I am amazed that many saw this last debate as McCain's best of the three. Did you watch it?
I watched it on a 42" HDTV screen and it was not a pretty sight. I probably saw more than was wise. McCain seemed to have practiced "looking at" Obama, but he maybe should have practiced with an actor that really looked like Obama, instead of one of his cohorts like preppie Tucker Bounds. Oh, I am sorry, I forgot he only hires white Lobbyists, or is it that they hire him? In the actual debate McCain sat with a fixed smile fixed rigidly on his face, while his eyes shown like glowing black Opals firing bolts of hatred. And what was with all the blinking?
I swear that I have never seen anyone blink that rapidly unless they were on a witness stand trying to take their way out of a murder charge. Have McCain and Palin become Blinky and Winky? A neighbor, who has thrown herself so completely into the Obama campaign that she says she may go broke and have to move, said that McCain's serial blinking reminded her of Inspector Clouseau's deranged superior officer in the "Pink Panther" who grew to hate Clouseau so much that in the end he tried to kill him. We pointed out the similarity to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, in hopes that one of them can pull together a "split screen" comparison of the Pink Panther movie actor and the anguished candidate, doing some synchronized blinking. Stay tuned.
The contrast with Obama could not have been more clear. Obama seemed cool and at ease, McCain seemed tightly wound and about ready to physically attack Obama. Okay, so the election is not trending well for McCain, but he telegraphed his anger and resentment that he thinks a young punk is winning, instead of him. And all of McCain's talk of Obama's "eloquence"? Hey, McCain is a very, very smooth talking dude, able to bob and weave and extricate himself from trouble very adroitly. What drives McCain crazy is that Obama is just a whole lot better than McCain, at his own game, and on top of that, Obama is not prone to fits of public rage. That makes Obama a far, far more effective candidate... and negotiator. He just keeps making his points, listening to his opponents, showing respect and sticking to his own agenda. That's the guy I want negotiating on our behalf, not someone with anger management issues and a short fuse. McCain, by contrast, is legendary on Capitol Hill for losing his temper and cursing his colleagues when they do not give him with what he wants. I somehow doubt that telling President Putin to F---- himself will work all that well as a negotiating technique.
Astoundingly, even David Brooks, who I believe is a complete tool, has written a piece that does an interesting job of addressing the issue of demeanor differences between Obama and McCain. He came perilously close to gushing, so he had to save himself by adding in a couple of disclaimers, but in general it looks as though he thinks the odds of Obama becoming one of our great Presidents looks fairly high. Stop and think how difficult it must have been for a reliable Republican apologist like Brooks to write those words.
And McCain's gambling habits? I can understand why he prefers craps. He has a lousy "poker face", with his rate of blinking being his "tell". By comparison Obama is a legendary poker player, steady, incremental and the despair of his opponents.
So while McCain may have kept his cool, verbally, visually he was difficult to watch. McCain was like someone who is pretending to be calm, but whose body language is giving them away. I suspect that he believes that he has already lost, but was manfully working to try not to let it show. By contrast, McCain's wonderful comedy turn at the Al Smith Dinner gave us a preview of the post-campaign McCain. Oddly, my impression is that losing this election may be the best thing that ever happened to John McCain. Being elected would probably have been a disaster for McCain, the country and very possibly his marriage, whereas coming through this hard-fought campaign, working to end it on a high note, may resound to his credit. But to achieve that McCain has to cancel his creepiest ads and his dreadful robo-calls. I HATE robo-calls, even if they are positive ones. If I ever got a negative robo-call it would send me through the roof in anger at someone calling me to insult my intelligence and spew hatred at me over the phone. To make negative robo-calls is the dangerous and desperate ploy of a failed campaign.
Here is my favorite section from this article:
Mr. McCain’s advisers said that in his speeches, television advertisements and mailings, he would seize on a remark Mr. Obama made in an encounter with an Ohio voter, Joe Wurzelbacher, who had pressed him to explain his support for a tax increase for upper-income filers. Mr. Obama responded by saying he wanted to “spread the wealth.” Mr. McCain repeatedly invoked that encounter with the man, whom he called “Joe the Plumber,” during the debate on Wednesday.
“Spread the wealth around: We will focus acutely on that,” said Steve Schmidt, Mr. McCain’s chief strategist. “Spread the wealth around is a big mistake.”
Seriously? Is that something the vast majority of the American people are going to be horrified at the thought of? Are you? There could not be a more telling sign of what complete morons the McCain campaign staff are. Steve Schmidt's comment tells us that he believes "wealth" to be something that he, and the privileged few, must lie and cheat and steal to get hold of, while the vast majority of Americans work as servants or field-hands, laboring long hours without complaint, singing plaintive Spirituals while they work.
Gosh, I wonder why the American people aren't just rushing out to sign on to that vision of our future? What IS the matter with all these people? Don't they realize their true place in the big scheme of things? They are peons, they will always be peons and their children will always be peons. Right? Wrong. The idea that our society ought to be stratified into "haves" and "have nots" is morally bankrupt. Further, the more economic gains that the middle, lower-middle and lower economic groups in our society are able to make, the more education that they and their children are able to get, the better their health and healthcare, the stronger we are as a people, as a nation. What is so complicated about that basic idea? And since many Republicans claim to be devout Christians, doesn't that ideal, that goal, tally very well with Christ's teachings? What did Christ say? In Matthew 25:40 we read:
"...Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me."
What does that mean? It seems to mean that a charitable act toward someone who is struggling is the equivalent of doing a good deed to God. So if it makes sense, economically as well as in Biblical terms, to aid those who are (a) struggling economically (b) struggling to get healthcare (c) struggling to keep their families together (d) struggling to keep their kids in school and help them value and gain an education, what is the McCain campaign thinking when they seize on the phrase "spread the wealth around" as a rallying point for their "base"? Who is their base? Modern day robber barons? The entitled, the enfrancised, the inherited wealth-holders? That is such a small part of the overall voting public that while it might help McCain raise money (though this year it does not seem to be) it is not likely to snooker many people of average means into voting for him. In a year when things are feeling pretty upbeat and larger numbers of people can harbor the illusion that they might get lucky and win the lottery, or score big on a real estate deal, or get a hot stock tip... or something, there is a greater percentage of people who ASPIRE to be in the upper economic classes. Americans are a wonderfully optimistic people, and fairly delusional as well. But somehow this year things are not feeling very upbeat. The problem? The Bush administration. Bush and his advisors had to have known that the economy was very shaky as long as six months ago, but did they want to take any corrective actions? Noooo, it would look like weakness. Instead they hoped, really hard, that if they just closed their eyes and thought about Kansas that it would all just stay together until after the election of John McCain. And then it would be his problem. This administration made this economic mess happen, then they purposely delayed to correct it, thus making it far worse. Is there anything this administration can't screw up? Let's see. There are still three months to go before the Obama administration takes over. Just think of the mischief they can accomplish in that time!
Whatever they do, unless they manage to start a nuclear war, we will survive. Compared to the Civil War this is child's play. What a slogan!
"The Bush administration: almost as bad as the Civil War, but not quite!"
Arthur
I watched it on a 42" HDTV screen and it was not a pretty sight. I probably saw more than was wise. McCain seemed to have practiced "looking at" Obama, but he maybe should have practiced with an actor that really looked like Obama, instead of one of his cohorts like preppie Tucker Bounds. Oh, I am sorry, I forgot he only hires white Lobbyists, or is it that they hire him? In the actual debate McCain sat with a fixed smile fixed rigidly on his face, while his eyes shown like glowing black Opals firing bolts of hatred. And what was with all the blinking?
I swear that I have never seen anyone blink that rapidly unless they were on a witness stand trying to take their way out of a murder charge. Have McCain and Palin become Blinky and Winky? A neighbor, who has thrown herself so completely into the Obama campaign that she says she may go broke and have to move, said that McCain's serial blinking reminded her of Inspector Clouseau's deranged superior officer in the "Pink Panther" who grew to hate Clouseau so much that in the end he tried to kill him. We pointed out the similarity to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, in hopes that one of them can pull together a "split screen" comparison of the Pink Panther movie actor and the anguished candidate, doing some synchronized blinking. Stay tuned.
The contrast with Obama could not have been more clear. Obama seemed cool and at ease, McCain seemed tightly wound and about ready to physically attack Obama. Okay, so the election is not trending well for McCain, but he telegraphed his anger and resentment that he thinks a young punk is winning, instead of him. And all of McCain's talk of Obama's "eloquence"? Hey, McCain is a very, very smooth talking dude, able to bob and weave and extricate himself from trouble very adroitly. What drives McCain crazy is that Obama is just a whole lot better than McCain, at his own game, and on top of that, Obama is not prone to fits of public rage. That makes Obama a far, far more effective candidate... and negotiator. He just keeps making his points, listening to his opponents, showing respect and sticking to his own agenda. That's the guy I want negotiating on our behalf, not someone with anger management issues and a short fuse. McCain, by contrast, is legendary on Capitol Hill for losing his temper and cursing his colleagues when they do not give him with what he wants. I somehow doubt that telling President Putin to F---- himself will work all that well as a negotiating technique.
Astoundingly, even David Brooks, who I believe is a complete tool, has written a piece that does an interesting job of addressing the issue of demeanor differences between Obama and McCain. He came perilously close to gushing, so he had to save himself by adding in a couple of disclaimers, but in general it looks as though he thinks the odds of Obama becoming one of our great Presidents looks fairly high. Stop and think how difficult it must have been for a reliable Republican apologist like Brooks to write those words.
And McCain's gambling habits? I can understand why he prefers craps. He has a lousy "poker face", with his rate of blinking being his "tell". By comparison Obama is a legendary poker player, steady, incremental and the despair of his opponents.
So while McCain may have kept his cool, verbally, visually he was difficult to watch. McCain was like someone who is pretending to be calm, but whose body language is giving them away. I suspect that he believes that he has already lost, but was manfully working to try not to let it show. By contrast, McCain's wonderful comedy turn at the Al Smith Dinner gave us a preview of the post-campaign McCain. Oddly, my impression is that losing this election may be the best thing that ever happened to John McCain. Being elected would probably have been a disaster for McCain, the country and very possibly his marriage, whereas coming through this hard-fought campaign, working to end it on a high note, may resound to his credit. But to achieve that McCain has to cancel his creepiest ads and his dreadful robo-calls. I HATE robo-calls, even if they are positive ones. If I ever got a negative robo-call it would send me through the roof in anger at someone calling me to insult my intelligence and spew hatred at me over the phone. To make negative robo-calls is the dangerous and desperate ploy of a failed campaign.
Here is my favorite section from this article:
Mr. McCain’s advisers said that in his speeches, television advertisements and mailings, he would seize on a remark Mr. Obama made in an encounter with an Ohio voter, Joe Wurzelbacher, who had pressed him to explain his support for a tax increase for upper-income filers. Mr. Obama responded by saying he wanted to “spread the wealth.” Mr. McCain repeatedly invoked that encounter with the man, whom he called “Joe the Plumber,” during the debate on Wednesday.
“Spread the wealth around: We will focus acutely on that,” said Steve Schmidt, Mr. McCain’s chief strategist. “Spread the wealth around is a big mistake.”
Seriously? Is that something the vast majority of the American people are going to be horrified at the thought of? Are you? There could not be a more telling sign of what complete morons the McCain campaign staff are. Steve Schmidt's comment tells us that he believes "wealth" to be something that he, and the privileged few, must lie and cheat and steal to get hold of, while the vast majority of Americans work as servants or field-hands, laboring long hours without complaint, singing plaintive Spirituals while they work.
Gosh, I wonder why the American people aren't just rushing out to sign on to that vision of our future? What IS the matter with all these people? Don't they realize their true place in the big scheme of things? They are peons, they will always be peons and their children will always be peons. Right? Wrong. The idea that our society ought to be stratified into "haves" and "have nots" is morally bankrupt. Further, the more economic gains that the middle, lower-middle and lower economic groups in our society are able to make, the more education that they and their children are able to get, the better their health and healthcare, the stronger we are as a people, as a nation. What is so complicated about that basic idea? And since many Republicans claim to be devout Christians, doesn't that ideal, that goal, tally very well with Christ's teachings? What did Christ say? In Matthew 25:40 we read:
"...Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me."
What does that mean? It seems to mean that a charitable act toward someone who is struggling is the equivalent of doing a good deed to God. So if it makes sense, economically as well as in Biblical terms, to aid those who are (a) struggling economically (b) struggling to get healthcare (c) struggling to keep their families together (d) struggling to keep their kids in school and help them value and gain an education, what is the McCain campaign thinking when they seize on the phrase "spread the wealth around" as a rallying point for their "base"? Who is their base? Modern day robber barons? The entitled, the enfrancised, the inherited wealth-holders? That is such a small part of the overall voting public that while it might help McCain raise money (though this year it does not seem to be) it is not likely to snooker many people of average means into voting for him. In a year when things are feeling pretty upbeat and larger numbers of people can harbor the illusion that they might get lucky and win the lottery, or score big on a real estate deal, or get a hot stock tip... or something, there is a greater percentage of people who ASPIRE to be in the upper economic classes. Americans are a wonderfully optimistic people, and fairly delusional as well. But somehow this year things are not feeling very upbeat. The problem? The Bush administration. Bush and his advisors had to have known that the economy was very shaky as long as six months ago, but did they want to take any corrective actions? Noooo, it would look like weakness. Instead they hoped, really hard, that if they just closed their eyes and thought about Kansas that it would all just stay together until after the election of John McCain. And then it would be his problem. This administration made this economic mess happen, then they purposely delayed to correct it, thus making it far worse. Is there anything this administration can't screw up? Let's see. There are still three months to go before the Obama administration takes over. Just think of the mischief they can accomplish in that time!
Whatever they do, unless they manage to start a nuclear war, we will survive. Compared to the Civil War this is child's play. What a slogan!
"The Bush administration: almost as bad as the Civil War, but not quite!"
Arthur
1 comment:
"...even David Brooks, who I believe is a complete tool"
I can hold my tongue no longer, as usual. When you call David Brooks a "Dick" and use that drug metal band terminology description, I find it obnoxious and somewhat telling of your predisposition. Tell me I'm wrong.
I have listened to Shield's and Brooks (of McNeil-Lehrer report fame) on PBS for months and find them the cream of the crop in this mayhem of insane partisan politics.
'Blinking and winking" aside, I chose to tune in to Dodger Stadium and watch the LA/Phillies game rather than the political version of "Truth or no Consequences". A MLB game is incredible "on a 42" HDTV screen".
I figured that I could watch the debate replay on factcheck.org to see who would pass the proverbial polygraph test as the bullshit meter went off the charts.
As usual both failed to conform to fact or actuality most of the time.
Now finally on that phrase “Spread the wealth around" and "Seriously? Is that something the vast majority of the American people are going to be horrified at the thought of? Are you?"
Well let's go back in time to 1917, OK? Alexander Kerensky became prime minister of Russia after the February revolution and he had a very different philosophy than Lenin, his sworn enemy. Kerensky wanted the poor to become rich by working harder in the new Russia. Lenin, however, wanted the rich to become poor by the redistribution of their wealth. Now we know the rest of that story, don't we?
Which part of "spread the wealth around" applies here?
Post a Comment