It doesn't seem to be helping him much, or he's learned the wrong lessons. Take the "League of Democracies" idea- it's ridiculous, impractical, implausible, and pointless. It makes no sense. But he was pushing it as a good idea.
You can see a lot of this stuff with McCain's foreign policy statements. Tired thinking, outdated structural assumptions, stuff-that-can't-work-or-has-been-tried, etc.
Don't forget the random threats, like kicking Russia from the G8 as well as barring China from ever entering it.
Okay fine. Have it your way. Without mentioning Barack Obama, why are you voting for McCain?
Deacon is but just one man, so let me jump in here:
1) Foreign policy experience (and I'm not talking about the POW thing).
2) Record of anti pork barrel spending.
3) Pro nuclear
are some points that I think even the probama crowd here can give McCain credit for.
The thing is, 1)recently he's shown himself to be somewhat... unaware of the current state of, say, Eastern European politics
2)yeah I guess
3) Obama is too, and he doesn't suggest things like an idiotic some gas tax holiday, and only advocates more drilling as a compromise.
1) The gaffe was stupid and certainly makes him look senile. At the same time, I don't think anybody actually believes that McCain doesn't know about the Czech Republic.
3) Based on what I've read Obama is rather nuclear-neutral (and isn't he against Yucca Mountain?), while McCain is decidedly pro nuclear. The gas tax holiday is idiotic and embarrassing.
My point is McCain has merits of his own that will lead people to vote him. Frankly, both parties nominated excellent candidates this time around (though I would have preferred Biden/Obama) and I will be pretty happy with either one.
im gonna go ahead and put in that the gas tax holiday and the "1000 dollar rebate" are both pretty horrible ideas. its ok though, you can have bad ideas.
I suspect the rationale for a Palin pick was two-fold:
First, as has been mentioned, try to go with more-changey-than-thou. "You're running to be the first black dude in the White House? Well, I'm bringing a chick! That's, like, a whole different set of chromosomes, or some shit!"
Second, I think there was the intent of cynically heading off criticism via the "Don't criticize her, she's a woman" strategy. Lots of people bitched about Hillary, and there was a huge outcry. Granted, the outcry was on specious grounds and largely championed by complete idiots, but the outcry was there. There was substantial faux-backlash against the media, and I think there's some expectation that certain groups will be hesitant to blast a woman. This already happened against Carville: "This person is wholly inexperienced." "What, because she's a woman?!" People don't like having the misogyny card played against them.
And there are the standard GOP cred reasons - she's pro-life, pro-Creationism, pro-abstinence only in schools... fuck, the chick is a walking GOP talking point. I doubt they care that Palin is so clearly unsuited for the actual job. The McCain campaign doesn't give two shits about whether Palin can do the job. They care about whether she can deliver the election.
I'd wager that she was fully vetted, and that McCain - or his campaign - figured that in spite of the legion of negatives, the selling points above were worth it. They likely hoped that everyone would be too busy fawning over Palin's chromosomal make-up to worry about such niggling details as a string of scandals, some ridiculous quotes, a few wacky positions, and a strumpet daughter.
I think Jeffe nailed it. Remember that McCain has basically been a media darling up until now; we kept hearing about Reverend Wright and "for the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country," but not about the Keating Five.
He probably figured he'd pick a chick, and the media would be too busy praising him for it--along with all of the former Hillary supporters--to actually look into her.
Thanatos on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Due to the incumbent's ratings, the challenge isn't to sell your candidate, that's a lost cause. There's no viable angle to do this. You have to make people Hate the other guy and get votes by default.
As it turns out, it's a lot easier to smear the other dude than it is to raise your own opinion ratings. So, you know, politics as usual.
Wrong. Well, half-right. It's less about "smearing" the other guy as it is pointing out the things he does that undermine the basic principles he supposedly stands for. Look, no one said Obama had to run as a charismatic candidate of "not politics as usual" change. He chose that path, so pointing out that he's been very much politics as usual (and questioning what's left when you factor that out of the equation) isn't really a "smear".
the democratic strategy is to minimize damage done to their candidate while linking any republican that ran with george bush. its attack by association. it didnt even matter who won the republican primary, they would still link the winner to bush.
if i see one more "more of the same" idiotic ad...
Its not guilt by association, its guilt by they are running on the same policy platform and espousing the same plans on governance, and will fail just as badly.
bush is an idiot who stayed on a bad course and lied. you are trying to say "both bush and McCain are republicans therefore McCain is an idiot and will be just as bad as bush".
No, he's trying to say "GWBush had moronic policies. John McCain has supported those policies and everything he has said so far indicated that he will continue to follow, implement, and support those same moronic policies."
Every single fucker who comes in here that is pro McCain makes no posts about how great McCain is, but about how terrible Obama is.
Quid.
Quid.
You've just described the entire Republican strategy this year. We don't have to sell McCain in order to win. We're comfortable with the election being all about Obama, since he's been undermining his own message by running a mind-numbingly traditional campaign since sowing up the primary, and picking a mind-numbingly traditional VP. If this were a Republican talking point vs Democratic talking point election, we'd be getting killed, not necessarily on the strengths of our arguments, but because people are tired of Republicans.
But please, prove me wrong. Actually argue against people without cracks about Republicans. Ignore the people that troll you. Explain to us all over the next few months why McCain is the best choice for America.
Why hold me to a higher standard than everyone else on this board? Fuck that.
I don't even know why you were responding to my post in the first place. Did you just want to have a cry about how unfair everything is?
I suspect the rationale for a Palin pick was two-fold:
First, as has been mentioned, try to go with more-changey-than-thou. "You're running to be the first black dude in the White House? Well, I'm bringing a chick! That's, like, a whole different set of chromosomes, or some shit!"
Second, I think there was the intent of cynically heading off criticism via the "Don't criticize her, she's a woman" strategy. Lots of people bitched about Hillary, and there was a huge outcry. Granted, the outcry was on specious grounds and largely championed by complete idiots, but the outcry was there. There was substantial faux-backlash against the media, and I think there's some expectation that certain groups will be hesitant to blast a woman. This already happened against Carville: "This person is wholly inexperienced." "What, because she's a woman?!" People don't like having the misogyny card played against them.
And there are the standard GOP cred reasons - she's pro-life, pro-Creationism, pro-abstinence only in schools... fuck, the chick is a walking GOP talking point. I doubt they care that Palin is so clearly unsuited for the actual job. The McCain campaign doesn't give two shits about whether Palin can do the job. They care about whether she can deliver the election.
I'd wager that she was fully vetted, and that McCain - or his campaign - figured that in spite of the legion of negatives, the selling points above were worth it. They likely hoped that everyone would be too busy fawning over Palin's chromosomal make-up to worry about such niggling details as a string of scandals, some ridiculous quotes, a few wacky positions, and a strumpet daughter.
I think Jeffe nailed it. Remember that McCain has basically been a media darling up until now; we kept hearing about Reverend Wright and "for the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country," but not about the Keating Five.
He probably figured he'd pick a chick, and the media would be too busy praising him for it--along with all of the former Hillary supporters--to actually look into her.
He's about the first two points, but I seriously doubt she was properly and fully vetted.
You've just described the entire Republican strategy this year. We don't have to sell McCain in order to win. We're comfortable with the election being all about Obama, since he's been undermining his own message by running a mind-numbingly traditional campaign since sowing up the primary, and picking a mind-numbingly traditional VP. If this were a Republican talking point vs Democratic talking point election, we'd be getting killed, not necessarily on the strengths of our arguments, but because people are tired of Republicans.
What I love about Republican trolls is they rarely ever debate the issues at hand, but scream that they're winning when clearly every bit of polling and analysis shows otherwise. I mean nearly any time something big happens and Barack doesn't break 50% in the gallup, republican trolls proclaim it is the end of the campaign, barack has already lost. Never mind that McCain can't even break 46%.
It's just hilarious that in the face of macro-economic conditions, fund-raising, field organizing, message discipline, increasing party unity, a terrible GOP VP pick, a successful Dem Convention and a popular VP pick, and the Dems espousing issues in line with the American mainstream, GOPers still refuse to believe that they're losing.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised at the way they run their campaign -- thirty years of post-Reagan politics, and eight years of Bush in particular, has convinced them that they are infallible and incapable of losing. We're seeing them collapse under the weight of their own insane confidence in the face of reality.
It's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.
Interestingly, he broke 50% in the Rasmussen tracker today, Gallup due in about 45 minutes.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Isn't the whole point of experience to help one make the proper judgments when faced with challenges? Obama has been demonstrating he has that judgment in far greater capacity than one John McCain.
And this, in the end, is the answer to the "Obama doesn't have experience, McCain does" bullshit.
Experience is only relevant in that it grants good judgement.
McCain has shown that, despite his much vaunted experience, his jdugement is shit. Obama has shown the opposite.
It doesn't seem to be helping him much, or he's learned the wrong lessons. Take the "League of Democracies" idea- it's ridiculous, impractical, implausible, and pointless. It makes no sense. But he was pushing it as a good idea.
You can see a lot of this stuff with McCain's foreign policy statements. Tired thinking, outdated structural assumptions, stuff-that-can't-work-or-has-been-tried, etc.
Don't forget his desire to kick Russia out of the G8, or his Iraq/Pakistan border, or his inability to distinguish between Sunni and Shi'a.
Seems to me that pacifying the Bear, dealing with Pakistani militants and working for some neutrality in the Middle East are the three most important foreign policy issues (in my view) that the next president will be faced with.
Trying to kick Russia in the balls might not be the best way to go about it.
Okay fine. Have it your way. Without mentioning Barack Obama, why are you voting for McCain?
Deacon is but just one man, so let me jump in here:
1) Foreign policy experience (and I'm not talking about the POW thing).
2) Record of anti pork barrel spending.
3) Pro nuclear
are some points that I think even the probama crowd here can give McCain credit for.
The thing is, 1)recently he's shown himself to be somewhat... unaware of the current state of, say, Eastern European politics
2)yeah I guess
3) Obama is too, and he doesn't suggest things like an idiotic some gas tax holiday, and only advocates more drilling as a compromise.
1) The gaffe was stupid and certainly makes him look senile. At the same time, I don't think anybody actually believes that McCain doesn't know about the Czech Republic.
3) Based on what I've read Obama is rather nuclear-neutral (and isn't he against Yucca Mountain?), while McCain is decidedly pro nuclear. The gas tax holiday is idiotic and embarrassing.
My point is McCain has merits of his own that will lead people to vote him. Frankly, both parties nominated excellent candidates this time around (though I would have preferred Biden/Obama) and I will be pretty happy with either one.
1) Not only was there the gaff on Czech Republic, but also on "President Putin of Germany", which doesnt make sense no matter how you slice it. Then there's the outright insane rhetoric of kicking Russia out of the G8 and starting their own League of Democracies, as well as not even knowing who has the real power in Iran (hint: Its not their president) while at the same time constantly spouting antagonistic rhetoric against Iran.
EDIT: Going to add in Astrophobia's points about not knowing the difference between who the Sunni and Shi'ite's were, and the Iraq/Pakistan border
I'm hoping the media don't harp on a couple of things so the McCain campaign can say "Whew, dodged a bullet there..." only to have Biden blindside them in the debate.
1) The gaffe was stupid and certainly makes him look senile. At the same time, I don't think anybody actually believes that McCain doesn't know about the Czech Republic.
I'm sure his advisers will be able to fill him in on any details that escape his rotting brain. But I think there is a bigger problem with McCain's so-called "foreign policy experience"—his entire ideology is wrong. He is a neoconservative. He actually believes that Iraq should be liberated for its own sake, and that we could spread democracy there by invading it. His worldview is based on 20th-century West vs. Communism, and he stupidly tries to engage against radical Islam in the same way. See also his inane response to the Georgian war ("We're all Georgians now!")
So he has foreign policy experience—it's just bad experience that has left him mired in a failed ideology.
My point is McCain has merits of his own that will lead people to vote him. Frankly, both parties nominated excellent candidates this time around (though I would have preferred Biden/Obama) and I will be pretty happy with either one.
You know what my biggest problem with McCain is? He is a fool. He is a stupid man. He finished in the bottom 1% of his fucking graduating class at the Naval Academy. Unsurprisingly, he was a bad pilot (got the nickname "Ace" by crashing five of his own planes), and only got in because of his admiral daddy.
A lot of people joke about Bush being stupid. But Bush went to Ivy-League schools and much of his ignorance is feigned to appear folksy. I think McCain is actually stupid. I think his neoncon foreign policy is an indication of his lack of intelligence. He is actually dumb enough to believe the stuff that other Republicans have sold to gullible and uneducated voters. That is a huge problem.
bush is an idiot who stayed on a bad course and lied. you are trying to say "both bush and McCain are republicans therefore McCain is an idiot and will be just as bad as bush".
No. That would be silly.
I'm saying "this set of policies did not work well, McCain is currently espousing a set of policies. I think that it is likely this set of policies will not work either, given past experience."
I mean Jesus. If you put your hand on the stove, you don't put your foot on the stove immediately after since otherwise you'd be unfairly assuming your foot would make the same mistakes. It's logical reasoning.
If Obama immediately followed say, a Hillary Clinton presidency, the similarity of their own policy proposals would make me associate the likely results of Obama's election with whatever the Clinton 2 presidency produced, good and bad.
It doesn't seem to be helping him much, or he's learned the wrong lessons. Take the "League of Democracies" idea- it's ridiculous, impractical, implausible, and pointless. It makes no sense. But he was pushing it as a good idea.
You can see a lot of this stuff with McCain's foreign policy statements. Tired thinking, outdated structural assumptions, stuff-that-can't-work-or-has-been-tried, etc.
Don't forget his desire to kick Russia out of the G8, or his Iraq/Pakistan border, or his inability to distinguish between Sunni and Shi'a.
Seems to me that pacifying the Bear, dealing with Pakistani militants and working for some neutrality in the Middle East are the three most important foreign policy issues (in my view) that the next president will be faced with.
Trying to kick Russia in the balls might not be the best way to go about it.
bush is an idiot who stayed on a bad course and lied. you are trying to say "both bush and McCain are republicans therefore McCain is an idiot and will be just as bad as bush".
No. That would be silly.
I'm saying "this set of policies did not work well, McCain is currently espousing a set of policies. I think that it is likely this set of policies will not work either, given past experience."
I mean Jesus. If you put your hand on the stove, you don't put your foot on the stove immediately after since otherwise you'd be unfairly assuming your foot would make the same mistakes. It's logical reasoning.
If Obama immediately followed say, a Hillary Clinton presidency, the similarity of their own policy proposals would make me associate the likely results of Obama's election with whatever the Clinton 2 presidency produced, good and bad.
more like "johnny tried to take the pan out of the oven with his foot and it fell and splattered all over the place, therefore taking the pan out of the oven is a bad idea"
just because bush is incompetent doesnt mean that all of his legislation was a bad idea (some was), just that it was poorly written and implemented.
It doesn't seem to be helping him much, or he's learned the wrong lessons. Take the "League of Democracies" idea- it's ridiculous, impractical, implausible, and pointless. It makes no sense. But he was pushing it as a good idea.
You can see a lot of this stuff with McCain's foreign policy statements. Tired thinking, outdated structural assumptions, stuff-that-can't-work-or-has-been-tried, etc.
Don't forget his desire to kick Russia out of the G8, or his Iraq/Pakistan border, or his inability to distinguish between Sunni and Shi'a.
Seems to me that pacifying the Bear, dealing with Pakistani militants and working for some neutrality in the Middle East are the three most important foreign policy issues (in my view) that the next president will be faced with.
Trying to kick Russia in the balls might not be the best way to go about it.
It doesn't seem to be helping him much, or he's learned the wrong lessons. Take the "League of Democracies" idea- it's ridiculous, impractical, implausible, and pointless. It makes no sense. But he was pushing it as a good idea.
You can see a lot of this stuff with McCain's foreign policy statements. Tired thinking, outdated structural assumptions, stuff-that-can't-work-or-has-been-tried, etc.
Don't forget his desire to kick Russia out of the G8, or his Iraq/Pakistan border, or his inability to distinguish between Sunni and Shi'a.
Seems to me that pacifying the Bear, dealing with Pakistani militants and working for some neutrality in the Middle East are the three most important foreign policy issues (in my view) that the next president will be faced with.
Trying to kick Russia in the balls might not be the best way to go about it.
He's about the first two points, but I seriously doubt she was properly and fully vetted.
It's possible - perhaps even likely - that she wasn't vetted to the fullest extent desirable. But do you really think the vetters would've missed Troopergate, which was known weeks ago? Pregnant daughter? At least some of these things would've been known. And these are not insignificant things. We're talking potentially a major abuse of power. We're talking a daughter who clearly illustrates the logical conclusion of Palin's stance on sex-ed (and I really wish there was a tasteful way to point this out, but there isn't). These are big fucking issues that must've been known, and yet McCain still went with her. And if he'd be fine with these huge flaws, it's not unreasonable to think he would've been fine with other huge flaws.
It's not that McCain was too inept to discover how horrible Palin was. It's that he figured that none of it mattered. And I'm not sure which is worse.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I can't even begin to understand the fact that liberals would attack Palin because her daughter is pregnant. To me it is crazy. It shows no commitment to liberal values. I don't get it.
I'm still catching up with the thread, but I don't really understand this comment. I consider myself pretty damn liberal, but I've never included "Having children out of wedlock is okay" in my values. Sex? Sure, knock yourselves out, but for God's sake use protection. But with all the modern forms of contraceptives I don't think unwanted pregnancy should really be an issue.
No one on the Obama campaign is going to pursue that line when it can be literally answered with "Yeah? Your momma." There's a reason the only people going after this story are the hacks and bomb-throwers while Obama himself won't touch it with a 10-foot clown pole.
This whole story is just bait. The moment Obama falls for it and makes families fair game it'll be all "Obama's dad was a Muslim and his mom was a teenager and his wife hates America" crap all over TV while at the same time the Reps are shouting "You started it!"
The whole Palin thing from day 1 has just been a series of traps, anyways. "Let's try to get Obama to make experience the issue," and "let's try to get Obama to say women should be raising babies and not running for office," and "let's try to get Obama to make candidate's families acceptable targets."
Anyways, this isn't going to undo the GOP ticket any more than Cheney's daughter being a lesbian stopped him from getting elected. If they lose, it won't be on this.
“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,” Obama responded.
Are you fucking stupid? Just how much effort do you think goes into running a nation-wide political campaign for the office of President?
bush is an idiot who stayed on a bad course and lied. you are trying to say "both bush and McCain are republicans therefore McCain is an idiot and will be just as bad as bush".
No. That would be silly.
I'm saying "this set of policies did not work well, McCain is currently espousing an [edit: similar] set of policies. I think that it is likely this set of policies will not work either, given past experience."
I mean Jesus. If you put your hand on the stove, you don't put your foot on the stove immediately after since otherwise you'd be unfairly assuming your foot would make the same mistakes. It's logical reasoning.
If Obama immediately followed say, a Hillary Clinton presidency, the similarity of their own policy proposals would make me associate the likely results of Obama's election with whatever the Clinton 2 presidency produced, good and bad.
more like "johnny tried to take the pan out of the oven with his foot and it fell and splattered all over the place, therefore taking the pan out of the oven is a bad idea"
just because bush is incompetent doesnt mean that all of his legislation was a bad idea (some was), just that it was poorly written and implemented.
Well see, yeah. You can make the argument that McCain will successfully implement these policy decisions, thereby avoiding the horrid results of the Bush Presidency, but I can state that I think the policies themselves are flawed and thus we're going to see more of the same.
I'm not saying I must be correct, just that stating "McCain will likely produce the same results because his policy positions are strikingly similar in their wrongheadedness." Isn't a smear or lazy, it's an argument.
“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,†Obama responded.
Are you fucking stupid? Just how much effort do you think goes into running a nation-wide political campaign for the office of President?
As a corollary, back when Dukakis was running, he was arguing that he wasn't running based on ideals and that he shared the ideals of his opponent, but he was running on competence. Competence was the buzzword of the Dukakis campaign.
He then proceeded to run an incompetent campaign, and so he lost.
“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,†Obama responded.
Since when did being mayor of a town with fewer people than Obama's legislative district as a state senator add to "executive experience" that qualifies you for being president? Because I'd say right around the same time.
Thanatos on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited September 2008
I think I'll donate McCain/Palin an atlas and a box of condoms.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Just donated $50 to the McCain/Palin campaign. I just may donate more 8-)
Well if you sincerely believe in the McCain/Palin ticket, by all means, donate whatever you can to support your chosen candidates.
What I don't understand why you'd have to word it in such a silly troll-ish manner. You certainly don't see me going into a more Pubbie-leaning forum thread and going "I just donated $50 bucks to Obama/Biden, and I just may donate mooooore oooooooooooooooh watcha gonna do 'bout it foo!" Come on, dude.
So yeah scare everyone of the black dude with a funny name.
That's not a republican talking point and not at all part of our strategy. Glad to see that you're already pre-hedging against a loss this year, though, maybe add a few Rolling Stone or Slate exposes on voting machines just to be on the safe side.
Posts
Don't forget the random threats, like kicking Russia from the G8 as well as barring China from ever entering it.
im gonna go ahead and put in that the gas tax holiday and the "1000 dollar rebate" are both pretty horrible ideas. its ok though, you can have bad ideas.
He probably figured he'd pick a chick, and the media would be too busy praising him for it--along with all of the former Hillary supporters--to actually look into her.
http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2008/09/02/stab-at-relevance/
No, he's trying to say "GWBush had moronic policies. John McCain has supported those policies and everything he has said so far indicated that he will continue to follow, implement, and support those same moronic policies."
I don't even know why you were responding to my post in the first place. Did you just want to have a cry about how unfair everything is?
He's about the first two points, but I seriously doubt she was properly and fully vetted.
Interestingly, he broke 50% in the Rasmussen tracker today, Gallup due in about 45 minutes.
And this, in the end, is the answer to the "Obama doesn't have experience, McCain does" bullshit.
Experience is only relevant in that it grants good judgement.
McCain has shown that, despite his much vaunted experience, his jdugement is shit. Obama has shown the opposite.
Don't forget his desire to kick Russia out of the G8, or his Iraq/Pakistan border, or his inability to distinguish between Sunni and Shi'a.
Seems to me that pacifying the Bear, dealing with Pakistani militants and working for some neutrality in the Middle East are the three most important foreign policy issues (in my view) that the next president will be faced with.
Trying to kick Russia in the balls might not be the best way to go about it.
edit: For some humours: NSFW-ish -- Republican Convention M4M personal ads. Hot, Hairless defenders of conservatism.
1) Not only was there the gaff on Czech Republic, but also on "President Putin of Germany", which doesnt make sense no matter how you slice it. Then there's the outright insane rhetoric of kicking Russia out of the G8 and starting their own League of Democracies, as well as not even knowing who has the real power in Iran (hint: Its not their president) while at the same time constantly spouting antagonistic rhetoric against Iran.
EDIT: Going to add in Astrophobia's points about not knowing the difference between who the Sunni and Shi'ite's were, and the Iraq/Pakistan border
MWO: Adamski
I'm hoping the media don't harp on a couple of things so the McCain campaign can say "Whew, dodged a bullet there..." only to have Biden blindside them in the debate.
So he has foreign policy experience—it's just bad experience that has left him mired in a failed ideology.
You know what my biggest problem with McCain is? He is a fool. He is a stupid man. He finished in the bottom 1% of his fucking graduating class at the Naval Academy. Unsurprisingly, he was a bad pilot (got the nickname "Ace" by crashing five of his own planes), and only got in because of his admiral daddy.
A lot of people joke about Bush being stupid. But Bush went to Ivy-League schools and much of his ignorance is feigned to appear folksy. I think McCain is actually stupid. I think his neoncon foreign policy is an indication of his lack of intelligence. He is actually dumb enough to believe the stuff that other Republicans have sold to gullible and uneducated voters. That is a huge problem.
I'm saying "this set of policies did not work well, McCain is currently espousing a set of policies. I think that it is likely this set of policies will not work either, given past experience."
I mean Jesus. If you put your hand on the stove, you don't put your foot on the stove immediately after since otherwise you'd be unfairly assuming your foot would make the same mistakes. It's logical reasoning.
If Obama immediately followed say, a Hillary Clinton presidency, the similarity of their own policy proposals would make me associate the likely results of Obama's election with whatever the Clinton 2 presidency produced, good and bad.
Pig bottom Republicans?
OH GOD!
more like "johnny tried to take the pan out of the oven with his foot and it fell and splattered all over the place, therefore taking the pan out of the oven is a bad idea"
just because bush is incompetent doesnt mean that all of his legislation was a bad idea (some was), just that it was poorly written and implemented.
There isn't a
I had to assume that was a snarky one, but the other few on there seemed legit.
When I read "9in Viking" I nearly lost it.
It's possible - perhaps even likely - that she wasn't vetted to the fullest extent desirable. But do you really think the vetters would've missed Troopergate, which was known weeks ago? Pregnant daughter? At least some of these things would've been known. And these are not insignificant things. We're talking potentially a major abuse of power. We're talking a daughter who clearly illustrates the logical conclusion of Palin's stance on sex-ed (and I really wish there was a tasteful way to point this out, but there isn't). These are big fucking issues that must've been known, and yet McCain still went with her. And if he'd be fine with these huge flaws, it's not unreasonable to think he would've been fine with other huge flaws.
It's not that McCain was too inept to discover how horrible Palin was. It's that he figured that none of it mattered. And I'm not sure which is worse.
No one on the Obama campaign is going to pursue that line when it can be literally answered with "Yeah? Your momma." There's a reason the only people going after this story are the hacks and bomb-throwers while Obama himself won't touch it with a 10-foot clown pole.
This whole story is just bait. The moment Obama falls for it and makes families fair game it'll be all "Obama's dad was a Muslim and his mom was a teenager and his wife hates America" crap all over TV while at the same time the Reps are shouting "You started it!"
The whole Palin thing from day 1 has just been a series of traps, anyways. "Let's try to get Obama to make experience the issue," and "let's try to get Obama to say women should be raising babies and not running for office," and "let's try to get Obama to make candidate's families acceptable targets."
Anyways, this isn't going to undo the GOP ticket any more than Cheney's daughter being a lesbian stopped him from getting elected. If they lose, it won't be on this.
Are you fucking stupid? Just how much effort do you think goes into running a nation-wide political campaign for the office of President?
Well see, yeah. You can make the argument that McCain will successfully implement these policy decisions, thereby avoiding the horrid results of the Bush Presidency, but I can state that I think the policies themselves are flawed and thus we're going to see more of the same.
I'm not saying I must be correct, just that stating "McCain will likely produce the same results because his policy positions are strikingly similar in their wrongheadedness." Isn't a smear or lazy, it's an argument.
As a corollary, back when Dukakis was running, he was arguing that he wasn't running based on ideals and that he shared the ideals of his opponent, but he was running on competence. Competence was the buzzword of the Dukakis campaign.
He then proceeded to run an incompetent campaign, and so he lost.
They have...58 hours to use it.
Well if you sincerely believe in the McCain/Palin ticket, by all means, donate whatever you can to support your chosen candidates.
What I don't understand why you'd have to word it in such a silly troll-ish manner. You certainly don't see me going into a more Pubbie-leaning forum thread and going "I just donated $50 bucks to Obama/Biden, and I just may donate mooooore oooooooooooooooh watcha gonna do 'bout it foo!" Come on, dude.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
And I just donated $50 to Obama/Biden. You wanna keep going?
Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
At least they will be able to use that for the next two months.
But they won't.
Yes
A donate-off between a campaign that can use the money through November and a campaign that can't?
Please, continue.