Romney to Suspend his Campaign

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I think he's the Chief Internet Campaign Strategist for Obama in Alabama. Dude's pumping out more sunshine than Florida and California combined.

[RunInRed 16,489]

Probably. But I believe his election is that important.

Regardless, the poll was a direct response to the post above suggesting McCain would capture more independents than Obama. I strongly disagree and early indications seem to attest to that notion.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Probably. But I believe his election is that important.

Regardless, the poll was a direct response to the post above suggesting McCain would capture more independents than Obama. I strongly disagree and early indications seem to attest to that notion.

I think if you're hanging your notions on polls 8 months out, you're on thin ice at best. I think the experience issue still has some legs vs Obama, it's just that Hillary isn't the one to effectively deliver it. Her experience to most people outside the Democratic base is a few years as a junior Senator and being a governor's and president's wife. That doesn't cut it and a failed attempt at Hillarycare doesn't mitigate that perception one iota.

I believe McCain can more effectively make that contrast. Obviously there's still a lot of campaigning left so it remains to be seen whether he can exploit that advantage. But I believe he's got a much better shot at doing it than she does.

[otterinbham 0]

Probably. But I believe his election is that important.

Regardless, the poll was a direct response to the post above suggesting McCain would capture more independents than Obama. I strongly disagree and early indications seem to attest to that fact.

Maybe, maybe not. Independents are a fickle bunch, and notorious for turning right when it gets to be nut-cutting time.

Again, aside from his obvious charisma and speaking talent, he is currently being propelled by two different things: 1) His candidacy has intrinsic drama, especially when matched up with the "Any aspiration is possible in America" theme that is such a strong part of our national epic, and 2) he's not Hillary Clinton, which has more power than anybody really wants to admit. I know Hillary Clinton supporters, and they're not even enthusiastic about her.

Yet, if the dust settles after the nomination, and Obama is the victor, the focus changes immensely. Obama no longer gets to talk to a bunch of Democratic loyalists. He has to talk to an entire nation about things such as national defense and tax policy. His record will get questioned, and will have holes punched in it. And, sad to say, a lot of those limousine liberals who are cheering Obama on as the party's savior from the Clintons will spurn him in the general election. Case in point? Look at the precinct vote counts in yesterday's Birmingham News. The Over The Mountain voters went overwhelmingly for Obama on Tuesday. However, those people were not filing into the voting stations in favor of higher taxes and universal healthcare. Instead, I would be willing to bet my eyeteeth that most of them cast their votes against Hillary. I know several who said as much.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

It's funny. I actually contemplated voting in the Democratic primary myself to cast an anti-Hillary vote. But two things stopped me:

1. I genuinely like Huckabee and wanted to support him if for no other reason than to give the GOP honchos a reminder that social conservatives aren't going to take whatever sorry ass candidate they tell us to like.

2. I actually think Republicans have a better shot against Hillary so even though I detest her and actually like Obama in many ways, it goes against my interest to help him.

[RunInRed 16,489]

Maybe I'm naive, not realistic or just ignorant, but I believe "experience," at least in the context of how it is often used in the public discourse come election season, is extremely overrated. This whole "he does not have enough experience" argument is the same tired old adage that we hear every election cycle against any candidate who pushes against the status quo. I find it to be nothing more than the establishment - particularly those that have their hands in the cookie jar - fighting against the inevitability of "change." It's a hallmark of conservative/traditional ideals and for the life of me I don't get it.

Years in Washington should not be our litmus test. Our great leaders have been brilliant, demonstrated outstanding judgement, and have had a unique ability to form majority coalitions, unite the nation, and inspire us all to reach for higher ground. This was the case with Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan and many other of our greatest leaders who were all labeled with "not having enough experience."

Obama has passed all three of these tests.

If Clinton is the nominee, I suppose some will be happy because we have two "experienced" candidates. I will unenthusiastically vote for McCain in that circumstance but I will also know that we have missed out on a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

Again, if I'm some blinded sunshine pumper in most of your eyes then so be it. But I will continue to strongly advocate for Obama in this campaign and beyond. He is a rare talent and what our country needs in this challening chapter of the great American novel.

[jw 4 au 526]

Yet, if the dust settles after the nomination, and Obama is the victor, the focus changes immensely. Obama no longer gets to talk to a bunch of Democratic loyalists. He has to talk to an entire nation about things such as national defense and tax policy. His record will get questioned, and will have holes punched in it.

My thoughts exactly. The GOP is currently working on their party right now and not even focusing on the democratic challenger, so to say Obama's quick rise in popularity will certainly win him the White House is a bit premature. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter aside, the party will do as it always does and come together and start to focus on either Obama or Hillary once the republican candidate is selected, and start to really expose their liberal agendas. In my opinion, although I like his personality and moral character much more than the Clintons, I think there are many issues such as those mentioned by Otter (the war and taxes), not to mention his extremely liberal voting record, that will unite the GOP again. Obama is pushing hard stating that he is the best candidate to best "cross the isles for bipartisan" with Congress, but his voting record does not suggest that. In my opinion, McCain’s may win those independent votes once the two candidates for the general election are chosen. Everyone knows he has "crossed the isle" a few times lately.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Maybe I'm naive, not realistic or just ignorant, but I believe "experience," at least in the context of how it is often used in the public discourse come election season, is extremely overrated. This whole "he does not have enough experience" argument is the same tired old adage that we hear every election cycle against any candidate who pushes against the status quo. I find it to be nothing more than the establishment - particularly those that have their hands in the cookie jar - fighting against the inevitability of "change." It's a hallmark of conservative/traditional ideals and for the life of me I don't get it.

Bollocks. It's a normal strategy for someone older and with more time served to use that leverage to whatever extent they can against someone who lacks those things. JFK heard it back in the day. Reagan heard it from Ford's people. Gore tried to use it against Bush. Hillary is using it against Obama. It's a legitimate thing to talk about...if the candidate has the record to back up the talk.

Years in Washington should not be our litmus test. Our great leaders have been brilliant, demonstrated outstanding judgement, and have had a unique ability to form majority coalitions, unite the nation, and inspire us all to reach for higher ground. This was the case with Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan and many other of our greatest leaders who were all labeled with "not having enough experience."

Litmus test? No. Consideration? Absolutely.

Again, if I'm some blinded sunshine pumper in most of your eyes then so be it. But I will continue to strongly advocate for Obama in this campaign and beyond. He is a rare talent and what our country needs in this challening chapter of the great American novel.

I actually don't think you are just an SSP for Obama. I was just making a joke because of the volume of glowing posts you've been making. I believe you see him as a real, viable, inspiring and needed change to the status quo.

Unlike other conservatives, I actually see his principled opposition to the war in Iraq as a plus because I think we had no need to go in there and that it hurt our efforts to really solidify Afghanistan. We might end up pulling our ass out of the fire with the surge but that's more a function of cleaning up a self-made and unnecessary mess than anything to brag about. Just because I managed to glue Mom's prized vase back together doesn't mean I was brilliant for destroying it in the first place by throwing a football in the house.

Frankly, I like a lot about him myself but he's just too liberal economically and doesn't value the unborn to any degree that makes a difference for me to support him.

[jw 4 au 526]

Again, if I'm some blinded sunshine pumper in most of your eyes then so be it.

You are the biggest sunshine pumper I have ever seen, especially over on the recruiting board!

[otterinbham 0]

I think Titan had a very good rebuttal to your points. I don't think I could have said it any better. I would just like to add one point for consideration.

Experience is not the end-all, be-all criterium for choosing a leader. After all, Lincoln entered the White House without executive experience. At the same time, Lincoln's presidency was a near-run thing, characterized in its first two years with unbelievable rancor, infighting, and plotting against him.

Reagan came to the White House with a great deal of executive experience as the former governor of California.

As far as FDR goes, I don't know where you get your history. He served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy (An extremely important position at the time) and Governor of New York, so he had both executive experience and an insider's knowledge of Washington.

That being said, executive experience is not everything. After all, W was governor of Texas and look at what a botch job he's done. But it can be highly important, especially when the stakes are so high economically and geopolitically. And thrusting someone into the Oval Office with no executive experience beyond running his Congressional staff for four years is hardly reassuring. Again, that doesn't disqualify the man, but it creates a legitimate, gigantic question mark that will have to be dispensed with.

It's not enough to be a maverick. It's not enough to tout change. It takes the finesse and connections to convince people, and bend a recalcitrant and venal Congress to your will. After all, Jimmy Carter never learned that, to Rosalyn's and his country's sorrow.

Maybe I'm naive, not realistic or just ignorant, but I believe "experience," at least in the context of how it is often used in the public discourse come election season, is extremely overrated. This whole "he does not have enough experience" argument is the same tired old adage that we hear every election cycle against any candidate who pushes against the status quo.

Years in Washington should not be our litmus test. Our great leaders have been brilliant, demonstrated outstanding judgement, and have had a unique ability to form majority coalitions, unite the nation, and inspire us all to reach for higher ground. This was the case with Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan and many other of our greatest leaders who were all labeled with "not having enough experience."

Obama has passed all three of these tests.

If Clinton is the nominee, I suppose some will be happy because we have two "experienced" candidates. I will unenthusiastically vote for McCain in that circumstance but I will also know that we have missed out on a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

Again, if I'm some blinded sunshine pumper in most of your eyes then so be it. But I will continue to strongly advocate for Obama in this campaign and beyond. He is a rare talent and what our country needs in this challening chapter of the great American novel.

[RunInRed 16,489]

It's not enough to be a maverick. It's not enough to tout change. It takes the finesse and connections to convince people, and bend a recalcitrant and venal Congress to your will.

Of the 3 candidates left, only 2 have the ability to do this - Obama and McCain. I think Obama's other intangible qualities makes him the better choice. Also, I'm not real convinced on what kind of change we will get with McCain. So far, I'm hearing a lot of "stay the course" in regards to Iraq, fiscal policy, etc.

Speaking of issues - what bold initiatives has McCain put forth? What change does he want? Or is his support all just b/c he's the Republican candidate?

[chinook 0]

my question: when will huck and paul "suspend" their bid? save the money and stress.

also, what about a mccain and rice ticket?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Huckabee will be in a while longer to see which way Romney voters end up going. Paul will likely remain to the bitter end.

[otterinbham 0]

Huckabee will be in a while longer to see which way Romney voters end up going. Paul will likely remain to the bitter end.

I would agree with that, insofar that Huckabee is really setting himself up for the next run at the presidency in either 2012 or 2016. However, I seriously doubt that Romney delegates will go over to the Huckster. At this point the Republican nomination is largely decided, there was some very bad blood between Romney and Huckabee (far worse than between McCain and Romney), and Huckabee is an economic statist. That makes any Huckabee attempt to peel away Romney delegates to be quixotic at best.

Paul, on the other hand, is more interesting character. He is pretty much used to being the lonely outpost of government minimalism, so I'm thinking he will stay in it to the end to provide an alternative vision. Don't be surprised if he turns out to be far more influential at the convention and in the years to come. I'm not just saying that as somebody who likes the guy. I'm saying that as somebody who has observed that Paul seems to have visceral grassroots appeal. He's planted some ideological seeds during this campaign that will probably grow a great deal--much like Barry Goldwater in 1964, Paul's philosophical forebear.

Dang, I love writing about this stuff. It's much more fun that the client assignment I have due by 5 p.m. today.

[otterinbham 0]

also, what about a mccain and rice ticket?

I think it would backfire on two different levels. One, Rice is damaged goods through her prolonged association with Bush's foreign policy, both as its partial architect and as its clumsy executrix. Second, unfair as it may seem, she may be seen as no more than a counter to Obama. The same might be true of Colin Powell, although he would probably do far, far better by virtue of his early exit from the Bush administration.

[Tiger Al 0]

The same might be true of Colin Powell, although he would probably do far, far better by virtue of his early exit from the Bush administration.

Too many people will remember this:

[otterinbham 0]

The same might be true of Colin Powell, although he would probably do far, far better by virtue of his early exit from the Bush administration.

Too many people will remember this:

Yeah. But nobody believes for a second that he didn't believe what he was selling to the UN General Assembly. He was being a good soldier, presenting what he thought was accurate and valuable intelligence, and he was burned as a result. I think most people will give him a pass on that.

[RunInRed 16,489]

It's not enough to be a maverick. It's not enough to tout change. It takes the finesse and connections to convince people, and bend a recalcitrant and venal Congress to your will.

Of the 3 candidates left, only 2 have the ability to do this - Obama and McCain. I think Obama's other intangible qualities makes him the better choice. Also, I'm not real convinced on what kind of change we will get with McCain. So far, I'm hearing a lot of "stay the course" in regards to Iraq, fiscal policy, etc.

Speaking of issues - what bold initiatives has McCain put forth? What change does he want? Or is his support all just b/c he's the Republican candidate?

crickets

[Tiger Al 0]

The same might be true of Colin Powell, although he would probably do far, far better by virtue of his early exit from the Bush administration.

Too many people will remember this:

Yeah. But nobody believes for a second that he didn't believe what he was selling to the UN General Assembly. He was being a good soldier, presenting what he thought was accurate and valuable intelligence, and he was burned as a result. I think most people will give him a pass on that.

There were those in Powell's own State Dept like Greg Thielmann who was the Director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Dept Bureau of Intelligence and Research who were out there saying the "intelligence" was wrong. Those willing to call it merely being a "good soldier" are giving a thumbs up to poor judgement because Powell had access to all of the intel and chose instead to do Bush's bidding at the UN.

[otterinbham 0]

It's not enough to be a maverick. It's not enough to tout change. It takes the finesse and connections to convince people, and bend a recalcitrant and venal Congress to your will.

Of the 3 candidates left, only 2 have the ability to do this - Obama and McCain. I think Obama's other intangible qualities makes him the better choice. Also, I'm not real convinced on what kind of change we will get with McCain. So far, I'm hearing a lot of "stay the course" in regards to Iraq, fiscal policy, etc.

Speaking of issues - what bold initiatives has McCain put forth? What change does he want? Or is his support all just b/c he's the Republican candidate?

crickets

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't catch your post. If you're looking for massive overhauls of government structure, you're not going to get it. But given the growth of the American economy over the past 28 years, I don't think there's any crying need for it. I think the major responsibilities of a McCain administration will be to correct the excesses and outright stupidity of the Bush administration.

First off, McCain will probably stand for a lot more fiscal responsibility that Bush ever thought about. He's been pretty consistent on this, and there's no reason why he won't devote a great deal of his time in the Oval Office checking the growth of government and the executive branch. At the same, whoever takes the oath of office next January will be in a pretty good position economically, given how the economy should be at the tail end of the slowdown or recession, whichever it is. And given that Gramm and Forbes are both on his economic team, I'm feel that we should see some kind of return to solvency. The truth of the matter is that, had Bush just kept the growth of the federal government pegged to inflation, we would have a balance budget today even with the 2001 tax cuts.

Second, I think that McCain has significant distance from the current administration and enough experience to provide a surer hand in foreign policy.

Third, I am fairly certain that McCain has the political will and courage to deal with the country's looming entitlement crisis--something that neither Bush, Clinton, Obama, or Clinton seem to be serious about at all. You talk about a way to destroy the country from an economic standpoint? Ignore the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security for another ten years.

Other than that? Sheer basic competence would be a turn on for me.

[RunInRed 16,489]

All sounds fine...except of course his "100 year approach" to Iraq. BUT...I still want more.

I want a President who will do something about our dependence on foreign oil. A president who will invest and push Green initiatives and energy conservation. A president who doesn't use faith or the terror fear as wedge to divide us or a way to drum up votes. A president who will make SS solvent (an no I'm not talking about privatization). A president who will invest in infrastructure. A president who will fix the immigration mess. A president who will fix healthcare. A president who will unite and inspire. Then again, maybe I'm asking for too much....

Bottom line, while keeping the American people safe is priority #1 and balancing the budget is critical, there is more to the presidency....and I expect more

Oh yeah...and if he could do something about this damn 280 traffic that would be great too