..after hearing some indisputable facts of his recent history of obstruction-like behavior..I never have trusted him nor his motives...he has all the apearance of a conniving shadow following his own motives(or perhaps one we are unaware of)...a conservative?...like hell!
Is McCain to blame for the Republican's loss?
- Thread starter aspen1964
- Start date
- Status
Lone_Gunman
Member
No Bush doing stupid things for six years is to blame.
Lone_Gunman is exactly correct. But perhaps not exactly in the same way as he means.
From my perspective the President and the Iraq War were used as a club to beat the Republican House and Senate members that lost. Had he made the strategic decision to "allow" Rumsfeld and Cheney to "resign" before the mid-term elections the Democratic Party would have lost their big national issue weapon, looked like fools for employing it for State elections and many of the House and Senate Republicans would have probably retained their seats. With luck we would have had the Democrats in the House and the Republicans in the Senate and gridlock for us all.
From my perspective the President and the Iraq War were used as a club to beat the Republican House and Senate members that lost. Had he made the strategic decision to "allow" Rumsfeld and Cheney to "resign" before the mid-term elections the Democratic Party would have lost their big national issue weapon, looked like fools for employing it for State elections and many of the House and Senate Republicans would have probably retained their seats. With luck we would have had the Democrats in the House and the Republicans in the Senate and gridlock for us all.
Last edited:
ezypikns
Member
John McCain
has more brains and integrity in little finger than "Dubya" will ever have. Without Dick Cheney I believe George would have been lost. His dad however, was a REAL Republican.
I have my asbestos suit on now. You may flame when ready.
has more brains and integrity in little finger than "Dubya" will ever have. Without Dick Cheney I believe George would have been lost. His dad however, was a REAL Republican.
I have my asbestos suit on now. You may flame when ready.
StrikeFire83
Member
Um, NO.
The stupidity of the Bush administration, abandonment of traditional small-government conservatism, and the authoritarian neo-con takeover of the party is to blame.
McCain has made some questionable choices, no doubt. Buy he's his own man, which cannot be said for Shrub.
The stupidity of the Bush administration, abandonment of traditional small-government conservatism, and the authoritarian neo-con takeover of the party is to blame.
McCain has made some questionable choices, no doubt. Buy he's his own man, which cannot be said for Shrub.
Bush Sr. made similar mistakes of compromising party priciples too much like raising taxes. That cost him a lot of support and I think is the main reason he lost in '92. Whether he is a real repub or not, I don't care. He at least VETO'ed a lot of stuff.
kwelz
Member
I am no big fan of bush, but as much as I dislike him, I feel that McCain is far more dangerous than he will ever was or will be. "Campaign Finance reform" was just the start for him.
Sistema1927
Member
The Republicans lost due to the fact that they forgot to "dance with them that brung them."
They saw that running as conservatives would put them in power, but then turned their backs on their conservative base.
They saw that running as conservatives would put them in power, but then turned their backs on their conservative base.
Can'thavenuthingood
Member
They were not nor currently aggressive enough for the jobs in the Executive or the Congress.
Even now its wishy washy please "don't hate me" fluff.
Frist didn't have the backbone or required male parts to run the Senate. Lott wasn't any better.
Not a true conservative amongst them.
McCain was just a sideboy moping around with nothing to do but get in the way.
Why blurt out a willingness to sign another AWB?
The first term $400 billion dollar medicare bill started it all. Then downhill from there. They couldn't wait to give away the tax money.
Small government my foot.
The only thing shrunk up there was testicles.
Vick
Even now its wishy washy please "don't hate me" fluff.
Frist didn't have the backbone or required male parts to run the Senate. Lott wasn't any better.
Not a true conservative amongst them.
McCain was just a sideboy moping around with nothing to do but get in the way.
Why blurt out a willingness to sign another AWB?
The first term $400 billion dollar medicare bill started it all. Then downhill from there. They couldn't wait to give away the tax money.
Small government my foot.
The only thing shrunk up there was testicles.
Vick
Waitone
Member
McCain is in the game for himself. Being republican is merely an added feature certainly not intended to limit his actions. McCain is the source of a large percentage of objectionable legislation which I've seen over the last presidency. Is he to cause? Don't think so. Bush is the fountainhead of everything that led to his whuppin'.
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
This has already become a cliche, but it's true: "It's Iraq, stupid." If we hadn't squandered our military strength and national treasure fighting a proxy war for the Iranian spy Chalabi, the Republicans would have survived all the scandals and their poor stewardship of our resources.
How a bunch of smart Jews like Wolfowitz and Feith got suckered into doing the bidding of Israel's mortal enemy Iran is one of the most astounding events that has occurred during my lifetime. Right now the only possible outcome of this fiasco is that Iran will gain influence in the region. What we do now will only determine the degree of Iran's political gain. If we are wildly successful Iran will gain only slightly, but that's a long shot right now.
How a bunch of smart Jews like Wolfowitz and Feith got suckered into doing the bidding of Israel's mortal enemy Iran is one of the most astounding events that has occurred during my lifetime. Right now the only possible outcome of this fiasco is that Iran will gain influence in the region. What we do now will only determine the degree of Iran's political gain. If we are wildly successful Iran will gain only slightly, but that's a long shot right now.
CDH
Member
Why is it that so far, everyone's being blamed EXCEPT those who are REALLY to blame? And that is the Republican members of the House and Senate.
THEY lost the election, not Bush or McCain (in case no one noticed, those two guys are still in office).
What brought the Republican Party down is the total lack of Conservative leadership that those who voted for them in the last couple of elections expected from them.
Once elected, the majority of Republicans in both houses just sat back and became "tax and spend" RINO's and did not work for those who voted them in.
Hopefully, the Republican Party has been cleaned out of many of it's RINO's (although a handful of the "good guys" went with them), and it's time to start right now paying attention to the candidates who will be running in the '08 Primaries so that we can attempt once more to bring the Republican Party back to it's Conservative roots.
The reason Gingrich and the rest were elected one time was because of the "Contract With America" agenda, but that fell apart once they got elected, not because of Democrats' opposition, but because there were too many RINO Republicans in the way.
Of course, Gingrich was blamed for that failure and the wrong people lost their jobs.
Unless or until people start blaming the people who really ARE responsible for the loss, and holding them accountable, there will be no hope of winning anything in '08.
Contrary to what Pelosi thinks, Democrats did NOT win this election; Republicans LOST this election so that we could "clean House", so to speak, and bring the Republican Party back from the brink of Liberalism where it was heading.
Carter
THEY lost the election, not Bush or McCain (in case no one noticed, those two guys are still in office).
What brought the Republican Party down is the total lack of Conservative leadership that those who voted for them in the last couple of elections expected from them.
Once elected, the majority of Republicans in both houses just sat back and became "tax and spend" RINO's and did not work for those who voted them in.
Hopefully, the Republican Party has been cleaned out of many of it's RINO's (although a handful of the "good guys" went with them), and it's time to start right now paying attention to the candidates who will be running in the '08 Primaries so that we can attempt once more to bring the Republican Party back to it's Conservative roots.
The reason Gingrich and the rest were elected one time was because of the "Contract With America" agenda, but that fell apart once they got elected, not because of Democrats' opposition, but because there were too many RINO Republicans in the way.
Of course, Gingrich was blamed for that failure and the wrong people lost their jobs.
Unless or until people start blaming the people who really ARE responsible for the loss, and holding them accountable, there will be no hope of winning anything in '08.
Contrary to what Pelosi thinks, Democrats did NOT win this election; Republicans LOST this election so that we could "clean House", so to speak, and bring the Republican Party back from the brink of Liberalism where it was heading.
Carter
Manedwolf
member
McCain just blows with the wind, and I still think he's a bit messed up upstairs. He's for things he was against after being for being against them.
As for the loss, it's what happens when republicans forget how to be conservatives, and people get sick of it.
Bingo. Iraq and Iran were bad guys, but they were bad guys that hated each other, kept each other busy, and thus cancelled out a large part of their threat to us. Bush the ELDER understood that. His son hadn't a clue.
As for the loss, it's what happens when republicans forget how to be conservatives, and people get sick of it.
Bingo. Iraq and Iran were bad guys, but they were bad guys that hated each other, kept each other busy, and thus cancelled out a large part of their threat to us. Bush the ELDER understood that. His son hadn't a clue.
RealGun
Member
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld lost the election. The Iraq war and McCain's support of it was not the issue. The issue was the perception that there was a lack of respect for the intelligence of the American people. Losing an election over it that only indirectly addressed the resulting offense taken was more about the voter only having two meaningful, vindictive choices, candidate A or candidate B. There were enough foolish enough to throw the baby out with the bath water.
The republicans lost because they're a pack of do nothing, oath breaking liars.
Remember the contract with America? They stood for and promised smaller government, less pork, lower taxes, they're anti-abortion, pro-gun and all about family values etc etc etc.
Bush inherited a balanced budget. Hell - there was an actual surplus but he blew that the 1st or 2nd year of his term. After 9/11 I suppose it was inevitable that a deficit budget would come back - wars tend to do that - but he blew it while 911 was little more than a gleem in OBL's evil eye.
They had power for 12 years and the size of the governemt tripled, we get bridges to no where in Alaska, the only anti-abortion legislation they passed that I'm aware of is the ban against partial birth abortion and that failed muster the first time and the re-write will probably fail to. They did lower taxes but it took 'em 8 or so years to get around to doing it and pretty near the same time they turned around and passed the largest medicare entitlement increase ever. The only good thing they've done in 12 years is welfare reform but as much as I hate to admit it Clinton should get credit for about 1/2 that legislation.
And other than letting the AWB expire (which took no effort at all) and passing a dubiously constitutional liability protection law for manufacturers what have they done for gun owners?
In addition they are amongst the most corrupt (or at least most stupid for getting caught) pack of politicians around for a long time. Crooks, pedophiles, womanizers and these guys claim they're for family values...
Puhleeeeze!
Put it all together and you've got a recipe for defeat. I'm just surprised it took as long as it did.
I'm going to keep voting in every single election local, state and national as always but from now on I'll be casting my votes for anyone but the 2 mainstream parties (wasted or not - I'm no longer supporting the corrupt elite weenies running the show in Washington now).
NOTE: The dems aren't any better they just have a knack for making the actions of their alcoholic murderers, homosexual male whore house runners, bribe takers and other assorted perverts, crooks and otherwise scummy members seem like a good thing.
Remember the contract with America? They stood for and promised smaller government, less pork, lower taxes, they're anti-abortion, pro-gun and all about family values etc etc etc.
Bush inherited a balanced budget. Hell - there was an actual surplus but he blew that the 1st or 2nd year of his term. After 9/11 I suppose it was inevitable that a deficit budget would come back - wars tend to do that - but he blew it while 911 was little more than a gleem in OBL's evil eye.
They had power for 12 years and the size of the governemt tripled, we get bridges to no where in Alaska, the only anti-abortion legislation they passed that I'm aware of is the ban against partial birth abortion and that failed muster the first time and the re-write will probably fail to. They did lower taxes but it took 'em 8 or so years to get around to doing it and pretty near the same time they turned around and passed the largest medicare entitlement increase ever. The only good thing they've done in 12 years is welfare reform but as much as I hate to admit it Clinton should get credit for about 1/2 that legislation.
And other than letting the AWB expire (which took no effort at all) and passing a dubiously constitutional liability protection law for manufacturers what have they done for gun owners?
In addition they are amongst the most corrupt (or at least most stupid for getting caught) pack of politicians around for a long time. Crooks, pedophiles, womanizers and these guys claim they're for family values...
Puhleeeeze!Put it all together and you've got a recipe for defeat. I'm just surprised it took as long as it did.
I'm going to keep voting in every single election local, state and national as always but from now on I'll be casting my votes for anyone but the 2 mainstream parties (wasted or not - I'm no longer supporting the corrupt elite weenies running the show in Washington now).
NOTE: The dems aren't any better they just have a knack for making the actions of their alcoholic murderers, homosexual male whore house runners, bribe takers and other assorted perverts, crooks and otherwise scummy members seem like a good thing.
If Bush really wanted to win he should have, with big fanfare, announced his intention to be out of Iraq in six months and started bringing the boys home. The Republicans would have lost a few seats here and there, but at the very least would have retained control of the Senate.
McCain is a wierd, mysterious fellow. Extremely mean to his staffers and with a volcanic temper. He never met a war he didn't like. I try not to be cruel about him because of all those months in North Vietnamese POW camps. He "broke" under torture and feels a strong sense of guilt over having done so due to his rigid military upbringing. You just can't walk up to a guy like that and say "Hey, every man has a breaking point;" it would not compute.
McCain is a wierd, mysterious fellow. Extremely mean to his staffers and with a volcanic temper. He never met a war he didn't like. I try not to be cruel about him because of all those months in North Vietnamese POW camps. He "broke" under torture and feels a strong sense of guilt over having done so due to his rigid military upbringing. You just can't walk up to a guy like that and say "Hey, every man has a breaking point;" it would not compute.
arthurcw
Member
MechAg94, +1000 on all your posts.
Neither Bush was conservative. "W" was slightly more conservative than his dad but not really all that much. We (Republicans) willingly believed that he was more conservative on domestic issues than he really was. By the time he showed his true stripes (read: we opened our eyes to the fact he was not a real conservative), we were committed to him.
We lost because:
*Bush was unwilling to fight liberals.
*The Senate leadership was beholden to Country Club RINO's
*The TRUE conservatives in the House were muted by a party leader who would not support them
*We Republicans let it happen because we believed the country to be done with liberalism.
"W" wouldn't fight Libs because he doesn't totally disagree with them on domestic issues.
The Senate Republicans are a joke and that is a problem that will not be fixed any times soon. Six year elections cycles and no state oversight like there used to be have made the Senate a play ground for "Our Betters"
No one in The House wanted to buck their party leadership publicly. The '94 Republicans who thought they would be listened to and allowed to keep being conservative were ham strung on domestic issues by Bush. They had already been ham strung when Newt left. When the Dems were able to get the Reps to throw him from the train, they won a MAJOR strategic victory by getting rid of THE Conservative voice of the party.
Republicans were really good at eating their own except when it came to "W". Why? That’s where the $$$ came from. The sad truth about Parties is that the leaders tell the underlings what to do. That's just where the money flows from so don't expect the "Conservative Dems" to be real conservative when it's time to vote. Maybe they will vote conservative if they are in for a few years and can throw out their leadership. But it would take a loss like the Reps just had for them to do it. Don't look for that any time soon.
By the time that House Conservatives got some stones, it was too late. They stopped the "immigration bill" but no one cared by that point. And since there was no good conservative leadership, they were essentially Partisans fighting a war they could not win.
The funny part about the last reason why we lost is that the country really is done with liberalism, but the Republicans did not give the people the Red Meat and Dark Beer of conservatism that the country wanted. As said above, those new Dems may have been conservative on election day, but NO WAY they stay that way when the votes are called. And anyone who thinks they will be voted out come ’08 if they don’t act conservative is deluded.
It will take 4 to 6 years for the public to get fed up with the "Conservative Dems" in any way. The Voting public generally wants to give its elected leaders a chance. It doesn't like flip flops. It may vote for a Republican President if he is (or acts) conservative, but the House and Senate are Dem controlled for a while even though it will not resemble anything conservative. Sometimes the American voter is too nice for too long before saying, “Enough already!”
As to McCain, He didn't help. But blaming it all on him is like blaming a 2 - zip loss on the last batter that struck out with no one on base. But then again, everyone still blames Buckner don’t they?
I guess the Corollary Question to this is, Will you hold your nose and vote for McCain in ’08 if it ends up being McCain v. Hillary? I know there are many principled members here that would like to just sit that one out. It stinks like 3 day own French Cheese. But while President McCain would not be great for the country, would you allow a President Clinton? Especially if she has a fully Democrat Congress? She will have it. Make no mistake about that.
I just hope someone with a REAL conservative voice steps up and is willing to take the spears that the MSM is going to hurl at them and try to fix all this mess.
Neither Bush was conservative. "W" was slightly more conservative than his dad but not really all that much. We (Republicans) willingly believed that he was more conservative on domestic issues than he really was. By the time he showed his true stripes (read: we opened our eyes to the fact he was not a real conservative), we were committed to him.
We lost because:
*Bush was unwilling to fight liberals.
*The Senate leadership was beholden to Country Club RINO's
*The TRUE conservatives in the House were muted by a party leader who would not support them
*We Republicans let it happen because we believed the country to be done with liberalism.
"W" wouldn't fight Libs because he doesn't totally disagree with them on domestic issues.
The Senate Republicans are a joke and that is a problem that will not be fixed any times soon. Six year elections cycles and no state oversight like there used to be have made the Senate a play ground for "Our Betters"
No one in The House wanted to buck their party leadership publicly. The '94 Republicans who thought they would be listened to and allowed to keep being conservative were ham strung on domestic issues by Bush. They had already been ham strung when Newt left. When the Dems were able to get the Reps to throw him from the train, they won a MAJOR strategic victory by getting rid of THE Conservative voice of the party.
Republicans were really good at eating their own except when it came to "W". Why? That’s where the $$$ came from. The sad truth about Parties is that the leaders tell the underlings what to do. That's just where the money flows from so don't expect the "Conservative Dems" to be real conservative when it's time to vote. Maybe they will vote conservative if they are in for a few years and can throw out their leadership. But it would take a loss like the Reps just had for them to do it. Don't look for that any time soon.
By the time that House Conservatives got some stones, it was too late. They stopped the "immigration bill" but no one cared by that point. And since there was no good conservative leadership, they were essentially Partisans fighting a war they could not win.
The funny part about the last reason why we lost is that the country really is done with liberalism, but the Republicans did not give the people the Red Meat and Dark Beer of conservatism that the country wanted. As said above, those new Dems may have been conservative on election day, but NO WAY they stay that way when the votes are called. And anyone who thinks they will be voted out come ’08 if they don’t act conservative is deluded.
It will take 4 to 6 years for the public to get fed up with the "Conservative Dems" in any way. The Voting public generally wants to give its elected leaders a chance. It doesn't like flip flops. It may vote for a Republican President if he is (or acts) conservative, but the House and Senate are Dem controlled for a while even though it will not resemble anything conservative. Sometimes the American voter is too nice for too long before saying, “Enough already!”
As to McCain, He didn't help. But blaming it all on him is like blaming a 2 - zip loss on the last batter that struck out with no one on base. But then again, everyone still blames Buckner don’t they?
I guess the Corollary Question to this is, Will you hold your nose and vote for McCain in ’08 if it ends up being McCain v. Hillary? I know there are many principled members here that would like to just sit that one out. It stinks like 3 day own French Cheese. But while President McCain would not be great for the country, would you allow a President Clinton? Especially if she has a fully Democrat Congress? She will have it. Make no mistake about that.
I just hope someone with a REAL conservative voice steps up and is willing to take the spears that the MSM is going to hurl at them and try to fix all this mess.
salvador31c
Member
I Agree 100%
When I Voted For Bush in 2004 I Wanted To Give Him A Chance To Finnish What He Started With The "Wars" I Know Its Been Rough And All But I Cant Imagine Kerry Would Of Done Any Better JMHO
jklinstein
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 75
Werewolf said it well.
For all practical purposes, on most issues, the Republicans were better Democrats than the Democrats.
Bush's administration has also mismanaged the WOT. It's like they WANTED to redo a characterization of the Vietnam war, but this time they were gonna win by sheer determination. The initial disrepect for the intelligence community (who were not convinced that Saddam was pursuing WMD's) continued until Rumsfeld's resignation. Letting the Republican Guard become a large group of unemployable career military men was a doofus move.
In the end, Bush is showing himself to not be very smart. I appreciate his willingness to do things that are unpopular - I just wish he was more effective in his choices. Waiting to let Rumsfeld go the day after the election really was stupid. Keep him (like you said you would), or can him 6 months before the election, but don't act like a loser politician and make him the fall guy AFTER your decision to "stay the course" costs the election.
Jacob
For all practical purposes, on most issues, the Republicans were better Democrats than the Democrats.
Bush's administration has also mismanaged the WOT. It's like they WANTED to redo a characterization of the Vietnam war, but this time they were gonna win by sheer determination. The initial disrepect for the intelligence community (who were not convinced that Saddam was pursuing WMD's) continued until Rumsfeld's resignation. Letting the Republican Guard become a large group of unemployable career military men was a doofus move.
In the end, Bush is showing himself to not be very smart. I appreciate his willingness to do things that are unpopular - I just wish he was more effective in his choices. Waiting to let Rumsfeld go the day after the election really was stupid. Keep him (like you said you would), or can him 6 months before the election, but don't act like a loser politician and make him the fall guy AFTER your decision to "stay the course" costs the election.
Jacob
illegal alien amnesty was the only issue that would have energized this election. bush allowed the election to become a referrendum on iraq. all the local candidates,that is state rather than federal,95% of the candidates cited illegal aliens to be THE issue. bush sacrificed the party,and in the long run maybe the republic for his guest workers and amnesty.
Manedwolf
member
Not just that. All of the strategy, including NOT ENOUGH BOOTS ON THE GROUND, period, and relying on tech toys. But yes, the firing of the army and letting them run off to be militia was also a collosal bit of idiocy.
And it's the troops who are paying the price, sent out on "patrols" to get blown up by IEDs...what DO those patrols do otherwise? Confirm that people are shooting at them? Why, yes, they are!
If you read what's been written by noted military historians, including those read in Army Officer's School, their opinion can be summarized as throwing up their hands and yelling "ARG!". One called this the worst military blunder of the past two thousand years.
Steel Talon
Member
FWIW Google
Kemper Marley
for an insight, into McCaines family (wifes side) financial backing etc. just interesting reading nothing else.
Peace
ST~
Kemper Marley
for an insight, into McCaines family (wifes side) financial backing etc. just interesting reading nothing else.
Peace
ST~
I bow to no man in my disdain for McCain the senator.
But, he was not responsible for the Republican's loss. Oh, he helped what with his "Gang of 14" baloney. Also the "McCain Fiengold First Amendment Defenestration Act" precluded motivated interested parties from running issue ads. Last, he and McCain's Minime Lindsay Graham, hogged all the time after the August vacation to preen about how much they were against torture and wanted captured illegal enemy combatants to have UCMJ due process and an ice cream cone.
Nope, Congressional Republicans are primarily to blame, with an assist awarded to GWB. The were elected with a mandate to kick some jihadi tuckus and did an unimpressive job. More dead jihadis would have helped. They were eleceted on a platform of fiscal responsibility and let bloated pork-munchers like Ted Stevens run the show. They had an opportunity to blast through some real ilegal immigration smack-down enforcement measures and blew that, too.
But, he was not responsible for the Republican's loss. Oh, he helped what with his "Gang of 14" baloney. Also the "McCain Fiengold First Amendment Defenestration Act" precluded motivated interested parties from running issue ads. Last, he and McCain's Minime Lindsay Graham, hogged all the time after the August vacation to preen about how much they were against torture and wanted captured illegal enemy combatants to have UCMJ due process and an ice cream cone.
Nope, Congressional Republicans are primarily to blame, with an assist awarded to GWB. The were elected with a mandate to kick some jihadi tuckus and did an unimpressive job. More dead jihadis would have helped. They were eleceted on a platform of fiscal responsibility and let bloated pork-munchers like Ted Stevens run the show. They had an opportunity to blast through some real ilegal immigration smack-down enforcement measures and blew that, too.
- Status
