McCain-class act

just think... if the next election was like this one theres only another 2 years for all this crap to start up again...

oldsaw wrote:

bastomatic wrote:

JohnGalt wrote: It's quite easy to be bipartisan, all you have to do is compromise on your own beliefs.

WTF? I think everyone can agree that selling out his beliefs helped sink McCain, but I doubt anyone other than a partisan blockhead would think he was a sellout prior to 2006. Sorry if this comes off as a little strong but I think partisan shills are R-tards.

So when President Obama moves to the center (after courting the extreme left portion of his party), will that make him a D-mon? I'm just asking............

No real need to do that, he has the votes to do most of what he wants. Besides no one who has any brain thinks that Big O will move to the center.

I don't know if sellout is the word i would use for McCain. He may believe in all of the things he has supported over the years but i tend to think that some of the things he has done were purely political, such as the immigration reform bill he sponsored with Ted Kennedy. Better known as the amnesty for all bill. I think that was a calculated move by McCain and some others in the Republican party to try and capture the fastest growing group of voters, Hispanics. It was not what America wanted and it was not what republican voters wanted.

Like it or not, the reason that McCain was so popular with the media before the election was because he was the one republican they could count on to criticize the party. If you have such a problem with the party then have the testicular fortitude to switch sides. Don't sit there and complain about it. Why John McCain has remained a republican is a mystery to me. Hell right now their are some former McCain staffers who are trying to trash Sarah Palin. McCain denounces any republican that even says Obama's middle name and he can't even tell his staff to lay off the vice presidential candidate he picked? Come on now. But what makes me madder than anything else that happened this election cycle is that we PICKED McCain to run for us. Maybe now we can turn back the clock and start picking real conservative candidates again

So someone who always toes the party line is preferable to someone who thinks for themselves and (hopefully) votes their concience?

Absolutely not. I would be thrilled if dems started abandoning their party in mass and began voting as conservative republicans. McCain is not a conservative and never has been. I am saying to you that if McCain had any political courage he would become a dem or an independent like his buddy Joe Lieberman. He is not a republican, should not be one and the party does not need a member that will not stand with the party when it counts.

The idea of McCain switching sides is silly. I know there is little difference between the parties these days, but McCain would be considered by some to be more of a "true" republican than most any other (in a Barry Goldwater sense, who, interestingly, he replaced in his Senate seat). So the idea of switching sides is absurd, maybe start up a new "old school" republican party (which I think would mostly involve de-integrating the religious "conservatives", and stop with the democratic style fiscal behavior)

JohnGalt wrote: No real need to do that, he has the votes to do most of what he wants. Besides no one who has any brain thinks that Big O will move to the center.

"Left", "Right", and "Center&quot / "Liberal", Moderate", and "Conservative"; aren't quantum positions. It's a continuum. I think that Obama will take a position more center than the median of the Dem party. I suspect he will move so that he's a bit to the left of center. Are you saying I don't have any brains?

The "Party Line" is also imaginary. The parties do have platforms, but they each try to represent ~50% of the population. There's a lot of variety there. There is also overlap between the two parties. A California Republican will probably be more liberal than a Texas Democrat.

Seems like it's really easy for everyone, including very intelligent and informed people, to fall into the trap of thinking that their views are representative of the political "center". I would also be very wrong to call people far to the right of me crazy radical conservatives. I consider myself fairly centrist. Some of my individual positions are more liberal or conservative than others. Some seem to be completely sideways of the normal political spectrum (e.g. I think we should cut spending and raise taxes).

One of the things I really like about this board is that it's a good reality check to remind myself that the whole rest of the country is not like California. That what I consider the "normal" political spectrum here is not the "normal" political spectrum for other states, or for the country as a whole. I have to explain to other people that what seems like an "obvious" conclusion to people here isn't viewed the same way elsewhere.

That's the problem. when their is little difference between the candidates the people pick the party not in power. McCain could never articulate the differences between himself and Obama. He let Obama beat him in the field of economics. That should not have been possible. Democrats should never EVER win in the field of economics. They do not believe in free market capitalism. And they think that raising taxes is the best way to increase government revenue.

To prove my point Obama had to put on the mantel of conservative economic policy to win the election. He had to go out and tell everyone that he was going to give tax cuts. Of course he won't because Liberal democrats never cut taxes.

JohnGalt wrote: That's the problem. when their is little difference between the candidates the people pick the party not in power. McCain could never articulate the differences between himself and Obama. He let Obama beat him in the field of economics. That should not have been possible. Democrats should never EVER win in the field of economics. They do not believe in free market capitalism. And they think that raising taxes is the best way to increase government revenue. To prove my point Obama had to put on the mantel of conservative economic policy to win the election. He had to go out and tell everyone that he was going to give tax cuts. Of course he won't because Liberal democrats never cut taxes.

His proposed tax plan included lower tax rates for people below a certain income level, which was pretty high. His proposed budget also ran less of a deficit than McCain's. I won't call that more "conservative" or "liberal", but the lower deficit strikes me as more responsible. Or perhaps less irresponsible.

Sounds like your assumption is: A Liberal Democrat will never do X; Obama is a Liberal Democrat; therefore, he will never do X.

Perhaps, you are mistaken on one of your points. Perhaps a Liberal Democrat can do better economically. Or perhaps he is not as Liberal as you have decided he is. Sounds like a Catch-22: "He won't cut taxes because he's a Liberal Democrat. And he's a Liberal Democrat because he won't cut taxes."

There's also the distinct possibility that he will be more "liberal" on some issues, and more "conservative" on others. Just like anyone else in this country.

I also don't buy the "Democrats oppose free-markets" argument.

You're also kind of contradicting yourself when you say "the two parties are no different". And then say "but Republicans always support free-market capitalism and Democrats never support free-market capitalism".

Umm... and how is the government supposed to raise revenue without raising taxes? Cutting spending decreases deficits, but doesn't raise revenue.

Edit: I think Obama and McCain did communicate the difference between each other. The majority of voters decided they liked Obama better than McCain. It's not that these people are stupid and couldn't see the "obvious", it's that your world view is not representative of the general population. My world view isn't either.

The assumption that the U.S. has a free market capitalist system is incorrect. The U.S. is far from having free markets without any gov't intervention, focused import taxes being an example as well as subsidies to certain industries. Oil being a Republican backed subsidy and green techs being a Democrat backed subsidy.

Also, keep in mind, the latest economic boom occurred under a democratic pres. While the latest recession is now occurring after 8 years of republican leadership. Saying that democrats can't preside over responsible spending in gov't is actually stereotypical and proven patently false by Bush's spending spree. Democrat lead Congress and the Senate helped obviously - the spineless twits.

Hopefully Obama will be fiscally responsible. I'm hoping he will restrain spending and resist raising taxes. I see this as being the way to pay down the massive deficit we have growing.

Democrats spend more and raise taxes. Republicans spend more and raise the deficit.

For those who think that moving a little left means financial ruin, look north of the border. Canada's been running a surplus for the past 12 years, despite universal health care and the like. The extra money isn't being mailed back to taxpayers, it's being used to pay down the national debt. Just the sort of thing that a responsible individual would do with extra cash. Astounding thing for politicians to do, really.

I think that, during a campaign that takes place over two looong years, the candidates get pushed to the extreme of their beliefs to differentiate themselves from each other. Once the election is over, any of them would move closer to the center. That's not a bad thing, as it reflects the desires of the populace more accurately. One thing that amazes me about the US electoral system is how close the two parties come to being in a 50/50 deadlock every time.

Salanis wrote: Edit: I think Obama and McCain did communicate the difference between each other. The majority of voters decided they liked Obama better than McCain. It's not that these people are stupid and couldn't see the "obvious", it's that your world view is not representative of the general population. My world view isn't either.

Big +1.

I actually think Obama will disappoint many of the more liberal members of his party that got him elected, in that he will take many conservative positions, and ally himself with certain conservative members of Congress on key issues. Lots of pundits seem to think that with the support of a Democratic congress, Obama will take the tack of pushing through legislation by bowling over the opposition. I don't think that's the case.

I think McCain represented the best path to winning for the Republicans, and they nominated him begrudgingly because they wanted to win, even if they knew he wouldn't toe party line. Do you really think any of the other candidates could have won against Obama? Romney, Huckabee? I don't at all. Obama's message that resonated with most voters was about putting aside partisan politics. Nominating a real partisan would have sunk the Republican party quite quickly. The base would vote, but independents would be alienated, and flock to Obama.

Heck, Obama helped himself win by painting McCain as part of the Republican political machine, imagine if the Republicans had fielded a candidate who actually was a true partisan.

Duhh.... Canada has run a surplus for 12 years yet there's a national debt? 'Sup wit dat? Where did the debt come from?

Canadian military costs are a lot cheaper, since we do all the heavy lifting.

You oughtta check into the amount of income Canadians pay, as well as the increased tariffs and taxes on everyday items, PLUS convience items like cars, repairs and maintenance. I have a Canadian friend that wants to immigrate south. . . check that . . he DID. I do believe he's reconsidering.

Jensenman wrote: Duhh.... Canada has run a surplus for 12 years yet there's a national debt? 'Sup wit dat? Where did the debt come from? Canadian military costs are a lot cheaper, since we do all the heavy lifting.

The debt came from previous years, of course. But the debt's getting smaller. That's my point. The US national debt went up by three quarters of a billion dollars yesterday according to the US treasury. Meanwhile, the Canadian one shrinks every day.

There are differences between the countries, of course. I'm not trying to say that everything Canada does is ideal, and of course Americans tend to have a distorted view of it anyhow. I'm simply trying to point out that it is possible to provide social services and run a surplus.

It's true, Canada did not help invade Iraq. That's a big savings. However, Canadian soldiers are in Afganistan.

I saw where Canada levies a $150 tax on car air conditioners.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada

Both the federal and provincial governments impose excise taxes on inelastic goods such as cigarettes, gasoline, alcohol, and for vehicle air conditioners. A great bulk of the retail price of cigarettes and alcohol are excise taxes. The vehicle air conditioner tax is currently set at $150 per air conditioning unit. Canada has some of the highest rates of taxes on cigarettes and alcohol in the world. These are sometimes referred to by Canadians as "sin taxes".

If that was done south of the Manson-Nixon line, the national debt would vanish.

I'm not saying either country is perfect, either. I freely admit both parties down here have run our country into the ground fiscally. I also will say that we will probably have to raise taxes and cut services to pay this off, and that's where Libertarians, Democrats and Republican hardliners grab the pikes and torches and start following me around.

Jensenman wrote: I'm not saying either country is perfect, either. I freely admit both parties down here have run our country into the ground fiscally. I also will say that we will probably have to raise taxes and cut services to pay this off, and that's where Libertarians, Democrats and Republican hardliners grab the pikes and torches and start following me around.

Someone else believes that our nation has gotten to a point where we need to cut spending and raise taxes? Yay, I'm not the only crazy/sane person!

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

To those argue that we don't have free markets or market free from goverment intervention, you are correct. We never will. Government is a needed part of any economy. Someone needs to set the the rules and enforce them. Someone needs to provide a forum for distpute resolution. I think it is a generally accepted socio-economic principal that whatever you tax you get less of and whatever you give incetives for (i.e. govt' spending, tax breaks) you get more of. Whatever form government takes, It is going to need resources (taxes) the provide services and it going put money into the economy. And that is going steer you beloved free market in some direction.

So the real question when looking at taxes, regulation and spending is, what do you want more of and what do you want less of?

JohnGalt wrote: McCain could never articulate the differences between himself and Obama.

Not only couldn't McCain articulate the differences, he never managed to give a reason to vote for him. McCain's biggest problem was/is that he has no coherent political philosophy.

Another problem was that he frequently reinforced the Obama campaign's assertion that McCain is erratic and impulsive: suspending his campaign in a fool's errand, the selection of Palin*, the mortgage buyout proposal announced during the second debate, etc.

*I believe the selection of Palin resulted in a net gain of votes for McCain by shoring up the conservative vote; McCain has never been a darling of the Right. However, the Palin selection did undermine the claim that Obama is too inexperienced.

Despite an inept campaign and a political environment hostile to Republicans, McCain did pretty well in the vote, especially when compared to the popular and electoral votes he got with Bush I in '92 and Dole in '96.

Jensenman wrote: If that was done south of the Manson-Nixon line, the national debt would vanish.

Try ageen boy! We'd jus fire up Daddy's still and start runnin shine!

There are already "sin taxes" on alcohol and cigarettes in the good old U.S. of A.