New Republican meme regarding veep choice?

[central scrutinizer]

This is the second or third letter with this meme that our local fishwrap has published in the last few days. In some sort of bizarro-world twisted logic, Obama failed in his choice of Biden because it shows that he is not really for change. Experience (Biden) is now a bad thing, while Palin is just more proof that McW is not status quo. Since there have been several letters with this same theme, I am assuming that it is a new trial balloon being tested. Has anybody noticed this argument before?

********************************
McCain team shows confidence

I’m getting confused. Barack Obama, according to the rhetoric, is the candidate of change. He is being touted as a new breed of politician.

Yet his first big decision, choosing a running mate, resulted in the predictable, safe, status quo choice of Delaware Sen. Joe Biden.

Then there is John McCain, said by many to represent the good ol’ boys’ network of politicians, who goes and makes a risky and radical departure from the typical game plan by choosing the relatively unknown Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

I wonder if we can we read into these choices something about the respective confidence levels of the candidates or their inner circles?

While Obama feels he must share the ticket with a 35-year member of the political establishment, McCain seems free to run with a total Washington outsider. Interesting.
******************************

[mcctatas]

1. I think the pukes confuse change with dangerous half-baked

schemes. How can it be a negative that Biden is "safe" ::banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[BrklynLiberal]

4. They are not at all confused, but they sure are trying to confuse the voters...

[trthnd4jstc]

2. Sen. Obama seems to tout a type of change that actually just looks like good governance.

Compared with the genius that we have had over the last 7 1/2 years, good governance will be a change.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. They've been well practiced in framing the issues.

"pro-life" when they are anything but.
Clean air act, No child left behind, etc etc.

Since the Reagan years they have been calling their programs the exact opposite of their true purposes. George Lakoff has been describing this for years, and trying to get the Democrats to use the language to OUR advantage instead of leaving it to the repukes.
Frank Luntz is the repuke expert on this...
He is the reason that people are conned into voting against their own best interests.
It is a long term semantic con job.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

<snip>
Luntz's specialty is “testing language and "finding words" that will help his clients sell their product or "turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”
<snip>
The way my words are created is by taking the words of others — average Americans, not politicians. I've moderated an average of a hundred plus focus groups a year over five years...I show them language that I've created. Then I leave a line for them to create language for me."<2>

In a January 9, 2007, interview on Fresh Air with Terry Gross, Luntz redefined the term "Orwellian"in a positive sense, saying that if one reads Orwell's Essay On Language (presumably referring to Politics and the English Language), "To be 'Orwellian' is to speak with absolute clarity, to be succinct, to explain what the event is, to talk about what triggers something happening…and to do so without any pejorative whatsoever."<3>

Soon thereafter on the same program, he discussed his use of the term, "energy exploration" (oil drilling). His research on the matter involved showing people a picture of current oil drilling and asking if in the picture it "looks like exploration or drilling." He said that 90 percent of the people he spoke to said it looked like exploring. "Therefore I'd argue that it is a more appropriate way to communicate." He went on to say "if the public says after looking at the pictures, that doesn't look like my definition of drilling—it looks like my definition of exploring—then don't you think we should be calling it what people see it to be, rather than adding a political aspect to it all?" Terry Gross responded: "Should we be calling it what it actually is, as opposed to what somebody thinks it might be? The difference between exploration and actually getting out the oil—they're two different things, aren't they?"<3>
<snip>