quote:

ORIGINAL: jbow


I think he lost because he is a weak candidate who is more concerned with the opposition liking him than with winning. He thinks that bipartisanship is a good thing. He comes off as a compromiser rather than a strong leader.


J

quote:

ORIGINAL: litfire2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbow


I think he lost because he is a weak candidate who is more concerned with the opposition liking him than with winning. He thinks that bipartisanship is a good thing. He comes off as a compromiser rather than a strong leader.


J

...hmmm let's see bi-partisanship a bad thing, compromise a bad thing...strong leader a good thing...so if he could run for American President you're saying you would vote for Castro?

quote:

The practicality of compromise and bipartisanship appeals to most people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbow

quote:

ORIGINAL: litfire2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbow


I think he lost because he is a weak candidate who is more concerned with the opposition liking him than with winning. He thinks that bipartisanship is a good thing. He comes off as a compromiser rather than a strong leader.


J

...hmmm let's see bi-partisanship a bad thing, compromise a bad thing...strong leader a good thing...so if he could run for American President you're saying you would vote for Castro?

No, i'm saying a man should stick to his principles and beliefs. Politicians make a practice of compromise. I think they should stick to thier convictions and beliefs. I think that if they disagree with some policy they should fight it with every tool at their disposal. The choice of who to vote for would then be much easier, wouldn't it.

Anyway... what kind of weak question is that... would I vote for Castro? Do you not have principles that tou stick to? I do and i expect the same from others. I expect even more from someone who presumes to seek the public trust.

J

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbow
No, i'm saying a man should stick to his principles and beliefs. Politicians make a practice of compromise. I think they should stick to thier convictions and beliefs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

I have 30 reasons why McCain lost:

All summer, McCain kept insisting that "The fundamentals of the economy are strong." Then in September, Wall Street fell apart.

Eight years of Bush and Cheney.

McCain was badly overmanaged by his advisors, something that hurt Al Gore in 2000.

Conservative moderates and independents were turned off by McCain's choice to take a classic, hard-right tone.

Erratic debate performances.

Horrid speechwriters.

McCain's "campaign suspension" during the Wall Street meltdown came off as an awkward PR stunt, and contrasted with Obama's cooler response.

He badly underestimated Obama's ground game.

Carly Fiorino and Phil Gramm.

McCain's Jekyll & Hyde temperament.

Iraq War fatigue.

McCain's mad dog-like posturing after the Russian invasion of Georgia.

Two words: "My friends."

Voters ignored McCain's negative ads (and those of 527 groups) on Obama's old associations.
The long primary fight between Obama and Hillary Clinton denied McCain a single target his campaign could build a case against.

Propping up the media as a straw man never clicked outside his base.

The autumn plunge in oil prices negated his "Drill, baby. Drill" argument.

Formerly reliable social conservative wedge issues like gay marriage were overshadowed by the economy.

McCain hired the same political hitmen (e.g. Tucker Eskew) that Bush used to slime him in 2000. The result made McCain look like someone who was willing to compromise his own dignity to win.

Bloggers posting video of ugly behavior at McCain rallies (e.g. Crazy McCain Lady, racism) did not cast the campaign in a good light.

McCain's fundraising never took off.

McCain often wasted time stumping in states he either had locked up (Tennessee), or didn't have a chance to win (Iowa, California).

Using blue-collar workers as populist superheroes (e.g. Tito The Laborer, Joe The Plumber) soon became a public joke, especially when Joe Werzelbacher—who wasn't even a licensed plumber—began fielding questions at McCain events about US-Israeli policy.

The government's $700B bank bailout undermined McCain's "Obama is a Socialist" argument.

Though understandable, the physical toll of the campaign on McCain became visible down the stretch.

McCain took strategic advice from Sean Hannity.

Voter concerns about McCain's age and health.

When Team McCain had to put on a unified face in its final weeks, it suffered from internal squabbling.

McCain co-managers Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis never shifted beyond the Rovian model of stoking the base, which does not work in elections that are not extremely tight (a la Gore, Kerry).

Finally, McCain picked Sarah Palin as his VP, who was completely unprepared for the national stage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: litfire2000

When it comes to democracy such as we have in this Federal Republic, bipartisanship and compromise are what makes it work. This is also what makes a good marriage work. You indicated that bipartisanship and compromise were bad things. That speaks of dictatorship, hence the question about Castro. Stand on your principles and convictions yes, but be willing to meet the opposition half-way for the greater common good.

quote:

Two words: "My friends."

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

I think you guys are looking at it from the perspective of why other people like you wouldn't have voted for him. Thing is - most people aren't Christian, conservative, hard right-wing Republicans. The practicality of compromise and bipartisanship appeals to most people. People are tired of the incessant arguing and infighting. Bipartisanship was a core tenet of Obama's message and people bought it.

McCain didn't come off as a compromiser - if anything, his selection of Palin and his pandering to the base showed people the exact opposite - that despite his reputation as a "maverick," he was just another conservative Republican at heart. I don't believe this is true, but his actions caused enough doubt in people's minds that they abandoned him. Overall, though, McCain didn't really come off as anything other than the figurehead of a disorganized campaign. A stronger candidate may have been able to beat Obama, but I don't know if a stronger conservative could have.

-Dan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

I think you guys are looking at it from the perspective of why other people like you wouldn't have voted for him. Thing is - most people aren't Christian, conservative, hard right-wing Republicans. The practicality of compromise and bipartisanship appeals to most people. People are tired of the incessant arguing and infighting. Bipartisanship was a core tenet of Obama's message and people bought it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zamdad
Are you sure most of us are not Christian conservative as you desribe?

quote:


You have a lot of opinion, Dan, with regard to the election. But you don't seem to have a position that you're absolutely certain of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar
Aside from a handful of issues, that's fairly accurate, but it's not because I don't believe in anything. It's because I no longer buy into the conservative hype and propaganda that I grew up with and I'm at a point where I'm trying to figure out what works, what doesn't, what's real, and what's partisan spin.

I grew up hearing how conservatism was about hope, whereas liberalism was based on fear, but when I watched the campaign this year, I saw the exact opposite. I saw the Democrats putting forward a candidate who preached a message of hope, claiming that together, we can make this country better. But the message from the conservatives was that he was a socialist, a Marxist, a terrorist, that there will be riots, that the nation will fall apart, that foreign powers will exploit our weakness and lack of resolve.

I grew up hearing how conservatism was about ideas, whereas liberalism was about pandering to special interests and populist hype. But when I watched the campaign this year, I saw the conservative putting forward an energy plan that consisted primarily of "drill baby drill" and nuclear with some lip service paid to clean technologies. On the democratic side (while not being all that amazing either) I saw a more forward-thinking focus on clean technologies and an acknowledgment of the difficulties we have with storing nuclear waste.

I grew up hearing about how government is an evil impediment to business and should be kept out of the way, but we now have an economy in the tank because government was asleep at the switch and let business get away with murder.

I grew up hearing about how organizations like the UN are a threat to American sovereignty and how we're better off doing things our way, but I see our unilateralism having diminished our credibility on the global stage, leaving us in a weaker position with less leverage and moral authority than in the past. I also see "our way" now being guided by short-term economic interests rather than by what's right, particularly in regards to environmental policy.

I grew up hearing about how conservatism was about smaller, less intrusive, less powerful government and greater personal freedom and autonomy, but as soon as 9/11 happened, we were all eager to let the DOJ tap our phones w/o warrants and we got a bunch of new, bloated federal bureaucracy.

I grew up hearing about how taxes are too high and should always be lower, but as I look around I see underfunded school and failing infrastructure and wonder how these things ever got funded in the first place.

I grew up hearing about how conservatism was about respecting the rule of law, but when we went to fight Al Qaeda, we tried to bend and twist and manipulate the laws of war to allow us to detain people indefinitely, not afford them legal counsel, torture them, and basically do with them as we please, whether or not they were actually fighting against us.

I grew up hearing about how conservatism was about valuing the sanctity of human life, yet many were ready to jump into a war in Iraq and willing to turn a blind eye to the subsequent civilian casualties.

I'm sure there are more things I could bring up, but I think you get the point. The first time I voted was in 2000. Then and in 2004, I voted straight Republican. To say I feel disappointed and betrayed is a bit of an understatement. I'm not saying the Democrats are any better, but I no longer trust the message or the propaganda coming from the Republican party, particularly as it relates to the perils we await under an Obama presidency.

-Dan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leonfigg3

quote:

ORIGINAL: litfire2000

When it comes to democracy such as we have in this Federal Republic, bipartisanship and compromise are what makes it work. This is also what makes a good marriage work. You indicated that bipartisanship and compromise were bad things. That speaks of dictatorship, hence the question about Castro. Stand on your principles and convictions yes, but be willing to meet the opposition half-way for the greater common good.

Sometime the "greater common good" requires a person to take a stand and not compromise, no matter what the cost.

A little something I learned from JFK's "Profiles in Courage"

quote:

Reasons John McCain lost

quote:

I wouldn't be surprised if McCain and Palin don't ever speak to each other again.