That exact moment is when I knew I could not vote for McCain and had to go thrid party. The Palin appointment was probably bad for the moderate vote, but McCain lost the conservatives which is what did him in.
As long as he publicly admits to a belief in creationism, he doesn't stand a chance. Presidents have to be educated at the very least.
First, I have said we haven't had any good leaders since Reagan and their still is none in sight. Naturally I think most people are wrong here. McCain lost the election for many reasons and one was he was to old especially when compared to a younger Democrat senator. McCain ran an incompetent campaign and was too worried he would have been called a racist to criticize Obama. McCain also lost because he was a Republican and the name Bush. It wasn't popular to be a Republican that campaign cycle,Sarah Palin kept him close. There was a pole a while back that said the country was more conservative than liberal. I think Chris Christie could be the next Republican Candidate. He is making a lot of tough decisions and showing some guts by cleaning up the economic disaster in Jersey. Reagan may have given some money away but so what, Bill Clinton gave money away to South America somewhere and Obama just gave money to Hamas controlled Gaza. Again we need political reform, it is not acceptable for former Congressmen to become lobbyists, etc. Many groups have too much power in DC. This is the most amazing post in this whole thread. What would it take to switch your vote? Just how much worse do things have to get?
I did not vote for Obama and though I am a registered democrat, I am a fiscal conservative. That sentence is taken a bit out of context, or I failed to make myself clear. I have no intention of voting for Obama or the current liberal agenda. However it can hardly be argued that the republican party acted fiscally conservative under Bush. I would like a better candidate than "not Obama". That is why we have Obama in the first place. And I have yet to see any clear leaders with actual solutions come from the republicans. This thread was created to explore this dilemma.
that is what i got from your statement and i agree. i would like to see a candidate i can get behind and believe in. not just "the lessor of two evils". simply "not obama" doesnt instill confidence. it just means the particular set of problems would go away. it would be nice not to just replace it with another set of problems.
You know that just can't be true. But I don't think politics is an environment that attracts or keeps the best and the brightest. Politics carry so much $ and power, it's very easy to see how people get corrupted. Short of putting the ax to an incumbent's neck for stepping out of line, I don't have a solution. And that must be done consistently to carry any real weight. The electorate does not show that kind of commitment, imo.
I guess I didn't get it the first time around so now I do. That sentence distressed me greatly!:lol: I totally agree, I blame Bush and the Republicans more than I do the democrats for the condition of the country. If not for them bailing on their principles we wouldn't have had Pelosi and her bunch and maybe not Obama either. What I do like seeing coming from the right is many grass root candidates are emerging who are fiscal conservative. Pat Toomey (PA), Marco Rubio (FL), Rand Paul (KY), Sharron Angle (NV), Mike Lee (UT), Ken Buck (Co)to name a few. I would think it would be a mistake for the people to not give "conservatives" another chance to fix the mess they are partially responsible for. I think the Republicans were hijacked or brainwashed, I have no clue but I think the grass roots are taking the party back. I really do think this is our last hope to save the country as we have known it. I also wish it wasn't the lessor of two evils but that is the case for 2 reasons. Lack of leadership, only 2 political parties who can win. Again I am for political reform, a more level playing field for a third party candidate along with finances somewhat even for all three. I don't support letting unions padding the lefts pockets unless the other two parties have equal amounts of money. Many times the party with the most money seems to win.
She did for about 5 minutes, after which point it became glaringly obvious how much stupidity was behind that pretty face. Once her inadequacies were exposed, the nomination only reinforced how out-of-touch McCain had become. I've never heard one person talk so much and have so little to say. The problem is that no candidate who is truly moderate is going to generate the initial thrust of support from their own base to establish themselves as a real possibility. For some stupid reason, it's only the ideologues who get that type of support, which is critical in gaining a nomination. The bases don't look at electability upfront; they are consumed with their ideology. I guess they find it tough to rally around someone who isn't in lock-step with them. That's why I think the general election should be more like the gubernatorial elections, where you can have multiple people from the same party run, even against the incumbent. Of course, having to administer a second national election for the runoff would undoubtedly be beyond our government's capability.
