Woody Hayes, legendary and fiery coach of the Ohio State Buckeyes in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, once said about passing plays: "If you pass the ball, three things can happen and two of them aren't good." Since McCain's personality somewhat resembles Woody's, but his "playbook" is anything but 3 yards and a cloud of dust, it's ironic that tonight's debate has the same spectre. There are reasonably three things that can happen:
1) McCain out-debates Obama and keeps the entire conversation alive. That's probably the best he can hope for, because with the events of the past two weeks it is unlikely he locks up the undecideds.
2) Obama out-debates McCain, causing a majority of "undecideds" to make their decision and McCain effectively losing the election (barring some game-changing mistake by Obama or his campaign). This seems like the most likely outcome.
3) McCain does lose his temper or directly confront Obama or Jim Lehrer in a somewhat out-of-control manner. This is not out of the realm of possibilities. If this happens, you will see a mad rush away from him like you've not seen since all the people supporting Ross Perot fleed after his "space aliens and dirty Republican tricks" comments followed by James Stockdale's deer-in-the-headlights performance.
Unfortunately for McCain, Sarah Palin's already provided half of the 3rd scenario.
By now, anyone that honestly thinks that Palin isn't scarily out of her league hasn't been paying attention. She can't deal with softballers like Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. She couldn't even deal with a totally friendly audience when she was "interviewed" by Sean Hannity. She can't answer reporter's questions. For the love of God: this woman is a complete incompetent. This isn't the media being unfair, and this isn’t sexism. This is a person who has no grasp of national issues.
So the pressure is almost entirely on McCain, and there isn't enough time to hand the ball off any longer. He is now forced to open the game up. Oh wait....that's already what he's been doing.
It isn’t often you have the opportunity to watch something implode before your eyes. I’m not saying it’s gonna happen. After all, Door #2 above seems the most likely. But America should tune in tonight, because there is at least the possibility of a “where-were-you-when” moment.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Blocs of Non-Critical Thinkers
If people think that John McCain:
-won’t raise taxes,
-can pander to the religious right without being beholden to them,
-has any big picture idea of where to take this country,
-will have the guts to cut government spending in any significant way,
-will protect women’s rights, and not just with respect to choice,
-won’t make at least one or two reckless decisions based on his gut,
then it says something about either their intellect or their ability to engage in critical thinking.
The reason I say this is not to bash John McCain, even though that’s probably how it comes off. I say it because I don’t hear anyone voting FOR John McCain. I only hear reasons to vote against Barack Obama. And the stated presumptions for those reasons are:
-he’s going to raise my taxes,
-he’s too liberal,
-he’s all about platitudes with no detail,
-he’s going to grow government,
-he’s elitist,
-he has too many advisors.
Hmmm…see any comparisons between the two that could be problematic?
Having a problem voting for any candidate is perfectly reasonable. But there’s something else going on in this country with respect to Obama, and no matter what the answer is, it’s not a pretty one. The only choices that make sense:
Reason #1 -- People have been listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Fox News for so long that they’ve forgotten that these pundits all have agendas that are stronger and less beholden to the truth than the “liberal mainstream media,” which at least tries to keep up the fight for objectivity. The aforementioned conservative “news” sources do not strive for objectivity, never have, and never will. If they’re your only news source, you might as well be listening to GOP Radio. Long time listeners connect early and then close off other sources of information. After a while, they forget that there are other credible sides to most issues and stories; they lose objectivity and the ability to think critically and question the messenger. Therefore, labels such as ‘liberal,’ ‘elitist,’ and ‘patriotism’ become charged with connotations that energize a subset of Americans without the usual filters to question whether those labels even apply.
Reason #2 -- Many people are uncomfortable with Obama’s intellect and it makes them feel stupid. That’s the only explanation how a mixed race child with no familial money who grew up being raised by grandparents and a single mom could ever be labeled as “elitist.” John McCain is not only the son of a U.S.N. Admiral, he’s 3rd generation; he married a woman who has a net worth that allows her to donate over $1MM in charitable contributions annually in the Phoenix ADI. George Bush is a 3rd generation legacy politician who also graduated from Yale. Throwing a black man from his circumstances who didn’t have actual wealth until recently in with those two and calling him the “elitist?”
Reason #3 -- Racism is a bigger undercurrent than anyone wants to publicly acknowledge. Lots of people know urban blacks who rub them the wrong way. They are seen as obnoxious and defiant, a group who intimidates and seems to expect something for nothing. Let’s just get it out there: that is a subculture that does indeed exist. But they don’t speak for African-Americans any more than poor rural racist whites speak for Caucasians. But if all people allow themselves to see is the stereotypical angry urban black man then they’re not going to want to give any quarter to what is seen as an ungrateful race. Or understand how someone like Obama could change the mindset of African-Americans permanently.
Reason #4 -- Religious beliefs make some people one-issue voters, or at least one-group voters. Otherwise, Sarah Palin, who is way out of her league, wouldn’t have energized so many people. They’re obviously not looking at her as a real leader: she’s a prom queen who happens to believe in a specific set of religious tenets. Perhaps there is this fanatical fantasy about turning the U.S. into some sort of idealistic Christian wet dream…never mind that this country was founded largely on religious tolerance and separation of church and state. The Republicans have pandered to the social right-wing of the party, which is as out-of-touch with the country at large as the social left-wing was in the late 70s and early 80s. The pendulum has swung, but a quarter of the country hasn't noticed and instead is frothing at the mouth at the possibility of fundamental Christianity as the law of the land.
Reason #5 – There is an outmoded (and wholly inaccurate) belief among a segment of the population that all taxes are bad and lowering taxes is always good. In a void or some idealistic capitalist video game, I agree. My votes for Republicans in the past has everything to do with fiscal responsibility. But in the last 8 years (including 4 where the Republicans had control of every house and arguably the Supreme court) the GOP hasn’t met a spending bill it hasn’t inked, AND they’ve cut taxes, reduced regulations and essentially have moved us all to a laissez-faire economic society. There’s a reason that we have antitrust laws. There are good reasons for regulation. (How much would common sense regulation of health insurance companies have done to stop the wreckage of our health care system of the last 25 years?) Not to mention that when you have a household that is spending more money than it takes in, and doesn’t have the good sense to eliminate any of the outgo, then you have no choice but to increase the income. The Republicans have been downright irresponsible with our money. Look at where we sit: if you think John McCain won’t raise your taxes or believe that they shouldn't be raised, then put me down for a big chunk of whatever you’re smoking.
What I sense are entire subsets of people looking for reasons as to why Obama shouldn’t be President, because they don’t want to come out and say that the real issue is clinging to one or more of the above 5 reasons. Therefore, anything that sounds remotely plausible is latched onto with a fervor, lest one have to admit that they’re racist, unintelligent, fearful, irrational or has suspended critical thinking.
I’m not saying that there aren’t reasons not to vote for Obama. But no one is talking about why we should be voting FOR John McCain. We have a large swath of people in this country who have suspended critical thinking in favor of dogma and sketchy beliefs. And that might be the scariest thought of all.
-won’t raise taxes,
-can pander to the religious right without being beholden to them,
-has any big picture idea of where to take this country,
-will have the guts to cut government spending in any significant way,
-will protect women’s rights, and not just with respect to choice,
-won’t make at least one or two reckless decisions based on his gut,
then it says something about either their intellect or their ability to engage in critical thinking.
The reason I say this is not to bash John McCain, even though that’s probably how it comes off. I say it because I don’t hear anyone voting FOR John McCain. I only hear reasons to vote against Barack Obama. And the stated presumptions for those reasons are:
-he’s going to raise my taxes,
-he’s too liberal,
-he’s all about platitudes with no detail,
-he’s going to grow government,
-he’s elitist,
-he has too many advisors.
Hmmm…see any comparisons between the two that could be problematic?
Having a problem voting for any candidate is perfectly reasonable. But there’s something else going on in this country with respect to Obama, and no matter what the answer is, it’s not a pretty one. The only choices that make sense:
Reason #1 -- People have been listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Fox News for so long that they’ve forgotten that these pundits all have agendas that are stronger and less beholden to the truth than the “liberal mainstream media,” which at least tries to keep up the fight for objectivity. The aforementioned conservative “news” sources do not strive for objectivity, never have, and never will. If they’re your only news source, you might as well be listening to GOP Radio. Long time listeners connect early and then close off other sources of information. After a while, they forget that there are other credible sides to most issues and stories; they lose objectivity and the ability to think critically and question the messenger. Therefore, labels such as ‘liberal,’ ‘elitist,’ and ‘patriotism’ become charged with connotations that energize a subset of Americans without the usual filters to question whether those labels even apply.
Reason #2 -- Many people are uncomfortable with Obama’s intellect and it makes them feel stupid. That’s the only explanation how a mixed race child with no familial money who grew up being raised by grandparents and a single mom could ever be labeled as “elitist.” John McCain is not only the son of a U.S.N. Admiral, he’s 3rd generation; he married a woman who has a net worth that allows her to donate over $1MM in charitable contributions annually in the Phoenix ADI. George Bush is a 3rd generation legacy politician who also graduated from Yale. Throwing a black man from his circumstances who didn’t have actual wealth until recently in with those two and calling him the “elitist?”
Reason #3 -- Racism is a bigger undercurrent than anyone wants to publicly acknowledge. Lots of people know urban blacks who rub them the wrong way. They are seen as obnoxious and defiant, a group who intimidates and seems to expect something for nothing. Let’s just get it out there: that is a subculture that does indeed exist. But they don’t speak for African-Americans any more than poor rural racist whites speak for Caucasians. But if all people allow themselves to see is the stereotypical angry urban black man then they’re not going to want to give any quarter to what is seen as an ungrateful race. Or understand how someone like Obama could change the mindset of African-Americans permanently.
Reason #4 -- Religious beliefs make some people one-issue voters, or at least one-group voters. Otherwise, Sarah Palin, who is way out of her league, wouldn’t have energized so many people. They’re obviously not looking at her as a real leader: she’s a prom queen who happens to believe in a specific set of religious tenets. Perhaps there is this fanatical fantasy about turning the U.S. into some sort of idealistic Christian wet dream…never mind that this country was founded largely on religious tolerance and separation of church and state. The Republicans have pandered to the social right-wing of the party, which is as out-of-touch with the country at large as the social left-wing was in the late 70s and early 80s. The pendulum has swung, but a quarter of the country hasn't noticed and instead is frothing at the mouth at the possibility of fundamental Christianity as the law of the land.
Reason #5 – There is an outmoded (and wholly inaccurate) belief among a segment of the population that all taxes are bad and lowering taxes is always good. In a void or some idealistic capitalist video game, I agree. My votes for Republicans in the past has everything to do with fiscal responsibility. But in the last 8 years (including 4 where the Republicans had control of every house and arguably the Supreme court) the GOP hasn’t met a spending bill it hasn’t inked, AND they’ve cut taxes, reduced regulations and essentially have moved us all to a laissez-faire economic society. There’s a reason that we have antitrust laws. There are good reasons for regulation. (How much would common sense regulation of health insurance companies have done to stop the wreckage of our health care system of the last 25 years?) Not to mention that when you have a household that is spending more money than it takes in, and doesn’t have the good sense to eliminate any of the outgo, then you have no choice but to increase the income. The Republicans have been downright irresponsible with our money. Look at where we sit: if you think John McCain won’t raise your taxes or believe that they shouldn't be raised, then put me down for a big chunk of whatever you’re smoking.
What I sense are entire subsets of people looking for reasons as to why Obama shouldn’t be President, because they don’t want to come out and say that the real issue is clinging to one or more of the above 5 reasons. Therefore, anything that sounds remotely plausible is latched onto with a fervor, lest one have to admit that they’re racist, unintelligent, fearful, irrational or has suspended critical thinking.
I’m not saying that there aren’t reasons not to vote for Obama. But no one is talking about why we should be voting FOR John McCain. We have a large swath of people in this country who have suspended critical thinking in favor of dogma and sketchy beliefs. And that might be the scariest thought of all.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Tired But Dangerous Ideology
Peggy Noonan, thinking she’s off-microphone, laments the “bullshit” selection and stunt of choosing Sarah Palin. Charles Krauthammer, a week after Palin is chosen, writes quite candidly of how Palin undermines McCain’s argument against Obama. David Gergen continues to be stunned at why McCain would choose someone who ignites the base but doesn’t seem to reach a significant number of people in the middle.
What these 3 people have in common is that they are all Reagan Republicans, people who either worked for the Reagan presidency or who’s views were forged and sculpted in the early 80s. They are not of the current era of the bitter political landscape and the rhetoric of social conservative dogma, which is why they see this for what it is: a dumb move.
McCain has completely pulled out the underpinnings of an argument that not only had a great deal of resonance, but one that he's spent lots of time and money pursuing: that Obama is too young, too idealistic, and too inexperienced to lead. Now, one can argue that Obama is at the top of the ticket and Palin is not, or which one actually has more experience. From the point-of-view of political strategy, it's still mystifying. McCain may have charged up the base, but they were going to vote for him (or against Obama) anyway. Whether they're voting for him with a 51% conviction or a 100% conviction, it still just counts as one vote per person.
Additionally, McCain runs a grave risk and high probability of energizing some large centrist voter swaths…to vote AGAINST him. Does anyone really think that, if they know what Palin’s stance is on abortion, women’s rights and sex education that Hillary voters will vote for Palin just because she’s female? She’ll get the 27% that are die-hard social conservatives, plus around 10% who will actually vote for any woman, leaving just under 65% who will be energized to make sure she doesn’t come within sniffing distance of any influence on the next Supreme Court justices. Anyone who has felt a little uncomfortable about the fervent organization of family-values-or-die Republicans over the past several years is likely to get very nervous when those same types are foaming at the mouth in droves. People who were hoping for a civil election can now blame Palin as the person who is driving the negative rhetoric.
Let’s presume she doesn’t mobilize women and the middle against her, that she just energizes the Republican base. (And when did the “base” actually become so one-issue, that of social conservativism?) Other than perhaps raising more money, which, by the way, can no longer be spent since McCain is taking public funds, then her net effect is close to zero. So McCain has to figure that she energizes the base, and he plays for the center. Risky at best, dumb at worst, since it’s awfully tough to separate yourself from your running mate. And if he does, this again bespeaks to his judgment.
It's not fashionable right now to suggest that exposing this strategy is a huge opening for Obama because everyone sees this as a razor-close election, and it could turn out to be just that. But I still stand by my thoughts that ran through my head as I was hearing the announcement at 11am Friday the 29th: this move by McCain has more than a decent chance of destroying his candidacy and being one of the biggest political gaffes in my lifetime. That's not meant to be an indictment of Palin as a person or as a politician, but as the choice of the running mate for this candidate at this time.
Palin is a gifted speaker, at least in front of a teleprompter with several days to rehearse. But for all of the glow and for all of the publicity you’re seeing now, she has to be near-perfect between now and November. She has to be at least able to stand up to Joe Biden politically. Because while she may be forgiven for any failings, any mistakes or questionable comments and remarks she makes will all stick to McCain and speak to his judgement, or lack of it.
Obama’s campaign has made very few missteps to this point, and I’m guessing that they won’t start screwing up now. They can't panic because McCain has gotten a bounce; it's likely to be very temporary. If they stay on message and don’t let McCain remake himself as some sort of maverick above the fray while his minions deal in innuendo and labels, Obama should have opened up a decent lead in key battleground states within the next 30 days.
What these 3 people have in common is that they are all Reagan Republicans, people who either worked for the Reagan presidency or who’s views were forged and sculpted in the early 80s. They are not of the current era of the bitter political landscape and the rhetoric of social conservative dogma, which is why they see this for what it is: a dumb move.
McCain has completely pulled out the underpinnings of an argument that not only had a great deal of resonance, but one that he's spent lots of time and money pursuing: that Obama is too young, too idealistic, and too inexperienced to lead. Now, one can argue that Obama is at the top of the ticket and Palin is not, or which one actually has more experience. From the point-of-view of political strategy, it's still mystifying. McCain may have charged up the base, but they were going to vote for him (or against Obama) anyway. Whether they're voting for him with a 51% conviction or a 100% conviction, it still just counts as one vote per person.
Additionally, McCain runs a grave risk and high probability of energizing some large centrist voter swaths…to vote AGAINST him. Does anyone really think that, if they know what Palin’s stance is on abortion, women’s rights and sex education that Hillary voters will vote for Palin just because she’s female? She’ll get the 27% that are die-hard social conservatives, plus around 10% who will actually vote for any woman, leaving just under 65% who will be energized to make sure she doesn’t come within sniffing distance of any influence on the next Supreme Court justices. Anyone who has felt a little uncomfortable about the fervent organization of family-values-or-die Republicans over the past several years is likely to get very nervous when those same types are foaming at the mouth in droves. People who were hoping for a civil election can now blame Palin as the person who is driving the negative rhetoric.
Let’s presume she doesn’t mobilize women and the middle against her, that she just energizes the Republican base. (And when did the “base” actually become so one-issue, that of social conservativism?) Other than perhaps raising more money, which, by the way, can no longer be spent since McCain is taking public funds, then her net effect is close to zero. So McCain has to figure that she energizes the base, and he plays for the center. Risky at best, dumb at worst, since it’s awfully tough to separate yourself from your running mate. And if he does, this again bespeaks to his judgment.
It's not fashionable right now to suggest that exposing this strategy is a huge opening for Obama because everyone sees this as a razor-close election, and it could turn out to be just that. But I still stand by my thoughts that ran through my head as I was hearing the announcement at 11am Friday the 29th: this move by McCain has more than a decent chance of destroying his candidacy and being one of the biggest political gaffes in my lifetime. That's not meant to be an indictment of Palin as a person or as a politician, but as the choice of the running mate for this candidate at this time.
Palin is a gifted speaker, at least in front of a teleprompter with several days to rehearse. But for all of the glow and for all of the publicity you’re seeing now, she has to be near-perfect between now and November. She has to be at least able to stand up to Joe Biden politically. Because while she may be forgiven for any failings, any mistakes or questionable comments and remarks she makes will all stick to McCain and speak to his judgement, or lack of it.
Obama’s campaign has made very few missteps to this point, and I’m guessing that they won’t start screwing up now. They can't panic because McCain has gotten a bounce; it's likely to be very temporary. If they stay on message and don’t let McCain remake himself as some sort of maverick above the fray while his minions deal in innuendo and labels, Obama should have opened up a decent lead in key battleground states within the next 30 days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
