WWTBAM Bored

That the far left is as disappointed in four years in their guy as the far right is now in theirs (Bush). That Obama is like most politicians, he says what he thinks his base wants to hear in order to get elected, but in reality he is not quite that far leaning (left or right).

That he will get to the end of his first term unscathed (no 'testing' as Biden put it), no scandals, no assasination attempts, no nothing. I truly hope the country, the world, and all the individuals who make up those two entities will allow the man to do what he will, on January 20th, swear to do.

I hope that in four years I will say "I was wrong".

Yes, hope is making a comeback.

Naysayers are important.

They keep us all sharp.

My gut feeling- Obama will have more problems with Nancy Pelosi than with any Republican.

BiT, you have reason to hope.

I've never so want to be wrong about someone since my daughter got married.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:I've never so want to be wrong about someone since my daughter got married.

I love that!

So how is it working out?

christie1111 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:I've never so want to be wrong about someone since my daughter got married.

I love that!

So how is it working out?

Sadly, I was right about that one.

BackInTex wrote:That the far left is as disappointed in four years in their guy as the far right is now in theirs (Bush). That Obama is like most politicians, he says what he thinks his base wants to hear in order to get elected, but in reality he is not quite that far leaning (left or right).

That he will get to the end of his first term unscathed (no 'testing' as Biden put it), no scandals, no assasination attempts, no nothing. I truly hope the country, the world, and all the individuals who make up those two entities will allow the man to do what he will, on January 20th, swear to do.

I hope that in four years I will say "I was wrong".

Yes, hope is making a comeback.

I have seen it discussed on a number of blogs that at least some right wing groups tanked this election deliberately because they anticipated that things would get much worse, both domestically and internationally, and that the Democrats would get the blame leaving a hard right conservative candidate in a good position to pick up the pieces in four years (essentially a replay of the Jimmy Carter scenario). This might explain why the level of negative campaigning was less than normal by the 527s and that none of the "October surprises" ever materialized.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:That the far left is as disappointed in four years in their guy as the far right is now in theirs (Bush). That Obama is like most politicians, he says what he thinks his base wants to hear in order to get elected, but in reality he is not quite that far leaning (left or right).

That he will get to the end of his first term unscathed (no 'testing' as Biden put it), no scandals, no assasination attempts, no nothing. I truly hope the country, the world, and all the individuals who make up those two entities will allow the man to do what he will, on January 20th, swear to do.

I hope that in four years I will say "I was wrong".

Yes, hope is making a comeback.

I have seen it discussed on a number of blogs that at least some right wing groups tanked this election deliberately because they anticipated that things would get much worse, both domestically and internationally, and that the Democrats would get the blame leaving a hard right conservative candidate in a good position to pick up the pieces in four years (essentially a replay of the Jimmy Carter scenario). This might explain why the level of negative campaigning was less than normal by the 527s and that none of the "October surprises" ever materialized.

Well, if they actually nominate a...you know...TRUE CONSERVATIVE this time...that might be a good strategy.

If they give me another pseudo-liberal-Democrat like McCain again, I'll be pretty pissed.

Jeemie wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:That the far left is as disappointed in four years in their guy as the far right is now in theirs (Bush). That Obama is like most politicians, he says what he thinks his base wants to hear in order to get elected, but in reality he is not quite that far leaning (left or right).

That he will get to the end of his first term unscathed (no 'testing' as Biden put it), no scandals, no assasination attempts, no nothing. I truly hope the country, the world, and all the individuals who make up those two entities will allow the man to do what he will, on January 20th, swear to do.

I hope that in four years I will say "I was wrong".

Yes, hope is making a comeback.

I have seen it discussed on a number of blogs that at least some right wing groups tanked this election deliberately because they anticipated that things would get much worse, both domestically and internationally, and that the Democrats would get the blame leaving a hard right conservative candidate in a good position to pick up the pieces in four years (essentially a replay of the Jimmy Carter scenario). This might explain why the level of negative campaigning was less than normal by the 527s and that none of the "October surprises" ever materialized.

Well, if they actually nominate a...you know...TRUE CONSERVATIVE this time...that might be a good strategy.

If they give me another pseudo-liberal-Democrat like McCain again, I'll be pretty pissed.

Although I don't buy the "thrown election" theory, I agree that I'd like to see a true Conservative nominee. Part of the problem, however, is that there is very little agreement about who qualifies.

To me, the fact that many accused Mike Huckabee of not being a "true conservative" was mind-boggling.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: I have seen it discussed on a number of blogs that at least some right wing groups tanked this election deliberately because they anticipated that things would get much worse, both domestically and internationally, and that the Democrats would get the blame leaving a hard right conservative candidate in a good position to pick up the pieces in four years (essentially a replay of the Jimmy Carter scenario). This might explain why the level of negative campaigning was less than normal by the 527s and that none of the "October surprises" ever materialized.

Well, if they actually nominate a...you know...TRUE CONSERVATIVE this time...that might be a good strategy.

If they give me another pseudo-liberal-Democrat like McCain again, I'll be pretty pissed.

Although I don't buy the "thrown election" theory, I agree that I'd like to see a true Conservative nominee. Part of the problem, however, is that there is very little agreement about who qualifies.

To me, the fact that many accused Mike Huckabee of not being a "true conservative" was mind-boggling.

The reason there's confusion is because a lot of neocon garbage- which is actually liberalism disguised- has crept into the GOP.

And I know you're relgious, but the religious right still has far too much influence in the GOP these days.

A true conservative doesn't care what other people think or believe, so long as they are not hurting anyone else.

At least- IMHO!

PS I also read an interesting article that shows that one of the reasons McCain may have scored the nomination is because of the way they are voted for. I wish I could find it

If you have multiple candidates and people drop out of the race, the less-than-desirable option rises to the top based on simple math!

If instead we had a slate of 8 candidates, and we ranked them 1-8 when we voted, when candidates dropped out, the cream would rise to the top.

I'm not explaining it very well- I'll try and find the link. But essentially, the current system, when you have multiple candidates, almost assures that the person who's hardly ANYONE'S favorite pick is likely to come out the winner.

Jeemie wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Jeemie wrote: Well, if they actually nominate a...you know...TRUE CONSERVATIVE this time...that might be a good strategy.

If they give me another pseudo-liberal-Democrat like McCain again, I'll be pretty pissed.

Although I don't buy the "thrown election" theory, I agree that I'd like to see a true Conservative nominee. Part of the problem, however, is that there is very little agreement about who qualifies.

To me, the fact that many accused Mike Huckabee of not being a "true conservative" was mind-boggling.

The reason there's confusion is because a lot of neocon garbage- which is actually liberalism disguised- has crept into the GOP.

And I know you're relgious, but the religious right still has far too much influence in the GOP these days.

A true conservative doesn't care what other people think or believe, so long as they are not hurting anyone else.

At least- IMHO!

And I think you are blurring the line between conservative and libertarian.

Oh, and most religious conservatives are not neo-cons.

What I think has been sinking the GOP is that the old stereotype about Republicans only caring about Big Business has become increasingly true in the past 20 years.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: I have seen it discussed on a number of blogs that at least some right wing groups tanked this election deliberately because they anticipated that things would get much worse, both domestically and internationally, and that the Democrats would get the blame leaving a hard right conservative candidate in a good position to pick up the pieces in four years (essentially a replay of the Jimmy Carter scenario). This might explain why the level of negative campaigning was less than normal by the 527s and that none of the "October surprises" ever materialized.

Well, if they actually nominate a...you know...TRUE CONSERVATIVE this time...that might be a good strategy.

If they give me another pseudo-liberal-Democrat like McCain again, I'll be pretty pissed.

Although I don't buy the "thrown election" theory, I agree that I'd like to see a true Conservative nominee. Part of the problem, however, is that there is very little agreement about who qualifies.

To me, the fact that many accused Mike Huckabee of not being a "true conservative" was mind-boggling.

Over the years since Reagan first happened upon the scene, the GOP has slowly developed ever more litmus tests for who is worthy of being their standard bearer. Eventually, these became more and more narrow in scope, until they became contradictory to one another, leaving no one to pick up Reagan's mantle. Combine that with the increasing beatification of the Gipper as time has passed, and the GOP has assigned itself an impossible task.

This is really no different than the path the Democrats took that led to the Mondale-Dukakis years. But the tendency is always to try to go back to a paradigm that is tried and true, instead of seeking the new paradigm that someone like Obama might represent.

Jeemie wrote:PS I also read an interesting article that shows that one of the reasons McCain may have scored the nomination is because of the way they are voted for. I wish I could find it

If you have multiple candidates and people drop out of the race, the less-than-desirable option rises to the top based on simple math!

If instead we had a slate of 8 candidates, and we ranked them 1-8 when we voted, when candidates dropped out, the cream would rise to the top.

I'm not explaining it very well- I'll try and find the link. But essentially, the current system, when you have multiple candidates, almost assures that the person who's hardly ANYONE'S favorite pick is likely to come out the winner.

What the Republicans need to do is quit allowing Iowa and New Hampshire make the first cut. Hell, each only went Republican in 1 out of the last 20 years. They should hold the first primaries in solid, historical Republican states.

BackInTex wrote:That the far left is as disappointed in four years in their guy as the far right is now in theirs (Bush). That Obama is like most politicians, he says what he thinks his base wants to hear in order to get elected, but in reality he is not quite that far leaning (left or right).

That he will get to the end of his first term unscathed (no 'testing' as Biden put it), no scandals, no assasination attempts, no nothing. I truly hope the country, the world, and all the individuals who make up those two entities will allow the man to do what he will, on January 20th, swear to do.

I hope that in four years I will say "I was wrong".

Yes, hope is making a comeback.

That's actually a very honest, fair, and justifiable "concession speech", BiT. I applaud you for it.

Let's ALL hope, regardless of which horse we backed, that we are in a better place in 4 years than we are now. To wish it otherwise would be the height of unproductive thinking.

For those who are interested in American Conservatism, I highly recommend William Rusher's (now dated, but still interesting) "The Making of the New Majority Party." He really crystallized the definition for me, back when I was a firebreather, by saying that there are three distinct "brands" of conservative, and while many people are two kinds of conservative, it is truly rare to find someone who is all three. These days, when the social conservatives outwardly encourage government intervention in daily life, the three would seem to be almost mutually exclusive.

I'm still waiting for those social conservatives to splinter off and form their own party.