The depraved state of US politics

[bascule]

And Obama responds brilliantly:

 

 

Context:

 

http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20080910/888/twl-republicans-term-obama-s-lipstick-on.html

 

The latest party line against Obama: an anecdote has become PLAYING THE GENDER CARD.

 

Pangloss has his definition of partisan. I have mine. Perhaps it can be described as making a mountain out of a molehill. The Republican party runs a desperately underqualified candidate as the Vice President of the United States. Obama relates a common anecdote: putting lipstick on a pig.

 

How does the Republican party respond? As a whole mind you, they're coordinated, through Karl Rove's talking points.

 

WHINE WHINE BITCH BITCH OBAMA OWES US AN APOLOGY.

 

I can't believe this is what politics in the United States has come to. The Republicans obviously f*cked up in selecting Palin as their VP candidate, and yet they're demanding the Democrats apologize to them, because they found a remark which makes not only perfect sense in context, but is poignant and witty.

 

The Republican party deliberately mistranslates it: Palin is the pig, and lipstick means THE GENDER CARD. Never mind the context, or the common anecdote. Clearly what Obama's saying is attacking Palin directly and playing THE GENDER CARD, right? Wrong...

 

I would like the forum's opinion as to how the Democrats can respond. As I see it there's two ways:

 

1) The Democrats can sink to the Republicans level. They can find their own Karl Rove and start distributing talking points of their own.

 

2) The Democrats can continue to think independently and give responses which aren't crafted by the upper echelons of the party

 

Personally, I would prefer the latter, although it isn't serving them well. Obama could've made a joke about polishing a turd and probably been better off.

 

Should Democrats succumb to the Republicans' level and collectively tow the party line, a party line distributed in the form of a talking points memo? Or should they continue to be independent thinkers and say what they truly believe?

[CaptainPanic]

The sad thing is, given the 2 options for the democrats:

 

1. The winning strategy. Throwing mud is what the masses understand. Oneliners catch more attention than good arguments. This is why washing powder commercials don't explain how the powder works.

2. Probably also a good idea, as long as they use oneliners, and avoid using words such as "because" and "therefore" because that will suggest a reasoning and will cause many people to switch the channel.

 

The saddest of it all is: This is showing that democracy is not working in a time of youtube videos and 1 minute news articles. Nobody reads a whole page of a newspaper anymore, so good arguments have close to zero audience while a good headline (mud) gets all attention without even having to show any evidence or proof.

 

But I have no alternative to our democracy (believe me (<-- now there's a good argument!), Netherlands is rapidly catching up with the crappy level of US politics).

[ParanoiA]

I would like someone to tell me how the republicans f*cked up with their VP pick. They love that pick. The base loves the pick. Republican women are motivated to the point they're boycotting Oprah, even if for illogical reasoning. And McCain's numbers and support is just going up and up. Where the hell are you getting the idea that any republican regrets that pick in the least?

 

It's a great pick. That's why it's pissing you off so much. It's pissing all of the democrats off that wrote off Hillary too. Palin has stolen Obama's spotlight. That's the bottom line, and you and the rest of the democrats thought this was over and done with and now you're pissed about it.

 

Also, repeating how Palin is not qualified doesn't make it true. She's more qualified than Obama, and I think has the only real executive experience out of everyone running for office, including my guy, Dr. Paul.

 

1. The winning strategy. Throwing mud is what the masses understand. Oneliners catch more attention than good arguments. This is why washing powder commercials don't explain how the powder works.

2. Probably also a good idea' date=' as long as they use oneliners, and avoid using words such as "because" and "therefore" because that will suggest a reasoning and will cause many people to switch the channel.[/quote']

 

You certainly nailed those two. With or without youtube videos, this has always been the case. Voluntary ignorance and disconnect with the system - which also feeds the de facto oligarchy that Bombus rails against. As long as the people act like sheeple, they're going to take advantage. And we deserve it.

 

The saddest of it all is: This is showing that democracy is not working in a time of youtube videos and 1 minute news articles. Nobody reads a whole page of a newspaper anymore, so good arguments have close to zero audience while a good headline (mud) gets all attention without even having to show any evidence or proof.

 

Why do you think democracy isn't working? This wealth or overabundance of information sources is good for our process. Now we don't have ONE market monopolizing what we hear - that's the threat to democracy, controlling information. We're just all maneuvering and reacting to this chaotic atmosphere of information and we'll eventually figure it out. People are facing the reality that journalism can't be truly objective, by the nature of the beast, and so multiple information sources serve as a check on each other. Again, it may look a little chaotic right now, but it's definitely for the better.

Edited September 11, 2008 by ParanoiA

[CaptainPanic]

Why do you think democracy isn't working? This wealth or overabundance of information sources is good for our process. Now we don't have ONE market monopolizing what we hear - that's the threat to democracy, controlling information. We're just all maneuvering and reacting to this chaotic atmosphere of information and we'll eventually figure it out. People are facing the reality that journalism can't be truly objective, by the nature of the beast, and so multiple information sources serve as a check on each other. Again, it may look a little chaotic right now, but it's definitely for the better.

What I mean is that journalism as a whole, individual journalists, and entire news papers, are fighting a dog-eat-dog fight to get the attention of the people. There is soooo much info out there, that we just cannot digest it all. And it turned out that good old commercials get the most attention after all... So: news has become one-liners as well. We're all being dumbed down by the media because it's the only way that they can get our attention.

 

I am assuming that the majority of the people on SFN are actually part of the minority who go out there to read backgrounds and search for facts. You wouldn't be on this forum if you didn't.

 

[disclaimer: this is a thesis, not a fact, and I have no sources for it]

[ParanoiA]

What I mean is that journalism as a whole, individual journalists, and entire news papers, are fighting a dog-eat-dog fight to get the attention of the people. There is soooo much info out there, that we just cannot digest it all. And it turned out that good old commercials get the most attention after all... So: news has become one-liners as well. We're all being dumbed down by the media because it's the only way that they can get our attention.

 

I am assuming that the majority of the people on SFN are actually part of the minority who go out there to read backgrounds and search for facts. You wouldn't be on this forum if you didn't.

 

[disclaimer: this is a thesis, not a fact, and I have no sources for it]

 

Ah, I see what you're saying. Because there's so much, only the mudslinging or sensationalism can cut through?

 

That's certainly true and it reminds me of fast food commercials in that the food never looks like that. So what do we do? We stop trusting the pictures. We're still drawn to them, and the sight of cheese dripping off a whopper is hard to resist - but we scale down our expectation.

 

Maybe society will start thinking of the media business as the business that it is - the information business. The one business that probably deserves the most scrutiny of any business of any kind in our country. Yet, it's treated almost opposite - well, until fox news came along. Then suddenly, the news deserved to be judged by more than just the conservative outcasts. For that reason, I love fox news.

 

I don't know, you make a good point. All I can do is hope that maybe we'll wise up and scale down our expectations on sensationalism, let it roll off of us and focus on the meat and potatoes, but nothing we've observed would really suggest that will happen huh?

[Pangloss]

Well I certainly agree with bascule about the state of US politics.

 

It has to be noted, however, that Obama sounds a bit hypocritical, having participated in the same sorts of attacks himself. "John McCain wants us to stay 100 years in Iraq", for example.

 

Democrats already HAVE sunk to the level of Republicans -- for the past eight years they've been behaving exactly like Republicans did during the preceding eight years. Blocking things pointlessly, pounding the podium about Bush, etc etc etc.

 

And no sooner does Obama get nominated then he stops being the independent, outside thinker that he was during the early primaries and starts being the inside-the-beltway participant that's earned Congress an even lower approval rating than the president.

 

Is it any wonder, then, that he's tied with McCain in the polls and can't seem to put this thing away?

[iNow]

Democrats already HAVE sunk to the level of Republicans -- for the past eight years they've been behaving exactly like Republicans did during the preceding eight years. Blocking things pointlessly, pounding the podium about Bush, etc etc etc.

 

That sounds like two wrongs make a right reasoning.

[john5746]

I could see that democrats would be more tired of this stuff because it went on so long in the democrat primaries. Sexism and racism cards were played and bickering about apologies, etc was a big part of the discussions.

 

Since the republican contest was settled earlier, they have much more stomach for this stuff. Also, it is easier for Obama to just link McCain to Bush and basically bash Bush. McCain has to bash Obama, not just claim he will change things as well.

 

IMO, Obama would have done better to apologize to the people if they took that reference the wrong way and then go on to bash McCain for bringing it up. But, then again, I am wrong about alot of this political stuff.

[waitforufo]

I can't believe this is what politics in the United States has come to. The Republicans obviously f*cked up in selecting Palin as their VP candidate, and yet they're demanding the Democrats apologize to them, because they found a remark which makes not only perfect sense in context, but is poignant and witty.

 

It was poignant and witty. It was also politically tone deaf. The Obama base obviously thinks that Palin is unqualified for vice president. I think this just makes the women in that base, and women in general more angry with Obama for not picking Hillary. By picking Palin, McCain puts Obama in a position of constantly justifying passing up Hillary. So Obama now has to deal with a bunch of angry women. Then he says something, intentional or not, that appears misogynistic. Not a smart thing to do when women are already angry with him.

 

Since Palin's selection, she has been the central focus of the media. McCain is now shown all the time on the tube with big crowds. Well, now Obama is getting some of that attention back, but not in a way he wants.

 

He should just move on. Also he should stop courting his base with such statements regardless of poignancy and wit. He needs to focus on swing voters.

[ParanoiA]

IMO, Obama would have done better to apologize to the people if they took that reference the wrong way and then go on to bash McCain for bringing it up. But, then again, I am wrong about alot of this political stuff.

 

I agree, only I wish Obama would basically tell them to stick it. She doesn't own the damn phrase. And besides, so what? So he used a lipstick analogy that involves a pig - she compared herself to a freaking dog. Pigs are smarter than dogs. What's the issue?

 

Hell, Obama should say he simply thinks more highly of her than she does herself.

[john5746]

I agree, only I wish Obama would basically tell them to stick it. She doesn't own the damn phrase. And besides, so what? So he used a lipstick analogy that involves a pig - she compared herself to a freaking dog. Pigs are smarter than dogs. What's the issue?

 

Hell, Obama should say he simply thinks more highly of her than she does herself.

 

LOL, yes women own the word lipstick and can compare themselves to a dog, I guess it would be a female dog?

 

And you can't say Obama is clean and speaks well.

[Pangloss]

Democrats already HAVE sunk to the level of Republicans -- for the past eight years they've been behaving exactly like Republicans did during the preceding eight years. Blocking things pointlessly, pounding the podium about Bush, etc etc etc. [/quote']That sounds like two wrongs make a right reasoning.

 

What "right" is it that you think I was recommending?

[bascule]

Democrats already HAVE sunk to the level of Republicans -- for the past eight years they've been behaving exactly like Republicans did during the preceding eight years.

 

So Democrats sunk to the level that Republicans were at eight years ago?

 

Well since then, Karl Rove happened and drove Republicans further down into the political mire...

[Pangloss]

Naw, they've followed them down lock-step.

 

Just my two bits, of course.

[bascule]

For some reason I don't get the talking points echo chamber feeling with Democrats in the same way I do with Republicans. It might be because Republican talking points are parroted by a "news agency" like Fox as well as by the members of the party. But more I think it's just the Republicans are more organized and methodical about making sure everybody's on the same page, literally. What was the last bit of jargon the Democrats managed to inject into the political dialogue?

[iNow]

But more I think it's just the Republicans are more organized and methodical about making sure everybody's on the same page, literally. What was the last bit of jargon the Democrats managed to inject into the political dialogue?

 

I think it was, "Can we please focus on the issues that Americans are facing right now instead of these ridiculous and vacuous distractions?"

[Pangloss]

Oh was it? I thought it was "John McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years."

 

Well look, I could post a few sarcastic "really..." and "I'm shocked..." reactions to your comments above, but in an effort to find common ground, I do understand the sentiment of annoyance with the current administration. At the very least, it's somewhat more legitimately-based than Republican "ABC" sentiment at the end of the Clinton administration.

 

But, per the tone of the OP, you're absolutely right and we really need to move on past this sort of thing. It just gets us no where.

 

Speaking of which, did anyone catch the Lou Dobbs Independent Convention this week? I saw a little bit of it, and thought it was pretty good. He's obviously a populist ala Bill O'Reilly, and that's his schtick and all that (gotta sell that air time, ya know), but I think he makes some pretty good points now and then.

[iNow]

Oh was it? I thought it was "John McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years."

 

I can find common ground with you there, too. I didn't like that a bit, as any reasonably intelligent human being knows that McCain's bigger point was that we would stay as long as it takes. The true issue is the difference between the candidates on their definitions of "what it takes" and what we can reasonably accomplish and how.

 

To the "100 Years" comment, though, that's one. When considered as an issue of scale, you must admit that it truly pales in comparison when viewed in context (such as at the video to which I've linked below).

 

 

[Pangloss]

No, I don't know that the McCain campaign is worse, and I don't see the point of determining which one is.

 

I just popped back in here for a moment to post this graceful interlude from divisive politics that was seen earlier today when the two candidates, who had earlier agreed not to air any attacks on one another today, took the time to visit Ground Zero together:

 

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/mccain-obama--1.html

[CaptainPanic]

Just to put things into perspective:

 

Over 1 billion people are discussing the fact that some dude called someone else a pig with lipstick.

 

Because this is discussed a lot outside the US too.

 

Weird, isn't it?

[Sisyphus]

Just to put things into perspective:

 

Over 1 billion people are discussing the fact that some dude called someone else a pig with lipstick.

 

Because this is discussed a lot outside the US too.

 

Weird, isn't it?

 

Yes, it is. Although it's actually even worse than that, because over 1 billion people are discussing the fact that some dude didn't call someone else a pig with lipstick.

[Phi for All]

My 9-year-old understands the art of distraction. She knows that she can divert her parents wrath over one of her misdeeds by diverting our attention away from her.

 

She doesn't fool me one bit, but I let politicians fool me this way all the time.

 

It really doesn't matter who gets into office in a two-party system. Lobbyists work the Reps and the Dems equally and big businesses get even bigger no matter who is at the country's helm. And some of the businesses have gotten SO big that they rival the power of foreign countries.

 

We spend more on defending ourselves from foreign countries than all foreign countries combined spend to defend themselves, but we are almost naked against the mega-corporations. If a foreign power were caught trying to manipulate our politics for profit the way our businesses are doing today, you can bet the public would be outraged and clamoring for war.

 

I think the depraved state of US politics is a direct reflection of the depraved state of US corporate policies. This enemy is a mole working behind enemy lines, with full access to our leadership, our communications and even our national psyche. We say we want change and change hurts the bottom line, rocks the boat and cuts into profits.

[bascule]

I would like someone to tell me how the republicans f*cked up with their VP pick. They love that pick. The base loves the pick. Republican women are motivated to the point they're boycotting Oprah, even if for illogical reasoning. And McCain's numbers and support is just going up and up. Where the hell are you getting the idea that any republican regrets that pick in the least?

 

She's pathetically underqualified. If McCain were to die I have no doubt she'd go on to make Gerald Ford look like an excellent statesman.

 

I won't argue against the strategic reasons for the pick. I'll certainly argue against the practical reasons for the pick. The woman is nowhere near qualified to become President of the United States, and she's sharing a ticket with a guy who's on death's doorstep.

[ParanoiA]

She's pathetically underqualified. If McCain were to die I have no doubt she'd go on to make Gerald Ford look like an excellent statesman.

 

I won't argue against the strategic reasons for the pick. I'll certainly argue against the practical reasons for the pick. The woman is nowhere near qualified to become President of the United States, and she's sharing a ticket with a guy who's on death's doorstep.

 

Ok, well I thought strategy was the focus, sorry. I don't think she's qualified, at this point. Not necessarily based on her short governorship, but based on her in whole. People can get the experience and skill set without serving in office, but she doesn't demonstrate anything like that either.

[bascule]

Ok, well I thought strategy was the focus, sorry.

 

So do many Americans, and because of that, I weep for our country.

 

That said, now let me take the opportunity to say: she's a thoroughly corrupt administrator who has viciously pursued undeserved government earmarks (and thus sullies McCain's rejection of earmarks). She's pro-censorship and wants to ban books which disagree with her political agenda. She fired her ex-brother-in-law over a custody battle, mixing politics with family affairs. She ran Wasilla into deep, deep debt. She allegedly called Obama a "Sambo".

 

--

 

This guy echoes my sentiments completely:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin