carbon_footprint on August 4, 2008 at 10:57 PM

Highhopes has it right. Gore should have won coming off of 8 good economic years of Clinton, but didn’t. Bush should have lost in 2004, but thanks to Kerry, didn’t.

McCain should be getting his ass kicked this year, but isn’t.

BadgerHawk on August 5, 2008 at 9:02 AM

Ok, I see where you both are coming from. To me, I don’t care what the reasons are, or how they get there, I am just happy the Republicans won.

carbon_footprint on August 4, 2008 at 10:57 PM

Highhopes has it right. Gore should have won coming off of 8 good economic years of Clinton, but didn’t. Bush should have lost in 2004, but thanks to Kerry, didn’t.

McCain should be getting his ass kicked this year, but isn’t.

Around here, it isn’t his race that is at issue…it is that he has how many years of street hustlin’, I mean, community organizing, and how many years in the Senate?

So, where is the landslide? We’ve got less that 90 days…

Are you saying that Bush did not win the election in 2004 as much as the Democrats lost it?

Yes.

Are you one of those who also contend that the Supreme Court “stole” the election for GWB in 2000?

No.

The simple fact is that 2000 was Gore’s race to lose and he did. 2004 would have been more of a nailbiter had the “rats” put up the right candidate. Conventional wisdom says that 2008 is the year of the “rat” but I would contend they are doing everything possible to lose despite the fact the GOP has assited them by putting up an extremely crappy alternative.

I believe people are finally waking up to who Barack Obama really is….not hard to do since he’s the one hurting his own campaign.

On another note, did anyone see the clip of McCAin losing his train of thought? A reporter asked him 2 questions and he looked seriously confused. They did a body language segment on O’Reilly.

Yikes!

Hopefully someone out there has a tape of this slip up and can either put it on YouTube or get it out to a GOP 527 for national consumption: A Dem gov actually admitting, in a round-about sort of way, that their nominee doesn’t even have the experience to govern a state, let alone the country.

Care to explain?

1984 saw Reagan win overwhelmingly on the basis of his agenda.

highhopes on August 4, 2008 at 11:52 PM

What’s to explain? The question was:

When was the last time the Republicans won and election, rather than the dems bending over backwards to lose one?

Are you saying that Bush did not win the election in 2004 as much as the Democrats lost it?

Are you one of those who also contend that the Supreme Court “stole” the election for GWB in 2000?

Your nuance is showing.

“All I can tell ya is I am a fan of Barack Obama’s.”

Is that anything like being a fan of Britney?

- The Cat

Obama’s inexperience is so much better than my inexperience.

Care to explain?
1984 saw Reagan win overwhelmingly on the basis of his agenda.
highhopes on August 4, 2008 at 11:52 PM

I see two similiarities to that election which I voted in.

1. The press hated Reagan with a passion IMHO exceeded the obsession with McCain. Reagan’s so-called gaffes were endlessly taken apart. As the press described the idiocy of the Reagan message it had a contrary effect of confirming his message

The racism anal exam given every McCain move creates empathy making McCain an underdog. The McCain message is broadcast by his enemies for free just as with Reagan.

2. Mondale did not have a strong image like Reagan so his mouth defined him. Searching for quotes, I found this PBS archive of the MacNeil Lehrer report 10-08-1984 analyzing the first Reagan/Mondale debate. David Gergen speaking of Mondale:

it seems to me going into this debate he [Mondale] had not become a plausible candidate, he had not crossed what Pat Caddell once called the acceptability threshold that a challenger needs to cross. And I think he did that last night. Gergen, PBS, 10-08-1984

Obama was an empty suit compared to McCain who has dominated national politics for years. The Obama suit is rapidly being filled with his own words. The Dollar Bill quote is memorable.

From the Mondale acceptance speech at the convention:

(Dateline: 1984) “Let’s tell the truth. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.” Mondale

Off subject while researching quotes I found the urban legend Bush Sr / Mondale interchange

Walter Mondale: George Bush doesn’t have the manhood to apologize.
Bush: Well, on the manhood thing, I’ll put mine up against his any time. (urban legend)

According to the NYT 10-18-84 Bush actually said he would ” lay my record on manhood” against Walter F. Mondale’s

Maybe

We’ve never had and never will have a more Machiavellian character in politics in this country. The Rev. Wright characterized him very well when he said “Barack will say and do anything to win. He’s a politician”. It’s the crux of the Obama run, and the only reason he finally threw the rev. under the bus. These are scary times.

Sergei, I agree entirely with you and wish that Obama would be a few points ahead, clear into Nov. 04.

There sure is, and it’s scary. He hides his socialism/Marxism Utopian idealism very well. His wife is an anarchist. He’s an empty emperor, a World Child Emperor. Other than that all’s fine.

I beg to differ. Obama is not really hiding those tendencies that well. His position paper on energy illustrates that Obama’s socialist/communist apprenticeship is bearing (poisonous) fruit.

Other than that, all is NOT fine. Sorry, E., but this guy’s willingness to casually sling the race card,in his aloof, off-hand manner, is telling me that he does not care a bit how much his tactics damage our country if he thinks (however wrongheaded) they will give him some political advantage.

So much material, so little time.

carbon_footprint on August 4, 2008 at 11:11 PM

Care to explain?

1984 saw Reagan win overwhelmingly on the basis of his agenda.