WWTBAM Bored

There have been some whopping mistakes in this race:

1) Instead of running on his record as Governor, where he was a moderate conciliator, Romney skews hard to the right to win the votes of Christian conservatives without realizing this group will never vote for a Mormon;

2) Rudy assumes he can't win anywhere early so waits until Florida, where he can't win late since everyone else has been getting national publicity for weeks while Rudy has been eating key lime pie;

3) Fred Thompson thinks he can win because, shucks, he's Fred Thompson--so why bust a gut with more than one or two campaign stops a day;

4) John Edwards doesn't realize he's old news--the Obama candidacy left him no room in the race and he never should have tried;

And, mistakes in waiting...

5) Bill Clinton is acting like the Clinton's are owed the Presidency and he is really PO'd at Obama for getting in the way--if he doesn't shut up, people are going to start resenting it;

6) Obama needs to stop complaining about reason #5--it's making him look wimpy;

7) Anyone who ignores Bloomberg is making a mistake--if the parties nominate yet another Clinton and someone other than McCain--people will be looking for an alternative.

Well, I disagree that "Christian conservatives" will never vote for a Mormon. However, many will not vote for a Mormon who has all of the guile and charm of a used car salesman.

"5) Bill Clinton is acting like the Clinton's are owed the Presidency and he is really PO'd at Obama for getting in the way--if he doesn't shut up, people are going to start resenting it; "

Clearly, you have not been paying very close attention. People already are resenting it, including Democratic Party heavyweights. There are very loud grumblings of "unpresidential behavior" and "not acting like a statesman." The Clinton campaign has been rife with missteps and errors. It is the reason that the "Clinton coronation" still is an uncertainty.

I also would have added for Edwards that you can not spout populist rhetoric when everyone knows that you pay $300 just for a haircut.

Appa23 wrote:"5) Bill Clinton is acting like the Clinton's are owed the Presidency and he is really PO'd at Obama for getting in the way--if he doesn't shut up, people are going to start resenting it; "

Clearly, you have not been paying very close attention. People already are resenting it, including Democratic Party heavyweights. There are very loud grumblings of "unpresidential behavior" and "not acting like a statesman." The Clinton campaign has been rife with missteps and errors. It is the reason that the "Clinton coronation" still is an uncertainty.

The "people" who are resenting it are Clinton haters and Obama supporters, neither of which group was inclined to vote for Hillary anyway. Leaking unattributed stories to the press about "Democratic Party heavyweights" being upset with the Clintons is an old Democratic power play staple.

The Clintons turning Bill loose is a calculated maneuver. Many politicians use their spouses to campaign, including Michelle Obama, who has said some things about Hillary that Obama himself couldn't say directly (Elizabeth Edwards has also been very outspoken). The difference is that neither of them is an ex-President.

The complaints that arise usually do so because the tactics are, on balance, effective. Look at statement #6. Bill Clinton can get the press and public to pay attention to statements about the opposition in a way others can't.

Appa23 wrote:Well, I disagree that "Christian conservatives" will never vote for a Mormon. However, many will not vote for a Mormon who has all of the guile and charm of a used car salesman.

Depends, I suppose, on with whom one is speaking. I know some Christian conservatives who view Mormonism with a great deal of suspicion and would never vote for a Mormon candidate - they will stay home if Romney gets the nomination.

This particular Christian Conservative will not vote for this particular Mormon. But that's because this particular Christian Conservative doesn't trust this particular Mormon any further than he could throw him.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:This particular Christian Conservative will not vote for this particular Mormon. But that's because this particular Christian Conservative doesn't trust this particular Mormon any further than he could throw him.

My CC friends (some of whom live in Oklahoma, some who live here) tell me that they think ALL Mormons are "snake-oil salesmen". They say that Mormons are dishonest about their beliefs, trying to make themselves seem mainstream Christian when hiding some rather bizarre beliefs. And if a man can't be honest about his beliefs, what else might he not be honest about?

Cal, would you sit out the election if Romney were to get the nomination? What about Giuliani?

earendel wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:This particular Christian Conservative will not vote for this particular Mormon. But that's because this particular Christian Conservative doesn't trust this particular Mormon any further than he could throw him.

My CC friends (some of whom live in Oklahoma, some who live here) tell me that they think ALL Mormons are "snake-oil salesmen". They say that Mormons are dishonest about their beliefs, trying to make themselves seem mainstream Christian when hiding some rather bizarre beliefs. And if a man can't be honest about his beliefs, what else might he not be honest about?

Cal, would you sit out the election if Romney were to get the nomination? What about Giuliani?

I will not vote for Romney.

I haven't made my mind up on Giuliani. I have a hard time getting past some of his views, but at least he has been consistent. Thus, I consider him more trustworthy.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Appa23 wrote:"5) Bill Clinton is acting like the Clinton's are owed the Presidency and he is really PO'd at Obama for getting in the way--if he doesn't shut up, people are going to start resenting it; "

Clearly, you have not been paying very close attention. People already are resenting it, including Democratic Party heavyweights. There are very loud grumblings of "unpresidential behavior" and "not acting like a statesman." The Clinton campaign has been rife with missteps and errors. It is the reason that the "Clinton coronation" still is an uncertainty.

The "people" who are resenting it are Clinton haters and Obama supporters, neither of which group was inclined to vote for Hillary anyway. Leaking unattributed stories to the press about "Democratic Party heavyweights" being upset with the Clintons is an old Democratic power play staple.

I love that SSS is trying to claim that Donna Brazile and Tom Daschle never have been supporters of the Clintons.

The Clintons turning Bill loose is a calculated maneuver. Many politicians use their spouses to campaign, including Michelle Obama, who has said some things about Hillary that Obama himself couldn't say directly (Elizabeth Edwards has also been very outspoken). The difference is that neither of them is an ex-President.

Exactly. Plus, neither Edwards' sopuse or Obama's spouse are being used to campaign as the de facto candidate in states while the actual candidate is focusing on anotehr state.

I think that we all know that you (SSS) would have blown a gasket had President Bush (Elder) been an attack dog in his son's elections in 2000 and 2004. Somehow, he managed to remain in the background as a supporter, not the focus and co-candidate.

The complaints that arise usually do so because the tactics are, on balance, effective. Look at statement #6. Bill Clinton can get the press and public to pay attention to statements about the opposition in a way others can't.

I'm not so sure that I would say that the tactics have been effective. Hillary has gone from a prohibitive favorite to being, at best, in a tie race with Obama. I mean, with all of those attacks on Obama as being an inexperieenced, "all talk" lightweight, isn't it embarrassing that Hillary might lose to the guy?

earendel wrote:

Appa23 wrote:Well, I disagree that "Christian conservatives" will never vote for a Mormon. However, many will not vote for a Mormon who has all of the guile and charm of a used car salesman.

Depends, I suppose, on with whom one is speaking. I know some Christian conservatives who view Mormonism with a great deal of suspicion and would never vote for a Mormon candidate - they will stay home if Romney gets the nomination.

Ear, you are talking about specific people. I am addressing the overall generalization that a large group of Christians (or Christians in general) are so close-minded and bigoted.

earendel wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:This particular Christian Conservative will not vote for this particular Mormon. But that's because this particular Christian Conservative doesn't trust this particular Mormon any further than he could throw him.

My CC friends (some of whom live in Oklahoma, some who live here) tell me that they think ALL Mormons are "snake-oil salesmen". They say that Mormons are dishonest about their beliefs, trying to make themselves seem mainstream Christian when hiding some rather bizarre beliefs. And if a man can't be honest about his beliefs, what else might he not be honest about?

Cal, would you sit out the election if Romney were to get the nomination? What about Giuliani?

I do not think that there is any chance that Giuliani is the GOP nominee.

I think that Romney's chances are a long shot, at best. He does not play in the South. He always will finish behind McCain and Huckabee in those states. (No, not because of his religion. He has the same "stiff, non-personable Yankee" demeanor as Kerry.)

Appa23 wrote:I'm not so sure that I would say that the tactics have been effective. Hillary has gone from a prohibitive favorite to being, at best, in a tie race with Obama. I mean, with all of those attacks on Obama as being an inexperieenced, "all talk" lightweight, isn't it embarrassing that Hillary might lose to the guy?

Bill Clinton didn't really begin to get aggressive until this calendar year, after the Iowa caucus results which changed the dynamic of the race considerably. You didn't hear about him in 2007. And I also think Clinton bashers would have been on Bill's case if he had sat home during the campaign, especially when Obama and others critiqued his presidency.

And I wouldn't call Tom Daschle an ally of Bill Clinton, just someone who worked in the same party as him for a number of years.

The fact is that Obama has gotten a huge free pass from the mainstream media all along, the same people who have been eager to dote over any minor misstep or misquote by the Clintons. Bill Clinton does force the media to pay attention to his comments by sheer dint of his clout with the party, and he can get access to a lot of media outlets that Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards can't.

In the general election, the Democratic candidate is going to have to deal with an inherent press and PR andvantage the Republicans have. Fox News and right wing talk radio give the Republicans far more ability to air their talking points and their slams of the Democratic candidate. Meet the Press and the other talk shows will try to balance out who they have on, but Fox and Rush and Bill O will have no such ethical qualms. That's just a fact of political life in the year 2008 that is not going to go away. Oprah would be a good sounding board for Obama in the general election, but she's no match for a Bill Clinton on board.

. And if a man can't be honest about his beliefs, what else might he not be honest about?

I don't know. Let's ask George Bush ...

Appa23 wrote:

earendel wrote:

Appa23 wrote:Well, I disagree that "Christian conservatives" will never vote for a Mormon. However, many will not vote for a Mormon who has all of the guile and charm of a used car salesman.

Depends, I suppose, on with whom one is speaking. I know some Christian conservatives who view Mormonism with a great deal of suspicion and would never vote for a Mormon candidate - they will stay home if Romney gets the nomination.

Ear, you are talking about specific people. I am addressing the overall generalization that a large group of Christians (or Christians in general) are so close-minded and bigoted.

Well...[note to self: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all]

silverscreenselect wrote:

Appa23 wrote:I'm not so sure that I would say that the tactics have been effective. Hillary has gone from a prohibitive favorite to being, at best, in a tie race with Obama. I mean, with all of those attacks on Obama as being an inexperieenced, "all talk" lightweight, isn't it embarrassing that Hillary might lose to the guy?

*snip*

In the general election, the Democratic candidate is going to have to deal with an inherent press and PR andvantage the Republicans have. Fox News and right wing talk radio give the Republicans far more ability to air their talking points and their slams of the Democratic candidate. Meet the Press and the other talk shows will try to balance out who they have on, but Fox and Rush and Bill O will have no such ethical qualms. That's just a fact of political life in the year 2008 that is not going to go away. Oprah would be a good sounding board for Obama in the general election, but she's no match for a Bill Clinton on board.

I hope no one will interpret this as me being a defender of Fox News, but are you claiming that Fox ignores FCC regulations about equal time provisions? Are you saying that Fox will give less coverage to the Democratic candidate for President than to the Republican?

I'm not talking Rush and O'Reilly and the babblers, but straight news coverage. Whatever my opinions about Fox in general, I do not try to claim that they are ignoring federal regulations.

earendel wrote:

Appa23 wrote:

earendel wrote: Depends, I suppose, on with whom one is speaking. I know some Christian conservatives who view Mormonism with a great deal of suspicion and would never vote for a Mormon candidate - they will stay home if Romney gets the nomination.

Ear, you are talking about specific people. I am addressing the overall generalization that a large group of Christians (or Christians in general) are so close-minded and bigoted.

Well...[note to self: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all]

Did you think that I was saying something negative, Ear? I was just pointing out the difference between your viewpoint and Buff's.

(Of course, did you say something nice? I would say that you said something neutral, but that is just picking nits. <g> )

Appa23 wrote:I would say that you said something neutral, but that is just oicking nits.

Having your nits oicked sounds painful ...

gsabc wrote:

Appa23 wrote:I would say that you said something neutral, but that is just oicking nits.

Having your nits oicked sounds painful ...

Also makes you wonder which word has the typo....

mrkelley23 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Appa23 wrote:I'm not so sure that I would say that the tactics have been effective. Hillary has gone from a prohibitive favorite to being, at best, in a tie race with Obama. I mean, with all of those attacks on Obama as being an inexperieenced, "all talk" lightweight, isn't it embarrassing that Hillary might lose to the guy?

*snip*

In the general election, the Democratic candidate is going to have to deal with an inherent press and PR andvantage the Republicans have. Fox News and right wing talk radio give the Republicans far more ability to air their talking points and their slams of the Democratic candidate. Meet the Press and the other talk shows will try to balance out who they have on, but Fox and Rush and Bill O will have no such ethical qualms. That's just a fact of political life in the year 2008 that is not going to go away. Oprah would be a good sounding board for Obama in the general election, but she's no match for a Bill Clinton on board.

I hope no one will interpret this as me being a defender of Fox News, but are you claiming that Fox ignores FCC regulations about equal time provisions? Are you saying that Fox will give less coverage to the Democratic candidate for President than to the Republican?

I'm not talking Rush and O'Reilly and the babblers, but straight news coverage. Whatever my opinions about Fox in general, I do not try to claim that they are ignoring federal regulations.

I'd just take issue with SSS assuming Rush, Sean, etc are a PR advantage for the Republicans.

All they do is get their own base fired up. They won't sway any fence-sitters. At least, not in MHO.

And I don't think the election can be won this year merely by retreating to the base, as it was in 2004.

Even if it could, the GOP base is PO'ed and fractured anyway- there's not one candidate they can "sink their teeth into" this time around.

Jeemie wrote: I'd just take issue with SSS assuming Rush, Sean, etc are a PR advantage for the Republicans.

All they do is get their own base fired up. They won't sway any fence-sitters. At least, not in MHO.

Fox News gets stories out of the talk radio sphere and into the mainstream. The current Obama controversy about his relations with slumlord Tony Rezko is a perfect example.

From what I've been able to gather, Obama has done nothing illegal, but plenty that is ethically questionable in his dealings with Rezko, who is under indictment currently and unquestionably a very slimy slumlord. It's been covered fairly heavily in the Chicago newspapers but almost nothing nationwide until Monday's debate. Obama's statement about his relationship with "this individual" being limited to five billable hours of time is an out-and-out lie.

The mainstream media has ignored the story until now and might well do so throughout the primaries. However, Fox News doesn't let stories like that or the Swiftboaters die out. They will turn this into an ongoing front page story that eventually forces the mainstream media to deal with it or risk being labelled left wing.

That's how things work in politics in 2008, and the Democrats are just going to have to deal with it, one way or another, or risk another Swift boating debacle.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Jeemie wrote: I'd just take issue with SSS assuming Rush, Sean, etc are a PR advantage for the Republicans.

All they do is get their own base fired up. They won't sway any fence-sitters. At least, not in MHO.

Fox News gets stories out of the talk radio sphere and into the mainstream. The current Obama controversy about his relations with slumlord Tony Rezko is a perfect example.

From what I've been able to gather, Obama has done nothing illegal, but plenty that is ethically questionable in his dealings with Rezko, who is under indictment currently and unquestionably a very slimy slumlord. It's been covered fairly heavily in the Chicago newspapers but almost nothing nationwide until Monday's debate. Obama's statement about his relationship with "this individual" being limited to five billable hours of time is an out-and-out lie.

The mainstream media has ignored the story until now and might well do so throughout the primaries. However, Fox News doesn't let stories like that or the Swiftboaters die out. They will turn this into an ongoing front page story that eventually forces the mainstream media to deal with it or risk being labelled left wing.

That's how things work in politics in 2008, and the Democrats are just going to have to deal with it, one way or another, or risk another Swift boating debacle.

So you're comparing an actual LEGITIMATE story about Obama with the Swiftboating?

LOL!!!!

In this case, it's not really swiftboating. There is some THERE there. As much as I hate to admit it, Obama's dealings with Rezco look pretty shady. I read (and I may be misremembering parts of this but I don't think so) that Obama and Rezco's wife (i think) bought plots of land side by side at the same time. Rezoc's wife paid market value, Obama paid far less. Then after ward, Obama purchased part of Rezco's wifes land to enlarge his lot. It makes it look less like it was a few billable hours and more like they were pals/business partners of sorts. Just sayin'

Appa23 wrote:

earendel wrote:

Appa23 wrote: Ear, you are talking about specific people. I am addressing the overall generalization that a large group of Christians (or Christians in general) are so close-minded and bigoted.

Well...[note to self: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all]

Did you think that I was saying something negative, Ear? I was just pointing out the difference between your viewpoint and Buff's.

(Of course, did you say something nice? I would say that you said something neutral, but that is just picking nits. <g> )

No, I was biting my tongue to avoid characterizing all conservative Christians as "so close-minded and bigoted".

silverscreenselect wrote:

Jeemie wrote: I'd just take issue with SSS assuming Rush, Sean, etc are a PR advantage for the Republicans.

All they do is get their own base fired up. They won't sway any fence-sitters. At least, not in MHO.

Fox News gets stories out of the talk radio sphere and into the mainstream. The current Obama controversy about his relations with slumlord Tony Rezko is a perfect example.
From what I've been able to gather, Obama has done nothing illegal, but plenty that is ethically questionable in his dealings with Rezko, who is under indictment currently and unquestionably a very slimy slumlord. It's been covered fairly heavily in the Chicago newspapers but almost nothing nationwide until Monday's debate. Obama's statement about his relationship with "this individual" being limited to five billable hours of time is an out-and-out lie.

The mainstream media has ignored the story until now and might well do so throughout the primaries. However, Fox News doesn't let stories like that or the Swiftboaters die out. They will turn this into an ongoing front page story that eventually forces the mainstream media to deal with it or risk being labelled left wing.

That's how things work in politics in 2008, and the Democrats are just going to have to deal with it, one way or another, or risk another Swift boating debacle.

Now I'm really confused. Bill and Hillary work for Fox News? Cause that's how the Obama-Rezko story broke into MY consciousness -- by being mentioned in the debate. And the mainstream media covered it, including Fox (albeit a bit more joyfully than the other outlets), because of Hillary's mention. Now, I will bow to others' deeper knowledge of the situation, because all I've heard to this point is a guy who claims to be from a fact-checking organization who basically backed Obama's version of the story (he also backed Hillary's version of her time on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors).

It also cracks me up that Hillary has the cojones to criticize someone's association with a fraudulent fundraiser....

http://tinyurl.com/2shexy

And now my tinyurl is cracking me up, because it looks like a Right Said Fred song.

Here is the real story of John Edwards' mythical $400 haircut.

Edwards was about to hit a campaign event, and he needed a haircut, but he was running hours late to the event and the barber lost his entire day waiting for him.

Edwards made up the man's lost earnings as an expression of his concern.

So, yeah, you CAN spout populist rhetoric if you compensate a guy for time lost.

mrkelley23 wrote:

gsabc wrote:

Appa23 wrote:I would say that you said something neutral, but that is just oicking nits.

Having your nits oicked sounds painful ...

Also makes you wonder which word has the typo....

Rec!

That's just too funny, mrk. I have a question, though: Are you saying that maybe the "n" should have been a "t," or that maybe the "i" should have been a "u"?