I think the last two days of political machinations and surprise attacks from outside the American soil (I am referring to Bush's speech in the Knesset) just reinforces my point made in an earlier post titled - 'GOP fear mongering costs special election' - that these GOP morons are getting desperate and using hack tactics and unsubstantiated attacks to further their fall presidential aspirations.
It is gonna get worse in the weeks to come. New ads running in Tennessee attack Michelle Obama for her statement that she was 'proud of America for the first time in her adult life'(paraphrase) They basically loop it, take it out of context and use it to question the Obamas' patriotism. First the lapel pin, then this. They replay her comments 6 times in the ad - so as to hit your numbed and anaesthetised brain over and over with non specific misinformation. The GOP wants to say that they have always been proud of this country and always will be while the Obamas are some kind of new species who only discovered this rare and prized emotion after encountering political success. Only they have a 24/7, year-in-and-year-out Nationalist hard-on that can be tested at any time on the granite of Mount Rushmore.
Is pride in the country the primary emotion one feels when he or she wakes up in the morning? Does one walk around all day with images of victory and sacrifice ringing in their head? As one navigates dead-still traffic and imbecilic work assignments, does one feel the silky comfort of being wrapped in a national flag? Does a factory worker pushing a refrigerator feel like he is supporting and raising the flapping banner of freedom in Iwo Jima?
Also as part of their attack strategy, they encourage state radio stations to play patriotic music over and over! Tell me this folks, do you really need your local supermarkets to loop cheesy renditions of Christmas classics in November for you to get into the spirit? Doesn't it actually make you want the whole season to be over after the 10th time you hear 'Jingle Bells'? If anything, the overuse of patriotic imagery, music and language makes the whole thing prosaic.
Have the events of the last 8 years really been things that Americans need to be proud of? How does one turn body bags created from a futile conflict into pride? Even the human courage during 9/11 - how specifically American is it to help people trapped in a burning building? It is something to be proud of, sure. But does it have to always be in the name of the country? When that happens, it becomes easy for a ridiculous clown like Giuliani or Bush to hijack that sentiment and turn it to his political advantage.
Get wise, people. Accusations of the lack of patriotism come from those with little else to offer or say - it is the last refuge of the scoundrel indeed.
Friday, May 16, 2008
New GOP tactics target Michelle Obama, scrape bottom of playbook barrel to scratch pseudo patriotic itch
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 responses:
The GOP has effectively crippled itself.
They have used the blood of the innocent to paint themselves into this corner, and our only hope now is that their first punishment is decisive defeat in November.
I don't say that as a Democrat who wants to see Republicans lose. I say this as an American who wants to see justice served.
I honestly believe that while a Democrat-controlled D.C. is not best for the country in the long haul (I favor balance and would quite prefer that a third party emerge to really shake things up), in the short term I believe we need some very angry liberals on Capitol Hill investigating every major transgression of the executive branch of our government for the past eight years.
I believe our best chance at this is if the Dems seize total control for awhile.
Don't worry, GOP-ers. The Dems will fuck something up sooner rather than later and help y'all get back on your feet in no time.
Regarding the McCain reverend thing... the reason it's not getting as much attention as the Obama reverend thing is largely because no one is actively campaigning against McCain right now. Neither democratic candidate's political machine is focused on that, whereas Hillary Clinton's was very much focused on keeping Rev. Wright in the minds of the people. It's not necessarily racism, it's circumstantial.
I'll go on record here and say that Michelle Obama's remarks about her lack of pride in the U.S. offend me. Here's why:
If we are to take Michelle Obama's remarks seriously, we are to believe that in her 30 years of "adult" life, Michelle Obama has never once been proud of the United States. She's never felt proud that this is the country that put a man on the moon, the country that beat the Nazis, the country that invented electricty, the computer, the mobile phone, the airplane, and nuclear power?
If we are to take Michelle Obama's remark at face value, we are to believe that she thinks her own husband's political successes are more worthy of pride than any of the above accomplishments, and that is offensive.
That being said, I don't think it's even remotely fair to judge Barack Obama on the comments of his wife. Judge Barack on Barack's comments, and judge him on his voting record.
And yeah, I agree... the lapel pin thing is stupid.
if we were supposed to judge politicians based on their spouse's behavior, i'd go back in time to 1998 and jump on the "impeach clinton" bandwagon.
Well the thing joe is that people shouldn't take her statement at face value. I think she misspoke when she said 'adult' life. I am sure she has felt immeasurable pride at those things you mentioned.
What she meant was that in the recent years, when things have been going pretty bad in the country, she found it hard to feel that sense of deep pride and that the overwhelming participation of young people in the election process has restored her faith and sense of pride in the country. In other words she is again reminded of those great things that America stood for in the past because of things that are happening today.
Even you will admit that those things you mentioned all happened before the years of her adult life. Sure there have been other instances of American ingenuity and genius that have been displayed since the 70s but it is as if the last 8 years have made those achievements lose their sheen somewhat.
Also - the Japanese invented the cell phone and the computer is credited to a British mathematician called Charles Babbage. Electricity can be credited to Volta and Galvani - both Italians. Ben Franklin only did experiments with electricity in lightning but the foundations for electricity as we know it was laid out by those two.
Joe America did not invent all of modern western civilisation! Maybe you could have mentioned the airoplane, the gramophone and the internet instead.
Ahh. I missed a few things here. Forgive me for citing wikipedia below.
Cell phone. Invented at Bell Labs, in the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mobile_phones
By electricity, I meant electricity as a home power source, pioneered by Tesla and Edison and first implemented in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_electricity
Good call on the computer thing... I was thinking of the transistor, as I had completely forgotten that computers technically predate that device.
Regarding Michelle Obama... has she formally retracted that statement? Because if not, we should absolutely take it at face value.
In any case, it's moot because we shouldn't judge Barack by his wife's words or actions.
According to tech-faq.com, you're both wrong about the cell phone thing.
"The first official mobile phone was used in Sweden by the Swedish police in 1946. The technology was connected to the telephone network and was distinctive of two way radio technology. The phone was not very practical; it was only able to make 6 phone calls before the car's battery was drained."
http://www.tech-faq.com/history-of-cell-phones.shtml
this is a stupid argument, btw.
Mr. Kill is putting a ton of words in this lady's mouth, for one. Second, who are you to say this woman has to be proud of a bunch of stuff that happened before she was born?
Minotaur is being unfairly apologetic. Don't assume she didn't mean exactly what she said.
Michelle Obama is 44 years old. By this token, her adult life started in 1982. That means she has had reagan, bush, clinton, and w. bush as her presidents.
That's some bullshit, if you ask me. All those men are hopelessly inherently flawed in their own ways, and I could see how someone her age could feel like they were perhaps not living during this country's most brilliant historical period.
Conversely, after living through eight fucking years of fascism lite, this woman is now seeing a mass of concerned citizens and (possibly more important) an almost impossibly large majority of the country's youth vote mobilizing to elect her husband - the man she loves and the father of her children - as he runs on a platform of change.
Now, if that type of welling of pride does not qualify a woman to become slightly prone to hyperbole in the moment just once, I'd say you're possibly being unfair to her.
While I agree with Joe that the disowned minister of the President should not have his voice speak for Obama, I disagree with him about Michelle Obama.
Barack Obama's wife - a woman who could quite possibly be our next first lady - must know that she is always in the public eye. She must behave accordingly, and I believe it's fair for the American people to want to know that she loves this country.
Which, for the record, I believe she does. That's why she was not so proud of a country that had not in her eyes earned her adoration in her adult life. However, now that the country seems to be moving in a more positive direction - as she sees it - she is prouder.
I don't see the issue here.
I second rupert on his comment. I agree that what she says or does will have to bear scrutiny. Just as Cindy McCain's tax returns should be made public. Especially since this was a speech Michelle made in support of her husband at a political event.
I think she could have been a little clearer in her remarks. There is no need for her to refute what she said and she has already clarified her remarks.
The problem with the attacks are that they don't take into account what she meant when she said what she did, nor do they account for her emotional state at the time of the address. Why would she want to imply that her country disappoints her? Wouldn't that just hurt her husband's campaign?
I think what she was trying to highlight was the extent to which the youth participation and excitement had reenergised her and how the campaign seemed to be the wellspring of a new era of participatory politics and of progress.
I think in a lot of instances the Obamas'candor has been turned against them and they have been unfairly villified. It is dumb and cheapens the whole process.
I concur. However as I've pointed out before, Barack Obama's tactic of basically declaring "that's retarded" in not so many words whenever the Republicans lob an attack at him that is - for lack of a better word - retarded seems to have picked up steam with many media outlets.
At this point at least in the race, I don't believe many of these attacks are being lent much credence.
And I truly believe this race will be won not just by political ads, but by the constant droning commentary on the news channels CNN, MSNBC, to a lesser extent Fox News and also certainly people's local 10 o'clock fare.
Then of course, you have the Gen Y-ers and older hip set who will get their version of the 24-hour news cycle on the internet, and that will inform their decision as well.
We should all also remember that we still have a long way to go before the election. We should save some of our energy at least until July.
Will she be held accountable for what she says? Sure. Will Barack? Sure. But should he be? Not in my opinion. People didn't judge Lincoln by Mary Todd's behavior. Michelle's comments have little more than tenuous bearing on Barack Obama's patriotism.
In regard to Minotauro's point that the GOP's attacks on Michelle Obama were initiated because the GOP has "little else to offer or say," I disagree. I think it's an unfair analysis. The Republicans want to win, and attacks like this are the easiest method. The average voter is really, really stupid, so it makes little sense to appeal to their logic or debate policies that the morons in middle America aren't going to understand anyway. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that there are reasons for issuing ads like the one in question.
If you ask me, political campaigns should be publicly funded. Advertisements should adhere to a strict code of ethics in order to keep them from crossing certain lines. Too often they take the public eye off of policy and instead opt for spin, because it's the easier way to go.
... I'm not too interested in getting involved in a semantic argument over the term "adult life." However, I stand by my statement that if Michelle Obama's comment was 100% literal, it is a very offensive thing to say. There's no point in discussing what has happened during Michelle
Obama's life -- it is irrelevant. A person can feel pride in something long after it has happened. My adult life certainly doesn't include the Apollo 11 mission. But of course at some point I have felt pride in my country for achieving it.
Well,joe, can you tell me what is new in John McCain's platform this year? He just wants to continue the policies of the incumbent. While the party as a whole might have received fresh blood through the campaigns and ideas of Ron Paul, the establishment candidate seems to have little new to offer.
Mccain's efforts to draw moderates using the green platform is laughable as Jon Stewart pointed out in a segment last week. I refuse to believe that McCain cares about the polar bear or the polar ice caps. The speech he gave last week in which he droned in a messianic voice using present tense in sentences like - "America is victorious in the war in the year 2013" - was laughable to say the least. Atleast when he said that it was gonna be another hundred years in Iraq, he was being truthful.
One can draw the obvious conclusion that the GOP is on the defensive because of its weak platform. You don't see the Obama campaign running as many scare ads as the Republicans do you? If what you say is true, that those kinds of ads are the most effective campaign tools then why aren't the dems using them?
Are you suggesting that the democrats are stupid or that the republican base is more susceptible to those ads and hence is stupider? I personally don't think those republican voters are dumb.
To support my point that campaigns with fewer ideas use dirtier tactics I will use the obvious example of Hillary's campaign. Her weaker platform and her reputation for insincerity forced her on her back foot and into using below the belt attacks to energise her base.
Personally, I d do away with TV advertising all together. Or if not, then each ad for a candidate must be followed by an opposing ad for the other candidate and be publically funded as you suggested. This would reduce the money spent by both campaigns and ensure equal exposure.
Also tv stations would do well to run these joint political ads for free so as to save the tax payer some money and prove their commitment to civic responsibility. I am sure they can afford to run one free ad an hour lasting no longer than 30 or 40 seconds. This way, people will be forced to concentrate on the debates.
Minotauro,
In response to your question about what "new" policies the McCain campiagn has to offer, the first two that come to my mind are restrictions on legislative earmarks and campaign finance reform. "New" is a relative term, but these two policies haven't been core "Republican" issues in the past. I'm sure there are more, but those are the two that immediately come to mind.
You ask why the Dems aren't using scare tactics. What was the "Answer the phone" ad, then? Certainly not a level-headed debating of the issues. The Obama campaign has been run pretty cleanly, but Clinton's has gone negative on numerous occasions.
Do I think voters are stupid enough to buy into lowest-common-denominator ads like the ones in question? Definitely. I try very hard not to overestimate the intelligence of the public, but their stupidity often surprises even me.
If campaigns were completely publicly funded, the federal government could mandate that TV and radio stations alot certain amounts of time for political ads. Since the government would be in effect "paying" for these ads -- without actually shedding a dime -- it could place restrictions on what such ads could say. The ads could then inform people about their candidates stance on the issues. Not whether or not a guy answers the phone early in the morning, or what his wife said one time.
Post a Comment