Written hastily, please forgive:
I was just doing my daily reading of political news when I came across this article by Alan Silverleib, "Analysis: Four things McCain needs to accomplish this week."
http://www.cnn.com/...
As I read it, a number of things crystallized for me. As if you care, follow me to the other side...
The headline is not false advertising. Mr. Silverleib discusses what he says he will discuss, but the way he does it highlights the shortcuts, bias, and cynicism built into the system.
First, Hurricane Gustave is presented as an obstacle for McCain. The news, it seems, is intent on focusing on the natural disaster, and that is a real inconvenience for Mr. McCain. Also working against him is an inhospitable climate for the GOP. Against this backdrop, our hero must go to work!
Nowhere is it mentioned that the inhospitable climate is actually of John McCain’s making, both inasmuch as he was part of the ruling party the last few years and helped determine policy, but also because he has not devised actual policies that differentiate from the Bushco disaster years. So let’s cut the crap. It is not an inhospitable climate for the republicans: republican parties are inhospitable to the AMERICAN climate. They tried it, they failed. Call it like it is, please.
Besides, nowhere is it mentioned that THIS hurricane is such an inconvenience because McCain CAN’T be seen partying through two in a row. I imagine if he had not totally fumbled the last hurricane, the media would be more inclined to let the show go on. But two in a row might look kind of bad for him. (Not that this has stopped the lobbyists from partying, anyway.) . So, you know, if you aren’t going to report it, why report it?
To further distance us from reality, we have pundits and politicians talking about brands. Check the quote from Rep. Tom Davis: The "Republican brand is so bad right now that if it were a dog food, they'd take it off the shelf."
Not only does it show the prevalence of marketing in our society—we are more likely to talk about a brand than a policy—that tack helps the people who have been screwing everything up for the last decade. People are naturally drawn to party identification, like they are drawn to the friendly golden arches. But if you stripped away the label and just read the nutrition facts, no one in his right mind would eat that crap. So please, let’s dissect the policies instead of settling for brand identification.
Then of course there is lip service to the Maverick meme. This is more branding, and it makes the job of covering the news so much easier. You can call him a maverick and avoid having to spell out that he sided with Bush over 90% of the time. You can call him a maverick and really hedge on addressing the fact that his VP pick was manipulative and short-sighted.
Then there is just sloppy reporting. "A clear majority of voters does not appear to be sold on Obama."
As if a clear majority is sold on McCain, who, by the way, is trailing Obama in every poll I have seen. How do we explain away this discrepancy? Oh, I bet you saw it coming:
"...and McCain's maverick reputation is keeping the race close."
So what does Mr. Silverleib suggest? WELL, glad you asked:
More branding, avoid Bush, don’t flub Palin’s rollout, and attack.
- "reintroduce yourself as a war hero,"
As if we have not been bludgeoned to death by it already. I am pretty tired of hearing about it, frankly. It has become a crutch for his campaign, and I am tired of having to say, "You know John McCain sure is awesome for going through that Hanoi Hell Pit, and I sure do respect how great and heroic he is, but boy, he sure is a dumbass when it comes to the economy/the Iraq War/choosing a running mate/ditching his first wife because she was disfigured in a car wreck."
Give it up. He is a good candidate or he is not. From now on, whenever I hear, "I sure do respect John McCain’s heroic service, but...." I am going to substitute the phrase:
"It would be foolish to vote for John McCain because:..." Because that is how everyone else would be talked about.
- "Having Bush skip the convention is actually a good thing. McCain doesn’t want to be seen being endorsed by Bush.
Yet, Bush IS endorsing McCain. It’s like this coverage is MADE for the low-information voter. As if having Bush skip the party will somehow mean that McCain HASN’T spent the last 8 years nose-to-ass with the man.
- Don’t flub the Palin roll-out.
Uhm. Too late. How about, Next time maybe you should actually vett the person you choose for more than 2 hours instead of jumping at the chance to pander.
The money quote:
"The convention will provide a critical opportunity for the McCain camp to put the best possible spin on these issues and instead ensure that voters see Palin as a fresh, energetic voice of change."
When did putting the best possible spin on a candidate actually become an acceptable political truth? Maybe I am naïve, but it used to be that that sort of thing was kept on the down-low...like, "Shhh, don’t tell anyone, but we are actually not being completely honest about our candidate." Now it seems like a given.
- Attack.
I bet this novel strategy is going to be carried out with the utmost truth.