McCain's already got an ad based on the debate

[prog]

Uh... what? "Obama FAILS to DISAGREE with his OPPONENT on ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! Is THAT how a LEADER ACTS?! FAAAAILLLLLUHLUHLUH." Okay.

Comments

[gemini6ice.livejournal.com]

can we say CHERRY PICKING

[prog.livejournal.com]

Cherrypicking is one thing, but the cherry here seems to be "He's agreeing with his political opponent! THAT MEANS HE CANNOT LEAD!" And that's... I dunno what that is.

[radtea.livejournal.com]

Stupid? Childish? Immature? Senile?

[keimel.livejournal.com]

Just what the majority of the voting populace can understand.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Wow. That's...I think I'm with you. I don't know what that is. Especially since during the debate McCain accused Obama of being so far left that he can't work with Republicans.

Bear in mind, of course, that according to his ads, McCain had already won the debate at 10am on Friday. So.

[radiotelescope.livejournal.com]

This isn't worth it. Go look at Stealth Kitty some more.

[pseudomanitou.livejournal.com]

Here's the thing... you won't see this ad on TV. It's only for the neo-con base, and to get exposure when we post it around to bitch about it.

McCain won't get the independent vote with this kind of out-of-context crap. I think he's just base pandering so he doesn't lose in a landslide.

Plus... how did they get from 'Obama agreed with McCain soemtimes' to the ultimate conclusion of "he's not ready to lead'. Agreeing with McCain is poor leadership? WTF?

[radtea.livejournal.com]

Monkey psychology. Social primates are governed by the attention structure of the troop. The monkey that is most effective at holding the troop's attention is the alpha monkey. A key factor in holding the troop's attention is being utterly distinct from all the competing monkeys.

Disagreeing with everything your opponent says is necessary for total differentiation, which is necessary for "strong" leadership as defined by "having the undivided attention of the troop." If you agree with your opponent on anything, you risk dividing the troop's attention and are therefore not as "strong" as you might be.

Nations that have or aspire to "world empire" status tend to want "strong" leaders in this sense, although whether that's a cause or effect is not clear. Or maybe it's just an artefact of a presidential system. You see the same phenomenon in Russia.

England managed to fake the process out, back in the day, by having an iconic monarch with very little real political power. Modern India, with a largely symbolic president, seems to have pulled off something similar, and Commonwealth nations with Westminster-style parliaments under the nominal tutelage of the British Crown are also able to avoid it because the real power is vested in a Prime Minister who has to kow tow to parliament, so the visible concentration of power in the hands of a single monkey is very difficult, as Stephen Harper (current PM of Canada) is finding.

Humans, of course, are not quite monkeys, but we are still somewhat susceptible to this kind of nonsense when the conditions are right, as they seem to be in the modern US. Although this kind of argument will be far less persuasive to anyone who has an iota of genuine moral autonomy, which appears to be about half the American population.