The "My Holiday with John McCain" story has apparently made it around the internet several times, attributed to several different California people. At this point I have to call it a fake, along the same lines as the "Sarah Palin's book burning" email I've received this week. Both represent the sort of tactics I deplore in McCain's campaign; we cannot rely on lies to make our case, however real those lies may seem.
Apologies for posting something without fully checking the source. I don't usually do so, and only did so in this case because I trusted everyone I spoke to on-campus about this. I won't make the mistake again. Or... I'll do everything I can to avoid it.
False attacks don't help our side; in truth they don't help anyone at all.
Thanks to
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
debkakes for the tip.
Profile
- kaleandwine
- Kale & Wine
Comments
Intriguingly for me it made me aware of how much value I place on the 'character' of my politicians. I read a *review* of a book called the 'Case against Obama', which suggests that he is just a normal politician and that the notion that he is somehow a different type of politician is just spin. This both comforted me, as it allayed a few fears, and made me dislike his campaign a little more, but I am wondering if anyone here has actually read it?
G
Interesting that you bring up character. I'd agree with you. And I'd be interested to check out that book -- though to be honest it wouldn't shatter my view of Obama at all, I'm quite certain he's a (very good, but nonetheless) political animal.
I've heard that McCain is not a particularly likable person, and I think his actions of the last week have shown him to be impulsive and unstable. For all these reasons the Holiday story didn't shock me. I'm glad it's not the truth -- I wouldn't want that man anywhere near a potential Presidency -- but I still have great discomfort with McCain's character. Did you see the debate? Then there's my Palin panic -- but that's another issue.
I've actually been thinking about you, wondering if you were still leaving toward McCain despite the last week. Sounds like you are. So I guess I have to ask: what is it about his character that you like, and what actions (on his part) would make you doubt him? Just curious. I'm surrounded by like minds here in S.C., so it's interesting to hear the other side.
And I'd have to say that I am only very slightly leaning toward McCain on the basis that he is in the position to do the least damage. (As there will in all likelihood be massive democratic majorities in both Houses). The Clinton years were likely golden because Clinton was hemmed in on both sides by the republicans leading to a balanced budget at the very least. Part of the problem with Bush is that he got away with being crap because congress didn't stand up to him until the democrats took over. If it was the other way around, I think I'd be leaning Obama.
Yep, Palin is very scary. But if McCains first job is to get elected then I will begrudgingly say that he made a reasonable choice. The vice presidential debate will hopefully be very revealing. And I imagine the McCain-Palin campaign will sink or swim on her performance.
At the end of the day, though, the veep debate is a sideshow. To quote a great Democrat, "It's the economy, stupid". One of the most reliable predictors of the outcome of presidential elections is to look at the economic record of the incumbent party over the previous 4 years (there's a paper (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1094/is_4_39/ai_n9483914/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1) here on it, which predicted the Bush win in 2004).
Given the news out of Washington and New York, I'd say that, bar the proverbial live boy or dead girl (or an October surprise kamikaze pastor or a self-immolating gaffe), the election's Obama's.
P.
Colours -> mast.
Here's the Fair model prediction for 2008:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/vi
P.
Palin, gawd help me -- I can't stop watching. The McCain camp seems to be doing everything it can to make her more than a sideshow -- she's practically their headline ticket. She's sassy and unpredictable, vacant in a way that makes my skin crawl... but despite this (or perhaps because of it), she's bringing in the ratings on all sides. It's fascinating, but still a bizarre abuse of our democracy. Also pathetic pandering. .
In many ways I wonder if Palin isn't the poster child for the greater breakdown of the Republican party. One day I'll probably feel sorry for her.
It drives me batty that McCain and the GOP championed the deregulation that ultimately brought us here, yet are now doing everything they can to wash their hands of the blame. If there's a public outcry against bailing out banks, why bail out politicians? I personally couldn't stomach the thought of rewarding dismally poor performance, for any reason.
I realize I sound very partisan these days. I've always been liberal, and an activist I guess. I continue to move toward the center as I age -- but that doesn't bring me any closer to the current Republican party. In truth I never (ever) thought it would get so bad here -- I'm seeing decay in almost every part of my government. I blame the current leadership, and I can't wait to see them go. McCain may be a "Maverick", but he's not different enough, not on any of the issues that matter to me.
I have a different consideration. I speculate that if Obama wins, the state of the economy and the Dems need to prove that they can "get things done" will restrain them politically. How else can you explain their unwillingness to really go after the incompetence and corruption of the Bush administration? If McCain wins (which could only happen if he wins the argument over who is the most likely candidate to bring change), he will be presiding over Democratic majorities in both houses and about 50% of the populace who are frustrated and angry. McCain himself doesn't care for Bush so I would predict a federal government wallowing in investigation after investigation of the cronyism and ineptitude of the current regime. For many of us that may sound justified (and just), but it won't do anything for the country. If you believe that it is better if the federal government does nothing, then that may be good reason to go for the split rule that a McCain presidency would probably bring. but I thought that the lessons of the past eight years were that we need that level of government to do a few things--and competently.
I'd agree (if I take your point correctly) that a McCain presidency would amount to a deadlock in so many ways; I'd forsee a government where we make bipartisan progress on the issues that matter the least, and get nowhere in the areas that matter most. Interesting to think about, whichever way it goes.
But thinking out loud... By my estimation, McCain's not that much of a maverick -- in fact (given his recent behavior), I wonder if he would investigate Bush? To that end, I can't see him winning on the basis of his newly adopted "change" mantra, either -- I couldn't see him overtaking Obama on this issue. He's strongest with the conservative base (thanks to Palin), but they're not enough to get him elected. In truth, I fear that if he wins it will be based on fear/uncertainty/doubt, from racism to threat (hopefully not reality) of terrorism. I wouldn't be surprised if their campaign ramps up attack ads on this theme... A bad thing, no matter how you look at it.