Who is reponsible for McCain's imminent election loss ?

[CARLHAYDEN]

McCain - but not for the reasons the originator of this thread suggested.

First, remember that American Presidential elections have largely been decided on three issue groups: (1) the economy, (2) social issues (1968 - present), and (3) foreign policy/national defense.

McCain has really ticked off economic conservatives with his support for bailout mania (he even goes beyond Obama with this nonsense).  Although he now claims he favors tax cuts, his record is one of supporting higher taxes, so you can believe what he says now, or what he has done for years in Congress.  His attacks earlier this year on pharmaceutical companies as (in his words) "the enemy," just underscores his economic illiteracy.

With respect to social issues, McCain has been largely silent.  While Obama supports infanticide (he has yet to repudiate this), McCain has been silent.  While Obama has a long record of attacking the right to keep and bear arms (and self-defense), McCain has been largely silent.  Although several states (including the largest, California) are voting on bans on gay marriage, McCain has been largely silent.  McCain has on two or three occasions this year contradicted himself on his support for amnesty for illegal aliens (sometimes he's for it, sometimes, er, maybe, er).

While McCain briefly stung Obama when the Russians invaded Georgia (Obama advocated a "nuanced" approach of appeasement), he dropped this area.  There has been no mention of the Strategic Defense Initiative by McCain (Obama opposes defending the United States from attack with the or any other program other than surrender).  There has been no mention of the need to continue intelligence operations against the Islamic extremists (Obama largely opposes this).

[CARLHAYDEN]

McCain - but not for the reasons the originator of this thread suggested.

First, remember that American Presidential elections have largely been decided on three issue groups: (1) the economy, (2) social issues (1968 - present), and (3) foreign policy/national defense.

McCain has really ticked off economic conservatives with his support for bailout mania (he even goes beyond Obama with this nonsense).  Although he now claims he favors tax cuts, his record is one of supporting higher taxes, so you can believe what he says now, or what he has done for years in Congress.  His attacks earlier this year on pharmaceutical companies as (in his words) "the enemy," just underscores his economic illiteracy.

With respect to social issues, McCain has been largely silent.  While Obama supports infanticide (he has yet to repudiate this), McCain has been silent.  While Obama has a long record of attacking the right to keep and bear arms (and self-defense), McCain has been largely silent.  Although several states (including the largest, California) are voting on bans on gay marriage, McCain has been largely silent.  McCain has on two or three occasions this year contradicted himself on his support for amnesty for illegal aliens (sometimes he's for it, sometimes, er, maybe, er).

While McCain briefly stung Obama when the Russians invaded Georgia (Obama advocated a "nuanced" approach of appeasement), he dropped this area.  There has been no mention of the Strategic Defense Initiative by McCain (Obama opposes defending the United States from attack with the or any other program other than surrender).  There has been no mention of the need to continue intelligence operations against the Islamic extremists (Obama largely opposes this).

Can't argue with that. 

I'd just add that in McInsane's bailout mania he showed that he couldn't multitask and had to suspend his campaign.  If he couldn't handle that he certainly can't handle being President. 

Also McInsane must believe that by picking someone like Palin, he'll energize his base.  Buzz sorry wrong.  We saw it when Dole picked Jack Kemp.  There's a brief surge of energy then the base realizes the top of the ticket is what really matters and support dries up.

All of this added to what is likely to be heavy turnout for the Dems and it is game over for the Republicans this year.

Still hoping enough people will get to the polling booth, take a look at the ballot, and vote for Barr as a vote for freedom, and deny the "winning" candidate a majority.

[CARLHAYDEN]

McCain - but not for the reasons the originator of this thread suggested.

First, remember that American Presidential elections have largely been decided on three issue groups: (1) the economy, (2) social issues (1968 - present), and (3) foreign policy/national defense.

McCain has really ticked off economic conservatives with his support for bailout mania (he even goes beyond Obama with this nonsense).  Although he now claims he favors tax cuts, his record is one of supporting higher taxes, so you can believe what he says now, or what he has done for years in Congress.  His attacks earlier this year on pharmaceutical companies as (in his words) "the enemy," just underscores his economic illiteracy.

With respect to social issues, McCain has been largely silent.  While Obama supports infanticide (he has yet to repudiate this), McCain has been silent.  While Obama has a long record of attacking the right to keep and bear arms (and self-defense), McCain has been largely silent.  Although several states (including the largest, California) are voting on bans on gay marriage, McCain has been largely silent.  McCain has on two or three occasions this year contradicted himself on his support for amnesty for illegal aliens (sometimes he's for it, sometimes, er, maybe, er).

While McCain briefly stung Obama when the Russians invaded Georgia (Obama advocated a "nuanced" approach of appeasement), he dropped this area.  There has been no mention of the Strategic Defense Initiative by McCain (Obama opposes defending the United States from attack with the or any other program other than surrender).  There has been no mention of the need to continue intelligence operations against the Islamic extremists (Obama largely opposes this).

It is sure a testament to McCain's weaknesses that America is about to elect a man who supports infanticide and surrender and appeasement to the Russians and the terrorists. Do you think a stalwart opponent of amnesty for illegals, such as Mitt Romney or Fred Dalton Thompson, could have defeated Obama or at least come closer than McCain will?

Romney no, but thompson, yes.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Romney no, but thompson, yes.

I hope you're not meaning that Romney would have less of a chance against Obama than Thompson.  That's just ridiculous.  Or perhaps you're asserting Romney does not oppose amnesty?

Sorry to dash your hopes, but that is exactly what I meant.  And, no, it is not ridiculous!

The reason being that fundies, for some reason which escapes me, have taken a strong dislike to Mormons.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well Fuzzy, let me elaborate.

First, it is true that Thompson ran a terrible campaign this year (and in 2007) because he really didn't want the job (didn't have the proverbial "fire in the belly").

Second, the electorate is divided into three categories: (1) those who will vote for the Democrat party nominee, (2) those who will vote for the Republican nominee, and (3) those who decide elections.

McCain went out of his way to antagonize many in the third group (which Thompson didn't).

Romney was a good candidate who suffered from a very unfair attack on his religion by the fundies (who by themselves do NOT have the power to either select the Republican nominee ir the victor in the general election), but without whose support it is almost impossible for the Republican nominee to win election.