And America is a biker bar on the outskirts of the outskirts. And it’s dollar pitcher night. And Sarah Palin is the hard-edged aging looker of a barfly, who doesn’t consider the night complete until the chairs are scattered and the boys are drawing blood over her honor. McCain is the old sherrif, once an asskicker of some note, always comforted by the power of the badge, but now rootless and reeling, itching for one last dust-up. And Biden is Sam Elliott, and Obama is Patrick Swayze.
Gah! Analogy overload!
And Lady Justice is … Jeff Healey.
Yeah, if only someone had quoted all three of these things in one easy-to-read post!
(Mr. Cellophane, should’a been my name…)
I’m just glad Obama planned ahead and put plenty of new tires in his trunk, for all the slashing we would get. I love planning ahead, it makes thing so less stressful. Nice analogy.
And Gene Hackman is McCain. He has plenty of experience playing grizzled old bastard lawmen.
(Shouldn’t a young, Silverado-era Danny Glover be Obama?)
And this is EXACTLY the result that McCain’s team want. The negative advertising is supposed to drive voters like you to say “meh, they’re all the same, why bother voting”. And then he wins.
Obama can either do nothing, and hope he retains your vote, (see “Kerry, J”) or he can fight back against cries he associates with “terrorists” by pointing out that McCain’s associations are not exactly squeaky clean.
Oops, sorry. I don’t know how I missed that. I really have been reading this thread. Really.
(Nod to choie’s earlier post pointing out these same things.)
To be fair, though, you can’t hold a candidate or his/her campaign staff directly responsible for all the outright vicious and/or cretinous things that the candidate’s supporters may say, even if the campaign has been flirting with insinuations or innuendos meant to evoke vicious and/or cretinous ideas.
I’ve been to enough anti-war rallies with earnest dolts holding up signs saying “BUSH = HITLER” to know that in any large group of rank-and-file partisans, negativity is sometimes going to flame into irrational hatred and untruths. I would not have wanted the 2004 Kerry campaign held directly responsible for that sort of nonsense, and Kerry would have had his work cut out for him if he’d been expected to go around “admonishing” every Kerry supporter who pulled such stunts.
The McCain campaign should definitely be held accountable for the level of nastiness deliberately displayed in its own PR material, but not for the level of nastiness that some of its fans may sink to.
Keating was a major fund raiser for McCain. He and his company were large contributors. He had an estate in the Bahamas where McCain ,his wife, his children and his babysitter went frequently. His wife invested with Keating ,350 thou, in a mall.
McCain escaped because spoiled connected rich kids do. Not because he was not as dirty as hell. His connections were the deepest of the Keating 5. He just pulled back a little quicker when he thought he would get in trouble. It was not seeing the light.
Bless you.
I don’t see why not. When you shout “fire” in a crowded theater, you get the result you expect. When you claim that Obama is pals with terrorists, and “not one of us” (wink wink), you can expect that your ignorant base (and they know exactly who their base is) to want to attack the evil black terrorist sympathizer. Note how these disgusting chants are being made at McCain and Palin rallies, with these two in attendance. In McCain’s case, he actually hears and visibly reacts to the “A TERRORIST!” cry, but says nothing. Nothing. Just that little “my! such vehemence, I do declare!” shrug/grimace/smile.
This is the effect they want when they use such language in their attacks. To think otherwise is surely more naivete than is rational in such times … and with such candidates who’ve learned from history.
If Kerry had been there, and obviously had heard the cries, he should – and I can guarandamntee you would’ve – been lambasted for not saying anything. And, knowing him, he would’ve said something. Democratic politicians are willing (sometimes too much so) to be gracious to their opponents. See Obama/Biden’s far too generous claims that McCain is an honorable man. (Though they’re as accurate as Marc Antony’s speech; hopefully they’re meant with the same irony.)
When they purposely incite it? Hells yeah they should be accountable.
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/?source=sem-pm-google&gclid=CJuxyOnHlZYCFQVfFQodBCEiEA Heres a little film by a reghulator involved in Keating. McCain was ass deep in dereg and fighting for the big guy at the expense of tax payers.
And what’s the turning his back? McCain is winding up for another one - anything wrong with Obama flattening the sucker before he gets a chance to throw the punch?
It is very American to restrain oneself until the adversary attacks - and then respond with everything we’ve got. I don’t blame people for losing sight of this after 8 years of Bush.
Most sane humans, and even myself (:D), don’t want to have to play Ender’s Game. Ender regretted having to play, sure, but he knew that he would have had more regret if he has just let himself be beaten.
If the need is for a brawl analogy I like this. McCain is a drunk in a bar swinging a wild punch. Obama is the target, a martial arts expert who grabs the drunk’s arm, throws him foward and then hits him down on the way without spilling his drink along the way. McCain may want to just stay down.
You could make a chess analogy … most good players see that it is mate in five for Obama and McCain to play. Obama’s response will be different depending on what McCain’s move is, but all lead to check mate in five so long as Obama makes the right moves in response.
[quote=“Sinaijon, post:112, topic:466734”]
Continue to pound him on the current economic crisis. Pound him on taxes and health care. Pound him for negative campaigning. It’s working well and the public loves it.
<snip>
QUOTE]
This IS what Obama is doing. His response to McCain’s attacks were to demonstrate that we had been through a similar financial mess on a smaller scale and this this is how McCain behaved during it. The fact that it reflects negatively on McCain is the point.
Yes, that’s what Bush said before we went into Iraq.
McCain is a mediocre chess player who’s used to playing against other mediocre chess players.
Say you’re a mediocre player and you’re playing against someone who you suspect is a little better than you. A good strategy in that situation is to do something weird to throw the board into disarray. You might do a little damage to yourself in the process, but you mess up the orderly, by-the-book development of your opponent’s attack. Now you’re both in unfamiliar territory and in the resulting scramble you might be able to gain the advantage.
It’s not a bad strategy against a mediocre player. But not against a master. A master can beat you without going by the book. If you do something weird to shake up the game you’re just giving him an opening to walk all over you.
McCain keeps doing weird things to shake up the game. And Obama has used each one as an opening to press the attack. Now McCain is down on material and his options are dwindling, dwindling away … .
So, Obama is using the Cecilian Defense, then?
With the exception that Iraq did not hit us first.
What we’ve*** really ***got here is that old movie trope where the good guy has the chance to finish off the villain, but he lets him live, which kind of dissapoints the audience a bit, but whatever. And then TWIST! the villain refuses to be captured, or grabs a gun from Cop #1’s holster, and then suicidally lunges at the hero who, reluctantly, has to kill him. In self defense.