|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Oct 1, 2008 19:52:02 GMT -5
It's called "deflecting the question." Classic political move.
|
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Oct 30, 2008 12:00:19 GMT -5
McCain camp trying to scapegoat Palin
Thu Oct 30, 5:43 am ET John McCain's campaign is looking for a scapegoat. It is looking for someone to blame if McCain loses on Tuesday.
And it has decided on Sarah Palin.
In recent days, a McCain “adviser” told Dana Bash of CNN: “She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone.”
Imagine not taking advice from the geniuses at the McCain campaign. What could Palin be thinking?
Also, a “top McCain adviser” told Mike Allen of Politico that Palin is “a whack job.”
Maybe she is. But who chose to put this “whack job” on the ticket? Wasn’t it John McCain? And wasn’t it his first presidential-level decision?
And if you are a 72-year-old presidential candidate, wouldn’t you expect that your running mate’s fitness for high office would come under a little extra scrutiny? And, therefore, wouldn’t you make your selection with care? (To say nothing about caring about the future of the nation?)
McCain didn’t seem to care that much. McCain admitted recently on national TV that he “didn’t know her well at all” before he chose Palin.
But why not? Why didn’t he get to know her better before he made his choice?
It’s not like he was rushed. McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination in early March. He didn’t announce his choice for a running mate until late August.
Wasn’t that enough time for McCain to get to know Palin? Wasn’t that enough time for his crackerjack “vetters” to investigate Palin’s strengths and weaknesses, check through records and published accounts, talk to a few people, and learn that she was not only a diva but a whack job diva?
But McCain picked her anyway. He wanted to close the “enthusiasm gap” between himself and Barack Obama. He wanted to inject a little adrenaline into the Republican National Convention. He wanted to goose up the Republican base.
And so he chose Palin. Is she really a diva and a whack job? Could be. There are quite a few in politics. (And a few in journalism, too, though in journalism they are called “columnists.”)
As proof that she is, McCain aides now say Palin is “going rogue” and straying from their script. Wow. What a condemnation. McCain sticks to the script. How well is he doing?
In truth, Palin’s real problem is not her personality or whether she takes orders well. Her real problem is that neither she nor McCain can make a credible case that Palin is ready to assume the presidency should she need to.
And that undercuts McCain’s entire campaign.
This was the deal McCain made with the devil. In exchange for energizing his base by picking Palin, he surrendered his chief selling point: that he was better prepared to run the nation in time of crisis, whether it be economic, an attack by terrorists or, as he has been talking about in recent days, fending off a nuclear war.
“The next president won’t have time to get used to the office,” McCain told a crowd in Miami on Wednesday. “I’ve been tested, my friends, I’ve been tested.”
But has Sarah Palin?
I don’t believe running mates win or lose elections, though some believe they can be a drag on the ticket. Lee Athingyer, who was George H.W. Bush’s campaign manager in 1988, told me that Dan Quayle cost the ticket 2 to 3 percentage points. But Bush won the election by 7.8 percentage points.
So, in Athingyer’s opinion, Bush survived his bad choice by winning the election on his own.
McCain could do the same thing. But his campaign’s bad decisions have not stopped with Sarah Palin. It has made a series of questionable calls, including making Joe the Plumber the embodiment of the campaign.
Are voters really expected to warmly embrace an (unlicensed) plumber who owes back taxes and complains about the possibility of making a quarter million dollars a year?
And did McCain’s aides really believe so little in John McCain’s own likability that they thought Joe the Plumber would be more likable?
Apparently so. Which is sad.
We in the press make too much of running mates and staff and talking points and all the rest of the hubbub that accompanies a campaign.
In the end, it comes down to two candidates slugging it out.
Either McCain pulls off a victory in the last round or he doesn’t.
And if he doesn’t, he has nobody to blame but himself. |
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Oct 30, 2008 13:02:29 GMT -5
Hey Guys,
Some how I really doubt that McCain knew that he was going to pick Palin as a running mate that far in advance. I think he allowed his advisors to talk him into Palin by thinnking that the republican party ever really had a shot as Hilary supporters who were upset that Clinton didn't beat Obama nor picked as his vp running mate.
The bottom line is this... people really fail to understand that there is a whole culture of women out there vot vote democratic for one reason alone... They are prochoice... so they may vote republican locally, for mayor, for judges... But not when it comes to positions that affect womens rights... They were going after that group... They failed to get them...
Honestly... I don't think McCain is that bad as far as republicans are concerned... theere certainly could have been a lot worse... I think that is why he was chosen as the republican choice because the hope is that more democrats would stomach him...
That just didn't happen because the truth is that regardless of what republican is in office... People are tired of republican policies... PERIOD!
Kitty
|
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Nov 2, 2008 19:28:25 GMT -5
Hey Guys,
Ihave a similar question for those who either vote republican or have done so in the past... Please state why you do so? If you happen to be a McCain supporter... Please come and state why he is getting your vote?
Kitty
|
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Nov 2, 2008 21:12:22 GMT -5
I've voted Republican before and will do so in the future. I'll be voting for Obama for president, but I'll be voting Republican for at least one statewide candidate. That one race is for state representative, and because South Carolina (which is where I'm still registered to vote, although I live in Charlotte, NC) is dominated by Republican interests, there needs to be more African American representation in the party so that our interests aren't locked up in one party, the party that usually isn't in power at that. Plus I've heard the guy speak and I'm impressed with him. He's a young Black guy who actually lives in the "hood." I look forward to seeing what he'll do once in office.
In 2006 I voted for our (SC) Republican governor, Mark Sanford. He was actually rumored to be on the list for VP candidate for McCain. I think he might be even more anti-pork spending than McCain, if you can believe it. But for me, it came down to the issues. He's independent minded, even to the point of being stubborn at times (not always good, but I can appreciate the principle) and doesn't go along with the Republican status-quo simply because it's coming from his own party. He put forth an effort to restructure our state government, which is rooted in an antiquated, Reconstruction-era, racist framework. During Reconstruction, the powers-that-be in SC stripped a lot of authority from the office of the governor, including the ability to select his/her own cabinet, lest a Northerner or a Black person become governor. Sanford wanted to change that (but most Democrats--including the majority of Black officials--voted against it). He also championed school vouchers, and while I don't know exactly how I feel about that, it's clear that more and more African American parents want more options for their children, and being that SC ranks towards the bottom in education nationally, the only way to go would be up.
In 2004, I voted for Bush mainly because I felt that his positions were more clear cut, even if I didn't agree with all of them. I felt Kerry was too ambiguous. It could be that I wasn't paying attention to the race like I should have been, but that's how I felt. And I will admit that Bush got me on the cultural issues which he used as wedge issues, which turned out to be non-issues.
I'm a center-right guy and I believe that while the Democrats, led by President Lyndon Johnson, definitely did right by us with the passage of Civil Rights laws, what followed worked to the destruction of the Black family and the Black community, namely, the relaxation of welfare laws that unfortunately implanted an entitlement mentality into the Black community at large, especially in large urban centers. Although this did not start with the government (it started with White liberals), it was sanctioned by the government, Democrats specifically, and also extended by the government.
If the Republican party didn't engage in such divisive tactics (even to the point of sometimes being covertly racist), I'd probably be one, especially since I am pro-life and believe in traditional marriage. I don't really identify 100% with the fiscally conservative wing of the party, because I believe there are legitimate things that the government should invest in and I do not ascribe deity to the "free" market.
I will say that if Mike Huckabee were the Republican nominee, I would have definitely considered voting for him. He is truly a man of integrity and isn't in lockstep with the mainstream of his party as it regards racial issues and the social issues related to that. The Republicans messed up by not having him as their nominee, but I can see why they put McCain up there.
But that's my little spill.
|
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Nov 2, 2008 21:27:22 GMT -5
The bottom line is this... people really fail to understand that there is a whole culture of women out there vot vote democratic for one reason alone... They are prochoice... so they may vote republican locally, for mayor, for judges... But not when it comes to positions that affect womens rights... They were going after that group... They failed to get them... You're right. I heard one West Virginia native put it this way: the people are Democrats locally but Republicans nationally. I agree with you here. I would be a little uneasy with a McCain administration, especially since I feel that his health care policy is the pits, but I can think of others that I'd be more uneasy with. It's just that whoever happens to be in power when the crap hits the fan is going to take the heat for it. Oftentimes the seeds of both disaster and prosperity take time to bud and sprout and whoever is in office will either take the blame or the credit. That's not to say that Bush is without fault because he certainly isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Jasmine on Nov 3, 2008 0:05:11 GMT -5
Well, techinically I am of the republican party, however, I do vote across party lines. When considering state officials, judges, school board members, I vote solely by their experience and history in office, or history in that relative field.
|
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Nov 3, 2008 1:15:57 GMT -5
^Yep. I vote by candidate, not by party. People who vote straight party just because of the party itself get no respect from me in that regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Nov 3, 2008 10:07:06 GMT -5
I Vote Individuals, Issues... not party... I have registered Ind. Dem. Rep All-In-One ;D)
|
|
