Thursday, October 16, 2008

Is John McCain Losing It?

By Robert Parry
October 16, 2008

One danger of a political campaign is not just losing an election, but losing one’s dignity, becoming a laughingstock or a caricature. After three flailing debate performances – including Wednesday night’s twitchy anger – that is a danger now confronting John McCain.

Read on.

3 comments:

marcials said...

Have to confess I lifted this from another comment page last night. This would have been such a rich time for Mencken, Ivins, Bill Hicks. sigh...
"His distinguishing mark is the fact that he always attacks his opponents, not only with all arms, but also with snorts and objurgations—that he is always filled with moral indignation—that he is incapable of imagining honor in an antagonist, and hence incapable of honor himself." - H.L. Mencken:

HeyMissSuze said...

Two things(out of the several)really worry me about the next few days.

The first is the nature of the 'October Surprise.' I am still suspecting a military emergency of some sort, although the suggestion of a terrorist attack helping McCain's chances has already been broadcast. Plenty of people would be suspicious. I have heard that Obama is enough in the lead that such an event will not make enough of a difference to "win", but the Right-Wing gimmicks in the 2000 and 2004 attacks were also not enough to make that difference by themselves - they just provided believable "reasons" (cover stories) for the actual election theft. It is classic perception management.

The other worry is the threats against Obama coming from McCain rallies. I wonder if these are actually extremely violent people or "plants" sent in by Rove and the others managing McCain's campaign to stir up emotion, perhaps with the hope of inciting a tragedy or a riot.

This is a fascist regime that wants to maintain its agenda and its secrets. They may not be inclined to maintain our long tradition of a peaceful transfer of power. We cannot put anything past them. I am hoping that Obama is taking EVERY precaution, for himself and his family.

Ward said...

Yes, terrorism is defined as attacking civilian targets to effect political action. Places like Dresden and Hamburg (attacked by a Democrat president) (not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki, attacked by his successor) and Hanoi and everyplace else in southeast Asia (attacked by a Republican president) come to mind. Nobody from Iraq (or Iran) has ever made an attack on the United States. Most of the suspects (funny how passports are unharmed, while the passenger and the plane and the building are toast -- somebody's gonna have to do research on those magic materials, since the first passport I had burned as brightly as my draft card in the recruiter's ashtray over a third of a century back) were said to be from the permanent US ally Saudi Arabia, as was Osama bin Ladin.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. If the Party hadn't voted Barr for the candidate I might still be a libertarian. As it is, I am a free market anarchist (not one of the communists who call themselves anarchists at places like Seattle). Hang every politician. There are plenty of lampposts lining the DC Mall. Use them properly for a real change.

I will vote for neither McClown nor Obamalamadingdong. If I remember the polls are open, I may write in Ron Paul. But my preference is to ignore the gang warfare that is called democracy (there are more of us than there are of you, so do what we say or we'll kill you).