Sources indicate Tom Ridge the pick for VP

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

It would seem the public is starting to disagree with you about McCain and his ability to manage the economy:

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...080820?sp=true

If McCain wants to confirm to voters that he'd do a better job with the economy, he should choose Romney for his VP.

And that Romney is now pro-life, will be a benefit as well. The evangelists hate that Romney is a Mormon, but because he now is against abortion will give them reason to think he may not be as evil as they once thought he was. That could excite what has now become the unfortunate base of the GOP.

Sure, but it isn't based on anything right now other than a hunch by the public, and it should change (if Obama runs a decent campaign). Romney had the same problem, and he never was able to overcome it (polls indicated that people thought McCain understood the economy better than Romney!). Eventually, Obama (or a 527) will run an ad talking about the economy and playing McCain's comment that he doesn't understand economics. They will also throw in that he doesn't understand how to use a computer. McCain doesn't have much of a rebuttal, given that those are his quotes. The economy is going to be a killer for McCain, especially if he picks Ridge.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sure, but it isn't based on anything right now other than a hunch by the public, and it should change (if Obama runs a decent campaign). Romney had the same problem, and he never was able to overcome it (polls indicated that people thought McCain understood the economy better than Romney!). Eventually, Obama (or a 527) will run an ad talking about the economy and playing McCain's comment that he doesn't understand economics. They will also throw in that he doesn't understand how to use a computer. McCain doesn't have much of a rebuttal, given that those are his quotes. The economy is going to be a killer for McCain, especially if he picks Ridge.

Agreed about Ridge and the economy, but disagree about Romney. I know you disagree and discount it, but Romney has proven that he understands the economy more than either Obama or McCain. He's been doing rather than talking throughout his career. I'll take you at your word that people thought McCain understood the economy better than Romney, as I don't recall ever hearing that.

I have to admit that I laughed at your hunch comment. Are you also saying that for the last year or so, the public had a hunch that Obama would be the better candidate for POTUS?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sure, but it isn't based on anything right now other than a hunch by the public, and it should change (if Obama runs a decent campaign). Romney had the same problem, and he never was able to overcome it (polls indicated that people thought McCain understood the economy better than Romney!). Eventually, Obama (or a 527) will run an ad talking about the economy and playing McCain's comment that he doesn't understand economics. They will also throw in that he doesn't understand how to use a computer. McCain doesn't have much of a rebuttal, given that those are his quotes. The economy is going to be a killer for McCain, especially if he picks Ridge.

Your entire argument about McCain's economic understanding is predicated off two isolated McCain statements, which you also persist in misrepresenting, almost as though he's never said anything else about the economy.

If this Zogby poll is to be believed, the American people aren't being so narrow in their evaluation of McCain.

McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Eventually, Obama (or a 527) will run an ad talking about the economy and playing McCain's comment that he doesn't understand economics. They will also throw in that he doesn't understand how to use a computer. McCain doesn't have much of a rebuttal, given that those are his quotes. The economy is going to be a killer for McCain, especially if he picks Ridge.

Obama is running an ad right now, something about the hands building America and all, in which he promises 5 million new jobs. Great. But is there any evidence, any experience, any historical occurance that would suggest Obama even knows how to go about doing that? Has he ever even created a new job without the help of government money (putting people on the public payroll)?

This is the problem he faces. He has no accomplishments upon which to hang his hat and to which to point as evidence of his wonderful capabilities in growing an economy. Surely these questions will be posed. People eventually want to know what their candidates have done as evidence that they can deliver on their promises.

Smoke and mirrors that it may be, at least McCain has a history in the Senate during which there has been significant economic growth that he use as evidence of his economic judgement. Put Romney on the ticket and there is a guy that has created and saved jobs, increased wealth, and facilitated efficiencies. He's a real wonk and would talk circles around Obama and his running mate.

[BarbaraGordon]

<self righteous voice of reason>
Hold up for a sec. Is there any reason to think that either McCain or Obama is any kind of economic expert? I mean, is there any worth in trying to rank the one over the other when they're both novices at best?

I'm not even certain that Romney's financial acumen is equivalent to true macroeconomic competency.

We don't choose our leaders because they're experts in any one facet of federal administration. We choose them because they know how to consult expert advisers, weigh the advice, make a decision, and well, lead.
</self-righteous voice of reason>

<Forrest>
And that's all I have to say about tha-at.
</Forrest>

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

<self righteous voice of reason>
Hold up for a sec. Is there any reason to think that either McCain or Obama is any kind of economic expert? I mean, is there any worth in trying to rank the one over the other when they're both novices at best?

I'm not even certain that Romney's financial acumen is equivalent to true macroeconomic competency.

We don't choose our leaders because they're experts in any one facet of federal administration. We choose them because they know how to consult expert advisers, weigh the advice, make a decision, and well, lead.
</self-righteous voice of reason>

<Forrest>
And that's all I have to say about tha-at.
</Forrest>

Correct on both Obama and McCain, although McCain at least has much more experience upon which to draw. At least Romeny can get in the door.

But that wasn't Cali's point. He's talking campaign strategy. I'm saying Obama can promise all he wants and run slick ads, yet in the end people will want to know if there is any "there" there. I think people are starting to conclude Obama has very limited "there."

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

He's talking campaign strategy.

Well, right. lemme back up.

The "who's better at economics" seems to be a recurring theme in the forum, and I had never chimed in. Il Pad got back to it just now when he said:

Romney has proven that he understands the economy more than either Obama or McCain.

If you're talking campaign strategy then, as you suggested, actual knowledge doesn't matter. Appearance is everything. Which is why among my political wonking friends I've been suggesting that it's absolutely gotta be Romney for VP. Regardless of his actual economic understanding, he's perceived as competent on the topic, and McCain desperately needs more economic credibility. (There are other reasons for going with Romney, but that subject has been addressed elsewhere.)

As far as the McCain v. Obama impending perceived-economic-competence showdown that you guys are discussing, I can't type anything more just now, but I want to get back to that.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Well, right. lemme back up.

The "who's better at economics" seems to be a recurring theme in the forum, and I had never chimed in. Il Pad got back to it just now when he said:
If you're talking campaign strategy then, as you suggested, actual knowledge doesn't matter. Appearance is everything. Which is why among my political wonking friends I've been suggesting that it's absolutely gotta be Romney for VP. Regardless of his actual economic understanding, he's perceived as competent on the topic, and McCain desperately needs more economic credibility. (There are other reasons for going with Romney, but that subject has been addressed elsewhere.)

As far as the McCain v. Obama impending perceived-economic-competence showdown that you guys are discussing, I can't type anything more just now, but I want to get back to that.

I think we agree. My judgement has been vindicated.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I'm not misrepresenting anything. His comments are about as bad as they could possibly be on perhaps the most important topic in this campaign. What would you say about Obama if he actually said, "the issue of Iraq is not something I understand as well as I should. I understand Iraq a whole lot less than I do economics. I need to learn more."

You would crucify him for it, and rightly so. McCain's comments will kill him in November.

You're paraphrasing him accurately now. Heretofore you've paraphrased him as knowing "zero" or "nothing" about economics.

As to the substance of the comment, I think the polls are reflecting how much it's "killing" McCain.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I think we agree. My judgement has been vindicated.

Except that we disagree on the preferred spelling of judgment, which apparently can be spelled either way. (I never knew that.) But other than that, we're good.