Here's the promised argument I received by e-mail about why I shouldn't have posted an item two days ago which I titled "Osama bin Palin." (The idea was that both Palin and bin Laden want to force their world-view on others, though they use different means.)
"The problem with this pointed association of the ideology of Sarah Palin to Osama bin Laden is that - so far as we know - Sarah Palin has only threatened to squelch our liberties, but she hasn't actually committed genocide. There is probably no one who dislikes or despises George W. Bush more than I, but when I read the diatribes of well-meaning people of his favorable comparison to Hitler, I have to just accept that the thought the diatribe is intentional in its passion, it misses the opportunity for intellectual discourse with others that leads to problem-solving. It shuts a definitive soundbite door on the opportunity to use logic to evaluate the problem and determine a logical way to address it.
...It's the same sort of rhetoric Conservatives use to make their points - fill people with succinct opinions and do it all in just a few words ... the more dramatic, the better. I realize the title "Osama bin Palin" is yours and it is overtly funny. But the comments inherent in the title and the sentiments are sensational and unsubstantiated in a way that discredits the very smart and savvy nature of your blog (I respectfully submit)."
Now, I do favor good pithy soundbites. I want them to be true and memorable. They make a difference in campaigns.
However, I don't want to rant; it isn't effective.
Thoughts from you on what is decently bold in a campaign as important as this one?
If you like this post, please bookmark it on del.icio.us, share it on StumbleUpon, vote for it on Digg. Thanks so much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm one of those who have favorably compared W to Hitler. Complete with inflammatory title -- and a graphic to match. Not as a sound bite or knee jerk, but because history supports many parallels between the two. Not just the two men, but the people they surrounded themselves with. The Bush administration is somewhat subtler about it, but only because they have to be. Bush himself declared that "dictatorship is easier" -- and while that's taking the quote out of context, he had a reason for saying it or he wouldn't have said it.
John McCain also had a reason for answering a question on foreign policy with Iran with a Beach Boys parody -- "bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb-Iran".
Even the sound bite has its purpose. Because there's always an underlying truth, or at least an underlying ideology behind it. And if we can get through to that we can make informed choices about who is the more suitable candidate in any given race.
But we don't look that far in this country. It's far easier to hurl bumper sticker slogans at each other in a typical American fast-food fashion.
So really? The only "argument" I have with your choice of titles is that it didn't roll off the tongue smoothly... or not mine anyway. The point behind it is still valid.
I didn't know that McCain had done the Beach Boys Bomb Iran song. That's chilling.
What do you suppose Bush is going to do post-presidency? First time I've thought to wonder that.
Bush will do the same thing post-pres that he has during--sit back and watch while others do.
And what a lot he watched...and didn't do anything to stop.
Post a Comment