In Response To Hundal
It seems that Sunny Hundal disagrees with my article on the likely nastiness of the presidential campaign ahead. I cannot help but be amused by the aforelinked article. In response to my claims that this should be a far more calm and pleasant race than the downright grisly 2004 contest Sunny states “No. This is going to be by far the nastiest presidential race you have ever seen and will ever see.” I think that the error made here is in presuming that anyone in America or elsewhere has the capacity to make a more effectively nasty campaign than Karl Rove. I am uncertain if Sunny is aware of this but McCain himself actually received far worse treatment during primary contests against Bush of 2000 than Gore later would in the true presidential one. There was racism used in reference to their adopted daughter and it was stated baldly that McCain’s wife was a drug addict.
Then Sunny’s post strays into the realm of parody:
McCain may give the impression of being intelligent, calm and reasonable but there’s one problem - he is a Republican. Most Republicans are scum of the earth. They are fantastic strategists but nevertheless they are scum.
Yes, those dreaded Republicans, a pack of bigots to a man, aren’t they? The problem here is that Sunny has effectively performed the crime the party criticised are most commonly guilty of. It is true that the Republicans have resulted in a bunch of truly foul policies but what is excluded from this rather feeble attempt at analysis is that McCain has actually opposed a considerable amount of the most reactionary evil generated by his own party, to the extent that he has frequently been dubbed a RINO {Republican In Name Only}.
Now this doesn’t matter too much as far as I’m concerned because he still supports Bush’s foreign policy perhaps even more fiercely than Bush does. But there are a plethora of other issues over which McCain has enraged the left; such as his creation of a bill outlawing torture, his strikingly liberal policy upon immigration, his commitment to ending global warming and drafting of legislation that prevents campaign finance being even closer to the plaything of corporate and personal interests than it is today. This has been toned down for his campaign, but still resulted in some moments that have caused apoplexy on the far-right, as I have documented.
Yet Sunny states that:
McCain himself may not say much but his surrogates and the wing-nut wing of the Republican party - the Ann Coulters, Bill O’Reillys, Sean Hannitys, Michelle Malkins of this world - are going to do anything to ensure he doesn’t become president.
Sunn is correct insofar as all of the people listed are indeed wing-nuts and would indeed love nothing more than Obama be defeated. What this does not mean is that they want to see McCain win. He is, in fact, a hate figure for Republicans for the reasons aforementioned. He is largely considered a traitor and a villain, perhaps sent mad by his treatment by the Viet Cong or senility. The racist right see him as proposing a “Shamnesty” that would allow criminals to become innocent and reckon that would allow America to be flooded with the foreign and racially impure. The neo-conservative establishment are shocked at his opposition to torture, which they have spent much of Bush’s second term defending, applying endless diminutives towards and deriding all opponents. The global warming denialists see him as a dupe. The loyalists consider him the epitome of all that is disloyal, a poster boy for treachery.
I can understand that Sunny dislikes reading the content of such writers but if this had happened even briefly the disdain which all the aforementioned authors display towards McCain would have been immediately evident.
I might direct her towards Hugh Hewitt, who at one stage called McCain amongst the most inadequate senators ever to have served. This was part of a wider campaign of thorough savaging. Lately he has toned this down but is clearly still highly uncomfortable with the set-up, spending most of his time attacking Obama and trying to avoid mention of McCain where possible. Make no mistake about this: McCain has no surrogates within the Republican establishment. Even those who he attempts to appease with his pro-life positioning consider him warily and tend to view him as the “Least worst” candidate, rather than pledging active support.
This means that although these groups may well oppose Obama {although I note that Matt Drudge, previously the impeccable rightist has been joined by Rupert Murdoch in throwing weight behind Obama, with the former even lampooning McCain along with Clinton on his highly influential site} they are by no means supporters of McCain, who’s centrism is utterly unacceptable and seemingly impossible to comprehend given their monochrome, Us & Them outlook. As it was McCain was simply filed under “Them” but at present they are mainly attacking the greater other rather than embracing the one they have been spitting about for many more years than Mr. Obama.
Unfortunately Sunny is seemingly blinded by bias:
He is Republican and I would need to change my genetic code to support or embrace a Republican…The Republicans are scum and should never be supported under any circumstance.
I would never advocate supporting McCain owing to his apparent inability to break himself from the thrall of the neo-conservatives. But to suggest that his party affiliation {which is seemingly nominal at times and he has certainly proven no loyalist to} means that this campaign will be littered with the sort of noisy nonsense that Karl Rove, the nemesis of McCain, would execute is a leap of utter irrationality.
But seemingly Sunny is wrong about everything when it comes to the state of American politics! The follow praise is heaped upon the “Netroots”:
So they have taken upon themselves to fight in the way Republicans have for decades.
when it is exactly Obama’s refusal to stoop to such lows {whatever happened to “Rise above”, Sunny?} that has characterised his campaign. He is entirely opposed to the cultural war approach favoured by the right and due to this has created his own grassroots following, that seems to operate in a far more effective fashion to Move-On et al. He uses a higher strain of politics that does not depend upon personal attack and emphasises the importance of the American people in making any progress.
Contrast, for instance, Obama’s “Yes we can” to Clinton’s “Yes she can” and you will see the superficially minor but fundamentally divisive breach between a movement initiating progressive and a top-down technocrat.
Yet Sunny states that
I continue to admire Clinton.
Clinton! She who executed the purest of Rovian, Republican tactics through a network of surrogates against a member of her own party. This is simply preposterous and I would suggest that Sunny compare McCain’s conduct to Clinton’s. Clinton & Co asked if Obama had once been a drugs dealer, suggested that the views of “White Americans” {read: racists} be considered as distinct from the rest of the working classes, implied that black primary voters somehow do not count and states with many of them are of less significance than those filled with mainly whites, compared Obama to Jesse Jackson seemingly purely on the grounds that both are black and won South Carolina, suggested that Obama was far less experienced than McCain or Clinton and had only given “One speech in 2002″, argued that he was inadequate over matters of national security as he was incapable of picking up a phone at 3AM, capitalised on the Reverend Wright scandal subtly but as effectively as possible, kept the “Obama is a Muslim” meme alive by suggesting that Obama was not a Muslim but only “As far as I know” and basically used everything you would expect of the party Sunny deems “scum”.
Meanwhile McCain has so far made a few crude attacks but unleashed no Rovian onslaught and, as I referenced in the article in question written to Obama in a tone which is so gentle and courteous that I would never have expected to witness it from a presidential frontrunner after the carnage of 2004.
This may change, of course, and it is true that the opposition from the far-right media will be partisan and vicious as ever. But McCain presents a massive challenge to these extremists, not least through being a visible victim of the methods they act as ranting apologists for. In failing to recognise this Sunny has made a truly botched analysis of American politics, supporting the elements of the Democratic Party which would lead it to further ruin and failing to realise that even a Party with as poor a history as the Republicans are not a pack of blood-thirsty demons.
Posted in: 2008 Election, Abroad, An Election Like No Other, Fisking, USA
In response:
I think that the error made here is in presuming that anyone in America or elsewhere has the capacity to make a more effectively nasty campaign than Karl Rove
Yes. Karl Rove was a centralised attack machine. What you’ll see now are attacks from many different segments using the web to spread vicious rumours. Rove could never do the ‘Is Obama Muslim?’ rumour as well as the web has.
I am uncertain if Sunny is aware of this but McCain himself actually received far worse treatment during primary contests against Bush of 2000 than Gore later would in the true presidential one.
Its irrelevant. I didn’t say McCain would coordinate any of this.
that McCain has actually opposed a considerable amount of the most reactionary evil generated by his own party
And is now backtracking on most of it. Also, ask yourself why he wanted Hagee’s endorsement.
with the sort of noisy nonsense that Karl Rove, the nemesis of McCain, would execute is a leap of utter irrationality.
Oh dear oh dear. You have no idea. For a start, see this:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126883.html
That is just the beginning.
when it is exactly Obama’s refusal to stoop to such lows {whatever happened to “Rise above”, Sunny?} that has characterised his campaign. He is entirely opposed to the cultural war approach favoured by the right and due to this has created his own grassroots following
This is naive.
Firstly, Obama has relied on a web driven netroots campaign to galvanise activists and get money.
Secondly, the point that the netroots make is that you have to be as brutal as the Republican attack machine in repudiating rumours, in hitting back and in not just wanting to defend the consensus but actually pushing it leftwards. See Crashing the Gate.
It doesn’t matter if Obama is opposed to the cultural wars, if the Republicans continue to be dominated by highly partisan wingnuts like I mention above. Unless the Democrats develop their own response to that, the Daily Kos, Huff Po, Daily Show kind, then you get drowned in the noise that the right generates.
I’m not sure what point you’re making. If its that this is not going to be a dirty fight, then I believe you’re wrong. If your point is that John McCain is a lovely chap, then I don’t buy that either. As others have listed on LC, he has a high conservative rating and advocates a foreign policy which is essentially neo-con and is wrong on abortion, wrong on gay marriage, wrong on most social issues.
If your point is that the Republicans are now cuddlier because Rove isn’t leading them, then again I couldn’t disagree more. I have nothing but distaste for the Republican party.
I’m also well aware of the vitriol that Hillary Clinton threw at Obama. But in the end she wholeheartedly backed Obama. That is what is important in the end, to me. I want to see the Democrats in power, period.
Yes. Karl Rove was a centralised attack machine. What you’ll see now are attacks from many different segments using the web to spread vicious rumours. Rove could never do the ‘Is Obama Muslim?’ rumour as well as the web has.
You seem to have misunderstood. Rove’s power would be nothing without the media lapping his filth up. He was effectively a memesmith, the distribution was mainly up to the sources functioning.
Its irrelevant. I didn’t say McCain would coordinate any of this.
The conduct of the candidates is very much relevant.
To claim otherwise is perfectly peculiar.
And is now backtracking on most of it. Also, ask yourself why he wanted Hagee’s endorsement.
Since rejected. He wanted Hagee because he needs the religious right.
Oh dear oh dear. You have no idea. For a start, see this:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126883.html
That is just the beginning.
Wow, a blogger is a rude liar! Now tell me why this matters.
Or rather, how this outweighs the importance of a campaign manager actively intending to inflame internal points of division and doing his utmost to bring out conflict and enjoy use of identity politics. Because I fail to see how some far-right lies {which are bound to strike any Democratic candidate} are really more important than what the campaign’s official releases and statements are.
Because it is very likely that what the candidate says shall be reported up. What the drivel from lunatics of the far-right come up with, less so. Last time the “Swift Boat” controversy was of significance, but only because of the apparent talk-up that John Kerry gave to his Vietnam war record. Hardly likely to be repeated.
I never said that the far-right writers were sane or would give Obama an easy ride, only that their irrationality has led them to deem McCain far too left for their liking. Also they will be forced to generate original content instead of simply mimicking Bush’s latest meme. Finally they will aim criticisms at McCain, which will divide their attention in a fashion not true of 2004, when they had effectively received their ideal candidate.
This is naive.
No. It isn’t. If you’ll observe the actual reaction of the left wing you will see that this “Cross partisan” stuff makes them understandably uncomfortable. But Obama seems to mean it.
Firstly, Obama has relied on a web driven netroots campaign to galvanise activists and get money.< Secondly, the point that the netroots make is that you have to be as brutal as the Republican attack machine in repudiating rumours, in hitting back and in not just wanting to defend the consensus but actually pushing it leftwards. See Crashing the Gate.
At the moment Crashing the Gate reads “DB is down”.
My point was that the netroots tend to be entirely oppositional, while Obama is clearly not. In fact it is a highly distinctive feature of his candidacy. Obama is interested in ending the culture war, Netroots in winning it.
Furthermore for the most part Obama’s net roots appear to be largely his own. I would draw your attention to the drives organised on his own website, and also suggest you not underplay the importance of offline events. The dichotomy between Clinton’s efforts to secure mega-rich investors who had far more resources than they could ever give her and Obama’s drive to get large numbers of those just wealthy enough to donate the maximum is striking, at this stage, while later he received a seemingly endless flood of donations ranging from a tiny quantity of dollars to the maximum from a truly unprecedented number of donors. This was arranged upon his own website.
I understand your point with regards to leftists, but you will note that the ultimate chance for the Netroots to prove themselves, the 2004 election, was a failure. It is a natural part of the nature of such groups {exploiting a loop-hole in one of McCain’s campaign finance laws, it should be mentioned} to attack only but it seems their efforts “hitting back” rather failed.
It doesn’t matter if Obama is opposed to the cultural wars, if the Republicans continue to be dominated by highly partisan wingnuts like I mention above. Unless the Democrats develop their own response to that, the Daily Kos, Huff Po, Daily Show kind, then you get drowned in the noise that the right generates.
Well, as it happens, the Republicans have fallen foul of their own tactics by electing someone that opposes much the Establishment’s agenda. So it does matter.
I’m not sure what point you’re making. If its that this is not going to be a dirty fight, then I believe you’re wrong. If your point is that John McCain is a lovely chap, then I don’t buy that either. As others have listed on LC, he has a high conservative rating and advocates a foreign policy which is essentially neo-con and is wrong on abortion, wrong on gay marriage, wrong on most social issues.
If your point is that the Republicans are now cuddlier because Rove isn’t leading them, then again I couldn’t disagree more. I have nothing but distaste for the Republican party.
I’m also well aware of the vitriol that Hillary Clinton threw at Obama. But in the end she wholeheartedly backed Obama. That is what is important in the end, to me. I want to see the Democrats in power, period.
You accuse me of being naive and then throw out this nonsense? Clinton put on the nice face long after she should have in order to stop being implicated in the Obama failure she spent the whole campaign proclaiming as inevitable. You can not spend an entire 16 months talking up the inadequacies of your opponent and then expect a rather forced conversion to mend the harm. There are still Clintonites talking about being “Betrayed” by the DNC and the “Backed Clinton, now voting McCain” contingent is formidable. Clinton did a vast amount of harm to the Democratic Party, almost all of it unnecessary. She did this for her own personal gain and if you honestly “Want to see Democrats in power” and she should be condemned for that. If she wanted to redeem herself then her last chance was on Wednesday, when she lost.
Meanwhile you seem to have severely misread my article. I at no point claimed that McCain being “Cuddly” altered anything {it’s incidental} but instead simply argued that your analysis of “Republicans are scum” failed miserably. That’s exactly the sort of partisan nonsense we should avoid.
I consider the Republican Party as loathsome as you do, if not more so, but attention must be paid for the reasons that they are thus and their tendency towards bigotry is chief amongst them. He who fights monsters…
My original argument was that McCain was likely to prove a far more respectable opponent than Bush. I disagree entirely with much of his policy and agenda and do not consider him “lovely” but if you are claiming that the fact some partisans will say rude things about Obama overrides the way in which the presidential campaign of McCain is run then you are mistaken. The far right will say evil shit, that’s part of their nature and a defining feature. But the preposterous spectacle of the Republican nominee proclaiming his opponent “On the far left bank” and all that other 2004 nonsense seems unlikely to be repeated.
Besides which, even the far-right will devote at least some of their time to attacking McCain. It is inevitable that he will enrage them at various points over the next five months and unquestionable that he was far from their preferred candidate.
So what we are left with is not the us-and-them dichotomy which entirely dominated the previous campaign. Instead, it is something far more nuanced and interesting than two sides shouting at each other. We have a man who seems to be at least partially devoted to earnest debate instead of low politics that the usual suspects deem a traitor {with the best read of the usual suspects seemingly being one as well} and thus must swallow their pride to support, while we have another capable of responding both forcefully and eloquently to the nonsense spewed at him, effectively turning attacks into footbullets.
In short this creature is something else entirely to the one encountered in 2004 and what we have seen from both candidates thus far suggests it will be of a far calmer and more reasonable nature.
He rejected Hagee’s endorsement only because the media glare became too intense, not because he’s a lovely chap. After all, this is the man willing to hug and praise Bush and Rove, after they threw racist smears at him too. Why should I believe he has any morals?
I never said that the far-right writers were sane or would give Obama an easy ride, only that their irrationality has led them to deem McCain far too left for their liking.
Nevertheless, they’re interested in keeping the GOP back at the white house. They’d rather have someone voted 80% conservative than someone cited by the National Review as the most liberal senator around.
Finally they will aim criticisms at McCain, which will divide their attention in a fashion not true of 2004, when they had effectively received their ideal candidate.
I doubt it.
I understand your point with regards to leftists, but you will note that the ultimate chance for the Netroots to prove themselves, the 2004 election, was a failure.
Oh damn. I don’t think you really understand the netroots. I’ll leave this discussion to another time if you think the netroots have already failed and are a spent force.
That’s exactly the sort of partisan nonsense we should avoid.
I’m sorry, who should avoid? I am and have been highly partisan. Its only my sleeve. I’ve never liked the Republicans or what they stand for. And yes, I’m not only open in my distaste for far right parties like the Republicans, but I frankly refuse to take their arguments seriously because that legitimises their viewpoints.
Oh, as for the election being all lovely, here’s more:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-crime8-2008jun08,0,3386050.story
Believe what you want to of course, we’ll see what happens over the next 5 months. But if there’s one point I wanted to make clear in my original post, it’s that I see Republicans with nothing but contempt for what they’ve done over the last 40 years. Just because McCain is a maverick doesn’t mean I’ll cut him some slack. He still belongs to the nasty party.
He rejected Hagee’s endorsement only because the media glare became too intense, not because he’s a lovely chap. After all, this is the man willing to hug and praise Bush and Rove, after they threw racist smears at him too. Why should I believe he has any morals?
I don’t recall calling him lovely.
Nevertheless, they’re interested in keeping the GOP back at the white house. They’d rather have someone voted 80% conservative than someone cited by the National Review as the most liberal senator around.
But of course. This situation is still an entirely different one to last time around, though.
I doubt it.
No, you deny it. This is a process that has already begun. See the post from Ace of Spades above, or just take a glance across Malkin’s blog at some point.
Oh damn. I don’t think you really understand the netroots. I’ll leave this discussion to another time if you think the netroots have already failed and are a spent force.
I didn’t call them that. I simply said that in their ideal conditions they failed to unseat an imbecile who they were running an utterly negative campaign against. I am not calling them exhausted, simply illustrated how a “Protest vote” style campaign is doomed to failure.
Thankfully the left actually has a superb champion this time around, so this is a historical point.
I’m sorry, who should avoid? I am and have been highly partisan. Its only my sleeve. I’ve never liked the Republicans or what they stand for. And yes, I’m not only open in my distaste for far right parties like the Republicans, but I frankly refuse to take their arguments seriously because that legitimises their viewpoints.
Which is where you go wrong. How do you expect to do anything save choir preach if you are failing to so much as engage on the most basic of levels with your foes? I find this approach rather bizarre, given that you seemingly will right only for those with roughly the same set of opinions as you have, rather than attempting to convince others.
Oh, as for the election being all lovely, here’s more:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-crime8-2008jun08,0,3386050.story
I never said lovely. And I don’t see McCain joining in.
Believe what you want to of course, we’ll see what happens over the next 5 months. But if there’s one point I wanted to make clear in my original post, it’s that I see Republicans with nothing but contempt for what they’ve done over the last 40 years.
Well we can certainly agree over that much.
Just because McCain is a maverick doesn’t mean I’ll cut him some slack. He still belongs to the nasty party.
Just about.
Feel free to keep living in an alternative reality:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/08/pressandpublishing.internet
Sunny, I briefly considered an equally snarky response but it’s clear that you’ve grouped me along with the right as one of those who your precious, impeccable viewpoints must be held aloof from.
As such I have no interest in posting up any of the various links I could assemble that demonstrate the far-right blogosphere’s outright hostility towards John McCain. Not least because I have already offered one above which you have failed to respond to. If you are too idle to make adequate analyses in future I have no interest in assisting you. For the time being I would suggest you cease holding your cartoonish conception of what the American Right thinks as the truth and actually give them a read. It’s unpleasant work, but important. Expect no further help from me, though.
I should point out, though, that it amused me to find the article you linked quite rightly listed the Drudge Report as at the forefront of the “Vicious right wing campaign to bring down Bill Clinton”. And tell me Sunny, who does Drudge seem to be supporting at the moment? :3
Lern2read.
No, you deny it. This is a process that has already begun. See the post from Ace of Spades above, or just take a glance across Malkin’s blog at some point.
No, I’m not denying it anywhere. I’m simply pointing out the obvious - that given the choice between Obama and McCain, the Republicans will rally around theirs, regardless of some shrill bloggers who may not like his pro-immigration views. I’ve long been aware of those points you cite. Mine is simply that the base will rally around him. After all, Bush has.
Secondly, I’ve repeatedly pointed out that it doesn’t matter if McCain does not go for that style of politics. The media noise will force conversations down the road. A huge stink was made about Wright even though McCain said little and even then everyone knew that Obama did not agree with Wright.
Your point seems to be that just becase McCain says he will remain above all this, that the election will be played nicely. I think thats naive. Time will see who’s right.
As for preaching to the choir, maybe. But you try assembling the choir in the first place and getting them to agree on anything or even having a plan. That’s not easy.
Sure Drudge is playing ball for Obama… though that was after the NY Times did a piece on him saying he was close to Clinton. Before that he was batting for her. And even then its likely he’ll change tune once the election gets underway.
My point about linking that article, which you seem to have missed out, is that vicious blog chatter can and will make it to the MSM, regardless of what each of the candidates say. And that will come out this time because Obama is black and because a significant portion of Republicans can’t stand that.
You think this will somehow usher in a new era of politics where each side will be nice to each other and the culture wars will be over. Not yet. Maybe if Obama manages 8 years without getting shot.
Oh, so I’m living in your reality again now, am I? Splendid.
We could spend a while talking about who we should and should not engage with {I say everyone, you say…Well, I won’t presume to predict who does and does not fit into your clique, given that even I appear to be oscillating and I’m hardly a member of the far-right} but that seems appropriate for elsewhere.
As for the election, well I never said a “New era”, I simply stated that given the stirring but measured tone which both the candidates were adopting it would seem that it will be a far gentler affair than the outright Rovian 2004 debacle. You emphasise the importance of the right wing idiots, but they were present for that election as well and, in fact, were empowered by circumstance.
Now there most substantial writer has abandoned them {and contra to your claims Drudge’s downplaying of the Wright affair amongst other matters seems to clearly show who is in his favour} and the tide has thoroughly turned against their outlook. You seem to suggest that the tone of the official candidate’s message will not play that large a role but I argue that it is central. Bush fed most of the memes the far-right chewed up and spat out last time around, from Kerry being a “Flip-flopper” to a far leftist.
This time around McCain is pulling few punches but his objections seem to be based around Obama following the wrong philosophy instead of being the wrong person. The difference there is immense and if you imagine the influence of this will be so miniscule as to be outweighed entirely by the partisanship of the far-right blogs {which, as I should state again, was as true if not more so last time around} then you are incorrect.
For one thing it is far easier for the media to write an article that runs “Senator McCain said…” rather than “Kill Mussies Home states…” This means that the far-right can say what they like, as long as McCain’s team doesn’t join in {which they might, and I’ve always stayed that this is dependent upon current conduct being earnest and thus remaining constant} there will be limited material “Fit for print”.
But if you mean it will be online, well perhaps. But the extent to which even the extreme-right have committed themselves to an attack is more limited than you might imagine, as I referenced here: http://www.scriboergosum.org.uk/revamp/803
{Lenin has since turned on Obama after he refused to tax the oil companies to cheapen oil, dubbing him a “Neo-liberal” tool. David Duke I am less certain about.}
Furthermore racism seems far from something confined to the Republicans. What to make of the curious phenomenon of people in favour of Hillary’s statist health policy and feminist connotations suddenly shifting to pro-life, anti-statist McCain without a pause? Most curious.
I wonder if you read the article on the matter in this week’s Sunday Times. Most illuminating. “He’s one of us.” was perhaps the most memorable quote…
I still think, Sunny, that your “scum” outlook has blinded you here. The picture is far messier than the cartoon image you generate. You overstate the importance of a few opinionated souls now attack dogs deprived of a master and owned by someone they’ve spent much of their working lives worrying the shins of and growling at. This is by no means a situation that can be best summarised “Republicans - SCUM” and you’re a fool if you think otherwise.
That you resorted to implying I thought McCain was “Lovely”, implied I resided within a personal reality and so on only serves to emphasise point.