McCain Incompetence

If the first major judgement call a Presidential candidate makes is the Vice Presidential pick, then John McCain’s judgement needs to be seriously questioned.

In Alaska, several state leaders and local officials said they knew of no efforts by the McCain campaign to find out more information about Ms. Palin before the announcement of her selection, Although campaigns are typically discreet when they make inquiries into potential running mates, officials in Alaska said Monday they thought it was peculiar that no one in the state had the slightest hint that Ms. Palin might be under consideration.

As I surmised earlier, the Republican Party Machine is so right wing that McCain’s real choices for VP, Lieberman or Ridge, were nixed in the last five days. Only then did they start vetting Palin.

But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates.

Read the whole Times article. The Rove Swat Team is mindblowingly incompetent. That they screwed up the country so badly for eight years and still at the end, McCain put them in charge of his campaign, reveals a very weak man, who should not be President.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Journalism, Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to McCain Incompetence

  1. zak says:

    I’m worried this is giong to turn into a repeat of 2004, when educated people said WTF Bush, and the conservative vote squeezed him in for Round 2.

    A pro-life libertarian I know feels like Palin aligns well with her positions, so I’m wondering if Bob Barr is going to be less a factor, even if he had much sway to begin wtih

  2. zak says:

    I’m worried this is giong to turn into a repeat of 2004, when educated people said WTF Bush, and the conservative vote squeezed him in for Round 2.

    A pro-life libertarian I know feels like Palin aligns well with her positions, so I’m wondering if Bob Barr is going to be less a factor, even if he had much sway to begin wtih

  3. zak says:

    I’m worried this is giong to turn into a repeat of 2004, when educated people said WTF Bush, and the conservative vote squeezed him in for Round 2.

    A pro-life libertarian I know feels like Palin aligns well with her positions, so I’m wondering if Bob Barr is going to be less a factor, even if he had much sway to begin wtih

  4. fieldingbandolier says:

    I certainly wouldn’t argue your characterization of the impact Rove et al has had on the country, but I’m having trouble understanding why you’d call him incompetent.

    Karl Rove is many things. He’s corrupt, he’s malignant – in fact, this secular humanist is having a hard time coming up with a more fitting or accurate characterization than “evil.” Karl Rove is one of the principle figures in the Republican-led demise of our fortunes.

    But he is neither incompetent or stupid. I truly wish he were – much tragedy could’ve been avoided.

    Also, I’m with Zak. This thing is so far from played out, and I’ve seen so little to diminish my fears thus far. Rather, the impact of the Democratic attack machine (which has an uncharacteristic psychotic flavor at the moment) is part of the sequence I’m concerned about.

    When you convince yourself you despise her, you become increasingly less likely to understand or respect those who do. That segregates them from the discussion you’re having.

    Guess what? This is precisely the reverse of what we want. We want to avoid alienating people, or discouraging them from allowing us an opportunity to be convincing.

    The problem is, you’re not going to be able to convince people not to like her. You can make all the rational arguments you want, and provide a thousand well-reasoned proofs why she should not be VP, but you’ll be talking to the air because rationality does not play a significant role in that particular calculus.

    I know there’s a certain appeal to preaching to the choir. It tends to attract like-minded people, shore up alliances, and bolsters our sense of virtue and righteousness. We feel less uncertain when surrounded by people who’ we’ve determined have beliefs that are aligned, or at least complementary.

    I’m not sure how that will help us win the election, however. I think that’s the strategy we were relying on the last two times around.

    Maybe third try’s the charm?

  5. fieldingbandolier says:

    I certainly wouldn’t argue your characterization of the impact Rove et al has had on the country, but I’m having trouble understanding why you’d call him incompetent.

    Karl Rove is many things. He’s corrupt, he’s malignant – in fact, this secular humanist is having a hard time coming up with a more fitting or accurate characterization than “evil.” Karl Rove is one of the principle figures in the Republican-led demise of our fortunes.

    But he is neither incompetent or stupid. I truly wish he were – much tragedy could’ve been avoided.

    Also, I’m with Zak. This thing is so far from played out, and I’ve seen so little to diminish my fears thus far. Rather, the impact of the Democratic attack machine (which has an uncharacteristic psychotic flavor at the moment) is part of the sequence I’m concerned about.

    When you convince yourself you despise her, you become increasingly less likely to understand or respect those who do. That segregates them from the discussion you’re having.

    Guess what? This is precisely the reverse of what we want. We want to avoid alienating people, or discouraging them from allowing us an opportunity to be convincing.

    The problem is, you’re not going to be able to convince people not to like her. You can make all the rational arguments you want, and provide a thousand well-reasoned proofs why she should not be VP, but you’ll be talking to the air because rationality does not play a significant role in that particular calculus.

    I know there’s a certain appeal to preaching to the choir. It tends to attract like-minded people, shore up alliances, and bolsters our sense of virtue and righteousness. We feel less uncertain when surrounded by people who’ we’ve determined have beliefs that are aligned, or at least complementary.

    I’m not sure how that will help us win the election, however. I think that’s the strategy we were relying on the last two times around.

    Maybe third try’s the charm?

  6. fieldingbandolier says:

    I certainly wouldn’t argue your characterization of the impact Rove et al has had on the country, but I’m having trouble understanding why you’d call him incompetent.

    Karl Rove is many things. He’s corrupt, he’s malignant – in fact, this secular humanist is having a hard time coming up with a more fitting or accurate characterization than “evil.” Karl Rove is one of the principle figures in the Republican-led demise of our fortunes.

    But he is neither incompetent or stupid. I truly wish he were – much tragedy could’ve been avoided.

    Also, I’m with Zak. This thing is so far from played out, and I’ve seen so little to diminish my fears thus far. Rather, the impact of the Democratic attack machine (which has an uncharacteristic psychotic flavor at the moment) is part of the sequence I’m concerned about.

    When you convince yourself you despise her, you become increasingly less likely to understand or respect those who do. That segregates them from the discussion you’re having.

    Guess what? This is precisely the reverse of what we want. We want to avoid alienating people, or discouraging them from allowing us an opportunity to be convincing.

    The problem is, you’re not going to be able to convince people not to like her. You can make all the rational arguments you want, and provide a thousand well-reasoned proofs why she should not be VP, but you’ll be talking to the air because rationality does not play a significant role in that particular calculus.

    I know there’s a certain appeal to preaching to the choir. It tends to attract like-minded people, shore up alliances, and bolsters our sense of virtue and righteousness. We feel less uncertain when surrounded by people who’ we’ve determined have beliefs that are aligned, or at least complementary.

    I’m not sure how that will help us win the election, however. I think that’s the strategy we were relying on the last two times around.

    Maybe third try’s the charm?

  7. zak says:

    Rove is brilliant at his job. His team basically managed a silent coup in 2000 and got enough to muddy the water in 2004 — wasn’t the Supreme Ct decision ultimately something like, gee we should recount, but that would take too long. He just needs to meet that standard a 3rd time.

    It’s like your previous post about how military action doesn’t resolve terrorism, diplomacy and policework do. Trolling and starting pernicious rumors and flaming up blogs aren’t so successful; preaching to the choir doesn’t do much either.

    Perhaps we should be digging it the reasons WHY McCain is so popular with the low information voter. And how those issues/logic can be debunked.

  8. zak says:

    Rove is brilliant at his job. His team basically managed a silent coup in 2000 and got enough to muddy the water in 2004 — wasn’t the Supreme Ct decision ultimately something like, gee we should recount, but that would take too long. He just needs to meet that standard a 3rd time.

    It’s like your previous post about how military action doesn’t resolve terrorism, diplomacy and policework do. Trolling and starting pernicious rumors and flaming up blogs aren’t so successful; preaching to the choir doesn’t do much either.

    Perhaps we should be digging it the reasons WHY McCain is so popular with the low information voter. And how those issues/logic can be debunked.

  9. zak says:

    Rove is brilliant at his job. His team basically managed a silent coup in 2000 and got enough to muddy the water in 2004 — wasn’t the Supreme Ct decision ultimately something like, gee we should recount, but that would take too long. He just needs to meet that standard a 3rd time.

    It’s like your previous post about how military action doesn’t resolve terrorism, diplomacy and policework do. Trolling and starting pernicious rumors and flaming up blogs aren’t so successful; preaching to the choir doesn’t do much either.

    Perhaps we should be digging it the reasons WHY McCain is so popular with the low information voter. And how those issues/logic can be debunked.

  10. Morgan Warstler says:

    Jesus,

    Please stop calling people low information voters. Zak, I consume more information than you do. That’s not personal it is a fact. Day in, day out, I consume more info than you do – I have since I was 12. And, quite frankly, it is seriously unattractive in your psyche, for you to imagine some “other” large group of stupid people who just happen to not think like you do.

    Be clear: Obama getting my support doesn’t take much, he just has to say, “I’m going to balance the budget, even if some lefty programs don’t get funded.”

    His level of specificity about the policies of the left he won’t enact DEFINE his ability to say he will “reach across the aisle.”

    This isn’t about nodding to the mainstream and saying I understand your concerns, this is about a policy announcement the left dislikes, not done out of political calculation (FISA), but done out of true belief.

    I’ve identified two issues I think he deep inside his soul is against the left’s policies:

    1. the union card voting thing.
    2. school choice. teacher’s union strength.

    He should kill those. Stuill feel the plight of unions and teachers, but be against their policy proposals. He’d be soooo much more acceptable to a huge swath of “high information” voters, if they could see that he’s not just a radical liberal full of platitudes and bromides. A lot of people who aren’t going to vote for him, WISH they could. There are a lot of folks who’d LIKE to see a black man or woman assume the highest office in the land, but they still aren’t comfortable with Obama. There’s nothing wrong with people being excited by the presence of minorities and women in the ultimate power seats, simply to prove to themselves for sure that there isn’t some deep seated issues within themselves still unresolved.

    But it is UP TO HIM to win. Ultimately, there are no excuses in politics. 100% of the time you have to compromise to get anything you want.

    And watching Jon get shrill and scream about this rather interesting woman, Palin, instead of just waiting to see how she speaks, holds her own self up to debate and interviews… it sucks.

    Jon doesn’t consider himself sexist. No, never. But somehow he thinks he can TALK DOWN about a gal who’s got about as much experience as Obama – by almost ANY measuring stick. Even if you said, ok Obama’s got 25-50% more of a resume than her, one certainly has to wonder how Jon’s brain works, that Obama is ready to lead, and she’s got no skills at all.

    It’s like being gay. It is totally respectable for gays to vote with the ticket that benefits them. BUT it sucks, that gays have to vote for the higher taxes party, just to gain their own rights. The HORRIBLE thing, is that Repubs have created a party that keeps the single richest group from being able to support their true interests – keeping their own money. But that doesn’t mean you can’t respect gays who have CHOSEN to value keeping their own money over the social rights the Dems are offering. It just proves that minorities aren’t single issue voters. The same goes for Palin. The woman is smart and she for whatever reason, doesn’t like abortion. Personally, I think that’s crazy, but I’m not going to support a candidate or not based on some silly issue like that – not when I’m concerned about old people stealing all the money.

    The defining issue of the day for me, is keeping old people, like Jon, from getting any more stuff. I’m in favor of ALMOST anything that takes stuff off the boomer’s plate and saves it for the next generation.

    So Zak, listen to Fielding, he’s the sane one on your side. You can’t dig for reasons “low information voters” dislike you, the reason they dislike you is because you imagine yourself better than they are. So stop digging, and fix your attitude.

  11. Morgan Warstler says:

    Jesus,

    Please stop calling people low information voters. Zak, I consume more information than you do. That’s not personal it is a fact. Day in, day out, I consume more info than you do – I have since I was 12. And, quite frankly, it is seriously unattractive in your psyche, for you to imagine some “other” large group of stupid people who just happen to not think like you do.

    Be clear: Obama getting my support doesn’t take much, he just has to say, “I’m going to balance the budget, even if some lefty programs don’t get funded.”

    His level of specificity about the policies of the left he won’t enact DEFINE his ability to say he will “reach across the aisle.”

    This isn’t about nodding to the mainstream and saying I understand your concerns, this is about a policy announcement the left dislikes, not done out of political calculation (FISA), but done out of true belief.

    I’ve identified two issues I think he deep inside his soul is against the left’s policies:

    1. the union card voting thing.
    2. school choice. teacher’s union strength.

    He should kill those. Stuill feel the plight of unions and teachers, but be against their policy proposals. He’d be soooo much more acceptable to a huge swath of “high information” voters, if they could see that he’s not just a radical liberal full of platitudes and bromides. A lot of people who aren’t going to vote for him, WISH they could. There are a lot of folks who’d LIKE to see a black man or woman assume the highest office in the land, but they still aren’t comfortable with Obama. There’s nothing wrong with people being excited by the presence of minorities and women in the ultimate power seats, simply to prove to themselves for sure that there isn’t some deep seated issues within themselves still unresolved.

    But it is UP TO HIM to win. Ultimately, there are no excuses in politics. 100% of the time you have to compromise to get anything you want.

    And watching Jon get shrill and scream about this rather interesting woman, Palin, instead of just waiting to see how she speaks, holds her own self up to debate and interviews… it sucks.

    Jon doesn’t consider himself sexist. No, never. But somehow he thinks he can TALK DOWN about a gal who’s got about as much experience as Obama – by almost ANY measuring stick. Even if you said, ok Obama’s got 25-50% more of a resume than her, one certainly has to wonder how Jon’s brain works, that Obama is ready to lead, and she’s got no skills at all.

    It’s like being gay. It is totally respectable for gays to vote with the ticket that benefits them. BUT it sucks, that gays have to vote for the higher taxes party, just to gain their own rights. The HORRIBLE thing, is that Repubs have created a party that keeps the single richest group from being able to support their true interests – keeping their own money. But that doesn’t mean you can’t respect gays who have CHOSEN to value keeping their own money over the social rights the Dems are offering. It just proves that minorities aren’t single issue voters. The same goes for Palin. The woman is smart and she for whatever reason, doesn’t like abortion. Personally, I think that’s crazy, but I’m not going to support a candidate or not based on some silly issue like that – not when I’m concerned about old people stealing all the money.

    The defining issue of the day for me, is keeping old people, like Jon, from getting any more stuff. I’m in favor of ALMOST anything that takes stuff off the boomer’s plate and saves it for the next generation.

    So Zak, listen to Fielding, he’s the sane one on your side. You can’t dig for reasons “low information voters” dislike you, the reason they dislike you is because you imagine yourself better than they are. So stop digging, and fix your attitude.

  12. Morgan Warstler says:

    Jesus,

    Please stop calling people low information voters. Zak, I consume more information than you do. That’s not personal it is a fact. Day in, day out, I consume more info than you do – I have since I was 12. And, quite frankly, it is seriously unattractive in your psyche, for you to imagine some “other” large group of stupid people who just happen to not think like you do.

    Be clear: Obama getting my support doesn’t take much, he just has to say, “I’m going to balance the budget, even if some lefty programs don’t get funded.”

    His level of specificity about the policies of the left he won’t enact DEFINE his ability to say he will “reach across the aisle.”

    This isn’t about nodding to the mainstream and saying I understand your concerns, this is about a policy announcement the left dislikes, not done out of political calculation (FISA), but done out of true belief.

    I’ve identified two issues I think he deep inside his soul is against the left’s policies:

    1. the union card voting thing.
    2. school choice. teacher’s union strength.

    He should kill those. Stuill feel the plight of unions and teachers, but be against their policy proposals. He’d be soooo much more acceptable to a huge swath of “high information” voters, if they could see that he’s not just a radical liberal full of platitudes and bromides. A lot of people who aren’t going to vote for him, WISH they could. There are a lot of folks who’d LIKE to see a black man or woman assume the highest office in the land, but they still aren’t comfortable with Obama. There’s nothing wrong with people being excited by the presence of minorities and women in the ultimate power seats, simply to prove to themselves for sure that there isn’t some deep seated issues within themselves still unresolved.

    But it is UP TO HIM to win. Ultimately, there are no excuses in politics. 100% of the time you have to compromise to get anything you want.

    And watching Jon get shrill and scream about this rather interesting woman, Palin, instead of just waiting to see how she speaks, holds her own self up to debate and interviews… it sucks.

    Jon doesn’t consider himself sexist. No, never. But somehow he thinks he can TALK DOWN about a gal who’s got about as much experience as Obama – by almost ANY measuring stick. Even if you said, ok Obama’s got 25-50% more of a resume than her, one certainly has to wonder how Jon’s brain works, that Obama is ready to lead, and she’s got no skills at all.

    It’s like being gay. It is totally respectable for gays to vote with the ticket that benefits them. BUT it sucks, that gays have to vote for the higher taxes party, just to gain their own rights. The HORRIBLE thing, is that Repubs have created a party that keeps the single richest group from being able to support their true interests – keeping their own money. But that doesn’t mean you can’t respect gays who have CHOSEN to value keeping their own money over the social rights the Dems are offering. It just proves that minorities aren’t single issue voters. The same goes for Palin. The woman is smart and she for whatever reason, doesn’t like abortion. Personally, I think that’s crazy, but I’m not going to support a candidate or not based on some silly issue like that – not when I’m concerned about old people stealing all the money.

    The defining issue of the day for me, is keeping old people, like Jon, from getting any more stuff. I’m in favor of ALMOST anything that takes stuff off the boomer’s plate and saves it for the next generation.

    So Zak, listen to Fielding, he’s the sane one on your side. You can’t dig for reasons “low information voters” dislike you, the reason they dislike you is because you imagine yourself better than they are. So stop digging, and fix your attitude.

  13. alex says:

    Jon,

    Please, I really like this blog — it’s one of my favorites. But now it’s starting to look like DailyKos.

    Let’s have a constructive dialog as you’ve had in the past, not outright hatred and vitriol over a candidate.

    I’m a conservative, and I am quite willing to hear the “other side”. But I don’t want to get beaten over the head constantly with how stupid and awful we (or our candidates) are. You’ll find I’ll agree with you more often than not if it’s presented in a reasoned fashion.

  14. alex says:

    Jon,

    Please, I really like this blog — it’s one of my favorites. But now it’s starting to look like DailyKos.

    Let’s have a constructive dialog as you’ve had in the past, not outright hatred and vitriol over a candidate.

    I’m a conservative, and I am quite willing to hear the “other side”. But I don’t want to get beaten over the head constantly with how stupid and awful we (or our candidates) are. You’ll find I’ll agree with you more often than not if it’s presented in a reasoned fashion.

  15. alex says:

    Jon,

    Please, I really like this blog — it’s one of my favorites. But now it’s starting to look like DailyKos.

    Let’s have a constructive dialog as you’ve had in the past, not outright hatred and vitriol over a candidate.

    I’m a conservative, and I am quite willing to hear the “other side”. But I don’t want to get beaten over the head constantly with how stupid and awful we (or our candidates) are. You’ll find I’ll agree with you more often than not if it’s presented in a reasoned fashion.

  16. zestypete says:

    Another idea: stop focusing on McCain and turn back to the reason you all want Obama in the White House in the first place – Obama.

    I get the impression that Republicans rally around their candidates more then Democrats. As the same time, they are usually attacked more overtly and cavalierly by MSM than Democrats (as opposed to Democrats being attacked by Republicans and the story being reported by MSM, if you see what I mean). As a consequence, Republicans always seem ready to step up and defend their candidate vociferously (just look at some of the responses on this blog) and often without question.

    With this in mind, the point I’m trying to make is this: calling the GOP or the Republican campaign team incompetent, focusing so much energy on McCain’s judgment and generally pointing out Republicans failings with anything resembling glee or an “I told you so” enthusiasm is just as likely to encourage more Republicans (and no doubt some independents) to show up at the polls on voting day as anything else.

    Sorry if that sounds blunt, but the past week this blog has spent a lot of time highlighting McCain instead of maintaining the high that the DNC offered.

    We’re undercutting the momentum that should have followed Obama’s acceptance of the nomination – and I suspect that was part of the plan behind the VP announcement as well. Instead of a week of gushing over the historic moment in political history, we got McCain and more McCain, for good or bad.

    In other words, Jon and anyone else who wants to see Obama in the White House, isn’t it time to follow his lead and focus on issues and policy and leave the “Look at this McCain mistake” posts to other blogs?

  17. zestypete says:

    Another idea: stop focusing on McCain and turn back to the reason you all want Obama in the White House in the first place – Obama.

    I get the impression that Republicans rally around their candidates more then Democrats. As the same time, they are usually attacked more overtly and cavalierly by MSM than Democrats (as opposed to Democrats being attacked by Republicans and the story being reported by MSM, if you see what I mean). As a consequence, Republicans always seem ready to step up and defend their candidate vociferously (just look at some of the responses on this blog) and often without question.

    With this in mind, the point I’m trying to make is this: calling the GOP or the Republican campaign team incompetent, focusing so much energy on McCain’s judgment and generally pointing out Republicans failings with anything resembling glee or an “I told you so” enthusiasm is just as likely to encourage more Republicans (and no doubt some independents) to show up at the polls on voting day as anything else.

    Sorry if that sounds blunt, but the past week this blog has spent a lot of time highlighting McCain instead of maintaining the high that the DNC offered.

    We’re undercutting the momentum that should have followed Obama’s acceptance of the nomination – and I suspect that was part of the plan behind the VP announcement as well. Instead of a week of gushing over the historic moment in political history, we got McCain and more McCain, for good or bad.

    In other words, Jon and anyone else who wants to see Obama in the White House, isn’t it time to follow his lead and focus on issues and policy and leave the “Look at this McCain mistake” posts to other blogs?

  18. zestypete says:

    Another idea: stop focusing on McCain and turn back to the reason you all want Obama in the White House in the first place – Obama.

    I get the impression that Republicans rally around their candidates more then Democrats. As the same time, they are usually attacked more overtly and cavalierly by MSM than Democrats (as opposed to Democrats being attacked by Republicans and the story being reported by MSM, if you see what I mean). As a consequence, Republicans always seem ready to step up and defend their candidate vociferously (just look at some of the responses on this blog) and often without question.

    With this in mind, the point I’m trying to make is this: calling the GOP or the Republican campaign team incompetent, focusing so much energy on McCain’s judgment and generally pointing out Republicans failings with anything resembling glee or an “I told you so” enthusiasm is just as likely to encourage more Republicans (and no doubt some independents) to show up at the polls on voting day as anything else.

    Sorry if that sounds blunt, but the past week this blog has spent a lot of time highlighting McCain instead of maintaining the high that the DNC offered.

    We’re undercutting the momentum that should have followed Obama’s acceptance of the nomination – and I suspect that was part of the plan behind the VP announcement as well. Instead of a week of gushing over the historic moment in political history, we got McCain and more McCain, for good or bad.

    In other words, Jon and anyone else who wants to see Obama in the White House, isn’t it time to follow his lead and focus on issues and policy and leave the “Look at this McCain mistake” posts to other blogs?

  19. Jim Ramsey says:

    The first thing I did after Palin’s announcement for VP was to check the newspapers in Alaska. While some were not as critical as others, they all said she was not qualified. I think the pregnancy thing is just a way to get the media away from looking at a candidate who is not qualified. I just cannot believe when McCain spokespersons go on TV and say she is more experienced than Obama and Biden combined. They are so out of touch.

  20. Jim Ramsey says:

    The first thing I did after Palin’s announcement for VP was to check the newspapers in Alaska. While some were not as critical as others, they all said she was not qualified. I think the pregnancy thing is just a way to get the media away from looking at a candidate who is not qualified. I just cannot believe when McCain spokespersons go on TV and say she is more experienced than Obama and Biden combined. They are so out of touch.

  21. Jim Ramsey says:

    The first thing I did after Palin’s announcement for VP was to check the newspapers in Alaska. While some were not as critical as others, they all said she was not qualified. I think the pregnancy thing is just a way to get the media away from looking at a candidate who is not qualified. I just cannot believe when McCain spokespersons go on TV and say she is more experienced than Obama and Biden combined. They are so out of touch.

  22. Ken Ballweg says:

    No Republican campaign since Ragan has ever missed an opportunity to exploit every short coming real, or imagined, or outright fabricated.

    McCain’s choice of a political light weight, especially after months of building a campaign around Obama’s lack of experience, is evidence of extremely poor judgement.

    That’s remarkable, which does provoke a lot of comment, just can’t help it: and it’s very much fair game because now McCain’s judgement viz. selecting Ms. Palin has become a key issue of his own making.

    In a land where Wilie Horton, tank rides, bought river boat vets, McCain’s black babies, BHO’s secret muslim history, and a disabled Georgia vet can all be exploited to win elections, you’re going to say McCain’s judgement is off the table? Please.

  23. Ken Ballweg says:

    No Republican campaign since Ragan has ever missed an opportunity to exploit every short coming real, or imagined, or outright fabricated.

    McCain’s choice of a political light weight, especially after months of building a campaign around Obama’s lack of experience, is evidence of extremely poor judgement.

    That’s remarkable, which does provoke a lot of comment, just can’t help it: and it’s very much fair game because now McCain’s judgement viz. selecting Ms. Palin has become a key issue of his own making.

    In a land where Wilie Horton, tank rides, bought river boat vets, McCain’s black babies, BHO’s secret muslim history, and a disabled Georgia vet can all be exploited to win elections, you’re going to say McCain’s judgement is off the table? Please.

  24. Ken Ballweg says:

    No Republican campaign since Ragan has ever missed an opportunity to exploit every short coming real, or imagined, or outright fabricated.

    McCain’s choice of a political light weight, especially after months of building a campaign around Obama’s lack of experience, is evidence of extremely poor judgement.

    That’s remarkable, which does provoke a lot of comment, just can’t help it: and it’s very much fair game because now McCain’s judgement viz. selecting Ms. Palin has become a key issue of his own making.

    In a land where Wilie Horton, tank rides, bought river boat vets, McCain’s black babies, BHO’s secret muslim history, and a disabled Georgia vet can all be exploited to win elections, you’re going to say McCain’s judgement is off the table? Please.

  25. Jon Taplin says:

    I’m more than ready to talk about why we should be for Obama.

  26. Jon Taplin says:

    I’m more than ready to talk about why we should be for Obama.

  27. Jon Taplin says:

    I’m more than ready to talk about why we should be for Obama.

  28. fieldingbandolier says:

    Pronouncements about McCain’s judgment on this matter, on the basis of opinion poll measurements of a process at its outset (duh) and controversy-mongering attempts to compete for public attention or to sell mediatainment, are premature to say the least.

    And until someone demonstrates even rudimentary understanding of his reasons for doing so (most are merely offered as vehicles to insult him, at the moment), they lack credibility anyway.

    Lakoff finally said something about it all over at Huffington; on this issue he’s got something important to say, and nobody else seems to be saying it, these days. He didn’t take it far enough, though (reinforcing my cynical impression that he’s a little too interested in hawking his books these days and not quite interested enough in propagating his ideas, but that’s probably just a projection to match my mood at the moment).

  29. fieldingbandolier says:

    Pronouncements about McCain’s judgment on this matter, on the basis of opinion poll measurements of a process at its outset (duh) and controversy-mongering attempts to compete for public attention or to sell mediatainment, are premature to say the least.

    And until someone demonstrates even rudimentary understanding of his reasons for doing so (most are merely offered as vehicles to insult him, at the moment), they lack credibility anyway.

    Lakoff finally said something about it all over at Huffington; on this issue he’s got something important to say, and nobody else seems to be saying it, these days. He didn’t take it far enough, though (reinforcing my cynical impression that he’s a little too interested in hawking his books these days and not quite interested enough in propagating his ideas, but that’s probably just a projection to match my mood at the moment).

  30. fieldingbandolier says:

    Pronouncements about McCain’s judgment on this matter, on the basis of opinion poll measurements of a process at its outset (duh) and controversy-mongering attempts to compete for public attention or to sell mediatainment, are premature to say the least.

    And until someone demonstrates even rudimentary understanding of his reasons for doing so (most are merely offered as vehicles to insult him, at the moment), they lack credibility anyway.

    Lakoff finally said something about it all over at Huffington; on this issue he’s got something important to say, and nobody else seems to be saying it, these days. He didn’t take it far enough, though (reinforcing my cynical impression that he’s a little too interested in hawking his books these days and not quite interested enough in propagating his ideas, but that’s probably just a projection to match my mood at the moment).

  31. Jon Taplin says:

    Fielding- ” We want to avoid alienating people, or discouraging them from allowing us an opportunity to be convincing.”
    I would say Obama is following your advice to a tee.

    MR. OBAMA “I’ve heard some of the news on this, and so let me be as clear as possible. I have said before and I will repeat again: I think people’s families are off limits. And people’s children are especially off limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Governor Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. And so I would strongly urge people to back off of these kinds of stories.

    You know, my mother had me when she was 18. And so how family deals with issues and, you know, teenage children, that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics. And I hope that anybody who’s supporting me understands that’s off limits.”

    This post was meant to be about McCain’s process, not Palin’s character.

  32. Jon Taplin says:

    Fielding- ” We want to avoid alienating people, or discouraging them from allowing us an opportunity to be convincing.”
    I would say Obama is following your advice to a tee.

    MR. OBAMA “I’ve heard some of the news on this, and so let me be as clear as possible. I have said before and I will repeat again: I think people’s families are off limits. And people’s children are especially off limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Governor Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. And so I would strongly urge people to back off of these kinds of stories.

    You know, my mother had me when she was 18. And so how family deals with issues and, you know, teenage children, that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics. And I hope that anybody who’s supporting me understands that’s off limits.”

    This post was meant to be about McCain’s process, not Palin’s character.

  33. Jon Taplin says:

    Fielding- ” We want to avoid alienating people, or discouraging them from allowing us an opportunity to be convincing.”
    I would say Obama is following your advice to a tee.

    MR. OBAMA “I’ve heard some of the news on this, and so let me be as clear as possible. I have said before and I will repeat again: I think people’s families are off limits. And people’s children are especially off limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Governor Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. And so I would strongly urge people to back off of these kinds of stories.

    You know, my mother had me when she was 18. And so how family deals with issues and, you know, teenage children, that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics. And I hope that anybody who’s supporting me understands that’s off limits.”

    This post was meant to be about McCain’s process, not Palin’s character.

  34. fieldingbandolier says:

    Obama demonstrating perfect touch and tone. The country craves the kind of inspiration he can provide, and deliver.

    My point about McCain’s process: the rush to judgment may or may not have produced conclusions that prove substantive. The separate issue of whether or not he made a wise choice [independent of our assessment of the basis for it] is very premature.

    We know she doesn’t have a lot of appeal for rational, thoughtful liberals, but that is hardly surprising. Measures of her immediate, novel appeal are meaningless; it’s her ability to engender appeal that will either prove her value over time, or not.

    The approval ratings in Alaska hint she may be good at this, but it’s indirect and can’t really be conclusive. The worst case scenario (talking about our process) would be to alienate ourselves from her, and then watch her appeal blossom among the population of voters we’re in competition with her to win.

    Frankly, so far the seeds of impressions that’ve been planted favor McCain. I don’t expect you to agree with me on the matter, however. Time will tell.

    Whether or not she poses any real risk, we could easily preempt it by taking a different tack than we are right now and emulating the example set by the point-person for our party.

    Because that was about perfect.

  35. fieldingbandolier says:

    Obama demonstrating perfect touch and tone. The country craves the kind of inspiration he can provide, and deliver.

    My point about McCain’s process: the rush to judgment may or may not have produced conclusions that prove substantive. The separate issue of whether or not he made a wise choice [independent of our assessment of the basis for it] is very premature.

    We know she doesn’t have a lot of appeal for rational, thoughtful liberals, but that is hardly surprising. Measures of her immediate, novel appeal are meaningless; it’s her ability to engender appeal that will either prove her value over time, or not.

    The approval ratings in Alaska hint she may be good at this, but it’s indirect and can’t really be conclusive. The worst case scenario (talking about our process) would be to alienate ourselves from her, and then watch her appeal blossom among the population of voters we’re in competition with her to win.

    Frankly, so far the seeds of impressions that’ve been planted favor McCain. I don’t expect you to agree with me on the matter, however. Time will tell.

    Whether or not she poses any real risk, we could easily preempt it by taking a different tack than we are right now and emulating the example set by the point-person for our party.

    Because that was about perfect.

  36. fieldingbandolier says:

    Obama demonstrating perfect touch and tone. The country craves the kind of inspiration he can provide, and deliver.

    My point about McCain’s process: the rush to judgment may or may not have produced conclusions that prove substantive. The separate issue of whether or not he made a wise choice [independent of our assessment of the basis for it] is very premature.

    We know she doesn’t have a lot of appeal for rational, thoughtful liberals, but that is hardly surprising. Measures of her immediate, novel appeal are meaningless; it’s her ability to engender appeal that will either prove her value over time, or not.

    The approval ratings in Alaska hint she may be good at this, but it’s indirect and can’t really be conclusive. The worst case scenario (talking about our process) would be to alienate ourselves from her, and then watch her appeal blossom among the population of voters we’re in competition with her to win.

    Frankly, so far the seeds of impressions that’ve been planted favor McCain. I don’t expect you to agree with me on the matter, however. Time will tell.

    Whether or not she poses any real risk, we could easily preempt it by taking a different tack than we are right now and emulating the example set by the point-person for our party.

    Because that was about perfect.

  37. TSpence says:

    Jon,

    I follow your posts daily and must commend you on your ability to draw some very important readers.

    It appears that Jesus himself even reads your blog as commentator named Morgan above has addressed The Man himself in his comments.

    I have sent a few requests to Him on quite a few occasions but only get a few confirmations. Maybe I could get His attention by posting in the comments section here..??

    Jesus,
    Please straighten out this whole mess we are currently in.
    thanks,
    TSpence

  38. TSpence says:

    Jon,

    I follow your posts daily and must commend you on your ability to draw some very important readers.

    It appears that Jesus himself even reads your blog as commentator named Morgan above has addressed The Man himself in his comments.

    I have sent a few requests to Him on quite a few occasions but only get a few confirmations. Maybe I could get His attention by posting in the comments section here..??

    Jesus,
    Please straighten out this whole mess we are currently in.
    thanks,
    TSpence

  39. TSpence says:

    Jon,

    I follow your posts daily and must commend you on your ability to draw some very important readers.

    It appears that Jesus himself even reads your blog as commentator named Morgan above has addressed The Man himself in his comments.

    I have sent a few requests to Him on quite a few occasions but only get a few confirmations. Maybe I could get His attention by posting in the comments section here..??

    Jesus,
    Please straighten out this whole mess we are currently in.
    thanks,
    TSpence

  40. Alex Bowles says:

    @TSpence – you’re awesome.

  41. Alex Bowles says:

    @TSpence – you’re awesome.

  42. Alex Bowles says:

    @TSpence – you’re awesome.

  43. Zhirem says:

    TSpence: Who knew?

    (Zhirem crosses himself, just to be safe…)

    For bonus points: Who knew MorWar was such a profligate consumer of information? No wonder we live in the era of 24-hour news spin cycle. They have to keep the bubbleheaded bleach blondes busy babbling in order to fill the hopper/funnel for MorWar’s gaping information-maw. Stand in sheer and utter awe, of the maw…

    Surely now, Zak *must* be humbled. God knows I would be. (and I just consume a little share of the information on a daily basis, politely leaving some for others who may be less information-abled…)

    - Zhirem

  44. Zhirem says:

    TSpence: Who knew?

    (Zhirem crosses himself, just to be safe…)

    For bonus points: Who knew MorWar was such a profligate consumer of information? No wonder we live in the era of 24-hour news spin cycle. They have to keep the bubbleheaded bleach blondes busy babbling in order to fill the hopper/funnel for MorWar’s gaping information-maw. Stand in sheer and utter awe, of the maw…

    Surely now, Zak *must* be humbled. God knows I would be. (and I just consume a little share of the information on a daily basis, politely leaving some for others who may be less information-abled…)

    - Zhirem

  45. Zhirem says:

    TSpence: Who knew?

    (Zhirem crosses himself, just to be safe…)

    For bonus points: Who knew MorWar was such a profligate consumer of information? No wonder we live in the era of 24-hour news spin cycle. They have to keep the bubbleheaded bleach blondes busy babbling in order to fill the hopper/funnel for MorWar’s gaping information-maw. Stand in sheer and utter awe, of the maw…

    Surely now, Zak *must* be humbled. God knows I would be. (and I just consume a little share of the information on a daily basis, politely leaving some for others who may be less information-abled…)

    - Zhirem

  46. Morgan Warstler says:

    That’s what I’m here for Zhirem. To lord my big giant brain over you! BTW, “gaping maw” is one of my favorite phrases. kudos. For that, I’m increasing your skill rating by 1.5 points.

    To my actual point, it appears you, like Zak, imagine all those low information voters are willing to be informed but only if they can ogle bleach blondes. That’s silly. Don’t be silly.

    Ogling bleach blondes is a higher pursuit in and of itself, yes? News meanwhile comes from everywhere, everyone should have their own avatar-of-choice reading it while they cook dinner, no? But for sure, reading Foriegn Affairs or Cracked, that Palin gal would prolly make it more interesting to listen.

    (turns back to Fox News for more fair and balanced data flow)

  47. Morgan Warstler says:

    That’s what I’m here for Zhirem. To lord my big giant brain over you! BTW, “gaping maw” is one of my favorite phrases. kudos. For that, I’m increasing your skill rating by 1.5 points.

    To my actual point, it appears you, like Zak, imagine all those low information voters are willing to be informed but only if they can ogle bleach blondes. That’s silly. Don’t be silly.

    Ogling bleach blondes is a higher pursuit in and of itself, yes? News meanwhile comes from everywhere, everyone should have their own avatar-of-choice reading it while they cook dinner, no? But for sure, reading Foriegn Affairs or Cracked, that Palin gal would prolly make it more interesting to listen.

    (turns back to Fox News for more fair and balanced data flow)

  48. Morgan Warstler says:

    That’s what I’m here for Zhirem. To lord my big giant brain over you! BTW, “gaping maw” is one of my favorite phrases. kudos. For that, I’m increasing your skill rating by 1.5 points.

    To my actual point, it appears you, like Zak, imagine all those low information voters are willing to be informed but only if they can ogle bleach blondes. That’s silly. Don’t be silly.

    Ogling bleach blondes is a higher pursuit in and of itself, yes? News meanwhile comes from everywhere, everyone should have their own avatar-of-choice reading it while they cook dinner, no? But for sure, reading Foriegn Affairs or Cracked, that Palin gal would prolly make it more interesting to listen.

    (turns back to Fox News for more fair and balanced data flow)

  49. zak says:

    Morgan,
    Congratulations on your record media consumption — anyone have the number for Guinness?

    how is acknowledging the dichotomy in the voting block problematic for you? It’s always important to understand where the other side/s is/are coming from.

    “And, quite frankly, it is seriously unattractive in your psyche, for you to imagine some “other” large group of stupid people who just happen to not think like you do.”

    And I was so hoping for that marriage proposal, Morgan; I’m crushed. low information does not necessarily equate stupid — that’s your interpretation. Low information means lack of comprehensive information — it’s not a judgement about what people do with the information when they get it. I think people need more information — whether or not they’d switch allegiances is another issue entirely.

    “low information voters” aren’t a figment of the imagination. You may want to turn off your TV and visit Google — lots of bloggers and papers and news shows talking about that segment of the voting public.

    Recent WaPost article:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/23/AR2008072303693.html

    “The American Voter Revisited” is chock-full of depressing conclusions, couched in academic understatement. In-depth interviews conducted with 1,500 people during the two most recent presidential elections revealed that the “majority of people don’t have many issues in mind” when they discuss voting, Lewis-Beck says. Sometimes they say they’re attracted to a candidate because “I just don’t think we should change parties right now.” They tend to inherit their party allegiance from their parents, and those beliefs tend to stay fixed throughout their lives, he says.

    “For many people,” the authors of “Revisited” write, “dealing with political issues is too much of a bother.”

    Even for those voters who do rethink their allegiance to a given party — because, say, the party in power has fouled things up — “if times get better, they’ll get back to where they were,” Weisberg says. Their attachment to party is more emotional than intellectual, Lewis-Beck suggests, akin to their feelings for sports teams.

    And how do they gather what they know? Popkin, whose own studies suggest that Americans’ awareness of issues has been growing for decades, argues that voters use shortcuts to make judgments about the candidates, relying on things like endorsements, the advice of friends, and the candidate’s party.

    ****
    Also, Morgan — Republican surrogates are having a hard time justifying the pick; honestly, people voting for McCain in the general public are more articulate about why they like Palin that the official party representation. Says something about toeing the line

  50. zak says:

    Morgan,
    Congratulations on your record media consumption — anyone have the number for Guinness?

    how is acknowledging the dichotomy in the voting block problematic for you? It’s always important to understand where the other side/s is/are coming from.

    “And, quite frankly, it is seriously unattractive in your psyche, for you to imagine some “other” large group of stupid people who just happen to not think like you do.”

    And I was so hoping for that marriage proposal, Morgan; I’m crushed. low information does not necessarily equate stupid — that’s your interpretation. Low information means lack of comprehensive information — it’s not a judgement about what people do with the information when they get it. I think people need more information — whether or not they’d switch allegiances is another issue entirely.

    “low information voters” aren’t a figment of the imagination. You may want to turn off your TV and visit Google — lots of bloggers and papers and news shows talking about that segment of the voting public.

    Recent WaPost article:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/23/AR2008072303693.html

    “The American Voter Revisited” is chock-full of depressing conclusions, couched in academic understatement. In-depth interviews conducted with 1,500 people during the two most recent presidential elections revealed that the “majority of people don’t have many issues in mind” when they discuss voting, Lewis-Beck says. Sometimes they say they’re attracted to a candidate because “I just don’t think we should change parties right now.” They tend to inherit their party allegiance from their parents, and those beliefs tend to stay fixed throughout their lives, he says.

    “For many people,” the authors of “Revisited” write, “dealing with political issues is too much of a bother.”

    Even for those voters who do rethink their allegiance to a given party — because, say, the party in power has fouled things up — “if times get better, they’ll get back to where they were,” Weisberg says. Their attachment to party is more emotional than intellectual, Lewis-Beck suggests, akin to their feelings for sports teams.

    And how do they gather what they know? Popkin, whose own studies suggest that Americans’ awareness of issues has been growing for decades, argues that voters use shortcuts to make judgments about the candidates, relying on things like endorsements, the advice of friends, and the candidate’s party.

    ****
    Also, Morgan — Republican surrogates are having a hard time justifying the pick; honestly, people voting for McCain in the general public are more articulate about why they like Palin that the official party representation. Says something about toeing the line

  51. zak says:

    Morgan,
    Congratulations on your record media consumption — anyone have the number for Guinness?

    how is acknowledging the dichotomy in the voting block problematic for you? It’s always important to understand where the other side/s is/are coming from.

    “And, quite frankly, it is seriously unattractive in your psyche, for you to imagine some “other” large group of stupid people who just happen to not think like you do.”

    And I was so hoping for that marriage proposal, Morgan; I’m crushed. low information does not necessarily equate stupid — that’s your interpretation. Low information means lack of comprehensive information — it’s not a judgement about what people do with the information when they get it. I think people need more information — whether or not they’d switch allegiances is another issue entirely.

    “low information voters” aren’t a figment of the imagination. You may want to turn off your TV and visit Google — lots of bloggers and papers and news shows talking about that segment of the voting public.

    Recent WaPost article:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/23/AR2008072303693.html

    “The American Voter Revisited” is chock-full of depressing conclusions, couched in academic understatement. In-depth interviews conducted with 1,500 people during the two most recent presidential elections revealed that the “majority of people don’t have many issues in mind” when they discuss voting, Lewis-Beck says. Sometimes they say they’re attracted to a candidate because “I just don’t think we should change parties right now.” They tend to inherit their party allegiance from their parents, and those beliefs tend to stay fixed throughout their lives, he says.

    “For many people,” the authors of “Revisited” write, “dealing with political issues is too much of a bother.”

    Even for those voters who do rethink their allegiance to a given party — because, say, the party in power has fouled things up — “if times get better, they’ll get back to where they were,” Weisberg says. Their attachment to party is more emotional than intellectual, Lewis-Beck suggests, akin to their feelings for sports teams.

    And how do they gather what they know? Popkin, whose own studies suggest that Americans’ awareness of issues has been growing for decades, argues that voters use shortcuts to make judgments about the candidates, relying on things like endorsements, the advice of friends, and the candidate’s party.

    ****
    Also, Morgan — Republican surrogates are having a hard time justifying the pick; honestly, people voting for McCain in the general public are more articulate about why they like Palin that the official party representation. Says something about toeing the line

  52. zak says:

    Morgan, part 2,

    please stop trying to guess what’s going on in my brain. . . you’re doing a really crappy job of it.

  53. zak says:

    Morgan, part 2,

    please stop trying to guess what’s going on in my brain. . . you’re doing a really crappy job of it.

  54. zak says:

    Morgan, part 2,

    please stop trying to guess what’s going on in my brain. . . you’re doing a really crappy job of it.

  55. seattle steve says:

    zak,
    You’re right that there are a lot of “low information” voters. But you seem to imply that McCain is more popular than Obama amongst this group, inferring that many McCain supporters are ignorant. What’s the basis for this assumption?

  56. seattle steve says:

    zak,
    You’re right that there are a lot of “low information” voters. But you seem to imply that McCain is more popular than Obama amongst this group, inferring that many McCain supporters are ignorant. What’s the basis for this assumption?

  57. seattle steve says:

    zak,
    You’re right that there are a lot of “low information” voters. But you seem to imply that McCain is more popular than Obama amongst this group, inferring that many McCain supporters are ignorant. What’s the basis for this assumption?

  58. Jon Taplin says:

    Zak- Welcome to the Morgan Mindreading Club. He’s been telling me for months what’s going on in my head.

  59. Jon Taplin says:

    Zak- Welcome to the Morgan Mindreading Club. He’s been telling me for months what’s going on in my head.

  60. Jon Taplin says:

    Zak- Welcome to the Morgan Mindreading Club. He’s been telling me for months what’s going on in my head.

  61. Rachel says:

    Bob Herbert apparently shares the views of many of us: the issues are more important than the choice of VP. As Herbert says, she’s a distraction:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/opinion/02herbert.html

  62. Rachel says:

    Bob Herbert apparently shares the views of many of us: the issues are more important than the choice of VP. As Herbert says, she’s a distraction:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/opinion/02herbert.html

  63. Rachel says:

    Bob Herbert apparently shares the views of many of us: the issues are more important than the choice of VP. As Herbert says, she’s a distraction:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/opinion/02herbert.html

  64. Morgan Warstler says:

    Zak, Seattle steve noticed the exact flaw in your “logic” – you should have too. Why didn’t you? From where I sit, Obama’s voters are the “low information” voters. Finding an Obama supporters who don’t know anything about him is as simple as asking any two Obama supporters.

    Finally, it isn’t that the phrase doesn’t exist (and that doesn’t mean there is such a thing, even amongst Obamatards – I don’t think they are low information.) The issue is that YOU, Zak, can’t apply the term in discourse. Those of us who know more than you, find you to be rather ignorant. Tongue in cheek there, but you take my point?

    I’m afraid not, because you skipped the issue I raised. Zak could have said, “maybe we’re not actually listening to the complaints people have about our candidate, and giving up ground on issues less-than-important, that will prove to a bunch of them, we can be trusted.” That’s not what Zak said, huh? You don’t see changes in your policies as an option, some of your policies are great, but some will get hung around your neck like an anvil. That’s not compromise to find a majority. You did make such an assumption, that handing out more info would sway people, you did… go read it. My point is that the people aren’t stupid, you want to win more of them? Change your policies.

    I say this because, IF Obama doesn’t win, I just want to make sure you are positive that every single one of the issues he stands for… that you have to have all of them, and will take none instead.

    The Repubs are about to make the clarion call, “Obama sides with party over country” – and if Obama came out and said, “surprise,” and killed off some sacred cows. Repubs FAIL.

  65. Morgan Warstler says:

    Zak, Seattle steve noticed the exact flaw in your “logic” – you should have too. Why didn’t you? From where I sit, Obama’s voters are the “low information” voters. Finding an Obama supporters who don’t know anything about him is as simple as asking any two Obama supporters.

    Finally, it isn’t that the phrase doesn’t exist (and that doesn’t mean there is such a thing, even amongst Obamatards – I don’t think they are low information.) The issue is that YOU, Zak, can’t apply the term in discourse. Those of us who know more than you, find you to be rather ignorant. Tongue in cheek there, but you take my point?

    I’m afraid not, because you skipped the issue I raised. Zak could have said, “maybe we’re not actually listening to the complaints people have about our candidate, and giving up ground on issues less-than-important, that will prove to a bunch of them, we can be trusted.” That’s not what Zak said, huh? You don’t see changes in your policies as an option, some of your policies are great, but some will get hung around your neck like an anvil. That’s not compromise to find a majority. You did make such an assumption, that handing out more info would sway people, you did… go read it. My point is that the people aren’t stupid, you want to win more of them? Change your policies.

    I say this because, IF Obama doesn’t win, I just want to make sure you are positive that every single one of the issues he stands for… that you have to have all of them, and will take none instead.

    The Repubs are about to make the clarion call, “Obama sides with party over country” – and if Obama came out and said, “surprise,” and killed off some sacred cows. Repubs FAIL.

  66. Morgan Warstler says:

    Zak, Seattle steve noticed the exact flaw in your “logic” – you should have too. Why didn’t you? From where I sit, Obama’s voters are the “low information” voters. Finding an Obama supporters who don’t know anything about him is as simple as asking any two Obama supporters.

    Finally, it isn’t that the phrase doesn’t exist (and that doesn’t mean there is such a thing, even amongst Obamatards – I don’t think they are low information.) The issue is that YOU, Zak, can’t apply the term in discourse. Those of us who know more than you, find you to be rather ignorant. Tongue in cheek there, but you take my point?

    I’m afraid not, because you skipped the issue I raised. Zak could have said, “maybe we’re not actually listening to the complaints people have about our candidate, and giving up ground on issues less-than-important, that will prove to a bunch of them, we can be trusted.” That’s not what Zak said, huh? You don’t see changes in your policies as an option, some of your policies are great, but some will get hung around your neck like an anvil. That’s not compromise to find a majority. You did make such an assumption, that handing out more info would sway people, you did… go read it. My point is that the people aren’t stupid, you want to win more of them? Change your policies.

    I say this because, IF Obama doesn’t win, I just want to make sure you are positive that every single one of the issues he stands for… that you have to have all of them, and will take none instead.

    The Repubs are about to make the clarion call, “Obama sides with party over country” – and if Obama came out and said, “surprise,” and killed off some sacred cows. Repubs FAIL.

  67. zak says:

    Steve,
    I’m mis crossing low information w/blue collar voters. Which contrary to the conclusions Morgan will immediately jump to, does not mean I think blue collar workers are stupid.

    There are our low info voters
    http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6985

    Here are our walmart shoppers
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-galloway/sarah-palin—devil-with_b_122741.html

    Morgan,
    I didn’t realize you were representing the peanut gallery at large. Can you provide a list of name of commenters that your have given 2 thumbs up to represent? Just so I know for my reference exactly who belittles my intelligence. Thanks, much!

    I said we should look to see why people are supporting McCain. From my statement that include reasons they don’t like Obama as well as policy initiatives they like from McCain. Can’t really brainstorm solutions without a list of complaints/reasons to gush can we?

    I don’t agree with all of Obama’s policies. But holding onto the Supreme Court AND putting someone in the white house that puts science and wacky things called facts above religious ideology AND a leader that puts diplomacy before bombing is enough for me this go around.

    In the future, when you see you my name on a comment, just skip over it. I’d hate to continue to assail you with my developing ideology.

  68. zak says:

    Steve,
    I’m mis crossing low information w/blue collar voters. Which contrary to the conclusions Morgan will immediately jump to, does not mean I think blue collar workers are stupid.

    There are our low info voters
    http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6985

    Here are our walmart shoppers
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-galloway/sarah-palin—devil-with_b_122741.html

    Morgan,
    I didn’t realize you were representing the peanut gallery at large. Can you provide a list of name of commenters that your have given 2 thumbs up to represent? Just so I know for my reference exactly who belittles my intelligence. Thanks, much!

    I said we should look to see why people are supporting McCain. From my statement that include reasons they don’t like Obama as well as policy initiatives they like from McCain. Can’t really brainstorm solutions without a list of complaints/reasons to gush can we?

    I don’t agree with all of Obama’s policies. But holding onto the Supreme Court AND putting someone in the white house that puts science and wacky things called facts above religious ideology AND a leader that puts diplomacy before bombing is enough for me this go around.

    In the future, when you see you my name on a comment, just skip over it. I’d hate to continue to assail you with my developing ideology.

  69. zak says:

    Steve,
    I’m mis crossing low information w/blue collar voters. Which contrary to the conclusions Morgan will immediately jump to, does not mean I think blue collar workers are stupid.

    There are our low info voters
    http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6985

    Here are our walmart shoppers
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-galloway/sarah-palin—devil-with_b_122741.html

    Morgan,
    I didn’t realize you were representing the peanut gallery at large. Can you provide a list of name of commenters that your have given 2 thumbs up to represent? Just so I know for my reference exactly who belittles my intelligence. Thanks, much!

    I said we should look to see why people are supporting McCain. From my statement that include reasons they don’t like Obama as well as policy initiatives they like from McCain. Can’t really brainstorm solutions without a list of complaints/reasons to gush can we?

    I don’t agree with all of Obama’s policies. But holding onto the Supreme Court AND putting someone in the white house that puts science and wacky things called facts above religious ideology AND a leader that puts diplomacy before bombing is enough for me this go around.

    In the future, when you see you my name on a comment, just skip over it. I’d hate to continue to assail you with my developing ideology.

  70. Greg says:

    Just wait until the Rove media commandos get a chance to do some covert ops, reek some havoc, and just generally perpetrate evil doings. They are much less incompetent when they are in their natural surroundings, doing what they do best.

    I think Patton Oswalt said it best: http://snowfat.org/patton.html

  71. Greg says:

    Just wait until the Rove media commandos get a chance to do some covert ops, reek some havoc, and just generally perpetrate evil doings. They are much less incompetent when they are in their natural surroundings, doing what they do best.

    I think Patton Oswalt said it best: http://snowfat.org/patton.html

  72. Greg says:

    Just wait until the Rove media commandos get a chance to do some covert ops, reek some havoc, and just generally perpetrate evil doings. They are much less incompetent when they are in their natural surroundings, doing what they do best.

    I think Patton Oswalt said it best: http://snowfat.org/patton.html

  73. Morgan Warstler says:

    Patton Oswald is great.

    Zak, I don’t skip over anyone. Must be egalitarian ya know. Again, the idea you seem to be missing, is that everyone has someone who knows more about a subject than they do, AND disagrees with them. The other side isn’t the other side because they know less.

    It isn’t hard to see why WalMart shoppers might have some issues with Obama… Rev. Wright, saying people cling to guns, they are “Jacksonian” democrats – strong national defense fight, fight, fight – rah, rah, USA!! etc.

    Now I do realise you really think there must be something wrong with kansas, the point is that Obama only needs to be rah, rah USA. hell, he could learn to hunt. how hard is that?

    Or seriously, he could do either of the ideas I listed above. It wouldn’t hurt him terribly with his base, and it would neuter one of the few real strong arguments mcCain is gong to make. What I don’t get is why Obama doesn’t do this. It is obviously closer than it should be. The other side is screaming you put party before country… why not just slaughter a few sacred cows and cruise through November?

    I mean seriously, the only reason McCain is even competitive, is that he wins independents. He’s no darling of the right, but he won the moderates, because he often bucks the party. If thats the trend that works, why isn’t Obama doing it?

    This is my counter-plan to your plan, let’s figure out the best liberal cow to slaughter – which ones gain him the most traction with Kansas? which ones harm him the least on the left?

  74. Morgan Warstler says:

    Patton Oswald is great.

    Zak, I don’t skip over anyone. Must be egalitarian ya know. Again, the idea you seem to be missing, is that everyone has someone who knows more about a subject than they do, AND disagrees with them. The other side isn’t the other side because they know less.

    It isn’t hard to see why WalMart shoppers might have some issues with Obama… Rev. Wright, saying people cling to guns, they are “Jacksonian” democrats – strong national defense fight, fight, fight – rah, rah, USA!! etc.

    Now I do realise you really think there must be something wrong with kansas, the point is that Obama only needs to be rah, rah USA. hell, he could learn to hunt. how hard is that?

    Or seriously, he could do either of the ideas I listed above. It wouldn’t hurt him terribly with his base, and it would neuter one of the few real strong arguments mcCain is gong to make. What I don’t get is why Obama doesn’t do this. It is obviously closer than it should be. The other side is screaming you put party before country… why not just slaughter a few sacred cows and cruise through November?

    I mean seriously, the only reason McCain is even competitive, is that he wins independents. He’s no darling of the right, but he won the moderates, because he often bucks the party. If thats the trend that works, why isn’t Obama doing it?

    This is my counter-plan to your plan, let’s figure out the best liberal cow to slaughter – which ones gain him the most traction with Kansas? which ones harm him the least on the left?

  75. Morgan Warstler says:

    Patton Oswald is great.

    Zak, I don’t skip over anyone. Must be egalitarian ya know. Again, the idea you seem to be missing, is that everyone has someone who knows more about a subject than they do, AND disagrees with them. The other side isn’t the other side because they know less.

    It isn’t hard to see why WalMart shoppers might have some issues with Obama… Rev. Wright, saying people cling to guns, they are “Jacksonian” democrats – strong national defense fight, fight, fight – rah, rah, USA!! etc.

    Now I do realise you really think there must be something wrong with kansas, the point is that Obama only needs to be rah, rah USA. hell, he could learn to hunt. how hard is that?

    Or seriously, he could do either of the ideas I listed above. It wouldn’t hurt him terribly with his base, and it would neuter one of the few real strong arguments mcCain is gong to make. What I don’t get is why Obama doesn’t do this. It is obviously closer than it should be. The other side is screaming you put party before country… why not just slaughter a few sacred cows and cruise through November?

    I mean seriously, the only reason McCain is even competitive, is that he wins independents. He’s no darling of the right, but he won the moderates, because he often bucks the party. If thats the trend that works, why isn’t Obama doing it?

    This is my counter-plan to your plan, let’s figure out the best liberal cow to slaughter – which ones gain him the most traction with Kansas? which ones harm him the least on the left?

  76. len bullard says:

    She is distracting, Rachel, but I want to hear her speech tonight and see what she has to say. The rampant sexism has been too allowable in the face of the angst over racism. The left is too anxious to blow her out of the water, and that tendancy of Obama to run behind skirts when attacked, too noticeable. The hypocrisy is palpable. I don’t expect agreement on this blog. I appreciate being allowed to comment.

    As I said, she supports issues that I can’t and won’t. But she deserves the same chance as Obama and she has more experience to work from, so she has a right to be heard first.

    Otherwise, the Democrats become not the opposition, but the Party of Hate and that is not, I suspect, what they want to become. Still, right now, they are on that path and as a former Democrat gone independent because of what was done to Hillary Clinton, I have to make a decision based on what the candidates say and my sense of their ability to deliver.

    Otherwise, republic is just another name for oligarchy.

  77. len bullard says:

    She is distracting, Rachel, but I want to hear her speech tonight and see what she has to say. The rampant sexism has been too allowable in the face of the angst over racism. The left is too anxious to blow her out of the water, and that tendancy of Obama to run behind skirts when attacked, too noticeable. The hypocrisy is palpable. I don’t expect agreement on this blog. I appreciate being allowed to comment.

    As I said, she supports issues that I can’t and won’t. But she deserves the same chance as Obama and she has more experience to work from, so she has a right to be heard first.

    Otherwise, the Democrats become not the opposition, but the Party of Hate and that is not, I suspect, what they want to become. Still, right now, they are on that path and as a former Democrat gone independent because of what was done to Hillary Clinton, I have to make a decision based on what the candidates say and my sense of their ability to deliver.

    Otherwise, republic is just another name for oligarchy.

  78. len bullard says:

    She is distracting, Rachel, but I want to hear her speech tonight and see what she has to say. The rampant sexism has been too allowable in the face of the angst over racism. The left is too anxious to blow her out of the water, and that tendancy of Obama to run behind skirts when attacked, too noticeable. The hypocrisy is palpable. I don’t expect agreement on this blog. I appreciate being allowed to comment.

    As I said, she supports issues that I can’t and won’t. But she deserves the same chance as Obama and she has more experience to work from, so she has a right to be heard first.

    Otherwise, the Democrats become not the opposition, but the Party of Hate and that is not, I suspect, what they want to become. Still, right now, they are on that path and as a former Democrat gone independent because of what was done to Hillary Clinton, I have to make a decision based on what the candidates say and my sense of their ability to deliver.

    Otherwise, republic is just another name for oligarchy.

Leave a Reply