Jude 2

Read this wild theory a little bit earlier on a liberal site. Republicans threw the election to Obama so he can face four years of scrutiny and then they regain control of the office for good after that. Wild, I know, but it kinda made me smile a little bit.

McCain threw it, but not intentionally. He threw it by not fighting. He should have spent 3 months battering into the heads of the American people that Obama is a pure red Socialist. But McCain just doesn't seem to have any fight left in him. He is too used to "going along to get along" in the Senate. He laid down and rolled over.

Palin in 2012. We need somebody feisty.

I really do not believe that McCain lost this because he did not have any fight. We heard everything from rumor to truth about Obama, but none of it worked. After the Clintons had their way with the man and nothing stuck, we should have known the samething would not work.

McCain lost because he failed to put forward a conservative agenda. If you think back, McCain lost his chances when he accepted the big government plan to "fix" the economy. He ceeded the argument to those who feel as if government is the answer to every problem facing this nation from health care to moral issues. If he had used that opportunity to say that a socialist program will not work and put forward an actual conservative alternative to what Washington had drawn up, the outcome may have been different.

The truth is there are conservative answers to the problems facing America, but the same mantra of small government and lower taxes does not correctly articulate what we are proposing. McCain lost because of a massive failure to share true small government ideas.

valley wrote:McCain lost because of a massive failure to share true small government ideas.

Right on! A massive, eight-year failure. McCain, Bush, Cheney, Krauthammer, Kristol--to wit, the majority of the Republican Party leadership--have abandoned fiscal conservatism. And they had the gall to try to gain our support in the election by saying the Democrats would spend us into oblivion. Spending to oblivion is now the Republican party's middle name.

DeWayneTN wrote:Read this wild theory a little bit earlier on a liberal site. Republicans threw the election to Obama so he can face four years of scrutiny and then they regain control of the office for good after that. Wild, I know, but it kinda made me smile a little bit.

This does not surprise me. And for what its worth. I could believe it.

Several times during the past 6 months I had this thought enter my mind.

John McCain was a longshot. 3 term reigns of power are very rare. Odds where against a 3rd term of republican president.

Tim Elston wrote:

valley wrote:McCain lost because of a massive failure to share true small government ideas.

Right on! A massive, eight-year failure. McCain, Bush, Cheney, Krauthammer, Kristol--to wit, the majority of the Republican Party leadership--have abandoned fiscal conservatism. And they had the gall to try to gain our support in the election by saying the Democrats would spend us into oblivion. Spending to oblivion is now the Republican party's middle name.

As much as I like Bush and agree with him on foreign policy, I agree with what you are saying about his domestic policy. He and the GOP when they controlled congress spent like drunken sailors.

They did it so as to appear to be "compassionate conservatives". To me that's a bunch of crap. You want to be compassionate? Stop spending money hand over fist and bankrupting the country.

The spending of the last eight years was mostly on War.....post 911, and the largest number of natural disasters ever faced by a president....by a multiple of 3.

Yes, there was far too much "compassionate" spending......but I dare say most of it was penned by the dems.

It's just another cycle of the old.....they messed up for 8 now it's our turn.
McCain was the dole.