George Will: McCain's closing argument must be "we need divided government"

[scheming daemons]

Will is arguing that McCain's only hope now is to convince the public that "one-party rule" is a bad thing. His best argument to the public... his ONLY argument... is his Veto Pen.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/mccain_must_promise_ve.html

Money quote:

"The tech bubble was followed by the housing bubble, which has been topped by the Palin bubble. Bubbles will always be with us, because irrational exuberance always will be."


Also:

"By picking Palin, McCain got the country's attention. That is a perishable thing and before it dissipates, he should show the country his veto pen."

[PCIntern]

1. Divided? sure. Let's draw and quarter George Will and his bow-tie.

Howzzat for "divided"?

[scheming daemons]

4. George Will understands what a stupid pick Palin was.... and is arguing that

McCain is down to his last card:

Veto power over Democratic "excesses".



If that card fails, Obama wins.... likely in a landslide.



Will is an unabashed conservative.... but his intellectually honest. He calls things as they are, not how he wishes them to be.

[Cosmocat]

13. eh ...

I wouldn't say intellectually honest - there is NO tenable way of being intellectually honest AND a conservative who has supported the republicna party for the most part the last 15 years and Will HAS.

His BS just is a good bit more high minded and elequent.

[terrya]

2. I don't think so. We had one party government from 2002 - 2006

And well, look what happened there.

Sorry, George. This country needs the Democrats in complete power this time.

[scheming daemons]

5. Read the whole column... I think Will sounds resigned to the fact that Obama will win...

...and is suggesting one last hail mary by McCain.

[SoonerPride]

3. He can't use a veto pen b/c of his war wounds

duh

[tridim]

6. All these idiots have are excuses. Fact is, the GOP just plain sucks.

Let's move on without them.

[Essene]

7. "Divided" is a misrepresentation and misses a compelling point

The idea of a Dem in the White House + a Dem controlled Congress = disaster

For MANY americans. Many moderates and undecided voters will be swayed by this kind of argument.

However, this argument would have been stronger if he had picked a running mate like Tom Ridge or Lieberman, and then stood up to the social conservatives. Frankly, he would have stolen many democrats and the majority of moderates with that approach.

Now he's running as a reformer based on a smear campaign and lies, hiding behind a religious-right barbie doll. The "balance of power" and veto arguments are a lot harder now, because he's now much more vulnerable to the same suspicions when it comes time to picking judges.

The two oldest supreme court judges are progressives and Mccain's rhetoric indicates he'd replace then with right-wingers. If he had picked somebody like Lieberman and actually went center, the trust level on this issue would be higher.

[KansDem]

8. Is this the "George Will" who used stolen debate-prep materials from Carter's campaign...

...and briefed Reagan with those materials for an upcoming debate, knowing the materials were stolen, then went on to report how wonderful Reagan was in the debate? That "George Will?"

Ethical lapses
First hired as a columnist by the Washington Post in 1974, Will took to television quickly, appearing for years as a panelist on the syndicated Agronsky & Company before moving on to the McLaughlin Group. Today Will has a syndicated column appearing in more 450 newspapers, a twice-monthly essay in Newsweek and a weekly slot on ABC's This Week as the show's unopposed conservative voice. (See sidebar.)

With such a high media profile, it's remarkable how little attention is paid to Will's double standards, ethical lapses and misstatements. Instead, stories about Will are more likely to focus on his accomplishments. For instance, a Washingtonian article (3/01) that acknowledged some Will eccentricities, including his pretentious style, praised him as one of the country's top journalists: "Will continues to wield influence as a Washington institution and commands respect for his knowledge of history and the seriousness of his approach."

Will's approach has been questioned in a few exceptional cases. During the 1980 campaign, he drew fire when it was learned he'd secretly coached Republican candidate Ronald Reagan for a debate with President Jimmy Carter using a debate briefing book stolen from the Carter campaign. Immediately following the debate, Will appeared on Nightline (10/28/80) to praise Reagan's "thoroughbred performance," never disclosing his role in rehearsing that performance (New York Times, 7/9/83).

Fair

Yeah, George. Where were you when the GOP ran all three branches of government? :eyes:

...Oh, and George? FUCK you!!!

[gordianot]

9. Well if it is divided I want more, but we get only less.

[WeDidIt]

10. Obama can counter that easily

"In these trying times, we must have a united Legislative and Executive Branch. The Judiciary will hold those two branches in check."

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. George Will needs to stop the bullshit. He can't stand John McCain and doesn't

want him for president.

[doc03]

12. That's good news from George Will,

he senses defeat.:bounce:

[MindMatter]

14. I'd take that deal. USA is sick of division

Particularly when they are coming to understand that the lines of division are no longer

- repressive family values versus self determination

- small government versus benevolent government

- law and order versus respect for the individual

or any of the historical dividing lines.

The events of the past have brought into clear focus the line of division is the aristocrats who are intent on raping this country versus the worker who is left with little hope. The line of division is the Mafia versus all the people the Mafia preys on. It is definitely a division of the 1% "haves" trying to exploit the 99% "have nots".

Why would anybody want to divide our government in such a way that allows the fascists to have ANY part?

In those earlier situations, there could be a valid argument for balancing competing interests, each of which had some validity. There was a good argument that Americans were best served by achieving a balance that stayed away from the extremes.

But in today we have no such choice. Arguing for this kind of divided government is like saying that every classroom should include a recruiter for a street gang in order to give the students the best of both worlds.

Thanks, but no thanks.