Alarming News

January 27, 2008

Comment Exchange of the Day

On my “what a nightmare” post below:

“Wow, nominating a candidate that appeals more to cross-over voters than partisan fanatics. What a nightmare!”-Joe Grossberg

“Joe, the problem Republicans have with McCain is they’d like a Republican to be the nominee. Even if McCain is the best available Democrat, it just doesn’t feel right.”-Mark Poling

Posted by Karol at 12:55 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Ha, I wouldn’t have seen this if you hadn’t highlighted it.
If McCain was a Democrat, he would have taken Kerry’s running mate offer in 2004.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg at January 27, 2008 at 3:03 pm

If we are to attack McCain, I would point out there is a GOP candidate who supported Mario Cuomo, partial birth abortion and sodomy marriage. Of course that candidate won’t be in the field much longer…

Posted by: Von Bek at January 27, 2008 at 3:31 pm

If Democrats thought appealing across partisan lines were a big selling point, Joe Lieberman would have been the 2004 nominee, rather than that guy that gets called a traitor all the time.

Posted by: Gib at January 27, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Kerry made an offer to McC? I missed that in 2004.
Somehow I can’t imagine Kerry offering the post to Giuliani. Or even to Romney.

Posted by: Tatyana at January 27, 2008 at 6:22 pm

What price pragmatism?

Posted by: hashfanatic at January 27, 2008 at 6:53 pm

Re: McCain turning down Kerry in 2004.
Just shows that McCain doesn’t actually like getting shot down over enemy territory, IMHO.

Posted by: Mark Poling at January 28, 2008 at 12:06 am

Who said anything about “price pragmatism”?
Dude, put the weed down and live in reality for at least a minute.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 28, 2008 at 5:56 am

I’m not sure I believe the McCain/Kerry story from ‘04. But here’s the thing: I don’t want the candidate on the Republican ticket to also be acceptable to the Democrats as their VP, dig?

Posted by: Karol at January 28, 2008 at 10:41 am

Mark/Karol:
So, if so many Republicans dislike McCain, why is he a threat to win the nomination, rather than getting trounced?
“I don’t want the candidate on the Republican ticket to also be acceptable to the Democrats as their VP, dig?”
That’s totally irrelevant, just as the Democrats loathing someone (e.g. Newt Gingrich) wouldn’t automatically qualify them as a good Republican nominee.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg at January 28, 2008 at 11:33 am

Because we’ve got no one else that makes any sense (except Romney, actually, which is why he’s probably the only one to stop the McCain choo-choo at this point). People forget that the Republican party is comprised of at least three totally separate interests (social cons, foreign policy hawks, and fiscal cons) and McCain is just good enough for all 3, not great for any of them but passable. Whereas Giuliani is great for 2, unacceptable for 1, Huckabee is awesome for 1, unacceptable for 2, etc.

Posted by: Karol at January 28, 2008 at 11:40 am

I don’t want the candidate on the Republican ticket to also be acceptable to the Democrats as their VP
Your russian roots are showing…

Posted by: David at January 28, 2008 at 3:19 pm

I’ve got another one:
I don’t want the candidate on the Republican ticket to also be acceptable to the Democrats as their VP
I guess you must have hated Ronald Reagan with his crossover appeal

Posted by: david@beerizon.net at January 29, 2008 at 10:46 am

Ronald Reagan would’ve been acceptable to Democrats as VP??? Really?

Posted by: Karol at January 29, 2008 at 11:15 am

That’s an absurd comparison. The difference is that Reagan did not try to appeal to Democrats by partially espousing liberalism. Reagan appealed to Democrats because of what they liked that he stood for, not because of how he pandered or tried to appear “bipartisan.”

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 29, 2008 at 11:19 am

The point that I’m trying to make is that Karol’s need for declarations of partisanship is artificial, and obscure the issues.
As always, I refer you to Kenneth Arrow’s “Social Choice and Individual Values” and Amartya Sen’s Liberal Paradox (these would be classic liberals, those devoted to liberty) as to why Karol’s views are broken.
She’d rather live in a society where everyone shares equally in governmental squalor, than accept that government could be better but there would be a special class of people whose lives might be better than economic station may provide for.

Posted by: David at January 30, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Your point is about something that does not exist. You either proceed from a misread of Karol’s statement or are putting words into her mouth.
She’s not requiring any “need for declarations of partisanship.” Her use of party labels isn’t for partisan purposes, but to define the type of candidate she doesn’t want. All she said on this topic was fairly clear, or so I thought. Read it again.
As a matter of semantics, some Democrats *liked* Reagan, but as they’d have never *accepted* him on either party’s ticket. There was too much ideological difference. Karol is saying she doesn’t want a Republican who’s so non-conservative that his beliefs/platform/etc. are acceptable to Democrats.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 31, 2008 at 11:18 am

By the way, could you clarify this statement?
“She’d rather live in a society where everyone shares equally in governmental squalor, than accept that government could be better but there would be a special class of people whose lives might be better than economic station may provide for.”
The first part is a socialist belief, and Karol is no socialist. And what do you mean by the second? The syntax is confusing.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 31, 2008 at 11:29 am
Post a comment