Letters to the Editor
universe42
Published Letters: 36 Editor's Choice: 2
-
On Message... again.
[Read the article: Obama's plan to change the economy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shortly after Obama gave his economic address, (probably before it even started really) a series of systematic processes began to unfold, on time, and in unison. As strategy play books were opened all across the country to a well bookmarked page, the head war cheifs, tasked with language formulation in the event of an emergency, looked down at the page, skimmed down to a highlighted article and breathed a huge sigh of releif. There it was. the counterpoint was still there after so many years of use. It was hard to undersand why it had still not been refuted successfully to this day, but nonetheless as effective as ever. As the chiefs picked up their war phones to get the message out to their handlers, they would read the text under a heading called:
"Blanket statement to counter Democratic talking points on: The Economy, Healthcare, Social Programs, Etc."
Within minutes of the message reaching one of McCain's aids, he would proudly proclaim the following dull witted response.
"There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face."
So lets consider that for over as many Presidential elections as I can remember, anytime a Democrat weighs offering solution based initiatives, the tried and true counterpunch methodology from the right has simply been to utter...chant actually, "government expansion, higher taxes, bread lines, shoeless, unfed children!"
Holy Jeebus, am I bored to death with this already. The only logical explanation for why this has been so effective is the fact that Democratic politicans have been so focus group driven, so convinced that staying on message is the only viable choice, and for so long that when they are backed into a corner and asked to defend their position in real terms, they sound rediculous, petty, contrived, and soulless.
The Right has their own fiery brand of rhetoric, and even though its just as empty, it has contempt and it is chock full of venom. It strikes at the anger of its constituency and charges the base effectively.
The truth is that the Democrats have no business peddling nuetral language as people can see right through empty platitudes without at least a shred of conviction. Time after time, these tactics have caused an implosion on the Left while the school yard bully runs away with the lunch money to start the next war of the week.
Who then has the common sense, much less back bone, to disarm a simple cliche? I think its long overdue personally.
-
Counter thought to this view...
[Read the article: Bush and McCain's shared foreign policy approach]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would like to offer up a very hypothetical scenario, purely grounded in speculation but nonetheless something I suspect about McCain which leads me to assume a different opinion about where he secretly stands on issues.
McCain has over the last 8 years been the whipping boy of his own party. He has been railroaded, disrespected, and has on many moral controversies, dissented from the majority on particularly character defining issues when the Republican mandate was to harmonize in chant like form to stay on message at all costs. Those things resonate in me as moments of transparency and even though I am an Obama supporter I often feel like I want to defend McCain from being lumped into the Bush doctrine.
I want to point out this observation, despite what lack of real evidence I have to back it up. There is NO question; political strategy in the Republican camp cannot be equated to the now bitterly ending love fest of the Democratic nomination over the last two years. Methodologies, tactics seem to be in diametric opposition this season. While I feel like Democrats a clamoring for a fresh perspective, the Right is only hearing the same old song and dance.
For reasons of sheer self preservation, McCain ( like Hilary Clinton – R ), has had to recreate himself considerably to become electable in the eyes of the hawks, and the far right extremist. He has had to go through the trials of endless back peddling to sell himself as an actual conservative. Couple that with the intuition that political theater is a largely a spectator sport, consisting of blatant pandering and shallow platitudes, and that the pensive thoughts of what were once human beings, just become drones of repetition, tirelessly repeating the same stories, one liners, anecdotes, etc. It is a sales position no question and some are better than others in their delivery.
I would be willing to wager that McCain the nominee is a far scarier Frankenstein than McCain the President, should that happen. I may be wrong, but about him, but one thing I think even Glenn may be willing to agree: No group of people, at least in my memory has inflicted a greater disservice to this nation, usurped our trust through provocative misstatements and outright lies, willfully cheated us of our liberties by pushing paranoia intentionally designed to play on our psyche, and has forever perverted the very privilege of a carefully constructed position of power of leadership than the Cheney/Bush administration.
Lumping McCain into that category, when he has been a casualty of their dirty book of tricks, is far too harsh of a penalty in my view.
-
woops.
[Read the article: Bush and McCain's shared foreign policy approach]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]sent the rough draft with broken english... oh well, you get the point.
-universe