Mr. Maverick's next move.

[Dachshund]

I admit I'm a stone cold, political junkie. I don't limit myself to reading the left's take on this election, but dutifully hold my nose and scour the right's (Weekly Standard, NRO, American Conservative, etc.) views. The right wing blogs and the talking heads on cable, I skip altogether. Nothing to see there.

What I have found is that the right telegraphs their punches. William Kristol publishes his interview with Palin a couple of weeks ago where she says the gloves should come off and bam, two weeks of non stop Ayers and Obama were lovers. A not very transparent political tactic. It didn't work. Oh, it fired up the ultra-right Republican base, but pretty much turned the rest of America's stomach. ALL polling from Fox on down proves it a losing strategy. The only thing it accomplished was continue to drive down the McCain/Palin unfavorables and increase the Obama/Biden favorables. I think the dagger in the heart of that strategy came when our boy from the street, calmly told McCain, "say it to my face." That was a stone, cold, bitch slap. We heard it.

So here's my prediction. From what I'm smelling coming out of the right this morning, is one last, pathetic attempt at a McCain game changer. Before the debate, Mr Maverick will fire Ric Davis his campaign manager and Steve Schmidt the Rove protoge running McCain's win at all cost tactics. He'll offer one last weak attempt to renew his Maverick status as the guy who does the right thing.

So there you have it. If I'm wrong I'll put lipstick on that pig.

edited to add:

If you read nothing else bookmark this site.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

[Andy Velez]

Doxie, I'm grateful McCain doesn't have your savvy running his maverick campaign. I'm reminded of the reporter who in 1932 said that if Roosevelt's opponent, (whose name I can't even recall right now),  made one more speech, FDR would carry Canada.

[komnaes]

I don't think he has a next move in him and I am sure there are darker (weaker?) moments during these days that he just wants to make sure he doesn't go down in history as a joke.

The best that he can hope for is a surprise - video from Osama, some sort of attack, etc - to really swing the poll numbers. Otherwise all he could do is to leave it to the vindicative and highly unethical election machines that were set up for Bush and count on the most radical and racist elements of the right wing to threaten voters, local smear campaigns, etc, or commit outright frauds.

My only prediction is that come election day - it will become one of the nastiest, shameless and, god forbids, most violence one you guys will see in years.

[Dachshund]

I rest my case, look for heads to roll before the debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13kristol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[J.R.E.]

I love it !...

The McCain campaign, once merely problematic, is now close to being out-and-out dysfunctional. Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic. If the race continues over the next three weeks to be a conventional one, McCain is doomed

Ray

[Miss Philicia]

Ha ha, I was just going to post that Kristol "call to arms" as I'd just read it.  Still, it would look so messy doing that 3 weeks out, wouldn't it?  At any rate the problem is very simple -- McCain is just void of any ideas, and he lurches too much from one contradictory thing to another.  From what I have read he did this in 2000, it's just that nobody much notice.  I can imagine that's rather impossible to control.

The Republicans are in a perfect storm anyway -- they're losing tons of congressional seats.  It's all like the last days of Jimmy Carter, but for the opposite party.  I'm just glad I've lived to see this after decades of conservativism.

[Dachshund]

Ha ha, I was just going to post that Kristol "call to arms" as I'd just read it.  Still, it would look so messy doing that 3 weeks out, wouldn't it?  At any rate the problem is very simple -- McCain is just void of any ideas, and he lurches too much from one contradictory thing to another.  From what I have read he did this in 2000, it's just that nobody much notice.  I can imagine that's rather impossible to control.

The Republicans are in a perfect storm anyway -- they're losing tons of congressional seats.  It's all like the last days of Jimmy Carter, but for the opposite party.  I'm just glad I've lived to see this after decades of conservativism.

Sully agrees: Blood in the water anyone?

Monday, October 13, 2008
13 Oct 2008 10:37 am

Fire Me
That's Kristol's spin today. Having spent his last column urging McCain to go on the negative attack, he now advises exactly the opposite. That is his prerogative, of course. But an actual journalist would acknowledge that he has changed his mind and take responsibility for his previous advice, given just days ago. Kristol, in all this, is Rovian. It's never about intellectual honesty or accountability and always about short-term power. Then Kristol joins me in a call for Palin to hold a real press conference:

[leatherman]

most violence one you guys will see in years.

violence at the voting polls? in America?  Not much of that in America since about 1870 after the Civil War. (Though there may have been some incidents scattered about, I don't remember hearing of a report of violence at the polls during my lifetime. Voter harassment and disenfranchisement, yes; but not violence.) "Violence" can't be the word you mean with the apathetic voting record of US citizens for the last 30 yrs.

[Cliff]

Yeah, the violent comment threw me as well.

[Dachshund]

The way the McNasties have been campaigning I don't think suggesting violence is a stretch at all.

Palin really threw out the red meat this weekend campaigning in Wisconsin. She literally said that Obama supports legislation that kills babies. That his healthcare plan would kill babies. She came as close as you can get to calling Obama a baby killer. I don't think Sean meant that we would see fisticuffs erupting outside the polling booth, but then I never thought I would see bombs blowing up outside abortion clinics. 

edited to add:

One of the most opaque, misleading and emotionally-charged attacks on Barack Obama focuses on his votes as a state senator in Illinois on so called "Born Alive" legislation. Late last week, the criticism became an official part of the McCain campaign's regular messaging. From my new Time.com story on the topic:

"As a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn't even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion," [Sarah] Palin said on Saturday, during a Johnstown, Penn. rally. "These infants, often babies with special needs, are simply left to die." . . .

Two days earlier, during an appearance on the Laura Ingraham radio program, Palin said Obama had voted against providing medical care to babies who are alive after abortions. "It's very appalling," Palin said. "If more Americans could understand how absolutely extreme that position is, there would be a heck of a lot more outrage than we have already seen." Hours later, in Wisconsin, she repeated the charge that Obama had voted against providing "health care for a child who was born alive as a result of a botched abortion."

In each case, Palin's words were carefully chosen for maximum effect, without employing any outright falsehoods. Taken in isolation, however, her statements were also quite misleading, as they suggested Obama supported the death of babies after birth who had a chance of survival. The reality is very different.

[Dachshund]

Delicious, just delicious.

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol said John McCain’s campaign has really become “a pathetic campaign.” In his New York Times op-ed this morning, Kristol went further, suggesting that McCain should “fire his campaign” and “start over.” Asked to respond to Kristol’s criticisms, McCain campaign spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer said on Fox News:

Well, you know Bill is entitled to his perspective. And I used to work for Bill. And I can tell you personally sometimes he’s brilliant and sometimes he’s not. And this is one where it’s the latter category. You know, I think unfortunately he has bought into the Obama campaign’s party line.

Said with a straight face, I might add.

[komnaes]

Yeah, sorry guys, the violence part might be because I was watching these before I wrote my comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHrExRHZnm0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKUovpF9LWU

I have never seen such extreme sentiments being stirred up in any of the elections in my life time.

[Joe K]

Given the tone of this election, I actually expect to see some violence, because many McCain supporters are outright racists and bigots.  When you wonder why our HIV services are underfunded, just remember these people, because they represents millions of Americans, who also think the same way about people with HIV.  Add gay or drug-user to the mix and you have a veritable hate fest.  What voters think, not only affects elections, it influences major policy decisions because representatives are often swayed by their extreme views.

I believe that there will be violence with this election.  I also believe, that if anything happens to Senator Obama, within the next year, both John McCain and Sarah Palin will have blood on their hands.

[leatherman]

I believe that there will be violence with this election.

I still think it's disingenuous and a lot of hyperbole to suggest that in a world where people have truly suffered violence during their elections (Bosnia, Iraq, Pakistan) that this American election will be the first in over 100 yrs to be violent. Sure those were hate-filled bigots screaming epithets; but I've heard worse at pro-ball games, and by kids walking the streets in my neighborhood. (It's sad to say, but civility has gone out the window for many Americans.)

After the last 30 yrs, I think many Americans are too apathetic to go vote, much less engage in violence during this election. It's not the 60s anymore, and no "revolution" is brewing. Barely 54% of eligible Americans have voted during the last four decades of presidential elections, and it's even a smaller percentage of those 54% that might possibly instigate violence. In today's more "secure" America, I'm sure there are plenty of police around polling locations to arrest anyone who would be so foolish as to start violence.

I am not saying that I approve or agree with those "agitated" people in those videos. They, and their ideas and opinions, do scare me. However, I saw nothing but Americans exercising their right to free speech (we could have a debate about where to draw a line for "free speech" vs "hate speech" in a different thread). No one in those vids were committing any criminal acts or violence. Like most bullies, the vast majority of those people are all bluster and would never risk a physical confrontation. Suggesting that violence might erupt at the voting polls strikes me instead more as some neocon scare tactic to keep people from going to the polls. I'm sure that's not what you meant to do ; but that is the message you convey when you suggest that violence could occur during voting.

[Joe K]

Maybe I should have used the term "physical altercation", but I still think there will be episodes at some of the polls.  I might have a skewed view, but I lived in Detroit in 1966 and far too many white residents, were just as angry and ugly, regarding blacks and that led to the riots of 1967.  I want to believe that it will not happen again, however, there is so much emphasis on violence in America, and I believe that, far too many people see it as a reasonable reaction.  Even our president advocates a strike first mentality.

I have also been dismayed by the tenor of this election, as I am comparing the presidential race in America, to the race for prime minister in Canada.  Political advertising in Canada is so polite, you hardly know you are watching an ad.  I watch the rallies and debates in Canada and never are there personal attacks on any of the candidates.  I think Americans are at a breaking point, and who can blame them.  Our government has failed us and now we have candidates inciting hateful behavior on the part of voters.  With all the tensions and pressure, I am afraid that someone will blow up. 

[Assurbanipal]

I have also been dismayed by the tenor of this election, as I am comparing the presidential race in America, to the race for prime minister in Canada.  Political advertising in Canada is so polite, you hardly know you are watching an ad.  I watch the rallies and debates in Canada and never are there personal attacks on any of the candidates.  I think Americans are at a breaking point, and who can blame them.  Our government has failed us and now we have candidates inciting hateful behavior on the part of voters.  With all the tensions and pressure, I am afraid that someone will blow up. 

Is this the same Canada where people with a Liberal yard sign in their front yard are now checking under their cars to see if someone cut the brake lines?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/10/america/toronto.php

Sorry, couldn't resist -- I do think that the idea of widespread violence in either the US or Canadian elections is pretty unlikely.

A

[Oceanbeach]

I think it was on the Katie Couric interview with Gov. Soccer Mom Interview...

What would a maverick do to solve this problem?

Well first, we would decide what a maverick would do and then do that...

Never waste perfectly good lipstick on a pig    Have the best day
Michael