Stay classy, Republicans!

dajafi wrote:McCain's three little words: "A Hundred Years"

Good to see the Democrats aren't waiting until McCain is actually the nominee before going negative and distorting the message. You can never start misleading people too early.

The good news is that when Obama is President all the countries and terrorist groups that currently hate America will lay down their arms and love the US. There will no longer be any need for a military and the military budget can go to social programs.

dajafi wrote:McCain's three little words: "A Hundred Years"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs[/youtube]

Seriously?

dajafi wrote:Stay classy, Republicans!

It is interesting how central torture seems to be to many conservatives. Bill O'Reilly's Sunday column was at it again.

I think there might be something really brutal and sadistic in some people who tend to be for an authoritarian brand of conservatism, and given an opportunity, it comes out in some nasty and ugly ways.

Ever seen those people -thankfully, they're few and far between, at least in the DC/Baltimore area - who wear "Club Gitmo" tee-shirts and have "Club Gitmo" stickers on their cars? I swear, I ran across one in a supermarket parking lot once, an old white guy wearing the tee-shirt, with the stickers on his car.

I guess I can understand hearing the "Club Gitmo" shtick on Rush Limbaugh's show and finding it funny in some way (well, actually I can't). But being so enchanted by it that you make it your identity by wearing it and putting it on your car?

I like to think most Americans have pretty much the same values and differ mainly on which party they trust to enact and protect those values. But some people really do make you wonder.

The more I mull on that video Jeff had up there before two things keep tumbling over in my head...

1) I'm getting excited to vote for McCain tomorrow.

2) The harder liberals start hitting McCain, the quicker the base will unite behind him.

jerseyhoya wrote:The more I mull on that video Jeff had up there before two things keep tumbling over in my head...

1) I'm getting excited to vote for McCain tomorrow.

2) The harder liberals start hitting McCain, the quicker the base will unite behind him.

Just to be clear: I don't hate McCain and I'm far more comfortable with the thought of him as president than I would have been with any of the other Republicans, with the possible exception of Thompson who's too lazy to get the country into much trouble. I just thought that video was funny.

You're probably right about #2, but just as it seems unlikely that the Republicans could gin up the same level of enthused vitriol for Obama as for Clinton, I don't really see "the liberals" attacking McCain with anything close to the rage they--we--feel about what Bush has done to the country. I think the line will be more like, "he's an honorable and likable guy and has some good ideas, but he's too much of a warmonger and too accepting of the premises of Bush Misrule."

I'd be pretty excited for the prospects of an Obama/McCain race being less slimy than the contests involving Bushes or Clintons--which is one reason I've been for Obama.

I actually like and respect McCain for the most part, I just disagree with him on policy on many/most counts. But I rarely doubt the sincerity of his expressed opinions.

I just like how Bush was a bad guy for leading the country into war without being honest about the difficulties that laid ahead, and now in that video McCain's a bad guy for being up front about it.

Negative/contrast spots might ding McCain with independents or soft Dems or soft Republicans who like the image McCain has but don't necessarily know his issue stances. But they might also serve to galvanize GOP support in a way that doesn't usually happen, because we aren't going to be able to generate the same sort of anger about Obama as we could for Clinton and McCain has a base problem.

jerseyhoya wrote:I just like how Bush was a bad guy for leading the country into war without being honest about the difficulties that laid ahead, and now in that video McCain's a bad guy for being up front about it.

Negative/contrast spots might ding McCain with independents or soft Dems or soft Republicans who like the image McCain has but don't necessarily know his issue stances. But they might also serve to galvanize GOP support in a way that doesn't usually happen, because we aren't going to be able to generate the same sort of anger about Obama as we could for Clinton and McCain has a base problem.

You mean liberals are going to point out that McCain's conservative, and that will get conservatives to like him more?

jerseyhoya wrote:I just like how Bush was a bad guy for leading the country into war without being honest about the difficulties that laid ahead, and now in that video McCain's a bad guy for being up front about it.

It's. A. Gag.

Not a sober consideration of the policy merits, not something that's going to sway any voters, not something meant to taken seriously. Something for the relatively affluent and online-accessed who have the time to enjoy little substance-free YouTube clips. The point of the video is that McCain's meta-narrative--"A hundred years"--doesn't intuitively seem like a great campaign message. People still hate the war, not least the military themselves. (I think Obama has raised more money from uniformed personnel than any candidate except... Ron Paul.)

But if you insist, of course McCain's approach is preferable to Bush's. For that matter, if McCain had been elected in 2000, I have no doubt the war would have been more successful--if it had been fought at all, given the whole sequence of events that led to the invasion and the strong possibility he would have rejected the chickenhawk illogic that led the country to attack Iraq for a crime committed by others.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I just like how Bush was a bad guy for leading the country into war without being honest about the difficulties that laid ahead, and now in that video McCain's a bad guy for being up front about it.

Negative/contrast spots might ding McCain with independents or soft Dems or soft Republicans who like the image McCain has but don't necessarily know his issue stances. But they might also serve to galvanize GOP support in a way that doesn't usually happen, because we aren't going to be able to generate the same sort of anger about Obama as we could for Clinton and McCain has a base problem.

You mean liberals are going to point out that McCain's conservative, and that will get conservatives to like him more?

It's the ability to make observations like that except twice as wordy that make me hopeful I'll make the big bucks someday.

But seriously, negative ads most of the time are intended to persuade converts or drive down turnout for the opposition. It's not often that they would end up stimulating turnout on the other side.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I just like how Bush was a bad guy for leading the country into war without being honest about the difficulties that laid ahead, and now in that video McCain's a bad guy for being up front about it.

It's. A. Gag.

Not a sober consideration of the policy merits, not something that's going to sway any voters, not something meant to taken seriously. Something for the relatively affluent and online-accessed who have the time to enjoy little substance-free YouTube clips. The point of the video is that McCain's meta-narrative--"A hundred years"--doesn't intuitively seem like a great campaign message. People still hate the war, not least the military themselves. (I think Obama has raised more money from uniformed personnel than any candidate except... Ron Paul.)

But if you insist, of course McCain's approach is preferable to Bush's. For that matter, if McCain had been elected in 2000, I have no doubt the war would have been more successful--if it had been fought at all, given the whole sequence of events that led to the invasion and the strong possibility he would have rejected the chickenhawk illogic that led the country to attack Iraq for a crime committed by others.

I know it's not completely serious, but the comments on Kos are going gaga over how negative McCain is and how great of a message this is, etc. Maybe this is what I get for taking Kos seriously.

There is a serious diary up on RedState about trying to limit or ban pornography. It has over 100 comments (a lot for RedState), and around half are supportive.

jerseyhoya wrote:There is a serious diary up on RedState about trying to limit or ban pornography. It has over 100 comments (a lot for RedState), and around half are supportive.

There are serious proponents of this on the "right" (religious conservatives) and the "left" (certain feminist groups). That'd be a really fun coalition to observe.

jerseyhoya wrote:Maybe this is what I get for taking Kos seriously.

There you go. The lesson: stay here with the sane

RNC Valentine's Day cards

Not bad. But couldn't they have done better on the Hillarys? The tax thing is pretty played.

dajafi wrote:RNC Valentine's Day cards

Not bad. But couldn't they have done better on the Hillarys? The tax thing is pretty played.

Proof that the Republican Attack Machine is gearing up for an Obama nomination.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:RNC Valentine's Day cards

Not bad. But couldn't they have done better on the Hillarys? The tax thing is pretty played.

Proof that the Republican Attack Machine is gearing up for an Obama nomination.

If those are their attack lines--"inexperienced and indecisive"--this is gonna be pretty easy for the Democrats.

Do Republicans grasp how easily the "Rove strategy"--attack your opponent's supposed strength--is applied to McCain? I don't think he's any more or less opportunistic than anyone who aspires to national office, but his turnarounds just since 2003 comprise a pretty long list.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:RNC Valentine's Day cards

Not bad. But couldn't they have done better on the Hillarys? The tax thing is pretty played.

Proof that the Republican Attack Machine is gearing up for an Obama nomination.

If those are their attack lines--"inexperienced and indecisive"--this is gonna be pretty easy for the Democrats.

Do Republicans grasp how easily the "Rove strategy"--attack your opponent's supposed strength--is applied to McCain? I don't think he's any more or less opportunistic than anyone who aspires to national office, but his turnarounds just since 2003 comprise a pretty long list.

Well, I liked the one "Three years in the US Senate qualifies me to wish you a Happy Valentine's Day"

Is this the Rove Strategy that means divide and conquer or the Rove Strategy that means slander your opponent or the Rove Strategy...

People really get carried away with this Rove stuff.

As far as his strength, I suppose you mean his reputation as a straight talker. I don't think he's changed too much in his policies, with perhaps a glaring exception on the Bush tax cuts and maybe immigration too, so much as he's changed his emphasis/focus. Also, Kerry, we started with a blank slate and defined him as a flip flopper rather quickly. McCain has higher name ID and people with more formed opinions, so I don't think it will be as easy as you're making it out to be to convince people that he's a naked opportunist.