2008 Elections: They're all idiots
In honor of a recent twitter from Gary Allen, I decided to bash all the major party presidential and vice-presidential candidates with youtube videos of their gaffes. Excuse me if I'm not rooting for your favorite team this election season -- I refuse to wholeheartedly support any politician. The very nature of their profession involves deceit, and it's a complete turn off.
However, I can't stand rooting for a team blindly either, apologizing for a candidate all the time, ignoring their faults. It's a misuse of one's intelligence and is disingenuous.
Without further adieu, here are four choice clips:
Like any of these candidates are going to solve anything.
For me, the choice for president always comes down to this: do I choose what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils, or do I exercise my Constitutional rights and vote for an independent candidate whose platform closely reflects my views (in layman's terms, throwing my vote away in the garbage can of history)?
I have only heard of a couple of independent candidates, so, at this time I'd like to link here and here. Who will you truly vote for this November?
However, I can't stand rooting for a team blindly either, apologizing for a candidate all the time, ignoring their faults. It's a misuse of one's intelligence and is disingenuous.
Without further adieu, here are four choice clips:
Like any of these candidates are going to solve anything.
For me, the choice for president always comes down to this: do I choose what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils, or do I exercise my Constitutional rights and vote for an independent candidate whose platform closely reflects my views (in layman's terms, throwing my vote away in the garbage can of history)?
I have only heard of a couple of independent candidates, so, at this time I'd like to link here and here. Who will you truly vote for this November?
Labels: Biden, independents, McCain, Obama, palin
posted by Skew | Thursday, September 25, 2008
4 Comments:
Putin write-in vote, da?
This is the ugly truth of politics: the predictable tactics of modern campaigns are often brutally effective. Both candidates promised to run cleaner campaigns.
“They’re tired of the attacks,” McCain said in April. “They’re tired of the impugning people’s character and integrity. They want a respectful campaign.”
“They” can wait.
Behind in polls, McCain calculated he had little choice but to muddy Obama’s image. The celebrity ads and subsequent attacks on Obama’s readiness did their job. Obama – in part because of a tightening race and because he doesn’t want to look like a patsy – had little choice but to fire back. McCain’s admission that he did not know how many houses he owned was simply too irresistible.
McCain’s attacks have been more garish and ostentatiously misleading—such as his claim that Obama wants sex ed for kindergartners. But Obama has also made serious false claims about McCain’s record, such as when he reached into the hoariest Democratic tactic of all by accusing his opponent of being ready to throw elderly Floridians into poverty with his Social Security plan (which would not affect any current pensioners.)
Pandering works, too. Presidential politics follows a drearily predictable formula. Politician chooses to run. Politician panders to base to win nomination. Politician switches positions to pander to swing voters. The best pandering politician wins.
For a moment, the “post partisan” Obama and “straight-talking” McCain again seemed like they might genuinely be willing to throw out this playbook.
In fact, both candidates have flip-flopped to fit the mood of their party or the country. It has been many months since either man has taken a genuinely courageous position in this campaign, one that ran clearly against polls or challenged an important constituency in their own coalitions to sacrifice self-interest for the national interest. Both have made what look like baldly political moves to meet the moment.
McCain backed the gas-tax holiday, which nearly every serious analyst said would do little to reduce prices at the pump or attack the root problem. Obama backed more domestic drilling only when it was clearly the popular political thing to do. Both have played games with social issues to placate specific audiences.
Same players, same tactics. One big reason this campaign feels so familiar is all the familiar faces in the middle of it. McCain, for instance, is guided by all kinds of veterans of the George W. Bush campaigns, people who were schooled by Bush strategist Karl Rove. There’s Steve Schmidt – the message guru for Bush in 2004 – running it. There’s Nicolle Wallace – the public face for Bush in 2004 – doing the same thing for McCain.
So it should comes as no surprise that McCain is grabbing into Bush’s bag of tricks. There’s constant barrage of attack ads. Then there’s the relentless effort to portray Obama as an exotic, effete elitist who would be a weak commander in chief.
It’s not like Obama has turned to a bunch of fresh faces either. David Axelrod is the strategist who deserves a ton of credit for Obama’s rocket rise to the top. But his approach has not been especially novel. Axelrod – the mastermind of John Edwards’ populist uprising – is a firm believer in using a powerful life narrative to drive a campaign. Sound familiar? He also gets much of his advice from the staff of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, hardly an unconventional force in politics. The latest advice flooding in: let no McCain attack go answered.
Obama and McCain weren’t that unconventional to begin with. Some of the hopes invested in McCain’s and Obama’s ability to reform politics were always based more on mythology than a fair reading of how they behave when their own self-interest was really at stake.
In his brief U.S. Senate career, Obama did not join in the most ambitious efforts to find a middle ground on divisive issues, such as by joining the “Gang of 14” trying to fashion compromise on judicial appointments.
In his tactical decisions this year, he has been a profile of caution. He rejected serious negotiations to conduct town halls with McCain. This would have been a terrific way for voters to take measure of both men. He promised to accept matching funds – only to change his mind when it was clear he could raise way more money than McCain. He chose a running mate who's spent more than half his life in Washington.
McCain actually has a record of challenging his party and taking unpopular stands. It certainly did not help him inside the GOP to champion campaign finance reform or push for immigration reform that included a clear pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. But way more often than not, he was a reliable vote for the conservative position on judges, social issues and other matters.
These days, he embraces tax cuts he once opposed, embraces religious figures he once condemned and rarely talks about those campaign finance and immigration bills. During the primaries, he savaged Mitt Romney in ways reminiscent of the way George W. Bush savaged McCain in 2000.
Tony, why don't you just write in Bill Richardson?
He probably wont write him in because of that cowboy ad he did .
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home