So much BS here, I'll just have to respond one by one.
wiremommy: Amusing that you have to attack a former Secretary of Defense as being merely "daddy's business pal." Only the Democrats, terrified by the thought of losing all political control for the first time in many decades (no White House, no House, no Senate), would think they would be able to get away with knocking a former Congressman and Secretary of Defense as "daddy's business pal." Or that they could make the public forget that Dubya's father happened to be, you know, President of the United States. Or that they could make the public think that seeking advice from someone who's been there is somehow a sign of weakness. Of course, nobody's buying it.
frykitty and ratbastard pretty much got the truth of this: You vet everybody, or at least make the media think so, in order to keep the media from telling the world you've picked someone you haven't totally decided on yet. And as most media outlets besides Time managed to report, Dubya hadn't decided on Cheney 100% until the same day he offered Cheney the spot.
Zach: >>They actually believe they can reach out to the swing voter by pulling on the reins of their most conservative and extreme party members...
1) They have reached out. As of Wednesday, Bush leads Gore by 13 points. That's up 5 points in 48 hours. 2) The extremists are already marginalized. Even the internal polls of convention delegates show them to be much more moderate than the delegates of 1996. 3) Your statement carries with it the implication that there's no such thing as an extremist Democrat. Sure. So far in Philadelphia we've seen an openly gay GOP Congressman speak, as well as a speech by Colin Powell where he openly advocated affirmative action (aka reverse discrimination). I'll be happy to bet folding money that the DNC will not be offering up any openly homophobic or anti-affirmative action speakers, if for no other reason than they wouldn't want a riot to break out on the convention floor.
aurelian: You have every right to think of Dubya as you wish, even though I don't personally see where you're coming from. But how can you not think similarly of Clinton-Gore, whose entire modus operendi has always been attack, attack, attack, attack, destroy anyone who dares cross them? Geez, look at Clinton's personal attack on Bush the other day, which constituted the first violation in history of the old gentleman's rule that during the other side's convention, you keep your mouth shut and let them have their day? It's just mean.
« Older Submethod... | Monster.com... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
(b) How effect is it to dig up dirt on someone by asking them?
posted by rcade at 12:13 PM on August 2, 2000