McCain brings out NFL two-minute offense

My friend Ron Danner e-mailed me this afternoon asking if I thought tonight was “do or die for McCain?” I gave him my short and hard analysis: it’s already over and the fat lady is about to sing.

This was of course before the debate.

I strongly criticized McCain’s last performance (see: ). Had he performed as admirably – albeit still not perfectly – in the previous debates as he did tonight, he wouldn’t be down 10 points in the polls.

Yes, McCain showed some of his oddities and quirkiness that doesn’t look great on TV, but represent the “real McCain” so many Americans from both parties find attractive, but on the whole he performed well.

Is desperate Hail Mary pass enough?  And what’s up with ticking off the Dallas Cowboys fans?

My friend Ron Danner e-mailed me this afternoon asking if I thought tonight was “do or die for McCain?” I gave him my short and hard analysis: it’s already over and the fat lady is about to sing.

This was of course before the debate.

I strongly criticized McCain’s last performance (Debate 2: Not McCain’s Night). Had he performed as admirably – albeit still not perfectly – in the previous debates as he did tonight, he wouldn’t be down 10 points in the polls.

Yes, McCain showed some of his odd and quirky behaviors that don’t look great on TV — but they do show the “real McCain” so many Americans from both parties find attractive — and on the whole he performed well.

This debate is another draw though, because “Senator Government” held his own. “Senator Government” by the way would be Barack Obama. In an apparent Freudian slip, that’s what McCain called the junior senator from Illinois when he refuted Obama’s statements about health care. McCain’s line was the second of the debate to draw a laugh from the audience which otherwise minded the rules to keep quiet.

The other laugh line was also drawn by McCain when he told Obama, “I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against him you should have run four years ago.” Finally! McCain said something he should be repeating over and over. Reminding voters you’re not President Bush (and in fact far from being him) is a winning strategy for McCain.

The third and final debate was hands down the best of the three. Last week’s “town hall” hosted by Tom “snooze” Brokaw being the worst. This debate was actually a debate, and the candidates were forced to actually answer questions in a somewhat substantive manner. Thank you Bob Schiefer!

Both candidates had their strengths and weaknesses in the debate.

McCain still appeared somewhat twitchy and his non-verbal communication (which is actually more significant that his verbal), was awkward. Obama remained cool, collected, and “eloquent” – as McCain put it – but he’s almost too polished. Funny how all the liberals who criticized Ronald Reagan for being “Teflon” don’t have the same criticism of Obama – a man who has accomplished next to nothing as a legislator.

The fact that McCain chose to engage Obama on the issue of Obama associate the terrorist Ayres and then get into a ridiculous argument about whose campaign rally supporters are worse than the others (he even brought up some “insulting T-shirts” at an Obama rally), shows McCain still doesn’t understand that no one who can’t pay their mortgage gives a shit about who wears or says what at either candidates’ campaign rallies.

That example alone is enough to show how utterly clueless McCain has been the last eight weeks. What do you expect from a guy who is (wrongly) being handled by a bunch of Bush losers who don’t have McCain’s best interest in mind and are the very people who got us into the mess we’re in that McCain would like to get us out of? Why they are there in the first place is a question McCain will have to answer after November 4th.

And what was up with that boneheaded reminder from McCain that he’s an Arizona Cardinals fan – and certainly not a Dallas Cowboys fan – was it really a slap at W. and his gang of incompetent, out of touch bunch of phoney conservative losers who got us into the mess we’re currently in?  Certainly McCain didn’t win any undecided voters from the state of Texas tonight, but they’ve probably got fresh poll numbers that show a lot of Americans hate the Cowboys.

But don’t count the maverick out just yet. He has a history of beating the odds, and he doesn’t like the Dallas Cowboys (or Obama supporters who are former terrorists for that matter). McCain’s message in trashing ‘the boys,’ was, “I’m just like you – unless you’re from Texas!”

And what does it say that some voters can be swayed by a candidate’s support or non-support of a professional football team?

Only in America! It’s no wonder we’ll all be speaking Manderin in 100 years.

Chris Ingram is the president and founder of 411 Communications a corporate and political communications firm, and publisher of http://www.IrreverentView.com. Ingram is a frequent pundit on Fox News and CNN, and has written opinion columns for the Washington Times, UPI, Front Page Florida, and National Review online. E-mail him at: Chris@411Communications.net.

17 thoughts on “McCain brings out NFL two-minute offense”

  1. Geez Chris, give it up. You thought I was bad with Edwards. Consider solidarity, my friend, and get used to hearing the phrase, “The President of the United States, Barack Obama”.

    Like

  2. I’m leaving you and your 4 pack a day, non-planning for your retirement, 12 sandwich eatin’ self with Obama and all the tax bills he needs people like me to pay for and heading to New Zealand, or Ireland, or Greenland or somewhere else where hardwork, personal responsibility, and federalism are appreciated. You and your ilk who want the government to take care of everyone either because they are lazy, stupid, or both, is not the America our founding fathers had in mind.

    So yeah, Obama is probably going to win and America will suffer for it because with Dems. in charge of the White House and both houses of Congress, we’re all doomed.

    Like

  3. Tsk tsk. I don’t really know, right now. It seems very much that you’re pulling for the losing horse simply because he’s a “maverick.” Cite what you’d like; his election bid has taken every bit of maverick out of him. This cow wanders, occasionally, but if the Republican party does one thing well, it’s sticking to their guns (a trait you’ve displayed here beautifully) far past when they’ve run out of ammo.
    Perhaps it is time to throw in the towel, yes. But perhaps not. Perhaps one could ride this out. See where it takes them. If we’re going to hit the “hard times ahead” tumble as badly as we think we are (though this is always murky, with the news being… well, the news.), we need someone to be more willing to lean towards FDR than McCain will be willing, or able, to do. Examining the economy, one cannot place all the blame for the situation upon the shoulders of the Democratic party’s move to allow banking policies one could term anywhere from “strange” to “ridiculous,” though hindsight is always 20/20. The immense and growing gap between the rich and the poor is not because the poor are growing progressively less intelligent, while the rich have jumped thirty IQ points upwards on diets of fine wine and condescension. The policy of complete deregulation on business that the Republican party has been able to run through the moon and then some in the last eight years has done nothing to improve the situation.
    I don’t like him, but Obama may be, as has become the trite and cliche line recently, “what we need.” America is not a country of great men. It is a country led by them. Were I you, I would throw the full weight of my assistance behind the idealism he exhibits. I’m reminded of a phrase I heard as a child; “Shoot for the moon; even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.”
    We’re shooting from a bit lower than that phrase typically accounts for, but even if he only accomplishes half of what he hopes to, I find the ability to say “almost” far more satisfying than to say “I told you so.”

    Like

  4. “Dagda”, what you don’t understand about “cingrim” is that if he can’t win the game he’ll take his ball and go home, or New Zealand, Ireland, et al. I brought up the word solidarity, and in your piece I believe you were echoing the same idea. Cingram is really a great guy, just misguided. Your use of the word “condescension” was right on the money. That is the pervasive feeling expressed by young professionals who grew up under Papa Reagan. Money is King, Queen, and Duke of Earn. They seem to have a tin ear to the plight of the least amongst us blaming them for their own fate. They place no fault or responsibility on the system in which they are captive. They believe that the playing field is, and always has been level. How do you combat that?
    I have a radio show in the area (Clearwater) and it being progressive, I have been relentless in my dogging of this adminisration and the neo-cons who supply it it’s marching orders. Whether I am in full agreement with Obama is less important than the fact that he is thee only electable
    candidte who offers the intelligence and pragmatism, that in my estimation, are necessary to improve our plight. Will I back him 100%? That depends. Because he is closer to my way of thinking is no guarantee that I will follow like a sheep. If he screws up, I’ll be on him Like white on rice. I’m just hoping for the best. We’re in a HUGE hole, and even though it has become a cliche’, in this election, we do not need more of the same.
    So, we can do it Dagda, with or without Cingrams help. It may help if we can get Congress to pass H.R. 2755, we might have a real chance.
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2755
    One more thing. I invite you to listen into my show on WTAN 1340AM, Fri, Sat, Sunday nights from 11pm-1am (www.tantalk1340.com). For the sake of full disclosure, I have to admit to having had Cingram on my show a couple of times. He really is a good guy, just misguided.

    Like

  5. John,

    As we have previously discussed regarding someone we both know, I have a problem with the concept of having to take care of someone who at the age of 60 still smokes 4 packs of cigarettes a day but hasn’t saved a nickle for his retirement. Do the math: 4 packs at $4.00 per pack times 365 days a year = $5,840. Multiply that times five and you get $29,200.

    So we’ve got this real person (again, whom we both know)burning almost thirty grand in five years on a reckless habit, but hasn’t save a dime for his retirement. What makes you think taxpayers should have to take care of this person? I don’t.

    Of course I along with other taxpayers will have to pay the bill when he gets lung cancer and goes on Medicare and has million dollar hospital bills for a lung transplant. That is not the American way. That this irresponsible person can take advantage of the system is shameful.

    I’m not saying don’t help people in need, I’m saying people need to hold themselves accountable. Someone wants to smoke? Fine. But let them pay the bills for their stupidity. It’s called personal responsibility. It’s something most Democrats don’t understand. Democrats just want to take from the haves and give it to the have-nots. I don’t believe in rewarding people for poor performance. Democrats do.

    Like

  6. It’s unfortunate that your perception is such. More unfortunate, though, is that it’s shared by all too many people in the government. In issue after issue, both parties display a disturbing lack of comprehension for even rudimentary sociology. This is one of the reasons I, for one, believe that politicians shouldn’t be allowed to run for office without some sort of training in sociology. Many of them understand it only enough to manipulate the populace, Republican and Democrat alike. Where Republicans refuse to acknowledge the possibility of social influences, however, Democrats approach them with a complete lack of comprehension that, frankly, is a little disturbing, considering their passionate belief that they are the party “of the people.”

    Truth be told, neither party is really “of the people.” Republicans are elected because “I’d take a drink with him/her.” Democrats are elected because “S/he understands.” It’s funny, though. While I used condescension in reference to Republican understanding of the “lower class,” it’s omnipresent in Democrat policy as well. It’s two radical ends of a spectrum, neither solution being adequate. Democrats believe strongly in “giving a man a fish.” It doesn’t work, as the man never learns to be productive in and of himself. Republicans, on the other hand, believe that damn it, he should have learned to fish on his own, and his incompetence is his own damn fault, without even considering that he might not be able to afford a fishing pole (IE, an education), refusing to acknowledge the inadequacy of an inner city education, or, if they do, addressing it only as evidence that they can’t be trusted with assistance.

    Which, in the form of money, may be true. But Republicans and Democrats alike REFUSE to put the effort forth to do something other than throw money at the problem, or do nothing at all but watch with an air of disgust and disbelief.

    America is not a particularly nice place to live any more. Teen pregnancy, STD transmission rates, violent crime, et cetera, et cetera; in all categories, we exhibit statistics seen in no other first world countries.

    In essence, the entire approach of politics towards the poor needs to be changed. Neither side does an even moderately adequate job. Unfortunately, in such a blatantly two party system, an alternative is a remote, if not infinitesimal, possibility.

    Like

  7. P.S.: While that addressed mainly our approach to the poor, other areas exhibit a deep failure to comprehend as well. Foreign policy, public debate, and a score of other situations leave Americans willfully flummoxed, and offensive as hell. Which, tragically, is not because the average American is an idiot. He’s simply intellectually lazy. Investigation and comprehension take time and effort, and it’s much easier to be spoonfed by cable television and “from the horse’s mouth.”

    Like

  8. Cingram;
    I just watched a bit of the Alfred E Smith fundraising dinner, in New York and listened to both John McCain and Barack Obama. If that John McCain had shown up for the election, he might have had a chance. And the Barack Obama who showed up is definitely capable to be the Next President of The United States of America, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    Get on board and contribute instead of chewing on the bitter
    herbs of loss. Poetic, huh?
    I’m not going to respond to what you say about responsibility. Not that I disavow the need for such, but rather that Republicans keep using it as a sword to bludgeon those who are down, not because of lack of responsibility by them, but rather that they have been taken advantage by those who fail to claim responsibility for what they have done.
    In a couple of words, “Wall Street”. Can you spell,
    S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M ???

    Like

  9. Dadga;
    I liked, for the most part, what you had to say. I take exception to, however, your belief that Democrats want to give a man a fish instead of teaching him how. That represents part of the misunderstanding of who Democrats are. Do you not know of the Democrat’s passion for education? I thought that that was pretty common knowledge. Now reference that same analogy, I think you nailed the Republicans.
    I agree to this fact more than anything; The food fight HAS to stop. There is a shit-pot full of work that has to get done, and being at odds and fighting ain’t gonna get it done.

    Like

  10. Yes, I’m aware of the fondness they claim. However, all too often, their attempts to “elevate the poor” are material. Giving a man unearned goods simply because he cannot afford them is, like it or not, an unsound policy, as compassionate as it may seem. They attempt to “even the playing field,” without addressing the very things keeping it tilted. The Democrat approach tends to involve throwing great sums of money at something, in the attempt to create an illusion of self-sufficiency (the very loans landing us in this situation, for example), bypassing the necessary process to actually GAIN it.

    One’s platform and one’s actions are rarely the same. The harsh reality is that Democrats are fond only of looking concerned about education, simultaneously removing any motivation to pursue it. Many people in this situation have never KNOWN anything but “getting by.” Democrats are fond of assisting them in that, but very rarely of changing the situation.

    Like

  11. Dagda;
    I’m going to assume (always dangerous)you have never been an avowed Democrat, you don’t really know a Democrat, although I have no doubt you have seen one or two. We’re all over the place
    and if you keep the windows of your BMW really clean, you’ll see us at bus stops, riding bikes, and frequenting all the beer and ball bars all over the Tampa area.
    Point is this. You’ve got some pretty screwed up conceptions of who Democrats are. If you want, give a call to my show, and we’ll talk. Radio Bullseye, WTAN 1340AM, Fri,Sat,Sun.11pm-1am
    I gotta go nite nite.

    Like

  12. Just speaking from evidence. Regardless, the assumption you’re making, I’m sure, is that I’m a strange breed of Republican. Which isn’t really true. In this particular election, I’ll be voting Obama, but I would much rather see a reformed party system than this tried and false bollocks we have now.

    Besides, being a democrat and/or having a social circle primarily consisting of them would typically make one the least qualified to make objective statements about them.

    Like

  13. (I would also like to point out that I don’t own a BMW. In fact, I drive a Saab 9000 CS, which, currently, has no bumper. Assumptions are dangerous indeed, no?

    Strangely, I’m an unemployed poet attempting to make his way through school to become a sociologist. Thus, perhaps, my belief that politicians need to more often employ the field. But, really, it’s less out of self-interest than a genuine exasperation at the lack of comprehension politicians have.)

    Like

  14. Smooch! Smooch! Smooch! How’s that, Cingram? Hey, bud, a Saab will get you to the same place. I still invite you to listen in tonight, if for no other reason than to just get a feeling for who I am beyond these hallowed pages. Tonight we’ve got a local. His name is Burt Linthicum. He’s a Constitutionalist and we’ll be talking about our current financial woes. He’s going to be a regular Friday night fixture, since this problem won’t be going away anytime soon. If you like what you hear, you can send me your e-mail address and we’ll put you on our alert list. My e-mail is johnie2xs-at-y-a-h-o-o dot com.

    Like

  15. Ingram!

    I’m indignant. Indignant!

    Politics isn’t something you kiss and make up over. Politics is something you have angry sex over. Which, in the case of the sex you aren’t interested in, comes out more as “agree to disagree.”

    To be honest though, getting angry about political debate is silly.

    Which limits my angry sex. *sigh* You never win.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s