What does the McCain Meltdown mean?

Posted by Greg Laden on October 13, 2008
(17)
More »

Numerous right wing writers or press outlets have already proffered negative reviews of both Sarah Palin and John McCain. Chris Buckley, conservative and son of William F. Buckley, has endorsed Barack Obama outright.
i-d6b4724d1f28a3a0278bade8bdc7aaae-610x.jpg.
Conservative publisher Wick Allison has endorsed Obama. Other conservative writers are supporting the Democratic candidate. It looks like Indiana is even going to go with Barack!

Perhaps the most startling event is the UN-ENDORSMENT of McCain by influential Republican William Milliken. Milliken had previously endorsed McCain, but is now un-endorsing him. I can’t think of anything like this happening before.

i-5d63b4105d5b3b76bb625f73b39e58dc-42568259.jpg

But what does it all mean?


I think this is kind of obvious. The Republican Party is too big for its own good, and, remarkably, had actually started to develop a bit of diversity. But in a bad way. The diversity within the Republican Party is not in the form of gender or ethnic background, or point of view about major political issues. No. The Republicans are still pretty much unimaginative, unabashedly fascist, total suck ups to the wealthy and big business, and in all these areas of policy in absolute lock step as a party. Republican ‘diversity’ comes in the form of approaches to campaigning, and approaches to how to deal with the truth.

The far right is comprised of two different groups: Religious fundamentalists and non-religious racist yahoos. Closer to the middle are the fiscal conservatives who are also socially conservative to some degree, then near the center are the fiscally conservative selfish bastards who vote Republicans because they think it will help their pocket books even though they publicly state that they support some of the social programs that they know the Republicans will either trash or pilfer.

Now, we have a similar thing going on in the Democratic party. Way over on the left we have, for instance, people who are activist atheists and would really would prefer to NOT vote for a candidate that insists on saying “God bless America” all the time, or who refuses to say “Gay marriage is marriage. Period. Get over it,” and so on.

But on the center/left part of the (oversimplified) political spectrum, we are all interested in being fairly straightforward and truthful, at least somewhat objective, fair (but vigorous) in the fight and respectful of others. And, we see enough overlap amongst our diverse-ass selves that we vote for the Democratic candidate almost all the time even if there are areas of disagreement. And when we don’t vote Democratic, don’t vote Republican either.

In contrast, on the center/right part of the spectrum, some people like the fair fight (those fiscal conservatives with some sense of social responsibility) while others are happy to, and in fact prefer to lie, bite the opponents ear off, throw sand in the face… whatever it takes to steal the lunch money.

McCain’s problem, very simply put, is that he has played the game of moving back and forth along this spectrum of behavior. He’s done that with the issues to some extent, but that is not enough to foster the wholesale tugging on the very rug on which he totters that we are now witnessing. Rather, I believe that it is McCain’s movement back and forth on the spectrum of campaign praxis that has enraged pretty much everybody in the Republican party but Bubba. The fundamentalists hate McCain because he raced up to Obama ready to cut off his infidel head and then pulled back. The centrists hate him because his bulldog (or lipsticked-pig or whatever she is) is remorselessly evil, and McCain fosters this. The only people sticking with McCain are the Bubbas. Because McCain is not black.

McCain will be left with the all too sizable but not nearly large enough “He’s Not Black” vote. There was a time in American politics when that was enough.

Not any more.

(17)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Virgil Samms
    October 13, 2008

    But what does it all mean?

    You missed the obvious implication: it’s yet another sign of the impending rapture.

  2. #2 Robert Grumbine
    October 13, 2008

    Will Rogers: “I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”

    Some things haven’t changed.

  3. #3 Mimi
    October 13, 2008

    Un-endorsed??? That’s just bad.

  4. #4 Swingin' Amis
    October 13, 2008

    The only people still backing McCain are those who are nastier than he is.

  5. #5 Joel
    October 13, 2008

    Commentary: Obama and Bush are not so far apart

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — Since Barack Obama incessantly makes the case that a John McCain administration would equate to another Bush term, it’s worth looking at just how much Sen. Obama himself is in agreement with the unpopular president.

    Does that mean that he, too, would be a repeat of President Bush? If one were to apply his logic, maybe so.

    Here are 20 reasons why:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/wall.bush-obama/index.html

  6. #6 Becca
    October 13, 2008

    Have you ever traveled in Indiana with a mixed-race lesbian?
    They have a lot of Bubbas. A LOT.

    I will be so immensely pleased if the Gary-but-we’re-a-suburb-of-Chicago-too folks can somehow redeem Indiana from the muck, but I’m not holding my breath.

  7. #7 Greg Hussein Laden
    October 13, 2008

    The only time I’ve traveled in Indiana I was totally alone. The only time I’ve hung out with a mixed-race-lesbian I was in pretty safe territory, i.e., our shared apartment over the gay bar.

  8. #8 Engr Tony
    October 13, 2008

    It looks like Indiana is even going to go with Barack!

    I live in Indiana (not native born, but recent transplant), and I really hope that assessment is correct. However, I somehow think that the Indiana electorate will still manage to disappoint me and still remain Red (although not nearly as Red as it was in 2004).

    However, when the polls close on election day, if the news media is not immediately able to report Indiana going for McCain or has to report it as being “too close to call” I think that it will be safe to say that it will be a long and painful night for McCain. And if Indiana flips, it’s Game Over.

  9. #9 eddie
    October 13, 2008

    Indiana should change their name.

    It’s been said on SB before that what the bubba’s are scared of is that someday there will be a reckoning. Someday they’ll be called to account for all the racist shit they’ve been up to for the last few centuries. Everytime they say or hear ‘Indiana’ they’re reminded of their deepest, darkest fears.

    Ironic that so many of them go on about a ‘day of judgement’ all the time.

  10. #10 Joe V.
    October 13, 2008

    The National Review guy who endorsed Obama is a former publisher, not the editor in chief. (This is actually the subject of the link you provided.) It’s still a very persuasive endorsement for conservative audiences though — I sent it to my parents.

  11. #11 the real Chutzpah
    October 13, 2008

    Whatever happened to the good old days, when all the slave holders and torturers were from Egypt or Mexico, or West Africa??!!

    We need a reckoning, like, um, maybe when the Moors took over Spain…or a Nanjing, but just for Buba’s!!

  12. #12 MarkusR
    October 13, 2008

    Joel,
    Can you find me a major candidate that by those definitions is MUCH different from Bush?

    If you look closer at the claims, say the faith-based-initiatives, Obama wants to change the program to remove recipients ability to discriminate on their hiring practices. Bush admin supports the ability to discriminate.

    I won’t waste more time on the other points, considering Tara Wall is a former RNC lackie and a Bushie.

  13. #13 Virgil Samms
    October 13, 2008

    Biden references GW in speech
    “How do you resolve global warming if you have no idea how the heck it’s caused?” Biden asked.

    Interesting to see that come up again, he mentioned that in the VP debate.

  14. #14 Greg Hussein Laden
    October 13, 2008

    Joe: Yea, I knew that and still got it backwards (that site was in a deep stack of possible items to include in the post.) Thanks for pointing it out.

  15. #15 Paul
    October 13, 2008

    Bush met with success abandoning the fiscal conservatives and embracing the social conservatives (AKA religious wackos). The John McCain of 8 or 12 years ago didn’t go that route, and lost. The John McCain of today *couldn’t* keep avoiding the social conservatives and expect to win, so he was forced to embrace them.

    He’s done a bad job of it; his party is suffering as a result.

    Hopefully the republican party will shred itself with the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives pealing off in different directions. I cannot ever vote for a party of would-be theocrats, homophobes, or racists. As a result, I really have no choice in the elections anymore. I’d like to be able to make a meaningful choice between the democratic candidate and somebody … anybody.

  16. #16 sailor
    October 13, 2008

    Joel,

    Yeah, and both Bush and Obama each have two legs, two arms two feet, a body, two hands, and a head. They are both very alike if you compare them say with a fish.

  17. #17 Dunc
    October 14, 2008

    Another possibility occurs: they know they’ve got an uphill fight, and that whoever is President for the next term is in for a world of hurt. So it could just be a tactical withdrawal…