Sun. Aug 22, 2004
Mr. Pissed Off Swing Voter
Four months ago, I wrote a metaphorical article about my past, and where we seemed to be heading this election year. Since then, that metaphorical ball has gotten bigger, and rolls faster, too.
I’ve also written once, briefly, about the continuing obsession with events of over three decades ago. Since then, hundreds of thousands of words have been written on tens of thousands of sites, giving diametrically opposed versions about everything related to those days.
The only thing that hasn’t been disputed about that day is the color of the water the Swift boats floated on. And just why is that? Why won’t anyone tell us the truth about what shade the H2O was that day? Hmmmmm? Surely this is another area of dispute among the witnesses who might have been there (since none of them can agree on any other damn thing that happened that day, despite a slew of awards to a bunch of people), critical to the decision I must make before Nov. 2.
Here’s the blindered absurdity we’ve reached. In a campaign in which both sides have done their damndest, directly or by proxy, to go negative on their opponent’s record as a veteran, Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt can actually say this with a straight face (emphasis mine): “John Kerry has run a relentlessly negative campaign, the only campaign that has ever questioned anyone’s service during the Vietnam War, repeatedly making baseless accusations about the president.” One wonders either what planet Schmidt and his ilk live on where they get such a blindered view, or just how stupid they think we voters are. It’s insulting.
The only thing that has been interesting about it is the fact is has flushed out a lot of folks, in blogs and in the media. If there was any doubt in your mind about bias in major media, you sure can find a wealth of evidence on both sides of this one. Like the Trent Lott affair, this has been kept bubbling largely by the blogs. For better or for worse. Some of the media at first sniffed about, and proclaimed it as more evidence of the “Wild West” of blogs where anyone can say anything.
But eventually, Big Media started covering the story, too. In a very belated way, and often in a manner that hardly seemed objective or thorough. But then, maybe they are following the lead of the blogs on this story. I’ve never seen so many blogs turn a blind eye on evidence that might question their position. On both sides. It ought to be embarrassing, but there are no mirrors in Election 2004. If it doesn’t meet their existing partisan view, it’s simply not worthy of noting, or is mentioned with a snark and spin. It’s all very revealing, but not exactly in the ways anyone intended.
I’m praying that it’s just August. August is always a slow news month. Yet there are just as many pages of newsprint and hours of news show to be filled. And, of course, we have many who are willing to accommodate, and feed the Media Beast. I’m praying that’s what we’re seeing.
Because it has all become one big Negative Roar.
The media, the blogs, the candidates, and their official campaigns are all bad enough. But in addition, thanks to the wonders of campaign finance reform, we have these “527” groups. They’ve collected nearly $200 million, and they’re spending most of it on ad campaigns, on both sides. But see, they cannot actively campaign for someone, they are allegedly issues-oriented groups. So what does that mean?
$200 million of slash, smash, and trash advertising. To convince us That Guy is a liar, evil, and probably in leagues with Al Qaeda. To use any ancient thread as a sling to hurl mud on The Other Side. Both sides, official and unofficial, have focused their efforts on convincing us their opponent is dangerous, incompetent, a sham, and not worthy of the job.
OK. I’m convinced. By both sides. Now what?
What will you do for your encore, Mr. Red and Ms. Blue? How will you impress me next? What act of social warfare have you thus far avoided, that might be worth trying in the final ten weeks?
Because I’m beginning to think that the strategy of both sides towards the small but contested center is to get them so disgusted they refuse to vote for either man.
And once that strategy is seen, it gives me a new point for judgement. In fact, it may be the best one you’ve left me: which side first attempts to voluntarily pull back from this nonsense, and which side continues to wallow like a happy pig?
If you guys (official and unofficial) want to continue to “play” this way, I’ll judge your candidates on terms you never imagined. I’ll judge them on the way you play this “game,” by the actions of the supporters the candidates have shown they are incapable of leading, and by what the candidates condemn, or endorse with their silence.
Because that’s all you’ve left me. That’s all you talk about. So that’s how I must judge you.
Is it unfair for me to, for example, judge George Bush on the actions of one of his supporters, like John O’Neill? Or to judge John Kerry on the rhetoric of Howard Dean? Maybe. But don’t make me laugh like a little girl. What has “fair” got to do with this race? You partisans tossed “fair” out of the building, bloodied and in handcuffs, many months ago. It landed right next to the long decayed remains of your unfettered perceptions.
Reap what you have sown. Me, the Pissed Off Swing Voter.
Published 02:21AM, Sun, Aug 22 2004
Category: Politics
Previous: «« The Politics of Chest Thumping ««
Next: »» Day 9, Speed versus Distance »»
Peanut Gallery
I guess I’m surprised that you’re so shocked at the actions of the partisans. None of this is new or unusual, even in wartime.
One thing to note: John O’Neill started blasting John Kerry in 1971. At a minimum, you’ve got to admit that his accusations are not something cobbled up last month in the Rove War Room. What partisans have done with that, though, is what partisans have done since the beginning of time.
Me, I’m one of those apparently rare Bush supporters that like him politically and personally, contrary to Single-Issue Andrew’s proclamation below. I’m not alone in that, either. Granted, I’m in Texas and we have a longer history with Bush than most. But the bottom line is that I like the way he has conducted the war on terrorists, and I don’t believe Kerry would do anything drastically better.
ObPoliSciDisclaimer: Because I support Bush for President does not automatically mean I support every single policy or utterance. (Why do I feel like I have to put that in?)
Scott, I don’t doubt your beliefs, or the sincerity of them (the fact you haven’t written about Bush/Kerry in four days means … I don’t think I’m even talking about you). So, excuse me for saying that the supporters on one side or the other, of course, don’t see their side as doing anything wrong. Or, anything nearly as wrong as what The Other Guys are doing. I’m saying, from the middle, both sides appear nearly equally wrong. Ugly wrong. Stupid wrong.
A prime indicator is the fact you see none of this as anything “new or unusual,” yet in my 45 years, I’ve never seen anything as extreme, with the possible exception of the summer of ‘68. That’s a pretty stark difference in perception, wouldn’t you say? And what’s the primary difference between us?
The fact it isn’t new or unusual doesn’t make it right. For a long time, you could say the same thing about slavery … nothing new or unusual, but it was detrimental all along, even when men thought it was “OK.”
Has a sitting Senator of one party (Zell Miller) ever given a keynote speech at the convention of his opposing party? That’s pretty new and unusual, isn’t it? And it’s indicative of these “new and unusual” times.
My wife, a life long Republican, is considering not voting on the Presidential ballot. She is one of four people I’ve heard mention that possibility … in the past week. I’m not saying this is a good thing, or successful vengeance against the process. It isn’t. It’s an indicator of what this campaign has created.
A lot of pissed off swing voters, disgusted enough with both sides to make their judgement on terms you never imagined.
You may not see it, especially in Texas. But I assure you it exists, and it’s going to the ballot box. Nationwide, they say it’s currently a 46%-45% race. I am a part of the remaining 9% they don’t talk about. We’re the ones who will make that 46 or 45 big enough to win the election.
And many of us are pissed.
And, of course, you don’t have to take my word for it that there’s a backlash building among swing voters. Take Jeff’s (“As a voter, I still say I don’t care. I don’t care about the Vietnam war. We are in a war now. We are in a war against terrorists and Islamofascists and for modernity and civilization and America. That is the war I care about.”). Or Joe’s (”...in November, for some independent voters(like me), the deciding factor often becomes which party ran the less personal campaign”). Or William’s (“For this independent, undecided voter, the Swifties might be adding an argument on Kerry’s behalf.”).
Just a few quick examples found this morning giving evidence that among that 9%, this partisan warfare has created a lot of Pissed Off Swing Voters.
I’ve got three pretty-good gashes in my body from Communist metal as it was delivered in Viet Nam.
The one in my right leg, just below the knee, would not stop bleeding for 3 days. I could have had at least 2 Purple Hearts by that and the other wounds.
But ‘the other guy’ was always way more grievously-wounded -so I helped patch them up and then called in the Med-Evac chopper and got them back to the Da Nang Hospital. That was my job and I did it well.
What feels good today is that they lived because of some little thing I was able to do.
Medals (shrug), I have my seven; the one’s I’m most proud of are my CAR (Combat Action Ribbon) and the MUC (Meritorious Unit Citation).
I say leave Kerry alone on this one; the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” are just jealous.
Please vote. If the political machines can’t do/say something positive, at least we can.
Dan
Don’t worry, Dan, I plan on voting. That’s about the only thing I can say for certain about Nov. 2. I plan on voting because there are important local issues and races where I can have an impact.
In the Presidential race, the only local aspect is the “winner take all” nature of the electoral college. I have to be honest; I live in a state that currently is “red” by about a 54-38 margin, so no matter which way I vote, barring a seismic shift in the voters of Georgia, my vote will have little effect. This race will be determined by the swing voters in a handful of states. Georgia isn’t one of them.
I’m in GA also.
I agree with you about the handful of swing states & voters, but I’m detecting little ripples of “I’m tired of being taken for granted and played as a sucker” -and that’s from a whole bunch of Georgia-folk who would ordinarily not vote in a Presedential race.
In other words, I’m thinking that perhaps the turnout might be larger than expected and skew that 54-38 margin further than what the pollsters are predicting. We shall see.
I also think of that grin on Truman’s face while holding aloft the newspaper with the headline “Dewey Wins!”
Maybe after 2000, and this cycle, the momentum will be there, the anger strong enough from the people in the strongly colored (red or blue) states that we can do away with the Electoral College once and for all. It’s flawed the way it is, and I’m not sure it can be fixed. It would require broader campaigning, and more time spent in those formerly “guaranteed” states. I know, I know… but I can dream, can’t I?
I didn’t mean to say it should be shrugged off just because it isn’t new. There are decidedly new features to the partisan actions that are most definitely making people angry. That’s inescapable. My point, if I had one (which is unclear at this point), is to wonder out loud what is different this time and why it makes a difference to people like yourself. I’m genuinely interested in an intellectually-disconnected way, since the current kerfluffle has no bearing on me and my vote one way or the other.
Negative campaigning seems to have been outsourced, to some degree, allowing the pols to stay in their ivory towers. How did that happen, and why did that happen? We bloggers talk about the power of personal publishing, and here we have two premier examples in MoveOn and SBVT, taking their message to the people. We can argue all the live-long day about funding and shadowy ties to ___ supporters, and I don’t want to do that. What I want to talk about is this: is this the inevitable result of the personal publishing “revolution?” When you look at it like I do, from a solidly Red State, with no dog in the hunt, I see nothing but citizens (you, me, etc.) following the game plan as laid down by Big Media for a hundred years—smear, smear, then smear some more. We’ve been watching the game from the stands, and now, Bingo! We get to play. And this is what we, the citizens, do. Not very pretty or honorable.
So what’s next? Beats me. But I think it’s a part of the inevitable evolution of the democracy that’s America.
Anyhoo—that’s my deep thinking for the day (and probably the week.) I probably shouldn’t be clogging up your comments with this crap. Sorry.
Scott:
You’ve nailed it. The downside of the internet is the fact that you can, if you wish to do so, for your entire life avoid any opinion that challenges your own views.
And the wingnuts and their likes are doing exactly that big time right now – thus making up their own little cozy world of “it’s either us or armageddon (or some other non-biblical ending of the world).”
I’ve read tons of comments along the lines of “I never read a paper or watch the news anymore ‘cause those Old Media are biased like hell and never report the TRUTH! But now I’ve found the truth here in the blogosphere and I’ll never look back.”
That’s simply sad, because it’s the fertilizer that’s making these insane campaigns grow even wilder than before.
Goebbels is attributed to the saying that “if you repeat a lie a sufficient amount of times, it becomes the truth” – which is true … and becomes even more so if/when the targets of all this lying themselves, beforehand, have chosen not to listen to the other side of the argument.
To be fair not all negative campaigning is the equivalent of lying – but it does make it ever the more tempting to lie when you know that chances are you’re not going to be called upon it – your own side won’t and should the other side do so, you can simply dismiss it as “politics” or “spin”.
And all along the good ol’e big media are more obsessed with spinning the spin than hunting down the facts and focusing on what’s important.
BTW – I’m not a US citizen, I don’t live in the US. These are observations from abroad, untainted by partisan US politics :-)
Regards.
Kevin –
I don’t think doing away with the electoral college is the answer – if it’s popular vote only then the lower-population states (like Wyoming, Delaware and Vermont, for example) won’t have any voice at all, and the candidates would concentrate on states like California. And what may be good for LA might not be so good for Cheyenne, Dover, or Montpelier.
Is the system broke? Hard to say. Is it working optimally? Again, hard to say – but I’ve got to admit I’ve got severe reservations about using a popular vote to decide our next President, and want to see the specs on a differing system before tossing out what we’ve got. It’s like that 527 ad money – the law of unexpected consequences have produced a rather significant mess in election-year advertising, which wasn’t really anticpated.
(I will rein in my cynical side, and not say anything more about THAT issue.)
You’re going to have to persuade me the electoral college system is broken beyond repair before I’ll be willing to toss it out for something untried.
J.
Well, the citizens of Colorado are going to be voting on some form of proportional allotment of their electoral college votes. I’m not really very familiar with it (nor did I know it was a state rather than federal perogative).
But I would be in favor of a slightly weighted form of a “proportional” electoral college. Each state's number of electoral votes is determined by their number of congresspeople; two senators, and whatever number of representatives they’ve been alloted by the most recent census (this is why the electoral votes per state are different this year than in 2000).
The candidate that wins the popular vote in a state gets the two “senatorial” electoral votes. And the “representative” votes are distributed according to the percentage of the popular vote.
Example: Georgia has 15 electoral votes, and right now it’s 54-38 Bush. Extrapolate that to 58-42 in November (just add 4 to each side), and Bush would get 10 electoral votes (2 senators, plus 13 X 0.58 = 7.54, rounded up to 8), and Kerry would get the remaining 5.
Hmmm. That might be viable.
Saw a brief blurb somewhere (and I’m thinking it may have been a joke, but it’s hard to tell) that Texas could repartition itself into 5 separate states without Federal intervention. Apparently it’s in the state constitution that they reserved the right to do that, independent of Washington.
That’d really throw a wrench in the works, wouldn’t it?
J.
It’s not a joke—we saw you carpetbaggers coming a mile away. :-)
Hey, I ain’t no carpetbagger! I lived in El Paso from age 3 till 11. I miss the heat and dry air…
(Got heat in Atlanta, but dry air isn’t on the menu.)
J.
Recent Comments
- Stanley (Is That Really Amish?)
- John (Falcons Explode Expectations)
- mark (Is That Really Amish?)
- Jessica (Is That Really Amish?)
- Reid (Grandpa is Once Again Astounded By The Interwebs)
- elburro (Grandpa is Once Again Astounded By The Interwebs)
ReidStott.com
Photography
by Reid Stott
A decade of web design experience. Two decades of photography experience. All available to you, and your project. View my portfolio online, then let's talk about your needs.ReidStott.com
Me II. My current preference is not to cast a vote for President. But I will vote in the other races. And, unlike prior years, my default vote will no longer go to Democrats. I’m that pissed off at my (former) party.