« The Next Act, Waiting in the Wings | Main | The Comcast Decision - Why It Matters »

July 31, 2008

Comments

I have to say I am a little discouraged tonight.
For a couple days I really thought the media would wise up and as I am reading the write-ups of the scummy fake outrage distraction the McCain people put out with the "race card" I realize that the media still doesn't get it.
They still think their job is to write a "he said, they said" without pointing out who is lying and who is not.
Add to that the Clinton people rushing to give quotes to journalists on how the Mccain people "understandably" don't want the race card played on them like "it was on Hillary and Bill" Clinton and I just am just beyond angry to the point where I wanna give up.

I won't. But I am not sure I don't miss the time where I didn't *care* about the candidate I was supporting. My deep enthusiasm for Obama makes all of this so much more painful and infuriating than 2000 or 2004 ever were - and God knows they were terribly infuriating.

poor McCain... all those mean staffers making him say mean things about his opponent

Remember how angry John McCain was about the Rovean attacks regarding Mr. McCain's adopted black daughter? I'll bet she's real proud of him right now.

Steve Schmidt, a disciple of Karl Rove’s who worked on George W. Bush’s 2004 ad/communications effort, though, is playing the Rovian playbook that says that it doesn’t matter if it’s true as long as your target audience (non-college educated white working class voters) won’t bother to find out the actual truth, and believe that it “sounds like it might be a true.” (...)

On an old thread there was a discussion about blue collar workers of Western Washington. The commenter (Nixon?) brought them up in a lauditory way. If I remember correctly his point was that their propensity for resentment was justified and Republican politicians get their votes because Republicans take them and their resentments seriously. I went off on a rant about my disresespct for the way that sort of voter participates in politics. .

This quote gets right to the heart of what is wrong with working class people who vote Republican: they do so because their ignorance (and prejudice against anyone they perceive as unlike them) makes them easy to manipulate. The Republican politicans who get their votes take neither their resentments or their legitmate concerns seriously: it's, as this quote shows, pure exploitation. .

It's in the Rove handbook to play them for fools and over and over again it works.

Here's an example: the son of one of my clients was watching Faux and Obama came on. Immediately the son proclaimed that Obama was just like Osama bin Ladin. He made this annoucement twice. I openned by big mouth and told him that Barack Obama was an American name and that Obama's dad was an immigrant just like my client's grandparents had been.

He got up and walked out of the room. This is a man who has five kids and still lives with his mother. He watches Faux and fundie TV nonstop all days seeing as how he doesn't have a job and has nothing better to do like go to school which he can't afford because he's too flippin' stupid to vote for politicians who believe in funding grants so middle low income people can get post highschool education.

Are Republicans proud of the fact that the only way they can get their politicans elected is by deliberately misleading the ignorant?

Are Republicans proud of the fact that the only way they can get their politicans elected is by deliberately misleading the ignorant?

Proud, no. Grateful, yes.

"Healing gift"?

Where is Tucker Carlson when you need him to cry foul with the Jesus transference?

(Seriously he snuck onto two MSNBC shows today and spouted scripture in a lame attempt to mock Obama supporters.)

The obvious solution to the fake dilemma which you
pose wold have been for Obama to do that in which he had no interest: go to visit the troops without the media in tow.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

That's exactly what he was going to do, you idiot. Have you not read any of the background on this case?

John McCain is a piece of sh!t who has been living off his experience as a POW in Vietnam and his wife's inheritence for more than 30 years. He must be qualified for President.

The post above this one is screwed up:

Not Found

The requested URL /obsidian_wings/2008/08/tomorrows-comca.html was not found on this server.

… they had an ad script ready to go if Obama had visited the wounded troops saying that Obama was...wait for it...using wounded troops as campaign props.

Not to say this is not true, but they didn’t do that when he visited wounded troops in Baghdad. And I think that “wounded troops in Baghdad” has more political punch than “wounded troops in Landstuhl”.

The bottom line is that this was still an unforced error. McCain’s only mistake here is that he overreached. Had he stuck to “Obama wouldn’t make time for wounded troops unless a member of his campaign staff was allowed to follow him, but did make time to work out at a gym” it would be 100% correct and irrefutable, as even the Obama campaign has been forced to admit. Expect to see that ad in October.

Yeah I said I wasn’t going to get into this any more. This is just a drive-by to say “I told you so” to those who pooh-poohed the idea that this could amount to any big deal.

"That's exactly what he was going to do, you idiot. Have you not read any of the background on this case?"

Who or what is this in response to?

Also, name-calling is not an argument. Whatever you're on about.

"This is just a drive-by to say 'I told you so' to those who pooh-poohed the idea that this could amount to any big deal."

It isn't a big deal, without the lying -- it's a non-deal. And the lying can be about anything.

The whole point is that lying can be about anything.

And it's not news that the folks running the Republican campaign are into The Big Lie. We know that.

OCSteve, sorry this is one time I totally disagree with you. It may be correct but it is also idiotic.

At least Obama isn't calling McCain heartless and not caring about the troops because he didn't visit the troops when he was in Europe in March.

And it is pretty ridiculous to say that they would even think of mocking him for visiting the troops in Iraq. Of course, after demaning he go on a trip, they did mock the whole trip as a political stunt.

The Republican campaign may even be lower than the one in 2004. At least Bush, if only in a whisper, disavowed the swiftboat campaign.

Gary, it was a reply to the troll whose comment is immediately before mine. I thought the context made that clear, but I apologise if I was wrong.

OCSteve, prior to Jordan, Obama was on a congressional trip. McCain wouldn't have had even the barest fig leaf to run that ad. Once it became a campaign-funded trip, he would have had a technically true but really scummily disingenuous argument that Obama was visiting the troops as part of his campaign, since his campaign was funding the trip, regardless of who accompanied him. Catch-22.

It's not a lie at all. When someone changes their mind, it leaves open their true motive. When another then opines regarding what that motive might have been, and given that opinion has an equal chance of being spot on based on other options and prior pattern and practice their reaction is 'open season' - but certainly not a lie. The lie is when Sen. Obama tags the race card, to obviously play the race card on his humble opponent who has done no such thing and has even condemned those who may choose to do so. Shame on hilzoy who absolutely knows better, but chooses to replicate the behavior as a means to an end. I'm not sure the original Pirate Hilzoy would've done that.

And iain, I thought your comment's context was clear as a bell, because I was having the same thought.

blogbudsman: the claim that he didn't go because he couldn't take the press is a lie. Why? Because his original plan was to go without the press.

OT: The Comcast post on the front page is broken. You can't comment, you can't read more, etc. At least, I can't.

I gather I'm supposed to be outraged by this? Well, I suppose in some general sense I am, like being splashed while treading water in the Atlantic would make you wet. What's that phrase? Oh, right:

Politics ain't beanbag.

What's that phrase? Oh, right:

Politics ain't beanbag.

bookmarked, for future reference.

sorry- it did that last night andthen i republished and it was fine so i went to bed.

i republished and it's ok at this moment.

any idea why that happened?

OT - Greenwald:

We now know -- we knew even before news of Ivins' suicide last night, and know especially in light of it -- that the anthrax attacks didn't come from Iraq or any foreign government at all. It came from our own Government's scientist, from the top Army bioweapons research laboratory. More significantly, the false reports linking anthrax to Iraq also came from the U.S. Government -- from people with some type of significant links to the same facility responsible for the attacks themselves.

Surely the question of who generated those false Iraq-anthrax reports is one of the most significant and explosive stories of the last decade.

Brett, I thought "beanbag" in that quip was supposed to refer to civility, not integrity. Are you saying I am mistaken? And if so, are you diminishing the importance of integrity in selecting a leader?

a: "The obvious solution to the fake dilemma which you pose would have been for Obama to do that in which he had no interest: go to visit the troops without the media in tow."

I'm not going to call "a" an idiot but the reason the comment is "idiotic" is that it ignores hilzoy's post.

The point being: Had Obama visited the wounded troops, the Rove campaign -- oops, the McCain campaign -- was going to make it known that he made the visit as a campaign ploy and then bash Obama for doing that.

Blah-blah-blah.

Isn't it pathetic that we're back to the same-old attack style, no-substance presidential campaign -- the very kind of campaign McCain said he was eager NOT to engage in?

Seems like we have a fair amount of McCain supporters here these days. So I ask them: Has McCain run one ad that wasn't an attack ad or has he had one town hall in which he didn't attack -- or whine -- about Obama?

There was a time I envisioned John McCain as the kind of Republican I'd consider crossing the aisle and voting for.

What was I thinking?

Backed by Karl Rove, George Bush and the Republican right-wing machine, the man has sold his soul to buy the presidency.

(P.S. Missed you, hilzoy.)

That healing gift is what McCain, at his best, brings to the presidential race

Wha?
First, snark. The problem with that statement is that McCain is older than the only other guy I can think of with a 'healing gift.' I thought Jesus had a monopoly on that variety of health care.

Second, I'm willing to believe that before McCain started slinging feces like an ape in the zoo that you could genuinely think he'd run a relatively clean campaign. He seemed like a decent guy in 2000 and he didn't look like a frothing partisan in the Senate.

But how in the world can you say that now (July 30 '08 was the dateline)? Saying that your opponent is indifferent to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/23/mccain-camp-attacks-obama_n_114486.html>genocide? Claiming that his opponent cares more about http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/17/mccain-adviser-obama-woul_n_113273.html>winning the election than Iraq?

I don't want to harp on the change narrative, but there's one candidate that's running a positive campaign, and it sure as hell isn't John McCain.

(PS- I second BTFB, welcome back Hilzoy!)

I made the comment yesterday that I can't wait for the debates.

At this rate, it seems like that will be the only thing that will cut through the crap -- seeing McCain and Obama, side by side, thinking on their feet, no town hall meeting for McCain, no teleprompter for Obama, hopefully addressing issues.

Unfortunately, that's a long way away.


Don't get mad -- get even. I am so tired of the Democratic impulse to shy from the fight.

The "politics of Karl Rove" happens to be the staple of American politics for 200+ years. American democracy has survived just fine even though his sort of ugliness has always been present. The only thing significant about Rove is that he is particularly good and fraudulent about it.

So don't pull punches in return because you don't like nastiness. Stridently point out what a lying duplicitous jerk McCain is. Use his tactics as an example, but more importantly, hammer him on his own character flaws. They are everywhere, and be merciless about it. You don't have to fraudulent like Rove, but you should not be clutching pearls because politics can be ugly.

McCain, the philandering, wife-dumping, influence-peddling (Keating, lobbyist connections), war-loving, Bush-loving (huggy-bear), ignorant (what's a Sunni/Shia? -- I don't do economics), pandering, race-baiting, and frankly dishonest candidate. Expect more of the corruption demonstrated by Republicans over the last 8 years if you vote for this man.

Obama has plenty of positive messages, but hard attacking messages are also the soul of politics. When Truman quipped about kitchens and heat, this was what he meant. "Give 'em hell, Harry" did not earn that moniker by being nice.

...before McCain started slinging feces like an ape in the zoo...

LOL. This is what James Carville is good for -- dropping lines like this with his Southern drawl (just replace "feces" with "turds").

"Don't get mad -- get even. I am so tired of the Democratic impulse to shy from the fight."

Indeed. That's one reason, among others, I thought Hillary Clinton would have made a better candidate than Barack Obama is she is not fearful of getting down in the weeds with those dirty Republicans.

I mean, dmbeaster, is right: It's not like Dems haven't seen this playbook before.

Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed that so much of this seems to be working for McCain.

I figured this would be the election -- especially w/ Obama's bankroll -- that the Republicans of George Bush would be on THEIR heels.

As dmbeaster points out, it's not as if McCain -- and my God, Bush -- hasn't given the Obama camp enough to work with. Just yesterday, Exxon/Mobil -- the poster child of the Bush/Cheyney economy -- reported another quarter of record earnings while today's news tells of the unemployment rate going northward.

Meanwhile, only the GOP could turn a world trip like Obama just took into a negative -- by the looks of recent polls, they have.

If Obama could unsettle and unseat Hillary Clinton's campaign, I certainly hope it can do likewise to McCain.

Excuse me if I sound depressed. But just finished the seventh month of the year without making a bonus check in the George Bush economy, the summer is fleeting and haven't been able to afford a family vacation and, like so many in America, I am a couple bad months away from wondering how I will pay the mortgage.

And the oh-so-important presidential campaign of 2008 gives me Paris Hilton.

"We now know -- we knew even before news of Ivins' suicide last night, and know especially in light of it -- that the anthrax attacks didn't come from Iraq or any foreign government at all. It came from our own Government's scientist, from the top Army bioweapons research laboratory."

I thought all we knew is that a guy committed suicide. Does Glenn Greenwald know something I haven't yet read, or is it a fact that the only reason someone commits suicde is that they're guilty of a crime?

Let's stop arguing on these blogs and volunteer for the Obama campaign. That is one concrete way to send Rove and his clones packing.

The lie is when Sen. Obama tags the race card, to obviously play the race card on his humble opponent who has done no such thing

This is, of course, a lie.

I thought all we knew is that a guy committed suicide. Does Glenn Greenwald know something I haven't yet read, or is it a fact that the only reason someone commits suicde is that they're guilty of a crime?

It's been reported that allegedly he was going to be indicted for responsibility for the attack. Glenn is relying on that for his assertion. How they know that without an official Justice Department release to that effect is beyond me. Someone probably must have said it to some reporter, but I am not aware of official confirmation.

rankly, if he is the sole target, it would be nice to have the Justice Department say something in the public interest. But maybe they have other targets. or maybe it will grow into another crazy internet conspiracy theory because the suicide cut off public proceedings on the matter.

I thought all we knew is that a guy committed suicide. Does Glenn Greenwald know something I haven't yet read, or is it a fact that the only reason someone commits suicde is that they're guilty of a crime?

It's been reported that allegedly he was going to be indicted for responsibility for the attack. Glenn is relying on that for his assertion.

I understand that. I hadn't realized that killing yourself because of a false accusation was impossible.

I'm not saying that's the case. I'm saying that I make a quite large distinction between "it seems likely to me" and "I know." I tend to have a fairly strict definition of what I "know." As regards externalities, I tend to make a distinction between supposition and proof. Other' mileage may and does vary.

"We now know -- we knew even before news of Ivins' suicide last night, and know especially in light of it -- that the anthrax attacks didn't come from Iraq or any foreign government at all. It came from our own Government's scientist,"

So, if someone is indicted, we know they are guilty? This is an interesting approach for someone with a law degree to take.

Glenn could use a proofreader, btw: "including The Wall St. Jorunal Editors and former CIA Director James Woosely"

And, yes, I read Glenn's UPDATE V. This is very sloppy: either edit what you wrote, or don't, or strike it out, or don't, but you can't unsay it. Thus it being quoted here, and my responding to the quote.

A couple of days late.... who has time to read everything during the work week?

My assumption (and hope) is that the Obama campaign is working under the theory that its still summer, and before the conventions, and no-one is really paying attention except people who read blogs and have already made up their minds.

Still I agree with those who bitch about the MSM and how they insist on showing the ads, (in newscasts, not as paid commercials) without commenting IMMEDIATELY about their truthiness.

I expect that, starting labor day, those of you in battleground states (and in some teetering red states as well) will be barraged by Obama ads which velcro McCain to Bush. Over and over: "If you liked George Bush you'll ADORE John McCain", each with a short list of Bush policies that people are known to hate. Simple and VERY effective, and not really negative in the Rovian sense, either.

Remember, Obama and the Dems have a HUGE monetary advantage this year. There's no way in hell they're going to leave that $$ in the bank.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad