Consensus: Palin pick assured Obama win...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/an-imperfect-mate/?ref=opinion

Well this indicates 59% (and increasing) say Palin is not qualified.

And 1/3 say it has a bearing on their vote.

You do the math.

McCain forgot you should dance with the one who brought you.

(or you might go home alone)

So why do you care why McCain lost, just so long as he loses, right Sherman.

But as for your assessment, he did dance with the ones who brought him this year and it got him further then 2000 did, when he danced with whom you wanted him to and he couldn't win the nomination.

What you don’t understand is the Republican Party wants a Republican for their candidate, not a moderate or a maverick or a quazi-democrat, they want a conservative Republican who appeals to the base of their party. That's why McCain lost in 2000 and that's why he chose Palin this year.

Now he's going to lose this election for a couple of reasons, but none of them is, as you imply, he's not the "McCain of 2000". Yes, that McCain might have gotten a few more liberal and moderate votes in this election but he would have never gotten the conservative votes required to win the Presidency.

The problem the left has right now is you guys think this is a rebuttal on conservative principals and a mandate for liberalism and you couldn't be further from the truth.

The problem is Republicans have stopped being conservative and it's now biting them on the rear as Americans are fed up, you guys found The Great Orator and he’s capitalizing on economic hard times, just as Bill Clinton did in 1992, when he garnered 43% of the vote to win a 3 way race.

If you want to find a time when this country was overwhelming democrat and adhered to the principals of your party, you’ve got to go back to before mine and your time to FDR as that’s how long it’s been since democrats and liberalism have had a clear mandate.

And unless Barrack Obama gets 60 democratic Senators, 2008 will not be any different. Without a veto proof congress, Obama will be forced to govern from the center, not the left and as a result, will not make the base of your party happy.

You won't see universal health care or increased spending, he won't withdraw from Iraq in the next 4 years and he will have no choice but to not honor at least 75% of his convention promises.

And in 2 years, I think you will likely see a repeat of 1994 because like it or not, the United States of America is basically a conservative country.

Very good summation. I'd have to agree. I'm not sure about the repeat of 1994...

Perhaps not in 2010. 2012 maybe. It's not so much that I have faith Republican will come through as I believe Pelosi and Reid will do something or a series of somethings that are extremely stupid and will reveal their complete inability to actually lead and get something done.

You guys just cannot accept you are rated at around 25% approval.

I realize you think you are right and the world is wrong.

But people really do want health care and Soc. Security and fair taxes where the rich pay their fair share.

And they do not want to send their sons off to occupy a country halfway around the world.

I am not rated at all. Why would anybody rate me? If that is my rating, I guess I could accept it. Where did you get that number?

Well oc when I said you guys I meant the diehard republican rightwing base.

I did not mean you personally, just the position you take on issues.

Personally, I figure you would be rated real high.

But I am talking politics, not personal.

Why do you take it personal when you talk politics?

I'm not a die hard Republican Sherman. They wouln't have me.

I think fags should be able to marry and serve openly in the military, there is no constitutional gurantee for gun ownership beyond "a well regulated militia" and there's no place in schools or government for prayer or religion to be taught or mandated in any way, shape or form.

As for my contention about America being consertative, I linked to this very interesting article in Newsweek, OPEN HERE AND READ THE ARTICLE, which backs up pretty much what I said above.

I note that there was no response when I posted this a couple of weeks ago, just as I'm sure there will be none herehere.

Try as you might Sherman, your you cannot dispute the very basic, simple facts that ring true in the article.





.