The Leveller: A modern day regulator

Raw Deal

For McCain at least.

His bid for the presidency I predict is just about up in flames. Supporters still argue in favor and neglect to see the reality of what has happened to his campaign and his conduct in the last debate.

Earlier this year after nearly securing his nomination in the primaries McCain spent his time looking and acting presidential. Which we know is unusual for him since it was an effort to contain himself from ever becoming too hot tempered and flying off the handle being afraid of saying something that would alienate many people.

This containment strategy worked for a while but then the real campaign started and this is where he has lost. The containment strategy became a little unraveled for the first time last night during the debate.

Desperate as he is too overcome a deficit in the polls it was decided something must be done and therefore McCain went on the offensive. Too little too late of course.

Through it all Obama looked and acted more presidential to the undecided voter.

That was that.

The real story here is that George W. Bush defeated McCain.

I believe McCain resented “W” during the 2000 election after winning the primary. I’m sure McCain thought he was more deserving and he probably is by whatever measure. And I’m sure McCain has resented “W” ever since.

After the 2000 election McCain began in earnest campaigning for the 2008 election. He knew his best and last shot would occur in this election. So I suspect just about every action McCain embarked on since 2000 was also considered in the context of running for president in 2008.

Bottom line is that “W” prevented him from the presidency in 2000 and the current Geoge Bush economy will prevent McCain again in 2008. If McCain wants to blame anyone for his failed presidential runs he will blame “W” for the last 2 bids.

About the economy, we hear Limbaugh and Hannity argue it is the dems fault for the current malaise. This is laughable since if that is true then they should also thank them for the 2004 election since it was the Bush economy they bragged was resilient and strong due to the “fundamentals” including increased home ownership and relative easy money policy during those times that got “W” re-elected. Which way do you want to look at it? Both ways if your a Republican.

I still don’t understand why voters continue to support either party and attribute any sense of economic success to the party’s policies when in power of the executive branch. Each takes credit for the good times and blames the other for the bad, every time.

When will voters see that both contribute and make the economy bad or worse and never good. Hannity for example champions free markets but couldn’t even recognize one if he saw it. And still wants to give credit to Bush for any economic success on one hand while arguing its the entrepreneurial spirit and the ingenuity of everyday Americans who create the success. If he really believes government should get out of the way so we can create our own wealth then why support a party that has presided over the largest ever encroachment of economic interference in history? And gives credit to government policies when the economy is supposedly doing well?

I don’t understand the narrow mind of a liberal or conservative so help me God.