Same old double-talk
The presidential candidates and their running mates are lying to you. Take a moment to let that sink in, because I know you must be shocked. Of course, I'm joking. You're not shocked at all. Neither am I. The only time I'm really surprised is when a candidate says something truthful and controversial. Both parties are equally guilty, but the most recent example of the double-speak that caught my attention came from Republican nominee Sen. John McCain. In his speech at last week's party convention, McCain spoke about wanting to reach out to Democrats to find bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems. McCain touted himself as a man with a track record of working across the aisle. The very next day, I turn on the television and see a McCain campaign ad that speaks of his desire to end years of wasteful spending and unbalanced budgets. But the only photos that are used with the ad depict Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and other Democratic Senate leaders. Not a single Republican in there, so apparently the GOP is blameless for the fact that the country went from balanced budgets under Bill Clinton to a projected fiscal year 2008 budget deficit of $407 billion under a Republican president. McCain's ad seems to conveniently forget that for the better part of the past eight years, Republicans controlled the White House and Congress. Why would McCain run an advertisement that so obviously ignores the truth? Because people swallow it, hook, line and sinker. The Democrats do the same thing, painting McCain as a carbon copy of President Bush and showing photos of him subserviently embracing Bush, even though any intelligent person who has been paying attention over the past eight years knows that McCain has not marched in lock-step with "W." McCain and Obama run these ads because they work. And they work because a large percentage of voters are swayed by fear and propaganda, tether themselves to single, easily exploitable issues and make no effort to find out what the candidates really stand for. In short, we are sheep.
Labels: Politics
posted by Brant at
11:29 AM
12 Comments:
Which is why McCain will win. The Republican fear machine has mastered the craft of that type of politics.
I think the dems should bring up pearl harbor since the japanese haven't attacked us on our soil since and for the fear factor...
I dunno... i think the "fear" machine will need its tank refueled... 9/11 is one cow that might have reached "peak milk"
-ellipses
Wasn't the post about bipartisanship? that does not mean that McCain will not criticize the leadership of the Obama campaign or its supporters in Congress, it means that he will work with Democrats that support his vision of America. Brant, admit that you want Obama in your posts, it makes them more credible.
It makes it more credible if you use your name on your posts or at least create a name that you use for that purpose so that people, if they see your comments on a regular basis, can get to know you and where you are coming from. You seem to miss my main point, which is that BOTH sides do this. And, yes, both sides like to say they're in favor of a new kind of politics. But they aren't, and I just used the McCain situation to illustrate it. The Dems are equally guilty, as I very clearly said. It's all spin, all the time, from both sides, and I get sick of hearing the crap they spew. It's just very disingenuous for McCain to run an ad where he criticizes the spiraling economic crisis in D.C. and tries to make it look like it was an entirely Democratic production. It wasn't. Both sides share the blame. Please admit that, at least. Finally, bipartisanship doesn't mean only working with those who support "your vision." It means finding common ground with those who DON'T, and right now the two parties are so polarized and so far off the reservation and out on the lunatic fringes that compromise is damn near impossible. We have congressional gridlock instead.
I likes me some sheep. They're purdy.
But it's a point well made. That's why I find it so funny when Obama whines about it when he and his people have been doing the same thing.
No politician is truthful or honest, Dem or Repub. They will not be able to fix this black hole we call a budget in four years, more like twelve. They will not be able to completely pull our troops out of a war they should of never been a part of in the beginning because then we will look like a bunch of bullies who go over blow a place to hell and back again and then just walk away without cleaning up the mess, and making sure that a country who is rich in oil and money from that oil gets all of our money and resources to fix their country. I wish that Democrats and Republicans would just be honest and own up to their mistakes and bonehead ideas. Then there may be a possibility of bipartisanship. I am tired of the smear campaign ads from both sides and I can't wait for this shit to be over.
Wouldn't it be better if all primaries were conducted the first two weeks in August, then followed by the conventions? That would cut considerably the length of this misery.
This one has been particuarly long. The Obama-Clinton race was particularly long and ugly. Not that it wasn't a good one.
But presidential races just keep getting longer and don't do justice to the voters.
Park, I've long been in favor of changing the primary system, although having them in August would just mean keeping some of the no-chance dunderheads in the race longer. Can you say Kucinich? I favor having the primaries on four consecutive Saturdays, with one region voting on each day. The sequence of the regional voting could be changed every four years so that people in each region of the country would have the chance to go first, second, etc. Why in God's name should a half-assed caucus in Iowa and a primary in tiny New Hampshire set the tone for who we will elect president? Some say a longer process gives lesser-known and lesser-funded candidates a chance to compete. In that case, make it a six-week process. But we do need to compress the primary system from its current six-month death march.
I agree with Brant in that both parties are equally guilty of double-speak. In their efforts to pander to the audience du juor, they have to adjust what they say according to the crowd. I always chuckle when a candidate goes to a blue-collar town and visits a mill or a mine or a factory. They don't wear a jacket, don a hardhat and roll up their sleeves halfway. That way it makes them look like they're ready to pitch in and work...as long as they don't sully their $200 shirts.
Brant also is dead on when he said people are too lazy to do some digging on their own...they just follow the crowd and the polls.
There is a fantastic scene in the animated series, "Family Guy," that illustrates this point. Lois, the matriarch of an all-American family, is running for mayor after being angered over pollution in the town lake. She and the incumbent mayor agree to a debate and as she talks, no one in the audience is paying attention to what she's saying. From backstage, someone whispers that she should dumb it down a bit. So when asked the next question, she pauses, and says, "9/11." That's all. The crowd goes berserk and is hanging on pins and needles for her next answer. And the next answer is, "9/11." She answers several questions with the same reply, and at one point says, "Nine." She stops and waits. The crowd leans forward in breathless anticipation. She waits a little more and then says, "Eleven." The crowd goes crazy and elects her mayor. Sheep.
Good to hear from you Priguy. We've missed you. Now if we can just find Roger. I saw that "Family Guy" episode, and it was, sadly, pretty accurate. I'm no great fan of Joe Biden, but he did have a great line a while back on Rudy Giuliani, saying "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence - a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There's nothing else!"
I was a Republican until recently. The McCain VP choice of Palin was the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm terrified to see what will happen to the us and the world if this incompetent, person becomes President...I'm talking about Palin. Who is she besides the carefully scripted, hiding from the media, 1950's TV influenced, right-wing, forcing-her-religion-on-everyone else conservative? Am I crazy or is there more than one religion in the u.S.? Is there a sepration or church and state? What are Palin's specific plans: Healthcare, Social Security and Stem Cell Research? Please tell me. Does anyone truly know? Come on! If all follows her literal so-called Christian beliefs (what a farce!) my wife would have to keep her unborn child if she was the victim of rape. Our neighbors, a respected, tax-paying couple, together longer than anyone I know (45+ years) would continue not having the same rights as a married couple because they are men. The sad truth is that a so-called "outsider" would welcome a right-wing christian into their home well before the christian would for them. So who is really more "christian" and not hiding behind the "book"? Why does my 77 year old father have to return to work because he cannot pay for all of his prescriptions? I do hear a lot of the same talk form both political parties but have found much more comfort with Obama. He's more in touch with where the world is going and his plan is more concrete. With inspiration we haven't seen in decades, he also has the world's respect.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home