http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/11/10/will-joe-go-fo Comments On: What Will Joe Go Fo'? by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 22 May 2013 14:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Randomfactor]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:45:57 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Geni]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:20:38 -0800 The Stranger
Take McCain. There were two things that scared me about him: one was that he might keel over and leave us stuck with Palin, and the other was that he talked about foreign policy like the Cold War was still on.

Note that Romney also had the problem of this Cold War mindset, when he made comments about Russia.

The problem wasn't their numerical age, but the fact that older candidates tend to come with an older worldview.
Posted by alguna_rubia]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:55:46 -0800 The Stranger
The GOP frontrunner for 2016 seems to be Christie (obviously at such an early stage, this could and probably will change). Hopefully this is a sign that the GOP will jettison the tea-partiers sometime within the next 4 years. Whatever happens with that is going to play a huge part in the 2016 election.
Posted by random_lez]]> Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:58:50 -0800 The Stranger Posted by puppydogtails]]> Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:04:57 -0800 The Stranger Posted by MinnySota]]> Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:02:12 -0800 The Stranger
I certainly don't believe his selection of Sarah Palin had anything to do with advanced-age diminished judgment, any more than the elder Bush's selection of Dan Quayle or Romney's pick of Paul Ryan did. In each of these cases, you had more moderate* presidential nominees, all in their 60s (he Fnarf, there's another counter-example for you), selecting more conservative and "young" (all in their 40s) veeps intended to shore up the base and bring youth appeal to the ticket. (The need for youth appeal doesn't excuse ageist tendencies among the electorate; but politicians are hardly known for their brave stances against prejudice.)

It's hard to remember now, but Sarah Palin had a solid reputation as a rising star in 2008. She took on the Old Boys network in Alaska and won. Sometimes we liberals don't perceive the differences within the GOP, largely because they do a much better job of closing ranks when election time comes around. But most of the hard right believe that the GOP is in the hands of a powerful elite - and they're right. But they believe they can wrest it back and make it a populist party**. That's what the Tea Party is all about, and Palin was an early hero, until her nakedly self-serving resignation as governor revealed that that empress had not clothes.

In short, I don't hold the Palin selection against McCain. That was a strategic decision on behalf of the whole GOP brain trust. It was shortsighted, sure, but it had worked in the past. And actually, she was more popular as a VP nominee than either Quayle or Ryan.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that you, for one, don't consider age to be a deal breaker.

* "Moderate" may be more a matter of perception, especially coming from the GOP itself, than reality, but those three all have records to the left of Saint Ronald.

** The Nazis were populist too. And it ain't a violation of Godwin's Law to say that.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:12:01 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Prettybetsy]]> Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:17:42 -0800 The Stranger
You're probably right that John McCain's numerical age was less important than the fact that he looked and sounded old. But his appearance of age was still a valid cause for concern, because it raised questions about whether he'd be up to the demands of the job. Add that to the fact that he showed several episodes of poor judgement during the campaign - the worst of which was his choice of Sarah Palin, concerns about whom were exacerbated by the fact that he was old and therefore at elevated risk of death in office - and it was clear that he probably didn't have the necessary physical and mental health to be a good president. So, yes - not only did the voters count it against him, I'd say they were right to do so.
Posted by I have always been... east coaster]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:28:12 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:24:53 -0800 The Stranger Posted by ThomZ0rz]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:07:55 -0800 The Stranger
Furthermore: do you think that Harvard University hires professors on the basis of 1/32nd native American heritage? It's not like she was applying for undergraduate admission under a minority scholarship.

One last thing: I don't think Warren ought to run, but if you're waiting for a candidate that Republicans will have zero ways to attack, then you will be waiting a long, long time.
Posted by ThomZ0rz]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:01:30 -0800 The Stranger "preventing the public option"

LOL. If losing that battled counts as "preventing the public option", then Dennis Kucinich and the Green Party should bear more of the blame than Obama, as they lost the fight much earlier than he did.

Following your line of reasoning, the Green Party has done absolutely nothing for gay rights, climate change, women's rights, growing income disparity, etc., despite all of their promises! Where's your outrage?

As for the rest of your litmus test, I believe you are confusing "leftist" with "liberal". These concepts are orthogonal.

"Only Elizabeth Warren or someone similar will actually do something about it."

If she runs for president, my guess is that she'll do as much about it as Dennis Kucinich has done.
Posted by seandr]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:15:35 -0800 The Stranger
That would have been awesome.

So did Biden shove his calf down his mouth with a "Wouldn't it be great if Obama croaked" speech or was he just angling for 2016?
Posted by DRF]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:53:52 -0800 The Stranger
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/j…
Posted by Spindles]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 13:08:16 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ebenezer]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:24:06 -0800 The Stranger
THIS one is @ 61.

Was it age, exactly, that played a role in McCain's defeat? Or was it also his general health (from his never-healed POW injuries to his history of skin cancer)? Was it because he was old, or because he looked old?

Personally, I too become leery when someone hits 70. (We can round up Reagan's age when he hit office to 70 - his birthday was just weeks after he took office). But it's ageist to automatically set an upper age limit, and say that nothing else matters. Not the candidate's physical health, actual stamina, mental agility, or even appearance. Put Biden next to Clinton and tell me who looks older.

I'd rather that there were more younger candidates on the bench - if everything else is equal (and they never are, but let's pretend), then go with the younger candidate (so long as they aren't too young. But everyone deserves a fair assessment of their abilities, and not all 70 year olds are over the hill, or going to become that way over four to eight years. Many, even most are, but not all. To say they will is not fair, even if you have an 80% chance of being right. Fnarf discounted medicine on another thread, but is foolish doing so IMO. When you're healthy and have access to the best healthcare available, it certainly lengthens one's productive life.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:22:11 -0800 The Stranger course you heard a lot about it, and of course you don't care. It isn't about her appearance.

Now, you make some good point - OK ancestry does lend it credence. Still, if you ask Native Americans about it, they'll tell you how sick they are of hearing white people tell them about their Cherokee ancestry.

Anyway, I agree that that angle of it won't matter. With so many people "having" Cherokee great-grandmothers, few are going to question it further. The real issue - and this WILL play in the red and purple states, if not the primaries - is if she used it to boost her career and "fill a quota." If she's correct, she's just 1/32 Cherokee. It won't be just the anti-affirmative action people who'll find that to be unethical.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:09:24 -0800 The Stranger Posted by I have always been... east coaster]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:30:50 -0800 The Stranger Posted by ScrawnyKayaker]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:03:31 -0800 The Stranger most of the people who claim some Native American ancestry are telling the truth. There has been, historically, plenty of intermarriage between Natives and Whites, and it's especially common in Oklahoma, where Warren is originally from - so much that anyone whose family has lived in Oklahoma for more than three generations can almost be presumed to have some Native blood. Don't be deceived by the fact that she appears white. There are a lot of people whose Native blood is a small enough fraction of their total that they don't look Native, just as there are a fair number of people with a portion of Black ancestry who can "pass".
Posted by I have always been... east coaster]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:54:30 -0800 The Stranger
However, I hope and pray that a younger (sorry, but I said it) stronger candidate emerges by then.
Posted by Charity Froggenhall]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:51:52 -0800 The Stranger A Liberal GGG in Central PA = : /
Posted by GGGinPA]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 07:31:58 -0800 The Stranger
And all the "DINO" nonsense needs to stop. Andrew Cuomo, who more than anyone else is responsible for getting marriage equality through the (republican-controlled) NYS Senate, isn't a real Democrat? Really? Get over your purity tests or we'll end up like the Republicans.
Posted by Marooner]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:46:58 -0800 The Stranger
What you say makes sense from a "electability is criterion number one" perspective. But as I asked seandr, how does that work out in reality? The last guy picked on that basis that won, Bush, only did so because of unprecedented fuckups, and also lost the popular vote while he was at it.

Obama didn't beat McCain because he was young and McCain was old. He won because he was the alternative Americans wanted in 2008. If Obama does well this time, people will want the person who will keep it up. They won't vite for Paul Ryan instead.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:41:19 -0800 The Stranger