What finally scuppered John McCain?

JohnMc1

dave2pvd wrote: »

You implied that all 'Obama lovers' were of this mentality. You're wrong about that. Over-generalization like that weakens your already watery argument.

Didn't mean to sound broad but there are some who are expecting that and are going to be very disappointed after Jan 20th. I agree with Mike Huckabee on his show [I know Fox Bad. Other networks. Good] where he said Obama will disappoint people on the left more than he will on the right. The people on the right are willing to give him a chance [myself included] but the ones on the left that are expecting gratis are going to be very disappointed. Hell even liberal orgs like MoveOn.org, and other took out ads in local papers saying Obama owes them.

Yep, I agree with you there. Do you think we should hug* ?





(*sorry, I'm a lib'rul - can't help it)

We'll fist bump if you want.

dave2pvd

JohnMc1 wrote: »

We'll fist bump if you want.

I can live with that. Nothing too complicated though

JohnMc1

dave2pvd wrote: »

I can live with that. Nothing too complicated though

No special gang code?:(

Black Swan

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You can say that about Obama too. Before this year the idea of a guy only serving in the Senate for 2 out of 4 years being elected President was a ridiculous idea.

12 years elected office as Illinois State Senator (8 years) and US Senator from Illinois (4 years)?

Obama's Resume?

• Community Organizer (1985-1988).
  
• Student (1988-1991), Harvard Law School.
  
• Civil Rights Lawyer (1991-1996).
  
• Illinois State Senator (Jan 1997-Jan 2005).
  
• US Senator from Illinois (Jan 2005-Jan 2009).
  
• US President (Jan 2009-?).

Sources:
http://www.biography.com/featured-bi...obama/bio2.jsp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1682433/bio

JohnMc1

He did nothing but vote "present" when he actually showed up at the Senate. The rest of the time he was on book signing tours and campaigning for President. My statement still stands. Any other election year he would have been laughed out of the primaries.

dave2pvd

JohnMc1 wrote: »

He did nothing but vote "present" when he actually showed up at the Senate. The rest of the time he was on book signing tours and campaigning for President. My statement still stands. Any other election year he would have been laughed out of the primaries.

So how would you compare his resume to, say, Reagan's when he was campaigning for the presidency?

And have you considered education? I look at his accomplishments there and see someone who outscores Palin's liberal arts degree achievement by 20:1 or so.

brianthebard

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I agree with Mike Huckabee on his show [I know Fox Bad. Other networks. Good] where he said Obama will disappoint people on the left more than he will on the right. The people on the right are willing to give him a chance [myself included]

JohnMc1 wrote: »

He did nothing but vote "present" when he actually showed up at the Senate. The rest of the time he was on book signing tours and campaigning for President. My statement still stands. Any other election year he would have been laughed out of the primaries.

I don't see these two statements tallying. You clearly have a prejudice against an Obama presidency (based on politics not race I would hope). Could you post a link to Obama's voting history please? ( a reputable source if you would, no blogs thks)

Arguing about who he's going to disappoint is silly, because anyone who is truly on the left knows that Obama is not, and not by a long shot. It should be clear to anyone that both the democratic and republican parties are rightist parties, with very little distinguishing them. Obama is a centre right politician, which after the last 8 years was to the left enough of the present president to make that seem like a big deal. But no one on the left seriously thinks that there is going to be major change. Who on the left is saying "spreading the wealth" is socialist? It is the right wing networks that are spreading these myths.

Macha

Well...Obama is seen as a centre right politician by Europeans but he is seen as centre left by most Americans (apart from the loony neo-cons, who think he's socialist).

That's just my opinion though

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Plus all the local TV networks [The ones you don't need cable to watch] with the exception of Fox were all cheerleading for Obama from day 1.

Source?

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Gov. Palin was a blessing rather than a curse. She was thrown in head first in a "Sink or Swim" situation that she was not ready for and managed to swim.

While she energised a certain amount of the core Republican vote, she alienated swing voters by the cartload, not to mention a number of republicans. Therefore she was overall a negative influence. Unless she was swimming downwards, I'd say she sank.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

But seriously do really believe Gov. Palin is worse than Joe Biden

Did you watch the interview with Couric?

JohnMc1 wrote: »

its posts where I can see why Ireland is in the state its in. No sense whatsoever. Don't worry I'm sure Cowen and co. will fix things once you re-elect them again. After 15 years they're bound to get things right someday.

This a thread about what cost John McCain the election. Posting the equivalent of 'You're wrong and your politicians suck' doesn't really contribute anything to the debate.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

They'll be crying in a few months when they realize they won't be getting any more handouts and won't be able to freeload off the system..

Would you care to explain that remark in detail? Is it perchance a reference to the various financial institutions now being dug out by Bush and co, hmmmm?

JohnMc1 wrote: »

There are actual Obama supporters who actually think that just becasue he won they will no longer have to pay mortgages and never pay for gas again. ..

And this claim is based on what? Do you have some independent source with a few figures we might look at?

Cinful

JohnMc1 wrote: »

He did nothing but vote "present" when he actually showed up at the Senate. The rest of the time he was on book signing tours and campaigning for President. My statement still stands. Any other election year he would have been laughed out of the primaries.

My politician is better than your politician. They only campaign after work. They only fund raise shortly before an election. You believe that?

Is Obama any different than McCain? Palin? Bush? Biden? Cheney? Politicians just don't campaign during election season. Or to raise campaign funds for the next election just before. If they wait, they lose. It's a foolish civics textbook ideal to think they pull an 8 to 5 everyday like normal workers. It comes out of their mouths that they do. If you believe it, you're a fool.

Most have to diet and exercise, or get fat. Clinton had how many heart bypasses? All the goodies they eat and drink at receptions, resorts, golfing trips hosted by the special interest lobbies. And they are all bought by those lobbies! Or we would have campaign finance reform that's real, not a hedge to fool naive voters.

Ask your McCain about getting nine free trips from Charles Keating's to his posh island retreat? It's a matter of public record. Check out the House Ethics Committee investigation minutes of your goody two shoes McCain. He's no better than the rest! They are all corrupt, just some have been at it longer than Obama, like the good Senator John McCain. So if you claim Obama is inexperienced, he is also less experienced being corrupt.

Black Swan

JohnMc1 wrote: »

He did nothing but vote "present" when he actually showed up at the Senate.

He did "nothing" but vote present? The record does not support this.

Of course, you are referring to the Illinois State Senate, not the US Senate (Some have confused the fact that Obama was both an Illinois State Senator for about 8 years, followed by a US Senator from Illinois for the past 4 years, for roughly 12 years of elected public service)?

Regarding Obama's voting record as Illinois State Senator so often referred to by Palin in the past campaign:

"Question: How many times did Obama vote 'present' as a state senator? Palin kept saying he voted 'present' 123 times, or something like that. Can you please fact-check this?

Answer: He did so 129 times, which represents a little more than 3 percent of his total votes."

Source:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/how_many_times_did_obama_vote_present.html

"THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted 'present' 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those 'presents' amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career."

Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The rest of the time he was on book signing tours and campaigning for President.

It would appear that Obama was out less from the US Senate than McCain?

John McCain has missed 420 votes (64.1%) during the current Congress.

Barack Obama has missed 303 votes (46.3%) during the current Congress.

Source:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

Biggins

What scuppered McCain? The short version answer is I think, himself.
He became his own worst enemy.

randylonghorn

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I say God help Ireland every morning if scumbags like Brian Cowen and Mary Harney are considered the best of Ireland's political structure.

I agree with the "God help Ireland" sentiment, though scumbag is a bit over the top. Useless and self-serving is probably more to the point.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

But seriously do really believe Gov. Palin is worse than Joe Biden the guy with permanent foot in mouth syndrome? I think you guys really need to get your info from unbiased info and make up your own minds.

I think neither of them represent the best that America has to offer, to paraphrase your own post ... or even the best that American politics has to offer, which, as in most countries, sets the bar at a somewhat lower standard.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

... where he said Obama will disappoint people on the left more than he will on the right.

I agree with that bit, on the whole.

Obama is coming into office with two major advantages, a strong mandate and a Democratic majority in both houses; but he faces major disadvantages, the primary one being the state of the American and indeed the global economy. Those on the left (as that word is understood in American politics) are likely to look to Obama for more than he can afford to give right now.

Running Bing

I felt it was interesting to hear Palin talk about how McCains humility prevented him from getting across his attributes and the challenges he has overcome in his life.


I definitely think that has some merit. I really believe John McCain is a great man and would make a fantastic leader but I feel he could've been more aggressive in putting a more positive view of himself out there and really distancing himself from the almost stereotypical George Bush type characterisation that his opponents were always quick to brand him with.


Having said that it was always going to be a challenge. People wanted change, as simple as that and lets be honest Barack was the picture perfect candidate to bring about that change. When you consider the contest was between a 72 year old pro war republican and a young, handsome, charismatic Democrat the outcome is little surprise.

I even find myself, as a conservative who would've voted McCain, warming to and even being inspired by Barack Obama.

JohnMc1

randylonghorn wrote: »

I agree with the "God help Ireland" sentiment, though scumbag is a bit over the top. Useless and self-serving is probably more to the point.

Thanks but now people want Bertie back. Its like they want to believe he had nothing to do with current economic meltdown. That buy stepped down very quickly for a reason and it wasn't the bribery investigation.

I think neither of them represent the best that America has to offer, to paraphrase your own post ... or even the best that American politics has to offer, which, as in most countries, sets the bar at a somewhat lower standard.

Any other year neither would of won because the other party would have someone better on their side.

I agree with that bit, on the whole.

Obama is coming into office with two major advantages, a strong mandate and a Democratic majority in both houses; but he faces major disadvantages, the primary one being the state of the American and indeed the global economy. Those on the left (as that word is understood in American politics) are likely to look to Obama for more than he can afford to give right now.

The Democratic majority might work against him because he and the rest of the Democrats are exposed now. Anything they do wrong now is on their heads. They are practically filibuster proof [No matter how many Reps and Indys vote no the Dems will be able to pass a bill because they will all surely vote yes for their own bills] so anything that the American people don't like they will be to blame. No putting the blame on Pres. Bush and the Reps anymore.

tolosenc

Had he not bottled it on the credit crunch, he'd have clinched it. After he named Palin, he was just pulling away in the polls. Then, he lost his head a bit, and never recovered from that.

JohnMc1

obl wrote: »

Had he not bottled it on the credit crunch, he'd have clinched it. After he named Palin, he was just pulling away in the polls. Then, he lost his head a bit, and never recovered from that.

He did seem to lose it. He was never able to make anybody feel positive about what he wanted to do to fix the economy. Even political analysts stated he never was able to portray a positive message.

As for Palin they should have picked her months before [even if they didn't officially announce until the convention] and started preparing her to deal with the huge scrutiny she would be under as a VP candidate especially from the left biased media who just wanted to pick her apart over the least little thing. She is smart. Her "gaffes" were from nerves more than anything else. Stick a video camera in the face of anybody on this thread knowing the media and the world's population is going to pick apart every word you say and there will be some blunders from them too.

brianthebard

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The Democratic majority might work against him because he and the rest of the Democrats are exposed now. Anything they do wrong now is on their heads. They are practically filibuster proof [No matter how many Reps and Indys vote no the Dems will be able to pass a bill because they will all surely vote yes for their own bills] so anything that the American people don't like they will be to blame. No putting the blame on Pres. Bush and the Reps anymore.

Why does it work that way when the republicans don't have power, but when they are in government the credit crunch is the Dems and Clintons fault?

JohnMc1

brianthebard wrote: »

Why does it work that way when the republicans don't have power, but when they are in government the credit crunch is the Dems and Clintons fault?

Because the Democrats are or will be in charge. Anything that goes wrong post Jan 20th 2009 will be there responsibility and fault. This is not rocket science. They have a supermajority. The Reps and Indys have no voice for all intents and purposes.

You can blame Clinton for this fiasco as well because the whole sub-prime mortgages that started this economic meltdown originated from his tenure as President. There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess. Blaming one side and not the other is pure blind partisan ship.

brianthebard

I don't know if you see your own hypocrisy but I find it hard to believe you aren't aware of how silly that statement is. You want to blame the dems for everything, but complain about partisanship?
How about the two wars which the democratic led government will have to deal with? Are they all their fault? Everything bad that happens in Iraq and Afghanistan is down the dems from now on?

JohnMc1

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't know if you see your own hypocrisy but I find it hard to believe you aren't aware of how silly that statement is. You want to blame the dems for everything, but complain about partisanship?
How about the two wars which the democratic led government will have to deal with? Are they all their fault? Everything bad that happens in Iraq and Afghanistan is down the dems from now on?

You're obviously reading what you want to read. I put the blame at both parties. Its not my fault you only want to see me blaming the Dems.

Bob Z

JohnMc1 wrote: »

As for Palin they should have picked her months before [even if they didn't officially announce until the convention] and started preparing her to deal with the huge scrutiny she would be under as a VP candidate especially from the left biased media who just wanted to pick her apart over the least little thing. She is smart. Her "gaffes" were from nerves more than anything else. Stick a video camera in the face of anybody on this thread knowing the media and the world's population is going to pick apart every word you say and there will be some blunders from them too.

I always thought that too. She wasnt used to the sudden pressure and couldnt deal with it. But that was McCains fault for picking her

JohnMc1

Bob Z wrote: »

I always thought that too. She wasnt used to the sudden pressure and couldnt deal with it. But that was McCains fault for picking her

It was his fault and his campaign team as well for not preparing her for it. They should of realized a Gov that nobody ever heard of before was going to be scrutinized and that the media would want to "test her".

Bob Z

JohnMc1 wrote: »

It was his fault and his campaign team as well for not preparing her for it. They should of realized a Gov that nobody ever heard of before was going to be scrutinized and that the media would want to "test her".

Although i dont agree with her politics i thinks she was just an ordinary person thrown into the limelight and anyone else would have acted the same. It was a bit mean of McCains advisers to blame her losing the election

Palin also claimed that they wouldnt let her speak and and she just wanted to be herself. Its possible that this tactic might have worked. It worked for other politicians like Reagan(not that i liked his views either)

JohnMc1

Bob Z wrote: »

Although i dont agree with her politics i thinks she was just an ordinary person thrown into the limelight and anyone else would have acted the same. It was a bit mean of McCains advisers to blame her losing the election

Palin also claimed that they wouldnt let her speak and and she just wanted to be herself. Its possible that this tactic might have worked. It worked for other politicians like Reagan(not that i liked his views either)

She definately came across that way. Apparently the media doesn't like people of high moral character [She's happily married, encouraged her teen daughter to have the baby instead of having an abortion,etc] That kind of message doesn't go over well anymore in a "intelligent, enlightened, aetheistic, secular and borderline Communistic" society

Ludo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Apparently the media doesn't like people of high moral character [She's happily married, encouraged her teen daughter to have the baby instead of having an abortion,etc] That kind of message doesn't go over well anymore in a "intelligent, enlightened, aetheistic, secular and borderline Communistic" society

Pure and Utter tripe.
Incredibly stupid statement.

Should be more like The "media" doesn't approve of unknown idiots being one 70 year old heart beat away from the presidency.

This thread is going in circles...like watching a car crash...over and over.

JohnMc1

Ludo wrote: »

Pure and Utter tripe.
Incredibly stupid statement.

Should be more like The "media" doesn't approve of unknown idiots being one 70 year old heart beat away from the presidency.

This thread is going in circles...like watching a car crash...over and over.

Keep telling yourself that. You wanted an unknown as President with questionable associations only because he made nice speeches. He must have reminded you of Bertie.

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

As for Palin they should have picked her months before [even if they didn't officially announce until the convention] and started preparing her to deal with the huge scrutiny she would be under as a VP candidate especially from the left biased media who just wanted to pick her apart over the least little thing. .

She was limited to one on one interviews. Again, have you actually watched the interview with Couric?

JohnMc1 wrote: »

She is smart. Her "gaffes" were from nerves more than anything else.

Considering the decisions that a US President might have to make, thats surely a disqualification in itself.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You can blame Clinton for this fiasco as well because the whole sub-prime mortgages that started this economic meltdown originated from his tenure as President. .

Actually its a long and complex series of events that heads back to the 1970's. That would cover both Republican and Democratic administrations.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

She definately came across that way. Apparently the media doesn't like people of high moral character [She's happily married, encouraged her teen daughter to have the baby instead of having an abortion,etc] That kind of message doesn't go over well anymore in a "intelligent, enlightened, aetheistic, secular and borderline Communistic" society.

I have to admit thats the first time I've heard America described as a intelligent, enlightened, aetheistic, secular and borderline Communistic" society.

Your statement re the media and "high moral charcter" comes across as whats referred to as '****e-talk' I might add. You've made a number of statements regarding the media and "Obama supporters" which can be similarily categorised. They do your case no good.

JohnMc1

I must have hit a nerve with all the Obama supporter talk. They're digging for reasons to justify their support of a guy who had no business being a nominee.

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Keep telling yourself that. You wanted an unknown as President with questionable associations only because he made nice speeches. He must have reminded you of Bertie.

We aren't discussing Mr Ahern, nor had the poster to which you're replying made any such claim.

By the way, in message 66 you stated

He did nothing but vote "present" when he actually showed up at the Senate. The rest of the time he was on book signing tours and campaigning for President.

In message 72, BlueLagoon clearly refutes that
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57917648&postcount=72

Are you going to acknowledge you were wrong and withdraw the statement?