by Eric Martin
An interesting bit of campaign-related gossip (via Newshoggers, my favorite home away from other homes):
With his electoral prospects fading by the day, Senator John McCain has fallen out with his vice-presidential running mate about the direction of his White House campaign.
McCain has become alarmed about the fury unleashed by Sarah Palin, the moose-hunting “pitbull in lipstick”, against Senator Barack Obama. Cries of “terrorist” and “kill him” have accompanied the tirades by the governor of Alaska against the Democratic nominee at Republican rallies.
Mark Salter, McCain’s long-serving chief of staff, is understood to have told campaign insiders that he would prefer his boss, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, to suffer an “honourable defeat” rather than conduct a campaign that would be out of character – and likely to lose him the election.
Palin, 44, has led the character attacks on Obama in the belief that McCain may be throwing away the election and her chance of becoming vice-president. Her supporters think that if the Republican ticket loses on November 4, she should run for president in 2012. [...]
“Sarah Palin is no fool. She sees the same thing and wants to salvage what she can. She is positioning herself for the future. Her best days could be in front of her. She wants to look as though she was the fighter, the person with the spunk who was out there taking it to the Democrats.”
Like Jim Henley (my favorite libertarian), I detect a whiff of self-serving McCain spin in this in that it neatly pushes all the negativity on to Palin. But that's not really the whole story is it? After all, Palin was not responsible for the nasty ad-buys, nor did she force McCain himself to pursue these scurriluos lines of attack.
Nevertheless, Palin does have a history of "turning" on her political benefactors, as Henley put it, when the opportunity for self-advancement presents itself. It is possible that McCain does want to try to contain the damage to his reputation at this point, and that Palin has other plans.
Above all, McCain chose Sarah Palin, so the responsibility for her prominence in this race, and the message she chooses to promote in that position, begins and ends with McCain. As John Cole (my favorite disenchanted Republican) put it:
Who could have imagined that if you take an ethically challenged know-nothing religious nut from backwoods America, have Bill Kristol and the Rove 2000 team whisper in her ear for weeks, that she would turn into a vicious political opportunist with no regard for the country and an eye on her personal future?
While we're on the topic, I found this piece from Kite Runner novelist Khaled Hosseini (my favorite Afghan-American novelist) instructive (via Thoreau, my favorite theoritician):
I prefer to discuss politics through my novels, but I am truly dismayed these days. Twice last week alone, speakers at McCain-Palin rallies have referred to Sen. Barack Obama, with unveiled scorn, as Barack Hussein Obama.
Never mind that this evokes -- and brazenly tries to resurrect -- the unsavory, cruel days of our past that we thought we had left behind. Never mind that such jeers are deeply offensive to millions of peaceful, law-abiding Muslim Americans who must bear the unveiled charge, made by some supporters of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin, that Obama's middle name makes him someone to distrust -- and, judging by some of the crowd reactions at these rallies, someone to persecute or even kill. As a secular Muslim, I too was offended. Obama's middle name differs from my last name by only two vowels. Does the McCain-Palin campaign view me as a pariah too? Do McCain and Palin think there's something wrong with my name?
Perhaps, but regardless of what is true in their respective heart of hearts, they are both perfectly willing to stoke a vile racism that treats Arabs (and Muslims) as terrorists and morally inferior by mere virtue of being Arab (and/or Muslim), and then capitalize on the results electorally.
This reminds me of the tension between the lofty principles used to sell Bush's foreign policy, and the prevalent attitudes of the population that form its strongest base of support. According to Bush Doctrine spinners, we are, putatively, spending trillions of dollars, losing thousands of American lives, causing debilitating injuries to tens of thousands more Americans and incurring so many other sizable costs in the name of bestowing the gifts of freedom and democracy on...a bunch of mostly Muslim Arabs in Iraq. Many with the name Hussein.
The Boys with the Arab Trap, as I termed it.
I imagine this campaign-related storyline that emphasizes the toxicity with which Arabness/Muslimness is viewed by many Americans (particularly on the right) is doing wonders to improve our image throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds. I can't imagine why so many Arabs and Muslims doubt our benificent democracy promoting agenda?
(*from my favorite song by said group)
Isn't it just nice, Hilzoy, to know that such rhetoric is losing this time? That more people are rejecting it today (the majority, really) than did so in 2003?
I consider that a wonderful, wonderful thing to be celebrated.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | October 12, 2008 at 11:43 AM
And by Hilzoy, I obviously meant Eric.
(A pox on those who thought otherwise. ^^)
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | October 12, 2008 at 11:44 AM
"According to Bush Doctrine spinners, we are, putatively, spending trillions of dollars, losing thousands of American lives, causing debilitating injuries to tens of thousands more Americans and incurring so many other sizable costs in the name of bestowing the gifts of freedom and democracy on...a bunch of mostly Muslim Arabs in Iraq. Many with the name Hussein."
The key word being "putatively" for as most of us know, that is in no way the reason we are there.
Posted by: john miller | October 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM
AC: First, any confusion between my writing and hilzoy's is a massive compliment to me. So thank you (note to Andy McCarthy - please suggest that hilzoy is ghost writing my posts. Thanks.)
As to your point, yes it is most wonderful.
john miller: I put that word there quite intentionally.
Posted by: Eric Martin | October 12, 2008 at 12:06 PM
What do you make of the cool set in London, constantly updating their hit parade of the ten biggest wanks? She's a waitress and she's got style...
Check it on the volume fading outro, also my fave from them.
Good post, too. I come to ObWi for the song titles, but stay for the posts.
Posted by: Pinko Punko | October 12, 2008 at 01:13 PM
I can't imagine why so many Arabs and Muslims doubt our benificent democracy promoting agenda?
You mean they’re wrong?
Actually, you know, it’s not only Arabs and Muslims, (But you knew that.)
Well, I guess it’s the electoral campaign that has everything; irony, idiocy, absurdity, and idealism, ideas, and ideology; and a whole lot more of things previously unimaginable. But this wave of raw ugliness boosted by Palin, while not really truly unexpected, is pretty terrifying.
A whole new concept; terrorism by exposition of the hearts of your countrypeople.
What is this bizarre but so true confluence of Hardcore ‘Bible thumpers’ and outrageous public expressions of hatred? Kinda makes me wonder what they say behind closed doors.
Posted by: felix culpa | October 12, 2008 at 01:34 PM
Better title: These are a few of my favorite things
Posted by: Mike Schilling | October 12, 2008 at 01:38 PM
The final book of his John Varley's Gaia trilogy described a region within Gaia, as a place where all of humanity's despair, corruption, hatred, etc., had been gathered and left to fester into an anarchic, violent, insane city.
In the book, the place was called Bellinzona.
Here in RL, we call it The McCain-Palin campaign.
Really, if I didn't know better, I'd think McCain had set out to take up the ragged edges of Bush's dead-enders and use them to destroy the Republican Party as revenge for what the Bushies did to him in 2000.
Posted by: CaseyL | October 12, 2008 at 01:59 PM
Oh, hell. Someone turn off the italics, please?
Posted by: CaseyL | October 12, 2008 at 01:59 PM
BTW, the GOP brand and its ticket are now so damaged that even erstwhile "blogfather" and Red State founder J0$h Tr3v1n0 wrote in Bobby Jindal for President.
Posted by: Phil | October 12, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Via Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/12/mccain_campaign/index.html>Virginia GOP Chairman claims “connection between Obama and bin Laden”
Posted by: Hartmut | October 12, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Apage Italici!
Posted by: Hartmut | October 12, 2008 at 02:04 PM
In the book, the place was called Bellinzona
Which, it occurs to me a mere twenty-five years adfter reading the book, must be a play on Dhalgren's Bellona.
Posted by: Mike Schilling | October 12, 2008 at 02:25 PM
It's a useful thought experiment to wonder why Dole did not sink as far into the slime pit as McCain has. The most obvious explanation of personal differences between McCain and Dole hides as much as it explains.
This NYT article has this
But aides to Mr. Dole said this evening that he had not arrived at a final decision. Throughout the campaign, Mr. Dole has been extremely difficult to predict, often suggesting one thing and then moving in a different direction. In this case, Mr. Dole, who was in Congress for 35 years, may be floating the concept of attacking the President as part of a strategy to gauge the backlash he might encounter.
Several senior advisers strongly oppose the idea, arguing that it would be politically ruinous for Mr. Dole to come across as overly belligerent in San Diego. And if history is any guide, Mr. Dole by next week might be inclined not to attack if his standing in the polls has not improved. Other Presidential candidates who have been in Mr. Dole's trailing position at this point in the campaign -- notably Walter F. Mondale in 1984 -- have sought not to turn negative, weighing their long-term reputations against a short-term shot at victory.
I tend to be a functionalist for these sorts of explanations, and the notion that if Bob Dole were somehow in McCain's place right now, none of this would be happening seems unlikely to me, because it is not so much the desires of individual participants, but the structural tendencies that yield the particular results. This is probably a much harsher thing to say about the Republican party, because it suggests (as I believe), this campaign is the apotheosis of the party, but I don't think that is untrue. If the Republican brand has been as tarnished as it is now, Dole would probably be facing the same pressures. Perhaps he wouldn't have taken the hail Mary Palin route, but would he have been able to exert enough will to choose someone different? It's interesting that it seems to have taken a candidate like Obama, who would have more potential weaknesses in a Rovian playbook, to highlight what I see as the underlying tendencies of the Republican party.
And to people like von who will argue that the term Republican shouldn't be drug around the walls of the city like that, them's the breaks. I can't speak for others, but I'm not going to use my rhetorical energy trying to salvage the terms so that it can be revivified. My own advice is that you start looking for a new term.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 12, 2008 at 02:37 PM
(*from my favorite song by said group)
Your appreciation for Modest Mouse is hereby forgiven.
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | October 12, 2008 at 02:55 PM
It's a useful thought experiment to wonder why Dole did not sink as far into the slime pit as McCain has. The most obvious explanation of personal differences between McCain and Dole hides as much as it explains.
lj,
If you are looking for structural reasons for differences between the 1996 Dole campaign and the 2008 McCain campaign, one thing you might want to take into account is that Dole was attacking a sitting President and McCain is not.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | October 12, 2008 at 03:15 PM
Cool reference to "The Boy with the Arab Strap" which is one of my all-time favorite songs. However, it's by the brilliant band Belle & Sebastian not by the band the okay band Boy with the Arab Strap.
Both groups are from Scotland, and the song is almost certainly a reference to the band.
Posted by: Rodders | October 12, 2008 at 03:21 PM
"The Boys with the Arab Trap" just made my day.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | October 12, 2008 at 03:21 PM
However, it's by the brilliant band Belle & Sebastian not by the band the okay band Boy with the Arab Strap.
Sorry to nitpick, but the okay band is called simply "Arab Strap." And I'd call them pretty good rather than just okay. But regardless, they're nowhere near as good as B&S...because nobody is. 8^)
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | October 12, 2008 at 03:31 PM
Rodders: I was referencing the Belle & Sebastian song, and wasn't even thinking of the other band.
Posted by: Eric Martin | October 12, 2008 at 03:50 PM
The interests of McSame and Palin are starting to diverge. McSame may want to preserve some semblance of his “honorable” reputation (at least among the Wash. Press); but Palin truly does not give a shit. And with good reason- her supporters are on the right wing of the Repubs, and they also truly don’t give a shit. They want their blood and excitement, and reality-based data is way down on their order of importance. Palin hopes to be a standard-bearer for this crew after the election is over; the election is of secondary importance for her, it is everything for McSame, however. .
Posted by: M. Carey | October 12, 2008 at 04:40 PM
After looking through the lyrics of "The Boy with the Arab Strap" again, there are a number of lines that would have made perfect titles for this entry. I'd forgotten how good of a song it is - I'd be tempted to say that "Get Me Away From Here, I'm Dying" is better, but that's probably just because it's the first song of their I heard (which I listened to obsessively for far too long). Now that that's out of my system, I'll reread the entry in detail.
Posted by: Adam A | October 12, 2008 at 06:33 PM
tlt, that is a good point, but my idle wonder is if we could drop Bob Dole into McCain's slot, would we be at the same point we are now? I'll probably get busted for dealing in hypotheticals (what if McCain were a 7 foot tall blue alien, would the campaign look the same?) but I think it is worth thinking about because it seems, imho, to tell us something about the structural tendencies of the modern Republican party.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 12, 2008 at 07:44 PM
Y'know, for the record: there actually IS an Arab running in this year's Presidential race. His name is Ralph Nader, and I'm sure the McCain-Palin team would be tickled pink to steer as many votes his way as they can.
Posted by: Nemoudeis | October 12, 2008 at 07:48 PM
Yep, if McCain/Palin lose, can't you just see her turning on him the next day, saying he's the reason they lost, as she prepares for an 2012 run.
Posted by: henryv | October 12, 2008 at 08:14 PM
So what do you get if you cross a moose with a pit bull? Sarah Palin. Or is it what do you get if you cross Sarah and a moose and put on lip stick?... never mind.
I'm sure that Palin is thinking 2012. However, if she manages to (politically) survive another two years as Alaska's governor (which is questionable), what do you think is going to happen in the Republican primaries with the Miss Alaska runner up going head to head with Huckabee, Romney and whoever else is on the right of the party? They're going to tie her to McCain and she'll go down in flames.
No, I expect Sarah will be on Fox News by 2012, and won't that be fun.
Posted by: tomeck | October 12, 2008 at 10:02 PM
"Y'know, for the record: there actually IS an Arab running in this year's Presidential race. His name is Ralph Nader,"
I'm fairly sure he's Arab-American, actually. Or Lebanese American, if you prefer. He was born in Winsted, Connecticut.
Posted by: Gary Farber | October 12, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Do any of these guys getting all worked up about Barack HUSSEIN Obama know that one of George Bush's top advisors is named Khalilzad?
Posted by: Enlightened Layperson | October 12, 2008 at 11:00 PM
henryv:
"Yep, if McCain/Palin lose, can't you just see her turning on him the next day, saying he's the reason they lost, as she prepares for an 2012 run."
Can't I just? Now that you mention it: a forgone conclusion.
There should be a pool on the number of hours after the polls close. I'd say 1-2 days, but I'm not a gambler, so McCain can take my place here.
Posted by: Porlock Junior | October 13, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Gary, to the "right" people it does not make a difference where the "non-Aryan" was spawned. Being born in the US only matters for the legal (presidential) electability.
I assume you were not born in a Jewish country but consider yourself both a Jew (independent of actual religiosity) and an American. Btw, it was actually news to me about Nader (although not something I'd consider relevant. As far as I am concerned he could be one of those small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri in disguise ;-) )
Posted by: Hartmut | October 13, 2008 at 05:30 AM
"I assume you were not born in a Jewish country"
I don't know: I was born in Brooklyn.
;-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | October 13, 2008 at 05:59 AM
Gary, I was close to putting a clause about certain US locations in my post (and a reference to a certain satire by Ephraim Kishon*) ;-)
Iirc there are more Jews in the US than in Israel**. Is there any other country that could claim that?
*I doubt that I could find it online in English though
**the Jerusalem Post claimed (in 2006) that now Israel surpasses the US though.
Posted by: Hartmut | October 13, 2008 at 06:39 AM
I heart NY:
(I figured I'd throw in some context.)According to this, the Jewish U.S. population in 2006 was 6,452,030.
I love the "030." Also: "*Exclusive of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands which reported before 2002 Jewish populations of 1,500 and 350, respectively."
This source claims:
So estimates seem to vary. I'm sure there are different methodologies, and one thing Jews don't particularly agree on is who is a Jew, anyway. So inevitably numbers will differ somewhat.This undated Haaretz story says:
Conclusion: eh.Posted by: Gary Farber | October 13, 2008 at 06:55 AM
A Jew Grows in Brooklyn: The Gary Farber Story (or a few hundred thousand others')
Posted by: AndyK | October 13, 2008 at 07:40 AM
As far as I am concerned he could be one of those small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri in disguise ;-)
Or, like Kucinich, a hobbit married to an elf.
Posted by: Hogan | October 13, 2008 at 10:18 AM
The band "Arab Strap" was named after the B&S song, not the other way round.
As for the "more Jews in the US" - at the height of the British Israelite nonsense, the UK probably contained more people who believed themselves to be of Jewish descent than Palestine did.
Posted by: Barack Hussein Lobachevsky | October 13, 2008 at 10:58 AM
The band "Arab Strap" was named after the B&S song, not the other way round.
Nope -- TBWTAS was released in 1998; Arab Strap (the group) was founded in 1995. According to wikipedia, AS was pissed at B&S for using "arab strap" in the song/album title (even though it's apparently used in reference to the sexual device, not the band).
Posted by: matttbastard | October 13, 2008 at 01:12 PM
BwAS likely references the band Arab Strap and is likely punning as well. The lyrics to my ear say "the boy with the arab strap" in some verses, while "the boy FROM the Arab Strap" in others.
Posted by: Pinko Punko | October 14, 2008 at 03:57 PM
I'm with Pinko on that.
Posted by: Eric Martin | October 14, 2008 at 04:07 PM
By the way, Obama is a scary, scary black man.
Posted by: Gary Farber | October 14, 2008 at 04:52 PM
And most probably listened to Gil Scott Heron.
Or worse.
Posted by: gwangung | October 14, 2008 at 05:04 PM