McCain - the Ultimate Elitist

Yes, I was hoping for a surprise on Obama's choice of running mate, but also worried about an unhappy surprise. I can certainly accept and be enthusastic about Biden as the VP choice, from what I know of him. For one thing, up front, he would make a far better president than John McElitist.

I'm concerned that from what I know he has not been prone towards truly progressive viewpoints a la Feingold, Kucinich, and Conyers. I have the impression he has been in Congress for a long time, rarely a good thing in this era of corporate influence and sleazy K-street lobbyists throwing money and favors at congress to buy influence and votes on pro-business legislation. He has some distinct propensity towards the verbal fumble-dum thing. Even in limited cheep I saw today he referred to the negative consequences of 4 - no 8 - years of Bush and McCain! Not that he didn't inadvertently have a point, or even one of the main points, but given the way it came off, even if intentional, it did not properly hammer on the McSame issue. It came across to me as a flub. Of course current pres has made a career of verbal pratfalls. Some portion of the population seems to love to have their politicians be (or act) so dumb that even they can feel superior.

But then again, who cares what these politicians say. Oops, that would only apply to politicians with a capital R in parens after name, right, NBC, et al?, as the corp-media, owned now by what, five right-wing thugs, has it. When it comes to actually supporting the principles on which the country was founded, adherence to constitution and bill of rights and all (zounds!), given the prima facie evidence that the corp-media have sold us out, we will have to do it the hard way.

In that spirit (tighten those laces), BlueTexan at Firedoglake has a timely reminder for us, ominously entitled, "Memo To Democrats: Don’t Forget The 2004 Republican National Convention" (as you may recall, the corp-media totally sucked up to the powers-that-be and screwed the American people here too):

I hope we haven't forgotten what the Republicans did to John Kerry in 2004. While the Democrats weirdly operated under a "no Bush-bashing" rule -- after weeks of concern trolling about how voters were tired of negative attacks -- the Republicans waited for their turn and watched the Dems week-long lovefest. And then they promptly spent their week tearing Kerry's face off.

While it was rare to hear the word "Bush" at the Democratic convention, the Republicans made their convention an auto de fe for Kerry.

Rudy:

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John Kerry voted
against the Persian Gulf War. Later he said he actually supported the war. Then in 2002, as he was calculating his run for President, he voted for the war in Iraq. And then just 9 months later, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war and support our troops.

He even, at one point, declared himself an anti-war candidate. Now, he says he's pro-war. At this rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position at east three or four more times.

My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words when he said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Maybe this explains John Edwards' need for two Americas - - one where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against the same thing.

Cheney:

Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror," as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side.
...

On Iraq, Senator Kerry has disagreed with many of his fellow Democrats. But Senator Kerry's liveliest disagreement is with himself. His back-and- forth reflects a habit of indecision, and sends a message of confusion. And it is all part of a pattern.

He has, in the last several years, been for the No Child Left Behind Act -- and against it. He has spoken in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement -- and against it. He is for the Patriot Act -- and against it. Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual -- America sees two John Kerrys.

Pataki:

George W. Bush says what he means, he means what he says, you can trust him. Senator Kerry, on the other hand… Well, what can we say of Senator Kerry?

He was for the war and then he was against the war. Then he was for it but he wouldn’t fund it. Then he’d fund it but he wasn’t for it.

He was for the Patriot Act until he was against it. Or was he against it until he was for it?

I forget. He probably does too.

This is a candidate who has to Google his own name to find out where he stands.

Frist:

John Kerry remains the personal injury lawyers' best friend. George Bush will put the interests of patients, doctors and nurses first.

Steele:

But this requires strong leadership. Now, Senator Kerry's leadership is illustrated best by the Senator himself when he said, "I actually voted for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it."

He also recently said that he doesn't want to use the word "war" to describe our efforts to fight terrorism.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I don't want to use the words "commander in chief" to describe John Kerry.

Ahnold:

And to those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: "Don't be economic girlie men!"

This is just a small sample. And of course, we all remember Zell.

What was the result of all this? Combined with the Swift Boat attacks, it was devastating. The Republicans spent a week in primetime bashing Kerry and reinforcing the negative attacks of Rove's campaign -- and Kerry never recovered.

Take a look at who's speaking at this year's RNCC. Same crowd. Do you think it's going to be any different?

Let's hope the Democrats learned their lesson.

Frankly, I have limited confidence that "the Democrats" have so learned. The Rahms and leadership counsels and all are fully-subborned to both the beltway those-voters-are-irrelevant-compared-to-these-corporations mentality and their own egomania.

If there is going to be any chance of pulling this juggernaut back from the brink, it will not be because of Dem party machinations, of that I believe we can be assured. It will be because of grass-roots agitation and funding of the sort you and I are in control of.

That is, yes, a call to arms. Please do whatever you can to fund Strange Bedfellows and similar programs supporting actually enlightened progressive candidates, sometimes even at the expense of incumbent dem-in-name-only fogies.

And this great post from dday at Hullabaloo suggests that at least out here (vs. the idiot-box and the corp-media) - there is some actual democracy in the sense of McIdiot being subjected to his own campaign's standards:

Another ad from Barack Obama on The John McCain Show:

Hilariously, the McCain campaign put together a new ad today as well, and it opens with - I kid you not - "Celebrities don't have to worry about family budgets, but we do."

Yeah, I guess when you don't even know how many homes you have, a family budget is hard to set. Who knows how many mortgages you're paying?

The house gaffe made every major paper this morning, and was featured on every nightly newscast. And even a fount of conventional wisdom like Chris Cillizza gets why this matters. And even the "You can't say that to me, I was a POW" defense is ringing stale among the punditocracy.

I never thought I'd see this kind of paragraph in print:

McCain, who has portrayed Obama as an elitist, is the son and grandson of admirals. The Associated Press estimates his wife, a beer heiress, is worth $100 million. Obama was raised by a single mother who relied at times on food stamps, and went to top schools on scholarships and loans. His income has increased from book sales since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Hilarious.

Of course this is ticky-tack, but as I've said, this is how the media works in the modern age, and your choices as a Democrat are limited. Here's Krugman:

First, Republicans always — always — campaign by portraying the Democratic candidate as an out-of-touch elitist, while their guy is a man of the people. Al Gore grew up in a penthouse apartment! (In a shabby residence hotel, but never mind.) John Kerry windsurfs! Meanwhile, George Bush vacations at his ranch (bought as a prop for the 2000 campaign — and he doesn’t ride horses — but somehow that never got brought up.)

Protesting that the candidate is really a wonderful guy doesn’t work. Stupid as it may seem, counterattack is the only option. If the Gore campaign had gone after the fakeness of the Bush ranch, or the cronyism that made Bush rich, the world would be a different place today.

Exactly. I would love a high-minded battle of ideals, but I'm not going to sit around waiting for it to happen.

There was worry that Obama wouldn't be likely to attack in the same fashion as McCain, and would resort to "shame on you" entreaties. But yesterday's action was swift, to the point, and overwhelming, and they've sustained it. The GOP does not make this kind of thing a one-day affair. They continue to mock their opponent in any way possible to cut into them and make them a ridiculous figure. Peter Daou has the blueprint:

Expanding the theme, it's worth noting that the rightwing attack machine has been effective in the past because it serves a singular purpose: diminishing opponents through mockery and marginalization. Bloggers have referred to recent presidential campaigns as "genital-swinging contests" (we're using the clean version). That crude image underlines the strategy: make your opponent look small - or smaller. Shrinkage, for Seinfeld buffs. Think of how Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh and their cohorts operate - it's all about the laughter, the joking, the snide remarks, the scoffing. It's about cutting someone down to size, making them look meek and meager.

Democrats have been stumped by the technique, missing the underlying purpose and getting sidetracked by the minutiae of the attacks. 'Rovian' is an overused adjective, but it is mistaken as a strategy of attacking an opponent's strength as an end in itself, when that's just one tactic in the larger mission of systematically belittling the opponent. Going after their strength is a logical part of reducing their stature.

Democratic/progressive attacks generally run the gamut from negative character association (X is just like Y) to policy contrasts (we can handle the economy better than X) to one-off hits and 'Macaca moments' (X flubbed the name of a country) to impugning the attacker (look how nasty my opponent is). These can be effective, particularly the latter, but they are qualitatively different from the rightwing machine's diminishment of an opponent's character. That's something that Democrats don't do as well. It's less about negative frames, contrasts, rapid response, and all the other mainstays of political strategy and more about making your opponent the butt of a joke.It's not like there aren't additional facts to add into the stew. McCain's net worth is $36 million dollars, almost 40 times that of Obama. McCain has butlers. BUTLERS! The John McCain Show had 9-car entourage at Starbucks to pick up a latte yesterday. There's still the matter of getting McCain on the record about the exact number, and detailing - in excruciating detail - all the homes. There are potential events like ringing keys at the DNC and visits to all the compounds. If McCain does indeed pick rich venture capitalist Mitt Romney, then the whole thing is amplified.

-clip-