Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Scape Goats R Us

Remember when I said what a bad man Charlie Black was? It seems like his lobbying firm never met an evil dictator they didn’t like. And lobby congress on behalf of.

Charlie’s in a spot of trouble for saying in a Fortune Magazine profile on McCain, that if there were to be another attack on the US, then it would be a “big advantage” for McCain in the election, because, as Fortune Magazine (apparently in lockstep with the McCain campaign) puts it, “on national security, McCain wins.” Black attributed McCain’s primary victory in New Hampshire to the bump he got after he reassured troubled New Hampshireites following the apparently devastating assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

Say what? Who knew that those hardy New Englanders were such delicate flowers, that their vote could hinge on what some old codger had to say about the killing of a former leader of Pakistan? I mean, it’s Pakistan, for pete’s sake. Aren’t they pretty much killing someone important there every week?

Black was later forced to apologize, and McCain was forced to do the “what? who? why, I don’t even know that dude” dance.

I got a couple of thoughts on this:

  1. Black should apologize all right. He should apologize for saying that McCain beats Obama on national security. Or is he not aware that his candidate doesn’t know which side of the whole Sunni v. Shi’a throwdown that al Qaeda is even on?
  2. Does this whole thing smell suspiciously like we’ve just stepped in a big pile of Andrew Card’s “you don’t introduce new products in August”?
  3. Perhaps the political season is making me paranoid, but I think this was no mistake. The narrative the Republicans have prepared for the media is that McCain wins on national security, and once they’ve established that narrative, then all that remains is creating the event, or the fear of the event, that will require voters to put our savior McCain in the Oval Office. And if a trusted campaign aide has to be discredited in order to establish that crucial media narrative, then so be it. That's what those guys are for.


dguzman said...

I fear you just hit the bullseye with Thought #3. They've been able to control the message (without any proof at all) that repugs are tough on terror, which then becomes public perception thanks to this ridiculously gullible populace. Then it's a piece of cake to frighten the shit out of the sheeple and voila! McFossilTeeth gets "elected."

Slam dunk.
Cake walk.
No one could've predicted.

vikkitikkitavi said...

It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. The Republicans claim that they are, in spite of evidence to the contrary, "tough on terror," the media repeats it, and the people believe it to be true, which validates the Republicans claiming it, and the media repeating it, etc. etc. IN PERPETUITY THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE.

Anonymous said...

Well, if you're paranoid, I'll save you a seat on the boat. There's lots of us here these days.

Dad E said...

This guy could be model for Duke in "Doonesbury"