Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

OMG, does Rush Limbaugh know??

He's a sensationalist so it's hard to tell. LOL.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think you're probably at least partially right, but it seems like there was at least a little more strategy involved. This view ("bringin' in the womens" as it were) was popular speculation at the time, but as inept as McCain's camp was in the "small-picture" stuff, I'd be shocked if they made this poor of a "big-picture" maneuver - it seems much more likely that Palin was intended to motivate the base with someone who could play both "attack dog" and "snake charmer" while McCain reached across the aisle for moderates. Sort of a "good cop/bad cop" thing, with the added bonus that the bad cop would be what most "common" American males would consider attractive. Remember: attractiveness matters.

It seems like this plan was not so much ill-conceived as ill-executed, since Palin went absolutely balls-to-the-wall beyond what I think McCain envisioned (and the Newsweek piece seems to back this up). She got off the leash, as far as what the McCain camp expected.

The thing is, as insane as this plan sounds in retrospect, it appeared to work for a brief moment - McCain's post-convention bump was large and quite real, and seemed to portend good things. However, once the buzz died down and the questions grew louder, Palin simply couldn't keep the ball rolling, and McCain's guys saw the writing on the wall and bailed.

It probably wouldn't have mattered, given the state of the economy at the time, but it sure would have helped to bring in someone (ANYONE) with real economic experience (like, as you noted, Romney).

I agree.
As inane as it sounds, I also think McCain was going for the historical factor too...first female VP and all. That certainly seemed to get people revved up.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I agree.
As inane as it sounds, I also think McCain was going for the historical factor too...first female VP and all. That certainly seemed to get people revved up.

Geraldine Farraro.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Geraldine Farraro.

Right.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Right.

And it was sad how the media mixed up her statements.

Completely taken out of context. Yet so on point.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Right.

I mean, they didn't win, so we could still have the first female VP, but we might continue to have female VP candidates without that.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Geraldine Farraro.

I'm aware of her but she was only a candidate.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by John Legend

Open Letter to the New York Post

Dear Editor:

I'm trying to understand what possible motivation you may have had for publishing that vile cartoon depicting the shooting of the chimpanzee that went crazy. I guess you thought it would be funny to suggest that whomever was responsible for writing the Economic Recovery legislation must have the intelligence and judgment of a deranged, violent chimpanzee, and should be shot to protect the larger community. Really? Did it occur to you that this suggestion would imply a connection between President Barack Obama and the deranged chimpanzee? Did it occur to you that our President has been receiving death threats since early in his candidacy? Did it occur to you that blacks have historically been compared to various apes as a way of racist insult and mockery? Did you intend to invoke these painful themes when you printed the cartoon?

If that's not what you intended, then it was stupid and willfully ignorant of you not to connect these easily connectable dots. If it is what you intended, then you obviously wanted to be grossly provocative, racist and offensive to the sensibilities of most reasonable Americans. Either way, you should not have printed this cartoon, and the fact that you did is truly reprehensible. I can't imagine what possible justification you have for this. I've read your lame statement in response to the outrage you provoked. Shame on you for dodging the real issue and then using the letter as an opportunity to attack Rev. Sharpton. This is not about Rev. Sharpton. It's about the cartoon being blatantly racist and offensive.

I believe in freedom of speech, and you have every right to print what you want. But freedom of speech still comes with responsibilities and consequences. You are responsible for printing this cartoon, and I hope you experience some real consequences for it. I'm personally boycotting your paper and won't do any interviews with any of your reporters, and I encourage all of my colleagues in the entertainment business to do so as well. I implore your advertisers to seriously reconsider their business relationships with you as well.

You should print an apology in your paper acknowledging that this cartoon was ignorant, offensive and racist and should not have been printed.

I'm well aware of our country's history of racism and violence, but I truly believe we are better than this filth. As we attempt to rise above our difficult past and look toward a better future, we don't need the New York Post to resurrect the images of Jim Crow to deride the new administration and put black folks in our place. Please feel free to criticize and honestly evaluate our new President, but do so without the incendiary images and rhetoric.

Sincerely,
John Legend

John Legend can also write letters to the editor.

[Senusret I]

John Legend really got in his feelings on that one.

Welp, he's blacker than me now.

I'd still hit, though.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

John Legend really got in his feelings on that one.

Welp, he's blacker than me now.

I'd still hit, though.

Give me the greenliiiiiiiiiiight...I'm ready to go right now!

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I don't think the social programs worked to right the economy; however, they did drastically improve our quality of life.

I don't know that that's the case - I still think it was more the war and the increase in production that improved the country's quality of life. It's probably all academic anyway, because of the closeness in time between FDR's social programs and the start of US involvement, but I'm very hesitant to give any great weight to FDR's social policies and their ultimate effect on the country.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

It isn't accurate. This is not a pure capitalist system.

Ok, glad I'm at least on the right track with that one. That's about the extent of my knowlege of economics.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And although you might disagree, I think it's a shame that the McCain campaign was Palin's debut on the national stage.

I think her policies are a lot less socially conservative than they were framed. I think she actually has kind of a western libertarian streak when it comes to most social issues and the government's role, but maybe because of how the campaign needed to use her, that wasn't the message that got out.

Being resolutely anti-abortion holds a lot of people to the party too even though the current perspective is that it hurts more than it helps. While it hurts the party to seem neanderthal, if the party backs off social issues and presents no contrast on those points, there's a big group of people who will be up for grabs every election who are presently really reliable GOP voters. It's a gamble I'm not sure will pay off and since it reverses a position the party has held for a long time, building a real sense that the GOP in its core principles doesn't want to be the morality police will take time.

Maybe Jindal sells intellectually attractive socially conservative positions next time around.

ETA: okay, maybe it's not a big block of voters, but I think a significant number of people who have pulled the level for the GOP nationally in the last 10 years have done it because of social issues. If the party wants to drop them because they have come to realize that they really aren't the government's job and that's a principle to build a party around, that's one thing, but if it's just a cost vs. benefits analysis with voters, you've got to figure out what you are selling instead of the social programs the Dems have got. "We'll leave you alone" may not be enough in a hostile economic climate.

I agree that Palin wasn't brought into the best situation; if you're bringing a relative unknown onto the national stage, you'd better know EVERYTHING about their record, their tendencies, etc., because the press is going to jump all over them. The last thing the press wants is a lack of knowledge on a candidate, and they'll do all the digging they can to get a complete picture of the person.

I agree that backing off the abortion issue risks losing a portion of the party; but honestly, where would that portion have gone? Would it have voted Obama? Would they have gone third party (like to that nutty guy Baldwin)? I'm not sure. I'm probably not the best person to ask, though, because I have my own biases on the social issues: I think abortion is a complete non-issue (I can't see a scenario where Roe would be overturned or where there would be a national ban on abortion), and I think the Government should stay out of social issues as much as possible.

Something that I've been saying for a while is that the party has to do something to keep the "intellectual base," so to speak...people in highly intellectual professions (professors, doctors, lawyers, etc.), as the party seemed to want to get away from that, especially during the Convention. I think the Dems did a better job of balancing their message to blue collar and white collar, while the Republicans seemed to almost give up on the intellectual crowd in an effort to appeal to other parts of the party. Maybe that was a response to the fact that the Democrats were running an intellectual for President, I'm not sure.

[UGAalum94]

I think a lot of them would be happy to vote for Democrats on other issues. Once the contrast on social issues is gone, there's no reason not to. (I don't think they will seek out obscure third parties who they know won't affect policy, but maybe I'm wrong.)

The only national ban I can imagine is something after fetal viability, and it seems like that would be close to automatic but it hasn't been. But even prohibiting taxpayer funding is something to support if you're morally opposed, and it's something that Democrats don't try to ensure. It's something that could also fit under kind of a get the government out of people's private moral lives umbrella. You choose; you pay. I also think there's a position to be staked out for rights of conscience for health care professionals and institutions which might have white collar appeal.

But in some ways, it seems to me that we're kind of talking about issues dealing with branding more than substance. Image and identification are important, but the real GOP crisis seems to occur in office when there's no real sense of direction about policy or how to actually carry things out.

This may be even more obvious at the state level in Georgia where the geniuses in the general assembly were trying to do away with taxes that pretty much generated revenue at the county level, without any consideration at all for how counties would provide the services dependent on those funds and which the voters were counting on.

There's a fundamental crisis of competency before we even get to how to make the image more appealing.

Fortunately, although that's a ridiculous choice or words, from strictly a party loyalty angle, the Democrats seem to have problems equally as bad or worse right now.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

The "Great Depression" is a tough comp, because I don't think anyone really knows how much FDR's social programs helped. I think a lot more credit has to be given to WWII and the business that came out of that. But, that's getting into my "FDR is Overrated" kick...

WWII played a huge role in our ultimate recovery from the Great Depression. You know the phrase, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"? Yeah, some folks have already started to express caution. If times get really desperate, and people feel vulnerable and scared, it would be very tempting for the gov't to create jobs in, say, the defense industry. Bombers and tankers, anyone?

[Munchkin03]

I can't believe anyone is surprised by the New York Post thing. The newspaper isn't even good enough to be toilet paper, let alone mullet wrap.

Even though it's NYC's "conservative" paper, it's scum. When my best friend from college died, they harassed me, her other friends, and worse!, her family. They wrote things about her last days that were patently untrue. The other papers in NYC got the story right, but they were ridiculous. When they chased us as we were walking out of her memorial, that was the last straw. I haven't read that pile of nonsense in over 4 years.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

WWII played a huge role in our ultimate recovery from the Great Depression. You know the phrase, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"? Yeah, some folks have already started to express caution. If times get really desperate, and people feel vulnerable and scared, it would be very tempting for the gov't to create jobs in, say, the defense industry. Bombers and tankers, anyone?

This seems a little . . . alarmist, since the jobs that spurred the economy in the 1940s (primarily factory-based, or related to blue-collar or no-collar jobs) wouldn't really exist for modern warfare and automated production lines.

Unless Joe Sixpack can weld together an unmanned attack drone, I just don't see this as viable anymore, certainly not viable enough to consider it for any sort of semi-'conspiracy' theory.

Still, I feel where you're coming from - the lack of consensus on how to handle the situation could seriously lead to some awkward "policy-pushing" under the guise of solution. Indeed, that's what Republicans consider a large portion of the current stimulus.