McCainocrats

I watched a certain Republican strategist and UI Lecture series hecklee on C-Span’s Road to the White House this weekend. I’m reluctant to be specific here because I know that his name alone is enough to send some readers into a blind rage. Should I call him Rarl Kove? Does that make anyone angry? How about Snarl Stove? Gargamel? Maybe I’ll stick with his given name.

So, Turdblossom gave a lecture at George Washington University on Friday about the 2008 election. For the most part, he talked about Barack Obama and responded to several things that Obama has said in his speeches. Readers may be familiar with Obama’s repeated mentions of “Obamicans” – Republicans who approach him and whisper their support for his presidency. ‘He-who-shall-not-be-mentioned’ responded with, “What about the McCainocrats?”

Indeed, what about the McCainocrats? Certainly McCain has more support from Democrats than most Republicans, but he hasn’t given them a catchy name like Obama has for his Republican supporters. My sense is that we’ll see McCainocrats begin to surface in large numbers once the Democratic nominee is determined. I know many people who have declared their support for McCain if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, and I’m sure the same goes for many of her supporters if Obama secures the nomination.

McCain is in an interesting position right now. The media has practically ignored him, but that’s not a bad place to be while Obama and Hillary tear one another apart. He secured the Republican nomination early and hasn’t needed to lower himself to attacking his opponents. But not only has he not been on the attack, he’s gone out of his way to condemn recent attacks on Obama by Steve King and Bill Cunningham. He insists on having a civil campaign.

We shall see how that civil campaign strategy works out once he has a solid opponent, but McCain has nowhere to go but up. Conventional wisdom would suggest McCain needs to get back into the spotlight to gain support; campaigns rely on repetition and name recognition. The Democrats are getting the majority of the news coverage, and they may only hurt themselves if the smear campaigns continue. It’s still very early in the campaign, and I think McCain may have the right idea for now – Staying in the background, being a nice guy, and waiting for the McCainocrats to surface.

I also recommend Obama supporters watch the video of the Snarl Stove lecture. I realize how difficult that will be for you, but the majority of his talk is about Obama. It's a good indication of what's yet to come if Obama secures the nomination. Video can be viewed at C-Span's Road to the White House site.

Why David is Wrong

Okay, I've read several comments throughout the blogosphere expressing David Goodner's point of view about the Rove lecture, and I'm going to write this before I lose my cool. (You don't want me to lose my cool!) I'm going to start out - though I'm sure it will fall upon deaf ears on either side of Goodner's brain - by saying that I respect the opinions of the anti-war protesters, and their right to express it. Freedom of speech does not exist on a scale; there are no weights and measures involved. It is neither a punishment nor a reward, it's a constitutional right. I understand how the hecklers feel about Karl Rove, but the argument (directed toward me) "Your right to listen to a war criminal obfuscate the truth doesn't trump the rights of hundreds of other people to voice their opinions in the manner they deem fit" perplexes me. "In the manner they deem fit"? Who is setting the rules here? I, along with several hundred people, attended a lecture for its intended purposes. Others saw fit to set their own agenda, much to the displeasure of those of us who thought we were coming to a lecture. I suppose I could sit in my classroom and scream insults at my professors and claim I had the right to do it. I've paid thousands of dollars to this University, should I have the right to impede the education of others if I deem fit? [okay, technically I haven't paid thousands of dollars but I will be for the next twenty years or so.]

Better yet, can I go to the upcoming UIAC/IVAW event and scream insults at the Veterans as they speak out against the war? Perhaps the Lecture Committee should show up just to yell "Liar!" and "killer" to the veterans. Surely the UIAC wouldn't object if that's how they want to express themselves. Right?

Some people feel that Rove deserves their treatment toward him b/c of things he's done. This is where you're wrong. It is not for you to decide if Karl Rove is a war criminal or a murderer. Karl Rove may very well deserve any number of things; but you know what? Bull Connor and the Birmingham police deserved to have hoses and attack dogs turned on them, too. Look at any image from the Civil Rights movement and it is quite clear who is in the right and who is wrong. What is so amazing about Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement is that acts of civil disobedience exude such dignity and strength of character that the protesters never lowered themselves to the level of those they protest. A movement was built on raising awareness and rising above the situation. The minute the protesters act belligerent, aggressive or violent, it becomes difficult to tell who's who. David made the argument that Rove would've just lied and smeared the truth if they had allowed him to speak out. There's truth in that statement. But instead of allowing Rove to act in an undignified manner, the hecklers took it upon themselves to do so. I have no problem with the protests outside or before or after the event. (The Karl Rove with the giant check was entertaining & got everyone's attention.) My real complaint here is the interruptions throughout the lecture. And now I'm getting annoyed at these exaggerated comments being thrown around to defend them.

Another point I'd like to weigh in on is the supposed well thought out questions by the audience. A quote from David Goodner: "...he responded to a very reasonable and well-phrased question about iraqi civilian casualties by accusing the questionaire of libeling the troops. " Surely you're not referring to the question, "How many civilians do you estimate have died, and how many of those deaths are you responsible for?" The "questionaire" accused Rove of murder! You're upset b/c Rove accused him of libel? Please do not argue the point that it's okay b/c Rove IS guilty of murder. They are both accusations, and until you can prove it in a court of law, they are equally unwarranted.

Lastly, and this is the part that frustrates me the most, I can't believe I am defending Karl Rove. I understand that the UIAC always feels like they're on the defensive with the DI, but at the heart of this whole stupid, senseless argument about this unfathomable war - we actually all agree. We're arguing about methods of protest, what constitutes free speech, and what level of discourse is warranted. While we get upset and split hairs; there's a f-ing war going on. A war that - to the best of my knowledge - everyone on the DI opinions staff would like to be over tomorrow. We all hate this war. We disagree on when or how to leave, and we definitely disagree on how that sentiment is best expressed. Dammit. UIAC, I would love for there to be resolution the war in Iraq. I just can't get my head around your tactics. I attended the lecture not only to listen to Rove, but to observe. Sure, I didn't expect him to reveal any new information, but I would simply like a better understanding of the situation. Why is it more important to insult the guy than to let people watch him & make up their own minds if he's a liar or a killer?

Okay, Goodner - your turn. I have another question for you, too: What did you do before the War?