The McCain/Palin ticket is going to start losing again. Here's why:
- He doesn't know who the prime minister of Spain is, he doesn't know Spain is not a Latin American country, or he is willing to publicly turn his back on one of our NATO allies.
- She is obstructing an investigation of her alleged corruption in Alaska.
- Conservative columnists say she is inexperienced and not ready.
- The former publisher of the ultra-conservative National Review endorses Obama as the more truly conservative candidate.
- Palin lies.
- She famously continues to lie about earmarks and the "bridge to nowhere."
- Even conservative Alaskans say she lies.
- She refuses to submit to a press conference. Interesting choice in a democracy.
- Oh, Sarah Palin lies a lot.
- The world overwhelming supports Obama (I know we're not supposed to give a damn, but, you know, silly me; I still think it's easier to build peace through diplomacy and dialogue than by killing everyone you don't like). Some in the world are apalled at the Palin pick.
- McCain and Palin both lie.
- His running mate outdraws him.
- He continues to lie about Obama raising our taxes.
- The story that he can't use a computer because of war injuries is a lie.
- Republican senator doesn't think Palin is ready to lead.
- Supporters leave rallies after Palin speaks and before McCain begins.
- Neither of them understands how to deal with the economic crisis.
- Conservative columnist, George Will, seems to think the only good argument McCain has left is that a divided government is better than a Democratic president with a Democratic congress.
- Right-wing policies and calling working families and the poor "whiners" doesn't help anyone.
- The former Republican mayor LA endorses Obama.
- Speaking of California, the GOP seems to be giving it up.
- McCain's ad in response to the Wall Street meltdown is to talk vaguely about "reform" for less than 30 seconds. Obama looks at the camera and gives his specific economic plan for 2 minutes.
- McCain campaign inaccurately uses factcheck.org to make an argument against Obama. Ironic.
- Both campaigns are dishonest, but McCain is The Biggest Liar.
Another GOP congressman endorses Obama.
In fairness:
- Obama distorts McCain's taxation of healthcare benefits.
- Obama uses unfair fear appeals in his Spanish-language ad. But, McCain's ad also severely distorts Obama's immigration stance.
- The post-convention bounces are all bounced out. Obama is back up by 5+ points.
I spoke to a man last night on the phone who believes the anti-christ will soon take over the world, God removed his protection from the U.S. when we took prayer out of the schools, and we headed toward moral ruin when we started letting men marry men. Even that guy, by the end of our conversation, conceded that Barack Obama was probably a better choice for our future. I think he's on to something.
11 comments:
"There is only one candidate in the field today who eschews talk of blue and red, them and us, liberal and conservative, etc. Only one who thusfar has not played the game of polarization, divide and conquer. He may not turn out to be some messiah, but he is better prepared to take us a new direction than anyone else."
So what has happened?
"Seventy-seven percent of the Illinois Democrat's commercials were negative during the week after the Republican National Convention, compared with 56 percent of the spots run by McCain. Ken Goldstein, who directed the study by the Wisconsin Advertising Project, based at the University of Wisconsin, says the pattern was a reversal from earlier months, in which McCain's advertising was consistently more negative than Obama's. "It suggests that the Sarah Palin pick and the newfound aggressiveness by McCain got into Obama's head a little bit," Goldstein said. "
Turns out it's all about winning, not about change. Well, I for one am shocked. Shocked.
I'm not entirely sure how to respond to your first quote, since I'm not sure who said it. First, I always thought it was a little naive for people to think we would get through this process without negative attacks. Obama raised our hopes for that, just like McCain did by repeatedly promising a respectful campaign.
Negative campaigns do not bother me. They clearly don't bother the American people. The people say it bothers them, but they are clearly influenced by it.
There are difference you don't address. The Wisconsin content analysis needs to be unpacked. First, that data is over a week old. Nearly everything I talked about is from the last 2-3 days. Second, they make no distinction in this data between negative ads that are false and negative ads that simply address a bad policy position. Third, my grad school adviser, who has probably published more about political ads than the entire Wisc. Ad Project, would tell you there is a profound difference between attacks that are primarily driven by policy differences and ads that are primarily character attacks. Both would be coded as negative by WAP.
I agree that Obama has been driven to a lower road than he promised. Point taken. So has McCain. I also think history will judge the Obama campaign as being less negative. It's about qualitative issues, not just numbers. Can you name one GOP operative who is upset at McCain for not being rough enough on Obama? There are hundred of Dems out there gnashing their teeth in frustration at Obama for not hitting back hard enough.
The numbers, last week, may favor your argument, but when you factor in the amount of proven deception, the abundance of character-based attacks over policy-based attacks, and the general tenor of the rhetoric being more negative from McCain, there's no contest.
I wish Obama would work a little harder to avoid deception too. Even though he's not been nearly as bad as McPalin, it disturbs me. But, I don't begrudge him getting tough. He never promised he wouldn't fight when attacked.
I suppose I should have attributed the first quote. Sound familiar at all? It's from the archives of this site, something you wrote in (I think) 2007. Upon reflection, it was unfair of me to expect you to be able to recall what you wrote over a year ago. On most days I can't remember where I left my keys...
There are other points we could debate (i.e. if Obama isn't being nasty enough for "hundreds of Dems" and we admit he's being nasty, what does that tell us about the Democratic Party?) but most of this turns out to be spitting back and forth. If you think McCain's ads are worse, and I think Obama Ha Mashiah's are more mean spirited, what does that tell us except we ourselves are not exactly impartial? And that both campaign's are disappointing in this respect.
I must say, I appreciate your willingness to add posts that disagree w/you. You are, after all, the man behind the curtain and you don't have to pull that lever. I could do w/a spot of courage though, if you have any to spare.
There's no place like home. There's no place like home.
It's really not that remarkable that I post your comments. It seems like it's just you and me, kid; so, why wouldn't I?
I guess I stand by that original quote. I did say "thusfar," even though I should have said, "thus far." Sheesh. What an illiterate. But, to that point, what I said was true. I would still say that he is the best I've ever seen on that score, since I've been paying attention to campaigns, anyway. Thusfar that is.
I'm sorry I can't let you off the hook on the collapse into cynicism on the basis that we just see it differently. Things may change very soon, but on balance, McCain is widely perceived as being worse and more mean-spirited. By whom? Academics, journalists, and...wait for it...the voting public. Admittedly, that may change soon, and they may both turn out to be liars about the tone of the campaign. Again, tone is less important to me than honesty. They are not as close on that score. The gap is tightening a small bit, but McCain is still the biggest liar.
By the way, the Ha Mashiah title may be messianic in derivative and not Muslim, but it doesn't help the tone of the dialogue. It may be one of those moments where your biting, snarky style that is harmless and born in a warm heart may not mean harm, but I would prefer we not do that stuff. If you want to show how Obama lies or whatever, do it. I will not back off McCain, but I generally will try to avoid calling him McCain't or The Old Lying Cancer Survivor Who's About to Die. I just won't do it.
Perceived by whom? Journalists, the vast majority of whom are liberal in their political leanings? Academics, again the vast majority... The voting public? Well, we shall see. And saying "my guy's not as big of a lying jerkoff as your guy" hardly strikes me as encouraging dialogue when we're discussing the most important political position in the world. Although you may have phrased it slightly differently. ΓΌ
I'm not trying to collapse into cynicism, really I'm not. I think you're wrong. Did I say wrong? I mean WRONG! But really, we're not getting anywhere. I can find (and have) site after site listing lies attributed to Obama Bin Laden and his cronies. But when I read them, they strike me as biased and unfair. Very much like the links you post. So what is the point in continuing to try to convince you that your brain has been kidnapped by tiny little Blue people who are living in your head, pulling switches and levers that allow you to continue to function, although in some kind of zombie-like state?
The Ha Mashiah comment was in direct response to your McPalin comment. You snark, I snark. I hope you'll at least appreciate that I didn't mention "thusfar" apparently being a word from the Reachionary. And yeah, I noticed it. Typos- the curse of Gutenberg.
By the way, if you need me I'll be at home, clinging to my religion and my guns. Be sure to call first if you're coming over after dark.
After consulting with numerous drunks at a local bar, teenagers hanging out in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and the Mormons who thoughtlessly stopped by during Sunday night football (oh, and watching random videos on YouTube) I have come to the conclusion that my candidate can beat up your candidate. I have links to prove it.
Will we be witnessing the proverbial urinating competition in the near future or are we just sticking with name calling at this point?
Oops, I'm sorry. Was that snarky? I just never can tell.
Snark all you want. Then try using some evidence. Go ahead and quote some of those teenagers or drunks, we'll hold them up to the researched data from my sources and see who is most believable. There are some smart teenagers out there. And, I suspect some of the more brilliant minds on these issues are very possibly under the influence of alcohol more often than they should be. If, however, at the end of the day, the only sources we're allowed to certify as worthy are the ones you accept, then the pissing will only be coming from you. And you'll be pissing alone.
Because, for the remainder of this thread, if you don't back up your claims, you don't get published. My blog. My rules. Don't like it? Don't care. Not here to see how many people will "friend" me.
The attitude I'm getting here is really fascinating to me. It is this very ethos that is allowing Palin to proceed with virtually no regard for the press. Biden has undergone over 85 interviews and press conferences since selected. Palin? Two (if you are prepared to count Sean Hannity's deferential lovefest as a real interview...I will...but that still only makes two). I don't think we are coming to terms with this. If we elect a ticket that virtually shuts out the watchdog role of the press, we become a banana republic.
I'm amazed, and more than a little saddened, that you immediately assumed I was attacking you.
My point, while obviously poorly communicated, was that look hard enough and you can find a source for any point, qualified or otherwise.
It was meant to cause a smile, maybe even a slight snicker. Apparently our senses of humor will not be sitting down to share a beer anytime in the near future.
My apologies.
As for my sources, maybe it was in poor taste. But here are some real ones for you: The 13 year old who I have worked with for over a year now who doesn't really care who is in office. No matter who is sitting in the Oval Office, her mother will still be doing drugs and choosing to stay with her drug addicted boyfriend over taking care of her daughter. Or the vet that I pass each morning on my way to the office. He lost everything in service to this country. The best he can hope for now is some spare change tossed his way and that I might remember to bring him a hot cup of coffee today. And the people at my church that know at the end of the day, Obama will not teach our children the joys of praising a great and loving God nor do we want Palin teaching them about the peace found in prayer.
Either way, when anything disintegrates into name calling (and I don't remember you partaking in that activity), you are past the point of valid sources. You are on the grade school playground where, back to my original statement, my candidate can beat up your candidate.
Don't be sad. I couldn't take it you were sad. The downside to conversation by blog: We can't interpret tone and nonverbals. Sorry if I was unduly aggressive.
Your comment about being able support anything if you look hard enough is what concerns me. I am worried about the collapse of public accountability if the response to every media report is to indict the source...and that's it. Maybe that's where we are and there is no semblance of objectivity left. As a critic of media and the role of media in a democracy, it is reason for concern. It seems like we have traded qualifications, evidence, and argument for repetition and volume. Louder and more frequent makes right.
By the way, I hope readers recognize I don't mean "McPalin" to be name-calling. It's a commentary on how they are operating as equals, and how you can pair anything with a Mc name and it sounds cool. Obiden, Obamden...eh?
Post a Comment