What if........
Consider this seriously for a moment.
What level of Republican freak-out and resulting press coverage do you honestly think would occur if Barack Obama:
- had used his office to allow his wife to carry narcotics for her consumption on a diplomatic passport.
-If Obama had a scandal where he traded campaign favors for political influence in the Keating 5 scandal.
-If Obama had picked his Veep with the same skill set and experience as Sarah Palin and after meeting them only briefly.
-If it was documented and witnessed that Obama had called his wife a trollop and c++t in public.
-If Obama couldn't remember what border Afghanistan was on.
-If Obama repeatedly kept confusing Iraq with Iran.
-If Obama had vigorously supported getting the U.S. involved in Iraq.
-If Obama had surrounded himself with a lobbyist operation of 150 people to manage his campaign.
-If Obama had dumped his 1st wife after she was crippled in a car accident. but only after committing adultery for a period of months with a 24 year old heiress to a beer fortune, 18 years younger than Obama. And it was revealed that when they met, she lied about her age, saying she was much older, and he lied about his age, saying he was much younger. (as actually featured at the Republican National Convention.)
-If Obama brags about once dating a stripper, and it was included as a virtue in a keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention.
-If Obama had a lobbyist that got him to intercede with the FCC on broadcasting licensing with a potential sex angle involved.
-If Obama was 72 years old with a medical history of numerous occurrences of cancer.
-If Obama was celebrating his birthday with Bush at his his ranch with a cake while New Orleans was drowning.
-If Obama was a major figure in a political party that has been a governing disaster for the past 8 years.
-If Obama had falsely held Iraq responsible for the 9/11 attack.
-If Obama had fellow Senators of his own party expressing publicly their worries about his temper and temperament to be POTUS.
-If Obama only months ago was caught on camera celebrating his birthday with a celebrity and her indicted con artist husband on his huge yacht off the coast of Montenegro along with his lobbyist campaign manager. And then shortly thereafter, his campaign manager's lobbying partner got a fat contract with the con man to lure other suckers into his investment con.
-If Obama couldn't remember how many million dollar plus homes he owned.
-If Obama violated campaign rules about flying in private aircraft by flying repeatedly in a private jet owned by his wife, at no cost to his campaign.
-If Obama stated that he thought rich was making $5 million a year, even if he was half-joking.
-If Michelle Obama had shown up for her husband's nominating convention wearing an outfit costing over a half million dollars, including $280,000 worth of jewels.
-If Obama continually lied about his VP's accomplishments. particularly on earmarks and a "bridge to nowhere" in his VP's home state, far, far past the point where they'd been proven false.
-If Obama stated that his VP choice probably knew more about energy, "than any other person in the United States."
-If Obama had graduated 894th out of a class of 896 from a military academy, despite being the son and grandson of Navy brass, and then went on to crash and destroy 5 jets.
What would be the Republican's reaction? How much coverage would these stories get if they were true about Obama, his family, and his career?
Every single one of the above are documented and uncontested facts about John McCain.
The instances of IOKIYR... it's OK if you're Republican... are so numerous that it would be impossible to list them. I'm sure every one reading this can think of a few off the top of their head.
Would any one, or possibly two of these examples of poor character, corruption, law-breaking, lies, and poor judgement, were they true of Obama, spell certain death for Obama's chances at the White House? Would he have even gotten past the Iowa caucus', for that matter?
If so, then why do the media and the oh-so-sensitive and easily outraged Republican right remain so eerily silent on all of this? If it's considered out of bounds for McCain, then why would they make an ENORMOUS stink over any of them if it were Obama? (and even Republicans have to realize that they surely would.) Any theories?
Why is such a blatant double standard allowed to continue? And what should be done to change it?
posted by The Inside Dope @ 9/14/2008
8 comments
8 Comments:
This should be an ad!
It would be nice, wouldn't it?
But they'd have to find a fast talking announcer (maybe that guy from the old FedEx ads?) to get it all in there. And since McCain/Palin add new stuff to the list nearly every day, it would only get longer.
But of course, for some reason that escapes me, the Obama campaign would never talk about 3/4 of the facts in that list.
For instance, they'd never mention how many planes McCain destroyed, or his dismal grades at Annapolis, for fear of backlash at saying anything that might tarnish McCain's carefully honed all-purpose handy-dandy shield against nearly all criticism, his being a prisoner of war.
Secondly, even if you told many people these things, they'd either:
A. Simply not believe them, even if they were shown as facts, simply because they're so far gone that they'll believe any fool right wing propaganda that comes down the pike, and won't believe anything bad about McCain or Palin.
In short, they wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the ass, and even then, they'd pretend not to notice.
And the other rather depressing belief about political (or any) ads is that you have to target an audience who are the mental and maturity equivelents of about a 7th or 8th grader.
This is the level of intelligence that papers and advertisers have determine make up the average reader/consumer.
So ads have to be very short, and contain snappy little slogans that are easy to remember and which can penetrate the endless static and background noise of the endless stream of ads and general swill directed at the average TV viewer around the clock.
But I do hope to hear at least some of these things before the dust settles.
In an irony inside an irony, the McCain camp can whine and complain and accuse the "liberal media" of not being tough enough on Obama, but Obama couldn't get away with pointing out the obvious, namely that McCain is being allowed to get away with murder when it comes to keeping all his skeletons safely tucked away in the closet.
Obama would be skoffed at and branded as a whiner immediately.
But all of that makes it no less stunning and baffling as to the existence of such a huge and clearly noticable double standard between Republican candidates and Democratic candidates in their press treatment.
Yet another example of a slimy Republican tactic that's worked beautifully. Browbeat the press so long and loud and intensely that, even though reality is that it's always the Republican smears that get the most coverage, and Republican lies that usually get swept under the rug, there are still millions of dullards out there that believe it's the Dems who get preferential treatment in the press, when any one paying the slightest attention can clearly see that just the opposite is true.
Geez, this post really elevates the debate. Must be some more of the "new politics" Obama talked about.
All this dirty laundry about McCain were aired in the 2000 primaries. It's old news. It's outdated, as is all the stuff about Pastor Wright and the chain emails about Obama. I think both sides need to get past all this silly stuff and refocus. But we know that's not likely to happen.
McCain always does better in town hall meetings and debates. Obama has not, which is why he did not want to debate McCain that much. When the two candidates debate, you will see McCain pull ahead in the polls decisively.
The Daily Kos's attacks on Sarah Palin were discredited. Don't think for a minute that Axelrod and the Obama camp didn't plant it. That's how he works-they don't call him the Axe for nothing. All those nasty attacks on Sarah Palin, all the rumors of her being dropped from the ticket not only didn't work, but it backfired. But hey, you guys keep talking about the bridge to nowhere and how the state trooper who tasered his son should have kept his job.
Liberals are so angry I can't believe it. Now we are already seeing stories about "How will we react if Obama actually loses?" I mean what if ALL those battleground states turn red? Rage, depression, more bitterness. And one thing is sure, they are ready to play the race card. I mean it couldn't possibly be that the Democrats have nominated the LEAST qualified candidate since Judge Alton Parker ran against Teddy Roosevelt in 1904 so it must be because of racism.
Thanks for all the goofiness. I've kind of missed you Nico. Seriously.
First of all, don't you find the fact that you've adopted the weird Republican tactic of excusing scandal and corruption by arging that it's "old news"??
If someone murders someone and it doesn't come to light for 30 years, is that "old news" too?
What sort of logic do you use when you seem to suggest that because these scandals and TRUE facts about McCain supposedly came out in one of his numerous past failed attempts at the presidency, that somehow they should just disappear, as if they never happened?
Is there some sort of statute of limitations on misbehavior? If it was brought up a few years ago, is it then off the table completely now?
That strikes me as just ...well, kind of a crazy attempt to sweep these serious issues under the table. The famouse Republican "Hey! Look over there!" that they use constantly.
Palin's a patheticly unqualified hack who was chosen out of desperation by the McCain campaign. McCain had trouble drawing a few hundred people to his events. Now they come to see the woman from the cover of People. Wow. You must be so proud.
It's like if Obama had actually picked Oprah as his VP choice. THAT'S how insane it is.
So if you're wondering why Dems are freaked out, I already explained it in the post, but there's another example. It's because IT'S INSANE. And people react like that to insane actions.
As for myself, I'm not worried in the slightest about Obama's victory in November.
I'm not even sure if McCain can hold up until November. He seems exhausted and mentally confused more and more. Good thing they have some ditz there to get the rubes excited or he'd be toast already. (hence the desperation pick of Palin to begin with.)
The American public got lied to and bambozzled and scared into voting for the worst president in our history not once, but twice.
Something tells me that they won't get fooled again.
But you prove that there are actually people out there who are so scared of a black man (or "NEGRO" as you prefer to call them.) as president, that they'd essentially vote to take the country down a path which led us into this mess to begin with.
And in the process, will pretend to believe the unbelievable, swallow lies whole, and delude themselves into thinking it'll all be OK if we elect another Republican.
And that's what's truly sad and pathetic.
Nico is right.
New Politics.
Change.
Obama is the same hack that has tried in the past.
Obama is Chicago (lie, cheat, and steal) politics.
He's pathetic and unqualified. He has no record and does not have a clue what he is doing without a teleprompter.
Obama is dangerous.
Thankfully he is losing it with every passing day. McCain is no prize, but Obama - are you nuts!?
The issues about John McCain--y'know the candidate--are all old news, but talking about what Bill Ayers did before 1980 is current. Do I understand correctly?
Anon 7:33
No, I am not nuts.
But seriously, look at your argument. It's ludicrous.
You try to say Obama is some machine hack, when McCain has been in D.C. for almost 30 years?
His entire campaign staff is made up of top D.C. corporate lobbyists, and you think HE represents change?
Are YOU freaking nuts? Seriously. Are you?
Just how gullible are you that you can swallow, and defend, a candidate who started out pounding the theme that experience is the most important consideration, and he had it.
Then picks the most unqualified and inexperienced VP pick in modern history, which blows the experience bs out of the water. And literally OVERNIGHT, he then simply decides to adopt the Obama theme of change?
And you believe it?
Boy... there's a sucker born every minute.
And while you're at it, why not admit that McCain could have sex with a 10 year old boy on television and you'd still argue he's better than Obama, because the idea of a black guy being so "uppity" has you tied in knots?
Admit it.
Because your arguments otherwise are non-sensical.
The one that REALLY got me laughing was when you said he has no clue without a teleprompter! HAHAHA!~!!! Oh my god!
Yeah, he's a terrible speaker. Compared to McCain, who literally can NOT utter a word without looking down at his script on 3x5 cards. I think his record for actually looking up from them is about 3 seconds... maybe 4.
Yeah, you're right. Vote for McCain. He's a better speaker.
You base the most important decision a citizen makes on a candidates ability with a teleprompter?
The same teleprompter that literally every single presidential candidate has used for the past few decades? Yet you expect him to what? Just wing it?
Go watch McCain speak here and then come back.
Even if Obama uses teleprompters, at least he can!! Jesus, McCain is pathetic.
Wow. I really do wish I could attract a better class of conservative. This is too easy.
Carl,
Yes you do. McCain's adult life is "old news" and should be safely ignored, yet what a later aquaintance did when Obama was 4 years old is big news, as is what school he attended when he was about 7, AND his kindergarten homework, all of which have been attacked by the McCain campaign.
Post a Comment
<< Home