McCain image

I have complimented the McCain handlers for their tv ads.

But they need to replace the person who arranges his photo ops.

Like today they had one with Bush I and it was pathetic to see two old geezers stumbling around and mumbling.

Especially compared to Obama and his world tour to meet all the leaders.

I guess they were trying to put a dent in Obama's free pr but it backfired to see them and then switch over to Obama.

Maybe the Gazette will give McCain some good PR coverage.



.

It's hard to compete with the kool aid Sherm.

Well guys I agree Obama is their favorite.

But if you saw the photo op with him and Bush it was pathetic.

Like I told Frank earlier, I prefer substance to fluff and I'm not swayed by the proverbial 'pretty face' so I doubt it would have mattered much to me.

McCain's not my first choice by any means. Heck, he's probably not in my top 15. About the only thing I think he'll get right is what he's been right on all along which is Iraq.

If McCain wins, you guys got no one to blame but yourselves. Just like 2000 and 2004. At least that's the way I see it.

But Aaron I am looking at this objectively and you guys are just re-stating your support for Bush.

Have you seen the "photo op" I speak of?

The average voter who sees that will not be inspired.

Aaron wrote:Like I told Frank earlier, I prefer substance to fluff and I'm not swayed by the proverbial 'pretty face' so I doubt it would have mattered much to me.

McCain's not my first choice by any means. Heck, he's probably not in my top 15. About the only thing I think he'll get right is what he's been right on all along which is Iraq.

If McCain wins, you guys got no one to blame but yourselves. Just like 2000 and 2004. At least that's the way I see it.

FYI: Your line of thought is so interestingly bizarre that I've quoted it to my friends. Thought you'd like to know.

This time, you're saying that because the GOP primary voters chose McCain and you feel he'll get a lot of things wrong, it's the Democrats' fault because they nominated Obama? I mean, if McCain wins?

And by "substance", you're referring to the Messianic Hollywood B-movie actor, Ronald Reagan I suppose? Not the Constitutional Lawyer, Harvard Graduate, President of the Harvard Law Review....Obama?

Am I getting it right?

No, by substance I'm talking about the young man that had the courage to server his country with honor, got shot down and taken prisoner of war in some of the worst conditions imaginable and when given the opportunity to come home, choose to stay because other Americans remained, who then served for 22 years. Upon his retirement he then served in the Senate and has a history of working on both sides of the aisle and of getting things done and not just rhetoric.

That's a far cry from Barry the coke head that went to an elitist liberal college and then what?

You'll have to answer because I really don't have a clue as to what he did.

And by choosing Obama, I'm saying he is more liberal then Kerry, who was more liberal the Gore and you guys keep going further to the left and America doesn't lean that way.

If Obama wins, it will be because of the mess Republicans have made of things and the liberal media and not because he’s the choice of Americans. Less then 50% of the people believe he’s qualified to run the country. Yeah, that’s a ringing endorsement.

shermangeneral wrote:But Aaron I am looking at this objectively and you guys are just re-stating your support for Bush.

Have you seen the "photo op" I speak of?

The average voter who sees that will not be inspired.

On the photo issue there's no comparison. Obama is more photogenic and a good looking fellow.

Having said that, I think it is then the Republicans play not to try to play the game of who looks better. They might as well pay better attention to other matters than how their candidates look. If they stick to the issues they have a chance (albeit not a terribly good one), as the public still self identifies more conservative than liberal. But they need to give up right now the battle of "looking good."

Aaron,

I agree that if and when the dems win in November, it's not going to be because the public actually likes their policies (and I don't think they'll care for them one bit when we see the fruits of the dems labor in a few years--I repeat that I may be wrong and would like to be wrong).

The Dems will likely win because the Republicans have screwed the pooch. They've ruled impotently, campaigned cowardly, and betrayed their own principles. If and when the Dems win, it will be a matter of anti-Republicanism, and not American liberals voting for the Dems. I don't think any more than 25% of the country self-identifies as a liberal, and Obama is among the most liberal there is.

You're singing to the choir Mike. Good look convincing those on the left though that 75% of Americans do not identify with them.

No sense in trying to do that, my dear baritone.

What needs to happen is that the 75% of Americans need to learn exactly why they do not identify with them and vote accordingly. Such a lesson is probably going to take an Obama presidency that does poorly, which I think will happen but hope doesn't. This is why I think 2010 or 2012 will be the next 1994, but it's going to take an Obama election to make it happen.

Maybe the Republican's 8 year plan needs to include a 4 year stint in Obamaville.

I'll agree on that. The only solace to an Obama Presidency is that he won't get anymore done when he has complete control his first two years then Clinton did in his.

Yeah, but what if he follows the Pelosi/Reid example and really shows himself?

How has Reid/Pelosi shown themselves other then to sell out for a mininum wage increase and some extra unemployment benefits?