trouble.
And of course the first two picks mentioned drove Colin
Powell out. Absolute mess.

I dont see how Obama could do worse.

Danzig · #14 10-08-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgardn

I guess we could ask how could he be worse than GW.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Alberto G., Mr. Fema, Libby, Rove... the list is huge.
GW picked all his buddies. The first two mentioned are not
incompetent just out of touch. But so many appointments
that were absolute disasters. So many stepped down,
or just got into legal trouble.
And of course the first two picks mentioned drove Colin
Powell out. Absolute mess.

I dont see how Obama could do worse.

it's not a concern that obama could do worse. bush would be hard to top. (ok, i meant nothing by that, but that sentence is kinda funny)
let's just hope that obama can do BETTER.