So what happened to McCain?

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

User avatar
Glenn
Posts: 2199
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska

Post by Glenn »

Gene DeMambro wrote: We can't bitch when the first primary is in late January and the last one is in June, with the convention in late August and the election in November.
I don't know about you, but I sure can! :D And I, and many I know, usually do as soon as the first presidential campaign ad appears well over a year before the actual election. Which means we have less than 3 years before the next presidential campaign ads start to appear. For that matter, it's only about 3 months until the 2009 campaign ads start, if we expand this phenomenon beyond just the presidential elections.

But point well taken, the length of the campaign season is determined by the process and we definitely have a long process in the states, for better or for worse.
Gene DeMambro wrote: Unless, of course, you prefer the smoke-filled rooms of old...
No, I imagine most of the back-room decision-makers who really determine the outcome of elections are quite happy that those rooms are now smoke-free! :wink:
Glenn
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Some minor issues from CXT:

1) That's swell, that you felt the RNC ads were as negative. Opinion noted.
2) I missed all the smears on McCain's service and only heard him praised (see exception, 5). Link?
3) I missed all the FEAR BASED rallies where we were made to question McCain's character and motives and whatnot. Link?
4) I didn't say Rove influenced this campaign, but he did say it went too far.
5) I hardly excused attacks on McCain's service; I'm not even aware of any, other than one trashy but minor snipe from Gen Wesley Clark, who said that getting shot down doesn't amount to much of a military record. The charge that I'm not taking an "ethicial" stance? Therefore absurd.
--Ian
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

IJ


All I really asked is if you were aware of the all the negetive McCain ad's/etc that was floating around------and I asked in response to your "oh woe is me" stuff on Obama like the DNC behaved substantivly better then the RNC....its a pretty simple statment that does not to me seem like it requires much beyond a "yeah, that *****" etc.

IMO both sides got pretty ugly, misleading and inaccurate---like they do every year----I simply can't get serious about a discussion that proports to put subtantive value on whom was the least bad........IMO we all deserve better.

If you "missed the smears" as you put it---then that is simply more evidence that you live in what is essentially and echo chamber where you hear----as Sargent Shultz from the old Hogans Hero's TV would say "I hear nothing.....noootthhiiiinnggg." ;)
See, most even kinda objective people are well aware that both sides got nasty.

Oh and please quit asking me to do your research for you....or as you put it, begging me for "links."
See last time I actual broke down and gave them to you, you asserted that you "really" knew them all along---so essentially you wasted my time for nothing-----not going to do it again.

"fear based rallies"

Ah---but in your first request you asked for "booing" McCain as well---I already answered 50% of your question----and I see nothing by way of admission on that score from you..........so no doubt that if I were to give you the "fear based" stuff you would then say something like "yeah but that's was not a rally ;)...........see your not asking a serious question---your just parseing and spinning.

"I hardly excused attacks on McCains service"

Wonderful-----please send me the link on where you were vigoiously defending McCains war record against those that were attacking it--where can I find you public oppostion to Clarks statement---I mean before I asked. ;)
Silence is tacit agreement after all....and in this case if your silent while the "other" guy is being attacked then you really can't ethically expect any differnce when your guy is getting hammered either.

And yes, you most certainly did link Karl Rove and McCains campaign....as if Rove was working on it.
As far as I'm aware other than being a RNC member Rove had nothing substative to do with the campaign this year....but since Rove is one of the "boogymen" in your ideological driven "fairy tale"---its not surprising he is lurking in the your moat so to speak.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

If Carl Rove got Bush into office, he could have gotten McCain into office. Even against the Great Not-White Hope.
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

CXT, you're loosing more and more contact with the earths gravitational field as days go by, and the comments are now totally from outer space. You make some far out claims, but any requests for substantiation are pleas for you to do MY research? The only snipe on McCain's record that's been mentioned was brought up and condemned by me, yet I'm "tacitly" approving that attack if I don't produce written documentation that I condemned Westley before, even though I never saw this come up in the forums? And somehow you think this is an ethical lapse for me? And there's a mystery charge I "linked" Rove to McCain's campaign? I certainly never said he worked on it; I said HE said they went too far. I am forced to conclude you are once again arguing things you can't possibly believe yourself, so if it pleases you, then blabber on, my friend, blabber on.
--Ian
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

IJ

Are yo uon any medication I need to be aware of??????? :roll:

"you make some far out claims"

Which ones are so "far out?"

That McCain got booed and people used fear attacks against him?

(seriously dude....how can you possible not know this???)

That you asked me for proofs on another issue and then turned around and claimed you already "knew" them---thus asking me an intellectually dishonest question...one meant to just waste my time?

(we already did that dance)

That you linked Karl Rove and the McCain Compaign?

( don't blame me for being sloppy with your sentences or logic here---you linked Rove and the McCain campaign----if it was an accident---then simply say so and move on........easy thing to do except that in your worldview your incapable of making an error. :roll: )

These are all statements of fact

BTW I asked for where I could find you defending McCain war record against those that were attacking it prior to this discussion.........you know before I pinned you to the plate on it. ;)

Sure you defended him here and now but where were you then?
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
User avatar
Glenn
Posts: 2199
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska

Post by Glenn »

Bill Glasheen wrote: On Glenn's Palin theory...

Anyone want to place bets on this theory? Mitt Romney said "Thanks but no thanks" to McCain's VP position. He did so thinking that he might not win as VP in 2008, but could run a "clean slate" campaign (as the Republican nominee for president) against Obama in 2012.
Here is a different take on Palin and Romney's relative roles in the 2008 election and their relative chances in 2012:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1
BOSTON (AP) - Tagg Romney was in his office the other day when the door opened and in popped his father, Mitt Romney, dropping off the family dog.

It was a mundane task that highlighted Romney's change in fortunes: Instead of managing a White House transition, or preparing to assume the vice presidency, the man who failed in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination and was passed over by John McCain for running mate is focusing on his family and political interests.

And it may stay that way through 2012 and beyond.

The surprising ascendancy of McCain's eventual pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and her popularity among some GOP conservatives have left Romney wondering whether he could wage a viable second campaign for the White House, according to friends and advisers.

The former businessman and one-time Massachusetts governor invested $47 million of his family fortune in this year's failed race, undercut by those wary of his Mormon religion and skeptics who questioned whether Romney's conversion to conservatism was genuine. Both points were highlighted by Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist preacher who beat Romney in the Iowa caucuses and occupied the same political terrain since overtaken by Palin.

"While (Palin) may not be popular with the winning majority that Barack Obama put together, she's enormously popular with the losing minority that John McCain put together—and that pretty closely mirrors Republican primary voters," said Rich Bond, former chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Charley Manning, a Massachusetts Republican operative who has worked as a Romney adviser, recently told a local radio interviewer: "I'd be surprised if Mitt ever ran again for president. I sure don't think it was the best experience of his life."

In the near term, speculation has focused on whether Romney might help rebuild the party as chairman of the RNC although other Republicans are jockeying for the job.

A top aide said Romney is focused on where to spend Thanksgiving rather than when to head back to Iowa or New Hampshire. Between now and 2010, Romney has no political plans other than to write about causes that interest him and use his political action committee to raise money for candidates who share his government philosophy.

Romney's committee recently donated to the recount for Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and the runoff election involving Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

"The campaign's over and now is not the time to be thinking about the next presidential election," said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. "Governor Romney believes that now is the time for all Americans to stand above partisan politics and help our president-elect address the pressing needs of the nation."

That generosity is very different from the rhetoric Romney used on the campaign trail, when he said Obama was inexperienced and his policies would damage the economy and risk U.S. stature in the world. Yet it also echoes the change in tone exhibited by Romney after he lost the GOP nomination to McCain—whom he had similarly criticized during their primary campaign.

Romney, 61, raised more than $20 million for McCain's campaign, lent a top adviser in former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and served as a McCain surrogate at public events and in television appearances. Besides helping McCain, such work showed Romney was a party loyalist, gracious loser and perhaps worthy of being on the GOP ticket, his advisers contend.

One benefit of Romney's heavy spending this cycle is that he now has the national name recognition that many other potential 2012 GOP candidates lack. Republican Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Charlie Crist of Florida and others have to hit the rubber-chicken circuit if they hope to catch up.

Palin has name recognition but has to rehabilitate her public image. In addition, every trip she makes to early voting Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as the prime fundraising cities of Washington and New York, is at least a five-hour flight from her home.

That has left people like former RNC chairman Bond thinking Romney may get a second chance to run for the presidency.

"If I were him, I would be looking at my greatest asset—his national fundraising base—as well as his grass-roots base, his enhanced name identification and the fact that he countered Obama's 'spread-the-wealth' tax policy better than John McCain ever was able to," said Bond. "He's got a lot going for him, so why rule him out prematurely?"
Glenn
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Interesting article, Glenn.

If Obama stinks up the White House the way Carter did, Romney very well may have an easy opening. I can see Mitt taking a look-see attitude about it all for the first two years. The 2010 mid-term elections should be very revealing.

Romney's biggest problem with the Republican primaries was being a New Englander. In so many ways, this hurt him in the staunchly Republican Bible Belt. But he could pair quite well with a Huckabee or similar figure. If a Republican ticket could penetrate New England in any way, that would be curtains for the Democrats.

We shall see.

- Bill
Gene DeMambro
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A

Post by Gene DeMambro »

Mitt Romney tried very hard to hide the fact that he is a New Englander. He made his announcement from Michigan, and never really ran on his credentials as a former Massachusetts Governer - not that he would have won this state anyway.

From what I read and heard, he lost ground because of a certain amount of mistrust about his Mormanism and his well documented flip-flops.

In any event, he shouldn't take too long. As we have discussed, the Presidential season is already considered way tool long by some, and maybe this next could be the longest yet.

Cheers,
Gene
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Bill Glasheen wrote:
Romney's biggest problem with the Republican primaries was being a New Englander. In so many ways, this hurt him in the staunchly Republican Bible Belt.
Gene DeMambro wrote:
From what I read and heard, he lost ground because of a certain amount of mistrust about his Mormanism and his well documented flip-flops.
At least the last half of your statement can be explained by what I wrote above, Gene. Huckabee would never win in Massachusetts, and Romney in Arkansas. I've spent a good deal of time in both places (researcher in Boston, geologist in Arkansas), and have a good sense of how differently people think in the two places.

Romney indeed tried to modify positions that got him elected in New England in order to appeal to a broader spectrum of Americans. It didn't go over well. JFK had the same issues. He wisely chose Johnson as a running mate, and got the yin-yang mix he needed.

I could give a rat's tushie about social positions. All I want is for people to leave me alone. But we really could use someone like Romney in the White House right now. He has the business acumen to cut through the ice, and get the ocean liner set on course again. He has proven it in the past.

I'm not so sure his Mormonism should hurt him, Gene. I just think he doesn't know how to sell it. Values are values. Heck, didn't "America" fall in love with clean cut Donnie and Marie? The Romney family isn't a stranger to politics. IMO all Mitt needed was packaging and the right running mate. And then he just needed unapologetically to be himself.

- Bill
Gene DeMambro
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A

Post by Gene DeMambro »

And then he just needed unapologetically to be himself.
He felt he had to drastically change his persona and his image to appeal to "the Republican base". Necessary or not, that's what he did. Problem is, why do candidates think they need to pander to "the Republican base" in order to win? Show good leadership, show good stewardship, give good ideas and that will win votes, Stop pandersing and playing to the cheap seats all the time. And yes, Bill, his Mormonism did indeed hurt him with the evangelical right. Read the polls and reference his big-time speech on the subject (which didn't help him much at all).

Sorry, Bill, I don't buy the fact that you know much about what we Bay Staters think. You got it wrong with Ted Kennedy, you got it wrong on our industries and you got it wrong on our workers. Try again.

Cheers,
Gene
User avatar
mhosea
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Post by mhosea »

I used to like Romney, but the way he left the job of governor of Massachusetts left a bad taste in my mouth. He was already gunning for president, I guess and already wanted to distance himself from Massachusetts. I've lived in Texas and in Massachusetts, so I suppose it might give me some sense of things (although I doubt it, really). I don't like it when it seems like a candidate is fabricating his positions based on the office he's running for and what he thinks somebody wants to hear. Frankly, I'm not sure whether Romney did it to become governor of Massachusetts or in his run for president, but it doesn't matter. What conservatives want most is to figure out what the heck you're going to do and whether you're going to tell them the truth while you're doing it. By changing his positions or weaseling out of the old ones (however you want to look at it), Romney failed to inspire on both counts. I could be wrong, but I think if he'd just stuck with the guy that was elected governor of Massachusetts, he would have had a much better shot. It's not like most of us thought a staunch social conservative would be elected, anyway, which is in part why I think McCain got the nomination. Because of the choices he made, Romney now seems like a bit more of a weasel than most politicians, as does McCain. Big mistakes on both counts, same ultimate outcome.
Mike
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

mhosea wrote:
I don't like it when it seems like a candidate is fabricating his positions based on the office he's running for and what he thinks somebody wants to hear. Frankly, I'm not sure whether Romney did it to become governor of Massachusetts or in his run for president...
Bingo!!! Thank you, Mike!

The thing is, I think Mitt was less like "the real Romney" when articulating views for the Massachusetts electorate than when doing so for the national electorate. A great example is his position on abortion. He was the pro choice governor of Massachusetts, and the pro life candidate for president. Now you tell me, which view is more consistent with his Mormon religion? (And just HOW MANY kids does he have??? ;))
mhosea wrote:
I could be wrong, but I think if he'd just stuck with the guy that was elected governor of Massachusetts, he would have had a much better shot.
Problem is, I don't think that was the real Mitt Romney.
mhosea wrote:
It's not like most of us thought a staunch social conservative would be elected, anyway, which is in part why I think McCain got the nomination.
Actually Reagan and Bush are examples of how social conservatives DO get elected for national offices. When Evangelicals are inspired, they vote in large numbers. And don't forget that McCain for example always has been pro life.

McCain got nominated because he was the least like an unpopular president (the Maverick) AND because he took an unpopular view on Iraq (the surge) and turned out to be right. He didn't get elected to national office mostly because the economy tanked. Basically the number 1 issue on voter's minds changed. Had it all still been about Iraq, Obama might not have won.

Nixon (in 1960), Carter, and George HW Bush all lost because of a sinking economy.
Gene wrote:
You got it wrong with ...., you got it wrong on .... and you got it wrong on ....
:sleeping:
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

From the Boston Globe. Look how long ago this was published.

- Bill
Adviser says governor faked stance on abortion
Political adviser says Romney faked abortion support Asserts Romney not 'pro-choice'

By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff | June 3, 2005

Governor Mitt Romney's top political strategist has told a prominent conservative magazine that his client has been ''faking" his support of abortion rights in Massachusetts.

''He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly," Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the National Review in a cover story hitting newstands today titled ''Matinee Mitt."

****
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

Gene DeMambro wrote: Problem is, why do candidates think they need to pander to "the Republican base" in order to win?
For the same reason that Obama had to pander to the "Democratic" base in order to win his primary against the more centrist Clinton.

Every four years, the candidates have to start at the base, and swing center. This is nothing new. It's why Guiliani didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. He couldn't start from the right and swing center; he was already too far to the left.
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”