I have figured out who the candidates should pick as running mates.
John McCain should take John McClane. Sure, he’s a fictional character, but he fits well with McCain’s appeal and he is played by a Republican.
Barack Obama should take former Clinton HHS Secretary Donna Shalala. Obama-Shalala, baby! The songwriters will love it.
And libertarian Bob Barr should throw the opening sentence of the 12th Amendment to the wind and pick fellow Georgian ex-Senator Sam Nunn. Barr-Nunn ’08!
10 thoughts on “Name That Name”
Comments are closed.
Well, well, well, I can’t wait for the lengthy blog entries from Crank expounding about McCain’s lovely show of good judgment in seeking Pastor Hagee’s endorsement, and now his repudiation of him for his “Hitler” comments. Yes I know it’s not “his” pastor for 20 years , but he whored his own “principles” away and sought Hagee’s support even though his absolute wack job views on Jews have been well known for a long time. I have a feeling tortured justifications and distinctions are forthcoming on this site, or , better yet, not a peep. Karma’s a b*tch, aint it?
Nice try to muddy the waters.
McCain made a mistake in seeking out Hagee’s endorsement (there’d already been controversy about him when Huck did an event at his church). Not McCain’s first mistake, or his last. It was good that he cut ties with him swiftly and cleanly today, but really he should have done that when this whole brouhaha started.
That said, this is just one of scores of endorsements McCain has rolled up over his many years in politics. Obviously McCain doesn’t have as close a relationship with him over the past few months – how many times has McCain’s met the man in person? once, maybe twice? – that Obama has with Ayers, let alone Wright. And as I have said before, we don’t really need to spend much time with McCain’s associations to understand the man’s character or his outlook; we can get that from his career. With Obama, we have no choice but to read tea leaves.
I really am a soothsayer sometimes. He sought out his endorsement even though he knew darn well about his views, because McCain’s “character” as you put it, his “experience”, is all about flip flopping and crass opportunism in the name of winning votes. He repudiates Haqee now — as Glenn beck would ask, why now — because today is the day the specific “Hitler” comments surfaced and that stands to threaten McCain’s attempt to make inroads with Jewish voters. Just like he embraces Bush’s tax cuts now and repudiates his immigration bill now because it helps him secure his base in the general. On practically every major legislative issue he has flapped back and forth like a flag in the wind.
Another difference to note. Obama sought out Wright’s church for spiritual gain, whereas McCain sought out Hagee’s church for political gain.
“Another difference to note. Obama sought out Wright’s church for spiritual gain, whereas McCain sought out Hagee’s church for political gain.
Posted by kris at May 22, 2008 8:30 PM ”
Now that’s funny. Then again, I imagine there are people who actually don’t realize Obama started going to the goofy racist church in order to make in road to local Chicago politics.
So largebill, Obama is damned if he does, damed if he doesn’t. He learned the first, and in fact only, rule of Republican politics: win.
Reagan declares Philadelphia, MS, and we all know why. The republicans speak at Bob Jones University, and we all know why. McCain was a public figure back when his pastor loved Adolf, and did nothing. So please people. This is the lesson the right has learned, that Obama has learned, that Willie Randolph hasn’t: winning cures almost anything.
So I guess largebill doesnt believe that Obama actually shares Wright’s views…since he joined the church to make inroads into local politics. And the odd thing is McCain repeatedly says that Obama doesnt share Wright’s views at all, and then goes on to condemn the association. In other words at least McCain is admitting that he’s blatantly playing guilt by association politics, rather than attacking Obama on principle or policy differences. This iceberg has some heft to it too, first Hagee, then Parsley, and of course Keating stories to come to. Live by that bogus sword, die by it too.
Daryl: You will never see conservatives on this site, or anywhere really, admit that the linchpin of their electoral strategy, the “southern strategy”, depends on the existence of racism and racist voters. Nor will McCain admit that his resistance to the MLK holiday at the federal level was anything other than APPEASING the racist elements of his base.
Politicians often do stupid things for votes, and I think Obama and McCain have both done that. In my view, Obama stayed with the church because it was politically expedient and left the church when it was politically expedient. McCain’s courting of Hagee was politically expedient too. What’s important to me is whether they are -really- racist based on their own thoughts and actions – not their pastors, donors or wives. I don’t see that in either case.
What Crank said is true – Republicans don’t have much of record on which to critique Obama, but that doesn’t mean this flap over the pastor and Obama’s wife carry much weight. It all makes for good political theater, but as far as I’m concerned, I can’t get all that wrapped up in it.
Pastorgate number two for McCain today: he just rejected Parsley’s endorsement. He may just have to select Huck for vp if he keeps shedding religious leaders at this rate. The horror, the horror….