McCain Unhinged: The Must Issue for the Obama Campaign
Richard Nixon is credited with coming up with, or at least effectively recognizing, the idea of systematically exploiting the supposed weakness of Democrats as out-of-the-mainstream liberals who aren't like everyone else. As un-American. As anti-troops. As vaguely elite. As "pointy-headed." As feminine. As weak on defense.
This unfortunate but highly effective stereotype has worked because there is a certain resonance to these charges. It's not because they are true; in fact, if you look at the record over the last 40 years, it is actually the Republicans who espouse un-American, anti-patriotic, elitist, and soft-on-defense policies. But the charges have worked because Democrats, by and large, do support the rights of those who "aren't like everyone else" -- minorities, feminists, gays, the poor, the disenfranchised, the accused. Of course, that nearly everyone knows and loves people who fall into these categories is beside the point. When they are cast as great social issues -- as the "us-against-them" dichotomy -- then it is not hard to see why they are so appealing to the one social class that is most threatened by them -- the white American male.
Democrats can learn from the way Republicans consistently find charges that resonate with voters. But this should not be an effort to merely recast the debate. It is possible to make the argument that it is actually the Republicans whose policies promote big government, a weaker military, and higher taxes. But while that argument is possible, it often doesn't work very well because these issues don't resonate with voters as flaws in Republican candidates or policies. Instead, Democrats need to find the resonant truths about the Republicans that describe preconceived notions about GOP candidates and policies. And that's the key -- the resonance of the charges. In other words, figure out what charges about Republicans resonate with voters, then exploit those preconceived notions. Let me explain.
Look at the last two election cycles before this year, 2000 and 2004. Both times, George Bush and Karl Rove were able to cast the opponent as "not like us" -- as "latte-drinking" limousine liberals. Gore was an extreme liberal phony who would surrender to environmentalists and who would raise taxes and expand government. Kerry was an extreme, liberal, flip-flopping socialist who "looked French," was soft on terror and who would raise taxes and expand government. Never mind that Bush, of course, expanded government more than any president in history, weakened the U.S. military, jeopardized the war on terrorists and ensured a future determined by vast debt, and yes, the need for more taxes.
And now, Obama is cast as an arrogant, presumptuous, overconfident, liberal, uppity, elitist "celebrity" who would raise taxes and expand government. He's a little too smart, see? And a little too full of hisself. He ain't like us. And we can't trust him.
In each case, the broad resonant themes are the same, while the message is tweaked a bit for each personality. And it seems apparent that this will be the Republicans' Rovian playbook for the fall campaign.
But what is equally obvious is that it's easy to apply the same formula to define John McCain. Just ask yourself -- what are the broad resonant themes about Republicans and about McCain? That is, what negative truths do voters think of when they think of Republican government and when they think of McCain?
In the Republicans' case, it's policies that favor the rich but hurt the little guy. And, perhaps to a lesser extent, it's incompetence in government, and a tendency toward corruption and arrogance.
Next, and this should be even easier: What is the overriding stereotypical view of John McCain? What charges about him resonate with voters? What are the most common images of him on cable, in print, on late-night talk shows? Heck, what's the first thing you think of when you see him?
To be blunt: He's a crazy old man who can't keep his stories straight. He's a doddering fool. He's a dangerous, burning fuse that cannot be trusted with the reins of government. It's not so much that he's a flip-flopper but that he doesn't even remember his flips or flops. Even his own campaign says to ignore him. He shouts at clouds and the children who run across his lawn.
You get the idea. And these resonant images and feelings fit in perfectly with voters' resonant feelings about Republicans -- the GOP nominee is an angry, arrogant, man whose policies, when he can remember them, will favor the rich and escalate the Bush incompetencies.
It must be said that this isn't about mere politics, although it would be an effective way to fight back against the highly negative campaign McCain is running. This is THE crucial issue of the campaign. These are dangerous times. We cannot afford to elect a doltish, forgetful, rash warmonger to lead the nation.
Early in the campaign, the McCain camp went ballistic when Obama made a casual comment that McCain was "losing his bearings." They shouted that this was ageism. They shouted it was an outrage about a "hero," etc. These kinds of reactions demonstrate how effective these charges are, and how afraid of them the McCain campaign must be. Yet, amazingly, the Obama campaign backed down and has not since touched upon this crucial issue.
But it must. Obama and his campaign must fight back hard. This isn't about age. It's about competence. Perhaps in this case that's tied to age, or, more accurately, to the patterns that some people fall into as they age -- they may have difficulty processing simple events, or they cannot remember specific things that they say, or they become unnecessarily angry, or they view the world as a reflection of whatever thought happens to be passing through their minds at the time.
All of these are characteristics evident in John McCain. Is he becoming unhinged? The man says things that are patently untrue, then says the opposite, which he then denies that he said. It's easy to find reams of data detailing his flip-flops, his flashes of anger, his constant mistakes, his inability to be even remotely consistent on the most basic policies or facts. The pattern has become so alarming that some have wondered if he will even be able to finish the campaign. Again, this is not about age; it's about the disturbing behavioral characteristics of John McCain.
So this MUST be a key issue for Obama. If McCain is elected, his incapacities may well result in a government run not by the president, but by his vice president and ideological bureaucrats with their own particular agendas, not answerable to the people. Of course, that's what happened upon Bush's election. In Bush's case it was intellectual and moral insufficiencies; in McCain's case it is most likely mental impairment.
This is the most important issue of the campaign, and it is the most resonant one for the American people. They've seen his dottiness first-hand; they know, deep down, that this is an important issue, even if he has been given such a free pass so far. The voters also know McCain is a temperamental, mean-spirited dinosaur who will support the failed policies of the past. So tell them both of those things in this campaign, over and over.
If such a strategy is undertaken, some might worry about the fierce reactions from the McCain campaign and the right wing. But why feel qualms about telling the truth? The McCain campaign and Republicans have lied about Obama's reasons for canceling a visit to wounded troops, tried to tie him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, and even, in Kafkaesque absurdities, compared him to Moses and blamed him for high gas prices. They are now trying the "resonant issues" they have used on Democrats for more than 30 years - a strategy that will likely last until the fall -- that Obama hates the troops, is a tax-and-spend liberal, is weak on defense, and is unpatriotic.
The only way to answer such pathetic charges is with the resonant arguments about McCain and the Republicans -- he's a crazy, dangerous and angry man who can't remember what he says. He'll favor the rich and give us more of the same Republican incompetence in managing the economy and foreign policy.
At least, in Obama's case, the charges will have the advantage of being true.
Guy Reel is an associate professor of mass communication at Winthrop University. He may be reached at reelg@winthrop.edu.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
54 Comments so far
Show AllThis commentary is yet more advice from the liberal DP set on how Barack can become Emperor! And what does it consist of? Call McCain crazy?
Isn't this just like the name calling from the other side? Let's see, why not call McCain an asshole, too? And how about a limp prick, unlike the Democrat's stronger prick?
Oh what a sight our pseudo democracy is, America!
If this was a perfect world, or even a good one, such tactics wouldn't be necessary, or work.
Forever, Republicans have used this exact type of "argument," and won. Also this is one case where the candidate's deficiencies may be so severe as to actually be fair, even important, points.
But the key here is the media. Because it is only the echo chamber that resonates.
And the point of the article was true, _this_ is the issue that can resonate with voters, if it can be kept before the msm. DB
We can thank Al Gore and Bill Clinton for gratuitously alienating Ralph Nader. (Well, their pro-corporate policies had something to do with that disrespect, no doubt.) But why did Ralph Nader never try a run for the U.S. Senate first?
I agree with the author of this piece. John McCain's age and incoherence must become issues in this campaign. He appears to be largely "winging it," and he appears to be out of touch. He is just too old. (As former NY mayor Ed Koch once said, "His time has come and gone.")
If McCain is elected, his best intentions will not necessarily prevail, and he is likely to be a tool of some other interests and forces beyond his control. He is ambitious and calculating and, like many Republicans these days, self-righteous and disdainful of Democrats. This combination is potentially very dangerous.
lisa3210peace August 5th, 2008 7:26 pm
Lisa I don't know why Nader doesn't try to build a party. That's why I am voting for Cynthia McKinney who is. Sorry, I can't help you on that one.
As one approaches older age the picture starts to get clearer for anybody doing their homework. Out here on the Left Coast it is hard to find anybody to defend either "Party"...yet there is no hope that even revolting against the Dims will accomplish anything but give the RePugs a chance for more rape and pillage. SO WHAT? DOES ANYBODY NOTICE THAT THIS SHIT HAS BEEN NON STOP SINCE BEFORE HIROSHIMA? think Dresden and Tokio) The machines of destruction are more persuading that any reason, plan, treaty, diplomacy, agreement or convention.
To abjure brute force, torture, assasination, threats, extortion, bribes, etc etc WILL REQUIRE A COMPLETE OVERHAUL OF THE NATIONAL AGENDA AND SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE.
No reform will be possible until something occurs which unifies all citizens in clear rejection of our business as usual: empire building at any cost. It is obvious that our nation, as well as numerous others (China, the EU, Indonesia) will require complete economic breakdown before any real positive change will occur. Any techonological "fix" which allows the maintainance of the "hegemaniacal" present international system will only prolong our agony. Pray for quick irrevocable dissolving of the present nightmare and perhaps at least a few million of us will have a chance to try again.....
tailcap; No. If the Republicans had not murdered Wellstone, a good Democrat, if Lieberman was not really a Republican, if the Administration was not Republican-then congress truly would be "controlled" by Democrats.
And tailcap, heh, Democrats? a more immoral soul-sold bunch are hard to find on this planet-except right on the other side of the aisle.
But please, can you tell me why does Nader not organize between presidential elections?
That perplexes me. He has so many supporters, if he'd been building an organization, w/ the net, volutnteers etc., campaigning these last years, could he not have become the factor you speak of? Gotten that 5% and Fed funds? So why Not do these things?
Sincerely Perplexed.
lisa3210peace August 5th, 2008 2:03 am writes:
Nader has been running for the last TWENTY years.
Yeah, I can see THAT has certainly helped.
-Democrats have been in control of the Congress for the last TWO years.
Yeah, I can see THAT has certainly helped.
FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE- DEMOCRATS BECOME LIKE REPUBLICANS
-good thinking!
"Democrats can learn from the way Republicans consistently find charges that resonate with voters."
-Guy Reel is a typical weak-assed DPA (Democratic Party apologist). His solution to the "branding" problem is to become more like Republicans by taking a page out of their book, that is, to become more like Republicans than they already are. The way Democrats inoculate themselves from Republican attacks is by becoming more like them.
Take note on how the recipe for combating Republicans isn't by highlighting policy differences. The Democrats can't do this because there aren't really that many differences. Obama keeps becoming more, and more a Republican.
How about fighting back against Republicans on principle?
1) Democrats could be opposed to war instead of for it.
2) Democrats could be opposed to Bush's trampling on the Constitution.
3) Democrats could be pushing impeachment instead of putting it off the table.
4) Democrats could be opposed to FISA.
5) Democrats could be defenders of civil rights.
Democrats are a pathetic, weak, cowardly party that isn't really that different from Republicans in terms of policy. They are both pro-war, pro-corporate, pro limiting civil rights, pro-Militay Industrial Complex, pro Big Oil, and pro-Big Business.
DPAs like Guy Reel have no answers. His response is to crawl into the gutter with Republicans and obscure all differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. How weak, unprincipled and pathetic.
I think Mr. Reel has good advice. But didn't voting for Nader in Florida elect Bush? Can our common dreams survive more of Bush? It's Obama or nothing!
Living in a 'red state' you realize that there are people who will never get it. The proof is that they vote against their own best interests time and time again. No one is responsible for their ignorance except them. So I suppose the question is: will the majority of Americans wake up before something catastrophic happens, or will it take a catastrophe? Unfortunately, it may take a McCain presidency [for them] to see the criminals for what they are. More importantly, for those who support their criminality to see what THEY are or have become. Ironically, though, the hole will be much deeper and more difficult to dig out of.
I agree that we must go for the jugular.
But let's not forget the party for the candidate.
Fact is: the Republican party has proven that its principles and practices are unfit to govern.
Plain and simple.
In essence we have the situation of a driver who has demonstrated over several years that he is a danger to himself and others in his care and had produced several severe wrecks. Imagine you'd be responsible for hiring a new school bus driver - would you even accept that person's application?
The Republican Party is a demolition crew, not a team of builders.
All Aboard The Alzhiemer's Express!! Next stop, sweaty flashbacks to the Vietamese jungle!!
Can't wait until President McCain offers the wife of some Asian leader 5 bucks for some "fuckee fuckee"
The biggest problem in this country 'Republican Rhetoric'! To many people listen faithfully to it and have ceased to use their brain and ability to think for themselves years ago! They believe every word these people tell them without ever checking the facts. So we have become a nation of uninformed people who are being lead around by the nose by 'Republican Rhetoric'. I know that fact because I used to be one of them. Who always voted Republican because they were better at the hate Rhetoric. I would probably still be voting Republican if Ronald Reagan hadn't come along and taken the party so far to the right I could no longer abide by them. I started looking for someone else to vote for then. And discovered I was voting for the wrong people all along. I was voting against my own interests. If people would just stop listening to all the hate these people churn out every election. The problems in this country would eventually solve themselves.
REMEMBER THE U.S.S. FORRESTAL! (John "Wet-start McCain)
Davey (4:48 a.m.):
"It's going to take the threat of a mass exodus from the Democratic Party to pry it out of the hands of old Clintonites and Blue Dogs who are running Obama like it was 1992. Now would be the most effective time to do it."
Probably the smartest thing that's been said among the numerous intelligent comments on this thread. I would only add that it's going to take more than a "threat" of such mass exodus, it's going to take the courage and commitment of people to leave a party and lose a battle (an election) if they have to in furtherance of winning the war (a reform of the party) without which there is not the slightest hope that American elections will ever become anything better than mud-slinging contests between Dirty Tweedle-dum and Nasty Tweedle-dee. (And yes I've read all the screams of anguish on this thread and elsewhere about how it will be the doom of civilization if our efforts at reform produce "another 8 years of Bush" in the form of an "unhinged" John McCain.) The Progressive Democrats of America had the right idea about party reform, they just got way-laid by the lesser-evilism crowd into abandoning the P part of that equation in order to promote a D win.
I think you really understand this issue and I applaud your insight and strategy. At the very least, Democrats should be countering the rhetoric of the right much more effectively. If they want to win, they should be attacking. There is no lack of ammunition but little hope they will use it. This Democratic Party seems unable to adapt to current conditions. I blame it on the DLC.
The people in the Democratic Party that I have spoken with insist that slugging it out makes them appear as bad as the GOP; an odd point of view if politics is your profession. All Democratic candidates are indoctrinated with the losing strategy of rising above the rhetoric and pandering to the non existant "swing voter", in other words moving to the right. Darcy Burner, a local Democrat who is making a second run for Congress lost her last election by listening to these people. She is making a second run and doing the same thing.
It's not just that Obama isn't responding well to the attacks from his opponent, he is letting the right wing define the debate and manipulate his behavior.
He voted for FISA so he wouldn't be accused of being soft on terrorism. By doing so he agreed with Bush that the Consitituion is irrelevant.
His idea to redeploy US troops to Afghanistan not only lacks sense but supports the false belief that terrorism can be dealt with militarily and withour reference to justice.
By pandering to Israel Obama is saying that those that have power can do as they wish.
By considering offshore drilling he was agreeing to the false idea that the US can drill its way to economic prosperity and that environmentalism has no economic value.
The only thing left to debate is the degree to which manufactured reality will dominate future US policies.
I think McCain is even crazier than portrayed in the press. The media seem to be doing the same things they did for Bush, correcting his errors and failing to report all his gaffes.
Having a personality disorder or neurological problem seems to be a requirement for Republican presidential candidates.
It's going to take the threat of a mass exodus from the Democratic Party to pry it out of the hands of old Clintonites and Blue Dogs who are running Obama like it was 1992. Now would be the most effective time to do it.
lisa maybe people are waking up. Democrats have been taking the left for granted for the last 40 years assuming that we don't have anywhere else to go.
We do. We got Bush in 2000 because Democrats pissed off enough of us on the left. Nader got a lot of votes in FL and tipped the election, as Democrats love to claim. Well that's too bad, Dms. And guess what, I have more bad news for you, more people are indeed registering as Independents and that also should scare the hell out of Democrats, especially now that McCain's attack ads are working and Obama's numbers are dropping.
Obama must campaign on Nader's policies if he wants to win. Being Republican-lite will only infuriate the base and he'll lose an election against an old pasty Nazi that seemed an easy win. You know when a Democrat will admit that Nader was right? Never.
Nader has been running for the last TWENTY years.
Yeah, I can see THAT has certainly helped.
tetti_tatti; Hi, there is an article in the NYT's now, front page online, that speaks of a shift in registrations of D's and R's. Several paragraphs down it also mentions how many more people are registering as Independents now than before.
Thought you might find that of interest.
I think that Jon Stewart sealed it on July 31, go to the dailyshow.com
or directly to http://tinyurl.com/6hqqzt
Generally, the tenor of US election campaigns is just disgusting. You've all imbibed it - see the Hillary smears here on CD - you all use character assassinations and every single irrelevant peice of BS of a candidate's life to score a very cheap point, but you're all upset if it's used against any of your favourites. Morally and ethically speaking, Americans have just lost it. Disgusting.
The types of campaigns you're all participating in would fortunately still be unthinkable most - but unfortunately not really all - places in Europe.
Nader didn't get Busch elected, 6 millions registered Democrats voted for Bush in 2000. Nader only received 2,883,105 votes, 2.74 percent of the popular vote. Democrats elected Bush. Sore/Loserman the cowards didn't even fight the theft like real men, they deserved to lose. Rats deserve to lose, DemocRATS, that is. I'm glad they did, I voted for Nader in Naples, FL in 2000 and will vote for him again in November.
A Gore presidency would've been a similar disaster, neo-nazi Lieberman would've made sure of that. Bush or Gore in the White House would've resulted in the same rip-off.
As long as you keep voting blindly "Democrat" despite the party allowing the GOP to FUCK and RAPE them as if 28 years wasn't enough already, all you're gonna get is LOSING LOSING LOSING !
RALPH NADER !!
VOTENADER.ORG !!!!
"Paris, Oh Paris where are you?" Cried The Desperate Mother.
Barack Obama, "Whey da white women at?"
Screams in background.
Mother Faints; But not before she votes for a Real American Hero.
McCain '08-and when it happens, all the Obama Haters across the US who helped make it happen will Blame Obama!
I base that crack on the drivel I read on these threads blaming Gore for the Stolen Election. For Diebold? And from these same thread-intellects the case that Gore would have been no better than that Satanic Cocksucker Bush. What a Laugh.
Could Nader Voting 3rd party banner carriers have kept bush out of office. yes. Guilt Bugging You All? Fall on your sword.
Obama '08.
My instinct says the best tactic re McCain is laughter. Refuse to take him seriously, treat him as Letterman, Stewart, et al have been doing. That takes the nasty out of criticisms that can be seen as personal.
Another thing: We old folks aren't as thin-skinned as some here seem to think. I'm 83 and it cracks me up when somebody says McCain looks like the old guy in the market who is trying to remember whether he needs to get more Pampers.
I think it could work; just don't have Obama be the one to make the jokes.
America is a fraud.
Hoa binh
wsws.org simply brilliant, thanks. Barrack Obama's a fraud, the same way the Democratic Party is a fraud.
"The reason the Republicans keep beating the Democrats is because the Democratic Party is NOT an oppositional party — and Barrack Obama is NOT an oppositional candidate."
But don't tell this to birdbrain Dem Party Apologists and pinhead Lesser Evilists. It'll cause their tiny brains to explode.
Look at Obama's flip-flopping on offshore drilling for instance. Disgusting, revolting, infuriating. He knows the oil companies raised the price of gasoline just so they could blackmail the country into allowing them to destroy the environment and increase their already obscene profits. Obama knows drilling won't lower the price of gas and he knows that the new oil won't come in for another 7 to 10 years.
Yet, he's being the corporate whore that every Democrat aspires to be. Backstabbers of the American people.
About ten days ago, McCain Hires Steve Schmidt, Rove's disciple who ran the "war-room" that swiftboated Kerry.
This Rove-Student is, I believe, McCain's campaign manager now. Simultaneouly Rove is Criminally Defying Congressional Subpeonas.
This is like Cancer that you can see growing and mutating, might this fact not interest the electorate?
Blessings Though! Richard Novak is Dying, Speaking of Karl Rove, Subpeonas, Valerie Plame And Treason.
Sister Morphine.
How about this: " Some people make the same mistake over and over, then call it "experience"!
There's something remarkably pathetic about the premise of the above article -- the idea that to win Barack Obama has to "cast" John McCain as unhinged.
Obama should wipe the floor with McCain. As Gore should have in 2000, and as Kerry should have in 2004.
The reason the Republicans keep beating the Democrats is because the Democratic Party is NOT an oppositional party -- and Barack Obama is NOT an oppositional candidate.
Obama is following the same old pattern of moving-to-the-left-during-the-primaries and then, once the nomination is captured, moving-to-the-right.
In moving to the right, Obama becomes, to the voting public, more and more like McCain -- and so therefore the race becomes close and (guess what): the Republicans wind up winning. Again.
If moving to the left means Obama can win, why doesn't Obama move to the left? ... Answer: Because, like the Republican Party, the Democratic Party represents the economic elite, not the average American.
Here's a "primer* to make the point:
-- See Barack Obama in relative political obscurity.
-- See Obama vetted by Corporate America.
-- See Barack Obama get millions of dollars of support from Corporate America.
-- See Barack Obama's political star shoot to the heavens.
-- See Obama move to the left and, as such, representing the interests of 80%+ of the American public.
-- See the headline: "Barack Obama Caught Sleeping With a Busload of Altar Boys." (Or some such campaign-ending scandal.)
If Obama were to move to the left -- or better yet, IF HE ACTUALLY HAD A HISTORY OF *BEING* ON THE LEFT, like, Ralph Nader; like, Cynthia McKinney) -- in other words, not just "moving" to the left, opportunistically
-- if Obama were to move to the left, he would trounce John McCain. He'd be ahead in the polls by 14,000 points!!!!
Except for one little, teensy-weensy thing ... his corporatist-roots won't allow it.
(And most informed people know that -- most certainly commondream.org readers. But, for the most part, they act as if they have no choice. They do!)
Two-thirds of the Amerian public wants out of Iraq. ... Who represents these people? ... Certainly not Barack Obama, who after he captured the nomination made it clear that:
a.) He supports the War in Iraq. And if the commanders in the field tell him we should stay there, we stay.
b.) He wants to escalate the war in Afghnaistan.
c.) He's willing to invade Iran;
d.) He's willing to invade Pakistan.
How is this different from Bush or McCain's foreign policy?
What if Obama spoke to the true interests of the vast majority of Americans -- the 80% of the adult population that has to divvy up a mere 15% of the nation's wealth?
Answer: He'd *bury* John McCain.
The idea that Obama has to cast McCain as a head-case is sad. Isn't it just as insane for *Obama* to support two and possibly four wars, as it is for *Bush and McCain* to do exactly the same thing???
Barack Obama speaks on behalf of Corporate America. Barack Obama speaks on behalf of the military-industrial complex. Barack Obama speaks on behalf od the economic elite. ... So doesGeorge Bush and John McCain. ... That being the case, aren't they -- all three of them -- "head-cases" for following the same disasterous path?
DEFINITION OF AN INSANE PERSON -- DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS.
For the first time, Obama now trails McCain in two national polls, the Rasmussen Poll and the Gallup Poll. ... So, obviously, what's happened in the past is happening again -- that is to say, as the Democratic presidential nominee moves more and more to the right, the voting public, seeing little difference between the two candidates, favors the Republican (usually on the basis of "wedge issues," such as God, guns and gays.)
Put another way: The Democrats would rather *lose* an election than turn their back on their corporate paymasters. If they did that, if they gave up their role as corporatist mouthpieces, they'd also be turning their back on the *billions* of corporate dollars that have, historically, backed the Democratic Party.
Thus, nothing is going to change unless and until a viable third party is established in the United States. The purpose of that third party can be to either "pull" the Democratic Party to the left, or else win elections outright.
As it is now, the Democratic Party continues to play the same old game of *pretending* to represent the interests of the average America -- when, in fact, they have the same paymasters as the Republican Party.
Vote for Ralph Nader. Or else vote for Cynthia McKinney. Or else vote socialist. ... Just vote for a candidate who isn't nuts. ... VOTE SANITY.
(A revolutionary idea, I know. But there you have it.)
Seen from the point of view of sanity, both parties represent positions -- INSANE positions -- that ***guarantee*** species-extinction.
You're ok with that?
... Assuming war is nuts -- especially in modern-day society, where the soldier-civilian ratio is *much* higher than in previous wars (and where a conventional war can easily turn into a nuclear war).
... Assuming the destruction of the planet by Corporate America is nuts ...
... Assuming a Pentagon budget of over $550 billion is nuts (both candidates wanting to *increase* that budget).
... Assuming that America having the highest rate of poverty -- by far -- is nuts.
... Assuming that America having the highest rate of *childhood* poverty -- by far (22% of all children) is nuts. ...
... Assuming America having the highest rate of incarceration of any country in the world
-- by far -- is nuts ...
... Assuming America having the highest rate of homicide in the world -- by far -- is nuts ...
... Assuming America being the worst polluter in the world -- by far -- is nuts ...
... Assuming America having the largest gap between the rich and the poor and the rich and the middle class of any advanced industrial country -- by far -- the largest gap since 1929 -- is nuts ...
Assuming all these things are nuts and that both major parties HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PLAN TO STOP THIS MADNESS -- None! -- then, please, please, tell me who in this election should be cast as crazy?
.
Nader will change things.
Nader is our only hope.
Nader is the only choice.
Fight the Two-party system.
VOTE NADER 2008… You'll be glad you did and so will I…
.
As I often now say to friends and family still struggling with whom to vote for, "have you really been content with the last 8 years. Think about that before you start struggling with a decision between the crazy old man and the black dude. It really won't be all that difficult."
Over the weekend, MSM evening news (CBS, I think) asked,
"Could evangelicals be the swing vote?" (Well, duh. Ya think?)
Then they say latest poll of evangelicals has them at 64% for McCain----16% for Obama, balance undecided.
Rather than calling their man a fool (counter-productive), we should be busy proving him an adulterer with 25 years of selling beer to the underclass. Those things count, and most evangelicals don't know. "Doddering fool" doesn't count with this SWING vote that is the church. Be smart.
It's the facts of McCain's past that matter here to this SWING vote. Not age. And not insults about mental anything.
Remember, evangelicals too are regularly insulted about their beliefs---and they're used to it and they reject it.
They see a reluctance to science replaced by a devotion to the letter of the Bible as a virtue. Adultery and inciting others to drunkenness DO Count. Get on it, liberals. Tell 'em the awkward truth about "their man."
frank 1369 got it right. "They don't want a "leader," they need a puppet willing to keep their gaming of America jetting along unabated."
I'd say the majority of republicans were gagging on the name when they learned McCain had "won" the primaries. Then, like the good little borgs they are, they stiffled the gag reflex and began to sing his praises. Now they think of him as their king.
motion carried - john mccain is a serious nut
having said that, what does it say about the body politic of the us that such an idiot could not only run for the presidency but also that he has had a national profile for 40 years
who was it who said: if god wanted us to vote he would have given us some candidates
"The voters also know McCain is a temperamental, mean-spirited dinosaur who will support the failed policies of the past." A terrific line. And I'm afraid it's most Americans in spiritual, intellectual and (anti-)historical terms. With the MSM carrying McCain's sorry ass---and completely ignoring the growing DECISIVE numbers (6%+) heading NADER's way---these Americans in all the crankiness of their besieged Sacred National Comfy-Comfy may just vote in Colonel Grumpypants. Reserve your seat on a lifeboat.
Gee VinnieTS still has almost 500 words of passion about Hillary's loss ..... I guess the wonders of fandom will never cease to amaze me.
P.S. You know when Hillary was on the board of directors at WalMart the sale of pants suites went up 50 fold. This was about the same time that Michelle was caught stealing cheap black bras from WM's famously trendy Tanya Harding lingerie section.
Congressman Dr. Ron Paul would correctly be addressed as Congressman Ron Paul, MD.
I don't remember anyone labeling Hillary as soft on anything. I do remember the "nutcracker" doll wielded by white and black men on television. Being married to Bill, she isn't considered "elite" by anyone. She has a long public record of what she's done. And, yes, she was on the board of WalMart, but Michelle took money from WalMart and she wasn't the First Lady of Arkansas at the time.
Maybe not all, but the majority of those 18 million Hillary voters are disgusted with the primary election season (that, technically isn't over until the convention is held in August. Surprised?). We are not pleased that the candidate who got the most votes isn't THE candidate. We are not pleased that the only reason accepted by Obama's fan club as to why we don't want to vote for him is because we are racists. We are not pleased that of the four states who voted before the "opening bell" only two were punished; Obama won the other two states. We are not pleased by the Obama devotees who insist on unity now after they did everything possible (some of it illegal) to divide the party.
We ask questions like, why did he choose to run this year with his limited national exposure; how is he qualified with his 143 actual days in national office when he started this run; where are his political/civic actions to review; how cynical is he to leap to the right two days after his presumed win? Just asking.
And questioning....
Obama isn't "vastly" supported by regular people. Persons giving less than $200 account for 47 percent of Obama's donations. FactCheck.org.
In his previous capacity as chief lobbyist for energy giant Exelon, Obama's campaign manager David Axelrod has spoken eloquently of the need to ramp up the construction of nuclear power plants.
Obama will invest in alternative energy through continuing subsidies to corn based ethanol in so doing securing payback to the farm behemoth Archer Daniels Midland for having bankrolled his campaign at the crucial initial stages.
Obama doesn't have any intention of addressing the root of the health care crisis, namely the for-profit health care insurance industry, which has funded his campaign lavishly.
You really don't know who you are supporting, do you?
Ageism: Three of the Supreme Court Justices are older than McCain. The average age of the last ten Justices to leave the Court was 82. Worried about the decisions being handed down by those old people? It's the new kids on the Court who are messing with the Constitution.
At least Hillary didn't lie about where her money comes from. And she is a fighter who would actually go toe to toe with the Republican Slime Machine, with which she has experience, unlike Barack Who?
"If McCain is elected, his incapacities may well result in a government run not by the president, but by his vice president and ideological bureaucrats with their own particular agendas, not answerable to the people."
Whatta ya mean "may well result"? That's the plan, stan - or else the GOPathologicals would have nominated a man of integrity and courage and intelligence, like Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, for example. No - the marionettes are already in position - from the DoJ to the DoD to Big Corp Everything. They don't want a "leader," they need a puppet willing to keep their gaming of America jetting along unabated.
Diebold hasn't gone anywhere, don't forget, and the e-vote system remains fixed and controlled by the crazies. In spite of all evidence to the contrary, the "polls" continue to "show" a "close race," which is much easier to steal than a blowout. What - ya thought the well-documented election-thieves retired or some shit?
Here's the slogan: President McCain. Get Used To It.
I suppose the two arms of the political party have got to revile each other because, if they did not, we would otherwise never be able to see any difference between them.
It's the next, in a long stringed plot in which dumb, hollow puppets like McCain are suspended before the people and merely mouth their chatter. Follow the strings up into the dark shadows of the theater's rafters. There is where you will find the hidden puppet masters who seek to profit by guiding our ship of state to the rocks!
There have been some pretty disgusting excuses for political "analysis" that have appeared on Common Dreams over the weary duration of this political silly season, but Mr. Reel's piece has to be near the very bottom of that barrel. To me he sounds not like a university professor but an ambitious would-be President of a student council who is looking for an "issue" on the basis of which he can outdistance a rival in a contest in which there is no issue (should be do or should we do that?) of any substance: it's a matter of whom would you trust? with whom would you like to have a beer? who is really "competent" to do this incredibly difficult job? If your opponent has smeared you by calling you a flip-flopping elitist cowardly wimp, well you whip out your teenie weenie and get ready for a pissing contest in which your message (to mix the excremental metaphor) is that well buddy your's smells far, far worse than mine. The MSM will love you because you didn't back off and gave as good and better as you took, and got into the mud and slung slime against your opponent's point of vulnerability. That way the news media can entertain their boob tube customers with what they call a political "campaign" and manage to avoid the dirty secret that there is really nothing of substance separating the candidates of the two major parties, and create the facade of an important contest that will sell advertising time for the media and bring in still more dollars from the trough at which American politicians feed.
Maybe Guy Reel is correct, and the American electorate is so like a bunch of kids electing a student body president that, as he argues, elections are won or lost by such tactics of personal attack, with Republicans usually winning because they are "better at it." I'm not quite this ready to "give up" on the American electorate. I am not ready to concede that, in order for Obama to win, he has to resort to the slime. It's bad enough (and very bad at that) that he has actually demonstrated his weakness by tacking sharply toward McCain's views at every point that his rival has called him to task: to flip flip on the surveillance bill when McCain questioned his opposition to terrorism, to flip flop on off-shore drilling with a bit of push from McCain about Obama being "responsible" for the high gas prices. But the one redeeming virtue of his primary candidacy against Hillary Clinton was that he at least left it to his surrogates (like the editors of Alter Net and other "progressive" websites and magazines) to attack her personally as a "ruthless" person who would "do anything" to get elected.
So no, Mr. Guy Reel, we don't need a Democratic candidate who will push against McCain as incompetent because of his age or his irascible temperament. We need a Democratic Party which will stand for the people, which is supposed to be the "base" of that party, and not for the corporate entities that call the political shots for both parties. We need a candidate willing to lose an election---to take the position of "I'd rather be right than President" as opposed to one who sniffs every whiff of change in public opinion and triangulates his positions with these changes. We need a President who will go to Israel and say, to both Israelis and Palestinians, this shit has got to stop, enough innocent babies of every religion having been killed and maimed. And, of course, we need an electorate with enough principle and resolve of its own to lose an election as preferable to winning one with a candidate whose credential is simply that he/she is the lesser of two evils.
stanwix -
Reel isn't stereotyping. He said 'some' aging people develop these characteristics, which is true. Had he said 'all' then you could accuse him of stereotyping.
Richard Nixon is credited with coming up with, or at least effectively recognizing, the idea of systematically exploiting the supposed weakness of Democrats as out-of-the-mainstream liberals who aren't like everyone else. As un-American. As anti-troops. As vaguely elite. As "pointy-headed." As feminine. As weak on defense."
Richard Nixon should also be credited with supplying the description of a republican. As elite, selfish, dishonest, dogmatic, warmongering, imperialistic, arrogent, rich that loathes the poor, and stupid.
The question Obama needs to be asking the voters is simple: Are you better off today than you were seven years ago?
Samson,
In the last four decades, after Nixon and Wallace and in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the race riots of that era, the Democratic Party has evolved into the liberal-on-social-issues fatcat corporate party in reaction to the Republican strategy of splitting the non-elites. But everything changes and history is not finished.
Of course the odds are long, but I applaud anyone who pushes back against this trend and tries to reclaim the Democratic Party for labor, the poor, consumers, and the most vulnerable in society. But that must be a welcoming and inclusive movement, and not one using divisive racial and gender identity politics, if it is ever to have any chance at success.
Guy Reel, the author, says: "This isn't about age. It's about competence. Perhaps in this case that's tied to age, or, more accurately, to the patterns that some people fall into as they age — they may have difficulty processing simple events, or they cannot remember specific things that they say, or they become unnecessarily angry, or they view the world as a reflection of whatever thought happens to be passing through their minds at the time."
Could you please spare us the unreflective stereotyping--viz., ageism?
You have brains as well as bottle, bottle.
I asked Google: What's the name of B.B. King's guitar-- Lucille? Did Achilles really spear the virgin Amazon Penthiselea and then rape her as she lay dying? Was Karl Rove chairman of the College Republicans National Committee and Lee Atwater executive director in 1973?
Lee Atwater lived on the same Virginia mountain as me and my wife. His house was just behind ours and higher up. One night at three a.m. ours began to jump off of its moorings from great noises descending the slope.
Lee was jamming with his friend B.B. King, who was playing Lucille. I figured that somebody who was friends with B.B. King couldn't be all bad.
And that proved true. When Atwater was dying from brain cancer he repented his horrible, amoral life as a political consultant.
This interested me again since Willie Horton was a student of mine in the University of Massachusetts Higher Education in Prisons writing program.
Atwater's associate, Rove, though-- did he ever repent of anything?
Why is Rove, like a typical member of the Bush administration/McCain campaign, so uneducable? And Rove certainly isn't a student of American literature, having compared himself to Moby Dick. Both he and Moby are characterized by blubber and a pale mien, one can see that. But Moby Dick is a mysterious phenomenon in Melville's view as seen in chapters about the whiteness of the whale and ambiguity. Is the Great White Whale God, or The Devil, a more Ahabian view? Of course the whale bit off Ahab's leg, may even have swallowed it, so Ahab could have had reason to feel that way.
Maybe Rove was trying to say that he would be a pursued victim now that he was out of office.
But Moby Dick never was a victim.
Karl Rove will never hear these views. If he did, however, he would say they came from an elitist.
Correct. In my family we read books.
The problem the Dems have is that they also represent the rich AGAINST the working class. So, while it seems fundamentally obvious to run such a campaign, it goes directly against the party's base and their interests. And no, the party's base is not us. Its the people funnelling the six figure contributions into them.
A wonderful example was Al Gore in 2000. He made a pretty good speech at the convention taking the side of the little guy against the big pharma companies. The problem of course is that the big pharma companies were in the hall up in the luxury boxes, while the little guy was locked out of the hall out in the streets.
For a couple of days after the convention, you could see Gore using the same lines out on the campaign trail. And, he seemed to have more 'traction' than at any time in the campaign. People stopped focusing on 'did he invent the internet' and started listening to what Gore was saying as he seemed to be on their side against big pharma.
Then it all stopped. Quiet. It didn't take a genius to realize what had happened. The call had come down from the big pharma boys up in the luxury boxes saying 'what do you think you are doing?'.
'We give you all that money, then you attack us?'.
That's the problem the Dems have. Yes, there are some obvious places to attack the Republicans as being for the rich and against average Americans. But the problem the Dems have is that to exploit that they would have to upset their own rich contributors.
And the one thing for certain by now about the Democrats is that they will service their rich contributors and screw ordinary Americans any time push comes to shove between them.
The Democratic party can regain its soul by living up to the its ideals as described in the first two paragraphs of the article.
That would be the Democratic party I could be enthusiastic about again.
Obama campaign, Democratic party, the stakes are too high not to find your spine. What ever happened to the likes of Lyndon Johnson? Why aren't the tough guys in control?
You had better believe the Republicans will pull no punches.
The Mark Of McCain: Meet The Senator Most Likely To Start A Nuclear War
Pat Buchanan: McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi"
Fellow P.O.W. mentions temper as one of the reason he will not vote for John McCain
Will McCain's Temper Be A Liability?
Famed McCain Temper Takes A Break On Campaign Trail
McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on China, Russia, Iraq
Republicans aren't incompetent, they're criminal.
The author states:
When they are cast as great social issues — as the "us-against-them" dichotomy — then it is not hard to see why they are so appealing to the one social class that is most threatened by them — the white American male.
This is a fundamental mistake. What Nixon succeeded in doing, like every successful Republican presidential candidate since, was to divide the working class, and to get white working class males to think of themselves as white, or male, or culturally conservative, etc., and thus part of the group that the Republican Party serves. To probably a lesser extent, they also succeeded in getting white working class women, particularly married working class women, to identify with the Republican Party. The only way to end this and to unify the working class, the poor, and the middle middle class that is getting squeezed is to downplay the social issues and to cast the race in terms of economic and social class issues. Every article from progressives or liberals that stresses the importance of race or gender in politics is like pure gold for the fascists. The term "useful idiot" comes to mind.
With McCain, Republicans seem to be establishing a pattern started with GW of 'government by the incompetent', which really means government by a sinister constellation of gangsters who surround the putative head of government and escape accountability through their relative anonymity.