Ok I have a question for the conservatives. And I am being very serious about this. This isn't a hack attack. I honestly want to try and understand. So if you just want to spin how great McCain/Palin are going to be - please don't bother.

It is quite feasible for McCain to win. If he does - after as dishonest a campaign as this one - how does he govern?

Remember that if the majority of the public agreed with the McCain/Palin governance planks, that there would be no need for such distortions.

But consider Joe Average who sits down to do his taxes in Jan 2009 and discovers that McCain only upped his exemption to $7k instead of giving him a real tax cut.

And the same Joe Average sees Palin engage in the same kind of vendettae based politics she is infamous for in Alaska, thereby completely alienating the Dem. controlled Senate and House.

How do you govern without approval ratings that tank faster than GWB's did?

Obama is a cocaine using racist. He lied about the Clintons playing the race card and then to defend himself about Wright he played the race card. He is the ultimate sexist.

1. Obama lied about only taking public funding, McCain is only taking public funding.

2. Obama gets large crowds by talking after or before music concerts like in Germany when there were 200k people becuase there was free alcohol and the top band in Germany was playing.

3. Obama lied about being raised a Muslim. It clearly states on his birth certificate that he is Muslim and he has even slipped up several times and said 'my Muslim faith' only to be corrected by the interviewer; 'you mean Christian faith don't you?.

Degs: If I were wearing my professional hat, and advising someone on how to answer that question, here's what I'd have them respond: "What if questions are all based on speculation, and I won't dignify a question based on speculation with a response."

If McCain is elected, a vanishingly small possibility, he'll govern as most presidents govern -- by trying to retain as many as possible of his political friend without alienating his political foes.

When it comes to the majority of the public, unless they vote they don't count. I offered you an explanation of that in the other thread we have going. If McCain were to win, it would be based on the real political spectrum -- and that's the spectrum of voters. Non-voters, quite literally, don't count.

Your questions are less slanted than mine:

How can anyone vote for a person whose mentors have been a leader of the CPUSA, race-victim and Farrakhan embracing preachers, corrupt political fixers and rich, white domestic terrorists?

How can anyone vote for a man whose two accomplishments have been a slum and a failed education scheme, both putting millions into the hands of Obama supporters Rezko and Ayers?

How can you vote for a leader who never once called a meeting of his Senate Committee or voted "present" 130 times in the Ill. State Senate?

I can go on, but I won't. Nobody's vote gets swayed in comment sections. Your questions are rhetorical and leading, therefore they're not really questions.

Lying has worked for Obama:

The Democratic nominee for commander-in-chief has lied about the extent of his political alliances with anti-American radical ministers, racist black Muslim leaders, and retired domestic terrorists. In fact, I wonder if he would qualify for the security clearance needed to be White House janitor.

He has also lied about being an advocate of reform, when his record of legislative accomplishments (or lack of one) shows he was just another careerist in the Chicago political machine, albeit with a darker skin and smoother tongue than the Daley clan.

If McCain is elected, a vanishingly small possibility, he'll govern as most presidents govern -- by trying to retain as many as possible of his political friend without alienating his political foes.

But as others have pointed out, in a winner take all system, there is a tendency to take even a marginal win as a mandate. And HOW you win can often affect the alienation of your political foes.

Given how McCain is campaigning - and even some conservatives have acknowledged he is being egregious - he cannot win without alienating his political foes.

So if he wins having alienated his political foes, and without a basis for retaining the indies he pulled over (and he cannot without losing his political friends) how does he govern?

Your point about governing for only the winning voters is what Bush has done for the last 8 years (and to some extent what Reagan did). And it is why he is so disliked and disresepcted at this point.

The notion that non-voters don't count may be a strategy for winning, but its borderline totalitarian in terms of governance. IOW since children don't vote, then McCain should ignore considering how children are affected by his policies beyond how that affects those who vote on children's issues?

That's a formulae for much greater divisiveness and civil disorder. Remember that those alienated enough to not bother voting are that much more likely to resort to civil disorder if the government not only ceases to serve them but becomes outright hostile to them.

You cannot govern that way.

Look at the bile and vitriol the knee-jerk numbnuts are responding with to my top-post. Now explain to me how McCain can avoid alienating his foes with supporters like that?

Anyone who choses a career in US politics is by definition someone with highly questionable ethics and principles. You have to by nature enjoy doing anything feasible to crush an opponent..including bending the truth, taking money from shady characters, making false promises, and sacrificing the few principles you may have once had.

degsme:

Ok I have a question for the conservatives. And I am being very serious about this. This isn't a hack attack. I honestly want to try and understand. So if you just want to spin how great McCain/Palin are going to be - please don't bother.

It is quite feasible for McCain to win. If he does - after as dishonest a campaign as this one - how does he govern?

Remember that if the majority of the public agreed with the McCain/Palin governance planks, that there would be no need for such distortions.

But consider Joe Average who sits down to do his taxes in Jan 2009 and discovers that McCain only upped his exemption to $7k instead of giving him a real tax cut.

And the same Joe Average sees Palin engage in the same kind of vendettae based politics she is infamous for in Alaska, thereby completely alienating the Dem. controlled Senate and House.

How do you govern without approval ratings that tank faster than GWB's did?

Since the Conservatives don't have the guts nor the honesty to answer your question directly, I will.

"...how does he govern?" Dishonestly.

"How do you govern without approval ratings that tank faster than GWB's did?" Precariously.

Well dishonesty in governance only gets you so far. GWB's numbers were already in the tank by Sept 10 and headed down even faster. 9/11 re-elected Bush but on a false promise.

So I don't think that you can govern dishonestly -not for a full POTUS term

Look please don't even bother. These numbnuts aren't interested in a discussion. They are just here to spill their vile propoganda because Obama is an uppity N!&&-^. You know it, they know it. So don't feed the dancing bears.

Well, I'm unaware of any system of votes that isn't truly winner take all -- even parliamentary systems where power is shared among coalitions all pretty much still have one person at the top.

Personally, to use an expression my grandfather used to use, I think you're buying trouble you don't have. McCain probably isn't going to be president. If he does win by a narrow margin, there's little evidence that he would rule as though he had a huge mandate -- if that's his personal style it hasn't been evidenced during his 30 years of experience in politics.

If he wins based on the votes of a lot of "moderates" and independent voters, he'll have to govern to their desires. I think the overall assumption is that McCain, because of his age, is only a one-term president if he wins, so certainly he'd have to make a lot of compromises if he was to accomplish anything at all.

I never said he should govern only for the winning voters, but if I were running for president I'd expect, if I was elected, that I'd give more weight to the actions of those who voted (Democrat and Republican) than those who didn't. Participation is supposed to matter in our process.

Recognizing that fact isn't "borderline totalitarian." It isn't the governing person or elected officials that make the decision whether or not someone otherwise eligible to vote exercises the franchise. That decision is left to the voters themselves, and if they choose to take themselves out of the political spectrum, that is their bad choice. Children are a protected class -- they do not have the rights of full citizenship for all of the obvious reasons. Even in criminal prosecutions, it is recognized that children are not the same as adults. Responsible adults are supposed to act for children -- by doing things like electing responsible leaders.

Someone who has chosen not to vote is not, simply by definition, alienated. I know there are segments of society, such as gun owners, who feel the government is actively hostile to them. Having said that, I think your concerns about civil disorder are greatly overblown (unless you think this is another Rodney King moment in which there'll be race riots if Obama loses. If that's the case, the rioting will take place before McCain is sworn in).

As for "knee-jerk numbnuts" are you telling me there are none of these in the Democratic camp? Of course there are -- and a president disavows their extreme statements and moves on.

McCain's campaign is being driven by the GOP right. That's why he picked Palin, that's why he kowtowed to Hagee. You gotta dance wid dem dat brung ya. His campaign is about getting enough indies to be scared of Obama to vote for McCain just so the uppity N!&&-^ doesn't win.

His campaign is alienating his political opposition fiercely to the point that it very well could be another Rodney King moment precisely because of the campaign tactics he is using.

Sure there are gun advocates (see I can be civil) who feel the government is hostile to them. But they are a small minority. The are not 15%+ of the population.

IRemember that historically McCain also refused to cater to the Hagees and Palins of the party. Yet not only did he go seeking Hagee's active approval, he chose a Young Earth Creationist fundie as his running mate. IOW his "historic instincts" have been abandoned to have this chance of winning. And like GWB he believes that he is justified because of the "military crisis we face".

Combine that with a dramatically alienated opposition and he has no option but to govern from the hard right. There are consequences to how you campaign, and McCain is running as though there are not.

I just don't see how he can govern. Who from the Dems would join his cabinet besides Lieberman?

...what happens when they find out McSame is going to keep tens of thousands of their offspring or husbands in Iraq for an unlimited time?

What happens when McSame confronts Russia over Georgia (or some other former Soviet possession) and we're on the brink of WWIII?

The division in the nation would only get worse under McSame/Moosehunter, not better. Another reason we don't need these two jokers in office.

miltongalfas:

Obama is a cocaine using racist. He lied about the Clintons playing the race card and then to defend himself about Wright he played the race card. He is the ultimate sexist.

Bush is a cocaine-using, alcoholic warmonger and torturer. But you voted for him, right?

BTW, loved to hear a 'wingnut using the term "sexist." That just made my day! :)

1. Obama lied about only taking public funding, McCain is only taking public funding.

Obama changed his mind, he never "lied." And McSame is benefitting from massive contributions to 527s and the like from his rich GOP friends. They're getting the final stage of Swiftboat 2008 up and running now.

2. Obama gets large crowds by talking after or before music concerts like in Germany when there were 200k people becuase there was free alcohol and the top band in Germany was playing.

Liar. Prove it or shut it.

3. Obama lied about being raised a Muslim. It clearly states on his birth certificate that he is Muslim and he has even slipped up several times and said 'my Muslim faith' only to be corrected by the interviewer; 'you mean Christian faith don't you?.

Got a copy of his birth certicate there, perchance? he's never been a Muslim, not that that's a disqualification for office in this country.

And if slips of the tongue were critically important, neither Bush nor McCain could ever get elected.

...just ignore honest questions in favor of psychotic abuse and right-wing propaganda? Is it an admission that none of you have anyone to vote FOR, only someone to vote AGAINST?

Your final comment seems better directed at yourself, loser.