home

Republican Desperation Sets in

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:48:00 AM EST
Tags: John McCain, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Yesterday I wrote that if we start seeing personal attack ads in the battleground states, it's a sign McCain knows it's just about over for him. Looks like the same goes for his supporters.

Via Politico, it's begun.

The conservative Judicial Confirmation Network goes up today with an ad reminding voters in two key states about Obama's ties to Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Representatives for the group say it will be a "$1 million ad and grassroots effort" around the veep debate tomorrow and the opening of the new Supreme Court session Monday.

< Late Night: The Boss Hits the Road for Obama | The Palin Effect >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Republican Desperation Sets in | 34 comments (34 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Very effective ad (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Newt on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:17:48 AM EST
    Very effective ad
    especially the picture of Obama thinking, "Hmm, who should I put on the SC, hmm."  He's an unknown, he's exotic, he's got all these weirdo anti-American guys in his circle of close associates...  Best to just vote for someone you can trust, even if you don't agree with everything they say and do.  

    I've been asking a lot of veterans why they still support McCain given his vote against the GI Bill, and most of them say he doesn't matter, it really Palin they like.  One said their party hasn't been this thrilled about a candidate since Roosevelt.  Palin is "one of the guys", she does things they like to do, and they love the idea of her making it to the top.  They're not thinking about whether or not she can run the country, they're just want to see her beat the guy they don't like.

    This is the culture war.  They think Obama's a jerk, they think liberals are stupid, and they think our party takes their hard earned money and wastes it on people who refuse to work for a living.  Their hatred of us is what keeps them from seeing the awful truth about Palin's ineptitude and McSame's stubborn recklessness.  They don't get it that Bush and McCain don't represent them.  They will watch the same debate that we watch tomorrow, but they will selectively ignore Palin's mistakes while her practiced platitudes and BS about McCain/leadership/experience/fighting against terrorists/etc. will reinforce their determination to elect her (them).  

    She makes them feel good about themselves, and that is why we might lose this election.

    McCain voting for this pork laden bail out just (none / 0) (#8)
    by suzieg on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:30:47 AM EST
    cost him the election. How can he continue to campaign under the premise that he will cut pork spending when he's just endorsed $150 billions in pork?

    I'm just so furious at congress I could spit. They have just voted for the beginning of the bankruptcy of this country and led by the democrats, no less! It's obscene! $850 billions with no oversight and the principal actors still get their bonuses at the end instead of up front and are all kept as advisors!

    How can anyone vote for either of these candidates? They do not stand for the good of the country, on the contrary, they've just initiated more debt to be picked up by China. How irresponsible of both of them.

    I'm voting third party all the way, I do not want to be responsible for the destruction of the country by giving my vote to any of these two wall street endorsed candidates. I'm also voting against all incumbents from all levels of government - our system is corrupted to the core and it needs to be cleaned out in November if we want to continue to be a true democracy.

    I've never been so scared in my whole life as I am now - corporate America and Wall Street dominates and be damned the american people!  

    Parent

    This new 400+ page version does have (none / 0) (#12)
    by andrys on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 04:31:32 AM EST
    provisions for oversight of Paulson's use of the money now.  

    It (and the one that failed a couple of days ago) includes restrictions on executive payout also, among many other features (that some in the House won't like).

      Auto industry sales dropped 26% on the average in the last two days and without credit few are buying and the companies can't get money out of banks.  It's serious stuff.

    Parent

    Oh good, at least it has oversight (none / 0) (#24)
    by Newt on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:18:00 AM EST
    Yeah, lets spend even more tax dollars on trying not to get ripped off by the super rich.

    Oh wait, wasn't this supposed to restore confidence since that would be key to economic recovery?  

    I'm not putting MY money back into Wall Street.  Are you?

    Parent

    is this a sign of the failure of democracy? (none / 0) (#9)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:36:49 AM EST
    when it becomes readily known that a large part of the populous makes a huge decision like this based upon like, or based upon the fact that the person is more like them in their likes, even if the policies aren't the same, rather than making the decision based upon who would be best for the future of the country..

    we see what happens when people use this for their decision making process, we have one of the worst presidencies in the history of the country...and yet this result doesn't deter people from using the same reasons to make decisions...

    seriously, I'm not sure myself...I think it warrants a huge discussion...

    is it just natural for humans to want everyone else in the world to be exactly the same? or at least that the only people in power are exactly like them?

    it would be akin to the GM of a sports team only signing players that were like him/her, and not signing the best players available...would this be a franchise functioning at the highest level possible (which is what we should be striving for in any decision)

    as a creative person one of the first things we learn is that using the word 'like' is not an answer, and has absolutely zero value...unfortunately this is never taught in any other curriculum...

    then again, maybe I just want more people like myself in office...

    I have to say, though, that I don't hunt myself, but many people I know do it, and I'm a big fan of the 'one shot' in The Deer Hunter and I respect people who hunt, I just TOTALLY DESPISE the thought that people make such a huge decision based upon the idea that someone else hunts...

    Parent

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#19)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 07:14:39 AM EST
    You're suggesting that we might lose the election because people who would never have voted Democratic in a million years, by the sound of it, are going to vote for McCain?

    Parent
    I think it's like a snowball. It gets bigger (none / 0) (#25)
    by Newt on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM EST
    the more we roll toward the election.  She's lost some points by exposing herself as inexperienced in the interviews, but the "deer in the headlight" moments have already been explained away by right wing pundits.  Obama benefited from the same effect.  As more and more people became excited about his candidacy and talked about the potential for real change in our government, the more new people came into the fold.  We can continue to scrape some of the snow off the Palin snowball, but it's got momentum so it's going to grow more.  I don't think she alone can convince undecided voters because she's got nothing really to offer them.  But the voters who are already in her camp are thrilled with her, which means they'll be out there talking to others, sharing their excitement about the ticket, helping people overlook her deficiencies, most importantly, expressing their disgust with Obama, the "most liberal Democrat in Congress."  This ad gives them sound bites and other ammunition they need for calling in to talk shows or sensibly discussing the election with church friends and relatives.  

    The real issue is how we perceive leaders.  We want to feel connected, we want to believe we're on the right side of arguments.  Notice with the bailout that no one here is screaming at the Dems who vote Yes on the giveaways to the rich.  What?  Would the Dem party participate in income redistribution from the poor to the rich? Would our side cheat?  If the votes were split across party lines, if most Dems voted against these bailout plans and most Repubs voted for them, we'd be screaming at Repubs for stealing from the middle class again.  It's a lot easier to be mad at Repubs for their corporate welfare than to admit Dems are also in the pocket of the super rich.

    This election is the best chance in our lifetimes to stop America's trend toward plutocracy.  See here.

    Parent

    Except (none / 0) (#30)
    by The Gimp on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 04:47:05 PM EST
    That her polling has dropped week after week since she was announced. She is not a snowball gathering mass, she is a snowball melting in the sunlight.

    Parent
    Well, everyone already knows about Wright. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 03:23:28 AM EST
    So that limits the effectiveness.

    The connection between the judges you put on the bench and the people you become acquainted with is um...tenuous.

    Our current president is one of the dirtiest SOBs in the game.  Enron?  Hello.  

    Plus that woman dressing like Sarah Palin should help remind people of how truly freaky and unprepared for the 21st Century conservatives are.  

    Political truism ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:49:14 AM EST
    any attack from an opponent is viewed as "an act of desperation."

    While our own attacks are just showing "contrast."

    That always makes me laugh.

    Obama's "fundamentals" quote (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by wasabi on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 07:20:37 AM EST
    ""And then after this immediate problem, we've got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows. Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses that deserve it. As president I am going to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups. That's how we'll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow."

    Obama is saying anything but the fundamentals of the economy are currently strong.  He is giving his prescription to make the fundamentals strong.  As usual, McCain lies.

    This was always a phony argument & quote (none / 0) (#31)
    by andrys on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:43:37 PM EST
    McCain tried to make the hopefully reassuring statement that  the fundamentals of the economy are strong BUT that we are in a real crisis.  That was in the same sentence.  Distortions reign, with both parties.  A couple of days later, Paulson too (who has been crying, rightfully, 'crisis') also said that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, but that didn't get much play.

      And as for the quote above, Obama was talking about the long-term fundamentals (that continue to exist "after this immediate problem") that will 'really make sure this economy grows.'

    Parent

    Aaaaahhhh. Yes. (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:41:12 AM EST


    Parent
    Please ignore. Not sure how this answer (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:43:33 AM EST
    got attached to that comment...

    Parent
    Amazing! (none / 0) (#1)
    by stevea66 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:46:20 AM EST
    Well, not amazing.  Just what we expected.  It may be time for Obama to spend some air time clarifying his relationships to these guys.  Most who choose to investigate know it's not nearly like this ad would make us believe.

    Heck, Ayers is a professor.  He has specialized in early education.  There are many, many, many respected people who have associated with Ayers at some point, either on a board of directors for a non-profit or at university.

    Obama needs to clarify - to somehow illustrate how exaggerated it is.  And, should also stress for just how long they've been using the same ploy against him.  It's all they've got - associations - and pretty harmless ones at that once the facts are ALL out.

    now they were pretty harmless

    I still question Obama's political (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:57:55 AM EST
    savvy in associating so closely with Ayers/Dohrn, in light of the fact Obama seemed to aspire to a political career pretty early on.  

    Parent
    I think his response should be limited to (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:25:08 AM EST
    "John McCain, who thinks the economy is fundamentally sound, now wants to question my judgement?"

    Who cares if that argument makes sense; it ends the discussion.

    Parent

    didn't obama say the fundamentals of the economy (none / 0) (#13)
    by kimsaw on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 04:56:14 AM EST
    are sound yesterday? I heard him on the radio yesterday? Anybody else hear it? Bailout helps maintain our strong fundamentals is what gave me a chuckle.

    Parent
    McCain (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:50:25 AM EST
    now has an ad up where Obama is shown saying that the "fundamentals of the economy are sound" so he kind of lost that war when he said that.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 07:13:21 AM EST
    Obama said his own economic plan has strong fundamentals.  You want to award the point to McCain because he's willing to shamelessly distort a quote like that, it's your call.

    Parent
    Distortion (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:17:41 PM EST
    is the name of the game in politics isn't it?

    Parent
    That's just Ga (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 03:32:36 PM EST
    doing his or her standard "I dont like either, BUT that Obama cant be trusted" schtick.

    Speaking of distorting (and dissembling)

    Parent

    Dear (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:23:29 PM EST
    trust has to be earned. What has Obama done to earn it? He himself has shown that he can't be trusted with his continual flip flops on issues.

    Why are you so continually angry? The anger of the enfranchised is just amazing.

    Parent

    Is it Desperation? (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:02:29 AM EST
    Or is it just October? I thought we expected this, and it seems like it's starting right on time. Will this type of "old news/info" really have any effect?

    I would say bring up Hagee (none / 0) (#4)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:07:21 AM EST
    but a large part of America actually identifies with that lunatic...which is very scary...

    Parent
    Republicans Should Focus On the Economy but Can't (none / 0) (#15)
    by john horse on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:55:11 AM EST
    Mudslinging works in many situations.  Where it doesn't work is where people are more worried about keeping their jobs or keeping their businesses afloat.

    I guess when you are the ones who are responsible for the mess we are in, you have no recourse but to try to change the subject.

    Don't like it, but the press will not do their job (none / 0) (#17)
    by coast on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:56:07 AM EST
    While I don't think enough good reporting has been done on Obama's relationship with these men, I hate seeing these kinds of commercials.  I wish the media would do its jobs and give us unbiased information, but I guess that is just too much to ask.  More information needs to be presented on who these candidates associate with and who they are influenced by.

    The ad is understated (none / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 07:19:24 AM EST
    I read from nonpartisan journalist Hugh Hewitt the other day that if Obama wins, the trio of "Ayers-Kos-Moore will be running the country, rising up in a vast snarl every time their kept politicians depart from their line."  (I assume he means Michael Moore, and not Julianne Moore, although he doesn't say.)  So they could have gone a lot further with this!

    Nonpartisan? (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    Professor Hewitt served for nearly six years in the Reagan Administration in a variety of posts, including Assistant Counsel in the White House and Special Assistant to two Attorneys General.  

    Since returning to California in 1989 to oversee the construction of the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, Hewitt has served as a member of the California Arts Council, the South Coast Air management District, and the Orange County Children and Families Commission.  

    He and his wife live in Orange County.



    Parent
    I had assumed (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 03:06:57 PM EST
    that the snark would go without saying.

    Parent
    Aaaaah. Yes. (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:41:48 AM EST


    Parent
    Aaaaah. Yes. (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:41:56 AM EST


    Parent
    It's October and the GOP is desperate (none / 0) (#22)
    by kempis on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:58:14 AM EST
    ...almost time for them to spring a surprise--if indeed they have one. (And if there is no "whitey" tape, will Larry Johnson admit to being played--or worse?)

    It's definitely going to get ugly, especially if Palin isn't able to turn it around tonight. We can expect to see a lot more ads featuring Wright and Ayers and Rezko as the GOP attempts to win on "Gee, we have no new ideas, but at least we're solid old flag-waving white guys." I'd love to think that they can't win on that. But that's what they've won on before, so I can't imagine why this year would be any different.

    In other words, I'm still afraid to get my hopes up about booting the GOP out of the White House--which we must do. We should have done it in 2004. And in 2000 we should never have let Bush get close enough for his GOP cronies on the SC to put him in office. I no longer have faith in the Democrats' ability to connect with the American people well enough to win a damned national election.

    I know the polls look better for Obama, but I remain skeptical--and I sure hope to be pleasantly surprised in a few weeks.

    Desperation, perhaps (none / 0) (#23)
    by ricosuave on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:11:13 AM EST
    But I think this is just October.  This is what republicans do.  This is what we all expected (at least, those of us who thought this stuff was toxic when we first learned about it), and why the idea that his race speech put all this behind us because "he handled it" or "it's already been out there" is ridiculous.  

    We can be disgusted by these tactics, but if we are surprised then we haven't paid attention for the last few decades.

    Republican Desperation Sets in | 34 comments (34 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment