Fright Night
Are you ready to watch election returns on the cold, dark night of November 4th? Have you installed deadbolts on your doors? Loaded up on ammo? Put your therapist’s emergency number on speed-dial?
Good. Because according to MSNBC political columnist John Dickerson, John McCain has a message for you:
Boo!
Dickerson disagrees with those who complain that McCain doesn’t have a consistent message. It’s, “Be afraid, be very afraid!”
McCain is making a last-ditch effort to scare voters with his Obama Horror Show in three acts: “If Obama is elected, your taxes will go up… you'll be unsafe from foreign threats… and, especially if Congress goes Democratic, you will be forced to endure an era of unchecked liberalism.”
I have said before that an Obama victory would be a defeat of fear. In the wind-up days of this election, McCain is handily proving my point.
At his rally in a high-school gymnasium in Dayton, McCain went oogy-boogy over a 2001 interview in which (so the McCain campaign says) Obama claimed one of the tragedies of the civil rights era was that it failed to redistribute wealth. "That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor," McCain told a crowd of about 2,000, which didn't fill the gym. "It means taking your money and giving it to someone else."
One reason McCain’s claim rings sleepy-hollow is that, when read in context, Obama's remarks are neither scary nor subversive. When he talks about redistribution in this speech, he is not talking about taxing the rich to give handouts—as McCain would scare us into believing. Obama is primarily referencing the Supreme Court's reluctance to force school districts to spend money to provide equality in SCHOOLS. Later in the same interview, when Obama again discusses redistribution, his larger point is about the complexities of school funding after Brown v. Board of Education.
As for, "taking your money and giving it to someone else," it is McCain’s plan, not Obama’s, that provides for this this. To mention only one example, Obama’s tax plan reduces taxes for working individuals who already pay taxes, while McCain’s $5,000 health benefit is distributed to everyone, taxpayer or not. (It’s amazing what you can learn when you awake at 4:00 am to watch Joe Scarsborough’s Right-leaning morning talk shoe, “Morning Joe.”)
The real irony, though, is that the working middle class has already suffered from an eight-year greedfest of wealth redistribution, as it watched its hard-earned tax dollars disappear into the black hole of tax cuts for the uber wealthy. The ranks of the middle class have declined as a result, leading many to fear a genuine, not rally-speak threat: that we are moving toward a two-class nation of haves and have-nots, without the middle class cushion by which America has defined itself and achieved greatness.
If McCain really wants to scare us though, he’s missing the most obvious of all horror shows: the one on Wall Street. Or is it the one in the housing market? No, wait, it’s the swelling BLOB of unemployment… Watch out! It’s swallowing our kids’ educations, our retirements, even the artificial cheese we use to make our Walmart macaroni edible!
Conservatives also sneer that Obama’s lead is a result of the disproportionate amount of campaign funds at his disposal, and have repeatedly implied that the funding sources are suspect. Who do they think gave Obama his financial advantage? We did. That’s right… not unknown secret Commie pinko terrorist Muslim Planet 9 contributors… but Obama supporters who, though just as hard-hit by the economic meltdown as everyone else, are willing to donate $50 whenever they can to usher in change.
I’m ready for November 4th. And the only thing that scares me is that McCain might yet fear-monger his way into the White House.
17 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
12:28 PM
You left something out of your McCain Scarefest: Palinized! This morning I heard excerpts from her speech in PA and true to form, she lived up to my positioning of her as a sexy bimbo. Why do I say this? Because it is true. All she could do was say the same old song..."We're so glad to be here with real Americans, blah blah, blah. And then she said it two more times with just a word or two rearranged. I'm not sure what her magic spell is, but she really is Palinizing people because they keep showing up to hear her mindless dribble... or perhaps, look at her smokin hot bod, not sure which, but showing up even in the pouring rain they continue to do so.
12:30 PM
Roy, she's Reagan. He did the same thing, with the same vacuity. He's now considered one of the most beloved presidents. Imagine what would have happened if guys like you had been attracted to him on top of all that heady "morning in America" stuff. This is where the Republicans always win -- they present a character that resonates, and leave things like policy to get lost in the dazzle.
Obama has the same luck. Progressives don't notice or dismiss his troubling right leanings because he SEEMS so genuine and is so charismatic and good looking and sexy and exciting. This is all the stuff advertisers and branding companies.
I wonder where Maverick McCain would be with the exact same lackluster speeches if he looked like if he looked like he did 30 years ago -- the handsome rogue pilot?
12:44 PM
And I wonder where Kennedy would be if he was still alive?
This is always a fun mental masturbation exercise and it is always nice to dream, but I live in the here and now so I must make a choice that while not perfect, is for me the best choice. Guys like me, and I know plenty, were never, ever attracted to Raygun; we knew he was nothing but a poor actor from the very beginning. The only time I considered not voting Democrat was in 1980. I thought Reagan was a joke and I wasn't really happy with Carter either because he didn't get pot legalized like he promised in the '70's. So, I was gonna vote for an Independent (can't recall who, must be that loss of short term memory) until a friend clued me in on what it might mean if Reagan was elected (the ability to appoint the highest judges in the land) so I voted Dem then and ever since even though I completely get it that the Dems and Mr. BO aren't much better than the GOPs. But, for me, they are good enough....for now.
1:38 PM
Hi Roy. It was Anderson. I voted for him too, and that's the last time I wasted a vote on a third party candidate.
Too bad Ralph Nader always waits until the last minute and then makes the empty gesture of offering a third party choice. If he were serious (and I think his views merit serious attention) he would have started organizing his '08 campaign in 2004, like Obama did.
By the way... do you think Bill Clinton would have won if Ross Perot hadn't split the Republican/Independent ticket?
2:22 PM
Votes for third party candidates are hardly wasted votes! I'd say the conviction with which you cast your choice is worth more than whether or your guy has a shot at winning. Does that mean that everybody wasted their vote for Gore? Cause he had zero shot at winning that one, regardless of the real outcome.
Now, voting for the lesser of two evils? Talk about a waste of Democracy. Not that you think Obama is a lesser of two evils - so nice to have a choice besides the rich white guy or the other rich white guy for a change. But so many shrug their shoulders and give that "lesser of two evils, whatcha gonna do" on both sides, and to me, that's the truly wasted vote. What kind of Democracy has so many people wishing they could choose "none of the above" so often?
3:19 PM
Clinton without Perot? maybe not by much, but yes, I think he would have squeaked out a win as he too promised change like OB. Plus, it was just too cool that Fleetwood Mac supported him and that he played Sax....I mean sex to great adulation.
3:20 PM
Clinton not only 'promised' change...he delivered. And Barack along with Hillary, Pelosi and all the other "SCARY" democrats will deliver too. So pooey on your guys negative, our guy is not good enough, America sucks comments! I can't wait to go to the polls next Tuesday and Check Obama/Biden for president/vp...and dem all the way down the ballot. I won't be scared into thinking nothing will change and things won't be great again...with the right, I mean LEFT leaders...I think four years will get us going in the right I mean LEFT direction:):):)
3:35 PM
Again Yak, please do your research. Nader has been organizing since 2004. The press doesn't cover him and he doesn't have the lobbyists in his pocket to get the power major party candidates have. He's been talked about and talked about in the alternative press -- and endorsed by many there. He just doesn't make the two-party dog and pony show covered by CNN and MSNBC and FOX. Indicentally, I think the only mainstream news that has interviewed him is a The Jim Leher News Hour on PBS. And PBS isn't exactly big numbers of viewers.
Did you know Nader has been protesting on Wall Street? Or that he and all the alternative candidates had a convention? Or that he has been giving speeches to packed houses all over the country? It's true. It's just not on Keith Olbermann or Huffington Post or in Rolling Stone. If you're corporate run -- and most of the media is -- you don't shoot yourself in the foot covering the guy who wants to drive you out of business.
He's polling 8% nationwide with virtually NO press. That's better than Anderson (who I campaigned for in high school) polled with huge press coverage and a national debate with Reagan.
THere is nothing "America Sucks" about protesting senseless murder in the name of rooting out "terrorists". It's not all or nothing, and we never progress by simply calling ourselves the name progressives and then buying every thing our side does hook, line and sinker.
I'm excited about our democracy, too. But I think both Ballbuster and I (and Nader and all the others with dreams of a more perfect union) want to keep our eyes on whoever is in charge, and make waves of descent when we think something is wrong. That's how this country was formed, after all.
I've never understood the idea that pointing out flaws was somehow anti-American. It's the most truly American thing a voter can do. Without people pointing out the flaws, we'd never have gotten 8 hour work days or an end to child labor laws or an freakin' end of slavery. Be glad there are pissy irritants around to stir the pot.
4:25 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
4:28 PM
Nobody said pointing out flaws of our leaders is Un-American...I just wonder where all of you truth seeking people were when we needed to point out the leaders that are already running our country...clearly into the ground!!!!
5:03 PM
If Nader has been organizing since 2004, he's been doing a piss-poor job of it. I'm talking about organizing like he actually WANTS to be first across the finish line... as it is, his efforts indicate he's content just to be one of the burrs under the Democrats saddle. I mean, come on... any decent media rep could get him on the networks if he seriously wanted to go there.
I think we SHOULD have more than two parties, as do nearly all the civilized European countries. If nothing else, dividing the possibilities of gaining access to power might reduce the vicious, dirty-tricks style of campaigning that our two-party race engenders.
5:05 PM
Just another thought...isn't that what Jeremiah Wright does...point out America's flaws???!!!
5:35 PM
Lots of us have been pointing out the country's flaws for the last 8 years. Many have called for Bush's impeachment but Pelosi took that off the table.
I actually agree with a lot of what Wright says -- but certainly not all of it (the government giving AIDS to kill black people is even too tinfoil hat nutty for ME) and certainly I wouldn't associate with him if I had any plans to be president.
Nader has sent out newsletter after newsletter to people who are on his mailing list asking us to write into the networks -- which I, for one, have repeatedly done -- to try to get coverage. He finally got interviewed on CNN for a few minutes -- where the guy basically asked him if he was content to always be basically a burr in the Democratic Party's ass. There is a YouTube of Nader speaking recently about how he went on Conan O'Brian against Triumph the Angry dog puppet because O'Brian is one of the only people who asked him on to their show. He has petitioned to be allowed to join the debates -- I signed that petition, too, and I wrote to the debate committee along with hundreds of thousands of others.
This is out there to read and see if anyone is so inclined.
Look, the media is in the bag here. Larry Sinclair who swears he had gay sex with Obama, who was put in jail by Biden's DA son on trumped up charges in Delaware (before Biden was selected VP -- I should have made that bet in Vegas when I found out about Sinclair) after a press conference before the convention has been picketing outside all the news networks begging for ANYONE to interview him about this. Biden Jr. threatened life imprisonment in Delaware ... then when Sinclair didn't back down and plea bargain, in fact when he said he was taking it to TRIAL, and enough people ONLINE were following the story, Biden and company dropped ALL charges in Delaware and let him go. Now, I'm not saying I necessarily believe Larry Sinclair, but what the hell does someone have to do to get the news to cover them if a guy swearing up and down for over a year that he did coke with Obama years ago and had sex with him, who has had death threats and been put in jail -- on trumped up charges -- can't get the news to cover his allegations then doesn't it say that SOMETHING is up with the news? Sinclair has had almost every website he has run taken down or hacked. I honestly don't know why the guy keeps on going with this story with all the hell he has gone through trying to be shut up. This isn't an argument for Sinclair's allegations -- I think he very well could be batshit crazy. But, that's the MEDIA'S job to find out. ANd I find it bizarre that the Dems successfully hid Edwards' affair -- until the National Enquirer of all sources finally got video of him coming out of her hotel and there was no WAY to hide it anymore.
Things are not always what they seem. I've read MOther Jones, Utne Reader and all the alternative rags for decades now and it is amazing what the mainstream press does NOT report. Doesn't always mean it's because it's not newsworthy.
(ANd on a completely unrelated note -- my family carved jack o lanterns tonight and they turned out really great!)
7:21 PM
Laurie, you are the one who is always going on about how the media isn't credible. Now you want them to report on a story that even you say may not be true? Maybe the media did research and find out that he is "batshit crazy".....
4:46 AM
Laurie: Never think I don't appreciate your passion.
Have you considered the possibility that these cover-up stories are Republican plants, part of a strategy to retain power by discrediting Obama, since their record is no basis for an outright win?
The reason I ask is that there are so many areas in which Democratic strategists could rumor-monger if they wanted to... McCain's involvement in Iran-Contra, for example, seems like a choice field to mine... I understand his name was on the stationery of a related support group, one headed by anti-semitic fascists.
Innuendo, in my opinion, is a cowardly tactic. The fact that Republicans haven't made the outright charge that Obama is a Muslim terrorist, but have implied this time and time and time again at their rallies and in their ads and interviews, means that they are tossing that ball to the dog pack in the assumption that it will take the bait and run with it. In other words, fear will do their dirty work while they sit around filing their nails and smelling like a rose.
Republicans don't have to convince anyone that their insinuations are correct in order to steal votes... they only have to raise enough doubt that they "might" be right.
I want the corrupt, failed Republican powers to get OUT of Washington... so I am not falling for the cowardly ploys of rumor and innuendo.
7:34 AM
Why would Republicans even need to resort to these tactics? They own the Diebold corporation, which owns and operates the voting machines. The machines will give their programmers whatever results they want, whether that's to tabulate one vote per vote cast; or, say, for some machines, one vote per two cast for Obama, or two votes per one vote cast for McCain.
Not saying that the election results won't be real, but who would be the wiser if they decided to program the machines to the Republicans' advantage? Not all areas have paper back up, do they?
3:32 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home