Analysis: Why McCain Has Lost The Election

November 1, 2008

On the morning of August 20, Barack Obama and John McCain were in a virtual dead heat for the White House.

Obama was five days away from the Democratic Nation Convention, where his campaign hoped to put in a press swing that would ride him through the GOP’s Convention. He was also riding up attention for his extremely anticipated Vice Presidential decision, as his anxious base and the country alike stood at a standstill. 

But as the infamous truth holds, none of this essentially played out — Sarah Palin was standing in the way.

Blanketing world news, Palin’s entrance to the global stage both wiped clean any and all publicity from Obama’s historic convention and in doing so started a “press wildfire,” exploding into the media for weeks, then months.

But now, as we look back on late August, the daunting shadow in our minds looms between McCain, the press, and the oval office — the polls. Gone from a dead heat to a widening eight point Obama lead, McCain’s promising late August media swing has seemed to backfire.

And as early ballots begin storming in, the McCain campaign finds themselves in a run against the media, the independents, and finally, against Sarah Palin.

Politics is an extremely fragile game in itself. Taunting some and seeming vague to others, political moves are to be perceived by opinion — the Sarah Palin pick being no different. 

As a thirteen year old not effected by voting week or polls, it is more or less clearer to see the strategic effect rather than the emotional toll, and in that respect I believe that the choice of Palin as running mate has essentially the snowball that has turned into an avalanche.

Palin’s political entrance in the McCain campaign put an extremely positive effect onto the conservative base, but in doing so moved the McCain campaign significantly to the right. 

In addition to strategically abandoning liberal Republican voters and the center, Palin opened the McCain campaign up for examination from almost every political side of the isle, detailing that Palin was the female form of President Bush — far right in many of her individual policies.

But what interests me is that the McCain campaign didn’t solely defend Palin, but set off an array of attack ads to the left, sending off the first signs of agitation from his campaign.

And as Obama simply defended them with response press statements and ads himself, the media simply caught on, causing many have accused the media of — bias. The Obama press endorsements kept racking up, backing the McCain campaign closer and closer to the wall. 

The press had caught the strategic unstableness of the McCain campaign, and simply reported it. McCain, in a deeper and deeper hole, executed the response that ultimately will keep him out of the oval office — more attack.

Strategic failure and a political gamble have brought the McCain campaign to their knees — and this is why, as the Fall leaves are raked off the street and world politics comes to a standstill on November 4th, we will see a President Obama elected.

85 Responses to “Analysis: Why McCain Has Lost The Election”

  1. rhapsodyinbooks Says:

    As the saying goes, “From your lips to God’s ears.”

  2. Nice analysis–I hope it is the correct one.

  3. pacer521 Says:


    thanks for the words and commenting.

  4. pacer521 Says:


    Thanks for coming over and commenting.

  5. Ben Says:

    When I look at the planks in each of the platforms from which we have to chose, it quickly becomes clear which of the two our country can best tolerate and at the end of the 4 years, will have less of a legacy to undo.

    It’s about the country – not what government promises to do for me. I will do for me if the government will get out of my way and let me have the opportunities to do it. I do not need for the government to dip into my pocket any more than it already does and to give it to whom they deem worthy of what was mine.

    If I took the attitude which Obama and his ilk wants me and the rest of the country to warm up to I would have taken the candy from each one of the Trick-or-Treaters who knocked on my door last night instead of giving them any. Better yet, I should have taken candy from one kiddos bag and given it to the other standing next to them. Boy – I can almost see the expressions on their faces now.

    I will keep my money, my guns and my freedom. The Dems can keep their change.


  6. pacer521 Says:


    I am not about to try to change your opinions and political beliefs, but I must come in on the “spread the wealth” comment. Obama is not trying to go socialist, and he is not trying to take money away from people. It is simply perception and fox news that is telling people this.

    Thank you for stopping by and leaving your take.

  7. Chris Says:

    I think your analysis is flawed rather seriously in this way:

    The primary newsmaker for the last 2 months (the period when the election moved from a “dead heat” toward Obama, IYO) has been the tanked economy, not Palin. No?

  8. Ben Says:

    I understand your point to be careful about where I get my information.

    I have found the best source is from the mouths of the candidates themselves.

    “If I am sitting pretty and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t, what’s the big deal for me to say, I’m going to pay a little bit more? That’s neighborliness.” – Barack Obama, Sept. 8, Fox News interview with Bill O’Reilly

    In this case I have rest my decision on Obama’s words. If I want what he advocates above I will vote for him. I can expect then to have less for me and my family. If I’m happy with that then I should expect the rest of my country to be as happy with it as well, shouldn’t I?

  9. Kevin Robles Says:


    All you say is rhetoric. Keep watching those “freedom fighters” in Fixed Noise, you’ll be a small minority soon.

  10. pacer521 Says:


    I agree fully that the economy has been the centerpiece in this election, but my post was centered on how Palin created a domino effect that will ultimately lose McCain the White House. The economy had nothing to do with Palin, but it did obviously play a huge role in McCain losing in the polls.

    Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

  11. pacer521 Says:


    I agree that the best source is obviously Obama, and you make a great point. At this point I really can’t do anything but disagree with you policy wise.

    As a 7th grader, I obviously don’t pay taxes, but here is my objection:

    I believe that there is a time for acting selfish, and then there is a time for paying more taxes to help the middle class, which I think is the key to getting our economy back on track. I think that these times force everyone to come together so later we all can act selfish and keep our money where it belongs: in our pockets.

  12. victory4mccain08 Says:

    Interesting viewpoint but I would have to disagree. I also believe an overwhelming majority of Hillary Clinton supporters will now vote for McCain due to Sarah Palin. She is awesome and speaks to the general population.

    Check out my Blog:

  13. Ben Says:


    It’s not my rhetoric – it’s Obamas.

    I had nothing to do with the words Obama spoke. I can only try to think carefully about them and try to draw a sound conclusion based upon them.

    What IS rhetoric are your comments about it.

    I try to stick with the facts and leave emotion out of it.

  14. bevans623 Says:

    At this point in time, most independents are looking at who is the better leader. Without looking at the election with partisan glasses, you can see that there is very little difference between Obama and McCain. They both want to tax you, they both want to continue our empire, and they both want bigger government. So, it boils down to, “who’s best to lead our country right now?” To me, that’s Obama.

    I’m for a small government and lean towards Ron Paul. Without a real choice of a candidate who supports my views, I’m trying to vote for the person who will be the better leader. I agree with Obama’s view of diplomacy over McCain’s bullying stance. Both are going to spread the wealth around, so I’m for the person who I feel will help me the most. Also, I don’t agree with universal health care, but McCain’s policies could end up costing me over $5000 a year.

    So, while I don’t agree with many of the choices we’ve been presented in this election, I think the choice of who will be the better leader for this country is clear.

  15. pacer521 Says:


    Thank you for stopping by and commenting. I think Palin is closer to the population, but I believe that we need someone who can lead, rather than pose.

  16. pacer521 Says:


    I agree, the independents are truly looking for the leader, (I also must point out that I find it impossible that anyone could be undecided by now) but there in fact is a very big difference between Obama and McCain.

    Look at their plans for Iraq, Taxes, Economy, Abortion…. and you will see there are fundamental differences.

    I am not trying to put down any of your political views, however, and it looks like you are going to make a great decision come tuesday.

    Thanks for stopping by.

  17. Vaughn Says:

    Applause for Bevans623… McCain had a shot at my vote until he placed a V.P. on the ticket with no real merits and truly added nothing to the ticket. He said he was going to pick someone that would level out is lack of knowledge with the Economy… Palin? Really? There must be a bank in the view of her office window, I hear she’s great at knowledge through osmosis.

  18. pvdugas Says:

    Excellent post and well said. McCain never had a clue where his campaign was going and instead relied on tricks and gimmicks, like “Joe the Plumber” which has sorely backfired in my humble opinion. Suspending the campaign, refusing to debate, and the two biggest mistakes: Sarah Palin and nasty degrading attack ads, helped to propel the vote towards Obama. I don’t agree with all of Obama’s proposed policies, but I do believe he is the better man for the job. Anyone who could sustain what he has over these past 21 months has proven to me that he can withstand an 8 year presidency.

  19. pacer521 Says:


    I agree. I think that McCain simply choose the wrong campaign to run, and he is going to pay for it.

    Your “humble opinion” is greatly appreciated and thank for stopping over.

  20. Ben Says:

    “No real merits.” Hmmm.

    All I can do is compare accomplishment against accomplishment. The merits become self-evident.

    Aside from that, when was the last time any presidential race rested upon a V.P. choice? What is the legacy of Carter’s V.P. choice which we still contend with today? I should probably look into the legacy of Cheney, Gore, Quayle, Bush Sr., Mondale, etc. to determine if, in the end, it actually matters.

    If we are going to be concerned with impact we only have to look to another female. By comparison she has more chance of changing our country than Palin ever will. As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi determines which issues Congress will focus upon and then vote on. Good or bad, we will be dealing with those decisions for years to come.

    I have to admit, getting us to focus upon V.P. choice is a clever ruse which diverts us from the real issues. Sort of like that ol’ Jedi mind trick.

    Who’s fooling who?

  21. Ben Says:

    “…so later we all can act selfish and keep our money where it belongs: in our pockets.”

    You see, that’s just it; there won’t be a ‘later’. Do you actually think socialism – if it is to work – will be willing to give back the money they took and to end the program Obama wants to launch? Don’t be fooled. This is government in action imposing its will upon her people. It’s a power grab. It’s social re-engineering.

    We only have to look to other models to see what happens with this line of thinking. If I can expect the government to take from me and give it to someone else I will no longer have the incentive to try harder; to work harder so that I can provide better economic security and opportunities for my family. I too will soon be looking for my government to provide for me. There will be some who will rush to it while others slowly move toward those values. It is simply human nature.

    With all of its flaws there is no system which is better than the one we have. It automatically creates incentive. It foments an environment where limits are minimized so that new ideas and quality products can be brought to market. There is no better motivator for innovation.

    Said another way, if I don’t have to try to advance my position in life – I won’t.

    Neither will my neighbor. Nor his.

  22. chamay0 Says:

    Hi pacer521,

    As usual I enjoyed your piece and enjoy your logic. There will always be those that is in the losing corner (Ben) who refuse to accept reality. We can not knock their dedication, but do as you have done try reason.

    Ben does not want to accept the simply fact that Barbie had become a cross to bear for the McCain way before the economy tanked. The more she spoke the more missteps she made which only served to illuminate her lack of knowledge. In fact upon her arrival and after the GOP convention, independent and moderate women had no use for her and those numbers were starting to show.

    It is evident that she motivated her base but she served no other purpose. But a lot of people want to pretend that McCain had a base. The republican party as a whole really did not care for McCain. That’s why most of his staff are lobbyist.

    You my young one have an excellent mind and I enjoy greatly reading your final analysis.

  23. Egads! Says:

    Great analysis of Palin’s impact on McCain’s chance to win.

    To Chris: Yes, the biggest topic is the economy, but because McCain chose a running mate who was clueless on national leadership, let alone the economy, and because McCain had acknowledged that he was weak on that issue, voters have to peer deeper, looking for general leadership skills, like 1) economic leadership – bad choice of Palin for that; 2) wisdom in decision-making – bad choice of Palin for that; 3) and the matter of surrounding oneself with astute leaders on ones topic of weakness – bad choice of Palin for that.

    I think it’s clear that McCain has shot himself in the foot in his choice of v.p. And I think this assessment hits the nail on the head.

  24. 1superdave Says:

    With a race that is as close as it is the only poll that matters is nov. 4th. Ben, you hang in there. It ain’t over till it’s over. And pacer you do your blog a disservice letting kevin answer your comments for you. His tone smacks of the daily kos. And ChamayO as well. If it’s in the bag why keep spueing hate. If one works hard and sacrifices his whole life to better himself, why are they them atacked as selfish if they want to keep atleast half of what they earn. And freedom of the press means that I can chose who to listen to. I don’t listen to Fox news and rush, sean and glen to learn what to think or say. I listen to them because they are defending the values and beliefs that I hold dear. So if you think I’m just a bitter clinger like Obama does, Knock yourself out.

  25. 1superdave Says:

    Just out of curiosity, Pacer, I would like to know what the poll would be, In your opinion if mcCain had chosen the person that you think would have been the best choice he could have made. It’s a 3 or 4 point race as we speak so where would have it been? Please Respond.

  26. pacer521 Says:


    I am sorry that I am not on the computer as much as you would like, as I am an active 7th grader outside of politics. I don’t consider kevin or chamay0 myself or an author of this blog, but (like you) I value them for keeping up activity in the comment thread and look a to hearing them every post.

    To answer your question, I do believe that Palin was the wrong choice for the mccain campaign, but I also believe that because of the negative campaigning that we have seen, no one could have suceeded under mccains attacks.

  27. Midknight Says:

    Abandoning defending her at all, and going on the attack with outlandish claims really, really left them wide open to the beat down they got in the polls once the media started looking into Palin and discovered her Alaska corruption. Heck they still haven’t covered her husbands association with the AIP group enough.

    Mac fumbled with his no-vet process. Additionally, I honestly might of considered voting for McCain at one point, prior to his Palin pick, but Palin + his erratic behavior and slander towards Obama, mixed with his sudden, drastic change from 2000, to a Bush/Rove extension, has left me disgusted with him.

  28. 1superdave Says:

    midknight ,you are daily kook(daily kos)does lieing just come naturally. you might try an allias. when i clicked your name it went straight to daily kos.

  29. seabass12 Says:

    Forwarded: Excellent Point, concise and cogent
    You display remarkable insight with the following observation:

    But what interests me is that the McCain campaign didn’t solely defend Palin, but set off an array of attack ads to the left, sending off the first signs of agitation from his campaign.

    I think that is exactly right. The McCain Campaign revealed its core of uncertainty. I do not think they really expected for Mrs. Palin to peak as a generally popular figure within ten days. She continued to galvanize the Republican Base, but in less that two weeks her overall popularity began to decline. The McCain Campaign realized they had jettisoned the “experience” argument that had been a founding principle of their campaign for a gambit that had lasted ten days.

    That is when they began to cast wildly about for a new way to discredit Mr. Obama.

    Well said. Still difficult to believe you are thirteen, but cheers no matter what.

  30. huxbux Says:


    I’m always impressed as to your political acumen given your age, and you continue to impress. Good post.

    Personally, I think the Palin nomination negated one of McCain’s strengths in the election which was experience. The one politically viable hole in Obama’s armor is his lack of experience, and he effectively closed that avenue with Palin. Despite my personal view that VPs are typically window dressing, image resonates with voters more then it should, and the Palin inexperience clashed with the image of McCain experience.

    I’m fairly certain I’ve stated previously on your blog that I feel the turn in the election campaign can find it’s primary source in the economic downturn, but that’s not to say Palin didn’t play a role. Keep up the good posting, pacer.

  31. huxbux Says:


    “I will keep my money, my guns and my freedom. The Dems can keep their change.”

    That’s not the kind of rhetoric you’d find on a bumper sticker is it?

    I couldn’t resist. I apologize.

    I don’t currently have the time, but you should study economic and political theory a bit more. Your understanding of socialism versus democracy/fixed market economy versus free market economy are lacking especially in the respective history of the United States. Both have intersected to varying degrees throughout our history as a country.

  32. pacer521 Says:


    As always thank you for commenting — I must say I am very interested in the debate responses your have put on my last post. I am really thankful that you put this much time and effort in the comment thread, and I really am thankful for it.

    I agree that Palin took away both McCain’s image and experience, but what I think she took away the most was the chance they had of fetching independents from the center.

  33. Ben Says:

    Outlandish claims? Media?

    Ah, you mean, the left-controlled media such as ABC,CBS, NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Boston Herald, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, et. al? THAT media?

    Corruption? Husband’s associations?

    Since when did associations ever concern an Obama-bot? If you want to talk about corruption and associations let’s talk about Obama’s role in Acorn and his associations with Ayers and now Rashid Khalidi. If you want to be concerned, be concerned about that and justify it before you go after the flimsey topic of Sarah Palin’s husband. He’s nothing compared to Ayers and Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi who praises terrorist and advocates the same. Obama somehow gets a pass on this.

    Why is Obama’s “Auntie” here in America illegally? Why is Obama not concerned about setting the correct example that it is important to follow the laws of this land? He should have cleaned his own house before asking America to vote for him. Ah, but again, Obama gets a pass on this, too.

    Why does Obama deliberately – as a matter of personal policy – seek out radical leadership to associate with Marxist professors?

    “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.” – Barack Obama

    I forget – I’m not supposed to be asking such probing questions about the man about to be placed into the most powerful office in the world for I might come across as narrow minded and just plain “stoo-pid” or “igner-int”.

    This concerned American sees it for what it is – a population of lemmings wooed by a smooth talking and charismatic politician who brings nothing to the political table but empty talk. He has accomplished nothing which would otherwise qualify him for the office. These are the same lemmings who impale Sarah Palin to divert attention away from the real issues before us.

    Simply put, we just might be on the verge of electing a socialist (yes – that term applies here) with the ability to sympathize with Marxist thinkers in addition to demonstrating a willingness to associate with self-described domestic terrorists who have bombed the Pentagon and the country’s Capitol building.

    What a guy. I’m supposed to be proud, right?

  34. timvalentine Says:

    Well I’m not going to verbalize it just yet. Perhaps because I just don’t trust Republicans during election time, especially when it doesn’t look good for them. We can “still fall of the bike feet in front of the finish line” or “drop the ball at the 5 yd line”. I hope you are correct. I’m confident that we (Democrats) have a good chance. I’m going to write in much detail about the election on Wednesday.

    Excellent article. I agree with you on your points. I just don’t put anything pass Republicans, they’ve already stooped to all time lows in terms of smear and hate tactics. I wrote about it on my blog a few days ago, “Pro-America” and “Sarah Palin 2012?”

    Check Me Out at

  35. Unfocused Me Says:

    Ben – What in your mind makes Obama a socialist? Is it his support for the progressive income tax structure (increasing marginal rates as income goes up)? McCain/Palin support the same structure, they just differ over the rates. Let’s assume that you don’t believe we’re living in a socialist state today, when the top marginal income tax rate is 35%. Obama has proposed raising the top rate to 39.6%, which is where it was during the boom years of the 1990s. Are you saying that the line between a capitalist society and a socialist society is crossed somewhere between 35% and 39.6%? Where is that line, exactly? Is it 36%? 37? 38.2%?

    I also think that it’s unfortunate that you’re defaming Ronald Reagan by calling him a socialist. If Obama’s a socialist for proposing a 39.6% top marginal rate, Reagan must have been Stalinesque in his support for the communist system, because under his self-proclaimed “tax reform” the top marginal rate from 1982 through 1986 was 50%. What a pinko! Now, to give credit where credit is due, maybe the Gipper saw the light, because in 1986 he signed another tax bill that lowered the top marginal rate to 38.5%. Perhaps that’s the line we should never cross – 38.5%=capitalist market economy, freedom, and the shining city on the hill, while 38.51% = socialism, tyranny, oppressed masses.

    As for Khalidi, McCain served on the board of a foundation that gave Khalidi several hundred thousand dollars in grants in the 1990s. Obama spoke at a dinner where the guy was in attendance. Assuming Khalidi is some kind of radical terrorist, which association is more offensive?

    Pacer – nice post, and you’ve sure inspired an interesting comment thread.

  36. pacer521 Says:

    Unfocused Me — Thank you for the compliments and putting in your perspective! I’ll basically answer you by answering Ben.


    I agree with Unfoucsed me in that you can’t call Obama a socialist. You just can’t — the facts are against you, his policies are not socialist, and coming out with the Regan comment seems more far fetched than a blind man dunking on Shaq.

    You are, thought, heard (hopefully) with an open mind when you question his policies without calling him a communist or socialist.

    Thank you for coming over and I hope we continue this thread.

  37. rhapsodyinbooks Says:


    A moral sense of commitment to the community is *not* socialism (as *is*, for example, the government buying shares in the banks which is currently happening under *this* administration). You don’t want to have “less for you and your family” and yet if your house got wiped out by a hurricane or you were faced with a parent needing $6000/month for a nursing home because you could not quit work to take care of him or her, you would bet you would be wanting your government and your neighbors’ taxes to help you out. Likewise, if your neighborhood were suddenly beset by a crime wave, you would want tax-funded police to take care of it; and if you were really bright, you would see that long-term systemic solutions could improve your living situation even more: such as better early childhood education for all, help for college tuition in exchange for community service, library funding, programs to help families with parenting, etc. With such programs in place the “waitress’s kids might not feel they had no hope and no future and perhaps opt for drugs or violence, but rather see that it *does* pay off to work hard and be a good citizen, and therefore make life better for *you* and *your* family, about which you seem mainly concerned. Let me point out, moreover, that ethology studies have shown us that there is in fact a genetic advantage for altruistic behavior, so commitment to community *even* makes sense on an evolutionary scale.


    Both John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln had much less experience going in than Barack Obama. You could also say that this might justify the selection of Sarah Palin. But Palin has not shown any evidence of the eclectic education and intellectual power (or even evidence of having read the Constitution!) that has been shown by Kennedy, Lincoln and Obama. Not only did Obama excel at Harvard Law School, but he was on the faculty of University of Chicago Law School for ten years. Both Harvard and U. of C. rank among the top schools in the *world.* Repeatedly throughout the campaign, Obama has consulted his fellow professors at U. of C. and asked them to brief him on *both sides* of an issue, so he could understand all the angles and make a decision on it. Cass Sunstein, one of those fellow professors (who recently decided to go teach at Harvard to be closer to his significant other), and who has authored the law review article cited THE MOST by Supreme Court Justices, reports receiving such calls by Obama and being immensely impressed by his acumen, insistence on hearing both sides, and measured consideration of the issues. In fact, you can read Sunstein’s blog entry endorsing Obama at the University of Chicago Faculty Blog.

    And finally, back to Ben:

    Ben, I thought you were busy counting your dollars for you and your family. Do you know what all your aunts are doing at this moment? And as for Obama “associating” with Marxist professors, do you really want a leader such as Hitler and Stalin and even Bush for that matter, who would only tolerate hearing opinions and data that conformed to his own? The government has shown enough of that tendency already. Presidential administrations have been notorious for cutting off reporter access to White House briefings for those too critical of their policies. The Bush/Cheney Administration has fought hard to reverse the transparency and freedom of information measures passed by the Clinton Administration.

    As Justice Hugo Black said in the consideration of free speech for the Communist Party, “I do not believe that it can be too often repeated that the freedoms of speech, press, petition and assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish.”

    Justice William O. Douglas also noted, “We seek truth, and in that search, a medley of voices is essential. That is why the First Amendment is our most precious inheritance. It gives equal time to my opponents, as it gives to me.”

    And finally, there is my favorite Talmudic story, of the conflict over the oppositional teachings of the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai. In response to prayers for a udgment as to which School was “right,” a heavenly voice is said to have proclaimed “These and these both are the words of the Living God.”

  38. Brilliant analysis, dead on correct.

    And the comments are just as good!

    Fabulous blog.

    Now back to the phone banks…

  39. preplan Says:

    McCain hasn’t lost yet and you should never underestimate the ability of the American people to make what is clearly the wrong choice. If you have any doubt, we re-elected George Bush who had a terrible first term. The swift boat ads sunk John Kerry and the Republicans are counting on the Rev. Wright ads to do the same to Obama.

    Palin should have torpedoed the McCain campaign, but in my view, it helped more than it hurt. She’s attractive and she is intelligent and politically savvy; yet she’s clearly not up to the task. The Gibson and Couric interviews should have done more damage than they did, but they alerted most people as to her shortcomings. What amazes me is how many people are thoroughly captivated by her and simply choose to ignore the fact that she doesn’t have a clue about national politics, let alone international. She succeeded in Alaska, a state with a population smaller than the city of Austin, Texas; but it is clear that Alaska isn’t even comparable in size or complexity as most of the lower 48. In a way, that is a compliment to Alaska, but at the same time, a big mark against Sarah Palin. Washington is about as complicated as it gets. What she has proven is that she’s no different than any other politician when it comes to spending other people’s money as evidenced by her staying in 5 star hotels and taking the entire family with her at taxpayer expense. Her façade is telling the people she’s a Motel-6 kinda gal, her actions put her up in the Essex House, one of the most expensive places to stay in NYC. She accepted $150,000 in wardrobe, $25,000 in makeovers; yet she claims that isn’t who she is, that she shops at K-Mart. The cost of clothes and the makeovers aren’t really the issue, it’s the fact that she claims to be one person yet her actions clearly contradict the whole persona. That’s why I find it so incredible that she has the support of so many people that love the image and ignore the truth. It may be that support that gets people to vote for her, not John McCain. In nearly every case, her rallies have pulled far more than John McCain’s. That says something right there.

    If McCain loses I believe it will be because a small percentage of those on the right realize that he really is a slacker who is just as astounded that the guy that graduated 5th from the bottom of his class, crashed 5 planes, likely exacerbated the fire on the Forestall by releasing the bombs from his plane which in turn blew holes in the deck and started a bigger fire below decks; that guy could be president. Some percentage of republicans realize that he’s spent his entire life relying on family connections and money to propel him upward and very little of his success comes from merit. Any other navy pilot that had crashed even one plane would have had their wings removed and McCain kept flying after three planes and was even allowed to fly after returning from VietNam even though he, to this day, claims to not even be able to operate a computer keyboard because of his injuries. He was a lousy pilot, he allowed other people to take the blame for his actions and he plays up his captivity as if he suffered more than all the other POWs combined. If he loses, its because a few people came to their senses and also perhaps because his over the top negativity and franticly changing strategies is showing his desperation and the true John McCain.

  40. Ben Says:

    RE:”I agree with Unfoucsed me in that you can’t call Obama a socialist. You just can’t — the facts are against you, his policies are not socialist…”

    To be clear – This is no opinion. It is a clear understanding. It comes straight from the mouth of Mr. Obama.

    “If I am sitting pretty and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t, what’s the big deal for me to say, I’m going to pay a little bit more? That’s neighborliness.” – Barack Obama, Sept. 8, Fox News interview with Bill O’Reilly

    Mr. Obama’s statement is clear and to the point.

    There is a difference between taxation to be used for national defense, infrastructure, research, etc. and taxing income from one economic group to be given to those in another. Call it what you want but I know what it is. It would be different if Mr. Obama is talking about donating to a charity or perhaps to leave a 100 dollar bill on the table as a generous tip. That would be an individual making a personal choice and exercising free will. Instead, what Mr. Obama advocates is his idea of moral commitment for all of us – – to be mandated by law. I won’t be making a pledge to the United Way anymore as it would appear Obama’s government is going to decide for me.

    RE: Reagan, his years in office reflect the fact he worked to cut social programs and to reduce the size of government. In 1982 there was indeed a tax increase. Placed in its proper context, it was brought about as a result of overly-optimistic budget projections reflected in the 1981 tax cuts. The 1982 increase undid about a third of the ’81 reductions. They were again reduced under the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

    Overall, President Reagan worked to reduce income tax rates with the largest cuts to the highest incomes which reflects a clear understanding of the dynamics of our economy that still hold true today.

    For lessons learned from programs which reduce taxes I refer to

    RE:”you would bet you would be wanting your government and your neighbors’ taxes to help you out. ”

    No, I wouldn’t, but thanks for trying to plant that anyway. Regardless, the bottom line is there are no guarantees in life and I don’t expect entitlements. My parents didn’t have them. Neither did theirs. Why are we looking for them now?

  41. mudflats Says:

    Talk about the politics of personal destruction. I think it’s an oximoron the say lousy fighter pilot. I think shot down is probably a better decription than crash. I can’t begin to comprehend the courage it takes to fly a jet into the face of anti-aircraft fire and ground to air mistles. Say whatever else you want but leave his heroic service alone.

    On Renoldo Magnous( a little Elrusbo lingo). I am never surprized how a liberal can distort facts. Regan’s tax plan was a cut to 50% percent for the top rate, from a punitive 78% under bubba carter. Comment on the living god. The livingGod is a name that comes from the bible.
    I don’t recognize the to groups you cite. If they are bible believing groups, well ok, except for the audible heavenly comunication. If not, sorry, but Christianity seems a bit more ezclusive than that.

  42. preplan Says:

    McCain wasn’t a fighter pilot, he flew bombing missions. I should have stated that he crashed three planes, two before VietNam, one after. The Forestall wasn’t his fault, although nobody can explain how his bombs were released unless he released them. I didn’t mean to imply that he didn’t have to suck up some courage to fly in Viet Name, but he was no more a hero than the guy slogging through the rice paddies. In my mind, anyone who fights for his country has to be pretty brave. Bravery and qualification for the presidency aren’t one and the same. If you think of it, being the first black man to run for the presidency when he knows full well he’s a target just for being black has to be pretty brave.

  43. 1superdave Says:

    All canidates are targets,white or black. The jet that Mccain flew was not the high altitude b-52 type bomber but rather an a-6 intruder I believe. Anyway these were just like fighters and had defenceive mistle. They often flew litteraly right into anti aircraft fire. He could have used politics to get out of the hanoi hilton and didn’t, he’s no slacker. Also while Obama is the first black to win the nomination of his party he’s not the first to run.

  44. 1superdave Says:

    That should have been an A4Eskyhawk. An attack air craft. This would be similsr to the F18 hornet used in dessert storm.

  45. rhapsodyinbooks Says:

    I believe you do not have an understanding of what constitutes “socialism.” Socialism refers to state ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. The only group these days buying into (so to speak) owning the means of production – even marginally – has been the Bush Administration. If you wish to argue more eruditely, you might be better off charging that you are against Obama’s plan of more regulation of the market, which indeed he advocates. McCain on the other hand, takes a more libertarian stance, but some contend that this policy of allowing greed a free rein has led us into the dire straits we now occupy. Indeed, it is ironic that Obama takes the position he does on regulation, since the University of Chicago is associated with the doctrinal thought of the late Milton Friedman, who insisted on minimizing the role of the government and letting the private sector work things out. Friedman and the Chicago School were quite influential, but because of the mess our economy is now in, his theories have come into disrepute. In fact, in a humorous aside, the University of Chicago wants to name an economics research facility after Friedman, but more than 100 faculty members signed a letter of protest! They felt it would be harmful to the reputation of the University. His ideas had a deep impact however; the Economist called him “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it”. I don’t mean to sound presumptuous, but I would recommend that you read one of his books in order for you to present your objections to liberal policies more coherently.

  46. Unfocused Me Says:

    Ben – what do you consider an “entitlement”? Your parents didn’t have Social Security? Your parents didn’t have Medicare? Those are entitlements, and they’re bankrupting the country.

    You’re perfectly comfortable with a progressive income tax for “national defense, infrastructure, research, etc.” but not with “taxing income from one economic group to be given to those in another”? Look, if you tax Warren Buffett $100, and a waitress earning minimum wage and tips $1, and use the $101 for nothing but national defense, infrastructure, research, and “etc.,” you have just taxed income from one economic group and given a benefit to another. The waitress gets the same benefit from the military as Warren Buffett does — why should she pay less?

    The answer, of course, is that she should pay less because she can’t pay the same, and a marginal dollar is worth more to her than it would be to Buffett. All taxation is redistributive; that’s how it works. You don’t have to like it, but that doesn’t make it socialism, as rhapsodyinbooks points out above.

    Perhaps you don’t like Obama’s stated spending priorities. Fine. Don’t expect much better from McCain, though; he has his own list of projects he wants to spend hundreds of millions on, and as for cuts, he’s promised across-the-board cuts in the budget, except for the military, national security, veterans benefits, entitlements, and interest on the debt. Unfortunately, that exempts approximately 86% of the budget from cuts ( Good luck with that, Sen. McCain.

  47. Ben Says:

    Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly.

    I think that accurately describes my understanding of what Obama is advocating.

  48. Ben Says:

    RE:Your parents didn’t have Social Security? Your parents didn’t have Medicare? Those are entitlements, and they’re bankrupting the country.

    Yes, I have to concede the fact that the Social Security System is an entitlement due to the fact that each working person pays into the program on a regular basis until retirement at which time they receive a portion in return. The fact that they have paid into it entitles them to the same.

    I applied the term to the concept of a handout; a sum of money from a pool which the recipient does not pay into but nonetheless knows they are entitled to some portion of it. Like the welfare system.

    RE:Look, if you tax Warren Buffett $100, and a waitress earning minimum wage and tips $1, and use the $101 for nothing but national defense, infrastructure, research, and “etc.,” you have just taxed income from one economic group and given a benefit to another.

    Yes, it not only benefits both but the country as a whole. Look – it’s no news to me that we’ve had taxes for hundreds of years for better or worse and they always change for one reason or another. Yes, I know its progressive. Yes, I know that it is redistributed across our society to address a myriad of issues. Nothing new there. We’re both on the same page. I think you misunderstand what I understand. Perhaps that is my fault. Perhaps I have not been clear about my objecting to the idea of creating larger government to administer programs which are designed to benefit individuals based strictly upon their economic status. Whatever.

    I’ll leave detail out of it and simply end it my stating that I do not like Obama’s social engineering programs or his philosophies about government’s role in our lives. I think it is bad for the country.

    Don’t get me wrong about McCain, either. I do not like a majority of his ideas either.

    I have never voted for any candidate for access to the treasury. It has always been about what is best for the country… not me. In the end I have to determine which of the two the country can best tolerate.

  49. dyricci Says:

    Re: Pacer521…”I believe that there is a time for acting selfish, and then there is a time for paying more taxes to help the middle class, which I think is the key to getting our economy back on track. I think that these times force everyone to come together so later we all can act selfish and keep our money where it belongs: in our pockets.”

    Right ON! This 42-year old agrees wholeheartedly!

  50. dyricci Says:

    Re: victory4mccain08 at 1 Nov 08 at 10:31 am …”majority of Hillary Clinton supporters will now vote for McCain due to Sarah Palin. She is awesome and speaks to the general population.”

    I believe the majority of women that previously supported Hillary Clinton are strong intelligent women that support (for the most part) her opinions and agenda as shown here:

    Now, compare that with Sarah Palin’s opinions/stance:
    (And with John McCain:

    I cannot fathom how any strong, intelligent woman, that previously even considered supporting Hillary Clinton (and I count myself in this company), could even remotely consider voting for McCain/Palin! If you were ever truely with Hillary during the primary and believed in her platform, then seriously you should be with Hillary in the last hour…and VOTE OBAMA. I mean…Hillary herself has been campaigning for Obama since he received the nomination. A vote for McCain/Palin is a slap in Hillary’s face and the act worthy of the “Bimbos” that the GOP obviously think women are!

  51. dyricci Says:

    Re huxbux…”the Palin nomination negated one of McCain’s strengths in the election which was experience. The one politically viable hole in Obama’s armor is his lack of experience, and he effectively closed that avenue with Palin….and the Palin inexperience clashed with the image of McCain experience.”

    I sincerely believe this is where the sweater began to ravel…although, I have never believed that Obama really lacks the experience necessary for the position. I do believe, as many others, that Mrs. Palin is seriously under-qualified for the job for which she is applying…and the population’s realization of this has continued to injure McCain’s chances at a victory next Tuesday (not to mention her complete inability to be a team player).

    And, sorry, but I have to say it just one more time for anyone not yet clear, undecided, or thinking that voting McCain cuz he has woman on his ticket may be a good idea: Mrs. Palin does NOT speak for me! And I do not believe that she speaks for the majority of women! I would NOT have her ruin decades of hard-fought work…hard-fought by our mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters and ourselves…so that my daughter and any children she may choose to have in the future are thrown back to the beginning to have to fight it all over again. We may want a woman in the Top Two…but not just any woman, and NOT THAT WOMAN!

    A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for the PAST. Please vote for the FUTURE…vote Obama/Biden 2008!

  52. mudflats Says:

    Go Ben! Right on brother! The 101 comparision above has a flaw. First of all Provideing for the common defence is One of the Few reponseblities of the federal government and is spelled out in the constitution as such. Warren has more to protect, also. Second I don’t think it would be fair to call the patriots that threw the tea into the boston harbor, selfish. Their reason is the same as mine and Ben’s. Taxation without representation. The dems have so stacked to electorate with votes bought with “entitlements” that the people with money, who’s investments are the engine of our economy, are out numbered by people who only take from them, and that without representaion. Perhaps that is why the men who wrote the constitution wisely reserved the right to vote to property owners. Third but not least, Sarah does speak for me, though I am not female.

  53. pacer521 Says:

    Thanks everyone for this great discussion and keep it up! I’ll be at school today so I won’t be keeping up with the topic — I’ll check tonight. Also, thanks dyricci for the compliment.

  54. rhapsodyinbooks Says:

    You, like Ben, could do with some education. The patriots did *not* throw tea into the Boston Harbor strictly for “taxation without representation”. They paid much less taxes than the British at the time. What they objected to was paying for the British defense of Indian treaties *against* the American colonists, who were very interested in wresting the land from the Indians for their own use. All of the Founding Fathers were quite into land acquisition to increase their own wealth, status, and prestige vis-a-vis their British cousins, who looked down upon them as “Yankees.” In fact, George Washington tried to buy up so much land – in direct violation of the treaties – that, had he been successful, he would have owned most of America! It is not a good idea to substitute simple catch phrases, such as “taxation without representation” for an informed analysis of the facts. If you would like recommendations for early American history, I would be glad to provide them.

  55. mudflats Says:

    You have been rewriteing history again havent you. I was in Jr High in the sixties. Back then little boys played cowboys and indians. I was taught that the catch phrase of the revoutionaries was that they were against taxation with out representation. We also sang my contry tis of thee, said the lord’s prayer and the pledge of alligence every school day at the begining of class. Thanksgiving was about God seeing them through the winter an letting them have a good harvest. Columbus was an explorer that found the new world and not an eevilll white European that just came here to rape and kill the peacefull indiginous people who’s land he stole. Stay away from the koolaid And sharp objects.

  56. 1superdave Says:

    “No taxation without representation” began as a slogan in the
    period 1763–1776 that summarized a primary grievance of the British colonists in the Thirteen Colonies. In short, many in those colonies believed the lack of direct representation in the distant British Parliament was an illegal denial of their rights as Englishmen, and therefore laws taxing the colonists (the kind of law that affects the most individuals directly), and other laws applying only to the colonies, were unconstitutional. In recent times, it has been used by several other groups and in relation to other issues.
    Usage in American Revolution
    The phrase “No Taxation Without Representation!” was coined by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon in Boston in 1750. By 1765 the term “no taxation without representation” was in use in Boston, but no one is sure who first used it. Boston politician James Otis was most famously associated with the term, “taxation without representation is tyranny.
    Parliament had controlled colonial trade and taxed imports and exports since 1660. By the 1760s the Americans came to believe they were being deprived of a historic right. The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament they complained the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen. Parliament contended that the colonists had virtual representation.
    However, Pitt the Elder, amongst other prominent Britons and loyal Americans of the Revolutionary era, composed bills and epistles for the creation of a federally representative British Parliament that was to consist of American, West Indian, Irish and British M.P.s. Despite the fact that these ideas were debated and discussed seriously on both sides of the Atlantic, it is suggestive of the populist zeal and violent momentum of the radical, and minority, ‘English-rights’ American patriots that no Congressional demand for this constitutional development was sent to Westminster; the radicals feared the loss of power that such a measure would ironically involve. From this perspective, the typical British and Loyalist stance of gradual change within the British Empire, as opposed to the forced resumption of local colonial voting and/or independence via military engagement, helps explain somewhat the emotive urgency of the yell that became a mantra of the Revolution and the Republic afterwards. If representation had been fulfilled, the virulent basis of patriot grievances might have been quashed, and pretensions to the revolution and independence (and the freedom from imperial constraint such as westward expansion into Indian territory, legalisation of the smuggling trades and continuance of the threatened slave industry) would have been delayed or confined to history.
    The Americans rejected the Stamp Act 1765 (which was repealed), and in 1773 violently rejected the remaining tax on tea imports at the Boston Tea Party. The Parliament considered this an illegal act because they believed it undermined the authority of the Crown in Parliament. When the British then used the military to enforce laws the colonists believed Parliament had passed illegally, the colonists responded by forming militias and seized political control of each colony, ousting the royal governors. The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (the taxes were quite low, though ubiquitous), but always on the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, i.e. without representation for the colonists in British Parliament. In February 1775, Britain passed the Conciliatory Resolution which ended taxation for any colony which satisfactorily provided for the imperial defense and the upkeep of imperial officers.
    Patrick Henry’s resolutions in the Virginia legislature implied that Americans possessed all the rights of Englishmen; that the principle of no taxation without representation was an essential part of the British Constitution; and that Virginia alone enjoyed the right to tax Virginians.

  57. 1superdave Says:

    That is from wikopedia under taxation with out represetation

  58. 1superdave Says:

    Ben it was 30 years or more ago that James arnest(play Matt Dillon on gun smoke) was in a mini series called how the west was won. Not long after that pbs started running a series call how the west was lost.(the indians prespective) At a young age I knew the revissionist would rewrite all of history to be politicaly correct. I guess we now see the results. Won’t be long they’ll be sending us to the reeducation camps.

  59. dyricci Says:

    History has always been rewritten, over and over, by whomever has the most power at the time…and they slant the facts to make themselves in the best possible light.

    To think that what you learned in school 30 years ago is the end-all-be-all last word on any subject is like saying the world is really flat and dinosaurs roamed the earth with Noah and his three suns before the flood waters drowned them (oh, wait…that’s what Sarah Palin believes, isn’t it?).

    30 years ago no one heard of string therory, or that we could clone sheep and other living things. Now they are both viable scientific topics of discussion and, in the case of cloning, fact.

    100 years ago everyone believed that the darker the natural color of your skin, the less intelligent you were, and therefore inferior.

    Almost 500 years ago, they locked up Gallileo for discussing the possibility that the earth was not the center of the universe, with the sun and planets rotating around us…but rather the other way around.

    You get my point? Just because it was one way before, doesn’t mean it was better or more true. Knowledge and understanding grows with time and effort.

  60. victory4mccain08 Says:

    Unfocused Me –
    I have to call you out on your history. the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to which you refer lowered the top rate to 28%. Reagan had earlier lowered it from 70% to 50% with the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.

    dyricci –
    Falling for dangerous promises of help from a guy who has never cut taxes, but has a record of increasing the tax burden 94 times, is the definition of weakness. You are relying on a man who is spinning a real yarn.

  61. dyricci Says:

    typo: I meant “Noah and his three SONS”…not suns…


  62. dyricci Says:

    victory4mccain08 –
    As someone from AZ who watched McCain come up in the 80’s, and his track record since, the real yarn is coming from HIM, not Obama. Furthermore, he wouldn’t know real wool to pull over our eyes if he saw it…McCain spins lies outta polyester…Everything about him is FAKE.

  63. jacob1207 Says:

    If McCain somehow pulls off the upset, he’ll print out a copy of this post and its title (Why McCain has lost the Election) will be the “Dewey Defeats Truman” of our day.

    I agree with the analysis. While it’d be foolish to say that McCain would win if he’d have picked someone else, it’s clear that Palin isn’t paying off and is, indeed, a weight dragging down his campaign. If he’d have picked a solid VP nominee and responded more calmly to the economic developments of the past few months we’d be in a too close to call race at the moment.

    Hopefully Palin doesn’t have a big future in the GOP; she’s hurt it enough already.

  64. dyricci Says:

    victory4mcmain08 –
    Well, I ‘ve read your points and just plain disagree. We’ll have to leave it at that because I’m not going to change your mind…and you’re not going to change mine. We come from two very different sides of the fence. You therefore would probably classify me as “irrational” or “too liberal” or some other such thing…though you would be wrong.

    And I think Obama will prove you wrong, as well.

  65. rhapsodyinbooks Says:


    Thanksgiving was only technically about “God seeing them through the winter an letting them have a good harvest.” The Pilgrims were primarily thanking God for giving all the area’s Indians smallpox so that they could take over the plowed fields and crops.


    The British policing of Canada and the Western frontier of the U.S. (protecting Indians from Americans and less frequently, vice versa) cost money and they thought it only fair that Americans should pick up some of the burden. Americans objected to the purpose more than the tax. The colonists had been too well tutored in the thrill of imperialism to let all that “unused” American soil be left to the Natives, and were determined to have it, treaties or no. Americans were outraged when the Crown decided to forbid removal of Indians and allow the American land grab.

    Taxation was about as important to the ensuing Revolution as the assassination of the Archduke was to the First World War. Many northerners fought for promises of land grants after the overly moral British were defeated, and many southerners took up the call for “Freedom” to preserve the institution of slavery, because the British promised freedom to any black slave who crossed the patriot lines to join their side. And thousands did.

    As for your misspelled remark “At a young age I knew the revissionist would rewrite all of history to be politicaly correct. I guess we now see the results. Won’t be long they’ll be sending us to the reeducation camps.” – perhaps at the re-education camps they will teach you that the winners always write the history, and the loser’s story is seldom told. The Indians did indeed own this land, and the colonists did indeed steal it, by horrid acts of genocide that eliminated some 90% of the Native American population. I guess you think the Holocaust didn’t happen either?

  66. huxbux Says:

    I’ve fallen so far behind this discussion I’m not even going to make an attempt to catch up.

    The rewriting of history, as rhapsodyinbooks points out, is a problem of “silent evidence” which was first enumerated by Nassim Taleb. He uses the following example to illustrate the fallacy of “silent evidence”.

    Diagoras, a nonbeliever in the gods, was shown painted tablets bearing the portraits of some worshippers who prayed, then survived a subsequent shipwreck. The implication was that praying protects you from drowning.

    Diagoras asked, “Where are the pictures of those who prayed, then drowned?”

    The only information that surfaces about an event are from those that “survive” the event. Those that didn’t “survive” are without a voice. History is littered with the voices of the “survivors” while omitting those that did not. It’s not an intentional omission, as you cannot account for that which you aren’t cognisant. But it’s a fallacy that should be taken into account when using historicism as the foundation for an argument. You can only present half of the story. You just don’t know the other half. How could you?

  67. Thanks, keep up your great post !

  68. 1superdave Says:

    And you believe in evolution. thing are getting worst not better , that kinda blows that, doesn’t it.

  69. youngmike124 Says:

    Nice analysis. I think history will show Palin being possibly THE key to this election from a strategy point of view. Did Palin negate the so called Bradley/Wilder effect? I will be interested in how Palin’s role will evolve in the shaping of the Republican party in response to this election (regardless of the outcome). Whatever ones opinion of Palin (and everyone has an opinion about her. There is little to no indifference when it come to Palin…that’s why she has been so key), the Palinites will be players in the future of the Republican party.

  70. Drew Says:

    I commend you for a very balanced and fair look at those who agree or disagree with your opinion. You have a balanced approach to listening to those who differ from your opinion without going all ridiculous on the person. A true liberal/Dem will embrace the other’s opinion and not be threatened by a difference of thought. In fact, it would be celebrated. So, congrats. You are the epitome of a true liberal.

    That being said, I did vote for McCain simply because his tax plan would target people like me. I am simply more in line with the GOP than with the Democrats. I do think the financial crisis was unfairly pinned on the GOP; I feel it was a TRUE bipartisan foul up.

    And I disagree with you in that Palin tanked the election. I think she did more to shore up the base (Neocons) than a Lieberman or Ridge would ever have done. Not to mention it would have been the dullest GOP ticket EVER.

    I think after all is said and done, the Republican party will have to reinvent the party’s image. Neocons have run their course. I’ll happily put a stake in their hearts and allow a more moderate GOP to emerge, which is where I sit. Let’s hope for the best.

    Congrats to our new president, whomever he may be. I will support him as my president.

  71. ferrellgummitt Says:

    Psst. Hey kid do they teach Social Studies at your school? They do. Wow. Do you know what Communism is? Do you know the difference between John McCain’s relationship with Communists and Obama’s? No. I will tell you. When John McCain was a young man he was beaten, tortured and almost killed by Communists in the Vietnam War. When Barack Obama was a young man he was looking for inspiration and ideas from Communist teachers. Do you really want a president who was taught by the same type of people who’s idealogy is the same as the people that tried to beat and torture John McCain. No.. Didn’t think so. Now, pass this on to your friends and everyone who is of voting age.

  72. pacer521 Says:


    I think that you should first read my post and my comments, and then go for the hit and run.

    If you did have the level or intelligence to read anything I said, you would both see that I made no reference to anything about communism.

    Obama did not look for inspiration from communists, and I would love for you to take your obviously high IQ to find some credible proof of that.

    McCain was an American hero and I credit him for that. He was tortured by communists, but that does not make him suddenly set to be President. If what you say is true, anyone else in McCain’s surrounding group of American soldiers who were tortured are just as qualified to be president as mccain.

    I don’t mind disagreements at all, and generally wouldn’t answer your comment because of its sheer lies and non-factual information. But people like you really tick me off because you both manage to put in lies and then take a shot at my age. If you don’t like someone younger than you writing, then simply save the troll comment and visit a far right blog that you agree with.

  73. pacer521 Says:


    Thank you for the great compliments, and thanks for disagreeing with me in a way that is backed up with facts (unlike the above comment by ferrell where I seemed to abandon your praise on not exploding on someone, as that was very rare.)

    I agree that Palin did liven up the GOP ticket and it was not dull, but I still do think that she “tanked” the election, mostly because she abandoned the center and moved McCain to the left.

  74. Drew Says:

    Congrats to all who voted for Obama. This victory is truly history. I am a black man and I am happy that this happened in my lifetime. My lifetime!

    My “side” did not win. My fears are for my economic certainty as a business owner, but I am truly honored that the racial barrier has finally been broken. Obama has a lot to live up to, so let’s all help him make it happen.

  75. Ben Says:

    Congratulations. I know you are excited over the victory.

    God bless America.

    I’m giving up political blogging. I am starting a “What’s the best pizza topping” blog.


  76. Kevin Robles Says:

    Thank you Drew and Ben!

  77. mudflats Says:

    Ya’ Broke now you own it.

  78. rhapsodyinbooks Says:



  79. inexactscience Says:

    I think the Republicans really need to reexamine who their “base” is. Because those morons at the Palin rally’s aren’t going to win them any elections. The Republicans need to move to the center and become more inclusive or they risk absolute irrelevance.

  80. Ben Says:

    Are you crazy? Veggie is so-ooo “out-there” and departs from the norm. Study after study (which I made up and posted on a spoof-site) shows mushroom, burger/sausage, green pepper, olive and onion to be better positioned to satiate the requirements of the consumer. The facts of the matter are self-evident and therefore your opinion is, well, just all wet.



  81. Although I supported Obama from the beginning, Sarah Palin turned me even more strongly against McCain. When I heard only a few minutes of her speech at the RNC, I couldn’t stop cursing, and I just started working harder and donating more to support Obama. She really scares me.

  82. Chuck Says:


    Be sure to add this to your list …

    “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.” – Barack Obama

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: