THE LOGIC OF NUCLEAR SMEARING. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times argues that showing he can slap around Hillary Clinton is pretty much the only thing Rudy can do to promote his candidacy.
Giuliani has decided that the best way to win his primary is to show he can beat the woman on the way to winning hers. He can't campaign on family values or the sanctity of marriage. He can't whip up any fears on abortion or gays. He can't campaign on his plan to get out of Iraq because he doesn't have one.
He can't campaign as the tough-guy heir to Bush because nobody likes Bush. He can't campaign on attacking Iran because he'll sound like crazy Dick Cheney. He can't campaign on the economy because he's W. redux, facing a possible recession because of the mortgage crisis.
That's not quite right. Rudy's campaigning on the premise that he'll be tougher than George Bush on terrorism and even more crazy than Dick Cheney on Iran and other pseudo-enemies. Up until now, Rudy's foreign policy imagery has been all about race. Having apparently shown that he can "handle" African-Americans in New York, Giuliani promises to do the same with the Iraqis, Iranians, and any other non-whites who get in our way.
With the Hillary/Moveon ad, it's now about gender as well. The American right fears and loathes (and loves) Hillary Clinton much more than they fear Ahmadinejad or Hezbollah. By "slapping" Hillary around, Giuliani is putting down a down payment on his aggression toward the other enemies the right wants to launch wars against.
But Giuliani is going to have to do a lot more than slap Hillary Clinton around a little. Dowd is wrong to think that Giuliani just has to avoid gay rights, abortion, family issues, and the war. In fact, Giuliani has to smear Hillary enough to compensate for his sins against everyone's sense of decency. Smearing Hillary is going to have to be Giuliani's answer for questions about his corrupt association with Bernard Kerik, his three marriages, his stance on social issues, and his love nest at the World Trade Center.
If Giuliani wins the nomination, he would have to go into "nuclear smearing" to compensate for the unpopularity of the Bush administration, the floundering war in Iraq, and the declining prestige of the United States in the world. He'll also have to compensate for his general weirdness.
Given that Rudy Giuliani wouldn't change very many of Bush's policies, he won't be able to just slap around Hillary Clinton with his current smears. Rudy will have to try to blow her up. He'll have to go nuclear.
Posts
29 comments:
It was just a matter of time until you trotted out the "opposition to Hillary is sexist" meme. You are as predictable as rain in the month of May.
Tell me, JD. Were you using your I SPY microscope to see that, or your fiction-writing microscope to make it up.
The logic of smearing will be just as fundamental to the 2008 Republican campaign as it was in 2004. That will be the case whether the Republican candidate employs sexism, racism, and homophobia in his smearing or not.
I'm guessing neither. He probably just read this: "With the Hillary/Moveon ad, it's now about gender as well." A least wait until the digital ink is dry before you ignore your own statements.
Iran and other pseudo-enemies.
Exactly how active a participant in the killing of US soldiers outside that nations borders does a nation have to be to qualify as an "actual" enemy?
But I wouldn't say that Giuliani is a "sexist" in relation to Hillary. If Giuliani said something to the effect that "Hillary Clinton should not be president of the U. S. because she's a woman" or that "Hillary Clinton is not tough enough to be president of the U. S. because she's a woman," that would be "sexist" in the sense JD means. But I'm not thinking of sexism at all when I'm discussing the way that Giuliani is constructing his image of exaggerated masculinity. Isn't this kind of weenyism appeal something that all candidates on the right aim for whether they have male or female opponents?
But I think it would be accurate to characterize Giuliani as a racist.
Of course, that's pretty much standard on the right as well.
Do you ever find it strange that you cast about generalized aspersions and hatred towards people, for things that generally vary in origin and motivation, over your perception that they cast about general aspersions and hatred over things that generally vary in origin and motivation?
Okay... he made gender an issue in the campaign but he's not sexist? I realize my underindoctinated mind is less adept than yours, so could you help me make you make sense in my head? If debating, mentioning, acknowleding or attacking someone who happens to be female, without an explicit "because she's a woman" involved is about gender, then wouldn't Hill herself be to blame for making the issue in this campaign gender because, well, she's a woman?
No response on the Iran question though. Exactly how active a participant in the killing of US soldiers outside that nations borders does a nation have to be to qualify as an "actual" enemy?
Where's the hate you're talking about? You're pretty naive if you don't think the Republicans are going to launch a major smear campaign in 2008. They're going to call it "defining their opponent" but it's going to be a major and continuous smear-a-thon. Maybe you're just annoyed that I'm identifying the phenomena in advance and investigating some of the "pre-game" smearing.
Hey, Ric, link to Krugman's article in today's Times. It does a fine job on displaying the base of the Republican Party and what they are (thankfully) pissing away. Enjoy your national election of relevance, gents, because it's your last one for awhile.
Oh, you might sneak through an Eisenhower, but there will no more kooky Coolidges or Bushs. Please keep nominating them, though.
Also, Ric, besides Jersey, what blue state can Giuliani compete with Hillary in? All he has is fear and negativity and the American people aren't afraid of his bogeyman anymore
With the Hillary/Moveon ad, it's now about gender as well.
Caric - How am I making this up? Your words. When you write something, you have to promise that at least one of us will pay attention to what it is that you write.
Where's the hate you're talking about?
Generally, calling people racist, sexist, or homophobic is not an expression of love or affection.
Hypothetically, what if he were addressing a racist? Is it wrong to call someone that if they are one?
I'll answer, no, of course not. It's a charged word, but, if one has the goods, then one has the goods.
Instead of getting angry (left wing style, politically angry) at Professor Caric when he uses those words, JD, why don't you ask him for the goods?
Why don't you let him explain why a rational person could say that Republicans pander to baser instincts, instead of going apoplectic every time a word is used.
Lastly, just because Professor Caric believes the Republican Party uses race to pander to racists, doesn't mean you personally are a racist. I can link to Ken Mehlman apologizing to the NCAAP for using the "Southern Strategy", yet I wouldn't accuse Ken Mehlman of being a racist.
It's like this. Reds fans love Pete Rose. I am a Reds fan. Yet, I loathe Pete Rose. He's a white trash over-rated player, who was the worst manager I have seen in 25 years. Just because I hate Rose, doesn't mean I can't watch the Reds.
tim - good analogy, except that there is not a social and even criminal stigma associated with disliking Pete Rose. Additionally, taking the actions of a few and applying them to a group as a whole, which is the underlying foundation for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc... is the exact same thing that Caric does. He is not attempting to engage in debate. He is ending it, attempting to discredit an entire party, on his moral justification. It should be wrong when anyone does it, but so long as you agree with it, it is alright?
I've figured it out JD.... Caric has adopted Quantum Politics. In quantum politics all positions are at anyone time possible and can not be specifically measured without at the same time affecting the underlying ideology.
The racism of the right occurs on many levels.
There's the race-baiting political campaigns which Ken Mehlman copped to in a speech last year (as Tim mentions). These include the presidential campaigns of 1968 (Nixon's Law and Order Campaign, 1980 (Reagan's announcement speech emphasizing states rights in Philadelphia, Miss), and 1988 (the Willie Horton ads). There's also the famous Jesse Helms "black hands" ads in his campaign against Harvey Gant and the "call me" ad against Harold Ford jr. in last year's Tennessee campaign.
I could also mention the welcoming of segregationist Democrats like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott into the Republican Party during the 1960's and 1970's.
Of course, there's also the Bush administration's gutting of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, Republican opposition to enforcement of job discrimination laws, conservative opposition to school desegregation plans like that in Louisville, the general demeaning of African-American politics as "identity politics" in the name of color-blindness, etc.
Finally, there's the well-known racism of popular spokespeople like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly. Part of the reason they're so popular is that there are so many racists in their audience.
That was just off the top of my head. If I thought about it, I'd probably come up with some more stuff.
Jd, I have never condoned calling you a racist. Even though I can't stand Goldstein, I have never condoned calling him one either. But, your rage every time the word is mentioned is just weird. Spike Lee's a racist, but you wouldn't hear me get pissed if you said he was one.
I know you hate to hear this, but people who are moved over dislike or disdain of African-Americans vote Republican. Bill O'Reilly is all over the internet today, because he was shocked to go to Harlem and find the service he received in a restaurant was as good as he'd get in a white neighborhood. Mehlman did apologize for the Southern strategy and George Bush DID go to Bob Jones when he needed a win. I don't think George Bush is any more of a racist than you are. I personally think he just doesn't give a crap about people who won't vote for him.
Krugman's essay on the NYTimes is interesting for that reason and, if you're interested in saving your Party, then you should be interested too. I know you can click on a link, as I was reading the filth at PW tonight and you claimed to "google" for Ric Locke (in addition to saying some nasty things about cleo, which is your business). Won't you google one thing for me? I know you don't like Krugman, but, I'm telling you as a general fan of divided government, unless something happens to your Party, you are looking at the 20 years or so of Dem domination.
Caric's claims of racism are so far-reaching so as to make the term meaningless. Welcoming Trent Lott into the Republican Party is racist, but honoring Grand Kleagle Byrd is not. This laundry list is absurd. Making the law be colorblind, as required by law, is racist? Making fun of Harold Ford Jr. attendance at a Playboy party is racist? Hell, I was jealous.
Caric simply does not allow for difference in political ideology. Anyone that does not conform to the enlightened beliefs that he holds must simply be racist. I thought a PhD would require better thinking than that, but sadly, no.
Tim, I would not expect you to get mad if someone called Spike Lee racist. He is. I would expect you would be quite pissed if I called you racist, or routinely pointed out that historically, the Democratic party, not the Republican party, has been in opposition to the vast majority of civil rights legislation, etc. If I called you a racist, you would rightfully be mad.
The next time Krugman is right about the demise of my party will be the first. If there is a more mendacious liar out there, I do not know who it is.
So, you didn't read it?
Because it's about the Republicans giving up on African-Americans and Hispanics and how dangerous it is for the Republicans. Personally, I would add it's dangerous for any ethnic group to bloc vote, because then one party ignores them (Katrina) and the other party takes them for granted (Katrina). If your vote is not "in play", then neither side is interested in buying you off by caring about what you care about.
Unlike what Sean Hannity says, the Democrats have not opposed most Civil Rights legislation. A coalition of liberals from the Republican Party and Democratic Party beat a Southern, conservative (ever wonder why conservatives quote Lyndon Johnson's hatred for Liberals? It's because the Southerners called themselves conservatives) filibuster to pass the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Since the election of 1968 with Nixon's Southern strategy, the Republicans welcomed the conservatives into the Republican Party...witness Helms (elected as a Democrat, retired a Republican), witness Thurmond, Shelby, Lott and a host of others.
As for Byrd, the difference between Lott and Bird and Thurmond and Helms is pretty damn simple. And, Sean Hannity and Rush aren't apparently going to tell you about it. But the difference is Bird said he was wrong, apologized to African-Americans and moved on.
Lott was still saying in 19freaking 98 that Thurmond's Dixiecrat run in '48 was a good thing. He is a bastard with slicked over hair.
If you long to vote with Republicans, go ahead, but don't close your eyes to the facts at who is standing next to you. I certainly don't.
Lastly, nice use of "mendacious."
PS I have been busy and away from the internet, and I neglected to tell you how sad I was to hear about your wife's pregnancy. I hope the new little one is okay. Maybe if he's smart, he'll be a Democrat! Then you and he can argue like my father and I do. It's very rewarding, as it reminds you how unimportant political beliefs are to character.
I had a point of disagreement with Krugman. To me, he over-estimated the Southern-ness of the Republican "base." I think it would be more accurate to say that the Republican base is the South "writ large" and rural areas in general.
The "greater South" would include Oklahoma, Southern Ohio, Indiana, southern Illinois, and Northern Florida. But the Republicans are strong in rural areas all over the country, including New York, PA, and California. It's just that the Republicans aren't now winning state elections in those areas.
Krugman also ignores the "activist right"--including the right-wing think tanks, the conservative media, and the religious right religious establishment. This group forms a kind of "inner activist base" for Republican politics in general. It's the "activst right" that's the cancer on American society.
tim - I agree on it being bad policy to ignore a particular voting bloc altogether. At the same time, if that group has shown that they will vote, out of habit or promise, for one party, regardless of their positions, why waste your time and resources? The identity politics practiced by both sides disgusts me, and moves us further and further away from being viewed as individuals. I no more answer for the actions of some kook right winger than you answer for the actions of Al Sharpton. This is precisely the reason why Caric's dishonest and repeated efforts to tar everyone for the actions of an insignificant minority are loathesome. Were the roles reversed, he would decry such a broad brush being used, and rightfully so.
PS. Thanks.
JD, so off-topic it's crazy, but a lawyer here in our office is trying to right a wrong, done in family law to a lady who has retained her. The problem she has is that her client speaks very little English (that's how she got int he mess she's in) and the lawyer speaks very little Vietnamese. Since the client has no money, the attorney hesitates to contact more formal translation services (they generally charge $200/hr). I mentioned you....any way the attorney is interested to know if your wife (I don't know about your Vietnamese...so maybe you) or someone you know could translate at a discount.
This attorney does NOT do PI work, so there's no conflict of interest for you. If you're interested, I can pass along her email address. If you're not, that's understandable and fine.
BACK TO THE TOPIC
I largely agree with the Professor that Republicans do well in all rural sectors, but in this last election, here in Indiana, they got their butts kicked in three rural districts. The world might be turning
but I doubt it
From Bob Herbert's NY Times of today (play close attention to Lee Atwater):
The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans....This is the party of the Southern strategy — the party that ran, like panting dogs, after the votes of segregationist whites who were repelled by the very idea of giving equal treatment to blacks.
....In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan's presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:
"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger,' " said Atwater. "By 1968, you can't say 'nigger' — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."
Doesn't mean you're a racist if you follow that model, means you are trying to attract folks with racist tendencies.
If you're white, and you are willing to resort to race-baiting like this, you are a racist.
timmy - I would be happy to get that translated for you. My wife speaks, but does not read Vietnamese well. But, we have many family members in town that still read, write, etc ...
If the Dems are doing better in the rural areas, does that mean that they are appealling to racists better than the Republicans?
Still, this entire premise is based on this ephemeral idea that Southern white are inherently racist. Culturally, they certainly were, but the people of some of the younger generations have never lived under the spectre of the sins of the past. However, we still lump these in with that legacy.
Who is race baiting, todd? You? You and Caric are the only ones labeling people. Tim and I were having a discussion.
Now back to the actual topic, I must say, if nothing else, Mayor Guiliani is not afraid of irony. machine. Proclaiming that Senator Clinton lacks his foreign policy "experience." This from a former prosecutor who was Mayor of New York for eight years. Right.
Problem is, the Mayor's own foreign policy missteps, misunderstandings and comical gaffes show him to be not ready for prime time on the world stage.
In April, following the established pattern set forth by foreign policy wizard, GW Bush, Guiliani downplayed the importance of capturing Osama Bin Laden. Then not long thereafter pulled a 180, promising of Bin Laden that he would "pay" or words to that effect and of course, as always cashing in on the fact that New Yorkers had the great misfortune of a Mayor Rudoplph Guiliani on Sept 11, 2001. (Of course they WERE lucky. According to the Mayor [and no one else], he spent more time at Ground Zero than the First Responders.)[YES THAT WAS SARCASM]
And of course there is the aforementioned racism Ric wrote of earlier but clearly was not understood by most of the respondants.
Do you think the Mayor has heard of glass houses? I guess it’s to his advantage that his supporters don’t seem to examine bold claims too closely. I didn't dig around much to find a few random statements Mr. Guiliani made a few months ago.
It's hard to know what to say about this guy. He's all pseudo-flash and no substance. I guess it would be best from my point of view if Republican voters would go right ahead and pin all their fervent, if misquided hopes on a Guiliani nomination.
We'll see.
I didn't read any of your stuff JD. I just read what Ric wrote and then I scrolled down to comment on that when I happened to catch a comment from Tim with which I disagreed.
I rarely, if ever read anything you boys put here. I am curious why you can't have your "conversations" on IM or on a phone or in person instead of wasting all the space here. But hey, who gives a rat's ass really?
Anyway, sorry for the mixup.
And of course there is the aforementioned racism
You cannot make one comment without calling someone a racist, huh?
Who gives a rat's ass? Personally, since I am usually the target, I give a rat's ass, since it is a baseless and ignorant claim.
Good point, Todd, and I'm sorry for taking up the room to ask that question.
Todd, I mostly agree with your sentiment, except I wouldn't call JD a racist. That's wholly unfair and pejorative. Given the politics of the Republican Party, I understand your frustration, but I know several people who are Republican for the tax cuts or, in the case of a lady I work with, is Republican because of their very real and muscular support for Israel. This person is a Jewish Lesbian, yet still supports Republicans. She is most certainly NOT a racist.
except I wouldn't call JD a racist.
Careful Tim. More comments like that and cutnpaste will stop reading your posts too.
Thanks, tim, especially since I tend to be more of a tax cut Republican.
According to Caric, that is just a codeword for other racists policies.
Post a Comment