I think Jonathan Gardner’s John McCain man crush that I had been predicting for a while now may be developing.
I doubt it.
During the “low point” of the Republican Party in the last century, there was still an awfully good chance that after the November elections, a republican would be once again elected president. Just in the past 28 years alone, only 8 of those were years in which a democrat was president, a president who never earned a majority vote.
Well in 3 of the last 4 elections the Democratic candidate got more human beings to vote for them than the Republican. But yeah, we could do better. I’m not sure that it’s actually “an awfully good chance” of McCain. Certainly there is always a chance. Of course there’s also a chance that he’ll have to go to jail for 5 years for opting into public financing, and then opting out without being given an out. That would be awesome. Oh, and 1932 was probably the low point for the Republicans in the last 100 years.
Why is this?
I don’t know, because it’s easy to take numbers out of context and pretend that they mean something that they don’t. Maybe because you have the corporate media on your side to an uncomfortable degree. Perfectly willing to brush over all sorts of Republican nonsense, and holding Democrats to a standard they simply don’t have for Republicans.
My thought, and see if you don’t agree, is that the reason is simply because democrats can’t stand the white-hot heat of inspection.
Or it’s because Republicans rarely face the white-hot heat of inspection. When the New York Times has enough evidence to put it on their front page that people in the John McCain campaign think he’s trading sex for legislation there was an effort to boo hoo any mention of it in the rest of the media. It certainly didn’t have the same consequences as the Spitzer story.
I mean, look at New York. Eliot Spitzer gets elected. He gets caught up in a prostitution ring breakup, and is forced to resign. The lieutenant governor takes over, and in an effort to perhaps prevent a similar break down, admits to extending extra-marital affairs. But at least he didn’t have to pay with his own money—he had his campaign committee cover the bill.
I know I said essentially, “so what” about Spitzer, but double that about Patterson. He didn’t break any laws. He hadn’t been campaigning against sex.
Up until his appointment to the governorship, Patterson was a relatively obscure character. Now that he is in the spotlight, he seems to be melting. It is a matter of time, I fear, before New York will be governed by a governor that was never elected.
What does this say about the democratic party? Are these just two bad apples out of the bunch, or is the whole bunch rotten and these were just two examples?
I think it’s one bad apple, and one person who thought his marriage was over, so started seeing other women, then got his marriage back together. I mean, John McCain cheated on his first wife, but because he didn’t save the marriage, he’s a better person. Does that make any sense to anybody?
Here’s another example: Barack Obama. At first, he seemed like some kind of savior for the Democratic Party. He had been in politics for such a short time he hadn’t earned the scars that people like Ted Kennedy have earned. So it seemed the democrats could finally put forward a candidate that could pass the smell test.
Obama smells like peaches.
Except it was not to be so. Even while Obama is trying to refute his support of a radical, racist hate-monger for a preacher (giving all of Christianity a bad name, I might add), he is plagued by other nutjobs on his campaign. I won’t divulge the secrets yet, but if you are a strong Obama supporter, imagine all the crazies that show up at the anti-war rallies, except on Obama’s staff.
Radical isn’t actually an insult, nothing I’ve seen him say was racist, and yeah he did say some hateful things. I’m not sure how he gives Christianity a worse name than, say, Mike Huckabee, or John Hagee
. I certainly don’t like many of the things he said.You know who are crazier than the anti-war people in Obama’s campaign? The pro-war people in McCain’s.
When Al Gore was put forward, he couldn’t pass the smell test. I mean, he was completely incapable of connecting with the people, and he couldn’t even give a speech without putting to sleep half the audience. Then came John Kerry, who Rush colorfully adds every time his name is mentioned “who served in Vietnam”. Except John Kerry’s service was hardly what he made it out to be. Combined with the Winter Soldier fraud and scam, as well as, “I threw the medals over the fence before I didn’t throw them, and here they are right now because they were really my friend’s medals who couldn’t make it because he was sick”, and you get a collapsed campaign. I mean, wasn’t President Bush Hitler himself? How can you lose against him?
Al Gore won the popular vote. More Americans supported him. I don’t think either time Bush was subjected to the same level of scrutiny either for his military service or his policies as the Democrat. But the only time he won, he did come close to losing as a wartime incumbent. I don’t think Bush is Hitler; being Bush is bad enough.
But now we are heading into 2008, with the republicans having nominated not their first choice, or even their second or third choice, but a distant fourth or fifth choice. I mean, this guy is so old even he admits that he probable won’t run for a second term. This is a guy who admitted that he doesn’t know much about economics, and that is precisely the issue we are facing right now.
The Republicans did of course nominate their first choice. It wasn’t Gardner’s first choice, but the process picked McCain pretty clearly. The thing is, all of the Republican presidents have since Nixon run as centrists but when they get into office they take a sharp turn to the right.
But John McCain, in poll after poll, is making Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama look like second-rate candidates. I mean, even John Kerry at this point four years ago was looking pretty good, but these two challengers are already losing.
Well, thehim and I disagree in this week’s podcast (link when Goldy puts it up), but I think we’ve got two stellar candidates. There has been some sparring: the candidates do spend some time attacking one another. But
it’s been remarkably civil within the party since Obama’s people decided to stop labeling everything Bill Clinton said as racist. And without much searching, I found plenty of attacks on McCain, that I wish there was more focus on:
“John McCain has admitted that he doesn’t understand the economy as well as he should, and yesterday he proved it in a speech he gave on the housing crisis,” the Illinois Democrat told an audience here.
Democrats pounced on Mr. McCain’s speech as lacking concrete solutions and advocating inaction in the face of a crisis. “It sounds remarkably like Herbert Hoover, and I don’t think that’s a good economic policy,” Mrs. Clinton told reporter in Pennsylvania. “Inaction has contributed to the problems we face today, and I think further inaction would exacerbate those problems.”
Mrs. Clinton’s rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Obama, said: “It’s deeply troubling that John McCain is suggesting that the best way to address the housing crisis is to sit back and watch it happen — which is just further evidence that he would continue President Bush’s failed economic policies.”
“Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shia, Iran and Al Qaeda,” Obama said. “Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.”
My favorite from Hillary:
“Sen. McCain would gladly accept the torch and stay the course, keeping troops in Iraq for up to 100 years if necessary,” she said. “That in a nutshell is the Bush-McCain Iraq policy – don’t learn from your mistakes, repeat them.”
“We can have hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground for a hundred years, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is no political solution to the situation in Iraq,” said Clinton. “Sen. McCain and President Bush claim withdrawal is defeat. Let’s be clear, withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years.
Those of us on the left who chose to dwell on Ferraro or Wright miss the damn point, and let the mainstream media get away with covering the relatively mild interparty stuff like it was Normandy. Certainly there are differences between the two on policy, experience, and style: ultimately that’s why I support Hillary Clinton. There are also electability issues if you like. But at the end of the day, there’s a lot more wrong with McCain than there is with either of our candidates.
More than just the scandals, the parts of a candidate that don’t directly cause concern but imply secondary infidelities that do cause concern, there is the fundamental fact of the democrat’s agenda. This agenda is simply more government, all of the time. It is less human freedom, more government oppression. It is the anti-America, the exact thing America was founded in opposition to. Let alone the question of whether they are right or wrong—they want to make that decision for you, and that in itself is the wrong way.
This paragraph is tough to make sense of, but I think that he’s saying that wanting “more government” will make people have sex outside of marriage.
And America, naturally, understands that this is in opposition to itself, and rightly rejects it.
Except when they don’t. I mean the Republicans are unpopular because they had control of the House, Senate and White House for the first time since Ike, and the consequences were horrible. America rightly rejects that.
That’s what I think.