After fours years of suffering through George W. Bush's first term, and three and a half years of having to suffer through his second, many of us have been wondering what it will take for this country to wake up and make some fundamental changes regarding how this country is run. Finally, we've seen an answer. Apparently it takes a perfect storm of disasters to shake people into cognizance of the downward spiral we're all taking. Apparently it takes a faltering economy, a disastrous war, skyrocketing fuel prices, an increasingly worthless dollar, and the realization that we still haven't caught bin Laden--dead or alive--to rile the majority of Americans up.
As sad as it may be that it takes that much for people to demand change, that's reality. And so with the country being driven into the ground by the current crop of Republicans, Americans are demanding--finally-- a real change in power. Polls around the country are showing widespread support for a Barack Obama presidency. Virginia--a state once staunchly Republican--now boasts a majority of its voters favoring Obama. Other typically red states such as Colorado and Florida are showing similar trends. Nationwide, polls show Obama with anywhere from a 6- to 10-point lead over McCain.
But the election is far from over. Anyone who's paid any attention at all to American politics in the past ten years knows that something isn't right. Republicans don't just let things like this happen. That McCain is down so low in the polls makes me think that the Republicans aren't entirely focused on convincing people to vote for the Arizona senator and his Alaskan sidekick. Instead, they're exploring all the ways that they can obtain enough votes to fill the White House for another four, horrific years.
So what are they up to?
I can only guess, but here are a few thoughts I have on the subject.
First and foremost, when I said that Republicans don't let things like this happen, what I really meant was that Karl Rove doesn't let things like this happen. Karl Rove is widely regarded as the mastermind behind George W's presidential campaigns (as well as many of W's damaging policies.) During the 2000 presidential election (which incidentally followed a successful primary for Bush, during which Rove orchestrated a smear campaign against none other than John McCain), Rove & Co learned an important lesson: you don't need a majority of the voters to win an election. Many debates remain surrounding the 2000 election, but one aspect that is not up for debate is that Al Gore won the majority of the popular vote. It also just so happened that in Florida--the most hotly contested state of '00--the Republicans had numerous operatives already in place, including Katherine Harris, and George's own brother and the state's governor, Jeb Bush.
So is Karl Rove behind McCain's campaign at all? Rove left the Bush White House about a year and a half ago, ostensibly to become a lobbyist. Rumors--mostly unsubstantiated--circulated that he was in fact leaving to prepare to orchestrate the campaign of whichever Republican presidential candidate would merge. Since then, he's appeared on Fox News as an "independent consultant" and "former senior advisor to President Bush". Those labels paint Rove as being unaffiliated with the current Republican candidate. Of course, since it's Fox News, those labels are also meaningless. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence that Rove is a large donor and informal consultant to McCain's campaign.
So Rove may be behind the scenes at McCain headquarters. If he's not, then it's fair to assume that there are numerous Rove proteges, anxiously to take over as head Republican smearmaster, election-stealer, and overall slimeball. So in the remaining week to week-and-a-half (depending if we wind up in political overtime this year) we can expect to see some Rovian tactics employed.
Rove's lesson from 2000--that winning voters isn't necessary in order to win an election--was apparently put into practice four years ago. John Kerry was slightly ahead of Bush in the polls on Election Day, 2004. Exit polls--which up until that year had always been accurate and reliable--placed Kerry with a 3 point victory over Bush. Yet when the results came in, Bush wound up with a 2.5 point victory over McCain. Remember also that it was during that election cycle that Walden O'Dell, the CEO of Diebold--the manufacturer of the electronic voting machines used in states like Ohio--told his Republican friends at a party fundraiser "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." Ohio, of course, became the most narrowly-contested state. Its exit polls gave the win there to Kerry; the Diebold machines gave the win there to Bush.
It seems those same tactics might already be rolling out for the current election. The Charleston Gazette reports that a number of West Virginia early voters are reporting that electronic voting machines there have switched their Democratic votes to Republican ones:
"This is the second West Virginia county where voters have reported this problem. Last week, three voters in Jackson County told The Charleston Gazette their electronic vote for 'Barack Obama' kept flipping to 'John McCain'."
Meanwhile, Republicans in other states have been attempting to keep Democrats from the polls this year, with varying levels of success.
Given Obama's insurmountable lead, coupled with McCain's incoherence and Palin's laughability, it seems that the droves of mini-Roves have given up trying to con the American people into believing that a McCain presidency is a good idea. Instead, they seem to be focusing their efforts on forcing a such a presidency upon the American people using whatever means necessary.
Of course, there is another option, one that I hardly dare hope for. It could very well be that Rove is completely out of the picture. And that the Republicans are really in shambles. And that--dare I say it?--Obama might actually win.
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
More and more, life is a sitcom
I recall a conversation I'd had with a friend in the mid 90s. My friend was ranting about the sitcom Married With Children, a comedy centering on the disfunctional Bundy family, headed by serial loser Al Bundy. His distaste didn't stem so much from the show's content itself; he wasn't concerned whether, as sitcoms went, it was funny or not. Rather, he was lamenting about what it said about the people who watched the show. As his theory went, these people could always tune into the show and--no matter how much their own lives sucked--tell themselves at least my life isn't as bad as the Bundys'.
I think he was on to something there. But as I reexamine his theory, some ten-plus years later, my own view is a little different. Instead of looking for evidence that their lives aren't that bad, people are actually looking for validation that even if their lives kinda suck, they might still be able to live them in a meaningful, funny sort of way. A better illustration of this might be the late-90s show Suddenly Susan. This show starred Brooke Shields as Susan, a woman who recently left her rich fiancee at the altar and finds herself, for the first time in her life, truly living on her own. It's a scary scenario, but one that many people have faced in their lives. How attractive this show must have been, then for--say--any middle-aged recent divorcees out there, or anyone else in a suddenly-on-my-own situation. Instead of struggling to provide for herself and deal with with the emotionally-nightmarish situation situation she finds herself in, Susan winds up in a laugh-a-minute job with wacky friends and co-workers... a job she landed because of, not in spite of, her recent break-up.
Hey, if Susan can do it, maybe I can too!
No doubt the producers of Gary Unmarried, a show about a newly-divorced man suddenly facing life on his own, are banking on the same sort of mentality. Though I don't plan to watch the show myself (what can I say? I'm happily married!) I'll be curious to see how well it does.
So what's the point of all of this?
More and more, this mentality is creeping into real life. Nowhere is this more evident than with presidential politics. A frequent criticism levied upon presidential candidates--usually from Republicans onto Democratic candidates--is one of "elitism". On it's face, this is usually a laughable claim to begin with. Particularly in the current political race, watching a candidate who married into great wealth (and who owns more houses than he can count) claim that the opposing candidate who created his own wealth by his own hard work (and who owns, like most of us, a single home) is like watching Peg Bundy try to convince Al that going to the dentist won't be painful.
But there's a reason that the elitism argument exists. More and more, Americans are looking for someone like them to lead the country. No longer do presidential elections involve the search for the best, brightest person who's willing to move the country forward. Instead, we want someone like us. It's as if we're saying, "Hey, if that person can become president, then I maybe I can be successful, too!"
And so we vote an average American into the White House.
The problem is that the average American is, well, average. We saw for the past eight years what happens when we vote not for the best candidate, but for the guy we'd most like to "have a beer with". Rather than voting for Al Gore, a candidate orders of magnitude more intelligent than "Dubya", we voted for the guy who was mediocre at best with his life's endeavors, yet who we thought seemed friendlier. And when we had a chance four years ago to vote him out of office, we instead became intimidated by John Kerry's big words and nuanced arguments, and again voted for the simpler, "commoner" candidate.*
That Sarah Palin is even being considered by any American as a reasonable VP candidate is strong evidence that we're continuing this trend. That people who like her "folksy charm" are trying desperately to convince themselves that she's not that bad (she didn't break down in tears during the debate, did she?) says that many Americans are still more interested in who's "nicer", not who's more qualified.
It's probably a trend that won't be reversed any time soon. I only ask two things. First, that those who still do seek the most qualified--and not the most average--candidate make it known that there are still Americans who demand competency. And second, on any upcoming McCain/Palin interviews, can we just go ahead and add a laugh track already?
* How George W Bush, with his undeserved life of privilege and wealth ever lead to his being considered a "commoner" is still beyond me, but I digress...
I think he was on to something there. But as I reexamine his theory, some ten-plus years later, my own view is a little different. Instead of looking for evidence that their lives aren't that bad, people are actually looking for validation that even if their lives kinda suck, they might still be able to live them in a meaningful, funny sort of way. A better illustration of this might be the late-90s show Suddenly Susan. This show starred Brooke Shields as Susan, a woman who recently left her rich fiancee at the altar and finds herself, for the first time in her life, truly living on her own. It's a scary scenario, but one that many people have faced in their lives. How attractive this show must have been, then for--say--any middle-aged recent divorcees out there, or anyone else in a suddenly-on-my-own situation. Instead of struggling to provide for herself and deal with with the emotionally-nightmarish situation situation she finds herself in, Susan winds up in a laugh-a-minute job with wacky friends and co-workers... a job she landed because of, not in spite of, her recent break-up.
Hey, if Susan can do it, maybe I can too!
No doubt the producers of Gary Unmarried, a show about a newly-divorced man suddenly facing life on his own, are banking on the same sort of mentality. Though I don't plan to watch the show myself (what can I say? I'm happily married!) I'll be curious to see how well it does.
So what's the point of all of this?
More and more, this mentality is creeping into real life. Nowhere is this more evident than with presidential politics. A frequent criticism levied upon presidential candidates--usually from Republicans onto Democratic candidates--is one of "elitism". On it's face, this is usually a laughable claim to begin with. Particularly in the current political race, watching a candidate who married into great wealth (and who owns more houses than he can count) claim that the opposing candidate who created his own wealth by his own hard work (and who owns, like most of us, a single home) is like watching Peg Bundy try to convince Al that going to the dentist won't be painful.
But there's a reason that the elitism argument exists. More and more, Americans are looking for someone like them to lead the country. No longer do presidential elections involve the search for the best, brightest person who's willing to move the country forward. Instead, we want someone like us. It's as if we're saying, "Hey, if that person can become president, then I maybe I can be successful, too!"
And so we vote an average American into the White House.
The problem is that the average American is, well, average. We saw for the past eight years what happens when we vote not for the best candidate, but for the guy we'd most like to "have a beer with". Rather than voting for Al Gore, a candidate orders of magnitude more intelligent than "Dubya", we voted for the guy who was mediocre at best with his life's endeavors, yet who we thought seemed friendlier. And when we had a chance four years ago to vote him out of office, we instead became intimidated by John Kerry's big words and nuanced arguments, and again voted for the simpler, "commoner" candidate.*
That Sarah Palin is even being considered by any American as a reasonable VP candidate is strong evidence that we're continuing this trend. That people who like her "folksy charm" are trying desperately to convince themselves that she's not that bad (she didn't break down in tears during the debate, did she?) says that many Americans are still more interested in who's "nicer", not who's more qualified.
It's probably a trend that won't be reversed any time soon. I only ask two things. First, that those who still do seek the most qualified--and not the most average--candidate make it known that there are still Americans who demand competency. And second, on any upcoming McCain/Palin interviews, can we just go ahead and add a laugh track already?
* How George W Bush, with his undeserved life of privilege and wealth ever lead to his being considered a "commoner" is still beyond me, but I digress...
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Maverick says...
In last Friday's presidential debate, John McCain chastised Barack Obama, because he claimed Obama's position on diplomacy isn't "just naive; it's dangerous". Maybe part of McCain's problem was that he didn't understand Obama's position in the first place. Despite being repeatedly reminded by Obama that "without precondition" is not the same as "without preparation", McCain--who likes to thin of himself as a "Maverick"--continued to insuate that Obama's plan would be to invite the leaders of rogue nations, such as Kim Jong Il of North Korea or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, over for tea to allow them to spout their anti-west rhetoric.
Of course that wasn't Obama's intent. Instead, Obama was stating that the policy of "isolating" these nations, of refusing to speak with their leaders unless and until a long laundry list of demands from the U.S. is met, is a demonstrably failed policy. Obama was stating his intention of breaking from that failed policy.
It sounds a little less dangerous when when you actually consider what Obama's position is, doesn't it?
But while we're on the subject, let's talk about "dangerous". McCain--the Maverick--tried to misrepresent Obama's position and then declare it dangerous. But let's look at The Maverick's policies--and his indisputable actions--and talk about dangerous.
Is it not dangerous to start a war, unprovoked, with another country? The Maverick voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq ,and threw his full weight of support behind the war. I'd like the Maverick to explain how our military's resources haven't been drained by this needless invasion. I'd like him to explain how sending thousands of troops to their deaths--and tens of thousands of others to be horribly injured and maimed--isn't "dangerous". I'd also point out that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in the war, that the country itself has been essentially gutted of infrastructure and security, but I'm sure that in this election season, the plight of another nation is far from the Maverick's mind.
How, then, about the unknown numbers of Americans and other Westerners who in years to come will become targets of the terrorists that McCain's beloved war is helping to create? Is there no danger in that?
He also never explained why diverting resources away from Afghanistan where our true enemies are hiding is a good, safe idea.
Oh, and I'm sorry, Mr. Maverick... singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of a Beach Boys songs isn't just poor taste; it's dangerous.
Of course that wasn't Obama's intent. Instead, Obama was stating that the policy of "isolating" these nations, of refusing to speak with their leaders unless and until a long laundry list of demands from the U.S. is met, is a demonstrably failed policy. Obama was stating his intention of breaking from that failed policy.
It sounds a little less dangerous when when you actually consider what Obama's position is, doesn't it?
But while we're on the subject, let's talk about "dangerous". McCain--the Maverick--tried to misrepresent Obama's position and then declare it dangerous. But let's look at The Maverick's policies--and his indisputable actions--and talk about dangerous.
Is it not dangerous to start a war, unprovoked, with another country? The Maverick voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq ,and threw his full weight of support behind the war. I'd like the Maverick to explain how our military's resources haven't been drained by this needless invasion. I'd like him to explain how sending thousands of troops to their deaths--and tens of thousands of others to be horribly injured and maimed--isn't "dangerous". I'd also point out that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in the war, that the country itself has been essentially gutted of infrastructure and security, but I'm sure that in this election season, the plight of another nation is far from the Maverick's mind.
How, then, about the unknown numbers of Americans and other Westerners who in years to come will become targets of the terrorists that McCain's beloved war is helping to create? Is there no danger in that?
He also never explained why diverting resources away from Afghanistan where our true enemies are hiding is a good, safe idea.
Oh, and I'm sorry, Mr. Maverick... singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of a Beach Boys songs isn't just poor taste; it's dangerous.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Is the world's biggest celebrity ready to lead?
So tell me, John McCain: is the world's biggest celebrity ready to lead? It's a question you and your campaign have been asking over the past few months. But I think at this point, you ought to provide an answer.
Is someone whose resume is consists largely of raising a family ready to affect national policy? Does placing as a runner-up in a beauty pageant qualify one to be second-in-line for the Commander in Chief position? Does being mayor of a town of 6300 ready one to lead--should the need arise--a country of over 300,000,000?
Oh, I'm sorry, Senator McCain... did you think I was talking about someone else? After all, not too long ago, you were running ads criticizing your rival, Barack Obama, for being too much of a celebrity. Well, now you've chosen a heck of a celebrity as your own running mate. So the question is... do you dare continuing to run your ads asking whether the world's biggest celebrity is ready to lead? Because a lot of Americans are looking at Sarah Palin and answering with a resounding No, she is not!
Is someone whose resume is consists largely of raising a family ready to affect national policy? Does placing as a runner-up in a beauty pageant qualify one to be second-in-line for the Commander in Chief position? Does being mayor of a town of 6300 ready one to lead--should the need arise--a country of over 300,000,000?
Oh, I'm sorry, Senator McCain... did you think I was talking about someone else? After all, not too long ago, you were running ads criticizing your rival, Barack Obama, for being too much of a celebrity. Well, now you've chosen a heck of a celebrity as your own running mate. So the question is... do you dare continuing to run your ads asking whether the world's biggest celebrity is ready to lead? Because a lot of Americans are looking at Sarah Palin and answering with a resounding No, she is not!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
A campaign gimmick in the White House
John McCain. Remember that guy? He's the one that's actually running for President of the United States on the Republican ticket. Lately, we've really only been hearing one thing about him: the first example of the decisions he'd make as commander in chief. Namely, his choice of a running mate.
And after months and months of being the sole Republican contender, and having plenty of time to consider the best possible vice-presidential candidate, he chose... Sarah Palin. Really? Sarah Palin? Why on earth would McCain consider her, of the entire universe of Republicans, the best choice for a VP?
The answer is clear: he doesn't. He just considers her his best chance of being elected president.
It's clear that her gender is a primary reason for her being selected. Thousands of angry Hillary supporters provided too appealling of a target for McCain to pass up. Figuring that swapping out one female candidate for another would be enough to sway the "PUMA"s, McCain apparently waited until Obama announced his running mate as Joe Biden--i.e., not Hillary--before solidifying his decision.
Of course, Palin's vitriolic right-wing views probably contributed equally towards McCain's choice of a running mate. Her pro-gun, anti-science, book-banning, pro-oil, and pro-life-regardless-of-the-circumstances viewpoints are what McCain lacked--thus threatening him from being elected by many his own party.
Palin, then, might certainly lead McCain to victory in a manner he wouldn't be able to himself. But what about afterwards? What if the McCain/Palin ticket actually does win? What are we left with?
We're left with a campaign gimmick in the White House. Four years--and that's if we're lucky--of an unqualified, radical right-winger a breath away from the presidency. Of the White House being occupied by someone who argues with a straight face that governing a state that happens to be across the sea from Russia constitutes toreign policy experience. Of policy being shaped by one of the few people left--even within Republican ranks--who denies human involvement in global warming.
Contrast that with Barack Obama's choice in a running mate. Joe Biden was not the politically safest choice Obama could have made. As many other bloggers and commentators are pointing out, choosing Hillary would have likely have sealed the White House bid for Obama. The Hillary supporters would have been appeased, and McCain would likely have looked elsewhere than the pitbull-with-lipstick for his running mate. By contrast, Biden finished much further behind Hillary in the primaries. Yet Obama still chose him, a veteran of the Senate and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for his experience and potential as a Vice President.
Not as a Vice Presidential candidate.
As a Vice President.
America, it's up to you to decide. Do you want a qualified administration in the White House? Or do you want a campaign gimmick? Do you want a commander-in-chief whose first major presidential decision is one driven by foresight and what's best for the country? Or one whose choices are driven by a marketing stunt?
And after months and months of being the sole Republican contender, and having plenty of time to consider the best possible vice-presidential candidate, he chose... Sarah Palin. Really? Sarah Palin? Why on earth would McCain consider her, of the entire universe of Republicans, the best choice for a VP?
The answer is clear: he doesn't. He just considers her his best chance of being elected president.
It's clear that her gender is a primary reason for her being selected. Thousands of angry Hillary supporters provided too appealling of a target for McCain to pass up. Figuring that swapping out one female candidate for another would be enough to sway the "PUMA"s, McCain apparently waited until Obama announced his running mate as Joe Biden--i.e., not Hillary--before solidifying his decision.
Of course, Palin's vitriolic right-wing views probably contributed equally towards McCain's choice of a running mate. Her pro-gun, anti-science, book-banning, pro-oil, and pro-life-regardless-of-the-circumstances viewpoints are what McCain lacked--thus threatening him from being elected by many his own party.
Palin, then, might certainly lead McCain to victory in a manner he wouldn't be able to himself. But what about afterwards? What if the McCain/Palin ticket actually does win? What are we left with?
We're left with a campaign gimmick in the White House. Four years--and that's if we're lucky--of an unqualified, radical right-winger a breath away from the presidency. Of the White House being occupied by someone who argues with a straight face that governing a state that happens to be across the sea from Russia constitutes toreign policy experience. Of policy being shaped by one of the few people left--even within Republican ranks--who denies human involvement in global warming.
Contrast that with Barack Obama's choice in a running mate. Joe Biden was not the politically safest choice Obama could have made. As many other bloggers and commentators are pointing out, choosing Hillary would have likely have sealed the White House bid for Obama. The Hillary supporters would have been appeased, and McCain would likely have looked elsewhere than the pitbull-with-lipstick for his running mate. By contrast, Biden finished much further behind Hillary in the primaries. Yet Obama still chose him, a veteran of the Senate and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for his experience and potential as a Vice President.
Not as a Vice Presidential candidate.
As a Vice President.
America, it's up to you to decide. Do you want a qualified administration in the White House? Or do you want a campaign gimmick? Do you want a commander-in-chief whose first major presidential decision is one driven by foresight and what's best for the country? Or one whose choices are driven by a marketing stunt?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)