Skip to main content

Game on, folks: looks like the GOP has decided that McCain's only chance is against Hillary Clinton, and they are pulling out all the stops to garner more "support" -- in appearance only -- to help defeat any chance of a Barack Obama nomination.

This is classic tactic -- not only a GOP one, but also a Democratic one: remember gaming the system during their primaries to keep their players in the race longer?  The Democratic interference was less likely to kill a viable candidate's chances -- the entire Republican field sucked; now it simply sucks with an army of one instead of many. But the Republican party has played this game to great effect before: remember the Lamont/Lieberman primary? ePluribus Media covered the GOP/Lieberman alliance at that time:

As long as we're aware of it, we can counter it and let our own voters decide. Let's not be faced with another Liebermanesque type of "victory" due to Republican manipulations.

Crossposted on ePluribus Media.

Via TruthOut, an article by Amanda Garrett of The Cleveland Plain Dealer details what Republicans refer to as "The Plot" -- as in, yet another Republican plot. (It's kind of like "the math" and a case of persistent Athlete's foot.)

It started a few weeks ago when conservative radio powerhouse Rush Limbaugh suggested that his Republican following cross over during the primary to vote for Clinton. Clinton, Limbaugh argued, would be easier for McCain to beat in November than Obama.

Soon, local morning radio show host Bob Frantz echoed Limbaugh on WTAM AM/1100, and the buzz began to grow.

Cuyahoga County Republican Chairman Rob Frost tried to tamp down the temptation. He contacted Republican voters and appeared on the Frantz show urging Republicans "not to heed the siren call of Rush Limbaugh and others."

"Elections are not something you should be playing games with," Frost said last week during a telephone interview.

Yet temptation was strong.

North Ridgeville Republican Hazel Sferry said she was kicking herself all day Tuesday after voting for McCain.

Don't get her wrong. Sferry supports McCain.

But after she voted, she ran into her niece who told her about "the plot."

Her niece, Republican Sherry Newell, crossed over Tuesday after hearing Limbaugh. Newell said she voted for Obama because she thought McCain had a better chance against him.

Regardless, Sferry said she thought it was a great idea to mess with the other party if it helped McCain win.

"I don't mind being deceptive to politicians," she said. "They are deceptive to us."

Now we see a whole bunch of interesting pieces about Bill Clinton appearing on the Rush Limbaugh show, and I run across people who are obviously Republican shills in thin guise as Hillary Clinton supporters trying to play out new sets of anti-Obama talking points.

It's not pretty.

One such shill started a thread over on DelphiForms entitled If Obama were white... -- obviously trying to effect more of the potential race-card outcry, and trying to sound like a voice of reason but only succeeding in coming off as sickeningly condescending:

If Obama were white, with the same tremendous talents and abilities, with the same resume of 1/2 of one term in the US Senate, with absolutly NO foreign policy experience as an adult or at the federal level, never having run a business, met a payroll, served in the military, acted in any kind of executive capacity and was 46 years old that white person would never be considered for president, possibly as a vice-presidential candidate but only possibly.

I know this is a very senseitve area but I believe it is debate worthy.

I like Obama and I am a Clinton supporter but I believe that this is what Ms. Ferraro is saying.

The reasoning made no sense. Military experience as a pre-requisite? Why -- because he's male? Or because he's not a white man?  

My response:

And again, that's bullshit.

"with the same resume of 1/2 of one term in the US Senate, with absolutly NO foreign policy experience as an adult or at the federal level, never having run a business, met a payroll, served in the military"

Well, let's see -- we'll just check out our current "executive" qualifications: Bush had no Senate experience, no foreign policy experience as an adult or at the federal level, ran several businesses into the ground, wimped out of his military service. He served as a governor, but didn't do a very good job. ...simply holding positions that expose someone to certain levels of responsibility does not -- in any way -- equate to actually having viable experience in that role. Bush is a perfect example of that.

Face it -- very few Presidents, never mind Presidential candidates, had any foreign policy experience prior to taking office that could have prepared them for the job. Military service is not a prerequisite for the Presidency, nor should it be -- the Presidency is a civilian post.

...what the hell does meeting a payroll have to do with Presidential qualifications? Seriously -- he's not shooting for an accountancy.

The reason behind my use of Bush as an example was two-fold:

  1. He is a perfect example of why those conditional pre-requisites fail, and
  2. I suspected that this person was a Republican, and thought this would help reveal the true colors.

Sure enough, an idiotic response came back:

Bush was significantly older, had military experience in jet fighter flying, had executive experience both in politics and out and came form a poliyical savvy family. Your analogy is defeated and my contention stands.

Wow -- what inanity.

I also noticed the typical Republican-shill tactical equivalent of a foot-stamp, "Your analogy is defeated and my contention stands."

Here's the takedown. Note: I initially left out the military point and posted it later when I realized it, but I'm posting the whole thing together here.

Your analogy is bogus, and the more you try the more obvious it becomes.

Let's do it by the numbers, shall we?

  1. Assertion: Bush was significantly older

    Yeah, so was Reagan -- and he was technically incompetent due to the onset and progress of Alzheimer's Disease, but he remained President. Technically, Obama is old enough -- do you have any idea what the ages of the previous Presidents were? Let me clue you in about who some of the youngest were:

    <tbody></tbody>
    AGE #  Name  
    4226Theodore Roosevelt
    4335John F. Kennedy
    4618Ulysses S. Grant
    4642Bill Clinton
    4722Grover Cleveland

    Mmmmm...judging by the list, I can see why you're so scared of Obama, tho. A Roosevelt, a Kennedy and a Clinton seem to stand right out there.

    Nice try, but don't leave your day job.
  2. Assertion: [Bush] had military experience in jet fighter flying

    Technically true, but Bush had no practical military experience being deployed anywhere of consequence, and his service overall was a joke -- the equivalent level of training required to learn to fly a private jet would be sufficient for anyone to run on base on that.

    Additionally, two important points:

    • There is no military-experience pre-requisite to qualify one for the office of the Presidency. It is a civilian role.

    • What kind of military experience does Hillary Clinton have? Since you seem to think that military experience matters, where's Clinton's?

    Case closed, pinhead. Try back later, when people are sleeping.

  3. Assertion: had executive experience both in politics and out

    Bush's executive experience proved that he was an incompetent executive -- he drove every business he ran into the ground financially, just like he's done to our nation today. His governorship screwed up the state of Texas and served as a model of the best we could have hoped for in terms of how little damage he might do to the nation, but he blew that model right out of the water and broke new grounds in incompetency.

    Is that the type of experience you prefer for a future President to have? It certainly doesn't seem like a very intelligent qualification from where I'm sitting.

  4. Assertion: came form a poliyical savvy family

    Political connections born of a family that has prospered from war profiteering and been involved in some of the most corrupt, illegal national scandals of our century are not positive contributing factors toward the consideration of a President. If anything, those "connections" and that "political savvy" simply promise more of the same in terms of corruption, and a lot less work for the people of the nation. Not much of a qualification. Try again.

There's another good analogy, too, that helps quell the idiotic "experience" meme:

<font>Votemaster</font>:

How good Are experienced presidents, anyway? Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln. Your pick disagrees with that of most historians, who see Lincoln as the greatest President ever and Buchanan as the second worst ever, better only than Warren "Teapot Dome" Harding. Both served in what was probably the most difficult period in American history, where slavery and secession tore the nation asunder.

So, it's game time folks.

The Republicans are up to their usual tricks, and we have to step up our efforts to expose and mitigate them.

The interesting part here, tho, is that we've gotten much better and seeing through and taking down their rhetoric and propaganda -- they're running scared. A word to the wise -- a scared, cornered animal is dangerous...and I suspect these weasels are rabid.1

______________________________

Footnotes
______________________________

1. No offense meant to real, actual weasels.

Originally posted to GreyHawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:53 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar and reminders (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xrepub, borkitekt, Empower Ink

    Hey folks -- what a week, and it's only humpday.

    Please add any other examples of propaganda that is being used against any other candidate, along with accompanying take-downs -- both candidates, please.

    Let's get the facts together and keep re-assembling them so that they're common knowledge and easy to find.

    And the reminder:

    ____

    Stir of Echoes

    and

    Musical Deconstruction of a Life's Worth of Memories.
    ____

    My tribute to Mumsie, in music -- the first tells of some of the spooky goings-ons, and the second is my musical memory maker, a "chamber of imagery" to summon the "stir of echoes" comprising my memories of my mother-in-law.

    Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
      Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
    Tempest even in reason's seat.

    by GreyHawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:01:53 AM PDT

  •  Repubs have gotten the Dem they WANTED (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreyHawk, Empower Ink

    to run against in how many of the last Presidential elections?

    The Repubs game the DEMOCRATIC primary process to get the WEAKEST possible Democratic candidate possible - the one they WANT to run against.

    This happens through media manipulation, games and direct involvement in the Democratic primary process.  You think all those dirty tricks that surface in Democratic primaries are from other Democrats?

    Republicans - and our corporate overlords - want Hillary in as the Democratic candidate.  The EXPECTED her to take the nomination in a walk but she got blindsided by the level of voter discontent (which Obama tapped).  Now there's a despertate 'do ANYTHING' to make sure Hillary gets in so the 2008 election can be 'controlled'.  ANd be real - the whole scenarion IS 'controlled' - McCain was destined for the Repub nomination.  Despite everything - and all expectations only a few months ago - "here's Johnny!"........  

    Hillary will energize the Repub base and get them out.... she will also NOT get many cross over votes that Obama WOULD get.  

    And - truth be told - it won't matter THAT much if Hillary IS elected instead of McCain.... we'll have some cosmetic changes - some crumbs thrown to the electorate - but no real reform, no rush to get out of Iraq...... Hillary owes serious favors to big $$$ corporate donors and the political establishment.

  •  Imagine if Limbaugh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreyHawk

    didn't get involved, the white votes would have been higher for Obama. Limbaugh is angry at Dems because he feels that Dems picked McCain, so they will pick our nominee.

  •  As to politically savvy families (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreyHawk, borkitekt

    That goes for Clinton, too.

    "Sir, you are giving a reason for it; but that will not make it right." Samuel Johnson

    by Catte Nappe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:15:41 AM PDT

    •  "Savvy" => "entenched" => "trenchmouth" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      borkitekt

      It's the going analogy in my mind right now, in terms of relative equivalency.

      Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
        Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
      Tempest even in reason's seat.

      by GreyHawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:26:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  GH I'm disappointed in you for pulling punches :( (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreyHawk, Empower Ink

        The Bush family is more than what you claim, example:

        How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

        ...
        Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

        Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler's efforts to re-arm between the two world wars. One of the pillars in Thyssen's international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands. More tantalising are Bush's links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen's American assets were seized in 1942.

        Another Proud Subscriber to the Mariachi Mama Candidate Bickering Moratorium!

        by borkitekt on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:51:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nixon may have been our most experieneced (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreyHawk

    president in the 20th Century-- time in the Senate, time in the House, 8 years as VP, ran for President once before, in the military, etc.

    And Hoover had a "dream" resume.

    Oh well.

    "That's what killed Dennis Day-- contempt for the audience." -- Phil Hartman as Frank Sinatra

    by Pangloss on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM PDT

  •  obama- address rush and GOP talk radio directly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreyHawk

    the evidence is there that it has helped clinton significantly.

    this is a miniature of the way the talk radio monopoly has dominated the flavor of US politics for twenty years since reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine.

    the GOP couldn't have done this with print and TV alone and we wouldn't be in iraq, we wouldn't have bush or these unwise supremes or be in this economic mess if the tr monopoly wasn't able to give 20%  the power of 51% with it's uncontested repetition to 50-70MIL and it's ability to mobilize some of them at a moments notice.

    obama is going to get swiftboated incessantly if he gets the nom and he should take this opportunity to point out to his supporters and the media that much of the main media is chewing rush limbaugh and co's prechewed roving talking points.  most media analysts and pol strategists completely ignore talk radio because they can't read it anywhere.

    the obama camp needs to begin posting a searchable transcript database of the main talkers so his supporters can respond to the lies and racism by boycotting and waving signs at the local talk station level before the distortions become true through repetition.

    •  I think both camps must distance themselves from (0+ / 0-)

      divisiveness and the use of Republican-type techniques; it simply lowers them to the level of Republicans, and makes those techniques more deeply entrenched within the system -- we should be exposing and negating them, not using them.

      Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
        Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
      Tempest even in reason's seat.

      by GreyHawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:02:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it doesn't require the low road- just awareness (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreyHawk

        the invisibility of the talk radio effect has been the problem for progressives

        kerry and gore's swiftboating an democracy in general have been greatly effected by the uncontested repetition and coverage it gives the roves of the GOP.

        by ignoring it progressives will continue to lay politics without a front line and dem strategists and media critics will continue to analyze the effects without seeing one of the most important causes.

        when the media in general is sensitized to the fact that most of fox tv is just there to give a visual to the talk radio garbage that's blasted all over the country earlier in the day and that many of the talking points and one liners and framing that guys like mathews and russert use would look false, or trivial, or partisan if it wasn't legitimized earlier in the day or week with talk radio repetition there would be a lot less of it.

        •  Awareness -- like sunshine to mold. :) n/t (0+ / 0-)

          Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
            Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
          Tempest even in reason's seat.

          by GreyHawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:14:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site