I don't think it was as much as McCain caved in to the right wingers, he made the pick on how well the Dem Convention did. He seen a strong unified speech from the Clinton's, that McCain go to a backup plan. Will make a difference we will see.

 

:thumb:

 

When HIllary was not picked for the Dem VP slot, it opened up a whole new political strategy that was not there before.

This country committing genocide by killing 3500 unborn babies per day is #1. I might have mentioned that before.

I understand that you think abortion is an abomination upon the land, but please quit referring tom it as genocide.

 

Genocide, as defined by dictionary.com, is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

 

Abortion isn't aimed at one ethnic group.

I believe McCain made a poor choice. I will elaborate on my feelings for that later, but in essence it centers upon the fact that what McCain had was a tight race in which his one major issue to hammer home, from the standpoint of competition, was Obama's lack of experience. He could have hammered on that all the way to November 4th and been competetive. I think he loses his steam on that by choosing Palin, and does not gain enough back in glamour vote. The folks that McCain needs to persuade to win are the Ohio/Pennsylvania Democrats. He treated them superficially by choosing Palin. Did not give those type of voters enough credit for their intelligence. I like Sarah Palin, I think she is tough, feisty, and trendy, but her selection as a VP candidate, IMO, is a "fluff" choice.

 

I don't think he caved to any right-wing faction, I just think that his handling staff does not grasp the finer points of political warfare. In the end, the voters still see the VP as the person that falls into the executive in the event of the death of the President, and act as a band-aid until the next election. Biden is a tougher band-aid than Palin is.

 

This is just not very good game management.

I vehemently disagree. Conservatives weren't staying home on election day (are the thread-a-day Obama attacks any indication?). Picking Palin brings no new voters to the table, probably turning off a few in fact.

I know quite a few conservatives that were strongly considering voting Barr or Baldwin (myself included).

 

I understand that you think abortion is an abomination upon the land, but please quit referring tom it as genocide.

 

Genocide, as defined by dictionary.com, is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

 

Abortion isn't aimed at one ethnic group.

 

Infanticide is a more appropriate term.

 

However, in the Margaret Sanger worldview, genocide is quite fitting.

I've read your posts and I've read Aces posts on here. I know for a fact that there is intelligence there.

 

THIS THREAD poses a simple question: Did Sen. McCain want to pick Lieberman but the religious fanatics on the right threatened him if he did?

 

It could be me but I don't see how saying that the party is excited about Palin and that she was the right pick have any bearing on the question/issue posed.

 

I'm not saying Aces is wrong in his assertion. It simply doesn't respond to the issue of caving. Now if you don't believe that Lieberman was the first choice , that's different.

 

So, do you believe the claim that Lieberman was the first choice? If so, do you think its odd that one that claims to be a "Maverick" caved ?

Yes, he "caved". He caved to the group whom he has the biggest need for their votes. That is called running for elected office.

 

It may bother some moderates that he caved, but the cornerstone of the conservative movement (and the reason it has been so successful) is that it is made up of many different people with different ideas on which issues are important. Some vote on guns. Some vote on abortion. Some vote on taxes. Some vote on the war. Some vote on gay marriage. Some vote on the environment. We don't all agree on every issue, and we don't vote party line.

 

If you notice, I don't have much to say about guns or the war. Other posters, such as PepRock, have little to add on abortion. We all share one basic value- we want the government to leave us alone. It is there that we connect.

 

IMO, for McCain, losing conservative voters would be more risky then losing the moderates. Basically, I don't care if McCain is a maverick.

 

Also, FWIW, the only "maverick" position that I care about is Income Tax Reform, and, as Dr. Ron Paul suggested, eradicating the IRS would be a great start.

The folks that McCain needs to persuade to win are the Ohio/Pennsylvania Democrats. He treated them superficially by choosing Palin. Did not give those type of voters enough credit for their intelligence. I like Sarah Palin, I think she is tough, feisty, and trendy, but her selection as a VP candidate, IMO, is a "fluff" choice.

 

I don't think he caved to any right-wing faction, I just think that his handling staff does not grasp the finer points of political warfare. In the end, the voters still see the VP as the person that falls into the executive in the event of the death of the President, and act as a band-aid until the next election. Biden is a tougher band-aid than Palin is.

 

This is just not very good game management.

Choosing Lieberman would have been treating the conservatives superficially, IMO that is more dangerous.

Yes, he "caved". He caved to the group whom he has the biggest need for their votes. That is called running for elected office.

 

It may bother some moderates that he caved, but the cornerstone of the conservative movement (and the reason it has been so successful) is that it is made up of many different people with different ideas on which issues are important. Some vote on guns. Some vote on abortion. Some vote on taxes. Some vote on the war. Some vote on gay marriage. Some vote on the environment. We don't all agree on every issue, and we don't vote party line.

 

If you notice, I don't have much to say about guns or the war. Other posters, such as PepRock, have little to add on abortion. We all share one basic value- we want the government to leave us alone. It is there that we connect.

 

IMO, for McCain, losing conservative voters would be more risky then losing the moderates. Basically, I don't care if McCain is a maverick.

 

Also, FWIW, the only "maverick" position that I care about is Income Tax Reform, and, as Dr. Ron Paul suggested, eradicating the IRS would be a great start.

 

That is a great post, cch. Particularly the bolded.

Yes, he "caved". He caved to the group whom he has the biggest need for their votes. That is called running for elected office.

 

It may bother some moderates that he caved, but the cornerstone of the conservative movement (and the reason it has been so successful) is that it is made up of many different people with different ideas on which issues are important. Some vote on guns. Some vote on abortion. Some vote on taxes. Some vote on the war. Some vote on gay marriage. Some vote on the environment. We don't all agree on every issue, and we don't vote party line.

 

If you notice, I don't have much to say about guns or the war. Other posters, such as PepRock, have little to add on abortion. We all share one basic value- we want the government to leave us alone. It is there that we connect.

 

IMO, for McCain, losing conservative voters would be more risky then losing the moderates. Basically, I don't care if McCain is a maverick.

 

Also, FWIW, the only "maverick" position that I care about is Income Tax Reform, and, as Dr. Ron Paul suggested, eradicating the IRS would be a great start.

 

Choosing Lieberman would have been treating the conservatives superficially, IMO that is more dangerous.

 

I don't think he would have chosen Lieberman. The game-management choice was Romney. White boy, business suit, financial background, delivers Michigan. Game management. Call me jaded, but Romney was the dive play on 3rd and short. Palin was like running the fade.

I don't think he would have chosen Lieberman. The game-management choice was Romney. White boy, business suit, financial background, delivers Michigan. Game management. Call me jaded, but Romney was the dive play on 3rd and short. Palin was like running the fade.

:thumb: Great analogy. Lieberman was way down the depth chart despite all the good things that the coaching staff said about him before the game.

I like John McCain and have an immense amount of respect for his service to this country, both during the Vietnam War and his time in the U.S. Senate.

 

McCain made his mark as a maverick, a Republican that was moderate on some issues and was willing to buck the party's right wing to get things done.

 

But ever since 2004, he has shown a tendency to pander to the right on occasion to help his chances at the Presidency. It's what troubles me the most about his candidacy ... the guy that once stood up for his beliefs and was often vilified for them has caved in from time to time.

 

He "made up" with Jerry Falwell, who he once labeled as an "agent of intolerance," then embraced George W. Bush on stage during the 2004 campaign, the same man whose campaign supporters viciously smeared him during the 2000 South Carolina primary.

 

My first reaction when I heard that Palin was his vice-presidential pick was that it was another instance of such pandering. I feel like she was probably a brilliant pick on his part, assuming there is no scandal coming down the pike with her, because she can lure disaffected female voters and shore up right-wing support.

 

Nothing wrong with that, but I do wish the right-wing talk-radio dudes (and Karl Rove) that chide Obama for picking Biden for "political reasons" would quit pretending that Palin's selection is somehow different.

 

Come on Westsider, you are way more intelligent to believe that a hug on a stage with the current President is any where near caving on his beliefs. Then again, we may just have different ideas as to what "caving in" means.

 

As for the Falwell "make up" here's a link to an interesing article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501745.html in the Washington Post. While there is language in there to support your view that McCain caved, I think its important to note the following quote from the article:

 

Falwell approached McCain, not the other way around. And interviews with both suggest that it is Falwell, not McCain, who is more willing to be flexible.

 

If accurate, perhaps its not McCain caving, rather its Falwell realizing that maybe he has been wrong in the past.

 

Do I think Palin was picked in part for political reasons? Sure. Don't you think Biden was picked in part for political reasons? Please, please don't say no. And I don't have any problem with such playing a role in either selection. Biden was chosen to counter balance Obama's inexperience . Palin was chosen because she is a conservative woman. I don't consider either of those to be a cave. If nothing else, I consider both selections to be an attempt to shore up the ticket to appeal to the most voters. Obama is a liberal on key issues with little foreign policy, military and intel experience. Biden is a liberal on key issues with vast foreign policy, military and intel experience. McCain is a conservative on most issues whom doesn't resonate with young people and women and is considered to be a DC insider. Palin is a young, female, conservative facing a lot of the same issues that females throughout the country face that is not a DC insider. Both selections are smart moves and neither of which are cave ins.

 

Actually I see her selection as confirming McCain's maverick status. And really, how are Palin's main policy positions any different than McCain's on any thing other than drilling in ANWR? He's pro life; she's pro life. He's pro gun; she's pro gun. He's for reduced federal spending; she's for reduced federal spending (and good Lord, please don't bring up the fact that she, while mayor, got federal funds to help her town. If asking for federal funds as an elected official means you are against reining in federal spending, I don't know of any elected official that can call themselves against excessive federal spending). He's for lower taxes; she's for lower taxes. Maybe I'm missing something (which I'm sure will be promptly pointed out) but on the key issues, I don't think Palin is much out of step (if at all) with McCain. Their biggest difference is on the big Oil windfall tax and on that issue I agree with McCain and not Palin (hey, I never said she was perfect )

 

Here's an interesting article by the way: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/09/02/for_jane_swift_harsh_spotlight_on_palin_has_familiar_feel/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed4

 

Bottom line is that McCain is a Republican that is more conservative on some issues that he is on others but is not afraid to go against the R party insiders when his beliefs are different than theirs. From what I know of Palin, the same holds true with her. Thus, I don't see the cave in argument being valid. Give me some more facts and I may feel differently, but I don't see it yet.

 

 

I don't know if Lieberman was actually McCain's first choice and I can say with a pretty high level of certainty that no one on here does either. We're getting all lathered up over an article by ABC in which they cite a Democratic strategist for their opinions in the article. Now that's really fine journalism isn't it? Not. You'd have thought that responsible journalists would not have ran the article unless they were able to confirm such an evangelical revolt with an evangelical leader at the convention and provided quotes and citations. Then again, perhaps my idea of responsible journalism is old fashioned in this age of smear and mud slinging (any one else ever wonder like I do whenever I hear a talking head decry the mud slinging and dirty politics if those talking heads realize that they are the primary venue of such mud slinging and dirty politics?).

 

I still say that she is a great choice and supports McCain's ability and courage to think outside the box and not be beholden to the political traditionalists and outsiders. I would imagine, but don't know, that many a RNC insider tried to talk him out of picking her because of her unknown status. I think McCain did what he has always done (to the chagrin of many conservatives) and that's to do what he wanted to do and thought best after listening to others and thinking through the issue. The man has nothing, if not character and integrity. Given his record, I don't see how anyone could say to the contrary. The guy does what he believes in and dang the consequences; that's a maverick to me; that's John McCain.:thumb::thumb:

I don't think he would have chosen Lieberman. The game-management choice was Romney. White boy, business suit, financial background, delivers Michigan. Game management. Call me jaded, but Romney was the dive play on 3rd and short. Palin was like running the fade.

 

Awesome:thumb:

 

I agree with you, McCain is not helping himself out in my eyes right now.

Come on Westsider, you are way more intelligent to believe that a hug on a stage with the current President is any where near caving on his beliefs. Then again, we may just have different ideas as to what "caving in" means.

 

As for the Falwell "make up" here's a link to an interesing article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501745.html in the Washington Post. While there is language in there to support your view that McCain caved, I think its important to note the following quote from the article:

 

Falwell approached McCain, not the other way around. And interviews with both suggest that it is Falwell, not McCain, who is more willing to be flexible.

 

If accurate, perhaps its not McCain caving, rather its Falwell realizing that maybe he has been wrong in the past.

Perhaps, but I feel that both gestures were calculated to help McCain secure the Republican nomination in 2008 ... nothing more, nothing less.

 

In my opinion, he caved in to help bolster his chances with the Republican rank-and-file.

Do I think Palin was picked in part for political reasons? Sure. Don't you think Biden was picked in part for political reasons? Please, please don't say no. And I don't have any problem with such playing a role in either selection. Biden was chosen to counter balance Obama's inexperience . Palin was chosen because she is a conservative woman. I don't consider either of those to be a cave. If nothing else, I consider both selections to be an attempt to shore up the ticket to appeal to the most voters. Obama is a liberal on key issues with little foreign policy, military and intel experience. Biden is a liberal on key issues with vast foreign policy, military and intel experience. McCain is a conservative on most issues whom doesn't resonate with young people and women and is considered to be a DC insider. Palin is a young, female, conservative facing a lot of the same issues that females throughout the country face that is not a DC insider. Both selections are smart moves and neither of which are cave ins.

No argument on any of those points.

 

Almost all vice-presidential selections are made for political reasons. I'm simply tired of right-wing hacks like Karl Rove and Sean Hannity praising McCain's pick of Palin as somehow being different than Obama's selection of Biden.

 

I was a supporter of Biden at the start of the Democratic campaign, so I was obviously happy with Obama's selection. Honestly, I don't know enough about Palin at the moment to make an informed judgment.

I still say that she is a great choice and supports McCain's ability and courage to think outside the box and not be beholden to the political traditionalists and outsiders. I would imagine, but don't know, that many a RNC insider tried to talk him out of picking her because of her unknown status. I think McCain did what he has always done (to the chagrin of many conservatives) and that's to do what he wanted to do and thought best after listening to others and thinking through the issue.

I seriously doubt that any RNC bigwigs would have tried to dissuade him from choosing Palin, given her conservative pro-life credentials. I would assume the RNC would have had much more trouble accepting Lieberman or Ridge because they're pro-choice and because of their moderate (some, I'm sure, would say liberal) stances.

Edited September 3, 200818 yr by westsider

Perhaps, but I feel that both gestures were calculated to help McCain secure the Republican nomination in 2008 ... nothing more, nothing less.

 

In my opinion, he caved in.

No argument on any of those points.

 

Almost all vice-presidential selections are made for political reasons. I'm simply tired of right-wing hacks like Karl Rove and Sean Hannity praising McCain's pick of Palin as somehow being different than Obama's selection of Biden.

 

I was a supporter of Biden at the start of the Democraic campaign, so I was obviously happy with Obama's selection. Honestly, I don't know enough about Palin at the moment to make an informed judgment.

I seriously doubt that any RNC bigwigs would have tried to dissuade him from choosing Palin, given her conservative pro-life credentials. I would assume the RNC would have had much more trouble accepting Lieberman or Ridge because they're pro-choice and because of their moderate (some, I'm sure, would say liberal) stances.

 

My only reason for guessing that some of the RNC types would not approve of the choice is because she is such an unknown, is a very non-traditional choice and hurt McCain's experience edge on Obama. McCain supposedly listened to them and eventually told them that he was going to pick the person that he thought would be best whether they agreed with the choice or not. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that a lot of the RNC types were pushing Romney hard because of his economic credentials (and if what I've been told by people pretty close to the situation is true, a Romney selection was pushed pretty hard). Sure, there would have been some religious conservatives that didn't like Romney but he was being pushed by many R insiders. McCain told them no for some reasons I agree with and some I do not (which I've been asked to keep to myself).

 

I don't disagree about your thoughts about Rove and Hannity. They are twits making a living off of dividing the country; not trying to unify it. But there are like minded folks on the Democratic side doing the exact same thing, I hope you'd agree.

I don't disagree about your thoughts about Rove and Hannity. They are twits making a living off of dividing the country; not trying to unify it. But there are like minded folks on the Democratic side doing the exact same thing, I hope you'd agree.

I certainly do. Those people have as little credibility as anyone. Unfortunately, there are some on the right that like to portray those people as more mainstream than they really are.

I certainly do. Those people have as little credibility as anyone. Unfortunately, there are some on the right that like to portray those people as more mainstream than they really are.

 

Agreed.

 

 

I don't know if Lieberman was actually McCain's first choice and I can say with a pretty high level of certainty that no one on here does either. We're getting all lathered up over an article by ABC in which they cite a Democratic strategist for their opinions in the article. Now that's really fine journalism isn't it? Not.

:

 

LN - how about Novak as far as being credible?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082801773.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

 

 

How about a "Republican strategist?"

 

A Republican strategist with close ties to the McCain camp, however, said Palin was a last-minute choice after McCain had given up on his preferred pick, Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, who addressed the convention Tuesday night. "He did so with such speed that they weren't able to do the full vet," said the GOP source, who did not want to be identified discussing the campaign's internal machinations.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-vetting3-2008sep03,0,4884389.story