Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Defeatism is the Greatest Enemy of the McCain Campaign

Everyone knows that Obama can't win on his merits. Bluntly put, he has none. He isn't running on the issues, since he's demonstrated that he'll switch positions at the drop of a hat. What he's running on is a cult of personality, his own charisma and celebrity. Imagine JFK with no platform but a youthful smile and some vaguely optimistic rhetoric and that is the Obama platform in a nutshell.

Beyond the cult of personality, his real power comes from being treated as the inevitable winner. As far as the press is concerned, Obama is the incumbent, the election is nothing more than a formality and these next few months are a celebration of his victory.

Too many people, even those who hate Obama, see his victory as inevitable. That's not because of the poll numbers, but the perception created by the media with its constant coverage of the Messiah from Chicago and its determination to create the perception that you can't fight the future and that the election is already over. That same perception was used by the media to steamroll Hillary. It's now being used to steamroll McCain. And while the media can't control what happens at the polls, it can discourage and dispirit the opposition.

While there has always been media bias, what we are seeing in the election of 2008 goes well beyond media bias, to outright election tampering. There isn't even any pretense at fairness, nothing beyond a media selected coronation. You can't even call it dirty tactics, it's an outright assault on democracy by the major corporations that control the news media. It has as much in common with conventional media bias as a coup d'etat has with poll tampering.

If the media wins, it defeats democracy and fulfills its dreams of being able to decide who becomes President or not. If the media wins, the perception of McCain as doomed to lose and Obama as the certain winner will follow voters into the voting booth. For McCain to win, the media must lose.

That is why defeatism is the greatest enemy of the McCain campaign. To win McCain and the campaign must get a confident position across despite the media. That means going around the media where possible, cultivating small regional newspapers and radio stations in key battleground states, it means using bloggers and social media intelligently and constantly finding ways to communicate with the public as much as possible. For example a weekly or even daily video addressing the public streamed across video sharing sites would be a good idea.

It also means always having a clear and concise message and constantly creating "events" with a hook that target specific issues. If Obama is to make the campaign about his personality, McCain has to make it about the issues, which are his strongest area and which point up Obama's own weaknesses. McCain himself has spent too much time running on personality, but he will now be operating in a hostile media environment, a media that excells at distorting and destroying an enemy's image. He is going to have to put the issues first and put them out hard and fast to win.

If the campaign comes down to, who do you trust to run the country for the next four years, McCain will win. If the campaign comes down to, whose name do you recognize best and who seems to be a good guy, Obama will win. That's what he's been positioned to do, that's what his whole phony jolly personality exists for. It's meant to make him non-threatening and to deflect any serious questions about him and his record.

We've already seen that when the campaign gets hot, Obama melts. He doesn't do well under pressure, he doesn't know what he's talking about and he doesn't have the answers. He's a celebrity candidate whose answer to a problem is to put on a show. When his foreign policy credentials are challenged, he travels around the world and gives out free beer and sausages in order to get a crowd to listen to him in Germany. It's shallow, it's hollow and in the age of Big Brother and Paris Hilton, it works.

All Obama has to do to win, is to keep appearing on the covers of celebrity magazines, smile a lot and act like he's already won, while his friends in and out of the media do the dirty work for him. And he knows it too. If he actually begins lagging in the polls, they'll bring out the real ugliness and the sort of venom and hate they lavished on Hillary Clinton. For now though all they have to do is project his confidence to the American public, his Presidential seal, the references to Barack and Michelle as a First Couple and all the other totems and emblems of the man who is already acting as if he's President.

To beat that McCain will have to connect to the American people, to fight defeatism among Conservatives and shatter the idea that Obama cannot be beaten. Obama can be beaten. Obama has not won anything. And McCain can beat him and will, if he fights hard enough for it.

The Democrats want this to be a repeat of Clinton - Dole in 96. We have to make it a repeat of Bush - Kerry in 2004 instead. The Democrats want the McCain campaign to be an image of an old man toddling around and mumbling something, a respectable man but sure to lose. To fight that McCain has to be dynamic and aggressive, he has to be always in motion, always campaigning and always on message. The man who came from behind to win the Republican primary can do it. It's a matter of actually finding a focus.

The best hope for a Democratic victory in 2008 is for McCain and Conservatives to act and be made to act as if they're only playing out their part in Obama's March to the White House. That's the Dole curse. To beat it McCain must break through the invisible wall in the media and be prepared for the fireworks when he does, something that has already begun with the New York Times Op-Ed rejection. He must frame a clear choice between himself and Obama, based on his record and Obama's and his policies and Obama's. He must not only be prepared for the tidal wave of hate that will unleash, but ride it and even enjoy it, the way Theodore Roosevelt did.

If he can do that, McCain can do more than just win, he can enter the White House in triumph. If he can't, the country may well be doomed.


Keli Ata said...

Since Obama has significantly more money than McCain to spend on radio/newspaper/TV ads alternative presses, blogs, and weekly/daily videos are an excellent way for McCain to spread his message without spending a fortune.

And since most weekly newspapers have a very specific target audience, McCain would be able to convey specific messages to specific voters (ethnicities, religious groups, socioeconomic levels).

I think of lot of what is feeding this attitude of Obama's win is these constant polls showing him ahead each day.

I have a little theory about this: Most people like to vote and cheer on a prospective winner. People might hate Obama but they'd vote for him because they don't want to be seen as backing the wrong horse.

Childish and immature but I know people like to brag that they voted for the right one.

How many times does Ryan Seacrest say on American Idol: Don't vote for who you THINK will win, vote for who you WANT to win.

Sigh. If Obama and McCain were contestants on AI Simon Cowell would rip Obama to shreds. Pity the media can't take the gloves on with Obama.

I've noticed lately, too, that Obama wilts when he's really pressed for explanations.

Lemon said...

Newspapers lie.
How does anyone know obama is liked or ahead?
its all lies anyway, why not that too.

Keli Ata said...

That's true. Everyone is taking these polls that they're reporting on at face value.

Udiyah said...

It's gotten to the point that I don't believe anything the press or the polls say. They want Obama to win and they are going to influence, or try to influence the public in the worst way. I do not put it past them to monitor the online polls to change the natural outcome. I've taken those AOL polls and McCain was overwhelming winning then all of a sudden it's not even close. They don't care how they get there, they just want to get there. And if they get there we're in big trouble.

Keli Ata said...

On the plus side I've talked with some friends who were leaning towards voting for Obama are now distrustful of him and uneasy about the Orwellian nature of his campaign.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter an iota what Obama said or did, nor his associations. The left is fighting for it's life after their defeat twice, and they fight dirty because they think they are entitled to win. More unbelievable is the take over of the Jews even though he is the antithesis of their needs. Like moths to the light they fall into the spinning spider's net.

Scipio said...

I strongly suspect that the MSM will go to bed late on NOv. 4th very disappointed. I do think that there is silent majority out there which sees the media for what it is - partisan, fawning hacks for the Left and will say a they get into the voting booth (as I will) "You know what, I am my own man (or woman) and I do not need Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, Arthur Sulzberger, Keith Olbermann, Katie Couric, Jack Cafferty, Colin Powell, Paul Krugman, Kathleen Parker, Frank Rich - telling me who to vote for, so here is a big middle finger to you and to Sean Penn, Bruce Springsteen, and George Clooney!”

steve klein said...

I am fortunate, because of the nature of my work, I can listen to a great deal of audio throughout the day, audio books and talk radio on my Sony Walkman.

McCain - Palin are getting plenty of coverage and support on talk radio, both local and national; not to mention the Internet, here and elsewhere. There is little doubt in my mind, Barack Obama's troubling associations; his radical foreign policy and domestic / socialist views are well-known by much of the public.

Should Obama prevail, it will not be because of any merits this man claims or merits his supporters attribute to him. Nor can he win due to the ignorance of the electorate. There is too much information available regarding this man, despite MSM coverage or lack thereof. It is out there. The public cannot plead ignorance.

Obama can only prevail for a couple of reasons in my view.

1) George W. Bush has been a disaster for the Republican party as well as the nation. Bush has done terrific damage to the party of my 37 year registration. The Obama camp has relentlessly sought to attach John McCain to Mr. Bush, as much as McCain has sought to distance himself from Bush; wisely so.

I have written repeatedly, the tragic part of this is that conservative activists and Republican party leaders stood with this man -- to our everlasting shame -- even as he betrayed virtually every conservative and moral principle.

George W. Bush's response to the 911 Muslim terror atrocities was to declare war on Israel, the land of Israel, on the Jewish citizens of Israel, on Israel's security.

Republicans were unfazed.

2) This economic crunch on Wall Street has hurt millions of long-term investors. These are not day-traders or speculators but average Americans who put their hard-earned money into the market for future retirement, college for their children or savings. The state of the economy has an impact on people's voting habits.

Let's not forget Sultan, the Nazi party came to power in Germany during bad economic circumstances. Germans could not plead ignorance about the Nazi party. Hitler's Mein Kampf was available; volume 1 was published in 1925; volume 2, 1926. Nazi terror was well known in Germany.

Keli Ata said...

You make some good points, Steve. However, it wasn't only a poor economy that attracted Germans to Hitler and his final solution. They also felt demoralized as a nation after WW I.

Add Hitler's anti-semitism to the mix, even as extreme as the genocide of 6 million Jews, as well the "hope" of world conquest and domination and restoration of national pride and you had a tragedy waiting to happen.

Many liberals believe the US war in Iraq is beneath us and are ashamed of it (not to the level of mass demoralization, though).

Obama--unlike Hitler--wants to do the opposite, stop what he perceives as the US domination of the world and persecution of Arabs and Arab nations.

Which will foster and fund more terrorism and more killing of innocent civilians. And in that regard Obama does share some things in common with Hitler and Nazis.

(sorry for going OT)

No Apology said...

We have early voting here in Colorado. I voted for McCain/Palin - actually, I see quite a few McCain/Palin signs on lawns around here. CO is traditionally a Blue State, but the ranchers & farmers I've spoken to, don't trust Obama & won't vote for him. I believe in the end, enough people won't vote for Obama, because of his lack of trust-worthiness.

Also, in preparation for early voting, CO supplied sample ballots to all the local stores. I took the opportunity to review, and then to fire all State Court of Appeals judges, vote NO on any Amendment which contained any of the words, "race, color, discrimination, $tax$, school, or public education. Any Referendum which I couldn't make out the meaning of in five seconds, also got a NO. Ditto, any Democratic candidate. How partisan of me. Screw it. Throw the bums out.

Get out & vote!!! (But do your homework first...)

Keli Ata said...

The people I'm talking to in my neighborhood are also voting for McCain/Palin. Same reasons--they just don't trust him.

I haven't see one Obama/Biden sign at all. The only political signs are for local races.

Anonymous said...

Here in the Nobama homeland newspapers and radio shows are discussing the cost to Chgo for the big O's coronation...Election Day has yet to arrive...Unbelievable.
Go McCain-Palin.

Keli Ata said...

I'm really praying Mccain/Palin win, pleading almost with G-d not to curse our country with the terrorist-loving Obama and the Orwellian tactics of his followers.

Anonymous said...

Maybe I am missing the link, but you do not seem to have a way to send information and thoughts directly to you. Sometimes I would like to comment about something not directly related to the most current piece.

This is one of those times.

I have always been troubled by terminology. Just what is meant by "right" and "left?" Often Right goes with Right-wing, Settlers, Religious. Left-wing leads to irreligious, liberals, Ivy-league. But, in Israel this is not correct. (Perhaps it has never really been correct anywhere.) For example, you have religious people opposed to settlements.

Recently there was a thoughtful opinion piece on the Arutz Sheva website. I think it was titled, “Whether the Left.” The author claims to be a leftist, but not party to the so-called Left. I will let you read the entire article rather then summarize it. It is too important to miss.

Here is another question that is often ignored. The International Right and the International Left seem to be in agreement that Israel is illegitimate. How could two opposing ideologies be in agreement? Reading this article provides a possible answer. When it comes to those extremists their true agenda is not justice, but to destroy Judaism (not simply Israel), each for their own reasons.

What is truly needed are new/improved terms to define those who want to build Judaism and those who want to tear it down. We must not allow those opposed to traditional values to set the agenda though terminology.

That facts are that there are many people who hold liberal values that are still in favor of a Jewish State. You rarely hear of such people because they have no party or "heading" to work with.

Let everyone reading this comment sit down and come up with some suggestions that better discribe the two groups.

steve klein said...

Keli Ata, Thanks. I am not making a direct comparison between Obama and Hitler. I should have made it clear.

Generally, when I mention the two as a historical analogy, I am careful to not draw direct parallels, though there may be a few. I cannot say Obama's hatred for the Jews is as intense as Hitler's, though I believe there is some antipathy. Seems to me, in light of his associations, there's got to be. Obama seems more like Neville Chamberlain in his foreign policy outlook, though to be fair, George W. Bush has also exhibited Chamberlain-like attributes when it comes to Israel. Obama has a visceral contempt for Israel in my view, coupled with an attraction for the Muslim-Arab culture and religion.

In light of this, I believe a President Obama will present a grave danger to America, as well as a strong challenge to the conservative movement. I am hopeful, America's conservative movement will not descend to the deplorable situation we see in much of Europe. I believe conservatives will have to atone for this shameful silence -- we've witnessed for close to eight years --in the face of Bush's disgraceful, even criminal behavior.

The point is, people do desperate things when they perceive we are living in desperate times. Only historic-minded people seem to be aware of this danger.

I believe Bush has greatly weakened the Republican party and the nation due to his immoral policies with respect to Israel.

Mr. Bush, it seems, is clueless when it comes to Islamic culture and history. Bush has propagated one untruth after another untruth about our enemy. Wouldn't it have been reasonable to expect, following the 9/11 Muslim terror atrocities on U.S. soil, Bush would have gathered around him some of the best minds and scholars on Islam, Islamic history and culture? One would have expected wrong. Consequently, the region is far more unstable than it was prior to the Bush presidency. The notion of spreading Jeffersonian democracy amongst the Muslim-Arab peoples is Wilsonian; not conservative. Ariel Sharon warned Bush, "In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab world is not built for democratization."

We have two new terror states / regimes in the Middle East, Lebanon and Gaza in large part because of Bush's visionary policies. We have a Shi'ite, Iran-friendly regime in Baghdad.

To add insult to injury, what does Mr. Bush do only days after the Saudi-backed atrocities in New York and Washington, early October 2001? He declared war on our only reliable ally in the Middle East, on Israel, prompting the politically weak / corrupt Ariel Sharon to publicly plead with Bush, "Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938 when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to appease the Arabs on our expense!" Colin Powell soon brought the recalcitrant prime minister into line with Bush administration policy. The rest is history.

Sultan Knish said...

off topic comments are just as welcome as on topic comments and you can always use my email as well,

right and left are terms with limited meaning I agree, values are defining but we use verbal shortcuts to substitute for long essays

Lemon said...

I dont want to sit down and think up descriptions for someone who remains anonymous. It's stupid.

Lemon said...

Because of George Bush we have not had a terrorist attack in the USA since 9 11 of any major consequence.
He is NOT the reason for the current economic problem, those began with the invention of the Federal Reserve and will continue as long as that evil bunch of money grubbers run the economy of a sovereign nation.

steve klein said...

Lemon, I would submit, there is more to being a great leader than protecting one's nation from attack. Of course Bush deserves credit for taking the war to the enemy but so does FDR.

Nonetheless, FDR did not lift a finger to help the Jews in Europe, though he was repeatedly solicited. He was solicited to relax onerous anti-immigration quotas. He would not. He was urged to bomb railway bridges leading to Auschwitz. Allies bombed Monowitz slave labor synthetic rubber and oil factory only five miles from the Auschwitz crematoria. The Jews in Auschwitz prayed Allies would bomb the crematoria. Roosevelt was urged to bomb. He and his officers and generals refused.

Likewise Bush has betrayed an ally who is on the front lines of the battle with the global jihad.

This is inexcusable according to my moral bearings. Are we not in some way our brother's keeper?

Lemon said...

Who cares what FDR did. I care about as much as I care what William the Conquerer did in the past. It is historical now but this is now.
Bush was a decent president some people just want everything served up on a solid gold platter and when its not given to them free and easy the moan and whine about it.
No leader is perfect and all human government is evil and wrong. We deal with what we have and make the best of it for now.

steve klein said...

Lemon, you are apparently not a God-fearing man or woman. Where are your morals and your ethics? All human government is evil and wrong? You do not look for righteousness or justice or good leadership because they are all evil?

Lemon said...

Shut up Steve,

Anonymous said...

I agree that simple terms are nice, but why left the opposition chose the words we use. Perhaps we can turn the tables by using alternative terms. For example we can use the term Zionist in place of "right." And, neoZionist in place of "left." That way a liberal minded person can also be a Zionist and doesn't have to vote in lock step with Labor. A settler is now a Zionist who might live in Judah, while someone living in Tel Aviv can also be a Zionist who just happens to live along the coast. We can use the orange ribbons and imprint them with "We Love Zion." When Labor speaks against the Settlers movement they will be described as neo-Zionist. This will hopefully set then apart from those who truly support a Jewish State. Eventually, it is hoped, they will be viewed as anti-Zionist. Likud will be known as the centrist Zionist Party. While Kadima will be listed as a centrist neo-Zionist party.

If someone has a better idea I would certainly be interested.

To Lemon: Being somewhat an introvert I do not like using my name.

Sultan Knish said...

well for starters that might work within israel, but not so well when discussing politics in general

secondly labor has reached the point where it's anti-zionist or post-zionist at best

thirdly there are too many people with varying definitions of zionism leading to a certain amount of confusion, I would support reasserting the use of Zionist, but the problem with terminology is that when writing for other people you have to convey ideas for clarity rather than ideological purity, which is why I will use Palestinian Arab, for example or Gaza and the West Bank

Lemon said...

Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right here I am stuck in the middle with you.

Sultan Knish said...

steve being godfearing, means actually acknowledging that all human government is flawed and not looking to it for solutions

Lemon said...

I thought of using "Anonymous" also but so many use it that I decided to go with my real name.. Lemon Lime Moon.
I don't really care if people recognize me on the street and ask for my autograph anymore. It goes with the territory once you decide to let it all hang out and use your real name!

I am now used to people yelling at me on street.. Hey Lemon!! or Hi Ms Moon!!
Very few use my middle name "Lime" though.
So , yes Anonymous I completely understand. :)

Sultan Knish said...

so are you from the Crater Moons or the Lunar Moons?

I knew a Moon once, but it was a Green Cheese Moon named in honor of the landing anniversary

Anonymous said...

Hey there Lemon,
Will you marry me? I would love to change your last name to mine.
Hugs, kisses and hoping for a favorable reply,

Marvin Pie

John Ade said...

Just a minute there, you get your hands off my gal Lemon, Marvin or there will be a shooting party tonight

Lemon said...

Oh, I always adored Moon Pies. Sigh.. so tasty. Lemon Lime Pie.. has a ring to it.
Are you handsome? I require good looks in men whose first name is Marvin. A girl does have standards you know.

steve klein said...

Sultan, you wrote: "being godfearing, means actually acknowledging that all human government is flawed and not looking to it for solutions."

While I would agree with your point, all human government is essentially flawed -- some more or less than other human governments -- looking to our Bible (Tanakh) there were some leaders who were more or less more virtuous and moral than other leaders in ancient Israel, albeit not perfect. King David and Moses come to mind.

If a leader like George W. Bush claims to be a man of deep faith in God, why is is wrong to hold him to this high standard he has set for himself by his own professions of faith in God? Even if Bush's god is not my God, I know Christians that are decent and moral people.

I am told, 'Mr. Bush was or is a decent president (only) some people (I guess infering ME) just want everything served up on a solid gold platter and when its not given to them free and easy the moan and whine about it'.

I'm not moaning or whining when I say Bush is not a decent president. He is a disaster. I am simply stating facts Sultan. We would not be facing this extraordinarily dangerous juncture in American history, were Bush a decent president or a decent man or a moral man. He is neither decent nor moral and we (I am speaking of this nation) will suffer the consequences. Being God fearing, it seems to me, means acknowledging the Almighty is in control of large events. There is little doubt in my mind, God (if you will) allowed for the Great Depression prior to the rise of perhaps one of the most evil men the world has seen arise heretofore. Certainly he was the most evil monster the Jews had been visited with in all our tortuous history.

I am one that does not believe major events happen by chance of by coincidence. God fearing people should be asking, "What is the Almighty is telling this nation at this juncture in our history?" I suspect few Americans asked this question in church this morning.

I am pretty sure the Almighty is telling America something or another.

Is anyone listening Sultan?

I am told, "No leader is perfect and all human government is evil and wrong. We deal with what we have and make the best of it for now."

Well sure, we deal with what we have and make the best of it for now.

Does this mean, we are moaning and whining when we point to the fact, Mr. Bush is not a decent president, nor a moral or an ethical man? That he has been a disaster for this nation?


Lemon said...

So Steve agrees yet says I am not G-d fearing.
amazing but expected.

Keli Ata said...

Now I have to disagree with you, Steve. If I recall correctly Hashem lamented when the Jewish people asked for an earthly king instead of His kingship (right word???).

I think He said this to Samuel (not sure). To me, that implies the notion that earthly governments are flawed, as Sultan said. And recognizing that is part of being a G-d fearing person.

Keli Ata said...

Lemon, if you marry Marvin you just have to keep your maiden name too. Much as you hate hyphenated names Mrs. Lemon Lime Moon-Pie sounds nice.

Post a Comment