February 04, 2010
Jack Kemp
I said the same thing in comments (I don't believe in an article I wrote) and I believe Tim said the same concerning if McCain had voted against the bailout bill, he would have been elected President.
AT contributor Joel Pollack wrote a book about the 2008 Presidential Campaign (he worked for McCain and is a Harvard Law grad). One comment about his book "Don't tell me words don't matter" at Amazon states:
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Tell-Me-Words-Matter/dp/0979704286/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265213994&sr=1-1
The book is also a highly readable history and analysis of the 2008 campaign apart from the rhetorical styles of the protagonists. Pollak believes that McCain's fatal mistake was his failure to oppose the $700 billion bailout proposed by President Bush and generally supported by congressional Democrats. He argues that with this decision, McCain forfeited an opportunity to reaffirm his free-market principles, lay the foundation for principled opposition to big government policies in the future, and "triangulate" against Obama and the unpopular Bush. In my view, Pollak is more persuasive when he faults not McCain's opposition to the bailout as such but the flailing nature of his response ("erratic," in the mantra of the Obama campaign), which undermined public confidence in him at the worst possible moment. Pollak correctly points out that McCain's unforced errors allowed Obama to portray his own passive reaction as "cool" and "unflappable," even if only by comparison.
END OF QUOTE
How come no one else could figure this out inside the McCain campaign? Or inside McCain's head? And why couldn't Pollack get McCain to listen to this advice - assuming Pollack came to this conclusion early enough (a big assumption).
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:07 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.
Just put Obama next to McCain.
Who will you choose for President?
A young dynamic and sympatic looking person or excuse the word a pensionado with a reputation for "fence hopping"?
To be honest, I did not like both candidates.
Besides that, even if we have the best candidate in the world, we are still dealing with a totally corrupt and rotten system.
Let's put energy in that instead of clueless analysis of a past event that can't be turned back.
Obama has to go asap.
He is a danger to the USA and the world.
That means we have to win both elections and create a majority in both houses.
Despite growing opposition to Obamaism and the big victory by Brown, we don't have a clear view of who we elected for Senator.
Let us take care that we know the backgrounds and objectives of the next candidates we elect a little better before they get our votes.
Obama want to stay in control.
Progressive republicans could be an even bigger help to him than some of his democrats.
Keep this in mind.
We are fighting for the survival of our rights and our freedom.
Don't let them win.
Posted by: Ron de Haan at February 04, 2010 08:53 PM (x7FJm)
Granted, we'd prefer "None of the above." I get the shivers when I see that McCain is making another push to run again. And more shivers when I see that Sarah Palin is going to help him do it. I've got to find a way to try to talk her out of it.
I have to admit I haven't read all your comments on this site -- lack of time is my excuse. I hope you're not one of those people who demands ideological purity from your candidates -- or is calling for a third party. That way lies destruction -- or, to put it the way ancient cartographers wrote it on their maps, "There be dragons."
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at February 06, 2010 10:54 AM (Q2Udh)
Obama stinks,
His foreighn policy stinks (See the Krauthammer video I posted)
His Climate Change policies stink
His Spending Stinks
McCain is a bloody fence hopper switching colors like a traffic light.
He won't win any election.
We need a new candidate WHO WON'T SELL US OUT.
Is that too much asked for?
Posted by: Ron de Haan at February 06, 2010 01:57 PM (bs04m)
This answers our question quite right!
It also shows why Palen and McCain are a bad combination.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19769
Posted by: Ron de Haan at February 07, 2010 09:21 AM (Uc50K)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/us/politics/09palin.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Here we go Tmothy.
The Third Party scenario, the worst possible scenario at this moment in time is going to fly.
Prepare for 4 additional years of Obama if this happens.
Posted by: Ron de Haan at February 07, 2010 01:32 PM (Uc50K)
Heading the Tea Party participating the next elections could turn out the biggest service she could deliver to Obama.
Sorry for thinking this evil but if you really think about it you know I am right about the devastating consequences of a third party participating the elections.
It will split the Republican Camp in two where unity is needed to defeat Obama.
We can't run the risk of a second term of Obamism.
Posted by: Ron de Haan at February 07, 2010 03:24 PM (Uc50K)
Powered by Minx 1.1.2-pink.
