Okay, it's time to get ready for the third and final (and hopefully (too much to ask?) less boring) debate between John"assface" McCain (my candidate) and The Marxist (Obama). As this could be the debate that will define the final few weeks, it's important to go over something involving the strategeries.
Now there are a lot of opinions as to why the election will swing one way or another. This post from James, for example (which kind of gave me the idea for this post), brings up the same arguments for racism playing the deciding factor. And I could find a whole lot of other similar posts that use people's base emotions or prejudices as the reason a candidate will win or lose. And I have seen many others along the way discussing similar things. I'd link to them, but I'm a lazy bastard.
But, as I am also my own shiniest oracle, I have the answer. At this point, it's John McCain's race to win or lose. And lose he will if he fails to remember why we elect people.
The Marxist has come along with a distinct (and horribly destructive) vision for America. And the swing voters who will decide this are leaning toward those *shudder* ideas. The McCain/Palin response? Ratchet up the attacks, then tamp the fire down to run a "respectable campaign. And there is a logic in attacking, because despite all the bitching, negative ads do work, much more so if they are based in truth, of course.
But we don't elect people primarily because we despise the other guy, although my disgust over The Marxist's agenda is the primary the motivation for my vote. But I have a distinct ideological line, and wouldn't have voted for him anyway. But my struggle has been that McCain has been the very antithesis of what I expect from a Republican candidate. In fact, had McCain gone to the left for his candidate, the phrase "Fuck him to death, that slimy halfwitted asssucker," would have probably appeared in the post about it. And if Hillary was the candidate, well, I may have considered the otherwise untinkable. That's how many problems I've had with McCain.
For McCain to win, he must (and I'll repeat, must) present a vision that is distinctly different that The Marxist's vision. He must absolutely take aim, not at The Marxist, but at the Washington establishment who most directly caused the financial meltdown (they're Democrats, John, get 'em!). He needs to learn the lessons he should have learned from his days in the Reagan revolution in defining the battle as good versus evil (in the political sense). And he must do this with a passion and energy that we haven't seen from his ass since the end of his convention acceptance speech!
The Marxist is distinctly better in debate in the sense he can make his talking points sound very convincing, and come off as a statesman in the Kennedy mold. All he has to do is not lose. Then he maintains his momentum and wins.
What I've heard, and what I have come to believe, is that McCain has to change the course and the dialogue in this election. Right now, with the Dastardly Bastardly Bailout on the table, it comes back to the 'blame the administration' mantra, which will take McCain with it. So unless he can make something happen, he might as well take up the Bob Dole mantra and start hawking Viagra.
(The fun part is that I get off work at 9, so I get to listen to the first half hour of the debate on the radio. I just hope it's not boring, or I'll be going into the ditch.)
21 comments:
I think McCain blew it for good when he refused to distance himself from the bailout mess by pushing the more "Conservative Flavor" of bailout which would have included loans and insurance. He and Obama basically looked the same on that most pivotal issue of our time. People are so concerned about the economy that McCain's ace in the hole, foreign affairs, has been rendered impotent. Ahhh, timing can be a bear...
He has also blown it in his attempts to clearly articulate his vision for the economy, and Obama clearly has him beat here. Sadly, people like a clearly articulated horrible plan better than a badly articulated good one?
Anything can happen in 3 weeks, Kerry had a similar lead on Bush in '04 and he ultimately lost.
it goes back to the saying of the 90s, it's the economy stupid. If we hadn't had this econ melt down, McCain stood a chance. But with voter fraud and obvious Marxist beliefs, the American people are to friggin' ignorant on this one. Looks like we're gonna take this one on the chin. But the upside is the dems will screw it up in two years and GOP may revisit 94. Let us all pray to Allah.
A significant aspect to all of your rhetroic and name-calling is this:
In parts of America that were considered safe conservative areas, the population is turning to Sen. Obama in large numbers.
And you must be aware that the Son of The Father of Modern Conservatism, Christopher Buckley, just endorsed Sen. Obama. (and then got kicked out of NR).
That's akin to Teddy Kennedy's son announcing he's endorsing McCain.
Think of that sea change in the Republican Party.
I have visited many, many conservative blogs over the last few weeks, and read several conservative columnists, pundits, etc., and what I take away from all of this is that the country has changed. It has moved away from toxic partisan tactics and sees Sen. Obama as the person to change this.
The bullfrogs, obobs, and, yes, Patricks, of this country will be dragged kicking and screaming and sputtering epithets into a new world where Americans reject a culture of hate and embrace a culture of inclusiveness.
It's already happening out there.
Every day I read of some dyed-in-the wool Republican who has seen the light and has placed his/her support firmly in Sen. Obama's camp.
PS. Gen. Colin Powell is next.
Calling Sen. Obama a Marxist makes these kinds of people feel good, but it is a desperate attempt to discredit what Sen. Obama has achieved:
The American Dream.
I am happy for those who look to the future with hope, and I feel sorry for people who have nothing but name-calling, negativity, and bluster to enrich their lives.
PS. I do want to add that Dr. Martin Luther King was called a Marxist and Commie many, many times in his life by certain groups of Americans as he struggled to achieve his dream, too.
First of all, many people in this country have no idea what the difference is between a Socialist and a Communist. They don't know or don't understand that many civilized, industrialized, modern nations that we consider to be our allies are indeed Socialist or heavily Socialist nations. I doubt many of these people I refer to would believe you if told, and some would immediately denounce them once they heard it.
"Commie" has been a dirty word and an insult in this country since the days of McCarthyism. It's a catch-all, handy epithet that people use when they have nowhere else to go. These days it appears that "Muslim" is gaining on the Insult-O-Meter, and is equally a product of ignorance, xenophobia, and mischanneled anger. People who have absolutely no idea what Communist (and Socialist) ideology involves hear or read some invective and take it as gospel without bothering to verify or corroborate the 'facts'. In the same way, people who have never read the Koran and don't know a thing about it beyond a few out of context quotes tossed at them from a pulpit feel themselves qualified to vilify the millions of Muslims, the vast majority of which are peaceful, innocent, rational people, as 'terrorists'. Some go even further and include the entire population of a country. Such things could not be further from the truth.
Socialists, and Communists as well, have done much for the labour movement in this country. Workers' rights, the weekend, the limiting of the workday and other advances from feudalism are today in place in large part due to the efforts of past Socialist and Communist leaders.
To use either of these terms as a slur shows at least an amount of ignorance and at best a disregard for the good and positive changes made in this country by Socialist and Communist leaders. This is not an excuse for totalitarian repressive regimes that parade around in the guise of Communism. It is, however, a statement that Socialism is not the evil that most Americans believe it is.
shaw: I don't take offense to being lumped with the "Obobs" and "Patricks" in your smug little spiel, but I do take exception to your presumption that you have any earthly idea what I represent when all you have to make that distinction is a single, non-partisan post.
A dose of humility would do Obama, and apparently his supporters, some good.
I find nothing here to disagree with you on, Patrick. My backing of McCain is because of the Marxist too. I would have preferred almost any of the other candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul. But McCain won, and so I hope and pray he pulls it off in tonight's debate.
Many people have claimed that there are a lot of Blacks who will vote for Obama simply because he's Black. I will have absolute proof of that on my post tomorrow, but I'm going to give you a link to the video I will be posting. Prepare to be amazed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU
Dear gayle,
I hope you also post on the number of white people who will NOT vote for Obama just because he is black.
There are a lot of them out there, too.
Bullfrog: The difference between Bush and McCain, though, is that McCain can't really draw the distinctions due to his hopping left of center so often. Even now, I'm feeling conflicted on whether to vote for him or not. Mind you, if I vote for anybody other than McCain, I'd go Libertarian.
Obob: We've already prayed to him. Let's pray to Krishna this week in honor of non-insane liberals.
Shaw: When did you abandon wisdom for madness (and Kool-Aid)?
The change in the GOP has been a softening and a weakening of the conservative principles it briefly embraced during the Reagan years. Since then, it has suffered a dilution, so much so that the Bush administration will be held to account for a partial nationalization of our banking system ,with McCain trying to ride those coattails. This is a repudiation of idiot centrism, not conservatism.
The bullfrogs, obobs, and, yes, Patricks, of this country will be dragged kicking and screaming and sputtering epithets into a new world where Americans reject a culture of hate and embrace a culture of inclusiveness.
You obviously have forgotten who you're talking to here, because i am all for inclusion, all against toxic partisan tactics. In fact, the only person firing of partisan drivel here is you.
I only started supporting McCain reluctantly to lessen the damage that The Marxist and his myriad of government solutions will bring. Of course, the fact that my objections to McCain are the same ones that mean I will not support The Marxist: the idea that it's the government's job to fix the economy, to provide services, to nanny us in various ways. But McCain is the lesser of two evils.
I have praised The Marxist for his achievements, as the road to where he is was paved by generations of sacrifice. And should he be elected (and doom the country to darkness), I will congratulate him on that achievement. But I assure you that I won't be dragged into whatever twisted vision you think that The Marxist brings to America. As for anger and bitterness and hate, I'll leave that to your ilk to spew.
Saty: That's why I go with 'Marxist' to label The Marxist. It's a summation of his philosophies, it's accurate, and it obviously pisses off Shaw. But in general, I can agree that incessant namecalling does eventually begin to diminish the ability to debate.
As for me, I do have a dictionary, so I'm aware of what all those -isms mean. And I'm aware of the amount of socialism that has swept through our allies. Thankfully, they're beginning to realize they may have gone too far. When we realize it, then there's hope.
Gayle: I can understand the desire, if you're black, to vote for The Marxist for that reason alone. It's not necessarily rational, but when you and your race has been handed a big shit sandwich for many a year, the desire to see one of your own succeed is really tempting. It was bound to happen, no matter what, when one of the candidates wasn't a white guy. They, of course, will be offset by the racists who will vote against The Marxist for the same reason.
It really comes down to giving people a reason to vote for you.
Awwwww...
jai Krsna!
Wow, Patrick.
You and Mike and the rest of your conservative pals can't get past calling people names, eh?
Mike calls me a "commie" and you call me crazy.
Oh, and the bullfrog croaked that I am "smug." Well, that's not actually a name, but a characterization of my post--which is funny, when you think about it.
But what's even funnier is the name of this blog "Sane Political Discourse."
It's sane only if you agree with a commenter, otherwise everyone's "mad" or a "commie," or a Marxist.
Enjoy the next three weeks.
I know I will.
Shaw: I'm calling you crazy because you're sounding crazy right now. When you get off the Kool-Aid, maybe we can have a civil discussion.
I'm actually looking forward to the post-election where I can lay off the politics for a week or so to write poetry. Remember, while you are strapped to The Marxist and enjoying the ride, I'm watching a race between two candidates and supporting the one I like less because he's less of a socialist. So I'm already looking to what needs to be done in 2009 and 2010, and even 2012.
The tendency to invest yourself in the success of a candidate drives away the sane. Thus, even though I may venture an opinion or two, and even a cheap jab at The Marxist just for shits and giggles, I can still claim the objectivity that makes SPD what it is. So smile.
Again, may I remind you that you're the one who comes in with the partisan craziness turned up to 11!
Cmon, Patrick...
the debate's been over for ten minutes. I'm waiting to hear what you have to say.
The debate is over, thank God. Now it's up to the Monday morning quarterbacks to decide who won and who lost. The important thing now is to get to the polls on election day and keep the Socialist out of the White House!
Saty: There isn't that much to say, but I'll get a post up shortly.
PCC: It's The Marxist. That fits him best.
Of course, it could mean either Karl or Groucho, depending on your point of view.
Destructive policies? Really? And the policies of the last 8 years have been working well for you?
You can call it what you want and pretend like is Clintonesque view of the country is going to be so terrible but you know you are only lying to yourself. The Economy always performs better under a Democrat. Period. Cutting taxes on rich people and spening on military contractors and sending us into debt and electing an ex oil man from Texas with ties to the Saudi Royal family isn't going to make our economy strong, not for working people.
Sure if you love Jesus, fetus', war and hate fags and Arabs, you most certainly should vote for McCain. Otherwise there really is no choice to be made.
Destructive policies? Really? And the policies of the last 8 years have been working well for you?
Some of them yes, some of them no. Only a nutcase would find a politician 100% right or wrong on every issue.
As for the economy, it's been on a roll through the 80'a and 90's and 3 presidents. It slowed down with 9/11 and has become worse since the GOP started spending like crack monkeys on crack what a budget was, the Dems went all-out to bind more people and companies to the government, and Bush forgot what a veto was. But that's because we've become less concerned with what makes the country great and are now mostly focused on our myopic view of the world. But that's a future post....
Sure if you love Jesus, fetus', war and hate fags and Arabs, you most certainly should vote for McCain.
Toad, do you know how absolutely fucking stupid this statement sounds? Seriously. The Marxist would throw your ass under the bus for stupidity like that. At least you'd have plenty of company.
No Bush isn't 100% wrong all the time. He was about 90% wrong and those were the issues McCain supported him on. And again, as with 9/11, was he responsible personally for all this? No but he was certainly negligent.
But those are exactly the people showing up to see Palin.You can't dispute that.
Toad: Of course I can dispute that. I'd be able to dispute it if I could figure out what the hell you're talking about. But since you lack cogence (and any attempt at clarification) I'll just laugh.
Why do you think Palin was picked?
To address your asinine ideas:
The former (whoever these boogemen of yours are) were probably voting McCain anyway. Or Ron Paul. The latter could have been achieved quicker with Joe Lieberman, with no GOP people wasted.
The real reason was because McCain was looking for someone who fit with is "Maverick" thing and someone who would get conservatives on board. It was a good pick in that sense.
Sense. Maybe you should get some. Alongside a clue.
But a bad pick in the sense that she doesn't know anything.
Post a Comment