PHILADELPHIA, WILMINGTON AND POINTS SOUTHEAST: COGNITIVE DISSONANCE ON RAILS?
Let me get this out first: I know BObama. I like BObama. I voted for BObama in the general election.
But I'm not sure I know the President-Elect. The PE is talking about shared sacrifices and service. Good, Noble Stuff. No problem with most of that.
Here's the problem: This is the same guy who actually ran a TV ad directing voters to a web page to put in their income and family size numbers so they could see HOW MUCH MONEY THEY WOULD GET.
So, is it "vote for me so we can go forward together?" or is it "vote for me so you can get some money?" Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me like "That was then. This is now."
posted by UMRBlog @ 12:52
2 comments
2 Comments:
Really? A seasoned political operative like yourself is surprised a politician would say or do anything to get elected? Just shocking, isn't it?
I think this is different in kind.
Going from "I'll get us right out of Gitmo" to "Oops, this is harder than I thought" is totally understandable and human nature.
Running on pure a pure personal financial pitch, then discussing some kind of noble, shared sacrifice is good news to the extent it abandons class warfare but it's bad in that it abandoned the reasons middle, class suburban voters, particularly voted for him.
Bush ran on "faith-based initiatives" and he stuck with them no matter how many of them blew up or got mad because they didn't get theirs.
This is kind of the opposite of that. I don't think I said I was surprised but I was unhappy with the crass campaign "turbotax" gambit. Maybe I should be happy with this because it's superior moral leadership. Still, I kind of like for elected people to be true to at least their broad principles and this isn't THAT.
TYFCB
Post a Comment
<< Home