With all due respect, horseshit. An excellent President, had Shrub been one, could’ve EASILY handed the office off to another Republican. Both McQueeg and Willard were deliberate RINGERS for Zero, working as part of the corrupt, bipartisan Derp State to prevent ANY viable Conservative opponent to Zero (or Hillary, for that matter).
There was nothing transformative or inspiring about Zero. He was a radical Communist and thinly-closeted Mohammadan with no accomplishments and a string of shady, anti-American links and terroristic supporters. He couldn’t deliver a speech without help from a teleprompter. He was aided by a corrupt, subversive anti-American media, radical Hollyweird culture, Big Ed, and the aforementioned bipartisan political combine.
2008 and 2012 would best be described as ‘the Big Fix.’ Had someone like former OK Gov. Frank Keating, a former FBI agent who had pursued Zero’s sponsors, been the nominee, he would’ve reduced Zero to a blubbering mess of slime.
I agree with you that Frank Keating would have been a good president in 2008. I think Dubya was going to pick Keating instead of Cheney. But Rove forced Bush to pick Cheney. Keating would have beaten Obama by 5 points but ‘08 was a bad year to be a Republican. Period.
As I’ve said before I can’t fathom an egomaniac like McCain who clearly would have sacrificed one of his kids to Baal to be elected President would act as a “ringer”. He didn’t run a winning race cause he’s a RINO idiot and pussy who didn’t want the media to hate him for going after the Black guy. Even the mild extent to which he did earned him lasting scorn from his base (reporters). I don’t understand why that’s harder to believe than your “He must have lost on purpose”. People are stupid, weak animals and stupidity and weakness are always more likely than grand conspiracies that would have to involve countless people. And the same goes for Mitt, this prick had daddy issues, daddy got embarrassed and he needed to win for daddy, he’d have dipped his balls in sulfuric acid before he’d lose on purpose.
However Chesse Puff, I completely dismiss your “Obama was destined to win” malarkey, which is just that. That kind of fatalistic nonsense might make you feel better about losing but not me. The future is not writ, and while we may not know what or be able to do what is needed to achieve the outcome we want, there’s usually a way, in studying defeats we can learn how to avoid them next time.
Bammy won for 2 reasons
1)The economy was in the potty
2)McPain ran a crummy race
#1 is big and it’s hard for the incumbent party to hang on in that circumstance because voters are desperate, grasping troglodytes prone to reacting like rats in a maze.
But that doesn’t mean a good candidate running a strong race couldn’t have beaten Obama. The funny named cipher was “inspirational” cause that’s what the media told people he was. What McPain needed to do was deconstruct that crap and rip out his throat with savage attacks on that worthless cokehead. Trump showed how to do that 8 years later against other anointed piece of poo poo.
As for Bush, he was garbage and a major cause of aforementioned economic sanitation situation. But he can hardly be blamed for the 2008 candidates, there were plenty of them, I don’t know what kind of “planting” you expected “farmer Bush” to do. Other than replacing Cheney with a successor type there wasn’t much he could have done on that front. I wish would have vetoed the bailouts and crap, that was something in his power. Running against the bailout might have been the ticket to GOP success that year.
I wanted Mark Sanford to run in 2008, which I soon discovered would have been a disaster. The candidates that ran were crap, I understand why freepers were hardcore for Fred Thompson despite his poor position in the polls. There’s no one to blame, except all of our candidates and our own voters for not demanding better candidates than The Clap (McCain) Crabs (Huckabee) Syphilis (Rudy) and Chlamydia (Mitt).