Achilles Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 a) to ruin his reputation. b) to exemplify hypocrisy. c) to try to win an election with a campaign of fear and lies. d) all of the above. McCain Robo-Calls Critical of Obama The crux of the issue: The calls – being reported in a number of swing states – were just the latest instance of Mr. McCain embracing the very kind of negative or misleading campaign tactics he once denounced. Why? Because McCain referred to these as "hate calls" in the 2000 election when Bush used this tactic against him. McSame?
jrrtoken Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Yeah, I heard about this earlier today. You know that a candidate is obviously getting extremely desperate when they resort to false, personal, and aggressive attacks.
The Betrayer Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 We don't know if this will be effective or not. It's a stupid and risky move.
KinchyB Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Yeah, I heard about this earlier today. You know that a candidate is obviously getting extremely desperate when they resort to false, personal, and aggressive attacks. QFT It's pretty sad how low McCain is going, and there's still almost 3 weeks left!! Curious to see what the next new low is. I think he is trying to show up Rove a bit.
Achilles Posted October 17, 2008 Author Posted October 17, 2008 It will be incredibly effective with his base ("Kill him!", "Traitor!", "Terrorist!") . Whether it will sway any undecided or independent voters is unknown but probably unlikely.
mimartin Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 To think at one time this year McCain was my second choice for President behind Hillary. After it got down to McCain, Clinton and Obama, I thought America couldn’t lose. I am glad I came to my senses.
Litofsky Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 Politicians at their worst, ladies and gentlemen. I agree with Achilles: this tactic will be effective with his base, but will be (to a degree) viewed as unnecessary/ugly to the undecided voters.
Q Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 It will be incredibly effective with his base ("Kill him!", "Traitor!", "Terrorist!") . Whether it will sway any undecided or independent voters is unknown but probably unlikely.How would this make any difference with people who would vote for him anyway?
Achilles Posted October 18, 2008 Author Posted October 18, 2008 How would this make any difference with people who would vote for him anyway? "Difference"? I believe I said "effective". @topic: Does it help McCain's "Maverick" persona or harm his campaign that members of his own party are attacking him for using these tactics? 2nd edit: Correction. I missed the part where it said that Senator Collins is actually McCain's campaign co-chair in Maine. So make that, "members of his own campaign".
GarfieldJL Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 So, and Obama hasn't said worse about McCain? Like calling McCain a racist bigot perhaps?
Achilles Posted October 18, 2008 Author Posted October 18, 2008 So, and Obama hasn't said worse about McCain? Like calling McCain a racist bigot perhaps?I suppose you have a source for this?
Q Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 "Difference"? I believe I said "effective". Fine. Please explain what you mean by effective, then.
GarfieldJL Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 I suppose you have a source for this? http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-campaign-tactics-smears-lies-and.html That should has the same credibility as the New York Times, I'm looking for a better source.
Inyri Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where that blog has cited its sources. Can you point them out to me?
Achilles Posted October 18, 2008 Author Posted October 18, 2008 Fine. Please explain what you mean by effective, then. 1 a: producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect <an effective policy> Hope that helps. http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-campaign-tactics-smears-lies-and.html That should has the same credibility as the New York Times, I'm looking for a better source. Individual@Blogspot.com has the same credibility as the New York Times? Anotha dolla fo' Obama! Please try again with something that isn't some random person's opinion.
GarfieldJL Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where that blog has cited its sources. Can you point them out to me? Uh that's the point, I'm looking for another source but I'm pointing out that the New York Times doesn't have much in the way of credibility either.
Inyri Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 Your personal opinion of the New York Times (or any other news outlet) should not encourage you to provide sources even you admit are fairly worthless, from a legitimacy point of view. I could write all sorts of things about Obama or McCain in my personal blog (if I had one). However that doesn't make any of the 'facts' I would mention true, unless I can back them up with legitimate proof.
Q Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 1 a: producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect <an effective policy> Hope that helps. I think that you know that that's not the answer I was looking for. So I will reword the question and ask it again: How will these calls be "effective" with people who are already going to vote for McCain?
Da_man Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 I agree with Inyri, unless I get proof, like CNN or the New York Times, or something similar, I'm not buying it. I wasn't planning on voting for McCain anyway. If I still had my old sig, I could say I'd be voting for Megatron and it actually make sense.
Achilles Posted October 18, 2008 Author Posted October 18, 2008 I think that you know that that's not the answer I was looking for. So I will reword the question and ask it again: How will these calls be "effective" with people who are already going to vote for McCain? Because it will have the desired effect (i.e. promoting hated and fear). Hence "effective". Promoting a negative message doesn't necessarily mean that he's looking to change anyone's mind or create a "difference". I believe the term is "fanning the flames" or "throwing fuel on the fire" or "energizing the base" (I'm sure there are others). Again, I hope that helps.
GarfieldJL Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 I agree with Inyri, unless I get proof, like CNN or the New York Times, or something similar, I'm not buying it. I wasn't planning on voting for McCain anyway. If I still had my old sig, I could say I'd be voting for Megatron and it actually make sense. Oh you mean sources that I've actually shown that the National Enquirer has higher standards. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2008/10/09/nyt-finds-smart-folks-obama-media-heckling-racists-palin And here is one specifically on the New York Times and racism: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2008/08/01/nyt-calls-mccain-ad-racist-mccain-camp-likens-editors-kos-kids
Inyri Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 Oh you mean sources that I've actually shown that the National Enquirer has higher standards. o rly? Please stop saying this. You've said it at least a dozen times already, and it doesn't matter how many times you say it -- it's not going to sound more true just because you keep repeating yourself.
KinchyB Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 Please stop saying this. You've said it at least a dozen times already, and it doesn't matter how many times you say it -- it's not going to sound more true just because you keep repeating yourself. I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire...I'm a billionaire... Crap... figured there was an off chance that Garfield was on to something
Q Posted October 18, 2008 Posted October 18, 2008 I believe the term is "fanning the flames" or "throwing fuel on the fire" or "energizing the base" (I'm sure there are others). OK. I have no clue how in the hell that's going to help him, but given the ridiculous amount of monumental stupidity that I've seen in his campaign so far I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised. There, I said it.
Achilles Posted October 18, 2008 Author Posted October 18, 2008 Both candidates are concerned about voters right now. Obama's afraid that if his supporters assume the best and stay home without voting (assuming that he doesn't need their vote to win), he risks losing the election. McCain knows that if his voters stay home, his loss becomes a landslide. On the other hand if Obama's supporters are lulled into a false sense of security AND if he can rile up his supporters to the point where he can guarantee their turn out, he could cinch the election. So while both candidates are actively going after the undecided voter, both also have to make sure that their supporters actually go to a polling station and fill out a ballot. Obama is doing that by warning his supporters not to assume the best and stay home. McCain is doing that by spreading lies about Obama and instilling fear in people that already believe the worst about him. At least that's how it appears to me, based on what I've seen with my own eyes and heard the analysts say with my own ears.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.