McCain stands up (for a moment)
John McCain turned on his most vitriolic supporters yesterday, correcting a woman who thought Obama was an Arab terrorist, and telling the crowds they don’t have to be scared in the event of a Democratic victory. He deserves full credit for this, though of course it was his campaign who gave these ignorant fuckwits the idea in the first place, and they’re going to keep giving those ignorant fuckwits the same ideas for the next three weeks (and the four years beyond that too).
Still, one can’t help but wonder how McCain would be doing in the polls if he had never called up the forces of darkness to begin with. Probably even worse than he is now, but still it’s fun to think about: what if McCain had run the kind of campaign I suspect he wanted to run? You think he likes any of this shit? You think he enjoys pandering to the racist morons who were totally convinced eight years ago that he’d fathered a black child? You think he relishes saying that Joel Osteen’s book is the best thing he’s ever read? McCain’s essential tragedy is that the math of the Republican Party as it’s now configured forces its candidates to pander to a voter base that (let’s face it) probably would be a lot happier in a theocracy than a republic.
And that’s why his “stand of honor” yesterday ultimately means little. Even as the Senator cringes in the face of the venom he’s presiding over, his paid operatives keep on pumping out the Jesusland bullshit, portraying Obama as a man whose first move as president will either be to blow up the White House or paint the whole thing black. These are the same people who McCain once promised would burn in a “special place in hell” for smearing him so badly back in 2000. He may end up in one of his own for joining forces with them. Looking at his anguished face in yesterday’s rally, he may be there already.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Enjoy? Probably not–but only because it failed to produce the desired result. BUT, I do believe the true face of a man’s character surfaces in the face of adversity–and McCain’s clearly facing adversity now–so what we’ve seen from McCain over the last 4 weeks is most likely truer than his original rhetoric about running a clean campaign.
October 12th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Because citing a book dedicated to “Lucifer”; Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” which is Obama’s bible, and to be fair one of Hillary’s inspirations; is so much better. Really David, is there nothing about Obama thread bare resume, questionable associations, (His work on two foundation boards with Ayers is his only executive or management experience), corrupt voter registration practices, probably illiegal fundraising; that gives you pause.
McCain just wanted to point out that there is a difference between responsible inferences about Obama; and irresponsible ones. For that bit of evenhandedness, John Lewis compares him to George Wallace and Joseph Goebbels. Because apparently there’s nothing that can be criticized about Obama. About McCain, the very nature of his torture by the Vietnamese can be called into question, his sanity, his health, his justifiable policy positions. About Palin, thirdrate scatological innuendo. about her child, and even incitements to violence and sexual assault are not out of the question.
October 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
hey Narciso-
my favorite Saul Alinsky line is what he said to his staff shortly before his death: “cheer up boys, we’ll weather this storm of approval and come out as hated as ever.” : )
For the record, I’ve never stated that there’s nothing to be criticized about Obama (in fact, many of my blog posts have taken him to task). I simply see him as far less likely to establish a police-state than the GOP. But I do think there’s a difference-in-kind in the emotional landscape of a Obama rally vs. a McCain rally right now. The latter is veering into an anger that alarms me. No one’s yelling “kill him!” at Obama’s rallies.
(still owe you a response on your 10.3 comment, btw; great food for thought. deadlines have me a little crunched right now. : (
October 12th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
@narciso – I believe this is a question, though not directed to me. I’ll respond.
“…is there nothing about Obama thread bare resume, questionable associations, (His work on two foundation boards with Ayers is his only executive or management experience), corrupt voter registration practices, probably illiegal fundraising; that gives you pause.”
-Thread bare resume – In what way is it thread bare? I’m guessing you’re buying into (or promoting) a flawed concept that time in position equals greater qualification for the next. This simply isn’t an absolute. Great ideas and great leaders can come from a natural ability–versus a “crash course” in government that runs for over 2 decades (McCain).
-Questionable associations are a ridiculous argument for anyone running for president. McCain has just as many potentially questionable associations (Keating comes to mind and I’m certain there are far more). This is the nature of politics at this level. Unfortunate, but it’s the system to which American apathy has ceded power. And the Ayers thing is just 6 Degrees of Separation played on an otherwise bad hand the Republicans have dealt to themselves.
-Corrupt registration BY ACORN. Fraudulent registration is not a partisan issue. It happens every election on both sides of the aisle. In fact, if you examine the fact that voter registration payments made by Obama to ACORN was based on a per registration plan, you realize there’s an incentive to game the system by ACORN (and any other paid voter reg program). This happens EVERY election and in this election the Republicans are again trying to reduce the roles of registered voters and intimidate the very agencies that help those most likely to align with the Democrats. The Republicans are very clearly trying to make ACORN some sort of boogie man. Is ACORN at fault and breaking the law with it’s fraudulent registrations? Yes! Has the Obama campaign asked them to do so? I see no evidence of this whatsoever–and in fact, see an opportunity for Obama’s campaign to sue for an unlawful breach of a contract and to seek repayment for services not rendered.
-Illegal fundraising. Come on. Seriously, of over $468 millions raised, there’s a fraction of a fraction of a percent that have any level of suspicion at all. This is, yet again, a distraction from the issues and the platform at a time the Republicans rightfully should be shown a time out.
-John Lewis? The same John Lewis that John McCain called the “wisest people” he knows and someone he would “rely on” in his administration? Who really owns the words of John Lewis? I contend it’s only John Lewis, but if either Obama or McCain should issue an apology, it would seem McCain’s the one. Again, a distraction from the issues and platform. Where’s McCain’s apology for inciting a radical and racist population of The Base? Criticism of Obama and of his policies is totally fair play. This “palling around” business is totally unacceptable and McCain knows full well what’s they are doing.
On that topic, it’s hard for me to believe a campaign is able to screen in participants at their events (townhalls, etc) and have the exact right questions asked by “plants” that tee up a softball comment or question for the candidate (McCain) for over 20 months and then all of a sudden, in the span of a week, a bunch of redneck racists are given access to the microphone–as if by chance. There’s way too much control in the messaging of a presidential campaign for this to be anything other then orchestrated.
The saddest news in all this? It’s failing McCain, but it’s putting what’s likely to be our next president’s life at risk. John McCain and Sarah Palin should be completely ashamed of their abuse of the power they’ve been given and, just as Obama was essentially forced to do during the Wright episode, get on television for 20 minutes and give a sincere presentation on why they don’t believe this is right and apologize for their mistakes. Of course McCain couldn’t even support a state holiday for MLK and can barely stand to shake a black man’s hand at the debates, so I’m not waiting by the TV.
October 16th, 2008 at 12:48 am
This is a world where books and films have been given critical acclaim for exploring Presidential assasinations (Checkpoint, Death of a President) Where the Guardian’s Charlie Booker, mused back in 2004; where is Lee H. Oswald when we need him.
Where insinuations of sexual assault are not uncommon among the more avant guard. It’s actually dubious that any such statement really made it; or the context
was misunderstood.
Seriously, Obama is less likely to create a police state. Round the clock TV, Radio, Video Game advertising; this feels a little too 1984ish for me. Contrary to Naomi Wolf’s mutterings, a progressive with a messianic complex, supported almost entirely by the media; is much more likely to crush what they consider dissent; the Cuban CDR , the Sandinista turbas, whatever Chavez has cooked up) as examples than a center right candidate who would find the path obstructed by the press, and intelligentsia. Could a Salan have stayed in power after the ’61 coup as long as DeGaulle, ala Franco or Salazar. More too the point is the example of 19th Century Russia and their dealing with the Narodniki and the SR are an example; for the likes of Putin; which goes to show the limits of his ability.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:02 am
@Narciso- are you seriously suggesting that Obama’s campaign ads connote an Orwellian mindset? Surely I’m misinterpreting you.
On the “insinuations of sexual assault”: I can only presume that you’re somehow equating idiotic statements on blogs about Palin with the fact that the McCain-Palin camp is not responding to/silencing exhortations from its supporters re how Obama’s a traitor, etc. Nor is it doing anything about the overt racism we’re seeing. This seems problematic to me.
I should also note that Hilary got far, far worse from the right than Palin has had to put up with from the left.