The McCain Campaign: Doleja Vu

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
On the surface, you would expect comparisons to be made simply on the basis of age. McCain going on 72, and Dole was 73 when he ran. But the similarities go beyond that, and Americans are rejecting McCain in a similar fashion even though the political and social climate of our country is much different now than it was in 1996 (undoubtedly much worse for the GOP now than it ever has been). This presidential race isn't really between two candidates; the focus from all directions is on Obama. He'll either win, or he'll lose; and much like Hillary, McCain is sticking around to see if his opponent will fumble the ball on the 1 yard line.

Bonus: New Ad - McCain, don't send our children into Iraq for the next 100 years.

Text

"Prominent Republicans...have been for the first time openly critical" of their candidate's "floundering campaign."

The "forces of inertia, arrogance and self-denial will probably conspire to keep the Republican establishment circling the wagons" around him, but his "yawning credibility gap" will result in "a spectacular defeat in November."

"Nearly half of those who plan to vote for him in November expect him to lose."

Someone being tough on John McCain?

Actually, I wrote all of the above about Bob Dole during his 1996 presidential campaign. But it fits John McCain like a glove, right down to his "shrunken vision for the greatest nation on earth" -- as I wrote about Dole on October 7, 1996.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week asked the question, "Who do you think will win?" The answer: Barack Obama 54; John McCain 30. Obama is unlikely to win in such a landslide, which means that millions planning to vote for McCain expect him to lose -- as was the case with Dole.

An already desperate McCain tried to make news last week by comparing Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter, but McCain should be careful about forcing people to make comparisons to ill-fated campaigns of the past.

As was the case in '96, we have a Republican nominee who is a war hero wounded in sacrifice for his country, personable and engaging, with a long Senate career, who is so out of sync with the times that his campaign feels stillborn. It's Doleja vu all over again.

As happened with Dole, prominent Republicans are already being openly critical of McCain's campaign. After McCain's lifeless June 2nd speech in front of the much-panned lime-green backdrop, Bill Kristol said: "There are lots of Republicans I have talked to are concerned. They're not panicked. They're concerned."

And they are right to be. What the GOP is going to learn too late (or, possibly, never) is that it's not just, as Kristol calls it, a matter of "presentation." It's a matter of message.

Republicans didn't lose control of Congress in 2006 because, as many of them -- in deep denial -- continue to believe they just didn't get their message out there. The message got out there all right. And it got rejected in November 2006, just as it should in November 2008.

Of course, McCain could have taken a different route. After all, once upon a time, he was a politician who actually was defined by his willingness to depart from the GOP message. No more. McCain has now completely abandoned his core principles, cashed in his maverick chips, and gone all-in with the GOP's right wing.

A man who once summed up why torture should never be an option by saying, "It's not about who they are, it's about who we are," is now embracing Bush's "shrunken vision" of America wholesale. A man who saved his political career by making campaign finance reform his signature issue, has done a 180 turn and loaded his campaign up with lobbyists.

According to a just-released Pew poll, when voters were asked to describe McCain, "maverick" didn't make the list. Nor did "reformer" or "independent." The most frequent word was: "old."

But McCain's problem isn't that he's too old -- it's that his ideas are too old. In fact, they can be traced back to the very first days of the Bush administration. He's got a 2003 Iraq strategy, a 2001 view of the economy, and a take on gay marriage that is straight out of the Dark Ages.

The question facing voters this year is: do you want a president who will take us into the future or do you want a president who's mired in the past? As Tommy Schlamme who, among many other great shows, executive produced The West Wing, told me: "Watching McCain's and Obama's speeches back-to-back the other night was like going from black-and-white TV to high-def."

So we are left with the sorry spectacle of a low-def candidate, one who has abandoned that which made him a real leader in the first place, now reduced to dutifully repeating the talking points of an administration the public is turning away from more and more every day. When he called last week's Supreme Court decision affirming the right of Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their detention in U.S. courts "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," he was tossing red meat to the right and parroting something he can't possibly believe. Upholding the Constitutional right to habeas corpus ranks up there with Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson, Senator? Really?

It's going to be a long, hot summer for McCain surrogates. What are they going to say? I got a taste last week when I was on Larry King with GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. She seemed to think the major issue Republicans could win running on was earmarks: "[McCain] has been with us, the House conservatives, on the issue of earmarks," she said. "Economic issues are the number one issues. And I do believe that those play to his strengths."

I'm sure the Obama campaign hopes the congresswoman and McCain truly believe that.

On the other hand, what else have they got? Iraq? Skyrocketing gas prices? Pink slips and foreclosures? When a campaign's game plan comes down to demonizing your opponent's wife, I'd say the big ideas needle is pointing to "Empty."

Kristol and other Republican pooh-bahs may want to chalk up their Party's woes to a glitch in "presentation" or to the media. But saying it won't make it true.

America has received the GOP's message loud and clear. And if John McCain continues to embrace it, he's going to meet the same fate as Bob Dole. On the bright side, I'm sure those Viagra commercials paid pretty well.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
He'll either win, or he'll lose
or they'll find him with a live boys and a dead hooker but it will all be a clinton plot!
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
I question the OPs assertion people are rejecting McCain. I heard there have been polls done where people were asked a generic question on candidates. They put a generic republican and a generic democrat on the ballot would they vote for? The generic democrat won by 11-14 points. Meaning people want a democrat candidate if all things were equal.

McCain is obviously beating the generic republican candidate by nearly 10 points or Obama is underperforming by the same. Either way things arent as rosy as the OP claims.

btw the OP should subscribe his RSS reader to more than one site. That is the purpose of the reader :D
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: loki8481
what's so bad about bob dole?
Nothing, if you're a Democrat.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
LMFAO. I heard that moveon 100 year ad and it's the funniest fucking thing I've heard on tv in quite some time. Just when you thought the betrayus debacle would be a high point, they prove they can continue moving on.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: lupi
LMFAO. I heard that moveon 100 year ad and it's the funniest fucking thing I've heard on tv in quite some time. Just when you thought the betrayus debacle would be a high point, they prove they can continue moving on.

These people are dumber than shit as well. Nothing turns people against your cause faster than being a hack. That ad will motivate the 5-10% of the populace who are lock step democrats, annoy the rest of the party and turn away about 80% of independents. You know the independents that need to win an election.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I do not think the democratic party or Obama needs to run on the decencies of McCain's prior record. Right now the democrats greatest campaign asset is GWB&co and the stinking public record it has run up. McCain will fail as a candidate simply on his unwillingness to separate itself from GWB.

The Republican party is badly split, some within the GOP blame McCain, but IMHO, the GOP is split because its leadership has lost its collective mind and the fact that McCain
has been the choice of the GOP electorate shows the GOP electorate is showing some sanity.

As it is, McCains too slavish support of GWB will probably doom him in the general election, but if the economy does not improve and if either the Iraqi or Afghani occupations experience problems, McCain will not stand a snowflakes chance in hell.

GOP policies are badly failing in the free market of results, the GOP needed a clean break with the past failed policies, and instead they only ran a person who only partially has a clue but has no new vision of a better way. In my posts, I have always tried to avoid using polarizing parodies plays on words of a candidates name. Names like the Hildabeast, Swillary, Ossama Obamarama, and the similar demeaning nicknames used by democrats may be funny to the partisan poster, but for McCain, the McSame is really going to sum him up.

Its somewhat of a shame, even as a partisan democrat, I find it difficult to even dislike McCain as a person, I think he honestly believes in much of what he is saying, but I simply can't vote for his policies.

But perhaps looking beyond this election that McCain is likely to lose badly, McCain is all too likely to catch the blame, and I think this country will find itself in bad future shape if
the GOP then decides they need to be more like GWB&co come 2012.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: lupi
LMFAO. I heard that moveon 100 year ad and it's the funniest fucking thing I've heard on tv in quite some time. Just when you thought the betrayus debacle would be a high point, they prove they can continue moving on.

These people are dumber than shit as well. Nothing turns people against your cause faster than being a hack. That ad will motivate the 5-10% of the populace who are lock step democrats, annoy the rest of the party and turn away about 80% of independents. You know the independents that need to win an election.

If you say so...
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: lupi
LMFAO. I heard that moveon 100 year ad and it's the funniest fucking thing I've heard on tv in quite some time. Just when you thought the betrayus debacle would be a high point, they prove they can continue moving on.

These people are dumber than shit as well. Nothing turns people against your cause faster than being a hack. That ad will motivate the 5-10% of the populace who are lock step democrats, annoy the rest of the party and turn away about 80% of independents. You know the independents that need to win an election.

That's not effect of negative ads. Those that slightly support XYZ will stay home and drink instead of voting.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Can't argue with much of that. As time goes on, the election does in fact approach a closer point at which it's barely worth holding it. I am having a hard time envisioning a win for McCain at all. He is too old, too much of the same. And in issues where he differs, like the environment, he merely mimicks his opponent, so he doesn't have much left.
is all too likely to catch the blame
I do hope that his party and not him takes the blame, because we need never to revist what we've had here.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: loki8481
what's so bad about bob dole?
Nothing, if you're a Democrat.

I wouldn't have voted for him, but I think he would have done a fine job as president.

all in all, it seems rather suspect when democrats criticize McCain's age and faculties when they embrace Robert Byrd and Frank Lautenberg readily enough.

if McCain is senile at 72, how can they support two senators in their 90's? (well, Lautenberg will be in his 90's by the time his next term is up after he gets reelected... he had a younger opponent in the primaries who got negative amounts of traction with the democratic party).
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,478
4,552
136
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: loki8481
what's so bad about bob dole?
Nothing, if you're a Democrat.

I wouldn't have voted for him, but I think he would have done a fine job as president.

all in all, it seems rather suspect when democrats criticize McCain's age and faculties when they embrace Robert Byrd and Frank Lautenberg readily enough.

if McCain is senile at 72, how can they support two senators in their 90's? (well, Lautenberg will be in his 90's by the time his next term is up after he gets reelected... he had a younger opponent in the primaries who got negative amounts of traction with the democratic party).

It's pretty simple: Senator not President.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,032
136
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: loki8481
what's so bad about bob dole?
Nothing, if you're a Democrat.

I wouldn't have voted for him, but I think he would have done a fine job as president.

all in all, it seems rather suspect when democrats criticize McCain's age and faculties when they embrace Robert Byrd and Frank Lautenberg readily enough.

if McCain is senile at 72, how can they support two senators in their 90's? (well, Lautenberg will be in his 90's by the time his next term is up after he gets reelected... he had a younger opponent in the primaries who got negative amounts of traction with the democratic party).

Well there's a pretty legitimate argument that the office of the President is so much more powerful then a Senate seat that the standards should be higher. As shown when Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with that brain tumor, the Senate still chugged right along without him. The same can't be said for the executive branch if the President is somehow incapacitated.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: loki8481
what's so bad about bob dole?
Nothing, if you're a Democrat.

I wouldn't have voted for him, but I think he would have done a fine job as president.

all in all, it seems rather suspect when democrats criticize McCain's age and faculties when they embrace Robert Byrd and Frank Lautenberg readily enough.

if McCain is senile at 72, how can they support two senators in their 90's? (well, Lautenberg will be in his 90's by the time his next term is up after he gets reelected... he had a younger opponent in the primaries who got negative amounts of traction with the democratic party).

It's pretty simple: Senator not President.

democrats are attacking his existing faculties, implying that he's senile... so it's ok to be senile in the senate?

Robert Byrd, 90, is third in line for the presidency. should he resign as president pro tempore because old people can't hack it?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
I've been comparing McCain to Dole for sometime now.

I freely admit that one of the biggest appeals to me about Obama is that he is more or less of my generation. I think this is important as one's age and time of upbringing tends to be one of the biggest influence's on one perspective and attitude.
This country is already a gerontocracy by democratic default (stupid youth don't vote). That's why old people have free healthcare and income (that "conservatives" rarely complain about and usually legislate) and the rest of us don't. Do we really want to elect leaders that are already well past retirement age? And does anyone here really believe that such a person would seek to serve their interests or share your perspective? Hell no IMO. McCain is just going to continue the same old "we're dying soon so screw our grandchildren" mentality that has already prevailed for far too long.

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: Vic
McCain is just going to continue the same old "we're dying soon so screw our grandchildren" mentality that has already prevailed for far too long.

gray hairs telling us to suck it up in 3... 2... 1...
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
America has received the GOP's message loud and clear.

I can't agree with that.

For some time now I've been thinking where IS the freakin message?

Either they ain't got one, or they ain't getting it out.

Even if they get one, I doubt McCain can get it out. He's a terrible campaigner.

The only Repub I've seen lately getting out a decent message (on oil drilling & gas prices etc) is Karl Rove, and he's not really involved in the campaign at any meaningful level.

Makes me wanna go off and google for info on McCain's campaign staff. Who are these slackers?

Fern

 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,158
6
81
Awesome! An unbiased Huffington Post link...I think I will check out this article since that blog has absolutely no political agenda.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
The Republicans may be allowing for the Democrat honeymoon over Obama to finish with the DNC in Denver.

They they will get the media spotlight and can come out swinging with the momentum.

Poke at the Dems and Obama to see what type of reactions happen to plan the overall assault. Learn from Clinton's mistakes & miscues.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,032
136
Originally posted by: Fern

I can't agree with that.

For some time now I've been thinking where IS the freakin message?

Either they ain't got one, or they ain't getting it out.

Even if they get one, I doubt McCain can get it out. He's a terrible campaigner.

The only Repub I've seen lately getting out a decent message (on oil drilling & gas prices etc) is Karl Rove, and he's not really involved in the campaign at any meaningful level.

Makes me wanna go off and google for info on McCain's campaign staff. Who are these slackers?

Fern

Well if you were John McCain, what message would YOU be trying to put out? I have to say it's a pretty hostile environment out there right now. I was just sitting here thinking about his platform, etc... and I'm really not sure what I would emphasize.

It seems like his only option is character assassination of Obama and so far he has refrained from doing it. I know I'm not the first person to say that his desire to run a decent campaign might be his undoing.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Well if you were John McCain, what message would YOU be trying to put out? I have to say it's a pretty hostile environment out there right now. I was just sitting here thinking about his platform, etc... and I'm really not sure what I would emphasize.

It seems like his only option is character assassination of Obama and so far he has refrained from doing it. I know I'm not the first person to say that his desire to run a decent campaign might be his undoing.

What message do I suggest? (Probably not one popular around here :D )

In no particular order:

1. Cut in spending. Earmarks need to be for investment in infrastructure. (In all fairness he does talk about this.)

Change in budgeting. I'd promise to stop Congress's habit of cooking the books. I.e., taking money from the gas tax to fund other crap than it's intended use would stop. User type-fees would be done strictly & fairly.

Social security funds would be invested in normal higher rate bonds. SS would look way better with that single move. This would put pressure on all other gov spending, but tough sh!t. Far too long SS has been ripped off by loaning it's funds to the gov via below market interest rates/yields.

2. Energy policy. Harp on high prices and Dem Congress's inactivity (and pull old quotes where many of them actually said high prices were a great thing etc) Drill ANWAR now. Come out and boldly say we're gonna be energy independant by so-and-such date. Eliminate subsidies for oil co's. Eliminate ethanol subsidies and requirments. Spend R&D for solar, wind, waste that's turned into energy (plants that use garbage - we've got a shortage of dumps - 2 birds, one stone) etc.

Dump cap-n-trade. Just get right to the objective and make power companies get the new equip to cut down on emissions. Maybe provide no-interest gov loans to lessen the hit on consumers, they're hammered enough by rising prices now. Borrow from Bill Clinton and talk about their pain.

3. Iraq. I think it's going a lot better than most here say. He needs to promote the h3ll out of that instead making jackass/flippant remarks about "100 years" or "not important when we withdraw" His campaigning on this is strikingly craptacular IMO.

4. Border control and increased measures to encourage self-deportation. While highly unpopular with the MSM, I think awfully popular with the average person on the street. Pimp the savings in Medicare, healthcare, education, food stamps/WIKI and welfare etc. I don't care who pulls what study out of their @ss that there's no costs, average people ain't buying it.

5. Health care. Insurance reform is the place to start. Policies that have caps on annual and lifetime payouts means major medical bankrupts families. Most people can't read or understand the complicated policies and likely have no real idea what their coverage is. Hillary's/Obama's just means you're buying insurance - but what are you getting?

Foreign policy? I don't know if I'd pimp it above the others. Too many things at once and they lose focus and import. People can't handle more 3-5 things at once. And I don't think foreign policy is at the top of the list this election year.

Taxes? IMO, we don't need cutting, except maybe shaving a few % point off the corp rate to fall in line with the rest of the world. But I'd majorly raise the exemption amount for AMT if not outright eliminate the damn thing.

High gas prices and cutting excessive/wasteful spending would prolly be my two big things were I him. Then I'd be over in Iraq every month or so checking out progress and pimping any/all signs of it. My belief is we're mostly out of there next year, and he ought to be shouting that at the top of his lungs.

So I like his position on cutting earmarks, and think he's fvcking up bad with campaigning on Iraq. Everything else I pretty much disagree with him.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,032
136
Originally posted by: Fern

What message do I suggest? (Probably not one popular around here :D )

In no particular order:

1. Cut in spending. Earmarks need to be for investment in infrastructure. (In all fairness he does talk about this.)

Change in budgeting. I'd promise to stop Congress's habit of cooking the books. I.e., taking money from the gas tax to fund other crap than it's intended use would stop. User type-fees would be done strictly & fairly.

Social security funds would be invested in normal higher rate bonds. SS would look way better with that single move. This would put pressure on all other gov spending, but tough sh!t. Far too long SS has been ripped off by loaning it's funds to the gov via below market interest rates/yields.

2. Energy policy. Harp on high prices and Dem Congress's inactivity (and pull old quotes where many of them actually said high prices were a great thing etc) Drill ANWAR now. Come out and boldly say we're gonna be energy independant by so-and-such date. Eliminate subsidies for oil co's. Eliminate ethanol subsidies and requirments. Spend R&D for solar, wind, waste that's turned into energy (plants that use garbage - we've got a shortage of dumps - 2 birds, one stone) etc.

Dump cap-n-trade. Just get right to the objective and make power companies get the new equip to cut down on emissions. Maybe provide no-interest gov loans to lessen the hit on consumers, they're hammered enough by rising prices now. Borrow from Bill Clinton and talk about their pain.

3. Iraq. I think it's going a lot better than most here say. He needs to promote the h3ll out of that instead making jackass/flippant remarks about "100 years" or "not important when we withdraw" His campaigning on this is strikingly craptacular IMO.

4. Border control and increased measures to encourage self-deportation. While highly unpopular with the MSM, I think awfully popular with the average person on the street. Pimp the savings in Medicare, healthcare, education, food stamps/WIKI and welfare etc. I don't care who pulls what study out of their @ss that there's no costs, average people ain't buying it.

5. Health care. Insurance reform is the place to start. Policies that have caps on annual and lifetime payouts means major medical bankrupts families. Most people can't read or understand the complicated policies and likely have no real idea what their coverage is. Hillary's/Obama's just means you're buying insurance - but what are you getting?

Foreign policy? I don't know if I'd pimp it above the others. Too many things at once and they lose focus and import. People can't handle more 3-5 things at once. And I don't think foreign policy is at the top of the list this election year.

Taxes? IMO, we don't need cutting, except maybe shaving a few % point off the corp rate to fall in line with the rest of the world. But I'd majorly raise the exemption amount for AMT if not outright eliminate the damn thing.

High gas prices and cutting excessive/wasteful spending would prolly be my two big things were I him. Then I'd be over in Iraq every month or so checking out progress and pimping any/all signs of it. My belief is we're mostly out of there next year, and he ought to be shouting that at the top of his lungs.

So I like his position on cutting earmarks, and think he's fvcking up bad with campaigning on Iraq. Everything else I pretty much disagree with him.

Fern

Well that's all well and good but in effect you are saying "McCain should emphasize a bunch of things that he doesn't agree with". Immigration for one, he also opposes drilling in ANWR, I know you said dump cap and trade but still that's something else you want him to change about his platform. You also want him to change his health care policy.

Maybe you think this would make a more appealing conservative candidate, but you're asking him to change his positions on a lot of issues to fit that mold better. Not only is that not right for the candidate, but shifting so many positions again is sure to cost him heavily.

EDIT: Oh, and cutting earmarks is a bunch of smoke and mirrors for the most part. Earmarks often are just recommendations on how to spend money that has already been allocated. Cutting earmarks would not necessarily cut spending.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Well that's all well and good but in effect you are saying "McCain should emphasize a bunch of things that he doesn't agree with". Immigration for one, he also opposes drilling in ANWR, I know you said dump cap and trade but still that's something else you want him to change about his platform. You also want him to change his health care policy.

Maybe you think this would make a more appealing conservative candidate, but you're asking him to change his positions on a lot of issues to fit that mold better. Not only is that not right for the candidate, but shifting so many positions again is sure to cost him heavily.

EDIT: Oh, and cutting earmarks is a bunch of smoke and mirrors for the most part. Earmarks often are just recommendations on how to spend money that has already been allocated. Cutting earmarks would not necessarily cut spending.

Yeah, but I thought you were asking what I would put out. :)

And yeah, like I said I don't like most of his platform.

Even so, I think he's doing a crappy job of putting out his own platform.

I think he wasted a good opportunity to define himself while Obama and Hillary were battling each other.

And now, he's wasting an opportunity to jump out ahead on the gas price concern.

IMO, the only issue he "owns" is Iraq, and he's doing a crappy job with it. (BTW: when I say "owns" I mean he's strongly identified with his position, and it's the only one.)

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,032
136
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Well that's all well and good but in effect you are saying "McCain should emphasize a bunch of things that he doesn't agree with". Immigration for one, he also opposes drilling in ANWR, I know you said dump cap and trade but still that's something else you want him to change about his platform. You also want him to change his health care policy.

Maybe you think this would make a more appealing conservative candidate, but you're asking him to change his positions on a lot of issues to fit that mold better. Not only is that not right for the candidate, but shifting so many positions again is sure to cost him heavily.

EDIT: Oh, and cutting earmarks is a bunch of smoke and mirrors for the most part. Earmarks often are just recommendations on how to spend money that has already been allocated. Cutting earmarks would not necessarily cut spending.

Yeah, but I thought you were asking what I would put out. :)

And yeah, like I said I don't like most of his platform.

Even so, I think he's doing a crappy job of putting out his own platform.

I think he wasted a good opportunity to define himself while Obama and Hillary were battling each other.

And now, he's wasting an opportunity to jump out ahead on the gas price concern.

IMO, the only issue he "owns" is Iraq, and he's doing a crappy job with it. (BTW: when I say "owns" I mean he's strongly identified with his position, and it's the only one.)

Fern

Oh, I meant what message you would put out if you were McCain. I would agree that he's doing a crappy job of putting out his platform, I just don't think there's much appealing about his platform to put out. He's sort of screwed either way...