Liberals cannot figure out why John McCain is doing well in the polls. It is making them restless. Witness Bob Cesca’s column, “Fooled Again,” at Huffington Post (Mr. Obama’s other home page):
It’s happening again. Regardless of the outcome of this thing, it’s clear that half of America is falling for the same superficial trickery that gave us eight years of George W. Bush. You know the routine. Who do you want to have a beer with? Who is more plainspoken? Who would you like to drive your kids to hockey?
Only this time around, America is exponentially worse off than it was in 2000 or 2004, which only makes the degree to which certain voters are being tricked all the more infuriating and incomprehensible.
The left is nonplussed about why people are not lining up for the Democratic ticket. They reason that current events and the Republicans are sooooo bad, how can any thinking person vote for McCain?
According to Cesca, perhaps these McCain voters are thinking, but what they are thinking is just bad. In fact, most likely, these Republicans are just bad, awful people. He says,
Given their record of success in years past, it’s no wonder why the Republicans do what they do. But this goes beyond cause and effect. It’s their nature. They’re simply unable to govern, so all they have left are their basest, most cynical and depraved instincts. Their presidential ticket is composed of two incompetent, corrupt liars who want to continue the Bush legacy (while also lying about their “change” message). But they’re good at whining; they’re good at smearing; and they excel at fear-mongering. John McCain has fully embraced Karl Rove’s brand of insect politics.
Don’t hold back, Bob. How do you really feel about the other half?
Cesca then blames the media for failing to inform the dense American people of how bad the Republican ticket is, saying
With a complicit barbecue media at their disposal — a team of fainting goats on cable news and AM radio — their screaming and stomping gets plenty of airplay.
Strange to hear an Obama supporter complain about the media. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll showed that 69% of those polled perceived that the media plays favorites in their reporting of the presidential race. So Cesca is on to something, right? Not at all. According to the Rasmussen folks,
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama win versus 11% who believe they are trying to help his Republican opponent John McCain.
Five to one, people think the media is biased toward Obama. Maybe Cesca thinks that this is as it should be since a little over half of Americans are so prone to believe “corrupt liars.” Maybe he thinks the media should work a little harder to get Mr. Obama elected.
Being stupified that Americans might resonate with the conservative positions articulated by McCain-Palin may reflect a kind of elitism. Senator Obama got into some hot water for a similar perspective during the primary season when he told wealthy San Francisco donors that rural Pennsylvanians were “bitter” and “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
I don’t know which is worse, Cesca’s sense of superiority or his dim assessment of the perspicacity of Americans who disagree with him.
No need to decide since I am obviously unable to see through the trickery.
Byron said in post 126657:
hanks for agreeing on the main point I was making…
However, I don’t agree with you. Cesca’s comment may have been hyperbole, but it was not asinine. His main point in that statement, America is worse off, is not wrong.
Though I’m not even sure I agree with you on the point, thanks for agreeing on the main point I was making…
Byron said in post 126590 :
Nobody is commenting on something utterly asinine that Cesca wrote:
“America is exponentially worse off than it was in 2000 or 2004.”
While Cesca’s use of the term “exponentially” is an exaggeration, he is not wrong when he says America is worse off.
Nobody is commenting on something utterly asinine that Cesca wrote:
“America is exponentially worse off than it was in 2000 or 2004.”
That would be hysterical if not for the fact that there are some dupes who actually believe that, being fed a steady diet of it by the left. It just gets said, absent supporting documents/facts (but then again, facts often don’t matter these days). Wonder if this bozo Cesca’s life is “exponentially worse off”.
Please. When ridiculous things like this are said, they disqualify the writer’s other remarks from serious consideration by reasonable people.
Furthermore, Minty … Governor Palin has NOT requested earmarks for Alaska. Governors don’t have the power to do that.
The exact quote from the LA Times is this – “But under her leadership, the state of Alaska has requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million in next year’s federal budget, according to the website of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.”
Meaning Alaska’s congressional leadership has made the request, one of whom – Ted Stevens – is under investigation for fraud.
Palin did seek federal funding for several projects while she was mayor of Wasila. Perhaps, again, she has changed her mind with more experience.
Regarding the bridge, Minty … Palin was in favor during her gubernatorial run and then against it once she gained more experience in office. It’s called “changing your mind once you’re more informed of the situation.”
Perhaps you could explain (or try to justify) the fact that both Biden and Obama voted more than once for the legislation that included the bridge. McCain was one of a very small minority that voted against it.
Marty –
I think that’s a fairly accurate, if ahistorical, account of where politics is at the moment. Can you provide a narrative of how you think we got to this point?
For example, I think McCain was agreed to be a fairly moderate and fair-minded Republican by most Americans up to the point of this campaign season. But, can you think of any reasons why they might be of a different opinion now based on things he has said and done in the last 12 months, or even 3 months? I sure can.
Can you articulate why this “liberal” media was so quick to jump all over Hillary Clinton’s silly Bosnia fib, and not on Palin/McCain’s much more consequential policy lies?
Just today on the View, McCain claimed Palin never asked for earmarks as governor of Alaska. This is a flat-out lie. Palin requested nearly $200 million this year, and she was the first mayor of Wasilla to hire a Washington lobbyist, with fabulous results. (Alaska is heavy subsidized by the US government.)
Here’s what infuriates me. Palin has repeated her lie about the Bridge to Nowhere – which she supported during her gubernatorial campaign – over twenty times now. At one point does the media start doing it’s job and call this a flat-out lie? Because that’s what it is.
Our nonfunctional, complacent press is part of why we ended up in this disastrous foreign policy mess. C’e la vie, I guess.
Just when you think the left cannot get any more hysterically vitriolic, they ratchet things up another notch. Sarah Palin has them in fits of violent rage.
I’m afraid that one of these days, our political divisions must result in physical violence. Our differences are only growing wider it seems, when a moderate republican like McCain (someone who is considered a democrat by the right wing of his party) is portrayed as a right wing extremist by the left.
The center has collapsed. You are either for us or against us. Bring it on.
Cesca sounds pretty condescending, but his anger probably reflects the fact that 8 of the 12 items on factcheck.org’s front page currently deal with material from the McCain campaign/Republicans, while only 3 deal with material from the Obama campaign/Democrats (and the other one dealing with Palin rumors). Every night of the Republican Convention was “factchecked” but apparently only Obama’s speech was. And if we look at July, it’s 10 versus 2 (4 if you want to count Planned Parenthood and the AFL-CIO as belonging to the Obama camp, which would be rather generous since the Obama camp can’t really control what those groups say or do). June & August appear to be about a tie, number-wise at least.
Politifact breaks it down this way:
True or Mostly True:
McCain 40% (25 out of 113 True)
Obama 55% (39 out of 113 True)
Half or Barely True:
McCain 35%
Obama 29%
False/Pants On Fire:
McCain 25% (6 POF comments)
Obama: 16% (0 POF comments)
So it seems at least based on one nonpartisan group and one journalistic site said group apparently finds reliable, that there is not equivalency here. One campaign is running a much cleaner campaign than the other. A pure count of Factcheck articles doesn’t measure the relative level of the whoppers – but Politifact does try to apply a measure, though obviously it’s harder to quantify. And it seems the McCain campaign has told some truly spectacular falsehoods.