Below is my commentary on the politics behind this hastily crafted, but devastating video released
by the Obama campaign today about John McCain, the Keating Five
Scandal, and the broader issue of the deregulation of America's banking
industry. (Click here to see the website the Obama campaign set up to present the video.)
There are certain American icons, John Wayne for instance, that we
prefer to remember for the character they played — rather than the
person they might have been behind closed doors. I feel the same way
about John McCain.
In this election, no one wanted to see a contest between Senator
Obama and the real John McCain. America would have preferred a contest
between Senator Obama and the character John McCain plays on TV: the
"maverick," the "reformer," the 20th century war icon. Personally, I
feel confident Obama could have defeated either one.
This may be why you have not heard anything from the Obama campaign about John McCain and the Keating Five Scandaluntil
today. It was the weapon they preferred not to use. There were
strategists inside the Obama camp who wanted to drop this bomb on
McCain from the start (it is now a much BIGGER bomb in light of the
current Mortgage Banking Crisis that so closely mirrors the Savings and
Loan Scandal that frames The Keating Five). But by sending Sarah Palin
out to call Barack Obama a terrorist in her latest memorized stump
speech, John McCain has given Obama strategists the excuse to release this 13 minute video that demolishes the character McCain plays on TV, simply by exposing its genesis.
When John McCain was implicated in the Keating Five Scandal, he had
been caught red-handed, using his position as a member of Congress to
enrich himself, his wife, and his friends. He was so humiliated that he
spent the next 20 years trying to atone for it, making it a personal
crusade to accuse others of the same or similar improprieties,
anointing himself the "maverick" of the U.S. Senate by ruffling
feathers in his own party (in general Republicans are against ethics
reform).
In his 20-years of playing a maverick on TV, John McCain has in many
ways become the icon he aspires to be. Certainly in the eyes of
millions of Americans, he is that man. In this way, McCain reminds me
of the infamous televangelist Jimmy Swaggart,
the man who's sexual appetite was so shameful and tortuous, he spent
his lifetime lecturing others about it. Swaggart exposed two other
televangelists for sexual improprieties, ruining their careers, only to
himself be caught in an airport hotel with a prostitute. Swaggart's
tearful "I have sinned against you" performance earned him forgiveness
from his followers and saved his own career. Then he was caught with
another prostitute three years later and that was that.
I have no quarrel with Swaggart's penchant for prostitutes, but I do
have a concern about John McCain's role in the two largest banking
meltdowns in American history, each of which cost American taxpayers
billions and billions of dollars. So, perhaps it was appropriate, in
light of the Mortgage Banking Crisis, to draw obvious comparisons to
McCain and the Savings and Loan Scandal from 20 years ago.
The sad part is, it wasn't necessary. If McCain had stuck to the
issues just a little bit more, instead of building his campaign around
calling Obama a traitor and a terrorist, the media would have been more
than happy to give McCain a free pass on a past sin that he has done
much to atone for. But now that the Obama campaign is talking about The
Keating Five, the media is forced to talk about it.
I had hoped the average American would remember John McCain as a
"maverick" who lost his bid to become President in 2000, and then tried
again in 2008, the year Obama made history.
Now, he may instead be remembered as the Jimmy Swaggart of Senate corruption and billion dollar banking scandals.
Heh. Keep yawning and just ignore my very pertinent points.
Don't cry when Obama loses. Don't say I told you so. Obama needs to respond to the stuff we don't know about him more than McCain needs to about Keating (and, don't look now, but, that "brilliant" chess move by Obama has pretty much reached the end of its very, very short course. Another few million badly spent on a McCain smear that has quickly failed. You gotta wonder how many millions Obama will waste as president if he's willing to lose that much on a short-lived smear?).
I'm a voter that Obama can get to vote for him. And he doesn't seem to want to persuade me.
If Obama loses the election? You'll come back to The Man's posts to see how he predicted why Obama'd lose.
Yawn Yawn if you are so proud of McCain then lets see your face "Mr.Invisible Man"Just admit you are on the McCain campaign because I can admit I'm on the Obama campaign so I am proud to show my face
Oh yeah....why is McCain stealing Obama's "change theme" ?At least I'm smart enough to think of something original like DIFFERENCE OR A NEW DIRECTION but desperate times for desperate measures for Republicans ....stealing as usual.
I AM getting a bit more about what Obama is about (good and bad :) ) from Eric's 'site, though, so, Mr. Byler's pretty much doing his part in . . . helping to inform about Obama.
If that's the case, then, Obama really can't counter a George W. Bush decision to start withdrawing troops now. Honestly, though, Obama has nothing to worry about . . . looks like NO troop withdrawal will happen before Election Day.
Doesn't mean that Obama's off the hook, though, does it? Seems very much so that he, at some point, was involved with the idea of delaying troop withdrawal until AFTER the election. I got two sources for you (there are many more online and not just by Republican or Right-leaning sources):
Here's one -- http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?&page=1
Even CNN, they who tend to be more biased toward Obama than anything else: can't make a decision about it (their verdict: "in dispute." You'd figure, if they loved this guy so much, they'd just out-and-out -- and, quite easily, I might add; they're not afraid to show their mostly left-wing bias on a daily, if not hourly, if not minute basis -- say that Obama wanted to delay U.S. troop withdrawals as "false"; they chose not to do so. Maybe they think there's some truth to the matter, then): http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/11/fact-check-did-obama-try-to-seek-a-delay-in-us-iraq-talks/
And if you care so much about stem cell research? MCCAIN's for it and not just Obama as I'm supposed to led to believe here, right, HusYourMommy? Don't take my word for it: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_stem_cell_spinning.html
By the way, "FactCheck.Org" is non-partisan. OK?
And you wanna talk about a voting record? How about the more than 90 votes that Obama cast to raise taxes on the American people -- this is something he hasn't denied in debate. Obama keeps talking about change, but, he has NEVER voted against the wishes of his party. The Democratic party is not "change." When Obama talks about change he's talking about the change he will bring, despite partisanship . . . yet he has voted with his Democratic fellows ALL of the time. Never an argument from him against them. THAT's change? No. That's more of the same.
Who did Obama choose for his running mate? Joe Biden -- the same kind of U.S. Senate lifer that Obama complains about in McCain. Like I said: Obama doesn't seem to want change. I just see more of the same.
All of the above is just the tip of the iceberg when I question, "who IS Obama"? I really don't know. I don't know enough to vote for him.
And, uh, one last thing that I simply MUST comment upon, with regard to what I quoted from you, above (I'll do it again:
HusYourMommy
posted on Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008 12:17AM
"Hey Invisible Man the reason you can't show your face is your embarassed by your stupidity.")
I'M "stupid"? Your first instance of "your," above, SHOULD be spelled "you're." Did you commit that same error on essays in school, HusYourMommy? C'mon, admit it. Oh, and you misspelled something else: "embarrassed" and not "embarassed" as you've written.
HusYourMommy
posted on Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008 12:17AM:
"Hey Invisible Man the reason you can't show your face is your embarassed by your stupidity."
Hhaha, what petty comments. Keep 'em coming, HusYourMommy . . . all of that just gives me a nice gauge of your character (and intelligence; more on that later). And I have to wonder if you've ever READ Ellison's "Invisible Man" (I have. Twice. By the way, I know there's a sci-fi' version, but, you simply MUST know the implications of calling someone else "Invisible Man." I can't be responsible for you quite possibly not knowing Ralph Waldo Ellison's great novel). You just very might well find yourself embarrassed if you knew the implications of calling me -- I mean, based on what I've seen you call me -- an "Invisible Man." Not trying to make trouble. Just making an observation here. Go read that book if you haven't and, well, you tell me if what you think about me should be in tandem with the "invisible man" in Ellison's great novel. If I'm worthy enough to be that character, in other words.
Responding to your list, though, now, first of all, you see, YOU've brought up something in none other than your first mention of why you think I should vote for Obama, an item that will possibly prevent me from voting for Obama in your conjecture: "1.He wants to get the troops out of Iraq." That conjecture has me wondering. After all, I keep hearing that he met with Iraqi officials to possibly DELAY any troop withdrawal until AFTER the election. And the reason why is -- we don't need to bust out our old calculus books to figure out why -- that if Obama's saying "do you want four more years of Bush?"
OK Mr "Invisible" Man here's why I am supporting Obama
1.He wants to get the troops out of Iraq
2.He wants stem cell research
3.He's pro choice on abortion
4.He's for the middle class which his been demoted to "lower class" in Republican eyes
5.He cares more about education than McCain
6.His idea on community service for college education is brilliant.
7.The man tells it like it is AND IS NOT PLAYING "POLITICAL GAMES" started by Bush.
The fact that McCain said he agrees with Bush 90 percent of the time says it all for me.The" original maverick" LMAO!
Hey Invisible Man the reason you can't show your face is your embarassed by your stupidity.
McCain and Palin get grilled, and I'm glad to see it; I'm glad to see when they get confused about it and when they can answer clearly because they doing that TELLS me about them. But, Obama is treated with kid gloves by the mainstream media, he never gets asked tough questions (don't mention O'Reilly, because that was only ONE time) and you have to wonder why. As president, the press will no longer be able to shield him like they are doing now. Explain the overall non-confrontational questions by the press, HusYourMommy and any of you pro-Obama-ists. No investigations by the mainstream media.
Explain why someone who asks tough questions of Obama or wants to know more about his past is sometimes (and I'm being reserved here by just saying "sometimes" because it seems to happen in MANY instances) automatically -- AUTOMATICALLY -- called a "racist." Example: anybody who wants Obama to explain his association with Will Ayers is automatically labeled a "racist"? C'mon. Give me a break.
Heh. So, I don't show my face. Ohhhh, that's supposed make me cry or something? Why you wanna stare at me or something, HusYourMommy? Awwwwww. Here, here's an explanation -- I'm too damn handsome. Byler'd have to pay to have my mug on here, hahahah. You stepped into THAT one, HusYourMommy. What do YOU like about Obama, HusYourMommy. C'mon, don't just insult those, like me, who have solid queries about Obama. YOU should say, solidly, why you like Obama. Actual, solid reasons why he'd make a good president. Like I said, I'm not sure who I will vote for yet. Convince me. Does he not need my vote?
At least I'm dropping some knowledge here. Another thing I can't stand about Obama supporters is how they "boo-hoo-boo-hoo," cry tears of joy like Obama's the answer to it all. C'monnnnnn. No matter how convincing his policies may be, he's gonna have to struggle as president like how every other president has had to do. I hope you pro-Obama-ists don't end up hating on him, you know, if he decides to raise your taxes, for example.
Obama will need EVERY vote (don't believe those polls, now).
P.S. and, uh, yes, looks like I deleted my previous comment by mistake. Really. Wasn't deliberate. Why would I delete such brilliance on purpose? What can I say? "whoops"? Heh.
Oh, so, you're gonna focus on my deleting my previous comment instead of addressing the above, you pro-Obama-supporters?!?!?
C'monnnnnn, this is your chance to convince an undecided like The Man.
HusYourMommy
posted on Friday, Oct 10, 2008 6:04AM
"Oh yeah isn't McCain the number 1 or 2 accepting money from Fannie/Freddy Mac?I heard after the bailout it will be named JOHNNY MAC-CAIN!"
[response in two parts]
HusYourMommy, c'mon, now. You cannot ignore the facts (I'll link an objective source that you can see, clear as day, who, between Obama and McCain, accepted more Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign funds; WAYYYYYY more Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign funds and you'll see it ain't McCain who took more) -- it's Obama that is in, not just the top 5, but, the TOP THREE politicians who received campaign funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If you don't believe me, look at this objective (not Democrat- or Republican-biased or -leaning) source: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html . You can see, quite clearly, Barack Obama accepting a total of $126,349 ($6,000 from PACS -- the type of special interest groups that he speaks against in his campaign stops and $120,349 from individuals). Don't take my word for it -- look it up. Lemme repeat: this is FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC money that Obama has decided to accept. 354 lawmakers (yes, INCLUDING McCain -- but, look where he is on the list! WAAAAYYYYYYY down) and Barack Obama is the # 2 recipient of funds from this failure of a program; one that'll tax taxpayers and their children for near forever.
I've said before that I don't know who I'm voting for president yet. But, there are just too many unresolved questions about Obama for me to vote for him. I cannot understand the pro-Obama-ists who support how the mainstream media agree, overall, to not ask Obama certain questions. To not hammer Obama on Will Ayers (and every pro-Obama-ist I've mentioned this to gets tongue-tied; do YOU have an answer for Obama's association with this Ayers, HusYourMommy? Besides the played-out "Obama was only 7 years old when Ayers was doing his offenses" [an argument that is laughable]?)? How come the mainstream media doesn't ASK Obama about his # 2 position on the aforementioned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac list?
You got that right Mr. Hu. I'm waiting for McCain to come out and claim he is part African American and can shoot a three pointer when the pressure is on.
The "original maverick" who wants"change" LOL!Next he will say he's a liberal black man!I love how the commercial says he's anti-GOP isn't that who you are representing in this election "McBush"I swear Republicans live in the Matrix.
Eric Byler(1972年1月15日出生)是美國電影導演、編劇家和政治激進主義人士。他是混血兒,母親是美籍華裔,父親是美國白人。他在維吉尼亞、夏威夷(在當地的茂納魯亞高中學習)和加州長大。1994年他從衛斯廉大學畢業,主修電影。現居維吉尼亞Charlottesville。
_________________________________
Roger Ebert對《Americanese》(IFC Fills 2007年秋發行)的影評
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060330/REVIEWS/603300302
Roger Ebert對《Charlotte Sometimes》(Visionbox Pictures 2003年發行)的影評
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030502/REVIEWS/305020301/1023
BLOG評論 (14)