.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Monday, August 04, 2008

Picture of the Day - 2


Amidst all the outcry against McCain's recent campaign tactics, the McCain campaign slogans and their fully intended comparative implications should probably also be mentioned.

"Country First" and perhaps far more offensively, "An American President for America."

(Sen. John McCain during a town hall-style meeting , July 31, 2008 in Racine, Wis.(AP Photo/Mary Altaffer))

posted by mikevotes at 7:50 AM

15 Comments:

  • I want to see the Obama campaign step out in front of this, and address the hideous transgressions of the previous 7 years of a Republican administration joined at the hip with rapacious oil companies.

    If Democrats spin their wheels attempting to answer or counter this nonsense, the real message will be lost in the uproar.

    By Blogger r8r, at 11:23 AM  

  • McCain is like Bush on the public stage in this regard: He has achieved a level national "legitimacy" by winning the Republican nomination. Now he's aggressively pushing the boundaries of ethics/social acceptability just knowing no one will do anything about it. Either out of apathy or because that would be too messy.

    And he's banking on the media's lack of interest in fact checking (and their warped sense of "balance") and their interest in having a horse race right up until November.

    He's throwing the kitchen sink, and throwing it hard, and he's looking you in the eye and saying "Yeah, I said that. Now what the fuck are you gonna do about it, pussy?" Knowing the answer, by and large, will be "John 'Maverick' McCain, gen-u-ine war hero and POW..."

    By Blogger -epm, at 11:28 AM  

  • From a campaign strategy point, I think the Obama camp realizes this is a marathon -- or a 17 round boxing match, to invoke a previous metaphor. Right now Obama has to simply prevent McCain's attacks from affecting voters opinions to any great degree.

    While the McCain campaign is in full bore, politicking-diarrhea mode, the Obama campaign has a tougher balancing act. How do they counter the McCain's viral campaigning tactics to mute their impact, while at the same time not create a tit-for-tat story line where the media treat the two campaigns as if they're on equal ethical/factual footing?

    In the final miles -- or the final rounds -- this October, Obama will have to crank up the heat. He'll have to make McCain a risky choice for voters. He'll have to make people afraid to vote for McCain.

    By Blogger -epm, at 11:38 AM  

  • r8r, I expect the Dem convention, and the time around it, to be themed towards that. A first "half" that talks about all the bad Bush history (what we're trying to get away from) and then a second "half" that focuses on Obama as solution, capping with his speech.

    .....

    EPM, EPM, That's the key, who's gonna stop him. There's very little outrage (maybe because he's seen as losing?) There's also the element that "they just cover" the campaign (as if that ever stopped them from injecting opinion before.)

    And, what you're calling the kitchen sink is what Josh Marshall calls the "bitch slap" theory of politics.

    Second, I agree with your analysis. The Obama campaign is sooooo disciplined. They have a plan and they're sticking to it. (I'm guessing they have polling showing all of this is not having any big effect.)

    What they've done so well is to create a broad narrative and peak when they needed to.

    Interestingly, they seem to appreciate that the enthusiasm will wear, and they try to gin it up only when they need it.

    Short version. I'm still not worried. They have done nothing throughout this whole primary and campaign to make me think they don't know what's going on.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 12:02 PM  

  • "where the media treat the two campaigns as if they're on equal ethical/factual footing?"

    Heaven forbid that the media not be partisan and biased toward one campaign or the other.

    By Blogger realist, at 1:13 PM  

  • to address the point about "An American President for America."

    That is a very bad slogan. It implies some sort of contrast with his opponent.... as if Obama is not American. It might appeal to those who bought into the Hillary Clinton campaign's statement that Obama was a Muslim "manchurian candidate".

    While there is nothing racial in McCain's campaign, there are other problems to point out, of course.

    By Blogger realist, at 1:39 PM  

  • Realist, the point in the "treat the two campaigns" comment is not on dead neutral issues. It's an extension of an earlier conversation we've had where ridiculously false charges are treated as "controversy" where each side gets equal representation on TV talk shows giving the impression that the facts are dubious and the positions are equal.

    It's like giving TV time to some loony who says McCain was in the klan and then giving a McCain surrogate equal time. The equality gives the impression that both sides in the debate are equal which they clearly would not be.

    But it makes good "controversy TV" so we keep seeing it.

    ....

    As for the slogan, it's not one they're pressing, but it is carried as a slogan on the McCain website, and it's problematic for me too.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 2:36 PM  

  • Country first? from a bunch of Israel firster neocons? Which country are they talking about?

    By Blogger Lew Scannon, at 3:04 PM  

  • Whole 'nother issue there.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 4:28 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger realist, at 5:14 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger realist, at 5:24 PM  

  • Realist, Neocon is not an anti-Semitic word.

    Neocon is a (now derogatory) term applied to a particular foreign policy view which generally tends to focus on (or at least prominetly include) Israel security requirements.

    Anti-Semitism is about Judaism.

    Call him anti-Israel if you want, but anti-semite is not only loaded, but inaccurate. It's a way to shut down debate in a shout, not an argument.

    There are lots of Jews (maybe a majority in Israel) who disagree with tenets of the neocon foreign policy.

    Being against bombing Iran, for instance, doesn't mean someone wants Israel to disappear. That's jingoistic and, quite frankly, stupid.

    So, let's choose our language a little more carefully.

    I'm gonna zap both your comments because "Israelis first into the ovens" is not acceptable.

    Slamming someone as an anti-Semite because they use the word neocon is not acceptable.

    Calling them a Hitler lover is not acceptable.

    Sorry, but that's the way the house sees it. You're way over the line.

    (Just so you know, I reserve the right to delete comments for profanity (this isn't) or for what I consider to be hostile crosstalk.)

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 5:44 PM  

  • The first commenter used the "israel first" code word which is found in modern antisemitic rants, one of which I linked to.

    I did not slam him as an antisemite for using the word neocon. Most who use this word are not antisemites. However, there is a certain small antisemitic group, as closely related to the Pat Buchanan wing of the conservative movement as anything, who use "neocon" as part of a narrative in which neocons are just part of the Jewish menace. They readily list the names of any Jewish person who is considered a neocon as if that proves anything. The site I linked to offered many typical statements, and that guy's code word was in the first line.

    You said "Call him anti-Israel if you want, but anti-semite is not only loaded, but inaccurate"

    There is so much overlap with hating Israel and its people, and hating Jews in general, that typically the two go together. Why hate Israel? Because it's full of Jews. Why hate any nation or be "anti-" any country? Out of hate, really.

    I think I've seen you use the term "neocon", and others in this blog and the linked ones. However, that certain commenter was the only one at all who appeared antisemitic. The rest of you certainly do not.

    I do agree that "Slamming someone as an anti-Semite because they use the word neocon is not acceptable.", and I have not done it. The "Israel first" codeword was what I found offensive, not the use of the word neocon.

    McCain is not antisemitic. Obama certainly is not. Nor are you and just about everyone here. But that one guy used a codeword that I've seen too many times as someone ramps up a Jew-bashing rant.

    By Blogger realist, at 8:50 PM  

  • I admit, I didn't notice his Israel first line, but still, you're out there.

    To think you cannot disagree with the policies of Israel without hating all jews is insane.

    There are people in Israel who disagree with the policies of the Israeli government. Lots of them. Lots and lots.

    I get your point about the coded language. I'm not sensitive to it. My guess is Lew was using that structure to contrast with "America First" not as some slam. I don't know, so I'm not really going to take up sides.

    My objection was to the hostile cross comments.

    Enough. I'm done worrying about this.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 8:59 PM  

  • I apologize to Lew for assuming too much from those two words.

    Disagreeing with Israeli policy is not antisemitic, of course. I never claimed that. However, disagreeing with the right of the nation and its people to exist is antisemitic. This latter sort of thinking was found in the document I linked to.

    By Blogger realist, at 9:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home