Just a reminder

This is why it is important to elect Democrats at all levels of power.

Never liked calamari anyway

Confirmation Bias

Today is "steal good shit from Reddit" day:

Its a mistake to think that McCain's campaign is merely telling lies. That misses the point entirely.
What they are doing is telling every demographic something they want to hear.

Their plan, apparently, is to use the human frailty of confirmation bias to get votes.

People will see McCain on TV saying some random thing. Sometimes its
something they don't care about, sometimes its something they disagree
with, and sometimes its something they agree with and want to hear.

A month later, however, most people will only remember the that
thing they wanted to hear, the things they disagreed with will be faded
from their memory.

This is why McCain sounds so insane to people on Reddit who are
constantly paying attention. He says some really nutty stuff that would
only appeal to nutcases in some corner of the country. However, the
average voter won't be paying much attention until a few days before
the election, and will only remember that one thing they heard and
agreed with.

Is McCain a redhead?

Stolen from a commenter on reddit:

The next time someone says "I'm not voting for Obama because he's a Muslim," I'm going to respond "Well I'm not voting for McCain because he has long red hair.

They will, of course, be completely taken aback. That's when I'll say, "What, you mean that you're confused that I'm basing my voting decision on something that is not only a complete, verifiable lie, but that shouldn't even affect my decision if it were true? Now you know how I feel."

Glower Power

Serious right-wing criticism of Charlie Gibson's performance in his interview of Sarah Palin.

Did he have to glower?

Lordy! Lordy! Lordy! Sarah Palin is so fragile that she can't take a little glowering from Charlie Gibson!






What will she do when this guy glowers at her?

Clarifying my thoughts

Sarah Palin's comments about a possible war with Russia are explosive, but not for the reason some people seem to think.

If you read the transcript (I haven't seen the video) it is clear that Palin is NOT advocating for a war with Russia. Nor is she saying that we should go to war if Russia invades another country. That was not her mistake.

Her statement was that a Russian invasion of a NATO nation (which is what Georgia wants and (I think) McCain and Palin are advocating) would require America to go to war with Russia. This is technically correct. Again, this was not her mistake.

Her mistake was in getting bogged down in a hypothetical.

World leaders, especially leaders with nuclear weapons, must always be careful when choosing their words. "War" is perhaps the most incendiary of all such words. And "War with Russia" just adds fuel to the fire. A good leader does not throw out a comment like this without a lot of careful thought. Because, if a world leader does not think carefully, they could just aggravate an already tense situation. Sarah Palin's statement was technically true, but hypothetically disastrous. THAT was her mistake.

So don't get dragged into a fight with people about the technical details of the NATO treaty. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether it is a good idea to have as VP a person who doesn't understand the most basic rules of diplomacy.

Palin fell victim to one of the classic blunders

And the most famous one at that: Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

(Inconceivable!)

----

On a more serious note ... The really bad part of Palin's statement is that she forgot (or more likely never knew) the most important rule in politics and diplomacy: never answer a hypothetical.

War with Russia?

In her first real interview Sarah Palin demonstrates why she was a poor pick for VP.

The point is not that "war with Russia" wouldn't be a consequence of a Russian invasion of a NATO signatory. That very well could be the result.

The point is that world leaders don't talk casually about war, especially war with a nation that has the firepower to wipe us off the face of the planet.

People may be aggravated by the way politicians and diplomats use euphemisms to skirt around these topics, but there is a very good reason why they do it. If they say something off the cuff in a casual manner like "ordinary folks" they could needlessly aggravate already tense situations. Someone who has experience with foreign policy would know that. An unknown and untested political neophyte like Palin would not.

Democrats should not attack this with the claim that Palin was in any way advocating for war with Russia. My read of the transcript shows that she was clearly not doing that. But she was being rather cavalier with the whole concept and THAT is why should is a poor pick for VP.

God I love a righteous rant

Craig Ferguson, newly minted U.S. citizen, takes everyone to task (candidates, parties, the media, and the people) all to the point that this shit really matters so take it seriously!

Dishonor

A military veteran on honor:

... I believe that past honorable service and dedication to duty and country does not immunize one against poor judgment, failure or even from doing the wrong thing. I believe that ones honor is not something one does once and then puts it on a shelf where it shines forever. Honor is second by second, minute by minute, hour by hour and year by year. It is only as untarnished and undiminished as ones past and ones last action.

John McCain acts like his past displays of honor and courage somehow give him cover for acting dishonorably now. This is akin to thinking that drinking a diet soda will offset the calories in the hamburger he is eating.

Past honor does not immunize you from future accusations of dishonor. It makes greater the demand that you act honorably.

John McCain is a dishonorable man.

"Being President of this country is entirely about character."

Kyle E. Moore:

If the McCain campaign wants to make this about character, I got one huge character flaw for the McCain/Palin ticket: they are liars who hate Americans so much they refuse to tell them the truth or how they plan on addressing the issues that we Americans are concerned most about. I can think of no character flaw that would disqualify someone more from the highest office in the land.

I am reminded of this.

Shepherd "That's all right, you can keep your seats. For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was, to a certain extent, about character, and although I have not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I've been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character.

"For the record: Yes, I am a card- carrying member of the A.C.L.U. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? This is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the questions. Why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for president, choose to reject upholding the Constitution? If you can answer that question, then, folks, you're smarter than I am, because I didn't understand it until a couple of minutes ago. Everybody knows American isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free. I've known Bob Rumson for years. I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong.

"Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it. Nobody has ever won an election by talking about what I was just talking about.

"This is a country made up of people with hard jobs that they're terrified of losing. The roots of freedom are of little or no interest to them at the moment. We are a nation afraid to go out at night. We're a society that has assigned low priority to education and has looked the other way while our public schools have been decimated. We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious men to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, friend, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: Making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle- income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and personal character. Then you have an old photo of the President's girlfriend. You scream about patriotism and you tell them she's to blame for their lot in life, you go on television and you call her a whore. Sydney Ellen Wade has done nothing to you, Bob. She has done nothing but put herself through law school, prosecute criminals for five years, represent the interests of public school teachers for two years, and lobby for the safety of our natural resources.

"You want a character debate? Fine, but you better stick with me, 'cause Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league. I've loved two women in my life. I lost one to cancer, and I lost the other 'cause I was so busy keeping my job I forgot to do my job. Well that ends right now.

"Tomorrow morning the White House is sending a bill to Congress for its consideration. It's White House Resolution 455, an energy bill requiring a 20 percent reduction of the emission of fossil fuels over the next ten years. It is by far the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out and writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and handguns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns. We've got serous problems, and we need serious men, and if you want to talk about character, Bob, you'd better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American values, fine. Just tell me where and when, and I'll show up. This is a time for serious men, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up. My name's Andrew Shepherd, and I am the President."

Rightwing critique of Obama: he isn't nasty so he shouldn't win

I don't normally follow right-wing blogs, but this lipstick shit has got me scanning some of the dark side and I found this posting over on Riehl World View particularly interesting:

From Joe Klein to Andy Sullivan they are cursing the world and most especially John McCain for his evil, Rovian deeds. Pardon me if I'm unmoved by their deep pain, given that if Obama were making the correct moves to win right now, they'd be suffering no real shame. They'd simply rationalize it as, well, you know, it's what he has to do to beat the Bush / Rove / now McCain machine.

So let me see if I understand this. Riehl isn't denying that McCain and Palin aren't lying. He isn't denying that McCain/Palin aren't feigning outrage over the "lipstick on a pig comment". He isn't denying that McCain/Palin aren't trying to paint Obama as a pervert for wanting to teach toddlers about sex.

No, what he is saying is that this is what you have to do to win the Presidency and if Obama isn't up to doing so then he doesn't deserve to win.

In Riehl's World View lying, smearing, and sleeze, as long as they are used to win power for someone he agrees with, are perfectly acceptable.

Well, I suppose that is a refreshingly honest point of view. Even if it is evil.

Naive

E.J. Dionne:

This is not false naivete: I am genuinely surprised that John McCain and his campaign keep throwing out false charges and making false claims without any qualms.

I believe him. He really was naive. Will he continue to be?

Oooh, Shiny!

Notice something missing here:

However, in the view of MSNBC's Chuck Todd, the McCain ad is an effective ploy. "I think the McCain campaign is laughing their butts off this morning that any of us have taken the bait on this lipstick thing," he told Joe Scarborough. "I mean, this is a joke. ... It's such a faux controversy. It's made up out of whole cloth."

"They're good at winning the news cycles," Todd acknowledged. "And they have beaten the Obama campaign on this little -- what I call sort of shiny metal objects days."

Hint: Todd is part of the media that "takes the bait" and goes after the "shiny metal objects".

I'd love to see a CAT scan of a political journalists brain. I'd like to know how someone's brain is structured so that it will allow them to criticize what they are doing while still justifying their continued actions.

Obama was right to characterize stories like this as "catnip for the media".

Enough!

Obama:

“They seize on innocent remarks, try to throw them out of context, throw up an outrageous ad because they know that it’s catnip for the news media,” Obama said before delivering remarks about education to a small group of supporters gathered in a high school library. “I don’t care what they say about me but I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift boat politics. Enough is enough.”

...

“This whole thing about lipstick. Nobody actually believes that these folks are offended,” he said. “Everybody knows it’s cynical. Everybody knows it’s insincere. This is a game we play, it’s a game, it’s a sport and maybe if this wasn’t such a serious time, that would be okay,” he told the mostly female audience.

Obama said the lipstick fight was distracting from the discussion on the war, the economy, education, and energy policy. “This is what they want to spend two out of the last 55 days talking about. You know who ends up losing at the end of the day? It’s not the Democratic candidate, it’s not the Republican candidate, it’s you, the American people,” he said, “Because then we go another year or another four years or another eight years, without addressing the issues that matter to you, enough!” Obama said.

Video:

Meghan McCain: My Dad Says 'Lipstick on a Pig'

Looks like McCain's daughter didn't get the memo.

(Check out the comments on this story. If they are any indication, a lot of people aren't buying into the McCain camps fake outrage.)

Small Things

Here's the quote from Obama's acceptance speech:

[I]f you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.

McCain is simply proving Obama's point. And Obama should thank him for doing it.

"Stop the madness"

Mark Halperin:

"Stop the madness. I mean, this is, I think -- with all due respect to the program's focus on this and to what [CNN senior political analyst] David [Gergen] just said -- I think this is the press just absolutely playing into the McCain campaign's crocodile tears." Halperin went on to say: "They know exactly what he was saying. It's an expression. And this is a victory for the McCain campaign, in the sense that, every day, they can make this a pig fight in the mud. It's good for them for them because it's reducing Barack Obama's message even more."

Good to see that at least some in the media get exactly what McCain is doing. Now will they turn it into a narrative?

The Politics of the Small

David Corn: "This campaign is becoming ridiculous. And let's be honest: it is John McCain's fault."

Amen.

Any response to this "controversy" must make the point, repeatedly, that it is McCain and McCain alone who has reduced our politics to irrelevancies like "lipstick".

One of Obama's best lines in his acceptance speech was about how the issues we face today our to big to waste time on the politics of the small. McCain's campaign is all about playing to the smallest part of ourselves. It is a direct appeal to the lizard brain. The hope is that they can maintain a continuous cycle of faux outrages until November. This will distract attention from things that people really care about and increase cynicism to the point that Obama will blamed equally for the ugliness of the campaign.

That is their hope and Obama must repeatedly make it clear that this is exactly what McCain is doing.

Don't Panic

There's a good diary over at dKos by one DaveV that highlights the fact that most of the post-Palin bounce that McCain is seeing in the national polls has come from a large bounce in McCain support in the South.

In other words, if McCain gets +10 points in states he was already going to win anyway, this national bounce will have little effect on the eventual electoral vote outcome.

Simple Answers. Complex Answers.

"Can Political Discourse Get Any Dumber?" Angela Winters asks.

The simple answer is yes. The more complex answer follows.

Maybe I have too much faith in the American people, but I just don’t get that they’ll fall for this. They’ll laugh about it and those who can’t stand Obama will use it to dig at him, but no one really believes that he was calling Palin a pig. Right?

I think the McCain campaign really does think that some people are dumb enough to buy into this accusation. But most of those people are already supports so there isn't much net gain there. However, I don't think this is the ultimate point of this attack.

The more cynical people become about politics the more Republicans succeed. Why? Because Democrats rely more on idealism and hope why Republicans live and breathe fear and despair. They thrive on cynicism.

No matter how this latest crap plays out, a segment of the low-information public will throw up their hands in disgust at politics and blame Obama equally for it. In a close election, that is all McCain needs.

How things change

Four years ago I could never imagine calling Andrew Sullivan the voice of wisdom.

Nice way to avoid the issue Marc

But maybe you should consider giving a personal response about your personal responsibilities in either propagating or stemming an anemic political journalism rather than side-stepping it with a philosophical discussion of that anemic political journalism.

Lipstick Idiocy

You know, I try to believe that there is something worth saving in this country. That we are not hopelessly stuck on a downward spiral into irrelevancy. That our politics can still be about something important.

And then I see things like this and I just want to call up the cynics and congratulate them on their foresight.

No More Mister Nice Blog has the best response: turn it into a joke (correction: highlight the fact that it is a joke.)

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if most everyone eventually sees this as a joke. McCain will still benefit because (1) people won't be talking about the big issues, on which he loses, and (2) many will blame Obama equally because of the natural "pox on both their houses" reaction to idiocy. It's a win-win for McCain.

Semiotics and Deconstructionism (nearly) destroyed literary criticism. It looks like it is well on the way to doing the same for politics.

So what if I'm lying?

I'd take this a step further. Instead of saying that McCain doesn't care because he lies with impunity, I'd say that McCain doesn't think it matters if he lies with impunity.

The modern Republican political ethic is that truth is irrelevant. What matters is what you can convince people to buy into. Truthiness is more important than Truth.

I'm with the blue guy

(link)

I like when something like a comic can spawn a serious philosophical discussion.

Thought for the day: You occupy a different body every second of your life. The body you occupy now is not the same body you occupied 10 years ago. Yet few even consider the idea that this somehow makes them a different person. I actually think it does, but that that is a good thing.

Life is change. And I think that's the blue guy's argument. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with transferring your consciousness to a robot body that isn't also "wrong" about transferring your consciousness to the new body that is being built for you every second of your life.

Avoiding the obvious

The media really is the elephant in the room when it comes to political reporting. Much of modern reporting doesn't make sense on a meta-level (what does it all mean) if you exclude the influence the media has on the whole process.

The Republicans are masters at gearing their campaign to take advantage of the media. But when the media ignores this aspect of the campaign and just reports on "what happened today", the overall flow of the campaign just looks really strange. But if they were to report the role the media has in propagating campaign messages, then maybe the public might have a better chance of understanding just why the campaigns do what they do.

It's like the parties dance around a minefield (the media), trying to avoid getting blown up (gaffes!) but the public, not knowing there are mines in that field, just see a bunch of crazy people dancing around like idiots.

There's a reason politicians act the way they do. If the media was more honest in reporting this then maybe it wouldn't look all so confusing.

Obama: "The American people aren't stupid"

You may not agree with that statement. But I think it is a good idea to paint the McCain/Palin's campaign strategy as "premised entirely on the notion that voters are fools" (hat tip Steve).

Narratives

I might not have a problem with traditional journalism avoiding the idea of "narrative" (aside: perhaps journalists who are offended at this should have a talk with Bob Woodward) if it weren't for the fact that traditional journalism has been more than happy to push Republican narratives about Democrats .

But what journalists understand, at least those that are successful, is that narrative is what makes a news story interesting. If there was no narrative in the story then it would just be a boring recitation of facts and a boring news story inevitably leads to low-paying or no-paying jobs for said journalists.

Journalists may be offended at the idea of narrative, but you can't get ahead in journalism if you DON'T push a narrative.

The brilliance of the Republican media strategy is that they understand this and spend millions developing off-the-shelf narratives for up-n-coming journalists to use. And they've gotten very good at passing them off to journalists in a way that allows those journalists to act offended at the idea that they are reporting narratives.

Your missing the point Marc

(link)

It's not that the press hasn't called out the McCain/Palin campaign on its use of "she opposed the Bridge To Nowhere" lie. The point is that the media hasn't pushed the idea, like it did with Gore in 2000, that these repeated, blatant lies suggest a deeper narative about the McCain campaign: that they don't care if people know they are lying because they believe that people won't care about the lying.

And you go ahead and prove that in your own comments on this issue:

And, of course, though the press has pointed out the Bridge to Nowhere exagerration ever since it was uncovered, it must somehow be the press's fault that John McCain is enjoying a post-convention something-or-other because Americans don't realize that he's a lying liar, or whatever.

Gee, and who is supposed to inform the public on the idea that maybe, just maybe, the McCain campaign is lying and doing so repeatedly? Who is supposed to make the point that they are doing so in a blatantly disrespectful way that relies on the traditional media to just report the facts but not glean any deeper meaning to those facts?

I think you would agree that it is awful when voters don't make politicians suffer for blatant lies. I think you would agree that it is bad that they just seem to shrug it off.

But how do you respond to this awfulness?

By shrugging it off.

(Matthew makes the same point, only better stated.)

McCain and Palin are liars

And Obama is calling them on it

Michael Palin for President

Smokescreens

It's really a clever strategy Steve.

It goes like this: If you are technically weak on a particular point (flip-flopping for political convenience) attack your opponent for doing the same thing. It doesn't matter if the charge is bogus. What matters is that the media talks about it as if it might be. Then, all the low-info voters will hear is that "both camps are charging the other with flip-flopping."

It's the same strategy they are using with respect to earmarks. It really doesn't matter if the line that Palin fought against earmarks is 100% the opposite of reality. All that matters is that the daily media narrative is, "both camps are attacking each other on earmarks."

It's a classic smokescreen. And they are doing it because it has worked so well for them in the past.

And the only way to clear a smokescreen is a really big fan. My suggestion: call it a lie. Then the media narrative becomes, "Is the McCain/Palin campaign lying?"

11th hour strategizing

I think this post at Strategy '08 (by someone named dansac) gets it essentially right: as much as we might criticize Obama's strategy now, its basically pointless, because with <60 days to go there simply isn't time to change gears in a way that won't look like flailing.

There's a point in any battle where you have to stop strategizing and you simply have to put your faith in "the plan". At this point, theorizing is pointless. It all comes down to execution.

Obama is not running the kind of campaign I would run. But, (1) I'm not running for President, (2) Obama is and (3) I am not Obama and he is not me. A campaign has to be tailored to the strengths of a candidate and, win or lose, Obama has placed his bet on the campaign he is running.

The only way we can help him now is by helping to make sure his bet pays off.

It's not bewildering at all Steve

The McCain/Palin campaign has decided that they only way they can win is to lie, lie repeatedly, and lie even when they know everyone knows they are lying.

They know it can work because most people just won't believe that any serious candidate for the presidency would ever lie so deliberately.

They know it can work because it has worked in the past.

Stop acting so shocked. And stop trying to counter it with talking points that assume they don't know they are lying. They know it and we should say so.

They are liars. They know they are liars. They know that we know they are liars. And they just don't care that we know they are liars.

Stop salivating at gaffes

Neither Palin or McCain will suffer for this gaffe.

Remember when George W. Bush said something about how "they" want to treat Social Security like its a federal program? Total meltdown gaffe, right? What an idiot, right? Everyone laughed at him and he lost the election, right?

Right?

Like I said, this comment will not hurt Palin or McCain because they understand that any issue that takes more than 10 seconds to explain can be spun by political masters into something that supports their point of view.

Indeed

Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this.

Time out

Maybe it is time