13 August 2008

A Freudian Ball Gown?

Instapundit quotes Newsweek (actually, a Newsweek blog) as follows:
But are there enough rank-and-file Republicans whispering their support at Obama rallies to actually make a difference on Election Day? As I discovered from examination the last 18 months of head-to-head general election polls, the answer seems to be "no." In fact, John McCain's share of the Democratic vote has typically--and surprisingly--been larger than Obama's share of the Republican vote. In other words, it's not that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright scared the Obamacan masses off, as some pundits have theorized--it's that they never existed (in any unprecedented way) to begin with. (Emphasis added)
Think about how far up inside the msm/Democrat cocoon you'd have to be to be surprised that John McCain has cross-over appeal. John McCain's claim to fame is that he doesn't toe the party line and that he works with even the most liberal Democrats; the man's nickname is Maverick, for crying out loud. There was a time when Newsweek knew this.

All this reminds me of 2004. The Democratic Party knew that the Presidency was theirs for the taking. After all, no one who voted for Al Gore would vote for George Bush, that election-stealing, war-mongering idiot. (They literally believed that not one person would switch from Gore to Bush; they said so incessantly.) All they had to do to seal the deal was attract a few Republicans who, they knew from their personal conversations with their friends, were just as disgusted with Bush as they were. Their strategy, then, was to nominate John Kerry, who was a veteran. Republicans love veterans; even Republicans hate Bush; John Kerry strolls to the Presidency in a land-slide. To this day, they believe that the only reason that didn't work was scurrilous lies about Kerry's war record from those unscrupulous Republicans. Thus, the logic for 2008 seems to be: Bush is a Republican; McCain is a Republican; even Republicans hate Bush; Republicans will therefore hate McCain; Obama is charismatic; Republicans love charisma; Obama strolls to the presidency in a landslide. And Obama has no record to be scurrilous about.

During the Cold War, conservatives would discuss whether the Soviets were lying about the United States, or if they actually believed the nonsense they were spouting. The answer was a little of both, but it didn't really matter. When the contradictions between reality (the US was burying the USSR) and the myth (the USSR would bury the US) became too wide to ignore, it didn't matter whether the Soviets knew that their myths were all lies. The msm and the Democratic Party, so far, are showing an impressive ability to ignore reality when it contradicts their cherished myths.


Anonymous said...

I almost posted on a related topic today, but I'll pollute your weblog instead.

I find it doubly striking that members of the Democratic Party that don't like Obama don't like him because he's too far left, and therefore might well vote for McCain, while GOP types who don't like McCain don't like him because he's too far left, and therefore are very unlikely to vote for Obama. Old Media simply can't see that, because they're so far left themselves. They just see Republicans who don't like McCain and presume a mirroring that is not there.

Harry Eagar said...

I think that makes sense, except that in November the economy will trump all.

But if somehow people are not scared stiff about their jobs/houses/etc. in October, then, yeah.

I don't know if it's that Old Media can't see it. Old Media covers a lot of territory.

Part of it is the lack of seriousness of the political reporters who. by this stage of the process, are all punchdrunk. Look at the kinds of things they think are worth reporting: Paris Hilton, Hawaii vacations.

I gotta tell you, anybody who thinks that Americans will react negatively to somebody taking a vacation in Hawaii is out of touch. Not because of leftism, though.