ABOVE: The silver platter upon which John McCain just delivered the election to Barack Obama
Goddammit. I love John McCain, but dude, what were you thinking? Did you think that you could grab unhappy Hillary supporters just by picking a female VP candidate...who is outspoken about being Pro-Life, a gun enthusiast, anti-gay marriage, and who stated that she does not believe that human activity contributes to climate change? Based on her positions, she negates most of the advantages of being a chick. Hillary democrats are not going to flock to the republicans with those types of views.
She comes from a state that doesn't matter, so her popularity in the polar regions doesn't mean a thing in the lower 48. Maybe she can help to deliver Alaska's three electoral votes, though. Woo hoo. McCain could have picked Mitt Romney (who could have influenced Michigan and excited the conservative base) or Pawlenty, who is a well known, young, exciting and respected governor from a state that marginally matters more than Alaska. But instead he picks a woman who was not really on anyone's radar before today. And Palin even comes with her own scandal and ethics investigation (revolving around her firing of Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner because of his supposed refusal to fire her ex-brother-in-law from the state troopers).
The really baffling aspect of this pick is that it completely undermines McCain's strongest argument against Obama. McCain has been effectively making the point that Obama lacks sufficient experience to lead our nation in these troubled times. So then he picks a woman who has less than two years experience as governor of a state with the population of Austin, Texas. Before that she was mayor of a town of about 7000. Considering McCain's age and possible health problems, his pick for VP takes on more importance than your average VP selection. McCain was gaining ground with the experience gap argument, and he could have really developed it in the debates, but now it is moot.
Joe Biden should absolutely slaughter her in the VP debate. The only risk for Biden is that his own arrogance and that shit-eating grin he's always got might come across as patronizing. But what kind of foreign policy insights can she possibly have? About as much as most of my students.
Congratulations, President Obama.
ABOVE: Former beauty queen Sarah Palin wants to help John McCain lead our nation through these troubled times
55 comments:
I can't believe how wrong you guys are on this one!
I guess we'll just have to wait and see, but I firmly believe that McCain has just won this election.
It will definitely be an interesting race. I think it will remain close in national polls, but I think it has the potential to be not so close in electoral votes. But so many things can happen in 3 months.
I think one of the more striking things about this pick (other than the fact that he gave up his primary criticism of Obama) is the fact that he has only met this person once in his life and only spoke to her once (on the phone) during the VP selection process (and that was less than a week before he made the decision). I read that he was still considering Lieberman days before he made the announcement.
Now that's the type of executive decision making that makes me feel safe.
Perhaps it's unfair of me to say that McCain has "just" won the election, because I definitely don't think this pick is what eventually wins it for him. I had already come around to the belief that McCain was going to defeat Obama anyway, regardless of the VP selection.
So, the only thing his choice for VP could have done, in my mind, was lose the race for him...as VP Romney would have probably done, and VP Lieberman would have most certainly done.
I assume that's what Dez means when he uses the wording that McCain has "handed" the election to Obama, but I just can't see that being the case here. Who exactly was going to vote for McCain previously that is now going to vote for Obama instead? I just don't understand that logic.
I certainly see this choice picking up a few votes, but I can't see it losing him any votes. What rationale for that could there possibly be? "I'm not going to vote for McCain, because his VP is too inexperienced. So, instead, I'm going to vote for Obama." That just doesn't make any sense.
I understand that women are not going to flock to McCain now simply because his VP happens to be a woman. But I also know that there are a LOT of female Hillary supporters out there who don't like Obama at all. And, many of them may have been leaning towards McCain anyway.
At first I was excited, and then I had the hangover effect and woke up this morning wishing he chose Romney.
Here's my take on it - I could be giving the McCain camp way too much credit on this, but I don't think Palin was picked simply to pander to disaffected Democratic women voters/Hillary supporters - it's obvious that her stances on abortion and guns will turn off most of those voters. I think that some of her appeal lay in her middle class "cred" - her husband's a union member, her parents were teachers, she's a working mom, etc. We all saw how strangely effective Hillary's attempts at the "common touch" (drinking beer and whiskey in bars in Ohio and Pennsylvania, talking wistfully about shooting with her dad, etc.) were during the primary battles in the spring. It's hard to think that some of these same white male voters, the Reagan Democrats if you will, won't be drawn to the McCain -Palin ticket. The Dems are clearly going for a more populist message in the general election and trying to reach those same voters, and with Palin the Republicans should be able to do a better job responding to that. With McCain-Romney, I think there was a big risk of them being portrayed as the "rich, white men ticket," especially with the McCain house attack ad gaining traction. In a different year, McCain-Romney might have won, but I think there were a lot of downsides to it this year, in this economic and political climate. I think it's pretty obvious McCain would have loved to choose Lieberman, but that would have been the nuclear option, guaranteed to stir up the base on both sides against the ticket. Pawlenty was probably the "safest" pick, but it wouldn't have stirred up much energy or excitement, even among die-hard Republicans - you could see that quickly going down the Dole-Kemp road. Whatever happens to the McCain campaign, I think the success or failure of his campaign will ultimately be attributed to this decision.
As an aside, I thought that Ross Douthat of the Atlantic had the best analysis of Obama's convention speech of anything I've read so far. Every so often I found myself waffling on the Obama question - could I vote for him, would I really be at all disappointed if he won? But his convention speech left me disappointed. In contrast, I thought Bill Clinton's speech was fantastic, and very effective.
Dez, you are exceedingly well-respected in our household for the wisdom and sagacity of your opinions on politics, music, sports, etc., but I think you may have let your emotions get the better of you on this one.
For my money, McCain had no really good options. Lieberman would have been my pick, or someone equally unpalatable to the base like Sam Nunn or Diane Feinstein, but since we're living in the real world, Palin seems like a reasonable choice to me.
I think the qualities that should be most highly valued in a politician are 1) good judgment, 2) honesty, and 3) intelligence, probably in that order, although all three are absolute necessities. Palin is definitely honest enough, definitely seems smart enough, and I cannot find a single example of her ever exercising bad judgment in any situation. I'm not sure that Washington Beltway experience is all it's cracked up to be, and while her lack of foreign policy credentials is a problem that cannot be explained away or glossed over, let me mention some names: Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice. The latter two I like personally, but all four could be reasonably judged disappointments and they all had loads of foreign policy experience.
To me, in a nutshell, judgment trumps credentials.
Maybe I did jump the gun. But gut, initially reactions are often the right ones in the end, and that was reaction when I saw that pick. I would also have loved to see Joe Lieberman (how funny would that be? The Democratic VP candidate in 2000, and then the Republican VP candidate in 2008? That would be hilarious.) But, I also agree that McCain would have infuriated the already suspicious conservative base with picking Lieberman. I know that in his heart, McCain wants Lieberman to be at his side over anyone else. But oh well.
I appreciate McCain's wish to "scramble the jets" (his words) with this pick, but I just don't think it will work for him.
So, answer my question then...
How exactly does it hurt him?
If McCain wins, I'm sure Lieberman would be offered a sweet cabinet post. Secretary of State?
Supposedly the McCain campaign has raised over $5 million since the Palin announcement. There's something to be said for rallying the conservative base. I don't particularly like the base (which is why I've always liked McCain for years), but in a close election, this is what you want.
Dez--
Sad as it makes me, I have to agree with my brother, sister-in-law, and...well...everyone else on this site. I think it was a good--even a great-- call. If this is the first decision as a possible president that McCain has had to make, he's shown both wisdom and courage, two qualities I've been waiting for him to display. (I think his campaign to date has been pretty disappointing; hopefully this is his call to arms.)
The way I read it, Palin is not about getting woman voters so much as Conservative voters. It's about people like Ralph Reed, Dobson, and the editoral staff of The National Review--the people who might not vote for Obama, but who have, thus far, been distinctly lackluster in their support for McCain. As le chat says, it's about mobilizing the base, and I think Palin does that. Or at least, I hope. It's what Rove did so well in 04, and what McCain has to worry about if he's going to win.
I also think she's a pretty impressive person, and the fact that she's an unknown, young, and a woman shows McCain's much-vaunted (but heretofore quiescent) 'maverick' side reasserting itself. The Republican party might be the first national party to elect a female Vice-President. Who'd have thunk?
Well, I hope all of you guys are right and I am wrong. I really do. As most of you know, I have been a big McCain fan since 2000. (In fact, he is the only politician that I have ever sent $$ to help the campaign, back in 2000 against W.) Hopefully I will have to write a tail-between-my-legs retraction post soon. I hope I do.
How does it hurt McCain? The most obvious way it hurts McCain is that "it completely undermines McCain's strongest argument against Obama." If McCain wants to continue to attack Obama on his relative lack of experience, it will carry much less weight now than it did 2 days ago.
I have heard many McCain supporters, including Dez, admit that one thing they do worry about with McCain is his age. Especially with McCain, it was important to pick a VP who is ready to step in as President.
The other way it could hurt McCain is that it could alienate many of the independents and the disgruntled Clinton supporters he had hoped to win over. Selecting Palin is a clear move back to the conservative Republican base and away from the center. The big question is whether or not this move gets him more votes from the Republican base than it loses from the independents and Clinton supporters. My guess is this will be a net loss for McCain.
Also, I disagree that this move shows wisdom and courage. To me, it shows desperation and irrationality. I agree that Palin is a very impressive person, but I am really surprised that people are taking her seriously as the VP. Based on what I know so far, which frankly isn't that much, this seems like the second worst VP pick in memory (I think Quayle was probably worse). I'm not even sure McCain likes this pick. It would not surprise me if he was pressured into this pick against his better judgment. Picking Lieberman would have shown courage. I agree that it probably would not get him elected, but at least it would be McCain being McCain instead of what we've seen most of this campaign, which is McCain being Bush and doing whatever his advisors tell him he should do to win. Well, this time I think they were wrong and it will cost him.
As I've mentioned before, I was actually a supporter of McCain in 2000, but he has disappointed me in many ways in this campaign. I've also said before that I could actually be happy with either Obama or McCain, but I am now seriously concerned about what could happen if the McCain/Palin ticket won this election. Based on what I know so far, Palin doesn't have any of the traits that I once admired in McCain, but of course the new McCain doesn't have many of those traits, either.
Regarding how this pick hurts McCain, a few points:
- Picking Lieberman. Yes, it would have been McCain being true to himself. But I disagree that this would have shown "courage." He would have given away the election with that pick. I hadn't realized until the last couple of weeks just how much Democrats HATE Lieberman - they consider him the Benedict Arnold of their party. And of course, the Republican party has no love for Lieberman because he's a Democrat, even if he is a hawkish Democrat. Choosing Lieberman wouldn't have been courageous but it would have been a signal that McCain didn't take the campaign seriously. You could make a case that it's better to lose with the courage of your convictions intact, vs. selling out those convictions, but it's a harder argument when you've committed to a national campaign with hundreds of millions of dollars invested behind you.
- McCain, Palin and "independent" voters. I think McCain's choice of Palin could both draw independents to the ticket, and push some away. Independents who are more liberal on social issues will undoubtedly be turned off by her, but then again, McCain has never minimized the fact that he has a strong pro-life voting record in the Senate, particularly when it comes to judicial appointments, so this isn't really a new direction for McCain. However, some independent voters may be drawn to the McCain-Palin narrative of challenging their own party, rooting out corruption, taking a stand against wasteful gov't. spending, etc. I think in those terms, this pick could ultimately help McCain with independent voters.
Finally a quick aside about the increasingly prevalent use of Palin's pageant pictures, both on political blogs, personal blogs, and in the mainstream media. If McCain could have chosen Schwarzenegger as his VP, would we be seeing lots of snapshots of him in his Mr. Universe days, preening about in Speedos? I honestly don't think so.
Absolutely. I would have found one of those Mr. Universe pics or one from 'Conan the Barbarian.' How could you pass that up? Every one has to own up to their past. I say embrace it. She ought to go out there and say, "that's right. I'm smokin' hot."
I have to admit I'm surprised by how popular this choice appears to be among certain groups. It's certainly possible it could be a better pick politically than my initial assessment.
For me, it certainly makes my choice more certain, but it is fairly unlikely I was going to be swayed by McCain during the debates, anyway. Between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin, Obama/Biden is the clear choice.
Palin excites the Republican conservatives that eventually drove me away from the Republican party in the first place.
McCain was a reasonable choice for me precisely because he was not the favored choice of the social conservatives. I guess McCain fooled me, too.
One other thing: Palin might lack experience, but if I had to vote tomorrow on which of the two VICE-presidents I'd want to be Commander-in-Chief, I'd chose her in a heartbeat. She's more conservative than I am, she doesn't have a lot of experience, and, on many issues, Biden mirrors more of my beliefs than she does. But Biden is a stupid, stupid man. I don't care about all these claims that in the last few years he's become "a statesman" and learned what he's talking about. He hasn't. Listen to him on Charlie Rose if you don't believe me. He's a pompous, self-satisfied, and extremely dim-witted man. He should not be president of a kennel club, much less the United States.
Tim,
Your description of Joe Biden sounds a lot like George W. Bush. That does give me reason to pause. I'll have to pay close attention to the VP debates to see how Biden and Palin do. However, I was generally fairly impressed with Biden in the Democratic primary debates.
So was I. I felt like Biden came across as the most imformed and intelligent of the Democratic candidates in the primary debates. If he is a dim-witted man, then Obama and Hillary are even worse, judging by the relative performances in the debates. The only really dim candidate in the Dem debates, to me, was Bill Richardson. That guy is a real dumbass. He is their Mike Huckabee.
As of Monday night, there are only two words left to me: oy vey.
I'm surprised by almost all these reactions in one way or another. The first two words that popped to my mind after the pick was announced: Harriet Miers. Supreme Court Justice and Vice President (as much as it's easy to make fun of the latter position) are important jobs. Palin seems very personable, but come on. How could any Republican who's made even the slightest criticism of Obama's experience, with a straight face, say that a governor of Alaska who just got her passport LAST YEAR is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?
I'm also a fan of John McCain as a person, but as a politician.... the differences between him in 2000 and 2008 mostly repulse me. Look, I know the guy doesn't have a choice if he wants to be president -- I know how politics works -- but he lost me when he sucked up to Bush for so many years after the unforgivable crap that Bush and his team pulled against him during the '00 election.
As for how this hurts McCain, I think it's pretty simple: There are a lot of relatively independent voters in this election who are up for grabs, and this will send a lot of them scurrying. I read on another blog about one woman whose mother was on the fence and even normally votes Republican. She called her daughter after the Palin announcement laughing out loud. Oops.
Lastly: Palin's sentiment that "explicit sex-ed" would not get her support -- and explicit basically means anything but abstinence-only -- is just disgusting, especially given the revelation about her 17-year-old daughter. Why didn't McCain just pick Britney Spears' mom?
Dez, I honestly don't understand how you could respect Obama as much as you say you do, and yet be talking so red-meat about this election. Why is it not possible to like McCain but consider voting against him?
jmw,
I'm basically done with the Palin discussion, because I feel as if I'm simply repeating myself at this point. Either you think she's up to the job or you don't. I do...you clearly do not. Not much more we can say on that one.
In my defense, I never once said a word about Obama's lack of experience to anyone. In fact, for a conservative Republican, I have always been fairly pro-Obama. My only real problem with him is that he seems to be a lot of flash, and very little substance. On the other hand, there's something to be said for a flashy, well-spoken President.
I did want to touch on the sex ed comment, though, because you used the word "disgusting", which leads me to believe that you feel pretty strongly...
What exactly would you want your child's school to be teaching them about sex? Personally, as the father of a school-age daughter, I can't see any reason for her school to be saying anything at all to her on the subject of sex. What does that have to do with school? I have had conversations with my daughter, and my wife has had conversations with my daughter. I feel fairly confident that between the two of us we are perfectly capable of filling her in on the birds and the bees. Now, your argument my be that all parents are not having those discussions, and you may be right. But, when did it become the school system's role to fill in for bad parenting?
I think disgusting was too strong a word. I think I wrote it because what I find disgusting is not the debate about sex ed, but the way that Palin -- a put-together person with a high-profile job -- shrugs off her 17-year-old becoming pregnant and marrying at that age. Walter Evans, I have no doubt you've had good conversations with your daughter, so I have to believe you wouldn't be so shruggy about a similar circumstance in your life. Honestly, Palin is beginning to seem like just another (modern) Republican (I'm not anti-conservative by any stretch) who's ignorant and proud of it. But like you said, I'm repeating myself, too, at this point. I think this pick will be absolutely disastrous for McCain.
I agree with you that I would not be shruggy behind closed doors. But, I have to think that I would be incredibly supportive of her in public. And, I would be very proud of her should she decide to have the baby, as opposed to killing it. But, now, we are getting into a VERY different topic of discussion.
I have to say I was very surprised at the 17 year old pregnant daughter story.
My first thought was, holy shit, how could McCain be so stupid?
Then I realized, he had no choice but her, baggage and all. Romney is arguably the most qualified of all the 2008 candidates, but the Huckabee crowd could never embrace him, whether because he was too rich, too good looking, too smart, reminded them of their last boss, or just too Mormon.
Huck was too liberal, Lieberman too Democratic, Pawlenty a bit dull, but very smart and quick on his feet during last week's Meet the Press( I was totally impressed by his answers to Brokaw).
Palin wins as she is the only one who brings everyone together, if you were to draw Venn diagrams.
I have been keeping my powder dry, hoping you all would come to the right conclusion (actually I have not had a chance to get on the 'puter in a few days). But here is the truth. As it stands right now, I think McCain laid a big fat egg with this one. I am a pretty conservative republican (classic conservative, not modern conservative) on most issues as you all know, but I think Palin was brought in to 1) Bring in women voters- even a FRACTION of Hillary voters could swing key states and 2) Not piss off the conservative base. But I think all of these strategies are pretty much tossed out the window.
Why?
Simple.
She wears too much lip liner and it does not match her lipstick.
I know you all are reading this and you think I am trying to make a bad joke and I am not. She puts her makeup on like a redneck. She has DSLs (e-mail me if you do not know what this means). Her husband is an oil field worker (and has a goatee that is 10 years past its prime). She names her kids willow and trig and bristol. She apparently just got her passport (That is the first I heard about that). She graduated from University of Idaho with a communications degree. Two years ago she was mayor of a town of 7,000. Her glasses are too fashonable to be taken seriously. She likes to shoot things - a lot. And now her 17 year old daughter is pregnant.
Each one of these things taken in isolation would be dismissed. But collectively it totally screams lack of sophistication. She is also not very pro- business. My sister works for Conoco Phillips says her company wants to kill her for renigging on a deal that they (and Exxon) had with the state of Alaska, only to give the contract to a publiclly subsidized Canadian firm.
At first I was intrigued by her anti-corruption, independent mindset - A position that clearly matches McCain's resurgent "Maverick" theme (which I am glad he is pushing again). I also heard bits of her speech last Thursday and was impressed with her ability to captivate an audience. But upon looking at pictures, and reading about her background, I am just not impressed. I can be convinced, don't get me wrong, but as it stands now, I think we have a hyper aggressive opportunist who paints a pretty smile that belies her background.
Still, though . . better than Romney
I did not know that she was a renigger, but if so, and she chose a foreign firm, there may be a valid business reason. We do not know the facts. Maybe Exxon did something bad, or maybe she hates them because of the Valdez.
I know you all hate Romney, but he was still the best qualified. The timetables thing McCain floated to hurt him was totally fabricated and taken out of context. Even the liberal rags admitted this much.
Romney got sidelined by the powers that be (Soros) who preferred McCain for whatever reason. It is that simple.
As for Palin, yes, the liberal women media call her white trash, etc. However, so was Bill Clinton, and they love him. He just had the fancy education, but you could never take the Arkansas out of Bill no matter how far he travelled.
Sarah is an interesting, weird woman, but I can see her standing up to Putin and meaning it, more so than Obama would.
Liberals too often look weak when they just mean to look thoughtful.
The problem with nuance and the "truth is never black and white, it is always grey" is that it produces moral relativisim, indeciciveness, and dithering.
So, if were were at peace, like in the 90s, Obama would be ok. But we are at war, even if society at large here is not sacrificing. You need gun-toting Moose killing Sarah to provide the testosterone missing from the others.
so what did everyone think?
I'll tell you when and if the nausea passes.
Are you that nervous for the Dems now? I mean, she was good, but you should have more courage than that. Isn't that what Obama is telling you? Courage for Change and Hope.
I'm not worried. Just a bit sick at the spectacle. Those in power acting like underdogs, and appealing (mostly) to people's worst instincts. The party that spoke last night doesn't deserve McCain, but he's made his bed...
JMW, you've drunk the Obama Kool-Aid. I thought her speech was great. Her jabs at Obama were funny and, in many respects, right on the money. I enjoyed how she turned around the media's making fun of her for being a mayor of a small town by comparing it to Obama being a "community organizer." "I guess it's like being a community organizer, but with responsibility." Good stuff. I also enjoyed her line about Obama being the author of two memoirs but no pieces of legislation. Palin did a good job, and she looks to be an able attack dog to match Bitter Biden. This is still Obama's election to lose, though.
I also really enjoyed Rudy G.'s speech. He actually seemed to be having a good time up there. I loved it when he said "community organizer" and just started laughing. That was funny stuff.
...don't forget Obama's styrofoam columns. Fantastic.
I agree Palin's speech was well delivered. It seemed all the speeches on Wednesday were targeted at energizing the base. There was very little substance on what the Republicans plan to do. It was almost entirely focused on the personal histories of McCain/Palin followed by the typical biting, sarcastic Republican humor. Some of it was somewhat effective because it did highlight real differences, but much of it was without substance and frankly in poor taste.
I don't think Obama's experience as a community organizer has been touted as the experience that qualifies him to be President, but it does give an indication of the type of person he is and what he thinks is important. That's just one example of the Republican sarcasm that doesn't win any points from anybody other than the base who will applaud anything anti-Democrat. The attacks on Obama's "savior" image and large crowds of supporters were equally offensive to me and basically came across as jealousy. In general, I thought a lot of the attacks had no place in a political speech. It shows a level of immaturity and a basic lack of respect for their opposition. It's divisive and not very funny to most people. Humor certainly has its place in any good speech, but it shouldn't be the primary focus of a political speech. It's not going to win a lot of undecided votes.
McCain's speech, on the other hand, while not nearly as well delivered, was much more effective in trying to reach out to undecided voters.
Palin is already starting to pay dividends.
She's an excellent speaker and she's got the Dems a little worried, for good reason.
And her speech also gave a nice "Fuck you" to the media, as well.
All in all, the RNCC was a success. We have a tight race ahead in the final two months.
I'm not quite sure that Republicans have cornered the market on sarcasm. I remember a rather famous Democratic convention speech by the one and only Ann Richards that was filled with some vicious humor.
Normally, if you agree with it, it's funny...if you don't, it's inappropriate.
Well said, dre.
Yes, Dez, I am an Obama supporter, but I've never been a political Kool-Aid drinker. Politics won't save us if we're past saving. Period. And I actually like McCain quite a bit. That said, I think it's pretty clear that the GOP can do no wrong in your eyes. Palin's line about the legislation was funny, but I don't think you'll hear Obama or Biden mocking her stunning, earth-altering participation in the Alaskan PTA, which came at a similar time in her life. Of course, the legislation line was also a mammoth, easily provable lie. You're basically saying me-like-lies-if-they're-told-by-moose-eating-pretty-ladies-on-my-side. Congrats. Viva democracy.
To make one last point (because I can't think of anything more pointless than playing to this crowd), I normally despise the Democrats as much as the Republicans. But after eight years of horseshit, it's not so much that I've drunk the Obama Kool-Aid as that I've finally figured out that the current GOP Kool-Aid is laced.
To be fair, I think Dez is probably the most moderate person on this site. In fact, over the last year or so, I have seen him leaning much more towards the left than to the right. Sure, he liked McCain a lot back in 2000, but during this election cycle, I have heard him talking much more positively about Obama than McCain. It would not surprise me one bit to hear that Dez had voted for Obama come Novemeber. So, to say that the GOP can do no wrong in his eyes is simply ludicrous.
W.E.,
I know how open-minded Dez can be. I also know how stubborn. I'm definitely not interested in a who's-more-moderate debate, but I only said that about "the GOP in his eyes" because he made the Kool-Aid comment about me, and I think after our many years of friendship, Dez would admit that I'm not much of a political Kool-Aid drinker, even when I'm enthusiastic about someone (which is almost never). I think he also knows that I've been a pretty big McCain fan over the years.
I don't doubt that at all, jmw. I was simply defending Dez...I did not mean that as an attack on you.
Oh, I know. It's all love in here. Well, except between me and Dez sometimes, but even then...we know we only attack each other out of love.
Not me. I attack people here just for the sport of it.
That said, I thought the Republican sarcasm was very effective. They really have pointed out that Obama has been groomed for this but has nothing to show for it but a great speech. I am not saying he won't be an effective president, but at the same time, he has given no evidence that he will will be either.
That said, it scared the hell out of me that we will have a dem congress and dem presidency. If you think Republican deficits are bad, I can only imagine what the dem deficits will look like. At least you can argue that Republican deficits actually boosts economic growth. Democrats will increase entitilements wich are an economic drag.
Pockyjack, you could argue that Republican deficits boost economic growth, if current Republican deficits weren't accompanied by months and months of job loss. But don't let that stand in your way.
Even though I was personally turned off by the sarcasm, I can honestly say that I also think it was objectively a bad move. As much as I tease some of the commenters here, let's face it, several of you sound like the Republican base. So of course you're going to find the convention effective. I really think swing voters won't, and there are lots of them in this election.
Oh, and also, I'm not crazy about a Democratic president and congress, either, but that only tends to happen in this country after the Republicans have stepped in it particularly bad. So I blame them.
So if you want to explain to me how months and months of job loss is the republican's fault, I would love to hear it.
Yes, i am a Republican, but that does not mean I agree with everything they said. It sounds to me that the Obama Kool aid drinkers would have gotten offended, but that is not who they are going for. I assure you that much of the message was very helpful for women in particular who have become cynical with the republican establishment. I have talked to several women who were considering voting for obama who are now really intrigued by Palin. Not necessarily because she is a woman (because they all thought Hillary was an insincere b**ch) but because they liked Palin's sassiness. They said, "I could see myself being friends with this woman." Don't get me wrong, I still think she is a redneck. But you have to admit, that Rudy's speech, on its own merits, was pretty damn funny.
And I can argue that republican deficts have boosted economic growth. Think about the amount of economic expansion that has occurred in the past 8 years, when frankly, Bush inherited a lot of problems that were the result market forces beyond anyone's control (Yes, including Clinton's).
Also keep in mind that Clinton actually LOWERED marginal tax rates which helped facilitate a HUGE investment cycle. Like it or not, it was a every republican thing to do. Now Obama wants to undo that? Why? P-A-N-D-E-R-I-N-G
Oh, if any of you have not downloaded Google's new browser, you should. It is lightning fast. It is still a beta version so there are a few bugs, but so far it is great.
My take (which I know you've all been waiting for, unable to sleep): McCain is secretly still a moderate, anti-right wing type guy. However, once Bush got elected he saw that he had two choices: bury the hatchet and have some political viability, or work against him. He chose the former. I believe that McCain still resents Bush's dirty tactics in 2000. I also think he disagrees with and differs from many of Bush' political strategies, to say nothing of his policies. HOWEVER, I think McCain has realized that he has to have the right wing--the crazies, if you will--come out in serious force if he's going to win.
That said, I think the true McCain is the person we saw during his speech. He wants to implement change; he's pissed off at the huge buildup in government services and the massive growth in government (as he sees it) that Bush allowed in order to have the political capital to have carte blanche in Iraq. In other words, he's essentially a moderate (abortion aside) trying to win an election by BOTH mobilizing a right wing base AND appealing to independents.
That is, obviously, a very difficult thing to do. But I think so far he's doing it pretty well.
I am still trying to have an open mind to both candidates, although Obama's plans, insofar as I understand them, don't impress me all that much. I also don't know if he's actually qualified. Yes, he's articulate, and he writes well, and he's smart. But is that all it takes? Doesn't some exposure to the mechanics of government help? I don't know.
I thought Rudy's speech was really funny. If he had been that relaxed and convincing during his own campaign he might have gotten the nomination.
Palin's family sort of freaks me out. Why did they keep cutting to those daughters during her speech (or was that just ABC)? And why did she name her son Trig? Is he a Palomino?
Anciant, I agree with you on your analysis of McCain. I think McCain is going through much of this holding his nose. He would wink at us if he could, saying "just get me in the damn White House and I'll be the man you know I am. But I can't get there unless I've got these Right Wing nuts behind me. Once I'm there, I'll piss them off." I REALLY believe that is what he is thinking privately.
From what I understood, he strongly preferred to have Joe Lieberman as his VP over any other option. In meetings, he was basically told that the Republican Party would revolt and the election would be lost. As Walter Evans says, Lieberman for Sec. of State.
Elections are a nasty business. But those of you who have always believed in John McCain, just hold on. The guy is a patient man. Remember he waited in a POW camp for five and half years.
I suppose it should comfort me that you're confident about McCain because you have access to his inner brain in a way that other people don't. Whew. And I'm sure his inner brain will greatly help should he keel over and cede the office to a woman he picked only to placate "the crazies" and "nuts" (your words).
Wait. No, that doesn't comfort me.
Actually, I agree McCain is not a right-wing nut. I think that's pretty clear. At the same time, how does a president get into office on the back of right-wing nuts, and then deal with them and a Democratic congress to get anything done? I just don't see it working. I wish I did.
Because once he's in power, he can then build different coalitions. Because once he's in the White House, he's the only game in the Executive Branch, so he can deal with many groups who are not so willing to deal with him in a heated election.
But you are right as far as if he dies, and then there is Palin. But you don't really vote based on the assumption that the president will die.
...And let's not forget that there are nuts in the Left Wing as well. That is part of the process. In election years, the extreme wings of both sides get fired up and try and gain favor with the candidates.
Oh, God, are there nuts on the left. I know for a fact you've never heard me define myself as a lefty. I even write and throw right-handed. Of course, you'd have a really hard time keeping a straight face and telling me that the left-wing nuts have anywhere near as much power in their party as the right-wing nuts do in theirs.
But anyway, yes, one would hope for coalitions, obviously. The Palin thing -- no, you don't vote as if the president will die, but then you don't often vote for the oldest man who would ever be elected into the office. (Didn't he look incredibly old walking/limping out to give his acceptance speech at the convention? I mean this in a sad, sympathetic way.) And again, a lot of this discussion is predicated, on my side, on an understanding that you and other relatively moderate conservatives I know have expressed respect for Obama. If this were McCain vs. Hillary, I wouldn't be wasting my breath. But if Obama seems reasonable and respectable, and if Biden's not a total left-wing lunatic, doesn't McCain lose points for choosing Palin, risking national security, etc.? (You've pointed these things out yourself.) Or put another way, is there no way McCain can lose points with you? I'm not talking about in a Kool-Aid way, just in an electoral-balance kind of way.
I have to throw this in, because I thought it was too good not to mention. I read a fantastic quote from Jimmy Kimmel this weekend about Palin, which basically said:
She looks like one of those girls from the Van Halen videos who would take off their glasses and shake out their hair, and suddenly they're wearing high heels and a bikini.
As to the topic at hand...
Yes, as I said earlier, I think McCain will be a very different man once he gets into office than he is on the campaign trail. I think you almost have to be. How many presidents (or politicians, in general) have we had who acted one way before an election and very differently after?
As far as his age goes, I think if you really believe that he is going to die in the next four years, then you can't vote for him. Plain and simple. I don't care who he chooses as his vice-president, if I honestly believe that a man is going to be dead in a year or two, then I'm not going to elect him President. Sure, there's a chance. But, there is also a chance that McCain dies of a heart attack, and Palin is killed by a charging moose. Then, Nancy Pelosi is President, and I can't tell you how thrilled that possibility makes me.
Bottom line, whoever is elected as vice-president in this election is most likely going to spend the next four years doing the same thing as all of the other vice-presidents...namely, nothing that we ever hear about.
The more I think about this, Palin was the only choice for Mac. He had to gamble on her. If things play out the way people think, Obama has 260 electoral votes, McCain only 194. There are about 60 up in play, and you need 270 to win the election.
McCain really has no chance if you analyze the electoral college system. He would have to win every state that he is supposed to win, plus most or all of the swing states.
That being said, you never know what could happen.
He was not going to win without Palin. With her, he has a longshot at least....
I think McCain's going to win. I really do. I would, in fact, bet money on it at whatever odds are being offered (I'm sure he's not even money: probably a 5:4 dog?)
This is unrelated to my own political preferences (which aren't all that marked right now). I just think at the end of the day people are going to worry about terrorism more than anything else, and they're going to decide that Obama's not ready. The red phone argument, essentially. That's what's going to do it.
Disclaimer: this assumes no major mishaps between now and then. If McCain is revealed to be soliciting gay sex in bathrooms, e.g., or abusing oxycontin, well, he won't.
Timmer out.
Post a Comment