Not Every Important Decisions Is Announced At 3 AM
August 27th, 2008 by 
Kevin
Reports are that McCain plans a 3-day bonanza of a VP announcement, including stop in Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvania. This is a significant departure, and vast improvement, over Obama’s choice of a botched 3 AM text message. The timing is clearly intended to short-circuit any lingering press coverage of the DNC and to minimize any bump Obama may receive in the ratings.
Although there are some possible pitfalls to that decision. The way the DNC has been going it might almost be best to just let the media dwell on it. Especially when the highlights include
- A speech by Ted Kennedy, which successful only because Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for rebuttal
- A speech by Michelle Obama, who is apparently still trying to decide when exactly she became proud of her country.
- A speech by Hillary Clinton, attempting to quell a revolt by her delegates, who are apparently already booing from the floor.
- It’s largely been a boring snooze fest. No attacks, no wild rallies, no nothing.
- Eco-craziness that has gone wrong
Any surprise that Obama’s numbers have actually gone DOWN in the polls? Although to be perfectly fair, that is more likely due to his rather weak choice of Biden as a VP candidate.
Which brings me to my next point. Even this late stage of the game we’re still hearing of possibilities that make me shiver. Lieberman? Seriously?? What exactly does he contribute to the ticket other than pissing off the few factions that are happy with a McCain ticket.
A less than thrilling VP selection might very well suck the life out of a Republican contingent that is only just starting to emerge from it’s funk. Not least because should McCain and his soon to be selected VP win the election, that VP is almost certainly our nominee for 2012 or 2016. After eight years of Bush and four-plus of McCain, the base it not likely to be content with another RINO.
Pawlenty has been mentioned seriously, but I doubt he is conservative enough to run in any state other than Minnesota, or perhaps Massachusetts. Which brings me to Romney, same problem…plus the religion factor, which for some reason is an issue with people.
I hadn’t really given Palin much thought. Sure she’s a solid conservative and Kathryn Jean Lopez makes a heck of an argument for her selection at The Corner. But at the same time, in an election that already centers around he inexperience, does she have enough experience to be able to handle the job? Although if one looks at things through a rather optimistic and long range seeing glasses, it does work out rather nice. It sets us up for a Palin/Jindal ticket in 2012 or 2016.
Heh, it’s a long ways away, unlikely to happen and assumes quite a bit. But just trying to find a silver lining in a McCain presidency.
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
Posted in 2008 Elections | 
23 Comments »
August 27th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Obama’s slide in the polls has nothing to do with his choice for VP – it has everything to do with the bulk of his politics lining up exactly with those of John McCain.
It’s no coincidence that our last two presidential elections have come down to obscure counties in Ohio and Florida. Pundits like to cite a bitter ideological divide between conservatives and democrats (whatever those terms mean these days), and a few disenfranchised democrats still hold on to the notion that the elections were fixed.
The reality is, elections are close because there’s no difference between the candidates. McCain’s selection of a VP is meaningless, as was Obama’s selection of Biden. When both parties agree that big government is the answer regardless of the problem, you are not being presented with a choice.
But keep up the analysis – big government is only too happy to throw you a few scraps from the table every once in a while.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:08 am
I’d like to point out that, even though I refuse to engage in the political process, I’m rooting for an Obama victory. I couldn’t disagree more with the man’s politics, but I see a silver lining in an Obama administration.
Consider, Obama has “inspired” literally millions of younger people to charge off to the polls and cast their ballot for him. These ignorant, uninformed voters think they’re changing the system (sound familiar, Kevin and J. Ewing?) but they’re in for a real surprise once Obama takes office.
You see, once Obama’s real agenda is revealed and the wars don’t stop, the taxes increase, health care and gasoline prices continue to skyrocket, etc. those same young people who thought they were changing the system (again, you listening Kevin and J. Ewing?) will – I hope – become bitter and disenfranchised. Where is the change they thought they were getting? Where’s the manna from heaven Obama promised?
When this happens, there will be millions more people who will refuse to vote or engage in politics in any form whatsoever, and they’ll discover disengaging from the system is the only way to defeat it. I know the concept is too advanced for the (sparse) readership here, but believe it or not most people are intelligent to put two and two together…even if Kevin and J. Ewing are too stupid to figure that out.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Tee hee. It is to laugh, were you not so deadly serious. Americans have been voting for over 200 years, for the last 150 between Republicans and Democrats, and for the last 50 have been voting for “moderates.” The Presidency, as well as all other offices of government, go to those with the most votes. If you don’t vote, and convince 20 million other people to not vote, and they convince 50 million more to not vote, all it will mean is that the election will STILL be decided by who gets the most votes. At what point in this chemically-induced prediction does real and beneficial change take place? How? Why are you so willing to throw all of America under the bus, just to achieve this utopian dreamscape?
August 27th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Tyrannical regimes have ALWAYS had the consent of the public; just because you endorse America’s brand of tyranny doesn’t make it any better.
I’m not throwing America under the bus, I’m endorsing a viewpoint wherein free people throw tyrannical government under the bus…not that I expect you to grasp the subtlety, however.
Again, the only utopian vision on this site is your insistence that you can mold the system to meet your selfish desires by engaging in the voting process. Conversely, the voluntaryist position endorses unfettered freedom for everyone.
Why are you so intent to deprive others of their right to life and property? You’ve already established yourself as an isolated ethnocentrist who’s too scared to fight…what gives?
August 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Behold, your beloved State, in all its glory.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/knaebel/knaebel19.html
Not that I expect you to grasp the subtleties in the article (and, besides, you’re probably grappling with the statistics in my previous comment) but this article summarizes the voluntaryist position very well.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Again Eddie you’re making stuff up.
J. Ewing has served.
If your delusions weren’t enough, when you keep making things up to meet your preconceived notions it undermines your argument.
But the fact that you get your “news” from professional crazyman Lew Rockwell says quite a bit.
Fact is I simply don’t subscribe to your extremely negative view of the world.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
EW, for someone who once swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” you have truly come a long way. Right now, you don’t want anybody to vote, speak against your peculiar non-Constitutional ideas of government, nor to freely assemble, nor to try to get government to redress their greivances. I can honor your past service and still ask what you have done for me lately.
Look, you can blather at high volumes and great length that we are too stupid to understand you, but how stupid is THAT? How can I learn anything if you keep telling me I’m too stupid to learn it, and won’t satisfactorily explain it to me? You may think you’ve answered the questions, but you’re wrong. /I/ am the judge of when my question is answered, not you.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Kevin, Lew Rockwell didn’t write the article…he published it. Although Rockwell’s views are closely aligned with those of the author.
Lew is crazy, eh? Please – I beg you – tell me why Lew is crazy. I’d LOVE to hear your rationale.
JE, you are putting words in my mouth. The only axiom I subscribe to is natural law, a concept so simple yet you fail to grasp it. Is it any wonder I cannot teach you anything when you have admitted you don’t think everyone is entitled to his life and his property? It’s rather difficult to teach someone quantum mechanics when they have yet to grasp arithmetic.
And your prior service doesn’t exempt you from not serving today. Your unabashed support for warfare and intervention begs me to ask: why aren’t you in the fight? If it’s so important to you, get off your ass in fight. Moreover, your brand of cowardice is particularly intriguing to me, because you willingly sacrifice the lives of younger people in order to maintain whatever demented view of “freedom” you maintain.
Coward – you? Absolutely. The worse kind of coward is the one who feels a sense of entitlement upon having “served” in some capacity, and now sees nothing wrong with sacrificing a new generation of young men and women to the same cause. You make me sick.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
In my experience Rockwell’s writings and those he publishes have been largely of the tin foil conspiracy theory/New World Order variety.
It’s hard to take people like that seriously.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
OK, examples?
It should be obvious at this point I will not take you at your word. Put up or shut up.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
In this case, no I won’t provide examples. In the past, when using news aggregators, that a vast majority of the articles originating out of the lewrockwell domain, fall firmly in the category of conspiracy theories or out-right sensationalism. That’s my personal experience.
And again, you are not one to give me orders on my own site.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
OK, so your rationale boils down to “nanna nanna boo boo you can’t give me orders on my own site”
Brilliant.
How ironic, lightweight, that you chide S&A and I for living inside a bubble when you refuse to exist outside the bubble that is your own website and back up your assertion that Lew Rockwell is crazy with – GASP! – examples. Perhaps conjecture and opinion can be substituted for facts in your bubble, I don’t know.
You’ll excuse me if I’m not impressed by your intellectual acumen. You kinda need to provide examples in order to prove Lew’s “craziness” … otherwise all you’ve done is proven my initial assessment that your head is nothing more than an empty vessel filled with FOX News slogans and soundbites.
Pathetic Kevin…pathetic.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I would have thought that the champion of private property that you are you’d understand that!
I’ve seen plenty in my experience to put Lew solidly in the nutcase category. The fact that I don’t wish to dig through that sewer again doesn’t diminish my experiences with his site in the past.
The fact that you won’t acknowledge my past experience reflects not upon me. Instead, it probably proves my suspicion that your head is nothing but an empty vessel filled with Lew Rockwell slogans and soundbites.
See this ad hominem attack thing goes both ways.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
EW, I’ve let you say these things because they made no more sense than your other ravings, but repeating them doesn’t make them any more true, and I must ask for a retraction. I would demand it, but of course I’m a coward, entitled to only what the rule of force– that’s you– will offer. I quote:
“So long as someone harbors bloodlust for brown people overseas…”
“Your unabashed support for warfare and intervention… ”
“… you don’t think everyone is entitled to his life and his property?”
Now I defy you to find any of these things in what I’ve posted. I submit that you have created these gross and offensive mischaracterizations out of your fevered imagination and obsession for being right all the time. It’s typical liberal thinking– that you are intellectually superior to everyone else– and proven by the fact that you take such offense when your ideas are challenged. Challenging your ideas is a personal attack because you consider your intellectual superiority essential to your personal image of yourself.
Far be it from me to disturb you of that delusion. Please do me the same courtesy henceforth. If you want to debate the topic at hand, whatever the heck it was, in a reasonable and respectful manner, have at it. If you know how.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I get the private property thing – boot me anytime, I don’t care. Chances are I’ll quit before you boot me, though. S&A and I have been the best thing to ever happen to your site.
Looked at differently, S&A are helping your case. By spending all of your time “refuting” (ha) S&A and I we are preventing you from writing more garbage that only underscores your stupidity. You’re welcome in advance.
Yeah, it’s a silly thing to ask for proof whenever you make a broad-based comment about someone you clearly know nothing about. Excuse me if I don’t want to rely upon your “experience” to justify your claims.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Best thing that ever happened?? Hardly. I’ve had several readers email me wondering…and I quote…
Given that, I don’t know how many converts you are getting. Or that anyone is interpreting my writings as “stupid”. Not that I really care, because anyone that starts a blog based upon anyone’s opinions but their own is headed for disaster.
I shared my opinion of Lew Rockwell and his rantings. The fact that you don’t agree doesn’t change my opinion at all….in fact in these circumstances it actually reinforces them.
And really it hits right on what J. Ewing just said, and I think he nailed it…
August 27th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
No retraction necessary, J. Ewing, because you said the following:
“Sorry, but the very freedom you claim is our universal right must always permit me to hold a different opinion, regardless of what you believe it ought to be.”
Either you misspoke or I’m right. Either way, you should explain yourself or enjoy a big ol’ plate of crow. You can share with Kevin…but he’s probably full. He’s been eating his words for five days now.
And spare me the “you didn’t find my exact words in context” rebuttal – it’s easy to extrapolate that you do not believe in universal freedom for all people based on your words above. From that, one can deduce that your endorsement of warfare (and subsequent refusal to fight) is rooted in cowardice and hypocrisy because you endorse the killing of foreigners and Americans in the name of “democracy” by voting.
Liberal thinking? Ha! Classical liberal, yes, but not today’s liberal. Keep talking, J. Ewing, I’m enjoying the show. I never claimed to be intellectually superior to anyone (methinks that’s a product of your imagination, although I appreciate your complimenting my imagination)…I only defended natural law.
You paying attention, Kevin? THAT’S how you cite sources and win arguments.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Ok, so your Mom, Dad, and sister find me offensive. So what?
My ego is firmly entrenched, yes, but it has nothing to do with defeating you two intellectual lightweights in debate. It’s difficult to derive much joy from winning a game of chess against someone who doesn’t understand checkers.
I’ll stick with it as long as I get a laugh out of it, though. Comedic value is about all this site has going for it.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Eddie, you are attributing beliefs to J. Ewing that he never stated. And your deductions and extrapolations require logical leaps and beliefs that few subscribe to.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I disagree. If someone says they don’t agree with universal right to life and property for all persons, it means they are against it. Pretty cut and dry, really.
Like I said, if I’m guilty of anything, it’s hyperbole. But I’m not tailoring my words because J. Ewing never referred to his wartime support as “bloodlust” … that’s just semantics.
The way to prove me wrong would be to cite (and I know that’s a sticking point for you) something J. Ewing has written wherein he doesn’t support the war, or speaks out in support of natural law.
I’m giving you a BIG hint here, Kev…
August 27th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
So if he doesn’t believe in natural law and opposes the war, he’s automatically a bloodthirsty maniac that wants to confiscate everyone’s property?
That’s a hell of a binary world you’ve got going in your head there.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Based on what he’s written, J. Ewing doesn’t believe in Natural Law. Scroll up and re-read. He supports the war, too.
I’m not sure what you’re getting in in the hypothetical case, I prefer to deal with what people have written as their own beliefs. We can engage in hypotheticals another time.
Anyone supporting the war (or any voter, really) is complicit in the crimes the State commits. S&A made the point earlier. You may not label yourself a bloodthirsty maniac (who would?) but nonetheless you are complicit in the crime that is an aggressive invasion of another sovereign country.
As I stated earlier, if I’m guilty of anything, it’s hyperbole. Let’s deal with the subject matter and not semantics, mmmkay?
August 27th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Like I said, that’s a hell of a binary world you have built up in your mind.