| LordTheNightKnight said: "If only this guy would have run for President rather than the pseudo-McCain we saw months ago! He might have won!" That is wrong both ways. He was not a "pseudo". You just decided he was because you weren't paying attention. He got blasted by the hard right for being too moderate, and he won the nomination despite that. The reason he lost was because Bush sucked so much, voters threw out the incumbent party. McCain could not have overcome just by being what he was, because he was what he was. |
Funny, the Economist agreed with me when they endorsed Obama. Do you seriously always have to play devil's advocate? I've seen you defend a point after I have proved in wrong in multiple different ways seemingly just for the sake of argument. Just because someone says something negative doesn't mean it isn't true.
I've always liked McCain, but I certainly didn't like the fact that he was running a campaign as someone different than himself. Its still probably unlikely that he would have won, but he was doing pretty well until the economy buckled under. Stranger things have happened. We did elect Bush twice.
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=12511171
If only the real John McCain had been running
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.
Man, it's like poetry! I couldn't have said it better myself! I guess you are going to call The Economist biased now, even though they are a relatively conservative magazine.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
