>>Which "they" are you talking about, the author or those who commented? I thought the article put forth a good case for its premise. What issue do you have with it?<<
Karen -
[edit] Once again, as I'm catching up on the thread I find that others have already expressed what I want to say. But having made the effort to write this post, I don't feel like just deleting it.[/edit]
My problem with the article would be that it presents a very watered down view of what I consider Rovian politics to be about. The author completely ignored two very important aspects of what I would call Rovian politics. One, the use of "wedge issues" to divide the electorate. Two, the demonization of your opponents, without any regard for decency.
I didn't see either of those tactics being used by the Obama campaign.
In listening to the analysts on CNN arguing over whether this was the nastiest campaign ever, I noticed two things. The Republicans didn't make any distinction between things said by the Obama campaign itself and things that were said by the most extreme bloggers or liberal pundits.
Moreover, they did not distinguish between the Obama campaign's attacks on McCain's policies, some of which were admittedly distorted or false, and the McCain campaign's attacks on Obama's character, his patriotism, and his values.
The worst thing Obama said about McCain, personally, was that he had been "erratic" in dealing with the economic crisis and the bailout plan. And that's really a criticism of the man's behavior.
Naturally, I have seen the campaign from the vantage point of an Obama supporter, and as a human being, I am as likely as anyone to see the opposition's behavior as worse than that of my own side.
As a last thought, I think there is another very important, and hopefully fully discredited aspect of Rovian politics - namely, the complete subordination of policy decisions to political considerations.
- Allen |
