Right America Feeling Wronged - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #16 02-26-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

But if Socks ran and prevailed, Joe Biden would be President today...

How would we know the difference?

PaulC · #17 02-26-2009, 03:28 PM

Hairballs vs. hairplugs...

LUVMBDiesels · #18 02-26-2009, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

That's the problem, isn't it? We basically elect someone like they do at a beauty pageant and then wonder why things aren't working right.

I agree, but I don't see it changing anytime soon. What the Repos need is a man with CHARACTER and CHARISMA.
Good luck!

MS Fowler · #19 02-26-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

. Running McLame against Obama was the biggest mistake since Kennedy/Nixon.
The Repo party should not have picked him just because it "was his time" That did not work for Dole either.

The only good thing is now that he has had his chance McCain is not going to run again and maybe the Repos could find SOMEBODY with charisma in four years.

I don't think the republicans were responsible for selecting McCain. The early primaries, where he built his lead, were "open" primaries. In these states many dems crossed over and voted in the republican primary. I see no good that comes from open primaries, and a good deal of mischief. The party members need to select the party's candidate. Having non-party members vote in the primary is a bad idea.

Matt SD300 · #20 02-26-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

Aryan Brotherhood?

Wass up brother?.........Obama!!..............Funky Chicken!!.........whoa.....!!!..

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=james+brown&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7HPIA_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=ZFinSevPJpGksQP25dDXDw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#q=wass+up&emb=0

Botnst · #21 02-26-2009, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I don't think the republicans were responsible for selecting McCain. The early primaries, where he built his lead, were "open" primaries. In these states many dems crossed over and voted in the republican primary. I see no good that comes from open primaries, and a good deal of mischief. The party members need to select the party's candidate. Having non-party members vote in the primary is a bad idea.

'ATS WHAT LIMBAUGH & HANNITY TRIED AGAINST OBAMA WITH HILLARY, AND FAILED.

The best candidates, like Obama, has a passion and conviction of his message and a smooth warm delivery. Doesn't especially matter WTF they say, just say it purdy and look good.

Skippy · #22 02-26-2009, 11:36 PM

Must be why Dr. Substance did so poorly. He said all the right things, he just didn't look purdy or sound good doing it. He still got second in the Nevada caucus

Botnst · #23 02-27-2009, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy

Must be why Dr. Substance did so poorly. He said all the right things, he just didn't look purdy or sound good doing it. He still got second in the Nevada caucus

Yup.

aklim · #24 02-27-2009, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy

Must be why Dr. Substance did so poorly. He said all the right things, he just didn't look purdy or sound good doing it. He still got second in the Nevada caucus

Who you talking about? Politics are about show and not substance.

jplinville · #25 02-27-2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I'd rather the find somebody with zero charisma and plenty of substance.

Jon Boehner or Mike Turner would both be great picks here. I'm leaning more for Turner, because I knew him personally before he became the Mayor of Dayton, Ohio and then an Ohio Congressman. He's a strong conservative with experience in building relationships with manufacturing backgrounds.

JollyRoger · #26 02-27-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I don't think the republicans were responsible for selecting McCain. The early primaries, where he built his lead, were "open" primaries. In these states many dems crossed over and voted in the republican primary. I see no good that comes from open primaries, and a good deal of mischief. The party members need to select the party's candidate. Having non-party members vote in the primary is a bad idea.

I don't think so. I've read a couple of statistical analysis of the vote, and in a nutshell, Huckabee and Romney, and a host of minor nut cases like Tancredo and Hunter, split the red meat conservatives. Huckabee and Romney split them into their two functional camps, Camp A) the sexually obsessed religionists and Camp B) the "patriot" Mexican-obsessed jingoists, who usually vote together as a block, something Reagan showed the Bushs how to do, and something that has just come apart on the right.

This left McCain the Western moderates, the Liberal Republicans of the North, and his base, the veterans. The swing vote was the old line Fiscal Conservatives, who I think are pretty much fed up with Limbaughism at this point, and they went to McCain. Since the red meat crowd was unable to coalesce around one candidate, McCain consistently pulled 25 to 30% of the vote, and in a crowded field, he was able to either win or grab a substantial chunk of the delegates in any primary, so in the end, it wasn't open primaries that made him the nominee, it was the inability of Romney or Huckabee to admit defeat and make a deal to support one or another.

At the heart of this is religion: Baptist Fundamentalists despise Mormons, it was impossible for a deal between the Mormon Romney and Baptist Huckabee, because they hate each other for their religious beliefs, the reason all political religious movements fail, and the Reagan Religio-Jingoist coalition has most certainly failed at this point, which is why the Democrats are having a field-day.

The real problems in the GOP have nothing to do with McCain, the split represented by Huckabee and Romney is what will keep them out of power for decades, and it is that split that cost them the election. My opinion is that McCain lost because his attempt to maintain that base, a base that would have voted for him anyway because they had nowhere else to go, alienated moderate Independents who are sick to death of Limbaughism. If McCain had just let the nuts fade off into the back ground, there was enough doubt amoung Independents on Obama to have swung the election his way, but that doubt dissapated with the selection of radical rightwinger and Limbaugh protege Palin.

Botnst · #27 02-27-2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I don't think so. I've read a couple of statistical analysis of the vote, and in a nutshell, Huckabee and Romney, and a host of minor nut cases like Tancredo and Hunter, split the red meat conservatives. Huckabee and Romney split them into their two functional camps, Camp A) the sexually obsessed religionists and Camp B) the "patriot" Mexican-obsessed jingoists, who usually vote together as a block, something Reagan showed the Bushs how to do, and something that has just come apart on the right.

This left McCain the Western moderates, the Liberal Republicans of the North, and his base, the veterans. The swing vote was the old line Fiscal Conservatives, who I think are pretty much fed up with Limbaughism at this point, and they went to McCain. Since the red meat crowd was unable to coalesce around one candidate, McCain consistently pulled 25 to 30% of the vote, and in a crowded field, he was able to either win or grab a substantial chunk of the delegates in any primary, so in the end, it wasn't open primaries that made him the nominee, it was the inability of Romney or Huckabee to admit defeat and make a deal to support one or another.

At the heart of this is religion: Baptist Fundamentalists despise Mormons, it was impossible for a deal between the Mormon Romney and Baptist Huckabee, because they hate each other for their religious beliefs, the reason all political religious movements fail, and the Reagan Religio-Jingoist coalition has most certainly failed at this point, which is why the Democrats are having a field-day.

The real problems in the GOP have nothing to do with McCain, the split represented by Huckabee and Romney is what will keep them out of power for decades, and it is that split that cost them the election. My opinion is that McCain lost because his attempt to maintain that base, a base that would have voted for him anyway because they had nowhere else to go, alienated moderate Independents who are sick to death of Limbaughism. If McCain had just let the nuts fade off into the back ground, there was enough doubt amoung Independents on Obama to have swung the election his way, but that doubt dissapated with the selection of radical rightwinger and Limbaugh protege Palin.

Sounds about right.

MS Fowler · #28 02-27-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

'ATS WHAT LIMBAUGH & HANNITY TRIED AGAINST OBAMA WITH HILLARY, AND FAILED.

The best candidates, like Obama, has a passion and conviction of his message and a smooth warm delivery. Doesn't especially matter WTF they say, just say it purdy and look good.

Where do you think they got the idea?

MS Fowler · #29 02-27-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I don't think so. I've read a couple of statistical analysis of the vote, and in a nutshell, Huckabee and Romney, and a host of minor nut cases like Tancredo and Hunter, split the red meat conservatives. Huckabee and Romney split them into their two functional camps, Camp A) the sexually obsessed religionists and Camp B) the "patriot" Mexican-obsessed jingoists, who usually vote together as a block, something Reagan showed the Bushs how to do, and something that has just come apart on the right.

This left McCain the Western moderates, the Liberal Republicans of the North, and his base, the veterans. The swing vote was the old line Fiscal Conservatives, who I think are pretty much fed up with Limbaughism at this point, and they went to McCain. Since the red meat crowd was unable to coalesce around one candidate, McCain consistently pulled 25 to 30% of the vote, and in a crowded field, he was able to either win or grab a substantial chunk of the delegates in any primary, so in the end, it wasn't open primaries that made him the nominee, it was the inability of Romney or Huckabee to admit defeat and make a deal to support one or another.

At the heart of this is religion: Baptist Fundamentalists despise Mormons, it was impossible for a deal between the Mormon Romney and Baptist Huckabee, because they hate each other for their religious beliefs, the reason all political religious movements fail, and the Reagan Religio-Jingoist coalition has most certainly failed at this point, which is why the Democrats are having a field-day.

The real problems in the GOP have nothing to do with McCain, the split represented by Huckabee and Romney is what will keep them out of power for decades, and it is that split that cost them the election. My opinion is that McCain lost because his attempt to maintain that base, a base that would have voted for him anyway because they had nowhere else to go, alienated moderate Independents who are sick to death of Limbaughism. If McCain had just let the nuts fade off into the back ground, there was enough doubt amoung Independents on Obama to have swung the election his way, but that doubt dissapated with the selection of radical rightwinger and Limbaugh protege Palin.

So you are saying that the democrat cross-overs had no effect? That isn't the way I remember it. If you totally discount the democrat cross-overs, your reasoned analysis seems pretty, uh, well-reasoned.

Botnst · #30 02-27-2009, 01:24 PM

We used to have open primaries here. It was started by a governor who thought it would keep him in power, but he was wrong.It opened-up the field to lots of candidates, some lunatics (David Duke for one and a guy who tried to get his name changed to "None of the above", talk about an unfair advantage!).

One outcome which followed the law of unintended consequences has been a wholesale upheaval in the major parties. The candidates simply could not count on their professional political operatives to get the vote. So candidates had to appeal to as many factions as possible in the primaries -- we got more moderate, reasonable politicians as a result. John Breaux (D-retired senator), Mary Landrieu (D-senator), Charles Boustany (R House), and Bobby Jindal and his predecessor as governor, (whom I voted for) Kathleen Blanco (D). Our major scandals have gone from bribery, extortion and perjury to adultery. Trust me, that's a huge improvement.

I have no doubt that the open primaries were a good thing for our political representation. Not the sole cause but certainly a major contributor.

Oh well, the legislature got rid of open primaries. Back to politics as usual.

Yee-haw.

B