Vice-President Picks

Remove all ads!

Sheesh, to have so much praise for Tucker Eskew... some people need to learn their right from wrong. Being a great communicator is not exactly admirable when your communication is deceit and slander, is it? I don't know if McCain's campaign would be less effective if he hadn't hired the exact same people who "swiftboated" Kerry (which he initially opposed vehemently) and himself, but his reputation would be much more solid.

 

Of course, if he at least once voted against the party it would show that maybe he is capable of independent thought. When Obama wins, it just makes me curious as to who will pull his strings.

 

Doesn't all presidents have people pulling their strings? I for one think it is good when policies are developed more by a large group of people than one supreme leader. As I understand things, Ronald Reagan the icon and hero of the American right was little more than a figurehead especially in his later years when his illness had already advanced to such a stage that it had impaired his mental skills. Wasn't his administration highly succesful in your eyes?

 

Yeah, that's funny, cause we just had almost 8 years fo rubber-stamping everything GWB wanted by a Congress which showed a complete lack of "independent" thought. But that was fine with some, because it was "conservative." An entire congress was lock-step, and the Dems were powerless to stop them. I guess that's what all this talk regarding "independent thought" is all about, that Obama tried too hard to stop the Republican conformist, lock-step march.

 

This thought frightens me. If Presidents are supposed to have others pulling the strings, shouldn't we be voting for the others? I'm not sure that I buy your Reagan analogy as a figurehead, and yes he was very successful IMHO.

I know I don't agree with this at all. Maybe this was more prevalent in the first 6 years, but it sure hasn't been that way the past two. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure I would trust a Republican who always voted as he was told to, to be President either. I like to see someone who is their own man/woman. This way you can find out what they believe in.

 

He's voted with the democrats 97% of the time while serving in the Senate. By my math (and I'm admittedly rusty), that means that he voted against the party 3% of the time, so he does appear to be perfectly capable of independent thought.

Obama, radical liberal that he is, even voted to renew the Patriot Act.

 

Anyone can make a mistake.

 

Agreed, although no one should have been surprised by this vote. Obama's entire career has reflected the simple fact that, while undoubtedly liberal, Barack Obama is an incrementalist at heart. When given the choice, Obama has shown time and time again that he prefers to work through the existing framework rather than against or around it, even if he has to give a little ground in the process.

Those on the left hoping that Obama will scrap NAFTA or the Patriot Act will be sorely disappointed. It isn't the way he works. He'll try to renegotiate NAFTA, to amend the Patriot Act, but he won't be scrapping either one. That just isn't his style.

 

Drew - I noticed that as well, (his healthcare ideas), but not on the same scale as you point out. Good point.

 

Snook, you may be voting on a person but I think you are smart enough to know that a president isn't a one man show. Yes you vote for McCain or Obama but you also vote on their party, their aids and their advisors. The president is of course the leader but not an almighty one and definately not an omniscient one. Again I would like to promote the idea of just freaking voting for a party and let the party assign their spokespeople and leaders then the elections are at least a bit more about policies and issues and not about who is best looking or oldest or most experienced or smartest. When you vote for a party you vote for a bundle of ideas and who implement those ideas are not the most important thing.

 

joaquin explained himself more fully, but I think the biggest thing with Reagan was that he almost certainly had people pulling his strings - especially in his second term. By then, he was almost certainly feeling the early stage effects of Alzheimer's Disease. He didn't announce that he had Alzheimer's until a few years after leaving office, but given the slow and steady progression of the disease, he likely had it for years before it was diagnosed, and probably waited until it became obvious he had it before announcing it to the public, which he did sometime in the early 1990s IIRC.

By that standard, I can understand completely why you really like Reagan, but I cannot for the life of me fathom why you feel this description would apply to Bush.

 

I never said that I liked him. He was just a better alternative then Kerry, and I feel that he doesn't get the credit he deserves when things go well, and he receives too much of the blame when things go poorly.

I'm not a huge fan of McCain, by any stretch of the imagination. I just can't imagine how Obama will not be an unmitigated disaster.

 

The dreadful David Frum joined ranks with Katleen Parker a while ago. He writes, addressing the Flak he got:

Or just check out this older, but brutal piece on Palin by Frum.

 

OK, I can't resist - just one snarky comment. What things have gone well?

Which many Democrats feel about McCain. And don't even get us started about what would happen if his cancer comes back (he seems to be fine now, but hey, he's a 72-year old cancer survivor - stuff happens). I don't want to even think about Palin running the country. (That said, she's in the national spotlight now - you betcha she may be setting herself up for a run in 2012 - and with four more years of experience, she'll look a lot less inexperienced than she does now.

 

Interesting, nuanced article on 'Troopergate'.

I find it especially interesting what it says about Palin's handling of dissent, that is correct if inconvenient advice. In Washington she would meet an overwhelming majority of people who know a lot more than she does. It also means that she never fully understood the powers and limitations of the office she held.

---------- Added 8 hours, 10 minutes and 20 seconds later... ----------

Interesting bit, on Project Palin. As I presumed, she'll probably not disappear from the scene.

 

Probably not anytime soon. But if the Republican Party continues on the way it has, it will be the next disappearing act. The American people seem mostly fed up with it's antics this time around.

 

When the McCain campaign first picked Palin, I was of the opinion that we should give her a fair and decent chance before stomping on her. I even thought we should cut her some slack for her relative newness in the Federal political field. Now, however . . .

While the whole Troopergate thing doesn't really phase me all that much, overall her skills and capabilities have failed to impress me. I mean, I like looking at her because, as I have mentioned before, she's better looking than any other person on the Presidential ticket. Alas, looks do not make for good leadership, however. She's had her chance in the LKD book of analysis, and she has come away lacking. I don't think she'll give McCain the boost he was hoping for in November. Pity for the Republicans. If they lose, perhaps they'll get they're act together in 2012 -- despite comments by others to the contrary, I think she'll vanish from the Federal stage if the Reps lose in November

 

Count me among those who tend to think Palin will fade quietly back to Wasilla after November. I think predictions of her future Reaganesque ascension are, to put it mildy, overreaching.

You're right on another point, too. If the Presidency were determined solely on physical attractiveness, she'd be on Mt. Rushmore already. She's hot, I'll say it.

That, unfortunately, is her strongest feature, however.

 

Fascinating article: The Insiders - How John McCain came to pick Sarah Palin.