GOP frets about McCain's strategy, prospects

I tend to agree, but other issues also, a negative campaign strategy didn`t help, especially with his and Palin`s own history.

He could have chosen someone more divisive, lacking of intelectual curiosity (thanks Chris Mathews), oblivious to the socio-economic problems, than Palin and still be in the same position as he is today.

Inciting riot like behavior in his followers and believers, changing from a "maverick" to a Rove like candidate sounding like any other cc candidate is causing his demise.

historians will point to the selection of Sarah Palin as the tipping point against McCain.

rather than the tipping point, I see the selection of Palin as merely one more symptom of a campaign that lurched from one gimmick to the next. McCain never had a vision or strong reason why he wanted to become president. He's still looking for a message and we're 3 weeks away from the election.

R. Donald Snyder

Someday when the history of this McCain campaign is written historians will point to the selection of Sarah Palin as the tipping point against McCain.

I agree. I would be teetering between and Democrat and McCain had he chosen Huckabee or Romney if the Democratic nominee were anyone other than Hillary Clinton.

As it is, We have Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin and in our camp it will be Obama because we would vote no to Palin. And yes, MSM, the VP choice does matter

If it were Obama/Clinton, the only Ticket that would have us in the Conservative camp would have had to consist of Huckabee, Romney and Ron Paul.

Richardson/Clinton is also a beat all and would have hinged on the issues.

As it is right now... Because Obama more often than not sticks to the issues and McCain/Palin seem SOS and continue to shoot the messenger and can't seem to find the time to discuss the issues. we believe the republican party is going to be heavily upset.

Yeah, and it would be funny if it didn't hurt.

Americans should not feel sad or get down on how our Nation's image has been destroyed. We are a 'hearty' people, we have a "Back-up-party' a "maid & butler" party and this is not the first time the "Servants of We The People" have had to clean up the mess left by Massa & Missus Rebubbacan... President Clinton said, on the stump today, that he cleaned up behind the first Bush and Obama will clean up behind the second... ceste la vie... that's who the Democrats are... The True Patriots who Love This Country!

The True Patriots who Love This Country!

Obama will have a real mess on is hands!! Though, I have no doubt we will make us proud!

9% to 15%...Big jump. Under Obama it will jump up to 36%. But what the hell, all of us small business owners will simply have Obama's so-called --middle class-- pay our tax increase. That's how he gets around the fact that if you make less than $42,000 a year your taxes will go down...Sorry folks, NO THEY WON'T, they will go UP by proxy, you will pay our taxes by our price increases...each business suffering Obama's "tax plan" will naturally pass it along to the public...Once again your taxes will go up. It's either that or business owners will lay off an employee or two...but I guess Obama doesn't care about that fact. 

Right, so just keep taxing the little guys while the national wealth continues to concentrate at the top.  Who needs a middle class anyway? Heck, the top 1% makes 21% of all the income now, up from 11% in 1986.  How can they not love these policies?!?!  Please look at historical tax rates, before the Reagan Devolution, to get a handle on why we are now in more debt compared to our GDP than we have been since the 1950s.  But don't raise taxes - that will ruin everything! I know, cut spending - tell that to the republican congress and administration that has had the worst record in history in that regard. But let's re-elect them anyway. What the heck, maybe their policies will somehow suddenly begin to work.

Under Obama it will jump up to 36

Please provide a reference to support your claim. Otherwise you're merely trying catch a rainbow, and inviting others to join in that fruitless quest.

Sorry folks, NO THEY WON'T, they will go UP by proxy, you will pay our taxes by our price increases...each business suffering Obama's "tax plan" will naturally pass it along to the public.

In case you haven't noticed prices have been passed along to the consumer even when the biggest corporations have enjoyed tax decreases, and when CEO's get a manicure while their company is tanking.

Edward:

i would be interested in where you found this 36% tax increase number.

Actually it is the ruling part of congress that has screwed things up...The Dumbocrats, no wonder they have around a 9% approval rate. And yes the top 1% to 10% of what the Democrats like to call---the rich---make 21% of all income...and pay 76% of all taxes. Cry all you want but nothing can change the fact that the rich rule...and I am far from that group, however I will not allow my taxes to increase without passing it on to others...after all that is the American Way. And yes, let's replace the Democrats with a majority of Republicans... Remember when Bill Clinton was president... who ruled congress, the Republicans, that is why the economy looked good, Clinton was too smart to veto their bills, it made him look good. Now that the Dems took over their incompetance makes president Bush look bad....Sure the buck stops at the presidents desk, good or bad.

Edward:

I'm curious. Where did you get the 36% number for  the small business tax increase?

Edward Arnold, remind me why the country gave the boot to the Repugnican congress two years ago? Do the names Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Halliburton ring a bell? When Bush accepted the Presidency, the cost of a gallon of gas was $1.52. Then Cheney had secret meetings with the top oil goons and declared "Conservation may be a personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." So much for being a "conservative."

I agree that the Democratic congress hasn't done a great job. But take a look at the stinky bag they were given that had been rotting for six years. It's time for a change and not more of the same.

The Democratic Congress does not have a majority in the Senate when you include Independents - not enough to ram anything through.  The republican rule that began under Clinton is reponsible for the abolition of separation between commercial and investment banks and all the other deregulation that has occurred since, including keeping CDSs and hedge funds unregulated.  The democrats won a HOUSE majority two years ago and Bush vetos anything they do.  Real genious there.  

Edward -  think you need to look at the facts.  Ever since Reagan every republican administration has ballooned the national debt. The only time it came down during thepast 28 years was under Clinton, who was fisdcally responsible.  To fight major military conflicts at the same time you cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and ignore energy policy is a recipe for dissaster.  By the way, just so we don't confuse the numbers, it is the top 1% who make 21% of all the income.  They pay 39% of the taxes, and they should.  In 2006, to get into this group, you had to have had an adjusted gross income of about $350k.  The average was well over $1 million.  From WWII to the 1960s they paid a maximum rate of 92%.  Kenedy brought it down into the 70s.  Reagan to 50, Bush I to the 30s, and Bush II the 30s.  And everyone is so surprised that we have deficits.  Thanks for taking all of those payroll taxes from me while cutting taxes on the wealthy just so that, after 28 years, you can tell me we can't afford to pay back the $2.2 trillion in the SS trust Fund and so I don't get my retirement.  Guess what - if you take Payroll, income, property and sales tax as a percent of the total income of the bottom half, what percent do you think that comes to? 

Edward:

I'm curious. Where did you get the 36% number for  the small business tax increase?

He made it up. He's a republican. That's what they do. Make things up as they go along or repeat whatever Bill or Rush or Sean told them to repeat.

LOL, Joules!!!  What a  horrible photo, though.  He looks very old, and his eyes look vacant.  Oh my.

I don't care much for Gail Collins, but she nailed it when she said he seems to be morphing into Gollum before our eyes. "We wants it, precious! We needs it! Gollum gollum gollum, nasty little Bagginses!"

Too funny, Trex.  On another note, has anyone noticed how high he's lifted his arms?  I thought the reason the pubs gave for his not being able to use a computer is that he couldn't raise his arms up to a keyboard.  Unless he's strapping the keyboard to the top of his head, I'm calling bull**** on that one.

Hey Joules, if you look at the control bar above the text you will see a button that has a check mark and ABC, if you press that BEFORE you post your comment, it will help you with the spelling errors that are abundant in your posts.  OR you could read your post before you hit the post button and that may help too.  SORRY, not to be a roving editor-at-large, but it is very difficult to fully grasp what you are trying to convey when it has soooooo many typos.

For the content, what I can gleen from it, I would have to agree with your message.  McCain needs to completely retool his campaign, starting with firing his current coherts, which are doing nothing good for him.  He needs to come clean and start fresh, I am not sure if 3 weeks is enough time to do this, I would be of the opinion that he is pretty well washed out of this election and I don't believe at age 76 he is going to be able to try again.

On our local news last night, it was brought up about McCain's health and whether the public should have more insight as to whether he is healthy enough to be our President.  I have seen so much "wear and tear" on him just campaigning, I can't imagine what the pressures of the Presidency would do to him and I don't want to imagine Palin, next in line and chopping at the bit.

pctechie, sorry to have to do this, but it's "glean," "cohorts" and "chomping."

trex, that's fair enough.  I had to leave my office and hit post, so it didn't time out while I was gone.  I suppose I shouldn't complain, however those three are much better than the post I was "complaining" about.

Greengal, it just sounds wrong, I know.  I have had some marketing classes in college and it doesn't seem to matter if you are trying to sell Cheerios, beer, steak or a Presidential candidate, the lingo is all the same.  It is all in the presentation and the acceptance from the audience.  WE are the 'target audience' as the lingo goes.  It just seems like a Presidential campaign should be more than just convincing the audience that Brand X is the best choice, doesn't it.  Obama's campaign is the same way, but I just feel better about the whole 'presentation' of it.  Don't be fooled, though, we are being "sold" a product and this product is a President of the United States.

pctechie - Yes, I know that marketing is what is going on.  Perhaps I just wish that what we would be dealing with is ideas, policy, and solutions instead of treating it all as just another commodity.  Thanks for the additional insight.

p.s. 'pctechie' - just wondering if that is your career field?

I am a computer tech.  Hardware, software, telecom.  I have my own business and I work for a company, too.

pctechie - Thanks. Just indulging my curiousity. Longtime systems analyst, software developer and DBA here.

Greengal, I have done some systems analytical work, SAP, POS, Oracle and Unix DBA, however no development.  I enjoy working with the people at their desks, more than working from an office developing.  Nice to know there more IT people responding.

Reply---- I couldn't agree more with you. Being "nice" isn't always the answer. McCain is a warrior and he should fight as if his (and our) lives depend on fighting the fight. However, all may not be lost, remember that as far back as the 70's the "Silent Majority" (with the emphasis on Majority) always won out, with the exception of the 1992 run where Ross Perot got 19% of the votes which wounded G.H.W. Bush and helped put Bill Clinton in. In 2000 and 2004 it was the silent majority that came out at the last moment and put G.W. Bush in. The silent majority are NEVER included in so-called polls because they most always answer "uncertain". In 2008 you can bet it will happen again and John McCain will be elected. In 2000 G.W. Bush trailed by 11 points in the polls three weeks prior to election. In 2004 he trailed by 13 points...the silent majority put him in. And when it happens this time the liberals can always revert to their old excuse of "it was stolen".

So itis the silent majority wehave to thank for the abject failures of the past 30 years.

McCain's enough of a warrior to know that sometimes you can win the battle and lose the war.  Sure, he might be able to attack his way into the White House, but at what cost?  A toxicly divided population and a hostile congress that promises another four years of deadlock?  We can't afford that as a nation.  Maybe McCain is declaring an end to Rovian politics.  Maybe he is starting to realize that together is the only way America will survive the crises we are expeincing right now.  Divided, and at each other's throats, we fall.

A toxicly divided population and a hostile congress that promises another four years of deadlock?

Aren't we all ready there, how much more divided can we be?

Just to agree to be agreeable and to get along is not enough for America, that is not why John McCain should not attack.

He needs to step up his game and bring it to......if he does not, he will lose.

replytoj001

He can't because the audience begans to froth at the mouth when he does. They booed him when he tried to tone down the epithets being yelled. The "Joe Sixpacks" and "Hockey Moms" turned out to be ignorant rednecks, and they helped immensely to turn off the undecided voters.

You all might as well stand in front of a mirror and ask why everything is screwed up. Hell, YOU elected Bush!

Edward Arnold, the only "majority" that gave the Presidency to George W. Bush was five Supreme Court justices, in the worst-argued decision in American history. Bush didn't win a majority of votes. He couldn't even manage a plurality in a three-way race the way Clinton did. Clinton also won a decisive electoral college victory, which people who sing the praises of red states and "small town America" are supposed to like.

Trex,

The part of Bush v Gore I found particularly annoying was how the Supreme Court majority said in effect "this is a one-shot deal, not to be considered a precedent, we only want our guy to win this election."

LOL..so true!!!

I was with you until you said this:

This is what i want AFRICAN AMERICANS in the U.S to do. They must forget about whether they feel the system is fair to them or not. They have to prove their ability and show that they are capable. If they consistently work hard and prove this, they will eventually get respect from the WHITE COMMUNTIY.

This comment makes no sense. First of all, do you think women would have the right to vote if they just "accepted" that the system wasn't fair?

Also as an African American, and I'm pretty sure I can speak for others when I say that, I do not wake up every morning looking to please you. Having respect for human beings is what you are suppose to do. It's not extra credit or going the extra mile. It's what you are suppose to do.

No one is talking about this, but to me it's vital in understanding what Obama is saying he'll do.
Obama said many times that he would "roll back" George W. Bush's tax cuts. He said that very thing at the CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate in Manchester, NH,
In the recent Bill O'Reiley interview with Barack Obama, Obama said that he would not raise taxes on about 95 percent of Americans. He would raise taxes on the other 5 percent of Americans, known to him as "the rich."
But if you put the two together, it paints a picture similar to what he first proposed back when he was talking about raising everyone's taxes.

How? Because when the Bush tax cuts come up for expiration, Obama said he will let them expire. Which, though technically we can't call that a tax INCREASE because he'd actually just be letting Bush's tax cuts "expire." That would effectively be a tax increase on every taxpayer because every taxpayer received a cut under the Bush tax cut based on what they paid in.
So what that basically means is that, if elected, he'll preside over a tax increase for every tax payer and then will hike taxes AGAIN on those who are the top 5 percent of wage earners. So he is accurate in saying that his plan doesn't call for a tax increase on all tax payers, but he said he would let it happen.
What this does is raise taxes to the level he first stated he would as the Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, CNN and Fox News all reported. Yet with the convenience of technically not having to tell us that and not technically having it called a tax increase, Obama misleads us.
So if Obama wins, the taxes of all taxpayers will go up and then the top 5 percent will get hit again. That's a sneaky plan. Don't say I didn't warn you.

-- Obama proposes to increase the capital gains tax rate by 33%.
-- Obama proposes to increase the tax rate on dividends by 33%.
-- Obama proposes to raise the top payroll tax rate by between 16%-32%.
-- Obama proposes a new payroll tax on employers to help pay for national health insurance.
-- Obama proposes to reinstate the death tax, which is being phased out under current law, with a new top marginal tax rate of 45%.
-- Obama proposes tax increases for corporations as well, such as the windfall profits tax on oil companies.
-- Obama's protectionist trade policies even suggest higher tariff taxes.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama's tax plan would raise taxes by $627 billion over 10 years.

The next administration and Congress have no choice but to raise taxes.  Bush has maxed out the national credit card.  Taxes will go up and a lot of spending will go down (cutting out the Iraqi debacle will help tremendously there) because the Republicans' boy, George W. Bush, never say a deficit that he didn't love.  But we can't blame it all on Bush.  The Republican controlled Congress went along with all of Bush's economic ideas, i.e., cut taxes and spend like crazy.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama's tax plan would raise taxes by $627 billion over 10 years.

Good, because we certainly need the money.  I hope it comes mostly from those who do not live paycheck to paycheck so the impact on consumption is minimized.  Lets face it, we simply cannot continue borrowing from China and the middle-east to finance wars.  Just how far in debt would you like us to go?  All the way until the rest of the world decides to stop lending to us?  That would be another utter disaster and if we keep going the way we have it will unfold, and likely in our lifetime. You do realize that we are currently headed for a half trillion ANNUAL budget deficit, before the mass of boomers retire? I am open to other suggestions, but closing the gap will not be accomplished by eliminating earmarks. That's a drop in the bucket and complete nonsense as a solution. It is a bad mentality that will have to change, but it's a symptom, not the problem. And, I might add, a symptom that has grown painfully obvious during the republican rule.

Edward, the Bush taxcuts were solely for the extremely wealthy, the top 3% of America.  That taxcut was on top of the umbrella's and loop holes in the tax laws that already favor the elite.  When that tax break expires it will only affect the top 3%, provided that they can't find another loop hole or tax break to hide the money.  Investing is the best way to protect money and it helps the economy at the same time!  The elite have had these taxcuts for several years and Bush's idea of 'trickle' down economy from the elite has not happened for Main Street America.  The spas and resorts have enjoyed some extra spending, but the companies that keep America working are seeing tighter budgets, which usually requires layoffs. 

Will this all change if the taxcuts are allowed to expire and the elite are taxed more, perhaps they will be encouraged to invest the money back into the companies.

Very important to note, Obama has also stated and repeated that with the tough economic times he plans on suspending his tax increase plan.  So that means that he is not going to "cause more harm at a time when America needs healing."

Edward, you think there are going to be capital gains and dividends to tax?!?!

Whoa, what an optimist!

Actually you are way off base... I am nowhere near that 3% Liberals keep spouting about, I got a tax break that helped my business with the result being I hired 3 more employees, Now I know to Liberal Democrats that's no big deal, but to me and millions like me it was everything, and president McCain will keep it that way. Now, what most Democrats KNOW but will never talk about is that McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts because it DID favor the top 1% to 3%. McCain does want to maintain the tax cuts and at the same time raise taxes a bit on the wealthy. And once again, I'll remind you that the top 10% of the so-called "rich" pays 76% of all our taxes. I'm afraid you have been listening too much to foul mouth talking heads like Keith Olbermann... Wake up, you are in for a BIG SURPRISE.

Come on, Edward.  Whoever is elected will have to raise taxes.  Your boy Bush has maxed out the national credit card.  The government will have to live within its means, which means that taxes will be raised.

Wake up yourself, because even if McCain becomes Maximum Leader taxes will go up.

John McCains latest strategy is to go back to gridlock

It is a strategy that clearly emphazizes the desperation that John McCain and his Campaign find themselves in, and what it means is that they know they have lost on the issues and that only this wierd plea for " partisan grid lock" could possibly save his campaign.
It is a strange argument for a Senator who voted the party line in all but a handful of votes that ruined our country with his active support as well as Congressional lobbying for the bad policy's which were put forth by George Bush and supported whole heartedly by the National Republican Party.
In addition it totally contradicts and undermines his argument that we need government to work together. Specifically it undermines his call for bi-partisanship because what he is saying now is you can't trust the Democrats with all the power when he didn't make that argument in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002,  2004, or 2006.
But now in 2008 in the midst of the greatest economic crisis faced by this nation in nearly 80 years when real cooperation amongst our leaders is so desperately needed John McCain's bright idea is to go back to grid lock. In his infinite wisdom John McCain has decided that only divided goverment works for America------------------- as long as he is President.

Edward, I am not sure who you are referring to as "Now I know to Liberal Democrats that's no big deal, but to me and millions like me it was everything" But to me, if you were able to reap a tax cut and used that to hire people, THAT'S HUGE!  I thank you for doing that instead of just putting the money into your pocket, which is what the elite have been doing.  They also got a nice tax break, but they didn't invest it, they decided it was an early bonus or something.  I haven't been listening to any "talking heads" so I don't even know Keith Olbermann or what he is espousing.  I prefer to keep up with what the candidates are saying and how the media and other people are interpreting it.
I can't do as much research on my own as I would like to, but I have tried to stay focused on the main events and main points the candidates are making.

Look again ECHE... the blind is wide open, on the other side is a narrow blind that appears to be closed, but McCain is most certainly looking to the left of the blind to people outside.

I'm glad you mentioned that, Sylvia. Who's to know exactly what toll this hard, elongated election is having on McCain right now? When someone of his age and wartime experience can come out with the phrase of "....my fellow prisoners', while addressing his supporters, that should be a real cause for concern as to how he is bearing up mentally under this emotionally draining time, but nobody seems to be taking notice.

You make several good points.  I, too, believe he has lost his way for this campaign and he has to hope that he hasn't lost his base of Arizona voters that will keep him in office, should he decide to run for re-election to the Senate.  I am hopeful that he will, upon losing the race for the Presidency, also decide to step down from the Senate and allow a better candidate to take over.