Hey, hi again

Well, I can show you a source that says O has more negative/untrue ads than McCain, do U have one to back U up?

http://www.johnmccain.com/videolanding/joetheplumber1.htm?s=google&t=newspaper&r=rncgeneral

O interviewed today? I don't think so, he's in Hawii - it was an older pc.

Hope his Grandma is better. U know what kills me tho, he goes on saying she was a big part of his life, and gives pic with 'them' over 10-15 yrs ago. U'd think they would have recent pics if they were so close.

------ (like this site ;)--copy---

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/will_chotiners_law_work_in_200_2.html

Murray Chotiner, who successfully managed Nixon's campaigns in 1950 and 1968, was the Ty Cobb of political campaigning, a ruthless and brilliant exponent of the philosophy that "politics is war." What would he think about this year' election?


In 1964, he predicted that Goldwater would lose. His general rule was that the party whose candidates do the most fighting during the primaries almost always loses the election. His argued that the mutual accusations and mudslinging during the primaries causes bitterness that prevents a united front against the other party during the final campaign. Moreover, the other party's candidate has the benefit of all the mud and dirty laundry that his opponent's former rivals dug up about him.


More often than not, Chotiner's law has prevailed in presidential elections. Will it work this year?


At first glance, It would seem to predict a Democratic defeat. Therefore, in order to overcome the Chotinerian disadvantages they incurred during the primaries, the Democrats would have to (1) bury the hatchet, (2) bury the evidence, and (3) bury the opposition. Let us consider these three tasks in detail.


Burying the Hatchet


Going into the conventions, the Democrats seemed to be at a severe disadvantage. Hillary and Obama engaged in a long and bitter wrestling match, state by state, with Hillary hanging on until she was arm-twisted into grudgingly admitting defeat. Afterward, they kissed and made up but the smiles were somewhat forced. One felt that, as Dorothy Walworth once put it, "they buried the hatchet, but in a shallow well-marked grave". Hillary's supporters, such as PUMA, were defiant right up to the convention and some of us even suspected that Hillary and Bill might attempt a coup d'etat at the convention.


Meanwhile, McCain had his own problems. He won the nomination quite early and the other candidates made their peace with him in a gentlemanly fashion. But he was still regarded with tepidity, if not downright suspicion, by the conservative wing of the party. And the voting public viewed him as old and dull while the media virtually ignored him.


At this pivotal point, the election became very much like a war. I don't mean the ferocity that Chotiner advocated, but rather with regard to the importance of generalship. We have already noted that elections are a test of political virtues such as stamina, persuasiveness, and negotiating skills. But at times, they can also test a candidates military skills -- the ability to make quick and forceful decisions, to take risks, to minimize or contain ones losses, to capitalize on surprise and opportunity, and to fully exploit an enemy's weaknesses. In their choices of running mates, Obama flunked this test and McCain passed with flying colors.


Admittedly, Obama had a tough bullet to chew. Campaigning with Hillary (not to mention Bill) would be no picnic. Working with her for four or eight years would be worse. But it's been done before. The bond that holds the Democratic Party together is a lust for power that is stronger than pride or self respect. Democrats have long been adept at calling each other nasty names and then working together to win an election. Kennedy and Johnson despised each other but were able to form a winning coalition in 1960 that gave each of them a tour of duty in the White House..


Like a general forced to sacrifice a regiment to win a battle, Obama had no choice. Restoring party unity and reinvigorating the campaign mandated an Obama-Clinton ticket. But because of personal pride, residual rancor from the bitterness of the primary campaign, or shear arrogance, he flunked the test, choosing a bland nonentity for the vice president slot, and losing (as Victor Davis Hanson put it) "a savvy experienced campaigner, who had successfully wooed the white-working class, [and] cemented the Democratic woman's vote".


In contrast, McCain, having attained the strategically superior later date for his convention, exploited it brilliantly. Using classical diversionary tactics, flying around conferring with one VP possibility after another, he kept the media guessing about his real choice, to the point where it even drew some attention away from the Democratic convention. Then he dropped the Palin bomb, simultaneously defusing Obama's post-convention surge, placating the conservatives, attracting the blue-collar voters, wooing the Hillaryites, and bringing enthusiasm and color to a hitherto lackluster campaign. It was a gamble but it worked; it reminds me of Grant at Vicksburg.


McCain's choice of Palin also gave him the political equivalent of the high ground: the attention of the media. Whether they speak good or ill of her, their attention is focused on her (and him) and away from Obama, thus effectively undermining the media blackout of McCain's campaign.


Therefore, on the count of party disunity, Chotiner's law will probably apply this year -- but only because of the deft way that McCain exploited it.


----smile.. BB

If Mc2old isnt to blame, WHY THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP with PHILL GRAMM? That man is an Economic Terriorist and the leading cause of this Mortgage BS. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act caused this mess

I'm glad we had this talk!

Does such a thing really exist???

I mean can you honestly say that you review all sites and all mainstream media with an open mind and then and only then come to your own conclusion as to what you perceive to be the truth?


Lynann whom I don't always agree with posted one of the most non bias articles I have seen in the political threads, but since it wasn't bias, none of the great political minds on this site had no comment what so ever. Imagine that!

Anyways, I urge you to check this thread out.
http://mingle2.com/topic/show/175102

exerience??? hmmm proving my point even more.
I think you meant EXPERIENCE. I think you need to start doing your homework on politics.

She hasn't cried sexist. You obviously don't know what you are saying about our next vice president.

How much political experience did George Washington and John Adams have? Were they good presidents in your book?

Palin answers the questions...it's just that LIBS don't like to be confused with the facts.

No matter...Sarah can still smile in spite of all the personal attacks. That shows more nerve than wimpy OBAMA who kicks newspapers off his plane for endorsing what they believe is the best candidate...McCain! Or shunning interviewers for asking them "TOUGH" questions...funny...OBAMA does not want to be asked about his redistribution remarks.

No checks & balances + no restraint + no checks & balances = govt. tyranny. Welcome to the DNC agenda folks! Slippin' & slidin' into third worldism...

Buh Bye America...Home of the brave & land of the free~~~~

News Flash..... Rigged elections, a two class society of rich and poor, a huge national debt placed on the backs of the poor, sounds like Bush and a third world country.

WHAT? PALIN DOESNT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE VP DOES!! SHE IS NOTHING BUT A PRETTY FACE, SHE IS SIMPLY STUPID!! AN UN-INTELLEGENT FOLKSY BIMBO WHO IS NOTHING BUT THE TITS OF THE REPUBLICAN CAUSE!!
HER CANIDACY IS A JOKE, AN UBSURD PRANK ON THE COMMON SENSE OF AMERICA.

Well since she has more expereince than OBAMA I suggest it's YOU who needs to change your vote. BTW...it's OBAMA who is running for PREZ Not Sarah.

BTW...OBAMA is nothing more than a OPRAH propping empty suit who stutters instead of answering questions.

You will find out so soon that this emporer has NO CLOTHES! LOL

Can we assume you won't be supporting him as President should Sen. Obama prevail on Tuesday?

What? Experience in politics is a NEGETIVE thing. I dont want someone who has been corrupted by a corrupt system for 30 years. THIS SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS A SEPERTIST SYSTEM AND IT NEEDS CHANGING. You dont get change from someone who has been wallowing in a selfish system for 30 years and i sure dont want someone THAT STUPID as our "President" if a 72 year old man dies. Im sorry this Government isnt a Miss Alaska Pagant!!

Take out the papers and the trash, yackity yack, don't talk back!

That's a lib lie to keep people dependant on govt. or there would be no more talk of man woman black white.

We have to start talking & KEEP talking about WORKING class issues & make sure that DEMS know we want good govt. & not socialist commie leaning govt.

That's my point... I hope DEMS will bring back common sense but not if they want to go the way of europe with their social engineering & economic malaise.

Obviously you haven't seen **** Cheneys opinions on how the Excutive branch should have more power then the other two.We need to start civics classes in school back up again so people actually know how government works and don't elect numbnuts who are responsible for the Earth.One mistake we are gone.

I am just bummed out that it is STILL illegal to write in Mickey Mouse as the write in candidate....really not liking my other options.

I'm considering Jive Turkey myself.