Democrats & Liberals Archives

I've Got A Sense of Humor. I'm No Prude. I'm No Snob.

But good heavens. The Republican who wants to be the next President just volunteered the potential first lady at a recent rally at a biker event for what is reputed to be a topless (and even bottomless) beauty pageant. That sharp crack you here might be (or should be) the sound of millions of Republicans and Republican campaign consultants slapping their foreheads.

Call me an elitist, but I'd like to think that our President should be the best man we can offer for the job. Are the Republicans, McCain in particular, trying to make a total joke out of this country, and themselves? What's next, nominate an open alcoholic? A guy in a long fur coat, with an unnecessary jewelled cane, surrounded by scantily clad women?

I know McCain used Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, two icons of overripe debauchery and decadence as comparisons to Barack, but I get the sense if Barack every suggested his wife for such an event, she'd smile just like Cindy McCain did, and would then proceed to nomi-knee the nominee right then and there.

Experience is worthless without judgment. I know McCain was suffering from audience envy, and wanted to find a ready-made audience of tens of thousands. Fair enough. But picking a biker festival? Okay, it's egalitarian, but why not something like a Crawfish Festival, or State Fair, something that appeals to that Mom, apple pie, and American flag sort of sensibility? Considering who McCain's expecting to vote for him, McCain may have pulled the tarp off of one side of his base to cover another side. And to offer the First Lady up for a nude/semi-nude pageant? I think McCain's about twenty or thirty years ahead of his time.

So let's review: Obama gets up in front of 200,000 Germans at a campaign event, gives a brilliant speech, wows our allies. McCain gets up in front of 50,000 Americans, most of whom had shown up for the Kid Rock concert, and (jokingly, I hope) offers his wife for what's essentially the Wet T-Shirt event at this biker festival.

This shouldn't even be difficult folks. Do we really want to embarrass ourselves this badly with our next president?

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 5, 2008 7:08 PM
Comments
Comment #257784

Michelle O has been seriously repressed by this campaign, HRC was actually imitating her when she did that “the sky opened up” routine a while back.

Also, quit picking on Britney. She was once a mouseketeer, and has more talent in her big toe than Permanent Hiatus has in her whole circle of family and friends.

The prude in this case seems to be the author of the article. The Rpblcns don’t like their candidate that much either, and the Viguerie lovers should be your best friends this year. They want to decimate and punish their own party for it’s impurities under W.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 5, 2008 7:53 PM
Comment #257788

Stephen,
We were laughing about that at lunch today. I’d like to be a fly on the wall when the McCains sit down for dinner tonight. I can just imagine what my wife would say if she found out I volunteered her to dance topless in a contest… “YOU DID WHAT?!!!”

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2008 8:04 PM
Comment #257791

ohrealy-
Funny you should mention Paris. I think she’s gotten back at him for that ad.

But as to the rest of your comment? I’m not looking for folks to start acting like Victorian ladies and gentlemen. I just want the people representing me to the world to represent me well. Maybe some people might find that a bonding experience with a candidate, for him to make a joke like that, but I think most of the rest of Americans would find it a bit appalling.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 5, 2008 8:17 PM
Comment #257796

Well, I think it was pretty funny. But I happen to agree that it would fall totally flat if Obama tried it.

It’s interesting to think about why. I think it’s because McCain has an easy and natural rapport with average American folks that allows him to pull off a semi-bawdy joke like that. Something that would sound totally unnatural coming from somebody like Obama.

From Obama it would sound too much like Kerry did when he went into a store in Ohio during the campaign and asked “Can I get me a huntin’ license here?”

As for it being “offensive,” I suppose it is if you’re a). Dana Carvey’s church lady, or b). the very most militant kind of humor-impaired feminist.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 5, 2008 8:50 PM
Comment #257799

S.D., thanks for the PH response to JMcC. It almost made her sound like she didn’t get a GED instead of graduating from high school. I’m reading the FUG awards now, and she is prominently featured. In the entertainment world, they actually like to pick on Mischa Barton more.

Incidentally, your guy is a product of private schools, hence the capability of appearing intellegent and interesting when actually boring and dull. Like I always say, North Shore CDS, Loyola and Regina all have New Trier beat to hell. Incidentally, they go shoeless in Hawaii until about the 10th grade, or did when BHO attended. Here, the most prosperous kids dress like thrift shoppers. Their shoes don’t even fit right.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 5, 2008 9:10 PM
Comment #257807

LO-
So if your candidate starts walking around wearing just a banana belt, will you start rationalizing that, too?

Easy and natural rapport. For crying out loud. Some people have claimed that the dirty campaigning is just his campaign getting out of control. Or that his bad speechmaking and terrible delivery comes from the fact that he’s not comfortable flinging the buffalo chips… sorry, piling on the BS.

Underneath it all, he’s just a sweet old man, right? Not responsible for any ugly thing he says, and what he is responsible for, he can say because he’s in touch with the vulgar crowd. He’s a man of the people because he volunteers the potential first lady for a strip contest.

Either he wasn’t aware of the nature of the contest, or he’s got a serious lack of judgment as to what he says, and where he says A humorist on Kos makes an apt Satirical fictional comparison on that count.

At some point, this double standard is becoming blatantly obvious. Obama has to be upright and uptight. McCain can play drunken lout. Obama has to be correct in every detail. McCain can be erroneous on many counts. Obama must be absolutely perfect in his delivery. McCain can take several seconds to answer a question, and then forget it.

And there are a million explanations for any shortfall. McCain is perfect, despite all his imperfections, and Obama is flawed for all his virtues.

In other words, it’s a bunch of BS and spin, all meant to sell the inferior McCain as the superior candidate. Why don’t we dispense with all that crap, and judge the candidates by the merits, rather than the Republican’s arrogant presumption that being a Republican is all the qualification one needs to be president, no matter what problems they have?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 5, 2008 10:03 PM
Comment #257808

Eeeww! That totally creeped me out.

There is something so thoroughly revolting about old geezers who are simply too clueless to know when they’re acting like chauvinist clowns from the 1950’s. But you can tell McCain thought he was being real cute — and more than a few of the Neanderthals in that crowd thought he was, too.

Ugh. Gives me the same kind of shudder as when our Chump in Chief actually reached out and gave Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, a totally inappropriate (and clearly unwanted) neck massage at that G8 summit…

Hmmmmm. But on the other hand…

Cindy Lou McCain competing for “Miss Buffalo Chip” at a biker rally isn’t actually all that big of a stretch.
I mean, we’re talking about an obvious bleached blonde, in heavy make-up, who dresses way too young for her age.
Who was once competed and became a Rodeo Queen.
Who at the age of twenty-four accepted a marriage proposal from a still-married forty-one year old man, with three small children at home, over drinks in a bar.
Who went on to become a dope addict willing to steal to get her fix.
Who apparently allows her violently temperamental and verbally abusive husband to call her a c—t and a trollop in public, without saying a peep in return.
And who doesn’t appear to have a single thought behind that Stepford Wife smile and beehive-bouffant head of hers.

So maybe Cindy Lou is the type to feel flattered by the thought of being the Queen of the Biker Rally, and able to giggle sincerely when her throw-back of a husband is making a complete ass of himself?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 5, 2008 10:16 PM
Comment #257811

Stephen, I think McCain is perfect? I think you’ve mistaken me for somebody else. I want McCain to be president only because I think he’s less terrible than Obama. But to all of our misfortune, those are our only realistic choices.

You claim to have a healthy sense of humor and not to be prudish but you also take seriously this idea that McCain was volunteering his wife for a strip contest? As off-color jokes go, this one isn’t even rated PG. I’d give it a G for a general audience.

On the positive side, however, what makes a joke like this even funnier is having a “straight man” who takes it with grave seriousness and just doesn’t seem to get it. If you’re willing to play that role, then more power to ya’.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 5, 2008 10:23 PM
Comment #257812

Obama compared himself to Britney not too long ago when referencing his “15 minutes of fame”. I guess it’s ok if he does it, and EVIL and RACIST or “rethug” if others do it?

I think this falls under the category of “the truth hurts”.

McCains wife is hot and Obama’s wife is ashamed of America (Rev Wright Style). It’s just the way things are. We were also told by the left at one point that Kerrys nutso wife was a good example for all modern women who speak their mind. Meaning she was an embarrassing nut.

I hear Abraham Lincon’s wife was a basket case too…..didn’t seem to harm his job performance much. He still managed to create the most destructive, botched, and deadly (in terms of US troops killed) war this nation has ever been in.

I don’t see much of value in the wifes, unless we are to believe that Obama also believes in the Rev Wright ashamed in America stuff that his wife swallows. IN fact, isn’t that the left wing mantra? So being a good progressive, we knew he believed it before we ever heard about Wright or Obama’s wife.

Where was I, what was the point? Must be my Alzheimer’s kicking in again.

Posted by: Stephen at August 5, 2008 10:28 PM
Comment #257813

Regarding McCain’s “negative campaign.”

I positively cherish this spectacle of the Obama camp and his media cheerleaders mounting their high horses and riding them off in all directions over this supposed indignity of McCain’s nasty, brutish, negative campaign.

Especially when Obama’s whole schtick is to paint a picture of an America which is a total unmitigated disaster that can only be redeemed by his esteemed holiness, Barack Obama.

Please give me a nickle for every time Obama has said “failed economic policy,” “failed Iraq policy,” “failed Iranian policy”—just anytime he has used the word “failed” to attack McCain.

It takes nerve to claim that McCain has gone negative while Obama has been all sweetness and light.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 5, 2008 10:32 PM
Comment #257815

Loyal O,
“Please give me a nickle for every time Obama has said “failed economic policy,” “failed Iraq policy,” “failed Iranian policy”—just anytime he has used the word “failed” to attack McCain.”

The key word is “policy.” Attacking policy is fair game. Attacking character, or smearing a candidate with baseless accusations is out of bounds. McCain has consistently supported policies which have failed, whether it is the economy, or Iraq, or Iran. If you or if McCain would like to support those policies, well, fine. Declare the economy or Iraq or Iran examples of successful policies. Go ahead. Go for it.

Of course, that will not happen. Instead, the McCain campaign and the GOP will smear Obama…

It will get much worse. Count on it. The Obama campaign is devoting its energies and monies to grass roots mobilization. The McCain campaign is devoting its energies and monies to media advertising, with virtually all of that taking the form of negative ads targeting Obama’s character.

This started when the McCain campaign fired its campaign manager and hired Karl Rove’s protege. Within two weeks the negative ads started.

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2008 11:22 PM
Comment #257816

What some seem to be missing, is that this wasn’t just an impromptu event….this is Sturgis, S.D. Biggest biker get-together in the country, and happens every year. Was a ready-made crowd gathered and waiting for the Chris Rock show….McCain read all of his funnies from a script. He had already stumbled over the opening lines and then slam dunked the audience with his commitment to “win the war in Iraq…..by winning”!!
This was absolutely pathetic…and I’m not sure just how well Cindy appreciated being thrown into the x-rated contest vying to become Miss Buffalo Chip of 2008…..surely an honor to become a titled chunk of s**t… ;(

Posted by: janedoe at August 5, 2008 11:25 PM
Comment #257817

I’m sorry, but I have been away for a couple of weeks head down working (trying to put together a downpayment on a house since I am going to lose the option of a no down payment mortgage soon) and may have missed them…

What are the negative ads against Obama again?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 11:25 PM
Comment #257818

Sorry….that would be Kid Rock….. my dimentia gets worse at night, too…..

Posted by: janedoe at August 5, 2008 11:26 PM
Comment #257819
This was absolutely pathetic…

Erm, weren’t you one of the people defending Bill Clinton for an extramarital affair and lying under oath during a sexual harassment trial (violating a law that he passed)?

I’m just wanting to make sure I don’t miss the hypocrisy…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 11:28 PM
Comment #257820
I’m not sure just how well Cindy appreciated being thrown into the x-rated contest vying to become Miss Buffalo Chip of 2008…..

I’m pretty sure she took it as the joke it was intended to be…

I guess I can’t be president, my wife and I joke like that about each other a lot and know that we are joking… I guess that’s just pathetic of me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 11:31 PM
Comment #257821
Call me an elitist, but I’d like to think that our President should be the best man we can offer for the job.

Ok, you’re an elitist. And you aren’t supporting the best man for the job, you are support Obama…

So I’m not sure what that says…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 11:32 PM
Comment #257822
Do we really want to embarrass ourselves this badly with our next president?

BTW, thanks for the laugh with this line Stephen, I needed it after the past couple of weeks. :)

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 11:33 PM
Comment #257824

Did you watch the event, Rhinehold? If so, you would have caught the quick little “deer caught in the headlights” reaction from Cindy Lou.
And you’re talking apples and oranges if you want to bring Clinton back in the light again. Is that your only defense for this…right here and right now?


Posted by: janedoe at August 5, 2008 11:43 PM
Comment #257827

>I’m just wanting to make sure I don’t miss the hypocrisy…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 11:28 PM

It till took 70 million dollars to reach that stained dress, and the attempt to save face. How much has it taken for the attacks on Barak to start. You guys are cheapening up.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 5, 2008 11:46 PM
Comment #257838

Totally off topic, but this is going to be most interesting! Release of this book today seems to have some wanting, considering, demanding that Bush be held responsible under 18USC;371 …Conspiracy to Commit Offense Or To Defraud United States.


http://www.ronsuskind.com/thewayoftheworld/

Posted by: janedoe at August 6, 2008 2:29 AM
Comment #257847

Stephen-
Obama’s wife is proud of America. You’re just reading in stuff so you can take an unjustified jab at her patriotism. If the Obama’s don’t have weakness where you want them, you make them up, twisting words and facts to that end.

Abraham Lincoln preserved the union. He succeeded in the objective of his war: to put down an insurrection and put the United States back together. If you’re looking to rationalize this war, where the objects of the war have, for the most part, failed to materialize, feel free, but know how transparent such efforts will be.

Get things straight. This business of relying on word twisting and spin in the place of honest, working policy is part of what’s brought your party low.

LO-
That’s right. I’ll go and tell some children a joke about the first lady dancing naked on a pool table at a biker festival.

What class.

The same class that shows when McCain doesn’t even wait to start shovelling out the contents of the barn and putting it on air. McCain said he would campaign on the issues, that he would not take shots at his opponents. You call his commercials clarifications or the making of distinctions, but issues are few and far between in the ads; for the most part, they take unprovable shots at Obama and his personality, using misquotes and misleading edits to paint false impressions of what he’s said.

As for all the failed policies? Well they are failed. The economic policy has us in the toilet, Iraq’s never going to have the kind of Democracy we set out to give it, and Iran is more powerful in the Middle East than ever. Successful policies reach their goals. They don’t have to be reformulated via verbal sleight of hand into victories. They simple work.

Rhinehold-
Bill Clinton may have cheated on his wife, but he didn’t abandon her after a car accident crippled her and marry the young heiress he was having an affair with. Of course, having affairs and dumping first wives is a sin if you are Democrat, but okay if you’re a Republican.

As for my support for Obama? You can support McCain if you are happy with the guy who finished not far from last at the Naval Academy. I’ll support the guy that was a little bit closer to the top when he graduated.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 6, 2008 8:00 AM
Comment #257848

stephen,

also, the talent portion of this pageant consists of performing simulated sexual acts with a banana. After I had a good laugh over it, I became angry. He is offering his wife up like she is property with which he can do what he likes-humilate and embarrass her-if it wins him a vote or two. Just one more reason to not vote for this man.

Posted by: Carolina at August 6, 2008 8:25 AM
Comment #257849
It till took 70 million dollars to reach that stained dress, and the attempt to save face. How much has it taken for the attacks on Barak to start. You guys are cheapening up

Actually, it didn’t. And it was Janet Reno that ordered Starr to investigate whether or not Clinton lied under oath. The attempt to reframe history for political partisanship is expected, but not appreciated.

And ‘you guys’? I’m not sure what grouping your are talking about here. Please be more specific if you are going to ignorantly lump me with a group of other people.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 6, 2008 8:36 AM
Comment #257850
And you’re talking apples and oranges if you want to bring Clinton back in the light again. Is that your only defense for this…right here and right now?

1) How is it ‘apples and oranges’ to point out your hypocrisy?

2) I didn’t defend or not defend McCain. Are you a mind-reader now?

2) I am not bringing Clinton ‘back into the light’, I am bringing your hypocrisy into full view. I know you aren’t happy about that, makes it hard to act with shocked outrage on one hand and defend on the other more serious issue, but YOU are the one making that argument, not me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 6, 2008 8:46 AM
Comment #257859

Rhinehold-
The pathetic thing about the Starr investigation is that it started with Whitewater, a twelve year old real-estate deal with some questionable thought ultimately not prosecuteable elements, and ended with a sex scandal that the media became obsessed with and the public could care less about. Starr didn’t begin with the sex scandal, he ended with it after he couldn’t dig up anything else.

The hypocrisy of the Republicans on this matter is extreme. Many of those who went after him in the name of public morality were adulterers themselves, some much more (hence the unintentional humor in Larry Craig calling Clinton a bad, naughty boy.) And in the end, when their people brought Bush into office on the promises of redeeming the office, they took it to new depths of corruption.

But fortunately, you’re only bringing it up, not trying to defend the Republicans.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 6, 2008 10:29 AM
Comment #257868

Rhinehold-
It’s not your job to establish her full hypocrisy. You can just as easily say her argument’s inconsistent.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 6, 2008 11:12 AM
Comment #257869

Yes it was a joke!!!!!!!!!

The entire GOP is a joke!!!!!!!!!

The sad thing is the jokes on us!!!!!!!!!!

And the biggest joke is the smirking chimp and his circus freak show!!!!!!!!

The best part of this whole joke is that it is almost bed time for bonzo the smirking chimp!!!!!!! Now we have the GOP’s newest clown to contend with!!!!!!!

I think its time to let the other side run the government!!!!!!!!!

The GOP has proven they don’t have a clue when it comes to running this country!!!!
All they can see is a way for them and their buddies to make a quick buck!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at August 6, 2008 11:22 AM
Comment #257875

Haven’t we already had a Britney and Paris act in the Whitehouse? A redneck and Richie Rich pretending to be a redneck? Well as Forrest Gump’s momma said, “Stupid is as stupid does.” That’s all I’ve got to say about that.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 6, 2008 11:41 AM
Comment #257877

Rhinehold, whenever Republicans seem to be at a loss to explain or justify actions by “one of theirs”, Clinton gets thrown into the ring. He did it, he lied, he was impeached for it all. But never at any time was he so stupid as to stand in front of a crowd and cameras and make like an ignoramus joking about it.

Posted by: janedoe at August 6, 2008 12:51 PM
Comment #257886

This is just another episode exposing McCain for the pathetic excuse for a candidate that he is. I’m not even talking about volunteering his wife for a bawdy beauty contest. I’m talking about the incoherent babble about gas prices at Sturgis. How can a major party candidate get away with sounding like a drunk, stammering, idiot like that? Oh yeah, I forgot for a second who the president is.

McCain is a man who at every opportunity has done the wrong thing since he got out of that prison camp in Vietnam. While his wife (who incidentally stayed loyal to him while in that prison camp) was recuperating from car accident he started fooling around with his current Stepford wife - saying his ex-wife was just not the same anymore. He found himself involved in another ethical crisis when he “exercised bad judgment” in the Keating scandal. He also, after being tortured himself, and spoke out against the use of torture, voted to allow war crimes in the name of a false sense of security. He has voted with the worst president in history 95% of the time which makes him 95% as bad as the worst president in history. Where is the maverick everyone speaks of?

Posted by: tcsned at August 6, 2008 2:03 PM
Comment #257889

Some see the humor in the contest proposal and some don’t. So what? Will it change anyone’s vote? I don’t think so.

All this talk about negative ads and talk is crazy. This is the norm and if you read historical accounts of elections going back nearly to Washington you will find a plethora of examples of negative attacks by one or both candidates. It’s American to attack the opponent and I don’t have any problem with it.

I don’t tolerate lies well in a candidate, but showing the oppositions warts is fine by me. I expect any candidate for president to be strong enough to stand up to negative ads and criticism. This is a battle ground to test the mettle and ideas of one person over another. It’s not a game for wimps. There is no referee in the White House and no fairness doctrine exists in dealing with the enemies of democracy.

Stop for a moment and ponder how Obama would have fared at the hands of wartime Vietnam captors. Would he have performed as well, better, or worse than McCain. This man was tested beyond what very few of us will ever experience and I trust him to be as strong in defending the United States.

The presidents core values and strength of purpose count much more than his class standing or oratory skills. I want a president who has proven his ability to not only withstand the most gruesome physical and mental punishment, but to endure and prevail.

American political hero’s are those who have demonstrated strength of purpose, uncompromising faith in America’s greatness and confidence in her people. Political hero’s are those unwilling to trade their values for votes. While neither McCain or Obama receives a ten on my scale, I would place McCain at about seven and Obama at about four.

Posted by: Jim M at August 6, 2008 2:14 PM
Comment #257894

Nobody is dissing the bikers, and you’re right, the majority of them do great things in the name of many charities.
It’s the stumbling, bumbling old fool trying to be cute and funny in front of them, that is pitiful. And nobody is saying that McCain doesn’t deserve thanks for his service to this country. He has gotten that ever since coming home from VietNam….but there is nothing presidential about getting shot down during a mission. He is certainly not alone in having succumbed to that fate, but being the victim of a hit doesn’t give him an edge as a candidate.
And I agree, too….that I’d rather see him talking to Americans than other-country people. We’ve had to be embarassed and make excuses for illiterate leaders long enough.

Posted by: janedoe at August 6, 2008 2:43 PM
Comment #257898

Come on Stephen, do the recent polls have you on edge or something? This is silly and your attempt to make it serious news is even sillier.

First, he didn’t “volunteer her for a topless or even bottomless (gasp) beauty pagent.” Nor did he “offer the First Lady up for a nude/semi-nude pageant.”
He said he “encouraged” her to compete in a beauty pagent. Nice spin though.

Second, do you really believe an uptight, old rich guy who doesn’t even surf the internet, knows just how different “beauty pagents” can be? I mean, I seriously doubt he has been attending this rally every year for the past 23 years you know.
Heck, I’d be willing to bet that when told about Sturgis, McCain said something like: “isn’t that the place all those motorcycle people go and drink beer?”

Third, do you have any idea of who makes up the vast majority of “bikers” who go to Sturgis every year? Doctors, lawyers, carpenters, IT professionals, housewives, fast-food workers, gas station attendents, police officers etc… In other words, average folks. Hardly the stereotypical “biker” so many of you are afraid of.

This needs to be put on the shelf next to the “sweetie” remark Obama made.

PS
I’ll take 50,000 average Americans cheering for their country over 200,000 europeans cheering for Obama and the world anyday.

Posted by: kctim at August 6, 2008 2:55 PM
Comment #257905

Jim M says that McCain’s experience in the Vietnamese prison as qualifying him to defend the United States. It was a horrible experience that no human being should ever go through yet he gave his tacit approval for his president to torture others guilty or not. He gave his approval for a war that has been the biggest foreign policy blunder in my lifetime. His experience taught him nothing apparently. Nothing about how torture doesn’t yield good information. Nothing about getting involved in unwelcome occupations. Nothing about squandering our best and brightest for a mistake at best and a oil grab for the president’s supporters at worst. He has shown that his experience has taught him nothing though it has made him angry and bitter. I don’t blame him for being angry and bitter after what he went through in Vietnam - God knows what it would do to anyone else in his position. What I contend with is that his POW experience qualifies him for anything especially President.

Posted by: tcsned at August 6, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #257909

Nobody is saying that McCain’s prison experiences represent his sole qualifications to be president. He’s been a member of Congress for 25 years, for crying out loud.

The prison experiences are merely part of his biography and offer a deeper understanding of his service and character.

After the 04 cycle when liberals were so eager to compare Kerry’s service to Bush’s, it smacks of hypocrisy to now say that McCain’s Vietnam service—which is actually 100 fold more significant than Kerry’s and of course, totally foreign to Barack Obama—is suddenly irrelevant.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 6, 2008 3:50 PM
Comment #257910

Jim M-

Some see the humor in the contest proposal and some don’t. So what? Will it change anyone’s vote? I don’t think so.

By itself, perhaps not. But as part of a pattern, the collection of such incidents might put victory beyond his reach.

All this talk about negative ads and talk is crazy. This is the norm and if you read historical accounts of elections going back nearly to Washington you will find a plethora of examples of negative attacks by one or both candidates. It’s American to attack the opponent and I don’t have any problem with it.

It’s normal, not necessarily American. However, most candidates try to build up a good image for themselves before they go on the attack.

I don’t tolerate lies well in a candidate, but showing the oppositions warts is fine by me. I expect any candidate for president to be strong enough to stand up to negative ads and criticism. This is a battle ground to test the mettle and ideas of one person over another. It’s not a game for wimps. There is no referee in the White House and no fairness doctrine exists in dealing with the enemies of democracy.

Barack Obama survived twelve rounds with one of the toughest political couples out there. If Barack Obama can survive a Democrat throwing the kitchen sink at him, I doubt McCain’s tactics are going to send him running.

Obama’s been quick and uncompromising in hitting back when McCain tries crap. He can play on that field, and McCain’s not going to intimidate him if Bill and Hillary can’t.

Stop for a moment and ponder how Obama would have fared at the hands of wartime Vietnam captors. Would he have performed as well, better, or worse than McCain. This man was tested beyond what very few of us will ever experience and I trust him to be as strong in defending the United States.

When the guy got back, he divorced the wife who had stood by him all the time while he was in that prison. She had once been a beauty queen, but she was badly injured in a car wreck.

An ordeal can bring out the best in us, and sometimes it can reveal the worse. it’s no guarantor of one or the other. He’s a human being, not a demigod with his mortality burned away by the fires of adversity.

The presidents core values and strength of purpose count much more than his class standing or oratory skills. I want a president who has proven his ability to not only withstand the most gruesome physical and mental punishment, but to endure and prevail.

Want whatever president you want. I want a president who’s capable of critical analysis, who knows when to keep his mouth shut, and who can confront problems creatively. McCain is not going to personally encounter much pain and suffering as president, but his decisions can put Americans through a lot of it. The strength of McCain’s intellect and judgment are fair game for scrutiny.

American political hero’s are those who have demonstrated strength of purpose, uncompromising faith in America’s greatness and confidence in her people. Political hero’s are those unwilling to trade their values for votes. While neither McCain or Obama receives a ten on my scale, I would place McCain at about seven and Obama at about four.

McCain reversed nearly every important distinction he had made with Bush and the other Republicans to get nominated. Such behavior not only betrays a willingness to change positions for votes, but a profound lack of respect for the American people, who he doesn’t trust to elect him based on his real (or merely previous) views.

John-
Some of the bikers may be angels. Some may be Hells Angels. But the biker culture isn’t exactly unproblematic in terms of its behavior.

John McCain and Cindy are real people, no doubt, but human beings have a large range of options open to them as to how to behave, especially when they’re wanting to be president.

This, though, strikes me as rather poor judgment.

As for Germany? many of those 200,000 “anti-American” Germans were waving flags at the rally. This notion of Europe as uniformly anti-American is untrue. There are people who dislike America, sure enough, and some who simply don’t like some of our leaders and some of our policies.

Americans remember with longing a time when we were better liked in the world, when people would work with us more easily, and we more easily with them.

I’m sick of my leaders humiliating my country. I’d like a person who actually thinks before he talks speaking to our friends and confronting our enemies. McCain has shown bad judgment in what he says, and this is just one example among many.

kctim-
The recent polls hardly concern me at all. If you look at the electoral college numbers, Obama wins handily. We don’t decide the contest by popular vote.

He did say that he encouraged her to join, and it was what I said. The thing to keep in mind is that he deliberately chose this place as a venue to visit. His political aides should have been quick to advise him of what was going on there, and to research what must have been scripted in advance to keep their candidate clear of trouble. That’s what people in a campaign are paid to do: keep candidate’s from making embarrassing screw-ups like this one.

As for this whole 50,000 vs. 200,000 thing? Give me a break. Beyond this malicious implication that being able to draw large crowds in other lands is some sort of betrayal of the American people, Obama has regularly gathered crowds of thousands an tens of thousands just for him. In fact, in Portland, he drew a crowd of 75,000, half again as much as McCain spoke in front of, in a place where the main draw was the festival and not him.

Obama is capable of drawing large crowds of supporters where ever he goes. Is McCain?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 6, 2008 3:56 PM
Comment #257911

Well the comparisons between Bush and Kerry were legitimate….smoking, snorting,drinking, avoiding assignments and evading missions as opposed to leading combat missions. Oh wait, ya…..I can see how some would choose Bush.
And still nobody can justify that becoming imprisoned makes you a better person than not…..I applaud him…commend him…am glad he survived, but survival is the most basic instinct we possess, and it isn’t enough.
I was a State employee for 25 years, but that wouldn’t make me the best candidate for Governor.

Posted by: janedoe at August 6, 2008 4:07 PM
Comment #257914

Still trying to spin, Stephen? Come on man.
You said he “volunteered her for a topless beauty pagent” and implied he “offered the First Lady up for a nude/semi-nude pageant.”
You did not unknowingly do this.

There was nothing wrong with speaking at such a place either, we vote too you know.

I made no implication of betrayal. If I felt Obama had betrayed the US when he spoke in front of them, I would say it outright, not skirt around it.

But lets look at the crowd thing and how it really is.
- Most Obama voters are from urban areas. Most Obama speeches are in or very near urban areas. Far-left Dems are very charged up about Obama and wish to show their support at these mass gatherings. Hell, you guys get charged up about anything that doesn’t go your way and have these huge gatherings. Remember the anti-war protests? Hundreds of thousands of people showed up, but yet, 60-70 percent of Americans were for the war.

- Most McCain voters are from the burbs and rural areas. McCain voters don’t get all charged up and have huge gatherings to show their support like that unless you piss them off, but they will show up and vote.

And, btw, I totally agree, the people would have been in Sturgis even if McCain wasn’t. That doesn’t negate the fact that they cheered though.

Posted by: kctim at August 6, 2008 4:31 PM
Comment #257917

kctim-
I said back in the original post that he did it jokingly. But he did say it. I don’t what’s there to spin.

Your postscript, though, implies something. I quote:

PS
I’ll take 50,000 average Americans cheering for their country over 200,000 europeans cheering for Obama and the world anyday.

You’re implying a preference of the other side, trying to cheapen the popularity implied by such huge numbers. I could almost imagine you jutting your jaw forward and striking a heroic pose as you wrote those lines. McCain, you imply, chooses tens of thousands of Americans over hundreds of thousands of foreigners. What sacrifice!

Give me a break. Obama hasn’t chosen either or. He gets the big crowds where ever he goes, whether that’s Berlin or Pennsylvania. McCain is trying to spin his inability to stage massive events worldwide, much less in the US. That McCain cannot inspire people like Obama is buried under BS intended to make such uninspiring mediocrity a virtue.

I don’t think its an issue of population density. Obama got big crowds in rural areas and urban areas alike. I’d say stop making excuses for McCain. If he wants to win, he has to out inspire Obama, if he can.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 6, 2008 5:00 PM
Comment #257918

Over 40 posts in a thread which is mostly about gossip, I hope you will all post in substantive threads that might require a little reading and research.

On the biker topic, maybe I’m just really old, but I remember the Outlaws, a nice bunch of dope peddlars whose women worked in titty bars selling happy endings on the side.

Carolina, you seem very familiar. Have we ever been married?

Posted by: ohrealy at August 6, 2008 5:10 PM
Comment #257919

An argument could have been made 8 years ago that he had an upstanding Senate career (after the whole Keating mess). But he pretty much ruined his resume as a legislator and his reputation as a maverick by caving into a president who has been so blatantly wrong on things like torturing people.

Now he is talking about Obama’s energy plan (which all makes sense to me) - what did he do to move us towards energy independence? Nothing. What has he done to make the country safer? Helped get us into a stupid war. What has he done to help the economy? Take economic advice from Phil Graham, one of the architects of the mortgage crisis.

I never said that Kerry’s military experience qualified him to be president. After the swiftboat liars ran their distortions it certainly hurt his chances to get elected. But I don’t see how McCain’s getting shot down and captured makes him more qualified than Kerry. Certainly not 100 times more significant as LO says.

Posted by: tcsned at August 6, 2008 5:19 PM
Comment #257921

Stephen
This is like when leftys see racism in an ad about created celebrity, right?

“You’re implying a preference of the other side…”

No Stephen, I am saying that 50,000 cheering Americans mean more to me than 200,000 Europeans. I am saying world popularity is not as important as US popularity. I am saying their opinions and way of govt should mean nothing to our political races.

McCain did nothing but give a speech where he knew most would be his supporters.
And I agree, McCain does not inspire people to show up in large crowds like Obama does. But we disagree on how voter location and how people differ in how they show support. I believe they both are huge factors in crowd size. Excuses? Hardly.
Either way, the only crowd that counts is the one that shows up in Nov and how they vote.

Posted by: kctim at August 6, 2008 5:28 PM
Comment #257923

Ohrealy
“On the biker topic, maybe I’m just really old, but I remember the Outlaws, a nice bunch of dope peddlars whose women worked in titty bars selling happy endings on the side”

For what its worth, those are one percenters.
The other 99% are average Jills and Joes.

Posted by: kctim at August 6, 2008 5:31 PM
Comment #257929

Ohrealy

What a hoot!!! I doubt we have ever been married at least in this life. I live in the south and have always lived down south. Just a good old radical southern belle (swag-southern woman aging gracefully).

Posted by: Carolina at August 6, 2008 6:58 PM
Comment #257933

LO-
It’s not hypocrisy. I’m not saying that McCain’s experiences don’t exist, nor his service. I even defended him from scurrilous claims on another side that he started the Forrestal Fire. The real cause was the rocket that hit his fighter because of a combination of safety violations and electrical problems on another craft.

But you can’t say that because of what happened in Vietnam that he gets a pass on everything else he does, or the way he behaves. Believe me, jokingly volunteering his heiress wife for a nudie contest is not the worst thing I’ve heard him of him saying towards his wife, nor about women.

Kerry’s service, which while not as physically traumatic as McCain’s, left his mark, and unlike the man he faced in the election, or that McCain and Gore faced in 2000, he actually served in combat. Hell, Gore got closer to the frontlines than Bush. And Gore, admittedly, had one of the cushier assignments.

In light of your fervent campaigns to re-elect him, I don’t want to hear it. You folks are amazingly flexible about the question of military service when it suits you. You certainly didn’t spare Max Cleland any of your respect when you slandered him over his opposition to his current war. And so, you replaced a triple amputee who earned distinction at Khe Sanh before his unfortunate accident with a rich kid who sat out Vietnam with a supposedly bum knee.

So forgive me I find your invocation of Vietnam a little hollow. Obama has gone to great lengths to voice his appreciation of McCain’s service. I don’t think the Republicans have been that honorable about service when the soldier comes home a Democrat.

kctim-
If 50,000 cheering Americans are more important than 200,000 cheering Germans, does it not follow that 75,000 cheering Americans mean more to you than 50,000?

It’s an exercise in absurdity. I can honestly say that McCain’s numbers were an isolated incident, and that he was an attraction where he got those numbers, but not necessarily the show people came to. Obama, though, in American and outside of it has been able to draw huge numbers on a consistent basis, and this is with him consistently being the main attraction.

As for racism? The last time a black man ran for an office and a Republican put a blonde white woman in an ad, she was saying “call me” to this bachelor candidate, in a state where many racial issues were still going under the surface. I would admit that they didn’t directly invoke it, as with the other ad, but the choice of two Nordic looking white chicks with promiscuous reputations is enough to raise questions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 6, 2008 8:56 PM
Comment #257944
But you can’t say that because of what happened in Vietnam that he gets a pass on everything else he does, or the way he behaves.

Who says any such thing? That’s YOUR straw man. Not mine.

You certainly didn’t spare Max Cleland any of your respect when you slandered him over his opposition to his current war.

His opposition to the war is a political issue—should he not be disputed on a political issue because he’s a vet? Is that your position on all of McCain’s views? A questionable ad was run against Cleland which showed images of Osama bin Laden—but he was not attacked for his military record by anyone I’m aware of except Anne Coulter, someone who speaks herself and not the Republican party.

And here’s a quote regarding that ad: “[I]t’s worse than disgraceful, it’s reprehensible.” And who said it? Senator John McCain.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 6, 2008 10:50 PM
Comment #257946

The size of crowds that turn out for someone is totally irrelevant.

Louis Farrakhan can (if you believe the numbers) put together a “million man march.” Does that attest to the popularity among Americans of Louis Farrakhan or his agenda? You be the judge.

There is also the factor—and a pretty obvious one—that Obama enjoys greater support in America’s population-dense urban centers. This makes traveling to and from an Obama event a lot easier than it is in the more conservative and less densely populated American heartland where McCain enjoys more support. The size of any given crowd says nothing about what support Obama actually enjoys relative to McCain nationwide.

There’s also the factor that liberals are far more likely than conservatives to gather together in large mobs. There’s a long history and culture of mass demonstrations and the like on the left side of the political spectrum. It’s just not the conservative way.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 6, 2008 11:02 PM
Comment #257960

LO-
It’s not a strawman, its simple fact. You can’t simply say that his experience by itself makes him enough of a leader to qualify him as Commander in Chief

As for Cleland, Saxby Chambliss and the party ran a commercial with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden lumped with the imcumbent legislator. Ann Coulter may have been the worse, but I highly doubt she was the only one at work on this.

Louis Farrakhan put together a march, but so did Martin Luther King, who he was trying to emulate. Some remember Farrakhan’s march. Most everybody remembers Kings. You can gather bunches of people. But there are some who can organize better than others, and those people, those leaders are far more likely to make a lasting impact.

Obama has proved that he’s more than just a flashy speechmaker. If you pay attention to what he’s done so far with his party, you’ll realize that not just anybody could pull that off.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 7, 2008 8:45 AM
Comment #257961

LO - maybe McCain isn’t attracting big crowds because he is about as exciting as watching the La Brea Tar Pits as a public speaker. Or could it be that no one is excited by his candidacy? He doesn’t really have the support of the hard core right, he lost the middle by strapping himself to Bush, and there is absolutely no reason for the left to have anything to do with him. He gets the obligatory 40-43% support mostly because those people don’t like Obama not because they are excited by McCain.

McCain missed his chance - W slimed him in 2000 and beat him when he had his best chance to win the presidency. I think he would have managed things much better than W. In 2004, he had a chance to be a real agent of change and unity if he had run with his friend John Kerry - that would have really made him a historic figure. He missed that boat too. Now he has become a bitter old man who has sold out to the GOP establishment as his last chance to be president. He really stands for nothing anymore other than wanting to be president - and you need more than that to win an election.

I predict that Obama will win 300+ electoral votes the map just doesn’t look good for McCain. Of the 5 real battleground states - FL, OH, VA, CO, NH he needs to pretty much run the table to have a chance and I just don’t think it’s going to happen for him.

Posted by: tcsned at August 7, 2008 8:59 AM
Comment #257963

Stephen
“If 50,000 cheering Americans are more important than 200,000 cheering Germans, does it not follow that 75,000 cheering Americans mean more to you than 50,000?”

When guessing who is more inspiring? Absolutely Stephen, that is why I agreed with you that Obama inspires more people to show up than McCain does.
I also agreed with you that Sturgis was the reason those people were there and that Obama followers come out in droves to see him.

“but the choice of two Nordic looking white chicks with promiscuous reputations is enough to raise questions”

I guess that could be true for those who look at Obama and see the black man and believe that is anything of importance. Kind of sad really.

Posted by: kctim at August 7, 2008 9:43 AM
Comment #257970

kctim-
I’ve learned in recent times not to underestimate the depths to which Republicans will go to win elections. I’m sure for many of the rank and file this is part of what’s alienating them from it. Last time, they took a decorated veteran and besmirched his reputation thoroughly with accounts of questionable factuality. This time they have shown the willingness time and again to cook up the most reprehensible garbage about Obama, in order to appeal to prejudices. I’m afraid the last few elections have exhausted many’s ability to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt on what kind of messages its trying to send.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 7, 2008 10:42 AM
Comment #257974

They certainly did it to Harold Ford in his senate bid. Also, didn’t John McCain fight tooth and nail against the MLK holiday in AZ? He doesn’t have a sparkling record on race. To think that some 527 won’t run a racist ad is naive. I would say that the Paris/Britney/Obama ad was borderline - it certainly played him as uppity which is a classic racial code theme - also included two white women - another classic racist fear. I agree with Stephen - they GOP no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt in any area certainly not one like race where they have a checkered past to say the least (Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond …)

Posted by: tcsned at August 7, 2008 12:18 PM
Comment #257976
it certainly played him as uppity

No, it played on him being an elitest liberal…

I wonder about the people who see racism everywhere, are they on the lookout or guilty on their own?

I still remember the uproar over the Willie Horton ad. It wasn’t racist, other than the person who was let out of jail by Dukakis and committed roberty and rape during a weekend furlough happened to be black. I guess they should have waited for a white person to have done those things before mentioning this? Just to be racial sensitive?

What a crock.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2008 12:36 PM
Comment #257980

Stephen
Both parties go to great depths to win elections and neither party should ever be underestimated. But looking for some kind of hidden meaning in every single thing? Kind of silly.

tcsned
McCain may not have a “sparkling record on race,” but he also does not have a negative record on race either.
McCain fought against MLK day and Obama sat and listened to evil whitey rhetoric for 23 years, but you know, I really don’t believe either one of them are racists.

Apparently, you watched the ad and saw a black guy and white women and some kind of subliminal racial code, whereas I watched the ad and saw three people in relation to media created celebrity.
I guess that makes me the racist.

Posted by: kctim at August 7, 2008 1:15 PM
Comment #257987

I guess that makes me the racist.

Posted by: kctim at August 7, 2008 01:15 PM

tim,

Yeahhh! I guess it does. It never entered my mind until you brought it up. I’m not sure if you’d be better off if you are racist or if you actually bought into the celebrity stupidity…

Posted by: Marysdude at August 7, 2008 1:50 PM
Comment #257988

Rhinehold-
The menacing mugshot of the “Willie” Horton ad was deliberately picked by the man running the PAC to be “a suburban mom’s worst fear”. His given name of William was shortened to “Willie” even though he had never gone by that nickname, presumably because of the lower-class/black connotations of that name. The use of racial fears and resentments are not a matter of conjecture, but documented evidence.

But don’t take my word for it, talk to the man who heads FOXnews

Media consultant Roger Ailes remarked “the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 7, 2008 2:06 PM
Comment #257994

Dude, apparently I’d be better off if I did use race to judge everybody and everything. Maybe then I’d understand why the hell you guys are so hung up on it.

Posted by: kctim at August 7, 2008 3:03 PM
Comment #258006

kctim-
Complaints about racism do not make people racists, or otherwise Martin Luther King would be one.

The Republicans have a history of using racism and prejudice as a means of getting ahead politically. So did the Democrats at one point. But the Democrats decided to be an inclusive party, and the Republicans decided to be the party that appeals to disaffected Whites with racial resentments. This is a well known move, and its the reason that many former Democrats turned Republican, including Strom Thurmond. The Republicans were the party of Jesse Helms, the party that started opposing Busing, started opposing affirmative action, etc, etc. It’s also the party that aired an add in one of these old Mason/Dixon states that effectively implied that a black candidate was lusting after white women, a well known racist trope.

If you want to know why we’re jumping on even a hint of things like this, its pretty simple: we’re tired of being on the defensive. If the Republicans want to act like racists, we’ll take that pitch and smack it back in their faces. If they want to try and define us, we’ll respond immediately and forcefully to get in the way of that. We’re not going to let Rove or Atwater or Nixon tactics work anymore. We’re going to hit right back.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 7, 2008 5:08 PM
Comment #258007

Stephen
It is 2008! It is less that Republicans are acting like racists and more that you guys need them to be viewed as racists. You are taking the views and politics of 30-40 years ago and applying them to everybody who disagrees with you today, all in order to score political points, and that is BS.
Whats next? McCain believes in slavery because he saw ‘Gone With the Wind’ on opening night?

There is nothing wrong with pointing out racism, but crying wolf over and over, even where there is none, is pointless and harmful to the end goal of diminishing its effects.

Posted by: kctim at August 7, 2008 5:43 PM
Comment #258009

tim,

Not if there really is a wolf there…

Posted by: Marysdude at August 7, 2008 5:55 PM
Comment #258031

kctim-
I’ve got one word for you if you think we’re crying wolf: Macaca.

Do you remember Trent Lott speaking admiringly of what the country would have been like if Strom Thurmond had been elected?

Why is Sean Hannity so in love with Rev. Paterson’s rhetoric, which though he is black blamed the disaster with Katrina on the laziness of poor blacks in that city?

And why do conservatives treat The Bell Curve, a book that essentially says that blacks are naturally dumber, as such an important volume?

Yeah, I’m crying wolf. I’m crying wolf because I see wolves. Judging from the election results, plenty of people looked at Senator Allen and saw a wolf. Many of the people who got into office on this basis are still among the ranks of the GOP.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 7, 2008 10:58 PM
Comment #258053

kctim - I watched an ad and saw the same tired crap that the GOP tries to fling against the wall to see if it sticks. It started with Willie Horton, on to Harold Ford, now this. It has nothing to do with an issue, it has nothing to do with making the country a better place, it has nothing to do with solving the real problems of this country. It has everything to do with disparaging an opponent because they have nothing substantial to say. The GOP is on the wrong side of so many issues right now that they have no policies to tout other than bashing gays and false patriotism. They are wrong on health care, they are wrong on the environment, they are wrong on the economy, they are wrong on foreign policy, you name they are on the wrong side of the issue. As Obama said about their attacks on the tire inflation thing - they seem to be proud about their ignorance. They think they are being funny but being stupid is not funny, at least in the context of a presidential campaign.

I would also say standing up against the MLK holiday is a negative record on race. The GOP certainly has a negative record on race as a whole. This Rev. Wright nonsense is no comparison to what the GOP has done to minorities in this country.

It is no surprise that the GOP gets maybe 10% of the black vote. McCain will certainly do a lot worse than that in this election.

The GOP has lost its way as a conservative party. I don’t think that Barry Goldwater would recognize his party anymore. I am not a conservative but I am an American and I feel that we need good, smart representation from all valid political views. the GOP is more liberal and socialist than the Democratic Party ever has been - look at spending, how conservative has the GOP been in the last 8 years? Look at foreign policy - how conservative is that? Look at domestic policy - how conservative is ripping up the constitution? John McCain was in the middle of all of this (except the ridiculous tax cuts - which he now supports).

Granted, race relations have come a long way since Rev. Wright was a young man and had to deal with “Whites Only” at every restaurant, bathroom, and water fountain and much worse - police dogs and lynchings. However, racism is far from gone in our society and rears its ugly head when peoples’ notion of the status quo gets upset.

Posted by: tcsned at August 8, 2008 9:07 AM
Comment #258072

Stephen
You see a wolf and are calling it a pack based on what you think is hiding in the shadows.

Should we really be using one word or quote to define who a person is? No. And you using it to define an entire group is even worse.
Hymie town? Macaca? One we are told to understand and forgive, the other we are told to believe is really the work of the Klan.
Its one set of rules for the left and another set for the right. There is a double standard and we are oversensitive to the point where we make stuff up for political benefit.

tcsned
In your opinion, they are wrong on the issues, but that isn’t the problem here, is it. The problem the left has is that millions and millions of voters agree with the GOP and not the liberals. Liberals cannot understand why and they are trying everything they can to bring those voters to their side.
Voter says they don’t want socialized medicine, you say the Rep candidate is a racist. Voter doesn’t want higher taxes, you say old people will starve. etc… etc…
And yes, I know the other side does it also, but it is old and tiring.

“However, racism is far from gone in our society and rears its ugly head when peoples’ notion of the status quo gets upset”

Nobody has claimed racism is far from gone, one only needs to look at this election to see that. Proof of people voting for Obama simply because he is black is pretty easy to see.

Posted by: kctim at August 8, 2008 2:30 PM
Comment #258074

Harold Ford Jr…..I look for him to make something of himself. I think he is a very intelligent young man with ambition.
Check this out for a chuckle…..good stuff!

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JH08Aa01.html

Posted by: janedoe at August 8, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #258079

kctim - I didn’t say that I wanted the GOP to be liberal at all - I said that the GOP is not a “conservative” party - they are a messed up hodge podge of greedy corporatists and right wing moralizers. There isn’t a place for a real conservative in the GOP - not that I am a fan but Ron Paul is more of a real conservative than McCain, Bush, or Cheney. The Libertarian Party is more of a real conservative party than the GOP - though their candidates have to date been kooks or worse - Bob Barr.

I also didn’t call John McCain a racist I said he had a sketchy record on race issues. I would call the moron ex-senator from my state, George Allen a racist because he is one as was Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.

This whole reverse-discrimination argument you make about people voting for Obama because he is black is weak at best. If these people would have voted for McCain but are only voting for Obama because he is black is kind of a bigoted thing to do but this would pretty much only include black Republicans who are going to vote for Obama just because he is black. To say that black people who are excited about having a major party candidate that looks like them and might vote when they have not otherwise done so are racists is a pretty thin argument. Would you call all the evangelicals that came out to vote for George Bush racists or bigots because prior to having one of their own (or one who pretended to be) they had not voted?

What is racist is having only 4 black governors since reconstruction (my state was first in 1990) - do you think that it is because in all of US history only 4 black people have had the skills to be a governor? Do I think it is about time that we had a black candidate for president? Of course. It is about time that we had a woman, a hispanic, a jew, etc. It would be nice if we can reach Dr. King’s dream of a day when we judge a man not on the color of his skin but the content of his character when no longer does anyone talk about someone like Barak Obama as a black candidate but simply a candidate. But seeing as he is the first black man in our 232 year history to become a major party candidate for president we have not reached that day yet but as I predict, we will have a black candidate win a landslide election and be the first black president we are on our way.

Posted by: tcsned at August 8, 2008 3:18 PM
Comment #258097

tcsned
Fair take on todays GOP.

People call into radio stations all the time and say they are voting based on color.

People who would have voted for hillary ended up voting for Obama because he is black. He should have garnered around 60% of the black vote, but ended up with 90+%. So I agree with you, it is a bigoted thing to do.

“To say that black people who are excited about having a major party candidate that looks like them and might vote when they have not otherwise done so are racists is a pretty thin argument.”

Why? Are they not using race as a qualifier?
Should 90+% of whites vote for McCain because he will represent them better than a black President will?

“Would you call all the evangelicals that came out to vote for George Bush racists or bigots because prior to having one of their own (or one who pretended to be) they had not voted?”

Well, since they are not using race to justify their vote, it would be kind of hard to call them racists, wouldn’t it?
I am an atheist so I have no idea what people who vote based on religion are called, sorry.

I too believe Obama will be our next President. Sadly though, more of you will see him as the first black President and too few of us will see him as the next United States President.

Posted by: kctim at August 8, 2008 4:51 PM
Comment #258112

kctim -

So the blacks are being racist by voting for Obama?

Tell you what - go somewhere and live not just as a minority, but one that has been particularly downtrodden…and live there long enough that you can remember not being able to drink at a water fountain because of your color. Live there long enough to remember being told by ‘God-fearing Christians’ that since you’re that minority color, you can still go to heaven…but it’ll be ‘dog-and-cat heaven’.

And then, forty years later, watch one of your own run for the highest office in the land, the most powerful office in all the world…and TRY not to want to vote for him.

It’s NOT racism, kctim - it’s JUSTIFICATION. To the African-Americans, it’s finally hard-and-fast PROOF that they truly ARE equal, that they truly DO count in this world.

No, kctim, it’s not racism. It’s the culmination of HOPE. And who, truly, can blame them.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 8, 2008 7:36 PM
Comment #258114

Glenn
YES IT IS RACISIM, JUST AS MUCH RACISM IF A WHITE MAN DOSEN”T VOTE FOR HIM BECAUSE HE IS BLACK.

Posted by: KAP at August 8, 2008 9:17 PM
Comment #258139

KAP -

Y’know, if there’s a common difference I’ve noticed between conservatives and liberals, it’s that liberals tend to empathize more than do conservatives.

It’s sorta like this: Joe beats his wife. Conservatives will normally say to clap Joe in irons and take him away, and the wife will either have to deal with it or leave him. End of story, now get back to work.

Liberals, OTOH, try to find out _why_ Joe did what he did, to see what the set of circumstances were that brought him to do so…and they would also advise the wife about how this is a vicious circle in that if the daughter grows up in an abusive household, then she’s likely to be an abused wife.

Sometimes it’s better not to dig to find out what lay behinds a person’s action…and sometimes it IS better to empathize so you can better understand his actions.

In this case if you truly understood what lay behind the motivations of African Americans to vote for Obama, if you had truly lived through what they had lived through for many generations, then you would understand that it’s not racism, but JUSTIFICATION of oneself and one’s people.

But I suspect you see no need to ask why, but just to call it what it looks like in your eyes, end of story.

That’s too bad.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 9, 2008 4:20 AM
Comment #258141

I live down south and have all my life. I can remember (barely) how white MEN (like my emphasis)made sure that black people could not vote nor could they run for office. For MANY (oh, lord I must be a liberal-my finger keeps hitting the capital button on my keyboard) years-whites down south wouldn’t vote for someone unless they were white. When you disenfrancise a whole race of people there will always be a back lash. Think of ALL the years that black people had no one to represent them. Turn abouts fair play! Oh gosh-I used an exclamation point-wonder what that means-maybe I’m like REALLY, REALLY LIBERAL!!!

Posted by: Carolina at August 9, 2008 8:19 AM
Comment #258144
So the blacks are being racist by voting for Obama?

IF they are voting for Obama because of his color, then yes, it is racism. In fact, it’s pretty much the definition I believe… judging someone based soley on the color of their skin.

If there are other reasons they are voting for him, then it is not.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 9, 2008 9:21 AM
Comment #258150

Carolina, the Congressional black caucus says that SC had more black reps elected to the USHOR during reconstruction than any other state, and NC had a black rep in the USHOR until 1901. Then there were no black reps in the south until after the 1990 reapportionment.

Notice how Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney never gets mentioned by anyone. I wonder why? I guess she’ll have to go door to door with home baked cookies to be acknowledged. Georgia should have an interesting split in their vote, with 2 local candidates.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 9, 2008 10:57 AM
Comment #258152

Carolina -

I’m from the very deepest of the Deep South, and I know exactly what you mean. You and I both know about turnabout’s fair play, how the chickens can come home to roost…and we both know what the blacks went through.

But the conservatives want to say that the generations of living under the heel of slavery and prejudice and racism are NO EXCUSE for cheering one of their own to victory. “Slavery and Jim Crow and the MLK assassination and the Civil Rights struggle are all done-n-over-with, so let bygones be bygones”.

Come to think of it, that’s just like their single most common excuse for not investigating the crimes of the Bush administration, most notably his willfully lying us into a war at the cost of thousands of Americans and many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. “What’s done is done, so let’s let bygones be bygones”, they say.

Same thing, ain’t it? Gee, wonder what they’d say if police took the same attitude towards crimes that cost far fewer lives here in America…like those of ANY serial killer you care to name….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 9, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment #258154

Ohrealy,

I love cookies-she can come knock on my door anyday. I would love to vote for Ms. Mckinney but unfortunately she doesn’t stand a chance and we can’t afford for McCain to win.

Glenn, totally agree!!!

Posted by: Carolina at August 9, 2008 12:00 PM
Comment #258155

Glenn
If a person votes for someone based on the color of their skin is pure and simple racism

Posted by: KAP at August 9, 2008 12:16 PM
Comment #258168

KAP -

Y’know, I could go on all day ‘splaining to you why, if you really understood what blacks have gone through, that you wouldn’t blame them at all.

But I just thought of something - the Indian prayer: “Great spirit, may I never criticize my fellow man until I have walked a mile in his moccasins.”

That’s not exact, but it carries the meaning that DOES apply to you, for you have NOT walked a mile in their shoes. Your strict adherence to the neo-con belief system won’t let you.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 9, 2008 9:48 PM
Comment #258169

Kap

If a person votes for someone based on the color of their skin is pure and simple racism

Your logic here is flawed. If I were a black person who is refusing to vote for the white guy simply because he is white, that would render me a racist. The same applies in reverse. It is all about indicating a level of superiority of one race over another. In order to determine if black voters are racist because they are voting for Obama, you first have to determine if they are not voting for McCain simply because he is white. I think it is safe to say that racism is determined by intent and the context one uses it in.

Posted by: RickIL at August 9, 2008 10:33 PM
Comment #258170

Glenn

That’s not exact, but it carries the meaning that DOES apply to you, for you have NOT walked a mile in their shoes. Your strict adherence to the neo-con belief system won’t let you.

You are trying to explain the complexities of the human psyche in relation to the individual life experiences of various groups of people. Imo you have done a fine and heartfelt job of getting your point across. Unfortunately those you are ‘splaining to are not interested in listening to anything so deep, regardless of its validity with respect to the subject at hand.

I don’t think neo-cons are capable of alternate views based on understanding and compassion. Their’s is more a straight forward process of denial based on a black or white format. (no pun intended) There seems to be no middle ground allowing for complexities. Maybe that is why the need for change is such a hard thing for them to deal with. It is just too damned complex for them to understand.

Posted by: RickIL at August 9, 2008 10:52 PM
Comment #258171

Glenn
I know what blacks have gone through. I voted for a black man to be mayor of the city in which I used to live. But I didn’t vote for him because of what blacks have gone through or the color of his skin, I thought he was the better candidate. If I thought BHO was the better candidate I would vote for him. If a person votes for a candidate because of skin color and NOT his qualifications THAT IS RACISM. I don’t care how much SPLAINING you do it is still racism if you vote for or against a person because of SKIN COLOR.

Posted by: KAP at August 9, 2008 10:53 PM
Comment #258177

KAP -

“I know what blacks have gone through”

No, you don’t. Neither do I, for I am not black. BUT by virtue of where I grew up, the people I knew on every side of the story, the experiences I witnessed, I think I can safely say that of those whites with some understanding of what blacks went through, I’m probably in the top one percent.

I’m not going to waste your time and mine justifying that claim…but it is true.

You and I will have to agree to disagree, it seems, for RickIL quite rightly pointed out in so many words that I will never make headway with you because of the differences in your and my psychological makeup. So I’ll leave it be.

Debates on forums like this are like beating one’s head on the wall. Sometimes your head wins…but the wall is usually the last one standing.

and RickIL - thanks.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 10, 2008 3:25 AM
Comment #258196

“Understanding and compassion” have to be rooted out for the corporatist agenda to manufacture consent. That’s how people end us voting against their own interests. There isn’t really any debate here, just an exchange of ideas. Believe it or not, and I find it very hard to believe, there are people who deliberately watch limbaugh, oreilly, etal, who are not imprisoned in a chair with their eyelids cut off and their heads forced to point at the television. In the part of our society more familiar to me, people can’t even stand the sound of their voices, and react with revulsion to most of their propaganda, but some people are so used to being propagandized by the media, that they will listen if it comes with a friendlier voice.
see Noam Chomsky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVguNJ3kLqY on why propaganda works.
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF9z2FagxiY on the political system in the US.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 10, 2008 4:10 PM
Comment #258219

Glenn, it feels as if you are beating your head against a wall because your opinions are based on emotion.
Even if you “don’t blame” black Americans for voting based on color and you believe it is “justified,” it is still racist to do such a thing.

No need to turn into Freud and start over thinking things to make excuses for your view either, its all good and we understand: you believe its ok to practice racism, IF you are the right color.

Posted by: kctim at August 11, 2008 9:46 AM
Comment #258225

kctim -

I based what I said NOT on emotion, but on experience (personal and professional) and knowledge that the great majority of my fellow white Americans simply do not have.

Please don’t see that as bragging or presumptuous posturing - it’s not. It’s a simple true statement.

The emotions of the blacks is NO different from the emotions of the WOMEN who wanted to vote for Hillary. Are all those women sexist, then? By your definition, they would be.

When you, kctim, have been downtrodden and degraded and given less opportunity for most of your life because of your color or gender…or your religion, your family background, what part of the country you lived in, your hair color, your accent, your disability, WHATEVER IT MAY BE that makes you different from the majority, it becomes VERY difficult not to root for, support, and vote for someone like you.

Why do you think the evangelicals supported the Republican candidates so strongly until recently? “He’s one of us!”
Women supported Hillary - “She’s one of us!”
Arkansas supported Bill Clinton - “He’s one of us!”
Catholics supported Kennedy - “He’s one of us!”
Austrians supported Arnold Scwarznegger - “He’s one of us!”

And it’s not just in politics -

Louisianans rooting for Green Bay - “Brett Favre’s one of us!”
Americans rooting for the Chinese Olympic basketball team against any other country but the U.S. - “Yao Ming’s one of us!”

You get my point. You may not publicly agree on this forum, but you DO get my point.

We are in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, ,kctim, where ONE VOTES FOR WHOMEVER ONE FEELS WILL BEST REPRESENT ONESELF - and the desire for that representation often goes beyond frankly simplistic political beliefs.

Truly, who represents blacks in America better - McCain? Or Obama?

Yes, you DO get my point.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 11, 2008 11:44 AM
Comment #258246

Glenn
Yes, as I stated before, I understand your point. But its still racist to vote based on color and none of the “one of us” excuses you give makes it right.
Our difference is that you justify racism for some and not for others based on your emotional response to the past, while I justify it for no one.

Posted by: kctim at August 11, 2008 12:54 PM
Comment #258283

Okay, kctim -

fine. go ahead with your insistence that it must be racism. You (and KAP) and I will have to agree to disagree.

We live in a representative democracy. We generally vote for those with whom we identify most closely. With whom, then, do blacks identify most closely? McCain? Or Obama? Who do blacks feel best represents them? McCain? or Obama?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 11, 2008 5:42 PM
Comment #258287

Glenn
I agree to disagree.

Posted by: KAP at August 11, 2008 6:24 PM
Comment #258288

kctim

Please explain to us by what criteria you base racism on. My definition of racism within the context of this futile discussion would center around the idea that racism would be the result of a black person not voting for McCain simply because he is a white person. Is this what you are implying? If that is what you are implying then yes by your criteria it would be fair to assess the situation as racist. However what I have been reading here is that some are accusing blacks of being racist simply because they wish to vote for another black. Voting for a person of color because you share that same color is not racist unless one feels that the opponent of a different color is inferior simply because of his or her skin color. I think it is safe to imply that some blacks would vote for Obama out of hatred of all whites. The same would be true for some whites with respect to hatred of all blacks.

To determine if racism is the main motivating factor you first have to determine if feelings of superiority or hatred of a particular race is used to discriminate against a particular candidate because of their skin color. I have not seen any proof of this nature. Only vague speculation with no valid reasoning behind it.

Posted by: RickIL at August 11, 2008 6:36 PM
Comment #258319

Glenn
Who do blacks feel best represents them? I have no idea, but if race is the determining factor, it is racism. Mild, justified or whatever, it is what it is.
I am fine with agreeing to disagree, it was interesting and thanks for staying civil.

RickIL
I do not live in a world of categories or excuses. If a person uses race as a qualification, it is racism. IMO, of course. And yes, I am familiar with the dictionary definition you use. It is a useful tool for those who try to scream racism on one hand and then defend it on the other.

Posted by: kctim at August 12, 2008 9:57 AM
Comment #258339

Kctim

I used no dictionary definition. This is how I view racism. I am not nor have I screamed racism.

Imo the support of a person of ones own ethnicity is not racism. The non support of a person of different ethnicity because of skin color or religion can be considered racism. Of course racism like all things is subject to interpretation and can sometimes be vague in relation to the context one uses it. You did not answer my question as to whether or not you feel these folks are not voting for McCain simply because he is white. If so I can understand your interpretation of the situation. Otherwise it holds no credibility.

You do live in a world of categories whether you acknowledge it or not. The fact is we are all either white, black, yellow, red, christian, atheist, agnostic, cathloic, jew, muslim, young, old, wealthy, poor, educated, non schooled, literate, illiterate etc. etc. etc. These are not excuses they are fact. You may have your own ideologies and perceptions of them but that does not exclude you from the world of statistics.

Like Glenn says we will have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: RickIL at August 12, 2008 2:56 PM
Comment #258348

RickIL
Black Americans supported Obama over hillary because of race, which is the same as not voting for her because she is white.

Yes, we all live in a world where people use and abuse categories for personal gain, but that does not mean I have to live that way.
I do not use these categories to judge people and I believe people who do are only holding back our progress.
We are all people and character is what determines if a person is worth a damn or not, not race, religion, class or education, and if a person isn’t worth a damn, I don’t give a damn about them.

Posted by: kctim at August 12, 2008 4:07 PM
Comment #258432

Stephen,

Please forgive me. I couldn’t help it. When you mentioned Republicans slapping their foreheads I couldn’t help but remember a drawing of Gerald Ford on the cover of National Lampoon magazine. It made me wonder how many of those Republicans were holding ice cream cones.

Posted by: Stephen Hines at August 13, 2008 2:28 PM
Comment #258591

>Black Americans supported Obama over hillary because of race, which is the same as not voting for her because she is white.

Yes, we all live in a world where people use and abuse categories for personal gain, but that does not mean I have to live that way.
I do not use these categories to judge people and I believe people who do are only holding back our progress.
We are all people and character is what determines if a person is worth a damn or not, not race, religion, class or education, and if a person isn’t worth a damn, I don’t give a damn about them.

Posted by: kctim at August 12, 2008 04:07 PM

tim,

Whew! A lot said in very little space. But, you are doing the very thing you swear to abhor. Who do you hold in contempt? Only those who are shallow, and/or who vote for against someone for their own reason. Hmmm…Hill lost, not because blacks thought she was too white, because they are the same blacks who voted for her white husband. They were for Obama, not against Hillary.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 15, 2008 3:08 PM
Comment #258606

There is/was no big difference between hillary and Obama, Dude. IF they were voting based on the issues, it would have been a 60-40 split at worst. Instead, 90+% supported Obama because they think it is time for a black President or because they think only a black President will represent them.
That is basing your vote on race and it is racist. It is no different than me feeling I should vote for McCain because he is the white candidate because a black man can not represent me.

Who do I hold in contempt? Those who use race to determine who they vote for.

Posted by: kctim at August 15, 2008 5:55 PM
Comment #258608

tim,

By your own value system then, anyone who votes for McPain-in-the-butt, over ‘O’ is being racist. It is obvious to me that ‘O’ is far more qualified to be our president than McPain, so if you are voting for McPain, you must be a bigot…

Posted by: Marysdude at August 15, 2008 6:18 PM
Post a comment