September 08, 2008
Yes, Adam. But Not For the Reasons You Think
Over at the Huffington Post, liberal writer/director Adam McKay laments of the 2008 Presidential elections that "We're Gonna Frickin' Lose This Thing," and goes on to prove that the far left wing may lose this election for Democrats. It won't be for the reasons he thinks, but because of their own inability to find common ground with vast majority of Americans.
Something is not right. We have a terrific candidate and a terrific VP candidate. We're coming off the worst eight years in our country's history. Six of those eight years the Congress, White House and even the Supreme Court were controlled by the Republicans and the last two years the R's have filibustered like tantrum throwing 4-year-olds, yet we're going to elect a Republican who voted with that leadership 90% of the time and a former sportscaster who wants to teach Adam and Eve as science? That's not odd as a difference of opinion, that's logically and mathematically queer.
There's a lot of self-delusion contained in that one paragraph.
Barack Obama is a brilliant orator with a great personal story, points almost everyone will concede. But narrative isn't leadership, and Barack Obama is one of the least experienced candidates the Democrats have ever offered up as a presidential candidate, and he arguably holds the title of the least experienced major party candidate in history. Obama also voted with the most unpopular Congress in the history of the United States 97-percent of the time.
Joe Biden, his selection for Vice President, is a man who has been in the Senate longer than many Obama supporters have been alive, yet his party never gave him a position of leadership that was required by seniority. In a campaign espousing "hope and change, " Americans see Biden as the consummate Washington insider; even his son is a lobbyist. Biden also voted along party lines 97-percent of the time last year.
As for claiming that the Bush presidency was the "worst eight years in our country's history" — well that kind of gross hyperbole may be fine in Hollywood, but is such an absurd statement that it doesn't justify addressing.
McKay's conspiracy theory of why Obama is in trouble is just as far-fetched and delusional as his understanding of history.
It reminds me of playing blackjack (a losers game). You make all the right moves, play the right hands but basically the House always wins. I know what you're going to say " But I won twelve hundred dollars last year in Atlantic City!" Of course there are victories. The odds aren't tilted crazy, but there is a 51%-49% advantage. And in the long run, the house has to win. The house will win.So what is this house advantage the Republicans have? It's the press. There is no more fourth estate. Wait, hold on...I'm not going down some esoteric path with theories on the deregulation of the media and corporate bias and CNN versus Fox...I mean it: there is no more functioning press in this country. And without a real press the corporate and religious Republicans can lie all they want and get away with it. And that's the 51% advantage.
Obama is losing because the press is in the tank... for McCain.
Yes, McKay's quite sincere. And he's not done, either.
I'm not even getting into the fact that the religious right teaches closed mindedness so it's almost impossible to gain new voters from their pool because people who disagree with them are agents of the devil. I just want to look at two inarguable realities: A) we have no more press and B) the Repubs are screwing with the voters on the local level.
Adam McKay claims that Barack Obama and Joe Biden is a dream ticket for Democrats, thinks the mainstream media is in the tank for Republicans, and thinks that religion is being used to make Americans stupid, biased, and Republican.
But he has a solution.
1) We give definitive clear speeches like Biden and Obama gave the other day about how no one talked about any issues at the Republican Convention and how they outright lied. But we do them over and over again. 2) We use the one place where it's still a 50-50 game -- the internet -- as much as we can. 3) But most importantly we should bring up re-regulating the media and who owns it and what that conflict of interest is a lot more. By pretending there's no conflict of interest we're failing to alert the public that they're being lied to or given a looking at a coin at the bottom of a pool slanted truth. Every time a pundit or elected official is on any TV news program it should be a polite formality to mention that GE has made such and such billions off the war in Iraq by selling arms or that Murdoch is a right-wing activist with a clear stake in who wins and who taxes his profits the least. Disney, GE, Viacom, and Murdoch -- all want profits and the candidate and agenda that will get in their way the least.
Tell American they're too dumb to realize that politicians lie. Attempt to regulate free speech until only liberal speech is free. Make Marxist/Communist anti-capitalist rhetoric a required part of evening newscasts.
Congratulations, Adam McKay.
It is precisely this kind of delusional, arrogant, self-centered attitude that may very well make your nightmare come true.
Right, the media is in the tank for McCain/Palin? Where's my duct tape, my head is about to explode.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 8, 2008 02:46 PMAs a liberal Clinton-Democrat, I find myself in the weird position of agreeing with conservative Republicans on Obama.
We told them Obama was unelectable, but they wouldn't listen.
Posted by: myiq2xu at September 8, 2008 02:51 PMI really think it all started going downhill for Obama when he gave that speech in Berlin. I was driving home from work and had satellite radio on and almost drove off the road. When he said "...citizens of the world...", that was the beginning of the end. Americans will not elect into office someone who aspires to be everything to everyone, especially Europeans and world citizens.
Yes, the Audacity of the Hubris will do him in!
Obama from DAY ONE has NEVER been about America or taking care of America. When it comes to a Presidency, the American People want someone who will "Walk the Walk and Talk the Talk" and not be some liberalized eurocentric talking head. We may tolerate the Leftists in the Senate or Congress, but the American public demands a LEADER who represents ALL of them, not just the lefty salons of New York or San Francisco. The idea that this pompous self-aggrandizing 'community organizer' has what it takes is on it's face laughable.
Posted by: Big Country at September 8, 2008 03:33 PMQuick, let's get this guy into a leadership position at the DNC or the Obama campaign. He clearly has some important ideas the American people need to hear. I mean really, let's give him -- and all the Dems -- as wide a platform for their ideas as possible. When Palin debates Biden, she should just say, "You know, Joe, rather than respond to that, I think I'm just going to yield my time and let you talk a little more."
They will lose, mostly because McCain-Palin is a *great* ticket and because their ticket is basically Buffoon and Buffooner.
Posted by: Jeff at September 8, 2008 03:36 PMMoral of the Story: You'll never win when you delude yourself. Nor will you ever win when you refuse to correctly assess your enemy.
Increasingly, I think the recent comparisons between Democrats and Wily Coyote are appropriate given that Democrats have a unique persistence in their clinging to myth, delusion and fantasy. While the right has its issues, fat cats, crooks, special interest, corrupt pols, weirdos, kooks and other problems, we usually do a reasonable job calling them out when we see them.
Is it pathological? E.g. does a personality defect cause someone to associate more with the kingdom of misfit toys that is the progressive movement? Or is it the fact that you have to employ advanced rationalization to bend their square peg ideologies into the round holes reality presents?
Posted by: redherkey at September 8, 2008 04:24 PMI think they will gain some traction with the lie that the Reps didn't talk about the economy at the convention.
EVERY dem surrogate (and the candidates) is repeating this ENDLESSLY to the media.
Posted by: mockmook at September 8, 2008 05:32 PMredherkey: "kingdom of misfit toys" ? LOL
I think you're holding back. Tell us what you really feel.
Posted by: Neo at September 8, 2008 06:08 PM"Coming off the worst eight years in our country's history"? Wow. Never mind the minor unpleasantness of the 1860's, or Economic Discomfort of the 1930's or that minor fracas that started December 7, 1941.
Posted by: Zhombre at September 8, 2008 06:11 PMThe worst years in our nation's history, huh? Worse than the Depression, WWII, the Civil War?
And to think these are the people who think all Republicans are uneducated idiots.
If the Dems lose this one, it would be nice to see them react like grown-ups - to say 'OK, what are we doing wrong? We have misread the American people. We need to take a good hard look at ourselves and change our assumptions."
But I doubt they will because evasion of personal responsibility and the cult of victimhood is not a bug with the Dems but a feature. So their losses will always be due to the stupidity and/or evil of the majority of Americans who just don't know what's good for them.
Posted by: Donna at September 8, 2008 06:16 PM
Oh well, if this fool cant identify the real problems on why Obbie is losing than he doesn't stand a prayer in resolving it....sucks to be him.
It makes you kinda wonder if there are other people like this clown managing Obbie's campain...Oh wouldn't that be sweet.
> If the Dems lose this one, it would be nice to see them react like grown-ups - to say 'OK, what are we doing wrong?'
No, something is *always* wrong with Kansas, not with them! I have a nephew like that :/
Donna: "If the Dems lose this one, it would be nice to see them react like grown-ups - to say 'OK, what are we doing wrong? We have misread the American people. We need to take a good hard look at ourselves and change our assumptions."
It's not going to happen. We've already seen the lawyers being readied in the wings, nevermind the meme of "Racial Wars Exploding" which one of the mirmidions wrote about in Philadelphia... the Dems are wholey incapable of being gracious in defeat... they remind me much of Hitler at the end of World War 2 in the bunker when he proclaimed a "scorched earth policy" that if he couldn't have it, then no one could. It frightens me to think these people are willing to whip up something so terrifying as race riots over something like a lost election. Only time will tell. Somehow I think 100 years from now people will be looking back at these times and regard liberalism as some form of mental illness.
Posted by: Big Country at September 8, 2008 07:30 PMI continue to be amazed at the assertion that Obama is a brilliant orator. If this is so, the standards for brilliance in oration have deteriorated substantially in my lifetime. As a teacher of English, speech and debate, I do have some experience in these matters.
Obama is, at best, better than the average politician at reading and delivering a speech on a teleprompter. Throw in his mimicking of the rhythms, but not usually the emphasis, of the preaching style of the black church, and he stands out a bit more than the usual politician. But take away the teleprompter and he is in real trouble. Fluency and confidence disappear. Verbalized pauses assume a front row seat. The rhythmic structure of the black church runs out of the sanctuary and down the nearest street.
But then again, when one is told, over and over, that someone's abilities in a given area are superhuman, I suppose that rubs off.
Still, brilliant? Not even close.
Good gravy!!
Is this the norm of the Huffington Post?
And this is a leading blog for the Democrats overall?
"So what is this house advantage the Republicans have? It's the press."
This is the kind of stuff you hear in commitment papers when they are getting the straight-jackets ready....
Posted by: usinkorea at September 9, 2008 04:09 AMOn his point #3 for correcting the problems:
I was thinking about that the other day --- I wasn't serious - but I mused, "Maybe bringing back the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't be so bad..."
Let's see the government force MSNBC to put Rush Limbaugh as co-host of Countdown.....for example...
Let's see the government force CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, and so on ---- to have an equal amount of staffers who are conservative/Republican as they do liberals.
Let's see government regulators forcing the media to give an equal amount of positive or negative coverage to social and foreign policy stories -- from a conservative point of view.
Yes. Let's see the government go about the business of providing balance and fairness...
....because I agree......the media left alone --- has utterly failed at the task....
Posted by: usinkorea at September 9, 2008 04:18 AMAnd then there's the left's obsession with Rupert Murdoch. They persist in making him out to be a Republican shill, yet his political donations this year went to ... Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Eric at September 9, 2008 08:03 AMThis flat inversion of reality is just par for the course. Bob Tyrell has scoffed for many a year that the great Left skew to the media is, on net, more harmful to Democrats. Barry's experiences lately underscore this. The hook for the Palin attacks initially was on "vetting" with the presumption, often stated, that Obie has been thoroughly vetted through the primaries. Hillaroids, hold your stomachs! What winning the primaries means is simply that Barry was relatively unobjectionable to the sort of Commie freaks that control the primaries and especially the caucuses. Hillaroids also know that Barry gamed the caucuses by trucking in out of state ringers in full view of the press and electoral officials with not even any coverage, much less a legal response. But the simplest facts of Barry's life and career are game-enders, the Dem/press knows it and they are also realizing, now, that they cannot really be hidden. JOY!
Posted by: megapotamus at September 9, 2008 10:29 AMI've heard that the press is biased FOR Republicans from liberals before. Often it's because the press is responding to relentless criticism of their liberal bias by, occasionally, rarely, trying to appear fair, usually unsuccessfully I might add, and by the fact that media outlets now exist that are NOT liberal mouthpieces. If the press does not worship liberalism 100%, as has been the norm for decades, then liberals naturally see that as a betrayal of their beliefs, which they arrogantly believe everyone who matters shares. Hence, "fair" reporting is seen as proof of bias.
To paraphrase Bush, "If the press is not FOR us, it's against us."
Posted by: DoorHold at September 14, 2008 02:37 PM
