- Date published:
3:40 pm, November 29th, 2011 - 26 comments
Categories: dpf, us politics - Tags: poodles, whaleoil
In trivia news over in the US at present, there is the unedifying sight of the right trying to portray themselves as victims. From the Economist blog “Democracy in America” on Mitt Romney’s political ad:
The ad, as we all know by now, shows Barack Obama saying “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”, without noting that the clip dates from the 2008 campaign rather than the present, and that Mr Obama’s line was in fact “Sen. McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.’” This is a ridiculous distortion.
Now this is all pretty much on a par for Mitt Romney who looks to be a bit of a political liability. I’d normally just ignore it except for this analogy to the local political scene.
Throughout the election our two local National poodles have been trying to portray Labour as the “nasty party”. This is a meme that was just ignored by Labour and by virtually every other intelligent commentator. But it is part of the “victim” ethos that some idiots on the right try to cover themselves with.
For instance in 2008, Cameron Slater tried to attack my previous employer for no other reason than one of my servers was still listed as being a secondary DNS server to them. There are many other people he has attacked for what appears to be no more than bilious reasons or because someone sicced the mutt on to them. David Farrar usually yaps around the edges in his politely ineffectual style while trying to look nice and clean. Yet any attack on them is invariably described as being nasty or the like…. It is a common trait on the right.
So read the following for how daft this “victim” meme gets for the right.
Meanwhile, I think this week’s “false equivalency award” should go to Ken Rudin on NPR’s “It’s All Politics“, who in response to co-host Ron Elving came up with this gem:
Ken Rudin: I still think the DNC hysterics over the Romney ad are way over the top.
Ron Elving: Well maybe the DNC hysterics are over the top, but an awful lot of journalists also pounced on this and said, this is the very first ad Mitt Romney has put out as a presidential candidate in 2012, and this is the way he chooses to represent his opponent. What kind of signal does that send about the kind of campaign that Mitt Romney’s planning to run?
Ken Rudin: Look at the campaign President Obama is running, running around the country saying how deceitful the Republicans are! So it’s going to be a dirty campaign, we know that.
So Mr Romney lied about Mr Obama, but Mr Obama called Mr Romney deceitful! Really, both sides share the blame for the dirty campaigning here.
Yep, that is right way of campaigning. Take your own behavior and start saying it is the other guy wot was doing it – and it is all their fault…. If someone criticizes you, then start saying that they’re “nasty”
Just sounds like a Whale of a technique doesn’t it*
* Mind you, the fool would be just following the example of John Key who was harassing Phil Goff about “show me the money”, when in 2008 John Key notably didn’t have a single credible figure to back up their mysterious bullet point “policies”. Consequently we’ve been borrowing money to pay for those stupid policies ever since.
And then there’s tactics like this.
Recently, Karl Rove’s political action committee released an ad attacking Elizabeth Warren, who is challenging Scott Brown for a Senate seat in Massachusetts. It is a nasty hit, linking her to “extreme left” Occupy Wall Street protesters who “attack police, do drugs, and trash public parks.” At one point the words “Professor Elizabeth Warren” are stamped onto the screen like an indictment. Warren comes across as an effete and slightly deranged liberal professor.
This type of attack-by-association, painting a candidate as way too fringe for a civilized electorate, is a popular trope of negative political advertising, employed against male and female candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike. But in recent years it has been used to particularly devastating effect against women running for office. Voters tend to “assume a female candidate is a protector of social values, a custodian of the family,” says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who directs the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center. Linking a woman to radical counterculture forces can therefore make her seem that much more deviant and threatening.
Typical of the RWNJs, project their own fallibilities that they don’t want to admit having onto others.
From a NZ perspective, nothing is as creepy as the right’s tendency towards stalking behaviour – for example a commenter here having their employer contacted by some fuckwit, or the monitoring of tweets and background checks of studio audience members.
Not to mention key using suicide and the murdoch press as comparisons in the tea-time recording saga.
I’ve missed the definition here. Are we saying that questioning the ideas and statements of your opponent is nasty? Are we saying that lying is nasty? I thought lying was either stupid (easily proven to be a lie) or inadvertant (speaker flubbs or gets a number wrong). Lying can be purposeful mis-information (see Herald on any given day). To reach nasty you have to move off the scale of everyday fibs and transgress some generally upheld cultural boundary of the status quo. Lying is usually the backstop of those who only have a vague idea of what they’re arguing.
Nasty in my book is as above, behind the scenes dirt digging; trying to cast doubt on a candidate by referencing behaviour of friends or family etc; and clandestine bullying/blackmail. Once you start saying that a person is something because someone they once met does drugs, there are so many degrees of seperation that the effort is ridculous rather than nasty. The personal attacks on H.Clark were nasty; as were those on Don Brash. Sue Bradford also got some hard knocks. All of them would say they have tough skins. It’s hard to hold the moral high ground when the basic principle of your own actions support those of your adversary.
It’s the behaviour of Punch of the Punch and Judy shows. Punch is the bully but when confronted instantly turns into a whining victim. John Key’s Administration,poodles et al, is a nasty puppet show.
Spot on observation marsman. Key even sounded like Punch with his ‘show us the money, show us the money’ frenzied cackle. I can just see and hear this line introduced and fitting perfectly with another showing of Punch on a wet, windy,pebbly beach in Britain. He certainly has the nose of Punch as well as the growing nose of Pinocchio, another well known puppet and wooden head.
Sure, Whaleoil is a lunatic and its a bit stupid of him to call other people nasty.
But if you wont accept that the hysterical tribalism of people like Clare Curran, Darian Fenton and Carmel Sepeloni turns people off, and that this image played some part in Labours campaign loss then you are simply refusing to hold people on your own side of the political spectrum accountable. That wont get you anywhere.
What hysterical tribalism are you talking about?
well i was going to comment and say something like a blokey Mp can pretty much get away with watching porn in hotel rooms late at night but an ‘ultra femanist hold over’ who look a bit dowdy, dresses in black, crap hair style and thinks twitter is it…comes off second best when compared to a slick presented Woman Nat. The voting public these days are more concerned with style and image. brand and perception than policy, message and coalface work history…oh wait i did.
I note that you didn’t state any example of them being nasty. But that you selected three woman MP’s I do find rather interesting. Personally I suspect that has more to do with the rights attitudes towards woman who “don’t know their place” than anything else.
I routinely operate in a far more “nasty” way than any of them because I am rather blunt in my opinions, and I have a simple visible objective of defending and expanding this site. But of course I am not vulnerable or even that interested in idiot incompetents. I look at what people do rather than what they waffle about and I am pretty immune to sales pitches – I did enough of them to know the shape. It doesn’t matter if it is in the blogs, work, politics, family, friends, or whatever
But that wasn’t what thepost was about. It is pretty easy to find examples of Cameron over the years acting like an arsehole, having David yapping along behind. It is also pretty damn easy to find examples of both of them being upset when someone does anything similar to them. They are the epitome of what I consider is the right’s assumption that what they insist others should do is not what they should do as well.
The right idiot in the quote above looks just like these two hypocrites.
I have just heard Fatty Garner keeping up the ‘nasty’ meme… Blood on the streets in a leadership battle he’s been predicting – oh they’re nasty and vicious! (Mind, I am very sorry to see Phil and Annette making his prophecy true. 🙁 )
vicky 32. garner is just a piece of shit anyway. thats why they empoloy him.
Oh, absoutely! He’s loathsome…
I agree Vicky32 – the way he was positively salivating and rubbing his grubby hands with unabashed glee wanted me to grasp for the barf bucket – he really is the pits. Come back Jane Young – you are sorely missed.
He does the political news. This sort of story is their bread and butter.
Fat piece of shit
you forgot the FAT m8
Another reminder of the connections politicians have with the 1%.
Two weeks ago, a leaked secret memo written by a Republican lobbying firm, Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford, outlined an $850,000 plan for the American Bankers Association (ABA) to combat the growing resonance of the Occupy Wall Street movement’s message — that we need an economy that works for everyone, not just the wealthiest 1 Percent. (The ABA claims the smear campaign proposal was unsolicited and that they decided not to act on it.) Today, Politico Influence reports that one of the four masterminds of the proposed smear campaign, Republican lobbyist Sam Gelduldig, will be co-hosting a Young Professionals for Mitt Romney fundraiser in Washington D.C on December 14. Before becoming a lobbyist Geduldig was a top adviser to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). This year, Geduldig has lobbied on behalf of various finance industry clients, including the ABA, Financial Services Roundtable, Financial Services Forum, MasterCard, American Insurance Association, and Koch Industries (which engages in significant commodities trading activities)
It’s common projection – a normal and predictable reaction to subjugated guilt. Fully cognisant of having campaigned to inflict further misery and degredation on the most vulnerable and helpless, and now bound to enact it. The grating, squealing soundtrack to the inherent Rightist contradiction: employing base animalistic actions while claiming superior humanity.
It’s just not correct to compare our media with poodles. Poodles are ultra-smart and classy, and they pick things up like magic!! Our media are much more like pugs – lazy, don’t do anything, have very limited intelligence, and are unable to savage anyone! Sounds much more like the MSM to me! Hope the pugs of this world aren’t too offended!
Don’ know about that Hami, Duncan ‘pug’ Garner savages anyone even slightly left.
I think he has an abhorramce of the pink/red colour spectrum, unless it’s blood, judging by his horrid little report tonight. Probably frightened by something red, like a ‘stop’ sign when he was a mere infant pug, and has now turned into a rabid pud; although still lazy, doesn’t do much and appears pretty limited in high functioning intelligence, just as you described.
Garner’s leaving TV3 so I heard! Paddy Gower is much better than Dunc-a-pug!
Oh some good news Now as long as they replace him with someone who does not show Bias to either one or the other side. Now what about the other half of the ‘Fatpollie’ team Plonker is he going as well.
That Whaleshit slob is revolting…sounds nasty but is a mild description. I’ve tried to read the crap he specialises in but its so whacked I have trouble shrinking my brain to the required size in order to appreciate it.
Saw on telly a piece pre-election with Slater and Bomber and the chip on Slaters shoulder was so off-putting I’m surprised any network would value his input. Cant be good for ratings having such low calibre knuckle-dragging dregs on the screen. Bomber on the other hand was polite and appeared taken-a-back by the surly behaviour of SlaterSlob.
Not only that he opitimised the knuckle dragging moron.
“Yep, that is right way of campaigning. Take your own behavior and start saying it is the other guy wot was doing it – and it is all their fault…. If someone criticizes you, then start saying that they’re “nasty”
Just sounds like a Whale of a technique doesn’t it.”
Would just like to add that the above is precisely the default response of a psychopath whenever someone calls them out on something. They have others, and can switch between them in a heartbeat; I’ve seen it in the flesh it’s quite something. But “start saying that they’re nasty” is their stock delivery. Just sayin’.
It’s not just an effective manipulation technique, it’s also a refelction of the psychopath’s underlying childish “I decide what reality is, you are contradicting me, you are hurting my reality, that’s mean, you are a bad thing” world.
have you noticed how all the polticial reporters are all obese or nearly obese.
I guess they can get away with having their snouts in the bellamy’s trough without being called into question.