Quandary: High or low roads in politics (a Progressive rant ahead)
I'm stuck here, because I'm watching replays of Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show, and they raise interesting viewpoints re. the need for dirty campaign trickery and sticking with the high road and talk about the issues.
Now, before I go further, I just want to state that this is not what I see from all Republicans. No no . . . do not get me wrong. I'm limiting this to the wazoos that run these campaigns.
So . . .
Dirty campaigning works: C.R.E.E.P., "McCain's black baby", Swiftboating Kerry, Willie Horton. It's gotten even worse with the ascension of 527s and other advocacy groups and the 24-hour news cycle and mainstream media's need to fill in the gaps with pundit noise and talking points (and yes, I know my Olbermann's in this too--he's not exempt from classification as a pundit even though I adore him with the fire of a thousand suns).
And now, McCain campaign's ad that Obama approved a law to teach kindergartners about sex education.
The fact that they would take a law that tried to make young children aware about predators and educate them about the concept of "good touch, bad touch" and put such inflammatory, such perverse language into the ad for the official campaign made my skin crawl. It also made me retch. But just as I have my own reaction to the ad, I'm sure that there are others that see the ad and take it word for word, just as I had to send out several emails to people laying out point by point that Barack Obama's not a Muslim (and not that there's anything wrong with that.)
And I do think it's part and parcel of why dirty campaigning works. Because, in large part, it is extreme and filled with invective. The inflammatory nature of these ads and these tactics require an immediate and strong defense. Which leads to the problem.
Any defense takes away from staying on the offense. And in doing so, precious moments that the candidate needs to:
1.) stay the course and discuss issues, and
2.) turn the campaign rhetoric into a platform and professional character referendum against the opposition.
In my opinion, and there could be others that disagree, the political common wisdom of the day then turns to the snappy little sound-bites, where the news in both print and broadcast forms, turns into coverage solely focused on these tasty little tidbits, and picking it apart as much as they can.
But by that time, the damage is already done, and pretty soon, something like "Willie Horton!" and "Swift Boat!" becomes trademarked, a signifier used easily to identify the candidate, by the public. They focus on personality depictions, who's folksier and more "one of us" while the other team is still defending it's virtue, and then. . . well, hello 2004.
Obama chose to shuck the traditional 527 ads and opt for a straightforward attack-on-the-issues approach against McCain. But the inclusion of Karl Rove and Bush operatives in McCain's campaign, not to mention Sarah "Turn-of-the-Century" Palin has shown, to me, just how far the McCain campaign's willing to go to win.
Now, there are rumors that Obama's whispering to the 527 ads to start them up against McCain. Hmm . . .
He's also recently gone after McCain for ramping up the "lipstick" comment in a very meaty response: Obama's Education Town Hall
But how? How do you manage to stay above the dirt and the mud while you respond to such slanderous and vile statements and ads. I turn on to MSNBC and the talking heads aren't discussing McCain's ill-found Sex Ed advert, but the lipstick comment.
Yes, I think that was poorly phrased. Yes, Obama was just fine with the "old fish in a newspaper line". Yes, maybe Obama should've gone with an even folksier "You can't polish that turd!" line. But my point is, in the grand scheme of things, while Obama's lipstick line wasn't the best, it in no way compares to the advert that outright lies about Obama's record.
Oh geez! I'm afraid that I've gone on a rant. So sorry if there is anyone here with a differing opinion than my own. I would love to hear from you about these points. I really don't bite at all . . . I'm just completely flummoxed.
Now, before I go further, I just want to state that this is not what I see from all Republicans. No no . . . do not get me wrong. I'm limiting this to the wazoos that run these campaigns.
So . . .
Dirty campaigning works: C.R.E.E.P., "McCain's black baby", Swiftboating Kerry, Willie Horton. It's gotten even worse with the ascension of 527s and other advocacy groups and the 24-hour news cycle and mainstream media's need to fill in the gaps with pundit noise and talking points (and yes, I know my Olbermann's in this too--he's not exempt from classification as a pundit even though I adore him with the fire of a thousand suns).
And now, McCain campaign's ad that Obama approved a law to teach kindergartners about sex education.
The fact that they would take a law that tried to make young children aware about predators and educate them about the concept of "good touch, bad touch" and put such inflammatory, such perverse language into the ad for the official campaign made my skin crawl. It also made me retch. But just as I have my own reaction to the ad, I'm sure that there are others that see the ad and take it word for word, just as I had to send out several emails to people laying out point by point that Barack Obama's not a Muslim (and not that there's anything wrong with that.)
And I do think it's part and parcel of why dirty campaigning works. Because, in large part, it is extreme and filled with invective. The inflammatory nature of these ads and these tactics require an immediate and strong defense. Which leads to the problem.
Any defense takes away from staying on the offense. And in doing so, precious moments that the candidate needs to:
1.) stay the course and discuss issues, and
2.) turn the campaign rhetoric into a platform and professional character referendum against the opposition.
In my opinion, and there could be others that disagree, the political common wisdom of the day then turns to the snappy little sound-bites, where the news in both print and broadcast forms, turns into coverage solely focused on these tasty little tidbits, and picking it apart as much as they can.
But by that time, the damage is already done, and pretty soon, something like "Willie Horton!" and "Swift Boat!" becomes trademarked, a signifier used easily to identify the candidate, by the public. They focus on personality depictions, who's folksier and more "one of us" while the other team is still defending it's virtue, and then. . . well, hello 2004.
Obama chose to shuck the traditional 527 ads and opt for a straightforward attack-on-the-issues approach against McCain. But the inclusion of Karl Rove and Bush operatives in McCain's campaign, not to mention Sarah "Turn-of-the-Century" Palin has shown, to me, just how far the McCain campaign's willing to go to win.
Now, there are rumors that Obama's whispering to the 527 ads to start them up against McCain. Hmm . . .
He's also recently gone after McCain for ramping up the "lipstick" comment in a very meaty response: Obama's Education Town Hall
But how? How do you manage to stay above the dirt and the mud while you respond to such slanderous and vile statements and ads. I turn on to MSNBC and the talking heads aren't discussing McCain's ill-found Sex Ed advert, but the lipstick comment.
Yes, I think that was poorly phrased. Yes, Obama was just fine with the "old fish in a newspaper line". Yes, maybe Obama should've gone with an even folksier "You can't polish that turd!" line. But my point is, in the grand scheme of things, while Obama's lipstick line wasn't the best, it in no way compares to the advert that outright lies about Obama's record.
Oh geez! I'm afraid that I've gone on a rant. So sorry if there is anyone here with a differing opinion than my own. I would love to hear from you about these points. I really don't bite at all . . . I'm just completely flummoxed.