ALARMINGNEWS_1_1.jpg

October 12, 2008

Bad idea

McCain makes risky play for Pennsylvania

When I'm making a questionable call in poker, I'll sometimes say "I'm about to look like a total genius or a total idiot." The guy was on a bluff and my bottom pair gets me a large pot? Disco. The guy has a full-house and my bottom pair is no good? Moron.

Should a miracle occur and McCain win Pennsylvania, he will be the smartest man alive who ran the best campaign of all time. But if he invests money to lose a state that hasn't voted Republican since 1988 and sends one and a half Democrats to the U.S. Senate, people might wonder why he didn't focus on the states George W. Bush won a mere four years ago, and "idiot" will be too charitable.

Posted by Karol at October 12, 2008 02:18 PM | TrackBack
Technorati Tags:
Comments

I came back across the Whitman into NJ [from Ikea] this morning and was stunned to see a McCain*Palin ad. I mean, campaigning in Philly seems a little wasteful, but then putting up some signage to work on people from NJ? Good luck wit' dat.

Only thing I can imagine is that it was a ClearChannel [electronic] billboard, and they got the space cheaply.

Posted by: David at October 12, 2008 02:37 PM

MSM is cooking the news coverage for Obama. They are also cooking the polls. I would not trust any public poll.

Evidently McCain's private poll is showing a chance in PA so they are putting money there.

Posted by: Jake at October 12, 2008 03:17 PM

Jake, a lot of channels seem to plug their own guy. Can I hear a "Fox"?

Posted by: bryan at October 12, 2008 04:28 PM

Really, what choice does he have? Personally I want to know the logic in ceding Michigan (possible) and then proceeding to rotate and pour that money into Pennsylvania (really unlikely).

This is like an ER doc saying, "Hey, you know, there's an off chance we might save this patient...but instead, let's give the guy missing half his abdomen the blood."

Unless the bitter, angry land of PA is going to vote for McCain _en masse_, he's doomed.

Posted by: James at October 12, 2008 05:01 PM

If the campaign was really shewed (doubtful) they could try to focus on Eastern Ohio-Western PA area as one entity.

Posted by: jaws at October 12, 2008 07:42 PM

MSM is cooking the news coverage for Obama. They are also cooking the polls. I would not trust any public poll.

You and every other conservative who believes this is the only reason why McCain is behind in the polls needs to get their heads out of the sand and clean house in the GOP.

Voters don't have any choice in this election at all, which is why they're going for Obama because they're sick of the abuses that the current Administration has committed over the past four years.

I'll also point out that none of those polls track any numbers for Bob Barr. Barr will draw votes away from McCain at a higher rate than Nader will pull votes from Obama. Unless McCain comes up with a huge win in a bunch of states, he's already lost the election.

Posted by: Pokerwolf at October 12, 2008 08:37 PM

Jaws, you're right on the money. It is the land of my birth, some significant political experience, and where many of my people still dwell. It all depends on the union thugs, and they are by nature not Obama people.

Posted by: Casca at October 13, 2008 12:55 AM

Should a miracle occur and McCain win Pennsylvania, he will be the smartest man alive who ran the best campaign of all time.

Let's be clear: a McCain win in PA would provide rock solid proof that there is a God, because Divine Intervention is about the only way Maverick wins that state. Sure, he could be a genius: writing off Michigan while competing in Pennsylvania. I'm gonna opt for moron, though, as that would be more in line with his history.

Posted by: Physics_Geek at October 13, 2008 09:59 AM

I don't think Michigan is all that smart either, though. If I were the McCain campaign, I'd focus on the Bush states. That's all he needs to win. Why get fancy?

Posted by: Karol at October 13, 2008 10:43 AM

Because he's not sure he can carry all the Bush states with Barr putting GA in play (I'm with Pokerwolf--that's going to be interesting) and the fact that the GOP brand has taken a hit due to the President's actions.

Bush won in 2004 only through a happy confluence of events (e.g., Mass Supreme Court and gay marriage), an incredibly stupid opponent (e.g., "reporting for duty"), and a massive ground game. McCain is facing an angry electorate, has an opponent whose far from stupid, and unless he's doing a lot better in other battleground states than what I've heard about Ohio and Missouri, operating with a next to non-existent ground game. He's got to make up the EVs somewhere.

Posted by: James at October 13, 2008 11:15 AM

Can someone explain two things to me...


1) Obama said he would cut capital gains for businesses...Businesses pay capital gains tax?

2) what does Obama being only 8 years old have to do with being "friendly" with a terrorist?...If he was friends with charles manson, would he say..."I wasn't born when manson killed those people"?......It's not guilt by association when you know the person has committed atrocities

Posted by: Larry at October 13, 2008 03:41 PM

Because you do not understand, Larry, clearly you are not yet ready for the revolution. You will never cleanse your mind until you give yourself over to the One!

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 13, 2008 04:40 PM

Now is the time for Zombie lies to be told. They are not true, yet they will never, ever die. Truthers use them all the time. Both sides have them. The Ayers one, lie or not, is not turning people away from Barack Obama, and those flogging that dead horse just seem whiny (apparently).

Posted by: bryan at October 13, 2008 05:56 PM

NOW is the TIME... Join the Watch Out for the DOP Movement and listen to the new song Watch Out for the GOP!...www.myspace.com/watchoutforthegop

Posted by: at October 13, 2008 07:59 PM

Bryan,

I think people keep repeating the (true) Ayers stuff because we can't believe anyone would actually support Teleprompter Jesus knowing the company he keeps.

Posted by: Eric at October 13, 2008 08:35 PM

Eric, you just retold one. Obama was ok in front of both the 'town hall' style meeting (another lie: he wouldn't do 'town hall' because McCain would kick his ass in this format) and at the other debate. Both were without teleprompter. People thinking an 'um' and an 'ah' during speaking have obviously forgotten that W is no great speaker and was reelected.

Posted by: bryan at October 14, 2008 04:01 AM

Also, W is a better speaker than his dad was, and his dad was elected. Just sayin'

Posted by: bryan at October 14, 2008 04:15 AM

The "town hall" wasn't a town hall. In fact, one might even call it scripted.

Posted by: Casca at October 14, 2008 11:09 AM

Yes, hence my use of the word style and the inverted commas.

Posted by: bryan at October 14, 2008 12:48 PM

Also Eric, Obama was 8 when Ayers was doing terrorism, but I can see how some people could try to tie them together. Timmons, the head of the McCain transition team worked for Saddam; does this mean McCain worked for him too? Of course not, but this zombie lie will do the rounds as well.
The Ayers thing is not winning over any voters, it's just not flying with an electorate who have been better stuff than this in the past. There is going to have to be ,ore than this to upset any applecarts before the election.

Posted by: bryan at October 14, 2008 08:00 PM

bryan, the fact that Obama associated with Ayers in recent years is even worse. It's one thing to associate with someone who you didn't know was a terrorist. It's far worse to associate with someone years later, when you'd have to be a complete imbecile not to know he's an unrepentant terrorist who's sad he didn't do more. I can't imagine Obama didn't know who Ayers was or what he did. Every candidate has major campaign donors checked out, lest they have something bad to hide. Obama thought he could dismiss Ayers' past if it ever came up, just like he and Jeremiah Wright discussed last year that Obama would eventually have to distance himself from Trinity Church. Both tactics seemed to have worked.

Curious you should say W is a better speaker than his father. Most people would disagree with you, because they have only a superficial knowledge of W's speeches. His father was/is an excellent speaker who does well in the limelight, and most people would say the father is the better one. I've come to believe GWB mangled moments were contrived, that is to say, the "idiot" image was carefully cultivated so Democrats would never be on their toes against him. It's worked. Courtesy of Bloomberg TV and similar, I've Bush make live, virtually unpublicized speeches for small occasions. The man was witty and smooth in what always appeared to be extemporaneous remarks. I found them amazing. That was before a friend saw some old debates of when Bush ran for governor of Texas, where he similarly performed strongly.

Well, the liberal media (U.S. and abroad) has chosen to ignore these because they wanted to believe Bush is an idiot, to their detriment.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 15, 2008 09:46 AM

sorry, Perry, but "liberal media" as a term is a zombie lie, and an annoying one really when you think how little W's government has been called out over anything.
I said W was a better speaker than his dad, and have seen footage in the UK which backs it up. Much more urbane than given credit for, but still embarrassing, and not likely to make it out of the bottom 5 presidents list in the next few weeks.
My main point is that THE AYERS STUFF IS NOT WINNING VOTES FOR McCAIN. I also think it is making people think that it is making McCain and Palin look more desperate, and their campaign not so fairly run.
M and P are feeding this stuff to their base, but that is unlikely to win any extra votes, No? McCain was full of this Obama is a terrorist stuff before the debate, but was not willing to call the guy a terrorist to his face. IMO people notice this stuff.

Posted by: bryan at October 15, 2008 12:44 PM

sorry, Perry, but "liberal media" as a term is a zombie lie, and an annoying one really when you think how little W's government has been called out over anything.

You're repeating that doozy claim again. What world do you live in? You still really think Bush hasn't been "called out"?

The media all over the world has been nothing short of merciless in picking apart everything his administration does. Sometimes fairly, sometimes absurdly. Over what has he not been called out on? Alleged torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay? Warrantless wiretapping? The CIA kidnapping suspected terrorists and flying them to Bulgaria?

Let me give you a few links on what I've written, some of it quite some time ago. The mainstream media twists Bush's words, creates a mirage out of the word "mirage," lie about Bush's budget increases that should make any liberal happy, and when all those are dried up, makes a big deal about non-issues.

A bunch of Justice Department lawyers were fired, and others not hired, because of their political beliefs, and so Congress convened investigations. So what? This has actually been established practice for both political parties, demonstrated when new Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys after Bill Clinton was inaugurated. If you're president, you naturally don't want your Justice Department filled with people who are ideologically contrary to you.

Bush proposed a massive socialist housing bailout a year ago, on the order of Lyndon Johnson's or Franklin Roosevelt's welfare programs, and what were the headlines? "Bush plan helps some, not all." If Hillary or Obama had proposed it? "____ plan guarantees help for most."

I said W was a better speaker than his dad, and have seen footage in the UK which backs it up. Much more urbane than given credit for, but still embarrassing, and not likely to make it out of the bottom 5 presidents list in the next few weeks.

I'm not sure how you mean "embarrassing."

Bush could very well turn out to be the worst president ever (or did I say in my recent blog entry that he is?). But it's not for the reasons most people think. "Oh he's stupid." "He got us into an unwinnable war in Iraq." "He mismanaged the economy." "He added $4 trillion to the national debt." The first three are absurd. He's a lot smarter than people take him for, Iraq always was a very winnable war (just like Vietnam), and he deserves no more criticism over the economy's current state than Bill Clinton deserves credit for the 1990s boom.

The third is partly correct but not the entire picture. Bush is truly bad for how he brought so much socialism to the federal government, under the guise of "compassionate conservativsm."

My main point is that THE AYERS STUFF IS NOT WINNING VOTES FOR McCAIN. I also think it is making people think that it is making McCain and Palin look more desperate, and their campaign not so fairly run.

This much is correct. I don't think bringing it up now will change things, and McCain seems as reluctant as ever.

I'm surprised Hillary's campaign didn't come up during the primaries, when it could have really hurt Obama. It just goes to show how much the media abandoned the Clintons, who had been long accustomed to mainstream reporting giving them passes on everything bad, and credit for everything good.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 15, 2008 04:13 PM

Come on Perry. I said "how little" and I was not talking about the world's media. I don't this Al Jazeera count, but Fox is on virtually every cable package in the USA (?no?).
By embarrassing I mean too many fluffs, too many episodes of rudeness to reporters (the blind guy for example). IMO it makes him not statesmanlike. We can agree to disagree (not a big deal).
I think stirring up the whole terrorism angle is backfiring. The Reps should try to appeal to the people's wallets, because, even though taxes are going to rise whoever wins, they could argue that, like other dems, they will be much more swingeing.
On a tangential note, I feel you should ignore that guy baiting you in the other post. Rising to it probably gets him off. We rarely agree, but I see no reason why insulting people makes ones' argument more sound.

Posted by: bryan at October 15, 2008 07:08 PM

Sorry, that should have read that the dems taxes will be higher than the reps. Reread it and could not understand it!

Posted by: at October 15, 2008 07:32 PM

too many fluffs, too many episodes of rudeness to reporters (the blind guy for example)

You're bringing this up again? Once more...all politicians do it, and it's completely trivial to the real issues.

I have fun, believe it or not, toying with the two D twits, just as I did with weedhead some months back. And who knows, maybe someday they might be enlightened. But I will say this, I'll gut them from clavicle to their 2mm dicks if I ever meet them in person.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 15, 2008 09:56 PM

Then I hope you never meet them or you meet them somewhere where it is legal ;-p

Posted by: bryan at October 16, 2008 01:59 AM

Someday when real freedom is restored to this land, I will stand over their corpses, and laugh heartily.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 16, 2008 11:11 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?