| LordTheNightKnight said: 1) McCain did not run his campaign that way. The news media just made it look like it. 2) And Obama did not shift to the center. He was actually solid in his stance of change and hope, even of that struck a lot of us as rhetoric. 3) But again, it was the economy that hurt McCain more than anything. No matter how much you want to pretend McCain could have done something, he couldn't have. When the incumbent party screws up enough, voters throw that party out, ni matter what the next guy is like. Polls proved it, because they were evening up until it was clear the economy was in the tanker. |
1) Ohhh boy, I've already told you that McCain was the favorite son of the media for the longest time. You can use this argument for some candidates, but not McCain. McCain got negative coverage because his campaign went negative in a time when there were big issues that McCain was simply trying to dance around by attacking the candidate. He claimed to be above this for years. Should the media ignore that? And the media even treated McCain like a hero for over a decade. You can't just throw the phrase liberal media out on the table and have it solve this issue.
I guess you just ran out of arguments and reached into the old bag of tried and true liberal slanders. I can imagine it now. You must have said, "Hmmm, global warming fearmongering? No...big government is evil? No, that won't do it either. OK, I got it this time, judges legislating from the bench! Oh crap...no wait, the LIBERAL MEDIA!" I'm not saying you yourself are conservative, but your arguments are extremely myopic in scope.
2) This makes no sense whatsoever. The candidate who is usually elected is the most hopeful one and has the best vision. People don't like doom and gloom. This is fundamentally a centrist ideal. Reagan acheived it, Clinton acheived it, Kennedy acheived it, and many other Presidents have acheived it. This argument is completely baseless since history shows it is patently untrue.
3) So what if McCain had taken an aggressive stance on the economy from the beginning rather than running a traditional "tax cuts, national defense, and religious rights" campaign like he did? Analysts were saying across the board that he left the door wide open and got flanked on this issue.
Even before ANY of the financial crisis events took place, circa Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers, McCain was shying away from the economy as an issue EVEN THOUGH voters ALREADY said it was their number one issue. He cut his own legs out from under him based on the way he choose to run his campaign, since he had conceded the economy as an issue from the start hoping that he could focus on traditional Republican issues and win. Your argument completely ignores this.
Really you just seem to be saying the same things over and over again and never even discuss anything McCain actually did in his campaign.
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
