An Anti-McCain Ad I’m Not Thrilled With

Courtesy The Caucus:

Believe it or not, I’m not thrilled with this ad, and not because it hits too hard or is a little below the belt. No, my opposition to this ad is that it’s not hard enough; it doesn’t go deep enough. The following little video gets closer, but it still falls short:

Listen. We need to go beyond Iraq on this. We need to go after the ideology. I think it is imperitive to look past the political liability for Republicans that Iraq has become and start making the argument that Iraq wasn’t an isolated incident, that these people are more than willing and capable of causing the same kind of disasters elsewhere in the world.

That’s what I want to see in these ads, not just that Iraq was a mistake, everyone knows that, but there needs to be a massive movement to explain to the electorate A) why Iraq was a mistake and B) that neoconservatism is just about doomed to repeat Iraq over and over again for as long as we keep voting these people in office.

We should round it all off with a nice C) that things here at home are only going to get worse with each following war that these people keep thrusting us into.

We already got a majority of Americans with us on Iraq being a bad thing, we need to quit flogging the dead horse and move on to the next argument.

 

2 Responses to “An Anti-McCain Ad I’m Not Thrilled With”

  1. Dynamic says:

    Don’t take this as criticism, because this just caught my eye and now I’m curious what your thoughts are on this particular turn of phrase. You said:

    “We already got a majority of Americans with us on Iraq being a bad thing, we need to quit flogging the dead horse and move on to the next argument.”

    And of course you’re absolutely right, we do. But I wonder why you said it that way, because to me it seems that the way you said that indicates that “we” have managed to get “a majority of Americans” to agree with us, which linguistically seperates us from the majority of Americans.

    In truth, WE ARE that majority.

    It’s obviously a small difference, and very subtle – I’m sure I’ve made similar statements with similar phrasing. But I think noticing that sort of language is critical to fighting the Republicans. They are experts at convincing Americans that the Republicans represent the whole country, and that Democrats are liberal elitists. And I think we subconsciously buy it – we feel like we’ve got a handle on things, and we don’t understand why “they” – the average American – doesn’t get it.

    But let’s face it – we ARE the average American. I’m a night club DJ on the weekends and I work retail during the week. You were a serviceman and now you have a regular desk job. We are not oil barons or Bill O’Reilly. We are as average as they come, and there’s no shame in that.

    Anyway, this is sort of a random tanget. 😆

  2. actually, you make a very valid point, a great point actually, and one that I just really liked.

    We’re going different ways on this, though, which is awesome because it means we’re covering more bases.

    My point is that, when we, and I mean we in a purely political we=those who are a part of an active political coalition, whether you want to talk Democrats or progressives, or, the strange liberal/libertarian coalition, whatever. That we needs to realize we’ve covered this ground and we need to press further.

    But you are also incredibly right. We, as in the majority of folks that are looking at Bush’s administration as a failure (69 dudes!), are average America.

    No Oil Barons working here, as far as I know.!

    Good comment.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Anatomy of “100 Years” | Comments from Left Field - [...] uproar, of course, stems from a recent DNC ad that I myself wasn’t particularly thrilled with.  Of course, my…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook