This post began as a followup to some of the comments I made offhand in an earlier post, which got revisited by Dee on her radio show last week. But after reading and agreeing, it's too interesting not to comment on.
Two opinion pieces by Mark Joseph, one for McCain, one for Obama. Both titled "It's the Christians, Stupid!" Good points for both candidates, but as every asshole out there has an opinion on what will lead to victory (myself included), I will have to share the unending wisdom of my voluptuous mind so that you will know what will bring victory.
And so, since we're approaching the 90-day mark and it's time to look at what it will take to win. So let's just look at the strategeries it will take to win:
Barack Hussein Obama - First of all, Barry has to stop the language of divisiveness. That includes bitching about his name being used (thus the usage)and stop trying to play the race card (mentioning how he doesn't "look like those guys on the dollar bills"). Also, the whole presumtion of victory is working against him. That's just ammo for more McCain ads, which will, among working class slobs, be perceived as elitist, no matter what unity message he's firing off at the moment.
To win, Obama needs to bring substance to the debate, and convince people that his "change" will result in a stronger America. That means getting an energy policy that makes some sense, even including something along the lines of a national drilling initiative to tide people over until the wonders of alternative energy can be realized. It also involves (from the Christian article) convincing much of the Reagan coalition that the problems of poverty and homelessness and other signs of "inequity" (in quotes because I disagree with this most of all) we face are too big for us to solve without government involvment.
Finally, learn to string together some cogent responses without the teleprompter, or at least figure out you should probably respond to a question with: "Have you read my plan? I've already answered it at BarackObama.com. That certainly beats the Uh... Chorus.
John McCain - First of all (according to Rush, in this case), this race is going to be decided on Obama. That means that the people who will vote for McCain are locked in, as are the people who will vote against him. But it's the people who have not decided whether or not to vote for or against Obama that matter now. I'm in this category. I won't vote for him, but I may vote against him, which menas McCain by default. In this case, there are things not to do. Anything that you do to attract committed Obama voters (ie, liberals) will piss off the people who are sitting on the fence. On the other hand, it's time to scare Americans in a way that would almost make Joe McCarthy proud.
This does not mean slander or lies, though. Conservatives already question your credentials, and are waiting to see your VP pick as a sign that you know that you need them. You need to show them the communism of Obama. Talk about his plans to socialize everything under a Big Brother government. Any discussion of his plans must be in Cold War terminology. and then you have to have something of substance to offer, because fear of the Obama Nation (great book title) will only carry you so far. Because for some people (me, for example), fear of what the other guy will do will not get me to the polls, unless it looks like there's a viable, if shaky, alternative.
Also, there's the price of oil. This is not a partisan issue, and the person who controls this will win. And Obama is hella-weak on this. Show that testicular fortitude you showed back in the Hanoi Hilton (the only Hilton you're probably welcome at anymore after you pissed off Kathy Hilton) and eat little Barry for lunch on the damned issue.
So there you have it, my suggestions for each candidate. Now if either of them have the sense to read the blogs and take suggestions to heart (as elected representatives should probably do) then we might see a clearer contrast and have an election of ideals rather than a mishmash of talking points, speeches, and campaigns in need of Viagra.
This begs the question: Would Bob Dole have won in '96 had he discovered Viagra in August?
19 comments:
You need to show them the communism of Obama. Talk about his plans to socialize everything under a Big Brother government.
And you need to back this up with facts. When you start labeling someone a follower or promoter of communism or socialism, that in turn, means that person is a Communist or Socialist. Your cute construction is disengenuous. If you're accusing someone of small "c" communism, then that someone is a believer of big "C" Communism. You don't promote something you don't believe in.
The Republican party has been using this slander for decades. And yes, it is McCarthyism to label a U.S. Senator (with no evidence) a Communist or the oblique but unmistakable "communism of Obama."
If you're going there, then I think it's fair to label John McCain as, John McCain, the Adulterer.
Afterall, if it's going to be about labels, then that is fair. McCain did start his affair with Cindy while he was still married to his crippled wife.
That is a measure of his character character, as well as his POW stint.
I would be willing to discuss Obama's plans on their merits. But once I see that irresponsible label, "communism," I realize no amount of sane political discourse is possible.
When you stop using that rightwing meme, maybe we can talk.
And I thought I repost this from the comments downthread:
"The largest expansion of a governmental agency was instituted by George W. Bush, R.-President.
That is Homeland Security. So much for increasing the size of government--that prize belongs to GWB.
The largest tax increase in the history of the United States of America was instituted by Ronald Wilson Reagan, R.-President.
Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.
But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.
So much for the myth of conservatives who don't raise taxes.
That record belongs to RWR.
And you're afraid of Obama?"
"Conservatives already question your credentials, and are waiting to see your VP pick as a sign that you know that you need them."
For this conservative, it wouldn't matter who McCain picked as his VP. He could pick Goldwater for all I care and I still wouldn't vote for him. The reason why is because, truth be told, a Conservative VP coupled with a Liberal or Moderate President doesn't have the effect of making the President more conservative. Quite the opposite is true in that the Conservative VP is surrounded by the President's more liberal and moderate appointees and as such, the VP gets to a point where they are having to compromise principle.
""The largest expansion of a governmental agency was instituted by George W. Bush, R.-President.
That is Homeland Security. So much for increasing the size of government--that prize belongs to GWB."
And, it is for this reason that real, honest, and true Conservatives aren't willing to "hold their noses" and vote for McCain.
Those real, honest, and true Conservatives haven't forgotten that they were sold a bunch of goods (W. Bush being a "true" Conservative) which turned out to be more than a little nefarious.
Shaw: I don't need to back anything up with facts. That's McCain's job. I'm just putting my two cents as how McCain (and Obama, if you read the other half) needs to approach beating Obama. I will admit my bias leans more toward McCain than Obama, but it's up to individual candidates to take my advice or perish politically.
The articles I cited explained how McCain could overcome the adultery thing. I don't really care either way, as he really hasn't harped on the family values himself.
But that did give me an idea for a McCain commercial: a minute of Obama clips and sound bites wound around the old Soviet national anthem. That would really be a hoot.
Unfair? Probably. A low blow? You bet. But effective? Yes it is. Because we're not talking facts in this post, we're talking "good old politics," which is usually anything but.
As is the method of cutting-and pasting.
(soap)Bubbles: You're the reason that the election is all about Obama, because the GOP base will vote McCain automatically, many conservatives will find someone else, and it's up to swing voters, who will either love or fear Obama that will decide the election.
As for his pick of VP, for some people, it will be perceived as an olive branch and put McCain on the "maybe" list instead of the "go to Hell, jerky" list.
The simple fact is that we don't have a viable choice at all this year. At least there was (in hindsight, false) hope with Bush in 2000. With McCain, there is none. So we''re faced with the choice of either doing the dirty deed to elect a liberal or withhold our vote and let the liberal with congressional backing get elected.
As for never voting for McCain, would you do it if he picked a strong conservative, then had a massive stroke just before you went to the polls? Sadly, that thought is where some of us have had to go to justify considering to vote for him.
"As for never voting for McCain, would you do it if he picked a strong conservative, then had a massive stroke just before you went to the polls?"
That's a pretty big if. I suppose then I might. But, the other thing to bear in mind is that the President doesn't even run this country anyways. Congress essentially runs the country. This is why having the Maverick in there isn't something I'm real eager to go along with.
Having a conservative in there would make it much more of a sell. But then, that sort of predicates itself on the notion that Republicans are out there working at the Congressional level. I just don't see much success with that at present. And, what pains are being taken in that endeavor are made all the more difficult in large part because of the "guilt by association" at the hands of the Bush administration.
Of course, if we had a solidly conservative candidate with great vision, he might be able to turn the tide in the minds of voters. Even still, those results wouldn't yield results until the mid-terms or after the first presidential term.
As for Obama's claim to fame on being a "great speaker", define Great.
There's no question the guy is extremely charismatic. He's gotten quite the following. And, when it comes to speeking, he's great with platitudes; long on generalities and short on substance.
Even an African American friend of mine pointed this out in saying, "This guy talks for 2 hours man and doesn't say a damn thing."
Yammering on for hours on end about hope and change and change and hope is all well and good. And, if people want to mop it up while cheering in excitement then so be it.
But, I will tell you that it's akin to me going around and hosting speeking events where I talk about "financial freedom" and speek the virtues of being "independently wealthy".
If I never elicit any specifics or any details as to how someone can achieve that, then it's nothing more than rhetoric. And, rhetoric to me does not a great speaker make.
"It's morning in America."
What the hell did that mean?
Hope?
No. I think that would be change (as in in night to day).
Patrick:
What do you mean if they can do that. I would say with 40 Billion in profit this quarter they have a little room in their profit margins.
Again, aside from 2 Youtube clips Obama could debate circles around 2 George Bushes.
Soapbox:
I am not saying he is the next MLK I am just saying he is incredibly smart and after the last 8 years that sounds like a good change. No legacy college admissions no wealthy parents, grandparents, rich wives with rich parents and grandparents, etc. Just a self made guy who despite being black and being named Barack Obama has done more than any of us could dream of doing because of who he is, not who his parents are or who he is married to.
I am not saying he is the next MLK I am just saying he is incredibly smart and after the last 8 years that sounds like a good change. No legacy college admissions no wealthy parents, grandparents, rich wives with rich parents and grandparents, etc. Just a self made guy who despite being black and being named Barack Obama has done more than any of us could dream of doing because of who he is, not who his parents are or who he is married to. toad734
toad734,
He's the embodiment of what America is all about.
And the Republicans say:
"He's an empty suit."
Empty suit?
He achieved everything on his own, as you said, and he achieved it not through a rich, ex-CIA-head father-President, no legacy enrollment in Yale and Harvard, no bail-outs from Daddy's wealthy friends every time he messed up. He is where he is by dint of his intelligence and hard work.
That is what America is supposed to be about.
George W. Bush, IMHO, is what old Europe is about--advancement through your family and wealthy connections.
Instead of recognizing the incredible odds against Sen. Obama being where he is and his overcoming them, they ridicule him, and label him the most scurrilous of labels--Communist.
Usually it's Communist, Marxist, Fascist, Islamist, America-hater.
Nice.
I'm hoping the American people will become thoroughly sick of this sort of nasty, negative, destructive politics.
Have you noticed how every time Obama mentions McCain he acknowledges that he is an honorable man who served his country honorably?
The opposition, I'm afraid, is too far in the gutter to appreciate that gentlemanly courtesy.
Admittedly this is off-topic but I've just been possessed of the Spirit (as they say) to mention that the whole 'DRILL HERE DRILL NOW PAY LESS' thing appears to be a bit on the misleading side to me.
Drilling here now, even if they drill in the thousands of acres they have current legal permitage et al to drill in, isn't going to do anything towards us paying less anytime before I'm (hopefully) looking at retirement. The actual lessage, for lack of a better word, is agreed to be in the realm of under a nickel per gallon.
If Congress, right now at this moment, lifted the ban on offshore drilling, it would still take years for all the permits and so on to be approved, and then an increase in gas prices to raise revenue for the additional rigs they would have to construct to go in and drill, and you know that increase would last a long time because those bad boys cost big bucks and take a long time to build. Then they'd have to drag them out there, anchor them down, and start drilling. Eventually, hopefully, they might hit some oil, but if another hurricane came through, they'd have to raise prices again to compensate. And of course, they'd have to build more refineries, because if I'm not mistaken, it was lack of refinery capability (not lack of product for said refinery to work on) that was contributing to the fuel shortage.
All of this would take several years and it's still a gamble whether they'd get any decent amount of oil out of it. Meanwhile, gas prices haven't gone down a bit and every coastal state nearby runs the risk of catastrophic damage to its tourist industry.
I've never actually heard a reason why all the already-authorized-for-drilling acreage hasn't been utilized. Why spend more money going through the process of permits and so on when you already have permission to drill in areas you haven't?
Why are so many people into the drilling thing when everyone on all sides of the issue has admitted it won't do any good in the short term and only marginal (if any) good in the long term? Doesn't it seem like people would be interested in things that will actually give some benefit now instead of possibly a little bit in fifteen years?
Sometimes I seriously have to wonder whether I see the obvious more clearly than other people do, or if I'm just having grandiose delusions.
Dasi:
Don't you know? It would be the psychological effect which would lower oil prices.
Soapathon: As for McCain, it's going to be up to the individual conservative to decide whether they can stomach voting for McCain or tolerate an Obama presidency. We have three months to make that decision. And I'll fault no one if, in the end, they pull the lever, or if they take the ballot out and piss on it. It's a wash.
As for Obama, it's style that makes his speeches great. They do sound good. Unless you like substance. But we'll have to hear more as we get closer to election day.
Toad: I'm talking about Bush making a phone call and it all happening like magic.
Plus, we're talking the speculation market, which will be watching the polls at that point. More on that below.
I'm hoping the American people will become thoroughly sick of this sort of nasty, negative, destructive politics.
Shaw: It's been over 225 years and the shit is still around. On both sides. Doubt it's going to happen.
BTW, for the record, Obama is quite impressive, and I have given him credit where credit is due. Still not going to vote for him though.
Saty: Two things make the Drill HERE, DRILL NOW idea important: Speculators, and supply and demand.
If you've watched the price of oil, it fluctuates on a daily basis, depending on the news items. Imagine if everything goes through, and the speculators can expect a sudden increase in the supply, they're going to bet on the price going down and boom, instant price drop.
As for basic economics, if you increase the supply, the price will go down.
I'm not going to give exact numbers, as I kind of play estimated numbers on instinct. But drilling is something the politicians can get started now. Almost every other energy solution has no congressional barriers.
So as long as it's on the table, it's THE political issue that can swing the election. The person who voters believe will get the price of oil down WILL WIN THE ELECTION.
Hey, I got it back on topic.
Yeah, but that's my point... drilling ISN'T going to lower the oil prices.
I think Toad may be right on this one... it's psychological: about what people THINK will happen.
God, we're a nation of goats, I swear.
No, Toad (and McCain, who originally said it would be psychological) is full of shit on this one. To quote me:
Imagine if everything goes through, and the speculators can expect a sudden increase in the supply, they're going to bet on the price going down and boom, instant price drop.
As for basic economics, if you increase the supply, the price will go down.
I hate having to repeat myself.
But by drilling now, we wouldn't increase the supply. And so lets say 10 years from now when ANWR oil could actually go into production, will the supply be more or will the demand at that time be even greater than it is now, thus not lowering prices at all. We don't need to drill for new oil, we need to find a replacement for oil.
Don't you think that it will take just as long if not longer to get a viable alternative fuel ready for mass production as it would to drill offshore or in ANWR?
Damn, I wish years ago Congress allowed the drilling in ANWR in the first place!
Toad: 1. we need to drill for oil until we can replace the oil.
2. And you keep leaving out the speculation market. The sudden increase in exploration impacts the price just like a hurricane or a bomb on a pipeline, only in a good way.
Beth: Should I just resort to cutting and pasting the same response over and over?
You keep leaving out the fact that this is what happens when you elect a Texas oil man with ties to the Saudi Royal family.
Post a Comment