I've been obsessed with the McCain's campaign to slice-and-dice the American people into good groups characterized as "pro-American" and bad groups characterized as "anti-American." "Real Virginia," "pro-American parts of the country," etc. Meanwhile Obama has a unifying vision, which generally does better in Presidential elections.
The slice-and-dice view of the country has been out there for a long time. It's sometimes called the "paranoid style" of American politics. This view see conspiracies everywhere. It has often been directed to Jews, but now it's characterized by Islamophobia. Are Muslims the new Jews?
George W. Bush's November 6, 2001 address to a joint session of Congress rekindled this spirit and set the Republican Party on a self-destructive path when disagreement over Iraq or other issues is tantamount to treason. Actually, not tantamount to treason, but actual treason. In Bush's 2001 speech, he declared: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.)"
At the time, I assumed that he meant that other countries had to decide whether they were with us or against us. The Republican Party and the right wing applied it to the United States as well. To them, Americans, too, are either for or against "us."
Now the Democrats look like they're on the verge of controlling Congress and the White House. The hysteria we see is the wingnut freak out that a black socialist terrorist Muslim liberal elitist, all of which are disqualifications for being one of "us," may actually become President. According to the logic of the "with us or against us" crowd, the President will be against us.
What the hell do these folks do if Obama wins?
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Friday, October 24, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Debate thoughts before going to bed
1. McCain tried to capture his magic of 2000. Didn't happen. His jokes were received with crickets.
2. At all campaign stops near nuclear power plans, and maybe at every campaign stop, Obama and Biden should bring up this quote from McCain: "Nuclear power. Senator Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that." Ummm, yeah.
McCain doesn't just want to de-regulate the nuclear energy industry, he wants nuclear plants to be unsafe? It's unclear whether Obama didn't catch it or didn't want to raise it during the debate and give McCain an opportunity to clarify his remarks. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, there are 9 in Pennsylvania, 5 in Florida, 5 in North Carolina, 4 plants in Virginia, 3 in Michigan, 3 in Wisconsin, and 2 in Ohio.
3. "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran!" McCain walked into that one. Obama used it at the first debate, so I don't know what McCain thought he was doing focusing on judgment. McCain's response: weak references to his military experience, "I was joking with an old veteran friend who joked with me about Iran." Really, here's the joke. Doesn't sound like a casual conversation with an old veteran friend:
4. I also don't understand questioning Obama's Pakistan position. I think it's pretty clear that we will kill terrorists, let alone bin Laden wherever they are, period. By uttering the words "We will kill bin Laden" helps Obama. Do even Republicans understand McCain's position?
5. Speaking of Pakistan, I have noticed that Obama pronounces Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran correctly. "Nuclear," too. And yet he's winning? (Update: tip jar!)
6. McCain's closing remarks weren't explicit, but he was making an appeal based on his experience as a POW. According to CNN's "Uncommitted Ohio Voters," there was no reaction. Either they didn't understand that he was referring to his POW years or they just didn't care.
2. At all campaign stops near nuclear power plans, and maybe at every campaign stop, Obama and Biden should bring up this quote from McCain: "Nuclear power. Senator Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that." Ummm, yeah.
McCain doesn't just want to de-regulate the nuclear energy industry, he wants nuclear plants to be unsafe? It's unclear whether Obama didn't catch it or didn't want to raise it during the debate and give McCain an opportunity to clarify his remarks. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, there are 9 in Pennsylvania, 5 in Florida, 5 in North Carolina, 4 plants in Virginia, 3 in Michigan, 3 in Wisconsin, and 2 in Ohio.
3. "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran!" McCain walked into that one. Obama used it at the first debate, so I don't know what McCain thought he was doing focusing on judgment. McCain's response: weak references to his military experience, "I was joking with an old veteran friend who joked with me about Iran." Really, here's the joke. Doesn't sound like a casual conversation with an old veteran friend:
4. I also don't understand questioning Obama's Pakistan position. I think it's pretty clear that we will kill terrorists, let alone bin Laden wherever they are, period. By uttering the words "We will kill bin Laden" helps Obama. Do even Republicans understand McCain's position?
5. Speaking of Pakistan, I have noticed that Obama pronounces Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran correctly. "Nuclear," too. And yet he's winning? (Update: tip jar!)
6. McCain's closing remarks weren't explicit, but he was making an appeal based on his experience as a POW. According to CNN's "Uncommitted Ohio Voters," there was no reaction. Either they didn't understand that he was referring to his POW years or they just didn't care.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Move along, there's nothing to see here
I recently saw this Moveon.org ad on TV:
This is the worst ad I've seen in this election cycle. It looks like a teenager put it together on a MacAir over the weekend.
I suppose the the message is that McCain has something to do with some people who had something to do with the financial crisis and supports Bush's $700 billion bailout. To emphasize the point, the figure of $700 billion moves across the screen, Atari 2600-style, across the screen. To emphasize the point even more, the $700 billion figure turns red. Is this a sign of danger? A statement that it's more red ink? A higher level statement that it's red ink borrowed from Red China.
How exactly does this ad help to defeat McCain? Obama is more likely to support the bailout than McCain. It wouldn't surprise me if McCain goes populist by opposing the bailout in order to stir up the race--my least favorite phrase of 2008, "game-changer."
Also, the ad has so...many...words...can't...pay...attention. Jeez! These liberals are too damn cerebral. Can't they just play to the reptile mind of the undecided American voter? Fight or flight, fear and loathing, right and wrong.
The Republicans knew how to tear down Kerry with those Swift Boat ads. They didn't just make Kerry look bad, they destroyed his credibility and the basis for his candidacy. McCain's support of the war and other things he's said and done in public life have more than enough material to bring him down without resorting to the lies of the Swift Boaters. This ad just doesn't do anything to defeat McCain. It was a waste of money.
The Obama people were correct to try to dissuade Democratic donors from supporting outside organization like Moveon. This Politico article puts forth several arguments why the Obama campaign steered Democratic donors away from outside groups: Legal defense against charges of illegal coordination, their ties to the Clintons, a power grab, to ensure his brand of "new politics," and "message discipline." This Moveon ad shows the virtues of message discipline.
Update: So the bailout plan failed today. Since a majority of the Democrats in the House voted for it, I don't understand why Moveon would attack the measure and McCain's apparent support of it. Maybe I missed it, but I still don't know where Obama was on this bill. Since Pelosi indicated in the big White House meeting that Obama would speak for the Democrats, it is presumable that they wouldn't have reached a deal with the White House and congressional Republicans unless they cleared it with Obama. The McCain campaign apparently took credit for the deal before it failed. Oops.
This is the worst ad I've seen in this election cycle. It looks like a teenager put it together on a MacAir over the weekend.
I suppose the the message is that McCain has something to do with some people who had something to do with the financial crisis and supports Bush's $700 billion bailout. To emphasize the point, the figure of $700 billion moves across the screen, Atari 2600-style, across the screen. To emphasize the point even more, the $700 billion figure turns red. Is this a sign of danger? A statement that it's more red ink? A higher level statement that it's red ink borrowed from Red China.
How exactly does this ad help to defeat McCain? Obama is more likely to support the bailout than McCain. It wouldn't surprise me if McCain goes populist by opposing the bailout in order to stir up the race--my least favorite phrase of 2008, "game-changer."
Also, the ad has so...many...words...can't...pay...attention. Jeez! These liberals are too damn cerebral. Can't they just play to the reptile mind of the undecided American voter? Fight or flight, fear and loathing, right and wrong.
The Republicans knew how to tear down Kerry with those Swift Boat ads. They didn't just make Kerry look bad, they destroyed his credibility and the basis for his candidacy. McCain's support of the war and other things he's said and done in public life have more than enough material to bring him down without resorting to the lies of the Swift Boaters. This ad just doesn't do anything to defeat McCain. It was a waste of money.
The Obama people were correct to try to dissuade Democratic donors from supporting outside organization like Moveon. This Politico article puts forth several arguments why the Obama campaign steered Democratic donors away from outside groups: Legal defense against charges of illegal coordination, their ties to the Clintons, a power grab, to ensure his brand of "new politics," and "message discipline." This Moveon ad shows the virtues of message discipline.
Update: So the bailout plan failed today. Since a majority of the Democrats in the House voted for it, I don't understand why Moveon would attack the measure and McCain's apparent support of it. Maybe I missed it, but I still don't know where Obama was on this bill. Since Pelosi indicated in the big White House meeting that Obama would speak for the Democrats, it is presumable that they wouldn't have reached a deal with the White House and congressional Republicans unless they cleared it with Obama. The McCain campaign apparently took credit for the deal before it failed. Oops.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Obama and Clinton play chess
Bad weather interfered with my satellite signal, so I didn't watch Clinton's speech, but it seems Clinton gave an extremely ungracious non-concession speech. Can she do more to sabotage Obama's chance in 2008) so she could run in 2012)? The next week will show a lot, but Obama has a real chess match on his hands.
If she forces Obama to ask her to be the VP, she could decline it and make him look like a fool. McCain will then say, "if you can't handle Hillary Clinton, how are you going to handle Ahmadinejad in these direct negotiations of yours?"
If she does accept the offer, the McCain line is just as valid, and then he's got dis-loyalists in his campaign and, hopefully, Administration. She wouldn't be accepting of a ceremonial role--she's be like Cheney with her minions spread throughout the Executive Branch. Yuck!
Finally, if he doesn't offer her the VP position, she could knee-cap him throughout the campaign.
Did you hear that it was reported by Fineman of MSNBC that the Clinton campaign is demanding that if she isn't offered the VP slot, then no woman should?
I am no longer on the Webb for VP bandwagon. I think he's got a lot of baggage, especially on women's rights. Not the sort of signal to send right now. I am thinking that Clark may be a good choice. Since he's allied with the Clintons, he may be acceptable to her.
First move goes to white.
If she forces Obama to ask her to be the VP, she could decline it and make him look like a fool. McCain will then say, "if you can't handle Hillary Clinton, how are you going to handle Ahmadinejad in these direct negotiations of yours?"
If she does accept the offer, the McCain line is just as valid, and then he's got dis-loyalists in his campaign and, hopefully, Administration. She wouldn't be accepting of a ceremonial role--she's be like Cheney with her minions spread throughout the Executive Branch. Yuck!
Finally, if he doesn't offer her the VP position, she could knee-cap him throughout the campaign.
Did you hear that it was reported by Fineman of MSNBC that the Clinton campaign is demanding that if she isn't offered the VP slot, then no woman should?
I am no longer on the Webb for VP bandwagon. I think he's got a lot of baggage, especially on women's rights. Not the sort of signal to send right now. I am thinking that Clark may be a good choice. Since he's allied with the Clintons, he may be acceptable to her.
First move goes to white.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Democracy in the Democratic Party
I'm glad the Michigan and Florida delegate issue seems to be resolved. Just as umpires and referees shouldn't make game-changing decisions with bad or ticky-tack calls, the DNC shouldn't make similar decisions this far into the primary season.
From within Hillaryland and from without, there is a lot of hand-wringing about the dis/enfranchisement, democracy, one-person-one-vote (of a fraction thereof), etc. etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the primary and caucus system is inherently undemocratic.
First all of, no voting process that takes over 5 months can be said to be democratic. Iowa voted over 5 months before Montana and South Dakota. If states like New Jersey and California were to vote on Tuesday, the results would be very different than their earlier returns.
Second, the delegate system is weighted in favor of certain voters based on local democratic voting strength. It's unclear whether this apportionment system has had the effect of helping Obama or Clinton. Nevertheless, some votes are designed to be worth more than others.
Then there's the superdelegates. 'nuff said. They may be elected officials in many case, but they were not elected to select the presidential nominee. Since all Senators and representatives are superdelegates, they artificially inflate the importance of small states.
The U.S. electoral system only approximates democracy, so perhaps that's the best we can hope from the national party nomination process. By any measure, there is no palpable "will of the voters" favoring Obama over Clinton. The difference between pledged delegates is negligible. Even when you view the popular vote in any fair manner, it is basically a tie. Obama will be the nominee because he played the game better. The name of the game is delegates, and Obama has nearly enough already. The system may be flawed, but that's life.
I hope the Obama campaign's strategic mastery shows who is more ready to be President. We will not experience an Obama Administration unless the Clinton supporters come home. They need to recognize the flaws inherent in the system, get over their frustrations, and come home. She may have moderate white women; Obama may have African-Americans and urban liberals--the Democratic Party in a nutshell.
From within Hillaryland and from without, there is a lot of hand-wringing about the dis/enfranchisement, democracy, one-person-one-vote (of a fraction thereof), etc. etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the primary and caucus system is inherently undemocratic.
First all of, no voting process that takes over 5 months can be said to be democratic. Iowa voted over 5 months before Montana and South Dakota. If states like New Jersey and California were to vote on Tuesday, the results would be very different than their earlier returns.
Second, the delegate system is weighted in favor of certain voters based on local democratic voting strength. It's unclear whether this apportionment system has had the effect of helping Obama or Clinton. Nevertheless, some votes are designed to be worth more than others.
Then there's the superdelegates. 'nuff said. They may be elected officials in many case, but they were not elected to select the presidential nominee. Since all Senators and representatives are superdelegates, they artificially inflate the importance of small states.
The U.S. electoral system only approximates democracy, so perhaps that's the best we can hope from the national party nomination process. By any measure, there is no palpable "will of the voters" favoring Obama over Clinton. The difference between pledged delegates is negligible. Even when you view the popular vote in any fair manner, it is basically a tie. Obama will be the nominee because he played the game better. The name of the game is delegates, and Obama has nearly enough already. The system may be flawed, but that's life.
I hope the Obama campaign's strategic mastery shows who is more ready to be President. We will not experience an Obama Administration unless the Clinton supporters come home. They need to recognize the flaws inherent in the system, get over their frustrations, and come home. She may have moderate white women; Obama may have African-Americans and urban liberals--the Democratic Party in a nutshell.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Air Force tanker deal
Boeing loses out to Airbus. Republicans and Democrats united in outrage. Lou Dobbs is seething.
Whenever the Republicans and Democrats agree on something, it is usually a mistake. This must be a good deal for taxpayers.
Whenever the Republicans and Democrats agree on something, it is usually a mistake. This must be a good deal for taxpayers.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
First road race
I just ran a St. Patrick's Day 8k, my first road race. I finished between a 9 and 10-mile pace. Thanks to Gotta Run in Arlington for equipping me with the right sneaks and having a 40% sale on winter running clothes.
Here's the course map (approximately):
Race-time temperature at 9 AM: 32 degrees and windy. To give you an example of the wind, this is what the wind did last night:
Extenuating circumstances: The first "spring forward" daylight savings morning, so it was extra hard to get up this morning. Thanks to the local coffee shop (not the one seized by the DC tax authorities) for a good 12-oz cup on the way to the Metro.
Post-race report: My left ankle/Achilles is a little sore from not wearing the right sneakers for a few weeks. I hope to continue running for the...
Next race: the April 6th Cherry Blossom 10-miler.
Now I am back home and actually enjoyed Meet the Press this morning. Thank God, no Carville/Matalin garbage-fest.
The topic was the on-going Democratic circular firing squad. I am afraid this nomination fight isn't going to end well for Democrats. Neither one can get a majority of delegates without the superdelegates.
The final result needs to fair in fact and appearance. This Florida and Michigan delegate clusterfuck really need to be sorted out, one way or another. It's hard to see women, blacks, and younger voters coming together behind one candidate in the summer and fall unless both candidates are on the ticket.
I doubt Hillary would accept the VP position given her intimate familiarity with the powerlessness of the position and her age. Is it up to Obama to yield, even if he is leading in elected delegates and/or total votes and the polls?
One last comment before I publish this puppy....what foreign policy experience does Hillary have that makes her so damned qualified to run the armed forces? She has claimed to have played important roles in Northern Ireland and the Balkans. I suppose it is a media conspiracy that the '90s went by and we never heard a peep about Hillary's foreign policy successes. The Clintonites speak of her service on the armed services committee. Taking votes and mocking Rumsfeld for a few hours has very little to do with leadership. Look at the list of full committee members. Some are more than qualified to be the CiC of the armed forces (i.e., Warner, Webb). Some are not.
Her track record is voting for the war, the most reckless vote of this decade. Bring this up, and she says, well, I wasn't voting for the war, I was voting for giving diplomacy and inspectors a chance. I am not a member of the armed services committee, so I can't possibly compete with her foreign policy creds, but it was pretty clear to me that Bush was intent on war irrespective of diplomacy, inspectors, and everything else. If you are suckered by Bush--the most transparent leader on Earth--how are you going to match up with Putin?
Here's the course map (approximately):
Race-time temperature at 9 AM: 32 degrees and windy. To give you an example of the wind, this is what the wind did last night:
Extenuating circumstances: The first "spring forward" daylight savings morning, so it was extra hard to get up this morning. Thanks to the local coffee shop (not the one seized by the DC tax authorities) for a good 12-oz cup on the way to the Metro.
Post-race report: My left ankle/Achilles is a little sore from not wearing the right sneakers for a few weeks. I hope to continue running for the...
Next race: the April 6th Cherry Blossom 10-miler.
Now I am back home and actually enjoyed Meet the Press this morning. Thank God, no Carville/Matalin garbage-fest.
The topic was the on-going Democratic circular firing squad. I am afraid this nomination fight isn't going to end well for Democrats. Neither one can get a majority of delegates without the superdelegates.
The final result needs to fair in fact and appearance. This Florida and Michigan delegate clusterfuck really need to be sorted out, one way or another. It's hard to see women, blacks, and younger voters coming together behind one candidate in the summer and fall unless both candidates are on the ticket.
I doubt Hillary would accept the VP position given her intimate familiarity with the powerlessness of the position and her age. Is it up to Obama to yield, even if he is leading in elected delegates and/or total votes and the polls?
One last comment before I publish this puppy....what foreign policy experience does Hillary have that makes her so damned qualified to run the armed forces? She has claimed to have played important roles in Northern Ireland and the Balkans. I suppose it is a media conspiracy that the '90s went by and we never heard a peep about Hillary's foreign policy successes. The Clintonites speak of her service on the armed services committee. Taking votes and mocking Rumsfeld for a few hours has very little to do with leadership. Look at the list of full committee members. Some are more than qualified to be the CiC of the armed forces (i.e., Warner, Webb). Some are not.
Her track record is voting for the war, the most reckless vote of this decade. Bring this up, and she says, well, I wasn't voting for the war, I was voting for giving diplomacy and inspectors a chance. I am not a member of the armed services committee, so I can't possibly compete with her foreign policy creds, but it was pretty clear to me that Bush was intent on war irrespective of diplomacy, inspectors, and everything else. If you are suckered by Bush--the most transparent leader on Earth--how are you going to match up with Putin?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)