I Don't Know.

Ambivalence rears its ugly head again.

McCain/Palin's hate campaign and their supporters' reaction to it ("He's a terrorist!  kill him!") are really turning me off.  Because I'm in the center and not on the right, I don't find Obama dangerous enough to justify these tactics.  I don't like big-government liberalism, for one thing I think it finished the job of destroying the black family that slavery began (and I think even Obama has learned that lesson), but I don't see it coming back in its late 1960s form, and I don't see it as the functional equivalent of socialist or Stalinist doom.  I don't buy Simon's grim fantasies of a long dark night falling on America; if the Dems win and screw up, there's another election in four years. 

On the other hand, there's ACORN, not for the first time, apparently engaging in massive and moronically obvious voter registration fraud (after receiving $800,000 from the Obama campaign).  I saw Obama recruiters encouraging voter fraud here in NC, encouraging out-of-state visitors to find a way to have an NC address that would pass muster.

On both sides, the mood is, "The end justifies the means."  Defeating those evil bastards on the other side justifies cheating, lying, smearing, and incitement to bloodlust.

This swing voter is swinging away from wanting to vote at all, again.  New Zealand, anyone?  Ecuador?  Any recommendations?

Comments

[Tom Strong]

That's how I feel about it, right now.

[reader_iam]

Sure you want join me in exile? 'Cause I've been there a while, and both you and Tom are far more--at bottom, I think--social than I, and also--how fortunate!--far more socially acceptable, at least in these here intarnets (and, I suspect, beyond).

I participated in a phone poll tonight (for more info about adventures in being, at least in Iowa, in the demographic which gets bunches of political calls, hop on over to my scrapbook of a quasi-blog). The person conducting it was shocked when I said, "I'm pretty sure I'm going to do a write-in vote" in response to "which ticket will you vote for, Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin." I mean, I had to repeat it three times before she said, "You can write in?" I said, "Yes. For years and years and years now." She said, "Really?" I said, "Really." She said, "Oh."

I'm pretty sure that whole interview will get tossed in process of the, well, processing of whatever particular poll that was (which is as it should be, if a write-in wasn't seen as a possibility in the initial set-up of the poll/study;--seriously, you do need to stick with who brung ya to get real results within the parameters set up.

OTOH, one would hope that, eventually, some day, someone, somewhere, would actually be interested in setting up polls and studies that do a better job of setting up a poll to reflect something closer to the actual range of people out there in these United States.)

Anyway. Whatever. Right?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Okay, I'm puzzled. You're mad at McCain and Palin because the papers reported that an unknown person in the audience shouted "He's a terrorist" and another one shouted "Kill him!"

You recall back during the Democrat convention when I ended up bodyguarding Michelle Malkin? There was an unknown person in that crowd shouting "Alex Jones is a terrorist" and "Alex Jones is a corporate stooge", as well as "Kill Michelle Malkin."

We eventually, via picture comparisons, concluded that the people doing that were also at several of the "anarchist" demonstrations. We infer that they were purposeful provocateurs, or else immature assholes who hoped to stir up trouble.

Why do you think the people shouting "Kill him!" are even McCain supporters?

[Ally]

The McCain campaign is morally and intellectually bankrupt, and so has resorted to summoning creatures from the murky depths of our collective unconscious. What's next, flaming torches and pitchforks? Nothing the Dems are doing is that irresponsible, dangerous or despicable.

But I hate the fact that we all have to be dragged into the mud by both sides, simply because the raging egomaniacs running crave power so...cravenly...that they're willing to do anything to win. Our elections have become a sad spectacle, and mirror the decline of our culture. I can't help feeling that we're screwed, no matter who wins.

I'm sickened by the voter registration fraud being carried out by both sides, as well as the attempts in various states to strike people from thevoter lists

[amba]

Charlie, don't be wide-eyed. McCain and Palin are stirring up "Obama = terrorist" sentiments; they're priming the synapse and sitting back to watch the spark jump the gap. It's a little odd that they're doing that because the only ones who bite, to that extent, are the basest of the base. But maybe they're deliberately trying to turn off swing voters: the Tony Blankley "if enough people don't vote, the bigger base turnout wins" strategy.

[huxley]

Amba -- You do a nice job of balancing between the two sides and facilitating discussion. It does make for an interesting blog.

However, your moral equivalence between those two sides often strikes me as cheap and intellectually dishonest.

Pray, amplify your claim that the McCain/Palin campaign is saying about Obama, "He's a terrorist! kill him!"

[huxley]

Amba -- In other words, I think "On both sides, the mood is, 'The end justifies the means,'" applies to you as well.

[Ron]

Amba, maybe my meds haven't kicked in, (or they have...) but I'm not as gloom and doom as I "should" be! There are more of us ambivalent folk than you might think, and no matter who wins, if they stink, the heave-ho is what we'll give them!

[amba]

your moral equivalence between those two sides often strikes me as cheap and intellectually dishonest. You mean, it would be more honest to pretend that I found one more appealing or possessed of integrity than the other? I did decide to vote for McCain, but now they're both sickening me again. Being neither kind of ideologue, I cannot simply impute more virtue to the one that represents "my" ideology, because neither does. I think it is that refusal to choose between the only two alternatives presented that you find "cheap and intellectually dishonest," but I can't help it.

If you read my comments, no, I did not put those words in the mouth of either Palin or McCain. Rather, they were bringing their audience along to that point with deniability.

[amba]

So, Huxley, what's my end, and what are my means?

[amba]

I mean it. Do some mind reading, and then maybe I'll know my own mind.

[PatHMV]

Tactically, the McCain camp should change how they talk about Ayers. I continue to believe that it's an important issue, because people connected to or presumed to be connected to the President of the United States are treated by those in politics with a great deal of deference, on the whole, by people who need or want things from the President. They get jobs, contracts, you name it.

But tactically, the "Ayers was a terrorist" connection is played out. It looks, the way they're doing it, desperate, and the long delay in having McCain speak about it makes it seem like his staff, not him, is in control.

A much better way to play it would be to focus on Ayers' PRESENT, not his past. Sen. Obama worked with him extensively and supported Ayers' efforts at reforming the education system in Chicago. That IS their connection. Find a few choice quotes from Ayers about how education is inherently political and it's important to indoctrinate the children properly, show some news stories of Obama working with Ayers on education reform, and ask if we want a President who thinks those ideas are worth working for.

[amba]

Yes, that would be a wiser strategy -- more pertinent, and more dignified. McCain seems to be flailing. He's got real red meat available to him and he's throwing offal. It seems to imply contempt for the voters, that they wouldn't get something less inflammatory but more substantive.

ACORN is another very big story. As one conservative commentator said on CNN tonight, she was frustrated that the McCain campaign wasn't going after that story because ACORN was so in bed with Fannie and Freddie; she said they had people literally lobbying, standing in bank lobbies pestering bank officers to make more loans to less qualified borrowers.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Annie, when Ayers and his friends were blowing shit up, I was in ROTC. When people were spitting on guys in uniform during Viet Nam, I got spit on. (No, that wasn't an urban myth.) So I still take it somewhat seriously.

Ayers and the Weather Underground were terrorists, and Ayers has been pretty direct that he changed his methods, but hasn't renounced them. So calling Ayers a terrorist doesn't seem particularly out of bounds. Maybe they should say "retired terrorist"?

Obama clearly has been associated with him, for a long time, rather closely, and has repeatedly lied about it; last I saw, we were on version seven of the story.

So I don't see pointing out this association as being particularly out of bounds. Especially when rather a lot is being made of Sarah Palin's husband's past membership in a mainstream Alaska political party (which elected Wally Hickel to be Governor) that had one obnoxious nutcase as a founder, pursued his ideas via election and who didn't build bombs, and who died years before Todd joined the party.

As more than one person has written, I don't think McCain could have gotten away with, say, having been a John Bircher until 1996, having been closely associated with Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, and lying about it. And the only particular difference between Ayers, Dohrn, Oughten and the rest, and Tim McVeigh, was that McVeigh had better explosives discipline.

So McCain shouldn't mention this association why? Because it makes people mad?

Shouldn't it?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

... she said they had people literally lobbying, standing in bank lobbies pestering bank officers to make more loans to less qualified borrowers.

What's more, one of the people doing that was Barack Obama via suit.

[PatHMV]

And I agree with Charlie on the reasons why Obama's association with Ayers is a legitimate, important issue. The man is truly unrepentant, and is still trying to fight for the same things he fought for with bombs previously. By working with him at any level at all, Obama gave him credibility, gave him political cover. He sent a message that one can be a major domestic terrorist and, if you stay on the lam long enough, come to power through a different route, and be publicly acceptable. People like Ayers should be shunned, as fully and thoroughly as possible.

[amba]

Because McCain is flailing; he's lost his air of wisdom and perspective. If he cared more about that than about winning the election, he'd have a better chance of winning. And because Ayers' more recent education-reform radicalism is much more to the point. They should be pressing Obama about that.

[amba]

if you stay on the lam long enough, come to power through a different route, and be publicly acceptable.

Even more despicably, if you ask me, Ayers came to power because of his father's power as chairman of Commonwealth Edison. He's a proud "class traitor" who undoubtedly lives in a lovely brownstone.

*sigh* one of these gangs drives me away, only to find worse on the other side.

[Donna B.]

For me, the bottom line that Obama has not learned yet is that the coverup is more damaging than the crime.

Of course, I live in Louisiana and learned that lesson from Edwin Edwards... who couldn't even convince Bill Clinton of its usefulness.

What are the chances (now!) of Obama coming out and saying, "you know, I thought Ayers had redeemed himself and had some good ideas about education, but now I see that I was wrong. I didn't help things by cooperating with him on these initiatives."

Who wouldn't have bought that 6 months ago? Who will buy it now?

[amba]

I'm willing to believe his "association" with Ayers was not that profound (though it was stupid anyway; it's that passivity of Obama's -- he goes along to get along, and if other "progressives" in Chicago lauded and accepted Ayers, he did too).

I'm not willing to believe that about ACORN.

[michael Reynolds]

I have a spare room here. My British landlady talks about how everyone back in England is so depressed over the state of the world and how much more relaxed the Italians are about it all. "They've been in a depression for 50 years, they're used to it."

[michael Reynolds]

It's not passivity on Obama's part. It's opportunism and a degree of ruthlessness. I've been saying this from the very start. The reasons Republican attacks on Obama don't work:

1) That they are simply wrong. An attack has to resonate. No one who is not a wing-nut thinks Obama is a terrorist sympathizer or secret Muslim or even a radical. He's a vague liberal whose primary focus is on winning this election. He's not an ideologue, he's focused and opportunistic. I note that Rick Moran has belatedly come to realize this. A few months late but hey, he's a conservative.

2) An all-attack, all negative campaign was doomed. McCain's alleged supporters -- people like Pat and Simon and Rick Moran at his blog spend all of their time attacking Obama. None of their time supporting John McCain.

Now they've got McCain boxed in, leaving him with no real supporters. He has nowhere to go except on the attack. That's what the wing-nuttery prefers, but when the world is falling down around your ears to have McCain obsessing over Ayers circa 1968, or Ayers circa 2008, is a tinfoil hat strategy.

All negative, all attack, all fear, all base-pandering. That's what guys like Simon thought would work. Because far from Democrats being the sneering elitists, it's the Republicans who are. They are the ones who have such contempt for people that they see the electorate as easily-panicked sheep who will run the right direction once they've been scared enough. Well, sorry boys, not this time. See, this time there's a real wolf at the door, and your sad little fantasy monsters don't measure up.

Their idol Reagan used some fear-mongering. But he won because he also had hope and a vision. And he had supporters who actually loved him, not just grudging ideologues who saw him as the lesser of evils.

If -- when -- McCain loses, there will be blame to go around, but the Obama-haters will be first in line. They dragged McCain into their gutter.

[Spud]

John McCain said yesterday in Wisconsin that "we need to know the full extent of the relationship" to judge whether Mr. Obama "is telling the truth to the American people or not." What "truth" is McCain seeking,to find out if "that one" is really a terrorist?

[PatHMV]

And you, Michael, spend all your time attacking people for attacking Obama. You don't seem to spend much time pointing out what's he's for, yourself.

[Meade]

For me it comes down to this. In bringing it about, McCain and Petraeus had the right judgement, Obama and Rumsfeld did not.

[Christopher]

Thank God. The return of ambivalence. It's when you're ambivalent that we get the best analysis and thought.

[michael Reynolds]

And you, Michael, spend all your time attacking people for attacking Obama. You don't seem to spend much time pointing out what's he's for, yourself.

True. Of course Obama generally doesn't seem to have any problem generating affection, love, devotion, a willingness to sacrifice -- all things your side conspicuously fails to offer your candidate.

Isn't that one of the main knocks on Obama? That his supporters love him? Idolize him? That must really hurt McCain. No one ever derides his voters for being adoring.

By the way, you can't really draw an equivalency between your blog's incessant attacks on Obama, and my critiques of your incessant attacks. I said nary a harsh word about McCain as your side went on and on and on and on with one bizarre, ludicrous, scare tactic after another. That would be the equivalency, if I had launched instantaneously and endlessly into attacks on McCain.

In fact, I withheld fire, as Amba knows, on what I saw as McCain's age issue. I kept silent for 6 months. And I didn't turn on McCain until you and your GOP pals had helped lower him into the gutter.

Your candidate hired the same people who had used racist slander to force him out of his 2000 race. He's hired those people now to go after Obama. Down in the gutter goes the once-great John McCain. And he's not down there because of us, he's down there because of Republicans.

You really should be ashamed.

[GN]

The republican party has had a standard operating procedure in elections for the last 20 years. It is analogous to the "blitz" in pro football, assuming a weak front line on the offense. To McCain's credit, he was against (and victimized by) that methood of campaigning .... To McCain's dis-credit, he is (snd has been since his VP pick) caste all of his principles to the wind in an effort to secure a position that has become his "Holy Grail". If he had a real coach at the moment he would be told that the "Quarterback Sneak" won't work in this particular election. The real quesstion for McCain in the aftermath is whether he can regain his personal values.

[Outis]

Because McCain is flailing; he's lost his air of wisdom and perspective.

This is the problem: I don't think McCain has ever had any wisdom, or any perspective. To the extent people think McCain had the air of such qualities, I believe that was as much media myth as anything else.

[amba]

Meade: what a great story.

Obama didn't, couldn't, say that under the irrevocable circumstances (water under the bridge) the surge was good and right (who knows what he really thought: you'd have to be an idiot, it seems to me, not to acknowledge that Petraeus pulled it out of the fire) because he was captive to the howling Kossack base. Call it lack of courage on his part, or political realism, or both. Both candidates have had this problem. I've said that I don't believe McCain is as hard right as he's been sounding/acting (moderates who loved the 2000 "maverick" McCain have been wailing that he's sold his soul; I don't buy it). Nor do I believe that Obama is a radical; I kind of agree with Michael that he's more of a malleable opportunist. But he needs a lot more distance from the left opportunism of his earlier career. If he wins this election it will be very much in spite of that and by a thin margin because of it.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

True. Of course Obama generally doesn't seem to have any problem generating affection, love, devotion, a willingness to sacrifice -- all things your side conspicuously fails to offer your candidate.

Michael, I don't count that as a positive. Genghis Khan could too.

[amba]

Vas you dere, Charlie?

You walked right into that one.

I'd have thought old Genghis generated a lot more stark fear, myself.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Dana Milbank turns one comment into a racist mob.

I'd have thought old Genghis generated a lot more stark fear, myself.

Not among the Mongols. He unified the various tribes at least as much by making political alliances and, finally, by election, as he did by force.

And no, I wasn't there, but then I wasn't there for Hitler, Napolean, Mussolini or Perón, but I know about them too.

[michael Reynolds]

Charlie:

So did Attila, it seems who I'm reading about at the moment. Attila got a bad rap: not quite the crazy savage, more the canny leader.

Of course Attila, like Genghis, was extraordinarily good at his job. (Conquering Europe. Asia, in the Khan's case.) It's funny how often competence and good leadership inspire devotion.

I'd be thrilled if our next president was as capable as Genghis or Attila, although we should hope there'll be less impaling.

[karen]

Amba- maybe focusing on the facts are what will suit you best. It's no secret you wish you could support B. Obama, but your gut reaction tells you something your heart isn't quite set upon. So you waffle- mmmmmm,still have enough of the mapley?

B.Obama isn't just ~green behind the ears~, he is someone who relys(seemingly)on following where others lead him. Not unwillingly. I believe he will also surround himself w/like kind if becoming POTUS. That may not scare you; you know it scares me-- and i think you think that Mc would have a more moderate hand in choosing his cabinet and SCOTUS.

IDK. I'm beginning to wonder why it matters so much to me. Ron seems to think we can boot them all out. I think we have no such power, but i think i'd like a taste of his meds:0). I'm glad your feeling less apprehensive, Ron. And, if jking-- it's making me smile that you can.

I'm just glad i have my Faith. When in doubt-pray.

[amba]

And no, I wasn't there, but then I wasn't there for Hitler, Napolean, Mussolini or Perón, but I know about them too.

Well, thank goodness we have video of old Genghis, even if it is only black and white.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Its because of their good archivists.

Everyone knows Mongols horde.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Okay, now that I think of it, I do remember when Juan Perón died.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

It's funny how often competence and good leadership inspire devotion.

Yeah, but it's best to demonstrate them in that order. Charisma without accomplishments, not so much.

[amba]

Mongols horde

Hiss. Groaan.

(You're one of the few people left who even knows that's funny.)

[michael Reynolds]

Charlie:

Chicken and egg.

[Peter Hoh]

I don't have time to read through the comments. Sorry if it's already been posted, but McCain did the right thing today and I want to give him credit for it.

[Meade]

And I commend Peter for linking to it.

[Simon]

Just two quick comments. First, I think the "oh, if he does badly we can always throw him out in four years" line falls considerably short. Four years is a long time when you have a supine Congress. Obama can do a lot of harm, pass a lot of legislation, appoint a lot of judges, surrender to a lot of people... And much of what he can do will be irrevocable. It's really quite badly mistaken to think that we can just punch the reset button after four years and wipe away the damage.

The other thing is that it's a little silly to complain that McCain is getting frustrated; of course he is. Nothing is working. More and more, the picture in this election is uncle sam with his head in the noose, having jumped off his stool with McCain desperately trying to hold him up while reaching to put the stool back under him. That's the kind of exertion that'll make anyone tetchy.

[amba]

I think you're being overly melodramatic about an Obama presidency -- or about the fragility of the republic -- but I could be wrong.

[Simon]

Reynolds, by the way, will complain that this is just fearmongering. He never had quite managed to come up with an explanation as to why being opposed to what a candidate has proposed - being fearful of the consequences of the most egreious proposed mistakes - is somehow an illegitimate criterion for voting. I imagine he wouldn't be unhappy to have won the last election because five hundred more people in Florida eight years ago had been fearful of the Governor of Texas. Some people don't like being asked to choose the lesser of two evils, but I think that most of us - by the age of, you know, six or so - have internalized that when you have to choose between less evil and more evil, less is a lot better than more.

[Spud]

IDK. I'm beginning to wonder why it matters so much to me.

Karen, give me a call and I'll explain it to you. Oh wait, I already have. :-)

[michael Reynolds]

The other thing is that it's a little silly to complain that McCain is getting frustrated; of course he is. Nothing is working. More and more, the picture in this election is uncle sam with his head in the noose, having jumped off his stool with McCain desperately trying to hold him up while reaching to put the stool back under him. That's the kind of exertion that'll make anyone tetchy.

I guess if the country is committing suicide than any measure is okay, right Simon? If it's life and death and all. I can just imagine the things a true patriot might sanction in such extreme circumstances.

Really, Simon. Explain to us, if the very life of the country is at risk, why wouldn't extreme measures be called for?

[Outis]

I think you're being overly melodramatic about an Obama presidency -- or about the fragility of the republic -- but I could be wrong.

The country was changed beyond regcognition in four years between 1861 and 1865. It was also changed orretrievably between 1933 and 1937. And again between 1963 and 1967. And somewhat less so (despite the claims of foes and supporters of alike would claim) between 1981 and 1985. Given the changes we have already seen in the last MONTH, it's easy to believe that Obama will nationalize healthcare in his first year in office, and perhaps make education the sole province of the national government. Those would be major changes, and once done would be almost impossible to undo short of national calamity.

(And no, Obama didn't make any of the changes of the last month - although he was on call if we needed him. But if a Republican administration found it this easy to take over such a large part of the economy with an opposition Congress, imagine what a Democrat who believes in nationalization of industry can do with a Congress that agrees with him.)

[amba]

Outis, you think Obama is going to nationalize industry? They've gotten to you. You need to read certified conservative Rick Moran.