2.08.2008

I love The Smell of Demise In The Morning


Well, the far right pundits have finally done it, they've engaged in the age old cliche of cutting off their nose to spite their face. In a lack luster effort to manipulate the election process, several right wing pundits have have offered support of one type or another to Hillary Clinton.

While some pundits, realizing their mistake, tried to backpedal and make their intentions clearer and undoubtedly more conservative, the backlash ensues anyway. It neither amazes me nor surprises me that they have finally gone so far over the top with their opinions and incessant need to be the be-all, end-all in political commentary that they are now alienating their own audience.

Both Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have attempted to save a little face by explaining the reasons behind their non-supportive support. The circular logic includes one, or both, of the following game plans;

1) Support Clinton and hope she wins the nomination so the republican candidate will win the election in November, and/or,

2) Support Clinton so that after four years of "Liberal Hell" republicans will be voted back into office, by a newly appreciative public.

Of course, the back and forth in the oval office is nothing new. Every so many years we, the people, decide to vote in the opposite party in hopes that change will occur. And as always, nothing really changes. So why then, have the right wing politicos taken it upon themselves this time around to force this type of change, or rather to prevent it from happening?

I smell fear.

The "Obama threat" now sweeping the nation, stealing the hearts of Americans thus causing the neo-cons to lie awake at night in utter terror seems to have hit a nerve. A very raw nerve, at that. For whatever reason, the notion that he may win the nomination means total defeat for republicans nation wide, come election day. Or does it? Perhaps the possibility of uniform support and excitement about this up and coming president to be has permeated the moderate to conservative political sphere, and so starts the smear campaigns, the threats, the scare tactics, and fear mongering.

The neo-cons certainly can't have a nation initiate change that doesn't benefit a handful Americans, and encourages wage slavery for the rest of us. Nor can they stomach the thought that policies would be implemented that would prove their decades of crowing and bashing were nothing more than self serving affirmations that their bigotry was still socially acceptable.

But alas, as we all know, you can only go so far before it's too far, and hopefully credibility will be lost, and Americans will finally come out of their media fed stupor, to initiate real change and engage in real progress.

But lets, for just one minute, look at why all of this manipulative politics from outside of the government won't work, no matter what tricks they try. Try to imagine for one moment, that what was actually said, or what was actually intended didn't matter. Why? Because what was said, what was intended, wasn't what was actually heard. Regardless of backpedaling, explanations, and fine print apologies for the misprint, the damage has been done, the forward momentum of chatter has finally allowed these pundits to taste the bitterness of propaganda when it has been peppered among the media about them, and not some liberal target.

Thanks to the media deciding for us, we now have four candidates who are still alive and kicking in the primary. On the republican side, Huckabee and McCain, for the democrats, Clinton and Obama. I think it is plain to see that the democratic candidates have swept up the vast majority of support across the nation. Even republicans are leaning away from towing the party line, and are finally voting their conscience. The scant few votes that are left for the republican candidates to gobble up like scraps from a garbage can are being split up even farther between the two men. It is divide and conquer at its finest.

The democrats certainly are having a field day with all of this. The neo-cons also understand that McCain, the likeliest of nominees, doesn't stand a chance against Obama, but might live through Clinton. So the idea that getting Clinton the support she needs to win the nomination will give McCain a fighting chance.

Why it will backfire.

First, the idea that a conservative mouth piece would even consider supporting Clinton turns other not so conservative republicans away from the hard right faster than you can say fascism. It will push their vote more towards anyone but who the pundits support, thus losing control of their target audience. Second, when democrats catch wind of this - and they have - it could feasibly make them reconsider voting for Clinton. Afterall, if a hard right wing conservative can say her name without sneering, then something must be up, and it probably isn't a good bet to vote for her.

It is also the tell tale sign of a weak party. And weak it is, voter turnout for republicans have been far outmatched by democrats who are coming out in droves. Never mind the independents who really are the swing vote - they are the middle of the road voters whose opinion is more important to sway than the extreme choir to which the pundits enjoy preaching to.

Furthermore, even if the support works, and Clinton is nominated, I doubt that McCain will really have that great of a chance. No where near the kind chance the conservatives are hoping for. The country is screaming for change, and McCain isn't exactly the epitome of progress. Never mind the fact that many conservatives are actually unhappy with McCain, in general.

Regardless of the political outcome however, I think it is still sweet justice to hear former fans of such vocal bigots and extremists openly berate them for their current choices and decisions. All in good time, my friends, all in good time.

4 comments:

theaspiringhorseplayer said...

I actually listen to rush every once in a while and I personally think the "bigot" label is a bit overdone. Ann is a shock journalist. Once you accept that she's actually fairly funny, in the same way that guys like Howad Stern are funny yet could be deemed "offensive." Personally I much prefer Peggy Noonan as I don't need shock jock tactis with my political opinion reading.

What else may surprise you is that to an extent I agree with them. You have to understand that it is the candidates that have abandoned the majority of republican voters. We don't identify with John McCain. He's seen as soft on immigration, soft on defense (despite his military service), and willing to make bed partners with anyone he can benefit from.

He is to Republicans what Joe Lieberman is to Democrats. Know how Joe's villified for standing with the right on some issues? It's the same thing only reversed.

I may well be voting for Obama, so what they are doing is actually not that bizarre to me. You point out the correct strategic reasons they may be doing this and I think those are good battlefield assessments (politics being a battlefield).

The worst thing for republicans right now seems to be republicans. The best thing might be a Hillary win because of how divisive she is. Obama is more dangerous because he is able to connect with the masses. One senses he might be dynastic.

The pendelum of politics swings right and left with changing times. Right now it is most assuredly left. Proof of that is that I'll likely be voting with you.

Usually I'm much more of a traditional Reagan conservative (i.e., huge on defense, hate taxes, don't think "big government" can solve anything - which is one of the reasons I detest Bush, etc.). So how could I side with Obama? Simple, I'm not an idealogue, and while I still hold the same principles as I did in the past, I don't see anyone capable of either representing them or carrying them out competently within "our" ranks.

Sorry republican candidates, but you've got to do better than that. You can't expect to just pocket my vote. I'll not be their sheep.

While I disagree with Obama on many things, I think he's competent enough to be a good leader. He also represents a total changing of the guard, and I like his supposed "weakness" of inexperience inside the Beltway....I want that! I don't want some boob that's been in Washington for 50 years taking bribes and selling us out to special interests.

I'm also not naive enough to think that my "beliefs" are definitive "truths" and am willing to give the other side a try.

It's going to be a first for me, but I've resolved to do it.

Anok said...

I should probably clarify, I don't think Rush is any where as bigoted as some of the other pundits. Ann Coulter is a bigot, however - and not just for shock value. She actually told a Jew, on his show about creating success (IE, nothing about politics) that Jews are imperfect, and need perfecting. Thats pretty, erm, bigoted. So too, is Mike Savage, Michelle Malkin and the Laura Ingraham. They actually do say things that go above and beyond shock value.

However, I agree with the rest of what you said.

Me personally, I've always felt that partisanship in and of itself is divisive, and that people should vote their conscience, and not the party line.

Anyway, my point was more about how even they have gone so far as to alienate their own audience. Rush read off some e mails sent to him by his own viewers (er, listeners) and people are beginning to write their opinions off for what they are.

Dave Dubya said...

Anok,

You're right to call the authoritarian propagandists bigots. I have not heard one peep out their mouths in support of any initiative that would support minority interests.

Oops. I take that back. They do support the narrow interests of the top one percent income bracket.

Their efforts are entirely dedicated towards advancing the the corporatist elite's agenda.

They are hypoctites as well. While they crow about being holier-than-thou Christians, it is obvious they are more sympathetic to the money changers in the temple than to the poor and sick that Jesus cared about.

And that is also why they have no real beef with Hillary. She and her husband are company players. The Clintons supported NAFTA and cut social programs. Pretty liberal, huh?

The pendulum swings to the right twice as much as it returns to the left. Look at how much the dems in congress support the republican/corporate agenda. Virtually NOTHING but republican, authoritarian, and corporatist initiatives are passed. The result is just what big business wants; Permanent war, suppression of the public's rights and interests, and laws written by corporate entities.

And to keep it that way, they are doing exactly what is required to build a police state.

It's a corporatocracy. Government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

Just ask Dick "Halliburton" Cheney.

Anok said...

Oops. I take that back. They do support the narrow interests of the top one percent income bracket.

Well said!

Otherwise Dave, I agree with you...it seems to be a running thing lately, eh?