It’s Still About McCain
Posted on August 30th, 2008 at 9:16 am by Contributor ArchiveAs those of you who read PD regularly can guess, I can barely contain my excitement about John McCain’s selection of someone who so obviously undercuts the campaign’s only message. I won’t get in to details, as there really isn’t much more to add at this point, but I’ll address what Jonathan Martin of Politico admittedly calls contrarian.
Maybe its ultimate impact on this race will be … well, not much at all. And voters will still make their choice based upon, say, the economy, Iraq, George W. Bush, John McCain’s age, John McCain’s military service, Barack Obama’s race or Barack Obama’s call for change.
You know, the stuff that dominated the race before this pick and that still weighs on the minds of many Americans.
This is precisely correct and precisely why the pick the was so dangerous: it amplifies and intensifies legitimate criticism on many of these issues and does so in a way that’s incredibly obvious to even the most inattentive voters.
6 Comments
Leave a comment
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
I don’t disagree with Jonathan that this somewhat “undercuts” the McCain camps “only” message. The problem that McCain had going into the last 60 days of this campaign was that this was his “only” message. With the pick of Palin I see Camp-McCain changing its focus more towards an attack on Obama’s extreme liberal philosophies and running as the ticket of reform and energy. Will this tactic work? Who knows?
The gamble J-Mack has taken, as I see it, is that his candidacy now hinges on the ability of Palin to hold up under the weight of a Presidential ticket. From what I have heard from many who have worked and interviewed her she is not a force to be taken lightly. If she conducts herself well in a debate with Biden the direction of this election will see some real “Change We Can Believe In”. If she does not do well, McCain will pay the ultimate price.
At 72 years old J-Mac is looking at this election as his only shot at the title. Does he really want to play it safe? We can all pontificate about this ticket but the decision has been made. I will now sit back and enjoy the ride.
Only message? Really?
Even as the MSM says that this pick isn’t going to effect the election I read the posts on http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net
99% of them were overjoyed that Palin was picked and have decided to vote McCain/Palin, give money to McCain/Palin and campaign for McCain/Palin.
Don’t tell me that this pick didn’t just tip the election to McCain.
Dangerous? All I have to say is 2 lame posts don’t make a good thought…
No, I’ll say a little bit more than that.
1) I’m not one saying Palin is better than Obama vis-a-vis experience. They are both very new, compared to Biden and McCain. They key difference is in which position that inexperience lies. And right now, despite all liberal whining, it’s still clear that the more risky place to have that inexperience is in the POTUS seat rather than V-POTUS. She has a buffer of time to develop; he does not. That cannot be argued, and can still be used (although admittedly less so than before) against Obama. I don’t care how you slice it; the bigger, more dangerous risk between the two is still clearly Obama. While unproven and untested may be a label to describe Palin, it SHOUTS it from Obama.
OK - Eight VP’s suceeded the POTUS due to death (and yes, we’ll throw in Tricky Dick as the ninth):
1. John Tyler became President when William Harrison died.
2. Millard Fillmore became President when Zachary Taylor died.
3. Andrew Johnson became President when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.
4. Chester A. Arthur became President when James Garfield was assassinated.
5. Theodore Roosevelt became President when William McKinley was assassinated.
6. Calvin Coolidge became President when Warren Harding died.
7. Harry S. Truman became President when Franklin D. Roosevelt died.
8. Lyndon B. Johnson became President when John F. Kennedy was assassinated.
9. Gerald Ford became President when Richard Nixon resigned due to the Watergate investigation.
So in 219 years since GW took office, we’ve had 8 occasions for VP succession due to death. While anything is possible, odds are against it. Greater odds abound over Obama screwing up the country, which brings me to my 2nd thought.
2) It is still clearly McCain vs. Obama. And despite the obvious oratory skills on display the other night, there was very little in terms of tangible, substantial policy points made in the speech from the Oba-wan. Rousing? Sure. Compelling? to the libs. But chock full of specifics? No way. And that has continually been his INability to communicate because if he starts to do that, people will see clearly his Big Govt leanings.
3) If he’s anything like Bill Clinton, we all know where he will pull the money to pay for all his plans: defense and military spending. Between that and a broken promise to not increase taxes, that’s how BC got the surplus he did. But the price was 9/11. So let’s argue those areas and not worry about slim percentage VP succession hypotheticals.
1) The Vice Presidency is not an office for on the job training. Also, the difference is that the 28 years age gap between McCain and Palin, and the fact that McCain has had cancer. If elected, McCain will be the oldest non incumbent to be elected. Regardless of your personal opinion, this will go through readers minds. And nine times proves that their is a chance for presidential succession.
2) There were at least 29 policy descriptions in that speech. Chock full of descriptions? Yes. Spelling out more exactly the change that he has talking about? AOh Yes.
3) Actually you are right on that account. Because we spend inordinate amount against countries that serve little or no threat to us. Any smart president knows that at some point raising tax is not only possibility but a necessity. It may not be popular, but being president is not about being popular, it’s about getting things done.
And let’s not forget who was in office 9/11. George Bush. I don’t get how you can blame Clinton for George Bush’s failure. He established a counter-terrorism agency before 9/11, and tried to capture and kill Bin Laden. But the Republicans were busy trying to impeach to even care. Bush had 9 months and did not do anything.
While J thinks this will ‘go through readers’ minds’, he is only half correct. It went through my mind and resonated. Well put, Eddio.
And to blame Bush for 9/11 is ridiculous. Clinton was handed Bin Laden on a silver platter on five occasions, and he did NOTHING. He was too busy with golf tournaments and interns. You can’t blame a depleted military and foreign affairs debacles on a newly elected president.
Risk/Reward. No VP choice would have locked the election for McCain. They all carry big risks. Her lack of experience (?) doesn’t really scare me. (Obama’s lack of experience isn’t a major issue for me, either.) So IF that’s the biggest negative, then she’s a great choice.
Character, life choices, and beliefs are BIG to me. Personally, when she said yesterday that she said “Thanks, but no thanks for the bridge to nowhere. If Alaska wanted a bridge, we’d build it ourselves,” it was “game over” for me.
McCain campaign should go easy on “Obama’s not ready” and major on “Obama’s not right.”