Log in

No account? Create an account
. ..: .: ..::.: ..:.:.....: ...::: ...::.

April 2011
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

gwen [userpic]
Whoops, bad choice, McCain.

By now, you should have heard that McCain announced his VP selection, Sarah Palin. On the face of things, she might seem like a good idea -- she's non-threatening to him with her inexperience, she's young and female, breaking his old white men stereotype, she's a beauty queen (and America has always responded to beauty), and she's his kind of "maverick". But there's something you do not do when you're going into a presidential election... you do not have this sort of scandal hanging over you:

However, she is currently herself under investigation by state lawmakers over the dismissal of a state public safety commissioner.

She is alleged to have sacked him because he did not dismiss a state trooper involved in a contentious divorce from her younger sister.

Really? Even if that isn't true, that sort of current and active scandal is the sort of thing that can kill you; and it's entirely possible that it is true. So, McCain comes out of this looking desperate for choosing someone despite her obvious problems -- it's clear he just wanted a woman to combat Obama's minority status.

I swear, it's like McCain wants to lose -- every time he gains some ground in this race, he shoots himself in the foot with something incredibly stupid.

Current Mood: quixoticquixotic

Yeah. And it fits the frame of corrupt Alaskan Republicans. I mean, I'm not the target audience for this pick, but I just don't see it.

And /wow/ but it highlights the age issue.

Well, to be fair, she's actually just trying to make a dig at the VP position, however poorly stated.

I think it's also supposed to be a reference back to Bush Sr. who was on the record as saying that the VP's only job is to make a phone call each morning and ask if the president was okay.


She's actually trying to say her interest in the job would depend on what type of role the VP would have in McCain's administration.

“As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S. before I can even start addressing that question.”

Given how the Republicans are just plain nastier in campaigning, McCain probably figures he can get away with sweeping the scandal under the rug the same way his party always does: by blasting wave after wave after wave of false accusations at his opponent faster than his opponent can discredit them, thus turning all the attention to the damage-control on the Democrats' side, rather than his own damage control.

Why change what has sadly proven to work?

I recently had a conversation with someone who claimed that Obama was Muslim, and said, "they proved it!" She seemed quite flustered when I pointed out that what had been proven was actually the exact opposite. Sadly, there are plenty of people out there who still believe anonymous email forwards - if only because those lies provide a cover for the people who don't want to admit that they're racist.

The chain mail being taken as gospel thing is just a really weird phenomenon of today's techonology. People who I think really should know better have fallen into that trap.

Start a rumor disapproval chain letter with couple of lolcats embedded to keep it going?

I had a discussion with talldean about this. He pointed out that a great deal of the people who fall for this are older, less net-savvy people, who mostly get these emails from friends (or, at least, they appear to come from friends). They trust their friends, so they place trust in the email. They haven't yet learned to distrust anything that does not provide a source.

Obviously, that's not a description of everyone who falls for it, but it does hit quite a large chunk of them.

Most of the people I've gotten this sort of stuff from are younger than me.

I could make a dig about how we're old now, so that doesn't discredit the idea... but I won't ;)

Still, even leaving aside the rest of it, I think the part about how people tend to trust stuff that comes from friends, even if it is completely unsourced, is probably the most pertinent part, anyway.

Sadly, it really didn't take long for a conservative to prove me right:
"If all you knew of Obama was what he presented to you in his speech, you would think of him as a typical Democratic politician improved by the addition of a bit more thoughtfulness and idealism than the average representative of the class. You would be amazed to learn of his extremely close relationship to a radical anti-American preacher; or that he has followed a no-enemies-to-the-left approach to politics that put him in the company of an unrepentant terrorist. You would not suspect that he favors taxpayer-funded abortion or drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants. You would not realize that he has crossed party lines far less often than McCain. You would not imagine that he had ever voted against funding for troops in war zones. It would not cross your mind that this denouncer of hardball, self-interested politics might be having his campaign intimidate reporters out of looking into his record."

Sadly, the link is 404 now. I like the "unrepentent terrorist" label for the ex-hippie who became a yuppie.

Ah, it came back.

Of course, intelligent discourse in the National Review probably died with William F Buckley (as much as I disagreed with him, I at least respected him).

That's the thing: the Republicans have absolutely no interest in intelligent discourse. In fact, they do everything they can to derail intelligent discourse.

Look at the whole concept of accusing Kerry or Obama of being "elitist" primarily because they went to good schools. You'd think a good education would be a plus for a President, and that's where things would lead in intelligent discourse.

Instead, we get accusations of "elitism" because Kerry went windsurfing, and because Obama decided to get orange juice instead of coffee when he stopped in at a diner.

It's disgusting, and for some reason, the American people keep falling for it. Right now, I'm just hoping that enough voters don't this year.

I missed the OJ vs coffee thing. That's awesome.

The dems should turn that one around, "Obama likes Orange Juice, grown from Florida Oranges. McCain likes coffee, from regions often controlled by communists and terrorists...."


I worries me a little because if the majority looked at past performance and charges of corruption, Bush wouldn't have been elected. Twice.

(no subject) - (Anonymous)
Re: Baby!

Er... she has a husband, and he's perfectly capable of being a caregiver as well?

(no subject) - (Anonymous)
Re: Baby!

Maybe. As a progressive, I'm still vehemently unwilling to play that card. I've been arguing for years that we don't get to make decisions for mothers, and that holds true even for Republican mothers.

Re: Baby!

And probably an entire staff of caregivers for the child, actually.

However, it does point to her being a poor choice for a Republican candidate. If she were a Democrat, she could be lauded as being more "manly" and making her husband be the primary caretaker. As a Republican, she'll be considered less "motherly", something they don't want to advocate.

Of course, none of this will ever be openly discussed in public media (excepting a few outlying extremist blogs/papers), but it's certainly going to be mulled upon in living rooms and in, say, some random girl's blog comments.