Ya know McCain almost seems to be intentionally throwing the election. I mean a lot of the things he's done this election cycle tend to have me thinking it has to be on purpose. I may like some of the things he stood for but he's either backed off or completely shifted his thinking on the matter.

Taxes: He was opposed to raising taxes. However he wants to remove the pre-tax deduction for health insurance. This effectively increases taxes on the majority of workers out there. So my big bonus for suporting him has now become moot.

Working with the other side: Well since he's won the ticket, he's comletely backed off that one. It's doubtful they would even work with him at all.

Not being your typical politician: Yeah, he's turned around and done everything you expect from a politician. Big shocker there. not much of a maverick anymore...

No, I'm not really debating what McCain has gone back on. Honestly the list is long enought that I really don't feel like typing it anymore... But what I wonder is if he's doing it on purpose, and why. It makes sense though. See we're in for hard econimic times. It's gonna get worse. We're seeing the tip of it right now. Four years isn't going to change it, regardless of who's in office. The first two years are going to be pretty well uncontrolled by the person in office.

An example is in 2000 the markets were already bursting. By the time any economic package was signed it was october of 01. Bush got the blame for the poor economy even though he hadn't done anything. Obama will get the blame for what happens from election day to election day.

People have silly expectations. They are going to expect the economy to be all good by 2 or 3 years into the next presidency. The reality is, it won't be all fixed. Unless by some wierd happenstance some plan that Bush implimented actually works(doubtful, but who knows...). Chances are that it'll take at least 4 years for the markets to stabilize(probably more). In the mean time there is likely going to be a rise in unemployment. The wealthy are going to hide more of their money. More likely they'll hold on to it in accounts outside the US.

The real poison pill might just be this presidency.

4 words... man crush on Obama :xp:

Or he's trying to prove he really is a maverick... :confused:

BTW..Agree with the economy part.

I agree with you, Tommycat. I said to Achilles last night that it's like McCain has been possessed by a reactionary demon, or that someone else is pulling his strings. Someone that apparently wants him to lose.

I agree with you, Tommycat. I said to Achilles last night that it's like McCain has been possessed by a reactionary demon, or that someone else is pulling his strings. Someone that apparently wants him to lose.I really wish I understood the compulsion to not hold McCain accountable for his actions. He's an experienced politician who's run at least half a dozen campaigns. If he can't control his own campaign, then he sure as hell can't control an administration and therefore doesn't deserve to be President.

I guess I don't understand why people automatically go to this "this isn't the campaign he would run" place instead of acknowledging that this is the campaign that he wants to run ("I approve this message" goes on every single one of his ads).

It was not my intent to excuse him. I hold McCain fully responsible for the actions of his campaign. I just mentioned that he doesn't seem like himself as of late, and I'm wondering why. That's all. ;)

Possession by demons or having one's strings pulled doesn't sound like accountability. The argument sounds as though something other than McCain is responsible for McCain's actions. I'm simply pointing out that this isn't true (and it sounds as though you ultimately agree).

The other question we have to answer is, who is this "real John McCain" I keep hearing about. Who's to say that the John McCain we're seeing now isn't the "real John McCain"? Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand the argument.

Perhaps I should have worded it differently. And yes, I do agree with you.
The other question we have to answer is, who is this "real John McCain" I keep hearing about.Yes, this is the real question at hand. Have his actions over the past 20+ years been a ruse of some sort? Was his willingness to cross party lines on numerous occasions in the past just an effort to secure his Senate seat?

Have his actions over the past 20+ years been a ruse of some sort?Which begs the question: which actions? I hope the argument is not that he has some pristine record that is just now being tarnished. His reputation for being hot tempered, for personalizing conflict, etc is well founded. As is his reputation for acting like an ass-hat one moment, putting forth a weak apology the next, and expecting all to be forgiven. This behavior (on steroids) is what I'm seeing now. The addition of "steroids" doesn't make it news to me.

Was his willingness to cross party lines on numerous occasions in the past just an effort to secure his Senate seat?My kneejerk reaction is that this is a non sequitur. Is ability to "cross party lines", real or imagined, doesn't strike me as being terribly relevant to running a dirty campaign.

This is not a "Lets call McCain a dirtbag" thread, we have enough of those Achilles. This thread is discussing why a candidate would intentionally throw the presidential race. Discuss the topic at hand or ignore the thread.

You opened the door. By claiming McCain may be "throwing" the campaign you need to be open to the opposite opinion that he's not throwing it; this is just how he is.

No, because the question does not require that McCain throw the race. Just discuss why any candidate(or party for that matter) would intentionally throw a presidential race(this one or a hypothetical one). McCain was simply explaining how I came up with the thread idea. You want to call McCain a dirtbag, do it in another thread. There are several other threads doing that already.

To me if there were a presidential race to throw, this would be the one. Economy in the tank, gonna be getting worse(again unless by some miracle something Bush did helped, at least 2 years of bad economy). Stuck in Iraq and required to stay by the Geneva Conventions(see requirements of the occupying force). Considdering that the president cannot do anything to fix the economy, or get us out of Iraq any faster, pretty much the biggest issues are things that the pres will get blamed for that he has no control over.

Stuck in Iraq and required to stay by the Geneva Conventions(see requirements of the occupying force).

Oh yeah, 'cause we're REAL good at following the Geneva Convention.


If you've got some kind of surefire proof that the other guy will lose or screw things up worse, or you're going to tear him down without incriminating yourself, then yeah it's a great time to throw an election. But in this particular party, losing would certainly be more the dooming of your own party than the destruction of the other party.

Considering the age of McCain, I really believe this is his last shot at becoming President. That plus his years of public service make me believe he is not purposely be throwing the election.

Oh yeah, 'cause we're REAL good at following the Geneva Convention.
Irrelevant. Unless you're saying that Obama will violate the Geneva Conventions. At this point, I'm pretty well conceding that Obama will be the next POTUS.


If you've got some kind of surefire proof that the other guy will lose or screw things up worse, or you're going to tear him down without incriminating yourself, then yeah it's a great time to throw an election. But in this particular party, losing would certainly be more the dooming of your own party than the destruction of the other party.
The next president will get blamed for the economy not getting better or getting worse(again, unless you think Bush actually fixed it). Republicans might be able to turn it in their favor in mid terms(Saying the Dems haven't fixed it in the two years they had the house, senate and whitehouse, may help sway people that don't know enough about how it works). Dems already control Congress, so blaming Congress would be ok, and not so self incriminating.

Irrelevant. Unless you're saying that Obama will violate the Geneva Conventions. At this point, I'm pretty well conceding that Obama will be the next POTUS.
We are the US after all. Democratic and Republican presidents alike have pretty much done what they want to.


The next president will get blamed for the economy not getting better or getting worse(again, unless you think Bush actually fixed it). Republicans might be able to turn it in their favor in mid terms(Saying the Dems haven't fixed it in the two years they had the house, senate and whitehouse, may help sway people that don't know enough about how it works). Dems already control Congress, so blaming Congress would be ok, and not so self incriminating.
From what I've heard, the market is supposed to bottom out sometime late next year and slowly improve from there, and that's not taking government action into account. So 4 years from now the economy could be in quite good shape.

This is not a "Lets call McCain a dirtbag" thread, we have enough of those Achilles. This thread is discussing why a candidate would intentionally throw the presidential race. Discuss the topic at hand or ignore the thread.

Tommycat has defined the topic narrowly. Anti-McCain rhetoric needs to go in the relevant thread(s). Further anti-McCain sentiments will be deleted as off topic. Thanks in advance for helping keep the thread on topic.