I went to see my friend's band The City Veins play a show and missed the debate. What happened? I understand sparks flew.
« Phrase of the Day | Main | No Laws for You »
GOP Debate
31 Jan 2008 12:30 am
Comments (21)
Isn't the first rule of politics "learn to fake sincerity?" So why's McCain so popular? As MY's pointed out numerous times McCain's terrible at empathizing.
McCain was embarrassing. It was a stretch to think his quote of Romney meant "Romney was not aggressive about staying in Iraq", but he slanted that it meant that Romney was actually for setting a deadline for withdrawal, which was just not what the quote said or even implied. The straight talk express apparently didn't make it out to California tonight.
I saw very little of it. McCain kept leaving himself open, but Romney never landed the big punch.
But do check out this NY Times story from the Thursday paper. It seems like kind of a bad story in the middle of a campaign, but it was so damn complicated it read like Raymond Chandler. Curious what you think of it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?hp
But that is what the downside of a Hillary administration could look like.
Absolutely nothing. Romney being the wiggly douchebag he is, McCain acting like the establishment conservative everyone always knew he was (wink wink). Zzzzz....
I don't understand the talk about how vastly more electable McCain is than Romney.
To put it crudely: McCain is too old and comes across as bitter and incoherent.
It doesn't matter who the dems put up against him, McCain will go down.
Final thoughts. I have come to the conclusion that the best matchups for the Dems are as follows:
Obama vs. McCain
Hillary vs. Romney
Romney would be not as weak as most people think in a general, but Hillary seems to matchup better to my pea sized brain.
And I say that as an Obama supporter.
Romney looked really damn tan. Windsurfing, perhaps?
I agree with the comments above: McCain is not good in this format. In fact, the only format that works for him is the talk show circuit. Speeches and debates -- meh. I think he'll wear badly as the general election campaign wears on, but of course, he still might be the Clintons.
On that NY Times Bill Clinton/Kazakhstan story, nothing implicated Hillary. The trouble is, as Frank Rich suggested in his anti-Billary piece last Sunday, the Clintons are involved in a number of convoluted deals, both for the benefit of themselves but also for his library and foundation, that are still shrouded in mystery. They seem reluctant to provide records, forcing reporters to go investigate. That leads to lengthy front-pagers that look bad for them, even if nothing looks out-and-out illegal. Still, $131 million in contributions + uranium + fond words for a dictator = bad publicity that can't be of help to Hillary. It'll remind people that everything didn't come up roses in the 90s.
I think he'll wear badly as the general election campaign wears on, but of course, he still might be the Clintons.
I meant to say he still might *beat* the Clintons.
Firstly, I'd say it's a bad sign when a rock band describes itself as "burgeoning" if only because it sounds like a Yale Admissions officer prostituting the expansion of the English and/or theatre department.
Beyond that, McCain's weird flogging of Iraq, his Vietnam 'service,' plus selling out to give a patina of kosher to Bush's torture agenda, well...I think he'll get hit where it hurts when the time comes. Even by Billary. I'd always thought a unitary executive was just the one--but apparently, where one is good, two is better.
McCain: "Timetable was the buzzword." What does that even mean? He looked like a complete fool during that exchange: smirking and repeating himself over and over again. Romney seemed to be genuinely bewildered by what was going on, as he should have been. However, there was nothing particularly great about Romney's demeanor or reaction either so it probably comes out as a wash in the end.
It's depressing watching McCain sell out his integrity with this "timetable" business.
He's lucky Mitt Romney's an empty flip-flopper who insists on talking about Iraq despite having no credibility on the topic. How much did Mitt pay to get punked like that? $10 million?
"How much did Mitt pay to get punked like that? $10 million?"
OK, we know Romney is rich, has an attractive wife and loving family...blah, blah, blah.
We shouldn't look down at him for being fortunate.
He seems like a good guy WITH A BETTER PLAN FOR THE COUNTRY THAN THE WARLIKE McCAIN.
There is no way Hillary beats Romney in a general election. If McCain keeps this up, HE might lose to HRC, but if he would simply go mumm and appear to take the high road with her he too would trounce her.
With all the conflictedness of the GOP and with the obvious foreign policy and fiscal disasters of the Bush administration, I just don't see how fresh blood with no skelletons and an engaging personality (Obama) could lose to either McCain (the out-of-touch geezer establishment politician) or Romney (the greedy greaseball).
Hillary would be unable to take advantage of either of their flaws, since she is just as establishment and un-hip as McCain and probably even more self-centered and power-hungry than Romney.
There is no way Hillary beats Romney in a general election.
The thought of a Hillary/Romney election is a terrifying prospect. The level of smug entitlement that would be collectively put on display, combined with the endless pandering by both, would present us with a caricature of a Presidential election.
Obama/McCain, however, would crystallize the choice we're facing into clear images and genuine competing philosophies. Alas, it's looking like Hillary/McCain is most likely, which will lack the former's entertainment value as well as the latter's substantive value and give us...a boring election.
If McCain keeps this up, HE might lose to HRC,
McCain DEFINITELY loses to HRC. The wingnuts don't trust him. Case in point: he's not willing to authorize torture! But HRC is willing to consider torture as an option when a terrorist suspect might have important information, and to wingnuts that's an important issue.
Now maybe everyone can see why she's refused to say that her vote for the war was a mistake, why she praised the successes of the surge, etc. While Obama was completely throwing away his chances of getting the wingnut vote, HRC was setting herself up to take the pro-war/pro-torture vote away from McCain.
So Hillary can win with the pro-torture vote?
"How low do you have to stoop in this country to be President?" -- Hunter S. Thompson
"He looked like a complete fool during that exchange: smirking and repeating himself over and over again."
This has proven to be a successful tactic in the past.
I still listen to those songs, and encourage the production of more music posts.
The undecideds with dials overwhelmingly supported Romney during the nasty exchanges. It surprises me that McCain is a successful politician given how repellent he is as a person.
Comments closed February 14, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
McCain is a really arrogant, nasty, smirking old man. He really creeped me out this time. I don't think he handles success well.
Probably you should watch the exchange between McCain and Romney on McCain's lie that Romney wants a timetable for withdrawal.
Posted by John DE | January 31, 2008 12:46 AM