He said it better than I could

[Bob Juch]

Oliver Willis:

As is to be expected, the mainstream media is falling all over themselves to congratulate Sarah Palin on her speech and to get first in line for the next barbecue at the McCain compound(s). The consensus -- and we know just how wrong the consensus usually is -- is that Palin's speech has consolidated and galvanized the conservative base. The first problem with this is that the conservative base has been mostly galvanized already. They are already spooked to the point of wetting their pants over the made up fantasy of the secret Muslim black man and his black militant wife turning the White House into a flophouse for the Black Panther Party. They are already there. What the pick did for McCain is get the last dregs of a dying voting bloc lined up for him.

The problem is the Palin pick and the traditional Republican nonsense she delivered has the side effect of rousting another base: Democrats. The Palin pick was originally sold as an appeal to Hillary Clinton voters -- but what Clinton voter with an ounce of sense could possibly pull the lever for a ticket so proud of its knuckle dragging like McCain/Palin? Those already in the Obama camp and responsible for the Grand Canyon sized gulf in enthusiasm between the two candidates are just going to get fired up by Palin's speech and the other promises of another Bush term being offered in the sparsely occupied Xcel arena (seriously, why can't they get people to fill up all the seats in such a small venue?).

The other group of people likely to be unintentionally fired up by McCain and Palin are moderate, swing voters. The biggest reason Republicans lost the House and Senate was buyers remorse from those swing voters who voted for Bush in 2004, not realizing that the GOP's promise of protection and sanity were washed away in Katrina and the rush to privatize social security. The GOP is now tuned up for a replay of the 2004 strategy, but all they have left of that coalition is their white conservative male base. The minorities are all gone. The women have left them. Moderates have moved on. Elections in America are not won by James Dobson and Pat Robertson acting alone, no matter how they try to sell that to you.

In large part America is tired of fire breathing partisanship. They have seen the 50+1 percent presidency of Bush devolve into a 24% presidency. People, especially those in the middle, realize that a president that every day is focused on "winning" the base turns out to be a loser with people in the middle and in the other party. It is not a way to govern a nation -- and it stymies the effectiveness of the presidency. People like Reagan and Clinton had presidencies that worked for better or worse because they hadn't written off half of the country on inauguration day.

For those who needed reminding, the Republican convention has done the job. Mission accomplished.

[silvercamaro]

Who is Oliver Willis?

Can you give a link so that we may look at his comments in context?

[National Apathy Party]

As is to be expected, the mainstream media is falling all over themselves to congratulate Sarah Palin on her speech and to get first in line for the next barbecue at the McCain compound(s). The consensus -- and we know just how wrong the consensus usually is -- is that Palin's speech has consolidated and galvanized the conservative base. The first problem with this is that the conservative base has been mostly galvanized already. They are already spooked to the point of wetting their pants over the made up fantasy of the secret Muslim black man and his black militant wife turning the White House into a flophouse for the Black Panther Party. They are already there. What the pick did for McCain is get the last dregs of a dying voting bloc lined up for him.

The problem is the Palin pick and the traditional Republican nonsense she delivered has the side effect of rousting another base: Democrats. The Palin pick was originally sold as an appeal to Hillary Clinton voters -- but what Clinton voter with an ounce of sense could possibly pull the lever for a ticket so proud of its knuckle dragging like McCain/Palin? Those already in the Obama camp and responsible for the Grand Canyon sized gulf in enthusiasm between the two candidates are just going to get fired up by Palin's speech and the other promises of another Bush term being offered in the sparsely occupied Xcel arena (seriously, why can't they get people to fill up all the seats in such a small venue?).

The other group of people likely to be unintentionally fired up by McCain and Palin are moderate, swing voters. The biggest reason Republicans lost the House and Senate was buyers remorse from those swing voters who voted for Bush in 2004, not realizing that the GOP's promise of protection and sanity were washed away in Katrina and the rush to privatize social security. The GOP is now tuned up for a replay of the 2004 strategy, but all they have left of that coalition is their white conservative male base. The minorities are all gone. The women have left them. Moderates have moved on. Elections in America are not won by James Dobson and Pat Robertson acting alone, no matter how they try to sell that to you.

In large part America is tired of fire breathing partisanship. They have seen the 50+1 percent presidency of Bush devolve into a 24% presidency. People, especially those in the middle, realize that a president that every day is focused on "winning" the base turns out to be a loser with people in the middle and in the other party. It is not a way to govern a nation -- and it stymies the effectiveness of the presidency. People like Reagan and Clinton had presidencies that worked for better or worse because they hadn't written off half of the country on inauguration day.

For those who needed reminding, the Republican convention has done the job. Mission accomplished.

Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

[Bob Juch]

Who is Oliver Willis?

Can you give a link so that we may look at his comments in context?

Sorry, no. That was just forward to me via email.

Who he is isn't important. What he said is.

[Mr Showtimeness]

Who is Oliver Willis?

Can you give a link so that we may look at his comments in context?

Sorry, no. That was just forward to me via email.

Who he isn't important. What he said is.

I sent that to you. Oliver Willis is the head of our Nigerian penis enlargement operations.

I do like your attitude about what's said in emails always being important! Let me add you to all my buddies' mailing lists....

[SportsFan68]

Who is Oliver Willis?

Can you give a link so that we may look at his comments in context?

I was curious, so I googled him up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-wi ... 23808.html

[Bob Juch]

Who is Oliver Willis?

Can you give a link so that we may look at his comments in context?

This guy: http://www.oliverwillis.com/

[MarleysGh0st]

Who is Oliver Willis?

Can you give a link so that we may look at his comments in context?

Sorry, no. That was just forward to me via email.

Who he is isn't important. What he said is.

He appears to be a blogger.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/

It seems odd that Bob quotes an e-mail screed one moment, followed by a Snopes refutation of both its author and its content and then a few minutes later he posts another e-mail screed and claims he cannot identify the source, but it doesn't matter.


I'm a little late with my addition to the thread. We've built a lot of barricades outside the Moratorium Lounge, so it's slow getting out.

[silvercamaro]

Thanks to both of you for tracking down Oliver for me. Now I have a better idea of where he's coming from.

[Bob Juch]

Who is Oliver Willis?

Can you give a link so that we may look at his comments in context?

Sorry, no. That was just forward to me via email.

Who he is isn't important. What he said is.

He appears to be a blogger.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/

It seems odd that Bob quotes an e-mail screed one moment, followed by a Snopes refutation of both its author and its content and then a few minutes later he posts another e-mail screed and claims he cannot identify the source, but it doesn't matter.


I'm a little late with my addition to the thread. We've built a lot of barricades outside the Moratorium Lounge, so it's slow getting out.

The first email was claiming facts to be true that were not. The second was pure opinion.

[MarleysGh0st]

Sorry, no. That was just forward to me via email.

Who he is isn't important. What he said is.

He appears to be a blogger.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/

It seems odd that Bob quotes an e-mail screed one moment, followed by a Snopes refutation of both its author and its content and then a few minutes later he posts another e-mail screed and claims he cannot identify the source, but it doesn't matter.


I'm a little late with my addition to the thread. We've built a lot of barricades outside the Moratorium Lounge, so it's slow getting out.

The first email was claiming facts to be true that were not. The second was pure opinion.

My post wasn't addressing the content of the opinion, but the method of campaign debate via chain e-mail. A few moments of research (which, in your second post, it turns out you could do) confirmed that Mr. Willis, whoever this blogger is, actually wrote that opinion. Without the confirmation, that identification was questionable.

In the case where the writer is unknown to us, it might not make much difference, but there have been cases where chain e-mails, claiming to be from someone noteworthy, have been utter fabrications.

[peacock2121]

Who is Oliver Willis?

Can you give a link so that we may look at his comments in context?

Sorry, no. That was just forward to me via email.

Who he is isn't important. What he said is.

This cracks me up - of course who he is is important, otherwise Uday would not have asked.

[Bob Juch]

He appears to be a blogger.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/

It seems odd that Bob quotes an e-mail screed one moment, followed by a Snopes refutation of both its author and its content and then a few minutes later he posts another e-mail screed and claims he cannot identify the source, but it doesn't matter.


I'm a little late with my addition to the thread. We've built a lot of barricades outside the Moratorium Lounge, so it's slow getting out.

The first email was claiming facts to be true that were not. The second was pure opinion.

My post wasn't addressing the content of the opinion, but the method of campaign debate via chain e-mail. A few moments of research (which, in your second post, it turns out you could do) confirmed that Mr. Willis, whoever this blogger is, actually wrote that opinion. Without the confirmation, that identification was questionable.

In the case where the writer is unknown to us, it might not make much difference, but there have been cases where chain e-mails, claiming to be from someone noteworthy, have been utter fabrications.

Quite often actually. But in this case the person was not famous.

[SportsFan68]

Who is Oliver Willis?

Can you give a link so that we may look at his comments in context?

Sorry, no. That was just forward to me via email.

Who he is isn't important. What he said is.

He appears to be a blogger.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/

It seems odd that Bob quotes an e-mail screed one moment, followed by a Snopes refutation of both its author and its content and then a few minutes later he posts another e-mail screed and claims he cannot identify the source, but it doesn't matter.


I'm a little late with my addition to the thread. We've built a lot of barricades outside the Moratorium Lounge, so it's slow getting out.

It also seems odd that one minute, he can't provide a link because it was forwarded by E-mail, where a few minutes later, after others have demonstrated that a link can be provided to the original blog, he can also.

[Bob Juch]

Sorry, no. That was just forward to me via email.

Who he is isn't important. What he said is.

He appears to be a blogger.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/

It seems odd that Bob quotes an e-mail screed one moment, followed by a Snopes refutation of both its author and its content and then a few minutes later he posts another e-mail screed and claims he cannot identify the source, but it doesn't matter.


I'm a little late with my addition to the thread. We've built a lot of barricades outside the Moratorium Lounge, so it's slow getting out.

It also seems odd that one minute, he can't provide a link because it was forwarded by E-mail, where a few minutes later, after others have demonstrated that a link can be provided to the original blog, he can also.

Check the timestamps. That was essentially simultaneous. I never saw the earlier post. My point is I don't care who said it, I agree with what he said.

[silverscreenselect]

I didn't realize that Oliver Willis had a PhD in "What the Middle Class Really Believes."

I do think the weakest parts of her speech were the pre-written standard Republican talking points on the issues. She didn't have much of a chance to put her touch on those, which is why the speech rates an A- instead of an A. She will get a chance to better define herself (admittedly before smaller audiences) in Sunday morning talk shows and stump speeches. He speeches will rate more coverage than Joe Biden's.

There are still 20% of Hillary voters who plan either not to vote or to vote for someone besides Obama. There's probably about another 10% who right now are holding their noses and planning to vote for Obama. That 10% could still be swayed by McCain/Palin.

I heard Rush Limbaugh today saying that McCain needs to kowtow to the party line tonight. That's a big mistake in my book if he wants to appeal to the middle. He has the base... he's not going to lose the base... he has the base energized and the Democrats on their heels. The last thing he needs to do is to throw the Democrats a lifeline by giving them even the remotest semblance of an opportunity to equate him to Bush 3.

Here's what I expect tonight:

1) Lots of flag waving talk about duty and country and service.

2) Talk about how he's his own man, primarily in connection with his choice of Palin when "they" said he shouldn't.

3) Attacking Obama indirectly by standing up for Palin when "they" have the nerve to attack her lack of experience.

4) Talking about his love for the common folk and his understanding of their concerns.

5) Minimal discussion of the issues other than the Iraq surge (not the war as a whole, just the surge), Georgia/Russia, energy policy, and criticizing Obama for wanting to raise taxes. Social issues will only come in indirectly, in connection with praising Palin and her family in general terms.

6) An appeal to Hillary voters... I welcome your input and your ideas ... country is more important than party... I'll always put the country first, not my campaign.

[BackInTex]

... but what Clinton voter with an ounce of sense ...

I don't know but I have a 50/50 shot of getting it right. I'll guess the one from Wisconsin.

[silverscreenselect]

... but what Clinton voter with an ounce of sense ...

I don't know but I have a 50/50 shot of getting it right. I'll guess the one from Wisconsin.

As opposed to moi?

[BackInTex]

... but what Clinton voter with an ounce of sense ...

I don't know but I have a 50/50 shot of getting it right. I'll guess the one from Wisconsin.

As opposed to moi?

I though you WERE from Wisconsin.

[Bob Juch]

I didn't realize that Oliver Willis had a PhD in "What the Middle Class Really Believes."

I do think the weakest parts of her speech were the pre-written standard Republican talking points on the issues. She didn't have much of a chance to put her touch on those, which is why the speech rates an A- instead of an A. She will get a chance to better define herself (admittedly before smaller audiences) in Sunday morning talk shows and stump speeches. He speeches will rate more coverage than Joe Biden's.

There are still 20% of Hillary voters who plan either not to vote or to vote for someone besides Obama. There's probably about another 10% who right now are holding their noses and planning to vote for Obama. That 10% could still be swayed by McCain/Palin.

I heard Rush Limbaugh today saying that McCain needs to kowtow to the party line tonight. That's a big mistake in my book if he wants to appeal to the middle. He has the base... he's not going to lose the base... he has the base energized and the Democrats on their heels. The last thing he needs to do is to throw the Democrats a lifeline by giving them even the remotest semblance of an opportunity to equate him to Bush 3.

Here's what I expect tonight:

1) Lots of flag waving talk about duty and country and service.

2) Talk about how he's his own man, primarily in connection with his choice of Palin when "they" said he shouldn't.

3) Attacking Obama indirectly by standing up for Palin when "they" have the nerve to attack her lack of experience.

4) Talking about his love for the common folk and his understanding of their concerns.

5) Minimal discussion of the issues other than the Iraq surge (not the war as a whole, just the surge), Georgia/Russia, energy policy, and criticizing Obama for wanting to raise taxes. Social issues will only come in indirectly, in connection with praising Palin and her family in general terms.

6) An appeal to Hillary voters... I welcome your input and your ideas ... country is more important than party... I'll always put the country first, not my campaign.

I didn't realize you had a Ph.D. in Republican Party tactics. I'm sure they appreciate your advice.

When are you going to stop being a sore loser?

[silverscreenselect]

When are you going to stop being a sore loser?

When will I stop being upset at what the Democratic party has done to itself and this country? Never.

When will the damage begin to be rectified? Election Day 2012.

Of course, there's a lot of Obamabots who will become sore losers sometime during the evening of November 4.

[flockofseagulls104]

Who is Oliver Willis?

Can you give a link so that we may look at his comments in context?

Sorry, no. That was just forward to me via email.

Who he is isn't important. What he said is.

What he said is pure garbage. Like you, Bob, he knows nothing about conservative thought. What he thinks he knows is just warmed over cliches from 20 year old talking points and DNC memos. Most conservatives are not 'group' oriented. We are individuals that have differing viewpoints on many issues, but the main thing that holds us together is that except for things like national defense, the government is not the answer to social and economic problems. Most often, it is the indirect cause of those problems.

[Bob Juch]

Who is Oliver Willis?

Can you give a link so that we may look at his comments in context?

Sorry, no. That was just forward to me via email.

Who he is isn't important. What he said is.

What he said is pure garbage. Like you, Bob, he knows nothing about conservative thought. What he thinks he knows is just warmed over cliches from 20 year old talking points and DNC memos. Most conservatives are not 'group' oriented. We are individuals that have differing viewpoints on many issues, but the main thing that holds us together is that except for things like national defense, the government is not the answer to social and economic problems. Most often, it is the indirect cause of those problems.

I don't know what you think you read, but your response has nothing to do with what Willis said. He was talking about how Palin's speech will galvanize the Democrats. There was no mention of Big Government.

[silverscreenselect]

Willis made three points, one dead wrong, one probably wrong and one right but so what.

The Republicans have not been fully galvanized by the thought of "the secret Muslim black man and his black militant wife turning the White House into a flophouse for the Black Panther Party." Republican enthusiasm was way down before this convention. With his celebrity ads, McCain had reduced the enthusiasm gap somewhat before the election but it was all anti-Obama and not much pro-McCain. Now it's pro-Palin and that's a big difference, especially when Obama is increasingly forced to rely on anti-Bush sentiment instead of pro-Obama. Ten million in contributions over the weekend shows how he tapped into the enthusiasm.

Yes, some Obamabots will get more fired up over the choice of Palin, but they weren't voting for McCain anyway and whatever they intended to do to get Obama elected won't change now.

Willis main point is that "moderate swing voters" which he defines exclusively as whites are turned off by Mr. 24% (true) and essentially aren't there any more. Wrong. These are the people that came out in record numbers for Hillary, in OH, PA, and other states and whose votes are very much in play. Palin was trying to connect with them during her speech, not with Obama fanatics or with the Republican base, neither group really being in play.

I predict more of McCain doing the exact same thing with less of an emphasis on typical GOP talking points (other than energy) and more on values and background.

[Bob Juch]

Willis main point is that "moderate swing voters" which he defines exclusively as whites are turned off by Mr. 24% (true) and essentially aren't there any more. Wrong. These are the people that came out in record numbers for Hillary, in OH, PA, and other states and whose votes are very much in play. Palin was trying to connect with them during her speech, not with Obama fanatics or with the Republican base, neither group really being in play.

She may have succeeded temporarily, but when they understand who she really is, there's not a change a Hillary supporter would vote for her.