McCain-Lieberman 2008?
God help us all. Please don’t me wrong: I *highly* respect both Senators, mostly because of their determination and willingness to fight World War III. But I also *vehemently* disagree with both Senators on a variety of important issues facing this nation.
The idea of McCain (as nominee) picking Joe Lieberman makes me want to completely vomit. I have repeatedly suggested to PatriotPartner that McCain will do precisely this, since the Arizona Senator he has frequently used the term “unity governing.” And we all know that McCain and Lieberman are now almost as close as McCain and his man-panion, Lindsey Graham.
But, for crying out loud… how would this work? First of all, as PatriotPartner reminds me, it isn’t the nominee who ultimately choses his/her running mate: It is the party delegates at the convention who vote.
Would the Republican Party really choose a pro-choice, former Democrat Senator from Connecticut to be on its National ticket with a top-ticketer who already draws ire from the conservative base?
Since I’m not the only one thinking this…. I guess we need to get it out there to discuss.
Excuse me while I go expunge these thoughts in the nearest toilet.
Rudy… please save us in Florida from the madness we are about to endure!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
49 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I like Joe Lierberman a heck of a lot more than I like John McCain. And I’d vote for either before I’d vote for Guiliani. That said, as long as the top of the ticket is occupied by a Republican other than Guiliani, I’d have no problem pulling the lever.
Of course, the ideal ticket would be Thompson/Lieberman, but that’ll never happen.
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — January 22, 2008 @ 8:25 am - January 22, 2008
John McCain is going to bump into something or someone and go ballistic on national television. The McQueeg personality is lurking close to the surface in him and it has to break free sooner than later.
Lieberman already took the job as prom queen with Sir Albert of Gore. He was paraded around and molested in public and dumped like stale beer for his efforts. If he signs up for that job again – especially with a lunatic – he proves himself to be an idiot. Furthermore, he is a champion of too many liberal spending schemes. I would rather have Hillary and then fight her every step.
Comment by heliotrope — January 22, 2008 @ 8:45 am - January 22, 2008
The VP is the president of the Senate, and breaks legislative ties. The GOP isn’t going to let Sen. McCain choose a non-Republican as running mate, even as distinguished a one as Sen. Lieberman. McCain might choose a fellow “uniter” like Mayor Giuliani to cement his appeal among independents, or he may choose someone like Sen. Thompson to shore up his support among conservatives.
I’m surprised you’re asking for a Giuliani win in Florida — he’s even farther to the left than McCain. Sure, both types of candidates draw from the same kind of voter, but in the end, if _together_ they have enough votes to get the nomination, one of them might just throw support to the other and become the running mate, as in the days of yore, when these things were actually decided at conventions.
Comment by Bla — January 22, 2008 @ 8:56 am - January 22, 2008
What sort of uniting would be accomplished with Lieberman? The liberals still hate his guts even after throwing him under the bus a few years back.
Besides, why in the hell should we unite with liberals? We’re supposed to defeat them, not pander to them.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 22, 2008 @ 11:14 am - January 22, 2008
There is precedent for such a ticket. Abraham Lincoln´s VP during his second term, Andrew Johnson was a Union Democrat. We all know what happened. Even though he wanted to follow through on what Lincoln had begun regarding Reconstruction, he failed for lack of support from Republicans and radicals overriding his vetoes. Ultimately impeachment.
Considering Mc Cain´s age (although Roanld Reagan turned 71, two weeks after his inauguration) it is possible that Lieberman could become president. He still caucases with Democrats. Theoretically, if McCain defeats Bilary or Oprama, and he makes his transition while still president, the Dems gain control of the White House.
Rumor has it that Fred will withdraw due to his poor third place finish in South Carolina. I had hoped that he would be another Reagan but apparently without a script he doesn´t come across like he did on Law and Order. I´m not enamored with any of the other candidates but as I said before a Giuliani/Thompson ticket could be a winner.
Comment by Roberto — January 22, 2008 @ 11:47 am - January 22, 2008
No need to discuss such a GOP ticket because it will never, ever happen… no matter which pundit-of-the-hour thinks the notion has merit. I’m confident that the party convention in St Paul will ultimately be a brokered convention in that no single candidate will have the needed delegates to secure the nomination… and that the ego & smarts of each candidate will prohibit anyone but FreddieT pleading to toss their delegates for a Veep bid… and FreddieT’s delegate count won’t make a difference.
At the convention, McCain will have his initial block of delegate votes based on his primary wins in states with sizeable independent voter participation… but when those delegates are free to vote for the candidate of their preference, McCain will be out faster than it takes FreddieThompson to set his snooze alarm.
At that point, couple those former “McCain pledged” delegates –who will all be true, blue credentialed GOP Party regulars– with the remaining GOP delegates who arrive at the convention from a variety of avenues– and the true sense of the Party will line up behind Mitt Romney.
To McCain’s distinct disadvantage, there won’t be any “independent” voters on the floor when it comes time to select the candidates… just party regulars and that’s a group of partisans who have little or no tolerance for JohnMcCain… surge success or not. The same holds true for Giuliani… he isn’t liked by the rank-file GOPers… his appeal is, at best, lukewarm and out-of-sync with the people who will be picking the nominee at Xcel Energy Center in St Paul this summer.
An enlightened dream ticket would be Romney-Rice… with Rice doing the foreign policy angle as long as Romney allows her… and he would if it meant securing the nomination. Cheney has proven the office of veep can be a whole lot more than AlGore ever dreamed.
Romney-Rice.
The Bush family will be working the current power-machine in the GOP long and hard in anticipation of a brokered convention… and their guy is Mitt. 100%.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 22, 2008 @ 2:31 pm - January 22, 2008
My hope in a brokered convention is that the party dumps all the current candidates and nominates Condeleeza Rice. If the Democrats are faced with something like Clinton-Vilsack, I’d like an option I could consider on the other side of the ticket. I highly respect Secretary Rice, but wouldn’t be swayed with her as #2 to Romney.
If I were choosing from the current crop of Republicans, I’d most like Giuliani to appear on the other side of my ballot. And if I can’t have either of them, then I’d like Bloomberg on the ballot. Anyone up for another “I Like Mike!” campaign?
Comment by Chase — January 22, 2008 @ 3:06 pm - January 22, 2008
Well keep in mind that McCain considered a Kerry/McCain ticket in 2004. So a McCain/Liebermann slate is right up his alley. As we go forward into closed Republican primaries, maybe conservatives would rather vote for their own instead of a hybred. And by the way, why is it that Republicans have to reach out to the other side? Why no talk of a Hillary/Thompson ticket. A Hillary/Huckabee ticket. On that one you’d have the evangelicals plus the apostates.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 22, 2008 @ 3:48 pm - January 22, 2008
If the party selects McCain, it might as well have selected Lieberman, and vice-versa. It won’t matter, the party will be dead until the Rockefeller Republicans are purged.
Comment by Crow — January 22, 2008 @ 3:50 pm - January 22, 2008
Even though PatriotPartner is correct as to the way things are supposed to go at a convention. We all know that the candidate’s wishes are usually adhered to, no matter what. It would be just like McCain to pick Joe. I keep saying we need a street fighter and the only one is RUDY!!!
Please Florida give us what we need for a win.
Comment by patriotMom — January 22, 2008 @ 4:08 pm - January 22, 2008
I’m no fan of Rice’s: she has been a different woman in Bush’s second term, and I’m not talking about a change for the better. Having said that: I have long thought that Rice is the only possible Veep choice, if the Republicans are serious about neutralizing Hillary / Obama and winning in November. If they run two white men: Their odds go way down.
Just let it be Giuliani-Rice.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 22, 2008 @ 4:41 pm - January 22, 2008
At the Convention, the delegates will be faced with two options; ideological purity…or winning the election. I fear they’ll choose “purity”…and political extinction as a viable National party. As an ideologically-pure Social-conservative Party, they can win regional state-houses and county court-houses based on local activism. BUT…You can’t win a Nationally-contested election from the Far Right; you need the Northeastern Progressives, the Business-Republicans and at least some of the moderate Democrats and Independents to cross party-lines. I just don’t see McCain gaining the support of the Right who fear his willingness to accomodate Lieberman and the “moderates”. And Giuiliani’s going to hit a brick wall by Super-Tuesday, and no-one’s going to want him around as the Veep either. So who does that leave you with?
With Hillary on the ticket, an ideologically-motivated Republican ticket MIGHT win; but if it’s Obama vs. a Romney-Huckabee ticket expect a landslide Democratic electoral victory.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 22, 2008 @ 6:41 pm - January 22, 2008
per “We all know that the candidate’s wishes are usually adhered to, no matter what” and therefore, John McCain will get Lieberman if he wants him for veep.
Um, no.
What’s missing from that opinion is the simple fact that on most occasions, the incoming putative nominee HAD control of the Party apparatus… the only time in my memory when that wasn’t the case was the infamous case of 1976 Convention when RonnieReagan tried to off JerryFord just because Ronnie had captured a block of NCarolina redneck delegates… and Ronnie’s stunt gave us JimmineyCricketCarter, stagflation, malaise and the rise of IslamoFacism.
The faction within the Party that controls the Convention can exert incredible untoward pressure on a nominee(s) who is/are considered outside the Party’s loyalty circle… maybe a maverick senator who’s taken potshots at the incumbent Prez? And they can assist a brokered convention is making the right choice… on Prez and veep.
The forces supportive of a Romney bid hold the key leadership positions within the Party and, guess what, they don’t have to do what McCain wants them to do if they don’t think it’s compelling. And they sure as hell don’t need do it if it’s a brokered convention and McCain or Rudy don’t have the requiste 1190 delegates.
Party leadership control… from Mike Duncan as RNC Chair on down. Ohio’s Rob Bennett will chair the very important Credentials Co and he’s yet another loyal Romney guy. In fact, count up the delegates that are appointed independent of primary/caucus processes and that’s a potential base of “new” Romney delegates awaiting action… and they’re all appointed by Party stalwarts, from Party stalwarts, for Party control of the process. The key to nomiating the right guy isn’t what a group of non-aligned independents think… or even Democrats playing hookey and mischief in GOP primaries as 7-9% did in Michigan. We all know McCain doesn’t have substantial support in the Party’s leadership… he’s been pandering to the unaligned for help and that never sits well with the Party regulars who feel out-voted and disenfranchised.
The candidate doesn’t always get his way… it’s who controls the Party appartus that matters inside the Convention. And that’s what it looks like the 2008 convention will head towards… McCain, Rudy, Romney and Huckabee battling it out behind the scenes within the constructs of the rules SET BY the Party leadership.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 22, 2008 @ 8:39 pm - January 22, 2008
Robert Tracinski is a writer I’ve slowly learned to respect. In this article, he explains why Republicans must be saved from McCain.
As for this:
Here’s another way to look at it:
There, fixed it for ya.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 22, 2008 @ 9:04 pm - January 22, 2008
Tracinski’s thesis, to whet people’s appetite:
And then he backs it up. Read the whole thing.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 22, 2008 @ 9:06 pm - January 22, 2008
I hate all these “electability” litmus tests.. it just seems folly to me.
Screw electability.. go with ideas and a plan.. And go with the person who has the best
Didn’t the Democrats fool themselves into thinking Kerry was electable. Didn’t the GOP fool themselves into thinking Dole was electable?
Comment by Vince P — January 22, 2008 @ 9:14 pm - January 22, 2008
Good point, Vince P. Every time either party has picked someone based on what they THINK should appeal to the other… they’ve screwed up.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 22, 2008 @ 9:24 pm - January 22, 2008
Why not draft Colin Powell and Candi Rice for veep this way we can trump the Dems is Oprama is their nominee. We could be the first withan all African American ticket and Condi being a woman we´ll have that base covered too.
Comment by Roberto — January 22, 2008 @ 10:21 pm - January 22, 2008
I think Hillary has got the leftist nomination wrapped up. They’ve taken the gloves off and Barack isn’t up to fighting back with the viciousness that the Clinton’s are. A curious question. If the Dems and Clintons believe in affirmative action…why isn’t this Obamas turn to serve. Shouldn’t Bill and Hill be asked why they are standing in the way of a minority overcoming disadvantages?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 22, 2008 @ 10:31 pm - January 22, 2008
Huckabee is pulling out if Florida, that fairy tale is coming to an end. So it’s down to Mitt Mac and Rudy. I for one would like to see a civil sit down debate between Rudy and Romney. And I’ll choose between the two.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 22, 2008 @ 10:36 pm - January 22, 2008
Just voted for Mitt in Fl to STOP McCain.
The Media ’s choice must be Stopped.
Comment by burt — January 22, 2008 @ 10:39 pm - January 22, 2008
What? Like France? We could call ourselves France II.
So run a black or woman for the sake of doing so like the liberals, eh? That’ll show ‘em. Won’t necessarily do us good, but damn, it will make some feel good.
And Powell can drop down to the fifth ring and cook before he got my vote.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 22, 2008 @ 11:06 pm - January 22, 2008
Hey, you know what would be even more fun?
McCain/de Villepin ‘08!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 22, 2008 @ 11:20 pm - January 22, 2008
Vince offers “I hate all these “electability” litmus tests.. it just seems folly to me. Screw electability.. go with ideas and a plan.. And go with the person who has the best (plan/ideas)”
While it might make armchair pundits feel all “gooey” all over to contort yet another “screw ‘em” solution to yet another life situation… the whole reason behind primaries, Vince, is to find the most electable nominee and select him/her from the pack of wanna-be nominees. Electability IS the purpose behind the process.
If parties picked candidates the way you propose, I’d argue the great icon RonnieR would have never made it to the convention… during the primaries, he was painted as a war monger… a loose cannon on a shifting ship… a throwback to the past… a voodoo economic culprit… and worst of all… a has been actor with Hollywood values (see 2d wife, see estranged kids, see ballet dancing son, see moonbeam daughter, see labor organizer and executive (oh my god)… etc.
It was only because Geo Bush 41 was on the ticket and could be trusted to settle down the silver pistol war monger RonnieR that the team won election in 1980.
Come on. It’s ALL about electability. And for that reason, it ought to be about the true Party regulars picking THEIR choice… not weekend independents and frauding Democrat voters.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 23, 2008 @ 7:13 am - January 23, 2008
Matt: Do what you want.. if you dont think ideas matter then fine, run a RINO. I wont vote for him. Neither will a lot of people. Maybe you dont realize it but we already have one socialist party, we don’t need two, and no one is going to vote for the Republican Party if it’s not principled.
Comment by Vince P — January 23, 2008 @ 7:47 am - January 23, 2008
TGC, a Powell Rice ticket not only one ups the Dems but either one is far more qualified than Oprama. Their resumes are far more impressive. These are two people with real international relations experience. McCain lead the largest squadron in the navy. Powell lead the whole military. Before Fred even hinted at entering the race I signed on to the draft Condi movement. Obama thinks having lived in a foreign country during his prepubescent years counts as foreign relations experience. With that criterion, having been born and raised in Italy until my early teens and presently living in El Salvador must make me an expert. With Fred having thrown in the towel and neither Colin or Condi are candidates I don´t know who I will vote for on super Tuesday when I return to L.A.
Comment by Roberto — January 23, 2008 @ 8:53 am - January 23, 2008
ROFL
That is true. And, by that definition, “electability” can have no ideological component to it – in any direction. None. Whoever the primary voters vote for, IS “most electable”. If they decide on someone who is a consistent, philosophical conservative – or what you might call “too pure” or “not moderate” – Tough beans. Deal with it. Same if the primary voters end up voting for a shamnesty-RINO like McCain. Either way, the voters will have spoken. That IS (or will be) the most electable person, by your definition. You can never say, “We have to go with so-and-so instead because he will really be more electable”, because WHAT THE PRIMARY VOTERS VOTED FOR will be all that counts.
So congratulations, MM. You just deprived yourself of one of favorite arguments. An argument you might need, down the road.
So, in 1980, the voters were really voting for Bush 41? That’s a fantasy!!
Then again, you’re that guy who has seriously suggested before that the Ford presidency (1970s post-Watergate; 22% Republican registration rates; weakness in the face of the Soviet Union) was one of the GOP’s high-water marks.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2008 @ 12:06 pm - January 23, 2008
Nice try at Clinton-esque spin, ILC/Calarato/whatever… but you’ll have to bait the hook a lot better than drag me into one of your classic gutter level, nanny-I-told-you-so, harassing monologues.
Go find a site with cowboyBob on it… it suits your tactics better.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 23, 2008 @ 2:06 pm - January 23, 2008
And, MM’s insults come out.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2008 @ 2:22 pm - January 23, 2008
(which is how you know you’ve made your point
)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2008 @ 2:25 pm - January 23, 2008
Vince offers “Matt: Do what you want.. if you dont think ideas matter then fine, run a RINO.”
Um, no, again there Vince. I don’t care to use the term RINO, let alone classify someone as one… we don’t have RINOs in the Party… that’s a term used by angry armchair conservatives meant to shove party regulars and officeholders out of the BigTent. Divide and conquer isn’t an American value, it’s hateful.
I simply offered that independents and frauding Democrats shouldn’t be involved in picking the GOP’s nominee… anymore than they should have access to writing the Party’s platform. People who work within the Party and labor to advance political progress should be the ones picking the next nominee… I’m not a McCain supporter but he is a GOPer and if you don’t like that fact don’t get all red in the face with me.
Electability is still the reason for this season. It isn’t about purity tests on economic issues, social issues or who’s more willing to fry a pregnant Mom to save a dysfunctioning fetus or invade Pakistan to get binLaden.
Independents come into the mix after the primaries are complete and the convention has discharged its duties. But not before. Electability is the reason for the season… plans and ideas come into the mix as a way of proving one is ready to lead and has competency.
And if RonnieReagan hadn’t selected GBush41 as HIS running mate, sending a clear signal to America that someone with experience and gravitas would be keeping RonnieReagan within the sandbox of acting as President, I doubt Ronnie would have won even against Carter. Don’t get me wrong: Reagan turned out to be an above average president and a man uniquely suited for the time. But it wasn’t about ideas… it was, kind of like with John McCain now and Bob Dole in the past, Reagan’s turn for a grab at the ring and then-Party regulars knew it.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 23, 2008 @ 2:25 pm - January 23, 2008
ILC/Calarato offers “MM’s insults come out.”
Like I wrote, ILC, you’re going to have to bait that hook better to drag me into another one of your Nanny-esque monologues.
No thanks.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 23, 2008 @ 2:27 pm - January 23, 2008
A concession!
Sorry, champ. It was about ideas. The idea of saving America, instead of apologizing for it. The idea of slashing taxes and freeing the American people economically. The idea of resisting Communism. The idea of “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
That’s what Reagan promised. That, plus his personality and character, is what made Americans pick him in 1980, 1984 – and 1988. Bush 41 (in 1988) won Reagan’s third term… Reagan (in 1980) did not win Bush 41’s first term.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2008 @ 2:34 pm - January 23, 2008
Actually, Bush 41 (in 1988) is a perfect little illustration of where the GOP went wrong.
Remember, he ran on “Read my lips – No New Taxes!!!!!!!!!!!” Reagan’s 3rd term, again.
But did he stick to that principle? No. “The vision thing – It’s not about ideas / principles”, he might well have said when he betrayed the American people on that one, paving the way for Ross Perot and Clinton’s 1992 victory with only 43% of the vote.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2008 @ 3:02 pm - January 23, 2008
And MM – keep up the insults!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2008 @ 4:26 pm - January 23, 2008
I find it tasteless when someone calls Ronald Reagan “Ronnie”. For those who are contemptious to him, I am contemptious of that person.
Comment by Vince P — January 23, 2008 @ 5:13 pm - January 23, 2008
VinceP observes: “I find it tasteless when someone calls Ronald Reagan “Ronnie”.”
Ummm, Vince, then get ready to slam Nancy as tasteless, his brother Neil as tasteless, Nancy’s father and mother as tasteless, many of his friends and more than a few professional colleagues. I met RR on 7 occasions -face to face, handshake to handshake, conversation engaged.
He isn’t an icon for me… he isn’t a golden statute… he was a human with all the fame and foils that accompany our unique state.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 23, 2008 @ 5:33 pm - January 23, 2008
ILC/Calarato/whatever tries to bait the hook once again with “And MM – keep up the insults!” at #35.
Like I wrote, champ, “you’re going to have to bait that hook better to drag me into another one of your Nanny-esque monologues. No thanks.”
Again. Ugh.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 23, 2008 @ 5:35 pm - January 23, 2008
It’s even worse that you consider yourself on par wiht his immediate family.
Comment by Vince P — January 23, 2008 @ 7:02 pm - January 23, 2008
There you go again, MM. Still more of your trademark snarls, please
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2008 @ 7:28 pm - January 23, 2008
P.S. We can keep this up all night, MM. You do another snarl; I quietly ask for more. Beats trying to respond to my substantive points, eh?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 23, 2008 @ 7:50 pm - January 23, 2008
McCain wouldn’t choose Lieberman because it’d only serve to further expoit his greatest weakness, which is support amongst party regulars.
Exhibit A: The response of this message board.
But don’t place the carriage before the horse. Thompson’s exit has pushed Romney into a lead in Florida:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Florida_Release_012308.pdf
A loss for McCain in Florida could be devastating to his campaign, due to the winner take all nature of Florida’s primary and Romney’s cash advantage. It’s rarely noted by the press, but Romney is the delegate leader right now. The press magnified McCain’s two victories thus far because they were in traditional glamor primaries. However, due to the penalties the RNC levied against primary states for moving before Feb 5th (caucus states got an exemption on a technicality), Romney received more delegates out of his win in Wyoming (8) than McCain did in Hew Hampshire (7) and received more delegates out of Nevada (17) than McCain did in South Carolina (15). McCain is also having to do 7 fundraisers this week at a key junction when he needs to be campaigning in Florida. A Romney victory there would further McCain’s money woes.
Also of note, a Romney or McCain victory in FL would just about TKO Giuliani. It would open the door for Romney in Connecticut (another winner take all state, 27 delegates) and leave NY and NJ open to anyone able to capitalize on the opportunity (Some polls show McCain leading or close there). Since they’re also winner take all states, there is really no way Giuliani can get to the 1191 delegates needed to win the nomination without a solid block in the winner take all states of FL, CT, NY and NJ. Remember, because Giuliani chose note to compete in the early states, he only has 1 delegate thus far. That’s 58 behind Romney. With Florida having 57 delegates alone, Romeny could double his delegate lead over Giuliani in an instant. Which is why a loss in FL would effectively TKO Giuliani.
Comment by Chase — January 23, 2008 @ 8:11 pm - January 23, 2008
#36 On that topic. I find it a little rude when Dr. Rice is referred to as Condi. She’s the Secretary of State and has a PhD. I think it’s rude and disrespectful and I don’t even like her. Part of it is the American faux-familiarity routine where everyone makes like they are best friends with people they’ve never ever met.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 24, 2008 @ 4:44 pm - January 24, 2008
VinceP, where’d you get that I consider myself “on a par with his immediate family”? I don’t; I just don’t see him as a golden statute on a pedestal as you might… you wrote that people who call him Ronnie are tasteless… I proved you wrong again. I think people who call others tasteless are pompous bores, so what?
Remember, this all started with you claiming, in that angry armchair conservative manner, that damn all this “electability” nonsense about the primaries, let’s pick the best ideas and let that man win. Silly enough to become a YouTube question for the next Prez debate, I think.
I can understand that you’re frustrated to see RonPaul or FreddieT not receive a GOP coronation, but seriously, the enitre point of primaries is electability. As a loyal GOPer, I’m not willing to hazard the WH to serve some ill-suited angry impulse of armchair conservatives mad at society.
And ILC/Calarato, I’m not snarling… please point out something of substance you’ve written in this thread and I’ll respond on point. But if you just want to play your usual, tired games of nanny-debates, let it go.
BTW ILC/Calarato, RonnieR didn’t use “Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall” in his primaries of 1980 or 1984… he made that statement at the virtual end of his presidency… the wall came down two years later when Geo Bush 41 was Pres… oh, I know, you think that was RonnieR’s 3rd term. Um, right. LOL
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 25, 2008 @ 5:51 pm - January 25, 2008
LOL. I am neither a L Ron Paulistinian nor a FredHead.
Comment by Vince P — January 25, 2008 @ 6:03 pm - January 25, 2008
You’re really not too comfortable with the realm of principles and ideas, are you MM?
I’ll give you a hint. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” – as an *IDEA* of anti-communism and human freedom – was something Reagan had been saying at least 25 years, by the time he uttered that specific quote in 1986.
That’s part of how an idea works. It’s an *underlying* thing, that you give different expressions to, in different times and circumstances. Okay?
Wow, then I’d have to infer you don’t even know when you’re doing it anymore. Looking only at the comments of yours that were pure snarl (vs. content, interspersed with snarls), please see #28, #32, #38.
Again, MM, I really don’t mind. In fact, I kinda like it. It reinforces what I know to be true of you, from other encounters. So, please snarl some more!
Sure, no problem. As concerns your points, please see #11, #27, #33 and #34 . The effect of your “snarl comments” is to distract from discussion of all those points. Separately, I also made substantive points at #14, #15.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 27, 2008 @ 12:15 pm - January 27, 2008
P.S. Vince P, if you’re still around: I hope you understood that when I laughed in #27 at your comment, I was laughing from agreement with you, and from thinking you had summed it up very well.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 28, 2008 @ 3:37 pm - January 28, 2008
ILC: I understood your intent
Comment by Vince P — January 28, 2008 @ 5:42 pm - January 28, 2008
Perhaps if the sheepish Republicans had so easily believe the lies that Bush spread about McCain back in 2000, then we all could have been spared the worst 2 term presidency in the history of our nation.
Comment by Kevin — January 28, 2008 @ 6:31 pm - January 28, 2008