Regarding negative campaigning, currently by the McCain camp:
…If the positions were reversed wouldnt you be praising Obama for “speaking truth to power” or “taking the fight to McCain” or whatever? Look, McCain has every right to try and actually win the election. Voters will decide if they like the strategy or not. So far, they don’t, but it’s pretty strange to assert that negative campaigning is somehow inherently proof that McCain is unfit to serve. Or that there’s some magic ratio of negative/non-neg campaigning, above which a candidate suddenly ceases to be fit for duty.
That comment was by our friend Aziz, an Obama supporter, in this thread.
That’s a great point, and it’s often missed by a lot of people. Negative campaigning works. Not only that, but it has a legitimate purpose. People get tired of it, especially when it seems like all they see is negativity, but they get sick of seeing all political ads.
Criticism is necessary. Criticism that is perceived irrational, mean-spirited, and highly questionable will hurt a candidate, but criticism that comes out of a place of genuine concern is of value to voters. In the end, with the stakes as high as they are in the Presidency, if there are serious concerns about a candidate they need to be brought up forcefully.
Look, I’m a McCain supporter. Aziz is an Obama supporter. For the record, my main reason for voting for McCain and against Obama is Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by the experience issue, and then by a few other things. On the other hand, I’ve spent some time recently listening to right-wing talk radio, and while some of it is very good, some of it just makes me sick it’s so mean-spirited and irrational. So here’s what I’m going to say about this election:
I will pull the lever for McCain/Palin in November. I will do so without the slightest hesitation or regret.
But if that evening, or the next morning, we learn that Barack Obama has won the Presidency, I will not lose not a wink of sleep. I will feel quite secure in the knowledge that the American people and the American system of government–which have always been flawed and imperfect and always will be–will continue to survive and thrive in the long run, even if we have tough times ahead. Because we always have tough times ahead, but this is the greatest country the world has ever known, and despite its many flaws our system of government works the way it’s supposed to, and in general works very well indeed.
Welcome to democracy, and the American way of life. Ain’t it grand?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 14 comments }
This is, by far, the greatest country in the history of the world, but I honestly fear for what will happen under an Obama presidency, especially given the greater control over congress the Democrats will have. This is a man who, less than two years ago, was elected to the U.S. Senate and is now vying for the highest office in the land.Â
He comes from a city with a corrupt political machine and he has associations that, at best, are questionable. He never heard Wright’s rantings, he was "only eight" when Ayers was bombing government buildings, and he had help from his buddy Tony to get a house. Who else is behind this man? How did he vault to the top of the ticket so fast?Â
I wish I could say I will not lose any sleep if he wins, but I cannot. There are just too many questions that the press refuses to ask and too many questionable associations for me.
Look, I’m as opposed to Barack Obama as anybody who still has rational faculties working on the matter. I oppose him based on his ideology, his voting history, his choice of whom to associate with and his alarming tendency to lie when he can’t dissemble.
But do I think all of that threatens our democracy? Not really. As I have said, I am far more concerned about the complete abdication of the "Fourth Estate’s" responsibilities than I am about Obama being elected.
What is the likely worst long term impact of an Obama Presidency? Three hyper-liberal Supreme Court Justices. The silver lining of that is that two of those are likely to be replacements for existing hyper-liberal Supreme Court Justices.
As Bill Clinton (and Hillary) learned in 1994, after two years of trying to ram a liberal agenda down the throats of the American people, the American people yanked Bill’s Democrat controlled congress out from under him. The same will happen to Obama if he tries to aggressively go to the Left.
It is much more likely that Obama will work at the margins, increasing the overall shift to the Left that America has been going through since before WWII. As much as Obama would like to, he won’t be able to repeal capitalism. He will do everything he can to stifle dissent, both through aggressive "hate speech" and "fairness doctrine" agendas, and he will do everything he can to do what he and Bill Ayers were trying to do 20 years ago, which is to turn our educational system into a Leftist indoctrination system, but frankly how much further to the Left can that go? And that is likely to generate some resistance as well.
I oppose Obama. I think Obama is a full-blown socialist and a radical one at that. But I think the country can survive his efforts to reform it in his own image. I can’t help but think that, just like Clinton, when the public really understands what is going on, they’ll reign him in. And just like Clinton, I think Obama is both smart enough, and ambitious enough to moderate his tactics and his goals to enable him to remain in power.
I’m not panicking about an Obama Presidency, I’m just disgusted by it. Panic is really the reaction of the Left, not the Right anyway. The Right tends to endure, the Left tends to foam at the mouth. Or at least that’s my perspective.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day
First of all, Right On The money, Aziz.
The thing people have to try and remember is that, believe it or not, Democrats really are Americans. No! Seriously! The other thing they have to try to remember is that once in power, well, they’re Democrats, which means fractious, argumentative, parochial… kinda like most politicians in other words.
It simply isn’t the end of the world. I might get indigestion watching Barak and Pelosi smiling all over assorted TV screens and magazine covers, but in the end I don’t watch much TV and soon Brittney! or Miley! will do something outrageous and that will take care of the rest of the news media.
Meanwhile I’m scouting out good dry bridges to sleep under, just in case Barak Obama IS another FDR…
Count me in as well; no matter what the fainting or furious on either side say, the Republic isn’t going to fall because of this election, no matter which candidate wins.
I prefer McCain (primarily on foreign policy, and secondarily as a counter to a Democrat-controlled Congress; I prefer divided government, and in general think the bits of the Democrat platform I disagree with are more likely to do more, and more lasting, harm than the bits of the Republican platform I disagree with), but I also won’t lose a minute of sleep or throw a little tantrum if Obama is elected.
(In fact, the "get over your obsession with racism, leftists and Europeans" factor of a black man in the White House will be a refreshing bonus. Maybe that means in future elections there can be less got-damn blathering and whining about race, once the point is proven.)
(In fact, the "get over your obsession with racism, leftists and Europeans" factor of a black man in the White House will be a refreshing bonus. Maybe that means in future elections there can be less got-damn blathering and whining about race, once the point is proven.)
Yes, this is an appealing aspect of an Obama presidency. Â
Some (Aziz included) like to point to the disaster of the previous 8 years and say it can’t possibly be worse, but I think that is mostly a reference to current economic conditions and wars. I don’t see any presidential moves that, even in hindsight, would have obviously prevented these happenings.
Obama in office might serve as a reality check to so many that would prefer to withdraw from history, those that somehow believe that if there were a Democrat in office the past 8 years that we would all be rich, the Dow at 14,000, there would have been no housing bubble, no economic downturn, no 9/11 attacks and even if there were, the resulting response would have been something that caused World Peace.Â
Or, at the very least, the horrors of conflict and the third world would not be on our front pages and hence, ignorable. This way we could get on to the business of solving global warming and the disappearing habitats for a green slime snail as the most pressing issues of the day.
But no one (not even Sage Obama) can make that happen.
Of course, Obama supporters may simply chalk up his failure to Change the World, to having to spend all his resources cleaning up Bush’s mess, but that would be a profoundly cynical view, as Aziz likes to say.
Ummm, hate to tell you this, but it’s McCain who wants to socialize our banking system. When he says he wants the goverment to buy up bad loans, who do you think pays the bill? How does goverment get money other than through taxpayers? Geeez, people, get it together, repeating Republican talking points will get you nowhere. McCain realizes this, which is why he’s now using personal attacks like Bush used on him.Â
How can anyone respect McCain for "pallin around with Bush" – who smeared his daughter in 2000? What kind of a man allows a colleague to smear his family then befriend him?
Answer: A guy who puts winning before his family and before his country.
Obama in office might serve as a reality check to so many that would prefer to withdraw from history, those that somehow believe that if there were a Democrat in office the past 8 years that we would all be rich, the Dow at 14,000, there would have been no housing bubble, no economic downturn, no 9/11 attacks and even if there were, the resulting response would have been something that caused World Peace.Â
I believe that if a Dem would have been in office before 9/11 s/he would NOT have ignored the PDB that stated bin Laden was determined to attack America within its borders! S/He certainly would not have been in Texas on vacation a mere 8 months after taking office.
Bush is really nothing more than a rich frat boy that most powerful Republicans despise. Deal with it.
Why is it when a Republican president screws up America we get the above response – as if the Reppublican president had no control over the state of the union?
It must be tough to keep that sort of deception up.
Osama Bin Laden made his threat against the USA plain in his 1998 fatwa:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it…
A Democrat was in office at the time that fatwa was made. 6 months later Bin Laden acted in Tanzania and Kenya.
For someone with the word "memory" in their handle, your’s is obviously quite short.
Unfortunately, negative campaigning is part of the Democratic process. A blanket statement of the sort that McCain is unfit to serve because of negative campaigning, is too negative campaigning.
Honestly, the negative campaign ads are more appealing to people. People have enjoyed negative campaigns for years and years. Probably for the same reason people enjoy Jerry Springer.
Until human nature changes, or until society is complacent and ignores such nonsense out of lack of interest, we’ll have all sorts of negative campaign ads from years to come.
There are always outlets such as these, if you want to speak about issues. Frankly, I would rather talk to someone that infuriates me about an actual issue than try and decide whether or not McCain driving a foreign car is bad.
Of course, Obama supporters may simply chalk up his failure to Change the World, to having to spend all his resources cleaning up Bush’s mess, but that would be a profoundly cynical view, as Aziz likes to say.
Well unfortunately, someone left a flaming paper bag of shit on the White House porch and the next guy will have to stamp it out. I would be surprised if either candidate gets re-elected.
Indeed, Scott. In fact, such terrorist threats happen pretty much daily and have for decades. The fact is that you have to be able to sort the noise from the real threat, and that’s really, really hard.
Clinton knew Osama had declared war on us, and knew of his threats. He went after Obama, if not as aggressively as he could have, or in retrospect should have. It’s not right to blame him for that. Hindsight isn’t even 20/20, it only LOOKS 20/20. That’s why I still get heartburn when some right-wingers try to blame his administration for 9/11 because they hadn’t "done enough." They did the best they knew.
Don’t kid yourself into believing that a Democrat would have been any different on 9/11/2001. Those planes were going to hit, and President Gore would not have stopped it. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s almost certainly true. Although you can believe whatever you want I guess, I’d suggest that if you really do believe that you haven’t thought hard enough or researched the issue of counterterrorism well enough. No offense intended.
"In fact, the ‘get over your obsession with racism, leftists and Europeans’ factor of a black man in the White House will be a refreshing bonus. Maybe that means in future elections there can be less got-damn blathering and whining about race, once the point is proven."
Um, no. Historically, when these folks have gotten what they’ve demanded, it has only encouraged them to scream louder for more.
If you have some good reasons to present as to why this time, things will be different, I’d love to see them.
But I won’t be holding my breath, because I don’t think there are any such indicators, and also because I know how these people work; criticism and condemnation and passing judgement — essentially, attempting to force their standards upon anyone and everyone around them — is their primary social strategy.
So when you give them what they want, they don’t say "thank you, done now"; they complain about how you didn’t in fact give them enough of it, and sooner, and better packaged, and on, and on, and endlessly on. The only satisfactory way to deal with them that I’ve found is to beat them at their own game, by scrubbing far greater discrimination grievances of my own into their faces until they get so horked off and frustrated that they finally just STFUAGTFO.
I don’t think it will be any different this time, if Senator Obama wins. I think they’ll just scream even louder for more, and faster — just like they usually have in the past.
Don’t kid yourself into believing that a Democrat would have been any different on 9/11/2001. Those planes were going to hit, and President Gore would not have stopped it. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s almost certainly true.
Indeed! In fact, if our next president is someone who could, through sheer willpower, stop the actions of anything terrible before it happened, then he really is the messiah. I’m banking on a very, very human politician myself.
Memory Hole,
What a naive comment! Let me get this straight, you believe that George Bush, after being in office for just a few months, should have stood up in front of the country and announced that there are a few guys in a cave in Afghanistan, armed with box cutters that are going pull off far and away the worst attack in American history so therefore we must attack preemptively?
And the electorate would have gone for that? And Democrats wouldn’t have been screaming that this is all a conspiracy to take over a poor country to build a gas pipeline? And the real threat that Bush is ignoring is actually Saddam Hussein and his WMDs that Bill Clinton has been warning about and bombing for years!
To use your vernacular…. LOL
Comments on this entry are closed.