Why John McCain could still beat Barack Obama in presidential race

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

Well there isn't of course - but there comes a point when voting for the "lesser evil" (also pretty stupid) gets tired and clearing the board seems the best course of action.

Of course - noone said that people don't cast short-sighted voting decisions. If that weren't the case - we would surely be demanding better presidential candidates than we've consistently been getting

[gabby4ever 1]

McCain will win !!! no doubt about it

[zqt3344 21]

Charles you are brilliant by gosh! Great post! AHAHAH

Exactly. They don't want partisan rhetoric...they want things to change for the better.

want change? try looking here.

[Fandango 1,440]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

Well there isn't of course - but there comes a point when voting for the "lesser evil" (also pretty stupid) gets tired and clearing the board seems the best course of action.

Of course - noone said that people don't cast short-sighted voting decisions. If that weren't the case - we would surely be demanding better presidential candidates than we've consistently been getting

I was referring to Steven's dodge of Mark's questions, not broaching any 'lesser evil' issue. He essentially gave a non answer....and ignoring this fact of there being no clean slate for each new prez is quite ignorant imo.

This is one of the reasons why I feel that there should be no term limits.

[PlatyPius 5]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

Well there isn't of course - but there comes a point when voting for the "lesser evil" (also pretty stupid) gets tired and clearing the board seems the best course of action.

Of course - noone said that people don't cast short-sighted voting decisions. If that weren't the case - we would surely be demanding better presidential candidates than we've consistently been getting

I was referring to Steven's dodge of Mark's questions, not broaching any 'lesser evil' issue. He essentially gave a non answer....and ignoring this fact of there being no clean slate for each new prez is quite ignorant imo.

This is one of the reasons why I feel that there should be no term limits.

Yay! 50 more years of George Bush!

(or rather all the years he can get until the rest of the world gives up and nukes us - which we would deserve)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

Well there isn't of course - but there comes a point when voting for the "lesser evil" (also pretty stupid) gets tired and clearing the board seems the best course of action.

Of course - noone said that people don't cast short-sighted voting decisions. If that weren't the case - we would surely be demanding better presidential candidates than we've consistently been getting

I was referring to Steven's dodge of Mark's questions, not broaching any 'lesser evil' issue. He essentially gave a non answer....and ignoring this fact of there being no clean slate for each new prez is quite ignorant imo.

This is one of the reasons why I feel that there should be no term limits.

Yeah I don't agree with Steve on that - there is a lot of bad feeling from the last 8 years of GWB, but I don't think that will (of itself) torpedo McCain. Obama will have to come up with a coherent platform that moves beyond rhetoric for ill-defined "change" in order to beat him, though McCain will by the same token have to show that he's offering something a little different from what we've been doing.

[Ban Hammer 13,636]

Yay! 50 more years of George Bush!

(or rather all the years he can get until the rest of the world gives up and nukes us - which we would deserve)

you really do want everyone on bicycles, don't you?

[zqt3344 21]

Careful Number 6, you may become Number 7!

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

Well there isn't of course - but there comes a point when voting for the "lesser evil" (also pretty stupid) gets tired and clearing the board seems the best course of action.

Of course - noone said that people don't cast short-sighted voting decisions. If that weren't the case - we would surely be demanding better presidential candidates than we've consistently been getting

I was referring to Steven's dodge of Mark's questions, not broaching any 'lesser evil' issue. He essentially gave a non answer....and ignoring this fact of there being no clean slate for each new prez is quite ignorant imo.

This is one of the reasons why I feel that there should be no term limits.

Yeah I don't agree with Steve on that - there is a lot of bad feeling from the last 8 years of GWB, but I don't think that will (of itself) torpedo McCain. Obama will have to come up with a coherent platform that moves beyond rhetoric for ill-defined "change" in order to beat him, though McCain will by the same token have to show that he's offering something a little different from what we've been doing.

[Fandango 1,440]

Yay! 50 more years of George Bush!

if any prez was doing a good enough job to get reelected, then yeah sure.

The way it works now, he only has at most 8 years....and let's be honest...at year 6.5...how motivated is that prez anyways?

[PlatyPius 5]

Yay! 50 more years of George Bush!

(or rather all the years he can get until the rest of the world gives up and nukes us - which we would deserve)

you really do want everyone on bicycles, don't you?

No.... I want everyone to stop being morons. Since that isn't likely, I'd settle for some form of mass extermination. Humans have become trite, inane, superficial, ponderously stupid, and illogical. Removing 99.7% of the population would help to rectify the problem. Survival of the Fittest has been removed from the equation, so something needs to bring the blanace back.

[Fandango 1,440]

Yeah I don't agree with Steve on that - there is a lot of bad feeling from the last 8 years of GWB, but I don't think that will (of itself) torpedo McCain. Obama will have to come up with a coherent platform that moves beyond rhetoric for ill-defined "change" in order to beat him, though McCain will by the same token have to show that he's offering something a little different from what we've been doing.

We're in agreement

Yay! 50 more years of George Bush!

(or rather all the years he can get until the rest of the world gives up and nukes us - which we would deserve)

you really do want everyone on bicycles, don't you?

No.... I want everyone to stop being morons. Since that isn't likely, I'd settle for some form of mass extermination. Humans have become trite, inane, superficial, ponderously stupid, and illogical. Removing 99.7% of the population would help to rectify the problem. Survival of the Fittest has been removed from the equation, so something needs to bring the blanace back.

Did you get that from Mein Kampf?

[zqt3344 21]

People cause problems; people are pricks.

Yay! 50 more years of George Bush!

(or rather all the years he can get until the rest of the world gives up and nukes us - which we would deserve)

you really do want everyone on bicycles, don't you?

No.... I want everyone to stop being morons. Since that isn't likely, I'd settle for some form of mass extermination. Humans have become trite, inane, superficial, ponderously stupid, and illogical. Removing 99.7% of the population would help to rectify the problem. Survival of the Fittest has been removed from the equation, so something needs to bring the blanace back.

[PlatyPius 5]

Yeah I don't agree with Steve on that - there is a lot of bad feeling from the last 8 years of GWB, but I don't think that will (of itself) torpedo McCain. Obama will have to come up with a coherent platform that moves beyond rhetoric for ill-defined "change" in order to beat him, though McCain will by the same token have to show that he's offering something a little different from what we've been doing.

We're in agreement

Yay! 50 more years of George Bush!

(or rather all the years he can get until the rest of the world gives up and nukes us - which we would deserve)

you really do want everyone on bicycles, don't you?

No.... I want everyone to stop being morons. Since that isn't likely, I'd settle for some form of mass extermination. Humans have become trite, inane, superficial, ponderously stupid, and illogical. Removing 99.7% of the population would help to rectify the problem. Survival of the Fittest has been removed from the equation, so something needs to bring the blanace back.

Did you get that from Mein Kampf?

No, I never was a fan of Hitler.

Besides....it's mainly "white people" who would be the targets of such a thing if it were to address the concerns I listed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

I agree that whoever is elected in November will be inheriting the current Administrations problems, but in the case of the last 8 years, you've got to give credit where credit is due. Marc framed the question to suggest that none of the major economic issues we're facing have anything to do with the Republican Party and that's not accurate. For one, the President's selection of cabinet members and appointees - many of whom have left their position under heavy criticism. The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history. The Republican Party's mantra is that government can't do anything and then when they are elected, they set out to prove it. Much of the legislation that was put forward by the Democratic majority in Congress dealt specifically with a lot of things that effect Americans. One may argue the merits of that legislation, but when it comes to the last 8 years and Marc's general question - just what can the Republican Party take credit for? As for electing a Democrat into the White House, I believe enough American voters realize that doing so will mean that the Democrats in Congress will then be able to move forward with the legislation they have worked hard for.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[GaryC 7]

The incumbent party may get most of the credit/blame for the current state of the country while that POTUS is in office, but that is a v shortsighted view that doesn't factor in the very clear point that it is a cumulative effect from all that's gone on before. Bill rode a wave of good on Ronnie's coattails, for instance.

Each new POTUS inherits the problems/benefits from the POTUS before. To think there's a country reset button when a new POTUS comes into office is just plain stupid.

I agree that whoever is elected in November will be inheriting the current Administrations problems, but in the case of the last 8 years, you've got to give credit where credit is due. Marc framed the question to suggest that none of the major economic issues we're facing have anything to do with the Republican Party and that's not accurate. For one, the President's selection of cabinet members and appointees - many of whom have left their position under heavy criticism. The other effect the President has is his vetoing power and the sitting President has vetoed more legislation than any other president in history. The Republican Party's mantra is that government can't do anything and then when they are elected, they set out to prove it. Much of the legislation that was put forward by the Democratic majority in Congress dealt specifically with a lot of things that effect Americans. One may argue the merits of that legislation, but when it comes to the last 8 years and Marc's general question - just what can the Republican Party take credit for? As for electing a Democrat into the White House, I believe enough American voters realize that doing so will mean that the Democrats in Congress will then be able to move forward with the legislation they have worked hard for.

This is what you want?

Democratic budget

As Democrats eagerly await their November election landslide, voters got an early glimpse of what they can expect next year if the party of big government controls the White House and Congress.

By a vote of 214-210, the House on Thursday passed a budget blueprint that pushes total spending on government agencies above $1 trillion -- yes, that's a "t," folks -- for the first time in the nation's history.

The budget includes a major tax hike -- it assumes many of the Bush tax cuts will not be renewed -- and would allow the alternative minimum tax to hammer millions of middle-class taxpayers.

The proposal also does absolutely nothing to address the soaring costs of federal entitlements, which threaten to eventually bankrupt the country.

Nonetheless, Democrats were patting themselves on the back for having passed a budget plan during an election year -- something Republicans had trouble doing when they controlled the House. Not that it really matters. Given that the president has threatened to veto most of the Democratic spending measures, Congress is unlikely to send specific appropriations bills to the White House until after the November election.

House Republicans lambasted the Democratic budget. But where were they when they were in the majority and only paid lip service to fiscal responsibility?

The GOP deserves what it gets this fall, but if you think a President Obama paired with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid represent a move toward budget discipline, we've got a time share in North Dakota you might like.

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/19654084.html