IAP Political Forum

McCain and Palin have proven themselves to be "Mavericks" in at least one regard: campaigning. Traditionally, candidates of both parties will "sharp contrasts" between themselves and their opponent while allowing various surrogates to handle the nasty personal attacks and character assassinations. This of course, allows the candidate to have his cake and eat it too. He can stay "above the fray" and look presidential while still reaping the benefits yielded by dirty politics.

We saw this demonstrated very clearly in the last election with Internet groups like MoveOn.org doing Kerry's dirty work, while on the opposite side, various 527's like Swiftboat Veterans for Truth carried Bush's dirty water. Of course both candidates publically denounced these attacks, and the groups making them. In reality, we all know they both were hoping would continue. As nasty as the 2004 election got, if you go back and look at the record, you will see that John Kerry and George Bush remained relatively respectful to one another. Bush stated numerous times that he respected the military service of John Kerry, believed him to have served honorably, and denounced the attacks being made on his service. Kerry did the same with the whole "Bush Lied, People Died" and "No War for Oil" nonsense coming out of the MoveOn nuthouse.

While the 2004 campaign did get very ugly, the vast majority of this ugliness was coming out of groups like MoveOn.org, Code Pink, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, etc., and not directly from the two campaigns themselves, who again, drew extremely sharp contrasts and distinctions between one another, but remained relatively respectful while doing so. Bush/Cheney never called Kerry a traitor; or questioned his patriotism; or questioned the validity of his purple hearts or his Vietnam-era activities, etc.. And Kerry/Edwards never called Bush a liar; or accused him of taking us to war for oil; or brought up his status as a Recovering Alcoholic and Drug Addict, etc. Obviously this kind of ultra-red meat could have come in extremely helpful to either campaign at various times during the election whenever either candidate needed to get their base extra fired up, or needed to change the subject fast because of an unfavorable news cycle, or needed to distract voters from an issue damaging to their candidate, etc.

But for whatever reason, neither candidate choose to cross that invisible line and deploy the so-called "nuclear option" for lack of better words - even if it meant losing the presidency. The were neck-and-neck heading into election day, why either candidate didn't pull out a "There is good reason to believe Kerry was a Communist in the past" or a "Bush clearly lied about WMD's to take us to war for oil" that would have undoubtedly helped either candidate, at least with the respective bases, going into the home stretch. But they did not. Both candidates maintained the same relative mutual respect all the way through to the concession call from Kerry.

Why not? Well, I believe it is because Kerry and Bush, like every other presidential candidate before them, understood that for either of them to cross over and lend the legitimacy to that line of attack could be dangerously irresponsible. As a candidate, one of you is going to be president. After the election is over, to have legitimized the idea that "the other guy" who is now the new President of the United States is a Communist Traitor or a Lying Murder who started a war for oil is just a line that would be too irresponsible to cross, even if it means losing the election. The unintended consequences of inciting hatred towards your opponent and openly supporting the notion that this is a dangerous person with dangerous ulterior motives is pretty frightening to think about. 

McCain and Palin clearly have a different belief. And this is what is scary to me. Right now, as we speak, McCain and Palin are out there campaigning on the central narrative that the Barack Obama you see is not the "real" Barack Obama, and that the "real" Barack Obama is actually a Muslim Terrorist with longstanding Terrorist connections and financing who is trying to detroy America because he believes America is evil. This is actually the same narrative Republican operatives have been pushing from the very start of the campaign on the web and via mass email campaigns. Only recently have the Candidates themselves actually picked up this narrative and started legitimizing it.

This week, McCain and Palin have repeatedly laid out all 3 main components of the narrative: 1) Obama is Muslim 2) Obama is a Terrorist 3) Obama hates America and wants to destroy the country from the inside out. At campaign rallies all this week, there has been a coordinated intentional effort by the McCain campaign to reintroduce Obama's middle name "Hussein" into the political rhetoric and discussion. Multiple times at multiple events, we have heard speakers at McCain/Plain events repeatedly refer to Senator Obama as Barack "Hussein" Obama. The middle name usage has been paralleled with repeated claims by Palin that Barack Obama as someone who "doesn't think like we do", and someone who does not like America, and as someone who associates with and "pals around" with known terrorists - always ending by asking "Who is the real Barack Obama?" - a clear invitation for the audience to "connect the dots" that have been laid out so neatly by the McCain campaign. After connecting those dots we see the real Barack Obama is a dangerous terrorist sympathizer who hates America and has evil ulterior motives for becoming president.

How do we know this? Take a look at McCain's face from the campaign rally in Florida earlier this week when, after being whipped into a frenzy of xenophobic hatred by Sarah Palin, John McCain comes out and asks the crowd "So who is the REAL Barack Obama?" and the angry mob shouts back "A TERRORIST!!!" and "KILL HIM!!! KILL HIM!!!" Take a lot at McCain's face after he hears the crowd's reaction. The utter look of complete shock washes completely over him. It looks like somebody physically punches him in the face when the crowd starts chanting "Kill Him! Kill Him!"

Why this is such a surprise to McCain I am not sure. Maybe he wasn't listening to the speech Sarah Palin was giving about Obama being a terrorist who hates America. I mean we are all fairly reasonable people on this forum, but I don't think a single one of us would stop at anything to prevent someone from becoming the President of the United States if we truly believed that person to be secret Traitor or a secret member of a Terrorist sleeper cell or a Terrorist sympathizer or someone who hates America with evil ulterior motives to harm the country.  If you believed for a fact the President of the United States to be a secret Muslim terrorist with a hidden agenda to destroy America from the inside out, and you had the opportunity to stop him by whatever means necessary - wouldn't you have to do that? Wouldn't that be your responsibility?

It's unfortunate McCain is so ignorantly clueless and out-of-touch, but he better find a way to start reigning in the rhetoric of his little airhead Barbie Doll sidekick because not everybody in America realizes these are just political tactics being used to change the debate away from the economy. When you say Barack Obama hates America and associates with terrorists, there are a lot of people who actually believe every single thing you just told them, and if you actually believe that stuff it's pretty darn easy to justify killing him.

What idiots. That's all I can say. I get on my knees and thank God every night these two morons now have no chance in hell of winning this election.   

 ???

Ryan, I feel virtually the same when I see protesters hanging Bush in effigy. Those of us on the right have been dealing with this kind of rhetoric for 8 years.

I've never heard McCain say Obama is a terrorist, although he's likely said that Obama has associates who ARE know terrorists. If I ever heard him call Obama either Muslim or a terrorist, or both, I'd be the first to repudiate it.

Campaign "narratives" are overriding campaign themes that are designed in such a way as to allow a singular conclusion to be drawn from a series of carefully crafted suggestions without the campaign having to explicitly state that conclusion. Right now one of the Obama campaign narratives is that McCain's age makes him mentally unfit to be president. Now does the Obama campaign come out and say "McCain is a confused old man" or "McCain is so old he's not mentally sharp enough to be president" - of course not. Instead, they lay out a series of dots and invite the public to connect them. They say things like McCain is "erratic" and/or "unpredictable". They continually point to his curious slip-up about refusing to hold talks with Spain - a NATO ally of the U.S. They also repeatedly suggest that McCain is "unsteady". The Obama campaign has also spent a non-typical amount of time talking about Sarah Palin's readiness to be President on day one if neccessary - certainly more time than they would spend talking about it if McCain was only 35 years old.

This isn't just all coincidence. These terms - "erratic", "unsteady", "unpredictable" - are all carefully choosen to elicit responses that will play into the narrative. When refering to McCain suspending his campaign to work on the bailout bill, they could just as easily use the term "opportunistic" in place of "erratic". In fact, opportunistic more accurately describes his campaign suspension than erratic. But erratic fits nicely into the description of an elderly person who is not all there, which is the narrative.

So does Obama come right out and say "McCain is an old elderly Senior Citizen who's not all there in the head and will likely die of old age before completing his full term as President and then we will be stuck with this airhead barbie doll as president" - of course not. But that is the narrative and it gets across to their supporters very clear. They lay out all the dots and let their supporters connect them.

Same exact thing with McCain/Palin and their current narrative of Obama I described before. Of course they don't come out and explicitly state he is a dangerous America-hating terrorist sympathizer - but when their supporters are chanting "Kill Him!" and "Terrorist! Terrorist!" you can rest assured this narrative is coming through loud and clear.  

Of course! Of course! Of course! Please go back and read my post again. You are missing the entire point. Of course there are fringe groups on both sides. This is where these radical attacks on both sides originate. For every nut claiming Obama is a muslim terrorist there's another nut claiming George Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. For every "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" group there is a "MoveOn.org". This will always be the case.

The HUGE difference here is that, traditionally, the nominated candidates of each party have served as the respective firewall for each group of nuts. People weren't hanging Bush in effigy at Kerry's campaign rallies and George Bush wasn't appearing at the end of Swift Boat Veteran's for Truth attack ads saying "I'm George Bush and I approve this message".

That was, and is, the entire point of my post. Kerry refused to legitmize the accusations that Bush was a liar who took us to war for oil. And George Bush refused to legitmize the accusations that John Kerry was a Communist sympathizer and a traitor during the Vietnam era. In fact, both men denounced such attacks. To repeat them would be to give a tremendous amount of credibility to these patently false attacks. So while that may be politically beneficial, it would be highly irresponsible. So long as these kinds of radical attacks stay within the fringe elements of both sides and are denounced by both major party leaders, they can never gain much credibility.

That is NOT what John McCain and Sarah Palin are doing. Now I don't believe for a second that John McCain actually believes that Barack Obama "pals around" with terrorists. But that is exactly what he is allowing Sarah Palin to repeat at every campaign stop in Flordia. And it's incredibly fucking stupid, irresponsible, and dangerous. Name me one other presidential election in American history - just one - where a candidate is giving a campaign speech to his supporters and the crowd is calling for the MURDER of the other candidate??????

You don't think this kind of rhetoric about Obama "paling around" with terrorists is dangerous? If not, you need to get a fucking clue because it's not cute or it's not folksy or something that should be taken in jest. This is serious shit. You're calling a United States Senator a terrorist sympathizer and claiming he doesn't like this country very much. Those are deadly accusations buddy. Not everybody in this country is a political Einstein you know. There's some really fucking stupid people that live in this country, particularly in the deep red states, with an abnormal level of American patriotism, a whole lot of guns, and NOT a whole lot to lose. I don't like this shit of dismissing deadly serious accusations as nothing. It's not nothing.


Well no shit. Come on, quit playing stupid. You've never heard Barack Obama call John McCain old or Sarah Plain stupid either. Read my response to bringbackwigs, this is about narratives and right now, this is the narrative they're pushing. Or let me put it to you this way, please answer this question for me........If not to paint Barack Obama as a terrorist, terrorist sympathizer, or someone who otherwise tolerates or condones terrorism than what is the point of trying to link a realtionship between him and Bill Ayers? What is the point of repeatedly referring to him as Barack "Hussein" Obama??? If his middle name was "Robert" would they be repeatedly referring to him by all 3 names??? Of course not and you fucking know it. So again, quit playing stupid. Anybody with half a brain knows they wouldn't be calling him Barack Hussien and trying to link him to Bill Ayers were it not to scare voters into thinking this guy has something to do with terrorism.

By the way, you need to get some of your information correct. Bill Ayers is not a "known terrorist" nor is he a "associate" of Barack Obama. Bill Ayers is a former member of the Weathermen Group - one of dozens of 1960's era radical leftist groups. The Weathermen, which Republicans call a "terrorist" group, did not conduct acts of terrorism (i.e. the intentional and/or indiscriminate murder, torture, or terrorization of innocent civilians in order to intimidate a group or government) . They conducted protest acts of violent civil disobedience against targeting buildings and property - not people. Wikipedia provides the following explaination.... 


The only deaths resulting from the Weathermen's activities were unintentional and accidential. This is not to condone them or anything they done, just to point out not any and all group is a terrorist group simply because they blow up stuff and you don't agree with them. The Weathermen targeted buildings and property for protest. Terrorists, by definition, target people. The Weathermen did not target people. Here, let me put it to you this way, if Bill Ayers was a "known terrorist" would he be teaching English Literature at a Chicago University right now? Why wouldn't he be in prision?

Secondly, Ayers is not an "associate" of Obama nor has he ever been an "associate" of Obama's. Ayers held a fundraiser for Obama once, and Ayers served with many people on an educational committee once - one of those many people being Barack Obama. Both of these chance meetings took place about 30 years or so AFTER the whole Weatherman activities.

   

Let us know when this is happening at Obama or Biden rallies. And let us know what Obama's or Biden's reaction is.

I won't wait up...

Some of you may be too young to remember, but in the 1990s there was a virulent reaction among right-wing fanatics against the Democratic Party's success. They convinced themselves that the tragedy at Waco was an intentional murder of innocent right-wingers. Rush Limbaugh was in full spout, and G. Gordon Liddy had a right-wing rant show urging that his listeners to "aim for their heads because they're wearing body armor" when shooting at federal law enforcement agents.

Then a right wing nut, Timothy McVay, who took this shit seriously, blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, murdering hundreds, including children in the on-site day care. That took a little steam out of the right wing ranters. G. Gordon Liddy slunk away back into his gutter.

But it was too late for some.

(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Cw6DAn8BNTXDOM:http://www.oklahomacitybombing.com/images/oklahoma-city-bombing-16.jpg)

Exactly. This video demonstrates my point exactly. These loons at these McCain/Palin rallies are just 1 or 2 lone nuts. I mean look at this video. Here is this crazy lunatic with fire in his eyes, absolutely seething with pure hatred, screaming at the top of his lungs into the microphone about his anger, and how mad he is about these "socialists" Obama and Pelosi taking over the country and screaming about how "somebody better do something about it".

And what does the crowd do? Awkard silence? Give the guy a strange look? Hell no! They erupt in violent applause screaming anger themselves! If this violent angry mentality was some kind of exception, and not the rule, that wouldn't be the case. People would simply look at him as some kind of weird cook.

Have you seen the most recent McCain/Palin rallies? These aren't rallies, they are bloodthirsty angry mobs who want Obama's head - litterally screaming for Obama's murder. All incited by Sarah Palin and John McCain. I mean this is fucking crazy.

Waco was a 'Democratic Party success?' For real?


Do you have any evidence that McVay was pursued by talk radio? Beyond Clinton's claim, that is.


People are angry and passionate. That's quite a far cry from 'pure hatred,' IMO.


Sorry, but people are pissed ... finally. People are seeing their life savings going down the drain and word is getting out that the Dems have some dirty hands in the deal. Obama is the poster child for Dems right now.


Does anyone have video evidence of someone calling for Obama's murder? That would be a great way to get the attention of Secret Service.

Look at this (disclaimer: I realize not all Republicans may share this view):

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/index.html


lol. People that think like this haven't seen a socialist in their entire life. A 'socialist' or a traitor to any of them is anyone not Republican and worthy of killing.

Why don't these nobs just say what they're too afraid to say? Republicans should take over by any means necessary and to hell with these "big government" election-thingys.

I think these people hate America and should get off the contenient. Seems like all that's left to come to these rallies are the rabble-rousers.

McCain ad:
Yep. Lie-diddy-lie-lie.






Yeah but nueue you forget that you're reasonable. I remeber that crying baby that was supposed to represent the democrat party. Not so funny to many now. I can still phathom reasons why someone might vote for McCain and I like McCain a hell of a lot more than Bush...but then I like nixion more than bush...but that's not these people. These people are the kind where one outta every 100 is probably a pshyco who would be willing to carry out the threat.




Ahk

Your faulty logic is an "Appeal to Ignorance". During the early to mid 1990's, there was a small, but vocal, group of radical rightwingers in this country demanding retaliation for the events at Waco. This small group demanding action included, in addition to McViegh, fringe rightwing talk radio nuts. It is entirely accurate to state McVeigh felt justified in his actions by the support and approval of others sharing his mindset. If you do a little research you will find McVeigh spend a great deal of time around those sharing his desire for a violent revenge against the federal government for Waco and Ruby Ridge - particularly ATF agents - whom McVeigh and his ilk especially despised. All of those sharing McVeigh's beliefs encouraged and emboldened him to action and it was only by having a group of others sharing his beliefs that he was able to find his co-conspirator Terry Nichols.    


Huh? These people are screaming "Kill Him! Kill Him!" and "Terrorist!!!" at these rallies and you don't call that "hatred"? What in the hell do you call hatred then?



People are not pissed about that. Did you even watch the video? The very first words out of this guy's mouth is "I'm angry! I'm really angry! And guess what? It's not about the economy!" to a boisterous erruption of cheers and applause. These people aren't pissed about the "economy". Pull your head out of the sand. These people are pissed because they are scared to death about a dangerous black muslim terrorist becoming president because that's what McCain and Palin have told them. And they want McCain and Palin to go after him harder on this Ayers thing. Do you listen to conservative talk radio? Do you watch Fox News? Do you watch these McCain/Palin rallies? Get a clue. These people don't want to talk about the economy. These people want Barack Obama's head on a platter and are pissed off McCain and Palin are not going after him harder on this Ayers thing and other past connections of Obama. That's what conservatives and McCain supporters are pissed about.  
    


Dude it's all over the news. Turn on your television. I can post you a link but you could find it fast on your own. At one of the most recent McCain rallies John McCain screams into the microphone as loud as he can "WHO IS BARACK OBAMA!!!" and the crowd yells back "Terrorist!" and "Kill Him!" and McCain gets this really stunned and shocked look on his face. These McCain rallies are out of control. It's a fucking lynch mob.

Correction. It's all over the news except Fox "news." You know, the fair and balanced one.

Maybe Neue has missed the fact that it go so bad the McCain himself finally had to ratchet down the rhetoric and admonish his own supporters. I found it amazing--and telling--that when he did, they booed him.

mccain trying to tame the flames he fanned earlier. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE

I wonder if right-wing kookland is going to pull another 1990s?

Those of us who lived through it will never forget the sheer insanity of the attacks on the Clintons — they were drug smugglers, they murdered Vince Foster (and lots of other people), they were in league with foreign powers.
And this stuff didn’t just show up in fringe publications — it was discussed in Congress, given props by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and so on.

 If the looney-bin right decides to treat President Obama as not just an opposition leader, but as a virtual enemy of the state, as they did with Bill Clinton, it's going to be a very, very long eight years. Whatever grownups are left in conservative-land really need to step up to the plate soon before their movement goes even further off the rails than it already is.

(addapted from Krugman's and Kevin Drum's blogs).

Its no more than the fringe discussion of Bush orchestrating 9/11 which got air time of major news networks and was furthered by the governor of MN.

Why do you few the radical right any different than the radical left?  A radical is a radical either was you cut it...the left field lefties treated Bush like an enemy of the state...why wouldn't you expect the right field righties to do the same? Why does Krugman (and yourself) think that they are any less warranted to equivalent in their attacks on a "opposition" president. 

It seems that bush is the butt of a lot of Jokes and negativity( which is fair) while Obama is a protected species.. which is not fair.

I don't know of any major news organisations that spoke of bush orchestrating 911, and i'd definitely be interested if anyone has them. There's a distinct difference between the tenor of the attacks against Bush and the shameful rhetoric McPalin is espousing here.

The worst I heard spoken of Bush was that he was a war criminal, something that considering Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Black prisons and the illegal invasion of Iraq, is hardly ambiguous.

The accusations of 'terrorist', 'traitor' and 'arab muslim' being leveled at Obama aren't even in the same moral league. It's despicable, dangerous, and the sign of desperation from the McCain camp, and frankly, I can't wait for his teary-eyed concession speech. 

Agreed.

A few months ago I didn't think that a McCain presidency would have been that bad (to be fair, he would be better than Bush in many respects). After what I've seen over the last month or so, the last thing I want is for those two to have the kind of power that comes with the presidency. They've done a bang-up job of turning my opinion of them straight down into the toilet. After this recent round of 'he's a terrorist' accusations, I hope neither of them get re-elected for their current posts either. People that irresponsible shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government.

As for the charges of Bush being a criminal, I think to remain 'unbiased' regarding that issue shows intellectual dishonesty and a willingness to tolerate the intolerable for partisan causes. I find it simply amazing how many people that profess high minded moral values can excuse torture.

I wonder in which election Karl Rove hurt McCain worse, 2000 or 2008?

Yeah, I notice that too. During Bush I, Dana Carvey hilariously ridiculed him on Saturday Night Live. Now it's Sarah Palin's turn to be turned into a national laughing stock by Tina Fey--which she richly deserved, by the way. I don't know why the right hardly ever comes up with the crushing satire that the left does. Of course, there are few figures in political life more worthy of crushing satire than, for example, Sarah Palin. What an easy and deserving target!

Perhaps people who are more liberally-minded are also more creative. There are devastating political cartoonists across the country, most of which tend to lean left of center. There's only one national political comic strip, Doonesbury, which is left. John Stewart's and Steven Colbert's "news" shows on Comedy Central are lefty. Saturday Night Live tends to mock the right more than the left. Oliver Stone is coming out with a movie, "W" that makes mince meat out of our hapless Texas idiot president. Why isn't there a right wing version of Michael Moore, making very successful movies independent of Hollywood? Everyone of these examples are successful because they are clever and amusing and entertaining.

No one is stopping the right from producing clever and amusing send-ups of the left, but they almost never do. Could it be that they can't? I remember Fox tried to emulate Comedy Central's "The Today Show," and it was a total flop. Why is that? Why isn't the right more represented by successful humor/satire? The free market will richly reward anyone who can entertain us. What's the matter with the right wing?

Could it be that being a conservative on the one hand, and having a sense of humor and being creative on the other hand are generally incompatible?
Or could it be that the antics of right wing just makes it an easier and more obvious target?
I don't know. But it's an interesting phenomenon.

That is actually interesting.

The only conclusion i can come up with is the right take them selves a lot more serious. Where as the left "talk shows" often include humor which "bags" the right wing and themselves, making it a lot harder for left to be ridiculed.

An example would be O'Reilly vs Stephen Colbert and John Stewarts.

Calling O'reilly a "pinhead" is far more amusing then calling Colbert one.

I guess its a lot easier to sit back and "poke a stick" at other peoples faults then to make a judgment and put yourself out there.

The answer is a lot simpler. Truth has a liberal bias, as Colbert said. It's bloody difficult to lampoon the left wing because liberal values are based on reason - which is why when you compare the works of either ideology, the left produces the vast bulk of true intellectualism, which is why it is associated with elitism, university campuses, philosophy, big words and ideas like care for the environment.

The right, essentially, can be divided into two bite sized collectives, namely big money and those exploited by big money, through fear, religion, racial hatred, anti-intellectualism and polarisation.

It's no coincidence that Sarah Palin has been heralded as some wunderkund of the conservatives. Look at what they say about her. She's "folksy". You Betcha. She don't use em big words like em volvo latte NYT lib pinko swines. She's got common sense and small town values...

It took her four universities and six years to get a bleeding journalism degree - and she couldn't name a single newspaper or magazine she reads. Here's her high school result ffs:

(http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/5731/b37a672064cd20ba06d2545tr9.jpg)

This is the person conservatives see as some sort of populist saviour, a backwater hockey mom that's into creationism and book banning and firing people that disagree with her. Can you see why the right is such low hanging fruit for satirists?

www.fivethirtyeight.com has an interesting article today that's in the vein of this thread. It contrasts an ad from the RNC and one from the McCain campaign.