Saturday, April 28, 2007
|
|
About that McCain Post Yesterday...
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
11:26 AM
|
|
Look – obviously I was kidding. I haven’t been a friend to the McCain campaign, and I understand the campaign excluding me from their little blogger shindigs. The fact that the snubs are bringing back painful memories from high school that I thought I had put behind me comes as something of a surprise. I wonder if I still have Dr. Rosenheifen’s number in my rolodex.
Of course the preceding, like yesterday’s post, was a joke. I’m a little surprised that judging by our comment boards and a few blog posts out there on the Internets that the McCainiacs have turned out to be as humor-impaired as sanctimonious lefties. But there you go.
There is, however, a serious point somewhere in here. One of McCain’s liabilities the past few years has been his tendency to cozy up exclusively to “friendlies” in the media. I think this habit caused his “fighting back” muscles to atrophy, and is one of the main reasons why his campaign hasn’t excelled at bailing since it began taking on water. McCain’s minions created an echo chamber so sound proof, they thought their guy was the frontrunner even when he was trailing Rudy by 15 points. I guess when your supporters are telling you you’re a latter-day Abraham Lincoln, it’s awfully tempting to believe such stuff and discount the views of those who differ.
In other words, the McCain campaign would do well to reach out to people who haven’t pre-qualified themselves as cheerleaders. After all, even though I’m clearly not on McCain’s side in the fight for the nomination, I will most definitely be with him if he is the Republican nominee. That’s a lot more than can be said for anyone working for the New York Times, CNN or CBS News.
Last night, I exchanged emails with a McCain staffer who asked me in so many words, “Why would you want to attend a conference call with John McCain?” The short answer was, “Why wouldn’t anyone want to take advantage of the opportunity to get to know one of the seven or so people who might be our next president a little better?”
Besides, given the background here, they can be pretty certain I’ll be on my best behavior. In other words, I probably won’t ask any of the questions regarding Radical Islam reading lists that I’ve become notorious for in Republican circles.
When Lou Dobbs or Katie Couric moderates a debate, they’ll have no such assurances of good conduct.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
|
|
"...even though I’m clearly not on McCain’s side in the fight for the nomination, I will most definitely be with him if he is the Republican nominee..."
I'm hearing a lot from various blogs about how McCain needs to be supported if he turns out to be the nominee. From what I've been reading, that means we will get George Bush minus tax cuts, restrictions on constitutionally protected speech, a woeful tendency to compromise for the sake of compromise, a firm rhetorical resolve on the GWoT, but a softening in action. Why is this a good thing? |
|
Dean didn't you get the memo: no kidding is allowed.
And why on earth would McCain think that the people at townhall would be interested in participating in a conversation with him? Or am I missing something--you are one of the people at townhall aren't you? |
|
Phil,
First, let me say that based on your stupendously foolish position set forth above, I seriously doubt that serious person could learn much of value from you. Anyone can have a blog. You are living proof of that. I have NO interest in reading it.
Second, you frequently cite the need for "rational, fact-based and logical discussions", yet you decline to justify or defend your position. Instead, you RUN from a "rational, fact-based and logical discussion" and excuse yourself by stating "I've explained myself too many times already."
Since, your time is so precious that you can't be bothered "explaining yourself again" (which I admit must be tough, given the extraordinary foolhardiness of your position) why don't you try answering these easy "YES OR NO" questions (the same ones you dodged before):
Do you REALLY believe that there would be no difference between a Guiliani administration and a Clinton administration????
Do you REALLY believe that Barack Hussein Obama would defend this nation as vigorously as John McCain???
Do you REALLY believe that the Supreme Court justices nominated by John Edwards would be no different than those nominated by Guiliani or McCain???
Again, "yes" or "no"; that's all it takes. C'mon, Phil, I know you can do it.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon
|
|
|
Exactly. This isn't "300". The 2008 election isn't armageddon. Our choice for president will not be Hitler versus whoever wins the GOP nomination. We survived Carter and two Bushes already. If the Dems win, I'm sure democracy will survive. Let's talk about the issues and do what we can to hammer out an acceptable conservative platform and nominate the best, most credible candidate to make good on the platform. We are on our way to nominating a NY Democrat with a carbon copy of the Democratic platform. Different rhetoric, attitude and speeches but open borders, gun control, big spending, fuzzy on the GWOT (yes, it's true until proven otherwise)... not much to pick from. That's why I'm so sure Fred is going to step in and sweep with coattails. |
|
Todo sympatico senhor.
For those who need to know it; often, the imperfect is also the enemy of the good. John McCain was a great Naval Aviator and an American Hero of the selfless war; but he is about as imperfect a U.S. Senator as can be asked about. The correct answer for the McCain question is no; never; not ever.
Does that mean I'll vote for a Democrat? Nope, it just means I will never for John McCain for anything...
but I'll be happy to buy him a beer. |
|
One thing all of the repub candidates need to keep in mind is AFTER the nomination, they'll be needing to win the hearts and minds of everybody who didn't vote for them in the primary- if they have any intention of making a serious run for the presidency. It makes sense to talk with your primary opponent supporters and lay the groundwork for life after the primary battle.
I think McCain's problem is his campaign already knows there is likely to not be life after the primary for him. |
|
Apparently you are new to this forum. I will tell you what I tell all newcomers. I have a blog where I make my views and reasons clear. Read it. If you want to persuade others in a convincing fashion, start your own blog. I've explained myself too many times already. And enought with the "the perfect is the enemy of the good" quote. It is before even the beginning of the primary season. Politics is about issues and shaping the platform of the candidate. We are in the negotiation period. You, because you wet your pants just by imagining a Democrat winning, can't focus on issues and so fall prey to the superficial and "lowest common denominator tactic" of reducing politics to a battle between personality cults. Name-calling, labeling, phony statistics, bad polling, shrill quotes (like the one you just used) above are poor substitutes for rational, fact-based and logical discussions. There are plenty of echo chambers at Townhall where you will feel comfortable making your statements among like-minded people. However, if you want to persuade, you will have to demonstrate that you are intellectually honest which means that, like most of us, you acknowledge that you are just expressing your opinions and so you may be wrong. If so, you have to be open to being persuaded.
For your first assignment, try to figure out why my blog is named what it is. |
|
Phil,
Why one Earth would you let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
Withholding a Republican vote in the general from Guiliani or McCain has NO DIFFERENT effect than if you voted for Clinton/Obama/Edwards et. al.
Do you REALLY believe that there would be no difference between a Guiliani administration and a Clinton administration????
Do you REALLY believe that Barack Hussein Obama would defend this nation as vigorously as John McCain???
Do you REALLY believe that the Supreme Court justices nominated by John Edwards would be no different than those nominated by Guiliani or McCain???
I could go on and on.
Phil, were you one of those Republicans who thought that George H.W. Bush was not conservative enough and so stayed away from the polls in 1992? If you were, all you succeeded in doing was giving us EIGHT YEARS of Bill Clinton. GOOD JOB!
Phil your position is just plain nutty, counterproductive and dangerous. You need to rethink your position and its consequences.
Even Dean, Hugh and other Romney backers disagree with you.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
Tell me honestly: Do you REALLY believe that Hugh in an interview would treat McCain with the same deference that he accords Romney???
Hugh's interviews of Romney are nothing more than puff pieces laced with softball questions asked by a clearly smitten interviewer.
I have no doubt that Hugh would do just about anything to bloody McCain in an interview. McCain could easily handle Hugh--McCain has faced down far more ferocious adversaries in his life--but why should he bother subjecting himself to an attempted ambush by a man so vehemently backing an opponent?
You see, no one really believes Hugh would be fair. For reasons I will never understand, Hugh has chosen to marginalize himself.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
|
You got it right. I am not going to vote for a Democrat, even if that Democrat wins the Republican nomination. |
|
" Even though I would never vote for McCain or Giuliani,"
Phil,
Do you mean that you would not vote for either Giuliani or McCain in the general election if either was the nominee? Or is your statement limited to the primary?
The latter I can understand (even though I disagree); the former would make no sense at all.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
|
It doesn't bother me the least that McCain and Thompson are friends. Thompson even phoned McCain to give him a headsup that he will probably run against him. That is the beauty of our democracy. We can disagree without becoming enemies. Even though I would never vote for McCain or Giuliani, I don't HATE them either, I simply disagree with them. Were I invited to the White House by a president I voted against, I would feel just as honored as had I been invited by one I had voted for. Disagreeing doesn't make us enemies. That's why I hate all the mindless and over the top labeling and name calling that goes on in too many blogs and commenting at Townhall. Hillary is NOT Hitler. Hugh is NOT a hypocrite and a phony. RINOs, neocons, etc... It really is too much and kills rational discourse. |
|
|
John McCain and Fred Thompson are friends, they go way back. Maybe some of these people on the right need to impress upon Thompson that he should distance himself from the war hero McCain because McCain has been known to go on Letterman but does not fawn all over Rush Limbaugh. |
|
Dean,
I think you hit the nail on the head about McCain insulating himself.
After all, McCain is the fellow who ditched CPAC, Club For Growth, Heritage, and National Review conventions because he wanted to elude being challenged about several of his controversial Senate votes.
And while the Senator has plenty of time for Dave Letterman, Chris Matthews, and Jon Stewart, he's always "too busy" for Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and Rush Limbaugh on account of the fact that he knows he's going to be asked tough questions about those controversial Senate votes which are important to the conservative base.
Isn't it ironic that McCain and Hillary avoid going on Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh for the same reason ?
I prefer McCain NOT to be the nominee, but naturally, I'll take the late Mayor Daley's advice to "vote early, and vote often !" for McCain if he does become the GOP nominee.
Any Republican is better than Obama, Hillary, or Johnny $400 Haircut.
|
|
I think the Republican field of candidates is extremely strong: any one of them could be a very good president of the USA.
The Dems on the other hand have boring old, but very rich, Clinton; and shiny new, becoming very rich, Obama; and .... who else?
Think: you are arguing substantial issues when you compare McCain to Romney to Giuliani to Thompson, etc...
The Dems are arguing money, money, who has the most money.... |
|
I also want a strong GOP candidate with some coat tails. I would agree of the GOP candidates Giuliani is the strongest right now--that is refected in polling (especially head to heads). I think McCain is second, followed by Thompson and Romney. I think Gingrich is out of it due to high negatives that he is not going to be able to overcome.
I mention Thompson's name and many many people say--who is Thompson? More people seem to know Romney more than Thompson (at least on name recognition alone). Then you say--he is that Senator-Actor from Tennessee who is in Hunt for Red October, Law & Order, etc. and they get it right away. I am not positive he can win, but Thompson is stronger than you think he is. |
|
|
I don't agree with everything McCain says, but I like and respect the man. I also find a lot of the attitude toward him by some conservatives to be childish and silly. |
|
You said about Fred Thompson:
> > > > As I said on my blog, I don't see America crying out for a slightly overweight, balding, grumpy, somewhat lazy guy who talks funny.
McCain is making a major mistake in excluding Hugh and Dean (and including nice sweet MKH) in his blog conferences. He needs all the help he can get -- and all the understanding. Townhall people will be a critical constituency in the next election.
Maloney rule of politics goes this way: "Mobilize your friends . . . and charm your enemies." < < < <
I see you followed Maloney's rule of politics in regards to Fred Thompson!
Frankly--I think Thompson is just a weeeeee bit more substantial than what you describe. But if Thompson is not the GOP nominee--he would make a fine VP. Since none of the current GOP candidates (other than Thompson) are truly from the South (even Gingrich was raised in Pennsylvania. . . and France)--that is a big big plus for Thompson (even if you think he talks funny).
|
|
The main problem in conservative circles -- ones in which I travel as a true believer -- is the desire to turn the Party into one which only a select few are qualified to join. Why have I endorsed Rudy Giuliani on my blog? Answer: I believe he can win -- and win big enough to carry in many conservatives with him. In PA, there will be FIVE hotly contested races, most of them for seats won by Democrats in November. No, I certainly don't agree with Rudy on every issue (far from it), but he can help in the resurrection of the Republican Party.
There are a few people who keep telling us to nominate Ron Paul. The main problem is that Ron would lose 50 states. Mitt Romney MIGHT win the presidency, although I doubt it. His Mormon religion contains a truckload of baggage. What about Fred Thompson?
As I said on my blog, I don't see America crying out for a slightly overweight, balding, grumpy, somewhat lazy guy who talks funny.
McCain is making a major mistake in excluding Hugh and Dean (and including nice sweet MKH) in his blog conferences. He needs all the help he can get -- and all the understanding. Townhall people will be a critical constituency in the next election.
Maloney rule of politics goes this way: "Mobilize your friends . . . and charm your enemies."
Political journalists have long memories, John.
steve maloney
ambridge, pa |
|
"In other words, McCain is taking a page from Karl Rove's playbook for Bush/Cheney '04. Do you recall how tightly controlled their campaign events were? You had to register in order to attend. Any surprise dissidents were quickly escorted out. Only media-friendly reporters were invited. Etc."
This is complete rubbish. McCain is running an extraordinarily open campaign with unprecedented access to the candidate accorded to the press. Nothing he says is off the record. Name another candidate about which this is true.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
Dean wrote:
" I guess when your supporters are telling you you’re a latter-day Abraham Lincoln, it’s awfully tempting to believe such stuff and discount the views of those who differ.
"In other words, the McCain campaign would do well to reach out to people who haven’t pre-qualified themselves as cheerleaders. "
----------
In other words, McCain is taking a page from Karl Rove's playbook for Bush/Cheney '04. Do you recall how tightly controlled their campaign events were? You had to register in order to attend. Any surprise dissidents were quickly escorted out. Only media-friendly reporters were invited. Etc. |
|
|
Why are you guys so antagonistic against McCain? From a purely ideological perspective, he's the most conservative guy running for the GOP nomination. |
|
|
That's probably something I should have mentioned. As a pre-condition to attending any sort of campaign conference call, I insist an open bar and buffet be set up in my living room. |
|
This is just a guess, but I think the issue is Hugh, not Dean.
Dean has always been above board concerning his support for Romney. Hugh has not and is not.
My guess is that the McCain campaign believes that Hugh would do just about ANYTHING to hurt McCain's chances. I, for one, think that is the correct assessment.
The McCain campaign probably figures that inviting Hugh's participation--at this point-- would be no more constructive than inviting Maureen Dowd.
Dean, for better or for worse, is linked with Hugh on this issue. I don't think that is necessarily fair, but I do believe it is an accurate statement.
Hugh could probably rehabilitate himself in the public eye as other than a ruthless Romney hack, but it will take some doing.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
|
But let's get down to the real issue--The problem with conference calls is there are no free drinks and food. Journalists and pundits love free drinks and food. |
|
|
I don't see how anyone could have seen it as anything other than tongue-in-cheek. Nevertheless, my advice still stands. Anything for a free ice cream cone. |
|
|
|