Powered by TypePad

« Root Causes | Main | Traditional Saturday Open Thread »

February 01, 2008


Rick Ballard

I just voted for Mitt (mail-in). The convention isn't for seven months and there won't be an official party candidate until one is declared in the convention. When the party declares the official candidate, I'll vote for him in November.

Until then I intend to point out every weave and veer that the Straight Crock Express makes as it lurches down the road at 25MPH (gotta save what little gas can be afforded) on its patched tires.

I find arrogant ignorance backed by truly mediocre intelligence unattractive in a candidate. When name recognition has been gained by rushing any microphone in sight to proudly declare defiance of the party to which the candidate (nominally) belongs then any party member should feel no obligation to do more than point out what an ass the candidate in question is - and has been since stumbling into the political spotlight.

Other Tom

I don't like McCain's positions on a host of issues, too numerous to mention but generally those that most here find distasteful as well.

As for judicial appointments, we have the hapless Ford to thank for Stevens, but it was Ronaldus Himself who gave us O'Connor and Kennedy. McCain has pledged to seek justices in the mold of John Roberts, and I have no reason to doubt him. And if you think he could do no worse than Clinton would, I give you Ginsberg and Breyer. And I hold out the specter of Tribe et al.

I base my very firm conviction that Romney cannot win in November not on any poll, but on my assessment of Romney.

Nobody's religion bothers me at all--but then, I'm not the American electorate. If Mitt ever got the nomination, by the time we got done hearing about Joseph Smith, the Golden Tablets, salamanders and Mountain Meadows, a sizable number of folks would think he needs to go away for a rest.


OT, my wifes family is big time Catholic. They are considering Romney or Huckabee. Her Dad was considering Ron Paul. I hope I straightned him out on that.

As far as anything McCain says, he tried to call a bill that was clearly amnesty, not amnesty. He tries to call water boarding torture. He wants to move terrorrists into our Federal prison system and apparently doesn't see a problem with that. In short, I don't trust the guy on anything.

Another interesting point. How many sitting Senators have been elected President?

There's only one in the top tier of Candidates currently that's not.

Other Tom

JFK's the last one, Pofarmer. There'll be another this time around, unfortunately.

If you really think Mitt will get the nomination, you can invest $9.90 at Tradesports (Intrade) and pick up $100.


"I find arrogant ignorance backed by truly mediocre intelligence unattractive in a candidate."

Have you ever talked with him? I've participated in about a dozen blogger conference calls with him, and I can tell you he is not mediocre or ignorant. I am continually impressed by the depth and the detail that he has about so many different topics. He clearly skated through college (as did I), but nobody who's had any actual interaction considers him mediocre or ignorant. Ask Captain Ed, who's endorsed Romney if McCain's a dullard, or John Hinderaker, who's clearly not McCain's biggest fan (not sure if he endorsed). They were on the blogger calls as well.

And the talk about how we won't have a candidate until the convention is denial. Stage One.

Porchlight, I'm not saying that everybody's irrational, just the people who are doing the drama queen routine of claiming they're going to vote for Hillary. Those people are clearly behaving irrationally.

I can't wait until McCain seals up the nomination. The minute he starts hammering Hillbama is the minute folks will come out of their funk and start cheering.


Those people are clearly behaving irrationally

Not so much. Combined with the argument that McCain is the most electable what they are saying is "no he isn't" because a lot of folks will not vote for him no matter what.

Maybe some would find it easier to accept a 4 year place holder who will stay tough on terror and not do much damage domestically if McCain would run that way instead of trying to claim he's "a conservative".

In common use "a conservative" is like being "a vegetarian" in the sense that a vegetarian is defined by what they don't consume rather than what they do. No matter how many vegetables I eat vegetarians won't accept me as one beause I also eat meat.


For example ... on issues like global warming, health care, and immigration McCain could say "Nothing gets done without bipartisan consensus".

That would ease my mind a lot.

Rick Ballard

McCain "seals up the nomination" when the party in convention awards it to him. Until then we are free to speculate as to whether his embrace of various positions (say, acceptance of cap and trade or other "solutions" to nonexistent problems) is the result of lack of intelligence or willful mendacity in pursuit of votes.

He has certainly proven himself wholly amenable to performing wild acrobatic contortions in pursuit of votes to this point (vide immigration). I see no reason not to attempt to force him to balance a ball on his nose going forward.

The Red Witch and BHO aren't really particularly scary candidates given the resiliency shown by the economy. The recession that the Dems desperately need in order to prevail in November doesn't look like it will happen. Without a recession and a resurgence in violence in Iraq there is little need to "fall in" behind a man who teamed with Russ Feingold in order to create his signal political achievement, regarded by many as an abridgement of First Amendment rights.

Get that ball up there, John. Make some promises that will cost you re-election should you fail to keep them. Let us read your lips for a bit.


The minute he starts hammering Hillbama is the minute folks will come out of their funk and start cheering.

I hope you're right, I really do, if it has to come to that. Meanwhile, the anti-McCain folks out there might be able to convince McCain of the need to start courting them if he wants to win in November. He needs all the votes he can get, from the rational and irrational alike.


Hillary at the D's debate said something to the effect--It took a Clinton to "clean up" after Bush one and it will take another Clinton to clean up after Bush two.

A rehearsed comment but a vile one also.



Maybe you'd better just ignore me, since it is so annoying for you to have to correct me on minor, inane facts that have nothing to do with the point; leaving you with the bare scraps to play with. You are a bitter old man, I must say.


"it is so annoying for you to have to correct me on minor, inane facts that have nothing to do with the point;"

Well stop posting them Septic.

Rick Ballard

"A rehearsed comment but a vile one also."


Red Witch may slither up out of the sewer into the gutter from time to time but can we really expect her to climb out of the gutter? The obvious rebuttal to her remark is that not even a reenactment of Hercules' diversion of two rivers in order to clean the Augean stables would be sufficient to clean the stains left in the Oval Office during her codependant co-Presidency.

Can any candidate deliver that rebuttal to poor, teary-eyed Red Witch without being condemned for horrific cruelty? We already have proof that Red Witch will hide behind her own skirts - and we have proof (in NH) that she can be successful at the ploy. We don't know how many times she'll successfully draw from that well but she previously did it to Rick Lazio (an admittedly weak candidate - although he at least had the courage to make the run) with positive results.

Intemperate rebuttals have a habit of backfiring to a candidate's detriment. Fortunately we have had two calm, rational, rather unemotional candidates, capable of a sharp yet reasoned rebuttals, from which to choose.

Unfortunately, Thompson dropped out, so now there's only one.

Patrick Tyson

The Democrats don't need anything special to prevail in November. Perception is reality these days. The polling has shown a majority of Americans to be dissatisfied with the direction in which the country is heading for years. If the center breaks strongly one way or the other, it'll produce a victory of somewhere between 5% and 10% points for one of the candidates. Otherwise it'll be fairly close and in all likelihood the campaign will once again come down to a battle for a handful of states with Ohio heading the list.

It certainly looks like 2008 will be the third election for President in which a sitting member of the Senate is elected. The other two were Harding and Kennedy. However, 13 other Presidents had at one time been Senators and the only sitting member of the House to be elected President, Garfield, was chosen to be Senator from Ohio before he was nominated to be President of the United States in 1880.


****One of my ardent desires is that we not repeat the experience of having the FBI and the IRS under Clinton control.****

I should have said the DOJ, not the FBI. The appointment of a Louis Freeh type is the kind of mistake I don't expect the second time around.


I just completed my mail-in ballot, too, Rick. Voted for Mitt.


Nobody's religion bothers me at all--but then, I'm not the American electorate.

You're probably right, but I still think that statement is interesting.

I saw some poll asking about romney where 44% said THEY didn't have a problem with his religion but they thought others would.

That could mean a lot of things (that perhaps they would have a problem, just don't want to admit it) but my first read said to me that 44% of Americans think other Americans are bigots.


"a reenactment of Hercules' diversion of two rivers in order to clean the Augean stables would be sufficient to clean the stains left in the Oval Office during her codependant co-Presidency"

::chuckle:: What a way you have with words Mr. Ballard.

I remember when I was younger working in elections during the second Reagan campaign when Mondale chose Geradine Ferarro as his running mate.
There were little ole guys coming out of the woodwork--that hadn't voted for decades--to register to vote for the R's. They sure didn't want a woman a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Although it is different in todays times--I imagine something similar will happen in the hinterlands should the RW get the nod.

Other Tom

Phantom pilots everywhere would understand, Cleo.

RickB, you can become a rich man at Tradesports. But if McCain wins sufficient delegates as tabulated by the primaries' and caucuses' results, but enough of those delegates decide not to cast their votes for him anyway, I think the GOP would stand a better chance just nominating Huckabee or Paul and saving themselves the time and oney.

Other Tom

That would be "money."

Patrick Tyson


No narrowing today. Rasmussen has it tied and Gallup has McCain up 20.

As Goof would write, what a smile.

Crew v1.0

I've pretty much had it with whiners like this lady. Might she be doing mental math calculations of her book royalties in the alternative history where the HillBillys are in the White House, and she might reign as the queenbee of litmus-test-pure, 140-proof, holier-than-thou snark?

Give 'em hell, Mac.


The polling has shown a majority of Americans to be dissatisfied with the direction in which the country is heading for years.

Just what the hell does that mean, anyway?

I ain't happy with the way the countries going, and electing a McCain or a Hillary or an Obama sure don't stand a chance in hell of making it better.


I've pretty much had it with whiners like this lady


You gotta be kiddin me.


McCain was neither a Phantom pilot nor any other kind of fighter pilot. He was an attack pilot, and he was flying an A-4 when he was shot down. Posted by: Other Tom | February 01, 2008 at 07:36 PM
Having been a (USAF) Phantom pilot, I have to question you about terms, O T. Are you saying only air-to-air (intercept) pilots are fighter pilots? I flew almost exclusively air-to-mud combat missions because of where I was stationed. We considered air-air what you do on the way to the target or on the way home, if necessary. In other words, a minor part, if a part at all, of any given mission. CAP missions, without exception, were borrrrring. It'd be interesting to hear how the Navy distinguishes the two.

Other Tom


The Navy does so (or did so) by the type of aircraft the pilots flew. All of the attack aircraft of the Vietnam era (the A-1, A-3, A-4, A-6 and A-7) were bombers, the latter three being light bombers. All of them had cannon aboard, and at some point I think the A-6 could carry sidewinders. I don't know of A-4's ever being used on anything other than bombing ("attack") missions.

The principal fighters the Navy used during that time were the F-8 and the F-4; later the now-defunct F-14 became the primary fighter-interceptor. The F-4 was called a fighter-bomber by the Navy, and I think by the Air Force as well. (I believe the Navy version was beefed up in some way to accommodate arresting gear, but that didn't prevent it from being a workhorse in fighter-intercept operations and CAP.)

The modern version is commonly called the F-18 Hornet, although it is actually "F/A-18" to indicate it is a fighter-bomber.

I don't recall anyone actually quibbling over any pilot of a carrier-based strike aircraft being referred to as a "fighter pilot," but amongst the pilots the guys in the A-4's were called (very respectfully) attack pilots.

There were Naval aviators in the Vietnam period who were carrier-qualified in the F-8, the F-4 and the A-4 (my brother-in-law was one), but I don't know of McCain's being qualified in either of the fighter aircraft. I just re-skimmed his autobiography, and could find no mention of it; I believe he qualified in A-1's before the A-4. In recounting his tours aboard USS Forrestal (which suffered the terrible fire) and USS Oriskany (from which he was shot down), he refers to himself as an A-4 pilot or an attack pilot.


Hillary will do anything to get elected : Poll


Other Tom,

otherwise Bill Clinton in the past five years would be one of the most admired men in America

Clinton is one of the most admired men in America, he comes in second. Was first 12 times.


Thanks, O T. Some of that is coming back to me. The F-4 was one of the best we ever had. It wasn't the best at any particular task, but very good at all of them. Having flown that craft in all its tasks, the attack/fighter logic just escapes me. Carrier qual in three types is awesome.

Other Tom

Pollyusa, he's one of the "most admired men" if you take that polling method seriously, which I don't (note that he "comes in second" with a rousing 8%).

Suppose the pollster asked a second question, "for what man do you have the greatest disdain and contempt," and 92% of the respondents answered "Bill Clinton." Would it still be appropriate to describe him as one of the most admired men?

Suppose the pollster asked, "which man do you admire more, Bill Clinton or X?", with ten different Mr. X's, and all of them scored higher than Clinton?

Neither of the hypothetical questions and answers I just suggessted are in any way inconsistent with the 8%, "second-place" finish Clinton scores in the latest poll. That's why I don't think the poll responses mean what the pollster says they do.

Crew v1.0

A possible McCain Presidency: an infuriating prospect for jihadists, old hippies, insurgents, pharmaceutical companies, and oh, yes, book cover eye candy/impeachment lawyer Ann Coulter.

Um... Remind me again. What's not to like?


I don't see how anyone can come to any conclusions based on polling results, when you read the questions in the polls. I took a couple of online political polls recently. The questions are asked ina vacuum - there's no point of reference for inerpreting the answer.

"are you ahppy with the direction the country is going?" well, no because the administration has not been able to carry out it's plans. Howevr, no as an answer will be interpreted to mean that I am unhappy with Bush. I am unhappy with congress, the DoS and the CIA, the Plame and other episodes and the unceasling attempts to criminalize politics.

But my answer would mean the opposite of what I think.

They're all like that. How can anyone seriously take them for anything but propaganda. Very effective propaganda.

The economy - well, I'm ok, but I think other people are having a hard time.

Health insurance: "I can't afford health insurance: - next question should be "do you have a cell phone? Do you have cable TC? cable internet access?" because I know from my insurance days, people will pay for cell phones, the latest model car (At high rates) mtv, and espn before they will pay for insurance. Intangibles are like that.

So those polls aren't worth fertilizer either.

Rick, keep typing, I love it!!


What's not to like?
Very strong points.

Cecil Turner

The Navy does so (or did so) by the type of aircraft the pilots flew.

Exactly correct. Or, if one is a purist, one might say it's by the squadron's mission designator (VA--fixed-wing attack = "attack", VFA--fixed-wing fighter attack = "fighter"). But since they generally change the squadron designator to match the type aircraft assigned (e.g., VA-146 was redesignated VFA-146 when it switched from A-7's to F-18's), it's a bit of a distinction without a difference. There are still VMA (fixed-wing Marine attack) squadrons, but the Navy (VA) designators have been dying out as F/A-18 replaced most of the "A" birds (and the last of the A programs--the A-12--was cancelled). As the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) replaces the rest, I suspect the "attack" moniker will die off completely in time.

Having flown that craft in all its tasks, the attack/fighter logic just escapes me.

As to whether there's a bright line between the two terms in naval aviation . . . yes, there is. But it's more of a mission issue. And the term "attack" doesn't mean "bomber"; it's more of a fighter/bomber mission (as opposed to, say, a B-1's). However, since the Air Force uses "fighter pilot" to describe everyone from an FB-111 driver to an A-10 guy, it's often just too much trouble to explain the difference to the uninitiated. So while an attack driver who claimed to be a fighter pilot amongst his buddies would get no end of sh*t, claiming as much to the clueless is more an indicator of laziness rather than deception.


McCain is a hero only in his own little mind. I saw McNasty and Mrs. Billy Clinton on TV on Sunday, best of buddies, a love fest, looking like they were picking out the drapes for the White House and talking about how they will debate each other. It makes one want to vomit to see how both were so overconfident.

McNasty along with the support of other "RHINO" Republicans and Independents may well capture the Republican Party, but may find it useless except for ballot position and federal financing.

There are too many reasons to enumerate to not vote for McNasty. Most Republicans want "a voice, not an echo" of the Leftist Democratic Party.

A vote in the Primaries for McCain is a vote for a Democratic landslide. The Democrats love McCAin because they know they will beat him bad. And the Republican Party Regulars already have little hope for a win and want to hand off to someone they would like to see take a bad loss. Many Republican Primary voters meanwhile would like to nominate Mitt Romney, who they believe would be the best President and has a chance to win. Hopefully, the enlightened interests of the little people supporting Romney will prevail. The American political system works best if both parties offer their best up for public office.


What the critics of Ann Coulter don't like about her is that she has a functioning brain and they don't have a brain at all.

Put me down for being an "Ann Coulter Democrat" if McCain is able to steal the Republican Party nomination. But I will let the Democrats destroy McCain with truthful negative attacks on his character. I will send my message with my strategic vote either for a third party with a chance to win my state or secondly for the Democrats if they have chance to win my state.



I'd rather see folks write in a conservative Republican over a third party vote. I would think that would send more of a message to the 'Pubs.

The comments to this entry are closed.