Say Hello to President McCain
You heard it first right here. McCain wins. By more than 5 points. Here’s why:
McCain is cagey. Liberal, moderate, independent, wing nut. He’s all those things depending on the issue, which is how a large number of Americans see themselves. He gives movement conservatives like Rush Limbaugh fits because he won’t toe the line, and will do the same to the eventual Dem candidate. McCain crosses over like no other candidate, including Obama. Apparently, John Kerry offered him the VP spot in 2004.
McCain decimates Obama on substance. Unlike Obama, he has a record, frankly not all of it onerous. McCain/Feingold. Voting against the Bush tax cuts twice. Thoughtful and non-doctrinaire about immigration. He’s not a Christofascist. Hey, just because he wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years is no reason not to look on the bright side.
He decimates Hillary because he can easily co-opt the experience and sacrifice argument. I’ll see your community service and women’s rights and raise you five years in a Viet Cong prison camp. Wanna talk sacrifice? McCain will give you sacrifice.
The real reason McCain ends up on Pennsylvania Avenue: Once again, judging by the way Dems are comporting themselves in the primaries, they remain on the same suicide mission they started in 2000. Bad counsel, poor messaging, tone deaf campaign themes, circular firing squads all delivered courtesy of the hacks that run the DNC and DLC–the ones that control the money spigot. I have that same queasy feeling that I had when Kerry became the nominee. The Dems are consistently capable of one thing–snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The next step takes place on Feb 5. Best case: Gridlock. Pug executive branch. Dem Congress. Government fiddles while America burns.
Posted: January 30th, 2008 under Dumbocrats, Hillary, McCain, Obama.
Comments: 18
Comments
Comment from Sasha
Time: January 30, 2008, 5:01 am
Is this supposed to be humor?
Comment from Max
Time: January 30, 2008, 6:16 am
John McCain is favored by the Japanese business community and government. I have tremendous respect for his conduct as a prisoner. He was offered an early release, since his father was an Admiral in command of Pacific forces at the time. He refused, he would not leave while other Americans were still in captivity. That is integrity.
However, his views on war in the Middle East leave me cold. A 100 year war is insane. And I really did not like his singing joke about bombing Iran, which he sang to the tune of that old song “Barbara Ann”.
Comment from John Ham
Time: January 30, 2008, 9:05 am
Can anyone explain why the DNC/DLC are so determined to lose? They seem to have made a good strategy for it.
Comment from jabartlett
Time: January 30, 2008, 9:47 am
You’ve called it., Lefty. This post, coupled with the departure of my candidate from the race this morning, has me wanting to crawl back into bed and pull up the covers. The Repugs are going to nominate the one candidate in their field who’s not demonstrably nuts, one who will better appeal to independents than anyone else, while the Dems appear ready to nominate a candidate who’s disliked more intensely–by a lot of people who should be part of her own base–than any other member of their party. Ladies and gentlemen, your Democratic Party.
On another matter: Watch who McCain picks for his running mate. He’s an old-looking 71, and often appears unhealthy to me.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 30, 2008, 9:56 am
Lefty says that Clinton and Obama are losers because of: “Bad counsel, poor messaging, tone deaf campaign themes, circular firing squads all delivered courtesy of the hacks that run the DNC and DLC–the ones that control the money spigot.” John Ham wonders why the DLC is “determined to lose”?
While Lefty’s analysis is true of Hillary Clinton, I disagree strongly with its application to Obama. The Clintons, of course, are charter members of the DLC, and Hillary is the Chair of something stupid called, the DLC’s “American Dream Initiative”. Among other reasons for the DLC, making the Democrats more centrist and business friendly were among the reasons it was formed. In other words, making it more like the Republican Party. Their big claim to fame is that it elected Bill Clinton conveniently forgetting that Ross Perot had something to do with both Clinton wins.
As I have pointed out in my posts on marketing strategy, it is Hillary who has changed her message five or six times (reflecting “bad counsel” and “poor messaging”), and only Hillary who has lost market share since she launched her campaign. She, of course, has the DLC power brokers behind her and the same principals are raising money for her that raised money for Bill.
Obama is not tied to the DLC and he has not changed his fundamental message. His sources of funding are completely different from the Clinton’s. And he continues to gain “market share”.
Both Clinton and Obama are responsible for the big turnouts in the primaries, setting records in ALL of them. So something is working. These record turnouts are signaling something that Lefty is missing here. American voters, Democrats and Independents, want change, especially on the war in Iraq. On this score, McCain is sucking wind.
What Obama, like McCain, has demonstrated is message appeal with Independents. Clinton isn’t even in the ballpark. And we keep forgetting that about 30 percent of voters will be independent.
Finally, I would say that a McCain vs. Clinton match up will be the same kind of contest as we have seen before, maybe with a little more mud. Therefore, the result could well be forecast here. But if the match up is between McCain and Obama, the race, by definition, will be different. In that case, I believe this forecast is wrong.
Comment from Max
Time: January 30, 2008, 12:25 pm
I think Obama is doing fine. However, if the nominee becomes Clinton, than she gets my full support. OK, she changed her mind on the war. Nothing wrong with that, she changed her mind in the proper direction.
I AM NOT going to vote for a man who promises 100 years of war.
Comment from timr
Time: January 30, 2008, 12:35 pm
Max and LC, check this out. the forever war continued
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,161053,00.html
Comment from Max
Time: January 30, 2008, 3:43 pm
Tim,
I have seen that stuff around the net. In my opinion, it is just a cynical effort tp ensure that nothing bad comes out of Iraq before the election. Cost to our troops be dammed. In any case, the Iraqi’s hate us. There is no possibility of creating a pro American state in Iraq. for a good idea what Iraqi’s think, look at this.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: January 30, 2008, 10:25 pm
Josh, we can agree to disagree, and please know that not every one of my posts is a veiled advertisement for Hillary or an invitation to compare and contrast her with Obama. But be clear that the Obama who is running now will definitely not be the Obama who, if he wins the nomination, will running in the general. Like it or not, he’s going to be infected by DNC/DLC ineptitude, because he needs the money. Funding a primary is one thing, funding a general is a Billion-dollar enterprise. He’s going to make the deal and once he does, he’s going to be as well managed as Gore and Kerry. It’s not a Hillary problem, it’s a Dem problem.
Comment from Umous Akwitt
Time: January 30, 2008, 11:05 pm
exactly …. well stated and anyone who thinks differently is in for the same old, same old, results.
Comment from Ardilla Sinfronteras
Time: January 31, 2008, 9:21 am
You guys left something out:McCain’s age. It’s going to be an issue. I usually don’t agree with Chuck Norris politically, but he was right on when he pointed out that McCain is just too old to be president. We’re talking about the most important job in the world. I’m 10 years younger than McCain, and I can barely manage to perform my mundane little office job. No U.S. employer would hire a 72-year-old to do a critical job on which its very future existence depends, and I’m counting on the American voters to have enough common sense to realize this. I’m old enough to remember both Eisenhower administrations and, believe me, by the time the second one rolled around, he could barely function. Ditto for Reagan. If Obama is the Dem nominee, I hope he takes every possible opportunity to STAND NEXT TO McCain during the debates so the public can get a look at the contrast. McCain has a nice tan, but from the side he’s all hunched over. He looks old. He IS old. Too old. Way too old.
Comment from I.B.Lever
Time: January 31, 2008, 10:45 am
“No U.S. employer would hire a 72-year-old to do a critical job on which its very future existence depends, and I’m counting on the American voters to have enough common sense to realize this.”
In all respect, I disagree, McCain has the blessing of every corporation out there and in essence has been hired on, to enhance their futures.
Why skirt the issue, if McCain is, “way too old”, does that make Obama “way to tall”, no that’s not the word, “way too young”, no that’s not it either. Way too well versed, no, way too neat in appearance, nah. You won’t say it and I won’t say it , the media won’t utter it but you can bet your backside, the word is out there and it will be hard to overcome. With every one’s help I think he can, but ask yourself, will he get every one’s help ?
It is for this reason I respect William J. Clinton, with all his faults, he’s not afraid to mention, the divisive issues that will test this nation and he does it - not in a racist, bigoted manner but in an adult way that gains the attention of “everyone” in this country. He’s asking us all, if we’re ready for this, because if we are not prepared, the consequences could in reality, be appalling.
If Obama gets the nod, he’ll have my full support and my wish will be, he be given all the positivity he’ll require to right this floundering ship. So be it. (AMEN)
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 31, 2008, 10:56 am
I agree with Ardilla. If you can’t fly and airplane, you can’t fly the country. In addition, no US employer would tolerate the kind of spousal job sharing that the Clintons are peddling.
Comment from Max
Time: January 31, 2008, 11:27 am
72 is the average age for a Japanese Prime Minister. I believe the present PM is around there. Abe Shinzo was supposed to bring youth and vigor, but all he did was screw up. He was a youngster of 52.
Comment from timr
Time: January 31, 2008, 11:28 am
Ardilla, A lot of McCains problems have nothing to do with his age, and lots to do with his torture in North Vietnam. Example, he can not lift his arms above his shoulders, he had lots of muscular and skeletal damage. No, his age and general health don’t bother me. What does bother me are reports that have been around for years about his hot temper, curing at people who don’t agree with him, some even say that he physically threatened them.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 31, 2008, 11:48 am
Max, Asian cultures value age: that’s the difference.
Comment from Umous Akwitt
Time: January 31, 2008, 4:50 pm
” If you can’t fly and airplane, you can’t fly the country. In addition, no US employer would tolerate the kind of spousal job sharing that the Clintons are peddling. ”
That sounds like an analogy brought on by the consumption from the contents of a bottle. Hic *&#@ hic, try again.
Comment from Ben
Time: April 23, 2008, 6:55 am
Very few US companies would hire Obama to work as the CEO of their companies with his limited experience and thin resume. Obama will not win in November if he is the nominee. John Mccains age will become his asset against Obama. Obama has serious problems with hispanics, jewish people, women and white working class. Last I heard, it takes more than college students and blacks to win a general election. To say these groups will rally around Obama if he is the nominee is simply wishful thinking. Add to the equation, independents and all of the people that will simply get “cold feet” in the voting booth thinking about voting Obama, the guy won’t win. In the end, the old white guy gets it.
Write a comment