search
top

Game Changer?

All I keep reading in the conservative media is how McCain has made a bold choice, and how the veep pick is just totally reshaping the whole race. It’s a different dynamic! A game changer! It’s not just McCain now, it’s a ticket! Lines around the corner to see the newly selected Veep! We’ll have this election in the bag!

Wait, did I say McCain? I meant Romney. I guess a bit too much deja-vu today.

13 Responses to “Game Changer?”

  1. Harold says:

    It was a game changer. So was McCain “shutting down” his campaign and going back to D.C. when the other side held all the cards in that game (that’s what told me the election was over) and could make him look like an un-Presidential clown, err, that is Congressman, while No Drama Obama genuinely looked more Presidential (an advantage of never really playing the legislative game, as some have noted).

    We have to hope that if there are any more “game changers” they’re of the former for Romney and the latter for Obama.

    • Sebastian says:

      Well, that sort of makes my point. I think it’s a bit early. No one really knows how the dynamic will play out, since these races are about a lot more than the VP pick.

      • Harold says:

        Good point, especially since this VP pick happened a lot earlier than McCain’s (which stepped on Obama’s Denver “Roman Columns” speech). But the reaction from the base, which has a very iffy relationship with Romney, is similar and telling, I think.

        Got to close with this Iowahawk one-liner the Intapundit and others have been using: “Paul Ryan represents Obama’s most horrifying nightmare: Math.

      • Harold says:

        Errr, sure miss the editing feature.

        On the other hand, McCain hated his base with a consuming passion, so picking someone like Palin was absolutely essential, and even then, enough of it stayed home compared to 2004 to give the Democrats the election.

        This pick is really going to change the nature of the election, I think, see above comment on math. Maybe not in a way that will ultimate benefit Romney, we’ll see.

  2. Ish says:

    I propose the next election cycle, the GOP holds a primary for the Veep slot instead of the top of the ticket. Then we pick the top slot by whatever odd and arcane ritual has chosen our last cuple of Vice Presidential nominees….

    • Harold says:

      What the GOP really needs to do is wrest control of the primary and caucus system from the Democrats. After the 1968 debacle, a group of the latter that just happened to include one George McGovern redid the system. Inexplicably, McGovern won the following Democratic nomination … the first of many signs the new system is not very good.

      With 2010 having returned Republicans to a level of power in the states not seen since 1928, it’s even possible.

    • I second the motion…

  3. BornLib says:

    Thanks for the reality check.

  4. Harold says:

    I prefer this illustration of a common Instpundit comment.

  5. Mike123 says:

    The one time McAmnesty was above Pres. Obama in the polls was after he picked Gov. Palin. As Harold pointed out, he made a big deal of rushing to DC to vote to give Wall Street billions in TARP money. At that point, he was done and so were we.

    I think we escaped a dangerous man by not electing McAmnesty. He would have killed any way for Conservatives to start taking back the Republican party from the DC elite. Obama is bad but he’s the other party’s problem now. Could you imagine having to justify McAmnesty’s policies now?

    I’m Jazzed by Romney and Ryan, as they say.

  6. Ed says:

    I had the same reaction, Sebastian. The one thing we know is Paul Ryan won’t stumble when Katie Couric (or whatever Obama media hack does the interview) asks a question, so that’s nice. Still, the crowds, money and enthusiasm mean nothing until the first Tuesday in November.

    • Harold says:

      Paul Ryan won’t stumble when Katie Couric (or whatever Obama media hack does the interview) asks a question

      Doesn’t matter when the media edits the video to make it look like they stumbled, or said something stupid, as they did with Palin (fortunately the network before the Couric interview kept editing the video as they showed previews, so we know some of what they did). I gather something like this has already happened with 60 Minutes; are we surprised?

      The question is why do the Republicans continue to play the game by the other side’s rules, from the nominating process I’ve previously mentioned, to allowing the usual suspects to “moderate” the “debates”, to this latest case of going to CBS for an interview and expecting them to portray it honestly.

      In theory it’s better to be The Stupid Party than The Evil Party, but when the former allows the latter to win….

  7. AZRon says:

    Think of a couple of other possible VP choices. Marco Rubio and Allen West.

    Either way, those choices would have been perceived as racial pandering. Haven’t we had enough of that? That’s them…not us.

    I look forward to a future with West and Rubio taking a greater leadership role in our nations’ future, but 2012 is not the time.

    One obvious problem with the US and the world is the economy. Paul Ryan is the right guy this time around. Romney and Ryan know more about how money works that the aggregate of every (other) lying bastard in all three branches of the federal government.

    Why else would Obama and company relentlessly attack them while STILL hidind their own complicity in our ever-decreasing standard of living and global respect. Paul Ryans’ three biggest faults are that he’s male, white, and conservative. These “faults” have become caustic in our post-racial society. Thank you mr.president.

    McCain didn’t make a mistake with Palin. Palin made a mistake with McCain.

top