Comments on: Bushism Remains, Or The New Fusionism On The March

By: Josiwe

Josiwe — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:58:24 +0000

McCain should probably give a speech outlining what the VP office will be doing in his administration. He should make it crystal clear that it will not wield anywhere near the amount of power that Cheney did. If he explains that Palin’s primary duties will be A) Government Celebrity and B) Studious Apprentice, then all he has to do after that is convince voters he isn’t going to buy the farm on 1/27/09. At that point she can focus on boutique issues that will build up her reformer / maverick credability while studying foreign policy and cutting ribbons so that McCain can focus on governance. The base would be fine with it and the more serious elements would be reassured that she won’t be tasked with anything dangerous. Plus they can acknowledge and move past the experience question and focus on the argument that the Dem ticket did the same thing, in reverse.

Don’t get me wrong, I want Obama to win. But that’s what I’d advise him to do if I were running his campaign. Either that or go back in time and make him pick a different VP…

By: conradg

conradg — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 05:49:23 +0000

I had sort of assumed that McCain’s real “change” message was “same policies as Bush, but competently executed”. The problem with the Palin nomination is that it says “same policies, same incompetent execution.” Reform never had anything to do with it, it’s just a euphamism. McCain’s idea of reform is to do the same thing, but do it well. There’s no real acknowledgement that the policies themselves were ever at fault. So there’s no reason to think the actual policies will change. Instead were simply supposed to “trust” that McCain will enact these policies better than Bush.

By: R. Justin

R. Justin — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:16:45 +0000

YES. “Change,” for all Obama’s intent, has suddenly taken on Orwellian qualities.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 02:31:49 +0000

Of course. In the GOP, that is their designated role. In good times, they provide the “real American” symbolism (that’s what they’re doing right now), and in bad times they are blamed for alienating swing voters and “normal” people (that is what will happen starting Nov. 5 after a defeat). The counterfactual McCain/Lieberman ticket, which is so crazy that it would never be tried in real life, can be invested with mysterious electoral powers that will never have to be put to the test, and each time Obama does something objectionable the refrain will go out: “It’s too bad we had to appease the Christians, or else this might not be happening.” This will then be worked into a Unified Theory of Appeasement, in which making concessions of any kind in any situation can be interpreted as leading to disaster.Â

The funniest thing in all of this is how itÂ allows the GOP to become progressively less concerned with religious conservatives’ agenda while simultaneously acquiring a reputation for zealotry.Â The GOP’s enemies fuel the very perceptionÂ that keeps powering the GOP coalitionÂ to victory, and all the while they believe they are taking a bold stand against fanaticism.Â It’s really weird to watch.

By: Derek Copold

Derek Copold — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 02:20:40 +0000

And if McCain loses, you can bet Palin and her flock of Sarafim in the base will take the fall, with people like Kristol tut-tutting, saying, “We should have gone with Lieberman.”