I have no idea who Whitman is. McCain will choose Romney or lose.
Holy bulgin'-eye emoticons, Monte! (Erm--don't infer anything from my use of the word "holy".) You really think that's the only way McCain can win? I know Romney probably makes Michigan more of a fight and brings more economic beef to the table (though he's got a bit of the old corporate fatcat image...maybe not such a good thing in a time when swing voters are starting to realize that the GOP is not their friend), but on what other grounds do you see Romney as McCain's only hope?
Ah, Mittens! I can see some of the practical reasons for McCain picking him--but (based on watching some of the GOP debates) I don't think McCain much likes Mittens. And I think McCain really wants to pick somebody who's a bud. Ridge is probably out because of the pro-choice stance...maybe Pawlenty? I'm kind of rooting for Pawlenty at this point, because he seems like a rather dull fellow who will add very little to the ticket (and won't have the potential to dramatically affect the race in Minnesota). Besides, isn't Pawlenty the guy who said "My wife's great, now if she'd just have sex with me..." Go, Pawlenty, go!!
I have no idea where Monte is coming from on the Romney thing. The only upside I can see there is with the moderate vote, but even that would be minimal, IMO.
I hope he goes with the hottie from Alaska. At least she'd be easy on the eyes for the next few months.
The hair? The fam? The looking so good in clothes?
Walto, you don't remember our discussion about Romney in July? You participated in it. The best thing I read about him was by Nate Silver at 538. That precipitated our discussion here.
The question for Obama is--can he frame the election as a referendum on Bush/Republican rule for the last eight years.
He hasn't been able to do so and may never be able to do so.
I think McCain wants to pick Lieberman but his advisors will or have already talked him out of it.
Say, here's a question about fivethirtyeight.com: what does the name mean? I saw a reference to "538 regression" and assume it is some analytical tool that statistics geeks understand. Who can explain this to a layman? Or in my case sub-layman.
How stupid of you, indeed. It's probably stupid of me to say McCain must choose Romney or lose. What I mean is Romney is the best choice. I'm just being emphatic.
Is Obama's team finally going to start ringing the alarm bell here? Zogby has McCain up by 5 nationally. Now, Zogby's pretty erratic, was notoriously off throughout the primaries--but every single poll I've seen lately is trending well for McCain. What's more a matter of concern is the Rasmussen state poll for Ohio today showing McCain suddenly up 48-43. Losing Ohio would mean that Obama HAS to win either Colorado or Virginia (assuming that he holds onto Michigan and Pennsylvania, which I think he will). The stupid "celebrity" meme has begun to stick. Obama has to reframe this race (as was said above): do you remember what happened the last time we had a close race and the Republican won? Do you really want 4 or 8 more years of that? Or, to quote the Great Ron himself:
Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Instead, it's "celebrity." And John McCain, who wears $500 shoes and owns what--6, 8 houses?--is the "regular guy."
Obama cannot let McCain keep driving the message. And he's running out of time...I'd say next week is not just his best chance, but perhaps his last chance to change the momentum back in his favor again.
Walto, you don't remember our discussion about Romney in July? You participated in it.
Only vaguely. But I'm willing to bet I said about the same thing as I'll say now: Empty suit. Lotta money. Looks good in clothes. Nice hair. McCain hates him. Doesn't really know anything about economics. Crappy governor. Nice enough guy. Handsome fam. No actual principles on any matter.
Yeah, it's just utterly terrible that an American politician so inspires and engages so many people. God help somebody who has the ability to make us feel positive about the possibility of America again! Let's elect the cranky old guy who won't change anything instead, because everything right now is just so great. And McCain has consistently voted with Bush and his party...even more so in the past several years as he looked down the road at the 2008 primary. Talk about putting political ambition ahead of the country!
I blame Obama only for not hitting McCain back much harder. That's the only thing he's done to help make it "stick." Obama should stop saying that McCain's a "good" or "honorable" man. He's neither, and he'll never say it about Obama.
Last edited by tristano's ghost; August-20th-2008 at 10:44 AM.
Actually, it's both. McCain's new "I'm the fucking greatest" commercial uses the "Americans are worse off than they were four years ago" schtick.
That's pretty ironic, since McCain's party has been in charge of Congress for 12 of the past 14 years and in charge of the presidency for the last 7 and a half years...and that he's voted with Bush so often. And this is the guy who will fix things? In that case I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.
You're free to believe that, TG. But, youre wrong, IMO.
If you're going to plan these mega events where tens of thousands of people are going to show up chanting your name, you have to be prepared for the blowback.
I was speaking with a friend of mine on my political website who is probably just left of you who confided that he finds the blind devotion and adulation Obama inspires in his followers is not only a bit embarrassing, but kind of creepy in it's own way. And he's an Obama supporter.
Last edited by Scott Dolan; August-20th-2008 at 10:45 AM.
I blame Obama only for not hitting McCain back much harder. That's the only thing he's done to help make it "stick." Obama should stop saying that McCain's a "good" or "honorable" man. He's neither, and he'll never say it about Obama.
I keep thinking about Obama debating Hillary Clinton. He seemed determined to stay civil, even complimentary to her. She grabbed what she judged was his weakness, not hitting her with her weaknesses and came up with change you can Xerox, throwing his grace back in his face.
My concern is not that Obama is not tough enough, but that he is not seen to be tough enough by not resorting to hitting below the belt.
McCain and his campaign have no such reservations.
Obama being able to look at both sides of an issue and reach a consensus would be an asset, should he become President. But, not being willing to take any route to victory, honest or not, may indeed be a hurdle to overcome in order to win.
How interesting that not being willing to assassinate his adversary is seen as a weakness.
It seems to me that being able to bring opposing sides together and work out a solution that is acceptable to the majority, whether they are one of yours or not, is what being a leader is. Ultimately ALL the voters are Americans and it would seem to me that they should want what is best for everybody, regardless of party affiliation.
Last edited by patricia; August-20th-2008 at 10:59 AM.
A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.
Oscar Wilde [1854-1900]
Hey, I like enormous political rallies in stadiums. Nothing ever went wrong with enormous political rallies in stadiums.
Ha ha... yeah, I saw that one coming. Actually, though, Monte, you've just demonstrated the through-the-looking-glass brilliance of GOP strategists. A simple wisecrack that might make people also think, "Gee, is Obama kind of a fascist? Is he kind of a Hitler kind of guy?" Which is quite stupid. If anybody deserves that kind of analogy, it's the GOP, which has governed through a soft-fascist appeal for the past few years...actually, you can trace it all the way back to Nixon from '68 on. (And speaking of Nazi imagery, what about that layout for Bush at the '04 GOP convention? Gimme a break.) But gee, Hitler held rallies in stadiums, too! It kind of makes a guy think...
They ain't payin' you enough, Monte. In fact, I assume they ain't payin' you anything, but they've already got Steve Schmidt. One of these days you really should defect from the dark side, ya know?
Last edited by tristano's ghost; August-20th-2008 at 11:11 AM.
Anyway, Monte, if your side is lucky, it'll rain buckets.
BTW, they didn't plan it this way--the convention dates were set way ahead of anybody's winning the nomination--but Thursday Aug. 28 falls on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. I don't think Obama should hit too much on that, but he should indirectly summon the energy of that appeal. It's part of what was best about his original message, and it's gotten rather lost in the campaign static of the past few months.
Scott, have you read Obama's "more perfect union" speech? I mean, c'mon... much higher than "celebrity" caliber, which is why the label's such a falsehood. It's up to him to reframe things, but it's a b.s. label.
I was speaking with a friend of mine on my political website who is probably just left of you who confided that he finds the blind devotion and adulation Obama inspires in his followers is not only a bit embarrassing, but kind of creepy in it's own way. And he's an Obama supporter.
They're like political Deadheads. But the confounding behavior of fans doesn't necessarily negate the quality of the adored. I don't find Obama to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he strikes me as significantly more capable than McCain, V. 2008.
If you're going to plan these mega events where tens of thousands of people are going to show up chanting your name, you have to be prepared for the blowback.
I keep thinking about Obama debating Hillary Clinton. He seemed determined to stay civil, even complimentary to her. She grabbed what she judged was his weakness, not hitting her with her weaknesses and came up with change you can Xerox, throwing his grace back in his face.
My concern is not that Obama is not tough enough, but that he is not seen to be tough enough by not resorting to hitting below the belt.
McCain and his campaign have no such reservations.
This is an argument I've always enjoyed.
Obama is this supposed "breath of fresh air", he's "different", he will "transform politics".
But, just as quickly as the Fanbots can spew this fantasy nonsense at you they're turning around and telling him to essentially get his ass back to mudslinging and politics as usual.
Originally Posted by Monte Smith
(Erm--don't infer anything from my use of the word "holy".) You really think that's the only way McCain can win? I know Romney probably makes Michigan more of a fight and brings more economic beef to the table (though he's got a bit of the old corporate fatcat image...maybe not such a good thing in a time when swing voters are starting to realize that the GOP is not their friend), but on what other grounds do you see Romney as McCain's only hope?
Reply With Quote
Let's elect the cranky old guy who won't change anything instead, because everything right now is just so great. And McCain has consistently voted with Bush and his party...even more so in the past several years as he looked down the road at the 2008 primary. Talk about putting political ambition ahead of the country!
