13
   

Oh fer chrissakes ... (second iteration)

 
 
nimh
 
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 03:42 pm
Bout a month ago, I started a thread called "Oh fer chrissakes". How low can the media chatter go, I asked? How vapid can people get? And, I'll add, how easily can the 'journalists' who provide the TV infotainment for these elections be spun by campaign flaks into jumping on every bit of idiocy they throw out?

Responding to the mindboggling inanity of the McCain campaign's hissy fit about Obama using the expression "lipstick on a pig," Obama finally had enough today, and said the same thing. "Oh fer chrissakes!"

OK, he used better words. Here he is:

Quote:
"Some of you may have -- I'm assuming you guys have heard this, watching the news," Obama said. "I'm talking about John McCain's economic policies, I say, 'This is more of the same, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.' And suddenly they say, 'Oh, you must be talking about the governor of Alaska.'

"See it would be funny, it would be funny except -- of course the news media all decided that that was the lead story yesterday. They'd much rather have the story -- this is the McCain campaign -- would much rather have the story about phony and foolish diversions than about the future.

"This happens every election cycle. Every four years. This is what we do. We've got an energy crisis. We have an education system that is not working for too many of our children and making us less competitive. We have an economy that is creating hardship for families all across America. We've got two wars going on -- veterans coming home not being cared for -- and this is what they want to talk about. This is what they want to spend two of the last 55 days talking about."

"You know who ends up losing at the end of the day? It's not the Democratic candidate. It's not the republican candidate. It's you, the American people, because then we go another year or another four years or another eight years without addressing the issues that matter to you. Enough."

(Via Steve Benen)

AMEN to that.

What is behind the recent torrent of bullshit issues spun into the daily news cycles by the McCain campaign? I mean, election campaigns by definition come with the freakshow spectacle of whatever outrage du jour has the pundits in a tizzy. Nature of the beast - it's in the nature of campaigns, and of punditry. And in a ratings-driven, zapping, low-attention span world, it's only getting worse. But the way the McCain campaign is slinging one after the other into the conversation is still pretty damn striking.

I mean, Obama is too much of a celebrity? That was silliness - does it make him any less qualified to be President? Obama used the expression "lipstick on a pig", and the Republican party works itself in a froth even the most PC liberal language crusader would be jealous of? That's silliness too.

And I mean, going after Obama, in an attack ad on TV, for having supported a bill that would have ensured that sex education classes already being taught now were "medically accurate"? Going after him for having defended giving kindergarteners "age-appropriate sex education" to teach them about what is appropriate and not appropriate touching by adults? Under the nomer that Obama is for "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners, and wants them to be "learning about sex before learning to read"?

Are they serious? That's an argument? And moreover, it's an argument the elections should be about in this time of economic crisis and war?

But there's a logic behind this madness. Rick Davis, one of McCain's campaign managers, explained to the WaPo editors that "we are in the worst Republican environment since Nixon in 1972 .. We take that seriously." He's right. Even aside from Bush's personal impopularity and the corruption and sex scandals that have afflicted Republicans especially in the last couple of years, Republican policies are just not very popular right now. On issue after issue, the Republican solutions are less popular than the Democratic ones.

So what to do? Well, the presidential race will just have to be decided over personalities rather than issues. That's the only hope they got. This is what Davis said about that: "This election is not about issues .. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

And hence the freakshow now. The endless barrage of trivia meant to make Obama's personality and character seem suspect. Cause that's the only shot they have. As a blogger at cogitamus put it: "The GOP does not have a single winning issue in its bag of tricks at the moment. Hence, the bullshit fest to follow."

A month ago, a blogger at the conservative National Review sketched the path ahead. "It's of course important to criticize Senator Obama on the issues and on his philosophy," Peter Wehner dutifully wrote; "but in politics, campaigns need to provide its [sic] supporters, and undecided voters, with a thematic " a broad truth about a candidate .. Those who control the narrative often control the outcome of a race." So forget about issues and political philosophies, push on with ads like "The One", which had just gone on at the time, mocking Obama for being too much of a celebrity. They may lack all substance and be entirely about style, but "when a clever and/or humorous charge embodies a widespread feeling or concern about a candidate, it can be extremely effective, and sometimes even crippling."

In short, forget about promoting or defending the actual policies you'll enact once you get elected, since the voters wont like the ones McCain is thinking of anyway. Instead, make it all about what "feelings" people might have about his opponent that you can use to turn them against him. No matter how far-fetched or irrelevant the examples you need to bring up for it.

Or as blogger Roy Edroso summarised it:

Quote:
SHORTER PETER WEHNER: Without bullshit, we're fucked.

QED.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 13 • Views: 5,998 • Replies: 60

 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 03:49 pm
@nimh,



Don't forget the mind boggling inanity of Obama actually uttering those words.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 04:03 pm
@nimh,
He should have said "you can't polish a turd" but I don't think that would go over well on television.
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 04:18 pm
@DrewDad,

He would only be talking about the turd that is Obama.

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 04:27 pm
@DrewDad,
I love "ignore." I could wax rhapsodical about how happy I am when I see "User ignored (view)" and scroll right by....
dlowan
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 04:27 pm
@nimh,
Well, yeah.

What he said.

(Apparently McCain said "lipstick on a pig" about one of Hillary's policies....)
dlowan
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 04:28 pm
@DrewDad,
Yep.

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 04:46 pm
@dlowan,


Yeah, but Hillary hadn't used the word "lipstick" just a few hours before McCain said what he said.


parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 08:33 pm
@H2O MAN,

So, H2Oman,

I am curious how you can vote republican. It's obvious from the time you spend here that your business is in the shitter.

But I suppose anyone that confuses days with a "few hours" can't expect to work too much.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 09:25 pm
@parados,
Parados wrote:
So, H2Oman,

I am curious how you can vote republican. It's obvious from the time you spend here that your business is in the shitter.

But I suppose anyone that confuses days with a "few hours" can't expect to work too much.


No, you're the poopy head Parados!

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 09:27 pm
@nimh,
Please.

Both sides are playing this silly game of outrage ping-pong.

"I love this country too much..."

Nothing over the top there.

"Swift-boating?"

It's amazing how myopic you and your friends are.

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 05:53 am
@parados,
My business is great, how are you doing?
0 Replies
 
Cliff Hanger
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 06:16 am
@dlowan,
McCain sure did. In previous years, the expression has been used by Cheney toward Kerry, Charles Rangel, a common phrase used by both Republicans and Democrats.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 06:20 am
@Cliff Hanger,
Yeah, the phrase has been used by many people in the past, but only Obama
used it right after Palin used the word "lipstick" in her acceptance speech.
sozobe
 
  5  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 06:21 am
@H2O MAN,
"right after" = 10 days and how many millions of words...?
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 06:25 am
@sozobe,
10 days of NObama speak.
Palin had stolen his thunder and media attention.
sozobe
 
  3  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 06:26 am
@H2O MAN,
Yeah. Finally using that ignore button, for a while anyway.
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 06:28 am
@sozobe,


Are the facts a little hard for you to accept?
parados
 
  5  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 06:40 am
@H2O MAN,
You mean your "fact" of claiming 234 is but a "few hours"?

Your "facts" are hard to accept because they don't act like real facts.
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 06:49 am
@parados,
Are you saying Obama had no idea what he was saying and doing when he spoke?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Oh fer chrissakes ... (second iteration)
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/23/2017 at 09:05:06