08-10-2008, 01:01 AM
For those of us who have made our bones, so to speak, in the study of deep political phenomena, certain current events invite near-instant analyses informed by all we have learned from work in these areas.
Case in point: John McCain's aggressive telegraphing of his "going negative" punch at Barack Obama.
All day long (10/7), in advance of the second presidential debate, members of the American print and television pundit class have expressed deep befuddlement as to why the McCain Campaign makes such a show of signaling its negative intentions.
Their simple-minded conclusion is that McCain has to change the subject from the economy or else virtually guarantee a defeat of historic proportions -- and he has to do it LOUDLY.
And so -- no great surprise -- we are confronted with the latest in a seemingly endless procession of the MSM's shallowest of Shallow Political "analyses"
My take: At its deepest political level, this move is all about making a McCain "victory" plausible in the wake of what will (as opposed to would) be America's third consecutive stolen presidential election.
The blaringly trumpeted McCain campaign tactical decision will so dominate the pre-"election" discussion that, on the morning of November 5, the pundits will trample each other in the rush to be the first to explain McCain's "victory" by suggesting that his negative attacks put him over the top.
This in tandem with the "argument" that Palin's appeal proved to be the icing on McCain's cake will be enough (at least for all "thinking" Americans) to counter charges of wide-spread election fraud -- of the sort that's already underway in swing states and elsewhere -- and support once again the illusion of democracy in a country that has all but become a democracy-free zone.
Mark my words.
And please offer your own to support, disagree with, or expand upon my analysis.
Case in point: John McCain's aggressive telegraphing of his "going negative" punch at Barack Obama.
All day long (10/7), in advance of the second presidential debate, members of the American print and television pundit class have expressed deep befuddlement as to why the McCain Campaign makes such a show of signaling its negative intentions.
Their simple-minded conclusion is that McCain has to change the subject from the economy or else virtually guarantee a defeat of historic proportions -- and he has to do it LOUDLY.
And so -- no great surprise -- we are confronted with the latest in a seemingly endless procession of the MSM's shallowest of Shallow Political "analyses"
My take: At its deepest political level, this move is all about making a McCain "victory" plausible in the wake of what will (as opposed to would) be America's third consecutive stolen presidential election.
The blaringly trumpeted McCain campaign tactical decision will so dominate the pre-"election" discussion that, on the morning of November 5, the pundits will trample each other in the rush to be the first to explain McCain's "victory" by suggesting that his negative attacks put him over the top.
This in tandem with the "argument" that Palin's appeal proved to be the icing on McCain's cake will be enough (at least for all "thinking" Americans) to counter charges of wide-spread election fraud -- of the sort that's already underway in swing states and elsewhere -- and support once again the illusion of democracy in a country that has all but become a democracy-free zone.
Mark my words.
And please offer your own to support, disagree with, or expand upon my analysis.