McCain is toast

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
wacki,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061231/...sa_politics_dc

[ QUOTE ]

Democratic presidential hopeful
John Edwards, targeting a potential Republican rival in 2008, dubbed plans for a short-term U.S. troop increase in Iraq "the McCain doctrine," in an interview aired on Sunday.


[/ QUOTE ]
Whether or not it's exactly what McCain would do if he was calling the shots, he's supportive in general of the operation and is now tied to its success. You don't think he is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Amplify, he's supportive of a troop surge but has repeatedly said it's not the amount of troops he would have sent. Our experience in the Balkans gave us some very clear and very defined rules for nation building and peace keeping. The equations which were used there are simply not being followed in Iraq. For all intensive purposes the surge of 20K troops is still in line with Rumsfeld's "fast, mobile, high tech" army. It's a completely different playbook written by Generals that simply weren't in charge when Rumsfeld shook the pentagon to it's core. Calling a surge of 20K "McCain's surge" is like calling a motorcycle a heavy lifting vehicle. As far as I can tell McCain has never agreed with Rumsfelds playbook. Although I will admit his criticisms, while clear, are not as harsh as he could make them be. That article sucks though. Watch him talk on TV.

Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Cobra-II-Insid.../dp/0375422625

Rumsfeld actually wanted to invade Iraq with only 50K troops when all of the generals at the time wanted half a million. There's a reason why Tommy Franks bailed as soon as the invasion was over.

[amplify]

wacki,

we're not talking about facts here, we're talking perception.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
wacki,

we're not talking about facts here, we're talking perception.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, well going by perception and not actual facts then ya McCain is in hot water. This thing is highly likely to fail. When that happens it won't be easy for McCain to avoid the mud slinging. The Dems will go to great lengths to label him as being solely responsible for a failed plan that he didn't even agree with.

Bush is a very odd fellow. For somebody that prides himself on gutsy moves and a strong backbone he sure does seem scared to send even 1/2 the recommended amount of troops.

[hyde]

[ QUOTE ]


Bush is a very odd fellow. For somebody that prides himself on gutsy moves and a strong backbone he sure does seem scared to send even 1/2 the recommended amount of troops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush is a very flawed fellow. He is a case of arrested development. His gutsy moves are not too far removed from youthful bravado, his "backbone" is closer to stubborn denial. His being scared to send half the troops.....I don't see that, and I think we should see a fear of that. I do see a fear in his speech and mannerisms, inappropriate laughs and the like. I think it is dawning on him that the mistakes spoken of in the passive tense are really his.
An analogy: My teenager slept late, rushed out the door late for school, didn't clear the snow well off the windshield, was speeding to school, spun out on the snow and ended in a ditch with a bent fender. "It was an accident!! It wasn't my fault, there was snow on the road....."
Ok, not a great analogy but I'm not coffeed up yet.

bottom line is this president is totally devoid of wisdom.


As to my OP,
I admired McCain during his previous run, he was energetic and refreshingly candid.
I thought he had become a traditional canned response guy last year.
I thought his presentation this last Sunday was as far from his candor of his first run as possible. I don't believe he can recover. I don't think he can return to the energetic and refreshing candor, Perhaps it is age....
It is his personality that has shifted and made him a much worse candidate.
In his favor, he has no strong competition. Yet. And it is getting late for competition not to be at least on the distant horizon.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Too bad.

He is entirely unelectable in the General Elections. Am still hoping he gets the nomination for the republicans.

Anybody but the republicans in 2008!

[/ QUOTE ]

Just plain ignorant.

If McCain is unelectable, then the odds that the Democrats win in 2008 are 100%. I hear you can get them at substantially better odds than that at Tradesports.

If anything, McCain is the ULTIMATE electable in a general election, lauded for years among the bobbleheads as a "moderate."

LOL if you think Hillary is more electable than McCain.

Edited to add: See DVaut's polls w/ McCain against probably the most electable Dem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are wrong.

I dont believe that the Republicans can win without a candidate that motivates their base. The religious nut cases, the right to lifers, etc. The candidate for either party must motivate the base so that the battle is fought in the margin with the base taken for granted.

McCain will not motivate the base to get out and vote. He will have to campaign in marginal states that he should not have to if he was more right wing.

The Republican strategy for Bush was perfect. Make sure that all the evangelists were doing the work for him in the party base and ensuring that those guys vote (more than once if possible). They then concentrated on the middle ground (the latina vote -- Bush speaking spanish, some of the independents etc -- and of course totally outhustling Gore for the independent vote).

If you think the republicans can win with a moderate candidate, I think you are wrong.

[amplify]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wacki,

we're not talking about facts here, we're talking perception.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, well going by perception and not actual facts then ya McCain is in hot water. This thing is highly likely to fail. When that happens it won't be easy for McCain to avoid the mud slinging. The Dems will go to great lengths to label him as being solely responsible for a failed plan that he didn't even agree with.

Bush is a very odd fellow. For somebody that prides himself on gutsy moves and a strong backbone he sure does seem scared to send even 1/2 the recommended amount of troops.

[/ QUOTE ]
Look at this, two people posting on the politics board arrive at an agreement. Who knew?

[Dr. Zoidberg]

[ QUOTE ]

Brownback is very hard-line on many conservative social issues, gay marriage, ten-commandments-on-public-property type things, etc. I'm not crazy about those stances, but he is vehemently anti-abortion which is the main reason I like him (in a non-anarchist sense); he is the sort of guy who if elected would push non-stop to actually do something about abortion unlike the rest of the Republican Party that has just been using the issue to print votes. (Dems would own this country if they had the balls or the foresight to abandon the abortion lobby but that's another thread.) The abortion industry would be threatened even if Brownback were to only win the primary; he would constantly pound abortion down the throat of whichever Dem won and make it the main issue of the election IMO. I'd love to watch Hillary/Obama squirm and babble like Kerry did in a transparently dishonest attempt not to alienate voters in key swing states.


[/ QUOTE ]

Railing against abortion is not a winning strategy for the GOP in a national election. The American public does not wish for Roe v. Wade to be overturned.
http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

I imagine Hillary or Obama would welcome such a line of attack from the Republican nominee as it would be quite easy for them to paint such an opponent as an out-of-touch extremist.

[Curtrosity]

Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Brownback is very hard-line on many conservative social issues, gay marriage, ten-commandments-on-public-property type things, etc. I'm not crazy about those stances, but he is vehemently anti-abortion which is the main reason I like him (in a non-anarchist sense); he is the sort of guy who if elected would push non-stop to actually do something about abortion unlike the rest of the Republican Party that has just been using the issue to print votes. (Dems would own this country if they had the balls or the foresight to abandon the abortion lobby but that's another thread.) The abortion industry would be threatened even if Brownback were to only win the primary; he would constantly pound abortion down the throat of whichever Dem won and make it the main issue of the election IMO. I'd love to watch Hillary/Obama squirm and babble like Kerry did in a transparently dishonest attempt not to alienate voters in key swing states.


[/ QUOTE ]

Railing against abortion is not a winning strategy for the GOP in a national election. The American public does not wish for Roe v. Wade to be overturned.
http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

I imagine Hillary or Obama would welcome such a line of attack from the Republican nominee as it would be quite easy for them to paint such an opponent as an out-of-touch extremist.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW I don't think it would be a winning strategy either at the present time, but the only reason 62% or whatever don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade is the vast majority of them have never seen an abortion and don't know anything about it. Anyone who brings the issue to the forefront is good from a pro-lifer's perspective. Planned Parenthood has absolutely no interest in the public learning more about abortion and actively tries to prevent it. (They're all about "learning" about sex obviously, as they want to ensure demand for their services remains high.) According to them, displaying a photo of an aborted fetus is a "shock tactic." They're probably the first company in history to be outraged that other people want to advertise their services for free.

I disagree with ACPlayer in that I think elections of this kind are more about appealing to moderate voters than energizing the base. But if he is correct, no one would energize the religious base more than Brownback.