« The big lie | Main | Presidential Head to Head »

Thank God John McCain Lost

Speaking at the opening of the Tea Party convention, Tom Tancredo made it clear that he was very happy that John McCain lost. As provocative as his statement may sound, I feel his logic is sound and the view is correct.

"Thank God John McCain lost the election," the former GOP congressman from Colorado and 2008 presidential candidate said to cheers and applause from the 600 grassroots activists in attendance.

In Tancredo's view, the Tea Party movement would never have been sparked under a McCain administration because Republican Party leaders and activists would have been muffled from criticizing their president. Meanwhile, McCain would be cutting deals with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

If the Arizona senator had won, Tancredo said, "Sarah Palin would not be free to tell it like it is."

If McCain had won, "There would be no Republican in Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts."

Ann Althouse comments on Tancredo's remarks, which make her revisit comments she blogged during the campaign.
On October 8, 2008, I abandoned the "cruel neutrality" stance I had maintained throughout the campaign season and explained my reasons for rejecting McCain:
McCain never presented the conservative alternative to Obama....

McCain has lost definition. He's stumbling along to the finish line, hoping to achieve his lifelong ambition, to seize the crown at last. But why? To show he can get along with Democrats? I worry about what awful innovations the new President will concoct in league with the Democratic Congress, but at this point, I'm more worried about McCain than Obama....
On October 16, 2008, I said:
Is there some sort of idea that if you think McCain is too liberal, you still have to vote for him, because if he's too liberal, then Obama is really too liberal? I don't buy that. Better a principled, coherent liberal whose liberal choices will, if they don't go well, be blamed on liberals than an erratic, incoherent liberal whose liberal choices will be blamed on the party that ought to get its conservative act together.
I agree with Ann here, though I wasn't able to act on this logical argument during the election. She was able to vote for Obama, I was not. But considering the political repercussions of Obama's election have been to reignite the idea of fiscal conservatism, the win by Obama was probably for the best.

Ann also blogged:

Usually, I prefer divided government, but that doesn't mean I need to support McCain. I've seen McCain put way too much effort into pleasing Democrats and flouting his own party, and I can picture Obama standing up to the Democratic Congress and being his own man. What, really, will he owe them? McCain, by contrast, will need them. And we've seen that he wants to be loved by them.
Here I don't agree. We've seen that Obama has lacked the passion to lead and in many cases deferred to Pelosi and Reid. It is entirely possible that McCain might have as well, but Obama has done very little in the way of standing up to the current Democratic Congress.

The 2008 election was a perfect storm to get some as liberal as Barack Obama elected. It has given the country an opportunity to see what a big government administration might look like. A significant number of the independent voters in the U.S. do not like what they see. And that is the key point. Partisan Republicans were going to oppose a Democratic president no matter the choice of policy. Likewise, partisan Democrats were going to support a Democratic president without question. But independent voters that don't see the work as a red vs. blue game are more able to focus on policy over party. Government control over day-to-day lives is (thankfully) still an un-American concept and pushing such policies does not resonate with the middle of America.

So yes, in the end, be happy McCain lost. The long term impact could be very positive for the country.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38149.

Comments (44)

Dan, you and Ann made a hug... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Dan, you and Ann made a huge mistake here. 1.9 trillion and more, judging by the last budget, for example. While it's true that McCain is no Reagan, neither is he a Barack Obama. Your assumptions track that if McCain had won against Obama, nothing else would be changed.

You assume McCain would have nominated Ms. Sotemayor for the Supreme Court?

You assume McCain would have pressed for the obscene 'Stimulus' bill?

You assume that McCain would have been as squishy on terrorism as Obama is?

You assume McCain would have bowed to every freaking official from other countries, cities, and so on?

Stop.

Think for a minute, what it would have meant, if John McCain had somehow won. Granted, we'd have to deal with the RINOs trying to spin how wonderful it is to negotiate with the Left, but the undeniable damage done already by Obama's unicorm fantasies would not have happened, and o-by-the-way, if O-boy had lost, don't you think the Left would have gone as ape-crazy as they did in 2000 when AlGore couldn't steal the election? President McCain would have been shoved to the Right through default, as only the conservatives could carry through his programs. The Left would never embrace him, even as President, because in truth the Left has not been able to negotiate in good faith since I was learning to walk.

Losing to a radical Leftist is NEVER a good thing.

What DJ said.Yo... (Below threshold)

What DJ said.

Your assumptions track that if McCain had won against Obama, nothing else would be changed.

I've said this before, if i... (Below threshold)
Pretzel Logic:

I've said this before, if it wasn't for Jimmy Carter we never would have had Ronald Reagan.

That's basically making the... (Below threshold)

That's basically making the broken window argument - we should go around breaking windows to keep glass makers in business. It ignores what could have been if people didn't have to waste their time cleaning up broken windows before doing anything else.

lots of Monday morning quar... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

lots of Monday morning quarterbacks among the "Thank god McCain lost" crowd ...

The theme seems to be that if McCain had won we would not be seeing the Tea Party movement. I agree completely.
Without the attempted takeover of heathcare and the drunken sailor spending of Obama we certainly wouldn't have a Tea Party movement.
Under McCain we wouldn't have a Tea Party movement because he wouldn't have tried ObamaCare and he would not have increased spending nearly as much as Obama. We would not have needed one.

So somehow it is better to have a President (with 3 years left in office) who appears to be trying to and partially suceeding in destroying our near term financial health to not having a President who does those things becasue we would not have the Tea Parties ???

Years from now we may find the the fire ignited by the Tea Party movement has fixed our near term and long term financial problems and on balance that may very well have been a better outcome in the long run than a McCain presidency that didn't address those issues.

But that is not known at this point in time because we have no idea if the political courage to fix those things will ever reach a critical mass in DC.
If the Tea Party fire doesn't burn long enough and bright enough to solve our long term debt issues then I do not consider it worth 4 years of Obama on balance.
The equation is:
Obama Presidency + Tea Party > McCain Presidency

Thats a dangerous game to play with Americas near term health ... (we are already in trouble in the long term)

If McCain had won the count... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

If McCain had won the country would be better off but the GOP future gains would have been hurt. The federal government would be in pretty much a stalemate which means they would have likely not screw things up as much and it would be a much better business environment. McCain would have compromise on some B.S. deals but nothing as bad as it is now.

Some may argue that a big swing to the right including within the Republican Party will be more beneficial in the long run but I not sure if the harm being done now will be made up for. Only time will tell.

"I've seen McCain put wa... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"I've seen McCain put way too much effort into pleasing Democrats and flouting his own party, and I can picture Obama standing up to the Democratic Congress and being his own man."

I'll part way with her on that one too. She could picture him standing up to the Dems because all many knew of him was what they could "picture". He had no record of standing up to anyone. Ever.

And I can understand the sentiment in saying "thank God McCain lost" in regard to having such a huge grassroots effort going in this country right now to shake up Washington or Sarah Palin being able to speak freely or have something other than an extreme leftist in a Mass Senate seat.

But that's not much consolation to people who still don't have a job and are forced to take handouts from the very people who played a hefty role in helping them lose those jobs ... and their homes.

I tend to think that had McCain won, the Democrats wouldn't have been quite so emboldened and Rahm Emmanuel wouldn't be befouling the White House with his mouth. We wouldn't have apologized to the world for using up oxygen and we wouldn't be mirandizing terrorists. Just to name a couple things.

But if it's true that sometimes you have to hit bottom before you can climb back up to the top, then we've certainly done that.

I think what worries me most is whether the momentum will be lost between now and November. Anything can happen and people's memories are short.

Now that I've read others' ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Now that I've read others' comments, I see I'm not alone in my assumptions.

A few thoughts on the topic... (Below threshold)
Hank:

A few thoughts on the topic..

Have to agree with D.J.

Looking back, though, if McCain had won, it really would have been something to see how Obama would have handled a loss. Wonder who he would have blamed in his concession speech.

I'm quite sure Olbermann's head would have exploded. And Chris Mathews would still be crying.

The word "unexpected" would not have been used in any news reports on the economy, unless it improved.

I doubt Achmiwhackajob would be so out of control. Same with Putin.

Almost forgot...Mc... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Almost forgot...

McCain would have pronounced Corpsman correctly.

Some great comments so far ... (Below threshold)

Some great comments so far (thanks for kicking it off in the right direction D.J.). It's a welcome change from the troll/anti-troll spam that happens far too often.

And yes, to all those disagreeing with me, there certainly are downsides to McCain having lost. These downsides are strong enough that as I said I couldn't follow the above argument during the election. I voted for McCain. He clearly wouldn't been as radical as Obama has tried to be.

But on some issues? Remember McCain stopped his campaign to go fight for the bank bailout bill. To imagine he would have be a fiscal conservative is a dream at best IMO.

While there is still a chance of something horrendous passing, I am proud of Americans, in general, rejecting the idea of government-run healthcare. Whatever healthcare reform passes in the future, I think it will be more American and less European. And that lesson has been learned in part because of what Obama/Reid/Pelosi tried to push through.

In general, I think McCain winning would have been better for the country in the short term. But in the long term? It really comes does to how many irreversible things are passed before the country swings back to fiscal sanity.

So Althouse preferred a tru... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

So Althouse preferred a truly dedicated fascist/Marxist enemy of the United States, the Constitution and the rights of the American people over a limp-wristed, wishy washy seeker of approbation from the NY TIMES! Well isn't THAT dandy! But Tancredo is probably exactly right. Indeed I believe a terror attack on this nation, one which kills hundreds, perhaps thousands, will be a tragically necessary event. Necessary to awaken a large number of Americans from the MSM induced ignorance and lethargy concerning the true arrogance, evil and incompetence of Hussein. Notwithstanding the predictable MSM frenzy to provide cover for its White House hero, the "blame Bush" tripe will NOT be swallowed and the Hussein agenda will be over. The dead will be martyrs in the reclamation of our nation and our liberty.

Many of you are attacking D... (Below threshold)
astonerii:

Many of you are attacking Dan in the light that he thinks nothing different would have happened had McCain won the White House. I am not reading this at all.

DJ, Faize, Hank.

McCain always reaches across the aisle on everything, with the exception of national security.

Terrorists:
McCain wants to treat them similarly to how Obama treats them. No water-boarding. While Obama may be trying to get civilian trials, the American population is not going to allow it to happen in the end. Thus we have the same end result and no benefit for having had McCain elected.

Stimulus:
It may have been a better bill, but it never would have had tax breaks in it, as McCain detests even the successful tax breaks that Bush got enacted. Thus, we would have maybe had more money going to Republican districts, but the over all bill would have been similar, and the reason I can say this is because Obama let congress make the bill and signed anything that came in front of him. McCain would have blustered a bit and got some concessions, and in so doing would have damaged conservatism in the process. McCain would have also used his political capital as president to force other republicans to vote for the bill as well.

Health care:
Same argument as the stimulus. Obama is letting the congress do what ever it pleases as far as the making of the bill. Once again, because McCain is willing to allow the idea that health care reform is an emergency in need of being addressed, he would have helped tailor it a bit to the right and forced republicans to board the train headed off the cliff. The democrats would not give up much in this instance, as everyone says, McCain needs to be liked by the liberal media and democrats, not to mention what he would owe America for denying her the first black president.

Supreme Court Nominees:
With this large of a democratic majority, it would be hard to get a solid conservative through the process. McCain would split the difference and pick some tokens, either women, blacks, Hispanics or such. These types of nominees have a sad tendency to drift left of center very quickly once placed on the supreme court. Thus, we would not be in some wonderful la la land of rainbows and unicorns for supreme court nominations.

Cap and Trade:
McCain is all for cap and trade, at least he was. As president he would be hard pressed to veto a plan passed by his democratic superiors, so I am guessing that once again, we would not be much better off with McCain.

Taxes:
Here I will say the following. McCain cares about deficits and the national Debt. if he could not reign in spending from the Democratic Majority he would push for taxes.

Tea Parties:
Probably would be much less effective and energized than they are now.

I decided not to vote the moment I heard McCain voted for the $850B tarp bailout legislation. I was primed and ready to vote for him until then, due to his choosing Palin. Once he voted for the bailout though, I knew there was no hope in his tacking to the right should he become president.

Pretty depressing that it h... (Below threshold)
914:

Pretty depressing that it had to come down to a choice between these two. Lukewarm RINO or fullblown leftist. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

I think it would be more fu... (Below threshold)
epador:

I think it would be more fun to consider what would be happening now if Gore had won an election ago. Would we all be speaking Chinese or maybe an Indian dialect?

By that same logic then we ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

By that same logic then we should hope for huge GOP losses in the midterms, because if the GOP were to take back the House and Senate they would steer a moderate course, which would probably result in Obama's polling numbers going up and his reelection in 2012.

Happened for Bill Clinton.

McCain would have been a slow death as opposed to the quick one we got.

It's neither good nor bad it just is. A slow death would have meant saving a lot of things we have lost (like the economy stupid!)

A fast death means we can start recovering right now, which we are.

Quit looking in the rear window and supposing that we are better off for not being able to save things that were valuable. It's not better. It's just different.

Well that's a lot of readin... (Below threshold)
rory:

Well that's a lot of reading of the crystal ball about what McCain would have done.

What you do know is what Obama has done in one year.

You've got three more years of Obama.

Given that-I'd vote for McCain all over again.

btw-No way in hell I could vote in a time of war for the leader of the party that either hates or belittles the military, Sitting on the sidelines and not voting under those conditions.

Just as bad.


Lest you forget, Obama is s... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Lest you forget, Obama is still in power.

He still wants to spend gobs more money.

He still wants to socialize medicine

He still wants to nationalize the auto, energy and financial industries.

He still wants to stifle free speech with the fairness doctrine and nationalize the MSM.

He still wants to use the NEA to produce propaganda for his regime.

He still wants to apologize to every enemy the US has.

He still wants to cripple our economy because of Global Warming even though it has proven a fraud.

As long as he is president he will have a chance to make all of these hings happen, either through legislation or by force.

These are good things?

You're an idiot for say so.

While you are about "What i... (Below threshold)
Fderfler:

While you are about "What if" Let me remind you all that if scumbag John Edwards had not been the spoiler in the primaries, Hillary could well have rolled over Berry and been the Democratic Candidate. If John's sex play had been outed by the lame-brain media, then Clinton versus McCain. In hindsight, who would we rather have had then? Ooooo... tough choice. ??

We should not thank Barack ... (Below threshold)
Mike:

We should not thank Barack Obama for the birth of the Tea Party Movement. We should curse Barack Obama for the fact that we need the Tea Party Movement.

Remember McCain stopped ... (Below threshold)

Remember McCain stopped his campaign to go fight for the bank bailout bill.

This was a political move during a campaign. And even then, that's the one thing that hasn't gone too badly and probably was necessary. Most of the money has been paid back and there's a lot of grudging acceptance that this move was necessary to 'calm' the world's markets.

McCain handled his 'role' awfully, though. I won't argue with you there.

In related news, becoming t... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

In related news, becoming totally brain dead actually is a good thing, because it saves one's self from having to make difficult decisions.

Also, this just in: Developing a fast-moving cancer is a great positive, as it releases one's self from the chore of having to plan and save for a long retirement.

One more, just in case it hasn't sunk in: Having one's house burn to the ground is quite fortunate, given that it allows one to avoid the hassle of making house and utility payments.

I think if John McCain had ... (Below threshold)

I think if John McCain had won the election in 2008, instead of the Tea Party phenomenon emerging in 2009 it might have emerged in 2017 or 2025 -- but it would have happened eventually.

The direction since the 1930s has been unrelentingly toward more government, bigger government, more intrusive government. John McCain would not have changed that -- only the speed with which the breaking point was reached.

David Brooks, David Frum, C... (Below threshold)
bains:

David Brooks, David Frum, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, et al, would have much rather had a McCain victory. Much tougher now to reconcile their ideological pinning with their written words - well not to their editorial staff, but certainly to those who ultimately pay their salary - their readers.

If McNasty had won1)... (Below threshold)
serfer62:

If McNasty had won
1) Cap & Trade would be the law
2) No new drilling.
3) No conservative judge
4) The tax reduction would fade into the sunset
5) Gov Palin would be the hated administartion
6) The GOP would either die or become Kommiecrats
NO thank you, let the sucker die in AZ and JD replace him

Forgive me for continuing t... (Below threshold)

Forgive me for continuing to post in the comments, but I find the discussion interesting. From above:

> He still wants to [long list of bad Obama traits remove for brevity]
>
> These are good things?
>
> You're an idiot for say so.

You'll get no argument from me that Obama has been a bad for the country so far. But I find the silver-lining argument interesting in this case.

Assuming McCain had won it would also be likely that the 2010 elections would favor the Democrats--or at least not favor the Republicans anywhere near as much as the look to at this point. Increased government control by the Democrats could easily have led to a long term majority. Especially since many true conservatives would have been so disgusted with the Republican party that enthusiasm would have been at an all time low.

In discussing this with a friend, he had an interesting observation. "Yes, Obama has been a disaster, but this can country can handle four years of him more than it can handle a generation of Republicans like McCain."

Is it 100% clear cut that McCain losing was a good thing? Of course not. But there are some definite upsides.

" Most of the money has ... (Below threshold)
914:

" Most of the money has been paid back and there's a lot of grudging acceptance that this move was necessary to 'calm' the world's markets."


Not that will ever see a dime of it much like the stimulus, social security and job growth.

"We should not thank Barack... (Below threshold)
astonerii:

"We should not thank Barack Obama for the birth of the Tea Party Movement. We should curse Barack Obama for the fact that we need the Tea Party Movement."

Actually, Obama is the reason we need a Republican national party. A party that is supposed to prevent the Democratic party from moving the country ever more into a socialist european state. Unfortunately, the Republican party lost its way and got confused about why people voted them into office. George Bush thought the reason was to expand government with new permanent spending in No Child Left Behind and Prescription Drug coverage for the elderly. We also got a large number of RINOs in the mix that felt that the real reason for the republican party is to meet Democrats 2/3 the way along the road to socialism. Lindsy Graham, John McCain and others, who hail from solidly conservative states no less frequently sign onto progressive legislation in the name of bipartisanship. They also have an uncanny way of always agreeing with the progressives about what issues are important today. Things like heath care, immigration reform, cap and trade, campaign finance reform just to name the most recent. The people of this country lost faith in the Republican brand, and for good reason, because the American population as whole does not want the country having an ever increasingly large federal government. Since these voters had no place to put their vote in confidence, they remained home and put money in the bank waiting for time when they might have a chance to change the direction of the nation towards a more conservative path and back to the road of original constitutionalism. So the people you have to curse for the Tea Party movement is not Obama and the Democrats, because they are only doing what they have always done. The real reason we have Tea Parties is because the Republican Parties are no longer trusted, and that squarely rests on the shoulders of John McCain and every other reach across the isle RINO in this country.

The reason we have Tea Parties is because Obama chose to shift the government to the left in a very fast way that woke up all those people who did not know who to trust any more, and forced them to stand up and (to paraphrase Obama) be the ones they were waiting for, because there simply was no other place to look for leadership any more.

"Especially since many t... (Below threshold)
914:

"Especially since many true conservatives would have been so disgusted with the Republican party that enthusiasm would have been at an all time low.

In discussing this with a friend, he had an interesting observation. "Yes, Obama has been a disaster, but this can country can handle four years of him more than it can handle a generation of Republicans like McCain."

Wow! Thats a scary thought given what weve seen in one year? 40 years of McCain would be like crossing the Mexican border illegally and repeatedly. 4 years of Trotsky is already looking like red dawn in America.

I don't think we should be ... (Below threshold)
KeithK:

I don't think we should be glad that Obama won the presidency. The country would be better off with McCain in the White House, warts and all. Just be grateful that there seems to be a big silver lining to the 2008 election results. Weather the storm until the next elections, keep fighting the battle of ideas and hope for better times ahead.

"This was a political move ... (Below threshold)
astonerii:

"This was a political move during a campaign. And even then, that's the one thing that hasn't gone too badly and probably was necessary. Most of the money has been paid back and there's a lot of grudging acceptance that this move was necessary to 'calm' the world's markets."

Wrong, the whole TARP thing is what broke the dam. In the end, only about $280B was needed in order to shore up the banks, and that is why Bush left the second half of the TARP money to Obama. In that $280B, there were many large and medium sized banks that were forced to take funds that did not need them, in the name of preventing banks that really needed the money from getting a bad name (similar to GM and Chrysler). So in reality, it could have been even smaller, maybe around $230B. If that bill had been for $280B or even a nice round $300B, it would have had a far less damaging effect on our nation. If that is not the worst of it yet, Treasury already had every last bit of power and financial backing before TARP ever passed to accomplish everything that was needed to repair the situation in the said same way that it did. The only difference is that it gave them the ability to start a panic which is required to steal the liberties of Americans.

You see, if Republicans stood for anything, it should have been for having some accountability in the use of tax payer money. Instead, McCain and the others who voted for the TARP bailout money, at $850B did this nation a huge disservice. They did not put any accountability into the program, allowing Obama to buy GM and Chrysler. To use the money as a slush fund for Democratic allies. There are three places where we are losing money in the TARP fund; AIG, GM and Chrysler. AIG is probably going to be over $100B in losses, and a large part of that is how the government forced them to pay 100% for toxic assets. GM and Chrysler are going to lose about $50B, which is about eight times their market capitalization (stock value) before they filed for bankruptcy and about double their highest ever market capitalization. That is not even the worst part of the TARP legislation though, the worst part is how it change the dynamic of $BILLIONS being a large number to $TRILLION being the baseline for future legislation. It laid the ground work for the price tag of the stimulus, for the health care bill, for the potential cap and trade and every future endeavor the government takes in the future. I remember how astonishing $100B for Hurricane Katrina rebuilding was, if such a disaster happened next year, do you think that it would get less than $700B from a bill to take care of the catastrophic scenario? $1,000B is the new benchmark for spending, if you can get a bill under that number, it is no longer as alarming to the public.

TARP was an unneeded extravagance that played every last conservative who voted for it as a fool. Not one penny of TARP ever went to the purchase of Troubled Assets, not one penny. Every aspect of the use of TARP that got the financial markets back on solid ground was already something that our treasury and the fed had the ability to pursue long before TARP was ever passed. That is why Obama was able to steer the money away from its real purpose and buy two car companies and pay off his allies to the tune of over $50B in losses to the TARP fund.

I have to agree with DJ.</p... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

I have to agree with DJ.

In November of 2008 I did something I swore I would never do: vote for John McCain. I'm not glad he lost - it would have saved us several $$TRILLION if he had won, not to mention the SCOTUS and other judges, and our standing in the world.

I must also despair of the Tea Party movement if it selects Tancredo as its face.

A nominee like John McCain ... (Below threshold)

A nominee like John McCain is the price you pay for allowing democrats to pick your nominee. The open primary, McCain's weapon of choice, imperils a representative republic.

In a way, Obama is safer than McCain. The latter would worked with democrats, more than republicans. Whereas Obama has not shown that is capable of working with anybody, other than Bill Ayers.

There's one good thing abou... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

There's one good thing about electing Obama no one has mentioned. All those college students who believed, TRULY BELIEVED!, in Hope and Change have had their noses rubbed in what liars liberals really are. The increase in cynicism toward liberal promises should be effective for the next 50 years or so. This cynicism will soon extend even into the foreign countries where Obama is still popular as they slowly realize he has not kept a single one of his campaign promises.

I voted for McCain and I'd do it again. You can't really predict the future, you can only guess at it. I voted for McCain because he's the better man with a better record of accomplishment than Obama. If the shit hits the fan in the next few years we'll all find out what a mistake it was to elect Obama because judging by his past history he'll make speeches and do nothing.

"Yes, Obama has be... (Below threshold)
jim m:
"Yes, Obama has been a disaster, but this can country can handle four years of him more than it can handle a generation of Republicans like McCain."

Nice job of moving the goal posts here. Wouldn't have to do that if you hadn't staked out such an untenable position.

The question was not "is 4 years of Obama better than a generation of RINO's". The question was "Is having Obama for 4 years better than electing McCain for 4 years."

The answer to the actual question is NO!

It might be a helpful to assuage our wounded political souls by pondering what horrible things McCain might have done if he had become president and contrast that with how Obama's ideologue beliefs have galvanized the conservative opposition, but that is all supposition and you have no claim on fact that McCain would be worse.

The most powerful argument against your thesis is that such a strong reaction against Obama and his policies is necessary.

The FACT that we are compelled to fight with the fervor and tenacity that we must illustrates how significantly worse it is with Obama.

McCain could be corrected and compromised. Obama wants to radically remake American society. You cannot compromise or change that. You can only resist.

As I remember my anti-McCai... (Below threshold)
Don L:

As I remember my anti-McCain rants, I suggested that as long as we're going to get sexually assualted, it's always beeter to have it happen by a stranger - a home invader -anyone but a member of your own family.

Or, as a wise priest said at election time: sometimes you win by losing!

"A pox on both your houses!... (Below threshold)
olsoljer:

"A pox on both your houses!."

You can argue this anyway you want to; the bottom line is neither party had a candidate that represented the mainstream American. Obama's bullshit promises made one think that REAL change would be affected. True to an extent, but not the way we expected. It took this radical attempt at change to make the apathetic masses wake up. McCain would have just been "business as usual", and a continuation of slow destruction of America.
If the Tea Party will form a new party based on disclosure, restoration of individual freedoms, a balanced budget, and a reduction in government, they will take elections by landslides.

The abortion issue should be confined to individual choice. If you are a right wing extremist, then the woman making the choice (free will being given to humans by God), will have to answer to Him for her choice along with the doctor. What greater punishment? Who gave any individual the authority to speak for God? Pretty presumptious of some of you.
For the far left, abortion is not the same thing as going for your yearly eye exam. With very few exception, late term abortion is nothing more than sanctioned murder,
Personally I find abortion abhorrent. But it is an individuals choice, and I find nothing but sorrow in it from either perspective. Why force an 11 year old to have a baby resultant from incest or rape? If she is a consenting adult, then she has assumed the responsibility of bearing a child or bearing the responsibility of HER choice. Government funding of abortion, hell no.
There are too many means of contraception for pregnancy to be a "accident".
The abortion issue, gun control, racism, religion, are just a means of fragmenting the American public. As long as government, parties etc can keep us fragmented, they have control of us. Even a lobbyist is by definition someone who is pushing for special consideration for a select group. Why are they allowed? Lobbying is asking for a benefit for a select group - and the favor they are asking for seldom benefits the American citizen as a majority. In addition, about 3% of the citizenry is dictating to 97% what they must do, simply because they organize and make a lot of noise. Case point: How many of you are offended when you see a crucifix, Star of David, a hunter, someone eating meat, someone wearing fur, an SUV passing by, or even someone saying "Merry Christmas' or "Happy Hannukah"?? Because that organized 3% don't like it, 97% of us live with it because we are stupid enough to remain silent.
Time for a new party representing the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, for the PERSERVANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION, for INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, for RATIONAL and REDUCED GOVERNMENT, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, ELIMINATION OF THE CURRENT TAX CODE (even the people who wrote it don't understand it), a return to REAL EDUCATION FOR OUR CHILDREN (the three Rs instead of sensitivity training, every one passes, and every one wins, where is the incentive to try to do better?)


TAKE BACK AMERICA ONE ELECTION AT A TIME

Wrong, the whole TARP th... (Below threshold)

Wrong, the whole TARP thing is what broke the dam.

You are making the same false argument - that everything else would have been the same - that McCain would have taken over GM and banks, stimulus, etc. Go back to comment 1.

>You assume that McCain wou... (Below threshold)
john:

>You assume that McCain would have been as squishy on terrorism as Obama is?

all the former detainees released or transferred who have returned to terrorist activities were released or transferred under President Bush.... "I want to underscore the fact that all of these cases relate to detainees released during the previous administration and under the prior detainee review process," Brennan writes. "The report indicates no confirmed or suspected recidivists among detainees transferred during this Administration, although we recognize the ongoing risk that detainees could engage in such activity."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/brennan-all-transferred-detainees-who-returned-to-terrorism-were-released-by-bush-no-recidivism-for-.html

Who's squishy?

I hope you and ann can be a... (Below threshold)
J:

I hope you and ann can be at peace when we are next hit by our enemies and the ditherer in chief votes present as our country is on fire.

While I can agree that it i... (Below threshold)
Ken Hahn:

While I can agree that it is good that McCain lost, I cannot agree that Obama winning was in any way good. In a contest between the center left and the extreme left, I voted for McCain. He would have been a terrible President but nowhere near as bad as Obama. I would vote for McCain again against Obama.

Given the choice of the devil or the deep blue sea, I can at least try to swim.

Nice to see that you nice f... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Nice to see that you nice folks finally got around to throwing John McCain under the bus.

It's a relief to the rest of us to know that the man who agreed to have Sarah Palin as his running mate won't have another chance to make that mistake again.

I, personally, wasnt throwi... (Below threshold)
olsoljer:

I, personally, wasnt throwing McCain under the bus. He was simply the lesser of two evils. Oh, and by the way stevie, having Sarah Palin as his running was one of the better decisions he made.
You, who throw the racism card when at a loss for any other answer, should look in your wallet to see if your membership has expired in MCP Club. (That would be Male Chauvinist Pigs Club).

TAKING BACK AMERICA ONE ELECTION AT A TIME

1. DJ Drummond said that lo... (Below threshold)

1. DJ Drummond said that losing to a radical Leftist is NEVER a good thing.

But in this instance it was a one-time North Vietnam and USSR Military-Intelligence Adviser and life-time effective radical Leftist in a RINO suit losing to a radical Leftist.

And, sad to say, the better result was had by all!

Similarly, but for Jimmy-Bubbah Cartah our beloved fraternal republic would likely have missed out on its greatest president of the past couple hundred-odd years. Whose reincarnation, President-Elect Palin, talked to the Tea Partyers today!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy