A Line of Attack the Obama Campaign Must Answer Forcefully
Tonight during the evening news the Republican National Committee ran an attack ad (multiple times) that featured menacing black-and-white images of Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Patrick Leahy and other leading Democrats with the captions: "Ready to Tax" and "Ready to Spend." I was hoping the DNC or the Obama Campaign would answer this propaganda with an ad of its own, but I have yet to see one. Right-wing talk radio and Glen Beck (the "King of the Cretins") have been hammering the idea that if Barack Obama were to be elected president the Democrats would control the government and it would lead to higher taxes. Steve Moore, formerly of the Club for Growth, whose vision for America Charles Dickens described long ago, was mercilessly flogging this idea on the Glen Beck show just yesterday. Moore said that if Obama were elected the stock market would tank and there'd be capital flight.
This argument, unfortunately, might have legs because many "independent," "centrist," and "low information" voters believe: 1). Government can't do anything to help you with your health care, housing, or energy bills and anyone who thinks it can is naive; and 2). The only thing Government can do is raise your taxes. These false notions have been beaten into the brains of voters for the last 28 years. The McCain-Palin campaign is lying and misrepresenting Obama's economic plan, but their target audience pays little attention to things like truth, reason, or rationality; they vote their feelings or their "guts." By running with this Big Lie the McCain-Palin camp is hitting below the belt. But what would you expect from Karl Rove acolytes?
I was astounded to learn that more television viewers watched John McCain's acceptance speech than Barack Obama's. I hope this doesn't mean that Sarah Palin is going to succeed in energizing the right-wing Christian evangelicals and other flat-Earthers to get out and vote in 2008. She might be able to do for the election of 2008 what gay marriage did for the election of 2004.
The Sarah Palin phenomenon tends to neutralize the inroads (if any) Obama might have made with white evangelicals. The religious Right has already denounced Obama's Saddleback colloquy with Rick Warren as being not "pro-life" enough. The only thing these people seem to need to know is that Palin knowingly chose to give birth to a "special needs" baby. They will ignore the fact that as Governor of Alaska, Palin cut the budget for assistance to families with "special needs" children from about $8 million to $3 million. The DNC or a sympathetic 527 should immediately begin running television and radio ads pointing out Palin's hypocrisy on this issue. Palin needs to be hit hard and hit now. Hesitating to slam her with some well-produced attack ads would be like John Kerry failing to respond to the Swift Boaters.
Sarah Palin is this election's Grand Swift Boater -- the sooner the Obama camp recognizes this the better.
Joe Biden cannot allow the corporate media to kowtow him into going soft on Palin just because she has a pair of overactive ovaries. She is a liar and a fraud and a religious extremist, and the sooner the bark is stripped off her the better. Hillary Clinton, if she is forceful and diligent on the campaign trail, can be very effective in countering the Palin pander. Hillary might have to be just as bitterly sarcastic and caustic as Palin to counter her. I don't think she should hold back.
But I cannot help but think about how Phyllis Schlafly (an ally of Palin's) and women like her -- to almost everyone's surprise -- killed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the late 1970s. It would be foolish to underestimate the political power of anti-feminist women in this country. They're angry, vocal, motivated, armed with a Carrie Nation fanaticism, and they have a hell of a lot of money.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't know why you are astounded by the fact that more people watched McCain than Obama. Americans have an innate aversion to socialism.
Obama's handlers must not allow their puppet to be revealed for the poll driven, empty suit that he is. Therefore, they must viscously attack anyone and everyone that dares to ask ligament questions of him. The best defense being a strong offense, vile attacks against the opposition's children, combined with lies and demagoguery, must be increased. At the same time, inquiry regarding "Barry's" "racist" grandparents, his known brother living in a hut in Kenya, his unknown siblings, his obscure mother, his "father", his relationships with racist rabble rousing "reverends", murderous terrorists, criminal slum lords, crooked mayors, or anything else must be ruthlessly repressed. A log of people making such inquires should be maintained for future prosecution. Once in office and the Bush/Cheney prosecutions are underway, these people can be permanent silenced by a variety of methods considered at leisure. The process was perfected by Joseph Stalin, and is well documented. With major media already under firm control, it would be simple matter to implement these effective techniques. The above article is an example of type of propaganda the Handlers can rely upon.
Some say: S. Palin should be ignored: denounce McCain only.
I am not a strategist of any sort, but like Joseph A. Palermo, I believe she has to be countered quickly.
She distills a kind of poison (acid irony and lies). Infections can spread fast.
Most probably it should be ready to link Bush+Mc+SP in the same add....
Time to let the dogs roam.
Biden is biding time, waiting for the kill..
Hillary may scratch her eyes out.
"I was astounded to learn that more television viewers watched John McCain's acceptance speech than Barack Obama's."
Astounded?
Pay attention, Joe.
More of them had access to it. Plain and simple.
I'm sure that's not a detail that's really all that astounding to you, once you think about the state of our country and its airwaves.
At least I'm hoping you've been paying at least that much attention these last few years.
"right-wing Christian evangelicals and other flat-Earthers"
WOW! Nothing elitist about THAT statement! Apparently the author doesn't mind insulting nearly one-third of the US population (according to 2007 Statistical Abstract of the USA) by telling us that we are "flat-earthers"!
It's the oldest trick in the debate book, ad hominem, If you can't win the argument based on logic, then attack the person.
Is it my understanding that you are all for Democracy, making sure that no voters are disenfranchised, and the rule of the majority ... unless it involves voters who don't think the same way you do?
Wow...dude...is this your article or your opinion piece? I'm curious why you choose to side "truth" alongside "reason, or rationality" and not with "feelings or...'guts.'" Perhaps your blatant bias towards the antiquated modern paradigm is showing through...or perhaps you're simply unaware that we (as men) still tend to believe reason and logic must always be superior to feeling or intiution. Our sisters, of course, have called us out on this front for centuries and now that we're clearly into a postomdern paradigm perhaps we would do well to recognize the simple importance of listening to those women (regardless of color, race, political affiliation, etc.) who are actually women. Perhaps the best way our country will decide issues like abortion is to (finally!) create a government representative of the people and allow 50% of the needed woman politicians to come into fruition so then can decide what's best for American women. Sound logic to you? Feels right to me!
I have to agree with you - the Dems have to strike back hard.
No more Mr. Nice Guy, and please stop saying what a "hero" McCain is,etc. etc.. I've noticed that he rarely, if ever, compliments Obama/Biden.
If anything, stress the contradiction of his vet status with the anti-vet positions that he has taken.
Stress that anti-women stance that he has taken.
It's a dirty fight and the Repubs show time and time again that it's not in their DNA to play fair..for a party that "loves" America, they've done a great job of running this country into the ground. Any person with a scintilla of sense knows that if the Repubs stay in office if will be disatrous for this country.
They have no shame. You would think that they would have at least acknowledge the horror of the past 8 years-- but you would think we're living in wonderful times to hear them tell it.
Do they think Americans are stupid?
I think they do - because they appeal to base emotions and not rational thought.
They want people to vote out of fear or other baseless emotions...
I wonder what people living abroad think? Is there any other country where stupidity is exalted and intelligence mocked? Please, let's take our country back!
Why are you trying to drive us crazy? McCain puts out an ad, an ad that took a little bit of time to prepare and place, and just because you did not see a response in the SAME night from the Obama campaign we are in trouble? You are also astounded that McCain's speech had more viewers? You are no different from the low-info voters you belittle. Those numbers did not include PBS or C-SPAN and when they inlcuded PBS, Obama had more viewers. What about those who saw it on line or around the world? And why don't you also mention that many critics are saying McCain's speech was disappointing? Let's find out who the viewers were and what they thought and IF they even watched the entire speech - then be astounded. No matter who had the higher number, it don't matta!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
