Hard News: Dial O for Obama
143 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
can anyone imagine a more insulting and detestable moniker for the working class?
SPPs (=Scummy Poor People)
-
Amoung the poorer voters McCain needs to swing it'll probably help.
No doubt they'll be eagerly awaiting the New Yorker to arrive in their letterbox, because lots of poor people subscribe to it.
Y'know, if Obama gets the endorsement of the Washington Post, the NY Times, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal, man he'll be screwed then, at least by extension of Angus' theory.
-
SPPs (=Scummy Poor People
Revolting peasants
because lots of poor people subscribe to it.
But we're pretty confident Sarah P will never read it.
-
Tom,
I agree the GOP is dead in water, because Bush was in charge for this financial meltdown. However if McCain can distance himself from Bush (as he is trying to do) and can smear on Obama he has his best chance (a longshot).
...but when you are about to lose your house it suddenly doesn't matter as much if the other guy is black.
In these times the smear that has the most legs is not that Obama is black, it is that Obama is wholly supportive of giving $700billion dollars to rich pricks. The New Yorker is a magazine dedicated to the sophisticated tastes of some of the richest pricks in the country and its endorsement of Obama reinforces this smear. And whilst the association itself is damaging, the indentity group response it shall probably cause amoung certain Obama supporters is going to increase that damage.
Say for instance you thought that the $700billion was rewarding incompetence, totally unnecessary and wrong you would question Obama's competence on the economy. If this resulted in feedback that it is merely a necessary evil that Obama does reluctantly you would consider him a reasonable choice. However if this question led to you being catergorised as a mouth breathing, illiterate, joe-six-pack, white trash, bible bashing hick who is almost certainly racist by people who broadly support Obama your views of Obama will become increasingly negative.
-
In these times the smear that has the most legs is not that Obama is black, it is that Obama is wholly supportive of giving $700billion dollars to rich pricks. The New Yorker is a magazine dedicated to the sophisticated tastes of some of the richest pricks in the country and its endorsement of Obama reinforces this smear. And whilst the association itself is damaging, the indentity group response it shall probably cause amoung certain Obama supporters is going to increase that damage.
If this rather desperate stretch of logic and cries of 'palling with terrorists' is all the GOP has left, then Obama is indeed on a roll.
-
Sarah Palin takes the Voight-Kampff test
Do you think she'd shoot the guy under the table a la Bladerunner?
My mother? Let me tell you about my mother.....
when you are about to lose your house it suddenly doesn't matter as much if the other guy is black.
I was really struck by this piece on the BCC the other day:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2008/10/race_is_still_an_issue.html
Yes, race is an issue. but I'm beginning to think if that guy they interviewed is indicative of how people are thinking (if...), then it's going to be a landslide (jinx).
-
In these times the smear that has the most legs is not that Obama is black, it is that Obama is wholly supportive of giving $700billion dollars to rich pricks.
Angus: I know the McCain-Palin m.o. is that if you're going to lie you might as well lie big, but don't you think someone is going to notice that McCain was "wholly supportive of" (and voted for) the bailout bill?
For people who claim to be the voice of 'Joe Six Pack', they sure seem to think he's fucking stupid. A disrespect, I suggest, is being repaid with compound interest.
-
For people who claim to be the voice of 'Joe Six Pack', they sure seem to think he's fucking stupid.
Or they __hope__ that he is.
-
. . . don't you think someone is going to notice that McCain was "wholly supportive of" (and voted for) the bailout bill?
Maybe not. As James Thurber noted back in 1939, in that appalling elitist rag the name of which, Angus assures us, is mud to the lumpenproletariat, You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.
-
The New Yorker is a magazine dedicated to the sophisticated tastes of some of the richest pricks in the country
Thanks, Angus, I like it too. You obviously won't need to be told that The New Yorker only costs a little bit more than the Listener air-mailed out to NZ, and it does have rather better- well, everything.
But where is my immense wealth and sophisticated taste? Dang, don't I get that too?
And, um, for your argument to hold sway, it has to be the case that a/ yep, the NYer is a mag solely for RPs b/ US voters know this c/ US voters generally are gonna know who the NYer endorses and d/ US voters care enough who the NYer endorses to change their minds on that basis and vote against that endorsement, which they will somehow have read, even not being RPs themselves, cos even if they are well-informed, they are irreducibly stupid.
Not such a great argument, eh?
Well, you're at least a little on-track: the NYer has endorsed other candidates who've ahm, bombed out big-time.
Yeah, they favour the Dems. Just like all those Wall St Bankers and Financer-Snake-dildo salespeople.
Ahm, or maybe not? -
3410,
If this rather desperate stretch of logic and cries of 'palling with terrorists' is all the GOP has left, then Obama is indeed on a roll.
Does that mean you're officially changing your prediction?
-
For anyone watching the debate who's boggling about how on earth you can pay $3 million for an "overhead projector", the good physicists over at Cosmic Variance have the whole story.
McCain is shamelessly lying about an extremely worthy and worthwhile bit of public science funding. But Obama is silly for not hitting straight back with a query about exactly which part of the Planetarium's mission in public science education McCain is opposed to.
There's cool and laid-back, and then there's "Are you really in the same room with this turkey??"
-
The Republicans may have sown up the "Joe six pack"
Thaaart Sara sure is hot, grab me a six pack, aahhm gonna do me some VOTIN"
Ahh, ain't them thar yanks just so damn cute?
Seriously, if McCain/ Palin get the ticket I, for one, will be convinced that the end is nigh. -
I'm utterly fascinated by the American presidential elections this time around, but I can't help wondering if it's because I'm trying to ignore what's happening locally.
I see John Key has just announced how National's going to be funding its tax cuts. Briefly, it's going to be trying to 'stimulate growth' through further deregulation. Cos, you know, that's worked so well in the past, and of course deregulation policies have had nothing at all to do with the impending worldwide economic trip-to-hell-in-handbasket.
Secondly, it's going to be reducing minimum contributions to Kiwisaver. Because New Zealanders have such excellent personal savings records, and this exposes us at no risk at all to the global credit crunch.
Thirdly, it's going to be cutting the R & D tax credit. Because what economy in its right mind, particularly one wanting to 'stimulate growth', would want to be encouraging research and development?
God. Following this election campaign is like hitting one's head against a concrete wall repeatedly. Back to marvelling at Sarah Palin's epically rectalinear glasses.
-
For anyone watching the debate who's boggling about how on earth you can pay $3 million for an "overhead projector", the good physicists over at Cosmic Variance have the whole story.
Thanks for that. I figured he'd cherry picked it from somewhere.
McCain is shamelessly lying about an extremely worthy and worthwhile bit of public science funding. But Obama is silly for not hitting straight back with a query about exactly which part of the Planetarium's mission in public science education McCain is opposed to.
Obama was playing it by the rules which was single answers, no follow-ups, until McCain went to the well one time too many on the "he's gonna raise your taxes!" schtick.
There's cool and laid-back, and then there's "Are you really in the same room with this turkey??"
Were yopu watching the Ohio worm? I was watching on CNN and there's a little worm graph at the bottom showing male and female Ohio undecided voters. Obama was scoring significantly higher than McCain, especially with the women. The worm was getting turned off when McCain lied about Obama.
What I thought was really interesting was one of the questions asked from the audience by a black woman. McCain looked everywhere in the studio but at her directly, but he engaged directly with all the white questioners.
Man's got is-sues, is all I'm sayin'...
-
Sorry to disappoint you, Caleb, but I watched most of the presidential debate. I'd feel sorry for McCain, if he hadn't so comprehensively trashed any respect I once felt for him. Memo for round three: STFU with the "no on the job training" poo line, because any credibility in using it was the price of selecting Sarah Palin. And people know it.
Secondly, it's going to be reducing minimum contributions to Kiwisaver. Because New Zealanders have such excellent personal savings records, and this exposes us at no risk at all to the global credit crunch.
Caleb: Do you really think Kiwisaver and the Cullen Fund have no exposure now? Come on, reality-based critiques please.
-
There's cool and laid-back, and then there's "Are you really in the same room with this turkey??"
There's also, "when your opponent is doing such a fine job of digging their own grave, why interrupt?"
-
On first viewing is does look like McCain refused to shake Obama's hand at the end. What do we think here?
-
Maybe 'neglected' to shake it rather than 'refused' on second viewing.
-
Caleb: Do you really think Kiwisaver and the Cullen Fund have no exposure now? Come on, reality-based critiques please.
Of course not, but I still think that actively cutting government revenue in the current climate is a really stupid idea. I also think there are considerable cross-overs between the Republicans' 'folksy' anti-intellectualism and the Nats' cynical hits on 'bureaucrats' and the public service generally. It plays to a particular kind of uninformed suspicion of expertise and experience, and we've got the American example to tell us how that plays out in the long run.
I'm also more than a little tired of the Nats' 'OMG business is so tied up by big bad regulations!' routine. New Zealand has the second most business-friendly environment in the world. It seems to me that if businesses aren't succeeding to the extent that they gosh darn believe they are entitled to, it isn't the evil government's fault.
-
It plays to a particular kind of uninformed suspicion of expertise and experience, and we've got the American example to tell us how that plays out in the long run.
And looking at the current American campaign, you could be forgiven for coming to the perfectly well-informed conclusion that "experience" is an assertion that needs to be tested rigorously. If Cullen really wants to run the experience card, then he's going to have to accept the risk that comes with that hand.
But, hey, Caleb if Labour really wants to run the line that all National parties are stupid and greedy then so be it. It just worked last time, but I wonder if it's not as far past the use by date as McCain's Rove redux act.
-
Caleb:
I see John Key has just announced how National's going to be funding its tax cuts. Briefly, it's going to be trying to 'stimulate growth' through further deregulation. Cos, you know, that's worked so well in the past, and of course deregulation policies have had nothing at all to do with the impending worldwide economic trip-to-hell-in-handbasket.
Secondly, it's going to be reducing minimum contributions to Kiwisaver. Because New Zealanders have such excellent personal savings records, and this exposes us at no risk at all to the global credit crunch.
Thirdly, it's going to be cutting the R & D tax credit. Because what economy in its right mind, particularly one wanting to 'stimulate growth', would want to be encouraging research and development?
And then to add a bizarre touch, employers will be allowed to offset their (miserable) kiwisaver contributions against wages because we really don't want to catch up with Australian wages after all. You gotta have some point of difference.
-
Looks like they did shake hands at some point - not just in the exchange with Cindy McCain.
-
Bloody hell. Of all the "bloated govt spending" in all the country, National decides to waterdown/remove two of the better Labour economic policies of the last decade.
Note to anyone - we REALLY REALLY need a strong local capital market created by savings and we REALLY REALLY need to incentivise R&D for innovation. Finally some steps in that direction until they are the first things cut back.
Right, that's torn it, what's Winnie's policy platform then?
-
And looking at the current American campaign, you could be forgiven for coming to the perfectly well-informed conclusion that "experience" is an assertion that needs to be tested rigorously. If Cullen really wants to run the experience card, then he's going to have to accept the risk that comes with that hand.
Except it's not Cullen and Clark that Key's having a go at here, is it? It's the politically neutral public service. Who then have to walk past all those giant Stephen Franks billboards scattered around Wellington Central inviting them to vote for the party who will 'review' their positions in the interests of 'efficiency'.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.