Posted on 01/23/2009 7:01:26 AM PST by rabscuttle385
“And that premise is absurd.”
How else to explain the action of McCain’s staff?
How else to explain the actions of McCain himself?
McCain wasn’t exactly making confidence inspiring decisions speeches and decisions in the last month of the campaign.
Apply Occam’s Razor.
They either sabotaged the election, are almost totally incompetent or are insane.
How about this instead....
WHY IN THE WORLD DID THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NOMINATE HIM?
A question that leads to another:
WHAT DO WE DO THE FIX THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY SYSTEM?
Republicans everywhere KNEW WHAT HE WAS ALL ABOUT before they voted for him and nominated him!!!
You really need to reconsider the circumstances that resulted in McCain's nomination.
Yes, he won the Republican primaries, fair and square -- under the prevailing rules.
But, because a.) many of the earlier primaries were so-called open primaries and b.) all were "winner take all", McCain never won a majority of Republican votes until after he had locked up the nomination in Florida.
McCain ran in the Republican primaries in 2000 and again in 2008 -- he never won the majority of Republican until Arizona in 2008, after he had already become the putative nominee.
McCain gamed the system to gain the nomination in 2008. He doubtless had some help from the MSM, so-called moderates & independents and some crossover Democrats. He didn't break any rules, but he was never "the pick of the party's voters" until he already had the nomination locked up.
McCain was accepted as the party's legitimate nominee. But at no point was there any broadspread enthusiasm for his candidacy -- at least, until he selected Palin as his VP. Nonetheless, the vast majority of Republican voters turned out and supported him anyway -- perhaps saying more about us than it does about him.
When is he up for re-election? I need to donate to his republican opponent.
The right man didn’t win; but surely the right man lost
Bingo post of the day.
On an October morning, in the Gulf of Tonkin, I prepared for my 23rd mission over North Vietnam. I hadn't any worry I wouldn't come back safe and sound. I thought I was tougher than anyone. I was pretty independent then, too. I liked to bend a few rules and pick a few fights for the fun of it. But I did it for my own pleasure, my own pride. I didn't think there was a cause that was more important than me.
That's how he described himself before his POW experience, and he said that experience cured him of those habits. If so, the change was only temporary. He's reached new heights in such behavior since entering politics, and he's scaling even greater heights. McCain is about McCain. He's no maverick, he's a showoff who does things to draw attention to himself. And if he has to trash his own party, and stab his Republican colleagues in the back to get attention, then he won't hesitate for a second to do it.
This is what makes McCain tick, and it has nothing to do with principle, or any consistent set of beliefs. It's about drawing attention to McCain.
Worst choices from the two major parties in modern times. There was no right man for a big chunk of the electorate.
I think you might not be far from the truth. I don't suspect any brain washing, but I have wondered if he didn't make a deal with the Dems. After all it was the Dems voting in the Republican primary that got him the nomination. That and the general disgust conservatives have had for the Republican leadership recently.
Lets face it, the Democrats didn't deserve to win, but then neither did the Republicans, who have been acting Democrats lately.
You are 100% correct and that is the real area of concern.
If the republican party wants to be lead by people like McCain it is not the party conservatives should support.
And if McCain's views and the views of Compassionate Conservatives are really where the republican party stands, ideologically, there is no need for it to exist as a separate entity.
In that case it rightfully belongs as a wing of the democrat party.
Care to share? I have my mental notes, but actual quotes would be historically beneficial.
I've learned that when someone's behaviors are substantially out of alignment with logical, common sense actions - then 1) They're nuts, or 2) They have a hidden agenda. In McLame's case, I think it's 30% of #1 and 70% of #2 (give or take a few points).
“To think I actually got on board with him trying to prevent the Hussein Heist of our country!”
I know exactly how you feel. I had promised myself to never again vote for the Lapdog Lindsey Graham and I kept that promise. However, I did something much worse and voted for his master for POTUS!
We need to start a new support group on this discussion board, McCain Anonymous. “I’m Bob C, and I voted for McCain...”
And so, McCain loses his last ounce of credibility.
I find it hard to imagine that he'll retire since, like his buddies Sheets Byrd and the Swimmer, it seems to be his life's true ambition to leave the Senate on a covered gurney.
Don't use Ear's middle name you hateful SOB, get off that stage!
...but lies, innuendo, etc for someone who worked herself to exhaustion for your shot at POTUS... Don't be silly! She's a big girl!
Do, indeed. He was a lousy candidate, that's all.
Then maybe you need to see these:
Note the February 25, 2008 incorporation date and Bruckheimer's contribution to the newly created corporation on March 1, 2008
Kind of puts a whole new light on the fiction of naming Palin out of the blue in August.
Also, Sidley - Austin, the registered agent for Corporation Trust Company, is the law firm that Michelle met Barry at.
You're absolutely correct! Why, just look at how honorably he treats everyone who disagrees with him...
/sarc
Geraghty, there isn’t a writer at NR, living or dead, that could successfully sell that argument to me. Bill Buckley himself could not. Mark Steyn could not. Victor Davis Hanson could not. And you, as smart a man as you are, are not any of them. It’s not true, anyway. Grant the old guy all his imperfections, and they are many. It is still not true. The better candidate, the better man, did not win on November 4. It wasn’t true then. It wasn’t true on the 20th. It wasn’t true yesterday. It wasn’t true today. It won’t be true tomorrow. It won’t be true next election day, or next inauguration day, or EVER.
you lack the data with weight to prove it.
I do this for a living, but its also a hobby. Go do your own digging, and comeback when you can respond to facts presented with something other than a reference to his The Hilton, or advancing your opinion on it being (to sum up your previous arguments) "unthinkable" .
Looking at the totality of the evidence, if I had to report with a recommendation on whether call in an airstrike based on the data available, I would. There is just too much that, when you divorce it from his name, screams "thrown campaign".
I'm beginning to wonder about your objectivity. You seem to be obsessively discounting the data.
Honestly, I don't understand your position, it seem to make little sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.