I'm starting to feel pity for McCain.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Do they? How do you explain McCain, then? He was, by all conventional wisdom, hated by the base. Ann Coulter and Limbaugh blasted him repeatedly.

If by "base," you mean mainstream Republicans, they were the ones who selected McCain. Party pundants may have wanted someone right wing, but mainstream Republicans knew McCain was the only candidate who has a ghost of a chance of winning.

[Jon Miller]

... had a ....

JM

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
If by "base," you mean mainstream Republicans, they were the ones who selected McCain. Party pundants may have wanted someone right wing, but mainstream Republicans knew McCain was the only candidate who has a ghost of a chance of winning.

Hmm, disagree. I view the base as primarly made up of the religious/social conservatives and the hard fiscal conservatives, neither of which liked McCain at all. The former didn't trust him because of his previous hints of moderation (remember the halcyon days when he stood up to Falwell?), and the latter hated him for campaign finance reform, among other trespasses.

The reason McCain won was he was the default option once the party realized everybody else sucked, despite being more "base" (hehe, pun intended) candidates. There was no candidate who could unite the base.

This is why I doubt Palin will really have a shot at the nomination. As was said earlier, she may be loved by the God n Guns crowd, but the neocons and fiscal cons will reject her for the same reasons they rejected Huckabee, which was the perceived inadequacies of his financial and foreign policy resumes.

[Naked Gents Rut]

How do you explain McCain, then?

McCain was dead until Romney and Huckabee split the base. Romney took the economic conservatives and Huck took the social conservatives. McCain got lucky.

[Naked Gents Rut]

As a side note, Romney v Hillary would've been a much better decision to have to make than Obama v McCain. Once again, we choose between a douche and a turd.

[Darius871]

Whom among Romney v. Hillary would have been a non-douche and/or non-turd?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


I never claimed to agree with the rest of the article. It's not surprising that I would disagree with someone who supports universal healthcare and an interventionist foreign policy. I just found it interesting that someone who's the complete political opposite from me would have felt the same nagging doubts about the sincerity of Obama's campaign.

I don't think Obama's particularly sincere either. He was worse during the primaries.

McCain has often been more honest than Obama. He has been unapologetic in his support for free trade, and I'm moderately happy with his health care proposals and his opposition to ethanol subsidies and the farm bill.

On the other hand, I think that Obama is better on foreign policy for the US, displays a greater understanding of environmental economics, and in general is more prone to make better managerial decisions.

The thing which clinched it for me was McCain's constant narrowing of vision. He has blundered from event to event in his campaign, and I suspect he would take the same narrow focus on immediate tactics during his presidency. Not to mention Sarah Palin, who is the epitome of double-tardness.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
As a side note, Romney v Hillary would've been a much better decision to have to make than Obama v McCain. Once again, we choose between a douche and a turd.

Hillary was a hopeless incompetent and both she and Romney were pathetic panderers.


Mitt struck me as a bit of an arrogant dick too (which is not really relevant, but is simply a note)

[KrazyHorse]

Hillary is like the Democratic version of Bush.

[Zkribbler]

[Zkribbler ignores the double entendre.]

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
McCain was dead until Romney and Huckabee split the base. Romney took the economic conservatives and Huck took the social conservatives. McCain got lucky.

Yup, and there is no reason at the moment to think that the base split of the GOP is going to get any better any time soon. The alliance between the theocons and the fiscal cons has always been an uneasy one, and I think this election will really lead to a bad fracturing.

As I said in the other thread, I really think Romney is the most likely choice next time. The economic issue has stung the Republicans so bad this time that I think he'll win out because of his perceived strength in that area. Plus, the Republicans almost always nominate run their also-rans from previous primaries.

[Thue]

dp

[Thue]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Obama's record in Illinois indicates that he's significantly to the left of Bill Clinton.

If he is so left-wing, why do the Conservative-leaning Chicago Tribune like him so much? They have been in a prime position to follow his alleged extreme left-winged-ness, and they still like him.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story

Not that I have any special knowledge, it just seem to me that he can't have been that much extreme left wing.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


In Illinois Obama represented an inner-city district that included the University of Chicago. He's now representing the whole country. From what I've seen of him he takes the idea of representing his constituents honestly pretty seriously.

Okay, while Senate District 13 does have some poor areas, it's not really "inner-city" in the sense that there are lots of ghettos or some such... it includes very nice areas such as Kenwood, Hyde Park, a bunch of space on the lakeshore...

[Theben]

My main concern is that Obama won't be able to reign in the rest of the Democrats and they'll party away with no competition for 2 years, pissing off the peeples and destroying chances in 2012.

This assumes he plans to stick to his ideological platform in the 1st place.