Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Why is McCain trying to get elected on such a conservative agenda?

Well, as we now know, McCain's conservative agenda wasn't a success. He lost, and by a big margin. He wasn't that much behind before he started veering so much to the right, and before he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.

It wasn't a good idea to try to attract independents by appealing to the Republican base.

Here in Sweden, after Obama's victory was announced, the biggest radio channel played a song written for the Swedish soccer team when they were going to play the World Cup in the United States in 1994, \'När vi gräver guld i USA\' (When we dig for gold in the United States). Sweden did well in that tournament, as we ended up as number three in the world, so the song has remained popular. It reminds us of our love for our own country, of course, but it also pays tribute to our love for the United States. I think many people here in Sweden hope that Obama's win bodes well for us. Of course, that remains to be seen. But I think that the soccer song was an appropriate song for Sweden to celebrate with, even if it most certainly celebrates us more than the United States. But maybe that's the point. In many countries all over the world, the United States has been seen as friendly towards others and good for other countries. The United States has been a very well-liked 'guardian', but it lost so much of its international popularity under Bush. Now, though, very many people all over the world celebrate and hope for the return of the kind of United States they remember and like, even love.

Ann

What made you think McCain's agenda had to do with him losing? I think the evidence is rather thin on that. He went conservative by choosing Sarah Palin and, to nobody's surprise on the right, was in the lead in just about every poll as a result. It was his going right that put him in the game in the first place. By staying left, he had a completely unmotivated Republican base that would have stayed home. Remember that his poll ratings went UP after signaling a right turn. His poll numbers were in the mud before his choice of Sarah Palin as the left already had Obama and the right had no one.

His poll ratings going south was purely due to the financial meltdown, which conveniently for Obama happened before the election, precipitated by the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the government. The takeover directly caused the fall of Lehman, AIG, and others, bringing the financial problems to the foreground. Wall Street lost 30% of its value costing people trillions of dollars in savings. Up until that moment, it was McCain in the lead. Once the meltdown happened, it was all McCain could do to avert a total disaster. His only hope would have been to promote the truth that Democratic policy had been behind the meltdown, but for some reason he failed to do that, instead attacking Wall Street. That was his biggest failure, not standing up for capitalism, but implicitly saying that capitalism was at fault, when that was nowhere near the truth. It was government intervention and distortion of the marketplace that caused the financial disaster and the obstruction by Democrats from preventing the disasters at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

The irony is that the people who caused the problems were the ones who benefitted from the disaster since the president gets all the blame for everything that goes wrong even when it's not his fault, nor even in his power to prevent. It's no coincidence that Bush's poll ratings sank by about 7%, the equivalent drop that McCain suffered once the crisis manifested. Bush's poll ratings had started to rise with the successes in Iraq. He had gone up to about 33% from 29% because of our big wins in Iraq. Then, the financial crisis hit and he was down to 26%.

If the media had done its job, Obama would have gone down to defeat. But since the media was in the tank for Obama, it was left to the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily, plus the right wing blogs to try and disseminate the truth. Unfortunately for America, it wasn't enough.

You even said yourself that Obama was sounding conservative. That's because every Democrat knows that to win a national election in the United States, you have to sound conservative in this center-right country. Sounding liberal has been the death knell of many Democratic presidential candidates. Those who paid attention know Obama isn't conservative in the least, but not everyone pays close enough attention to the candidates, nor has the time to sort through the filter of the mainstream media.

I know you're left wing, but for some reason you think it's bad to be a conservative in a conservative country. No candidate that sounds liberal can win in this country.

It's pretty clear that being conservative was the only chance McCain had of winning. Obama won because he didn't sound liberal and didn't have an R next to his name on the ballot, and that was acceptable to enough people to put him over the top. Sound liberal and he'd end up just like John Kerry, a loser.

I should remind you that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W Bush all won elections by sounding and being conservative. George HW Bush failed to act conservative after the Gulf War and it cost him re-election. George W Bush began acting like a liberal in his second term, costing him much support among Republicans, especially with regards to illegal immigration and spending. Bob Dole sounded like a conservative without any conviction (nobody actually believed he really was conservative) and he lost big. Bill Clinton won twice campaigning as a conservative, promising middle class tax cuts.

I agree with Roger. This election was never about "How Conservative is McCain?" The big debate in this election was "How Liberal is Obama?" You saw that here on these very boards.

No, I said that Obama sounded more conservative when he was trying to appeal to independents in order to win the election than he had done during the primaries, when he was trying to appeal to Democrats only.

And Roger, you said that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but for some reason President Bush wouldn't tell the world about it. Now you say that the financial meltdown was all the Democrats' faults, but for some reason McCain wouldn't tell voters about it. And maybe that is why so many people disapprove of President Bush and wouldn't vote for Senator McCain. If so, top Republicans are severely challenged when it comes to letting reality speak for itself in favor of the GOP.

But then again, maybe there would have been too many protesting voices if Bush and McCain had tried to make the points you suggest. Maybe these dissenters would have shown too many graphs and scientific papers to show that reality just isn't as obliging to Republicans as you think the Republicans should say it is. And maybe they'd all be a bunch of lying liberals who have bought up all the media, but maybe, just maybe, they actually have a point.

And maybe the independents in this year's election simply thought that McCain was too conservative for them, not least because of his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. I, too, remember that McCain soared in the polls immediately after Sarah Palin was introduced, because she is a highly skilled and charismatic orator and she made a great first impression. But maybe, as the American people got to know her better, a majority found her too conservative and also not knowledgeable enough to become America's president in case of McCain's death.

But you and I have different opinions as usual, Roger, and little is gained if we keep repeating them. I just felt obliged to reply to you since you said that I had described Obama as someone who sounds conservative, which is a distortion of what I have said. Obama is certainly conservative by Swedish standards, but I really don't think that a majority of Americans think of him that way. However, if you want to reply and buttress your arguments I'll try not to respond, as long as I feel that you aren't distorting my own arguments. Because I really don't have much to add.

Ann

And Ronald Reagan won 49 states because he was a centrist? He's the one all conservatives model themselves after, and he was an unapologetic conservative.

This is a conservative country and conservatism wins. Many conservative ballot measures won big in the battleground states even as those states were voting for Obama.

If this were a left-of-center country, Obama wouldn't have tried to hide his liberalism. He wouldn't have been advocating tax cuts at all, since we all know tax cuts are like sunlight to a vampire for a liberal. McCain wouldn't have had to run to the right to even stand a chance. Remember his poll ratings before choosing Palin? He was given no chance to win as he was down 8-10 points. McCain is a centrist to begin with, untrusted by conservatives, yet he knew he had to go right to win.

Obama won for two reasons. He wasn't a Republican and the financial crisis hit at just the right time (for Obama, that is). Otherwise we'd probably be talking about President-Elect McCain.

It's interesting that polling was spot on for Obama's totals, which meant that virtually ever single undecided went to McCain as most polls put Obama at 52%. Unfortunately for McCain, Obama had 52% without any of the undecideds. It was exactly as I said in another thread that undecideds would break for McCain. Who won depended on where Obama was without the undecideds.

Polling results also showed that Palin actually ended up boosting McCain's totals by about 4%. Without her, he would have lost by even more, making Palin a plus on the ticket, not a minus.

Sarah Palin was a joke who was a drag on McCain and helped him lose. She abused her power, but then a state that reelects a felon wouldn't have a law that makes that a crime.

"Paling around with terriorists!" She may have energized their base but she turned a lot of independents off. I really respected McCain in 2000 but I didn't recognize him this time. He sold his soul to the devil by hiring the same people who savaged him in 2000.

He lost. Obviously the outdated ideas, fear, and slurs they were spewing didn't work this time.

I may not root for Obama, but I would never disrespect him or his supporters by calling him a joke. I'd truly appreciate it if you could refrain from petty name-calling towards candidates you don't support. There's perfectly adequate rhetoric available if you don't agree with decisions she or McCain made.

All the best,
JD

I think you might want to revisit some of the other posts and see if the most negative comments have been coming from the left.

Ethnica, from my perspective I do agree that there have been more negative comments from the right than from the left. But that doesn't mean that we should now feel free to turn around and do the same. We're supposed to all respect other people's opinions around here, even when we don't agree with them. Unfortunately not every person posting has lived up to that, but we should still keep trying, don't you think?

Kathy

Moderator post

As moderator of this forum, I want to state that I agree with Kathy entirely about this:

During recent weeks, some posts in these threads have indeed gone too far, and - though most members will be completely unaware of this - moderators have intervened to contact some posters privately to let them know that they are close to crossing the line. Just this evening, I contacted two posters (and, just to further illustrate that it is not a one-sided problem, they were posters from both sides of the debate) to ask them to tone down their comments.

Disagree, by all means, but be respectful and courteous. Otherwise expect a warning from moderators and, if you don't take this seriously, potentially a ban.

And, while I'm here, I would just like to thank the vast majority of posters who have remained polite and respectful, who remember the difference between opinion and fact, and who know how to disagree and conduct a friendly debate without leaving a nasty taste in other people's mouths.


Wendy
Boards Administration Team

I'll see you about politics again in 2010.

Jumping in a bit late since I've been out of town...

It was noted on Monday that the independent investigator cleared Palin of any wrongdoing [as opposed to the mixed findings of the very partisan legislative investigation].

Coming from the state that elected the dead guy 8 years ago, I would imagine that it wasn't so much that he was reelected as whatever Republican will replace him [without knowing who that would be] was better than the Democratic contender. Is it mandatory that his replacement be Republican? No, of course not, but the governor will appoint someone for the next two years [at which point someone will be elected to fill out the remaining 4 years for the term]. Since Palin is governor, there are two likely options should he end up out of office:

a. She appoints a Republican.
b. She resigns and the Lt. Governor becomes Governor and appoints her Senator. This has happened before and will happen again and nothing about her character or whatever should be read into it - it's not all that uncommon for a governor with appointment power to at least consider it.

Carol

I've heard the speculation that Palin might get herself appointed to the Senate; I hope she doesn't. People who do that rarely get re-elected, and one of the scandals she ran against was the previous governor appointing his own daughter to an open Senate seat. She'll do much better to concentrate on being governor and studying up on national issues so that the "inexperience" charge won't stick next time. In history, Governors have been elected President *far* more often than Senators have. This was a weird year in lots of ways.

Besides, in the Senate, she'd just be one out of 100, in the minority party, and would probably have very little to show for it. Plus gaining distance from McCain can probably only help her

PJ

Actually history tells us that Palin doesn't have much a chance in the next election as a presidential nominee.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/History-suggests-Sarah-Palins-political/story.aspx?guid={4E4155EC-F64B-4980-B481-5EF3E2C6DD15}

Then again... a lot of people thought they would never see a black man elected as a president in their lifetime, so anything can happen.

While Joshua Spivak is correct in his history, I'm not sure about his final comment.

The others he mentions were either Washington insiders (Mondale, Dole) or exceptional in other ways. He failed to mention that after a positive term as governor of New York, FDR captured the hearts of common Americans with his life-long battle against the ravages of polio. We love a determined underdog, especially one who carries himself with such a jaunty attitude. Never mind that his economic policies were less than successful, he fired the imaginations of American voters and served more years as President than any other American. And Sarah Palin, as a woman, would automatically be viewed as an underdog in either the Republican primary or (assuming she wins) in the Presidential election. It may be sexist, but it would still be true, especially on MS-NBC.

Mondale and Dole went back to Congress after their failed VP runs. Sarah Palin is still the governor of Alaska. She is still in the national spotlight and still gaining actual executive experience. And if she's actually setting herself up as a presidential candidate in 2012, she's doing it under the radar. Besides, she's in the unique position of being an outsider, a woman, a fresh face on the national scene, and she has a long-lost twin sister on 30 Rock and Saturday Night Live. Tina Fey won't let us forget Sarah.

FDR should have had such a high recognition factor.

There have been far more mentions of Sarah Palin as a national candidate from others in the Republican party or in the media than from her or her husband Todd. Despite what one might think of her political beliefs, this is one smart lady. She knows that attacking President-elect Obama will only damage her in the eyes of the electorate. Americans got tired of this election cycle, since we've been inundated with Presidential hopefuls for the last twenty months and more. Palin knows that we're not anywhere near ready for another campaign.

On top of that, for crying out loud, folks, the guy hasn't been inaugurated yet! He hasn't given his first State of the Union address yet, either, and that's going to be the most important speech he will give in the next twelve months. It will set the tone for his administration and for the course he actually intends to follow. I anticipate some surprises for everyone that evening. Anything Sarah Palin does or doesn't do on the national stage will have to wait for the outcome of that speech.

My guy didn't win. I'm over it. We will have to deal with President Obama for the next four years, people. Like him, dislike him, love him, hate him, or if you're one of the half-dozen who are indifferent about him, he's going to be in the catbird seat for a while. Let's deal with what actually is and not borrow trouble for ourselves.

Well said Terry. I want to see if he really puts a bipartsiant cabinet together like he told Charlie Gibson that he would. Time will tell.

I thought this was a very nice article written by Mike Huckabee:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449425,00.html

I agree with Huckabee. The people have spoken so Obama will be my president come January 20 and I will support him when I think he's right and will oppose him strongly when I think he's wrong, just as I supported Bill Clinton on a few select occasions when he pushed for NAFTA and signed welfare reform and a capital gains tax cut. I suspect I will be opposing him more often than not, but it will be on his ideas.

I do wish him well, hoping that he succeeds since the country pays the price if he's wrong.

Yes, that is a truly admirable piece. Thanks for sharing the link, Jojo, especially as I would never have found it on my own - that was the first time I've ever been to the Fox News website.

I have to say that I found myself admiring Huckabee in the primaries. I don't share his politics, but I was very impressed by his refusal to get involved in mudslinging, his courtesy to everyone around him and his obvious love for the people of his country. He came across as a very honourable man - and this article, by the way, also reminds me of McCain's concession speech, which also reflected the honourable qualities I'd so missed from him during the campaign.


Wendy

Yes, I'm starting to feel somewhat sorry for Obama! Not only has a large chunk of the world seemingly decided that he's in charge of their countries and problems, too, but everyone seems to expecting him to solve the world's problems RIGHT NOW, before he's even in charge of the US.

Everything from Blair demanding he solve the Middle East to Kenya expecting him to nip on over and solve their problems.

At this rate, by the time he's actually inaugurated, the world will be declaring him a disappointment and a has-been!

LabRat