As usual, the election cycle is full of fast-moving events and rapid changes. Here are some things I thought you might want to know about.
Matt Damon, speaking from his many years (ahem) as a political pundit, has accused Sarah Palin of being a 'bad Disney movie' of a VP pick, and said she was selected purely for political reasons. He also suggested that her two years as Governor isn't enough to make her ready for the position because he's assuming McCain will croak in the next four years. He goes on to question whether she has banned books and believes dinosaurs walked the planet just a few thousand years ago.
Matt, let me help you: All VPs are selected for political reasons (wasn't Biden picked for his experience and foreign policy knowledge?), Palin was in the Governor's office longer than Obama was in the Senate (and, by the way, the VP spot is less important the the President spot), McCain's mom is almost 100 years old, Palin's book-banning is pure smear, and millions of people believe dinosaurs walked the planet just a few thousand years ago. Just because you don't doesn't mean they're all stupid.
You're actually good at acting, so I suggest you go back to that.
It's a good thing that the world doesn't get to vote in America's elections. After all, an average of 15% (as high as 36% in some places) of people responding to an international poll think the U.S. government actually performed the 9/11 attacks! What a bunch of idiots. Nevertheless, the world loves the Obamessiah, thinking we're a bunch of ignorant savages if we don't elect him. Russia wants Obama, too. I mean, really, with the proverbial big stick that Obama waved around after they invaded Georgia, I'm sure they're frightened of what a President Obama might do to curb their expansion. Not surprisingly, Iran wants Obama, too. Seriously, if literally all of our current enemies (radical Islamic terrorists, Iran, Russia) endorse Obama, shouldn't we stop to wonder why?
Herbert Meyer thinks this election is shaping up to be what could be a decisive battle in the culture war in America. We have two far-Left Democrats (the first and third most liberal Senators) against two conservative (or, in the case of McCain, at least partly conservative) Republicans. You might call it a contest between tradition and progressivism:
He suggests that this sharp divide is the reason we have so many 5-4 Supreme Court decisions and close elections. He says there are two kinds of wars: one where armies clash and someone wins in a relatively short period of time, and another that is more about ideology that takes a very long time.
Meyer says that McCain's choice of Palin as his VP threw the switch that shifted the Traditionalists into offense rather than defense. Both sides are trying to maintain their base while attracting independent voters to their cause, and will talk about issues to be persuasive, but the question isn't so much about what we think as who we really are.
Interesting stuff, and worth pondering.
Regardless, the last couple weeks have just been more evidence that the Democrat party is not truly the party of tolerance. Just look at Palin - a right-wing gun-toting, hunting conservative whose primary speech-writer is an animal rights activist and vegan. How's that for a big tent? This can be illustrated by Andrew Breitbart, who rips liberal Democrats this way:
In contrast, he says of Republicans:
Remember my little schtick on the Democrats being the party of GET OUT? Bingo.
But, as the wheels come off the Obamessiah's campaign, it's not just us Righties that are hammering him. Some Lefties are, too, like Joseph Romm at the ultra-Left Huffington Post:
Romm goes on to blast the Obama campaign for totally whiffing on a lot of basic marketing skills, referencing various psychological studies and thoroughly solid PR methodologies.
If I might divert for a moment, I want to look at the last paragraph in Romm's article:
Romm seems to think that if Obama would just be a more effective communicator, he'd be killing McCain in the polls. Respectfully, I don't think Romm understands what wins elections: issues. No matter how effectively Obama communicates, he's still on the wrong side (or both sides) of so many issues that Americans don't want what he's selling. In fact, I'd suggest the opposite of Romm: the more clarity Obama provides on his policies and beliefs, the fewer Americans will support him. We're seeing that in the polls now. The point is that the liberal Left simply doesn't get what makes normal Americans tick.
Regardless of the message and its method, some really blunt criticism of the Obamessiah and his positions is coming out, even from some Democrats. One of the most level-headed I've seen is an article in the Financial Times that says one of the Dems' biggest problems is that they have a fundamental lack of respect for Reps:
And here's one from Camille Paglia at Salon.com. It's long, but the gist is that feminists have made a fatal error in refusing to open up the feminist tent to all women. Instead, they have kept it a closed club, available only to pro-choice women (which is primarily Democrats). As such, Obama is now being killed precisely because there are a lot of women who appreciate the goal of feminism but don't believe in abortion. On a side note, I'd recommend you read this article to get a window into the mindset of someone who fully admits that abortion is murder, but is still willing to support it. Scary.
Dick Morris poses an interesting theory: now it's simply a matter of Obama vs. Obama. The basic idea is that McCain's biggest challenge was creating separation between himself and Bush, which he did extremely well with the convention. Obama, posing as an agent of change and trying to lump McCain and Bush together, is now suddenly without his main advantage. The question is whether or not Obama can repackage himself and put things back together with an effective message that the American people will buy.
Bottom line: Obama is panicked because McCain is leading or gaining all over the country. All in all, more and more reports are coming out hinting at some serious jitters in the Democrat party.
Speaking of change, Hugh Hewitt suggests that if Americans really want change, they need to stop nominating professional lawyers for President.
To keep up with the electoral situation, check here regularly.
This update has become long enough, so that's all for now. Things are starting to get really interesting...
There's my two cents.
Matt Damon, speaking from his many years (ahem) as a political pundit, has accused Sarah Palin of being a 'bad Disney movie' of a VP pick, and said she was selected purely for political reasons. He also suggested that her two years as Governor isn't enough to make her ready for the position because he's assuming McCain will croak in the next four years. He goes on to question whether she has banned books and believes dinosaurs walked the planet just a few thousand years ago.
Matt, let me help you: All VPs are selected for political reasons (wasn't Biden picked for his experience and foreign policy knowledge?), Palin was in the Governor's office longer than Obama was in the Senate (and, by the way, the VP spot is less important the the President spot), McCain's mom is almost 100 years old, Palin's book-banning is pure smear, and millions of people believe dinosaurs walked the planet just a few thousand years ago. Just because you don't doesn't mean they're all stupid.
You're actually good at acting, so I suggest you go back to that.
It's a good thing that the world doesn't get to vote in America's elections. After all, an average of 15% (as high as 36% in some places) of people responding to an international poll think the U.S. government actually performed the 9/11 attacks! What a bunch of idiots. Nevertheless, the world loves the Obamessiah, thinking we're a bunch of ignorant savages if we don't elect him. Russia wants Obama, too. I mean, really, with the proverbial big stick that Obama waved around after they invaded Georgia, I'm sure they're frightened of what a President Obama might do to curb their expansion. Not surprisingly, Iran wants Obama, too. Seriously, if literally all of our current enemies (radical Islamic terrorists, Iran, Russia) endorse Obama, shouldn't we stop to wonder why?
Herbert Meyer thinks this election is shaping up to be what could be a decisive battle in the culture war in America. We have two far-Left Democrats (the first and third most liberal Senators) against two conservative (or, in the case of McCain, at least partly conservative) Republicans. You might call it a contest between tradition and progressivism:
On one side are the Traditionalists. We believe that church and State should be separate, but that religion should remain at the center of life. We are a Judeo-Christian culture, which means we consider those ten things on a tablet to be commandments, not suggestions. We believe that individuals are more important than groups, that families are more important than governments, that children should be raised by their parents rather than by a village, and that marriage is a sacred relationship between a man and a woman. We believe that rights must be balanced by responsibilities, that personal freedom is a privilege we must be careful not to abuse, and that the rule of law cannot be set aside when it becomes inconvenient.
We believe in economic liberty, property rights, and in giving purposeful and industrious entrepreneurs the elbowroom they need to start and run their businesses -- and thus create jobs for all the rest of us -- with a minimum of government interference. We recognize that people in other countries see things differently, and we are tolerant of their views. But we believe that despite its imperfections the United States is history's most blessed country, and when attacked we will defend this country with our lives.
On the other side of this culture war are the Left-Wing Liberals. They are uncomfortable with our traditions, with the inevitable inequalities of our free-market economy, and with our military power. They dislike our values, our morality, and our unabashed displays of patriotism. At first -- back in the 1960s -- they were content merely to develop and pursue their own radical culture within ours. They tuned out, turned to drugs, and pushed the level of sexual license to a point our country had never known. They were so distressed by our imperfections that they refused to recognize or celebrate our achievements.
While we believe that power flows from God to the people, they believe the supreme power is the State, which decides what rights, if any, should be allowed to the people. And because there is no God above the State, there also is no truth; no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. Since they are working to do good -- by their definition of the word -- whatever crimes they commit along the way don't matter. But if we are bent on doing what they define as harm, they will use any legal trick in the book to stop us. In short, the rule of law means whatever they want it to mean at any given moment.
They believe that rights are more important than responsibilities, that groups are more important than individuals, and that one's stand on public issues is more important than one's private actions or morality. And while they are careful never to condone the tactics of our country's foreign enemies, they always see some justification in our enemies' cause. They don't actually want us to be defeated by our foreign enemies; they wish merely to see us humbled and humiliated by them.
We believe in economic liberty, property rights, and in giving purposeful and industrious entrepreneurs the elbowroom they need to start and run their businesses -- and thus create jobs for all the rest of us -- with a minimum of government interference. We recognize that people in other countries see things differently, and we are tolerant of their views. But we believe that despite its imperfections the United States is history's most blessed country, and when attacked we will defend this country with our lives.
On the other side of this culture war are the Left-Wing Liberals. They are uncomfortable with our traditions, with the inevitable inequalities of our free-market economy, and with our military power. They dislike our values, our morality, and our unabashed displays of patriotism. At first -- back in the 1960s -- they were content merely to develop and pursue their own radical culture within ours. They tuned out, turned to drugs, and pushed the level of sexual license to a point our country had never known. They were so distressed by our imperfections that they refused to recognize or celebrate our achievements.
While we believe that power flows from God to the people, they believe the supreme power is the State, which decides what rights, if any, should be allowed to the people. And because there is no God above the State, there also is no truth; no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. Since they are working to do good -- by their definition of the word -- whatever crimes they commit along the way don't matter. But if we are bent on doing what they define as harm, they will use any legal trick in the book to stop us. In short, the rule of law means whatever they want it to mean at any given moment.
They believe that rights are more important than responsibilities, that groups are more important than individuals, and that one's stand on public issues is more important than one's private actions or morality. And while they are careful never to condone the tactics of our country's foreign enemies, they always see some justification in our enemies' cause. They don't actually want us to be defeated by our foreign enemies; they wish merely to see us humbled and humiliated by them.
He suggests that this sharp divide is the reason we have so many 5-4 Supreme Court decisions and close elections. He says there are two kinds of wars: one where armies clash and someone wins in a relatively short period of time, and another that is more about ideology that takes a very long time.
In these long ideological wars, the outcome isn't determined by firepower but by will. That's because the aggressor's objective isn't to kill the defenders, but to wear them down until they no longer have the courage and stamina to keep resisting.
The defenders win only when they stop merely resisting -- in other words, trying just to not lose -- and start playing offense.
The defenders win only when they stop merely resisting -- in other words, trying just to not lose -- and start playing offense.
Meyer says that McCain's choice of Palin as his VP threw the switch that shifted the Traditionalists into offense rather than defense. Both sides are trying to maintain their base while attracting independent voters to their cause, and will talk about issues to be persuasive, but the question isn't so much about what we think as who we really are.
Interesting stuff, and worth pondering.
Regardless, the last couple weeks have just been more evidence that the Democrat party is not truly the party of tolerance. Just look at Palin - a right-wing gun-toting, hunting conservative whose primary speech-writer is an animal rights activist and vegan. How's that for a big tent? This can be illustrated by Andrew Breitbart, who rips liberal Democrats this way:
"I'm telling you they're uninteresting, they're vicious, they're vitriolic, they're really, really not good people. I'm willing to say that on the record. You could probe them scientifically and anthropologically and prove that they're not good people. They're not acting on sound judgement, and what they've done to those people that disagree with them, whether they be Leiberman democrats or Scoop Jackson liberals, whether they're Blue Dog democrats – they've been shut out of the party as these people do cocaine off of everybody's buttocks and tell everybody that they need to create a sustainable future.
In contrast, he says of Republicans:
"People are willing to agree to disagree. They're willing to disagree on the fundamental issues of our time, argue about them, fight against each other and at the end of the day say, 'Okay well we agree about these things and we disagree about these things.' Compare that to the Hollywood left, they were on the forefront of dethroning Joseph Lieberman as the conscience of the senate. In 2000 he was the conscience of the senate and for disagreeing on one thing, he could not be more uniformly reviled by this group of people.
Remember my little schtick on the Democrats being the party of GET OUT? Bingo.
But, as the wheels come off the Obamessiah's campaign, it's not just us Righties that are hammering him. Some Lefties are, too, like Joseph Romm at the ultra-Left Huffington Post:
What one word does John McCain want you to think of when you think of him? "Maverick"
So why does Obama's new ad use the word 5 times, even running the word across the screen? Because he and his ad people don't understand basic rhetoric and psychology (see Obama's Self-Defeating Rhetoric).
When voters go into the booth, especially the ones targeted with these ads who don't pay close attention to the race, they focus on just a few key thoughts and words. The last thing you want to do is repeat and reinforce your opponent's key memorable word.
You can't debunk a myth by verbally repeating it.
So why does Obama's new ad use the word 5 times, even running the word across the screen? Because he and his ad people don't understand basic rhetoric and psychology (see Obama's Self-Defeating Rhetoric).
When voters go into the booth, especially the ones targeted with these ads who don't pay close attention to the race, they focus on just a few key thoughts and words. The last thing you want to do is repeat and reinforce your opponent's key memorable word.
You can't debunk a myth by verbally repeating it.
Romm goes on to blast the Obama campaign for totally whiffing on a lot of basic marketing skills, referencing various psychological studies and thoroughly solid PR methodologies.
If I might divert for a moment, I want to look at the last paragraph in Romm's article:
Obama is getting better on the stump, but he is still lame in TV interviews -- as I argued in a recent post and as is painfully clear to anybody who saw Keith Olbermann desperately try to get him to make a stronger attack Monday night. If Obama could match his eloquence with a genuine understanding of the principles of rhetoric, this race would be a blowout.
Romm seems to think that if Obama would just be a more effective communicator, he'd be killing McCain in the polls. Respectfully, I don't think Romm understands what wins elections: issues. No matter how effectively Obama communicates, he's still on the wrong side (or both sides) of so many issues that Americans don't want what he's selling. In fact, I'd suggest the opposite of Romm: the more clarity Obama provides on his policies and beliefs, the fewer Americans will support him. We're seeing that in the polls now. The point is that the liberal Left simply doesn't get what makes normal Americans tick.
Regardless of the message and its method, some really blunt criticism of the Obamessiah and his positions is coming out, even from some Democrats. One of the most level-headed I've seen is an article in the Financial Times that says one of the Dems' biggest problems is that they have a fundamental lack of respect for Reps:
Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.
Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.
It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share.
Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.
Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin's nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface.
The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.
It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one's own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.
Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.
It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share.
Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.
Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin's nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface.
The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.
It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one's own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.
And here's one from Camille Paglia at Salon.com. It's long, but the gist is that feminists have made a fatal error in refusing to open up the feminist tent to all women. Instead, they have kept it a closed club, available only to pro-choice women (which is primarily Democrats). As such, Obama is now being killed precisely because there are a lot of women who appreciate the goal of feminism but don't believe in abortion. On a side note, I'd recommend you read this article to get a window into the mindset of someone who fully admits that abortion is murder, but is still willing to support it. Scary.
Dick Morris poses an interesting theory: now it's simply a matter of Obama vs. Obama. The basic idea is that McCain's biggest challenge was creating separation between himself and Bush, which he did extremely well with the convention. Obama, posing as an agent of change and trying to lump McCain and Bush together, is now suddenly without his main advantage. The question is whether or not Obama can repackage himself and put things back together with an effective message that the American people will buy.
Bottom line: Obama is panicked because McCain is leading or gaining all over the country. All in all, more and more reports are coming out hinting at some serious jitters in the Democrat party.
Speaking of change, Hugh Hewitt suggests that if Americans really want change, they need to stop nominating professional lawyers for President.
To keep up with the electoral situation, check here regularly.
This update has become long enough, so that's all for now. Things are starting to get really interesting...
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment