A couple of dumb questions...

[scootermaster]

1). Do most [republican?] people think anyone else would have had a better chance at beating Obama? (Whether or not you like McCain; in retrospect, would Rommney or whomever stood a better shot?)

2). When people accuse McCain of bending to the will of the party/changing his views, do they mean he used to be more liberal (and is appeasing staunch republicans) or more conservative (and is appeasing moderates?)

3). What's a neo-con? Are they more conservative than, um, your average "con", or less?


Thanks.

 

[boomerang]

This is going to be good. Don't expect any answers, just Obama lust.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: scootermaster
1). Do most [republican?] people think anyone else would have had a better chance at beating Obama? (Whether or not you like McCain; in retrospect, would Rommney or whomever stood a better shot?)

2). When people accuse McCain of bending to the will of the party/changing his views, do they mean he used to be more liberal (and is appeasing staunch republicans) or more conservative (and is appeasing moderates?)

3). What's a neo-con? Are they more conservative than, um, your average "con", or less?


Thanks.

1: Dunno
2: He was more centrist and is appeasing far right
3: Fiscal Liberal (cut taxes spend more who cares what happens later), Social religous-right conservative

 

[techs]

1). Do most [republican?] people think anyone else would have had a better chance at beating Obama? (Whether or not you like McCain; in retrospect, would Rommney or whomever stood a better shot?)
Most rational people think McCain was the best choice the Republicans could have made but that McCain blew it when he went back on his longtime positions and sold out to the Republican neo-con base

2). When people accuse McCain of bending to the will of the party/changing his views, do they mean he used to be more liberal (and is appeasing staunch republicans) or more conservative (and is appeasing moderates?)
See above answer
Also McCain had a few policies that were considered 'liberal' like campaign finance reform and immigration reform, but he still voted 90 percent with the neo-con President Bush.


3). What's a neo-con? Are they more conservative than, um, your average "con", or less?
A Neo-Con is a new ultra radical wing of the Republican party that believes in armed intervention around the world. It believes in bankrupting the US so we don't have any money for social programs. Neo-cons also believe in a corporate type society with no regulation where large companies run things in concert with neo-con politicians.
Now, you will get many arguments on the above, since neo-con means different things to different people. This is what it means to me.

 

[Mani]

1. Not a republican, but I think Romney would have stood a better chance, especially once the stock market went south. He may have run a better campaign as well - McCain's was flat out pathetic.

2. In 2000 he actually was seen as a maverick. He's always had a conservative voting record, but he crossed over on enough high-profile issues (immigration, campaign finance reform) that it endeared him to many independents and dems at the time.

3. Depends on what your definition of "conservative" is. If you think of small government, absolutely not. Neocons are what brought us such gems as the Bush doctrine (pre-emptive war) and a belief that any amount of government spending is justified for national security.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: scootermaster
1). Do most [republican?] people think anyone else would have had a better chance at beating Obama? (Whether or not you like McCain; in retrospect, would Rommney or whomever stood a better shot?)

Hard to say, although I've never been a McCain fan I do recognize that he may have been the Repub candidate with the best chance given his more moderate stances on many issues (MMGW, illegal immigration). He's also a bit of an *outsider* as far as the Repub party goes, he often sides with the Dems on issues, and he's not a *RR* himself.

Edit: In hindsight and given the economic crisis I think Romney would have been the best VP candidate McCain could have chosen.


2). When people accuse McCain of bending to the will of the party/changing his views, do they mean he used to be more liberal (and is appeasing staunch republicans) or more conservative (and is appeasing moderates?).
I think this is a claim made more by Dems and/or Indies, than Repubs. My guess is that many of their complaints arise from his courting of the RR, instead of denouncing ("agents of intolerance" etc) them as he has in the past. He's had other flip-flops too, e.g, the Bush tax cuts.

3). What's a neo-con? Are they more conservative than, um, your average "con", or less?
Meh, around here the term is used liberally & very loosely mostly as an *insult* to Repubs/conservatives. Wiki has a definition, oddly enough (IIRC) the neocon school of thought originated with Dems. IMO, "Neocon" has less to do with being conservative (either fiscally or socialy) and more with the wilingness to project military power into the Middle east region in support of Israel and other American foreign policy objectives.

Thanks.

See bolded

Fern

 

[DaveSimmons]

Back in 2000-04(?) McCain was:

- willing to criticize the Bush administration on its rights abuses like warrantless wiretapping and torture, now he's a Bush apologist

- more moderate, now he panders to extremist Christians by choosing Palin as a running mate, who is a young Earth creationist and who opposes the right to abortion even after rape or to protect the life of the mother.

- a person with ethics and honor, now he says his "ads are true" that claimed (falsely) that Obama wanted to teach sex ed to kindergarteners. He also stands by silently while Palin and others on his staff spread wild distortions and outright lies about Obama's past.

I might have voted for the McCain of 2000 in this election, but he's a changed man. I have to wonder whether his mind is starting to fail him like Reagan's did while in office.

 

[silverpig]

3. One of the things I associate neo-cons with in addition to those mentioned already in this thread is the inclusion of religion as a policy shaper. Teaching creationism/ID, cutting genetic research, "pray away the gay", abstinence-only education etc.

 

[Mermaidman]

Question 1 is interesting but I'm sure has been beaten to death here in P&N. What if the general election consisted of
Obama v Romney
Hillary v McCain
Hillary v Romney, etc.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: scootermaster
1). Do most [republican?] people think anyone else would have had a better chance at beating Obama? (Whether or not you like McCain; in retrospect, would Rommney or whomever stood a better shot?)

As far as electability, no. There was no (fair, legal) way the Republicans could win this election.

2). When people accuse McCain of bending to the will of the party/changing his views, do they mean he used to be more liberal (and is appeasing staunch republicans) or more conservative (and is appeasing moderates?)

Whatever it means, it matters not. Republicans nominated a "buckaroo" to lose to Obama. The Republican party is divided on a handful of issues, especially following the last 8 years of disaster.

3). What's a neo-con? Are they more conservative than, um, your average "con", or less?

Not so simple a question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Or my favorite...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

Bottom line, there is nothing new nor conservative about neo-conservatism.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: silverpig
3. One of the things I associate neo-cons with in addition to those mentioned already in this thread is the inclusion of religion as a policy shaper. Teaching creationism/ID, cutting genetic research, "pray away the gay", abstinence-only education etc.

^ Example of one of the many different definitions of "Neocon", it has morphed into all kinds of things to all kinds of people.

I'll note that many prominent Neocons are Jewish, and I've never seen them interested in anything to do with religion/creationism etc; just a willingness to use military power in that one region (M.E.). I've never seen a Noecon wanting to project it any where else (e.g., Africa).

Fern

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: boomerang
This is going to be good. Don't expect any answers, just Obama lust.

And in typical fashion, you try to self fulfill the prophecy by providing no answers.

-----------------------------------------
1). Do most [republican?] people think anyone else would have had a better chance at beating Obama? (Whether or not you like McCain; in retrospect, would Rommney or whomever stood a better shot?)

2). When people accuse McCain of bending to the will of the party/changing his views, do they mean he used to be more liberal (and is appeasing staunch republicans) or more conservative (and is appeasing moderates?)

3). What's a neo-con? Are they more conservative than, um, your average "con", or less?


Thanks.
--------------------------------------

1. As a liberal who would (and has) voted for a republican, I can tell you that Romney would not have helped with independents. McCain was as strong or stronger than Obama with independents right after the primary season. Him picking Palin and embracing conservative principles so strongly turned off independents, and I don't see how someone more conservative than him, with no inter-party track record could have done better.

Romney might have done a better job at motivating conservatives, but I doubt that would have been enough. I seriously think McCain was the best choice, he just ran the wrong campaign.


2. They means he used to to be more moderate and have viewpoints such as opposing the Bush tax cuts, and being immigration friendly. He has now lockstep with policies and people that he used to be against.

3. Others will explain it better than me. I defer.

 

[scootermaster]

Thank you guys for the answers.