“Take America Back[ward]“

“Take America Back[ward]“

Wait until the Dem-lib DC fixtures have their way with an Obama administration and Cabinet (as if these won't also be filled with DC establishment heavyweights, too).

It's consideration of that and other far-left concerns that may boost McCain, a DC fixture himself, in his “battle” against the Obama and Groupies for CHANGE.

It may well make many voters more conservative than they intended to be.

As less-liberal adults will remind you kids:

“Change” is far from always synonymous with, and does not guarantee, “improvement.”

Obama appeals to his fans but he must assure the rest of us he won't make, or threaten substantially to make, things worse. (That means offering the rest of us more than sound bites. We don't want another bloated, dysfunctional Chicago or Illinois on the Potomac. We don't want 1992-1994 once again, a leftward lurch alien and thoroughly alienating — and outrageously offensive — to Americans. We don't want retarded retrograde “resumption of progress” [sic] back to and “progressing” [sic] from the 1960s and 1970s.)

Wait until the Dem-lib DC fixtures have their way with an Obama administration and Cabinet (as if these won't also be filled with DC establishment heavyweights, too).

It's consideration of that and other far-left concerns that may boost McCain, a DC fixture himself, in his “battle” against the Obama and Groupies for CHANGE.

It may well make many voters more conservative than they intended to be.

As less-liberal adults will remind you kids:

“Change” is far from always synonymous with, and does not guarantee, “improvement.”

Obama appeals to his fans but he must assure the rest of us he won't make, or threaten substantially to make, things worse. (That means offering the rest of us more than sound bites. We don't want another bloated, dysfunctional Chicago or Illinois on the Potomac. We don't want 1992-1994 once again, a leftward lurch alien and thoroughly alienating — and outrageously offensive — to Americans. We don't want retarded retrograde “resumption of progress” [sic] back to and “progressing” [sic] from the 1960s and 1970s.)

You say that now. After the 1980 elections, there was frequent conflict between the Republican in the White House and a Democratic-controlled Congress. Then, what was said was that “divided government” was terrible, a fundamental flaw, and that one of the principal measures of constitutional reform to give us truly effective government (as Dem-style big-government activists wishing for a return to the bloated, grotesque, now -truly-alien overreaching of the 1960s and 1970s) was fusion of powers. To aid in this they would also advocate, for example, a prohibition on something they abhorred, “ticket splitting,” and would even seek a “team ticket” scheme, ideally(?) only offering the voters a single choice, Dem or GOP.

How times have changed when the Ds are far from being in power (other than to behave irresponsibly with obstructionism and quixotic gestures from time to time simply to cause trouble).

You say that now. After the 1980 elections, there was frequent conflict between the Republican in the White House and a Democratic-controlled Congress. Then, what was said was that “divided government” was terrible, a fundamental flaw, and that one of the principal measures of constitutional reform to give us truly effective government (as Dem-style big-government activists wishing for a return to the bloated, grotesque, now -truly-alien overreaching of the 1960s and 1970s) was fusion of powers. To aid in this they would also advocate, for example, a prohibition on something they abhorred, “ticket splitting,” and would even seek a “team ticket” scheme, ideally(?) only offering the voters a single choice, Dem or GOP.

How times have changed when the Ds are far from being in power (other than to behave irresponsibly with obstructionism and quixotic gestures from time to time simply to cause trouble).

He's dull and unattractive, and we're facing an American Idol campaign this year more than ever, and I believe McCain is likely to lose in a way similar to how an even-weaker Dole lost to an otherwise-doomed Clinton in 1996. (GOP in classic Stupid Party fashion let its Old Guard entrenched in DC subvert the reformers, who were trying to fulfill the desires of the US public, and prevent them from giving us someone desireable; anyone good would have made 1996 into nearly another 1994 with the White House race.)

Having said that, the real issue now coming to the forefront is the exposure of Obama's to-date-substance-less agenda beyond his sound bites and his enchantment of the Easily Enchanted (a kind understatement), and with or even without that, the consideration of what a farther-left agenda like his (or like Clinton's; it was the same) threatens us with potentially. It's not only that far-left activists may intrude in Washington and be like kids given powerful things that belong in the hands of adults; it's not only that truly harmful and sinister (fact-based pun intended) goals are possible and in fact likely. But one must also place Obama and those he'd bring aboard (which whether he wanted them or not would include long-term DC machine elements; they could well overwhelm him more than Cheney could be seen to be overwhelming President Bush these past several years) in the context of the entire election and entire federal government. Do learned independents and moderates want to risk a far-left administration in the White House at the same time the nation is also at risk of not only a Dem House majority with noisy left-side Dems there, but a Dem Senate with more than sixty seats occupied, enabling the Dem maching to ram through whatever it wants and to please all kinds of sordid interests as well as seek possible harmful goals?

If enough people pay attention to that (and we will have to wait to see what Obama finally chooses to reveal about his plans — or is he so inexperienced and in the clouds HE HAS NO PLANS, which would be a DQ issue right there), McCain, who has gained votes by default and attrition, may, due to push factors by Obama and the Dems, actually experience larger gains the rest of the year than he has so far.

He's dull and unattractive, and we're facing an American Idol campaign this year more than ever, and I believe McCain is likely to lose in a way similar to how an even-weaker Dole lost to an otherwise-doomed Clinton in 1996. (GOP in classic Stupid Party fashion let its Old Guard entrenched in DC subvert the reformers, who were trying to fulfill the desires of the US public, and prevent them from giving us someone desireable; anyone good would have made 1996 into nearly another 1994 with the White House race.)

Having said that, the real issue now coming to the forefront is the exposure of Obama's to-date-substance-less agenda beyond his sound bites and his enchantment of the Easily Enchanted (a kind understatement), and with or even without that, the consideration of what a farther-left agenda like his (or like Clinton's; it was the same) threatens us with potentially. It's not only that far-left activists may intrude in Washington and be like kids given powerful things that belong in the hands of adults; it's not only that truly harmful and sinister (fact-based pun intended) goals are possible and in fact likely. But one must also place Obama and those he'd bring aboard (which whether he wanted them or not would include long-term DC machine elements; they could well overwhelm him more than Cheney could be seen to be overwhelming President Bush these past several years) in the context of the entire election and entire federal government. Do learned independents and moderates want to risk a far-left administration in the White House at the same time the nation is also at risk of not only a Dem House majority with noisy left-side Dems there, but a Dem Senate with more than sixty seats occupied, enabling the Dem maching to ram through whatever it wants and to please all kinds of sordid interests as well as seek possible harmful goals?

If enough people pay attention to that (and we will have to wait to see what Obama finally chooses to reveal about his plans — or is he so inexperienced and in the clouds HE HAS NO PLANS, which would be a DQ issue right there), McCain, who has gained votes by default and attrition, may, due to push factors by Obama and the Dems, actually experience larger gains the rest of the year than he has so far.

Agreed! After the Repub Congress/Repub Pres debacle of the first six Bush years, I'm not sure I ever want the same party controlling the two branches ever again. At least when they're different, you're forced to compromise.

At least the minority in the Senate has the power to filibuster bills, or else those first six years might truly have been a big rubber stamp.

Agreed! After the Repub Congress/Repub Pres debacle of the first six Bush years, I'm not sure I ever want the same party controlling the two branches ever again. At least when they're different, you're forced to compromise.

At least the minority in the Senate has the power to filibuster bills, or else those first six years might truly have been a big rubber stamp.

Although McCain is trying to make this all about foreign policy (aside from the Iraq war and his position on Iran, he seems to be shaky on even that), this election is still about the economy to a very great extent. McCain follows the same strictly top-down policies Reagan and Bush did, and they never reach the bottkm, staying smugly at the top. Aside from the rights and wrongs of it on principle, this produces a severe backlash, and the strength and directon of backlashes are hard to predict or control.

Social issues matter too. A man+woman marriage amendment? Come on!
SC nominations can determine the shape of our lives,as we are seeing with the rapid changes brought about by Bush's appointees. I can't believe pro-choicers would be hapy with McCain appointees.

Aside from all that, and in spite of what he claims, he practices the old politics of personal attacks, scandal mongering, and mischracterizatons, if not outright lies.
Maybe that's why McCain and Clinton understand each other so well.
He has a strange way of debating 'issues'.

No, I don't think Obama is perfect. But at least he isn't in McCain's league.

I hope that whoever wins it's more issue based than the smear campaigns we all have been used to. Although judging by a majority of Obama supporters here they really don't want change in politics but change in party. Fair enough but you may be disappointed with your fairy tale ending of a Obama presidency and Democrat Congress.

Speaking as a moderate Independent (with a bent toward libertarianism / fiscal conservancy), that's probably the most compelling reason I, at least, would consider him. On the issues, his “maverick” positions are, for the most part, held by his opponent…. except for foreign policy and a woman's right to choose (via the Supreme Court).

Since foreign policy and SCOTUS are the two areas where McCain (or anyone else) has the most direct impact as president, I'm going to have a LOT of trouble accepting him as a candidate I can support.

My real preference would be Obama for president and a majority +1 Congress… with several Blue Dogs (or other moderate coalitions / bipartisans) tempering the agenda.

As highly principled and even keeled liberal sites like Obsidian Wings are completely eviscerating this talking point specifically and other points more generally, I have a hard time seeing how McCain will win much amongst independents that follow politics. Unless something changes, McCain is going to do terrible in townhall debates as Obama will only too kindly point out whenever he says something that isn't true or shows ignorance on some very basic points.

Oh, and everyone will know of Phil Gramm by the time the election rolls around.

Still the greatest weakness at this point is that McCain seems unwilling to ever admit that he's wrong and just claims that he never said things he has said…so there will be tons of fodder for montages showing him constantly changing positions.