« Tornadoes | Main | Straight Talk »

February 07, 2008

Comments

Quote of the day re: McCain:

"The thought of him being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and it worries me."

--U.S. Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS).

(I've heard Republicans talking about McCain's blowing up into fits of enraged cursing at his pollsters when they give him bad news, or even good news that isn't good enough for McCain.)

I thought the CW on Veep picks was to "balance the ticket," e.g., Reagan (conservative) picked Bush (less conservative) who picked Quayle (conservative). It wouldn't surprise me in the least if McCain picked a conservative to motivate the base (i.e., keep them from sitting out the election). Huckabee anyone?

OMFG, you can't mean that a McCain/Lieberman ticket is a real possibility, do you?

Because there's a whole lot of empty in the GOP between McCain and "the center". Slim pickings, indeed.

If McCain were to pick a running mate to his right, he would surely be the first presidential nominee in history to move AWAY from the center after securing the nomination.

Whuh? Let's look at some VP picks

1952 - Eisenhower picks Nixon to shore up the Republican base
1964 - Johnson picks Humphrey to shore up the liberal wing of the party
1976 - Carter picks Mondale to shore up the liberal wing of the party
1976 - Ford picks Dole to shore up conservatives
1988 - Bush picks Quayle to shore up conservatives

The first time in history? Come on, this is basic stuff.

That being said, I agree that McCain is ornery, and unlikely to pick a running mate based on who the NRO/Limbaugh crowd wants.

Actually, I think this is why Huckabee would be an inspired choice. Huckabee is well liked by actual conservative Republican voters, who McCain needs to win over, but picking him would be a thumb in the eye to the conservative establishment. That strikes me as about what McCain would want to do.

But maybe not.

McCain is going to run as a moderate.

I know, laugh, laugh, but that's what he is going to do and what's more he will get away with it. The pundits will acclaim him for it.

He has twice stated on the TV news his intention to "reach across the aisle.' His address to California , which was braodcast in its entirity on faux, was a rebuke to the R party. he rebuked them for being globl waring deniers, rebuked them for being anti-immigrant and rebuked them for being too partisan. The rebukes were stated mildly ( he simply announced that he was going to do the opposite of what the party wanted) but rebukes nethertheless.

So here I go again: if we nominate Clinoton, we will lose. We will lose because McCain will get the independents and enough of his base, even if they vote for him out of Hillaryhate, and all Hillary will get is our base. The media will protray him as Saint John the Straight Talker and the media will pillory HRC if her camapign tries any Rove tricks. The media exposed her Rove tricks on Obama so yu can get they will expose any of that stuff if her campaing tries it on the madia's favorite.

All of the conventional wisdoms about how Hillary can win are just flat wrong when it comes to a race with Honest John.

I think McCAin is too smart to nominate Huck. Huck and his vo9ters are the dirty secret of the R party, the emabarrsssing poor relatives. They aren't supposed to exist, except to vote R. The last thing that the party leaders or John himslef want is for the Republican VP dto go around in public annoucing the the Constitution needs to be more Christian ans that sort of thig. I'm sure Huck's folks want some power but I don't think they will get it in such a public way as a VP nomination.

John McCain, whatever his faults, is a patriot and a realist. He understands that as a septuagenarian he may not serve out an entire term. My guess is that he would pick someone both moderate and already fully qualified for the Presidency to be his running mate. That eliminates Huckabee. Colin Powell or Joe Lieberman is my prediction.

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE let McCain make one overture to Tony Perkins. Let there be one picture of the two of them on the same stage -- the dream would be to have them shaking hands.

Because then Obama could get up and demand of McCain if he accepts support from someone who -- at the "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference in 2007 -- praised the "Phineas Priests" movement.

This is the group that favors direct action against 'miscegenators' -- and in most cases against abortionists. It was the idea inspiring John Paul Franklin, Buford Furrow and others of the true home-grown terrorists. (Yes, we should be afraid of Al Qaeda, but we have our own -- fortunately less efficient -- religious killers as well.)

If you are interested, read the discussion at
http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/2007/4/16/165324/426

Then throw in the Perkins-David Duke connection and James Dobson's advocacy of 'Bible-based Baby Beating," and maybe we could strip away the Christian robes of the Family Research Council and show the true evil beneath.

If you are curious about the Dobson comments, I'll recommend you to the work of 'dogemperor' at Talk2Action
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/9/15/224228/895%20
or my own
http://saltosobrius.blogspot.com/2006/10/jim-benton-on-bible-based-baby-beating.html

or the wonderful work by a group of conservative Christian homeschoolers who were unable to stomach suggestions that the Bible wants them to use 'age-appropriate' sticks to 'correct' their children -- 'age appropriate' meaning 1/8 inch dowel rods before 15 MONTHS up to "1/2" by 33" dowels for the over twelve group. (The group is "Stop the Rod" and their website is down but should be findable.)

So again, PLEASE let McCain accept advice from Perkins.
(Sorry for bringing up my own "King Charles' Head" as long-windedly, but I am sick and tired of the racist Perkins and Dobson's advice on child abuse getting a free pass.)

Because there's a whole lot of empty in the GOP between McCain and "the center".

Only if you accept the strange belief that McCain is a centrist. His voting record is very conservative. Just in the Senate, at least half the Republicans are between him and the center. Certainly Snowe, Collins, Smith, Coleman, Specter, Lugar, Warner, and Voinovich are all closer to the center than McCain is, for starters.

Cochran's comment reminded me of the gay sweater thing.

To make the point I made at interminable length in my comment at the Super Tuesday thread, the idea that Hillary would lose to McCain is just not true.
Understand, I don't like Hillary, AT ALL. I consider her and her husband to be cowardly 'Rockefeller Republicans' calling themselves Democrats -- and what ever lingering fondness I had for Bill after living through the Bush error, er, era is gone after his actions in this campaign.

If she is nominated, I may, for the first time in my life, vote 3rd Party -- and my first Presidential vote was cast for Humphrey. (I can do this because if she was in danger in my NY, she would have already lost.)

But the reason for voting for Obama is that he is the BEST candidate, and because when we know our nominee will win, we should pick the best person running.

Oh, I should say that every other vote was also for a Democrat -- even the ludicrous Dukakis. The last time I voted for a Republican was in the 1970 Philly mayorality race when the Democrats were running Frank Rizzo.

nobody thinks the "movement" is gonna just put up with McCain, hang him out to dry (punt the 08 election) and then use that defeat as rhetorical ammo while regrouping for the next election? seems like the obvious strategy to me...

Over at BW, Erick greets the news of Romney's dropping out by posting "I Welcome Our McCainiac Overlords" in Spanish.

"John McCain, whatever his faults, is a patriot and a realist. He understands that as a septuagenarian he may not serve out an entire term. My guess is that he would pick someone both moderate and already fully qualified for the Presidency to be his running mate."

Why would McCain do that? *He's not a moderate!* He is, in fact, very conservative. If he's going to pick somebody to govern in his image, then, it's most likely going to be another conservative.

Romney goes out on a classy note:

If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is going to be an ugly campaign. The question is whether the American people will finally get sick of having one party call half of them traitors.

"He is going to have to bend, and as we know, that doesn't come easily to the senator," said Lee Edwards, a Heritage Foundation historian

Torture jokes really kill with a Republican crowd, as we all know. Ha ha! Grueling physical therapy is hilarious!

The question is whether the American people will finally get sick of having one party call half of them traitors.

One of the few good moments Dukakis had in his campaign, and I have had other people independently bring this up as their best memory of him, was when he said during a debate "Of course you're questioning my patriotism. And I resent it. I resent it."

Even that response was not quite right. "I resent it" sounds whiney. "How dare you? At long last, have you no shame?" might have been better.

The Democratic candidate is going to have to hit this slur head on from the start. Take offense (on behalf of all Democrats), and counterattack in full-Rove mode, no matter how counterfactually. Silence, evasion, or change of subject will look terribly weak and will feed into the framing of Democrats as weak on defense/security.

I do worry a little that Obama doesn't know when it is time to take the gloves off. We'll see.

That's the same Kevin Hassett who co-authored Dow 36,000?

What are you talking about, sniflheim? Unless my eyes and my browser are both failing me, no one's mentioned Kevin Hassett.

"Huck and his vo9ters are the dirty secret of the R party, the emabarrsssing poor relatives. They aren't supposed to exist, except to vote R."

No, that would be Paul's voters: Over at National Review, you would never know Paul was even in the race, given the way they airbrushed him out of their coverage. Not an easy thing to do when he was cleaning the floor with Rudy, and consistently achieving 2nd and 3rd place caucus finishes.

Compared to Paul, they're practically celebrating Huckabee's presence in the race.

given that Rush’s influence among Republicans seems to be far less than I had realized.

Heh, now if I could get my fellow R's to see CodePink's and MoveOn's influence over Democrats in the same way, we might finally realize how close most of us are in our beliefs eh?

Then again, maybe the Democrat outcry against Berkeley vs. The Marines in the SF Chronicle lately has already done the job...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad