| Before I do - the immediate question might be "why here?" Especially when I've forsworn being here? The answer is two-fold... being ticked off at one person doesn't make a very good reason to leave a community altogether, and here is where some people purport to have some inside influence.
The next question, of course is, so who cares what I think? Well - I'm going out on a limb here, and in grandiose fashion, declaring - everyone should, even if they don't. I'm one of those low-information voters, taking cues from the media. Despite being somewhat "tainted" by involvement in the blogosphere, and avidly following the campaign, I still retain some degree of "averageness" that I think has value. I think an argument that convinces ME has a very good chance of being convincing to a much broader audience.
OK. So what do I mean by "flyswatting?"
1. Palin is unvetted! Inexperienced!
There's probably a story there somewhere, but without the attendant narrative, it all looks like picking on Sarah Palin, who has already put her critics to shame (at least somewhat). The narrative is "John McCain played fast and loose with the nation - we're lucky it worked out as well as it has (to date) with Sarah Palin, but what other decisions is he going to make with such haste, and how much are we willing to trust his gambler instincts (maverick switched to gambler for the win)?" Until someone is ready to really go on that attack - all the dribble dribble about Sarah just builds her up, and makes our side look petty.
2. Sarah Palin didn't sell her plane on e-bay!
Um... so what? The bigger, more interesting story is - Sarah Palin got rid of the government waste! She TRIED to use e-bay, but anyway, she got rid of it! What's really to fuss with here? (Yes - I know the McCain camp lied about this, but on another site I'm a member of, people are very comfortably drawing a distinction between what Sarah said and what some others said. There's a very weak story there - McCain just met the woman, and doesn't know her story, so he flubbed it. But yeah - that's a very weak story).
3. Sarah Palin's husband is a secessionist!
I think this one should be picked up - but we already blew it at least somewhat, by claiming that SHE was a member, and then having to dial back the story. Given the fact that the corporate media doesn't seem inclined to help out here (and why should they, when Obama is going to raise their taxes, and lower ours, instead of the other way around?) doesn't it make better sense to do solid journalism and build a strong narrative on unassailable facts?
4. Sarah Palin wants to build a bridge to nowhere!
Yeah. She's a politician. For this to be any kind of interesting at all, we'd have had to really get attached to her as an anti-pork gal. While she's claiming she is, the public isn't attached to her as such. The public is attached to her as a tough girl. And the growing narrative is that she's tough FOR Alaska, without giving a flying hoot about anyone else. Might it be possible that she'd be tough FOR the US, without giving a flying hoot about anyone else? (Feeding this train of thought - Sarah Palin supports shooting wolves from helicopters. Why? Because it's good for Alaska!)
5. Sarah Palin is ultra-scary conservative!
Well, since poor folks in this country tend to be more conservative than not, especially on social issues, how is this argument any kind of help to our side? Is it because we hope that women will react strongly against her strong anti-abortion stands? I discuss that here: http://obamaproject.windonwate... and here: http://obamaproject.windonwate... This just isn't a slam dunk argument. Not all women are absolutely firm about this issue, and some probably won't ever be, because the issue is framed too starkly.
6. The ticket is turning into Palin-McCain instead of McCain-Palin!
Yeah, and? The republican base like her better than they like McCain. Unless there's a story to be told here, this is a non-issue. Why do we give a darn about this? I honestly don't know why this story is even in the news - and I'm wondering if maybe it was put out there to further enthuse the republicans.
7. Troopergate! Let's see. Mean lady tries to protect not-so-mean sister from mean ex-husband.
Yep - I know the point of this story is abuse of power - but unless we have any reason to believe that this is an ongoing abuse of power that will continue into the naval observatory, I'm not sure I care all that much. Should I care? Yeah, of course. Some guy's getting jerked over. OTOH - he sounds like a jerk, and maybe he had it coming.
Here's my point. Every one of these stories should have sunk her by now - but not one of them actually DID. Some of the reason is because people don't care, and some of the reason is because the media won't play water carrier for our side. We have known both of these realities right from the start - and we know that the only way around it is to find a way to tie it all together into a single, solitary narrative - easily captured by a single theme statement. Something like, "That's not change. That's just more of the same." That would be the equivalent of an insecticide BOMB, as opposed to the oddly futile swatting at one story after another.
Sarah Palin is a huge change - a tough girl on the republican ticket, tough, pretty, and totally believable as a real republican (and not just a republican wife - you know what I mean?)- so the theme has lost a lot of its resonance. It needs to be updated to incorporate Palin - and all of these individual storylines need to be tied into the single theme narrative. I know we know this already... is there a reason why we are not doing it?
QT |
STATE BLOGS
