Questions for Conservatives

[Dreadsox]

I am glad to see my post was disected.

 

[indra]

I am glad to see my post was disected.

Congratulations! You've been "Strongbowed".


I do think your post illustrated very clearly why so many people who once preferred McCain over any other candidate are now disillusioned with him and either definitely not voting for him or seriously considering not voting for him. And his actions have certainly scared off many voters who weren't huge McCain fans, but may have been convinced to vote for him. What has always been good about McCain has been very difficult (at best) to find recently.

 

[diamond]

I know that Conservatives are a minority in this forum, .

That's actually an understatement. Conservatives are a the tiniest of fractions on these boards:

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 62
User Name Posts
Strongbow 8
BonoVoxSupastar 7
VintagePunk 6
Dreadsox 5
purpleoscar 5
financeguy 3
phillyfan26 3
Diemen 2
Irvine511 2
~BrightestStar~ 2
U2isthebest 2
maycocksean 2
yolland 2
Utoo 2
indra 1
cydewaze 1
corianderstem 1
namkcuR 1
LemonMelon 1
UberBeaver 1
No spoken words 1
anitram 1
toscano 1
Se7en 1
TheEdge U2JT

Actually there are only 2-3 'conservatives' of the 24 respondents in this thread-and the thread was addressed to "conservatives".

I do appreciate you trying to be constructive and kind VP, but I will not engage.
It leads no where productive, but only to contention.

<>

 

[corianderstem]

I made a post in this thread? I'm sorry if I contributed to the derailing instead of something constructive. I don't even remembe rhwat I posted.

 

[~BrightestStar~]

but I will not engage.

<>

Which may be part of the problem. If there are already so few and then most of them back off well...

I know it's hard to be lil guy facing the giant

Anyhoo

I was genuinely looking forward to seeing the view from the other side. Hence why I contributed some of what my prof has told me. I really respect the man, and while I think he may be a little atypical, I've really enjoyed exploring his and my views. In fact, I would say talking with him has helped me to be a little more fair in both my assessments of Obama and McCain.

I hoped a thread like this could lead to more of the same constructive discussion.


Thus, I hope my contributions to the thread, despite me not being a conservative, are not of a derailing nature.
If otherwise....Sorry VPee.

 

[VintagePunk]

I do appreciate you trying to be constructive and kind VP, but I will not engage.
It leads no where productive, but only to contention.

<>

It's too bad you feel that way. I think the thread has been a somewhat productive with minimal contention. What would make it more productive is if more conservatives other than the few who have posted would give their thoughts, but so far both you and STING have declined. Hopefully others will see it and be willing to post.

I made a post in this thread? I'm sorry if I contributed to the derailing instead of something constructive. I don't even remembe rhwat I posted.

Thus, I hope my contributions to the thread, despite me not being a conservative, are not of a derailing nature.
If otherwise....Sorry VPee.

Very little derailing has gone on as far as I'm concerned, and what little there was stopped very quickly. I just wanted a thread where people could state and discuss their thoughts, but not necessarily have to defend them - more of an analysis of the campaign than a defense of political beliefs, you know? That sort of thing fascinates me, and I was looking forward to hearing from people with views different from mine.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

 

[indra]

I do appreciate you trying to be constructive and kind VP, but I will not engage.
It leads no where productive, but only to contention.

<>

Huh. That's not the diamond that usually shows up in FYM.

 

[purpleoscar]

Huh. That's not the diamond that usually shows up in FYM.

I agree with diamond that it can get exhausting in debating with tons of people. It can actually change your mood for the day.

He just needs to take a break to recharge his batteries before another post.

 

[Varitek]

Good thread, great topic. I'd be interested to get more conservative feedback as well.

I've got 3 fronts where McCain's really failed that haven't been discussed enough here:

1) I have to say, McCain's demeanor has just been strange. He's gotten all twitchy and sarcastic and rolls his eyes like a teenage girl and flicks his tongue like a lizard, and it all comes off as not someone you'd like to be president. Especially when contrasted wtih Obama's calm demeaner, which has outlasted the critics who said he was aloof and alienating and too cool - it looks like the country wants someone who is cool and calm.

McCain at this point is pulling an exact repeat of Hillary Clinton. He's realized that his presidential dreams are slipping out of his grasp to "that one." He looks desperate, and that doesn't impress voters. He's gotten more and more vicious and started telling more and more lies, just like Clinton did. It's an incredible repeat, not just of campaign strategy but of individual behavior.

2) The ground game. Some of it's about resources: Obama has more money and volunteers because he's more captivating. But it's also strategy. the Obama campaign set out from the start of the primary season designing a massive field operation, putting up a website that facilitates community engagement and volunteer-run events. Door to door precinct-captain style politics, which were huge as I understand it in the middle of the 20th century, is proving to be extremely effective. Talking to neighbors both to solidify support and GOTV.

3) Going negative. His 100% negative ads have not been received well, and have been an abysmal miscalculation, especially with the economic troubles.

 

[purpleoscar]

Good thread, great topic. I'd be interested to get more conservative feedback as well.

I've got 3 fronts where McCain's really failed that haven't been discussed enough here:

1) I have to say, McCain's demeanor has just been strange. He's gotten all twitchy and sarcastic and rolls his eyes like a teenage girl and flicks his tongue like a lizard, and it all comes off as not someone you'd like to be president. Especially when contrasted wtih Obama's calm demeaner, which has outlasted the critics who said he was aloof and alienating and too cool - it looks like the country wants someone who is cool and calm.

McCain at this point is pulling an exact repeat of Hillary Clinton. He's realized that his presidential dreams are slipping out of his grasp to "that one." He looks desperate, and that doesn't impress voters. He's gotten more and more vicious and started telling more and more lies, just like Clinton did. It's an incredible repeat, not just of campaign strategy but of individual behavior.

2) The ground game. Some of it's about resources: Obama has more money and volunteers because he's more captivating. But it's also strategy. the Obama campaign set out from the start of the primary season designing a massive field operation, putting up a website that facilitates community engagement and volunteer-run events. Door to door precinct-captain style politics, which were huge as I understand it in the middle of the 20th century, is proving to be extremely effective. Talking to neighbors both to solidify support and GOTV.

3) Going negative. His 100% negative ads have not been received well, and have been an abysmal miscalculation, especially with the economic troubles.

I think the economic problems are the reason. McCain is going hard on Obama because he's been too nice too long. His focus should be on the economy and taxes. This is where he could differentiate himself with Obama. Going hard on Obama is helping in the public more than people will admit. Of course liberals and liberal commentators in the media don't agree. Obama is going negative on McCain and why is that not backfiring?

Also some conservatives are exasperated and want Obama to win because they feel it will help kick out the moderates in the conservative party that were spending too much and want Obama to be on the criticized side for 4 years and come up with a nominee that is more conservative than McCain. When parties have in-fights it usually spells doom. The only person that isn't as divisive for conservatives is Sarah Palin. Romney and Huckabee would be more divisive.

The Buckley Son Rises by Kathleen Parker on National Review Online

Buckley's son is supporting Obama now.

In the end it's not over until it's over. Whoever can get people to actually vote will win.

Yet can we trust the polls?

How big a lead does Barack Obama really enjoy over John McCain? | In poll position | The Economist

 

[Varitek]

 

[VintagePunk]

To the people who have responded to the first post, you've all brought up some great points, things I would have listed myself (to those of you who didn't, shame on you ).

I've tried very hard to assess the campaign with an unbiased eye. To do this, I sort of think to myself "what advice would you give the campaign if you were working for them?" Sometimes I think I come up with better answers than those who are actually managing the campaign. Anyway, here are a few things that seem very obvious to me:

-Negative attacks are not working this election cycle, period. It shows in the polls, and it's been shown in the debates. Every time he goes blatantly negative, it turns a large segment of voters off. Why is he still doing this? It seems to me that he's modeling the campaign off of previous campaigns that have used this type of message successfully, so why is it not working for him? Has the American public woken up from some collective fog after eight years of a Bush administration, and they're no longer driven to vote by negativity? Or is the McCain campaign using negative campaigning in an incorrect way? One thing that's occurred to me is that the Bush campaign used a couple of negative factors and drilled them into people's minds over and over until they were so ingrained, they practically became The Truth - flip-flopping, and Swiftboating. McCain is all over the place with his negativity. One day Obama is a Muslim. The next day he's a terrorist, or at the very least, a terrorist sympathizer. Then his wife hates America. Then his former pastor is a radical who hates America. Then he's going to steal from the rich and give to the poor, and doesn't that make him a socialist? And on and on. I think it's gotten to the point that Americans have been so oversaturated with Obama controversy/falsehoods that they've pretty much tuned it out, and now they're hating the messenger. This ties in to my next point:

-McCain and his campaign have seemed terribly erratic, both in message and in behaviour. He needs a few good talking points, and he needs to stay on message. I think he may be starting to improve in this area in recent days, talking more and more about the differences between him and Obama with regard to taxes and the economy, but it's probably too little, too late. Behaviourally, he needs someone to coach him with regard to body language and facial expression during debates, because he certainly doesn't hide his contempt well. He's been coming off as an angry old man, probably seeming irrational, and I don't think that's what American moderates want leading their country these days. The eye rolling, the tongue thrusting, the excessive blinking, and the angry expressions aren't doing him any favours. His habit of repeating certain phrases over and over is annoying, to say the least. In the last debate, he finally nixed "my friends" from his vernacular, but he replaced it with "Joe the plumber." When people use the same phrases over and over, it makes them seem like a shady salesman to me, and I don't think I'm out of the ordinary in feeling that way. The term "maverick" has become a joke these days. He should be speaking to the American public in a more relaxed, conversational way. He's capable of it - I've seen him make appearances on tv where he does come off as more relaxed and congenial. Stop acting like he's trying to sell the American public a used car that's going to fall apart as soon as it drives off the lot.

-The Palin choice has been a failure, in my view, but it didn't necessarily need to be that way. She has not brought over many Hillary democrats or moderates. To the contrary, I think that many women have been insulted that the campaign assumed someone like her could act as their surrogate Hillary. Where she does excel though is in solidifying the Republican base. If McCain had selected her earlier, so that her public vetting had been a distant memory by now, perhaps that might have been to his advantage. As it is, all of the anti-Palin information and the astoundingly bad interviews are still fresh in our minds. Also, announcing her earlier, she could have done what she seems to have been settling into nicely, lately - satisfying the base, while McCain could have spent more of his energy courting the moderates.

-Varitek made an excellent point regarding the ground games of the two campaigns, and in one of the other threads a few weeks ago, I posted an article from 538 that talked about the stark contrast between the two campaigns. Obama's is a large, well-oiled, energetic, grassroots effort. McCain's seems to be practically nonexistent in comparison. What could have been done about that? Well, for starters, energy, tone and motivation has to come from the top, and it seems that McCain volunteers just aren't getting that.

-Finally, I think that a major factor in McCain's campaign and its flaws is simply how poorly it compares to the Obama campaign. Obama's has been practically flawless, from what I can tell, and holding up the McCain campaign in comparison, or probably any other campaign, for that matter, makes McCain's flaws all the more glaring and obvious.


There's much more I could add, but I'll leave it at that for now. When I grow up, I think I should be a campaign advisor.

 

[Bluer White]

What do you think he's done wrong? What do you think he's done right? What should he have done differently?

McCain has run a scattershot campaign. No serious focus on any one issue, no rallying cry.

Suspending the campaign for the bailout talks was a clear gimmick. And failure. His idea for the government to buy out every bad mortgage and renegotiate them, hatched right before the second debate, was completely out of left field.

Governor Palin was a shortsighted pick. She served her purpose at the convention by giving a great speech and getting the mainstream media's attention. But a real maverick would have chosen someone like Lieberman, evangelicals be damned.

Should have hammered Obama more for opting out of public funding, after Obama's earlier promise to take public funding.

Should have hammered Obama harder on the Surge. This should be right in McCain's wheelhouse, and he's let Obama off the hook.

Drilling washed-up terrorist Bill Ayers into our heads is a mistake. No one cares. Obama's dealings with Chicago ganster Rezko is more legitimate. His 20-year relationship with Reverend Wright has to be particulary appalling to many voters, including myself. I think it's a completely legitimate issue, but obviously McCain has disagreed so far. Doesn't want to be framed as a racist by the other side, I guess.

But in spite of the slip-ups, and in spite of general Bush fatigue around the country, McCain and Obama were virtually tied until the stock market crash. And now McCain is in a bad spot.

 

[Irvine511]

"virtually tied" until the stock market crash isn't accurate.

McCain was coming off his convention bounced when the stock market went haywire, and was losing steam beforehand. we can't forget that the RNC happened the week after the DNC, and McCain unveiled his unconventional VP pick the day after Obama's acceptance speech. none of these things have ever been done before, and they were designed to get as much mileage out of the convention and VP as possible. i think Palin turned out to be more of a media circus than anyone ever thought, which gave McCain an inflated bounce longer than anyone ever thought. but now Palin's negatives are well above her positives, and she's turned out to be a huge drag on the ticket despite the bounce she gave McCain in early September.

so the notion that the race was "tied" before the stock market craziness isn't an accurate reflection of the status of the two campaigns. the GOP was riding a bounce that was sure to come down, and then it was McCain's reaction to the stock market that ensured he fell further than he took off.

so it's less, "poor McCain, things beyond his control," and more, "poor McCain, can't handle a crisis."

people continue to talk about how amazing it is that McCain is even within 8 points in the polls (that's the poll of polls average right now). we have to keep reminding ourselves that McCain has made his reputation on being a RINO (republican in name only) and for being someone who was interested in bipartisanship. he was widely mentioned as a possible VP pick for John Kerry in 2004. his brand name is not nearly as vulnerable to the astonishing anti-GOP sentiment across the country and George W. Bush as now the most disliked president in history. if any Republican had a shot this year, it was McCain. and he has an indisputably compelling life story.

and let's also not forget that the GOP has spent that past 30 years telling the American people that it doesn't matter if a president is smart or competent, it only matters if he's "authentic" or "just like you." well, who is less like you than an african-american intellectual born in Hawaii named Barack Hussein Obama?

the fact that BHO beat HRC and is clearly leading in the polls says as much about his considerable political gifts, organizing prowess, and charisma, as it does about the fact that the American people seem to have finally learned that electing people "just like me" is what causes us to lose two wars, destroy the economy, and drown a major American city.

but racism is alive and well, and it's all they've got left.

 

[sue4u2]

Once I heard he had adopted the same people that Bush used I was done with him.

And I think this may be a huge factor.
There is more history/research being done this time around - about both candidates.

That is bringing up more McCain scrutiny.
and they don't like what what they are reading.

 

[Bluer White]

the fact that BHO beat HRC and is clearly leading in the polls says as much about his considerable political gifts, organizing prowess, and charisma, as it does about the fact that the American people seem to have finally learned that electing people "just like me" is what causes us to lose two wars, destroy the economy, and drown a major American city.

Obama clearly has more charisma, and a better ground game with money to burn. Especially in the swing states. He has earned the position he's in right now.

But as far as the losing of two wars, destroying of the economy, the drowning of a city.....well, these have been debated and disputed in plenty of other threads. And probably not in the spirit of VintagePunk's thread.

 

[financeguy]

For Conservatives, the choice is obvious: it has to be Barack Obama - Telegraph

 

[Varitek]

An Op-Ed in the NYT about how McCain beat himself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/opinion/19rich.html

At least McCain had half a point on Wednesday night when he said, “I am not President Bush.” What he has offered his country this year is an older, crankier, more unsteady version of Bush. Tragically, he can no sooner escape our despised president than he can escape himself.

 

[purpleoscar]

For Conservatives, the choice is obvious: it has to be Barack Obama - Telegraph

Token black? I guess that is not considered racist for liberals. From looking at this article people want to vote against Barack for racist reasons just as much as Iraq policy. It's also ignoring that the war in Iraq is essentially won and that troops are already starting to come back by January 2009 and the fight to secure Afghanistan will be the next goal.

The only argument for conservatives that Barack is better is only the argument that Barack will be tested by a conservative opposition that will want fodder for the 2012 election. By then Americans will be tired of him.

If Barack is all things to all people then he will do the Clinton thing and preside over the natural recovery of the market and take credit for things that have little to do with him and pass blame over to people that are not responsible. Is Obama going to be a conservative then? Well then that's fine by me.

If he wins the next 4 years will actually be fun.

 

[Varitek]

The war in Iraq is won??? i suppose a further discussion of that comment would derail an otherwise wonderful thread, but that is a ludicrous statement amidst a ludicrous post.

 

[BVS]

Token black? I guess that is not considered racist for liberals.

and the iraq war is won? x 2

 

[Dreadsox]

McCain was correct on the Iraq war and what is bullshit is the tired old WMD argument that Democrats like to bring up in an attempt to discredit the war. It misses the key fundamental reasons of why Saddam had to removed in 2003, and ignores what Saddam's capabilities could be today if he were left in power as Barack Obama would have foolishly allowed to happen.

Colin Powel today on meet the press:

MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?

GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don't think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it's the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.

Sweet Jesus Colin Powell is spreading BULLSHIT like the democrats. My goodness, he clearly did not understand the issues that were going on at the time.

Maybe he was brainwashed? WTF......

 

[Diemen]

Colin Powel today on meet the press:



Sweet Jesus Colin Powell is spreading BULLSHIT like the democrats. My goodness, he clearly did not understand the issues that were going on at the time.

Maybe he was brainwashed? WTF......

I eagerly await Sting's dismissal of Powell's obviously inexperienced and politically biased opinion.

 

[Popmartijn]

I eagerly await Sting's dismissal of Powell's obviously inexperienced and politically biased opinion.

Yeah, and his vote on Resolution 1441.
Oh, wait...

 

[Varitek]

I eagerly await Sting's dismissal of Powell's obviously inexperienced and politically biased opinion.

 

[purpleoscar]

The war in Iraq is won??? i suppose a further discussion of that comment would derail an otherwise wonderful thread, but that is a ludicrous statement amidst a ludicrous post.

Conservatives don't think the Iraq war is lost, hence the beginning of troop withdrawal in January. If you don't want to hear conservative points of view then start a thread of what "liberals think of conservatives".

What, do you think Conservatives are all down on Iraq? Many are happy with the surge including Obama.

 

[namkcuR]

Conservatives don't think the Iraq war is lost, hence the beginning of troop withdrawal in January. If you don't want to hear conservative points of view then start a thread of what "liberals think of conservatives".

What, do you think Conservatives are all down on Iraq? Many are happy with the surge including Obama.

But you're dodging the point. You said the war was 'won'. There isn't even really an agreed paradigm for what 'winning' means in this war. Just because the violence went down doesn't mean the war is won. The most common thing I've heard is that the war is won when the region is stable. The region is not stable. Taking Saddam out of power has re-ignited the shite-sunni conflict. The government we've set up there in fact favors one side over the other. What many of us on the left feel is that it is best to let these factions decide their fate for themselves, even if that means an Iraqi civil war - that if we simply wait for the region to be stable, we'll be there forever. To say the war is 'won' is to oversimplify things and put a bright spin on a complex, volatile situation.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I eagerly await Sting's dismissal of Powell's obviously inexperienced and politically biased opinion.

He just doesn't understand...
Oil is vital...

 

[purpleoscar]

But you're dodging the point. You said the war was 'won'. There isn't even really an agreed paradigm for what 'winning' means in this war. Just because the violence went down doesn't mean the war is won. The most common thing I've heard is that the war is won when the region is stable. The region is not stable. Taking Saddam out of power has re-ignited the shite-sunni conflict. The government we've set up there in fact favors one side over the other. What many of us on the left feel is that it is best to let these factions decide their fate for themselves, even if that means an Iraqi civil war - that if we simply wait for the region to be stable, we'll be there forever. To say the war is 'won' is to oversimplify things and put a bright spin on a complex, volatile situation.

Well we disagree on this area, I mean the subject is the war. It's to be expected.

I think if Obama wins he should consider using Petraeus in Afghanistan and increase troops. Then work with Pakistan to eliminate the Taliban there. It seems consistent enough with Obama's opinion of Afghanistan being the main goal for the war on terror. It will be interesting to see if he decides to side with the popularity of withdrawal or seize the opportunity to finish the mission.

 

[BVS]

Well we disagree on this area, I mean the subject is the war. It's to be expected.

What is there to disagree on? You said the war in Iraq is esentially won(which even Patreous would scratch his head with that one), but you haven't shown us anything to back that statement up, and namkcuR called you out on that...