LoathedVermin72 wrote:I gotta say I'm totally with Spenno on this one. Seems like a cynical, hyper-critical amount of speculative analysis being applied to what sounds like a candid, off the cuff remark.
Do you think I'm misreading McCain's campaign or the evolution of his politics, though? Perhaps my focus on it makes it sound like I still think this one moment is a big deal, like this was the moment where McCain broke and we all got a peak behind the curtain, like it revealed some deep dark secret. Eight years ago I may have thought this, but now I think it's just a microcosm of how he chose to communicate with that specific wing of the party in that year--Palin was, of course, this choice in the macrocosm.
It seems to me to be a moment where he saw the line of thought the woman was going down and shut her down immediately. I doubt it even occurred to him that all she had said was "Arab" and that it might come off weird. Remember, this was after someone else in the audience already pushed him into defending Obama a bit earlier, and in a longer response. It felt like a continuation of that.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue March 15, 2016 2:15 am
by Strat
This is a very strange conversation to me.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue March 15, 2016 2:17 am
by LoathedVermin72
Strat wrote:This is a very strange conversation to me.
OH YEAH??
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue March 15, 2016 2:36 am
by Birds in Hell
Simple Torture wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I gotta say I'm totally with Spenno on this one. Seems like a cynical, hyper-critical amount of speculative analysis being applied to what sounds like a candid, off the cuff remark.
Do you think I'm misreading McCain's campaign or the evolution of his politics, though? Perhaps my focus on it makes it sound like I still think this one moment is a big deal, like this was the moment where McCain broke and we all got a peak behind the curtain, like it revealed some deep dark secret. Eight years ago I may have thought this, but now I think it's just a microcosm of how he chose to communicate with that specific wing of the party in that year--Palin was, of course, this choice in the macrocosm.
I think it highlights why I'm hesitant, if not entirely sceptical, of understanding politics and policitians though these constructed narratives. Aside from the fact that it can lead to inane 'wrong side of history', 'c'mon, it's 2016!'-type arguments, my greater issue is that, once a certain view becomes fixed about a politician or a political viewpoint, any subsequent events become understood through that prism. It becomes impossible to see McCain as a real person making an off-the-cuff remark that reveals something about his character; it must be calculated because everything becomes like fitting puzzle pieces into some greater whole. It's not that different from conspiracy theorists: nothing is just random, accidental, unplanned.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue March 15, 2016 2:39 am
by Simple Torture
I'm a textual person, so perhaps I am reading into it a bit much, but the point I'm trying to make is this: as an isolated incident, I'd read what McCain said there exactly as LV reads it above--in the heat of the moment, in an atmosphere where he was already frustrated by the stupidity of the people around him, he gave a shorthand answer that has no hidden agenda behind it. I was trying to make a broader connection to how that whole campaign was run in 2008--it just seems to me that McCain was frustrated and exasperated a lot by the fact that he was wrangling votes from birthers and uninformed/misinformed voters that year.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue March 15, 2016 2:45 am
by LoathedVermin72
Simple Torture wrote:I'm a textual person, so perhaps I am reading into it a bit much, but the point I'm trying to make is this: as an isolated incident, I'd read what McCain said there exactly as LV reads it above--in the heat of the moment, in an atmosphere where he was already frustrated by the stupidity of the people around him, he gave a shorthand answer that has no hidden agenda behind it. I was trying to make a broader connection to how that whole campaign was run in 2008--it just seems to me that McCain was frustrated and exasperated a lot by the fact that he was wrangling votes from birthers and uninformed/misinformed voters that year.
Don't you think, though, that if he were trying to disingenuously appeal to the base, he wouldn't have gone out of his way to even say Obama was a decent man? He didn't have to go there after the first question. He could have deflected it with some kind of "I understand your fears, but..." rhetoric.
This is odd: the more we go back and forth (and I'm glad we are--I've pivoted a bit on what I originally meant, but I'm glad to be challenged), the more I'm reverting to my original position that McCain didn't go far enough in that response. It is just one question out of thousands he received while on the campaign trail, for sure, but I do expect people who want to represent all Americans to have a knee-jerk response of: "Hey, motherfucker, there's nothing wrong with being Arab."
First Trump supporter with a jailhouse swastika tattoo on his forehead?
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue March 15, 2016 2:57 am
by nyquillyn
McCain's drift from "maverick" who isn't afraid to tell the rest of the GOP to eat shit to Republican shill has also kinda shaded my view of that event. As ST already mentioned, 2000 McCain would have told both those people to STFU.
First Trump supporter with a jailhouse swastika tattoo on his forehead?
unlikely.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue March 15, 2016 3:14 am
by Birds in Hell
Simple Torture wrote:This is odd: the more we go back and forth (and I'm glad we are--I've pivoted a bit on what I originally meant, but I'm glad to be challenged), the more I'm reverting to my original position that McCain didn't go far enough in that response. It is just one question out of thousands he received while on the campaign trail, for sure, but I do expect people who want to represent all Americans to have a knee-jerk response of: "Hey, motherfucker, there's nothing wrong with being Arab."
I seriously can't see anything at all in his comment that suggests anything contrary to that sentiment.
As I said above, my suspicion is that it's only there if you want it to be.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue March 15, 2016 3:17 am
by Stickman
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue March 15, 2016 3:20 am
by LoathedVermin72
That show is unwatchable.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue March 15, 2016 3:22 am
by Stickman
LoathedVermin72 wrote:That show is unwatchable.
If you're talking about the Daily Show, I agree.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue March 15, 2016 3:23 am
by LoathedVermin72
Stickman wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:That show is unwatchable.
If you're talking about the Daily Show, I agree.
That too.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue March 15, 2016 10:28 am
by stip
turned2black wrote:McCain's drift from "maverick" who isn't afraid to tell the rest of the GOP to eat shit to Republican shill has also kinda shaded my view of that event. As ST already mentioned, 2000 McCain would have told both those people to STFU.
and when your whole appeal was your integrity and authenticity this moment becomes more impactful than it would have been if delivered by someone like romney
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Tue March 15, 2016 2:06 pm
by McParadigm
Simple Torture wrote:
stip wrote:ST, when you are talking about hateful and destructive things your willingness to embrace it, even if you don't believe it, DOES say something about who you are.
It's complicated. The line I'm trying to draw is something like this: when Trump tailors his message so that it appeals to white nationalists and racists out of one side of his mouth, and then disavows them out of the other side, it does reveal something about who he is, but that doesn't mean that he's a racist (this is what b_i was getting at earlier, I think). But if you push this a little further, it certainly does sound like just the regular shit every politician does: carefully choose words and positions based on their audiences, even if one message slightly contradicts the other--all of the memes about Clinton asking voters, "What do you like? I like that, too!" basically work on the same principle. But I think where you want to draw the line, stip--and I'm fine with drawing it here, too--is that this kind of stuff is slimy when you're trying to draw in people who want slightly different tax codes, but deplorable when you're courting people who espouse genocide.
For another day, we could talk about this, too: how discussions of "Is Trump racist?" (and 97% of discussions on racism) focus on the good-ol'-boy style of racism and mostly ignore institutional racism.
I don't care if he's a racist or not. His entire worldview is basically "Me." And part of that...the part that really makes his presidency scary to me...is an attitude of nonconsequence.