today's disgust brought to you by the letters A and S.

[kaigou]

I know that to some degree all politicians do this, just like Hollywood and even some book publishers. We joke about a review that says "not even the least bit exciting" and the blurb on the movie that says "exciting" or the original "hoped it'd be the best of the year but terribly disappointed" becomes "best of the year". Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's anecdotal because I've never seen any before/after, it's just always seemed kind of odd when a blurb only says "exciting" or "riveting" and no other context. Most of the time, hey, without an original context, you figure, well, I guess that's an accurate quote.

However, this has got to be the most egregious example ever. Really, truly. First, here's the context of the original quote.

Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.' And ultimately, that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall.

Now, watch the ad.

hat tip: andrew sullivan

I can't possibly be the only person who finds this offensive, undignified, and dowright simply unbecoming. If you have a point on the merits of an argument, then you argue the merits and you make your point. But if you find it necessary or useful to so thoroughly twist another's words in order to prove your point, this says far more about you than it ever will about your opponent.

Maybe you have a valid argument, maybe you don't. What you do have, beyond all doubt, is an utter lack of integrity -- and a now-proven willingness to engage in dialogue both deceitful and dishonorable. And that, my friends, I cannot, and will never, respect.

Comments

[glvalentine.livejournal.com]

Wow, that's....egregious.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Bad enough to do it, but particularly over-the-top when the argument's not even using remotely the same context as the original quote.

[i-paint-the-sky.livejournal.com]

Blah.

While I think McCain seems like a pretty decent person, his commercials so far have REALLY sucked.

As was shown by the fact that he was pwned by Paris Hilton (and actually made me call her awesome @_@)

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

The more I see of the lobbyist/Rovian run campaign, the more I find I'd be willing to vote against those folks regardless of the name on the ballot, regardless possibly even of the positions: I find their tactics so reprehensible, so dishonorable, that if the only way I have to smack them down is by not electing whomever they work for, then if that's what it comes to, that's what it comes to.

[difrancis.livejournal.com]

Absolutely repulsive and disgusting. I absolutely hate this sort of crap. Because while it not only is a flat out lie, it also demonstrates how willing politicians are to display their corruption to the US, because there is no danger of being smacked around for it. It's become common practice. I have hoped that Obama will not go here. I understand there will be ads he can't control, but I hope he puts his foot down and says I'm running a clean race no matter what assininity (new word) and lies the other side is willing to commit.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

What really irritates me about it is that I always thought McCain was above these kinds of Rovian tactics, himself.

[kraehe.livejournal.com]

Not any more, I'm afraid. I used to like him, too. No more.

[ldragoon.livejournal.com]

@_o

This is actually running on TV right now?

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

From what I understand, apparently so. I couldn't say for certain, though, since I don't have TV.

[ldragoon.livejournal.com]

Here's for being thankful for having cut off the cable connection 2 years ago. :P

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

If McCain is wise he will keep hammering on this theme. He's identified Obama's weakness, and it's a more serious one with each piece of alarming news from Russia, Iran and elsewhere.

With some audacity, McCain can hope to change Obama's Presidential prospects from fair to nil :)

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

So I guess as a published writer you have no issues with using a lukewarm review that says "while the author may have intended a complex world, the execution failed; the characters were cardboard and the plotline was flat" and turning it into "...a complex world..." as your blurb and being proud to use it as a selling point? And in turn you wouldn't be offended in the least if someone did the same with your words? If so, it seems we hold quite different views on what constitutes ethical behavior.

Unless you were replying to some other post than the one I wrote. That might explain why it seems you missed my point entirely.

[kraehe.livejournal.com]

I disagree. I think McCain's foreign policy approach is dangerous -- he's following the current policy of not talking to our enemies. There's only so much force can do; diplomacy is a tool our current administration has refused to use, so they've had one hand tied behind their backs.

You'd think they'd study the Reagan years and realize how much of a role diplomacy played in the fall of the Soviet Union.

I put the blame for the current situation in Georgia squarely on our lack of dialogue with the Russians. We've been ham-handed and stupid. McCain would continue this, from everything he's said.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

The irony hiding behind the comparison of the full quote versus the impartial quote is that the full quote is in praise of the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I'd seen a link to that article but not read it. What great lines! McCain's people speak Crazyfundie, but they don't speak it fluently. Hah.

Actually, I think they've studied the Reagan Years but all they took away was, "we can convince people that cutting taxes for the rich is good as long as we call it pro-growth", without realizing it was a lot of other stuff that actually made Reagan a president worth remembering. Okay, that, and the fact that regardless of what I think of Reagan's economic policies (not much!), it really was his charm and his charisma and his ability to connect to people -- especially in a diplomatic, world-leader sense -- that gave him the ability to change the world. Neither Bush nor McCain have that charisma; Bush don't got it because he's too busy playing I Are Stupid Folksy Guy, and McCain don't got it because, well, I don't know. But he don't.

Sometimes I wonder if that isn't a big part of it. If Bush/Cheney/McCain/etal had a tenth the oration skills of a Reagan or a Bill Clinton, they would take diplomacy as the first route... because in doing so, they'd get results. Knowing their tongues are anything but silver, they skip the diplomacy rather than get shown up as the non-persuasive, non-skilled folks they are, or think they are, or agree that they are because their handlers said so. I dunno. I just suspect.

[rogue53.livejournal.com]

And have you seen the tax one? Where McCain forgets to mention that the taxes Obama wants are on the upper one to five percent of the country? Of course McCain doesn't want taxes on the rich, he's one of them. *sighs* Just... so... stupid... Sooner or later, doesn't he realize everyone's going to lash back at this type of ad? Is he hoping for later?

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

It's beyond stupid; I know to expect stupid from most political campaigns. Now it's just plain Rovian, and that disgusts me.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

And have you seen the tax one? Where McCain forgets to mention that the taxes Obama wants are on the upper one to five percent of the country?

I'm sorry. Do you really believe that it is possible to tax "the rich" without the effects also being felt severely by "the poor?" Whose investment do you think capitalizes the firms whose jobs provide the income for the working classes?

Of course McCain doesn't want taxes on the rich, he's one of them.

Whereas Obama is not rich?

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Hold on. I'm going to try to respond to that seriously, about taxes and income and capital. Wait, sorry. I can't.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Wow, you really did get suckered by the Reagan hype, didn't wake up for Bush 41's wisdom, and really did go hook-line-sinker for Bush43's absolute warping of Reaganomics, didncha. I'm not sure whether to be amused, or to... well, I'll stick with being amused. Better for my sanity, and besides, an economic treatise is not within the scope of this post.

I think it would be best if you simply ignored the rest of this thread, and recused yourself. You've proven you don't have any interest in discussing the meat of the issue: political manipulation of hand-picked, badly-culled out-of-context quotes to give an impression counter to the original quote's intentions regardless of origin. You've not posited additional examples of Rovian tactics used by others (which would have been acceptable as a corrollary-type answer to my post), but instead have gone into a defensive crouch.

I could overlook it once, but I'm not interested in more. The audience here is not interested, and my journal is not your soapbox. For this specific topic, however, you are clearly not objective enough to refrain from attempting to hijack my post, and I don't appreciate it, nor do I appreciate having to remind you, or anyone, of basic etiquette.

There is no need to reply. There are plenty of other topics I discuss in other posts, and to which you are welcome to participate. But for this one, I think it's best if you sit it out. Thank you.

[windsorblue.livejournal.com]

Did I mention before about hating John McCain? Did I? I think maybe I didn't properly plumb the depths of that hatred.

And also, his wife is a trashy whore who couldn't keep her hands off a married man. THERE, I SAID IT. SOMEONE HAD TO.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Trust me, the depths of my disgust are rapidly reaching an equivalence with your hatred. In the end, it's probably the same thing, I suppose.

[kraehe.livejournal.com]

That's disgusting.

Here's another one (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/08/unsubtle.html), as discussed by Slacktivist. Apparently there's a dog-whistle ad that directly plays on the Left Behind books, painting Obama as the Antichrist figure from the books.

Pretty scary stuff.

I'd love to see Rove drown in a vat of his own poison. And I'm very sad that McCain has seen fit to hire that sort of person to run his campaign.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Ahehehehe, great review of the ad, and boy, it makes a lot more sense as a dogwhistle than as an ad on its own -- on its own, it's positively a freaking parody. That's what I thought it was, at least, first time I saw it. I honestly can't recall any time in my life when a political ad was so freaking blatant a reference to religion. It's usually an undercurrent, sure, but man, this time around -- he's muslim! he's not! he's christian! -- it's nearly a talking point in and of itself.

We've come a long long long way, and fallen pretty damn far, since the days of John Kennedy giving a speech to reassure the American people that although he was Catholic, that his religion would not impinge on his ability to perform his duties to the best of his ability... and now we have politicians telling us about their religion and faith as justification for their claim they'd do a good job. Turns my stomach, it does.