One of the many moronic thought patterns in today's addled political discourse is the notion that everything the winner did is smart and right, and everything the loser did was a disaster.
We hear that Gore's disputed loss, in which he received more votes, was a "massive fail."*
And now Steve Benen tells us that the unvetted Sarah Palin and "Joe The Plumber" were disasters for McCain.
Um, no. Both additions to McCain's supporting cast — despite Palin's weak résumé and the fact that "Joe's" story wholly contradicted the case it was purported to make — were clearly invigorating to a campaign ultimately doomed by many factors, including broad public sentiment against GOP politics, which rose to new heights with the financial meltdown, and the media's decision to stop propping up the mythical maverick. If one were to draw a lesson from them, it's that "Hail Mary" moves can spark a foundering campaign.
I'm calling my shot for this election: its aftermath will bring forth a gusher of false lessons that will haunt (and nauseate) us for years to come. Any predictions on what those lessons will be?
__
* No disrespect intended to Shystee, who is a very bright fellow, indeed. Just singling out a recent citation of these pervasive and bogus "loser" memes.
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
"Values voters are essential. They're why Obama won."
Despite polling:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/110...
(h/t commentors at Corrente)
which shows that Obama is no more successful today than Gore or Kerry were in wooing churchgoing values voters, despite his massive push of faithiness, his victory will be credited to this faithiness even thought it demonstrably treaded water, and very possibly shed some of the Democratic base.
The Godless Democrats let Jesus into their lives, and won the election. Hallelujah.
h/t me! : >
it's absolutely vital that the truth of this gets thru--
Obama has done more -- both rhetorically and policy proposalwise -- to try to get these voters than any Democrat in ages and ages-- and it didn't work.
And it hurts us all -- on rights, equality, choice, privacy, separation of church and state, govt funding of religious orgs, etc....
After some time passes...
"Liberalism is a failure."
Because "liberalism" will be defined as whatever it was Obama did. And because I am not optimistic that whatever Obama does will be widely seen as successful (not on Wall Street [for the rich], not on "Main Street" [for the 95% of us who aren't rich], and of course not in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Colombia, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel...)
(This comment offered in the solemn hope that it will prove entirely mistaken)
Liberalism is already always a failure, by definition.
As digby has long been summarizing 'conventional wisom': "Conservatism can't fail, It can only be failed."
And if conservatism truly and thoroughly does fail, as it has these last 8 years, see rule #1. To make this dream state a reality, sometimes the foot soldiers are forced to claim that anything bad that has happened under W over the last 8 years is because it wasn't founded in "true" conservatism, and anyway, Democrats were involved.
(A bolder approach, of course, is always to out and out state that something which has colossally failed, in fact hasn't. cf. our economy, and, er, Iraq.)
I hardly expect this cheap parlor trick to stop under O. And get ready, because what you're seeing now is pre-emptive. The 'conventional wisdom' from the DC gasbags ALREADY is that Obama must must must rule from the center-right and kill the dirty hippies. It's been in print, and I saw more of this on Scarborough this morning.
Bingo, VL
This has been one of my biggest fears, the almost certain revision of history that's certain to happen, and it seems to happen more on the left than the right, because the left seems to study itself more, which is both good and bad. The bad being very bad, though.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
Since the media chose Obama
as our candidate, he will be always held by the media as being loved by the American people. Exactly as Reagan was portrayed by the media, and I believe Obama gave the media subliminal signals that this is what he desired. The most obvious one being his speech in SF. He will never be thought of as highly as Big Dog, because O has not got the self assurance to trust the American people, like Big Dog has, but the media will paint him as well loved. It's already started. In this state he got 62 % of the vote but really isn't well thought of. Bush is absolutely hated here