Perhaps you've read about former blogger and current John McCain campaign employee Soren Dayton getting a suspension for conduct deemed unbecoming. This blogger couldn't bring himself to shed any tears for Dayton, a blogger who could find a way to condemn Mitt Romney for breathing the free air or giving water to a dying man. But, Patrick Ruffini offers up an interesting and in-depth analysis of some broader issues at play with what happened to Dayton.
This part jumped out to me:
A month ago, McCain-Obama looked like a bad matchup for us: a Republican nominee who didn't do much to galvanize the base against a Democrat who didn't either.The New York Times kerfuffle and now the Wright story is slowly changing that. With an assist from Hillary Clinton's overtures to the right-wing of the Democratic Party, Obama is now a more polarizing figure in key swing states than she is. It is now clear that conservative media will do to Obama what they did to Kerry, Gore, and Clinton. This can be an unalloyed boon to the McCain campaign, as it pretty much takes care of his conservative problem and frees him to go after swing voters.
Not only is this generally true, but I'm not sure how many Democrats have actually caught on to the fact that Obama is likely to be a larger electoral liability in a number of key states than Hillary Clinton, no matter what his dramatic appeal to younger voters and grassroots contributors.
Either way, read the whole thing. His take on how these new fangled Internets affect campaign discourse is always worth the time.
UPDATE: typo fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 23, 2008 09:38 PM | Email This"The challenge in modern Presidential campaign is not simply to paint your opponent as wrong on the issues, and to prevail in a civil debate. It is to render the opponent unacceptable to 48% of the electorate, and merely less preferable to 3%. Despite McCain's troubles with the base, conservative media (and Hillary) are doing the heavy lifting on the unacceptable part. McCain should get out of the way, and jump in ONLY when someone crosses a racial and/or religious line."
Note this phrase:
"McCain should get out of the way, and jump in ONLY when someone crosses a racial and/or religious line."
So, does that mean that the campaign continues with Rev. Wright 24/7? Are there issues that highlight the policy differences or is Rev. Wright all that the Mc Cain has?
Posted by: WVH on March 23, 2008 09:58 PMWell, David Duke was about all you had on Ron Paul. Pot meet kettle.
Posted by: TskTsk on March 23, 2008 10:20 PMHere is the theory: Dr. Paul never really disavowed David Duke. Some of his other ideas were probably screwy enough to get him kicked to the curb. For example the gold standard would have been an issue and I believe he wanted to eliminate some cabinet departments. Here is his platform from the Boston Herald:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/bios/view.bg?articleid=1063101
The theory is this, had Dr. Paul used some of his 30 seconds on the national stage to disavow David Duke, people would have gone to his other issues like the gold standard. He probably still would be sunk.
So, does the campaign of Senator Mc Cain have any other issues to contrast with Senator Obama? Even Dr. Paul had issues.
Back to you, are you the pot or the kettle?
Posted by: WVH on March 23, 2008 11:05 PMIs there some reason it shouldn't?
"Are there issues that highlight the policy differences or is Rev. Wright all that the McCain has?"
Because of Barry's lies on the Wright issue combined with throwing his grandmother under the bus and his total lack of judgment in either becoming enmeshed in that issue to begin with, or his complete mishandling of it once it broke; what part will issues (which Barry also loses on) need to play?
Continuing to beat Barry like a pinata over this issue will keep Obama off message and on the defensive. Please don't act like that isn't a solid strategy.
The left was sure they had their issue with Iraq... given how much they were working for our defeat there.
Now.... not so much.
Negative campaigning works in the short-term and in some cases works in the long-term. You are right 24/7 is a strategy, but is it a winning strategy? The "Willie Horton" campaign was successful because Dukakis already had the nomination and it was close to an election. You know pols better than most around here. I don't know the final math for the dem nomination especially if Senator Clinton stays in. But, given your experience with pols, do you think it is a tiny bit possible that superdelegates will look for another way out? So, continue the 24/7 campaign, nothing will change in politics, that's all.
Posted by: WVH on March 24, 2008 12:02 AMDid Dr Paul ever have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected? Did Dr Paul attend David Duke's church for 20 years? Did Dr Paul ever call Duke his uncle?
"The theory is this, had Dr. Paul used some of his 30 seconds on the national stage to disavow David Duke, people would have gone to his other issues like the gold standard. He probably still would be sunk."
Too bad Obama didn't take the same advantage in his speech to denounce Wright. Instead he merely offered up jusitifcation by throwing his white grandmother under the bus. Not even Dr Paul did that. I would never have voted for Paul anyway, but he never threw his grandmother under the bus, that's for sure.
So, does the campaign of Senator Mc Cain have any other issues to contrast with Senator Obama? Even Dr. Paul had issues.
Oh there are plenty. But you mainstreamers won't get off of trying to spin the racism and hate as something more benign, somehow more acceptable. And thus we go, round and round.
Back to pot and kettle.
Posted by: TskTsk on March 24, 2008 02:18 AMWith Obama's rank hypocrisy on the matter given that he called for Don Imus to be fired for much less assures this issue will not be forgotten.
Posted by: TskTsk on March 24, 2008 02:23 AM1. Regarding Dr. Paul's chances of election, some posters here were convinced he had a shot. What does the chance of election have to do with the fact he had a 20 year relationship with Duke and others like Duke? Isn't that your issue with Senator Obama. My point is you, were not equally incensed by David Duke. Your outrage seems to be selective and convenient.
2. Sorry, but "mainstreamers" specifically refer to supporters of the KKK and groups like them. They hate Blacks, Jews, and Catholics and others of color. They realize that they cannot run as KKK members and get elected, so like David Duke they are attempting to join the republican party and run under the republican label. Now, in your use of the term, specify from my posts where I have said that I hate any race, color, creed or religion. Regarding Senator Obama, he has specifically disavowed Rev. Wright's remarks. Your use of "mainstreamer" regarding me is incorrect. Regarding Senator Obama, it is also incorrect.
3. Now regarding the stench of hypocrisy. Do you now or have you ever disavowed the agenda of David Duke and others like him? Did you post that here? Did you call on Dr. Paul to disavow David Duke and others like him? Did you post that here.
No, you are just a poster of the moment, fleeting from site to site hoping to advance the cause of Duke and his supporters. "Mainstreamers" use misinformation, misquotes, mistakes, and misanthropy to advance their agenda of hate.
I guess it is just a case of convenient libertarian outrage at the target of the moment.
The hypocracy is that your outrage is not based on pinciple, just it suits the moment.
I don't know if you are a republican or liberatarian, but David Duke ran as a republican and I don't know if he still chairs a parish or county republican group. Duke seems to have an affinity for libertarians, but he realizes they have no chance for being elected. He joined the republican party because he considered it "mainstream."
Regarding "mainstreaming" this is what the ADL or Antidefamation League says about Duke:
"David Duke has embraced the Internet as a key to the future of the white supremacist movement. An article featured prominently at his site, "The Coming White Revolution -- Born on the Internet," outlines his high hopes that the Internet will "facilitate a world-wide revolution of White awareness." In particular, Duke believes the Web will shatter the control of his "unrelenting enemy," the "alien anti-White" media:"
http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/duke.asp
So, I guess you are a stormtrooper for the movement.
People other than the RP zealots knew he didn't have a chance. RP was a joke and everyone bu the zealots knew it. The chance of election has a lot to do with it. One is a crank who won't be near the presidency, the other is a man who may well win. That is why you don't haul ass over to Pacific Beach looking for the one bigot over there because that one bigot is a crank and everyone knows it. You were obviously outraged about Ron Paul and David Duke with their 20 year relationship. You aren't outraged and tall about Obama and his relationship. Yours is the selective and convenient outrage. You set the precedent for yourself of every other post being about Paul and Duke, too bad you aren't even handed in your outrage.
"Sorry, but "mainstreamers" specifically refer to supporters of the KKK and groups like them. They hate Blacks, Jews, and Catholics and others of color. They realize that they cannot run as KKK members and get elected, so like David Duke they are attempting to join the republican party and run under the republican label. Now, in your use of the term, specify from my posts where I have said that I hate any race, color, creed or religion. Regarding Senator Obama, he has specifically disavowed Rev. Wright's remarks. Your use of "mainstreamer" regarding me is incorrect. Regarding Senator Obama, it is also incorrect."
"mainstreamers" specifically refer to supporters of the Black Liberation Theology of "kill the white enemy" and groups like them. They hate whites, Jews, and Catholics and others of that are not black. They realize that they cannot run as BLT members and get elected, so like Barak Obama they are attempting to join the democrat party and run under the democrat label. Now, in your use of the term, specify from my posts where I have said that I hate any race, color, creed or religion. Regarding Senator Obama, he has not specifically disavowed Rev. Wright himself but rather tried to equate him to his white grandmother whom he thrw under the bus . My use of "mainstreamer" regarding you is correct. Regarding Senator Obama, it is also correct.
"Now regarding the stench of hypocrisy. Do you now or have you ever disavowed the agenda of David Duke and others like him? Did you post that here? Did you call on Dr. Paul to disavow David Duke and others like him? Did you post that here."
I live my life disavowing bigotry of all kinds. When it comes to Duke, Wright, Cone or any others, I disavow them through deeds which mean more than words on the internet. I have never defended a bigot here or anywhere else unlike you.
You are the mainstreamer you define. Your divert attention to others, distract from the main issue and are determined to advance your notion that black liberation "kill the white enemy" theology is a normal church philosophy.
Regarding "mainstreaming" this is what the ADL or Antidefamation League says about Duke:
"David Duke has embraced the Internet as a key to the future of the white supremacist movement. An article featured prominently at his site, "The Coming White Revolution -- Born on the Internet," outlines his high hopes that the Internet will "facilitate a world-wide revolution of White awareness." In particular, Duke believes the Web will shatter the control of his "unrelenting enemy," the "alien anti-White" media:"
http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/duke.asp
So, I guess you are a stormtrooper for the movement.
Posted by WVH at March 24, 2008 02:55 AM
You whole blather is a big smoke screen. It is a diversion designed to change the topic to anything other than the Black Liberation "kill the white enemy" philosophy of Obama's Uncle Jeremiah Wright.
Exactly how many of the "white enemy" are you rpepared to kill? You defend this philosophy. Was Kristofer Kimes one of the first victims of the Black Liberation Theology? That black perp got off too didn't he? I bet your storm troopers celebrated that one.
You are the one defending a bigot because he is black. Show me a white bigot and I will denounce him or her just like the others.
Posted by: TskTsk on March 24, 2008 06:15 AMFortunately, Mr. Fauxbama's image has been irreparably damaged due to both his Pastor's antics and his own utterance of a racist stereotype "she's a typical white person". We haven't even scratched the surface on his other scandals like Rezko and William Ayers, so I hope you packed your lunch WVH, it's going to be a long campaign.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 24, 2008 07:00 AMI think Senator Obama has made some mistakes in his campaign. Still, for those like Rick D. and whatever the moniker of the moment Tsk. Tsk, etc. try to state over and over. Where has he said he hates anyone of another color and wants to kill them?
To go from the fact that I point out to those great civil rights fighters, Rick D. and moniker of the moment, Tsk, Tsk that Rev. Wright, David Duke and Rev. Hagee are in the same stew does not mean that I have become a killer of white people except in their sick minds. Sorry, folks. I never said I supported Rev. Wright, I simply said that some of the "leaders" you hold dear have friends and associates with similiar issues. It is interesting that Katomar can disavow Duke and his associates, Rick D. and moniker of the moment, Tsk, Tsk. can't. Neither could Dr. Paul.
I am not a member of Rev. Wright's denomination and never would have joined. What I think Senator Obama's attendance shows is that it is a popular church for some in Chicago and he wanted a political advantage. I believe that Rev. Hagee's megachurch in San Antonio is also popular with up and comers there. He considers the Catholic church the great whore. So, by the twisted logic of Rick D. and moniker of the moment, Tsk, Tsk, Senator Mc Cain considers the Pope a whore.
In this discussion, it is simply pointing out that if you want hold Senator Obama accountable for being a shallow pol with even shallower principles, go ahead. You also must apply that standard to Senator Mc Cain, Dr. Paul and anyone else that accepts support from a bigot. Same standard for all folks.
Now stating that principle does not mean I accept Rev. Wright's theology. No where have I ever stated I hate any person of another race, color, creed or religion. Now, "mainstreamers" Rick D. and moniker of the moment, Tsk, Tsk have never said that.
Posted by: WVH on March 24, 2008 09:15 AMI am surprised that you don't see the difference in Obama's Rev. Wright and McCains Hagee endorsment.
With Obama it is clearly choice association. With McCain it is clearly no association whatsoever.
It is like Charles Manson saying; I like Hillary. I wouldn't feel it is necessary for her to announce that she rejects Charlie Manson. I may not support Hillary, or even like her that much, but I wouldn't condemn her because some nutball likes her.
Now if Hillary were to seek out Charlies advice and wisdom, I would have a big problem with her.
Tell me, did McCain seek out Hagee?
And while you're at it can you enlighten me about Obama's association with Rev. Wright?
Posted by: REBEL on March 24, 2008 09:28 AMIf you don't get the gist of what I'm saying you're ridiculous. I am not comparing Wright to Manson either. Don't be a fool a useful one no doubt, but still a fool.
Posted by: REBEL on March 24, 2008 09:37 AMWhat part of the principle is....don't you get?
The principle is that bigots should not be tolerated, except, what, if it is my bigot and my bigot gives me political advantage? Senator Mc Cain, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton and Dr. Paul are pols. Who knew. They will do whatever it takes to get a sufficient number of votes to get elected to whatever. Sorry to burst your bubble. None of them is going to be wearing a halo soon. Senator Mc Cain took the endorsement and support of Rev. Hagee because he calculated it would help his cause. So, you are arguing there is an egg timer on bigotry, like being a little bit pregnant? Either you accept support from bigots or you don't. Now, me pointing that out doesn't mean I want to come over to your house and kill you, it just means that I don't give any pol the credit you want to give Senator Mc Cain. When it comes to winning all pols have a killer instinct.
I agree that all pols are what you say, I am probably on record saying worse about them. I mostly don't like any professional politician. I don't think that what they do is necessarily for the service of the people who elected them. Quite often their humility is faked, usually you can tell when someone is a fake. Instead, we who gave them their job are then expected to kow tow to them.
I also am on record as not liking McCain very much. Once again the political apparatus in this country has given us a bunch of stinkers to vote for. I can't remember the last time I was excited to support a candidate.
So you think that McCain should say publicly that he doesn't accept Haggee's endorsement? Perhaps you have a point. But as it stands niether Obama or McCain are doing that with their respective endorsers.
BTW on a friendlier note; I read this blog daily during the week and I notice you posting quite often, can you generally say what it is you do that allows you time for this? I work in a hospital laboratory so sometimes I get time between patients and other lab duties. I'm curious about you too Duffman.
Posted by: REBEL on March 24, 2008 09:59 AMI have not read or seen Senator Mc Cain's statement, but I believe that he disavowed Rev. Hagee's remarks sufficiently to appease Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.
One thing I like about some European countries is they limit campaigns to 90 days. That certainly would be useful here. It is a long way to August.
Posted by: WVH on March 24, 2008 10:03 AMMost people here are either in IT or consultants or both. Many are self-employed. The ones I wonder about are those that work for public agencies as that is public time if they are posting during work hours.
Posted by: WVH on March 24, 2008 10:12 AMI am sure the employment question would never be used to find out where some one is working so that the "mainstreamers" could get them fired, right?
Posted by: WVH on March 24, 2008 10:15 AMI hope you don't think that is what I was trying to do. That is why I asked 'generally' I don't really want to know everything as I know there are some people who would use that to try and get you in trouble. I just enjoy the discourse you offer. I don't agree with you all of the time but I also think you get attacked sometimes when you don't deserve it. I also do agree with you from time to time.
katomar;
I would like to see term limits too. I have talked about that with other people and they give the smarmy answer 'we have term limits, it's called elections'. Trouble with that is, it aint working. I am often led to wonder if we are really electing anybody. I just don't see for instance how the people of Mass. can keep electing Ted Kennedy. Are they really that morally bankrupt? If anybody ordinary person had done what he did they would have just recently gotten out of jail. A real head scratcher.
Posted by: REBEL on March 24, 2008 10:53 AMYour paranoia is really telling.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 24, 2008 01:02 PMRon Paul is still in the race, though a distant second.
The Republican party is still due for more drubbing from the electorate for violating their promises of fiscal conservatism, and backing a very unpopular war in Iraq.
Look forward to socialized medicine, and troops still in Iraq at the end of 2012.
Once McCain is formally nominated, I'm voting Libertarian.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on March 24, 2008 01:51 PMEven Bruce can't take a true stand. What he said was he won't vote for McCain. He didn't state that he would vote for Obama.
That's what all the lefties and Bruces in this state just don't seem to understand - there won't be any 'crossover' votes for Obama. But there will be for McCain.
Which group is bigger:
1. People voting for Kerry in 2004 and McCain in 2008, or
2. People voting for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008?
If you think group #2 is bigger than, or even a reasonable percent of, group #1 - you definitely live in Western Washington and you don't understand the true political climate of this large nation.
Nobody who voted for Bush will also vote for Obama. But many many folks who voted for Kerry will vote for McCain.
Posted by: Larry on March 24, 2008 02:29 PMSorry WVH, but tsk,tsk is not a moniker of mine.
Your paranoia is really telling.
I said this:
"Still, for those like Rick D. and whatever the moniker of the moment Tsk. Tsk, etc."
Which means "AND" whatever "the moniker" of the moment.
How could I possibly confuse you with a HOODED ONE in the burbs? If I did that, my bad. (sarcasm)