I was listening to Geraldine Ferraro and wondering…
…why is it no one else sees the Karl Rove connection here?
Amongst the swill and the sludge of the daily campaigns, are we sufficiently tired yet of hearing about “surrogates” and, “she/he should know better” and all the accusations based on race, the rising “sexist” comments and…
I think the more important question is…
“Has America learned the wrong lesson from Karl Rove?”
I probably don’t need to give a history lesson here about the Swifties and how George was allowed to distance himself… or how the dynamic became that making any accusation about Kerry was acceptable but that challenging Bush’s Guard service wasn’t… or that Bush bashing was a mental disease but bashing anyone who disagreed with them was tolerable behavior…
Risking national security just to have a little fun flaming the Plame? Why it’s just as wholesome as marshmallows. Just toast another Wilson over the fire.
We have one person above all who worked for George we can either applaud or jeer for setting this meme’: Karl Rove. He’s come a long way from carrying empty cases of “notes” to debates to today.
Maybe not. His tactics are still empty of the slightest modicum of morality.
Now that 08 is upon us, we’ve learned our lesson, right? After all; the candidate in the lead claims he wants to change all this.
…except when what could very well be called surrogates; in the same way the Swifties were, flood liberal talk shows every time Barack gets criticized with accusations of racism. A comment on the historical nature of Barack’s candidacy becomes “racist.” Calling Barack’s candidacy a “fairy tale” or Barack “a kid” is supposedly “racist mud throwing.” And, in probably one of the most outrageous claims, the Clintons are accused of using Rove like tactics.
Oh, really? Please wake me up when Barack gets a push poll thrown at him accusing the him of adopting a white baby. Or maybe when Clinton’s people claim he said…
“Where’s the white women at?”
Now, before you shake your head in disgust over some supposed “pro-Hillary” rant, I also think accusing others of being like Ken Starr is about as off base as most “like Adolph Hitler” accusations. Wait, did I just type the same name twice? Guess I did. I also think Barack certainly has more than “one good speech.” And I doubt have no doubt surrogate “sexist” accusations are being considered to counter surrogate “racist” accusations.
So, once again I ask, did we learn absolutely nothing from Karl Rove? Yes, such tactics work: using a similar form of logic to what the Germans probably used when they decided to drastically lower the Jewish population. Don’t just disagree with those you object to: obliterate. Or, as mind numbingly idiotic Jocks used to say about sports during the 70s…
“Winning is the only thing.”
We aren’t Rove yet, but our candidates… and those who work for them, sure seem to have learned the wrong message from the master of lies and sleaze.
These kind of tactics also help drive a wedge down the middle of a party so big, so wide, at least one side will walk away in disgust unless they get something. This is why, and the only reason why, I think an O’Bama/Clinton ticket may be necessary.
I always wondered: considering how bad the past eight years have been… just what might the Democrats have to do to lose the White House in 08? Now I know. By the time we’ve really learned our lesson we might be in the middle of President McCain’s second term.
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over thirty years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
Ken, I usually agree with you, but I think you’re a little off-base here. No one in Obama’s campaign called Ferraro a ‘racist’ that I know of — that’s Geraldine’s spin in asking for an apology. This is the Rovian tactic of ‘never apologize, even if you’re wrong, and instead turn it on your opponent.’ In fact, it has been the media that is questioning whether Ferraro made a racist remark, not Obama.
Obama has also gone out of his way to say that he wasn’t accusing Bill or Hillary Clinton, or Geraldine Ferraro, of being racists, but he did object to the comment. What would you have him do? The remark was ridiculous — it was essentially an upper class white woman who was a vice president candidate because of her sex, as she admits, projecting onto Obama that he is leading Hillary just because he’s black and this is nomination some kind of affirmative action program. A black man with a funny foreign-sounding name has an ADVANTAGE in a US election? Since when.
What was insulting about Ferraro’s remark was her complete dismissal of his achievements, including carefully building an organization from scratch that has outdone Hillary’s well-funded and ‘professional’ campaign. It sounds like sour grapes to me.
Unfortunately, I have talked to people who are going to vote, or have voted, for Hillary just because she’s a woman, one even saying “A woman first, the blacks get it next.” They don’t care about issues, nor anything else, just that a woman wins the White House. I think Ferraro is in that group.
Conversely, I have yet to talk with an Obama voter who is voting for him strictly because he’s black. I have no doubt they exist, but I have yet to meet them.
Contrary to the media depiction of the typical Obama voter, they are not blinded by his ‘rock star’ status — many, like me, have simply read about him and his positions, and read about Hillary and what she thinks, and determined that he would make a better president. In fact, most of the Obama supporters I know were previously backing Edwards, as I did, or Kucinich. They are under no illusions that Obama is the perfect progressive, just a little better than the other viable candidates.
Yes, we do disagree.
As with George Bush, O’Bama goes out of his way (sometimes, yes, sometimes… no) to distance himself. But the calls to talk shows (like Sirius Left) the howls from the media (who have always hated the Clintons) and… (yada, yada, yada…) continue. Like how the Swift Boaters and others savaged Kerry. (Now I thought he needed savaging, but for being a wimp.) Alex Bennet describes him at a “passive/aggressive.” Personally, I think he is intentionally running a campaign where others who support him, including much of the media who I swear have “hate Clinton” branded on their posteriors, go nuts. He pretends like his campaign has nothing to do with it, much like George and the Swifties. Frankly, I don’t buy his, or the Clinton campaign’s, denials. I think they’ve just learned the wrong lesson from Rove.
I’m curious regarding your take on the new noise this morning regarding O’Bama’s minister who he has considered a spiritual guide for many, many years and who married him. Once again Barack, not Hillary this time, has to “distance” themselves form someone elses comments. Personally I think “God damn America” is pretty disgusting, but to say that Hillary doesn’t understand what a black man goes through in this society is pretty accurate: just as accurate as his ignorance regarding sexism. She cries? Too weak. She’s firm? She’s a bitch. She tries to find a middle ground? She’s “calculating.”
Neither Barack or Hillary are responsible for what her finance person, or what his minister, says. And, frankly, I’m tired of the spin and both campaigns doing “gotcha.”
Yes, Barack probably wouldn’t be, historically, where he is today if not for his race. Of course his abilities too, but freshman congressmen have been this rhetorically able before: but rare they run so soon. They didn’t run and they didn’t have the organizational skills, and they didn’t have the determination, and it wasn’t time yet.
Yes, Hillary Clinton too wouldn’t be where she is today, historically, if she wasn’t a woman: there have been talented women before. They didn’t run, they didn’t have the organizational skills, they didn’t have the determination… and it also wasn’t time yet.
Over all, as Geraldine explained: it is a unique time, historically.
I heard her explain her comments: and the media, and O’Bama-ites, would have none of it. Sharks react less mindlessly when blood is in the water. Ferraro was doing a paid speech where she had been asked about the significance of his campiagn, from what I have read. Should she have mentioned his organizing skills? Perhaps, but historically it is of lesser significance. There have been organizers as talented… or better. (Sidebar: I don’t credit just him. I’m sure there are a lot more people to credit than just him… which could be another reason it wasn’t mention. I also don’t just credit Mrs. Clinton, although I think her organizers are obviously worse, and less talented, than she is in this case.)
I know she said something similar about the historical nature of Jesse’s campaign years ago who just shrugged it off. The purpose of this edition, in part, was to vent my disgust at this “gotcha” atomosphere. It’s certainly not just Hillary, although too many Barack supporters have been trying to paint it that way. If Hillary is responsible for Geraldine’s words… who is on finance and not part of the crew who write speeches or designs her policy statements… then Barack is responsible for all his years support of someone who insisted God should damn America after 9/11. We simply can’t avoid the logic there. Frankly? I don’t think either should be whipped over it.
I would never say “all O’Bama supporters,” or “all” anything. The problem here is that there does seem to be a larger, louder, element to the O’Bama campaign that seems intent on turning anything anyone says about O’Bama that isn’t positive into a code word for racism. They are much like the Hillary supporters you mention: only far worse. I’ve been fighting with them as of late… as you probably can tell by the content of my columns. They don’t serve O’Bama’s cause well. It may sink Hillary: it probably already has… but I’d bet good money they’ll sink O’Bama when he comes up against the GOP machine.
I don’t think you’re going to run into an O’Bama supporter who would admit they’re voting for him only because he’s Black. I have a sneaking suspicion they’re less likely to admit to it. Unlike those who think a woman should get it (but I doubt, if you asked, they’d say “yes” to Condi.) I think there are dynamic within the African American community that would make this hard for them to say. O’Bama is not only lighter skin… a problem within the dynamics of that community because they have had their own favoritism problems… but also of mixed heritage. Nothing wrong there, but I think all that would make those who might intentionally vote along racial lines (to Barack’s favor) avoid commenting because it could open Pandora’s Box within their own community. I willingly admit: that’s a guess. I have yet to meet anyone who is voting for Hillary; and not Barack, for the reasons you mention… but tis possible.
Unfortunately I’m getting to the point where I don’t want any of them… but I will vote for whomever the Dems run. I’m just damn sick and tired of them playing Russian Roulette with six bullets in their political six shooter. :em41: :em58: :em98: :em08:
A question/sidebar: will McCain blunt this tactic by nominating Condi as VP? She’s obviously far worse than terrible at anything she does, but the media… like George… willingly grease her up and let any such criticism slide right off her. No one should expect that in the Fall for whomever the Dems run.
I get to reuse this comment!
This is a good thing. It’s painful, like birth. It’s not the death of the Democratic party. I’m secretly pulling for Obama but will vote for either of them. We all will, and some Republicans, too.