DC:Massive opposition research file on Romney hits Internet, likely from 2008 McCain campaign

[Predicto]

Im not talking about the right. Im talking about the middle ind voters.

Sadly, you are right. The GOP is proving, once again, that they are infinitely better at the political game than the Democrats. Yell about the socialist in the White House long enough while refusing to cooperate with him even on moderate or conservative ideas, and the uninformed independent voter will become convinced that there must be fire under all that smoke.

[TimmySmith]

John McCain was the most popular politician in the country and darling of independents and Moderates in 2004 as he was a vocal critic of Bush inside the GOP. Only after 4 years of reversing himself on everything that made him popular saw him loose the general election handily and saw his popularity eclipsed by a little known goveror whom he took for his VP.

McCain is a respected politician with a moderate history, who, could have made a better showing IMO. He did not appear to want the job badly enough. He did not attack Obama for his inexperience (his absolute trump card). He chose a horrible running mate. He simply did not excite anyone. Republicans are generally not the excitement party, but there has to at least be a spark, especially against Obama.

[Kilmer17]

Sadly, you are right. The GOP is proving, once again, that they are infinitely better at the political game than the Democrats. Yell about the socialist in the White House long enough while refusing to cooperate with him even on moderate or conservative ideas, and the uninformed independent voter will become convinced that there must be fire under all that smoke.

I dont blame the scorpion who acts like one. I blame the scorpion who pretends he is the frog.

The irony of all is that Obama would probably have a much higher approval rating with Inds if he had acted more liberal. He has a problem (fanned by the GOP) that he is wishy washy and lacks a true core of values.

W should have proved to everyone that, politically speaking, voters like a candidate who has a solid position.

We can argue why they're wrong, but my guess is that it wouldnt be much of a debate, we all probably agree on that.

[Jumbo]

Please. You gave an example of Republican hypocrisy, capped with a smug "Integrity uber alles". I rebutted, and you wrote a tome. Sometimes the safety in the numbers of Democrats here makes them feel bipartisan, until the other side calls them out.

I will thank you for the brevity in reply.

It's not smugness, it's wry disdain. *******.

And I do confess to being tomesome.

Yet this post, otherwise, is once again a relatively dumb reflection of your own reflexive partisan bias, just like your previous post that I teed off on, and is hardly deserving of being called a rebuttal.

Per a couple other of your comments:

Republicans are generally not the excitement party, but there has to at least be a spark, especially against Obama.

Not the "excitement" party? Once again I wonder about your perception. I thought the regular GOP claims of an excited and energized base every election year were almost trademarked. :pfft: They seem to do pretty damn well in the "higly animated to seriously fervent" range in a great number of rallies etc as most folks can clearly see, and such can be seen consistently present in several significant groups forming their base.

It's an area I think they usually have it all over the Dems other than the Obama-phenomena of '08 that looks pretty dead now, "excitement"-wise.

Sometimes the safety in the numbers of Democrats here makes them feel bipartisan, until the other side calls them out.

This one made me think of the number of right-leaning guys who PM'ed me saying they were reducing their time to post (as they mainly live for the political threads apparently) here because they felt "out-numbered." several sent me links to other sites which highly favor the right. I guess it makes them feel more bipartisan.

But I'm not interested in just slamming you now matter how many more soft balls you want to lob so I'll move on and you're welcome to any last word.

[JMS]

Sadly, you are right. The GOP is proving, once again, that they are infinitely better at the political game than the Democrats. Yell about the socialist in the White House long enough while refusing to cooperate with him even on moderate or conservative ideas, and the uninformed independent voter will become convinced that there must be fire under all that smoke.

Agreed that is a GOP advantage...

The GOP disadvantage is they make their candidates climb into bed with extremists on the fringe of their own party to get their nomination....

[TimmySmith]

Yet this post, otherwise, is once again a relatively dumb reflection of your own reflexive partisan bias, just like your previous post that I teed off on, and is hardly deserving of being called a rebuttal. But I'm not interested in just slamming you now matter how many more soft balls you want to lob so I'll move on and you're welcome to any last word.

Normally I would move on, but I just have to point out how many times I have been called "dumb" by the lefties at this site. Not that I care, this place is an idea exchange. It's just telling.

[Jumbo]

Normally I would move on, but I just have to point out how many times I have been called "dumb" by the lefties at this site. Not that I care, this place is an idea exchange. It's just telling.

Sorry about the not moving on part--rarely do I not do that when I say I will.

But to once again correct you, I'd note you're not being called dumb most of "those times" (certainly not in my posts). You do seem to struggle with perception and comprehension at times (seemingly due to charged reactions). At least in my case, some comments of yours are called dumb, and I suspect knowing the rules and from thoroughly reading this forum, most others are likely just doing the same. And we all make dumb comments. The meat is in how often and of what nature and why.

Behaviors (and all communication are behaviors) can be called dumb and that call can then be debated, but it doesn't mean "you are dumb." Our rules show how to tie a castigation to a post (among other things). I have made mention a number of times that you actually seem quite smart to me, and that we have also agreed more than once on various matters (not that that's any big deal). I have often stated that part of my jabbing arises when people frequently don't make the kind of effort I know they're capable of and instead make ones that inhibit better conversation. But that's just me as someone invested in the site and is certainly an approach subject to criticism.

As for your "it's telling" comment, yes it is, but I think what you're telling is one thing and what should be told is another. Allow me.

That "lefties" here do insult "righties" in uncalled for fashion does happen, and is not cool, and when it's done in a manner violating the rules they receive penalties---just ask them because we often hear from them (as with any tailgate demographic) when we do it.

And of course the same is very true of "righties" insulting lefties. Or (again) with any other demographic. It's a human behavior that is common, and sometimes one side or the other is more dominant in number or degree of fouls during different periods of time.

Now the above two paragraphs serve as another example of what I was saying about how to reply to such a comment as I initially "tomed" on---like this "lefties insult us"comment---rather just a one-liner saying "righties do it too" and then maligning the original observer.

[JMS]

McCain is a respected politician with a moderate history, who, could have made a better showing IMO.

Actually and not unexpectedly I disagree with you.. John McCain was a fiscal conservative out of the Barry Goldwater/ Ronald Reagan wing of conservatism which placed him fiscally to the right of his party historically. Today he mirrors the Bush policies fiscally which he obtained popularity for railinig against.

John McCain was also a strong foreign policy conservative with sterlinig credentials as a veterin fromo a family noted for mililtary experience and leadership.. Again today he is more closely associated with tthe chicken hawks like Cheney, Rumsfeld, who he spent his career opposing.

McCain was finally a life long pro life supporter who had strong credentials supporting social conservative issues..... He still is, although most social conservatives think he's pro life or was.

They don't trust him at all, after Bush's 2004 campagne finished witth him.

John McCain is no longer a respected politician. Inside the GOP they call him RINO, Republican In Name Only. Among independents he is the man who sold his soul for the nomination. I think he lost any favorables on the left too when he reversed his pragmatic positions on the wars, stem cell research, bush tax cuts, etc too. But what really sealed it for us is when he reversed himself on his self described core issue and enabled the Bush torture squads to preceed with retroactive amnesty... The 2004 McCain anti tortue bill which kicked off his 2008 run for president..

McCain soiled his legacy, and ended any aspirattions for higher office with his 2004-2008 compromises in order to capture the GOP nomination.

He did not appear to want the job badly enough. He did not attack Obama for his inexperience (his absolute trump card). He chose a horrible running mate. He simply did not excite anyone. Republicans are generally not the excitement party, but there has to at least be a spark, especially against Obama.

I remember before he picked Palin for VP McCaini had a fun raiser at the Sun's Stadium in Phoenix. He had to change the venue to a private residence because nobody signed up to attend.

That's in his own state.....

I think GOP candidates were unpopular because of Bush ini 2008 even Republicans had turned ono him. McCain had just spent 4 years bringinig himself in line with Bush to get the nomination that hurt him really badly.

I think his VP candidate was pretty good actually. She gave him a 10 poiint bump in the race, which allowed him to take over the lead in the polls for a short period. She also infused his campagne with energy and significaantly increased teh crowds at his stump speaches. Can't ask anything more from your running mate.

---------- Post added January-19th-2012 at 02:27 PM ----------

I dont blame the scorpion who acts like one. I blame the scorpion who pretends he is the frog.

The irony of all is that Obama would probably have a much higher approval rating with Inds if he had acted more liberal. He has a problem (fanned by the GOP) that he is wishy washy and lacks a true core of values.

W should have proved to everyone that, politically speaking, voters like a candidate who has a solid position.

We can argue why they're wrong, but my guess is that it wouldnt be much of a debate, we all probably agree on that.

The difference is the property of the Parties and how they historically obtain office......

Ronald Reagan designed the GOP formula for sucess.. Reagan was a career fringe conservative even extreme candidate who only obtained the GOP nomination after two cataclysmic events in the GOP.

1. Watergate which destroyed the centrist GOP establishment and almost got Nixon a Jail Cell.
   
2. Ford's Pardon of Nixon which ensured a landslide victory for the moderate conservative Democrat Jimmy Cater.
   

Reagan long seen as an extremist crafted a political compromise with social conservatives who long werer supporters of democrats, and libertarians who were long seen as extremists themselves. The result was the GOP forumla for sucess of pushing to the right to achieve power by energizing the base...

The Dems formula was first crafted by Kennedy and subsequently used by Carter, Clinton and now Obama. It's to push to the center trusting in liberals to vote for you anyway, moderates and independents to show up too.