If John McCain Were President
18 Apr 2011, 11:33 am
Conservatives think the country would have been in a state that is more favorable to them if McCain were elected as president rather than Barack Obama.
Looking beyond surface value, we now find that Obama has been a benefactor to conservatism. The public has generally forgotten or put into the back of their minds the stigma against the Bush Administration. The Tea Party rose, uniting both conservatives and libertarians. The Republicans won multiple governorships, a few seats in the Senate, and took over the House of Representatives.
McCain is a moderate conservative who often diverges from the Republican Party on numerous issues.
Here is my reasoning on how a McCain presidency would have benefited Democrats and hurt conservatives.
1. McCain wins the 2008 election.
2. McCain vetoes health care reform and stimulus projects (a perceived victory by the Republicans).
3. Democrat majority in Congress blocks his plans for tax cuts and spending reductions.
4. Deficits under his administration would have high ($600+ billion) even if they weren't as high as Obamas, due to mandatory autopilot spending that he has no control over and his inability to get his spending cuts through Congress.
5. His inability to pass his economic plan through a Democratic Congress results in slow (or no) economic recovery.
6. Unsatisfied with the state of the country, which the public perceives to be of John McCains fault, the public elects more Democrats (in addition to their majority) to take over both houses of Congress.
7. Liberals pass their agenda, possibly overriding McCain's veto.
8. There is a huge rift in the Republican Party. Between the moderates like McCain and the libertarians. As a result, the Tea Party does not gain momentum or does not form at all because many Republicans refuse to oppose a president of their own party. (Tea Party, libertarians, and Republicans all unite to oppose Obama, even though they are very different, but when there is no Obama, they have little reason to unite).
9. Half of Republicans criticize the moderate McCain for doing little to reduce spending (even though it may have been out of his control).
10. 2012 comes. McCain is blamed for an economy which still cannot recover. A Democrat wins the election by a landslide and has control of both the Senate and the House. This new president will be able to pass the entire liberal agenda without conservative opposition.
That's just my theory on how a McCain presidency would work.
Do you agree or disagree? Do comment.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
18 Apr 2011, 11:50 am
minervx wrote:
...
Do you agree or disagree? Do comment.
Do you agree or disagree? Do comment.
Disagree. The lack of "stimulus" packages and health care 'reforms' alone would have done wonders for the economy. The lack of spending ever more and printing up funny money would have also helped. However, I am certain that McCain would have been personally blamed for everything disagreeable throughout the entire universe, from the onset, whereas most media bureaucrats kept singing Obama's praises until about mid-2009.
18 Apr 2011, 11:58 am
minervx wrote:
Conservatives think the country would have been in a state that is more favorable to them if McCain were elected as president rather than Barack Obama.
Looking beyond surface value, we now find that Obama has been a benefactor to conservatism. The public has generally forgotten or put into the back of their minds the stigma against the Bush Administration. The Tea Party rose, uniting both conservatives and libertarians. The Republicans won multiple governorships, a few seats in the Senate, and took over the House of Representatives.
McCain is a moderate conservative who often diverges from the Republican Party on numerous issues.
Here is my reasoning on how a McCain presidency would have benefited Democrats and hurt conservatives.
1. McCain wins the 2008 election.
2. McCain vetoes health care reform and stimulus projects (a perceived victory by the Republicans).
3. Democrat majority in Congress blocks his plans for tax cuts and spending reductions.
4. Deficits under his administration would have high ($600+ billion) even if they weren't as high as Obamas, due to mandatory autopilot spending that he has no control over and his inability to get his spending cuts through Congress.
5. His inability to pass his economic plan through a Democratic Congress results in slow (or no) economic recovery.
6. Unsatisfied with the state of the country, which the public perceives to be of John McCains fault, the public elects more Democrats (in addition to their majority) to take over both houses of Congress.
7. Liberals pass their agenda, possibly overriding McCain's veto.
8. There is a huge rift in the Republican Party. Between the moderates like McCain and the libertarians. As a result, the Tea Party does not gain momentum or does not form at all because many Republicans refuse to oppose a president of their own party. (Tea Party, libertarians, and Republicans all unite to oppose Obama, even though they are very different, but when there is no Obama, they have little reason to unite).
9. Half of Republicans criticize the moderate McCain for doing little to reduce spending (even though it may have been out of his control).
10. 2012 comes. McCain is blamed for an economy which still cannot recover. A Democrat wins the election by a landslide and has control of both the Senate and the House. This new president will be able to pass the entire liberal agenda without conservative opposition.
That's just my theory on how a McCain presidency would work.
Do you agree or disagree? Do comment.
Looking beyond surface value, we now find that Obama has been a benefactor to conservatism. The public has generally forgotten or put into the back of their minds the stigma against the Bush Administration. The Tea Party rose, uniting both conservatives and libertarians. The Republicans won multiple governorships, a few seats in the Senate, and took over the House of Representatives.
McCain is a moderate conservative who often diverges from the Republican Party on numerous issues.
Here is my reasoning on how a McCain presidency would have benefited Democrats and hurt conservatives.
1. McCain wins the 2008 election.
2. McCain vetoes health care reform and stimulus projects (a perceived victory by the Republicans).
3. Democrat majority in Congress blocks his plans for tax cuts and spending reductions.
4. Deficits under his administration would have high ($600+ billion) even if they weren't as high as Obamas, due to mandatory autopilot spending that he has no control over and his inability to get his spending cuts through Congress.
5. His inability to pass his economic plan through a Democratic Congress results in slow (or no) economic recovery.
6. Unsatisfied with the state of the country, which the public perceives to be of John McCains fault, the public elects more Democrats (in addition to their majority) to take over both houses of Congress.
7. Liberals pass their agenda, possibly overriding McCain's veto.
8. There is a huge rift in the Republican Party. Between the moderates like McCain and the libertarians. As a result, the Tea Party does not gain momentum or does not form at all because many Republicans refuse to oppose a president of their own party. (Tea Party, libertarians, and Republicans all unite to oppose Obama, even though they are very different, but when there is no Obama, they have little reason to unite).
9. Half of Republicans criticize the moderate McCain for doing little to reduce spending (even though it may have been out of his control).
10. 2012 comes. McCain is blamed for an economy which still cannot recover. A Democrat wins the election by a landslide and has control of both the Senate and the House. This new president will be able to pass the entire liberal agenda without conservative opposition.
That's just my theory on how a McCain presidency would work.
Do you agree or disagree? Do comment.
I think it is all possible except #7 and #10, because the Democrats have already shown they can barely come together on an agenda of their own when they have control
Also, with the way the economy was, I think the Republicans would have voted for somekind of stimulus plan, since it started in the previous administration. But agree, there would have been no chance of healthcare reform.
Overall I think policy, in general, and the status of the country would not be much different than it is now, if McCain had won. The significant diference is healthcare reform. This was probably the only opportunity to pass anything of real significance for the forseeable future.
The Republicans have this problem also, now more than the past, with tea party demands that don't always match the mainstream Republican plans.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
18 Apr 2011, 12:19 pm
minervx wrote:
There is a huge rift in the Republican Party. Between the moderates like McCain and the libertarians. As a result, the Tea Party does not gain momentum or does not form at all because many Republicans refuse to oppose a president of their own party. (Tea Party, libertarians, and Republicans all unite to oppose Obama, even though they are very different, but when there is no Obama, they have little reason to unite).
The Tea Party is fundamentally a libertarian movement, despite the press' distracting from that by focusing on fringe elements.
I think it's quite possible that something like the Tea Party would still have formed, with the same libertarian roots, but instead of challenging Republicans in the primaries, it might have challenged Democrats in the primaries. Perhaps instead of taking control of the Republicans away from the religious right, it would have taken control of the Democrats away from the progressive/socialist wing. That would have been an interesting outcome.
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Disagree. The lack of "stimulus" packages and health care 'reforms' alone would have done wonders for the economy. The lack of spending ever more and printing up funny money would have also helped. However, I am certain that McCain would have been personally blamed for everything disagreeable throughout the entire universe, from the onset, whereas most media bureaucrats kept singing Obama's praises until about mid-2009.
McCain pushed strongly for bailouts in 2008. I think it's very likely he would have backed a stimulus package just as bad as Obama's. It's true that he wouldn't have signed a disastrous health care package like Obamacare, but the problems that Obamacare will cause haven't actually hit the economy yet anyway.
18 Apr 2011, 12:42 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
minervx wrote:
...
Do you agree or disagree? Do comment.
Do you agree or disagree? Do comment.
Disagree. The lack of "stimulus" packages and health care 'reforms' alone would have done wonders for the economy. The lack of spending ever more and printing up funny money would have also helped. However, I am certain that McCain would have been personally blamed for everything disagreeable throughout the entire universe, from the onset, whereas most media bureaucrats kept singing Obama's praises until about mid-2009.
I think it is true that McCain would not likely have won the Nobel Peace Prize. I don't think they would have awarded it to Hillary if she had won, either.
I don't think one can underestimate charisma; the kind that Obama demonstrated in the Convention speech as a Senator and during the campaign. With no charisma, influence is weak. It's no wonder he had the praises of the media until that light burned out.
That is what the Republicans need now; but not the wild and extreme charisma demonstrated by Palin and Trump. There aren't many people that could win the Nobel Peace Prize based on Charisma, alone; but I think Obama did. It might be possible that Obama re-kindles some of that light before the next election.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
18 Apr 2011, 12:54 pm
aghogday wrote:
That is what the Republicans need now; but not the wild and extreme charisma demonstrated by Palin and Trump. There aren't many people that could win the Nobel Peace Prize based on Charisma, alone; but I think Obama did. It might be possible that Obama re-kindles some of that light before the next election.
I doubt Obama won the Nobel Prize based on Charisma alone. I think more to the matter is that he's a few shades darker than Lt Cmdr Data. But either way, for Charisma or mere concentration of melanin, the Nobel Prize has lost its value now that it is able to be earned for essentially nothing.
18 Apr 2011, 1:38 pm
aghogday wrote:
I think it is all possible except #7 and #10, because the Democrats have already shown they can barely come together on an agenda of their own when they have control
It really doesn't help that there were still a large number of blue dog democrats. That'd be like having republicans who consistently vote democrat on issues. A good part of why I'm glad the blue dogs are finally actually turning coat rather than just lie about party affiliation.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
18 Apr 2011, 2:46 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
aghogday wrote:
That is what the Republicans need now; but not the wild and extreme charisma demonstrated by Palin and Trump. There aren't many people that could win the Nobel Peace Prize based on Charisma, alone; but I think Obama did. It might be possible that Obama re-kindles some of that light before the next election.
I doubt Obama won the Nobel Prize based on Charisma alone. I think more to the matter is that he's a few shades darker than Lt Cmdr Data. But either way, for Charisma or mere concentration of melanin, the Nobel Prize has lost its value now that it is able to be earned for essentially nothing.
I think part of it was relief that rhetoric would be different on international policy. The rhetoric has been different, but in general, the results of our foreign policy haven't changed much with the new administration. I do agree, though there was no individual achievement that warranted the award. It seemed to be based more on expectation and rhetoric than actual achievement.
There is nothing about Obama's melanin that sets him apart from anyone else in foreign affairs, or any other policy in his administration that I can see. I don't think it is likely that an African American with the Bush Cowboy Rhetoric on foreign affairs, would have been awarded the prize. The group that awarded this prize, doesn't notice melanin, the way that some do in the US.
I doubt they notice the amount of melanin evident with our new speaker of the house either, the way that some commentators do in the US.
It is of note that the US elected an African American President, but what is it that I am missing, that could play a role, in the awarding of a peace prize to an individual?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
18 Apr 2011, 2:52 pm
aghogday wrote:
It is of note that the US elected an African American President, but what is it that I am missing, that could play a role, in the awarding of a peace prize to an individual?
That he's a democrat, and democrats and their like-minded allies define themselves as politically correct. Obama could do no wrong, well until he had sufficiently done enough wrong that even the most hard headed lefties could no longer suspend their disbelief. It is nothing new for a politician to provide lofty promises to crowds of useful idiots. Obama is neither the first nor the last politician to practice such "charisma".
18 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
At least we had a brief two-year window of opportunity during which we were able to make some modest improvements.
Now, the Republicans are back, desperately seeking to destroy the country and bring down our economy.
Mr. Obama deserves the Nobel Prize for having led the nation in a victory over the Republican Party, and temporarily giving the world a sense of hope.
18 Apr 2011, 3:30 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
aghogday wrote:
It is of note that the US elected an African American President, but what is it that I am missing, that could play a role, in the awarding of a peace prize to an individual?
That he's a democrat, and democrats and their like-minded allies define themselves as politically correct. Obama could do no wrong, well until he had sufficiently done enough wrong that even the most hard headed lefties could no longer suspend their disbelief. It is nothing new for a politician to provide lofty promises to crowds of useful idiots. Obama is neither the first nor the last politician to practice such "charisma".
Sorry, I didn't make my question clear. More specifically, what is it about melanin, that could have made a difference for an individual to be awarded the nobel peace prize, by an international group?
Regarding the Charisma of Obama, true that it is nothing new, but it is often the difference between being elected and not being elected. Consider the Gore and Kerry factor. Regardless of the perceived failings of Bush, he had enough Charisma and influence to defeat both of these individuals that had monotone voices and little to no Charisma. McCain had the same problem.
I can't think of any Republican president in the last 50 years that used Optimistic Charisma like Obama, Clinton, or John Kennedy. Reagan is the closest one that comes to mind for Republicans in those years.
18 Apr 2011, 3:44 pm
YippySkippy wrote:
McCain proved himself unfit for office when he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.
I mean, seriously. That chick is wacka-do.
I mean, seriously. That chick is wacka-do.
That decision put a whole new light on the Republican decision making process. Seems like I remember reports that McCain was not too comfy with the idea behind closed doors. If McCain could have had Lieberman for a running mate, he might have been happier, but those two were not the kind of speakers that had the skills to get the attention of the American Public and contend with the Charisma of Obama.
Maybe the attention factor was what the Republicans were seeking to gain with Palin. She certainly knows how to get attention, but not always in a positive way.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
18 Apr 2011, 3:45 pm
aghogday wrote:
Regardless of the perceived failings of Bush, he had enough Charisma and influence
No he didn't. Bush was about as charismatic as a cactus.
Quote:
More specifically, what is it about melanin, that could have made a difference for an individual to be awarded the nobel peace prize, by an international group?
Are you to suppose that the word "international" is by some means equivalent to the word "unbiased"? The committees that awarded Obama with a Nobel Prize are idiots. They gave one to Al Gore for making environmentalist propaganda and they failed to give one to the actual inventor of the MRI. Obama is just the third down on a list of failures to think properly for this generation of people giving away once meaningful trophies. As per why they might have given Obama a now slightly less meaningful trophy due to melanin, it could be that he was the first non-white president elected. His shoddy hollow promises could have certainly convinced the geniuses of the international preemptive trophy donation committee to preemptively provide him his trophy before doing anything other than being elected, but if so it only shows how many 'geniuses' there really are upon that committee.
