Day: February 27, 2008

Is There A Real McCain Story?

OK, I know that this will sound like a piece from a conspiracy theorist, but I have been thinking about the John McCain story of last week.  You know the one, where he may have had an impure relationship with a female lobbyist.  First, I do not care about his personal life.  I do not care about his kids.  I do not care that he may keep his socks on during sex.  I just do not care, period.  If there was something about the relationship that he help them win a bill or more profits, then that is the story, not some fling that may or may not have happened.

When thinking of this story I asked myself, did the NY Times endorse McCain?  Then why would they want to destroy him?  Good questions, but first a a little background.  McCain is lagging in the polls, funds were trickling in, little support among true conservatives and there was some in-fighting on the radio.  McCain was NOT looking like a serious candidate against the Democrats in November.

Here is my what if.  What if the NY Times deliberately released a story that they could not verify?  Which is what happened.  Now look at what the story without legs has done for McCain.  Money is flying into his campaign, Repubs are closing ranks around him, he looks like a victim of smear tactics, he gains sympathy which sometimes can be translated into votes.

The story has done more to energize McCain’s campaign than anything the candidate has said up to this point.  So was there a plan here?  Only the NY Times knows for sure, but to me it smells like do-do.  The paper has had its pee-pee spanked by its ombudsman for running a story with no legs.  So now the paper has been chastised and McCain is flying pretty high.  You decide if this was a ploy to help McCain in the upcoming election.

Can The Anti-War Movement Be Saved?

A good question! Answer is not at the rate it is running now. Why? No pizzazz! Basically, what you have now are just people who want to end the war, gathering, marching and chanting. YAWN!

Step back into the 60’s and 70’s. The anti-war movement was a production there were people in Nixon masks, dressed like POWs, dressed like monks who set themselves on fire; in other words there was a theater of the absurd, a guerilla theater, within the anti-war movement. Small plays were presented during the protests that had a theme. Such subjects as number of dead soldiers, number of dead Vietnamese, capitalistic M-IC, anything that pertained to the war and its make up.

I see very little of this in today’s anti-war demonstrations. I see marchers, carrying of signs, a bit of chanting, and more boring stuff. Nothing grabs the spectators or for that matter the media. Without the media the protests will only reach a very, very small audience. If that is the case, all the protesting in the world will be as useless as a fart in the wind. To be successful in the anti-war movement, you need to attract attention. Lots of attention! Today, they are attracting a 10 second sound byte on the evening news, if that much.

Apparently few of the masters are left. If they still are around, then they are in a comfortable place and do not feel that opposition to the war is a worthy pursuance. Especially from a generation that wrote the book on civil disobedience.

Confrontation, there is the key! Going limp when arrested is not what I am talking about. I am talking about forcing the forces to over-react. That tactic is not as popular as it was back in the day. Few are willing to take one for the movement. It is just not that important anymore.

ALL protests should have those people that are trained in the arts, especially the performing arts; these people can help the message get noticed by the spectators and especially the media.

So can the anti-war movement be saved? Yes it can, but the people have got to want it to be saved. Now, war is not on the front pages as much and the attention of the people is elsewhere. The movement will lose its newsworthiness and could kill it completely.

The Last Democratic Debate?

We can only pray that it is. After 20 or was it 30, debates the people are energized to snooze. The big question last night was which Clinton would show up, the one from the last debate with her warm and fuzzy tone about Obama or the one from the weekend with the ranting and raving. Deep down, everyone wanted the latter. They wanted her to come off the ropes with a folding chair and brain Obama.

Clinton gets first question and she finds fault with it. Everyone held their breath waiting…waiting…and then..nothing! It was the same as the last debate and the one before that. Niceties were everywhere, complimentary BS was everywhere.

At first there was a bit of the snippys on health care, they went back and forth, but nothing new. Then it continued with the ping pong match on Kosovo, war, NAFTA, everybody’s past votes,and support for Israel. The only part of the debate that was a bit hostile was a short piece on personal attacks. Clinton did however, almost apologize for her vote to go to Iraq. It was a around about way of saying that she may have been mistaken.

Ok, since Americans have to have a winner and a loser, I will give this debate a DRAW! Nothing new, just a rehash of every damn thing you have heard up to this point. Just a way to get the stump speeches out there. No real specifics, just the same vague generalities of what to expect if they are elected president. The real winners were those people that went to bed and got a good night’s sleep. The losers were people like me that are waiting for something to happen that will make this interesting….we are still waiting.

Obama is leading in the polls, that did not change with this debate. He did get to play his little warm fuzzy for Clinton, saying what an honor it is and that she is a fine person and candidate..yada..yada…please let the voting begin.