Truth (plus lies) » john mccain

2012 campaign starting later than 2008

Jefff — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:24:59 +0000

It’s almost four years since Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the 2008 Presidential Election. David Weigel points out that at this point in that cycle, 14 candidates had already announced.

April 17, 2006: Mike Gravel (announcing a full-on campaign at the National Press Club)
October 30, 2006: Duncan Hunter (announcing he’d retire from Congress and run for president)
November 9, 2006: Tom Vilsack (announcing a full campaign)
November 13, 2006: Rudy Giuliani
November 15, 2006: John McCain
December 4, 2006: Sam Brownback
December 7, 2006: Bill Richardson (telling Fox News “I am running”)
December 15, 2006: Tommy Thompson
December 19, 2006: Jim Gilmore
December 26, 2006: John Edwards
January 3, 2007: Mitt Romney
January 7, 2007: Joe Biden (announcing his intention to create a committee, on Meet the Press)
January 11, 2007: Chris Dodd (announcing a full-on run on Don Imus’s show), Ron Paul

So far, not a single candidate has announced for 2012. What does it mean? My guess is that the candidates of 2008 were more eager to fight for an open office. By that thinking, a better comparison would be 2004. Let’s check on those dates:

May 31, 2002: Howard Dean
December 1, 2002: John Kerry
January 2, 2003: John Edwards
January 4, 2003: Richard Gephardt
January 5: Al Sharpton

Hmmmm… well, it’s not 14. But it’s still half of the eventual field of ten. And of course, it’s all the major players, including Howard Dean a full two-and-a-half years before the election. And when you count only the Democrats for 2008, you get 6, so there’s not much difference. That pretty much blows my hypothesis out of the water.

Naturally, I’d like my backup explanation to be that the Republicans are all just scared of Obama — and Fox talking points notwithstanding, I do think Obama is seen to be a stronger opponent than Bush. Still, I don’t think that’s the reason. Certainly, there are 2012 candidates out there who have already made up their minds, and I can’t see why the potential difficulty of the race would make them wait.

Perhaps there’s a very important uncertainty that they want settled before they commit? This couldn’t really be about Palin, could it?

Presidents (And Near-Presidents) Have Unoriginal Names

Jefff — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:27:29 +0000

Barack Obama and Joe Biden were both named after their fathers. John McCain was named after his father (who was named after his own father). George Bush was (obviously) named after his father. Even Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III.

This. Fucking. Election.

Jefff — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:24:34 +0000

This fucking election is almost over. Related posts:An Election Thought The Fucking Democrats Latvians Against Butt-Fucking Related posts:

Obama Will Win. Probably. Very Probably.

Jefff — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:26:43 +0000

Here’s why the polls might be wrong and why they are probably not.

Of course, if the trustworthy polls continue showing Obama ahead and McCain wins, it would be a monumental failure for political scientists, reporters and pollsters alike — an indictment worse than New Hampshire, worse even than 1948. I think the quality pollsters have done a good, professional job this year. I dont think well get bitten. Even so, Ill be a little worried until its all over. Im not sure what kind of night Ill have on Tuesday. But Im sure Im going to have a nervous one on Monday.

via Real Clear Politics

President Bush Is Clearly Not Brain Dead

Jefff — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:33:02 +0000

PolitiFact tracks the truth + lies that politicians tell. For instance, John McCain has racked up 6 “Pants on Fire” grade claims. Neither Barack Obama nor Sarah Palin have been that egregious (though Obama does have a number of “False” and “Barely True” claims). I was very curious to check out what Joe Biden’s two “Pants on Fire” lies were. The first was when he said that Giuliani was probably the most underqualified man to run for president, and the second was this:

During a campaign stop in Iowa on July 4, the six-term senator declared, “This guy [Pres. Bush] is brain-dead.”

It’s an extreme charge, since brain death is defined as “irreversible unconciousness with complete loss of brain function” (Encyclopedia of Death and Dying).

Needless to say, we find the charge ridiculous. There’s no evidence Biden performed the necessary medical tests to make such a diagnosis. We would have accepted the results of a cerebral blood flow study or proof that Biden had examined Bush to see if he had an oculocephalic reflex.

Indeed, even people who disagree with the president about Iraq and assorted other issues will acknowledge that the president has spontaneous respiration and is responding to stimuli.

Why the Campaign Is So Nasty

Jefff — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:08:58 +0000

John McCain tells us whose fault it is that his campaign is nasty, two-faced, and built almost entirely on utter horseshit:

He also said the campaign’s negative tone “would have been very different if Senator Obama had accepted my request to appear in town hall meetings across America.”

It’s Obama’s fault.

Wrestling for the Presidency

Jefff — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:41:36 +0000

via Ffffound

CNN Hurts John McCain’s Feelings

Jefff — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:26:05 +0000

Oh also: the McCain campaign canceled a spokesman’s CNN interview after Campbell Brown stepped all over his spin about Palin’s “foreign policy experience”. Related posts:John McCain Doesn’t Know What Circular Logic Is This is CNN John McCain Is Too Old for the Arizona Supreme Court Related posts:

John McCain Doesn’t Know What Circular Logic Is

Jefff — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:11:30 +0000

In defense of his own executive experience, Barack Obama pointed out that his campaign is a larger organization than the Anchorage suburb that Sarah Palin was mayor of. John McCain’s campaign called this circular logic.

The McCain campaign, happy to talk about Obama’s experience, calls his using his campaign as an example “desperate circular logic” and pointing to Palin’s tenure as governor.

It’s not. Circular logic is when you assume something is true and then you use that assumption as a premise to argue that the original thing you assumed was true… is true. Something like: A is true because B is true because C is true because A is true.