Posted on 10/07/2008 9:42:16 PM PDT by andrew roman
The debate was a missed opportunity for McCain.
I truly believe that I (or most Freepers) could have *decisively* defeated Obama in the debate last night.
When 0 called out the fake “95% of America will get a tax cut”, Slam him with “Senator, I know you haven’t been at this very long, but it is a fact that 40% of Americans don’t pay income tax, so they cannot get a tax cut. You could redistribute someone else’s wealth to them, but that’s Marxism and I hope you are not advocating that.”
When 0 brought up Delaware, low interest, credit cards, etc. Slam him for his VP choice and ties to banks and Wall Street.
When 0 brings up foreign policy, literally *laugh* at him and say “It seems to me the Obama doctrine is to fight everyone we are currently at peace with, and to retreat from everywhere we are currently engaged. That’s not a strategy my friends...”
And when 0 brought up Kenya, slam him directly for going over to Kenya to stump for a radical socialist like Odinga whose supporters turned to machetes when the vote didn’t go thier way, while McCain was back here trying to get the Democratic Congress to see the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac train wreck that was coming.
Etc.
I actually had these thoughts (and maybe a couple others) in real time last night during the debate, and it was a missed opportunity not to use some of the openings 0 opened up with his own words.
McCain's only shot is/was to show that Obama cannot be trusted with the presidency. If Obama is plausible, McCain loses. And McCain, unfailingly, treats Obama as if he is totally plausible. Ballgame.
There is only one way to stabilize house prices and that is to allow them to fall to a price were buyers step in. There is no other way.
Read Thomas Sowell Basic Economics before you construct a reply.
What a coincidence. I thought the same thing when they interviewed Romney last night.
I was a Romney supporter by the way.
Too bad that he was problem the victim of Mormon bigots and was drowned out because of the Huckabee vote.
We simply have a philosophical disagreement about the moral responsibility of a voter in America so your statistics don't matter to me.
If Hillary Clinton switched parties and ran against Obama in 2012 as slightly more moderate candidate (both of them being extreme liberals), are you telling me you would vote for Hillary? If not, where do you draw the line? I draw the line at McCain..
What about liberals like McCain...and Bush?
I wish people would stop repeating this classist Hannity nonsense. It is false and demeans and alienates lower income group people who have paid taxes all their lives: http://www.factcheck.org/kerrys_tax_ad_literally_accurate_but_misleading.html
Is there ny way we can wire McCain so that Newt Gingrich answers the questions? He has a way of communicating actual concrete substance on how to solve national problems. These two candidates just spin round and round. McCain does it punctuated by "my friends" and "but the point is."
First your scenario is ridiculous. Hillary is not going to switch parties, and if she did she would not get the Republican nomination.
Now with that said, your "moral responsibility" philosophy seems contrived to me. As a conservative, you think it's "moral" to allow Obama to become President with a clear left wing majority in the House and near fillibuster proof majority in the Senate? You well know there would be virtually nothing stopping Obama/Reid/Pelosi from enacting huge new government programs that would make the "bailout" look like trick-or-treat sized candy bars. The damage will be so deep and wide that not even a new GOP majority in 2010 could undo the new government programs that some voters will then take for granted. This is what Dems since FDR have done to ensure power. They now will have the power and the excuse for the New Deal, part II. Maybe Part III if you count the Great Society as New Deal II.
Then we get to the courts. Not just the S.Ct., but the lower courts as well. Obama would be free to fill vacancies up with lawyers that deeply admire the 9th Circuit Court, and maybe some that don't think that court goes far enough. We are talking about judges that will willingly undo any law they deem "conservative," even if that law is constitutional.
And you'll allow this to preserve your personal "moral responsibility." Maybe that's how it works in an academic dissertation. In the practical world that is called enabling.
So yes, I will vote for McCain because there are only two people that have a possibility of being elected and he is the more conservative of the two. He may go-along-to-get-along with Congress on a lot of stuff I won't like. But when it comes to the important stuff like protecting the country and fighting overt socialist power grabs and appointing decent judges I think he'll be on the right side. I know Obama will never be. Bottomline: even Ronald Reagan knew that politics mean there was a time to be practical and strike a deal with Tip O'neil. This is a time also to be practical.
Not liberal?
1. last night's $300 billion proposal (socialist)
2. foreign policy: McCain has proposed a kind of international police response force
3. the amnesty bill
4. campaign-finance 'reform'
5. global-warming
6. the Gang of 14
From things I’ve read it isn’t even safe to muse on the subject online... the Secret Service is likely to come calling if you do.
We would all do well to stop looking back and look to the future. The future contains two choices. I hope everyone chooses wisely..
We all do ourselves, this election and our country a big favor right now by being positively proactive and helping win this thing.
In addition, the way the Fed is planning the taxpayers would take it in the shorts, with McCain's $300 billion plan when a homeowner sold the feds would recoup from profits what they did to help the homeowner. I liken this somewhat to how reverse mortgages for the elderly works...
Fact is: the key to turning around this economy is getting housing back on it's feet. The trickle-down effect of this bust is going to have a whole lot of people on welfare if we don't and THAT will cost a whole lot more than $300 billion dollars....
Stop and think for a moment... how many jobs in this country is tied to housing... it's huge!!!
I was responding to a poster who was frustrated with the current state of conservatism as an intellectual movement. My purpose was to pose a larger question for consideration. How do we prevent or counter the ruin of conservatives by the MSM for simply being conservative?
If John McCain and Sarah Palin do not make it to the Whitehouse (God forbid), I expect them to go after Sarah for the next four years to undermine her popularity. She will not have access to the public as she does now, and we saw how the media kept attacking to make her appear unprepared and not up to the task. They will gnaw at her popularity.
We would all do well to stop looking back and look to the future.
________________
I respectfully disagree. I passionately wish more people would look to the past, then the Constitution and the founding fathers might have more power to prevent the future onslaught of tyranny.
~LOL~ No, I’m not a PUMA. I just find it very interesting they are more passionatly supporting the GOP candidate than many so called Republicans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.