US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

Wow! If this report from Politico is true, McCain is pulling his campaign resources from Michigan. They only have this short blurb on it right now:

 

...Much like many of his fellow Republicans in Congress. I've never been one to defend GWB but he's really getting the bum deal from his ex-supporters and the party of which he is still the marginal leader. Strange days....

 

And here is an interesting development: his own running mate thinks he messed up. Oh, and... er, she wasn't told about it. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinmichigan4-2008oct04,0,7329912.story


SAN ANTONIO -- Sarah Palin questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's decision to abandon efforts to win Michigan, a campaign move she only learned about Friday morning when she read it in the newspapers.

In an interview with Fox News Channel Friday, the Alaska governor said she was disappointed that the McCain campaign decided to stop competing in Michigan. In an indication that the vice presidential candidate had not been part of the decision, she said she had "read that this morning and I fired off a quick e-mail" questioning the move.

"Todd and I, we'd be happy to get to Michigan and walk through those plants of the car manufacturers," Palin said, referring to her husband. "We'd be so happy to get to speak to the people in Michigan who are hurting because the economy is hurting."

Palin acknowledged the GOP ticket's lackluster poll ratings in the state, but said: "I want to get back to Michigan and I want to try."

Word of the McCain campaign's decision to move staff out of Michigan and stop advertising in the state broke around midday Thursday -- the same day as Palin's vice presidential debate against Democrat Joe Biden. The campaign had decided Wednesday night that the $1 million a week it was spending in Michigan wasn't worth it with internal polls showing Democratic nominee Barack Obama approaching a double-digit lead.


Now, presuming that this is not another of Gov. Palin's "Bridge to Nowhere" moments*, it is surprising that no one would tell a VP nominee about such an important matter. Come on, guys - you can trust her with being a Vice President and all the power Dick Cheney could amass in that institution, you can trust her to be the most powerful person in the world in case a 70+ old man is incapacitated, but you wouldn't consider her qualified - or important - enough to keep her briefed about her own campaign?


*: by that I mean an instance where she is taking liberties with the truth.

 

Well, in their defence, she has been rather busy lately and may have missed a few staff meetings.

Ideally, yes they are. Realistically, there hasn't been one (or much of a really conservative party) for at least 10 years, maybe longer. The Republicans abandoned their 'Contract with America' and in doing so abandoned a lot of core conservative beliefs.

 

NOG,
imo you miss something: Maybe she is indeed busy and maybe she thus missed a lot of staff meetings. What it also means is that she was not *asked* or *consulted* in the matter.

There are mobile phones, blackberries and e-mail nowadays. Apparently, despite all her alleged experience, her campaign team appears disinterested in her advice. Interesting. It suggests that she is not in the 'chain of command' in the campaign, but a subaltern. Her being prepped and being kept out of the spotlight for three weeks only confirms that impression.

In turn that suggests an answer to the question what her role in the campaign is. To function as VP Sarah 'Hockey Mom' Palin who rallies the foot troops?

 

I think that's pretty much agreed on. But the Republicans seem pretty cool with that role for her. She's done pretty well in that function. The problem I see, is that she is the only one who does not understand her role. I think she really believes that she will be planning the campaign, deciding strategy, and then, crafting policy as VP - if she becomes VP. This woman is really ambitious. She thinks all this is really about "herself and Todd."

 

That would be tragic.

 

I've heard an interesting rumor recently, but I'd like some input from you all about it (better researchers). Is it true that Obama smokes regularly? I also heard that both his parents died at relatively young ages (from the connection, one presumes they died from age-related stuff, like heart disease, cancer, etc.)? If so, that kind of puts Biden in the 'one heartbeat away from the presidency' position, which then puts Pelosi just two. Now that's a scary thought.

 

Yeah, you think that's scary, NOG, think about who's one beat away, atm.

 

It's not a rumor per se, it's common knowledge that Obama smokes. Or, at least he did - he quit when he began his Presidential campaign. As for who's a heartbeat away - I'll take my chances on the athletic guy in his forties over the cancer-ridden geriatric any day of the week. I wouldn't worry about Biden or Pelosi ever being President. Barring any unfortunate events (I won't say the 'A' word), Obama will be in charge for all 8 years.

 

Huh? Give the Dems credit for being consistent: bigger government, more laws and more regulation are needed to keep Wall Street in check. Okay, you'd expect that from liberals.

Republicans saying one thing (less government, less regulation, let the free market handle things) and then supporting a $700 bil bailout which is basically socialism?

 

I wouldn't really call that 'support', but...

Also, if you look through the history, it really does look like Democrat regulation (in this case bad regulation) started it, while Republican deregulation helped it. In other words, the Dems blaming the Reps 100% is self-deceptive, as is the Reps blaming the Dems 100%.

 

Self-deceptive? In more than one sense. With respect of it glossing over the recent eight years of Bush rule and responsibility (as a result of the office held, and the options for action and initiative that come with holding that office) such a relativistic narrative is also self-serving.

As in: Who, me? We're all to blame!

 

NOG, I'm sorry - but saying that both parties deserve equal blame when we've had a Republican-dominated government for the last 8-years (at least) is what's self-deceptive. The old "but they started it!" defense didn't work when we were little kids, I don't know why you expect it to be sufficient now.

 

DR -- show where the democrats have tried to stop the decline. I don't think you can -- just as I don't think the republicans can mount a decent defense (only the bill McCain co-sponsored that did not get support of either party).

In that regard, both parties were negligent -- and equally so.

 

DR, just like when we were kids, it took two to fight and it didn't matter who did what, you were both involved. The same is true here. One started it while the other propagated it. If either party hadn't done their part, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with, but both did and so we are.

 

NOG, T2,
I wonder how you can continue insist in ignoring the simple fact that we're now in the eight year of GOP/Bush rule, and still equally blame both parties? This is ridiculous. What is the GOP? A meek little kitten? A victim of dire circumstances that were outside their control?

Sorry, but the GOP was very much in control. The GOP had until they lost their majority every opportunity to do whatever they wanted. When they wanted they whipped a law through congress in a week. A GOPer held the presidency for **** sake! For two friggin' terms! When the GOP eventually lost their majority, iirc in 2006, they could, had they wanted, have done something and 'reached out across the isle'. They didn't. Why oh why I wonder?! Paulson, Paulson ... ... where did I last read his name I wonder ... ah, never mind ... Suggestions, the crisis is ...

• because the crash came out of the blue and nobody could have predicted it. Unlikely, considering McCain's support for that failed bill.
• because the R's ... forgot, for eight years, to repeal that despicable piece of Clinton legislation that started all this mess Iirc that 'Clinton legislation' passed a Republican controlled Congress. Clinton signed the bill, yes, but the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act was from the onset bi-partisan beast in the sense that the GOP fully embraced what right wing babblers now like to accuse Clinton for signing - which is pathetic.
• because the R's did not want to intervene/ regulate because the market would self-regulate. In their pro-market-bias the R's, the Bush administration, constantly refused to act, even deregulated further, during those eight years.

I find c. exceedingly plausible.

 

Ragusa, in our government any, any member of congress can introduce a bill. Not just the majority party. Name anyone who introduced legislation to prevent this -- anyone at all. In this instance, everyone in a position to do anything, did nothing. Even the bill co-sponsored by McCain was a weak attempt and one that was not supported by anyone on either side of the aisle.

Personally, my general impression of politicians is not very high -- I would rank very few with above average intelligence. It does not surprise me that no one in that esteemed group of individuals had the foresight to stop any of this. When no one does anything, how can you possibly put fault on any portion of the group and not all?

 

This is why I place most of the blame with presidents Clinton and Bush....in fact, I think most of the blame lies with their economic advisers rather than the presidents, themselves. Unlike a senator or representative, presidents have experts at their fingertips who are supposed to warn them of things like this. Greenspan was one of the biggest proponents of the de-regulation passed under Clinton, so I have a hard time blaming a lawyer for listening to a highly respected economist on matters of economic interest.

I'd like to give the same benefit to Bush, but he has shown several times that he doesn't always listen to his economic team, so I think he gets a little more blame than Clinton. The figures from his own economic team, for example, showed that Bush's tax cuts would cause massive deficits - and that was before 9/11, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, Katrina, etc, which served to greatly exacerbate their effect. This didn't stop Bush from arguing that his tax cuts would actually result in the government receiving more revenue (an ideological stance that has been disproven over and over both in practice and theory by economists of all political persuasions) and pushing them through despite their warnings, nor did it stop him from rescinding them when our economic circumstances had changed.

 

Ragusa, you're starting to talk like the exact kind of political extremist you accuse us of being. The blindness is yours, not ours. How can you blame everything on someone who just stood by and didn't intervene, while ignoring the people that actually pulled the trigger? Ok, maybe that's not the best analogy, as the Reps did more than just stand by, they basically actively encouraged, but it was a Clinton originated and Clinton backed bill that Clinton had been setting up for several years that set the boulder rolling.

We're not trying to blame the Dems entirely for this, just about everyone in Congress and both presidents (and, yes, probably all of their economic advisors) share some of the blame. Time to put down your rose colored glasses here.