WWTBAM Bored

I never thought I'd see a campaign as disorganized and off-message as Dole's 1996 fiasco--but here it is again. He got to where he is by being a maverick Republican--the only hope he has in a year where a GOP administration has led us to a major economic crisis, record gas prices, record home foreclosures, and a still unpopular (if much more successful in the last year) war.

Instead, they are making him read off that damn teleprompter, sound totally traditional themes, and frankly, making him look every bit as old as he really is. He should be barnstorming the country with the Straight Talk express and all he is doing is giving really bad traditional GOP speeches.

If this keeps up he will lose--badly.

Buffacuse wrote:I never thought I'd see a campaign as disorganized and off-message as Dole's 1996 fiasco--but here it is again. He got to where he is by being a maverick Republican--the only hope he has in a year where a GOP administration has led us to a major economic crisis, record gas prices, record home foreclosures, and a still unpopular (if much more successful in the last year) war.

Instead, they are making him read off that damn teleprompter, sound totally traditional themes, and frankly, making him look every bit as old as he really is. He should be barnstorming the country with the Straight Talk express and all he is doing is giving really bad traditional GOP speeches.

If this keeps up he will lose--badly.

I dunno - from what I read Obama is having a pretty rough time, too. Now that he's locked up the nomination there are complaints that his campaign message is getting "lost" as he attempts to steer closer to the center. The confusion over his position on Iraq, for instance, or comments about late-term abortions have engendered comments in the media. For instance:

LINK HERE

Anybody else besides me thinking that the GOP is having some serious buyer's remorse? Not that somebody like Fred Thompson would've set the party on fire either, but still.

But honestly, the entire GOP field this cycle has been pitiful. None of them would ultimately be able to unite the GOP, independents, and conservative Democrats. Huckabee raised taxes while governor. Romney is a big flip-flopper. Giuliani is a hypocrite and is obsessed with 9/11. Paul wants to end our occupation in Iraq. And Tancredo, Hunter, and Keyes are just bats**t crazy.

I can't wait to see who they'll trot out in 2012.

As an addendum, if the 2008 John McCain were the same as the 2000 John McCain, he wouldn't be so loathsome to Republicans, Democrats, and Independents today.

Probably many voters will think that McCain is the lesser of two evils. McCain may be old, but he will be predictable. Obama scares people.

And if he doesn't scare them, his wife does.

"Scary" sounds like a Republican codeword for the N-word... just like "radical" and "exotic" are Republican codewords for the N-word.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:"Scary" sounds like a Republican codeword for the N-word... just like "radical" and "exotic" are Republican codewords for the N-word.

Bulls**t

Scary and Radical mean Scary and Radical.

I haven't heard anybody use Exotic in a political discussion, so I won't argue that one.

Hillary would have been just as Scary and almost as Radical. Kerry was Scary. Gore was Scary and Radical.

dimmzy wrote:Probably many voters will think that McCain is the lesser of two evils. McCain may be old, but he will be predictable. Obama scares people.

And if he doesn't scare them, his wife does.

Yeah, they scare Republicans!

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:As an addendum, if the 2008 John McCain were the same as the 2000 John McCain, he wouldn't be so loathsome to Republicans, Democrats, and Independents today.

Amen. I donated to his campaign in 2000, but getting those weekly (and more) donation solicitations from his campaign and the RNC in this cycle was annoying, to put it mildly. Thanks, but you and your party have changed since then, and not to the better IMO.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:"Scary" sounds like a Republican codeword for the N-word... just like "radical" and "exotic" are Republican codewords for the N-word.

Personally, I find Obama "scary" because he should be the Socialist party nominee instead of the Democratic one. I'm not that big on McCain either though.

I was thinking about legally changing my name to None Of The Above. Then I'll be the next President...

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I haven't heard anybody use Exotic in a political discussion, so I won't argue that one.

Pat Buchanan used the word "exotic".

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/1 ... ode-words/

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:"Scary" sounds like a Republican codeword for the N-word... just like "radical" and "exotic" are Republican codewords for the N-word.

Aaannnnddd we begin....

So do I assume your premise is that if Obama loses it will strictly be due to racism?

Small points like being ranked the #1 most liberal senator in a body containing Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, et al, doesn't come into play?

His lack of a stance or record on anything doesn't matter?

It's only because he's black that he'll lose?

Right.

So if he wins, it's on talent and character alone?

Neat trick. I've gotta figure out how to do that.

Flybrick wrote:So if he wins, it's on talent and character alone?

Neat trick. I've gotta figure out how to do that.

Just ask any major beauty pageant winner. They can tell you.

Flybrick wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:"Scary" sounds like a Republican codeword for the N-word... just like "radical" and "exotic" are Republican codewords for the N-word.

Aaannnnddd we begin....

So do I assume your premise is that if Obama loses it will strictly be due to racism?

Small points like being ranked the #1 most liberal senator in a body containing Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, et al, doesn't come into play?

His lack of a stance or record on anything doesn't matter?

It's only because he's black that he'll lose?

Right.

So if he wins, it's on talent and character alone?

Neat trick. I've gotta figure out how to do that.

This is a no-win situation - if Obama loses, it's because of race. If he wins it's because of race. I heard a commentator on NPR mention this morning that Obama was campaigning in Georgia, a state that Bush carried in both 2000 and 2004; Obama was in Georgia and thought he could win the state this year because of its large Black population.

gsabc wrote:

Flybrick wrote:So if he wins, it's on talent and character alone?

Neat trick. I've gotta figure out how to do that.

Just ask any major beauty pageant winner. They can tell you.

But the losers don't get to cry about hair color do they?

Obviously, it's because they didn't 'measure' up!





No, no, don't get up. I'll show myself out....






But I hold to my point about not voting for Obama because of his mostly unknown/unpublicized or known far left views on most issues rather than the color of his skin.

Of course, that's just what a 'racist' WOULD say, isn't it?! It's gotta be about skin color and not policy.

edited to add: I agree McCain is running a less than inspiring campaign. I'm not a big fan of his political decisions. Some I agree with, some I don't. But he's looking mighty non-impressive now.

Flybrick wrote:Aaannnnddd we begin....

So do I assume your premise is that if Obama loses it will strictly be due to racism?

Small points like being ranked the #1 most liberal senator in a body containing Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, et al, doesn't come into play?

His lack of a stance or record on anything doesn't matter?

It's only because he's black that he'll lose?

Right.

So if he wins, it's on talent and character alone?

Neat trick. I've gotta figure out how to do that.

Thank you for playing "Missing the Point Completely".

First of all, Frank Lautenberg is the most liberal senator in the Senate. Obama ranks 23d. Anybody who says that Obama is the most liberal U.S. senator is talking out of his ass. I've posted that on the Bored before.

Second of all, the GOP can run a campaign against Obama solely by debating the issues, but they won't cuz they know that they will lose in a landslide. They also can't come right out and call Obama the N-word for the same reason. So they come up with these codewords to insert into the dialogue to scare Americans, to say the N-word without actually saying the N-word. "Naive" and "inexperienced" are code for "he's too young". "Radical", "exotic", and "scary" are code for "he's Black".

They couldn't debate the issues with John Kerry four years ago, so they introduced codewords into the mainstream to scare voters into not voting for him. "Flip-flopper", "wishy-washy", "elitist", "cut-and-runner", "surrenderer", "terrorist coddler", "appeaser", "defeatocrat"... shall I continue?

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

... shall I continue?

Certainly. If you can do it without being insulting or condescending. Or is that a racist remark?

And if you use correct punctuation and spelling.

Finally, simply because you have a difference of opinion regarding who the most liberal senator is does not make you right. I'm satisfied with my exploration of the topic I used to arrive at my view. I don't really care if you agree or disagree.

As our votes are most likely going to cancel each other out, then it's up to many others to decide if they're voting simply due to color or to the issues.

Interesting that you didn't dispute my conclusion that if Obama loses it's due to racism, but if he wins, it's talent and skill that brought him to the White (ahem) House.

Again, that's a very neat trick

This election is not about McCain. Unlike what Rush Limbaugh might think, a hard right wing conservative would lose in a landslide even to Obama at his scariest. The Republican brand is so unpopular this year that they are losing special elections in red districts in LA and MS. A generic Republican loses to a generic Democrat by 15 points. Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney would be creamed. So McCain is doing what he can, promoting his experience and war background (and winning points when Obama foolishly attacked him on the issue) and letting the election be about Obama.

Of course, it's Obama who has used the race card relentlessly from the start in this election, resulting in more racial polarization and tension than we've seen in a decade or more. He has personally set the cause of race relations back in this country back years, and his constant attempts to deflect any criticism of him by claiming it's racist are ludicrous. When the Clintons attacked his claims about his Iraq stance by saying that his story was a "fairy tale," instead of defending himself on the issue, he claimed racism, and the election went downhill from there.

Obama brings out his racial and ethnic heritage when it suits his purposes but then tries to shut down any investigation of his background, his associates or his beliefs with claims they are racist.

What is becoming obvious to many people is that he has no core beliefs and no principles and is extremely inexperienced with a history of some of the most unsavory characters in American and Chicago political history.

The latest is that the mortgage company that gave him the loan to buy his house did so at well below market rates at the time. It turns out that the mortgage company had been given a lot of business over the past few years by the same charitable foundation that Obama and Bill Ayers had been in charge of. And lest we forget, that same house was bought, in large part, due a lot of money provided by Tony Rezko, insolvent at the time, who was serving as a funnel for the money coming from convicted Iraqi financier Auchi.

These stories haven't fully taken hold with the public in large part because, like Whitewater and unlike the Wright story, they aren't easy to follow. But they paint a very sleazy picture of Mr. Hope and Change.

The end is nigh!

SSS and I agree on something!


And just for the cheap shot humor, do you wonder if Hillary's heart (if it exists) skipped a beat hearing about the (minor) incident on Obama's plane that forced a precautionary landing?

Flybrick wrote:The end is nigh!

SSS and I agree on something!

I can't tell you how many times already during this political season that I've read something in here and thought the same thing.

I expect the pigs to fly by my window any moment.

tubadave wrote:

Flybrick wrote:The end is nigh!

SSS and I agree on something!

I can't tell you how many times already during this political season that I've read something in here and thought the same thing.

I expect the pigs to fly by my window any moment.

Must be because he quit reading my fine articles.....

"Scary" sounds like a Republican codeword for the N-word... just like "radical" and "exotic" are Republican codewords for the N-word

And apparently "Republican" is code for ignorant racist. Who knew?


t.

And apparently "Republican" is code for ignorant racist. Who knew?

Anyone who followed the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina. But, those were the good old days.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I haven't heard anybody use Exotic in a political discussion, so I won't argue that one.

Pat Buchanan used the word "exotic".

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/1 ... ode-words/

I'll say it once.

Pat Buchanan doesn't count.

I'm willing to concede that Pat's use of Exotic might have been some sort of code, but I will not concede on "Scary" and "Radical." Those words have been applied to politicians of all skin colors for years. To claim that they now are used to imply race is ignorant at best.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I haven't heard anybody use Exotic in a political discussion, so I won't argue that one.

Pat Buchanan used the word "exotic".

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/1 ... ode-words/

I'll say it once.

Pat Buchanan doesn't count.

I'm willing to concede that Pat's use of Exotic might have been some sort of code, but I will not concede on "Scary" and "Radical." Those words have been applied to politicians of all skin colors for years. To claim that they now are used to imply race is ignorant at best.

Republicans call every Democrat except Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller a radical. And every politician claims his or her opponent is "scary."

It's ironic that this is one election in which a genuine progressive has a very good chance at winning by embracing those principles. The electorate is clearly tired of what the Republicans have been dishing out the last eight years and is very distrustful of Republican "answers" on the economy which don't seem to produce results at the individual paycheck level.

Instead of genuine progressivism, Obama seems intent on obscuring his true intentions in a veritable blizzard of contradictory, explanatory and "refined" statements. He's now succeeded to a large extent at dispelling the "hope and change new politics" image, and the only reason he is ahead in the polls is not due to his own charisma, charm and beliefs but to the public's distaste of the Republican party in general. Even at that, he has "squandered" over half of the generic Democrat's polling advantage. If Obama wants to make this election a referendum on himself and "hope and change," rather than on Democratic vs. Republican politics, he will lose. The problem is that he has moved so far away from progressive principles that any move now will be viewed as just the latest flip flop in response to negative public reaction.