quote:Yes, he chose Palin as a running mate. It was a very pragmatic political decision. Old age clearly played a part,he obvously knows that after this election cycle he probably doesn't have a chance due to his advancing age. Some postulate that the beginning of senility, is why he is making these pragmatic compromises if he had his full faculties he'd never do what he is doing now. It is possible.
I think the Palin pick is independence rather than senility. I think McCain is his own man, and that's kind of endearing. I think he caved on MLK day twenty five years ago, and decided not to do that again. He is unpredictable. His lone, decent stance on immigration set him apart from all of the other Republicans during the debate. Romney saw cheap labor, Giuliani saw ineluctable fact, and everyone else saw a problem, McCain was the only one who understood immigrants as simply people. McCain may not be as pure a politician as he appears, he changes his mind sometimes with the polls, but he strikes me as a hard guy to corrupt. In the places we disagree, and they are legion, I'm confident we simply disagree, it's not as if some influence peddler has threatened him or bought him. While McCain bows sometimes to popular pressure, I feel that he doesn't bow to internal pressure as easily as most politicians who want to be liked.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to agree with you Irami. McCain's verbal faux pas have been blown way out of proportion in the press. But, personally, the actual content of a few of those, is enough to cause me concern about his mental faculties given his advancing age. Nitpicky or not, I don't percieve him to be someone who previously made those kinds of mistakes on a similar scale.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Uh, by all insider accounts, McCain wanted his best bud Lieberman as VP, but the new staff convinced him of Palin.
I don't trust those insider accounts. Talking heads say a lot of things. I don't think he knew her very well, but I wouldn't be surprised if he made a snap decision and stuck with it, damn the advisers. I really can't see any of the handlers being happy with Palin until after the fact, then they would love her, of course.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Talking heads say a lot of things.
I know what you mean. Like remember that time they were talking about some ordinary guy burning down a house. Or about living in a shotgun shack in another part of the world, even though it's not their beautiful house, or their beautiful wife.
Screw those guys, man, I don't believe a word they say.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I just can't imagine any group of wonks finessing McCain into doing something he already doesn't want to do. It's one of the perks of being old, among other things.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I realize McCain is moving right because he perceives he *has* to in order to get elected. This is ticking off some people and encouraging others.
In one sense we may view it as hypcritical, but in another sense pragmatic political compromise is almost inherent in the job description of a Congressperson and President. Some do it better than others. Obama is probably the only person who can claim he hasn't on a national scale, and let's face it, it's partially because his time in the U.S. Senate hasn't been long enough to necessitate it in "greater-good" type legislation.
He may not have had the opportunity to sponsor legislation to the effect, but Obama has shown a significant amount of this sort of political pragmatism on the campaign trail so far. And generally I would say his presidential persona today is remarkably different than his persona was in 2004 when he addressed the DNC. His politics first moved toward the core of the national Democratic party during his two years in the Senate, and during the primary, then dramatically shifted toward the center immediately after he secured the nomination.
quote: They did with Gore.
I thought Gore was only the nominee in 2000. When else did he run (as the nominee; I know he challenged Clinton in 1992, but he wasn't the eventual nominee, obviously)?
However, the reluctance to run previous nominees, if it exists at all, is at best a recent phenomenon. Certainly examples like Adlai Stevensen and Thomas Dewey demonstrate that as recently as the 1950s neither party was averse to running previous losers.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right. I stand corrected. Did Gore run against Kerry in the primaries? That may be what I'm remembering. (or I could be going senile )
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I guess I just can't imagine any group of wonks finessing McCain into doing something he already doesn't want to do. It's one of the perks of being old, among other things.
Uh, McCain wants to win the presidency. His campaign was languishing. In early August he signs up some Karl Rove proteges, and his campaign turns around.
Heck, there's a bunch of stuff that McCain has switched his position on in the last few years, as the campaign geared up.
You seem to think that McCain wants to win on his terms; I think he did but now he just wants to win.
To be fair, Obama wants to win this thing too. He held out longer as far as the "on his terms" part, IMO. Some of the bits about 527s and the like show that he may be dropping that last clause too.
quote:Originally posted by: BannaOJ: I think Obama, if he is defeated in this election will run for president again in 4 years, and unlike Gore, he will win next time.
If he were smart he'd run for the governorship of Illinois. The current guy, who is extremely unpopular, is term limited and the election is in 2010, which would be the end of his first senate term. Obama would likely win in a landslide. He could then either run again in 2012, or wait for 2016, depending on what the status of the country is. I think if someone ELSE ran in 2012, he might be a perfect choice for VP, and then run for president himself 8 years after that. Being governor, even for a short period of time, would blunt a great many of the arguments Republicans are using against him, namely, the experience argument. If Republicans are all arguing that Palin has the experience to be president, they'd be hard pressed to argue that Obama, with everything to date PLUS a few years in charge of a major industrial state doesn't have the necessary experience. He won't have gotten very far away from that argument in four years in the Senate. If being president is his ultimate goal, I think that's his best bet if he loses this time around.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Obama wants any shot at the Presidency, ever he should *never* be the governor of Illinois. The IL governor's office is way too corrupt. Do you know how many former IL governors are convicted felons? It is looking like the current one is probably going to go the way of the previous one. The question isn't if the Feds are going to get him, it's "how soon"?
Even if Obama ran on a "clean up corruption" platform I don't think he could do it, and run for the presidency later. He's managed to stay clean so far, at the state legislature level, and stay out of the Rezko affair, but there are simply too many people with pull, that can influence the governors office. Even if he stayed completely clean, someone would get to somebody in his staff, and it would totally wreck any presidential aspirations later on.
I looked it up... 3 out of the most recent 8 governors of IL (including the present one) arec onvicted felons. Blago is going to be extremely lucky if he escapes the same fate.
It averaged 1 felon than two non-felons, although if Blago gets convicted that would be two in a row. It isn't like the in betweens were generally pure as driven snow either. They just managed to stay out of jail.
Of the non felons, one had the U.S. Supreme Court overthrow the hiring practices that he initiated on grounds of patronage, and another, even though he wasn't convicted himself, had a major scandal where lots of other people in his administration ended up in the Federal Penitentiary because of 20 million in fraudulent charges.
Also, after my last error with regards to Gore, I did quite a bit of googling, about IL term limits. I can't find anywhere that an Illinois governor has term limits. (I'm in IL so I was curious) There is an on-going joke that the answer is 2 in office and 1 in prison, but I don't think it is anything legal.
posted
My bad, you're right, there aren't term limits. Still, I don't think he'd have a problem unseating Blagovich. I still think he should do it and totally clean house. Fire EVERYONE and start from scratch. It'd be a major thing to run on later, and he'll win bipartisan points by working against an entrenched Democratic power base there in order to get things done. He'll be the guy who came in after decades of failed Republican and Democratic rule and really cleaned house, and if he CAN'T clean it up, then frankly I wonder if he's really as good as I thought he was. It might be a gamble, but then, so would be staying in the Senate and hoping the second time around is better. There are lots of rising stars in the Republican party too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: if he CAN'T clean it up, then frankly I wonder if he's really as good as I thought he was
I don't think it's possible for anyone, simply because he can't do anything about the rest of the elected state officials or the legislature, or the Chicago Machine.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.
I was under the impression Saakashvili lobbed bombs into South Ossetia first? Either way, Palin is talking about putting Georgia in NATO, and that seems like a great way to court a war.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Georgia provoked the conflict irregardless of the political statuses of SO and Abkazia at the time.
IP: Logged |
quote:First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.
I was under the impression Saakashvili lobbed bombs into South Ossetia first? Either way, Palin is talking about putting Georgia in NATO, and that seems like a great way to court a war.
Well that's interesting. Do you have a link to the rest of the interview?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt that spreading falsehoods about the Georgia crisis will hurt Palin at all with her uninformed target constituency. Another good tactical move on her part.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The next couple segments are on the Fox News website from the O'Reilly/Obama interview.
On segment two: I wish Obama would have gone into why O'Reilly was wrong about the whole "tax cuts really increase revenue" thing. That's been debunked before, several times over, and he sort of brushed it aside.
On segment three: O'Reilly is a dick. Apparently knowing anyone who says/does anything bad means that you take the mantle of every mistake that person has made upon yourself. Give me a break.
On segment four: Did a great job of defending renewable energy, and of showing his position on nuclear power. They were pretty funny when they were BSing at the end there. It's weird to see O'Reilly seem friendly.
I SERIOUSLY wish I could have an on air conversation with O'Reilly. I'm not running for anything. I wouldn't be afraid to let loose. Also, I think Obama will do fine in a debate format. So long as some jerk isn't interrupting him all the time, he'll be quite good.
In other news - In her interview with Charles Gibson, Palin said that she'd be okay with sending troops into Pakistan to fight terrorists. Apparently Obama, Palin, and Bush disagree with McCain on that one.
quote:Palin on military incursions into Pakistan: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.
To be fair, she said as a last resort (which puts her and Obama closer together than with Bush).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If Republicans are all arguing that Palin has the experience to be president, they'd be hard pressed to argue that Obama, with everything to date PLUS a few years in charge of a major industrial state doesn't have the necessary experience."
The last few weeks, plus 2004, have convinced me that republicans will argue anything, as long as it brings down the other guy. It doesn't have to be true, reasonable, thoughtful, or have any grounding in reality whatsoever... republicans will argue it if doing so hurts democrats.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should have said "they'll be hard pressed to argue it without them looking stupid."
I'm sure they'd come up with something else, but it'd give Obama hours and hours of clips to play of the Republicans saying she's ready to lead because of her gubanatorial experience. They're setting the standard right now. They can't have it both ways, and if they try to, he can eat 'em up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day to day challenges that people have."
McCain in the Columbia University and TIME forum.
That's an attack ad waiting to happen.
That said, I haven't watched the forum in its entirety. I was just sent that clip by my brother who was watching it live. It's focus is on service, and you can watch clips of it on CNN.
Edit: Added the somewhat I missed to the quote to get it word perfect. It's only fair as it is a defense that he can use.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm particularly amused by this part of Palin's interview:
quote:GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state ... these last couple of weeks ... it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.
Did she forget whose running mate she is?
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are a lot of either troubling, or at least near gaffe statements in her interview. It'll be interesting to see the whole thing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.
I was under the impression Saakashvili lobbed bombs into South Ossetia first? Either way, Palin is talking about putting Georgia in NATO, and that seems like a great way to court a war.
This is something I've been wondering about. At this point, is the rest of NATO really willing to admit (and defend) Georgia?
posted
Something that bugs me about Palin being picked as VP is that McCain's supposed to have only met or talked to her once or twice before he picked her.
Granted that VP choices are mostly about what it takes to get elected. Still, recent VPs have been way more active (Cheney, Gore) in government. It's alarming that McCain didn't have any real idea whether the two of them could actually get along and work with one another.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What were people's views on the Palin interview? I've just started watching it, and trying to get all of it digested.
Some initial thought is that she seems quite unprepared and uneasy. She also sounds kind of "rehearsed," as if she's grabbing for some pieces of information she has been working on.
She also dances words all around Gibson's questions– to the point that Gibson stopped her to point it out.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I doubt that spreading falsehoods about the Georgia crisis will hurt Palin at all with her uninformed target constituency. Another good tactical move on her part.
Well, it could hurt her if she gets painted as someone who'd go to war with Russia if she were president...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.
posted
This puts a whole new spin on the Bridge to Nowhere.
quote:Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”
Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.
posted
Still just excerpts, but this is the closest I've come to a full transcript of the Palin interview.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
empahsis mine
If you listen to that part of the interview, she stresses the bolded text. Gibson didn't address it at all, but it really stood out to me. Is she just trying to talk tough, or did she actually mean something by that? If she did mean something, what is it that she's advocating, exactly? Who is she talking about targeting? It sounded to me as though she wasn't just talking about the usual people that would be targeted in attacks on terrorist camps and so forth [Edit - because of the use of the word "even"], but because I'm aware that I'm not an impartial observer, I wanted to know what other people here thought.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
May I point out that when we originally went after Al Qaeda and the government of Afghanistan would not give them up, we went in anyway, kicking out the Taliban government in the process.
Pakistan would be more problemmatic, since they have nuclear weapons, and ostensibly their government is an ally of the USA. At least, they are not openly defying us.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, is that intended to be a response to my post? If so I wasn't quite able to put together how it was an answer to my question (and you and other McCain/Palin supporters are exactly who I'd be most interested in hearing from on this. I really want to know what people who are positively disposed toward her made of the bolded text. I'm interested in what everybody else thinks too, of course, but I'm particularly interested in hearing from her supporters on this).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else.
I don't have a problem with this. It's not model ethical behavior, but a governor trying to get as much money as she could for her state...There are worse crimes, I'd be more worried if she took the money for the bridge and rerouted it unofficially.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
However she does make a point out of how much she's against earmarks and this seems just as "bad" as someone else's earmark.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else.
I don't have a problem with this. It's not model ethical behavior, but a governor trying to get as much money as she could for her state...There are worse crimes, I'd be more worried if she took the money for the bridge and rerouted it unofficially.
I agree and believe that there should be a certain level of pork that's acceptable from our representatives. Afterall, they are supposed to be representing us in government, if others are getting money, shouldn't we get a piece of the pie?
The problem is that the campaign is touting her as being a champion against earmark spending, trying to show that she battled the bridge do to nowhere because it was wasteful spending. It's not so much that she kept the money as it is that they're implying that she didn't keep the money because she's fiscally conservative.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time. For 20-some years, including leading the largest squadron in the United States Navy, I led. I didn't manage for profit, I led for patriotism.
--John McCain in the October 2007 Republican Primary Debate in Orlando
Source (the quote is toward the end of the page)
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh that's okay, Noemon. Clearly he meant that being a mayor or a governor for a short time is just another way to be prepared. Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no, no, clearly he's saying that those who would choose to be a mayor or governor are unpatriotic and only choose the line of work for profit!
...Wait, I think I was supposed to defend the statement. Oops.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: May I point out that when we originally went after Al Qaeda and the government of Afghanistan would not give them up, we went in anyway, kicking out the Taliban government in the process.
And that went so swimmingly that the Taliban are now in resurgance in Afghanistan and Afghanistan is once again the world's opium merchant.
Can we not do that again?...
I mean, I'm not saying we should never send our military on an international mission again, but, somewhere in infancy, most of us learn that there's some swallowing in between bouts of chewing?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
