Notes On The Candidates

[poliphilo]

They say old soldiers make peace-loving politicians because they know first-hand how horrible war is, but this doesn't seem to apply to McCain, who has already- and he's not even in the White House yet- threatened to go to war with Russia.  Maybe this is because his military service involved flying above battlefields, not slogging accross them.

I'll say this for Palin: she hasn't pulled strings or called in favours to keep her son out of her holy war.

As for Obama, he's supposed to be hugely intelligent, right? So why in the world did he make that crack about the pig and the lipstick when he- or his minders- should have known that the GOP attack dogs would be all over it? The more I see and hear of him, the flimsier he seems to be.

Comments

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

Actually, the "lipstick on a pig" comment played out rather well for the Democratic ticket, all things considered. The Rethuglicans went into high-dudgeon mode for days, but much of the press somewhat surprisingly didn't buy into the faux outrage. The right-wing surrogates kept repeating the same canard, that Obama's audience obviously thought he intended Palin. It never really stuck. The phrase is just too common over here and twice in the past year McCain himself had used it in reference to Senator Hillary Clinton's health-care reform plan.

Nearly every news spot rolled the footage of Obama's supposed gaffe, often leading with it:

"You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. You can wrap up an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough."

Whether intentionally or not, using that phrase allowed Obama's core message to penetrate the fog of lies and diversions pumped out daily by the McCain-Palin campaign and dutifully replayed and amplified in the press. It also allowed the Democratic candidate to go on a popular late-night talk show and joke that, logically, Palin isn't the pig; she's obviously the lipstick on McCain's pig of a campaign. Rather clever, I thought, and also happens to be true.

The truth is that the economy, the issues, social demographics, public opinion, and history itself, are all on the side of the Democrats this year. Manufactured outrage, misleading attacks, and other diversionary tactics are the only way that McCain can win. If public dialog is allowed to turn to the challenges facing the US, the Republicans are toast and they know it. Consequently, there will always be flaps like this, no matter what Obama says, from now until the election. If he doesn't give them a pretense, they'll make one up. The "lipstick on a pig" statement at least directs attention to a simple, easy-to-understand fact of this electioin: McCain offers nothing new. Personally, I suspect we haven't heard the last of pigs and lipsticks.

And for the record: the most serious of McCain's injuries were not suffered at the hands of his captors in North Vietnam. He didn't tuck-in as he should have done, when he triggered his ejection seat. He broke in prison when he realized he wasn't going to get the medical attention he needed for his injuries and told them he was the son of the admiral in command of the Pacific fleet. The Viet Cong offered to release him after two years, I think, and he refused, remaining in prison for five and a half, disregarding the orders given any officer who might be held in captivity.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Why would McCain choose to stay in prison for five and a half years when he could have been out in two?

This seems to be gearing up to be a very nasty election.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

Good question.

McCain has claimed, if I remember correctly, that he personally refused the offer, not wishing to leave other prisoners behind. Other accounts say that his US POW commander ordered him to remain and he obeyed. There has been speculation, which you may take for what you will, that McCain turned down the release for political reasons. Given his cooperation with his captors, coerced though it was, an early release of the admiral's son would likely have been an embarrassment for both his father and himself.

I don't know. I always liked McCain, until he spent the past eight years sucking up to the Bush administration and tirelessly cheerleading the worst strategic blunder in US military history. It's impossible to see his campaign against Barack Obama as honorable, and by reflection, it's difficult to still see McCain as an honorable man. I've watched him spinning and outright lying without shame on the campaign trail for weeks, now, and at this point I honestly wonder whether anything he's said, then or now, is credible.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Who knows? Politics is a mirror-maze.

It's difficult, I would suggest, indeed, almost impossible- for an honourable man to keep his honour on the campaign trail.

My impression of McCain is of a bad-tempered, not particularly bright, old man. Strong-willed, easily led- not a good combination.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree. Not a good combination of traits at all.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

And yes, I think this is indeed going to be nasty. I doubt we've seen the half of it, yet. Here's a taste of what Obama's up against this season.

I also worry that whether Obama wins or loses, the country may well be left almost ungovernable as a result of this campaign. I don't think the Republicans are going to go quietly and with Democrat's political power on the rise, I should be very surprised if they take such a loss lying down.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I believe what we're witnessing is the close of the American century. Obama might be able to slow down the process of decline, McCain would probably speed it up.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

"The close of the American century" is a good way of putting it, yes.

At this point in history, the US as empire in all but name is like one of those bubbles economists are always talking about. It cannot sustain itself much longer and has only lasted this long through exuberance, a collective belief in what is now an obvious unreality. This bubble must deflate, eventually. The only question is whether it does so catastrophically or in a controlled manner that minimizes damage on all sides.

If I could demand anything of Obama, I should wish for an orderly climb-down from the past few years in particular and the US's decades-long bid to rule the world, generally. What I fear most from McCain is that he would either slow the natural decline of this country as world power, thus making the inevitable collapse just that much worse, or else act so recklessly that he inaugurates that catastrophe himself. He's already clamoring for a proxy war with the Russians. Goddess only knows what he'd get up to, if given executive power.

Empires do this sort of thing, historically. Sometimes they settle down gracefully and return to minding their own business. Sometimes they see the inevitable approaching and make one last bone-headed attempt to reclaim their former glory. I fear John McCain is just such a bone head.