Mccain continues nosedive toward conformity

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

"Where is this 'strategic direction' enumerated? The party platform? I challenge you to find me ONE 2006 congressional candidate who is running on this supposed "strategic direction" you've mentioned..."

"This plan can't be stated publicly. Nobody who walks around with an American flag and their 'I'm a conservative!' badge would agree to this. So, Republicans are still forced to run like McCain and govern like Bush. Bottom Line..."

Both you.

.....and!!? Both of those statements are completely consistent. Here, I'll put them in a paragraph for you:

Where is this 'strategic direction' enumerated? The party platform? I challenge you to find me ONE 2006 congressional candidate who is running on this supposed "strategic direction" you've mentioned. If Republicans are so obviously and decidedly behind being big spenders, than show me a candidate who is running on it. This plan can't be stated publicly. Nobody who walks around with an American flag and their 'I'm a conservative!' badge would agree to this. So, Republicans are still forced to run like McCain and govern like Bush. Bottom Line..."

There's rhetoric and there's policy. You seem to think that the Republican Party (without ever fully addressing who made this deicision) has decided to bust the bank, tap it dry, and start from scratch. Let me sa this one more time-- I THINK THAT'S A DIFFERENT THREAD, AND I'M NOT EVEN SAYING THAT YOU'RE NECESSARILY WRONG.

However, as I will show you below, Republicans at the federal and state level still need to campaign on conservative rhetoric, generally.

So, here we are again-- Your theory on why McCain can't win. According to you, he can't win, b/c the GOP has decided to be big spenders for the time being. I have shown you (and will continue to show you) that the Republicans can't attack McCain's fiscal conservatism in rhetoric, b/c they themselves at least PUBLICLY embrace it. I think this argument is irrefutable, and unless you can prove me wrong with public statements and platforms from campaigns, than don't bother.

Here are what Republicans say about spending, both at the federal level and the state:

"The Senate emergency spending bill represents a huge spending spree, but the big losers will be the American taxpayers stuck with the tab. President Bush requested $92 billion for the War on Terror and some hurricane spending. The House used fiscal restraint and stayed within the President's request for true emergency spending. We support the President's threat to veto the wayward spending bill. The American people don't deserve a special interest shopping cart disguised as a supplemental." LINK

MADISON, Wis. - "A proposed constitutional amendment to limit state spending, passed last week by the Assembly, ran into trouble on two fronts Monday.

A fiscal report said it would have produced virtually no change in state revenue growth over the last decade, and a Senate committee hammered it for not going far enough.

The limits would have capped annual revenue growth at 4.6 percent between fiscal years 1995 and 2004, the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau report said. Actual annual revenue growth over those years was 4.5 percent.

"It's just like saying nothing," said Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, who chairs a special Senate committee formed to deal exclusively with the amendment. He is crafting a new, tougher version the Senate could see later this week.

Republicans who control the state Legislature have been pushing for caps on government spending for years in hopes of holding down taxes and giving themselves points on the campaign trail." LINK

"The good news is that the Assembly Republicans have decided to say no to Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger said he wants to spend $7 billion more than the state receives in revenue. The Assembly Republicans said no, the state should only spend what it takes in.

Schwarzenegger said he wants to expand government as fast as Gray Davis. The Assembly Republicans said no, they want to slow down the growth of government.

The Schwarzenegger budget did not resolve the state's debt issues, particularly the $15 billion debt that Gray Davis created. The Assembly Republicans said they want to make sure that debt is paid, before we spend another dime in new state programs." LINK

"Sen. Brad Burzynski, R-Clare, noted that the budget includes $30,000 for Governor's State University for a display to honor legislators who attended the university.

"My understanding is they've been whistling people in all week to make deals and give people the pork that they want in order to sign them on (to vote for the budget)," said Sen. Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, the Republican candidate for treasurer.

Radogno also said the state only expects to collect about $900 million in additional taxes next year, but the budget increases spending by $1.4 billion.

"We're still spending more than we are taking in," Radogno said." LINK

I keep asking you to look at HOW Bush is governing. I keep asking you to offer up an alternative strategy that could be driving the Republican Party while including the things the Party has actually accomplished, and that's just one more thing you are choosing to ignore.

No, it's your diversion. You're answering my question with a question. Bush hasn't vetoed a spending bill, true. If you believe his argument, it's because he doesn't have a line item veto at his disposal. I dunno, that's probably bullshit.

However, you have overlooked the fact that A. his fellow Republicans HAVE criticized him on this, and B. Bush governs the way a politican slapped with the reality of entitlement governs. He tried that whole "ownership society" stuff, remember? Did he really intentionally make an ass of himself, stumping on revamping Social Security? The American people weren't too responsive to that.

According to your logic, he intentionally must've done that, all so we could ACTUALLY keep the SS system the same, so that it BREAKS! MUWAHAHA!!

You contradict yourself. All the time you critize members of both parties of being greedy, incompetent, and lacking vison. Yet you somehow believe that the Republican Party, starting all the way at the top with Bush and going down to the local county parties, can manage a hush-hush plan to break the bank. How do you reconcile this?

Are the actions of the current Republican Party dominated government in line with their platform? Freakin NO. Obviously not. How the hell do you explain that, Kevin? I really don't want to hear anything else you have to say on this issue until you can appease me with that. I understand that you are focusing your education on campaigns alone, but surely you have to see, when you tell me over and over that what is said in campaigns has basically no bearing on the actual governance produced by campaigning, that there is something other than just campaigning to politics, right?

The platforms are meaningless, and they have been since the democratization of the conventions. It's debateable whether or not they ever had a huge impact.....

I've given you my opinion on why Republicans say one thing and govern another. I'm of the opinon that ideolouges will say a whole lot of things, and voters will either cheer or boo respectively. They'll do this, up until the point they want their road fixed, or more cops on their street, or they want their social security check, or they want their military to go to war, etc. etc.

Voters ant it all. Hav you ever seen some of th data on general public opinion regarding government? Americans contradict themselves al the damn time. When Americans vote and also EXPECT those that they votefor to govrn a certain way, then you might see less double-speak. Maybe then.

That something is strategy, buddy. Strategy lives a much more robust life than do campaign promises. Even the best campaigns of mice and men will never elect a dead possum, and even the most electable candidate ever will not receive campaign support from a party that disagrees with his or her strategy for it's future.

ugh.....you do realize that the parties have less actual control over elections now than ever, right? I just can't even continue with this. You can't substantiate a damn thing you're saying.

Is the party the RNC, the Bush administration, the Republicans in congress, the Republican governors, the republican state committees, the republican county committees, the individual registeredrepublicans of every single state....!!?? WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!?

Seriously, answer this, or don't respond. When you can tell me who has this power to axe mcCain,onl then will Ibe able to tolerate any more of this.

Part of the campaign support I'm talking about there is that thing that was missing for McCain when Bush's campaign started hitting below the belt in 99. His party, the Republican one, did not help him to overcome the attacks and win. His party, the Republican one, chose instead to allow and thus support the Bush campaign's "dirty tricks." Why? They preferred Bush's compliance to the greater party's general strategy for governence.

You mean the Republican Party in New Hampshire? Did they allow it? Republicans in Michigan?

When you say "His party, the Republican one, did not help him to overcome the attacks and win", do you mean the primary voters in the southern states that chose a seemingly more conservative candidate.....please, I could live with that! REAL PEOPLE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT!

And speaking of McCain, if you're talking about southern republicans, than you and him might be on the same page. This is why he's courting southern officials, securing southern campaigners and fundraisers, and stumping like mad for House and Senate GOPers. THAT'S why he's all of sudden best friends with Jerry Falwell. Seriously, you should check out the infrastructure he's building. He's trying to re-build this party you keep mentioning in his own image. And again, as I've said previously, they will only flock to him more of 2006 goes as poorly for the GOP as anticipated.

EDIT: Here's an interesting story on McCain's stumping in Nebraska (and by default Iowa). The mcCain that ran and lost in 2000 had a lot of ideas on how to govern. That's great and all, but in the era of the permanent campaign, it's getting votes. That's it. McCain has learned his lesson, and he knows that you play this game if you want to get in the door and make some change.

I submit to you that the strategy I am talking about here is evident in the record of what the Republican Party has actually accomplished since Bush's election. I have clearly explained to you in this thread what I believe their long-term strategy is, and you have yet to explain to me what it is you believe their long-term strategy to be... so far.

Men and women trying to keep their jobs don't have national plans. Period.

okay, so here's where we are...once again. The entire basis for your argument is Republican spending in the United States Congress (irregardless of what's happening in state houses, county governments, towns, villages, etc.). You believe that high Republican spending is a "clear" indicator of a cohesive, national strategy to spend, spend, spend.

But there's a problem-- No Republican can publicly attack McCain for espousing fiscal conservatism. No Republican can publicly say "HEY, YOU'RE FUCKING UP OUR PLAN, ASSHOLE!!!"

So, in order for the GOP to derail him, they'll need to be clever (whoever "they" are). They'll need to publicly say the same things he says, al that jazz about pork, and balanced budgets, etc., but they'll ALSO have to subversively sink him.

So we come back to this-- HOW WILL THIS BE DONE, AND WHO, WHO, WHO WILL DO IT???

How's McCain doing now, Kevin? How bout now? How bout now? What's the point? You can do better than Matt Drudge or another sort of political Swatch Watch.

Matt Drudge at least has sources and pretends to be a journalist. At this point, I'd love Matt Drudge.

I read a lot of things. Apparently you do too, although we wouldn't know it. I back up my arguments, whereas you just type and type and type. You're like the Kerouac of message board trolls.