As your old Uncle Dave was wandering through the news sites this morning, a few sets of events have occurred or are occurring that make me wonder if there is a side to this election that we’re missing.
First was a story about how Obama’s poll numbers are having a stunning rise in ‘battleground’ states. Some of that is simply because it’s getting closer to the election and people who were probably going to vote for him are now declaring so. Some is because as the more they hear and see McCain and Palin, especially conservatives, the more worried they’re becoming about them.
Second, related to that last point, the sheer number of articles, TV interviews, YouTube videos and so on demonstrating Palin’s astonishing lack of knowledge about history and events leading to her inability to go beyond talking points (and even that comes out badly in interviews to where McCain has to defend her!) has got to be demoralizing to supporters. Obama may not have much experience either, but at least he has a good grasp of all the issues. Tonight’s debate should be a defining moment for Palin.
Third, for over a year, as a result of Bush and the war primarily, it’s been a given that Republicans will lose House and Senate seats. Nothing they can do about that, meaning the Democrats will continue to control both.
Fourth, anyone with the slightest understanding of the economy could forsee the housing bubble bursting. It had to happen eventually, it’s just that the mortgage mess perhaps made it happen sooner. Combined with all the other bad economic trends over the last few years, it was clear the next Prez was going to have a mess to deal with.
So, knowing all that, did the Republican leadership decide to take a fall by nominating two people who ultimately couldn’t win once the public got a good look? Let the Dems have it so that he/she gets blamed for the pain that would be endured fixing it all? Get the blame for dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan, etc that was going to happen anyway because of how Bush handled it all? Then in 2012 come to the ‘rescue’ of the country with someone — anyone — who wasn’t a Democrat?
McCain supporters, before answering, ask yourself this question: At any other time and ignoring who the Democratic candidates are, would McCain and Palin be the ones you REALLY want leading this country?
What do you think? Sound off!
Tax and spend Democrats.
Borrow and spend Republicans.
There is no difference between the 2 parties, they just try to make you think there is.
It’s The Cowboys VS. The Redskins. They never let one party win too often or you lose complete interest.
So yes, yes I’d say the Republicans plan to lose this election. From the looks of it, they will get spanked hard this time around too.
I think the election is already rigged and McCain will win with 51.2% of the vote, even though exit polls show he lost by a good margin. This will result in riots which Bush will declare to be “Race” riots and Bush will declare martial law, ending our Constitutional government once and for all.
The only thing the Reps might have done was intentionally hold off the inevitable crash for as long as possible, thereby making it worse. Unfortunately for them, they couldn’t hold off its start until after the beginning of the next prez’s term.
Actually the headline question could be asked of the Democrats as well.
I think that the Emminence Noir behind all this is Dick Cheney – if McCain is elected, something may ‘happen’ to him, then who will step up to be Palin’s VP – and who else would be as easy to control as GWB? John, don’t go hunting with Dick…
I think the original script called for Hillary to be the Democrat’s candidate. Obama was just supposed to be a strong 2nd-place finisher to make Hillary look stronger. McCain could have beaten Hillary just by getting the Hillary-hater vote.
The problem is, Obama didn’t get the memo and now he’s the candidate.
At this point I think McCain still wants to win, but the Republican party does not want to preside over a 4-year recession. If the conservative vote stays home on election day, then Obama wins, and the Democrats get stuck trying to fix the country for the next 4 years.
Then in 2012, Hillary can run, but I think she’d get beat.
I’d rather have anyone else than a maxist like Hussein Obama. But, I’ve said it here before the Republicrats don’t want to win. It’s the Demoncrats turn and it’ll the Demoncrats that lead us into the North American Union, just like it was Demoncrats that brought us NAFTA and the WTO, along with the sucking sound of our economy leaving. The Nationalist said then that those two treaties would end our economy and it happening.
There are two sides today to politics: The Globalist; Obama and McCain, Hilliary and Bush, and the Nationalist; and who are the leaders for that side. I can’t think of one Nationalist leader, that’s how effective the Leftist media has been in stopping any new leaders, look at what happened to Ron Paul – that only and last Nationalist leader to try and fight for our country and our economy.
#36 – Gig
>>Actually the headline question could be
>>asked of the Democrats as well.
Not really. The Dems have put forth a ticket that stands for integrity, honesty, patriotism, and change for the better.
McBush is a burnt out flip-flopper, and Palin is still toweling herself off to get rid of the wetness behind her ears. Plus, she’s a right wingnut, who would strip away many cherished American freedoms. Just because she’s cute, and can spit out a few well-rehearsed wisecracks doesn’t make her qualified to be VPOTUS.
The deeper agenda:
1. Obama wants to make a nation that he and his children can live in for the future.
2. McCain wants to have one big Victory so he can die in peace.
Obama demonstrates the biggest of all leadership qualities, the ability to set a target and make YOU want to do whatever is needed to get there with him.
McCain needs all those prison years—vindicated! He tells you over and over, “I know how to do this. I know how to do that.” And never says what the how is.
Every time I hear him say that he knows just how to achieve this or that, I’m reminded of GB2 lecturing the country in 2000 on how he is a Leader, and knows just what a Leader does.
My first and enduring reaction to that was and is this:
Rule Number One: A Leader never tells you “I’m the Leader.” They just lead.
Supporting evidence: Which camp feels that the means must be in accordance with the ends, the most?
So far, we’ve seen Obama avoid simply picking Hillary as veep and instead pick a person with deeper experience and deep character to bring balance and national security to the ticket.
So McCain picked a pretty face with a hollow head to backup his own health situation. You know, For America First! That was a ploy that put election first and America will have to take its chances.
Neither is trying to “throw” the election. Just consider how a Republican win would let them spin things to make everything the Democrat’s fault.
“The genius of the republic has spoken. We were doing okay until the congress went Democrat!” they would say, “And now look at the muck we’re in. It’s just going to take us more years to work our way out of this.”
Interesting concepts, but they don’t quite add up. This has been (and still is) the left’s election to win (or lose), so you’re not seeing much clamoring for the spot from the right’s power bases (blue blood Republicans and bible thumpers).
Because of this, you get moderates trying to seize the moment on the right. Hence, McCain/Palin.
$42 – James Hill
>>Palin.
If you think Palin is a “moderate”, you’ve been spending too much time basking in all that adoration and worship you so enjoy.
Palin may be a little to the left of John Birch (although links between her and the John Birch Society [ http://tinyurl.com/5xax37 ]), but she’s about as far right as you can get without bursting into flames.
#43 “will be the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court Judges who aren’t complete fascist tools.”
I know, look what happened on the 2nd Amendment. It still exists. Bad, bad, bad.
But wait. Fascist’s make sure that a countries citizens aren’t armed…
Hmmm, which candidate supports gun bans and citizen disarmament?
#20, real power lies in Congress? I thought they abdicated their authority to the President after the wiretapping and a few dozen other high crimes and misdemeanors by the Commander in Chief contravening the will of the Congress.
#45 – O’Pinocchio
>>Hmmm, which candidate supports gun bans and >>citizen disarmament?
Why, flip-flopper no-spine McCain, of course! See just the tip of the iceberg regarding what conservative organizations have to say about him regarding the Second Amendment:
“On November 2, 2004 the Second Amendment Project of the Independence Institute had this to say about John McCain:
Arizona
Republican John McCain (*C/F-) posed as a strong Second Amendment during the 2000 Republican Presidential primaries. But in the next session of Congress, he sponsored the McCain/Lieberman gun show bill, which would have given the federal government the administrative power to prohibit all gun shows, and to register everyone who attends a gun show. And of course the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law is the most extreme Congressional assault on First Amendment rights since the Sedition Acts of the Woodrow Wilson and John Adams administrations. McCain’s Democratic opponent Stuart Starky (C/F) is no better.”
And from the National Review:
“So if McCain remains sincerely committed to Second Amendment rights, then he should have read the fine print on the Colorado and Oregon “gun show” initiatives that he is backing. For in truth, both of these initiatives are classic “bait and switch” tricks of the gun prohibition movement, and contain controls far more onerous than background checks at gun shows.
For example, the Colorado initiative says that a “gun show” includes any gun transaction where three or more people are present, or where 25 or more firearms are displayed. Thus, parents who give their 17-year-old daughter a BB gun for Christmas are running a “gun show” around the Christmas tree. (The Colorado proposal defines “firearm” to include BB guns, model rockets, and many other things that are not real firearms.)”
Ad nauseum…
The fact that McCain is even competitive in this election shows that he’s the best candidate the Republicans could have fielded. He’s the one best able to run “against” Bush, whose poll numbers remain below 30%.
This election will be close and could go either way. Polls mean nothing, as we re-learn with each election.
#47 Thanks for the data.
Dammed if we do…
It scares me to have any party in control of congress and the executive branch both. It’s a recipe for evil. The bad thing about it for the party in control, is that everything will be blamed on them. Unless the dems get really clever and blame Bush for everything for the next 8 years forward also. Wouldn’t put it past them.
“I’d rather have anyone else than a maxist like Hussein Obama.”
And that’s why you have McCain/Palin.
No complicated conspiracy theory needed.
I have to say that I have thought the Republicans have wanted to lose the election from the start. How is it that someone who’s campaign was dead is the POTUS nominee? Then he picks Palin, out of all of the Republicans out there he picks her?
I prefer to think that they are trying to lose because the other option is that they Republican big wigs are so stupid that they thought this would work out.
I agree with Jared #54. I thought the Republicans were going to lose from the start. For the Democrats to win I thought all they had to say was “We’re not the Republicans”.
Another Theory:
The Republican Party saw a few years back that they are going to have a tough fight for the Presidency in 2008. McCaine eventually wins the RNC nomination. The RNC sees that there is a chance that the DNC is going to go with either Obama or Clinton or possibly a Pres/VP ticket with both of them. After seeing that Clinton is out completely and that the DNC is going with Obama/Biden, the RNC, thinking that they the odds are still against them, decide to drop back and punt by trying to get a woman to run as VP on the ticket. McCaine, or someone else from his campaign, agrees with the RNC and decides to get someone who is new, outside the Beltway and a woman. This has a few benefits:
– The Republicans will look like “mavericks” and not part of the “Good Old Boy Network” by having McCaine as President (the “maverick” part) and having a VP who is outside the Beltway (not like Joe Biden). This increases the distance and difference between the two parties.
– With a woman in the VP position hopefully the Republicans will pick up the women’s vote and maybe a few extra votes from Hillary’s supporters.
– It really won’t matter if the Republicans lose the 2008 election. McCaine has run for the White House many times and has lost every time. Adding one more defeat to the list doesn’t hurt as he stays on as a senator. The VP is an unknown and so the Republican Party will be able to mitigate what little damage they would suffer from losing. The VP candidate, in this case Gov. Palin, would probably return to their previous state or federal government position and never be heard from again. You might hear from them in a few years if they run for a Congressional seat but I think that the odds would be against them.
The key part here is this: The Republican Party probably knew that their chances of taking the White House in 2008 were pretty slim.
Time to fix the Diebold machines.
The polls are so narrowly contrived, they mean nothing. Real voters don’t permit polls to shape their opinions.
Ignore the TV pundits and bloggers. Many of them don’t know what they speak about. Others don’t even suspect that they don’t know what they are talking about.
Make your judgment based on what you think, not what they tell you to think.
If the Republicans wanted to lose, it wouldn’t be McCain and Palin on the ballot. Same for Obama and Biden. If Hillary was a real leader… I think by now you get the melody of what I am saying.
If Al Gore had been a real leader, he would have stolen the election back from the Shrub.
I don’t understand why Barack and McCain don’t just run together. They really do have a lot in common. I guess they’d have to fight over which one has to be the vice. Whichever way it goes, we’re getting a democrat in the Whitehouse.
I’ve been thinking this myself. My bet is that the real conservatives in the Republican party are sitting it out to allow for, as earlier post said, a second Carter. Then you’ll see a real conservative revolution – not the bullshit we had for the last eight years.
Yes, that’s what I’ve been saying for months, ever since Mr. Magoo was nominated. Most think I am slightly nutty for thinking so, but the Palin choice confirms it. Her nomination was in order to throw a very big bone to the religious right kooks so that they won’t stray too far before 2012.
Look for four years of constant barrage of “it’s all the Democrats fault”, paired with a loud, shrill right-wing noise machine directed at a Dem. president (no matter how Republican he acts) during a vast economic crisis.
Then once the crisis is more or less spent (by 2012, the Pugs figure), time for another 8-12 years of Republican rule. That’s the plan, anyway.
Just a few of odd comments.
Palin brings in Alaska oil for McCain.
What would have been interesting is if McCain picked Hillary as VP.
It would be nice if the third parties played a bigger role in the elections.