Yes, absolutely. She is absolutely caricaturized by the Republicans.
Really? You imply that everyone is being accused by someone (whomever that may be, probably a boogeyman) of being a racist, therefore you can’t think of an actual racist yourself? Not a single racist left in America, per your estimation?
Trump has some typical Republican policies, mostly on the things he doesn’t really run on, like abortion. Then he has a couple that are Republicans on steroids–his tax policy and his immigration policy. But he also has many esoteric positions, like his anti-trade stance, and the other stuff mentioned in this thread. He even has more liberal policies when it comes to “entitlements” like Medicaid and Social Security.
Thing is, he’s just all over the map.
Oh, and I thought of what the OP said about Trump, too. It’s why I emphasize that I’ve never said anything I say about any other candidate. But I’m not sure how well that works.
The “boy cried wolf” effect is also seen in issues, not just politicians. If a feminist calls it “sexist” when a man opens a door for a woman, then that completely dilutes the weight/force of the attack when dealing with genuinely serious issues. Same for Christians who claim that they are “persecuted” with regards to some trivial things/issues.
Also when people insisted in the past that ***“this is the most important election of our generation/lives” ***(they repeated that afresh every 4 years, as if they hadn’t said that before, last time) - it is not only logically impossible, but makes it harder to rally the troops when the most important election of our generation/lives ***does ***come.
The article mentions mainly McCain and Romney.
The claim that “this is the most important election of our generation/lives” is ambiguous as to whether the speaker means it is the most important of our lives so far, or is making a prediction about what will come to pass and when you will die.
An interesting question would be how you would rate the importance of them, based on what we knew at the time. I think 2012 is probably the most arguable. Other than that, there’s a decent case to be made that each subsequent election really was the most important ex ante.
The “binders full of women” thing got quite a bit of attention, but I’d say my recollection is that the accusations of sexism against them was maybe like a 4 on the outrage-o-meter, while Trump is at eleventy billion.
Again, could only read like the first two-three paragraphs of the story, but the main attack on those two candidates were basically that one was erratic and the other out of touch. Should McCain not have been called erratic in case some later candidate is more erratic? Should Romney not have been called out-of-touch in case someone else more elitist runs in a future election?
Or are charges of sexism held to a different standard than any other character attacks in an election?
Sorry, still not seeing the reasonable case here. (My ears are still open if someone has some good points to make, though.)
I think the overall idea is that people should be viewed accurately as who and where they are. McCain and Romney were both, for the most part, decent, reasonable people - not wackos or radicals. Portraying a centrist as an extremist means that you have much less effective ammo left when the extremist comes around.
Wait. Is the issue about crying “wolf,” or about crying “rabid wolf?” I certainly don’t view McCain and Romney as non-wolves.
I don’t recall Romney being called an extremist much. He got the “flip-flopper” and “he’ll say anything to get elected” comments and jokes about Romney-care. You might be right about McCain being called such - not sure. There was definitely talk about the McCain of 2008 not being the McCain of 2000. Though I recall praise for not going along the the “Kenyan Muslim” thing.
McCain got significant pushback (rightly or wrongly) for his rendition of ‘Bomb Iran’. In that case I think it really was intended as a joke; while it may been reasonable to object to that sort of joke as showing poor judgment, some presented it as McCain’s serious action plan.
And I know this may be shocking to some, but lots of us aren’t called racists in the first place. Leaving, dontcha know, that word to describe actual racists. See how that works, Mr. Tiger?
You can’t expect tactics that will enable someone’s political tribe to gain power to go unused. Why leave pork for someone else?
Like Dr. Strangelove from the movie could say: Based on the findings of what is going on with the extremist guy that is running now, my conclusion is that this idea is not a practical thing to consider for reasons which at this moment must be all too obvious.
The extremist goes way far beyond the controversial acts of a centrist, so there are more doomsday devices to use against him, or what it is growing in his head…
McCain seemed quite reasonable as Republicans go until he chose Sarah Palin. At this point, I had to conclude he had no judgment. That choice just might have cost him the election too. Where was the tea party going to go anyway. I never called Bush a nazi. But he may have made the worst foreign policy decision in American history. But that is a question of low intelligence and poor advisors. Trump is quite different and quite extraordinary.
John McCain has never seen a country he didn’t want to bomb.
Without Palin, McCain was guaranteed to lose. He had to throw Hail Marys. Obama had the exciting, fresh, interesting campaign; McCain was the boring, staid old white man. With Palin, he was at least injecting a major shake-up into what was a slow, steady, predictable countdown to inevitable defeat. Geraldine Ferraro wasn’t what defeated Mondale in 1984.
With Palin, McCain had maybe a 25% chance of winning. Without Palin, McCain had 0% chance.
If only he had vetted Palin.
[QUOTE]Because you see this vet he did not vet
and chose a brunette he’d hardly met
And when you screen your nominees
Like hiring help at Applebees
One has to think you’d lost your mind
Cos look at all these things you find
An earmark queen that spends and spends
And hires of all her high school friends
That nowhere bridge she loves it so
And when it died she kept the dough
She watches Putin rear his head
From her State House’s tanning bed
Wants to ban the books you read
Hopes to see her state secede
Shows the press when she campaigns
Thinks is cool to hunt from planes
Hasn’t really pass reform
Isn’t sure the earth gets warm
Has a thing for voodoo prayers
Wants to wake up polar bears
Who knows just how you found her John
It’s W Bush with lipstick on…
[/QUOTE]
“Boring, staid old white man” is exactly how I’d describe John Kerry, then.
Today even.
Plus rich. Seriously rich.
At the time I remember the Democrats saying he was going to be a great counter to Obama’s biggest weakness - foreign affairs (Obama came out with his choice before McCain).
I recall it was a strategic attempt to counter anything the Republicans would put up - 'We got ‘em now! See? A man who knows world affairs. McCain is toast!. Obama’s covered his flank’.
I never once got the feeling that was Obama’s first choice. It was the party’s. The behind-the-scenes people who don’t think realistically or objectively long term, just short term and ‘winning!. Woot!’
Callous and shallow. Like Hillary today - ‘We don’t like Hillary but we have to win, dammit!’
He was the first Republican to put up a woman as Vice President. A feat the Democrats figured would never happen. It was neck and neck then and why the Democrats (and the press) went completely apoplectic in his choice and investigated, probed, and did everything they could to discredit her.
I don’t remember the Democrats screaming ‘Misogyny’ then. Or the woman’s movement supporting her then. Because she was from the ‘wrong’ side.
Pathetic.