The failure of Republicans this year
 

was the failure to formulate policy papers with a "Plan".

Many voters, such as BG, desire to see government doing something to address issues which concern them. And if these plans ultimately fail, most voters will forget or otherwise be distracted into forgetting whether the "plans" achieved their lofty goals. We should be confident that the plans will ultimately fail, and Republicans are reluctant to call upon government but Republicans can still formulate "plans" to appear to be doing something.

That was the message I take from this election, besides the fact that Bush was our own worst enemy, the far religious right should be forgotten, and Romney ran a horrible campaign, is that people want nice sounding talk, even if it is pure crapola in the end.

They want busywork and the appearance of action, even if ultimately it is bad for them.

So Republicans need something coherent if they are to survive.

At one time, Republicans had "Contract with America". Nobody knew what it said or meant, but it made Republicans appear to have a plan, and Obama successfully create the illusion of a real plan.

McCain? What does he stand for? I have no idea, and don't think he does.

Yes you do: no overhead projectors. Cut the pork!

Has a presidential campaign ever had a more dismal rallying cry?

Bob Dole's was dismal as well. Personally I loved the Carter approach for Democrats when he was campaigning for his second term. Perhaps we can see Obama imitate that in four years.

BG me??

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't read any of my posts on why I'm voting Obama. I'm voting Obama because I reject the current incarnation (better: hijacking) of the Republican party, and I fear that so long as the GOP continues to have success running candidates on this bigspending-hyperbellicose-christiancoalitian platform, it will continue to do so.

Enough is enough.

Yes I've read that, but what I interpret you to mean, is,

A) you don't like the interventionist foreign policy of the Bush Administration;

B) you don't like the big government spending on the military and if there will be government spending no matter what, it might as well address issues which matter more to you.

And I agree with most of your criticisms but disagree with your solution.

And thus, you may have concluded that Obama offers a hope that something can change.

You got A right

B is more accurately stated:
If there is no alternative to big spending, I'd prefer a candidate who's not afraid to admit that we have to tax to keep pace with spending. We can't keep deferring our tax obligations to our kids.

I'm not willing to make that assumption.

No party, nor candidate has adequately proven to me, that he or she has examined this assumption. Of course, the electorate is to blame as well.

There is no viable alternative this year. Period. Obviously theoretically there is an alternative, but we're not dealing in theory. We're dealing with Obama versus McCain. Surely you recognize that the two represent big spending and bigger spending, or vice versa.

But once you acquiescence to big taxation, then the battle is lost. I'm willing to hold the line against exorbitant taxation, racking up debt, to avoid becoming a total welfare state without regard to taxation burdens.

Once you say, "we must have big government and we must pay for it as we go," we're screwed worse than presently. That's my judgment, different than yours.

I dislike both candidates as both ignore the realities of an average citizen.