Chicagoist: McCain Takes Florida

Spook

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:29:00 -0600

Hey Its not like I was kicking around during the civil rights movement, the Russian revolution or the civil war, but I guess I'm just a geek, like that. I just like knowing history I could say alot of things about if JFK had lived and I think he would have made less blunders, but then again, I don't know. But his death wasn't the only reason, the civil rights act passed LBJ was a good at twisting arms, but it was certainly a reason. But this is just splitting hairs. And I don't think its “tricking them”, I think it’s about being able to relate with them to motivate them. Republicans do this, Demo-cowards (yea that's new tilda!) don't. Not poor whites or poor blacks. Remember Lee Atwater jamming blues on the eclectic guitar? Well maybe it is tricking? But again it’s the same thing It’s the democrats that pander. O'Bama panders. He can relate to NPR types, but not poor or working class people, and call me crazy, but I think Hillary can do a better job at this, because she’s been sleeping with a hill billy for 30 years and she lived in Hope! p.s and I voted green too in the last election against Kerry and I am proud of my vote. And while Tilda has pledged to back hand you for smoking, like I would smack John Kerry if I ever see him out smoking or not smoking, I only believe in inner gender violence, so I will dump beer on you and it will be an "accident" And I suggest all real progressives should show their strength by dumping beer on any women (or skinny guy) smoking in a bar!

Spav1

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:40:32 -0600

Spook: 1) If I fought Tilda she would be going out on a gurney and I would be going out in handcuffs. I am going out tonight and I plan on smoking. It is fucking cold outside. 2) I am too young to know or care about any "civil rights" issue besides "affirmative action" But I would be willing to suggest that the only reason the Voting and Civil Rights acts were passed was as a reaction to the Kennedy Assasination (Much like the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act after 9/11). Had JFK lived and had to work to pass them himself, his early foreign policy blunders that drained him of necessary political capital would have made it much more difficult than just getting the Rev. King involved. Also, you have to consider Russia etc influence in these matters. In any case, it wasn't strictly a "class" or "party" issue. 3)I have said it before and I will say it again, the genius of the GOP has been for them to convince people to vote against their economic interests by scaring them with wedge social issues. They aren't "pandering" to those people in Tenn, they are TRICKING them. There is a difference.

Spook

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:25:48 -0600

Al right Spav1 don't say I've never did any thing for you. Yes Duuuhhhh! King and Malcome X were not "traditional" party leaders, but their views shaped vast segements of the party, which made them leaders, especially King. I guess you missed the O'Bama Clinton debate on guess who? MLK and LBJ! Hello???? And why do you think JFK( as a presidential candidate) called MLK when he got arrested in Georgia? Guess you went to sleep when they covered the Presidential campaign of JFK Go ask one of your professors to help you, they get paid, I don't. Just don't light up in a bar! Cause I got my money on Tilda

Spook

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:15:30 -0600

Matilda, I can stomach your rant Spavs is too midwest parochial. But my Lordie Lordie Lord! What president was further to the right of Reagan,Nixon or Budya? I'm waiting with baited breath to hear this, son! And how can my argument be with the voters? Do you see what the voters are reading? Do you see what they are watching? Its for the leadership and for thinking folk. Look at Today's NY Times page 19! The picture of a bunch broke a*s old white rednecks in Tenn. Who are finally after being butt F*cked by their republican party for years finally "disillusioned with Republicans"! But they can't stomach O'Bama because of his "name". We need a president who can either "straight talk them" instead of playing footsie with them by pandering to them, or make a mockery of them infront of the Nation, to wake people up( Like Ward Up ) who are not as blind. That's leadership! P.S How did you know I liked Joyce! Now that's an Irishmen I could drink with!

matilda

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:47:56 -0600

Well, Spook, I think your argument is with the voters, who apparently had had enough of the Dems after Carter, who was mainly a reaction against Nixon in any case. And if you think the moderately conservate tendencies of America is just propaganda, how do you explain the fact that we've had relatively few far leftwing or far rightwing presidents? If you think Reagan or Nixon or even Dubya were far rightwing, then I think your meter is out of whack. Nice use of "rats" in Demo-rats. So clever. So original. So fresh. I look forward to your next Joycian rant debunking me.

Spav1

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:46:06 -0600

Spook: You are making less sense than usual, which would seem to be a stretch. Malcolm X was certainly NOT a leader in the Democratic Party and to classify him as such is gross revisionism. I don't think is is necessarily fair to include King in this group either. Democrats just lost the vision and the fight. The party became to aristocratic back in the Roosevelt Era. And I don't think it is really the part of the individuals, it is more institional. The people you reference were upper-class and their interests economically aligned more with conservative values. It is hard to remember who you are fighting for if you aren't IN the group. I am not apologizing for this, but it certainly didn't occur in a vaccum. The Democrats need to start looking at the big picture. As much as I abhor the Obama campaign for running on the vague mantle of "change" it is a decent start.

Spook

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:33:56 -0600

Tilda and Spav To say the democrates overreached in the late 60's is NOT true. Thier leadership( including JFK was killed off, especially King, Malcome X and Robert Kennedy as soon as they( these three) started talking about class unity and other oppessed nations. And too say Americans can stomach only so much leftwing drift--or, for that matter, so much rightwing drift. is learned right wing propganda. We stomach alot of right ring drift and have never had any left wing drift except for presidents Lincoln,Andrew Johnson( impeached) both Roosevelts, Kennedy( shot)and LBJ. And even the Roosevelts, Kennedy and Johnson slavishly served right wing institutions. Lets not forget what Eisenhower said when he walked out the White House for the last time "Beware of the military industrial complex" -Some link this to Kennedy's death who was going to pull out of Vietnam. I'm not sure. Are the demo-rats too smart? No, too civilized, yes in that they lack the conviction,feeling and passion for those they say the represent and they don't have the couarge to tell the truth.

matilda

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:15:39 -0600

Good enough for me, Ward Up. The "real" GOP has had its moment in the sun for most of the last decade, and they have screwed up nearly everything that has come its way: War, fiscal control, prescription drugs and healtcare reform, (lack of) retirement reform, infrastructure initiatives, alternative energy, foreign alliances, etc.

Ward Up

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:40:24 -0600

Ughh. If nominated, McCain will be the first Democrat to win the Republican nomination.

Spav1

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:05:53 -0600

The Democratic Party was once best described by one of my college professors as "as collection of aggrieved out-groups". Truer words were never spoken.

matilda

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:59:09 -0600

No, Spav, I agree with you again, so I guess you are wrong. I am happy to see, though, that at least some hardcore social conservatives are getting fed up about being used for so long. These Jesus nuts need to be kicked back into their corners. To be overly simple, I think the Dems began to overreach by the late 1960s, and became of party of small causes rather than big ideas. Americans can stomach only so much leftwing drift--or, for that matter, so much rightwing drift. As well, the Dems never matched the discipline and organization that the GOP built and still enjoys, even when taking in different types of people. I guess Dems are too smart or good or civilized for that. Hell if I know. I am still not convinced the Dems will manage to win this fall, even though this is their best chance in ages.

Spav1

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:50:37 -0600

I think this is the first and last time Matlida will ever agree on anything. What amazes me about the Republicans is how they campaign ONLY on ideas and scare-tactics and then do NOTHING to follow-through and yet they are still seen as the most effective party. See: abortion and gays. These were two HUGE issues for the GOP in 2000 and 2004 and nothing has been done on either one of them on a Congressional level (with the exception of cutting funding for abortions) but they campaigned on "outlawing aborions" and "a constitutional amendment saying that marriage is between a man and a woman". Nothing has been done, and still, because they hold the monopoly in ideas, they have consistently out-foxed the Dems. Did we not used to the be the party of Civil Rights? Of JFK, of freaking NASA?! What happened?

matilda

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:20 -0600

I think voting Green is a great choice, Spook. I did so in 2000 and have no regrets, despite the guilt trip some Dems try to create. That said, I think you have to accept the fact that most of the country, for better or worse, is, at the very least, a moderately conservative country--always has been, and will be for the foreseeable future. Kansas City, for instance, is a better representation of what the country really is than, say, the Bay Area. I think if you accept this you might find ways of doing more effective work within the political realities. Going hard left is not a path to victory at this moment, no matter how much talk there is of ecomonic populism. As well, Spav is right on the Reagan thing. I am pretty skeptical about Obama, but he was hammered unfairly for what he said, and what people think he said. And Spav is right about who has been winning the war of ideas. Why so many Dems apparently do not understand this reality is beyond me, and perhaps one reason they have gotten their asses kicked so often since 1994--or, if you prefer, 1980. I still do not see any driving ideas from the Dems, or, at least, any idea bigger than "Bush has sucked donkey balls, now give us a chance."

Spook

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:16:44 -0600

So what's wrong with this picture Tilda, The republican party caters to the "Left Behind Series Readers and Racist element, to win their primary. Our Party caters to the conservative democrates and liberal republicans, to to win our primary. No thanks, I'm voting Green.

Spav1

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:14:36 -0600

Spook: Obama liked that Reagan was an "idea man" i.e. that he came up with idea that would energize the populace and then used his office and his charisma to sell those ideas to the public. This is something that the GOP has been better at than the Dems for the last 20 years, even with bad ideas and policies that go nowhere i.e. Gingrich's Contract with America and No Child Left Behind. Obama never said he LIKED Reagan. And besides, for a long time wasn't it cool to be a Reagan Democrat? Why is it now such a terrible thing? I would rather be that than a Bush Republican. Besides, Obama can hardly say he is a "Clinton Democrat". Jeez.

Spook

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:07:16 -0600

fair enough UTV. Ward up, the majority of the democratic party is like McCain( with out the independence) including O'Bama who likes Reagan

matilda

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:06:32 -0600

Spook: It's called ass-kissing. Not pretty, but everyone does it, including your guy, and most likely the Green you will vote for--it's not easy keeping any collection of people together. The real test is how much of the ass-kissing will influence policy, and how willing the winning candidate will be to turn on some of these people and tell them to kiss his or her ass. Then again, I was disturbed when McCain said, more or less, the US was better off with a Christian leader. He was probably stating the obvious--I think we are a long way from electing a Jew, much less a Muslim or pagan--but it was still disturbing.

Prescott Carlson

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:06:24 -0600

I think Hillary still campaigning in Mich. and Fla. was a very forward thinking strategy -- if she gets the nomination, the residents of those states will remember her as the candidate that "cared" about them while being ignored by the others. She also got to posture about how she would fight to make their votes count -- even though she's certainly not going to rock the DNC boat at this point. Lastly, given how uninformed the general electorate is, I would love to see a poll as to how many voters nationwide even know that Mich. and Fla. were stripped of their delegates -- they just see it as a "win" in Hillary's column and it builds momentum in their minds.

Ward Up

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:03:31 -0600

John McCain might be more appropriate as the Democratic nominee. Aside from is pro-Iraq war talk, he is not acting like a Republican. If McCain is the nominee, a lot of Republicans will stay home on election day. Will McCain grab enough independents to make up the loss of votes from the Republican base? That's a question that Romney supporters are using. Romney is a panderer, but at least Republicans know that he is a Republican. He'll get the votes from the base.

UTV

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:00:37 -0600

I think it's been pretty well ferreted out that McCain only reaches out to those Left Behind series readers in an effort to get the party nomination. A large portion of the Republican party is broken in that they're convinced a Christan white male must lead them into the promised land. McCain appealed to a lot of moderates by shrugging off that sludge (notice how right wing Republicans hate him), but to actually get to run for President against whoever the Democrats pick, he's got to get his hands dirty and convince at least a few of those Pat Robertson zombies to give him their primary vote. I'd bet if he secured the nomination, we wouldn't hear "Christian nation this" and "under God" that. I'm not saying I'd vote for him, but I don't believe he's trying to push the same religious agenda as Bush or Huckabee.

Spook

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:38:58 -0600

p.s I mean the dude can't even throw out the first pitch!

Spook

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:36:34 -0600

McCain is the Bob Jones candadite! He criticized Bush for campaigning at Bob Jones University back in 2000, but this election cycle who went to Bob Jones U and praised it as an instutition? The same man who endorsed Alabama Lt. Governor candidate George Wallace Jr, a member of of the racist Council of Conservative Citizens, John McCain And he can't lift his arms above his shoulders!

Spav1

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:18:13 -0600

Anarch: Then one more reason for him not to be President. Also, he can't lift his arms above his shoulders.

AnarchX

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:10:54 -0600

ummm, and no offense to any veterans out there (my dad is one) but i think the statement "... military experiences in general don't cause psychological harm" is incorrect. i'm willing to bet that more often than not it DOES cause irreparable psychological harm of some sort. it ain't natural to kill and be shot at and all that other war like stuff...

matilda

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:00:10 -0600

Spav: Well, being 71 now is a lot different from being 71 some 20 years ago, so I am not overly concerned. And I think Reagan's problems were less his creeping senility than his style of management and how he saw the role of president. Lou Cannon's biography is a good account of this if you don't already know. I hope when people question McCain's POW experience, they remain on the subject (for instance, PTSD), though, and not drift off into some bullshit Swift Boat-like mental states.

Spook

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:46:59 -0600

My candadite is about to bow out. Looks like I'm voting Green.

Spav1

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:33:31 -0600

I totally get that military experiences in general don't cause psychological harm, and that it is probably good for a President to have military experience. I think that McCain's unique situation of being tortured for an extended period of time probably left him in a fragile mental state or caused some sort of PTSD. Also, he would be older than Reagan was when he took office. And looked how well that turned out.

PhotoshopAbuser

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:29:04 -0600

Gonna miss Guiliani though...it was fun guessing how long it would take him to bring up 9/11.

matilda

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:26:48 -0600

Good points about his temper, Spav. And you are right to question the POW experience. He is running for pres, after all. But I would much, much rather have McCain than Romney, a bigger liar and opportunist than Kerry or Bill Clinton. And God forbid the stars fall and we get Huckabee. Be careful about Iraq, Spav. McCain may want to keep us there forever, but that might happen anyway even with a Dem in charge thanks to other factors, not the least of which is deciding upon a withdraw plan (for all you kiddies out there, pulling out your forces can be harder logistically and politically than putting them in).

UTV

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:20:22 -0600

I think it's simple enough - Obama gives the Democrats a much better chance in the election that Hillary does. Regardless of whatever connotations you want to put on the fact that a great number of individuals dislike her, it's a simple fact that some people will take the "vote against Hillary" tack. Matilda, I agree that McCain would be preferable to the kind of Bob Jones University candidate we've all come to dread. Spay, I'm frankly a little put off by the fact that you say his POW experiences should disqualify him from being president. Was Eisenhower also driven "mad," or was he okay? How about Andrew Jackson? George Washington had to fight against a world power in guerilla conditions. Surely, this might cause madness. I'm not saying McCain is any of these people, but don't presume to comprehend a veteran's ware experience and mold it to your own ideology about a party of individual.

Spav1

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:05:47 -0600

Matilda: I don't think he is "reasonable" or "honorable" at all. This is a myth created by the media. McCain is well known for having an insane temper and yelling at colleagues and subordinates alike. Further, after the disgusting smear job on his family by the Bush Campaign in 2000 (calling his wife a drug-addict, saying that he had a black baby) he hired the same people to run his campaign in 2008. Ew. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em I guess. Also, he basically wants to keep us in Iraq forever. Footnote: Everyone thinks that it is a GOOD thing that he was imprisoned and tortured for 6 years. I think this probably drove him mad. I think this ought to disqualify him from being President, but whatever.

matilda

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:51:52 -0600

If the Dems do manage to lose the election this year--I fear they are clumsy enough to mess this up--I hope McCain is the Republican that gets in. I don't always agree with him, especially on Iraq, but I think he is a reasonable and honorable person, especially compared with Romney and the lesser lights still in the race. And, despite his recent ass kissing to some of the leaders of the Jesus freaks, he is not a Bible nut himself.

Spav1

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:47:19 -0600

Giuliani's campaign strategy will probably go down as the worst in history. And Hillary is like that kid who no one invites to the party but shows up anyway to prove how "popular" she is, when really, it is lame. FL and MI must be feeling pretty stupid about moving their primaries up, especially if both Hillary and Obama are both viable candidates after Super Tuesday. Then states like Mississippi and Nebraska will come into play. Who would have thought that a year ago the Dems would be battling in marginal states for delegates?

kookybites

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:30:11 -0600

Congratulations, Hillary, for winning in a state that no other candidate from your party bothered to campaign in. Let's recap the delegate count from the Florida primary... Hillary 0, Obama 0. Mmmmhmm, a result worthy of a fiery victory speech.