Pawlenty: If the GOP doesn't change, it can not be a majority party

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Tell me exactly what issues McCain could have supported that would have made the difference?

He could have stayed the John McCain that people outside of the GOP respected. Of course, then he wouldn't have been the GOP nominee.

Had he stayed the "Old John McCain" and got the nomination ... would you have voted for him or barack and why?

No, I still would have voted for Obama. There are, however, scores of swing voters that would have supported the McCain of 2000 but did not support the McCain of 2008. He had no chance. He had to chose between appeasing the fanatical religious nuts that make the most noise within the GOP or speak to the swing voters. To win the election, he would have had to appeal to both these groups and that is, quite simply, impossible. The more control the religious fanatics take of the GOP, the more that party is going to become meaningless.

Thanks for liberal -logic.

1. you agree no matter how far to the center Mac went you still would not have voted for him. thanks for making my point.

2. McCain never ran for the Presidency in 2000, he ran for the nomination, so we don't know what he might have done had he actually got off the ground in that race.

3. You claim he sided with the *Fanatics of the GOP* but if this was true he did a piss poor job

as he never once even mentioned Guns, God, Gays, Abortion, prayer in schools,

(or any other red-meat issue) in any debate.... Does that sound like someone

kissing Right-wing azz?

Wanna try again?

The Campaign is over and you are using old talking-points.

McCain has always been a moderate and will continue in that fashion.

1.) How am I making your point? I am talking about swing voters - those that McCain alienated by caving in to the noisy fanatic religious wing of the GOP. I am not one of them so my voting pattern is quite irrelevant in this regard.

2.) McCain never ran for the presidency but he ran on a platform while trying to get the GOP nomination. That platform was quite acceptable - and almost a polar opposite of what he ran on in 2008. He didn't get his 2000 candidacy off the ground because he was too center for the right wing and religious nuts that have since determined the fate of the GOP. To it's detriment, I might add.

3.) Got two words for you: Sarah Palin.

[Danno 1,228]

Yeah I know but I was trying to "Think Liberal".. it actually felt GOOD!

Kinda Like I was Santa Clause, handing out Presents to all the Citizenry.

The only Bummer was having to "take" the money from other citizenry to buy all those goodies, but oh'well.

Let's play Tax Trivia!

Name the US President who proposed a constitutional amendment in an address to Congress to allow federal income taxes on individuals and an excise tax "upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock".

Name his party affiliation for bonus points.

taft - republican.

Well it took long enough for somebody to answer the question. B)

Obviously another act of "reaching across the Isle".

[Danno 1,228]

Tell me exactly what issues McCain could have supported that would have made the difference?

He could have stayed the John McCain that people outside of the GOP respected. Of course, then he wouldn't have been the GOP nominee.

Had he stayed the "Old John McCain" and got the nomination ... would you have voted for him or barack and why?

No, I still would have voted for Obama. There are, however, scores of swing voters that would have supported the McCain of 2000 but did not support the McCain of 2008. He had no chance. He had to chose between appeasing the fanatical religious nuts that make the most noise within the GOP or speak to the swing voters. To win the election, he would have had to appeal to both these groups and that is, quite simply, impossible. The more control the religious fanatics take of the GOP, the more that party is going to become meaningless.

Thanks for liberal -logic.

1. you agree no matter how far to the center Mac went you still would not have voted for him. thanks for making my point.

2. McCain never ran for the Presidency in 2000, he ran for the nomination, so we don't know what he might have done had he actually got off the ground in that race.

3. You claim he sided with the *Fanatics of the GOP* but if this was true he did a piss poor job

as he never once even mentioned Guns, God, Gays, Abortion, prayer in schools,

(or any other red-meat issue) in any debate.... Does that sound like someone

kissing Right-wing azz?

Wanna try again?

The Campaign is over and you are using old talking-points.

McCain has always been a moderate and will continue in that fashion.

1.) How am I making your point? I am talking about swing voters - those that McCain alienated by caving in to the noisy fanatic religious wing of the GOP. I am not one of them so my voting pattern is quite irrelevant in this regard.

* When you pick-up votes from one groups you loose votes from another.

The numbers show McCain lost the base and failed to reach the middle in this election.

2.) McCain never ran for the presidency but he ran on a platform while trying to get the GOP nomination. That platform was quite acceptable - and almost a polar opposite of what he ran on in 2008. He didn't get his 2000 candidacy off the ground because he was too center for the right wing and religious nuts that have since determined the fate of the GOP. To it's detriment, I might add.

3.) Got two words for you: Sarah Palin.

I figured your answer would be short.

HAd he picked Mit or Rudy.. he would have won?

Don't you see, there is no way you can spin your theory into a winning elect. for Mac.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Tell me exactly what issues McCain could have supported that would have made the difference?

He could have stayed the John McCain that people outside of the GOP respected. Of course, then he wouldn't have been the GOP nominee.

Had he stayed the "Old John McCain" and got the nomination ... would you have voted for him or barack and why?

No, I still would have voted for Obama. There are, however, scores of swing voters that would have supported the McCain of 2000 but did not support the McCain of 2008. He had no chance. He had to chose between appeasing the fanatical religious nuts that make the most noise within the GOP or speak to the swing voters. To win the election, he would have had to appeal to both these groups and that is, quite simply, impossible. The more control the religious fanatics take of the GOP, the more that party is going to become meaningless.

Thanks for liberal -logic.

1. you agree no matter how far to the center Mac went you still would not have voted for him. thanks for making my point.

2. McCain never ran for the Presidency in 2000, he ran for the nomination, so we don't know what he might have done had he actually got off the ground in that race.

3. You claim he sided with the *Fanatics of the GOP* but if this was true he did a piss poor job

as he never once even mentioned Guns, God, Gays, Abortion, prayer in schools,

(or any other red-meat issue) in any debate.... Does that sound like someone

kissing Right-wing azz?

Wanna try again?

The Campaign is over and you are using old talking-points.

McCain has always been a moderate and will continue in that fashion.

1.) How am I making your point? I am talking about swing voters - those that McCain alienated by caving in to the noisy fanatic religious wing of the GOP. I am not one of them so my voting pattern is quite irrelevant in this regard.

* When you pick-up votes from one groups you loose votes from another.

The numbers show McCain lost the base and failed to reach the middle in this election.

2.) McCain never ran for the presidency but he ran on a platform while trying to get the GOP nomination. That platform was quite acceptable - and almost a polar opposite of what he ran on in 2008. He didn't get his 2000 candidacy off the ground because he was too center for the right wing and religious nuts that have since determined the fate of the GOP. To it's detriment, I might add.

3.) Got two words for you: Sarah Palin.

I figured your answer would be short.

HAd he picked Mit or Rudy.. he would have won?

Don't you see, there is no way you can spin your theory into a winning elect. for Mac.

Where did I say he would have won? I said that his choice was to either lose the nomination battle or lose the general election. He would have lost one way or the other. Don't pretend I said something I didn't just to make your point. It ain't working.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

Yeah I know but I was trying to "Think Liberal".. it actually felt GOOD!

Kinda Like I was Santa Clause, handing out Presents to all the Citizenry.

The only Bummer was having to "take" the money from other citizenry to buy all those goodies, but oh'well.

Let's play Tax Trivia!

Name the US President who proposed a constitutional amendment in an address to Congress to allow federal income taxes on individuals and an excise tax "upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock".

Name his party affiliation for bonus points.

taft - republican.

Well it took long enough for somebody to answer the question. B)

sorry, was watching hellboy 2 last night.

[rebeccajo 14]

Yeah I know but I was trying to "Think Liberal".. it actually felt GOOD!

Kinda Like I was Santa Clause, handing out Presents to all the Citizenry.

The only Bummer was having to "take" the money from other citizenry to buy all those goodies, but oh'well.

Let's play Tax Trivia!

Name the US President who proposed a constitutional amendment in an address to Congress to allow federal income taxes on individuals and an excise tax "upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock".

Name his party affiliation for bonus points.

taft - republican.

Well it took long enough for somebody to answer the question. B)

Obviously another act of "reaching across the Isle".

Pardon me?

[msu17 0]

Danno, you're missing the point of the article. It wasn't what McCain needs to change but what the GOP needs to change. McCain did what he needed to do to get elected and win as many votes as possible being one of the more moderate GOPers. However the GOP isn't made up soley of McCain and that's what people are sick of. Several senate and house races saw a party change, same happened a few years ago. Whether the GOP is to blame for the mess we are in etc doesn't matter. The US public views them to be a party full of individuals looking out for big business and religious nut jobs. This year they did pull away from religious matters, I'm guessing mainly due to the state of the economy healthcare and war, but their party platform is still WAY to conservative for moderate voters. Not allowing abortion AT ALL even in cases of rape, incest or maternal health? YOu are going to have a hard time convincing swing voters that you are a moderate party. Especially coming off the last 8 years where increases in government spending, perceived loss of personal liberties and approved torture have all been ok. The dems are no better. Instead of saying hey, we can be moderate they go too liberal, putting up a junior senator with one of the most liberal voting records.

Like you said it will depend on whether the new leadership in the white house and congress can affect change or not. I think if they fail miserably or get nothing changed, then the GOP won't need to change too much. If they are able to get something done or if the economy rebounds on it's own, then the GOP will need to find a way to reach out to the more moderate voters or risk being out of power for a long time.

And seriously, the religious right is NOT 1/2 the voting block like women are. A relatively small % of the population is going to vote on moral issues when they are losing their jobs or 401K's, can't afford college and are losing their homes.